Let's go to the Thought Bubble.
In most cases, Europeans ruled their colonies
with the help of, and sometimes completely through
intermediaries and collaborators.
For example, in the 1890s, in India,
there were fewer than 1000 British administrators
supposedly ruling over 300 million Indians.
The vast majority of British troops
at any given time in India, more than 2/3,
were, in fact, Indians under the command of British officers.
Because of their small numbers relative to the local populations
most European colonizers resorted to indirect rule,
relying on the governments that were already there
but exerting control over their leaders.
Frederick Lugard, who was Britain's head honcho in
Nigeria for a time, called this
"rule through and by the natives."
This worked particularly well with British administrators
who were primarily middle-class men but had aristocratic pretensions,
and were often pleased to associate with the
highest echelons in Indian or African society.
Now this isn't to say that indigenous rulers were
simply puppets. Often they retained real power.
This was certainly true in India,
where more than a third of the territory was ruled by
Indian princes.
The French procterates of Morocco and Tunisia
were ruled by Arab monarchs and the French also ruled
through native kings in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam.
For the most part, Europeans could almost always
rely on their superior military technology
to coerce local rulers into doing what the Europeans wanted.
And they could replace native officials with Europeans
if they had to. But in general, they preferred
to rule indirectly.
It was easier, and cheaper. Also less annoying.
Thanks Thought Bubble.