How could this be accomplished? I'm really curious as to how India could achieve its independence from Great Britain while still staying unified as a country. Bonus points if you can prevent Gandhi's assassination or at least delay it for a while.
Challenge: No partition of India
- Thread starter Coyote Knight
- Start date
If that does end up being the case, how would India keep the large numbers of Muslims happy in the country? They're still going to feel alienated most likely...
OTL India has a substantial Muslim minority, and despite the occasional outbreak of violence, there's a general attitude of tolerance and civil peace. As long as the government is relatively secular and not Hindu chauvinist, there's no good reason why it can't keep both the Muslims and Hindus happy. Also, remember that the bloodiest post-independece war in the Subconitnent was actually the Bangladesh Independence War, fought predominately between Muslims rather than between Muslims and Hindus (though India did intervene at the end, leading to the 1971 War).
Gandhi opposed the partition as did many of the other independence leaders, and it was only because a vocal minority within a minority got their way that the partition happened. It was far from inevitable.
India is granted Dominion Status in 1919 after the First World in gratitude for the Indians who fought for Britain. Independence would have occured when Jinnah was still working within the Congress Party and before the Moselm league adopted the two nation theory of Mohammed Iqbal. If independence had come in a more peaceful manner the communal violence would have been avoided and Gandhi would not have been the victim of a Hindu fanatic. Would it have stayed that way?
If the Moselm provinces/ states had been given a great deal of autonomy it could have worked and there would have been no Kashmir problem. Once seperatism began with Pakistan it gave the green light to other forms of seperatism i.e. Bangladesh and demands for a Sikh state
If the Moselm provinces/ states had been given a great deal of autonomy it could have worked and there would have been no Kashmir problem. Once seperatism began with Pakistan it gave the green light to other forms of seperatism i.e. Bangladesh and demands for a Sikh state
Thanks for the input guys. So basically, if India is to avoid partition, I'd need to somehow grant it Dominion status by the 1920's and keep Jinnah in the Congress Party. Anything else that might be of value?
Cook
Banned
Well with Jinnah in the Congress Party you’d expect more guarantees for minorities. I’m not saying there aren’t enough (for the nit pickers) I’m saying he’d have got for more or he’d have left as IOTL. So expect constitutional changes.
For a more democratic and possibly more prosperous outcome don’t let Jawaharlal Nehru and the Ghandi Clan near the Prime Ministership.
For a more democratic and possibly more prosperous outcome don’t let Jawaharlal Nehru and the Ghandi Clan near the Prime Ministership.
I don't think you need Dominion status ever, or independence in the 20s.
In fact, I think delaying independence will help, because it will strengthen an Indian nationalism. When Indian nationalism > Muslim religionism, the partition never happens.
but what you need to remember is that:
1. Britain was bankrupted by the War, and maintaining the Empire simply became impossible
2. the Indian troops who fought in World War II did so with the understanding that it was the last time they would be asked to fight for Britain.
For these reasons, I don't think delaying independence by more than a year or two would have been feasible.
So, great! A war of independence often helps a lot to develop nationalism. Let's say that Britain is for some reason too proud, stupid, or jingoistic to gracefully let go of India - somewhere around 1950, the nation rebels. Through this war, Muslims and Hindus fight together against the imperialistic British, and learn to love each other like brothers - or at least tolerate each other like neighbors.
Cook
Banned
A rather ugly picture, and would require an enormously reduced role for Ghandi.
The Indian’s did fight a war of Independence. They just used weapons the British couldn’t counter; non-violent resistance and the idea of freedom.
Plus remember that the Congress Party still contained a lot of Muslims, as did India after Partition.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Here's my favorite POD for this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_India_Act_1909
This was a serious blow to Indian unity, because not only did it reserve 25% of seats for Muslims, only Muslims could vote for these seats (and only Hindus could vote for the other seats). That exacerbated and radicalized communal conflict.
If you eliminate this, or at the least, make the reserved seats subject to everyone's vote, then Muslim and Hindu candidates would have to appeal to both communities and that would not only be a moderating influence, but it would encourage them to work together politically.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_India_Act_1909
This was a serious blow to Indian unity, because not only did it reserve 25% of seats for Muslims, only Muslims could vote for these seats (and only Hindus could vote for the other seats). That exacerbated and radicalized communal conflict.
If you eliminate this, or at the least, make the reserved seats subject to everyone's vote, then Muslim and Hindu candidates would have to appeal to both communities and that would not only be a moderating influence, but it would encourage them to work together politically.
Cook
Banned
Yep, agreed.
That’s one of the dangers of reserving seats in parliament, or the judiciary etc to try to protect a minority; it can make things worse.
New Zealand seems to have got away with it, can’t thing of too many other places where it’s worked. (And Emperor of New Zealand will probably pop up and tell me it isn’t working now)
Wow, I had no idea that there were reserved seats that only Muslims could vote for. I also have another question; Gandhi was very influential and wanted to keep India together, so who does he supposedly work with to keep it together and if Nehru isn't PM, who will be? In a twist of fate, perhaps Jinnah?
Something I've always wondered, where there also seats reserved for Sikhs and smaller religious communities or were they just lumped in with Hindus?
EvolvedSaurian said:
No, afaik they were not given separate seats. Sikhs were considered a "martial race" for census and classification purposes, whereas 'Mohammedians' were their own religion.
Canadian Federation said:
Jinnah actually had a large window of opportunity to become a highly influential Congress party member. His views were aligned with theirs (when it was the Swaraj party) for much of the 1920s, and he actively supported them. He had a declining marriage though (she eventually died) and he was becoming more and more disillusioned by the radical Hindu-nationalist wing of Swaraj/Congress (at least, this is what it seems like from what I read).
Jinnah made a famous speech in 1929 putting up the "Fourteen Points". These were all rejected: but perhaps if there's some more traction for the idea, i.e. a pick and choose your points rather than the thing as a bundle. A lot of these appealed to members of both sides, but as you can see, #4, 11 and 12 were highly distasteful to Hindu nationalists.
Jinnah wasn't the reason independence came around but he certainly helped it happen, and the Muslim League losing him would be a major blow to them. If his wife survives, or he becomes disillusioned with politics on both sides he could stay in London (he almost did) and simply never come back- being a faraway voice over independence as well.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
I think perhaps the solution of not having reserved seats, or at least all voters casting for them, would help, as this would likely result in a weaker radical Hindu wing.
Everyone blames Jinnah and the Muslims, but the Congress wasn't just Gandhi - there were some pretty rabid Hindu nationalists as well, and the Congress was pretty Hindu-oriented.
Very much so. Congress basically tried to appease the Hindu nationalists while maintaining a sort of neutral / secular attitude towards Muslims when discussions came around.
It obviously totally depends on the PoD though. Weakening the radical Hindu wing by not adopting the 1909-style parliament would definitely help in the long-term unity of the country, but in the short term would incense many of the less secular Muslims.
Once you get to the 1930s-era you're going to probably have escalation, with radical Hindus stirring up anti-Muslim sentiment and vice-versa. However, with no partition, this violence might be mostly concentrated in regions where Hindu-Muslim tensions were highest i.e. Calcutta, Bombay, Madras, etc. iirc Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs in the Sindh/Pakistan did not have a ton of conflict until it became clear those were going to be the areas where new borders were drawn.
You will definitely end up with some sort of civil conflict (whether low or high depends on a lot) with a 1930s PoD but I think there was plenty of opportunity to keep the country united before then.
Well I knew/was planning for some violence but it would be mostly in riots in concentrated areas such as those mentioned above. I'm just looking for totally plausible alternatives that would've kept the British Raj/Hindustan united.