No ARW: India

Without the American Revolution, and British America in the empire, does British expansion in India occur to the same extent, and would native polities like Mysore, Marathas, Konbaung Burma and the Sikh empire be able to resist or even possibly modernize? Also would British India be nationalized or administered as multiple colonies?
 
By 1783, the British were already cemented in India. I don't think they would go on to dominate the entire subcontinent like they did OTL, however the eastern seaboard, including Bengal, and the Carnatic Provinces would remain firmly British for the foreseeable future. In any case it would probably be a multipolar India with the British in Bengal and the East, the Gorkha in the north, the Sikhs in the west, the Marathas in the center and the Mysoreans in the south.
 

VVD0D95

Banned
By 1783, the British were already cemented in India. I don't think they would go on to dominate the entire subcontinent like they did OTL, however the eastern seaboard, including Bengal, and the Carnatic Provinces would remain firmly British for the foreseeable future. In any case it would probably be a multipolar India with the British in Bengal and the East, the Gorkha in the north, the Sikhs in the west, the Marathas in the center and the Mysoreans in the south.
The Assamese likely get the benefits here as well. Assistance putting down the Moamarias without also then worrying about the Burmese given the pod
 
I read a book about American revolutionary loyalists (the name of which I can’t remember off the the top of my head) a while ago that suggested that they, the merchant class especially, had a pretty big influence in post revolution British India so I could see the impact being very substantial.

Maybe Cornwallis also enjoys less opportunities for advancement and we avoid the worst of the codes entrenching hierarchy or at least the permanent settlement.
 
Last edited:
By 1783, the British were already cemented in India. I don't think they would go on to dominate the entire subcontinent like they did OTL, however the eastern seaboard, including Bengal, and the Carnatic Provinces would remain firmly British for the foreseeable future. In any case it would probably be a multipolar India with the British in Bengal and the East, the Gorkha in the north, the Sikhs in the west, the Marathas in the center and the Mysoreans in the south.
Will any of these states have the potential (resources, political capital) to industrialize?
 
Will any of these states have the potential (resources, political capital) to industrialize?
The Sikhs had already drastically modernised their army through the use of imported experts from France and Germany and while I don't know of any economic developments pursued by Ranjit Singh(He doesn't seem to have invested much into railroads for instance) I think its not to much of a stretch to imagine a more stable Sikh Empire could have industrialised.
 
the Marathas in the center and the Mysoreans in the south.
The south of India was firmly under British control by 1783, and Hyderabad had been vassalised. I'm not sure the Marathas can remain beyond the scope for long, even if Britain is still in America. I won't speak for the northwestern kingdoms though.

In any case, at this point India was being colonised by the East India Company; realistically, it shouldn't matter what the British government is focusing on geopolitically. The Company will still want to expand its holdings in India and will still make efforts to do so. How successful they are I suppose depends on what percentage of resources they were getting from the government compared to how much of those resources are diverted into America.

IMO in terms of colonial butterflies, I think Oceania will be the hardest struck. France was nosing around and the British might not bother establishing and/or enforcing the same clames they had OTL.
 

VVD0D95

Banned
The south of India was firmly under British control by 1783, and Hyderabad had been vassalised. I'm not sure the Marathas can remain beyond the scope for long, even if Britain is still in America. I won't speak for the northwestern kingdoms though.

In any case, at this point India was being colonised by the East India Company; realistically, it shouldn't matter what the British government is focusing on geopolitically. The Company will still want to expand its holdings in India and will still make efforts to do so. How successful they are I suppose depends on what percentage of resources they were getting from the government compared to how much of those resources are diverted into America.

IMO in terms of colonial butterflies, I think Oceania will be the hardest struck. France was nosing around and the British might not bother establishing and/or enforcing the same clames they had OTL.
Wasn’t the company also going financially bust around this time? Hence some of the more intolerable acts passed by parliament before the war started in the states?
 
