lsrihari1492000
Banned
Is there a way to make India a Major World Power or even a Superpower, the POD is after 1900
AHC - India, A World Power
- Thread starter lsrihari1492000
- Start date
USA and USSR destroy each other on WW3.
But seriously it not be impossible to make India major power but it is very hard. At least you should change internal politics of the country. Of cours OTL India could become major power if we wait 100 - 150 years and the country plays its cards rightly.
But seriously it not be impossible to make India major power but it is very hard. At least you should change internal politics of the country. Of cours OTL India could become major power if we wait 100 - 150 years and the country plays its cards rightly.
I would say that you need no colonization and a unification of the continent along with mass expansion, how this would occur I do not know but I will say that it would have a similar size to British Raj while including Nepal:
*Pulled from Wikipedia*
*Pulled from Wikipedia*
No colonization probably means no unification as India isn't a culturally and ethnically homogenous region - the only reason it became as united to begin with as it is now is because British colonialism essentially led to the formation of a unified anti-colonial movement to begin with. At least that's the way I see it. No colonization would mean different states - like the Mughals, the Marathi, as well as various little realms in Bengal, the Tamil south, etc. - would probably emerge. Perhaps an incredible Mughal-wank could get close, but I think that a better way to approach this issue would be to go back to the early 1900s and have things develop so that the Muslims and Hindus of India reach some kind of accord and manage to agree upon the framework of an independent, unified India. The Indo-Pakistani wars, and the ethnic cleansings that happened after independence, sapped a lot of the two Indian states' strength, I would imagine. (Burma/Myanmar doesn't need to stay - it's got a fraction of the Indian states' population and having the region be forced into a union with India-Pakistan would probably create more trouble than it's worth.)
I'd also say "less famines, or less destructive ones in the 19th century" would help, but in a scenario where India is a British colony, I would say that's unavoidable - the Indians paid the price of British industrialization.
POD is 1900 so no colonisation all is too late. And without colonisation it is very difficult if not impossible unite whole subcontinent as one nation. At least keeping all that together is difficult.
And even if Raj gains independence without division as India, Pakistan (including Bangladesh) and Burma, it would be still difficult to make India major power. For this the country is ethnically and religiously too divided and politically instable.
I disagree. You can't make it a world power on the scale of the USSR or the US, but you can make it something like China.
So, what kept India from growing? I'd argue it was because India was a command economy since independence. Nehru, and especially Indira Gandhi, were extremely socialistic, and not quite in the more benign capitalistic form that has grown commonplace today. India even had five-year plans, for goodness sakes! Not coincidentally, in the nineties, after these command economy tendencies were wiped out, India began to grow at a huge rate. So, how do we make India a major-ish power? Avoid the rise of the command economy. The perfect guy to stop it is Vallabhai Patel, who was pro-free market and was Deputy PM post-independence. So, kill off Nehru early, and Patel will become PM. He will be far from perfect, but he'll make India more of a free market economy - plus, he'll ally the nation with the US, which has interesting butterflies in and of itself. So, we'll see Western investment in India, though ethnic and religious tensions will try to push India backwards. By 2016, India is something of a China.
I don't know enough about the history of India to comment substantively in this thread, but I just wanted to say that that sounds like a really interesting timeline.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
Or, if India had really hit upon the right mix of capitalism and socialism.
ben0628
Banned
Find a way for India to incorporate Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and maybe Bhutan. Somehow find a way to drastically increase GDP per capita.
As for military potential, it has the ability to be a regional power but not a world power. Although is has the population, nuclear weapons, and conventional military strength it does not have the influence to project power globally. The reason why Great Britain was a world power pre ww2 was because it owned a third of the world which gave it influence. The reason why the US was a world power post Ww2 was because it was considered the protector of the free world (also all of Europe was a giant pile of rubble). The Soviet Union was a world power because it claimed to be the protector of the proletariat against the greedy, imperialist west. India has no role to claim to be able to gain the influence nessecary to be a world power. Maybe if it's country was almost entirely Muslim instead of Hindu, it could claim to be the protector of Islam but that would require a pod before 1900.
