WI : Britain in India actively supported Anglo-Indian coupling?

My understanding is that to an extent during the Company Raj, the Anglo-Indian community, and the Anglo-Burmese was effectively created through mixed marriages between White soldiers/Company Men and Indian Women.

This practice was later banned by the British Raj.

What if we take a different turn, and have the Company, and then later the British Raj not just approve but actively encourage this, with logic of your choice over race - but with the aim of hiring the Anglo-Indian Community to be the Backbone of British Indian Rule - forming the clerks, the police, NCOs and low-level officers in the army.

What sort of impact could that have?
 
The only reason mixed marriages occurred at all was because the British position in India was fairly weak. As it strengthened, mixed marriages declined, which is why they initially declined in Bengal and the South before the rest of India. It’s rather unlikely that, after Britain takes ahold of India, they promote mixed marriage. Racialism, which was big in the British Empire, also stops mixed marriages from occurring of Britain’s position is strong.

And even if all of this did occur, I strongly suspect that Indian nationalists would still see Anglo-Indians as nothing more than “Britishers” unless they accept the tenets of Indian nationalism (which a few of them would, no doubt, but not most). At best, they’d be collaborators, and at worst, they’d be slightly more brown “Britishers”.
 
The only reason mixed marriages occurred at all was because the British position in India was fairly weak. As it strengthened, mixed marriages declined, which is why they initially declined in Bengal and the South before the rest of India. It’s rather unlikely that, after Britain takes ahold of India, they promote mixed marriage. Racialism, which was big in the British Empire, also stops mixed marriages from occurring of Britain’s position is strong.

And even if all of this did occur, I strongly suspect that Indian nationalists would still see Anglo-Indians as nothing more than “Britishers” unless they accept the tenets of Indian nationalism (which a few of them would, no doubt, but not most). At best, they’d be collaborators, and at worst, they’d be slightly more brown “Britishers”.

I mean, fair enough. But that it is unlikely wasn't the question.

So you don't think actively encouraging marriages and strengthening that community via good jobs wouldn't really change the trajectory of history?
 
I mean, fair enough. But that it is unlikely wasn't the question.

So you don't think actively encouraging marriages and strengthening that community via good jobs wouldn't really change the trajectory of history?

On the whole, I'd have to agree with @Indicus. Even if this became a policy actively promoted by the British, I don't think it would do them much good. In fact, them actively promoting it would probably just be bad news for the Anglo-Indian people living in India, if anything. They would be seen as tools of colonialism, unless the British Raj also promoted Indian culture at the same time, which is unlikely as well. Especially in a situation where we see, primarily, British men marrying Indian women.
 
I mean, fair enough. But that it is unlikely wasn't the question.

So you don't think actively encouraging marriages and strengthening that community via good jobs wouldn't really change the trajectory of history?

Well, you mentioned Anglo-Indians taking over the roles as clerks. While that would potentially avoid bad borders, as they’d understand India better than white clerks, and that would avoid issues like the Kashmir conflict, if they take jobs from Indians, who made up a lot of clerks under British rule, that would be largely detrimental to Britain’s relationship to the Indian people.

IIRC they stopped it to keep their employees from going native.

I’m not even sure if we can blame the decline of mixed marriages on policies. I think the biggest reason was simply the fact that eventually there were more white women as the situation stabilized and British India became safer.
 
Well, you mentioned Anglo-Indians taking over the roles as clerks. While that would potentially avoid bad borders, as they’d understand India better than white clerks, and that would avoid issues like the Kashmir conflict, if they take jobs from Indians, who made up a lot of clerks under British rule, that would be largely detrimental to Britain’s relationship to the Indian people.

I did also say police, so you've got a clear obvious middle-class going on there, at least that was my intention. Plus also the army, where I was intending/hoping that they'd be able to command white troops as well as Indian unlike in the BIA.

Plus, what would Anglo-Indian be limited by? As long as you can prove/claim you had an Anglo father/grandparent, or married into it, then it could be seen by many as a way to advance yourself. "Get yourself a good Anglo-Indian girl".

I’m not even sure if we can blame the decline of mixed marriages on policies. I think the biggest reason was simply the fact that eventually there were more white women as the situation stabilized and British India became safer.

The fact they made it illegal probably didn't help it though.

I won't lie, I personally think that expanding a larger Anglo-Indian community could go a number of ways myself - if predominantly in one region, it could lead to a separate state for them, or long-term British status rather than joining India proper. Alternatively Anglo-Indians would likely be more familiar with Indian customs than most British officials, could very well prevent various faux pas.

