United Indian Republic
- Thread starter Tetsu
- Start date
- Status
There is a way!! Have Mohammed Ali Jinnah die of some weird illness or have him not have as much influence with the Brits. Or, make him become the president of the Indian National Congress. Anything to satisfy his ego or push him out of the picture would have prevented the emergence of Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Also, to prevent the emergence of a Bangladesh specifically, have the militaristic Indian independence fighter Subash Chandra Bose (he worked with the Japanese, tried to get Hitler to provide help to his outfit, and ended up dying in a plane crash) live at least through Partition. Bangladesh's population is all Bengali, like that of the Indian province of West Bengal, except that in Bangladesh 85% of the population is Muslim. Bangladesh and today's Indian province of West Bengal were both the province of Bengal IIRC during the Raj era. Bose, being a Bengali, was very very popular. He IMO could have held the Muslims and Hindus of Bengal together pretty well, preventing the emergence of an extremely overpopulated and poor Bangladesh.
I can think of several other ways also if given time. One would be driving out the Brits in a "2nd Indian Mutiny" or the other would be Nehru being more firm with Mountbatten and not tolerating any kind of division. Or, Gandhi somehow building national momentum against division. What would also help would be "Sardar" Vallabhai Patel, a member of the Indian Nat'l Congress party, having more influence as he was a big more of a hardliner and probably wouldn't have caved in to demands for a separate Muslim state like Nehru did with pressure from Mountbatten and Jinnah.
To reinforce the unity of this United Indian Republic, China could seize Tibet as it did and/or then have a border clash with India earlier, causing an outpouring of patriotism that washes away most all separatist sentiment. Also, this region would be saved from the several wars and terrorist insurgencies that have occurred and are occurring in these last 50 years or so.
Also, to prevent the emergence of a Bangladesh specifically, have the militaristic Indian independence fighter Subash Chandra Bose (he worked with the Japanese, tried to get Hitler to provide help to his outfit, and ended up dying in a plane crash) live at least through Partition. Bangladesh's population is all Bengali, like that of the Indian province of West Bengal, except that in Bangladesh 85% of the population is Muslim. Bangladesh and today's Indian province of West Bengal were both the province of Bengal IIRC during the Raj era. Bose, being a Bengali, was very very popular. He IMO could have held the Muslims and Hindus of Bengal together pretty well, preventing the emergence of an extremely overpopulated and poor Bangladesh.
I can think of several other ways also if given time. One would be driving out the Brits in a "2nd Indian Mutiny" or the other would be Nehru being more firm with Mountbatten and not tolerating any kind of division. Or, Gandhi somehow building national momentum against division. What would also help would be "Sardar" Vallabhai Patel, a member of the Indian Nat'l Congress party, having more influence as he was a big more of a hardliner and probably wouldn't have caved in to demands for a separate Muslim state like Nehru did with pressure from Mountbatten and Jinnah.
To reinforce the unity of this United Indian Republic, China could seize Tibet as it did and/or then have a border clash with India earlier, causing an outpouring of patriotism that washes away most all separatist sentiment. Also, this region would be saved from the several wars and terrorist insurgencies that have occurred and are occurring in these last 50 years or so.
Maybe Churchill is still in charge in Britain and he doesn't want India gone, so the Indians have to hang together in their revolt against the British and that motivates the troops to ignore the politicians intriguing for a split. A Moslem president that used to be a soldier in the mold of Ataturk?
India was promised independance at the beginning of WW2.
The problem here is the crazy islamic fundies in Pakistan and Bangladesh so I suppose if you get early evil middle eastners wish discredit such things to the Pakistani people you could get them agreeing to a big secular India.
Or maybe have a threat to India from the soviets and a belief that only united they can stand up to against it.
The problem here is the crazy islamic fundies in Pakistan and Bangladesh so I suppose if you get early evil middle eastners wish discredit such things to the Pakistani people you could get them agreeing to a big secular India.
Or maybe have a threat to India from the soviets and a belief that only united they can stand up to against it.
