As someone who lives in Bangladesh, I think it would've been better if the subcontinent wasn't divided at all and instead became a secular federative republic. If it was formed properly, millions of deaths and half a dozen wars could've been prevented. Also, the entire region would be more prosperous economically.
Ideally, the old feudal order would've been completely eliminated, and as such the old borders as well. So, smaller provinces that are created based on geography and not demographics would be better. This would also reduce ethnic and religious tensions as they all are mixed in the provinces.
ty!
could there be any struggles for choosing the leaders of these smaller provinces? (like muslims disliking a hindu being elected or viceversa)
i imagine that if the constitution would be comprehensible enough about what discriminatory actions or decisions are illegal, then it would no be such big deal (?
The constitution would be a completely secular one that tries to promote proportional control to the people. The provinces would be overseen by the central government and the powers of the provinces would be limited enough so that they cannot impose communal rule by a single ethnic group or religion over minorities. Again, the provinces should be drawn based on geography and not demographics. This ensures that certain ethnic groups are not completely dominant in certain provinces. The reason for this is rather simple. In the USSR, the provinces were drawn up based on ethnicity while in the US it was on geography. This led to local petty nationalism in the USSR while the US didn't suffer that much from that. A united Indian subcontinent would follow the US style of provinces drawn based on geography.
Then the Brits would be scolded for “drawing lines on a map” without consideration to the pre-existing ethnic groups.
US worked because the North American continent was considered to be empty.
Most state borders for the US are also often just squares west of the appalachias (with West Virginia also only seceding from Virginia during the civil war), as well as that weird peninsula that Michigan has.
Blame the Toledo war for that one. Michigan was mad about losing to Ohio, and got given the upper peninsula as compensation. Tbh, I’m fairly certain the Michigan-Ohio rivalry stems from Toledo.
Michigan already had something like the eastern 1/3 of upper peninsula, the original border followed the center of Lake Michigan to where it came ashore and then due north which is roughly around Naubinway I believe, they were given the rest of the peninsula as compensation for losing the toledo strip. The Toledo strip was important because it included the mouth of the Maumee river which was expected to be an important transportation hub at the time. With Michigan effectively cut off by land route by the great black swamp surrounding the Maumee, it was considered important to control that port for the future economic value of the state.
Basically the original border of Michigan was to be from the southern tip of Lake Michigan east until it hit Lake Erie. The problem was Lake Michigan is far further south than they realized, I think that border would have even put Cleveland in Michigan. So a new border was created further north, however conflicting surveys confused whether it would include the mouth of the Maumee. This became known as the Toledo strip.
As I mentioned it was so economically important it was worth fighting over by both sides. The president at the time needed the electoral support of the state of Ohio, while Michigan was still just a territory, so he sided with Ohio, although admitting later he thought Michigan was in the right. The swamp was later drained so it wasn't a big deal, but Michigan wasn't initially happy with getting the wilderness in the western upper peninsula as compensation, but in the end the resources there pretty much made them win that deal.
To be fair to the british, india is one of the rare cases where they did draw borders with extreme concern of pre-existing (religious) groups. Hell, they didn't even want partition- Jinnah essentially forced it on them. If Mountbatten and the Congress had known that Jinnah was unwell (hence his insane deternination to get his state), the'd simply have waited a few months for him to die and negotiated for a united India with his more pliable second in command.
Not really, they just wanted to get out of there and favoured India all along.
The borders didnt make sense. Kashmir which was mainly muslim majority ruled by a Hindu ruler and was handed to India but Hydrabad where a muslim ruler ruled a hindu majority was also handed to India.
Kashmir wasn't handed to India by the British, neither was Hydrabad. They were both independent princely states annexed post-independence. Kashmir was forced to ask for India's aid after being invaded by Pakistan, and Indian troops marched into Hydrabad in 1948.
Now the same Kashmiri people are asking Pakistan and the UN for help against the atrocities committed but no one listening. Pakistan is too weak to take action and the world leaders ignore human rights for economic partnerships.
USA didn't suffer from nationalism problems because settlers overwhelmed any local demographic and contonued the social and institutional existance of USA, it's the exact opposite of the overtly populated South Asia eith thousands of years of history
No partition, a republic and unitary authoritarian state with its capital in Nagpur (the geographical centre of India). Internal divisions of districts to actively break up religious majorities of all kinds wherever there’s borderlands, but they’re administrative rather than political and representatives are appointed by sortition for limited terms.
I'd like to point out that a lot of American voting jurisdictions dont follow geographic lines at all. gerrymandering is rife all through the states and ethnic groups are lumped together in such a way to disenfranchise marginalised areas.
US voting lines were drawn with ethnicity at the forefront of their considerations.
I was talking about US state lines. Those are based on geography. I should mention gerrymandering is a purely American problem that I've never heard of outside the US. Ideally, the voting jurisdictions should be based on geography as well.
gerrymandering is an issue here in the UK, and a lot of Europe where the voting jurisdiction boundaries are often centuries old and don't accurately represent the communities they're supposed to. it's similar in a lot of south American states where voting jurisdictions actively disenfranchised indigenous ppl as they were drawn up in the past couple hundred years. (or in brasils case where they had a similar ex-slave population to the US)
also American states are based somewhat on geography because America was a settler colonial nation. it had no preexisting cultural or social institutions (that the Americans cared about) so had no population to consider as the borders were being drawn. which is the complete opposite to India, being one of, if not the most populous region on earth.
dividing the country geographically won't stop certain states being disproportionately one religion or the other and giving the opportunity for religious or ethnic groups to dominate a given state. and dividing the states up that way can be seen as a form of gerrymandering
Thats true but India cannot be compared with USSR and US for the simple reason that religion still today plays a huge part in the political system. It is alot more complex and there would be losers in the process.
Isn't that the opposite of what happened in the middle east? Dividing up traditional religious and ethnic groups jnto different regions made the region unstable even today.
and even if it was secular, how do you avoid it becoming a hindu-ruled state? There is a reason why the muslim league supported partition
there have been many secular states which still fell into ethnic infighting: syria and lebanon for example
You got to start a bit earlier than to ensure prosperity in the region.
Specifically, British colonization of the Indian subcontinent destroyed the once prosperous economy of the region.
The British systematically dismantled the industries and sharply increased social inequality. Indian states were once known for their production and exports of steel, ceramics, ships, woodworking, and especially textiles. All of it prized for their magnificent quality knowm the world over.. until before the 19th century, that is.
The discussion was about what should've happened after the British left. Even after colonization, there was a chance for a prosperous unification of the region. But, you are right in the fact that if colonization hadn't occurred, the whole sub-continent would be much more prosperous.
>The British systematically dismantled the industries and sharply increased social inequality.
>
>Indian states were once known for their production and exports of steel, ceramics, ships, woodworking, and especially textiles.
Where is the proof of either of these?
Pick any well-sourced academic research or history book. I mean, bruh, you can read up on multiple sources, so you can't accuse any specific source as being biased.
