Economics of a rogue BEIC or a more realistic Angrezi Raj

  • Thread starter Deleted member 14881
  • Start date

Deleted member 14881

In a hypothetical scenario of a weakened Britain in the 19th century of French hegemony in Europe and Britain is reactionary with Ernest Augustus as King and Republican Revolution happens and the BEIC is scared because in the minds of shareholders the Chartists= class warfare, and they go rogue and don't recognize the government at London with their main market lost and what do they do now?
 

katchen

Banned
I would imagine that the major voting shareholders would need to take ship for North America and either re-open their main office in New York, meanwhile lobbying the US government for help in maiintaining control of India. A market for tea could be stimulated in the US and while competition between Indian and domestic cotton would be an issue, there are other products that India would not compete with US producers with.
 

Deleted member 14881

Katchen, could the BEIC make lots of cash from having a saltpetre monopoly?
 
In a hypothetical scenario of a weakened Britain in the 19th century of French hegemony in Europe and Britain is reactionary with Ernest Augustus as King and Republican Revolution happens and the BEIC is scared because in the minds of shareholders the Chartists= class warfare, and they go rogue and don't recognize the government at London with their main market lost and what do they do now?
You mean that the upper layer of management in India itself rejects its responsibilities to the company's directors and shareholders back in Britain? Then they have no legal basis for their managerial role in the company, and any of their subordinates who wants to do so is just as free to reject their authority.
Also, by that stage there's actually a Crown-appointed Governor-General out there (based at Calcutta), and the British regiments stationed out there (who would normally outnumber the Company's European troops, although admittedly not its native ones as well) are going to back him -- as are any RN ships in the region -- against the Company. Also, the upper ranks of the judiciary out there are Crown appointees rather than Company employees.
Plus, anybody who takes a significant role in this rebellion can probably forget about the possibility of ever going back home again in safety afterwards.

And if the company's India-based management does somehow manage to take full control in its own right, then how is it then going to obtain any more British personnel to keep its strength up in future? You'd have to start giving the Anglo-Indians more responsibility again instead, I suppose, and I don't know how willing the managers at that date would have been to do so...
 
Last edited:

Rush Tarquin

Gone Fishin'
You mean that the upper layer of management in India itself rejects its responsibilities to the company's directors and shareholders back in Britain? Then they have no legal basis for their managerial role in the company, and any of their subordinates who wants to do so is just as free to reject their authority.
Also, by that stage there's actually a Crown-appointed Governor-General out there (based at Calcutta), and the British regiments stationed out there (who would normally outnumber the Company's European troops, although admittedly not its native ones as well) are going to back him -- as are any RN ships in the region -- against the Company. Also, the upper ranks of the judiciary out there are Crown appointees rather than Company employees.
Plus, anybody who takes a significant role in this rebellion can probably forget about the possibility of ever going back home again in safety afterwards.

And if the company's India-based management does somehow manage to take full control in its own right, then how is it then going to obtain any more British personnel to keep its strength up in future? You'd have to start giving the Anglo-Indians more responsibility again instead, I suppose, and I don't know how willing the managers at that date would have been to do so...

If there's been a Republican revolution in Britain, might not these other groups be sympathetic to the BEIC refusing to recognise the new Republican government in London, especially if the deposed monarch is still asserting their authority from Hanover or maybe India itself.
 
Okay, yes, I suppose that recognising a king in exile (although there's little likelihood that he'd base himself as far away from home as India) could solve the problem the potential problem with the Crown appointees and -- with those officials' support behind the in-country management -- keep the lesser officials in line as well, but then wouldn't there still be concern about potential Republican support amongst the lower ranks? And there's still the improtant question of where the Company would acquire its replacement staff as time passed...
 

Deleted member 14881

if the King flees to Hanover I would think that the BEIC will gain more autonomy since Hannover has a smaller military.
 
if the King flees to Hanover I would think that the BEIC will gain more autonomy since Hannover has a smaller military.

