A thought about "Greater India" gaining independence in 1947

Thande

Donor
A fairly common 20th century variation we see on random maps is a united Greater India (i.e. the present Indian Republic + Pakistan + Bangladesh + and possibly Nepal and Bhutan). Usually there is no attempt to explain why this is there, and EdT went over some of the reasons why it may not be so feasible in A Greater Britain. Realistically, if you want to go erasing borders in lieu of doing research, you probably need a POD before the formation of the All India Muslim League in 1906, which could butterfly away Indian independence altogether or at least turn it into something radically different.

But never mind all this. Let's just suppose that this Greater India comes into existence and manages to hold together. My random thought was this: suddenly, China's not the most populous country in the world.

China's current population is about 1.3 billion. Totting up Greater India gives you nearly 1.5. Why's this significant? Well, it's as though we're hardwired to think of China as two things, Ancient Civilisation and Most Populous Country. I think that'd still apply even in TLs where China is divided between Nationalist and Communist states or balkanised. After all, even when China was fractured in its civil wars of the 20th century, people still spoke of "China" as a single cultural unit, and we'd probably still get comments like "one person in five is Chinese".

India impinges much less strongly on Western popular culture, especially outside Britain where there is at least the colonial history and immigration connection. But the divisions on the map are really modern inventions and thinking of say Lahore or Dhaka as "Indian" would make perfect sense to any Victorian - indeed they would be astonished that anyone would think otherwise. So my point is that in TTL, this Greater India would indeed be thought of as a single unit again - culturally and religiously diverse, of course, but so is China to a lesser extent and that does not alter its perception as a monolithic unit.

This is more of a philosophical WI, but I do wonder how the Western child's view of the world (and that of the average adult disinterested in geography and history he will grow into) would be different if the country at the top of the list was India, and if one in five people were Indian. Certainly, at the very least, I think this hypothetical state would have a stronger role in popular culture.
 
Weeeell the thing is that 'Greater India' assuming all other things (unlikely obviously) remain the same will only exceed China's population in roughly 2000...India will not be on the top of the list.

So I'd say the effect on Western culture will be pretty minimal in the twenty century, probably more afterwards.
 
These are just some thoughts I had about your question:

I don't think that alternate world people would be more likely to say 1 in 5 people born are Indian. Indian coming from the root Hind coming from the religion Hindu (this might very well be wrong). Within that Greater India that generalization would be even more off the mark than OTL. That's not to say that a real national identity could be forged, but among people in the know that would be too much off the mark.
 

Thande

Donor
I don't think that alternate world people would be more likely to say 1 in 5 people born are Indian. Indian coming from the root Hind coming from the religion Hindu (this might very well be wrong). Within that Greater India that generalization would be even more off the mark than OTL. That's not to say that a real national identity could be forged, but among people in the know that would be too much off the mark.

That's not true, for the reasons I said above. Right up until 1947, and for quite a long time afterwards, "India" meant everything from Afghanistan to Burma, and indeed occasionally included Afghanistan and Burma as well.

The derivation of the name is unimportant, because it dates from before Islam even entered the region and ultimately led to the modern religious divide.
 

Hendryk

Banned
This is more of a philosophical WI, but I do wonder how the Western child's view of the world (and that of the average adult disinterested in geography and history he will grow into) would be different if the country at the top of the list was India, and if one in five people were Indian. Certainly, at the very least, I think this hypothetical state would have a stronger role in popular culture.
We're going to find out soon enough, if current demographic trends are maintained, OTL's India will have a higher population than China in the next couple of decades.
 
. Indian coming from the root Hind coming from the religion Hindu (this might very well be wrong).

Wrong, it's from the Sanskrit 'Sindhu', meaning river which the Greeks then applied in naming the Indus River and the Romans took 'India' from to refer to the lands beyond that River. If you want to get all picky about roots of words 'India' can thus refer to anything from Baluchistan to South East Asia...plus semantic fields undergoing change is the whole point of Thandes OP musings.
 
