Could Myanmar join India?

[Pangurstan]

If we assume that India manages to fix its internal struggles and Myanmar returns to a democratic government, how possible would it be for them to become a single state? Obviously they were chained together against their will under the Raj but is there any willingness for the two countries to rejoin? Would the Burmese be able to fit in with India's already diverse population or are they just too different from the cultures that exist in India? And if they did unite in a fairly optimistic future how would the union affect further politics in South Asia going forward?

yes
source: hoi4

[HISPIDA]

unironically more likely for pakistan to join india tbh

[Valentine Z]

On second thought, we could totally unite the whole of Asia under one banner.

Let's call it Southeast Asia, or ASEAN. ASEAN + India.

Such a thing would cause a catastrophe inverse of what happened after WW2 in India and Pakistan, I suggest you research about that and what happens when you have a mix of heavily one-sided religious countries together with an already non-acceptant anti-muslim "president" in India.

The joke is truly lost on some people... Or went over their head like a satellite in the stratosphere.

And for info, I'm Burmese, so... Yeah. I didn't think I would need a /s with regards to SEA and ASEAN and India but alas.

[New Ropakstadt]

Could it? Yes.
Will it? Most likely not.

There just isn't a reason, really. There cultures are vastly different, and they haven't been associated with each other all that much in history. If they were to join, some major event would have to occur to spark some change.

[Somurias]

Why would Myanmar join India anyways? There's many differences between those 2 countries, mainly is culture, language, and history

[Bistritza]

because india and pakistan have both been
very successful experiments
with the already existing groups, in creating a south-asian ethno-empire.lesvemealoneBBCODe ANSWER IS NO Freedom for Bamar leavit alone Dios Mio..

[New Ropakstadt]

After skimming through the Wikipedia article on Myanmar-India relations, they don't even seem all that allied. Besides attempts for India to become friends with Myanmar to combat Chinese influence, and security aid and disaster relief, their relations seem only slightly above average.

[Risottia]

If we are gonna unite India with ASEAN, don’t forget, little Bangladesh is squished, so it’s just completely absurd that Burma would unite with India, I’m not native to Burma, but maybe if they get their things together would they even remotely consider it.

I'm told the Windsors have some royals they can spare. A foreign-born sovereign would solve all potential strife for the Head of State.

?

How about him? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_An ... ke_of_York
Or him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Ed ... _of_Wessex
Or even him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Ha ... _of_Sussex

Plenty of them. Just pick one and unite the various ethnicities in the common hatred for a furriner!

[Lemsrow]

If we are gonna unite India with ASEAN, don’t forget, little Bangladesh is squished, so it’s just completely absurd that Burma would unite with India, I’m not native to Burma, but maybe if they get their things together would they even remotely consider it.



?

How about him? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_An ... ke_of_York
Or him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Ed ... _of_Wessex
Or even him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Ha ... _of_Sussex

Plenty of them. Just pick one and unite the various ethnicities in the common hatred for a furriner!

As in to unite aforementioned nations? Or my nation?

[Pre-Christian Persecuted People]

Myanmar is predominantly Buddhist, India is secular with preferences given to minorities. It will not be possible unless India ceases to remain secular and socialist.

Burma was part of the whole British empire before it was cut off to govern separately.

India is less socialist than the United States lol. It is in no way socialist, much less secular.

It is constitutionally socialist and secular. Please read India’s constitution.

[Pre-Christian Persecuted People]

Myanmar is predominantly Buddhist, India is secular with preferences given to minorities. It will not be possible unless India ceases to remain secular and socialist.

Burma was part of the whole British empire before it was cut off to govern separately.

India is barely secular, definitely does not favor minorities, and certainly isn't Socialist. Never mind that there is zero support for the purely hypothetical union of India and Myanmar in either country. Like what kind of nonsense is this lmfao.

Please read the constitution of India. It is both secular and socialist.

[Pre-Christian Persecuted People]

Constitution of India:

WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:

JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;

EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity of the Nation;

IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forty-s ... n_of_India

[Pasong Tirad]

Probably more likely some northeastern Indian states break off and join Myanmar (or remain independent) - and that is already fairly unlikely.

These "What if X became independent?" or "What if Y joined Z?" should all come with sources showing what the people of the region think about this.

[Pasong Tirad]

India is barely secular, definitely does not favor minorities, and certainly isn't Socialist. Never mind that there is zero support for the purely hypothetical union of India and Myanmar in either country. Like what kind of nonsense is this lmfao.

Please read the constitution of India. It is both secular and socialist.

Oh well if its constitution says so

[HISPIDA]

India is less socialist than the United States lol. It is in no way socialist, much less secular.

It is constitutionally socialist and secular. Please read India’s constitution.

well, damn. i guess the nazis were commies.

