Say Britain doesn't join the world wars, How long could Britain maintain control of the Indian subcontinent
Say Britain doesn't join the world wars, How long could Britain maintain control of the Indian subcontinent
Same way they ruled it in the 1920sThe 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.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.