Hey, What's the Map, Kashmir or atleast 2/3rd of Kashmir is Under Indian Control,Why hasn't you Shown it,If you won't, Don't do a Half-knowledge Videos about India
Idiotic Video, There were no BIG rebellions for Independence after 1857 except for the Naval Mutiny of 1946, and Most of Kashmir is Under Indian Rule,But the video didn't show that reality
@@HINDU-t7v Because Shahuji was made king of Marathas by Aurangzeb. Else why didn't Maratha annex the whole of Mughals into their empire incl. their Nawabs subah like Bengal, Awadh, Rohillkhand, Sindh and Hyderabad (and Carnatic)?
@@sudharshanve8519 they annex like Malwa subah , Gujarat subah , ganga - yamuna doab , haryana region ,tribute and chauTh from rajput princely states , berar and odfisa subha to raghuji bhonsale ,Bihar and bengal tribute raghuji bhonsale ,
As a Pakistani: ignoring the oppression, injustice, looting etc, I agree. Especially considering what an insignificant location it's at. You'd think a country like Türkiye would be in the best position to have the dominance in the world like the UK did. Considering it's the crossroads between 3 or 4 continents
@EvilEgg331 Pretty oversimplified but yeah WW2 was the catalyst but I suggest looking up all the players in the Great Game and researching their end game objectives starting with the Russian, French and British empires (ironic considering they ended up as allies in WW1) and then the newer players (USA, Germany and USSR).
Hindus and Muslims fought together against the British just as the Communists and nationalist Chinese fought against the Japanese Empire , And when the stronger enemy ( japanese empire/British empire) was gone in both situations both sides resumed the fight
@@maddogbasilBritain had a small army and used Indians to fight Indians. Sinks against Hindus, Muslims against sinks, Muslims against Hindus. They copied the Roman empire as they had never had an empire before.
This is assuming Hindus and Muslims were as divided as communists and nationalists, even tho they weren’t. Most people didn’t even think there was a difference between the 2 communities
Surprised how you didn't mention the economical situation playing a big (if not the main) part of the fismantling of the Raj... after WW2 Britain was broke and unable to mantain the upkeep of such a vast Empire
fun fact they don't teach you. but 16th century Portuguese mariners landed on Burmese shores and became deeply entrenched in the local politics over 300 years before the British established a colony there.
Even if burma never separated then still , myanmar would get independence like how bangladesh and pakistan were attached to India but they didn't stay together
Na, it was Shell, or microsoft, privateers so filthy rich they can do anything. wagner are mercenary's. like many of the indian tribes who helped with the conquest of india for english money.
At least India only had one major European coloniser with some small Portuguese and Dutch influence, China on the other hand (Qing back then) got assaulted by several European powers as well as the USA and Japan during the Opium era which is also known as the "century of humiliation" sure it wasn't truly colonized but China got the "it's free real estate" treatment too.
@@ozymandiasultor9480Casteism exists in India today no doubt but it's nowhere near how bad it was during the British Raj days(peak of the caste system). And while some caste discrimination exists untouchability is past, it is banned and doesn't exist anymore (The term you might want to use is Dalit and Tribals). While the UK is a developed country, it is not even close to one of the richest countries in the West.
One thing I feel should be mentioned is that during the early stages of Europeans attempt to conquer India there were many Battles that they lost, as India had a modern army and weapons with similar weapons to the British, it was the declined of the Mughals and the privileges the British were given that slowly shifted power. Example when the British started purchasing and taxing lands plus being allowed to raise mercenaries armies caused the Mughals a lot in the long run which they didn’t see at the time. The moment they started loosing taxes played a big role and having large armies of local Indians while slowly tip doing further expansion lead to the rise of British dominance that and the fact that India was a divided place also helped. For example: during the Sepoy rebellion only one small province was experiencing it while the rest weren’t interested, if India was truly united during the rebellion Britain would have lost India. There’s actually a lot of moments where Britain could have been kicked out but careful planning and a lot of luck prevented that from happening. But it surely wasn’t as one sided or even close to a easy as people sometimes make it sound to be , it was a long and difficult process where anything could have gone wrong
Thank You! A lot of people assume it was some easy conquest of technologically superior Europeans defeating a “primitive” land running at guns with shields and swords when in reality they suffered countless defeats against an enemy experienced and innovative (just look up mysoreans rocket elephants or mhugal camel gunners) in gunpowder warfare especially in the wars against the Marathas, Mysoreans, Kalingans, etc and perhaps even more that we’ll never know because the British love to cover up their failures and disasters by destroying as much evidence as possible. So yes not easy by any means and the Sepoy Mutiny ended up collapsing the East India Company forcing the British crown to get involved.
@@raptorbrotherhood766 I bet does same people would go full denial if they found out in does earlier conflicts the British coward behind a fortified wall that was getting bombarded by the Indian navy or that during a brutal defeat the British commanders were forced to bow and beg for forgiveness. It also shows that the British had to think tactically and not try to use overwhelming force to conquer their enemies because doing that would had been suicide. It was the slow and steady way that won out in the end it’s just a shame the people of India had to suffer so much as a result of the conquest, ironically now India is considered the worlds 4 strongest military while the UK is 5 or 6. How the tables have turned
@@jonathanviera1589 India was a very large nation so the British really had to be careful and strategic with everything, they couldn’t just outright invade everyone, they would’ve lost much sooner if they did that. It was more of a case like this: Kingdom A and Kingdom B are big rivals. The British come and fight Kingdom A. Kingdom B supports this because they hate Kingdom A and the British are essentially doing them a favor. Kingdom A gets conquered and Kingdom B is idle thinking the British are their friends. The British go to the people of kingdom A and are like “hey we know you really hate us after what we just did, but we know you guys hate kingdom B even more, so why don’t you enlist in our armies and help us takeover kingdom B where you can get your revenge defeating your long time rival”. The British recruiting troops from kingdom A they conquered invade Kingdom B. Local puppet rulers are installed to rule over the kingdoms but also swear allegiance to the crown so long as the British let them keep some position of power and pamper them with privileges and luxury and therefore neither rebel.
According to Philip T. Hoffman in "Why Did Europe Conquer The World?", Mughal empire had difficulties to compete in advanced weaponry because they couldn't raise taxes as much as the British (and other European countries in general). High taxes were the norm in Europe, while in Mughal empire, they had to depend on their local lords and chieftains (who had became stronger as Mughal rulers became increasingly weaker prior to British arrival) for their tax revenues. It resulted in Mughal empire couldn't effectively invested in better weapons and raised army to fight British encroachment into their realm. And finally they themselves had to fell into submission before British empire.
@@gorilladisco9108 yeah, the Mhugals were basically declining as the Marathas started taking over their empire, but the Mhugals did use gunpowder and even had swivels mounted on top of camels as a sort of mobile artillery
We Vietnamese were colonised by the French. But it is well known that the British were 'better" colonialist than the rest of them in Asia region. Those countries under the British also performed better economically after British left them such as Singapore, Hong Kong, India, etc. Invention of firearms really changed the history of Asia & Africa.
@@raptorbrotherhood766id say the British is the best country to be colonized by but they’re still pretty bad consider how the spanish, Portuguese , french, and dutch treated their colonies
@@raptorbrotherhood766 Indians starved from over breeding and being at war. It's funny how Indians always neglect the fact the British actually tried to deal with the famine by sending food convoys there that were originally meant to be going to Britain
A great alternate idea would be what would happen if the Portuguese And Or Spanish colonized most if not all of The Indian Subcontinent also known as South Asia rather then The British and if this diferential taking over happened in the mid 1400s would it be the same, improved, or worsened?
Probably worse if it not better. Portuguese did Inquisitions in Goa while they were there. Honestly, we can't really compare evil with evil. It makes no sense. I don't understand the logic when people say Hitler was worse than Mao or Stalin or vice-versa. They were all evil and almost all empire have been insurrected on evil. Even though democracy is a farce but atleast we 'think' we're free. In a world full of evil, delusion seems to be the only hope to cope and survive.
1400 would have been a disaster, the reason Britain managed to take India was it's superior fire power. Without that, Indian manpower would have carried the day
Portuguese and Spain were very religious empires the British was a secular empire they didn’t interfered in religious matters that’s why they could recruit Indians and battle against themselves if it was Portuguese they really won’t tolerate any other religion and Revolte would happen quite frequently
simple, When Catherine of Braganza married Charles II of England in 1662, the Portuguese territory of Bombay was given to England as part of her dowry. Bombay is now known as Mumbai and is the capital of the state of Maharashtra.Charles II agreed to transfer control of Bombay to the East India Company, who paid him an annual rent of £10 in gold. The company soon established a base in Bombay, which became their Far East trading headquarters and was important for the tea trade. by doing it weakenning portuguese business ports and conquer all around.would like to mended that not all India was govern by the british,Goa,Daman and Diu was govern by Portugal.
The British takeover of our country was the most shameful event in our history which just proved how stupid we are as we keep fighting among ourselves and don’t see the bigger picture. I hope and wish my people learn from the mistakes of our ancestors and never repeat these mistakes again. India united a superpower and divided a pawn.
@@vortigan9068Charles Booth concluded around 1/3 of England lived in poverty at the end of the 19th century. Adjusted for inflation, you would live off roughly $1000 - $2000 a year as a laborer. Some monkeys eat more than this.
@@vortigan9068 My other comment got shadow banned but essentially, Charles Booth concluded 1/3 of Britain lived in poverty at the end of the 19th century; adjusted for inflation, it was $1000 - $2000 a year for the lowest class.
