Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

An Indian Dominion?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by astralis View Post
    i think it'd be a big difference if india got Dominion in 1918 (before Amritsar/Gandhi really turning up the stakes) and 1929.

    the biggest chance would be to get the whole thing done with the existing Government of India Act reform:

    Government of India Act 1919 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    frankly if I were Indian back then I'd jump at the chance of being in a Dominion, and hell, being as "British" as you can get . the end result would be England becoming a Dominion...just as England is largely a Dominion of the US today
    I'm not sure your imagination is that good. :)

    You could certainly see that as a 'lost opportunity', but I'm not sure what great difference it would have made in the long term. Indeed, it might actually bring forward the issue of partition. Would there be a single 'nation', two, three or more? I suspect that even India as a Dominion will still make the break with the UK around the same time everyone else did, if not before. WW2 becomes interesting - what exactly is the Indian motivation to bail out the UK? Are more than 2.5 million Indians going to volunteer to fight & die for Britain? They already have their independence. Perhaps they will choose the path of neutrality as Eire did.

    Of course, the real issue here is that Britain is always going to be reluctant to risk giving a non-white colony any significant form of independence in the late C19th or even early C20th. If India goes then who next? it is one things to let white settle states have dominion status, but very risky to allow it with a major non-white one. It seems a lot to give for no appreciable gain to the mind of a politician of the time. Britain wasn't ready to dismantle the empire in 1919. In 1947 the world had changed a great deal.
    sigpic

    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

    Comment


    • #17
      BF,

      Britain wasn't ready to dismantle the empire in 1919.
      the weird thing about the British Empire was just how loose it was. i'm surprised London never tried very hard to centralize it; i guess the Americans scared them off that prospect

      so it's very strange to me when the british could be so nonchalant about having australia or canada be so self-governing but freak out over india doing the same.

      as it was, i suppose the british sacrificed their Empire by stopping Germany in the world wars.
      There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by astralis View Post
        the weird thing about the British Empire was just how loose it was. i'm surprised London never tried very hard to centralize it; i guess the Americans scared them off that prospect
        Depends which bits of the empire you are talking about. I'm sure the Scots, Welsh & especially the Irish (well most of them) would have taken issue with your assessment. African slaves in the Americas too - the plantations of the West Indies made the Gulag Archipeligo look like a holiday camp (I'm not exaggerating - slaves had a life expectancy of 7 years. You were better off wiht Uncle Joe).

        Part of the reason for the lack of centralization was simple practicality - most of the Empire was too far away or too big. Sailing time to the American colonies was measured in days. To Australia it was in months. That began to decrease wiht steam power, but that took a while to make much difference. The Colonial Office attempted to assert control early, but as the population expanded this became impossible. In the case of India & Africa you had huge populations who weren't especially keen on being ruled by outsiders wiht a tiny white elite at the top. That said, as the Empire went on it extended its fingers deeper & deeper into the lives of those societies. It is ironic that the level of control was probably greatest at the point when Britain exited.

        so it's very strange to me when the british could be so nonchalant about having australia or canada be so self-governing but freak out over india doing the same.
        Not really. As you mentioned earlier, the race element siomply cannot be understated. Indians were not 'British' as Australians, Kiwis & Canucks. They weren't even white, like Boers. Of course, even being white didn't help the Irish, who fought a war merely to become a dominion (and fought another immediately after when the possibility of total independence instead of dominion status led Britain to threaten to invade). They were a lesser race. A savage race. They were also very profitable. As I said, it would also have set a very dangerous example.

        as it was, i suppose the british sacrificed their Empire by stopping Germany in the world wars.
        They did, though I suspect a good many bits of it would have been exiting anyway. if not for the war Ireland might have left peacefully. I suspect India would eventually have become ungovernable, and once that was gone some others would have rapidly followed (though not all).
        sigpic

        Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

        Comment


        • #19
          The thing with a historical what if scenario, is that we already know it didn't happen. Having said so if the British were gracious enough to grant Indians their wish, what makes you think that India wouldn't honour their end of the bargain and help Britain in their time of need? During WW1 India did help the British considerably, with a lot of public support to boot. Is the race issue really that big of a deal? We know that it didn't happen and there were reasons for it, but were they the "right" reasons? The problem with India splintering arises with regards to the princely states and the Muslim league (They didn't get the idea for a separate state for muslims until the 1930s and it didn't pick up steam untill the 1940s), again there is no way to find out as there was significant opposition to the two nation theory even among the muslims.

