WI: Government of India Act 1935 introduced in 1919

[PachPachis]

I can't remember where I heard it, but I remember hearing somewhere that the 1935 self-government act given to India by Britain would have sated the nationalists in 1919, while the self-government act they got then was too feeble; but in 1935 they wanted essentially independence. In OTL, of course, staunch pro-colonialist opposition in the UK kept the concessions one step behind what they would have needed to be. But let's assume Parliament magically draft and pass the GoI Act 1935 in place of the GoI Act 1919, with expanded local government powers, elected representation for Indians, etc. How does the world react? Does the INC accept this for the time being? Do they split into pro- and anti- factions? Is there a backlash and a movement for repeal among the British public?
(Links for context)

 

[raharris1973]

I can't remember where I heard it, but I remember hearing somewhere that the 1935 self-government act given to India by Britain would have sated the nationalists in 1919, while the self-government act they got then was too feeble; but in 1935 they wanted essentially independence. In OTL, of course, staunch pro-colonialist opposition in the UK kept the concessions one step behind what they would have needed to be. But let's assume Parliament magically draft and pass the GoI Act 1935 in place of the GoI Act 1919, with expanded local government powers, elected representation for Indians, etc. How does the world react? Does the INC accept this for the time being? Do they split into pro- and anti- factions? Is there a backlash and a movement for repeal among the British public?
(Links for context)

This is a very interesting and exciting idea to speculate upon.

It should be discussed as if it can happen, even if very difficult, to hardly plausible, to find enough British politicians to agree. And I don't care if the long-term outcome satisfies the Indians in their imperial connection, or if they end up demanding independence by the 1940s regardless, or at some later time.

Let it begin.....

Try to figure the how to......

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

I'm not an expert but wouldn't the Indians still not be happy about having to fight WW2 (and famine in Bengal who will definitely break relations between the two) be enough to get independence? Britain has no way of maintaining India in its empire so they would probably still get independence before say 1950.

 

[Ramontxo]

I'm not an expert but wouldn't the Indians still not be happy about having to fight WW2 (and famine in Bengal who will definitely break relations between the two) be enough to get independence? Britain has no way of maintaining India in its empire so they would probably still get independence before say 1950.

The Indian Army in WW2 was an volunteer force. Any soldier serving in it did so without any compulsion

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

The Indian Army in WW2 was an volunteer force. Any soldier serving in it did so without any compulsion

The population in the British Raj still suffered a lot from the war, I doubt they would be very happy about the British if they are responsible for the Bengal Famine, and with better Indo-British relations they might try to conscript Indians (unless they do something else to anger them in the meantime)

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

I'm not an expert but wouldn't the Indians still not be happy about having to fight WW2

From what I understand (and I could be wrong) what really upset the Indian politicians wasn't so much that India was involved but that the Viceroy declared war on Germany without even having the curtesy to inform them first, let alone actually consult with them before doing it. With an extra 20 years for the new system to bed in the Viceroy may not make that mistake. (While unlikely it's even just about possible that the Viceroy would be Indian)

 

[Jellico]

From what I understand (and I could be wrong) what really upset the Indian politicians wasn't so much that India was involved but that the Viceroy declared war on Germany without even having the curtesy to inform them first, let alone actually consult with them before doing it. With an extra 20 years for the new system to bed in the Viceroy may not make that mistake. (While unlikely it's even just about possible that the Viceroy would be Indian)

Dominion leaders had a tendency to leap right in without pretending to ask in both world wars. It is not just an India thing.

 

[raharris1973]

I'm not an expert but wouldn't the Indians still not be happy about having to fight WW2 (and famine in Bengal who will definitely break relations between the two) be enough to get independence? Britain has no way of maintaining India in its empire so they would probably still get independence before say 1950.

There might have been enough and also adequately skilled and useful inputs to local, provincial, and Dominion level government and theater level planning to manage food shortage and distribution problems down to the point that the enemy gets denied, the forces get fed, and people generally survive at level of shortages, high prices, and short rations that does not reach the levels of widespread starvation or catastrophic famine.

