Assuming a united Bengal seeks independence in 1947, what excatly would its borders look like?

I assume this would be all of Bangladesh plus West Bengal. Do they get other parts of India? I believe Tripura has a Bengal majority. What happens to Northeastern India? They would be cut off from the rest of India. Are they forced to join Bengal or would they become independent? The low population density of this area seem to me ripe for future Bengal expansion.

Sikkim would also be cut off, perhaps they join Nepal?

What about Andaman and Nicobar islands? The largest population on the Andamans is Bengali. Does Bengal get both, does India get both, do Bengal get the Andamans and India take the Nicobars, or do the islands seek independence themselves? The latter seem tough as they would face encroachment from Indonesia and Burma.

Finally a unified Bengal would be the fifth largest country by population, with over 250 million people and just behind Indonesia while more populous than Brazil. What sort of impact would it have on the world?
 
Regarding Northeastern India, I imagine it either joins Bengal or gets the Hyderabad treatment. India can't hold it and it's sandwiched between Bengal and China. It can't stand on its own.

It's not going to have a great friendship with China, I'm assuming, considering the border conflicts in that region, nor with India. US aligned, probably, with better relations with Pakistan (because the OTL treatment and war don't happen) because enemy enemy, friend and the like while India and China lose one more reason for hostilities and probably gravitate towards each other (until Tibet and Nepal come into question). The fate of South Asian Muslims comes up a bit more often in ATL, I'd expect, since Burma's Rohingya tend to flee to Bangladesh and a stronger Bengal region will have to deal with that one way or another.
 
Regarding Northeastern India, I imagine it either joins Bengal or gets the Hyderabad treatment. India can't hold it and it's sandwiched between Bengal and China. It can't stand on its own.

It's not going to have a great friendship with China, I'm assuming, considering the border conflicts in that region, nor with India. US aligned, probably, with better relations with Pakistan (because the OTL treatment and war don't happen) because enemy enemy, friend and the like while India and China lose one more reason for hostilities and probably gravitate towards each other (until Tibet and Nepal come into question). The fate of South Asian Muslims comes up a bit more often in ATL, I'd expect, since Burma's Rohingya tend to flee to Bangladesh and a stronger Bengal region will have to deal with that one way or another.

Northeast India has a population of around 35 million, does it really have no chance on its own? Tiny Bhutan has managed.

West Bengal, Bangladesh and Assam is what I can see them holding.

So no chance on the Andaman islands then?

BTW here’s a map of the areas in discussion for those unfamiliar with the subject:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Bengalispeaking_region.png
 

longsword14

Banned
Uh, do people even remember that West Bengal has a lot of Hindus ? There was not any significant support for a unified Bengal from any Hindu leader.
This Bengal will have no land forces, forget the navy. Andaman and Nicobar is not going to be theirs either.
Most of India's claims are based on being the Raj's successor, Bengal gets none of those advantages.You will not have any strong claims for anything not ethically Bengali.
The whole of the presidency does not count as Bengal proper.
 
Uh, do people even remember that West Bengal has a lot of Hindus ? There was not any significant support for a unified Bengal from any Hindu leader.
This Bengal will have no land forces, forget the navy. Andaman and Nicobar is not going to be theirs either.
Most of India's claims are based on being the Raj's successor, Bengal gets none of those advantages.You will not have any strong claims for anything not ethically Bengali.
The whole of the presidency does not count as Bengal proper.

Wasn’t Sarat Chandra Bose a Hindu? The point of a united Bengal was to avoid division along religious lines. This was ultimately rejected by Muslim and Hindu leaders but the idea of an independent and unified Bengal was not without supporters, including Ghandi and Jinnah.
 
Wasn’t Sarat Chandra Bose a Hindu? The point of a united Bengal was to avoid division along religious lines. This was ultimately rejected by Muslim and Hindu leaders but the idea of an independent and unified Bengal was not without supporters, including Ghandi and Jinnah.

Gandhi was opposed to the creation of a Pakistan let alone a creation of Bengal, and Bengal's failure to become independent happened because they couldn't decide whether or not to become a dominion or break off all ties with the UK.
 
Wasn’t Sarat Chandra Bose a Hindu? The point of a united Bengal was to avoid division along religious lines. This was ultimately rejected by Muslim and Hindu leaders but the idea of an independent and unified Bengal was not without supporters, including Ghandi and Jinnah.
Neither Gandhi nor Jinnah supported an independent Bengal. Gandhi wanted a united India and agreed to the partition only under great pressure from his Congress colleagues. Jinnah did not want to divide Bengal and Punjab. He hoped to get both in Pakistan. Lord Mountbatten told him that if he wanted India to be divided he had to accept the division of both Punjab and Bengal.
 
Neither Gandhi nor Jinnah supported an independent Bengal. Gandhi wanted a united India and agreed to the partition only under great pressure from his Congress colleagues. Jinnah did not want to divide Bengal and Punjab. He hoped to get both in Pakistan. Lord Mountbatten told him that if he wanted India to be divided he had to accept the division of both Punjab and Bengal.

In one of his books about India, Stanley Wolpert said that Jinnah was delighted at the idea of an independent Bengal, and reportedly said "What is the use of Bengal without Calcutta?"
 
Top