Finland?They despised China , but they won't ally themselves with the soviets, no country has ever been comfortable being close to USSR
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.where periods of civilian rule are interspersed with dictatorship and an outsized military presence
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.
Depending on the POD yesWould non partitioned India include Burma or any of the more distant parts of the Viceroyalty?
Oh boy, an India with Singapore, Aden, and the UAE... Now that could be a big player in the Cold War.Depending on the POD yes
This is simply not possible.Just because Britain ruled them all, but that does not mean Jamaica should be part of "India".Oh boy, an India with Singapore, Aden, and the UAE... Now that could be a big player in the Cold War.
Except the bit where Aden Colony, the Straits Settlements, and the Trucial states were governed as part of the British Raj.This is simply not possible.Just because Britain ruled them all, but that does not mean Jamaica should be part of "India".
Regarding military coups, it would not have occurred, due toIt 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.
No, Burma was a fine deal, they did not want to be a part of IndiaWould non partitioned India include Burma or any of the more distant parts of the Viceroyalty?
That's impossibleOh boy, an India with Singapore, Aden, and the UAE... Now that could be a big player in the Cold War.
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
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.
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.I think you could stop Partition with a POD as late as killing off Jinnah in 1940.
Oh boy, an India with Singapore, Aden, and the UAE... Now that could be a big player in the Cold War.
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
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.
Kashmir ?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.
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.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.
Look at the geography, look at the politics up to the partition and existing interests.Kashmir ?