Consequences of Britain losing India in the 1850s?

[Vinization]

Suppose that the 1857 Sepoy Mutiny or whatever is TTL's equivalent of it is much more successful than OTL, completely expelling the British East India Company from the Indian Subcontinent by the end of the 1850s. The how is irrelevant here, only the end result and its consequences.

So? India is usually talked about as the British Empire's crown jewel, but was that really the case?

 

[KingSweden24]

You’d have a much more robust princely states then, I’d think, which would be interesting for Hindu-Muslim relations

 

[KingSweden24]

But @traveller76 is going to be a much better resource in this q than I

 

[AltoRegnant]

The world economy is shattered because of the collapse of that trade. But once it recovers, France and Russia now have a free hand all over asia. I actually suspect Britain will need to be more involved in Europe since they can no longer afford to keep the navy as dominant as they did

 

[marktaha]

Indian states fighting each other?

 

[The Tai-Pan]

I wonder how this would alter the nascent Industrial Revolution.

 

[NotAMyth]

So? India is usually talked about as the British Empire's crown jewel, but was that really the case?

Most definitely.

Not in terms of state revenue collected but due to the huge captive market and as a source of cheap raw material and manpower.

Infact revenue collected from India was often used to even further subsidize the raw material aquisitions and its logistics.

British manufacturing and its growth was heavily based on profits generated by the use of the aforementioned dirt cheap raw materials.

What could the consequences be of a economic depression in Britain in 1850s is a much broader question and probably requires its own thread.

 

[the Imperium of Canada]

I wonder how this would affect the development of "scientific" racism and other such pseudo-sciences if the world's most powerful European Empire just got thrown out by a bunch of "inferior savages".

 

[KingSweden24]

I’m more curious what happens if Britain’s foothold in India is weaker to begin with; seems like that’s what it would take for the Sepoy Mutiny to be successful in the first place

 

[Vinization]

I’m more curious what happens if Britain’s foothold in India is weaker to begin with; seems like that’s what it would take for the Sepoy Mutiny to be successful in the first place

I disagree, if its grip on India were weaker the BEIC would probably be less arrogant and disrespectful, no Doctrine of Lapse and such.

 

[KingSweden24]

I disagree, if its grip on India were weaker the BEIC would probably be less arrogant and disrespectful, no Doctrine of Lapse and such.

Fair point. Might have been smarter in using the princes as more effective cutouts, too

 

[Vinization]

What could the consequences be of a economic depression in Britain in 1850s is a much broader question and probably requires its own thread.

Could it be similar to OTL's Long Depression? Or would the fact the world is less industrialized change things?

 

[Socrates]

The world economy is shattered because of the collapse of that trade. But once it recovers, France and Russia now have a free hand all over asia. I actually suspect Britain will need to be more involved in Europe since they can no longer afford to keep the navy as dominant as they did

India was probably a net cost to the British.

 

[Metempsychosis]

India was probably a net cost to the British.

In what way?

 

[NotAMyth]

India was probably a net cost to the British.

India was a net cost for the British government only if we look at expenditure vs revenue collected. It was offset by the increased revenue that the Home isles generated, because of the Empire.

This was the real benefit of India- the absolutely massive boost it gave to the British Economy, allowing it to punch so much above its weight both in terms of its own industrial growth and the increased geopolitical power projection.

It wasn't altruism that motivated the Brits to fight so hard for keeping the Indian Empire. It was simple economics, the same reason why the Roman Empire couldn't just abolish slavery.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

I wonder how this would affect the development of "scientific" racism and other such pseudo-sciences if the world's most powerful European Empire just got thrown out by a bunch of "inferior savages".

Well actually the British were much more "tolerant" and willing to work with the Indian Elite prior to the Sepoy Mutiny.

Though as for losing India, I would say that 1850 is too late for all of India to be lost to the British. The best case scenario I think would be if the Sikh Empire was under competent leadership. This could be accomplished by avoiding Rajit Singh dying allowing for the Empire to be under stable and competent leadership. Then later on when the Sepoy Uprising takes place, you could potentially see a Mughal Restoration backed by the Sikhs. Though Badur Shah II would probably be a puppet ruler with the state largely being a somewhat unstable confederation of sorts. It would probably serve as a buffer between the British territories and the burgeoning Sikh Empire.

As for the Sikh Empire itself, it would probably invaded and conquer Afghanistan which would alter the dynamics of the Great Game entirely.

 

[Mikestone8]

Could it be similar to OTL's Long Depression? Or would the fact the world is less industrialized change things?

Yet Belgium was the first continental country to industrialise, despite having no Empire.

 

[AltoRegnant]

Yet Belgium was the first continental country to industrialise, despite having no Empire.

how much of that was off loans provided by either the british government or private citizens though?

 

[Socrates]

India was a net cost for the British government only if we look at expenditure vs revenue collected. It was offset by the increased revenue that the Home isles generated, because of the Empire.

The amount of "increased revenue" from the Home Isles is not majorly different than what could be done through trade. Certainly not enough to overcome the massive financial drain.

This was the real benefit of India- the absolutely massive boost it gave to the British Economy, allowing it to punch so much above its weight both in terms of its own industrial growth and the increased geopolitical power projection.

Economic growth was driven by technological improvement at home. "Geopolitical power projection" is a vague term that needs to be addressed, but yes "prestige" was the main reason, as illusory as that was.

It wasn't altruism that motivated the Brits to fight so hard for keeping the Indian Empire. It was simple economics, the same reason why the Roman Empire couldn't just abolish slavery.

No, it wasn't altruism. It was a matter of boasting rights and individual fortunes/careers being made.

 

[H.Flashman(VC)]

Yet Belgium was the first continental country to industrialise, despite having no Empire.

And by 1850 the industrial revolution also had taken off in Germany.
Europe was still the main market and there were more raw material producers in the world. Why was the American South booming in the first part of the 19th century?