Was India's partition a historical fluke?

Kashmir ?

Kashmir had a quite substantial Hindu minority of 700,000 until the 1990s, when they were tragically ethnically cleansed by terrorists. Furthermore, initially, Kashmiri leaders like Sheikh Abdullah wanted to be part of India - contrary to popular belief, not all Muslims wanted to secede from India.
 
Thing is, once independence became certain, peaceniks like Gandhi and others were politely ignored, as everyone was more focused on ensuring that the 500 odd kingdoms that made up India did not splinter away. Keeping the foucs on integrating these princely states as a higher priority, Nehru and Patel (India's first Home Minister, known as the Iron Man of India) were more concerned with Indian Integration, than with partition. Perhaps, they just thought that with the partition, Jinnah would be focused on setting up his nation more than anything else, and leave them in peace.

This backfired splendidly, as the issue of Kashmir propped up like a wart, which has still not gone away to date. The assasination of Gandhi did not help matters either. Most of the princely states acceded to Indian unification, but the Nizam of Hyderabad refused, and Patel gave the order for the newly formed Indian Army to move in and force its accession. Same thing happened with Goa, which was still in the hands of the Portugese, who refused to give it up. Again, the Indian Military forced it to happen at gunpoint.

By the time everything had stabilized to a point, too much blood had been shed, to give peace a meaningful chance. Basically, the leaders at the time were ill prepared to handle the transition to independence, and it showed in the way partition was handled. The titanic ego's of the politician's involved like Nehru and Jinnah did not help much as well.
 
Last edited:

longsword14

Banned
Furthermore, initially, Kashmiri leaders like Sheikh Abdullah wanted to be part of India - contrary to popular belief, not all Muslims wanted to secede from India.
How much a part of India is another question, and then there was the imprisonment.
 
how would India manage such holdings across the seas ?
They don't need a large navy just one capable of moving troops across the Sea.

Furthermore, initially, Kashmiri leaders like Sheikh Abdullah wanted to be part of India - contrary to popular belief, not all Muslims wanted to secede from India.
Modern times , support for an independent Kashmir is at 75 to 95% in the Kashmir valley .
https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/Asia/0510pp_kashmir.pdf

https://www.bbc.com/news/10161171
 
How much a part of India is another question, and the imprisonment.

Kashmir was given substantial autonomy and ruled over the Hindu and Buddhist parts of the state as if they were colonial entities to the extent that there were civil rights movements in the state as well as attempts to break away.

Sheikh Abdullah was imprisoned because he treated Jammu and Kashmir as his own fiefdom, a practice which his descendants have continued.
 

longsword14

Banned
Kashmir was given substantial autonomy and ruled over the Hindu and Buddhist parts of the state as if they were colonial entities to the extent that there were civil rights movements in the state as well as attempts to break away.
Sheikh Abdullah was imprisoned because he treated Jammu and Kashmir as his own fiefdom, a practice which his descendants have continued.
Which does not go against anything I wrote. Kashmir did not want to be like other states, and for all the details Abdullah was the leader in Kashmir.
 

Philip

Donor
They don't need a large navy just one capable of moving troops across the Sea.

...and keep other navies away

...and keep land based aircraft away

...and support/supply the troops once they've landed

...and...

What's the Hindi word for 'sealion'?
 
Kashmir had a quite substantial Hindu minority of 700,000 until the 1990s, when they were tragically ethnically cleansed by terrorists. Furthermore, initially, Kashmiri leaders like Sheikh Abdullah wanted to be part of India - contrary to popular belief, not all Muslims wanted to secede from India.

Very sad what happened to the Kashmiri Pandit community. Human and community rights are a necessity to preserve, and this was an utter violation of them. It was ethnic cleansing pure and simple.

Edit: I do want to add a point based on what I state earlier. The only way for this to work out is to have on the ground leaders in both communities openly promoting compromise and harmony. Have events like above occur, and it just becomes bloodshed during war and middle fingers during peace, a recipe for disaster.
 
Last edited:
Modern times , support for an independent Kashmir is at 75 to 95% in the Kashmir valley .

I’m honestly surprised that 5-25% of Kashmiris don’t support independence, considering that not supporting independence is akin to suicide in the war-torn region.
 
Still wouldn't make up the majority even if they were repatriated

Once again, it's a far more complicated issue than you're giving it credit. Another fact is that Kashmiri nationalists, with a few exceptions (who are mostly estranged from the wider movement), view Buddhist-majority Ladakh and Hindu-majority Jammu as part of some sort of Kashmiri state. Never mind the fact that they have never been part of Kashmir except in the minds of those who know nothing about the issue, Jammu is culturally far closer to Punjab and Ladakh is culturally far closer to Baltistan, and that both regions vote for the BJP regularly in elections. It's almost as if the Kashmir issue is extremely complex.

