AHC: "India" becomes independent as multiple states

Alright how's this for a quick sketch. All the states that were mentioned are made independent and I added, Balochistan (if we divide India why not Pakistan as well) and the Maldives.

Rip it apart if you must. As I said I don't know much on the topic, but certainly interested to know about it.


You made it ASB, and you forgot Khalistan and Sikkim, and multiple other states.
 
Alright how's this for a quick sketch. All the states that were mentioned are made independent and I added, Balochistan (if we divide India why not Pakistan as well) and the Maldives.

Rip it apart if you must. As I said I don't know much on the topic, but certainly interested to know about it.

Those islands aren't the Maldives. What you labelled are the Nicobar Islands.
 
The major obstacle is the way the Indian National Congress developed. Once it became solely about the establishment of a pan-Indian state, it will be hard to justify multiple states. certainly the critical time period is between 1885 with the establishment of Congress and 1920 when Gandhi became dominant.

Instead of Congress becoming the sole voice of Indian national aspirations, you likely need a variety of regional organizations. Maybe British policy changed after the Sepoy Rebellion to divide India. So instead of one raj, there are several. Or the British don't allow Congress to exist, but tolerate smaller, regional organizations. Or around the time of WWI, Britain puts together a credible dominion status plan for India, but on a more local level with certain regions of India getting the chance for self-governance sooner (which would enourage people in those areas to not support a greater India). Certainly, Muslim regions of India might prefer that to a greater India.
 
Foreign rule was what created a pan-Indian identity, as was said earlier- on a subcontinent that size, the scale and variety of cultures exceeds that of Europe. An India which manages to resist colonisation would stick to ethnolinguistic boundaries for the most part.
Well, the Mughal Empire did create a Hindustani culture, and the Marathas were on the way to controlling the entire subcontinent had the British and French not intervened, so it would take more than that.
 
Maybe British policy changed after the Sepoy Rebellion to divide India. So instead of one Raj, there are several.
Well prior to the British government taking over in 1858 after the Sepoy Rebellion India was organised by the East India Company into three main Presidencies that they directly ruled. Apparently there was even a proposed idea for a fourth one as the Presidency of Agra in the north of the country. One option might be to have the four Presidencies run as independent colonies with the British Viceroy sitting above them and the Princely States running what in our timeline was the British Raj as some kind of federation.
 
Found this:

IndianRumpState.jpg


And this:

rajiv.jpg
 
Dude, we asked you nicely to slow your roll. There's nothing inherently wrong with thread necromancy, but you've bumped a slew of threads, and generally with little or no added content. Since you were warned already, I'm going to kick you for a week, during which time you'll be unable to post. When you come back, please don't commit mass necromancy again.
 
In this timeline they're the Maldives.

As Iori pointed out the Maldives have had that name for millennia. The name comes from Tamil Malai Theevu/ Sanskrit Malai Deepu which mean the "Garland Isles", just as the Lahkshwadeep Islands to their North come from the Sanskrit/Tamil/Malayalam words for "One Hundred Thousand Isles".
 
Well prior to the British government taking over in 1858 after the Sepoy Rebellion India was organised by the East India Company into three main Presidencies that they directly ruled. Apparently there was even a proposed idea for a fourth one as the Presidency of Agra in the north of the country. One option might be to have the four Presidencies run as independent colonies with the British Viceroy sitting above them and the Princely States running what in our timeline was the British Raj as some kind of federation.

Considering that the Indian presidencies extended their control over the Malay Straits, a colony on Sumatra and in the wars against the Dutch over Java itself, then maybe if they spread out thus far a reorganisation would make sense whereby each one has a more geographical focus, thus sundering the dominance of Calcutta?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Have independence be the result of Britain losing a war with several competing foreign powers

Have the foreign powers give India independence but divide it up into separate ethnic states in doing so, for ideological reasons or simple to designate spheres of influence

Have said foreign powers last long enough and posses enough firepower to make things stick long enough to create a ruling class whose interests include keeping their states independence

Or just have Britain hold on long enough for independence to come in the form of being on the losing end of a nuclear war
 
