WI: An Independent British East India Company

IOTL, the British East India Company ruled over literally all of India at its peak in the name of commercial interests. It achieved much wealth, though it went bankrupt many times. It was, overall, successful in its goals. However, as a result of a series of cultural misunderstandings, in 1857, sepoys revolted, resulting in a massive revolt as rulers allied with them. The Indian Mutiny (which makes one of the largest revolts in Indian history sound like a few drugged-up soldiers killing their superiors, but I digress) finally led to its nationalization by Britain, and the British Raj was declared.

Could the BEIC have potentially become independent of Britain, as a corporate state? Perhaps the two biggest features working against independence were the constant bankruptcy of the Company and the loyalty of the Company to British money. Avoiding the first requires better management, which should be doable. The second is much harder. All I can think of is Britain becoming a republic and numerous shareholders deciding not to be loyal to the new republic and continuing to recognize the monarch in exile in Hanover as their ruler. Effectively, ideology supersedes money. I imagine many rulers will take this opportunity to break away, but the east and south should still be fairly solidly in Company hands, especially with offers of expanded realms to rulers, some of the company's profits being theirs, and a looser grip by the Company.
 
The biggest problem you have is the knowledge of wealthier Indians, including the princes, knowing that the tiny EIC leadership does not have backing from a major power.
 

Toraach

Banned
The biggest problem you have is the knowledge of wealthier Indians, including the princes, knowing that the tiny EIC leadership does not have backing from a major power.
I think that Independent British East India Company could survive only by changes, like an incorporation of Indian elites into their rulling elite. So differently speaking, rajas become shareholders :) And finally it become more and more indianized, because it doesn't have any big support form the british goverment, and has to rely on native resources and manpower.
 
The biggest problem you have is the knowledge of wealthier Indians, including the princes, knowing that the tiny EIC leadership does not have backing from a major power.

The BEIC has a sepoy army, which enough money can keep loyal. Indian rulers may decide that keeping the support of those armies is enough of a reason.
 
The sepoys should be loyal so long as the Company pays them enough, and local rulers may want their support, keeping the BEIC in power by sheer force.

In regards to trade, in my scenario a king rules in exile in Hanover. Therefore, trade with Hanover should, at least, be possible. Furthermore, a number of European powers may want to trade with the BEIC as a sort of intermediary, which should give them enough of a revenue stream to stay afloat, pay the sepoys into loyalty, and therefore retain local support. Some of this revenue will also go to the king in exile, keeping his support of this whole enterprise. Of course, that won't stop local powers from declaring their independence. One is the Marathas, who will naturally see this gift horse in the mouth and will be recreated around the deposed Peshwa. There may be a movement within the Mughal Empire to declare independence, but ultimately Akbar II was a weak ruler and so will not do so. The Rajputs will likely also break away. Places like Garhwal, which are too mountainous for Britain to control, will also be de facto independent. And, of course, this much weaker BEIC will not be able to conquer the Sikh Empire and will instead be on the defensive. I envision a smaller and more compact BEIC, shorn of its most rebellious parts.
 
Top