AHC/PC: Indian victory in the Indian Mutiny?

There really wasn't and idea of Indian nationalism before the British unified the place, so even if the mutiny succeeds, all that will happen is that India will end up as a fragmented power vacuum, and the British government is in prime position to regain what the East India Company lost. Perhaps, however, other European nations - most likely France - will be able to get a better foothold in India than they did in OTL.
 
There really wasn't and idea of Indian nationalism before the British unified the place, so even if the mutiny succeeds, all that will happen is that India will end up as a fragmented power vacuum, and the British government is in prime position to regain what the East India Company lost. Perhaps, however, other European nations - most likely France - will be able to get a better foothold in India than they did in OTL.

Yeah thats what I figured. I was just wondering how the loss of India would effect Great Britain, I mean its a pretty big investment that they just completely lost.
 
There really wasn't and idea of Indian nationalism before the British unified the place, so even if the mutiny succeeds, all that will happen is that India will end up as a fragmented power vacuum, and the British government is in prime position to regain what the East India Company lost. Perhaps, however, other European nations - most likely France - will be able to get a better foothold in India than they did in OTL.

Where did anyone say there was?

You're right, however, that in some ways this will restore the 18th C balance of power in India where Indian states are able to play off the Europeans against each other. You would most likely see a lot of different rulers aligning themselves with different European powers.

Britain's total dominance in India was caused by the serendipitous removal of French interest in Asia due to the Revolution. Now, in 1857, if they have to start rebuilding their dominance they're not going to have that sort of free hand.
 
European nations won't be getting physical land control back. Having thrown out the British (and having learned the lessons of comparatively modern warfare from them), I doubt that any of the north Indian nations would let any foreigner own land in the country again. Whether the British can maintain control in the south is debatable: having seen just how easily the foreigners are expelled in the north, south Indians have an excellent precedent to follow.

The result might be a bit more like China in OTL: different princely states with different European backers pulling the economic strings, but very little 'on the ground' control of the land. There might be a loose allegiance to the remaining Mughals, who would serve as some sort of ceremonial overlord, but that would be the extent of it.

Expect the Hindus and Sikhs to fall out with the Muslims in fairly short order, and for the religious divide to become just as prominent as it is today.
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
I doubt that anyone would wish to see the Mughals as overlord, ceremonial or otherwise. Even so, if what you say is true, we may see in modern day, at least somewhere between 6 and 12 Indian states, the most powerful ones maintaining independence to a degree.
 
I just hate the revisionist stuff which tries to paint the mutiny as the 'First Indian War of Independence'. Its just...cringe worthy. And putting modern thinking into events where they don't belong.

Britain did not rule India at the time. It was the mutiny which brought about British rule. India was a complicated place. Officially the mughal empire still ruled much of the continent but even at their peak they were rather HREsque with lots of local kings remaining powerful under them...and of course there being lots of local rulers who weren't under them at all. And then despite this state of affairs you also had the EIC ruling in parallel; by this point in time without a doubt the most powerful force in the area but still not the official rulers....and then you've the complicated situation of the EIC's links to the British government. The links were big for certain but they were different bodies.

So...the rebellion gains more success....then what?
Are they going to throw the EIC out of India entirely?- will they confiscate its property? Who will it go to? What about other British interests? Just reset the power balance so the Mughals become the most powerful entity?
How can they keep the British out of India? A lot of people's livlihoods depend on British money.

It was a messy, messy situation with too many factors at play for me to even attempt to come up with a proper answer. It really was not just a simple question of India fighting for independence.

Note that 67th's link is to a youtube video loaded by a guy who likes "Illuminati The Freemasonry and Zionism - The Master Plan To Rule the World", so I'd take the video with a grain of salt.

nice ad hom there...
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
Even if that is the case, even if the EIC ruled through the Mughals, that doesn't mean that the Mutiny would not have led to them breaking free of Mughal, and thus EIC power. And even if the mutiny wasn't about breaking free, it could lead to better conditions for the natives in India at the time.
 
I just hate the revisionist stuff which tries to paint the mutiny as the 'First Indian War of Independence'. Its just...cringe worthy. And putting modern thinking into events where they don't belong.

Britain did not rule India at the time. It was the mutiny which brought about British rule. India was a complicated place. Officially the mughal empire still ruled much of the continent but even at their peak they were rather HREsque with lots of local kings remaining powerful under them...and of course there being lots of local rulers who weren't under them at all. And then despite this state of affairs you also had the EIC ruling in parallel; by this point in time without a doubt the most powerful force in the area but still not the official rulers....and then you've the complicated situation of the EIC's links to the British government. The links were big for certain but they were different bodies.

