Would you consider making a “What if everything went perfect for the Netherlands?” It would start in 1815 right after the creation of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Wouldn't the Dutch Republic be more interesting? Regions that were once part of the 17 provinces could all have been owned by it if the war capabilities were better or if Burgundy didnt let go of some of them like Julik and Bentheim
@@mithea6946 @willemvanoranje5724 All of Possible History's "What if everything went perfect?" videos for modern nations so far have points of divergence in the late modern/contemporary period, so I think 1815 would be one he's more likely to do. It might be because the earlier the start, the more unpredictable and crazy the timeline can get as it goes on; so a more recent start date can give much more realistic while still interesting results. I'm also curious with how he'd handle the Belgian Revolution given the short time until then. That being said a video about the Dutch Republic would also be really cool.
If everything went perfect for india, it wouldn't have been under the rule of brutal invaders like mughals and britishers. Before it had suffered for almost a millennia it used to produce the 33% of the world's GDP. Mughals reduced it to 25% and destroyed the BHARAT ethnically and culturally; while British took the opportunity to defeat the Rajput that just won fighting mughals for so many centuries. In case everything went correct for India (BHARAT) it would be the most powerful and richest nation in the whole world. Richest not only by wealth, but also the richest culturally, scientifically and spiritually. Well at least it still holds the title of Spiritual hub of the current hub.
My brother, I'm sure u know how it's pronounced but that is not a helpful guide for the pronunciation. Westerners don't pronounce "Dee" like "thee" they'd probably mistake it for how the alphabet "D" itself is pronounced. it's as pronounced hin-thee not hin-dee.
@@Jadepulse-fx9jj My friend, not to be rude, but India was made by the colonial times. Indians were never really united before that for long periods of time, having much the same story as China, except the Qing actually managed to hold on to power for long enough to cement China. By contrast Indian identity is the product of nationalism, the various groups of people that had different languages (spoken and written) realizing that they are technically the same people and that they suffer the same struggle under foreign occupation. Pakistan and India are brother nations, artificially separated on the grounds of religion!
@Wendeta-hq2cp The Bharat was a thing since vedic times. Maybe it did face many samrajayas, but all those had the same identity~bharatiya. The way of life was also identical with some unique traits for each separate region. It originally followed a *WAY OF LIFE* known as *SANATAN DHARM.* You can't deny that fact by your fancy terms of a nation country. *Bharat* is much more than that. It's a whole *civilization* following the same way of life with their different traits.
Yes and no. The British were not aware in the 1940s that their days as a superpower were over. But they knew that they were not able to hold on to India by force any more, also it had become a financial liability rather than an asset. So they decided to leave. BUT. They had interests in West & central Asia ( oil and USSR) so they thought they needed a base for future operations because they didn't think the Congress party in India would play ball with them. ( correctly) . So they decided to create a brand new entity out of thin air at the desired location, religion was the excuse, and the Muslim league was a tool in the British hands, and E Pakistan later Bangladesh was the un intended side effect. However, whatever has happened has happened and it is history, Pakistan people should try and find genuine leaders, not mullahs and generals to lead them. The day Pakistanis start thinking about themselves rather than Kashmir. Palestine. Indian Muslims etc and tell the generals, mullahs and politicians , forget about Muslims in the rest of the world, what about the Muslims in Pakistan? You will become a successful country. Interesting statistics. More Muslims are killed by fellow Muslims in Pakistan EVERY year, than the total no of Muslims killed in India in ALL the religious riots in India for the last 75 year's. And Pakistanis and other Muslims keep barking about the ONE babri masjid demolition, but forget about the thousands of temples, churches and gurudwaras that have been destroyed in Pakistan, there are bomb blasts in mosques in Pakistan, dozens of them all done by fellow Muslims . So Indian Muslims are safe happy and much better educated and prosperous than the average Pakistani.
@@adhirbose9910 No actually Churchill was in it if you watch the video by Dhruv Rathee he explains how and who among the founders were involved in it. It's nothing to do with religion that's what they said to sell to the public but in reality many things were going on in the background
No, it didn't. No one could've prevented Hindu Muslim divide. It was inevitable. The Muslim league tried to secure a position for Muslims in India. But the Hindu leaders never accepted. So they didn't have any choice other than demanding a separate nation.
@@daemontargaryen1123Secure position like reserving 50% seats in parliament, in military. Securing position like asking for a veto especially for Muslims, separate laws, separate schools. That's not securing bro that is encroachment. India may not have divided externally that way but it would have been millions of Pakistan within India.
@@daemontargaryen1123 it did but it was only due to insecurity and lack of a guarantee of anything,there was a lot of poverty too ,even the division of states was uncertain of working
Being Indian, I'm sorry pappu nehru said no when Balochistan wanted to join india just bcoz it was far ! I support free Balochistan Balochistan is kand of hinglaj mata Jai hinglaj mata 🕉️❤️🙏🇮🇳
If everything went perfect for india, it wouldn't have been under the rule of brutal invaders like mughals and britishers. Before it had suffered for almost a millennia it used to produce the 33% of the world's GDP. Mughals reduced it to 25% and destroyed the BHARAT ethnically and culturally; while British took the opportunity to defeat the Rajput that just won fighting mughals for so many centuries. In case everything went correct for India (BHARAT) it would be the most powerful and richest nation in the whole world. Richest not only by wealth, but also the richest culturally, scientifically and spiritually. Well at least it still holds the title of Spiritual hub of the current hub.
@@Jadepulse-fx9jj But it would have taken much longer for the entire country to unite as one nation under one power. So, even if the british did not come, it would have gone back to smaller kingdoms all fighting each other and conquering each other over time, and then freeing themselves again, the same way it was before the Mughals came.
The partition of South Asia was the biggest mistake of humanity... South Asia represents around 25% off all of humanity and considering if it were unified, the subcontinent would be A LOT more richer, as you mentioned, but also much more peaceful. Much suffering and extreme hatred that the subcontinent is in, would have been avoided. For Indians or Pakistanis seeing this, please stop hating the other, it just further divides us.
You are not Considering the possibility of a civil war between Hindus and Muslims. If a United Indian Subcontinent survives for more than 5 years, I would take a drop from Mount Everest. There's no way a country with the same level of diversity as the Indian Subcontinent could even function properly, let alone flourish under a "democracy". The subcontinent would end up in a far worse situation than it is now.
@@OptiSuS c'mon man lets be optimistic here, there really is a possibility for a flourishing united South Asia. As the creator already said india already holds about 15% of the worlds muslims, I don't see why it won't be able to hold some more.
@@lunalingo4461the problem is not that India couldn't handle more muslims NOW, its that in 1947, extremist terrorist ish groups of both Hindus and Muslims were basically slaughtering people of the opposite religion for fun in places like Kolkata. That being said, especially with the spirit of this video, its not entirely impossibly for the subcontinent to not be divided if enough things go right in the first half of the 20th century
The British Raj was ~65% hindu. Definitely a majority, but not an extreme one. Take a look at nigeria, its situation is similar: used to be a colony of the UK and is 50% muslim and 45% christian. This is much more extreme, yet it worked out. It isnt perfect, but it definitely shows that religion isn't something that makes people go into a civil war.
“While setting up some very unsavory groups I’m not allowed to name which blew up some iconic American architecture on a specific date in September” 7:04
Lmao, keep dream. If Partition never happened, civil war would have, which would have led to partition anyway, creating even more issues for a broken India.
Yeah it would have been possible, if RSS is not there.. but, with rise of communal forces in Hindu and Muslim extremists, civil war would have been inevitable.😢
Yeah it would have been possible, if RSS is not there.. but, with rise of communal forces in Hindu and Muslim extremists, civil war would have been inevitable.😢
@@ashokbatakalayou said if RSS wasn't there Means you believe that hindu have become extremists While muslim having jaish-e-muhammad Al-Qaeda is a normalcy? It would have been unbiased and more centric if you would have said if no extremists group would have existed
Would you consider making a "What if everything went PERFECT for Mexico" video? I think that would be quite interesting since pretty much the opposite was what happened in our world.
Wouldn't the Rohingya territories, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and the Maldives become part of the Indian state too? Or would that just be pushing India's luck?
@@niknad5290Sri Lanka was a separate colony from British raj and Myanmar was and is too much different from India to be a part of it (atleast most of Myanmar)
@@niknad5290 well Sikkim was independent too, but the thing is it had the possibility of becoming a state because India inherited the protectorship thing ever since Britain left. So, Nepal and Bhutan having a similar thing in place isn't too far-fetched. Sri Lanka, the Maldives and the Rohingya territories might advocate and fight to join India if they ever start to gain some "Pan-Indian" consciousness. However, ideally, that would have to be before 1948, and also it would be hard to make it a reality. The British would really hate having to redraw borders, AND not everyone might unanimously agree with this supposed "Pan-Indian" movement. It's a possibility, but this is most likely pushing luck.
partiation was not hindu india and islamic pakistan but secular india and muslim pakistan,correct your facts. India is still a secular country where parsi,christians ,buddhist,and even muslims came after partiation.
Did you know that secular was not a word in the constitution's preamble. It was added by Indira gandhi during the emergency. But even on independence we respected each religion equally. It was the radical muslims who wanted a seperate state for their own rule.
Being an India gives me immense happiness to see how well India could've done if not for the British but tbh I probably woudl'nt have been born if not for the Partition because thats how my grandparents ended up in the same place...