Between 8:25 and 8:45 a very complicated issue of state capitalism zipped right by, made into a cartoon and left me rewinding "WHAT"?" The question is a good one but in no way does this even begin to answer one of the worlds great mysterys. First, the section i point out, needs another video plus a couple of books to rightfully explain and still i don't think any of us were meant to understand the magnitude and wonder of sheer naked aggression and the modern industrial state
When India did do that? Sure, a person with an Indian name is the prime minister, but he is a British citizen and considers himself British. India never colonized no one...Too much meditation, I guess.
As an Indian, I would say, the modern United India 🇮🇳 only became one because, of the resentment towards the British rulers. Else, we were divided by caste system, religious, linguistic so many lines even now. Not to forget many good things the Brits did from banning the Sati practice (a religious custom for which we even have a goddess who performed it), to educating on child marriages and their subsequent ban, to inspiring women to educate themselves, the judiciary system, many good things that were done (of the many bad that were also atrocious and horrendous not to forget) Even now when I look at how feudalism exists in villages, caste and untouchability exists in many pockets of the country, to female foeticide to so many evils like human sacrifices to Gods, I think we as Indians have come a long way. There is no hatred from my side for the newer generation of Brits for what their forefathers did, especially when many Indians given the opportunity would love to move to a luxurious life in any country in the West and even wanting Free Trade from them on the other side. I believe, we still would've been a country where Marathas (who pillaged Bengal and Delhi) to the Mughals who also carried out mass crimes to so many empires that we had were only burdening the native people. So, it's a draw. Though, my favorite Independence Leader were Annie Besant, Bhagat Singh, to name a few, I totally condemn Subash Chandra Bose who wanted to join hands with Adolf Hitler despite knowing the horrors of Holocaust were appalling.
Tell me, when were the horrors of holocaust discovered by the world? Subhash Chandra Bose was based, and his moral duty extended to India and the people of India. Also, he joined a side who commiitted far fewer atrocities across the world anyway.
@@abc_cba Poor bag of rice, so easily triggered. Ambedkar was right abt christians, and being a staunch ambedkarite myself, I do hope for more dara singhs across the country, to civilize and tame the inherent barbarity of the christian society, as evident in their horrible backward practices like witch hunting and disgusting misogynistic divorce laws, by, like you said, culling religious differences across the nation and thus bringing coherence, loyalty and unity :) Jai Shree Ram! Jai Bajrang Bali!🙏
@@abc_cbaSati never happened in india it's a British propoganda but Britishers deffinetly did burn women alive in the name of witch hunting and many bad thing in India started after invaders and colonizers came like child marriage, prostitution, ghunghat pratha etc. Ancient India never had such bad things.
@@lerneanlion You want to talk geopolitics of that period? Too much writing... Sure, Britain was a global superpower and had a lot of things to do, but if you want the short answer, it meant very little, almost nothing for Britain. If you want more I recommend the historical book "The Last Mughal: The Fall of a Dynasty, Delhi 1857" by William Dalrymple.
@@ozymandiasultor9480 If losing India means little to nothing to Britain, how long will it take for Britain to come back then? After all, they had a lot of things to do.
You also had Portuguese India 🇮🇳 (Goa, Daman, Diu) French India~(Puducherry) Danish ~The Andaman and Nicobar Islands The Dutch had territories in The South and The East (Kolkata)
Why didn't they do it sooner instead of by companies or take even more of the world? (could have loss some too, in fairness) Not just British but European/Global Empires (Japan, for example, is another by 1870s almost)
10:37 You forgot one more country that broke off; Myanmar / Burma That was administered as India as well. Additionally till 1888; Singapore, Penang and Malacca were part of India too as part of the Straits settlements. These 3 cities were then stripped away from the other 2 Straits Settlements; Nicobar and Andamman who are part of India today.
Other than famous slogan 'Sun never set in british empire', there have also another one 'if there are 2 fish fighting in the pond, know it before them came british', this phrase shown to us that all the modern world conflict, tension in the middle east, India - Pakistan war and so on started from the british empire.
The main thing was the marata empire had very weekend after panipat war which british got an opportunity to colonize if marata empire won Panipat battle in 1761 then india would been under marata empire which brotish would have been no chamce to stand and also divisions between marata high position memebers also got involved in infighting in marata empire
First European to land in India: • Vasco da Gama (Portugal): May 20, 1498, in Calicut (now Kozhikode), Kerala. First British to land in India: • John Mildenhall (British merchant): 1599, in Chennai (then Madras). Majority control achieved: By 1820, the British East India Company controlled approximately 50% of India's territory. By 1858, the British Crown controlled around 70% of India's territory. By 1880, the British controlled nearly 90% of India's territory. It took British 220 years to control half india If today we think to colonize Australia and we able to colonize Australia after 100 years I don't think it's a bad deal
At one point 800-900 British Civil Servants known as the "heaven-born" governed a population of 250 million in the Indian sub-continent. This is a clear example of Britain's governing efficiency and why it was so successful at empire building.
They weren't governing , they controlled the tax system , while princely states ruled india .. There wasn't a Total control of india by Britain, It was like a deal between kings and British. They did influenced culture by didn't aimed to convert them to Christianity cuz that could had caused uprising. It's very complex how they hold india for 200 years ,, one thing was that there was no feeling of a nation , they were kingdoms back then who used to fight frequently
You didn't Mentioned Anglo-Maratha and Anglo-mysore wars. In the first war against the Marathas , the British were destroyed. In the second battle the EIC had became incredibly strong and the maraths became weaker and weaker because of the civil war but still the marathas under Yashwantrao holkar defeated the EIC, had he not died later from diseases he could have conquered bengal and ended the conpany rule then and there. The Marathas had an Army that could match or even outperform the Royal british army as stated hy The Duke of Wellington, arthur wellesly.
Yes because the first Anglo Maratha war was lost because the British army and navy was focused in the Americas fighting the Americans, and later fighting of the kingdom of France and Spain. And the same was true during the second war, the British army was focused in Europe fighting napoleon, as was the navy. The British Army was never a majority of the East India companies forces it was made up almost entirely of sepoys. Wellington did have respect for the military prowess of the Marathas, however given the defeat he inflicted on the Marathas who by far outnumbered him shows they weren’t the equal to the British army, nor even as disciplined given what happened at the battle of assaye. If they were they would have lost despite having such advantages. The Marathas even has 10,000 troops trained in European military tactics.
Marathas were like the Scottish highlanders when it came to war formidable in hand to hand combat yet against British line regulars they lacked the discipline to fight them adequately.
@EvropaAeterna the second Anglo Maratha war was also lost due to a civil war among Marathas (Yashwanthrao Holkar was fighting against combined peshwa+ British forces and got no support from any other rulers in India except for jats , who later betrayed him).
@@abhinavkumar9c017 Yet the effect was the same the British weren’t interested in India at the time their armies and navy were focused on Europe fighting napoleon. And the British in India was a private company led by merchants.
Nepal 🇳🇵 and Bhutan 🇧🇹 were never 👎 colonized and instead became protectorates but was thier own country and not ruled directly under the British!! Tibet was never officially colonized by the British also.
@@lordjazoijua94very true but he was greedy a lot of them where it would be hard not to be being in the middle of the biggest trade County for a 1000 years arrogance and greed is the language that both he and the British spoke well 😂
The Mughals (1526-1858) lost control of India in the 1700s, but many of the local rulers who replaced them were also Turks, at least until the British took over. Chase, K. (2003). Conclusion. In Firearms: A Global History to 1700 (pp. 197-210). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nope not really, rajasthan was sieged by rajputs. Harayana region was sieged by Jats, most of central and northern India was part of Marathas, nizams and Mysore state along with rajputs were vassals states of Marathas
@@lakshyasingh2239no true nawab of bhopal , nawab of bengal , kingdom of mysore , nawab of junahgarh all were turks and in centre the remaining mughal empire
The East India Trading Company had several concessions in India. Due to bad management the Crown in London, made the decision to take over the governance India.
Unique peninsula, unique populations,and unique methods of English adopted for subduing India ⚘️🇮🇳 🤍 ...I think before English arrived, there were Portuguese, French, and Dutch colonials in Indian peninsula
Sir,British motivations and benefits aside,there were some interesting consequences of British in india. 1.Mughal Sultanate was wiped out in 1857 bringing to an end 1100 years long islamic invasions. 2.Hindus who were always in overwhelming majority were greatly relieved after becoming free from islamic pressures and attacks on hinduism. 3.A new Era of modernity,western education,institutions, S&T was started.
Canada and Australia are still under the Crown. King Charles III is not only the King of the United Kindom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but also the King of Canada, King of New Zealand and King of Australia. These nations are, together with the other Commonwealth Realm's, United under common allegiance to the Crown. They all share the same Windsor as their head of State.
Charles III is not part of the House of Windsor. That was the anglicised name of the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas. Royals follow their father's house. Charles is from Sondersburg-Glucksberg und Schleswig-Holstein.
@@stephfoxwell4620i am sure you are aware that royals have developed a funny habit of changing their house name at will during the last century. Honestly, Charles III sticking with his mother's house is much more canonical than renaming Battenberg to Mountbatten and Sax Coburg to Windsor
@@stephfoxwell4620 Ehm beg to differ here a bit. They changed their royal house name to signal to the Brittish people that they stand with them during WO1, that they are the Brittish Royal Family and not to hide their Germanness. Everyone knows that the current line of UK Monarchs, ever since King George I, flows from the house of Hanover. A German kingdom and at the time an electorat of the Holy Roman Empire. There is no hiding that. But the change to Windsor was a deliberate choice to signal to the people, we belong to you. We choose you. And also, all Royal Houses in Europe where interwined with the German nobility at the start of WO I. The whole royals only marrying other royals thing ensured that. King George V made it beyond clear that they where Brittish with the name change to the House of Windsor.
