Potential effects of a non-partitioned Indian Sub-continent

A very straight forward 'what-if'. The Indian subcontinent does not get partitioned into India and Pakistan, instead it gains independence as a single country sometime after 1900.

What are all the possible and serious post 1900 PoDs which can result in the sub-continent not being partitioned?

What is your opinion on the nature, political structure, and potential of such a geopolitical entity?

How will it be shaped by the world and how will the world be influenced by it?

What will be its impact on South Asia, Asia and the world as a whole in the 20th and 21st century?

Looking forward to your answers. :)
 
What a cricket team!

Australia wold be annihilated (good for them!)
icon7.gif


Ivan
 
What a cricket team!

Australia wold be annihilated (good for them!)
icon7.gif


Ivan

Well there still would South African team to contend with :p But a unified India with a independence post-WW2 would not include countries like Sri Lanka, so that might prevent 'super-India' from absolutely dominating cricket.

It is also possible cricket never really reaches OTL levels of popularity. Field hockey was immensely popular early on and is india's national sport, thanks to the olympic gold in 1928. And then there is also football/soccer. :)
 
Boom-Boom playing in IPL!
icon10.gif


Ok, back to being serious:

It will surely mean that the nuclear developments will either not take place or be vastly different. That is a major step and will also mean less military spending (maybe!).

Kashmir will not be contested.

The Congress party will have to somehow accommodate the Muslim North-West (Pakistan), which might lead to some coalition governments as far as I read it.

If we fast-forward to the end of the 1970's we need to look at India's attitude towards the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Would India (by default) be used a refuge for the Mujahedin? If so, that should strain the relations in BRIC.

How accommodating can India be towards the Muslim North without getting into conflict with the Hindu voter base.

If the political will is there, we might see an India becoming the dominant economy in 1990's?

Ivan
 
would thus greater India try to expand itself?
perhaps trying to annex Afghanistan and/or parts of Iran?
joining into Chinese civil war to get Tibet? how about Nepal and Bhutan?
it would be cool thought.
have fun!
 
A greater India would absolutely be better off - it would avoid the ruinous damage of the partitions and the Indo-Pakistani wars - also a border wouldn't be running through one of the economic hearts of the subcontinent (thereby stifling trade), so the Punjab wouldn't be reduced to the shadow of its former self that it is in these days (though it is recovering). How much better off does depend on any number of imponderables - the level of institutional corruption a united country would experience, what insurgencies it might be dogged by, the poor choices its leaders might make.

It would also be much less distracted - OTL pretty much everything India and Pakistan have is focused on each-other, which means that the subcontinent's impact on the rest of the world is muffled. A united India would likely be more active internationally (quite possibly meaning no non-aligned movement as we know it, if it makes a bit to be recognized as a great power), would have a very different military structure (likely the navy would be a bit larger), would have more of a history of intervening in neighbours' affairs (starting with Burma, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka). The Indo-Chinese rivalry might also be more significant.

fasquardon
 
Would East-Pakistan (Bangladesh) be a part of the un-divided India?

Adding Pakistan's 180 million and Bangladesh' 156 million to India's population creates a HUGE country

If India gets close to USA, China might perceive itself as being 'crowded' between India and USSR.

non-aligned might be a good idea.

Ivan
 
That'll cause huge butterflies.

And an India which borders Afghanistan may butterfly away (or cause an even greater Soviet-Afghan War).

Will we see the Gandhi-Nehru dynasty?

Will a Muslim party (which will probably perpetually be in opposition) arise as an early counterweight to Congress? I believe that Muslims generally support Congress but a greater number of Muslims in India may change this.
 
@Ivanotter well nuclear development was inevitable. The Indian subcontinent is not spectacularly rich in hydrocarbons, although coal is plentiful in central india. Maybe the equivalent of the OTL 70s oil shock can nudge Unified India to a more pro-nuclear energy policy.

As for the bomb, well obviously if China has one then India will have to get one.

Kashmir will be pretty much like the rest of the muslim majority areas in the indian subcontinent. In other words, tensions will exist but won't be overwhelming. Also the absence of a Muslim State and a nuclear power like pakistan will certainly dent the ideology of Islamism in the long run.

If the Soviets invade Afghanistan we can easily see india playing a role similar to pakistan OTL. Being neighbours with Russia or the Soviet union was never an appealing idea for any country.

