How can India, with a POD as late as possible, stay a monarchy under the British King/Queen and Emperor/Empress of India. Why didn't India after its independence become a Commonwealth Realm? Wouldn't it be much prestigious for both India and the British Monarchy if India was ruled by a constitutional and parliamentary Emperor?

Or, alternatively, make a descendant of the Mughals Emperor of India after independence.
 
Because the independence movement were predominantly republican nationalists with left-wing sympathies, which is anathema to being ruled over by monarchs, especially foreign ones from the country that colonised them.
 
It is possible keep India bit longer under British crown but to modern day it is impossible.

1. Most of separatists were republicans.
2. Indians wanted away from British oppresive colonial regime.
3. Christian monarch in Hindu majority nation would cause problems anyway on some point.
4. All descendants of Mughals were in diaspora around Raj. There not be clear successor for last Mughal emperor.
 
Top