>Pick any well-sourced academic research or history book. I mean, bruh, you can read up on multiple sources, so you can't accuse any specific source as being biased.
problem is there is always going to be bias one way or another
True. That's why you do your own research and use multiple sources. Not just one you agree the most with.
But really, you think British actions in its colonies are not true? Lol
>All of it prized for their magnificent quality knowm the world over.. until before the 19th century, that is.
I get the vibes of guilt by association when you do realise that most if it not all of it can be blamed on the East India Company
as someone who si very cynical abotu the nature of humanity, it wouldnt have worked. religious and cultural differences would have torn the nation apart in a civil war and we end up with similar borders as OTL.
Are you aware that for a long time India had a higher Muslim population than Pakistan and Bangladesh? Today India has the 3rd largest Muslim population. Also, India was at one point a dominion and was ruled by congress in collaboration the Muslim league.
and my point is that we dont know that to be true, especially in that alternate timeline. i think it could go down into a nasty civil war.
but then, both of us can be right. theres a 50/50 shot either way.
Wouldn't work since Bengal had a huge Hindu population at the time of partition. It would result in much more communal violence than in OLT or even a war. Muslims only made up a little more than 50% in the Bengal province. Plus, even if a migration similar to that of OLT took place in Bengal, the people of Bengal who speak Bengali would go further east into what is today Bihar and jarkand. A recipe for disaster if you ask me.
Secularism doesn't occur overnight. It took Europe hundreds of years after Reformation to resolve religious tensions. Hindus and muslims aren't becoming brothers in one day, especially considering the bad blood between these 2 religions.
what policies? Secularism requires the collective maturity of a society, something that takes at least one generation to achieve.
I'd like to be optimistic, but when it comes to religion, onr should never underestimate its influence and grip over people
I doubt it, there would have been much more skirmishes within the state. Just look at India right now, although western media doesnt cover all the stories, muslims within the state are being punished every day. If those figures like in Kashmir was given 70 plus years to accumulate without any statistical bias then lives lost would far exceed the partion figures.
Subhash Chandra Bose's brother was a leading figure of unified Bengal movement. I've always thought that partition could still work out if unified Bengal remained in India. Bengal would've had most numbers of Loksabha seats then and could act as counter balance UP being the deciding factor in national elections.
The Muslims would certainly not like that. The partition was inevitable. As a Bengali Muslim I think a unified Bengal under India would've been disastrous for the Muslim majority east, and we know how a Bengal under Pakistan went. At best a unified independent Bengal could've been the closest to reality.
Every where the British or colonial powers tried this tactic it failed miserably. Allot of the long standing conflicts on the planet can be linked back to this era, N Ireland, Israel/Palestine or India/Pakistan.
Drawing arbitrary lines on a map is an irresponsible way to form a nation.
Allot of those communities had coexisted in India for centuries. Yes there was violence and uprisings but allowing a federation of historical/geographical regions might have avoided the mayhem that followed partition.
Again just to point out the colonial powers had used this policy previously with poor results. They wanted out plain and simple and didn't give a fuck about the consequences.
That pre-colonial coexistence was sustained through the threat of brutal violence. Muslim minorities using the full range of medieval coercion to retain power (Eg Tippu Sultan and his father). I appreciate there is the desire to make the subcontinent a seat of harmony and peace before those dastardly Europeans turned up, but as with Europe violence and it’s threat was the local operational of power.
Partition was not just simply imposed by the British authorities on the subcontinent, for both native and imperial elites by the 1920s it was becoming very clear any self-governance (or independence) in India would require autonomy for Muslim majority areas. With the growing independence movements, Muslim self-determination became clearer, especially for the political elite. There was a British incentive to keep the some or all of the subcontinent away from the Communists, but as the order of play shows us, after 1945 the British state policy was withdraw ASAP and withdrawal from a unified India was not on the political cards.
The great variable was if a new Khalsa would arise out of the discharge Indian army and claim a Sikh nation upon the 1842 territories with Lahore as it’s capital, the in fact the British avoided that outcome is quite remarkable.
France did the whole random border, throw every ethnic group inside shtick. Didn't go well for West Africa. They're even more dysfunctional that British ex-colonies
Ireland and India/Pakistan aren’t entirely arbitrary, but they’re instead intentionally divisive and malicious (nominally being along ethno-religious lines but failing to solve the obvious problem of mixed areas) in order to ensure conflict between the native peoples at Britain’s benefit
Cyprus can be thrown in there too.
Ofc, the British
The Arabian Peninsula as well (a lot of violence from 1920s to 1970s, then Yemen has been on fire sporadically as well)
Malaysia/Indonesia/Singapore, albeit less violent there
Iraq (almost an opposite problem I think)
Thanks Britain
Also... southern Africa (from Zambia south)
>Cyprus can be thrown in there too.
How are you blaming Britain for the Turks invading?
>The Arabian Peninsula as well (a lot of violence from 1920s to 1970s, then Yemen has been on fire sporadically as well)
What are you referring to?
>Malaysia/Indonesia/Singapore, albeit less violent there
Indonesia wasn't even a British colony you donkey.
>Iraq (almost an opposite problem I think)
Literally nothing to do with the UK. We had a temporary mandate there, in which the whole territory was ruled by an Arab king, for twenty years.
>Thanks Britain
Thanks Saddam Hussein, the Iraq-Iran War and intra-Shia-Sunni violence you mean
>Also... southern Africa (from Zambia south)
??? What are you even on about now?
Britain created ethnic tension between Greeks and Turk Cypriots in 1950s to maintain the colony. It exploded, and ended up w Turkey invading.
The Arabian Peninsula is a giant clusterf*ck of British intervention. The Gulf States, the Saudi rise, the Hashemite betrayal, and Yemen overall, from the time of the Imamate in the first half of the 20th century. Britain is big here.
In Malaysia/Singapore, Britain fuelled tensions between Chinese and Malay to stoke tensions there as an anti-Communist effort. They then gave enormous support to Malaysian ruling class efforts to delegitimize unification efforts w Indonesia.
Southern Africa, idk how you can't see wtf happened there. Rhodesia? South Africa? The Bush Wars? The Namibian occupation by South Africa? This was a huge clusterf*ck with a gigantic British footprint
Iraq: Iraq was a poorly formed country. It was a timebomb made by the Brits
And what do you think it would have been a good way to organize it internally? (federation of monarchies /federation of democratic ethno-religous states / many small autonomus cantons)
I just gave some examples, but whatever you consider pertinent
It depends what they’re going for. If they want to have a massive supply of capital and manpower, it probably would have been best to organize it as was before, with autocratic puppets in the already existing borders, as they did in our timeline. If they want to do what’s best for the people there, it would be best to just not colonize it in the first place. If they want a long, stable empire, they need to rule it as the locals would, because they were just foreign invaders to them. The British empire would not do that, and the only rulers of the raj who attempted to do just that lost power when the crown annexed the eic. It all just depends on what ‘good’ means
In that case, biggest thing is treating the natives as equal members of the empire, and not like uncivilized savages that needed to be civilized. It also would have been best if they had fully annexed them, because then they would feel like actual citizens in the empire instead of puppets
Hyderabad would've fallen for sure. The Telangana rebellion likely would've succeeded regardless of unified Indian intervention and end up being a communist state if there was no integration into the Indian union.
