I like how Indigenous Rights in the Empire is getting some attention almost by accident.
I like how Indigenous Rights in the Empire is getting some attention almost by accident.
Interesting that the Republicans hold on for another term here - however I'd say it's only a matter of time before the Democrats win, many elections in this era were very close after all.
Will be interesting to see what comes out of the next Imperial Conference in a few years.
Is the division of Africa more or less along the same lines as OTL?
There was very little about NZ in the last version. Remedied now.
Interesting.
Don't be silly. Australia doesn't exist. We're all paid actors working for the Illuminati to trick you into getting a microchip planted under your skin. Everyone knows that.Still haven't addressed the under representation of Australia this time round. Must fix that.
Don't be silly. Australia doesn't exist. We're all paid actors working for the Illuminati to trick you into getting a microchip planted under your skin. Everyone knows that.
One option (honestly most plausible to me) is some sort of a "dual" Anglo-Indian empire. This timeline shows it quite nicely.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...nts-dreams-aloft-an-eastern-sea.490668/page-6
This seems the best way to keep it truly on the same course. Both sides then have a lot of strenghts to keep them balanced but also see the advantage to keep this symbiotic relationship.
End result will be similar in terms of Imperial Parliament seats, but power sharing will be there from the start and negate "what use is an empire if we are not running it" aspect.
I'm wondering if having India be some kind of sub-federation would help? Each province is represented separately in the Imperial institutions, parliament etc., but India also has a system of regional coordination and so forth.
@Miss Construction
Guess you will have to play to grassroots sentiments.If the populations are against India,then there’s little that civil servants can do about it. The rulers of feudal states may also help.
I also think it’s worthwhile to appeal to career politicians who have no hope of becoming all powerful in a large country, but would become heads of their own states if their own provinces are dominions.I'm working on it now. I think the key is to bring Indians into the actual administration of India sooner.
I also think it’s worthwhile to appeal to career politicians who have no hope of becoming all powerful in a large country, but would become heads of their own states if their own provinces are dominions.
I don't know why but people across the board believe that it is easy to split India(or rather any historical even OTL is shown as highly likely) and in most maps for some reason or another they split India in ways that makes no sense at all. Splitting India was an insanely difficult task which the Muslim League achieved(not the British policy of divide and rule{the Muslim League was an idea to weaken the nationalism among the Bengalis, in which it failed and it remained an upperclass Muslim organization without mass support untill a grand stroke of luck in the 1940s when the Congress was destroyed by the British in 1942 and it ran wild. It was anti British too but their methods were different as they did not enjoy the mass popularity of Congress}, the British till the end tried to bring about a compromise to prevent the partition) with a gread of luck and many small PoDs could have derailed the partition. Nationalism would rise with education and since the 1870s national consciousness was growing at an accelerated pace. Ilbert bill even with its modification is still racist. The government has to still resist itself from bringing the Arms Act(although people forgot about it, it was very important issue at the time) and the Vernacular Press Act. Keeping promises like holding the Indian Civil Services Examination in India(it is wierd that you think Civil Services was the goal of the early nationalists, Civil Services was part of a wider more important set of goals encompassing equality, basic rights and the freedom of the press) would all if kept only give marginal returns as national consciousness would lead to people demanding more and more till it becomes impossible for the British to swallow. Irrespective of the fact that the British prided themselves on uniting India, as soon as national consciousness grows splitting India would result in bloodshed of unimaginable proportions. Just splitting two provinces gave you the largest refugee crisis in history now one can only imagine creating 30 states. As for princely states, they are bound to die as they were often hated by their populace more than people resented the British in general and it was the British who artificially propped them up. So if you want to split India do so in the 1870s where it would go largely unopposed. If you do so when nationalism rises then you only get bloodbath. English education wouldn't be a cure that would eat away nationalism it was ironically English education that have the people a lingua France and connected them and have rise to the spread of nationalism before it caught on with the masses in the 1900s. If you don't cute the racism of the British, which was immense( fixing boards outside properties stating dogs and Indians are not allowed, kicking Indians out of first class in other colonies despite valid tickets and abusing Indians in First class if not dressed like Europeans). By splitting their country while keeping the others united for fulfilling the British dream of a superstate it only serves to show that Indians are still second class citizens whose wishes don't matter and their country is arbitrarily chopped up so that some one else can create a new country. Despite everything even if Britannia rules 25% of the global population the India's are gonna dominate it as united India comprises 18%+ of global population so now would making every county sized unit a dominion become a goal? If you think that the British Raj was a lean mean administration then you are also wrong. Only the army and the police were efficient. The administration was a house of cards that seemed incredibly strong but any threat to it led to it collapsing away. During the Second World War the rumor of Japanese ships near Madras led to the collapse of the Madras administration for weeks due to a haphazard withdrawal, Assam was virtually under military rule along with great many departments pan India falling under military supervision. The Indian adminstration was ill equipped to deal with anything more than tribes coming in from Afghanistan without having to hide behind the army. I don't know how can one call an administration that created famines worse than holodomor, led to widespread dissatisfaction in the populace to be efficient. Efficient to maintain a forceful occupation yes, efficient in its main purpose of ruling Hell no!It's the second issue which is the tricky one. You very simply can not bring India in as a single Dominion. The British and the European Dominions will be terrified of being swamped in their own Empire by sheer weight of numbers. And they'd very probably be right. So you have to break it up into multiple Dominions. In the third iteration I went with seven. This time I'm going for more, possibly as many as thirty. That's the nine provinces under direct British rule plus the 21 Princely States which maintained their own governments. The other 524 Princely States will be incorporated into a former province. Not only does this further dilute the menace of Indian numbers, it actually seems a more natural and realistic way they'd go about it than the artificially created seven I used last time. The administrative structures are already well established and probably easier to get the Indians to accept it as well because they're familiar with it.
