POD has to be after 1600 and cannot make the Empire be run by Indians - it still needs to be a British empire.
Last edited:
POD has to be after 1600 and cannot make the Empire be run by Indians - it still needs to be a British dynasty.
POD has to be after 1600 and cannot make the Empire be run by Indians - it still needs to be a British empire.
Maybe make those social Darwinists come up with some hypothesis that Sanskrit is closer to its Indo-European roots than English, and tie them up in some kind of new Aryanism that extols the virtues of the Indian people and values their cultures as an important component of the British empire. A source of quasi-legitimacy, even.
Actually they did.
Sanskrit was widely regarded as the truest testimony of the Aryans (itself a word of Sanskrit origin) and there was a lot of fascination with Indian culture in European academia. It's true that this went deeper in Germany (and France; Pictet, de Saussure's teacher, was a prominent scholar in that area) than in Britain, arguably precisely because Germany did not rule the place (and France did so very marginally): but Friedrich Max Muller, just to name one, worked in Oxford, despite being German.
The simple fact that Indian were the conquered and Europeans the conquerors, however, prevented the transmission of much Indian ways. In the logic of those people, cultures (and, increasingly, races) were supposed to display their superiority by the way of conquering others.
In general, strengthen India - if more of the British Empire's power is coming from the subcontinent, it's easier for Indian culture to be looked upon favorably and adopted.
One method to accomplish this would be to get rid of the East India Company sooner, and replace it with an earlier British Raj. That would logically avoid the Sepoy Mutiny, and it'd allow more government officials to move back to Britain after serving in India, bringing elements of the culture back with them.
One thing that always bothered me is how long-lived the East India Company was... I mean, you had an entirely private enterprise that managed to create an almost autarquic government in a place that despite being a profitable venue, it was also a political powder-keg, and it took a massive native rebellion (the Sepoy Revolt) to change this state of things. If somehow the Indians hadn't revolted, would the EIC keep going on?
Why did the English/British Crown had so much interference in the Americas and not in India is something that I can't fathom, especially considering, in hindsight, that India would become the Empire's most prized "possession".
Go to London, or much of the UK today and you'll see that the educated, science-class folks are Indian or South Asian, while the yobs are mostly white trash. And I speak as a caucasian, London-born expat.POD has to be after 1600 and cannot make the Empire be run by Indians - it still needs to be a British empire.
No mutiny then no British empire in India though I'd think.Avoid the 1857 mutiny. This is where the real divide between the British and their Indian subjects was defined. Before this most British people administrating in India were not of the true uppercrust, many being adventurers, minor nobility without inheritance etc. They also freely intermingled with the natives, intermarried with Indian women due to lack of English/Europeans females available.
However this only makes the British Raj less racially segregated. To have Britain itself adopt Indian culture you'd need to have earlier indian migration to Britain, either following World War 1 or even at the turn of the 20th century
Indian nobility is granted same rights as British nobility, too. They also sit in the House of lords and have ke positions at the Royal Court. They also gain titles like duke, Earl, Lord, Sir. Indian fashion devices and cultural aspects are taken over by English middle-class. Also achitecture is inspired by traditional Indian architecture. A mixture of Anglo-Indian culture on the British Islands emerges.