Sometimes I wonder if India was never partitioned, what it would have become. In my estimation it would have been a world superpower by now. It's really one of the tragedies of the 20th century that it had to happen, and at least one million people died as a result. Long term, Pakistan was created and the world, and its own population, is suffering as a result, and Bangladesh is one of the most corrupt nations on earth.
Opposite of a superpower. There would be too much internal strife. There would have been a civil war.
Why? If Muslims were given the seating allotment they asked for, India would've remained as one. They only wanted a separate state after numerous requests were turned down by Nehru and Patel. The ridiculous border drawn up by the British was just added insult to injury.
The real question is what would the capital be? New Orleans Denver St. Louis Kansas City Minneapolis Oklahoma City Omaha Little Rock
Most of the world conflicts today are caused by the British when they just left after WWII and not do a proper job of cleanup.
Not necessarily. The question posed is somewhat flawed. If history happened the way it did, and India didn't partition then yes, there would be tons of strife. People in Pakistan and Bangladesh were convinced that partition was a necessity and not getting that would have resulted in animosity. Now if Jinnah and the Muslim League weren't around to even propose and push for partition then history would have been quite different. For example, a lot of northern Pakistan (areas we now consider tribal areas that harbor Al Qaeda and the Taliban) were strong supporters of the Indian National Congress (and not the Muslim League) In fact even after partition, many of the northern areas resented Jinnah and the Muslim League because the Muslim League originally opposed independence from the UK. In the first elections in British India (pre-partition), the Muslim League bombed completely in much of Pakistan and if it weren't for a Congress Party Boycott during World War II, they would have been trounced again. I'm fairly convinced that if the Muslim League didn't exist, then we wouldn't have the strife we see today. That said, there would still be problems. We would have what you see in my parents' hometown of Hyderabad. There you have a large Muslim population that is poorer, less educated, and socially backwards. There's harmony on the surface but tensions do spring up from time to time. And there's a level of resentment on both sides. That's not a foundation for long term success and that's only one city. In a united India, you'd have large swaths of the country with this attitude. Karachi and Lahore mirrored this problem until partition. Hindu and Sikh communities dominated both cities and Muslims resented that arrangement. Those are real problems that have never been solved. You'd have a single country and a lot less money would be wasted on military aggression but Pakistan isn't the sole reason why India isn't a more developed country. India has its own problems that are r****ding its growth. But from Pakistan's perspective, I think they'd be much better off in a united country. They lose far more in the current arrangement than India does.
Don't forget the French. An example of people that were screwed by arbritray borders are the Kurds, now separated into four countries.
What if the Muslim League simply got the allotment of seats it requested (1/3 if I remember correctly). And to add to your other point, harmony on the surface isn't a bad thing, at least for the most part people can live in peace. I can say to give the devil's advocate of your other point, that in many villages all across united India that Muslims, Sikhs, and Hindus lived in relative peace together.
Come on man, that's not even practical. Bourbon Street would stretch NO at least to Montana. The Marti Gras parade would take at least 2 months to travel it's length! Plus the "iffy" part of Bourbon would end up in Nebraska of one of the Dakotas. I can't imagine that the farmers and ranchers out there would like that.
That would be the worst idea if they created communal electorates. That would have been even worse than partition. In fact that was one of England's biggest mistakes. (Although to give you a picture as to how unpopular the Muslim League was, in the first election with Communal electorates, they got something like 5% of the vote) By allocating seats by religion, you would basically destroy secular parties since no party would have an incentive to reach across religious lines. As it stands right now, Congress governs India in large part because its secular message attracts Muslim voters. In a world in which Muslims are allocated seats in advance, those Muslims that are now voting for a secular party would instead be choosing among a set of religious parties. Communal electorates would encourage extremism and religious fanaticism. Moderate parties that reach across religious lines wouldn't even exist.
My Indian history is probably not strong enough to participate. But, my gut feeling is India would not be in a better place than it is now, and probably the same for Pakistan.
