@ASB Sweet Mother of India-wank!
My biggest problem with that tack is that you've got progressive-minded politicians in the UK and India with ordoliberal economic development schemes doped out and adhered to thirty years before OTL independence all primed to avoid OTL economic problems preventing India from industrializing and contributing much more military muscle during WW2 and playing a much grander post-war role. IIRC India had a peasant economy geared around plantations and resource extraction.
Trying to do so from 1930 to WW2 would trigger a groundswell of political backlash that make the 1979 Iranian Revolution look tame mostly from culture shock. Miilions of displaced farmers and other people without modern skills getting crammed into slums bemoaning centuries-long traditions being made into cole slaw due to modernization to suit whom, exactly?
Any people can do anything well given time and work, but they need a good set-up, good feedback about what works and continuing to tinker and make things better, motivation, and a social consensus it's the best thing to do.
The OTL crew that made independence happen were excellent activists but not engineers, economists or businessmen that were savvy about what made modern economies work. Even if they were, they were outvoted by the political extremists. Plus, they knew they were in no position to rattle sabers with developed countries for a couple of decades.
Your scenario would make sense say in 1970 with a lot of economic development, no License Raj and boneheaded Fabianism that gummed up the works economically.
However, this more muscular India would have created a lot more resentment and suspicion if that were possible.
The LAST thing the UK wanted in the 1930's was Indians moving up the value-added manufacturing ladder as they didn't have enough to keep folks in Sheffield, Belfast, and so forth busy, and you want to make a titanic development scheme in India to create a formidable economic competitor during the Great Depression?!?



Politically it would've been suicidal in the 1930's to suggest such a thing with nationalism being the order of the day.
I personally like India, warts and all. I'd like it to have done even better than OTL.
If we're talking potential superpowers, Brazil always seem poised to do great things. The movement toward Mercosur from 1950 on could have had interesting economic and political knock-on effects, but that's only after attempts at fascism produced nothing but economic malaise and political strife. Getting South America to act as a common market, where folks could move back and forth as they wish, with Brazil, Colombia, Chile, and Venezuela being the principal actors, Argentina getting on board once it's clear Britain isn't going to invest in them like the Brazilians will. Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Paraguay might need some convincing or be on board from the start. Possible, but around 1980.