Impact of a United India

A united India will be pro- US for the same reason Pakistan was- the soviet union's inheritance of the Russian Empire's Great Game ambitions. India will inherit the British position of Afghanistan and Iran as a nation needing to be influenced and away from Russian influence. 1948 sees independent India at the same time the PRC comes into existence. India will immediately shore up Nepal, Bhutan, and Tubet as buffers against an expansionist ally of the Soviet Union (i reject as ASB India having Nepal, and might as well be for Aden and Burma, about as likely as Singapore or Kenya). India will be involved in the communist civil war in Malay and be a US and British ally in the greater Asian theater against the PRC and Soviet allies. The Iranian Revolution will still occur. Iran's main focus instead of protecting Shi'ites in Iraq will be to "free" Balachistan (actually Iranian culturally and linguistically and not Indian btw), and to encourage an Islamic state.

India will attempt their best at good relations with Turkey and Saudi Arabia (nations that hate Iran and can tolerate Western democracies), but seriously a large Muslim population in a vastly non-Muslim nation will be hated among jihadists, and India probably has strained but tolerable relations with another non-Muslim nation with a large Muslim population also founded in 1948- Israel. India might even try mediating, and failing, on how two religions they can live in harmony in one state. The PRC probably doesnt take Tibet in the 50s, that waits until the 60s. A rump state perhaps exists under Indian protection near the border. India probably keeps Nepal from having a communist revolution of any type of success.

Afghanistan in the 80s sees India in a tough position of supporting insurgents against the Soviets but also not wanting to support "Pakistan" terrorists (much as Turkey has a problem with Kurds and not supporting them even though supporting goal in Iraq and Syria). Taliban results in hating India as much as they hate the US and Israel. Could see India and Iran have one or two minor wars over the period of 1948 to 1990. India ends up being supportive of Iraq in the 1980s.

India invests and supports former British colonies in Africa, and tries to be a counterweight to the PRC without being overtly confrontational. India probably flexes its muscles more on Myanmar and attempts to influence them towards democracy. A nuclear arms race develops between India and the PRC once the PRC has nukes India has much more reason to get some. If US still chooses to "open China" this causes a rift with India. India goes the route of Nasser's Egypt with closer ties to the Soviet Union while being neutral in the Cold War, but still has good enough relations with the US for cooperation on my issues especially terrorism in the 21st century, goes pro-Arab with strained relations with Israel without being outright nasty, while even more anti-Iranian, Turkey becomes a close ally in that they have similar views on Iran, same strained but not bad relations with Israel, and a wish to see Turkic Central Asia out of the Russian sphere.

WTC attack might actually not occur in this atl because other smaller but almost as big attacks on India take precedence and India is constantly fighting in the Northwest Frontier and in strikes on Afghan soil. If a 9/11 style attack happens in US then it will bring US and India closer and Afghanistan will go better because of India's massive cooperation and contribution to manpower and short supply lines. India will not support and will be massively critical of US decision to go into Iraq and will blame the US for allowing Iran influence in Iraq. Iran will be even more belligerent aggressive and go for nukes quicker feeling surrounded and having India in Afghanistan.
 
Maybe a Sikkim-esque scenario could be how Nepal and Bhutan are annexed by India?
Sikkim was a tiny nation, though. Both Nepal and Bhutan are significantly larger. Here's what someone else said on a previous thread, when I made a similar statement (except about Sri Lanka instead of Nepal, though it could apply there):
Sikkim wouldn't have remained independent because there was tremendous political pressure on the then Chogyal to accede to India in wake of the trend of the full assimilation of the former princely states being prevalent at that time. And the public opinion too was overwhelmingly in favor of the accession. Sikkim had significant interactions with North East India since a long time and not entirely culturally distinct from people living in the Northern parts of WB and Western parts of Assam.

