Halifax.

[Bill Cameron]

FletcherofSaltoun,

I'd like to thank you for this time line.

Instead of myopically concentrating on how Halifax would win the war, you've cannily continued on to show how Halifax would try to win the peace.

It's the peace time parts that really make this time line stand out.


Regards,
Bill

 

[Fletch]

As 1943 came to a close, the grand old man, David Lloyd George died of heart failure in Washington. As his replacement, Halifax chose a safe pair of hands in Archibald Sinclair. Sinclair took charge of the mission at an unfortunate time. The United States were openly angry about a few of the measures introduced by Churchill since his appointment as Viceroy of India.

These developments were also making the British press, with news of the mass arrests of leading members of the INC and use of the Indian Army to resore order coming to the attention of the public at large. Churchill himself excused this by stating 'sedition must not prosper' and that 'order must be restored within this great sub-continent'. Also in a controversial move he allowed the native princes far more power than they had previously in a move to garner more native support.

At being attacked for this in Parliament, the Prime Minister stated that he had full confidence in the policies being carried out in India. In the eyes of the media this gave him the same guilt as Churchill over the issue. Protests were witnessed for the first time over the issue and the INC began to garner support from donors in Britain and the United States, against the wishes of the Government.

Sinclair did his best in such circumstances, but there was little he could do to prevent the anger generated against British imperialism within the States. Relations between he two countries became more distinctively frosty.

fillerfiller

 

[historybuff]

Well, this is quite impressive. Well done. How long do you plan on this timeline being?

 

[El Pip]

Interesting the Indian Army has stayed loyal. As I recall that was the main reason Attlee gave for quitting India in such a hurry, the Army could no longer be trusted (and the rest of the Indian services to a lesser extent). The impression given was that Ghandi's campaign could have been ignored indefinitely, I wonder if that's Churchill's plan?

Assuming Churchill gets the INC men a fair trial, which shouldn't be too hard as a lot of them were 'treasonous' from an Imperial perspective, the international fuss should die down after justice takes it's course. If it can be presented as 'Punishing traitors / collaborators' not repression of political life most of Europe will nod along and the US will have to decide between angering everyone or shutting up. Either way is a win for Britain.

Of course that doesn't solve the problem and a long term plan is needed, has Churchill actually been convinced of the need for a Dominion of India? I'm hoping so, buttering up the Princely States and knocking back the INC (legally) is how I'd prepare to implement the OTL Govt. of India Act. The former stupidly opposed it due to fears of losing power while the later just hurtled spanners at it. Depends on how the INC reacts to the trials (assuming there are any) but it's not looking impossible it will pass.

Finally the best news of all, after the latest American intervention it's looking like nobody in Britain will believe that 'Special Relationship' rubbish which can only be a good thing long term.

 

[Fletch]

Well, this is quite impressive. Well done. How long do you plan on this timeline being?

As I've said all along, until he loses power.

This means anywhere between a year, nineteen months and another five years......

 

[Fletch]

Leo Amery visited me on January 17th with the most radical proposals visited upon India in almost a century. Through his proposals, it was hoped that the Empire could be maintained in the sub-continent into the future. The proposals gave joy to my heart.

The first proposal was that the power of the native princes be increased, but that if possible they be brought into a new, unified structure for our Indian Empire. This would be done by various measures.

The first of which was controversial, but needed, that all native princes would be exempt from taxation within India. This was done to enhance financial favour amongst them.

The next was the creation of a new Assembly, to be based in New Delhi called the House of Princes. It would consist of all of the native princes and act as an Indian House of Lords. As a further sop, the Princes would also be given membership to the House of Lords in Westminster, although they were not expected to take their seats in any great number. The House of Princes would replace the Council of State.

They were also allowed to raise their own private armies in defence of the Indian Empire, although they would only be allowed to mobilise them with the permission of the Viceroy.

The reform of the Legislative Assembly was also provided for. The Assembly would be totally reformed in its make-up. Rather than the previous 250 members, it would now be reduced to 201 members, of whom 26 were to be selected by the Viceroy, 75 were to be elected by the Bar Council of India and 100 elected by popular vote, although the franchise was restricted to those of an income over £125 a year.

The Assembly and the House of Princes would have a combined control over the domestic affairs of India, although the Viceroy would have the power of putting legislation before the Assembly.

The Viceroy would also have responsibility over the Indian Army, which was to be funded by a bloc which could not be changed by the Assembly/HoP of 5% of their spending and a further top-up by London.

All foreign relations would be dealt with by Westminster.

