DBWI: India was partitioned

As we all know, after WW2, when Indian Independence became an inevitability, there was talk of partitioning India with a Hindu and a Muslim state being created but on August 15, 1947, India became independent as a united Dominion of India, which became a Republic on May 21, 1952. Today, the Republic of India is a near-superpower on the same level as the Federated Eurasian Republics (OOC: Formed by an alt-New Union treaty) and the Republic of China. So, what if instead of becoming a united nation, India was partitioned? How sustainable would such an arrangement be as said hypothetical "Pakistan" would be comprised of geographically incontiguous areas?
 
I was reading such a plan, and the biggest issue is Jammu Kashmir. Today a vibrant state where Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists live in harmony, I'm not sure what would happen to it. Would it be partitioned on religious grounds, and in which case where would Ladakh go? Or would the state be given to Pakistan because of its overall Muslim majority?
 
Well, it's Maharaja wanted Kashmir to be an independent nation, so, in a partition of India scenario, an independent Kashmir is the most likely option (if only due to the heavily-mixed population).
 
Well for one, India's military would be more powerful given the constant conflicts it would have to face with our hypothetical Pakistan. There may also be demand to expand India's influence overseas, unlike OTL, where the process has just started with India modernizing it's army to match it's alliance partner of Eurasia and it's rivals of the ROC and the United States.
 
Well for one, India's military would be more powerful given the constant conflicts it would have to face with our hypothetical Pakistan. There may also be demand to expand India's influence overseas, unlike OTL, where the process has just started with India modernizing it's army to match it's alliance partner of Eurasia and it's rivals of the ROC and the United States.

Why would India have conflicts with a nation with which it shares a language (I'm assuming Hindustani is spoken as the lingua franca as OTL) and culture?
 
Folks, so, how sustainable would any hypothetical "Pakistan" be as plans for partition involved a "Pakistan" with two parts in Punjab and Bengal which would be divided by over a thousand miles?
 
Why would India have conflicts with a nation with which it shares a language (I'm assuming Hindustani is spoken as the lingua franca as OTL) and culture?
One may look to Eurasia and it's relation with (West) Ukraine for a hypothetical indo-pakistani relationship. Both nations share Russian as an official language (with Ukraine having Ukrainian as an official language as well), have a lot of shared history, and even share the same religion! Yet the two have had cold relations since the Ukranian civil war and Lviv's decleration of independence from the Ukranian Eurasian Republic. Pakistan and India (may in ATL) share a language, history and culture, then add in religious differences that will be strenghened in two independant states, everything will go down the drain. However, much of this depends on what politicians from both nations do what direction they steer their nation in, so to be frank, it could go both ways.
 
Yeah, the idea was proposed, but once it was pointed out that a majority of the sub-continent's Mulsims would be living outside of Pakistan it quickly lost support iOTL. I can't imagine the political maneuvering needed to get the responsible parties to actually try this.

People complain about the separate Muslim electoral register and the guaranteed seats in the Lok Sabha and provincial assemblies, but its actually worked well and there was the precedent of the Maori register in New Zealand. The idea seems obvious, but maybe no one suggests it.
 
India might still be able to develope nuclear weapon but I bit doubt that Pakistan could do that. And probably it can't keep Bengal.
 
I still think the Cold War would have developed primarily in economic terms just as it did.

For example, the very example of India. The Soviet Union says it has better engineering programs. The United States hits upon the idea of inviting older students who already have some life experience and can potentially step into managerial positions more quickly. The Soviets top this by inviting whole families and offering to let spouses select from a range of local jobs. The Americans then invite groups of families and promise optional Hindi as well as English in the local elementary schools.

And economist after economist have written about this "virtuous upward competition" in India, Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, Peru, Ecuador, etc, etc.

But what if the Cold War had developed mainly along military terms in supporting armed movements and propping up dictatorships? Well, there's no way even a large country like India could swing this change. But suppose it somehow did ? ? ?
 
The Cold War going in a permanent late-40s? That'd be hell. You'd inevitably get a war dragging in the major powers, and then a Third World War with dozens of nuclear weapons - the first two World Wars showed that.

So, would a hypothetical Pakistan be a democracy or would it become an Islamist version of North China?

Pakistan would've had the same academics, middle classes et al that the smaller India had, so I'd expect a parliamentary system democracy out of it.
 
So, would a hypothetical Pakistan be a democracy or would it become an Islamist version of North China?

It would be a democracy. Both nations would led by secularists, Pakistan by people like Jinnah (damn, that would be strange, my favourite Indian PM as a "Pakistani") and India by Nehru. Considering how great friends they were IOTL, I expect both nations to be brothers.
 

longsword14

Banned
It would be a democracy. Both nations would led by secularists, Pakistan by people like Jinnah (damn, that would be strange, my favourite Indian PM as a "Pakistani") and India by Nehru. Considering how great friends they were IOTL, I expect both nations to be brothers.
No one expects partition to be a clean event. The religious divide combined with the history and bloodshed has the possibility of turning into a simmering conflict. Any one who assumes that things would be as rosy as they have been today is surely mistaken.
 
No one expects partition to be a clean event. The religious divide combined with the history and bloodshed has the possibility of turning into a simmering conflict. Any one who assumes that things would be as rosy as they have been today is surely mistaken.

True. Partition wouldn't be very nice watching. And Muslim population on rural West India tend to be pretty conservative. And Pakistan probably would be poorer nation anyway so there might be quiet nasty sequences.
 
It would be a democracy. Both nations would led by secularists, Pakistan by people like Jinnah (damn, that would be strange, my favourite Indian PM as a "Pakistani") and India by Nehru. Considering how great friends they were IOTL, I expect both nations to be brothers.
It would be really different seeing Prime Minister Muhammad Ali Jinnah as leader of Pakistan! :)

Probably both nations would do fine and remain friends and trading partners, but the very fact of having a partition might heighten differences.
 
Top