WI: Tibet becomes a princely state?

In 1904, after a long-running border dispute, Britain invaded Tibet and captured Lhasa, but, after forcing the Dalai Lama to concede the border they wanted, the British force left.

But what if, during the invasion, the British had decided to make Tibet a full-blown Princely State in British India, with the same status as say, Hyderabad? (IE, Lhasa would recieve a British resident and garrison, and the Dalai Lama would renounce all alliegance to China, and/or claims to independence, and accept British suzreinity). Assuming Indian history otherwise goes like OTL, would Tibet remain a part of India when the British leave, or (due to its remoteness and the fact that it had only been a part of India for a few decades) become independent?

If it stays a part of India, would that affect independent India's development (I'm inclined to think not really, except that Buddhists may be a little bit more influential in Indian politics)

Also, would TTL's communist China still try to incorporate Tibet?
 
Last edited:
Interesting!

I think certain knock-ons need to be looked into here, before we can jump straight to the late 1940s

1. Would British annexation of Tibet bring with it rival European expansion, eg France into Kwanchow? If not immediately, how about in 1912, or even earlier if the empire collapses swifter following the loss of Tibet?

2. I can't see any immediate effects in the First World War, except it might possibly give British forces access to Dzungaria more easily in the aftermath?

3. Any effect in the Chinese Civil War? Or in the Sino-Japanese War where, now, the air route over the hump is flying over a British vassal?

4. World War 2 - what effect on either British, Chinese or Japanese strategy does the possession of Tibet have?

5. Independence - Nepal and Ladakh/Zanshkir were historically vassals of Tibet, would there be a move to federate them as an independent state?

6. Tibet (&c) would be in the Commonwealth so it would not be a bright move on China's part to try to annex them...

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I'm not sure this would happen, after all it would really annoy Russia, and the two nations were trying to find an agreement on things in the area.

Of course, if Russia is given the neutral area of Iran as part of it's sphere of influence (or even a Russo-British partition of Iran with Russia gaining the northern 2/3 and Britain the southern third) this could be worked out.

The Chinese would, I imagine, protest strongly, continue to enforce suzerainity and maybe even conduct military action, but would be defeated. Possibly the Revolution occurs around 6 years earlier due to the fact that the Emperor has clearly lost any semblence of authority and control over the actions of the west. We'll definately see an expansion of spheres of influence/territory here (definately involving Germany, possibly Italy as well) with France getting much of the south and Britain moving to link Hong Kong with Tibet by rail (maybe a Trans-Himalayan Railway?).
 
Couple thoughts. In 1904, the British may find it useful to install the King of Nepal, Bhutan, or Sikkim on the Tibetan throne as a way of holding it down. My understanding is that the British liked Ugyen, who they knighted in 1904 for his services in the Tibetan campaign, and who the Bhutanese unanimously chose as their own king in 1907. My understanding is that Bhutanese and Tibetans are very similar culturally, and that their languages are basically dialects of each other. Also, considering how popular Gross National Happiness and all that have turned out to be among the subjects, I'd say a Dragon King TL would be a pretty happy one for Tibet, should the "United Kingdom" of Bhutan and Tibet survive.

In 1947, the territorial dispute over Aksai Chin is clearly settled in India's favor, and it will be easier for India to access Assam, since it will have the (admittedly difficult) Tibetan route as an alternative to the Siliguri Corridor.
 
I'm not sure this would happen, after all it would really annoy Russia, and the two nations were trying to find an agreement on things in the area.

While this will most certainly annoy Russia, it has bigger concerns at the moment, given its getting its nose bloodied by Japan.
 
While this will most certainly annoy Russia, it has bigger concerns at the moment, given its getting its nose bloodied by Japan.

Yes, and its not like Tibet has anything particularly useful-I think the Russians might be annoyed but not enough really do anything (especially regarding Iran-Iran has oil, so I don't see the British making anything more than very limited concessions there).

Regarding World War II, I don't know-what side did the OTL Tibetan government take, and did if affect anything? I imagine that with Tibet as a vassal, the British might be able to build a refueling station somewhere along the Himalaya supply route (assuming they can find a suitable place that is easily to resupply with petroleum, etc.). From what I understand, Tibet is rugged and remote enough to be essentially useless as a base for attacking Japanese-occupied parts of China, but I could be wrong.

I don't really see why, if they decide to keep Tibet, the British can't just deal with the Dali Lama. Though the United Kingdom of Tibet and Bhutan idea is certainly interesting.
 
The Chinese would, I imagine, protest strongly, continue to enforce suzerainity and maybe even conduct military action, but would be defeated. Possibly the Revolution occurs around 6 years earlier due to the fact that the Emperor has clearly lost any semblence of authority and control over the actions of the west.

It's my understanding that Tibet was never considered part of China and that the PRC made up a "historical connection" as a justification for conquest (please correct me if I'm wrong!).
 
It's my understanding that Tibet was never considered part of China and that the PRC made up a "historical connection" as a justification for conquest (please correct me if I'm wrong!).

IIRC it was a vassal - like Mongolia was a vassal, Korea was a vassal, Vietnam was a vassal, Okinawa was a vassal...

Whether it was viewed as more integral, I don't know. China's role in the others seems pretty much consistent with its role in Tibet, its just that it was easier for Korea and Vietnam to be detached by third parties. Mongolia and Tibet are probably more analogous

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
It's my understanding that Tibet was never considered part of China and that the PRC made up a "historical connection" as a justification for conquest (please correct me if I'm wrong!).

Tibet has had a complec history, the majority of its history it was a seperate nation with a relationship with China ranging from being revered and protected to being a vassal (as GW mentioned) to being uninfluenced.

Tibet was nominally part of China under the short-lived Yuan Dynasty (mid 13th-14th centuries).

After being invaded by the Dzungars/Mongols in the early 18th century it was then re-taken by the Qing who then decied to annex it.
It was'ntuntil the 19th century that China can really be said to have had anywhere near total control of it (it never had full control).
 
I was under the impression that Tibet had been under Mongol, but not Yuan control during that period. Is that wrong?

All the maps of it I've seen show Tibet as part of China, and since the Yuan Dynasty more or less were Mongols..

The Administrative Division structure of China at the time is sort of confusing, so that may be why.
 
Top