AHC: India is a monarchy post-independence

This article asks if India could have been a monarchy after independence, and while the article has some weird errors ("There is no doubt that democracy is uniquely suited to India relative to other non-Western societies"? What the fuck? India came very close to being a dictatorship during the Emergency), it still has interesting points. It also brings up an interesting question. With a post-1900 POD, how can India become a monarchy upon independence?
 
Some Indian Prince comes out as pro-indendence in the early 20th century and is deprived of his throne because of it.
He doesn't take it lying down though and eventually becomes a key leader in an alt-Indian independence movement, one focused more on traditional Indian culture and society than socialism.
When India does become independent he is officially restored to his throne as well as becoming the countries first prime minister, he has a long and popular tenure and when the British monarchy is eventually gotten rid of, Indian Parliament passes a motion to give him the title Emperor of India rather than abolish it all together.
 
Last edited:
The idea of an Indian monarchy being elective like Malaysia seems very interesting, although if the option is any head of a princely state, that would make the elections a bit chaotic.
 
The idea of an Indian monarchy being elective like Malaysia seems very interesting, although if the option is any head of a princely state, that would make the elections a bit chaotic.
There was no chance for an elective monarchy like that of Malaysia in India. First reason was the number of native states. There were around six hundred princes whose "kingdoms" were very much different in area, population and resources. There were comparatively large states like Hyderabad, Kashmir, Gwalior etc. and also some others which were as large as some plantations. The second reason was the way in which the most princes were viewed by the national leaders. The majority of the Congress leaders looked at the princes as anti-people parasites who deserved to be thrown into the wastebasket of history. Hence I do not think that a monarchy for a free India was ever considered seriously even for a few minutes by the political leaders.
 
There was no chance for an elective monarchy like that of Malaysia in India. First reason was the number of native states. There were around six hundred princes whose "kingdoms" were very much different in area, population and resources. There were comparatively large states like Hyderabad, Kashmir, Gwalior etc. and also some others which were as large as some plantations. The second reason was the way in which the most princes were viewed by the national leaders. The majority of the Congress leaders looked at the princes as anti-people parasites who deserved to be thrown into the wastebasket of history. Hence I do not think that a monarchy for a free India was ever considered seriously even for a few minutes by the political leaders.

I think the Holy Roman Empire would be the best analogue for an Indian monarchy, leaving the heads of larger states as electors. Of course, that, in itself, opens a new can of worms...
 
Would it be possible to have Osman Ali Khan declared India's monarch?

Perhaps in a no partition scenario where India is established as a loose confederation with the Princely States still holding some power. Of course this isn't a recipe for stable government and the new state is wracked with infighting and sectarian violence. In a desperate bid to stabilise the country the Indian government draws up a new constitution which increases the centralisation of power. In order to gain support for this they offer the Nizam of Hyderabad the option to become India's Constitutional Monarch as a means of appealing to India's sizeable Muslim minority and the other Princely states, as well as ensuring that his considerable wealth and personal army would be fighting on their side.
 
If the Independence process is less confrontational, India may be given Dominion status as a monarchy under the British monarch. It most probably happens before WWII and without Partition (which is VERY good; partition was unmitigated catastrophe for all parties involved, though I admit that Pakistani nationalists would disagree), but it's not clear how to get there. The changes required bot in India and especially in British policy are huge.
 
The majority of the Congress leaders looked at the princes as anti-people parasites who deserved to be thrown into the wastebasket of history.

Yeah, that seems to be the largest issue. The princely states were viewed as quislings, as collaborators with the British, and so had no reason to exist in an independent India.

Still, there are some former ruling dynasties that don't hold that same disadvantage. If the government could find a Mughal to be crowned as emperor, that person may very well be a unifying figure, as emperor in a time when India was one of the most advanced countries in the world and as a member of a famously syncretic dynasty. They were also overthrown as part of the "First Indian War of Independence" so there's some freedom fighter stuff that applies. But then the problem here is that Congress was highly republican and the Marathas and Sikhs wouldn't like a Mughal emperor in charge.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
This article asks if India could have been a monarchy after independence, and while the article has some weird errors ("There is no doubt that democracy is uniquely suited to India relative to other non-Western societies"? What the fuck? India came very close to being a dictatorship during the Emergency), it still has interesting points. It also brings up an interesting question. With a post-1900 POD, how can India become a monarchy upon independence?
Does being a Dominion like Canada or Australia count?
 
I think the Holy Roman Empire would be the best analogue for an Indian monarchy, leaving the heads of larger states as electors. Of course, that, in itself, opens a new can of worms...

It wouldn't be so much electors HRE style, but if you did have a Malaysia-like system (I agree that it's highly unlikely), the rulers of the larger states would probably be the ones most likely to be elected unless there was a charismatic and popular ruler from a smaller state who would gain widespread support, including in the "electoral college" of Indian rulers.
 

longsword14

Banned
If the government could find a Mughal to be crowned as emperor, that person may very well be a unifying figure
Eh, No.
Why would anyone want a king when an effective Indian monarchy connected to the land and people does not exist ?
Major princely states existing is far more likely. Anny other option is more likely than the Mughals (no one cares a bit about their so called moderation, toleration etc).
 
Eh, No.
Why would anyone want a king when an effective Indian monarchy connected to the land and people does not exist ?
Major princely states existing is far more likely. Anny other option is more likely than the Mughals (no one cares a bit about their so called moderation, toleration etc).

Point taken. I can't imagine Hindu nationalists being happy about the "evil Muslim Mughals" as emperors, anyways.
 

longsword14

Banned
Point taken. I can't imagine Hindu nationalists being happy about the "evil Muslim Mughals" as emperors, anyways.
I can't imagine "liberal, tolerant Muslim nationalists" being happy about it either. No Mughal had anything to do with the national movement; the only relevant ruler was the one in London.
 
I can't imagine "liberal, tolerant Muslim nationalists" being happy about it either. No Mughal had anything to do with the national movement; the only relevant ruler was the one in London.

Indeed. This is looking more and more difficult post-1900, especially after the "default" form of governance becomes republicanism.
 

longsword14

Banned
Indeed. This is looking more and more difficult post-1900, especially after the "default" form of governance becomes republicanism.
Not only that, but the Mughals had been wiped out by 1857. Bahadur Shah Zafar died in Burma, and his sons were shot (or decapitated) for their involvement with the revolt.
 
Top