Opinion | To Say That India Was Never A Nation And Became One After British Came Is An Absurd Assertion

In recent days, the media has been embroiled in a fervent debate surrounding a spurious myth, which suggests that the British were the architects of the political union known as India. However, this notion stands as an absurd assertion, as India as a unified cultural entity, has thrived for millennia. Any doubts concerning this fact can be dispelled by revisiting the pages of one’s school history books and delving into the chapters that recount the grandeur of the Maurya Empire.

The statement that “India was never a nation” has its origins in British scholars and administrators of the 19^th century who were eager to discredit the rising national movement. In 1833, JR Seeley described India as a mere ‘geographical expression’ with no sense of national unity. In 1884, John Strachey, an Indian civil servant, said to Cambridge alumni that “there is not and never was an India and it will never become a united nation.” Those who assert that India lacks historical identity as a nation are merely echoing the narratives propagated by colonial British authorities. What is crucial to acknowledge though is that throughout most of its history, Britain itself was merely a geographical entity, devoid of significant political connotations or a singular cultural identity.

The history of the British Isles predominantly chronicles a succession of waves of invaders displacing and obliterating their predecessors, thereby shaping its geopolitical landscape. From ancient times, the British Isles served as an attractive prize for ambitious conquerors seeking to establish their dominion due to the island’s strategic position, abundant resources, and fertile lands. The notion of Anglo-Saxon ancestry, often touted as a quintessential facet of English heritage, is nothing more than a modern myth. The English people do not descend from a homogeneous group, but rather from a diverse amalgamation of various lineages. These islands have witnessed a relentless ebb and flow of various peoples, each leaving an indelible mark on the cultural, social, and genetic fabric of the region. This historical reality has persisted within their culture and even within their genetic makeup.

It is noteworthy that the notion of a distinct “British” identity materialized as recently as 1707. Queen Elizabeth I of England and Ireland passed away in 1603, and James VI of Scotland succeeded her as James I of England, uniting the thrones. He sought to create a unified state called “Great Britain”, but attempts to formally unite Scotland and England through Acts of Parliament failed in 1606, 1667, and 1689. In 1698, the Company of Scotland sponsored the Darien scheme, a failed effort to establish a Scottish trading colony in Panama. Despite raising funds from Scottish and foreign investors, including Amsterdam, Hamburg, and London, the project faced opposition from English commercial interests and pressure from the East India Company, which was intent on maintaining its monopoly over English foreign trade. Consequently, the East India Company exerted pressure on English and Dutch investors, compelling them to pull out of the scheme. In addition, the company threatened legal action, arguing that the Scots lacked the king’s authorisation to raise funds beyond his realm, resulting in the mandatory refunding of subscriptions to Hamburg investors. With this development, Scotland was left with no financial source except itself.

The colonists faced military conflict with Spain and succumbed to tropical diseases, resulting in economic disaster for Scottish investors. This weakened resistance within the Scottish political establishment and contributed to the eventual support for the political union with England, despite widespread public opposition and riots. The negotiations for the union between England and Scotland were marred by controversy and a lack of popular support. The Scottish commissioners were predominantly from the governing Court Party, while the Opposition was minimal. The English side consisted mainly of government ministers and Whigs who favoured the union. The negotiations took place separately, with written proposals exchanged. The Acts of Union were ratified amid fierce debates and civil disorder in Scotland. The union was deeply unpopular among the Scottish population, and there were talks of an uprising. Financial incentives to Scottish parliamentarians have been criticised for undermining the legitimacy of the vote, with some even characterising it as a coerced union.

Ultimately, the Kingdom of Great Britain was formed on May 1, 1707, with Queen Anne becoming the first monarch of the unified throne. The Union of 1707, also known as the Treaty of Union, brought together England and Scotland under the name “Great Britain.” This union sought to create a more centralised and cohesive political structure, merging the parliaments of both nations into the Parliament of Great Britain. It aimed to solidify political alliances, facilitate economic integration, and project British influence on the global stage. The formation of this union, however, did not eradicate the distinct cultural identities and historical legacies of England, Wales, and Scotland. Each region maintained its own unique cultural traditions, languages, and customs. In fact, if Scotland were to vote for independence in the coming years, the concept of Britain or the United Kingdom would cease to exist.

