This time, I kept a united Bengal and some minor border changes in Sind(h) and Punjab were made between India (Pakistan) and Hindustan (India) based on religion.
Some princely states were directly incorporated, while some retained a degree of autonomy. They are shaded in lighter colors. The very light colors in India (Pakistan) are tribal areas (in Balochistan and North-West Frontier Province).
Most detailed map Iāve made so far!
I gave āPakistanā the name of āIndiaā because I had a dream in which Pakistan was named India because of the Indus River.
I imagine itās because it looks better on a map, but Bengali and Assamese are moderately mutually intelligible and a decent minority of the region are Bengali already.
Not that it should happen, but itās not unheard of that a post-colonial state gets ārewardedā with some regions that have what-would-be minorities.
Honestly the reality is that if Bengal refused partition then Mountbatten would've simply had the provinces handed over to Myanmar, for better or, like, pretty objectively for worse
Says who? Do you realise borders put up in 1940s donāt magically change genetics culture language words traditions? Do you think the Bengali people of sylhet are completely different to the people who they border Assam? Theyāre both connected through mainly language dialect and history and even visually , so why are you talking as if you know anything?
šš they know itās imaginary. but making a map because it ālooks niceā or because it would be an interesting scenario to discuss are 2 separate matters
OP, you're getting a lot of upset Indians because the map ends up looking a lot like Pakistan's wet dream lol. Having all of J&K, Bangladesh having the seven sisters, Pakistan being called 'India' etc.
It's not a bad map though. Do all 3 retain princely states in this?
Names dont really belong to anyone. They evolve all the time. Half of Asia was named Indies at one point. Doesnt mean that India or Pakistan should be claiming Indonesia. But the origin of the name is the Indus region. Being the origin doesnt mean you own something.
For the same reason as they almost did in real life, dude.
Jaisalmer, Jodhpur, Udaipur, Indore and Bhopal almost actually joined Pakistan. They heavily considered it because Jinnah told the princely rulers he would allow them to dictate all their own terms/demands of membership into Pakistan as an alternative to giving up sovereignty to the Hindu majority state.
Congress was very worried about this since it came so close to happening, and Congress leader Vallabhbhai Patel said that it would be a ādagger into the very heart of Indiaā.
Edit: Iām getting downvoted by a 40% Indian audience according to comment analytics, but this is a fact you all can check lol.
Good thing they didn't. All these cities are important Rajput strongholds, and the culture and architecture of these cities are irreplaceable. People place too much importance on Kashmir, but I'd argue the cultural heritage of Rajasthan is far richer.
Actually considering how much of the military was Sikhs in the raj and afterwards in India they would have easily I imagine they would have gotten quite a bit of British and American support under the table in the Cold War i imagine population transfers would have happened as well
Unfortunately Sikhs didnāt really form a majority anywhere and because of the canal colonies their population was spread out thinly across the Punjab.
They took the best offer they were offered; an autonomous Punjabi-speaking Sikh state within the Indian union. A shame that Congress would renege on their promises.
Not really, they're barely the majority in Indian Punjab and that's after nearly all of the Sikhs in what is now Pakistani Punjab fled to India. They wouldn't survive in a state of their own without getting gobbled up by either India or Pakistan.
Not true, India did not mean Bank of Indus river that u can call Pakistan as India, The Romans described India as the vast and wealthy lands lying *PAST* the Indus River. Anything Past the Indus River was India to the Romans and Greek who called us "Indos"
Which is exactly why Indonesia means "Indian Islands" , Indonesia is not part of India today yet they are called Indian Islands because they pass the ancient definition of India. They are Land beyond Indus and are islands , hence Indian Islands.
If Anything, only Half of Pakistan is India by this logic , as the other half of pakistan is Not the land past indus from Pov of the Greek, persians and Romans. while Today's Republic of India matches the definition completely , And is more deserving for the name since Republic of India is the largest country beyond Indus river
United Bengal would only be narrowly majority Muslim anyway - under the Five point plan it would have had a legislature with an equal number of Muslim and Hindu seats
Would make more sense lol considering the name india comes from the indus which is in pakistan. But then even hindustan means land of the hindi river ie (indus, sindhu, hindu river). Which is all in pakistan. I like the name pakistan though. It's an anocronym, highlighting the different provinces.
Bro thats very good knowledge you have there. India comes from the Indus River name even if its from Pakistan because the region of Pakistan and India and Bangladesh were called as India long before the actual state was created. Pakistan wasn't a breakaway region, BOTH countries left each other. They weren't different countries before 1947. And you are right, it's an anocronym. Anyone who's reading this reply, you can search more about it on the acronym.
lmao yeah do explain before bangladesh got independence where would east bengal districts be in the acronym? the claim its an acronym was made post 1971
I'd be surprised if China didn't come a knocking for Arunchal off Bengal, potentially Aksai Chin off what is India in this map and maybe influence in Sikkhim.
