So during the British colonization of South Asia, many white British men took local women as wives which resulted in a minority of half-white, half South Asian people. But what if similar to Latin America, the population of half-white and half-native people became the demographic majority of the country? What effects would this have on the culture and politics of India?
Anglo-Indian majority in India.
- Thread starter LetThemEatCake
- Start date
Ricardolindo
Banned
Sorry but, this is ASB. The Indian population was far too big for Anglo-Indians to become a majority. The only way this could have happened would have been through a genocide of the overwhelming majority of Indians, which would have been extremely difficult and which the British never had any interest in doing.
There’s simply too many Indians and not enough Englishman for this to happen. Unless you have some POD where some plague kills a huge percentage of the Indian population then I can’t see this happening.
That is a pretty bloody broad definition of genocide. Seeing how Genocide advocacy is a Banning Offense, you would be well served to keep it out of accusations toward other members. You missed getting, at a minimum kicked, if not outright Banned by one "You" statement.
As a reminder: Accusing someone here directly of violating the rules on racism, genocide advocacy/denial, Nazism, and the like without PROOF is subject to the SAME Mod Actions as an individual who committed the actual offense.
I'm not trying to get controversial or anything, but, let's simply look to the facts: by 1800 Britain had around 10 million people and India, around 200 million people. If you send the entire British population to India, you would still need to kill 95% of the local population to have a White majority (80% if you encourage intermarriage?). I don't think there's another word to define it, if not Genocide.
EDIT: By the way, OP directly talked about a half-British white, half-south asian majority.
Let's be REALLY clear here - OP asked a question. Nowhere was violence stated nor implied. Nowhere was population reduction nor ethnic cleansing brought up by the OP. The ONLY individuals who have brought it up are the member I addressed and now you.
The way to have answered the OP would have along the lines of "do the math" or "logistically impossible". The End.
Now if the OP were THEN to come up with some sort of population culling, it would be an issue that the Mods would be more than willing to address. However, that is NOT what happened in the case of the member I addressed (although the first two responded in the thread were both of the "ain't gonna happen and here's why", which is how a logistically impossible question like this should be best addressed).
This is a case of search for evil intent when there is zero trace of it. Sometimes a WI is simply not really considered for logical obstacles. There are plenty of jackasses in the world, not really a pressing need to force-fit someone into the role.
I didn't see any malicious intent in the OP, nor in the answers already given, at first. That said, I see now that the most laconic answer is problematic from the point of view of a mod. Note taken.
There was that proposal to make Andaman and Nicobar an independent homeland for the Anglo-Indians and Anglo Burmese
You would need at least two things:
(1) More English people going to India, preferably unmarried young men (and no, or only a few, women, otherwise the English men would tend to marry the English women, as happened IOTL).
(2) More time, to allow the British genes more time to spread.
Probably also:
(3) Fewer Indians. I don't think a big genocide is very likely (thank heavens), but maybe there's some way to prevent the Indian population getting as big as it did IOTL in the first place. I'm not familiar enough with the demographics of Mughal and British India to say how, or whether, that might be achieved, though.
Of course, if you changed things so that English/Anglo-Indian was more of a cultural identity than a racial one (kind of like how people in the ancient Mediterranean could be considered Roman even if none of their ancestors came from the city on the Tiber), you might be able to get a significant minority/plurality/majority of Westernised Indians who are considered to be at least as English as Indian.
For cultural it would help if Anglo children are educated in India instead of being sent back to the UK.
Then they would be ethnically Anglo Indian and not culturally. Unless you mean they get an English education in india instead of going to England for it.
Lusitania
Donor
If we broaden the definition of ango-Indian then we could have a much larger population but never majority. Till 1855 and Indian mutiny there was an effort on several fronts to anglophone Indians. With greater emphasis on teaching English and Christianity evangelical push but that changed dramatically after the mutiny with British opting to work through regular Indian hierarchy and Indians were left alone for most part. So if the Indian mutiny does not happen or British do not change their actions we could of seen a much bigger Indian-Anglo component in India especially amongst the coastal areas.
Related question: what would have been the long-term demographic impact on South Asia had the Mongols successfully managed to conquer the subcontinent, employing the same sort of brutality that they did in China, Persia, Hungary, and elsewhere? Should European empires still coming knocking centuries down the line (even if under different circumstances, due to the butterfly effect), might they find it easier to culturally assimilate some or all of India?
Even in those circumstances, however, a Eurasian majority on the subcontinent seems unlikely.
Even in those circumstances, however, a Eurasian majority on the subcontinent seems unlikely.
OTL Eventually this will be technically true, as Anglo-Indians interbreed with full indians, to the point where everyone on the subcontinent is 1/1024th british, and thus technically Anglo-Indian by the One-Drop rule.
As you can see, unless you stretch this longer than Chile, this is not happening without ASB.
To fulfill the letter if not the spirit of the challenge:
During the East India Company period, Bombay (as they call it) is designated as a special administrative capital of EIC administration. An Anglo-Indian minority/administrative class emerges there. Bombay remains the capital when Britain assumes imperial rule. A larger Anglo-Indian class emerges, being involved in administration, mercantile activities, some highly-skilled trades etc.
By the early 1910s "Bombay" is seen as the Anglo-Indian city. They form a significant proportion of the population (20-25%), though the total population of the city is a bit smaller than OTL.
Come independence, Bombay is seen as too extensively Anglo-Indian to hand over. Britain retains it as a small enclave in an otherwise independent India, calling it British India. Unlike Portugal in Goa, British rule and reputation is sufficient that no military takeover is attempted.
During and immediately after independence, many Anglo-Indians from across the subcontinent move to "British India", while many Indians move out to avoid ongoing British rule. This leaves a slight majority of the city's inhabitants as Anglo-Indian.
India then renames itself Bharat to avoid any association with Britain. In popular parlance, British India it is simply called India, and eventually that becomes its official name.
During the East India Company period, Bombay (as they call it) is designated as a special administrative capital of EIC administration. An Anglo-Indian minority/administrative class emerges there. Bombay remains the capital when Britain assumes imperial rule. A larger Anglo-Indian class emerges, being involved in administration, mercantile activities, some highly-skilled trades etc.
By the early 1910s "Bombay" is seen as the Anglo-Indian city. They form a significant proportion of the population (20-25%), though the total population of the city is a bit smaller than OTL.
Come independence, Bombay is seen as too extensively Anglo-Indian to hand over. Britain retains it as a small enclave in an otherwise independent India, calling it British India. Unlike Portugal in Goa, British rule and reputation is sufficient that no military takeover is attempted.
During and immediately after independence, many Anglo-Indians from across the subcontinent move to "British India", while many Indians move out to avoid ongoing British rule. This leaves a slight majority of the city's inhabitants as Anglo-Indian.
India then renames itself Bharat to avoid any association with Britain. In popular parlance, British India it is simply called India, and eventually that becomes its official name.