DBWI: What if there is a democratic India?

[King Helü of Wu]

It's been almost seven decades since Chandra Bose's Indian National Army conquered India with the help of the Japanese and started, after the war, what we call the "Indian Meiji Restoration" and the Hindu dictatorship.

Had this not taken place, and India was able to transit peacefully from a British colony to a democratic federal government (albeit a big what if), what could happen to India? And the impact on the whole world?

As for China.
Had the Indian-Japanese force failed to take India, the Brits and the Americans might be able to continue their aid to China through Burma and the Himalayas, and the Soviets might not need to resume aiding The Chinese Nationalist Government (KMT). This might turn out a good news for China, as it did not need to hand Sinkiang, Inner Mongolia and especially Manchuria (which became a hellhole under the Great Leader Mao Tse Tung) to the soviets. And the anti-Soviet, anti-KMT democratic revolution might not break out...

[Maxwell Edison II]

It'd probably outclass China economically and be at least as active as the US when it came to pursuing the interests of democracy.

Perhaps a different outcome of the SEA wars (viet nam, laos, cambodia) would be the result.

[King Helü of Wu]

Originally Posted by Maxwell Edison II

It'd probably outclass China economically and be at least as active as the US when it came to pursuing the interests of democracy.

Perhaps a different outcome of the SEA wars (viet nam, laos, cambodia) would be the result.

Probably the SEA war would not take place at all.

You may call me anti-Indian, but it's India's expansionist policies to her eastern neighbours that caused Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia to support guerrillas in Burma and Thailand. To this day, the Indians refuse to call the region South East Asia, but The Indianised Region.

[tonsofun]

With so many cultures in India it is hard to imagine such a country would survive as a democracy. At least not without some massive decentralization and we all know how well that works with countries as big as India.
If India became democratic, seperatists would start demanding their own states.
You also need to consider the problem of wealth distribution and the caste system which is brutally kept in place. Without the Hindu Dictatorship, there would be communists spring up all over the place.

[d32123]

Any "democracy" in India would be incredibly corrupt. Either that or they'd elect some anti-West communist or something stupid like that. There's a reason why poor countries can't have functioning democracies. Even China, democratic as it is, is hopelessly corrupt. I doubt India would fair any better.

[Xgentis]

Originally Posted by Maxwell Edison II

It'd probably outclass China economically and be at least as active as the US when it came to pursuing the interests of democracy.

Is this a joke? Since when democracy is synonymous with economic prosperity? And the US is only interested pursuing it's own interest, we can't say that the many dictatorship the US support is in the interest of democracy.

[CaliBoy1990]

Originally Posted by King Helü of Wu

It's been almost seven decades since Chandra Bose's Indian National Army conquered India with the help of the Japanese and started, after the war, what we call the "Indian Meiji Restoration" and the Hindu dictatorship.

Had this not taken place, and India was able to transit peacefully from a British colony to a democratic federal government (albeit a big what if), what could happen to India? And the impact on the whole world?

As for China.
Had the Indian-Japanese force failed to take India, the Brits and the Americans might be able to continue their aid to China through Burma and the Himalayas, and the Soviets might not need to resume aiding The Chinese Nationalist Government (KMT). This might turn out a good news for China, as it did not need to hand Sinkiang, Inner Mongolia and especially Manchuria (which became a hellhole under the Great Leader Mao Tse Tung) to the soviets. And the anti-Soviet, anti-KMT democratic revolution might not break out...

If that were to happen, I don't think India would have suffered it's devastating Civil War(1987-1991), that saw the country of a billion people get broken apart, and 80 million deaths.

As for China? Manchuria was indeed pretty screwed up under Mao, but at least when he died in March 1971, the old regime went with him, and it's a much better place today.....the rest of old China, though, was itself a dictatorial shithole for many years under the "Iron Dragon" regime from 1955-78, albeit just a pro-American one, instead of pro-Soviet, like Manchuria was. The "Iron Dragon" regime, btw, was responsible for the execution of over 8 million dissidents and indirectly so for as many as 65 million more.
Things aren't as bad as they once were, but China is still nowhere near truly democratic, and may not be for some time, especially not after the Second Civil War started in 1988(it ended in 1990, but still....), and the Great Economic Collapse(1994-2002). That would explain why Cheng Lee's been in power for the past 20 years, I suspect........