India is already surprisingly accommodating to its muslim populace. And there is a very simple reason for it.
Something called 'Vote-Bank' politics is very popular in India OTL; i don't see it being any different ITTL. This vote-bank politics basically is that people vote for candidates for their own community whether it be religious, ethnic or caste based community, instead of voting on ideological lines. This was very prevalent until the last election.
So a candidate who appeals to a certain section of voters, through his connections with the community will most certainly get the votes of that specific community. Such communities are thus called a 'vote-bank' for the candidate.
And among the most valued vote banks are the muslim community in OTL India. The reason being is that not only do they vote for a specific candidate who appeals to their community, they vote uniformly, i.e., all of them vote for one candidate or the other, in large numbers and vote nationwide for the same party as the candidate.
This has resulted in indian muslims getting a lot of benefits, most of which are tbh meaningless but are appealing to many muslims.
For example, Pakistan an Islamic republic charges a tax on Muslims going on the Haj ( most important islamic pilgrimage ) while in India the muslims get a tax break, or even government funding, apart from boarding and lodging and special trains, planes and ships for their journey.

We could have seen OTL india become a major economy by the mid to late-80s if it was not so grossly mis-ruled post independence.
A unified India, ruled by a string of capable leaders, would most definitely be a major economy by the late 60s - early 70s, perhaps even the second largest by the 80s.

@vital.peacekeeper While political annexation and expansion into Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bhutan are unlikely, economic hegemony of the economies can't be ruled out. OTL India is already one the two largest trading partners of all three countries, ITTL it will be even more dominant.

Annexation is unlikely as there is little historical precedent for it in Indian History. Most powers that rose in the sub-continent were content with ruling most if not all of the sub-continent. They rarely expanded beyond the subcontinent (exceptions being the Cholas in the south, whole basically had no more room to grow but for expanding into southeast asia)

I think it will be more likely that india instead tries to create a EEC style customs union with most of south and southeast asia. After economic domination was the name of the game in the later half of the 20th century.

Iran could be a potential rival of India, especially if Iran goes red in the 50s.

As for tibet, well it wouldn't hurt to have a speed bump between China and India. America will surely approve, especially if India grows closer to the US earlier on, ITTL.

@fasquardon yes everything that you just said. You are pretty much right on the dime with your analysis.

@ramones1986 The whole world shall gyrate to hip-swaying tunes of Indian pop-culture!! :D :p

@King Nazar IMHO, quite possibly. Being neighbours of russia has had a history of turning friends into enemies. I don't see how the Indians won't be threatened by a Soviet presence in Afghanistan. Especially if communist insurgencies break out, then that will certainly push india into the pro-US bloc.
Secondly, most of British India's capitalist class was based in the provinces of Bengal, Sindh and Punjab, apart from Gujarat and Bombay. With them being around, i can expect a stronger anti-socialist political force to be present earlier on in Indian political history. Maybe congress is less socialist ITTL in order to get funding from the rich businessmen in the aforementioned states.
So closer ties with the US cannot be ruled out.

Looking forward to continuing this discussion! :)
 
@ramones1986 The whole world shall gyrate to hip-swaying tunes of Indian pop-culture!! :D :p
I'm actually thinking of a more vibrant Doordashan, producing TV dramas earlier because the people who became part of Pakistan Television OTL would be crucial on the development of Indian state TV, especially if DD has production studios, not just both Mumbai and Delhi, but also Karachi.
 
@ivanotter yes by Undivided india i meant OTL India + Pakistan + Bangladesh.

And yes it will be an enormous country. Definitely a major threat to China and definitely a potential challenger to Chinese domination of Asia.

Non-aligned is and never was a good idea. No country has ever dominated the world acting all by itself. Everyone needs strong allies.

@Marius Yeah Soviet-Afghan war would be completely different, and yet very much the same.

As for the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty, which came to be only because of a very particular sequence of events IOTL, i doubt it shall ever have an equivalent ITTL.
Firstly because Nehru himself would most likely be a much smaller political figure ITTL and secondly because coalition politics will be a major driver of politics ITTL from the outset itself. So the domination by the congress of Indian politics in the early years won't happen.

A muslim party could very well be in the government. Currently the muslim parties which won in Kashmir are in solid political alliance with the right-wing nationalist Hindu party in the Central government. But as a counterweight to the Congress, at least initially just after independence, will not happen.
 
I'm actually thinking of a more vibrant Doordashan, producing TV dramas earlier because the people who became part of Pakistan Television OTL would be crucial on the development of Indian state TV, especially if DD has production studios, not just both Mumbai and Delhi, but also Karachi.

Combine that with economic prosperity and a more capitalist market economy driven economic model and television could potentially become really big by the mid 80s in India, over fifteen years before OTL.
 