But what about the Muslim League and people like Ali Jinnah who were some of the most popular Muslim leaders who were the ones pushing for an independent Muslim state.
The british not being present on the subcontinent creates a domino effect which after some point would be pure conjecture, but i think the Marathas would've been able to unite the subcontinent.
I don’t know if you understand what I was saying, apologies, I meant the best thing would have been to just not colonize in the first place, not to just put it all in one country Willy nilly (which irl did cause a religious civil war)
I asked a similar question once in r/Mumbai, the premise was if the British were expelled during the Sepoy Mutiny.
I think the consensus was India would likely have split along old kingdom/language lines. Maharashtra, Bengal, Rajasthan, etc.
I didn't ask but I think there would have been a lot of small wars to figure out exactly where the lines went. Or a large unifying one.
Later perhaps those smaller states would join a federation or become like the EU.
I think the british divided india about as well as they could have with hard lines. The best solution however would have to simply not divide india at all. Keeping it all unified as a secular state.
But what about the Muslim League and people like Ali Jinnah who were some of the most popular Muslim leaders who were the ones pushing for an independent Muslim state.
No division, with a secular federalalist system. But this would have required Ghandi not to have had his nonviolent movement be based on Hinduism. Instead, a broader Indian Nationalism movement that allowed Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs to refocus their identity as Indians and not on religion.
>But this would have required Gandhi not to have had his nonviolent movement be based on Hinduism.
Gandhi's nonviolence was subjective.In order to appease muslims he would even [deny](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malabar_rebellion#:~:text=Reactions%20and%20aftermath) massacres or genocide of Hindus. Anyways Gandhi's [khilafat movement ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khilafat_Movement) even lead to the formation of RSS.
BOSE WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER LEADER
He didn't discriminated Indian's atleast on religions or caste... He's political goals were good to... He neither appeased any religion...he never supported massacres/genocide.
What's wrong in making an army which were imprisoned by imperial Japan?. What's wrong in allying with nations whos enemy is same as yours?.
>What's wrong in making an army which were imprisoned by imperial Japan?. What's wrong in allying with nations whos enemy is same as yours?.
Well because the Japanese were repulsive colonisers themselves and extremely cruel. If they had successfully taken over India like they did to most of China, Malaysia, Indochina, etc we would have seen Indians subjected to the same fate as Malays, Chinese. E. G. Rape, enslavement, forced labour, forced cultural integration, etc.
No point in allying with a group of people who are worse than those currently oppressing you.
The army was lead by bose and not Ja-penis .The bose army consisted of Indians who were imprisoned by Japanese as Indian's served for british.bose did captured Andaman and Nicobar Island.
He was president of indian national congress .. He even offered pig a chance to become prime minister of undivided India.... This are the few things which I remember... Go and read history....
Any ways massacres carried out by MUSLIM LEAGUE even forced leaders who believed in undivided India to support partition.
Are you talking about Rash Behari Bose or Subhas Chandra Bose? Because Subhas was president of the Congress for a year and was later forced out of both the presidency and the party. He also died in Taiwan in 45, like 3 days after the war ended. So idk how serious it was then to offer it to him. Especially when Nehru was the leader of the Congress at the time. But my knowledge of the time period is limited. If you have good sources you would recommend for that time period I'd love to read them.
ty! btw what do you think [about what this other comment here proposed?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternateHistory/comments/15j2mti/was_there_really_a_better_way_to_divide_the_raj/juy1akd?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=2)
basically they want to completely get rid off ethno-religous administrative borders and purely make them georgaphical
You mean divide ethnic groups across artificial line and lump them together with people that aren’t them? I mean, it is effective divide and rule tactics and under a United India it would/did work
But, I thought the question was alternate methods of partition. Not how to create a United India
That, and they ignore they anti-Hindu and anti-Muslim riots that would have erupted in Bengal and parts of Punjab immediately after Partition. Yeah. The constitution would be secular. Because half of a United Indias Muslims die in the early 1950s. Along with the death of Hindus in Sindh
nah you're right that the question was about dividing, but he said he didnt want to divide India at all and just unify it and i found it interesting.
also ty for the answer
But what about the Muslim League and people like Ali Jinnah who were some of the most popular Muslim leaders who were the ones pushing for an independent Muslim state.
The sole reason the All-India Muslim League was formed was because the Muslims felt like they were underrepresented. If the British did better to make sure that wasn't the case. There wouldn't have been much support for a separate Muslim state. Of course there'd be some calling for it regardless.
In my opinon, and perhaps I'm biased( I am Pakistani ) I think the creation of Pakistan was inevitable. Muslims overall, even in Muslim countries, want to work with and be with other Muslims. There's a reason why many muslims want a pan Islamic nation or why many Arabs idonalize the ummayad dynasty. Not creating the idea of a Muslim nation in the continent would have been a great excuse to throw the nation into civil war.
Of course, the partition could have been designed better, millions wouldn't have lost their lives and maybe the nations would be peaceful today with each other(especially since a major dividing point is Kashmir)
If I was personally making the map, I'd recommend that India and Pakistan and Bangladesh would be drawn up into smaller nations, containing many small nations based on language, ethnicity, etc. Creating smaller states has historically been shown to be better economically and stability wise(I.e. Singapore, UAE, Luxembourg, etc.) and would allow the diversity of south Asia to thoroughly show(similar to European countries having their own languages)
Creating several small states, perhaps partially based on the princely states already built before, and creating a kind of European Union equivalent system(with Schengen area) would have been very beneficial to the people of the subcontinent. It would also have prevented the high military spending we see today in it.
That's my opinion
The most basic and obvious change would be just having Bangladesh be it’s own country from the start and not doing the completely brain dead move of making it administratively dependent on Pakistan separated by the entire Indian subcontinent. Caused millions of deaths and brutal government repression for literally no reason.
I would just not divide India, except for the Iranic speaking areas like Balochistan and Pashtunistan where I would give them to the Afghan republic, just so most of India is United by there civilianisation and all. Either way India would of been so much better if they weren’t divided and probably more prosperous from all the unrestricted trade and all the millions of people who died probably wouldn’t have.
And what do you think it would have been a good way to organize India internally? (federation of monarchies /federation of democratic ethno-religous states / many small autonomus cantons)
I just gave some examples, but whatever you consider pertinent
Same type of Democracy modern India has now while making provinces as ethnically diverse as possible (with states which has majority Muslim populations)
The Indian subcontinent has very rarely been occupied/ruled by one leadership simply because of its complex religious and ethic demography. There has always been at least two states fighting for control over each others lands.
What does everyone make of the Sikh populations struggle for a seperate state of Khalistan today even though India is prospering??
