Indian Subcontinent before full British conquest Late 1764 When Did the British Divide the Subcontinent into Different Countries?

 it’s a fascinating historical map of the Indian Subcontinent before full British conquest (Late 1764). I’ll answer all your questions one by one in simple terms so it’s easier to understand the bigger picture of how this region evolved into today’s India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and others.

🏴 When Did the British Divide the Subcontinent into Different Countries?

The British didn’t divide it immediately. They first ruled the entire subcontinent as one colonial unit called British India.

Event	What Happened	Year
Start of British Political Control	Battle of Plassey → First major victory of British East India Company	1757
Official British Crown Rule Begins	British Government takes control from East India Company (after 1857 revolt)	1858
British Partitioned the Region	India and Pakistan were created	1947
Bangladesh Separates from Pakistan	Due to civil war	1971

So technically:

1. British ruled parts of India from 1757, fully controlled by 1858, and ruled until 1947.
2. That’s around 190 years of total influence and about 90 years of direct Crown rule.

❓Did British Rule Help Set Up Modern Systems?

Yes and No — it’s a mixed legacy.

✅ Systems Introduced by the British:

1. Railways 🚆
2. Postal and Telegraph Network 📮
3. ** centralized administration and legal codes**
4. English education & bureaucracy

❌ But their intention wasn’t to develop India — it was to exploit resources.

1. Railways were built to move goods to ports, not for free public travel.
2. Industries were discouraged to protect British factories.

So while we inherited useful systems, they were built for colonial profit, not for our development.

🚶How Did These Kingdoms Communicate Without Modern Transport?

Even before trains or phones, people used:

1. Caravan trade routes (on foot, horse, bullock carts, camels)
2. River transport (Ganga, Godavari, Narmada were highways)
3. Sea trade (Arab traders, Chinese, Europeans came via ports like Calicut, Surat, Madras)

So they did communicate and trade — just slower than today.

🌍 Why Were They All Part of One “Continent”?

1. All territories shown on the map lie in Asia.
2. Together, they form the Indian Subcontinent, which includes:
3. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Maldives, and parts of Afghanistan & Myanmar.

Despite political fragmentation, geography, culture, and trade linked them as one civilizational zone.

🇪🇺 Why Are European Names (British, French, Portuguese, Dutch) on the Map?

Because Europeans had already started arriving for trade in the 1600s–1700s.

1. Portuguese: First to arrive (Goa, Cochin)
2. Dutch (Netherlands): Controlled parts of Kerala & Sri Lanka
3. French: Settlements in Pondicherry, Chandernagore
4. British: Started as traders → slowly expanded militarily

They didn’t rule fully yet in 1764, but they had trading colonies and ports, shown on the map as British, Portuguese, French, Netherlands.

🗺️ Summary of Your Map (1764 Timeline)

Category	Examples
Major Powers	Marathas, Bengal Nawab, Hyderabad Nizam, Mysore Sultanate, Awadh Nawab
External Empire Influence	Durrani (Afghanistan), Qing (China in Ladakh/Sikkim region)
Smaller Regional Kingdoms	Rajput states (Jaipur, Udaipur, Jodhpur), Sikh Misls, Pahari states
Tribal / Independent Regions	Adivasi Tribes, Hill Tribes, Bastar, Kalat
European Colonies	British (Bombay, Madras, Calcutta), French, Portuguese, Dutch

This map shows that India was not one kingdom — it was like modern-day Europe, full of small and big states, sometimes fighting, sometimes allied.

📜 Timeline of European Entry into India

European Power	Who Arrived	Year of First Arrival in India	Key Regions They Controlled / Settled In
Portuguese	Vasco da Gama(Explorer)	1498	Goa, Cochin (Kochi), Daman, Diu
Dutch (Netherlands)	Dutch East India Company (VOC)	1605 (First factory in Masulipatnam)	Parts of Kerala (Cochin), Pulicat (Tamil Nadu), Nagapattinam, Sri Lanka (Ceylon)
British (England)	English East India Company	1608 (Surat factory setup)	Bombay (Mumbai), Calcutta (Kolkata), Madras (Chennai), and later most of India
French	French East India Company	1664 (Company formed) / 1668 (First settlement)	Pondicherry (Puducherry), Chandernagore (West Bengal), Karaikal, Mahe, Yanam

🧭 Who “Discovered” India?

Technically, India was never lost, so it wasn’t really “discovered”. It was already a major trading hub connected with Arab, Persian, Greek, and Chinese civilizations long before Europeans came.

However, from a European perspective, Vasco da Gama is often credited for discovering the sea route to Indiawhen he landed in Calicut (Kozhikode, Kerala) in 1498, via the Cape of Good Hope (Africa).

🏰 Was the Entire Map Ruled by One Prime Minister or King?

No. In 1764, there was no single Prime Minister, King, or central government ruling the entire map.