The point about technological supremacy over Indian powers is simply untrue. Many powers such as the Marathas under shindia and most notably and properly done, the Sikh empire, had outreached (in the case of the Sikhs) European technology by even British metrics. The Sikhs had produced everything from weapons of pistols and rifles to canons and ships within the empire. Most Indian empires armies were equivalent to that of the British or other European states with special significance to those of the Sikh and late Maratha confederacy armies. This notion of technilogical superiority is simple untrue.
Whats your opinion of how a tiny number of westerners managed to end up controlling the entire subcontinent? The idea that there was complete technological equality is very hard sell
@@wesleysanders8570 read contemporary European records. Especially in regards to the Sikh empire. British and other former napoleonic war generals stated that the Sikh rifles, matchlocks and canons were superior to those of the British and even Napoleonic ones, the Sikh army as well being the first Asian empire to have a fully modernized army being completed in 1827. Some books to read on the topic would be “six battles for India” by George Bruce, and any books about the Sikhs by Griffin.
@@wesleysanders8570 and further elaborating on this. The population of the Khalsa/sikhs was less than 500,000 yet they were able to conquer and rule over a large portion of South Asia being outnumbered 10:1 by Hindus, Jains, Muslims, Buddhists. There were even more Christians in the Sikh empire than Sikhs themselves.
@@wesleysanders8570 and one final point to add is that the Sikhs were considered by Europeans both contemporary to the Sikh empire and after to be the Prussian equivalent within Asia. The British going as far to claim that the Sikhs were the hardest enemy they had ever faced in Asia ( in a book called The Sikhs by John J H Gordon)
@@Khalsafauj96 I'm well aware the Sikhs were good soldiers, but that doesn't answer the bigger question- why did the Brits go on to rule India, instead of the Sikhs?
Freedom and empire is when the people have 0 say in government, are deindustrialied, impoverished and the world’s richest most advanced country is sent back to the dark Ages?
@@metallica3556 I wouldn't say nothing, Britain is largely regarded as the 4th player in the world after US, Russia and China. In all events you can see "US and UK" put together
Don't glorify it , india and china are greatest countries ever witnessed Britain arrive in 1606 it takes 250 years to colonized entire indian subcontinent they take 5 years to defeat china with hand of 35 m sq land and still china manages to make their own nation and Don't forget india and china where fighting 8-9 invaders at same time during colonial era indeed we lost but I proud of my country that it fought and in 89 years afterwards throw those invaders . China and india also came from nothing but managed to survive 2000 years and richest land in history for like millinemials . Us , Russia are also greatest countries worlds see but not Britain they looted and made world poor .
In 1757 Bengal Was The Richest State Of India At That Time Nabab Sirajuddullah Was Defeated By Conspiracy Of British East India Company... India Was The Superpower During Mughal Era...
@@ozymandiasultor9480 during mughal time till 17 century , british colonization occurs in 18 century Actually ottomon and spanish were main power in 17 century
Do Britain really colonized India? Colonized mean to set up colony. The British send it people to settle and colonize North America. They set up towns and cities full of loyal citizen in those colony. At most in India, British set up taxation offices but not much of a colony. It conquer and occupy India but never colonized it.
India's contribution to world GDP before brits arrived : 25 % ( also the India was the richest country of the world for 1600 years by then, the longest for ANY country ever, the record still stands ). After brits left : 2% Famines in India in the 2000 years before brits arrived : 17 Famines that occurred under british rule of 200 years : around 25 Here's a list of some of them : The British era is significant because during this period a very large number of famines struck India.[2][3] There is a vast literature on the famines in colonial British India.[4] The mortality in these famines was excessively high and in many cases it has been increased by British policies.[5] The mortality in the Great Bengal famine of 1770 was between one and 10 million;[6] the Chalisa famine of 1783-1784, 11 million; Doji bara famine of 1791-1792, 11 million; and Agra famine of 1837-1838, 800,000.[7] In the second half of the 19th-century large-scale excess mortality was caused by: Upper Doab famine of 1860-1861, 2 million; Great Famine of 1876-1878, 5.5 million; Indian famine of 1896-1897, 5 million; and Indian famine of 1899-1900, 1 million.[8] The first major famine of the 20th century was the Bengal famine of 1943, which affected the Bengal region during wartime; it was one of the major South Asian famines in which anywhere between 1.5 million and 3 million people died.[9] The total number of people who died because of this Famines alone and in India alone goes over tens of millions of people. If you add to this the total number of people who died by any cause that was a result of brits or their policies in all of their colonies then the number easily crosses hundreds of millions. Hence, the lady is correct on this point. Infact, the last great famine under british ruled India was the great Bengal famine of 1943, of which multiple photos and videos you can find in the internet including on RUclips. When multiple concerned british officials wrote to churchil how his actions have created the most devastating famine of the world in the 20th centuary, he replied, " why hasn't Gandhi died yet ". India's contributions to the world : The Hindu numerical system, also known as the decimal base system which forms the basis of mathematics and is the system we use today, and which may as well be the greatest invention ever in the history of humanity, Madhava, an Indian mathematician who founded the Kerala school of Mathematics almost discovered calculus over 200 years before newton or leibnitz were even born, and a LOTS AND LOTS of other fundamental contributions to maths, physics, logic, philosophy, biology, etc. India is one of the 3 earliest, oldest civilization, namely, the Harrappan civilization (India), the Masopotamian civilization ( modern day iraq) , the Egyptian civilization. Which one of these is the oldest is highly debatable and a topic of ongoing research, but India was the most extensive and widespread civilization of these all. Ancient Indians invented/ discovered many things some of which are, soap, shampoo, buttons, diamonds, steel, city planning, drainage systems, underground drainiage systems, the world's first port, the game of chess, etc. The first language in the world is also an Indian language ( one of these, Sanskrit or Tamil, both Indian languages). India has also made tremendous contributions in the modern times in STEM and almost every field. On top of it all, the brits committed littoral atrocities in India and other colonies, the most famous of this is the Jaliawalla bagh massacre, whose committer was later treated as a hero, and when an Indian, named Sardar Udham Singh, shot dead him in London as a revenge, he was tried as a terrorist and hanged, his testimony before the court was recorded and I encourage you to read it. In short, if you have studied history from british or european textbooks, I suggest you to for once try different sources like the internet or history books from other countries, manly former colonies.
When other countries came to colonize india, many indians didn't fought back bevause of casteism in india.. huge lower caate people just stood watching thinking they are not allowed to fight or interfere in government and high official matters... This is the main reason easily british and portugese ruled us and looted us.. tamils are most affected because of this casteism...
that's not true. in the 1500's the powerful Hindu & Muslim kingdoms on the West coast of India declared war against the Portuguese empire . but the problem was, the Portuguese were better at fighting wars, bringing a level of ruthlessness and determination to battle that the Indians couldn't match
Britain did not colonise India. If it had there would be a large extant white or mixed race population. Britain colonised the eastern USA, New Zealand and parts of Canada, Australia, South Africa and Kenya. Britain's Empire was a trading Empire. We only ever ran 40% of India and only from 1857-1947. Just 90 years.
Exactly, the Brits gave India a language that would eventually be valuable. But of course the Brits do EVERYTHING strictly for their own advantage. Their MO is: divide, conquer, steal and repeat….
If the British did not colonize India some other European country would have. This is because India was militarily and technologically weak so any European country could have conquered it easily 😊
Wrong many others tried they couldn’t the British only did cause the traitors of bey of bengal and the marthra and muguls afghans and Sikhs where all fighting
thats just false, the Indian economy was the largest, if the region stabilized it would've been like modern japan, instead the main power (mughals were in decline) which led to the British taking it over
@@CloudyShooterGNG Indians were not so aggressive, militarily and technologically they were way behind European main powers, and that ahimsa philosophy of non-aggression wasn't helpful. Any of the European big powers was able to turn India into a colony.
lol yeah thats why the british lost multiple wars against the marathas, btw the "ahimsa" policy didn't plauge all of south Asia (India) besides Indias countries were on par if not ahead of Europe in terms of economy, military and overall manpower, so idk what ur talking abt@@ozymandiasultor9480
@@ozymandiasultor9480 I admit that's a truth, but the way was presenting was sarcastic and hence I was pointing that. I am saying if this "truth" could be put forward like this, it would have ended as a youtube short. But a whole video had to be dedicated for that due to the sheer amount of storylines and narrations. You also know you put that comment in a sarcastic tone.
It wasn't population that fueled the British (not English) empire. It was industrialisation. The same reason United States over took the UK. Industry is king
There time in the sun is 100% over and more then likely will never happen again they are turning back into the poor country that they where pre empire if not worse 😂
Hindu nationalists where pro British, theyre actually the main reason British were able to conquer india. After conquering Indian kingdoms, British would hand over power to Indian elite whose descendants are Hindu nationalists today
Despite what people would say. Actuall England has succeeded in India. They succeeded to devide the country and implant hatred and grudge between theire socities and religions.
The Indian subcontinent used to be composed of a myriad of kingdoms and states who may have common religion and culture, but doesn't necessarily identify as a single nation. Despite all the exploitation, the British Empire's greatest legacy is uniting these kingdoms and states into a country that is now India.
@@OhioDan Well for a start, Britain didn't colonise India. If it had there'd be a population of white or mixed race Indians. Britain had a maritime/trading Empire . It needed to control ports only. It sought to control hinterlands by co-opting local tribes or ethnicities. Britain controlled just 40% of India and only for 90 years. 1857-1947. Britain colonised New England, Nova Scotia, parts of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and S Africa. In India Britain merely traded with the greedy local magnates. Just like it did in China.
You said it all came from broken kingdoms but by that time that Britain colonised it was with the help off Scots and Irish. The Scott's were some off the best sailors and pirates ever known. Already found a problem with your video and it just began. Typical American thinking British is English.
