Was India's partition a historical fluke?

Srihari14

Banned
Many Indian Muslims do not want cultural invasion, the most likely refugees would be Afghan or Rohingya, who could assimalte easily in Pashtuns or Bengali population, but do not expect Syrians to live in India
 
Last edited:

Srihari14

Banned
Also population of subcontinent would be more controlled due to greater money to spend on combating population, as well as the country having more resources to spare
 
Agreed.

Also, would Indian Muslims push for Muslim immigration into India in order to increase their numbers?
The whole iraq can move into this united india and it would be a drop on the bucket.
Also i can't see people other than burmese or afghan muslims moving in, and they would quickly assimilate as our friend srihari (harhar) said
 
There wouldn’t be a war in Afghanistan. The Indians wouldn’t allow supplies and men to flow to the Mujahideen so the Soviets would win the war.
If India is opposed to the Soviet Union , it is likely to support the Mujahideen as a way sticking it to the Soviets
 

Srihari14

Banned
If India is opposed to the Soviet Union , it is likely to support the Mujahideen as a way sticking it to the Soviets
India might oppose the USSR invasion, I don't think any initiative to support mujahideen
Pakistan mainly supported them to influence and keep Afghanistan free from Indo Soviet influence, united India has non of this concern, infact, India might allow Soviets to win as it may result in a stable Afghanistan , compared to a civil war torn Afghanistan
 
Pakistan mainly supported them to influence and keep Afghanistan free from Indo Soviet influence, united India has non of this concern, infact, India might allow Soviets to win as it may result in a stable Afghanistan , compared to a civil war torn Afghanistan
I doubt India would want a Soviet allied state so close to its borders, especially one with territorial claims.
 

Srihari14

Banned
I doubt India would want a Soviet allied state so close to its borders, especially one with territorial claims.
Unlike Pakistan, India can afford to have an Afghan state in its borders, speaking of which, I think the KPK Pakistan province would be better or marginally due to much more cooperation, keep in minf, the voted for Congress and not the Muslim league during the last elections of British India
 

kernals12

Banned
Given the relations between India and Pakistan, having them as one country would probably result in civil war and then a partition.
 
Also, an united india might mean a more populated, more developed but less diverse northeast.
Moving equipment through siliguri is a fucking pain, not to mention a nightmare security-wise. Does anyone see inner line permits still being necessary to enter the area if there's no obvious chokepoint separating those states from the rest of india?
 

Srihari14

Banned
Given the relations between India and Pakistan, having them as one country would probably result in civil war and then a partition.
This scenario explores the possibilty that Jinnah does not demand Pakistan instead remains in the congress, it would mean Pakistan demand is nothing more than a fringe theory in this time line
 
India can afford to have an Afghan state in its borders, speaking of which,
So could Pakistan but it refused . Unpartitioned India has inherited Britain's position in the great game.

I think the KPK Pakistan province would be better or marginally due to much more cooperation,
Would it or would it be worst as it is now a backwater in much larger nation

keep in minf, the voted for Congress and not the Muslim league during the last elections of British India
Could change
 
Top