I agreed almost instantly with the idea and sent it to Churchill, who was in Simla. It was agreed that should he back the proposals then they would be put before Parliament as soon as it reconvened.

 

[stevep]

FletcherofSaltoun

I think that will mean either open revolt or civil war in India. The native princes had some following in their own territories but some were controversially corrupt or autocratic while the vast bulk of the population were in the directly governed lands. As such Halifax and Amery are trying to establish the sort of situation that was unpopular in 19thC Britain, coupled with a foreign head of state effectively.

Steve

 

[simonbp]

Yes, it does seem a distinctly, well, 19th century solution to a 20th century problem. I can't it really working with the directly controlled lands being turned into democraticly-governed provinces...

 

[Nugax]

The Jewish population growth on Madegascar seems a bit rapid, especially considering there are 3.5-3.7 million natives, who are already using the nicer land and water resources.

Its not like the island is some verdent paradise, the vast majority is scrubland or mangrove swamp, with only a coastal strip along the north west being suitable for intensive agriculture, the interior highlands being okay but heavily populated already. All that adds up to only 5% being arable, and there not being good amounts of accessible water resources (the west coast is wet, but its too wet and is a swamp).

Also its not like the natives don't have a strong national identity and won't remain the majority even if you shift millions more jews there. I can see a crisis and possible division occuring some time in the 60s.

 

[Fletch]

The Jewish population growth on Madegascar seems a bit rapid, especially considering there are 3.5-3.7 million natives, who are already using the nicer land and water resources.

Its not like the island is some verdent paradise, the vast majority is scrubland or mangrove swamp, with only a coastal strip along the north west being suitable for intensive agriculture, the interior highlands being okay but heavily populated already. All that adds up to only 5% being arable, and there not being good amounts of accessible water resources (the west coast is wet, but its too wet and is a swamp).

Also its not like the natives don't have a strong national identity and won't remain the majority even if you shift millions more jews there. I can see a crisis and possible division occuring some time in the 60s.

There were two million natives on the island in 1940, at least according to the sourse I used. Mainly German and Polish Jews were forced immigrants between 1940-42, and were placed in camps on the island, ran by the SS. Over a million were sent there. Following liberation in 1942, the building of towns and cities began, aided financially by all the Entente powers. This has carried on into the post-war period.

This means that over eight months, 4-600,000 jews have moved there. I do not deny for one minute though, that this will lead to severe conflict between the natives and the jews.

 

[Keenir]

sorry for not saying anything lately. I'm enjoying this a great deal. Halifax is doing great.

As I've said all along, until he loses power.

This means anywhere between a year, nineteen months and another five years......

 

[Nugax]

There were two million natives on the island in 1940, at least according to the sourse I used. Mainly German and Polish Jews were forced immigrants between 1940-42, and were placed in camps on the island, ran by the SS. Over a million were sent there. Following liberation in 1942, the building of towns and cities began, aided financially by all the Entente powers. This has carried on into the post-war period.

This means that over eight months, 4-600,000 jews have moved there. I do not deny for one minute though, that this will lead to severe conflict between the natives and the jews.

Hmmm well the Cambridge history of Africa gives 3 million in 1905, and Länderberichte / Statistisches Bundesamt by way of populstat.com gives 3.5 in 1939, and the first page of googling doesn't give any 2 million in 1940 result.

My major point is that there simply isn't enough water sources to settle that many people there so quickly, not the organisation will. Not unless the natives are forcable displaced from the get go.

 

[DAv]

Hmmm well the Cambridge history of Africa gives 3 million in 1905, and Länderberichte / Statistisches Bundesamt by way of populstat.com gives 3.5 in 1939, and the first page of googling doesn't give any 2 million in 1940 result.

My major point is that there simply isn't enough water sources to settle that many people there so quickly, not the organisation will. Not unless the natives are forcable displaced from the get go.

Considering the Nazis ran it for a time, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if that was the least that happened to them.

 

[Nugax]

?

Based on Native population distributions, geography and where the Nazi's will be bringing in the Jews.

 

[Fletch]

?

Based on Native population distributions, geography and where the Nazi's will be bringing in the Jews.

Firstly, a dodgy sourse on my part. The native population of Madagascar was 2.2 million in 1900, not 1940....As has been pointed out though, this is indeed the Nazis we are talking about so population movement is by no means out of the question.

As to the map, if you think its feasible(given the billions being pumped in), then I'll go along with it.

 

[Fletch]

FletcherofSaltoun

I think that will mean either open revolt or civil war in India. The native princes had some following in their own territories but some were controversially corrupt or autocratic while the vast bulk of the population were in the directly governed lands. As such Halifax and Amery are trying to establish the sort of situation that was unpopular in 19thC Britain, coupled with a foreign head of state effectively.

