Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 30, 2015, 09:35:55 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Discussion
| |-+  History
| | |-+  Alternative History (Moderator: Delicious Steak Pentagram)
| | | |-+  What if the 1947 Indian Partition Had Never Happened?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: What if the 1947 Indian Partition Had Never Happened?  (Read 5648 times)
Frodo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14246
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.42, S: -3.30

View Profile WWW
« on: January 17, 2010, 11:01:41 pm »
Ignore

How differently would the trajectory of history on the Indian sub-continent to the present day be if British India had remained whole after independence?  

Here's a map of British India at the eve of independence in 1947:

« Last Edit: December 18, 2013, 09:29:57 pm by Frodo »Logged

Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14180
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: January 17, 2010, 11:22:01 pm »
Ignore

Muslims in India would be fighting to have their own state, either though political/diplomatic means, through military means, or both. They would refuse to live under Hindu rule, kind of like how the Palestinian Arabs refuse to live under Jewish/Israeli rule.
Logged

minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58767
India


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: January 18, 2010, 06:58:55 am »
Ignore

Hard to say. India as a whole might conceivably have evolved an ultra-federal structure. Which might conceivably have been a very good thing. Or alternatively, division might have happened at a later date - though Bangladesh would presumably be part of India.
Flight of most Hindus and just about all Sikhs from what is now Pakistan would probably have occurred anyways, over a longer period and with somewhat less bloodshed. The Indian side of the old Punjab might not be as cleansed of Muslims as it is now, though.
Logged

If I'm shown as having been active here recently it's either because I've been using the gallery, because I've been using the search engine looking up something from way back, or because I've been reading the most excellent UK by-elections thread again.
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13773


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: January 18, 2010, 01:18:20 pm »
Ignore

Yeah by 1947 the die was cast. Partition was bound to happen sooner or later. Maybe if the British hadn't tried to divide the country on religious lines in previous years........
Logged
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17516


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: January 18, 2010, 01:23:13 pm »
Ignore

India would be the world's most populous nation by a significant margin.
Logged

A New Chapter

"I feel like Paulette Revere the recession is coming, the recession is coming! - Hillary Clinton, April 3, 2008
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13773


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: January 18, 2010, 04:11:46 pm »
Ignore

India would be the world's most populous nation by a significant margin.

And I bet the Muslims would be having kids at a higher rate than they are having currently in Pakistan and Bangladesh, so the population would have been likely even higher than what it is now.
Logged
phk
phknrocket1k
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12952


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: January 18, 2010, 04:19:47 pm »
Ignore

Communal tensions would be pretty high.

It's just that one should think a country that is conceivably 33% Muslim would alarm Hindus and Sikhs quite a bit. Similar to how even some liberal Whites would be "concerned" if the country went from 12% to 33% Black.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2010, 04:23:43 pm by phknrocket1k »Logged

Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13773


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: January 18, 2010, 04:50:06 pm »
Ignore

Communal tensions would be pretty high.

It's just that one should think a country that is conceivably 33% Muslim would alarm Hindus and Sikhs quite a bit. Similar to how even some liberal Whites would be "concerned" if the country went from 12% to 33% Black.

Yup, which is why I say that partition was a foregone conclusion by 1947.
Logged
Хahar
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 39113
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -5.35, S: 0.43

View Profile
« Reply #8 on: January 18, 2010, 05:35:06 pm »
Ignore

Bengal would have been a far better place.
Logged

Update reading list

The idea of parodying the preceding Atlasian's postings is laughable, of course, but not for reasons one might expect.
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13773


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: January 18, 2010, 07:44:20 pm »
Ignore

Bengal would have been a far better place.

Why?

I think Pakistan would have left India even if partition didn't happen in 1947, but I am not sure about Bangladesh.
Logged
Хahar
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 39113
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -5.35, S: 0.43

View Profile
« Reply #10 on: January 19, 2010, 09:28:37 pm »
Ignore

Bengal would have been a far better place.

Why?

I think Pakistan would have left India even if partition didn't happen in 1947, but I am not sure about Bangladesh.

Precisely. There was no reason for it to be divided. Bengal is not the Punjab.
Logged

Update reading list

The idea of parodying the preceding Atlasian's postings is laughable, of course, but not for reasons one might expect.
JoeBrayson
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 51
View Profile
« Reply #11 on: March 06, 2010, 03:32:04 pm »
Ignore

There would certainly be civil war with the various religious/nationalist factions fighting for control and this conflict could still be continuing in the present day. India was (and still is) a huge melting pot of cultures which would mean that conflict would've been inevitable. In the west muslim groups would be fighting for a homeland, whilst in the east national movements in Burma & Bhutan would be fighting for self determination. This is why partition was necessary and due to this, today India is relatively peaceful except for Kashmir.
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58767
India


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: March 06, 2010, 03:52:22 pm »
Ignore

Keeping Burma within India would indeed have been impossible after 1945.
But nobody* wanted that and nobody except the British had ever considered Burma part of India in the first place, so...

*Except the Indian community in Burma of course. Whose existence was, of course, a consequence of the British insistence on administering Burma as a province of India.
Logged

If I'm shown as having been active here recently it's either because I've been using the gallery, because I've been using the search engine looking up something from way back, or because I've been reading the most excellent UK by-elections thread again.
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines