What if India was never colonized?

[Sardar]

Rebellion by whom, most Hindus will stand my them leading to the rebellion being minuscule in comparison

The unity of "Hindus" was non-existent in the time frame you specify. Region was much more important than religion, which many "Hindus" never saw themselves as practicing the same religion as someone on the other side of India. The unity of "Hindus" is relatively recent. This is especially true for the Marathas which were disliked by all outside of their home territory for their brutal plunder and raiding. Hard to see that changing without an early POD.

True, but you forget that a major reason the Punjab is the way it is now is Partition. The demographics of the region skewed far more Sikh than either Muslim or Hindu in the days of their Empire especially. A failure of the Mughals and British could lead to a decline in Islam in the regions they hold.

The absolute best I can see is maybe 50-55% Hindu/Sikh Punjab, but no way the Punjab becomes solidly majority Hindu. IOTL, without Partition it was 40-ish percent Hindu/Sikh.

Ethnic issues will be something very minor to non existent, as Marathas had an ability to integrate local castes into their empires. This combined with Ethnic nationalism being very less in India would make sure their reign is secure.

Not too sure how they did that IOTL. They fractured and made many enemies IOTL India.

Too little too late, just kill Clive and you get a French India instead. What he did cannot be isolated from the efforts of Dupleix and the wars between France and Britain between 1740 and 1763.​

Unlikely IMO, the French were not gonna try and conquer the subcontinent when the soldiers could be better used defending French territory in Europe and the Americas. The alliances with Mysore and other Indian states will continue.

In almost every single case western nations only sold non-westerners outdated equipment that they had left in their stockpiles... For very obvious economic and strategic reasons. And when modern equipment was sold it was always in very limited numbers and possibly under some kind of conditions. Just look at mid-century Japan, one out of many examples. The majority of the weapons sold to them before and during the boshin war were smoothbore muskets, some 15 years after those had been taken out of service in Europe. The more modern Minie rifles they used were also being taken out of service in Europe by then. And anything else was only ever sold in very limited numbers.​

That didn't need to happen; Indian smiths very quickly learned how to build and produce modern muskets. By the late 18th century IIRC most muskets used by Indian armies were native built.

I mean... That's not really the case. Europeans had been hanging around for 250 years by then, the British for 150. Hardly a case of just happening to be around at the right time. Sooner or later every state's power wanes and others will take the opportunity to fill the void. The Marathas did so in the west and north, the British in the east and south.

Correct, but the British could have been restricted to an "informal Empire" and their coastal factories had the Jagath Seths and Mir Jafar not betrayed Bengal to the British, as Indian states were quickly catching up European Company militaries, and without Bengal the British could not have conquered the South or the Maratha Empire.

 

[Brahman]

The unity of "Hindus" was non-existent in the time frame you specify. Region was much more important than religion, which many "Hindus" never saw themselves as practicing the same religion as someone on the other side of India. The unity of "Hindus" is relatively recent. This is especially true for the Marathas which were disliked by all outside of their home territory for their brutal plunder and raiding. Hard to see that changing without an early POD.

I mean I agree, the closest thing to OTL Hindus is what they would be but they would still be wildly different due to a now dominant Maratha Empire that actually gives proper patronage to Hinduism, Hinduism ITTL would look quite different

Not too sure how they did that IOTL. They fractured and made many enemies IOTL India.

Marathas did fine for the most part, its just that losing to Afghan and then British which led to their downfall, and even then some Maratha princely states were there across India, showing how entrenched they were

 

[Sardar]

I mean I agree, the closest thing to OTL Hindus is what they would be but they would still be wildly different due to a now dominant Maratha Empire that actually gives proper patronage to Hinduism, Hinduism ITTL would look quite different

I agree. I just think that the Muslims of the North will not respond so well to what you think will happen, as even IOTL they didn't want to depose the Mughal Emperor when they certainly could have. Even the British kept the Emperors in Delhi until after 1858.

