No Partition of India

[Flocculencio]

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

As Thande said, it doesn't. De jure illegal, de facto varying in application.

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

Arguably OTL is already Bollywank. Again, not much change- Bollywood remains the biggest, local film industries still thrive.

Linguistically, as Thande said, you'd probably see Urdu remaining the prestige dialect of Hindustani instead of OTLs Sanskritisation of Hindi. English remains the inter ethnic neutral language

 

[Flocculencio]

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?

Yes, one imagines that this would be the main condition Jinnah et al would need.

How about if they adopted a constitution based on that of the US?

 

[eschaton]

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 colonization 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.

I think it's hard to say, given Indian history, that keeping all of the North East provinces under control has been easy. Hell, the Indian government bombed its own citizens in 1966 when Mizoram attempted to gain independence. Mind you, less than 100 rebels were killed, but it's the only time it happened in Indian history. Manipur still has at least seven active insurgencies to this day, and part of the reason they've been so unsuccessful is merely because the different ethnic groups have different desires (the Manipuri want an independent states, the Nagas want to be added to Nagaland, the Kukis their own state, etc).

As to you later point, I do get your point, as all post-colonial nations are, to a degree, imagined communities. That said, it's hard to see what would link together the "Indian" identity beyond shared British colonial history, and I do wonder in the long run if holding onto Burma would be worth it for India in the longer run, as with that many ethnic groups so far away from New Delhi, something is probably going to go quite wrong eventually.

 

[eschaton]

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+?

Well, all had different relationships with Britain. Nepal was an independent state with which Britain signed a treaty of friendship in 1923. Bhutan was technically a princely state, but in practice independent. The Maldives were a protectorate independent of the Raj.

In terms of incorporation, in all cases probably doing away with the monarchy is a must. I could see Nepal and the Maldives doing so ITTL if it was considered worthwhile. Bhutan is a harder sell, since it's less culturally akin, but with so many more diverse peoples in India, perhaps even this wouldn't be out of the question.

 

[Flocculencio]

I think it's hard to say, given Indian history, that keeping all of the North East provinces under control has been easy. Hell, the Indian government bombed its own citizens in 1966 when Mizoram attempted to gain independence. Mind you, less than 100 rebels were killed, but it's the only time it happened in Indian history. Manipur still has at least seven active insurgencies to this day, and part of the reason they've been so unsuccessful is merely because the different ethnic groups have different desires (the Manipuri want an independent states, the Nagas want to be added to Nagaland, communities. That said, it's hard to see what would link together the "Indian" identity beyond shared British colonial history, and I do wonder in the long run if holding onto Burma would be worth it for India in the longer run, as with that many ethnic groups so far away from New Delhi, something is probably going to go quite wrong eventually.

I understand what you mean but I think that while there will be some unrest abd conflict locally, the incorporation of Burma as a whole is doable- if the ethnic Burmese are placated with their own state within the Indian Federation that just leaves the minorities who, as you say, will probably be in the same position as India's northeastern minorities. Its not an ideal situation but not one that will bring down the entire country and more than the Manipuri situation IOTL has.

Incidentally, the Indian Army may help here. These areas are going to be part of India's most vulnerable border with China. One suspects that there'll be substantial military investment and recruiting in the region (which IOTL always played second fiddle to the Palistani border). This might serve as a way of integrating these disparate ethnic groups into the larger Indian identity.

 

[Iori]

(which IOTL always played second fiddle to the Palistani border).

Palestine has been ISOT'd to South Asia?!

 

[Flocculencio]

Palestine has been ISOT'd to South Asia?!

Apologies for typos. I'm typing all this on my iPhone while invigilating a Literature exam.

 

[Iori]

Apologies for typos. I'm typing all this on my iPhone while invigilating a Literature exam.

Tsk tsk, teachers should follow the same rules as students.

 

[ivanotter]

The one fact which I looked is that it woulod have some 1,6 bilion people.

It would be bigger than China.

