Re: If there had been no Partition in 1947.
I am in no way advocating joining back only a bit of fun analysis as to what could have been the state of South east Asia? (Good & bad)
- It would have been a very very big country, with the largest population in the world, povery, hunger with racial & religious problems.
- To appease the minority's to stay with India - Jinnah would have been the first Prime Minister (& Governor General).
- Ofcourse if there was not partition, there would have been no mass killings or refugees.
- If there was no mass killings or refugees - the hate factor would have been minimal, say pre - partition level.
- Urdu (or Hindustani) would have been the Official language.
Hyderabad, Kashmir problem would have never arisen. What do you think...........
Jinnah could not have been both the first Prime Minister AND Governor-General, since that would have violated the separation of Head of Government and Head of State.
3-4. Mass killings may not have occured initially.... but to pretend there was no hatred pre-partition is short sighted. There were always tensions that were always kept in check by force, forst by the Mughals, then by their successor states, then by the British. Without partition, eventual problems like the Babri Masjid would have unleashed a cycle of violence as actions by one community against each other on one part of India would be responded to in other parts where that community was minority, unleashing more violence elsewhere...There is no way that urdu would be the official language, not with its connection to previous Muslim rule. As a compromise English might have been picked; but most likely India still would have had multiple official languages.
Hyderabad issue still would have occured as the Nizam wanted to keep Hyderabad independent - that was the constant cornerstone of Hyderabad's policies for 2 centuries.