 

[PachPachis]

There might have been enough and also adequately skilled and useful inputs to local, provincial, and Dominion level government and theater level planning to manage food shortage and distribution problems down to the point that the enemy gets denied, the forces get fed, and people generally survive at level of shortages, high prices, and short rations that does not reach the levels of widespread starvation or catastrophic famine.

I would also add that with 20 years for a somewhat more autonomous government to form through elections and so on, at least some of the blame for the Bengal famine, if it does happen, would probably fall upon local Indian politicians.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

I would also add that with 20 years for a somewhat more autonomous government to form through elections and so on, at least some of the blame for the Bengal famine, if it does happen, would probably fall upon local Indian politicians.

Some should have anyway, they were the ones blocking the transfer of food from other Indian provinces to Bengal.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

Probably a smooth transition to full dominion status in roughly OTL's independence timeframe. India probably drops the dominion status sometime not long after suez as decolonization really picks up steam. No Pakistan/Bangladesh ubt instead you probably have a generation or two of serious religious communal violence, essentially importing similar problems to OTL Sri Lanka into India.

 

[PachPachis]

Probably a smooth transition to full dominion status in roughly OTL's independence timeframe. India probably drops the dominion status sometime not long after suez as decolonization really picks up steam. No Pakistan/Bangladesh ubt instead you probably have a generation or two of serious religious communal violence, essentially importing similar problems to OTL Sri Lanka into India.

Not sure what you mean by "drop dominion status". I doubt a republic would happen, but I think India defining "dominion" to mean "independent but we keep the Queen" as with Canada and Australia is pretty likely.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

Not sure what you mean by "drop dominion status". I doubt a republic would happen, but I think India defining "dominion" to mean "independent but we keep the Queen" as with Canada and Australia is pretty likely.

Eh, a republic would happen given the third world's nationalist mood in that era. Sure, it'd help that India got canada/australia level dominion status in 1945 but given the era, I see zero chance of them not going republican. India being willing to participate in the commonwealth unlike OTL? That can happen.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Eh, a republic would happen given the third world's nationalist mood in that era. Sure, it'd help that India got canada/australia level dominion status in 1945 but given the era, I see zero chance of them not going republican. India being willing to participate in the commonwealth unlike OTL? That can happen.

FWIW some background information IOTL India & Pakistan (both of which became independent in 1947) kept the British monarch as their head of state until 1950 and 1956 respectively while Sri Lanka (which became independent as the Dominion of Ceylon in 1948) retained the British monarch as its head of state until 1972 when it became the Republic of Sri Lanka. All 3 remained within the Commonwealth after becoming republics and IIRC "Head of The Commonwealth" became one of King George VI's titles in order to allow India to remain in the Commonwealth when it became a republic. On the other hand Burma (now Myanmar became) independent in 1948 as a republic and although republics have been allowed in the Commonwealth since 1950 it has (as far as I know) never wanted to be in the Commonwealth.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

Ok so india is in there OTL? Did not know that

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Dominion leaders had a tendency to leap right in without pretending to ask in both world wars. It is not just an India thing.

I'm doing this from memory, so I might be wrong, but here goes. The Dominions didn't have the right to declare war before the Statute of Westminster so they were in World War One whether they wanted to be or not. And in World War Two Australia & New Zealand declared war on the same day as the UK (03.09.39), but South Africa didn't declare war until 06.09.39, Canada until 10.09.39 and the Éire never did.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Ok so India is in there OTL? Did not know that.

Yes it is, and so are Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Although Pakistan has been in & out of the Commonwealth several times. As noted before India became a republic 3 years after becoming independent, Pakistan became a republic 9 years after it became independent and Sri Lanka didn't become a republic until 1972 which was 24 years after it became independent.

