WI united India and no Balfour declaration

Suppose Britain had adopted different policies. Trying to get Moslems and HIndus to agree to a single nation and encouraged oppressed Jewish people to go to South Africa.

I have an image of Jinnah as President and Nehru as Prime Minister.

How much weaker would wahabist extremism be?
 
I'm not sure I see the connection between a divided India and Wahhabism. Surely the most direct way to prevent Wahhabism would be PODs in the Arabian peninsula, such as preventing the House of Saud from gaining power?
 
A united India has nothing to do with Wahhabism.

Some actual effects of a united India is that the License Raj is butterflied away, the Hindu and Muslim populations in both India and Pakistan would be quite mixed, and the Indian movie industry would continue to be headquartered in Lahore.
 
Why would the British direct Jews to go to South Africa? There were already waves of Jewish immigration to Ottoman Palestine since the 1880s, and by 1914 there was around 90-100,000 Jews in Palestine.

The British promoting a unified India and no Balfour Declaration wouldn't affect Wahhabism.
 

Deleted member 94680

Would South Africa take the "oppressed Jewish people"? Is the language meant to signify a more stringent definition of who was deemed to be 'eligible'?

By the time of the Balfour Declaration (2nd November '17) South Africa was a dominion with its own government and the National Party had already been formed and showed fairly well in the '15 elections. Would they (and by extension, the Boer community) be happy with new non-Boers coming in to the country? Would it be seen as London trying to swamp them with more pro-British settlers, further weakening their position?

Also, as others have pointed out, India (unified or not) has no effect on the strength of Wahhabi extremism.
 

Ak-84

Banned
Suppose Britain had adopted different policies. Trying to get Moslems and HIndus to agree to a single nation and encouraged oppressed Jewish people to go to South Africa.

I have an image of Jinnah as President and Nehru as Prime Minister.

How much weaker would wahabist extremism be?
Jinnah was diagnosed with cancer in 1945, and given six months. He lasted three and a quarter years, chiefly because of his iron will to settle the question before he died.
If by '45 there is a firm plan and policy to i) implement the Gov of India Act 1935 in its entirety then maybe Partition can be avoided. ii) The only other option which the Muslim League would accept was a loose Confederation, one which by '45/46 Congress was deadly opposed to, the wanted a Centralised Government. All parties might have agreed to the highly devolved Indian Federation (already de jure in existence after 1937), of the 1935 Act, as a "Temporary" (but understood to be indefinite) measure. But for that to happen, you need Churchill to be hit by a bus in 1940.
 
Put Churchill on a crate for some backwater in africa between 1940-1942 and have Mountbatten in control sooner. you have your unified india with probably Jinnah as PM actually, i could see some compromise to him not getting his state being that he is the first PM of India(at least at first), probably also if Mountbatten lays down the law that he isn't getting a muslim state, he focuses more on conservatism in India to oppose Nehru and Ghandi who certainly lean towards more socialist ideology (especially Nehru). In that maybe he can bring in some muslim empowerment also, i could also see Nehru gaining some key muslim figures. Politically you would also have parties like Hindu Nationalist Parties (BJP) and a Muslim Nationalist Party eventually come up also.

An All India Party (led by Jinnah) vs Congress (led by Nehru) would certainly make politics interesting at least to begin with.

overall everyone is better off because you aren't forcing people to migrate, resulting in killing and with Churchill out of the picture you would have a more successful Mountbatten.

Not sure how wahabism and india is related. Even with Pakistan its a stretch, the extreme ideology came in because of poor governance and those areas being poor, not because of anything related to Pakistan and India or even Bangladesh as state entities.

The largest cities in United India i would imagine being Lahore (being the main hub in Punjab), Mumbai and Delhi with Karachi not far behind. I think Dhaka is actually smaller since it probably means they would be travelling into other areas and in particular, nearby Calcutta. Without the distraction of forming new nations and still being united, i think they don't have the issue of nationbuilding as such. I think their would be tensions that would come up but you don't have anything fanning the flames so to speak then its probably better for a while at least (well until a nationalist party came in, then maybe cracks really start to show, or if one of the two big parties ignore the muslim/hindu majority areas).

Oh yeah, they'd trash everyone at cricket also.
 

Deleted member 94680

This butterflies Pakistan, the whole point of the all India thing.

And? You're still not making clear your link between no Pakistan and Wahhabism. I take it you mean All India Muslim League by "the all India thing".

Also it's probably better to figure the way to butterfly the All India Muslim League as a way to stop Pakistan forming.
 

Ak-84

Banned
I don't see Jinnah accepting the PM role. Firstly, as I said he was going to be sick. In OTL he got lung cancer due to a habit of a dozen cigars a day. Secondly, getting the PM job in exchange for dropping Pakistan would be completely, absolutely out of character for him. He was (even as his enemies admitted) the most honest and upright politician in all India; the mere mention of such a corrupt bargain would horrify him.

PLus he was always a late convert to partition, he accepted it when it was inevitable. Autonomy of a sort was something he would happily accept in exchange for trading the separation demand, which in OTL he did in 1946, only to see the Congress back out.

As for Wahabism, well in OTL the two main phases of influence in Pakistan came during the Zia era and in the mid-2000's. In the first, Zia faced enough pushback for the Civil Service, Civil Society and the Courts that he backed down. Secondly occured due to the American invasion and the consequent massive refugees movement into Pakistan in 2001-2002. This time the State was strong enough to beat the extremists back.

In this case, there is no first. The second? Possibly, a United India would face the same threat on its Northern and Western flank as OTL Pakistan did, and its pretty possible that they would react the same way.
 
I don't see Jinnah accepting the PM role. Firstly, as I said he was going to be sick. In OTL he got lung cancer due to a habit of a dozen cigars a day. Secondly, getting the PM job in exchange for dropping Pakistan would be completely, absolutely out of character for him. He was (even as his enemies admitted) the most honest and upright politician in all India; the mere mention of such a corrupt bargain would horrify him.

PLus he was always a late convert to partition, he accepted it when it was inevitable. Autonomy of a sort was something he would happily accept in exchange for trading the separation demand, which in OTL he did in 1946, only to see the Congress back out.

As for Wahabism, well in OTL the two main phases of influence in Pakistan came during the Zia era and in the mid-2000's. In the first, Zia faced enough pushback for the Civil Service, Civil Society and the Courts that he backed down. Secondly occured due to the American invasion and the consequent massive refugees movement into Pakistan in 2001-2002. This time the State was strong enough to beat the extremists back.

In this case, there is no first. The second? Possibly, a United India would face the same threat on its Northern and Western flank as OTL Pakistan did, and its pretty possible that they would react the same way.

may have been sick but the man was driven. He'd take the role if only for the reason he can put in what he wants/needs before he dies. Also he takes that offer on the basis that pakistan isn't even on the table. Its more of an olive branch if anything. Mountbatten isn't offering him a big Pakistan (they may be offered something but Sindh and Punjab wouldn't be in that as well as Pakistani Kashmir, making the whole thing a bit useless).
 
Top