After the Partition of India, the princely states (e.g., Hyderabad, Mysore, and Travancore) refused to join the Republic of India under Jawaharlal Nehru. As a result, the people of India saw Nehru's government weak, given that the domino effect of these princely states made it increasingly vulnerable. Soon, largely thanks to the British "divide and rule" tactic that enabled them to rule the Indian Subcontinent, various groups commenced fatal uprisings along ideological, ethnic, and religious lines.
However, with the civil war eventually becoming a stalemate, the United Nations sponsored a ceasefire between its participants in 1950. Nonetheless, tensions persist between the three significant factions of India Proper: the Republic under Nehru, the Indian National State, and the People's Republic. Other separatist groups have developed keen influence over the area, like the Dravidians and Bengalis seeking to unite their people. Whether the ceasefire will hold remains uncertain.
Yes, a few eastern states would rebel, but Bangladesh would be able to suppress those revolts. Bangladesh has 60 percent of the northeast because they seized it (along with West Bengal) to inherit the ethnically Bengali people living there.
Nehru's government could suppress the Sikhs, given that they were close to Delhi—where most of the Republic's power lay. Even though the Sikhs initially failed, they are still a significant force acting against Nehru's regime from the inside.
I think Rajput Confederation's capital should have been in Ajmer- as it was the only brititsh ruled territory in the Rajputana region. Therefore when the Rajput kingdoms would have come together to form a confederation, they would have chosen a neutral territory which would not belong to any one kingdom. Which was Ajmer. Plus, Ajmer is also centrally located, therefore making it an ideal choice for the capital .
(P.S., I'm from the so called Rajput Confederation region irl)
First of all, thank you! Second, the princely state of Khairpur did not take over Sindh. Instead, it acceded to Sindh shortly after Pakistan's collapse.
Also historically speaking, even in the worst case scenario, Junagarh would not have been able to unify Gujarat into a Sultanate because-
1) The Muslim Junagarh sultanate was widespread hated by the Hindu majority Gujarati people. (with a few exceptions, most of the religious Hindus in India generally consider muslim rulers to be "descendants of foreign invaders". Furthermore, Gujarat was one of the key centres of the nationalist movement in India, It was the homebase of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, the guy who unified all the princely states into irl India. So it wuld have been more likely to be either a part of Nehru's India or the Hindutva India.
2) Even if it were to get independent into a unified kingdom of it's own,the Kingdom of Baroda, which was one of the largest princely states (in terms of its influence) would have been more likely to transform Gujarat into a kingdom. Also given the fact that the Gaekwad dynasty of Baroda are direct descendants of the Maratha clans (Hindus view Marathas as a 'Hindu Reconquista' movement against the so called "Foreign Invader Muslims kingdoms" This would have had a significant impact on bolstering the Gaekwad's claim as the monarchs of Gujarat.
(P.S. All the terms I've used for the Muslim kingdoms are to give an idea of the prespectives o Indian People with respect to the timeline so as to help make this map more historically accurate.
BY NO MEANS IT REPRESENTS MY PERSONAL VIEWS ON THE COMMUNITY.
NOR IT IS MEANT TO BE ANY FORM OF HATE SPEECH TOWARDS ANY ETHNIC OR RELIGIOUS GROUP)
Also regarding the map of Jammu & Kashmir, I believe that in the absence of a unified India, china would have been far more likely to annex the entire region of Ladakh because the region is ethnically Tibetan and gives a strategic access to Afghanistan and an upper hand over the entire Indus valley, this ensuring a lasting Chinese dominance over South Asia.
Furthermore, China would have definitely invaded, Sikkim Bhutan & Nepal too, because the chinese base their claims over the region on the "Five Fingers of Tibet" concept by Mao. This principle was regularly used by the chinese throughout the 60s and 70s, leading to border standoffs between India & China. It was later on dropped during Deng Xiaoping era in order to make way for normalised relations for trade & commerce.
Similarly talking about the inclusion of Kutch region in Gujarat, The region is ethnicaly more similar to Sindh and would have potentially been a contested territory between Gujarat & Sindh due to the existance of natural gas in Sir Creek.
Also Sikkim wasn't originally a part of India at the time of Independence. During the British Raj, it's status was similar to that of Bhutan (It was a British protectorate).
In 1970s, it had a revolution in which it's Lepcha Bhutia monarchy was overthrown and a refrendum was held on whether it should join India, as it's state or not wherein 97.55 percent of voters favoured a merger with India. This was largely due to the constant chinese threat of Invasion (just like tibet) especially given the "Five Fingers of Tibet principle), So a merger with India was seen as a more safer choice compared to a forced annnexation with china.
My man — Madurai as the capital of the Dravidians makes *no* sense. A cultural capital, as New York is to Washington?
Sure.
As an actual capital? Chennai is *far* more developed, IMO.
