What reforms would it take for the various countries of the Indian Subcontinent to become as wealthy as China?

[FatedMatrioshkaBrain]

Like overall if, we're going from a POD, what kind of reforms would the countries of the Indian Subcontinent need to take (if no other country changes unless otherwise) for them to achieve a similar growth trajectory of China?

I'm just trying to understand what kind of policies would need to be followed and where the divergences would need to be if:

1. Post World War 2
2. Independent South Asian nations
3. No other random border disputes or growth
4. No ASB
5. No "White saviors"

 

[Seandineen]

Somebody other than the Mathatma has to be India's Washington. Village industry won't cut it in 47.

 

[Slime_blob]

License Raj not implemented, loose labor laws, capitalist India, loose regulations on business and others

 

[CountDVB]

Ooof. Well, @Imp could give a better answer to this one than I ever can.

That said, one can’t compare India all that well to China. India is much more diverse in ethnic demographics and the situation of having come together as a result of England’s colonial ambitions make for key differences.

No splitting India, Pakistan and Bangladesh would be good I think.

We’re not gonna see the heavy top-down style of doing things in India like in PROC for various reasons, so forcing alot of economic reforms is gonna be harder.

India changing their electoral system could help a bit there, maybe adopt the Irish system of votes and go with parliamentary republic but beyond that… it’s gonna be tough because they need to industrialize, but given the resource exploitation they went through, it’s gonna be a tough sell there “traditionally” to say the least.

Maybe they industrialize, but use worker co-ops and the like with how Yugoslavia did it and then try to push hard with the US in getting support with them. Would mean less closeness with USSR.

Of course, if there’s no Pakistan, that helps out alot since US would want India as a check against China.

Also, check heavily with Thorium for nuclear usage and the like.

 

[kholieken]

China wealth only come through 90s market reform. So some kind of industrializing reform in 80s or 90s would be enough.

 

[Lalli]

No License Raj. Even better if you avoid division of India.

 

[Imp]

I think @CountDVB pretty much hits the nail on the head there. Me and him I think do disagree somewhat on the topic of worker co-ops but generally I think developing earlier would eventually lead to greater worker rights.

Just adding to the point from Count about the top-down change, India can achieve development but it would have to be gradual so that people could digest the changes as in a nation like India things take some time. Let us not forget how simply insane China's growth trajectory has actually been.

One of the biggest initial actions would have to be no "profit is a dirty word" Nehru as PM. Without his orders India does not halt its advance to Muzaffarabad, nor is the issue raised in the UN. This provides the first condition toward random border disputes. The other thing no Nehru accomplishes is not letting his mould of socialism to take hold which prevents untold damage to the economy of India. It also prevents the lacklustre defence in 1962 with China as someone else would be much more cautious with China over that time period and you would avoid the whole Hindi-Chini bhai bhai era - probably ironically preventing war on that front.

The effect these two events have is that without Kashmir as an actively disputed area, India and Pakistan might not be at each others throats nearly as much. Although Kashmir will likely still be somewhat of an issue, it won't be anywhere near the scope it is today. This matters in relation with Ayub Khan taking power in Pakistan. Ayub Khan is widely responsible for the "Golden Decade" which allowed for Pakistan to claim the title of the fastest growing economy of Asia for a period of time. A large part in his downfall was the political capital he lost with the war against India which was a failure in the objectives it was trying to achieve, something that he was in favour of in the first place due to the Indian loss against China in '62. Without this loss and without any of Kashmir being within Pakistani hands, war becomes a less desirable prospect. Avoiding the war probably allows Pakistan to avoid the economic crash and keeps Ayub popular. Perhaps here he is able to push through the land reforms Pakistan so desperately needs (where in the Golden Decade 22 families controlled 66% of industry and land and 80% of the banking and insurance sectors) with popular and military support which would only continue to fuel growth. The major issue for him would thus be what to do with East Pakistan as that is something that would play a major role in whether Pakistan would be able to maintain growth. It is safe to presume Yahya Khan is kept far away from the presidency, and Ayub may choose to deal with the Awami League differently. Perhaps recognising their popularity he gives some positions of power to members of the League. Perhaps civil war is inevitable and Bangladesh breaks away, but West Pakistan would be in a significantly better condition here, with Ayub potentially losing power because he might instead decide to let Bangladesh secede peacefully. If Ayub Khan's successor could continue his policies then we could definitely see Pakistan's economy be akin to say Egypt or between Egypt and Turkey.