Marathas did fine for the most part, its just that losing to Afghan and then British which led to their downfall, and even then some Maratha princely states were there across India, showing how entrenched they were

But that's why I have a hard time seeing the Marathas have long-term rule; because their generals and nobles were so entrenched in their fiefs that it would be hard anytime after the Peshwa era began to re-centralize the Empire, AND replace the Delhi Emperors with their own line.

 

[Brahman]

I agree. I just think that the Muslims of the North will not respond so well to what you think will happen, as even IOTL they didn't want to depose the Mughal Emperor when they certainly could have. Even the British kept the Emperors in Delhi until after 1858.

But that's why I have a hard time seeing the Marathas have long-term rule; because their generals and nobles were so entrenched in their fiefs that it would be hard anytime after the Peshwa era began to re-centralize the Empire, AND replace the Delhi Emperors with their own line.

Assuming Marathas have conquered or beaten all their enemies, there won't be conversions on a forceful scale, but Hindus will obviously be more preferred than Muslims for government jobs and as sic it would incentivize people to be Hindu, add to that new population growth of Hindus compared to Muslims who would more concentrated in cities would result in their absolute population declining in percentage very quickly.

The fiefdoms of Marathas might be a problem, but actually might also help them, with the Delhi emperor ruling over them nominally with foreign policy controlled while the rest are upto smaller states, which could essentially force competition between the states leading to more economic growth. Military would obviously be the big uniting factor here and might even become the defacto ruling institution as time goes on

 

[AsukaEMP]

Unlikely IMO, the French were not gonna try and conquer the subcontinent when the soldiers could be better used defending French territory in Europe and the Americas. The alliances with Mysore and other Indian states will continue.

It were the French under Dupleix who started training and arming locals in the European manner. Already during the 1740s they had thousands of such sepoys, the British then copied them and by the 1760s European-style sepoys made up the majority of the "European" armies in India. India was conquered with mostly Indian soldiers, no substantial amount of European soldiers was ever present or even needed. Also after the 7YW France didn't fight any wars on the continent anymore until the revolution so...

As for trying to conquer India, that's also what Dupleix did. He installed a French puppet in the Carnatic, but Clive just barely managed to outsmart him so it ended up under British control instead. The French then successfully installed a puppet in Hyderabad and annexed Hyderabad's coastal regions. The French also tried to expand into southern Burma but failed there. And when the British got their hands on Bengal France's window of opportunity was gone, as it gave the British a much bigger recruitment and tax base than anything the French held or could still take atp. The alliances with local states like Mysore was a later policy that the French adopted after they had already been pushed back to their coastal trade posts, as this was the next best way to resist Britain in India from that point onwards.

That didn't need to happen; Indian smiths very quickly learned how to build and produce modern muskets. By the late 18th century IIRC most muskets used by Indian armies were native built.

In the mid-to-late 18th century Indians started to use more muskets, but it was an organisational shift and not a technological one. They had been known to them for over 200 years, and had been copied by locals almost as soon as the Portuguese had arrived. But it was only after the British started to expand that it became clear that traditional armies no longer sufficed so the Marathas, Mysore, etc. all began to copy the European model and hired European (mostly French, Portuguese, and Dutch) instructors. However, even then most soldiers were armed with cheaper matchlock muskets, rather than the more complicated and more expensive flintlock muskets.

Also I need to point out that firearms got harder and harder to copy over time. 16th century matchlocks were very simple to reproduce, it's little more than a metal tube on a piece of wood with a trigger that fires a metal ball. Mid-19th century rifles are much more intricate, being made with machinery and using specially-made ammunition, which is why they were neve copied at all.​

 

[Kaushlendra pratap singh]

Also I need to point out that firearms got harder and harder to copy over time. 16th century matchlocks were very simple to reproduce, it's little more than a metal tube on a piece of wood with a trigger that fires a metal ball. Mid-19th century rifles are much more intricate, being made with machinery and using specially-made ammunition, which is why they were neve copied at all.