The reason for Bhutan being independent is that it was never considered a part of India in any way at any point of time and even according to British records it was considered as an ally and not necessarily a protectorate, as well as it had an independent history for too long for it to be considered a part of India. Sri Lanka was and is an entirely independent country from India in all respects, that and combined with commonplace hatred for Tamils makes it difficult for Sri Lanka to be a part of India. Sri Lanka always had a vibrant culture combined with powerful indigenous kingdoms of its own for nearly it's entire history ; it has never been ruled by Indians except for a 80 year long stint by the Cholas and as an administrative division under the Raj for a short time.
 
Or it could lead to closer PRC- US relations if India gets friendly with the USSR.
Really unlikely, why would India be closer to the SU? It's right here, there is no Pakistan between them, only Afghanistan, an United India wouldn't really solve the problems with the Durant Line so expect a lot of Indian involvement there, which will lead to a response from the USSR, meanwhile the US is a distant power, with the same beef with the countries hostile to India (the USSR and the PRC), it's a win-win scenario.


Should the existence of India butterfly lead to closer relations between China and the SU, expect the US-PRC thaw to a lot different than OTL.

Other point in this 180 turn in the Indian Foreign Policy: Why would India, with a hostile Iran on its door preying on Baluchistan, move away from Iran's greatest nemesis (US and Israel)?
 
Really unlikely, why would India be closer to the SU? It's right here, there is no Pakistan between them, only Afghanistan, an United India wouldn't really solve the problems with the Durant Line so expect a lot of Indian involvement there, which will lead to a response from the USSR, meanwhile the US is a distant power, with the same beef with the countries hostile to India (the USSR and the PRC), it's a win-win scenario.



Should the existence of India butterfly lead to closer relations between China and the SU, expect the US-PRC thaw to a lot different than OTL.

Other point in this 180 turn in the Indian Foreign Policy: Why would India, with a hostile Iran on its door preying on Baluchistan, move away from Iran's greatest nemesis (US and Israel)?
Same reason Saudi Arabia still hates Israel, and why Turkey is, well not even luke warm and both are friendly with the US but still have problems. India will probably have the same outlook, technological and military purchases from Israel (OTL Pakistan does) and economic ties to the US.

I agree that if India is pro-US then Nixon has less incentive to take advantage of the Sino-Soviet split and risk alienating India. Without the PRC taking the UNSC permanent seat, does India and RoC let PRC in as a regular member? Is Tibet, even a rump state, a member? Does the RoC make some sort of deal, giving up their Security Council seat to India and everyonr agrees the PRC and RoC can both be regular members. You could see Reagan being as hard-lined towards the PRC as he was to the Soviets. The big thought experiment comes in 1991- does the PRC fall? They've been more isolated than OTL. A PRC that moves towards democracy and unification with RoC causes the entire world to look different in every aspect. A Soviet style implosion of independent republics is unlikely given the views of both Chinas. India however will certainly force the Tibet issue. The Uighurs are trickier but the only other region that could get recognition, everyone from India, Russia, Turkey, Iran, and every Muslim state would be in favor independence for geopolitical or religious reasons. Does Cuba and North Korea survive without the PRC? Vietnam probably does.
 
A united India will be pro- US for the same reason Pakistan was- the soviet union's inheritance of the Russian Empire's Great Game ambitions. India will inherit the British position of Afghanistan and Iran as a nation needing to be influenced and away from Russian influence. 1948 sees independent India at the same time the PRC comes into existence. India will immediately shore up Nepal, Bhutan, and Tubet as buffers against an expansionist ally of the Soviet Union (i reject as ASB India having Nepal, and might as well be for Aden and Burma, about as likely as Singapore or Kenya). India will be involved in the communist civil war in Malay and be a US and British ally in the greater Asian theater against the PRC and Soviet allies. The Iranian Revolution will still occur. Iran's main focus instead of protecting Shi'ites in Iraq will be to "free" Balachistan (actually Iranian culturally and linguistically and not Indian btw), and to encourage an Islamic state.

