Longest Britain can keep India?

[Kaushlendra pratap singh]

The process of establishment of British rule in South Asia was extremely violent accompanied by a large scale social upheaval. So it's not black and white. Some of the old elites had fallen out with the newly emerging British order.

Nothing can be more wrong -
1- British win in India due to the peace with which guaranty they arrive in many places, the lord and nobles of India exchange their loyalty to The British for money, trade and stability.
2-The Mughal after Akbar never invests in public infrastructure. By the time of Aurangzeb normal farmers (more Hindus who have tax more than Muslims)were reduced at the stage of starvation due to tax, Which was between 40-60 per cent. There were no social movements to improve people position in society.
3- so people, groups started to galvanised around popular charismatic military leaders to improve their social standing for that they started adopting arms. by the end of the Aurangzeb region, there were a total of 4-5 million people trained to war and searching payable jobs.
4- So fight in India become a war of economics, who can collect more money as tax and fund their campaign again.
5-That's why you find that Maratha lost to the British due to the economy not due to the inferiority of their army against the British.
6-Maratha Scindia Hindustan army was made of 150 thousand France trained army with local capabilities to build arms, and this army has better musket than the British Indian army.
7- British only fight a bitter war against the Tippu sultan.
8-Maratha folded due to unclear succession in the Peshwa ruler family, Scindia family also have a crisis and after that unclear succession and uprising the the the the the the in Holker family. Now three most important families were fighting in also out.
They just folded in fighting the British when they lost their tax collection ability in this infighting.

 

[cjc]

When this question comes up, I always have one thing to say. Define "Keep".

• My image of a British India making it to today involves one of two things: Either a serious move to devolution starting around WWI (perhaps motivated in part by an impulse to keep the English educated sorts busy running the day-to-day administration while taking the heat from the rabble) taking on a life of it's own to the point where by the '70s a(n un-partitioned, but you suspected that by now) budding Great Power in it's own right elects to keep the Angrezi Padishah on the coinage and signing off on a rotation of rubber-stamp viceroys so the Hindutvas, Deobandis, Dravidians, Princes, etc. don't getting into bigger screaming matches about who to replace them (and because it would disrupt the investments of our own businesspeople in the U.K. and/or our functional vassal states in Arabia).
• Alternately, it would be this.

Now without some sort of functional buy-in, I understand the place was a net money-loser where the public purse is concerned by the '30s and the INC was not going away so even without WWII breaking matters outright a face-saving means of walking away would be worked out before 1960.

Actually it wasn't until the vast percasise need for ww2 came about that indea became a net drain on the public purse, befor 1940 or so it was still a net contributer.

 

[UniversalCommons]

A conjecture is that if India became independent earlier, the partition of India into Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India would have been less likely to happen. There would have been less time for a divide and rule strategy from the British.

 

[Cregan]

British Raj was basically a collaborationist regime in all but name. Besides, how could the country be under British rule despite the population difference.
The Anglophone Indian Elites were collaborating with the British rulers in order to maintain their own privileged positions, they have maintained to this day due to the preponderance of English in India. A similar set up was present during the Mughal and Delhi regimes where the Persian-speaking Indian elites were cooperating with the Turko-Iranian Muslim rulers. British India was no different, just difference in semantics.
The reason India was under foreign rule for such a long time was due to internal divisions, and dominance of collaborationist forces amongst the Indian elites. These elites benefited heavily by balancing out Foreigner and Native interests, and profited from their esteemed position in Hindu society and their valuable skills and loyalty as far as the Foreign rulers were considered.
Present-day Indian politics is a conflict between outsider Elites and old guard. The Old guard are the successors of collaborationist elites who dominated Hindu society during teh Delhi, Mughal, British, and Post-Independence periods.

Giant Vichy France regime. Nothing more, nothing less

The Mughals and Delhi Sultans were only able to rule as long there was a cadre of Hindu elites in collaboration. This cadre benefited from being the elite of Hindu society and being in service of the Turko-Afghans. This allowed them amass vast amounts of political and cultural capital. Nehru had an ancestor who worked in the Mughal government, and many of the English-speaking Bengali elite initially spoke Persian.

I don't want to derail this thread with the both of us arguing over certain interpretations, but all I can say that British rule was just a continuation of similar processes from the Delhi Sultanate and Mughal periods.

Your characterisation of Indian Muslim dynasties as inherently, unchangeably 'foreign' is not accurate. Yes many of them were founded by Turco-Afghan Persianate invaders, but over time they settled down in India, coming to view it as their own country in which they built their home base and communities. They weren't attached to an overseas 'mother country' like the British were. I would argue that some Indian Muslim dynasties like the Mughals are very authentically Indian.

