[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?
Question:
Was there significant Indian support for British rule in India?
Short Answer:
Yes, over time certain important segments of India's population supported and enabled British rule for diverse reasons.
Answer:
Throughout the period of British rule in India, the question of support or opposition to colonial domination was complex and multifaceted. While the Indian independence movement, led by figures such as Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, and Subhas Chandra Bose, is widely celebrated for its resistance to British rule, it is also important to recognize that certain sections of Indian society, at various times, supported or collaborated with the British. This support was motivated by diverse factors, ranging from personal gain and political pragmatism to ideological beliefs about modernization and governance. Understanding this phenomenon requires examining the role of Indian elites, local rulers, and ordinary citizens within the British colonial structure.
A significant base of support for British rule came from the Indian princes who ruled over the princely states. At the height of British control, nearly one-third of the Indian subcontinent was governed by more than 500 princely states, which were semi-autonomous under British suzerainty. The British allowed these rulers a degree of internal independence in exchange for loyalty and acceptance of British oversight in matters of foreign policy and defense.
For many of these princes, British rule offered a sense of security. They were able to maintain their power, wealth, and privileges, which may have been more precarious in a fragmented post-Mughal political landscape. The British often intervened to protect these rulers from internal threats and revolts, thus ensuring a stable system of governance. Many Indian princes saw their relationship with the British as mutually beneficial, as the British provided the military and administrative structure necessary to maintain their own authority.
In addition to the princely states, many members of the Indian landed gentry and administrative classes found reasons to support British rule. Large landowners, particularly zamindars in regions like Bengal and Bihar, benefited from British economic policies that reinforced their control over vast estates. The British introduced the Permanent Settlement in Bengal in 1793, which formalized the power of zamindars and ensured their collaboration in collecting revenue for the British government. These landowners, in turn, saw their political and economic interests closely aligned with the continuation of British rule.
British policies also enabled a class of Western-educated Indians to rise within the colonial administrative apparatus. The Indian Civil Service (ICS) and other branches of the colonial bureaucracy were open to educated Indians, particularly after the introduction of competitive examinations in the 19th century. Satyendranath Tagore was the first Indian who passed the Indian Civil Service Examination in June 1863. Many Indians, often from elite or upper-caste backgrounds, pursued careers within this system, seeing British rule as a path toward social mobility, professional success, and access to modern education. These individuals, while sometimes critical of specific policies, often believed that British governance brought modernization and stability to India.
No significant groups among the independence activists wanted the administration of India to collapse. They wanted the police, post/telegraph/telephone and railway systems to keep on working. The people who worked in those systems also wanted to keep their jobs and incomes.
Through the inter-war decades, political pressure had been having worthwhile effects, with regional elections and administrations, the ending of monopolies, and so on. The British were gradually conceding power - not as quickly as the activists wanted, but there was progress.
This was messed up in September 1939, when the Viceroy, Lord Linlithgow, declared war on Germany all by himself, without consulting Indian politicians. He did have the legal right to do that, but it showed that India was not his highest priority. He also rejected the INC's request for a promise that India would have the chance to determine its own future after the war. That significantly devalued British promises and intentions.
It nonetheless took until August 1942, after the failure of the Cripps Mission, for widespread civil disobedience to start. The Quit India movement was not supported by the Muslim League, who wanted a separate Pakistan, the main Hindu nationalist party of the time and many Indians in national organisations, as well as businesses profiting from wartime spending.
The fundamental premise of the question is counterfactual. The 1857 rebellion began with a mutiny--that is, an organized refusal of Indians to cooperate with British rule. The entire essence of the Quit India movement was to call for total non-cooperation with British authorities. So the answer to the question is that opponents of British rule, and eventually supporters of independence, absolutely did work to encourage their fellow Indians not to support British rule.