What about having an heir to the Mugal Crown show up? He becomes a very popular figure, and is used by the various parties as the figure head. After 1946, India becomes a constitutional monarchy in name, but a confederation in practice. By the 1950's, Afganistan petitions to become a member, and by the turn of the century, India is one of the economic worldpowers, kind of like Japan is OTL.
The thing is, if India hadn't been split up, it probably would have emerged IMO a "regional imperial power" like how China did OTL (able to seize Tibet and push around Vietnam and manchuria and N. Korea and even India and stuff like that). The British, unwittingly or not, with the creation of Pakistan (and the subsequent splitting of Pakistan into Pakistan and Bangladesh) did a traditional divide and conquer method, leaving an India encircled by enemies and hence unable to play an active role outside its immediate region.
An heir to the Mughal crown...probably not as South Indians wouldn't care and the Sikhs would be POed and so would the Marathas (no Bombay!). Then again, it just might work, if he did some sort of grand thing to make people love him. IMO, Gandhi would have been the best candidate for such a post. Nehru had a humongous ego and was at the same time idealistic in the extreme, which IMO made him a brilliant freedom fighter but a somewhat disastrous leader of a country.
The Soviets cared more about Persia than India as Persia had oil and Indian Ocean access and wasn't as far away or as well armed as India. India also would be more full of resentful people than Persia should it be occupied or made a satellite. Also, most Indians could have cared less about the Soviet UNion.
CHurchill trying to hold onto India and treating both Jinnah and Nehru badly and basically saying "screw partition, screw independence, your ours now and ours forever" would have really killed any ideas of partition as an drive for independence took over. This would do it IMO. As for Afghanistan joining, I don't see it happening as they are IMO a fiercely independent people and also because in much of Indian (and Pakistani) literature and conventional wisdom, they get a pretty bad rap at times. Then again, it might happen far off into the future if the "United Indian Republic" is doing well.
And there's little reason why it shouldn't. Asia's best infrastructure post-WW2 (japan and CHina bombed out and India's huge rail and road network), ports like Calcutta, Bombay, Madras, and Karachi, democratic gov't, lots of natural resources and raw materials if nothing else for export, local sources of wealth (Tata corporation and other family-owned, Zaibatsu-like setups, the princes, etc.) and a well established English-speaking upper class would certainly help provided things aren't f**ked up by Nehru going down the Socialist route he went down in OTL.
If India is an economic superpower by today, it would look more like Brazil (large gap between the rich and poor) than Japan (more evenly spread out wealth) unless it somehow manages to bring its population growth under control. Perhaps land-reform and earlier emphasis on family planning might do the trick?
An heir to the Mughal crown...probably not as South Indians wouldn't care and the Sikhs would be POed and so would the Marathas (no Bombay!). Then again, it just might work, if he did some sort of grand thing to make people love him. IMO, Gandhi would have been the best candidate for such a post. Nehru had a humongous ego and was at the same time idealistic in the extreme, which IMO made him a brilliant freedom fighter but a somewhat disastrous leader of a country.
The Soviets cared more about Persia than India as Persia had oil and Indian Ocean access and wasn't as far away or as well armed as India. India also would be more full of resentful people than Persia should it be occupied or made a satellite. Also, most Indians could have cared less about the Soviet UNion.
CHurchill trying to hold onto India and treating both Jinnah and Nehru badly and basically saying "screw partition, screw independence, your ours now and ours forever" would have really killed any ideas of partition as an drive for independence took over. This would do it IMO. As for Afghanistan joining, I don't see it happening as they are IMO a fiercely independent people and also because in much of Indian (and Pakistani) literature and conventional wisdom, they get a pretty bad rap at times. Then again, it might happen far off into the future if the "United Indian Republic" is doing well.
And there's little reason why it shouldn't. Asia's best infrastructure post-WW2 (japan and CHina bombed out and India's huge rail and road network), ports like Calcutta, Bombay, Madras, and Karachi, democratic gov't, lots of natural resources and raw materials if nothing else for export, local sources of wealth (Tata corporation and other family-owned, Zaibatsu-like setups, the princes, etc.) and a well established English-speaking upper class would certainly help provided things aren't f**ked up by Nehru going down the Socialist route he went down in OTL.
