Incredible India; how history influences heterogeneity and decentralized policy making.

But are these differences, India’s heterogeneity, really that surprising. Just have a look at the sheer size of the country (using Jelmer’s blog as a good example), placing India on top of the map of Europe. If one tries to compare Sweden and Spain on the above mentioned parameters plenty of differences can be found as well. However, not only size has led to the current differences.

Taking a brief look at Indian history, clarity around the heterogeneity becomes more evident. Before the British rule of the Indian subcontinent in the 18th and 19th century, no challenger had been able to have a solid grip on the whole of India (the Mughal empire did cover most of North India, but was in constant war with the local population). India has an extensive history of princely states run by Maharajas (Maha is great, raja is king or ruler), that all acted as sovereign entities. When the British came to power, they ruled through a local potentate, empowering and befriending local rulers. By allowing autonomy, the British were able to maximize influence at minimum cost and low local presence (quite different from West African colonies, where conversion to Christianity was imposed). When India gained independence in 1947, there were around 600 princely states that had to be united. The only way to appease every Maharaja was to decide on a highly decentralized governance system (the U.S. constitution and governance system was used as an example).