That House of Lords idea is both brilliant and horrible at the same time. Props!
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
Last edited:
Malê Rising
- Thread starter Jonathan Edelstein
- Start date
When I say remnant empire I mean like today, where there are little islands here or there or places like Malta who might have easily stayed. Sort of like a tighter integrated version of otl, a British version of an integral province
Bacchus is best Roman god.
Jonathon, can we have that? Upswing in the worship of Bacchus in Italy? Please?
Come on, I've already agreed to Ainu Parsis.
You could make that trip in OTL by the 1870s, so it would certainly be possible in TTL in the 1900s. The rail network is probably similar to this 1909 map from OTL, with the possible addition of a link from Chittagong to Rangoon, assuming that it's possible to get over the mountains without too much trouble.
Industry is concentrated in Bombay, Calcutta and Madras, in the princely states of Baroda and Travancore, along the Bombay-Baroda coastal corridor, and in the major Gujarati cities. Iron and steel are big, as are textiles.
That's more or less what I was aiming for - the sort of idea that an intelligent but rather foolish PM might come up with in order to "cut through the red tape."
The idea is that the House of Lords will be the imperial house and the Commons will be the British house. Since the Lords aren't representative, there's no expectation that the colonies or dominions would be represented according to their population. And even if, in the fullness of time, a majority of peers are Indian, they wouldn't be able to legislate for the empire without the Commons' consent, so Britain would always have a veto. I'm actually surprised something like this was never proposed in OTL (or was it?).
The problem is that this is the sort of "solution" that everyone hates. The British peers now have to rub shoulders with a bunch of Indians and Africans, some of whom aren't even noble in their own countries - a maharajah or two might be acceptable, but a hundred and eight of them? The British working class sees sees a Liberal PM strengthening an institution that he really ought to abolish or at least rein in, and making it even less accountable to the British public than it was before. And for the people in the colonies, it's "you get to be represented in Westminster by people we choose, and their sons and grandsons too, even if you overthrow them at home!"
Sure, a few people will love it - nobles of the world unite! - but not enough to matter.
That could certainly happen - after all, there are "little islands here and there" in OTL, and Malta did vote overwhelmingly to join. And in that case the "imperial lords" scheme might ultimately work fairly well. It might also work in a Commonwealth context, for instance if a relatively powerless House of Lords has members from the Commonwealth and acts as an international talking shop and court of appeal.
Speaking of islands here and there, BTW, I eventually have a better fate in mind for the Chagossians.
Oh, JE, I was talking to a friend about this timeline and he thought you might be interested in the works of P McHugh, a legal academic who writes on aboriginal experiences with the common law. His focus is on Maori experience, being a Kiwi, but he has written quite widely and is now based at Cambridge.
His academic profile does have a juicy list of work that I'm sure you'd find useful
http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/pg-mchugh/91
His academic profile does have a juicy list of work that I'm sure you'd find useful
http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/pg-mchugh/91
It's built mainly to British economic and wartime priorities, but since Indian industry is developing around the existing rail and shipping networks, the needs of the emerging Indian business class are also well served.
His work does look interesting; I'll have to see if any of it's available online.
Eastern and central Africa next, then a narrative interlude in and around Hungary - among other things, we'll learn the fate of some of the Lost Hungarians and Magyarabs who returned.
I just finished catching up on the latest update; it's truly a shame that there's so much opposition to Imperial Federation, considering that IMO it's the best way to preserve the British Empire as a major force into the 20th. Century. On top of that, it's pretty telling how so many Britons seem to feel about non-white "citizens of empire" should such a Federation be implemented .
Anyway, keep up the good work!
.Anyway, keep up the good work!
Sulemain
Banned
I just finished catching up on the latest update; it's truly a shame that there's so much opposition to Imperial Federation, considering that IMO it's the best way to preserve the British Empire as a major force into the 20th. Century. On top of that, it's pretty telling how so many Britons seem to feel about non-white "citizens of empire" should such a Federation be implemented
Anyway, keep up the good work!
The thing about Imperial Federation is that it wouldn't be a British Empire, it'd be an Indian one; it's a natural consequence of it.
Now the notion of an imperial Senate with two votes for India and two votes for Malta arises to amuse me...think we've got it bad with Alaska and California...
Bruce
Also, in the early 1900s, few British people think the empire needs to change in order to stay a major force in the 20th century; they're quite convinced that it can stay an empire, with some concessions to local self-rule but no fundamental change in its structure. The fragility of colonial empires hasn't yet been demonstrated, at least not for major powers (the British don't think the lesson of the Dutch East Indies applies to them) - the world will get a major lesson in that between 1915 and 1925.