As for military potential, it has the ability to be a regional power but not a world power. Although is has the population, nuclear weapons, and conventional military strength it does not have the influence to project power globally. The reason why Great Britain was a world power pre ww2 was because it owned a third of the world which gave it influence. The reason why the US was a world power post Ww2 was because it was considered the protector of the free world (also all of Europe was a giant pile of rubble). The Soviet Union was a world power because it claimed to be the protector of the proletariat against the greedy, imperialist west. India has no role to claim to be able to gain the influence nessecary to be a world power. Maybe if it's country was almost entirely Muslim instead of Hindu, it could claim to be the protector of Islam but that would require a pod before 1900.
Could a Dravidian-Hindu-ProWest-'Benevolent'Dictatorship in Southern India. (Maybe they don't like the Islam inclusive Hindustani 'one-nation' North Indian Independence movement) that is backed up by the US and has western investment, reach the level of Japan or surpass it? I think looking for more population would increase potential but would create massive economic drag in the beginning. Of course this would entail a massively different Indian Independence and Japan.
The preamble of the Government of India Act 1935 includes at least a mention of moving towards Dominion status even if it doesn't give a timeframe; the Viceroy Lord Linlithgow makes at least a token effort to consult the Indian political leaders before declaring war in 1939 since IIRC they would have mostly been supportive anyway. Improved conditions over our timeline sees the Cripps Mission, or equivalent, achieve at least the minimum results necessary to avoid the Quit India movement occurring, this brings the twin benefits of not seeing Gandhi come to the fore as strongly and the INC leaders not being arrested so that the Muslim League don't come to dominate politically. Post-war the changed internal dynamics of the INC and Muslim League plus better relations with the governments allows for a process of independence to be negotiated without the need for Partition and satisfactory to the Princely States so that there's no need for military operations.
Now you're still going to see a certain amount of left-wing policies since they were in vogue at the time many of the Indian leaders were studying in the West or in India, see things like Fabian socialism, but these changes should hopefully mean it not being as implemented as heavily. With luck being more open to the free market sees them avoid things like the License Raj and the Hindu Rate of Growth, rather than stagnate for 30 years or so they develop more like the Asian Tigers. Witness when India liberalised in the 1980s and '90s.
Diplomatically they're still most likely to be non-aligned but not leaning towards the Soviets as in our timeline. This could be useful since it would allow them to play both superpowers off against each other for aid and support. Once it becomes fairly obvious which way things are going I'd expect them to start leaning towards the US, without Gandhi perhaps Nixon goes to India as well. Some sort of beneficial trade agreement would be a reasonable price for pulling them into the pro-Western camp. No partition means no wars over Kashmir, however that still leaves the Sino-Indian War over the location of their common border. End result you'd still likely see them having a large military and developing a nuclear weapons capability.
Semi-random thought but since in comparison to Pakistan for India it would be much smaller challenge so sooner or later I could see them deciding to extend the writ of government more fully into the semi-independent regions. Legislation like the Frontier Crimes Regulations and areas such as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas are going to be less tolerated.
So whilst the might not be a 'world power' in the sense of being one of the two superpowers I could see them developing into a strong regional power. They'd also have a completely unbeatable cricket team.
Now you're still going to see a certain amount of left-wing policies since they were in vogue at the time many of the Indian leaders were studying in the West or in India, see things like Fabian socialism, but these changes should hopefully mean it not being as implemented as heavily. With luck being more open to the free market sees them avoid things like the License Raj and the Hindu Rate of Growth, rather than stagnate for 30 years or so they develop more like the Asian Tigers. Witness when India liberalised in the 1980s and '90s.
Diplomatically they're still most likely to be non-aligned but not leaning towards the Soviets as in our timeline. This could be useful since it would allow them to play both superpowers off against each other for aid and support. Once it becomes fairly obvious which way things are going I'd expect them to start leaning towards the US, without Gandhi perhaps Nixon goes to India as well. Some sort of beneficial trade agreement would be a reasonable price for pulling them into the pro-Western camp. No partition means no wars over Kashmir, however that still leaves the Sino-Indian War over the location of their common border. End result you'd still likely see them having a large military and developing a nuclear weapons capability.
Semi-random thought but since in comparison to Pakistan for India it would be much smaller challenge so sooner or later I could see them deciding to extend the writ of government more fully into the semi-independent regions. Legislation like the Frontier Crimes Regulations and areas such as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas are going to be less tolerated.
So whilst the might not be a 'world power' in the sense of being one of the two superpowers I could see them developing into a strong regional power. They'd also have a completely unbeatable cricket team.
They'd also have a completely unbeatable cricket team.
