Skallagrim
Banned
The most viable way to have a "post-Raj" India that is meaningfully divided, it seems to me, is to set up a scenario where decolonisation is delayed and Britain isn't weakened and distracted by other developments. (Obviously, there are answers as well, such as "no Raj in the first place", but those invariably seem to go against the central question.)
As usual, the good old "no world wars" suffices. The blow to the European empires that was dealt by the First World War in particular can hardly be over-estimated. The Second World War thus saw the stage quite prepared for independence movements to arise-- and indeed they did. After that, the genie was out of the bottle, and couldn't be forced back in. Holding on to India had become in impossibility. In this context, the British weren't quite the Machiavellian schemers playing at 'divide et impera' that some Indian nationalists have pained them to be (British policy was far too muddled for that to be true), but it certainly was understood that an independent Muslim state would serve the British interest. Playing off multiple states against each other would be more conducive to maintaining a British foothold (in the form of indirect influence) than facing a post-colonial India consisting of essentially the whole former Raj.
Now, for the ATL scenario. No World Wars. This doesn't change the fact that colonialism is going to run out of time. There are naturally ways to maintain an Empire, but no matter which way you turn, this requires steps Britain wouldn't be able or willing to take. (Option one is ruthless oppression; whatever you may say of the British Empire, I don't see them going "full Draka", and to keep an unwilling India under your heel, you'd have to. Option two is full -- or nearly full, in any case -- representation of India in an Imperial Federation; I don't see the Brits willing to become a minor state within an Indian Empire, and that would be the certain outcome. Option three is a "Commonwealth Plus" arrangement, with an India under home rule but still involved in the Empire/Commonwealth to a considerable degree; this is the only viable way, but I observe that European nations didn't have the clarity of mind to go for it in OTL, even when it was a realistic option-- as such, I don't pin my hopes on this outcome.)
That leaves a delayed but still inevitable decolonisation. By this point, pressure has been building steadily. Not hit by the World Wars, and able to dedicate its full attention, Britain will have gotten used to suppressing the dissent. Since crushing it ruthlessly isn't a viable long-term strategy, I'd expect there to be more 'divide et impera' in this ATL. A simple case of Britain using the carrot and the stick: the various groups in India are played against each other, with those who co-operate promised a path to independence as Commonwealth nations. (And the ones who cause trouble get the stick, obviously.) I'd expect the British to encourage regionalist "nationalisms", and to discourage universalist "Pan-Indian" movements. Considering the premise of the ATL, it should be possible to steer things to a meaningful degree.
I have done some work on an scenario where this more-or-less happens (there is one World War, earlier than in OTL, but Britain largely stays out and actually profits hugely by joining the winning side at the very end). In that scenario, Britain undermines the Indian independence movement by the aforementioned carrot-and-stick approach, fostering the separatist Muslim independence movement and manipulating/encouraging a "Pan-Dravidian" movement (largely by making a sort of federalism and a respect for the sanctity of the existing Princely States conditions for British support, which hems in Tamil surpremacy to an extent that makes the other Southern Indian peoples more confortable with the idea). This leads to the collapse of the Pan-Indian independence movement; its core transforming into a rather embittered Hindu nationalism. (Which only turns off some other minor players, so we get independent Sikkim et cetera.)
The Dravidian League gets independence first, which has the proponents of the (very ambitious) Muslim state -- Mughalistan -- scrambling to get British support as well, while the Hindu nationalists get screwed over in a horrible fashion. (They even have to watch as the restored Maratha Confederacy cuts a deal!) The civil war in Northern India is extremely bloody (in fact, the bloodiest single conflict in the 20th century). With British support, Mughalistan largely beats the partisans of Azad Hind, which turns to a very nasty brand of Hindutva radicalism. And along the slopes of the Himalaya, we have a chain of minor states, doing their best to remain out of this horrible mess.
The civil war and its resolution, side by side:
A decidely divided India; any kind of re-unification is practically unthinkable.
