When Prime Minister Modi speaks of freeing India from a colonial mindset, he is not only referring to economic confidence or foreign policy posture. He is also addressing a deeper inheritance, the social and political divisions institutionalised under British rule.
Colonial governance hardened identities through censuses that froze caste categories, separate electorates that politicised religion, and classifications that labelled communities as “loyal” or “suspect.” Historian Nicholas Dirks has shown how caste became far more rigid under colonial administration than it had been in precolonial society. These policies worked. Fragmented populations were easier to govern.
Independence dismantled the imperial structure, but the logic of division did not disappear. It adapted.
Today’s India debates communal harmony, caste census data and political polarisation with striking echoes of the colonial era. Former Chief Election Commissioner S.Y. Quraishi warned in 2024 that polarisation has become one of the most potent political tools. Civil-society groups caution that the language of “us versus them” mirrors colonial-era strategies of othering.
The caste census debate illustrates this tension clearly. Supporters see it as a tool for social justice; critics fear it may deepen fault lines. The dilemma itself is familiar, classification versus cohesion, a debate that haunted colonial administrators as well.
Social media has added a new dimension. Digital platforms now amplify identity narratives at unprecedented speed. According to reports by the Internet Freedom Foundation, coordinated online campaigns exploit communal and caste divisions with an efficiency the colonial state could only have dreamed of.
Scholars continue to draw these connections. Political scientist Christophe Jaffrelot has argued that identity mobilisation in India draws on colonial-era structures, even as it operates within a democratic framework.
The documentary From Slaves to Bond: The Rise of the British Empire, situates this phenomenon within a broader imperial context, showing how identity-based governance was central to managing vast colonies. By tracing administrative classification, selective patronage and narrative control across the empire, the film helps explain why “divide and rule” became so deeply embedded — in India and elsewhere.
Yet the story is not one of inevitability. India also displays strong countercurrents: interfaith initiatives, youth-led peace movements and constitutional institutions that continue to reinforce pluralism.
The challenge in 2025 is not diversity, it is preventing diversity from becoming a political weapon.
Divide and rule is no longer imposed from London. But recognising its origins remains essential if India is to ensure that the past explains the present, without controlling it.
