[PICTURES] What-If Analysis: Balkanization of Indian Sub-Continent

[rickroll]

What if shortly after 1947, the entire sub-continent looked like below? Which regions/kingdoms would survive, which would get conquered and which would conquer others? So many other curious questions too ... how will this have affected the religious composition of South Asia? What about languages? Overall economy? Will parts of South Asia get conquered by other non-South Asian countries? I'm sure there are other factors I'm missing here.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

In such scenarios, the neighboring countries would have ventured their luck for extra territories and states with shores would have been the strongest.

 

[sweep_shot]

Probably more balkanizations by British Empire were necessary in year 1947. It could've reduced conflicts.

 

[nish_mate]

First of all in the map what is:

1. Democratic Republic of Central India, if there was no India
2. What is Central Replublic of India if there was no India
3. What is Azad Hind- Azad from what?
4. What is Bangladesh, when that concept didnt exist till 71?
5. What is disputed and disputed amongst whom?
6. Where is Tibet, which never was a part of China?

 

[sweep_shot]

What is Bangladesh, when that concept didnt exist till 71?

Bangladesh was Bengal. Greater Bengal (combination of West Bengal and modern day Bangladesh).

It is like modern day Kurdish region.

 

[ElRaja]

given its intellectual, cultural, and historical capital, an independent bengal, with bengali identity at the core of its national narrative and a population around 300 million would likely be one of the most powerful regional players. in second place would be some form of union between sindh, gujarat and the bombay presidency, again a population of 200 million odd, and a very developed free market economy facing the arab peninsula.

 

[nish_mate]

Bangladesh was Bengal. Greater Bengal (combination of West Bengal and modern day Bangladesh).

It is like modern day Kurdish region.

Then name it as Bengal, what is this Bangladesh ? There was no Bangladesh then or even a concept named as Bangladesh till 71.

 

[nish_mate]

given its intellectual, cultural, and historical capital, an independent bengal, with bengali identity at the core of its national narrative and a population around 300 million would likely be one of the most powerful regional players. in second place would be some form of union between sindh, gujarat and the bombay presidency, again a population of 200 million odd, and a very developed free market economy facing the arab peninsula.

I would have agreed with you El Raja Saab but one Bangladeshi has quite vocally stated in other threads he doesnt believe in Nationalism narrative, only the concept of Ummah. Not my words, but of a certain poster.

Therefore the first civil war would have been there and further breakup.

 

[sweep_shot]

Then name it as Bengal, what is this Bangladesh ? There was no Bangladesh then or even a concept named as Bangladesh till 71.

I didn't name it.

Bengal is the region's name. Bengal includes West Bengal too.

Bangla is the authentic name of Bengali language. Desh means country. Bangladesh (country of those who speak Bangla/Bengali).

 

[nish_mate]

I didn't name it.

Bengal is the region.

Bangla is the name of the language. Desh means country. Bangladesh (country of those who speak Bangla/Bengali).

And I am pointing out naming it Bangladesh is nonsensical, call it Bengal. Even in colonialist times it was Bengal, not this Bangladesh.

 

[sweep_shot]

And I am pointing out naming it Bangladesh is nonsensical, call it Bengal. Even in colonialist times it was Bengal, not this Bangladesh.

Why would it be nonsensical? It is a combination of two Bengali words (Bangla and Desh).

Calling it Bengal would've been inaccurate because West Bengal was missing. If West Bengal joined, you would have had a point.

 

[nish_mate]

Why would it be nonsensical? It is a combination of two Bengali words (Bangla and Desh).

Calling it Bengal would've been inaccurate because West Bengal was missing. If West Bengal joined, you would have had a point.

Desh is not a Bengali word to best of my knowledge.

In British times there was no east or west bengal, only Bengal.

And the topic is balkanization at 47. The map depicting BD is incorrect, there would be a bigger Bengal and nothing such as Bangladesh.

 

[rickroll]

given its intellectual, cultural, and historical capital, an independent bengal, with bengali identity at the core of its national narrative and a population around 300 million would likely be one of the most powerful regional players. in second place would be some form of union between sindh, gujarat and the bombay presidency, again a population of 200 million odd, and a very developed free market economy facing the arab peninsula.

