Chris Nation
Banned
Nevermind the reasons (which have been litigated at length here, please do feel free to add your thoughts there).
Say the Tories win the 1945 general election. I think it's fairly obvious to everyone (with the possible exception of Churchill) that India will be getting independence in short order. The Indian Civil Service had been thoroughly "Indianised" prior to the Second World War - I believe the figure was that by 1939 there were only 600 British civil servants left in India. The interwar Tory governments had been increasing self-rule and flirting with Dominion status for decades at this point.
However, I do think that the Tories will pursue a longer timescale - but how long? Even a moderate increase will have pretty significant impacts, in my view, but I've narrowed down some of them, listed below. Please feel free to add any other implications that you see.
Partition
Does it even still happen? If it does happen, is it changed? Jinnah was gravely ill during the run up to independence in our timeline, having been fighting tuberculosis since the 1930s. He will be dead in 1948. Lord Mountbatten later recalled that had he known how gravely ill Jinnah had been, he would have played for time with an eye toward averting Partition.
Additionally, with more time, is the Radcliffe Line altered?
Political Radicalism
Does the continued British presence in India significantly alter the political situation in India? Really I suppose this is two questions.
How does Congress react to a longer British withdrawal period?
In 1946, Congress won something like 90% of the Hindu vote in India. It was clearly the political expression of Indian nationalism. If Congress either acquiesces to the British timetable or doesn't do anything really to stop it, does this political allegiance shift, possibly with an increased Communist influence?
Post-Independence Relationship
Really, the modern Commonwealth in my view traces its roots to the decisions by India to become a Republic and the decision by Britain to rethink the Commonwealth to accommodate that. How is that impacted?
Say the Tories win the 1945 general election. I think it's fairly obvious to everyone (with the possible exception of Churchill) that India will be getting independence in short order. The Indian Civil Service had been thoroughly "Indianised" prior to the Second World War - I believe the figure was that by 1939 there were only 600 British civil servants left in India. The interwar Tory governments had been increasing self-rule and flirting with Dominion status for decades at this point.
However, I do think that the Tories will pursue a longer timescale - but how long? Even a moderate increase will have pretty significant impacts, in my view, but I've narrowed down some of them, listed below. Please feel free to add any other implications that you see.
Partition
Does it even still happen? If it does happen, is it changed? Jinnah was gravely ill during the run up to independence in our timeline, having been fighting tuberculosis since the 1930s. He will be dead in 1948. Lord Mountbatten later recalled that had he known how gravely ill Jinnah had been, he would have played for time with an eye toward averting Partition.
Additionally, with more time, is the Radcliffe Line altered?
Political Radicalism
Does the continued British presence in India significantly alter the political situation in India? Really I suppose this is two questions.
How does Congress react to a longer British withdrawal period?
In 1946, Congress won something like 90% of the Hindu vote in India. It was clearly the political expression of Indian nationalism. If Congress either acquiesces to the British timetable or doesn't do anything really to stop it, does this political allegiance shift, possibly with an increased Communist influence?
Post-Independence Relationship
Really, the modern Commonwealth in my view traces its roots to the decisions by India to become a Republic and the decision by Britain to rethink the Commonwealth to accommodate that. How is that impacted?
Last edited:
