How could a Best-case Scenario for Pakistan have changed the World?

[PakistaniGuyUK]

This thread is inspired by another one “What was the best case scenario for Afghanistan” but also fits in well alongside the recent one by Sardar, “Powerful India’s effects on the Cold War in Asia and the Middle East?” Many people inevitably come down heavy on Pakistan, on this forum, and its influence is generally perceived as negative. But how would a best-case scenario for Pakistan, from its inception in 1948, have affected the World?Just a reminder guys that this is a WI not an AHC… so this is the scenario that plays out… somehow… and I’m not asking you to analyse why/why not it would happen. But if it DID happen, in your opinion how would it alter World Politics?

IMHO TWO THINGS are the MOST important in order to hand Pakistan a best-case scenario. But I’ll add a third and fourth (Afghanistan and a less influential Army) to make it even better:


1. Kashmir becomes part of Pakistan and India grudgingly accepts this and decides against war.
Pakistan gains all of Kashmir either through Maharajah Singh deciding to side with Pakistan, or this being decided in a UN plebiscite very early on. India though not fully happy with it, accepts this reality, making plans to accommodate any Hindu refugees that wish to reside in India. (Similar to Italian Istria I guess, which went to Yugoslavia without much protest from Italy, but it was of course on a much smaller scale). Nonetheless the remaining Kashmiri Hindus don’t get expelled by Pakistan nor by local Kashmiris. Pakistan thus is left with a significant Hindu minority in Kashmir in 1948 – whether they end up feeling “Pakistani” or not only time will tell, or if there emerges a sort of reverse insurgency (at least in Jammu) seeking secession from Pakistan and union with India. But for this to be a best-case scenario, India does not meddle with this status quo, at least not for the initial two decades up to the 1960s.


2. Afghanistan becomes the first nation to recognize Pakistan, King Zahir Shah warmly accepts the Durand Line while hoping to foster brotherly relations between both countries
OTL Afghanistan gave a lot of pushback to the formation of Pakistan. The border tribes did initially wish for their provinces to be part of Afghanistan (though to what extent Afghan propagandising was responsible for this is up for debate). Over time this desire has more or less dissipated at least on the Pakistani Pashtun side, the fear of unchecked Punjabi domination having largely subsided thanks to increased Pashtun influence and representation. But let’s say in our ‘best case ATL,’ Afghanistan (not Iran) is the first country to recognize and support Pakistan and the idea of Pakistan, working hard as a mediator and facilitator to ensure the ethnic Pashtuns are integrated within the new polity instead of working to disrupt it. ATL Afghanistan wouldn’t abandon the Pakistani Pashtuns but instead embark on a policy of encouraging Pakistan to fully integrate their kinsmen into Pakistani society and push for their rights on all platforms. This would be no different to the Afghan-Tajik relationship – the latter always fully supported their brethen across the border but never once expressed a desire to dismember Afghanistan.


3. As a result of the above, Pakistan doesn’t need to spend excessively on Defence and the Army has less influence in domestic politics
As of 2019 Pakistan spent more on its defence as a percentage of GDP than India, Russia, or even the United States. Yet in terms of land mass or population its smaller than all of them. The fact remains that the Army in OTL Pakistan has always held massive political influence and hasn't always been accountable to the PM as the case with the United States or Britain. ATL Pakistan wouldn’t need to spend so much on defence. This would bolster the democratic process a great deal, lessen the influence of the Army and instead successive Pakistani goverments could utilize it for things like national infrastructure projects (roads, rail etc), peace-keeping, relief work or foreign peacekeeping missions.


