Britain Balkanize India and Pakistan before independence

Could Britain split India and Pakistan into various religious and ethnic states along with maintaining the princely states before independence in a bid to keep the subcontinent in a British sphere of influence

How successful would they be in keeping them under British influence

How popular would Pan-Indianian and Pan-Pakistani ideology be and how successful would they be

What would the economy and foreign relations be like for the different states
 
Last edited:
They tried with Bengal back in 1905...
People got pissed and the partition was reversed...
It lasted 6 years and was supported by the Muslim population and they did tolerate Pakistan being split off from India, I was thinking the division would occur in either 1945 or 1946 and independence coming in either 1947 or 1948 .
 
Last edited:
Why did so many of the princely states eventually decide to join India?
What can be done to increase the nationalist feeling in those states?

How well did Britain keep track of the countries that had been fully absorbed into British India? Could they restore borders and rulers?
 
Why did so many of the princely states eventually decide to join India?
What can be done to increase the nationalist feeling in those states?

How well did Britain keep track of the countries that had been fully absorbed into British India? Could they restore borders and rulers?


Probably the large Indian Army? Hyderabad tried to remain independent and was defeated easily.
 

Ak-84

Banned
Reclariant Princley States saw both the Indian and Pakistan Army lay the smack down. Kashmir is one where both ended up.
 

Deleted member 94680

Reclariant Princley States saw both the Indian and Pakistan Army lay the smack down. Kashmir is one where both ended up.

Were any of the Princely States other than Hyderabad forcibly incorporated? I thought the majority chose which State to join whilst independence was being put into effect or shortly after, because independence for themselves was impractical outside the framework of the Raj.
 
Travancore was forcibly incorporated also. Unlike Hyderabad the local princely government probably would have had majority popular support in staying independent.
 
Perhaps the solution would have been gradually letting princely states go as friendly members of the Commonwealth prior to granting independence to the remainder of India?
 

Deleted member 94680

Arab nationalism was also popular among both the elite and the public but it still failed

But Arab nationalism had caveats, surely? Syrian nationalism, Jordanian (Hashemite) nationalism, etc. In India the nationalism was more Hindu or Muslim or Sikh, tribalism was a distant second, if at all.
 
But Arab nationalism had caveats, surely? Syrian nationalism, Jordanian (Hashemite) nationalism, etc.
It was never strong and the primarily reason why the different unions never got beyond the drawing board was that no one wanted to give up there power or they wanted to be top dog.
 
Top