If everything went perfect for india, it wouldn't have been under the rule of brutal invaders like mughals and britishers. Before it had suffered for almost a millennia it used to produce the 33% of the world's GDP. Mughals reduced it to 25% and destroyed the BHARAT ethnically and culturally; while British took the opportunity to defeat the Rajput that just won fighting mughals for so many centuries. In case everything went correct for India (BHARAT) it would be the most powerful and richest nation in the whole world. Richest not only by wealth, but also the richest culturally, scientifically and spiritually. Well at least it still holds the title of Spiritual hub of the current hub.
The cold war would change a little bit, but the biggest changes I do agree would hit in 2020's as it would have managed to play the world and bring a balance to the normal waring nations.
If everything went perfect for india, it wouldn't have been under the rule of brutal invaders like mughals and britishers. Before it had suffered for almost a millennia it used to produce the 33% of the world's GDP. Mughals reduced it to 25% and destroyed the BHARAT ethnically and culturally; while British took the opportunity to defeat the Rajput that just won fighting mughals for so many centuries. In case everything went correct for India (BHARAT) it would be the most powerful and richest nation in the whole world. Richest not only by wealth, but also the richest culturally, scientifically and spiritually. Well at least it still holds the title of Spiritual hub of the current hub.
@@Jadepulse-fx9jj India's best gdp was under Mughal Emperor Aqbar and Aurangzeb, India had 33% gdp of whole world Most of India's wealth originated from Bengal Sultanate and past hendu kings didn't rule Bengal so no way India economy was bigger before Mughals.
One correction in 0:32: There was no "Hindu" India, Jinnah and his followers who were muslims only they wanted another country while the congressmen and their followers which included people from ALL religions they supported Undivided India... Jinnah on the other hand wanted a muslim majority country rather than living with diversity with 15 religious groups. Overall, Great work and nice video! Keep it up!
@@VinayakSharma-1 You are deluded, learn about the Muslim opposition to separation that were assassinated by Muslim League before partition then. If you truly think every Muslim wanted a seperate nation with zero exception you are clearly getting your facts from internet and not from history books. I am a Hindu and BJP voter and even I know better than whatever you just spewed.
@@yets0 PLC would also make a good video, especially with the fact that Russia could have united with Poland thanks to the Vaasa dynasty. I actually think the point of divergence starting in the Interbellum would be more interesting (atleast to me) because for some reason this idea isn’t much explored in althist. Also if Poland did some things different after independence, WW2 would be different or maybe even avoided for some time.
For starters, I'm guessing the proposed Slavic Commonwealth between Poland and Czechoslovakia would've happened successfully in this timeline but everything else is pretty much speculation.
There is a huge risk in this scenario. In our timeline, There was the emergency from 1975-1977. This saw all opposition leaders arrested and is often seen as a dark period in Indian democracy. It's likely that with the addition of Pakistan, the Muslim league would exist in India, perhaps leading to a Muslim rebellion and a civil war against Indira Gandhi.
If everything went perfect for india, it wouldn't have been under the rule of brutal invaders like mughals and britishers. Before it had suffered for almost a millennia it used to produce the 33% of the world's GDP. Mughals reduced it to 25% and destroyed the BHARAT ethnically and culturally; while British took the opportunity to defeat the Rajput that just won fighting mughals for so many centuries. In case everything went correct for India (BHARAT) it would be the most powerful and richest nation in the whole world. Richest not only by wealth, but also the richest culturally, scientifically and spiritually. Well at least it still holds the title of Spiritual hub of the current hub.
1:22 No. The Partition of India was a grave mistake that destroyed lives from the very start. The subcontinent should have been unified under a single state, even if it would have needed to be more even more decentralized.
@@chhoyla That would've worked if we got independence in 400 AD with a mostly homogeneous society that, on the surface level atleast, adhered to democracy. However in 1947 entirety of the Indian subcontinent needed a Dictatorial regime for atleast 20 years to enforce it's ancient laws and customs with a blend of industrialization.
US dollar might lose its position as the global reserve currency in this scenario. Indian rupee would be capable of replacing the dollar, considering India would be stable. if US government continues its policies of printing money liberally, other countries may consider Indian rupee as replacement as India would have a similar size economy as US at mid 2020s or earlier for this timeline. Also if China collapses and it falls under Indian influence, and given India’s good diplomacy with the global south and Indian Ocean nations, USA might lose out on all of Asia, including japan, as they might look at India more favourably than USA, and they might even lose Australia and New Zealand as allies if India plays their cards right. So basically it would be Asia, Africa, Australia and constituents vs Americas and Europe.
As an aside, India actually DID pick a side in the Cold War. While not communist, the Sino Soviet split lead to the Soviet Union supporting India against China. This plus their Socialist leanings, and refusal to crack down on the Communist movement in India (which was democratically elected in several regional elections) lead to the United States supporting Pakistan over India, as well as China (which the US saw as the counterbalance to the Soviet Union after the Sino-Soviet split). While India itself was not communist, and can’t be said to have joined the soviet block, it was more or less Soviet Aligned.
Nah. USA chose pakistan, a country that attacked us within months after independence so we had no choice but to ally with USSR, still India was a part of NAM - Non allinged movement, it was made very clear that India will not be used as a battlefield by USSR or USA, what finally pushed us to be an open ally was 1971 war where USA and England and most European countries supported Pakistan militarily. They send nuclear warships to the Indian waters, not much room for a choice after that. Regarding the democratic choice of communists, it was natural after the exploitation by a capitalist led upper class which consisted mostly of foreigners.
USA and Kissinger help Pakistan to commit a genocide in Bangladesh(killed nearly 3 Mil and raped thousands bangladeshis) with US weapons and threatened to nuke India if they intervened and help Bangladesh.We gave refuge to several thousands of bengalis and asylum to their leader. If soviet helped us then I don't mind being a soviet aligned state. We were not that much of an ally but we had a soft corner for USSR ever since. Regarding communist in India we had several communist leaders who took part in the freedom struggle and they were elected democratically then why the US should be concerned to our internal matters? They are painted as a champion of free speech and freedom of expression but they have supported countless coups in other countries, helped dictators stay in power for American interests.
You got it wrong. The US picked Pakistan first and as a result India and USSR(Russia) became allies. Pakistan was always USA’s illegitimate child. It was created by the British on the hest of USA.
A rumor has it that KGB had key ministers of India on their rolls, a high as a defence or finance minister. However, the amendment to the constitution adding the word Socialist in it made it clear that india was leaning as you suggest. Until the 1999 deregulation, india was a cover socialist experiment.
This is what British were afraid of and they never wanted a big unified, powerful and prosperous India. So, they somehow used a mole, Mr Jinnah and created a failed country like Pakistan which create nothing but tensions in their neighbourhood. And i feel, US also kind of supported in creating and sustaining Pakistan throughout their history. Even though we are divided, India can still create it's sphere of influence by maintaining good relations with neighbours. Ban and SL back on track, Pakistan can only be treated by breaking them up in provinces while we continue our economic progress. Long way to go, but very much possible. Thanks for the video
00:01 What if India was not divided upon Independence? 01:30 India became a decentralized state, ensuring concessions for Muslims. 03:00 The announcement of one big Indian Dominion in 1947 is massive for Indian power into the future. 04:29 During the Cold War, India remained neutral and focused on nation-building and internal development. 05:57 Without the aid from Pakistan and Iran, America's support for Afghan rebels is practically impossible, resulting in a stronger Soviet influence in the war. 07:22 India benefits from a more peaceful neighborhood and can focus on regional integration programs. 08:49 India becomes one of the top three economies in the world, behind the United States and China. 10:19 India has the potential to overtake China and become the preeminent Asian power Crafted by Merlin AI.
The POD for this need to be earlier than 1947. Nehru needed to agree to decentralisation for the Non-Hindi speaking South and the majority Muslim West and Bengal. Maybe the rising tide of Hindutva is butterflied away, but who knows? If I was the British and I wanted a stable India, I’d have the Indus as the border of Western India
The most likely POD is 1942, with the Quit India movement never taking off. As a result, the INC isn't put into prison, and the Muslim League isn't allowed a near monopoly on the news to further their Communalist agenda. Thus, partition remains a fringe idea, assigned to the dustbin of history.
That would have been a disaster it wasn't a federal decentralisation that Nehru was asked to agree to....it was super fucked up stupid idea where a Muslim vote would be equal to 2 Hindu vote As for south no one was asking for any autonomy there.....Southern agitation is quite recent
That's just unnecessarily splitting Sindh in half and also taking away a big part of Punjab. Maybe Give KPK back to Afghanistan and let Baluchistan decide whatever the hell they want to do.
As a Bengali, that would be absolutely horrible. Bengali always was and will remain a part of India. You need to learn a lot more about the history of India before making such fallacious statements.