4. Jinnah dies in 1978 aged 100
Aligned with the above 2 points, let’s say Jinnah (the founder of Pakistan) doesn’t die a mere month after the creation of Pakistan but survives till age 101. This would push his death date to 1978. The likely outcome of this is Jinnah either making himself PM for life at some stage which could be turn out either good or bad (Lee Kuan Yew or Robert Mugabe) or possibly consecutively voted in by the general public in regular elections and resigns with dignity (i.e. Angela Merkel). All depends on his character, outlook, disposition, which we sadly never got to see, along with his vision for Pakistan which up to this day is still up for debate. But some of what he believed in can be gleaned from his quotes:

On Religious tolerance/secularism:
“You are free; you are free to go to your temples. You are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion, caste or creed—that has nothing to do with the business of the state.”

On Female Emancipation:
“No nation can ever be worthy of its existence that cannot take its women along with the men. No struggle can ever succeed without women participating side by side with men. There are two powers in the world; one is the sword and the other is the pen. There is a great competition and rivalry between the two. There is a third power stronger than both, that of the women.”

On India:
“I sincerely hope that they (relations between India and Pakistan) will be friendly and cordial. We have a great deal to do...and think that we can be of use to each other and to the world.”

Personally I think the gist of it is he was a very moderate Muslim and as long as he was alive he’d have likely moulded Pakistan into a moderate nation with a Muslim identity… but I will share no more of my own thoughts for fear of influencing replies… I’m more interested in what other people think rather than my own assumptions…

So how good – or bad – would a ‘best-case scenario’ for Pakistan, be for the World?
Could all the stars aligning for the newly formed nation-state have propelled it into the ‘First World’ - in the direction of Taiwan, Singapore etc? Or would low level corruption always remain thus turning it into another middle-of-the-road Malaysia (neither poor nor overly wealthy due to endemic corruption)?”

Regional:
How would this ATL Pakistan have impacted its neighbours - Afghanistan, China, and Iran (and also Burma)?
What kind of India would we see emerging alongside this ATL Pakistan - would it potentially be richer and more influential?
How close can the relationship between India and Pakistan get in this ATL (at least there will be much less antagonism from the Pakistani side)?

International:
How would ATL Pakistan have impacted the Cold War?
How would this have impacted international Islamism and terrorism?
What events would possibly get butterflied away and which ones would be same as OTL?
What new events or outcomes or relationships may emerge that aren't present in OTL?

 

[Simreeve]

What about East Bengal?

 

[PakistaniGuyUK]

What about East Bengal?

Yes, West Pakistan/East Pakistan same as OTL. Whether things would pan out differently ATL I don't know. Maybe a wealthier and less militarized Pakistan would lead to more openness towards the 'Language' issue. Maybe not. Maybe the wealth gets concentrated in West Pakistan and Bangladesh wants out anyway. A Bangladesh forming in the early 1970s would've tarnished Jinnah's legacy somewhat in his dying days, but its possible the end may have been more amicable than OTL if Jinnah wanted to avoid bloodshed.

 

[Sardar]

Mannnn..... shoot. I didn't want to create any type of competition regarding this issue, and I definitely don't hate or wish any ill on Pakistan or it's people. By most measures Pakistanis and Indians (at least many North Indians) have very little separating them except the divisions created by Partition. I only created that thread because Partition was just so bad IOTL, and without it I do fully believe the world would be better. Not because of any ill-will or bias against the country; hell my own grandmother was born and grew up in what is now Pakistani Punjab.

As for the scenario above, the only guesses I could make about a more successful Pakistan would be a scenario where Pakistan is explicitly a pluralistic state...which is something that is very hard to do because the only reason it exists is to serve as a homeland for Muslims. I mean Sindh did have a lot of Hindus even after partition, but I think they key would be to reduce the militaries influence as much as possible.

Also, I'm not sure how you get the Afghan-Pakistan relations could get off to a better start, when the Pashtun and Baloch desire to not have Pakistan created was rather strong. Strong devolution perhaps? Again I'm not sure.

It would of course be ideal for Hari Singh to accept the people's will, but perhaps you could have him die earlier? But his son did accede to India IOTL, so perhaps you could have Pakistan pressure his son more to accede to them.

