I've seen it mentioned plenty of times before, but I've never actually seen an exploration of it. Basically the British Empire never dies but kind of federates into several dominions. This leaves India as the most populous. With the biggest population, a large number of partners in free trade and rapidly industrialising, India outstrips much of the rest of the Empire and becomes the de facto centre of the British Empire. What are the consequences of this shift? Is it perceived in a similar fashion to the Byzantines? The British Empire is just entering a new phase? What are the cultural implications?
WI The British Empire becomes India and her little buddies
- Thread starter Mumby
- Start date
Well that assumes that India doesn't go the Fabian socialism/Non-Aligned route and retard their own development for decades, although if they decide to become a part of a federation then I guess there have already been enough changes that a more free market friendly and pro-West policies might of taken hold. What you mention, that India with its larger population might become the dominant member, is one of the main reasons why I think Imperial Federation would be fairly unlikely to be considered by the White Dominions. Through a combination of until recently India having been just a colony of theirs for the British and racism for the other Dominions it's going to make then unlikely to turn over power to India.
When something like this has come up before the only way I've seen it being possible is if rather than just population the number of votes you get in a Federation Parliament if weighted to take into account both population and GDP/development. So Britain gets a greater number of votes than India because whilst they have a much smaller population their economic size makes up for it. Probably puts Australia on something of an even footing with India and also holds out the possibility of India increasing the number of votes they receive over time as they build up their economy. Then you'd get the situation you're looking for.
When something like this has come up before the only way I've seen it being possible is if rather than just population the number of votes you get in a Federation Parliament if weighted to take into account both population and GDP/development. So Britain gets a greater number of votes than India because whilst they have a much smaller population their economic size makes up for it. Probably puts Australia on something of an even footing with India and also holds out the possibility of India increasing the number of votes they receive over time as they build up their economy. Then you'd get the situation you're looking for.
"Little buddies" ? Does this mean that at some point India is going to get exasperated and hit Britain with his hat?
Last edited:
I've still problems in understanding the notion of "white" as it is used (I guess) in a significant part of the Anglo-Saxon World (using an expression recurrent on my English schoolbooks, that I suppose is not widely used across the Anglosphere or whatever it is called nowadays).
I mean, if not white, what are Indians supposed to be, and especially, why?
This is a true question. I am at loss when trying to understand the underlying notions.
I mean, if not white, what are Indians supposed to be, and especially, why?
This is a true question. I am at loss when trying to understand the underlying notions.
Well, it's a loose term that has had numerous shifts over time. To go very far back, White (in the United States at least) meant "Northern European Protestants", so Italians, Poles, and Spaniards were "Ethnics". Irish were viewed as different too because of Anti-Catholicism, and so the Celts were "inferior".
I'd classify many Indians as "Caucasoid", although such terminology is outdated and sounds racialist. But given their Non-Western and Christian culture, and their tan complexion compared to Northern Europe, they are Non-white much like Arabs are viewed as "Other".
Anymore it's more of a "European origin" term, but even then it is still loose (Arabs are sometimes considered White).
They're Indian. "White" is the same as European to most Europeans in my experience. Indians and Middle Easterners aren't "White".
Actually, Middle Easterners are sometimes considered white. Armenians, Georgians, Iranians, are borderline. Arabs are usually less likely, due to being Semitic instead of Indo-European.
It depends on the person's criteria. There's still small groups of Neo-Nazis who consider Slavs as "Asiatic" and thus not White.
That's part of my point. Aren't most of (North) Indians "Aryans"? (whatever that means, but I have no problem in grasping the gist of that particular bullshit).
However, thank you all. At times, I had the feeling that in the common use of English, "white" were actually a meaningful, precise notion. I gather it is mostly not the case.
wolf_brother
Banned
Taking the topic back to the OP...
I'm not sure if you'd see a situation analogous to the Byzantines, not unless London falls to outside invasion somehow, but its certainly going to be an issue of the tail-wagging-the-dog.
