AHC: Anglo/Indian Union

You also would need 'Indian' and 'African' to be geographical rather than national terms. Ie, someone from the subcontinent must self identify as Parsee or Sikh or Punjabi, say, rather than 'Indian'.

They did. 'Indian' was about as precise a designator as 'European'. It was colonial rule that spurred the development of an Indian national identity- this is inevitable because once India as a whole is subject to foreign rule you are going to have bright young Indians studying in England pick up on ideas of Nationalism. It's in the air.

propositions of this sort always seem to presume the colonised people live in some sort of informational vacuum
 
I can't see any situation, though, that would lead to the monarchy itself staying in India if the British Isles were retaken, and frankly, if Britain loses control of the Isles I doubt they'd be able to hold on to power in India for much longer...

Another problem is that pre-1857 it's the Company that has a rather ramshackle hegemony in India rather than the Crown. For the British crown to come in all of a sudden would be a direct challenge to the sovereignty of the Indian rulers- IOTL it was 1876 before the British monarch took on the title of Empress of India, 19 years after the process of reorganising India as a possession of the British government had begun. I suspect quite a bit of groundwork had to be laid and the relationship of the Princes to the Crown had to be settled down before this could happen.

I could. The longer they stay there, and without being in Britain itself, the more Indianised they get. As it is, the British administration in India was a little taken by the Mughals. In many ways, it would be similar to Babar in his initial conquest (This land is not my home, but it is now my new home)
 
Well, they could attempt to mitigate the issues of being outvoted by India by heavily splitting up India, in conjunction with coopting local elites and higher castes and exploiting inter-caste divisions. Then, even if you have a situation where the whole Raj area can, theoretically outvote Britain, that they won't actually vote as one unit.

This undoubtedly requires a 1858 PoD at least- perhaps the Mutiny leads Britain to decide that they need to kill any chance at unity in India to mitigate any potential revolts in future? Having an initial Bombay/Madras/Calcutta/Agra split roughly following the presidencies of the time might be a starting point.

See, this is exactly what would happen; It would be in Britain's interest to do so, but while in India, this makes a true difference, since voters would self-identify as 'Tamil' or 'Panjabi' or 'Pathan', in Britain itself, they would still be perceived as black Indians, at least in the beginning.

I think that something could be accomplished with a pre 1858 POD, which keeps the Indophile spirit alive in Britain; this will create an atmosphere of at least some sort of equality. Longer Company rule might be the solution to this, as there is more of an incentive to keep their men in India, to marry into the local classes...spread out over a longer period, you would see a larger population of Anglo-Indians. If this doesn't cause much backlash and Britons won't mind them vote in the future, then rich Indians might be seen as viable voters as well, and eventually the rest of India.
 
They did. 'Indian' was about as precise a designator as 'European'. It was colonial rule that spurred the development of an Indian national identity- this is inevitable because once India as a whole is subject to foreign rule you are going to have bright young Indians studying in England pick up on ideas of Nationalism. It's in the air.

propositions of this sort always seem to presume the colonised people live in some sort of informational vacuum

However, if it's decided not to unify the whole lot as a single colonial entity and have several different colonies in India (initially based on the company presidencies, but later perhaps splitting those up as well) would that not head off the idea of Indian nationalism at the pass? After all there were a lot of other areas where multiple neighbouring British colonies existed which didn't unify into a single state on independence (including East Africa which had a unified currency and some degree of political integration). The only example I can think of where the colonies decided themselves to unify was the creation of South Africa following the customs union between the Cape, Transvaal, Oranje River and Natal colonies, and even then Southern Rhodesia and the protectorates stayed out of the political union despite being in the customs union.

Now, granted this isn't the end of the problem- you'd still have Gujarati, Punjabi, Begali nationalism etc. to contend with- but I would think that it's perfectly possible to have British colonialism without necessarily creating a national Indian identity (after all, we have Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Myanmar OTL based on administrative divisions and religion based colonial politics).
 
Indian nationalism is only half the issue here. More to the point is the issue of regionalism in decision-making. Sure, you might be able to divide up India so that the Tamils feel like they have nothing in common with the Sikhs or the Gujarati or the Mughals or I don't know who, but if you have issues which affect the subcontinent enough then those different regional identities will vote together to counter-act British "better judgement", even if they don't realise that that is what they are doing.

