• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Unified India

Ares96

Fragrances by Glossu Rabban
Published by SLP
Location
Das Böse ist immer und überall
Pronouns
he/him
Decided to put my various thoughts on this scenario into a speculative thread, because I do not have the ability to make this into anything coherent right now. Pinging @rmanoj here because he's the only actual Indian I know of on here.

As we all know, British India was partitioned into the two nations of India and Pakistan, and the two granted separate independence, in 1957. India has retained a (relatively) stable political system, albeit one plagued by low-level political violence and communal tensions between the Hindu majority and the remaining Muslim minority who weren't placed in Pakistan by the partition. Meanwhile, Pakistan descended into military rule with alarming speed, and was eventually forced to give independence to its eastern half which became the state of Bangladesh. The two countries have been at odds with one another since independence, mainly over the incredibly fraught Kashmir dispute, which has repeatedly led to war between the two.

The partition was a result of the All-India Muslim League's (AIML; the dominant force among Indian Muslims in the 1940s) fear of Hindu domination within a united India in tandem with the Indian National Congress's (INC; strongly secular but in practice mainly supported by Hindus) rejection of any solution that involved special status for Muslim-majority regions. The Pakistan idea was originally relatively fringe, but the AIML came to lean more and more toward it as time went on, and eventually embraced it as the only way to secure their rights after the end of British rule.

The funny thing is - the AIML were nowhere near as monolithic as the INC. Their main area of support was provinces where Muslims were in the minority - provinces where the Muslim community primarily identified as Muslim on a political as well as a religious level. In Muslim-majority provinces - the provinces that made up Pakistan - matters were different.

The Government of India Act 1935 had established legislative assemblies for each province, which were to be elected by a limited franchise (about 30 million eligible voters, or a little over a tenth of the total population) divided into several different rolls - one for Muslims, one for scheduled castes (mainly Dalits, although the terms don't align perfectly), one for Europeans, and a few seats reserved for women within each roll - along with a general roll in which non-scheduled Hindus voted along with everyone else who didn't fit into one of the roll categories. The Act intended for these to be autonomous governments fully in charge of their own affairs, but allowed for the governor of a province to dissolve the local administration and rule through his own administrators ("governor's rule").

The Act also provided for a federal government to be formed when the assemblies and princely states themselves agreed on the terms of one, but this never happened, partly because of opposition from the princely states and partly because the Act came just before a hardening of opinion in the INC directed against gradual independence on British terms.

In any case, provincial elections went forward in early 1937, and they were above all a smashing success for the INC, which won just under half of the seats. The AIML won about 6% of seats overall, and its strongest provinces were Bengal (split in half at the partition) where they won 37 out of 250 seats, and United Provinces (what became Uttar Pradesh) where they won 26 out of 228. In Punjab they won a single seat, in Sindh none.

Punjab was dominated by the Unionist Party, led by Sir Sikandar Hayat Khan, a WWI veteran, landowner and industrialist who utterly dominated provincial politics in his time. The "unionism" supported by the party was not loyalism to the British crown (necessarily), rather, it was the unity of Punjab across communal lines. Sikandar claimed to be "Punjabi first, Muslim second", and many of his fellow landlords agreed with this sentiment enough to lend their client networks to the party.

Sindh was similarly arranged, with the United Party - a party explicitly modelled on Sikandar's Unionists - winning 22 out of 30 Muslim-roll seats. Interestingly, the United Party's vice-chair was one Shah Nawaz Bhutto, whose son Zulfikar Ali Bhutto would play a pivotal role in Pakistan's history. The general roll was split between the Hindu Mahasabha and the INC.

The INC won enough seats to form the government in nearly all Hindu-plurality provinces. The exception was Assam, an extremely fractious part of the country then as now, where a coalition was formed under the leadership of the Assam Muslim Party with the INC as a junior partner.

This lasted until September 1939, when the Second World War broke out, and Viceroy the Marquess of Linlithgow unilaterally declared India at war with Germany. The INC threw a hissy fit, demanding that the Indian people be consulted before war could be declared, and tried to bargain themselves down to supporting the war in exchange for increased consultation in the war effort and an on-the-record promise from Linlithgow that the British would support independence once the war was over. Linlithgow gave no such promise, and all INC ministries resigned. The provinces formerly governed by them were placed under governor's rule, and would remain as such until the end of the war in 1945.

