Islamistic terrorism in Undivided India

Status
Not open for further replies.
People asked themselves if the raiders of Bombay were homegrown or from neighboring Pakistan. Well, when they're really from Pakistan - and the only surviving terrorist is from there - they are indeed Indians in a way.

Pakistan was carved out of British Indian territory to have a Muslim-majority nation on the Subcontinent free from Hindu rule. Well, but there are still some 160 million Muslims in the Indian core nation that have been considered a political integration problem after the attacks.

What would the impact of modern Islamistic Terrorism on India be if it wasn't partitioned but that we'd rather have a united India whose Muslim minority counts up to a third of its 1.5 billion people?
 
Quite different. Attempting to isolate the major changes to modern history should British India minus Burma gained independence as a unified state is difficult, to say the least.

But, granting the assumptions that things would remain roughly the same without a good reason, India might well have less of a problem with radical Islam-justified terrorism by 2008 than South Asia as a whole does today. While there would no doubt be different sparks to start ethno-religious conflicts, there could well be fewer of them. Kashmir, for one, would not be an issue (other than possibly with China). Further, there would not be nationalist-supported radicalization in Pakistan or Bangladesh. The tribal frontier of OTL's Pakistan would be problematic for this India as well, but probably similar to the Naxalite issues it faces OTL. Unlike Pakistan, India would have much more resources to throw at the problem, and probably fewer issues of legitimacy.

We should also note that even with OTL's difficulties and large muslim population, India is not a major source of terrorist or insurgent recruits. Absent a good reason why, I'd guess that a united subcontinent would fare similarly.

But this is all a very tiny aspect of "no Indian partition". There would be no India-Pakistan conflict to define South Asia's diplomatic history, and in all probability relations with China would figure rather more prominently. I have no idea what the Sino-Indian war would look like in this TL, but it doesn't point to better circumstances for Mao. Internally, this India would need to spend less of its critical resources on military expenses, and the networks of internal commerce that developed under the British Raj would not be abruptly broken up. Whether this India follows the same corporatist, neo-socialist policy Nehru pioneered OTL probably depends on who's in charge of this TL's India, and what political compromises have to be made. Potentially, this TL's India could be relatively better off economically, which would seem to provide an even less hospitable envrionment for social pathology.

To summarize, the change you propose in history would have massive effects and further changes that cannot easily be determined. Thus, such a specific comparison is hard to make without a realistic timeline to provide a background.
 
Hindu nationalism isn't blameless in the hostility either.

But without partition, Islamic extremism wouldn't be any bigger a problem than it is in Turkey.

A united India would probably have had a great impact on the entire world, so it's difficult to extrapolate what things would look like today.

Quite different. Attempting to isolate the major changes to modern history should British India minus Burma gained independence as a unified state is difficult, to say the least.

But, granting the assumptions that things would remain roughly the same without a good reason, India might well have less of a problem with radical Islam-justified terrorism by 2008 than South Asia as a whole does today. While there would no doubt be different sparks to start ethno-religious conflicts, there could well be fewer of them. Kashmir, for one, would not be an issue (other than possibly with China). Further, there would not be nationalist-supported radicalization in Pakistan or Bangladesh. The tribal frontier of OTL's Pakistan would be problematic for this India as well, but probably similar to the Naxalite issues it faces OTL. Unlike Pakistan, India would have much more resources to throw at the problem, and probably fewer issues of legitimacy.

We should also note that even with OTL's difficulties and large muslim population, India is not a major source of terrorist or insurgent recruits. Absent a good reason why, I'd guess that a united subcontinent would fare similarly.

But this is all a very tiny aspect of "no Indian partition". There would be no India-Pakistan conflict to define South Asia's diplomatic history, and in all probability relations with China would figure rather more prominently. I have no idea what the Sino-Indian war would look like in this TL, but it doesn't point to better circumstances for Mao. Internally, this India would need to spend less of its critical resources on military expenses, and the networks of internal commerce that developed under the British Raj would not be abruptly broken up. Whether this India follows the same corporatist, neo-socialist policy Nehru pioneered OTL probably depends on who's in charge of this TL's India, and what political compromises have to be made. Potentially, this TL's India could be relatively better off economically, which would seem to provide an even less hospitable envrionment for social pathology.

