Plausibility check: British Empire moves center of operations to India

Is it plausible that the British Empire could move its capital, or at least a large amount of its administration, to India?

The way I see it, it is the population and geographical center of the empire - Britain herself is a little far-flung.
 
Is it plausible that the British Empire could move its capital, or at least a large amount of its administration, to India?

The way I see it, it is the population and geographical center of the empire - Britain herself is a little far-flung.

Barring a "Peshawar Lancers" scenario, I would say no.

If you haven't read Peshar Lancers, you should, its a fun romp. And by scenario, I mean any event which leaves Britain nigh uninhabitable but still capable of securing India. This leaves you with a rather narrow window and very few events that could do it.

And I mean very few events.

And as for Britain's far flungness, your wrong. There was no incentive to move Britain. Its where all the industry was and Britain has quite the reserves of coal and other industrial necessities. Her island presence makes here easy to defend, and the population (is quite obviously) loyal.

The British Empire wouldn't move to India for quite a few reasons: economics, defense, geo-politics (all the other world Empires are based out of Europe, or America), internal stability, and let us not forget good old fashioned racism.
 
Is it plausible that the British Empire could move its capital, or at least a large amount of its administration, to India?

The way I see it, it is the population and geographical center of the empire - Britain herself is a little far-flung.



  1. Convince the British to try to Anglicise/Britanicise the Indian population in terms of language culture etc so that there is a significantly reduced chance of rebellion
  2. Have the Indians willing to be anglicised/Britanicised (the relative ease of conquering the Indian states would have reduced the value the British placed on things Indian)
  3. Convince all the Great Powers that Europe was not the centre of Culture and Civilisation.
  4. Make British citizenship obtainable by any subject of the empire.
  5. Make an Empire wide Parliament with representation for all colonies based in India.
Really unlikely to happen, and I've probably missed a large number of difficulties, but as a start I think these are some of the larger issues. Changing the way Europe/europeans view the world and still having a British India seems difficult - Strengthen the Indians to the point that the British respect them and the British will be unlikely to conquer them in the first place.
 
For that to happen you'd need a big catastrophe making Great Britain unable to host a government.

For example, Brazzaville was the capital of the French Empire (of the France Libre) during WWII as the Metropole was being occupied by German forces and the Vicky government.

You can imagine something like England is overrun by Napoleon (various TL about that running around I believe) and the government relocates to India to continue the fight. Although, they may choose to go to Canada or Australia instead, way more loyal than India
 
In simple words, it would be no longer a "British" Empire but an "Indian" one.
You could imagine a dystopian situation where the a large British minority establishes itself as the Herrenvolk over hundreds of millions of disenfranchised Indians and sets it base there, but you can imagine how unstable and unlikely this would be.
 
Moving your government to a country that has repeatedly rebelled against your rule would be like a cop giving the robber the gun he will use to kill. It's not completely impossible, as mentioned before, but it would be pretty hard to convince the British to move their administration to a pretty non-loyal country. Canada would probably allow the British government to stay at their country, but wouldn't be completely appreciative, and Australia is all the way on the other side and pretty much hate them for sending all their crap there. So really, there's few choices for relocation.
 
About the only way I could see this working would be if you managed to butterfly OTL's racial theories almost entirely, and have national identity be based upon culture rather than genetics. Then you'd have to have India becoming quite thoroughly Anglicised. Then, maybe, you might the base of operations shift to India with the right POD, kind of like how the Roman Empire after Constantine was increasingly based in the east. But it would still be a long shot however you set it up.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
There are three ways that this could happen IMO

1) British Isles Catastrohpy of whatever purpose - and this sort of becomes an Indian Empire in British Clothes

2) Significant Cultural Merger - An Anglo-Afro-Indian Empire COULD move there. If so desired and strategic.

3) Rotating Capital - Alongside the merger for 2 culturally, if you had a Dominion System for the Empire with a rotating capital (i.e. London, Ottowa, Sydney, (Delhi/Bangalore/Calcutta)) could that be close enough to the OP.

3 seems the most likely to me.
 
Alien Space Bats to be honest. The only reason the UK would move its capital overseas was because it could no longer exist in the UK. Even if that happened, it would go to Canada or Australia long before it would go to India.
 
About the only way I could see this working would be if you managed to butterfly OTL's racial theories almost entirely, and have national identity be based upon culture rather than genetics.

Well, a lot of people actually followed that line of thoughts. You read Mouhot (the first European to go to Angkor Wat) for example (yeah he's French but it's in the XIXth century still), extra Europeans are inferior but mostly because of the culture (especially in Asia, haven't read his part in Africa yet so I wouldn't know for blacks)

For example, the cultures that built Angkor were obviously as advanced as the Europeans but they since "slipped" and let themselves go to inferiority. Therefore, with the correct culture, they might step up again
 
Sorry, but if the english are not able to keep England or to keep on ruling India from England, they will lose India because India will revolt successfully.

Countries are not multinational corporations. When corporate cultures are too different, mergers can't work.
 
I actually had an idea about it not too long ago.

The problem is that if England was threatened, they would move to Canada, right? But what if Canada was not a possibility?

