They originally asked for 1/3 of the seats, but there is no way Congress would have agreed to that. Muslims did not make 1/3 of the population; it was more like 20-25% at most. Jinnah eventually was asking for one confederation of multiple states which included separate Muslim states. One perspective that my professor (I'm taking History of India right now) gave was that the Congress wanted a strong central government, and that a confederation of multiple states would greatly weaken the central government especially when the states were based off of religious ties. It's a lose-lose situation. Put me in the "blame Great Britain" boat. Before their rule, religious differences were just part of society. It wasn't a big deal; the Mughal emperors (Muslim) were able to coexist and rule over a nation that were majority Hindus. It was only till Great Britain took the initiative to classify the population that the people themselves became unaccepting of other religions.
How do you define "super power"? Just by sheer size, India already is a super power. But by ranking, it'll play second fiddle to China no matter it's partitioned or not since the India, in real life, is China when land mass is multiplied by 3 and GDP multiplied by 4.
I doubt Pakistan would be worse off. It only would be worse off if the movement for partition had happened (with the riots/violence that came with it) but the British chose not to partition it. That wouldve been a total cluster****. If the Muslim League never exists and there is no movement for partition, then I'm willing to bet India is slightly better off while Pakistan is significantly better off.
It's an interesting thought. I wonder how things would have held together. East and West Pakistan couldn't make a go of being one country, even with a shared religion. In the abstract, the point could be made that India would be a much more influential country today had she remained united. The chaos that erupted leading up to and after independence avoided. Vast disruptions in the population avoided. Untold deaths, injuries, suffering, and lost wealth avoided. A far more powerful military keeping watch on the Tribal Territories in northwest Pakistan, which wouldn't be Pakistan. A haven of revolutionaries and extremists, today given the tacit approval of the government, not tolerated. India doesn't tolerate them today. Sure, there could be huge differences, both economic, military, and strategic. I've thought about the subject before, having spent time in India myself. My father spent a lot of time in both East and West Pakistan before the partition, and told me a lot about how things were. Nice topic.
I think India is net-net much better off from the British's time there. One of the reasons India and Indians have had success is because they speak English and they have a decent school system that the British help setup.
My grandfather grew up in pre-partioned Punjab and had many Sikh and Hindu friends growing up. Sad what became of it.
India was a great society with centuries of history since ancient times before they came and treated them like dogs. Not surprised you would think this though.
Uhh, what? LINK The Indian economy was the second-largest in the world – until the British arrived. In fact, British economist Angus Maddison argues that India’s share of the global income went from 27 per cent in 1700 to 3.8 per cent in 1950. And while Europe and the US benefited from the Industrial Revolution, India’s economy stayed stagnant for 90 years. Reasons for the country’s stagnation include Britain's establishment of an agricultural base in India, thereby providing cheap raw materials to England at the cost of local citizens. A study by Maddison entitled “The Economic and Social Impact of Colonial Rule in India” states that the British welcomed Indian economic development if it benefited their markets – but refused to help in areas where they saw conflict with their own interests. The direct results were devastating. India was left as an economically underdeveloped nation marked by hunger, poverty, and a low national income. Recovering from such devastation doesn’t happen overnight, and India is still struggling to win its battle with poverty.
That share of GDP wouldn't have held up. Pre-industrial revolution GDP correlated simply with number of people. Productivity hadn't taken off yet.
It's a mixed bag. As a visitor, I certainly benefited from virtually every educated person I met in India speaking English and, in general, speaking it rather well. Back in the mid-'60's, there was still a lot of evidence of the former British presence there. India was left with a rail and road system that she has built upon. Magnificent government buildings built during the Raj that I hope are still standing. I saw statues of Victoria and Albert, and other famous people from the colonial period, in the back of public parks behind bushes, left there in a forlorn jumble, as if the people now in charge weren't certain what the hell they should do with them, but undamaged. I visited hill stations where the British went to escape the heat of the summer that were simply beautiful. Spectacular gardens with flowers and shrubs in full bloom in the mild weather, with amazing tea plantations going right up the sides of the mountains. India is a complicated story.
How do you explain this part? "And while Europe and the US benefited from the Industrial Revolution, India’s economy stayed stagnant for 90 years."
Because Western Europe and the US were where the industrial revolution was developed and took off. Just look at WNBA's graph -- the rest of the world didn't participate until much later.
India would be in even bigger trouble than it is now. India's main obstacle to being a global superpower right now is the fact that the country is extremely divided. I think only 47% of the country actually speaks Hindi- the official language. There's a reason why little gets down in the Indian legislative branch & why no party has been able to mantain power for more than 8 years- the country doesn't have a common language! Despite being one nation, India is extremely localized. Now, imagine how crazy it would be when you throw in Pashtos and all the other ethnic groups in Pakistan and Bangeldesh. Not to mention the religious tension.
The rest of the world was forced to be slaves or involved all kinds of the wars. If the industrial world had not looted China or India for 100 years, both will still stay on top in term of sheer GDP amount. Also it will be interesting to see how industrial world would be if they did not rely on slavery and robbery.