@@vortigan9068look at the 7/8th century Arabian buildings vs Indic temples and forts of that same era. Ummayads came to the subcontinent but lost (except in sindh, multan). India, China were ancient civilizations (it's not even debatable). Indus valley civilization was ahead of its time, Mauryan empire was ahead of its time and not to forget the Chola dynasty in the AD era. Christopher Columbus literally found a whole new continent trying to find india in order to gain wealth. Don't tell me the Arabs weren't dastardly.
Id recommend you look at the greek roman persian and Chinese accounts as well? oh yeah nvm they all say India is heaven on earth; that doesn't help you in your debate@@vortigan9068
There are several reasons. 1. Indian based empires didn't control Sri Lanka. When British land on Sri Lanka in 1796 CE, Dutches controlled coastal areas of Sri Lanka. Sinhalese Kingdom of Kandy controlled other all areas of Sri Lanka. It's a major reason why British didn't merge Sri Lanka with British Raj. 2. British East India company colonized coastal areas of Sri Lanka in 1796 CE. But people of coastal areas rebelled against British East India company with help of Kingdom of Kandy. So, British established dual control in 1798 CE. Due to further rebellions, British proclaimed separate crown colony called 'British Ceylon' by abolishing rule of British East India company in 1802 CE. British were unable conquest Kingdom of Kandy by a military campaign. But British colonized Kingdom of Kandy by signing 'Kandyan convention' with Kandyan officials in 1815 CE. British East India company started colonization in India in 1757 CE. But India became a crown colony in 1858 CE. Sri Lanka become a crown colony of Britain before India is also a reason why British didn't merge Sri Lanka with British Raj.
Maybe not peaceful, but certainly most successful. You should remember, that land does not belong to a certain group of people because god gave that land to them. Those who are stronger can come and take it. It is as simple as that, and your moralizing will not change global geopolitics.
Of course the various Indian kingdoms emerged through peaceful votes. Only Europeans grew through conquest, eh? Mongols never existed, all a conspiracy
@@saladmcjones7798 I bet that he or she never gave much thought about that, but that person sure hates Europeans, no matter that there are no peaceful people by default.
*Just Goes to Show How Truly Powerful And Wealthy the Mughals Were* They literally humiliated the British In the Childe war whcih proved a united india was a nighmare to face Also its crazy how This Video Skipped Tippu Sultan 🤦
The Mughals had almost a million troops at their command vs 3000+ anglo troops and their allies how is that humiliating when they were outnumbered 300 to 1?
Humiliating the British was never a big deal, they were an insignificant country before conquering India. That’s why their conquest of India is so surprising
Britain didn't "colonize" India. There were no colonists. North America, Australasia and southern Africa, yes. India, no. Britain's exploitation of India was imperialist, not colonialist.
Play Call of War for FREE on PC, iOS or Android:
callofwar.onelink.me/q5L6/KNOW001
Receive a Unique Starter Pack, available only for the next 30 days!
Love your videos!💚
hey why's the link not working for me
i have Call of War
Now Indians colonize England 😂😂😂
Hey, What's the Map, Kashmir or atleast 2/3rd of Kashmir is Under Indian Control,Why hasn't you Shown it,If you won't, Don't do a Half-knowledge Videos about India
Idiotic Video, There were no BIG rebellions for Independence after 1857 except for the Naval Mutiny of 1946, and Most of Kashmir is Under Indian Rule,But the video didn't show that reality
short answer: money
long answer: money
Fact check- British took over India from the Maratha Empire, not the Mughals 😂
Maratha accepted Mughal emperor as supreme lord even when they had upper hand. Fact.!!
@@sudharshanve8519Shah Alam 2 make king by mahadji Scindia but administration in the hands of Marathas under mahadji scindia
@@HINDU-t7v Because Shahuji was made king of Marathas by Aurangzeb. Else why didn't Maratha annex the whole of Mughals into their empire incl. their Nawabs subah like Bengal, Awadh, Rohillkhand, Sindh and Hyderabad (and Carnatic)?
@@sudharshanve8519 they annex like Malwa subah , Gujarat subah , ganga - yamuna doab , haryana region ,tribute and chauTh from rajput princely states , berar and odfisa subha to raghuji bhonsale ,Bihar and bengal tribute raghuji bhonsale ,
@@sudharshanve8519 SEE treaty of Surji agangaon
quick answer = For $$$
*For £££
🤓
Is there a better reason?
You win.
So True
The use of reenactments and visuals in this documentary is top-notch. It really helps to bring the stories of ancient people to life.
Imagine being a peasant in 500 BC and finding out your struggles are now called 'content.
hahaahaha as an indonesian that's funny
In the opening map, you left out south Africa which was an important part of the empire
It's honestly quite impressive Britain managed to colonize India, technically speaking.
Not only India, 1/4 of the world was British at one point.
They were the most powerful empire in the world, nobody could push them around.
As a Pakistani: ignoring the oppression, injustice, looting etc, I agree. Especially considering what an insignificant location it's at. You'd think a country like Türkiye would be in the best position to have the dominance in the world like the UK did. Considering it's the crossroads between 3 or 4 continents
@EvilEgg331nah it’s was bc of money
@EvilEgg331 Pretty oversimplified but yeah WW2 was the catalyst but I suggest looking up all the players in the Great Game and researching their end game objectives starting with the Russian, French and British empires (ironic considering they ended up as allies in WW1) and then the newer players (USA, Germany and USSR).
India in 1600s: "we are one of the richest regions on Earth!"
India today: *"DO NOT REDEEM!!"*
5th largest economy lol
@@CloudyShooterGNGI’m Indian but Germany is richer than us and German population is around 80 million while our is 1.5 billion ppl
Britain *
@@CloudyShooterGNG yet no toilets
@@marusdod3685wrong, now more than 90% of Indians have access to toilets and they solved it in the last decade.
No toilets era was the British Raj.
Hindus and Muslims fought together against the British just as the Communists and nationalist Chinese fought against the Japanese Empire , And when the stronger enemy ( japanese empire/British empire) was gone in both situations both sides resumed the fight
Just goes to show that bad guys can always bring the biggest rivals together
Hindus also fought Hindus and Muslim kings would slaughter their co religionists if money and power was involved.
@@maddogbasilBritain had a small army and used Indians to fight Indians. Sinks against Hindus, Muslims against sinks, Muslims against Hindus.
They copied the Roman empire as they had never had an empire before.
it is mostly when two tribes fight then they use the race card and draw their background into the fight
This is assuming Hindus and Muslims were as divided as communists and nationalists, even tho they weren’t. Most people didn’t even think there was a difference between the 2 communities
Surprised how you didn't mention the economical situation playing a big (if not the main) part of the fismantling of the Raj... after WW2 Britain was broke and unable to mantain the upkeep of such a vast Empire
I don't think that was the focus of the video
@@Astro-X agreed, however it's hard to miss as it was the main reason the Empire went tits up.
The British raj was separated from Burma in 1937. 10 years before before 1947.
Burma separated, not India
@@ThinThin-lq8pg Obviously,as India was still a part of the Raj
Bhurmese are warriors because they're monggoloid like Ghurkas while indians are not
fun fact they don't teach you. but 16th century Portuguese mariners landed on Burmese shores and became deeply entrenched in the local politics over 300 years before the British established a colony there.
Even if burma never separated then still , myanmar would get independence like how bangladesh and pakistan were attached to India but they didn't stay together
British East India Company was the Russian Wagner company of its day. Of course the EIC lasted over 200 years!
Na, it was Shell, or microsoft, privateers so filthy rich they can do anything. wagner are mercenary's. like many of the indian tribes who helped with the conquest of india for english money.
British india was as mich bigger entity than Russia’s wagner company. Before 1880s, the East India company’s gdp was double that of britain.
@@chidoking09Yes, but its the same idea of a private military company. USA has many of them too
That is kind of a bad example since Wagner group has been exposed as ASS in Ukraine
India: exists
Britain: it's free real estate
There actual goal is to take over now a days bangladesh which used to be your pakistan rest of the india was princely states
India exists with 250 million untouchables. Britain exists as one of the richest countries in Europe, which means one of the richest in the world.
@@hirenahir76200why Bengal ?
At least India only had one major European coloniser with some small Portuguese and Dutch influence, China on the other hand (Qing back then) got assaulted by several European powers as well as the USA and Japan during the Opium era which is also known as the "century of humiliation" sure it wasn't truly colonized but China got the "it's free real estate" treatment too.
@@ozymandiasultor9480Casteism exists in India today no doubt but it's nowhere near how bad it was during the British Raj days(peak of the caste system).
And while some caste discrimination exists untouchability is past, it is banned and doesn't exist anymore (The term you might want to use is Dalit and Tribals).
While the UK is a developed country, it is not even close to one of the richest countries in the West.
One thing I feel should be mentioned is that during the early stages of Europeans attempt to conquer India there were many Battles that they lost, as India had a modern army and weapons with similar weapons to the British, it was the declined of the Mughals and the privileges the British were given that slowly shifted power.
Example when the British started purchasing and taxing lands plus being allowed to raise mercenaries armies caused the Mughals a lot in the long run which they didn’t see at the time.
The moment they started loosing taxes played a big role and having large armies of local Indians while slowly tip doing further expansion lead to the rise of British dominance that and the fact that India was a divided place also helped.
For example: during the Sepoy rebellion only one small province was experiencing it while the rest weren’t interested, if India was truly united during the rebellion Britain would have lost India.
There’s actually a lot of moments where Britain could have been kicked out but careful planning and a lot of luck prevented that from happening.