[yourworstnightmare]

Nooo. need not throwing banana. India need no democracy!

OOC:

[Strategos' Risk]

OOC: Could Nationalist China in this scenario be engaged in a Cold War against both Maoist Manchuria and Hindutva Hindustan/Bharat/India a la this post of mine?

[King Helü of Wu]

Originally Posted by tonsofun

You also need to consider the problem of wealth distribution and the caste system which is brutally kept in place. Without the Hindu Dictatorship, there would be communists spring up all over the place.

Yes, in the end Caste System indeed became true, but it was not intended. Keep in mind that Chandra Bose was a reform minded Hindu, who wants to advocate a more enlightened version of Hinduism, with old practices like the caste system not formally abolished, but to fade in their influences.

You may argue otherwise by emphasizing on his edict forbidding the use of the word "Dalit" (oppressed) to address the untouchables in favour of "harijan"(sons of God). But this was not because Bose wanted to keep those people as downcast forever, but to try to limit things within the spectrum of Hinduism without splitting it.

As for why Bose called himself the "Hindu Warrior", the reason was the same as why Ataturk used the title "Gazi": if anyone goes against your religions reforms in the name of God, you can simply argue back that "What did you do for God, poor reactionaries? I fought for him".

In short, all he wanted to do was to was to transform India into a modern democratic society, with his Hindu dictatorship as a unifying factor and a mean to this end.

Of course this failed due to the stupidity of Bose's successors. But had Bose's policies continue, the influence of caste system would have dwindled and rendered irrelevant.

Originally Posted by CaliBoy1990

If that were to happen, I don't think India would have suffered it's devastating Civil War(1987-1991), that saw the country of a billion people get broken apart, and 80 million deaths.

As for China? Manchuria was indeed pretty screwed up under Mao, but at least when he died in March 1971, the old regime went with him, and it's a much better place today.....the rest of old China, though, was itself a dictatorial shithole for many years under the "Iron Dragon" regime from 1955-78, albeit just a pro-American one, instead of pro-Soviet, like Manchuria was. The "Iron Dragon" regime, btw, was responsible for the execution of over 8 million dissidents and indirectly so for as many as 65 million more.
Things aren't as bad as they once were, but China is still nowhere near truly democratic, and may not be for some time, especially not after the Second Civil War started in 1988(it ended in 1990, but still....), and the Great Economic Collapse(1994-2002). That would explain why Cheng Lee's been in power for the past 20 years, I suspect........

But at least the pro-American dictatorship initiated market reforms, which saved the country from KMT era stagnation. You may argue that the Dragons are the same batch of people as the KMT, but they somehow became much more efficient under the military. Given the killings, it was miraculous that so many activists who toppled the KMT in 1956, headed a democracy for one year, and was ousted by the Dragons in 1958 actually come back to lead the country after 1990. (ooc think SKorea, with its Rhee-Democracy-Park-Democracy timeline)

As for India, its a classic case of economic failure leading to social failure, which in turn leads to war.

Originally Posted by d32123

Any "democracy" in India would be incredibly corrupt. Either that or they'd elect some anti-West communist or something stupid like that. There's a reason why poor countries can't have functioning democracies. Even China, democratic as it is, is hopelessly corrupt. I doubt India would fair any better.

Well, China's growth slows down after democratization, which make people less tolerant to corruption. It's not that the country suddenly become more corrupt under democracy.

Originally Posted by Strategos' Risk

OOC: Could Nationalist China in this scenario be engaged in a Cold War against both Maoist Manchuria and Hindutva Hindustan/Bharat/India a la this post of mine?

OOC: If only KMT China become strong and relatively wealthy. No ideology can find followers if they cannot dramatically improve their country of origin. Even the KMT was not willing to help the Vietnamese Nationalist Party iotl when they were occupying north Viet Nam due to its unpopularity. I blame this unpopularity to the KMT ideology's lack of appeal.
And since this scenario features KMT losing land in WWII and stagnating post war, it is impossible for its ideology to convince anyone.

[Jet-Tak]

I bet a democratic India wouldn't last long. Just look at the diverse spread of cultures and ethnic groups in India. Give it a decade and India would break up into a morass of tiny, squabbling states. A bit like what Germany used to be like before her unification. The caste system doesn't help as well.

