Question?: No Indian Mutiny: How long can the East India Company rule India?

Just what it says. Without the Indian Mutiny to bring it's rule to an end, how long Does the British East India Company continue to rule the Subcontinent?
 
Well, they didn't really rule it before the Mutiny.

Technically, it was ruled by either the Mogul Emperor or by sovereign princes. The HEIC only collected the revenues.

In reality, the appearance of rule was through John Company. But ever since Pitt's Act the reality of rule had been in the British Parliament.

How long , barring Mutiny , could the Hon company maintain a façade of control? Probably quite a long time. The Brits were never keen to abolish anything just because it was long irrelevant. So, it might still be there , in name, until Independence. Whenever that might be.

ObWI: A more interesting question, is what the effect would be on the Independent Princes of no Mutiny. Particularly the Marathas.
 
Well, they didn't really rule it before the Mutiny.

Technically, it was ruled by either the Mogul Emperor or by sovereign princes. The HEIC only collected the revenues.

In reality, the appearance of rule was through John Company. But ever since Pitt's Act the reality of rule had been in the British Parliament.

How long , barring Mutiny , could the Hon company maintain a façade of control? Probably quite a long time. The Brits were never keen to abolish anything just because it was long irrelevant. So, it might still be there , in name, until Independence. Whenever that might be.

ObWI: A more interesting question, is what the effect would be on the Independent Princes of no Mutiny. Particularly the Marathas.

Apologies for my foolishness, but you get the general idea ;). And yes, that is an interesting question.
 
In South India, nothing much changes. In North India, however, the underlying tensions are still present (evangelical tendencies of EIC officers, Doctrine of Lapse, heavy taxation) and the Mughal puppet-Emperor still exists to provide a rallying symbol of sorts.
 
Yes. if the House of Babur *should* happen, somehow, to throw up another Akhbar, things could get VERY sticky.

We must bear in mind that the Mutiny itself was merely the expression of an awful lot of festering resentment and rebelliousness . That unhappiness would have to be vented somehow, somewhen.

Southern India was less anti , mainly because it was more Princely.
 
How long , barring Mutiny , could the Hon company maintain a façade of control? Probably quite a long time. The Brits were never keen to abolish anything just because it was long irrelevant. So, it might still be there , in name, until Independence. Whenever that might be.
I like the idea of there being an East India Company range of department stores. À la Hudson's Bay.
 
Top