Religious distribution in a non partitioned India?

Certainly they consider that to be true. Not sure if anyone else does.
As an Muslim who is by-and-large quite orthodox, I view them as being among the least faithful to the teachings of the Prophet (pbuh). I think that's the opinion of the vast majority of the Umma.
As for the underlying question posed by the thread: I think it would go along the lines of equal protection under the law, and that it would have a small Hindu majority (around 55%). "Secularization", as in France-style laicite, would be widely unpopular and have only a small constituency behind it. Malaysia is the model to look at here.
 
I think it's important to note that simply taking the modern numbers of Pakistan and Bangladesh and adding them to India might not be totally representative of the percentage of muslims in a non partitioned India.
 
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.
So would that end up coming back to bite them like it did to the US? India funds them in the 80s to fight the Soviets but after the Cold War and with the Soviets gone would they start going against India now. In the 90s would they start committing acts against India and by the 2000s India is very involved in the Middle East and the war on terror. If Iran still falls to theocracy that means India is neighbored by two reactionary and theocratic states to its north and east. Wouldn’t that cause serious conflict?

Also, would India face a bigger opium and drug issue with Afghanistan being a neighboring country? Afghanistan grows a lot of drugs. Aren’t they like the Columbia of the Islamic world when it comes to drug production?
 
If Iran still falls to theocracy that means India is neighbored by two reactionary and theocratic states to its north and east. Wouldn’t that cause serious conflict?
Yes however with the end of the cold war. It is possible for India to switch gears and start playing Communist Afghanistan government,Islamists, and Iran against each other.

Aren’t they like the Columbia of the Islamic world when it comes to drug production?
Yes
 

Deleted member 94680

So would that end up coming back to bite them like it did to the US? India funds them in the 80s to fight the Soviets but after the Cold War and with the Soviets gone would they start going against India now.

Would they “come back to bite them” though? What reason do they have to do it?

In the 90s would they start committing acts against India and by the 2000s India is very involved in the Middle East and the war on terror.

The second thing would need to happen first, for your terror-loving Muslims to be a threat. You have your cause and effect mixed up.

If Iran still falls to theocracy that means India is neighbored by two reactionary and theocratic states to its north and east. Wouldn’t that cause serious conflict?

Would Iran fall to theocracy with a neighbour like this alt-India though? Why would it be in India’s interests to have such an unstable state on its borders?

Also, would India face a bigger opium and drug issue with Afghanistan being a neighboring country? Afghanistan grows a lot of drugs. Aren’t they like the Columbia of the Islamic world when it comes to drug production?

By the “Columbia of the Islamic world” do you mean “largest drug producer” or is this something else? Afghanistan has a large opium production ‘industry’ but I’ve always thought it could be handled better by the international community. Maybe alt-India would take better decisions in regards to the poppy farmers on their borders. Does OTL India have a opium issue linked to OTL Afghanistan as it stands now?
 
As an Muslim who is by-and-large quite orthodox, I view them as being among the least faithful to the teachings of the Prophet (pbuh). I think that's the opinion of the vast majority of the Umma.
As for the underlying question posed by the thread: I think it would go along the lines of equal protection under the law, and that it would have a small Hindu majority (around 55%). "Secularization", as in France-style laicite, would be widely unpopular and have only a small constituency behind it. Malaysia is the model to look at here.
Religion can be interpreted a bunch of different ways. How they view themselves is important. You can’t say they are unfaithful Muslims because they see the Quran differently. That’s like saying crusaders aren’t true or faithful Christians just because you don’t agree with them and their actions. This is why I think when talking about Islam and religious extremism you must know which school of Islamic thought the follow and what region they are from. If Saudi starts opening Wahhabis schools in this India I think the chance for radicalization is higher while a Sufi schools are less likely to produce extremism. Also, the Chinese non-Muslim population is leaving Malaysia in more and more numbers because they don’t like how the Muslim majority run the country and impose their values on them by law. Chinese in Malaysia often consider Malaysians as too religious for their liking. Malaysia not secularizing properly might eventually cause it to lose its skilled Chinese population. People often forget Asians from the Far East are often more secular then westerners.
 
