Public sentiment is largely negative towards the Governor's involvement in university affairs, with many perceiving his actions as unconstitutional and politically influenced by the central government. There is a strong support for the Tamil Nadu government, particularly Chief Minister MK Stalin and Finance Minister PTR, appreciated for their defense of state autonomy and educational policies. Meanwhile, there is dissatisfaction with The Hindu's perceived political bias towards certain parties.

Tamil Nadu Government

Governor of Tamil Nadu

Central Government

Summary:

**The Problems:**

+   **UGC Guidelines:** The University Grants Commission (UGC) draft guidelines are seen as infringing upon states' autonomy in appointing vice-chancellors and potentially faculty members. The state governments fear the governor (appointed by the Modi government) will have too much power in these appointments, potentially compromising the integrity of universities.

+   **NEP and Language Policy:** The National Education Policy (NEP) mandates a three-language policy, which Tamil Nadu opposes. The state has a two-language policy (Tamil and English). Tamil Nadu fears that, while the NEP doesn't explicitly force Hindi, it subtly incentivizes Hindi by requiring two Indian languages, potentially disadvantaging students who don't choose Hindi.

+   **Modi Government Favoritism:** Tamil Nadu believes the Modi government structurally favors Hindi over other Indian languages through various policies, examinations, and job requirements, creating an unfair advantage for Hindi speakers.

**Tamil Nadu's Desired Solutions:**

+   **UGC Guidelines:** Tamil Nadu, along with other Southern states, wants the UGC draft guidelines withdrawn or significantly altered to restore states' authority in university appointments.

+   **NEP and Language Policy:** Tamil Nadu insists on maintaining its two-language policy and opposes the mandatory three-language requirement. They want the NEP to respect its existing language policy.

+   **Federalism and Autonomy:** Tamil Nadu's core concern is preserving state autonomy and resisting what they see as the Modi government's overreach in education policy.

&amp;nbsp;

tech-writer

It's surprising to see Playstation hiring an unknown Indian for State of Play. Didn't know it was coming. Are any new interesting games announced?

[deleted]

This is a very long and complicated question that is still, even following the defeat of the LTTE in 2009, a sensitive topic.  While it pushes up against the 20 year rule, I will do my best to stick to the conflict before 1997, though it will limit the discussion of the Tamil Tigers and the Śrī Lankān government's war crimes as well as the ongoing issues following that defeat.  If you would like to learn more about that, I'd be happy (well, not happy *per se*, it is a bit of a somber topic) to follow up in a PM or you are welcome to post a question over at r/asksocialscience or /r/ask_politics (though neither are as thorough as this one.

Sorry this took so long, in my defense, it is something like 30 pages and by far my longest post here.  I think I went a little overboard in the beginning and eventually ended up burining out towards the end, sorry for that.  I will give more clarification later on and probably expand more on the role of international funding for the LTTE and the role of India and Dravidian Nationalism as well as war crimes committed by the Śrī Lankan government, but right now it is 2:15 and I've been working on this since it was asked. 

--------

#Part 1: The Ancient History and Historical Justifications for the Conflict

The Tamil people have been present in Śrī Lankā, especially the north where it is not far from Tamil Nadu for a very long time, though not as long as some would claim.  The original inhabitants appeared about 37,000 years ago and left behind caves.  These were anatomically modern humans, likely from the coasts of India who migrated there by boat.  They are likely the ancestors of the Vedda people of Śrī Lankā, of whom there are very few left.

The people who now dominate Śrī Lankā are the Sinhalese, who trace there ancestry to the legendary exiled Prince Vijaya and his retinue of 700 advisors.  According to the legendary epic, the Mahāvaṃsa (Pāli: Great Chronicle), they were exiled for general "evil deeds".  In any case the chronicle places them as being from present day Bengal and having obtained Pandya brides, which is confirmed by Genetic evidence.

The Tamils (specifically the Pandyas) may have had settlements on the island before the Sinhalese people (or rather the people who would become Sinhalese), but there is not archeological or textual evidence for it.  The first evidence of Tamil presence occurs in the Mahāvaṃsa, backed up by inscriptions, slightly before the reign of Aśoka the Great in India.  King Devānampriya Tissa, not to be confused with Aśoka who called himself Devānampriya,  appeared to rule over a mixed kingdom, though he himself converted to Buddhism and patronized it.  Years later, the Chola-Tamil king Eḷāra held control of the northern plains of Śrī Lankā after having taken over the Anurādhapura kingdom founded by the Vijaya dynasty, and the Sinhalese in the the south led by Duṭṭagāmaṇī of Rohaṇa.  While the Mahāvaṃsa paints this conflict as one of the Buddhist Sinhalese people against the Brahminical Tamil usurpers, the evidence shows that it was far more complicated than just that.

The Sinhalese and Śrī Lankān Tamils both mixed quite a bit during the centuries and they both led mixed kingdoms.  During the time of Eḷāra both kingdoms had a significant population of Tamils and Sinhalese.  Thus the war was neither a holy war or a racial war like some modern commentators (and indeed the Sinhalese who wrote the document) have claimed.  Nonetheless, the war established Sinhalese dominance over the whole island, something that would be essentially unchecked for eight centuries.

