Was India's partition a historical fluke?

It wasn't inevitable, but it also wasn't a fluke. There was ongoing political polarization between Hindus and Muslims, there was a lack of political consensus about federal powers, duties, and political representation in post-independence India, all of which created the space for partition. An alternative partition would have been one where without the world wars, Britain decides to grant independence to those provinces that desire it while holding onto other ones (likely Muslim-majority ones) for longer. That would have been a less violent partition and less contentious partition, but one which still led to British India being succeeded by multiple states.

Having said that, certainly possible that absent WWII, or independence being achieved earlier, or Jinnah remaining in the UK, or any number of other scenarios, partition would not necessarily have happened.

I do have my frustrations with some of the responses here. As is often the case when this question is asked, far too many commentators make what I think is a facile response predicting a catastrophic civil war and future partition or balkanization. For one, balkanization is far less likely that people on this board like to presume. States do tend to be sticky. Most states survive civil wars, fragmentation often leads to loosely governed territories or warlords but not de jure separation, and for that matter, plenty of countries experience unrest that doesn't culminate in all-out war.

An unpartitioned India would almost certainly have experienced various political tensions. But it's an open question whether this would be dramatically worse than OTL India. And I think likelier negative outcomes than all-out civil war or balkanization is something like political paralysis or an inability to deal with unrest leading to some kind of military takeover, meaning an unpartitioned India *might* (and I repeat *might*) have been a relatively undemocratic one. One that perhaps resembles most other postcolonial states or OTL Pakistan, where periods of civilian rule are interspersed with dictatorship and an outsized military presence. Another potential outcome is that the political system in India resembles something like post-civil war Lebanon, where consociational power sharing (ie communal quotas in cabinet or separate electorates) makes the central government polarized and while there are elections there's little change in power.
 
where periods of civilian rule are interspersed with dictatorship and an outsized military presence
One of the reasons pakistan has such a big case of the military rules was that thry got 30something% of the british indian military while having less than 20% of it's population.
They were born with an army sized for a total war.
 
Perhaps I'm missing something, but aside from the implications of no partition, which I didn't really address properly, where do you actually disagree with me, rather than expanding on what I said? I pointed out that Jinnah was inspirational, but also that this wouldn't have been enough unless the idea had significant intrinsic appeal. I didn't get into why Jinnah felt the way he did as I don't feel Jinnah is quite as important as your earlier post seemed to suggest (I don't think he was irrelevant).

Note: I didn't say devolution would lead to civil war, merely that without devolution either partition or civil war is probably inevitable from 1939.


Yeah i expanded mostly because i felt it was necessary context. Its an ancient indian intellectual tradition to expand on the ideas of others. Heck thats how we got 108 extra theological and philosophical texts (the upanishads) in Hinduism, than just the 4 original Vedas. :p
 

Srihari14

Banned
It wasn't inevitable, but it also wasn't a fluke. There was ongoing political polarization between Hindus and Muslims, there was a lack of political consensus about federal powers, duties, and political representation in post-independence India, all of which created the space for partition. An alternative partition would have been one where without the world wars, Britain decides to grant independence to those provinces that desire it while holding onto other ones (likely Muslim-majority ones) for longer. That would have been a less violent partition and less contentious partition, but one which still led to British India being succeeded by multiple states.

Having said that, certainly possible that absent WWII, or independence being achieved earlier, or Jinnah remaining in the UK, or any number of other scenarios, partition would not necessarily have happened.

I do have my frustrations with some of the responses here. As is often the case when this question is asked, far too many commentators make what I think is a facile response predicting a catastrophic civil war and future partition or balkanization. For one, balkanization is far less likely that people on this board like to presume. States do tend to be sticky. Most states survive civil wars, fragmentation often leads to loosely governed territories or warlords but not de jure separation, and for that matter, plenty of countries experience unrest that doesn't culminate in all-out war.

An unpartitioned India would almost certainly have experienced various political tensions. But it's an open question whether this would be dramatically worse than OTL India. And I think likelier negative outcomes than all-out civil war or balkanization is something like political paralysis or an inability to deal with unrest leading to some kind of military takeover, meaning an unpartitioned India *might* (and I repeat *might*) have been a relatively undemocratic one. One that perhaps resembles most other postcolonial states or OTL Pakistan, where periods of civilian rule are interspersed with dictatorship and an outsized military presence. Another potential outcome is that the political system in India resembles something like post-civil war Lebanon, where consociational power sharing (ie communal quotas in cabinet or separate electorates) makes the central government polarized and while there are elections there's little change in power.
Regarding military coups, it would not have occurred, due to
  • India does not having a head to the joint staff to have the military assuming too much power
  • India with too many culture , religion, and cultures would be impossible to coup
 

