AHC: Friendly Indo-Pakistani relations

Yeah... it'll be a lot easier simply to have reunified India. The manner that Partition was done (i.e. draw a quick line in the sand and see the hordes start running for it) practically ensured mutual animosity for... well... until either nation ceases to exist if this keeps up. The issue on Kashmir, which continues to be a sticking point to this day, clearly helped nothing to resolve tensions. Of course, the choice the Maharaja faced wasn't which nation to join or to become independent. It was a choice of who do you want invading you, with the last choice inviting both.
 
On this forum I have seen Communist America, Objectivist Katanga, and a Transhumanist Soviet Union. Compared to that how hard could it be to improve relations between India and Pakistan?

-the famous last words of Alexander the Average​
 
Last edited:

GarethC

Donor
There are a myriad of ways that Britain has a better WWII, and isn't so bankrupt, and so isn't so focused on ditching India because it costs money, leading to the bungle of Partition.

A Blunted Sickle. An attempted-and-crushed Sealion. Elser succeeds. Valkyrie succeeds. Churchill doesn't pull forces from Compass for Greece. Dobbie complains to CIGS about Malaya. Percival defends Malaya. Phillips' air cover saves Force Z (well, that's a start, anyway). Stalin believe Sorge. A Whale has Wings.

With a different war and either a period of Dominion status, or a planned and managed Partition without violence, may make full independence happen later (though perhaps earlier if WWII ends in spring 1942 when the French take Berlin or something).

Note that those sort of scenarios will tend to mean that America has spent less money and fewer lives if any - if Germany is defeated by the Entente then Japan may decline to challenge the FAB alliance and and may retain an appetite to intervene in the Chinese Civil War, which can, um, I dunno, lead to kleptocrat Chiang (bolstered by the US, nominally against the USSR) clashing with both India and Pakistan and driving the two closer together.
 
On this forum I have seen Communist America, Objectivist Katanga, and a Transhumanist Soviet Union. Compared to that how hard could it be to improve relations between India and Pakistan?

-the famous last words of Alexander the Average​
It's not just a political difference. Since the violence of the Partition, the populations of India and Pakistan are hostile to each other. It's not really religious either. Pakistan simply fears it's sovereignty is always threatened by the larger more powerful India, and India in turn, has a number of unresolved border disputes.
 
On this forum I have seen Communist America, Objectivist Katanga, and a Transhumanist Soviet Union. Compared to that how hard could it be to improve relations between India and Pakistan?

-the famous last words of Alexander the Average​
Oh, agreed.
But the people that wrong those TLs didn't start by saying 'How plausible is this?', they just wrote their TLs.

Given that France and Germany have good relations now, and have since the founding of the EEC (similarly with the US and Japan), turning violent enemies into close partners is obviously possible. If, in 1944, you'd told an American that Japan would be one of the US's closest friends; or a Frenchman that Germany would be, they'd have given you even more incredulous responses than people are giving you here.

Maybe your best bet is a common, external threat. Have China attempt an invasion of both India and Pakistan, say, and the two would suddenly start working together.
 
Oh, agreed.
But the people that wrong those TLs didn't start by saying 'How plausible is this?', they just wrote their TLs.

Given that France and Germany have good relations now, and have since the founding of the EEC (similarly with the US and Japan), turning violent enemies into close partners is obviously possible. If, in 1944, you'd told an American that Japan would be one of the US's closest friends; or a Frenchman that Germany would be, they'd have given you even more incredulous responses than people are giving you here.

Maybe your best bet is a common, external threat. Have China attempt an invasion of both India and Pakistan, say, and the two would suddenly start working together.
The thing is, like I said , that India and Pakistan have poor relationships for wide-ranging and complicated reasons dating all the way back to the founding of Pakistan. Indeed, Pakistan is itself an unstable state, ruled at various points in time by military dictators, and was in fact split between two different sides of India when it first formed. The only thing those two sides had in common, by the way, is the fact they were Muslim. I can also say from personal experience, that Indians are generally very hostile to Pakistan, due to the violence that happened during the population transfers in the Partition, as well as its role in the dividing the newly independent nation. Sure, in the future, they could reconcile their differences, but it'll take a lot of effort. If you really want to have better relationships, it would be before the partition itself. Maybe a better working relationship between the Indian National Congress and the All Muslim League, which, while not keeping the nation together, at least ensures the rights of Hindus and Muslim minorities, which prevents the major violence that occurred. Or maybe prevent the "East/West Pakistan" agreement, either having Bangladesh be an independent nation from the get-go, or have it be still be part of India.
 
Another thing you need to do is change India's attitude. The whole reason they made their own nuclear weapons was to use it on Pakistan, and they haven't even signed the non-proliferation treaty yet.
 
Another thing you need to do is change India's attitude. The whole reason they made their own nuclear weapons was to use it on Pakistan, and they haven't even signed the non-proliferation treaty yet.
Incorrect. The Indians got the Bomb to 'protect' against China, not Pakistan. Of course, once Pakistan got their own Bomb, the targeting changed.
 
Incorrect. The Indians got the Bomb to 'protect' against China, not Pakistan. Of course, once Pakistan got their own Bomb, the targeting changed.
What? Sure, India and China haven't had the best relationship (given that India was backed by the USSR, China's political enemy), but, aside from the border conflicts in the 60's, India has never really been too preoccupied by the threat of China.
 
By the time India made the bomb (1974), they had been 3 wars against Pakistan, 1 war against China.
Yes, and only China already had the bomb; and only China could seriously threaten an invasion of India.

I was alive at the time, and the orientation of their program was clear.

What? Sure, India and China haven't had the best relationship (given that India was backed by the USSR, China's political enemy), but, aside from the border conflicts in the 60's, India has never really been too preoccupied by the threat of China.
Yes, and 'the 60s' is precisely when India started its Bomb.
 
Yes, and only China already had the bomb; and only China could seriously threaten an invasion of India.

I was alive at the time, and the orientation of their program was clear.


Yes, and 'the 60s' is precisely when India started its Bomb.
Here's a quote from Jawaharlal Nehru in 1946:

"As long as the world is constituted as it is, every country will have to devise and use the latest devices for its protection. I have no doubt India will develop her scientific researches and I hope Indian scientists will use the atomic force for constructive purposes. But if India is threatened, she will inevitably try to defend herself by all means at her disposal."

And the nuclear program began in 1948. Granted, the weapons part of that didn't begin to manifest until the 60's, but Homi Bhabha, the leader of the program, began to orient the program towards weapons in 1954.
 
Top