If India is an economic superpower by today, it would look more like Brazil (large gap between the rich and poor) than Japan (more evenly spread out wealth) unless it somehow manages to bring its population growth under control. Perhaps land-reform and earlier emphasis on family planning might do the trick?
Leo Caesius
Banned
The Afghans are also Iranians. Dari is just a dialect of Persian, and Pashto is Eastern Iranian, IIRC. I could see, however, the formation of an Iranian superstate, comprising Iran, Afghanistan, and Tadjikistan for starters, on the model of the EU or what the Turkic states have been discussing.
I ment to say that the Mugal Heir is but a figurehead, he has very little power. Ganhdi, Nerhu, and the others would have the real power. India is only a constitutional monarchy in name only. It becomes more like a confederation.
What happens if India defeats Britian before 1800?
There were major British operations in Indai in the 18th century! What if, perhaps with french assistance, the Indians manage to throw the British Army out of Indai around the end of the18th century, and due to successful french conquests in Europe at this time, the British are unable to direct sufficient forces to reconquer India, and by 1815 or 16, the Indians are to strong to overpower from10,000 miles away!
An Independant India, holding together out of fear of a British return might be able to last long enough for the country to stay together permenantly, particularly if it was ruled by someone like an Emperor!
By 1900, India could be a fairly powerful regional power!
There were major British operations in Indai in the 18th century! What if, perhaps with french assistance, the Indians manage to throw the British Army out of Indai around the end of the18th century, and due to successful french conquests in Europe at this time, the British are unable to direct sufficient forces to reconquer India, and by 1815 or 16, the Indians are to strong to overpower from10,000 miles away!
An Independant India, holding together out of fear of a British return might be able to last long enough for the country to stay together permenantly, particularly if it was ruled by someone like an Emperor!
By 1900, India could be a fairly powerful regional power!
Leo Caesius, calling Pashto/Pathan "eastern Persian" is a bit too broad IMO. There is a very large Pastho-speaking population in the N.W. Frontier Province of OTL Pakistan (the area where they are searching for Osama) for example. The Pashto are also more concentrated in eastern Afghanistan (Kabul, Kandahar, Khyber area, etc.) while the Dari-speaking Tajiks are closer to Iran and in the north along with the Uzbeks while the Hazaras (no idea what they speak) are in the middle. IMO, Afghanistan's Tajik-speaking parts could become Iranian but the Pashtos wouldn't be happy with Iran lording over them as they are primarily Sunni, Iran is primarily Shia.
Count Deerborn, in that case, it might work but he would have to do something grand for ordinary Indians to really care about him. Not all Indians have in their historical consciousness a grand impression of the Mughals and in the South of India, some don't even have any real impression as the Mughals never ruled there directly.
JLcook, for your idea, the Mughals IMO would be waaay to weak. Tipu Sultan of Mysore (one of the few with a modern army that defeated the Brits a few times) in the south of India, if he unites with his rivals the Nizam of Hyderabad (where my family is from) and the Peshwa of Maharastra (which includes what will become Bombay) somehow or forms an accord with them could unite the southern part while the Sikhs have a kingdom in Punjab and a little more, the raja of Kashmir has his domain, the Rajputs own much of present day western Pakistan and India's province of Rajasthan, there's the old shell of the once glorious Mughal Empire in Delhi, and some others. IMO, we'd see the Brits thrown out but a large collection of independent states. Then what? For a united India, it would have to be like how either Germany or Italy united (most likely Germany IMO) as there'd have to some external threat that would allow a "Prussia" to rally the others into a united confederation and then a nation.
Here's a map of India in the 1700s:
Count Deerborn, in that case, it might work but he would have to do something grand for ordinary Indians to really care about him. Not all Indians have in their historical consciousness a grand impression of the Mughals and in the South of India, some don't even have any real impression as the Mughals never ruled there directly.
