How would you handle Indian independence?

By 1920, it's not inconceivable for India to be a dominion, that would lead to it eventually becoming fully independent by 1947, but united. Without Gandhi, you'll see a huge boost in a united India, since he brought in spiritualism into the movement.

Although without Gandhi's much derided spirituality the independence movement would never had the kind of mass movement appeal it did IOTL and IMO it would have ended up as a long drawn out guerrilla war between Marxist inspired guerrillas in the mold of Bhagath Singh and the British and Princely states. In such a scenario the likelihood of an Independent United India would hinge on how successful the rebels are as well as how loyal the Indian army is to the British.
 
Although without Gandhi's much derided spirituality the independence movement would never had the kind of mass movement appeal it did IOTL and IMO it would have ended up as a long drawn out guerrilla war between Marxist inspired guerrillas in the mold of Bhagath Singh and the British and Princely states. In such a scenario the likelihood of an Independent United India would hinge on how successful the rebels are as well as how loyal the Indian army is to the British.
Oh my goodness, where are you getting this information from? You are exaggerating so many things here. The independence movement was organised since 1885, becoming a full-independence movement after not getting dominion status post-WWI. The Indian National Congress was ready to take control of the country, and without Gandhi and spirituality, Jinnah would have stayed in Congress, uniting Hindus and Muslims, leading to a united India. The independence movement always had a mass appeal. In this case, it would be much more intellectual, but at its core, populist, what with Nehru still being present. Civil war is just plain weird, to be honest. Not a real possibility beyond serious ASB intervention.
 
First of all, I'd like to expand on my two sentence response since I fell I could have been a lot clearer. Although the INC had been formed in 1885 and had some some success in galvanising popular support after the 1905 partition of Bengal, it had spent the pre-WWI years as a shell of its former self because of a long drawn civil war between its moderates and extremists in the late 1900s. This ended in the expulsion of the extremists from the party and the British jailing the most prominent extremist leaders. Eventually the INC ended up welcoming back its expelled extremists during the Congress at Lucknow in 1916. The unified Congress then made an alliance with the Muslim League (on Jinnah's prodding) during the same Lucknow Congress. Although the movement was technically united after the Lucknow Pact, the underlying tension between the moderates and the Muslim League who wanted more Indian participation in government through dialogue with the British (with the Muslims wanting guaranteed representation) and the extremists who wanted complete independence by revolution was still present.

What I mean by all this is that coming out of WWI the Indian independence movement was at a cross-roads with no real way of predicting what the exact tenor of its future activities would be.

Although the British didn't really consider at any point giving India dominion status they did manage to mollify a significant number of the moderates by having Montague (the Sec. of State for India) call for more Indian participation in the administration. All that goodwill evaporated with the passage of the Rowlatt Act which severely clamped down on civil liberties and the ensuing Jallianwallah Bagh massacre . It was at this point that Gandhi really came to prominence when he used his concept of satyagraha to inspire millions to march in his Non-Co-operation movement. It was this movement and the resulting infusion of new members into the INC that fundamentally changed it from a party of the British educated intelligentsia to a party with members from every class and region in India.

Without Gandhi, this transformation is far from assured. IMO without the unifying figure of Gandhi and his large cadre of followers to enforce party discipline, the old elites of the Congress are bound to splinter again like they did in Surat in 1907. In the ensuing political vacuum, the only force that I see having the sheer propaganda power and organisation to succeed are the Comintern supported Socialists. And hence my scenario of a violent struggle with plenty of bomb throwing and assassination. Assuming this leads to high profile trials and execution much like OTL's Baghat Singh or the INA officer's Red Fort trials, the loyalty of the Indian Army and the level of success of the leftist rebels will be the deciding factor in how and when independence is given

To respond to some specific points you made
The Indian National Congress was ready to take control of the country without Gandhi and spirituality, Jinnah would have stayed in Congress, uniting Hindus and Muslims, leading to a united India.
Firstly, before the Non-Co-operation movement I sincerely doubt that the INC would have been identified as anything other than a fractious group of London educated intellectuals with little to no base in rural India. Secondly, although Gandhi's infusion of spirituality into the Congress definitely put off the then still secular Jinnah (he did eat pork and drink alcohol after all), I suspect the underlying difference between the Congress and the Muslim League i.e the INC was moving towards full independence while the League wanted to work with the British; is what pushed him towards leaving the INC.

