And yet none of those factors will detract from the fact that India would still be stronger. Of course India will have issues....I AGREE with you on many of these things. China, Iran, Afghanistan.....they are all factors that could affect how strong this stronger India would be. But the fact remains....it would be stronger. Now education, poverty, corruption....all these things need to be figured out, and of course it is going to be a lot of work. But as India becomes independent, you'd see a lot of aid going to it from other nations, invested in maintaining their bulwark against communism. Trade would be a huge deal. However, a lot of military spending won't need to be spent due to no true threat outside of China existing.....a lot of spending which would be allocated to other programs.
Stronger India?
- Thread starter allegro6
- Start date
And yet none of those factors will detract from the fact that India would still be stronger. Of course India will have issues....I AGREE with you on many of these things. China, Iran, Afghanistan.....they are all factors that could affect how strong this stronger India would be. But the fact remains....it would be stronger. Now education, poverty, corruption....all these things need to be figured out, and of course it is going to be a lot of work. But as India becomes independent, you'd see a lot of aid going to it from other nations, invested in maintaining their bulwark against communism. Trade would be a huge deal. However, a lot of military spending won't need to be spent due to no true threat outside of China existing.....a lot of spending which would be allocated to other programs.
An undivided India including OTL Pakistan, Bangladesh and SriLanka and excluding Myanmar, would have been much more stronger not only due to the extra area, population and resources, but also other factors. It wouldn't bring much additional problems that do not exist now. But it would do away with the biggest source of India's problems, ie. Pakistan. Of course the proportion of Muslims will be much higher, thrice the present strength. But that itself could give them more confidence and remove their sense of insecurity. The absence of Pakistan and Kashmir dispute will also remove the reason for Islamic fundamentalism, at least in the subcontinent. The new neighbors that India may get, Afghanistan and Iran are not likely to create more problems. Relations with China could be problematic as in OTL.
Afghanistan might not officially create problems, but tribal conflicts will be an issue.
Oddly I think if you can have the Indian Union from Edt's "a Greater Britain" not devolve into Yugoslavia x100 you could end up with a powerful beastie. In that timeline, not only is the Raj released without the divisions brought on by WWII, and united, Congress is much more influenced by 'Mosleyism', which is effectively Dirigisme with some quasi-fascist trappings, as opposed to traditional Fabian socialism.
An Indian economy with technocratic inclinations, 'national champions' instead of nationalised corporations and a less shocking detachment from colonialism could all help. Although might seem lazy, such a corporatist Congress would probably mimic China's economic policy of OTL in a lot of ways.
Plus if Empire Free Trade hangs around for a while, India will be the Commonwealth's workshop, and the destination of much of Britain's exports.
An Indian economy with technocratic inclinations, 'national champions' instead of nationalised corporations and a less shocking detachment from colonialism could all help. Although might seem lazy, such a corporatist Congress would probably mimic China's economic policy of OTL in a lot of ways.
Plus if Empire Free Trade hangs around for a while, India will be the Commonwealth's workshop, and the destination of much of Britain's exports.
Having Nehru implicated in the murder of Gandhi would be a good start. The womanising idiot was a headache to the entire nation. After he is implicated, you get Patel as the PM and if he dies as per OTL, you get either Desai or Pant as the PM. And for the first president you need a strong personality to make the President seem like a powerful person. So C.Rajagopalachari it is.
Why would Nehru get implicated in the murder of Gandhi? That should've been Savarkar.
It is possible that things would have took a bad turn at a few points without Ghandi. Or bloodier. Way bloodier.
Savarkar was in fact accused as the brain behind the murder but was let off in the absence of evidence. Savarkar was a real patriot, not a hypocrite like Nehru.
Many true patriots like Savarkar and Subhas Chandra Bose were sidelined by the coterie which surrounded Gandhi. If Nehru could have been somehow implicated in the murder of Gandhi, his political career would have been terminated and the cursed 'Dynasty' wouldn't have emerged.
Eh, I wouldn't say true patriot for Savarkar. Taking an extreme Hindutva stance wasn't really necessary. And I know he was implicated as the brain of the plot. Hence the mention of him in the first place. I'd say Gandhi sidelined many ideas given out by Congress which would have helped in India's future, including those given by Nehru and Jinnah. And Bose at best was naive and misguided to go to the Axis.
If you want to talk about someone close to Gandhi, Patel is your man. And tell me, how exactly is Nehru a hypocrite. For sure he had ideas that caused India to drag her feet, but really? I wouldn't call him a hypocrite. He had the foresight to understand aligning with Japan would simply transfer India from one colonial power to another, while Bose ran away.
And how in the world are you going to implicate Nehru in the murder of Gandhi, something in which he had not been involved?
Of course Nehru was not involved in the plot to murder Gandhi. I had only borrowed the idea of PulkitNahata. Both Savarkar and Netaji Bose were true patriots who loved their Motherland above everything else. Gandhi had his obsession with truth and non-violence and Nehru his pet themes of democracy and secularism. If Netaji had sought the help of the Axis Powers, it was because he believed even the help of Satan was welcome in his fight against the British. It was not surprising that in a survey conducted by a national newspaper on great freedom fighters his place was second far ahead of Gandhi. The first place went to Bhagat Singh. Gandhi was in third place. Nehru's place was far down below many others. Savarkar too was sincere in his patriotism. He too placed nationalism above other things like democracy and secularism.
Last edited:
That doesn't make you a true patriot. Nehru had just as much love for India. Savarkar was an extremist, and like I said, Bose was naive to seek help from the Axis powers. Nehru understood the implications of getting help from the Axis being completely stupid, and knew negotiations were the way to get things done.