On top of that, assuming Anglo-Indians have some level of education/money as a result of their typical careers, they could be an interest source of early industrial investment for India, essentially early forms of Tata Steel and the like.
 
Plus, what would Anglo-Indian be limited by? As long as you can prove/claim you had an Anglo father/grandparent, or married into it, then it could be seen by many as a way to advance yourself. "Get yourself a good Anglo-Indian girl".

And see their children become Christians, or even become a Christian yourself? Yeah, I can’t imagine many Hindus or Muslims wanting to lose their religion or see their children become Christian. I also found it doubtful that Anglo-Indians would marry “down” to “inferior races” rather than to British people.

if predominantly in one region, it could lead to a separate state for them,

I doubt it. At best, they would be a community like the Zoroastrians, prominent in businesses in certain cities.

Alternatively Anglo-Indians would likely be more familiar with Indian customs than most British officials, could very well prevent various faux pas.

That’s a valid point. I guess you could avoid the rumour that the process behind cartridge manufacture involved pork and pig fat that ticked off the Mutiny that way. However, the Mutiny had much more deep-rooted causes than British sources would have you believe, and I really don’t really see this changing that.
 
Did most Britions that immigrated to India intend to liver there temporarily or permanently? That might be a factor.
 
I’m not even sure if we can blame the decline of mixed marriages on policies. I think the biggest reason was simply the fact that eventually there were more white women as the situation stabilized and British India became safer.
IIRC, it was a very deliberate effort; forbidding mixed marriages, bringing over women from England. They wanted their employees separate from the ruled.
 
And see their children become Christians, or even become a Christian yourself? Yeah, I can’t imagine many Hindus or Muslims wanting to lose their religion or see their children become Christian. I also found it doubtful that Anglo-Indians would marry “down” to “inferior races” rather than to British people.
It depends on how strongly that system of hierarchy is held in place. Considering their unique place in coming from a country that had a caste system on one side, and the other where despite its class system, was rather adamant about the liberty of its people, there are likely to be interesting thinkers in the community, which if larger, is likely to be more influential. Plus, they all come from unions (or at least affairs) between Brits and Indians - the idea that they'd be more racialist than their parents seems off.

I doubt it. At best, they would be a community like the Zoroastrians, prominent in businesses in certain cities.

Surely that would depend on the size of the Anglo-Indian population? Especially if they're Christians - it would seem odd in a situation like IOTL (not to kill butterflies) where Muslims and Hindus get their own state, but a larger population of Anglo Indians (say reaching 10 million over 200 years of growth) not receiving the same treatment. (Exactly WHERE that would be is debatable).

That’s a valid point. I guess you could avoid the rumour that the process behind cartridge manufacture involved pork and pig fat that ticked off the Mutiny that way. However, the Mutiny had much more deep-rooted causes than British sources would have you believe, and I really don’t really see this changing that.

I'm normally cautious about statements about sources that suggest dishonesty (perhaps that is just my reading of your statement). But I'm curious as to what those additional causes were. I can't really try and discuss them without knowing what you're talking about, and who said them.
 
Plus, they all come from unions (or at least affairs) between Brits and Indians - the idea that they'd be more racialist than their parents seems off.

They’d be raised in British households, with Indian maids and housekeepers. Of course they’d view themselves as better than the full-blooded Indians, even as a source of pride.

Surely that would depend on the size of the Anglo-Indian population? Especially if they're Christians - it would seem odd in a situation like IOTL (not to kill butterflies) where Muslims and Hindus get their own state, but a larger population of Anglo Indians (say reaching 10 million over 200 years of growth) not receiving the same treatment. (Exactly WHERE that would be is debatable).

Well, first of all, ten million in a country of hundreds of millions isn’t that much. Second, I suspect that this minority would be dispersed across India, making a majority absolutely nowhere. Third, note that Sikhs, another religious minority, didn’t get their own state. This has likely to do with the fact that, before 1947, Sikhs made a majority absolutely nowhere. Anglo-Indians would be similar, except that they would be even more dispersed across India.

I must also note that Partition failed in both of its goals - Pakistan became a racialist state a few decades after independence and split in half due to its acts of genocide caused by racial tension, whereas India continued to, and continues to, have a massive Muslim minority. Even if Britain labelled a region as an Anglo-Indian country, that region would continue to have substantial Hindu and Muslim minorities, and outside it, there would be substantial Anglo-Indian minorities. This isn’t a recipe for stability and India may very well pull a Goa and invade the Anglo-Indian country in the name of the full-blooded Indians.

At the very most, you could see Pondicherry-style or Goa-style regions, where there is substantial European influence and hybrid cultures.