When Maratha ruled india they have better Gun in subcontinent then any other power .
They were defeated by British due to better financial and government system.

 

[Sardar]

Assuming Marathas have conquered or beaten all their enemies, there won't be conversions on a forceful scale, but Hindus will obviously be more preferred than Muslims for government jobs and as sic it would incentivize people to be Hindu, add to that new population growth of Hindus compared to Muslims who would more concentrated in cities would result in their absolute population declining in percentage very quickly.

That won't have the major effect you think it will have. And Muslims were not completely absent from the Maratha administration (they couldn't be if they wanted to rule any large part of India).

The fiefdoms of Marathas might be a problem, but actually might also help them, with the Delhi emperor ruling over them nominally with foreign policy controlled while the rest are upto smaller states, which could essentially force competition between the states leading to more economic growth. Military would obviously be the big uniting factor here and might even become the defacto ruling institution as time goes on

That doesn't make much sense. Eventually the lesser nobles will try and gain power, and all that system will insure is chronic instability and weakness against foreign invasion, which we saw IOTL.

As for trying to conquer India, that's also what Dupleix did. He installed a French puppet in the Carnatic, but Clive just barely managed to outsmart him so it ended up under British control instead. The French then successfully installed a puppet in Hyderabad and annexed Hyderabad's coastal regions. The French also tried to expand into southern Burma but failed there. And when the British got their hands on Bengal France's window of opportunity was gone, as it gave the British a much bigger recruitment and tax base than anything the French held or could still take atp. The alliances with local states like Mysore was a later policy that the French adopted after they had already been pushed back to their coastal trade posts, as this was the next best way to resist Britain in India from that point onwards.

My point still stands. If they wanted to conquer more the certainly could have, the British didn't control all of India in one day. But they didn't because the French had bigger priorities as the time. And after the SYW I don't think they'd be willing to spend even more cash on training more Sepoys to achieve what many at the time thought was a fool's errand in conquering multiple Indian Kingdoms.

In the mid-to-late 18th century Indians started to use more muskets, but it was an organisational shift and not a technological one. They had been known to them for over 200 years, and had been copied by locals almost as soon as the Portuguese had arrived. But it was only after the British started to expand that it became clear that traditional armies no longer sufficed so the Marathas, Mysore, etc. all began to copy the European model and hired European (mostly French, Portuguese, and Dutch) instructors. However, even then most soldiers were armed with cheaper matchlock muskets, rather than the more complicated and more expensive flintlock muskets.

Also I need to point out that firearms got harder and harder to copy over time. 16th century matchlocks were very simple to reproduce, it's little more than a metal tube on a piece of wood with a trigger that fires a metal ball. Mid-19th century rifles are much more intricate, being made with machinery and using specially-made ammunition, which is why they were neve copied at all.​

By the mid-19th century only the Sikhs remained independent, and their Army was in most respects equal to that of the British. So I don't really see your point. Indian states had they remained independent would likely have started to produce more advanced firearms as time went on, and adopt better organizational techniques (as they did OTL).

 

[Tupiniquim]

I think India would enter in a spiral of: small states -> small states get conquered by a less weak small state -> creates empire -> eats almost all of the subcontinent -> collapses until their westernization

 

[Brahman]

That won't have the major effect you think it will have. And Muslims were not completely absent from the Maratha administration (they couldn't be if they wanted to rule any large part of India).

Its not like Muslims would be completely absent from Maratha administration, but they would reduced compared to Mughals

That doesn't make much sense. Eventually the lesser nobles will try and gain power, and all that system will insure is chronic instability and weakness against foreign invasion, which we saw IOTL.