Now the notion of an imperial Senate with two votes for India and two votes for Malta arises to amuse me...think we've got it bad with Alaska and California...
Well, that was the point of using the House of Lords - it isn't divided geographically, so in theory, no one should care if there are forty Indian peers and 700 British ones. Most likely the plan was also unveiled with a great deal of rhetoric about Burkean virtual representation. As noted, though, it doesn't work.
Sulemain
Banned
I'd argue that France is going the right way about this; they're turning parts of there Empire into a federation, others into protectorates, a sort of multi-tier system.
Hmm, after reading the updates I think I can see where just where the fault lines are.
After 1911 there shall be a reactionary/pro-imperialist parliament in London and it will start enforcing harsh colonial policies to everyone, maybe right up to the Dominions and definitely to the Imperial Domains. Wait a few years of building resentment, with the House of Lords fiasco as the salad dressing, and all it takes is a spark...
I'm thinking it shall start in Canada first. The government there deals with the Quebecois problem in it's own hands, potentially breaking some new rules enacted by the reactionary government. At about the same time or some time later, some Indians cause up a ruckus that builds and builds and builds...
London wants troops, but Canada says NO! Australia wants some new conditions if it wants to say yes. As news of London wanting troops reaches Ireland, the opposition parties revolted. The Irish War for Independence begins.
London appeals to South Africa, but it also wants conditions, among them dealing with the pesky Portuguese. As time goes on, the Indian ruckus becomes the Indian War of Independence. The Burmese freak out at this and also starts fighting with both sides. No Hindus or Englishmen! The Burmese War of Independence begins.
Next door, Thailand capitalizes on the situation by severing ties to London and stops being a client state. The Malays down south freak out at this (No Siam!) and starts rebelling. The Malay Rebellion begins. Some French parties sought to make the chaos worse by supplying guns to Cochin-china. The Cochin Insurgency begins. Brooke Sarawak stays either neutral or joins in the anti-Britain faction. No Forced Exploitation!
And in all this, the Nigerian Complex goes NUTS that London is restricting their government. Several Niger states (most probably the Imperial Domains) began rebelling and soon it spreads to the other areas. The Niger Rising starts. Also (wildcard), the Omani Empire begins to capitalize on trade by offering Zanzibar a free port to all rebelling British subjects. Soon alliance systems form between the colonies, dominions and imperial domains.
By 1920, Britain could find itself fighting it's own Empire.
Of course, I may have missed a detail or two, and there's no reason why it couldn't go any other way. But that's my scenario.
EDIT: Just realized Persia is absent from this. Well, the Shah could boot out the British Resident...
After 1911 there shall be a reactionary/pro-imperialist parliament in London and it will start enforcing harsh colonial policies to everyone, maybe right up to the Dominions and definitely to the Imperial Domains. Wait a few years of building resentment, with the House of Lords fiasco as the salad dressing, and all it takes is a spark...
I'm thinking it shall start in Canada first. The government there deals with the Quebecois problem in it's own hands, potentially breaking some new rules enacted by the reactionary government. At about the same time or some time later, some Indians cause up a ruckus that builds and builds and builds...
London wants troops, but Canada says NO! Australia wants some new conditions if it wants to say yes. As news of London wanting troops reaches Ireland, the opposition parties revolted. The Irish War for Independence begins.
London appeals to South Africa, but it also wants conditions, among them dealing with the pesky Portuguese. As time goes on, the Indian ruckus becomes the Indian War of Independence. The Burmese freak out at this and also starts fighting with both sides. No Hindus or Englishmen! The Burmese War of Independence begins.
Next door, Thailand capitalizes on the situation by severing ties to London and stops being a client state. The Malays down south freak out at this (No Siam!) and starts rebelling. The Malay Rebellion begins. Some French parties sought to make the chaos worse by supplying guns to Cochin-china. The Cochin Insurgency begins. Brooke Sarawak stays either neutral or joins in the anti-Britain faction. No Forced Exploitation!
And in all this, the Nigerian Complex goes NUTS that London is restricting their government. Several Niger states (most probably the Imperial Domains) began rebelling and soon it spreads to the other areas. The Niger Rising starts. Also (wildcard), the Omani Empire begins to capitalize on trade by offering Zanzibar a free port to all rebelling British subjects. Soon alliance systems form between the colonies, dominions and imperial domains.
By 1920, Britain could find itself fighting it's own Empire.
Of course, I may have missed a detail or two, and there's no reason why it couldn't go any other way. But that's my scenario.