Eight centuries later, Śrī Lankā was fractured into two rival kingdoms, both of whom relied heavily on Tamil mercenaries and generals leading to a powerful Tamil aristocracy. In 642, Māhavamma took control and curbed the power of the rich Tamil aristocracy, though he still kept a retinue of Tamil mercenaries.  However, Śrī Lankā was facing increasing military and economic pressure from the three kingdoms of South India, the Coḷas, Pāṇḍyas, and Pallavas.

These kingdoms were strongly militant and very Hindu.  The Pāṇḍyas were the first to invade and held the northern coast, but were beaten back by the Sinhalese.  However, at this time the Coḷas took control of Pallavan territory and the Sinhalese half-heartedly supported the Pāṇḍyan efforts to beat back the Coḷas, but were unsuccessful and eventually, the Coḷas took control of Śrī Lankā ending over 1 thousand years of Sinhalese rule.  

The Tamil rule over Śrī Lankā was actually quite short, only a few years and not uncontested.  However, the Coḷa's left a deep scar on the island and numerous places were never rebuilt.  The Coḷas ruled over the north coast for some time and retained considerable influence over the island in terms of trade.  The invasions (along with the fracturing of the saṅgha due to the arrival of Mahāyāna) nearly destroyed Buddhism in Śrī Lankā and the Sinhalese were forced to call upon the help of Pagan to restore Buddhism and regain the Pāli Canon. 

Conflict between the Tamil Kingdoms (who would eventually gain independence Pāṇṣyas) from the Sinhalese Kingdoms would continue and range from violent war to a tenuous peace.  However, this does not mean that relations between the Sinhalese PEOPLE and Tamil people was poor, even the relations between Buddhists and Hindus was fairly okay.  In fact, during this period, there was a significant deal of syncretization between Hinduism and Buddhism, stating around this time, Hindu temples often contained Buddhist iconography and Bodhisattvas and Buddhist Temples often had Hindu Icons and Deities were worshiped.

Furthermore, the relations between various religions was comparable to those under most contemporary Indian ones with powerful elites patronizing all sects.  This encouragement of religious pluralism had a strong effect upon the local populace and led to generally friendly relations and little persecution overall.

In a somewhat confusing note, many of the Sinhalese in Coḷa (and later Jaffna) Tamil territory were "Tamilicized", converting to Vaiṣṇavism and adopting Tamil language and customs while Tamils in Sinhalese territory were "Sinhalized" and doing likewise.  It is not an understatement to say that nearly all Sinhalese today have mixed lineage with Tamils and all Śrī Lankān Tamils have Sinhalese blood.^3

As we can see, there has been tension since Ancient times, but that tension is often overstated and wrapped up with both Tamil or Sinhalese-Buddhist Nationalism.  I also skipped over the arrival of the "Sinhalese Moors", who are the descendants of Muslim traders and represent a significant minority in Śrī Lankā, they used to get along fairly well with people, but unfortunately have found themselves disenfranchised since the beginning of the current conflict.

-----

#Part 2: Portuguese and Dutch Rule: Suppression and Conversion

By the 16th century, Europeans had entered the scene like never before, attempting to take control of the fertile landscape and strategic location of the island.  The first to do so were the Portuguese who quickly conquered the Northern and Western parts of the island but ran into difficulties maintaining a proper hold over it.  The Portuguese were notorious in their conversion efforts and repression of local religions and customs, and their efforts to control Śrī Lankā were no exception making them extremely unpopular with all people on the island, Tamil and Sinhalese alike.  The Sinhalese kingdom of Kandy was the first to rebel and allied themselves with Jaffna and the other powers in Śrī Lankā at the time, outside of Kotte which was a Portuguese client state.  The Dutch allied themselves with Kandy in 1638 and eventually expelled the Portuguese from their stronghold in Colombo in 1656, betraying Kandy and finally the Portuguese were expelled from Ceylon in 1658.

The Portuguese ethnic policy was one fierce suppression.  Ethnic and religious pluralism had no place for the Portuguese.  All powerful or even administrative positions in 
Portuguese Ceylon were held by Roman Catholics.  The Portuguese were indiscriminately iconoclastic, destroying Buddhist and Hindu holy sites alike and putting devotees, monks, and clerics of all sects to the sword.  In addition, social aspects that the Portuguese found distasteful were removed but the ones they found helpful, such as caste, were increased.  This lead to a sharper marker between the Sinhalese and Tamils.

In any case, the Dutch took control over the North and South of Śrī Lankā and quickly established a treaty with the Kandyans to limit tensions and establish an economic presence with Kandy.  Dutch ethic policy was similar to Portuguese, but more established and evolved.  While corruption was greater in Dutch Ceylon, with wealthy Dutch stealing land, the overall structure of the government was somehow more functional.  Religious policy was somewhat more subdued than the Portuguese and while the Dutch were hostile to non-Calvinist Christianity (they persecuted the Roman Christians) they weren't as fervent about it allowing Hindu Tamils to own land and did not go out of their way to destroy temples.  Indeed their hostility toward Catholicism hampered their own missionary efforts and turned many back to Buddhism and Hinduism, though their persecution of the Muslim population was hardly better than the Portuguese.  Notably, the Dutch used a different law code for the Sinhalese, Tamils, and Moors, though they used their own for the Sinhalese.

artfulorpheus

Weren’t there forced settlements of Sinhalese in northern areas from 50s that exacerbated the Tamil feeling of disenfranchisement? As you suggested this is a complicated question and the history you described is very detailed at the beginning and the ltte story was shrunken to 2 sections out of the 11. I am not a historian but i have followed this very closely and have never heard that it’s a conflict between Buddhists and Hindus. It always has been painted as a conflict between Tamils and singhalese. 

