Unitary Empire (no Commonwealth/Federation), but no longer British?

Teleology

Banned
People occasionally talk about the British Empire possibly surviving if it turn into an imperial federation, which inevitably provokes remarks over just how democratic or representative the Federation could become without no longer being British (as well as arguments over just how enlightened or not the British Empire was).

I posit a different possibility, what if the British Empire remained an undemocratic hierarchical empire, but gradually stopped being British?

What I mean is a unitary imperial state, but one where the best and brightest from all over the empire, of all races, are recruited into the hierarchy. Gradually there being as many Indian and African generals and administrators as British ones.

Any thoughts or suggestions on timelines that express this possibility?
 
Its an interesting proposition, but unfortunately it has a few problems. First and foremost (and the reason I find those unitary Commonwealth TLs unlikely) is that the troubles of modern Arica and India weren't caused by decolonisation-they were caused by pre-existing rivalries between various tribes and religions, rivalries which were, in some places, as old as civilization itself. Colonisation took the problems and took them up to eleven, with the "straight line" thing throwing those warring factions in the same colonies/states, giving them horribly powerful weapons, and puttig them under racist administrators who treated them as savages and totally desroyed their traditional ways of life. In Africa, the lines were left as they were, causing...problems (see: Rwanda), while in India a partition that satisfied no-one just killed more people.

On top of this is the ridiculously huge population of the Raj (and thats assuming the Raj can hold together-the Hindus were quite militarised by the 20s, and the Muslims were beginning to worry about how militarised he Hindus were, with the first partition proposal was in 1929 IIRC)-and a further partition of the subcontinent would be a bloodbath that would make OTL look like a picnic. Now don't get me wrong, I'm something of an Indophile myself, but here we run into another problem. The British Empire was less than 200 years old outside of North America, while their rule in Africa only lasted about 60 years-it was a union of a bunch of states and ethnicities scattered all around he world with no historical depth at all, that previously a) had never heard of each other or b) always were trying to kill each other. But I digress-a "Dominion of India" would, especially due to the likely fractured nature of the Imperial Parliament, utterly dominate your Empire. But why, when given the chance, would the Africans repudiate independance in favor of staying in a union founded by the people who destroyed their way of life and dominated by Indians and other people they've never heard of? There's just no motivation for people, even elites, to stay in, unless its an organization with a UN level of unificaion...which is basically OTL.
 
I've rumbled the idea a couple of times in my head about something bad befalling the British Isles -- ranging from ASB Martian invasion in 1898 to a successful Sea Lion -- which leads the rest of the Empire to reject their rule but still hang together, and establish a new capital (in Ceylon, say).

Just a thought.
 

Teleology

Banned
Its an interesting proposition, but unfortunately it has a few problems. First and foremost (and the reason I find those unitary Commonwealth TLs unlikely) is that the troubles of modern Arica and India weren't caused by decolonisation-they were caused by pre-existing rivalries between various tribes and religions, rivalries which were, in some places, as old as civilization itself. Colonisation took the problems and took them up to eleven, with the "straight line" thing throwing those warring factions in the same colonies/states, giving them horribly powerful weapons, and puttig them under racist administrators who treated them as savages and totally desroyed their traditional ways of life. In Africa, the lines were left as they were, causing...problems (see: Rwanda), while in India a partition that satisfied no-one just killed more people.

On top of this is the ridiculously huge population of the Raj (and thats assuming the Raj can hold together-the Hindus were quite militarised by the 20s, and the Muslims were beginning to worry about how militarised he Hindus were, with the first partition proposal was in 1929 IIRC)-and a further partition of the subcontinent would be a bloodbath that would make OTL look like a picnic. Now don't get me wrong, I'm something of an Indophile myself, but here we run into another problem. The British Empire was less than 200 years old outside of North America, while their rule in Africa only lasted about 60 years-it was a union of a bunch of states and ethnicities scattered all around he world with no historical depth at all, that previously a) had never heard of each other or b) always were trying to kill each other. But I digress-a "Dominion of India" would, especially due to the likely fractured nature of the Imperial Parliament, utterly dominate your Empire. But why, when given the chance, would the Africans repudiate independance in favor of staying in a union founded by the people who destroyed their way of life and dominated by Indians and other people they've never heard of? There's just no motivation for people, even elites, to stay in, unless its an organization with a UN level of unificaion...which is basically OTL.

But by your own admission, Indians would be too divided to dominate. That's because this isn't me just calling a Commonwealth or Federation an empire. It's an empire! It's unitary.

What that means is there is no Indian Parliament nor a Commonwealth Parliament, it's just that in the CENTRAL GOVERNMENT that runs the whole damn empire, there happen to be a lot of Indians. But the only thing they're likely to have in common with one another is their training, education, and experience in the Imperial hierarchy, which they'd also have in common with Englishman and others.

And this idea has nothing to do with an Empire without Britain, though that's an interesting idea JFP.


And there are definitely ways for a unitary empire to get around local grievances. Do as the Ottomans did. If the Hindus and Muslims aren't getting along in India, you obviously don't put either in charge as the local constabulary. You put an African there, and put a Hindu in Africa.


Basically, the idea is that a less democratic system might actually be more stable if it valued it's existence above English people/culture.

A British empire that took everyone and anyone in and stamped Britishness into them and created this conglomerated British identity, a non-representative hierarchy that controls things technocratically...
 
Last edited:
And there are definitely ways for a unitary empire to get around local grievances. Do as the Ottomans did. If the Hindus and Muslims aren't getting along in India, you obviously don't put either in charge as the local constabulary. You put an African there, and put a Hindu in Africa.


Basically, the idea is that a less democratic system might actually be more stable if it valued it's existence above English people/culture.

A British empire that took everyone and anyone in and stamped Britishness into them and created this conglomerated British identity, a non-representative hierarchy that controls things technocratically...

As I'm sure AHP can elaborate on, the administration of the Ottoman Empire was only approximately Turkish.
I'm imagining exams being administered across this British Empire and even the sons of peasants or at least yeoman farmers and small merchants being taken off to Eton, forced to shed their names and worship in the established church (except the Scots of course) and after Oxbridge, posted to a section of the Empire where they have no ties of blood or culture, a breed of men loyal only to his/her Majesty. 'Twould be brutal but it just might work.
 
Top