Purposeful Indian Balkanization

Well, that's always the option. I mean, the nuclear one.

By who and in what circumstances, btw? Because it's hard to pull out, IMO...
Not Nuclear, nor Biological nor Chemical nor Radiological but still a 100% realistic weapon. There is a reason this is going to be ASB, I just wanted some opinions on the non ASB parts

Also it will not be the British, Nazis, Russian, Americans, Japanese, Chinese, French, Italians or Poles who do this. If you can guess specifically what group my plan is to do it you will get a cameo once I get around to writing it.

Circumstances will be revealed once I write it
 
The British would have neither the ability or desire to balkanise India. The worst they would do is asset strip like mad and leave India impoverished. However, if the Indians were more loyal to local or reigonal rulers than an Indian government then they will quite happily balkanise themselves. Think India/Pakistan across the subcontinient. So the question is how do you change India so they don't think of themselves as Indian but somebody else.
How about a gradual withdrawal, giving territories independance on a peicemeal basis. The only problem with that for your scenario is that it may end up with an Indian version of the EU.
 

Maur

Banned
Not Nuclear, nor Biological nor Chemical nor Radiological but still a 100% realistic weapon. There is a reason this is going to be ASB, I just wanted some opinions on the non ASB parts

Also it will not be the British, Nazis, Russian, Americans, Japanese, Chinese, French, Italians or Poles who do this. If you can guess specifically what group my plan is to do it you will get a cameo once I get around to writing it.

Circumstances will be revealed once I write it
Hmm, interesting, but no idea. Alien space bat tribe? :D
 
Well your best bet for Indian Balkanisation would be for the 1905 partition of Bengal to be conducted along linguistic lines as opposed to religious lines. IOTL the partition of Bengal into a Hindu dominated West and a Muslim dominated East served as a major rallying point for the independence movement as it galvanised not only the radical nationalists in the Congress who saw it as the British trying to use divide and rule but also the intellectuals of the Bengal Renaissance movement who had spent the past 50 years agitating for socio-cultural reforms in Bengal. The ensuing anti-partiton protest movement was the first time that the issue of Indian independence moved away from a cause championed by British educated intellectuals to a genuine mass movement.

If instead the British were to partition Bengal along linguistic lines, what you would have is the moderates in the Congress and the cultural reformers regarding it as a sign of good British governance while the radicals ignore the issue. Without the large-scale popularisation of the radical cause in Bengal at least, calls for full independence would remain a fringe issue while the moderate call for reform and gradual self governance would remain the standard Congress position.

Seeing the Bengalis getting their own province you could expect Marathis and Tamils to also begin asking for their own states to be carved out of the Bombay and Madras Presidencies. Although the British are unlikely to give into such demands initially, they could provide the base for regional independence movements to form. In addition the success of the Bengali Cultural movement could very well inspire a Punjabi Cultural movement that attempted to unify the Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs of Punjab into one coherent people.

The rise of these regional groups would completely butterfly away much of the OTL independence movement. Assuming WWI happens as OTL, you can expect the regional movements to try bargaining with the British promising support for enlistment into the Army in return for reorganising the provinces along linguistic lines. If the British eventually concede to this after the war (maybe incorporating the princely states into said provinces while giving the princes certain powers in government) , you are going to see a situation where each province could conceivably contemplate independence when the British begin to pull out.
 
Last edited:
Having Ghandi die and have a more militant revolution take place which drags into a long and costly war for Britain.
 
Well your best bet for Indian Balkanisation would be for the 1905 partition of Bengal to be conducted along linguistic lines as opposed to religious lines. IOTL the partition of Bengal into a Hindu dominated West and a Muslim dominated East served as a major rallying point for the independence movement as it galvanised not only the radical nationalists in the Congress who saw it as the British trying to use divide and rule but also the intellectuals of the Bengal Renaissance movement who had spent the past 50 years agitating for socio-cultural reforms in Bengal. The ensuing anti-partiton protest movement was the first time that the issue of Indian independence moved away from a cause championed by British educated intellectuals to a genuine mass movement.

If instead the British were to partition Bengal along linguistic lines, what you would have is the moderates in the Congress and the cultural reformers regarding it as a sign of good British governance while the radicals ignore the issue. Without the large-scale popularisation of the radical cause in Bengal at least, calls for full independence would remain a fringe issue while the moderate call for reform and gradual self governance would remain the standard Congress position.

Seeing the Bengalis getting their own province you could expect Marathis and Tamils to also begin asking for their own states to be carved out of the Bombay and Madras Presidencies. Although the British are unlikely to give into such demands initially, they could provide the base for regional independence movements to form. In addition the success of the Bengali Cultural movement could very well inspire a Punjabi Cultural movement that attempted to unify the Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs of Punjab into one coherent people.

The rise of these regional groups would completely butterfly away much of the OTL independence movement. Assuming WWI happens as OTL, you can expect the regional movements to try bargaining with the British promising support for enlistment into the Army in return for reorganising the provinces along linguistic lines. If the British eventually concede to this after the war (maybe incorporating the princely states into said provinces while giving the princes certain powers in government) , you are going to see a situation where each province could conceivably contemplate independence when the British begin to pull out.
Divergence point I want is post 1933 otherwise good idea
 
Have India gain independence as a very loose confederation with a very weak central government. This was possible - many provincial groups and the Muslim League demanded this. Had Congress agreed to a deal with the Muslim League, some kind of loose confederal India was likely.

(Ironically, I actually think the subcontinent would have been better off as a unified, somewhat looser federation that in OTL - what I'm proposing is basically to go to the extreme opposite end of OTL.)

Loose confederations have a very poor track record. You could easily having such an entity collapsing into gridlock then civil war by the 1960s, ending in independence for several chunks.

Now, India is a very large territory. Even in Africa, there are very disparate outcomes between different countries. I suspect that had India fragmented, many of the Southern and Western states would have eventually done quite well, maybe even better than OTL. Other areas - particularly in northern and eastern India, would have wound up substantially worse off, and could well be very poor and politically chaotic.
 
Have India gain independence as a very loose confederation with a very weak central government. This was possible - many provincial groups and the Muslim League demanded this. Had Congress agreed to a deal with the Muslim League, some kind of loose confederal India was likely.

(Ironically, I actually think the subcontinent would have been better off as a unified, somewhat looser federation that in OTL - what I'm proposing is basically to go to the extreme opposite end of OTL.)

Loose confederations have a very poor track record. You could easily having such an entity collapsing into gridlock then civil war by the 1960s, ending in independence for several chunks.

Now, India is a very large territory. Even in Africa, there are very disparate outcomes between different countries. I suspect that had India fragmented, many of the Southern and Western states would have eventually done quite well, maybe even better than OTL. Other areas - particularly in northern and eastern India, would have wound up substantially worse off, and could well be very poor and politically chaotic.
Not what I had in mind, I want the whole subcontinent out of the picture, any areas doing better than OTL is not in the plan

Based on the current consensus India will not get balkanized, instead it will get plastered with a lot of WMD's
 
Top