No, India was not created by British.British converted the name Bharat to IndiaBritish transformed India into a consumer of British goods.British created a typical administration. In 19th century, both the direct administration of India by the British crown and the technological change ushered in by the industrial revolution, had the effect of closely intertwining
There are many factors that lead to Indian Independence. Due to the 1st World war, Britain suffered a major economic loss and weakened its firm grounding. This lead to a heavy taxes burden on Indians. Indian were a major support for the
Where did you get the idea. The British classified Indians into different classes like, martial races, criminal races, etc. Dalits were never part of the British army; Gurkhas, Sikhs, Rajputs, etc were
How different would India have turned out if it had been ruled by the French instead of the British?
I am not being rude to your question. But to me India would have been the most powerful and wealthiest country if it were ruled by Indian kings. Especially the Chola kingdom.
Though this would be my personal opinion but there will be enough evidences always available 2 back me.If there would have been no british there would have been no India whatsoever.when d brits reached the shores of India,our realm was a fragmented one with MUGHALS still at the helm of
As british ruled india for so many years there work is also appreciated by people as some english people were generous unlike other britishers who ruled the country and stole the wealth of the indians. The main work done bythem is the construction of dams and bridges across the country.The rush of technology was also
Britishers formally ruled India from 1757 to 1947 which is almost 200 years of rule . It was battle of Plassey which was fought by Clive against nawab shirajuddaulah of Bengal which laid the foundation of British rule in India . Later battle of buxar in 1764 strengthen the British empire in India. It made them the de fecto
Your question seems a little misinformed.Marathas did rule a major part of Indian subcontinent at one point of time. Albeit for a short period of time, the ruled major parts of the Indian subcontinent not instead of the British and
Had British never ruled India, is it possible that an American civil war like event would have happened in India?
This is...interesting. The British had first aquired political power after they sought to intervene in the chaos following the Maratha loss at the Third Battle of Panipat. The Battle of Boxar between the Nawab of Awadh and England resulting in a decisive British victory was what propelled Britian into finally conquering
One thing is very clear that we are very much behind English people in technology, living standards,administrative services etc. Thus if they would have been here then we would be in better conditions in above fields. But our country couldn't be independent.
India suppose to get Independent In 1932, British keep India because they know they can't hold Nazy Germany without India, India supplied millions of weapons, millions of cow,goats, horses, and cloths, all this British got for free, in result 10 millions Indian died in Bangal Famine, there wasn't even seeds for
AlternateHistoryHub has a very good video on a similar topic :Their channel has tones of other intriguing alternative historical events.
It was not for 300 yrs, but 100 yrs long (1858–1947).The main reason was that back then there was no unity among Indians. There was rivalry between Indian kingdoms and dynasties. So it was easy for British to conquer them. There was also serious caste system issues
Neither Adolf Hitler nor the country of Germany was not around when the Britishers seized power (after the Sepoy Rebellion of 1857). And the Brits were around long before then. So this hypothetical is really out there.Nazi Germany was not interested in invading India, though it was keen to
No, India was not created by British.British converted the name Bharat to IndiaBritish transformed India into a consumer of British goods.British created a typical administration. In 19th century, both the direct administration of India by the British crown and the technological change ushered in by the industrial revolution, had
GreetingsYes, it was very easy for them to colonise india as from what they observed when they arrived they thought it is the need to colonise the land.Rulers that time were drunken in power totally unable to see and think
How long have the British ruled India? What made them conquer India, and what made them finally leave India?
India was never ruled, in its entirety, by the British. The British managed to subjugate and plunder large swathes of India, The East India Company did so for a little over 2oo years and the British Crown for the last 90 years before the Plundering, Rape
One thing should be clear, if British don't came to India than India would be 100 yrs back as it is now the basic of living is what they have gifted us, now after so many years we Indians started to adopt there living, thinking, and many more.... by this
British wasn't much interested in the Northeast at first. It was pretty much inhospitable, with too many tribes. When British were ruling Bengal in the late 1700s, a famous rebellion known as Mowamoria rebellion (Mutiny) was going on starting in 1769. The then Ahom king had to escape his capital at Gargaon and fled to British territory. He
At the time of Indian Independence there were about 565 Princely states or Provinces, Majority of which were ruled By Rajputs, about 70% of these 565+ states, remaining provinces were ruled by Marathas and some by Muslims and few were Jat ruled.In 1947, princely states numbering 565 covered 48 per cent of the
No Indian land was requisitioned or sequestrated by the British, except for some of the reclaimed land in Bombay; and some buildings in Delhi and Calcutta.All India remained in Indian hands from 1603 [in the time of the East India Company] and until 1947 [independence within the new Commonwealth.]As late as 1890, Mughal descendants owned land and
The constant flow of wealth from India to England for which India did not get an adequate economic, commercial or material return has been described by Indian national leaders and economists as ‘drain' of wealth from India. The colonial government was utilizing Indian
British East india company did try its best to annex Nepal. They could not.But the resulting war was heavy for both East india company and Nepal and hence, they settled for an agreement.This agreement led Nepal to give up Kumaon, Garhwal, sikkim, darjeeling as part of treaty with East india company.
