Free India from British Rule before 1947

Have the Indian Mutiny succeed.

There's a lot of factors that could be changed to give the rebels a better chance, notably the large number of local rulers who were on the British side, internal divisions and lack of cohesive leadership among the rebels and no outside help in OTL. Also, the rebels lost the public relations battle by committing atrocities, notably at Cawnpore. If the rebels had been more disciplined, and reports of East India Company atrocities had come out instead, it's possible that the British Government would have left the Company to its own devices.
 
Have the Indian Mutiny succeed.

There's a lot of factors that could be changed to give the rebels a better chance, notably the large number of local rulers who were on the British side, internal divisions and lack of cohesive leadership among the rebels and no outside help in OTL. Also, the rebels lost the public relations battle by committing atrocities, notably at Cawnpore. If the rebels had been more disciplined, and reports of East India Company atrocities had come out instead, it's possible that the British Government would have left the Company to its own devices.
You'd need quite a flock of big butterflies for that... and they might well have been enough to prevent the HEIC expanding from its trading posts (or even feeling any need to do so...) in the first place.


If WW2 could be averted then India's progression to dominion status might -- with Britain not seeing the same need to hold it as a bastion against Japan and a source of troops -- have gone slightly faster during that period. I seem to recall reading, somewhere, that British pre-war plans had 1945 listed as the expected probable date for the transition.
 
1919 Would be a good date following India's support for Britain in the First World War including Gandhi's. It would also be before Jionnah left the Congress Party and before the Moslem League was calling for a seperate Islamic State. I lot of communal violence might have been avoided
 
Or even have FDR convince Churchill to do it. Roosevelt pestered Churchill on India several times and Churchill always refused.
 
Maybe dominionship might be the answer. Though isn't India technically still part of the Commonwealth?

Yes its still a member, dominions don't really mean anything in the Commonwealth though. You have Commonwealth Realms which all the surviving Dominions except South Africa are but that only means the Queens their head of state and a lot of nations who weren't dominions are Commonwealth Realms.
 
1919 Would be a good date following India's support for Britain in the First World War including Gandhi's. It would also be before Jionnah left the Congress Party and before the Moslem League was calling for a seperate Islamic State. I lot of communal violence might have been avoided
But were there already enough Indian politicians with enough experience of government to stand a chance of doing the job properly by that date, or was the OTL later period of 'dyarchy' actually needed for developing such a cadre?
 
But were there already enough Indian politicians with enough experience of government to stand a chance of doing the job properly by that date, or was the OTL later period of 'dyarchy' actually needed for developing such a cadre?
You could have the Motilal Nehru/Jinnah combo. Highly capitalist, and creating the Union of India earlier in time.
 
Easy. There are plenty of opportunities to do so....like dominionhood following WWI, for example.

But what becomes of the Princely States? India never was one nation and large parts of the sub continent were never under the DIRECT control of the RAJ. The Maharajas were not about to surrender their autonomy without serious concessions or threats.
 
I am really interested in this since the timeline I am writing has progressed to the point where I must come up with a solution for Indian independence. In the TL I am writing WW2 fizzled after Hitler died in November 1939 and now British have unenviable task to manage transition of India. My preffered solution would be dominion.

My problem however is that I am not all that familiar with Indian history, beyond very general terms. I'd like to avoid large scale tragedy of OTL. Can anyone fill me in a bit on tis, preferably by PM or recommend some source material on this subject? Pretty please.
 
But what becomes of the Princely States? India never was one nation and large parts of the sub continent were never under the DIRECT control of the RAJ. The Maharajas were not about to surrender their autonomy without serious concessions or threats.
Defederalized. Britain basically united India, so.....
 
Did Idnia have any chances at independence after Indian Rebellion of 1857 but before 1900?
 
Did Idnia have any chances at independence after Indian Rebellion of 1857 but before 1900?
Sure. Perhaps some Maharajahs grow naughty behind the Brits' backs, and seek help from another power? But a United India would have to be after 1900.
 
Top