Letter: Indians always ruled India
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.NUMBERS are against Sharada Srinivasan's contention that India was ruled by British might (Letters, 20 November). In all the civilian services there were only a few thousand British serving at any one time, less than 1 per cent of the total population of the sub-Continent. In the military, British troops were outnumbered by more than three to one by the Indian Army.
The truth is that India was always ruled by Indians; in the princely states entirely so, while in British India the services were staffed by Indians up to senior levels. There was nothing derogatory about working for the British Crown. It followed a tradition for Indians to work for whoever the rulers might be. In such an atmosphere it is nonsense to talk about India being held by might.
C M Lloyd Jones
Hale, Cheshire
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments