Consequences of no British India?

I know India had great importance to the British Empire as an entity but what if (you choose the reason) there simply wasn't a British colonization of the area? British trade and available commodities will have undoubtedly been altered, and if there is no British India who if anyone colonized in its place. Sorry about the ambiguity of the question but my knowledge of the subject is quite limited, but as always comments and corrections are appreciated :).
 
Portugal was there first, Goa, so... then, France as well, and they fought brits for control of India (and kept Pondichéry)... and Dutches could have slipped in, maybe...

so.. :( another colonial power.
 
I think it would be rather interesting if different colonial powers (French, Dutch, Portuguese, etc.) kept little sections of India for themselves, and some of the native states were able to play the colonial powers against each other to maintain independence. Like what happened with France and Britain before the 7YW, but with more European powers maintaining a significant presence in the area.
 
I'm not sure if China could grab parts of northeastern India though, but if they can control Tibet, they can pretty much try to capture Agra and Delhi when the Mughals are at their weakest. Alternatively, having parts of India fall under Nadir Shah's control might also count.
 
Divided between France and Portugal with a small amount of Dutch. Maybe a native state of two in the north. My bet anyway.
 
As Portuguese my opinion is probably a bit biased but maybe most of Western India along the coastline would have probably fallen under Portuguese rule. France would control parts of the North and east and perhaps the Dutch would have the south. Basically a three way division with perhaps a rump Maratha state in the middle.
 
The Indian powers would have been able to play off the colonial powers against each other as they benefited from the western arms and training given to them and eventually would have been able to challenge the Colonial powers on the continent. The only real reason they got screwed in OTL was because the complete dominance of the British in India took away from them the possibility of allies against them as well as a supply for weapons and a way to distract Britain.

Areas like Mysore and the like could have been able to put up considerable resistance and even challenge to the Colonial powers and without a united cohesive policy like Britain did, and constant fighting with other colonial powers, it would be difficult to fight the Natives until industrialization, and by then they likely wouldn't be far behind.
 
If there was no Britain and the other three colonial powers, the French, the Dutch and the Portuguese had competed for influence, the native powers also would have allied with one or the other. The Mahrattas were the most influential among the Indian rulers. The Portuguese had cordial relations with the Vijayanagar but they were once thrown out of Bengal by the Mughals. The Dutch were defeated by the King of Travancore in the battle of Kulachel. The Kingdom of Mysore had friendly relations with the French. The Mahrattas could also have allied with one of the colonial powers to strengthen themselves and they were in a better position to dominate the subcontinent. They were the emerging power after the Mughals and it was the entry of the British that foiled their chances for a larger empire. The loss in the Third Battle of Panipat was a temporary setback and they had recovered from it. They alone had power in the South, Central and North India.
 
What happens to Britain?
Does it remain a pre-modern shithole or is it the same except the government never takes an interest in India?
As the consequences of both could be rather large.
 
What happens to Britain?
Does it remain a pre-modern shithole or is it the same except the government never takes an interest in India?
As the consequences of both could be rather large.

I was going for if the government for whatever reason never took an interest in India, but im open to all scenarios
 
Ww options come what happens to Britain?
Does it remain a pre-modern shithole or is it the same except the government never takes an interest in India?
As the consequences of both could be rather large.




A few options spring to mind:
  • It becomes a trading power but on a second level, kind of like OTL Holland? Though the Dutch had western Europe as a potential hinterland...not just Scotland & Wales. Still, Japan manages to be a world economy with an island nation.
  • If it's going to find a merchantalist outlet and that's not India, we have:
    • Far Eastern Asia - but if you're going all the way to China, why skip India inthe first place?
    • Africa - While the French are poking around the Mediterranain shores the British are more aggressive (and successful) in establishing colonial rule from the Cape of Good Hope going north.
    • South America - Spanish, except for Brazil. Well, we don't like the Spanish, so let's see what we can get from there, shall we?
      North America - Well, we tried a few colonies already...maybe push emigration and setlement. Extend them west. Get French Louisiana by hook or by crook. Really, really push expansion; past the Rockies all the way to the Pacific...OK, let's not get carried away here. Even if such a thing was possible, it probably wouldn't amount to much, anyway.
 