Macd7

I am a non-Tamil brahmin who grew up in Tamilnadu.

Unlike RW who would say Brahmins were chased away or Dravidianists who would say Brahmins are treated just like any other caste, I would say Brahmins still enjoy positive bias/stereotype.

Where I grew up, Brahmins were referred to as "Swamy", including my father(though we were outsider brahmins)

I have heard many people say(non-Brahmins) they would totally trust Brahmins. Some people(OBC only) still give preference to Brahmins in hiring in some roles as they are thought of as honest.

The reason for this so-called Brahmin exodus(which is more like disproportionate migration of Brahmins), is they were disproportionately more educated.

Like hugely hugely disproportionate.

Like they formed 40-50% of highly educated population till 1970s despite being 3% of population. There were simply no jobs to sustain this high number of educated people. That is why they migrated to Mumbai, Delhi, US, Bangalore, anywhere they could.

If you are not convinced, just look at Palakkad Iyers. They were majority in Palakkad town in 1940s, now just 5% of Palakkad town. There was no anti-Brahmin movement in Kerala, no 69% reservation , heck, not even 50% reservation in many posts, there is 10% EWS quota for upper castes.

Yet, there are 2x palakkad Iyer population outside kerala than inside Kerala. 

Why?

Same reason - total lack of jobs for educated people, much more worse than Tamilnadu.

Such a blasphemy &amp; Historical Discriminaton ? 🤣🤣 Nones gonna laugh straight... What audacity to potray such a non existent stuff

CulturalAd965

There's no exodus of Brahmins from TN. Its just they suddenly lost their place in beaurecracy and politics because of their population.

Tamils might have lots of racial attitude sometimes agressive but Tamils as whole are the most empathetic people you can find. They didn't go around attacking Brahmins forcing them out of their home.

Brahmins were well educated and lots of opportunities were opening so they adapted it and moved to beaurecracy of other states or US.

NetPleasant9722

OP yaarunu paatha babri masjid idicha edathula Marathians more nu fire udravaru - [Source](https://www.reddit.com/r/Maharashtra/s/D87iclXf9z)

Maharashtra - Place where they called for open genocide of Brahmins and have killed 5K Brahmins [“The First Political Massacre of Chitpavan Brahmins in Independent India](https://medium.com/@AdhiyajnaSharma/after-hundreds-of-years-of-freedom-struggle-india-got-her-independence-from-foreigners-in-563aeb7db7f7)

Poi vera engayachum unnoda ChatGPT try Pannu .

Edit : Nothing against Maharashtra pps - There are sensible PPL like [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/Maharashtra/s/NURaiYTO3Z) guys too and we have OP , with mask

The_Acinonyx_Jubatus

harisudhanR

Brahmin exodus ah ? Bro visit any classical Music katcheri, Cricket club and CA firm in Chennai and then we can talk. 

Brahmins are here in larger number and they are equal to all of us here, neither superior nor inferior but equal. 

Discrimination in employment and economically ah ? TVS Sundaram groups, India cements, TTK group and Sanmar group wants to talk to you. 

Politically ? Jayalalitha and Kamal Hassan ? 

Socially ? Adei Bharatiyar yaaru Russian ah ? Tamils love Bharatiyar. U.V Swaminatha Iyer famously called as Tamil Thata Yaaru? Japanese ah ? 

A Brahmin is welcomed respected and loved equally if they are nice, if they want to go back to old system and think they not being allowed to oppress others is oppression then they would be treated worse than garbage. 

Bro nice try to play Kashmir pandit card here, if Bharatiyar was alive he would spit on your face.

Helpful-Stress3433

I am a Bramin myself and you are wrong . None of it happened.

Still now castism exist right from birth to death. Even after death all cremation ground has separate block reserved for brahmin which is a shame . 

You can't expect others to not call you out when you are privileged to not see what you are doing. 

If u can't comprehend or understand pls shut up . Privilege may not be something that you choose to have but you can never shed your privilege but u can acknowledge your privilege.

Honest-Car-8314

Not true. Social media can act as a bubble and its algorithms make sure you don’t get out of it. If you follow accounts that talk about this topic, you will start to believe that it is true.

Erodeian

What exodus are you talking about? I'm a Brahmin myself and I have no clue what this is about.

I love how everybody is calling out OP but, the ironic part about this whole myth is that there are many North Indians online who actually believe in this. 

They say that rest of the Tamil population openly called out for genocide of Tamil Brahmins. (God knows when and where)

One might simply avoid this but, it's quite frightening to think how much BJP propaganda has worked and how strong it is in the North. 

70% of our country's population exists north of Vindhayan ranges. Which means most of the voters are also from the same region.

They know so little about the other side of the country yet  they are bold enough to arrive at conclusions without even doing their own research or even visiting the region in question (Tamil Nadu). 

Mass stupidity is really dangerous. I'm also not too optimistic to brush this issue off as some kinda 'chronically online thing'. 