To summarize, the change you propose in history would have massive effects and further changes that cannot easily be determined. Thus, such a specific comparison is hard to make without a realistic timeline to provide a background.
 
there might not be Islamic terrorism, at least what it is in our timeline, this is because India might not support Mujahedeen, which will not result in taliban later on
 
A united India radically changes Indians position in the Cold War. A United Indian subcontinent has the ability to end up a major figure in the Cold War on the same level as China. So I'd say arguing about Islamic terrorism in the modern day is probably a weird and esoteric concern compared to what happens in the in between.
 
A united India radically changes Indians position in the Cold War. A United Indian subcontinent has the ability to end up a major figure in the Cold War on the same level as China. So I'd say arguing about Islamic terrorism in the modern day is probably a weird and esoteric concern compared to what happens in the in between.

This. United India is a fourth power bloc with the potential (even more than OTL India) to utterly dominate the Indian Ocean. United India is sitting within easy distance of Hormuz, the Bab el Mandeb and the Straits of Malacca.

Whoever is lord of the Indian Ocean has his hand on the throat of America

IOTL India has this potential too but due to various issues is only just starting to realise this maritime potential.
 
A united India would probably have had a great impact on the entire world, so it's difficult to extrapolate what things would look like today.

Isn't that overstating things? ... Sure they could argubly become the fourth power behind USA, USSR and China (and probably(?) aligned with the western world), but still, would it have a great impact outside of SE Asia and surrounding the Indian Ocean?

... I guess an important question would be, how would this India's relations be with Iran, although given that the Indian Muslims are dominantly Sunni (says wikipedia) ... well, anything might happen there
 
This. United India is a fourth power bloc with the potential (even more than OTL India) to utterly dominate the Indian Ocean. United India is sitting within easy distance of Hormuz, the Bab el Mandeb and the Straits of Malacca.
Whoever is lord of the Indian Ocean has his hand on the throat of America
IOTL India has this potential too but due to various issues is only just starting to realise this maritime potential.

I don't see a united India being any more focused on the ocean than in OTL. Seems like Nepal and the disputes over the northern borders would be the primary focus, especially if they are now stronger and more able to challenge China militarily. Instead of India-Pakistan Wars we might see India-China wars over exactly where the border is.

There are no naval challenges to India and even fewer to a united India. A navy is a good idea long term but in the late 20th India has much better things to spend money on.
 
I don't see a united India being any more focused on the ocean than in OTL. Seems like Nepal and the disputes over the northern borders would be the primary focus, especially if they are now stronger and more able to challenge China militarily. Instead of India-Pakistan Wars we might see India-China wars over exactly where the border is.

There are no naval challenges to India and even fewer to a united India. A navy is a good idea long term but in the late 20th India has much better things to spend money on.

The thing is assuming Pakistan and Bangladesh are nonexistent, United India has secure defensive terrain on all natural borders. India will be able to devote more power to the Northern borders while still spending on naval development because unlike OTL India it doesn't have to maintain massive shock formations ready to drive on Lahore.
 
Isn't that overstating things? ... Sure they could argubly become the fourth power behind USA, USSR and China (and probably(?) aligned with the western world), but still, would it have a great impact outside of SE Asia and surrounding the Indian Ocean?

... I guess an important question would be, how would this India's relations be with Iran, although given that the Indian Muslims are dominantly Sunni (says wikipedia) ... well, anything might happen there

I think that in a situation where India is united communal tensions are less likely to be an overpowering political issue. There's no longer major wars happening every few years with the "muslims", which means that the Hindu right could well be on q path of long term decline ITTL.
 
If the partition is avoided and India is united, then there would be no Pakistan to stir up communal troubles in India. As the Muslim population will be almost one third ie. about half a billion, they will be more confident and will not have any feeling of insecurity. As an enemy Pakistan does not exist, the Muslims will not be viewed as a fifth column by others. Absence of Pakistan is likely to remove the wall of mutual suspicion between Hindu and Muslim communities and pave the way for better communal harmony. If the Muslims feel more secure and satisfied, there would be no reason for the rise of Islamic terrorism in India. Even today, in spite of the machinations of Pakistan and Salafist and Islamist funding from the Middle East, only a small percentage of the Muslims get attracted to the path of Islamism and terrorism.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top