"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting."

How would our country be today if we had got independence in 1857 just after the mutiny?

If India had achieved independence in 1857, then the Indian subcontinent would be a single country. There would be no division between Pakistan, Bangladesh. There would have been Taliban infiltration into India in later years, and India would be more prone to terror attacks in the North-West. Through passing years, chances of divisive sentiments grew would be higher. The country's nationalist fervor really grew only towards the late 19th century and early 20th century it reached its peak. Without that kind of nationalist growth, we don't see Indians being the cohesive lot they are today.

A lot of the country's reserves would've been saved, that is one positive definitely. The British held on to India for so long because India's reserves were always aplenty. A majority of the British loot of India happened post-India came directly under the Queen's rule in 1857. This could've been prevented for sure if we had gained independence back then. The country would have possibly risen to become one of the economic powers of the modern world.

Among one of the very few independent countries then, and a fairly large country at that, we would have definitely been one of the active participants in the World Wars, depending on how our political allegiances lay then.

Known to be a country that gave a lot of qualifications to education back then, it is possible that India would've been much better off in the educational sphere. We would have produced more no. of educational institutions, and a better quality of living in our country. After all, when the world was pushing hard the boundaries of science, we spent it fighting a war to get freedom.

But, now Only one country fought and won independence from the strongest military of the time, the British Empire, that too with the help of the French and because of good leadership and guerrilla warfare. The 13 colonies of the United States. They were successful because Geography, a good intelligence network, and a comparatively homogenous population were on their side. Their mystic tactics were to target and kill British Officers which rendered the British Army become a headless body.

Imagine India in 1857 -

  • A vast land with many kingdoms and prosperity.
  • Lack of education among the masses and ability to pick up weapons and fight, the war was fought mainly by mutineers and armies of princely states, contrast that with America where most people at least had a basic idea of how to make weapons and shoot them.
  • The caste system prevailed wherein a lot of men wouldn’t be allowed to fight.
  • India had crooked roads and technology, information would’ve passed slowly.
  • Lack of national identity.

Keeping into account these factors it is difficult to imagine how India would’ve defeated the British Empire. The chances of the defeat of the British Empire were very slim.

Assuming that the British were defeated this is what might have happened -

  • The massive population wasn’t that educated and did not have much idea about democracy and the ideas of John Locke and Montesquieu, etc, it was only in the latter part of the 18th century did the moderates, who were enlightened and inspired by the works of European philosophers push for an idea of Independent India.
  • Lack of consensus on the purposes of India might be governed very well.
  • The British would have created a problem identical to the ones they created with the state of Israel and the division of India and Pakistan.
  • Some other European power might have taken advantage and repeat what the British did.
  • Even if the princely states tried for some semblance of order their main aim would’ve been to solidify their power and not to think about modernizing the economy or bringing in Industrialization.
  • The only realistic chance for a victory would’ve been the Marathas, but after the third battle of Panipat, after reaching their zenith in the middle of the 18th century(the 1750s-60s) the Maratha Empire had collapsed. As you can see on the map most of the former Maratha empire was in the hands of the British.
  • Rajputs were notorious for infighting as evidenced by the two maps.
  • So India couldn't win the battle of 1857. India did have a chance under the Marathas until the battle of Panipat.

Suppose, if we got the freedom that early, Indians might not have stayed in their native places. Remember, 1857 was when Indian states were still ruled by their kings. A few years into independence, the situation might have even reverted to pre-colonial India where we were ruled by kings left, right, and center. All the afore-mentioned theories would go to dust if that was what would have happened as we wouldn't have had an India in that case.

Based on all the above and how many independent or not colonized countries have progressed, it can be safely assumed that India would have:

  • The benefits of GDP in the world. 160 years are enough for a democratic, country that has seen the ups and downs of progress and slumps; India would have had the best Gross domestic product and would have had the least poverty by now.
  • Typically very low corruption. After about 160 years of independence, India would have had very minimal corruption because growth would have overtaken it. The primary reason why most countries in their formative years are or were corrupt is that all the people literate or illiterate likes to compete with each other and would like to achieve a certain status in life. That's when corruption starts.
  • The Indian judicial system would have become so strong because every independent country goes through the phase of developing what is the right legal process for its pupil, over the years or decades of its post-independence. A strong judiciary means quicker convictions and keeping the checks and balances of the safety of its pupil.

“Freedom of mind is the ultimate freedom. A person whose mind is not free though he may not be in chains is a slave, not a free man. One whose mind is not free, though he may not be in prison, is a prisoner and not a free man. One whose mind is not free though alive is no better than dead. Freedom of mind is the proof of one's existence”

— BR Ambedkar