These people get their news online, without even doing pre-requisite research of their own. Then they would go on to spread this false narrative to their friends and family.

aallkkoo

Bro, Exodus and Persecution renduthukum meaning-a full a padichitu vaanga....Company la caste politics panni onsite ku travel pannuradha poi exodus nu adichi vidureengale....idhu ungaluke nyama?

Tethysone

You have the numbers backing this ? Can you quote some real life incidents ? If we consider moving to us to earn in dollars as exodus. Then whole India is undergoing exodus right now, including me.

chiankian

As a Brahmin myself, aside from the stereotyping that happens fairly often (to all communities, not restricted to mine alone) there isn't any direct discrimination I've faced, let alone the feeling of persecution or need to take part in an exodus. 

There are some people who spread hateful comments on social media platforms, but again, that happens everywhere and to anyone, not restricted to the Tamil Brahmin community alone.
 
Just out of curiosity, are you yourself a part of the TamBrahm community to set these allegations out of personal experience? Or is this based on hearsay?

borgeur

The state is a breeding ground for dravidian terrorists. They're no better than jihadis.

FantasticShame2001

Bro has no real evidence to back this claim and yet wants us to participate in a healthy conversation. Illa purila.

VivekKarunakaran

Ambitious-Version958

Brahmins like you are the reason others have to put up with the hate. Tf you even talking about discrimination? Who were the people standing outside the temple and praying, was it the Brahmins?

Jealous-Bat-7812

mukkulathor

Leather-Committee830

sivag08

Direction-Remarkable

My best friend is TamBrahm, he’s a more proud Tamil than Tamils out there. Mind your language bud!

Many will claim Brahmins only migrated due to economic opportunity, that includes Brahmins.
But that's BS.

Because it is only in economic sphere Brahmins are still valued in TN. Even the rabid DMK leaders hypocritically employ Brahmins as their auditors, managers, lawyers etc.

It is in social and political spheres they are ridiculed and marginalized by Dravidoid scum, with few exceptional cases.

Of course there are idiotic Brahmins even in this thread, who think life is just economic and have no sense of social dignity, who underplay this abuse as nothing.

Here's a simple test, today nobody can make a movie in TN abusing any community, without repercussions, but can do so only about Brahmins.
If that's not a sign of discrimination and indirect persecution, then what is?

It is no wonder TN Brahmins are equated with the Jewish. Sure Jewish succeed economically but anywhere in the world they can easily be targeted with little objections, which no other community will be. As being seen today in the West, in the protests supporting Hamas.

Same with Brahmins in TN.

‘Privilege may not be something that you choose to have but you can never shed your privilege but u can acknowledge your privilege’ by @Honest-Car-8314

🎯

Golden words. Applicable for everyone - be it religion, language, gender, class, caste - any denomination that goes into a factor for being discriminated is the same same denominator that play as privilege for those who are not discriminated or be treated as relatively entitled.

To be treated equal should at least be an aspirational goal, as upheld in the  constitutional promise to all residents in the country.

Anyone who wants to be treated as entitled deserves to be admonished.

readitleaveit

Bull fucking shit. Brahmin ‘culture’ propagates nothing but an elitist mindset. It propagated systematic discrimination denying others of basic right to education and empowerment for centuries. You cannot seek empathy all of a sudden and have the audacity to normalize the struggles faced due to casteism when Brahmins are hard wired to discriminate and weaken others.

rvvind

No exodus and such, many of us still works under a brahmin manager who silently discriminate us

Lynx_Sk

k4rthikN

I read your post and comments as well. My comment could repeat what others are saying but thought of writing it anyway. 
Unlike Jews they dont hide their caste identity. Jews had exodus and faced a lot of discrimination in the emigrated country, to an extent that they had to hide their racial identity.

Brahmins engaged or supportive of apartheid and discrimination practices. Which kept  hatred  bottled up within subjugated people's hearts. When the dravidian moment started, everyone jumped on that bandwagon, and break away from apartheid system. Either dravidian moment triggered few Brahmins to move out for better opportunities, or they faced social disparities. But I don't think the numbers is significant to be called as exodus. 

It's still evident that Brahmins are still part of TN and stronger, from doctors to cricketers, they are respected and integral to tamil culture.

vsaonline

blankasair

Due-Struggle6314

Do you who has more incentives to leave India due to discrimination? Dalits but they form a very small minority of those who leave India. I wonder why....  
  
The fact is Tamil brahmins were already migrating and spread out by the time Dravidian movement gained momentum and if you look at the famous examples all of them were extremely privileged(just go through Pichai and Nooyi's Wikipedia profile and tell me if you think discrimination has anything to do with their emigration) and enjoyed the best this country has to offer from posh schools to our top tier universities.  
  
There are probably Tamil brahmins who left TN due to discrimination but  they don't form any significant amount of those who left. People also vastly overrate the amount of "discrimination" Tamil brahmins face in TN.

To add to this most of the Tamil brahmins or infact any Brahmin that leave india goes for education in elite universities or for highly paid jobs. I haven't heard of even a single Brahmin migrating abroad and taking up menial jobs like domestic workers or manual labor. Now look at Mexicans and Puerto Ricans moving to US, a majority of them take up low paying menial jobs. This I can understand as migration due to distress in birth place. Leaving ones country after graduating from elite universities searching for high paid jobs or world class education is what Tamil brahmins mostly did and this in no way can be equated with migration under distress. To add to this, Dalits doesn't migrate to the west because they don't get into elite universities or have the necessary caste/kinship capital which the Tamil brahmins used.  
The thing is that the narrative of Tamil Brahmins as victims is absolute bullshit. Most of them got out once they realised that maintenance of theirprivilegedposition is getting difficult and thus quickly used their literacy, caste and cultural capital to migrate to greener pastures where they used their caste and kinship network to create a narrative of victimhood and ignored merit while completely hiding their privileged background in India.

