What if India won the war of 1962 against China?

[prani]

How? You might ask?

Say the Indian Leadership was much more competent and had its priorities straight Economically, technologically, militarily and in terms of foreign relations. India adopts Neutrality in the cold war but the leadership is less idealistic and realizes that the country is surrounded by enemies and takes steps to buff up the military. Say the leadership does not adopt license raj and makes modernization of agriculture a top priority and takes steps to modernize it this generates vast surplus of sugar, cotton and other agricultural stuff which the country exports and imports technology, know how and weapons from both the Soviet Bloc and American bloc, whatever tech that they could get their hands on was imported and steps taken to absorb it such that by the late 50s the country was self sufficient in food, had basic industries and had a respectable, modernized armed forces. Basically India could withstand a war of attrition if need be. The thing in the Himalayas is that you just can't place a military all across the border, it is just not affordable nor does it makes sense. So Chinese would build up troops in those sectors where they have the advantage and Indians would build up troops in those sectors where they have the advantage.

So as China builds up its armed forces on its side of the border the Indians do the same and tension builds up and war breaks out. Chinese troops would cross the Indian border and occupy territory and Indians would cross into China and occupy Chinese territory in retaliation. Soon Indian army and air force with American/British help and aid re-organize the troops and efforts and begin to clear Chinese troops from the occupied Indian territory with Indian troops in China preventing any reinforcements reaching the troops in India with diversionary attacks. As the costs both Human and material mounts up for both especially on the Indian side, India decided to pull back from most of the Chinese territory expect for for strategic or tactically important passes or valleys in areas bordering India and declares a unilateral cease fire. Leaving China with a bloody nose.

My question is
1. What would happen to Mao and the PRC?
2. How would the western Bloc react?
3. How would the soviets react to their biggest "Ally" getting kicked in head, will Sino-Soviet split still happen?
4. How would this play into the Cuban missile crises or it plays no role
5. How would Pakistan react?
6. How would the rest of the non aligned world react?, assuming they do absolutely nothing to help India like was the case in our timeline.

 

[The Banker]

How? You might ask?

Say the Indian Leadership was much more competent and had its priorities straight Economically, technologically, militarily and in terms of foreign relations. India adopts Neutrality in the cold war but the leadership is less idealistic and realizes that the country is surrounded by enemies and takes steps to buff up the military. Say the leadership does not adopt license raj and makes modernization of agriculture a top priority and takes steps to modernize it this generates vast surplus of sugar, cotton and other agricultural stuff which the country exports and imports technology, know how and weapons from both the Soviet Bloc and American bloc, whatever tech that they could get their hands on was imported and steps taken to absorb it such that by the late 50s the country was self sufficient in food, had basic industries and had a respectable, modernized armed forces. Basically India could withstand a war of attrition if need be. The thing in the Himalayas is that you just can't place a military all across the border, it is just not affordable nor does it makes sense. So Chinese would build up troops in those sectors where they have the advantage and Indians would build up troops in those sectors where they have the advantage.

So as China builds up its armed forces on its side of the border the Indians do the same and tension builds up and war breaks out. Chinese troops would cross the Indian border and occupy territory and Indians would cross into China and occupy Chinese territory in retaliation. Soon Indian army and air force with American/British help and aid re-organize the troops and efforts and begin to clear Chinese troops from the occupied Indian territory with Indian troops in China preventing any reinforcements reaching the troops in India with diversionary attacks. As the costs both Human and material mounts up for both especially on the Indian side, India decided to pull back from most of the Chinese territory expect for for strategic or tactically important passes or valleys in areas bordering India and declares a unilateral cease fire. Leaving China with a bloody nose.

My question is
1. What would happen to Mao and the PRC?
2. How would the western Bloc react?
3. How would the soviets react to their biggest "Ally" getting kicked in head, will Sino-Soviet split still happen?
4. How would this play into the Cuban missile crises or it plays no role
5. How would Pakistan react?
6. How would the rest of the non aligned world react?, assuming they do absolutely nothing to help India like was the case in our timeline.

I wish someone answers this man
I am also wondering the same

 

[LeonardWood6]

1. What would happen to Mao and the PRC?

Mao gets humiliated here. The PRC probably retreats into isolation instead of becoming an aggressive expansionist state

2. How would the western Bloc react?

The Western Bloc is most likely pretty happy, that communism just got beaten. I think America definitely under Kennedy will seek out closer ties with India.

3. How would the soviets react to their biggest "Ally" getting kicked in head, will Sino-Soviet split still happen?

That depends. I think that if China gets humiliated, potentially the USSR seeks closer ties to China, but I think the Sino-Soviet Split still happens.

4. How would this play into the Cuban missile crises or it plays no role

No role.

5. How would Pakistan react?

Pakistan definitely is pretty scared now. If India can beat China, they can certainly beat Pakistan. I could see Pakistan being less provocative towards India. The 1965 war is potentially butterflied away.

6. How would the rest of the non aligned world react?, assuming they do absolutely nothing to help India like was the case in our timeline.

Not sure.

 

[prani]

Mao gets humiliated here. The PRC probably retreats into isolation instead of becoming an aggressive expansionist state

Would he be overthrown and mainland collapses into another civil war between different red faction leading to restoration of ROC rule in mainland by 1973?