That puts the BEIC in a worst position, not a better one. It needed the implicit backup of the British army and the Royal Navy to maintain its control. For this to have a hope of working, the Royal Navy would have to side with the counter-revolution.
 

Deleted member 14881

That puts the BEIC in a worst position, not a better one. It needed the implicit backup of the British army and the Royal Navy to maintain its control. For this to have a hope of working, the Royal Navy would have to side with the counter-revolution.

So, the most likely route is a balkanized india due to the collaspe of British power
 
If the Company is going to maintain any relevance in such a situation, it will have to compromise with the Anglo-Indians, give the Princes greater say and internationalise to ensure European recruits.

Of course there's plenty that could happen. What's to stop the Company's leaders accepting the Revolution back home, its unlikely to be socialist in any meaningful sense and if they're fearful of other European nations or the Indians booting them out, the *Republican Navy can offer a hand King Ernst simply can't.

Perhaps the Indians try to absorb the framework of the Company to reap the rewards, with its institutions being gobbled up by various Princes. Then there's the likes of the French, Portuguese and others claiming a dangerous climate and expanding beyond their enclaves.

Given the instability, I think the Company will have to side with London, even if its one with a President.
 

katchen

Banned
The most likely location for a King in exile would be either Hailfax of Quebec. Canada could provide the necessary replacement troops. And I have no doubt that the London directors of the BEIC would flee to Hailfax as quickly as possible. Don't forget that the French also have their own East India Company and under the Continental System it would be just like Napoleon to force a merger of the two with the French directors having controlling interest.
As for the BEIC maintaining a saltpeter monopoly, I do not think that's feasible. Certainly not if BEIC moves to the New World. There are simply too many alternative sources of guano from which KNO3 can be isolated in the New World from seagull roosts in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and New England to guano islands in the West Indies to manure and urine conservation methods on farms in the former colonies.The BEIC can turn a profit in the KNO3 business, most likely, and from there to gunpowder and other munitions, but not a monopoly.
Frankly, the most sensible new investment for the BEIC will likely be steamboats and steamboat shipping on North American and Indian and Burmese rivers. Nicholas Roosevelt and Robert Fulton are building the first steamboat to travel down the Ohio and Missisippi from Pittsburgh to New Orleans in 1811 (which is successful despite the 1811 New Madrid Eearthquake). Investment in steamboats could yield returns on the Great Lakes and once canals are built, the Hayes, Lake Winnipeg, Saskachewan River system in British North America to say nothing of the Ganges, Indus and Irwaddy rivers in India and Burma and possibly the rivers of China.
And frankly, there's no telling how many butterflies an exiled British court and BEIC may set loose in the new United States. WIth a Continental System likely to endure in Europe for the forseeable future and an exiled Great Britain (now Canada and the West Indies, really) needing all the tax base it can get to hang onto colonies like India while the United States is also suffering from markets closed to it due to trade embargoes, there could be a great deal of sentiment on both sides for reconciliation. It has, after all, been less than 40 years since the Delcaration of Independence, 30 years since the Treaty of Paris and only 23 years under the new Constitution. There is a great deal of sentiment in the United States to conquer Canada, as militarily infeasible as it is. Perhaps the Constitution can be revised to return to the Crown under an explicit written constitution more or less as is. With proper compromises, maybe the prodigal Cousin Jonathan can return to the fold. Lots of butterflies on this TL!:D:D:D
 

katchen

Banned
The US reverts to a Constitutional Monarchy. One generation removed from the Revolution. It could work. Or New England and New York (which was not in favor of the War of 1812 anyway) rejoins the Crown now in Hailfax). The border of the United States becomes roughly the Ohio-Great Lakes Divide to the Upper Mississippi.
 
The US reverts to a Constitutional Monarchy. One generation removed from the Revolution. It could work. Or New England and New York (which was not in favor of the War of 1812 anyway) rejoins the Crown now in Hailfax). The border of the United States becomes roughly the Ohio-Great Lakes Divide to the Upper Mississippi.

