Evergreen Country: A Pakistan TL

Even before Partition, the only district with a Hindu plurality was Tharparkar with 49%

Thaparkar was 80% Hindu before partition, and the district borders India.

Immensely doubtful. Local leaders would be begging India to take over the region - anything to keep the Muslims out - and as with Kashmir, India would accept. Furthermore, having heard the terrors of Partition from firsthand account, and having seen Hindu refugees coming in with injuries and talking about dead loved ones, a Hindu mob would likely try to lynch the Pakistani soldiers in an attempt to avoid the same fate.

If Pakistan sent troops into Junagadh if India still decided to go and attack Junagadh they would have to fight them as well. While they could easily defeat 500 troops, it will lead to Pakistan being even more forceful about Junagadh, and I doubt India was going to engage in a rivalry with Pakistan over a small princely state with nothing unique. Kashmir, which India was willing to do that, was not as small and had an abundance of mineral resources. If India was going to engage in a rivalry with a country that (used to) had a chance of attacking it on both fronts, India was not going to do this with Junagadh.

So, they’d create colonies akin to the Ulster Plantations or the West Bank settlements

Colonies? In that case, Karachi is a Uttar Pradeshi and Bihari colony. Note that when Bangladesh was East Pakistan a law was passed which gave the government permission to confiscate property of Hindu refugees, which continued when Bangladesh became independent, and it was only recently repealed. Why it couldn't happen in this situation, I don't know. As Junagadh begins to lose their Hindu population, Muslim refugees would begin to enter (an unofficial population transfer?). It happened before numerous times in India, where multi-religious cities such as Lahore (which was a holy city for Sikhs, yet they still left, much to the chagrin of the Shiromani Akali Dal whose leader Tara Singh shouted "Pakistan Murdabad". If Lahore could become a majority-Muslim city due to Sikhs leaving despite objections of Sikhs why couldn't Junagadh become Muslim-majority despite objections of Hindus?), Karachi, Dhaka and Amritsar with the first three then becoming >90% Muslim and Amritsar becoming >90% Sikh because of partition.

Furthermore, having heard the terrors of Partition from firsthand account, and having seen Hindu refugees coming in with injuries and talking about dead loved ones, a Hindu mob would likely try to lynch the Pakistani soldiers in an attempt to avoid the same fate.

I don't know why you put this here, or how this is relevant at all. Yes, maybe some Hindus might attack Pakistani soldiers, though the Pakistani government is smart enough to know that those weren't ordered by the Indian government.

Nehru cared little about Kashmir.

Nehru said he had a "partiality to Kashmir", and was willing to make it an issue even when the forceful Patel was willing to give Kashmir to Pakistan. Even if it were not the main reason, it can not be denied that it wasn't a factor. Since in Nehru's own words he was biased, he'd care more for Kashmir rather than Junagadh.
 
If you want a reason for india not getting involved could we have some changes internally were a indian identity is having a much harder time to develop making the nation less united and more socially easier to collapse, Britain it different in this timeline if their more right wing they have good reason to screw over india when it forms so maybe when army units were transferred it happend pakistan got a good deal also their units are in good places. Maybe india is facing a much stronger communists insurgancy. Or maybe india believed pakistan would collapse within a few months, they didn't believe originally that it was going to survive, so thought thet allowing them more land would see it fall quicker and they made the wrong call in this tl.
 
Thaparkar was 80% Hindu before partition, and the district borders India.

Well, my sources could be wrong. However, that is radically different from Pakistan having totally unconnected exclaves that can't possibly be defended since it borders India.

If Pakistan sent troops into Junagadh if India still decided to go and attack Junagadh they would have to fight them as well.

India may very well decide to attack Pakistan even in this scenario. I mean, Junagadh is fiercely Hindu and totally disconnected from Pakistan. India could very easily invade Junagadh and secure it against Pakistan because, again, it's totally disconnected from any other Pakistani land. Furthermore, a war with India over a Hindu area may very well result in domestic anger for Pakistan because accepting a Hindu-majority region goes against the "two-state" ideology Pakistan was founded upon. I don't understand what Pakistan was thinking IOTL. Such blatant ideological inconsistency is bad for Pakistan's image, both at home and elsewhere.

Colonies? In that case, Karachi is a Uttar Pradeshi and Bihari colony.