No 1947-1948 war would also be a great way to get Pakistan and India off on the right foot.

Yes, West Pakistan/East Pakistan same as OTL. Whether things would pan out differently ATL I don't know. Maybe a wealthier and less militarized Pakistan would lead to more openness towards the 'Language' issue. Maybe not. Maybe the wealth gets concentrated in West Pakistan and Bangladesh wants out anyway. A Bangladesh forming in the early 1970s would've tarnished Jinnah's legacy somewhat in his dying days, but its possible the end may have been more amicable than OTL if Jinnah wanted to avoid bloodshed.

You could perhaps get East Pakistan to stay if West Pakistan is able to solve the Baloch and Pashtun issue, which is a whole thing in itself.

 

[PakistaniGuyUK]

Mannnn..... shoot. I didn't want to create any type of competition regarding this issue, and I definitely don't hate or wish any ill on Pakistan or it's people. Not because of any ill-will or bias against the country; hell my own grandmother was born and grew up in what is now Pakistani Punjab.

No that's fine. I didn't create it out of competition or ill-feeling, I had a draft lying around for a couple of months, didn't bother to post it. But thought its a good idea as it will generate a bit more interest than if it was posted on its own. I didn't do it out of malice towards you or anyone else haha.

 

[Hawabin]

Well as I recall Jinnah's offer to Kashmir was giving a high degree of autonomy to Kashmir. Pakistan will control defence, communication, and Foreign affairs (kashmir would be given a office in foreign affairs) with rest being under kashmir's jurisdiction along with the right to secede.

Now this arrangement might might allow for other federalised/autonomous agreements elsewhere with Pashtuns/Balouchs/East Pakistan (but I don't know enough about them to talk if it is plausible or enough for these communities)


Military will definitely get reduced.

With no war over Kashmir. The refugees from partition might get the much needed attention.

And they now have borders with Tibet and China and thus are liable to get in conflict with China. Unless Pakistan gave leh to india during the partition. (Leh is a Buddhist majority district/tehsil. And it pretty much wanted to go to india.) So if Pakistan retains it, they would have pretty unhappy populous there too.

India-Pakistan might bond over their problems with china. (Is arunachal pradesh on its own, enough for India and China to go to war.)

There are going to be butterflies regarding Tibet though it may be too little to change things in significant ways. CIA had in OTL an operation where they were training the Tibetan resistance to fight Chinese occupation. Most of the training occured in Nepal's Mustang region. And some through East Pakistan (CIA would extract Tibetan resistance groups to east Pakistan from there to USA where they would train them and then dropped them back) but the East Pakistan path got blocked by Pakistan in 1960's because USA wasn't helping them enough against India. With no Indian rivalry and the fact that they have border with Tibet now through Ladakh. Greater number of Tibetan resistance groups might be trained. But I don't know how much impact these trained groups had on Chinese occupation. Nonetheless, they would still be too few numbers to impact things in big ways I think. (Now if china knows about Pakistan being used as a staging ground. It won't be good for sino-pakistani relationship)

Now if an 1962 indo-sino war analogue happens. I would imagine it would be both against Pakistan (in aksai chin and Ladakh region in general) and India (in arunachal pradesh) and I imagine india would atleast be giving a better performance than OTL. And I think Pakistan will too but I don't know how much impact the butterflies would have had on their military approach.

Anyway I think this analogous war won't be as good for China as OTL (going against two countries backed by American war machinery)

There might be an earlier and better SARC equivalent.

Now on home front. Land reforms are a must. In OTL, East Pakistan had its land reforms in 1950. We had our land reforms in 1950. Pakistani kashmir had its land reforms in 1960. (They would have earlier land reforms ITTL because there is no division)
West Pakistan had its land reforms in 1959 and 1970's. None of them as successful as the previous three examples. Because the jagirdars there are too strong. For a better Pakistan, successful land reforms are a must.

