India is a land of rich heritage and diversity. This is how you might find an Indian describing this beautiful and vast country. On the contrary, “smelly”, “trash everywhere”, “bad roads”, and “extremely populous” are the notions among people from other countries. With the ruthlessness of people on social media these days, you might encounter comments like these quite commonly on short-form media content like Instagram reels. Now, finding foreigners commenting on these reels, calling India a poor country, is very funny to me since almost all the wealth they have today is from their long history of colonisation. As Dr Shashi Tharoor mentioned in one of his interviews, “The fact that Britain came to one of the richest countries in the world in the early 18th century and reduced it after 200 years of plunder to one of the poorest.” From the debatable Aryan invasion to Nader Shah invading India and committing a 57-day long massacre and looting the world-famous Kohinoor to the British dividing a great nation into three parts and scarring its people forever, we will take a look at them one by one.
THE BEGINNING OF THE INVASIONS:
India has been invaded for as long as one can remember, be it the Aryans, the Persians, the Greeks, the Turkish, the Mongols, the Dutch, the English or the Portuguese and add a few more invaders here and there. Multiple articles suggest that India is the most invaded country in history. I cannot really think of any country which has had more atrocities committed upon them than India. The Aryans are said to have been one of the first ones to invade India. They colonised the North Indian region and settled here. North Indians are said to be descendants of Aryans, and as a result, they are fair-skinned compared to the South Indians, who are said to have true Indian blood, a theory that hasn’t been proven yet. The Aryans gave rise to the varna system in India, which shaped into a caste system over centuries and continues to be a significant issue in India. Now this helps one understand the repercussions and the demerits of these invasions. After Aryans came the Persians, who ruled the North-Western part of India for nearly two centuries. There was no authority in that region during the time, and a king named Cyrus took advantage of that and started ruling, draining India of its riches and sending profits back to Persia. Indians formed part of the army of the king. Trade flourished between India and Persia.
After this came Alexander, who had a vast army but had a hard time fighting against the might and courage of the Indian king Porus. Nevertheless, Alexander was a military genius, he had conquered much of the world after all, and defeated King Porus in the famous Battle of Hydaspes, but since he was very much impressed by the valour of King Porus, Alexander decided to give him his kingdom back and made him an ally. Although Alexander did not rule over India and found it hard to conquer India considering the different geography of the country, he did loot a lot of riches and precious metals from the kings he defeated. Soon came the Greeks, as one ran to a shopping store after hearing from their neighbour that a sale was there. Greeks were also not very good to us. They ruled over Punjab and Afghanistan, which were a part of Bharat. Buddhism flourished under the Greeks.
THE ARABS, THE TURKS AND SEVERAL OTHERS:
Nearly in the 7th century came the Arabs. Mohammed bin Kasim led the first Arab invasion of India. Cultural values changed a lot during this time. Then came the Turks- Mahmud Ghazni, Muhammad Ghori, the Khiljis, the Tughluqs, the Lodhis and others. The Turks were a complete disaster in India; after all, they were here just for invasion. They invaded, stole riches, made profits and returned to their countries after facing resistance from other kingdoms. Simultaneously with the Turks came the Mongols, the world-famous, ruthless Chengiz Khan and, soon after, his self-proclaimed descendant, Timur Ling. However, the Mongols were the first ones who indulged in large-scale bloodshed. Timur Ling damaged the crops of the whole Delhi region and ran away(one thing they were best at) when faced by the Indian soldiers. He stayed only 15 days in India and then ran away with slaves from India and a large amount of loot. The destruction he caused to the crops resulted in famine in Delhi. This took a whole 50 years to recover from. Timur’s ancestor(according to him, apparently), Chengiz Khan, caused widespread bloodshed but was comparatively a little lenient regarding religious freedom. The Mongols and the Turks did not get along well and faced resistance from each other throughout their rule. The rule of the Mongols was very short compared to other invaders but the aftermath of the destruction they caused was ample. Some other invaders came here and there, and India became the hotspot for invasion. It was the wealthiest country in the world, with no unity whatsoever; the last time India was ever unified, and that too, not completely unified, was during the Mauryan and Gupta periods. As a result, one might say that this was one of the reasons India was invaded more than 200 times.
THE RENOWNED MUGHAL SULTANATE:
Soon after the Turks came, the mighty Mughals, Mughals ruled India for a fair amount of time. The Mughals were the most prosperous dynasty of their time, but wealth has never been the yardstick for greatness. We all are well aware of the rule of the Mughals. I remember the names of all the Mughal rulers on my fingertips. “Name 5 Chhatrapatis.” “Shivaji Maharaj, Shambhaji Maharaj. Not sure about more,” Younger me would sheepishly smile to get out of my right winger uncle’s Q&A session. “Name 5 Mughal rulers.” “Oh, I know more than five” would be my answer to my uncle. The present version of me looks back at it and glooms over this remembrance. It’s funny how we’re taught so much in detail about the rulers who invaded us but not at all about brave warriors who fought with them for centuries. The irony of it. Now, I do not say that we must not be taught about the invaders; we should be taught, definitely. We should be taught about how Mughal rule brought cultural fusion, architectural marvels, advancements in arts, literature, agriculture, trade, and religious tolerance in India, but does the syllabus include the atrocities they committed? No. Which social science book talks about the siege of Chittorgarh in which the oh-so-generous and religion-tolerant Emperor Akbar- The Great ordered the slaughter of more than thirty thousand civilians? But you will find plenty of mentions of how he was a religiously tolerant ally to the Rajputs. While Hindu rulers of India imposed 16% taxes on the farmers, Mughals imposed 30-50% taxes. I do not suppose we need to go into too much detail about the Mughal Empire because the education policy of India has taught us plenty about them. There was widespread conversion to Islam. Manipulative sugarcoated conversion was used during Akbar’s time to forceful conversion during Aurangzeb’s.
