AHC: Balkanize India

How can the Indian subcontinent (OTL Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Burma, and Sri Lanka) be divided so that no country has more than 2.5% of the world's population?

(To put that in perspective -- OTL, Pakistan has 2.49% with under 172 million, while India has 17.3%, approaching two billion -- source.)

Preferably, no PoDs before 1900. It is permissible for the purposes of the OP, to slow the population growth in areas of the subcontinent (or as a whole) as long as you show your work.
 
Make Britain resist giving up control of the continent for some reason-maybe World War I goes horribly wrong for the entente thereby severely reducing Britain's reach. So, as a result of a protracted war in India, each of the larger princely states and the presidencies and provinces form separate countries.
 
That's certainly a good start; anybody want to do a map? :eek:

I'm wondering if India can be splintered enough by the process, though, that it wouldn't need some disasters to match the OP...
 
Well, including independence as an option for the princely states would be a good start. Hyderabad would go for that to start with, and that probably means the south leaves the union.
 
Well, including independence as an option for the princely states would be a good start. Hyderabad would go for that to start with, and that probably means the south leaves the union.

The problem is that without the Madras presidency seceding from India-possibly as the basis for a Tamil-dominated pan-Dravida state-the viable princely states sans Kashmir would be surrounded entirely by India.
 
REALLY difficult post-independence. Yes, India has had separatist movements, and it's plausible to imagine a couple more countries on the subcontinent, but a total breakup is nearly ASB.

Best case might be if the Brits divide India into several smaller crown colonies early on based on the provincial lines in order to "divide-and-rule." But I don't know how plausible that is and OTL within the first few decades, mass Indian nationalism was growing.

Alternately, perhaps if Gandhi's involvement in politics is somehow butterflied away, that might prevent the Congress from being a mass political organization. Regional and communal identities become more prominent. Partition occurs and some kind of massive civil war/economic collapse occurs. But really, really hard to see happen.

It's also worth pointing out that having an average of just under 170 million is REALLY difficult barring much earlier industrial development and a massive reduction in population growth. India is so populous that even some relatively small chunks would STILL have over 200 million people.
 
Yeah, I think early 20th Century PoD (or earlier) is a safe assumption; and it's likely true that, if the subcontinent has OTL population levels, the OP isn't doable.

So what's needed to fix that? I've got a sense that pandemics are a prerequisite, but other than that...
 

cumbria

Banned
If the British push through their federation plan in the 1930's before the war stops it then it may happen.
 
The exostence of Indian nationalism is not itself an obstacle. Having most or all Indian nationalists more or less on board with a single set of policy goals (as in our timeline) is another matter entirely.
 
(To put that in perspective -- OTL, Pakistan has 2.49% with under 172 million, while India has 17.3%, approaching two billion -- source.)

Just to correct this, India does not have nearly 2 billion, it has just over 1 billion.

India won't appraoch the 2 billion mark until well into the 22nd century.
 
If India somehow ended up as a patchwork of states rather than what it is today...it may be in a better situation. I mean, Nehru's "3rd World" mixed economy style economic policy may not necessarily spread to all the other states. The reason why India remained mired in poverty for so long was as a result of his policies.
 
What form or basis would there be for these states? Some can be established, surely, but there needs to be an underlying reason.
 
Top