How long can the UK stay in India?

Just have Churchill win the re-election, maybe he will gas Indians into submission :rolleyes:

But seriously, If UK doesn't get out by 1950, the only result would be Mega Vietnam.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
If India becomes a Dominion within the British Empire, not unlike Canada or Australia, they it could remain part of the Empire up until the present day. See my Rule Britannia TL for an example of how it could happen.

If you are talking about Indians ruled directly from London by white Englishmen, with Indians having no say in their own government, I do not think it could last beyond 1955 under any circumstances.
 
India would be stay as crown colony until 1955 and afterwards, India is a dominion country the same as Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Dominion of India doesn't includes Pakistan and Bangladesh.
 
Without WWII I would guess until around 1975 at the longest, depending if we are willing to share power with the Indians of course. Post WWII, holding India is pretty much impossible after 1950.
 
Assuming a POD of no WWII, what pressures if any would lead to independence? There would be no U.S, no financial problems (making them strong enough to maintain their empire), and not even a Gandi.​
 
Assuming public oppinion doesn't matter at all nor does the economy or whatever...A long time. Up until the current day in places.
For the entire continent though not too long, by 1960 they'd have had to withdraw from a lot of places.
 
If the British Empire is not screwed over by world war, then it will develop linearly, and probably by the 1940s India, not having seen the turmoil of OTL 1930s, will be granted status as a federal dominion

The British Empire continues, and the dominions remain as a strong and autonomous part of it

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

Ak-84

Banned
Assuming a POD of no WWII, what pressures if any would lead to independence? There would be no U.S, no financial problems (making them strong enough to maintain their empire), and not even a Gandi.​
After WWI there was official British policy of "Indianisation". Which had two parts.

i) Greater representation politically, diplomatically of "India". Thats why India was given its own flag, allowed to have embassys, and have her own representation in the League of Nations.

ii) Greater integration of Indians in military and government jobs, and in decision making roles, with the hope that by 1970(!) 2-3rds of all these roles would be undertaken by natives. A lot of powers were transfered to the provinces (which from 1930 onwards had elected governments).

If this policy had been taken to its conclusion, then by today you may have had a (very) loose Indian confederation, with powerful provinces and with the center still constitutionally tied to Britain, a bit like Canada or Australia before the WWII.
 
Technically, India remained as a Dominion until the constitution of the Republic was revealed in 1950. So even after the official independence in 1947, Nehru retained close ties with Britain and even retained Mountbatten as an advisor as well as a Governor-General (purely ceremonial by this stage). These ties might have been strengthened if India was attacked by the new communist regime in China within the first few years of independence. This could have led Nehru to abort his policy of non-alignment and and seek an open military alliance with Britain and the USA. Perhaps India might actually become a founding member of SEATO, thereby ensuring the organisation's long-term survival.
However, I really can't see the British ruling India directly any later than the early 50's, and even that scenario would require a much smaller scale WW2 or, preferably, no WW2 at all.
 
Top