21st Century British/United Empire

Over the last several weeks I have seen a number of posts on different threads asserting that a 'British' Empire that keeps India must eventually become either an Indian dominated Empire, an Indian Flavoured Empire, or breakdown to avoid Indian dominance.

Must this be true? The US has a system of government for example that keeps the big, economically dominant and populous states from dominating e.g. California. Cannot not the same be done for the British Empire in some form of Federal United Empire? Or Maybe a customs union with only foreign policy, defence and free trade policies decided at the 'Imperial' level like the EU?

Is a United Empire (similar model to US) or an Imperial Union (simiar model to the EU) possible?
 
Must this be true? The US has a system of government for example that keeps the big, economically dominant and populous states from dominating e.g. California.

California doesn't have a population larger than the rest of the nation put together, nor the potential to become the worlds largest economy on its own.
 
Last edited:
As said, if you look at the demographics, the Modern Republic of India has a population of over a billion, the 'white dominions' together with Britain and Ireland have a combined population of about 150 million. This doesn't even take into account the rest of the Raj.

It's the equivilent of having a union between Canada and the US and expecting the US not to culturally dominate.


Now, the one situation I can see happening where it's not just 'an Indian Empire' is if as part of the movement towards a federal Empire we see a focus on local autonomy leading to India being broken into several states, so that instead of a big dominating India we have conflicting influences from Punjab, Bengal, Uttah Pradesh, Rajastan, the Tamils etc. etc.

There would still be a big influence from India, and we'd expect to see a lot of Indian politicians in the Imperial government, but it provides the basis for an effective federation of more equal units.
 
I must admit I have never really understood why India would swamp an Empire.

The Empire never had "MPs" from the colonies, but rather let each country rule itself (if white) or was run by a small UK appointed civil service (India et al).

A mature empire would be like the Commonwealth or the EU Council rather than the US / EU Parliment model. CHanges that would affect everyone would be discussed and agreed and not votes on. In this way India's size would be taken into account, but it would have no more offical say than the Solomon Isles.
 
One thing you could do is prevent American independence. That way you'd have 450 million "white" settler colonies against 1 billion Indians, thus far better odds.

Second, the British should introduce birth control much earlier to limit population growth in India.

Third, emmigration from India into the White settler colonies is necessary. If Indians are a decent minority in all Dominions, the personal relationships forming and the cultural exchange could bridge the differences. Essentially, this would reduce Indian population and add millions of "Anglizised" Indians.

Fourth, India should be partitioned into several states.

Fifth, some of those states should gain independence, thus we don't speak about India as a whole, but merely parts of it.

All in all, this is ASB-level as it requires an end to racism already in the 18th century to guarantee a mixture of culture and ethnicities. In any case, the British Empire evolving here is considerably "Indian" in culture and language.
 
Well maybe it would be possible. A lot of you are treating the Raj as a unitary part of the Empire, but there is a huge diversity in language, religion, and culture there. Enough that it could be quite reasonable to see many of India's states joining as separate members. This could break up their power in one way, but in another reinforce it though.

I'm assuming that you're also including the British Empire's African territories in this Empire too. They could perhaps more realistically join along their national borders, perhaps with some notable exceptions.

I think the end result would be however that by the 21st century (if such a union is successfully created and survives, which could be considered at least close to ASB territory) then the Indian states would form the largest voting block in the Imperial Union/United Empire and the prime minister (assuming you keep the monarchy, though it might be hard for a white royal family of German descent to continue as the heads of state) would likely be South Asian. English would continue as the ligua franca of the Empire and while London would equate with Washington DC, the New York and L.A of the Empire could very well be Mumbai and Bangalore.
 
Perhaps with earlier Irish home rule we'd see a gradual requests for more autonomy from the Irish state which later becomes the framework for later devolution of powers and the development of responsible government.

Different patterns of settlement are also an excellent idea.

Maybe Cecil Rhodes dies young or his alleged homosexuality is unambiguously exposed, butterflying away some or all of the Boer wars and the reducing the growing mistrust between Britain and the Dominions that had been formenting since the beginnings of the 20th Century.
 