But it surely wasn’t as one sided or even close to a easy as people sometimes make it sound to be , it was a long and difficult process where anything could have gone wrong
Thank You! A lot of people assume it was some easy conquest of technologically superior Europeans defeating a “primitive” land running at guns with shields and swords when in reality they suffered countless defeats against an enemy experienced and innovative (just look up mysoreans rocket elephants or mhugal camel gunners) in gunpowder warfare especially in the wars against the Marathas, Mysoreans, Kalingans, etc and perhaps even more that we’ll never know because the British love to cover up their failures and disasters by destroying as much evidence as possible. So yes not easy by any means and the Sepoy Mutiny ended up collapsing the East India Company forcing the British crown to get involved.
@@raptorbrotherhood766 I bet does same people would go full denial if they found out in does earlier conflicts the British coward behind a fortified wall that was getting bombarded by the Indian navy or that during a brutal defeat the British commanders were forced to bow and beg for forgiveness.
It also shows that the British had to think tactically and not try to use overwhelming force to conquer their enemies because doing that would had been suicide.
It was the slow and steady way that won out in the end it’s just a shame the people of India had to suffer so much as a result of the conquest, ironically now India is considered the worlds 4 strongest military while the UK is 5 or 6. How the tables have turned
@@jonathanviera1589 India was a very large nation so the British really had to be careful and strategic with everything, they couldn’t just outright invade everyone, they would’ve lost much sooner if they did that. It was more of a case like this: Kingdom A and Kingdom B are big rivals. The British come and fight Kingdom A. Kingdom B supports this because they hate Kingdom A and the British are essentially doing them a favor. Kingdom A gets conquered and Kingdom B is idle thinking the British are their friends. The British go to the people of kingdom A and are like “hey we know you really hate us after what we just did, but we know you guys hate kingdom B even more, so why don’t you enlist in our armies and help us takeover kingdom B where you can get your revenge defeating your long time rival”. The British recruiting troops from kingdom A they conquered invade Kingdom B. Local puppet rulers are installed to rule over the kingdoms but also swear allegiance to the crown so long as the British let them keep some position of power and pamper them with privileges and luxury and therefore neither rebel.
According to Philip T. Hoffman in "Why Did Europe Conquer The World?", Mughal empire had difficulties to compete in advanced weaponry because they couldn't raise taxes as much as the British (and other European countries in general).
High taxes were the norm in Europe, while in Mughal empire, they had to depend on their local lords and chieftains (who had became stronger as Mughal rulers became increasingly weaker prior to British arrival) for their tax revenues.
It resulted in Mughal empire couldn't effectively invested in better weapons and raised army to fight British encroachment into their realm. And finally they themselves had to fell into submission before British empire.
@@gorilladisco9108 yeah, the Mhugals were basically declining as the Marathas started taking over their empire, but the Mhugals did use gunpowder and even had swivels mounted on top of camels as a sort of mobile artillery
We Vietnamese were colonised by the French. But it is well known that the British were 'better" colonialist than the rest of them in Asia region. Those countries under the British also performed better economically after British left them such as Singapore, Hong Kong, India, etc. Invention of firearms really changed the history of Asia & Africa.
Around 60 million starved to death from famines in India throughout British rule due to being forced to grow more opium than food
@@raptorbrotherhood766id say the British is the best country to be colonized by but they’re still pretty bad consider how the spanish, Portuguese , french, and dutch treated their colonies
@@zekdopa591 there is no “best” man, we all suffered
@@raptorbrotherhood766 Indians starved from over breeding and being at war. It's funny how Indians always neglect the fact the British actually tried to deal with the famine by sending food convoys there that were originally meant to be going to Britain
@@raptorbrotherhood766 I wouldn’t say best but more “least bad”
A great alternate idea would be what would happen if the Portuguese And Or Spanish colonized most if not all of The Indian Subcontinent also known as South Asia rather then The British and if this diferential taking over happened in the mid 1400s would it be the same, improved, or worsened?
Probably worse if it not better. Portuguese did Inquisitions in Goa while they were there. Honestly, we can't really compare evil with evil. It makes no sense. I don't understand the logic when people say Hitler was worse than Mao or Stalin or vice-versa. They were all evil and almost all empire have been insurrected on evil. Even though democracy is a farce but atleast we 'think' we're free. In a world full of evil, delusion seems to be the only hope to cope and survive.
They can't during 1400s Indian millitary were way ahead
1400 would have been a disaster, the reason Britain managed to take India was it's superior fire power. Without that, Indian manpower would have carried the day
Britain must be known for the Patience they showed to infiltrate in the Asian Lands
AND THEY WORTH IT
Portuguese and Spain were very religious empires the British was a secular empire they didn’t interfered in religious matters that’s why they could recruit Indians and battle against themselves if it was Portuguese they really won’t tolerate any other religion and Revolte would happen quite frequently
simple, When Catherine of Braganza married Charles II of England in 1662, the Portuguese territory of Bombay was given to England as part of her dowry. Bombay is now known as Mumbai and is the capital of the state of Maharashtra.Charles II agreed to transfer control of Bombay to the East India Company, who paid him an annual rent of £10 in gold. The company soon established a base in Bombay, which became their Far East trading headquarters and was important for the tea trade. by doing it weakenning portuguese business ports and conquer all around.would like to mended that not all India was govern by the british,Goa,Daman and Diu was govern by Portugal.
The British takeover of our country was the most shameful event in our history which just proved how stupid we are as we keep fighting among ourselves and don’t see the bigger picture. I hope and wish my people learn from the mistakes of our ancestors and never repeat these mistakes again. India united a superpower and divided a pawn.
Well the British were invaded and colonised by the Vikings, Roman’s and French.
It’s just what humanity has done for forever.
@@kadourimdou43Conscious animals
@@kadourimdou43 Now also india too. Because Rishi Raj
It was supposed to happen.
Didn't Brits unify India and form a single language?
Diamonds, Gold, Food; and they didn’t even use them to help the average British Person.
avg british person is rich af by all historical standards, even back then
@@vortigan9068Charles Booth concluded around 1/3 of England lived in poverty at the end of the 19th century. Adjusted for inflation, you would live off roughly $1000 - $2000 a year as a laborer. Some monkeys eat more than this.
@@vortigan9068 My other comment got shadow banned but essentially, Charles Booth concluded 1/3 of Britain lived in poverty at the end of the 19th century; adjusted for inflation, it was $1000 - $2000 a year for the lowest class.
@@vortigan9068 No most British people lived in poverty.
@@vortigan9068clueless comment
I'm thoroughly enjoying this quiz, I see that you put much effort to this video, thanks!
Pity it's so misleading
Nice work dude!
Bengal was the gateway of India.Bengal was independent during 17 century
Afgans controled Bengal then. So, Bengal wasn't independent then.
@@koushikdas1992it actually was independent . And no foreign state or country dictated terms to it. Bengal as state was effectively independent
Bengal wasn't independent. The Mughal governor in Bengal mutinied and formed self governed kingdom.
the Portuguese were the only Europeans established in Bengal in the 17th century.
Between 8:25 and 8:45 a very complicated issue of state capitalism zipped right by, made into a cartoon and left me rewinding "WHAT"?"
The question is a good one but in no way does this even begin to answer one of the worlds great mysterys. First, the section i point out, needs another video plus a couple of books to rightfully explain and still i don't think any of us were meant to understand the magnitude and wonder of sheer naked aggression and the modern industrial state
Merchants taking over whole continents. Hmm, it reminds me of something.
since when did India become a continent
@@CloudyShooterGNG Nevermind you don't get it. Hint: I was not referring to India.
@@CloudyShooterGNG Where did he claim India was a continent?
Which merchants u talking abt? They were bunch of thieves
@@Dickos12 The happy ones
"it's free real estate"
Knowledgia video title for 2124 ;
Why did India colonize Britain ?
When India did do that? Sure, a person with an Indian name is the prime minister, but he is a British citizen and considers himself British. India never colonized no one...Too much meditation, I guess.
@@ozymandiasultor9480Bro, He is being a toxic Nationalist and trying to say India will rule the Britannia after 2100
Bro having Vengeance Issue
Have you ever been to Leicester?.@@ozymandiasultor9480
2124, look at the year@@ozymandiasultor9480
Indians will surrender invading uk
As an Indian, I would say, the modern United India 🇮🇳 only became one because, of the resentment towards the British rulers.
Else, we were divided by caste system, religious, linguistic so many lines even now. Not to forget many good things the Brits did from banning the Sati practice (a religious custom for which we even have a goddess who performed it), to educating on child marriages and their subsequent ban, to inspiring women to educate themselves, the judiciary system, many good things that were done (of the many bad that were also atrocious and horrendous not to forget)
Even now when I look at how feudalism exists in villages, caste and untouchability exists in many pockets of the country, to female foeticide to so many evils like human sacrifices to Gods, I think we as Indians have come a long way.
There is no hatred from my side for the newer generation of Brits for what their forefathers did, especially when many Indians given the opportunity would love to move to a luxurious life in any country in the West and even wanting Free Trade from them on the other side.
I believe, we still would've been a country where Marathas (who pillaged Bengal and Delhi) to the Mughals who also carried out mass crimes to so many empires that we had were only burdening the native people.
So, it's a draw. Though, my favorite Independence Leader were Annie Besant, Bhagat Singh, to name a few, I totally condemn Subash Chandra Bose who wanted to join hands with Adolf Hitler despite knowing the horrors of Holocaust were appalling.
Tell me, when were the horrors of holocaust discovered by the world? Subhash Chandra Bose was based, and his moral duty extended to India and the people of India. Also, he joined a side who commiitted far fewer atrocities across the world anyway.
@@Alduizard it was worldwide known infamously.
Bose was an educated man, unlike you.
