Irish Home Rule succeeds

[ShortsBelfast]

Fully agree, but it is important to remember that this was not the full weight of the British state conquering the bulk of India but one large and important trading company. The modern equivalent would be BP, the old ICI or Richard Branson's Virgin Group going out and conquering India as an unforseen consequence of a couple of contractual disputes!

 

[Indicus]

Fully agree, but it is important to remember that this was not the full weight of the British state conquering the bulk of India but one large and important trading company. The modern equivalent would be BP, the old ICI or Richard Branson's Virgin Group going out and conquering India as an unforseen consequence of a couple of contractual disputes!

Richard Wellesley knew he was conquering giant swathes of India, and Parliament was applauding him for conquering giant swathes of India. I don’t think this argument is really tenable, particularly by this point.

You can argue that the conquest of India was “accidental” before the establishment of the Board of Control by the Pitt regime, but afterwards, not really.

 

[ShortsBelfast]

Richard Wellesley knew he was conquering giant swathes of India, and Parliament was applauding him for conquering giant swathes of India. I don’t think this argument is really tenable, particularly by this point.

You can argue that the conquest of India was “accidental” before the establishment of the Board of Control by the Pitt regime, but afterwards, not really.

That wasn't really my point though, I never thought it was particularly "accidental", the EIC was a big important trading company with excellent political connections, I chose examples of BP and the old ICI fairly deliberately. What is remarkable is how "incidental" it was.
With PODs in the early medieval period, it isn't impossible for Switzerland or Burgundy to conquer France- England nearly managed it a couple of times. But what I am saying is that this was the equivalent of the canton of Vaud or the County of Charolais doing it by themselves with mere acquiescence from the rest of the country.

 

[Gary Oswald]

That wasn't really my point though, I never thought it was particularly "accidental", the EIC was a big important trading company with excellent political connections, I chose examples of BP and the old ICI fairly deliberately. What is remarkable is how "incidental" it was.
With PODs in the early medieval period, it isn't impossible for Switzerland or Burgundy to conquer France- England nearly managed it a couple of times. But what I am saying is that this was the equivalent of the canton of Vaud or the County of Charolais doing it by themselves with mere acquiescence from the rest of the country.

1066 is a bit that, though innit? Only instead of the Kingdom of France bailing out the Normans and taking over their conquests as happened with the UK and India, or that matter Spain and Mexico. the Normans used their power base in England to try and break off from French rule.

 

[JeffreyArchersnemesis]

1066 is a bit that, though innit? Only instead of the Kingdom of France bailing out the Normans and taking over their conquests as happened with the UK and India, or that matter Spain and Mexico. the Normans used their power base in England to try and break off from French rule.

This reminds me of another potential POD I've often wondered about: the EIC breaking off from the UK some time in the 1700s (you know, when the white officers still lived openly with their Indian mistresses and all that) to create an Anglo-Indian hybrid state in Bengal. I don't really think it would work - not least because of the commercial imperatives of the EIC as a whole - and it's off-topic for this thread but I've always thought it an interesting idea in the abstract.

 

[Indicus]

That wasn't really my point though, I never thought it was particularly "accidental", the EIC was a big important trading company with excellent political connections, I chose examples of BP and the old ICI fairly deliberately. What is remarkable is how "incidental" it was.
With PODs in the early medieval period, it isn't impossible for Switzerland or Burgundy to conquer France- England nearly managed it a couple of times. But what I am saying is that this was the equivalent of the canton of Vaud or the County of Charolais doing it by themselves with mere acquiescence from the rest of the country.

It really wasn’t incidental, though, especially after Pitt’s East India Act brought the East India Company under the oversight of the Crown (and of course, East India affairs were a massively important part of parliamentary discussion during the Fox-North Coalition crisis and all that). It was a quite explicit policy of imperial aggrandizement by Governor-Generals appointed by Westminster which reached its peak in Richard Wellesley’s reign.

 

[Indicus]

I think this diversion has gone on long enough, so to bring this thread back on track: what would the effects of Irish Home Rule be on the colonies? As an example of this influence, in OTL, the Irish independence movement influenced the Indian independence movement - the model of fighting for autonomy tied to cultural revival was duplicated, the Irish nationalist Annie Besant led the Indian Home Rule League during World War I, and early in his career (in South Africa) Gandhi claimed that he would be known as the Indian O'Connell. Even in the white colony of Canada, Irish cultural revival was a direct influence on the formation of Canadian cultural nationalism soon after Confederation thanks to people like D'Arcy McGee, a Young Ireland type who fled to the US, and then following experiences with anti-Catholicism he made his way to Canada.

I imagine Ireland winning its autonomy through purely constitutional means would have a considerable number of effects on other colonial independence movements, India most obviously; similarly, London being the centre for the arts of Ireland and the white dominions would implicitly mean lots of cultural interaction.