Interesting point. Wouldn't a unified Punjab province be the most powerful? If we are assuming Bengali muslims+hindus constitute one powerful nation, then that logic could hold true for a unified Punjab province which could be more powerful?

The Punjab province could be behind Bengal in intellectual capital but have better resources at disposal. New nations of post WW2 era were not well positioned to leverage their intellectual capital from the get go (they could get there over many years with correct policies). So countries with industrial or commodity or agricultural resources could have an immediate head start. I would content that between unified Bengal and unified Punjab as post WW2 newly independent nations, unified Punjab would have an immediate head start. Of course, I could be missing a factor here in which case I'm happy to stand corrected.

 

[Champ_Pal]

China would've gobbled up most of them and given them a nice name that has lots of X's and G's in it.

 

[nish_mate]

Going back to OP.

Punjab would be the marital nation, expanding quickly, in and do some sort alliance with Rajasthan till they fell out over Kashmir

Gujarat and Sindh and Baroda would be in customs union

Azad Hind and the neighbouring republics would merge into Pradeshistan



Kutche and Karihawar would be duty free trading zones

Bombay presidency would be financiers to rest of the map

Bengal would be in a civil war over Bangladesh or Bengal as name

Chotanangpur would be the scam centre and biggest provider of adminstrators

Balochistan would be ruled by Iran

Hyderabad would be rich to start with but soon be bankrupt due to opulence and debauchery

Mysore would rule over Tamil Nadu and Telugu

Kerala would be the remittance capital with trading outposts in ME

Taimil and Telugus the IT capital and with knowledge of how to build a nuke and a rocket, but notbknowing how to monetize it.

 

[nish_mate]

To add, Parsis would have their own nation, be the ones with monies, nominally called Bombay but in reality Parsistan. Parsistan be the most powerful in the area, like Israel in ME but without a Palestinian issue of land grab.

 

[ElRaja]

Interesting point. Wouldn't a unified Punjab province be the most powerful? If we are assuming Bengali muslims+hindus constitute one powerful nation, then that logic could hold true for a unified Punjab province which could be more powerful?

The Punjab province could be behind Bengal in intellectual capital but have better resources at disposal. New nations of post WW2 era were not well positioned to leverage their intellectual capital from the get go (they could get there over many years with correct policies). So countries with industrial or commodity or agricultural resources could have an immediate head start. I would content that between unified Bengal and unified Punjab as post WW2 newly independent nations, unified Punjab would have an immediate head start. Of course, I could be missing a factor here in which case I'm happy to stand corrected.

punjabis would have been too agrarian, assuming no need to identify with religions, there primary identity would be as independent farmer warriors, much like the landed class of Argentina at the turn of the last century, the deep south pre American civil war, or maybe even the whites of Zimbabwe. they would unlikely be able to form an efficient centralised governments to promote diverse growth or industrialisation, the majority of their efforts would be on preserving the status of their zamindaars, who would dominate their politics, they would likely have a good standard of living, and good physical and food security, but they would be totally reliant on trade with the sindh-gujrat-mumbai union, albeit in return for providing them water security and access to water from the rivers.

 

[rickroll]

punjabis would have been too agrarian, assuming no need to identify with religions, there primary identity would be as independent farmer warriors, much like the landed class of Argentina at the turn of the last century, the deep south pre American civil war, or maybe even the whites of Zimbabwe. they would unlikely be able to form an efficient centralised governments to promote diverse growth or industrialisation, the majority of their efforts would be on preserving the status of their zamindaars, who would dominate their politics, they would likely have a good standard of living, and good physical and food security, but they would be totally reliant on trade with the sindh-gujrat-mumbai union, albeit in return for providing them water security and access to water from the rivers.

Good parallels for the Punjabi farmers. The water security for Punjab probably comes from the Kashmir kingdom.

 

[rickroll]

Going back to OP.