My original question was more about the demographic distribution of muslims in a united india. For example, would Punjab be Hindu or Muslim majority?
 
For example, would Punjab be Hindu or Muslim majority?
That's easy. Muslim majority but with a sizable Hindu/Sikh minority. In a way the Punjab would act as a test bed for the rest of India cause it is sort of like the country in miniature, just with the roles of the Muslims and Hindu/Sikh being switched.
 
Religion can be interpreted a bunch of different ways. How they view themselves is important. You can’t say they are unfaithful Muslims because they see the Quran differently. That’s like saying crusaders aren’t true or faithful Christians just because you don’t agree with them and their actions. This is why I think when talking about Islam and religious extremism you must know which school of Islamic thought the follow and what region they are from. If Saudi starts opening Wahhabis schools in this India I think the chance for radicalization is higher while a Sufi schools are less likely to produce extremism. Also, the Chinese non-Muslim population is leaving Malaysia in more and more numbers because they don’t like how the Muslim majority run the country and impose their values on them by law. Chinese in Malaysia often consider Malaysians as too religious for their liking. Malaysia not secularizing properly might eventually cause it to lose its skilled Chinese population. People often forget Asians from the Far East are often more secular then westerners.

With fundamentalist groups in all religions, it is ironic in the way they decry 'Inovation', while a great part of their beliefs and practices are even newer than the traditions they claim should be replaced. Wahhabis can believe themselves to practice Islam same as the companions if they want to, in my part of the world Christian fundamentalists of all flavours may believe their religion is the same as the Early Christians. In reality it cannot be true. Religion must change at least in part to cope with the changes in society. Accepting only the changes that benefit them is what defines a religious fundamentalist, that and believing everyone who disagrees with them does not have a right to follow their own beliefs.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
That's easy. Muslim majority but with a sizable Hindu/Sikh minority. In a way the Punjab would act as a test bed for the rest of India cause it is sort of like the country in miniature, just with the roles of the Muslims and Hindu/Sikh being switched.
punjab in united india may be partioned in several smaller states
 
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.
That would be a terrible move. There is more sides to the conflict in Afghanistan then soviets vs local islamist. It started with a local communist faction based on the urban population and ethnic minorities taking advantage of political instability to infiltrate the army and take power. When the rural pashtun majority reacted they called the USSR for help. It mirrors in a lot of ways the syrian civil war. Is the islamist leaning rural and tribal sunni pashtun majority excluded from power vs the communist government supported (at least at the start) by the urban population (minority) and the ethnic and religions minorities of the country (farsi speakers, shias, turkic minorities, etc.) and later the soviet government. Pakistan supported the rebels from the pashtun parts of Pakistan probably thinking that it wouldn't affect them because the pakistani government was somewhat islamist leaning (iirc). But Indias situation would be different. They would be the country with the biggest pashtun population in the world and the Delhi government would be majority hindu and the muslim minority politics would lean towards communal nationalism. It would be like turkey supporting kurdish rebels in syria. Having Afghanistan under the rule of minorities would make Afghanistan more domestic centered in politics and less likely to threatening pashtun indian areas. Also a united India is not obligatory pro western. They could become the "China" of the capitalist block. Overall in the western block but independent of USA politics and somewhat cordial with the USSR. They don't share a frontier with them and they would share a common adversary in China after the sino soviet split. Also communist rebels in the subcontinent are generally maoist which are not of the soviet liking.
They could compete with China for leadership of the third world movement offering a an alternative to both central planning and free markets. Of course diminishing income inequality an others inequalities (speacially among ethnic, religious and cast groups) would be necessary to make indian democracy viable and less prone to violence and sectarianism.
 
muslim minority politics would lean towards communal nationalism.
Having them be divided into Islamist and secular factions would great way to do Divided and Conquer.