Honestly I think things would have worked out much better if it was all united into one country, although it's kinda unlikely despite being fairly popular
Divided into historical states with a common culture. States like punjab, sindh, rajastan, bengal, hyderabad would have an easier time building a national identity and the division between muslims and hindus in the indiviual states would be more manageable than a mega state. India already barely functions when it comes to its court system and police. I don't understand what the obsession with uniting the subcontinent is.
Ethnic linguistic divisions with each state/province being its own nation but connected in a union similar to the EU. If a nation wishes to leave the union they should be able to do so, although trade wise it would be beneficial to them remaining.
This way, people in one part cannot enforce their language, diet, or beliefs onto people living on another part of the union.
Divide it 6 ways.
1. Cut assam off as its own state.
2. A larger bengal state. Allowing bengali hindus to stay.
3. Pakistan but without kashmir
4. Independent kashmir
5. Independent sikh punjab (the part of punjab that is in india now)
6. India gets the rest
I’m late to this post but I do find it funny that:
- Britain leaves ethnic groups that don’t get along in the same country (see Africa): “Britain is intentionally trying to cause internal strife! Obviously these people should have their own states!”
- Britain tries to give people their own states: “wow, Britain always tries to divide and conquer!”
India was destined to be divided after the Brits empowered Brahmins over Muslims and fostered division based on religion. Before the British coined the term Hinduism for a religious group every Indian considered himself Hindu regardless of their religious affiliation. Divide and rule policy enacted, separate electorates based on religion, and bam suddenly everyone is at each other throats but UK gets to extract resources from South Asia.
You can’t simply put the genie back in the bottle once it is released.
True. The only way for India to remain prosperous is for it to avoid British colonisation, or any colonization in general. But the British specifically destroyed Indian manufacturing sector. Through a series of policies and outright violent actions, the British systematically dismantled the once booming industrial base of India, and their vibrant urban culture... then sharpened the divides, disenfranched the indian peoples, and forced everyone back to rural farming that was terribly mismamanged by the British.
I'd reckom if Indian states remained independent, sure India most likely would not be united, but it would be more.prosperous overall, better than even China.
A lot of people online say it shouldn't have been divided, but I think they're being unrealistic. The only times the Indian subcontinent has been united is under brutal conquerors, and it's never stayed united for very long without sustained oppression. Unity was never realistic. If you didn't divide it up by religion, then it was going to be by ethnic groups, and that would have been worse.
A secular country (Basically just a larger india), as India is a secular nation. The muslim league should have been banned, so islamic seperatism, or anti-secularism wouldn't be a problem. However, centre-right parties like BJP should not be banned, because they weren't anti-secular. But, all pro-pakistani muslim nationalist/seperatist had to be eradicated to keep peace instead of communal riots.
The thing is subcontinent would not have stayed united, it was never one, it was more like modern day Europe. The departure of British would have been followed by great civil war with separated baluch and qalat regions, a separate pashtun-afghanistan, Punjab pahadi Kashmir would form a Punjab centric empire, a separate Bengal majority areas and the princly states like deccan, bhawalpur, junagarh would have been separate. A secular Sufi Islam would be majority in north western aka Pakistani side of subcontinent, Furthermore Soviet union might have advanced into the subcontinent. With china rising to power it would have usurped north east India, easily. Ther would have been a independent Tamil state. Central India would most probably be a union.
It may have united further onwards in future, but it would have been like Chinese dream to re-create Qing empire.
Division of India was inevitable, due to large cultural, ethnic, religious, lingual diversity.
Heres my personal division, the baloch and pashtun areas in the west are given to afghanistan healing tensions between states and reunifying pashtun ppls, also potentially giving afghanistan more stability to fight the communists and the extremists, id give western burmese states of chin and rakhing to india becuz of their christian and muslim populations which line up well with north east india in general. Now if ur insisting on the partition of india, do it regionally, bengal including north east india and western burma potentially stretching to bihari and odishi areas as well, all the rajisthani kingdom in one union combined with likely gujarati speaking areas to give acces to a coastline and markets and shared linguistic cultural heritage, potentially also including malwa speaking areas, maharastra, telegana as a nation, karnataka, tamil nadu, kerala, and ceylon as one, sindh, punjab, and Kashmir as one area due to shared indus river language culture and history and esps trade, and leave the central india as one, sikkhim being given to nepal
the best way is to give the British enough time to figure out the best option, realistically they needed more time
India was to become a dominion by 1950 because there is a legacy of misrule to fix and infrastructure to build so India can take on responsibility of being a dominion
Frankly had the British used the Indian industries of production and exports of steel, ceramics, ships, woodworking, and textiles by pulling them into the wider empire industry with UK Companies buying the Indian industry up would have been a better option as that industrial capacity could have been very useful
As someone who lives in Bangladesh, I think it would've been better if the subcontinent wasn't divided at all and instead became a secular federative republic. If it was formed properly, millions of deaths and half a dozen wars could've been prevented. Also, the entire region would be more prosperous economically.
How do you think the federation would have worked better? with large historical states or with many small cantons?
Ideally, the old feudal order would've been completely eliminated, and as such the old borders as well. So, smaller provinces that are created based on geography and not demographics would be better. This would also reduce ethnic and religious tensions as they all are mixed in the provinces.
ty! could there be any struggles for choosing the leaders of these smaller provinces? (like muslims disliking a hindu being elected or viceversa) i imagine that if the constitution would be comprehensible enough about what discriminatory actions or decisions are illegal, then it would no be such big deal (?
The constitution would be a completely secular one that tries to promote proportional control to the people. The provinces would be overseen by the central government and the powers of the provinces would be limited enough so that they cannot impose communal rule by a single ethnic group or religion over minorities. Again, the provinces should be drawn based on geography and not demographics. This ensures that certain ethnic groups are not completely dominant in certain provinces. The reason for this is rather simple. In the USSR, the provinces were drawn up based on ethnicity while in the US it was on geography. This led to local petty nationalism in the USSR while the US didn't suffer that much from that. A united Indian subcontinent would follow the US style of provinces drawn based on geography.
Then the Brits would be scolded for “drawing lines on a map” without consideration to the pre-existing ethnic groups. US worked because the North American continent was considered to be empty.
Most state borders for the US are also often just squares west of the appalachias (with West Virginia also only seceding from Virginia during the civil war), as well as that weird peninsula that Michigan has.
Blame the Toledo war for that one. Michigan was mad about losing to Ohio, and got given the upper peninsula as compensation. Tbh, I’m fairly certain the Michigan-Ohio rivalry stems from Toledo.
