Have the British Empire adopt as much Indian culture as feasible

POD has to be after 1600 and cannot make the Empire be run by Indians - it still needs to be a British dynasty.

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.
 
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
 
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.
 
There apparently was rather a lot of Indian-white colony interaction right up till the end of the empire, which seems to be downplayed a fair bit. This at least according to something I'm reading at present. Apparently for much of the 19th century this was the reason why many white, Maori and Indian scholars thought Maori were originally descended from Indians.

This sort of makes sense, given how many of the settlers/officials often had spent time in India before ending up in say NZ. This was true right till post WW2 (I know several).
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

This encapsulates the entirety of this conversation. It also doesn't help that Britain viewed India through an Oriental lens.... it is often forgotten that while even in the Company's time intermarriage was not between social equals: the woman tended to be a noble; this heightened the adventurism and exoticism of India. The 'real' culture was dominated by an imagined one, and pieces of that might be taken to Britain.
 
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".
 
As I said in a similar thread a while back...

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=370161

This very much depends on who you are looking at, how you are defining culture, and how you define British/Indian as well. Some things are possible, others not, depending on the POD and the parameters!

Also, on the subject of the Company, whilst I think the Indian Revolt is important, I think people sometime overestimate the potential the EIC had for survival. There were already concerns in Westminster before the revolt that the EIC was not necessarily up to the job.
 
Send some Gurus to England earlier and have some do rather well. Alternately, have the Indians become more Christian.
 
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".

The EIC was very close to defaulting in 1792-93 IIRC, which led to what basically amounted to a state-sponsored bailout (much to the disgust of the early liberal economists of the time, such as Adam Smith, if memory serves). The fact that a company who run such enormously profitable colonies (a major chunk of India already was under it aegis) would be needing bailout focused the attention of the British public opinion of the fact that something was very wrong. Indeed, most of the profits were detoured into the pockets of individual officers (aptly called "nabobs" then) before they even reached the company's coffers. Embezzlement seems to have been a structural feature of the system. After that, the Company very much was under the Crown's and, to a point, the Parliament's oversight, so that it would be inaccurate to call it "entirely private" by that point. By the time of the Mutiny, it would be more useful to look at it as sui generis branch of the British government arranged under the form of a company.
And of course, this is without even taking into account that chartered companies like it were, from the start, a product of state policies of the Mercantilist age to begin with (this also applies to the VOC, which underwent a similar crisis at about the same time, but was entirely subsumed by the Dutch states rather than just being put on shorter leash as the EIC was).
 
What about avoiding Macaulay's Educational Reform of 1835? It stands to reason that British in India would be forced to be more directly involved in learning local languages and customs, since a bilingual local class educated in English would not become available in large numbers.
It is possible (but not certain IMHO) that this would result in more traditional Indian culture percolating in Great Britain which might result in some kind of "Indian mania" developing (the more so if there is no Great Mutiny for sure: it's even possible that if the British administrators are more directly involved with the people they are governing some of the reasons which were at the basis of the Mutiny might be abated). The problem with this approach is that Macaulay's reforms were very much in line with the spirit of the times (colonizing mission, social Darwinism and so on) and it would be quite hard to butterfly away.
There are also obvious unintended consequences which would not work in Indian favor, but this is not in the scope of the OP.

Incidentally, I also believe that the long-lasting (and mostly inefficient) rule of the Company was due to the fact that British presence in India started for typical mercantilistic reasons: settlers colonies like North America, South Africa or Australia were generally managed by government from early times.
 
Make Indian goods like silk, tea and curry cheap enough that English working class can afford these consumer goods.
Import plenty of Indian scholars, gurus, artisans, etc.
Establish a yoga studio on every street corner, facing the tea shop and across from the curry house.
 