India will attempt their best at good relations with Turkey and Saudi Arabia (nations that hate Iran and can tolerate Western democracies), but seriously a large Muslim population in a vastly non-Muslim nation will be hated among jihadists, and India probably has strained but tolerable relations with another non-Muslim nation with a large Muslim population also founded in 1948- Israel. India might even try mediating, and failing, on how two religions they can live in harmony in one state. The PRC probably doesnt take Tibet in the 50s, that waits until the 60s. A rump state perhaps exists under Indian protection near the border. India probably keeps Nepal from having a communist revolution of any type of success.

Afghanistan in the 80s sees India in a tough position of supporting insurgents against the Soviets but also not wanting to support "Pakistan" terrorists (much as Turkey has a problem with Kurds and not supporting them even though supporting goal in Iraq and Syria). Taliban results in hating India as much as they hate the US and Israel. Could see India and Iran have one or two minor wars over the period of 1948 to 1990. India ends up being supportive of Iraq in the 1980s.

India invests and supports former British colonies in Africa, and tries to be a counterweight to the PRC without being overtly confrontational. India probably flexes its muscles more on Myanmar and attempts to influence them towards democracy. A nuclear arms race develops between India and the PRC once the PRC has nukes India has much more reason to get some. If US still chooses to "open China" this causes a rift with India. India goes the route of Nasser's Egypt with closer ties to the Soviet Union while being neutral in the Cold War, but still has good enough relations with the US for cooperation on my issues especially terrorism in the 21st century, goes pro-Arab with strained relations with Israel without being outright nasty, while even more anti-Iranian, Turkey becomes a close ally in that they have similar views on Iran, same strained but not bad relations with Israel, and a wish to see Turkic Central Asia out of the Russian sphere.

WTC attack might actually not occur in this atl because other smaller but almost as big attacks on India take precedence and India is constantly fighting in the Northwest Frontier and in strikes on Afghan soil. If a 9/11 style attack happens in US then it will bring US and India closer and Afghanistan will go better because of India's massive cooperation and contribution to manpower and short supply lines. India will not support and will be massively critical of US decision to go into Iraq and will blame the US for allowing Iran influence in Iraq. Iran will be even more belligerent aggressive and go for nukes quicker feeling surrounded and having India in Afghanistan.

I'm gonna dissent from this pretty fully. India isn't going to be a free market paradise absent Partition, and it's still highly unlikely to tilt towards the US. It will still be dominated by the left - Congress in the early years and then post-Nehru likely by a Left-Muslim alliance. Nationalists in India are going to, as OTL, inherit skepticism of the British and of foreign trade (due to India's experience under the EIC) and will still be enamored of state-led development (which was in vogue throughout the developing and developed world in the postwar period). They're going to still have a fairly benign view of the Soviet Union. And there's no reason to believe India will be anti-Iranian, when even OTL, India has remained a relatively close ally of Iran both pre and post-revolution.

NWFP is likely to remain a left-wing stronghold in this timeline. (Even OTL it traditionally has been a bastion of the left in Pakistan - only in recent years, with the influence of the Pakistani Taliban and the Afghan wars has it grown more Islamicized.) Afghanistan will likely remain a stable kingdom and Indian client state. India is still going to remain too poor in its early years to try any serious power projection, and they certainly aren't going to intervene in any foreign wars (especially against imperialist powers).

The biggest long-term outcome here internationally is less that India's outward posture will be that different - the difference is that no Pakistan means a more stable Afghanistan and Central Asia, less of a hub for international jihadism, and greater influence for India in global affairs, which OTL is held back by its disputes with its neighbors, primarily, of course, Pakistan.
 
I'm gonna dissent from this pretty fully. India isn't going to be a free market paradise absent Partition, and it's still highly unlikely to tilt towards the US. It will still be dominated by the left - Congress in the early years and then post-Nehru likely by a Left-Muslim alliance. Nationalists in India are going to, as OTL, inherit skepticism of the British and of foreign trade (due to India's experience under the EIC) and will still be enamored of state-led development (which was in vogue throughout the developing and developed world in the postwar period). They're going to still have a fairly benign view of the Soviet Union. And there's no reason to believe India will be anti-Iranian, when even OTL, India has remained a relatively close ally of Iran both pre and post-revolution.

