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. Khanzeer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2019
    How accurate are estimates of bloodshed in 1947 ? Didn't the famine of 1943 under British control kill more Indians?
     
  2. Sardar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2018
    Yes, this ATL India would be more decentralized than our India, perhaps even a confederal government would be established but I think that these problems can be solved.
     
    Puget Sound and Khanzeer like this.
  3. Dingus Khan Emperor of Nowhere

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2017
    Location:
    California
    A United India is going to have its share of ethnic/religious conflict, but it may not be as bad as the OTL India-Pakistan conflicts. Also Muslims would form a larger percentage of the Indian population if Pakistan and Bangladesh were included, so perhaps neither Hindu nationalism nor Islamism would become such powerful political movements.
     
    Puget Sound, Zagan, Rath and 4 others like this.
  4. Chris Triangle Goldfish Enthusiast

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2011
    India is 15% Muslim now but If Pakistan and Bangladesh remained in India, the country today would still only be about 30% Muslim.
     
    Puget Sound, Swede and Nivek like this.
  5. Kaushlendra pratap singh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2018
    Location:
    India
    Then there will be more relation will be made between two community.
     
  6. Khanzeer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2019
    I would like to see a secular nonsectarian punjab superstate form in central india , arguably the most powerful landlocked nation in the world
     
  7. Khanzeer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2019
    But punjabi muslim is very different from Hyderabadi muslim and both from bengali muslim.So I dont really see muslims becoming one unified block , they would influence politics but at local provincial level not at naTional level
     
  8. haider najib Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2016
    Location:
    Has no idea
    Well if it means keeping hindu nationalist out then yes they will vote the same. Also local politics works differently from national. Unless there is a different political system muslims will back most likely back on party as it makes them a stronger block and there views across, unless your hindu nationalist you would appeal to the block such as how congress generally gets the muslim vote.
     
    Dingus Khan likes this.
  9. vishnu Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2017
    • Kick
    I think you are ignorant of how India works. Muslims are not the only minority group in India. There are Buddhists, Sikhs, Jews, Parses, Christians and many more. Religious violence usually takes place because of mass conversion that destroy the fundamental culture of India. Religions like Islam never respect other religions much less other cultural practices. This sort of creates friction in a diverse country like India. While other religions share something in common together. This is a country where Jewish people were welcomed with open arms while rest of the world made them suffer. The only reason I can see any minority groups to not get along is only because of politics not because of religion. Some people like to make it about religion so as to cover up the real reason behind any conflict.
     
    Johnrankins likes this.
  10. HShafs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2013
    Location:
    Jogos Nhai
    Maybe a chance of something much worse arising. Muslim Punjab and Sindh might acquiesce to being a part of India, but Pakhtunkhwa regions are incredibly alien compared to the rest of India and would chafe much more so under Delhi's rule. At least in Pakistan, Pashtuns are with their co-religionists and are the second most important ethnicity in the country.

    Also envision much more hatred between Afghanistan and India over this matter.
     
    Khanzeer likes this.
  11. HistoricalArthropod Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2019
    Punjab, Sindh, Kashmir and Bengal would be much, much better off. All core Indo Aryan speaking lands that should integrate very cleanly in to the broader Indian national identity. Pashtun region and Baluchistan would be kind of the odd ones out here, and might see some sepratist insurgency. But on the other hand, one must remember that the Pashtun area was rather loyal to Congress til quite late. At worst, these perephrial iranic speaking regions become just like the otl northeast.

    This is a bunch of crap
     
  12. haider najib Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2016
    Location:
    Has no idea
    Are you one of those weird people who believe all muslims in south asia are actually foreigners and are not native cause muslim?
     
  13. Khanzeer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2019
    maybe based on assessment of current hindu-muslim politics in india but
    w/o 1947 partition , language and culture would always be more important to indians than religion except for an extremist fringe amongst the hindus and muslims
     
  14. Khanzeer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2019
    That is a broad generalization
    some muslim rulers [ repeat some] may be intolerant in their religious views but that hardly represents the mainstream of view of muslim ruling classes.If there was any arrogance and bigotry on their part it was more because of their superority complex based on their turkic,persian ,arab lineage than islam.
    What you are seeing in the last 40 odd yrs is a result of wahabification of sunni muslim world by gulf petrodollars, you cannot backproject these ideas hundreds of years earlier
     
  15. vishnu Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2017
    Nope. I am just saying due to political reasons Muslims are used as scapegoats by their own people to achieve a political agenda. In this process they present Islam as a radical and violent religion all over the world. Unfortunately there are many people on the other side of the spectrum who is using this to their benefit.
    I believe every religion is part of a culture and all should be respected and propagated but law of the land must triumph above any belief system. But nowadays nobody gives due respect to law but rather focus on their beliefs.
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2019
  16. vishnu Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2017
    I don't agree with this term you are using 'hindu nationalists'. Because if you use this term you will be acknowledging there is a 'Islam nationalism' in India. That is the whole basis for the formation of the concept 'hindu nationalism'. Why should one religion depend on a single political entity in any nation. It will be very dangerous for a democratic nation. If you are indirectly mentioning BJP, I would agree that they had some Hindu nationalist ajenda for atime but again for only political gain. They would rather see other religious minorities thrive inorder to secure their voters.
    Extremism without an enemy to focus is bad for business for right wing politics after all. But largely that trend is breaking away. I am a Congress supporter but I am not a member myself but most of the Muslim friends that I know are members of BJP. I was shocked by this and I spoke to some of them. The answers I recieved cannot be said here in this platform as it would result in me being kicked.
     
  17. SlideAway Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    Honestly, I don't know that this is true on a historical basis. NWFP/Khyber-Pakhthunkhwa has historically been a leftist bastion in India. (Admittedly what's confusing here is the distinction between the province itself and the FATA region.) The NWFP in pre-Partition India was actually a stronghold of the Indian National Congress and Pashtuns were overrepresented in the Indian Army.

    Not saying Unpartitioned India wouldn't have separatist conflicts or religious violence, but don't assume it would be based in NWFP.
     
  18. haider najib Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2016
    Location:
    Has no idea
    Don't the know the full history of the BJP political ideology so played it safe in case at one point they were not Hindu nationalist.

    true but im working on the assumption it will have broadlt the same political system of india today so only two major parties.
     
    EnvarKadri and Dingus Khan like this.
  19. HistoricalArthropod Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2019
    What about Baluchistan? I think it would be reasonable to assume that a United India still buys Gwadar from Oman like OTL Pakistan did. I don't think it would be developed to the same extent though.

    Baluchistan might be the only area of otl Pakistan that would bring about significant insurgency in this alt India. But maybe not that much.
     
    Puget Sound, Sardar and Dingus Khan like this.
  20. CalBear Your Ursus arctos californicus Moderator Moderator Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2005
    This is your second Kick for bigotry towards Muslims. You REALLY do not want to go for a third.

    Kicked for a week.