The south of India was firmly under British control by 1783
No they weren't. At least, not all of it. The eastern seaboard - the Carnatic was. Half of what makes up modern day Andra Pradesh, the entirety of Karnataka and Kerala were not a part of the East India Company in 1783.
Hyderabad had been vassalised
No it hadn't. It accepted a British Resident and some ~30 Company Troops for the Resident's Residence protection. It was the 1798 Agreement between Asaf Jah II and the Company that vassalized Hyderabad
In any case, at this point India was being colonised by the East India Company; realistically, it shouldn't matter what the British government is focusing on geopolitically. The Company will still want to expand its holdings in India and will still make efforts to do so. How successful they are I suppose depends on what percentage of resources they were getting from the government compared to how much of those resources are diverted into America.
I don't think anyone has said that the Company wouldn't expand - however if the shift in geopolitical focus that came about in 1783 with the loss of the American Colonies does not take place, then the same amount of revenue and investment that London threw at the company would not happen, and make Company expansion either slower, or limited in comparison to OTL. In 1783, Company's funding from London increased by a huge 67.3%, which would be impossible if the Americas aren't lost. In comparison yearly growth in funding for the company was between 5 - 10% before 1775.
 
I think the bulk of India will still end up British, though you could see more independent states on the periphery rather than just Afghanistan, Nepal and Bhutan (Sikkim too, I guess).

France and Portugal might be able to carve out a little more for themselves, though I don't see other interested powers like Denmark or the Dutch doing any better than in reality
 

VVD0D95

Banned
I think the bulk of India will still end up British, though you could see more independent states on the periphery rather than just Afghanistan, Nepal and Bhutan (Sikkim too, I guess).

France and Portugal might be able to carve out a little more for themselves, though I don't see other interested powers like Denmark or the Dutch doing any better than in reality
I wouldn’t say so. He’ll in 1781, the British were almost driven out of madras after being annihilated at Polliur. Indeed thay could make a good pod.

British rule over a bulk of India is not guaranteed.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
I think the bulk of India will still end up British, though you could see more independent states on the periphery rather than just Afghanistan, Nepal and Bhutan (Sikkim too, I guess).

France and Portugal might be able to carve out a little more for themselves, though I don't see other interested powers like Denmark or the Dutch doing any better than in reality

So good chance of Pakistan and parts of western India remaining non-British?
 
It might be that Britain would govern its Indian possessions noticeably differently in this circumstance. In particular, the opposition towards anything resembling settler colonization, or even the development of a mixed Anglo-Indian society might not arise without the experience of the ARW.

Per William Dalrymple's The Anarchy:

In America, Britain had lost its colonies not to Native Americans, but to the descendants of European settlers. Cornwallis was determined to make sure that a settled colonial class never emerged in India to undermine British rule as it had done, to his own humiliation, in America. By this period one in three British men in India were cohabiting with Indian women, and there were believed to be more than 11,000 Anglo-Indians in the three Presidency towns. Now Cornwallis brought in a whole raft of unembarrassedly racist legislation aimed at excluding the children of British men who had Indian wives, or bibis, from employment by the Company. In 1786 an order had already been passed banning the Anglo-Indian orphans of British soldiers from qualifying for service in the Company army. In 1791 the door was slammed shut when an order was issued that no one with an Indian parent could be employed by the Civil, Military or Marine branches of the Company. A year later, this was extended to ‘officers of the Company ships’. In 1795, further legislation was issued, again explicitly disqualifying anyone not descended from European parents on both sides from serving in the Company’s armies except as ‘pipers, drummers, bandsmen and farriers’. Yet, like their British fathers, the Anglo-Indians were also banned from owning land. Thus excluded from all the most obvious sources of lucrative employment, the Anglo-Indians quickly found themselves at the beginning of a long slide down the social scale. This would continue until, a century later, the Anglo-Indians had been reduced to a community of minor clerks, postmen and train drivers.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
The British de-industrialized India. Where India had previously been exporting manufactured goods, under the British they were turned to exporting raw materials.
Mmm, well that sucked. It looks like @TrickyApe is suggesting that what might have happened could have been even worse, some sort of partial South Africanization.
 
Top