I don't know American foreign policy well enough, so it may be a tad ASB, let me know. But what if France and the US team up to fight against the UK? The US attack Canada, forcing the UK to intervene, taking some of the defense potential away from the British Isles. Taking advantage of that, the French attack and invade the UK (at least London) while propping revolts in Catholic Ireland and Quebec.

The government is forced to flee to another part of the Empire. Australia is a barren land full of convicts who might not be too keen on it so they go to the crown jewel of the Empire, India. This forces them to merge culturally as the nababs did during the heydays of the East India Company, adopting the Indian lifestyle while modernising India with better railroads, etc... as it's not just a colony anymore.
 
I can't see the use of having the government flee.

If one loses control of its motherland, this is endgame. If Napoleon, for example, had successfully invaded and defeated Britain, the 10 million british people living in the island would not have taken boats to immigrate I don't know where.

Life must go on. And they would have striven to keep on living in their homeland like any defeated people did elsewhere.

If a government flees, it is quickly replaces by a new government. And it does not come back on its own. How do they reconquer England without a strong army and a strong economic/industrial base ?
 
I actually had an idea about it not too long ago.

The problem is that if England was threatened, they would move to Canada, right? But what if Canada was not a possibility?

I don't know American foreign policy well enough, so it may be a tad ASB, let me know. But what if France and the US team up to fight against the UK? The US attack Canada, forcing the UK to intervene, taking some of the defense potential away from the British Isles. Taking advantage of that, the French attack and invade the UK (at least London) while propping revolts in Catholic Ireland and Quebec.

The government is forced to flee to another part of the Empire. Australia is a barren land full of convicts who might not be too keen on it so they go to the crown jewel of the Empire, India. This forces them to merge culturally as the nababs did during the heydays of the East India Company, adopting the Indian lifestyle while modernising India with better railroads, etc... as it's not just a colony anymore.

Oi mate! In the situation you have put the empire in... Ostraya's the best option. I'm not just saying this cause I am Australian, I'm saying this because India was "uncivilised and culturally seperate from the ruling class of the British Empire", while Australia was "a growing colony, with a large labour source and a culturally British society". India just didn't look like a great option at the time. Maybe a more developed India in the 20th century could compare but even then Australia and even South Africa were far more developed and wealthy.
 
Ah, forgot about South Africa.

Well, it might make sense but they might also be afraid of French attacks since Africa might be more in the French sphere of influence. Oh yeah, the British government hunted down by the French navy and Army across several continents. That does tickle my fancy. (I might be slightly French.)

Sure but isn't Australia a bit far away to where the action is? I mean, it really depends on the POD. To establish that we'd need to see when there could be a combined French/US attack. From there we can see when is the best option.

Before the 1850's (and the revolt), India might be better. After, yeah, Australia.


[EDIT]
If one loses control of its motherland, this is endgame. If Napoleon, for example, had successfully invaded and defeated Britain, the 10 million british people living in the island would not have taken boats to immigrate I don't know where.

Life must go on. And they would have striven to keep on living in their homeland like any defeated people did elsewhere.

If a government flees, it is quickly replaces by a new government. And it does not come back on its own. How do they reconquer England without a strong army and a strong economic/industrial base ?

It's not about all the people, it's about the government relocating :)

And again, I'll point to the France Libre during the Second World War which relocated to the colonies
 
Last edited:
  1. Convince the British to try to Anglicise/Britanicise the Indian population in terms of language culture etc so that there is a significantly reduced chance of rebellion
  2. Have the Indians willing to be anglicised/Britanicised (the relative ease of conquering the Indian states would have reduced the value the British placed on things Indian)
  3. Convince all the Great Powers that Europe was not the centre of Culture and Civilisation.
  4. Make British citizenship obtainable by any subject of the empire.
  5. Make an Empire wide Parliament with representation for all colonies based in India.
Really unlikely to happen, and I've probably missed a large number of difficulties, but as a start I think these are some of the larger issues. Changing the way Europe/europeans view the world and still having a British India seems difficult - Strengthen the Indians to the point that the British respect them and the British will be unlikely to conquer them in the first place.

Point 1 was actually sort of achieved. That is why Britain founded a number of very British styled Colleges and Universities, the Indian Civil Service and the Indian Army Accademy, to mention just a few institutions. To this day many Indian politicians are more comfortable in English than in any Indian language. The mistake after the Mutiny was the over reaction that held up for a long time Indian progression into certain key civil and military posts, and even for a considerable while Officer Grades in the Indian Army.
point 2 was at least achieveable. The early history of Indian resistance to British rule was at least as much about getting jobs in the decision making process of the Empire esp the Indian Civil Service, as it was about independence. This is a common feature in many British (and French) territories.
It is at least possible that a surer footed overnment could have responded less sluggishly to this demand. There were certainly politicians and administrators in London and Dehli who wanted to.
point 4 was partly achieved at the time, but only partly. The first Indian MP was elected (as a Conservative) in the 1890's.
if point 5 ever had been achieved India may well have become centre of the Empire, just on electoral weight.

Of course one way to achieve this Indian dominance would be for Britain to be invaded by germany and resistance aganst the Nazis continue from India, but that is much less plausible than Imperial Federation.
 
Top