WI: Churchill wins 1945 UK election, Indian independence is at hand

[Adonnus]

Churchill wins the election in 1945 over Clement Attlee. He was a man who was very fond of the Empire, and not so fond of giving colonies their independence. What goes down with Indian independence?

Can he successfully resist their demands?

If a war of independence breaks out due to British intrasigence and the impatience of more radical Indian factions, what does it look like?

 

[sarahz]

Churchill wins the election in 1945 over Clement Attlee. He was a man who was very fond of the Empire, and not so fond of giving colonies their independence. What goes down with Indian independence?

Can he successfully resist their demands?

If a war of independence breaks out due to British intrasigence and the impatience of more radical Indian factions, what does it look like?

Churchill winning in 1945 is such a large change its impossible to say what happens, as it needs a huge POD.

 

[Catsmate]

Churchill winning in 1945 is such a large change its impossible to say what happens, as it needs a huge POD.

This. The seeds of the Labour landslide were visibly sprouting three years earlier (Labour was polling higher than the Conservatives from 1942 onwards). This was down to numerous factors: a tired Conservative party displaying little initiative; the demonstrated ability of the Labour leadership in the wartime government; the perception that a socialist planned economy would be more efficient that the Conservative free market; lack of trust of the Conservative party based on their actions before the war, and more.

 

[Ian_W]

Churchill wins the election in 1945 over Clement Attlee. ?

How does this happen. What is the POD ?

 

[Lalli]

Churchill hadn't much of chances even win the election without some earlier POD. He asn't very great peacetime politician and couldn't understand social issues or colonial questions. Churchill wasn't even particularly great campaigner.

 

[Thomas1195]

Churchill hadn't much of chances even win the election without some earlier POD. He asn't very great peacetime politician and couldn't understand social issues or colonial questions. Churchill wasn't even particularly great campaigner.

You need a POD from early 1930s if not 1928-1929

 

[Jaehaerys48]

Without a significant PoD, by 1945 there’s no putting the Indian independence genie back in the bottle. If Churchill wins the election and tries to keep India by force, the resulting protests, strikes, and potentially riots and violence would quickly turn the British public against him.

If an outright war of independence breaks out then Churchill’s popularity would collapse, the British in 1945 were war-weary and unlikely to support a costly colonial conflict. The US would not provide support and would probably pressure Britain into negotiation, as they’d be aware that Britain would be incapable of holding India for long and than any attempt to do so would provide good breeding ground for communists.

Even without a war, the result is that Churchill probably is forced out of office and Indian independence still happens, just a few years later.

 

[yulzari]

Churchill as a Prime Minister is only first among equals. He cannot drive a policy through without the support of his Cabinet, Party and MPs. Indian independence was long an aim and expectation and Indians were increasingly being put into higher positions in government and the Indian armed forces.. Only the timing and manner were at issue. To change OTL needs changes at the Indian end rather than the British one.

 

[Garrison]

Churchill hadn't much of chances even win the election without some earlier POD. He asn't very great peacetime politician and couldn't understand social issues or colonial questions. Churchill wasn't even particularly great campaigner.

There was a huge appetite for change, to ensure that there was no repeat of the betrayal of the 'land fit for heroes' promises made in WWI. Churchill's record as a peace time politician is hardly going to inspire the voters to believe he is the man to deliver the kind of social change Labour was offering and people clearly wanted. It would require some huge shift in the political landscape for Churchill to win in 1945.

 

[Pelranius]

Churchill wins the election in 1945 over Clement Attlee. He was a man who was very fond of the Empire, and not so fond of giving colonies their independence. What goes down with Indian independence?

Can he successfully resist their demands?

If a war of independence breaks out due to British intrasigence and the impatience of more radical Indian factions, what does it look like?

Churchill gets a vote of no confidence in the event a war breaks out.

