Power level of an un-partioned India?

[Mitchell Hundred]

If India was allowed its independence in 1947 but remained undivided, so no Pakistan and Bangladesh. How powerful a player would Indian be by now?

India would be the largest country in the world with just under 1.7 billion people.

 

[anotherlurker]

Having the largest population doesn't actually give you anything.

To make that unpartitioned India work would mean loads of regional autonomy everywhere to keep x from infringing on the religious/economic/cultura/whatever interests of y, which is going to boost corruption far beyond OTL levels, India could be worse off than OTL quite easily.

 

[Sardar]

Well, historically Indians never really focused on naval strength, so I imagine their power would be confined to the area around India until the Indians develop a proper navy. But definitely more of a power than OTL, not able to be pushed around by China for example.

 

[Khanzeer]

We just discussed this in depth
In short no neccesarily, imho India would be a big voice for Muslim countries given it has the most muslims anywhere else in the world

 

[stubear1012]

It may be my optimism, but I feel that India would be better off un-partitioned. I know that there would be many issues with an un-partitioned India. However you would not have the economic disruption of the partitions, the cost of the three wars, and the arms race between the countries.

I have always felt that having a level playing field for Indian based companies to bid on both government contracts and Indian Rail contracts would have encouraged a pro business party. Reducing any goverment regulations designed to hinder the grow of Indian business would have helped. Also encouraging British companies to invest in India would have helped expand the economy and lead to the development of a middle class. Hopefully a pro business party would been secular and weakened the religious parties.

Again I am an optimist.

 

[Khanzeer]

Hopefully a pro business party would been secular and weakened the religious parties.

that is unlikely to happen given the chain of events leading up to 1947

My advice for united india would be to ally closely with USSR and maintain friendly relations with USA but on the condition of being very hostile to all European colonial powers esp UK until they pass reparations [ even if just symbolic and nominal ] and withdraw from ALL their overseas possessions.

 

[HistoricalArthropod]

India would be able to act much more effectively as a champion of the 3rd world, for one.

 

[Khanzeer]

India would be able to act much more effectively as a champion of the 3rd world, for one.

Hard to predict ,will india be able to implement land reforms within its borders if it gets all these fiefdoms and princely states ?

 

[NiGHTS]

Its quality would depend on the leadership, but it wouldn't have any rivalry with Pakistan keeping it focused on its own region, so it would have an easier time expanding its focus. Of course, good leadership would probably want to focus a couple years on internal manners, before branching out.

 

[Atterdag]

Avoiding the several wars that's happened between India and Pakistan would atleast be something, also not the constant tension of two nuclear powers skirmishing over border regions. Though the external stability may be replaced with more internal unrest, rebellions, guerilla war etc.

 

[Michele]

Initially it might be worse off, with the partition mayhem and following wars being replaced by civil war eruptions, chronic guerrilla, and general instability.
But if they can survive that all for long enough in one piece, then they are better off. They surely have to concede a lot to local autonomies and religious interests, which has a cost. But on the other hand outside wars cost more than small counterinsurgency operations, and they can invest in one nuclear program instead of two.
Presumably, if they do remain in one piece, that means a party/social class develops that puts more importance in unity and development than in religious identity, and that in itself means being better off.

They can be this TL's equivalent of our China, possibly, with the added advantages that they have here (English speakers, democracy, great geographic position). This means that in TTL they may be stronger than our China.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

If India was allowed its independence in 1947 but remained undivided, so no Pakistan and Bangladesh. How powerful a player would Indian be by now?

India would be the largest country in the world with just under 1.7 billion people.

I think India would be best off if it stayed an Empire, with the same loose relationship to Great Britain as Australia or New Zealand.

The Emperor/the Empress of India wouldn't have actual powers in day to day politics, but would through his/her Governor-General act as a guardian of legality. This could help to prevent the coups and governmental instability that plagued post-independence Pakistan.

 

[Analytical Engine]

I'm shocked, shocked, that no-one has made a DBZ reference here.

Seriously, it would have significant diplomatic power, and fewer external threats (but possibly more internal ones). Might the Soviet Union court India directly following the Sino-Soviet split?

 

[Simon]

Hard to say without knowing how this India managed to avoid partition, any change from our timeline likely reflecting changes in the domestic political situation. If they manage to keep the Muslim League on-side then it probably means a post-independence government that's more open to the free market – avoiding, or at least curbing, Fabian socialism and the Licence Raj probably does more to boost India's performance than the extra territory.

 

[sendô]

It all depends how long the inevitable 1947 Indian civil war went on for, how many were killed, how much revanchism there is between Muslims/Hindus etc.

 

[Simon]

Hard to predict, will india be able to implement land reforms within its borders if it gets all these fiefdoms and princely states?

Granted this is from about a minutes worth of searching so take it with a pinch of salt but 562 princely states seem to have acceded to India, 14 look to have acceded to Pakistan – in terms of area roughly 7.5% of British India. Maybe I'm missing something but I'm not really seeing how their inclusion, simply in terms of numbers, would stand in the way of central government implementing reforms.

 

[Khanzeer]

Granted this is from about a minutes worth of searching so take it with a pinch of salt but 562 princely states seem to have acceded to India, 14 look to have acceded to Pakistan – in terms of area roughly 7.5% of British India. Maybe I'm missing something but I'm not really seeing how their inclusion, simply in terms of numbers, would stand in the way of central government implementing reforms.

i admire your humility believe me its rare !
problem was in both east bengal and what became west pakistan there were powerful land owners who only backed muslim league as it guarenteed their rights to vast tracts of lands.It would be a huge challenge for congress to win them over.

 

[Khanzeer]

I think India would be best off if it stayed an Empire, with the same loose relationship to Great Britain as Australia or New Zealand.

The Emperor/the Empress of India wouldn't have actual powers in day to day politics, but would through his/her Governor-General act as a guardian of legality. This could help to prevent the coups and governmental instability that plagued post-independence Pakistan.

if memory serves me right , it was suggested by indians years before independence sort of self rule but rejected by the british then

 

[Vikayak Devagiri]

It is definitely less than 9000

 

[manav95]

A united India would mean I or my parents are never born, and my family remain as Hindus in a Muslim-majority land. Leaving aside this personal, rather selfish goal, I think the lack of military tension and saber-rattling enables better development because this united India would only feel a threat from China, which is separated by the huge Himalayas and rainforests of Southeast Asia. And India never officially allied with either the US bloc or Soviet bloc during the Cold War, so this India follows the nonviolent ideals of Gandhi better than OTL. There are worse insurgencies, especially with the Balochis and Pashtuns who are very hard to assimilate under an "Indian" identity.

I can see India letting them loose in the 1960s as protectorates or separate nations, with the Pashtuns probably getting absorbed by Afghanistan. This annexation would strengthen the Pashtuns in that country, perhaps keeping the monarchy in power there and staving off the Communist coup and Soviet invasion there.

The Balochis would probably try to secure independence of the Iranian Balochistan, leading to a civil war in Iran and repression by the Shah of Balochi insurgents. The war could easily see an earlier ousting of the Shah, along with the potential for Azeris to try and secede from Iran and join the Azeri SSR, with generous Soviet backing.

India would see a great deal of communal tension and rioting, which would subside after 10 years under the strong leadership of Nehru/Gandhi/Ambedkar/Jinnah/other guys. The Congress Party would be secular in order to keep the country united, but would lose dominance earlier bc of strong Islamic parties looking to enhance regional autonomy and Hindu parties seeking to counter that influence. The Sikhs would also be as restive. This India would become decentralized and chaotic, but somehow held together like OTL India.