The linguistic states came into existence only in 1956 after the reorganisation of states by the Government of India. Hence states forming along linguistic borders at the time of independence does not have any chance. Further a pan-Indian nationalist feeling had developed in the early years of the twentieth century. Certain regions like Bengal had developed their own nationalism earlier in the nineteenth century itself. But such regional identities were limited to certain regions only.
Many people think that had the British not ruled, India would have remained split into many little kingdoms. Not likely. In the eighteenth century the Mughals were past their prime and on a downhill course. The Marathas were the developing power and their power had reached Delhi.The loss at the Third Battle of Panipat, though was a strong blow, was not fatal enough to halt their growth. It was the arrival of the British that blocked their path. If there was no foreign interference, Maratha Empire might have replaced the Mughal Empire.The Marathas could have established an empire covering the whole subcontinent.
 
I once read that levels of insurrection were far, far lower in the Princely states than they were in the Raj controlled areas. How about having a second mutiny in the late 19th Century, causing the British to notice this, and decide to place the whole subcontinent under indirect control, to insulate themselves a bit more. If there were ten Hyderabads, things may have turned out differently.
 
I once read that levels of insurrection were far, far lower in the Princely states than they were in the Raj controlled areas. How about having a second mutiny in the late 19th Century, causing the British to notice this, and decide to place the whole subcontinent under indirect control, to insulate themselves a bit more. If there were ten Hyderabads, things may have turned out differently.

The trouble here is that the regions where the British took over directly tended to be the regions without effective local aristocracies. Indian states which were stable and able to govern their populations and fit into the British colonial resource extraction plan, like Travancore, Hyderabad and a lot of the Rajput states tended to just be given a Resident and left to sort out their own internal affairs. The British took direct control in the face of a power vacuum (as in much of the former Mughal heartland) or in response to internal chaos (as with the Punjab where the Sikh Empire was being torn apart by internal rivalries and factions). Thus, it would be hard to find a legitimate and effective aristocracy in the directly governed areas because the lack of such was what left these areas easy prey for British annexation.
 
The linguistic states came into existence only in 1956 after the reorganisation of states by the Government of India. Hence states forming along linguistic borders at the time of independence does not have any chance. Further a pan-Indian nationalist feeling had developed in the early years of the twentieth century. Certain regions like Bengal had developed their own nationalism earlier in the nineteenth century itself. But such regional identities were limited to certain regions only.

I suppose that's true- it was also visible in Kerala where the state of Travancore was rapidly attempting to place Cochin under it's control and was only blocked from expanding further into Calicut by Tippoo Sultan's more powerful forces conquering the area.
 
Considering that the Indian presidencies extended their control over the Malay Straits, a colony on Sumatra and in the wars against the Dutch over Java itself, then maybe if they spread out thus far a reorganisation would make sense whereby each one has a more geographical focus, thus sundering the dominance of Calcutta?
Yeah, British India did seem to spread into the surrounding region somewhat. Makes sense really since Burma was always about shielding India as a protective barrier, Malaya/Singapore in part about protecting the route to China, and generally getting dragged into economic contests with the Dutch. Having a look at a rough map of the three Presidencies if you keep Burma as a seperate colony right from the start and divide Bengal into two parts with a prospective Agra Presidency I mentioned before running the north-western bit that does appear to make things a little more workable. At this point with a possibly much weaker 'Indian' identity forming and the princely states dividing the Presidencies up even further you at least have a fighting chance.
 
Yeah, British India did seem to spread into the surrounding region somewhat. Makes sense really since Burma was always about shielding India as a protective barrier, Malaya/Singapore in part about protecting the route to China, and generally getting dragged into economic contests with the Dutch. Having a look at a rough map of the three Presidencies if you keep Burma as a seperate colony right from the start and divide Bengal into two parts with a prospective Agra Presidency I mentioned before running the north-western bit that does appear to make things a little more workable. At this point with a possibly much weaker 'Indian' identity forming and the princely states dividing the Presidencies up even further you at least have a fighting chance.

The princely states dividing up the presidencies is far more easily said than done.
 
Top