Combine that with economic prosperity and a more capitalist market economy driven economic model and television could potentially become really big by the mid 80s in India, over fifteen years before OTL.
And also the early introduction of color TV, from sets to broadcasts.
 
Kalki, That is a very very great analysis of all those complex issues.

Here is a curved ball:

If we look at the developments in the 70's, and we anticipate that India is reasonable well-governed -> unleashing the potential, India would have been a bigger economy than China I suspect (numbers anybody?).

Would it spur China along to compete with India?
BRIC?

The EU of Asia is a great 'What If'. Could it have been possible without China?

If China embraces capitalism a bit earlier (and some form of democracy), will Japan still be a dominant player? Can India/China set the pace rather than Japan.

The 'vote-bank' is a totally new concept to me. Would more focus on community involvement then have been able to prevent the partition or was it a given because of the non-congress north? even with vote-banks more dominant?

If this is happening, will the heavy accumulation of foreign exchange reserves (as we see it right now) happen? Will India end up as ME where too many infra-structure projects got started because there was just too much money that had to be spent and when the crisis hit, then going back was just not appreciated.

If this should happen, (some predicting it happening in the next 10-15 years), will we see 2,5 billion people (India+China) being rather unhappy.

I have a table showing some of the foreign exchange issues. Wiki as the source.

The more interesting threat for the future is the potential global danger posed by the economy of Asia as it grows the accumulation of foreign exchange reserves. The countries/regions with the largest foreign reserves are mostly in Asia :
· China (Mainland - $2,454 billion
· Hong Kong - $ 245 billion
· Japan $1,019 billion
· India $ 284 billion
· Taiwan $ 372 billion
· The Republic of Korea $ 286 billion
· Singapore $ 206 billion

This increasingly means that the interchangeability of the Euro, USD, and GBP are heavily influenced by Asian central banks.

If this goes pear-shaped, Arab spring would still be winter compared to that, I should think.

If we see a more rapid development of India e.g heavy industry, will it impact the general pollution -> global warming. After all, coal is not green.

PS: never mind the movies. I would move to India during IPL!)

PPS: Keep it coming. I am writing an article on Asian development (Asia - Where art thou going?) for our own publication. This is great stuff to use as background.

Ivan
 

Yuelang

Banned
Alternatively, if this greater India is perceived to be in cahoot with USA, it could end up butterflying Sino-Soviet split altogether... With Soviet Union basically give China carte blanche to do anything on Asia that wasnt the Soviet Central Asia...
 
Sorry, I meant India and China together as one bloc = approx. 2,5 billion.

Another twist: Could India and China find each other in the 1950's? and get into a more close relationship and cooperation from the 1960's?

That might just mean an earlier break between China and USSR.

Ivan
 
A unified India, ruled by a string of capable leaders, would most definitely be a major economy by the late 60s - early 70s, perhaps even the second largest by the 80s.

Simple regression to the mean is going to mean that most of alt-India's leaders will be mediocre (just like every other country).

However - even if alt-India did have ASBs manipulating probability in its favour, there are hard limits on what India's economy can do given the constraints of the sub-continent's geology, geography and the historical advantages and disadvantages India would have from its colonial period. Becoming the 2nd largest economy in the world by the 80s is absolutely ASB, even with the most perfect leaders.

What would be more interesting is what the individual strengths and weaknesses of the leaders of the sub-continent would be - for example Indira Ghandi is generally held out as the leader who led to corruption really expanding its hold in OTL's India. Such a leader could have similar effects in this alt-India, while avoiding a dynastic politician like Indira would save this alt-India from one of the greatest plagues that holds our India back in the modern day. Lots of big effects that can happen - just not quite as big as what you were talking about there I think.

Iran could be a potential rival of India, especially if Iran goes red in the 50s.

Why? Neither Pakistan nor India OTL have much friction with Iran and I can't see why that would really change unless India was expansionist for the sake of it. Even so, there are a number of directions that would be more tempting for an aggressive united India than any direction that would upset Iran - indeed, some of the directions are ones where Iran and India would have common interests (like the Gulf, potentially).

Alternatively, if this greater India is perceived to be in cahoot with USA, it could end up butterflying Sino-Soviet split altogether... With Soviet Union basically give China carte blanche to do anything on Asia that wasnt the Soviet Central Asia...

That is really not in the interest of the Soviets - keep in mind that one of the factors in the split OTL is that Mao favored aggressive games to further what he saw as the Communist agenda, whereas the Soviets really wanted to make sure WW3 didn't happen.

fasquardon
 
Top