AHC- Indian Colonial Power

It's important to note that Europeans didn't just trade for spices. India was a major exporter of finished cloth to Europe (up until the EI destroyed the local weaving industry).

But yeah, they purchased Indian trade goods with gold and silver which, incidentally is why you don't see much of an incentive for Indian traders to head West- if there are no trade goods you need from Europe, it's much easier to let Europeans come and bring gold to you. That's why, if we're talking about a South Indian maritime power, SE Asia is a logical area for expansion- gaining hegemony in the East Indies gives direct material control over the trade goods thereof, as opposed to launching long expeditions to bring spices to Europe to sell for gold which they would have brought you anyway.

Thanks, I didn't know about the finished cloth industry. Referring to the post you made earlier about Australia (I'm not sure how to quote multiple posts), there are significant gold stores in Australia, so if a South Indian maritime power were to find out about the gold there, would they bother colonizing the area? Was the demand for gold and silver even that significant?
 
Thanks, I didn't know about the finished cloth industry. Referring to the post you made earlier about Australia (I'm not sure how to quote multiple posts), there are significant gold stores in Australia, so if a South Indian maritime power were to find out about the gold there, would they bother colonizing the area? Was the demand for gold and silver even that significant?

To be honest, finding the deposits without prior settlement is highly unlikely, and there's little reason to settle in the first place. Gold rushes tend to boost settlement areas, not be the reason for their founding.

Yeah, people tend to overlook the finished cloth industry. This, by the late 18th c was India's major export and was specifically why the Company made it a priority to crush this industry wherever it gained hegemony.
 

SunDeep

Banned
Unlikely, IMO. There's nothing there that would attract colonisation (any more than it did until it was specifically selected as a settler colony for undesirables by the British). An Indian thallasocracy would be trade based and there's really nothing that Northern Australia can provide. It's very telling that even the Indonesians (who were perfectly aware of the existence of the Top End) didn't bother settling it. There's lots of much richer empty space in the East Indies.
Gold? Silver? Diamonds? These were the main commodities that they traded their goods to the Europeans for, so you'd assume they'd be interested in the resources this region has to offer, in the long term. In the short term though, kickstarting settlement in Northern Australia for an Indian maritime power shouldn't be any more challenging than it was for the British in South-East Australia, or indeed in Virginia in North America. The climate's very similar to that of India; all of their major crops would grow there, along with plenty of potentially lucrative cash crops for the Indian market which actually are grown there today- sandalwood and indigo, for instance. And you could easily add opium to that list, if you want a crop to fill the niche of the tobacco plantations in the Thirteen Colonies.
 
Gold? Silver? Diamonds? These were the main commodities that they traded their goods to the Europeans for, so you'd assume they'd be interested in the resources this region has to offer, in the long term.
And they wouldn't know they were there, just like the Dutch and Portuguese and all the other people who knew of Australia and generaly ignored it. Simply put, Australia isn't a terribly interesting continent, at least on first (and second and third) glance. So if an Indian power knows of Australia, checks it out, they would only notice desert and other wilderness and the only people living on it have little to nothing to trade. So most likely they would simply ignore it, like basicly everyone did until the British decided to dump some prisoners on it.
 
Mineral Resources

Gold? Silver? Diamonds? These were the main commodities that they traded their goods to the Europeans for, so you'd assume they'd be interested in the resources this region has to offer, in the long term.

How do they know they're there? As I said earlier, mineral resources only tend to be discovered after initial settlement.

Cash crops and subsistence crops
The climate's very similar to that of India; all of their major crops would grow there, along with plenty of potentially lucrative cash crops for the Indian market which actually are grown there today- sandalwood and indigo, for instance. And you could easily add opium to that list, if you want a crop to fill the niche of the tobacco plantations in the Thirteen Colonies.

Why would you sail all the way to Australia to grow cash crops you can grow at home and in the settled East Indies without the expense of extra shipping distance plus the costs of establishing plantations in virgin territory?

