raharris1973
Well-known member
What if Britain opposed rather than supported Indian partition at independence?
We can make this choice on the British part as 'shallow' and late as we want, or 'deeper' and earlier.
We can just decree that the British government and Viceroyal authorities decide that partition would be bloodier than non-partition (the opposite of their OTL conclusion probably), and that they don't want Britain to have the onus of any partition. If one happens, the Indians will have to do it to themselves.
Or, the British can oppose partition for a strategic reason. Anticipating that post-WWII, they are going to be in a Cold War with the Soviet Union, Britain would like to see the Soviet Union contained on all fronts. In a partitioned India and Pakistan, Muslim Pakistan, would likely inherit Britain's strategic 'Great Game' Russophobic concerns about the northwest frontier and support anti-Soviet containment, but Hindu India, would likely lose such strategic perspective and interest, see Pakistan as a rival and remnant of British colonialism, and indeed become vulnerable to Soviet enticements of partnership.
And since it is possible to trace some of the British decision making on the matter back to different parties wartime stances, and political favors and debts incurred at the time, another option is to go back to those. My understanding is that the Indian National Congress felt obliged to join the 'Quit India' campaign in WWII, and Britain felt obliged to suppress it, but the Muslim League broke ranks from the campaign, was willing to work with the British, and received favorable treatment as a result, leading to support ultimately for partition and a Pakistan.
So to change this, I would imagine we would have to either prevent the Quit India movement from emerging in wartime, by slowing the demands of the Indians, or my having some form of an INC British accommodation on path to self-rule, Dominion or independence pre-war or during the war. The latter would probably require Britain to have a non-Churchill wartime leadership.
In any case, whatever path is chosen to get the result, and whatever rationale for Britain cooperating with it [I am agnostic on it], let's say that India is given independence as a whole federal republic, not partitioned into India and Pakistan.
Going on from that, here are some of the most important questions I would like feedback on:
How would the sectarian violence aspect compare to OTL? Would Hindu-Muslim violence be not as bad OTL? As bad as OTL? Worse than OTL?
What about Hindu-Sikh and Muslim-Sikh violence?
Within national level federal Indian politics, would the Indian National Congress be the # leading political party at first?
Would the Muslim League and possibly then or later, the Awami League be important parties?
In the long-run, especially if the INC is initially the dominant party, are the circumstances of a non-partitioned India, with major portions of central Bengal, and major western border states as majority Muslim, tend to strengthen INC vote banks and electoral hegemony, or would it stir the internal sectarian pot and conflict in such a manner that Hindu nationalist parties and Hindutva ideology rise to popularity, electoral success, and governing roles over a united India faster than they have in OTL's partitioned India?
Finally, would a united India be firmly nonaligned in the Cold War, lean toward a more pro-western stance, or lean toward a pro-Soviet stance?
We can make this choice on the British part as 'shallow' and late as we want, or 'deeper' and earlier.
We can just decree that the British government and Viceroyal authorities decide that partition would be bloodier than non-partition (the opposite of their OTL conclusion probably), and that they don't want Britain to have the onus of any partition. If one happens, the Indians will have to do it to themselves.
Or, the British can oppose partition for a strategic reason. Anticipating that post-WWII, they are going to be in a Cold War with the Soviet Union, Britain would like to see the Soviet Union contained on all fronts. In a partitioned India and Pakistan, Muslim Pakistan, would likely inherit Britain's strategic 'Great Game' Russophobic concerns about the northwest frontier and support anti-Soviet containment, but Hindu India, would likely lose such strategic perspective and interest, see Pakistan as a rival and remnant of British colonialism, and indeed become vulnerable to Soviet enticements of partnership.
And since it is possible to trace some of the British decision making on the matter back to different parties wartime stances, and political favors and debts incurred at the time, another option is to go back to those. My understanding is that the Indian National Congress felt obliged to join the 'Quit India' campaign in WWII, and Britain felt obliged to suppress it, but the Muslim League broke ranks from the campaign, was willing to work with the British, and received favorable treatment as a result, leading to support ultimately for partition and a Pakistan.
So to change this, I would imagine we would have to either prevent the Quit India movement from emerging in wartime, by slowing the demands of the Indians, or my having some form of an INC British accommodation on path to self-rule, Dominion or independence pre-war or during the war. The latter would probably require Britain to have a non-Churchill wartime leadership.
In any case, whatever path is chosen to get the result, and whatever rationale for Britain cooperating with it [I am agnostic on it], let's say that India is given independence as a whole federal republic, not partitioned into India and Pakistan.
Going on from that, here are some of the most important questions I would like feedback on:
How would the sectarian violence aspect compare to OTL? Would Hindu-Muslim violence be not as bad OTL? As bad as OTL? Worse than OTL?
What about Hindu-Sikh and Muslim-Sikh violence?
Within national level federal Indian politics, would the Indian National Congress be the # leading political party at first?
Would the Muslim League and possibly then or later, the Awami League be important parties?
In the long-run, especially if the INC is initially the dominant party, are the circumstances of a non-partitioned India, with major portions of central Bengal, and major western border states as majority Muslim, tend to strengthen INC vote banks and electoral hegemony, or would it stir the internal sectarian pot and conflict in such a manner that Hindu nationalist parties and Hindutva ideology rise to popularity, electoral success, and governing roles over a united India faster than they have in OTL's partitioned India?
Finally, would a united India be firmly nonaligned in the Cold War, lean toward a more pro-western stance, or lean toward a pro-Soviet stance?