Religious distribution in a non partitioned India?

There are many theads on preventing the partition, so it is clearly possible. But assuming a united India comes out with no population transfers or massive communal violence, what would the religious distribution be? I imagine the Pashtun and Baloch areas would still be homogenously Muslim, but Punjab, Sindh, and Bengal would likely be much more mixed than OTL. Likewise, Uttar Pradesh would have much more Muslims. What do you think?
 
Well the most obvious result is that India would have by far the largest Muslim population of any country in the world. It's interesting to imagine how that fact impacts scholarly opinions, both in the Islamic World and in the West.
 
Would more Hindus be in Pakistan and Bangladesh? I imagine both those regions would have more non-Muslims in general and less Muslims then OTL. This includes Hindus, Christians, Buddhist, and Sikhs. Pakistan and Bangladesh would probably have more Christian missions then otl later on in the century. Would more Muslims in India immigrate to other countries? Maybe to the rich Arabian nations or Indonesia. Also would a unified India attempt to eventually integrate Nepal and Bhutan into the country like Sikkim.
 
Would more Hindus be in Pakistan and Bangladesh? I imagine both those regions would have more non-Muslims in general and less Muslims then OTL. This includes Hindus, Christians, Buddhist, and Sikhs. Pakistan and Bangladesh would probably have more Christian missions then otl later on in the century. Would more Muslims in India immigrate to other countries? Maybe to the rich Arabian nations or Indonesia. Also would a unified India attempt to eventually integrate Nepal and Bhutan into the country like Sikkim.
Not sure. But adding those 2 Himalayan countries would significantly boost the Buddhist population. I don't know how much this would effect things
 

Deleted member 94680

As another country with a big ongoing muslim terror problem, expect ttl's India and Israel to be BFF.

‘Muslim’ and ‘Terrorism’ aren’t synonymous you know?

What makes you assume that ITTL a) Israel is a nation b) they have a “Muslim terror problem” (exceptionally poor descriptor of the Israeli-Palestinian issue, btw) c) this alt-India would have a “Muslim terror problem”?
 
As another country with a big ongoing muslim terror problem, expect ttl's India and Israel to be BFF.
The radicalization of Islam won't come until later if butterflies don't prevent it. Muslims in this India could be more like the Balkans Muslims when it comes to partisan and terrorist activities. They might be more nationalist then religious in tone. There is a major difference between people who view religion as part of cultural national identity and people who view religion in a dogmatic and fundamentalist way. The IRA often view being Catholic as part of being Irish but being Catholic doesn't always make you Irish. The Irish republicans don't have religious goals and aren't yelling Deus Vult. They could careless about Catholics or religious issues elsewhere in the world and only care about uniting Ireland which is a nationalistic objective and not a religious one. Religion plays more of a symbolic role and is second to nationalism to them. Nationalistic beliefs in this context would heavily out weigh any religious beliefs if they ever came into conflict. Albanian nationalist and other Balkan nationalist from Muslim dominated ethnicities often are more in line with this. This could also hold true for Muslims in India.

A religious extremist organization would be ISIS or Al Qaeda. There goals are religious base at its core. They follow one of the most orthodox versions of Islam. To them they see conflict between the Islamic world and the rest of the world as one rooted in religious beliefs. They see secularization and other religions with hostility. They even see Muslims who don't follow their version of Islam as enemies and false believers. To them religion outranks everything. This includes national or ethnic origins which nationalist value over religious beliefs. A religious extremist will blow themselves up and is more likely to attack civilian targets that carry little to no political or strategic value. Nationalist are more likely to focus solely on political, economic, and military targets. The IRA usually would target British military, unionist, and other loyalist within Northern Ireland. Political assassinations and bombing military personnel being common. Their targets had reason behind them. They are not trying to target people outside of their general region too much. There are exceptions to this but the norm wasn't civilian or international targets. A religious extremist will go half way across the world to hit large civilian targets that share no value or relationship to their conflict besides creating a lot of shock value and making their organization more infamous which is honestly a very stupid tactic considering it provides your group with more hate and justifies actions against you by most people. A lot of nationalist who are Muslims hate extremist groups because every time they do something now people think they are extremist and they lose international support and sympathy. Muslims reacting with violence towards Serbs who were committing genocide against them in the 90s was considered a nationalistic conflict and people internationally understood why these people fought back and acted as they did because the west understands nationalistic conflicts better then religious ones. Similar issues with Muslims after 911 is often seen as people reacting to Muslim extremist and not as nationalist fighting. Serbs can now say they are fighting religious extremist and not nationalist which probably hurts people in places like Kosco. Religion fundamentalism is a whole other beast. If Indian Muslims keep the image of being nationalist and not religious extremist their international support will be much higher and they could receive support from countries like China or the US depending on how things are between India and these countries in this pod. If they go the extremist route and get support from Al Qaeda or Taliban type groups in Afghanstan or Saudi they will be seen with hostility by much of the world especially if India is on good terms with much of the world. This would mean India can get away with being much more brutal towards any type of Muslim insurgency if these groups are seen as extremist. The only way the US or West would support Muslims extremist in India is if it went communist or became official allies with the USSR and that would only last until the Cold War ended after that they would not support those groups. On the other hand, India who is on good terms with the west can get away with a lot more oppression of the Muslim population if the west see them as religious fundamentalists.
 
