So, the year is 1945. WWII has just ended, the dust has settled, and India demands independence from the Empire; but the exact form which it will take is still very much up for debate. How would AH.com handle it?
How would you handle Indian independence?
- Thread starter Awilla the Hun
- Start date
loughery111
Banned
In 1945? There's really not much to be done except what was. India would interpret attempts to push some kind of mixed-market system on them as renewed imperialism, so that's out. The Partition was inevitable by now, as well. Maybe hand Kashmir to Pakistan, but then India would probably start a war over it instead...
choslovakia
1920 is too early; the Indians who desire independence are not sufficiently organized to form a government if the British leave. In 1939 tensions in Europe are running high, especially after Germany occupies Czechosloviaka in March. The British are not going to be willing to give India up then, not when they need their help.
1945 is a little early, but not excessively so. Given the situation we would probably go with the OTL solution of dividing it into Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh. Kashmir should probably be divided between India and Pakistan, but getting them to agree on a particular division would be difficult at best; it would have to be something set by international treaty, like the 38th parallel line between the Koreas.
1920 is too early; the Indians who desire independence are not sufficiently organized to form a government if the British leave. In 1939 tensions in Europe are running high, especially after Germany occupies Czechosloviaka in March. The British are not going to be willing to give India up then, not when they need their help.
1945 is a little early, but not excessively so. Given the situation we would probably go with the OTL solution of dividing it into Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh. Kashmir should probably be divided between India and Pakistan, but getting them to agree on a particular division would be difficult at best; it would have to be something set by international treaty, like the 38th parallel line between the Koreas.
Alex Richards
Donor
If we can go back to 1935, I'd have the Government of India act formally make India a dominion as a united entity.
If it's later, I'd simply tell Nehru and Jinnah that, given the near equal balance across both the Punjab and Bengal of Hindus and Muslims neither can possibly be split in a way that leads to be a contiguous split of Hindus and Muslims, so if they want partition they have to decide which one gets the Punjab and/or Bengal in their entirity. Sit back and watch the Partition leaders completely fail to come up with a workable solution leading to union by default.
If it's later, I'd simply tell Nehru and Jinnah that, given the near equal balance across both the Punjab and Bengal of Hindus and Muslims neither can possibly be split in a way that leads to be a contiguous split of Hindus and Muslims, so if they want partition they have to decide which one gets the Punjab and/or Bengal in their entirity. Sit back and watch the Partition leaders completely fail to come up with a workable solution leading to union by default.
David S Poepoe
Banned
I think they would settle for the states of North and South Dakota and probably give them Arizona and New Mexico.
I'd do what happened in Iraq and Egypt, and install a puppet king over all of the British Raj, and formally no British people will serve the king. The king will proclaim himself a reincarnation of a Hindu deity and the governor of the Caliphate in India (or something like that). When the inevitable happens and Britain must withdraw its empire, it can be done in a face saving manner. Eventually the king gets overthrown like the Egyptian and Iraqi ones, or he muddles through like the Jordanian one.
What reserect the Mughal Emperors? Could be interesting, would George VI have to 'adopt' a Mughal to be in-line for the Indian throne though?
That would be too obvious. I would proclaim a new dynasty whose royal family would be from a princely state who would cause the least trouble among the public. The new dynasty would rule all of the British Raj and would consciously use Indian and Hindu symbols, and appoint as many (British-educated) Indian nationalists as bureaucrats as possible. But behind the scenes Britain retains a degree of influence. Over the next 20 years the British "advisors" would gradually be withdrawn until the Indian dynasty is genuinely independent, though with an Anglophile elite. Britain takes credit for a peaceful and orderly transition while ensuring its political interests are left intact.
Probably this mixed with GOIA formally proclaiming India a Dominion.
By 1920, it's not inconceivable for India to be a dominion, that would lead to it eventually becoming fully independent by 1947, but united. Without Gandhi, you'll see a huge boost in a united India, since he brought in spiritualism into the movement.
Indian Indians, not Amerindians. Although your idea has some merit; all four states, and especially Arizona, already have large native populations.