I'm normally cautious about statements about sources that suggest dishonesty (perhaps that is just my reading of your statement). But I'm curious as to what those additional causes were. I can't really try and discuss them without knowing what you're talking about, and who said them.

Causes of the Mutiny include the Doctrine of Lapse, by which the East India Company could proclaim direct rule of any princely state if, essentially, they wanted to, going against Indian traditions of kingship. Other causes include the Indian indenture system, by which Indians were transported for unpaid labour as far as the Caribbean, something which naturally angered Indians, good old hatred of being ruled by foreigners, and rulers wanting to reassert their power. Suffice to say, it’s a lot more complex than the standard historiography of it as “sepoys think their cartridges have pig and cow fat on them, decide to kill all white people”.
 
They’d be raised in British households, with Indian maids and housekeepers. Of course they’d view themselves as better than the full-blooded Indians, even as a source of pride.

Well, yes. So would their white parent. Didn't stop the white parent.

Well, first of all, ten million in a country of hundreds of millions isn’t that much. Second, I suspect that this minority would be dispersed across India, making a majority absolutely nowhere. Third, note that Sikhs, another religious minority, didn’t get their own state. This has likely to do with the fact that, before 1947, Sikhs made a majority absolutely nowhere. Anglo-Indians would be similar, except that they would be even more dispersed across India.

I must also note that Partition failed in both of its goals - Pakistan became a racialist state a few decades after independence and split in half due to its acts of genocide caused by racial tension, whereas India continued to, and continues to, have a massive Muslim minority. Even if Britain labelled a region as an Anglo-Indian country, that region would continue to have substantial Hindu and Muslim minorities, and outside it, there would be substantial Anglo-Indian minorities. This isn’t a recipe for stability and India may very well pull a Goa and invade the Anglo-Indian country in the name of the full-blooded Indians.

At the very most, you could see Pondicherry-style or Goa-style regions, where there is substantial European influence and hybrid cultures.

Depends, I threw out 10 million, but it would depend on exactly what happens. Could be that being called "Anglo-Indian" is for some reason popular in some regions, inflating their numbers.

Causes of the Mutiny include the Doctrine of Lapse, by which the East India Company could proclaim direct rule of any princely state if, essentially, they wanted to, going against Indian traditions of kingship. Other causes include the Indian indenture system, by which Indians were transported for unpaid labour as far as the Caribbean, something which naturally angered Indians, good old hatred of being ruled by foreigners, and rulers wanting to reassert their power. Suffice to say, it’s a lot more complex than the standard historiography of it as “sepoys think their cartridges have pig and cow fat on them, decide to kill all white people”.

I mean, at least when I was at school we didn't learn "Sepoys rage, kill whitey", we were informed about the other issues like Princely states. But fair enough. Question asked and answered.
 
The kind of Britain that'd be willing to go for anglo/indian mixture would have meant big butterflies in other colonies. Anglos being more willing to mix would lead to side effects like a US like Argentina, a nation that's basically a 'white' country where you have some degree of african/amerindian admixture being the norm in the white majority but no real distinct racial minorities. On a smaller level you'd end up with a South Africa that's got brazilian type demographics, with the kinds of issues you see in say Brazil rather than OTL's South Africa's issues.
 
This period of miscegenation relied heavily on the social context of the Company -- young officers in a foreign land looking to get some. It's the same basic reason why there's a Portuguese creole people in almost every part of Asia -- lots of stranded men with no Portuguese women available to recreate the social context of Portugal. Also the inverse of the reason why North America never really had an English equivalent to the Metis -- the biggest settlement was started by entire families and the social structure of Puritan society was immediately recreated, preventing the grey areas that allowed for interracial marriage elsewhere in Europe's empires.

By the 19th century, malaria treatments and the cementing of British control allowed for British women and children to come and live in India as part of the governing apparatus. These Anglo Peninsulares almost immediately got interracial marriage banned, so as to ensure the social position of white women was re-created and preserved. British officials quickly recreated British enclaves and a simulacrum of British life, signaling the total end of the looser atmosphere that fostered these Anglo-Indian relationships in the first place.
 
The English were historically known for being the most xenophobic of the european groups even before colonization, which had the obvious effects.
 
Maybe you could see more British men marrying Indian women, but British women marrying Indian men would still be more taboo due to the double standard.
 
The question is how you can get the company to see Eurasians as a resources. You pretty much need this for the company to push for greater intermarriage. Could the company decide to set up something looking like the Janissary system, where instead of slaves, they use Eurasians? They would have the benefit as Christians they wouldn't be connected to the local political actors. Of course the result of this would be that the Anglo-Indians would end up a local martial and clerical caste in India.
 
Top