British People in India

How can we get it so that there is a substantial (say, at least 5%) minority of British descended people in the subcontinent?

Note I mean all of India, so the parts that split off (Pakistan and likewise) can count as well.
 

Thande

Donor
Difficult, that's about ten times the number there are today in OTL. I suppose if the EIC had continued its policy of encouraging its men to marry native wives and Victorian social attitudes were delayed or avoided?
 
Difficult, that's about ten times the number there are today in OTL. I suppose if the EIC had continued its policy of encouraging its men to marry native wives and Victorian social attitudes were delayed or avoided?

Wouldn't that also lead to a significant Indian-descended minority in Britain proper as well?
 

Delvestius

Banned
Perhaps a famine, civil war, or terrible government would prompt the British upper Class to partake in a Diaspora, leaving or better opportunities in America, outh Africa, and India. I could forsee a state in India reserved predominatly for whites....
 
Was there ever a situation like in India like there was in Africa, with many, many white people because of a higher birth-rate?
 
How can we get it so that there is a substantial (say, at least 5%) minority of British descended people in the subcontinent?

Note I mean all of India, so the parts that split off (Pakistan and likewise) can count as well.

Benjamin Disraeli could persuade Queen Victoria to move the Imperial Capital from London to Delhi in 1877, the same year as he makes her Empress of India. The same as Constantine moved the capital from Rome.

He could argue that Britain was now a new imperial Empire blah, blah and the inhabitants of India were just as much her subjects as the British People. Therefore, she should move to a place where MOST of her subjects live. It would also make Britain or rather the Imperial elite less vulnerable to defeat in a Europen war and British commerce would benefit from more exploitation of India's vast resources if the Imperial capital was Delhi and not London.

If she complains about leaving Balmoral tell her that Kashmir is just as good as Scotland.

If she goes then the machinery of imperial government goes with her. Thousands of civil servants, police, engineers, soldiers and businessmen along with their families go. With improvements in medical science at the end of the 19thc most would survive the climate.

I can see no other way of significantly increasing the % of British in India.
 
Benjamin Disraeli could persuade Queen Victoria to move the Imperial Capital from London to Delhi in 1877, the same year as he makes her Empress of India. The same as Constantine moved the capital from Rome.

He could argue that Britain was now a new imperial Empire blah, blah and the inhabitants of India were just as much her subjects as the British People. Therefore, she should move to a place where MOST of her subjects live. It would also make Britain or rather the Imperial elite less vulnerable to defeat in a Europen war and British commerce would benefit from more exploitation of India's vast resources if the Imperial capital was Delhi and not London.

If she complains about leaving Balmoral tell her that Kashmir is just as good as Scotland.

If she goes then the machinery of imperial government goes with her. Thousands of civil servants, police, engineers, soldiers and businessmen along with their families go. With improvements in medical science at the end of the 19thc most would survive the climate.

I can see no other way of significantly increasing the % of British in India.

So basically, have Disraeli and Victoria possessed by alien space bats?
 
Avoid the Sepoy Mutiny. It would've allowed for continued intermarriage between British men and Indian women. It's not much but it's something.
 
Avoid the Sepoy Mutiny. It would've allowed for continued intermarriage between British men and Indian women. It's not much but it's something.

Intermarriage in India did not end in 1857. The big threat to intermarriage between British (mainly soldiers and engineers) and Indians was when steam ship travel and railways made it easier for white women to go to India to either join their husbands or find one among the gentlemen officers or civil servants. Then there was the rise of more overt skin colour prejudice and pseudoscience at the end of the 19thC.
 
there are 1,521,680,000 people in what was British India, 5% of that is 76,084,000, there are only 62,041,708 people in the UK today.
 

Thande

Donor
there are 1,521,680,000 people in what was British India, 5% of that is 76,084,000, there are only 62,041,708 people in the UK today.

Yeah, but there's at least three hundred million British descended people in the USA, Commonwealth and elsewhere, and Britain (or rather England) first started sending traders to India in the sevententh century, around the same time when the English population of America was a few hundred people in Plymouth and Roanoake. All you have to do is increase the number of Ritons permanently settling in India, and preferably start early on. I think Tony Jones did it in Monarchy World but I can't remember how.
 
The initial post could certainly be read a couple of different ways (5% of what number).

I initially thought it would be 5% of the UK population which would be a lot easier than 5% of all Anglos. 2.5-3M anglos in 'India' would be really tough 6-7 times that number would be ASB, I think. (I WAS going to say 'bar a Peshawar Lancers type scenario - but that's ASB anyway:))

Actually, I suppose a slightly different interpretation of the problem might help.

By *Victorian times you have several thousands of Anglos, mostly male in place. They all marry locals, and have kids, who marry locals and have kids.... Because they're in well-off strata of society, a reasonable percentage of their kids survive, and so *today you have some 50million Indians who can claim at least one British ancestor.... Would that count? they'd be "British descended" ... sort of.
 
Top