On top of all this one thing everyone forgets is that Tamil brahmins due to being economically wealthier on average tended to have far less children on average, This brought their numbers down the same way South India's population which was a larger proportion of Indias whole before has now dropped severely due to it's economic advantages and gender parity.  Does this mean India as a whole has been actively causing South Indians to have less children...no thats ridiculous. Same applies to Tamil brahmins.   
  
[https://twitter.com/sansbarrier/status/1722924213512859985](https://twitter.com/sansbarrier/status/1722924213512859985)

[https://ptrmadurai.com/tamil-brahmin-emigration-was-driven-by-opportunity-not-socialism-or-identity-politics](https://ptrmadurai.com/tamil-brahmin-emigration-was-driven-by-opportunity-not-socialism-or-identity-politics)

[https://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/anthpubs/ucb/text/kas065\_066-009.pdf](https://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/anthpubs/ucb/text/kas065_066-009.pdf)

prakitmasala

What is this based on ? Bro, is it your personal observation? Or do you know where people faced such situations where they were forced out of the city or country or are you talking about reservations in general ?

Punter_chn

Imaginary-Chain1926

Priest castes were harassed atmost during the justice party heydays, there no “exodus” or “genocide” and most ppl from justice party castes still use Brahmins for rituals. It was just a struggle between land owning justice party castes and priest castes for bureaucratic power. Some political speakers even compare priest castes to jews during nazi regime, what a terrible thing to use suffering genocide of those jews for political purposes.

New-Raccoon587

When you are accustomed to privilege as a braHMIN, equality feels like oppression.[](https://www.reddit.com/r/PlipPlip/comments/1f2g0td/comment/lk6bkbj/)

Brief_Lingonberry362

Sounds like a projection. Im not well versed, I just know there were 2 brahmin families in the village. And they didn’t own any land. 

It really sounds like you’re projecting your negative experience. It may give you peace to know that most people left a long time ago and remnants of Tamil culture in the current generation. We’re doing well, studying, working and contributing to organizations. It’s scary to see you make such generalisations based on your experience, on a whole sub set of people who left 3/4 generations ago. One could bring intellectual and cultural perspectives and also find a way to connect with my motherland (same as yours), but with this mindset I’d be afraid to even visit.

OddAd8687

And you thought the best place to post this is this community I'd Soriyarists? Most of TN is anti hindu nay anti india. Tambrahms are the only reason anyone gives a shit about Tamilians. Any random famous Tamil person would automatically be a tambhram. So by driving away the only community with high IQ from their godforsaken land, these soriyarists have only dug their own graves. TN has no significance now. People do not wanna work here or live here.

Your contributions? LOL you guys claimed the space for centuries and limited/blocked access to others and now use that as a valid point to support why your presence should be appreciated!? 

I am all in for inclusion of all castes. And I don’t blame discrimination entirely on Brahmin community. Discrimination is happening to Dalits and Tribal communities by non-Brahmin Hindus as well in TN. I don’t know about other states.

I understand the victim tone of your post and where it’s coming from. What do you think rest of us do then who were oppressed for generations by Brahmins and had to convert to escape the oppression or die without any success in life?

Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time. 

I understand you personally may not have oppressed anyone. But there is a 90% oppressed population whose kids and grand kids are still struggling to raise from their victim mentality, poverty and enjoy equal rights.

Give us a f’ing break with sympathy posts for Brahmins.

DawrkIndien

There was no exodus of Brahmins from TN.. just like there was none of Kashmiri Pandits. They just migrated out to have picnic in other places.

chowbeyputra

To the oppressors fight for equality feels like oppression or in this case an exodus lol

New_Mushroom991

I think the right term to use is discrimination - there is no exodus I know off. In tn the only bad religious practices are Hindu practices. All other religions -  the political discourse does not care a damn. If you marry two women under Islam, Stalin will bless you most probably. Shameless, but it is what it is…

krisantihypocrisy

People have time to read 2-3 newspapers !?? That too before prelims 

I blink and the day gets over 😔

gulamjaboon

You are wasting your time by reading political news.Only three editorials- oppressed section, inequality and Netanyahu last part (potential impact on India) among these are of any help wrt mains.

mejhlijj

Highly baised  ...... N. Ram( owner)  during rafale case published fake article by cropping pics from govt documents...when he was caught doing so ...he didn't even published mistake...he simply choose to stay silent ......indian express is much  better in news coverage as well is bipartisan  ....n ram also criticised  nuclear test by atal gov and even had a argument with dr kalam to which dr kalam said " u r pursuing ur agenda (communist) , i will ingore it " ....he is typical communist with china bias

Careful-Smell-5779

Indian Express. Get all the required articles in simple words

DemocracyontheRoad

Why are you making notes of letters to editor even!

Nenu_unnanu_kada

ratokapujari

Choose the editorials, there are political editorials too.

arju_n555

I read only Hindu, For the standard news and editorials just read Hindu it's enough, some friends advised me to read IE but it has a lot more information at the end of the day you can't retain everything, so read less quality news that helps retaining sufficient info.