I mean if Marathas even won Panipat, their rule would be more stable than than OTL. Even in OTL it took decisive battles against British to take them down, no reason it would be same here once they are actually in a stronger position

 

[Sardar]

Its not like Muslims would be completely absent from Maratha administration, but they would reduced compared to Mughals

Correct, and it would only marginally effect religious demographics in the long run IMO.

I mean if Marathas even won Panipat, their rule would be more stable than than OTL. Even in OTL it took decisive battles against British to take them down, no reason it would be same here once they are actually in a stronger position

Their rule would be more stable, but I still have a hard time believing they will be able to reign in their already rowdy and independence-minded nobles. I agree the British would be unable to conquer them should they have won Panipat among other things, but establishing a larger Empire which included Punjab, Bengal, and the rest of the South is a whole other can of worms.

 

[Brahman]

Correct, and it would only marginally effect religious demographics in the long run IMO.

Their rule would be more stable, but I still have a hard time believing they will be able to reign in their already rowdy and independence-minded nobles. I agree the British would be unable to conquer them should they have won Panipat among other things, but establishing a larger Empire which included Punjab, Bengal, and the rest of the South is a whole other can of worms.

Yeah, one thing I do agree is that their hold would be tumultuous at the beginning atleast, with the Militar being the real pan Indian entity due to their constant wars with Europeans and Other Indian states. Marathas have been described as Prussians of India due constant militarism as such It is feasible to think that Maratha military would eventually become the ruling entity of the Subcontinent

Regarding the Muslim population, it would be around and less than 10% at the most, as the highest growth of Muslim population came during British rule and even post independence, without which they would still remain mostly Urban, educated group of individuals whose population is getting low in total terms because of massive rise of Hindu population

 

[Sardar]

Regarding the Muslim population, it would be around and less than 10% at the most, as the highest growth of Muslim population came during British rule and even post independence, without which they would still remain mostly Urban, educated group of individuals whose population is getting low in total terms because of massive rise of Hindu population

Without British rule the subcontinent will not be so stagnant, and there will likely be more internal migration IMO. I don't see how the Muslim population will be so radically lower than OTL, at the most it will decrease to 25%.

 

[Brahman]

Without British rule the subcontinent will not be so stagnant, and there will likely be more internal migration IMO. I don't see how the Muslim population will be so radically lower than OTL, at the most it will decrease to 25%.

Not really, Muslim Population only grew during British Rule and after, add to that Alt!Marathas Hinducentric policies would lead to Muslims being much lower than OTL

Punjab Province (British India) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

If you read the demographics trend, you would notice Muslim population only began to increase during British colonization, without them, it would not be anywhere near as much, even during height of Aurangzeb, it was estimated Muslims were only around 10% at most that would would remain ITTL

 

[Sardar]

Not really, Muslim Population only grew during British Rule and after, add to that Alt!Marathas Hinducentric policies would lead to Muslims being much lower than OTL

Punjab Province (British India) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

If you read the demographics trend, you would notice Muslim population only began to increase during British colonization, without them, it would not be anywhere near as much, even during height of Aurangzeb, it was estimated Muslims were only around 10% at most that would would remain ITTL

During the Sikh Empire Punjab was at least plurality Muslim, and it says the Punjab was mostly converted by the 16th century.

 

[Brahman]

During the Sikh Empire Punjab was at least plurality Muslim, and it says the Punjab was mostly converted by the 16th century.

Sikh empire also conquered alot if non Punjab areas, like Pashtun areas. Even then I could not find Muslims being majority or even plurality, even if it were, it would barely 40% at the most considering the Census Which would be minuscule compared to most of India's Hindu population, which would further be exacerbated with Marathas Hindu centric policies, leading to Muslims being a tiny minority at best

 

[Sardar]

Sikh empire also conquered alot if non Punjab areas, like Pashtun areas. Even then I could not find Muslims being majority or even plurality, even if it were, it would barely 40% at the most considering the Census Which would be minuscule compared to most of India's Hindu population, which would further be exacerbated with Marathas Hindu centric policies, leading to Muslims being a tiny minority at best

The Hindu centric policies will not have the effect that you think they will. It just doesn't make sense, and didn't happen IOTL.

