One TL I read on this subject had both Pakistan and India remaining dominions AND the tradition of British Royals being Governor Generals being established in order to keep factions happy.
Though except for Mountbatten, whi was merely a holdover, the GG in both countries were held by Indians and Pakistanis, respectively (Ragolpachari and Jinnah).I can't imagine India happy about still being ruled by the "Britishers".
I can't imagine India or Pakistan happy about still being ruled by the "Britishers".
Though except for Mountbatten, whi was merely a holdover, the GG in both countries were held by Indians and Pakistanis, respectively (Ragolpachari and Jinnah).
Pakistan seriously considered retaining the British Monarch. So its not impossible. Also, in the SUb-Continental politics, muslim was as much an ethnic identifier as a religious one. Indeed, the Clerics vehemently opposed the creation of Pakistan.This is feasible, but by far the biggest challenge in this scenario is not nationalism is one might expect but religious identity.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but believe that Pakistan had more pro-British sentiment than India pre and post partition.
No, the biggest problem is that Pakistan is a country whose entire purpose is to be a Muslim state and that means having a Christian Monarch makes no logical sense.
Jinnah was already dying of cancer when he became GG. Doubt he could have lasted more than a few months as PM.Though except for Mountbatten, whi was merely a holdover, the GG in both countries were held by Indians and Pakistanis, respectively (Ragolpachari and Jinnah).
Maybe Pakistan could remain a monarchy if instead of being GG, Jinnah simply was Pakistan'a forst PM, especially since a nakedly partisan viceroy like the Quaid-e-Azam seems to be contrary to general practice in most Commonwealth realms (yes, there was Whitlam's GG, but even then Kerr wasn't the actual leader of a major political party like Jinnah was.)
So for Pakistan, probably have Jinnah be PM instead of GG, and give the viceregal post to some respected but relatively nonpartisan figure?
I suppose it also doesn't help that Jinnah wanted the GG post as something more powerful than Mountbatten or Ragolpachari would have envisioned.Pakistan seriously considered retaining the British Monarch. So its not impossible. Also, in the SUb-Continental politics, muslim was as much an ethnic identifier as a religious one. Indeed, the Clerics vehemently opposed the creation of Pakistan.
Jinnah was already dying of cancer when he became GG. Doubt he could have lasted more than a few months as PM.
This statement is not all that true. Support for Pakistan was quite visibly present among clerics who were later aimed at by the League in their preparation for the last elections.Indeed, the Clerics vehemently opposed the creation of Pakistan.
Thats basically Indian National Congress propaganda. No, its actual Congress Propoaganda from 1946-47. And it was based on a misunderstanding, Jinnah was the leader of the Muslim League, and his desire to become GG rather than PM was stated by the Congress in its referendum campaign of '47 in the various provinces to be since he wanted to be in a position which was answerable only to a distant King, not to Parliament. They could not imagine why the leader of a party would not want to be PM, unless he so wanted as you say in your post. The real reason was of course, that Jinnah had terminal cancer and did not have the strenght to take on the more difficult role of PM. Congress (and in fact most people) were unaware of his illness. As it is, he spent most of his tenure as GG after about Oct '47, till his death in Septermber 1948 absent due to illness, making only appearances on ceremonial occassions, like the opening of the State Bank of Pakistan.I suppose it also doesn't help that Jinnah wanted the GG post as something more powerful than Mountbatten or Ragolpachari would have envisioned.
It is a fact. WHile one or two prominent clerics did support the League, they were in a minority. The biggest Clerical parties, all opposed the idea of Pakistan. The most prominent cleric of all India, Maududi was active against the Pakistan movement.This statement is not all that true. Support for Pakistan was quite visibly present among clerics who were later aimed at by the League in their preparation for the last elections.
Do clerical parties give a proper representation of all clerical views ? There seems to be a shift in opinions towards the idea of Pakistan as the idea rapidly gained steam, or at least this is the impression I get from the book I have on my desk at the moment.WHile one or two prominent clerics did support the League, they were in a minority. The biggest Clerical parties, all opposed the idea of Pakistan. The most prominent cleric of all India, Maududi was active against the Pakistan movement.
While clerical parties had pretty diverse views, they without exception opposed the creation of Pakistan. Both INC pre partition and the non-clerical parties in Pakistan to this day made a lot of hay on this point; the former to try and discredit the League, the latter due to present day politics.Do clerical parties give a proper representation of all clerical views ? There seems to be a shift in opinions towards the idea of Pakistan as the idea rapidly gained steam, or at least this is the impression I get from the book I have on my desk at the moment.
I will get back with quotes from Dhulipala's book once I have finished it.
Again, you have to expunge from your mind the idea of Muslim Nationalism=Islamic Fundamentalism. The Fundamentalists especially would be very upset at the idea. Fundamentalists, even during the height Zia's Islamisation never managed to take power or make their manifesto into policy, at least for long. I see Dominion Status becoming like for Aus/NZ/Canada today, an irrelevance to the common man.Well, I can imagine parallels to OTL South Africa if they stay and are later removed. The issue with them would be Islamic fundamentalism rather than racial segregation thinly veiled as anti-Communism.
Jamaica gets away with it in OTL, and they are MUCH more conservative than the three mentioned here. I think Pakistan, as long as it stays democratic, would be fine.Again, you have to expunge from your mind the idea of Muslim Nationalism=Islamic Fundamentalism. The Fundamentalists especially would be very upset at the idea. Fundamentalists, even during the height Zia's Islamisation never managed to take power or make their manifesto into policy, at least for long. I see Dominion Status becoming like for Aus/NZ/Canada today, an irrelevance to the common man.