 

[prani]

Nothing can be more wrong -
1- British win in India due to the peace with which guaranty they arrive in many places, the lord and nobles of India exchange their loyalty to The British for money, trade and stability.
2-The Mughal after Akbar never invests in public infrastructure. By the time of Aurangzeb normal farmers (more Hindus who have tax more than Muslims)were reduced at the stage of starvation due to tax, Which was between 40-60 per cent. There were no social movements to improve people position in society.
3- so people, groups started to galvanised around popular charismatic military leaders to improve their social standing for that they started adopting arms. by the end of the Aurangzeb region, there were a total of 4-5 million people trained to war and searching payable jobs.
4- So fight in India become a war of economics, who can collect more money as tax and fund their campaign again.
5-That's why you find that Maratha lost to the British due to the economy not due to the inferiority of their army against the British.
6-Maratha Scindia Hindustan army was made of 150 thousand France trained army with local capabilities to build arms, and this army has better musket than the British Indian army.
7- British only fight a bitter war against the Tippu sultan.
8-Maratha folded due to unclear succession in the Peshwa ruler family, Scindia family also have a crisis and after that unclear succession and uprising the the the the the the in Holker family. Now three most important families were fighting in also out.
They just folded in fighting the British when they lost their tax collection ability in this infighting.

I don't understand your point, so? British Empire in India was established with troops from other parts of the empire with zero sepoys? And your first argument further proves my point that British Raj is based on the British wining over the local elite. Stop being so nationalistic, our Elites were quislings, and there wasn't the sense of political nationalism amongst ordinary people or the institutions to stop these quislings from collaborating with the British.
Fyi you are just insulting the millions who died because of wars and famines during the establishment of British rule here

 

[Kaushlendra pratap singh]

I don't understand your point, so? British Empire in India was established with troops from other parts of the empire with zero sepoys?

No British have better funds and economy, with help of this fund they successfully employed Indian arms force or sepoys as you said and defeated Maratha and Tippu other state just folded at athe promise of stability in the region.
British real fight was in 1857 when this sepoys rise in rebellion when they did not found improvement in their social standing and pig cow religious just started whole thing.

 

[Pesterfield]

After a certain point would India want independce, or realize pushing for suffrage instead could end up with an Indian run British Empire?

 

[prani]

No British have better funds and economy, with help of this fund they successfully employed Indian arms force or sepoys as you said and defeated Maratha and Tippu other state just folded at athe promise of stability in the region.
British real fight was in 1857 when this sepoys rise in rebellion when they did not found improvement in their social standing and pig cow religious just started whole thing.

Hmmm......facts beg to differ, the "honourable" east india company was ALWAYS on the brink of bankruptcy, which is why post conquest of India they forced us to grow opium to sell in China, the American revolution was because of the bankruptcy of East india company. It was the merchants of Bengal who financed the expansion in the north and in the west it was mostly Parsi merchants. Without these merchant class expansion in India would have been next to impossible

 

[Kaushlendra pratap singh]

"honourable" east india company was ALWAYS on the brink of bankruptcy,

So were maratha and mughal

 

[Beacon]

Your characterisation of Indian Muslim dynasties as inherently, unchangeably 'foreign' is not accurate. Yes many of them were founded by Turco-Afghan Persianate invaders, but over time they settled down in India, coming to view it as their own country in which they built their home base and communities. They weren't attached to an overseas 'mother country' like the British were. I would argue that some Indian Muslim dynasties like the Mughals are very authentically Indian.

But there's counter arguments as well -

- Muhammad Tughlaq preferred to hire a foreigner who had just come from Bukhara and Samarkhand as qadi rather than hiring an indigenous muslim scholar.
- Qutb Shahi dynasty gave higher wages to persian-origin muslims than to indian-origin muslims.

Also in the case of this argument, you might want to think about not just how the Muslims dynasties saw India, but also how their indian subjects saw their muslim rulers. There were many revolts against the Mughals such as the ones by the Sikhs, Jats, Marathas, Satnami sect, Orcchas, etc.

But I digress, I think one way that Britian might be able to keep India, is if the queen decides to move and settle in India on the day she gets into power.

 

[Cregan]

But there's counter arguments as well -

- Muhammad Tughlaq preferred to hire a foreigner who had just come from Bukhara and Samarkhand as qadi rather than hiring an indigenous muslim scholar.
- Qutb Shahi dynasty gave higher wages to persian-origin muslims than to indian-origin muslims.