 

[The Banker]

Mao gets humiliated here. The PRC probably retreats into isolation instead of becoming an aggressive expansionist state


The Western Bloc is most likely pretty happy, that communism just got beaten. I think America definitely under Kennedy will seek out closer ties with India.


That depends. I think that if China gets humiliated, potentially the USSR seeks closer ties to China, but I think the Sino-Soviet Split still happens.


No role.


Pakistan definitely is pretty scared now. If India can beat China, they can certainly beat Pakistan. I could see Pakistan being less provocative towards India. The 1965 war is potentially butterflied away.

Not sure.

and what if the war doesn't happen?

 

[Sekhmet_D]

6. How would the rest of the non aligned world react?, assuming they do absolutely nothing to help India like was the case in our timeline.

Probably all start toadying up to India as a new rising power.

 

[Rajveer Naha]

Say the Indian Leadership was much more competent and had its priorities straight Economically, technologically, militarily and in terms of foreign relations. India adopts Neutrality in the cold war but the leadership is less idealistic and realizes that the country is surrounded by enemies and takes steps to buff up the military. Say the leadership does not adopt license raj and makes modernization of agriculture a top priority and takes steps to modernize it this generates vast surplus of sugar, cotton and other agricultural stuff which the country exports and imports technology, know how and weapons from both the Soviet Bloc and American bloc, whatever tech that they could get their hands on was imported and steps taken to absorb it such that by the late 50s the country was self sufficient in food, had basic industries and had a respectable, modernized armed forces. Basically India could withstand a war of attrition if need be. The thing in the Himalayas is that you just can't place a military all across the border, it is just not affordable nor does it makes sense. So Chinese would build up troops in those sectors where they have the advantage and Indians would build up troops in those sectors where they have the advantage.

Hindsight assumes that India would be preparing for war, but that was not going to happen as until 1959 the relation with Beijing was quite good and there was no reason for that not to be the case. Idealism has nothing to do with attempting to maintain good relations with your neighbour. India did precisely that and made agriculture a very high priority and the land reforms are a result of the efforts within the first decade of Independence. Fertilizers were being imported and factories being set up for that purpose. And in any case license raj and agriculture cannot be equated as it related to industries. Even without License Raj you are hardly going to see any changes, maybe one more steel plant and some more smaller industries. License Raj was a result of Industrial Policy Resolution 1956 and before that Industrial Policy of 1948 put in place some restrictions but the bureaucratic mess called License Raj was not created. As for technology absorption, India was doing precisely that taking help from different countries in setting up steel plants, shipyards, Railway Coach Manufacturing, and other sectors and creating a human capital pool through institutions like IITs and IIMs. As for the Soviet bloc, India had to rely on the west as the Soviets under Stalin considered India to be a bourgeois democracy and Even Nikita Khrushchev did not make efforts to repair relations until some more time. Up until 1962 India was already working on modernising its military. We had the best jets that Europe had on offer, had our own fighter jet program, our own anti-aircraft missile program with Switzerland.

That said it is not inconceivable to improve the warfighting capability of India. If India spent about 30% pore on the military and took some critical decisions earlier, the course of the war could have been changed. So let's begin with 1950. China restores control over Tibet and the army is asked to maintain a watch over the border committing about three to four thousand men. In the early 50s, the Indian surveys in Aksai Chin continue unmolested including the plan to extract salt from hypersaline lakes. At the same time India obtained a license to produce FN FAL rifles (In India it is called SLR OTL). In 1955 Chinese surveyors and engineers were intercepted by Indian patrols in the Aksai Chin region. and decided to increase its presence to about 10-15K men. Negotiation begins as to the exact location of the border. The apparent lack of infrastructure on the border compared to the Chinese led to the creation of the Border Roads Organisation four years early. and a road to Ladakh via Manali and a road to Tawang are sanctioned to be completed in five years whereas mule tracks and jeepable roads are established at high altitudes in Ladakh going deep into Aksai Chin from the Shyok River and Pangong Lake. During the time the Chief of the Army Staff General KS Thimmayya goes ahead with his modernisation plan of the border, establishing artillery posts, supply depots, high-quality gear and raising additional mountain divisions.

In 1959 tensions rose further as Dalai Lama fled to India. In 1960 the ITBP is formed. 1961 Goa goes as it was hoped and Beijing supports India politically. Then finally when tensions rose in early 1962, due to the better presence, the IB better deduces the threat on the border and four whole divisions are mobilised, two in either sector. Thagla Ridge and Dhola Post are held by the Indian Army and Brigadier John Dalvi opens fire on the Chinese due to his better position. The IAF carries its OTL airlift of AMX-13 tanks to Chusul earlier. Skirmishes continued throughout September and the Chinese finally deducing that the Indians are actually entering Chinese territory, convened a meeting of the Central Military Commission to launch a full-scale attack in October 20 as India refused to vacate the Thagla Ridge which was on the Chinese side of the MacMahon Line. The Chinese launch their attack on 20th October. In the Aksai Chin sector, India is defending on a wide front and on more indefensible terrain has to fall back to the Macartney-MacDonald line while in the East, Thagla is held despite heavy casualties. By the end of a month from the conflict, the War has descended into a stalemate and the Chinese despite taking lopsided casualties managed to dislodge the Indian positions around Thagla and advance towards Tawang and in the west, they with tanks to counter Indian armour push the Indians back to the foreign office line of 1873. Now, winter is setting in and fighting will become impossible so the Chinese decided to bring in air support. It causes tremendous losses to the Indians however the line is held at heavy costs and to help alleviate the situation, India launches an armoured assault on the Demchok sector. and gain some ground.

