Fate of colonial India without WWII ???

[Insider]

I searched the forum for this topic. It turned out that the question of the fate of India in different WW1 comes out every year or more often. However it seems that the question of India without WWII never occurred to anybody.
Would the British empire be able to hold it. Would India regain independence at all?
Would it happen peacefully, or would Britain without more pressing matters would choose to try and hold it by force?
Would there be one India, or would it would be more convinient for colonisers to give independence to just parts of it?
When it would more likely to become Independent? 40's? like OTL? 50's? or maybe more recent like 70's or 80's?

 

[longsword14]

Would the British empire be able to hold it, or would India regain independence?

It was a done deal by the start of the war. Might take upto a decade and a half, though.

Would it happen peacefully, or would Britain without more pressing matters would choose to try and hold it by force?

It was a general opinion that India was going away. There were no plans to hold on using force.

Would there be one India, or would it would be more convenient for colonisers to give independence to just parts of it?

Britain governed a large part of the country as a unit and the rest was left to the local rulers. The same rule as OTL would be used: Join India or your own territory.
Note however that splits within existing areas governed by the Raj were not considered in OTL.

When it would more likely to become Independent? 40's? like OTL? 50's? or maybe more recent like 70's or 80's?

50s at the latest.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Would India regain independence at all?

The question would be whether India would be fully independent or would be a Dominion within the Empire, rather like Canada and Australia. Without WWII, the latter is certainly a possibility.

 

[michael1]

The question would be whether India would be fully independent or would be a Dominion within the Empire, rather like Canada and Australia. Without WWII, the latter is certainly a possibility.

Even if India remained a dominion this has no practical implications over OTL as the 1931 statute of Westminster defined the dominions as independent countries sharing a common allegiance to the crown. As the crown is almost entirely a ceremonial post, it would make no real difference as the governor general (who carries out the crown's duties in overseas dominions) is chosen locally, much like the current, also mostly ceremonial Indian president.

I think the two biggest impacts of no WW2 would be the timing of independence (before the end of the 1950s but I'm not clear when), and the likelihood of partition. Partition became much more likely during WW2. Before the war Muslim parties calling for partition had relatively little support amongst the Muslim communities. WW2 increased inter-communal tensions and crippled the ability of the Congress party leadership to respond to this because of their boycott of the political institutions and later imprisonment. The timing of independence could also affect the likelihood of partition through the death of Jinnah. Of course partition may well still happen.