Foreign Policy of a unified India

In a scenario where the Muslim League is less powerful and India achieves independence as a unified nation, what would the foreign policy of such a unified, unpartitioned India be? Would they be closer to the US or the USSR or could they maintain a truly non-aligned policy? What would India's relationship with it's neighbors be? What would be the goals of a unified India's foreign policy be?
 

Ak-84

Banned
Its a country called India, with OTL Pakistan's foreign policy. The fact India no longer shared a border with Afghanistan or was near the USSR permitted India its "non-aligned" delusions. Having a revanchist Afghanistan and an expansionist USSR would force TTL India into the US corner. Rise of communism in Indo-China would mean India is in SEATO, like Pakistan was OTL.
 
Its a country called India, with OTL Pakistan's foreign policy. The fact India no longer shared a border with Afghanistan or was near the USSR permitted India its "non-aligned" delusions. Having a revanchist Afghanistan and an expansionist USSR would force TTL India into the US corner. Rise of communism in Indo-China would mean India is in SEATO, like Pakistan was OTL.

Pakistan made those choices because it was in a position of being sandwiched between India, Afghanistan and the USSR. A non-partitioned India would've been a real behemoth that even the most adventurist Afghan government wouldn't have contemplated messing with and the USSR would've had to walk carefully around. They never managed to impose their will on China which, geographically speaking, was much more accessible than India on the other side of the Afghan mountains and the Hindu Kush range. You also wouldn't have India's need to militarily build up as much to match Pakistan and keep them in check, instead you'd need more emphasis on internal security and having just enough to make their neighbors think twice about messing around with them. That would definitely give a united subcontinent the free hand to stay non-aligned and focus on economic development instead of worrying about the Cold War. I wouldn't be surprised if you see a similar situation to Nasser where India plays the two superpowers off one another for their own benefit.
 
Its a country called India, with OTL Pakistan's foreign policy. The fact India no longer shared a border with Afghanistan or was near the USSR permitted India its "non-aligned" delusions. Having a revanchist Afghanistan and an expansionist USSR would force TTL India into the US corner. Rise of communism in Indo-China would mean India is in SEATO, like Pakistan was OTL.

That's fairly unlikely. The USSR displayed no real threat to Afghanistan until the 1970s, and Afghanistan alone was no serious threat to Pakistan, never mind a united subcontinent. Pakistan's western alignment prior to 1979ish was mostly driven by the desire for help in maintaining a powerful enough army to match India (a much larger country). The US provided such aid in return for Pakistan providing intelligence facilities (U2 bases and bases for missile telemetry data), public support and Pakistan's claims that the weapons would be used in support of the west rather than against India. This tended to sour relations between the US and India (both democracies), but given Nehru's political views and the lack of an obvious external threat non-alignment is still pretty likely in a unified subcontinent.

In the 1950s I don't see any change in India's foreign policy as there were no perceived serious foreign threats in either OTL or ITTL. In the 1960s, the clash with China that occurred in the OTL will probably happen with a unified sub-continent but there may be less dislike for the US due to the US not arming Pakistan. In the 1970s, if the US still moves closer to China (likely), then India is likely to move towards the USSR and away from the US.

The key year is probably 1979. If the USSR is friendly with India then it is less likely to invade Afghanistan than in the OTL, with significant global consequences. On the other hand, if the USSR still invades Afghanistan then there would probably be significant effects on India's foreign policy.

So overall I think India is likely to remain officially non-aligned at least until 1979.
 
Most early Indian independence leaders supported the US. Nehru, for instance, saw the US as a fellow country that freed itself from the "Britishers", and he found its affluence inspirational and something to emulate. As such, he made several overtures to the US, such as sending in aid during the Korean War. However, the US refused, mainly because Pakistan was geographically closer to the USSR and so realpolitik made the US support it. If India is united, the US will respond to India's overtures for the same reasons it responded to Pakistan's IOTL.
 

Ak-84

Banned
OTL, there was a big reduction in both countries militaries and their relations were good from 1949 uptil the 1960's. @michael1 is mistaken when he says that Pakistan wished to maintain a powerful Army. OTL, after 1950 2 Divisions were disbanded (6 and 9) and of the remaining 6 divisions, all but one was reduced to 7 battalions each.