In the meanwhile, India under someone like SV Patel or VP Menon (or the latter after the former) allows for a gradual form of free market reforms to take place, being succeeded by Lal Bahadur Shastri or Morarji Desai. This allows for Indian growth to average around 7-8% (maybe 9% at a push) compared to the 2-3% of OTL and significantly changes the first two decades post Indian independence. Add to that the favourable way SVP viewed America, the Non-aligned Movement may have been torpedoed in the crib. Continuing this trend allows for India to easily end up at the same position (or even further along) than China is currently but with growth over a longer period of time. This India likely probably has cordial relations at best with the Soviet Union and although might be somewhat neutral, it may have shared the relationship it does with the US in the present day from the 50s onward ATL - the US potentially becoming the replacement for the Soviet Union here for India - though there might still be a bit more distant here. Due to simple economics, the India of the ATL would probably have been too strong of a target for China to contemplate attacking - but I am not sure if that would prevent the annexation of Tibet. I don't think India would have intervened there due to hang-ups still post Independence.

Indo-Pakistan relations are likely better here, somewhere between OTL Indo-Pak and OTL Greece-Turkey. Pakistan may likely still potentially be used as a base for spy planes on the USSR while here India likely acts as a strong counter to China (potentially meaning no Nixon going to China). The butterflies after this point can get a bit kooky. Does China ever become what it does OTL? Does a stronger India along with Pakistan mean that China and the Soviet Union eventually move toward some sort of rapprochement? Could this affect Soviet politics and spending in such a manner as to preserve it? Or does the OTL India-Pakistan relation become the ATL India-China one with the OTL India-China becoming the ATL India-Pakistan? After all, both India and Pakistan here would become affluent earlier and the economics might dictate going to war becomes too prohibitive, but admittedly this does depend on other external factors too.

India probably does manage to achieve its nuclear energy plans here however, and Thorium reactors likely power a significant chunk of India by ATL 2022.

 

[CountDVB]

I think @CountDVB pretty much hits the nail on the head there. Me and him I think do disagree somewhat on the topic of worker co-ops but generally I think developing earlier would eventually lead to greater worker rights.

Just adding to the point from Count about the top-down change, India can achieve development but it would have to be gradual so that people could digest the changes as in a nation like India things take some time. Let us not forget how simply insane China's growth trajectory has actually been.

One of the biggest initial actions would have to be no "profit is a dirty word" Nehru as PM. Without his orders India does not halt its advance to Muzaffarabad, nor is the issue raised in the UN. This provides the first condition toward random border disputes. The other thing no Nehru accomplishes is not letting his mould of socialism to take hold which prevents untold damage to the economy of India. It also prevents the lacklustre defence in 1962 with China as someone else would be much more cautious with China over that time period and you would avoid the whole Hindi-Chini bhai bhai era - probably ironically preventing war on that front.

The effect these two events have is that without Kashmir as an actively disputed area, India and Pakistan might not be at each others throats nearly as much. Although Kashmir will likely still be somewhat of an issue, it won't be anywhere near the scope it is today. This matters in relation with Ayub Khan taking power in Pakistan. Ayub Khan is widely responsible for the "Golden Decade" which allowed for Pakistan to claim the title of the fastest growing economy of Asia for a period of time. A large part in his downfall was the political capital he lost with the war against India which was a failure in the objectives it was trying to achieve, something that he was in favour of in the first place due to the Indian loss against China in '62. Without this loss and without any of Kashmir being within Pakistani hands, war becomes a less desirable prospect. Avoiding the war probably allows Pakistan to avoid the economic crash and keeps Ayub popular. Perhaps here he is able to push through the land reforms Pakistan so desperately needs (where in the Golden Decade 22 families controlled 66% of industry and land and 80% of the banking and insurance sectors) with popular and military support which would only continue to fuel growth. The major issue for him would thus be what to do with East Pakistan as that is something that would play a major role in whether Pakistan would be able to maintain growth. It is safe to presume Yahya Khan is kept far away from the presidency, and Ayub may choose to deal with the Awami League differently. Perhaps recognising their popularity he gives some positions of power to members of the League. Perhaps civil war is inevitable and Bangladesh breaks away, but West Pakistan would be in a significantly better condition here, with Ayub potentially losing power because he might instead decide to let Bangladesh secede peacefully. If Ayub Khan's successor could continue his policies then we could definitely see Pakistan's economy be akin to say Egypt or between Egypt and Turkey.

