What if the Subcontinent was ONE country?

[Indus Pakistan]

Of course he made a huge mistake by rejecting sardar patels offer of giving india hydeeabad in excange for kashmir, because he lost both and helped create his"moth eaten pakistan."

Did not know this. Source please?

if the subcontinent was one country with the current distribution of Population we would have been a little more darker shade of a Secular nation than we are currently now.

I disagree. With such a diverse mix of Buddhist [Burma], Muslim, [Bangla], Hindu [India], Muslim [Pakistan] I think it would have been more secular.

against all minorities, especially with the Muslims of India

I disagree. Most of the nearly 200 million Muslims in India are well integrated. I have never been there but I notice 5 odd million Kashmiri Muslims are causing a right ruckus with a ctive insurgency going on. On the contrary neearly 200 million Indian Muslims are mum. Not a peep outb of them. What does that tell you?

 

[SQ8]

If his affair fetched a better deal then Nehru deserves a pat on the back. Can't speculate on that but Lord Mountbatten surely did favor India. He literally gave orders to the princely states to get in line and sign the accession treaties with India.

Exactly, Pakistan was given an unfair deal on day one. Has had pathetic leadership since its founder died, has faced anti-muslim bias and yet manages to be a “serious concern” for a country which on the surface claims five times the population, more so in surface area and economy and military.
On a relative scale Pakistan has done quite well.

 

[TMA]

Its just a assumption no need to get serious or dive into pointless debates, we all know thats never going to happen.

What is the Subcontinent of India?
I would include southern Afghanistan, Nepal, Bhutan and Western Myanmar in this and not just what was British India although Burma was part of British India.

Exactly, India got the best deal during partition of the subcontinent. Majority of the land with majority of the population and resources.
We should thank our fortunes and good governance that even after 70 years we are still united and going strong as an emerging world power.
Nobody would give a damn if we were a small nation with underdeveloped backward population.

Yes Bharat got a better deal...and there are some Bharatis who say that the British actually wanted a Pakistan...

Few mistakes

• Did not include Andaman & Nichobar Islands
• Did not include Afghanistan
• Lakshadweep and Maldives are separate

Andaman and Nichobar are not part of the Subcontinent of India but yes, southern Afghanistan is.

 

[SuvarnaTeja]

Exactly, Pakistan was given an unfair deal on day one. Has had pathetic leadership since its founder died, has faced anti-muslim bias and yet manages to be a “serious concern” for a country which on the surface claims five times the population, more so in surface area and economy and military.
On a relative scale Pakistan has done quite well.

I would say India needs to build a great statue for Lord Mountbatten.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03086539308582896

 

[TMA]

Afghanistan maybe a part of SAARC but is technically considered part of Central Asia.

I think it is split, that part of Afghanistan that is south of the Hindu Kush is geographically in India. Also the northern parts of Pakistan are in the southern part of Central Asia (geographically at least and perhaps even culturally..)

Here is a map of the Mughal Rashtra at its zenith and it basically is a map of the Subcontinent of India (save the Western Burma, and Assam).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurangzeb#/media/File:India_in_1700_Joppen.jpg

 

[SQ8]

I would say India needs to build a great statue for Lord Mountbatten.

View attachment 520379

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03086539308582896

Agreed, instead of that disaster “Unity” one put up.. mountbatten deserves his place as the true father of Indian prosperity and progress.

 

[TMA]

my point was a united subcontinent would only be possible if the majority of people in pakistan, bangladesh, and even parts of india had not accepted Islam.

It would be easier but still very difficult owing to the racial and cultural differences despite being the same religion...
India has been divided most of her history...just like Europe.

 

[SuvarnaTeja]

Agreed, instead of that disaster “Unity” one put up.. mountbatten deserves his place as the true father of Indian prosperity and progress.

Well Patel did his part but it could not have been possible without the strong support of Lord Mountbatten who was influenced by both V.P Menon & Nehru.

 

[Arulmozhi Varman]

Would have been ungovernable..... Might have been a bigger shithole than it is already now.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Being indian, I think we got the best deal from the partition in every aspect..only regret is that we couldn't get entire J&K state and today have no direct land route to central Asia..I think they considered capturing the Jammu belt more crucial for water rather than land route for trade and geopolitics.. nevermind still the best deal considering we got all Hindu majority states, half of punjab and Bengal which was Muslim majority..later also got large part of J&k..most of land being fertile compared to arid areas of pakistan like Sindh, Balochistan,NWFP and FATA.

This is because British were partial to and favored India, even from Radcliffe commission, partition, and the first war up until now.

British always favored Hindus even during British rule. They blamed 1857 solely on Muslims. Stripped all Muslims of government jobs, judiciary positions, and banned our lingua franca (Farsi.) British disarmed Muslims and left Hindus and Sikhs as police and military to overlook Muslim majority populations. These same police and soldiers, under British support, took active part in massacres against unarmed Muslims during partition.

