Would a United India be a good thing or a disaster?

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by kernals12, Jul 23, 2019.

  1. kernals12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2017
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    If India hadn't been partitioned, it would've at least avoided the 10 million deaths that resulted from the population transfers. But given how Muslims are treated in India IOTL, I reckon that India would wind up with something akin to Jim Crow or devolve into Civil War if it had an even bigger muslim minority.

    What do you guys think?
     
  2. Nivek Resident Videogame Expert

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Location:
    Santa Marta,Magdalena,West Venezuela
    Depends...but after China become communist, i can see even both trying make it work to fight against the red chinese, a common enemy among muslim pakus(atheist) and the hindi(the chinese)
     
  3. TastySpam Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    My intuition is much better. No Indo-Pakistani Wars and none of the horrific deaths from partition. Whatever you think of the status of Muslims in India are today, it's better than war and mass death. Probably butterflies out the horrific 1973 repression in modern-day Bangladesh too.
     
  4. Noscoper Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2015
    Location:
    Internet
    Why would it work given both have far more beef with each other than the Chinese who are on the other side of the World's tallest mountains
     
  5. kernals12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2017
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    Why are you so sure about this? Why wouldn't the Indo-Pakistani wars be replaced by civil wars?
     
  6. TastySpam Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Yeah, China and India are only semi-neighbors really. The Himalayas are not particularly...passable.

    There's a lot of trade/cultural contact between China & India in history, but it largely goes through either Central Asia or Southeast Asia.
     
  7. Nivek Resident Videogame Expert

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Location:
    Santa Marta,Magdalena,West Venezuela
    I think you underestimated the little love chinese bore in asia...and how their geopolitics were pre and post colonialism, specially with chinese under soviet nuclear umbrella and their own, a smilling buddah can not come fast enough
     
    EnvarKadri likes this.
  8. SlideAway Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    Why do you assume a civil war?
     
    Johnrankins likes this.
  9. kernals12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2017
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    China was under the Soviet nuclear umbrella for a very brief period. In 1969, Moscow was considering launching a nuclear attack on China.
     
  10. Noscoper Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2015
    Location:
    Internet
    Pakistan and Bangladesh would likely turn into larger versions of Kashmir given the distant and poorer nature of the regions.
     
  11. kernals12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2017
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    Countries that have significant religious minority groups tend to not get along well.
     
    Leede likes this.
  12. Noscoper Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2015
    Location:
    Internet
  13. SlideAway Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    That's... most countries in Asia?

    In any event, political tensions do not always equal civil war. OTL India has 150 million Muslims. There are very real issues, but there is no catastrophic civil war.
     
  14. kernals12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2017
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    Do you think those tensions would be better or worse if India had 500 million Muslims instead?
     
  15. Roger II Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Location:
    Asōrestān
    We'd have to outline how and why partition doesn't happen first.
     
  16. SlideAway Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    Better and worse? I think you're likely to see more political gridlock. But I also think there'd be greater integration than present. And religious minorities would not be viewed as fifth columns or as "disloyal" (i.e. Muslims in India being accused of being "loyal to India." And India's Muslim heritage not seen as inauthentically Indian, or Pakistani Hindu heritage being seen as inauthentically Pakistani.)

    I've said this in the past in other threads on this subject, but to me the bigger risk in an unpartitioned India is that civil unrest / political deadlock leads to a military coup early on - and India in general being more authoritarian.

    Obviously some sort of catastrophic later breakup is possible, but OTL balkanization is pretty rare and the country is more likely than not to remain in one piece if it gets independence in one piece.
     
  17. Derek Jackson Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2004
    Location:
    Uk
    No Pakistan. No ISI
    There is a good chance of no taliban
     
  18. kernals12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2017
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    That's probably a more likely scenario than civil war.
     
  19. thekingsguard Founder of Korsgaardianism

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Location:
    Virginia - near the USA-CSSA Border
    So long as it holds together, there AT LEAST is one plus, that rather than the focus of national foreign/military policy being the Indo-Pakistani conflict for decades, all that time, money and attention can be focused elsewhere.

    Now WHERE that goes is the question.
     
    Lokesh kumar singh and Swede like this.
  20. kernals12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2017
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    And since the US would not need to pick sides in that conflict (they picked Pakistan due to its location), Washington and New Delhi could have that special relationship that they always should've had as the world's two largest democracies.