India in an Imperial Federation?

Hey Guys,

Now the idea of an Imperial Federation has been kicked around this forum for a while, and the issue of India always crops up. The problem is that, to have India as part of the Imperial Federation and to have Westminster (and the other previous colonies) happy you'd need India to have less power otherwise it would dominate the Federation. This would make it undemocratic and thus not very viable. So could one of the easier things to do be simply to keep the British Raj separate to the Imperial Federation and simply slowly give it more Home Rule?

This would keep a few of the benefits of India within the British Empire, but would also allow for India to slowly slip out of the Empire. This would also resolve the situation of having a dominant India in the Federation that can now be kept more 'British'.

What other things could be done to resolve the Indian situation? Is my plan a good one? Is the plan above likely to lead to resistance (peaceful or violent) in India?
 

Sachyriel

Banned
What's wrong with an Indina-dominated Federation? I mean if we have a Federation that has tons of people in one area and few people in others we can even things out. Indian immigrants to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, might make the entire Commonwealth/Federation/Empire thing have less racial problems as the entire federation feels like it's global because there are people of all races all around the world.
 
What's wrong with an Indina-dominated Federation? I mean if we have a Federation that has tons of people in one area and few people in others we can even things out. Indian immigrants to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, might make the entire Commonwealth/Federation/Empire thing have less racial problems as the entire federation feels like it's global because there are people of all races all around the world.
Nothing's wrong with it. But then again you're thinking in modern terms. At the time would the British government actually be willing to have an Indian dominated federation in the early 20th century?
 
The answer to that is an out and out no. Any Federation would naturally have to be Westminster dominated. At least in the beginning. But (and this is an unresearched atatement on my part, so if any know better do say;)) the concept of a non-white country set (at least nominally) on a par with white populated countries would have been a revolutionary concept at the time. It is entirely possible that the Indian's would settle for less votes/whatever just to get in initially.

Ofc, if the Indians were shrewd about it they would realise that as the Federation expands to include more non-white dominions their position can only improve.

Also, I think that the shift in relative power and influence would be quite subtle. For many decades the City will remain the financial centre of the Empire, with a slow shift towards Bombay (or wherever the Indian financial market is:)). So, by the time it might become a serious issue, say some time around the 90s or the 00s I wonder if it would be that much of a problem due to the now accepted multi-racial make up of the Empire. Perhaps the Empire might see a variant of the race riots that the US had as the Indians demand true equality, or perhaps it will be a smoother transition.

Just my two pennies worth:D
 

Susano

Banned
The answer to that is an out and out no. Any Federation would naturally have to be Westminster dominated. At least in the beginning. But (and this is an unresearched atatement on my part, so if any know better do say;)) the concept of a non-white country set (at least nominally) on a par with white populated countries would have been a revolutionary concept at the time. It is entirely possible that the Indian's would settle for less votes/whatever just to get in initially.
Initially maybe. Of course, that means that the Federation either falls apart in the 60s or reforms to become fully democratic (and hence, Indian-dominated), so that is only delay...

Of course, that does seem to be the OPs intent anyways... Well, the two questions always remain: "What does get India out of it?" and "What does Britain get out of it"? I guess the Federation-to-be-established and the Indian parties agree on an India slowly "retreating" from the construct - gradually more autonomy, and gradually less representation. The problem of course is the details - how much level of autonomy requires how low a level of representation? Working that out could well be way more complicated than the EU ;)
 
Well, the India Act of 1935 basically provided for a legislature controlled by disparate minorities; untouchables, Muslims, women, the princes, etc.

I am sure that that sort of promotion of ethnic conflict would work splendidly.
 
I worked out ages ago how many seats everyone would have but I can't find it anymore...

Going off a EU model though India wouldn't totally dominate. Its a federation, not one united country. India would be powerful but would dominate no more than Germany dominates the EU- small places would have greater representation than they should (ala Malta) whilst big places have less.

The idea of 'India' may not exist in a Imperial Federation, it would probally be that you instead get individual states. OTL India itself afterall is a federation.
With this done they would likely ally on some points but on all? Nah.
And then don't forget Africa. A nicer Africa would be a more populace Africa.
 
I should expect that India would be registered as at least: Dehli, Hyperbad, Travancore, Bombay, Bengal. I could even forsee the major Princely states being given independent representation.
 

