DBWI: China as a single-party Communist state, India as a democracy

In our timeline it is known that India is one of the fastest growing economies in the world, leaps and bounds ahead of the other regional powerhouse China who is only now managing to catch up. Some say the reason for this is that China's multi-party democracy slows down decision-making processes and hampers progress. Often the parties in parliament cannot agree which leads to political gridlock and stalemate.

Contrast this with the People's Republic of India. The ruling Communist Party of India has been in power, unchallenged for half a century. During this time India has been a major player on the world stage, being the third country to develop nuclear weapons after the Indo-Soviet Split. The PRI is seen by many in the west as the next superpower and the US' biggest rival. From crushing the Kashmir separatists to invading Pakistan and holding a monopoly over the Indian Ocean, India is not seen very favourably in the West.

This is why I'm asking what the world would be like if the roles were reversed, if China was under a single-party Communist state and India was a multi-party democracy. Would China be the bigger power of the two or would India still remain on top. What would happen to the Special Economic Autonomous Region of Goa?
 
India's 1.4 billion people (OOC: Pakistan and Bangladesh don't exist) speak dozens of differing languages, adhere to differing religions, and have the legacy of the caste system. Plus, the Party has to reconcile its credentials of expelling the British imperialists with the fact that pre-British imperialism, no such nation as "India" existed. Yes, officially India prohibits even discussing the caste system, but when 10 of the 25 Politburo members are Brahmins, you gotta wonder...

Many people believe this is why, for a communist country, the decision making process is very slow. Every Central Committee meeting involves plenty of haggling between differing factions which indirectly represent different segments of Indian society.

China's 1.4 billion people almost all feel attachment to a ancient Chinese nation, speak the same language, have little religious differences, and has nothing comparable to the caste system. So, while party politics in China can seem chaotic (the videos of their parliament fights make YouTube gold), once a consensus has been achieved, China is much more effective at implementing it than India is.

I'm sure that if China was a communist dictatorship and India a multiparty democracy, China would be much more able to accomplish things. Accomplish what, and whether it's good for the country, who knows.
 
It would probably be a less horrific timeline.
I've just started reading about Gandhi's violent "March of blood and salt". :(

It was that massacre of peaceful marchers (and particularly the death and matyrdom of Gandhi) by British soldiers, that caused the decline of Gandhian non-violence, and allowed radicals like Bhagat Singh and Subhas Chandra Bose to rise through the ranks of the INC, and merge it with various radical socialist and communist groups, bringing it into a Marxist-Leninist mold.
 
Yep, luckily Nehru's Great March Forward lasted only 14 months and only led to the deaths of 800,000 peasants before the Central Committee voted to toss him out. Can you imagine how many people would have died in a similar situation in China? :eek:
 
China's 1.4 billion people almost all feel attachment to a ancient Chinese nation, speak the same language, have little religious differences, and has nothing comparable to the caste system.
Well, the argument of "Chinese speaking the same language" would be true in the northern provinces. On the other hand, it's a very different story in the southern provinces of China.
 
It would probably be a less horrific timeline.
I've just started reading about Gandhi's violent "March of blood and salt". :(

I don't know if I agree. With the cold war going China served as good buffers between the communist Bloc and the United States, with those Buffers gone and a Communist Power on the doorstep of American Allies in the region that could have lead to some very nasty wars.

Meanwhile India couldn't really mess with any of their neighbors because they were either A. Already Communist or B. had strong enough support that it could've created a bloodbath for them. If the United States and this hypothetical Communist China get into a slapfight over say Thailand just as a Random example it could become a massive quagmire for both sides.
 
Have Chiang Kai-shek successfully gain leadership of the Kuomintang. From what I've read on the man, A China led by him would be corrupt and authoritarian, making fertile ground for communist revolution.
 
Well, the argument of "Chinese speaking the same language" would be true in the northern provinces. On the other hand, it's a very different story in the southern provinces of China.
The written language is the same. The spoken language is understandable to certain extents.

Either way it's a far cry from the difference between, say, Hindi and Tamil. They aren't just different languages. They're of different language families, as distinct as German and Swahili.

Have Chiang Kai-shek successfully gain leadership of the Kuomintang. From what I've read on the man, A China led by him would be corrupt and authoritarian, making fertile ground for communist revolution.
Uh, wasn't the Republic of China also corrupt and authoritarian IOTL, with frequent military coup attempts (thankfully all failed)? The post-WW2 KMT government was only as "democratic" as Mexico's PRI. Only after the Cold War ended, did the KMT's patronage machine erode to the point that China became a multiparty democracy. Of course, older Chinese pine for the good old days.
 
Who would be the Chinese equivalent of Chandra Bose and Bhagat Singh, though? Would his or her philosophy differ significantly from "Marxist-Leninist-Singhism"
 
Who would be the Chinese equivalent of Chandra Bose and Bhagat Singh, though? Would his or her philosophy differ significantly from "Marxist-Leninist-Singhism"

Difficult to say. During and before WWII there were some communist organizations that intended to take over but they never really got anywhere. Mostly due to infighting.


Additionally, What would happen to Tibet in this Timeline? If it still existed it could be a valuable western ally.
 
Difficult to say. During and before WWII there were some communist organizations that intended to take over but they never really got anywhere. Mostly due to infighting.


Additionally, What would happen to Tibet in this Timeline? If it still existed it could be a valuable western ally.

I suppose there is the original "Communist Party of China". Not the current party of that name or the other communist party in China, just the original that splintered after WWII. Apparently, a fellow named Mao Tse-Tung led that party in the 20's and 30's, and garnered some popularity, before he was executed by the Japanese in 1940, so he's a good candidate. Although, apparently, he emphasized the role of the rural peasants in the revolutionary struggle, which makes sense when you consider how rural China was at that time. Singh did include rural peasants, but he also utilized urban dwellers and Dalits, and other disenfranchised Indians in the Revolutionary War. Mao also seems more like a traditional Marxist Leninist, while Singh had heavy anarchist leanings, and he ceded some economic activity to "People's Cooperatives" . In fact, a lot of economic model for India during his reign came from post-war Yugoslavia. I wonder if a democratic India would be as dominated by the North as PRI is.

Tibet might still be independent ITTL, if only because attacking a sovereign nation would cause condemnation.
 
China during WW2 was a confusing patchwork of shifting alliances. The KMT continued to collaborate with the pro-Japanese puppet governments to root out the Commies, even when they were supposedly allied with the Commies in a national liberation struggle. In addition, the KMT were remarkably successful in turning the supposed pro-Japanese puppet regime in Mengjiang (which continued to faithfully pay lip service about friendship with Japan) into their ally. Even Tojo himself was in denial about what had occurred... :confused:

That was most important in denying the Commies their final redoubt by the time the US atomic bombs fell.

I don't see any strong Chinese government *not* re-absorbing Tibet in some form or another. Even IOTL, Tibet is officially in free association with the Republic of China, using the Chinese Yuan, having Chinese military bases, having unlimited free trade, etc. If the Commies *did* successfully take over China, it will definitely reclaim Tibet, probably by establishing a Tibetan Autonomous Region. There's zero the rest of the world will do other than lip service.
 
Top