Yes, most people in the Kashmir Valley want independence, but they want the independence of a far larger region than just the Kashmir Valley and would not be happy about being given independence alone.
 

Srihari14

Banned
Once again, it's a far more complicated issue than you're giving it credit. Another fact is that Kashmiri nationalists, with a few exceptions (who are mostly estranged from the wider movement), view Buddhist-majority Ladakh and Hindu-majority Jammu as part of some sort of Kashmiri state. Never mind the fact that they have never been part of Kashmir except in the minds of those who know nothing about the issue, Jammu is culturally far closer to Punjab and Ladakh is culturally far closer to Baltistan, and that both regions vote for the BJP regularly in elections. It's almost as if the Kashmir issue is extremely complex.

Yes, most people in the Kashmir Valley want independence, but they want the independence of a far larger region than just the Kashmir Valley and would not be happy about being given independence alone.
Yeah, Ladakhi Muslims are very anti Kashmiri separatism
 
That's impossible
All the areas I mentioned were part of the British Raj. All that would be needed is for the UK to not take them away prior to Indian independence. Unlikely sure, but well within the realm of possibility, and significantly more possible that your greater India proposal (as Sri Lanka, and the Maldives were governed separately, and Nepal and Bhutan weren't even British possessions).

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.
That's certainly true for OTL's independent India, but IIRC some earlier proposals for Indian independence involved the Princes retaining considerable political power, and they seemed pretty amicable to participating in and maintaining colonial power structures.
 
Last edited:
That's certainly true for OTL's independent India, but IIRC some earlier proposals for Indian independence involved the Princes retaining considerable political power, and they seemed pretty amicable to participate in colonial power structures.

How early? Most Indian nationalists advocated (fully) elected legislative councils until the Rowlatt Acts and the brutal Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, when they were radicalized into supporting dominion, and only began supporting full independence in about 1930. The story of Indian nationalism is the classic example of moderates being gradually radicalized through mistreatment and bloodshed.

I think it’s quite implausible to get Indian princes to play considerable power in any independent India. The independence movement viewed them as quislings. No doubt, supporting literal colonial holdings would only feed that perception. Furthermore, from its very foundation, the Indian nationalist movement was radical, from day one believing in the equality of races and putting an end to the colonial order. So, perhaps Indian nationalists could initially reluctantly accept them playing a minor role, but then they would gradually reduce their power, strip them of Rajpramukh status, break up their estates, and finally abolish the privy purse. The idea that Indian nationalists would accept permanently sharing power with hereditary nobility is a dubious one.
 
Last edited:
How early?
IIRC shortly after WWI the idea was floated as a way to make an Indian Dominion which wouldn't drift away from the UK in the foreseeable future.

I think it’s quite implausible to get Indian princes to play considerable power in any independent India. The independence movement viewed them as quislings. No doubt, supporting literal colonial holdings would only feed that perception. Furthermore, from its very foundation, the Indian nationalist movement was radical, from day one believing in the equality of races.
I don't think they necessarily would have to run them as colonies as opposed to overseas extensions of the metropole. The Straits Settlements were 10% Indian in 1901, and certainly an India which doesn't have tensions between Hindus and Muslims could accommodate Malays and Chinese as well. The Trucial States are also pretty simple, elevate the Emirs to Princes. Aden would be the only issue, as it had neither cultural kin nor easily swayed upper class, and as late as the 1950s had no local representative bodies.
 
IIRC shortly after WWI the idea was floated as a way to make an Indian Dominion which wouldn't drift away from the UK in the foreseeable future.

Dominion that early is ASB. IOTL, the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms, which established a bicameral legislature with less power than a student council, despite being seen by most Indian nationalists as a hapless half-measure, were viewed by the British establishment as going far too far. Using a minor attempt by a few German-aligned Indian radicals to launch an army revolt as a reason, the Rowlatt Acts clamped down on virtually all of the newfound Indian liberties, and empowered General Dyer to murder innocent Amritsari peasants for the high crime of celebrating a cultural holiday. This, as well as the fact that most Brits connected to the Raj supported Dyer in his great crime to the extent that he got a pension higher than the survivors of his little massacre, led Congress to refuse to participate in elections, while the breakaway Swaraj Party, whose entire goal was to obstruct all parliamentary business and support home rule at every opportunity, won the majority of elected seats as well as the presidency, making a farce of the legislative councils.

This early, dominion is impossible and requires a seismic shift in racial views. Considering this was a period when Britain was extending its mistreatment of so-called "Criminal Tribes" and campaigning for the demotion of the Marathi people to the Shudra caste, this is impossible.
 
Top