Sino Indian war with no partition?

[HistoricalArthropod]

A whole India isn't necessarily a more powerful or successful India. It's also quite possible that the lack of Partition leads to increased domestic instability and infighting with various insurgencies. A combined India/Pakistan may end up being poorer, less stable, and weaker then what either country ended up being in OTL.

I think it would be better off as it would avoid the massive economic destruction of Punjab and Bengal and also not have to deal with the Siliguri corridor. But I digress.

And India that doesn't have to spend tons of money on national defense can use that money for education, healthcare, development etc. It can also invest more resources in diplomatic ventures and present itself as a champion of the third world.

With all this in mind, should a Sino Indian war still happen, India can present this to the world as a great victory of the non aligned movement over the communist bloc.

 

[HistoricalArthropod]

Sorry to double post, but how would a no partition Sino Indian war affect the wider cold war (if one happens?)

 

[BlackDragon98]

The Chinese troops that participated in the war were lead by experienced NCO and officers that fought previously in Korea. And Chinese forces were fully equipped with AKs while Indian forces mostly used the Lee Enfields. Plus Indian forces were relatively inexperienced in mountain warfare while China already had experience from Korea. The minorities in the area would have been overrun if the PLA really decided to give it their 120% effort. OTL the Indian forces were decisively defeated by elite Chinese units that were moved to the area specifically for the attack.

 

[Barry Bull]

I think it would be better off as it would avoid the massive economic destruction of Punjab and Bengal and also not have to deal with the Siliguri corridor. But I digress.

And India that doesn't have to spend tons of money on national defense can use that money for education, healthcare, development etc. It can also invest more resources in diplomatic ventures and present itself as a champion of the third world.

With all this in mind, should a Sino Indian war still happen, India can present this to the world as a great victory of the non aligned movement over the communist bloc.

Or such India would need to spend vast amount of money on internal security to keep a lid on domestic sectarian violence. Even if Congress and Muslim League leaders reached a deal, that doesn't mean the people on the street would agree.

OTL India has a lot of sectarian violence apart from the Muslim-Hindu clash too.

 

[Derek Pullem]

I think it would be better off as it would avoid the massive economic destruction of Punjab and Bengal and also not have to deal with the Siliguri corridor. But I digress.

And India that doesn't have to spend tons of money on national defense can use that money for education, healthcare, development etc. It can also invest more resources in diplomatic ventures and present itself as a champion of the third world.

With all this in mind, should a Sino Indian war still happen, India can present this to the world as a great victory of the non aligned movement over the communist bloc.

India will be spending a ton of money on internal defence. Not just because of internal security issues as Barry Bull highlights but precisely because they will see themselves as a potential third way world leader and because they will be fearful of both Russian and Chinese interference in their buffer states. A nuclear program is almost certain.

However, it is extremely unlikely that India would wish to fight a war with China over Tibet in 1950. Even if they did it would be a minor border squabble and not a great victory over the Chinese as suggested. India would need to de facto annex Tibet in order to defend it and this would just be supplanting Chinese influence with Indian, hardly a bonus for Tibet and definitely not enhancing India's credentials as non-aligned leader, they would appear as just another expansionist state.

China might accept an Indian Tibet but more likely the border war of 1962 will be longer and better prepared on the Chinese side. Scary thing might be if India started its nuclear program 10 years earlier which might lead to a nuclear armed India and China fighting in the high Himalayas

 

[HistoricalArthropod]

So the Sino Indian war would most likely be butterflied in a no partition world, as India would be much more internally focused?

OTL India has a lot of sectarian violence apart from the Muslim-Hindu clash too.

What are some examples of sectarian violence besides the typical Hindu Muslim stuff? I think there is also some stuff about Christians being mistreated?

 

[Shurik]

Oh I don't know that full-on annexation by India would be required for them to step in to defend an independent Tibet.
After all, they have had no problems with Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim prior to Tibet falling to the Chinese; and the first two could hardly be called Indian puppets; even though the Indian military plays a huge role in their defense.

China also didn't properly invade Tibet until Oct '50; while Indian partition was in '47. I'm not sure where the idea of Chinese troops/officers having "experience" in Korea kicks in, as they didn't heavily invest there until the end of '50.

Still, Indian Independence didn't happen till late '47. So if India IS going to get involved in Tibet proper, they've only got ~2-1/2 years to decide to do it.

However, the whole reason the Chinese invaded in the first place, was the Kashang govt's expulsion of Chinese officials in '49, due to the rise of the Communists. Unfortunately, they didn't have a plan for what to do after they kicked the Chinese out.

But let's say the Kashang govt had been secretly courting the Indians for months/a year prior to that? Once the Chinese officials are out, the Indians are already in place to move in quickly and peacefully (as an ally) before Beijing can do much about it; vs outright invasion/annexation?

Or would that also be too much of a cultural/religious jump? The biggest thing that got me thinking about that was Bhutan's excellent relations with India. Granted Nepal is more Hindu than Buddhist, but Bhutan is definitely Tibetan.

Maybe Tibet ends up split between southern Lhasa controlled, Indian supported Tibet, and Chinese controlled northern-Tibet?

Just a thought.
Probably a wrong thought... but just an off-the-to-of-the-head thought.