For what it's worth at present only 15 of the 56 members of the Commonwealth are "Commonwealth Realms" with King Charles III as their head of state, 5 have monarchies of their own and the other 36 are republics.

Plus 4 of the Commonwealth's 36 republics were never in the British Empire: Gabon & Togo were French colonies; Mozambique was a Portuguese colony; and Rwanda was Belgian colony.

 

[tus3]

I doubt they would be very happy about the British if they are responsible for the Bengal Famine,

Would that even happen if the Government of India Act 1935 was introduced in 1919?
Based on what I had read “administrative chaos” in the Provincial Government, caused by the reforms of 1935, is seen as one of the primary causes of the Famine.
If those reforms had been introduced 16 years earlier the administration might already have adapted to the new situation.
Or alternatively in the period between 1919-1935 the provincial government might have made more investments in agriculture than OTL.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I can't remember where I heard it, but I remember hearing somewhere that the 1935 self-government act given to India by Britain would have sated the nationalists in 1919, while the self-government act they got then was too feeble; but in 1935 they wanted essentially independence. In OTL, of course, staunch pro-colonialist opposition in the UK kept the concessions one step behind what they would have needed to be. But let's assume Parliament magically draft and pass the GoI Act 1935 in place of the GoI Act 1919, with expanded local government powers, elected representation for Indians, etc. How does the world react? Does the INC accept this for the time being? Do they split into pro- and anti- factions? Is there a backlash and a movement for repeal among the British public?
(Links for context)

As this is the Post-1900 forum do you mean that:

• The TTL Government of India Act 1909 is the OTL Government of India Act 1919 brought forward 10 years and is instead of the OTL Indian Councils Act 1909?
  • And.
• The TTL Government of India Act 1919 is the OTL Government of India Act 1935 brought forward 16 years and is instead of the OTL Government of India Act?
  • Because if you are.
• The TTL Independence of India Act 1935 is the OTL Independence of India Act 1947 brought forward 12 years and is instead of the OTL Government of India Act 1935 with the result that India becomes independent in 1935 instead of 1947 - EXCEPT.
  • "Greater" India might not be partitioned into India & Pakistan.
  • Burma (now Myanmar) was separated from India in 1937 as part of the OTL 1935 Act and became independent in 1948. Does that men it's separated from India in 1921 as part of the 1919 Act and becomes independent in 1936?
  • Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) which had always been a separate colony became independent in 1948 IOTL. Does it become independent in 1936 ITTL?

That's because as far as I know the 1935 Act of OTL was intended to be penultimate step on the path to Indian independence, the final step being India becoming a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations with the same status as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the Irish Free State and South Africa, which was expected to be in another 20 years so 1955-ish.

Therefore, the 1919 Act of TTL would have been intended to be the penultimate step on the path to Indian independence, the final step . . . which was expected to be in another 20 years so 1939-ish.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Would that even happen if the Government of India Act 1935 was introduced in 1919?
Based on what I had read “administrative chaos” in the Provincial Government, caused by the reforms of 1935, is seen as one of the primary causes of the Famine.
If those reforms had been introduced 16 years earlier the administration might already have adapted to the new situation.
Or alternatively in the period between 1919-1935 the provincial government might have made more investments in agriculture than OTL.

According to Dr Clarke it was what I call a comedy of errors. He claims that food couldn't be sent to Bengal by sea because the IJN controlled the Bay of Bengal. He also claims that food couldn't be sent overland because there weren't any "trans-sub-continental" railways liking the east of India with the west of India. Finally, he claims that "filling the gap" was proposed in the 1920s, but the Government of India couldn't (or wouldn't) pay for it so they asked the British Government to pay for it and the Chancellor of the Exchequer who happened to be Winston Churchill said no. Therefore (and I'm paraphrasing) he said the buck stopped with Churchill, not because he was Prime Minister when the famine happened, but because he refused to provide the money to improve India's railways when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer.

If he's correct (and the TTL 1919-35 Government of India made the proposed improvements to India's railway system) the famine might never have happened.