In the meanwhile, India under someone like SV Patel or VP Menon (or the latter after the former) allows for a gradual form of free market reforms to take place, being succeeded by Lal Bahadur Shastri or Morarji Desai. This allows for Indian growth to average around 7-8% (maybe 9% at a push) compared to the 2-3% of OTL and significantly changes the first two decades post Indian independence. Add to that the favourable way SVP viewed America, the Non-aligned Movement may have been torpedoed in the crib. Continuing this trend allows for India to easily end up at the same position (or even further along) than China is currently but with growth over a longer period of time. This India likely probably has cordial relations at best with the Soviet Union and although might be somewhat neutral, it may have shared the relationship it does with the US in the present day from the 50s onward ATL - the US potentially becoming the replacement for the Soviet Union here for India - though there might still be a bit more distant here. Due to simple economics, the India of the ATL would probably have been too strong of a target for China to contemplate attacking - but I am not sure if that would prevent the annexation of Tibet. I don't think India would have intervened there due to hang-ups still post Independence.

Indo-Pakistan relations are likely better here, somewhere between OTL Indo-Pak and OTL Greece-Turkey. Pakistan may likely still potentially be used as a base for spy planes on the USSR while here India likely acts as a strong counter to China (potentially meaning no Nixon going to China). The butterflies after this point can get a bit kooky. Does China ever become what it does OTL? Does a stronger India along with Pakistan mean that China and the Soviet Union eventually move toward some sort of rapprochement? Could this affect Soviet politics and spending in such a manner as to preserve it? Or does the OTL India-Pakistan relation become the ATL India-China one with the OTL India-China becoming the ATL India-Pakistan? After all, both India and Pakistan here would become affluent earlier and the economics might dictate going to war becomes too prohibitive, but admittedly this does depend on other external factors too.

India probably does manage to achieve its nuclear energy plans here however, and Thorium reactors likely power a significant chunk of India by ATL 2022.

Thank you for the kind words though given the point of divergeance, what if we avoid India getting divided entirely. So Inda, Pakistan and Bangladesh one big nation state?

 

[PakistaniGuyUK]

Find it hilarious certain people keep asserting the counterintuitive claim that an undivided India would be wealthier than OTL when the India that exists barely manages to function as a country. Removing partition wouldn't suddenly make India richer when the India that currently exists is subsistence level.

For Pakistan I'll repeat again the answer is Kashmir. That territory which is 1/5 of its landmass being held hostage has in no small part stunted the economic and political development of the nation for the past 70 years, ballooned its defence budget and created a sprawling monster out of its army. All the while also negatively impacting Kashmiris who could've played a much larger and prominent role in Pakistan than they ever would've in India.

Considering OTL Pakistan has had a mix of Bengali, Pashtun, Punjabi, and Sindhi rulers its very likely there would have, at some point, been a Kashmiri President or Prime Minister hailing from Srinagar or another part of Kashmir maybe even Gilgit/Baltistan.

Unlike Pakistan OTL India has no real excuses to remain poor. It has no real existential threats since independence so why has the 'World's Largest Democracy' spawned a nation in large part living in abject poverty. What gives?

Maybe the opposite is true (as someone on a different thread rightly hinted at - but was cancelled). If you balkanize India across ethnic boundaries (Tamils, Punjabis, Bengalis and so on) you would see much greater economic development rather than the artificially yoked OTL nation where dark Southerners suffer racism at the hands of lighter skinned northern Indians, those in places like Himachal aren't even considered 'real Indians' and outlying places like Andamans feel almost no affinity to the centre.

 

[Wendell]

Earlier end/reduction of the License Raj.

 

[Brahman]

Find it hilarious certain people keep asserting the counterintuitive claim that an undivided India would be wealthier than OTL when the India that exists barely manages to function as a country. Removing partition wouldn't suddenly make India richer when the India that currently exists is subsistence level.

For Pakistan I'll repeat again the answer is Kashmir. That territory which is 1/5 of its landmass being held hostage has in no small part stunted the economic and political development of the nation for the past 70 years, ballooned its defence budget and created a sprawling monster out of its army. All the while also negatively impacting Kashmiris who could've played a much larger and prominent role in Pakistan than they ever would've in India.

Considering OTL Pakistan has had a mix of Bengali, Pashtun, Punjabi, and Sindhi rulers its very likely there would have, at some point, been a Kashmiri President or Prime Minister hailing from Srinagar or another part of Kashmir maybe even Gilgit/Baltistan.

Unlike Pakistan OTL India has no real excuses to remain poor. It has no real existential threats since independence so why has the 'World's Largest Democracy' spawned a nation in large part living in abject poverty. What gives?

