On Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 10:16:36 PM UTC-8, Dan Koren wrote:
> https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/12/2/how-british-colonial-policy-killed-100-million-indians
>
> https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2018/12/19/how-britain-stole-45-trillion-from-india
>
> Who would have thought?
>
> dk

BARD answers the question: Did tanistry play a role in the colonization of India by Britain?

Tanistry did not play a direct role in the colonization of India by Britain.. However, it may have indirectly contributed to the British conquest of India by weakening the Indian political system.

Tanistry is a system of succession in which the successor to a ruler is not their eldest son, but rather a chosen heir. This system was common in many parts of India, including the Mughal Empire, which was the dominant power in India at the time of the British arrival.

The problem with tanistry is that it can lead to instability and conflict. This is because there is always the potential for rival claimants to the throne to challenge the chosen heir. This can lead to civil wars and dynastic instability, which can make it easier for foreign powers to intervene.

The British East India Company took advantage of this instability to gain a foothold in India. They supported rival claimants to the throne and intervened in dynastic disputes. This helped them to weaken the Indian political system and make it easier for them to conquer India.

So, while tanistry did not play a direct role in the colonization of India by Britain, it may have indirectly contributed to the British conquest by weakening the Indian political system.

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 3:30:19 PM UTC+10, gggg gggg wrote:

> The British East India Company took advantage of this instability to gain a foothold in India. They supported rival claimants to the throne and intervened in dynastic disputes. This helped them to weaken the Indian political system and make it easier for them to conquer India.
>
> So, while tanistry did not play a direct role in the colonization of India by Britain, it may have indirectly contributed to the British conquest by weakening the Indian political system.

I have recently read a comment in, I think, The Spectator, from a teacher who claimed that the majority of his Indian students believed that the British created the Indian caste system, which of course flourished thousands of years before the arrival of the East India Company, and which continues to flourish 75 years after Indian independence. Similarly, many Indians will blame intercommunal violence on a so-called "British Divide and Rule" policy, which avoids the uncomfortable truth that violence between religious communities and between castes similarly preceded British rule and has continued after it.

It really doesn't make any sense to talk about an "Indian Political System" before the twentieth century, any more than it does to talk about the German political system prior to 1870. India before the Raj was a congeries of local rajahs and maharajahs, not to mention the Mogul empire in the north which could be far from gentle with its Hindu subjects.

Andrew Clarke
Canberra