Licence to kill.

No matter how accidental-looking the deaths are, there will be people thinking "once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action" (in keeping with the Bond theme.)
 
Chuck beat me to it. Though I think even two is going to raise questions given the political atmosphere in India.

I don't mind the idea of a surviving British Empire being discussed, and I'm not sure its necessarily a dystopia (though one surviving by this means sure is), but this is just too far fetched to be easily pulled off.

Offensive or not.

The odds are pretty good that this will cause more trouble than it solves from the standpoint of maintaining the Empire.
 

Typo

Banned
Well,my thread don't like to you,im sorry.
Some thread here don't like to me..so depressing.. with Hitler victory or nuclear holocaust..brrr...horrible things!
But i simply ignore they.
But wait a minut..maybe for you my thread is racist and offensive.
Well in this case permit to me to advise:
Use this function and alert the board staff:

If the staff agree to you my thread can be cancelled.

Well,now.. what we were sayng?
Ah,yes:
What if His Majesty Secret Services in early 20s, had kill Gandhi,Neruh and Jinnah,in way to seem incidents?
Oh and here comes the you- have-no-right-to-judge-me part, seriously dude

And I think I've already answered it, it's a pretty ASBish premise.
 
Yes there is more violence in the US civil rights movement but there is much more violence in the Indian independence movement
 
The US civil rights movement would probably still see a significant amount of progress, simply by swaying public opinion through great orators like Dr. King, but I was only positing that a superficial reduction of non-violent activism would take place. I mean, people would probably still assemble for peaceful protest marches, but maybe there'd be less shows of civil disobedience (like sit ins, boycotts, etc). It's hard to gauge how much influence Gandhi and his colleagues had in promulgating the idea of nonviolence as opposed to the utility of nonviolence. I think the idea was out there, but the Indian independence movement really illustrated the effectiveness of the whole thing.
 
SERIOUS ANSWER INCOMING

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. might not have a readily available (and well-known) example of non-violence to work off of, thanks to the premature death of the non-violent Indian independence movement. This could have profound implications on the US civil rights movement, with a greater number of people endorsing violent radicalists. While non-violent strategies would definitely develop in the US, proponents won't be able to point at definitive example that they are successfull in practicality and principal.

This is a good point!
Consequences of non-violence movement not existence could be disastrous.
Are also possibles bloody riots in India in 40s-50s and the rise of violent leaders.
No doubt that if we have a WW-II in this timeline,India is on the road of indipendece in any case (without WW-II the things change).
So Indipendence quest from British Empire can become similiar to Indocina or Algeria in OTL?
 
Last edited:
Killing off Ghandi and the like, though may in the short term slow aspirations for an independent India...by end of WWII, Britain would still be faced with the same economic woes as in our timeline and would probably offer India some form of devolved Dominion status, and eventually by the late 50’s/early 60’s full dominion status within the commonwealth.
 
Actually, I find the question interesting. OTL, there was no effort to assassinate Indian independence advocates. What sort of Britain do you have to have for that to even happen?
 
Top