By then, things had escalated. In 1942, Sir Stafford Cripps had been sent to work out a settlement that would get India more involved in the war effort, and thoroughly failed. In response, the INC launched the Quit India movement, pledging total resistance until the British agreed to withdraw from India, and their entire leadership was jailed by the British authorities. Subhas Chandra Bose, the leader of the INC's young guard in the 1930s, had even defected to the Axis side and formed a shadow government in Japanese-occupied Singapore.

The AIML, meanwhile, supported the war - Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the longtime leader of the AIML, proclaimed the resignation of the INC ministries the "Day of Deliverance", and did all he could to show the British that the Muslims supported them.

Linlithgow was replaced by Lord Wavell in 1943, and at war's end Wavell called for new provincial elections starting in December 1945. By this point, both the INC and AIML had grown in support within their respective communities. There were two other factors that altered the landscape in Punjab specifically. Firstly, in 1942, Sikandar died, and without him the Unionist Party was somewhat directionless. Secondly, the British Indian Army recruited heavily among Sikhs and other Punjabi "martial races", and over 800,000 Punjabis had gone off to fight outside India, causing some economic disruption. The AIML exploited both the unemployment and the power vacuum, positioning themselves as the Islamic alternative and using religious connections and biraderi networks to influence the electorate.

Bengal and Sindh both received AIML minority governments after the elections, but in Punjab the INC bound together with the remnant Unionist Party and the Sikh Akali Dal party to form a coalition government. The AIML called for massive resistance, sparking communal violence throughout 1946, and eventually forcing the British to dissolve the assembly and place the province under governor's rule.

Meanwhile, the new Labour government sent a cabinet mission to India, led once again by Stafford Cripps. The mission was focused on creating a solution that would allow India to stay united and its large army to remain at British disposal. So it created a plan that would group the provinces into larger units - one for Bengal and Assam, one for Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan and the Northwest Frontier, and one for the remaining provinces. The two Muslim-majority units would control half of the central assembly, and the central government would handle only foreign policy, national defence and monetary policy. This was rejected out of hand by the INC, and the cabinet mission tried to formulate a second plan that was somewhat unclear on whether it would actually split the country - in any case, it agreed that the INC and AIML should be given remit to work toward reconciliation as well as Indian independence.

The provincial assemblies had already been given the task of electing delegates to an all-India constituent assembly. Of the 389 seats in this assembly (296 discounting princely representatives), the INC secured a threadbare majority of 208 and the AIML another 73. The AIML immediately declared its abstention from the assembly, and Congress leader Jawaharlal Nehru declared that "we are committed to nothing except going into the Assembly". With this loophole presented, new Viceroy Lord Mountbatten was left with partition as the only viable choice.

That's my extremely shaky grasp of the events leading up to partition. As the title hints, I'm interested in finding ways to avert the course of events.

I can sort of see how a unified India with broadly the same constitutional set-up as OTL India would work - reserved seats for the religious minority in addition to scheduled castes and tribes, stronger Muslim parties in Hindu-majority provinces as a result of this, probably also more conservative state boundaries, with Hyderabad in particular surviving due to a greater Muslim pressure within India. What I can't quite see is how the immediate political crisis in 1946-47 is resolved. Initially I thought the situation in Punjab could be leveraged to deprive the AIML of legitimacy, but really - they made themselves the dominant force among Punjabi Muslims, and that seems hard to avert without keeping Sikandar alive for an unnaturally long time, and the actions that toppled the coalition were extra-parliamentary. Nor do I see the AIML agreeing to a grand coalition after the events of the war years.

So we're left with a few options. Averting WWII is an obvious if somewhat dull course, but it presents a pretty obvious issue: the reason all this got going was that the war situation forced the hand of the British and, even if they remained intransigent toward the INC on the face of it, committed them to eventual independence. I'm not saying that no WWII saves the British Empire - that's fairly obviously bunk - but it does change the short-term course of events quite drastically.

A more interesting option would be to have some sort of agreement actually made between the British government and the INC to grant India independence after the war. The issue here is twofold: firstly, there were good reasons this didn't happen IOTL - the British would've looked weak - and secondly, it doesn't actually do anything to avert the religious issue.

Finally, there's the option of trying to reconcile the INC and AIML. This probably requires a PoD in the 1930s, maybe even removing Jinnah from the picture - he did have low-level TB for a very long time before finally buying the farm in 1948. I honestly don't know enough of the situation to know how this could be achieved, but as mentioned in the wordcrap, I do know that Pakistan as a concept was completely fringe until Jinnah and others started deciding maybe it wasn't.
 
