What if India received and secured all Kashmir at partition?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
How is the susequent history of the subcontinent and world affected?

One thing I would note is that India would control gilgit and the baltistan region in this scenario. This would result in a common Indian afghan border (although a very short one) and it would prevent a common China Pakistan border.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
For one, India would be able to actually implement the plebiscite that it promised in Kashmir; after all, in this TL, there would be no Pakistani occupation of any part of Kashmir.
 
Pakistan would have to be renamed for starters, since it is basically an acronym of the states with 'stan' on the end and the 'k' is for Kashmir.
 

Zachariah

Banned
Pakistan would have to be renamed for starters, since it is basically an acronym of the states with 'stan' on the end and the 'k' is for Kashmir.
Um- okay? So where's the B for Baluchistan, the S for Sindh, and the second P for either Punjab or Pakhtunkwa? And where exactly do the letters A and I come in?
 
Um- okay? So where's the B for Baluchistan, the S for Sindh, and the second P for either Punjab or Pakhtunkwa? And where exactly do the letters A and I come in?

Basically it goes like P(unjab) A(fghania) K(ashmir) S(indh) and (Balochi)stan. It's weird but that's supposedly how it works. The I was added to ease pronunciation and an alternative name for Pakhtunkwa is Afghania, apparently.
 
For one, India would be able to actually implement the plebiscite that it promised in Kashmir; after all, in this TL, there would be no Pakistani occupation of any part of Kashmir.
True but then we would also have the 'Republic of Quite a Lot of Ireland'

Was Pakistan renamed after East Pakistan became independent? No because it was not in the name of Pakistan (which probably tells you why they revolted).
From Wkipedia (sorry) 'The name Pakistan literally means "land of the pure" in Urdu and Persian. It is a play on the word pāk meaning pure in Persian and Pashto while the suffix -stān is a Persian word meaning place of, cognate with the Sanskrit word sthāna (Devanagari: स्थान [st̪ʰaːnə]). It was coined in 1933 as Pakstan by Choudhry Rahmat Ali, a Pakistan Movement activist, who published it in his pamphlet Now or Never, using it as an acronym ("thirty million Muslim brethren who live in PAKSTAN") referring to the names of the five northern regions of the British Raj: Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh, and Baluchistan. The letter i was incorporated to ease pronunciation and form the linguistically correct and meaningful name. So Pakistan the name is a fudge anyway.
 
You'd have to change the British policy of allowing princely states to have freedom of choice over whether to join either of the nations or stay independent, because before the Pakistani invasion was there much incentive for the Maharaja of Kashmir to join the Indian Union, aside from the fact he himself was a Hindu? I'm not saying they wouldn't, but what would be the reasoning behind it?
 
True but then we would also have the 'Republic of Quite a Lot of Ireland'

Was Pakistan renamed after East Pakistan became independent? No because it was not in the name of Pakistan (which probably tells you why they revolted).
From Wkipedia (sorry) 'The name Pakistan literally means "land of the pure" in Urdu and Persian. It is a play on the word pāk meaning pure in Persian and Pashto while the suffix -stān is a Persian word meaning place of, cognate with the Sanskrit word sthāna (Devanagari: स्थान [st̪ʰaːnə]). It was coined in 1933 as Pakstan by Choudhry Rahmat Ali, a Pakistan Movement activist, who published it in his pamphlet Now or Never, using it as an acronym ("thirty million Muslim brethren who live in PAKSTAN") referring to the names of the five northern regions of the British Raj: Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh, and Baluchistan. The letter i was incorporated to ease pronunciation and form the linguistically correct and meaningful name. So Pakistan the name is a fudge anyway.

PASKBISTAN
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
...
You'd have to change the British policy of allowing princely states to have freedom of choice over whether to join either of the nations or stay independent, because before the Pakistani invasion was there much incentive for the Maharaja of Kashmir to join the Indian Union, aside from the fact he himself was a Hindu? I'm not saying they wouldn't, but what would be the reasoning behind it?


Raja Hari Singh was somewhat amenable to advice from Mountbatten, and Mountbatten ultimately recommended joining the Union of India. Perhaps earlier India-leaning advice by Mountbatten?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
You'd have to change the British policy of allowing princely states to have freedom of choice over whether to join either of the nations or stay independent, because before the Pakistani invasion was there much incentive for the Maharaja of Kashmir to join the Indian Union, aside from the fact he himself was a Hindu? I'm not saying they wouldn't, but what would be the reasoning behind it?
Better judgment, perhaps?
 
Top