Take for example a world where the Imperial Federation has come about. It's the year 1950, there has been only one world war, and Big Bad Democratic Russia is power-playing in Afghanistan. Now, in London the Diplomatic Corps believe that they have things in hand. India is half a world away, so they believe they have the time to build covert alliances with the rebel Afghani factions, Baluchistanis and such and they plan to use this to persuade the Russians to back down on their threats of cutting supplies to north-west India unless it cedes them some land. Let's pretend for the purposes of this scenario that London genuinely knows what they are doing, and Moscow privately believes that they are only posturing to force concessions out of London.

Skip now to India. The MPs on the border are very nervous. They can see the Russian garrisons along the border and they know that their lands will be the first to get obliterated if there is a war between the two. However, they also know that Russia is having a bit of a spat with Austria and France, its two European allies, and they are unlikely to want to enter a war with the Federation over Russian expansionist plans. Privately, the feeling is strong that a pre-emptive strike could turn the war their way fast. The border MPs bring a bill to the table proposing a declaration of war against Russia. All of the white MPs vote against. However, India is used to feeling threatened by Russia. 80% of the Indian MPs vote in favour. The Indians carry the vote all by themselves, and London's strategy and planning goes down the pan as the vast weight of Indian voters forces a war that they had planned to avoid all along.

Or to hypothesise another (shorter) scenario. It's 1950 again, and some of the white ex-colonies have started toying with the idea of universal healthcare. India still exists largely in squalor, the rate of doctors to citizens is ten times higher than in the white countries, hospitals are disease-ridden and underfunded. The Indians want any sort of upturn in their living conditions, as they feel that, as part of the same country as Britain, Canada, Australia etc, that they have the right to equal standards of living - and they are probably right. A bold Indian back-bencher proposes that the entire Federation institute a National Health Service which will be able to provide at least basic levels of healthcare for a very low insurance payment if not free, using a slice of the government's budget. India unites in its desire to improve the standards of living across the subcontinent. The white MPs either vote in favour on lines of conscience, or vote against on the grounds that the Federation cannot afford to institute these plans as it will bleed money away from the white states and actually decrease standards of living there as the disparity is so vast. It doesn't really matter how they vote, however, as the Indian vote is enough to completely overrule any organised vote against.

It's these kind of scenarios that I think make this a dud proposal. At the end of the day you can make the various areas of India hate each other, but if a bill comes up which stands to benefit India in general, the Indians will still bloc vote in favour and completely negate the white votes.
 
However, if it's decided not to unify the whole lot as a single colonial entity and have several different colonies in India (initially based on the company presidencies, but later perhaps splitting those up as well) would that not head off the idea of Indian nationalism at the pass? After all there were a lot of other areas where multiple neighbouring British colonies existed which didn't unify into a single state on independence (including East Africa which had a unified currency and some degree of political integration). The only example I can think of where the colonies decided themselves to unify was the creation of South Africa following the customs union between the Cape, Transvaal, Oranje River and Natal colonies, and even then Southern Rhodesia and the protectorates stayed out of the political union despite being in the customs union.

Now, granted this isn't the end of the problem- you'd still have Gujarati, Punjabi, Begali nationalism etc. to contend with- but I would think that it's perfectly possible to have British colonialism without necessarily creating a national Indian identity (after all, we have Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Myanmar OTL based on administrative divisions and religion based colonial politics).

Technically there were several different administrative units including the Princely states which were internally governed completely separately. This didn't stop Tamils and Malayalees and Punjabis and Gujuratis forming a common identity. They were still part of the same historical cultural sphere. With the examples you cite, Myanmar wasn't very integrated into the wider Indian cultural sphere before it's administrative attachment to British India. Sri Lanka had a very different colonial history and a nationalism based on Sinhalese perception of their own Buddhism differentiating them from the rest of the Indian sphere and racial opposition to the Sri Lankan Tamils, seen as benefiting from British patronage and also as representative of that wider Indian cultural sphere. Pakistan formed in relation to very specific developments in the process of Indian independence and still didn't receive the support of the majority of Indian Muslims.

In the end, people can talk about setting the different groups at each other throats but this is easier said than done and doesn't tend to work in the way the occupying power wants it to work. It was done in Sri Lanka after all and that didn't mean Britain got to stay- it just resulted in a racial war after Independence. It's been proven time and again that when dealing with an external occupying force, local differences get buried until the external threat gets dealt with, after which internecine killing can resume. "Let's drive out the hated British first, then we can kill the hated [insert name here]!"
 