[New Galactic States]

Well, now I feel bad for Bangladesh

In fact I’d this REALLY happened, I feel like Bangladesh Should be included

[Old Tyrannia]

NationStates General has a strange obsession with smashing countries together and splitting them apart. Make your fanciful alternate history maps all you like, but don't expect any of them to become reality. I would like to see the Konbaung dynasty restored in Burma, but that seems only somewhat more likely.

[Ifreann]

NationStates General has a strange obsession with smashing countries together and splitting them apart. Make your fanciful alternate history maps all you like, but don't expect any of them to become reality. I would like to see the Konbaung dynasty restored in Burma, but that seems only somewhat more likely.

It's a disease spread through Paradox grand strategy games. Can be very difficult to shake.

[Kubra]

Why would they merge in the first place?

The gift of Hindu civilization?

Ok how about a better reason

[Meadowfields]

India is less socialist than the United States lol. It is in no way socialist, much less secular.

It is constitutionally socialist and secular. Please read India’s constitution.

Oh great, apparently the Nazis were commies too. If you declare a country as "socialist", that doesn't mean it's socialist. Maybe I was wrong about laicite/secularism (which is based and won't stop Myanmar from merging with India), but if India is socialist than Portugal and China are also socialist because "BeCAUse it SAyS it In thE ConStitUtioN!!!!" India's economy does not have even a hit of nationalization or mass unionization, screw it, the ruling party is Bharatiya Janata, a Hindutva (Hindu nationalism/theocracy lol), right-wing populist, and national conservative party, which is nothing related to socialism. Tbh India is not really secular either as religion plays a large role in politics and the Bharatiya Janata Party is a Hindu nationalist party. To my standards, if a country is ruled by not just a religious democratic party (like the German CDU/CSU which was still kinda secular) but a religious NATIONALIST party, it is no longer secular.

[Kubra]

It is constitutionally socialist and secular. Please read India’s constitution.

Oh great, apparently the Nazis were commies too. If you declare a country as "socialist", that doesn't mean it's socialist. Maybe I was wrong about laicite/secularism (which is based and won't stop Myanmar from merging with India), but if India is socialist than Portugal and China are also socialist because "BeCAUse it SAyS it In thE ConStitUtioN!!!!" India's economy does not have even a hit of nationalization or mass unionization, screw it, the ruling party is Bhartiya Janata, a Hindutva (Hindu conservatism lol), right-wing populist, and national conservative party, which is nothing related to socialism. Tbh India is not really secular either as religion plays a large role in politics and the Bhartiya Janata Party is mainly a Hindu party.

Weeeeeeell the trick with India is when socialism was put in the constitution they really did go for "socialism", at least as it was understood at the time. You know, five year plans, an extensive system of state-owned enterprises, importing soviet economists and their analytical frameworks, that sort of thing.

[Meadowfields]

Oh great, apparently the Nazis were commies too. If you declare a country as "socialist", that doesn't mean it's socialist. Maybe I was wrong about laicite/secularism (which is based and won't stop Myanmar from merging with India), but if India is socialist than Portugal and China are also socialist because "BeCAUse it SAyS it In thE ConStitUtioN!!!!" India's economy does not have even a hit of nationalization or mass unionization, screw it, the ruling party is Bhartiya Janata, a Hindutva (Hindu conservatism lol), right-wing populist, and national conservative party, which is nothing related to socialism. Tbh India is not really secular either as religion plays a large role in politics and the Bhartiya Janata Party is mainly a Hindu party.

Weeeeeeell the trick with India is when socialism was put in the constitution they really did go for "socialism", at least as it was understood at the time. You know, five year plans, an extensive system of state-owned enterprises, importing soviet economists and their analytical frameworks, that sort of thing.

I know, but right now, India isn't socialist at all. I also see that you're kinda a leftist too.

[Archinstinct]

Better to join the People’s Republic of China.

Well if we're entering going full throttle into the land of dumb suggestions then Burma should unite with Laos and Cambodia.

You're not thinking big enough. Try more extreme.

Turkey joins with Greece, Cyprus, and Khazakstan.

[Meadowfields]

Well if we're entering going full throttle into the land of dumb suggestions then Burma should unite with Laos and Cambodia.

You're not thinking big enough. Try more extreme.

Turkey joins with Greece, Cyprus, and Khazakstan.

Nononono even better, Turkey joins with Armenia! Also, Kazakhstan would be an extreme exclave.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

If we assume that India manages to fix its internal struggles and Myanmar returns to a democratic government, how possible would it be for them to become a single state? Obviously they were chained together against their will under the Raj but is there any willingness for the two countries to rejoin? Would the Burmese be able to fit in with India's already diverse population or are they just too different from the cultures that exist in India? And if they did unite in a fairly optimistic future how would the union affect further politics in South Asia going forward?

yes
source: hoi4