You said that Pakistan would direct refugees to Junagadh. Explicitly directing people to settle a land where their ethnic group has never existed before...is that not the definition of colonization? It's even worse since Pakistan has every intention of changing its demographic makeup. I may be wrong, but Karachi's demographic changes wasn't directed by any government (except Britain in the loosest sense of the term), right?

As Junagadh begins to lose their Hindu population, Muslim refugees would begin to enter (an unofficial population transfer?)

Why would refugees voluntarily flee to Junagadh, which is once again little more than a small exclave of Pakistan that is impossible to defend? Refugees were fleeing attacks by the wider population, and fleeing to a Hindu-majority region doesn't provide Muslim refugees any safety whatsoever against the massive communal riots caused by Partition.

Amritsar becoming >90% Sikh

Amritsar literally never became >90% Sikh. Even today, according to the latest census, it is 49.36% Hindu and 48% Sikh, and that is after all the Sikh terrorism of the 80s.

I don't know why you put this here, or how this is relevant at all. Yes, maybe some Hindus might attack Pakistani soldiers, though the Pakistani government is smart enough to know that those weren't ordered by the Indian government.

Do you really not see how this can spiral out of control? Pakistani soldiers attack the Hindu mob, enraging them further and resulting in more Hindus fearing genocide by the "occupiers", resulting in larger mobs attacking Pakistanis, resulting in more Pakistani soldiers, etc.

Then India, seeing the massive riots taking place, would probably come in to defend the Hindus. Taking Junagadh would, as I have noted, be an extremely simple process supported by virtually every person in Junagadh, and many Pakistanis would be wondering what happened to their country's founding ideology.

Nehru said he had a "partiality to Kashmir", and was willing to make it an issue even when the forceful Patel was willing to give Kashmir to Pakistan.

Patel was only willing to give Kashmir to Pakistan because he believed that it was pro-Pakistan. However, Sheikh Abdullah petitioning India for annexation, as well as Pakistan going against its founding ideology by accepting Junagadh's petition, changed his mind.
 
Well, my sources could be wrong. However, that is radically different from Pakistan having totally unconnected exclaves that can't possibly be defended since it borders India.



India may very well decide to attack Pakistan even in this scenario. I mean, Junagadh is fiercely Hindu and totally disconnected from Pakistan. India could very easily invade Junagadh and secure it against Pakistan because, again, it's totally disconnected from any other Pakistani land. Furthermore, a war with India over a Hindu area may very well result in domestic anger for Pakistan because accepting a Hindu-majority region goes against the "two-state" ideology Pakistan was founded upon. I don't understand what Pakistan was thinking IOTL. Such blatant ideological inconsistency is bad for Pakistan's image, both at home and elsewhere.



You said that Pakistan would direct refugees to Junagadh. Explicitly directing people to settle a land where their ethnic group has never existed before...is that not the definition of colonization? It's even worse since Pakistan has every intention of changing its demographic makeup. I may be wrong, but Karachi's demographic changes wasn't directed by any government (except Britain in the loosest sense of the term), right?



Why would refugees voluntarily flee to Junagadh, which is once again little more than a small exclave of Pakistan that is impossible to defend? Refugees were fleeing attacks by the wider population, and fleeing to a Hindu-majority region doesn't provide Muslim refugees any safety whatsoever against the massive communal riots caused by Partition.



Amritsar literally never became >90% Sikh. Even today, according to the latest census, it is 49.36% Hindu and 48% Sikh, and that is after all the Sikh terrorism of the 80s.



Do you really not see how this can spiral out of control? Pakistani soldiers attack the Hindu mob, enraging them further and resulting in more Hindus fearing genocide by the "occupiers", resulting in larger mobs attacking Pakistanis, resulting in more Pakistani soldiers, etc.

Then India, seeing the massive riots taking place, would probably come in to defend the Hindus. Taking Junagadh would, as I have noted, be an extremely simple process supported by virtually every person in Junagadh, and many Pakistanis would be wondering what happened to their country's founding ideology.



Patel was only willing to give Kashmir to Pakistan because he believed that it was pro-Pakistan. However, Sheikh Abdullah petitioning India for annexation, as well as Pakistan going against its founding ideology by accepting Junagadh's petition, changed his mind.

Alright, you are right. I've edited the TL.
 
Top