They don't share a frontier with them
Soviet influence over Afghanistan would means control over the gateway to India which is the Hindu Kush

they would share a common adversary in China after the sino soviet split
Or India could ally with China the weaker of the two against the Soviets.

It would be like turkey supporting kurdish rebels in syria.
With the exception of Turkey. countries which contain Kurds have supported Kurdish rebels in each other territory.
 
Would they “come back to bite them” though? What reason do they have to do it?



The second thing would need to happen first, for your terror-loving Muslims to be a threat. You have your cause and effect mixed up.



Would Iran fall to theocracy with a neighbour like this alt-India though? Why would it be in India’s interests to have such an unstable state on its borders?



By the “Columbia of the Islamic world” do you mean “largest drug producer” or is this something else? Afghanistan has a large opium production ‘industry’ but I’ve always thought it could be handled better by the international community. Maybe alt-India would take better decisions in regards to the poppy farmers on their borders. Does OTL India have a opium issue linked to OTL Afghanistan as it stands now?
If something like the Taliban and Al Qaeda exist I imagine conflict with them and India would naturally form. Taliban would dislike heavy amount of Indian influence in the country. Taliban aren’t internationals like Al Qaeda. They are more nationalist and probably won’t like India involving themselves in their affairs. They might commit raids and terrorist attacks around the Indian border or clash with any military presence within Afghanistan. Al Qaeda and other extremist might just see India as a Hindu power who is occupying Muslims lands and people. Then being friendly with Israel and the US would only encourage more dislike by extremist. Furthermore, if this India is a superpower it can use its diasporas in the gulf to influence Arabian nations that in some cases are now majority Indian. Some Arabs might see all these Indians in Arab countries as India being imperialist and colonizers. People like Bin Lidan would take advantage and stir up hate. Al Qaeda uses Afghanistan as a base to commit attacks against India which India might respond with bombing campaigns and special force operations on terrorist bases at first. I’m not saying the Iran border will be unstable. I’m saying I see them being hostile towards each other. Maybe taking the place of the Pakistan and India conflicts of otl. Basically, they would have a border that is heavily militarized and guarded on both sides. India could still develop nukes as a response to China. Iran now is hostile towards the only two nuclear powers in the region. Maybe 3 if you count the USSR and how they develop in this pod. Iran nuclear program probably gets condemned just as much internationally but receive more support internally due to them neighboring two nuclear powers and a third very hostile nuclear power within launching distance. I don’t see a united India impacting the reasons for revolution in Iran too much and honestly I think it makes the situation more interesting. Also I feel like if they use special forces or use their law enforcement to strike and take down drug lords and opium fields within Afghanistan some locals will get resentful. Afghanistan seems to dislike any foreign presence no matter the reason they are there. Additionally, India could use drug lords as a political tool like the US did in Latin America. I’m not sure how bad drug use is in India but I know it is a issue in Iran especially heroin. Drug lords often come into conflict with religious hardliners and communist due to them both often being against drug trafficking and punishing it in extreme ways. India can use these people to fight communist in the Cold War or later on religious extremist. Drug lords have power, guns, and money that India can use against who they consider bigger issues.

The situation at the borders will likely impact demographics in Northern India and Pakistan in a united India. The border area where Afghanistan, India and Iran could be a drug trafficking triangle. Like otl you could have partisans and terrorist active in the area. You also have some tribes and ethnic groups that think they can just go back and forth across borders. I imagine a united India is a superpower by the 2000s so many Afghans might immigrate to India. Does any one have a more detailed information about how India population would develop in the north if united and considering what I mentioned above? Also how many Shia are in Pakistan and India? Would a theocratic Iran fund unrest among Shia in India while groups in Afghanistan fund Sunni unrest in India? These conflicts could lead to displacements of people and immigration from the area so I am more trying to figure that out to get a idea about the possible demographics of the area
 
Having them be divided into Islamist and secular factions would great way to do Divided and Conquer.


Soviet influence over Afghanistan would means control over the gateway to India which is the Hindu Kush


Or India could ally with China the weaker of the two against the Soviets.