But yeah, probably no SEA war with a democratic India. In fact, I foresee that South east Asian nations like Vietnam or Cambodia would probably have been able to prosper in peace during the 60s and 70s. But of course, that never happened. The Indians blew the entire region to hell when they invaded Burma and later Thailand.

[yourworstnightmare]

How would a democratic India handle the Tibetan Crisis?

[King Helü of Wu]

Originally Posted by Jet-Tak

t yeah, probably no SEA war with a democratic India. In fact, I foresee that South east Asian nations like Vietnam or Cambodia would probably have been able to prosper in peace during the 60s and 70s. But of course, that never happened. The Indians blew the entire region to hell when they invaded Burma and later Thailand.

Burma was still under British Indian administration, so it was accepted when India invaded Burma. The region was only terrified when Thailand was invaded as well. Countries like Laos, Cambodia, and even Indonesia sent troops to fight the Indians. They saw India's true ambition: to subdue all nations under which has been previously under Indian cultural Influence.

Of course, India's nightmare was Vietnam. It was amazing that the country could overcome the difference between communism and right-wing nationalism, and fight together like one country. Despite aids from China, I would argue that Vietnam saved the region mostly on its own.

[King Helü of Wu]

Originally Posted by yourworstnightmare

How would a democratic India handle the Tibetan Crisis?

Look, India saw it as a shame when Tibet gained its independence in 1995, after a prolonged conflict which lasted for three decades. It's amazing that even at the most difficult moment of Indian Civil War, New Delhi did not withdraw a single soldier from Tibet. They could never have expected Tibet to gain her independence after the Dravidian Freedom Movement have been crushed.

A democratic Indian government would have responded very differently. They would have supported an independent Tibet as a buffer between India and China.

[King Helü of Wu]

Originally Posted by yourworstnightmare

How would a democratic India handle the Tibetan Crisis?

Look, India saw it as a shame when Tibet gained its independence in 1995, after a prolonged conflict which lasted for three decades. It's amazing that even at the most difficult moment of Indian Civil War, New Delhi did not withdraw a single soldier from Tibet. They could never have expected Tibet to gain her independence after the Dravidian Freedom Movement have been crushed.

A democratic Indian government would have responded very differently. They would have supported an independent Tibet as a buffer between India and China. (Although China's democratic ideals are still attractive to the Tibetans.)

[yourworstnightmare]

Originally Posted by King Helü of Wu

Burma was still under British Indian administration, so it was accepted when India invaded Burma. The region was only terrified when Thailand was invaded as well. Countries like Laos, Cambodia, and even Indonesia sent troops to fight the Indians. They saw India's true ambition: to subdue all nations under which has been previously under Indian cultural Influence.

Of course, India's nightmare was Vietnam. It was amazing that the country could overcome the difference between communism and right-wing nationalism, and fight together like one country. Despite aids from China, I would argue that Vietnam saved the region mostly on its own.

Well, the reason Vietnam was India's Waterloo was pretty much because the Dragon Coup in Vietnam the year before that installed a Chinese puppet regime with unlimited backing from China. To say Vietnam was completely unified would be a lie. Several Vietnamese Communists actually fought on the Indian side, since they had been ordered to fight against Western and Dragon Imperialism by the USSR.

[d32123]

Originally Posted by King Helü of Wu

Well, China's growth slows down after democratization, which make people less tolerant to corruption. It's not that the country suddenly become more corrupt under democracy.

No, there are just some people who are not culturally/racially ready for democracy. They need strong leaders to prevent them from slipping into their natural barbaric/anarchic state.

[jetpack]

I don't know as much about Indian history as most of the others on here, but when you think about it, it is really amazing that India is able to endure as a single country, because it is one of the most diverse countries in the world. India has many different ethnicities, large Christian and Muslim minorities. And if I'm not mistaken, Hinduism can be considered several different religions (please don't be offended if I'm wrong here). But the most striking think is the linguistic diversity. Hundreds of languages are indigenous to India, and 20-30 of them have over one million native speakers. There are tensions between the Hindi-speaking majority, the large Tamil-speaking population in the south, between urban languages and rural minority language communities where mostly everyone is illiterate, between the Muslim speakers of Persian-like languages in the west and the Hindus elsewhere. I think the only thing that kept India together was foreign imperialist rule and the dictatorship since then.

