Discussion thread, "The Anglo-Indian Wars"

Could the British empire be forced out of India before 1900?


  • Total voters
    38
So, I had an earlier thread that once again went astray from the question I asked, and so in this thread I would ask folks to discuss the means by which the British could have been forced out of India over the space of a decade or three of on-again off-again rebellion and open warfare.

Given that:
1) the USA in the 1960's & 70's could 'loose' the Vietnam war, and that
2) the 1960's USA was far more powerful than the 1860's - 1890's British empire ever was, how long and how bloody would such wars have had too be for the British population to demand an end, like the US population did in OTL? Note that this does not require the British empire to be defeated upon the battlefield any more than the USA was in Vietnam, only that the constant blood letting, with no end in sight, finally makes them pull out.

Any thoughts?
 
You don't help discussions by comparing India to Vietnam - completely different scenarios.

The Indian Mutiny could have been more serious - it could have occurred during the Crimean War for example not after. The incident in China could also have been co-incident. The Sikhs and the Punjabis could have supported the rebellion. The rebellion could have spread more in the Hindu South, particularly if the rumour about using cow fat as well as pig fat was widely believed.

The biggest problem though is one that you swatted aside on the other thread - there was no unified opposition to British rule in the sub-continent because there was no "India" to fight for.

In theory the continuation of the rebellion may have been more trouble than it was worth for the UK - although I doubt it as the opposition to the UK from the other Great Powers in this period was fairly weak.

A later rebellion might have more of a pan-Indian aspect to it (perversely because of the British rule rather than a reaction against them) but if anything the British position is stronger and the need to retain India is also stronger.

I could see India being let go in the 1850's as a low (<10%) probability outcome.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
I think the easiest way to evict the British would be to have a Hindu Mughal Emperor. It can't be forgotten that whilst rendered largely toothless, the Mughals were still nominally suzerain of most of India.

If you had one convert to Hinduism, for popular support, and make a populist power play (men of merit over men of caste). Admittedly this would be some serious difficult philisophical loopholes to break through - but a popularly backed Mughal Emperor, where the nobles have been cast down - you then have a powerful native power - with a concept of either "India" or "The Subcontinent is ours dammit".

That sort of power emerging in India would certainly be able to unify the various cultures long enough to evict all the world powers.

Now, you do need to take into account, that unlike Vietnam, Britain is already in place, there are institutions that have been there a long time. This isn't a war with a southern proxy, this is an occupation, and conquest that the British do NOT want to relinquish. The two situations are comparable only in that Anglo-Americans were somewhere in Asia.
 
The biggest problem though is one that you swatted aside on the other thread - there was no unified opposition to British rule in the sub-continent because there was no "India" to fight for.
The reason I 'swatted that argument aside' was the same reason I made this here thread, and that is that this is the place for that discussion.

I'll do this properly later, and by that I mean by doing a fair bit of references, but it basically comes down to an outside force willing to pay to get folks fighting the British, and giving incentives for those serving the British to desert and change sides.

Personally, I think it is a mistake to look at OTL and draw the conclusion that most Indians didn't want the Brits out. Rather, I believe that most didn't think they could win, and why get killed only to loose. From what I know, the British were very good with the carrot & stick method, and without having something like that working on both sides, then yes it is going to be very hard to get the British out. OTOH, the British themselves can be counted upon providing the needed "nudge" when they use their own stick.

Basically, think of those willingly serving the British suffering the same fate as the folks supporting the US did at the hands of the Viet cong, and for the same reasons, collaboration with the enemy.

I also don't visualize this war having continuous fronts nor constant fighting, but rather more of the raiding and destruction of economic gains for the British empire. So, some small starter groups, backed by foreign funds, arms and ammunition, and perhaps advisors, carry off raids that bomb, burn, or kill British forces and property, provoking reprisals (and thus providing the consensus, eventually, for a united front), that takes a couple three decades to achieve Russia's ambition of denying to the British empire it's "Jewel".
 