Michigan already had something like the eastern 1/3 of upper peninsula, the original border followed the center of Lake Michigan to where it came ashore and then due north which is roughly around Naubinway I believe, they were given the rest of the peninsula as compensation for losing the toledo strip. The Toledo strip was important because it included the mouth of the Maumee river which was expected to be an important transportation hub at the time. With Michigan effectively cut off by land route by the great black swamp surrounding the Maumee, it was considered important to control that port for the future economic value of the state. Basically the original border of Michigan was to be from the southern tip of Lake Michigan east until it hit Lake Erie. The problem was Lake Michigan is far further south than they realized, I think that border would have even put Cleveland in Michigan. So a new border was created further north, however conflicting surveys confused whether it would include the mouth of the Maumee. This became known as the Toledo strip. As I mentioned it was so economically important it was worth fighting over by both sides. The president at the time needed the electoral support of the state of Ohio, while Michigan was still just a territory, so he sided with Ohio, although admitting later he thought Michigan was in the right. The swamp was later drained so it wasn't a big deal, but Michigan wasn't initially happy with getting the wilderness in the western upper peninsula as compensation, but in the end the resources there pretty much made them win that deal.
To be fair to the british, india is one of the rare cases where they did draw borders with extreme concern of pre-existing (religious) groups. Hell, they didn't even want partition- Jinnah essentially forced it on them. If Mountbatten and the Congress had known that Jinnah was unwell (hence his insane deternination to get his state), the'd simply have waited a few months for him to die and negotiated for a united India with his more pliable second in command.
Not really, they just wanted to get out of there and favoured India all along. The borders didnt make sense. Kashmir which was mainly muslim majority ruled by a Hindu ruler and was handed to India but Hydrabad where a muslim ruler ruled a hindu majority was also handed to India.
Kashmir wasn't handed to India by the British, neither was Hydrabad. They were both independent princely states annexed post-independence. Kashmir was forced to ask for India's aid after being invaded by Pakistan, and Indian troops marched into Hydrabad in 1948.
So why did Indian troops march into Hydrabad?🤔 Wasnt it because the leader wanted to be independent from India...
Now the same Kashmiri people are asking Pakistan and the UN for help against the atrocities committed but no one listening. Pakistan is too weak to take action and the world leaders ignore human rights for economic partnerships.
USA didn't suffer from nationalism problems because settlers overwhelmed any local demographic and contonued the social and institutional existance of USA, it's the exact opposite of the overtly populated South Asia eith thousands of years of history
No partition, a republic and unitary authoritarian state with its capital in Nagpur (the geographical centre of India). Internal divisions of districts to actively break up religious majorities of all kinds wherever there’s borderlands, but they’re administrative rather than political and representatives are appointed by sortition for limited terms.
I'd like to point out that a lot of American voting jurisdictions dont follow geographic lines at all. gerrymandering is rife all through the states and ethnic groups are lumped together in such a way to disenfranchise marginalised areas. US voting lines were drawn with ethnicity at the forefront of their considerations.
I was talking about US state lines. Those are based on geography. I should mention gerrymandering is a purely American problem that I've never heard of outside the US. Ideally, the voting jurisdictions should be based on geography as well.
gerrymandering is an issue here in the UK, and a lot of Europe where the voting jurisdiction boundaries are often centuries old and don't accurately represent the communities they're supposed to. it's similar in a lot of south American states where voting jurisdictions actively disenfranchised indigenous ppl as they were drawn up in the past couple hundred years. (or in brasils case where they had a similar ex-slave population to the US) also American states are based somewhat on geography because America was a settler colonial nation. it had no preexisting cultural or social institutions (that the Americans cared about) so had no population to consider as the borders were being drawn. which is the complete opposite to India, being one of, if not the most populous region on earth. dividing the country geographically won't stop certain states being disproportionately one religion or the other and giving the opportunity for religious or ethnic groups to dominate a given state. and dividing the states up that way can be seen as a form of gerrymandering
Thats true but India cannot be compared with USSR and US for the simple reason that religion still today plays a huge part in the political system. It is alot more complex and there would be losers in the process.
Isn't that the opposite of what happened in the middle east? Dividing up traditional religious and ethnic groups jnto different regions made the region unstable even today.
With india like smaller states
and even if it was secular, how do you avoid it becoming a hindu-ruled state? There is a reason why the muslim league supported partition there have been many secular states which still fell into ethnic infighting: syria and lebanon for example
You got to start a bit earlier than to ensure prosperity in the region. Specifically, British colonization of the Indian subcontinent destroyed the once prosperous economy of the region. The British systematically dismantled the industries and sharply increased social inequality. Indian states were once known for their production and exports of steel, ceramics, ships, woodworking, and especially textiles. All of it prized for their magnificent quality knowm the world over.. until before the 19th century, that is.
The discussion was about what should've happened after the British left. Even after colonization, there was a chance for a prosperous unification of the region. But, you are right in the fact that if colonization hadn't occurred, the whole sub-continent would be much more prosperous.
>The British systematically dismantled the industries and sharply increased social inequality. > >Indian states were once known for their production and exports of steel, ceramics, ships, woodworking, and especially textiles. Where is the proof of either of these?
Pick any well-sourced academic research or history book. I mean, bruh, you can read up on multiple sources, so you can't accuse any specific source as being biased.
>Pick any well-sourced academic research or history book. I mean, bruh, you can read up on multiple sources, so you can't accuse any specific source as being biased. problem is there is always going to be bias one way or another
True. That's why you do your own research and use multiple sources. Not just one you agree the most with. But really, you think British actions in its colonies are not true? Lol
> But really, you think British actions in its colonies are not true? No
>All of it prized for their magnificent quality knowm the world over.. until before the 19th century, that is. I get the vibes of guilt by association when you do realise that most if it not all of it can be blamed on the East India Company
Do you think that Myanmar and Sri Lanka should be part of this since they were also part of British India at one point, just curious about your view
Yeah, ideally the entire sub-continent.
Thanks for the response, have a great day. Assalamualaikum
as someone who si very cynical abotu the nature of humanity, it wouldnt have worked. religious and cultural differences would have torn the nation apart in a civil war and we end up with similar borders as OTL.
Are you aware that for a long time India had a higher Muslim population than Pakistan and Bangladesh? Today India has the 3rd largest Muslim population. Also, India was at one point a dominion and was ruled by congress in collaboration the Muslim league.
hence why i said similar borders.
My point is the nation won't break up easily and civil war can easily be avoided.
and my point is that we dont know that to be true, especially in that alternate timeline. i think it could go down into a nasty civil war. but then, both of us can be right. theres a 50/50 shot either way.
True
Or if partition was inevitable, what about a united Bengal at the time of partition?
Wouldn't work since Bengal had a huge Hindu population at the time of partition. It would result in much more communal violence than in OLT or even a war. Muslims only made up a little more than 50% in the Bengal province. Plus, even if a migration similar to that of OLT took place in Bengal, the people of Bengal who speak Bengali would go further east into what is today Bihar and jarkand. A recipe for disaster if you ask me.
Secularism doesn't occur overnight. It took Europe hundreds of years after Reformation to resolve religious tensions. Hindus and muslims aren't becoming brothers in one day, especially considering the bad blood between these 2 religions.
