The Fascist Republic of India: An alternate history of Independent India

90,000? Just how many people Lhasa had at the time?
With casualties that many, I wonder if enough people will feel incensed enough to stage a rebellion in the future, but with the presence of Indian military bases there I doubt there would be much of a fuss.
 
90,000? Just how many people Lhasa had at the time?
With casualties that many, I wonder if enough people will feel incensed enough to stage a rebellion in the future, but with the presence of Indian military bases there I doubt there would be much of a fuss.
When I was researching this I accidentally confused Tibet's 1.2 million population in 1951 as Lhasa's. Lhasa was 25,000 in 1951.
My mistake. I will correct it.
 
Wait did India annex Tibet and Burma ? I pretty sure India or Bose claimed neither, only the British Raj itself. Which is why even when Burma was occupied by Japan, it was considered separate from British India and was treated as such by allies and axis alike
 
Wait did India annex Tibet and Burma ? I pretty sure India or Bose claimed neither, only the British Raj itself. Which is why even when Burma was occupied by Japan, it was considered separate from British India and was treated as such by allies and axis alike
He has not annexed Burma yet, only replaced the Japanese troops with his. It is de facto a part of India but still under Japanese occupation in name. Burma only became a separate British colony in 1937 and before that it was a province of the British Raj. Bose may have disregard for British policy but he wants Independent India to wield the same geopolitical influence as the British Raj, only this time under a native government. That is the reason for Tibet as well.
Partially, for Tibet, the motivation comes from the anticipation of a future conflict with the KMT and partially it being simply the good old fashioned subjugation of a weaker kingdom.
 
He has not annexed Burma yet, only replaced the Japanese troops with his. It is de facto a part of India but still under Japanese occupation in name. Burma only became a separate British colony in 1937 and before that it was a province of the British Raj. Bose may have disregard for British policy but he wants Independent India to wield the same geopolitical influence as the British Raj, only this time under a native government. That is the reason for Tibet as well.
Partially, for Tibet, the motivation comes from the anticipation of a future conflict with the KMT and partially it being simply the good old fashioned subjugation of a weaker kingdom.
Well that makes sense, though I do not think it would be feasible for India to hold onto Burma due to its own separate nationalism and revolts that would occur
And Tibet would most likely go to China, which would have the massive geographic advantage to take over it which it will once the civil war ends. Perhaps it would be a setback for Bose as he loses both Tibet and Burma later on
 
Well that makes sense, though I do not think it would be feasible for India to hold onto Burma due to its own separate nationalism and revolts that would occur
And Tibet would most likely go to China, which would have the massive geographic advantage to take over it which it will once the civil war ends. Perhaps it would be a setback for Bose as he loses both Tibet and Burma later on
No Tibet belongs to whomever is in the defensive position. A part of why INA otl was defeated was that they were the aggressors and China had already occupied much of Tibet. If India occupies Tibet first, China is in no position to take it.
 
I think it is not possible to hold on Burma. Maybe a allied Nation rather than being annexed better option. Same in case of Tibet. Better use soft economic power rather than annexation.
 
I think it is not possible to hold on Burma. Maybe a allied Nation rather than being annexed better option. Same in case of Tibet. Better use soft economic power rather than annexation.
Agreed.

It may be realistic that the Bose government would try to annex them, but if it happens, it would be a major blunder leading to long-standing conflict, rebellion and hatred... and that would turn those regions (especially Burma which is more populated) into problems for India.
 
I think it is not possible to hold on Burma. Maybe a allied Nation rather than being annexed better option. Same in case of Tibet. Better use soft economic power rather than annexation.
Agreed on that, Tibet would most likely be a neutral zone that is dependent on India while Burma just becomes independent. India cannot really hold on to these Countries without major exhaustion
 
Well that makes sense, though I do not think it would be feasible for India to hold onto Burma due to its own separate nationalism and revolts that would occur
And Tibet would most likely go to China, which would have the massive geographic advantage to take over it which it will once the civil war ends. Perhaps it would be a setback for Bose as he loses both Tibet and Burma later on
No Tibet belongs to whomever is in the defensive position. A part of why INA otl was defeated was that they were the aggressors and China had already occupied much of Tibet. If India occupies Tibet first, China is in no position to take it.
I think it is not possible to hold on Burma. Maybe a allied Nation rather than being annexed better option. Same in case of Tibet. Better use soft economic power rather than annexation.
Agreed.

It may be realistic that the Bose government would try to annex them, but if it happens, it would be a major blunder leading to long-standing conflict, rebellion and hatred... and that would turn those regions (especially Burma which is more populated) into problems for India.
Agreed on that, Tibet would most likely be a neutral zone that is dependent on India while Burma just becomes independent. India cannot really hold on to these Countries without major exhaustion
There is a certain scenario for Tibet here that just as the Russians will give Manchuria to Mao, Bose might give Tibet to the CCP for a certain price and retain some territory.
Regarding revolts in Burma, that is certainly a possibility but the Indian diaspora was quite prominent there before the war and now there is only going to be larger influx. Gandhi might try to persuade any potential Burmese separatist movement to abandon their cause and cast their lot with India. And they would agree sensing that the British might come back for Burma(since they cannot retake India) and the only ones who can defend them are Indians. Being an indian province might have better prospects than being independent.
While it may not be retainable as a whole, Bose will definitely takeover its coastal areas to establish Indian naval bases and ensure no enemy bases come up close to Indian territory.
 
