No Partition of India

[mowque]

I think the effect on Islam would be immense. You'd have a clear cut case of Islam working as minority country. Depending on how this India turned out, it could either temper Muslim radicalism (Look, India works without fundamentalists in power!) or inflame it (Look how misrepresented we are in India!).

 

[King Gorilla]

It will also be interesting seeing the internal politics of such a nation. The muslim majority states of greater Bengal/Punjab will likely be India's most populous. It wouldn't surprise me if sub-nation political parties in both states would eventually come to supersede the Indian national congress although such a development might very well embolden Hindu nationalists.

 

[Kalan]

I know all of this. The main languages in Pakistan, Bangledesh, the Maldives, and Sri Lanka are all Indo-European however, which means they're closer in some ways to North India than the latter is to South India. Only around six million Indians speek Tibeto-Burman languages, and they indeed live on the fringes (Himalayan foothills or Burmese Border) and don't have much in common with India culturally. It's just aside from the Manipuri they're not numerous enough to cause trouble or clamor for their own states.

But the much more numerous Darvidians, who inhabit a continous territory in the south also never split from India. So why would the burmese?

 

[stewacide]

Burma is obviously the odd-man-out. I don't see that going well at all.

 

[octaviuz]

No, maybe, no.

There is no indian language, but several dozens which even belong to four different language families, (incidently one of those four families is called tibeto-burman). When in 1965 Hindi was about to become the only official language of india at a federal level, there was strong opposition, and the parlament decided to continue the usage of both English and Hindi as official languages.

You can make an argument that there is a common indian culture (like there is a european), but if you do than the definition can easily include Burma as well.

There is no single ethnicity either. The northern parts are descendants of the indo-aryan, the south of the darvidian and the slopes of the Himalaya are inhabited by the afromentioned tibeto-burman peoples.

As a matter of politics, there are really only two language families in India and the failure of the Dravidian movement to spread outside of Tamil Nadu suggests that North and South do perceive a sense of shared identity. This is not to say that people from Kerala and Kashmir are the same, but I think there is something more to the idea of India than a mere accident of geography.
I apologize to the Sikkimese and speakers of the several Munda languages for my assertion that India has only two language families but as a matter of simple demography, the addition of Burma would merely make those other language communities a bit less marginal. That is especially true since this scenario also envisions the addition of millions of Punjabi, Bengali and Sinhala speakers (all part of the Indo-Aryan family of course).

 

[tchizek]

This would have some very interesting ripple effects especially in the US. I can see India being a much more important trading partner and ally in the '50's and '60's under this situation. Someone above mentioned the possibility of a brokered deal with US/India hosting (pressuring) France/Ho Chi Minh (ah it was Flocculencio...) into a peace deal/decolonisation if this happens the butterflies grow large.

Also I suspect this super India would also be a Football (aka Soccer) powerhouse as well .

 

[eschaton]

But the much more numerous Darvidians, who inhabit a continous territory in the south also never split from India. So why would the burmese?

Because the Dravidian areas had a long common history with the Indo-European ones. Many, many Indian states encompassed parts of North and South India. They also shared common Vedic roots, even though in portions of greater India Hinduism was superseded by other religions.

In contrast, Burma's entire history, up until British colonization, was separate. No Indian empire ever stretched into Burma. The Bamar seem to have converted straight to Buddhism without a past history of Hinduism, unlike many other peoples in Indonesia and Malaysia. Only a written script of ultimately Vedic origin links them well to India, although all of Southeast Asia (minus Vietnam and the Philippines) shares this.

Really, Arakan is the only region of Burma which had especially close links with India, owing to its location on the Bay of Bengal. Around 25% of the population is Muslim owing to the historic ties with Bangladesh. But this is the exception.

Edit: Trying to come up with a parallel, this is sort of like arguing that the Kazakhstanis are a European people.

 

[Thande]

This would have some very interesting ripple effects especially in the US. I can see India being a much more important trading partner and ally in the '50's and '60's under this situation. Someone above mentioned the possibility of a brokered deal with US/India hosting (pressuring) France/Ho Chi Minh (ah it was Flocculencio...) into a peace deal/decolonisation if this happens the butterflies grow large.

Not sure; I suspect Super-India will still have the socialist approach and mildly pro-Soviet attitudes that turned the US off in OTL.

Also I suspect this super India would also be a Football (aka Soccer) powerhouse as well .

No--India is already the second most populous country in OTL and is irrelevant in football, it's just not a big sport there. Super-India would totally dominate cricket though, to the extent that they might be asked to create split-up regional teams like how England competes separately to the other home nations.

 

[TxCoatl1970]

Sweet idea!

I love the idea. The India-Pakistan split is a fault line that threatens more than just its South Asian neighbors causing needless suffering IOTL.

However, I'm afraid we're making a space-filling empire here if we include Burma.
I'm completely aboard with how the Karen and other non-Burman groups in Burma would love having a counterweight to Burman domination by all being little fish in the Indian sea, but the centrifugal pressures would be tough to manage for India.
Plus, India has a long tradition of letting the local bosses handle things without a lot of supervision.
So iI argue that in this case, the non-Burmese minorities 'd be even more marginalized and exploited in Indian-absorbed Burma, when the Burmese could call in federal reinforcements.
Not impossible, mind you, just IIRC, the Burmese wanted independence for themselves and weren't part of the INC.
You'd need a lot more proselytization and collaboration between Indian and Burmese activists from 1930 on. IMO, it's much more likely Burma and India having a free-trade agreement, customs union, and so forth but allowing Burma to be a friendly neighbor ruling itself rather than a headache to rule from Delhi.