@@abc_cba Poor bag of rice, so easily triggered. Ambedkar was right abt christians, and being a staunch ambedkarite myself, I do hope for more dara singhs across the country, to civilize and tame the inherent barbarity of the christian society, as evident in their horrible backward practices like witch hunting and disgusting misogynistic divorce laws, by, like you said, culling religious differences across the nation and thus bringing coherence, loyalty and unity :)
Jai Shree Ram! Jai Bajrang Bali!🙏
@@abc_cbaSati never happened in india it's a British propoganda but Britishers deffinetly did burn women alive in the name of witch hunting and many bad thing in India started after invaders and colonizers came like child marriage, prostitution, ghunghat pratha etc. Ancient India never had such bad things.
If the Great Munity of 1857 in India ended in success, what does that mean for Britain as an empire?
nothing.
@@ozymandiasultor9480 Why? Doesn't Britain at the time needed to focus elsewhere like making sure Russia did not conquer the Ottoman Empire?
@lerneanlion Well, the "Great Game" wouldn't occur, therefore Russia would steamroll into the power vacuum of India.
@@lerneanlion You want to talk geopolitics of that period? Too much writing... Sure, Britain was a global superpower and had a lot of things to do, but if you want the short answer, it meant very little, almost nothing for Britain. If you want more I recommend the historical book "The Last Mughal: The Fall of a Dynasty, Delhi 1857" by William Dalrymple.
@@ozymandiasultor9480 If losing India means little to nothing to Britain, how long will it take for Britain to come back then? After all, they had a lot of things to do.
You also had Portuguese India 🇮🇳 (Goa, Daman, Diu)
French India~(Puducherry)
Danish ~The Andaman and Nicobar Islands
The Dutch had territories in The South and The East (Kolkata)
Be British.
Go to India.
Open ports.
Have soldiers to guard ports.
Local ask soldiers to help defeat their enemy.
:
:
:
End up conquer the land.
Rule Britannia playing was brilliant.
I don't really care it's impressive
Why didn't they do it sooner instead of by companies or take even more of the world? (could have loss some too, in fairness)
Not just British but European/Global Empires (Japan, for example, is another by 1870s almost)
10:37 You forgot one more country that broke off; Myanmar / Burma
That was administered as India as well.
Additionally till 1888; Singapore, Penang and Malacca were part of India too as part of the Straits settlements. These 3 cities were then stripped away from the other 2 Straits Settlements; Nicobar and Andamman who are part of India today.
Other than famous slogan 'Sun never set in british empire', there have also another one 'if there are 2 fish fighting in the pond, know it before them came british', this phrase shown to us that all the modern world conflict, tension in the middle east, India - Pakistan war and so on started from the british empire.
The main thing was the marata empire had very weekend after panipat war which british got an opportunity to colonize if marata empire won Panipat battle in 1761 then india would been under marata empire which brotish would have been no chamce to stand and also divisions between marata high position memebers also got involved in infighting in marata empire
Why they always forget to put Goa as a Portuguese colony. It was Portuguese for a longer time than the entire existence of the British empire
Goa remained a Portuguese colony for over 450 years (1510-1961)
it's because the British have monopolized their stories over everyone else.
First European to land in India:
• Vasco da Gama (Portugal): May 20, 1498, in Calicut (now Kozhikode), Kerala.
First British to land in India:
• John Mildenhall (British merchant): 1599, in Chennai (then Madras).
Majority control achieved:
By 1820, the British East India Company controlled approximately 50% of India's territory.
By 1858, the British Crown controlled around 70% of India's territory.
By 1880, the British controlled nearly 90% of India's territory.
It took British 220 years to control half india
If today we think to colonize Australia and
we able to colonize Australia after 100 years
I don't think it's a bad deal
At one point 800-900 British Civil Servants known as the "heaven-born" governed a population of 250 million in the Indian sub-continent.
This is a clear example of Britain's governing efficiency and why it was so successful at empire building.
This fact is truly amazing.
Where are they now?
@@joso7228dumbass that argument doesn’t work as they literally built the largest empire in human history and held onto it for two centuries
Only nominally.
A bit like how the Ho,y Roman Emperor or the Pope supposedly "ruled Europe".
Just a matter of suzerainty.
They weren't governing , they controlled the tax system , while princely states ruled india .. There wasn't a Total control of india by Britain, It was like a deal between kings and British. They did influenced culture by didn't aimed to convert them to Christianity cuz that could had caused uprising. It's very complex how they hold india for 200 years ,, one thing was that there was no feeling of a nation , they were kingdoms back then who used to fight frequently
10:16 hey Indian map is incorrect. Jammu and Kashmir are a part of India
Theyre muslim no theyre not
You didn't Mentioned Anglo-Maratha and Anglo-mysore wars. In the first war against the Marathas , the British were destroyed. In the second battle the EIC had became incredibly strong and the maraths became weaker and weaker because of the civil war but still the marathas under Yashwantrao holkar defeated the EIC, had he not died later from diseases he could have conquered bengal and ended the conpany rule then and there. The Marathas had an Army that could match or even outperform the Royal british army as stated hy The Duke of Wellington, arthur wellesly.
Yes because the first Anglo Maratha war was lost because the British army and navy was focused in the Americas fighting the Americans, and later fighting of the kingdom of France and Spain. And the same was true during the second war, the British army was focused in Europe fighting napoleon, as was the navy. The British Army was never a majority of the East India companies forces it was made up almost entirely of sepoys. Wellington did have respect for the military prowess of the Marathas, however given the defeat he inflicted on the Marathas who by far outnumbered him shows they weren’t the equal to the British army, nor even as disciplined given what happened at the battle of assaye. If they were they would have lost despite having such advantages. The Marathas even has 10,000 troops trained in European military tactics.
Marathas were like the Scottish highlanders when it came to war formidable in hand to hand combat yet against British line regulars they lacked the discipline to fight them adequately.
@EvropaAeterna the second Anglo Maratha war was also lost due to a civil war among Marathas (Yashwanthrao Holkar was fighting against combined peshwa+ British forces and got no support from any other rulers in India except for jats , who later betrayed him).
@@abhinavkumar9c017 Yet the effect was the same the British weren’t interested in India at the time their armies and navy were focused on Europe fighting napoleon. And the British in India was a private company led by merchants.
@@EvropaAeternvm private company thing is completely fake lmao. India at that time basically the richest place on the earth and the global superpower
Great Britain colonizing India led to a change in the way India functioned at that time.
Use correct map of india🇮🇳
Thanks 😊
The post colonial map is a little wrong. Hyderabad was not a part of India in 1947
*Indian subcontinent and Dominion of India, not Republic of India
Nepal 🇳🇵 and Bhutan 🇧🇹 were never 👎 colonized and instead became protectorates but was thier own country and not ruled directly under the British!!
Tibet was never officially colonized by the British also.
Strategy Stuff has an excellent video series about exactly this.
Not to mention the marriage with a Portuguese princess that gave Britain the first cities in India is a mistake.
Personally I think the biggest mistake was Emperor Aurangzeb forgiving the EIC and not kicking them out when he had the chance.
@@lordjazoijua94 Different subjects, one is a historical omission, the other a wish.
@@lordjazoijua94very true but he was greedy a lot of them where it would be hard not to be being in the middle of the biggest trade County for a 1000 years arrogance and greed is the language that both he and the British spoke well 😂
The Mughals (1526-1858) lost control of India in the 1700s, but many of the local rulers who replaced them were also Turks, at least until the British took over.
Chase, K. (2003). Conclusion. In Firearms: A Global History to 1700 (pp. 197-210). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Local ruler was maratha's
Nope not really, rajasthan was sieged by rajputs. Harayana region was sieged by Jats, most of central and northern India was part of Marathas, nizams and Mysore state along with rajputs were vassals states of Marathas
@@lakshyasingh2239no true nawab of bhopal , nawab of bengal , kingdom of mysore , nawab of junahgarh all were turks and in centre the remaining mughal empire
@@heart-is-blue what marathas Sikhs ahom rajput jaats were local rulers
For hard working.trustworthy, loyal Indians, Hindus, hindus , for pearls, diamonds,.pure gold, and etc.,.etc., etc.
Because it was rich
The East India Trading Company had several concessions in India. Due to bad management the Crown in London, made the decision to take over the governance India.
Unique peninsula, unique populations,and unique methods of English adopted for subduing India ⚘️🇮🇳 🤍 ...I think before English arrived, there were Portuguese, French, and Dutch colonials in Indian peninsula
Not exactly. There were none significant colonies of european powers, but small port cities controlled by trading companies.
Yes! Goa(A Portugese port) on west coast of India.
Sir,British motivations and benefits aside,there were some interesting consequences of British in india.
1.Mughal Sultanate was wiped out in 1857 bringing to an end 1100 years long islamic invasions.
2.Hindus who were always in overwhelming majority were greatly relieved after becoming free from islamic pressures and attacks on hinduism.
3.A new Era of modernity,western education,institutions, S&T was started.
Canada and Australia are still under the Crown.
King Charles III is not only the King of the United Kindom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but also the King of Canada, King of New Zealand and King of Australia.
These nations are, together with the other Commonwealth Realm's, United under common allegiance to the Crown. They all share the same Windsor as their head of State.
Charles III is not part of the House of Windsor.
That was the anglicised name of the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas.
Royals follow their father's house.
Charles is from Sondersburg-Glucksberg und Schleswig-Holstein.
@@stephfoxwell4620 you should read this: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Windsor
@@stephfoxwell4620i am sure you are aware that royals have developed a funny habit of changing their house name at will during the last century. Honestly, Charles III sticking with his mother's house is much more canonical than renaming Battenberg to Mountbatten and Sax Coburg to Windsor
@@sarantis1995 The names are changed to hide their Germanness.
@@stephfoxwell4620 Ehm beg to differ here a bit. They changed their royal house name to signal to the Brittish people that they stand with them during WO1, that they are the Brittish Royal Family and not to hide their Germanness.
