India sans Britan.

[ArneHD]

As the World History forum has a reputation for answering short stupid questions with amazing depth, what if India had become independent from Britain a hundred years sooner in the 1860s/1870s? Would India exist as a unified state at all?

 

[Dachs]

As the World History forum has a reputation for answering short stupid questions with amazing depth, what if India had become independent from Britain a hundred years sooner in the 1860s/1870s? Would India exist as a unified state at all?

You mean, if the Great Mutiny had succeeded?

 

[ArneHD]

You mean, if the Great Mutiny had succeeded?

Huh, I missed that episode.

But yes, something like that.

 

[Disenfrancised]

As the World History forum has a reputation for answering short stupid questions with amazing depth, what if India had become independent from Britain a hundred years sooner in the 1860s/1870s? Would India exist as a unified state at all?

Probably not, the Princely States still had large amounts of power, none of the centralising reforms of the british administration have happened yet, neither have the Pan-Indian actions of nationalists politians, the Mutiny didn't really have a clear idea on what they were going to institute, the Muslims wouldn't trust the Hindus and vice versa.

Basically it be the decline of the Mughals all over again.

 

[Shekwan]

They'd probably be communist now.

 

[Disenfrancised]

They'd probably be communist now.

Yeah 'coz Britain loosing India and the massive global effects that would have wouldn't change the rise of the USSR at all.

 

[thomas.berubeg]

well... Russia did have designs on India(if i beleive George Mcdonald Frasier)... so a britain Free divided India would have seemed a fruit ripe for the taking for Russia

 

[North King]

Basically it be the decline of the Mughals all over again.

lolwut? The decline of the Mughals wasn't a foregone conclusion. If the Indians had gotten independence, even if they were split into many pieces, they probably could have secured a lot of foreign investment, technology, and so on.

Of course, Britain would never have let her crown jewel get away in the first place...

 

[Dachs]

well... Russia did have designs on India(if i beleive George Mcdonald Frasier)... so a britain Free divided India would have seemed a fruit ripe for the taking for Russia

Yeah, except the Great Game was mostly a hallucination on the part of the Foreign Office, backed up by a few, relatively nonthreatening moves on the part of the Russians. Afghanistan was perhaps the only real example of it coming close to anything big. There's a reason resolution came so easily in 1907.

lolwut? The decline of the Mughals wasn't a foregone conclusion. If the Indians had gotten independence, even if they were split into many pieces, they probably could have secured a lot of foreign investment, technology, and so on.

Even after Aurangzeb? I dunno about that...I think the situation would be legitimately comparable to that of 1740 or so in India.

Of course, Britain would never have let her crown jewel get away in the first place...

This is World History's alternate history. We are supposed to suspend reality. Save your elitism for the NESing thread.

 

[Tee Kay]

Yeah 'coz Britain loosing India and the massive global effects that would have wouldn't change the rise of the USSR at all.

Communism didn't began in Russia. Britain could've turned communist instead (The European Soviets, anyone?)

Even after Aurangzeb? I dunno about that...I think the situation would be legitimately comparable to that of 1740 or so in India.

Hyderabad, Mysore, the Marathas and others were quite powerful. Anyways, the British got India in part due to playing one princely state against another. But if one of those stronger states managed to secure the support of, say, half of India, under an effective leader it would've represent quite a challenge to Britain. The Marathas managed to do so for a while before it was weakened by combination political devolution + Afghan invasion + ill-conceived attempt to copy British military tactics and organisation.

 

[Disenfrancised]

lolwut? The decline of the Mughals wasn't a foregone conclusion. If the Indians had gotten independence, even if they were split into many pieces, they probably could have secured a lot of foreign investment, technology, and so on.

Of course, Britain would never have let her crown jewel get away in the first place...

You fail at reading comprehension - the mughals authority did decline (inevitably or not), and regional concentrations of power rose. I'm saying that if the British left at the discussed period then regional concentrations would rise and there wouldn't be a unified India, not making any comment on how prosperious or dynamic the regional entities would be .

@thomas.berubeg: Yeah the Russians probably would have wanted to take india but projecting power would have been impossible, it would have been a bigger job than the transiberian railroad, and the Russians lacked the cash Britain had to bribe the princely states. Besides Russia would have gone for the relatively easier conquest of Persia first to get their indian ocean ports.

 

[North King]

You fail at reading comprehension - the mughals authority did decline (inevitably or not), and regional concentrations of power rose. I'm saying that if the British left at the discussed period then regional concentrations would rise and there wouldn't be a unified India, not making any comment on how prosperious or dynamic the regional entities would be .

I'm not entirely sure how somehow everyone who misreads you are the ones who are at fault for miscommunication, and fail at reading comprehension. Maybe you should try writing clearly next time.

Just an FYI that the "I'm always right" routine is extremely irritating, and makes it difficult to take you seriously.

 

[silver 2039]

As the World History forum has a reputation for answering short stupid questions with amazing depth, what if India had become independent from Britain a hundred years sooner in the 1860s/1870s? Would India exist as a unified state at all?

If you talking about the 1857 Rebellion that was unfourtnatley doomed to failure. The rebels were for the most part poorly lead, disorganized, and didn't have enough popular support.

You mean, if the Great Mutiny had succeeded?

We prefer to call it The First War of Indian Independence thank you very much.

Probably not, the Princely States still had large amounts of power, none of the centralising reforms of the british administration have happened yet, neither have the Pan-Indian actions of nationalists politians, the Mutiny didn't really have a clear idea on what they were going to institute, the Muslims wouldn't trust the Hindus and vice versa.

