This is complicated. I mean, first you gotta ask what India even is. From a purely border perspective (this is the important context) it is no different than any other country[0] (play videos for other regions). Current borders only exist since 1950. The longest stable period of Indian borders (and largest) were actually under English occupation. Prior to this the largest empire was the Maurya Empire, which covered Pakistan, Nepal, and Bangladesh but did not reach the southern point of modern India. They didn't even hold this for 100 years. Mughal Empire might be the next best example, but was far later and similarly didn't hold for long.
But this is the history of every region/country. There aren't realistically countries that are thousands of years old, only centuries (and not as how we think of them). But this isn't politically popular. Similarly is that a small force can't occupy a region without significant levels of collusion with local players[1]. English occupation influenced Indian unification as it also unified adversaries and caused competing groups to align to a more important goal. We like to paint stories of ancient cultural heritage, but this is all very fuzzy and extremely messy. Many cultures can claim inventions as borders drastically shifted over the centuries. I think a lot of this just has to do with are limited context windows and that it is hard to codify these timeframes and the complexities of establishing borders (obviously along with political narratives and propaganda). But it also should say a lot about the modern world and why Long Peace is such a big thing (very recent thing btw).
[1] I need to be clear that this doesn't justify or excuse in any way occupation. It doesn't dismiss the brutalities and injustices. It is more about how while the dominant blame belongs to the ruling/occupying class, that we must be careful to not let this blame let local players be swept under the rug, as they play a critical role and local populations have more influence on these actors. It is about nuance and a warning, not an excuse.
* the civilization and peoples that made the subcontinent its home
* the borders and the political entity in control of those borders (past, present, future)
The British did not create the civilization or the religions they found when they landed here.
The didn't build the temples, or compose the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Itihasas, the Puranas, or the various dharma shastras.
And Indian people didn't emerge out of British vaginas.
The idea that India didn't exist before the British (a lot of people claim this) is nonsensical. The only claim one can make is that they became, for a time, Chakravartin.[1] They were not the first, and they won't be the last.
> They didn't even hold this for 100 years.
Powers (the State) and areas enclosed by the borders it claims and governs (the political boundaries; the country) are always ephemeral things. Be it 100 years or 1000 years, they will change.
For most people, this has only been relevant in so far as the impact it has on their daily lives. Does the State interfere in their religious, social, personal and economic affairs? To what extent? Does it protect them from insiders and outsiders who attempt to do the same? To what extent? These are the only questions that matter.
Couldn't the same be said for the dominant group before and after? Honestly asking, but looking through the history, that area has been in turmoil a long time, which is true of most places. And also does not excuse imperialism either of course.
Or the British suspiciously inventing nuclear weapons/power relatively quickly after the occupation of India. Or even when they began trading. Nor the Greeks. But maybe the British were just playing the long con. Well played British... well played. Waiting a hundred years, giving the technology to the Americans, and letting Germany bomb your cities and almost occupy your country. Very crafty.
The British had a deliberate policy of extracting raw materials and flooding the market with machine-manufactured goods. The British markets were not open to Indian manufacturers. So not only was India de-industrialized, but many rare skills and techniques were lost during this period. I can’t find a reference, but I remember reading an early British East India Conpany account of encountering silk of such fine quality that yards of it could be folded into a tiny box. Those workers would have been put out of business by the British, and their skills lost for generations. Might be a legend but I’m sure many things like that happened.
It’s just not things like rockets or nuclear weapons.
But this is the history of every region/country. There aren't realistically countries that are thousands of years old, only centuries (and not as how we think of them). But this isn't politically popular. Similarly is that a small force can't occupy a region without significant levels of collusion with local players[1]. English occupation influenced Indian unification as it also unified adversaries and caused competing groups to align to a more important goal. We like to paint stories of ancient cultural heritage, but this is all very fuzzy and extremely messy. Many cultures can claim inventions as borders drastically shifted over the centuries. I think a lot of this just has to do with are limited context windows and that it is hard to codify these timeframes and the complexities of establishing borders (obviously along with political narratives and propaganda). But it also should say a lot about the modern world and why Long Peace is such a big thing (very recent thing btw).
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QN41DJLQmPk
[1] I need to be clear that this doesn't justify or excuse in any way occupation. It doesn't dismiss the brutalities and injustices. It is more about how while the dominant blame belongs to the ruling/occupying class, that we must be careful to not let this blame let local players be swept under the rug, as they play a critical role and local populations have more influence on these actors. It is about nuance and a warning, not an excuse.