 

[Brahman]

The Hindu centric policies will not have the effect that you think they will. It just doesn't make sense, and didn't happen IOTL.

It did though have an effect, it uprooted Muslim elites from Maharashtra and Good chunk of Central and North India, it ended the Mughal rule and created a very brief Hindu Empire. It was the reason why many muslim intellectuals feared Maratha expansion as they knew it would end their hegemony. IOTL demographics would not have occured, A stable Martaha empire, even till 1800s would make the religious demographics of ATL 2020 quite different and much more Hindu.

Marathas operated under the "Hindavi Swaraj" motto and very much believed they were saving India from Islamic conquerors, even if there was infighting, this would have become their goal and motto and they will trynto Hinduize India

 

[Sardar]

It did though have an effect, it uprooted Muslim elites from Maharashtra and Good chunk of Central and North India, it ended the Mughal rule and created a very brief Hindu Empire. It was the reason why many muslim intellectuals feared Maratha expansion as they knew it would end their hegemony. IOTL demographics would not have occured, A stable Martaha empire, even till 1800s would make the religious demographics of ATL 2020 quite different and much more Hindu.

Marathas operated under the "Hindavi Swaraj" motto and very much believed they were saving India from Islamic conquerors, even if there was infighting, this would have become their goal and motto and they will trynto Hinduize India

The "Hindavi Swaraj" was not true and a much later historical addition. The Marathas didn't care because the idea of "Hindudom" didn't exist. Sure, they didn't like the Mughals, but the Marathas only cared for the Marathas. "Hinduizing India" was not a concept that was feasible nor desired. Even if they did desire it, the Marathas would have to be utterly incompetent to engage in such a thing. And it was apparent they didn't because when they came to rule North India they didn't even get rid of the Emperors of Delhi, which might logically be the first step to "Hinduize" India.

 

[Brahman]

The "Hindavi Swaraj" was not true and a much later historical addition. The Marathas didn't care because the idea of "Hindudom" didn't exist. Sure, they didn't like the Mughals, but the Marathas only cared for the Marathas. "Hinduizing India" was not a concept that was feasible nor desired. Even if they did desire it, the Marathas would have to be utterly incompetent to engage in such a thing. And it was apparent they didn't because when they came to rule North India they didn't even get rid of the Emperors of Delhi, which might logically be the first step to "Hinduize" India.

No really, because People like Shivaji themselves mention Hindavi Swaraj, literally it is one of the things he used as causes of rebellion. And no, Marathas were extremely successful for that even in OTL as they did as I mention before uproot most of Muslim noblity across the places they conquered. They didn't get rid of Mughals in Delhi because they were not stable enough at that point and after Panipat, never had a chance to do so. They will Hinduize the population and considering it would be less than 10% at this point who would be Muslims, it would be a much bigger success

 

[ahmedali]

No really, because People like Shivaji themselves mention Hindavi Swaraj, literally it is one of the things he used as causes of rebellion. And no, Marathas were extremely successful for that even in OTL as they did as I mention before uproot most of Muslim noblity across the places they conquered. They didn't get rid of Mughals in Delhi because they were not stable enough at that point and after Panipat, never had a chance to do so. They will Hinduize the population and considering it would be less than 10% at this point who would be Muslims, it would be a much bigger success

I do not understand your insistence that the Marathas are the Castilians of the Indian subcontinent when they were not

Basically, it was proven that Hindavi Swarajya is not true at all, as historian Setumadhavarao Pagadi, who is the most famous Maratha historian, said.

He said that much of the historical material on Shivaji is in fact bogus

Along with James Grant Duff Alth and Jadunath Sarkar refute the opinions of Marathi historians about Shivaji

The Sardars are right on the Marathas, not to be loved by anyone outside their home regions