It still would matter if ATL Indians considered themselves Indian. Their impact on global popular culture would be dependent on the ability to hold together their society.

Also an important means for popular understanding of a country to have is through immigrants. If people consider their Tamil neighbors or Sikh janitors then they might have different points of view.

The statement 1 in 5 children are Indian might still stand, but cultural impact would be different than how we see china's monolithic stereotype.

PS: didn't mean to picky it was just the first idea that sprung to mind
 
My explanation and POD for a "Greater India" is a different Morely-Minto Reform. This created separate Muslim and Hindu electorates, meaning only Muslims could vote for Muslim-apportioned seats and the same idea for Hindus. This meant that neither group had to appeal to the voters of the other and this encouraged radicalization, sectarian "nationalism" and made the split inevitable.

The Creation of the Muslim League isn't what did it - at first it didn't advocate separate countries.

With regard to your question, I'm not sure if India would have a larger role in popular culture or not; I suspect it would, if for no reason that horrendous resources would not have been squandered on pointless rivalry and wars, and India would likely be a much more powerful, developed, and prosperous place, instead of nearly synonymous with poverty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_India_Act_of_1909

A fairly common 20th century variation we see on random maps is a united Greater India (i.e. the present Indian Republic + Pakistan + Bangladesh + and possibly Nepal and Bhutan). Usually there is no attempt to explain why this is there, and EdT went over some of the reasons why it may not be so feasible in A Greater Britain. Realistically, if you want to go erasing borders in lieu of doing research, you probably need a POD before the formation of the All India Muslim League in 1906, which could butterfly away Indian independence altogether or at least turn it into something radically different.

But never mind all this. Let's just suppose that this Greater India comes into existence and manages to hold together. My random thought was this: suddenly, China's not the most populous country in the world.

China's current population is about 1.3 billion. Totting up Greater India gives you nearly 1.5. Why's this significant? Well, it's as though we're hardwired to think of China as two things, Ancient Civilisation and Most Populous Country. I think that'd still apply even in TLs where China is divided between Nationalist and Communist states or balkanised. After all, even when China was fractured in its civil wars of the 20th century, people still spoke of "China" as a single cultural unit, and we'd probably still get comments like "one person in five is Chinese".

India impinges much less strongly on Western popular culture, especially outside Britain where there is at least the colonial history and immigration connection. But the divisions on the map are really modern inventions and thinking of say Lahore or Dhaka as "Indian" would make perfect sense to any Victorian - indeed they would be astonished that anyone would think otherwise. So my point is that in TTL, this Greater India would indeed be thought of as a single unit again - culturally and religiously diverse, of course, but so is China to a lesser extent and that does not alter its perception as a monolithic unit.

This is more of a philosophical WI, but I do wonder how the Western child's view of the world (and that of the average adult disinterested in geography and history he will grow into) would be different if the country at the top of the list was India, and if one in five people were Indian. Certainly, at the very least, I think this hypothetical state would have a stronger role in popular culture.
 
With regard to your question, I'm not sure if India would have a larger role in popular culture or not; I suspect it would, if for no reason that horrendous resources would not have been squandered on pointless rivalry and wars, and India would likely be a much more powerful, developed, and prosperous place, instead of nearly synonymous with poverty.

I dunno, dividing Hindus against Muslims seems so obvious, and so British, that it's hard not to see it.

And by the 1930s, the INC wants a strong, united India that they can leap into the 20th century through Fabian socialism. So a weakly centralized state, which is what Muslims wanted, seems out.
 
I dunno, dividing Hindus against Muslims seems so obvious, and so British, that it's hard not to see it.

And by the 1930s, the INC wants a strong, united India that they can leap into the 20th century through Fabian socialism. So a weakly centralized state, which is what Muslims wanted, seems out.

States once created tend to centralize. I don't think the Muslims were in as great a danger as they feared about being swamped by the Hindu majority, which would become evident quickly.
 
Top