Indian independence - revolution vs civil disobedience

I have wondered often times that India may have been a very different country in terms of internal unity and politics and international politics. India got independence on the 15 August 1947, after years of peaceful struggle. There was a rebellion in 1857 dubbed by some historians as the first war for independence, but was it. I'm not sure, but certainly question the claim that it was the first war of independence, (also supported in recent publication). If India got revolution through civil war and uprising and revolution then modern India may be a stronger more proactive and aggressive country in the world, much like the modern USA. However, through revolution I think it was as likely that the country as we know it would not have formed, rather several smaller states often with disputes and eventual subjugation. The path to independence or other defining characters of the nation-state and its people underlines all future actions. One path would have resulted in a proactive strong non-vascilating shrewed state, the other lead to an intrinsically peaceful state goverened by intrinsically peaceful people. They appear an indecisive vascilating lot, lacking the shrewd, but their democracy is rooted in and young. Give it time because history in half a century will be an interesting read.