Maybe have a third or fourth son of a British monarch run buck wild in the 18th century, join up with the East India Company, have insane success through a combination of charisma/populism, religious pragmatism, and a genuine like for the people and culture of the subcontinent, combined with a mutual dislike between this fourth son and the European nobility. This fourth son due to lineage and prestige eventually rises to rule over the East India Company de facto to the point where he's nothing short of an Emperor. All local military units are absolutely loyal to the Prince, both European and native; the Prince is fluent in several native languages and engages in theological discourse with the many denominations of India, to the point where it's speculated that his status as a Christian is only for the sake of politics. He's clearly become a man of India more than he is a part of the European upper crust.

Now have all of the claimants to the throne die somehow.

As a result, the British nobility is placed between a rock and a hard place. Lose all of India, or accept as their sovereign a fourth son who they see as so far removed from 'proper' civilization that he's derisively called 'The Prince of India'.

Ultimately, the Prince takes the Crown due to a combination of factors:

1) The greed of European nobility
2) Limited 'India Mania' among some European nobles who romanticize the Prince's exploits
3) Threat of losing all British colonies and ships in the East, meaning France would be able to strike at Britain

The Prince knows he won't be able to return to India with his new-found status as King of Great Britain; he's politically savvy enough to know that he has few friends in Britain but vain enough in his own hype that he refuses to back down from claiming more land in his name, especially a land being handed to him on a silver platter.

As a result, the Prince more or less transplants his court from India to Great Britain. A great many Indian administrators, friends, confidants, lovers, soldiers, officers, nobles, craftsmen, artists, and religious notables as well as their families are transported to Great Britain alongside the Prince in order to provide him with a greater grasp on power. As a result, an 'Indian Quarter' arises in London that sees a very notable diffusion of Indian culture throughout the rest of London due to the novelty the Prince's Indian court brings with him; it's rare that a minority becomes a subject of unabashed interest and prestige, but it's happened and as such, Indophilia begins to rise and grow over time. It doesn't hurt that while the Prince has taken a European wife due to politics, that he makes no secret that the love of his life and favorite mistress is Indian, and a favorite of both the European and Indian nobles due to her beauty and capacity.

The Prince's position is tenuous enough that he doesn't mess with the Parliamentary tradition of Great Britain, leaving most nobles tentatively satisfied that the Prince won't be assuming his more absolutist tendencies from his time as unofficial Emperor of India; the Prince turned King is vain enough, however, to have Parliament crown him as Emperor of India de jure.

The clergy absolutely loathes the Prince and his neutrality on the issue of Catholicism as well as his complete lack of interest in the Anglican Church. Aside from some vague movements towards limiting the oppression of Catholics in Great Britain, the King stays far away from the topic of religion in order to avoid a powder keg.

When his firstborn son via his European wife turns 14, the Prince sends him off to 'get his feet wet' in India alongside several trusted allies of the Prinec, with the caveat that he was born a boy in Britain but that India will make him a man. Romanticist imagery of India explodes and several nobles send sons to accompany the new Prince in his journey. Indophilia continues to climb.

Two decades later the Prince is viewed as one of the best monarchs Great Britain has ever had. His position as King is, while not without opponents, accepted by the majority of his subjects. France has been successfully trumped by Great Britain in all theaters thanks to his reign. Great Britain has expanded into Terra Australis and the Indies at the expense of the Dutch and the Spanish in the East thanks to the manpower and wealth of India. The Second Prince has more than lived up to his father's legacy in India, fully kicking out the French and the Dutch from the subcontinent.

The Second Prince is recalled from India by his father, the original Prince. The Prince abdicates in favor of his son, leading to a new round of outrage as the Second Prince proudly proclaims his wife to be an half-Indian woman who was raised as a Hindu(albeit 'converted' to Christianity). Ultimately, the Original Prince is able to bring order to the court and ensure a relatively smooth transition to his son, who shares his father's opinions on the dreariness of Great Britain but ultimately accepts his duty. The Original Prince lingers on for a few years to ensure the stability of the realm before returning to India where he dies several decades later, being seen by the local populace as an 'Indian' ruler despite being born in Great Britain; the Original Prince abandoned all but the flimsiest of pretenses as to where his loyalties and alignments lie and lives like a Raja to the end of his days. The East India Company has long since been disbanded and reformed into a proper state apparatus and the economy of India has been booming as a result of the end of major restrictions on commerce that benefit Britain in exchange for a greater commitment in manpower and levies.

