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
    Depends on how New Delhi treats balochistan
    Hands off approach is the best , let the feudal sort it out amongst themselves
     
    kholieken likes this.
  2. htgriffin Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    Bigger minority with the franchise from the get-go and a strong presence in the military? Neither the Hindutva nor the Salafists are likely to get enough traction on a federal/national level if no workable coalition is possible without Muslim support (although things might go sour on the provincial level depending on how much freedom of action they have).

    Take insurgencies in various back-beyonds/borderlands as likely, although no worse than the North-east and likely more readily dealt with one way or another without the resources devoted to the Indo-Pakistani conflict we see OTL.

    Bengal East and West alike win very big.
     
    kholieken likes this.
  3. kernals12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2017
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    How so?
     
  4. SealTheRealDeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2017
    Fragmentation of existing geographic/economic units. Bangladesh is separated from Bengal's economic heartland (Kolkata), and Kolkata has had most of its hinterland stripped away.
     
  5. Augustus_Caesar Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2019
    Bengal and Punjab would be excellent assets with the best Agricultural lands. These could be mostly Secularized as they were urban, already. However, KPK, Balochistan and Tribal valleys could be a problem to govern, a bit.

    There may not be a Hindu-Muslim conflict to that extent and that has been exaggerated. With a stable nation, I think Hindu-Muslim percent would stabilize somewhere at 60-40% ratio. The political environment would look very, very different in the whole South Asia.
     
    Nivek likes this.
  6. htgriffin Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    Yup. And on top of that, (East) Bengal dodges this mess.
     
  7. Mr.J Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2010
    I don't think so because the 1943 famine was limited to Bengal. The famines of the 1870s definitely caused more deaths than the partition though.
     
    EnvarKadri and Augustus_Caesar like this.
  8. Augustus_Caesar Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2019
    The final figure of deaths and homes lost is ambigious, being one of the largest Human migrations, although false stories are peddled about the details.

    It's ambiguous as to why the Hindus and the Muslims in Punjab, especially, who were friendly with each other for centuries, suddenly turned into belligerents but there's a suggestion about Land Mafia gangs who masqueraded as Religious zealots to get hold of expensive property. This might have cascaded.

    Smaller Segments of both sides were Zealous but that's exactly what you see in today's India, too. So that could be overrated. Partition was totally a different thing done for political aspirations, of both people from the suncontinent(both sides) and overseas. Nehru's aspiration towards a Soviet style Ultra-Socialist planned economy was one of the chief reasons. This affected the Muslim leaders like Jinnah, who was initially a good person and also created apprehension in the Western powers.

    I don't see it as a Hindu-Muslim issue but rather a political issue.
     
  9. Constan's Shah The Shah

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2016
    Much depends on how events before independence went, during indian 1930s elections INC won plurality in three seats of "Pakistan", but as British law decree went only candidate with 50% could qualify,Muslim league subsequently offered support to its candidates to keep these regions represented but Congress refused this support and this région went unrepresented antagonising people in the region. There were many such decisions taken by it, it seems from start it wanted to partition the country, you need change in attitude of princes and landlords of this country to achieve anything, indeed Indians in punjab lived together for over 1000 years however petty squabbles between lords always keep them divided as is the situation now.
    Therefore I would call it ASB that nation would not be partitioned, there was strong push by Indian elites for it as they feared uncertainty of United India
     
  10. Dementor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2007
    Location:
    Sofia, Bulgaria
    Why such a large Muslim population? There are only about a third of the population OTL.
     
  11. Spens1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2016
    It depends, if a united india occurs without Britain fanning the flames of division then i'd imagine it could work. Ultimately you'd need rather secular entities to rise and you'd need the likes of Jinnah and Ghandi+Nehru (along with the likes of Mountbatten and/or predeccessors stopping anything that Churchill and others where planning regarding divisions) to be on the same page and a constitution and a parliament that is entirely secular and absolutely ensures that parties are secular in nature (meaning a secular left wing and secular right wing party).

