India’s history is often told as a singular narrative of British colonial oppression and the heroic struggle for independence. Yet, this framing obscures a more complex and ongoing reality: the subcontinent’s own imperial dynamics, both during and after colonial rule.
From the absorption of princely states to the annexation of Himalayan kingdoms, and from regional interference to the rise of Hindu nationalism, India’s imperial legacy continues to shape its politics and society in profound ways.
The Council of Princes and the Absorption of Independent States
At the twilight of British rule, India was a mosaic of British provinces and over 500 princely states—semi-autonomous kingdoms ruled by local monarchs who negotiated their survival under colonial suzerainty. These princes were not passive vassals; many hoped to maintain independence or at least significant autonomy. The British, however, used the princes as instruments of divide and rule, pitting them against the rising nationalist movement.
With independence in 1947, the Indian state faced the monumental task of unifying this fragmented political landscape. Under the stewardship of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, the newly formed government embarked on a campaign to integrate the princely states into the Indian Union. This was no gentle process of federation but one marked by coercion, political pressure, and in some cases, military intervention—Hyderabad and Junagadh being stark examples.
This absorption was a form of internal imperialism: a consolidation of power that dissolved centuries-old sovereignties in favor of a centralized nation-state. The princes’ resistance was framed as reactionary, yet it reflected legitimate concerns about the loss of political identity and self-rule. The Indian government’s project was thus both a nation-building exercise and an imperial expansion cloaked in the rhetoric of unity and progress.
Annexation of Sikkim: The Himalayan Kingdom Lost
The story of Sikkim’s annexation in 1975 reveals how post-colonial India extended its imperial reach beyond the subcontinent’s heartland. Sikkim, a small but strategically significant Himalayan kingdom, had maintained its independence for centuries. Its location near the sensitive Indo China border made it a geopolitical prize.
India’s gradual erosion of Sikkim’s autonomy—first as a protectorate, then through orchestrated political maneuvers culminating in a disputed referendum—demonstrates the continuation of imperial logic under a nationalist guise. The annexation was less a democratic integration and more a strategic absorption to secure India’s northern frontier, sidelining local voices and sovereignty in the process.
Nepal and Bhutan: Sovereignty Under Shadow
Nepal and Bhutan remain formally independent but exist under the heavy shadow of Indian influence. Bhutan’s political and economic dependence on India effectively limits its sovereignty, making it a de facto protectorate. Nepal’s relationship is more fraught, with border disputes and political tensions underscoring India’s regional dominance.
Recent territorial conflicts over Kalapani and Lipulekh have stirred nationalist fervor in Nepal, exposing the asymmetry of power between the two neighbors. Nepal’s growing ties with China signal a pushback against Indian hegemony, highlighting the contested nature of sovereignty in South Asia’s Himalayan belt .
Interference in Bangladesh and the Maldives: Regional Hegemony
India’s imperial ambitions extend into the Bay of Bengal and the Indian Ocean, where it exerts significant influence over Bangladesh and the Maldives. In Bangladesh, India’s involvement in domestic politics and border management has provoked resentment, especially as China’s presence grows.
The Maldives, strategically located in the Indian Ocean, has oscillated between pro India and pro China governments. India’s naval presence and diplomatic pressure aim to maintain dominance, often at the expense of Maldivian political autonomy.
These interventions reveal India’s imperial posture as a regional power, wielding influence through both soft power and coercion.
Hindu Nationalism and Religious Oppression: The New Internal Empire
Perhaps the most troubling manifestation of Indian imperialism today is the rise of Hindu nationalism under the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) . This ideology seeks to redefine Indian identity in explicitly majoritarian Hindu terms, marginalizing religious minorities and eroding the secular foundations of the republic.
The state’s endorsement of religious oppression—through laws targeting Muslims, Christians, and other minorities—constitutes an internal colonization of India’s diverse population. This xenophobic nationalism echoes the coercive assimilation policies once used to integrate princely states, now repurposed to enforce cultural and religious conformity.
The irony is stark: a nation that vocally condemns British colonialism simultaneously perpetrates its own forms of domination and exclusion. The anti-colonial struggle’s ideals of pluralism and justice are undermined by a regime that privileges one religion and culture above all others, deepening social divisions and threatening democratic freedoms.
Conclusion: Reassessing India’s Imperial Legacy
India’s story is not simply one of liberation from British rule but also of ongoing imperial practices—internal and regional—that continue to shape its politics and society. The absorption of princely states, the annexation of independent kingdoms like Sikkim, the pseudo-colonial control over Nepal and Bhutan, and interference in neighboring countries all reveal a pattern of domination.
Today, Hindu nationalism’s religious oppression represents a new form of imperialism, one that threatens the pluralistic fabric of Indian society. Recognizing these continuities is essential for a truthful reckoning with India’s past and present. Only by confronting its own imperial legacies can India aspire to a genuinely inclusive and democratic future.