What if the 1947 Indian Partition Had Never Happened?

[Frodo]

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:

[Bo]

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.

[Vasall des Midas]

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.

[Senator Sbane]

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........

[Beet]

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

[Senator Sbane]

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.

[phk]

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.

[Senator Sbane]

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.

[Χahar]

Bengal would have been a far better place.

[Senator Sbane]

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.

[Χahar]

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.

[JoeBrayson]

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.

[Vasall des Midas]

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.