Stronger India?
- Thread starter allegro6
- Start date
Riain
Banned
I think India is doing OK, it's isn't getting ahead of itself and trying to muscle up too soon. I think domestically they have been trying for decades to lift the general level of economic development rather than fostering part of their country to become rich while the rest wallows in abject poverty.
In the military sphere it has been an operator of top line military hardware since the 70s, when China was wallowing around with Mig19 clone day fighters and 'people's war' doctrine. Recently it has decided to buy 126 Rafale with annn option for 64 more, which will put India right in the regional power hot seat.
In the military sphere it has been an operator of top line military hardware since the 70s, when China was wallowing around with Mig19 clone day fighters and 'people's war' doctrine. Recently it has decided to buy 126 Rafale with annn option for 64 more, which will put India right in the regional power hot seat.
BlondieBC
Banned
Indian is doing well, a rising power. If they don't make a big mistake, they could easily be the 3 or 4th strongest country in the world within 50 years.
If you want a POD to make India stronger, prevent the Hindu/Muslim split. Maybe dominion status for more support in WW1. Or something to prevent the split in the interwar years in the Indian National Congress.
You could also look at Burma not being split off India.
If you want a POD to make India stronger, prevent the Hindu/Muslim split. Maybe dominion status for more support in WW1. Or something to prevent the split in the interwar years in the Indian National Congress.
You could also look at Burma not being split off India.
"In 1950the per capita income of India was around 40per cent
greater than that of China; by 1978they were roughly on a par. By 1999, how-ever, China’s was not far short of being twice that of India’s."
When China Rules the World
And China will more and more become the hegemon of SE Asia. China is building navel vessel and strengthen its ties with countries like Myanmarh, Iran and China is one of the largest trading partners of Australia and all ASEAN Nations.
Hasn't India's performance been ,in comparison to china's, much worse?
greater than that of China; by 1978they were roughly on a par. By 1999, how-ever, China’s was not far short of being twice that of India’s."
When China Rules the World
And China will more and more become the hegemon of SE Asia. China is building navel vessel and strengthen its ties with countries like Myanmarh, Iran and China is one of the largest trading partners of Australia and all ASEAN Nations.
Hasn't India's performance been ,in comparison to china's, much worse?
Riain
Banned
China's economic development has been very uneven, with the coastal provinces leaping away from the hinterland, and has come at the cost of political dangers which have been likened to riding a tiger, if the ride stops then the tiger will turn around and kill the rider. I think India is far more stable politically than China in the event of a downturn in economic growth, so while China is wealthier than India it is more brittle.
Pangur
Donor
Not so sure about that. India is a mass on contradictions. A smallish middle class and huge under class that's in dire poverty.
You have corruption beyond belief which is one reason that will hold them back. You also have the issue of language - there is no real national language. The only languages that two Indians from say north and south Indian states will have in common would be either English or Hindu.
Flocculencio
Donor
Hindi, not Hindu.
And China has the same issues- Mandarin is basically being imposed on all the other Chinese dialect groups.
China's economic development really only dates from the 80s- they accomplished this much because the Chinese government can do what it does regardless of what the people on the ground want. Of course India, being a democracy, will lag behind. However, in the two decades since it liberalised its economy India has made massive progress.
BlondieBC
Banned
Well, it should make them stronger. Just add the Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma, and India military budgets. Then they can focus on China as their main rival. And if we make India stronger early enough, it might have enough weight to keep China out of Tibet. With a neutral Tibet perhaps a client state, India has a much better strategic situation. It has a nice desert/mountain border with Iran. Afghanistan with Russia. Tibet give a neutral buffer for about half its China border. The Burma/Chinese border is pretty rough terrain.
And if we are going to dream, a better economic policy gives it a bigger economy than China.
Note: Provided the new Greater India is governable and does not fall into some civil war.
An unpartitioned India would be a powerful force in South Asia. Economically, you'd be seeing a lot more support from both the Soviet Union and the United States to prevent it from joining the other, while militarily, it would already be a power.
Maybe the larger external aid could lead to an India stronger than China within the context of today. Butterflies could, in effect, rub out China's economic reforms and effectively make India a much more important force in Asia.
Maybe the larger external aid could lead to an India stronger than China within the context of today. Butterflies could, in effect, rub out China's economic reforms and effectively make India a much more important force in Asia.
Had India became independent twenty to twenty five years earlier, partition wouldn't have taken place. The communal relations became bad after the middle of the thirties and the World War period made the situation much worse. If there was no partition the united country would have been much more prosperous and powerful than the sum of the parts ie. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and perhaps Myanmar and SriLanka too. But I think Myanmar should not be joined with India as they have different ethnic characteristics. The North East Indian states like Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram also could have been included in Myanmar due to same reason.
