WI: Pakistan remains a dominion?

Ak-84

Banned
The 1958 political crises which led to Martial Law would probably be resolved, once London told all the assorted parties to behave properly; which they would if the Elizabeth is still Queen. Beyond that, hard to say.

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.
 
I can't imagine India happy about still being ruled by the "Britishers".

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.

I can't imagine India or Pakistan happy about still being ruled by the "Britishers".
 
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).

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?
 
Though except for Mountbatten, whi was merely a holdover, the GG in both countries were held by Indians and Pakistanis, respectively (Ragolpachari and Jinnah).

Yes, but the monarch would still be British. I can't imagine either the Indian or Pakistani governments deciding to keep the hated British monarchs as the nominal sovereigns, so the clear conclusion is to eventually turn the GG into a President and remove the monarchy.
 
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.
 

Ak-84

Banned
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.
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.

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?
Jinnah was already dying of cancer when he became GG. Doubt he could have lasted more than a few months as PM.
 
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.
I suppose it also doesn't help that Jinnah wanted the GG post as something more powerful than Mountbatten or Ragolpachari would have envisioned.
 

longsword14

Banned
Indeed, the Clerics vehemently opposed the creation of Pakistan.
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.
 
The clerics saw a divided India/Pakistan as abandoning the Muslims in India whereas a united India allowed them to be all treated together. The religious card trumped the nationalist card in their eyes.
 

Ak-84

Banned
I suppose it also doesn't help that Jinnah wanted the GG post as something more powerful than Mountbatten or Ragolpachari would have envisioned.
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.
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.
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.

IN 1947 (and still today to an extent) Muslim was as much an ethnic and cultural identity in the Sub-Conteinet as a religious one. Most of the people who led the Pakistan mvement were ethnic and culktural rather than observant muslims.
 

longsword14

Banned
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.
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. His aim in the book is to show the problems with Jalal's Theory of the Bargaining Chip.
 
Last edited:

Ak-84

Banned
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.
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.
There were individuals who played a role that is true such as the Pir of Manki Sharif in the Frontier, however, the Clerical groups were not on board until after it became a fait accompli in '47 mid .
 
Well, it'd be good news for the acceding Princely States, and East Bengal would not, perhaps, become Bangladesh.... Also, of course, the PCB might be rather more competent and untainted - much to the relief of Boom Boom.
 

Ak-84

Banned
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.
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.
 

samcster94

Banned
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.
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.
 
Top