The what if's of India

Every so often we sit down and think about what could have been in our lives. What if one had ended up marrying a childhood sweetheart say, or had opted for science—instead of liberal arts, or immigrated abroad and so forth. We as people think about it, smile, shrug and move on.
Now, historians are considering the if's of history seriously. A recent book dwells into the major what ifs of the world, (What If? The World's Foremost Military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been, by Robert Cowley & Stephen E. Ambrose)
For a what if to be truly worth considering it has to be plausible. Wishful thinking cannot form the basis of alternative history. So the right questions are important. A popular issue of Outlook went overboard while publishing a series of what ifs, though most of it were too macroscopic to fall in the realm of possibility. The small twists are really provocative. A close shave. A death defied. A war won or lost by chance. Indian history throws up at least three such cases which could conceivably change its course.
The most interesting case of how India could have been radically different by minor alteration in her history comes from the Mughal Empire. The year was 1657. Ill health of the emperor Shahjehan precipitated fratricide, common in succession struggle to the Mughal throne. Historians believe that with the backing of his father the emperor, an army at Delhi, and a strategic depth till Lahore, Prince Dara Shikoh had it going for him. One battle well fought, and the course of Indian history would have turned on its head. All he needed was strategic priority and a bit of luck. He messed up his priority by sending his best troops to fight his brother Shouja at Varansi. He ran out of luck when his other brother, Murad Baksh teamed up with Aurangzeb. As an emperor he would have been Akbar reloaded. He was tolerant and inclined towards Hinduism and Sufism. At that time India was the centre of Islam and a powerful Sufi influence could have turned even the crusading zeal of Islam on a more tolerant course. Finally Dara could have led to an Indian renaissance given his interest in the arts.
The second counterfact is even more interesting. Mohammad Ali Jinnah died barely an year after taking over as the Quaid- e- Azam of Pakistan. During the later years of the freedom struggle this suave lawyer was already afflicted with tuberculosis. Had this been known, there is a distinct possibility of a grand compromise that may have avoided the partition of India. He could have been offered the prime ministership of India while the Congress could have just counted the hours.
Thirdly, what if Sardar Patel and not Nehru had become the first prime minister of Independent India? Mahatma’s favour for Nehru was apparent but still many have pondered this many times over. His succession was in fact seriously considered before Nehru won the coveted crown. Should Sardar have become PM, India would certainly have been a very different country.
He was unlikely to accept a ceasefire in Kashmir in 1948 given that on the ground India was winning the war and the troops had reached beyond what is today the line of control. India may have embarked on a free market regime much earlier than China. Unlike Nehru no go slow was likely to have occurred on the nuclear weapon option either. India may even have even on the side of the United States in the cold war. And most importantly, India may not even have had the successive dynastic premiers it ended up with. Wishful thinking borders on allegory. But in history as in life counterrfactuals are full of wistful possibilities.