RE their food crop package- I do understand that rice etc are currently grown on the Top End, but I'd be interested to find out how much of this is assisted by modern farming methods. I think it's very telling that the Indonesians (though accomplished sailors and settlers) never bothered settling the Top End. They were aware of it's existence but no settlement. Of course this may have had nothing to do with the crop issue and more to do with the easy availability of large tracts of unsettled land in the Indonesian Archipelago (which, itself, means that it's a lot more likely to see added Indian settlement there as opposed to Australia)

Difficulty vs Incentive
In the short term though, kickstarting settlement in Northern Australia for an Indian maritime power shouldn't be any more challenging than it was for the British in South-East Australia, or indeed in Virginia in North America.

I agree. It wouldn't be any more difficult. That's not the issue.

You still haven't come up with a *reasonable* incentive to start a settler colony. Sometimes I think there's an attitude on this site that colonisation is somehow a (in the long term) easy process.

It isn't.

It's very expensive (both in lives and treasure) and creates huge administrative hassles. Europeans were incentivised to go exploring in order to find shorter, easier routes to Asia. Settlement of the Americas came after that and was initially spurred by the potential for cash crops and trade.

I'm wondering why any Indian polity (or private interests for that matter) would bother to go to the expense and hassle of setting up cash crop plantations when these crops can (A) be grown at home or (B) be grown in the East Indies which, assuming a South Indian thalassocracy scenario, are probably within their sphere of influence anyway. I just don't see an economic incentive.

Even where Europeans were concerned, settlement of Australia took quite a while to get underway- the coasts were generally mapped and ships would stop to get water and supplies from time to time but you don't see any foreign settlement until the First Fleet. The circumstances there were quite unique in that Britain had an established policy of transportation of criminals, had lost their previous preferred destination (the American colonies) and had a backlog of felons with nowhere to put them. Australia provided a temperate and (marginally) survivable destination (presumably they didn't just want to ship them off to the tropical islands to outright die like flies).

Solution: Something unique

I can understand if you want to (in your TL) put in something similar. Say you have an Indian maritime power that for various reasons doesn't want to settle its undesirables in Borneo or elsewhere in the Malay world (I'm not sure why- perhaps the fear that convicts settled there might conspire with rebels against the various Malay vassal monarchs of the Empire), then, ok, you might see settlements on the Top Side.

Or you could come up with some other, likewise, unique concatenation of circumstances. The favourite implausible one is "some prince loses a civil war and heads off into exile to found a new state". This doesn't usually happen- deposed princes tend not to like heading off into nowhere. You're more likely to find them either dead, glorified bandits, or at rival courts. But you get the idea- some sort of unique incentive for settlement.

But don't try to argue for an initial economic impetus, because there simply isn't one.
 

SunDeep

Banned
Mineral Resources

How do they know they're there? As I said earlier, mineral resources only tend to be discovered after initial settlement.

Please note, I said in the long term. Those resources aren't incentive to go there and found settlements in the first place, but when they are found, they'll certainly provide incentive to stay and expand them.

Cash crops and subsistence crops

Why would you sail all the way to Australia to grow cash crops you can grow at home and in the settled East Indies without the expense of extra shipping distance plus the costs of establishing plantations in virgin territory?

RE their food crop package- I do understand that rice etc are currently grown on the Top End, but I'd be interested to find out how much of this is assisted by modern farming methods. I think it's very telling that the Indonesians (though accomplished sailors and settlers) never bothered settling the Top End. They were aware of it's existence but no settlement. Of course this may have had nothing to do with the crop issue and more to do with the easy availability of large tracts of unsettled land in the Indonesian Archipelago (which, itself, means that it's a lot more likely to see added Indian settlement there as opposed to Australia)

I wasn't really thinking about rice, which is blatantly unsuited for the region, due to its need for greater irrigation. I was thinking about the North-West Indian crop package- wheat, barley, pulses, oilseeds, cotton, opium and sugarcane. Compare the climate of Australia's Top End with those of Rajasthan, Haryana, the Punjab or Sindh. Heat, humidity, annual rainfall, the length and severity of the dry season- on all of these counts, you'll find that the Top End of Australia is actually more temperate and more hospitable than any of these regions.

Difficulty vs Incentive


I agree. It wouldn't be any more difficult. That's not the issue.

You still haven't come up with a *reasonable* incentive to start a settler colony. Sometimes I think there's an attitude on this site that colonisation is somehow a (in the long term) easy process.

It isn't.