The independence movement always had a mass appeal. In this case, it would be much more intellectual, but at its core, populist, what with Nehru still being present. Civil war is just plain weird, to be honest. Not a real possibility beyond serious ASB intervention.
The movement's mass appeal pre 1919 was a bit sporadic. Sure it had achieved some popularity after the 1905 partition of Bengal but the ensuing struggle between the moderates and extremists badly damaged its standing in the national consciousness. It was the Jalianwallah Bagh and Gandhi's satyagragha that really turned it into a transcendental national movement.

Also Nehru hadn't always been a populist. According to what I have read what turned him from an intellectual elite (like his father Motilal) to a populist was Gandhi pushing him to tour rural India to give speeches to thousands of impoverished peasants.

Civil war is just plain weird, to be honest. Not a real possibility beyond serious ASB intervention.
Well here we'll have to agree to disagree. I admit that I may have exaggerated what were rather marginal trends IOTL but in my defence Gandhi's contribution to what I consider the rebirth of the Indian Independence movement after WWI is so fundamental that if you remove him all you are left with are marginal movements and tends. After all there is a reason us Indians refer to Gandhi as the father of our nation :)
 
First of all, I'd like to expand on my two sentence response since I fell I could have been a lot clearer. Although the INC had been formed in 1885 and had some some success in galvanising popular support after the 1905 partition of Bengal, it had spent the pre-WWI years as a shell of its former self because of a long drawn civil war between its moderates and extremists in the late 1900s. This ended in the expulsion of the extremists from the party and the British jailing the most prominent extremist leaders. Eventually the INC ended up welcoming back its expelled extremists during the Congress at Lucknow in 1916. The unified Congress then made an alliance with the Muslim League (on Jinnah's prodding) during the same Lucknow Congress. Although the movement was technically united after the Lucknow Pact, the underlying tension between the moderates and the Muslim League who wanted more Indian participation in government through dialogue with the British (with the Muslims wanting guaranteed representation) and the extremists who wanted complete independence by revolution was still present.

What I mean by all this is that coming out of WWI the Indian independence movement was at a cross-roads with no real way of predicting what the exact tenor of its future activities would be.

Although the British didn't really consider at any point giving India dominion status they did manage to mollify a significant number of the moderates by having Montague (the Sec. of State for India) call for more Indian participation in the administration. All that goodwill evaporated with the passage of the Rowlatt Act which severely clamped down on civil liberties and the ensuing Jallianwallah Bagh massacre . It was at this point that Gandhi really came to prominence when he used his concept of satyagraha to inspire millions to march in his Non-Co-operation movement. It was this movement and the resulting infusion of new members into the INC that fundamentally changed it from a party of the British educated intelligentsia to a party with members from every class and region in India.

Without Gandhi, this transformation is far from assured. IMO without the unifying figure of Gandhi and his large cadre of followers to enforce party discipline, the old elites of the Congress are bound to splinter again like they did in Surat in 1907. In the ensuing political vacuum, the only force that I see having the sheer propaganda power and organisation to succeed are the Comintern supported Socialists. And hence my scenario of a violent struggle with plenty of bomb throwing and assassination. Assuming this leads to high profile trials and execution much like OTL's Baghat Singh or the INA officer's Red Fort trials, the loyalty of the Indian Army and the level of success of the leftist rebels will be the deciding factor in how and when independence is given

To respond to some specific points you made

Firstly, before the Non-Co-operation movement I sincerely doubt that the INC would have been identified as anything other than a fractious group of London educated intellectuals with little to no base in rural India. Secondly, although Gandhi's infusion of spirituality into the Congress definitely put off the then still secular Jinnah (he did eat pork and drink alcohol after all), I suspect the underlying difference between the Congress and the Muslim League i.e the INC was moving towards full independence while the League wanted to work with the British; is what pushed him towards leaving the INC.


The movement's mass appeal pre 1919 was a bit sporadic. Sure it had achieved some popularity after the 1905 partition of Bengal but the ensuing struggle between the moderates and extremists badly damaged its standing in the national consciousness. It was the Jalianwallah Bagh and Gandhi's satyagragha that really turned it into a transcendental national movement.