I could. The longer they stay there, and without being in Britain itself, the more Indianised they get. As it is, the British administration in India was a little taken by the Mughals. In many ways, it would be similar to Babar in his initial conquest (This land is not my home, but it is now my new home)

My issue was more that a Britain which has lost the Home Isles isn't going to be able to hold down India. They've just lost their industrial base and any uprising isn't going to be easily dealt with by shipping troops and materiel from home.

It's not like there's going to be an information vacuum in India. Pretty soon, the colonial subjects are going to know that the rulers have lost their homeland. It's not like it'd be too difficult to finish the job.
 
My issue was more that a Britain which has lost the Home Isles isn't going to be able to hold down India. They've just lost their industrial base and any uprising isn't going to be easily dealt with by shipping troops and materiel from home.

It's not like there's going to be an information vacuum in India. Pretty soon, the colonial subjects are going to know that the rulers have lost their homeland. It's not like it'd be too difficult to finish the job.

I do agree with you; it does become a hell of a lot harder, but I'd say if something occurs in the late nineteenth century, it would be a lot easier than in the twentieth century.
 
The British had ruled over India as a colonial power and under any circumstance they would never have succeeded in creating an Anglo-Indian Union. The British and the Indians belong to two entirely different ethnic groups and could never develop a common culture or society. Even if they had not kept most of the subcontinent as one country and had divided it into regions, none of these regions are going to feel any kind of attachment to the British.Even if the country was divided administratively into many colonies and they attained freedom as different states, conflicts and wars between them were possible. But any of them adopting the British culture or wishing to be a part of UK was just not possible.
 
I could. The longer they stay there, and without being in Britain itself, the more Indianised they get. As it is, the British administration in India was a little taken by the Mughals. In many ways, it would be similar to Babar in his initial conquest (This land is not my home, but it is now my new home)

There is no way the general population of the UK would acknowledge any form of Union with India, especially pre 1900.

Heck, if the British are snobbing the rest of Europe how are they going to tolerate someone from a different CONTINENT claiming to be their equals.

Even if any form of Royalty/Government does set up shop in India, if it becomes too 'native' it'll never be accepted back home. It'll be seen as subjecting Britain to foreign rule, regardless of their heritage.

You'd have a better chance getting a Union between Portugal and Brazil, or Argentina and Spain.

Getting a colony into a Union with the occupying power, especially with a strong native identity, is impossible I would think.
 
Even if any form of Royalty/Government does set up shop in India, if it becomes too 'native' it'll never be accepted back home. It'll be seen as subjecting Britain to foreign rule, regardless of their heritage.

Because of course, Britain has no history at all of accepting foreign monarchs...
 
Because of course, Britain has no history at all of accepting foreign monarchs...

There's a rather obvious difference between 'That Jolly German Fellow from across the water' and someone from India.

Germans are closely linked to Britain by culture (primarily Protestant Northern European).

India is not. Religion is different, culture is different. You'd need to reassure the aristocracy and such that someone bringing India culture to the UK isn't going to be at odds with the Status Quo. 'That sort of thing just isn't done here' mentality.

The Germans were considered acceptable because they were close enough to resemble the British concept of Monarchy whilst not interfering with the internal workings of the British way of life.

If you can't get a Catholic on the throne, you can't get someone influenced by Indian culture.
 
There's a rather obvious difference between 'That Jolly German Fellow from across the water' and someone from India.

Germans are closely linked to Britain by culture (primarily Protestant Northern European).

India is not. Religion is different, culture is different. You'd need to reassure the aristocracy and such that someone bringing India culture to the UK isn't going to be at odds with the Status Quo. 'That sort of thing just isn't done here' mentality.

The Germans were considered acceptable because they were close enough to resemble the British concept of Monarchy whilst not interfering with the internal workings of the British way of life.

If you can't get a Catholic on the throne, you can't get someone influenced by Indian culture.

