AHC: No United India

[Kibbutznik]

During India's quest for independence, there were several proposals for the devolution of power within the subcontinent. Amongst these was the call for an independent Tamil Nadu/Dravidistan (a region which also possessed many communist sympathizers) a united Bengal and Assam, as well as proposals to cede Pashtun and Baluch regions to Afghanistan/Iran.

Furthermore, most British and Indian politicians never expected the larger princely states, such as Travancore and Kashmir, to actually accede to the Union.

Thus, your challenge is to use a PoD that is no earlier than 1944 to ensure that what we know as India and Pakistan is instead separated into the follow states: A union of Bengal and Assam, an independent Travancore, an independent Kashmir, a nationalist Hindustan in the north, and a Dravidistan/Tamil Nadu in the south.

Bonus points if there is both a Dravidistan AND an independent Tamil Nadu, and if one of them is communist.

 

[Kibbutznik]

Bump

 

[Kibbutznik]

Bumpiity bump

 

[Napoleonrules]

Easy- every Princely state was given a choice- join India, join Pakistan, or be independent. In OTL India didn't accept several princes' decisions to be independent. Have an ATL where India respects that, or Britain (maybe with US and Soviet verbal backing) enforces that they have a choice and India can't bully them (as it did in OTL and illegally invaded violating international law).

 

[Remitonov]

Last I checked, the Indian princes weren't really interested in maintaining their independence, barring Hyderabad (which is big enough to be a self-sustaining nation, albeit one that's going to be a HUGE tumour in the middle of India) and maybe Kashmir. Religious lines is as far as divisions will go, and that's exactly what we got IOTL. To fragment India along cultural lines as well would require the Indian National Congress to be severely weakened very early on, or outright absent, unable to propagate their idea of a United India. But the impetus for a united India was already there once Britain united the vast majority of it under the Raj. An alternative is a Pre-1900s PoD with other colonial powers present. But that in itself is as hard, and Britain didn't exactly take India easily IOTL, or in a split second.


EDIT: Ninja'd. Yea, there were other princes who favoured independence, but Nehru wasn't interested in that, especially not with an independent Hyderabad. Thanks @Napoleonrules.

 

[Kibbutznik]

Easy- every Princely state was given a choice- join India, join Pakistan, or be independent. In OTL India didn't accept several princes' decisions to be independent. Have an ATL where India respects that, or Britain (maybe with US and Soviet verbal backing) enforces that they have a choice and India can't bully them (as it did in OTL and illegally invaded violating international law).

How would I get Britain to be powerful enough to actually have some might in the subcontinent?

Last I checked, the Indian princes weren't really interested in maintaining their independence, barring Hyderabad (which is big enough to be a self-sustaining nation, albeit one that's going to be a HUGE tumour in the middle of India) and maybe Kashmir. Religious lines is as far as divisions will go, and that's exactly what we got IOTL. To fragment India along cultural lines as well would require the Indian National Congress to be severely weakened very early on, or outright absent, unable to propagate their idea of a United India. But the impetus for a united India was already there once Britain united the vast majority of it under the Raj. An alternative is a Pre-1900s PoD with other colonial powers present. But that in itself is as hard, and Britain didn't exactly take India easily IOTL, or in a split second.


EDIT: Ninja'd. Yea, there were other princes who favoured independence, but Nehru wasn't interested in that, especially not with an independent Hyderabad. Thanks @Napoleonrules.

How popular was the United India concept in the southern provinces?

The prince of Travancore wasn't too giddy about joining the Union, and there were active communist and nationalist Tamil elements in the southeast regions.
How could one amplify the power/popularity of these groups?

 

[Remitonov]

How would I get Britain to be powerful enough to actually have some might in the subcontinent?

How popular was the United India concept in the southern provinces?

The prince of Travancore wasn't too giddy about joining the Union, and there were active communist and nationalist Tamil elements in the southeast regions.
How could one amplify the power/popularity of these groups?

If the British had that kind of might to intervene, they would have delayed granting India independence to iron out more details. But events IOTL were spiralling out of control, and they don't want to be sucked into a civil war between Hindus and Muslims. Changing that might require a lack of world wars, but that changes a lot of things.

As for the popularity of the United India concept, I'd say very. It's in essence a Hindu-dominated but secular movement, which was tantalizing for most Indians, since it crosses cultural boundaries. The divisions we have today with Pakistan, Bangladesh and India were due to Congress' failure to attract Muslims to the cause. Its greatest advocate, Jinnah, even switched sides and opinions to lead the Muslim League, primarily because he felt a united India was going to be a Hindu India, reducing Muslim Indians to second-class citizens and force-fed Hindu-centric laws, values and customs. To undermine the United India movement would require them to be more centric on a specific culture, like the imposition of Hindi as a lingua franca instead of English. It happened with Pakistan when fears of Bengali domination of the country pressed the government to impose Urdu as a lingua franca and concentrate power in the western portion, which led to Bangladesh's war for independence.

 

[Kibbutznik]

If the British had that kind of might to intervene, they would have delayed granting India independence to iron out more details. But events IOTL were spiralling out of control, and they don't want to be sucked into a civil war between Hindus and Muslims. Changing that might require a lack of world wars, but that changes a lot of things.

As for the popularity of the United India concept, I'd say very. It's in essence a Hindu-dominated but secular movement, which was tantalizing for most Indians, since it crosses cultural boundaries. The divisions we have today with Pakistan, Bangladesh and India were due to Congress' failure to attract Muslims to the cause. Its greatest advocate, Jinnah, even switched sides and opinions to lead the Muslim League, primarily because he felt a united India was going to be a Hindu India, reducing Muslim Indians to second-class citizens and force-fed Hindu-centric laws, values and customs. To undermine the United India movement would require them to be more centric on a specific culture, like the imposition of Hindi as a lingua franca instead of English. It happened with Pakistan when fears of Bengali domination of the country pressed the government to impose Urdu as a lingua franca and concentrate power in the western portion, which led to Bangladesh's war for independence.

Could a figure such as Jinnah appear? Periyar Ramasamy was an active anti-Hindi activist, as well as Annadurai.

 

[Kibbutznik]

Bump

 

[Remitonov]

Could a figure such as Jinnah appear? Periyar Ramasamy was an active anti-Hindi activist, as well as Annadurai.

I don't know. Maybe. And it doesn't even have to be someone famous IOTL. In any AH timeline, a nobody IOTL can become a pivotal figure in this one.

 

[Colonel Zoidberg]

What if communism bleeds over into India and the state ends up split between communism and Western democracy? This may not create a split like the one in the OP but it will have a good chance of creating a divided subcontinent.

 

[oreocruncher]

What if communism bleeds over into India and the state ends up split between communism and Western democracy? This may not create a split like the one in the OP but it will have a good chance of creating a divided subcontinent.

India already has significant communist movements OTL...
Some of which are violent, like the Naxalites, and others which are non-violent, what with Communist parties running in elections and governing in some states like Kerala and West Bengal...