The Iron Man who united modern India - a salute

Today is India's Iron Man - Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel's - birth anniversary, and his amazing achievements need to be understood in the context of the complex background he was working in.

The Britishers came into south Asia as traders, became our rulers, looted us for 200 years with all enthusiasm and sowed seeds of discontent and struggle that we are forced to live with till date. The central pillar of their rule over such a huge land with massive diversity was simple - break Indian unity by nurturing selfish kings and princes, while defanging their military strength systematically and giving them a dream of a bright future. Today's Rajya Sabha itself came into being as a Council for such Princes, where they would meet together under British supervision.

As the fires of independence struggle started burning bright, the British were sure of one thing - once they left, India would simply balkanise (break apart) into hundreds of pieces. They knew it as they saw no single Party or individual capable enough of tying the huge land into one thread of unity. The rulers had no idea that a man whose vision was broader than Bismarck and skills sharper than Robert Clive and Warren Hastings combined, was waiting in the wings.

Here is one of the many maps of the India when Britishers left in 1947. The complexity of the situation and immensity of the task of unification could have driven anyone crazy.

(this is one of the many maps available)

What if Sardar Patel or Netaji Bose would be India's first prime minister?

History can be intellectually very stimulating if alternative scenarios are visualised. Even the recent trends in some major exam's questioning pattern seem to suggest that students must develop this thought process, as it needs real depth to be able to write rationally on alternative possibilities. In fact, the UPSC 2015 Mains papers clearly indicated it!

So, a good question - Let us suppose that Pandit Nehru did not become the first PM of India. What would have happened?

This answer is based on pure speculation. Kindly bear.

India if Sardar Patel were to become the first PM, and continued for some years -

Pakistan to the UN? Never!

1. Having integrated India, he would have gone real heavy on the Kings and Princes that played the fool during the process of integration. Their falling-in-line would have been ensured very fast.
2. He would have made them pay the price pretty quickly - the Privy Purses would have been abolished perhaps by 1955 itself (rather than in 1971 as done by Indira Gandhi) [ Privy Purse in India ]
3. The private banking industry in India would have collapsed due to this pretty fast, and nationalisation would've happened by 1960 itself. 
4. The Congress may have seen a vertical split right after the First General Elections. The faction led by Pandit Nehru would have posed a huge challenge to Patel's leadership.
5. The Kashmir issue would have taken a different shape altogether - it would never have been internationalised, and no appeal to the UN would ever be made. Bilateral would have meant completely Unilateral!
6. Pakistan would have thought once more before pushing the tribal forces into Kashmir in 1948.
7. Bye bye NAM.
8. Bye bye Personal Law System. Welcome Uniform Civil Code.
9. Perhaps India would have discovered Netaji Bose's real whereabouts in the 1950s.(Warning - pure, heavily loaded speculation)
10. Goa would have been in India by 1952 at the most :)
11. Perhaps no IITs and IIMs but more of regionally empowered institutions

Can India witness a real Coup?

Palace Coup in A.P.

Many political coups have been successfully, and often peacefully, organised in India. A good example of a regional political coup is when in August 1995, N T Ramarao was removed as Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, and as the president of the TDP, by his son-in-law N Chandrababu Naidu who led an internal coup against his own father-in-law! If we examine the possibility of a comprehensive violent coup at the national level like the ones regularly seen in many African nations, yes, then we have not witnessed one so far.

I would love to give a detailed treatment. Here's my take -

A. Coup versus Revolution versus Rebellion

Washinton, ahoy!

• First, let us understand the difference between these. A coup (more commonlyCoup d'etat) is a quick and decisive (and generally illegal) overthrow of an existing government by a small group that is in the position to do so, with or without the armed forces or military or the leading militia. Example - what is seen across African nations regularly
• Then comes the term revolution, which is used to denote a large-scale uprising of people from all walks of life, with the common aim to overthrow the existing regime, and replace it with a more acceptable one. Example - the American revolution 1776 that ousted the British Raj from what was to be the USA or the 1857 Indian Revolution against the British Raj
• A rebellion happens when there's a lot of opposition (armed, violent or otherwise) to the central authority. India has witnessed many of these post 1947, like the Naxalite rebellion (post 1979 till date), the Khalistan Andolan (rebellion) in 1980s etc.

B. What are the reasons for such uprisings?

Egypt's Hosni Mubarak

• Seemingly unjustified concentration of power in one family or person - Just recall what happened in the Arab Spring from Dec 2010 onwards. Most of the Arab regimes faced tremendous revolt from civilian populations as for decades, an ossified political structure had offered little devolution of power across the society. Examples - Egypt (Hosni Mubarak). An old example - the American Revolution that happened in the 13 original north American British colonies (against UK - on the primary issue of no taxation without representation - considered gross injustice by the Monarch i.e. the Parliament)