There must be a way to do this around the 1940s:

  • Churchill, if India had to be given up, planned to withdraw over a 10 year period.
  • The Tory defeat at the hands of Atlee's Labour Party changed that as they were happy to "cut and run".
If either the Tories win (ASB?) or the Labour Party policy is not so radically at odds with Churchill's, the British could well still be securely in charge when relegious tensions start to flare in Indian (or perhaps Marxist terrorism starts to frighten the Indian middle classes).

What I am really trying to get at is a change in heart among Indian leaders if they begin to see India will be torn apart by immediate independence, and instead pursue a more gradual approach to independence (the British are handy hate figures to have around to supress religious or extemisty political strife and basically maintain law and order while keeping your own hands clean). We still see an independent India, though perhaps in a customs union and Imperial Defence Organisation but much later - say the 60s or 70s at the latest?

Or am I being to machievellian about the whole thing?
 
There must be a way to do this around the 1940s:

  • Churchill, if India had to be given up, planned to withdraw over a 10 year period.
  • The Tory defeat at the hands of Atlee's Labour Party changed that as they were happy to "cut and run".
If either the Tories win (ASB?) or the Labour Party policy is not so radically at odds with Churchill's, the British could well still be securely in charge when relegious tensions start to flare in Indian (or perhaps Marxist terrorism starts to frighten the Indian middle classes).

What I am really trying to get at is a change in heart among Indian leaders if they begin to see India will be torn apart by immediate independence, and instead pursue a more gradual approach to independence (the British are handy hate figures to have around to supress religious or extemisty political strife and basically maintain law and order while keeping your own hands clean). We still see an independent India, though perhaps in a customs union and Imperial Defence Organisation but much later - say the 60s or 70s at the latest?

Or am I being to machievellian about the whole thing?

No, the 1940s are far too late. There was no option to hold onto India by then. By the end of the Second World War, the choice was "you give us independence or we take it". They were all united in this. The latest POD I can think of is 1919, prevent the Amritsar Massacre. But a far earlier one might be necessary, the Irish Home Rule idea mentioned by Some Bloke above seems viable, if Gladstone succeded.
 
Thank you, the question is, how to make the bill pass.
Maybe after the first bill fails the second is subjected to a major rethink,
particularly with regard to Ulster.

On a related note, Chuchill in his early years, said that he'd have been a Liberal
were it not for their stance on Ireland. With Ireland already under home rule and
damn all Westminster can do about it might we see Churchill the life long liberal?
 
Last edited:
Actually, I think you can go later in the sense of the Dominion of India act of the Interwar period creating a true Dominion, and that this leads more generally to the idea of 'a union of nations' as the future of the Empire. This is probably something like the current situation with the EU or a federalised UK (an Imperial Parliament for reserved matters, national Parliaments for devolved matters, possibly with the position of Prime Minister of the Empire (because I think it likely that this would bring the Monarchy into being viewed favourably as it is in most of the Commonwealth) rotating between nations on a yearly basis).
 
Over the last several weeks I have seen a number of posts on different threads asserting that a 'British' Empire that keeps India must eventually become either an Indian dominated Empire, an Indian Flavoured Empire, or breakdown to avoid Indian dominance.

Must this be true? The US has a system of government for example that keeps the big, economically dominant and populous states from dominating e.g. California. Cannot not the same be done for the British Empire in some form of Federal United Empire? Or Maybe a customs union with only foreign policy, defence and free trade policies decided at the 'Imperial' level like the EU?

Is a United Empire (similar model to US) or an Imperial Union (simiar model to the EU) possible?

I don't think it 'must' be true, but it probably requires either significant exploitation of ethnic and other tensions within the subcontintent itself, or a truly federal model where Indian entities retain significant power, probably more than US states do.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Over the last several weeks I have seen a number of posts on different threads asserting that a 'British' Empire that keeps India must eventually become either an Indian dominated Empire, an Indian Flavoured Empire, or breakdown to avoid Indian dominance.

Must this be true? The US has a system of government for example that keeps the big, economically dominant and populous states from dominating e.g. California. Cannot not the same be done for the British Empire in some form of Federal United Empire? Or Maybe a customs union with only foreign policy, defence and free trade policies decided at the 'Imperial' level like the EU?

