I love you if you love me: A British timeline in India

Albert.Nik

Banned
It's the mid to late 18th century in India. Industrial revolution and the age of enlightenment is in full swing in the Britain. The British arrive looking for settlements,trade,resources,etc. The British offer a deal with the native rulers and population that they allow the British to settle large populated colonies and buy some lands and build up planned settlements using modern methods like Primitive Solar energy harnessing or something like that,they would be benefited to a good degree and they work the plan accordingly. The offer goes like that if the British settlements are left alone or are helped without harm,the natives will be benefited with the British advanced practices and if they want to work together,they are welcome to do so and would be benefited. I doubt if British had such friendly encounters in anywhere or if they were that good as well but suppose in this ATL if they did,what would come of this TL? A large British population in India? A stable and a prosperous South Asia? Nazis defeated earlier? How would USA fare in this timeline? Australia and Iraq? How would Islam and Middle East fare? Russia? Ottomans? Iran?
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
Replace Britain with France under Napolean (he would have such ideas) if you want. Or discuss both British and Napoleanic timeline of you want.
 
Im going to go out on a limb and say this doesn't exactly make things more stable. A large minority white population does not translate to a peaceful India, which is already wracked by sectarian and religious differences. i suspect ww2 would go as it did, but decolonization would be much more deadly, and you could see India becoming a state like south Africa, this would not make south Asia more stable, and it would be ASB to say that all the cultural, linguistic and racial differences are just hand-waived away, but who knows, I don't know much about interactions between the native Indian population and the British. I just dont see the British population even becoming a plurality in India.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
You can put White percentage in the range of 30% to 75+%. Because of the initial stability I've mentioned in the case for this timeline,put the White population to around 45-55% at a conservative estimate and around 75% at a liberal estimate.
 

jocay

Banned
A noticeable enough white settler population in India will likely not endear the locals to British rule despite what "improvements" you believe the British will bring. Also there are more hospitable locations to settle than South Asia.
 
The problem with these scenarios is that asking 'what if Colonialism, but nice?' is like asking 'what if Stalinism, but individualist?' or 'what if Nazism, but not racist or anti-semitic?'

The British were not in India to settle an excess population. They had far better places to settle people with more land and a better climate.
The British were not in India to 'develop' the markets. India was staggeringly rich already, otherwise no one would bother sailing round the world through treacherous seas to brave tropical diseases and hostile governments to set up a trade factory.
The British were in India to make money. They did this the way any power- European or Asian- does. That is to say, they moved softly and peacefully where they could, and tried to take over existing power structures where possible, and failing that they used armies.

I really don't know where to begin with this- for one thing, there will be no Nazis in a timeline that diverges in the eighteenth century, especially if this is some kind of steampunk world which relies on solar energy rather than steam- but, let's take one point. This post presupposes that Britain in the eighteenth century was notably more economically developed than India. In fact, to the extent that Britain overtook Asia it was because of its activities in the subcontinent. Over the period of British rule Indian industries- notably the largest textile sector in the world- was systematically destroyed by colonial administrators for the benefit of Lancashire cotton mills.

If Britain wanted to set up a society which had no interaction with its neighbors except where they both peacefully agreed, they could have stayed at home.
 
Yeah no brits are not on a mission to enlighten india, or to help them any view of this is weird. Also you imply that indians are backwards and only britian can help them advanced, first that implies they want it and that is the natural order of things that less advanced civilations should bow to more advanced. Also as lonf as britian rules the sub continent it will never prosperous. Also why would should india allow brits to come and take their land.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
As I saw in Cosmos:The Spacetime odyssey,a person named Frank Shuman(an American national then) tried this in the then British Egypt. If some large scale Solar engineering had been pioneered in around 18th or early 19th century in the sunny India and started a new Industrial revolution with that,I think a good settlements would be possible.
 
Shuman built his plant in Egypt in 1913.

You cannot start an industrial revolution with technology that requires the knowledge of science and engineering that is developed as a result of that industrial revolution.

And even if you could, you still haven't addressed why this would in any way change the nature of British colonialism.

Even if we grant, and this is very much not the case, that the British arrive in India with a vast technological advantage over the locals-

A: why would they try to settle anyone there?

