An independent Bangladesh is created in 1947

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,887
India
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.
Bangladesh wasn't going to get West Bengal that easily as Bengali Hindus very well knew that its a Muslim homeland movement against Hindu dominance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,887
India
Why was Kolkata given to India in real life?

Also, an independent Bangladesh isn't going to solve the Kashmir problem.
Kolkata was Hindu majority and was in Western side of Bengal. if British were giving Kolkata to East Bengal, they would had to create an enclave within India like Berlin within East Germany, unlike Lahore it wasn't on the border. Kolkata was largest city of India back then and it seems Bangladeshis fantasize about it.

If independent states logic was to be followed then Punjab and Sindhi wouldn't have been a single country, at that time Punjab may have claimed Kashmir. Actually the Muslim members from Bengal actually provided huge weight to Pakistan movement, otherwise Muslim League would have just been a regional parties, even Punjab and Sindh had unionist dominance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,980
SoCal
Kolkata was Hindu majority and was in Western side of Bengal. if British were giving Kolkata to East Bengal, they would had to create an enclave within India like Berlin within East Germany, unlike Lahore it wasn't on the border. Kolkata was largest city of India back then and it seems Bangladeshis fantasize about it.
It doesn't make sense to give Kolkata to Bangladesh if the surrounding areas are still part of India, no? I mean, what's the point of having a port if you don't control the territory surrounding it as well?

If independent states logic was to be followed then Punjab and Sindhi wouldn't have been a single country, at that time Punjab may have claimed Kashmir. Actually the Muslim members from Bengal actually provided huge weight to Pakistan movement, otherwise Muslim League would have just been a regional parties, even Punjab and Sindh had unionist dominance.
Oh, sure, one could have split Pakistan six-ways in 1947--Bangladesh, Sindhudesh, Punjab, Kashmir, Balochistan, and Khyber Pakhtunwa. All of them could have theoretically become independent countries back then. Of course, such a move would have also allowed India to dominate these regions to a much greater extent.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,980
SoCal
Bangladesh wasn't going to get West Bengal that easily as Bengali Hindus very well knew that its a Muslim homeland movement against Hindu dominance.
Yep--just like a lot of Muslims didn't want to be a minority under Hindu rule, a lot of Hindus didn't want to be a minority under Muslim rule.