Some good Indian wanks?

The Chola Kingdom existed at the time of the Mauryan Empire and was one of the three Tamil dynasties that lasted for centuries. The Pandyas and the Cheras were the other two. After a period of being vassalised by the Pallavas, Cholas re-emerged around 850 BCE and then entered their Imperial period before the final collapse in the second half of the thirteenth century. In total the Chola dynasty lasted for almost 1500 years with ups and downs including Imperial status at times and periods of vassalage and independence at other times. The Pandyas who were their rivals often, also lasted for nearly 1700 years and outlasted the Cholas defeating them, but never rose to the Imperial heights as the Cholas did.

This is reasoning their period of time differently than I do. I differentiate by polity or regime. Having an area consistently exist is a separate thing from ruling an entire empire for that extended period. Egypt is a great example, during the Bronze Age.
 
I did one where Rajaji, instead of Nehru, becomes India's first Prime Minister, meaning no sclerotic economic planning.

Would Rajaji in this scenario have butterflied away the politician dominance of the Nehru-Gandhi family and led India to become the right-leaning equivalent of OTL Taiwan or ATL Nationalist China (in an ATL where the Nationalists defeated the Communists in the Chinese civil war)? Certain appears to be a better candidate than Subhas Bose. While such an India in your scenario appears to be aligned to the US, it would have been interesting seeing such an India as the head of a politically centrist/right-equivalent of the Non-Aligned Movement (albeit one where it is accused by critics as being aligned to the US akin to how some accuse the OTL Non-Aligned Movement of being aligned with the Soviets).
 
It was quite implausible for Rajaji to be chosen as the Prime Minister at the time of Independence. Though he was one of the senior leaders of the Congress, he was not a popular leader like Gandhiji or Nehru or Bose. If the Congress Party was given freedom to choose the leader the man who was likely to be chosen was Sardar Patel, as he was a master organiser who had the party under his firm control. But Gandhiji named his favorite disciple Jawaharlal for the post and Sardar was too obedient a shishya to question his Guru.
If Sardar Patel was the Prime Minister, Rajaji might have become his Lieutenant as ideologically they were closer and on the opposite side of Jawaharlal Nehru. In course of time Nehru would have become the leader of the left wing in the Congress and the right wing which was dominant would have forced him out of the Party. A two-party system might have developed in the initial decades of the democratic India.
 
It was quite implausible for Rajaji to be chosen as the Prime Minister at the time of Independence. Though he was one of the senior leaders of the Congress, he was not a popular leader like Gandhiji or Nehru or Bose. If the Congress Party was given freedom to choose the leader the man who was likely to be chosen was Sardar Patel, as he was a master organiser who had the party under his firm control. But Gandhiji named his favorite disciple Jawaharlal for the post and Sardar was too obedient a shishya to question his Guru.
If Sardar Patel was the Prime Minister, Rajaji might have become his Lieutenant as ideologically they were closer and on the opposite side of Jawaharlal Nehru. In course of time Nehru would have become the leader of the left wing in the Congress and the right wing which was dominant would have forced him out of the Party. A two-party system might have developed in the initial decades of the democratic India.

Would a scenario where Sardar Patel becomes Prime Minister at the time of independence have placed Rajaji in a better position to later take over, thereby butterflying away the OTL license raj and taking India in a more capitalist anti-communist direction?
 
Top