What if South Asia was successful?

[TypicalQuilon]

Could South Asia rival East Asian economies if it had played it's cards right? Much of South Asia did have a well established system of governance and good transportation systems relative to much of Asia. Burma and Sri Lanka were better off than South Korea in the 1950s, but all this changed due to communal and sectarian conflict. Could this have been prevented? India and China had a similar rate of industrialization in the 1960s. What could've accelerated India's growth?

I've heard that Vallabhai Patel wanted Pakistan to have Kashmir, while India could have Hyderabad in return (but this plan was thwarted by Nehru). Could this have prevented conflict between the two neighbors? Or is splitting Kashmir along religious lines (Pakistan keeping the Valley while India having Ladakh and Jammu) more viable? Nehru's foreign policy wasn't great, what would've been the case if Sardar Vallabhai Patel didn't pass away in 1950 and became the Prime Minister in place of Nehru? Could India have taken a greater stance against the Chinese invasion of Tibet? Would Nepal have been incorporated into India, as King Tribhuvan had allegedly proposed a merger(which Nehru declined)? Would Indo-Pak peace result in a Pakistan which isn't heavily influenced by the military (as there wouldn't have been significant military buildup)? Would Bangladesh even attain independence, given an economically well-to-do Pakistan could've limited the effects of the Bhola cyclone and thereby not trigger the independence movement, or was it destined?

 

[Dr Dee]

Or somehow butterfly partition entirely?

 

[TypicalQuilon]

Or somehow butterfly partition entirely?

Well I wanted the POD to be post partition, since an india without partition would've had disastrous consequences if certain things such as the creation of the Muslim League, separate muslim voting electorates and the partition of Bengal weren't butterflied away

 

[TypicalQuilon]

(Bump)

 

[Slime_blob]

I think india should avoid socialism and become a Free market capitalist state friendly to the west opening up to the world in 1950s taking over China's role

 

[TypicalQuilon]

It was basically to have Sheikh Abdullah led kashmir to independence during 1950's (that was for the premise of the story rather than being a necessity for making South Asia an expy of East Asia)

Not sure if an independent Kashmir is really viable. OTL Kashmir neither wanted to join India nor Pakistan. Pakistan suspected that later on Kashmir would probably join with India, given that it probably won't last for more than a decade (since it is a small religiously diverse landlocked nation bordered by three regional powers and the Soviet bloc). This suspicion was further fueled by the fact that Kashmir was being ruled by a Hindu Raja. If Sheikh Abdullah did manage to rule over Kashmir, perhaps instead of Pakistan India could have become suspicious. Kashmir is also very geostrategically important, since some of the subcontinent's major rivers originate here, it's much like Tibet. Control over it by India could effectively mean control over Pakistan (Indus water treaty). Also, an independent Kashmir won't be prosperous since it lacks a port, and would probably have a similar fate to that of the central asian nations.

 

[Hawabin]

Not sure if an independent Kashmir is really viable. OTL Kashmir neither wanted to join India nor Pakistan. Pakistan suspected that later on Kashmir would probably join with India, given that it probably won't last for more than a decade (since it is a small religiously diverse landlocked nation bordered by three regional powers and the Soviet bloc). This suspicion was further fueled by the fact that Kashmir was being ruled by a Hindu Raja. If Sheikh Abdullah did manage to rule over Kashmir, perhaps instead of Pakistan India could have become suspicious. Kashmir is also very geostrategically important, since some of the subcontinent's major rivers originate here, it's much like Tibet. Control over it by India could effectively mean control over Pakistan (Indus water treaty). Also, an independent Kashmir won't be prosperous since it lacks a port, and would probably have a similar fate to that of the central asian nations.

Your missing one key element. "Heavy American involvement."

The deal as far as I remember, was that independent kashmir will give them a military base, in return for USA supporting the independence of Kashmir and other stuff (which included the electrification of whole of Kashmir)

India and Pakistan are not going to invade it, not when America guarantees it's independence.