Maybe the opposite is true (as someone on a different thread rightly hinted at - but was cancelled). If you balkanize India across ethnic boundaries (Tamils, Punjabis, Bengalis and so on) you would see much greater economic development rather than the artificially yoked OTL nation where dark Southerners suffer racism at the hands of lighter skinned northern Indians, those in places like Himachal aren't even considered 'real Indians' and outlying places like Andamans feel almost no affinity to the centre.

The reason why people say partition was bad is because it led to India and Pakistan fighting each other instead of developing. A united India would not have to face that problem.

Pakistan used to be richer and more developed than India for most of its history due to good economic policies and US support compared India's frankly braindead economic policies. India only started to grow after being forced in 1991 reforms which led to India finally growing somewhat.

Balkanized India would be the worst because it would lead to unmitigated conflicts and foreign interference. So some regions might be well off but the region as a whole would be in a worser position

 

[Imp]

Find it hilarious certain people keep asserting the counterintuitive claim that an undivided India would be wealthier than OTL when the India that exists barely manages to function as a country. Removing partition wouldn't suddenly make India richer when the India that currently exists is subsistence level.

For Pakistan I'll repeat again the answer is Kashmir. That territory which is 1/5 of its landmass being held hostage has in no small part stunted the economic and political development of the nation for the past 70 years, ballooned its defence budget and created a sprawling monster out of its army. All the while also negatively impacting Kashmiris who could've played a much larger and prominent role in Pakistan than they ever would've in India.

Considering OTL Pakistan has had a mix of Bengali, Pashtun, Punjabi, and Sindhi rulers its very likely there would have, at some point, been a Kashmiri President or Prime Minister hailing from Srinagar or another part of Kashmir maybe even Gilgit/Baltistan.

Unlike Pakistan OTL India has no real excuses to remain poor. It has no real existential threats since independence so why has the 'World's Largest Democracy' spawned a nation in large part living in abject poverty. What gives?

Maybe the opposite is true (as someone on a different thread rightly hinted at - but was cancelled). If you balkanize India across ethnic boundaries (Tamils, Punjabis, Bengalis and so on) you would see much greater economic development rather than the artificially yoked OTL nation where dark Southerners suffer racism at the hands of lighter skinned northern Indians, those in places like Himachal aren't even considered 'real Indians' and outlying places like Andamans feel almost no affinity to the centre.

You really are going to ignore the exponential growth of India in the last three decades and the fact the percentage of people in extreme poverty stands at 4% today? Really? Does this mean you openly admit by omission that Pakistan is abjectly poor - seeing how both its GDP per capita and PPP per capita are lower than India's?

Are you also going to completely ignore one nation being under military rule pretty much constantly from 1958 had absolutely no impact on the economic and political development of a certain nation? Or the present day feudal zamindar class in Pakistan with dual citizenship?

And ignore that Pakistan with nukes is an existential threat to India? Or that the US and the UK were willing to put boots on the ground in '71 - that's not an existential threat? Or China's war against India in '62, not an existential threat? And are you really going to argue that India is the reason for Pakistan's sprawling army for "defensive" purposes while this same army seems to have launched all wars with its neighbour due to either incursions or a full on genocide?

I love the harping on about Kashmir. Surely it wasn't the locals in 1965 or '99 that alerted the Indian Army to Pakistani incursions. Surely not.

Do you honestly have any understanding of the geopolitical realities of the nations of the Indian subcontinent not named Pakistan? Nehru was Kashmiri. The first and longest reigning Prime Minister of India was a Kashmiri Pundit. How many army chiefs or party leaders in Pakistan have been from "Azad" J&K or Gilgit I wonder.

Unlike India, Pakistan doesn't have a reason for remaining poor, being much more homogenous both in language and culture and starting out with much higher rates of growth. Punjab alone comprises near 50% of Pakistan's population, with the Sindhis making up 25% more. These two groups alone create a supermajority large enough for a central identity to be established, but in practice has led to other groups to be essentially locked out of ruling, and even then the Punjabis dominate - 4 army chiefs, including the current one. The Bengali ruler doesn't apply - since it caused a civil war and whatnot.

Also do tell me how a nation which apparently spawned such a large part living in abject poverty has companies such as TATA Group which rival Pakistan's GDP (I'm sure you've seen the memes) while Reliance stands at 2/3rd the size of the Pakistani GDP. Indeed, what gives?

Bangladesh doesn't have West Bengal present within in, but somehow seems to have overtaken Pakistan in both GDP and per capita numbers while starting off from an incredibly impoverished base due to West Pakistan essentially plundering the East. On top of that, somehow they've managed to make democracy work, while being an Islamic nation.

