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?
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: