WI: Government of India Act 1935 introduced in 1919

[NOMISYRRUC]

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

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).

IIRC over 3 million Indians served in the Indian Army IOTL (someone else will provide more accurate figures) making it the fourth largest Allied army of WWII after the Red Army, US Army and British Army. As as @Ramontxo wrote they were all volunteers and so were the tens of thousands of Indians that joined the RIN and IAF (which didn't become Royal until 12.03.45).

If as I expect the implementing the OTL 1935 Act in place of the OTL 1919 Act does lead to India becoming a dominion (with the same status as the other OTL dominions) in 1935 rather than 1947 then it's India that declares war on Germany in 1935 rather than India being dragged into the war whether it wanted to be or not.

In that case it would be the Indian Government of India rather than the British Government of India trying to conscript Indians. However, as million of Indians volunteered to fight for the British would there be any need to conscript Indians to fight for India? And if (as I think) India had been independent since 1935 how could they blame the British for the Bengal Famine if said famine still happened?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

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 courtesy 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.

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.

IOTL India became independent as the Dominion of India (which retained King George VI as head of state) in 1947, but it became the Republic of India in 1950 (but remained in the Commonwealth) and pursued a non-aligned foreign policy.

I think India would become independent as the Dominion of India (which retained King George V as head of state) in 1935.

• Does that mean Indian becomes a republic in 1938? Although Éire officially became a republic in 1949 it had been one in all but name since the 1937 Constitution came into effect and its name changed from the Irish Free State to Éire and the President of Ireland replaced the Governor-General. So the OTL
• If India does become a republic in the late 1930s will the Commonwealth's rules (as they were IOTL) be changed to allow India to remain a member?
• And in common with OTL does India pursue a non-aligned foreign policy from when it became independent? Or put another way does India declare war on Germany in September 1939 like all but one of the OTL Dominions? Because in common with the OTL Dominions it doesn't have to enter World War II if it's government doesn't want to and there's insufficient public support. Éire didn't IOTL.

 

[Jellico]

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.

It is as much the personalities involved as the laws. For example in WW2, Ming declared Australia would be at war before recalling parliament and marshaling support. Some felt it would have been nice if he pretended to ask first, even though of course 1940s Australia would have gone all in. The elites running countries were generally anglophiles born in the 19th century and the Empire was a good thing, even if they had issues with some parts.

 

[aaronupright]

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

Mostly. Government workers coul be and were called up. (Police mostly, but also railway workers).

 

[aaronupright]

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.

While the GOI Act 1935 has often being called the halfway house to independence, in reality when it was passed, it was part of the then British Government policy to satiate demands for independence by transferring most powers to the provinces, with elected Governments and having a Federal Center run by Brits.
Even that was controversial in the UK, the real reason Churchill was in the doghouse politically was for opposing this and not as is often believed for warning about Germany (a minority but hardly fringe position).
In 1919 there are a lot more Churchil type opinions about.

 

[Aichi72]

Assuming a late 1930s Dominionhood, I wonder who the first PM would be. I don't think that Nehru was as big as he would become at this time.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

While the GOI Act 1935 has often being called the halfway house to independence, in reality when it was passed, it was part of the then British Government policy to satiate demands for independence by transferring most powers to the provinces, with elected Governments and having a Federal Center run by Brits.
Even that was controversial in the UK, the real reason Churchill was in the doghouse politically was for opposing this and not as is often believed for warning about Germany (a minority but hardly fringe position).
In 1919 there are a lot more Churchill type opinions about.

Fair enough. I no longer have the book I read that in, which is unfortunate because it also said that the INC could have used the 1935 Act to advance their cause, but I don't remember how the book said the INC could have done it.

My personal opinion is that the 1919 Act of TTL will backfire on the British by increasing the demand for independence instead of sating it. By the middle 1930s they'll want to run the Federal Centre too and use their record of competently running the provinces for the previous decade-and-a-half as proof to the British that they can do it.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

What effect would the OP have on the rest of the British Empire? Especially (as I think) it would lead to India becoming a dominion in the second half of the 1930s. In particular, what happens in the British West Indies? Do we see those colonies becoming self-governing between the World Wars? Is there an earlier attempt at a Federation of the West Indies? Do most of them become independent in the period 1945-55 instead of the 1960s & 1970s?