Wi: Indira Gandhi lives

Indira Gandhi, was assassinated by one of her Sikh Bodyguards in 1984, in retaliation for the storming of the golden temple in Amritsar What would have happened if the assassination attempt had failed?

Would there have been harsher crack downs on Sikhs as a result, would there ever have been a serious discussion about the rebels demands? Would she have opened India's economy the same way her successor PMs did?
 
The OTL crackdown on the Sikh community was actually pretty harsh, so I guess that wouldn't be much different. Some of the most prominent demagogues in attacking Sikhs in general were part of Sanjay Gandhi's crew and still around when Rajiv was in charge.

I wonder if Indira Gandhi would have decided different on the Shah Bano case, though. She was in a more authoritative position than Rajiv to do so, and maybe she would have said: no special rights for Sikhs and no special rights for Muslims, which somehow might have slowed down the rise of the BJP.
 
The OTL crackdown on the Sikh community was actually pretty harsh, so I guess that wouldn't be much different. Some of the most prominent demagogues in attacking Sikhs in general were part of Sanjay Gandhi's crew and still around when Rajiv was in charge.

I wonder if Indira Gandhi would have decided different on the Shah Bano case, though. She was in a more authoritative position than Rajiv to do so, and maybe she would have said: no special rights for Sikhs and no special rights for Muslims, which somehow might have slowed down the rise of the BJP.

Hmm interesting, so if she takes a more authoritative stance there, how would this affect her global stance and appeal?
 
Hmm interesting, so if she takes a more authoritative stance there, how would this affect her global stance and appeal?

I'm not sure how her OTL image was during her second government. She did have her fair share of Western admirers during Emergency rule (including Margaret Thatcher!), so I could see her being perceived as an ambivalent Peron-like figure.

With the Shah Bano case, my only basis is Ramachandra Guha's book "India after Gandhi", in which he writes that Rajiv was open for reforms, but not statesman enough to pull it through because of the fear of losing core voters (traditionalists Muslims). Unlike his brother, he was a newcomer to politics and didn't have a party machinery of his own: a problem that Indira wouldn't have faced.

With regards to eonomic policy, Indira didn't have an original 'line' of her own, but was more of a populist. In the early years of her administration, she was influenced by P.N. Haksar, whom one could describe as a Bevanite in British political terminology. I guess she probably would have sticked to her older advisors - unlike Rajiv, who brought in a younger generation.
 
I'm not sure how her OTL image was during her second government. She did have her fair share of Western admirers during Emergency rule (including Margaret Thatcher!), so I could see her being perceived as an ambivalent Peron-like figure.

With the Shah Bano case, my only basis is Ramachandra Guha's book "India after Gandhi", in which he writes that Rajiv was open for reforms, but not statesman enough to pull it through because of the fear of losing core voters (traditionalists Muslims). Unlike his brother, he was a newcomer to politics and didn't have a party machinery of his own: a problem that Indira wouldn't have faced.

With regards to eonomic policy, Indira didn't have an original 'line' of her own, but was more of a populist. In the early years of her administration, she was influenced by P.N. Haksar, whom one could describe as a Bevanite in British political terminology. I guess she probably would have sticked to her older advisors - unlike Rajiv, who brought in a younger generation.

Hmm interesting, so do you think this means that India's economy might remain closed off, or was the demand for opening up more freely already growing?
 
Top