Does anybody here think or have an opinion on wether or not India could have become a hereditary monarchy under one of queen-empress Victoria's son's or grandchildren? I wonder if there would have been widespread opposition on the subcontinent or at home? When would this have been most likely possible, or was there ever a time when British governance would have been popular enough to effectively make such a transition?
WI; British Raj continued under independent Emporer?
- Thread starter The Merovingian
- Start date
-
- Tags
- british raj india victorian
Perhaps maybe if Edward VIII decided to cling onto it while Abdicating the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the ostensible purpose of wedding the soon-to-be former Mrs. Simpson. He didn't seem to have the love for it as his father, grandfather or great-grandmother had had for their own Raj. However; I'm wondering if there would have been anything to prevent him from attempting to keep the Empire even if gave up Great Britain- and would his Indian subjects been so welcoming.
The idea of India becoming something of an Anglo-ruled apartheid state is an interesting one. A bit like Peshawar Lancers, I guess.
At first I thought It might be a bit implausible, but as I thought about it more I realized that the mughals were just as foreign as the british. On the greater whole I think the subcontinent is rather used to having foreign rulers. I could see some Edward VIII ruling in India as he was meant to in Britain, doing tours in a land he can change the rules to marry his American lady. Maybe India could give favorable trade concessions to Britain in return for educators and infrastructure help? My biggest concern would be what would it take to split the empire like such? Could Edward or any monarch at the time simply as king-emporer split territory like this, or would it take an action of parlement?
What was Parliament's view of India at the time? Did they see it like Hannover or was it seen as vital to the whole Empire?
Your guess is as good as mine. I'm of the opinion that it was a matter of opinion. Indian Troops were used during the war in China, if I've got my history right which meant they were essentially a large source of troops in a strategically good location. I imagine that Britain also had a monopoly on trade in the subcontinent especially after taking it over. India was the source of the opium that was sold to the Chinese as the opium grown there was stronger than that of China's. I'm not exactly sure how important it was as an area for trade with after the reign of Queen Victoria, though I assume it was a good stopover for trade with Hong Kong...maybe? I'm not sure that it would be entirely impossible to retain any and all of the immediate benefits they already had with India by simply creating a more favorable trade/military agreement with a separate government....that just so happens to be close relatives. If anybody has any sources or good book recommendations about the Indian economic/infrastructure/government situations at about saaayyy 1920-present that would be great. I'm seriously considering making a TL about this.
Personally, I am inclined to suggest this scenario: what if when the Raj was officially or going to be established, Victoria declined to be crown Empress and asked the title to be granted to his son Edward in part for Divide et Impera strategy, in part to make him more responsible? Then something happened in the between which brought India and Britain to be ruled by two split branches...
I think that the idea is that those "white people" will inherit the support of the local nobility, even merge with it. I can't see why the local people will be more angry than before.
Napoleonrules
Banned
The title of Emperor of India was just that, a title. India was not like Hannover at all. The British, through Parliament, ruled India. The King/Emperor could no more take India away than he could Scotland. It was not a crown dependency, which those the King (and even the Queen today) can "take with them" should Parliament decide to do away with the Monarchy (such as Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, which are not a part of the UK, they are sovereign sharing the same royalty with some rights given to the UK Parliament in return for military protection. THEY are like Hanover.)
Skallagrim
Banned
And why not? Would this be the first time in history that a nation gaining independence was put under a foreign dynasty? Hardly. It's quite a common occurence. Even the nations like the Netherlands, which became famous for becoming Republics, at first tried to find(!) some suitable foreign ruler. Look at Greece, with its Wittelsbach and Glücksburg monarchs. Hardly Greeks!
Should such things suddenly be insurmountable when the subjects are Indian? Not at all. Quite to opposite. Many in India wanted independence. Independence without a foreign monarch might be considered more ideal... but independence with such a monarch would make foreign relations etc. so much easier...
But all of that was well before the British deposed the Mughal ruler in 1857. By the time India could plausibly become independent, republicanism was accepted as a standard form of government
There's only one line who I can see become the emperors of India, and that is the Mughal line. But, of course, the British destroyed the Mughals after 1857.
