I guess it would depend upon the shape they were in when the British show up. If it's akin to OTL then they're screwed.
It might indeed.
Alrighty interesting, Britain;s wealth nmight be halved by not holding all of India, but they;'d still get quyite a considerable amount
Not really. So long as the independent Indian States are willing to play ball commercially (IE what the Right Honorable East India Company had been doing for a couple of centuries prior to the Sepoy Rebellion), British factors were making plenty of wealth by privately getting tax farms from the local Khan/Rajput/what have you, building up production facilities, and exporting back to Europe. The Raj even maintained alot of this with the Princely States where they felt confident they could get away with it. Just because India retains political independence in certain areas dosen't stop them from getting sucked into the Informal Empire
On those lines, your goal is actually very simple. Once the Maratha princelings have clearly renounced the authority of the Muhgals, have the Emperor invite the E.I.C forces to invade rebel territories on the promise they can hold them "in feif". Have the Company later on get absorbed by the Crown, and boom: British South India
Alrighty interesting, Britain;s wealth nmight be halved by not holding all of India, but they;'d still get quyite a considerable amount
A shorty term declining or a short term investmentNo it wouldn't. Capital coming back from India accounted for about 5% of British invested capital during the 1830s. Halving that means British wealth declines by 2.5%. And the nature of depreciation and diminishing returns to investment means this would only be a short term thing.
What about the massive captive market that india was for british industrialization? Or like in Africa, the access to massive natural resources?No it wouldn't. Capital coming back from India accounted for about 5% of British invested capital during the 1830s. Halving that means British wealth declines by 2.5%. And the nature of depreciation and diminishing returns to investment means this would only be a short term thing.
What about the massive captive market that india was for british industrialization? Or like in Africa, the access to massive natural resources?
Part of the tragedy of British India is that an entire subcontinent was exploited and it didn't even help the British that much. The benefit was almost entirely accrued to a small handful of individuals and families. Colonialism without slavery isn't that profitable on a national scale.