IND151
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2010
- Messages
- 10,170
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
I'm posting from mobile so won't be able to give a detailed reply. Please bear with me.
First of all you need to understand that in middle age India wasn't an unified country with a centralized govt but an amalgamation of many small states each having an exclusive an unique culture and language with thousand years of their own and rich history. So for a tamil, a punjabi or a bengali was as alien as British except for the skin pigmentation.
I will tell you from bengal perspective while my other Indian brothers can stretch my point further.
When British first set foot in subcontinent, bengal was ruled by independent persianized turks(turks of Central Asian sejluk variety) while most of administrative work was done by bengali Hindu landlords. Most bengali peasantry, whom were bulk of population didn't have any knowledge or connection with mughals ruling north India from Delhi. Only exposure they had of Martha's was as looters who often raided border region of West bengal and was a major nuisance for farmers.
So you see there was no sense of a nation even among the rolling class but bunch of warring stares looking for each others blood. Nothing much changed for the common man and peasantry when British took over, as for them one set of rules have just replaced another, and they would just have to carry on with their life.
It's only during mid eithneeth century, with the inception of western educated, urban middle class, an Indian nationalism was born. Although for the next hundred year or so it was mainly limited to urban pockets of Calcutta, bombay or madras, until Gandhi tapped the common people and successfully made it a truly national phenomenon.
Just a fun fact, even after 10 years of independence, many people in rural India weren't aware that country has been freed from British rule.
nice post friend
BTW give link for last sentence