AHC: The "Angrezi Raj"

Create a scenario where a concrete Anglo-Indian society like the Angrezi Raj in the Peshawar Lancers arises before 2000 with a POD before 1880. However, this cannot come about due to a major catastrophe like the Fall.
 
Really, really not doable. On the one hand the British have no reasongto assimilate into Indian culture and on the other hand a massive influx of British settlers into India would be sure to set off uprisings as they started taking land- remember IOTL the actual number of British in India was extremely small, well under 100,000.
 
My current Timeline has one of these developping, though most of the British settlers are moving to Australia or Tibet, a good chunk are in India and Indians are moving through the rest of the (non-Australian) Empire.
 
You need an earlier POD. I'd go for Warren Hastings. There was a more mixed society in the late 1700s, early 1800s.
 
You need an earlier POD. I'd go for Warren Hastings. There was a more mixed society in the late 1700s, early 1800s.

Undoubtedly. The biggest difference between the EIC and the Raj was that during Company rule the British who went out there were almost entirely young single men who often took local wives and integrated into Indian society, whereas during the Raj it was often married men or family men who moved out for a few years, perhaps taking the family, perhaps not, and then left again without really leaving the bungalows and clubs of the British residencies.
 
You need an earlier POD. I'd go for Warren Hastings. There was a more mixed society in the late 1700s, early 1800s.

Undoubtedly. The biggest difference between the EIC and the Raj was that during Company rule the British who went out there were almost entirely young single men who often took local wives and integrated into Indian society, whereas during the Raj it was often married men or family men who moved out for a few years, perhaps taking the family, perhaps not, and then left again without really leaving the bungalows and clubs of the British residencies.

But this isn't what the OP is asking for. An Angrezi Raj scenario by definition means actual white settlement.
 
Maybe if the US somehow managed to grab Canada there would be a bit more white settlement in India.
 
Why? US immigration was always pretty lax in regards to people coming in from northern Europe and the British Isles. And in the event that Canada falls under US control, there will be extra incentive to populate it in accordance with the whole manifest destiny creed.
 
Why? US immigration was always pretty lax in regards to people coming in from northern Europe and the British Isles. And in the event that Canada falls under US control, there will be extra incentive to populate it in accordance with the whole manifest destiny creed.
I wasn't saying everyone, just that it might get like 10 000 extra people moving to India.
 
I wasn't saying everyone, just that it might get like 10 000 extra people moving to India.

But why, though, when Australia, South Africa and New Zealand are sitting right there (and as was already pointed out, why would British emigrants care if the US was in charge of Canada?). If you go to one of these places you get a nice, temperate climate and far fewer pissed-off locals.

The only places in India which are really suitable for white settlement in the 19th century are Kashmir, the Southern Deccan around Bangalore and some of the hill stations. All these places are already heavily populated.

Plus 10k settlers doesn't get you an Angrezi Raj.
 
Even if Britain had no other colonies, whites aren't going to want to settle in India in major numbers. Foreign owned places like Argentina or the USA are always going to be more attractive. Even during the Company days, the ideal was to go out to make your fortune in loot and plunder, before returning back home to buy a seat in the Commons. A great many went there and found it so unpleasant they left before making what they had wanted. You can get fortune-seekers, warriors, administrators and missionaries, but no-one else beyond that.
 
Well increasing the number of half-British people would help...

There were about half a million of them in 1947. Adjustin British attitudes towards miscegenation would increase that a bit but even so you're to going to get that much more of an Anglo-Indian community. The total population of Britian was pretty small compared to the total population of India so you've got a built in limitation right there :)
 
I wonder if it would be possible to push the Angrezi out to the East African colonies in the 1940s onwards. I'm not sure how welcome they'd be in Kenya or Rhodesia, but if they went in sufficient numbers - say 20k plus, they would be a sizable minority if either colony
 
I wonder if it would be possible to push the Angrezi out to the East African colonies in the 1940s onwards. I'm not sure how welcome they'd be in Kenya or Rhodesia, but if they went in sufficient numbers - say 20k plus, they would be a sizable minority if either colony

It might e helpful to check if they went there IOTL. I know a lot of the Anglo Indians emigrated to th UK after India got its independence? The current Anglo Indian population in India is 125 thousand so you potentially have, say, 300k settlers for East Africa. I doubt they'd be welcome though.
 
It might e helpful to check if they went there IOTL. I know a lot of the Anglo Indians emigrated to th UK after India got its independence? The current Anglo Indian population in India is 125 thousand so you potentially have, say, 300k settlers for East Africa. I doubt they'd be welcome though.

I think most of them went on to the UK, although i've come across a couple here and there in NZ.

The former civil service British are also interesting. It seems that a lot of them were redeployed to Africa, before retiring to the UK.

This is just information I've got from talking to a couple of both, so no hard statistics I'm afraid
 
Top