Still doesn't answer my original question of how much of it was concentrated in Hindu hands
WI- United India
- Thread starter Srihari14
- Start date
Srihari14
Banned
Not much, it was mixed, for example, Unionist Party (Punjab) was a Punjab centric party and was led by a Muslim
Nah, ITTL India was so satisfied with everything else they decided to leave Portugal their last gasp of imperial glory
Lusitania
Donor
The unified India would still see rise of either nationalist or religious center parties and if the country become decentralized then the political battles be fought in the provinces. So we could see in provinces with large Muslim or Hindu majority enacting laws and policies discriminate against minorities. Unless we have a strong central government you would see India being a hodgepodge of provincial governments with different laws and India being a country in name only. But a strong central government will alienate different groups with both sides being unhappy at any government policy or legislation that does not support them 100%.
So adding Pakistan and Bangladesh plus smakering of other smaller states will only aggravate the problems India has.
So adding Pakistan and Bangladesh plus smakering of other smaller states will only aggravate the problems India has.
Lusitania
Donor
Perfect the Portuguese government policy in 1960 was that if Portugal could not keep Portuguese India then it wanted to make it independent. But India would not accept that.Nah, ITTL India was so satisfied with everything else they decided to leave Portugal their last gasp of imperial glory
Lusitania
Donor
But provincial parties would exists that would draw their power from certain groups and their policies would reflect those group’s religious and cultural beliefs and prejudices
Lusitania
Donor
I think most readers have to appreciate the “miracle” that we have a united India the size we do and that it is democratic. While there are many problems, all countries have them, the country functions and is slowly progressing and modernizing.
To think that in 100 worlds we would have majority of situations as good or better is not realistic. To add additional pressures including a much larger Muslim population that would want sharia law (in some provinces) or ban on pork in contrast to Hindu provinces with their own issues would make the country harder to govern and result in either civil war or at best decentralized government with very weak central government and provinces bring autonomous.
To think that in 100 worlds we would have majority of situations as good or better is not realistic. To add additional pressures including a much larger Muslim population that would want sharia law (in some provinces) or ban on pork in contrast to Hindu provinces with their own issues would make the country harder to govern and result in either civil war or at best decentralized government with very weak central government and provinces bring autonomous.
Srihari14
Banned
People exaggerate Hindu Muslim conflict, For example, Pakistan movement biggest support came from Muslims of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, not Punjab, which only experienced violence after Partition was announced, Muslims would want Sharia Law, but keep in Mind, most muslims are in Congress in TTL and the biggest Muslim Figure Abul Kalam Azad wanted secular law, so its not unreasonable to assume there would be integration
Lusitania
Donor
I never worry about the majority I alway write about those that are most adamant about their cause. I do not believe there are over 1/2 million Hindu hardliners in India not over 50 million but those that are become experts in exploiting the collective group’s perceived injustices (majority being exaggerated). So I am simply saying that current issues in India would of been much more complex and in certain parts animosity exaggerated to one or other group’s advantage. Not saying be failed state but not the same or better state.
kholieken
Banned
India would have many more grouping than religious divides : 1. Pro Hindustani/Devanagari/Urdu languages (majority of Indus-Ganges river area) vs Pro English (most peripheral region) 2. Pro Central Government (business class, college graduates, modernist, groups who didn't own states) vs Pro States groups 3. Urban vs Rural 4. Rich vs Middle-class vs Poor 5. Religious Poor vs Socialist Poor
So Religious divide wouldn't be all-important. The Big Decider would be fate of "muhajirs" classes who are middle-class Muslims living in Hindu cities and states, If these people stay rich, idea if Islamic separatism would evaporate. Democrats/Populist would fight them bitterly (not just Hindu, but also Bengal and Sindhi) for control of government and economy. If Feds could protect them and help modernize India, they (together with Hindu and Others city-based middle class) might be backbone for federal government support.
United India would also had "interesting" problem concerning Baloch (spread between Iran and India), Tibetan (China-India), Pashtun (Afghanistan-India), Bengals (Burma-India), and tribesmen in regions shared by Burma-India. many of these groups would have their own states in India, with support for language and culture, and may help their co-ethnic across border.
Weirdly, Pashtun was big on Socialist before partition.
So Religious divide wouldn't be all-important. The Big Decider would be fate of "muhajirs" classes who are middle-class Muslims living in Hindu cities and states, If these people stay rich, idea if Islamic separatism would evaporate. Democrats/Populist would fight them bitterly (not just Hindu, but also Bengal and Sindhi) for control of government and economy. If Feds could protect them and help modernize India, they (together with Hindu and Others city-based middle class) might be backbone for federal government support.
United India would also had "interesting" problem concerning Baloch (spread between Iran and India), Tibetan (China-India), Pashtun (Afghanistan-India), Bengals (Burma-India), and tribesmen in regions shared by Burma-India. many of these groups would have their own states in India, with support for language and culture, and may help their co-ethnic across border.
Weirdly, Pashtun was big on Socialist before partition.
Srihari14
Banned
Hindu Hardliners would be minuscule compared to OTL, as they were strengthed by Partition
Srihari14
Banned
Yes, the Muhajirs would be a big deciding factor, if they stay in their home state, it will be for the best for state as now they will have an educated class of individuals as their elite,
Also, these separatism would be lesser as this united India could focus on these separatists alone without any distractions like OTL
Lusitania
Donor
Any hardline party that would emerge be on provincial level first. Wether they spread nationally depends on strength of central Indian government. In a decentralized India provincial politics become much more important.
I also think that the early 1948-1970 be the honeymoon stage for country. The 1970 onward becomes where it seems these hardline groups found an audience and that is mostly because of the changing society and economic changes that make certain segments of population feel ostracized.
If we look at the current “hardline” parties they are more preveland in last 20 years than in the first 40 years.
longsword14
Banned
Not if there is a Muslim political movement. Having Pakistan break off effectively killed any such movement inside OTL India, which will not be the case here.
Srihari14
Banned
Hardliners rose due to hatred and disgust that Muslims of the subcontinent have their own country, but Hindus dont, Partition violence strengthened them
Srihari14
Banned
Nope, this is how a right wing hindu nationalist views India, he sees Muslims in the Subcontinent having two countries - Pakistan and Bangladesh, the former being an Islamic country, and he sees Muslims living in India, what he wants is a Hindu India or a Non Muslim India, as Pakistan has wiped out its Non Muslims