European colonization of India: contrast with America?

America, Australia, South Africa and the highlands of East Africa were 'settlement' colonies- i.e. European people planned to remain there as permanent settlers.India, because of its harsh climate, innumerable diseases, and alien culture was never a 'settlement' colony in that sense. In general, the small number of Europeans who settled there became Indian within a generation.

Thus, in India, Britain- having moved from a commercial role to one of established suzerainty- sent out officials on fixed term contracts to exercise administrative, judicial and military authority with a view to protecting and enlarging the interests of British commercial ventures which were themselves increasingly run by Managing Agents on fixed term private contracts. The goal was always to work for a fixed number of years and then retire home with an ample competence. There are some minor exceptions to this rule but in general there was a sharp division between these 'country bottled' Britisher who hadn't returned to England for his education and whose primary domicile was in India and the 'pukka Sahib' who had been educated in England and whose family owned property there. Most country-bottled Englishmen were expected to descend into the even lower 'Eurasian' class who were kept out of executive positions but entrusted with laborious jobs like being steam-engine drivers.

Some Europeans did behave badly in India- they became pirates or slavers. The Dutch in Sri Lanka were particularly cruel- the slaves they kidnapped were worked to death within a few months of capture and their womenfolk tortured slave-girls impregnated by their drunken husbands. This at any rate was the English justification for annexing Ceylon. Those Europeans who behaved in this way tended to get killed or die of disease because the capacity of the Indian natives to exercise a countervailing power was far greater than that of the American Indians- except in some more difficult terrains. The English had one great advantage- financial solvency and control over sea-routes- which made them dominant. However it was not military superiority so much as the ability to pay troops and reward allies, as well as superior esprit de corps, which gave them the edge.

In general, the vast majority of Indians remained subject to their own traditional laws and local elites and had little interaction with White people. Thus there was no occasion for racial friction except where a higher political purpose could be served. In the Americas, the Europeans took little trouble to preserve local languages and cultures whereas in India, the Colonial power invested heavily in a scientific study of the languages, ancient and modern, and law codes and philosophies and belief systems of the indigenous people. Moreover, Missionaries were curbed and encouraged to take a conciliatory approach. The British acknowledged that India could not be profitably ruled without the acquiescence- sullen or meretricious as it might be- of its own local elites and Religious authorities.

The British followed similar policies with the "Indians" of North America as it did with those of India. It's just that the results weren't as well documented because they took place on a "piecemeal" basis.

1. The "Indians" of North America were more susceptible to European diseases than the Indians of India. A far larger percentage of the first group died for this reason than the second.

2. The "13 colonies" of North America represented only about 10% of what later became the "United States." 90% of the country was free from British depredations, versus a much smaller percentage of India in the 18th century.

3. After the British left, the "Americans" pushed the Indians west through forced removals such as the "Trail of Tears". The southern "Indians" ended up in modern Oklahoma; the northern Indians in the badlands of South Dakota.

4. The "Anglos" did "less damage" in North America because it was sparsely populated. But in percentage terms, perhaps only 10% of the original number of "American" indians made it to the 20th century, versus a larger number and percentage of Indians in India.

Purpose of Visiting

An important factor is that the Europeans went to America to find a new undiscovered land and settle there. So they fought with the natives to conquer the land. It was not a genocide but natives were killed by the colonists who occupied their lands.

But in contrast India was well known to Europeans since the time of Alexander. The Europeans came to India for trade. Later making use of the division among the Indian rulers they made pacts with them and gained political control over many kingdoms.

Population

In case of American invasion, the native Americans were unknown to the rest of the world and were few in population. In comparison the population of India was large. The Mughal Kingdom of India contributed to around 19.9% of the world's population according to Wikipedia^[1]. But the population of Native Americans were lower in comparission as stated in this article,

Most scholars writing at the end of the 19th century estimated that the pre-Columbian population was as low as 10 million

In comparison the Mughal empires population was around 115 million.

Military Strength

Also the military strength of India was greater than the native Americans but less technologically advanced than Europeans. India also had many strong kingdoms ruled by Shivaji, Mugals, Tipu Sultan, etc... The armies of Mughal kingdom infact even had artillery^[3]. Both the Mughal and Shivaji empires had a weaker navy and had built forts alongside the coast. In comparison the Native Americans did not had any navy or strong castles and forts. The were completely unaware of artillery.

there was no large scale extermination or state policy to expunge natives

Such an act would have brought these kingdoms together(they were fighting among themselves) against the European invaders. Even with advanced technology they cannot win such a massive population.