The American centric relationship would continue ITTL and perhaps might be greater than OTL (due to bad relationship with china) and would last longer (because there would no animosity with India).

The American relationship comes with large and large amounts of aid. Making good use of them would help Pakistan industrialise. (In OTL, Pakistan got an arrangement with USA where US would bare expenses of five and half divisions. Which would be around 80,000 soldier's? That might have been half of Pakistani army. A similar arrangement might happen which would that even if smaller than OTL, Pakistani army might still be around 120-1300,000 but without the heavy militarisation of OTL, it should go nowhere near 500,000 it is Today)

Speaking about military, with a calm Pakistani border and better performance against china in the Himalayas. India might be more naval focused. (Whoops, China would really have to follow the Hindi-chini bhai Bhai)


Would this have any effect on Iranian revolution? Because till Shah's reign. Pakistan and Iran were pretty good buddies.

 

[boredviewer1234]

I think a bright future for Pakistan with a somewhat friendly Afghanistan and less hostile India will certainly shake some cards out of the picture but add some new ones.

By that I suspect Pakistan's main issues will be social inequality, communism and ethnic separatism, the USSR always backed Afghanistan's claims and rather than being able to play that card I suspect the soviets will fear the west will encourage Afghanistan to play theirs, after all Uzbeks and Tajiks are just across the river and that fear might have truth to it depending on how NATO is feeling.

Ethnic separatism might take down a different route if the splitting is a lot softer and but I imagine that could be one way India and Pakistan maintain ties keeping the Bengali nationalists down .

Now for China will be interesting with Pakistan and India as the threat of India is always there but with Afghanistan not much a issue and Iran will likely back back Pakistan if only because the US favors them I'm not sure how it would look.

East Pakistan will be interesting, I was thinking a dystopian timeline where Pakistan, ROC, Thailand and ROC colonize Burma and with India and PRC it turns into a new Vietnam but it's hard to tell how things will go here. I suspect Burma will certainly be in a tug of war with China trying to secure their interest groups and the same with India and Pakistan as time goes on with them all looking for a favorable buffer.

Would this have any effect on Iranian revolution? Because till Shah's reign. Pakistan and Iran were pretty good buddies.

Maybe Pakistan expands? By that during the revolution their was a lot of chaos and Iranian Baluchistan tried to separate quite early, Pakistan might try intervening to secure their own people though that might cause issues with the USSR and Afghanistan. Hard to say how things go.

 

[walmart]

I suspect the soviets will fear the west will encourage Afghanistan to play theirs, after all Uzbeks and Tajiks are just across the river and that fear might have truth to it depending on how NATO is feeling.

Afghanistan is Pashtun dominated. In otl there was fear in the Soviet Union and Nato/Pakistani plans for growth of Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia

 

[Monk78]

Pakistani military exists as a guardian of ideology of Pakistan not its territorial boundaries
Without ideology of Pakistan what binds a Pushtun and Sindhi with a Muslim Punjabi against a Sikh or Hindu Punjabi?
Pakistan to be more successful they should have not interfered in the 80s afghan war , it was the most catastrophic foreign policy decision

 

[walmart]

Pakistan to be more successful they should have not interfered in the 80s afghan war , it was the most catastrophic foreign policy decision

A Soviet controlled Afghanistan would be a major threat to Pakistan especially with India to the East.

 

[Monk78]

A Soviet controlled Afghanistan would be a major threat to Pakistan especially with India to the East.

Not at all
It was threat to rural landlords and to the Uber rich families maybe
Ussr had no designs on Pakistan

 

[walmart]

t was threat to rural landlords and to the Uber rich families maybe

Who are the governing elite…

Ussr had no designs on Pakistan

Ussr might not have designs but both India and Afghanistan sure do. Being wedged between two hostile states backed a superpower is not a good position.

 

[Hawabin]

Afghanistan is Pashtun dominated

42% of Afghanistan are Pashtuns. So its not a overwhelming domination.

