WI: India kept British Monarch as Head of State?

What it says on the tin. Could India (and, one would assume, by extension, Pakistan and, ultimately, Bangladesh) have accepted retaining the monarch as the ceremonial Head of State?
 

Ak-84

Banned
India; zero chance.
Pakistan considered seriously retaining the Monarch in the mid-fifties, but decided against it.
It also butterflies away Bangladesh; the Commonwealth would have been very very active in trying to get a settlement; and would have come down harder on the Awami League, as opposed to the hands off approach in OTL. Most likely you see a seperation peaceful in the mid to late 1970's or early 1980's as West Pakistani taxpayers get sick of propping up East Bengal, especially when jute becomes supplanted by artificial fibres, which happened very quickly after 1971 anyway. IOTL, it required some pretty massive Pakistani aid to Bangladesh in the mid-1970's for them to stave off a famine, which would have been politically impossible.
 
ASB when Indian independence is being led by left-wing republican nationalists. They wouldn't accept a monarch, especially a foreign one from the country that exploited them.
 
Off the top of my head Pakistan did not become a republic until 1956 and Ceylon not until 1972 when it changed its name to Sri Lanka.
 
Top