It's very expensive (both in lives and treasure) and creates huge administrative hassles. Europeans were incentivised to go exploring in order to find shorter, easier routes to Asia. Settlement of the Americas came after that and was initially spurred by the potential for cash crops and trade.

I'm wondering why any Indian polity (or private interests for that matter) would bother to go to the expense and hassle of setting up cash crop plantations when these crops can (A) be grown at home or (B) be grown in the East Indies which, assuming a South Indian thalassocracy scenario, are probably within their sphere of influence anyway. I just don't see an economic incentive.

Even where Europeans were concerned, settlement of Australia took quite a while to get underway- the coasts were generally mapped and ships would stop to get water and supplies from time to time but you don't see any foreign settlement until the First Fleet. The circumstances there were quite unique in that Britain had an established policy of transportation of criminals, had lost their previous preferred destination (the American colonies) and had a backlog of felons with nowhere to put them. Australia provided a temperate and (marginally) survivable destination (presumably they didn't just want to ship them off to the tropical islands to outright die like flies).

Solution: Something unique

I can understand if you want to (in your TL) put in something similar. Say you have an Indian maritime power that for various reasons doesn't want to settle its undesirables in Borneo or elsewhere in the Malay world (I'm not sure why- perhaps the fear that convicts settled there might conspire with rebels against the various Malay vassal monarchs of the Empire), then, ok, you might see settlements on the Top Side.

Or you could come up with some other, likewise, unique concatenation of circumstances. The favourite implausible one is "some prince loses a civil war and heads off into exile to found a new state". This doesn't usually happen- deposed princes tend not to like heading off into nowhere. You're more likely to find them either dead, glorified bandits, or at rival courts. But you get the idea- some sort of unique incentive for settlement.

But don't try to argue for an initial economic impetus, because there simply isn't one.

Does that make Indian colonisation of Australia implausible, any more than any early colonial settlements IOTL were implausible? How many settler colonies over the course of history can you point out where there was definitely an initial economic impetus to found those colonial settlements? My guess- not many. And if it's the exception IOTL, then it clearly can't be presented as a rule which has to be followed in an ATL for it to be deemed 'realistic'.

For the Indian empire, Australia would basically be to them what North America was to the British- not the most ideal or most profitable location to colonise, like the Indonesian archipelago would be (European analogy- the Caribbean, where the colonial revenue generated by even the small island of Nevis still exceeded that of all of the Thirteen Colonies prior to the American War of Independence), but still a convenient vast expense just across the ocean, with a lot of suitable free land where enterprising individuals could establish their own less profitable plantations, and where any 'undesireables', religious and social radicals can be exiled or settled to practice their ways of life freely and without persecution.
 
Please note, I said in the long term. Those resources aren't incentive to go there and found settlements in the first place, but when they are found, they'll certainly provide incentive to stay and expand them.

Yes, so they're totally irrelevant to the idea of initial settlement, which is what we were talking about.

I wasn't really thinking about rice, which is blatantly unsuited for the region, due to its need for greater irrigation. I was thinking about the North-West Indian crop package- wheat, barley, pulses, oilseeds, cotton, opium and sugarcane. Compare the climate of Australia's Top End with those of Rajasthan, Haryana, the Punjab or Sindh. Heat, humidity, annual rainfall, the length and severity of the dry season- on all of these counts, you'll find that the Top End of Australia is actually more temperate and more hospitable than any of these regions.

This is a fair point, I admit, as I was thinking more along the lines of a rice based South Indian/Indonesian crop package although getting a North Indian maritime power is a little bit more of a challenge than a South Indian one. But, yes, possibly a Gujurati or Sindhi polity. Fair enough.

You still haven't addressed the issue of cash crops, though. Why go to the expense of setting up plantations for something cultivable in the East Indies- and any Indian polity with the ability to project power to Australia is likely to have strong interests in the East Indies.

Does that make Indian colonisation of Australia implausible, any more than any early colonial settlements IOTL were implausible? How many settler colonies over the course of history can you point out where there was definitely an initial economic impetus to found those colonial settlements? My guess- not many. And if it's the exception IOTL, then it clearly can't be presented as a rule which has to be followed in an ATL for it to be deemed 'realistic'.