Also Nehru hadn't always been a populist. According to what I have read what turned him from an intellectual elite (like his father Motilal) to a populist was Gandhi pushing him to tour rural India to give speeches to thousands of impoverished peasants.


Well here we'll have to agree to disagree. I admit that I may have exaggerated what were rather marginal trends IOTL but in my defence Gandhi's contribution to what I consider the rebirth of the Indian Independence movement after WWI is so fundamental that if you remove him all you are left with are marginal movements and tends. After all there is a reason us Indians refer to Gandhi as the father of our nation :)
A movement with an intellectual elite would arguably get us a better India. The one we had had a stagnant economy until recently, and Gandhi bringing in spirituality alienated many Muslims including Jinnah.
 
Take the original post at face value the long and the short of my approach would be that I would arrange for independence as early as possible but that independence consisting of anything short of a single democratic state is unacceptable.

While full support will be granted to a negotiated arrangement the condition that election be held and the country remain united will be backed by the British military. There would, on the other hand be no other conditions, if India wants a republic, or to change the system of government Britain will not stand it it's way. In terms of implementation what I would attempt to do is create home rule as early as possible but without immediate sovereignty, which would be handed over in a phased way and as the need for British assistance in maintenance of government is reduced.

Now, there are three rather large problems here which I acknowledge but which I personally would prefer to address head on than change the broad strokes of the plan for. First and foremost is that this is essentially completely unrealistic in terms of domestic British politics, more so when the cost and potential for ongoing military involvement in an Indian civil war of some sort is considered. In fact, I have serious questions if Britain would even have the economic resources to support any significant military involvement in Indian anywhere near the post war era.

The second is that conflict seems almost inevitable, and that while I would hope that for the most part British troops could be calming influence and that the Indian government would be credible I fear that it could become a British version of Indochina quite easily.

Thirdly, I suspect that British involvement in other aspects of government than military would have to continue for some time beyond 1947 under this plan. Given this involvement, ensuring that it does not become a form of continued colonialism by the people implementing it, and that there is an honest effort by those on the ground to render assistance in handing governance over to Indians would be extremely difficult (and that is before one considers what it would look like to the independence movement).

So while I grant that I may have created a blueprint for failure I would make every attempt to create a single democratic Indian state, and would back it with military force while trying desperately to extricate myself as quickly as possible WHILE STILL MEETING these two conditions. God knows how it turns out, inevitably it will be expensive, painful and bloody, but so is OTL. Ultimately I agree that 1945 is too late to easily, cleanly, and possibly even realistically create a united India but by the same token I think it might be worth trying.

In fact, given complete control of post war Britain I'd take a broadly similar approach to the entire empire. De-colonization as soon as possible globally, but de-colonization is conditional on democracy and stability, there is most definitely room for direct intervention to assure those conditions and an acknowledgement that these conditions mean that involvement in many countries won't be ending any time soon. And yes, I acknowledge that I haven't the foggiest idea how to pay for any of this, make any of it politically viable or for that matter make it appear as something other than (at least in some cases) continuing interference in colonies and former colonies that we claim to be trying to grant independence. I would almost certainly try to sell it as a "responsible end to empire" and might well consider trying to sell it as a national effort on the order of the war itself, a final national sacrifice to ensure continued post war peace and try to correct the errors that led to the two wars (and this stuff is, of course all part of why I would be thoroughly unelectable and probably thought a dangerous lunatic were I running for office in 1945).
 
India would be a multiethnic, nonsectarian parliamentary constitutional monarchy either federated or devolved internally. The head of state would be the Emperor of India, eleted by both houses of parliament, from anong the 'princes' who omprise the upper house of that Westminister-inspired institution. The difference here might be that the Upper House retains some clout that the Lords do not, though I'm not decided on that point. The Prime Minister, generally the leader of the largest party or bloc in the lower house of parliament, leads the government. Like modern Germany, votes to bring down the government require constructive non-confidence. India is divided into single-member constituencies. The princely states and colonial era presidencies are dissolved into new provinces largely based on linguistic or cultural affinities.
 
Top