Independent South India
Essentially this is derived from ideas in the British Colonialism thread in PolChat.
Some discussion was devoted to whether the South Indian states could have successfully kept their independence and industrialised.
In a scenario where France retains her power projection capabilities in Asia (i.e. different Seven Years War), you wouldn't have the EIC holding the sole balance of power in South India. This was what helped it gain dominance through the late 18th century and into the early 19th- the EIC could back local states which gave it favourable terms against those who did not, which in time meant that all the surviving states were EIC vassals.
ITTL, however, France does remain an active player in South India and thus the more successful South Indian states manage to retain independence. They succeeded in varying degrees, not becoming superpowers by any means but retaining some freedom of action and, at least, internal autonomy. More importantly, Britain was never able to monopolise trade which meant that the South Indian states had some freedom of action in negotiating with other European powers (France and, later, Germany). There was some level of industrialization in parts of South India through the 19th C, though nothing particularly massive it was still more than in OTL.
The four South Indian states are
1. The Wodeyar Kingdom of Mysore (a semi-constitutional monarchy along the lines of Jordan)
2. The Hyderabadi Republic (a single-party military state, sort of like Egypt)
3. Tamilnad (a multi-party semi-liberal democracy)
4. The People's Republic of Kerala (a multi-party Socialist state)
The map attached below is very rough and lazy- I've simply used the boundaries of the four modern South Indian states. I know these didn't correspond to historical borders but I figure I can come up with a justification for them in the course of the TL.