This is a common misconception. Almost every single settler colony was founded due to economic imperatives. The initial impetus was to find a route to Asia. Then, upon settlement, you do see even more direct economic imperatives- in North America it was cod, furs and tobacco; in the Caribbean it was sugar; in South Africa it was the need to provide a secure waypoint on the Asian trade route; in New Zealand, settlements grew from the establishment of informal resupply stations for the whaling industry and direct colonisation followed due to the perceived lawlessness of these.

Out of the major white settler colonies, really, Australia is the only one where no real economic impetus was involved.

For the Indian empire, Australia would basically be to them what North America was to the British- not the most ideal or most profitable location to colonise, like the Indonesian archipelago would be (European analogy- the Caribbean, where the colonial revenue generated by even the small island of Nevis still exceeded that of all of the Thirteen Colonies prior to the American War of Independence), but still a convenient vast expense just across the ocean, with a lot of suitable free land where enterprising individuals could establish their own less profitable plantations, and where any 'undesireables', religious and social radicals can be exiled or settled to practice their ways of life freely and without persecution.

Like I said, that's fair enough. But don't make the North American comparison, because even there there was a valid profit motive. Australian settlement will, I think, always be unique, simply because there's little direct economic incentive for anyone to colonise it.
 
This is a common misconception. Almost every single settler colony was founded due to economic imperatives. The initial impetus was to find a route to Asia. Then, upon settlement, you do see even more direct economic imperatives- in North America it was cod, furs and tobacco; in the Caribbean it was sugar; in South Africa it was the need to provide a secure waypoint on the Asian trade route; in New Zealand, settlements grew from the establishment of informal resupply stations for the whaling industry and direct colonisation followed due to the perceived lawlessness of these.

Out of the major white settler colonies, really, Australia is the only one where no real economic impetus was involved.



Like I said, that's fair enough. But don't make the North American comparison, because even there there was a valid profit motive. Australian settlement will, I think, always be unique, simply because there's little direct economic incentive for anyone to colonise it.
New England was founded by people fleeing religious persecution (i.e. being prevented from persecuting everybody else :p)

But, in general, ya.
 

U.S David

Banned
What about the British Empire grows much larger and last to Present Day. India becomes a Domanion. There wouldn't be enough White English Troops to be everywhere, so they start useing Indian Troops to man garrisions.

I'm thinking of Indian Troops controlloing Kenya or Tanazia.

Does this count?


Or have a British-Indian Federation, India now has colonies all over the world.
 

Rush Tarquin

Gone Fishin'
Maintain Chola/Chera naval control over the SE Asian trade routes and you could have a chance of a South Indian thallasocracy in SE Asia.

Flocc, do we have any good TLs with this premise? You've brought it up often enough and the idea occasionally gets a thread discussion, but is there an actual TL?
 
New England was founded by people fleeing religious persecution (i.e. being prevented from persecuting everybody else :p)

But, in general, ya.

Yes, but the people behind Plymouth Colony were initially planning to settle under a license from the Virginia Corporation, much further South. They were financed by businessmen who would expect to see profitable returns for the colony. They didn't just intend to set up that far North- that was a stroke of fate and even there did repay their financiers through fur exports.

I'm not saying that religion wasn't a push factor, but would they have been able to go without financing? The initial rationale behind their choice of location was still grounded in commercial sense, and there was a clear economic reason for the Plymouth Colony to exist- the fur trade.
 
Last edited:
Flocc, do we have any good TLs with this premise? You've brought it up often enough and the idea occasionally gets a thread discussion, but is there an actual TL?

There's my "Golden Isles" novella in the fiction subforum but that's AH/fantasy (it's a world similar to our Age of Discovery, but with certain types of magic present).
 
What about Indian overseas expansion, but not necessarily under the guise of colonialism? Abul Fazl stated that India included both Sri Lanka and Aceh, and Aceh was an important player in the fight over control over the Straits of Malacca. Indian and Chinese traders traditionally met at the Straits, so controlling them would be lucrative. The Mughals, if they develop some sort of naval tradition, could take or at least bring Aceh into the Imperial fold. My TL does something like this.

The Cholas are, of course, an obvious choice given their history; concerning Australia, I have something of a solution: if the East Indies are folded into the Chola Empire, perhaps becoming equal players over time, then maybe it isn't viable to send dissidents and rabble to Malaya, so Australia becomes more viable as a target for not only Indian prisoners, but also Malayan and *Indonesian dissidents as well.