Hindutva born after rise ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM, especially after caliphate movement in turkey , when india is struggling with british, extreme islamist want a separate nation, which create conflict in other communities too!, thats why hindutva born as reaction
If everything went perfect for india, it wouldn't have been under the rule of brutal invaders like mughals and britishers. Before it had suffered for almost a millennia it used to produce the 33% of the world's GDP. Mughals reduced it to 25% and destroyed the BHARAT ethnically and culturally; while British took the opportunity to defeat the Rajput that just won fighting mughals for so many centuries. In case everything went correct for India (BHARAT) it would be the most powerful and richest nation in the whole world. Richest not only by wealth, but also the richest culturally, scientifically and spiritually. Well at least it still holds the title of Spiritual hub of the current hub.
recently sri lankan prime minister asked modi to open borders with sri lanka, sri lanka is showing signs that they want to join india, also india and sri lanka is building huge bridge, soon entering in sri lanka will be like entering in any city of india @Harrappa
Sri Lanka has been an independent nation throughout its history. I doubt it would want to become part of India. However we still consider relations with India with high regard. And India has always helped or associated with LK. But a line will be drawn at donating Sri Lankas sovereignity to India
I think in this timeline India would control Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, The Maldives, Tibet, Afghanistan, and southeastern part of Iran. With Tibet and Afghanistan in Indian control, Eastern Turkistan comes under Soviet control. With Baluchistan under Indian Control Iran falls apart and the Arab portions join Iraq, Kurdistan get independence and Azeri portion goes to Soviet control as well.
they wouldn't control Iran or Afghanistan, rather the Pashtun part of Pakistan would go to Afghanistan and the Baloch part would go to Iran and the rest would be the actual Indian subcontinent.
@@AshkanPacino13 they are Indic. There has been an elaborate and meticulous process throughout the centuries to Iranise and Persianise the Indic tribes living in the borders. For example even in Cyrus's records he states that "Now I have ousted all the Deva worshippers from my land".
@@AshkanPacino13 For example according to Hindu records... The Pashtuns are originally the Paktha who are mentioned in Hindu Scriptures.. Specifically in the Dasarajna(The war of the Ten Kings). Coincidentally even Greek records state them as the Pactyans. They describe these Pactyans as being the bordermost tribe of the Indics/Vedics.
Would it have been possible for Sri Lanka and Myanmar to join? This could make it even harder for China to box in India and it will help stabilise those two.
Sri Lanka was a separate colony from India and Burma, while technically a part of the Indian colony, had been separately governed with its own colonial administration separate from the Indian one since 1937.
dunno if you realized this or someone else already commented, but the title card in the video says "what if everything went perfect for bulgaria" not india
India will become the world's 3rd largest economy by 2030. It is already the world's largest country by population. India has the 3rd biggest military budget as of 2023. India is the world's fastest-growing major economy. By end of this century India and China will be two of the world's great superpowers and Europe and American hegemony over the world will diminish. United States will remain a powerful country but It won't be the sole superpower. As this point by each passing day Pakistan is becoming a failed state so the possibility of balkanisation of Pakistan and eventual reingreation into India is high possibility. Even though not everything went perfectly for India during 1947 but still by ingenuity and sheer hard work of Indians we can make our future somewhat perfect.
proof? two nation theory was given by a muslim, All india hindu mahasabha was led by savarkar who practically accepted that nation will be partitioned, so he encouraged hindus to join british army as he predicted that 90% of muslim soldiers will go to pakistan, he also predicted that pak will attack india after independence so he kinda heled prepare hindus to fight which hindus did.
Yes, he did. However, in the original video (the very old one) India has a economy smaller than japan, and India is an US ally. Reason for the two videos being very different: in the old video, India doesn’t reform its “socialist” economy, and probalby doesn’t use its huge muslim population to influence other muslim nations.
Fighting china is hard .... God tested us by giving such a huge nation as a neighbour, smh if we had weaker nations like Mexico/Canada surrounding us like the Americans , we could be the rulers of Asia .
@@ale-xsantos1078In the scenario of and if everything was perfect we would have additional things like Brazil not losing Uruguay and the annexation of Bolivia
I saved this into my underrated playlist when I realized this channel doesn't get 400 views from youtube for 20 minute videos anymore, there's still hope for humanity
I think a ''what if everything went perfect for Austria'' would be an interesting video since it was a major player in Europe and kinda fell down in means of power after the Napoleonic wars.
It would have been some kind of massive United States of Mitteleuropa. Spanning all the territories of the late empire plus Upper Bavaria, Silesia, Lombardy-Venice, maybe even all of Romania and Yugoslavia.
People think that partition happened in 1945-1946 because of Jinnah but in reality it happened because of Morley Minto Reforms of 1909 which ensured at one point partition would happen regardless of who did it.
Fun fact : When treaty of Lucknow was signed between Congress and Muslim league it was agreed that India would remain united and Muslim majority states will get their own government but later it was broken because everyone got on with their disagreement again
@@gameworld6740 so really Nahru partitioned india not jinnah since it Nehru had agreed to some or jinnah demands India would be unified today jinnah was only looking out for his people
India's downfall started way before British colonization, when Mughals invaded it. Otherwise India would have been nearly a truely perfect country. But still we getting stronger again, and will make a comeback to the first spot!
As a overseas Pakistani, I consider India my mother land because my grandparents migrate from India ( Ambala ) to faisalabad Punjab Pakistan..... I always wondered why India was always to fail protect borders like everyone came and invaded India 🥺 from all directions like Mughals came from Uzbekistan, Nadir khan came from Iran , mehmood gazi came from Afghan bloodline and British came from thousands of miles....my indian motherlands leaders are not capable of protecting or geophysical position or what ? Can any one answer me 😊 No
@@zainulabdin1720 they protected thier motherland This is the reason why a billion Hindus still exist otherwise everyone would have got converted like your ancestors
India never really was that great or rich, they were too divided, Indian empires never lasted or consolidated enough to make a unified Indian identity (kind of like the Han in china)
its still an asian superpower and its one of the fastest growing economies in the world, india's gonna surpase japan and germay to become the 3rd largest economy in 2050 so theres not really a difference other then that india would've done this earlier and been larger/stronger
@@CloudyShooterGNG India is a country fast approaching a population crisis, with some of the worst income inequality in the world. Combine this with the fact that India, being a mostly tropical country, will be struck by increasingly powerful and more numerous natural disasters in the coming years along with major droughts and floods in regions not in range of typhoons. And if all that wasn't enough already, India still has major unresolved demographic issues, with religious and ethnic minorities facing increasing discrimination from right wing populist parties endorsed by the incumbent government. Not to mention actively hostile relationships with two powerful neighbours, and a serious lack of allies with a strong military or economic presence in the region. It's fun to throw around numbers and dream big, but GDP is not and has never been an adequate indicator of national development.
I would think twice before saying that, cause, India's feud with pakistan and grave million deaths kinda pushing india further to develop and protect in al fronts of life, (like a competition, but the cost is way high (deaths of million) , we came to back to square one again ,from now on it just growth for India, surpassing china, russia eventually US
A good attempt. However I suggest few important milestones. First, it could have been Bharat only and not India/Bharat, as it is currently, if everything went perfectly and there wouldn't have been partition. Then there is the possibility that the then PM Mr. Nehru could allow for Nepal to be a part of India and after that NOT send aid to China as they made their incursion in Tibet. Lastly, Bharat to not have had Nehru as it's first PM and the rightfully Congress elected Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel in his place. That said, it is an incorrect assumption that things went bad from British Raj. No. It started a Millenia ago with the Islamic invasions.
You know you should pick another candidate for the prime ministership than Sardar Patel because unfortunately, he passed away before the first election of the republic of India i.e. Bharat.
Nepal would have never joined, and no the problem didn't start with your boogeyman Islamic invasion. The problem started when the British tried to artificially group together people's that didn't like or trust each other. To this day India has inter-state fighting, and I don't mean political squabbling, I mean legitimate guns and bombs fighting between states that have led to deaths.
@@blackkn1ght Britishers did not unify India, it is because of the people. Else, French grouped Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam Into a single country, we know it broke up when they left.
@@AryanPatriot Your part of the Indian subcontinent. At times parts of your western land such as Kabul and Gandahar have been part of India and at times not. Afghanistan in pre-islamic times on its western borders was Hindu so culturally very similar, but since islamic invasions in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh, they've tried to dissociate from any connection to this. It is what it is though, reality doesn't change.
It should be noted that India had to deal with the Civil War in Sri Lanka. Since India supported the government over the Tamil people many Sri Lankan Tamils Felt betrayed by India and Sri Lanka's government eventually started to side with China anyways
as a muslim i say there is no if , for what happen in past can,t be changed for i think what has happened is perfect in a way , mistakes happen they are bound to happen , for what written in the fate will happen, fate can be choosen for future not for past
Hello, I've really been enjoying your videos. I was wondering if you were considering making a video where everything went perfect for the Ottoman Empire. I was thinking the timeline would branch off from 1566 after the death of Suleiman I.
Partition was a big blunder on part of Pakistanis . With such a large vote bank they could have made congress dance like a monkey. Resulting 'south asia' (there will not be any indian identity) may become prosperous on average but nothing would have remained of the Hindu civilization. Partition was a blessing in disguise for the Hindu culture.😅 Hindus would be divided on caste and political lines, while Muslims would have voted as a block. Hindu unity happened because of internet. In this time like Hindus would gave been subjugated way early before any unity. It will be like kerala in best case scenario for Hindus. Dodged a bullet is an understatement.
