Impact of united India on the cold war

What would be the impact of a United India in the cold war

Would India go neutral, pro-soviet or pro-american

What would be the impact on china

How would India deal with the Islamic Revolution and Afghanistan
 
Honestly it depends on the administration. The reason Pakistan was Pro-US in the Cold War was because India did not make the first move towards the US, while Pakistan did. If India is under a socialist administration like Nehru it might go neutral until a right-wing (not necessarily Hindu Nationalist, maybe just center-right economically while being liberal on other matters) PM takes control.

If fiscal conservatives in Congress like Vallabhbhai Patel or Chakravarti Rajagopalachari become Prime Minister maybe India might become pro-US. Rajagopalachari IOTL wanted to ban the communist party.
 

Ak-84

Banned
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.

So, in our United Indian Federation ("UIF"), the British are calling most of the shots on foreign policy in the early years of the Cold War. Which means a pro-US policy. It means Indian troops in Korea. It means maybe a war in Tibet. I could easily see SAC Bomber wings and probably Vulcans based out of Peshawar* and in Bengal. As UIF begins to take full responsibility for foreign and defence affairs, I suspect inertia would cause it to continue. UIF would most likely seek a nuclear programme of its own in the late 50's and 1960's as China goes nuclear.

UIF becomes a nuclear power in 1970. NPT negotiations are an even bigger pain than OTL as Pak/India are the two of the biggest holdouts and a combined UIF has greater power.

*OTL the UK tried pretty hard to convince Pakistan to permit such basing, which Pakistan refused.
 
If India was pro-american would they restore the republic after the Saur Revolution or the king after the 1973 coup with military force
 
United India would be a huge player in the Afghanistan. It might see Afghanistan as one of its client states like Nepal. Afghanistan might still be poor, but its political system would be more stable due to Indian support.

Soviet would consult India before the invasion of Afghanistan. The United India might say no.

There would be less Afghanistan refugee and no Taliban.
 
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.

Would it look like an earlier Panchayati Raj? I think that's a fairly good model for a large India, with jirgas and panchayats holding fairly prominent roles. It must also be noted that many Pashtuns like Bacha Khan supported being part of India, and Baluchistan actually attempted to accede to India, something which was refused due to its sheer absurdity.

maybe the British get hold of some of Nehru's sex tapes or something

Insufficient for Congress to change its mind.

the only feasible one would be where the British retain some semblance of control at the centre

Unacceptable to virtually every Indian nationalist by this point. The ship for British cooperation with India sailed after the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. This could only be done if India were given dominion immediately after the First World War, and I suspect this "Hindustan Swarajya" wouldn't last after a few decades at the most.
 
The only real way to have a peaceful United India is to have a loose confederation.

Perhaps the biggest issue with this is the terrible inaccuracy of Indian borders before state borders were reformed. Ethnic groups were divided by
border lines, even when those lines made no sense. You can still see some of that today, where Jammu and Kashmir includes the Himachali people of Jammu, the Tibetan people of Ladakh, and the, well, Kashmiri people of Kashmir for no real reason than colonial borders that the Indian government hasn’t reformed yet for some reason. The result is the rise of Kashmiri terrorism, as well as constant instability as the ultra-loyalist people of Jammu attempt to make their voice heard. Just a few years ago, Jammu representatives refused to fly the flag of Jammu and Kashmir, as they saw it as the flag of Kashmir and not Jammu. Your idea would result in many similar situations. Subdivisions need to be rational before India can decentralize.
 
NPT negotiations are an even bigger pain than OTL
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?
 

Ak-84

Banned
A UIF would be strong enough to derail and obstruct negotiations. India & Pakistan nearly did in OTL. But getting recognized?!
 
I feel we can be almost assured that English is an official language here. Same as IOTL, where southern India made it clear at the point when English was about to expire as one of the national languages that they were not interested in Hindi dominating them. Now, if Islam is made the official religion of some provinces, would they all be bunched together? Having a state-within-a-state is one thing. Having Bengal, Punjab, Kashmir, Baluchistan, etc all have their own administrations might be seen as keeping them from unifying against New Delhi. In the case of a United India though, would we be seeing Punjab partitioned? And would Jammu and Kashmir stay as one state or would it be split up between the Buddhist, Sikh, Hindu, and Muslim areas? Of course border changes probably won't happen right away unless there is a lot of horse trading. May be they just keep some of the former Princely States as they are until they decide just what to do about it. Maybe use it as a test bed.
 