NWFP is likely to remain a left-wing stronghold in this timeline. (Even OTL it traditionally has been a bastion of the left in Pakistan - only in recent years, with the influence of the Pakistani Taliban and the Afghan wars has it grown more Islamicized.) Afghanistan will likely remain a stable kingdom and Indian client state. India is still going to remain too poor in its early years to try any serious power projection, and they certainly aren't going to intervene in any foreign wars (especially against imperialist powers).

The biggest long-term outcome here internationally is less that India's outward posture will be that different - the difference is that no Pakistan means a more stable Afghanistan and Central Asia, less of a hub for international jihadism, and greater influence for India in global affairs, which OTL is held back by its disputes with its neighbors, primarily, of course, Pakistan.
Wow, cant disagree more and you need to read uo more on Central Asia. Sorry, but my scenario has a much higher percentage of occuring. Your peaceful Afghanistan and Central Asia has zero.
 
Wow, cant disagree more and you need to read uo more on Central Asia. Sorry, but my scenario has a much higher percentage of occuring. Your peaceful Afghanistan and Central Asia has zero.

It'd be better if you explained your reasoning as to why a united India would have such a radically different foreign policy. There are long threads within Indian and South Asian politics that underpin India's historic reluctance to fully ally with the Western powers, why they've been friendly with Russia and the Soviets, and why they aren't going to back Islamic radicals in a neighboring state.

OTL, much of Pakistan's tilt towards the US (and towards the Afghan Mujahideen / Taliban) has been precisely because of opposition to India. A United India isn't going to have the same counterpressures and is likelier to much more closely resemble OTL Indian foreign policy than OTL Pakistan's.
 
What about united India's policy towards Southeast Asia and the Middle East (the Arab parts of it)?

In what way? Because of its history, India is noninterventionist in foreign affairs. Their concerns are - as in OTL - going to be about trade (though not really a concern until and unless the economy opens up), oil imports, and remittances. OTL India's relations with most ME countries are fine - they aren't going to be any more or less so in this timeline.
 
It'd be better if you explained your reasoning as to why a united India would have such a radically different foreign policy. There are long threads within Indian and South Asian politics that underpin India's historic reluctance to fully ally with the Western powers, why they've been friendly with Russia and the Soviets, and why they aren't going to back Islamic radicals in a neighboring state.

OTL, much of Pakistan's tilt towards the US (and towards the Afghan Mujahideen / Taliban) has been precisely because of opposition to India. A United India isn't going to have the same counterpressures and is likelier to much more closely resemble OTL Indian foreign policy than OTL Pakistan's.
You have cause and effect reversed. OTL India was leaning pro-Soviet in response to Pakistan 's pro-US policy starting with the Baghdad Pact. With a united India, the nation inherits Britain's Great Game with the Soviet Union and eventually Iran after the Revolution will push India more towards the US. The PRC invading Tibet will arrouse India's fears and without Pakistan's distracting existence, India will make a presence known. Tibet is India's sphere and an important buffer against encroachment.

China is a radical anethema to what India is, they are case studies as opposites in state and cultural development (That is from Francis Fukuyama's books before you continue to try to argue with me, otherwise you're blowing smoke and I dont appreciate it)
 
In what way? Because of its history, India is noninterventionist in foreign affairs. Their concerns are - as in OTL - going to be about trade (though not really a concern until and unless the economy opens up), oil imports, and remittances. OTL India's relations with most ME countries are fine - they aren't going to be any more or less so in this timeline.
WHAT? You have to be kidding me? Please cite book sources from reliable authors in political science and/or history.
 
What's with the hostility? We're allowed to disagree on a message board.
You have cause and effect reversed. OTL India was leaning pro-Soviet in response to Pakistan 's pro-US policy starting with the Baghdad Pact. With a united India, the nation inherits Britain's Great Game with the Soviet Union and eventually Iran after the Revolution will push India more towards the US. The PRC invading Tibet will arrouse India's fears and without Pakistan's distracting existence, India will make a presence known. Tibet is India's sphere and an important buffer against encroachment.