I think the easiest way to evict the British would be to have a Hindu Mughal Emperor. It can't be forgotten that whilst rendered largely toothless, the Mughals were still nominally suzerain of most of India.

If you had one convert to Hinduism, for popular support, and make a populist power play (men of merit over men of caste). Admittedly this would be some serious difficult philisophical loopholes to break through - but a popularly backed Mughal Emperor, where the nobles have been cast down - you then have a powerful native power - with a concept of either "India" or "The Subcontinent is ours dammit".

That sort of power emerging in India would certainly be able to unify the various cultures long enough to evict all the world powers.

Now, you do need to take into account, that unlike Vietnam, Britain is already in place, there are institutions that have been there a long time. This isn't a war with a southern proxy, this is an occupation, and conquest that the British do NOT want to relinquish.
Welcome too the thread, and thanks for the information. Is there a link I could get on this?

The two situations are comparable only in that Anglo-Americans were somewhere in Asia.
Actually, that is not at all accurate, as both would be fighting native forces equipped from foreign nations arms industries, and that these industries would not be in any way be attacked in the war. I do realize that there are differences in the two, such as the British were an established, in-place conqueror, whereas the USA was 'stepping in' for the French (and why we actually did THAT I have never really figured out), so the US was never a conquering invading army. But both wars would end up being fought at the end of a long logistical trail (and this can only be worse for the British empire due to limited technology available). Also, India has a far greater population and land area than Vietnam, so given that a more advanced USA could 'loose' a war in Vietnam, then a more primitive British empire can, without any doubt, be driven out of India.
 
Personally, I think it is a mistake to look at OTL and draw the conclusion that most Indians didn't want the Brits out. Rather, I believe that most didn't think they could win, and why get killed only to loose. From what I know, the British were very good with the carrot & stick method, and without having something like that working on both sides, then yes it is going to be very hard to get the British out. OTOH, the British themselves can be counted upon providing the needed "nudge" when they use their own stick.

Basically, think of those willingly serving the British suffering the same fate as the folks supporting the US did at the hands of the Viet cong, and for the same reasons, collaboration with the enemy.

I also don't visualize this war having continuous fronts nor constant fighting, but rather more of the raiding and destruction of economic gains for the British empire. So, some small starter groups, backed by foreign funds, arms and ammunition, and perhaps advisors, carry off raids that bomb, burn, or kill British forces and property, provoking reprisals (and thus providing the consensus, eventually, for a united front), that takes a couple three decades to achieve Russia's ambition of denying to the British empire it's "Jewel".

You're still fixated with turning India into Vietnam. That isn't going to work without a unifying force - in OTL that was the Raj, it might have been USSR sponsored communism (although that is outside your timeframe).

GdwnsnHo's Hindu emperor is an idea but again it plays more towards the earlier part of the Raj than the end. And you'd probably need to butterfly Aurangzeb away and maintain if not a Hindu Emperor then at least a pluralist tradition in the Mughal empire.

If you follow your current line of thinking then you should be comparing India with Indochina not Vietnam. Destabilising British rule will lead to anti-British states (Vietnam, Cambodia), failed states (Laos) and also some neutral or even pro-British states (think Thailand)

A coherent India based on anti-Britishness is unlikely to be stable.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Welcome too the thread, and thanks for the information. Is there a link I could get on this?

Certainly

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire

Look at the later parts of the history section.

Actually, that is not at all accurate, as both would be fighting native forces equipped from foreign nations arms industries, and that these industries would not be in any way be attacked in the war. I do realize that there are differences in the two, such as the British were an established, in-place conqueror, whereas the USA was 'stepping in' for the French (and why we actually did THAT I have never really figured out), so the US was never a conquering invading army. But both wars would end up being fought at the end of a long logistical trail (and this can only be worse for the British empire due to limited technology available). Also, India has a far greater population and land area than Vietnam, so given that a more advanced USA could 'loose' a war in Vietnam, then a more primitive British empire can, without any doubt, be driven out of India.