Punjab would be the marital nation, expanding quickly, in and do some sort alliance with Rajasthan till they fell out over Kashmir

Gujarat and Sindh and Baroda would be in customs union

Azad Hind and the neighbouring republics would merge into Pradeshistan



Kutche and Karihawar would be duty free trading zones

Bombay presidency would be financiers to rest of the map

Bengal would be in a civil war over Bangladesh or Bengal as name

Chotanangpur would be the scam centre and biggest provider of adminstrators

Balochistan would be ruled by Iran

Hyderabad would be rich to start with but soon be bankrupt due to opulence and debauchery

Mysore would rule over Tamil Nadu and Telugu

Kerala would be the remittance capital with trading outposts in ME

Taimil and Telugus the IT capital and with knowledge of how to build a nuke and a rocket, but notbknowing how to monetize it.

So are the Tamil and Telugu people similar and hence they would coalesce into one kingdom? Or them being one kingdom was sheer laziness of the map maker and just lobbed the both under one bucket?

 

[nish_mate]

So are the Tamil and Telugu people similar and hence they would coalesce into one kingdom? Or them being one kingdom was sheer laziness of the map maker and just lobbed the both under one bucket?

I wouldn't say they are the same and more case of laziness. However being an Indian Punjabi I wouldn't want to step into the quagmire of South Indian identities at all. Better defer it to a Tamilian or a Telugu.

 

[boomboomcheema]

Punjab region has produced two Noble Laureates one from Pakistan and other from India , most regions in Subcontinent havent produced even a single one.

It was also the region which was at the forefront of invasions and infighting, difficult to establish an intellectual capital in such a place but if peace could be established
between various groups and religion takes a backstep, then things could have been different.

It's not like any other regions have 100% intellectual population, it only needs a tiny elite class to propel that culture..

 

[cricketjoshila]

Bangladesh was Bengal. Greater Bengal (combination of West Bengal and modern day Bangladesh).

It is like modern day Kurdish region.

There was no concept of Bangladesh in 1947. Bengali Muslims wanted Pakistan.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Bengali Hindus rejected the idea of a united Bengali homeland in 1947.

That led to the bengali hindu homeland movement and division of Bengal.

There was and there is no question of living in muslim majority nation.

 

[deltexas]

China would've gobbled up most of them and given them a nice name that has lots of X's and G's in it.

This is what would have happened frankly LOL ! And China would have occupied all these smaller states and looted them even more.

 

[sweep_shot]

Bengali Hindus rejected the idea of a united Bengali homeland in 1947.

That led to the bengali hindu homeland movement and division of Bengal.

There was and there is no question of living in muslim majority nation.

This thread is entirely hypothetical.

Bangladeshis probably also don't want to merge with West Bengal.

 

[cricketjoshila]

This thread is entirely hypothetical.

Bangladeshis probably also don't want to merge with West Bengal.

The moment Hindu Bengalis started a movement for a separate homeland, the Muslim bengali leadership pitched the idea of s separate united Bengali nation.

It was thoroughly rejected by hindu Bengalis.

 

[sweep_shot]

The moment Hindu Bengalis started a movement for a separate homeland, the Muslim bengali leadership pitched the idea of s separate united Bengali nation.

It was thoroughly rejected by hindu Bengalis.

OK. That was in 1947 I guess. I doubt they would want any of that now.

Population of BD is different now than it was in 1947.

 

[Red-Indian]

What if shortly after 1947, the entire sub-continent looked like below? Which regions/kingdoms would survive, which would get conquered and which would conquer others? So many other curious questions too ... how will this have affected the religious composition of South Asia? What about languages? Overall economy? Will parts of South Asia get conquered by other non-South Asian countries? I'm sure there are other factors I'm missing here.

View attachment 145436

I suspect the coastal countries would do fine but most of the subcontinent would end up a sort of Africa - poor and riven by civil wars, coups and tinpot dictatorships.

 

[BouncerGuy]

If a country breaks up into smaller groups based on their race or culture, it could cause a lot of fighting and trouble. These groups might not get along, and it could make it harder for the country to work together.

It could also hurt the economy and make it more likely that different groups will fight each other.

 

[KB]

The interesting counter-factual raises, for me at least, two interesting thoughts that are a bit more tangential.

The movement for Pakistan is of course usually set against the idea of a United India. But what if we juxtaposed it with a different outcome: that of the balkanisation of India.