It was not luck which gave India the advantage but trickery, deceit, and manipulation of the situation. You rightfully built a statue of the most evil man in the history of Hind, Vallabhai Patel who was responsible for massacres of Muslims during partition and the years after from Punjab to Jammu Kashmir, Bengal, and Hyderabad.

We just have one word to say. Pakistan still stands as a reminder that evil can not overcome freedom and will eventually fade away. Kashmiris are the vanguard of the independent spirit of our ancestors.

 

[TMA]

This is because British were partial to and favored India, even from Radcliffe commission, partition, and the first war up until now.

British always favored Hindus even during British rule. They blamed 1857 solely on Muslims. Stripped all Muslims of government jobs, judiciary positions, and banned our lingua franca (Farsi.) British disarmed Muslims and left Hindus and Sikhs as police and military to overlook Muslim majority populations. These same police and soldiers, under British support, took active part in massacres against unarmed Muslims during partition.

It was not luck which gave India the advantage but trickery, deceit, and manipulation of the situation. You rightfully built a statue of the most evil man in the history of Hind, Vallabhai Patel who was responsible for massacres of Muslims during partition and the years after from Punjab to Jammu Kashmir, Bengal, and Hyderabad.

We just have one word to say. Pakistan still stands as a reminder that evil can not overcome freedom and will eventually fade away. Kashmiris are the vanguard of the independent spirit of our ancestors.

But also many Muslims were traitors like the ancestor of Shah Mehmood Qureshi, without traitors British India would never have been....

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

I think it is split, that part of Afghanistan that is south of the Hindu Kush is geographically in India. Also the northern parts of Pakistan are in the southern part of Central Asia (geographically at least and perhaps even culturally..)

I am guessing you don’t know much about what Pukhtoons think of this. Rather commit suicide than be considered Indian.

Pukhtoons are a solidly Muslim culture with a very strong independent spirit long before Islamization. Pukhtoons of long ago considered Indians as nothing more than slaves. The very word Hindu came to mean slave in Dari and Farsi. The same can be said of nomads and settled people of Balochistan like Baloch, Pukhtoons, Makrani, and Brahui people.

Punjab, Sindh, Kashmir were considered as Sindh by the early Muslims and even before that. This was related to the Indus River. After Islamicization, these regions became the power base and soldiers/administrators were heavily recruited from this region.

I am not even discussing the pre-Islamic era where Coterminus Pakistan was part of various empires of the Greeks, Persians, Turkic, and Iranic people while Modern India was not.

Our identity is thoroughly unique. We are descendants of the IVC and have been immortalized in world history by such literature as stories of Sindhbad, folk love tales of Punjab, and the poetry of Pukhtoons.

 

[ranjeet]

I disagree. With such a diverse mix of Buddhist [Burma], Muslim, [Bangla], Hindu [India], Muslim [Pakistan] I think it would have been more secular.

Ideally it must be, but the kind of democracy we enjoy in the subcontinent screams out something different. Its a number game, a tussle between 1.5 non muslims against .8+ billion muslims. One can imagine religious divides between hindus on castes and a similar approach towards muslims with sects. Its will be a cocktail for disaster. You have no idea how deadly congress has been when it comes to grabbing power.

 

[SuvarnaTeja]

This is because British were partial to and favored India, even from Radcliffe commission, partition, and the first war up until now.

British always favored Hindus even during British rule. They blamed 1857 solely on Muslims. Stripped all Muslims of government jobs, judiciary positions, and banned our lingua franca (Farsi.) British disarmed Muslims and left Hindus and Sikhs as police and military to overlook Muslim majority populations. These same police and soldiers, under British support, took active part in massacres against unarmed Muslims during partition.

It was not luck which gave India the advantage but trickery, deceit, and manipulation of the situation. You rightfully built a statue of the most evil man in the history of Hind, Vallabhai Patel who was responsible for massacres of Muslims during partition and the years after from Punjab to Jammu Kashmir, Bengal, and Hyderabad.

We just have one word to say. Pakistan still stands as a reminder that evil can not overcome freedom and will eventually fade away. Kashmiris are the vanguard of the independent spirit of our ancestors.

But British protected the interests of the Muslims through reservation system under Minto-Morley Reforms. You cannot blame British of being partisan. The fact that both Hindus and Muslims blame British of being partisan towards the other says that they probably were non-partisan and objective in their governance.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

But British protected the interests of the Muslims through reservation system under Minto-Morley Reforms. You cannot blame British of being partisan. The fact that both Hindus and Muslims blame British of being partisan towards the other says that they probably were non-partisan and objective in their governance.

British actively supported India during partition and the wars afterward.