Talk:India (1983: Doomsday)

Breakup of India
According to the map of nuked locations, India was spared. Wondering why it broke down into smaller states. --Oerwinde 03:47, September 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * Early 1980s India was not a very stable place. Factor in the environmental, economic and political ramifications of Doomsday, and it is not implausible to believe that India would collapse. Mitro 16:06, September 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm with Oerwinde. It is rather odd that so many break away states would succeed. The democracy of India did not depend on the support of England or the United States. With a billion people, the subcontinent did not even have to "worry" about losing a market for their exports. In fact, a more nationalistic introspection might even promote unity. It was "interference" from outside that caused much of the unrest in the first place.98.84.38.13 05:20, February 1, 2010 (UTC)[SouthWriter]

Also, why is Pakistan spared? it was more outwardly a US ally, than India was a Soviet one. And I believe Khalistan should be the next state reabsorbed by India, due to the fact that Sikhs are not a majority in Punjab, and the people there certainly would not have supported a country with a state religion based on a minority there. 99.228.185.184 17:59, May 1, 2011 (UTC) Batmanary

Most people in India, even assuming that they still received the materials needed to produce goods, couldn't afford any of them. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, India was severely troubled by massive amounts of corruption, and what proved, otl, to be a very high point in massive protests and domestic rebel activity.

All of the break-away nations had rebels groups of one persuasion or another, as did a fair-sized area of UIP territory. When you factor in the economic chaos after Doomsday and a halt to foreign aid and food, at least for a year or two, the otl protests just get worse, and worse. More likely than not, the assassination of the PM still happens, and from there, things go downhill, eventually leading to this situation. It's perfectly possible.

Pakistan, when in some ways an ally of the US, was far from one. They didn't really need the US, and like things show today, won't go out of their way to help them. No need to hit them, as they aren't a US ally, nor do they have any chance of harming the USSR, or aiding the US. In any war they'd have been neutral, and without being on an invasion path like Yugoslavia and Austria, the Soviets wouldn't have touched them.

Actually, in the Punjab Sikhs are the majority, consisting of somewhere between 60-66% of the population. And they are supported by Pakistan, which the UIP is nowhere near ready to fight. They won't be the next one, at all - the last one, maybe, if ever.

That is ignoring as well that the UIP has been more or less blackmailed by the SAC to stop its "imperialism" on the sub-continent, with the threat of a loss of goods, supplies, and other such things being cut off by them if they continue.

Lordganon 19:06, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

How is it imperialism when all the UIP is trying to do is recover their lost territory? After all, then wouldn't Venezuela be imperialistic, especially after they seized the Guyana Esquiba territory by force? It just shows that the SAC are a bunch of hypocritical bullies.

Yank 19:12, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

In the minds of Venezuelans, that is their territory, and always has been so, just under foreign occupation, so its fine by the SAC, though they can only complain in retrospect. India, however, became full of "independent states," which to them is imperialism. Lordganon

No offence LG, but I am an Indian (living in Scotland, mind). Punjabis still make up a large amount of the Indian millitary. My mum told me (when I asked her) that India was less corrupt than its present government is. I know all this as I watch Indian news channels. A little bit of protesting, ok. But states breaking away and becoming independent is just out of the question. India could easily mount enough millitary superiority to capture Pakistan, Bangladesh and the rest of South East Asia without China on the scene as it was wiped out, more or less. This is not present day but in 1983. If anything else you don't want to consider, just change the name. In India, we don't call ourselves Indians but Bharathis or Hindustanis. Therefore the new names I would suggest would be Bharat and Hindustan. 86.153.249.120 19:48, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

After looking at the map, I would ask you to incoperate Bangladesh into India as you have written yourself that many bangladeshi came into India. Also, Indian millitary would nowhere near collaspe if the Soviet Union collapses. Indian millitary would have been strong enough to put down any rebellions in India. When the Sikhs had rebelled, not all of Punjab was behind them. Andhra Pradesh was never really wanting any type of independence. It was only a part which would be wanting any sort of Self government and that was only for a new states. The States of West India have always been rebellious as there is a maoist movement to date. Kasmir would have never been allowed to fall to Pakistani Hands. And one thing. How did Pakistan escape unscaved as they have always been more unstable than India, even in the 80s. Please consider all this. Thanks! ;) 86.153.249.120 20:45, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

You completely fail to understand anything, or even read most of what has been written. We are talking about the India of the early to mid 1980s, not the present. And back then, it was corrupt. Extremely Corrupt.

There was almost a civil war otl after the assassination. Here, as I already stated, food and outside exports/imports are largely cut off. India survives because of this, and has for a long time. However, with this cut off, it leading to a civil war is VERY likely. Seriously, have you actually read anything about India at this time?

As was already stated, each and every one of these "states" has a long-standing rebel group. With the army fighting itself, them taking control is not only possible, but extremely likely.

I suggest you actually take the time to look at the history before accusing me of writing any of this. The only thing I have done is the map, though you fail to grasp that concept.

Pakistan was more stable at the time. No Muslim militants, or anything. I really cannot fathom how you could even think otherwise is true. And Pakistan and India are pretty evenly matched, though again, you fail to have looked into that at all, so how would you know that?

Punjab going the way here is logical. With India in chaos, and the military fighting itself, there is absolutely nothing that they can do against Pakistan when they move in Kashmir. The Punjab rebels, among the strongest in India, can easily gain their independence, especially with help from Pakistan.

You don't even have the area of India right. It's EAST India, not West.

So yes. All of this is logical. And you, anon, are ignorant.