Kashmir perhaps is the reason that even the former Prime Minister Imran Khan is now showing videos of the Indian Foreign Minister Jaishankar at his rallies. The Pakistani obsession with Kashmir and religion over economic growth and development has led to a foreign policy tied to a larger power - whether that be America or China and has left the current economy reliant on bailout after bailout.

Who on earth told you Himachalis aren't considered real Indians? Or that the Andamans don't feel an affinity to the centre? Or that the racism the south apparently suffers means that in places like the capital landlords say "South Indians preferred" - didn't know preferential treatment implied racism but here we are. India has a definite problem with colourism - but so does Pakistan, and the rest of Asia. So pardon my French but you better back up your points with sources or I officially call bullshit.

On the balkanisation I do think you have it the opposite, after all it isn't 1/5th of Pakistan being held hostage, it's technically 2/5 (Balochistan; wonder why you didn't mention them once). Hasn't Sindhudesh also been a movement? Easy to see why, after all Karachi alone is 25% of the Pakistani economy - I'm sure they must be tired of the economic mismanagement of their resources over the decades. That is a region with a genuine economic argument for independence, and it isn't hard to see why a balkanised Pakistan would have been very much a massive benefit for them and the subcontinent. After all, the Mohajirs might finally have gotten Jinnahpur. Afghanistan would also happily reabsorb the NWFP which would undo some of the damage caused to the region there too. After all, a non-balkanised India is a massive internal market, whereas a balkanised Pakistan is very much a guarantee of lower military spending needed for all nations in the region and secure borders.

Whether you wish to admit it or not, Pakistan was a mistake both for cultural and economic reasons.

It's good to be proud of one's country. It is also good to rationally analyse it's shortcomings and be informed. It's bad to sprout rubbish.

 

[Fulano]

The reason why people say partition was bad is because it led to India and Pakistan fighting each other instead of developing. A united India would not have to face that problem.

Maybe that was a good thing in the long run. Having a regional rival makes you to not stagnate for too long, being in permanent competition with your neighbor.
That's the reason some historians give for why the European Kingdoms managed to technologically advance faster than in other regions.

 

[Brahman]

Maybe that was a good thing in the long run. Having a regional rival makes you to not stagnate for too long, being in permanent competition with your neighbor.
That's the reason some historians give for why the European Kingdoms managed to technologically advance faster than in other regions.

The possibility of nuclear annihilation in the Subcontinent as well as religious conflicts makes it seem really unfavorable

 

[pompejus]

The possibility of nuclear annihilation in the Subcontinent as well as religious conflicts makes it seem really unfavorable

There would be religious conflicts if India had not split. It might even have been worse. Not splitting up India does not remove the causes of why India was split up. It might even make it worse since you don't get some cold war scenario that exists now, in which both countries can do what they want, even under the threat of nuclear war. It could cause a civil war between Muslims and Hindu. Brutal opression of of one either groups, etc. That probably would be worse than the situation we have now.

 

[Brahman]

There would be religious conflicts if India had not split. It might even have been worse. Not splitting up India does not remove the causes of why India was split up. It might even make it worse since you don't get some cold war scenario that exists now, in which both countries can do what they want, even under the threat of nuclear war. It could cause a civil war between Muslims and Hindu. Brutal opression of of one either groups, etc. That probably would be worse than the situation we have now.

Not necessarily, this is in fact what people said would happen in an Independent India but it didnt anyway. Conflicts got exacerbated due to partition, though there could be a arguement made that India would have required a secular dictator in its early years for it to prosper

 

[pompejus]

Not necessarily,

True. That is why I used words like could and would. A unified India could either be a great boon, or a big disaster.

 

[Kalga]

Always have.

What do people think of this?

We all know the CCP cook the books, but 60% over is a lot. Very interesting if true.

Chances are china has never surpassed India in GDP, just they they managed to pull the big lie convincingly enough for the past couple of decades.

 

[jeckl]

Always have.



Chances are china has never surpassed India in GDP, just they they managed to pull the big lie convincingly enough for the past couple of decades.

Truth will win out, it seems.

 

[Sriyam Swastik]

People have this misconception that China's economic reforms were a top-down effort in which an autocratic government reversed its policies at once to bask in the glory of capitalism. In reality it was a piecemeal effort spear-headed by local administrators who had been given a free hand in improving governance, only after the economic reforms created gold in the SEZs did Beijing deem them right to be reproduced in the rest of China. Rather than trying to make India a top-down homogenous autocracy, perhaps the better way would be to go in the opposite direction and give more autonomy to the states? I can see projects like Gurgaon spring up without the watchful eye of the central government.