How Does the British get India to stay within the Empire?

Lusitania

Donor
This is doable for the white dominions - and even African nations starting with the white elite. But the sheer numbers strength of India, and the proud history, still makes this ASB for India, I think.

Correct it was doable for Canada, the Australia, New Zealand and South Africa in the 19th century. British citizens get same voting rights as back in UK. For India they would need to only give the upper Castes right to vote. But giving colonials the right to vote means London has to take those areas into concern and as been stated before that was not the mindset of the government and those in power in UK.

As for exploitation the people in UK were exploited as much and majority of people had no say in government till early 20th
Century.

So we would of needed a different set of circumstances for the people of UK to grant voting rights to those outside the British isles. Heck we need the British people to have different attitudes to not only their own citizens when they left the UK but also locals.

If a significant amount of voters lived in the colonies then more attention to their development not just resource and riches.
 
Correct it was doable for Canada, the Australia, New Zealand and South Africa in the 19th century. British citizens get same voting rights as back in UK. For India they would need to only give the upper Castes right to vote..

That right there is going to be a nightmare of complexity. Who counts as upper caste? It varies hugely from region to region. You can't just go by the simplified 'four caste" view the British had of the whole thing. There are hundred and thousands of jatis sub castes, all of which vary wildly.

And class =/= caste. In parts of Tamil Nadu, for example, an entire subgroup of Brahmins are cooks (because food cooked by them is ritually pure for everyone of any caste). So do you give the vote to your Brahmin cooks and deny the vote to the shudra mercantile castes who hold economic power in the region? And if you give the vote to the merchants, what about the brahmins from jatis which deal with academia and intellectual pursuits? Give them the vote? Then you've doubly pissed off the cooks who are brahmins too but now don't have the vote. That's just a huge oversimplification of what becomes a ridiculously complex problem.
 
Last edited:
But they weren't. The British Empire wasn't racist - it was classist. An Indian Prince visiting London would be treated just as well (approximately, depending on his manners) as any other high noble.

You can't take these outliers, though. Yes, an Indian prince gets treated like any other potentate. But at any level below that, there was always distinct condescension- there are a few hundred princes in the Raj who will get good treatment. What about the hordes of barristers, dcotors and other middle class professionals who aren't going to get that treatment, ut are instead always going to know they're seen as second class to an equivalent white man.

The British Empire as a whole was racist and classist. Where any individual fell on the spectrum depended on a whole lot of factors.
 
And class =/= caste. In parts of Tamil Nadu, for example, an entire subgroup of Brahmins are cooks (because food cooked by them is ritually pure for everyone of any caste). So do you give the vote to your Brahmin cooks and deny the vote to the shudra mercantile castes who hold economic power in the region? And if you give the vote to the merchants, what about the brahmins from jatis which deal with academia and intellectual pursuits? Give them the vote? Then you've doubly pissed off the cooks who are brahmins too but now don't have the vote. That's just a huge oversimplification of what becomes a ridiculously complex problem.

Obviously we give the votes to people based on wealth. Let's do it 50% Muslim, 50% Hindu, to ensure that the two communities are treated equally.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Sounds like a plan. Can we also sterilize people? I hear it's easy.

The voting rights for Europeans in UK was not universal (or as we think of it today) till the after WW1.

So giving voting rights to only certain parts of population such as princes and other educated and wealthy individuals makes sense.
 
The voting rights for Europeans in UK was not universal (or as we think of it today) till the after WW1.

So giving voting rights to only certain parts of population such as princes and other educated and wealthy individuals makes sense.

And they became universal for a reason- I'm sure lower-class Indians will be just as satisfied with their lack of representation.
 
Sounds like a plan. Can we also sterilize people? I hear it's easy.

I will say that as late as the 1930s, Britain had a lot of good will in India, and there were people who would have supported dominion status for India on both sides. Churchill's government pissed that away. It's easy for me to see an India (maybe a Pakistan as well, maybe not) that emerges from WW2 as part of the Western Powers. It won't be a British colony, but it will be part of the British sphere.

Ironically, Fight and Be Right is probably the best example of this.
 

Lusitania

Donor
And they became universal for a reason- I'm sure lower-class Indians will be just as satisfied with their lack of representation.
Correct but we were talking about givingvthe voting rights to those living outside of UK, colonials and locals. It would of started to limited individuals. You are right pressure in 20th century would enlarge the right to vote. The question would be if voting rights had been granted to limited people outside U.K. in previous century would universal voting be implemented if it meant that control of empire would of become in the hands of the people living outside U.K.

I could see the commonwealth continuing but without U.K. Or it completely collapses in the 20 century.
 
The UK couldn't even manage to successfully implement home rule in Ireland during this period, what political party is going to risk all of their fortunes trying to gives Indians the vote when it will likely be incredibly unpopular with their constituencies? You can talk in generalities about what Britain could do like it was a run like a video game country, but I just don't see where the political will exists to have Indian representation in Parliament.
 

RousseauX

Donor
The voting rights for Europeans in UK was not universal (or as we think of it today) till the after WW1.

So giving voting rights to only certain parts of population such as princes and other educated and wealthy individuals makes sense.
The problem with this is that a certain part of that educated elite starts to use the disenfranchisement at the bottom to make power plays against the pro-British part of the elite as well as the central government in London. Restricting franchise to the elite doesn't actually work because the elite doesn't get placated by voting rights.
 
For India they would need to only give the upper Castes right to vote.

There are actually parts of India where upper caste people make up the majority of Hindus - the Kashmir Hindus are mostly Brahmins, but most of them were far from upper caste. And to point out an anecdotal experience, my great-grandfather was a poor ghee farmer, but he was also a Brahmin, committed to Brahminic practices. And this is likely true for many other Brahmins. Giving Brahmins that don't even own property a vote is a rather absurd idea, especially when that right won't be given to landowning Shudras.

In addition, a very large percentage of Rajasthani people are Rajput Kshatriyas, who would likely also be given the vote. Rajasthan is a pretty large region, so that's a lot of poor people being given the vote because of their status as Rajputs.
 

Lusitania

Donor
There are actually parts of India where upper caste people make up the majority of Hindus - the Kashmir Hindus are mostly Brahmins, but most of them were far from upper caste. And to point out an anecdotal experience, my great-grandfather was a poor ghee farmer, but he was also a Brahmin, committed to Brahminic practices. And this is likely true for many other Brahmins. Giving Brahmins that don't even own property a vote is a rather absurd idea, especially when that right won't be given to landowning Shudras.

In addition, a very large percentage of Rajasthani people are Rajput Kshatriyas, who would likely also be given the vote. Rajasthan is a pretty large region, so that's a lot of poor people being given the vote because of their status as Rajputs.
Upper casts probably would not guarantee voting right in the 19 th century but like in UK it would also be based on wealth and income.
 
Top