OTL Kashmir neither wanted to join India nor Pakistan. Pakistan suspected that later on Kashmir would probably join with India

You are talking about the ruler and leaders here (Both Hari Singh and Shiekh Abdullah more or less would have preferred independence but between India and Pakistan, both favoured india, Hari Singh due to being a Hindu and Shiekh due to his personal friendship with Nehru but Sheikh just a few years later changed his opinion on India and tried to go for independence because of various reasons but was jailed before he could accomplish that). But If you want to talk about the people. Overwhelming Majority of the population wanted to go to Pakistan. There is no doubt about that. Granted we would have wanted a significant autonomy. We do have as CIA put it "a sense of separateness"
Jinnah also knew that. And that is why his offer to Sheikh Abdullah was significant autonomy with Pakistan controlling Defence, foreign affairs ( kashmir would have had a special representation in foreign office) and communication. And the right to secede).
India also knew that, which is why they also offered autonomy (though in their opinion, temporarily so it could help placate the population before they could present kashmir as fait accompli)

(since it is a small religiously diverse landlocked nation bordered by three regional powers and the Soviet bloc).

We are not that diverse. And I do not intend to have the whole Indian administered kashmir go independent. Just kashmir valley, chenab valley region from Jammu and probably pir panchal valley region (pir Panchal is still in the air, if they will choose Pakistan or independence. I will first have to find how influential Sardar Ibrahim was there.) And the region of Kargil. So we won't have to deal with china.
The now hindu majority districts of Jammu like Kathua, udhampur, Jammu will go to India along with Leh. I think most of the Pakistani administered region would go with Pakistan. So we will be a rather small nation but a rather homogeneous region.

This suspicion was further fueled by the fact that Kashmir was being ruled by a Hindu Raja. If Sheikh Abdullah did manage to rule over Kashmir, perhaps instead of Pakistan India could have become suspicious.

Just to clarify we are not talking about partition here. Which happened in 1947. The POD is in 1950's. So Hari Singh is long booted out and Sheikh Abdullah is the guy who has been ruling kashmir for the last few years during the time or POD.

Kashmir is also very geostrategically important, since some of the subcontinent's major rivers originate here, it's much like Tibet. Control over it by India could effectively mean control over Pakistan (Indus water treaty).

Those were never in consideration during that time. Pakistan did not want Kashmir for rivers and neither did India want Kashmir for rivers. The reasons were political and emotions. The importance of rivers were a secondary thoughts back then.

Also, an independent Kashmir won't be prosperous since it lacks a port, and would probably have a similar fate to that of the central asian nations.

And as far as being landlocked. Yes, we will be dependent on other countries for a port. But that can be easily solved by having a "very" good working relationship with Pakistan. And that is not a very significant hurdle to cross.

 

[Sardar]

Well I wanted the POD to be post partition, since an india without partition would've had disastrous consequences if certain things such as the creation of the Muslim League, separate muslim voting electorates and the partition of Bengal weren't butterflied away

Easiest way to make South Asia successful is to avoid partition. You don't cut up the core of any pan-Indian state (Indo-Gangetic plain) and don't threaten both states with constant invasion like OTL.

You could very easily have an unpartitioned India with a 30's or even 40's POD. The Muslim league was not popular until after WW2 and should you make the British even slightly more accommodating to the INC you would not get partition.

 

[TypicalQuilon]

Your missing one key element. "Heavy American involvement."

The deal as far as I remember, was that independent kashmir will give them a military base, in return for USA supporting the independence of Kashmir and other stuff (which included the electrification of whole of Kashmir)

India and Pakistan are not going to invade it, not when America guarantees it's independence.



You are talking about the ruler and leaders here (Both Hari Singh and Shiekh Abdullah more or less would have preferred independence but between India and Pakistan, both favoured india, Hari Singh due to being a Hindu and Shiekh due to his personal friendship with Nehru but Sheikh just a few years later changed his opinion on India and tried to go for independence because of various reasons but was jailed before he could accomplish that). But If you want to talk about the people. Overwhelming Majority of the population wanted to go to Pakistan. There is no doubt about that. Granted we would have wanted a significant autonomy. We do have as CIA put it "a sense of separateness"
Jinnah also knew that. And that is why his offer to Sheikh Abdullah was significant autonomy with Pakistan controlling Defence, foreign affairs ( kashmir would have had a special representation in foreign office) and communication. And the right to secede).
India also knew that, which is why they also offered autonomy (though in their opinion, temporarily so it could help placate the population before they could present kashmir as fait accompli)




We are not that diverse. And I do not intend to have the whole Indian administered kashmir go independent. Just kashmir valley, chenab valley region from Jammu and probably pir panchal valley region (pir Panchal is still in the air, if they will choose Pakistan or independence. I will first have to find how influential Sardar Ibrahim was there.) And the region of Kargil. So we won't have to deal with china.
The now hindu majority districts of Jammu like Kathua, udhampur, Jammu will go to India along with Leh. I think most of the Pakistani administered region would go with Pakistan. So we will be a rather small nation but a rather homogeneous region.