I don't know why but people across the board believe that it is easy to split India(or rather any historical even OTL is shown as highly likely) and in most maps for some reason or another they split India in ways that makes no sense at all. Splitting India was an insanely difficult task which the Muslim League achieved(not the British policy of divide and rule{the Muslim League was an idea to weaken the nationalism among the Bengalis, in which it failed and it remained an upperclass Muslim organization without mass support untill a grand stroke of luck in the 1940s when the Congress was destroyed by the British in 1942 and it ran wild. It was anti British too but their methods were different as they did not enjoy the mass popularity of Congress}, the British till the end tried to bring about a compromise to prevent the partition) with a gread of luck and many small PoDs could have derailed the partition. Nationalism would rise with education and since the 1870s national consciousness was growing at an accelerated pace. Ilbert bill even with its modification is still racist. The government has to still resist itself from bringing the Arms Act(although people forgot about it, it was very important issue at the time) and the Vernacular Press Act. Keeping promises like holding the Indian Civil Services Examination in India(it is wierd that you think Civil Services was the goal of the early nationalists, Civil Services was part of a wider more important set of goals encompassing equality, basic rights and the freedom of the press) would all if kept only give marginal returns as national consciousness would lead to people demanding more and more till it becomes impossible for the British to swallow. Irrespective of the fact that the British prided themselves on uniting India, as soon as national consciousness grows splitting India would result in bloodshed of unimaginable proportions. Just splitting two provinces gave you the largest refugee crisis in history now one can only imagine creating 30 states. As for princely states, they are bound to die as they were often hated by their populace more than people resented the British in general and it was the British who artificially propped them up. So if you want to split India do so in the 1870s where it would go largely unopposed. If you do so when nationalism rises then you only get bloodbath. English education wouldn't be a cure that would eat away nationalism it was ironically English education that have the people a lingua France and connected them and have rise to the spread of nationalism before it caught on with the masses in the 1900s. If you don't cute the racism of the British, which was immense( fixing boards outside properties stating dogs and Indians are not allowed, kicking Indians out of first class in other colonies despite valid tickets and abusing Indians in First class if not dressed like Europeans). By splitting their country while keeping the others united for fulfilling the British dream of a superstate it only serves to show that Indians are still second class citizens whose wishes don't matter and their country is arbitrarily chopped up so that some one else can create a new country. Despite everything even if Britannia rules 25% of the global population the India's are gonna dominate it as united India comprises 18%+ of global population so now would making every county sized unit a dominion become a goal? If you think that the British Raj was a lean mean administration then you are also wrong. Only the army and the police were efficient. The administration was a house of cards that seemed incredibly strong but any threat to it led to it collapsing away. During the Second World War the rumor of Japanese ships near Madras led to the collapse of the Madras administration for weeks due to a haphazard withdrawal, Assam was virtually under military rule along with great many departments pan India falling under military supervision. The Indian adminstration was ill equipped to deal with anything more than tribes coming in from Afghanistan without having to hide behind the army. I don't know how can one call an administration that created famines worse than holodomor, led to widespread dissatisfaction in the populace to be efficient. Efficient to maintain a forceful occupation yes, efficient in its main purpose of ruling Hell no!