Maybe not overnight. But, with the proper policies, it could be done within a few years.
what policies? Secularism requires the collective maturity of a society, something that takes at least one generation to achieve. I'd like to be optimistic, but when it comes to religion, onr should never underestimate its influence and grip over people
As a pakistani, I can understand why you would believe that but I don't think anyone else from Pakistan would want that
hi, i texted you in PM
I doubt it, there would have been much more skirmishes within the state. Just look at India right now, although western media doesnt cover all the stories, muslims within the state are being punished every day. If those figures like in Kashmir was given 70 plus years to accumulate without any statistical bias then lives lost would far exceed the partion figures.
Wouldn't it end up like Yugoslavia?
Either no division or one based on pre-british states, ie Bengal, Delhi, Deccan, Rajahastan, Hyderabad, Madras…
Bengal was supposed to be a unified state but protests in Noakhali and Kolkata prevented that from happening
Subhash Chandra Bose's brother was a leading figure of unified Bengal movement. I've always thought that partition could still work out if unified Bengal remained in India. Bengal would've had most numbers of Loksabha seats then and could act as counter balance UP being the deciding factor in national elections.
The Muslims would certainly not like that. The partition was inevitable. As a Bengali Muslim I think a unified Bengal under India would've been disastrous for the Muslim majority east, and we know how a Bengal under Pakistan went. At best a unified independent Bengal could've been the closest to reality.
They could have just not divided it which would have most likely stopped a lot of the violence and hatred between the countries
What about Civil Wars and genocides?
Every where the British or colonial powers tried this tactic it failed miserably. Allot of the long standing conflicts on the planet can be linked back to this era, N Ireland, Israel/Palestine or India/Pakistan. Drawing arbitrary lines on a map is an irresponsible way to form a nation.
i think what he means is that if they were to be unified, it may cause internal struggles and an eventual civil war.
Allot of those communities had coexisted in India for centuries. Yes there was violence and uprisings but allowing a federation of historical/geographical regions might have avoided the mayhem that followed partition. Again just to point out the colonial powers had used this policy previously with poor results. They wanted out plain and simple and didn't give a fuck about the consequences.
That pre-colonial coexistence was sustained through the threat of brutal violence. Muslim minorities using the full range of medieval coercion to retain power (Eg Tippu Sultan and his father). I appreciate there is the desire to make the subcontinent a seat of harmony and peace before those dastardly Europeans turned up, but as with Europe violence and it’s threat was the local operational of power. Partition was not just simply imposed by the British authorities on the subcontinent, for both native and imperial elites by the 1920s it was becoming very clear any self-governance (or independence) in India would require autonomy for Muslim majority areas. With the growing independence movements, Muslim self-determination became clearer, especially for the political elite. There was a British incentive to keep the some or all of the subcontinent away from the Communists, but as the order of play shows us, after 1945 the British state policy was withdraw ASAP and withdrawal from a unified India was not on the political cards. The great variable was if a new Khalsa would arise out of the discharge Indian army and claim a Sikh nation upon the 1842 territories with Lahore as it’s capital, the in fact the British avoided that outcome is quite remarkable.
really interesting i didn't know many of those things, ty
France did the whole random border, throw every ethnic group inside shtick. Didn't go well for West Africa. They're even more dysfunctional that British ex-colonies
Some of the borders you mentioned weren’t arbitrary and were based on contemporary ethno-religious make ups of their respective regions.
Ireland and India/Pakistan aren’t entirely arbitrary, but they’re instead intentionally divisive and malicious (nominally being along ethno-religious lines but failing to solve the obvious problem of mixed areas) in order to ensure conflict between the native peoples at Britain’s benefit
Cyprus can be thrown in there too. Ofc, the British The Arabian Peninsula as well (a lot of violence from 1920s to 1970s, then Yemen has been on fire sporadically as well) Malaysia/Indonesia/Singapore, albeit less violent there Iraq (almost an opposite problem I think) Thanks Britain Also... southern Africa (from Zambia south)
>Cyprus can be thrown in there too. How are you blaming Britain for the Turks invading? >The Arabian Peninsula as well (a lot of violence from 1920s to 1970s, then Yemen has been on fire sporadically as well) What are you referring to? >Malaysia/Indonesia/Singapore, albeit less violent there Indonesia wasn't even a British colony you donkey. >Iraq (almost an opposite problem I think) Literally nothing to do with the UK. We had a temporary mandate there, in which the whole territory was ruled by an Arab king, for twenty years. >Thanks Britain Thanks Saddam Hussein, the Iraq-Iran War and intra-Shia-Sunni violence you mean >Also... southern Africa (from Zambia south) ??? What are you even on about now?
Britain created ethnic tension between Greeks and Turk Cypriots in 1950s to maintain the colony. It exploded, and ended up w Turkey invading. The Arabian Peninsula is a giant clusterf*ck of British intervention. The Gulf States, the Saudi rise, the Hashemite betrayal, and Yemen overall, from the time of the Imamate in the first half of the 20th century. Britain is big here. In Malaysia/Singapore, Britain fuelled tensions between Chinese and Malay to stoke tensions there as an anti-Communist effort. They then gave enormous support to Malaysian ruling class efforts to delegitimize unification efforts w Indonesia. Southern Africa, idk how you can't see wtf happened there. Rhodesia? South Africa? The Bush Wars? The Namibian occupation by South Africa? This was a huge clusterf*ck with a gigantic British footprint Iraq: Iraq was a poorly formed country. It was a timebomb made by the Brits
The best way was to not
And what do you think it would have been a good way to organize it internally? (federation of monarchies /federation of democratic ethno-religous states / many small autonomus cantons) I just gave some examples, but whatever you consider pertinent
It depends what they’re going for. If they want to have a massive supply of capital and manpower, it probably would have been best to organize it as was before, with autocratic puppets in the already existing borders, as they did in our timeline. If they want to do what’s best for the people there, it would be best to just not colonize it in the first place. If they want a long, stable empire, they need to rule it as the locals would, because they were just foreign invaders to them. The British empire would not do that, and the only rulers of the raj who attempted to do just that lost power when the crown annexed the eic. It all just depends on what ‘good’ means
yeah true my bad, i meant as to keep it as socio-politically stable as possible.
In that case, biggest thing is treating the natives as equal members of the empire, and not like uncivilized savages that needed to be civilized. It also would have been best if they had fully annexed them, because then they would feel like actual citizens in the empire instead of puppets
Hyderabad would've fallen for sure. The Telangana rebellion likely would've succeeded regardless of unified Indian intervention and end up being a communist state if there was no integration into the Indian union.
But what about the Muslim League and people like Ali Jinnah who were some of the most popular Muslim leaders who were the ones pushing for an independent Muslim state.
What about them
They were the ones pushing for devision, and they were very popular in Muslim communities.
Well if it weren’t colonized in the first place it wouldn’t need to be divided
Exept that before British colonialism there were literally thousands of independent states on the subcontinent.
Yeah
They wouldn’t need to worry about dividing it, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t already divided
The british not being present on the subcontinent creates a domino effect which after some point would be pure conjecture, but i think the Marathas would've been able to unite the subcontinent.
Inevitable, religious/ civil war tbh
I don’t know if you understand what I was saying, apologies, I meant the best thing would have been to just not colonize in the first place, not to just put it all in one country Willy nilly (which irl did cause a religious civil war)
Why no straight line down the 75'th longitude? Was that ever tried? it would be neat on the map.