Everyone knows that the current line of UK Monarchs, ever since King George I, flows from the house of Hanover.
A German kingdom and at the time an electorat of the Holy Roman Empire. There is no hiding that.
But the change to Windsor was a deliberate choice to signal to the people, we belong to you. We choose you.
And also, all Royal Houses in Europe where interwined with the German nobility at the start of WO I. The whole royals only marrying other royals thing ensured that.
King George V made it beyond clear that they where Brittish with the name change to the House of Windsor.
9:15 *you forgot literally the largest Indian province then - 🇲🇲Burma (Myanmar)* 😂
The point about technological supremacy over Indian powers is simply untrue. Many powers such as the Marathas under shindia and most notably and properly done, the Sikh empire, had outreached (in the case of the Sikhs) European technology by even British metrics. The Sikhs had produced everything from weapons of pistols and rifles to canons and ships within the empire. Most Indian empires armies were equivalent to that of the British or other European states with special significance to those of the Sikh and late Maratha confederacy armies. This notion of technilogical superiority is simple untrue.
Whats your opinion of how a tiny number of westerners managed to end up controlling the entire subcontinent? The idea that there was complete technological equality is very hard sell
@@wesleysanders8570 read contemporary European records. Especially in regards to the Sikh empire. British and other former napoleonic war generals stated that the Sikh rifles, matchlocks and canons were superior to those of the British and even Napoleonic ones, the Sikh army as well being the first Asian empire to have a fully modernized army being completed in 1827. Some books to read on the topic would be “six battles for India” by George Bruce, and any books about the Sikhs by Griffin.
@@wesleysanders8570 and further elaborating on this. The population of the Khalsa/sikhs was less than 500,000 yet they were able to conquer and rule over a large portion of South Asia being outnumbered 10:1 by Hindus, Jains, Muslims, Buddhists. There were even more Christians in the Sikh empire than Sikhs themselves.
@@wesleysanders8570 and one final point to add is that the Sikhs were considered by Europeans both contemporary to the Sikh empire and after to be the Prussian equivalent within Asia. The British going as far to claim that the Sikhs were the hardest enemy they had ever faced in Asia ( in a book called The Sikhs
by John J H Gordon)
@@Khalsafauj96 I'm well aware the Sikhs were good soldiers, but that doesn't answer the bigger question- why did the Brits go on to rule India, instead of the Sikhs?
Anyone know the name of the song at the very beginning?
Rule Britannia
Britain brought so much freedom & democracy to the world, just like its son U.S.A
sarcasm?
@@ozymandiasultor9480 yes
@@South_Asian.Fascist-98 OK, good use of sarcasm.
@@ozymandiasultor9480are you a sarcasm inspector?
what's the salary? im interested..
Freedom and empire is when the people have 0 say in government, are deindustrialied, impoverished and the world’s richest most advanced country is sent back to the dark Ages?
Britain, along with Russia and US are indeed the greatest countries the world has ever witnessed, they rose from nothing to everything
and britain now fell off to nothing again, leaving only US at the top and Russia to some extent.
@@metallica3556 I wouldn't say nothing, Britain is largely regarded as the 4th player in the world after US, Russia and China. In all events you can see "US and UK" put together
France is more important than GB @@НиколайРоманов-л6ю
lol China and India will be greatest
Don't glorify it , india and china are greatest countries ever witnessed Britain arrive in 1606 it takes 250 years to colonized entire indian subcontinent they take 5 years to defeat china with hand of 35 m sq land and still china manages to make their own nation and Don't forget india and china where fighting 8-9 invaders at same time during colonial era indeed we lost but I proud of my country that it fought and in 89 years afterwards throw those invaders .
China and india also came from nothing but managed to survive 2000 years and richest land in history for like millinemials .
Us , Russia are also greatest countries worlds see but not Britain they looted and made world poor .
In 1757
Bengal Was The Richest State Of India
At That Time Nabab Sirajuddullah Was Defeated By Conspiracy Of British East India Company...
India Was The Superpower During Mughal Era...
Was? Maybe. Great Britain was also a superpower that had 1/4 of the whole world.
Difference in Timeline, Perhaps @@ozymandiasultor9480
@@ozymandiasultor9480 during mughal time till 17 century , british colonization occurs in 18 century
Actually ottomon and spanish were main power in 17 century
@@ozymandiasultor9480and why do you support Great Britain that much? In colonizing so much people
@@nobodyunknown3184 I am simply saying facts.
Do Britain really colonized India? Colonized mean to set up colony. The British send it people to settle and colonize North America. They set up towns and cities full of loyal citizen in those colony. At most in India, British set up taxation offices but not much of a colony. It conquer and occupy India but never colonized it.
@refresh-dh6qj That the way it should be done.
No mention of the Sikhs/sikh empire
Last major area to be annexed
Annexed 100 years after India was
Being in 1849
Fought two difficult wars
Population of India boomed during the British rule, it's an undeniable fact.
India's contribution to world GDP before brits arrived : 25 % ( also the India was the richest country of the world for 1600 years by then, the longest for ANY country ever, the record still stands ).
After brits left : 2%
Famines in India in the 2000 years before brits arrived : 17
Famines that occurred under british rule of 200 years : around 25
Here's a list of some of them : The British era is significant because during this period a very large number of famines struck India.[2][3] There is a vast literature on the famines in colonial British India.[4] The mortality in these famines was excessively high and in many cases it has been increased by British policies.[5] The mortality in the Great Bengal famine of 1770 was between one and 10 million;[6] the Chalisa famine of 1783-1784, 11 million; Doji bara famine of 1791-1792, 11 million; and Agra famine of 1837-1838, 800,000.[7] In the second half of the 19th-century large-scale excess mortality was caused by: Upper Doab famine of 1860-1861, 2 million; Great Famine of 1876-1878, 5.5 million; Indian famine of 1896-1897, 5 million; and Indian famine of 1899-1900, 1 million.[8] The first major famine of the 20th century was the Bengal famine of 1943, which affected the Bengal region during wartime; it was one of the major South Asian famines in which anywhere between 1.5 million and 3 million people died.[9]
The total number of people who died because of this Famines alone and in India alone goes over tens of millions of people. If you add to this the total number of people who died by any cause that was a result of brits or their policies in all of their colonies then the number easily crosses hundreds of millions. Hence, the lady is correct on this point. Infact, the last great famine under british ruled India was the great Bengal famine of 1943, of which multiple photos and videos you can find in the internet including on RUclips. When multiple concerned british officials wrote to churchil how his actions have created the most devastating famine of the world in the 20th centuary, he replied, " why hasn't Gandhi died yet ".
India's contributions to the world : The Hindu numerical system, also known as the decimal base system which forms the basis of mathematics and is the system we use today, and which may as well be the greatest invention ever in the history of humanity, Madhava, an Indian mathematician who founded the Kerala school of Mathematics almost discovered calculus over 200 years before newton or leibnitz were even born, and a LOTS AND LOTS of other fundamental contributions to maths, physics, logic, philosophy, biology, etc. India is one of the 3 earliest, oldest civilization, namely, the Harrappan civilization (India), the Masopotamian civilization ( modern day iraq) , the Egyptian civilization. Which one of these is the oldest is highly debatable and a topic of ongoing research, but India was the most extensive and widespread civilization of these all. Ancient Indians invented/ discovered many things some of which are, soap, shampoo, buttons, diamonds, steel, city planning, drainage systems, underground drainiage systems, the world's first port, the game of chess, etc. The first language in the world is also an Indian language ( one of these, Sanskrit or Tamil, both Indian languages). India has also made tremendous contributions in the modern times in STEM and almost every field. On top of it all, the brits committed littoral atrocities in India and other colonies, the most famous of this is the Jaliawalla bagh massacre, whose committer was later treated as a hero, and when an Indian, named Sardar Udham Singh, shot dead him in London as a revenge, he was tried as a terrorist and hanged, his testimony before the court was recorded and I encourage you to read it. In short, if you have studied history from british or european textbooks, I suggest you to for once try different sources like the internet or history books from other countries, manly former colonies.
India's population grew despite the British, not because of the British.
When other countries came to colonize india, many indians didn't fought back bevause of casteism in india.. huge lower caate people just stood watching thinking they are not allowed to fight or interfere in government and high official matters... This is the main reason easily british and portugese ruled us and looted us.. tamils are most affected because of this casteism...
They were low caste bcoz of their inability to fight and no self-respect, dignity and honour. They even used to sell their women.
that's not true. in the 1500's the powerful Hindu & Muslim kingdoms on the West coast of India declared war against the Portuguese empire . but the problem was, the Portuguese were better at fighting wars, bringing a level of ruthlessness and determination to battle that the Indians couldn't match
@@bconni2The muslim empire literally raped their way into power in India.
@@bconni2 portuguese only colonized few parts of subcontinent and they were never better than mughals and marathas
2:38 sponsor ends here
the creator might delete your comment lmao, thanks though
@@lusophone. i will just comment again
Britain did not colonise India. If it had there would be a large extant white or mixed race population.
Britain colonised the eastern USA, New Zealand and parts of Canada, Australia, South Africa and Kenya.
Britain's Empire was a trading Empire.
We only ever ran 40% of India and only from 1857-1947.
Just 90 years.
@refresh-dh6qj Very few.
It's not "beg the question". It's "raise the question". To beg the question means to assume the answer to your question.
As an English speaking Indian and American citizen, I am grateful for the language.
Otherwise, Britain wiped out the wealth that once was India.
Exactly, the Brits gave India a language that would eventually be valuable. But of course the Brits do EVERYTHING strictly for their own advantage. Their MO is: divide, conquer, steal and repeat….
LOL. As if it wasn't going to wasted anyway.