Without Britain, Mysore would have became a major player. With no one to check their expansion Mysore would have extended to south. They would be a barrier between the French based in east coast and Portuguese in west coast and the Dutch in Srilanka.

Most likely the French would have advanced further north along the east coast.Mysore-Maratha rivalry would have became more intense with Portuguese and French taking sides. Overall India would have been under the control of local rulers for much longer than in OTL.
 
A huge impact would have occurred during WWII, as this was the staging area for the western front against Japan. Without India, the Japanese would have prevailed in Burma, then on to India (ultimately mideast, new front against Russia in Afghanistan, linkup with Germans in Africa) facing only disorganized resistance. Without India, there would be no one flying/driving supplies over "the Hump" to Chinese resistance efforts. Finally, without Indian soldiers swelling the Commonwealth ranks, British efforts elsewhere such as Italy would have likely been outnumbered.
 
It doesn't look good.

India was Balkanizing beginning in the later decades of Aurangzeb's reign without European interference. With no British dominance, not only is the way open for the French and Dutch to back competing clients, but also for more Afghan, Persian and Omani interference also. In OTL, Persia defeated the Moghuls in 1739 but left an enfeebled emperor in place. In this timeline, maybe Persia tries to stay, annexing North India to its empire.
 
And here I thought I was the only one who said that China could have a chance at taking a slice of India. Without a British India around, the British might as well pursue a free trade deal with the Qing instead of colonizing India.
 
It doesn't look good.

India was Balkanizing beginning in the later decades of Aurangzeb's reign without European interference. With no British dominance, not only is the way open for the French and Dutch to back competing clients, but also for more Afghan, Persian and Omani interference also. In OTL, Persia defeated the Moghuls in 1739 but left an enfeebled emperor in place. In this timeline, maybe Persia tries to stay, annexing North India to its empire.

Or how bout the Mughals win the war? Thats likely the better idea for the TL to take, it could even be done that Indian countries are the first non-european ones to industrialize. Although your opinion on the outlook of Indian independence is kind of pessimistic given how British india was largely a result of the 7 years war and the ensuing monopolization of India by the Brits. India wasnt that far behind Europe at the time and the independent states where generally able to play the europeans against eachother.
 
I'll try to dig up my standard post on South Indian politics in the 17th and 18th centuries.

As I've argued before, what needs to happen is for the balance of power to be preserved in South India for a generation or so more.

IOTL, it was upset by the French revolution- France lost the ability to play power games in South India leaving the British free to act as regional hegemon.

Lets look at why European trained armies were able to generally beat South Indian ones. This hadn't been the case just fifty years before where the dutch were stalemated in the Dutch-Travancori war. But the late 18th century, Indian armies were fielding artillery corps as large and sophisticated as anything in Europe. Where they lagged behind was in the area of drilled infantry- Indian kings tended to rely more on the shock and awe of artillery but drilled Company troops could advance reliably under fire and this was what tipped the balance often enough.

Now by the late 18th C, Indian kings were beginning to adopt European infantry theory, hiring advisors to drill their royal guards and the like. However, these sort of reforms hadn't been put into place en masse. This was fine so long as the Anglo-French balance of power was maintained in South India but once France became preoccupied with its trouble in Europe, French support for Indian clients dried up, leaving the British free to sweep across South India. Mysore was conquered and the Wodeyars placed back on the throne, Travancore submitted as a vassal and so did Hyderabad.

But given a generation more of power games in South India it's quite likely that Hyderabad, Mysore and Travancore, at least would have been able to preserve their independence.

The North is actually much more likely to fall due to the utter chaos that was going on up there. The Mughals were only nominally there and the Mahrattas were overextended and disintegrating.
 

mowque

Banned
Flocc's points are, as usual, pretty solid. I think if you could keep the power plays going on, the Indians (like Siam) could play one off against each other. Granted this doesn't get us a totally free India (even the largest princely states will be beholden to white interests, while large chunks of India will still be under direct control) but we may see some real freedom for some limited areas, with huge knock-on effects.
 
Top