You underestimate the Mughals. The British built largely on Mughal administration. Their revenue and tax system, and zamindar system was built upon its Mughal predecessor. The Mughal's had a skilled and capable bureaucracy and they had the largest taxed population of the world.

Notice how all the empires that came after the Mughals used the Mughals as a sort of figurehead and rallying cry. Hyderabad, Jahnasi, and Bengal all continued to owe nominal allegiance to the Mughal Emperor. The Maratha's and Rohilla's both styled themselves as protectors of the Mughals. The Hindu Sepoy's and the Islamic Jihadi's both proclaimed their allegiance to the Mughal Emperor when they rose in rebellion in his name.

Hell even the British East India Company acknowledged themselves as vassals to the Mughal Emperor on all their coins and seals.

There's a reason for that you know. Its because the Mughal Empire was pretty much a unified Indian empire in recent history which owned the entire subcontinent. As such the title of the Mughal Emperor still had immense resonance which the British of course underestimated to their detriment in 1857.

If the British hadn't been around, then there's no reason to believe that some other kingdom wouldn't have taken up the mantle and unified the subcontinent again. I put my money on the Sikhs. Or perhaps Mysore though they would probably have taken the south they didn't have a position as good as the Sikhs.

In Indian history some dynasty or kingdom or another attempts to conquer the entire subcontinent. It started with the Mauryans, continued with the Guptas, Delhi Sultanate, Mughals, Marathas and such.

They'd probably be communist now.

And Ireland would be occupied by Zanzibar.

Even after Aurangzeb? I dunno about that...I think the situation would be legitimately comparable to that of 1740 or so in India.Even after Aurangzeb? I dunno about that...I think the situation would be legitimately comparable to that of 1740 or so in India.

The Mughal Empire was doomed but they could likely continue to exist as a sort of Vatican in the Red Fort wielding ecclesiastical power but little temporal power with different Indian states claiming to be their protector.

 

[Dachs]

If you talking about the 1857 Rebellion that was unfourtnatley doomed to failure. The rebels were for the most part poorly lead, disorganized, and didn't have enough popular support.

This is World History alternate history. Disbelief is supposed to be suspended.

We prefer to call it The First War of Indian Independence thank you very much.

Does that make Bacon's Rebellion the First American Revolution?

The Mughal Empire was doomed but they could likely continue to exist as a sort of Vatican in the Red Fort wielding ecclesiastical power but little temporal power with different Indian states claiming to be their protector.

That is an interesting idea. How would the whole Muslim/Hindu dichotomy fit into that?

 

[silver 2039]

Does that make Bacon's Rebellion the First American Revolution?

There's a difference between goals of the two. Bacon didn't want to drive the British out of Virginia of North America. But the goals of the 1857 Rebellion were certainely to get rid of the British. And its interesting to note they cut across lines of religion and ethnicity. Hindu Bhramin Sepoy's from Awadh working with Islamic Jihadi's from modern day Pakisan. But its not really a war of independence in the modern sense but Indian historians like to call it that and its how he's viewed in India, he has roads and parks adn what not named after him in both Pakistan and India. At any rate its better than calling it a mutiny which trivializes it. It was far more than that.

That is an interesting idea. How would the whole Muslim/Hindu dichotomy fit into that?

The Mughal Emperor was Caliph of Islam, Defender of the Faith, and the Keeper of the Hair of Prophet Muhmmad. But the thing is he couldn't actually say anything about Islam. The interpretation of Islam and Islamic law was left the the clerics. He didn't wield anywhere near ecclesiastical power the Pope wields and he wouldn't really be equivalent. He wasn't actually well liked by the Deobandi madrassa which viewed him as a puppet of the British.

He could sort of be considered a half religious and half political figure. He would command respect among both the Muslim and Hindu population. There was a reason that Bahadur Shah Zafar was rallied around by both Hindu's and Muslims rather than any other rulers, he was considered the most acceptable since a lot of the Hindu states carried grudges against each other. The Maratha's and Rajuputs didn't get along for instance.

So the Mughal Emperor would lend an air of shall we say tolerance and legitimacy to a kingdom. He could serve as the arbitrater and negotiator of both Muslims and Hindu's to the government of the kingdom that was currently in power. During the rebellion for instance his subjects both Hindu and Muslim regularly petitioned him complaining about actions of Hindu Sepoy's or Muslims Jihadi's. For instance the Hindu's had made a mosque a stable, or the Muslims had raped someone and he worked to control the excesses and atrocities of the rebels.

He could serve such a function on a wider scale in such a situation mostly for Muslims if a Hindu government dominated the subcontinent, being a sort of bridge to the subjects accompanied by large degree's of respect among the population, and acting as a dual political-religious figurehead for the regime.

 

[Dachs]

So apparently I should have indicated that this comment was tongue in cheek?

But its not really a war of independence in the modern sense but Indian historians like to call it that and its how he's viewed in India, he has roads and parks adn what not named after him in both Pakistan and India. At any rate its better than calling it a mutiny which trivializes it. It was far more than that.

Since I'm not an Indian nationalist historian, and those are the only people that refer to the Sepoy Rebellion/Great Mutiny/1857 Smackdown as a war of independence...and no independence was gained...

 

[Disenfrancised]

I'm not entirely sure how somehow everyone who misreads you are the ones who are at fault for miscommunication, and fail at reading comprehension. Maybe you should try writing clearly next time.

Just an FYI that the "I'm always right" routine is extremely irritating, and makes it difficult to take you seriously.

You're mistaking me for Symphony D.

 

[alcal]

Likely England would have lost his world supremacy, much before than in 1945.

 

[Oruc]

Nope!

 

[Babbler]

If 1857 was the First War of Indian Independence, what was the second (and possible third, forth, etc.)?