          What if it did happen though, India being made a British dominion some time before the first world war?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by DarthSiddius View Post
            The thing with a historical what if scenario, is that we already know it didn't happen. Having said so if the British were gracious enough to grant Indians their wish, what makes you think that India wouldn't honour their end of the bargain and help Britain in their time of need? During WW1 India did help the British considerably, with a lot of public support to boot.
            Perhaps India would have helped, but as much & in the same way? Do we really know the extent of that support & if it would have manifested itself in the same way were India independent. There is just no way to know.

            To give an example, Australia sent 330,000 troops to WW1, yet when the government tried to introduce conscription it twice failed in a national referrendum. A significant factor in this was nationalism - in this case Irish nationalism funnelled through the Catholic Church.

            Then there was Ireland, which despite providing huge numbers of Catholic volunteers saw an uprising in 1916 & a war of independence starting in 1919. 'Popular feeling' can be a fickle beast, especially when bodies start coming home. How sure can you be that Indians would be as supportive after 50,000 deaths?

            Then there is WW2. Britain's entire defence of the Far East hinged on the presence of Indian troops at all points in the war. they were also crucial in East Africa (not sure about elsewhere). Some of thsoe gaps could have been plugged, but only some. Is an Indian nation 30 or 40 years into independence going to send 2-3 million troops to defend British colonial possessions from Japan? How sure are you?

            Is the race issue really that big of a deal?
            At that time? hell yes. Rememeber that European nations considered themselves separate 'races' at this time. The world was viewed in terms of racial hierarchies, with Nth Europeans at the top & other races (including some Europeans) further down. I'm not sayig it was the only issue, but it coloured every aspect of thinking (apologies for the pun).

            The problem with India splintering arises with regards to the princely states and the Muslim league (They didn't get the idea for a separate state for muslims until the 1930s and it didn't pick up steam untill the 1940s), again there is no way to find out as there was significant opposition to the two nation theory even among the muslims.
            Yes, but if independence of some sort is seriously being proposed before WW1 then a whole host of issues that simmered for another 20 years would come to the fore. Further, there is no guarantee that any arrangements made initially would hold in 10, 20 or 30 years time. Want to bet against a civil war?
            sigpic

            Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

            Comment


            • #21
              BF,

              Part of the reason for the lack of centralization was simple practicality - most of the Empire was too far away or too big. Sailing time to the American colonies was measured in days. To Australia it was in months. That began to decrease wiht steam power, but that took a while to make much difference. The Colonial Office attempted to assert control early, but as the population expanded this became impossible. In the case of India & Africa you had huge populations who weren't especially keen on being ruled by outsiders wiht a tiny white elite at the top. That said, as the Empire went on it extended its fingers deeper & deeper into the lives of those societies. It is ironic that the level of control was probably greatest at the point when Britain exited.
              so why did de-centralization INCREASE when technologies favored greater centralization? for the 'white' dominions, there was a remarkable loosening in the 1870's timeframe, and of course by the time 1914 rolled around they were pretty much domestically independent. after WWI they were independent in everything but name. i'd say the era of greatest control for the Empire was circa 1840-1850, when canada, australia, (and after the Mutiny) even parts of India was considered as British as the home islands; the quote "it is the people that make the ground british, not the ground the people" comes to mind.

