zesamofdepast
Banned
Simple. Keep Britain in control of India for as long as possible. Bonus points if the Raj is still under British rule today.
The Indians were not exactly whinging that Mountbatten was moving too fast and demanding that the date be delayed by a few years. Britain was bankrupt, India served no purpose to them and they wanted out of the empire game. Not to mention that Indian independence was a long term aim anyway.All the planets were lining up bar partition which was 'Indian' generated anyway.You can get it a few years longer easily just by not having Mountbatten suddenly announce a ludicrously near date as the official Quit deadline. He admitted later he made the date up on the spot when asked, so as to appear in command of the detail
The Indians were not exactly whinging that Mountbatten was moving too fast and demanding that the date be delayed by a few years. Britain was bankrupt, India served no purpose to them and they wanted out of the empire game. Not to mention that Indian independence was a long term aim anyway.All the planets were lining up bar partition which was 'Indian' generated anyway.
Not even Churchill advocated starving the entire Indian population and, in fact, the Raj had become pretty expert at famine and disaster relief by the outbreak of WW2. The Bengal Famine represented a rather unique set of circumstances (war, neighbouring rice producers in enemy hands, shipping, railcars and Indian Army in short supply due to enemy action and deployed for other equally (in the view of government at least) important purposes. It was also an illustration of the "tragedy of statistics". A report to the Cabinet (I think Cherwell was behind it but years since I studied this) concluded that slackening the war effort to relieve the famine would prolong the war by another 1-2 years but that the famine would only increase ordinary death rates in India by in the region of 0.5%. This assessment of death rate rises turned out to be absolutely spot on. The trouble is, given the population of India, that is around 3 million people in non-statistical parlance.Do what Churchill wants and starve the entire population. When they rebel, the British nuke all their cities. Pretty ASB.
Do what Churchill wants and starve the entire population. When they rebel, the British nuke all their cities. Pretty ASB.
Is it possible not to have the Raj stay, but to have India accept Dominion status a la Australia and New Zealand? That is to say, have the British Monarch remain Head of State for India, although they are governed independently? They did have it between 1947 and 1950, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, before they became a federal republic. If they were given it earlier than OTL, might they accept that as the status quo up to the present day??
Best option is Simon's above. You could maybe push it out as far as 1963. Britain agrees in 1938 to full Indian independence on a 25 year plan with programme of development of education, establishment of universities. Establish some naval shipyards, encourage industrial development. Start negotiating relationships between central and local/regional government. Independence movements never get impatient enough to turn violent in a no WW2 scenario with Japan and the USSR waiting in the wings.