If an undivided India was more on the side of the West during the Cold War perhaps the outsourcing boom could have gone more to them than our old enemy RED CHINA.
They could have had that growth. Or at least some of it.
They could have had that growth. Or at least some of it.
Keep India from dabbling on socialism, thus starting the rising Indian economy decades earlier, and have them ally with the West as opposed to the Non-Aligned movement/leaning Warsaw Pact. This would likely lead to a lot of the industry that OTL went to China instead going to India.
A united India would essentially be on the side of the West, because more of the Anglophile elite would be in their ranks. The British deliberately kept close contact with Pakistan to fulfill this role of a bulwark against communism...so if they broadened their horizons, aka screw Churchill, it could work quite successfully.
I don't know whether a non-divided India would make for a stronger India as everyone is inclined to believe. Sure India would beat China population wise and with Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Kashmir, and Burma it would add to India's natural resources and workforce.
But here are some set backs of having a non-partitioned India:
1. India already has problems now dealing with the biggest democracy in the world and these countries would add another 400 million people
2. India would now have a huge Muslim minority and a significant Buddhist minority. You can argue that the British exacerbated these religious tensions during their rule but since the Mughal Empire was established Hindus and Muslims are always going to be at each others throats. Mix in the Buddhists who are going to feel marginalized even further and you got a big mess of a religious problem.
3. India's economy would see a bigger amount of it's people unemployed than it has now with an addition of people, 8% unemployed in the US would be amplified by at least 5 in this united India. That means there is going to be a lot more people at unease and more chance of revolts.
But here are some set backs of having a non-partitioned India:
1. India already has problems now dealing with the biggest democracy in the world and these countries would add another 400 million people
2. India would now have a huge Muslim minority and a significant Buddhist minority. You can argue that the British exacerbated these religious tensions during their rule but since the Mughal Empire was established Hindus and Muslims are always going to be at each others throats. Mix in the Buddhists who are going to feel marginalized even further and you got a big mess of a religious problem.
3. India's economy would see a bigger amount of it's people unemployed than it has now with an addition of people, 8% unemployed in the US would be amplified by at least 5 in this united India. That means there is going to be a lot more people at unease and more chance of revolts.
One way would be for someone from the right wing of the INC becoming PM instead of Nehru after independance - therefore avoiding the many years of fabian socialism inspired economic policies that left India dragging its feet.
Maybe Morarji Desai.
Maybe Morarji Desai.
1. Sure India will have problems with the population, but it will have a good economic outlook without the dabbling of socialism.
2.India would have a huge Muslim minority. There isn't going to be much tension because of that. And no, it hasn't been like that since the Mughal Empire, as one who has read tons on the Mughal Empire and the history of India thereafter. The basis and framework for an undivided India was already set up. It isn't like it's released unprepared.
3. We're looking at this from a 1930s at least POD....a LOT can change.
Motilal Nehru, or even Jinnah from his earlier days would fit quite well.
Flocculencio
Donor
Yup
One way to do it is to reduce Gandhi's role, or at least make him a bit less vocal. His moral leadership was excellent but his idiotic pronouncements about agrarian village economies ideologically crippled Congress to an extent. Also, sideline Nehru- his idealism will come in handy when drafting the Constitution and certainly he'll be a prominent statesman but someone a bit less economically idealistic like Desai, a non-disillusioned Jinnah or (as a Malayalee I feel obliged to give a Malayaalee candidate) VK Krishna Menon would be better as actual PM.
1. India certainly has a good economic outlook with what is going to be the biggest workforce in the world if all goes well in a United India starting from a date like the 1920's or 1930's. Yes, India will be stronger if it doesn't get itself into wars. But the key in making India a great power-I know this is about getting India stronger but bare with me- and sustainable they must keep their population below 700 million at least. Overpopulation is going to use up resources at a staggering pace and this leads to widespread hunger and instability. India has to make contraception and family advice an affordable product before the Green Revolution that will increase crop production around the world. It is nearly impossible in any TL to have India create a silver bullet in technology that will magically feed all of it's one billion people and create enough resources to meet demand for the giant middle class and upper class.
2. I'll agree with you there
3. Yes a lot can change. India will be right next to Iran, are they going to save the Phavlavi Dynasty or not? Unless they free Tibet and let Burma go, they will share a bigger border with a China, how will things go if China is communist or nationalist by that time? And Afghanistan, the nation that has been unstable since at least the Great Game era, what will India do about that?