Is there a way for the Government of India act to come into force earlier and for The princely states to become republican somehow?
 
Is there a way for the Government of India act to come into force earlier and for The princely states to become republican somehow?
The second is probably a big fat no as long as the British are in charge - the princely states were a significant part of their control mechanism. Which is also probably why the independent INC-controlled India made a point of abolishing them as soon as it could.
 
Is there a way for the Government of India act to come into force earlier and for The princely states to become republican somehow?

I'm not really sure how much you can speed things up unless you somehow make the Round Table Conferences in 1930-32 actually work rather than falling apart.
 
Jinnah wanted a confederation as late as 1947 though he didn't get it for reasons I forgot.
 
Would having the British consult the INC about declaring war help? Say in March when Germany invades and annexes Czechoslovakia or in August with the Anglo-Polish alliance the British start laying the groundwork by discussing potential future conflicts in general terms with the various political parties. When Britain finds themselves at war the Viceroy takes a few hours to make courtesy consultations with them.
 
Would having the British consult the INC about declaring war help? Say in March when Germany invades and annexes Czechoslovakia or in August with the Anglo-Polish alliance the British start laying the groundwork by discussing potential future conflicts in general terms with the various political parties. When Britain finds themselves at war the Viceroy takes a few hours to make courtesy consultations with them.
I don't think it was in Linlithgow's nature to do that, and especially not in Churchill's once he comes into the picture - that said, there is the interesting option of having someone else be in charge when the war breaks out. If there were somehow a Labour victory in 1935 or a later snap election, things might be very different - although a PoD like that does run the risk of diverting the TL to talking about events in Britain.

As a sidenote, in A Greater Britain (which has pretty much this as its premise, lest we forget) EdT had Mosley appoint Attlee to the viceroyalty and push through a Government of India Act providing for immediate dominion status, although the dominion breaks down at some indeterminate point between the main TL and the epilogue - IIRC largely because of Hindu nationalism. It was never discussed too heavily.
 
I don't think it was in Linlithgow's nature to do that, and especially not in Churchill's once he comes into the picture...
Well Churchill only became PM in 1940 and First Lord of the Admiralty after the start of the war so he might throw a tantrum but it wouldn't do anything. Linlithgow is more of a potential problem, how much freedom did he have in his duties if Chamberlain informed him of the government's position?


As a sidenote, in A Greater Britain (which has pretty much this as its premise, lest we forget) EdT had Mosley appoint Attlee to the viceroyalty and push through a Government of India Act providing for immediate dominion status...
I had forgotten about that. Vaguely mirrors one idea I had a while back where the Act sets up a guaranteed pathway to Dominion status over a set timeframe, the idea being to give time for Indians to start being moved up the ranks of the various organisations, slowly expanding the provincial council's powers, and begin educating the next generation. It gets passed in 1935, comes into effect in 1937, and runs for 21 years with India attaining Dominion status in 1958. How you achieve passage of an act like that is the major challenge though.
 
Well Churchill only became PM in 1940 and First Lord of the Admiralty after the start of the war so he might throw a tantrum but it wouldn't do anything. Linlithgow is more of a potential problem, how much freedom did he have in his duties if Chamberlain informed him of the government's position?
I don't know the workings of the viceroyalty in detail, but well, he and Wavell did eventually issue declarations to the effect that India would be given independence at war's end, it just took an actual uprising for it to happen. I think you're right that the Viceroy unilaterally deciding to accommodate the Congress would ruffle some feathers in Britain, especially on the Tory backbenches.
 
As a sidenote, in A Greater Britain (which has pretty much this as its premise, lest we forget) EdT had Mosley appoint Attlee to the viceroyalty and push through a Government of India Act providing for immediate dominion status, although the dominion breaks down at some indeterminate point between the main TL and the epilogue - IIRC largely because of Hindu nationalism. It was never discussed too heavily.
I remember a line in the epilogue about "jumped up little Cianos" in (I think) Hyderabad.

Even if I don't recall the location, the line obviously had an affect, as it's a few years since I last read the book.
 
As a sidenote, in A Greater Britain (which has pretty much this as its premise, lest we forget) EdT had Mosley appoint Attlee to the viceroyalty and push through a Government of India Act providing for immediate dominion status, although the dominion breaks down at some indeterminate point between the main TL and the epilogue - IIRC largely because of Hindu nationalism. It was never discussed too heavily.

