DBWI: India went through partition

Had Jinnah not suddenly died in 1936 maybe Partition might become a reality.
Was he in favor of a Partition? If so, this could avert the truce between Congress and All-Indian Muslim League, which allowed a more unified independence movement
I'm confused about what this "partition" involves. Are we talking about the proposed Muslim state, which I don't think anyone took seriously, or something involving surviving princely states/ and or the provinces just becoming independent, with no all-India institutions?
I think it's referring specifically to the Muslim state advocated by Sir Muhammad Iqbal and others during the early 20th Century.
I don't know that could've worked, given that hypothetical country would been split between two far away regions with completely diifferent cultures and languages.
To be honest, I think it'd be better for everybody involved. The massive amount of corruption and regionalism/tribalism that's settled into India, based on New Dehli's dedication to "national territorial integrity and internal stability" over everything else has transformed the central treasury into little more than a piggy bank for the enrichment of whatever region's or ethno-linguistic group's support is needed to retain the painfully complex coalitions that have (barely) managed to govern the country over the years. They rank below most nations in Sub-Saharan Africa... and that's saying something.
And better we dont speak about the cyclical ethnic "Clashes" that are making a lot of states in India in tribal lands, It´s almost impossible to find a Muslim in some territories of India, like Hyderabad, that historically have a strong Muslim presence and in the north the ruins of Hindu temples
Abound, especially in Cachemira. The only part in India were the ethnic an religious violence it´s not horrible it´s the Punjab, where it´s only appalling
You know, my mother always avoid Western coverage of India, because they tend to exaggerate issues like the ethnic and religious tensions.

I should heed her advice.
 
Was he in favor of a Partition? If so, this could avert the truce between Congress and All-Indian Muslim League, which allowed a more unified independence movement

OOC: I think we should use this as the POD. Jinnah was very influential and without him there might be no Pakistan
IC: Yeah, he was a member of the AIML since 1913

Wait, so its name was an acronym?

That's hilarious?

Yep. Muhammad Iqbal, poet and was one of the biggest supporters of an independent Pakistan made it up in 1930.

Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Indus, Sindh, Balochistan.
 
I think it's referring specifically to the Muslim state advocated by Sir Muhammad Iqbal and others during the early 20th Century.
I don't know that could've worked, given that hypothetical country would been split between two far away regions with completely diifferent cultures and languages.

This whole idea is insane. Trying to split two religions so closely entangled is doomed to failure. I'm not fully aware about the statistics, but Kashmir proper has a pretty large Hindu minority, Punjab has a very even mixture of Muslims and Hindus, Sindh also has a very even mixture of Hindus and Muslims, Bengal is extremely and inseparably mixed between Hindu and Muslim (just look at the horrors that happened after Curzon tried to do so in 1905 - nothing like what modern India has experienced), and Baluchistan and Pashtunistan are the only solidly Muslim regions.

Yeah, I really can't see this happen. You could get independent Baluchistan and Pashtunistan without figures like Bacha Khan bridging the divide between the two regions and establishing autonomist regions, or if the confederal system of governance known as the Panchayati Raj wasn't established, but probably not such massive regions.
 
You know, my mother always avoid Western coverage of India, because they tend to exaggerate issues like the ethnic and religious tensions.

I should heed her advice.

I agree. I mean, say what you will about India, but despite great amounts of income and regional inequality, it hasn't seen anything like Mao's atrocities, and despite a few missteps like the brief 1959 Committee of National Salvation, its collapse and overall incompetence really drove home the folly of military juntas in the view of just about everyone. Since the 1968 reforms, the Indian economy has been liberalizing greatly, and there have been a few great moments in its history, such as recently stopping the Maldivian coup d'état.
 
OOC: It is generally bad practice in DBWIs to contradict a former user like this, and it is why so many DBWIs fail.

And there's all this ridiculous stuff about how Hyderabad (!) has no Muslims. We may as well use this thread to display everything wrong with this genre of threads.

OOC: I contradicted him because he JUST contradicted by above post (In which I said India was corrupt, poor, and tribalistic) by somehow making India the center of a third power bloc able to repel the influence of both the USA and USSR because of its power. While I agree with you its bad form, I'm trying to hold him accountable to by established canon as well.
 