Oddly enough, the British did produce guns in India. And had the infrastructure set up for Gunpowder, etc. for example

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishapore_Rifle_Factory

So they weren't at the end of a long logistical trail. They had Indian troops, and local military infrastructure - and short of their own sepoys/troops rising up, have control of their own local logistical base - and a sea that they control. They have both the long-distance secure backup for their supplies, but also local resources to fight the war from.

Also, with Britain in control of the seas, how are the Indians getting access to arms? through Afghanistan? Britain would be able to embargo any trade to India that wasn't with them. It would not be a small feat to smuggle the amount of arms needed to fight that war.

Your major mistake here is that Vietnam was able to import modern weaponry, and had incredibly good defensive terrain. India, has all sorts of terrain, vastly exposed to naval landings, and outside of British control, has no access to import modern weaponry. If there isn't a great victory on the side of the rebels early on, you aren't going to have the sheer number of bodies needed to bury the troops in British Employ (unless those troops defect too).
 
You've got another fundamental problem too. The British didn't directly rule India as a whole, instead a great deal of it consisted of the Princely States - the rulers of which weren't too keen on independence in OTL and are very likely to side with the British in the sort of rebellion you're suggesting since by it's nature it would sweep them away too.
India-1947.jpg
 
Certainly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire
Look at the later parts of the history section.
Nice. It looks like the fellows in charge just fell apart, just in time for the British to step in and take over.



Oddly enough, the British did produce guns in India. And had the infrastructure set up for Gunpowder, etc. for example

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishapore_Rifle_Factory.
Any ideas about the amount of gunpowder being produced locally? In other words, were they exporting it from India, and if so in what quantities? They mentioned 'Gun and carriage' works set up in early 1800's, this means artillery guns? Was ammunition (either infantry or artillery type) also being manufactured locally? I mean, I would just assume that it was, but I suppose that an argument could be made for that not to be the case. Either way, interesting info there. I would really like to know if the local arms industry made 1850's onward India a net importer or exporter, and whether these facilities could be captured and held, or just destroyed (perhaps many times), as needed.

So they weren't at the end of a long logistical trail. They had Indian troops, and local military infrastructure - and short of their own sepoys/troops rising up, have control of their own local logistical base.
Correct me if I am mistaken, but wasn't the majority of their troop strength native troops? In other words, rebels couldn't hope to get British troops to turn coat, but perhaps they can get fellow Indians to do so.


And a sea that they control. They have both the long-distance secure backup for their supplies, but also local resources to fight the war from.


Also, with Britain in control of the seas, how are the Indians getting access to arms? through Afghanistan? Britain would be able to embargo any trade to India that wasn't with them. It would not be a small feat to smuggle the amount of arms needed to fight that war.


Your major mistake here is that Vietnam was able to import modern weaponry, and had incredibly good defensive terrain. India, has all sorts of terrain, vastly exposed to naval landings, and outside of British control, has no access to import modern weaponry. If there isn't a great victory on the side of the rebels early on, you aren't going to have the sheer number of bodies needed to bury the troops in British Employ (unless those troops defect too).
Overland works for arms smuggling, but you gave me an evil idea just a bit ago, what with the local gunpowder works. BTW, were small arms not made locally till OTL 1904? I mean, not having to import vast amounts of heavy loads of gunpowder is a boon (until such facilities go BOOM), but if rifles and ammo is still having to be imported, then they still have a long way to go.

For this type of warfare, infiltration, bribery, blackmail, and assassinations would play a large part alongside raids of powder magazines and arsenals, as well as just plain infrastructure and British property destruction.

Basically, I would expect the first phase would target all facilities that were deemed 'doable' and 'must kill' type of things, and this would at the least have to include top British officials, local stores of arms and ammunition, lots of British property, and as much else as could be managed, with whatever limited forces you would start off with.

You know, it really wasn't my intention to get all into Indian history and all, but I wonder if there is a computer game on the market that could be utilized to simulate such a war as we are discussing here? With my very limited knowledge about Indian history, it might make such a game very interesting from the point of view of a player playing the Czar, sending agents into a strange land and studying how to best kick the British out, or baring that, just make India into a loosing proposition, rather than the most profitable portion of their empire.
 
