Fate of India with no islam

[Kishan]

If Islam had not entered India, I think Buddhism would not have collapsed as in OTL, but would have survived as a major religion. Sikhism would not have made its appearance. Jainism
might have survived as in OTL or spread a little more wider. Buddhism, being a more organised religion could not withstand the attack of Islam on their monasteries and strongholds. What helped Hinduism to resist the pressure of Islam was the caste structure which is viewed as the curse of Hinduism in the modern era. The hold of the caste is much stronger than that of the religion and the one who steps out of its border line is made an outcast. So either castes converted to Islam totally or total resistance was the rule. Hence only backward castes were willing to convert generally.
Harsha is considered as the last Hindu emperor who ruled over North India. The empire that rose in Bengal in 750 AD was the Pala Empire which favored Buddhism. in South the Cholas who rose in 850 AD were the most powerful empire. The Cholas were staunch Saivites. If Palas and Cholas had flourished in their areas and ruled longer, Buddhism would have grown in North India and Hinduism in the South. In the absence of Islam, the rise of the Vijayanagara and the Marathas are doubtful. But the rulers will undoubtedly be Hindus. In the Indo-Gangetic plains, powerful rulers would have risen as the Mauryas, Guptas and Harsha had done earlier. In the absence of Islam the Buddhism would have been more influential in India. Sikhism would not have been born. The caste system would have become weaker and untouchability might have not developed. Hinduism would have been more liberal being influenced by Buddhism and also not requiring to resist the onslaught of Islam.

 

[Dargonaut]

If Islam had not entered India, I think Buddhism would not have collapsed as in OTL, but would have survived as a major religion. Sikhism would not have made its appearance. Jainism
might have survived as in OTL or spread a little more wider. Buddhism, being a more organised religion could not withstand the attack of Islam on their monasteries and strongholds. What helped Hinduism to resist the pressure of Islam was the caste structure which is viewed as the curse of Hinduism in the modern era. The hold of the caste is much stronger than that of the religion and the one who steps out of its border line is made an outcast. So either castes converted to Islam totally or total resistance was the rule. Hence only backward castes were willing to convert generally.
Harsha is considered as the last Hindu emperor who ruled over North India. The empire that rose in Bengal in 750 AD was the Pala Empire which favored Buddhism. in South the Cholas who rose in 850 AD were the most powerful empire. The Cholas were staunch Saivites. If Palas and Cholas had flourished in their areas and ruled longer, Buddhism would have grown in North India and Hinduism in the South. In the absence of Islam, the rise of the Vijayanagara and the Marathas are doubtful. But the rulers will undoubtedly be Hindus. In the Indo-Gangetic plains, powerful rulers would have risen as the Mauryas, Guptas and Harsha had done earlier. In the absence of Islam the Buddhism would have been more influential in India. Sikhism would not have been born. The caste system would have become weaker and untouchability might have not developed. Hinduism would have been more liberal being influenced by Buddhism and also not requiring to resist the onslaught of Islam.

What if Islam spreads through the trade route. Conquest isn't the only way for Islam to spread

 

[Kishan]

What if Islam spreads through the trade route. Conquest isn't the only way for Islam to spread

The title of the thread very clearly spells out the condition. It is "the Fate of India with no Islam". It does not say the spread of Islam through conquest which means by all methods, including trade and commerce. The title defines an India where Islam has not entered through any method, whether conquest, trade or any other way.

 

[Ultima Ratio]

We could see disputes between North and South Indians as they compete and rival each other. The British would exploit this and maybe favor the North Indians.

This is just speculation

The British? With such a ground-shattering PoD you will see huge butterflies. You will see Byzantines arrive before British. If Britain even exists.

 

[Indicus]

Just an idea here. Buddhism existed in India as a substantial minority religion, and with Islam came the conquest of notable Buddhist centres such as Kashmir, Sindh, and Bengal, resulting in the remnants of Buddhism being destroyed and totally absorbed into Hinduism - for instance, numerous Kashmiri Hindu rituals have certain Buddhist elements albeit overshadowed by Shaivism. Bhakti, which rose from South India during the rise of Islam, led to the rise of numerous deities like Krishna and Rama as they became extremely popular gods - while Krishna was a notable god for centuries before Bhakti, it was really this movement which turned him into the most popular in the Hindu pantheon. With Buddhism still surviving to an extent (though post-Gupta, it was moribund in its homeland), it is possible that a Bhakti cult could emerge around the Buddha, with hyms devoted to him written in Nepali just as Krishna had Braj Bhasha hymns and Rama had Awadhi hymns. Buddhist Bhakti would likely mix Buddhist and Bhakti elements to create something radically different.

 

[souvikkundu25140017]

I personally think best way Buddhism can endure even propagate in such time line if it receives some kind of leader who can synthesize and provide organization and proper infrastructure to different sects. I am thinking about a Timeline where Adi Sankara was converted to Buddhism and lived longer. Shankara's Vedanta shows similarities with Mahayana Buddhism; opponents have even accused Shankara of being a "crypto-Buddhist," a qualification which is rejected by the Advaita Vedanta tradition, given the differences between these two schools. Shankara and his followers borrowed much of their dialectic form of criticism from the Buddhists. His Brahman was very much like the sunya of Nagarjuna. The debts of Shankara to the self-luminosity of the Vijnanavada Buddhism can hardly be overestimated. There seems to be much truth in the accusations against Shankara by Vijnana Bhiksu and others that he was a hidden Buddhist himself. So Shankara's philosophy is largely a compound of Vijnanavada and Sunyavada Buddhism with the Upanisad notion of the permanence of self superadded. According to Mudgal, Shankara's Advaita and the Buddhist Madhyamaka view of ultimate reality is compatible because they are both transcendental, indescribable, non-dual and only arrived at through a via negativa (neti neti).

