AHC: How could the Partition of India have been made peaceful?

[Tsochar]

There are two parts to this question. PoD after 1944 is preferred, but not before 1937.

1. Assuming that Partition was the only way to avoid a messy civil war, how could the violence during the population exchange (or the population exchange itself) have been avoided?

2. If Partition is rejected, how could the subsequent united India be made to function as a single state without splitting apart later or devolving into violence down the road?

I understand that some users here are based in these countries and this can be an emotional topic, but let's try to be civil.

 

[TheMann]

To be honest I highly doubt you could avoid violence simply owing to the religious and cultural differences involved. India is simply too big of a nation and has too many disparate groups to have violence be avoided if you are continuing with partition, and short of allowing each section of the country to choose its own fate and have a gigantic number of British troops there to keep order in the event things flare up (a certainty) I think violence at some point in time in pretty much unavoidable.

 

[Monk78]

Assuming that Partition was the only way to avoid a messy civil war,

Not necessarily true

 

[Monk78]

highly doubt you could avoid violence simply owing to the religious and cultural differences involved.

India has many examples of intra-cultural harmony far more than many other civilizations , ofcourse violence cannot be entirely avoided.But the ethnic cleansing that was done on a massive scale has its roots in the "divide and conquer" policies of the British.

 

[Tsochar]

India has many examples of intra-cultural harmony far more than many other civilizations , ofcourse violence cannot be entirely avoided.But the ethnic cleansing that was done on a massive scale has its roots in the "divide and conquer" policies of the British.

And there's the kicker: Had British imperialist policies already eroded the harmony that existed previously such that unity was no longer practicable by the early 20th century?

Not necessarily true

I didn't say it was; that's why the second part of the question leaves open the possibility that it isn't true.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

A more gradual independence process, beginning earlier and completing later would probably help quell Muslim fears that independence would be some sort of Hindu power grab.

 

[Brahman]

Nope, the borders were contentious and people who lived in the area for centuries were forced to leave the area, Bloodshed was inevitable, coupled with the fact that British just wanted to leave at all costs meant that there would be complete anarchy in these areas were partition happened

 

[Sarthak]

Had Viscount Slim been made Governor of India instead of Mountbatten, its possible. His idea envisioned Dominion Status in 1947 and full independence in 1950 to both Pakistan and India, with the population exchange taking place between the 3 years as a slow gradual process in an orderly fashion

 

[Monk78]

Nope, the borders were contentious and people who lived in the area for centuries were forced to leave the area, Bloodshed was inevitable, coupled with the fact that British just wanted to leave at all costs meant that there would be complete anarchy in these areas were partition happened

Most bloodshed was in Punjab mostly and its borders have changed in almost every generation before the Raj and after the Mughal power receded

 

[Brahman]

Most bloodshed was in Punjab mostly and its borders have changed in almost every generation before the Raj and after the Mughal power receded

And every generation the border change results in bloodshed, so yeah, deaths seem inevitable

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Just going to leave this here

 

[sonofpegasus]

I am no expert on Indian and British Colonial history and tomes have been written on the subject of Indian independence and may of them are very biased from what few I have read. To simply blame the the British Colonial power is over simplistic and often employed as a means of simply white washing the culpability of the sub continental politician and racial/religious factions. Whilst the British should be held account for some aspects of the debacle and humanitarian disaster that was the partition of India this has to be done within the broader historical context and the geopolitical conditions extant at that time. I would suggest that to avoid the partition of the Indian subcontinent happening post World War Two in some form or other would require a POD well before 1937 IMHO. I hope that this thread can explore this subject objectively and dispassionately as it is fascinating and tragic peace of recent history with many still open wounds.

 

[mial42]

It's pretty hard to peacefully ethnically cleanse millions of people.

 

[Comte de Geneve]

I am normally not one to blame colonial regimes for what happened afterwards, but I think the British should bear much of the 'blame' here because of the slap-dash nature of their withdrawal. As mentioned earlier a coordinated, well-planned and well-executed phased transition to Independence with substantial British presence during the process would likely have mitigated the violence. Not eliminated, but well mitigated. Then again considering the condition of GB at that time this may be too much to expect.

 

[An Thuong]

Perhaps if India if partitioned not along patchy religious lines, but along starker linguistic lines. Instead of two states, it becomes dozens of smaller, but more linguistically cohesive states. A few of them would have religious fractures, notably Bengal, Punjab, Gujarat and Kashmir, but I believe they'd be less likely to descend into violence.
P.S. - These smaller states might be more likely to avoid India's wacky national myth building we see among Hindutva types today. However, on the downside it might become a far more contentious region during the Cold War.

 

[Shehryar]

the partition of india was largely peaceful as peaceful as it could be. the partition of punjab and bengal wasnt peaceful. The occupation of Kashmir and Hyderabad wasnt peaceful either.
perhaps if the British were to impose and guarantee independence of the princely states with military support. or openly award that muslim majority Jammu & Kashmir to Pakistan and Hindu Hyderabad to India, position troops in the place and oversea the transition of power from the princes to the respective governments. the bloodshed that happened may not have happened.

As for the Bloodshed that occurs in Punjab and Bengal can only be avoided by not partitioning the two provinces. Jinnah was adamant against partitioning the two provinces. it may have been better to award them whole to Pakistan and most of the bloodshed could have been avoided.