Depends. Cricket only really got big in the 70s in India. Before that, field hockey was the big thing.
I agree with the rest, though one thing about this India is that religious tensions would be very different. I'm not sure if India being more Muslim (I believe it would be a 60-40% split between Hinduism and Islam) and being less homogenous would calm tensions or increase them; my bet is in some areas (such as Kashmir) religious relations would certainly be better, but in others, it would be worse.
This thread seems like its sort of underselling India.
- India's economy might not be as large as China, and under GDP nominal it is the 7th, but under PPP its the third largest. Being behind only China and the US isn't that bad.
- While admittedly domestic Indian arms manufacturing is pretty shoddy, they're still the sixth biggest spender.
- They have significant soft power in Africa and I presume elsewhere in their region; not China-level, but its hard to be China-level.
- Democracy and on firmer political footing with most of their neighbors and Europe/US than China will be anytime sooner.
- India has an established nuclear arsenal with a nuclear triad capacity; neither the UK or France have land-based nuclear capacity by contrast.
- From my recollection they've been becoming more diplomatically assertive recently, and as much as "soft power" might be over talked imo, they do have that capability
- They don't have a UN security council seat, but since that was written in 1945, when India wasn't yet a nation, that's sort of an unfair point to level at India.
The established great powers are the US, UK, FRA, Russia, and China. What capabilities are the Indians lacking in compared to the other ones? The only area that would seem to be as such is in influence around the globe, but that's a product of leveraged might, not base capacity; you don't need to make huge sweeping reforms to get that.
True, India could have done better, but I think their capacity already meets the standard for Great Power already, and besides, India's been pretty successful in just reaching this point anyway. 1.2 billion people, god knows how many languages (including two entirely different major language families) and ethnicities, many different religions, and the problems of development, plus feuds with their surrounding neighbors, and the result has been one that's pretty decent all things considered. An admittedly biased due to being Indian professor of mine had compared it to not just the EU functioning as a comprehensive political unit, but throwing in the Middle East into that unit too. India's a concept that's translated well into national terms, by most standards it would be viewed as impossible, except for the fact that it's worked.
Its sort of one of the stereotypical AH.com threads, where the non anglo-saxon nation in question is underrated, and then suggestions to fixing it are annexing more territory including such important states as Nepal and Bhutan, giving it an entirely alternate religion and the huge historical impact that would call into play, the "US has gotta invest and do the Marshall plan in the region", and destroying the world.
- India's economy might not be as large as China, and under GDP nominal it is the 7th, but under PPP its the third largest. Being behind only China and the US isn't that bad.
- While admittedly domestic Indian arms manufacturing is pretty shoddy, they're still the sixth biggest spender.
- They have significant soft power in Africa and I presume elsewhere in their region; not China-level, but its hard to be China-level.
- Democracy and on firmer political footing with most of their neighbors and Europe/US than China will be anytime sooner.
- India has an established nuclear arsenal with a nuclear triad capacity; neither the UK or France have land-based nuclear capacity by contrast.
- From my recollection they've been becoming more diplomatically assertive recently, and as much as "soft power" might be over talked imo, they do have that capability
- They don't have a UN security council seat, but since that was written in 1945, when India wasn't yet a nation, that's sort of an unfair point to level at India.
The established great powers are the US, UK, FRA, Russia, and China. What capabilities are the Indians lacking in compared to the other ones? The only area that would seem to be as such is in influence around the globe, but that's a product of leveraged might, not base capacity; you don't need to make huge sweeping reforms to get that.
True, India could have done better, but I think their capacity already meets the standard for Great Power already, and besides, India's been pretty successful in just reaching this point anyway. 1.2 billion people, god knows how many languages (including two entirely different major language families) and ethnicities, many different religions, and the problems of development, plus feuds with their surrounding neighbors, and the result has been one that's pretty decent all things considered. An admittedly biased due to being Indian professor of mine had compared it to not just the EU functioning as a comprehensive political unit, but throwing in the Middle East into that unit too. India's a concept that's translated well into national terms, by most standards it would be viewed as impossible, except for the fact that it's worked.
Its sort of one of the stereotypical AH.com threads, where the non anglo-saxon nation in question is underrated, and then suggestions to fixing it are annexing more territory including such important states as Nepal and Bhutan, giving it an entirely alternate religion and the huge historical impact that would call into play, the "US has gotta invest and do the Marshall plan in the region", and destroying the world.