So what if he rather than propagating Hinduism propagated Buddhism, that will butterfly away revival of Hinduism.

 

[Kishan]

I personally think best way Buddhism can endure even propagate in such time line if it receives some kind of leader who can synthesize and provide organization and proper infrastructure to different sects. I am thinking about a Timeline where Adi Sankara was converted to Buddhism and lived longer. Shankara's Vedanta shows similarities with Mahayana Buddhism; opponents have even accused Shankara of being a "crypto-Buddhist," a qualification which is rejected by the Advaita Vedanta tradition, given the differences between these two schools. Shankara and his followers borrowed much of their dialectic form of criticism from the Buddhists. His Brahman was very much like the sunya of Nagarjuna. The debts of Shankara to the self-luminosity of the Vijnanavada Buddhism can hardly be overestimated. There seems to be much truth in the accusations against Shankara by Vijnana Bhiksu and others that he was a hidden Buddhist himself. So Shankara's philosophy is largely a compound of Vijnanavada and Sunyavada Buddhism with the Upanisad notion of the permanence of self superadded. According to Mudgal, Shankara's Advaita and the Buddhist Madhyamaka view of ultimate reality is compatible because they are both transcendental, indescribable, non-dual and only arrived at through a via negativa (neti neti).

So what if he rather than propagating Hinduism propagated Buddhism, that will butterfly away revival of Hinduism.

Adi Shankara has heavily borrowed from Buddhist philosophy to lay the foundation of his Advaita philosophy. He adopted not only the philosophy, but also the organisational structure of Buddhism like monasteries and monks to maintain his legacy. In short Shankara adopted or robbed the philosophy and structure of Buddhism to defeat and expel Buddhism from its land of birth. It shows that he had no quarrel with either the philosophy or the organisation of Buddhism and still he spent his life to expel it from India. If he had joined Buddhism as stated by 'souvikkundu25140017' he would have been the 'St.Paul' of Buddhism. But, he didn't, why? The only reason is the fact that he was a Brahmin by birth. The Brahmins opposed Buddhism, Jainism, Lokayata and Ajivaka systems, in short all Sramana systems that challenged Vedic base and Brahminical dominance. Despite the fact that the conservative Brahmins abused and isolated him he was concerned about the future of his caste in a Buddhist India.

 

[ShortsBelfast]

If Britain even exists.

The early history of Britain up to at least 800 AD is completely unaffected by the rise of Islam or the existence of India so Britain will exist. Whether it would have the inclination or ability to conquer TTL India from 1700 on is another question entirely.

 

[Ultima Ratio]

The early history of Britain up to at least 800 AD is completely unaffected by the rise of Islam or the existence of India so Britain will exist. Whether it would have the inclination or ability to conquer TTL India from 1700 on is another question entirely.

Britain might not rise as a great power or would not be inclined to colonize, since the routes to the East are wide open, the Byzantines can get access to India via the Red Sea.

 

[souvikkundu25140017]

Adi Shankara has heavily borrowed from Buddhist philosophy to lay the foundation of his Advaita philosophy. He adopted not only the philosophy, but also the organisational structure of Buddhism like monasteries and monks to maintain his legacy. In short Shankara adopted or robbed the philosophy and structure of Buddhism to defeat and expel Buddhism from its land of birth. It shows that he had no quarrel with either the philosophy or the organisation of Buddhism and still he spent his life to expel it from India. If he had joined Buddhism as stated by 'souvikkundu25140017' he would have been the 'St.Paul' of Buddhism. But, he didn't, why? The only reason is the fact that he was a Brahmin by birth. The Brahmins opposed Buddhism, Jainism, Lokayata and Ajivaka systems, in short all Sramana systems that challenged Vedic base and Brahminical dominance. Despite the fact that the conservative Brahmins abused and isolated him he was concerned about the future of his caste in a Buddhist India.

There were many brahmin who joined sangha, like atish, silabhadra, jatari and santarakshit so he did not joined sangha due to his caste is absurd. If he was properly influenced by monk as brilliant as him then he would have surely joined the sangha.

 

[ShortsBelfast]

Britain might not rise as a great power or would not be inclined to colonize, since the routes to the East are wide open, the Byzantines can get access to India via the Red Sea.

Indeed. That is why I would define that as a question of inclination and ability. And of course opportunity!
Does Nestorian or Monophysite Christianity take the place of Islam and Sikhism? Zoroasterianism was not really a proselyting religion OTL unless in an Islam free world a Zoroaterian religious synthesist equivalent to Guru Nanak were to arise?

 

[Masked Grizzly]

Am of the view some Sikh analogue could have appeared in this alternate scenario with the OTL Islamic influence instead being replaced by other Abrahamic (e.g. Christianity including various heresies, Judaism, Samaritanism, etc), Gnostic (e.g. Manichaeism, Mandaeism) and Persian / Central Asian / etc (e.g. Zoroastrianism, Yazdanism, Tengrism, etc) influences or some syncretic heresy and few embraced by invading groups from Central Asia.

 

[Practical Lobster]

The biggest change is that any Turkic invasion will assimilate far more rapidly and probably have a far less enduring impact - if they even happen. This will have major demographic and economic effects. The political history of the subcontinent will probably take on far fewer Persian and Central Asian characteristics. We'll see a much more distinctively Indian subcontinent I think.

Whatever Hindu religious movements arise will have less need to counter the appeals of Islam. I think something like Bhakti is consequently unlikely to emerge, except in places which are exposed to Christianity.

 

[Dargonaut]

Britain might not rise as a great power or would not be inclined to colonize, since the routes to the East are wide open, the Byzantines can get access to India via the Red Sea.

The trade routes to the east never closed, if it were then the Ottomans would be complete idiots