Indian north Australia?

Was wanting to find a way to boost australian population and I noticed that the north neems underpopulated compared to the south. It seems to have plenty of rain and arable land, only thing is the north has a tropical climate and the south a temperate climate. In this way I wondered if it was possible to populate the north with indian settlers who presumably would be more amenable to the climate there. Any chance of any european power setting this up? Is the whole premise fatally flawed? Thoughts?
autralia.jpg
 

Don Quijote

Banned
There were Indian workers shipped to Fiji (and possibly other Pacific Islands, can't quite remember) by the British in the colonial era, and Fiji still has a substantial minority of Indian descent. I don't see why it couldn't happen in Australia too, but there would need to be a motivation on the part of either the British or the Indians themselves.
 
Well I imagine if there was anyone trying to contest the colony or the surrounding sea it might be an insentive. Also, if the south or other parts of the continent are owned by others powers there migt be an interest in encoraging immigration. doubt that they would send indian or other people from the west indies depending on who owns the land. why were indian workers shipped to Fiji?
 

Zachariah

Banned
The British could have easily done this, but they'd have to get the ball rolling early on to avoid the White Australia scenario. My personal opinion, on the easiest and most plausible way to get this up and running? Have the British East India Company establish settlements in Northern Australia, perhaps at around the same time as their Malaccan Straits Settlements, which were established in 1826 to protect its trade route to China and to combat local piracy, and as Stirling's Swan River Colony, which was established in 1829. And ITTL, couldn't the Northern Australian Settlements become the British East India Company's primary penal settlements for Indian civilian and military prisoners, instead of Singapore, Malacca, Penang and Dinding? If they had, then these penal settlers alone would have been enough to give Northern Australia a population at least on a par with that of Western Australia into the 1850's.

And once the floodgates opened with the Great Uprising of 1857, with the vast numbers of surplus mutineers, rebels or recaptured prisoners, amounting to over 80,000, and with the penal settlements in Burma and the Straits refusing to take them, most of these would probably be shipped over to Northern Australia instead, since these penal colonies would have by far the most room for expansion, instead of all of them being shipped over to the relatively cramped, unprofitable and resource poor Andaman and Nicobar Islands- with Northern Australia's population easily surpassing those of both OTL's Western Australia and Queensland combined (and most likely encompassing the northern portions of both) by the early 1860s. And from there, the sky's the limit- North Australia's population ITTL would almost certainly exceed 5M, and could easily exceed 10M.
 
Last edited:
Do you mean that the australian poultion could exeed 10M by 1960? Do you think also that a prodominantly indian north would mean the white population would be less that OTL? Also with the east india company in charge in the north and not in the south, would there be competition between the two groups, for land or other?
 

Zachariah

Banned
Do you mean that the australian poultion could exeed 10M by 1960? Do you think also that a prodominantly indian north would mean the white population would be less that OTL? Also with the east india company in charge in the north and not in the south, would there be competition between the two groups, for land or other?
I meant that the Indian population of North Australia could exceed 10M by the present day. As for the impact upon the white population of Australia, hard to say. There could well be competition between the two groups initially, but the dissolution of the BEIC and the nationalization of its territories and holdings in the aftermath of the Indian Rebellion of 1857 would soon render that moot. Although, having said that, might the BEIC have a chance of clinging on ITTL through the administration of its colonial territories in North Australia, even after the takeover of all of its Indian territories?
 
You should read into Australian immigration policies before the White Australia policy came into effect.

Tbh the only non-whites in mass migrating to North Australia were enslaved melanesians, some Chinese and Japanese in the pearling industry.

There was at later time Indians and Pakistani brought to the deserts but otherwise they'd always be limited by Anglo White Supremacists both the common folk and those making the laws.
 
Specifically what I was looking for was a plausibility check on the idea of a predominantly non white population for north Australia. I thought this would be an interesting way to boost the population of the australian continent. In this way I would like hear what you think the best way to maximise the population of this colony would be? along these lines I was wondering how early this type of colony could start, would it have to be the dutch transporting indonesians?
 
You should read into Australian immigration policies before the White Australia policy came into effect.

Tbh the only non-whites in mass migrating to North Australia were enslaved melanesians, some Chinese and Japanese in the pearling industry.

There was at later time Indians and Pakistani brought to the deserts but otherwise they'd always be limited by Anglo White Supremacists both the common folk and those making the laws.

During the 19th century the only thing limiting immigration to Northern Australia for any group was that they didn't want to in the first place. Immigration to Australia during the 19th C was always pretty haphazard, in so far as usually it wasn't that high other than during the Gold Rush and 1880's. There was never a serious shortage of land further south, and the sheer lack of development in the north precluded any job opportunities there. This was not inevitable by any stretch, but the issues were nonetheless economic. If Northern Australia received more immigration white or otherwise earlier in the 19th Century, and hence more job opportunities emerged there both in primary and tertiary industries, there would be far more incentive for migration. At that point White Supremacism might become an issue; such a Northern Australia may develop differently politically and lose the relatively less strict* approach to non-whites of OTL; whether that is the case though still requires a different economy to OTL. A PoD I've seen suggested on this website is an early discovery of diamonds in the Kimberly, which certainly has potential.

*Less strict =/= massively abusive, racism was just as strong there in terms of the treatment of non-whites but was more willing to make use of them too.
 

Don Quijote

Banned
Well I imagine if there was anyone trying to contest the colony or the surrounding sea it might be an insentive. Also, if the south or other parts of the continent are owned by others powers there migt be an interest in encoraging immigration. doubt that they would send indian or other people from the west indies depending on who owns the land. why were indian workers shipped to Fiji?
There's a a fairly lengthy Wikipedia article on the subject, they were sent over as cheap labour for the sugar plantations.
 
If the Dutch or Portuguese colonise Australia, they might bring in a lot of Indian labour as well as Indonesians. It would probably require them to be slightly more successful in India than OTL (though not to the extremes as the British were).
 
Top