WI: No Indian Partition

With a POD no earlier than 1850, can anyone think of a realistic timeline in which British India becomes independent without being split into India and Pakistan, and without the resulting religious violence/riots/massaceres/population transfers occurring? What are the geopolitical effects of united India, and how is united Indian society effected (is there any equilivelent of the BJP)?
 
The Communal Award of 1932 acted as the principal catalyst in jumpstarting the demands for a complete country or atleast an independent state within the indian confederation for muslims. the muslim league was pretty much a fringe party without any clout within the muslim population. it chiefly represented the upper echelons of the society. so here is the solution:
The communal award is cast out in toto.
Here is the POD
instead of again going on their separate paths the Indian National Congress, Muslim League and the Dalits(lower castes or tribals and untouchables) represented by Ambedkar sit down and decide to join forces until the whole ruckus about representation in the assembly is decided. What was initially thought of as a temporary alliance soon is cemented as a cornered british goverment declares that all citizens are to be treated equally and no special benefits are given to any particular population no matter what caste or religion. they enforce this as a means of causing a split in the alliance, but instead cause the grassroots workers and populace in general move closer to each other.
 
What does everyone think the effects of United India would be (I would think mostly good-no violence surrounding partition, no wars in Kashmir. The subcontinent would probably be much better off today in this TL).
 
What does everyone think the effects of United India would be (I would think mostly good-no violence surrounding partition, no wars in Kashmir. The subcontinent would probably be much better off today in this TL).

United India in terms of India/Pakistan/Bangaldesh means much less violence, yes I 100% agree.

But I as said in other thread, India itself should be split up, just not into India/Pakistan/Bangladesh.

At the very least, the Dravidian South should be it's own country, with Chennai its capital. North India can remain intact (New Delhi Capital), but East India like Assam and the rest of the "Seven Sister States" (Capital: Agartala) don't really fit into the current or the ATL Indian Union. Never really has, but since the British starting bringing missionaries to those areas and states like Nagaland are now 90% Christian, they are very very different than either Muslim India or Hindu India. And historically these areas had NOTHING to do with India, but were only connected to India by the British Raj. Makes sense that the Seven Sister States would be its own country.

The British Raj brought groups, peoples, and lands together that didn't belong. If the split is not going to occur with India/Pakistan/Bangladesh, it needs to occur with

1.) India (Hindustan or Bharat, I prefer Bharat) (Nothern India going from Jammu/Kashmir to Maharasthra including Pakistan and Bangladesh)
2.) Dravida (Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh)
3.) Land of Seven Sisters (Seven Sister States [OTL Eastern India])

Hard not to see at least this division happening, IMHO.
 

Ak-84

Banned
You have a a contigious muslim majority area that immesly dislikes the rest of the country and has exceptionally little in common with it. Yeah makes for a peaceful time.:rolleyes:
 
With a POD no earlier than 1850, can anyone think of a realistic timeline in which British India becomes independent without being split into India and Pakistan, and without the resulting religious violence/riots/massaceres/population transfers occurring? What are the geopolitical effects of united India, and how is united Indian society effected (is there any equilivelent of the BJP)?

Read Rule Britainia which is good on the issue (It imagines a world with a stronger tied Commonwealth - and a remaining British superpower)
 
You have a a contigious muslim majority area that immesly dislikes the rest of the country and has exceptionally little in common with it. Yeah makes for a peaceful time.:rolleyes:


India itself has one of the largest muslim populations in the world, and it is relatively peaceful.
 

ninebucks

Banned
You have a a contigious muslim majority area that immesly dislikes the rest of the country and has exceptionally little in common with it. Yeah makes for a peaceful time.:rolleyes:

I'm sorry, but that does not really describe pre-Partition India. Though there were areas that were majority Muslim, (modern Pakistan, East Bengal, etc.), the majority of Indian Muslims lived in areas where they were the local minority. As to having very little in common, that's just wrong: Indian Muslims did(/do) speak the same languages as their non-Muslim neighbours, eat (more or less) the same foods, shop in the same markets, do the same jobs, etc, etc, etc... The inter-sectarian violence that exploded during and after Partition was not a continuation of a conflict that had been going on for centuries, but was instead an entirely new phenomenon, one that had been created by radical Indian demagogues and Machiavellian British occupiers.
 

Ak-84

Banned
I stopped reading the above post afer his/her claim that Indian muslims spoke "the same language" as others. There is no one language in S Asia. The languages spoken in the Frontier are Pusto, Dari and Hindko, in the Punjab, Potohari, Punjabi, Seriaki, in Sindh, Sindhi and Baloch in Balochistan, Baloch, Brahui, Pushto and Farsi. All the languages have many different dialects, which are often unintelligable. All except Punjabi are almost unknown in India today, and even then the dialect of Punjabi in India (Amristari) is one that is not found in Pakistan.
 
I stopped reading the above post afer his/her claim that Indian muslims spoke "the same language" as others. There is no one language in S Asia. The languages spoken in the Frontier are Pusto, Dari and Hindko, in the Punjab, Potohari, Punjabi, Seriaki, in Sindh, Sindhi and Baloch in Balochistan, Baloch, Brahui, Pushto and Farsi. All the languages have many different dialects, which are often unintelligable. All except Punjabi are almost unknown in India today, and even then the dialect of Punjabi in India (Amristari) is one that is not found in Pakistan.
You really should have read on, given that the quote continued ''as their neighbours''. In other words, whether the people in Delhi and the people in Lahore spoke the same language isn't his point, his point is that the people in Lahore generally spoke the same language as their neighbours, or at least that the division wasn't a purely religious one.
 

Ak-84

Banned
Well yes as it is not even to this day.However, this does not take into account the level of segregation you had, you had muslim villages, you had Hindu villiages, you had Sikh villages. When push came to shove, they knew exactly where to attack. My grandmothers family was living in Delhi at the time (her father was in the British Indian Army) and even while living in government issued accomodation she tells me that muslims and Hindus were seperate outside of professional interaction, she never met any Hindus, and this is a woman whose family (though not herself) were not religious.

Outsiders cannot appreciate the level of mistrust and hatred that existed, you cannot manufacture it.
 
Top