IC: Yeah, he was a member of the AIML since 1913
I knew he was a prominent Muslim leader during the last stages of the Raj, but I didn't know he was a separatist.
Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Indus, Sindh, Balochistan
Yeah, something tells me that if they could've gotten this "Pakistan" off the ground, it would be dominated by the the Western half.

This whole idea is insane. Trying to split two religions so closely entangled is doomed to failure. I'm not fully aware about the statistics, but Kashmir proper has a pretty large Hindu minority, Punjab has a very even mixture of Muslims and Hindus, Sindh also has a very even mixture of Hindus and Muslims, Bengal is extremely and inseparably mixed between Hindu and Muslim (just look at the horrors that happened after Curzon tried to do so in 1905 - nothing like what modern India has experienced), and Baluchistan and Pashtunistan are the only solidly Muslim regions.

Yeah, I really can't see this happen. You could get independent Baluchistan and Pashtunistan without figures like Bacha Khan bridging the divide between the two regions and establishing autonomist regions, or if the confederal system of governance known as the Panchayati Raj wasn't established, but probably not such massive regions.
Yeah, trying to make these into a Muslim country seems bound to fail, especially since it could cause a lot of violence.
 
Yeah, something tells me that if they could've gotten this "Pakistan" off the ground, it would be dominated by the the Western half.

Western Punjabis would make a majority in the west, so I guess this bizarre “Pakistan” could be a Punjabi-ruled state in the same sense that Indonesia is a Javanese-ruled state.
 
Pakistan would simply get re-annexed by India some years along the line. The population of India would be much greater than Pakistan's, both nations would still be linked by cultural ties regardless of religion, eventually they would agree to reunite or clash in a war resulting in India's annexation of Pakistan.

Sorry - I don't see it happening. The only way for Pakistan to survive would be to develop nukes to counter India's... but that sounds totally ASB. An impoverished new country plagued by so many issues would never be able to develop nukes. Not to mention that a Muslim-majority country getting nukes would never be allowed by the major powers.
 
I think is such a proposed partition were to ever happen, this "Pakistan" would be a ridiculous country. The proposal, if I remember correctly, was to give the Muslim majority areas of India independance. So you'd have one chunk of Pakistan in the West (dominated by Punjab) and another comprised of Bengalis in the East, seperated by a thousand or so miles of India. How exactly would such a nation maintain national cohesion? I can tell you guys, having travelled extensively in our timeline's united India, that there is huge difference (in culture, language, even appearance and physical stature) between Bengalis on the one hand, and Punjabis/Sindhis/Pathans on the other. No way could such a nation survive for long. Even if it somehow limps along for a few decades, I could see the rump India intervening and facilitating abother, second partition, this time between the Western and Eastern halves of this hypothetical Pakistan.
 
I think is such a proposed partition were to ever happen, this "Pakistan" would be a ridiculous country. The proposal, if I remember correctly, was to give the Muslim majority areas of India independance. So you'd have one chunk of Pakistan in the West (dominated by Punjab) and another comprised of Bengalis in the East, seperated by a thousand or so miles of India. How exactly would such a nation maintain national cohesion? I can tell you guys, having travelled extensively in our timeline's united India, that there is huge difference (in culture, language, even appearance and physical stature) between Bengalis on the one hand, and Punjabis/Sindhis/Pathans on the other. No way could such a nation survive for long. Even if it somehow limps along for a few decades, I could see the rump India intervening and facilitating abother, second partition, this time between the Western and Eastern halves of this hypothetical Pakistan.

Another thing is, just how many Hindus and Muslims would be left on the “wrong” side of the border? Sindh has an extremely large Hindu minority, Punjab is pretty mixed between Hindu, Sikh, and Muslim (say, how do the Sikhs fall into this?), Kashmir proper has a large Hindu minority, and Bengal is fairly mixed. Beyond this, rump India would have a large population of Muslims.

This strikes me as a half-baked idea without any advocates thinking about the real consequences of their idea.
 
Top