Should India manage UK? Two decades or so from now, the idea may not look outlandish | India News

“…Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back”. John Maynard Keynes said that. Keynes was British, and possibly the world’s most famous economist ever. He was also the man “who saved capitalism from itself”. It was his idea that govts can spend their way out of recession that overturned the dangerous orthodoxy of balanced budgets. Modern capitalism owes the idea of a welfare state to Keynes and to Marx, who wasn’t English but did all his world-changing writing in London.
Back to Keynes’ quote: what he was saying is that policymakers get stuck on old ideas, and therefore fail to spot new opportunities. That’s true of academics and journalists, too, by the way. They grow up with what they think are fundamental ideas about organising human affairs, and stick to them.
One such idea is the sovereign nation-state. Most take this to mean that the boundaries of a nation-state must remain frozen forever, and that no nation-state must ever surrender the right to govern itself.
Think about it for five minutes, though. Nation-states are a very new thing in human history. Most of human history is defined by the absence of the modern notion of nation-state. And even in modern, pos-war times, neither the idea of a nation-state nor the concept of sovereignty remain unchallenged.

New nations have come out of old nations, within some nations, some parts are all but sovereign. Borders are still being challenged. Immigration has challenged and will continue to challenge ethnic/cultural uniformity within nation-states.
A century back, the world-spanning British empire seemed unbreakable. Ten years from now, Britain itself may break up. Point is, as Keynes said – don’t get fixated on old notions.
That’s why, say what you will about Trump – and there’s plenty to say – you must credit him with questioning the fixed idea of nation-state and sovereignty. He was crude and jingoistic when he said he wants Canada and Greenland. But he was also pointing to the possibility that today’s boundaries and sovereignties needn’t last forever.
So, here’s an idea – a few years, or perhaps a couple of decades down the line, India should offer to manage Britain.
Ok, most people reading that bit would think this is the voice of a mad scribbler, to paraphrase Keynes. But let’s not get our knickers in a twist – as Brits would say. Instead, let’s try to think this through.
First, this idea doesn’t imply anything as terrible and unaesthetic as a military venture. Not at all. The idea is that India, sometime in the future, will offer to run Britain, to mutually beneficial outcomes.
Second, this idea is based on what can be reasonably extrapolated from current economic trends. India will be, a few decades from now, a seriously big economy. PwC projections, and those by others, say by 2050 – that’s just 25 years from now – in PPP terms, India’s GDP will be $44.1 trillion (second largest after China). Britain, most likely, is in irreversible economic stagnation. Already, minus London, its economic stats look a lot worse than they do on standard GDP tables. Most pundits don’t see any serious prospect of this changing. One sign of this is the flight of capital from UK – many reports point to wealthy individuals decamping, the calculation being that their wealth is better invested in geographies with better growth prospects. PwC data projects Britain’s GDP will be $5.4 trillion 25 years from now. So, India will be roughly 9 times bigger than UK in GDP terms.
Therefore, third, the idea that a heavyweight economy like India can manage Britain isn’t as outlandish as it seems now.
Fourth, since this will be a utterly non-military, non-violent arrangement – unlike imperial Britain’s management of India – there will be no question of desecrating British national honour.
Fifth, think of how much the two nation-states share already. The obvious ones are: English language, India keeping the English game, cricket, alive, Indians’ passion for England’s football league, Brits’ love for curry, Indians’ love for whisky. More fundamentally, perhaps, both nations govern themselves via Westminster style electoral democracy.

Sixth, and this is a point not appreciated by even those looking at Indo-British relations now, Indian immigration into Britain and the huge success of the Indian diaspora across professions, mean that Brits are already used to the idea of Indians running big things in their country. Indian-origin people figure prominently in UK’s rich list, PIOs run big firms, you can’t imagine the British healthcare system without them, academia is full of PIO professors. And ‘Indians’ are now handsomely represented in British politics.
Seventh, companies from India are already big players in UK. Not just Tatas, the most frequently cited example. Reliance bought Hamleys, Taj hotel group owns St James Court, Infosys bought Capco. Grant Thornton estimated that in 2024, there were 971 Indian-owned UK businesses. These numbers will inevitably rise.
Eighth, it all ultimately boils down to economic self-interest. British imperialism didn’t last in India because it looted India – that, along with demands for sovereignty, is what motivated pre-independence Indian nationalists. If Brits had made India a prosperous colony, popular anger may have been less. So, when India, a big, robust economy, tells Britain, a small, struggling economy, it’s interested in managing British affairs, with the promise to revitalize growth and incomes, logic dictates the proposal will have merit. Even more so, if India guarantees that the British political system will remain as is, with no interference from India.
Ninth, some might ask, what’s India’s payoff? Answer: A strong presence in the Atlantic and, via Britain, quick access to European markets.
Tenth, some may ask, what about the British royals? Well, what about them? Assuming they last another 25 years, they can be exactly as decorative as they are now.
To end where we began, the silliest response to radical new ideas is to dismiss them outright. The least we can do is to think through them.