Just to clarify we are not talking about partition here. Which happened in 1947. The POD is in 1950's. So Hari Singh is long booted out and Sheikh Abdullah is the guy who has been ruling kashmir for the last few years during the time or POD.

Those were never in consideration during that time. Pakistan did not want Kashmir for rivers and neither did India want Kashmir for rivers. The reasons were political. The importance of rivers were a side thought at best if they were factored in at all.

And as far as being landlocked. Yes, we will be dependent on other countries for a port. But that can be easily solved by having a "very" good working relationship with Pakistan. And that is not a very significant hurdle to cross.

Ah so you want to form an American-sponsored state? That actually sounds realistic, given that Kashmir is nestled between three regional powers, in the roads leading to South Asia, Central Asia, East Asia and the Middle East. That sounds like a great idea.

 

[TypicalQuilon]

Easiest way to make South Asia successful is to avoid partition. You don't cut up the core of any pan-Indian state (Indo-Gangetic plain) and don't threaten both states with constant invasion like OTL.

You could very easily have an unpartitioned India with a 30's or even 40's POD. The Muslim league was not popular until after WW2 and should you make the British even slightly more accommodating to the INC you would not get partition.

How would that have guaranteed no religious violence though?

 

[Sardar]

How would that have guaranteed no religious violence though?

You won't guarantee no religious violence, however you would reduce it by an extreme degree. The violence caused by partition was because of just how many people were moving across borders and being displaced. IIRC, partition caused the largest movement of humans in the 20th century (or in the entire history of the world). The religious part came after when the trauma of partition created the hatred between India and Pakistan, which eventually translated and inflamed to an insane degree the sectarian hatred you see today. My grandmother's family, who were Sikhs in West Punjab, told us about how pre-partition she and her family lived and worked among Muslims their whole lives. Post-partition, in addition to all the wealth that was lost, this relative harmony was destroyed.

Sure, there might be some religious violence, but it would be nothing compared to OTL should partition have been avoided. Notably it was the Muslims of the Hindi Belt which supported partition the most prior to WW2. Even then it was marginal. So in places like the Punjab, Bengal, and Sindh, where Muslims were solidly the majority and minorities of Hindus and Sikhs had lived for centuries (mostly) peacefully, you would see the continuation of that harmony. You'd probably get the most religious violence in the "Cow Belt", but other places, not so much.

 

[Brahman]

In South Asia and developing regions in general, You need strong Authoritarian rule to develop and prosper, so all these states being dictatorship would work

 

[TypicalQuilon]

You won't guarantee no religious violence, however you would reduce it by an extreme degree. The violence caused by partition was because of just how many people were moving across borders and being displaced. IIRC, partition caused the largest movement of humans in the 20th century (or in the entire history of the world). The religious part came after when the trauma of partition created the hatred between India and Pakistan, which eventually translated and inflamed to an insane degree the sectarian hatred you see today. My grandmother's family, who were Sikhs in West Punjab, told us about how pre-partition she and her family lived and worked among Muslims their whole lives. Post-partition, in addition to all the wealth that was lost, this relative harmony was destroyed.

Sure, there might be some religious violence, but it would be nothing compared to OTL should partition have been avoided. Notably it was the Muslims of the Hindi Belt which supported partition the most prior to WW2. Even then it was marginal. So in places like the Punjab, Bengal, and Sindh, where Muslims were solidly the majority and minorities of Hindus and Sikhs had lived for centuries (mostly) peacefully, you would see the continuation of that harmony. You'd probably get the most religious violence in the "Cow Belt", but other places, not so much.