 

[Roger II]

I wonder if Dublin is going to be a major political and cultural hub for anticolonial activity as well as model/example for Indian and to a lesser extent Canadian independence activists.

 

[JeffreyArchersnemesis]

I think this diversion has gone on long enough, so to bring this thread back on track: what would the effects of Irish Home Rule be on the colonies? As an example of this influence, in OTL, the Irish independence movement influenced the Indian independence movement - the model of fighting for autonomy tied to cultural revival was duplicated, the Irish nationalist Annie Besant led the Indian Home Rule League during World War I, and early in his career (in South Africa) Gandhi claimed that he would be known as the Indian O'Connell. Even in the white colony of Canada, Irish cultural revival was a direct influence on the formation of Canadian cultural nationalism soon after Confederation thanks to people like D'Arcy McGee, a Young Ireland type who fled to the US, and then following experiences with anti-Catholicism he made his way to Canada.

I imagine Ireland winning its autonomy through purely constitutional means would have a considerable number of effects on other colonial independence movements, India most obviously; similarly, London being the centre for the arts of Ireland and the white dominions would implicitly mean lots of cultural interaction.

I like to think that it might give all parties in the UK a sense of "oh, well that wasn't so bad" and encourage them to pursue increased self-government for India, obviating the long-term need for partition. The only problem with that is I don't know if there was an Indian figure in the 1890s who could play the Parnell-like role. Feasibly Naoroji, now I think about it, who would have the advantage of being an MP in the 1890s too.

I wonder if Dublin is going to be a major political and cultural hub for anticolonial activity as well as model/example for Indian and to a lesser extent Canadian independence activists.

I'd be surprised to be honest. Assuming Home Rule in 1886 then, although there will be a republican movement/party in Ireland and the devolved assembly, I don't imagine it becoming dominant (at least for a while).

 

[Charles EP M.]

India's dissidents going for a fully legal/constitutional "gives us home rule" move would be pretty big, and a bigger one if Britain won't give them it after giving it to Ireland.

 

[JeffreyArchersnemesis]

Maybe, I don’t know if the rebalancing of forces would lead to the Die Hards necessarily changing their stance. On the one hand a larger un-split Liberal party might give more space for liberal imperial reforms but, on the other, if it’s a bigger tent party if might just have to do nothing because of internal disagreements

 

[SenatorChickpea]

I'm envisaging a scenario now where decolonisation is improbably, implausibly peaceful. Home Rule leads to the Dominion of Ireland, there's no partition but instead a Dominion- then Federation- of India, the Mau-Mau are pre-empted by some sort of Dominion of East Africa and so forth.

The chances of any one of those happening are slim, let alone of all of them succeeding, but just go with it.

In that timeline, I think it's plausible that the modern UK is more reactionary and racist, not less. Even more so than in our timeline, there's no reckoning with India- it's a slow retreat, no Confrontation, no Mau-Mau, no Suez. In fact, if things like the Indian Federation fall apart that's proof that Britain kept 'their worst impulses' in check, or whatever. The empire is, even more so than OTL, seen as something to be proud of.

I wonder if there's something there?

 

[Dan1988]

Even in the white colony of Canada, Irish cultural revival was a direct influence on the formation of Canadian cultural nationalism soon after Confederation thanks to people like D'Arcy McGee, a Young Ireland type who fled to the US, and then following experiences with anti-Catholicism he made his way to Canada.

Well, there's still French Canada to fall back on (well, if the right advantages were taken early on pre-1837 to make religion less of a factor).

 

[ShortsBelfast]

I'm envisaging a scenario now where decolonisation is improbably, implausibly peaceful. Home Rule leads to the Dominion of Ireland, there's no partition but instead a Dominion- then Federation- of India, the Mau-Mau are pre-empted by some sort of Dominion of East Africa and so forth.

The chances of any one of those happening are slim, let alone of all of them succeeding, but just go with it.

In that timeline, I think it's plausible that the modern UK is more reactionary and racist, not less. Even more so than in our timeline, there's no reckoning with India- it's a slow retreat, no Confrontation, no Mau-Mau, no Suez. In fact, if things like the Indian Federation fall apart that's proof that Britain kept 'their worst impulses' in check, or whatever. The empire is, even more so than OTL, seen as something to be proud of.

I wonder if there's something there?

Well all the post-Imperial Federations fell apart OTL apart from Malaysia (less Singapore) and Australia and Canada- all of which had relative ethnic, cultural and religious homogeneity (mind you that was also mostly true of the West Indies). India OTOH might not, OTL Jinnah and the Muslim League were OK with a relatively loose Federation, it was the Congress Party that were enthusiastic centralisers. Maybe, in a TL where someone is alert to Ulster's concerns early on and heads them off at the pass by proposing Federal 4-province Home Rule (Lord Frederick Cavendish perhaps?) Congress are less fixated on centralising power and realise that a looser Confederation makes for a larger more economically and militarily powerful state?