BageshwarRao

N Ram is person with High Integrity(pun intended) - he does what he says. 100% baised against Annamalai(BJP's TN candidate)

[https://www.reddit.com/r/IndiaSpeaks/comments/1abh1tk/annamalai\_is\_not\_a\_terrorist\_but\_an\_extremist\_we/](https://www.reddit.com/r/IndiaSpeaks/comments/1abh1tk/annamalai_is_not_a_terrorist_but_an_extremist_we/)

Present_Complaint_24

I have tried switching many times to the Indian express from the Hindu as I wanted diverse opinions and I have heard good things about the explained section of Indian express but words are kind of squeezed in and that way of continuing the news on other pages irks me.
Basically I like the font and spacing of The Hindu.

iammk_13

on-slot

The Hindu was once the best newspaper in India, but today it's equal to the Tamil daily ' Dina Thanthi'. It  leans towards the leftist parties and supports the DMK party in Tamil Nadu. 
Recently The Hindu's Murali supported T.M. Krishna for the Sangita Kalanidhi award and was opposed by many due to his calling M.S as a Devadasi. He himself was born to a devadasi. The Madras High Court cleared the doubts by asking for the removal of M.S's name from the award. 
Earlier the editorial supported the Israelis against Palestinians for starting the war.
Hamas, a terrorist organisation of Palestine bombed the Isreal by killing 600 people . The Isrealis reacted to this and bombed the Palestine. 
 

Lower_Sample251

The Hindu writes/thinks anything but Hindu. Highly biased news paper, once hailed as a sophisticated intellectually stimulating newspaper.its just sad.

MoronSlayer_786Lolwa

It's a stupid newspaper. Switch to other options whoever is thinking of doing that, you'll be glad.

Akira_ArkaimChick

Bhai kafka padhle aur politics karle. Become next tharoor
 Woh bhi unsuccessful raha tha upsc me.

Individual-Charge970

Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. **Please [Read Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules) before you comment in this community**. Understand that [rule breaking comments get removed](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/h8aefx/rules_roundtable_xviii_removed_curation_and_why/).

#Please consider **[Clicking Here for RemindMeBot](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&amp;subject=Reminder&amp;message=%5Bhttps://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/lh9t6j/how_did_the_british_east_india_company_control/%5D%0A%0ARemindMe!%202%20days)** as it takes time for an answer to be written. 

We thank you for your interest in this *question*, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to RemindMeBot, consider [using our Browser Extension](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/d6dzi7/tired_of_clicking_to_find_only_removed_comments/), or getting the [Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=subredditsummarybot&amp;subject=askhistorians+weekly&amp;message=x). In the meantime our [Twitter](https://twitter.com/askhistorians), [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/askhistorians/), and [Sunday Digest](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=title%3A%22Sunday+Digest%22&amp;restrict_sr=on&amp;sort=new&amp;t=all) feature excellent content that has already been written!


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskHistorians) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

(1/2)

I can answer this question with respect to India and how the East India Company went from a bunch of traders out to make a quick buck to controlling a vast land stretching all the way from Afghanistan to Burma, and the Himalayas to the Indian ocean on the deep south.

For my sources, I will primarily rely upon William Dalrymple's recent work - **"The Anarchy"**, an account of how the EIC actually took over vast parts of India in the late 18th century. I will also rely upon other sources such as Khushwant Singh's **"A history of the Sikhs".**

I will also talk about how the EIC actually "conquered India" and not so much about how they "controlled India" as I believe that is the crux of the question. I will not talk much about British Colonialism elsewhere as I am not knowledgeable enough to do so. Also, it is no mean task to compress 150 years of history into a reddit comment, but it worth trying.

So, let's look at the political situation in India at the end of the 17th century. By 1700, the Mughal Empire was a vast realm that stretched from Kabul and Kandahar in the far northwest to the Burmese borderlands in the east, and from Kashmir and the mountains of the far North to the Tamil Country in the deep south of India. The present day nations of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and most of Afghanistan came under this realm. It was prosperous, it was industrious and militarily, one of the *Superpowers* of the age. It was ruled by the Emperor Aurangzeb, who had been on the throne for the past 42 years, having ascended the throne by overthrowing his father, the emperor Shahjahan, in 1658. Aurangazeb was a competent and ruthless ruler and expanded the Empire to it's greatest extent by completing the conquest of the Deccan states and the far south, a campaign that had begun nearly a century before. He kept an iron grip on power and to all outward appearances, the Mughal Empire was as strong as it ever was. However, the Deccan wars had fatally overstretched the Empire, something that Aurangazeb himself seemed to be aware of.