    If you can ensure this much, honestly i can't see why it wouldn't work, most moderate hindus and muslims had been living side by side for a long time before and had no issue. Obviously you get your ideologues on all sides but that will be the main issue to combat.

    Overall you'd have a much better subcontinent economically and socially i'd say if things went well.

    Oh and the whole world would be bullied at cricket pretty much.
     
    Rath and Zagan like this.
  12. Vikayak Devagiri Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2019
    United India would be worse off for many reasons -
    1. There would be a weak center, which is bad for a India in early stages as integration would be difficult
    2. Princely states would be independent, which would mean that they could and would try to seccede
    3. India would inherit Afghanistan border and all the problems with it along with a close border with USSR, which is never nice
    4. Both Hindu and Muslim Communalism would be rampant across the nation
     
    Khanzeer and HShafs like this.
  13. Metaverse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2019
    Pros:

    Richest riverwashed lands are owned by India. An excellent food resource if managed decently.

    No foreign conflicts for any piece of land(except a minor one probably the small part taken by China called Aksai Chin).

    Border and proximity to Persia, Central Asia and Soviet Union.

    A possibility of Religion becoming weaker in politics. Almost a third is Muslim and Hindus come in various castes and groups and hence it's more complex to play with Vote bank by dragging religion to Political spheres. Hence less riots, more reforms, more harmony and more rationalization of society and religious mindsets.

    A possibility of good foreign investment to the largest populated democratic country in the World and the most strategically placed one.

    A possible standby threat to the Communist China, If they did something too bad.

    A possibility of a United Russia through support from India.

    The only one con is religious riots but that can be controlled.
     
  14. Simon Thread Killer Extraordinaire

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2009
    Fanning the flames of division? I'm curious but how did Britain '[fan] the flames of division' during the run up to and during Indian and Pakistani independence? That does seem to rather remove any agency from the locals.
     
  15. Khanzeer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2019
    Both locals and british were responsible for divisions amongst the major communities
    Just like any other political struggle, nobody has clean hands
     
  16. Shehryar Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2018
    Location:
    Pakistan
    to understand a whether a 'united india' would be a good thing or a disaster, one must first explore why india was partitioned in the first place.

    there were two main parties, Congress, headed by Nehru, and the Muslim League, headed by Jinnah.
    at first The Muslim League demanded greater autonomy, a loose federation, and rights for muslims to be safeguarded.
    these demands were put to Nehru in what is called, the Delhi Muslim Proposals in 1927.

    Now the problem is these proposals were initially accepted by Nehru, and then He backtracked from them when he passed the Nehru report. Basically, there was a break down of trust which lead to partition.

    So any United India, is going to be formed on the basis of the Nehru Report 1928, which called for a highly centralized form of government. And the consequences? lets just that large scale revolts are on the menu and India gets balkanized anyway in a comple of decades.
     
  17. htgriffin Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    1. Weaker centralization than OTL? Probably. Severely so if Congress can maintain support from places as wide-ranging as Bengal and 'Inner Pashtunistan'? A different matter IMO.
    2. Is this a given considering the above? Mind you going the Dominion route may be the most face saving way to gut said monarchs' actual power without full-on invasions.
    3. Proportionally less of an issue than the Pakistan borders (including East Bengal and Kashmir).
    4. Again, the Partition aggravated this and made it easier for theocrats to gain political influence.
     
    Sardar likes this.
  18. Spens1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2016
    Well there was already tension to begin with, the britsh generally fanned the anti-hindu and anti-muslim sentiment in the respective communities to divide the pro-independence movement to weaken them (divide and conquer sort of thing).
     
  19. kernals12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2017
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    ??
     
  20. Metaverse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2019
    India was just a stone throw from the Soviet Union/Russia, back then. You could have both as strong economic allies and build good trade relations through controlling Afghanistan and Kashmir. This could lead to a stronger economy in both places and avoid Russia breaking up when it came out of Communism.