I think it is far better option to give power to local strong man there. Bose have good relationship with Ba Maw so he can use him and local indians to create independent Burma without annexation. Better use soft power there rather than create a burmise ulcer. In case of Tibet he can use nobles and soft power as well.
 
There is a certain scenario for Tibet here that just as the Russians will give Manchuria to Mao, Bose might give Tibet to the CCP for a certain price and retain some territory.
Regarding revolts in Burma, that is certainly a possibility but the Indian diaspora was quite prominent there before the war and now there is only going to be larger influx. Gandhi might try to persuade any potential Burmese separatist movement to abandon their cause and cast their lot with India. And they would agree sensing that the British might come back for Burma(since they cannot retake India) and the only ones who can defend them are Indians. Being an indian province might have better prospects than being independent.
While it may not be retainable as a whole, Bose will definitely takeover its coastal areas to establish Indian naval bases and ensure no enemy bases come up close to Indian territory.
Hmm, makes sense. By coastal regions do you mean Arakan, Tenassirim and Chin regions?
 
There is a certain scenario for Tibet here that just as the Russians will give Manchuria to Mao, Bose might give Tibet to the CCP for a certain price and retain some territory.
Regarding revolts in Burma, that is certainly a possibility but the Indian diaspora was quite prominent there before the war and now there is only going to be larger influx. Gandhi might try to persuade any potential Burmese separatist movement to abandon their cause and cast their lot with India. And they would agree sensing that the British might come back for Burma(since they cannot retake India) and the only ones who can defend them are Indians. Being an indian province might have better prospects than being independent.
While it may not be retainable as a whole, Bose will definitely takeover its coastal areas to establish Indian naval bases and ensure no enemy bases come up close to Indian territory.
Yeah the latter part seems likely, especially with taking Chin and Rakine State along with Naga areas and some other coastal areas in Burma would be suffice as Burmese Nationalism would be too much for India to handle but parts of Myanmar would be easily controllable
 
Yeah the latter part seems likely, especially with taking Chin and Rakine State along with Naga areas and some other coastal areas in Burma would be suffice as Burmese Nationalism would be too much for India to handle but parts of Myanmar would be easily controllable
That is possible
 
Geographical Tibet is a no go . Burma is more likely.
There is a certain scenario for Tibet here that just as the Russians will give Manchuria to Mao, Bose might give Tibet to the CCP for a certain price and retain some territory.
India already has all it's territorial claims from China at this point. Only thing I can see would be the settlement of CCP claims in favor India.
 
I'd like to see where this is going. I wonder if this Indian independence movement would also inspire other Asian countries to declare independence if they're still under a colonial power. I could also see representatives from India helping with the global decolonization movement.
 
He has not annexed Burma yet, only replaced the Japanese troops with his. It is de facto a part of India but still under Japanese occupation in name. Burma only became a separate British colony in 1937 and before that it was a province of the British Raj. Bose may have disregard for British policy but he wants Independent India to wield the same geopolitical influence as the British Raj, only this time under a native government. That is the reason for Tibet as well.
Partially, for Tibet, the motivation comes from the anticipation of a future conflict with the KMT and partially it being simply the good old fashioned subjugation of a weaker kingdom.
Well I can understand the Tibet example but why Burma?
Burma is an independent state inside the Co-prosperity Sphere with Ba Maw heading it. Annexing it would be a betraying the Japanese. With so many states already crazy would the Japanese now alternate the creation of Vietnam, Luang Prabang and Kampuchea which were created towards the end of the war from French Indochina. Is the independence of Indonesia likely too? If all the states are made independent then we get a free Asia by the end of the war.

Is Shaukat tasked with bringing about a compromise between the ICP and the State of Vietnam? In the future they can in a united front beat the French or at least prevent them from restoring control over Indochina. Indonesia being given independence allows it too build an army, as the be British would be focused on India the Dutch cannot intervene until 1946, greatly strengthening the Indonesian position, leading to a shorter war of independence than OTL. With most of Asia being former members of the Co-prosperity Sphere it will give India immense influence in Asia. What does Bose plan for the Republic of China, a person like him is unlikely to wish for a permanent enemy?

Why did Bose call for Jamshedji Tata for aircraft manufacturing while Mr. Walchand Hirachand would have been more appropriate as he founded Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, (Scindia Shipyard Ltd., later after nationalisation renamed)Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. and Premier Automobiles Ltd.(which isn't done yet ITTL) so he is the more appropriate person to contact. How would the Government justify giving Tata the management of government entities and not others. Isn't it playing favorites? (But you have made Bose into a man who threatens others with rape of their families so...)

Seeing the Japanese loose out slowly in the Pacific how does India plan to chat is future in the post war world?
 
Top