Srihari14

Banned
Would non partitioned India include Burma or any of the more distant parts of the Viceroyalty?
No, Burma was a fine deal, they did not want to be a part of India
If you want greater India, at best if can have India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Maldives,
 
Regarding military coups, it would not have occurred, due to
  • India does not having a head to the joint staff to have the military assuming too much power
  • India with too many culture , religion, and cultures would be impossible to coup

Given that much of this was the doing of Nehru and the Congress, unclear to me that the government would be coup-proofed the same way if political control in an unpartitioned India been more divided and dysfunctional. Depends of course on the POD. Independence pre-WWII for example would likely ensure Congress dominance. But independence through something like the Cabinet Mission Plan would be a recipe for political deadlock.
 
I think you could stop Partition with a POD as late as killing off Jinnah in 1940. People exaggerate Hindu-Muslim tensions for nationalistic reasons when the reality is that Partition greatly increased Hindu-Muslim tensions because Hindus saw their own relatives during Partition brutally killed in front of their eyes by Muslims and vice versa, making the tension deeply personal and about avenging dead family members.

You are forgetting about China. The Soviets and Indians both despised China, so India would be happy to ally with the Soviets against the Chinese.

India's alliance with the USSR was always a reluctant one, and even OTL India tried many times to ally with the US, but unfortunately the US decided Pakistan was a better ally. India really disliked the USSR, with Nehru attacking Soviet policies like its suppression of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 (though as a younger man he was more pro-USSR), and the alliance was one of convenience more than anything which meant that the USSR told Indian communist parties to participate in the democratic process and spurred trade. With no Pakistan in the way, India would surely be a firm American ally.
 

longsword14

Banned
I think you could stop Partition with a POD as late as killing off Jinnah in 1940.
What happens is that another man simply replaces him. The idea of Pakistan had enough support in significant circles within muslim communities of N. India.
For a detailed explanation see : Creating a New Medina.
 
Oh boy, an India with Singapore, Aden, and the UAE... Now that could be a big player in the Cold War.

India would never accept having colonial holdings. Not when most of the people leading India were men brutally beaten by the colonial authorities for advocating some form of self-rule and having colonies of its own would be considered the same thing as becoming the British that wounded them. If given Singapore, Aden, and the UAE, India would give them independence though presumably with treaties of friendship, because to do otherwise would mean becoming the new Britain.

Given that much of this was the doing of Nehru and the Congress, unclear to me that the government would be coup-proofed the same way

It would be, because Nehru and Congress would be big players in any independent India (hell, an independent or home-ruled India in the 1920s, though difficult to achieve, would mean that Nehru's father would be a big player) and because there are so many examples of British colonies turning into military dictatorships it means that it's very likely that Indian leaders fight against the military.

What you are likely not to get is the pseudo-monarchical rule of the House of Nehru-Gandhi. No Indira or Rajiv is definitely a good thing for India.

An unpartitioned India would almost certainly have experienced various political tensions. But it's an open question whether this would be dramatically worse than OTL India. And I think likelier negative outcomes than all-out civil war or balkanization is something like political paralysis or an inability to deal with unrest leading to some kind of military takeover, meaning an unpartitioned India *might* (and I repeat *might*) have been a relatively undemocratic one.

TBH I think India doing worse than OTL is a bit of a cliché in AH, and the same cliché often results in wanked Pakistan having control over Jammu and Kashmir (somehow, it's able to control the Hindu nationalist and BJP stronghold of Jammu with no negative repercussions whatsoever).
 
India would never accept having colonial holdings. Not when most of the people leading India were men brutally beaten by the colonial authorities for advocating some form of self-rule and having colonies of its own would be considered the same thing as becoming the British that wounded them. If given Singapore, Aden, and the UAE, India would give them independence though presumably with treaties of friendship, because to do otherwise would mean becoming the new Britain.
Kashmir ?
 

longsword14

Banned
India's alliance with the USSR was always a reluctant one, and even OTL India tried many times to ally with the US, but unfortunately the US decided Pakistan was a better ally. India really disliked the USSR, with Nehru attacking Soviet policies like its suppression of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 (though as a younger man he was more pro-USSR), and the alliance was one of convenience more than anything which meant that the USSR told Indian communist parties to participate in the democratic process and spurred trade. With no Pakistan in the way, India would surely be a firm American ally.
India's alliance was not as reluctant as you state. India just liked to play both the sides, but by the time Nixon came along India was seen less useful and Pakistan found favour in US diplomatic circles.
Nehru throughout his reign tried to keep India in the middle, until reality came crashing in 1962.
Kashmir ?
Look at the geography, look at the politics up to the partition and existing interests.
And how would India manage such holdings across the seas ?
 
Top