1. What would happen to Mao and the PRC?

It would be great embarrassment after the great leap forward and weaken Mao's control but the overall territorial gains might allow them to continue. Their nuclear project will continue unabated.

2. How would the western Bloc react?

I told you so moment as the futility of non-alignment is exposed and India becomes more and more integrated with the west.

3. How would the soviets react to their biggest "Ally" getting kicked in head, will Sino-Soviet split still happen?

Sino- Soviet Split has already occurred. What happened is the Chinese try to repair relations and they received Mig-21 tech in 1963, which still happens ITTL as Chinese support for Vietnam is necessary. Its not exactly a kick to the teeth as India hold poor defensive positions to start with so a major attack will lead to India losing some ground.

6. How would the rest of the non aligned world react?, assuming they do absolutely nothing to help India like was the case in our timeline.

They of course wouldn't help. Non-aligned countries do not feel so strongly that they will send expeditionary forces anywhere (apart from Arab states against Israel). In any case, any help offered would be of questionable value. Now in the narrative battle, India will probably still win ITTL but its ability to show itself as a victim of aggression would become harder with India still controlling internationally recognised parts of China. And the holding of Thagla beyond the Mac Mahon line.

4. How would this play into the Cuban missile crises or it plays no role

The war broke out in the last days of the Cuban Missile Crisis and OTL there was a lull in the fighting coinciding with the end of the Cuban Crisis, here the weapon deliveries are made to India as fast as possible.

5. How would Pakistan react?

Like OTL with quiet promise that India can safely move forces from the Pakistani Border to the Chinese Border, perhaps due to western pressure.

 

[Gillan1220]

I read the U.S. actually assisted India during this war.

Here's some references:

Nehru sought U.S. help during 1962 Indo-China war: book

Bruce Riedel says Mao's decision to attack India was to "humiliate Nehru."

www.thehindu.com

The Untold Story: How US came to India's aid in 1962

The story of the 1962 war with China has all the elements of a dramatic historical event. Nehru's handling of the crisis and panic reactions were in marked contrast to the cool and confident Kennedy. The generous and prompt response by JFK made him an icon in India. But the US State Department...

www.rediff.com

U.S. MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO INDIA 1962-63: A STUDY IN DECISION-MAKING on JSTOR

Shivaji Ganguly, U.S. MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO INDIA 1962-63: A STUDY IN DECISION-MAKING, India Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 3 (July-September 1972), pp. 216-226

www.jstor.org

But yes it was overshadowed by the Cuban Missile Crisis which was concurrently happening. Most of the world held its breath for 13 days hoping the nuclear weapons didn't go flying.

 

[prani]

Idealism has nothing to do with attempting to maintain good relations with your neighbour.

That said it is not inconceivable to improve the warfighting capability of India. If India spent about 30% pore on the military and took some critical decisions earlier, the course of the war could have been changed. So let's begin with 1950. China restores control over Tibet and the army is asked to maintain a watch over the border committing about three to four thousand men. In the early 50s, the Indian surveys in Aksai Chin continue unmolested including the plan to extract salt from hypersaline lakes. At the same time India obtained a license to produce FN FAL rifles (In India it is called SLR OTL). In 1955 Chinese surveyors and engineers were intercepted by Indian patrols in the Aksai Chin region. and decided to increase its presence to about 10-15K men. Negotiation begins as to the exact location of the border. The apparent lack of infrastructure on the border compared to the Chinese led to the creation of the Border Roads Organisation four years early. and a road to Ladakh via Manali and a road to Tawang are sanctioned to be completed in five years whereas mule tracks and jeepable roads are established at high altitudes in Ladakh going deep into Aksai Chin from the Shyok River and Pangong Lake. During the time the Chief of the Army Staff General KS Thimmayya goes ahead with his modernisation plan of the border, establishing artillery posts, supply depots, high-quality gear and raising additional mountain divisions.

In 1959 tensions rose further as Dalai Lama fled to India. In 1960 the ITBP is formed. 1961 Goa goes as it was hoped and Beijing supports India politically. Then finally when tensions rose in early 1962, due to the better presence, the IB better deduces the threat on the border and four whole divisions are mobilised, two in either sector. Thagla Ridge and Dhola Post are held by the Indian Army and Brigadier John Dalvi opens fire on the Chinese due to his better position. The IAF carries its OTL airlift of AMX-13 tanks to Chusul earlier. Skirmishes continued throughout September and the Chinese finally deducing that the Indians are actually entering Chinese territory, convened a meeting of the Central Military Commission to launch a full-scale attack in October 20 as India refused to vacate the Thagla Ridge which was on the Chinese side of the MacMahon Line. The Chinese launch their attack on 20th October. In the Aksai Chin sector, India is defending on a wide front and on more indefensible terrain has to fall back to the Macartney-MacDonald line while in the East, Thagla is held despite heavy casualties. By the end of a month from the conflict, the War has descended into a stalemate and the Chinese despite taking lopsided casualties managed to dislodge the Indian positions around Thagla and advance towards Tawang and in the west, they with tanks to counter Indian armour push the Indians back to the foreign office line of 1873. Now, winter is setting in and fighting will become impossible so the Chinese decided to bring in air support. It causes tremendous losses to the Indians however the line is held at heavy costs and to help alleviate the situation, India launches an armoured assault on the Demchok sector. and gain some ground.