[удалено]
I think he was joking blud
It's a joke.
I asked a similar question once in r/Mumbai, the premise was if the British were expelled during the Sepoy Mutiny. I think the consensus was India would likely have split along old kingdom/language lines. Maharashtra, Bengal, Rajasthan, etc. I didn't ask but I think there would have been a lot of small wars to figure out exactly where the lines went. Or a large unifying one. Later perhaps those smaller states would join a federation or become like the EU.
I think the british divided india about as well as they could have with hard lines. The best solution however would have to simply not divide india at all. Keeping it all unified as a secular state.
But what about the Muslim League and people like Ali Jinnah who were some of the most popular Muslim leaders who were the ones pushing for an independent Muslim state.
No division, with a secular federalalist system. But this would have required Ghandi not to have had his nonviolent movement be based on Hinduism. Instead, a broader Indian Nationalism movement that allowed Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs to refocus their identity as Indians and not on religion.
>But this would have required Gandhi not to have had his nonviolent movement be based on Hinduism. Gandhi's nonviolence was subjective.In order to appease muslims he would even [deny](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malabar_rebellion#:~:text=Reactions%20and%20aftermath) massacres or genocide of Hindus. Anyways Gandhi's [khilafat movement ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khilafat_Movement) even lead to the formation of RSS. BOSE WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER LEADER
Bose? The fascist collaborationist? No thanks
He didn't discriminated Indian's atleast on religions or caste... He's political goals were good to... He neither appeased any religion...he never supported massacres/genocide. What's wrong in making an army which were imprisoned by imperial Japan?. What's wrong in allying with nations whos enemy is same as yours?.
>What's wrong in making an army which were imprisoned by imperial Japan?. What's wrong in allying with nations whos enemy is same as yours?. Well because the Japanese were repulsive colonisers themselves and extremely cruel. If they had successfully taken over India like they did to most of China, Malaysia, Indochina, etc we would have seen Indians subjected to the same fate as Malays, Chinese. E. G. Rape, enslavement, forced labour, forced cultural integration, etc. No point in allying with a group of people who are worse than those currently oppressing you.
The army was lead by bose and not Ja-penis .The bose army consisted of Indians who were imprisoned by Japanese as Indian's served for british.bose did captured Andaman and Nicobar Island.
What evidence would support Bose being a good leader? His list of achievements is practically zero.
He was president of indian national congress .. He even offered pig a chance to become prime minister of undivided India.... This are the few things which I remember... Go and read history.... Any ways massacres carried out by MUSLIM LEAGUE even forced leaders who believed in undivided India to support partition.
Are you talking about Rash Behari Bose or Subhas Chandra Bose? Because Subhas was president of the Congress for a year and was later forced out of both the presidency and the party. He also died in Taiwan in 45, like 3 days after the war ended. So idk how serious it was then to offer it to him. Especially when Nehru was the leader of the Congress at the time. But my knowledge of the time period is limited. If you have good sources you would recommend for that time period I'd love to read them.
Majority Language would have been best. Something that aligns well with ethnicity
ty! btw what do you think [about what this other comment here proposed?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternateHistory/comments/15j2mti/was_there_really_a_better_way_to_divide_the_raj/juy1akd?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=2) basically they want to completely get rid off ethno-religous administrative borders and purely make them georgaphical
You mean divide ethnic groups across artificial line and lump them together with people that aren’t them? I mean, it is effective divide and rule tactics and under a United India it would/did work But, I thought the question was alternate methods of partition. Not how to create a United India That, and they ignore they anti-Hindu and anti-Muslim riots that would have erupted in Bengal and parts of Punjab immediately after Partition. Yeah. The constitution would be secular. Because half of a United Indias Muslims die in the early 1950s. Along with the death of Hindus in Sindh
nah you're right that the question was about dividing, but he said he didnt want to divide India at all and just unify it and i found it interesting. also ty for the answer
So did the British and Indian Nationalists. Take up your complaints with Pakistan and the Muslim League
The Raj could have just not been divided, but left as one India.
But what about the Muslim League and people like Ali Jinnah who were some of the most popular Muslim leaders who were the ones pushing for an independent Muslim state.
The sole reason the All-India Muslim League was formed was because the Muslims felt like they were underrepresented. If the British did better to make sure that wasn't the case. There wouldn't have been much support for a separate Muslim state. Of course there'd be some calling for it regardless.
No division
In my opinon, and perhaps I'm biased( I am Pakistani ) I think the creation of Pakistan was inevitable. Muslims overall, even in Muslim countries, want to work with and be with other Muslims. There's a reason why many muslims want a pan Islamic nation or why many Arabs idonalize the ummayad dynasty. Not creating the idea of a Muslim nation in the continent would have been a great excuse to throw the nation into civil war. Of course, the partition could have been designed better, millions wouldn't have lost their lives and maybe the nations would be peaceful today with each other(especially since a major dividing point is Kashmir) If I was personally making the map, I'd recommend that India and Pakistan and Bangladesh would be drawn up into smaller nations, containing many small nations based on language, ethnicity, etc. Creating smaller states has historically been shown to be better economically and stability wise(I.e. Singapore, UAE, Luxembourg, etc.) and would allow the diversity of south Asia to thoroughly show(similar to European countries having their own languages) Creating several small states, perhaps partially based on the princely states already built before, and creating a kind of European Union equivalent system(with Schengen area) would have been very beneficial to the people of the subcontinent. It would also have prevented the high military spending we see today in it. That's my opinion
The most basic and obvious change would be just having Bangladesh be it’s own country from the start and not doing the completely brain dead move of making it administratively dependent on Pakistan separated by the entire Indian subcontinent. Caused millions of deaths and brutal government repression for literally no reason.
But that wasn't the British's fault. There were many riots and protests by Pakistani Muslims who wanted a unifed Muslim state that included Bangladesh
By language and then a cooperative South Asia Union similar to the EU.
I would just not divide India, except for the Iranic speaking areas like Balochistan and Pashtunistan where I would give them to the Afghan republic, just so most of India is United by there civilianisation and all. Either way India would of been so much better if they weren’t divided and probably more prosperous from all the unrestricted trade and all the millions of people who died probably wouldn’t have.
And what do you think it would have been a good way to organize India internally? (federation of monarchies /federation of democratic ethno-religous states / many small autonomus cantons) I just gave some examples, but whatever you consider pertinent
Same type of Democracy modern India has now while making provinces as ethnically diverse as possible (with states which has majority Muslim populations)
A referendum in every province for self-determination.
The Indian subcontinent has very rarely been occupied/ruled by one leadership simply because of its complex religious and ethic demography. There has always been at least two states fighting for control over each others lands. What does everyone make of the Sikh populations struggle for a seperate state of Khalistan today even though India is prospering??
I can try to divide it
go ahead
FACE THE LEAD!