When he finally died at the age of 88 in 1707, having reigned for nearly 50 years, Aurangazeb is said to have wept that all of his life's work had been left incomplete. Indeed, upon his death, the empire very quickly broke up into fiefdoms which only nominally paid tribute to the Mughal Emperor who sat on the Peacock Throne at Delhi. The invasion of Nadir Shah in 1739, and the sacking of Delhi, demonstrated to everyone that the Mughal Empire was simply a shadow of what it once was. After that, it was a free for all. Every Chieftain, minor and major, sought to carve out his own area of influence all over India. In the Deccan, it was the Nizam of Hyderabad. Across his borders, the decentralized Maratha Confederacy, controlled a vast portion of the Northern Deccan and Central India. In the Punjab, the Sikhs sought to carve out a state of their own. The Rajput Kings of Rajasthan, for so long the beating heart of the Mughal administration and the Military, went their own ways. Awadh, the Mughal heartland and Bengal, the richest province, too cast of the Mughal yoke and paid only lip service to Delhi. To summarize, the Mughal Emperor in the 18th century was merely a figurehead, and his writ was largely confined to the environs of Delhi. Chaos reigned in vast parts of the country and armed bands roved the countryside looting merchants and killing lone travelers.

At the time of Aurangazeb's death, the EIC was a motley collection of traders and merchants who were more interested in enriching their own pockets than ruling over a vast and ancient land. Disreputable men with shady antecedents, Soldiers of Fortune and ambitious second sons of the landed gentry in England, all made their way to India. Initially, the EIC contented itself with trade and setting up minor fortified settlements on the coasts of India. The main settlements were at Bombay on western coast, Madras in the south and Calcutta in the east. The EIC recruited small armies (mainly native soldiers officered by Europeans) at these forts to safeguard their investments and to fight off the French (who had their own outposts in India) during the War of the Austrian Succession and the Seven Years War. All that changed in 1756-57 when a political dispute in Bengal saw one of the parties solicit the intervention of the British Garrison at Calcutta. Now Bengal was, by far, the richest province of the Mughal Empire. The land was, and still is, among the most fertile in the Indian subcontinent. It had a rich tradition of textile manufacturing. It was in a state of *proto-industrialisation* and had been tended to carefully by the rulers. Robert Clive, who commanded a body of troops at Calcutta, was bribed to intervene in the dispute and was allowed to line his pockets in doing so. The native authorities had hoped to utilize the British for their own purposes and send them back to the barracks when they were done with them. But once the British had got their foot in the door, they kept it there and eventually the door was opened ajar. They intervened again and again in domestic politics in Bengal. In 1765, after a string of victories against Native princes and even the Mughal forces, the British were granted the *Diwani* of Bengal, or the right to collect taxes in the whole of the richest province of the country! Note that there was no "grand design" on the part of the British to subjugate and conquer India. All the time this was happening, the board of directors of the EIC in London, nervously bemoaned the danger to trade and profits that getting involved in local disputes entailed.

Once the British had established a foothold in Bengal, they utilized the resources of that province to build up their forces and mount a challenge to native authority in other areas of the country. It must again be mentioned that the British did not actively go out to conquer India. They got involved in local politics nearly everywhere and by the last decades of the 18th century were a serious player in nearly all parts of the country. In the South, they faced a stiff challenge from Tipu Sultan of Mysore. Between 1782-1799, they fought 4 bloody wars with him and eventually emerged the political masters of nearly all of what is now South Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. This is the *Carnatic* country and rivalled Bengal in wealth and industriousness. Awadh and Hyderabad were cowed into submission by British feats of arms and had subsidiary alliances thrust upon them. A body of British troops was maintained in these states at the expense of the local ruler, ostensibly to guarantee their realm from external aggression but mainly to ensure good behaviour.

The one Indian polity that had the military means and the pan-Indian reach to seriously challenge the British was the Maratha Confederacy. The Maratha Confederacy consisted of 5 quasi independent chiefs (The *Peshwa* at Pune, the *Bhonsale* at Nagpur, the *Holkar* at Indore, the *Gaekwad* at Baroda, and the *Scindia* at Gwalior) who often quarreled with each other but would unite to face a common threat. The Marathas faced down the British in three epic showdowns featuring several bloody battles between two equally matched armies over a period of \~40 years from 1775 to 1818. The Maratha chiefs were unable to put aside their differences and were picked off one by one by the British. The wealth of the *Carnatic* and Bengal ensured that the British had far superior resources at their disposal. Central and Western India, by contrast, are arid regions whose main export in the 17th and 18th centuries was military labour. By the time the dust settled in 1818, the British were the masters of a territory that stretched from Delhi in the North to the Tamil country in the south and Bengal in the east.

conqueror_of_destiny

Greetings! u/conqueror_of_destiny has already done an excellent job giving an overview of the "main" question at hand regarding the rise of the British East India Company on the Indian subcontinent, so I shall be focusing on the more secondary questions that OP has put forward in the question. For some foundational knowledge, consider reading this [thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/kp0xi4/how_did_britain_maintain_its_empire/?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=web2x&amp;context=3) I weighed in on about some patterns of British rule across the world. Further, as I elaborated on further in this [thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/l83udd/logistics_of_the_british_empire/?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=web2x&amp;context=3), the British Raj would soon be transformed into the British Empire's geostrategic lynchpin for Asia, serving as a major military base as well as an economic asset whose value made it the "jewel in the crown" of the Empire. With those two preambles and ~~shameless plugs~~ out of the way, let's begin.