 

[JeffreyArchersnemesis]

I'm envisaging a scenario now where decolonisation is improbably, implausibly peaceful. Home Rule leads to the Dominion of Ireland, there's no partition but instead a Dominion- then Federation- of India, the Mau-Mau are pre-empted by some sort of Dominion of East Africa and so forth.

The chances of any one of those happening are slim, let alone of all of them succeeding, but just go with it.

In that timeline, I think it's plausible that the modern UK is more reactionary and racist, not less. Even more so than in our timeline, there's no reckoning with India- it's a slow retreat, no Confrontation, no Mau-Mau, no Suez. In fact, if things like the Indian Federation fall apart that's proof that Britain kept 'their worst impulses' in check, or whatever. The empire is, even more so than OTL, seen as something to be proud of.

I wonder if there's something there?

Do you mean in the sense that if nothing 'goes wrong' then there's even less impetus to change the constitution? I'm a bit skeptical of that to be honest, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I think the overwhelming view of decolonisation at the time and since OTL is that it did go pretty well. Attlee was asked in an interview (in the 1960s, I think) what the greatest success of his tenure was and he said partition. (To be fair, in the same interview he also said he thought Salisbury was the greatest PM of his lifetime so maybe he was losing a step or two.) Secondly, I think that overstates the extent to which imperial matters had much of an effect on public opinion: my favourite statistic of all time is that a social attitude survey in 1948 revealed that 51% of British people surveyed couldn't name a single colony (and 5% thought the USA was one). On the other hand, assuming that the colonies all become pro-British federations (maybe still in the Sterling Zone - I guess that would depend how TTL's world wars shake out) then I could definitely see a kind of liberal imperialist sentiment being much more prominent than OTL.

Well all the post-Imperial Federations fell apart OTL apart from Malaysia (less Singapore) and Australia and Canada- all of which had relative ethnic, cultural and religious homogeneity (mind you that was also mostly true of the West Indies). India OTOH might not, OTL Jinnah and the Muslim League were OK with a relatively loose Federation, it was the Congress Party that were enthusiastic centralisers. Maybe, in a TL where someone is alert to Ulster's concerns early on and heads them off at the pass by proposing Federal 4-province Home Rule (Lord Frederick Cavendish perhaps?) Congress are less fixated on centralising power and realise that a looser Confederation makes for a larger more economically and militarily powerful state?

I definitely think that an unpartitioned India is possible, although maybe you'd have to have other butterflies not directly related to the Irish Question. (Perhaps give Lord Ripon, or someone like him, another term as Viceroy...) While it got a bad rep because it was such a transparent attempt at divide and rule, something like the 1905 Bengal partition probably isn't tooooo bad an idea: provinces drawn so there's a religious majority in each; and a loose federal structure on the Canadian model on top of that (possibly with the Princely States serving in the upper house).

 

[Indicus]

While it got a bad rep because it was such a transparent attempt at divide and rule, something like the 1905 Bengal partition probably isn't tooooo bad an idea

It really is an extremely bad idea, and in many cases like Punjab, drawing such a border would be totally arbitrary and meaningless (that is, unless there’s OTL-style mass ethnic cleansing turning that border into something real).

In any independent India, religious tensions would start to weaken, especially with the emergence of stuff like caste tensions and linguistic statehood movements that would inevitably cross religious divides. I do get that something as horrendous and catastrophic as the violence of Partition may look like an inevitability, but it really wasn’t.

 

[JeffreyArchersnemesis]

It really is an extremely bad idea, and in many cases like Punjab, drawing such a border would be totally arbitrary and meaningless (that is, unless there’s OTL-style mass ethnic cleansing turning that border into something real).

In any independent India, religious tensions would start to weaken, especially with the emergence of stuff like caste tensions and linguistic statehood movements that would inevitably cross religious divides. I do get that something as horrendous and catastrophic as the violence of Partition may look like an inevitability, but it really wasn’t.

I think I phrased myself badly: I didn't mean to imply that partition was inevitable and was in fact agreeing with the points you make. My point was that, by the time you get to the 1930s, avoiding some kind of partition probably was impossible (perhaps you disagree), which isn't to say it couldn't have been done better. But if we're changing things from the 1880s onwards then I don't think partition is impossible at all. What I do think is impossible is some kind of revision of internal Indian borders, although you're right that linguistic boundaries makes more sense than religious ones. I wonder what the future of the princely states would be: perhaps the non-salute states would just get absorbed or maybe they all survive...