No Partition of India

Is it plausible, with a post-1900 POD, to have India gain independence roughly on schedule without partition to a majority-Hindu and a majority-Muslim state?
 
I would say It is quite easily possible but that this united greater India may terribly suffer from remaining "united".
 
Is it plausible, with a post-1900 POD, to have India gain independence roughly on schedule without partition to a majority-Hindu and a majority-Muslim state?

With a POD starting from January 1st, 1900, it's totally doable to have India remain united (or at least, modern day India and Pakistan to remain united) post-British withdrawal.
 
If you weaken the Muslim League enough, I would think that a loose federation would be perfectly plausible - and the Muslim League really gained power when Congress started boycotting elections in protest at Linlithgow's declaration of war without consultation...
 

DaHound22

Banned
I would t say it's ASB. With enough stretching of the imagination you can work with any thread you like (almost). However I fear that something like this might resort in genocides of epic proportions (huge populations in India and Pakistan). There's no way they get along, I mean even with the partition their still at each other throats constantly
 
I would t say it's ASB. With enough stretching of the imagination you can work with any thread you like (almost). However I fear that something like this might resort in genocides of epic proportions (huge populations in India and Pakistan). There's no way they get along, I mean even with the partition their still at each other throats constantly
I agree. Had the British simply turned over the keys and said we're done (as they did in much of Africa and the Caribbean) and gone, no hard feeling chaps, well, it would have got ugly, PDQ.
 
Jinnah Dies in 1938

Have Jinnah die in 1938, and much of the spark for Moslem League independence agitation is gone. (Not there wouldn't be problems later on, of course.)
 
It would be easier to do if somehow the Baloch and Pashtun areas were administered separately or not at all (not even in name) by Britain.
 

UKFA

Banned
Yes, but I think it would balkanise almost inevitably, and dare I say be even more catastrophic than in the OTL.
 
If there was greater interest from US or Soviets to control the whole area it might be possible. Bringing lots of dollars or rubles, to prop up the Indian government to keep the India intact, would help. OTL it was too insignificant for the amount of resources that it would need to change its course.
 
Before the outbreak of WWII, the Muslim League didn't have much political support and the Indian National Congress almost had the monopoly of popular support. In the provincial elections conducted in 1937, the Congress had swept almost all the provinces including the Pakhtoon region (thanks to Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan). When the World War started and the Viceroy declared that India too was a part of it without consulting the Congress, all the provincial ministries of Congress resigned and Mahatma Gandhi proclaimed the Quit India movement. All the Congress leaders were jailed and the activities of the Congress were suppressed. This gave Jinnah and his Muslim League who supported the Government total freedom to travel across the country and spread their message without any resistance. By the time, the WWII was over and the restrictions over the Congress were removed, the League had become much stronger. Jinnah raised his demand for a separate homeland for Muslims and the British Government gave him covert support. In a scenario where WWII hadn't occurred or India had won independence before WWII, chances for the partition were very weak. The slogan of 'Pakistan' gained popularity only after it was taken over by Jinnah and that too during and after the WWII.
 
Top