Instead:

1. The region was divided into dozens of kingdoms, sultanates, tribal regions, and empires.
2. Each area had its own ruler — such as Maratha Peshwas, Nawabs, Nizams, Rajput Kings, Sikh Misls, Mysore Sultans, etc.
3. There was no concept of democracy or Prime Minister like today. Most places were ruled by monarchs (Kings / Nawabs / Sultans / Maharajas).

🔗 Did These Kingdoms Have Any Central Connection?

Not in the way modern countries do. But there were some loose connections, such as:

Type of Connection	Example
Trade Alliances	Marathas trading with Hyderabad or Mysore
Military Alliances or Rivalries	Marathas vs Mughals, Mysore vs British, Sikh Misls sometimes united
Religion & Culture	Shared festivals, languages (like Sanskrit, Persian), pilgrimage routes
Marriage Alliances (Royal Families)	Rajput kingdoms often exchanged daughters to maintain peace

However, there was no single central authority like today’s Indian Government. It was more like medieval Europe, where many small and big states coexisted, often fighting and sometimes cooperating.

👑 So Who Was the Closest Thing to a “Central Power”?

Before British domination, the Mughal Empire (especially under Akbar, Aurangzeb) acted like a central authority, but by 1764, it had collapsed into fragments. Many regions broke away and became independent — like Marathas, Bengal Nawab, Awadh, Mysore, Hyderabad, etc.

So by the time shown in the map:

India was not one united country during this time — it was a collection of independent states.

A modern comparison showing how 1764 India compares to today’s countries (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc.).

✅ Comparison Between:

Feature	Indian Subcontinent in 1764	Present Day (After British Rule & Partition)
Political Structure	Dozens of kingdoms, sultanates, empires, tribal regions	Independent nations with elected governments
Central Authority	❌ No central Prime Minister or single ruler	✅ Each country has its own Prime Minister/President
Major Regions	Marathas, Bengal Nawab, Hyderabad Nizam, Mysore, Sikh Misls, Rajputs, etc.	India 🇮🇳, Pakistan 🇵🇰, Bangladesh 🇧🇩, Sri Lanka 🇱🇰, Nepal 🇳🇵, Bhutan 🇧🇹, Maldives 🇲🇻 + partly Afghanistan/Myanmar
Communication	Slow — by horses, rivers, traders, messengers	Fast — internet, phone, transport
Unity Level	Culturally connected but politically divided	Politically separate but still culturally connected

Why the Name “Punjab” Is Missing from the 1764 Map

In 1764, Punjab was not a single political unit, which is why you don’t see the label “Punjab” written anywhere on the map. Instead, the region was divided among multiple rulers and factions due to the chaotic political situation of that time.

🔹 Key Reasons:

No Unified Government

1. The Mughal Empire had collapsed.
2. Afghan ruler Ahmad Shah Durrani repeatedly invaded the region from the northwest.
3. There was no single kingdom called “Punjab” ruling the whole area.

Rise of the Sikh Misls (Confederacies)

1. The Sikhs organized themselves into 12 semi-independent groups called Misls (like mini-states/armies — e.g., Bhangi, Sukerchakia, Ahluwalia, Phulkian).
2. Each Misl ruled its own territory, so the land was politically fragmented rather than united.

Still Decades Away from Unification

1. It wasn’t until 1799, about 35 years later, that Maharaja Ranjit Singh began uniting all Sikh Misls into what would become the Sikh Empire.
2. Only after that did the region appear as “Punjab” on official maps.

Where Is Punjab Located on the 1764 Map?

Even though the name “Punjab” is missing, the geographical region is still present, just under different political labels:

Label on the Map	Which Part of Punjab It Represents
Sikh Misls	Central and eastern Punjab — covering much of present-day Indian Punjab and Pakistani Punjab. These were controlled by the Sikh confederacies.
Durrani	Western Punjab — including Lahore, Multan, Peshawar — areas influenced or controlled by the Afghan Durrani Empire.
Marathas	Southern edge of Punjab — especially areas below the Sutlej River (known later as the Cis-Sutlej States).

🧾 In Simple Words

The Punjab region existed geographically but not politically.
It was shared between Sikh Misls, Afghan Durrani Empire, and Maratha influence, which is why you don’t see “Punjab” written clearly — it was still in the process of forming its identity.

Read more :-   GK related blogs in this blog

🧠 Quick Summary in Simple Words

1. Portuguese came first in 1498 — they controlled Goa and coastal cities.
2. Dutch came next around 1605 — focused more on spice trade but later lost influence.
3. British arrived in 1608 — started as traders but eventually became rulers of India.
4. French came later in the 1660s — but lost military battles against the British.

 

Post no: 563

Indian Subcontinent 1764, pre-British conquest map, fragmented India kingdoms, Sikh Misls, Marathas, Durrani Empire, European settlements India 18th century, Battle of Plassey 1757, British Crown Rule 1858, partition of India 1947, Vasco da Gama sea route, Mughal Empire decline, British colonial legacy, modern systems India, Sikh Empire formation, political fragmentation India 1764