Not really disagreeing with you assessment but....coming back to our timeline

Idealism or incompetence, one cannot ignore the turn of events that took place post 1959 when the CCP made its intent clear and known to the rest of asia when it annexed or rather re established its authority over Tibet at which point, is it idealism or it criminal incompetence bordering on Treason Even after that we did not take steps to strengthen our borders against China or made moves to counter Chinese designs with the help of Soviets or the Americans or both. Make no mistake, there was criminal incompetence, from 1959 on part of the political leadership. And what good relations? We had a foreign Minister that made enemy out of everyone with his vile speech and that moron was appointed as the defense minister from 1959, I did not want to call it incompetence for fear of making it political.

India did precisely that and made agriculture a very high priority and the land reforms are a result of the efforts within the first decade of Independence. Fertilizers were being imported and factories being set up for that purpose. And in any case license raj and agriculture cannot be equated as it related to industries. Even without License Raj you are hardly going to see any changes, maybe one more steel plant and some more smaller industries. License Raj was a result of Industrial Policy Resolution 1956 and before that Industrial Policy of 1948 put in place some restrictions but the bureaucratic mess called License Raj was not created

License raj is my forte, The 56 resolution made socliaism the goal, license raj started in 1939 and 48 resolution just gave it the seal of approval by the new government, when Britain declared war on Germany and with passage of war time Acts like, Defense of India acts and rules made under the said Act but war time controls continued even after independence and if you remember, Industrial development and regulation act 1951 was already in force and controlled most of the Industry of the country, So war time controls did continue with defense of India acts from British era being retained in the form of various acts, rules and regulations. What you are talking about is MRTP and the series of dumb dumb laws such as nationalization, but the structure was already there his daughter did the ratio ad absurdum. Calling it "Some" restrictions is an understatement.

the disaster that was the second 5 year plan? the continued Balance of payment issues that it caused?

We could have done a lot better, infact India's heavy Industrial base would be smaller but would have same effectiveness compared to our timeline. A lot would be invested in agriculture instead and the agro Industrial sector and we would become a grain and agri goods based exporter by late 50s and early 60s which would help us with the balance of trade with the biggest drain on forex being import of weapons.

India was doing precisely that taking help from different countries in setting up steel plants, shipyards, Railway Coach Manufacturing, and other sectors and creating a human capital pool through institutions like IITs and IIMs.

This is the problem with our analysis, we only see half of the picture, we ignore the legal regulations on the business and the problems that it imposed in making the economy as a whole inefficient . Public sector isn't really known for tech absorption or developing new tech. May be public private partnership that we saw in france is the way forward especially in strategic sector including defense. Hindsight is 20-20 but France was doing it.......yeah they have better Human resource but what we did was really stupid in terms of our economic policy, freight equalization levy? WTF?

It would be great embarrassment after the great leap forward and weaken Mao's control but the overall territorial gains might allow them to continue. Their nuclear project will continue unabated.

Would the PRC fall and ROC be restored somewhere in the 70s?
.

 

[Rajveer Naha]

Britain declared war on Germany and with passage of war time Acts like, Defense of India acts and rules made under the said Act but war time controls continued even after independence and if you remember, Industrial development and regulation act 1951 was already in force and controlled most of the Industry of the country,

I believe that it signalled the end of theoretical laissez-faire but the 1951 law seems closer to Atlee's Britain rather than what we would see later in India itself. While IP 48 can be considered the beginning of License Raj, but in my opinion (I am not claiming to be correct) I believe it was inevitable that the government would do something like that given the Bombay plan. When Businessmen are on board recommending regulation and control and prevent wastage, you know you are close to Socialism.

What you are talking about is MRTP and the series of dumb dumb laws such as nationalization, but the structure was already there his daughter did the ratio ad absurdum.

Indira Gandhi was responsible for absurd spree of nationalisations and MRTP and a whole bunch of crippling regulations. It's beyond 1962 so hardly relevant.
The question I ask about nationalisation (while I can understand the logic of Egyptians nationalising the Suez Canal and the Saudis the ARAMCO) in Indian Context is Why don't you set up a new enterprise if you are determined to involve yourself in that sector? Why do you need to acquire a private one? Instead of paying compensation have more money to invest likely using newer technology.

Calling it "Some" restrictions is an understatement.

I agree to disagree. I believe that even with Bombay plan and IP 48 we could develop a vibrant private sector. I mean we would still get Social Security with Minimum Wages Act, Payment of Bonus Act, Employee State Insurance, Payment of Gratuity Act, Employee Provident Fund, Maternity Benefit Act. And labour laws like Industrial Disputes Act, Factories Act and later environmental laws like Air Act and Water Act. We could have had dual economy with private and public basically operating independently and competing. While the effect of Social Security on economic development is debatable, it can be agreed that many of the conditions were too harsh

the disaster that was the second 5 year plan? the continued Balance of payment issues that it caused?

