WI: Western Imperialism in Africa and Asia is more ‚soft‘ and indirect?

In OTL western countries colonized most of the globe, ruling much of the world‘s population within their empires. Even places they didn‘t conquer outright were usually divided into spheres of influence or had one-sided treaties imposed on them. This was also usually followed by a deep cultural penetration, through missionaries etc.

But what if the west was more ‚hands off‘ in its approach, meaning western countries would be satisfied with favorable trade conditions, and refrained from occupying vast swathes of territory in Africa and Asia, with the exception of some strategically important spots like Singapore, Hong Kong, Suez etc., to be used as trading posts or coaling stations.

This ‚hands off’ approach would also include cultural stuff, meaning that the west wouldn‘t care that much about the success or safety of missionaries (at least not enough to intervene directly), or about more ‚barbaric’ cultural customs and traditions, like the practice of widow burning in places like India, for example.

How would Africa and Asia develop in this case? Is it possible that some of these countries would remain more or less feudal (or even tribal, in some cases) to this day? Would much of Central and Southern Asia look similar to Afghanistan, for example? I‘m not sure which areas of Africa and Asia would be able to ‚pull a Meiji‘ without the kind of cultural, political and economic penetration by the west we saw in OTL.

What do you think?
 
Top