And the mothers of several Mughal Emperors were Rajput princesses while Man Singh and others were very high officials in the Mughal administration. Even several of the Delhi Sultans had Hindu mothers . Every Indian Muslim dynasty had high-ranking Hindu officials and vassals, so there is a counter-counter argument, but it is pointless as the examples and counter-examples would go round and round in circles. Yes there was a deep religious divide between Indian Muslim dynasties and their Hindu subjects, but that religious divide does not make the Indian Muslim rulers less Indian. They became of the subcontinent over time, unlike the British.

Also in the case of this argument, you might want to think about not just how the Muslims dynasties saw India, but also how their indian subjects saw their muslim rulers. There were many revolts against the Mughals such as the ones by the Sikhs, Jats, Marathas, Satnami sect, Orcchas, etc.

All types of Indian dynasties had revolts against them, not just the Muslim ones. The Maurya Empire overthrew the Nanda Empire, but both were Indian. Just because the Mughals experienced revolts against their rule doesn’t make them any less Indian.

 

[Kaushlendra pratap singh]

the mothers of several Mughal Emperors were Rajput princesses while Man Singh and others were very high officials in the Mughal administration. Even several of the Delhi Sultans had Hindu mothers . Every Indian Muslim dynasty had high-ranking Hindu officials and vassals, so there is a counter-counter argument,

Bjp has. Muslims minister,
Bjp rathyatra ,which Advani started in 1990 had Muslim driver but in the wake of rathyatra religious riot happen.
Mughal emperor Akbar was great but as the power of Ulma started to rise due to general stability in city of Mughals the orthodoxy become norm and if you want to read any book which show you it -read Aurangzeb shariya "fatwa a alamgiri" how he give right to his Muslim noble to collect slave from hindu area or how the tax on hindu business to cross any toll where Muslim were toll free.

 

[htgriffin]

Yes there was a deep religious divide between Indian Muslim dynasties and their Hindu subjects, but that religious divide does not make the Indian Muslim rulers less Indian. They became of the subcontinent over time, unlike the British.

I think I asserted elsewhere that the fundamental difference between the Honorable East India Company and the Mughals were that the former mostly focused on making their fortunes and heading home instead of setting themselves up personally as long-term lords on a multi-generational basis (picture Rajah Brooke times a shedload).

 

[Simreeve]

I think I asserted elsewhere that the fundamental difference between the Honorable East India Company and the Mughals were that the former mostly focused on making their fortunes and heading home instead of setting themselves up personally as long-term lords on a multi-generational basis (picture Rajah Brooke times a shedload).

This was why Anglo-Indians were banned legally from high military rank after a while: Both the British government and the HEIC management got worried that Anglo-Indian generals & colonels were becoming so influential in the army there that they might organise a successful coup to establish an empire of their own.

 

[Fatt Shea]

This was why Anglo-Indians were banned legally from high military rank after a while: Both the British government and the HEIC management got worried that Anglo-Indian generals & colonels were becoming so influential in the army there that they might organise a successful coup to establish an empire of their own.

Do you think it's possible they could have made this empire of their own if this rule wasn't in place ? That would make for a good alt hist

 

[Cregan]

Bjp has. Muslims minister,
Bjp rathyatra ,which Advani started in 1990 had Muslim driver but in the wake of rathyatra religious riot happen.
Mughal emperor Akbar was great but as the power of Ulma started to rise due to general stability in city of Mughals the orthodoxy become norm and if you want to read any book which show you it -read Aurangzeb shariya "fatwa a alamgiri" how he give right to his Muslim noble to collect slave from hindu area or how the tax on hindu business to cross any toll where Muslim were toll free.

I’ll just re-quote what I said above - yes there was a deep religious divide between Indian Muslim dynasties and their Hindu subjects, but that religious divide does not make the Indian Muslim rulers less Indian. They became of the subcontinent over time, unlike the British. Aurangzeb was a religious zealot, but he was an Indian Muslim religious zealot, not a foreigner.

 

[Simreeve]

Do you think it's possible they could have made this empire of their own if this rule wasn't in place ? That would make for a good alt hist

I don't know whether could have done, or whether many of them would even have tried to do so, but I agree that the possibility is interesting.

 

[Kaushlendra pratap singh]

Indian Muslim rulers less Indian

Indian muslims rulers -
1- Bahamani and after them Deccan sultanate
2- Bangal sultanate after 1400
3-hyderabad nizam
4-Haider Ali kingdom
5-Awadh nawab
6- Mughal empire after 1720 when Indian muslim ended foreign influence in Mughal court by the help of Maratha , Maratha rise happen due to this scism between Indian and foreigner. And before 1700 Akbar and Jahangir rule can be called Indian muslim rulers.
Why I am differenting this ruler , on the basis of people who born in India muslim and hindu have higher post in ruler court or main vanguard of army was made up of Indian born recruit not horse Archer of central Asia .

