WI: "Partition" of Jammu and Kashmir

So, Jammu and Kashmir is the biggest reason that India and Pakistan have bad relations. The biggest reason this is the case is because of the resentful Muslim population of the Kashmir Valley under Indian rule. However, if Pakistan instead ruled Jammu and Kashmir, instead, the Hindu population of the Jammu area, which make up about a third of the population and are ethnically similar to the population of Himachal Pradesh, would be resentful of Pakistani rule, merely changing the areas of resent.

In blue is the Hindu-majority parts of Jammu and Kashmir.

0000.jpg


Now, at the time of Indian independence, rather than trying in vain to stay independent, let's say the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir realizes that keeping the Islamic population of Kashmir under his rule is doomed to fail, and decides to accede to the new states. Muslim-majority Kashmir is given to Pakistan, while Hindu-majority Jammu and Buddhist-majority Ladakh are given to India. Jammu would probably be incorporated into Indian Punjab (and later spun off as part of the state of Himachal Pradesh if that still occurs ITTL), while Ladakh is likely its own state. The Partition of India would likely cause population exchanges between the areas, as there are significant Muslim minorities in Jammu and there were significant Hindu minorities in Kashmir. That would mean a slightly larger Partition population exchange and even more people killed in the violence, and Partition would lead to massive wounds and a divide between the two nations as OTL, but without the Kashmir controversy, I think relations would be significantly better.

Thoughts?
 
The Dogra would never do what you said he could. Look at his idea of clinging to power till the very end.

Let's say that the Maharaja dies in late 1946, and whoever comes later does not have such a strong personality, allowing a partition of his kingdom on religious lines.
 
It's always good to see another South Asia WI.

One thing that might make this possible is Britain deciding how the various princely states would end up, rather than them choosing the state to accede to on their own accord (well, being pressured into it by New Delhi/Islamabad). Not sure if the Raj had the legitimacy by that time to make such decisions, though.
 
Looking at the map, they could just re-partition the area and swap the vale of Kashmir with Balitistan. The two areas are about equal in size, so both sides save face, but the vale of Kashmir has a much larger population. India doesn't exactly need the people. Balitistan is Muslim, but likely low population, so most Muslims wind in in Kashmir. Pakistan still has a frontier with China and the highway to China.
 
Looking at the map, they could just re-partition the area and swap the vale of Kashmir with Balitistan. The two areas are about equal in size, so both sides save face, but the vale of Kashmir has a much larger population. India doesn't exactly need the people. Balitistan is Muslim, but likely low population, so most Muslims wind in in Kashmir. Pakistan still has a frontier with China and the highway to China.

I see no reason why Baltistan needs to be Indian at all.
 
"I see no reason why Baltistan needs to be Indian at all."

Just handing over the vale of Kashmir to Pakistan and getting nothing back in return probably can't be sold to the Indian public.
 
I see no reason why Baltistan needs to be Indian at all.
Baltistan is actually way too little. They'd be lynching Modi in the streets if he signs off Kashmir valley for no gains whatsoever. It would likely be a swap, Gilgit-Baltistan for Kashmir vale. GB has a population of 1.8 million compared to 6.9 million in Kashmir.
Kashmir is the sole reason for Indo-Pak animosity, otherwise the relationship b/w the countries would be more like Bangladesh and India really. The sole reason Pakistan has been cultivated by China has been because of this whole issue. If India decides to give up on Kashmir, it will be due to a strategic consideration. It helps because:
1) Gives the people a sop. "See we got rid of the pesky Kashmiris, and gained some more land in return to boot".
2) Strategically it is of immense value. It cuts off Pakistan from China.
3) Might make the Pakistanis more sincere if they actually accept. If they really want peace and normalisation of relations, they would have to give up on the strategic partnership with China. After all, if they are sincere about peace, why do they need strategic depth in the region?
4) Gilgit-Baltistan is itself worthless (in-cultivable, no minerals and no tourism potential) except that it both cock-blocks China and allows better position for trade through the New Silk Road. Also, it connects us better with Afghanistan, allowing better strategic and economic ties. (We already are the most involved nation in reconstruction efforts there)
5) Kashmir to Pakistan is very valuable as it now completes their national goal of 70 years. Plus it has great tourism potential and is quite fertile and suitable for agriculture with some natural resources as well.
PS they would have to do some sort of population swap for muslims in Jammu and GB and hindus and sikhs in Kashmir.
 
Last edited:
If you do this it allows for Pakistan to build Hydro-electric dams and potentially help modernize Pakistan.
 
PS they would have to do some sort of population swap for muslims in Jammu and GB and hindus and sikhs in Kashmir.

Well, most Hindus already left the Kashmir Valley in the 90s, and I think there are too many Muslims in Jammu to all leave to Kashmir. So, I think you'd retain a large Muslim minority in Jammu.
 