one thing ...afghnaistan and india would be mortal enemies
remember durand line
True, I wonder how that would effect later invasions of Afghanistan if they still happen. Some Muslim Indians might move to Afghanistan if they are unhappy about this Indian state and see it as a Hindu run nation. Maybe a Soviet leaning India helps them in their occupation of the country. I could even see a neutral or west leaning India still supporting a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Afghanistan could be a space where Indian Muslim nationalist and extremist keep many of their bases and use them to strike into India before fleeing back over the border. I’m not sure how well India would be at securing the border there and preventing partisans from moving back and forth. A secular socialist state that is a Soviet puppet might be preferable to India over a theocratic, monarchy, or far right regime. But then again a Soviet Afghanistan might become a hub for communist partisans in India if they are not on friendly terms with the USSR.

If the US invade them similar to otl I see India being for it and helping greatly. People like Bin Laden would be captured much sooner and the official war would end sooner. India might even enforce more extreme regime change hoping to make the country more secular politically and culturally. How successful would the aftermath of the occupation is up for question. The insurgency could honestly spread more into India during a situation like this and lead to increase radicalization and terrorism in northern India. India in a pod like this might become a major player in the war on terror. India might become major allies with Israel and later on the US. Add all this together India might become a major target and enemy to Muslim extremist everywhere. There conflict with the Muslim world could further increase if Iran still had a revolution(India would share a border with them) and they call out Arab states for the mistreatment of Indians within their nations. I think a India that isn’t partition will see more secularization enforced on politics and culture instead of trying to find a balance between all religions. If this India favors Hinduism too much the Muslim areas will probably break away eventually. Secularization can at least give the expression of being universal to all religions but in reality can be used to assimilate and lessen religiousness of certain groups within the country. Secularization along Socialist or French lines can be used against everyone in India pretty evenly early on. Secularization of the Hindus and Sikhs populations would be just as important as secularization of Muslims early on but if the nation stays together secularization will probably target Muslims more in the 80s and after. If India holds the Muslim areas until the 90s I think they keep it. Pakistan and Bangladesh would probably have a lot more non Muslims in the area by then and the idea of a Muslim State there would be opposed completely by these people there.
 
. Afghanistan could be a space where Indian Muslim nationalist and extremist keep many of their bases and use them to strike into India before fleeing back over the border. I’m not sure how well India would be at securing the border there and preventing partisans from moving back and forth.
India would be pro-west as it has inhered Britain's position in the great game. Any Pakistani movement will likely dominated by secularists until the 1980s like the rest of the Muslim world. You might see India encourage Islamic fundamentalism as a way of dividing any Pakistani movements. Also it will be likely India will encourage Islamic fundamentalists to cross the border and fight the Soviets as way of both getting them of the country and to make the Soviets bleed more.
 
True, I wonder how that would effect later invasions of Afghanistan if they still happen. Some Muslim Indians might move to Afghanistan if they are unhappy about this Indian state and see it as a Hindu run nation. Maybe a Soviet leaning India helps them in their occupation of the country. I could even see a neutral or west leaning India still supporting a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Afghanistan could be a space where Indian Muslim nationalist and extremist keep many of their bases and use them to strike into India before fleeing back over the border. I’m not sure how well India would be at securing the border there and preventing partisans from moving back and forth. A secular socialist state that is a Soviet puppet might be preferable to India over a theocratic, monarchy, or far right regime. But then again a Soviet Afghanistan might become a hub for communist partisans in India if they are not on friendly terms with the USSR.

