Two India alternate history questions

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,585
India
#11
Most certainly. He accepted partition reluctantly, his successors would wholeheartedly.


Maybe 6-7 countries, e.g. Bengal, Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan, Assam etc. alongside central India.
Even in that case, whole of Punjab, Bengal and Assam going to form a big Muslim countries seems quite doubt full. The Sikhs, the Punjabi and Bengali Hindus, Assamese and Northeast tribesmen like Nagas and Khasis wouldn't have embraced a Islamic theocratic state so easily.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,738
SoCal
#12
Even in that case, whole of Punjab, Bengal and Assam going to form a big Muslim countries seems quite doubt full. The Sikhs, the Punjabi and Bengali Hindus, Assamese and Northeast tribesmen like Nagas and Khasis wouldn't have embraced a Islamic theocratic state so easily.
So, these provinces still see a split--but with these split-off territories becoming independent states rather than a part of India?
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,585
India
#13
So, these provinces still see a split--but with these split-off territories becoming independent states rather than a part of India?
Hindus had always been united, even the Aryan and Dravidian theories failed to make any dent, Hindus had always India/Bharat as a historical civilization and historical identity, the ethnic identity and national identity always coexisted. That's why even Goa assimilated so well into India despite centuries of Portuguese rule. Since, Pakistan was an invented identity(Rahmat Ali when he was studying in England), there was surely people who would be in doubt about ethnic vs country. India never faced a problem with assimilation of Sindhi or East Bengali Hindus as the part of India, but in Pakistan the assimilation of Muhajirs is questioned to this day, they are mocked as "Hindustani" (Indians aka the enemy) until to this day by other Pakistanis.

The 1940s Lahore resolution talked about numerous Muslim majority independent state, this was a unilateral decision, how would all other religious groups would let Assam, entire Bengal and Punjab becoming a part of a Islamic theocratic states condemned to live as a second class citizens.
 
Likes: Futurist

M.S. Islam

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
3,277
Dhaka
#14
Even in that case, whole of Punjab, Bengal and Assam going to form a big Muslim countries seems quite doubt full. The Sikhs, the Punjabi and Bengali Hindus, Assamese and Northeast tribesmen like Nagas and Khasis wouldn't have embraced a Islamic theocratic state so easily.
The premise of the discussion here is what if instead of one monolithic state for Muslims, the subcontinent is splintered into multiple states.

Historical reality in early 1940s was that Punjab, Bengal, Sindh all were poised to become autonomous/independent states with preexisting demographics.

Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs of Punjab were united under Sikandar Hayat Khan of Unionist Party, led by Muslims. Similar situation existed in Bengal during United Bengal movement. Same in Sindh.

Therefore your rhetoric that Hindus/Sikhs would never live under Muslim rule is totally ahistorical; you are simply superimposing today's bias on that period.
 
Apr 2019
404
India
#15
, questioned to this day, they are mocked as "Hindustani" (Indians aka the enemy) until to this day by other
Then why do they speak language of the Muhajirs aka Urdu aka dilect of Hindustani aka their enemy?
They neglected their rich linguistic heritage(which is one of the main problem of Pakistan) for a 'foreign' language.
But then they also borrowed religion of the Arabs.
Appropriated ancestors of Turks, Arabs and Central Asian(who actually plundered their land). Totally rejected(and hated) their Hindu-Buddhist history and heritage.
Can we call them a country?
 

M.S. Islam

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
3,277
Dhaka
#16
Pakistan was an artificial construct. Urdu was selected as the national language so as to create a common bond, a first step in converting the ethnic mosaic of Pakistan into a nation-state. Selecting any existing language would have created bias over other ethnicities. Jinnah was a pretty shrewd fellow, had he lived a few more years history of the subcontinent would have been very different in a positive way.
 
Apr 2018
607
India
#17
The premise of the discussion here is what if instead of one monolithic state for Muslims, the subcontinent is splintered into multiple states.

Historical reality in early 1940s was that Punjab, Bengal, Sindh all were poised to become autonomous/independent states with preexisting demographics.

Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs of Punjab were united under Sikandar Hayat Khan of Unionist Party, led by Muslims. Similar situation existed in Bengal during United Bengal movement. Same in Sindh.

Therefore your rhetoric that Hindus/Sikhs would never live under Muslim rule is totally ahistorical; you are simply superimposing today's bias on that period.
Unionist Party was going to rule Punjab as an independent country? Those who were so against the partition that it took full scale riot to break its back? And about the United Bengal, you expect Bengali Hindus to succumb to another of Suhrawardy's schemes in '47?

Our grandpas were less privileged than us but not that big idiots.
 

M.S. Islam

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
3,277
Dhaka
#18
Unionist Party was going to rule Punjab as an independent country? Those who were so against the partition that it took full scale riot to break its back? And about the United Bengal, you expect Bengali Hindus to succumb to another of Suhrawardy's schemes in '47?

Our grandpas were less privileged than us but not that big idiots.
You too seems unable to contemplate alternate timeline. Start with thinking - what if there was no partition.
 
Apr 2018
607
India
#19
Unless it's a loose federation, it breaks apart in chaos.
Maybe 6-7 countries, e.g. Bengal, Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan, Assam etc. alongside central India.
Throughout history many people have harboured such dreams and many still do. However that's a different thing.

Thing is, if there were no partition then that means Hindu and Muslim populations are more evenly distributed as it were pre '47. If we take into consideration a weakened Muslim League then it invariably means a stronger Congress with a good deal of hold in places like Sindh, Balochistan, East Bengal etc. It would have been somewhat similar to how India was during, say the first Janata Dal Government. Also in this case the only thing that has prevented Pakistan from becoming an effective democracy till now would not have been prominent, i.e. Punjabi Fascism. So there is absolutely no reason to believe that an undivided Indian would have broken apart when the one in real life haven't.
 

M.S. Islam

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
3,277
Dhaka
#20
Throughout history many people have harboured such dreams and many still do. However that's a different thing.

Thing is, if there were no partition then that means Hindu and Muslim populations are more evenly distributed as it were pre '47. If we take into consideration a weakened Muslim League then it invariably means a stronger Congress with a good deal of hold in places like Sindh, Balochistan, East Bengal etc. It would have been somewhat similar to how India was during, say the first Janata Dal Government. Also in this case the only thing that has prevented Pakistan from becoming an effective democracy till now would not have been prominent, i.e. Punjabi Fascism. So there is absolutely no reason to believe that an undivided Indian would have broken apart when the one in real life haven't.
A weak Muslim League actually meant strong regional parties. In 1937 elections when Partition hadn't yet been tabled, neither Muslim League nor Congress won in - Punjab (Unionist Party), Sindh (United Party), and Bengal (Coalition led by Krishak Praja party).