What IF: No partition of India?

[Markus]

Massive civil war and civil war without partition!

In other words, no difference to what happened IOTL.

@Grimm Reaper: Interesting info on the one way mass exodus.

And for a WW2-POD, how about a British-Indian victory over Japan in Burma and Malaya in 1942? It would help the UK´s prestige, most likely butterfly away "Quit India" which included a lot of Hindu-Muslim fighting.

This Jinnah character seens to have been a major driving force behind the partition but he was already dying of cancer. Delay the British departure from India to ~1950 -would it be possible?- and hope whoever suceeds him is more open to a United India.

 

[Ak-84]

This Jinnah chracter?

The Congress and Muslim league were working at cross purposes, Congress wanted a strong central government, while the Muslim League wanted a TONS of provincial autonomy.

Congress becomes more open to the idea of autonomy. In other words, shoot Nehru and Patel.

 

[RogueBeaver]

You would need a POD in the 1930s, when Jinnah was weaker and willing to compromise. Congress kept rebuffing him, so naturally he left and formed his own party. Have Gandhi and Nehru compromise and then go from there. After 1940, why compromise when the entire Muslim community is behind him?

 

[yourworstnightmare]

Except that only, what 2/3s, made into Pakistan even with the mass migrations both ways of OTL. Which made the remaining Muslims even MORE of a 'second class' citizen.

So...

Correct, but they could not foresee that result back then. Tensions had bee allowed to rise so high, that there were no chance in a blue moon for a united India anymore.

 

[Ak-84]

Jinnah has little time for the whole Pakistan issue, he rebuffed its propenents in the 30's and was willing to compromise on it till near the end. If you remove him, chances are you get someone much much much more committed to the idea.