Impact of an unpartitioned India

[whiteshore]

Let's say that somehow, the partition of India is averted (let's say that Jinnah stays with the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League fades into relative obscurity) and in August 1947, India emerges as a united Dominion of India from Baluchistan in the west to Chittagong in the east and Kashmir to the north to Tamil Nadu in the South. What would the impact of an unpartitioned India be on the world? What relations would it have with other countries?

[MinnesotaNationalist]

Well, India now has a united population of, what, 1.75 billion people? It's easily the most populated country on earth with almost a quarter of the human population. Not only that, but now Hindus and Muslims wouldn't be arguing among themselves (assuming that Pakistanis and Bengalis accept Hindu rule, which they probably wouldn't), so they could divert their resources elsewhere. As long as India doesn't screw up, it'd likely be a superpower on par with China or better

[Krall]

A united India would definitely have the largest population in the world, and thus would have a good shot at becoming a superpower. I'm not sure it'd be that easy though - there are certainly a few ways this would improve the Indian economy (apparently the British set up the textile industry so that the raw goods were produced in East Bengal and processed in West Bengal, which were split between Pakistan and India respectively, plus India's economy suffered when pro-Pakistan countries withdrew foreign aid during the 1965 Indo-Pakistani War), but to have a level of economic growth similar to that of China and the Asian tigers you'd have to avoid the implementation of the Licence Raj and have liberal, pro-business economic policy be implemented earlier. Any idea how this could be achieved with a united India, and whether it's likely or even plausible?

[punkrockbowler805]

Well of it stays a dominion then the British might still try to keep it down though more indirectly. Since Nehru has a better relationship with Britain he would probably still be leader though this would probably prevent Gandhi from dying.

If it still goes independent then it's still going to have to sort out things for a while. If subhas chandra Bose lives his effect could be interesting as would a surviving Gandhi.

[huojin]

India is crazy divided by inward competition - it's not a united nation already, I can't imagine how much worse it would be if we added in sectarian violence (which would undoubtedly crop up at some point). Still, assuming things were alright, and there were a cohesive national leader capable of driving things in a particular direction, you'd undoubtedly have a new anchor for power in Asia.

I'd speculate, on a foreign policy front, that they'd probably angle more heavily on neutrality though. Without the Pakistan-India conflict, getting in between the Soviets and the West seems unlikely. Although tensions with China would likely arise sooner, and resume their place as the defining tension in all of Asia. In that sense, an alignment with the West would make more sense if they're leaning one way or the other.

[MinnesotaNationalist]

I do have to ask, would Burma and Sri Lanka be included (the forgotten parts of the partition)

[whiteshore]

What do you think would Jinnah be viewed in this United India as he stays with the INC in this timeline and doesn't join the Muslim League?

[Krall]

May 29, 2016 22:39:54 GMT MinnesotaNationalist said:

I do have to ask, would Burma and Sri Lanka be included (the forgotten parts of the partition)

I don't think Sri Lanka was ever a part of British India, and Burma/Myanmar was split from British India well before independence in 1937. If you want to include them you're going to need a much earlier PoD.

[punkrockbowler805]

Yeah, Sri Lanka has a regional identity or two since they had the civil war with the Tamil tigers and I believe Buddhism is more prevalent.

[punkrockbowler805]

The lessening of the communal violence of partition means Gandhi does not get assassinated. That could change a lot.

[MinnesotaNationalist]

May 30, 2016 1:14:08 GMT Krall said:

May 29, 2016 22:39:54 GMT MinnesotaNationalist said:

I do have to ask, would Burma and Sri Lanka be included (the forgotten parts of the partition)

I don't think Sri Lanka was ever a part of British India, and Burma/Myanmar was split from British India well before independence in 1937. If you want to include them you're going to need a much earlier PoD.

Hm, you're right. I always figured that Burma was carved off at the same time and nobody talked about. Although, the biggest reason behind the partition was because of the formation of the Muslim League decades before. If we're going back to remove the Muslim League, we could also eventually keep Burma in as well (possibly Aden as well, however odd that would be)

[huojin]

May 30, 2016 17:33:18 GMT MinnesotaNationalist said:

May 30, 2016 1:14:08 GMT Krall said:

I don't think Sri Lanka was ever a part of British India, and Burma/Myanmar was split from British India well before independence in 1937. If you want to include them you're going to need a much earlier PoD.