Well if the royal family has somehow become Hindu/Muslim then yes, there could be an adverse reaction, but I think this is perhaps unlikely. I'm not sure why, I just kind of do. On the other hand, if the royal family have just been culturally and somewhat racially integrated, I'm not so sure. The pull of tradition and history is strong, and many would argue that whether they liked it or not, they couldn't argue with the royal family's right to the throne. As for my previous comment, I was also trying to draw attention to the fact that England/UK has a long history of accepting foreign rulers, and then turning them "more English than the English themselves". If the royals came to live in London again, and this would likely be part of the agreement behind a union, then I would absolutely expect the royals to lose their Indian habits by the third generation. Parliament would likely welcome the inviting of foreign monarchs - as they historically did with William and Anne and with George I - because it would give them the opportunity to exacerbate their own power and ride roughshod over the tradition rights of the monarchy, which is something Parliament has always excelled at.

Nevertheless, I think this is all beside the point anyway. I don't believe there's any scenario which would lead the royal family to "do a Portugal" and flee the motherland for a colony - I think people on this forum have far too much of a tendency to view the Portuguese as a precedent rather than an anomaly - and as I've previously commented in this thread, I don't think the British would ever agree to a democratic union on the grounds that the Indian vote would overwhelm the British vote no matter what happened.
 
Well if the royal family has somehow become Hindu/Muslim then yes, there could be an adverse reaction, but I think this is perhaps unlikely. I'm not sure why, I just kind of do. On the other hand, if the royal family have just been culturally and somewhat racially integrated, I'm not so sure. The pull of tradition and history is strong, and many would argue that whether they liked it or not, they couldn't argue with the royal family's right to the throne. As for my previous comment, I was also trying to draw attention to the fact that England/UK has a long history of accepting foreign rulers, and then turning them "more English than the English themselves". If the royals came to live in London again, and this would likely be part of the agreement behind a union, then I would absolutely expect the royals to lose their Indian habits by the third generation. Parliament would likely welcome the inviting of foreign monarchs - as they historically did with William and Anne and with George I - because it would give them the opportunity to exacerbate their own power and ride roughshod over the tradition rights of the monarchy, which is something Parliament has always excelled at.

Nevertheless, I think this is all beside the point anyway. I don't believe there's any scenario which would lead the royal family to "do a Portugal" and flee the motherland for a colony - I think people on this forum have far too much of a tendency to view the Portuguese as a precedent rather than an anomaly - and as I've previously commented in this thread, I don't think the British would ever agree to a democratic union on the grounds that the Indian vote would overwhelm the British vote no matter what happened.

A Catholic can't legally take the throne. The Royal family would HAVE to be Church of England for starters. That part is non-negotiable, it is required by Act of Succession.

If they bring the culture but not religion they could maybe grudgingly acknowledged but there would be a lot of laughter and disapproving head shaking behind doors. 'What has the Monarchy come to?', 'They do WHAT? For shame.' But your point about Parliament taking advantage is a good one, anything to boost their own influence and power.

As for a British-Indian Empire - Definitely not. Agreed, the vote issue is important but also the British Aristocracy would never consider themselves equal to Indian Aristocracy. As Empire builders there would always be a level of superiority complex that would never allow a 'conquered people' to be treated equal, not while the Empire itself remained. Those with the power would sabotage it by any means possible.
 
A Catholic can't legally take the throne. The Royal family would HAVE to be Church of England for starters. That part is non-negotiable, it is required by Act of Succession.

If they bring the culture but not religion they could maybe grudgingly acknowledged but there would be a lot of laughter and disapproving head shaking behind doors. 'What has the Monarchy come to?', 'They do WHAT? For shame.' But your point about Parliament taking advantage is a good one, anything to boost their own influence and power.

As for a British-Indian Empire - Definitely not. Agreed, the vote issue is important but also the British Aristocracy would never consider themselves equal to Indian Aristocracy. As Empire builders there would always be a level of superiority complex that would never allow a 'conquered people' to be treated equal, not while the Empire itself remained. Those with the power would sabotage it by any means possible.

Well, technically the law only forbids Catholics from taking the throne, it doesn't say anything about other religions, but yes, I agree.

I agree too about the grudging acceptance. Of course it would be grudging. But it would be acceptance. And you're probably right that the peers would never see eye to eye with the Indian aristocracy - although aristocracy didn't really exist in India in the same form as in the UK. They had their Princely State rulers, but I'm not sure they really had an aristocracy as such below that. As for the Princes of the Princely States, I doubt they would want to be seen as equal to the peers of the UK, anyway - the peers were just landed gents, after all, whereas the Princely States were autonomous countries with their own government - I think in some cases even their own small Parliaments - and taxation and armies and so on. Any sort of a union would have to split these two groups up as they would never view each other as equals.