Pakistani military exists as a guardian of ideology of Pakistan not its territorial boundaries

Ehh, I don't think we ever said that there would no military? just that it won't be as heavily militarised as it is today and that during the initial days it would be bit smaller than OTL, to allow for focus on economy of the country. it would still grow as the time grows (just not to the 500,000 men it is today)

Ussr had no designs on Pakistan

Didn't USSR provide arms to pashtun and Balouch secessionists?

 

[Monk78]

42% of Afghanistan are Pashtuns. So its not a overwhelming domination.

Ehh, I don't think we ever said that there would no military? just that it won't be as heavily militarised as it is today and that during the initial days it would be bit smaller than OTL, to allow for focus on economy of the country. it would still grow as the time grows (just not to the 500,000 men it is today)

Didn't USSR provide arms to pashtun and Balouch secessionists?

Only after Pakistan joined SEATO and CENTO these are pacts openly hostile to ussr

 

[Monk78]

Who are the governing elite…



Ussr might not have designs but both India and Afghanistan sure do. Being wedged between two hostile states backed a superpower is not a good position.

Pakistan is partly to be blamed for it and rest of it lies on India
Afghanistan is totally at fault for not accepting Durand line , not Pakistanis ( it was afghan king who signed this treaty with British )
Pakistan frosty relationship with ussr is entirely the formers fault

 

[SlideAway]

I do think a best case scenario is one in which relations between India and Pakistan are normal. Not saying it needs to be an EU France/Germany relationship, but just a normal relationship.

I don't think is out of the question. One of the ironies is that relations between India and Pakistan were actually fairly normal between 1948 and 1965. A lot of the Cold War style conflict we see between the two states is actually a result of the 1965 and 1971 wars. Before 1965 for example, the borders were fairly open and travel between the two countries was normal.

There's also the example of the Indus Waters Treaty that has held up through decades of crisis.

I agree that avoiding the 1947-48 war is best, and that a scenario where Kashmir quickly was grabbed by Pakistan is probably in the long run better for relations between the two states.

Beyond that, a couple other PODs that could help would be Liaquat Ali Khan not being assassinated, the Liaquat-Nehru Pact being fully implemented. Ideally you also need a constitutional settlement for East Bengal early on. I would think a more market-oriented, less autarkic India - maybe avoid Indira Gandhi - probably helps, as you may need a stronger trading relationship between India and Pakistan.

All of these assume a POD after independence and partition. Of course there's also PODs that precede partition. Examples could include the UK not declaring British India's entry to WW2 without consulting the Central Legislative Assembly or the provinces and instead consent for entry to the war being granted in exchange for an immediate dominion federation with provinces opting in. The Congress-ruled provinces join immediately, after the war other princely states join, but the Muslim-majority provinces stay out. Eventually agreements are struck to allow referendums on union in East Punjab and West Bengal, bifurcating these provinces and leaving most of what is now Bangladesh and Pakistan outside the federation. Under Jinnah or Liaquat, these provinces amalgate into Pakistan.

In other words, a less abrupt, more gradual partition that leaves both countries less embittered and hostile.

 

[walmart]

42% of Afghanistan are Pashtuns. So its not a overwhelming domination.

Yes but the government has been Pashtun dominated since the beginning. Afghan governments have been traditional focused on reclaiming the Pashtun regions with the expectation of the Taliban due to their pan-Islamic views. To appeal to the Uzbeks and Tajiks on ethnic lines makes no sense, given the Pashtun domination of the Afghan state. However, to appeal to them on a Pan-Islamic ground occurred in otl with the Taliban and Pakistan backing Islamists in both Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

 

[Simreeve]

Averting the mutual bloodshed at Partition might have helped. IOTL the UK suggested keeping the Indian Army as a single force (under its British commanders) until afterwards, so that this could police the situation more effectively, but one or both of Nehru and Jinnah refused to accept this.