Many of these answers are identical, most of them well informed but barely illustrating to the fact that the British conquered India using their best tactics:Deception and lies.Nationalist Britons often get very excited at the very thought of 3000 British soldiers conquering a country of millions and millions of people. This is obviously bullshit to say the least.The
When did America gain her independence?Is that a trick question? In the USA we hear from our teachers (whatever obfuscatory conspiracy they may belong to) that the country was founded in 1776 or specifically on July 4, 1776.According to the Washington Post:American independence from Great Britain was not decided on July 4th.Actually, the
Some advantages too for example1.democracy in India2.India has united (before India is ruled by large number of small and large princley states)3.cash crops in India4.transport network I mean railways and road network5.communication facilities like telephone etc6.IndustrialisationAnd many more, but apart from these there are many disadvantages when compared to advantages so we generally say British rule is bane to
What are the good things done by the British to India and Indians during the British Raj? Such as social reforms, science and technology, infrastructure, and human resources development?
Lots of things are misunderstood as british did. For example, SATI was not practiced all over India. You won't find any references of it happening in south India. Mostly this practice was related to one particular community in Rajastan. Remarriage also very difficult in olden
India's pre-colonial history features rich religious and cultural diversity. This diversity comes from the many invading armies, traders and immigrants who brought elements of their own cultures to India.Political SituationBabar (1482-1530), a Turkish-Mongol prince from Afghanistan and the founder of the Mogul Empire, invaded India in 1526. His grandson Akbar (1542-1605) was the greatest of the Mogul emperors
Just one example.Most landlords didn't want it to end. Especially in India, the congress under Gandhi had planned for land reforms and the abolition of Zamindari a long time before Independence (there was talk about it from 1930 onwards). Landlord-controlled parties like the Punjab Unionist party and
What made you think so.. We would be rotting! Or had they continued the cruelty with which they ruled India, probably Indian race would now been in the verge of its extinction. Living without independence/freedom, where one community (British) is deciding what your (India's) needs & life to be, is like
If no country invaded Indian subcontinent : There won't be a united India as of now. There will be thousands of small countries fighting each other. People will be in utter poverty (than now) because of wars. China takes away almost all states of North East .If Islamic countries and England never won over Indian kings : someone
India would have resembled South East Asia .A number of small and big kingdoms ,Hindu or Buddhists with multitude of languages ,culture fghting each other .But the wars would been more like sports events without any ideology or extermination, genocide.
It would be a lot different. Before the British came to rule, the Marathas were the strongest power. Here is a map
Then either India would be colony of British as like many islands which are still under British control with Federal structure as per government of India act 1935. Acts & administration would be carried out through instructions of British parliament..Or India would be war torn country
Nepal as we know, is an area bounded by himalayas,the highest mountain system.....To cover such altitude, was a very difficult task and it would be difficult for the mughal army to cross such mountains of high altitudes.......The second reason is...the mongol tribes...the area north of india was inhabited by mongol tribes and posed
Indian History is known worldwide for its diversity and India as a land is considered to be the melting pot of different cultures. The colonization of the country by the British rulers in Modern Indian History has left one of the biggest impacts in the country in
If Akbar had been ruler of India when the British came, could he have prevented British rule in India?
British East India company was founded in 1600. At that time Akbar was the ruler of India. However, when they reached India, Jahangir was the ruler. It's in Jahangir's rule the company standard trading with India. At that point Mughal Empire was formidable and
We'd probably not have India as we know it today. It would've been a cluster of separate territories/kingdoms, etc. similar to Europe. These places would probably be prosperous as compared to now economically, though at the same time, we'd probably still have some more regressive social customs.Or, perhaps the Nazis would've conquered the place
Britain's policy towards Southeast Asia was affected by its interests in India and China. The former affected its attitude to Burma more deeply, but it was also shaped by the attitude of the Burman monarchs. There were issues relating to trade, and more serious issues relating
Defining the "imperial age" as 1700 to 1939, what it promised Britons was mainly adventure overseas, in places ranging from Arctic Canada to Singapore. The later period (19th century) was also the age of industrialization, which generated within the UK a huge range of social effects -- huge profits for successful nabobs, and misery in ghastly urban slums,
Somebody said to Churchill one day, "Nothing is worse than war". He replied, "Slavery is worse than war, dishonor is worse than war".I will go with these two though they were not moments.
Thanks for A2AAs for why China couldn't be colonized, the answer is quite simple:-China is much larger in land area (although comparable in population) to India, and therefore harder to swallow.By being larger, China has more "hiding places" in the desert (Yenan) or mountains, (Chongqing) for "governments in exile." World War II was the best
The British Colonial rule period was from 1858 to 1947British East India company was started in the year 1600 month of december 31st.The first Ships arrived in India in 1608The Battle of Plassey on 23rd June 1757 and the resultant victory of the British East India
British were first of all so badly hurt financially in the aftermath of the World War II, it would have been impossible for them to sustain ruling the country. Also, Indian army sentiment was so much against British, the freedom struggle
How differently would history have turned out if Britishers had decided to stay in India as civilians after its independence?
The other answer being brilliant, there is just a little addition that comes to my mind which is that historically wherever British decided to stay, it wasn't peaceful devolution of power but rather violent struggle by a minority to cling on a represiive regime which made it difficult for the majority native population to survive.