Latest Chance at Indian Independence?

What is the last point in Indian history where it was plausible for the Europeans (especially the British!) to be kept from total domination of the subcontinent? Trawling through Sepoy Mutiny threads, there seems to be a semi-consensus that it would have been difficult to avoid it by that date.

The requirement is for a polity with at least the international status/prestige of Siam (moderately-sized neutral with near-independence) or China (regularly militarily abused and economically dominated but still a large-sized state) to exist by 1900.
 
What is the last point in Indian history where it was plausible for the Europeans (especially the British!) to be kept from total domination of the subcontinent? Trawling through Sepoy Mutiny threads, there seems to be a semi-consensus that it would have been difficult to avoid it by that date.

The requirement is for a polity with at least the international status/prestige of Siam (moderately-sized neutral with near-independence) or China (regularly militarily abused and economically dominated but still a large-sized state) to exist by 1900.

Just allow the Mughals to unite India.
 
Just allow the Mughals to unite India.

Well, my question was:

What is the last point in Indian history where it was plausible for the Europeans (especially the British!) to be kept from total domination of the subcontinent?

Are you suggesting that Mughal unification was the last point, and if so, what was the latest that this could be accomplished?
 
Well, my question was:



Are you suggesting that Mughal unification was the last point, and if so, what was the latest that this could be accomplished?

If you are asking for britain to not to dominate india it would be the Mughals surviving in India.

But Earlier India can be unified by Mughals before they weakened.
 
Hmmm, you're predisposing an United Indian identity which as far as I know originated under the Mughals (being the power before Britain to dominate the subcontinent).

Therefore what you need is a surviving Mughal entity that can "modernise" enough to keep the colonial powers from expanding past the Dravidian states or the odd port.
 
A problem with this is that India was not a unified entity in the Mughal era. It's possible that some Indian states would be able to pull Meijis and remain independent of European colonial influence, but the Subcontinent is a Big Damn Region and there's an impossibility of avoiding it altogether (see: Goa).
 
The China-analog is actually more probable than the Raj; Clive's superiors were mortified and livid when he took Bengal and declared the Company to be the government rather than find a local princeling to puppetize. Of course, success excuses a multitude of flaws, and off the Company went. But I don't think that sort of thinking-outside-the-box is going to be done by anyone else of the period, and perhaps not ever. Get rid of Clive, and the place looks more like China. Many small Chinas, as others have pointed out - the Mughals were still reasonably unified and healthy before Aurangzeb, so if you want a single polity running 2/3 of the subcontinent, prevent A. from coming to the throne.
 

mowque

Banned
Tricky. India is a very great prize. And it's location (right smack in the middle of the whole trade region) bodes ill for its survival.
 
Well the last point could be if the Marathis win the third battle of Paniput. In Otl they had allied with western powers and modernized army. I they can defeat the afghans then we can see a stable strong Maharastra. Maharastra was also allied with the French. Thus Maharastra IMO is the latest point for a united Indian empire. They came close and plus ethnically they are Hindu which is the majority religion of India. Plus it involves a POD after the fall of Mughals. :D
 
The problem was that after the Napoleonic Wars, Britain had a pretty much free hand in India and was able to divide and conquer. There needs to be a counterbalance- this way Indian polities can play one external power off against the other, just as Siam did.
 
Well the last point could be if the Marathis win the third battle of Paniput. In Otl they had allied with western powers and modernized army. I they can defeat the afghans then we can see a stable strong Maharastra. Maharastra was also allied with the French. Thus Maharastra IMO is the latest point for a united Indian empire. They came close and plus ethnically they are Hindu which is the majority religion of India. Plus it involves a POD after the fall of Mughals. :D

Yes this is a better way.
Perhaps if Sadashivrao Bhau was a slightly more cautious general?

The Durrani will need to be fragmented so they can't ally with Oudh and the British in Bengal.
The Malabar and Carnatic states would likely still remain outside Maratha due the influence of the British, French, and Portuguese but this may help centralisation.
 
The problem was that after the Napoleonic Wars, Britain had a pretty much free hand in India and was able to divide and conquer. There needs to be a counterbalance- this way Indian polities can play one external power off against the other, just as Siam did.

A different Seven Years War would be a good start; although it didn't kick off France the continent it was one of the causes leading to the French Revolution, which led to the Napoleonic Wars, which lead to Britain building up its second Empire with India as its crown jewel.

With India divided into various spheres instead of one major European sphere then many Indian states might do a Siam.
 
A different Seven Years War would be a good start; although it didn't kick off France the continent it was one of the causes leading to the French Revolution, which led to the Napoleonic Wars, which lead to Britain building up its second Empire with India as its crown jewel.

With India divided into various spheres instead of one major European sphere then many Indian states might do a Siam.

Yup- that was what I was thinking. You'd have states aligned with one power or another interspersed with a few direct colonies.
 
Top