What would have happened if Veer Savarkar became India's first PM?

[Lone Wolf]

I am not sure about rest but he probably would have given away entire J&K even Patel initially had controversial views & thought about about exchanging Hyderabad with J&K lol..  And later realized his folly. 

Actually as bad as Nehru was he was the best bet at that time.  He had a decent image among other leaders & was well known internationally although he was full of himself & viewed himself as leader of Asia until Mao shattered his dreams ultimately. 

Edited May 28, 2021 by Lone Wolf

[Number]

It was impossible given the following INC had. Sardar Patel would have been the best.

Chachaji not just screwed us for 15 years but left a royal family to keep sucking the blood of the country for many decades to come.

Edited May 28, 2021 by Number

[ravishingravi]

https://openthemagazine.com/essay/in-search-of-the-real-savarkar-2/

[EnterTheVoid]

He probably would have given away all of Jammu and Kashmir. And probably all of Hyderabad too

 

In Sardar Vallabhai Patel, we trust.

[coffee_rules]

On 5/28/2021 at 2:10 AM, Lone Wolf said:

I am not sure about rest but he probably would have given away entire J&K even Patel initially had controversial views & thought about about exchanging Hyderabad with J&K lol..  And later realized his folly. 

 

 

5 hours ago, EnterTheVoid said:

He probably would have given away all of Jammu and Kashmir. And probably all of Hyderabad too

 

In Sardar Vallabhai Patel, we trust.

Who’s he ? Savarkar? Why would you think that? HMS was opposed to the partition till the very end. 
 

Besides OP was so hypothetical, VS was nowhere as popular as Patel , Rajaji as compared to Nehru, to be considered for PM. He wanted more of a societal change in India rather than any political change, 

[Lone Wolf]

27 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

 

Who’s he ? Savarkar? Why would you think that? HMS was opposed to the partition till the very end. 
 

Besides OP was so hypothetical, VS was nowhere as popular as Patel , Rajaji as compared to Nehru, to be considered for PM. He wanted more of a societal change in India rather than any political change, 

Yep his popularity was nowhere close to mainstream leaders.  Furthermore he came across as a atheist that contributed that his ideas were never taken seriously. 

 

J&K issue is different than the partition as it was the last remaining piece of the puzzle.  Patel once made a wrong assumption that J&K can be given to Pakistan in exchange for Hyderabad but he did realized soon that it was a foolish idea & nor that anyone was willing to accept that. 

Now Hypothetically Savarkar would not have been able to stop Partition coz even Gandhi failed there.  But he did wanted Hindu Rashtra as well...   So he probably would have struck some deal with Jinnah & would have done some give n take with say Sindh.   It's all hypothetical though as the question itself is.  

 

[Yoda-esque]

One of the greatest minds, way ahead of his time.

 

 

[mishra]

I am generally  absolutely clear,

Thinkers don’t necessarily mean that they can manage or run country. Just because you have right thought  and ideas doesn’t means you will reach to top and be successful at to top.

 

So, He would have done jackshit.

[gattaca]

I had same question what would have been if it was Bose. Probably we would have struggled. Even SC Bose had communist ideas just like Nehru was socialist.

 

was socialism of need since we had kings ruling us and most of Indians were poor.

Edited June 3, 2021 by gattaca

[coffee_rules]

Such a hypothetical question now. The whole country was behind Congress and Congress ideology was framed by MKG. He was madly in love with Nehru (speaking platonically only) and hence he was chosen. No other Congress leader had the people's backing and MKG's as well. Whoever MKG would have chosen, country would have accepted.

Most of the Congress leaders were educated in UK/Eu and hence were inclined to Socialism. They wouldn't think of any other form of govt. With the country coming out of poverty and famine, it was natural for the people to look up at the govt as the savior, mai baap. This savior complex is still ingrained in our politicians mind and even in the people.

  

It was not independence, but a transfer of power from British to Congress. That's all.

Edited June 3, 2021 by coffee_rules

[BacktoCricaddict]

7 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

It was not independence, but a transfer of power from British to Congress. That's all.

Nailed it.  From one Majesty to another Majesty.  

[Lone Wolf]

1 hour ago, gattaca said:

I had same question what would have been if it was Bose. Probably we would have struggled. Even SC Bose had communist ideas just like Nehru was socialist.

 

was socialism of need since we had kings ruling us and most of Indians were poor.

Had Bose made it out alive it would have created a lot of confusion.  Public opinion would be divided for sure but Nehru would still be the first.  International pressure would also be another factor..  Nehru would be the safe bet in the end. 

 

 

Edited June 3, 2021 by Lone Wolf

[gattaca]

12 minutes ago, Lone Wolf said:

Had Bose made it out alive it would have created a lot of confusion.  Public opinion would be divided for sure but Nehru would still be the first.  International pressure would also be another factor..  Nehru would be the safe bet in the end. 

 

 

Bose was popular than Nehru for sure. But MKG would have overridden and appointed Nehru. 

Edited June 3, 2021 by gattaca

[Lone Wolf]

15 minutes ago, gattaca said:

Bose was popular than Nehru for sure. But MKG would have overridden and appointed Nehru. 

Yes perhaps but Allied powers would not have agreed for it & he most probably would be charged with something..  India would have a tough time at UN too.  Pakistan would have 100% support of UK & western powers over Kashmir. 