 

[Charles James Fox]

In 1945-46 the situation was very unstable in India, with the Indian National Army trials, general elections, rioting, strikes, and mutinies, culminating in the Bombay mutiny of February 1946. The INC was also planning a nationwide strike at the time. In March 1946 the Attlee government sent the Cabinet Mission to discuss the transfer of power to Indian leadership.

Without this concession, the INC would have called the strike and ground the country to a halt. The British can't govern without the co-operation of Indian elites, official, and soldiers and would very quickly be forced to set a deadline for withdrawal and negotiation, or a very sudden and messy exit. The British could not control communal violence in 1945-47 OTL and this would be much much worse.

After the failure of the Simla Conference in 1945, Wavell, Churchill's Viceroy was planning for this eventuality whereby the British would transfer power to the INC and evacuate to the Punjab. It would not really be a 'war of independence' in any sense, more a humiliating and rapid exit.

An interesting consequence of more confrontation with the British government in this period could be a much more unified nationalist movement and less communalism than in OTL, possibly even an united India as a looser federation with the Muslim majority provinces.

 

[fasquardon]

In 1945-46 the situation was very unstable in India, with the Indian National Army trials, general elections, rioting, strikes, and mutinies, culminating in the Bombay mutiny of February 1946. The INC was also planning a nationwide strike at the time. In March 1946 the Attlee government sent the Cabinet Mission to discuss the transfer of power to Indian leadership.

Without this concession, the INC would have called the strike and ground the country to a halt. The British can't govern without the co-operation of Indian elites, official, and soldiers and would very quickly be forced to set a deadline for withdrawal and negotiation, or a very sudden and messy exit. The British could not control communal violence in 1945-47 OTL and this would be much much worse.

After the failure of the Simla Conference in 1945, Wavell, Churchill's Viceroy was planning for this eventuality whereby the British would transfer power to the INC and evacuate to the Punjab. It would not really be a 'war of independence' in any sense, more a humiliating and rapid exit.

An interesting consequence of more confrontation with the British government in this period could be a much more unified nationalist movement and less communalism than in OTL, possibly even an united India as a looser federation with the Muslim majority provinces.

It is very strange to think of Churchill doing some good here by uniting India against him...

Of course, in Britain he has humiliated himself in front of the whole country. And attempted to break the promises Britain had made in 1935 (by binding treaty) and reiterated during the war. He's out on the street and I doubt he'd be welcome in Westminster again. The Conservatives find a new PM and make clear to the Indians that mad Mr. Churchill is out and sane men are ready to work with them to make independence happen.

Chruchill was pretty much alone in the British establishment in wanting to keep ahold of India. And many saw India as a burden to the further development of Britain's empire. They saw that the future engine of empire would be oil, and India and her masses would be more of a cost than a benefit.

fasquardon

 

[raharris1973]

After the failure of the Simla Conference in 1945, Wavell, Churchill's Viceroy was planning for this eventuality whereby the British would transfer power to the INC and evacuate to the Punjab. It would not really be a 'war of independence' in any sense, more a humiliating and rapid exit.

So this would be an evacuation more or less to West Pakistan plus Punjab/"Kalistan"? Because Punjab would be landlocked, and I'd figure until their exit was total, the British would need a route to the sea via the Sindh and Baluchistan.

An interesting consequence of more confrontation with the British government in this period could be a much more unified nationalist movement and less communalism than in OTL, possibly even an united India as a looser federation with the Muslim majority provinces.

It is very strange to think of Churchill doing some good here by uniting India against him...

fasquardon

Could be. Probably a bit overoptimistic, but would be interesting if written well.

 

[Charles James Fox]

Also - this article worth drawing attention to about the Conservatives' approach to India in Opposition, revealing that Churchill was still v privately exercised about it and even some of the newer generation (Butler, Macmillan) wanted a longer transition. Of course as above the British government's authority had already ebbed away - the potential divergence is a slightly later and messier acceptance of this.