Good POD for a non-partitioned India?
- Thread starter Sardar
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bangladesh india pakistan
Perhaps Muhammad Ali Jinnah is chosen as the leader of an unpartioned India.
Perhaps.
Perhaps.
So POD, in the late 40's? I was thinking that was a little too late, maybe 10's or 20's?
The All-India Congress of the 1900's is more inclusive to Muslim leadership. Memorandums issued by the Congress can reflect this. Jinnah feels assured Muslims have a place in India, and India gains independence unpartitioned. No Partition, no Indian-Pakistani Wars, no fights over Kashmir, no military buildup, better cricket team, higher development. I see only good things from this. Plus the fact you created a country with the highest population and much bigger economy.
Edit: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/“the-left-and-right-eyes-of-india”-tl.431860/
Shameless self-promotion of my own TL, one where previous Raj break ups also don't occur. So a united South Asia.
Edit: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/“the-left-and-right-eyes-of-india”-tl.431860/
Shameless self-promotion of my own TL, one where previous Raj break ups also don't occur. So a united South Asia.
Maybe as a reaction after a large Japanese occupation during the war? Together we're strong enough so that it will never happen again!
Is Japan even able occupy India totally? And i think that any POD after 1930's is too late avoid division of India. Probably there should do something with Jinnah.
It's a good question, I'm trying to do it in a timeline i'm writing I've moved towards
A) make the British believe Partition is against their best interest
B) ensure that the Muslim population believe that their rights will be protected within a united India for example religions quotas in things like the supreme court and the like.
C) have some form of internal partition. A more federal India is the solution.
D) rotating presidency between a Muslim and Hindu.
That said you need to have the POD in the 30's by the 40's Jinnah has fully bought into the two nation theory, its doable but its a lot harder. This India however would have troubles from the get go and all hell would break loose if a Hindu nationalist party rose to power. So I can certainly see bad things in its future. But once it figures out what its wants to be it has a bright future.
A) make the British believe Partition is against their best interest
B) ensure that the Muslim population believe that their rights will be protected within a united India for example religions quotas in things like the supreme court and the like.
C) have some form of internal partition. A more federal India is the solution.
D) rotating presidency between a Muslim and Hindu.
That said you need to have the POD in the 30's by the 40's Jinnah has fully bought into the two nation theory, its doable but its a lot harder. This India however would have troubles from the get go and all hell would break loose if a Hindu nationalist party rose to power. So I can certainly see bad things in its future. But once it figures out what its wants to be it has a bright future.
Ak-84
Banned
Unlikely, he was offered the PM job OTL and refused. Even his enemies admitted that he was incorruptible.
Ak-84
Banned
A) They did in OTL. They were forced into it.
B) Existed and frankly impossible as the current pograms in India illustrate
C) This was actually the Muslim Leagues perferred solution. The Congress was dead set against it, they wanted a unified state.
D) Useless. The concept of Parliamentry supremacy is too much locked in by this time. There will be a natural Hindu majority and that is unacceptable.
*So much so that every Pakistani dictator has relied on majority support of the legislature to govern.
I frankly don't agree that it would be useless, it would have potent symbolic power. And on quotas, I happen to agree there would be significant issues, but its full introduction from Independence would be the only way to get an agreement from Muslims in the short term. On the British position we know that Britain wanted to avoid partition if possible, but weren't dead set on it, I should have been more clear on what I meant. One big big change that could be made would be a different viceroy, Mountbatten was not the right man for the Job. Of all his poor choices I would call attention to the speeding up of Independence, leaving on 6 months for an agreement to be made was a disaster waiting to happen. The whole withdrawal was a mess and a better viceroy could have done a better job. Given his aversion to it Claude Auchinleck might be the man for the job. Though the "easiest" way to do it would be a pod some time after world war I with Britain following through with its promise of Dominion status, or you know Jinnah dying. That said I agree its a hard thing to do, and most timelines I've read just sort of have it happen and don't explain why it did.
Koprulu Mustafa Pasha
Gone Fishin'
A situation like Lebanon is maybe an option: The President is a Maronite, prime minister is a Sunni, the speaker of the parliament is a Shia.
In India:
President: Hindu
Prime Minister: Muslim
Speaker of Parliament: Sikh?
I can't think of any PoD. Maybe after this but before the Mapillah riots:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre
In India:
President: Hindu
Prime Minister: Muslim
Speaker of Parliament: Sikh?
I can't think of any PoD. Maybe after this but before the Mapillah riots:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre
The only issue is you would need to create a very different India @Ak-84 makes a good point on parliamentary supremacy you can have a rotating presidency as a symbol of unity, its after all a largely symbolic office. But restricting the office of the Prime Minister to one group would spell end to any united India. It holds all the real power and would quickly become a fire point for nationalist Hindu elements in a united India. A more federal India with internal partition with dominion status agreed to ahead of time and planned for and not done in a rush job in 6 months is the best bet.
Ak-84
Banned
The 1935 Act foresaw a Federal India, hell it expressly created a Federations and began the process of devolving powers to the provinces. It was delayed due to WW2 and then abandoned because Churchill was a racist maniac.
I think the only way it would be possible is for continued British rule at the center, with the transfer of everything besides foreign affairs, defence, trade and customs to the provinces. That might work. Otherwise, Congress is too much set against the autonomy.
I think the only way it would be possible is for continued British rule at the center, with the transfer of everything besides foreign affairs, defence, trade and customs to the provinces. That might work. Otherwise, Congress is too much set against the autonomy.
Ak-84
Banned
And most of the country is ruled by Hizbollah. The sub-continent wanted responsible Government. Ministers responsible to Parliament.
Yeah, why not when it was obviously great recept make Lebanon true powerhouse of Middle East.
Perhaps, it could happen, but it’s obvious where the majority of people would side with.