Does India Still Eventually Get Partitioned if the Central Powers Win World War I?

This is the best I can remember from my threads on the subject:
I must say, Britain is away more vulnerable in this situation, India is a big hot spot in the case of a CP victory after so many sacrifices of India soldiers, there was already a German-Hindu conspiracy in OTL, in this case Berlin is going to invest even more in fermenting anti-British sentiment in India, could Gandhi be Germany's Lenin in India? :D I also think repercussions of India independence wouldn't affect the colonial subjects in Africa as a successful rebellion in African territory.
 

LordKalvert

Banned
Wouldn't France have preferred to destroy its fleet if Germany was about to defeat it in World War I, though?

Nah, if its give the Germans the Fleet or watch Paris burn, turning over the fleet is the answer

The French strike an armistace in WWII, WWI wouldn't be any different- just that the French would accept the verdict of history and that Germany was the more powerful now
 
As previous posters have said it very much depends on your POD. Not so much the extent to which the Central Powers win, but more the manner in which such a victory is achieved.

Any vision of the post-war independence movement in 1918ish India depends on the nature of the post-war world - a quick knock-out of France peace in 1914/1915 is very different to a successful German offensive in 1917.

Has the Soviet Union come about as in OTL? If no, then the left-wing elements of what became the Indian National Congress movement will be more muted. Violent revolutionaries such as Bose, but also more moderate socialist (as opposed to communist) voices such as Nehru will potentially gain less prominence in such a movement.

German Victory is unlikely to butterfly away the All Muslim League's rise to prominence. Whist a CP victory will lead to a less certain Britain post-war, there is no necessary reason that this would change the internal running of the Raj. Divide and rule would remain the logical approach for the British. Also, by 1918ish much of the groundwork of this division (East Bengal, the Muslim League etc) have already been established. Whilst the actual events might be different, the same seeds are already sown.

It is unlikely that Gandhi, with all his emphasis on co-operation and pacifism, would ever equate to being India's "Lenin". Part of Lenin's success was his rigid belief in following his own star - Gandhi was a fervent believer but also a compromiser. Also he has no connection to the Hindu Conspiracy - the Ghadar Party are something completely different with their own established leaders.

Finally, its important to remember that there was never, at any point, one BRITISH view on what to do in India. Opinions varied from Government to Government, Party to Party, and individual to individual. A surviving liberal democracy Britain would think very differently about India to a more nationalist one as would a socialist one.
 
Nah, if its give the Germans the Fleet or watch Paris burn, turning over the fleet is the answer

The French strike an armistace in WWII, WWI wouldn't be any different- just that the French would accept the verdict of history and that Germany was the more powerful now
France didn't let Nazi Germany have their fleet during World War II in our TL, though.
 
Actually, India's unity (as in, India's post-Partition unity in our TL) certainly makes sense if one views India as a de facto Hindu nation-state. :)

Except the unity of the "Hindu" religion is also, in many regards, a colonial construct that hides a colorful diversity of beliefs and practices.
An Indologist whose name now escapes me said something to the effect that considering "Hinduism" a unified religion is like saying that Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Baha'ism etc. are a single religion called "Abrahamism".
Also, India has almost as many Muslims as the whole Pakistan and a bunch of other religious minorities that, according to official state narrative, are not any less "Indian" than "Hindus".
Practice is different, but the people of the Congress party that shaped the country always emphasised religious diversity as a basic part of the national identity, as opposed to "Hindutva" (which is, to be fair, espoused by the party currently in charge, at least in a relatively mild form).
 
Except the unity of the "Hindu" religion is also, in many regards, a colonial construct that hides a colorful diversity of beliefs and practices.
An Indologist whose name now escapes me said something to the effect that considering "Hinduism" a unified religion is like saying that Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Baha'ism etc. are a single religion called "Abrahamism".
Also, India has almost as many Muslims as the whole Pakistan and a bunch of other religious minorities that, according to official state narrative, are not any less "Indian" than "Hindus".
Practice is different, but the people of the Congress party that shaped the country always emphasised religious diversity as a basic part of the national identity, as opposed to "Hindutva" (which is, to be fair, espoused by the party currently in charge, at least in a relatively mild form).
Thank you very much for sharing all of this information with us! :)
 
Well, we're gradually getting there with the help of the E.U.--but replace the word "Catholic" with the word "Christian." ;)

The E.U. is neither of those things. Christianity emphatically plays no significant official part in the European construction (though that might conceivably change).
And is hardly likely to ever include much more than half of geographical Europe (going by the conventional border at the Urals) since much of it is a country called Russia, which has shown, so far, not the slightest shred of interest in ever considering the possibility of joining, and which, in that unlikely case, would not be let in by the current members under any realistic scenario because it is too darn big.
Finally, as the current and recent sad circuses amply show, the EU is not a state and at present is hardly showing will to further move in that direction. The lack of coherent foreign policy is particularly egregious.
 
Top