No that's really unlikely. The us was republican as part of its founding ideology and is unlikely to feel moved to let the British king the current generation of American politicians fought and died to declare independence from. I mean excepting butterflies Jackson would be president during the revolution in Britain. And he hated the British almost as much he hated everyone else.
 
You can certainly get more autonomy for the EIC as the result of civil war in the UK, though it's much harder (if not impossible) to have full independence. As it may be pertinent to the thread, there's an explanation of the government of India as established in 1833 (and due for renewal in 1853) located here.

I think the best way to go about it would be to have a relatively long military campaign in the UK itself between Chartist and Royalist forces. Just to nitpick, though, I think it more likely that you'd see a broader opposition with working class support (like the 1832 reform movement) rather than straight Chartism. The opposition would probably aim to replace Ernst with the Duke of Cambridge, who has a good claim to the throne and was by all accounts a rather affable chap. It's not impossible that there could be a separate working class rebellion against the opposition movement, as tends to happen in civil wars (e.g. the Levellers, the Paris Commune, the Bolsheviks).

In the end, Ernst August loses and heads to the Continent. While he decamps to Hanover with the remnants of his supporters, he sends a new Governor-General out to India. I suspect that if he has at least some MPs and peers with him, or members of the board of Control, this would be viewed as the legal succession. It doesn't seem likely that the original Governor-General would be prepared to hand over to a Radical Republican London appointee, particularly if the original is an Ernst August favourite.

The new governor-general would have instructions to do whatever he needs to in India, as long as he can send back regiments and money to support the Royalist cause. This includes raising additional EIC European regiments to free up British infantry, to be achieved by widening the recruitment base beyond British nationals. This would create de facto foreign legions, as was done historically in the Napoleonic Wars and Crimea. I'm not sure whether there would be Chartist agitators among the British infantry overseas, but I suspect it wouldn't be a major issue. If there was a mutiny, as long as it's minor, a tactful governor-general might just grant clemency provided those who aren't ringleaders transfer to the Company's army and serve the rest of their careers in India.

If I recall correctly, the 1833 charter lifted a previously-imposed colour bar, so it would have been possible to employ talented Eurasians in the lower ranks of the civil service. The issue of whether Eurasians can be promoted to higher ranks would only emerge so much later, as officials reach the end of their careers, that the EIC would either have found an alternative source of recruits, or would have reconciled itself to mixed-race individuals being employed.

(I'm aware that a certain amount of the above is unrealistic, but then so is the idea of anybody liking Ernst August enough to die for him in battle.)
 
So this scenario is implausible? :(
Depends what you want it for. I would happily read and probably enjoy a story exploring a world in which, seventy years ago, the EIC looked at an autocratic Ernst August and a council of British Robespierres and decided it didn't fancy either of them. In terms of quote-unquote "realistic alternative history", however, the East India Company's power base was too narrow and India too important to any British successor state to allow them to succeed in breaking off completely. Put yourself in the shoes of the governor-general: you'd have to have a strong megalomaniacal streak to attempt it, and be very persuasive to get anybody to go along with you.

If we're talking fiction, though, I'd bear in mind that the Chartists were anti-imperialistic. If the Governor-General was sufficiently unscrupulous, they might have offered him a deal- run India how you want, don't help Ernst August try and regain the British throne, and we'll not only leave you alone, but let you trade with Britain and recruit European troops for India here.
 

ingemann

Banned
Man power is not the really big problem, a Angrezi Raj would likely keep the British settlement colonies and there would likely be a refuge influx. The big problem is the lack of a industrial base, which would make India a easy victim of other European powers.
 
Man power is not the really big problem, a Angrezi Raj would likely keep the British settlement colonies and there would likely be a refuge influx. The big problem is the lack of a industrial base, which would make India a easy victim of other European powers.

It's still a huge problem. There are a LOT more Indians than there could ever be British to keep them in check. And what sort of Britons would flee from Britain, scared of the chartists, to go to India, where there was an ever-present fear that the system could collapse? A revolution in Britain is likely to make them more scared to go to India. They'd be going to Canada or Hannover.
 
Top