Will India be better off than in OTL

  • Better

    Votes: 137 84.0%
  • Worse

    Votes: 26 16.0%

  • Total voters
    163

Srihari14

Banned
United India has been my personal most researched Alternate history, I wanted to know how Would it Look, here is the Scenario -

Jinnah does not return to India after leaving congress in 1920s. he spends the rest of his life in England, thus the Muslim League does not gain Steam due to not having a leader with the Capability to lead the Party.

Thus everything goes according to Congress, who become the main party in India, Congress also becomes much more influential in Muslim Politics, as Maulana Abul Kalam Azad becomes the most influential Muslim Leader, Thus India becomes Independent as Normal in 1947, but without any Partition or Violence, India here Includes India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, How Would a United India affect both the region and the world?

Would it gobble up Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and Maldives, How will relations be in Cold War, How China and Middle East React to this new Country

This would be the Demographics of the nation at 1945 -
  • 65% Hindu
  • 27% Muslim
  • 8% Other
 

Lusitania

Donor
I do not think that the absence of Jinnah would stop India splintering into separate states. The inclusion of other peripheral countries such as Sri Lanka actual makes the situation more complicated. There were many regional issues and forces at play that once British had been removed came into play. Other leaders maybe not as charismatic would of arisen to channel the aspirations or fears of certain segments of population.

I am actually surprised that India survived with its present borders never mind actual increase its size.
 
From a humanitarian stand point it would certainly be better off, The resettlement of refugees from either country were in the millions with an absurd amount of deaths. India's population in 1951 were refugees from east and west pakistan
 

Srihari14

Banned
I do not think that the absence of Jinnah would stop India splintering into separate states. The inclusion of other peripheral countries such as Sri Lanka actual makes the situation more complicated. There were many regional issues and forces at play that once British had been removed came into play. Other leaders maybe not as charismatic would of arisen to channel the aspirations or fears of certain segments of population.

I am actually surprised that India survived with its present borders never mind actual increase its size.
Untrue, Jinnah was the spearhead of Pakistan Movement, without him, Muslim League never gets a leader who is both Charismatic and a great Orator
look, even in 1937 elections, AIML came only second, this was due to Jinnah just emerging in the Party, Without Jinnah, No muslim league
 

Srihari14

Banned
From a humanitarian stand point it would certainly be better off, The resettlement of refugees from either country were in the millions with an absurd amount of deaths. India's population in 1951 were refugees from east and west pakistan
Yes, Punjab, Bengal and Sindh would be much better off
 
Untrue, Jinnah was the spearhead of Pakistan Movement, without him, Muslim League never gets a leader who is both Charismatic and a great Orator
look, even in 1937 elections, AIML came only second, this was due to Jinnah just emerging in the Party, Without Jinnah, No muslim league
I’m not sure you can put everything down to ‘a great leader’. Things are more complex than that. The underlying factors socio-economic-political are still present. The Muslim League might be less effective without him, and certainly take a different form, but saying he’s the pivotal factor is too extreme.
 
From a humanitarian stand point it would certainly be better off, The resettlement of refugees from either country were in the millions with an absurd amount of deaths. India's population in 1951 were refugees from east and west pakistan

Would there be a higher risk of a large national rebellion, though? Would, say, East Punjab chafe under Hindu rule?
 

kernals12

Banned
It would quickly descend into sectarian civil war which, given the country's size, would result in a mind bogglingly enormous humanitarian catastrophe, destabilize the region, and possibly lead to communist control.
 
Would there be a higher risk of a large national rebellion, though? Would, say, East Punjab chafe under Hindu rule?
Presuming you mean West Punjab, there would be a stronger push for federalism but given that local administrators chosen from the native populace (not entirely Muslim but a solid majority) would be running the area 'Hindu' rule would be comparatively distant.

Now Pakhtunkhwa/NWFP Much like the Northeast in OTL and this one it is likely to have endemic separatist movements
 
It would quickly descend into sectarian civil war which, given the country's size, would result in a mind bogglingly enormous humanitarian catastrophe, destabilize the region, and possibly lead to communist control.
Civil war? That seems a bit extreme. The idea of Pakistan didn’t gain steam until the 30s, and most of the time Hindus and Muslims got along just fine.
 
It would quickly descend into sectarian civil war which, given the country's size, would result in a mind bogglingly enormous humanitarian catastrophe, destabilize the region, and possibly lead to communist control.
There are large numbers of Muslims in India as is and no sectarian civil war has broken out (and it's not as if the partition has made things very peaceful either, what with all the Indo-Pakistani wars and the Bangladeshi war of independence).
 
The fact tha ITTL India would be the largest Muslim country would probably do something to quell extremism.
I agree. I've always thought that having millions more Muslims in India would give them enough political power to bargain with the Hindu majority and ensure fair treatment.
 
Perhaps in a scenario where there is no campaign verse the Ottomans in WW1 (the Navy forces the Straights - very nearly did it OTL but bottled it) and the Ottomans with British and French warships reaching Istanbul

This results in no campaign in what was the Ottoman Empire and far more Indian troops end up on the Western front in large numbers with good effect and the British peoples are far more exposed to Indian Veterans and injured etc in the UK (other than just mainly in Brighton earlier in the war) and as a result post war talks of Indian Independence are far more advanced and as a result it takes place in the 30s before any real 2 nation movement can gain traction?
 

Srihari14

Banned
Would there be a higher risk of a large national rebellion, though? Would, say, East Punjab chafe under Hindu rule?
Population would be mixed, keep in mind, Punjabi Muslims were not the big proponents of Muslims League, it was the Hindustani Muslims, thus it would be secular
 

Srihari14

Banned
Presuming you mean West Punjab, there would be a stronger push for federalism but given that local administrators chosen from the native populace (not entirely Muslim but a solid majority) would be running the area 'Hindu' rule would be comparatively distant.

Now Pakhtunkhwa/NWFP Much like the Northeast in OTL and this one it is likely to have endemic separatist movements
which would most likely be dealt with much more easily due to this country being much stronger
 

kernals12

Banned
I agree. I've always thought that having millions more Muslims in India would give them enough political power to bargain with the Hindu majority and ensure fair treatment.
Or it could cause the Hindu majority to clamp down on their rights to ensure their dominance.
 
Top