Is a United Empire (similar model to US) or an Imperial Union (simiar model to the EU) possible?

Your California example is not a good analogy due to the fact India outnumbers the whites of the empire by a wide margin. A better example would be the 13 Colonies decide all new lands go into one large state called "California". Then they decide to try to rig the system so California will have about 15% of the seats in the new federal government. And also, make this mega state not speak English as the mother tongue but combination of German, French, Spanish, various native tongues. And O, this state is not Christian, but practices the various religions of the first nations. And to answer your question, the USA system would not be able to handle this situation.

Or another way to think of it is the USA wanted to merge with India, Pakistan, Bangledesh, and Burma. If the USA gives equal vote to the Asians, the vote in America does not matter. If we rig the vote so the North Americans has about 50% of the power, it is doomed to fall apart. We are just too different. The USA system not setup for this type of event. We might be able to handle a merger with Mexico, perhaps even a merger with all of North America. But Mexico is a Christian nation. We have huge number of people in the USA that speak Spanish. We have some overlapping history. The USA can both celebrate the ARW and Mexico freeing itself from colonial status.

You can build a Greater Great Britain, but you can't do it with 25% of the world. It is easy for me to see a path to allow the mostly white settler colonies to join, as a path for critical naval bases like Hong Kong, Singapore, and maybe Columbo. I can even see a few of the non-white colonies wanting to join. But India is a not just a bridge too far, but quite few bridges and mountain passes too far.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
I must admit I have never really understood why India would swamp an Empire.

The Empire never had "MPs" from the colonies, but rather let each country rule itself (if white) or was run by a small UK appointed civil service (India et al).

A mature empire would be like the Commonwealth or the EU Council rather than the US / EU Parliment model. CHanges that would affect everyone would be discussed and agreed and not votes on. In this way India's size would be taken into account, but it would have no more offical say than the Solomon Isles.

The UK is too weak to keep India by force once the united Indian front arises. So for it to exist today, it has to be voluntary, so this is why we get into how a democracy/federation would work. By the early 1900's, the UK was having tough budget problems with building a fleet to feel safe from the High Seas Fleet. Keeping India down by military power would take an army the size seen in the Great War if not larger. The UK can't afford to keep 10 million men standing army with 40 million men in reserve. You would have to literally draft 100% of the male population for a 10 year service period where you are in reserve status for until 60. The USA is at least twice as large as the white areas of the empire, and I doubt we can afford to occupy India by force.
 
Well there might be this superpower based on the British Empire based on this scenario, but it's almost certain that it will become progressively less and less British as time passes.
 
There is no chance of India remaining a part of the British Empire under whatever condition with the consent of the Indian people. Indians do not have any cultural or emotional attachment to the Britain. As far as the average Indian is concerned, U.K. is just another European country like France or Germany.India agreed to remain in the Commonwealth only as a republic and not a dominion. That means that the British Monarch will have no constitutional status in India as in a dominion.Also India knows that the membership of the Commonwealth do not require any serious commitments on her part.It is nothing more than a debating club.Even the widespread use of the English language in India do not give the U.K. any special status in India. For Indians English is a convenient international language used in many countries.Common uneducated man in India thinks that the English is spoken by all Europeans!
 
There is no chance of India remaining a part of the British Empire under whatever condition with the consent of the Indian people. Indians do not have any cultural or emotional attachment to the Britain. As far as the average Indian is concerned, U.K. is just another European country like France or Germany.India agreed to remain in the Commonwealth only as a republic and not a dominion. That means that the British Monarch will have no constitutional status in India as in a dominion.Also India knows that the membership of the Commonwealth do not require any serious commitments on her part.It is nothing more than a debating club.Even the widespread use of the English language in India do not give the U.K. any special status in India. For Indians English is a convenient international language used in many countries.Common uneducated man in India thinks that the English is spoken by all Europeans!

That's India today. The sense of "India" is largely a British creation. A different, less centralised, approach might have created several national identities depending on the POD.

However I agree that there are always going to be anti-British movements or ideaologies regardless of the POD.

I wonder, if the Imperial Customs Union idea had come off, whether India would have been better or worse off? Economic prosperity for the middle classes is always a good start to building a support basis.
 
Top