It followed IPR 56 right? Ooh the plan was dead with the Mahalanobis's plan being inducted and with the scammer Krishnamachari putting in his own genius with Freight Equalisation Act (WTF did the parliamentarians thought would happen? Bring in Dutch Disease manually?)

We could have done a lot better, infact India's heavy Industrial base would be smaller but would have same effectiveness compared to our timeline. A lot would be invested in agriculture instead and the agro Industrial sector and we would become a grain and agri goods based exporter by late 50s and early 60s which would help us with the balance of trade with the biggest drain on forex being import of weapons.

But isn't it too early to have effects by the late 50s. The better part of the decade went to Land Reforms. What exactly do you propose to be the impetus for bringing in the Green Revolution early? We would obviously need MSP and fertilizers earlier. The First Five Year Plan with great rainfall showed that things were fine and dandy. Getting rid of that stupid export tax would help. Everyone knows that India needs forex but still geniuses. If you read National Planning Committee chapter in Nehru's Discovery of India it's pure horror movie stuff with buzzwords like nationalisation, collective farming, heavy industry, doubling to tripling the economy in ten years, aspiring 500-600% growth. At that point why not appoint Mao to be the Finance Minister. Coming back to point without marked difference in economy there is no major change to the military so our scenario does not change. However I will maintain that so many steel plants would not have been possible with Private money at the time. If the government wasn't spending on industries, they would have been spending it on Infrastructure or Human Capital, I do not see a drastic shift in the budget towards defence.

Would the PRC fall and ROC be restored somewhere in the 70s?

No reason. ROC of the time was. Also a brutal dictatorship with limited public support and they could never muster enough forces to reclaim the mainland. Losing a war does not end a regime ask Gaddafi he lost wars with Egypt, Tanzania and Chad and still survived.

 

[walmart]

Would he be overthrown and mainland collapses into another civil war between different red faction leading to restoration of ROC rule in mainland by 1973?

No

 

[raharris1973]

Can the OP or any of the responders imagining a better wartime result draw a line on the map showing the change in territorial change that a better Indian performance would represent? And also, what the size of the population affected by India controlling more of Ladakh/Aksai Chin than OTL? If I am remembering correctly, China occupied, but did not remain, in any of its "South Tibet" claims, retreating back to the McMahon line, the British and Indian defined border line in the northeast, south of which is the current Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh I think.

 

[prani]

I believe that it signalled the end of theoretical laissez-faire but the 1951 law seems closer to Atlee's Britain rather than what we would see later in India itself. While IP 48 can be considered the beginning of License Raj, but in my opinion (I am not claiming to be correct) I believe it was inevitable that the government would do something like that given the Bombay plan. When Businessmen are on board recommending regulation and control and prevent wastage, you know you are close to Socialism.

I do not know what came first, was it a Bureaucratic empire building that opted in the business elites of the old colonial India or was it as some in the right claim, an attempt by the Business leaders and congress leaders and the Bureaucrats to consolidate power. Problem in our country we do not have very good archiving and researching those archives to trace the development of license raj.

And Atlee's system of governance was not that good either but I do understand the reason why they had such ideas cause they were coming out of devastation of the war and there was scarcity of capital to go around since the empire was bankrupt. I mean once can look at India and come to the same conclusion for different reasons.

Yeah you are correct about business men but that was how it was back in the day, in every country, because of the great depression and the whole war situation. We kinda forget about that part but my hope is that there is someone in the government who has enough influence to see the writing on the wall or the political leadership who has the intellectual caliber to look and observe and learn from experiences of continental Europe or look at India and try to come to solution for Indian problems?

What exactly do you propose to be the impetus for bringing in the Green Revolution early?

Like setting up banks or encourage existing banks or let SBI take up the lead in lending to the peasants, so that the peasants can buy land from the landlords and the government guarantees payment of the said loan, this would help in expanding the banking sector as well as helping millions of farmers become land owners, thereby inculcate a culture of risk taking and entrepreneurship while those who do not want to do farming given its risk can migrate to the cities in search of greener pastures, no pun intended. in OTL The distribution of land to everyone and placing condition on its use and sale ended up in a situation where a generation of people who had no interest in agriculture being stuck in farming just because they got a small parcel of land that in turn tied them and their kids to poverty.

We would obviously need MSP and fertilizers earlier.

You can use the Foods corporation of India to start corporate farming by advancing the price of the produce through signing of contracts that are favorable to the new farmers and allow the corporates to do the same since FCI gives out favorable contracts, the private corporates are forced to come up with better terms and thereby you avoid exploitation. One can also come up with tenancy reforms that would make the burden of owning farm land onerous and encourage the landlords to part ways with the land and encourage to buy lands in and around urban areas and provide tax incentives if they build residential apartments cause you are going need all those houses soon lol.

Look this is a simple concept, one could have implemented back in 1947 and this would have worked wonders. The results would be slow to see initially. But this would help solve the problem in the agricultural sector which would help us produce more cotton which would in turn help us have a booming textile industry and help us earn exports since textile is one of those goods than can be globalized easily and one that did not have much trade barriers. So you have solved our food problem and made money off it and then you have solved the clothing problem and made money off it.

You don't even need the license raj, all you need is progressive taxation and investment in banking, insurance, construction, manufacturing in chemicals and agricultural equipment and physical infrastructure, both of which are capital intensive and can be lead by the public sector or a public private partnership which can operate in market conditions.