Only realistic scenario of him becoming PM is had Axis powers won the WW.  It would have been a nightmare for us. 

Edited June 3, 2021 by Lone Wolf

[mishra]

55 minutes ago, Lone Wolf said:

Had Bose made it out alive it would have created a lot of confusion.  Public opinion would be divided for sure but Nehru would still be the first.  International pressure would also be another factor..  Nehru would be the safe bet in the end. 

 

 

Nehuru played his cards well. By the time India was independent, he had neutrallised people like Bose, Savarkar, Gandhi and Jinnah and got Support of Patel and co. 
 

He was a player

[Lone Wolf]

26 minutes ago, mishra said:

Nehuru played his cards well. By the time India was independent, he had neutrallised people like Bose, Savarkar, Gandhi and Jinnah and got Support of Patel and co. 
 

He was a player

Yep Indeed.  Biggest challenge though was Patel but he managed to win him over. 

[Khota]

India afte partition had the right leaders. They clinged to power too long and wish there was a proper opposition too.

[Mariyam]

ICF would have had a thread titled 

" What would have happened if Nehru became India's first PM?"

 

 

Edited June 5, 2021 by Mariyam

[Tibarn]

Quote

add @Tibarn 

I don't want to write one of my patented essays on him right now, but for me he would be a 6 or 7 out of 10 as PM. 

(0-2 Terrible; 3-4 Poor; 5 average; 6 Okay; 7-8 Good; 9-10 Excellent). 

All categories aren't weighed equally for me, and these scores are not relating to anyone else, just him on his own merits. If you want me to explain a specific one of my ratings then I will, otherwise, I don't want to write an essay encompassing all of them. 

Feasibility(2)

Government (4)

Law (4)

Provincial Organization (5)

Economics (5 )

Education (7) 

Science/Technology (7)

Territorial Integrity (10)

Internal Stability (4)

Military (5)

Foreign Policy (8)

Language (5)

Social Policy (7)

Culture (5)

 

A lot of the 5s are there because there wasn't anything clearly articulated in those areas. 

Quote

Any idea if Savarkar would have been better or worse than Nehru?

This isn't really a question, it's obvious. No one who knows policy differences between the two on any level would think Nehru was any sort of good option in relation to Savarkar. India would be a middle income country at least if he were the first PM, by virtues of omission alone(the opposite of sins of omission).  Forget Savarkar, there were several candidates within the Independence-Era Congress who were vastly superior candidates for the role, ie Sardar Patel, KM Munshi, C. Rajagopalachari. If some people had sense, they would have at least made Munshi or Rajaji as the first finance minster of India and India would likely be at least a lower-high income country by now. 

 

Nehru and Congress effectively ran India unopposed for basically the first 3 decades(seriously look at the shambolic "elections" in India for those years. There was not a single party which could feasibly have won an election against them). This was a reason why Gandhi wanted to split/dissolve the Congress party: so that Indians could actually have an option between 2+ parties. The Independence-Era Congress was an ideology free party people with all sorts of varied ideas were all under one umbrella (it's sole goal was to get independence from the British). Instead Godse foolishly assassinated him at the worst possible time (when his popularity was already declining), and India got one-party rule for basically 3 decades with only micro-regional parties as opposition.

 

An one-party rule system in and of itself isn't bad, but the right person has to be in charge. An advantage of authoritarian styles of government is the speed with which policy can be implemented, as opposed to the policy paralysis democracies are famous for (ie Rajya Sabha in India being used to stall/block acts from Lok Sabha even when a government has a majority on its own).

 

If a leader has/adopts the correct policies, then a country would benefit from the ease of implementation. Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew, Peter the Great of Russia, China under Deng Xiaoping, or Japan under Emperor Meiji during the Meiji Restoration are just a few examples. Just focusing on the later two, they are two of the greatest leaders in world history, considering the countries they were leaders of. They laid the foundation for two modern, mega-economy, civilizational states (of course the Chinese glorify one of the worst leaders in history in Mao instead). If Nehru was even passable or average on the economic front, I wouldn't mind ignoring all the other areas he was a complete clown in (and the list is endless: education, military, language, etc), but Nehru was literally a 1/10 on the economy front (the 1 point he gets just because he ignored Gandhi's view that India should be an agrarian, village-based economy and that machines should be limited/banned). If one person rules a country unopposed for ~18 yrs, and that country is a poverty stricken dumpster fire after their rule, they are a complete and utter failure. No ifs, ands, or buts.  

 

Slightly off topic, but really historians should judge 4 prime ministers the harshest in post-1947 Indian history: Nehru, Indira, Rajiv, and Modi after his reign ends. The first 2 listed are the most powerful PMs in the Republic's history. The next 2 are in some order the 3rd and 4th most powerful. The rest of the PM's mostly weren't that powerful enough to matter, were lapdogs, or died like LBS.     

[Jimmy Cliff]

6 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Slightly off topic, but really historians should judge 4 prime ministers the harshest in post-1947 Indian history: Nehru, Indira, Rajiv, and Modi after his reign ends. The first 2 listed are the most powerful PMs in the Republic's history. The next 2 are in some order the 3rd and 4th most powerful. The rest of the PM's mostly weren't that powerful enough to matter, were lapdogs, or died like LBS.     

 

PVNR and ABV belong to which category?