But, I still doubt that may lower religious violence by a significant amount. I think the situation would be very much similar to Nigeria's since the muslim majority northwest might be adamant on imposing sharia (84% & 82% support its implementation in OTL Pakistan and Bangladesh respectively), while the hindu heartland would be adamant on banning cattle slaughter. Overall, no policy would satisfy all the different peoples who inhabit this megadiverse beacon. Also, a vast majority of Indians consider their religion very important, and the subcontinent is among the most religious regions in the world. There's also the possibility that there wouldn't be any national identity to unify the people. BJP's rise in OTL India can be explained by this, as they profit off the communal tensions, creating an identity based on Hindutva. Its why they became popular. There's no language (OTL India itself has 22 scheduled languages), culture (Even if we generalised all the different cultures as 'Indian culture', there would still be the Persian cultural groups of the northwest and the tribal groups of the northeast), religion, or history( with the exception of the British raj, no other historical empire has unified all of the subcontinent) which unifies everyone. Unlike China, there wasn't an Indian identity in the past. Your point about peace in regions where historically hindus and muslims lived together is plausible, although I doubt it would be the same in places where there's a clear majority.

I guess all these problems stem from democracy, I'm not sure about how this 'Greater India' would fare as a dictatorship though, possibly better than a democracy since you wouldn't have to appease all the different groups.

 

[TypicalQuilon]

In South Asia and developing regions in general, You need strong Authoritarian rule to develop and prosper, so all these states being dictatorship would work

That's a good point, but I doubt if the freedom fighters, the INC or any other important political entity in pre-independent India would allow that.

 

[Harshavardhana]

For a relatively successful South Asia, all you have to do butterfly away the wars that rocked the region post independence. Which is quite easy to do considering all of it stems from 1947.

Burma is not easy, the amount of people who were suspicious of other people were ridiculous.

For Sri Lanka, a compromise between the Tamils and the Sinhalese.

I do not much about Nepal as Sarthaka is your guy for any info about it.

The biggest elephant in the room is Pakistan, both of them. East Pakistan can become independent if the language imposition does takes place.

For India, Nehru died much earlier and someone much better takes his place.

And Bhutan here is a part of India :3 jk jk. They were mostly the quite neighbour and I don't think it would have changed much even with a South Asia that is radically different.

 

[Jürgen]

The problem is that the subcontinent suffer under a high degree of clientism, high corruption, weak central authorities and meaningless bureaucracy for its own sake. I don’t think the partitioning made any meaningful economy difference except maybe for Bengali and I don’t see how India improves with increased ethnic strife and a even more stratified political system.

 

[Jürgen]

In South Asia and developing regions in general, You need strong Authoritarian rule to develop and prosper, so all these states being dictatorship would work

It’s why North Korea is Best Korea.

 

[TypicalQuilon]

Perhaps instead of 1947, India gets independence a bit later at 1950..? OTL independence was early since the British were penniless and exhausted after WW2. The extra time could help stabilise institutions and perhaps update all previous colonial legislatures,such that useless imperial laws don't persist for decades, as it does IRL. The time could also be spent in establishing efficient anti corruption posts such as the Ombudsman, Auditor General and perhaps even a Wealth Declaration Secretary. Perhaps make the Green Revolution earlier...? Following that perhaps India could've abandoned protectionist policies for temporary import substitution for selected fledgling industries. A mistake made by the INC was that it focused on heavy industry development immediately after the Green Revolution, it should've focused on light industry and develop hierarchically like South Korea and Taiwan.

 

[Sarthak]

Will give a more detailed answer later, but in layman terms:-

1. The Atlee Proposal for Independent India and Pakistan in 1942 pass, and independence given to India and Pakistan four years earlier in a more measured and detailed manner.

2. Nepal - Dev Shumsher Rana's government successfully manages to democratize and open up in 1908 instead of suffering a coup like OTL.

3. Bhutan - the Constitutional Attempt of 1924 succeeds.

 

[TypicalQuilon]

Will give a more detailed answer later, but in layman terms:-

1. The Atlee Proposal for Independent India and Pakistan in 1942 pass, and independence given to India and Pakistan four years earlier in a more measured and detailed manner.

2. Nepal - Dev Shumsher Rana's government successfully manages to democratize and open up in 1908 instead of suffering a coup like OTL.

3. Bhutan - the Constitutional Attempt of 1924 succeeds.

Once you do get time, could you send me some links regarding the Atlee proposal, since I can't find anything on it on the Internet