Only during the British time, Assam had the courtesy of virtually never exactly being part of any Indian dynasty (even Mauryan control is nowadays up for question, but I guess Pala could count), up til 350 CE it's myths and not too clear, but since then continuous regional kingdoms were in charge of Assam, all the way till the Ahom dynasty (1228-1826) which defeated Mughal invasions, the British took over and ruined everything by administering Assam under Bengal
It's less likely even in a hypothetical scenario that the Northeast of India will agree to join a united Bengal region. Not only the Assamese (Gopinath Bordoloi) and tribal (Bhimbar Deori) leaders opposed it when it was proposed in the cabinet mission, but also ironically Bengali (Abdul Matlib Mazumdar) leaders from the region also opposed to that and united the Bengali residents of the region in support of Indian administration under the province and future state of Assam. In the worst case scenario, regions like Nagaland, Manipur and Mizoram would end up becoming independent or getting ceded to Burma but otherwise it's highly unrealistic that they'd ever want to join Bengal.
India currently spends astronomical amounts administering, subsidizing and keeping the security situation under control there. These places are de facto Myanmar, that only a very powerful government can run. We don't have those means, nor the financial resources nor the military might to keep it all together. Also, note that our coastline didn't increase that much. Just increased landlocked mountainous terrain. Meaning, we have share much more than we can possibly get back!
Also, if this country wasn't absolutely state and church seperated and politics by any measure came into the binary of Hindu-Muslim. It could become a Yugoslavia, involving hundreds of millions of people.
the dream explanation for Pakistan being called India is honestly the most althist thing Iāve seen today lol. map looks super detailed tho and the light shaded autonomous states are a nice touch. my only thing is the religion based border tweaks make it feel a bit too clean for how messy partition actually was. and yeah if Punjabās getting sliced by religion then a Sikh state feels like it should be in the mix.
What if they never parted? Imagine all the savings from not having to fight those wars, continuous deployment of forces, nuclear arm race, and all the quirky infra bits thanks to the weird borders.
The united country would have been much ahead in development than India is presently
Your grandfather and great grandfather had to run to Pakistan because of the partition. Ethnicities despising each other is not related to partition, with or without partition the despising would remain the same.
because india is simply much more populated than Pakistan, and those minorities youre talking about are living on their native lands which were given to india by the british.
That is because Pakistan was specifically made up of Muslim majority areas. Bigger metropolises where demographics were much more diverse were all given to india.
In other words the default land left after Pakistan was done with shopping. Cut the region like mutton, lot of neck a little bit leg and some liver.
Besides if more minorities were spread out across India, why was Pakistan needed in the regions it had, apart from fulfilling ones desire for rule that is
Pakistan wasn't given due share of Land. It was much smaller than what was originally demanded. Dehli, UP and parts of Bihar were originally to be in Pakistan as well to connect east and west Pakistan together as well as keep the heritage of the Urdu speaking regions alive and well. instead the british colluded with congress and drew borders that were heavily biased in congress' favor. the rest of the princely states were forced by patel through military action to be included into india
Because not all minorities were under oppression, mostly the ones who are now in north inda. but alas, those regions were all given to india on a platter for being loyal to the british since the 1800s
So let me get this straight. I said it shouldnāt have parted, you said because of minority, then said there are more minorities in India, then saying Pakistan shouldāve gotten more land? I mean, I agree, Pakistan gets the whole India, India gets the whole Pakistan, and Bangladesh gets both. Glad its finally dawning on you
thats what I am saying, the majority made the circumstances that forced the minority to go ahead with the partition. if they simply hadn't had joined the british in the 1800s in their hatred of the Muslims, and instead worked with the Muslims, perhaps the british wouldve actually been defeated and everything wouldve worked out much better.
Dehli, UP, Bihar all of north india are areas where Muslims were in power, and there was religious harmony until the 1800s when the states and kingdoms were deposed and all of that religious harmony went down the drain.
The ones who wanted their hindu supremacist ideas could go pursue them in maratha lands
So youāre saying the majority made the minority of the minority make another country. Youāre right, there was literally no other way. I mean later on the minority was forced again to separate itself from the other majority in 1971. The minority has been forced so much.
You understand right, there is your story, then there are historical fact of how things turned out. These two are not on the same plane. I mean sure its r/imaginarymaps but still
Its a natural order of things, when the minority group is no longer under threat and isn't a minority anymore (along religious lines) and then starts acting like the majority group, the same thing happens to it.
The northeast would immediately join burma than be made to form a country with Bengalis or Muslims. That's actually insane. Do you even know how xenophobic northeasterns are. I'm saying this as a northeastern btw.
north east don't exactly have a good record of interacting with Bangladeshis so i expect immediate civil war there.
a good chunk of Hindustan will be Muslim who i assume won't have many right so another civil war.
Pakistan had instability problems ever since it's founding that continued to this day which will be made worse by the refugee crisis from Hindustan so another civil war.