I would love to see the follow-on fromt here. Will it be the prferred trading partner of US?

Will a Unitied India's industrial base (and development) be different?
Will we see an India becoming a "Japan" in terms of industrial capacity and high-tech?

If US is not focused on China (leaving it alone), but on India, will the US still have an involvement in Korea? Vietnam?

Will India still puruse the bomb?

Ivan

 

[Iori]

The one fact which I looked is that it woulod have some 1,6 bilion people.
It would be bigger than China.

India OTL is projected to reach 1.6 billion sometime during the 2040's and will surpass China to become the most populous country around 2030.

Just though I'd put that out their for perspective and ATL considerations.

Will we see an India becoming a "Japan" in terms of industrial capacity and high-tech?

It has the potential to become an economic giant in the long term (crash industrialization is never a good idea, just look at China and Russia when they did so), however Japan itself is a unique case and not something that India could copy.

Will India still puruse the bomb?

IOTL India developed its nuclear weapons program as a result of China's doing so, so it's very likely they will ITTL.

 

[Ak-84]

The problem is, for this ever to succeed, you need a very very very weak Central Government, dealing with defence, foreign affairs, currency inter state tranportation and not much else. That on its own will raise secessionist tendencies.

A more practical approach would be for there to remain a British Raj, but one where the powers have all been transferred to elected Governments in the provinces, which is what exactly the British intended.

 

[Flocculencio]

The problem is, for this ever to succeed, you need a very very very weak Central Government, dealing with defence, foreign affairs, currency inter state tranportation and not much else. That on its own will raise secessionist tendencies.

I don't think so- a government with about as much state autonomy as the US would probably suffice. As it is, IOTL, Indian states have quite a lot of power. With a POD in the 1910s or 20s, and more success for the secularist elements on all sides, this would be doable. You'd see Hindu and Muslim nationalist parties win in local elections (just as Hindu and ethnic nationalist parties have IOTL India) but I suspect that this could quite well be a workable dynamic with voters tending to vote for local parties locally but with totally different concerns nationally.

A more practical approach would be for there to remain a British Raj, but one where the powers have all been transferred to elected Governments in the provinces, which is what exactly the British intended.

Leaving aside the intentions of the Raj (I don't want this to devolve into a cost/benefit analysis of Imperialism), transferring power to elected governments would have the same effect- these elected governments would have to respond to the pressures put on them by their electorates which would have demanded the same things.

 

[Flocculencio]

The one fact which I looked is that it woulod have some 1,6 bilion people.

It would be bigger than China.

I would love to see the follow-on fromt here. Will it be the prferred trading partner of US?

IOTL Eisenhower's administration was quite warm to India- it was only the Indo-Pakistani War which really scotched things. ITTL, I suspect that with the CCP driving the KMT from China, the US is going to look around for a counterbalance in Asia and India is going to be the best choice.

A US that seriously supports decolonisation efforts, working together diplomatically with India will gain serious Afro-Asian credibility. ITTL the Soviets may not have quite as much influence in the Third World. The example I brought up earlier was India and the US helping negotiate an end to the Indochinese War with Ho Chi Minh becoming a US ally (as he tried to IOTL).

Will a Unitied India's industrial base (and development) be different?
Will we see an India becoming a "Japan" in terms of industrial capacity and high-tech?

I think a lot of this depends on how the US handles economic aid and how India's economists react to this.

If US is not focused on China (leaving it alone), but on India, will the US still have an involvement in Korea? Vietnam?

If the DPRK invades South Korea the US will still have to step up to maintain credibility- remember, that was a clear cut case of defending an ally from aggression. The fact that they got overconfident and tried to push to the Yalu doesn't belie the earlier objective.

As for Vietnam, a good case scenario would be the one I posited earlier.

Will India still puruse the bomb?

Highly likely.

Something to think about is the effect this will have on China. Will there still be a Sino-Soviet Split if China feels encircled ITTL- if Vietnam goes into the US camp and South Korea is successfully defended, China will have US allies on all it's borders except the Soviet one.