You also have to consider
1) The problem with Afghanistan was never the military threat, rather it was the threat within. The two Afghan military offensives in 1950 and 1961 were trounced easily.. And United India would have done exactly what Pakistan did (and the UK before it) to Afghanistan's border area, which was bomb the tribes when they got irritating.

2) Afghanistan played the Pashtunustan card heavily. Pakistan managed to contain it. Afghanistan would have played a similar card. And unlike Pakistan, which was a Muslim country, India would have been faced with a border region which hated the central Governments guts for being Hindu. Fertile places for rebellion and USSR support for Afghanistan.

3) No partition also butterflies two things which worked in Pakistan's favour. Firstly, the area which constituted Pakistan was by far the poorest area in the Sub-Continent. They had about 3 power houses for instance. Pakistan has spent a lot of time and effort developing agriculture and industry. The poverty rate was 70% in 1947 and closer to 9% in 2010. The Punjab and Frontier regions will not see similar amounts of development as they did historically because it will be a religiously and ethnically distinct area and probably one in regular rebellion. The second issue is the demographic and cultural one. The area is heavily Persianised with locals having long standing links to Iran and Afghanistan. No Partition means no influx of Muslim refugees from rest of India, who had no such sentiment and mistrusted Afghans and who also dominated the Government for the first three decades.
 

Ak-84

Banned
Most early Indian independence leaders supported the US. Nehru, for instance, saw the US as a fellow country that freed itself from the "Britishers", and he found its affluence inspirational and something to emulate. As such, he made several overtures to the US, such as sending in aid during the Korean War. However, the US refused, mainly because Pakistan was geographically closer to the USSR and so realpolitik made the US support it. If India is united, the US will respond to India's overtures for the same reasons it responded to Pakistan's IOTL.
United India really depends on what model is followed. If it becomes Independent based upon a combo of the 1935 Government of India Act and the Cabinet Mission plan, then i) instead of the highly centralised Indian republic of OTL, you have a loose confederation which means Nehru has much less influence and power than he did OTL and ii) there is a very good chance that Nehru is not the PM at all in the first place.

If you go for a Confederation model, which is really the only realistic model which can maintain a united India, then frankly the posts above like those of @LHB and @michael1 are off the mark for presuming that India will follow similar directions to the OTL Republic. If is a loose confederation of antagonistic parts, then it will see external interference by USSR and probably China and like Pakistan will seek out foreign partnerships.
 
OTL, there was a big reduction in both countries militaries and their relations were good from 1949 uptil the 1960's. @michael1 is mistaken when he says that Pakistan wished to maintain a powerful Army. OTL, after 1950 2 Divisions were disbanded (6 and 9) and of the remaining 6 divisions, all but one was reduced to 7 battalions each.

I said wished to, I didn't say it had the resources to, given other objectives. Pakistan in theory inherited a third of the British-Indian army (with British troops withdrawn) but much less than this in army equipment and less than a third of the Indian economy along with ambitious development spending plans so cuts are not surprising.

I also think we sometimes underestimate the appeal to many newly independent elites of the top down communist/socialist development model, especially in the 1950s and early 1960s. It appeared to give higher rates of industrialization, avoid the great depression and ensure economic independence, all desirable objectives.

I'd totally agree the effects of unification on foreign policy depends on the structure of the state, but lots of other things do as well, such as the attitude of Pashtuns to the state and so the relations with Afghanistan, it's hard to generalize. However, in principle, the weaker the central government is the more likely non-alignment is as it becomes harder to raise resources and agreement for movement in any particular direction. The way I see this not being true is if the elites seek to unify the country against a common external threat, but I don't see that as being easy in the 1950s.
 
If you go for a Confederation model, which is really the only realistic model which can maintain a united India, then frankly the posts above like those of @LHB and @michael1 are off the mark for presuming that India will follow similar directions to the OTL Republic. If is a loose confederation of antagonistic parts, then it will see external interference by USSR and probably China and like Pakistan will seek out foreign partnerships.