You've got another fundamental problem too. The British didn't directly rule India as a whole, instead a great deal of it consisted of the Princely States - the rulers of which weren't too keen on independence in OTL and are very likely to side with the British in the sort of rebellion you're suggesting since by it's nature it would sweep them away too.
India-1947.jpg
This is another misconception I am responsible for.:(

I am not looking to build a united, peaceful and prosperous India here, but rather just getting the British out, so that we can then move on to my previous thread, where my true interest is actually getting the ground work laid. Maybe that helps folks visualize what the motive and driving force behind the Czar's intervention is for, and anything better than Brittan out would just be a bonus.
 
This is another misconception I am responsible for.:(

I am not looking to build a united, peaceful and prosperous India here, but rather just getting the British out, so that we can then move on to my previous thread, where my true interest is actually getting the ground work laid. Maybe that helps folks visualize what the motive and driving force behind the Czar's intervention is for, and anything better than Brittan out would just be a bonus.
That isn't the point I was making - the problem you have is that British rule suited the Princely States just fine, by and large. It guaranteed their place at the top of the social heap against all sorts of rebellions from below, in exchange for the British skimming off a bit of cash from them (by and large they were enormously wealthy, so it didn't matter much) and taking control of their foreign policy. To have a chance of your scenario working, you have to subvert the princely states - and there isn't a cat in hell's chance of an external intervention by the Russians achieving that.
The problem is that the only subversion the Russians could do would be among those discontented with British rule. By 1920 or so onwards there was starting to be an Indian middle class who wanted the British out - but before that most of the dissension was people who wanted Dominion status, not independence. Apart from that you've got the peasantry and all you can do is claim to be a better potential ruler - a real threat to the Princely States!
 
I think that one of the issues here is that we are all getting hung up on the Princes.

Yes they were important, yes they were power-brokers, and yes, they stood most to benefit from the British status-quo. But they shouldn't be seen as a bar to ANY revolt under ANY circumstance. Nothing in history works like that.

Plus you don't need a middle-class to ferment an independence movement - the 1857 Rebellion proved this. Yes it failed, but it caused the British serious problems.

There is scope here, albeit an unlikely one, for a more widespread popular rebellion along the lines of the 1857 rebellion that might attract one or two powerful or charismatic leaders. Remember for over a decade the Taiping Rebellion in China was largely centered around one charismatic leader who was able to draw in a range of different supporters.

You have two problems with your scenario as I see it, though, that you need to put serious effort into overcoming.

1. You seem to be keen on Russia being the international power to dislodge the British - but even after 1900 it would be impossible for the Russians to really project the sort of power needed to dislodge the Raj across central asia without provoking a major European war that Russia could well lose.

2. This links to the above - if your POD is after 1857 you are dealing with a British state in India purposefully designed to resist just such an uprising. By 1900 the British had become masters at playing one faction against another in India, such as splitting the Muslims from the INC in 1901-1906, and driving a wedge between Sikh and Hindu. Even with foreign intervention, you are dealing with such a divided "India" in this period that it would be very difficult to dislodge the divide-and-rule strategy of the Raj.

Then again, I hate to be a nay-sayer. Impossible is used far too easily in this forum, so here are a couple of ideas (although I have to emphasise these are improbable):

* A Taiping style rebellion based around religious unity or pluralism that can draw disparate factions together.
* One of the Eastern Princes (maybe in Bengal or similar) decides to court the Qing during their antagonistic period with Britain (50s-80s)
*If you are heart set on Russian involvement, maybe have Persia fall into their pocket, allowing them a more direct route into the subcontinent. Of course this brings the Ottomans even further into the British side...
 
Last edited:
That isn't the point I was making - the problem you have is that British rule suited the Princely States just fine, by and large.
I think, more properly said, it suited the rulers of the Princely States just fine, and not necessarily the common man within them. Would you agree to this qualification likely being true?