US David's suggestion is also something to look into, IMO. A longer WWI could mean Britain delegates more power to its dominions, and grants self-rule to India. With Canada taking over the Caribbean, and Australia over the Pacific, I could see India taking a greater role in policing the Indian Ocean as a member of the British Empire, technically ruling as overlord to colonies of its own, in Burma, Singapore, the Middle East. Most of Southeast Asia might be under joint Indo-Australian occupation in such a scenario- though on paper everything might still be 'British'.
 
What about Indian overseas expansion, but not necessarily under the guise of colonialism? Abul Fazl stated that India included both Sri Lanka and Aceh, and Aceh was an important player in the fight over control over the Straits of Malacca. Indian and Chinese traders traditionally met at the Straits, so controlling them would be lucrative. The Mughals, if they develop some sort of naval tradition, could take or at least bring Aceh into the Imperial fold. My TL does something like this.

The Cholas are, of course, an obvious choice given their history; concerning Australia, I have something of a solution: if the East Indies are folded into the Chola Empire, perhaps becoming equal players over time, then maybe it isn't viable to send dissidents and rabble to Malaya, so Australia becomes more viable as a target for not only Indian prisoners, but also Malayan and *Indonesian dissidents as well.

US David's suggestion is also something to look into, IMO. A longer WWI could mean Britain delegates more power to its dominions, and grants self-rule to India. With Canada taking over the Caribbean, and Australia over the Pacific, I could see India taking a greater role in policing the Indian Ocean as a member of the British Empire, technically ruling as overlord to colonies of its own, in Burma, Singapore, the Middle East. Most of Southeast Asia might be under joint Indo-Australian occupation in such a scenario- though on paper everything might still be 'British'.

The thing about the WW1 scenario is that any post 1890 POD will have to deal with some form of Indian nationalism plus rhe fact that the Empire is in place for resource extraction and market control and any Indian Dominion is going to play merry hell with this objective
 
The thing about the WW1 scenario is that any post 1890 POD will have to deal with some form of Indian nationalism plus rhe fact that the Empire is in place for resource extraction and market control and any Indian Dominion is going to play merry hell with this objective

Well, yes, but in 1890 and onwards, the goal was dominion status. If dominion status is granted in 1919 onwards, I think India would accept it. While an Indian Dominion isn't as beneficial to Britain, we're assuming Britain is significantly weakened in this scenario, and so has to release India, more than doing it out of goodwill. And India as a lieutenant of the Empire is plausible, given the Indian diaspora throughout the Indian Ocean, as well as OTL Burmese fears about their future within any 'Indian Dominion'. In such a scenario, India would become a colonial power.
 
Well, yes, but in 1890 and onwards, the goal was dominion status. If dominion status is granted in 1919 onwards, I think India would accept it. While an Indian Dominion isn't as beneficial to Britain, we're assuming Britain is significantly weakened in this scenario, and so has to release India, more than doing it out of goodwill. And India as a lieutenant of the Empire is plausible, given the Indian diaspora throughout the Indian Ocean, as well as OTL Burmese fears about their future within any 'Indian Dominion'. In such a scenario, India would become a colonial power.
Seems plausible to me.
 
Well, yes, but in 1890 and onwards, the goal was dominion status. If dominion status is granted in 1919 onwards, I think India would accept it. While an Indian Dominion isn't as beneficial to Britain, we're assuming Britain is significantly weakened in this scenario, and so has to release India, more than doing it out of goodwill. And India as a lieutenant of the Empire is plausible, given the Indian diaspora throughout the Indian Ocean, as well as OTL Burmese fears about their future within any 'Indian Dominion'. In such a scenario, India would become a colonial power.

Fair points.
 
The Europeans also paid for a lot of their imports from Asia by buying Indian cloth, selling it to other Asian countries and then using the profits of that to buy stuff to send home.
 
The Europeans also paid for a lot of their imports from Asia by buying Indian cloth, selling it to other Asian countries and then using the profits of that to buy stuff to send home.

Don't forget good old fashioned piracy too.

Once the Portuguese arrived in the Indian Ocean, it wasn't long before they established what was essentially an ocean wide protection racket...
 
Top