If the US invade them similar to otl I see India being for it and helping greatly. People like Bin Laden would be captured much sooner and the official war would end sooner. India might even enforce more extreme regime change hoping to make the country more secular politically and culturally. How successful would the aftermath of the occupation is up for question. The insurgency could honestly spread more into India during a situation like this and lead to increase radicalization and terrorism in northern India. India in a pod like this might become a major player in the war on terror. India might become major allies with Israel and later on the US. Add all this together India might become a major target and enemy to Muslim extremist everywhere. There conflict with the Muslim world could further increase if Iran still had a revolution(India would share a border with them) and they call out Arab states for the mistreatment of Indians within their nations. I think a India that isn’t partition will see more secularization enforced on politics and culture instead of trying to find a balance between all religions. If this India favors Hinduism too much the Muslim areas will probably break away eventually. Secularization can at least give the expression of being universal to all religions but in reality can be used to assimilate and lessen religiousness of certain groups within the country. Secularization along Socialist or French lines can be used against everyone in India pretty evenly early on. Secularization of the Hindus and Sikhs populations would be just as important as secularization of Muslims early on but if the nation stays together secularization will probably target Muslims more in the 80s and after. If India holds the Muslim areas until the 90s I think they keep it. Pakistan and Bangladesh would probably have a lot more non Muslims in the area by then and the idea of a Muslim State there would be opposed completely by these people there.

Muslim Indians will form a fifth of the population at least. By 2010s it will be 30% or so if we look at the population growth of OTL. It will definity not be a Hindu dominated nation like OTL although Hindu's will still be the biggest group in the rule which makes sense.
 
‘Muslim’ and ‘Terrorism’ aren’t synonymous you know?

In the 1990s, according to TvTropes Europeans when you said "Muslims" though "Arabs" and when "terrorism" was mentioned, the first thing that pops into their mind is the Troubles in Ireland and the bunch of fictional IRA expies.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
True, I wonder how that would effect later invasions of Afghanistan if they still happen. Some Muslim Indians might move to Afghanistan if they are unhappy about this Indian state and see it as a Hindu run nation. Maybe a Soviet leaning India helps them in their occupation of the country. I could even see a neutral or west leaning India still supporting a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Afghanistan could be a space where Indian Muslim nationalist and extremist keep many of their bases and use them to strike into India before fleeing back over the border. I’m not sure how well India would be at securing the border there and preventing partisans from moving back and forth. A secular socialist state that is a Soviet puppet might be preferable to India over a theocratic, monarchy, or far right regime. But then again a Soviet Afghanistan might become a hub for communist partisans in India if they are not on friendly terms with the USSR.

If the US invade them similar to otl I see India being for it and helping greatly. People like Bin Laden would be captured much sooner and the official war would end sooner. India might even enforce more extreme regime change hoping to make the country more secular politically and culturally. How successful would the aftermath of the occupation is up for question. The insurgency could honestly spread more into India during a situation like this and lead to increase radicalization and terrorism in northern India. India in a pod like this might become a major player in the war on terror. India might become major allies with Israel and later on the US. Add all this together India might become a major target and enemy to Muslim extremist everywhere. There conflict with the Muslim world could further increase if Iran still had a revolution(India would share a border with them) and they call out Arab states for the mistreatment of Indians within their nations. I think a India that isn’t partition will see more secularization enforced on politics and culture instead of trying to find a balance between all religions. If this India favors Hinduism too much the Muslim areas will probably break away eventually. Secularization can at least give the expression of being universal to all religions but in reality can be used to assimilate and lessen religiousness of certain groups within the country. Secularization along Socialist or French lines can be used against everyone in India pretty evenly early on. Secularization of the Hindus and Sikhs populations would be just as important as secularization of Muslims early on but if the nation stays together secularization will probably target Muslims more in the 80s and after. If India holds the Muslim areas until the 90s I think they keep it. Pakistan and Bangladesh would probably have a lot more non Muslims in the area by then and the idea of a Muslim State there would be opposed completely by these people there.
Afghan would not accept non pasthun muslims
They tried that in hijrah movement, back fired miserably
 
Top