PDA

View Full Version : Partition of India never happened



Doktor
21 Aug 12,, 12:04
What if Partition of India in 1947 never happened.

British Indian Empire never disolved and India. Pakistan and Bangladesh are all together on August 15, 1947.

Would there have been peace on the subcontinent?

Double Edge
21 Aug 12,, 17:48
If we ended up with a secular setup as presently i don't see why not.

Doktor
21 Aug 12,, 18:20
What about secession movements?

Double Edge
21 Aug 12,, 19:21
Well, this is the bit i wanted you to clarify. Define what you mean by peace on the sub-continent ?

Doktor
21 Aug 12,, 20:56
Peace as no armed conflicts within the borders of the state or with the neighbors.

I was looking for opinions if India would have been better, worse or same as today.

Double Edge
21 Aug 12,, 22:22
ok, with the neighbours there would have only been '62 with China as the rest were all as a result of partition.

Within the borders, i'm guessing about the same to slightly more as we would inherit the Pak's problems to a certain extent as well. Relations with the Afghans would be testy due to the Durand line. Afghans might possibly ally with the Chinese as a result.

Balochs is another possibility. So that would be in addition to.

Insurgencies, secession movements in the NE & NW would be there. Though in the case of the NE it might be less as we would have better access. NW is a wild zone for anybody.

Maoists would exist. LTTE as well.

Would the Soviets have still invaded Afghanistan ? there could have been a different outcome.

Would India have gone nuclear ? this one is a coin flip. The plans were there but there'd have been no stimulus as there was in '71.

Tronic
22 Aug 12,, 00:36
British Indian Empire never disolved and India. Pakistan and Bangladesh are all together on August 15, 1947.

You forgot to add Burma. ;)



Peace as no armed conflicts within the borders of the state or with the neighbors.

I was looking for opinions if India would have been better, worse or same as today.

The British ruled India by winning over the various kingdoms over to their side, by force or diplomacy. British rule was largely an aristocratic rule where the British and Indian elite ruled and exploited, through heavy taxation and forced labour, the poor Indian masses. British India was a dominion of several Indian Kingdoms and Princely states. It wouldn't have taken long for a violent class struggle to break out all over the country. Especially after the rise of Communism.

The first thing India did after independence was abolish all Kingdoms in India and strip all Monarchs of their titles. Pakistan abolished its Princely states in 1955, but it didn't abolish the Zamindari feudal structure which is still practiced in Pakistan today.

So in the end, it all depends on how you envision the foundation of this non-partitioned state; an aristocratic state like British India (and partly, Pakistan) or as a Socialist Republic as present day India?

Double Edge
22 Aug 12,, 10:23
I was looking for opinions if India would have been better, worse or same as today.
Assuming we handled our issues in the same way, we'd have a larger economy, but just proportional to the size. So it would be the same as far as the common man was concerned.

cataphract
01 Oct 12,, 04:37
The scenario needs more detail. In this alternate universe, did a) Jinnah/any other ML leader propound the two-nation theory and fail? Or b) did the TNT never exist (this would have to go back all the way to Sir Syed and his understanding of the Muslim problems post-1857)?

In a) the centrifugal seccessionist forces would tear the young republic apart and we would be back to 500+ fiefdoms of the subcontinent.

b) an unstable but somewhat united republic would survive, albeit with major instability on its borders - NWFP, NEFA and Balochistan.

Of course, this makes no mention of Burma, which was part of British India until 1947 :)

cyppok
22 Oct 12,, 01:36
I can see India not going the partition route if it was similar to Canada in the aspects how distribution of power occurred. Ergo each state with the ability to tax and govern part of its revenue and regulations with the federal gov't as the arbiter between them and guarantor of overall sovereignty. Could have happened if common charter rights were very broad and each state could slightly adopt them to their governance style.

Possible but very unlikely I guess.

Also states would be fairly large ergo say Southern Pakistan/Northern Pakistan, East, West, North East, Southern Indias, say 12-15 states or so. That each feels some power and benefit of not leaving. Perhaps some Swiss style distributions of power as well, ergo language and transit etc..

cataphract
22 Oct 12,, 02:50
I can see India not going the partition route if it was similar to Canada in the aspects how distribution of power occurred. Ergo each state with the ability to tax and govern part of its revenue and regulations with the federal gov't as the arbiter between them and guarantor of overall sovereignty. Could have happened if common charter rights were very broad and each state could slightly adopt them to their governance style.

Possible but very unlikely I guess.

Also states would be fairly large ergo say Southern Pakistan/Northern Pakistan, East, West, North East, Southern Indias, say 12-15 states or so. That each feels some power and benefit of not leaving. Perhaps some Swiss style distributions of power as well, ergo language and transit etc..

Jinnah demanded a similar plan with large amounts of power devolved to the provinces, making India a federation (US style) rather than a union (UK style), which Nehru was absolutely against. In hindsight, Nehru was right in creating a more centralised state, because too much power at the state level would break India apart in a few years, Yugoslavia style. You have to remember that there was no common Indian identity in 1947 that could keep the nation together.

Of course, ultimately, Nehru had to relent on his Soviet-style centralism and devolve some power to the states in 1956, but even today, political power in India is far more centralised than in Canada.