Excellent video! I'd love to see a video exploring "What if everything went well for the Scandinavia." As I see it there were four personality types: 1) Vikings who raided and conquered, 2) Merchants who traded far and wide, 3) Settlers who crossed the ocean and went down rivers, and 4) Homebodies who ran the kingdoms, managed the cities and towns, and kept the economy running. I see two changes that have to happen to encourage success: these types worked together better and those who ventured forth didn't assume what worked in Scandinavia would work everywhere. Had this happened, their expansion into North America and Eastern Europe would have gone much better. They may have been able to dominate the Baltic Sea and the North Sea, take and keep Britain and Ireland. They might have built a hybrid cultures, rather like Alexander the Great did for his conquests. They would end up with a diversified economy, a strong navy, and subordinate or allied nations all around. They would be a great power as Europe, being the ones who colonized the Western Hemisphere but starting from Canada rather than Central America.
The only thing majority Indians regret about Partition is that, inspite of Muslims getting their own land many stayed back in India due to Gandhi which is still causing problems in the country, because majority muslims are loyal to their Pak brothers abroad. Had there been a proper division partition then India would have have another less 20 crores population and above that, RAW would not have to worry about internal spies and bomb blasts and all.
@@k.a.2253 I mean, they kinda did, mauryans basically conquered whole india, but did not conquer the south region as they were in some sort of treaty. South was basically under the thumb of mauryans at that time. It is better to let people who are familiar with a culture rule their land. If mauryans wanted they could have easily conquered the south. So basically if a democratic republic was to be formed then, the south part would come under mauryans as important trades and valuable land. Mughals almost did unite a large part of India. But their radicalism led to their demise. They were idiots
This is not close to being perfect history for India. It would be without Muslim Invasions Prior to the Invasions by them, India accounted for more than 33% of the Global GDP. It was filled with hundreds of Universities better than Ivy leagues of present time. Filled with great architecture in northern part of India But all of this was destroyed, GDP reduced to 24% percent, all educational institutions and temples destroyed. Edit: For people questioning about India not forming at all. The idea of Bharat predates Islam itself. They have no role to play here. It is presented in Mahabharat, Ramayana, Vedas and puranas. All of which that form the core of Sanatan Dharma's belief system. Bharat always existed as civilizational State and continues to do so even in present
Actually their won't be an united India without Islamic invader we would have independent hindu kingdom fighting among themselves and being controlled by Europeans
Actually Burma was also separated by the British after world war 2 .The most castophoric thing is that the party that won major seats in election don't want Burma to be a different country.
1000 is exaggeration but I get your point. A Hindu majority (the only one) nation has forgotten how to rule themselves because of a long term colonization and subjugation by Islamic force.
@@forest3064 Indian Civilization is much older than 1000 year of Islamic rule...but you do not know those Islamic rulers settled down and assimilated in Indian culture to become Indian themselves.... Balochistan and entire Pakistan and Afghanistan were once a part of Indian sub continent
@@sumitguin5744 They didn’t assimilate, that’s why there so many problems. Islamic invasions started around 700 AD and European rule started around 1700 AD, hence 1000 years. As for Afghanistan being in the subcontinent, only parts of it were, below the mountain range.
there was islamic rule over india. that is very different from what the brits did. i agree that invasion wasn't good for india, but it is far better than being a colony because the islamic rulers despite of destroying hindu culture were slowly agreeing to the hindu culture and there could've been peace in the long term.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
I love that on the first slide it says “Bulgaria” instead of “India”
Probably because the first flag by Gandhi looked just like the Bulgarian flag with the chakra. 😉
@@artman12 Or they just forgot to change it to "India"
@@ryanrg1545he*
Does that mean they’re planning to do Bulgaria?
@@jackhansen9951to Bulgaria video
Would you consider making a “What if everything went perfect for the Netherlands?” It would start in 1815 right after the creation of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Why not start with the founding of the republic in the 16th century
Wouldn't the Dutch Republic be more interesting? Regions that were once part of the 17 provinces could all have been owned by it if the war capabilities were better or if Burgundy didnt let go of some of them like Julik and Bentheim
Tf is a netherlands
You mean the nether game thing from rawblocks?
@@dripmogus6979 cringe
@@mithea6946 @willemvanoranje5724 All of Possible History's "What if everything went perfect?" videos for modern nations so far have points of divergence in the late modern/contemporary period, so I think 1815 would be one he's more likely to do. It might be because the earlier the start, the more unpredictable and crazy the timeline can get as it goes on; so a more recent start date can give much more realistic while still interesting results. I'm also curious with how he'd handle the Belgian Revolution given the short time until then. That being said a video about the Dutch Republic would also be really cool.
1:45 it's pronounced as Hin-Dee. Hindu refers to followers of Hinduism. While Hindi is a language. Not necessarily always spoken by Hindu
If everything went perfect for india, it wouldn't have been under the rule of brutal invaders like mughals and britishers.
Before it had suffered for almost a millennia it used to produce the 33% of the world's GDP.
Mughals reduced it to 25% and destroyed the BHARAT ethnically and culturally; while British took the opportunity to defeat the Rajput that just won fighting mughals for so many centuries. In case everything went correct for India (BHARAT) it would be the most powerful and richest nation in the whole world. Richest not only by wealth, but also the richest culturally, scientifically and spiritually. Well at least it still holds the title of Spiritual hub of the current hub.
@@Jadepulse-fx9jjyes. But he was just pointing out the mispronunciation
My brother, I'm sure u know how it's pronounced but that is not a helpful guide for the pronunciation. Westerners don't pronounce "Dee" like "thee" they'd probably mistake it for how the alphabet "D" itself is pronounced. it's as pronounced hin-thee not hin-dee.
@@Jadepulse-fx9jj
My friend, not to be rude, but India was made by the colonial times. Indians were never really united before that for long periods of time, having much the same story as China, except the Qing actually managed to hold on to power for long enough to cement China.
By contrast Indian identity is the product of nationalism, the various groups of people that had different languages (spoken and written) realizing that they are technically the same people and that they suffer the same struggle under foreign occupation.
Pakistan and India are brother nations, artificially separated on the grounds of religion!
@Wendeta-hq2cp The Bharat was a thing since vedic times.
Maybe it did face many samrajayas, but all those had the same identity~bharatiya. The way of life was also identical with some unique traits for each separate region. It originally followed a *WAY OF LIFE* known as *SANATAN DHARM.* You can't deny that fact by your fancy terms of a nation country. *Bharat* is much more than that. It's a whole *civilization* following the same way of life with their different traits.
As a Pakistani I have to say Jinnah separating Pakistan from india seems more like an evil plan from the british rather than a separation for Muslims.
British played with insecurities of power between nehru and jinha
No bro...Muslims asked for it...fought for it.
Direct action day
Yes and no.
The British were not aware in the 1940s that their days as a superpower were over. But they knew that they were not able to hold on to India by force any more, also it had become a financial liability rather than an asset. So they decided to leave.
BUT.
They had interests in West & central Asia ( oil and USSR) so they thought they needed a base for future operations because they didn't think the Congress party in India would play ball with them. ( correctly) . So they decided to create a brand new entity out of thin air at the desired location, religion was the excuse, and the Muslim league was a tool in the British hands, and E Pakistan later Bangladesh was the un intended side effect.
However, whatever has happened has happened and it is history, Pakistan people should try and find genuine leaders, not mullahs and generals to lead them. The day Pakistanis start thinking about themselves rather than Kashmir. Palestine. Indian Muslims etc and tell the generals, mullahs and politicians , forget about Muslims in the rest of the world, what about the Muslims in Pakistan? You will become a successful country.
Interesting statistics. More Muslims are killed by fellow Muslims in Pakistan EVERY year, than the total no of Muslims killed in India in ALL the religious riots in India for the last 75 year's. And Pakistanis and other Muslims keep barking about the ONE babri masjid demolition, but forget about the thousands of temples, churches and gurudwaras that have been destroyed in Pakistan, there are bomb blasts in mosques in Pakistan, dozens of them all done by fellow Muslims .
So Indian Muslims are safe happy and much better educated and prosperous than the average Pakistani.
@@adhirbose9910 No actually Churchill was in it if you watch the video by Dhruv Rathee he explains how and who among the founders were involved in it. It's nothing to do with religion that's what they said to sell to the public but in reality many things were going on in the background
@@adhirbose9910 But I do agree Mullahs are a big problem, I think any religion is massive business empire run by muolvis pundits, priests and rabbi's
Partition of India increased hindu muslim conflict instead of solving it.
No, it didn't. No one could've prevented Hindu Muslim divide. It was inevitable. The Muslim league tried to secure a position for Muslims in India. But the Hindu leaders never accepted. So they didn't have any choice other than demanding a separate nation.
@@daemontargaryen1123 Don't forget. India's first education miinister was a Maulana. It was muslims who wanted islamic country for themselves.
@@daemontargaryen1123Secure position like reserving 50% seats in parliament, in military. Securing position like asking for a veto especially for Muslims, separate laws, separate schools.
That's not securing bro that is encroachment.
India may not have divided externally that way but it would have been millions of Pakistan within India.
Complete population transfer was required
@@daemontargaryen1123 it did but it was only due to insecurity and lack of a guarantee of anything,there was a lot of poverty too ,even the division of states was uncertain of working
As an indian I see this as an absoloute win
🇮🇳🇮🇳
❤
As a non indian I see this as an absolut win.
Did nobody notice it says What if everything went perfect for Bulgaria in the beginning?
@@venomthe3rdfgtvee755Classic Bulgarian colony
As a baloch we want to be Indian 😊😊❤❤
Being Indian, I'm sorry pappu nehru said no when Balochistan wanted to join india just bcoz it was far !