And more importantly,

B: why would this make them act more benevolently, given the historic record of British technological superiority in Australia, sub-Saharan Africa, the Pacific and the Americas is... very much not benevolent.
 

vishnu

Banned
Indian culture integrates other cultures and weld it to its society. This is why India has such diverse culture in it .I think a minor Britis h population in India will not make that much difference. Politically a new entity will be present down the line but if the British establish a constitutional monarchy with equal rights for all Indians and religious freedom as well as freedom of languages there will be no problems.The different kingdoms might protest but the people can be very easily united if the British will not exploit them.
 

Deleted member 116192

You know migration flows both ways , in this timeline we may witness a south Asian majority Britain
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
You know migration flows both ways , in this timeline we may witness a south Asian majority Britain
In this TL,India is still a colony in the beginning. But unlike in OTL,British aren't standoffish. They are also more advanced industrially with the use of Solar Energy and such. I don't say Britain would have a complete South Asian majority. They might still have 30-50% and some mixed with range from 25-75%. Religious and cultural makeup would be quite different too with a developed India. Since India is a settled and a developed colony,the British population in the subcontinent would be around 30-50% as well. For example in OTL,there are 10 times more Germans and Irish each in US than in Ireland or Germany from where they originated. Developed colonies means far more reduced sniping at each other so I guess both stay equally in Britain and India. The religious and cultural makeup is something we need to focus on with the above development.
 
America isn't india, people went to america for land and opportunity also india has a much bigger population than america which would be much more resistant (that has no links to European culture american and german are more similar than punjabi is to tamil), so theirs no way brits can even have these numbers. Also still your acting as britain are benevolent overlords and india naturally crave this, no we don't want to be ruled or colonised. Your not going to convet india either the muslims couldn't convert the hindus and your not converting the muslims by that alone they will rebel.
30-50% thats asb you can get millions of brits to india you didn't even get 1% originally so how did this happen, india will rebel at this mass migration as you going tochave kick them off their land to support theses new people.

18th century india had 255 million people by 1800s uk population is 9 million so uk now has if india doesnt increase from 18th century and remains the same has 76 million in india. Thats more brits living their than brits living in the present uk. This is ASB.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 116192

Well 50 percent British population in the subcontinent is possible if the Indians are not immune to small pox or other diseases but its unlikely due to the fact that India is connected to the rest of the work by land and sea route , so Indians not being immune is a pretty big Asb
 
Well 50 percent British population in the subcontinent is possible if the Indians are not immune to small pox or other diseases but its unlikely due to the fact that India is connected to the rest of the work by land and sea route , so Indians not being immune is a pretty big Asb
India has over 100% population over the uk. Also smallpox on the american won't happen as india already went through small pox epidemic in 1bc its endemic now so no asb again.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
To those bringing in OTL,this is NOT OTL. This is ATL. I do agree that in OTL,the British Empire was quite bad inspite of all the good they were capable of after Industrial revolution. Keep the discussion with ATL and OTL can be discussed in the chat.
 
To those bringing in OTL,this is NOT OTL. This is ATL. I do agree that in OTL,the British Empire was quite bad inspite of all the good they were capable of after Industrial revolution. Keep the discussion with ATL and OTL can be discussed in the chat.
Any ATL is going to be based on the original conditions present in OTL before the divergence.

If your ATL posits "What if colonialism, but nice?" You need to be able to explain why British attitudes have diverged from OTL, which is why people are discussing OTL British attitudes and policy.

This is, unfortunately, a very difficult to pull off. If Britain didn't want to aggressively conquer India, they could just.... not sail around the entire world to India.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
Here are those conditions.
A faster industrial advancement in Britain and Europe that could use Solar thermal or steam power. The objective now is to build more advanced solar settlements and build a bigger strong from grassroots community globally for more security and prosperity.
 
Ok, let me try this once again:

1. How does Britain and Europe industrialise faster than OTL, without the exploitative colonial empires that were vital to industrialization in our timeline?
2. Why does this industrial revolution change the fact that India is heavily settled and urbanised with a hostile climate to Europeans, and is therefore a terrible location for settler colonies?
3. Why does this industrialisation radically change the nature of European societies so that they want to "build a bigger strong from grassroots community globally for more security and prosperity?"
4. Can you give any example in human history of an empire or colonial power that had any interest in invading other countries solely to be nice to them?

I'm sorry, but you can't say 'keep this to chat.' If someone started a thread about nice Nazis, they would be looked at with suspicion.

Since you are asking: "what if a colonial empire, but no racism, no massacres, no destruction of native industries, no cultural supremacy, no forced labour et cetera" you need to be aware that there are some very... dubious... ideas underpinning the question.
 
Top