British India annexes British East Africa after the end of World War I

[WolfBear]

What if British India would have annexed British East Africa after the end of World War I? Apparently there were some flirtations with this in the 1914-1924 era, and of course there was some Indian colonization and settlement in East Africa, which is why some countries there, such as Uganda, historically had a large Indian diaspora:

‘A Colony for India’: The Struggle for East Africa, c. 1914–1924

From before the Great War until the early 1920s, East Africa was the focus of an especially bitter battle between Asian and European settlers to determine the nature of colonial government and the future political development of the region. The Government of India,...

link.springer.com

So, Yeah, what if in, say, the early 1920s, Britain actually decides to go through with this and to annex British East Africa to British India? What effect would this have on both of these territories? Would a lot more Indians have settled in British East Africa in this TL? What about the reverse--as in, having a lot of black Africans settle in British India? And what would the effects have been if India would have still gotten partitioned in this TL? Would East Africa have remained a part of India post-partition, or what? Or would it have become its own independent state just like Pakistan did?

Also, would a lot of black East Africans have gradually converted to Hinduism had East Africa permanently remained a part of India? I know that there are some black Africans for whom Hinduism has an appeal even in real life, for instance:

Hinduism in Ghana - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Any thoughts on this, @stevep?

 

[stevep]

What if British India would have annexed British East Africa after the end of World War I? Apparently there were some flirtations with this in the 1914-1924 era, and of course there was some Indian colonization and settlement in East Africa, which is why some countries there, such as Uganda, historically had a large Indian diaspora:

‘A Colony for India’: The Struggle for East Africa, c. 1914–1924

From before the Great War until the early 1920s, East Africa was the focus of an especially bitter battle between Asian and European settlers to determine the nature of colonial government and the future political development of the region. The Government of India,...

link.springer.com

So, Yeah, what if in, say, the early 1920s, Britain actually decides to go through with this and to annex British East Africa to British India? What effect would this have on both of these territories? Would a lot more Indians have settled in British East Africa in this TL? What about the reverse--as in, having a lot of black Africans settle in British India? And what would the effects have been if India would have still gotten partitioned in this TL? Would East Africa have remained a part of India post-partition, or what? Or would it have become its own independent state just like Pakistan did?

Also, would a lot of black East Africans have gradually converted to Hinduism had East Africa permanently remained a part of India? I know that there are some black Africans for whom Hinduism has an appeal even in real life, for instance:

Hinduism in Ghana - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Any thoughts on this, @stevep?

Interesting and didn't know about the Hindu conversions in Ghana. I was initially thinking the Hindu view of cows would be the big barrier, especially in E Africa where cattle herding is I think the dominant culture outside coastal cities. However in Ghana that doesn't seem an insurmountable issue.

I would suspect the big issue would be race, which might be why it might have failed in the early 20's. Thinking here that the dominant political group in British East Africa were the Europeans [largely British] settlements, largely in the highland areas which were more temperate in climate and hence attracted European settlement. This might be OK while India is under direct British rule, at least for foreign affairs and the like. However I think the settlers and also elements in Britain, if faced with India becoming independent would be bitterly opposed to those settlers coming under Indian i.e. non-white control.

However if this was overcome and India itself managed to stay united then your likely to see more Indian settlement in the region both before and after Indian independence. Of course then a lot of Africans, both in the directed affected regions and across the continent are likely to see India as a colonial power, even if Delhi treats the native inhabitants reasonably well. Especially since its likely that more than OTL the Indian minority are likely to dominant business and probably a good proportion of government as well.

 

[WolfBear]

Interesting and didn't know about the Hindu conversions in Ghana. I was initially thinking the Hindu view of cows would be the big barrier, especially in E Africa where cattle herding is I think the dominant culture outside coastal cities. However in Ghana that doesn't seem an insurmountable issue.

I would suspect the big issue would be race, which might be why it might have failed in the early 20's. Thinking here that the dominant political group in British East Africa were the Europeans [largely British] settlements, largely in the highland areas which were more temperate in climate and hence attracted European settlement. This might be OK while India is under direct British rule, at least for foreign affairs and the like. However I think the settlers and also elements in Britain, if faced with India becoming independent would be bitterly opposed to those settlers coming under Indian i.e. non-white control.

However if this was overcome and India itself managed to stay united then your likely to see more Indian settlement in the region both before and after Indian independence. Of course then a lot of Africans, both in the directed affected regions and across the continent are likely to see India as a colonial power, even if Delhi treats the native inhabitants reasonably well. Especially since its likely that more than OTL the Indian minority are likely to dominant business and probably a good proportion of government as well.

Is Indian rule really worse than black rule for the white colonialists in East Africa?

And can East Africans get meat from chickens instead of from cows, perhaps as a part of a gradual, long-term policy change away from cow meat?

 

[stevep]

Is Indian rule really worse than black rule for the white colonialists in East Africa?

And can East Africans get meat from chickens instead of from cows, perhaps as a part of a gradual, long-term policy change away from cow meat?

Not worse but given how much of a fight they and their supporters put up against black rule I can see the same happening, at least being a factor in blocking the idea in the 20's.

If the idea had gone through then when India moved towards independence I suspect, but could be wrong, that the settlers would see a return to British rule to maintain their dominance somewhat longer rather than becoming part of a greater India. Not sure what the British government's stance would have been in such circumstances. Suspect it would have depended on relations between Britain and India and also between white, Indian and black populations in E Africa. [Not ignoring that at least some of those communities are probably not going to be monolithic.]

Chickens and pigs, possibly also sheep? would probably be alternatives in terms of meat in practical terms but culturally I think cattle were socially important for a lot of herders and changing to another animal with different characteristics and demand would be another issue.

 

[WolfBear]

Not worse but given how much of a fight they and their supporters put up against black rule I can see the same happening, at least being a factor in blocking the idea in the 20's.

If the idea had gone through then when India moved towards independence I suspect, but could be wrong, that the settlers would see a return to British rule to maintain their dominance somewhat longer rather than becoming part of a greater India. Not sure what the British government's stance would have been in such circumstances. Suspect it would have depended on relations between Britain and India and also between white, Indian and black populations in E Africa. [Not ignoring that at least some of those communities are probably not going to be monolithic.]

Chickens and pigs, possibly also sheep? would probably be alternatives in terms of meat in practical terms but culturally I think cattle were socially important for a lot of herders and changing to another animal with different characteristics and demand would be another issue.

Any chance of a partition of East Africa if enough Indians will settle there by then?

Sheep I think would be pretty good. What about lambs? And Yeah, fair point about the cultural aspect of this being important for herders. When you're so used to cattle, well, it's sort of hard to let go of them!

 

[stevep]

Any chance of a partition of East Africa if enough Indians will settle there by then?

Sheep I think would be pretty good. What about lambs? And Yeah, fair point about the cultural aspect of this being important for herders. When you're so used to cattle, well, it's sort of hard to let go of them!

You might get some Indian enclave but unless its coastal it could face economic difficulties. If it is coastal does it become part of greater India? The other question is how much racial tension there would be between the two communities? Especially since the Indians are probably going to be better educated and more successful economically as a result. Which is generally a dangerous position for a minority or small enclave. Being part of India would give them security but also make them seem more like an overseas colony of India. - Possibly I'm being too pessimistic but there are possible problems either way.

My concern with sheep, I frankly don't know, is whether they would be handicaped by the heat of much of Africa, even in the east? The problem with carrying all that wool. Also would they be fairly immune or badly affected by local illnesses and parasites?