A divided India query

Query, how sustainable would a situation be where a native Indian power such as the Mughals or the Marathas ruled over Northern India, whilst the British ruled over Southern India and Bombay? How frequent might conflict? What would this do for Britain's economy?
 
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
 
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

Oh I like that, I like that a lot!
 
A simple PoD: Clive wins Arcot as per OTL, but goes on to lose Plassey.
What precisely happens in South India if there is no British Bengal?
 
Alrighty interesting, Britain;s wealth nmight be halved by not holding all of India, but they;'d still get quyite a considerable amount

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.
 
Well Britain’s strength was always based in Bengal- I think without the power base in Bengal, it’s much more likely that the french could have won the contest for the Deccan, which is always nice as Dupleix is such a tragic figure otl. In short, it would take at least a seventeenth century pod to have a British south and even if you managed it Madras seems like it’s be their most important presidency instead of Bombay.
I think if it’s the Marathas in the north they would at least make sure they control Maharashtra, perhaps splitting India down the Indo Aryan/Dravidian linguistic line. But the long term power in the north is pretty much up in the air id say- the Mughals could make a comeback under Shah Alam without the British defeating him, the Afghans could push further in in the late 18th century, the Sikhs could emerge as a major power, and without the British to worry about, Bengal could enforce hegemony over Awadh and Delhi, hell Bengal could even end up copying the fiscal military state model of Mysore and become a major naval/industrial power in the Indian Ocean.
 
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.
A shorty term declining or a short term investment
 
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?
 
What about the massive captive market that india was for british industrialization? Or like in Africa, the access to massive natural resources?

Most of Britain's market was domestic. After that, Europe accounted for the bulk of exports into the 1800s, at which point the Americas (mainly the USA) started eating away at the share. India never accounted for that much. It turns out people that you keep dirt poor through excessive taxation and monopsony purchasers of crops don't buy that much stuff in the scheme of things.

It's true that India provided a fair chunk of raw materials, but raw material costs isn't that much of a driver of wealth - and the profits made from these cut price costs would be accounted for in the returned capital numbers.

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.
 
It might depend in part on the relationship between the British and the other neighbors of the north Indian state.
 
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.

Colonialism period is not that profitable on a national scale in the long term. Once the big profits start rolling in the natives get restless wanting the money for themselves and the occupation costs kick in .
 
Top