I support free Balochistan
Balochistan is kand of hinglaj mata
Jai hinglaj mata 🕉️❤️🙏🇮🇳
Come to India, we welcome you.
If you are Indian by heart, then you are totally Indian.
If everything went perfect for india, it wouldn't have been under the rule of brutal invaders like mughals and britishers.
Before it had suffered for almost a millennia it used to produce the 33% of the world's GDP.
Mughals reduced it to 25% and destroyed the BHARAT ethnically and culturally; while British took the opportunity to defeat the Rajput that just won fighting mughals for so many centuries. In case everything went correct for India (BHARAT) it would be the most powerful and richest nation in the whole world. Richest not only by wealth, but also the richest culturally, scientifically and spiritually. Well at least it still holds the title of Spiritual hub of the current hub.
@@Jadepulse-fx9jj But it would have taken much longer for the entire country to unite as one nation under one power. So, even if the british did not come, it would have gone back to smaller kingdoms all fighting each other and conquering each other over time, and then freeing themselves again, the same way it was before the Mughals came.
I have an idea, how about we do an opposite series where everything went horribly for a country?
Problem with that is it would probably just end in that country getting annexed as quickly as possible by their most repressive neighbor.
@@aAtom596 I was thinking more it ends as a rump state, to make things more interesting?
@@rubenrubio6875 That’s true, I think it would make for a kind of funny video to see a country get trashed in every possible way
that would just be History of Hungary
@@clydie We can make it worse for them. >:)
The partition of South Asia was the biggest mistake of humanity...
South Asia represents around 25% off all of humanity and considering if it were unified, the subcontinent would be A LOT more richer, as you mentioned, but also much more peaceful. Much suffering and extreme hatred that the subcontinent is in, would have been avoided. For Indians or Pakistanis seeing this, please stop hating the other, it just further divides us.
You are not Considering the possibility of a civil war between Hindus and Muslims. If a United Indian Subcontinent survives for more than 5 years, I would take a drop from Mount Everest. There's no way a country with the same level of diversity as the Indian Subcontinent could even function properly, let alone flourish under a "democracy". The subcontinent would end up in a far worse situation than it is now.
@@OptiSuS c'mon man lets be optimistic here, there really is a possibility for a flourishing united South Asia. As the creator already said india already holds about 15% of the worlds muslims, I don't see why it won't be able to hold some more.
@@lunalingo4461the problem is not that India couldn't handle more muslims NOW, its that in 1947, extremist terrorist ish groups of both Hindus and Muslims were basically slaughtering people of the opposite religion for fun in places like Kolkata. That being said, especially with the spirit of this video, its not entirely impossibly for the subcontinent to not be divided if enough things go right in the first half of the 20th century
@@lunalingo4461 Many non-Muslim Indians still don't like those 15% though...
The British Raj was ~65% hindu. Definitely a majority, but not an extreme one. Take a look at nigeria, its situation is similar: used to be a colony of the UK and is 50% muslim and 45% christian. This is much more extreme, yet it worked out. It isnt perfect, but it definitely shows that religion isn't something that makes people go into a civil war.
Partition had a bigger impact on both countries than people usually imagine
“While setting up some very unsavory groups I’m not allowed to name which blew up some iconic American architecture on a specific date in September” 7:04
Had the partition never happened, 50% of thr Indian problems would've already been resolved.
Lmao, keep dream. If Partition never happened, civil war would have, which would have led to partition anyway, creating even more issues for a broken India.
No they wouldn't India would have had a civil war between Muslims and Hindus.
Yeah it would have been possible, if RSS is not there.. but, with rise of communal forces in Hindu and Muslim extremists, civil war would have been inevitable.😢
Yeah it would have been possible, if RSS is not there.. but, with rise of communal forces in Hindu and Muslim extremists, civil war would have been inevitable.😢
@@ashokbatakalayou said if RSS wasn't there
Means you believe that hindu have become extremists
While muslim having jaish-e-muhammad Al-Qaeda is a normalcy?
It would have been unbiased and more centric if you would have said if no extremists group would have existed
Would you consider making a "What if everything went PERFECT for Mexico" video? I think that would be quite interesting since pretty much the opposite was what happened in our world.
No
Habsburg Mexico Best Mexico
@@alt1f4 A fair and compelling counter argument
@@Hatsuzu BASED
@@HatsuzuBased
Wouldn't the Rohingya territories, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and the Maldives become part of the Indian state too? Or would that just be pushing India's luck?
Nepal and Bhutan were not part of british india so it would be kind of hard to control them, Myanmar and Sri lanka would be more possible
@@niknad5290Sri Lanka was a separate colony from British raj and Myanmar was and is too much different from India to be a part of it (atleast most of Myanmar)
@@niknad5290 well Sikkim was independent too, but the thing is it had the possibility of becoming a state because India inherited the protectorship thing ever since Britain left. So, Nepal and Bhutan having a similar thing in place isn't too far-fetched.
Sri Lanka, the Maldives and the Rohingya territories might advocate and fight to join India if they ever start to gain some "Pan-Indian" consciousness. However, ideally, that would have to be before 1948, and also it would be hard to make it a reality. The British would really hate having to redraw borders, AND not everyone might unanimously agree with this supposed "Pan-Indian" movement. It's a possibility, but this is most likely pushing luck.
@@idk64644 but it would be more likely than Nepal or bhutan
@@niknad5290I'd say Nepal and Bhutan were more likely to be a part of India than Myanmar
Hindu & Hindi are different things........... Hindi is the language & Hindu is a person who follows Hinduism.
Both share tha lack of hygiene 😂😂😂💪🏿💪🏿
@@RonaldoFan-b9w Of course its a messi supporter who says this
Edit: Did bro just change his username
@@RonaldoFan-b9w tell me your gender first 😂
@@AsuraxManhua i am men
0:44 ah yes, my favorite indian nation, Bulgaria
😂😂😂
Hell yeah it's called akhand bharat
@@nova65473 ultra nationalist bruv, see the title at 0:44 where he wrote "bulgaria" instead of "india".. 🤦♂️
LETS GO BULGARIA IS INDIAN TERRITORY LESSSSS GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHERE IS MY 1000-THR EARTHMOVER!?!??!?!?!?
I love how at 0:44 it said, What if History went perfect for Bulgaria
He said "What if every thing go perfect for Mother India"
"Modern India"@@Sceince_Vedas_are_the_Universe
nobody noticing that the text on what if history went perfect for india said " What if history went perfect for Bulgaria "
Bro trust me a lot are noticing that
partiation was not hindu india and islamic pakistan but secular india and muslim pakistan,correct your facts. India is still a secular country where parsi,christians ,buddhist,and even muslims came after partiation.
You have my respect ❤
India is secular because of Hindus.
The Current Government begs to differ lol
@@baka_geddyThe republic is still standing proud and shall forever
Did you know that secular was not a word in the constitution's preamble. It was added by Indira gandhi during the emergency. But even on independence we respected each religion equally. It was the radical muslims who wanted a seperate state for their own rule.
Being an India gives me immense happiness to see how well India could've done if not for the British but tbh I probably woudl'nt have been born if not for the Partition because thats how my grandparents ended up in the same place...
If everything went perfect for india, it wouldn't have been under the rule of brutal invaders like mughals and britishers.
Before it had suffered for almost a millennia it used to produce the 33% of the world's GDP.
Mughals reduced it to 25% and destroyed the BHARAT ethnically and culturally; while British took the opportunity to defeat the Rajput that just won fighting mughals for so many centuries. In case everything went correct for India (BHARAT) it would be the most powerful and richest nation in the whole world. Richest not only by wealth, but also the richest culturally, scientifically and spiritually. Well at least it still holds the title of Spiritual hub of the current hub.
Yes we were such bastards. Can I have back all the railways and modern medicine then?
@@Jadepulse-fx9jjthe reduction in GDP was because of a shift in the global economy from agriculture to industry.
@@ep5019 not a fraction of 45 Trillion USD
@@NishitGG India's economy wasn't worth 45 trillion and it grew under us. Ergo you're owed nothing.
As an indian I can assure you that India is not interested in making USA it's ally. For India it's just a strategic partner.
funny enough nowadays India is more allied with the BRICS than with the USA
But why? Why dont you like USA that much and how thigns would be fixed?
@@Miro.A.Mursu- because in every past war usa either neutral or against India
A strategic partner is literally what an ally is though
@@vasudhruw6843 That is the past, like Soviet Union Helped India And now Russian Federation is led by a dictatoristic leader
The cold war would change a little bit, but the biggest changes I do agree would hit in 2020's as it would have managed to play the world and bring a balance to the normal waring nations.
If everything went perfect for india, it wouldn't have been under the rule of brutal invaders like mughals and britishers.
Before it had suffered for almost a millennia it used to produce the 33% of the world's GDP.
Mughals reduced it to 25% and destroyed the BHARAT ethnically and culturally; while British took the opportunity to defeat the Rajput that just won fighting mughals for so many centuries. In case everything went correct for India (BHARAT) it would be the most powerful and richest nation in the whole world. Richest not only by wealth, but also the richest culturally, scientifically and spiritually. Well at least it still holds the title of Spiritual hub of the current hub.
@@Jadepulse-fx9jj India's best gdp was under Mughal Emperor Aqbar and Aurangzeb, India had 33% gdp of whole world
Most of India's wealth originated from Bengal Sultanate and past hendu kings didn't rule Bengal so no way India economy was bigger before Mughals.