But again, back to the original point. This is all highly hypothetical, as I don't see a union ever happening in the first place.
 
Well, technically the law only forbids Catholics from taking the throne, it doesn't say anything about other religions, but yes, I agree.

The monarch "shall join in communion with the Church of England."

Basically requires Church of England. Nothing saying you can't convert after though.

But again, back to the original point. This is all highly hypothetical, as I don't see a union ever happening in the first place.

Agreed.

Edit - Also for your interest -

If a person not native to England comes to the throne, England will not wage war for "any dominions or territories which do not belong to the Crown of England, without the consent of Parliament."

Some rather large changes would needed. India gets attacked, ooops! We can't send soldier to help, sorry, law and all that. And you KNOW it would be during a conservative government...
 
Edit - Also for your interest -

If a person not native to England comes to the throne, England will not wage war for "any dominions or territories which do not belong to the Crown of England, without the consent of Parliament."

Some rather large changes would needed. India gets attacked, ooops! We can't send soldier to help, sorry, law and all that. And you KNOW it would be during a conservative government...

Eh...slightly different things, but yes. That clause was inserted to stop the German Kings from using the threat of English military power to back their own ambitions on the continent. Sure, it would apply to India too, but if there were an actual political union here, that clause would be null and void. It's one thing sharing a King with a foreign entity, it's another actually forming a single political state. If you refused to defend the other part of your country because of lingering antipathy between the two halves then that's the recipe for a failed state right there (and by failed state I mean the legal definition of the term [Wikipedia it], not just "what an epic fail of a country").

Of course, if we are just digging up all the ancient laws which would play merry havoc with such a union, then bear in mind that Parliament has never revoked the law which states that all monarchs of the UK must ask permission from Parliament to leave the country, and cannot be absent for more than one year. That law was also enacted in the reign of George I, to essentially force him and his descendants to be culturally assimilated and to stop him from going back to Germany to get all hyped up on the idea of Absolutist Monarchy.
 
Eh...slightly different things, but yes. That clause was inserted to stop the German Kings from using the threat of English military power to back their own ambitions on the continent. Sure, it would apply to India too, but if there were an actual political union here, that clause would be null and void. It's one thing sharing a King with a foreign entity, it's another actually forming a single political state. If you refused to defend the other part of your country because of lingering antipathy between the two halves then that's the recipe for a failed state right there (and by failed state I mean the legal definition of the term [Wikipedia it], not just "what an epic fail of a country").

Of course, if we are just digging up all the ancient laws which would play merry havoc with such a union, then bear in mind that Parliament has never revoked the law which states that all monarchs of the UK must ask permission from Parliament to leave the country, and cannot be absent for more than one year. That law was also enacted in the reign of George I, to essentially force him and his descendants to be culturally assimilated and to stop him from going back to Germany to get all hyped up on the idea of Absolutist Monarchy.

True. I know there are hundreds of little things that would jam the turning wheels, I just took that item to absurd extreme.
 
There is no way the general population of the UK would acknowledge any form of Union with India, especially pre 1900.

Heck, if the British are snobbing the rest of Europe how are they going to tolerate someone from a different CONTINENT claiming to be their equals.

Even if any form of Royalty/Government does set up shop in India, if it becomes too 'native' it'll never be accepted back home. It'll be seen as subjecting Britain to foreign rule, regardless of their heritage.

You'd have a better chance getting a Union between Portugal and Brazil, or Argentina and Spain.

Getting a colony into a Union with the occupying power, especially with a strong native identity, is impossible I would think.

If you read my post under the one you quoted, my justification for it is there. The one you quoted isn't really talking about an Anglo-Indian union, so much as a reply to if the British monarch would have to flee to India in the case of the isles being taken, and staying there, which, depending on the time period is still somewhat of a possibility. The latter deals with actually having a political union which does not deal with the king (or queen) being in India itself, where the POD is a lot more flexible. And yes, pre-1900 would be easier to engineer something like this than post-1900. There was a long time where Britain was enamoured by India, and it only went away in 1857.
 
Last edited:
Top