Monarchist India

To look away from the 1850s:
Is there any Indian monarch in the period of 1945 to 1950 who was personally so respected that he might have ended up as first President of India and then after a change of the constitution, as monarchical figurehead?
 
To look away from the 1850s:
Is there any Indian monarch in the period of 1945 to 1950 who was personally so respected that he might have ended up as first President of India and then after a change of the constitution, as monarchical figurehead?

No. Indian monarchs had close to zero relevance outside their home regions. If you're positing, say, a monarch who joins and supports the freedom movement then he might receive respect as an individual and a politician but there's no way is would translate to Indians magically supporting a monarchy.
 
True, but a successful one might plant the seeds for something in the south. Losing such a large amount of territory will shake the EIC's policies up, methinks, so that the south would look a lot different.

Yes but it would be rather stupid of them to try to crack down harshly on friendly allied monarchs in the South. Admittedly people often do stupid things when they get frightened but it's a bit of a stretch. In fact a successful overthrow of British power in the North and the corresponding decline of British prestige might see the South Indian kings actually reaching out to other European powers and playing them off against Britain in the way Siam did with Britain and France IOTL
 
Yes but it would be rather stupid of them to try to crack down harshly on friendly allied monarchs in the South. Admittedly people often do stupid things when they get frightened but it's a bit of a stretch. In fact a successful overthrow of British power in the North and the corresponding decline of British prestige might see the South Indian kings actually reaching out to other European powers and playing them off against Britain in the way Siam did with Britain and France IOTL

Exactly my point. If there are muLtiple independent kingdoms, it still fulfills the request for a monarchist India.;)
 
Any probability for a monarchist India had receded with the dawn of the twentieth century. The idea of nationalism had started developing by the closing years of the nineteenth century and the vision of a united Indian Nation had started to capture the minds of elite and informed sections of the society. The native princes, who might have possessed near divine status inside their kingdoms were mere zeros outside their borders.The kings who tried to stay free of the Indian Union at the time of independence, whether Nizam of Hyderabad, Kings of Travancore or Kashmir or the Nawab of Junagarh, faced fierce opposition from their own subjects. A monarchist India had no chance in the twentieth century.
 
How about a Malaysian or UAE style rotating ceremonial presidency of princes who acts as primus inter pares? Perhaps an orientalist Viceroy could institute a "Consultative Diet of Indian Sovereigns" which body could gradually attach itself to the Indian Independence Movement.
 
How about a Malaysian or UAE style rotating ceremonial presidency of princes who acts as primus inter pares?

Malaysia had only nine kings among whom the national crown was to be rotated. The UAE consisted of only seven sheikhdoms whose rulers were made members of the Council of Sheikhs. But in the case of India, the number of native kings numbered in several hundreds, many of them lording over tiny stretches of land measuring a few hectares and also kings like Nizam, King of Kashmir and King of Gwalior who ruled over large kingdoms. Treating a strong and rich Nizam and a namesake prince with a state covering a few hectares of land comparable to a zamindar as equals would have been ridiculous. Further the total area of the land ruled by all the native princes was less than the area directly administered by the British through their presidencies and provinces. Hence a council of princes similar to the situation in Malaysia or UAE was not practical in India.
 
Actually, a Malayan model, or something like it, is an interesting idea, though still is not likely, and would require differences from the Malay model nonetheless. Perhaps a "Congress of Princes" could elect from amongst themselves (or among the higest salute dynasties) an "Emperor of India" who serves a life term?


The easier route to go might be to break India up into a series of independent states headed by local monarchs, either attached to, or distinct from the existing pricely states.


More intersting still, but probably not plausible, would be to have some sort of Indian revolution in the late nineteenth century led by a descendant of Duleep Singh, the last ruler of the Sikh Empire.
 
Top