@smallcube-zn2mm nope, mughal were also just thieves like British
0:49 anyone else notice it says "Bulgaria" instead of India?
Yes
yes
Yup
Who tf cares
Yes ... 😂
One correction in 0:32: There was no "Hindu" India, Jinnah and his followers who were muslims only they wanted another country while the congressmen and their followers which included people from ALL religions they supported Undivided India... Jinnah on the other hand wanted a muslim majority country rather than living with diversity with 15 religious groups. Overall, Great work and nice video! Keep it up!
Grow up kid do some research all the Muslim in undivided India voted for Pakistan they wanted Pakistan but never left for their country
@@VinayakSharma-1 The vote was a complete sham where only 2% of the population were eligible to vote.
@@VinayakSharma-1 I think you should start reading real history books coz it looks like your research means watching propaganda channels
@@VinayakSharma-1
You are deluded, learn about the Muslim opposition to separation that were assassinated by Muslim League before partition then. If you truly think every Muslim wanted a seperate nation with zero exception you are clearly getting your facts from internet and not from history books.
I am a Hindu and BJP voter and even I know better than whatever you just spewed.
Please do what if everything went perfect for Poland (starting from independence in 1918) It would be a great video
why not plc?
@@yets0 PLC would also make a good video, especially with the fact that Russia could have united with Poland thanks to the Vaasa dynasty.
I actually think the point of divergence starting in the Interbellum would be more interesting (atleast to me) because for some reason this idea isn’t much explored in althist. Also if Poland did some things different after independence, WW2 would be different or maybe even avoided for some time.
*1919
For starters, I'm guessing the proposed Slavic Commonwealth between Poland and Czechoslovakia would've happened successfully in this timeline but everything else is pretty much speculation.
@@lynxfresh5214 that is plausible, but the Zaolzie/Cieszyn issue might be too big of a problem in the relationship to peacefully unite
Video suggestion: "What if everything went perfect for spain?" It would start in 1492 right after the creation of the spanish empire.
Second reconquista when?
@@euler73 More like american colonization
0:48 that's an interesting way of spelling India
Is nobody noticing how the thumbnail inside the video, (not the thumbnail thumbnail) says Bulgaria instead of India?
There is a huge risk in this scenario. In our timeline, There was the emergency from 1975-1977. This saw all opposition leaders arrested and is often seen as a dark period in Indian democracy. It's likely that with the addition of Pakistan, the Muslim league would exist in India, perhaps leading to a Muslim rebellion and a civil war against Indira Gandhi.
Hi PH I love your videos and I wonder if you could do if Spain won the Spanish-American war or if they were able to defend themselves properly
If everything went perfect for india, it wouldn't have been under the rule of brutal invaders like mughals and britishers.
Before it had suffered for almost a millennia it used to produce the 33% of the world's GDP.
Mughals reduced it to 25% and destroyed the BHARAT ethnically and culturally; while British took the opportunity to defeat the Rajput that just won fighting mughals for so many centuries. In case everything went correct for India (BHARAT) it would be the most powerful and richest nation in the whole world. Richest not only by wealth, but also the richest culturally, scientifically and spiritually. Well at least it still holds the title of Spiritual hub of the current hub.
1:22 No. The Partition of India was a grave mistake that destroyed lives from the very start. The subcontinent should have been unified under a single state, even if it would have needed to be more even more decentralized.
It shouldn’t have ever been unified. It should’ve been left as the numerous states it used to be
@@chhoyla That would've worked if we got independence in 400 AD with a mostly homogeneous society that, on the surface level atleast, adhered to democracy. However in 1947 entirety of the Indian subcontinent needed a Dictatorial regime for atleast 20 years to enforce it's ancient laws and customs with a blend of industrialization.
@@whyarewestillherejusttosuf8831Gupta Empire needs to be re-established 🚩
(JK 😂)
As a Taiwanese person I see this as an absolute win.
US dollar might lose its position as the global reserve currency in this scenario. Indian rupee would be capable of replacing the dollar, considering India would be stable. if US government continues its policies of printing money liberally, other countries may consider Indian rupee as replacement as India would have a similar size economy as US at mid 2020s or earlier for this timeline. Also if China collapses and it falls under Indian influence, and given India’s good diplomacy with the global south and Indian Ocean nations, USA might lose out on all of Asia, including japan, as they might look at India more favourably than USA, and they might even lose Australia and New Zealand as allies if India plays their cards right. So basically it would be Asia, Africa, Australia and constituents vs Americas and Europe.
As an aside, India actually DID pick a side in the Cold War. While not communist, the Sino Soviet split lead to the Soviet Union supporting India against China. This plus their Socialist leanings, and refusal to crack down on the Communist movement in India (which was democratically elected in several regional elections) lead to the United States supporting Pakistan over India, as well as China (which the US saw as the counterbalance to the Soviet Union after the Sino-Soviet split). While India itself was not communist, and can’t be said to have joined the soviet block, it was more or less Soviet Aligned.
Nah. USA chose pakistan, a country that attacked us within months after independence so we had no choice but to ally with USSR, still India was a part of NAM - Non allinged movement, it was made very clear that India will not be used as a battlefield by USSR or USA, what finally pushed us to be an open ally was 1971 war where USA and England and most European countries supported Pakistan militarily. They send nuclear warships to the Indian waters, not much room for a choice after that. Regarding the democratic choice of communists, it was natural after the exploitation by a capitalist led upper class which consisted mostly of foreigners.
USA and Kissinger help Pakistan to commit a genocide in Bangladesh(killed nearly 3 Mil and raped thousands bangladeshis) with US weapons and threatened to nuke India if they intervened and help Bangladesh.We gave refuge to several thousands of bengalis and asylum to their leader. If soviet helped us then I don't mind being a soviet aligned state. We were not that much of an ally but we had a soft corner for USSR ever since. Regarding communist in India we had several communist leaders who took part in the freedom struggle and they were elected democratically then why the US should be concerned to our internal matters? They are painted as a champion of free speech and freedom of expression but they have supported countless coups in other countries, helped dictators stay in power for American interests.
You got it wrong. The US picked Pakistan first and as a result India and USSR(Russia) became allies. Pakistan was always USA’s illegitimate child. It was created by the British on the hest of USA.
A rumor has it that KGB had key ministers of India on their rolls, a high as a defence or finance minister. However, the amendment to the constitution adding the word Socialist in it made it clear that india was leaning as you suggest. Until the 1999 deregulation, india was a cover socialist experiment.
As a person from Bangladesh I see this as a win
Monke 😂😂😂 Tui emneto bandor 'I ssEe tHis aaaa$ a WiN😬
Gay india
Bolod, West Bengal er moto obostha hoye jeto amader
This is what British were afraid of and they never wanted a big unified, powerful and prosperous India. So, they somehow used a mole, Mr Jinnah and created a failed country like Pakistan which create nothing but tensions in their neighbourhood.
And i feel, US also kind of supported in creating and sustaining Pakistan throughout their history.
Even though we are divided, India can still create it's sphere of influence by maintaining good relations with neighbours. Ban and SL back on track, Pakistan can only be treated by breaking them up in provinces while we continue our economic progress. Long way to go, but very much possible.
Thanks for the video
00:01 What if India was not divided upon Independence?
01:30 India became a decentralized state, ensuring concessions for Muslims.
03:00 The announcement of one big Indian Dominion in 1947 is massive for Indian power into the future.
04:29 During the Cold War, India remained neutral and focused on nation-building and internal development.
05:57 Without the aid from Pakistan and Iran, America's support for Afghan rebels is practically impossible, resulting in a stronger Soviet influence in the war.
07:22 India benefits from a more peaceful neighborhood and can focus on regional integration programs.
08:49 India becomes one of the top three economies in the world, behind the United States and China.
10:19 India has the potential to overtake China and become the preeminent Asian power
Crafted by Merlin AI.
Delete this
as a Muslim indian i see this as an absolute win
Jai Pakistan 🇵🇰
@@Markhor579Jai Hind also
🇮🇳🤝🇵🇰 will be better
easier to create problems yea?
You wrote muslim instead of just Indian shows your hidden dark intentions
@Akarsh2008 nah it will be worst
The POD for this need to be earlier than 1947. Nehru needed to agree to decentralisation for the Non-Hindi speaking South and the majority Muslim West and Bengal. Maybe the rising tide of Hindutva is butterflied away, but who knows? If I was the British and I wanted a stable India, I’d have the Indus as the border of Western India
The most likely POD is 1942, with the Quit India movement never taking off. As a result, the INC isn't put into prison, and the Muslim League isn't allowed a near monopoly on the news to further their Communalist agenda. Thus, partition remains a fringe idea, assigned to the dustbin of history.
That would have been a disaster it wasn't a federal decentralisation that Nehru was asked to agree to....it was super fucked up stupid idea where a Muslim vote would be equal to 2 Hindu vote
As for south no one was asking for any autonomy there.....Southern agitation is quite recent
That's just unnecessarily splitting Sindh in half and also taking away a big part of Punjab. Maybe Give KPK back to Afghanistan and let Baluchistan decide whatever the hell they want to do.
As a Bengali, that would be absolutely horrible. Bengali always was and will remain a part of India.
You need to learn a lot more about the history of India before making such fallacious statements.