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.

Assuming that the Muslim population for India eventually gets good assurances that they won't have Hindi law applying to them, India has the potential of being a leader of the Islamic world, as they would have the largest Muslim population by far. Going by today's numbers, it would be around 538 million Muslims, and that being opposite about 970 Hindus. I imagine that Hindus will continue to thrive in Bali and that Indonesia might be seen as an ally and a sister country. There bein a variety of Islamic followings in Indonesia doesn't hurt, and I can see it being a good source of influence among some imans in India, rather than the more intolerant forms that come from Arabian peninsula. Speaking of which, I think that India might end up having bad ad relation with the Gulf States. They will have so many people that it is natural that hundreds of thousands still head over their to work. If Indians, whatever the religion, are being worked like slaves in the deserts so that some sheiks and emirs can live in decadence while Muslims elsewhere starve or face typhoons on their own... ahhh, and another important thing. Without Pakistan and Afghanistan to send jihadists too, they might stay at home in North Africa and the Middle East, dealing with home grown tyrants.
 
Although not a guarantee of unity, have London consult with the INC in 1939, offer concrete plans for a post-war dominion. Britain taking India into the war without proper consultation led Congress to abstain from helping to run India during the war. This left a gap for Jinnah and the Muslim League to punch above their weight and work with the Raj strengthening their influence and public image. Remove this opportunity and you reduce chances of partition. As to the Princely States, they're done, no major player in the struggle for independence had much time for them by the 1930s let alone *1947.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
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.

With a united India in 1947, the border with China might not be in the same place. We probably should look if a united India can keep China totally out of Tibet. Or it China goes into Tibet in about OTL manner, does India also take part of Tibet to protects its interests.
 
Nuclear weapons would be an issue
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?
 
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 India would do what it did IOTL and stick to the Non Alignment Movement.
 
I imagine India would do what it did IOTL and stick to the Non Alignment Movement.
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?

With no UK/US support for Pakistan and the mess with East Pakistan what would it not also keep better links with the Anglo-Americans?
 

Srihari14

Banned
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
 
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

I would argue there's still a high likelihood India remains nonaligned or moderately pro-Soviet. Across the Indian political spectrum, there's often a resistance to diplomatic or military alliances with Western powers. Given India's history with colonialism, that's likely to remain. Pakistan's pro-US tilt was in many respects a response to India. Absent partition, that pressure won't be there.

I'll add that while a lot of people imagine a united India being more right-wing, I think it could easily be more left-wing. In a united India, the likeliest opposition to the Congress is going to be a left-Muslim alliance; easy to imagine, for example, a surviving Subhas Chandra Bose, as a left-wing, Soviet-aligned leader. Congress will likely evolve into a center-right, more conservative Hindu party. (As it was OTL at the state/provincial level in the 1940s and 1950s.) Not BJP-level, but still. And given that even conservative Congressmen in the 1950s and 1960s were often opposed to an out-and-out alliance with the west, I don't see a lot of pressure to change the country's orientation in the Cold War.

I'd also say that India's relative power will be higher here. I think that would depend on how economically prosperous India is. And while I think a united India might be better off, it's notable that both India and Pakistan have broadly similar standards of living OTL, despite following fairly different economic policies in their early decades.
 
The occupation of Tibet may provide a Cold War proxy conflict. Indian influence over Tibet would secure water resources, increase Indian influence over downstream states in mainland southeast Asia, and increase India's strategic depth. In the absence of the Pakistani state, Indo-Iranian relations are going to be a major determinant of Asian power politics.

If India comes to an understanding with a major middle eastern power like Iran or the Saudis, or just secures basing rights in one or more smaller countries, the middle east may be more stable. Additionally, India will be likely be more pro-Taiwan, and may even attempt to woo North Korea or North Vietnam to surround China.
 

Ak-84

Banned
Again, a UIF is going to have similar foreign policy concerns as OTL Pakistan. It’s going to be too near the USSR for comfort, unlike India which had/has near a million sq km of Pakistani territory between it and USSR. Afghanistan is going to be even more hostile to UIF than it was to Pakistan and it’ll have a marginalised and contiguous territory to get support from, unlike OTL when it was a Muslim State.
 
Top