Would Thailand be Added to the Raj

Ok, so I'm working on something right now, and I've come to an issue I had'nt thought of before.

The basics being that Britain conquered and annexed Thailand in the mid-19th century.

So, as the title says, in such a scenario would Thailand be added to the Raj, or remain a separate entity?
 
I could see parts of Thailand ending up in the Raj, and Pattani in the south with Malaya, but I'm not sure about the whole lot.
 
Well, Burma got added to the Raj, so probably the same thing would've happened to Thailand. Especially if it was conquered after Burma.
 
Well, Burma got added to the Raj, so probably the same thing would've happened to Thailand. Especially if it was conquered after Burma.

Actually, the Brits couldn't seem to make up their mind about whether Burma was part of India or not; as I recall, it got switched back and forth a few times.

I doubt it, although putting the peninsula with Malaya is a possibility.
 
Actually, the Brits couldn't seem to make up their mind about whether Burma was part of India or not; as I recall, it got switched back and forth a few times.

Well, given that there is a significant cultural division between India and Burma/Thailand and, according to EvolvedSaurian, the Brits weren't sure about what to do with Burma IOTL, the logical solution would be to unite Burma, Thailand and Malaya into another colony? British South-East Asia?
 

Susano

Banned
Well, given that there is a significant cultural division between India and Burma/Thailand and, according to EvolvedSaurian, the Brits weren't sure about what to do with Burma IOTL, the logical solution would be to unite Burma, Thailand and Malaya into another colony? British South-East Asia?

That would be a bit difficult what with Malaysas rather complex makeup....
 
Adding Siam to the Empire will be tough- successive British Governments wanted a strong independent Siam as a cheap way of countering French expansion in Indochina, and feared that trying to grab the area themselves would just provoke a French reaction. There was a real fear in Whitehall that if a Southeast frontier was allowed to develop, it'd be just as expensive and difficult to maintain as the Northwest frontier and would prove too much for India's resources. "If we are to burn the candle at both ends," the Viceroy of India, Lord Ripon, wrote in 1884, "in the north-west in fear of Russia, and in the south-east in fear of France, we shall reduce India to bankruptcy."

That said, officials in the Straits Settlements were keen for a forward policy. Maybe there can be a Swettenham Raid instead of a Jameson Raid? If things go too far, and the Government feels unable to disown the action (maybe Curzon is Colonial Secretary?), there might be a Siamese partition (probably, assuming it's pre-1893, which it realistically has to be) which sees the French grab what they did OTL and Britain take OTL's modern Thailand. A protectorate is probably more likely than direct rule though.
 
Wasn't the only reason it was never colonized was that it was a buffer state between French Indochina and British India,seems like the french might be pissed off if it gets annexed .;)
 

Philip

Donor
There was a real fear in Whitehall that if a Southeast frontier was allowed to develop, it'd be just as expensive and difficult to maintain as the Northwest frontier and would prove too much for India's resources. "If we are to burn the candle at both ends," the Viceroy of India, Lord Ripon, wrote in 1884, "in the north-west in fear of Russia, and in the south-east in fear of France, we shall reduce India to bankruptcy."

This could have some interesting consequences. Suppose in 1893, Rama V is unable to come to terms with the French over Laos. The French move to take Laos by force. Is this enough to get the British to establish a protectorate? If things go well for the French, and Siam appears about to collapse, might the British grab what they can before the French take all of Siam? If they do 'burn the candle at both end', what kind of crisis result? Might this make it more difficult for cooler heads to prevail a Fashoda in a few short years?
 
I think that a British takeover of this kind probably needs to be done during one of the periods of Franco-British friendship (which did occur in the nineteenth century), so that there's an agreed partition.
 
Their are three things that allowed this for the TL that this is for;

1. France is more concerned with Africa than Asia/Oceania.
2. While French Cambodia was annexed when it was IOTL, France was slower to annex the rest of what would become French Indochina.
3. The French and British have better relations than OTL, leading to an agreement on the partion of Southern Asia.



