Britain doesn't join the world wars, How long could it keep India

Say Britain doesn't join the world wars, How long could Britain maintain control of the Indian subcontinent
 
Perhaps to 1950's or 1960's but not longer. India was just too difficult to keep. Independence movement was just too strong that at least UK has give dominion status in some pont.
 
Say Britain doesn't join the world wars, How long could Britain maintain control of the Indian subcontinent

Well, it depends on what you mean by "control"

The more direct the rule, the shorter the period is going to be. In my opinion, if those areas under direct rule of the Raj were to be slowly devolved back to local leaders and made into Princely States, you could get the vast majority of the subcontinent to accept autonomous dominion-type status well into the 70's or 80's... probably remaining formal parts of the commonwealth. A united India isen't a natural inevitability, and by promoting favored ethno-linguistic groups/tribes and regional identities would do wonders for depressing any unified independence movements. If you're trying to centeralize the Raj, though, you'll probably start hitting a boiling point sometime in the 30's (or whenever an economic crisis hits), at which point things are going to get bloody fast.
 
The more direct the rule, the shorter the period is going to be. In my opinion, if those areas under direct rule of the Raj were to be slowly devolved back to local leaders and made into Princely States, you could get the vast majority of the subcontinent to accept autonomous dominion-type status well into the 70's or 80's... probably remaining formal parts of the commonwealth. A united India isen't a natural inevitability, and by promoting favored ethno-linguistic groups/tribes and regional identities would do wonders for depressing any unified independence movements. If you're trying to centeralize the Raj, though, you'll probably start hitting a boiling point sometime in the 30's (or whenever an economic crisis hits), at which point things are going to get bloody fast.
Same way they ruled it in the 1920s
 

The Avenger

Banned
Well, it depends on what you mean by "control"

The more direct the rule, the shorter the period is going to be. In my opinion, if those areas under direct rule of the Raj were to be slowly devolved back to local leaders and made into Princely States, you could get the vast majority of the subcontinent to accept autonomous dominion-type status well into the 70's or 80's... probably remaining formal parts of the commonwealth. A united India isen't a natural inevitability, and by promoting favored ethno-linguistic groups/tribes and regional identities would do wonders for depressing any unified independence movements. If you're trying to centeralize the Raj, though, you'll probably start hitting a boiling point sometime in the 30's (or whenever an economic crisis hits), at which point things are going to get bloody fast.
Divide and rule seems like a great strategy for Britain in India. In this regard, Britain would have probably been smart to copy the early Bolshevik nationality policy in India.
 

Marc

Donor
Indefinitely, as long as the Raj is willing to engage in some regular Qissa Khwani and Jallianwala Bagh events...

(Yes, a bit of bloody sarcasm,)
 
Last edited:
Top