Any one other then these or not a Indian muslim ruler they were foreigner

 

[alspug]

I have very strong views on this thanks to the research I have done around alternate history novels. India was a missed opportunity for the British. In 1914 to 1918 the Indian soldiers fought and died for the king. If in the 1920's the groundswell of opinion for independence had instead of being squashed and hindered instead been turned into a proper nation building exercise the British Royal Family would still be referred to as the Indian Crown as well. India created the worlds largest all volunteer army in history during ww2 with some 4 million plus soldiers all volunteers. The problem was they fought under a British flag with British officers and upon returning home did not have the support they should have.

As for time to achieve independence if in say 1919 the King demands his loyal Indian subjects achieve dominion status in 15 years then the impetus would be present to begin with local elections, followed by state elections and finally a National Election. The establishment of the Indian Army, Navy and Airforce could also have been accelerated with all the benefits that would have flowed on in regards to munition and equipment manufacture. By WW2 India would have an equal seat at the table and still generate the worlds largest all volunteer army with one difference. Indian Officers and Indian Navy helping in the Indian Ocean. The Indian Air Force would no doubt have been able to operate a large number of squadrons. With the battle of Britain and the Western Desert I think the manufacture of Hawker Hurricanes in India and the Merlin engine would have been entirely possible. India would have also been making Mark VI tanks and universal carriers pre war and adding in the Matilda II would have been possible as India had plenty of facilities for making rolling stock etc.

 

[Sarthak]

Bahamani

Points of Orders, the Bahmani was founded by Ala-ud-Din Bahman, who was a noble in the Tuglaqh Dynasty, where the Delhi Sultanate pushed him down south for his reputed 'Hindu' Origins - which speaks of a converted family, which is mostly accepted by most historians - including the most recent scholarship on the Sultanate in 2013 by Burjor Avari.

In the Deccan Sultanates, Ahmadnagar Sultanate was founded by Malik Ahmad Nizam Shah I, who was the son of a Hindu Brahmin who later converted to Islam adopting a new name - Nizam ul-Mulk Malik Hasan Bahri. The Berar Sultanate was founded by Fathullah Imad-ul-Mulk who had previously been a Kannadiga Hindu who later converted. The Founder of the Tuglaqh Dynasty was the son of a Turko-Indian Slave and a Hindu woman. Khizr Khan of the Sayyid Dynasty came from Punjabi Converts. The Lodis were Pashtuns, Jalalludin Ahsan Khan of the Madurai Sultanate was a Hindu Convert, the leaders of Arrakal were descendants of Hindus as per their own geneologies, and the first Carnatic Sultan was the descendant of Turco-Persians by..........................5 generations - all of his familial matriarchs were Indians and even his own father had more indian blood in him by the time he was born.

To term all Indian Muslim States as being foreign is quite frankly, a false narrative.

I have very strong views on this thanks to the research I have done around alternate history novels. India was a missed opportunity for the British. In 1914 to 1918 the Indian soldiers fought and died for the king. If in the 1920's the groundswell of opinion for independence had instead of being squashed and hindered instead been turned into a proper nation building exercise the British Royal Family would still be referred to as the Indian Crown as well. India created the worlds largest all volunteer army in history during ww2 with some 4 million plus soldiers all volunteers. The problem was they fought under a British flag with British officers and upon returning home did not have the support they should have.

As for time to achieve independence if in say 1919 the King demands his loyal Indian subjects achieve dominion status in 15 years then the impetus would be present to begin with local elections, followed by state elections and finally a National Election. The establishment of the Indian Army, Navy and Airforce could also have been accelerated with all the benefits that would have flowed on in regards to munition and equipment manufacture. By WW2 India would have an equal seat at the table and still generate the worlds largest all volunteer army with one difference. Indian Officers and Indian Navy helping in the Indian Ocean. The Indian Air Force would no doubt have been able to operate a large number of squadrons. With the battle of Britain and the Western Desert I think the manufacture of Hawker Hurricanes in India and the Merlin engine would have been entirely possible. India would have also been making Mark VI tanks and universal carriers pre war and adding in the Matilda II would have been possible as India had plenty of facilities for making rolling stock etc.

The King had no authority to demand anything from the British government anymore. He could advise government still, and probably make a private case for the idea with Government, but he could not demand anything. The King's opinion would certainly sway a good amount of governmental members, but all of them is in doubt.