Skallagrim
Banned
As accepted as republicanism had become, that doesn't mean that every independent country must become a republic. If for some reason the British would be interested in setting up an independent Raj under a separate monarch, that would certainly be an easy way for India to gain independence. It has all sorts of other advantages. Provided the entire civil service gets opened up to Indian nationals, thus removing any objection to retaining the existing system, that possibility is very tempting. No chaos of having to set up a new administration: it's all there already. Internationally, this kind of set-up means close and friendly relations with Britain. Trade deals, diplomatic co-operation, respect. Rather than being a "formerly colonised country that revolted" (which, however unfair that is, typically means being looked down upon to some extent), you get to be an esteemed equal, a partner nation, a sister nation.
These advantages could be so great, so tempting, that it's worth accepting a British monarch. Provided you turn India into a nice constitutional monarchy - very posible by just adopting the British model, which conveniently also works fine for a British monarch - that white fellow on the throne can't ever be too much of a nuisance, after all. Not everyone will like it, but I suspect that a simple cost-benefit analysis would work out in favour of just going with it.
As it was IOTL - enough independence for India to get a republican constitution and break off all vestiges of rule from the "Britishers". Honestly, without some massive POD, like the Mughal Emperor remaining the titular ruler of India, I don't see how India wouldn't end the monarchy.
Would India even want close and friendly relations? IOTL, the Indo-Soviet alliance was caused in no small part by resent against the "Britishers", and those that wanted a close relationship with the West, like Nehru, had to justify it by citing how the US was a former British colony that became a superpower, and thus they were not submitting once again to the "Britishers". This all also says something about how much India hated its former colonizer, which is quite reasonable, considering what being a non-settler colony entails.
There absolutely would be the chaos of setting up a new administration, from a new parliament to other things. Hell, the only difference from being a self-governing empire to being a republic would be whether the head of state is an emperor or an president.
The US, of course, was seen as an equal by Britain.
I think that even an "Indian Empire" would be seen negatively by Britain, not in the least because it would be ruled by brown people.
I don't like to toss around terms like ASB, but I have to admit that this idea is fairly close to ASB.
There are a number of important historical factors to include that would make this almost impossible:
There are a number of important historical factors to include that would make this almost impossible:
- Generally the British Monarchy does not sub-divide its holdings. Hanover passed out of the British line of succession because of Hanover's laws, not any decision on the British monarchy's part. It would be a remarkable break from precedent for Queen Victoria, for example, to pass an 'Emperor of India' title to a child other than her direct heir.
- When considering Edward VIII you have to remember that he was presented with an all or nothing deal. There would be no 'buy-out' for him to relinquish other titles and keep India - why would there be?
- The key question you have to ask yourself in this scenario, is why would Britain? This isn't a medieval state where the monarch can decide how to parcel out land. You're talking about a modern state with a complex government apparatus, vibrant global economy, and a parliamentary system. It simply isn't the Monarch' decision to make.
- India was a vital part of the British geopolitical and economic world at the time. Why would they mess this up by allowing it to become its own self-governing country even with a British royal on the throne? Remember, India was a cash-cow for Britain in the period. Just in terms of railways, for instance, every mile of track built in India made almost ten times a dividend for its [British] shareholders as did an equivalent mile in Britain itself. India was a closed market for steel - it wasn't allowed to make its own railway track until the 1910s because it was so important to providing employment for British companies back in Britain. Setting up an independent Indian Empire would ruin all that.
- Any Indian Emperor [particularly EdVIII] would be a dangerous wildcard. What is to keep them loyal to London? How can India be an effective counterweight to Russian ambitions or, later, Japan/China, if Britain cannot directly control it?
- How would this work on the ground? Remember the Raj was run by an Army, Civil Service, and political elite that was, at least at the top, British and white. Why would they willingly follow this? They considered themselves British, by and large, sending their children back to boarding schools in Britain and seeing themselves as 'Britons abroard'. Some might back this new regime, but many more would simply return to Britain leading to a massive brain drain at the top of the Raj.
- Ultimately, Britain has no need to do this. Why break up the Empire like this? Why risk political and economic chaos for no gain? Why gamble with the entire Empire system, throughout the Indian Ocean and beyond, that relied on India as a manpower, stop-over, and material source of resources? If Queen Victoria or any other monarch suggests this, the most likely reaction from any Prime Minister would have just been to nod politely and ignore the suggestion.