It guaranteed their place at the top of the social heap against all sorts of rebellions from below, in exchange for the British skimming off a bit of cash from them (by and large they were enormously wealthy, so it didn't matter much) and taking control of their foreign policy.
And this is part of the 'carrot and stick' I mentioned earlier, is it not? Nobody said the British were dumb, and this only serves to illustrate who would have to be subverted or assassinated, in order to change all this.

To have a chance of your scenario working, you have to subvert the princely states - and there isn't a cat in hell's chance of an external intervention by the Russians achieving that.
Really, how so? No matter what kind of plan they come up with, what dastardly deeds their paid underlings pull off, you believe that British rule (both direct and proxy) was unassailable and totally unbreakable?:eek: Pardon me if I fail to accept that opinion.:)

The problem is that the only subversion the Russians could do would be among those discontented with British rule.
Anyone discontent, with anything that the Russians could use to get them to do their bidding, up to and including the leaders of the Princely States. Greed, Fear, Jealousy, and Ambition could make many things possible.

Apart from that you've got the peasantry and all you can do is claim to be a better potential ruler - a real threat to the Princely States!
Well, this limits those that might be turned to that demographic within the population, that outnumbers all others, combined, right? And also, keep in mind that the Russians do not have to put themselves forward as a potential 'replacement rulers' (not that they couldn't, I suppose) but they could simply carry out regime changes in any of the Princely States that seemed too be to chummy with the British, over and over again, until no one is willing to take the risk of working with the British.

I feel the need to ask this question straight out, Does anyone personally have a dislike of the very idea of the British empire getting kicked out of India earlier than OTL?
 
I feel the need to ask this question straight out, Does anyone personally have a dislike of the very idea of the British empire getting kicked out of India earlier than OTL?

No I think some of us dislike being lectured by someone who thinks

but I wonder if there is a computer game on the market that could be utilized to simulate such a war as we are discussing here? With my very limited knowledge about Indian history, it might make such a game very interesting from the point of view of a player playing the Czar

If you want to make Raj Alert then go ahead - if you want to even approach the level of say, Victoria II in the Raj then you need to address the inconvenient facts that have been pointed out.
 
No I think some of us dislike being lectured by someone who thinks
??

Thinks what?

If you want to make Raj Alert then go ahead - if you want to even approach the level of say, Victoria II in the Raj then you need to address the inconvenient facts that have been pointed out.
Good one!

I actually have Victoria (of some version or other), but was unable to play it.:( The computer that has it installed now has no sound, and a video driver that keeps CTD.:mad:

I want to apologize if the topic of this thread is getting folks ticked off, but the reason I asked my last question was because of the tie in threads I will be starting in the next few weeks.
 
I think, more properly said, it suited the rulers of the Princely States just fine, and not necessarily the common man within them. Would you agree to this qualification likely being true?
Yep. The problem is that the rulers of the Princely States are the ones with the levers of power in their hands.

And this is part of the 'carrot and stick' I mentioned earlier, is it not? Nobody said the British were dumb, and this only serves to illustrate who would have to be subverted or assassinated, in order to change all this.
Neither is really practicable - the Rajahs are hereditary rulers (meaning that assassination really doesn't get you anywhere), are rich enough to make subversion very hard and stand to lose badly in any radical change to the political system - they're right at the top of the heap as it is.

Really, how so? No matter what kind of plan they come up with, what dastardly deeds their paid underlings pull off, you believe that British rule (both direct and proxy) was unassailable and totally unbreakable?:eek: Pardon me if I fail to accept that opinion.:)
Oh, you can break it - Gandhi did exactly that. The problems are that it took a hell of a long time for Indian thought to move from becoming a Dominion to becoming an independent country, and that the Russians have nothing to offer the Indians that they don't already have from the British.