Interesting stuff. I’ve always thought that one way to easily balkanize India is through a semi-successful military coup, with multiple state governments proclaiming “temporary” independence from Delhi, resulting in a civil war which serves to sever ties completely.

Interestingly, the United Party's vice-chair was one Shah Nawaz Bhutto, whose son Zulfikar Ali Bhutto would play a pivotal role in Pakistan's history.

It’s really odd how the fathers of future leaders were so prominent - Motilal Nehru was another. It makes me think about whether you could include them in a TL with, say, the Home Rule League succeeding (though I don’t know a POD for that).

But, back to the subject. I’ll also note that there was an attempt by Bacha Khan, the “Frontier Gandhi”, to make an independent state out of the North West Frontier Province (he was a firm supporter of Congress and felt betrayed after they accepted Partition) and the Khan of Kalat tried to accede to India but refused. Support of Muslims for Partition didn’t seem to extend to Pashtuns and Balochi people.

This probably requires a PoD in the 1930s, maybe even removing Jinnah from the picture - he did have low-level TB for a very long time before finally buying the farm in 1948. I honestly don't know enough of the situation to know how this could be achieved, but as mentioned in the wordcrap, I do know that Pakistan as a concept was completely fringe until Jinnah and others started deciding maybe it wasn't.

I should also note that there were Hindu nationalists who supported Partition - I’m guessing they realized that demographically, a united India couldn’t possibly be a Hindu state. Of course, after Partition, any supporters of the two-nation theory in India suddenly found themselves intensely hated. I do think killing Jinnah off would be enough. If you believe in the theory that Jinnah supported the two-nation theory to gain power, making him the leader of Congress would satisfy him, but that has the risk of making him the greatest villain in the history of the subcontinent. Personally, I view him as a man who sincerely believed that Partition could put an end to bad Hindu-Muslim relations and didn’t possibly conceive of the massive horrors it caused.

Another possibility is that India gets home rule early and the two-nation theory goes down as something like the Khalistan movement (except with less terrorism) - a movement which briefly gained massive clout and then collapsed due to a number of factors. I think relations between Hindus and Muslims without Partition would be considerably better - one million dead and forty million moved made the Hindu-Muslim hatred deeply personal. So that’s a point for the two-nation theory losing clout if a singular dominion is simply forced on India in, say, 1935. However, I am not sure if Britain in 1935 would accept losing control of Indian affairs so early.
 
If India is not partitioned I wonder how India-Afghan relations would be what with the Durand Line and all that. With India being much larger Afghanistan might not be as provocative as they were with Pakistan.
 
If India is not partitioned I wonder how India-Afghan relations would be what with the Durand Line and all that. With India being much larger Afghanistan might not be as provocative as they were with Pakistan.

I think the bigger matter there is that India has less distractions in terms of border disputes- yes there's the long-running Chinese matters, but you're not going to have the much greater sore of Kashmir.
 
If India is not partitioned I wonder how India-Afghan relations would be what with the Durand Line and all that. With India being much larger Afghanistan might not be as provocative as they were with Pakistan.
I think the bigger matter there is that India has less distractions in terms of border disputes- yes there's the long-running Chinese matters, but you're not going to have the much greater sore of Kashmir.
Somewhat related but one side-effect of a united India might be a different attitude to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), with it being much more invested in stamping the rule of central government on its outlying areas and being less accommodating than Pakistan was.
 
I think the bigger matter there is that India has less distractions in terms of border disputes- yes there's the long-running Chinese matters, but you're not going to have the much greater sore of Kashmir.

But it’s going to have a major sore in Balochistan, just as Pakistan does, and it may or may not have a sore in the NWFP (Bacha Khan the “Frontier Gandhi” was a vehement supporter of a United India, but then again, most Kashmiri leaders like Sheikh Abdullah supported India at first until after 1987 terrorism simply exploded - the NWFP could be similar).
 
But it’s going to have a major sore in Balochistan, just as Pakistan does, and it may or may not have a sore in the NWFP (Bacha Khan the “Frontier Gandhi” was a vehement supporter of a United India, but then again, most Kashmiri leaders like Sheikh Abdullah supported India at first until after 1987 terrorism simply exploded - the NWFP could be similar).
IIRC Bacha Khan is mentioned in AGB as the founder of a Pashtun state when the Indian Dominion collapses.
 
Back
Top