A related question since I don't want to create a new thread.

Assuming the primarily Thai part is added to the Raj, and their are'nt any mass movings of people to make areas uniform one ethnic group/religion, would the Raj be able to stay together and become an Independent nation itself?
 
Well Burma was only a short hop from India by sea, whilst communication lines with Thailand would route round the straits of Malacca...so it'd probably end up governed from Singapore, or a seperate military protectorate.
 
Depends on how it gets incorporated.

Is it annexed totally like Burma or does the Thai monarchy become a protectorate?

In Malaya the practice was to basically treat the Sultans much as the Rajas of India were treated- they got a British Resident and basically handed over control of foreign affairs and commerce to British jurisdiction while the Sultans continued to run domestic affairs (with certain conditions such as the abolition of slavery etc). The Malay states were further divided into the Federated Malays States and the unfederated Malay States- the Federated ones were directly administered as a single unit by British civil servants reporting to a Resident-General at Kuala Lumpur while the unfederated Malay States were administered autonomously. Singapore, Malacca and Penang were administered separately as the Straits Settlements, under administration of the Raj at first and under direct administration of London post-1867.

Thailand, however, had a history of unitary government- I suspect that depending on how Britain gained control it would either be annexed and governed directly or alternatively become a protectorate. If it isn't totally annexed I doubt it would be federated with the Malay states due to the cultural and religious differences nor would it be federated with Burma since combining a protectorate with a colony is a bit of a messy situation.
 
Because the Raj was, of course, quite homogenous.

Yes but it tended to partition it's territories generally along historical or linguistic/cultural lines. India was diverse but still a patchwork of independent states and British provinces administered separately but reporting to central HQ in Delhi. Burma was really somewhat of an anomaly because no one really knew what to do with it. It was considered too turbulent to be governed separately.

Looking at the OP, if Thailand is conquered and annexed it might well be lumped together with Burma as British Indo-China or something of the sort. Tacking it on to the Raj might be tried first but I have a feeling it might be spun off after 20 years or so.
 

terence

Banned
I think that a British takeover of this kind probably needs to be done during one of the periods of Franco-British friendship (which did occur in the nineteenth century), so that there's an agreed partition.

There has never been such a think as Franco-British friendship!
Toleration, co-operation, collaboration, cohabitation even. Friendship--NEVER!
 
Depends on how it gets incorporated.

Is it annexed totally like Burma or does the Thai monarchy become a protectorate?

It's annexed outright.

Looking at the OP, if Thailand is conquered and annexed it might well be lumped together with Burma as British Indo-China or something of the sort. Tacking it on to the Raj might be tried first but I have a feeling it might be spun off after 20 years or so.

Hm, that gives me an idea.

I think perhaps in one (the one I was doing when I initialy made the thread) I'll have it through luck and a mixture of incidents remain part of the Raj and have a seperate British Indochina in another one I'm working on that faces the same thing.
 
That would be a bit difficult what with Malaysas rather complex makeup....

I don't see how their cosmetics have anything to do with it.

Seriously, though, I think the British would find it a lot easier just to create a second colony independent from the Raj. Cultural and ethnic differences were strained as it was, and it gets even worse as you move deeper southeast, in addition to it being isolated geographically. Thailand had its own history as a somewhat unified nation for (quick wiki check) 400-500 years. It'd just be a lot simpler to take the Kingdom of Siam and turn it into the Province of Siam. Maybe add Burma to it, maybe not, but probably not lump it in with the Raj.

Wasn't the only reason it was never colonized was that it was a buffer state between French Indochina and British India,seems like the french might be pissed off if it gets annexed .;)

The Thais had a succession of very diplomatically capable monarchs. Essentially, both sides wanted Siam, but more than that, neither side wanted the other to have it. So every time France made a move on the nation, Siam would snuggle up with Britain and France would back off. Every time Britain made a move on the nation, Siam would just turn back to France. It was actually pretty prosperous, with its prime industry being fucking with European colonial relations.
 
Top