Plausibility Check: Balkanize India after the British conquest with a 19th C. PoD

Ok, first of all, I'm sure that anyone might say that this thread fits better in the "Post 1900 Forum", but I wanted it here because it allows for more creative analysis in the matter. I wanted to avoid the chain of events and circumstances that generated the partition of India during the 1940s IOTL (including WW2).

Is it possible to have the Indian Subcontinent fractured into many states AFTER THE BRITISH CONQUEST? I'm including here not only the British Raj itself, but also the Company Rule of India before the Sepoy Revolt (considering they had a rather huge territory).

I'm thinking about India divided more or less along ethnic and religious lines, perhaps with some Princely States intact, without a British presence, or with a much reduced British presence in the region (say, the British succeeding in preserving control of Bengal or something). Perhaps like China during the Warlord Period.

You can be flexible with the PoD during the 19th Century, but it must be after the end of the Napoleonic Wars. So, anything in between 1815 and 1900. How likely is the Sepoy Revolt to provoke this outcome? You can have foreign intervention assisting the Indians in their independence, like Russia or France, if necessary.
 

longsword14

Banned
Bump. No one to help??
Butterflying some form of nationalism is impossible, so make sure that there are many instead of one. To do so it would be required that there be at least some half way competent Princely states that manage to hold on beyond 1850s.
You could go back all the way to early 19th century during the terminal phase of Maratha collapse and EIC expansion to have this POD.
The Sepoy revolt is far too late, EIC did not expect things to snowball as fast which is why they had such problems, the Rebels never had a coherent war plan and it was evident by how they were driven back despite the fact that EIC had lost control of the northern plains and Bengal. They simply could never hold it for long, lacking local support of importance, no real leadership from high above (natives did not become officers in the army, obviously) etc.
The Sepoy Mutiny was not like the many people's movements you would find in the 20th century, which have become so familiar to the world.
 
Is it possible to have the Indian Subcontinent fractured into many states AFTER THE BRITISH CONQUEST?
I could imagine a TL where there are around five independent states in the Indian subcontinent. One country for various Muslim peoples to the northwest, another country for Muslim Bengalis, one or two countries for the more remote British protectorates in the Himalayas, and one humongous country with everything else.

How does that sound?
 
I could imagine a TL where there are around five independent states in the Indian subcontinent. One country for various Muslim peoples to the northwest, another country for Muslim Bengalis, one or two countries for the more remote British protectorates in the Himalayas, and one humongous country with everything else.

How does that sound?

That's a very realistic proposal, and similar to what happened IOTL, I guess. By the "northwest Muslim peoples" are you putting together Balochistan, Sindh et al, until Gujarat, or a more conservative territory, similar to OTL Pakistan?

I was actually thinking about a more fractured southern part of the Subcontinent. What nowadays people deem as "Dravidistan", and then those Princely States such as Mysore and Hydebarad, perhaps Orissa and a part of Maharashtra. Is it inevitable that these regions would be gobbled up by a "central" or "national" Indian state centered in the United Provinces region?

Regarding Bengal and the Himalayan states, I liked the suggestions. These places remained fairly loyal to Britain for various decades, right?
 
Maybe 1857 Revolt is partially successful, at least for a little while? British keep most of India, but a small part develops on its own for a little while. When it comes back, it has a nationalism of its own.

Plausible?
 
If the 1857 revolt is successful, this is near inevitable. There's no way the Mughal Emperor was going to reunite the place, so it'll be a whole bunch of warlords and regional schisms.

One thing I've often noted is that the 1857 revolt (and later disturbances) largely didn't happen in the princely states. The British could react to it by returning the direct rule areas to indirect rule with local princes. Then those princes would cultivate local nationalisms.
 
I don't see why nationalism would be inevitable; different parts of India spoke different languages, after all. I do wonder if the British could force India into pieces out of spite; i.e., if we do avoid the World Wars and decolonisation still goes on roughly the same path as OTL, the British might begrudgingly let India go but split it up under the guise of preventing ethnic turmoil or some such thing.

In any case, there's no real reason Pakistan had to remain together. You could easily get an independent Balochi state, Kashmir, merge the Pashtun areas with Afghanistan, give the Sikhs a state in Punjab. Bengal even outside of OTL Bangladesh was fairly distinct, so you might see the whole region go its own way. In this scenario Portugal might hang onto Goa for a while longer, and it might become a sort of Indian Singapore.

Plus a lot of the OTL princes didn't want to give up their power; I believe it was Hyderabad which held out for longer than most when India was forming.
 
If the 1857 revolt is successful, this is near inevitable. There's no way the Mughal Emperor was going to reunite the place, so it'll be a whole bunch of warlords and regional schisms. One thing I've often noted is that the 1857 revolt (and later disturbances) largely didn't happen in the princely states. The British could react to it by returning the direct rule areas to indirect rule with local princes. Then those princes would cultivate local nationalisms.

This is a good way to work around. I liked this suggestion very much, thanks for the tip. Now we just need to get the Sepoy Revolt to be more successful, in first place, which is another problem altogether.

I don't see why nationalism would be inevitable; different parts of India spoke different languages, after all. I do wonder if the British could force India into pieces out of spite; i.e., if we do avoid the World Wars and decolonisation still goes on roughly the same path as OTL, the British might begrudgingly let India go but split it up under the guise of preventing ethnic turmoil or some such thing.

In any case, there's no real reason Pakistan had to remain together. You could easily get an independent Balochi state, Kashmir, merge the Pashtun areas with Afghanistan, give the Sikhs a state in Punjab. Bengal even outside of OTL Bangladesh was fairly distinct, so you might see the whole region go its own way. In this scenario Portugal might hang onto Goa for a while longer, and it might become a sort of Indian Singapore.

Plus a lot of the OTL princes didn't want to give up their power; I believe it was Hyderabad which held out for longer than most when India was forming.

I agree with your points. I get the feeling that OTL Partition of India was a very artificial construct, and tried to picture what would happen if India devolved into a fractured myriad of nations, especially along ethnic religious lines. I do think that the British would be interested in partitioning the whole "Empire of India" if decolonization comes to pass in an effort to try to preserve the influence in some more friendly polities (likely the Princely States themselves).
 
I mean, it did balkanize IRL. Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, etc. Dravidistan almost came about as well.

Was Sri Lanka part of it as well?
 
Top