Hindutva born after rise ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM, especially after caliphate movement in turkey , when india is struggling with british, extreme islamist want a separate nation, which create conflict in other communities too!, thats why hindutva born as reaction
Couldn't India possibly end up with Sri Lanka as an autonomous region and end up impossible to encircle in any way?
Srilanka will be a union territory of india possibly
nah it's big enough to be a state @@Youforme-hb1eo
If everything went perfect for india, it wouldn't have been under the rule of brutal invaders like mughals and britishers.
Before it had suffered for almost a millennia it used to produce the 33% of the world's GDP.
Mughals reduced it to 25% and destroyed the BHARAT ethnically and culturally; while British took the opportunity to defeat the Rajput that just won fighting mughals for so many centuries. In case everything went correct for India (BHARAT) it would be the most powerful and richest nation in the whole world. Richest not only by wealth, but also the richest culturally, scientifically and spiritually. Well at least it still holds the title of Spiritual hub of the current hub.
recently sri lankan prime minister asked modi to open borders with sri lanka, sri lanka is showing signs that they want to join india, also india and sri lanka is building huge bridge, soon entering in sri lanka will be like entering in any city of india @Harrappa
Sri Lanka has been an independent nation throughout its history. I doubt it would want to become part of India. However we still consider relations with India with high regard. And India has always helped or associated with LK. But a line will be drawn at donating Sri Lankas sovereignity to India
"India is not China."
Now there's the top notch analysis I come to your videos for
[in all seriousness, interesting video)
I think in this timeline India would control Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, The Maldives, Tibet, Afghanistan, and southeastern part of Iran. With Tibet and Afghanistan in Indian control, Eastern Turkistan comes under Soviet control.
With Baluchistan under Indian Control Iran falls apart and the Arab portions join Iraq, Kurdistan get independence and Azeri portion goes to Soviet control as well.
they wouldn't control Iran or Afghanistan, rather the Pashtun part of Pakistan would go to Afghanistan and the Baloch part would go to Iran and the rest would be the actual Indian subcontinent.
@@AshkanPacino13They would control Afghanistan and Eastern Iran since those areas are historically Indic.
@@amukherjee9514 lmao, they are not historically Indic, they speak Iranic language, stop trying to tie everything to India.
@@AshkanPacino13 they are Indic. There has been an elaborate and meticulous process throughout the centuries to Iranise and Persianise the Indic tribes living in the borders. For example even in Cyrus's records he states that "Now I have ousted all the Deva worshippers from my land".
@@AshkanPacino13 For example according to Hindu records... The Pashtuns are originally the Paktha who are mentioned in Hindu Scriptures.. Specifically in the Dasarajna(The war of the Ten Kings). Coincidentally even Greek records state them as the Pactyans. They describe these Pactyans as being the bordermost tribe of the Indics/Vedics.
Did anyone notice at 0:46, 1 hour after posting, that the title says "What if everything went perfect for BULGARIA"
Ghandi was actually a bulgarian nationalist
Would it have been possible for Sri Lanka and Myanmar to join? This could make it even harder for China to box in India and it will help stabilise those two.
Sri Lanka was a separate colony from India and Burma, while technically a part of the Indian colony, had been separately governed with its own colonial administration separate from the Indian one since 1937.
It would’ve been impossible as no one in Sri Lanka would’ve supported it
Srilanka and Burma was separate colony known as Cylon and Burma
@@zitka123Myanmar was part of the raj
@@pubert19 Raj is British Empire. Not Indian . At that India was also part of British Empire
Could you do "If history went perfect for the GDR"? Or perhaps for any eastern bloc country? Could be interesting!
dunno if you realized this or someone else already commented, but the title card in the video says "what if everything went perfect for bulgaria" not india
India will become the world's 3rd largest economy by 2030. It is already the world's largest country by population. India has the 3rd biggest military budget as of 2023. India is the world's fastest-growing major economy. By end of this century India and China will be two of the world's great superpowers and Europe and American hegemony over the world will diminish. United States will remain a powerful country but It won't be the sole superpower. As this point by each passing day Pakistan is becoming a failed state so the possibility of balkanisation of Pakistan and eventual reingreation into India is high possibility. Even though not everything went perfectly for India during 1947 but still by ingenuity and sheer hard work of Indians we can make our future somewhat perfect.
I love how at the start it says „what if everything went perfect for bulgaria“ 😂 great vid, cant wait for the next one :)
fun fact! it was not only the leaders of the muslim but also the hindu mahasabha (the predecessor of the bjp) who wanted a divided india
Hindu mahasabha was separate from the RSS
@@rishavkumar1250 Hindu Mahasabha was the parent body of the RSS
proof? two nation theory was given by a muslim, All india hindu mahasabha was led by savarkar who practically accepted that nation will be partitioned, so he encouraged hindus to join british army as he predicted that 90% of muslim soldiers will go to pakistan, he also predicted that pak will attack india after independence so he kinda heled prepare hindus to fight which hindus did.
I have been looking for a video exactly like this for ages
Was this a reupload? I swear I remember this channel making this India scenario before
Yes, he did. However, in the original video (the very old one) India has a economy smaller than japan, and India is an US ally. Reason for the two videos being very different: in the old video, India doesn’t reform its “socialist” economy, and probalby doesn’t use its huge muslim population to influence other muslim nations.
Honestly the most realistic scenario on this channel till now.
It's so unrealistic 😂
Fighting china is hard .... God tested us by giving such a huge nation as a neighbour, smh if we had weaker nations like Mexico/Canada surrounding us like the Americans , we could be the rulers of Asia .
@@muqxxtwhy
Also the one I hate most.
Fr
Will you do a video where everything is perfect for Brazil?
And this was a great video
He did "What if Brazil wasnt poor" where he tried to create the best case scenario for Brazil
@@ale-xsantos1078In the scenario of and if everything was perfect we would have additional things like Brazil not losing Uruguay and the annexation of Bolivia
6:49 India would probably help the USSR deafeat Afghanistan because of the Durand line
Best video about Bulgaria I've ever seen 😆 0:48
I saved this into my underrated playlist when I realized this channel doesn't get 400 views from youtube for 20 minute videos anymore, there's still hope for humanity
I think a ''what if everything went perfect for Austria'' would be an interesting video since it was a major player in Europe and kinda fell down in means of power after the Napoleonic wars.
It would have been some kind of massive United States of Mitteleuropa. Spanning all the territories of the late empire plus Upper Bavaria, Silesia, Lombardy-Venice, maybe even all of Romania and Yugoslavia.
You should make "What if Everything went perfect for the Dutchy of Burgundy"
it would be cool to see a similar video on the history of France after the overthrow of Napoleon.
People think that partition happened in 1945-1946 because of Jinnah but in reality it happened because of Morley Minto Reforms of 1909 which ensured at one point partition would happen regardless of who did it.
As an american with parents that are indian, I see this as an absolute win for me and my family
Fun fact : When treaty of Lucknow was signed between Congress and Muslim league it was agreed that India would remain united and Muslim majority states will get their own government but later it was broken because everyone got on with their disagreement again
Didn’t Narhu break that agreement jinnah had agreed to it
@@umaryusuf537 yes
@@gameworld6740 so really Nahru partitioned india not jinnah since it Nehru had agreed to some or jinnah demands India would be unified today jinnah was only looking out for his people
India's downfall started way before British colonization, when Mughals invaded it. Otherwise India would have been nearly a truely perfect country. But still we getting stronger again, and will make a comeback to the first spot!
By that logic the downfall started even before that during delhi sultanate rule
As a overseas Pakistani, I consider India my mother land because my grandparents migrate from India ( Ambala
) to faisalabad Punjab Pakistan..... I always wondered why India was always to fail protect borders like everyone came and invaded India 🥺 from all directions like Mughals came from Uzbekistan,
Nadir khan came from Iran , mehmood gazi came from Afghan bloodline and British came from thousands of miles....my indian motherlands leaders are not capable of protecting or geophysical position or what
? Can any one answer me 😊
No
@@zainulabdin1720 they protected thier motherland
This is the reason why a billion Hindus still exist otherwise everyone would have got converted like your ancestors
Not the invasion, it moreso started declining somewhere during the much later years of Aurangzeb's rule to after his death
India never really was that great or rich, they were too divided, Indian empires never lasted or consolidated enough to make a unified Indian identity (kind of like the Han in china)
Man, now I'm sad for IRL India, seeing how different things could be
its still an asian superpower and its one of the fastest growing economies in the world, india's gonna surpase japan and germay to become the 3rd largest economy in 2050 so theres not really a difference other then that india would've done this earlier and been larger/stronger
@@CloudyShooterGNG India is a country fast approaching a population crisis, with some of the worst income inequality in the world. Combine this with the fact that India, being a mostly tropical country, will be struck by increasingly powerful and more numerous natural disasters in the coming years along with major droughts and floods in regions not in range of typhoons. And if all that wasn't enough already, India still has major unresolved demographic issues, with religious and ethnic minorities facing increasing discrimination from right wing populist parties endorsed by the incumbent government. Not to mention actively hostile relationships with two powerful neighbours, and a serious lack of allies with a strong military or economic presence in the region.
It's fun to throw around numbers and dream big, but GDP is not and has never been an adequate indicator of national development.