THE EAST INDIA COMPANY:
If the Mughals were mighty, the British were mightier. This was when the “har sher ka sava sher” got real. Indians will not fully recover from the trauma that the British left on them. The British came a long way from entering India to trade spices to dividing the country into three parts. Imagine you have a family(you, your spouse and your child) that has been through ups and downs but stays strong-willed to recover from all that. Still, your ration wala comes to deliver more spice for your life, takes over your house, steals all the furniture and jewellery, gets you to divorce your spouse, and your spouse gets custody, so you have lifetime trauma, messed up mental health, and other freebies. That pretty much sums up what happened between the Britishers and India. It is believed that Britishers stole nearly 45 trillion dollars from India, which is 17 times the GDP of the United Kingdom now.
The British colonial experience did not sit well with India’s inhabitants, especially after they realised they were being treated like tenants in their own country. So many civilian lives were lost. So many freedom fighters were killed just because they asked not to be oppressed by the Brits. Gandhi’s famous “Quit India” movement was essentially an invitation to the British: “It’s time to check out, you’ve overstayed your welcome.” But let’s not forget the drama— with the partition looming large, India didn’t exactly have a smooth exit from the colonial world. And who can forget the political divide that came with independence? The Brits believed that Indians were uneducated people who had weird religious beliefs, worshipped strange gods, spoke alien languages and needed to be civilised. It is ironic since, in ancient India; education flourished through renowned centres like Nalanda, Takshashila, and Vikramshila, where scholars studied subjects like mathematics, astronomy, medicine, philosophy, and linguistics. The Nalanda University was one of the most renowned universities in the world until its destruction in the 12th century by a Khilji ruler. But the Brits were haughty and started a colonial rule of two centuries of oppression.
I believe that one of the reasons the Britishers finally decided to leave was definitely multiple rebellions; Indians were becoming more and more hostile towards the Brits. Still, another reason was that there was nothing more left to steal. Britain had flourished on India’s and other colonised countries’ taxes and riches. After years of depredation, the Brits left India as the poorest country on the globe while blessing India with a few things. British rule in India led to infrastructure development like railways, advancements in education, legal reforms, and the establishment of a unified administrative system. However, these benefits came with significant exploitation. Another one of the things Brits blessed us with was Lord Macaulay’s codification of laws that introduced a uniform legal system in India, including the Indian Penal Code and Civil Procedure Code.
One might say that the invaders helped us in some ways, too. One might say the Mughals gave us beautiful architectural monuments but did they? Did they build them for future generations to gawk upon or for their comfort and to showcase their magnificence? A similar argument can be made for the Britishers introducing India with the railways, roads and modern infrastructure, but were they for Indians? No. They were introduced for the British officials’ travel comfort and, of course, trade. “Britishers also introduced Indians to the concept of hill stations which play a significant role in the Indian economy”. No. They were introduced because Britishers could not tolerate the summers of India, so they rushed to hill stations to survive the summers and not die of heat strokes. So, I’m not so sure if these really count. It is pertinent to note that one right action does not diminish the weight of numerous wrongs, nor does it elevate one’s integrity.
UTOPIA: THE SAME OL’ “WHAT COULD’VE BEEN”
If Bharat had never been invaded, the subcontinent might have remained a “self-rule” paradise, where regional kingdoms could have continued to reign their kingdoms without any foreign interference. The Mauryas, Guptas, and Cholas might have expanded their territories, becoming the “local emperors” of a unified India, without the colonisation that eventually saw foreign powers taking the throne. With fewer external parties on the head of our rulers, India would have seen a more “made in India” political ecosystem, perhaps flourishing in multilateral governance, where local rulers cooperated more than competed.
Culturally, the country would have continued its customs and traditions, strengthening ancient knowledge systems without the influence of foreign religions like Islam and Christianity, allowing Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, and Jainism to maintain their positions at the cultural centre. The trade routes might have been even more prosperous, with India retaining its role as a key player in global commerce, uninterrupted by foreign dominion. Industrial growth could have been a slow and lengthy process. Still, it would likely have been based on indigenous (made in India) methods, creating a more organic economic development without British-imposed industrial monopolies. Social structures, like the caste system, could have evolved differently, less harsh, perhaps more flexible, though still deeply rooted in India’s ancient past. The absence of foreign invasions might not have caused Bharat to be utterly unified as it is today. Still, it would likely have led to less empire envy, with regional rulers playing more cooperative roles in a politically diversified India. While India would have faced its internal challenges, it could have emerged as an “aatm-nirbhar” nation in a true sense, with made-in-India solutions and a political identity firmly rooted in its ancient, diverse civilisation.