I'm not sure if you'd see a situation analogous to the Byzantines, not unless London falls to outside invasion somehow, but its certainly going to be an issue of the tail-wagging-the-dog.
So it would be currently improper for us USIans to refer to the UK as "our little buddy?" Shucks, weren't you supposed to have become the Greece to our Rome quite a while back?
Bruce
So it would be currently improper for us USIans to refer to the UK as "our little buddy?" Shucks, weren't you supposed to have become the Greece to our Rome quite a while back?
Bruce
That's enough out of you Colonist.
wolf_brother
Banned
So it would be currently improper for us USIans to refer to the UK as "our little buddy?" Shucks, weren't you supposed to have become the Greece to our Rome quite a while back?
Bruce
If we take that analogy to its logical end, then the US should conquer Britain sometime around 2139, and the American capitol would move to Britain sometime in 2656.
Also, I way overthought that quip.
What if the number of seats in the federated parliament is determined by the number of voters? Then introduce wealth and English language proficiency/education restrictions on the right to vote. The idea behind this is that as the Indians become more economically developed and more anglicised they get more votes. This could be introduced in the early 20th century when there was a small middle class of Indians who had studied in Britain.
Perhaps, but combine it with a strengthened House of Lords to keep the balance firmly in the UK/non-India Dominions favour, have membership in the HoL as all Hereditary and Spiritual with the number of Life Peers (or perhaps introduce the rank of Senator to the peerage...) becoming more of a gradual presence. With Life Peers I recognize the need for some politicization, but have a majority of yearly appointments on a merit basis typically to top level Civil Servants (mostly select Permanent Secretaries and Chief of the Defence Staff) upon retirement.
The purpose of the HoL in this case would be a) re-enforce the position of the UK itself as that is where most peers will be from; b) with a 'merit' system for new appointment the HoL will be seen to have legal/rational legitimacy on a gradually non-racial basis
Alex Richards
Donor
I've always felt that the logical answer to this is that instead of a single Dominion of India we get divisions based on linguistic lines (i.e. Dominion of Bengal, Maratha Dominion etc.). Take into account the Princely States reducing India's population further (and who if taken seperately are likely to be in a position of either being Imperial protectorates or voting to keep the status quo so that their position remains strong), and you further keep the balance.
Indeed, if you go for the concept that an Imperial Federation is basically 'colony or Dominion =represented in the Parliament, protectorates retain current agreements but trasferred to the Imperial level and having some form of representative to the government outside the parliament', we suddenly start seeing a rather large chunk of the Empire (from Indian Princely States to Egypt, the Trucial States, South Yemen, Buganda, the Ashanti Kingdom, Bastoutouland, most of Malaya etc.) as being outside the Parliament.
Indeed, if you go for the concept that an Imperial Federation is basically 'colony or Dominion =represented in the Parliament, protectorates retain current agreements but trasferred to the Imperial level and having some form of representative to the government outside the parliament', we suddenly start seeing a rather large chunk of the Empire (from Indian Princely States to Egypt, the Trucial States, South Yemen, Buganda, the Ashanti Kingdom, Bastoutouland, most of Malaya etc.) as being outside the Parliament.
Anyway, so far as the UK & dominions would be concerned, White would mean English speaking people of British descent, or other white people from Europe that have been naturalised to British culture or are otherwise loyal-ish (French Quebec etc). There was a very strong vein of British Race patriotism during the late 19th-early 20th century, which did not leave a lot of room for say Italian, Greek or Eastern European white migrants.
Thats an interesting idea. I did have an idea in one TL that the land under Residencies is put under British governance and divided between new peers. After all if you can have a Viscount of Burma...
SReagn did a map scenario with something like this...
https://www.alternatehistory.com/di...=3404381&highlight=kaiser+resigns#post3404381
Bruce
https://www.alternatehistory.com/di...=3404381&highlight=kaiser+resigns#post3404381
Bruce