Deleted member 14881
With a POD of 1800 how can other European Powers have a Influence in India
How do you get the Sepoy mutiny 10-20 years earlier?
How do you get the Sepoy mutiny 10-20 years earlier?
With a POD of 1800 how can other European Powers have a Influence in India
How do you get the Sepoy mutiny 10-20 years earlier?
Actually France had a bunch of trading posts, too. True, Britain had conquered them in 1800, but they were returned after the Napoleonic wars. But, as with Portugal, they were isolated cities.By 1800 Britain was the only European power left in the region, aside from Portugal, and they only controlled Goa. Besides, at that point most of the European Powers were under French occupation or rule and their colonies had been sized by Britain. U would have to go mack earlier to multiple powers in India. Like the seven year's war or maybe even earlier. As for the Indian Rebellion, just have the East India Company mismanage their territories even worse then OTL.
With a POD of 1800 how can other European Powers have a Influence in India
How do you get the Sepoy mutiny 10-20 years earlier?
With a POD of 1800 how can other European Powers have a Influence in India
How do you get the Sepoy mutiny 10-20 years earlier?
As for the Sepoy mutiny, what you need to understand is that it was the last effort of the old Pre-British aristocrats to keep (some) power in India.
That's a massive overgeneralisation- the aristos wouldn't have been able to move without pre-existing mismanagement by the EIC. Contrast the situation in South India where the Company had essentially been pretty hands off (or outright chummy) with the major royal houses notably the Nizam of Hyderabad, the House of Wodeyar in Mysore and the to Varma families who ruled Cochin and Travancore. In the North, however the Company tired to be more hands on and royally screwed it up.
Yes, and no. It is true that the north Indian aristocrats had their power stolen badly by the EIC . But quite a bit of it was more circumstances that aligned to make life more miserable for them than any dedicated effort by the British to outrage them. Things like the Doctrine of Lapse (adopted children had no rights and the entire estate of the parents reverted to the EIC) were really region-neutral. It was just sheer luck that north-central Indian states suffered more from these.
As for the large south Indian states, Mysore, at this time, was ruled directly through a Commissioner (Sir Mark Cubbon) and the ruler had been deposed some 20 years earlier (It was late in the 1870s when the British upheld the plea of Krishnaraja Wodeyar III and restored him to his throne).
But yes, it is true that the British screwed up more in north India, because they tried to rule directly, whereas in the south, mostly British rule was indirect (except in the erstwhile Madras Presidency). But it is also true, that where the British had already neutralised the existing local nobility (Bengal proper, for instance), there was little to no rebellion against the British.