Hm, you're right. I always figured that Burma was carved off at the same time and nobody talked about. Although, the biggest reason behind the partition was because of the formation of the Muslim League decades before. If we're going back to remove the Muslim League, we could also eventually keep Burma in as well (possibly Aden as well, however odd that would be)

Bigger issue might just be that Burma was already developing a separate national identity in the 1910s and 1920. Keeping them within a united India would be problematic.

I could see Sri Lanka as an Indian-aligned state (probably partially out of necessity), but forming part of it seems unlikely for quite some time. Perhaps if India had a more authoritarian ruler.

[whiteshore]

How would this India's relations with the rest of the world be like?

[Rhand]

Probably lean more towards the United States. OTL India was non-aligned, but leaned towards the Soviet Union because Pakistan was an American ally.

[huojin]

It's a little difficult to place the Pakistani or Indian alignment with the US and USSR respectively. By some measures Pakistani closeness with America spurred the Indo-Soviet friendship, but Pakistan initially attempted a non-aligned position that would have maintained relations with the Soviets too, only to be rebuffed.

Ultimately I think a unified India would likely maintain a non-aligned position, much as India itself did historically. Courting both sides where necessary seems a more viable geopolitical strategy. Strong relations with Britain, with both the Soviets and American attempting to sway them on particular issues. Assuming a figure like Nehru dominates, as historically in India, a left-wing nationalist government seems likely. Look to India, Mossadegh's Iran, and the UAR for guidance.

Over time, things might become more questionable. It's conceivable they could align further with the Soviets if the Sino-Soviet split and tensions remained high with China, but a united India would likely have resolved its issues in Kashmir and along the border without leaving room for China to take advantage, so it's possible Sino-Indian relations would be better - at least in the short time. I would nevertheless envisage a united India making use of Soviet tensions with China to further their own foreign policy goals in Southeast Asia. If the US continued to attempt rapproachment with China in the 70s in an effort to weaken the Soviets, we could see a closening of Soviet-Indian relations again.

It's uncertain whether the US would be willing to go as far as it did historically though - isolating a united India, a major player on the global stage and in the region, by cosing up too closely to China and driving them consequently towards the Soviets would be a huge risk on their part. I think you'd likely see cooperation being maintained with India wherever possible. By whatever degree you'd see US-Chinese closeness, I anticipate you'd see similar degrees of Soviet-Indian closeness.

An outright war between China and India seems unlikely in this scenario, but I think throughout the period you'd see a series of proxy conflicts and jostling for position in Southeast Asia - though not one that would necessarily become emblematic of the wider Cold War conflict unless India and China aligned more decisively with either sphere.

[whiteshore]

What about India's relations with the Middle East be like with the fact that India is the largest Muslim nation on Earth and possibly has an enclave in the Arabian Peninsula?

[huojin]

If we're talking about Aden, it was split off in 1937, and I don't think there's any real prospect that India would have maintained it, united or not.

Relations with the Muslim world are more difficult to pin down, I think. Generally Indian relations historically had been occasionally difficult due to closeness with the Soviets, but a more non-aligned united India could potentially avoid such pitfalls. Tensions with Iran would likely remain, the Shah being a close ally of the US and the border issues being prevalent, which could lead to closer relations with Iraq and other Soviet-leaning Arab states.

I think similar to history, we'd likely see a hestitance towards relations with Israel - with the Hindu majority favouring ties but political leaders wary of engaging fully and formally out of concerns of losing the Muslim vote and Muslim support.

So you'd probably see in the Middle East a Soviet-leaning foreign policy outlook, likely stemming from any border tensions with Iran and a need to maintain strong relations with Arab nations to appease Muslim interests within a united India. However I think you'd still see it characterised broadly as a non-aligned position, since tensions would inevitably arise over any issues regarding the treatment of Muslims or Muslim grievances within a united India.

Correspondingly to their Soviet-slant in the Middle East out of necessity, you might see a more Western-favourable dynamic elsewhere to balance - probably as part of those tensions with China in Southeast Asia I mentioned previously. Nothing as drastic as supporting the Vietnam War, but supportive of democracy in the region and so on seems likely. It would be a difficult balancing act for India.


As we move beyond the era of Arab Nationalism and Iran becomes an Islamic state, I could see tensions there building substantially. I would imagine a more concerted effort to aid Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War, but even more covertly so, in an attempt to prevent the sentiments of the Iranian Revolution being taken up in India. This cautiousness would define Indian policy towards the Middle East into the post-Cold War era too. Particularly no longer needing to balance the USSR and USA, I think you'd see close relations with countries like Iraq being maintained, but also new relations with the Gulf States to balance that out - seeking healthy relations with proximate but more moderate countries.