Smaller; without Britain's economic policies, they'd industrialize earlier and so hit the demographic transition.
Please DO NOT bump threads w/o adding actual content.Bump.
There is in Bangladesh.There's not much evidence of a demographic transition in India in OTL, even after industrialisation.
There's not much evidence of a demographic transition in India in OTL, even after industrialisation.
On the one hand, a much earlier industrialization would result in birth rates slowing earlier. On the other hand, without Indians being shipped around the British Empire as indentured servants, there would be less Indians leaving India.
On the third hand (Ganesha is graceful!), surely you'd still see emigration? People left China even though it wasn't a colony.
Industrialized 19th century India might conquer parts of Africa or purchase Australia.I doubt it'll be to the same extent. India isn't really an obvious centre for immigration to America, with no Pacific coast.
I doubt it'll be to the same extent. India isn't really an obvious centre for immigration to America, with no Pacific coast.
There was a lot of immigration to French colonies, like Guyane, despite it being in another empire and quite far away throughI doubt it'll be to the same extent. India isn't really an obvious centre for immigration to America, with no Pacific coast.
There was a lot of immigration to French colonies, like Guyane, despite it being in another empire and quite far away through
Political fragmentation doesn't necessarily mean lower quality of life and political unity doesn't necessarily mean higher quality of life.I think population will be generally smaller. The reason is the political fragmentation of the pre-British Indian subcontinent, therefore the resources will be spent on multiple bureaucracies and wars, and large infrastructure projects (railroads, industrialization) will have difficulty to be funded. Effects of emigration, British-caused famines and British-caused de-industrialization will be minor compared to large negative impact of political fragmentation. The level of development of the typical Indian states in ATL may resemble Ethiopia of the OTL. Of course, will be outliers. In particular, Maratha Empire (if it will avoid disintegration as happened IOTL) will likely be the most developed.
For Russia, migration effect was most important, because of large in-state population movement in Russia. Political unity determines the rate of the development, but level of development is roughly equal to population density. Simply speaking, Russian state had over-expanded into barely habitable areas in 16-17th centuries, therefore population emigration from few relatively densely populated European provinces of Russia has kept the Russian level of development below average for centuries. Most capable peasants who would become craftsmen, workers and traders in Western Europe, run away to Siberia..to result in just more Russian peasants somewhere.Political fragmentation doesn't necessarily mean lower quality of life and political unity doesn't necessarily mean higher quality of life.
Compare the German states in 1840 to the Russian Empire in 1840.
I think population will be generally smaller. The reason is the political fragmentation of the pre-British Indian subcontinent, therefore the resources will be spent on multiple bureaucracies and wars, and large infrastructure projects (railroads, industrialization) will have difficulty to be funded. Effects of emigration, British-caused famines and British-caused de-industrialization will be minor compared to large negative impact of political fragmentation. The level of development of the typical Indian states in ATL may resemble Ethiopia of the OTL. Of course, will be outliers. In particular, Maratha Empire (if it will avoid disintegration as happened IOTL) will likely be the most developed.
The US had even more migration and even less population density than the Russian Empire, yet the US the wealthiest nation per capita, for most of the 19th and 20th centuries, while industrializing at the fastest rate in the late 19th and early 20th.For Russia, migration effect was most important, because of large in-state population movement in Russia. Political unity determines the rate of the development, but level of development is roughly equal to population density. Simply speaking, Russian state had over-expanded into barely habitable areas in 16-17th centuries, therefore population emigration from few relatively densely populated European provinces of Russia has kept the Russian level of development below average for centuries. Most capable peasants who would become craftsmen, workers and traders in Western Europe, run away to Siberia..to result in just more Russian peasants somewhere.
For India (and especially Germany), emigration/relocation effect would be smaller just because the initial population was higher, and distribution of population was more uniform, reducing both benefits and effects of in-state migration.