India was under a unified state before colonialism. When the English first setup their company, this is how India looked. Most of present day India was under the empire.

Why did India form a unified country and not split into kingdoms like it was before colonialism?

Then that empire began splitting up in 1710s for various reasons (including the fact that the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb ruled way too long leaving his successors without any real experience and also the rebellions he caused by being hard on non-Muslims).

By the middle of the 18th century, the successor of Mughals, the Marathas were consolidating India.

It is in this transition, that the Europeans played key politics. They pitted one side against another and helped splinter a lot of smaller kingdoms. And a key event occurred in 1761 — Third Battle of Panipat — when the Marathas overextended themselves and got defeated by an alliance of Afghans. The empire collapsed in chaos, allowing the Europeans to pick up the pieces rule for almost 2 centuries.

Unlike in other colonies, the English got a much easier time ruling a larger territory as they were just using the underlying system left by the Mughals. They didn’t unify as much as replace the top. As Indians were going through a civil war it was easier for them to temporarily accept the outsiders. For a few decades they got under the East India Company before the company rule was thrown out in 1857. Then the British crown took over and lasted a few more decades before shown the door in 1947.

During this brief period of British rule, the social system that managed the daily lives were left intact, as is the local governance (Zamindari), the currency (rupee) etc. — .

Given that the colonial rule was brief, India didn’t change too much. The languages we speak, the currency we use (Sher Shah & The Indian Rupee), the daily dishes we make at home (idly, sambhar, roti, biriyani), the religions, social systems all predate the British. Two things that came with the British rule — English and Cricket — are more at the superficial level. Most of the world even not under the British learned English and it was easier for Indians as that is an Indo-European language too. Regarding cricket, it is quite closer the ancient Indian sport of Gillidanda.

That third part was changed was the tax system that the British badly managed.This is why you see most of Indian colonial protests were against the taxes (such as Gandhi’s famous Dandi march). India is fairly unique among the colonies and continued its pre-colonial system as it had a well established state before the Europeans arrived.

Sir one small but important explanation - 3rd battle of Panipat was not key event , it was unfortunate death of Madhavrao 1 in 1772 was key event. Madhavrao became peshwa at young age of 16 and within a few years he made capable Maratha Empire to gain what they lost in battle but due to TB he died in 1772 at young age of 27. At that time Empire was in almost pre 1761 battle condition. He was one of the best leader and administrator in indian history but unfortunately our history books are not clear and correct enough to show real reasons.

I may not be as informed as you are, and I agree with your point that Peshwa Madhavrao's death was a huge setback, but even after him Nana Fadnavis and Mahadji Scindia did manage the empire to a good point with Red Fort hoisting the flag of the Marathas since 1785. It's after Fadnavis' death that there was no worthy leader to handle such a vast empire. As The day after Nana’s death, Col. Palmer, the Resident at Pune, wrote a fitting epitaph in his letter to the Governor General; ‘It is with grave concern that I have to acquaint your Lordship with the death of Nana Furnevese, which happened last night. With him, I fear, has departed all the wisdom and moderation of this Government.’

Although I agree his role was mainly to preserve the empire till the next Peshwa come's of age and takes over which unfortunately never happened.

Dear all your words are correct but you yourself write at the end that nana was holding the position so that next peshwa( capable one) take charge and this shows the importance of Real head of state , after Madhavrao maratha didn't had any good ruler it was running by ministers and in monarch system having a good ruler is very important which Marathas didn't had after Madhavrao. After 1761 blow Marathas might collapsed but they got good ruler and bunch of good ministers.

Very true. British historian James Grant Duff said on the death of Madhavrao Peshwa “ The plains if Panipat were not as fatal to the Maratha Empire then the early end of this young prince. Till the beginning of 1900 century Marathas had strong hold in India.

Another interesting thing is that ALL the sites of Hindu pilgrimage are within the subcontinent. By Hinduism, I mean the religion that was practiced by the majority (in the form of various sects) by the time of Harsha. Nationalism as an ideology didn’t exist before the 18th century, but this clearly means our ancestors knew there was a difference between the lands locked in by Himalayas and Hindu-Kush and the world outside.

You are taking a view that Mughals and other Islamic invaders before were not colonizers. They were more than military expansionists as simplified and hidden by Nehruvian narrative [Koenraad Elst, Negationism]. They had Jizya, Castrations, Persecution, Conversion, Slave Trade, and Loot. 45000+ temples destroyed is a different story altogether. The money did not stay in India. It was siphoned off to Turks. All these invaders regularly pledged loyalty to the caliphate. So much that when Turkey was kicking them out in the 1942 Khilafat movement, there was unrest in India. Even if the majority of the money did, it makes no difference to the fact.

Comparing Cholas and Mughals is unfounded, which is a common pushback by leftist historians. To push forward a case that we were a melting pot of cultures. We were enriched by them. Some even say, second generation Indians are eligible to become the President in the US. So Aurangzeb was Indian. Certainly not in Spirit or ethos. By that logic Gen.Dyer supposedly born in British India was an Indian.

Many secular myths are regularly busted by the one and only True Indology now called by the Twitter handle BharadwajSpeaks.

Anyone who's born in the subcontinent is indian. The land exists independent of the people. The land existed billions of years before the first humans came. By your logic the adivasis and sentinelese are the only true Indians. No religion or race can call dibs on a land and call anyone that comes la … Read More

India didn’t change too much under British? We got a whole new political system, whole new education system with academic and research institutes that in few short years led to stellar discoveries on hitherto unexplored and forgotten history of India and continue to be our premier institutes. Radical reformations in society took place with existing social structures, gender roles and caste hierarchies being challenged.

If anything, it was Marathas that had nearly zero impact on India. The India under Marathas was a constantly feuding bunch of kingdoms with no real unity. Marathas had no idea how to consolidate their empire - all they knew was to invade and conquer. Marathas brought war and disaster to whichever place they went making themselves unpopular throughout India - no one outside their turf remembered them fondly. The British kept warfare outside the land and thousands of Indians enlisted themselves to British ranks. They brought stability to the land, and for the most part, they actually helped reduce famines (1943 was an exception, not norm). It would have been impossible for the British to run their empire with so few British officers had they relied purely on oppression. They took few leaves out of Akbar’s diary and followed a policy of carrot and stick.

may not be as informed as you are, and I agree with your point that Peshwa Madhavrao's death was a huge setback, but even after him Nana Fadnavis and Mahadji Scindia did manage the empire to a good point with Red Fort hoisting the flag of the Marathas since 1785. It's after Fadnavis' death that there was no worthy leader to handle such a vast empire. As The day after Nana’s death, Col. Palmer, the Resident at Pune, wrote a fitting epitaph in his letter to the Governor General; ‘It is with grave concern that I have to acquaint your Lordship with the death of Nana Furnevese, which happened last night. With him, I fear, has departed all the wisdom and moderation of this Government.’

Although I agree his role was mainly to preserve the empire till the next Peshwa come's of age and takes over which unfortunately never happened.

Panipat was not key event , it was unfortunate death of Madhavrao 1 in 1772 was key event. Madhavrao became peshwa at young age of 16 and within a few years he made capable Maratha Empire to gain what they lost in battle but due to TB he died in 1772 at young age of 27. At that time Empire was in almost pre 1761 battle condition. He was one of the best leader and administrator in indian history but unfortunately our history books are not clear and correct enough to show real reasons.

By the middle of the 18th century, the successor of Mughals, the Marathas were consolidating India.

During this brief period of British rule, the social system that managed the daily lives were left intact, as is the local governance (Zamindari), the currency (rupee) etc. — .