What would it take (pre or post-1900) to have the British Raj become an independent empire with an Indian emperor and a constitutional monarchy?
Instead of a Republic of India, an Indian Empire instead?
- Thread starter Coyote Knight
- Start date
SsgtC
Banned
They stay in the Commonwealth with the English monarch as a titular Emperor and Head of State while having no actual authority.
I'm pretty sure this has been discussed before, but I'm not sure where.
I actually think the POD would have to be in the late nineteenth century and would involve the British elite to be much more far sighted, though I actually don't think their IOTL policies were that bad.
Either India is set up as an Indian run enterprise with a few ties to Britain beneficial to Britain (bases for the navy, when India industrializes British firms get the contracts, shared monarch) right from the start, or Edward VII decamps to India the say the Braganzas did with Brazil. Since the 12th century, non-Indian and non-Hundu dynasties ruling much of India has been the norm, but they have to actually live there.
I actually think the POD would have to be in the late nineteenth century and would involve the British elite to be much more far sighted, though I actually don't think their IOTL policies were that bad.
Either India is set up as an Indian run enterprise with a few ties to Britain beneficial to Britain (bases for the navy, when India industrializes British firms get the contracts, shared monarch) right from the start, or Edward VII decamps to India the say the Braganzas did with Brazil. Since the 12th century, non-Indian and non-Hundu dynasties ruling much of India has been the norm, but they have to actually live there.
If India had received real home rule within the Empire, one requirement would have been that the viceroy be an Indian (as has come to be customary in all the realms), I suspect that this would often mean a member of a princely family. In the model I have attempted to build, the upper house of the Indian Parliament is an House of Lords analogue made up of princes and the ruling princes serve as governors of their provinces but with real power in the hands of the elected Chief Minister. In the provinces which were federations of princely states, the princes form the upper house of the state legislative body and (in the Malaysian way) elect a governor from among themselves.
If memory serves me correctly, the Princely States were rather contentious IOTL. They were considered separate nations, just under British protection. India did act pretty quickly to strip them of their power and get rid of them altogether... :/
Riain
Banned
Perhaps have a Constitution akin to that of Imperial Germany, where the King of Prussia was the President of the Upper House Bundesraat and therefore the Emperor of Germany. If India was made up of various Kingdom, Princely and other Noble states they could even have an elective head of this upper house, so each Kingdom could have a shot of being elected Emperor when the opportunity came up.
The Indian independence movement was far too republican and opposed to the “collaborating” princes to allow any of them to become ruler.
I really think the best possibility is to make India a dominion far earlier than OTL, like during the 1920s, and keep the autonomy movement from becoming an independence movement.
I really think the best possibility is to make India a dominion far earlier than OTL, like during the 1920s, and keep the autonomy movement from becoming an independence movement.
But then if it's a Dominion, what happens to the viceroy/governor-general of such an India? Does a British royal take over? Do the Indians choose a Maratha or Mughal descendant as "Emperor" like the Sepoys tried to do in 1857?
IOTL, when India was a dominion between 1947 and 1950, an Indian became governor-general, though I forgot his long, Tamil name. He went on to found his own party. Something similar would occur, I guess.
It’s also possible that a British person is appointed to that role, and down the line it becomes an Indian.
As with all dominions, the British royal retains their previous title and is head of state of India.
No one would support a Maratha descendant except for the Tilakites and the Mughals were essentially destroyed as a line after 1857.
Aren't there actually dozens of people who claim to be descendants of Bahadur Shah Zafar?
Well, we know of at least a good handful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahadur_Shah_Zafar#Family_and_descendants
It might have been interesting if the British Royal Family had been willing to have a male OR female marry into an Indian Royal Family. Then their descendants become the ruling family when India gets her independence. Highly doubtful.
I do like the Malaya idea and having a revolving Ruler.
I do like the Malaya idea and having a revolving Ruler.
Perhaps if there was a somewhat-renegade British royal who had served as GG in India but very much "went native" and pulls a Pedro I of Brazil. Still pretty doubtful though. :/
If you managed to keep Pakistan and Bangladesh in India and perhaps even Sri Lanka could they have kept the British royals as nominal head of state so as to avoid having a Hindu or Muslim one. Also as an independent unifying figure assuming a POD before ww1 where Britain stays out and is thus stronger going into the 20th century leading to dominion status maybe coming in the 30s?