On positive side, permanent UN seat would have been with India, no kashmir with pak or coco islands issue, maybe partition would have annulled, who knows. On negative side, deep rooted fractures in the social fabric.
Nope, india is always militarily stronger than pak, not to mention the narrative of Nehru calling hind chini bhai bhai would not be there, so we won't be trusting china blindly
India at 1947 was desperately poor, unable to produce enough food, highly illiterate even more communally divided than today, much more caste and regional differences and much more dependent on west for tech, and a recalcitrant Pakistan which was more powerful than today, the one difference is China was not as powerful as today.
Could Narendra Modi have managed the situation at 1947 ? I doubt it. He just built on the base and all the hard work done by earlier PMs ,not just Nehru, even from his own party Vajpayee.
India would have broken apart under the leadership of Modi in 1947 due to internal , external and border pressures. His leadership style is based on mobilizing the victim fear of Hindus , an attitude which would have hastened the demise and breakup of India.
If Nehru had led India in 2014, I don't think we would have seen the same Nehru we read about in history. His political philosophy was shaped by his exposure to the West, the intellectual climate of his time, and his years in prison, where he wrote The Discovery of India. He was an honest man with a vision, and India has arguably never had a Prime Minister quite like him since. Perhaps Abul Kalam Azad and Manmohan Singh came close, to some extent. But I am talking about them as human beings, not politicians. They were good men whose ideals were often compromised by the very party they represented. On the other hand, had Narendra Modi led India from 1947, I believe we would have ended up with a very different country, quite possibly a Hindu Rashtra, with an entirely different approach to foreign policy.
*Jawaharlal Nehru donated approximately 98% of his personal assets to the nation—widely cited as around ₹196 crore in 1946 values (estimated by various sources to be equivalent to ₹12,000 crore to ₹16,000 crore today)*
Sadly, India was never formally offered the UN seat. Both the 1950 and 55 offers were informal, the former due to the taiwan-china issue, where the UNSC wasn't certain about China's true representation. The 1955 Soviet Offer was useless too, since with the Cold War at the rise, there's no way US wouldn't have vetoed
You checked this info
You can surely check how was India invaded and UN seat.
It was intelligence failure on the part of IB that india lost the war aslo India was never offered any UN seat.
Hindi would be used more in entire india and the country would become north centric. Wayyy more communal riots and less population religious minorities. The advantages you can split into groups and sicuss amongst yourselves
There would be no india left bro, Britishers said at that time that india will collapse under 10 years it was leaders like nehru and patel who saved everything.
You have absolutely no idea. There were an unbelievable amount of separatists back then. There wasn't even a proper national identity in the minds of the people back then.
During his tenure as India's first Prime Minister (1947–1964), Jawaharlal Nehru faced several regional, ethnic, and political separatist or secessionist challenges: [1]
Naga Insurgency (Naga National Council / A.Z. Phizo): The Naga National Council (NNC), led by Angami Zapu Phizo, declared Nagaland independent on August 14, 1947, and launched an armed secessionist struggle, prompting Nehru's government to deploy the Indian military and enact early counter-insurgency measures. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Kashmir Separatism and Cross-Border Dispute: Following the accession of Jammu and Kashmir, Nehru faced armed conflict with Pakistan, internal political volatility, and early separatist/plebiscite sentiments within the valley (including movements led by the Plebiscite Front and the later friction involving Sheikh Abdullah). [1, 2, 3, 4]
Dravidian Separation Movement (Dravida Nadu / DMK): The Dravida Kazhagam and later the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) under C.N. Annadurai agitated for a sovereign southern state (Dravidistan or Dravida Nadu) separate from the Indian Union, which Nehru strongly opposed until the demand was formally dropped in 1963 following the 16th Constitutional Amendment. [1, 2]
Mizo National Famine Front / Early MNF Roots: Driven by grievances over the 1959–1960 Mizo famine and neglect by the Assam government, the Mizo National Famine Front—led by Laldenga—gradually transformed into the political and armed Mizo National Front (MNF), laying the groundwork for full-scale secessionist rebellion shortly after Nehru's era. [1]
Telangana Peasant Armed Struggle: Carried out by communist groups (under the Communist Party of India) in the princely state of Hyderabad and surrounding regions (1946–1951), this movement sought a radical agrarian overhaul and local secessionist/revolutionary control before being suppressed and integrated through police and military action.