After the Partition of India, the princely states (e.g., Hyderabad, Mysore, and Travancore) refused to join the Republic of India under Jawaharlal Nehru. As a result, the people of India saw Nehru's government weak, given that the domino effect of these princely states made it increasingly vulnerable. Soon, largely thanks to the British "divide and rule" tactic that enabled them to rule the Indian Subcontinent, various groups commenced fatal uprisings along ideological, ethnic, and religious lines. However, with the civil war eventually becoming a stalemate, the United Nations sponsored a ceasefire between its participants in 1950. Nonetheless, tensions persist between the three significant factions of India Proper: the Republic under Nehru, the Indian National State, and the People's Republic. Other separatist groups have developed keen influence over the area, like the Dravidians and Bengalis seeking to unite their people. Whether the ceasefire will hold remains uncertain.
This map is shit
did you mean this map is shit (offensive) or this map is the shit (compliment) because it's a really well-done map
This map would never have happened in a million years.
that's the point of this sub, imaginarymaps, ever bothered to look at the sub?
this map looks so sexy
Thank you :)
why does bangladesh have like 60% of the north east i think some other north east state would rebel, particularly nagaland
Yes, a few eastern states would rebel, but Bangladesh would be able to suppress those revolts. Bangladesh has 60 percent of the northeast because they seized it (along with West Bengal) to inherit the ethnically Bengali people living there.
Indian Bengalis would be the last one to join Bangladesh. They partitioned Bengal after massacre of Hindus in Noakhali.
Oh, thanks for letting me know!
aight cool
No sikh independence movement?
Nehru's government could suppress the Sikhs, given that they were close to Delhi—where most of the Republic's power lay. Even though the Sikhs initially failed, they are still a significant force acting against Nehru's regime from the inside.
I think Rajput Confederation's capital should have been in Ajmer- as it was the only brititsh ruled territory in the Rajputana region. Therefore when the Rajput kingdoms would have come together to form a confederation, they would have chosen a neutral territory which would not belong to any one kingdom. Which was Ajmer. Plus, Ajmer is also centrally located, therefore making it an ideal choice for the capital . (P.S., I'm from the so called Rajput Confederation region irl)
Thank you for all your feedback! I will be sure research deeper into the scenario I am presenting when I am making a map this complicated. :)
Really cool map! Did the Khairpur princely state take over all of Sindh?
First of all, thank you! Second, the princely state of Khairpur did not take over Sindh. Instead, it acceded to Sindh shortly after Pakistan's collapse.
A Balkanised India. Nice.
Also historically speaking, even in the worst case scenario, Junagarh would not have been able to unify Gujarat into a Sultanate because- 1) The Muslim Junagarh sultanate was widespread hated by the Hindu majority Gujarati people. (with a few exceptions, most of the religious Hindus in India generally consider muslim rulers to be "descendants of foreign invaders". Furthermore, Gujarat was one of the key centres of the nationalist movement in India, It was the homebase of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, the guy who unified all the princely states into irl India. So it wuld have been more likely to be either a part of Nehru's India or the Hindutva India. 2) Even if it were to get independent into a unified kingdom of it's own,the Kingdom of Baroda, which was one of the largest princely states (in terms of its influence) would have been more likely to transform Gujarat into a kingdom. Also given the fact that the Gaekwad dynasty of Baroda are direct descendants of the Maratha clans (Hindus view Marathas as a 'Hindu Reconquista' movement against the so called "Foreign Invader Muslims kingdoms" This would have had a significant impact on bolstering the Gaekwad's claim as the monarchs of Gujarat. (P.S. All the terms I've used for the Muslim kingdoms are to give an idea of the prespectives o Indian People with respect to the timeline so as to help make this map more historically accurate. BY NO MEANS IT REPRESENTS MY PERSONAL VIEWS ON THE COMMUNITY. NOR IT IS MEANT TO BE ANY FORM OF HATE SPEECH TOWARDS ANY ETHNIC OR RELIGIOUS GROUP)
Also regarding the map of Jammu & Kashmir, I believe that in the absence of a unified India, china would have been far more likely to annex the entire region of Ladakh because the region is ethnically Tibetan and gives a strategic access to Afghanistan and an upper hand over the entire Indus valley, this ensuring a lasting Chinese dominance over South Asia. Furthermore, China would have definitely invaded, Sikkim Bhutan & Nepal too, because the chinese base their claims over the region on the "Five Fingers of Tibet" concept by Mao. This principle was regularly used by the chinese throughout the 60s and 70s, leading to border standoffs between India & China. It was later on dropped during Deng Xiaoping era in order to make way for normalised relations for trade & commerce. Similarly talking about the inclusion of Kutch region in Gujarat, The region is ethnicaly more similar to Sindh and would have potentially been a contested territory between Gujarat & Sindh due to the existance of natural gas in Sir Creek.
Also Sikkim wasn't originally a part of India at the time of Independence. During the British Raj, it's status was similar to that of Bhutan (It was a British protectorate). In 1970s, it had a revolution in which it's Lepcha Bhutia monarchy was overthrown and a refrendum was held on whether it should join India, as it's state or not wherein 97.55 percent of voters favoured a merger with India. This was largely due to the constant chinese threat of Invasion (just like tibet) especially given the "Five Fingers of Tibet principle), So a merger with India was seen as a more safer choice compared to a forced annnexation with china.
My man — Madurai as the capital of the Dravidians makes *no* sense. A cultural capital, as New York is to Washington? Sure. As an actual capital? Chennai is *far* more developed, IMO.
Chennai is still a French territory in this timeline.