There are so many overseas colonies in the British Empire, why didn't the Governor send people to develop independently?

Britain has two kinds of overseas colonies. One is the former colonies with British immigrants as the main population, such as Canada, Australia and the former North America 13 colonies (that is, the United States before independence). The other is that the British conquered the colonies acquired by the local people. The main residents of this colony are locals, and this colony includes India, Malaysia and so on.

Let's talk about the first kind of colony. The first kind of colony was established by British immigrants in the past, and the system construction was similar to that of the British mainland. There are also local councils, which are generally controlled by local tyrants. They are either capitalists or landlords. As a result, in fact, in the colonies, the governor sent by Britain was indirect at best and his power was not very great.

Local affairs are generally handled through local laws and local councils. Of course, the opinion of the king of England is also very important, but as the incarnation of the king of England, you, the governor, may not be able to unite with the local local tyrants. How can we be independent without the support of local tyrants?

In fact, some people rebelled in this first colony. The main body of the rebellion was Hancock, Franklin, Washington, Jefferson and other local tyrants, not the governor sent by the British king. Because it is these local tyrants who are really in power in these colonies, and they have money and guns to rebel.

The reason why these local tyrants rebelled is also very simple. British tax increases and other unfair policies angered them. Before that, Britain and France fought a war for the North American colonies. Although Britain won, it has a big financial problem. The British will fight to defend your North American colonies anyway, so you should pay some money: increase your taxes. This tax increase did not matter, which led to the anger of the people in North America and led to the Boston Tea Party.

The British also engage in maritime monopoly trade, stipulating that cargo ships bound for British colonies in North America must leave Britain or use British ships to transport goods. In other words, if you start from France, Spain and other countries and use ships from other countries, you will not be able to trade with British North American colonies. Because of this, Hancock, the largest local tyrant in North America, was also investigated by the British. This gentleman was very angry. He was the first person to sign the American Declaration of Independence.

Therefore, in the first colony, it was the local local tyrants who wanted to rebel, not the governor sent by the British king.

Look at the second situation. Take India as an example. India is already the best colony in Britain, but only as a colony. In other words, India basically has no local modern industry, and can only be used as a raw material producing area and a dumping market for products in Britain. As a governor, you have adapted to modern life in Britain. Would you like to live in a poor and backward place like India where there is no modern life? Even if you are independent and build your own luxurious modern life with the help of all India, you can't resist the British army with modern weapons, and you can't beat it without military industry! Therefore, as the governor of India, the most cost-effective way is to collect personal wealth in India and return to Britain to enjoy these personal wealth in a few years.

Some people in India also want independence, but they are also local tyrants, and the governor will rule indirectly through them. These local tyrants rebelled under the pressure of the British, such as the independence uprising of Queen Zhang Xi, but they were all suppressed. If you let the governor be independent, you know the consequences. The local tyrants finally succeeded in independence because of the decline of Britain after World War II and the contraction of the global sphere of influence, otherwise it would be impossible to succeed independently.