 

[tchizek]

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.

Okay yes they would have Afghanistan in the way - although in places the 'way' would be less than 10 miles. I would count that as a neighbor, if they can shell me without leaving their territory it counts as a neighbor (even if they choose not to).

 

[Flocculencio]

Okay yes they would have Afghanistan in the way - although in places the 'way' would be less than 10 miles. I would count that as a neighbor, if they can shell me without leaving their territory it counts as a neighbor (even if they choose not to).

Well, it's not so much about absolute distance but, yes, I think with just Afghanistan as a buffer, the USSr will be too close for comfort. As someone else said, Indian basically inherits the Raj's Great Game anxieties.

 

[Ganesha]

I agree with everything Flocculencio has said thus far in this thread. I too see no particular reason the Burmese could not be successfully incorporated into a united India.

Flocc, what POD were you thinking of specifically? Mowque and I were discussing the effects of Gandhi remaining in South Africa. I figured that would put less pressure on Nehru, and also make him less paranoid about political rivalry from Gandhi. By the 1930s, that could result in better relations between Nehru and Jinnah, and a better chance that Nehru gives up on his idea of a highly federal, socialist state.

 

[Flocculencio]

I agree with everything Flocculencio has said thus far in this thread. I too see no particular reason the Burmese could not be successfully incorporated into a united India.

Flocc, what POD were you thinking of specifically? Mowque and I were discussing the effects of Gandhi remaining in South Africa. I figured that would put less pressure on Nehru, and also make him less paranoid about political rivalry from Gandhi. By the 1930s, that could result in better relations between Nehru and Jinnah, and a better chance that Nehru gives up on his idea of a highly federal, socialist state.

Gandhi remaining in South Africa sets off a whole huge range of butterflies though. Plus, compromising the whole nonviolent ethos of the Independence process would likely lead to more tensions not less.

Maybe an upswelling of support from South India? Religious tensions in the South were always far less and if some South Indian leaders, both Hindu and Muslim, can come into the limelight they might be able to form a bridge between Congress and the League

 

[Flocculencio]

I agree with everything Flocculencio has said thus far in this thread. I too see no particular reason the Burmese could not be successfully incorporated into a united India.

Flocc, what POD were you thinking of specifically? Mowque and I were discussing the effects of Gandhi remaining in South Africa. I figured that would put less pressure on Nehru, and also make him less paranoid about political rivalry from Gandhi. By the 1930s, that could result in better relations between Nehru and Jinnah, and a better chance that Nehru gives up on his idea of a highly federal, socialist state.

Gandhi remaining in South Africa sets off a whole huge range of butterflies though. Plus, compromising the whole nonviolent ethos of the Independence process would likely lead to more tensions not less.

Maybe an upswelling of support from South India? Religious tensions in the South were always far less and if some South Indian leaders, both Hindu and Muslim, can come into the limelight they might be able to form a bridge between Congress and the League

 

[Flocculencio]

I'm actually rather interested on the repercussions of an US-aligned (or at least US friendly) India on the Sino-Soviet relationship.

Also, repercussions in SE Asia will be extremely interesting. If Vietnam achieves unity under a nationalist Ho Chi Minh, friendly to the US and India, what are the implications for the rest of Indochina. Decolonisation in SE Asia may also be somewhat modified with Malaysia, Singapore (if Singapore is kicked out of Malaysia ITTL) and perhaps Indonesia looking to India as a sort of leader of the decolonised bloc.

An interesting thought occurred to me re Africa- Indians were often economic elites in East Africa. Could resentment against Indians and perceived Indian friendliness with the US lead African nationalists back to Moscow?

 

[Flocculencio]

Also, let me see if I can get some of the hardware geeks in on this. An American-aligned India is probably going to get it's military hardware from the US and one wonders what sort of stuff they'd be getting. Presumably Indo-European relations would be a bit less pleasant since India will have positioned itself as being unfriendly to the colonial powers so no French or British equipment, perhaps.