Two India alternate history questions

Apr 2018
607
India
#21
You too seems unable to contemplate alternate timeline. Start with thinking - what if there was no partition.
I AM talking about an alternate timeline. And get the facts right before directly accusing people of being unable to do that or unable to comprehend this. If there were no partition then Sarat Chandra Bose was not some mad dog to fight for Independent Bengal once Independence is achieved. And if there is no partition then Suhrawardy is a nobody and in no position to even give an opinion. That means the whole of Bengal remains as a part of India as it had been. Maybe with fanatical Muslim League breakaway factions running amok in the countrysides.

Unionists of Punjab were a party of Punjabi landlords rather than urban elite. Ideology meant little to them. They understood that the prosperity of Punjab depended upon its agrarian economy and that could only flourished if its communal harmony is maintained. That's all. And they were staunchly anti partition and in a too well relation with Congress to just break away, that too when there was no motive. And even further in this alternate future, if the Green Revolution happens in Punjab as it happened IRL then there is absolutely no question of secession.

Also if there is no partition then there is no riot and Direct Action Day or any crap like that. So Hindus and Muslims of this united India would have harboured far less animosity towards each other than those of the subcontinent.

It's true that a lot of wannabes wanted so called Independence or chose to retain their 'Kingdoms'. None succeded in real life and none would have succeded in this scenario. There's no reason to think there would have been no Patel in this undivided India. As for Assam, Gopinath Bordoloi would still be there to ensure Assam emerge a separate state rather than backyard of Bengal.

So your 6-7 provinces story doesn't even begin to realize if India is given Independence anytime post the reign of Lord Dalhousie. The only things that would not have happened were the riots of Munger, Calcutta, Patna, Noakhali etc and the second installment of that same shitshow in Dhaka, Baraguna, Chuknagar, Jathibhanga etc. Hyderabad would have happened anyway though.
 
Apr 2018
607
India
#22
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).
Regional parties do not mean secessionist ideals. Unionists were never secessionists. Fazlul Haq throught his political career took support from the Muslim League. In the absence of that entity it's not impossible to think he would have sided with Congress since land reform was and would have been a principal agenda of Congress.
 

M.S. Islam

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
3,278
Dhaka
#23
I AM talking about an alternate timeline. And get the facts right before directly accusing people of being unable to do that or unable to comprehend this. If there were no partition then Sarat Chandra Bose was not some mad dog to fight for Independent Bengal once Independence is achieved. And if there is no partition then Suhrawardy is a nobody and in no position to even give an opinion. That means the whole of Bengal remains as a part of India as it had been. Maybe with fanatical Muslim League breakaway factions running amok in the countrysides.

Unionists of Punjab were a party of Punjabi landlords rather than urban elite. Ideology meant little to them. They understood that the prosperity of Punjab depended upon its agrarian economy and that could only flourished if its communal harmony is maintained. That's all. And they were staunchly anti partition and in a too well relation with Congress to just break away, that too when there was no motive. And even further in this alternate future, if the Green Revolution happens in Punjab as it happened IRL then there is absolutely no question of secession.
Regional parties do not mean secessionist ideals. Unionists were never secessionists. Fazlul Haq throught his political career took support from the Muslim League. In the absence of that entity it's not impossible to think he would have sided with Congress since land reform was and would have been a principal agenda of Congress.

The two man responsible for formulating and proposing Lahore Resolution was - PM of Punjab Sikandar Hayat Khan, and Fazlul Huq, PM of Bengal. None of them from Muslim League.

They of course meant independent Muslim states, not one monolithic Muslim state.

Also if there is no partition then there is no riot and Direct Action Day or any crap like that. So Hindus and Muslims of this united India would have harboured far less animosity towards each other than those of the subcontinent.

It's true that a lot of wannabes wanted so called Independence or chose to retain their 'Kingdoms'. None succeded in real life and none would have succeded in this scenario. There's no reason to think there would have been no Patel in this undivided India. As for Assam, Gopinath Bordoloi would still be there to ensure Assam emerge a separate state rather than backyard of Bengal.

So your 6-7 provinces story doesn't even begin to realize if India is given Independence anytime post the reign of Lord Dalhousie. The only things that would not have happened were the riots of Munger, Calcutta, Patna, Noakhali etc and the second installment of that same shitshow in Dhaka, Baraguna, Chuknagar, Jathibhanga etc. Hyderabad would have happened anyway though.
Largely agreed.
 
Last edited:
Apr 2018
607
India
#24
The two man responsible for formulating and proposing Lahore Resolution was - PM of Punjab Sikandar Hayat Khan, and Fazlul Huq, PM of Bengal. None of them from Muslim League.

They of course meant independent Muslim states, not one.
Sikandar Hayat was one of those influential in its formulation, yes. Fazlul Haq presented it. These don't mean they were THE two men responsible for formulating and proposing Lahore Resolution.

Lahore Resolution was passed in a Muslim League General Assembly. If that very thing is weakened in this alternate timeline then how many non ML participants would have been there at all is a matter of question. It's difficult to say how Fazlul Haq would have reacted but Sikandar Hayat would have definitely stayed away from it. Throughout his career he remained rather a fence sitter than an activist like Haq. Even going to the length of saying that Lahore Resolution and Pakistan Resolution were not the same and he supported the former and not the latter. After his death Jinnah himself discarded the Jinnah Sikandar pact. So no, he neither had the motivation nor the balls to go head on with Patel if things came to that.
 
