We already know that British India resulted in the three states of Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh. What other ways could India have been split? Could Sikhs have clamped for self rule as the Muslims did? Could India have divided up based on its internal cultures, maybe north/south?
Alternate ways India could have been split
- Thread starter sahaldelta
- Start date
- Status
Establishing an independent Bengal (both Muslim and Hindu parts) was seriously considered, and probably would have been better for the region.
Possibly. While Kashmir isn't the only issue between India and Pakistan it is definitely the most visible.
Could Gurkha areas be ceded to Nepal?
And what about the northeast? While parts of it are quite culturally distinct from the rest of India, and its geographic connection to the rest of India is tenuous, I don't think it could really be sustainably independent. Could an independent Bengal effectively and fairly rule it? Or merged with the tribal areas of northern Burma (though I think there is some historical precedent to the borders of that country).
And what about the northeast? While parts of it are quite culturally distinct from the rest of India, and its geographic connection to the rest of India is tenuous, I don't think it could really be sustainably independent. Could an independent Bengal effectively and fairly rule it? Or merged with the tribal areas of northern Burma (though I think there is some historical precedent to the borders of that country).
An important point to remember is that India was split into more portions and different princely states were made independent, but India quickly conquered them and subsumed them into itself. Theoretically, India could be divided any tremendous number of ways if not for the pan-Indian sentiment promoted by Gandhi.
There are actually quite a few ways that partition could have gone differently. For example, Sindh had some majority Hindu areas on the border which, for some unknown reason, were not incorporated into India. The lines in the Punjab were fairly arbitrary to begin with, and could have easily been drawn in all sorts of different ways.
With regards to a unified, independent Bengal, one interesting side effect of that would be that Kolkata would be a much larger city--it was severely hampered IOTL by partition. It could be a player in the same league as Mumbai.
With regards to a unified, independent Bengal, one interesting side effect of that would be that Kolkata would be a much larger city--it was severely hampered IOTL by partition. It could be a player in the same league as Mumbai.
Hyderabad briefly made a go of it alone before being subsumed by India, so it might have a chance at survival if a few of the other princely states make a bid for independence too.
If I remember correctly the British Indian Army was divided into two, the Indian Army and Pakistani Army. If instead of doing this the British had given units to the princely states then they may have been able to have defended themselves from invasion.
I say may because if the Indian Mutiny is anything to go by they would not have cooperated enough to see off the then premier military power in the region. Without cooperation Delhi could pick them off one at a time and conquer each individually as it did to Goa decades later.
Original spilt of the Raj was more complex even than you indicate
The Hindus (lead by Nehru) insisted on taking control of as much of the former Raj as possible, and unfortunately were granted much territory with separate racial and religious traditions such as the Sikh Punjab. Since independence there has been resistance to the rule from Delhi in these areas, mostly being repressed by military force.
However in the 1940s the Muslims lead by Jinnah were able to insist on a separate state based on religion (not race). This is what is generally referred to as the Partion of India. It created the original state of Pakistan, which included the racially and culturally separate areas of East and West Pakistan.
That division alone resulted in millions of deaths in the immediate aftermath of partition as families living on the wrong side of the boundaries fled ethnic/religious cleansing in all parts of the subcontinent.
The resulting enmity has repeatedly sparked wars between India and Pakistan that have killed thousands more and created two nuclear armed enemies.
Of course, the religious based union of Pakistan did not last. West Pakistan dominated the political landscape and the East Pakistanis were racially and culturally very different. With encouragement and massive military intervention from India, East Pakistan established itself as Bangladesh.
Similarly though Ceylon was originally kept separate on geographical basis, the ethnic mix of native Sinhalese and Tamils from the mainland of India resulted in Civil War, with India first offering clandestine support to the Tamil Rebels, then openly supplying them by air finally sending 100,00 troops to enforce a peace agreement. When the Tamils refused to disarm, the Indians withdrew and the fight continued for 20 years off and on.
This does not include Bhutan, Nepal and Burma created from the Raj on racial and cultural grounds, each having their own problems.