Throughout recorded history, the British Isles have comprised multiple cultural groups and identities. Many of these factions looked outward, forging closer connections with their maritime neighbours in Ireland and continental Europe, rather than naturally aligning with their fellow islanders who were harder to reach. In the 5^th and 6^th centuries, Germanic tribes, notably the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes migrated to the British Isles from continental Europe. Their arrival, coupled with conflicts with the indigenous Celtic populations, led to the gradual establishment of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms across the region. This period witnessed the displacement and assimilation of the Britons, laying the foundation for the English identity. The 9^th and 10^th centuries marked the arrival of Viking raids and subsequent Scandinavian conquests. Norse seafarers, known as Vikings, pillaged and settled in various parts of the British Isles. They established their own kingdoms, such as the Danelaw in England and the Norse-Gaels in Scotland and Ireland, leaving a lasting impact on the local culture and language. Furthermore, even the cultural influence attributed to the so-called “Anglo-Saxons” waned with the Norman Conquest of 1066 when William the Conqueror, Duke of Normandy, successfully invaded England. The Normans introduced a new ruling elite and profoundly transformed English society by bringing their own language, legal systems, and cultural norms, in the process displacing the old Anglo-Saxon elite, prompting many of them to flee the country entirely. Thus, the Anglo-Saxon era, which lasted for four or five centuries and concluded a millennium ago, failed to leave a substantial or lasting impact on the genetic makeup of the British population.

The conquests of the British Isles were not unidirectional either. The islands also witnessed attempts by the native populations to resist and reclaim their lands. Notable examples include the Welsh resistance against Anglo-Norman rule and the Scottish Wars of Independence against English dominance.

In contemporary times, the term “Anglo-Saxon” is frequently employed as a convenient designation by individuals who hold reservations towards future immigration. However, although this term encompasses certain cultural aspects from the post-Roman and early medieval periods, it has never been an accurate representation of a distinct biological ethnicity or an indigenous population. The notion of a homogeneous Anglo-Saxon identity fails to align with the intricate complexities revealed by DNA evidence, which indicates that the people of that era were, in fact, a diverse amalgamation of ancestral backgrounds, cohabiting and intermingling with one another. It, therefore, makes no sense to view Britain in isolation; we must consider it a part of the broader “Atlantic Archipelago” along with Ireland. Geographically situated closer to continental Europe and sharing historical ties with the surrounding regions, the British Isles can be seen as part of the larger North Sea world, akin to Scandinavia.

Turning our attention to the United States, we must recognise that while it initially emerged as an English-speaking colony of Britain, founded upon the genocide of Native Americans, it has undergone significant demographic shifts despite retaining much of the English political and legal systems. The American population has exploded by a factor of over 100 since declaring independence, primarily fueled by slavery and subsequent waves of immigration, neither of which heavily drew from England, which makes America not really an ethnic English country anymore. In a recent US census, only a mere 8.7 percent of Americans identified their ancestry as English, placing it fourth behind German, Irish, and African-American heritage. Its history and demographic shifts have fostered a vibrant and heterogeneous society that encompasses a multitude of heritages and cultural traditions. Embracing this history allows us to acknowledge the true essence of the United States as a land of diverse origins and a testament to the collective experiences of its people.

The pernicious colonial myth that propagates British creation narratives in England, America, and India must be unequivocally dismantled. It is true that Angle and Saxon raiders are a significant part of English history, just as British rule is part of American history. But nations and histories are far greater than their erstwhile ruling classes.

While the British did exert rule over India and their influence is evident in various aspects such as the government, legal system, free-market economy, and the English language, it is important to recognise that modern-day India is not a part of the Anglosphere. Neither America nor India is anywhere near majority English, and even modern-day England is not ethnically Anglo-Saxon. The complexities of these nations’ histories, intertwined with various cultural influences and demographic shifts, defy simplistic narratives of singular origins. It is imperative to acknowledge the contributions of multiple ancestral lineages, indigenous populations, and subsequent waves of immigration that have shaped their societies. It is only by delving into the depths of history and debunking the fallacies surrounding British creation that we can unravel a more comprehensive understanding of the identities that define these nations and liberate ourselves from the clutches of colonial hegemony.

The author is an accomplished data engineer and public markets investor with a deep understanding of the financial, IT, and energy sectors. He tweets @DeepakInsights. Views expressed are personal.