 

[Rajveer Naha]

Kashmir becomes part of Pakistan and India grudgingly accepts this and decides against war.
Pakistan gains all of Kashmir either through Maharajah Singh deciding to side with Pakistan, or this being decided in a UN plebiscite very early on.

I think we would be better off with the Maharaja signed the instrument of accession. A UN Referendum means the countries get independence without Kashmir, greatly increasing the possibility of trouble. But a UN resolution so early on without war would probably be accepted by India and as for the Hindus the blood shed was largely confined to Punjab despite migration affecting Sindh and Bengal as well but great violence didn't occur there until the 1950 Riots which may affect Kashmir ITTL or that may get butterflied off without the Kashmir conflict.

Afghanistan becomes the first nation to recognize Pakistan, King Zahir Shah warmly accepts the Durand Line while hoping to foster brotherly relations between both countries

If he does that then there's nothing like it but would he? That would require a great change in Afghan politics and shift in character on his part or rather he must have his hands full with some problem that he considers that stirring up problem with his newest and most closely culturally related neighbor is not worth it. The most plausible way to get that is the Indian Independence Movement which affected the Pashtuns in undivided India greatly and if it spilled across the border and the Afghan Pashtuns demand too much reforms and he decides that adding more politically conscious Pashtuns into his rule would be counter productive.

As a result of the above, Pakistan doesn’t need to spend excessively on Defence and the Army has less influence in domestic politics

No Kashmir conflict means that there is no source of immediate bad blood between the Nations. However, the scar of Partition would remain but the future waves of migration are probably prevented so in the 1951 census we have a Muslim population of 10.5% in India as against 9.8 OTL and the Hindu population in Pakistan would be 16% as against 14.2% TL and the government would focus on getting its house in order before thinking about the army. The scar of Partition would slowly heal encouraged by the geopolitical circumstances both the countries would find themselves in.

There are going to be butterflies regarding Tibet though it may be too little to change things in significant ways. CIA had in OTL an operation where they were training the Tibetan resistance to fight Chinese occupation. Most of the training occured in Nepal's Mustang region. And some through East Pakistan (CIA would extract Tibetan resistance groups to east Pakistan from there to USA where they would train them and then dropped them back) but the East Pakistan path got blocked by Pakistan in 1960's because USA wasn't helping them enough against India. With no Indian rivalry and the fact that they have border with Tibet now through Ladakh. Greater number of Tibetan resistance groups might be trained. But I don't know how much impact these trained groups had on Chinese occupation. Nonetheless, they would still be too few numbers to impact things in big ways I think. (Now if china knows about Pakistan being used as a staging ground. It won't be good for sino-pakistani relationship)

When China comes with border disputes Premier Zhou suggested approach of you take what you control, you take what is disputed but controlled by neither and we keep what we control. That approach solved disputes with Mongolia, Nepal, Laos and Burma and failed for the rest. Neither of the countries really had a control over the border for the first three cases and in the case of Burma the border was controlled by exiles from the Nationalist Chinese. But the other countries had control over the border so the second part of Zhou's plan failed and the chances are mostly that it would fail with regarding the two countries in the subcontinent too Pakistan with Ladakh in its possession would explore its frontier in the Shaksgam Valley and the Aksai Chin region. India is also likely to give shelter to Dalai Lama too ITTL so Chinese animosity towards both the countries would begin. Pakistan would discover that China is building a road through its territory and in the ensuing negotiations would probably offer Shaksgam valley and Aksai Chin to the Macartney MacDonald Line of 1899 and whether there would be war is not fully certain. China had almost given up Tawang for a favorable boundary in Aksai Chin and it appears that war would be avoided if India doesn't go through with the forward policy. If none go to war then the subcontinent remains militarily neutral and continues its path as a mostly non aligned socialist countries into the Cold War. If the war occurs with only Pakistan we would likely see a similar outcome to the OTL war with India but India may send supplies to help Pakistan which would help the two countries come closer and if the war occurs with both the countries then with only one front to consider the leaderships may remain steadfast and the Chinese may be pushed out at least in the east by India as the winter would render the Chinese forces in the forward areas untenable. The third outcome would surely lead to an alliance

Jinnah dies in 1978 aged 100
Aligned with the above 2 points, let’s say Jinnah (the founder of Pakistan) doesn’t die a mere month after the creation of Pakistan but survives till age 101. This would push his death date to 1978.

