AH Chalenge-Violent indipendance movement in India

[Broz]

With any number of PoDs after 1900 make India achive its independance trough a long bloody struggle, a revolution or a indipendance war

maybe the british or some other party kills ghandi earlier, maybe nationalist movements take more sway, then somewhere in the midle of it all china and or sssr send help to some marxist/maoist movements
the country could break up into several peices, like bangladesh and pakistan

apparently there was an armed indipendance movement started or at least armed by the japanese
posibly more engagement during WWII betveen the british and japanese in india could bring both sides to use local recruits, creating the basis for post war pro indipendence armed factions

what would be the most probbable result, could a unified india still exist?
would a more agresive better armed indian army hold pakistan and kashmir and later anex bangladesh

or would there be a dosen separate states

are the chances going more thovards a nationalist goverment vith emfasis on hindu tradition, or a comunist party rule, aided by china and sssr

 

[Anaxagoras]

I would argue that the actual Indian independence movement was pretty violent, whatever Ganhdi's wishes were.

 

[ninebucks]

Gandhi would probably have to be shot dead far earlier. Moreover, if the British are clever and play each side off against each other, you may have Indian independence far later than 1947.

Its too late for that. The British are too worn out after WWII and the Indians are too savvy with British techniques to fall for divide-and-conquer again.

A violent Indian insurrection is depressingly likely. Folks from Gandhi-less timelines probably talk about how insanely ASB successful non-violent resistance would be.

 

[Broz]

so lets hipotesise the british, after a decade of genocide and guerilla war, finaly decide to pull out of india, posibly keeping a few fortified enclaves

what kind of india would this most likely be? would it automatically include pakistan and bangladeš or woul there still be secesion and further war?

is it more probbable the caste sistem and war would beget a militarist, traditionalist sort of nationalistic, posibly fashistoid gowerment with huge cultural and political emfasis on hindu religious tradition, (in aperance similar to the 1940is koumintang perhaps?) or could prolonged strife and pandemic poverty bring something more similar to a maoist movement, oposing the caste sistem

could both exist at the same time?

 

[Xenos]

After WW2 the British want to get out of India ASAP. No matter what state the country may be in, it no longer confers any advantage to Britain and is costing a fortune to govern.
The only way to extend British rule would be a drastically shortened or aborted WW2. Even then, it would still be a challenge for Britain to hold the country until the mid 1950's.

 

[stevep]

I've got a POD that meets the criteria, but probably not in the way that Broz is thinking. Japan gambles in Dec 41 and doesn't attack the US. Roosevelt is unable/unwilling to bring the US into the war. Japanese forces, having occupied Malaya, the Dutch Indies and Burma close in on India. Britain, too thinly stretched elsewhere and handicapped by Congress campaigns of non-cooperation is forced to make peace and cease the British control of India, such as is left to Japan. [Japan getting real victory disease].

For the rest of the 40's until either someone intervenes or the Japanese empire collapses there is bloody insurgency and brutal oppression in India. [Gandhi is killed by the Japanese after his attempts at non-violent opposition help them occupy much of the country].

Steve

 

[Broz]

actually this would be going in the right direction, olnly japan was already giving support to anti british paramilitary in india, meaning there would more likely be a kind of puppet state that would eventually turn on the japanese as the koumintang did after first colaborating

i think japanese involvement would be a good start, but making it so that japan doesnt do pearl harbor is complicated

fighting the same enemy would probbably get the chinese and indians closer together

the basic reason for this thread is that im dabling with the idea of a ATL in wich india and china, weather comunist or fashist, form a kind of regional aliance, and swallow up warious smaller states
in this timeline india anexes bangladesh, kashmir and goa, captures most of pakistan, and turns shri lankha, nepal, buthan into allied or satelite states
possibly tibet would enter into some integration with india to avoid chinese ocupation, but then again this could hinder friendly sino-indian relations so maybe not
at the same time korea is united with chinese help and becomes a satelite state of china
vietnam and laos form a federation of sorts, and integrate cambodia after vietnam invades it
these three federal states form a block, similar to the soviet union


am i simply shooting shit here or can this be pulled of with some number of pods before and after WWII
at least some of it seems plausable to me
a more militant india, for instance, would most probbably anex bangladesh, as it actually treathened to do in OTL

im just facinated by the idea of almoust three bilion people living in what would be practicaly one state

but this all is a completely diferent thread, sorry

so anyway more japanese involvment is a good idea but would britain realy give up india so easily, it was apsurd to think they could keep it but its more a question of imperial pride and british integrity and such, no?

 

[Krall]

Mr. Broz, I have finished your diagnosis and let me say, it's not pleasant. It appears you have Chronic Bad Spelling Disease, and it seems that you're suffering from a withdrawal of Capital Letters and Question Marks. Amongst other things, you have Homophone-Homonym Confusion Syndrome.

I'm afraid there's not alot we can do, but I'd like you to used a wordcheck twice a day and i suggest that you look up a word in the dictionary if you're not sure of its meaning. Rereading what you've just written is also a good idea.

 

[stevep]

so anyway more japanese involvment is a good idea but would britain realy give up india so easily, it was apsurd to think they could keep it but its more a question of imperial pride and british integrity and such, no?

Broz

Basically it depends on your opinion on whether Japan would gamble on not attacking the US and America is unwilling to enter the war to defend European colonies. If so then in 42 the British empire is in a very bad position. A heavily overstretched RN especially can't defend the Indian Ocean and its trade and communications. This means not only are British possessions there highly exposed but the supply lines to the forces in N Africa and the ME and also there is a theoretical threat to Australia.

Under those circumstances Churchill and the British government are desperate to save what they can and also to maintain resistance to the Nazis, which means that they must end the war with Japan. Furthermore Churchill is angered by Congress's non-cooperation process with the British, which made the defence of India even more difficult. As such he is willing to cease opposing Japanese designs on India to achieve peace in the east and a Japanese withdrawal from areas such as Rabaul on the approach to Australia.

In that circumstance I could see such a deal being made. It also ties down the Japanese as attempting to control India, China and the region in between vastly overstretches them. It would be a controversial decision but would make some sense under the circumstances.

Steve