China is a radical anethema to what India is, they are case studies as opposites in state and cultural development (That is from Francis Fukuyama's books before you continue to try to argue with me, otherwise you're blowing smoke and I dont appreciate it)
I haven't said anything about China.
WHAT? You have to be kidding me? Please cite book sources from reliable authors in political science and/or history.

I stated as a fact that OTL India has fairly cordial or outright friendly relations with most Middle Eastern states and that Indo-Iranian relations have been close. I don't see an obvious reason why that would change absent Pakistan. If you want to disagree, fine, but your line of reasoning would be appreciated.

What I said was unrealistic is the idea that even an undivided India is going to be sending troop deployments to fight colonial wars. Noninterventionism is very built into Indian foreign policy. India isn't necessarily going to have a pro-Soviet tilt (at least at first) even if it's united, but it's still going to try and remain nonaligned (as did many new postcolonial states); it's unlikely to have a hostile relationship with the Soviets and it's also unlikely to have an open pro-US tilt either. If anything, an undivided India will be even likelier to see itself as a great power in its own right and above being part of a larger Western-oriented alliance.
 

longsword14

Banned
@SlideAway
I agree with most of your posts above other than the Soviet tilt. Nehru was not hiding his favour for the Soviet Bloc behind non-alignment but he actually wished to stay that way. If not in the first few decades then somewhere I expect India to turn towards the West. The only reason for approaching the USSR was because Pakistan is India's natural enemy.
 
@SlideAway
I agree with most of your posts above other than the Soviet tilt. Nehru was not hiding his favour for the Soviet Bloc behind non-alignment but he actually wished to stay that way. If not in the first few decades then somewhere I expect India to turn towards the West. The only reason for approaching the USSR was because Pakistan is India's natural enemy.

That's probably more accurate, sure - it'll likely remain nonaligned. The more openly pro-Soviet tilt happened under Indira Gandhi and was at least in part the result of the '71 war and the Nixon-Kissinger foreign policy. ATL, not clear a pro-Soviet tilt would emerge. My reasoning there is more than in the long run in a united India, I imagine post-Nehru Congress moving right and a left-Muslim bloc (possibly under a surviving Subhas Chandra Bose) taking a more pro-Soviet position.
 
Wow, cant disagree more and you need to read uo more on Central Asia. Sorry, but my scenario has a much higher percentage of occuring. Your peaceful Afghanistan and Central Asia has zero.

Yes, there's a chance Afghanistan still turns into a mess.

However, the Soviets didn't actually want to expand into Afghanistan - the reason they invaded in OTL was out of fear that otherwise the country would fall to Pakistan and the CIA, meaning the entire southern border of the USSR would end up dominated by US proxies...

Equally, I can't see India wanting to expand into Afghanistan - they'll have quite enough troublesome tribes as it is.

So both India and the Soviets are likely to have the same goal - to keep Afghanistan quiet and a friendly neutral.

And greater India existing isn't going to stop the Sino-Soviet split. And China is still going to fight both India and the USSR so long as Mao is in charge.

As such, there's really no reason why India and the USSR wouldn't end up close as per OTL. Some things will make a closer relationship more likely, somethings will make it less likely. On balance, I think India is likely (but not 100% sure) to end up as a friendly "neutral" that buys alot of Soviet arms just like OTL.

Mind you, it's going to be a more powerful and more assertive "neutral", but I think that will mainly affect the evolution of the non-aligned movement, the evolution of China and the evolution of the ex-colonies around the Indian Ocean. I don't think that will affect which side India is drawn to in the cold war.

Mind you, it would be fun to come up with an ATL where Britain was an enemy of the US after WW2 (meaning that anti-imperialism drives the Indians to have warmer relations with the US, and US Anglophobia drives them to have warmer relations with India).

fasquardon
 
Last edited:
Top