But even if India separates, we don't have to give up on the goals of the original post, because 4-30 countries on the continent could consist of democracies to varying degrees. You could even have the 200 million or so Hindi speakers form a democratic country that retains the name "India", and let dictatorships exist elsewhere on the subcontinent. To be realistic, these are the scenarios we should really be talking about.

OOC: I really am amazed that India can stay as one country.

[King Helü of Wu]

Originally Posted by yourworstnightmare

Well, the reason Vietnam was India's Waterloo was pretty much because the Dragon Coup in Vietnam the year before that installed a Chinese puppet regime with unlimited backing from China. To say Vietnam was completely unified would be a lie. Several Vietnamese Communists actually fought on the Indian side, since they had been ordered to fight against Western and Dragon Imperialism by the USSR.

The Chinese Dragons, like the Nazis, does not empower local Dragonists when they install puppet regimes in foreign countries. Instead, they tend to choose elements from existing bureaucracy. In Vietnam's case, most of the political figures from the former Viet Minh (incl. Vo Nguyen Giap) and french colonial government chose to cooperated with the Chinese, either actively or passively.

And people accepted this. Most Vietnamese understood that it's impossible for Vietnam to stay neutral in the clash of Titans. You have to choose a side. (Except for the communists, who were virtually Moscow stooges).

People keep calling Vietnam a Chinese vassal, ignoring the fact that they distanced themselves from China once the Dragon regime fell. From hindsight, it's obvious that they were using the Chinese for their own interests(Cambodia, Laos, weapons and aids ect.). They are, after all, Viets, cunning and pragmatic Viets.

[King Helü of Wu]

Originally Posted by jetpack

I don't know as much about Indian history as most of the others on here, but when you think about it, it is really amazing that India is able to endure as a single country, because it is one of the most diverse countries in the world. India has many different ethnicity, large Christian and Muslim minorities. And if I'm not mistaken, Hinduism can be considered several different religions (please don't be offended if I'm wrong here). But the most striking think is the linguistic diversity. Hundreds of languages are indigenous to India, and 20-30 of them have over one million native speakers. There are tensions between the Hindi-speaking majority, the large Tamil-speaking population in the south, between urban languages and rural minority language communities where mostly everyone is illiterate, between the Muslim speakers of Persian-like languages in the west and the Hindus elsewhere. I think the only thing that kept India together was foreign imperialist rule and the dictatorship since then.

But even if India separates, we don't have to give up on the goals of the original post, because 4-30 countries on the continent could consist of democracies to varying degrees. You could even have the 200 million or so Hindi speakers form a democratic country that retains the name "India", and let dictatorships exist elsewhere on the subcontinent. To be realistic, these are the scenarios we should really be talking about.

OOC: I really am amazed that India can stay as one country.

Well, the same could have been said of China, though to a smaller extent. Had the successive governments not banned the latinization of dialects, the provinces could have evolved into their own countries with their own diverse languages and cultures.

For a democratic India to survive, there has to be a National Language at least, just like Bahasa Indonesia for the Indonesians, which may be Sanskrit, English or Hindustani for India. But I doubt a democratic government can enforce that.

As for separated democratic "Indias", we might have to butterfly away the Mughals. Or, alternatively, we can have European powers carve out their share of India like they did to Africa. But European cartographers may draw straight lines on the map of India, ignoring genuine ethnic borderlines, and make post-independence India a breeding bed for ethnic conflicts.

As for Dravidian-Aryan lingual and cultural differences... Recently, after the crush their rebellion by New Delhi, the Tamil nationalists stopped advocating that Tamil Nadu is not a part of India. Instead they start to emphasize that they, the Dravidians, are the "real" Indians who created the Indus Valley civilization, while the Aryans are invaders from the north who has been assimilated by the great native Dravidian culture (there are also Tamil socialists who claim that the original Indian society was egalitarian, with the evil Aryan invaders introducing "foreign elements" like the caste system into Indian culture and corrupted it. ) Meanwhile, New Delhi sticks to the "Native Aryan" theory, and made up stories such as that the Aryans from India conquered Europe and brought civilization to them.

So both sides argue that they are the "real" Indians, doesn't this show that they have already accepted India as a country? (OOC: this is quite close to the OTL reality)