Or the mess in Kashmir, where a Hindu royal family in charge at the time of Partition took a mainly Muslim population into India, resulting in 70 years of conflict.
The Hindus (lead by Nehru) insisted on taking control of as much of the former Raj as possible, and unfortunately were granted much territory with separate racial and religious traditions such as the Sikh Punjab. Since independence there has been resistance to the rule from Delhi in these areas, mostly being repressed by military force.
However in the 1940s the Muslims lead by Jinnah were able to insist on a separate state based on religion (not race). This is what is generally referred to as the Partion of India. It created the original state of Pakistan, which included the racially and culturally separate areas of East and West Pakistan.
That division alone resulted in millions of deaths in the immediate aftermath of partition as families living on the wrong side of the boundaries fled ethnic/religious cleansing in all parts of the subcontinent.
The resulting enmity has repeatedly sparked wars between India and Pakistan that have killed thousands more and created two nuclear armed enemies.
Of course, the religious based union of Pakistan did not last. West Pakistan dominated the political landscape and the East Pakistanis were racially and culturally very different. With encouragement and massive military intervention from India, East Pakistan established itself as Bangladesh.
Similarly though Ceylon was originally kept separate on geographical basis, the ethnic mix of native Sinhalese and Tamils from the mainland of India resulted in Civil War, with India first offering clandestine support to the Tamil Rebels, then openly supplying them by air finally sending 100,00 troops to enforce a peace agreement. When the Tamils refused to disarm, the Indians withdrew and the fight continued for 20 years off and on.
This does not include Bhutan, Nepal and Burma created from the Raj on racial and cultural grounds, each having their own problems.
Or the mess in Kashmir, where a Hindu royal family in charge at the time of Partition took a mainly Muslim population into India, resulting in 70 years of conflict.
Last edited:
How about Nehru's India going for broke and invading its other neighbours. Whilst it would probably bounce if attacking Pakistan, Nepal and Bhutan should easily be snapped up (as was Goa at a later date).
The hinterland of Burma would be a struggle, but the coast should be a cinch. Of course all the invading would not give the country a “Gandhian”, image, but we would now have a Greater India.
Also, whilst we are on the subject, there is that territory that China thinks is its and it is currently occupying….
Warning
Oi Mate, as a half-Nepali and half-Bhutanese I take offense to that. Nepal was nominally independent after 1816 already and became fully recognized as Independent and joined the League of Nations as an observer state in 1923. The Bhutanese were also nominally independent after 1843 with full recognition of independence in 1921 though they didnt join the League of Nations, full or observer state. Nepal and Bhutan weren't partitioned out of the Raj. They were already independent.
Deleted member 109224
Independent United Bengal is the easiest one, since the British actually considered it.
Independent Kashmir wouldn't be too out there as a concept.
Travancore's Monarch was interested in going it along IIRC, but ultimately opted against.
Hyderabad's Nizam tried to go it alone, but that clearly didn't work out too well for him. I can't see there being a circumstance where that would end well for him short of British intervention.
Sans Bengal, Northeast India, Kashmir, and Travancore India would have about 200 million fewer people, though its geopolitical situation wouldn't be all that different. No wars over Kashmir and Bengal might mean better Indo-Pakistani relations though.
A United Independent Bengal which includes Northeast India would have about 300 million people. Perhaps many more if you account for the lack of the massacre of Bengalis during the War of Independence.
Independent Kashmir wouldn't be too out there as a concept.
Travancore's Monarch was interested in going it along IIRC, but ultimately opted against.
Hyderabad's Nizam tried to go it alone, but that clearly didn't work out too well for him. I can't see there being a circumstance where that would end well for him short of British intervention.
Sans Bengal, Northeast India, Kashmir, and Travancore India would have about 200 million fewer people, though its geopolitical situation wouldn't be all that different. No wars over Kashmir and Bengal might mean better Indo-Pakistani relations though.
A United Independent Bengal which includes Northeast India would have about 300 million people. Perhaps many more if you account for the lack of the massacre of Bengalis during the War of Independence.
Last edited by a moderator:
As a Mod I can not believe that you are trying to pick a fight over a five year old post.
NEVER do this again.
- Status