Foreign policy of a United India?

What if British India was not partitioned into India and Pakistan in 1947, and instead there was one united entity on the sub-continent. What would the foreign policy of this nation be, especially during the Cold War? Pro-US? Pro-Soviet? Would it have maintained closer ties with Britain than OTL India did?

Also, would a United India eventually seek to develop nuclear weapons? Or would it decide that, with no threat from Pakistan, it didn't need them?

Could a United India have actually succeeded? Or would civil wars between the Hindus and Muslims have inevitably broken out?
 

Pangur

Donor
What if British India was not partitioned into India and Pakistan in 1947, and instead there was one united entity on the sub-continent. What would the foreign policy of this nation be, especially during the Cold War? Pro-US? Pro-Soviet? Would it have maintained closer ties with Britain than OTL India did?

Most likely stay neutral

Also, would a United India eventually seek to develop nuclear weapons? Or would it decide that, with no threat from Pakistan, it didn't need them?

There would still be China to the North so I suspect they would


Could a United India have actually succeeded? Or would civil wars between the Hindus and Muslims have inevitably broken out?

If you can completely remove the conflict between Hindus and Muslims prior to independence then India would be a stable nation
 
I think it would be less pro-Soviet than IOTL but chart a more typical 'third world' course, basically renting out its allegiance to the highest bidder as events arose.

An Indian-Iranian border would make the United States keen to keep friendly. Sharing a border with Afghanistan, only with a larger Muslim and Pashtun population would also put pressure on Dehli to react if the Soviets get heavy in Afghanistan.

Chinese tensions will remain so that might swing India back to the Soviets if Nixon cosies up to Mao.

So yeah much more of an independent player than the Soviet client is was IOTL. They'll still go for nuclear weapons as Congress was as keen to show India's global power as threaten Pakistan.
 

GarethC

Donor
Also, would a United India eventually seek to develop nuclear weapons? Or would it decide that, with no threat from Pakistan, it didn't need them?
As soon as the USSR detonates one, India will seek the same. Without Pakistani distractions, India may actually develop one much earlier, perhaps in concert with France or Israel.

Tsarist and Soviet foreign policy had had the destabilization of India as one of its tenets for almost a century and a half. Knowing that the alphabet soup of Muscovite intelligence agencies will be out to subvert at least Nepal, Afghanistan, and any Princely States with any autonomy ITTL, India will at least initially focus it's threat analyses northwards, and seek to deter any Stalinist adventurism with an Indian nuclear arsenal.

What's really interesting, assuming Greater India is fairly stable internally, is relations with Burma/Myanmar-to-be and China. India will certainly seek to ensure that Burma remains an Indian client; if possible, New Delhi will also want to bring Peking out of the Soviet sphere of influence and into an Asian-regional alliance. If Mao splits from Moscow (and if he perceives a unified India as a greater threat to China, he might not!) then whoever is running India will run to embrace him.
 

Cook

Banned
What would the foreign policy of this nation be, especially during the Cold War? Pro-US? Pro-Soviet? Would it have maintained closer ties with Britain than OTL India did?
We really have no way of even guessing; the degree of change that such a change involves is enormous. Would Congress have remained dominant? Would the Nehru – Ghandi dynasty so completely dominate Congress even if it had? Without Nehru would India have instituted so many protectionist policies that postponed its development for so long? How was partition avoided, what compromises had to be made to the Constitution, which personalities rose and which became less popular… A whole Pandora’s Box of questions arise.
 
Keeping good, trade mostly, links with the UK would be a great help for all. Could even see a more independent Empire/Commonweath. A third superpower?
 
What if British India was not partitioned into India and Pakistan in 1947, and instead there was one united entity on the sub-continent. What would the foreign policy of this nation be, especially during the Cold War? Pro-US? Pro-Soviet? Would it have maintained closer ties with Britain than OTL India did?

Also, would a United India eventually seek to develop nuclear weapons? Or would it decide that, with no threat from Pakistan, it didn't need them?

Could a United India have actually succeeded? Or would civil wars between the Hindus and Muslims have inevitably broken out?

If there was a unified India, it too would have chosen a course of non alignment similar to the one in OTL but one without a Soviet tilt. The closeness to the Soviet Union was the result of the support provided by the West to the Pakistan. The ties with Britain could almost be the same or might be a little closer.

A unified India would have surely developed nuclear weapons as a matter of right. In OTL they were not developed for the sake of Pakistan. As a nuclear China is on her borders, nukes are inevitable.

If the communal relations had not worsoned so as to make a unified India impossible at the time of independence, there was no reason not to improve the relations later. It was the "Divide and Rule" policy of the British Raj that planted and enabled the growth of the poisonous tree of the communal divide.

In the absence of a Pakistan the relations with the Islamic countries also would have been more natural and balanced. The absence of Pakistan would also cut of a source and base for Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism.
 
Relations with Muslim nations would probably be more comfortable. Definite supporters of a Palestinian nation. At the same time, India would work harder to eradicate terrorism while remaining friendly to Muslim countries.
 
India OTL actually has fairly good relations with most of the Muslim world. It's surprisingly close to Iran, has been a longtime supporter of the Palestinians, and under Nehru was very close to both Egypt and Indonesia (under Sukarno).
 

Nietzsche

Banned
India OTL actually has fairly good relations with most of the Muslim world. It's surprisingly close to Iran, has been a longtime supporter of the Palestinians, and under Nehru was very close to both Egypt and Indonesia (under Sukarno).
Indeed. The 'Hindus vs Muslims' description is only credible within India itself. It's more "Our Ethic Group vs That one there" than genuine religious fighting. I mean, if it were truly based in faith(and not just the candy coating), I sincerely doubt they would have as many good ties to North Africa and the like.
 
The Hindu-Muslim relations have undergone various changes during the several centuries of mutual contact. Islam entered India as an invading force eager to convert the non-believers and naturally the relations were far from friendly.
But centuries of Islamic rule and co-existence bridged the gap to a great extent. There were fanatic rulers like Aurangzeb in plenty, but there were also rulers like Akbar. But the majority of Muslim rulers did not care much about the religion and were more concerned about their power and their thrones. Despite the fact that the Muslim domination lasted more than five centuries Islam did not become the majority religion in India. In all other countries that Islam conquered it had displaced the old religions and cultures.
The British rule changed the equations between the Hindus and the Muslims. From the position of the dominant Faith, the Muslims went down to the same status as the Hindus. This favored a growth of co-operation between the adherents of the two faiths, demonstrated in the Indian Mutiny. The British rulers viewed this development with apprehension and adopted policies to keep the two communities apart. The Hindu-Muslim rivalry and the formation of Muslim League which ended in the partition of the country is the result of this 'Divide and Rule' policy of the Colonial Government. The India-Pakistan rivalry is a continuation of this legacy.
 
Top