fuser

First of all when I said India I meant the whole Indian subcontinent and not the parts.
Now back to the question, it was mostly because of geography coupled with economical superiority of UK and higher population compared to most of the European power (except France).
Also, their methodology was far more subtle which was more suited in India rather than the "brute force" approach in Americas.

dagul

Maybe its like Thailand as a nation but will definitely have intercourse with the west so it shall naturally turn itself in a nation and shall define its boundaries in accordance with culture and religion considering the extent of influence of its Islamic neighbors.

jeroenrottgering

If the Dutch had taken it then: Everyone would eat Cheese, smoke weat and drink milk

If the French had taken it then: Everyone would eat snails, smoke sigarets and drink red whine

If the Spanish had taken it then: Everyone would eat Paella, smoke sigars and drink Sangria

And of course I am kidding

jeroenrottgering

But when serious I think the Dutch would pretty much handle the situation the same as the British. Since the Dutch have a smaller population back home they would probably have left more power with the local rulers and stand more at the side lines.

The French would most likely do the opposite and make use of their larger population. Under French rule India would probably have been fully annexed.

Then their are the remaining prominent Colonial power Italy, Spain and Portugal. I think Portugal would handle the situation most likely like the Dutch. Italy if we look at it's colonial record would probably step in the footsteps of France and Spain would I think do the same as Britain.

Because to my taste:

French and Italian colonial policies looked a lot like eachother, the same counts for the Netherlands and Portugal and Spain and Britain.

St. Anselm

I think it is unlikely, Dagul. India had two organized religions, Hinduism and Islam. In the south-west, where the cultural hold of Hinduism was relatively weak, it was much easier for the Portuguese and the Spaniards to convert significant portions of the populace to Christianity.

And if you've noticed, Hinduism and Islam both have a certain, shall we say, inertia, which is very difficult to counter, even by the most adroit of missionary organizations.

St. Anselm

Correct, Fuser. Only the British had the economic resources and manpower to maintain their Empire. You could argue that the French had a similar economic force and manpower, but as you might have observed, they monumentally lacked in foresight and intellectual astuteness that was the hallmark of the British. You can very well look at the former French colonies and see what state they are in today to understand what I mean. You can also compare the British Common Law and the French Administrative Law on how much protection they provide to private citizens, and how well they encourage and guard private investment.

If the Portuguese or the Spanish had been able to conquer even large portions of subcontinent, then we would probably have had attempts at genocide on our hands.

St. Anselm

I quite agree with you on that one: even if the Dutch had succeeded in unifying the disparate political fragments of the subcontinent, they wouldn't have had the manpower to keep it all under control. Ergo, they wouldn't have been able to hold on for long.

They would have probably remained primarily as an economic force, and would not have been able to maintain a large military presence of Ruyters (), unlike the British.

On the whole, I think that you are quite right. Especially about the one with the Spanish influencing us to eat Paella!

Good thinking, friend!

dagul

I think so besides the fact that they will resist to such kind of intrusion unto their way of life and that will not be healthy in ruling a colony. While allowing them to practice their faith will give them comfort amidst the struggle to cope up with the demands of their colonial masters.

But if that was the situation certainly these Spaniards and Portuguese will use brute force to convert them because of the inherent purpose of propagating Christianity in the territories that they colonized. The question is up to what extent shall their soldiers be able to impose the faith by the use of force? I guess vigorous resistance is an understatement.

Theseus

I think Britain was the only colonial power that had the military power and
the administrative skill to conquer major parts of India and to keep the territories.
The Portuguese and the Dutch never had the military power to defeat major Indian kingdoms.
The French had the capability to have the same success like Britain in India.

Peterasp

In Goa, the Spanish Inquisition was relentless. There are still folk memories even amongst Christians of how their ancestors were converted (and not too very nicely). Manohar Moolgaonkar in his book on Kanhoji Angre, the Maratha Admiral had touched on this point deftly three decades back.

A month ago one of our talented fashion designers from Goa and a Catholic when he launched his book on the sartorial history of Goa, revealed that his great-grandmother always hid in her sari a tiny idol of Ganesh lest that was confiscated by the Inquisition.But at a grave risk to her life and liberty. The punishment for such "heathen idolatrous superstitions" even in the 19th century was jail and confiscation of property.