              Not really. As you mentioned earlier, the race element siomply cannot be understated. Indians were not 'British' as Australians, Kiwis & Canucks. They weren't even white, like Boers. Of course, even being white didn't help the Irish, who fought a war merely to become a dominion (and fought another immediately after when the possibility of total independence instead of dominion status led Britain to threaten to invade). They were a lesser race. A savage race. They were also very profitable. As I said, it would also have set a very dangerous example.
              of course, as you mentioned, this whole race idea was very erratically applied. as i said, there were indian MPs in parliament as well as indian peers. it's not as clear cut as, say, american racism and the "one drop" rule.
              There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

              Comment


              • #22
                darth,

                What if it did happen though, India being made a British dominion some time before the first world war?
                there was no possible way before WWI; the INC, after all, was founded only back in 1885 and didn't become popular in india in any real way until the years just prior to the war.

                it took the radicalizing experience of WWI-- millions of indians serving throughout the Empire-- that there was any real basis for a national consciousness. the Government of India Act was actually one of those rare british realizations that there WAS this national consciousness, although in hindsight it didn't go far enough.
                There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by DarthSiddius View Post
                  What if it did happen though, India being made a British dominion some time before the first world war?
                  There were "two India's" then, one that was directly governed by the British, and the other 560 kingdoms ruled by the rajas and maharajas.

                  Cheers!...on the rocks!!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by astralis View Post
                    for someone more knowledgeable about modern indian history than i: was there any time following the Mutiny where indians wanted Dominion status vice outright independence?
                    There was no centralized leadership representing the Indians till Gandhi came on the scene.
                    Dominon status was existing for the 560 kings/ rajas/maharajas, so they did not really care for the general public. All they did was to collect revenue, pass on the British taxes, maintain state forces and live a life of luxury.

                    Cheers!...on the rocks!!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by lemontree View Post
                      There was no centralized leadership representing the Indians till Gandhi came on the scene.
                      Dominon status was existing for the 560 kings/ rajas/maharajas, so they did not really care for the general public. All they did was to collect revenue, pass on the British taxes, maintain state forces and live a life of luxury.
                      And if a Raja or Maharaja step out of line, he would see the loss of his kingdom so there was not much choice. Divide and Conquer was at play here and British used it very effectively.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by lemontree View Post
                        There were "two India's" then, one that was directly governed by the British, and the other 560 kingdoms ruled by the rajas and maharajas.
                        By India as a Dominion I meant the whole union of India, including the princely states 'Vallabhbhai Patel' style. (a bit impractical I know!)

                        I agree with Astralis and BF about the timing and scope not existing for according the dominion status to India and no real possibility existing before WW1 or after as it was probably too late after the war with the independence movement and Indian nationalism in top gear! It still is a facinating notion with the amount of headstart India would have had with an extra 30+ years of independence and it's geopolitical effect on todays world and its problems.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          We have the British to thank for giving us the kick in the pants we needed to wake us from a 1000 year servile stupor. What I find difficult to understand, though I have admittedly not studied enough on the subject, is why the British could succeed in India and could not get beyond a few port cities in China. Its not as if they were any more united than we were at the time with their countless warlords.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by doppelganger View Post
                            What I find difficult to understand, though I have admittedly not studied enough on the subject, is why the British could succeed in India and could not get beyond a few port cities in China. Its not as if they were any more united than we were at the time with their countless warlords.
                            British rule over India, came by default due to operations of the East India Company, the British Crown got India by default.
                            The East India Company were basically traders who used oppertunities for trade and business, using their military technology to side with the local rajas was part of that policy.

                            China had the Qing dynasty ruling in Peking from 1644 to 1911(49). A single imperial authority is difficult to defeat compared to small rajas with parochial interests.

                            Cheers!...on the rocks!!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by lemontree View Post
                              China had the Qing dynasty ruling in Peking from 1644 to 1911(49). A single imperial authority is difficult to defeat compared to small rajas with parochial interests.
                              I was am reading this book White Sun, Red Star by Robert Elegant. Set in the last century, all the way to the birth of the PRC. Mao Zedong, Chiang Kai Shek, and Chou En Lai. Peking was just a power center, whose writ did not cover the rest of China. The British at most held sway over the international concession port cities like Shanghai. And did not or could not venture further.

                              The big difference I can make out, compared to our own freedom struggle, was the fact that the Chinese where and when it mattered resorted to wide scale violence that even the military naval might of the British and Dutch warships could not contain.

                              Non-violence is not something I am a great fan of. Not when someone is trampling all over me.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                The British (East India Company) arrived in India during the decline of the Mughal empire amid internal rife as well as separatist agendas from the Rajputs and Sikhs. There was a void left without any major players, which the company exploited to the hilt. A divided India was ripe for the taking! AFAIK Not the same with China.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X