In British India, in the Muslim majority areas, regional parties espousing localist interests and regionalist identities tended to dominate politics until the Muslim League was able to make a breakthrough, which came quite late in the day. Therefore, there was in fact a strong basis for provincialism and indeed the raising of the Pakistan demand was in many ways designed to achieve a semblance of trans-provincial political unity amongst Muslims. (Some historians have gone so far as to argue that the image of Pakistan as a potent unifying symbol to rally around was in fact more important than a vision of it as a geographically bounded entity).

Though it may seem counter-intuitive, there is an argument that the movement for Pakistan - by redirecting focus to the idea of two nations - in fact weakened the case for a balkanised India.

The second point is triggered by the posts of @ElRaja (post 6) and @rickroll (post 13). The Partition of British India entailed the partition of Bengal and the Punjab. This had an important effect in altering the balance of power within India. As truncated states, the Bengal and Punjab became less powerful than would have been the case in an undivided India. (In the case of Bengal, the first-rate historian, Joya Chatterji, has drawn attention to Bengal's loss of influence, which was contrary to the expectations of those Hindu leaders in Bengal who advocated partition).

We can speculate that Nehru, from the UP, may not have been prime minister for as long as he was, had India not been partitioned.

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

Multiples wars, It would have been another Vietnam or Korea like scene for the proxy wars of the Cold war infact on a much larger scale. and now its a toss up and utter speculation as to which region goes to capitalism or the Soviets. There is no basis to even contemplate further.

 

[cricketjoshila]

The interesting counter-factual raises, for me at least, two interesting thoughts that are a bit more tangential.

The movement for Pakistan is of course usually set against the idea of a United India. But what if we juxtaposed it with a different outcome: that of the balkanisation of India.

In British India, in the Muslim majority areas, regional parties espousing localist interests and regionalist identities tended to dominate politics until the Muslim League was able to make a breakthrough, which came quite late in the day. Therefore, there was in fact a strong basis for provincialism and indeed the raising of the Pakistan demand was in many ways designed to achieve a semblance of trans-provincial political unity amongst Muslims. (Some historians have gone so far as to argue that the image of Pakistan as a potent unifying symbol to rally around was in fact more important than a vision of it as a geographically bounded entity).

Though it may seem counter-intuitive, there is an argument that the movement for Pakistan - by redirecting focus to the idea of two nations - in fact weakened the case for a balkanised India.

The second point is triggered by the posts of @ElRaja (post 6) and @rickroll (post 13). The Partition of British India entailed the partition of Bengal and the Punjab. This had an important effect in altering the balance of power within India. As truncated states, the Bengal and Punjab became less powerful than would have been the case in an undivided India. (In the case of Bengal, the first-rate historian, Joya Chatterji, has drawn attention to Bengal's loss of influence, which was contrary to the expectations of those Hindu leaders in Bengal who advocated partition).

We can speculate that Nehru, from the UP, may not have been prime minister for as long as he was, had India not been partitioned.

Bengals loss of political influence has a lot to do with electing state governments who have no influence in center.

I don't remember when was the last time a party in power in Bengal was also part of the ruling cabinet in center.

Infact they are usually at loggerheads with the ruling party in center.

 

[shortbread]

Hundreds of regional conflicts run by war lords heading different factions. A bit like what Africa is currently.

 

[dubeTheGoat]

The answer lies in the name of the title
balkanisation.
Just like how the Balkans have undergone several wars, despise each other and commited massacres. The subcontinent would have the same result except on a much bigger scale. Partition would look merciful compared to what would have happened

 

[rickroll]

First of all in the map what is:

1. Democratic Republic of Central India, if there was no India
2. What is Central Replublic of India if there was no India
3. What is Azad Hind- Azad from what?
4. What is Bangladesh, when that concept didnt exist till 71?
5. What is disputed and disputed amongst whom?
6. Where is Tibet, which never was a part of China?

Yeah I agree with this, the map maker does seem lazy about some areas so it is not a perfect map. I showed this to some of my South Indian co-workers and they did not like how Tamil and Telugu were combined into one and the land is called .... "Tamil and Telugu"! They say this was a lazy after thought effort because whomever made this map was probably of north Indian origin or a non-Indian whose study of Indian history ended with north India.