**The British Bridgehead**

Centuries before the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 and Queen Victoria's ascension as Empress of India, the British presence on the massive sub-continent was negligible, dwarfed by all manner of princely factions, Mughal territories, and the formidable Maratha Confederacy. OP has already touched on the foundations of the British East India trading company at its factory and mercantile hub of **Masulipatam** by 1617. It was not until **Robert Clive** began his conquest of the Bengal region in the 1750s that the British hold over the continent formally expanded. Even sixty years after the bridgehead had been established, the British civilian population (out of a total of 300,000 people, many locals and other foreigners among them) numbered an estimated **114** (unless you count the garrison, which still made the total a minute 400 Britons). The Company could do little in this time to attempt to expand its holdings, knowing full well that any of the surrounding kingdoms likely had the power to expel them from the subcontinent (or destroy the Fort where it stood).

This thought almost became reality in 1746, when the French forces stationed at nearby Pondicherry (as part of the larger **War of Austrian Succession**) forced the British out of their holdings at Madras. The British would go on to recapture Madras in 1748, though they also temporarily lost hold of Calcutta at the hands of the Nawab of Bengal, where the infamous "Black Hole of Calcutta" incident occurred. Clive was not only well-versed as a military commander, but had the necessary political skill of finding and keeping Indian allies, among them the Nawab of Bengal's chief advisers; allowing his forces to triumph over the Bengali-French ones at **Plassey in 1757.** John Darwin on the ramifications of this victory:

&gt;"Within less than ten years of Clive's scattering of the Nawab's army at Plassey, the Company took control of the province's revenues. With this second grand bridgehead, the **richest region of India** fell into its hands. Forty years later, its men ruled in Delhi. The merchants' frontier, their precarious perch on the coast, had turned into an empire."^(1)

**Conquest, Colonise, or Control?**

However, it is necessary that we realise that this control was not as concrete (or even as colonial) as one might imagine. Firstly, a fair portion of the Company's territory was a feudal grant from the Mughal emperor, for which the British East India merchants paid tribute up until 1772. It was only after 1800 however, that the Company asserted the claim that it was sovereign over the territories under its rule. Knowing full well the banking power of the Company, those holding the reigns of power in London demanded that they share some control over the "men on the spot" of the Company. This resulted in the **India Act of 1784**, by which the following were to be supervised by a **Board of Control** and a cabinet minister:

* The Company's Indian budgets for the three 'presidencies' in Bengal, Madras, and Bombay
* Its external and military policy and,
* Its choice of governor-general

Yet the implementation of British law here was always a game of touch-and-go. In many places where the Company flag flew, they relied heavily on local partnerships with Indian rulers. Upsetting the local religious balance by introducing Christian missionaries into the region was also a key issue for many governor-generals, as well as the question of respecting traditional Hindu/Muslim laws, or ignoring them completely for "English" ones. The patterns of rule across the Company's holdings remained so different that one Chief Justice of Bengal remarked in 1830 that:

&gt;"There is no uniform, no definite opinion, either as to the true character... of the sovereignty of the Crown, nor of the dependence of the laws on Parliament, nor as to rights either of political power or of property of the East India Company, nor even of the relations in which the many millions of natives stand to the political authorities by which they are entirely governed."^(2)

So until the British government formally stepped in and took over control of the East India's Company's flagging command of the sub-continent in 1857, India was a curious British holding unto its own. Too valuable to give up, but too politically complex and diverse to effectively implement direct rule from Whitehall (at least until crisis propelled the government under PM **Henry John Temple** to step in and do so). To quote Historian Goldwin Smith, writing in 1906 (a fittingly old source when the British Raj was still around):

&gt;"So long as the Company held real sway, the policy was **strictly and narrowly commercial**..."Send us dividends" was the one great commandment of the Company to its servants in India. Nothing could be further from the thoughts of Leadenhall \[the street in London where the Company was headquartered\] than the idea of civilizing and Anglicizing Hindostan."^(3)

**A British Raj**

As a small bit of context (and 'looking forwards' if you will) before moving onto a comparison between British Company rule in India and British imperial presence elsewhere in the world, once the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 had been violently and brutally crushed by the British government, they set about structuring a Colonial office specifically devoted to running the day-to-day affairs in India. Here is a primary source from 1900 explaining the actual staff positions and hierarchy of the India office:

&gt;"The administration of the Empire \[in India\] is entrusted to the **Secretary of State for India, assisted by a council of not less than ten members, nine of whom have served or resided ten years in India**, and have not left India more than ten years previous to the date of appointment. The administrative machinery in India consists of a Viceroy, who in theory represents the Queen-Empress, but who in reality is subordinate to the Secretary of State, and two councils, which owe their existence to a series of acts of parliament. One of these councils is executive, and the other legislative."^(4)

Once the Sepoy Mutiny had been crushed, the British also were effective at maintaining control of the remaining local princely states. Their rulers, in many forms and areas, still existed, though practically with little to no power at all. Many jostled for prestige in the eyes of the British government in India, several seeking to secure the highly valuable *titles* which conveyed a sense (but never in actuality) of equality with the British civilian rulers.

So there's an explanation of the British East India Company's rule from its first minor fort on the coast to the "jewel in the crown" of the Empire, and what Viceroy of India \*\*Lord Curzon (\*\*holding that position from 1899 - 1905) would even describe as the "pivot and center of the British Empire". Next up, a larger look at how this unique pattern (or lack thereof) of rule compared to other British colonial projects.

(1/2)

Starwarsnerd222

A conflict arises between Tamil Nadu's government and its Governor over university governance, following a Supreme Court ruling limiting the Governor's appointment powers.

Conflict Between Tamil Nadu Government and Governor Over University Affairs

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want