The pro British faction largely consisted of upper class Indians and those who benefited from British rule. These included local rulers, landlords or zamindars and other urban and rural notables. Thus it consisted of the few but more powerful section of Indian society.

The most common example of this is the First war of Independence of 1857. The revolt was largely limited to the areas of North India around the Ganges River. While the revolt was supported by the Indian peasantry (due to their exploitation), soldiers/sepoys (who were the main cause and origin of the rebellion) and local rulers affected by British policies (mainly the Doctrine of Lapse), it was also opposed by other native Indian rulers who were "friends" to the British. The most notable among these were the Sikhs who did not want the re-establishment of Mughal rule (under which they had been persecuted) and also wanted to avenge their defeats by the British but attributed to the 'Eastern' soldiers who fought for the British. Also, the British in this war drew Indian soldiers from the Bombay and Madras regiments apart from other calm areas. This map shows the local rulers supporting the British.

Moving on to formation of the Indian National Congress (INC) in 1885, the 'Congress', which means meeting, was formed to advocate for more representation of Indians in the governance of their country. Note to be made- there was no demand for Independence. Until then, the demand was initially for more representation and then for self rule under the British. This persisted until 1929, when Nehru made the call for purna swaraj- Complete Independence.

Moreover the INC also endured a split in 1907 between the moderates and the radicals. The moderates believed that British rule was largely beneficial to India as it would bring in modernity in society, thought and practice. They believed the British wanted to benefit India but due to their lack of knowledge were not able to. Thus the moderates believed in talks, discussions and settlements with the British while the radicals favoured strikes, agitations and boycotts to force their demands. The INC was dominated by the moderates from 1885 to 1907. The leaders of the moderates were W.C. Banerjee, Surendra Nath Banerjee, Dadabhai Naoroji, Feroze Shah Mehta, Gopalakrishna Gokhale, Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya, Badruddin Tyabji, Justice Ranade, G.Subramanya Aiyar etc.

Post 1907, i.e post the partition of Bengal, influence of the extremists grew and that of the moderates fell. British rule was largely looked upon as an evil and blamed for the misery of the Indians. Moreover, with the failure of the moderates and their efforts to achieve any significant reform and relief from the British, their ideology of British benevolence also lost ground. Thus in this period of increasing extremism, suffering and nationalism, publicly supporting the British would lead to social boycott and hartals. This was the policy advocated by the radicals- social boycott, hartals and swadeshi i.e Indianess, used in context of made in India goods.

However, while no 'leader' emerged supporting the British there was still soft support for them in this period. This was mostly by the Industrialists, large landowners and the elite class- Princes and nawabs. The industrialists favoured British rule because it kept them in business. Moreover, changes in government- violent as well as non violent are bad for business. This was demonstrated in the Swadeshi movement.

Bombay industrialists (overwhelmingly Parsi or Gujarati— there was only one Maharashtrian mill-owner in 1908), as we have already seen, were at best only lukewarm supporters of Swadeshi, and in September 1906, a later police History Sheet of Tilak tells us, the Extremist leaders' bid through Dinshaw Wacha to persuade mill-owners to sell dhoties at more moderate prices was met by the blunt reply 'that they could not be supplied except at market rates'.

Even in the social movements of Gandhiji, especially the non co-operation movement, the industrialists found it difficult to support the movement.

The loyalism of most big industrialists can be related also to their need for state support against labour unrest. A significant increase had taken place in the number of the working class. Employment in organized industries and plantations went up from 2,105,824 in 1911 to 2,681,125 in 1921. Wages remained low in a period of high prices and super-profits for employers, and a relative labour-shortage in the immediate post-war years (due to rapid industrial expansion at a time when the influence epidemic of 1919 was discouraging emigration to towns) created for a brief while a somewhat stronger bargaining position.

Thus their concerns were mostly economical and so their response to national movements was usually neutral- personal support but not professional. They also objected to Gandhiji's preference for small, cottage industries instead of large scale industries.

The large landowners supported the British because without their protection they would lose their lands and power. The INC and Gandhiji were in favour of peasants and farmers owning and cultivating their own lands- as can be seen by the abolition of zamindari and the land reforms after Independence.

The kings and princes of the Indian states supported the British because they owed their very existence to them. They were given titles and pension from the Government. They were also given seats in legislative councils along with other rich landowners. This can also be viewed with the work Sardar Vallabhai Patel had to do to stitch together the country after Independence (Hyderabad and J&K. The Maharaja of Jodhpur is also claimed to have considered joining Pakistan)

Thus all support for British was derived from personal well being. A 'you scratch my back I scratch yours' type of approach. A special mention must be made of the Muslims here, for their reason of support for the British differed from the others mentioned. The Muslims, especially their elite supported the British because of historical reasons. Prior to the British, India was mostly ruled by Muslim rulers. Thus most of the administrative and royal posts were occupied by Muslims (This does not mean that Muslims were better off than Hindus, the common people suffered equally- whether Hindu or Muslim). With the coming of the British and the advent of the civil service, most of the administrative posts went to the Europeans and the Hindus- since they adopted to modern education faster than Muslims (as is still prevalent in India). Thus these Muslims feared that with the departure of the British they would be at the mercy of the Hindus and so advocated support for the British. The British were only too happy to provide them with support. This feeling of hostility towards Hindus led to the formation of Muslim League. A major figure of this thought was Syed Ahmad Khan, founder of the Aligarh Muslim University.

Thus there were no 'leaders' as such who propounded British rule in India after the moderates. However many people with their own narrow interests sought the continuation of British rule, though discretely due to public sentiment. Public sentiment against the British was sealed after the partition of Bengal, subsequent fall of the moderates and rise of Gandhiji who transformed the INC into a party of the masses.

The quotes are from Sumit Sarkar's Modern India 1885-1947. Other sources- From Plassey To Partition and After by Sekhar Bandyopadhyay. this wiki link for the moderates.

This reply from a previous thread may be of interest to you.

Briefly, there was no significant Indian faction against independence, though there were some who opposed the Indian National Congress and advocated for a more gradual replacement of the British colonial government by Indians.

Edit: ping to /u/Alexandhisdroogs for the above link, sorry I failed to add it initially.