I would say it's possible, just think of it as a second partition on a tiny scale. I could see myself posting jokes on how we are now competing with Poland on the number of Partitions.
 
Splitting it wouldn't really work. One, Jammu had a Muslim majority pre-partition. Two, Ladakh (Buddhist majority) likely couldn't be given to India if the Vale of Kashmir went to Pakistan because all access routes to Ladakh run through the Vale.

The only way I can see a partition working is if Pakistani soldiers and tribesman make more progress invading Kashmir in 1948, such that by the time the Indian Army intervenes, they're only able to grab Jammu. Ultimately, without much prospect of taking over the rest, and with Jammu now having a Hindu majority (due to refugee movements as in OTL), the two sides agree to a ceasefire line and more easily agree on the new LoC turning into the international border.

But it wouldn't be a formal thing pre-independence. The integrity of the princely states was up to them - the Brits had no legal authority to split them and none of the native rulers were willing to divide their own lands.
 
Splitting it wouldn't really work. One, Jammu had a Muslim majority pre-partition. Two, Ladakh (Buddhist majority) likely couldn't be given to India if the Vale of Kashmir went to Pakistan because all access routes to Ladakh run through the Vale.

The only way I can see a partition working is if Pakistani soldiers and tribesman make more progress invading Kashmir in 1948, such that by the time the Indian Army intervenes, they're only able to grab Jammu. Ultimately, without much prospect of taking over the rest, and with Jammu now having a Hindu majority (due to refugee movements as in OTL), the two sides agree to a ceasefire line and more easily agree on the new LoC turning into the international border.

But it wouldn't be a formal thing pre-independence. The integrity of the princely states was up to them - the Brits had no legal authority to split them and none of the native rulers were willing to divide their own lands.
1) Do you have a source on this?
2) Ladakh is currently accessible through the Rohtang Pass in Himachal Pradesh. If there is no route in 1949, it can easily be built; the tech is all there.
3) You idea is great, but wouldn't end animosity though. It's a ceasefire line that is simply drawn a bit more to the South. Might work at the Simla Accords or TTL equivalent but IMO without the four messy Indo-Pak wars to convince Pakistan that it would be crushed in a purely conventional conflict. They wouldn't stop at Kashmir, they would want Jammu and Ladakh as well ,since it was a single princely state that was overall muslim majority, so all of it must belong to them in their rationale. Then it would Kutch and more land-grab attempts in Punjab and Rajasthan. The Pakistani state would keep hungering for more land till it is convinced that it is not a feasible strategy.
 
1) Do you have a source on this?
2) Ladakh is currently accessible through the Rohtang Pass in Himachal Pradesh. If there is no route in 1949, it can easily be built; the tech is all there.
3) You idea is great, but wouldn't end animosity though. It's a ceasefire line that is simply drawn a bit more to the South. Might work at the Simla Accords or TTL equivalent but IMO without the four messy Indo-Pak wars to convince Pakistan that it would be crushed in a purely conventional conflict. They wouldn't stop at Kashmir, they would want Jammu and Ladakh as well ,since it was a single princely state that was overall muslim majority, so all of it must belong to them in their rationale. Then it would Kutch and more land-grab attempts in Punjab and Rajasthan. The Pakistani state would keep hungering for more land till it is convinced that it is not a feasible strategy.

For sources, see [1], [2], and [3]. Long story short - ethnic cleansing / massacres and refugee movements changed the demographics. Also, Pakistan grabbed the Western-most (most heavily Muslim) districts of Jammu. End result: a Hindu majority in Jammu.

Also of interest (and cited in the first source I hyperlinked), is this letter from Nehru to Patel before Hari Singh's accession to India:

In this (intelligence) report, among other things, a reference was made to a growing Hindu agitation in Jammu province for what is called a zonal plebiscite. This idea is based on the belief that a plebiscite for the whole of Kashmir is bound to be lost and, therefore, let us save Jammu at least. You will perhaps remember that some proposal of this kind was put forward by the Maharaja some months back. it seems to me that this kind of propaganda is very harmful, indeed, for us. Whatever may happen in the future, I do not think Jammu province is running away from us. If we want Jammu province by itself and are prepared to make a present of the rest of the State to Pakistan, I have no doubt we could clinch the issue in a few days. The prize we are fighting for is the valley of Kashmir.
 
One, Jammu had a Muslim majority pre-partition.

Well, let's see a map of Indian religion from that time.

India_religion_map_1909_en.jpg


Well, damn. According to this map, you're right, which comes to a surprise to me. Jammu (the city) has a temple on every block.

However, it does seem that a significant amount of Jammu and Kashmir was Hindu, so let's say India keeps that part.

What then?
 
Top