Steve

Also with private militias thrown in. Quite the tinderbox, eh?

The plan, which has not been passed has several aims though.

The first is to consolidate support amongst the native princes. The measures should do that. The second aim is to give the leaders of the Congress actual office so the gripes they have over a glass ceiling are removed, whilst at the same time attempting to bring them into the system. For example, you could have Nehru as the Chief Minister of India. As such, it provides a vastly increased measure of home rule. These are the positives.

As to the negatives. The restricted franchise provides for the liklehood of class war at a time when the power next door is in the middle of a civil war between the Communists and Nationalists and the chances of corruption are great.

All in all though, I agree that it does provide for an increased chance of civil war.

The one thing I might quibble over though. That it is a 19thc. solution. What do you think the idea of trying to keep a colonial empire is?

 

[Fletch]

Winston was fully behind the proposals as he felt it showed the governments commitment to India and as such we decided to put them to the House. It was also agreed that to show the level of support intended, I would personally put the measure before Parliament.

The House was in rowdy mood when we put the Government of India Bill before the Commons. Attlee was in full swing, denouncing the move as 'introducing a 19th century solution to a 20th century problem.' He also attacked the restricted franchise as anti-democratic.

In my defence, I argued that India needed reform to advance, that for the first time, an Indian would head the government of British India and that this element of home rule would hopefully lead to improved conditions for the natives.

The Labour Party was up in arms throughout the debate, with order papers being waved every time any member stood up in support of the bill, the Liberals also holding similar views. I have to say, I was very pleased at the support my own members brought towards the debate. There was no doubt, however that the result would be close.

As the end of the first reading came, it was clear the vote would be close and this was shown by the result. In the end, we came through by 308 votes to 307. It was the closest vote since I became Prime Minister and I must thank the backbenchers here that they helped, for a period change the sub-continent for the better.

As it turned out, over the next couple of months, the Act passed through its various stages to become law. It was, in terms of getting a law through Parliament, the finest moment of my time in office.

The 1944 Government of India Act was, undoubtedly the most controversial act put forward by the government in the previous decade. Halifax defended it by stating it would give the Indians more control, whilst ignoring the shortfalls contained within such as a restricted franchise.

Both the Labour and Liberal Parties attacked the bill and were vehemently opposed, but due to the determination shown by the government, relitively few back-benchers joined the opposition in the no lobby.

The reaction in the media was as violently divided as in the house itself. The Daily Mirror ran with 'What is Democracy?', and were joined by the Manchester Guardian and several other dailies. The bill was, however backed by the Daily Mail, the Times and the Telegraph.

In the country itself, the bill was seen as it was as an attempt to maintain the Empire against the wishes of the Indians, in addition to which with the opposition parties constantly mentioning the restricted franchise, the government suffered. In March, in Berwick-Upon-Tweed, whilst campaigning for the by-election, the Prime Minister was booed by the crowds. The Liberals romped the seat. Labour never put a candidate forward.

 

[El Pip]

In the country itself, the bill was seen as it was as an attempt to maintain the Empire. In March, in Berwick-Upon-Tweed, whilst campaigning for the by-election, the Prime Minister was booed by the crowds. The Liberals romped the seat.

Seems a strange reaction, why would keeping the Empire be booed? A long and violent counter-insurgency war, that I can see being booed, as would anything involving further struggle, expense or distraction from the Home Isles.

But keeping the Empire at (seemingly) no cost for the average British person? Why on earth would that be so unpopular as to cost the Conservatives a very safe seat (they took it in 1945 of all elections and then held if for the next three decades!). Not sure I understand that at all.

 

[Fletch]

Seems a strange reaction, why would keeping the Empire be booed? A long and violent counter-insurgency war, that I can see being booed, as would anything involving further struggle, expense or distraction from the Home Isles.

But keeping the Empire at (seemingly) no cost for the average British person? Why on earth would that be so unpopular as to cost the Conservatives a very safe seat (they took it in 1945 of all elections and then held if for the next three decades!). Not sure I understand that at all.

As you said, they took it in the 1945 election of otl until which time it was a Liberal seat. You are assuming, I suspect that a similar Liberal collapse is going to occur ittl, which is a big assumption indeed.

As to why he was booed, I've expanded on the issue.

 

[pipisme]

In OTL Sir William Beveridge was elected Liberal MP for Berwick-upon-Tweed in a by-election on 17 October 1944. Because of the wartime electoral truce he was opposed only by an independent.