Lordganon 05:22, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

And as for Bangladesh, it would go through the same situation as India itself. Furthermore, there is a long-standing article on the situation there, as well as documentation for said chaos. Seriously. Lordganon 05:28, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

I need to tell you that the Sikhs, however powerfully they rebelled, would not be able to gain independence as in every sikh family for every 1 or 2 children, there will be a hindu. I would be able to accept the east of India breaking away. In the last paragraph, I meant the EAST has always been rebelling with their maoist movement. Sorry for that. I had just realised that the Prime Minister you are talking about would be Indra Ghandhi. She didn't really have much popularity and in OTL she was assisnated by her Sikh bodyguard. So that would still probably happen. India would still have a new Prime Minister in the form of Rajiv Ghandhi, her son, however. He WAS a powerful leader. Why would he let Tamil Nadu break away form India? Many states of the east gaining Independence, ok. Khalistan gaining independence debateable. Tamil Nadu gaining Independence, implosible. Why would they want Independence. I also suggest, please change the name: no indian would want a name like that. 86.153.249.120 11:11, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

While the mainstream had dropped the idea by 1983, there was in fact a very vocal support for independence in Tamil Nadu, which you obviously did not look into at all. And, they dropped those demands in light of India becoming a federal state in the 1960s, while stating that almost none of the issues they had had earlier had actually been solved. There were also rebels agitating for this at the time of Doomsday, who, in the situation of post-Doomsday India, would have found a receptive audience. Thus, very possible.

Sikhs are about 60% of the population of the Indian state of Punjab. A definite majority, as I told others before, but you failed to read. Thus, especially given Sikh martial traditions, rebel activity, and Pakistan support, not only is it possible, but likely.

You assume that he'd be in a position to do so, which is quite probably not so true. A coup, followed by Civil War. There is no state for him to succeed to, though more than likely he is very dead. Have you even read any of the history, at all? And you only just realized that it was Indra Gandhi being discussed? Really? Despite it being all over this page?

The name? This is a general article on India. Thus, why it is called India. Seriously.

And, don't ever edit the article like that again. It proves near-complete ignorance, as this is the India article, not the UIP article.

Lordganon 13:12, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

You might just be right about all of this, I might as well admit. One thing though, after all of the states broke away (1983-1987 max.), would it really take 20 years to stabilize India and then for them to go on their conquering spree? couldn't it be done 5 years earlier? maybe in the OTL India might not be so powerful, but wouldn't it have enough men to launch multiple offensives? In the east, as far as I knew it, they all really had the same goal, so could states like zozam, manipur, tripura etc unite as they all really had the same goals. 86.153.249.120 19:57, July 17, 2011 (UTC)

Well, for starters, most of the army, and its equipment, would have been destroyed in the fighting.

That being said, the UIP is only recently united in any real form. Prior to 2009, it was more so a loose federation of states allied together that emerged from the chaos of the fighting. And this grouping only emerged in the 1990s at earliest, more likely around 2005 or so.

Their equipment has been so damaged, and the like, that the only real reason they could launch the offensive was that they had gotten ANZC backing.

They also cannot press the members too hard, or they may just leave. A couple of the now-breakaway states already have done so in this manner, though that will not last.

Simply put, they may have the men overall, but they lack equipment, unity, and stability. And now with SAC pressure, and Pakistan bristling.... more is doubtful for quite some time.

As for the Eastern states, in theory the goals may be the same, but they aren't in reality. All want independence from India, being the primary goal of all such movements. Why would they trade that for being in another near-identical situation? They wouldn't. While all these groups in the east - or at least most of them - are socialists or the like too, even that wouldn't get them to unite.

Lordganon 06:11, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

So would it be that around 2014-15, the breakaway states to the south might collapse and then most of them might join india? As well as that you seen to hint that war might be coming to the region which is pretty possible. However, even though Khalistan might be pakistani funded, it would prossibly act as a buffer zone because if they got independence from india, they would not want to join pakistan if they invaded. U say india is kind of allied states together forming the uip so would it be something like the new union ussr, all kind of independent but united and if any of them wanted to leave, they just c/would? 217.43.63.102 19:05, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Noo, not again, my ip address has changed again!! :( 217.43.63.102 19:09, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

No worries, knew to had to be the same person as soon as I saw an anon posting on this page, lol. IP is from the same location, anyway.

Collapse is unlikely, and probably impossible. These states have had at least 20 years of independence by now, and are being sent large amounts of aid by the SAC. They'll have to be conquered.

No, Khalistan seized it - not given at all. The government there hates India. Any attack on them will bring in Pakistan, and an attack on Pakistan will no doubt involve Khalistan, which is effectively their ally by this point. Think about it this way: If Pakistan falls, Khalistan is toast - and if Khalistan falls, Pakistan is next.

The New Union USSR would be a good comparison, so long as it is remembered that there's no real national identity, as of yet. And yes, all the states seem to be able to leave as well.

War is indeed coming to the Indian sub-continent. Just a question of when.

Lordganon 20:04, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Cant call me anon anymore, I got a user name. :D. Just wanted to ask weather India would be able to survive an attack by Pakistan or any of the breakaway states. Ta!! :) Imperium Guy 13:49, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

The breakaway states aren't strong enough to do any sort of attack on their own, even if they all did it at once.

Pakistan.... debatable. The UIP would probably survive - heck, such an event is probably going to make them more unified, lol. But I can't say for sure.

Lordganon 19:11, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for that! :) Imperium Guy 19:56, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

Tamil Nadu
... Seeing as there are no pages on several of the breakaway pages, I'd like to make one on Tamil Nadu. Would I have to ask here, not at all, or where...? GunsnadGlory 19:29, January 27, 2012 (UTC)