I don't know what to say to that other than the fact that a 100 year old man cannot take the stress of running a country and an armchair politician wouldn't probably do a good job of running the country and his legacy would probably be destroyed another 5 years is maximum that his rule would go well which is in establishing stable institutions rather than actually using them. His political mindset was too old for the time to work. Had Nehru died 15 years earlier he would have been remembered as a sort of George Washington. If Mao died 10 years earlies he would be remembered as a great man but flawed, if 20 years earlier then as a legend who prevailed against all odds instead of a madman as he is known.

Could all the stars aligning for the newly formed nation-state have propelled it into the ‘First World’ - in the direction of Taiwan, Singapore etc? Or would low level corruption always remain thus turning it into another middle-of-the-road Malaysia (neither poor nor overly wealthy due to endemic corruption)?”

Reaching Singapore Taiwan levels is effectively impossible. They had a massive advantage in terms of education and their compact sizes and close superpower affiliation allowed them to grow faster and that too from a stronger starting position. Malaysia levels is also extremely difficult. Only a sustained highly competent and non corrupt administration can take the country to such heights which is impossible. Their starting position both economically and in terms of human capital was about two and half times better than the subcontinent but reaching a position between half and two thirds of Malaysia economically is quite possible with a reasonably competent leadership is quite possible for both the countries on the subcontinent.

Examples could include the UK not declaring British India's entry to WW2 without consulting the Central Legislative Assembly or the provinces and instead consent for entry to the war being granted in exchange for an immediate dominion federation with provinces opting in. The Congress-ruled provinces join immediately, after the war other princely states join, but the Muslim-majority provinces stay out. Eventually agreements are struck to allow referendums on union in East Punjab and West Bengal, bifurcating these provinces and leaving most of what is now Bangladesh and Pakistan outside the federation. Under Jinnah or Liaquat, these provinces amalgate into Pakistan.

That would butterfly away Pakistan and the partition so you wouldn't want to do that for the given scenario. Of the four Muslim majority provinces the one ruled by the Congress and the one ruled by the Unionist Party of Punjab would join the federation immediately. Sindh led by Sindh United Party, with the Hindu Mahasabha and the Congress Having a big majority would follow suit and there were no committed league members. In Bengal there was no dominant party and the 1940 Pakistan resolution hasn't been passed by the League yet so with the support of Congress, the bulk of the Krishak Praja party and overwhelming majority of independents and possibly the Europeans too would join the federation. In any case as per the Government of India Act, the provinces would join the federation by default and the princely states got to choose whether they wanted to join or not. The idea was Pakistan was neither popular not defined properly until late 1945. The Muslim league only got popular after the Congress resigned in protest of the war and the League got a free reign and got managed to become a party with mass support instead of being confined to the upperclass who actually had the vote only after the Congress got practically destroyed as an organization after the Quit India Movement in 1942. Still the 1946 elections whos outcome was portrayed as a equivocal support for Pakistan by the Muslim League was fought by the League on the basis of Economic Reforms.

Well as I recall Jinnah's offer to Kashmir was giving a high degree of autonomy to Kashmir

They offered the exact same thing to Bahawalpur and also led them to believe that the would achieve provincial status due to they relative size and development of the place. similar offers were also made to the Maharaja of Jodhpur who at last decided to not join Pakistan so I am not sure whether they would keep their promise.

.

 

[Seandineen]

Could Ms. Bhutto play a larger roll at her father;s side earlier? She seems smart enough to reign in his excesses.