Anyone discontent, with anything that the Russians could use to get them to do their bidding, up to and including the leaders of the Princely States. Greed, Fear, Jealousy, and Ambition could make many things possible.
Not really - as mentioned below, you're basically left with those on the bottom of the heap. People who spend most of their time working to get enough to eat, are typically illiterate and who don't think of themselves as "Indians" but as Gujaratis, Bengalis, Muslims, Hindus, Jains, etc. Somehow you have to unite this disparate mass against a very intelligently run and entrenched ruling class.

Well, this limits those that might be turned to that demographic within the population, that outnumbers all others, combined, right? And also, keep in mind that the Russians do not have to put themselves forward as a potential 'replacement rulers' (not that they couldn't, I suppose) but they could simply carry out regime changes in any of the Princely States that seemed too be to chummy with the British, over and over again, until no one is willing to take the risk of working with the British.
How? As mentioned above, the demographic you're thinking of has the least political power for a very good reason (no time or energy to get involved in politics, even today the Dalits are a minor force in Indian politics), and is fragmented rather than united. Any coup inspired by the Russians is also going to have the Indian Army and the Indian States Forces rocking up and hanging the perpetrators (or indeed blowing them from the muzzle of a gun if it's early enough), with all the rulers of the other princely states standing by and applauding. The problem with such a plan is that it is utterly reliant on the British drinking lead paint instead of tea for a generation to function. This isn't the odd thing they could slip under the radar - the British were paranoid about what the Russians were up to in Afghanistan and that it might give them a way to get into India - that's where the term "The Great Game" comes from. It was one of the major functions of British Foreign Policy to keep the Russians as far from India as possible, usually by intervening militarily in Afghanistan if they started making too much process, or by bribing the Pathans (Pashtuns).

I feel the need to ask this question straight out, Does anyone personally have a dislike of the very idea of the British empire getting kicked out of India earlier than OTL?
Nope. We just can't see any way of it plausibly happening without the UK losing a major European war.
 
Well that poll isn't biased at all .....
Pre 1900- of course.
After the British Empire has taken over in India? No. The timescale is too short. Britain was at its peak at the time and was capable of taking on at least any two other powers.
 
There's so many opportunities, depending on when you state the British occupation to "really" begin.
Any point during the 18th century?

Plassey and a more popular Siraj-ud-Daulah, Durranis consolidate the northwest of the continent, resurgent Mughals in the Hindi belt, Madavrao I lives longer than his 20s and Maratha Resurrection continues, Tipu Sultan isn't defeated and forms a sultanate across Southern India (maybe isn't as religiously fervent alienating majority of his subjects), and a few others I'm probably forgetting.
All these could easily stifle or completely end British domination of the subcontinent.

If you start at the 19th century however...
Maharaja Ranjit Singh has a more stable succession, basically making an ally for the Indian mutineers (assuming an opportunist Maharaja).
A more politically involved final Mughal emperor maybe, smart enough to rally various Nawabs and petty Rajas, form a guerrilla war across the subcontinent.
An earlier Indian Mutiny (late 1840s) combined with both Afghan and Russian support (hopefully during the Crimean plus the revolutionary wave across Europe) would create an independent but VERY fractioned subcontinent.
However all would end British hegemony.
 
This has become a strangely contentious topic. However, I find only one problem with your idea here, and it's unfortunately a big one. You seem fixated on the idea that Indians generally disliked being ruled by the British. While I am by no means am advocate of the disgusting institution known as colonialism, I must affirm that this is decidedly untrue. Not only was British colonialism based on a highly effective divide and rule strategy, but as with most people throughout the greater span of history, most Indians truly did not care that they were ruled by foreigners, largely because a. they were ruled indirectly through proxy princes and b. because there's no real, widespread idea of "us vs. them" as you find in the majority of anti-colonialist rebellions. I think, unless you have the vast majority of sepoys become disenchanted with the Raj and rise up, you don't really have a chance at a rebellion until the development of pan-Indian nationalism. That being said, a bigger Mutiny would be a fantastic and IMO probable POD for the expulsion of British colonialism from the vast majority of the subcontinent. If you can get this crucial military class to develop a dislike of the British across the board, I think you've got a situation that'll work.
 
Top