If it wasn't for the Cold War, would India have dismembered Pakistan further sometime before Pakistan got nukes?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,022
SoCal
#1
If there would have been no Cold War (for instance, as a result of France not falling in 1940) and British India would have still been partitioned at the time of independence, would India have dismembered Pakistan at some point in time (specifically before Pakistan actually got nuclear weapons) in order to eliminate the threat that Pakistan posed to it?

In our TL, India was able to split Pakistan in two in 1971 and create an independent Bangladesh in order to stop the Pakistani genocide there. However, could India have used such an opportunity to go further if there would have been no Cold War and thus no large-scale U.S. support for Pakistan?

Specifically, I am thinking of India completely dismembering Pakistan and creating an independent Sindh, Punjab, and Balochistan. All of Kashmir would become Indian while the Pashtun-majority parts of Pakistan could either join Afghanistan or become independent.

Anyway, any thoughts on this?
 

starman

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
4,081
Connecticut
#2
Did any Indians advocate going this far? One potential problem might’ve been Arab sympathy for Pakistan as it is a Muslim State. There might’ve been an oil embargo if India went too far in ‘71.
 
Likes: Futurist
Oct 2015
1,133
India
#5
No. India would not have gone for the kill by dismembering Pakistan.

Nehru etc Schooled in Non-Violence:

Indian leadership (Nehru etc) were brought up under Gandhian non-violent struggle for independence. Nehru etc did not have adequate understanding of importance of military. They were (and are still ) status-quo powers on the whole. There were exceptions in Hyderabad, Junagarh & Goa but each of these small places had it unique compulsions driving Indian action.

India is a Status Quo Power:

Indian attitude is best illustrated in handing of Kashmir. Nehru did not want military action but it was Patel who forced it. Nehru referred the dispute to United Nations, though he had a stronger military than Pakistan, as he did not want a military solution. He consulted and got an okay from Sheikh Abdullah (leader of Kashmir Congress) before accepting Accession by Maharaja of Kashmir.

As regards Patel, he is on record saying that if Kashmir wanted to be part of Pakistan, he had no objection. But unilateral attack by Pakistan militia and army forced the hands of Maharaja of Kashmir and in turn India to whose aid he sought.

Who messed up Kashmir issue?

Kashmir matter got messed up firstly because UN took almost 2 years to pass a resolution. There was no need for such a delay. It happened probably because the UNSC powers like USA/UK were just calculating what/who would serve their own geo-political interests better.

Secondly, Pakistan did not withdraw its Army from Kashmir to enable plebiscite. Had it done, India would have gone thru the plebiscite. Pakistan's fear was that it may lose the plebiscite and people of Kashmir may not accept joining Pakistan. Populations of Muslims was not much above 50%. Muslims were also divided into ethnic groups. Pakistani militia had engaged in much looting & raping so people would have voted against them. Sheikh Abdullah, the tallest leader then, was in favour of India compared to Pakistan.

In the 1950s, Sheikh Abdullah seems to have developed an idea that if he gets independence, he can be a sovereign king. This led to additional problems.

Bangladesh:

On the whole, India would not have acted to divide Pakistan. In case of Bangladesh also, it was Sheikh Mujibur Rahman who declared independence. India was compelled to act and intervene much later after western powers ignored the unprecedented humanitarian crisis - once again due to their own geo-politicial interests.

Today:

Today plebiscite is impossible as more than 100,000 people have been driven out of Kashmir as refugees by Islamic militants fanned & funded by Pakistan.

In my personal opinion, if I were a policy maker, the only thing which can prevent Pakistan is counter-terror attacks in Pakistan. However, wider public opinion is hardly in favour of such an action.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,022
SoCal
#6
Withdraw from west Pakistan.
What about if India sets up independent states in west Pakistan and then withdraws? For instance, an independent Baloch state, Sindhi state, et cetera.

@Rajeev: I'll respond to your post here in a little bit, but I get the general gist of what you are trying to say here.
 

kandal

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,767
USA
#7
Remember, India had already dismembered Pakistan. That's how Bangladesh came into being. Cold war hardly played a role here.

Further dismembering could happen too, if a similar opportunity presents itself again. Pakistan being what it is, I don't see why the country wouldn't give India another chance at it. Lol!
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,022
SoCal
#8
Remember, India had already dismembered Pakistan. That's how Bangladesh came into being. Cold war hardly played a role here.

Further dismembering could happen too, if a similar opportunity presents itself again. Pakistan being what it is, I don't see why the country wouldn't give India another chance at it. Lol!
Nukes.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,022
SoCal
#10
Sure! Nukes did prevent USSR from dismembering itself, didn't it!
Pakistani nukes are duds. Because they can't use it even to get their beloved Kashmir from India.
The Pakistanis would use nukes for defensive purposes even if they are unwilling to use them for offensive purposes, though.