I wanted to write all this in the OP but.....this has nothing to do with India China war directly. But it would have enabled us to generate forex with would have helped us buy weapons or acquire license to manufacture a lot more weapons systems and achieve strategic superiority over the Chinese, cause let us be honest, they are a basket case at this point.

Indira Gandhi was responsible for absurd spree of nationalisations and MRTP and a whole bunch of crippling regulations. It's beyond 1962 so hardly relevant.
The question I ask about nationalisation (while I can understand the logic of Egyptians nationalising the Suez Canal and the Saudis the ARAMCO) in Indian Context is Why don't you set up a new enterprise if you are determined to involve yourself in that sector? Why do you need to acquire a private one? Instead of paying compensation have more money to invest likely using newer technology.

I don't know man......our politicians were stupid.

I mean we would still get Social Security with Minimum Wages Act, Payment of Bonus Act, Employee State Insurance, Payment of Gratuity Act, Employee Provident Fund, Maternity Benefit Act. And labour laws like Industrial Disputes Act, Factories Act and later environmental laws like Air Act and Water Act.

Nothing wrong with these laws, just that the implementation is poor and questionable at best, maybe in this timeline with the government not micro managing the economy we would have better human resource to man these departments perhaps and they could build up these regulatory institution much better than in our timeline,

We could have had dual economy with private and public basically operating independently and competing.

I am a proponent of Charles De Gaulle style economic management just without the micro management part, having the concept of National Champions in Industry is a good idea back in the 20th century.

It followed IPR 56 right? Ooh the plan was dead with the Mahalanobis's plan being inducted and with the scammer Krishnamachari putting in his own genius with Freight Equalisation Act (WTF did the parliamentarians thought would happen? Bring in Dutch Disease manually?)

That money would have been better spent on bailing out farmers than what we ended up doing, at least we would not have balance of payment problem and banks would be healthy.

Everyone knows that India needs forex but still geniuses. If you read National Planning Committee chapter in Nehru's Discovery of India it's pure horror movie stuff with buzzwords like nationalisation, collective farming, heavy industry, doubling to tripling the economy in ten years, aspiring 500-600% growth. At that point why not appoint Mao to be the Finance Minister.

LMAO

Coming back to point without marked difference in economy there is no major change to the military so our scenario does not change. However I will maintain that so many steel plants would not have been possible with Private money at the time. If the government wasn't spending on industries, they would have been spending it on Infrastructure or Human Capital, I do not see a drastic shift in the budget towards defence.

That was not my point, you and I are not that far off. My Idea was not to surpass Britain in steel production but to use the steel that was produced effectively is what i meant. I think we had the Industrial base to take on 1960s China. What we needed was additional spending (generated from my plan on the economy) on Infrastructure and human capital we could have even fought a war of attrition with China before the super powers intervene and prevent the collapse of either side.

 

[prani]

Can the OP or any of the responders imagining a better wartime result draw a line on the map showing the change in territorial change that a better Indian performance would represent?

That is the funny part of this entire argument, the Map would be the map that is being used by Indian government, the territorial changes would be so minute that you could not spot the difference on the map. The best outcome for us is to make the PRC recognize parts of the McMahon line say in Arunachal Pradesh.

 

[anotherlurker]

That is the funny part of this entire argument, the Map would be the map that is being used by Indian government, the territorial changes would be so minute that you could not spot the difference on the map. The best outcome for us is to make the PRC recognize parts of the McMahon line say in Arunachal Pradesh.

Take a look at google maps, the border is impassable, only a single gravel path at 4500m above sea level. Trying to move the border to either side would at best end up like the Ottoman Caucasus campaign.

 

[The Banker]

I do not know what came first, was it a Bureaucratic empire building that opted in the business elites of the old colonial India or was it as some in the right claim, an attempt by the Business leaders and congress leaders and the Bureaucrats to consolidate power. Problem in our country we do not have very good archiving and researching those archives to trace the development of license raj.

And Atlee's system of governance was not that good either but I do understand the reason why they had such ideas cause they were coming out of devastation of the war and there was scarcity of capital to go around since the empire was bankrupt. I mean once can look at India and come to the same conclusion for different reasons.

Yeah you are correct about business men but that was how it was back in the day, in every country, because of the great depression and the whole war situation. We kinda forget about that part but my hope is that there is someone in the government who has enough influence to see the writing on the wall or the political leadership who has the intellectual caliber to look and observe and learn from experiences of continental Europe or look at India and try to come to solution for Indian problems?



Like setting up banks or encourage existing banks or let SBI take up the lead in lending to the peasants, so that the peasants can buy land from the landlords and the government guarantees payment of the said loan, this would help in expanding the banking sector as well as helping millions of farmers become land owners, thereby inculcate a culture of risk taking and entrepreneurship while those who do not want to do farming given its risk can migrate to the cities in search of greener pastures, no pun intended. in OTL The distribution of land to everyone and placing condition on its use and sale ended up in a situation where a generation of people who had no interest in agriculture being stuck in farming just because they got a small parcel of land that in turn tied them and their kids to poverty.

You can use the Foods corporation of India to start corporate farming by advancing the price of the produce through signing of contracts that are favorable to the new farmers and allow the corporates to do the same since FCI gives out favorable contracts, the private corporates are forced to come up with better terms and thereby you avoid exploitation. One can also come up with tenancy reforms that would make the burden of owning farm land onerous and encourage the landlords to part ways with the land and encourage to buy lands in and around urban areas and provide tax incentives if they build residential apartments cause you are going need all those houses soon lol.