JLcook, for your idea, the Mughals IMO would be waaay to weak. Tipu Sultan of Mysore (one of the few with a modern army that defeated the Brits a few times) in the south of India, if he unites with his rivals the Nizam of Hyderabad (where my family is from) and the Peshwa of Maharastra (which includes what will become Bombay) somehow or forms an accord with them could unite the southern part while the Sikhs have a kingdom in Punjab and a little more, the raja of Kashmir has his domain, the Rajputs own much of present day western Pakistan and India's province of Rajasthan, there's the old shell of the once glorious Mughal Empire in Delhi, and some others. IMO, we'd see the Brits thrown out but a large collection of independent states. Then what? For a united India, it would have to be like how either Germany or Italy united (most likely Germany IMO) as there'd have to some external threat that would allow a "Prussia" to rally the others into a united confederation and then a nation.
Here's a map of India in the 1700s:
Leo Caesius
Banned
I was speaking purely from a linguistic perspective. The Pashto language belongs to the Iranian family of languages, and in that regard calling them "Eastern Iranian" (not "eastern Persian") is not "broad," it's merely descriptive. If I were talking about the political or cultural orbit into which they might fall, I'd still describe them as Iranian, at least from a cultural if not strictly religious perspective.Rahul said:
Here's a graphic from SOAS. The Orange represents Western Iranian languages, and the Red represents Eastern Iranian languages (note the little red blob of Ossetic, all the way in the Caucasus).
You are correct, in that I can't see the Pashtos happy about anyone lording it over them, whether their overlords be Shii Muslims or Indians of whatever religious background.
If India formed a league to stop the British then wouldn't India then be carved up by Europeans (mainly British, French, Dutch) if they aren't welded together (fast enough) as Germany was.
French take Maratha lands, British take Bengal, Northern Circars, Hyderabad, and Dutch take Mysore, Ceylon, Carnatic
Punjab, Rajasthan, UP stay independent as long as in OTL.
French take Maratha lands, British take Bengal, Northern Circars, Hyderabad, and Dutch take Mysore, Ceylon, Carnatic
Punjab, Rajasthan, UP stay independent as long as in OTL.
Last edited:
Bill Cameron
Banned
Rahul said:
Rahul,
That's the one POD I've read of. Jinnah wanted to be president or some such and the INC dug in thier heels. That gave Mountbatten the excuse he needed to split India up.
If the INC let's Jinnah have his title, he'll die of cancer soon anyway. IIRC, he was dying during the negoiations.
Of course, this doesn't mean there won't be further factionalism. The Muslims and Sikhs may try later to form their own nations.
Bill
Have Stalin make some throwaway remark or an secret document accidently released making some kind of plan to overthrow and make soviet sattelite states in the Indian Subcontinent. Mass protest, people temporarily forget regional differences and join toghether.
To make it even more interesting it could be a fake document circulated by the USA to encourage anti-soviet governments in India.
To make it even more interesting it could be a fake document circulated by the USA to encourage anti-soviet governments in India.
British rule was the best thing that could have happened to India.
It wasn't a good thing for India but compared to all the other options- total rule by the French or Dutch or carved up between the Europeans it was good.
I don't think Britain did a divide and conquer with India, India is a democray and I doubt it would go conquering in the same way as China (which was sort of justified in conquering Tibet which was part of China until 50 years earlier)
It wasn't a good thing for India but compared to all the other options- total rule by the French or Dutch or carved up between the Europeans it was good.
I don't think Britain did a divide and conquer with India, India is a democray and I doubt it would go conquering in the same way as China (which was sort of justified in conquering Tibet which was part of China until 50 years earlier)
Bill Cameron, if the Sikhs try, they'll find that their new "nation" would be completely surrounded by Indian territory. If hte Muslims try though...that could create problems down the road.
With Stalin saying something though, once again, I doubt the Indians would care. They're sitting pretty beyond the Himalayas and there is little Stalin can do to them. There really wasn't any huge anti-communist movement or anti-Soviet movement in India that i can think of at the time. Granted, making a satellite on the Indian subcontinent would certainly make some mad but I doubt his claims would be taken seriously unless he did something like move a couple divisions into Tajikistan. An actual invasion would unite the country IMO. But just threats wouldn't suffice. Then again, if we have a POD where communists in India do something to make themselves extremely unpopular (hmm...kill Gandhi?), then Stalin's threat in this scenario would provoke an angry response.