@@FleezyFliitswhich minorities
I would think twice before saying that, cause, India's feud with pakistan and grave million deaths kinda pushing india further to develop and protect in al fronts of life, (like a competition, but the cost is way high (deaths of million) , we came to back to square one again ,from now on it just growth for India, surpassing china, russia eventually US
@HabbyHabs not 2050, that will happen within 2030
I'm so glad you choose to include Kashmir in the Indian map
A good attempt. However I suggest few important milestones.
First, it could have been Bharat only and not India/Bharat, as it is currently, if everything went perfectly and there wouldn't have been partition.
Then there is the possibility that the then PM Mr. Nehru could allow for Nepal to be a part of India and after that NOT send aid to China as they made their incursion in Tibet.
Lastly, Bharat to not have had Nehru as it's first PM and the rightfully Congress elected Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel in his place.
That said, it is an incorrect assumption that things went bad from British Raj. No. It started a Millenia ago with the Islamic invasions.
You know you should pick another candidate for the prime ministership than Sardar Patel because unfortunately, he passed away before the first election of the republic of India i.e. Bharat.
Nepal would have never joined, and no the problem didn't start with your boogeyman Islamic invasion. The problem started when the British tried to artificially group together people's that didn't like or trust each other.
To this day India has inter-state fighting, and I don't mean political squabbling, I mean legitimate guns and bombs fighting between states that have led to deaths.
@@blackkn1ght Britishers did not unify India, it is because of the people. Else, French grouped Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam Into a single country, we know it broke up when they left.
....
-What if the Dutch unified Germany
That actually sounds really interesting, don’t really know how that would work though
Probably they would become the Emperors of the HRE and centralise it. Something of the sort. Quite unrealistic though.
now we know i guess
1:50 hindu is not the dominant language. hindu isnt a language spoken in india
They would’ve had a space station by now and would be aiming for a moon landing by the 30s
0:49 “what if history went perfect for Bulgaria” 😭😭
Great vid. Please can you do if everything went right for Nationalist China?
@millio6238Ah yes the nationalists who are feverently anti communist are gonna align with the Soviets. This makes sense
As a Pakistani I have always vouched for this. India should have never split
It used to be called hindustan, i agree as an indian
Do what if south India became a separate country video
Love the video!
4:48 I'm so glad I wasn't tabbed out for this part lol
I would've been so confused.
british not only seperated pakistan and bangladesh from India but also Myanmar, Afghanistan, Sri lanka, Bhutan .
Get lost Afghanistan isn’t Indian we’re central Asian get lost
TBF Sri Lanka was already a separate administration, it wasn't the same Raj as India.
@@AryanPatriot Your part of the Indian subcontinent. At times parts of your western land such as Kabul and Gandahar have been part of India and at times not. Afghanistan in pre-islamic times on its western borders was Hindu so culturally very similar, but since islamic invasions in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh, they've tried to dissociate from any connection to this. It is what it is though, reality doesn't change.
Do what If everything went perfect to the United Kingdom (Starting in 1815)
It pretty much did right up until 1915
They were nearly perfect but now are just facing karma
@@StarBoy-ps1xcengland is the bad part, the rest is pretty ok
As a friend of a Pakistani-Indian, I see this as a mid win
there is nothing as Pakistani Indian.
All south asian subcontinent people are Indians
It should be noted that India had to deal with the Civil War in Sri Lanka. Since India supported the government over the Tamil people many Sri Lankan Tamils Felt betrayed by India and Sri Lanka's government eventually started to side with China anyways
as a muslim i say there is no if , for what happen in past can,t be changed for i think what has happened is perfect in a way , mistakes happen they are bound to happen , for what written in the fate will happen, fate can be choosen for future not for past
1:31 Use the correct map of India
Hello, I've really been enjoying your videos. I was wondering if you were considering making a video where everything went perfect for the Ottoman Empire. I was thinking the timeline would branch off from 1566 after the death of Suleiman I.
Why isnt anyone pointing out the goa being in green color? I can understand the conflict behind Jammu and ladak but goa??
Green was meant to Represent the Portuguese, I believe, who still held Goa until 1961
At 0:45 on the title card part it says "What if history went perfect for Bulgaria" instead of India
The title says “What if history went perfect for Bulgaria”
Simply wow 😲. Awesomely explained the what if scenario of the Akhand Bharat (undivided India) 🇮🇳
0:44 It says what if history went perfect for Bulgaria
Lol i realised ghat too
Partition was a big blunder on part of Pakistanis . With such a large vote bank they could have made congress dance like a monkey. Resulting 'south asia' (there will not be any indian identity) may become prosperous on average but nothing would have remained of the Hindu civilization. Partition was a blessing in disguise for the Hindu culture.😅
Hindus would be divided on caste and political lines, while Muslims would have voted as a block.
Hindu unity happened because of internet. In this time like Hindus would gave been subjugated way early before any unity.
It will be like kerala in best case scenario for Hindus.
Dodged a bullet is an understatement.
*LOVE YOU INDIA* 🇮🇳
Excellent video! I'd love to see a video exploring "What if everything went well for the Scandinavia." As I see it there were four personality types: 1) Vikings who raided and conquered, 2) Merchants who traded far and wide, 3) Settlers who crossed the ocean and went down rivers, and 4) Homebodies who ran the kingdoms, managed the cities and towns, and kept the economy running.
I see two changes that have to happen to encourage success: these types worked together better and those who ventured forth didn't assume what worked in Scandinavia would work everywhere. Had this happened, their expansion into North America and Eastern Europe would have gone much better. They may have been able to dominate the Baltic Sea and the North Sea, take and keep Britain and Ireland. They might have built a hybrid cultures, rather like Alexander the Great did for his conquests. They would end up with a diversified economy, a strong navy, and subordinate or allied nations all around. They would be a great power as Europe, being the ones who colonized the Western Hemisphere but starting from Canada rather than Central America.
I would really like to see "What if everything went perfect for Ukraine?", starting in 1917/1918 onwards.
The only thing majority Indians regret about Partition is that, inspite of Muslims getting their own land many stayed back in India due to Gandhi which is still causing problems in the country, because majority muslims are loyal to their Pak brothers abroad.
Had there been a proper division partition then India would have have another less 20 crores population and above that, RAW would not have to worry about internal spies and bomb blasts and all.
absolutely correct
True, we don't need akhand bharat, we needed a non Muslim india.
Who united India? British
Who divided India? British
Exactly 💯
mauryans and mughals left the chat
@@sammy57533 neither conquered whole India and no self respecting Indian will ever tell you they were united by muslim rulers
@@k.a.2253 I mean, they kinda did, mauryans basically conquered whole india, but did not conquer the south region as they were in some sort of treaty. South was basically under the thumb of mauryans at that time. It is better to let people who are familiar with a culture rule their land. If mauryans wanted they could have easily conquered the south. So basically if a democratic republic was to be formed then, the south part would come under mauryans as important trades and valuable land.
Mughals almost did unite a large part of India. But their radicalism led to their demise. They were idiots
Who united India
British: me 🤡🤡
😂😂
South India was never a part of North until British Colonial Rule so, it would be two different nation now
0:44 uhhh It’s India not Bulgaria
Now I want a "What if everything went wrong for ..." series
India would be a region of many countries .
This is not close to being perfect history for India. It would be without Muslim Invasions
Prior to the Invasions by them, India accounted for more than 33% of the Global GDP. It was filled with hundreds of Universities better than Ivy leagues of present time. Filled with great architecture in northern part of India
But all of this was destroyed, GDP reduced to 24% percent, all educational institutions and temples destroyed.
Edit: For people questioning about India not forming at all.
The idea of Bharat predates Islam itself. They have no role to play here. It is presented in Mahabharat, Ramayana, Vedas and puranas. All of which that form the core of Sanatan Dharma's belief system. Bharat always existed as civilizational State and continues to do so even in present
True, idk why he just simply chose to ignore the actual golden era of Bharat, prior to any invasions. Especially from islamic invaders
With people like you a united india will never come
@@propandagaming66 Neither is need for it. We are satisfied with whatever we have now. Don't need extra burden
@@propandagaming66 As the person above me mentioned, no need for it
Actually their won't be an united India without Islamic invader we would have independent hindu kingdom fighting among themselves and being controlled by Europeans
Would love to see "what if everything went perfect for the European Union"
nah
Actually Burma was also separated by the British after world war 2 .The most castophoric thing is that the party that won major seats in election don't want Burma to be a different country.
why did it say Bulgaria on the thumbnail?
You forgot to mention 1000 years of Islamic colonization in India.
1000 is exaggeration but I get your point. A Hindu majority (the only one) nation has forgotten how to rule themselves because of a long term colonization and subjugation by Islamic force.
@@forest3064 Indian Civilization is much older than 1000 year of Islamic rule...but you do not know those Islamic rulers settled down and assimilated in Indian culture to become Indian themselves.... Balochistan and entire Pakistan and Afghanistan were once a part of Indian sub continent
@@sumitguin5744 They didn’t assimilate, that’s why there so many problems. Islamic invasions started around 700 AD and European rule started around 1700 AD, hence 1000 years. As for Afghanistan being in the subcontinent, only parts of it were, below the mountain range.
@TrivedijiGames Being a Hindu land doesn’t make it part of the “subcontinent” that is a geographical region, i.e. specific tectonic plate boundaries.
there was islamic rule over india. that is very different from what the brits did. i agree that invasion wasn't good for india, but it is far better than being a colony because the islamic rulers despite of destroying hindu culture were slowly agreeing to the hindu culture and there could've been peace in the long term.