Ramp, the ‘where de white wimmin at’ thing is offensive, beneath you and wrong.
Intermarriage was not a societal problem in WW1 for Britain (or France particularly), British Indian (if muslim) or French muslim troops and there is considerable evidence to support that. Equally the level of interracial marriage in the UK between residents and the very large number of sailors from non white backgrounds particularly South Asian is steady and rises after WW1. In fact its been steady and infrequently commented factor in British life since at least 1800.
The main reasons for not using more Indian troops in Europe in WW1 were:
High number of (British) officer casualties and inability to replace them with qualified Brit officers (language and cultural skills)
Poor equipment - No organic artillery (only had SMLE issued in France as well).
Climate problems mainly the wet I would imagine.
Fighting closer to home as Steve says.
It might be slightly anachronistic but earlier some Indian troops had religious issues travelling overseas (literally).
None of which affected the recruitment of 300,000 (Brit and French) Egyptians Chinese, Africans and Indians in labour corps during WW1 of which 50,000 Indian. Not sure whether these guys are the same as the Indians that served in British divisional ammunition columns throughout the war but they certainly were employed on front line fortifications.
All of those are persistent problems into WW2 but all rectifiable.
Calling India a colony is missing the point. British India, had its own League of Nations seat and Olympic Team for example. The Government of India Act 1935 with minor text changes is the constitution of the Dominions of India & Pakistan in 47 so that should give you a flavour of the relationship the UK was working with, though practically the 1919 Act remained in force in many areas. The UK/India relationship is one where the UK either has to pay for things or negotiate to get consent albeit the UK owns the printing press so can always print the Sterling.
The 35 act also separates Burma and the Gulf from India but I expect in TTL there would be a negotiation to allow either very favourable rates or something else as it makes obvious sense to the Govt of India to have Indian army troops fighting in Burma/Malaya not India and the purpose was (rather like the Aussie militia thing) to prevent Indian troops being used on Imperial missions without Indian consent. For example the terms of enlistment for new troops could be hostilities only in a defined area.
The merging of the Burma and Malaya fronts would economise on troops and while I can see some UK divisions, maybe African, being withdrawn I think that’s less likely for Indian Army troops (and 1/3 of the infantry are brits in those.) but possible for selected formations, Ghurkhas are on different terms of service to the rest of the Indian Army. As time progresses and I think this means late 43 (maybe), 44 on I could see entirely Indian and Indian Officered (KCIO/IO) formations of at least Brigade size. OTL this was at the very end of the war and immediately post war but actively pushing for this now makes it more likely and that could be one of the negotiating points allowing for deployment of Indian Army formations out of area. Think ANZAC in WW1.
Intermarriage was not a societal problem in WW1 for Britain (or France particularly), British Indian (if muslim) or French muslim troops and there is considerable evidence to support that. Equally the level of interracial marriage in the UK between residents and the very large number of sailors from non white backgrounds particularly South Asian is steady and rises after WW1. In fact its been steady and infrequently commented factor in British life since at least 1800.
The main reasons for not using more Indian troops in Europe in WW1 were:
High number of (British) officer casualties and inability to replace them with qualified Brit officers (language and cultural skills)
Poor equipment - No organic artillery (only had SMLE issued in France as well).
Climate problems mainly the wet I would imagine.
Fighting closer to home as Steve says.
It might be slightly anachronistic but earlier some Indian troops had religious issues travelling overseas (literally).
None of which affected the recruitment of 300,000 (Brit and French) Egyptians Chinese, Africans and Indians in labour corps during WW1 of which 50,000 Indian. Not sure whether these guys are the same as the Indians that served in British divisional ammunition columns throughout the war but they certainly were employed on front line fortifications.
All of those are persistent problems into WW2 but all rectifiable.
Calling India a colony is missing the point. British India, had its own League of Nations seat and Olympic Team for example. The Government of India Act 1935 with minor text changes is the constitution of the Dominions of India & Pakistan in 47 so that should give you a flavour of the relationship the UK was working with, though practically the 1919 Act remained in force in many areas. The UK/India relationship is one where the UK either has to pay for things or negotiate to get consent albeit the UK owns the printing press so can always print the Sterling.
The 35 act also separates Burma and the Gulf from India but I expect in TTL there would be a negotiation to allow either very favourable rates or something else as it makes obvious sense to the Govt of India to have Indian army troops fighting in Burma/Malaya not India and the purpose was (rather like the Aussie militia thing) to prevent Indian troops being used on Imperial missions without Indian consent. For example the terms of enlistment for new troops could be hostilities only in a defined area.
The merging of the Burma and Malaya fronts would economise on troops and while I can see some UK divisions, maybe African, being withdrawn I think that’s less likely for Indian Army troops (and 1/3 of the infantry are brits in those.) but possible for selected formations, Ghurkhas are on different terms of service to the rest of the Indian Army. As time progresses and I think this means late 43 (maybe), 44 on I could see entirely Indian and Indian Officered (KCIO/IO) formations of at least Brigade size. OTL this was at the very end of the war and immediately post war but actively pushing for this now makes it more likely and that could be one of the negotiating points allowing for deployment of Indian Army formations out of area. Think ANZAC in WW1.