Last edited:

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,585
India
#25
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.
If it was about creating an independent country because Muslims feared Hindu dominance, how the proponent of a Muslim states (most likely a theocratic state) even think of Bengali, Punjabi, Sindhi and Assamese Hindu and Sikhs would even support that idea . Unionist were in those days were more leaning towards preserving feudalism than creating a Muslim state, Hindus mostly constituted an urban population in Punjab and Sindh. Even in Bengal, it was the Bengali Hindus who were against the partition of Bengal on religious line in 1905, the Muslims in the east were happy about it but by 1947 Bengal Hindus went in favour of partition of Bengal instead of united Bengal or a part of Pakistan because Muslim feared Hindu dominance and Muslim League even planned Direct Action Day attacking Hindu neighbourhood of Calcutta.
 
Last edited:

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,585
India
#26
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?
Muhajirs are mocked as foreigners because Pakistani seeks an identity and history different from Indians, Muhajirs are not son of the soil, you will find lots of Pakistanis claiming North-West or Indus valley always had a different history. Although Urdu is the Muslim variant of Khariboli/Hindi from Gangetic plains descendant language of Vedic Sanskrit and Sauraseni Prakrit, most of the Pakistanis think Urdu is native to central Asia brought by Mughals.
 

M.S. Islam

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
3,278
Dhaka
#27
Sikandar Hayat was one of those influential in its formulation, yes. Fazlul Haq presented it. These don't mean they were THE two men responsible for formulating and proposing Lahore Resolution.

Lahore Resolution was passed in a Muslim League General Assembly. If that very thing is weakened in this alternate timeline then how many non ML participants would have been there at all is a matter of question. It's difficult to say how Fazlul Haq would have reacted but Sikandar Hayat would have definitely stayed away from it. Throughout his career he remained rather a fence sitter than an activist like Haq. Even going to the length of saying that Lahore Resolution and Pakistan Resolution were not the same and he supported the former and not the latter. After his death Jinnah himself discarded the Jinnah Sikandar pact. So no, he neither had the motivation nor the balls to go head on with Patel if things came to that.
It's doubtful the Unionist Party of Punjab would settle for anything less than provincial autonomy (i.e. loose confederation), which was at odds with Congress' goal of a strong center.
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,585
India
#28
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.
Didn't Jinnah say in Dhaka that "Urdu and only Urdu will be the national language" of Pakistan which didn't go well with Bengalis.
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,585
India
#29
Our grandpas were less privileged than us but not that big idiots.
What a bizarre idea of creating an independent Bengal with Bengali Hindus support because Bengali Muslims fear and hate Hindu dominance in India. They wanted lots and lots of minority rights but soon they became majority in a new country, they created a theocratic state even denying basic rights to religious minority.

Apart from that, the ethnic cleansing of Hindus and Sikhs in West Pakistan was instant, the ethnic cleansing of Hindus and Chakma Buddhists due to religious persecution had been slow, around 10 million Hindus had been driven away from Bangladesh. If Hindu population is reduced to 3-4% in Bangladesh (from 1/3rd of the population in 1947) in another 25-30 years we should not be surprised, Bangladesh is no different from Pakistan when it comes to religious extremism.
 
Likes: Futurist
Apr 2018
607
India
#30
What a bizarre idea of creating an independent Bengal with Bengali Hindus support because Bengali Muslims fear and hate Hindu dominance in India. They wanted lots and lots of minority rights but soon they became majority in a new country, they created a theocratic state even denying basic rights to religious minority.

Apart from that, the ethnic cleansing of Hindus and Sikhs in West Pakistan was instant, the ethnic cleansing of Hindus and Chakma Buddhists due to religious persecution had been slow, around 10 million Hindus had been driven away from Bangladesh. If Hindu population is reduced to 3-4% in Bangladesh (from 1/3rd of the population in 1947) in another 25-30 years we should not be surprised, Bangladesh is no different from Pakistan when it comes to religious extremism.
Correction - Bangladesh isn't a theocratic state. It's a secular democracy like India. As for the late late 70s and 80s era of political instability is something Bangladeshis themselves aren't very proud of. And it was during this very martial law the Fifth Amendment of Bangladeshi Constitution had scrapped everything that was secular in it. In 2010 the Supreme Court ruled that fifth amendment itself was unconstitutional.

Sporadic incidents do happen. But that does not characterise Bangladesh as a whole. And treatment of minorities depend upon which Government is in power. However that is not the only criteria based on which even Bangladeshi Hindus vote. However the Bangladeshi Hindus that migrate to India often does so for opportunities (Harr harr harr). Overall its not a paradise for minorities but calling it just like Pakistan or Israel (these days) is way over the top.

Also Hindus hold quite influential positions in Bangladeshi Government, military, industry and academic circles and are well represented in Sports and pop culture. When did you last see a Pakistani Hindu cricketer (one that wasn't a spot fixer)?
 
Likes: M.S. Islam

Similar History Discussions