An independent Bangladesh is created in 1947

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,701
SoCal
#1
What if an independent Bangladesh would have been created in 1947? Basically, I am talking about having the post-1971 situation on the Indian subcontinent (three independent states--India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh) be created back in 1947.

In this scenario, the genocide in Bangladesh in 1970-1971 (before India stepped in and kicked Pakistan out of Bangladesh) would have obviously been avoided in this scenario. That said, though, would a creation of an independent Bangladesh almost 25 years earlier (in comparison to real life) have had any other significant and/or meaningful effects?

Any thoughts on this?
 
Jul 2012
3,233
Dhaka
#2
In fact, in Lahore Resolution which was the formal beginning of Pakistan movement, the proposal was for Muslim 'independent stateS'.

Bangladesh most certainly would have had a larger territory including city of Kolkata which was Muslim-majority at that time.

With three-way dynamics instead of two, India-Pakistan enmity was likely to be low-key, so much so that none of the wars (47, 65, 71) occurs.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,701
SoCal
#3
In fact, in Lahore Resolution which was the formal beginning of Pakistan movement, the proposal was for Muslim 'independent stateS'.

Bangladesh most certainly would have had a larger territory including city of Kolkata which was Muslim-majority at that time.

With three-way dynamics instead of two, India-Pakistan enmity was likely to be low-key, so much so that none of the wars (47, 65, 71) occurs.
Why was Kolkata given to India in real life?

Also, an independent Bangladesh isn't going to solve the Kashmir problem.
 
Jul 2012
3,233
Dhaka
#5
Why was Kolkata given to India in real life?
A mystery. One account was that Jinnah swapped Kolkata to gain Lahore. Another was, Congress kept Kolkata sacrificing Lahore.

Also, an independent Bangladesh isn't going to solve the Kashmir problem.
Not directly, but with three nations to emerge, partition occurs differently, at a much slower pace. Also, with an independent Bangladesh, Kashmir's wish to remain independent has a much greater chance to be respected by India and Pakistan than had historically.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,701
SoCal
#6
A mystery. One account was that Jinnah swapped Kolkata to gain Lahore. Another was, Congress kept Kolkata sacrificing Lahore.
OK.

Not directly, but with three nations to emerge, partition occurs differently, at a much slower pace. Also, with an independent Bangladesh, Kashmir's wish to remain independent has a much greater chance to be respected by India and Pakistan than had historically.
Why would partition have been slower in this scenario? After all, wasn't Britain in a rush to get out of India?
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,701
SoCal
#10
Sure, but the added complexity should have delayed the process.
TBH, I don't think that an independent Bengal (either only its Muslim areas or its entire territory) would have made the decolonization of India too complex. Maybe it takes a month or two longer, but that should be about it.