15,697
edits
Changes
no edit summary
Furthermore, the British tolerated all the various creeds and beliefs in India. They did not seek to impose any religion or ideology on the Indians. In a sense, they revived many Indian rulers' tolerant policies, such as Ashoka and Akbar the Great. This reconciled many Indians, especially Hindus, to the British Raj.<ref>Peers, Douglas M. ''[https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00GXBEWEK/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B00GXBEWEK&linkCode=as2&tag=dailyh0c-20&linkId=db7ef5353bbbc5b14a04a242a0816269 India under Colonial Rule 1700–1885]'' (Harlow and London: Pearson Longmans, 2003) p. 163.</ref> Furthermore, the British adopted a light-touch approach to government, and they did not interfere with Indian customs and way of life. In fact, many Indians had no direct contact with the British in the early decades of their rule, which meant that there was relatively little popular opposition to their rule. These all helped to ensure that the British were able to rule vast and diverse territories.
====Lack of Why did Indian in the 18th Century lack a National Consciousness==? ==
[[File:400px-Warren Hastings by Tilly Kettle.jpg|thumbnail|left|200px|Warren Hastings]]
Nationalism is a modern phenomenon. In the eighteenth century, there was no real national identity in India. The many people in the Indian sub-continent did not regard themselves as Indians. It was only in the twentieth century that the sub-continent people had a sense of belonging to a nation. The majority of people identified with their tribe, clan, ethnic group, or religion. This meant that the peoples of the sub-continent were very divided among themselves. This allowed the British to use some of the natives to help them run and govern the Empire. This is best seen in the British policies on the Indian army.
The British East India Company regularly used native Indian troops to defend and expand their territory in the sub-continent. Without these Indian troops, it is highly unlikely that the British would ever have established their ascendency in the sub-continent. It was also a factor in the conquest of large areas of Asia and Africa by Europeans and later <ref>Smith, Simon. ''[https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/052159930X/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=052159930X&linkCode=as2&tag=dailyh0c-20&linkId=f797ff380d05c71cf46a112dd25d350e British Imperialism 1750–1970]'' (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994), p 145.</ref> Furthermore, because there was a lack of unity among the Indians, they were more than willing to work with the British and betray each other. The British's victory at the Battle of Plassey was due to the treachery of one of the Nawab of Bengal's ally.<ref>Smith, p 78.</ref>. At one time or another, the various local rulers were allied with the British as they pursued their own political interests. The lack of national unity meant that the British could adopt a classic divide and rule policy. This all greatly strategy facilitated the British piece-meal take-over of India's lands until they had assumed a pre-eminence in the sub-continent.<ref>Smith, p. 134.</ref>
====Lack of Colonial Rivals====