Look this is a simple concept, one could have implemented back in 1947 and this would have worked wonders. The results would be slow to see initially. But this would help solve the problem in the agricultural sector which would help us produce more cotton which would in turn help us have a booming textile industry and help us earn exports since textile is one of those goods than can be globalized easily and one that did not have much trade barriers. So you have solved our food problem and made money off it and then you have solved the clothing problem and made money off it.

You don't even need the license raj, all you need is progressive taxation and investment in banking, insurance, construction, manufacturing in chemicals and agricultural equipment and physical infrastructure, both of which are capital intensive and can be lead by the public sector or a public private partnership which can operate in market conditions.

I wanted to write all this in the OP but.....this has nothing to do with India China war directly. But it would have enabled us to generate forex with would have helped us buy weapons or acquire license to manufacture a lot more weapons systems and achieve strategic superiority over the Chinese, cause let us be honest, they are a basket case at this point.


I don't know man......our politicians were stupid.


Nothing wrong with these laws, just that the implementation is poor and questionable at best, maybe in this timeline with the government not micro managing the economy we would have better human resource to man these departments perhaps and they could build up these regulatory institution much better than in our timeline,


I am a proponent of Charles De Gaulle style economic management just without the micro management part, having the concept of National Champions in Industry is a good idea back in the 20th century.


That money would have been better spent on bailing out farmers than what we ended up doing, at least we would not have balance of payment problem and banks would be healthy.

LMAO

That was not my point, you and I are not that far off. My Idea was not to surpass Britain in steel production but to use the steel that was produced effectively is what i meant. I think we had the Industrial base to take on 1960s China. What we needed was additional spending (generated from my plan on the economy) on Infrastructure and human capital we could have even fought a war of attrition with China before the super powers intervene and prevent the collapse of either side.

I wish someone had an answer this detailed for the question of 'What exactly would Shastri do to the economy if he survived after Tashkent'. People just say 'He would liberalize' and thats it. But how much? Would it be full on like 1992 or would he go back to late 1940s?

 

[raharris1973]

So, let's define India "winning" in 1962. It appears that everyone is regarding Indian reclamation of what India is claiming as its borders including the Aksai Chin as a impossible, correct? It is just physically impossible for an Indian force, no matter how well equipped, trained, and funded and supported by an improved economy. This is because offensive action to take the terrain from the Chinese is tactically and operationally impossible (and India has no strategic or diplomatic trump cards to overturn that game board and win a Chinese concession of the territory) once the Chinese have built their Xinjiang-Tibet road through the Aksai-Chin and set up military posts there because the elevation is so high and the terrain so defensible.

The funny thing is, this was India's *only* real permanent territorial loss, and India in fact "lost" it before the war of 1962, and the fighting of that year scarcely focused on it.

In territorial terms, as far as I know, India still controls the territory up to the McMahon line, China did not keep any territory south of it, because it withdrew at the end of the war [Now that's a what-if: What if China held on and hunkered down to *keep* occupying this northeast India land. What recourse do India, and possibly India-friendly powers, then have, if any?].

So, the loss ultimately wasn't territorial in the northeast, but it was in the form of terrible military performance that was extremely embarrassing, with the Chinese demonstrating they could roll back the Indians in the northeast at will, despite Indian opposition.

So, the only definition of changing things in a 1962 war to an Indian victory would be a defensive, or defensive/counter-offensive victory where the Indians are in good enough shape that they are quite strong on defense, the fighting does not look so one sided, and they defend most of their territory, and get back most of what they briefly lose. And you need to somehow still have the Chinese have the guts to take the offensive even with the Indians being stronger, which they would have to notice.

 

[prani]

I wish someone had an answer this detailed for the question of 'What exactly would Shastri do to the economy if he survived after Tashkent'. People just say 'He would liberalize' and thats it. But how much? Would it be full on like 1992 or would he go back to late 1940s?

He will do nothing, please don't believe the bs of the right wing revisionism.

It appears that everyone is regarding Indian reclamation of what India is claiming as its borders including the Aksai Chin as a impossible, correct? It is just physically impossible for an Indian force, no matter how well equipped, trained, and funded and supported by an improved economy

That's the exact opposite of what I'm saying, look at the official map of India, aksai chin till 1962 was under indian control which was lost which in this timeline would not happen thus threatening China's hold over Tibet as they have to build roads through rather difficult terrain. Once territory is lost its hard to regain, if both sides have reached a point that they can cause significant damage to one another.

appears that everyone is regarding Indian reclamation

There is NO RECLAMATION IN 1962, we lost aksai chin in 1962, you cannot reclaim something that you haven't lost yet. Which is why I'm saying the government was hawkish about PRC from the get go.

once the Chinese have built their Xinjiang-Tibet road through the Aksai-Chin and set up military posts there because the elevation is so high and the terrain so defensible.

Yes but in the event of indian victory, there is no road, just a bunch of Indians looking down at Chinese occupied Tibet.

The funny thing is, this was India's *only* real permanent territorial loss, and India in fact "lost" it before the war of 1962, and the fighting of that year scarcely focused on it

I don't find thousands of Indians and Chinese dying for a piece of land so high up particularly funny. I find your humour in very bad taste.

