The Differences in Colonization in Africa and India

In many ways, British colonialism in India in the 18th and 19th centuries was quite similar to European colonialism in Africa at the same time. In both cases, Europeans, mostly for economic reasons, imposed their will upon another group of people. Also in both cases, Europeans enjoyed a technological advantage that made this imposition easier. These colonization efforts differed, however, in their structure. Whereas one country dominated India, many countries carved out their own territories in Africa. Also, Europeans set up territorial empires in Africa, while the British set up mostly an economic empire with the British East India company in India. What accounts for these differences?

Geography may have been responsible for why Britain could come to control India almost exclusively, while it had to share Africa with other European powers. Africa was simply too large for the British to control exclusively. Furthermore, they had little interest in controlling the whole of Africa. While they had some interest in Africa's interior, the British were mostly interested in controlling strategic choke points like South Africa, Egypt, and Gibraltar. Controlling these key points was much more important to the British than controlling a vast, largely empty continent. Thus, while they rivaled with the French and others for control of the African interior, they were unwilling to invest as many resources there as they were in strategic areas. In contrast, India was relatively small compared to Africa, small enough that the British could control. Though they exerted political power in India, their chief concern was in maintaining their commercial interests. It was relatively easy for the British to dominate India, because all it had to do was protect its interests by keeping other Europeans out. It did not have to establish and defend a territorial empire.