So...the rebellion gains more success....then what?
Are they going to throw the EIC out of India entirely?- will they confiscate its property? Who will it go to? What about other British interests? Just reset the power balance so the Mughals become the most powerful entity?
How can they keep the British out of India? A lot of people's livlihoods depend on British money.

It was a messy, messy situation with too many factors at play for me to even attempt to come up with a proper answer. It really was not just a simple question of India fighting for independence.

I'm not sure that any of the more substantial answers in this thread have tried to paint it as India seeking independence.

What it would be is a shift in the balance of power- you're right in that the EIC, in essence, operated as a power faction within the nominal Mughal Empire, ruling "on behalf of" the Mughals in Bengal and the Gangetic plain.

What would happen is the same thing that might happen in any loosely held together Empire when one faction falls from power. Local rulers take back their privileges (as was always the case in India whenever central control lapsed) and on a wider level, whichever new central power rose would take over. In effect this would mean that the EICs powers, property and privileges would devolve to whichever faction managed to gain the upper hand in the wider war. Depending on the POD there might be various candidates- perhaps an alliance of Rajputs and Mahrattas under the charismatic Rani of Jhansi, or perhaps the Khalsa becomes a dominant faction (if the POD is before the Sikh Wars). All this would be under the titular overlordship of the Padishah in Delhi.

In the South, the case is that Britain is very clearly no longer top dog in India. It'll be a massive loss of face in Europe too and one suspects the other European Powers will start nosing around India. What may happen is that states like Mysore and Travancore will be transformed into a lot of Thailands, so to speak, playing a balance of power between the European powers (just as they did in the 18th C).

British dominance in India was based on huge amounts of luck and was always a delicate balance. Once the balance is upset there's nothing much they can do to reinstate it.
 
Last edited:
Ok, so lets assume that the British were kicked out of India in 1858. I assume that Burma had the Third Anglo-Burma War in the same year, and won. This would leave no British troops on the sub-continent.

Firstly Britain would be thrown into financial chaos, as there was an awful lot of British money tied up in India, all of which now (presumably) would be lost. This would have a knock on effect on the money invested in the rest of the world, given the British role of World Banker at the time.

Secondly the Russians would push southward into (modern day) Pakistan, with enough victories this would make the Czar a) more popular and b) more stable, this would have a knockon effect 50 years later.

The downfall of the British would mean that the French would be (more) pushy over Egypt, Palistine etc. Napoleon may even forgive the Prussia's for the EMS telegram 20 years later if France was seen as a world power again.

I am sure that others can add to the butterflies .......
 
Ok, so lets assume that the British were kicked out of India in 1858. I assume that Burma had the Third Anglo-Burma War in the same year, and won. This would leave no British troops on the sub-continent.

Firstly Britain would be thrown into financial chaos, as there was an awful lot of British money tied up in India, all of which now (presumably) would be lost. This would have a knock on effect on the money invested in the rest of the world, given the British role of World Banker at the time.

Secondly the Russians would push southward into (modern day) Pakistan, with enough victories this would make the Czar a) more popular and b) more stable, this would have a knockon effect 50 years later.

The downfall of the British would mean that the French would be (more) pushy over Egypt, Palistine etc. Napoleon may even forgive the Prussia's for the EMS telegram 20 years later if France was seen as a world power again.

I am sure that others can add to the butterflies .......

That's a bit quick. They wouldn't be totally kicked out of India right then for one thing. Even losing Bengal still leaves them with the Tamil country (Madras Presidency)
 
That's a bit quick. They wouldn't be totally kicked out of India right then for one thing. Even losing Bengal still leaves them with the Tamil country (Madras Presidency)

And I can't help but feel that losing the rest of India would make them turn Ceylon into a stronghold. Maybe even encouraging more British settlement to Ceylon, to consolidate the colony.
 
And I can't help but feel that losing the rest of India would make them turn Ceylon into a stronghold. Maybe even encouraging more British settlement to Ceylon, to consolidate the colony.

More British settlement in Ceylon may not be that feasible- the climate isn't particularly good for white settlement and more pressure on the Sinhalese might set off an uprising.

More likely is that Britain consolidates in the Madras Presidency and tries to manage a balance of power as other European states begin courting Indian ones. The South Indian polities like Travancore and Mysore adopt positions much like Siam did, using their resources as bargaining chips for European patronage.
 
More British settlement in Ceylon may not be that feasible- the climate isn't particularly good for white settlement and more pressure on the Sinhalese might set off an uprising.

More likely is that Britain consolidates in the Madras Presidency and tries to manage a balance of power as other European states begin courting Indian ones. The South Indian polities like Travancore and Mysore adopt positions much like Siam did, using their resources as bargaining chips for European patronage.
Oh alright. That would have been interesting.
 
Top