With the exception of Turkey. countries which contain Kurds have supported Kurdish rebels in each other territory.
But that's because kurd in other countries are a relatively small minority while turkey has the big portion of kurdish population. Just like this India would be the country with most pashtuns in the world.
 
If something like the Taliban and Al Qaeda exist I imagine conflict with them and India would naturally form. Taliban would dislike heavy amount of Indian influence in the country. Taliban aren’t internationals like Al Qaeda. They are more nationalist and probably won’t like India involving themselves in their affairs. They might commit raids and terrorist attacks around the Indian border or clash with any military presence within Afghanistan. Al Qaeda and other extremist might just see India as a Hindu power who is occupying Muslims lands and people. Then being friendly with Israel and the US would only encourage more dislike by extremist. Furthermore, if this India is a superpower it can use its diasporas in the gulf to influence Arabian nations that in some cases are now majority Indian. Some Arabs might see all these Indians in Arab countries as India being imperialist and colonizers. People like Bin Lidan would take advantage and stir up hate. Al Qaeda uses Afghanistan as a base to commit attacks against India which India might respond with bombing campaigns and special force operations on terrorist bases at first. I’m not saying the Iran border will be unstable. I’m saying I see them being hostile towards each other. Maybe taking the place of the Pakistan and India conflicts of otl. Basically, they would have a border that is heavily militarized and guarded on both sides. India could still develop nukes as a response to China. Iran now is hostile towards the only two nuclear powers in the region. Maybe 3 if you count the USSR and how they develop in this pod. Iran nuclear program probably gets condemned just as much internationally but receive more support internally due to them neighboring two nuclear powers and a third very hostile nuclear power within launching distance. I don’t see a united India impacting the reasons for revolution in Iran too much and honestly I think it makes the situation more interesting. Also I feel like if they use special forces or use their law enforcement to strike and take down drug lords and opium fields within Afghanistan some locals will get resentful. Afghanistan seems to dislike any foreign presence no matter the reason they are there. Additionally, India could use drug lords as a political tool like the US did in Latin America. I’m not sure how bad drug use is in India but I know it is a issue in Iran especially heroin. Drug lords often come into conflict with religious hardliners and communist due to them both often being against drug trafficking and punishing it in extreme ways. India can use these people to fight communist in the Cold War or later on religious extremist. Drug lords have power, guns, and money that India can use against who they consider bigger issues.

The situation at the borders will likely impact demographics in Northern India and Pakistan in a united India. The border area where Afghanistan, India and Iran could be a drug trafficking triangle. Like otl you could have partisans and terrorist active in the area. You also have some tribes and ethnic groups that think they can just go back and forth across borders. I imagine a united India is a superpower by the 2000s so many Afghans might immigrate to India. Does any one have a more detailed information about how India population would develop in the north if united and considering what I mentioned above? Also how many Shia are in Pakistan and India? Would a theocratic Iran fund unrest among Shia in India while groups in Afghanistan fund Sunni unrest in India? These conflicts could lead to displacements of people and immigration from the area so I am more trying to figure that out to get a idea about the possible demographics of the area
Ok, why do you keep usuming Iran would want to fuck with India of all countries? Their border is a worthless dessert inhabitated by sunni balochs in both sides and neither Iran nor ttl India would care for them, so its not a tension zone. In otl Iran only influences the shia pakistani minority because they are persecuted so they can found an ear there, and yet Iran never founded a shia armed group in Pakistan. Post revolution Iran is not a chaotic evil entity desperate to mess with countries stronger then them for no geopolitical gain. Why would India want an alliance with Israel or in fact any direct participation in middle east politics? Chances are that with such a high % of muslims in the country the israel palestinian issue may become too controversial for the hindus to care about it so they would probably stay the fuck away from that mess, its not like this India would be desperate for allies. If India complains about mistreatment of indian workers in the gulf (and I guess those workers would never be mistreated in India, right?;)), then the gulf countries could just hire instead poor and desperate people from other countries or restrict guest workers to muslims.
 
Top