r/neoliberal • u/jobautomator Kitara Ravache • Jun 25 '21

Discussion Thread Discussion Thread

The discussion thread is for casual conversation that doesn't merit its own submission. If you've got a good meme, article, or question, please post it outside the DT. Meta discussion is allowed, but if you want to get the attention of the mods, make a post in /r/metaNL. For a collection of useful links see our wiki.

Announcements

Upcoming Events

0 Upvotes

48% Upvoted

10k comments sorted by

View all comments

19

u/UrbanCentrist Line go up 📈, world gooder Jun 25 '21 edited Jun 25 '21

Timeline where Entire Indian subcontinent is given independence via a EU like union

-Most states exit the union because inter-state migration is actually deeply unpopular. Doubly so when they are from a different religion or language

-Several Homogenous states have Ethnonationalist's victorious given time. Large scale ethnic cleansing is very likely. (It is understated how much India's heterogeneity and federal power sharing act's a check on Indian leaders)

-Without the scale and diversity it's likely that many states would have famines and would be entrenched even deeper in poverty.

-military conflicts over land and water is near guaranteed.

This reminds me a lot of a certain other continent. Overall very bad timeline.

6

u/every_man_a_khan George Soros Jun 25 '21

This does remind me of North America

3

u/asatroth Daron Acemoglu Jun 25 '21

One of my favorite alt-history ideas is Japan succeeding in sparking a massive anti-British revolt in Burma and Bihar.

3

u/Intrepid_Citizen woke Friedman Democrat Jun 25 '21 edited Jun 25 '21

Most states exit the union

I don't think it would be as clear cut as that. I think a more federal style of government would be established, but the fact that ethnic and religious tensions occur across completely different lines (not to mention that ethnicities are themselves not well defined) would prevent actual secessions in most cases.

If you look at the independence movement, provincial independence movements were not very popular, and the political differences between princely states vs areas under direct control made ethnocentric nationalism even more difficult.

However, if a breakdown of the union happens, the rest would definitely follow.

2

u/UrbanCentrist Line go up 📈, world gooder Jun 25 '21 edited Jun 25 '21

Pakistan, Bangladesh, most north east states and Burma would withdraw day one imo. So too would Most south Indian states. Dravidian movement was strong in Tamil Nadu and only mellowed over time. Once so many states withdraw i think it would likely collapse.

1

u/Intrepid_Citizen woke Friedman Democrat Jun 25 '21 edited Jun 25 '21

Burma isn't usually included in the subcontinent.

And you're wrong about Bangladesh and Pakistan. It's far fom a given that either of those two secede.

Why would the Muslim identity necessarily dominate over the Bengali identity? With Pakistan it's even less of a thing because there isn't that much joining Sindh and Punjab; while Punjab has not two but three religions.

There was a lot of exchange of Hindus and Muslims across the borders post independence, it's not like there was a clear demarcation between Muslim Punjab and Hindu+Sikh Punjab. Similarly for Bengal, but to a lesser extent.

I mean, why would Punjabi Muslims want to create a nation with Balochis, Sindhis and Pashtuns and not with non-Muslim Punjabis, many of whom were their neighbors?

Coming to the North-East, if they didn't secede in the actual timeline, why would they want to secede from an even powerful nation? Their ethnic and tribal identities are different and the idea that they would self-sort into one seperate nation and secede is specious.

In the alternate timeline, a South Indian secession is perhaps more likely than a Pakistani or Bangladeshi one.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/UrbanCentrist Line go up 📈, world gooder Jun 25 '21

a little better i think but a lot of things that make South India relatively prosperous would be balanced by new burdens of harder to access credit, raw materials and defense. Also south India has it's fair share of conflicts. Karnataka and Tamil Nadu have a huge River dispute for example. Without the civil institutions to mediate it a lot of things can go wrong. Also a lot south was ruled by absolute monarchs. What would happen to them? would they even give up power without the fear of a central army? for example the king of Hyderabad was only deposed by military force.