Maximum Plausible Pakistan?

So I've been wondering on this issue lately: how much territory can the state of Pakistan reasonably expand to control? I've heard all sorts of suggestions both on this forum and elsewhere from the more standard (i.e. Pakistani Kashmir and possibly neighboring Jammu) to the rather unusual (union between Pakistan and Afghanistan).

I don't attach qualifiers, bonuses, or any sorts of "challenges" to the question of precisely how much Pakistan can hold, and perhaps more importantly, what would actually benefit Pakistan?
 
All of Kashmir and the Lakshadweep Islands*, maybe some bits of Indian Bengal.


*The Lakshadweep Islands are large majority Muslim, and a Pakistani ship was sent their to claim them but was beat by an Indian ship by mere hours.
 
All of Kashmir and the Lakshadweep Islands*, maybe some bits of Indian Bengal.


*The Lakshadweep Islands are large majority Muslim, and a Pakistani ship was sent their to claim them but was beat by an Indian ship by mere hours.

I don't think the Lakhshadweep islands are sustainable. The would swiftly fall to India in any conflict and the Malayalee inhabitants would be even more alienated by the Urdu-speaking West Pakistanis than the East Pakistanis were IOTL.
 
I would imagine that they're way too far from Pakistan proper (i.e. West Pakistan) to be sustainable. Far too likely to get caught up with the Indian fleet coming out of Bombay, which was by far one of the most well-developed ports inherited by India after independence.
 
I don't think the Lakhshadweep islands are sustainable. The would swiftly fall to India in any conflict and the Malayalee inhabitants would be even more alienated by the Urdu-speaking West Pakistanis than the East Pakistanis were IOTL.

I thought this thread might attract our resident South and/or Southeast Asian expert.

I do indeed wish to unscrupulously exploit this opportunity and ask how far you think Pakistan could have gone eastward, or northward in the case of Kashmir?
 
I don't think the Lakhshadweep islands are sustainable. The would swiftly fall to India in any conflict and the Malayalee inhabitants would be even more alienated by the Urdu-speaking West Pakistanis than the East Pakistanis were IOTL.

I'm just going by what's the largest Pakistan could've plausibly gotten, not whether it could've sustained all of it.
 
I would imagine that they're way too far from Pakistan proper (i.e. West Pakistan) to be sustainable. Far too likely to get caught up with the Indian fleet coming out of Bombay, which was by far one of the most well-developed ports inherited by India after independence.

Actually it's far worse- the Lakhshwadeep islands are directly off the coast of Kerala where the port of Cochin is the main base for the Indian Navy's Southern Command- it's by far the best anchorage in India and Pakistan trying to take the Lakhshwadeep directly threatens that.
 
I thought this thread might attract our resident South and/or Southeast Asian expert.

I do indeed wish to unscrupulously exploit this opportunity and ask how far you think Pakistan could have gone eastward, or northward in the case of Kashmir?

Kashmir was a balls up all around. Frankly it should have gone to Pakistan and in part Nehru's sentimentalism over his homeland was to blame.
 
If Pakistan had any chance of getting Kashmir it was in 1947 at the time of independence. If instead of sending in armed robbers and military men without uniforms, if Pakistan had gone for negotiation with the Viceroy and the Congress a settlement over Kashmir was not impossible. In fact Patel and the Congress leaders except Nehru were not particular about claiming the whole of Kashmir for India. India might have insisted only for Jammu and Ladakh regions which were non-Muslim and Hindu and Buddhist areas. But once Pakistan sent in the armed militants it became a prestige issue for India and no Government in India can give up any portion of Kashmir and expect to survive.
The state of undivided Kashmir consisted of five regions. The North West Gilgit area, the Western part around Muzafferabad, the Valley around Srinagar, The Jammu region and Ladakh region. The first three regions had Muslim majority and the remaining two areas were non-Muslim. In 1947 when the King of Kashmir refused to join either India or Pakistan and wanted to maintain independence, Pakistan sent in military men and armed tribals to capture the state by force. An alarmed King sought Indian help but India insisted that the state must join India before any military assistance is provided. The King obliged and India sent forces to Kashmir. The Indian forces arrived by the time the Pak forces entered the valley. They were pushed back out of the valley and when the Army was moving forward Nehru, foolishly approached U.N. and the U.N. ordered a ceasefire. Thus Gilgit and Muzaffarabad regions came under Pak occupation and the rest of Kashmir in Indian hands. The position has not changed in the last 66 years.
 

Deleted member 14881

maybe an Afghanistan Pakistan union with Kashimir?
 
I think my timeline has the biggest possible Pakistan you could realistically have. And even then...

And for those who haven't read my timeline, look for Pakistan where it usually is.

DeadByDawn.png
 
I think my timeline has the biggest possible Pakistan you could realistically have. And even then...

Pre-1970 Pakistan with Kashmir would be the biggest, since the area you have shown is smaller than Bengladesh, which was part of Pakistan until the 70's.
 
Though it's probably implausible, what about an Iranian Civil War or something where the crisis of 1946 goes awry, this leads to a division of Iran, including Balochistan. Come Pakistani independence, could we see the Balochi's fused with Pakistan?
 
In terms of territorial size, yes, though population, no.

Note to that I said OTL Pakistan before 1970 with the addition of Kashmir would be bigger.
I thought this was asking about territorial size.

I think Pakistan keeping the East is pretty implausible given the sheer volume of separatists in the area.
 
I thought this was asking about territorial size.

It is, I was just adding population as an addition in the specific case.


I think Pakistan keeping the East is pretty implausible given the sheer volume of separatists in the area.

They managed to keep it for 24 years until 1971 when, thanks to Indian assistance it became independent.

I do agree it's unlikely to keep it indefinately (IMO 1980's the absolute longest), but the OP did'nt specify a date, they just said how big could it realistically get.


Also, here's what I think the largest Pakistan could get (though it would'nt be able to hold it all indefinately);

MaxPak.png
 
Top