Last edited:
Interesting, didn't know that.
Would it be 40%? When there was a thread a year or so ago it looked, granted as I said at the time with a quick search, to be more like 31% for an unpartitioned India. Even that figure would make it the largest Muslim country in the world equal to the next four largest - Indonesia, Egypt, Nigeria and Iran - combined with 30% of the global population.
Well I was using 'great power' to mean the two superpowers of the US and Soviet Union, or nowadays merely the US. If you use a broader definition that also includes the other four permanent members of the UN Security Council then it's certainly a lot easier for India to try and reach parity.
That really depends on who the dictator is. In China, dictatorship works better, since China is ethnically dominated by the Han, and has relatively few religious conflicts. In India, (if it's a Hindu) said dictator has to hold down separatists, lots of Muslims and external pressure. Again, it really depends, a Communist dictator may be supported by Soviets and the Chinese; a pro-American dictator will be supported by the US. You need to specify which kind of dictator.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
Okay, I'll take the challenge that it has to come from within India:
land reform, where a lot of smaller farmers can afford irrigation and fertilizer. This will crank the economy.
a higher trajectory for Abul Kalam Azad, both on education and for religious diversity,
India does quotas for minorities, although I think they're called reserves, and I think they're more widely accepted than in the United States. So, something to teach the world.
India not only gets a good mix between socialism and capitalism, but one level deeper, a good mix between formal and informal economy.
and if other economies are more technologically advanced, you need trade. Heck, even if they're not more advanced, you still need trade. With underplaying the hand, India gets good trade deals with both the United States and the Soviet Union. And this rather becomes the norm for Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc, etc.
And this is a big gift India gives the world.
land reform, where a lot of smaller farmers can afford irrigation and fertilizer. This will crank the economy.
a higher trajectory for Abul Kalam Azad, both on education and for religious diversity,
India does quotas for minorities, although I think they're called reserves, and I think they're more widely accepted than in the United States. So, something to teach the world.
India not only gets a good mix between socialism and capitalism, but one level deeper, a good mix between formal and informal economy.
and if other economies are more technologically advanced, you need trade. Heck, even if they're not more advanced, you still need trade. With underplaying the hand, India gets good trade deals with both the United States and the Soviet Union. And this rather becomes the norm for Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc, etc.
And this is a big gift India gives the world.
Butterfly Partition through an effective power-sharing arrangement between Hindus and Muslims; it helps to keep both Gandhi and the Muslim League marginalized. Jinnah stays in the Congress and works alongside Nehru, et al in the independence movement. This keeps India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh united in a broad federal arrangement (optimistic but doable). No immense damage, economic catastrophes and massive ethnic cleansing from Partition, and no multiple Indo-Pakistani wars.
Upon independence, have India also absorb Nepal, Bhutan, and Sri Lanka from British control. Goa and the Princely States are absorbed like IOTL. This gives Uber-India a massive population.
With Gandhi marginalized, Uber-India should have a greater focus on industrialisation and exports. Don't let Nehru stuff this up, get him sidelined early. Uber-India now has a truly huge English-speaking workforce, a working democracy, and vast agricultural and natural resources. It should invest heavily in education and infrastructure improvements, and be export focused.
With no Pakistan, Uber-India becomes a pro-Western/anti-Soviet ally in the region, but it is still somewhat independent during the Cold War. The Soviet Union and China are hostile to Uber-India due to border tensions. Uber-India brings Afghanistan into its own sphere of influence (which angers the Soviets), and has good relations with Iran and the Arab monarchies.
American investment flows into Uber-India.
Upon independence, have India also absorb Nepal, Bhutan, and Sri Lanka from British control. Goa and the Princely States are absorbed like IOTL. This gives Uber-India a massive population.
With Gandhi marginalized, Uber-India should have a greater focus on industrialisation and exports. Don't let Nehru stuff this up, get him sidelined early. Uber-India now has a truly huge English-speaking workforce, a working democracy, and vast agricultural and natural resources. It should invest heavily in education and infrastructure improvements, and be export focused.
With no Pakistan, Uber-India becomes a pro-Western/anti-Soviet ally in the region, but it is still somewhat independent during the Cold War. The Soviet Union and China are hostile to Uber-India due to border tensions. Uber-India brings Afghanistan into its own sphere of influence (which angers the Soviets), and has good relations with Iran and the Arab monarchies.
American investment flows into Uber-India.