The princely states composed 40% of the landmass of British India in 1947, had the British rejoined Burma as a princely state to India, established a Sikh kingdom in the areas of the Punjab with a significant Sikh population, added Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim to India to have over 50% of India's landmass be princely states then allotted over 50% of the seats in both houses of the imperial legislature to the princes to be appointed by them on this basis and the rest to the federal states with separate seats for the depressed classes and minorities it'd have offered a suitable basis for British influence over India even with dominion status.The princes, controlling the majority of the seats in both houses, would be needed to pass any federal bill and would almost certainly oppose any bill opposing their fundamental interests and thus would've served to temper socialistic populist elements and with the princes powers secured they'd have had a much freer hand to exercise their despotism on a state and federal level which would've allowed for more force to be deployed to combat insurrection and the like.In the most remedial sense it'd have allowed the British to exercise considerable influence via the princes, shunted off the political liability onto them, allowed them to do things the British wouldn't have been able to get away with and secured India to the western powers and Britain in particular while giving it dominion status and thus de jure independence while directing Indian political attention towards other Indians.
>>17223248>The British could've held India via princesno they couldn't
>>17223250>no they couldn'tGive a reason why. Had the British left India in the hands of the princes why would this not be a suitable state of affairs for British influence as Indian attention would be directed to the princes to democratize instead of at the British?
westerners stayed in south america after achieving independence from colonial rule but everyone else left other colony possessions and returned to their country of origin. why is that? In what way is argentina less hostile from say india?
>>17223266>why would this not be a suitable state of affairs for British influence as Indian attention would be directed to the princes to democratize instead of at the British?Britain wanted it all and it already did lmao. Why give up any control?
>>17223266The issue is that the princes were made figureheads a century prior due to the Indian Rebellion showing the unreliability of depending on them leading to the British taking direct rule from the East India Company
>>17223330>Britain wanted it all and it already did lmao. Why give up any control?For fuck sake are you the same guy from the apartheid thread?
>>17223248Dude, let go.
>>17223331>The issue is that the princes were made figureheads a century prior No, princes had varying degrees of power with the larger ones having the power of life and death over their subjects with almost total internal autonomy. The lesser princes still had a wide latitude over their (Indian) subjects with the minor princes being more akin to the figureheads you describe.>due to the Indian Rebellion showing the unreliability of depending on them leading to the British taking direct rule from the East India CompanyThe Indian rebellion literally did the opposite, the rebellion was brought about by the doctrine of lapse and other initiatives that curtailed the autonomy of the princes by the Earl of Dalhousie and after the rebellion (barring the rebellious states) no princely state was lapsed when India was under the crown and princely control was strengthened.The proclamation to the "Princes, Chiefs, and People of India", issued by Queen Victoria on 1 November 1858 confirmed this.
>>17223355>Dude, let go.lol
>>17223248>The British could've held India via princesThey could have held India forever without princes if they wanted to. Indians were primed to accept white rule in perpetuity because of their caste system which placed whites in charge of their society. Returning India to the people of India was probably one of the greatest tragedies of the modern world and led to nothing but evil.
>>17223374>They could have held India forever without princes if they wanted to.Not without lots of expense and blood wasted, ruling via proxies is far cheaper, less wounding to the ruled populations self esteem and spares of unnecessary contact with white men.>Indians were primed to accept white rule in perpetuity because of their caste system which placed whites in charge of their society. No, the maharajahs were the ones with the social and religious prestige in that system and thus they must've been the ones to rule it lest diversity of thought be introduced into the system in the chaos and divergent, anti-colonial ideas form. Keeping the traditional structures of native rule allows more flexibility and provides more options than direct colonial imposition.>Returning India to the people of India was probably one of the greatest tragedies of the modern world and led to nothing but evil.It definitely left them out of the western camp, for sure.
>>17223267>In what way is argentina less hostile from say india?India was a socialistic hellhole and today is only slowly creeping out of this phase brought about by the INC.
>>17223350The idea having the princes rule makes no sense when independence sentiments were already roaring up prior to ww2. Not sure how that princely states would be able to sustain themselves through that period as an alternative.
>>17223414>Keeping the traditional structures of native rule allows more flexibility and provides more options than direct colonial imposition.And also be vulnerable to being disposed of by the locals in an anti-royalty coup
>>17223426>The idea having the princes rule makes no sense when independence sentiments were already roaring up prior to ww2. Because? >Not sure how that princely states would be able to sustain themselves through that period as an alternative.The princes would have over 50% of both houses of the federal legislature with the rest being elected. Thus the British could leave with the federal government being in friendly hands.>>17223428>And also be vulnerable to being disposed of by the locals in an anti-royalty coupVarious princely states had Indian States Forces which would be able to put these things down and, if it got serious, the federal government would send troops to restore order.
>>17223267Part of it is because whites in India were more likely to be administrators while Spaniards in Argentina were settlers, if colonial administration ends what do the bureaucrats do? Most importantly though as explained by other anon India was hopelessly mismanaged post-independence. One of the very few countries that creeped back into Malthusian trap.
>>17223795>if colonial administration ends what do the bureaucrats do?Stay on in their role, seconded from the colonial power.
>>17223795Also Anglo-Indians (the hybrids of white guys fucking pajeet women) were completely excluded from basically all jobs in the company administration from Cornwallis's Governor-Generalship onwards because he was afraid that a homegrown Anglicised group in India would try to have a chimpout against the British and succeed. I wonder if you could have used stinky poopie jeet mestizos as administrative middlemen to help run India like the Dutch used Eurasian Indos
>>17223795>One of the very few countries that creeped back into Malthusian trap.What trap? In terms of food they can produce what they need but the issue is that their profits for the farmers is low due to middlemen grifting fucking them over and jacking up prices for the consumer.