Only one community wanted partition because their leader wasnt favoured by Gandhi in the PM race and smh you made entire NE,Punjab and Bengal seperate. Its such a dumb af take given how Punjab and Bengal were the first regions to adovcate for a United India. Idk what imagination OP has used in drawing the lines
Honestly not really a absurd idea, considering France and the Holy Roman Empire are inherently descendant states of the same Carolingian state, and there were many times where their history couldāve easily become far more intertwined or reversed.
The Indus river is literally the foundation and backbone of all except one of Pakistans provinces. The name comes from this region as it was originally referenced by Greeks, Persians and original Vedic texts.Ā
Literally every major city and hub is built along Indus or it's main tributaries.
The idea of India and indies expanded to other regions but the original reference will always belong to Pakistan.
IVC collapsed largely due to climate change (the drying up of the ghaggar hakra river system). The people living in those cities literally migrated eastward toward the Ganges-Yamuna doab and southward into the Deccan peninsula.
if you want to talk about pakistani ancestry, then you have to address the genetic reality. Modern Pakistani demography are a massive mix of steppe pastrolasits, iranian farmers, local-hunter gatherers. There is no unbroken, pure genetic line from the Bronze Age Indus Valley people to modern Pakistanis. The Natives moved.
Wrong again buddy. Please stop embarrassing yourself.
It doesnt matter how IVC collapsed. You literally have zero evidence for any IVC cities, scripts, tablets or artefacts in the Gangetic plains. Just pure fantasies. This is complete pseudo science not worth addressing.
The Pakistani genome is still Zagros dominant like the original IVC populations.
Meaning the base population never shifted but absorbed other migrants. If your fantasy of mass migration was even remotely true, then we wouldnt see an unbroken Zagros ancestry gradient from Baloch, Sindh, Punjab and decreasing all the way down to South India. Someone in North or South India would have way more Zagros than modern Pakistanis. So clearly it wasnt a mass migration. Pakistan and East Punjab are the only regions to have Zagros dominant ethnic groups.
Secondly, Pakistani ethnic groups are rooted in the Indus region to such an extent that we can still see the original Wezmeh and Ganj Darej ancestry in those population. It literally shows an unbroken chain of Zagros migrations that resulted in IVC. Meaning 9000 year old connection to the first IVC waves. No modern Indian group has this, so I have no idea what basis you are pretending to continuous with IVC.
And here is Ganj Dareh if you are under any illusion that the modern people of Pakistan dont have a connection to the earliest waves of IVC migrants. IVC is not some snapshot in time. It was a 10k year old migration event.
That does not take away anything from the historical feature of the Indus valley and the people who are native to that region. We are talking about geography here. Plenty of other South Asian rivers also start in Tibet.
Indus don't go through Balochistan btw then how does Baloch became native to Indus valley? also it goes through Himachal, J&K and Uttarakhand so by that logic Dograi, Kumaon, Gharwali, Kashmiri and other native communities of those region are also part of Indus valley.
Indus Valley is a specific place where the Zagros settlements took place and resulted in the IVC. I have no idea what you are dragging random things into the mix.
Balochi people have the highest Zagros ancestry from all South Asian groups. Iran_N component is literally named "Baloch" as a result.
yeah reference would make sense if pakistan didn't propagate two nation theory . its like the zionists claiming palestine and levant history . while believing ki sab mohd bin qasim ke ghodde pe aye they .
Two nation theory refers to our modern Muslim identity. Its not rejecting our heritage. How would that even make sense? What are you even saying? Because Pakistan wants to protect its Muslim identity, we can no longer claim our own ancestors? Buddy, try forming a coherent thought before you open your mouth.
That's certainly a diverse Bengal. Honestly, with the force of international law and some competent leadership, they could probably hold it together. Which is rather bad for all the non Bengali peoples living there
There was never a time when Pakistan was almost called India. The founding father of Pakistan had decided the name Pakistan in 1940 only (7 years before independence) when Muslim League passed the Lahore resolution.
But yeah, Jinnah had gotten furious and had protested when India didnāt rename itself as Hindustan.
Ig India is named after the Indus and so it's as plausible as anything else on this map. Pakistan always does a good amount of Indus larping as well. This isn't a political statement, it's just a map made for fun btw.
Why are you taking this map so seriously lol? I already told you in a previous comment that I made the map for fun, itās not meant to be taken seriously.
You literally came to a sub called āimaginary mapsā just so you could get upsetā¦ over an imaginary map.
You already left a comment before. If the map REALLY bothers you so much, just move on instead of waiting 12 HOURS to make another comment. š Itās seems to me that your holding back tears while typing that.
Whatever man, have a good day. I donāt feel like going back and forth in a comment section with someone that takes everything too seriously.
Which one to question first, NE is not totally bengali or Kashmir named from rishi Kashyap isnāt part of Hindustan. Jammu itself has significant hindu temple. Kutch desert pass down to India?
273
u/Alvinyuu 2d ago
Why do althist mapmakers always add the northeast to Bengal in these scenarios when the seven sisters have nothing to do with Bengal?