India without WW2?

Some ramblings:

One thing that's always struck me as fairly interesting. In the 1930s, the British are trying to figure out how they can give India self government while keeping it in the Empire, and the Indian National Congress (more or less) plays along.

Then you get WW2; the quit India campaign, Britain declaring martial law across the subcontinent, etc. And then Britain's withdrawal as soon as it can postwar.

This suggests to me that even without WW2, continued British rule of the subcontinent, even nominal dominion status, is unlikely to stick.

Thoughts?
 

King Thomas

Banned
Sooner or later, largely because of Ghandi's non violent tactics, India was going to become independent as the British were unwilling to make it into a total police state.
 
Would we see an India as an independent part of the Commonwealth ITTL?
We might. It is in OTL, after all.

Hm... it comes to mind that just how India turns out might depend on the whys of a lack of a second World War. A vague thought, as well: Dominion is too late, probably (altough perhaps possible for *slightly* longer than OTL), but a Commonwealth Realm/TTL Analogue?
 
We might. It is in OTL, after all.

Hm... it comes to mind that just how India turns out might depend on the whys of a lack of a second World War. A vague thought, as well: Dominion is too late, probably (altough perhaps possible for *slightly* longer than OTL), but a Commonwealth Realm/TTL Analogue?

I think it's an option, but it's a member of the Commonwealth OTL, as you pointed out. What changes India's desire to leave?
 
Perhaps without the pressure of WW2 and dealing with the aftermath (lack of cash/war weary populace) decolonisation would have been a little slower, not just in India but throughout the non White Dominions.

It could be possible perhaps to construct a slightly nicer process too, without the horrors of OTL Partition, if indeed that even happens.


How much influence did WW2 have on the strength of the Pakistan movement?
 
Top