That depends on what sort of confederate or federal model is used. A federal structure similar to what is used in the US would also be possible and a key thing you're missing is the enormous demographic displacement caused by the partition. No partition means you aren't going to see the rapid, immediate concentration of Muslims and Hindus into specific parts of the subcontinent with something much closer, religiously and ethnically, to what prevailed under the Raj. That's going to have its own impact as without the chaos and massive internal migrations triggered by partition you aren't going to have the same kind of religious concentrations and internal tensions, as well as politics, would develop differently. One also has to take into account the PoD is based on the assumption the Muslim League is far less powerful than it was OTL so you aren't going to see the same intensity surrounding religious identity that was the case OTL. Less fervent Muslim identity means you'd have a similarly less intense Hindu nationalist movement, creating its own unique set of conditions. It's even possible Gandhi won't get killed in this TL and his survival would have its own enormous impact on how India develops.

Saying a fully unified India is going to have the exact same or similar foreign policy to Pakistan's OTL assumes a lot of big factors in preventing the partition and its aftereffects don't matter. They will and all of that will shape how India's development as a polity will unfold. It definitely won't be as centralized as OTL but there's going to be other elements at work meaning you aren't as likely to get a totally decentralized confederation of some sort either which opens itself up to Soviet or Chinese meddling.
 

Ak-84

Banned
1. In the Sub-Continent, muslim was a cultural identity, not just a religious one. And had been since the later Mughals. To avoid that you need a much earlier POD.
2. The league was hardly the only proponent of decentralization. The centralizing desires of the Nehrus and Patel had chased many out of the party. Who would stay in sans a League-TL and make Congress less married to Centralization.
3. Furthermore transferring powers to the provinces had been British policy since 1919 and had picked up pace with the 1935 Act. Even if its a Federal Structure, its going to be a weak one and be as susceptible to meddling as a Confederation.
4. Afghanistan revanchism and Soviet quest to gain influence will happen independently of events in the Sub-Continent. And in this case it will be not against "a brotherly Muslim country" but a "Hindu Raj". And the lack of a population transfer means that the Punjab and Frontier don't get millions of Muslims with no particular link to Afghanistan, but are populated by a highly Persian and Afghan influenced population.

As it is, I agree that there would be differences, but the OP seems to postulate a fully and Brit-free United India. Which would lead to the Pakistani-style Foreign policy I suggest. I believe that a United India would leave at least some role for the British, most likely in the retention of the King-Emperor as a figurhead. Some British force would also stay, mostly Naval forces in Bombay and Karachi as well as the Bengal, but also in the Frontier. Probably we see Nuclear forces as well, maybe a Wing of V-Bombers based in Peshawar and later Polaris Boats in Karachi. I suspect that the UK/Uwouldld encourage UI to go nuclear as it did in OTL.
 
If you go for a Confederation model, which is really the only realistic model which can maintain a united India,

Not really. All you need to keep India united is to improve Hindu-Muslim relations, which is pretty easy. Keeping Curzon's Partition of Bengal, which drastically worsened Hindu-Muslim relations, from happening would probably be enough for that.
 
I think we all agree that the foreign policy of a unified Indian subcontinent depends on the structure of the state, and that this could take a several forms. Without a point of departure it's impossible to comment on the likelihood of a particular structure and so on a particular foreign policy.

Personally the only way I can see a unified subcontinent with a point of departure after about 1943 is if the Congress party agreed to the grouping proposals leading to a weak central government and lots of regional autonomy. Congress would continue to be the most popular party and so non-alignment is the most likely (but not the only possible) outcome. Major changes before 1942 could well lead to different outcomes, but these could be different in almost any direction depending on the change.

So to answer the OP, it depends on how, when and why India becomes an independent unified country, there is no single answer.
 
Last edited:
The foreign policy of a United India will not be much different from the foreign policy of the OTL India. The importance given to the Non Alignment Movement is likely to remain as in the OTL. The absence of Pakistan might be helpful to improve relations with the Western powers. This could also result in less closer relations with the USSR. As Pakistan is out of the picture, the only rival to take care of will be China. If the Soviet-China rift widens and the US moves closer to China, then the OTL situation of closer Soviet ties and the resentment of the West is likely to develop. Whether Pakistan exists or not the Sino-Indian rivalry is not likely to go away.
 
What about Indian relations with the Middle East? After all, India is the largest Muslim country in the world (even though Muslims are technically a minority).
 
I imagine there would be some issues with East Africa, should they go through with their 'get rid of all Asians, and by Asians we mean Indians' policies.
 
Top