Also, I like the idea of India and the US getting together on a platform of de-colonialization and so forth, butterflying away the Vietnam War. A tasty development there, avoiding the myriad casualties thereof.

 

[Kalvan]

Could this larger India remain united even in the absence of a convenient next-door nemesis which in OTL has been Pakistan? You once seemed to imply that India needs an enemy to stay together, it would be interesting if it could manage it even without cultivating an external threat.

Well, you have Iran, you have the Soviet Union if they decide to interfere in Afganistan, you have China, and you even have Islamic moderates and more pro-caste system Hindus in Malaysia and Indonesia. Depending on if this can butterfly the Malagasy getting their $#!+ together, you possibly have Madagascar in a Great Game for the Indian Ocean too!

 

[glenn67]

Just wondering how a super India affects the Hindu caste system.

This will probably also have an effect on the country's cinematic industry. Bollywank anyone?

 

[Thande]

Just wondering how a super India affects the Hindu caste system.

It doesn't. Remember even OTL's smaller India includes nearly as many Muslims as there are in Pakistan (in other words, virtually the entire population of Pakistan). The Hindus have historically found slots to jam people from other religions into.

 

[tchizek]

Not sure; I suspect Super-India will still have the socialist approach and mildly pro-Soviet attitudes that turned the US off in OTL.

Well I have to wonder how pro-Soviet they would be sharing a border with the USSR. That had a tendency to reduce the "pro-Sovietness" of a country over time. So maybe not in the 1950's by probably by the 1960's and 1970's they would be getting tired of the Soviets - maybe a similar timeline as China or a bit quicker as the Americans and the Indians actually have more in common - Democratic, Breakaway colony of Britain, language, enjoy games that use bats, distrust of things French.

No--India is already the second most populous country in OTL and is irrelevant in football, it's just not a big sport there. Super-India would totally dominate cricket though, to the extent that they might be asked to create split-up regional teams like how England competes separately to the other home nations.

Ah not being a Football fan (except when the World Cup is going on) I was unaware. Thanks for clearing that up.

Tom.

 

[Thande]

Well I have to wonder how pro-Soviet they would be sharing a border with the USSR. That had a tendency to reduce the "pro-Sovietness" of a country over time.

It doesn't share a border with the USSR, Afghanistan is in the way. Suppose there could be a sort of Great Game renewal on that score though.

 

[Iori]

So while Hindus would be a plurality they would only be just over half the population. "India" would also have almost half the world's Muslim population.

If they constitute just over half they'd be the majority, not plurality.

 

[Flocculencio]

Seconded. I don't see how you keep Burma in a United India.

It's feasible to see a collective "Indian" identity which encompasses OTL India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives. Three might be Muslim, one Hindu, and one Buddhist, but all share common links of language, culture, and ethnicity

In contrast, Burma is very different. The people are clearly of a different "race." The culture has been influenced by India, but not much more than Thailand or Indonesia. I just don't see how you work them into a collective Indian identity.

But this could equally be said for the people of OTL North-East India. Hell, you could even argue that the culture of South India is as different from that of North India as 'Indian' culture is collectively from Burmese. Its important to note that it was the Independence movement that got all the ethnicities thinking of themselves as Indian first and Malayalee/Punjabi/etc second. I see no reason why this couldn't be done in Burma. The Burmese, after all, would still have a lot of control over their internal affairs and would even get to use their own language. For a comparable situation look at Tamil Nadu which has always been suspicious of cultural colonisation from Delhi- they kept their own practices internally (even to the point of pretty much refusing to use or teach Hindi) but work perfectly well within the union.

 

[couldawouldashoulda]

would Nepal, Bhutan, and the Maldives ever be considered for incorporation into this super india? it might have to be called mega india after that. Or maybe that's when it gets afghanistan somehow... Also, wasn't the Sikkim kingdom in between Nepal and Bhutan technically independent until the end of the Sino-Indian war in the 60s? Did they get brought in early to this India+?

 

[Flocculencio]

It doesn't share a border with the USSR, Afghanistan is in the way. Suppose there could be a sort of Great Game renewal on that score though.

My thoughts were that the USSR is now that much closer and therefore not such a great candidate as an ally- and also a useful external threat for nation building purposes.

RE Indo-US relations, its notable that their leftyness didn't seem to bother Eisenhower who was quite friendly to India. It was the Indo-pakistani wars which really seemed to piss off the US.

 

[Iori]

would Nepal, Bhutan, and the Maldives ever be considered for incorporation into this super india? it might have to be called mega india after that. Or maybe that's when it gets afghanistan somehow... Also, wasn't the Sikkim kingdom in between Nepal and Bhutan technically independent until the end of the Sino-Indian war in the 60s? Did they get brought in early to this India+?

Sikkim was independent until the 70's when they voted to join India.

Nepal and Bhutan were seperate Protectorates that were not part of the Raj.

 

[Faeelin]

My thoughts were that the USSR is now that much closer and therefore not such a great candidate as an ally- and also a useful external threat for nation building purposes.

RE Indo-US relations, its notable that their leftyness didn't seem to bother Eisenhower who was quite friendly to India. It was the Indo-pakistani wars which really seemed to piss off the US.

One thing which occurs to me is that India's gonna have to be federal to survive. (IMO part of the partition can be attributed to Nehru wanting a unitary, centralized state and not a true confederation).

This might not be all bad, though; imagine if the Bombay province can pursue less of a license raj from the 50s onward?