The only real way to have a peaceful United India is to have a loose confederation. Most likely the one envisaged in the 1935 Act.. Which Congress refused point blank in OTL. If they change their minds (maybe the British get hold of some of Nehru's sex tapes or something), the only feasible one would be where the British retain some semblance of control at the centre, at least initially.
maybe the British get hold of some of Nehru's sex tapes or something
the only feasible one would be where the British retain some semblance of control at the centre
The only real way to have a peaceful United India is to have a loose confederation.
Would they? Would a "UIF" not be de facto one of the big powers and everybody would just accept it?NPT negotiations are an even bigger pain than OTL
Nuclear weapons would be an issue, but not as much as IOTL I would say. Sure, the Indians are likely to make them, but they won't be building up their reserves for a possible fight between India and Pakistan. The Chinese would be their most likely opponent, and the two of them had no quarrel aside from the claims over some mountain areas. The PRC might be more worried about Tibet, Bhutan, and Nepal here if the Indians try to increase their sphere of influence, but I rather doubt they would do so in that manner. The last thing a country trying to create a semi-secular socialist state free from castes and internal strife is to support some theocrats who keep their population as peasants. Might even be anti-Bhuddist sentiment among some Indians, should Myanmar screw with the Bengali-descended population of northwest Arakan, or if Sri Lanka persecuted the Tamil.Would they? Would a "UIF" not be de facto one of the big powers and everybody would just accept it?
I would think the bigger problems would be UIFs desire for a P5 seat in the SC that it would regard as its right just as much as China, maybe goes to P6 linked with when they swap from ROC to PRC?
Nuclear weapons would be an issue, but not as much as IOTL I would say. Sure, the Indians are likely to make them, but they won't be building up their reserves for a possible fight between India and Pakistan. The Chinese would be their most likely opponent, and the two of them had no quarrel aside from the claims over some mountain areas. The PRC might be more worried about Tibet, Bhutan, and Nepal here if the Indians try to increase their sphere of influence, but I rather doubt they would do so in that manner. The last thing a country trying to create a semi-secular socialist state free from castes and internal strife is to support some theocrats who keep their population as peasants. Might even be anti-Bhuddist sentiment among some Indians, should Myanmar screw with the Bengali-descended population of northwest Arakan, or if Sri Lanka persecuted the Tamil.
Not sure without the distraction of having to try ad balance I&P interests would GB (and US) not be more willing to support them as a major check on Soviet or Chinese expansion in the early cold war?Nuclear weapons would be an issue
I imagine India would do what it did IOTL and stick to the Non Alignment Movement.Not sure without the distraction of having to try ad balance I&P interests would GB (and US) not be more willing to support them as a major check on Soviet or Chinese expansion in the early cold war?
Even to the extent of selling them V bombers and the tools to make the payloads or supplying duel key weapons?
If this is done pre NNPT then UI would pretty much automatically get in beside China?
I imagine it would want to but could it when faced with potential disputes over the buffer territories of Afghanistan and Tibet with USSR and PRC?I imagine India would do what it did IOTL and stick to the Non Alignment Movement.
Some Impacts that are most likely confirmed -
- India is a much more vocal global player
- India would be the most powerful nation in Asia
- Conflict in Afghanistan is butterflied away, making it more stable
- Indo - Soviet relations would be bad due to having a close border
- India would be marginally better off