Could modern India have been divided along ethnic and language lines?

Seraphiel

Banned
What it says on the tin could modern india, after indepedence from Britain, have been divided into multiple ethnic states. Considering India does have many many different ethnicities (more than Europe I believe) coudl this have happened? Also from my understanding this would require a POD somewhere before the 1900s.
 
What it says on the tin could modern india, after indepedence from Britain, have been divided into multiple ethnic states. Considering India does have many many different ethnicities (more than Europe I believe) coudl this have happened? Also from my understanding this would require a POD somewhere before the 1900s.
You're right. It's possible, but the POD needs to be before 1900 indeed, in which case you're looking at an entirely different India. Have Britain divide and rule India as separate colonies would be a start.
 

Seraphiel

Banned
You're right. It's possible, but the POD needs to be before 1900 indeed, in which case you're looking at an entirely different India. Have Britain divide and rule India as separate colonies would be a start.

I also thought of that, but I was preferably looking for a POD after at least 1850 due to the familiarity aspect.
 
I also thought of that, but I was preferably looking for a POD after at least 1850 due to the familiarity aspect.
Hmm. I suppose that is possible. Perhaps the mutiny creates a much larger shock in Britain? Perhaps leading to the conclusion that the colony would be better left divided further.
 
Perhaps if India was much less homogenous during the colonial era. If the Portuguese, French, and Dutch expand their colonial areas, and the British stay limited to various regions in Bengal and South India, that'll create the possibility of many independent states on the subcontinent.

Throw in some surviving native polities, like the Kingdom of Mysore and the State of Hyderabad, and you end up with maybe 10-12 independent states in India at the end of the colonial era. If there is significant instability at that time, as seems eminently possible, than they may reorganize along ethnic lines - Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, etc.

Badshah, did you change your name from something else?

Cheers,
Ganesha

EDIT: A good POD would be during the First Anglo-Maratha War, which could, potentially, lead to the breakup of the Maratha and Mughal Empires. If there's a power grab by various European and Indian powers, than that could create the right conditions.
 

Seraphiel

Banned
Perhaps if India was much less homogenous during the colonial era. If the Portuguese, French, and Dutch expand their colonial eras, and the British stay limited to various eras in Bengal and South India, that'll create the possibility of many independent states on the subcontinent.

Throw in some surviving native polities, like the Kingdom of Mysore and the State of Hyderabad, and you end up with maybe 10-12 independent states in India at the end of the colonial era. If there is significant instability at that time, as seems eminently possible, than they may reorganize along ethnic lines - Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, etc.

Cheers,
Ganesha

Now that is my first idea (and probally the most plausible) but I was looking later POD. Yhe mutiny pod with a strong reaction from Britain seems like the something that fits in the criteria im looking for, though how would the British divide said India?
 
Now that is my first idea (and probally the most plausible) but I was looking later POD. Yhe mutiny pod with a strong reaction from Britain seems like the something that fits in the criteria im looking for, though how would the British divide said India?

The British would not divide India, certainly not after the Mutiny. Why would they? It makes it harder to control and govern for them. They were trying to impose a single governmental and cultural system on the subcontinent. In the first respect, they mostly succeeded. In the second, they mostly failed.

Cheers,
Ganesha
 

Seraphiel

Banned
The British would not divide India, certainly not after the Mutiny. Why would they? It makes it harder to control and govern for them. They were trying to impose a single governmental and cultural system on the subcontinent. In the first respect, they mostly succeeded. In the second, they mostly failed.

Cheers,
Ganesha

Well that puts me back to first plate. A POD during the colonization of India. What other powers (and at what point) had a serious chance of grabbing a chunk of India, well besides France that is.
 
Well, to create a divided colonial India you have to not only have local rulers who are more effective at fighting various colonial armies and proxies but, effect the wars of England, France, Portugal, and such so much so that they don't give up territory in India to the other powers.
 
Linguistic, yes, however doing it Ethnically would'nt be possible both because of the sheer amount of them (India has dozens of ethnic groups), the fact that many live in inter-ethnic areas and the fact that India does'nt really have the concept of discreet Ethnicities like Europe does.
 
trollhole

Ah, yes, I remember. Do you agree with my rough analysis a couple of posts above?

Well that puts me back to first plate. A POD during the colonization of India. What other powers (and at what point) had a serious chance of grabbing a chunk of India, well besides France that is.

Portugal was always interested in expanding their holdings in Goa, but was outmaneuvered at every turn by the local kingdoms, the French, and the British. After the Mughals revealed their weakness in 1761 at Panipat the Portuguese tried to expand but didn't get very far. They could do better then.

The Dutch were doing quite well for themselves (harassing the Portuguese, in fact), but were defeated decisively at the Battle of Colachel by the Travancore Kingdom in 1641 If that was a partial defeat instead of a total defeat, they might have refocused their efforts on Ceylon and Gujarat, in concert with the British.

Well, to create a divided colonial India you have to not only have local rulers who are more effective at fighting various colonial armies and proxies but, effect the wars of England, France, Portugal, and such so much so that they don't give up territory in India to the other powers.

I agree.

Cheers,
Ganesha
 
snip
Cheers,
Ganesha
Generally, I agree, but I don't think Portugal had the same pull that Britain had on the subcontinent to pull off any real additions. Britain's colonies were pretty far away from the main centres of power on the subcontinent. Portugal, on the other hand, is literally sitting right on the Marathas' strongest territories. Gujarat is also easier to defend from Delhi, than, say Bengal.

Also, I think that Britain could certainly look at looser control as an option concerning India, given the support they got from the many princes in 1857. It isn't the best option, nor the likeliest, but it is possible.
 
Last edited:
Wasn't there a TL around here that featured a united dominion of India (India, Bangladesh and Pakistan) that balkanized with a civil war?
If you can get Hindu nationalist in power in a united India, I do think that you can reduce "India" to Hindi speaking areas (plus some peripheral regions).
If you don't want to go though a civil war you would need a different policy by britain in the end of the XIXcentury, and I have no idea how to manage that.
 
Top