Aksai chin was lost in 1962 after loss of life on both sides.

Now that's a what-if: What if China held on and hunkered down to *keep* occupying this northeast India land. What recourse do India, and possibly India-friendly powers, then have, if any?

Do your own thread about it? Besides it's difficult to supply arunachal from China because of the geographic reasons so far, which why the Chinese withdrew and this thread is not about speculating on that.

So, let's define India "winning" in 1962

Indians holding the British era border and Makin Chinese accept that border and illegally occupy certain important mountain passes if possible, which I think we can.

So, the loss ultimately wasn't territorial in the northeast, but it was in the form of terrible military performance that was extremely embarrassing, with the Chinese demonstrating they could roll back the Indians in the northeast at will, despite Indian opposition.

I wouldn't say it's one sided cause China still hasn't disclosed the military loss figures cause it's apparently quite high, given how barren the lands are, would have hard to justify the loss of lives. And if the Chinese come to the jungles of Assam it would basically be a Vietnam for China on steroids 😂😂😂 welcome to the rice fields motherfucker

 

[raharris1973]

That's the exact opposite of what I'm saying, look at the official map of India, aksai chin till 1962 was under indian control which was lost which in this timeline would not happen thus threatening China's hold over Tibet as they have to build roads through rather difficult terrain. Once territory is lost its hard to regain, if both sides have reached a point that they can cause significant damage to one another.

Thank you for clarifying, and demonstrating that I misread you. So, in your scenario, under the right circumstances India could win everything it claims back or almost everything, in the Aksai Chin. That would definitely be an Indian "win" and a Chinese "loss".

This response was real helpful, thanks again.

"aksai chin till 1962 was under indian control" - I mean India said so, but hadn't the Chinese built their road through it in 1959 and 1960 before the Indians discovered it?

There is NO RECLAMATION IN 1962, we lost aksai chin in 1962, you cannot reclaim something that you haven't lost yet. Which is why I'm saying the government was hawkish about PRC from the get go.

You're getting a little irritable, I think part of it is we have different perceptions of when the Chinese built the road. I recall reading about the Chinese in real life building it before the 1962 fighting on the Indian claimed ground, without India catching them until the work was complete. You seem to believe China left the land alone until 1962 without any permanent activity or presence, seized in 1962, and only then built the road. We probably both need to double-check our sources. Unless I misunderstood you again, and you have proposed a scenario where the alternate history is Indian vigilance keeps China from doing any building in Aksai Chin before 1962, the Chinese try to grab it in 1962, but they fail, when the Indians successfully defend.

I don't find thousands of Indians and Chinese dying for a piece of land so high up particularly funny. I find your humour in very bad taste.

I meant funny defined in the sense of "strange, unusual" rather than funny as in "ha, ha".

You are not in a position to scold on un-solemn use of the word "funny", it was you introduced the word "funny" into this thread, using its meaning as "strange, unusual, odd" rather "ha-ha, amusing", right here:

That is the funny part of this entire argument,

I mean that wasn't humorous, in either bad taste or good. It did not make me laugh. It was just an observation on your part that made me go, "oh, interesting".

Do your own thread about it? Besides it's difficult to supply arunachal from China because of the geographic reasons so far, which why the Chinese withdrew and this thread is not about speculating on that.

Whoa there mister, Calm down. I'm not making a demand for you to change your thread topic to suit my ideas. I have done a thread on that idea before, and if I get curious enough in the future, I will do it again. Not trying to boss you around.

Indians holding the British era border and Makin Chinese accept that border and illegally occupy certain important mountain passes if possible, which I think we can

Thanks again. Also very helpful, and consistent with the first item I quoted in this response.

I wouldn't say it's one sided cause China still hasn't disclosed the military loss figures cause it's apparently quite high

Yeah, being a non-democracy, China could whitewash its side of the story and hide its pain better.

But wouldn't it be fair to say Indian public opinion felt humiliated by the Chinese as well as outraged, and felt the state/military performed way below expectation (even if they blame the very top - Nehrum rather than the soldiers or officers)?

given how barren the lands are, would have hard to justify the loss of lives.

Speaking of, I wonder what the total population of the lands under dispute, Arunachal Pradesh, and Aksai Chin, were at the time - 10s of thousands? 100s of thousands? Has it even surpassed a million in either place by today?

And if the Chinese come to the jungles of Assam it would basically be a Vietnam for China on steroids 😂😂😂 welcome to the rice fields motherfucker

Over-mountain sustainment for Chinese forces down in jungle lands of Assam would be crazy, crazy hard. I would imagine the Indian Air Force would have a much easier time operating tactically on its side of the mountains. As for the rice fields. Well, it gives the Chinese something to steal and eat, but it keeps up food supply for Indian regular troops and any local irregulars resisting. The Chinese going down into the lowlands would be setting themselves up to get cut off and chewed up. One thing being a potential complication on the Indian side however could be Chinese troops occupying the chicken neck area between Chinese Tibet, Bhutan, Sikkim, and the East Pakistan border, cutting off India's land connection, especially because northeast India had no coastline.

Given Pakistan was cooperative and not exploitive of India's troubles however, I imagine they would allow supply delivery trucks to go across East Pakistan, and Indian overflights to boost Assam.