[Edit] I have simplified the question greatly

The British could not have maintained control over India if not for significant indigenous support. Why was getting Indians to stop working for the British government never targeted during the freedom struggle?

[Edit] I have simplified the question greatly

The British could not have maintained control over India if not for significant indigenous support. There was a significant percentage of Indians that worked for the British govt, were in the British Indian army. Why was getting Indians to stop working for the British government never targeted during the freedom struggle?

I have recently started reading The Anarchy by William Dalrymple and find that it raises uncomfortable questions in my head.

• The British could not have maintained control over India if not for significant indigenous support. Why did they have this level of support? Why was this never addressed during the freedom struggle? We had the Swadeshi campaign targeting foreign goods being sold in India yet nothing about Indians working for the British during their rule.
  One more case to the point, the Jallianwala Bagh massacre which counts as one of worst during the British rule while ordered by by General Dyer was carried out by Indian troops.
  Why did they not simply refuse to fire on their own country men? What was the attitude of the freedom fighters and common people towards those who worked for the British?

• Any reading of European history post World War 2 talks about extrajudicial and legal steps against the collaborators accused of collaborating with Germany. South Africa had the Truth and Reconciliation commission after the end of apartheid that addressed human rights violations, reparation and reconciliation. But neither of these things happened in India. To a large extent, India and Indians just went about rebuilding their lives. In fact India actually set aside seats in Parliament for members of the Anglo-Indian community. Why?

[Edit]

• I understand the comments about princely states and their differences but my question is more about collaboration with the British. There was a pan Indian freedom struggle, at least based on what I studied growing up. Why was working with the British tolerated even then? I would imagine if there had been a sustained campaign to peel off Indian support for the British the rule would have lasted a lot less than it did.

• And even after the British left, like what I mentioned about Anglo Indians, India was very "accomodating" which is what I would like to understand more.

[Edit] I have simplified the question greatly

The British could not have maintained control over India if not for significant indigenous support. Why was getting Indians to stop working for the British government never targeted during the freedom struggle?

I have recently started reading The Anarchy by William Dalrymple and find that it raises uncomfortable questions in my head.

• The British could not have maintained control over India if not for significant indigenous support. Why did they have this level of support? Why was this never addressed during the freedom struggle? We had the Swadeshi campaign targeting foreign goods being sold in India yet nothing about Indians working for the British during their rule.
  One more case to the point, the Jallianwala Bagh massacre which counts as one of worst during the British rule while ordered by by General Dyer was carried out by Indian troops.
  Why did they not simply refuse to fire on their own country men? What was the attitude of the freedom fighters and common people towards those who worked for the British?

• Any reading of European history post World War 2 talks about extrajudicial and legal steps against the collaborators accused of collaborating with Germany. South Africa had the Truth and Reconciliation commission after the end of apartheid that addressed human rights violations, reparation and reconciliation. But neither of these things happened in India. To a large extent, India and Indians just went about rebuilding their lives. In fact India actually set aside seats in Parliament for members of the Anglo-Indian community. Why?

I have recently started reading The Anarchy by William Dalrymple and find that it raises uncomfortable questions in my head.

• The British could not have maintained control over India if not for significant indigenous support. Why did they have this level of support? Why was this never addressed during the freedom struggle? We had the Swadeshi campaign targeting foreign goods being sold in India yet nothing about Indians working for the British during their rule.
  One more case to the point, the Jallianwala Bagh massacre which counts as one of worst during the British rule while ordered by by General Dyer was carried out by Indian troops.
  Why did they not simply refuse to fire on their own country men? What was the attitude of the freedom fighters and common people towards those who worked for the British?

• Any reading of European history post World War 2 talks about extrajudicial and legal steps against the collaborators accused of collaborating with Germany. South Africa had the Truth and Reconciliation commission after the end of apartheid that addressed human rights violations, reparation and reconciliation. But neither of these things happened in India. To a large extent, India and Indians just went about rebuilding their lives. In fact India actually set aside seats in Parliament for members of the Anglo-Indian community. Why?

[Edit]

• I understand the comments about princely states and their differences but my question is more about collaboration with the British. There was a pan Indian freedom struggle, at least based on what I studied growing up. Why was working with the British tolerated even then? I would imagine if there had been a sustained campaign to peel off Indian support for the British the rule would have lasted a lot less than it did.

• And even after the British left, like what I mentioned about Anglo Indians, India was very "accomodating" which is what I would like to understand more.