(This is of course purely fanciful; a fictional scenario. But not one I'd consider implausible under the circumstances of the ATL.)
As usual, the good old "no world wars" suffices. The blow to the European empires that was dealt by the First World War in particular can hardly be over-estimated. The Second World War thus saw the stage quite prepared for independence movements to arise-- and indeed they did. After that, the genie was out of the bottle, and couldn't be forced back in. Holding on to India had become in impossibility. In this context, the British weren't quite the Machiavellian schemers playing at 'divide et impera' that some Indian nationalists have pained them to be (British policy was far too muddled for that to be true), but it certainly was understood that an independent Muslim state would serve the British interest. Playing off multiple states against each other would be more conducive to maintaining a British foothold (in the form of indirect influence) than facing a post-colonial India consisting of essentially the whole former Raj.
Now, for the ATL scenario. No World Wars. This doesn't change the fact that colonialism is going to run out of time. There are naturally ways to maintain an Empire, but no matter which way you turn, this requires steps Britain wouldn't be able or willing to take. (Option one is ruthless oppression; whatever you may say of the British Empire, I don't see them going "full Draka", and to keep an unwilling India under your heel, you'd have to. Option two is full -- or nearly full, in any case -- representation of India in an Imperial Federation; I don't see the Brits willing to become a minor state within an Indian Empire, and that would be the certain outcome. Option three is a "Commonwealth Plus" arrangement, with an India under home rule but still involved in the Empire/Commonwealth to a considerable degree; this is the only viable way, but I observe that European nations didn't have the clarity of mind to go for it in OTL, even when it was a realistic option-- as such, I don't pin my hopes on this outcome.)
That leaves a delayed but still inevitable decolonisation. By this point, pressure has been building steadily. Not hit by the World Wars, and able to dedicate its full attention, Britain will have gotten used to suppressing the dissent. Since crushing it ruthlessly isn't a viable long-term strategy, I'd expect there to be more 'divide et impera' in this ATL. A simple case of Britain using the carrot and the stick: the various groups in India are played against each other, with those who co-operate promised a path to independence as Commonwealth nations. (And the ones who cause trouble get the stick, obviously.) I'd expect the British to encourage regionalist "nationalisms", and to discourage universalist "Pan-Indian" movements. Considering the premise of the ATL, it should be possible to steer things to a meaningful degree.
I have done some work on an scenario where this more-or-less happens (there is one World War, earlier than in OTL, but Britain largely stays out and actually profits hugely by joining the winning side at the very end). In that scenario, Britain undermines the Indian independence movement by the aforementioned carrot-and-stick approach, fostering the separatist Muslim independence movement and manipulating/encouraging a "Pan-Dravidian" movement (largely by making a sort of federalism and a respect for the sanctity of the existing Princely States conditions for British support, which hems in Tamil surpremacy to an extent that makes the other Southern Indian peoples more confortable with the idea). This leads to the collapse of the Pan-Indian independence movement; its core transforming into a rather embittered Hindu nationalism. (Which only turns off some other minor players, so we get independent Sikkim et cetera.)
The Dravidian League gets independence first, which has the proponents of the (very ambitious) Muslim state -- Mughalistan -- scrambling to get British support as well, while the Hindu nationalists get screwed over in a horrible fashion. (They even have to watch as the restored Maratha Confederacy cuts a deal!) The civil war in Northern India is extremely bloody (in fact, the bloodiest single conflict in the 20th century). With British support, Mughalistan largely beats the partisans of Azad Hind, which turns to a very nasty brand of Hindutva radicalism. And along the slopes of the Himalaya, we have a chain of minor states, doing their best to remain out of this horrible mess.
The civil war and its resolution, side by side:
A decidely divided India; any kind of re-unification is practically unthinkable.
(This is of course purely fanciful; a fictional scenario. But not one I'd consider implausible under the circumstances of the ATL.)
