Two India alternate history questions

Apr 2018
616
India
#31
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.
Nopes. Unionist Party was nothing after the death of Sikandar Hayat. His son would never have gone head on with Patel. And one more thing, Punjab, Bengal and Bombay being hotbeds of nationalism anyone with slightest concern of his own behind wouldn't have chosen that path without strong backing from the big shots. Well not at least Tiwana.
 

M.S. Islam

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
3,296
Dhaka
#33
Nopes. Unionist Party was nothing after the death of Sikandar Hayat. His son would never have gone head on with Patel. And one more thing, Punjab, Bengal and Bombay being hotbeds of nationalism anyone with slightest concern of his own behind wouldn't have chosen that path without strong backing from the big shots. Well not at least Tiwana.
Patel's clout came to be being the home minister after independence. Pre- independence, he wasn't much of a factor. Also, collective clout of an united Punjab wouldn't be much insignificant either. Bengal's move along similar line would increase their chance too.
 
Last edited:

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,617
India
#35
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)?
That's true, Bangladesh may have treated minorities better than Pakistan. But still more than 10 millions Hindus leaving Bangladesh is still a huge number and all can't be blamed to economic opportunities.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
20,129
SoCal
#36
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.
For what it's worth, Ayesha Jalal previously argued that Jinnah wanted Pakistan to have a large Hindu (and Sikh) population in order to use them as hostages so that India will treat its remaining Muslims fairly. Basically, the logic would be that if India will mistreat its remaining Muslims, Pakistan could retaliate by mistreating its Hindus and Sikhs.

Of course, when India refused to play ball in regards to this and demanded that Punjab and Bengal be partitioned, then Jinnah's plan in regards to this fell apart.
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,617
India
#38
How many Muslims left Bangladesh?
Bangladeshi Muslims had been migrating into India illegally, 4 millions illegal Bangladeshis had been detected in Assam alone, but still there had been a steep decline of the population of Hindus in Bangladesh percentage wise, it was 1/3rd of the population in 1947.
 
Likes: Futurist
Apr 2018
616
India
#39
That's true, Bangladesh may have treated minorities better than Pakistan. But still more than 10 millions Hindus leaving Bangladesh is still a huge number and all can't be blamed to economic opportunities.
It's not that simple these days. Even 15-20 years back people used to leave Bangladesh for persecution. Nowadays the severity of that has definitely subsided somewhat. Many of these incidents are mob violences behind which there is often some different agenda.

A Bangladeshi friend (now duly Indian) of mine explained it as something like this - "Many people have relations on both sides of the border. For them coming to India is an opportunity for both growth and risk aversion (perceived). Many fear the possibility of a BNP comeback. Jamaat is a nightmare. This is compounded by the fact that Awami League Government doesn't often run the country like Gods either." So its complicated. However Hindus still constitute 12% of the population and quite a few of them are doing damn well. I once met a chap who owned textile mills in Bangladesh during a trip to Hardwar-Mathura-Vrndavan etc. He said that although those things do happen, their intensities and frequencies vary from place to place. Jamaat strongholds are to be avoided always. Otherwise he was quite happy in his country.

Funny thing is, there are Hindus in Jamaat too. My aforementioned friend once remarked about them - "Mir Zafars come in all colors".