Leo, thanks for the linguistic map. I see what you meant now.
Fortyseven, not necessarily. If all the "Indian" nations honor their agreements in such a league, then I don't see that being too much of a problem provided they unite or industrialize as quickly as possible.
Leej, about British rule, I agree. I still think though that some princely states could have remained independent had the Brits not been so good at turning the princely states against each other in a wonderful example of divide and conquer.
On Tibet, I disagree that Tibet was under Chinese rule then. On paper, yes, in reality, no. IMO, China's conduct in Tibet (from what little I've read of it) since its annexation makes China's claim unjustified but that's another debate altogether. Plus, I'm a big fan of Tibet serving as a buffer between India and China. China and India's 1962 war has to be one of the first or one of the few in history. If Tibet had existed, there would have been no need for such a silly war that created mistrust on both sides.
Tetsu-katana, is this helpful for your TL?
With Stalin saying something though, once again, I doubt the Indians would care. They're sitting pretty beyond the Himalayas and there is little Stalin can do to them. There really wasn't any huge anti-communist movement or anti-Soviet movement in India that i can think of at the time. Granted, making a satellite on the Indian subcontinent would certainly make some mad but I doubt his claims would be taken seriously unless he did something like move a couple divisions into Tajikistan. An actual invasion would unite the country IMO. But just threats wouldn't suffice. Then again, if we have a POD where communists in India do something to make themselves extremely unpopular (hmm...kill Gandhi?), then Stalin's threat in this scenario would provoke an angry response.
Leo, thanks for the linguistic map. I see what you meant now.
Fortyseven, not necessarily. If all the "Indian" nations honor their agreements in such a league, then I don't see that being too much of a problem provided they unite or industrialize as quickly as possible.
Leej, about British rule, I agree. I still think though that some princely states could have remained independent had the Brits not been so good at turning the princely states against each other in a wonderful example of divide and conquer.
On Tibet, I disagree that Tibet was under Chinese rule then. On paper, yes, in reality, no. IMO, China's conduct in Tibet (from what little I've read of it) since its annexation makes China's claim unjustified but that's another debate altogether. Plus, I'm a big fan of Tibet serving as a buffer between India and China. China and India's 1962 war has to be one of the first or one of the few in history. If Tibet had existed, there would have been no need for such a silly war that created mistrust on both sides.
Tetsu-katana, is this helpful for your TL?
Hmm
Well, the religious tensions and all started when Aurangzed, took over as the new mughal emperor after shah jahan. Aurangzed was very able and extended the reaches of his empire, however he was pretty damn orthodox and strict about islam. If we have a POD that kinda changes his personality so that he isnt such a fanatic, things look a lot better towards hindu-muslim cohesion and stuff...
Well, the religious tensions and all started when Aurangzed, took over as the new mughal emperor after shah jahan. Aurangzed was very able and extended the reaches of his empire, however he was pretty damn orthodox and strict about islam. If we have a POD that kinda changes his personality so that he isnt such a fanatic, things look a lot better towards hindu-muslim cohesion and stuff...
As Leej said, the Muslim crazies are the problem. Have Mawlana Mawdudi, the founder of Jamaat-e-Islami (a highly influential organization that pushed for the partition), die as a child (and so never writes about Islam as a national identity), and you might have the seeds of a successful integration. It would be interesting also to see its effects on the political turmoil in MENA during the 1970s, as the modern Islamist movement has effectively lost the senior member of its founders before he can even influence Sayyif Qutb....
Thanks for all of the suggestions; I think with some minor tweaking, it can be worked. (Little tweaks, for example, because there is no Stalin in the timeline.)
I think it may actually be easier to do in this world than set in ours; and I think a good way to do it is for India to revolt against British rule during World War II, in which fascist Britain and France are the agressors against the German Empire. Some of those Muslim leaders could have an... accident during this revolt.
I think it may actually be easier to do in this world than set in ours; and I think a good way to do it is for India to revolt against British rule during World War II, in which fascist Britain and France are the agressors against the German Empire. Some of those Muslim leaders could have an... accident during this revolt.
- Status