It ended the moment mughal empire ended and regional empires and British and French took over and turned it to a warzone
@@DwynNWynns like it wasn't wasted by the British you do remember the world wars don't you 😂
definition of i was a business man doing business.
If the British did not colonize India some other European country would have.
This is because India was militarily and technologically weak so any European country could have conquered it easily 😊
Wrong many others tried they couldn’t the British only did cause the traitors of bey of bengal and the marthra and muguls afghans and Sikhs where all fighting
Very true.
thats just false, the Indian economy was the largest, if the region stabilized it would've been like modern japan, instead the main power (mughals were in decline) which led to the British taking it over
@@CloudyShooterGNG Indians were not so aggressive, militarily and technologically they were way behind European main powers, and that ahimsa philosophy of non-aggression wasn't helpful. Any of the European big powers was able to turn India into a colony.
lol yeah thats why the british lost multiple wars against the marathas, btw the "ahimsa" policy didn't plauge all of south Asia (India) besides Indias countries were on par if not ahead of Europe in terms of economy, military and overall manpower, so idk what ur talking abt@@ozymandiasultor9480
when is the next history of roman empire vid coming out?
Tells you a lot about Indians if such a small country like Britain subjugated India.
It was because they trusted British people and Hindus wanted to remove Muslims. They had chance to unite
Tells you alot about the British if they can sell all thers land to Russia 😂
Germany is the only superpower country in Europe that didn't conquer or colonize any country.
Germany had many colonies.
Short answer, because Britain was able to do that.
Because of the caste system lack of military reforms
Lack of unity
@@Avinashm7 In short, Britain was strong enough and able to do that.
Yeah if it was so sarcastic, he could have just created a youtube short instead of a whole video.
@@namantaneja7323 That is not sarcasm, that is the truth.
@@ozymandiasultor9480 I admit that's a truth, but the way was presenting was sarcastic and hence I was pointing that.
I am saying if this "truth" could be put forward like this, it would have ended as a youtube short. But a whole video had to be dedicated for that due to the sheer amount of storylines and narrations.
You also know you put that comment in a sarcastic tone.
They came, waged wars for spices that they don't even use now 😂
That's completely fake they came to colonize the subcontinent. It was the global superpower at that era. The spice thing is holy cap
in past England had enough population to colonize and control other countries... but now ? what happened to their population ?
It wasn't population that fueled the British (not English) empire. It was industrialisation. The same reason United States over took the UK. Industry is king
Demographic transition
nothing happened to the population.. They just decided colonial empires werent worth it anymore
Comparatively, the British:india population ratio is bigger today than it was in 1750
There time in the sun is 100% over and more then likely will never happen again they are turning back into the poor country that they where pre empire if not worse 😂
British empire controlled all the key sea routes like suez canal
Hindu nationalist are going to cry about the map
Hindu nationalists cry about everything. They are snow flakes
Hindu nationalists where pro British, theyre actually the main reason British were able to conquer india. After conquering Indian kingdoms, British would hand over power to Indian elite whose descendants are Hindu nationalists today
It wasn't England's empire. It was Britain's, and that included the Irish.
Without England there wouldn't be a British empire
A Corporation Conquered India.
yeah a corp with its own army
That's a cap. It was a fake corporation who came to trade but their main purpose was to colonize it lmao
‘Without Wanting to’
I would say without realising I know they wanted to but at the time name me a country that would not have wanted to😂
Despite what people would say. Actuall England has succeeded in India. They succeeded to devide the country and implant hatred and grudge between theire socities and religions.
0:16 so far… that’s menacing
Kashmir is an integral part of India
Why is the Sikh/Punjab empire never mentioned in your videos about India?
India got cricket and the British got Kohinoor 🤷♂️ everyone is happy 😂
The Indian subcontinent used to be composed of a myriad of kingdoms and states who may have common religion and culture, but doesn't necessarily identify as a single nation. Despite all the exploitation, the British Empire's greatest legacy is uniting these kingdoms and states into a country that is now India.
Mauryan empire conquered the subcontinent and united it before british
The East India company still exists today. It is owned by an Indian today😊
The EIC was formally dissolved on 1 June 1874.
@@skaldlouiscyphre2453It had to be I sometimes wonder if the east india company could have taken over Britain itself if they came back to do so 😂
@@MrKingkz That sounds like the premise for a historical cyberpunk story.
@@skaldlouiscyphre2453 steampunk would be more like it lol
@@MrKingkz When I said historic cyberpunk, I basically meant a cyberpunk story in a steampunk world.
Good video. I didn't have much knowledge on how this came about.
Now you have even less.
It is wrong.
@@stephfoxwell4620 Care to educate us with some facts?
@@OhioDan Well for a start, Britain didn't colonise India. If it had there'd be a population of white or mixed race Indians.
Britain had a maritime/trading Empire . It needed to control ports only.
It sought to control hinterlands by co-opting local tribes or ethnicities.
Britain controlled just 40% of India and only for 90 years. 1857-1947.
Britain colonised New England, Nova Scotia, parts of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and S Africa.
In India Britain merely traded with the greedy local magnates. Just like it did in China.
@@stephfoxwell4620 I'm with you so far. Colonization requires settlement, and the British didn't settle India. So to call it a colony is a misnomer.
@@OhioDan Got it in one. The UK is currently being colonised. A net nine million immigrants mainly from India and Africa since 2010.
You said it all came from broken kingdoms but by that time that Britain colonised it was with the help off Scots and Irish. The Scott's were some off the best sailors and pirates ever known. Already found a problem with your video and it just began. Typical American thinking British is English.
Get some rest big guy. You appear irrational and bad tempered.
@@xwhite2020 Facts are facts I dont care what you think I am as I know I am not. I am a big guy though thanks.
@@Nozylatten Sure, all are big on the Internet.
@@ozymandiasultor9480 bigger than you. I bet that no problem.
@@Nozylatten Sure. I guess we will see no picture of you, big guy. You sound like someone who is overcompensating in many areas, big genius.
We needed some decent food, Shepherds pie can only get you so far, a Tika Masala on the other hand :p.
Thank You Britain Empire the Civilization Indian
lol the 3rd oldest civilzation needs civilzing? funny..
@@CloudyShooterGNG look at the ummayyad accounts of india, some regions were/still are dastardly
@@vortigan9068look at the 7/8th century Arabian buildings vs Indic temples and forts of that same era.
Ummayads came to the subcontinent but lost (except in sindh, multan).
India, China were ancient civilizations (it's not even debatable). Indus valley civilization was ahead of its time, Mauryan empire was ahead of its time and not to forget the Chola dynasty in the AD era. Christopher Columbus literally found a whole new continent trying to find india in order to gain wealth.
Don't tell me the Arabs weren't dastardly.
Id recommend you look at the greek roman persian and Chinese accounts as well? oh yeah nvm they all say India is heaven on earth; that doesn't help you in your debate@@vortigan9068
Thank you for impoverishing the subcontinent, destroying its industry, and making Indians conswevative?
The question isn't why but rather why not conquer a bunch of divided Indian states?
Just like uncle 'merica does for oil....
Just like Arabs hunt for peaceful non-believers.
As an indian,i will gladly accept british rule over the current thing, anytime!
Here we have another brown sepoy
Sadly you're not the first Indian I've heard say that, same has been said by Hong Kong people
Okay, but just remember this whole operation is your idea.
Not an india, but a brown Sepoy.
No matter what, a Slave will always remain a Slave.
poojeeet
Why didn't Ceylon/Sri Lanka intigrate with the Raj/India?
There are several reasons.
1. Indian based empires didn't control Sri Lanka. When British land on Sri Lanka in 1796 CE, Dutches controlled coastal areas of Sri Lanka. Sinhalese Kingdom of Kandy controlled other all areas of Sri Lanka. It's a major reason why British didn't merge Sri Lanka with British Raj.
2. British East India company colonized coastal areas of Sri Lanka in 1796 CE. But people of coastal areas rebelled against British East India company with help of Kingdom of Kandy. So, British established dual control in 1798 CE. Due to further rebellions, British proclaimed separate crown colony called 'British Ceylon' by abolishing rule of British East India company in 1802 CE. British were unable conquest Kingdom of Kandy by a military campaign. But British colonized Kingdom of Kandy by signing 'Kandyan convention' with Kandyan officials in 1815 CE. British East India company started colonization in India in 1757 CE. But India became a crown colony in 1858 CE. Sri Lanka become a crown colony of Britain before India is also a reason why British didn't merge Sri Lanka with British Raj.
Such a peaceful race Europeans are
Maybe not peaceful, but certainly most successful. You should remember, that land does not belong to a certain group of people because god gave that land to them. Those who are stronger can come and take it. It is as simple as that, and your moralizing will not change global geopolitics.
Of course the various Indian kingdoms emerged through peaceful votes. Only Europeans grew through conquest, eh? Mongols never existed, all a conspiracy
Poor Indians
Pray tell who you think is a “peaceful” group of people.
@@saladmcjones7798 I bet that he or she never gave much thought about that, but that person sure hates Europeans, no matter that there are no peaceful people by default.
*Just Goes to Show How Truly Powerful And Wealthy the Mughals Were*
They literally humiliated the British In the Childe war whcih proved a united india was a nighmare to face
Also its crazy how This Video Skipped Tippu Sultan 🤦
Phahahahaha!!!! 😂😂
The Mughals had almost a million troops at their command vs 3000+ anglo troops and their allies
how is that humiliating when they were outnumbered 300 to 1?
Humiliating the British was never a big deal, they were an insignificant country before conquering India. That’s why their conquest of India is so surprising
Britain didn't "colonize" India. There were no colonists. North America, Australasia and southern Africa, yes. India, no. Britain's exploitation of India was imperialist, not colonialist.