Punjabi Suba / Sikh Linguistic and Autonomy Agitations: Led by the Akali Dal under Master Tara Singh, this movement demanded a separate Punjabi-speaking linguistic state (and included more radical voices pressing for autonomous or distinct religious-political recognition), though Nehru largely framed it as a linguistic reorganization issue rather than pure secession at the time
There were groups in Manipur, nagaland, the nawab of Hyderabad also wanted to join pakistan, then there were small kingdoms in Bengal and gujrat who wanted to be a part of Pakistan and finally you have kashmir
Patel integrated around 500+ princely states while also making the kings of those kingdoms as mere common citizens
People said countries like Yugoslavia and India can never survive because of their diversity. Look what happened to Yugoslavia, and where we are. It's because of leaders like Nehru that India is still a united country.
India would've been already renamed Narendra Modi Kshetra. We would be compelled to keep a portrait of Narendra Modi hanging on the wall. Daily 2 times we would be compelled to offer prayers to that portrait at a specific times. All the roads and highways would be named as PM Narendra Modi highway 1,2,3 etc. Any criticism of Narendra Modi would be taken as a criminal offense (already happening...)
How much you got to comment this dalal ? An Right to Information (RTI) query revealed that over 450 schemes, buildings, roads, parks, and institutions across India have been named after members of the Nehru–Gandhi family (specifically Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, and Rajiv Gandhi) but you're talking about Modi
They deserve it it's honorary what did modi do just fake promises 100 smart cities? Where's bulet train Where's 15lakhs in my bank account a person who tries to "aalu se sona"
SC/STs & Women would not have gotten voting rights in 1947 for sure .... By 2020 SC/STs would be even worse than today! That is 100% sure...!
Damn Ambedkar wouldn't even be allowed anywhere near Delhi....
Also India as we know today wouldn't have formed because of their non-inclusuive narrative of Hindu first, Hindi first, etc. Nehru had to make India pluralistic so that he could stitch together this country. Even Brits were surprised at South joining the country back then......
People act like India’s entire economic history depends on which PM occupied the chair. The real comparison is with China: it began market-oriented reforms in 1978, while India waited until 1991 to dismantle much of its licence-permit raj.
Nehru deserves criticism for excessive controls and protectionism lasting too long. But China’s rise wasn’t magic, and the Great Leap Forward was a catastrophic failure. Likewise, Modi’s record should be judged by actual outcomes—manufacturing jobs, productivity, exports and per-capita income—not hypothetical alternate history.
Only way Modi in 1947 would make difference if the policymaking was different, otherwise not much difference.
You can criticise Nehru’s policies without pretending Modi in 1947 would automatically have turned India into China. History isn’t a fan-fiction contest.
Lmao Modi would have just sold off the country to British and the rich. Doubt he would be able to handle anything in 1947, (not that he's handling anything now)
india would become first largest exporter of beef if modi ruled in 1947 and population would also be maintained because caste-caste riots, minority riots. Nonetheless india would become unstable and failed democracy similar pakistan and even if nehru ruled from 2014 he can change something but not the image created during modi's rule
Haa jaise, unfortunately 2015 mai modi ne pak ko pok dediya aur 2017 mai china ko aksai chin aur 2021 mai sri lanka ko katchatheevu island 😢😢 hai na lodu??
Nehru and Modi represent very different political eras and governing styles. I’d rather compare specific policies—education, industry, foreign affairs, social cohesion, and institutions—than assume either one could simply reproduce the other’s historical context.
India would have become American colony like Pakistan is now. Nehru focused majorly on one thing that is to have a nation free from outside control during Cold War
10
u/Additional-Data45 3h ago
WHERE’S THE FCKING MEME?