Realistically, How Long Can the Raj Last?

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

I'm not posing this question as a fun, "Let's extend the life of the GLORIOUS British Empire!" scenario.

What I genuinely want to know is, how long could British rule in India have gone on if there were no major global conflicts between the great powers between 1900 and the present day? Smaller conflicts are unlikely to be avoided - things like Balkan wars, trouble in the Arab states (rebellion against the Ottomans, primarily), potentially the Tsardom or Austria-Hungary collapsing, and so on - but let's for argument's sake suggest that at the very least the British are not embroiled in some major rough and tumble with their neighbours.

So, in OTL the Raj ended in 1947. Arguments could be made either way, as I see it. I have heard people suggest that the Raj only lasted as long as it did because of the world wars, and the fighting men being brought to Europe and Africa from India. This in turn fostered nationalism in India, which led to independence. Without a major conflict involving the British, would the Raj have lasted longer, or ended sooner?

Could the Raj endure to the present day? In this I don't necessarily mean as part of a British Empire (as the old argument, IMO, stands - it would eventually become an Indian Empire), but in terms of the Windsors retaining the Head of State position in the same way they do in other independent nations, like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. If Queen Liz, as an example, still holds the title Empress of India, that would in my mind count as an enduring Raj (albeit one independent from Britain, just with a British monarch).

 

[Joshua Ben Ari]

Assuming both World Wars are butterflied away, the British Raj could theoretically last into the modern day (though I imagine that the British would have handed over control to the Indians by the 1970s) with the British royals as the Emperors of India.

However, if we assume that both World Wars happen on schedule, I can't see British rule lasting longer than the 1950s*. If Lord Mountbatten had given a later date (he admitted he made it up on the spot), British rule could have lasted longer. However, Britain was also bankrupt from the Second World War and wouldn't have been able to hold India for much longer.

If the Government of India Act had pushed for an actual Federation of India (likely the Government of India Act 1935, with full effect by 1938), you could see British rule last into the 1960s before transitioning into a Dominion-style country like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

*direct British rule, I mean.

 

[trurle]

Could the Raj endure to the present day? In this I don't necessarily mean as part of a British Empire (as the old argument, IMO, stands - it would eventually become an Indian Empire), but in terms of the Windsors retaining the Head of State position in the same way they do in other independent nations, like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. If Queen Liz, as an example, still holds the title Empress of India, that would in my mind count as an enduring Raj (albeit one independent from Britain, just with a British monarch).

Most likely yes. Of course, survival of British Raj would require no WWI and WWII as you properly noted. The political autonomy of Raj will be nearly complete after 2000 though. Also, the political landscape would be very different from OTL - most likely no Soviet Union and European union in existence. Finally, Middle East fracturing on lines completely different from OTL.

 

[Khanzeer]

WI british behaved like mughals in the sense they took indian wives had mixed kids that ruled after them ?
The. We have a ruling elite of a few hundred thousand mixed people in 100 yrs and then britush rule can extend for s very long time

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

What ever happened I can't see British rule in India lasting beyond the 1950's. Rising levels of educated professionals and the ability of radio, television and cinema to transmit ideas would make it impossible to stem the growing demands for independence. 100,000 British cannot rule over 500,000,000 Indians if the Indians don't cooperate.

 

[haider najib]

WI british behaved like mughals in the sense they took indian wives had mixed kids that ruled after them ?
The. We have a ruling elite of a few hundred thousand mixed people in 100 yrs and then britush rule can extend for s very long time

So apartheid? No there still a colonial power. Also there most likely just going to be christians ruling over muslims, hindus and sikhs you would then have a more religious conflict.

Also britian would never do that as indians are not there equal. Also why hundred thousand india is in the hundreds of millions thats makes no difference what so ever.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

The impact of a Labour Government on the Raj in a no-WWI scenario is an interesting thought.

 

[sarahz]

WI british behaved like mughals in the sense they took indian wives had mixed kids that ruled after them ?
The. We have a ruling elite of a few hundred thousand mixed people in 100 yrs and then britush rule can extend for s very long time

Not impossible IF the Indian Mutiny did not happen.

 

[sarahz]

The impact of a Labour Government on the Raj in a no-WWI scenario is an interesting thought.

Without the first world war would there have been a Labour Government?

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Without the first world war would there have been a Labour Government?

IMHO, there will always be a point where it becomes impossible for there not to be. OTL, as the working class became more and more politically motivated, there was always going to be a point where they realised the Tories and the Liberals didn’t truly represent their interests.