Susano

Banned
I worked out ages ago how many seats everyone would have but I can't find it anymore...

Going off a EU model though India wouldn't totally dominate. Its a federation, not one united country. India would be powerful but would dominate no more than Germany dominates the EU- small places would have greater representation than they should (ala Malta) whilst big places have less.

The idea of 'India' may not exist in a Imperial Federation, it would probally be that you instead get individual states. OTL India itself afterall is a federation.
With this done they would likely ally on some points but on all? Nah.
And then don't forget Africa. A nicer Africa would be a more populace Africa.

Well, then the "What does India get out of it?" question is invoked. I can see the Indian representatives saying "We understand how in such a federation different voting powers have to be given, but we then question why India should remain part of the federation". And even if you admit every province and princely state as own member it wouldnt change a thing - Indian identity has already been created, and all those members would probably vote the same spectrum of all-Indian parties.
 

Sachyriel

Banned
Nothing's wrong with it. But then again you're thinking in modern terms. At the time would the British government actually be willing to have an Indian dominated federation in the early 20th century?

Well since hindsight is 20/20 my guess is that it would have taken this long for India to become a world power even if it had been in the Core Commonwealth. Honestly Canada was on a better track since we're right next to the USA our economy was taken for a blast off once we got nuclear power right beside our neighbours. India didn't get it until much later, honestly this to me is a sign they still would have to catch up to us over a long time that the British could have seen as totally okay. I mean there are a lot of them in India even in the middle of the 20th century, but their power on the global stage can't come until the world is much more globalized because other nations in the Commonwealth had a head start.

So, if India stayed in the Commonwealth as it federalized, what would prove me wrong that it doesn't advance faster than it did in OTL? If it's only getting closer and closer to a developed nation today, it would still be a developing nation in TTL, so maybe the nuclear edge sooner would give them the confidence that they need that the other British Commonwealth members treat them the same. They need each other.

I mean, without India, it could be shrunk to Britian, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand and Australia, the Federalized Commonwealth can only be so big. But India can't be shrunk down below Britain, Canada, New Zealand and Australia because it's already a less developed nation.

I think if the British had looked at it over a few Generations they would see that India would catch up to be one of the biggest players; After WW2 the Americans were one of the biggest, but if the Federalized Commonwealth retains India through treating them like an equal, giving them a leg up while they're not, India might even appreciate it enough and stay in.

Well, I mean, we haven't even conquered racism today but we can talk about it like civilized people. Heck I bet you the Indians could still talk about nuclear and economic co-operation with the British Commonwealth even after independence. I mean Canada gave them their first nuclear reactor, but that was in 1967 after Canada had evolved into a less racist country than 1914.

Don't believe me?

On May 23, 1914, 376 British Subjects (12 Hindus, 24 Muslims and 340 Sikhs) of Indian origin arrived in Vancouver harbour aboard the Komagata Maru, seeking to enter Canada. 352 of the passengers were denied entry and forced to depart on July 23, 1914. This plaque commemorates the 75th anniversary of that unfortunate incident of racial discrimination and reminds Canadians of our commitment to an open society in which mutual respect and understanding are honoured, differences are respected, and traditions are cherished.--Plaque at the Gateway to the Pacific, Downtown Vancouver.

http://www.sikhpioneers.org/koma.html

Now, if the Federalized Commonwealth wants India they'd have to show it. They can't just try to exploit this underdeveloped nation, they have to treat it as an equal.

So say Canada develops a nuclear weapon of it's own, aiding the others; Australia (under the agreement they help New Zealand, back of any racism), South Africa (under the agreement they back off the racism, they're heading in the wrong direction for a Federalized Commonwealth unification if they alienate their) and India so they stay together.

I mean nuclear blocs worked back then, right? To keep the peace. ;)
 

ninebucks

Banned
There are plenty of "compromises" that could be sought.

For instance, "Indian representation" could include only the Princely States, or only the directly-ruled provinces. And then those representatives sent from the Indian states to the Imperial Parliament could be appointed, (by either the loyal Maharajas, or the Viceroy himself), to be as loyal as possible.

An undemocratic, yet proportional(-ish) Indian contingent would be a huge bloc vote, and whoever controlled that vote, would be very strong within the Federation.
 
Top