EDIT: Just realized Persia is absent from this. Well, the Shah could boot out the British Resident...
Last edited:
Yeah, I know. It's just that a part of me wants to see the whole Empire going spectacularly into oblivion, even if it goes to the point of ASB.
They're getting some things more right than others, and they'll learn in due course about the ones they're getting wrong.
Keep in mind that France can integrate its empire more than Britain can. France in 1900 can incorporate Senegal, Gabon and even Algeria without the risk of becoming something other than French, while Britain can't do that with India unless it resorts to dodges that are entirely unacceptable to the Indians. In TTL, Southeast Asia might help balance India somewhat, but it also makes the British even more of a minority within their empire.
Well, a couple of those things might happen. Sketchdoodle is correct about a right-wing government coming to power in the 1910s - I've mentioned that before. Britain missed the original Decade of Reaction in the 1880s because its politics during the 1870s were stabler than those of continental Europe and the Ottoman Empire; however, it will get its own such decade in response to the wrenching social changes of the Great War and postwar period. It might not be accurate to describe this government as reactionary, because in some ways it will be modernist, but one of its major themes will be the restoration of hierarchies. And this will certainly affect colonial policy, especially since part of the government's base will be younger colonial officers who grew up with the colonies being colonies and don't understand why the old hands treat them as if they were almost countries.
Beyond that... well, the troubles will be multi-faceted, and some of the conflicts should be obvious by now, but Britain won't end up fighting all of its empire at once. It isn't going to treat the white dominions like colonies, and some of the crown colonies and protectorates will stay loyal due to conviction, self-interest, fear and/or a perceived lack of other options. We'll get there soon enough.
I think what you've managed to capture about the Indian independence movement is just how multi-faceted it was.
In OTL, the socialist non-violent wing of Congress won out and that's how India entered the world. But there were always other parts to the Indian movement, and many of them could have led the charge, so to speak. You've made that clear.
Congress ITTL is playing a long game, but no one is calling the shots. No leaders have emerged to preeminence yet, as was the case IOTL at this point. However - a new generation of well-educated young Indians will be returning from Britain and SE Asia soon, influenced by the aftermath of the Great War.
The earlier war, I think, will have the effect of greater unity for the movement, but also greater influence for the industrialists. Somehow, I don't see socialism becoming as powerful as it did in India IOTL in this timeline.
Cheers,
Ganesha
In OTL, the socialist non-violent wing of Congress won out and that's how India entered the world. But there were always other parts to the Indian movement, and many of them could have led the charge, so to speak. You've made that clear.
Congress ITTL is playing a long game, but no one is calling the shots. No leaders have emerged to preeminence yet, as was the case IOTL at this point. However - a new generation of well-educated young Indians will be returning from Britain and SE Asia soon, influenced by the aftermath of the Great War.
The earlier war, I think, will have the effect of greater unity for the movement, but also greater influence for the industrialists. Somehow, I don't see socialism becoming as powerful as it did in India IOTL in this timeline.
Cheers,
Ganesha
The Sandman
Banned
I would think that the British would be trying to reinforce the differences between the various regions of India far more than they did IOTL, as a method of weakening any potential independence movements. Religious differences might not be quite as good for that purpose as they would be IOTL, but there are more than enough cultural, geographical and linguistic ones to provide fault lines.
On a different subject, I think that in the long run (assuming a change of attitudes on the part of the Japanese) the Koreans are likely to turn to Japan as their preferred regional ally. While the Japanese may have been the ones who actually invaded them, they're also the ones who can't just park an army on the northern border and look menacing. Plus they don't outweigh the Koreans anywhere near as badly as the Chinese or Russians do in terms of both population and GDP.
On a different subject, I think that in the long run (assuming a change of attitudes on the part of the Japanese) the Koreans are likely to turn to Japan as their preferred regional ally. While the Japanese may have been the ones who actually invaded them, they're also the ones who can't just park an army on the northern border and look menacing. Plus they don't outweigh the Koreans anywhere near as badly as the Chinese or Russians do in terms of both population and GDP.
One think I'm personally hoping for is a Sikh Regiment for the British Army, which was proposed in OTL a while back
Really? That sounds pretty cool! Time to go research!
EDIT: it was from 2007?!
Sulemain
Banned
Really? That sounds pretty cool! Time to go research!
EDIT: it was from 2007?!
Yeah, 2007. I can understand the reasons for opposing it, while disagreeing with them totally
. Of course, ITTL it's the early 20th C. Less objections. Of course, we have the BIA to think of.