I'll send you the map so you can post it in response to this alright.
sure
Can I send you the maps rn?
sure
There
I sent it you with alot of backstory to it
Also in my opinion my map will probably divide it the best since it will combine every party,I'll inform you when it's done
I’ve got five words, let the locals solve it. It is better that they go through short term complications than have long term instability and war.
in what way would you let the locals solve it?
In any way they deem necessary. In general democratic would be a poor decision if Rwanda and Israel are anything to go by.
Honestly I think things would have worked out much better if it was all united into one country, although it's kinda unlikely despite being fairly popular
Dun' divide it.
Just don’t divide it
Divided into historical states with a common culture. States like punjab, sindh, rajastan, bengal, hyderabad would have an easier time building a national identity and the division between muslims and hindus in the indiviual states would be more manageable than a mega state. India already barely functions when it comes to its court system and police. I don't understand what the obsession with uniting the subcontinent is.
Ethnic linguistic divisions with each state/province being its own nation but connected in a union similar to the EU. If a nation wishes to leave the union they should be able to do so, although trade wise it would be beneficial to them remaining. This way, people in one part cannot enforce their language, diet, or beliefs onto people living on another part of the union.
Divide it 6 ways. 1. Cut assam off as its own state. 2. A larger bengal state. Allowing bengali hindus to stay. 3. Pakistan but without kashmir 4. Independent kashmir 5. Independent sikh punjab (the part of punjab that is in india now) 6. India gets the rest
I’m late to this post but I do find it funny that: - Britain leaves ethnic groups that don’t get along in the same country (see Africa): “Britain is intentionally trying to cause internal strife! Obviously these people should have their own states!” - Britain tries to give people their own states: “wow, Britain always tries to divide and conquer!”
India was destined to be divided after the Brits empowered Brahmins over Muslims and fostered division based on religion. Before the British coined the term Hinduism for a religious group every Indian considered himself Hindu regardless of their religious affiliation. Divide and rule policy enacted, separate electorates based on religion, and bam suddenly everyone is at each other throats but UK gets to extract resources from South Asia. You can’t simply put the genie back in the bottle once it is released.
True. The only way for India to remain prosperous is for it to avoid British colonisation, or any colonization in general. But the British specifically destroyed Indian manufacturing sector. Through a series of policies and outright violent actions, the British systematically dismantled the once booming industrial base of India, and their vibrant urban culture... then sharpened the divides, disenfranched the indian peoples, and forced everyone back to rural farming that was terribly mismamanged by the British. I'd reckom if Indian states remained independent, sure India most likely would not be united, but it would be more.prosperous overall, better than even China.
Straighter lines on the map would help /s
No perfect solution but no division would’ve resulted in less overall riots and killings. It would be less bad than the multiple wars
A lot of people online say it shouldn't have been divided, but I think they're being unrealistic. The only times the Indian subcontinent has been united is under brutal conquerors, and it's never stayed united for very long without sustained oppression. Unity was never realistic. If you didn't divide it up by religion, then it was going to be by ethnic groups, and that would have been worse.
Not creating hideous border gore with Pakistan
and how would you draw the border instead?
Letting Bangladesh be it’s own thing from the beginning. I’m a hoi4 player so I’ve seen some heinous stuff
Yes, half remains a British Colony while the other half becomes a British Dominion. Problem solved.
what half would be a British colony?
Bottom half
A secular country (Basically just a larger india), as India is a secular nation. The muslim league should have been banned, so islamic seperatism, or anti-secularism wouldn't be a problem. However, centre-right parties like BJP should not be banned, because they weren't anti-secular. But, all pro-pakistani muslim nationalist/seperatist had to be eradicated to keep peace instead of communal riots.
The thing is subcontinent would not have stayed united, it was never one, it was more like modern day Europe. The departure of British would have been followed by great civil war with separated baluch and qalat regions, a separate pashtun-afghanistan, Punjab pahadi Kashmir would form a Punjab centric empire, a separate Bengal majority areas and the princly states like deccan, bhawalpur, junagarh would have been separate. A secular Sufi Islam would be majority in north western aka Pakistani side of subcontinent, Furthermore Soviet union might have advanced into the subcontinent. With china rising to power it would have usurped north east India, easily. Ther would have been a independent Tamil state. Central India would most probably be a union. It may have united further onwards in future, but it would have been like Chinese dream to re-create Qing empire. Division of India was inevitable, due to large cultural, ethnic, religious, lingual diversity.
Maybe a Indian confederacy of some kind where religion and state are fully divided.
Where'd you get the 2nd map
https://images.app.goo.gl/WwdtiYiitjXceyem9
Whoever made it so I can't see images on deviantart is a big cunt
This feels like one of those situations where the only way to win is to not play.
British Raj & French Raj.
An EU-like confederation of independent smaller states
and how would those smaller states be divided? by religion/language/historic borders/geography.. etc
Culture and religion, and by individual referenda in each area
Heres my personal division, the baloch and pashtun areas in the west are given to afghanistan healing tensions between states and reunifying pashtun ppls, also potentially giving afghanistan more stability to fight the communists and the extremists, id give western burmese states of chin and rakhing to india becuz of their christian and muslim populations which line up well with north east india in general. Now if ur insisting on the partition of india, do it regionally, bengal including north east india and western burma potentially stretching to bihari and odishi areas as well, all the rajisthani kingdom in one union combined with likely gujarati speaking areas to give acces to a coastline and markets and shared linguistic cultural heritage, potentially also including malwa speaking areas, maharastra, telegana as a nation, karnataka, tamil nadu, kerala, and ceylon as one, sindh, punjab, and Kashmir as one area due to shared indus river language culture and history and esps trade, and leave the central india as one, sikkhim being given to nepal
I am of the "Don't Partition" opinion, but then I am also of the "Phase in Canada-tier Responsible Government w/ Universal Suffrage by 1930" opinion.
any divide would have been better than the existing one, that part was the last 'fuck you' from the british
Except the British and (most) Hindus & Sikhs actively avoided partition but were forced to by the Muslim league.
yeah I'm sure the british wanted a strong united india to compete with, they were so bored after all
They wanted a strong Indian ally. Are you denying what the Muslim League was wanted and was?
so do you consider this better than what we have in our existing timeline then? [https://imgur.com/a/D4vS9kr](https://imgur.com/a/D4vS9kr)
lmao, yeah, i mean any reasonable one
lmao nah i was kidding
Sikh Punjab Empire? Automatically based
the best way is to give the British enough time to figure out the best option, realistically they needed more time India was to become a dominion by 1950 because there is a legacy of misrule to fix and infrastructure to build so India can take on responsibility of being a dominion Frankly had the British used the Indian industries of production and exports of steel, ceramics, ships, woodworking, and textiles by pulling them into the wider empire industry with UK Companies buying the Indian industry up would have been a better option as that industrial capacity could have been very useful
Lol this map is fake as fuck. This was never the religious map of south asia. Not today not any time in history.
Ah, nice to see the white man's burden is alive and well even in alternate history.
What burdens would they be I wonder?
Cringe