These levies are for the most part, strongly encouraged to settle in the south of Great Britain both as a bulwark against French invasion. The nobility of GB has also become far more Indophilic, with more than one of the noble's sons returning with an Indian girl's hand in theirs. It seems inevitable that some noble families will be Indian in appearance by the reign of the Second Prince's firstborn.

Indophilia has ultimately resulted in a large diffusion of Indian culture throughout Great Britain and to a lesser extent, the rest of Europe at this point in time. The success of Great Britain over France has shifted in public opinion to being the result of the Original Prince and the crown jewel, India. There's a notable Indian population throughout Great Britain as a result of this diffusion due to the demand for Indian goods and culture, and there's been a bit of an exodus from India proper to the courts of Europe as their artists, painters, architects, and musicians have been in increasingly high demand.


------

I could probably flesh this out more, but I'm pretty happy with it for a one-session writeup.
 
POD has to be after 1600 and cannot make the Empire be run by Indians - it still needs to be a British empire.
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.

British Indians, quite simply, are among the most industrious, accomplished and creditable among us – the best of British, if you like.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...sh-Indians-a-remarkable-story-of-success.html
 
Early Indian migration to Britain is the only way I'd think.
Maybe something where the Brits get forced out of India but one ethnic group made the mistake of throwing all the cards in with the Brits and having to leave en masse, many making their way to Britain?
WIs upon WIs there though.

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
No mutiny then no British empire in India though I'd think.
Also...by the time of the mutiny it was no longer 1800. The EIC officers weren't quite so big on Indian culture as they had once been. The world was a smaller place. It was just a temporary thing for most of them, they knew they'd get back to Britain sooner or later so there was no need to marry a local woman.
Also with the massive progress being made in Europe...scientific racism was beginning to take route.

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.

But why would they need to be earls, dukes, etc.... when they're already princes and kings?

The trouble with this idea is that the Indian nobility already had far more rights than the British nobility, many of them were absolute monarchs pretty much.
 
I have two possibilities:
1) As we had an international Japan-craze in the 1850's - 1860's following the opening of Japan, could there be something like an India-craze where suddenly everyone in Europe starts exploring Indian culture and we would have Indian-inspired furniture, pottery and decorative arts... possibly even architecture? As a POD I would go with the Sepoy uprisings of 1857 and the subsequent dissolvement of the East India Company in 1858, as this would make India a direct subject of the Crown and therefore of all of England (instead of it being administered by a small group of London businessmen). Perhaps England would be wary of the Japan craze sweeping France and America, denounce it as being un-British and replace it with a proper British India-centered cultural import.

Of course Gilbert and Sullivan's 'The Mikado' would now be 'The Maharajah"... I shudder at the thought

2) At about the early 1800's, while the brothers Grimm traveled through the German lands to collect folk tales, have an English scholar discover, translate and publish the great Indian epics. With the beginning of romanticism and the advancements in printing and literacy at that time, the stories - although in most editions dumbed down to simple India-infused faerie tales - would fare pretty well and give Grimm's tales and the Arabian Nights a run for their money. As a result English culture would be infused with a dash of Faerie-tale India and if a mad lord would want to build his new romantic dream estate, it would now look like the Taj Mahal rather then like Neuschwanstein. And children's coloring books would now feature gold-clad princes on elephants rather then gingerbread houses and dragon-slaying knights.

Of course, this might well butterfly away the later success of Rudyard Kippling's Jungle Book (1893) and the subsequent adaptation of the Mogly stories by the Boy Scouts... Yet, perhaps it might not....
 
Top