Then change it to Britain seeking to cut it loose earlier. Maybe another Mutiny or persistent pro-independence protests that can't be suppressed.
The US was eventually seen as an equal. Until at least 1815, the British opinion of the US was "Oh, them." with various levels of approval depending on who you talked to.
Just to be clear in case of confusion, this would be a situation where the president/emperor is NOT also Head of Government.
were the mughals truly so well liked? They're decended from Uzbeks which as far as I know are not a local Indian nationality but rather became more indianized over time, which is what I'd like to see happen over time in regards to these Brits. The mughals also have a long history of bad as much as good rulers, Akbar was widely liked for his tolerance, and patronage, while Aurangzeb in my opinion would set up the gradual decline of the empire with his policies and hard promotion of Islamic law (there were other factors). In my opinion I think the vast majority of Indian Christians would prefer a ruler that does not make one pay the jizya than to those who do.
How about just a larger and even more deadly/violent Sepoy Rebellion that escalates out of control into full-on civil war? After the British win said war, they tighten their fist on India even harder, which only leads to more rebellions in the long run. None of this would change the fact that growing alliance systems, military escalation, inter-Power colonial clashes, and jingoist politics would eventually lead to a large scale European war with machine guns, and thus, trenches: an alternate Great War. In this Not!Great War, the British conscript thousands of sepoys to fight in the Middle East against the Ottomans or in southern China or something, and this is the last straw.
After the War is over, cries for independence against the hated British would ring out from across the land, and violent rebellion would start in urban pockets. The British could quell it again and then, seeing that India would eventually break free anyways and watching their money spiral down the drain trying to hold it, decide to give India nominal independence, with its own Parliament representing its various parties (which would be different, and possibly much more divided, as the National Congress wouldn't have been created ITTL, what with Britain's stricter philosophy on Indian matters.) They could give the whole Raj independence as "The Indian Raj" with this new Parliament, and with a few conditions: Britain gets heavy trading bonuses (almost like an actual colony still) for a number of years, the Raj agrees to ally the British militarily, British companies get favored over other foreign or local companies, and, of course, a British monarch gets the (mostly figurehead) throne (so the British public feels less cheated after fighting a war to keep India in the Empire.) A compromise of sorts. If the Indian leaders decline, Britain threatens to cut down the few remaining freedoms the Indian people still hold and violently keep the Raj under its fist, strongly implying they will kill the national icons for sedition or something. Would Britain actually be able to follow up completely on this threat without eventually inciting another independence movement? Probably not, but all we have to do is have the Indian leaders cave in to this compromise for this to work, with this happening plenty of times in history in other places.
That's the only way I can see this playing out in a semi-recognizable world and without stretching the imagination too much. Of course, there are others, as always, but that's my take.
After the War is over, cries for independence against the hated British would ring out from across the land, and violent rebellion would start in urban pockets. The British could quell it again and then, seeing that India would eventually break free anyways and watching their money spiral down the drain trying to hold it, decide to give India nominal independence, with its own Parliament representing its various parties (which would be different, and possibly much more divided, as the National Congress wouldn't have been created ITTL, what with Britain's stricter philosophy on Indian matters.) They could give the whole Raj independence as "The Indian Raj" with this new Parliament, and with a few conditions: Britain gets heavy trading bonuses (almost like an actual colony still) for a number of years, the Raj agrees to ally the British militarily, British companies get favored over other foreign or local companies, and, of course, a British monarch gets the (mostly figurehead) throne (so the British public feels less cheated after fighting a war to keep India in the Empire.) A compromise of sorts. If the Indian leaders decline, Britain threatens to cut down the few remaining freedoms the Indian people still hold and violently keep the Raj under its fist, strongly implying they will kill the national icons for sedition or something. Would Britain actually be able to follow up completely on this threat without eventually inciting another independence movement? Probably not, but all we have to do is have the Indian leaders cave in to this compromise for this to work, with this happening plenty of times in history in other places.
That's the only way I can see this playing out in a semi-recognizable world and without stretching the imagination too much. Of course, there are others, as always, but that's my take.
Last edited: