Was India's partition a historical fluke?

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.
Dominion Status doesn't have to be the result of enlightened people in London, a much worse WWI which leaves London without the the bayonets or money needed to put down a potential rebellion could do the trick.
 

Jack1971

Banned
How come Malaya was able to more or less peacefully separate into Malaysia and Singapore whilst India could not?
 
How come Malaya was able to more or less peacefully separate into Malaysia and Singapore whilst India could not?

I don't think it was completely peaceful. Malaysia was experiencing ethnic conflict and even violence between Malays and Chinese, which eventually resulted in Singapore being forced to leave Malaysia and become independent.
 

Jack1971

Banned
I don't think it was completely peaceful.
Well yes, "more or less" is not "completely". But compared to the break up of India or other British colonies, Malaya's was pretty easy. I wonder if it was due to Singapore being a rather new British invention rather than a historic city of the locals. But then again, I just described Aden, and it was also a mess on Britain's departure.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
And if the Raj was somehow made into a Dominion then there'd be no reason for that to change.
There'd be no reason for it not to change, and plenty of reasons to change it. The Trucial States, Burma, Aden, and the Straits were governed by white British men, not Indians. They had no common history with India. Take note of the fact that Egypt had an infinitely stronger claim to Sudan than India had to the Straits, Burma, and Aden, and the British still didn't let Egypt keep Sudan. Most importantly, neither the Indians or the residents of those colonies ever asked for those colonies to be included in India.
 
Last edited:
They had no common history with India.
Aside from, you know, being politically and economically tied to it for all of living memory...

Take note of the fact that Egypt had an infinitely stronger claim to Sudan than India had to the Straits, Burma, and Aden, and the British still didn't let Egypt keep Sudan.
Take note of the fact that Britain didn't let India keep Pakistan, but of course that's the entire premise of this thread. A somewhat different UK is kinda the whole point here.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
Aside from, you know, being politically and economically tied to it for all of living memory...
The only thing tying them together was the British. When the British leave so will all ties between India and those colonies. Half of Africa also had political and economic links to the Raj. Should they be included in India?
Take note of the fact that Britain didn't let India keep Pakistan, but of course that's the entire premise of this thread. A somewhat different UK is kinda the whole point here.
Believe it or not, the concept of "India" is something that existed long before the Raj or the British East India Company. The lands which became Pakistan were considered a part of this Indian civilization. In fact entire notion of a "Pakistan" was created by the Muslim League. Pakistan became independent not because the British wanted to arbitrarily divvy up India, but because the Muslim League demanded it and the British thought that partition would ultimately be best solution for everyone involved. Burma, Aden, and the Straits were never considered a part of Indian civilization. Britain has no reason whatsoever to leave them in India. Again, nobody in India wanted those territories to be part of an independent India, and nobody in those territories wanted to be a part of an independent India.
 
Last edited:
Honestly I find it odd that India exists as a single state. Without British rule its unlikely the area would be united under one government.
 

zhropkick

Banned
Even if India being partitioned still happens in another TL, the exact borders India was divided upon in OTL were definitely a historical fluke.
The architect of the Radcliffe line was a man who had never actually been to the Indian Subcontinent and who, after seeing the chaos caused by the partition of India, refused his own salary.
 
The only thing tying them together was the British. When the British leave so will all ties between India and those colonies. Half of Africa also had political and economic links to the Raj. Should they be included in India?
I know a few east-african colonies used the Rupee and employed Indian labourers, but I don't recall any being outright governed from India or formally considered to be a part of the Raj.

Pakistan became independent not because the British wanted to arbitrarily divvy up India, but because the Muslim League demanded it and the British thought that partition would ultimately be best solution for everyone involved.
latest

The exact same goes for the Sudan, where the population was overwhelmingly against union with Egypt and the only reason why it didn't become independant sooner was heel dragging on the part of the Sudanese political class rather than Britain's desire to carve up it's former empire.


Anyways yeah I agree that India with "its" colonies is basically impossible (at least without a PoD in the 1800s or some wildly contrived POD in the very early 1900s) I just spitballed the idea and it sort of snowballed from there.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
Anyways yeah I agree that India with "its" colonies is basically impossible (at least without a PoD in the 1800s or some wildly contrived POD in the very early 1900s) I just spitballed the idea and it sort of snowballed from there.
I’m glad we are in agreement then. The only POD I can think of that would make any sense would be one in which Britain was conquered by a Continental European superpower and the Raj and the Dominions took over and governed the remnants of the British Empire on behalf of the government-in-exile.
 
I’m glad we are in agreement then. The only POD I can think of that would make any sense would be one in which Britain was conquered by a Continental European superpower and the Raj and the Dominions took over and governed the remnants of the British Empire on behalf of the government-in-exile.
Singapore isn't too hard, if a policy is put in place to favour Indian labour over Chinese labour it ends up being majority Indian. If it fails to fit in with the rest of Malaysia as per OTL then there's a good chance it would petition to join India rather than go it alone.
 
Top