 

[sarahz]

So apartheid? No there still a colonial power. Also there most likely just going to be christians ruling over muslims, hindus and sikhs you would then have a more religious conflict.

Also britian would never do that as indians are not there equal. Also why hundred thousand india is in the hundreds of millions thats makes no difference what so ever.

Actually it does not follow that this would mean Apartheid, it could simply have meant a bigger Anglo-Indian Community (which by the way did exist so some British people did marry Indians just not the elite or at least not in the numbers of the early days prior to 1857) India also of course had many egs of Muslims ruling over a .largely non Muslim population so I don't see that a Christian government would automatically fail. In the Indian context having a larger number of people of an Indian background, in the ICS is crucial and these posts do indeed number in the thousands rather than the millions so frankly a hundred thousand people in the right place do matter.
However keeping this to Anglo-Indians would not be wise in anything but the very short term as it was access to these posts and elite education rather than full independence, which were the initial demands of the Indian middle and upper classes if these had bee welcomed it would have helped smooth a path to Dominion status.

 

[sarahz]

IMHO, there will always be a point where it becomes impossible for there not to be. OTL, as the working class became more and more politically motivated, there was always going to be a point where they realised the Tories and the Liberals didn’t truly represent their interests.

really then I suppose that the country of Canada does not exist, nothing in politics is ever inevitable until it happens. OTL it was the Liberal Party split that gave Labour its chance in the UK, similarly the Speakers Conference narrowly did not result in electoral reform which would have changed matters unpredictably and it may well have happened if the Liberals had power longer, or might not have done. No-one knows. thirdly few people would consider the policies of Ramsey Mcdonald or Philip Snowden to in any sense represent the interests of the working class. Certainly the 1929 Liberal Manifesto for eg was rather more in the interests of workers, (and everyone else) Again nothing is fixed until it happens and without WW1 the United Kingdom would have been a different place.

 

[The Ranger]

To rule past 1950 the World Wars would need to be avoided, and the British would need to co-opt certain groups and in effect co-rule with them and make them fear that independence will lead to their ruin. Give them the land of other Indians who will at the least want it back and at worst want bloodthirsty revenge if the British ever leave. Have Gandhi quietly murdered on the quiet, perhaps poisoned.

 

[Khanzeer]

Not impossible IF the Indian Mutiny did not happen.

Rather mutiny was partly a consequence of British attitudes to natives by 1857

 

[sarahz]

Rather mutiny was partly a consequence of British attitudes to natives by 1857

in some ways . However it is incontestable that the result is that a bigger gap was opened up for EG Indians ceased to be commissioned as Officers, and more personnel were sourced from the home counties with the narrow mind sets that came with them.

 

[Blorg]

WI british behaved like mughals in the sense they took indian wives had mixed kids that ruled after them ?
The. We have a ruling elite of a few hundred thousand mixed people in 100 yrs and then britush rule can extend for s very long time

You would like The two georges

 

[Khanzeer]

So apartheid? No there still a colonial power. Also there most likely just going to be christians ruling over muslims, hindus and sikhs you would then have a more religious conflict.

Also britian would never do that as indians are not there equal. Also why hundred thousand india is in the hundreds of millions thats makes no difference what so ever.

Yes apatheid is not limited to South africa, caste system of hindus is a form of aparthied , so was the system of muslim ruling classes of turks , afghans and persians

nothing that the indians are not used to and likely far more humane

 

[Tjakari]

Yes apatheid is not limited to South africa, caste system of hindus is a form of aparthied , so was the system of muslim ruling classes of turks , afghans and persians

nothing that the indians are not used to and likely far more humane

Don't do apologetics for colonial racism. Assuming anything that divides and abuses people is "humane", is a losing bet.

 

[haider najib]

Yes apatheid is not limited to South africa, caste system of hindus is a form of aparthied , so was the system of muslim ruling classes of turks , afghans and persians

nothing that the indians are not used to and likely far more humane

Are you serious?

Britain enforced the caste system they exploited it. So apartheid is more humane for india than indians ruling themselves?

Seriously you think some white supremacy and european oppression was the more the humane thing for india? First you suggest having the colonist breed there way to victory creating a loyal class and to then suppress the natives. This sounds like some next level colonialism and imperialism being said here.

 

[Marc]

With no World Wars you have to postulate a vastly different group set of choices - if not ASB, then very close to the defination.

So, it's empirically (pun semi-intended) nearly impossible to really extrapolate how long the Raj could last. But knowing people from that era - regardless, the days of the British were clearly quite limited.