A Stronger Hindu India

In a sudden turn of events, I shall start rambling on about obscure matters relating to India rather than Mesoamerica. Shocking, I know, but nevertheless, I've been wanting to make a topic like this for many months and now that I'm considerably more knowledgeable on the subject now I feel now to be an appropriate time to start. It is one of the strange twists of fate that India should have suffered such an ignominious fate as to be relegated to being such an obscure land with very little attention being paid to them despite their previous status of being the richest land in the entire world. So I got to wondering, how you have it so that foreign powers do not take over any significant parts of the subcontinent and perhaps have an Indian kingdom rising to major prominence?

The first thing to be averted would be the Muslim invasions of the Middle Ages. When the Ghorids and others invaded, many of the cultural treasures and riches were lost, and society itself changed. In fact I have heard that after the invasion the caste system became far more rigid. The British Raj changed things even moreso. So to start, the best way to avert both of these invasions would be to have a more unified India. Now I am quite aware that having the entire subcontinent under one ruler is very ASB, so instead it would have to be more a regional thing. Like perhaps having most of North India ruled by one empire making vassals of the others in the area, controlling the areas bordering the Ghorids is especially important. However I am not very knowledgeable on the north.

South India I think might be an easier area of discussion for me. I was thinking perhaps that the Cholas could have more luck and eventually come to subjugate or make vassals of most, if not all of, South India. Then they would be quite the major power, what with colonies out east and regular contacts with the Abbasids and the Song Dynasty. So would it be possible at all to have the Cholas establish and even larger empire to control the south and a northern empire to arise that permanently blocks the Muslim invasions? And what would the long term consequences be, do you think?
 
I'm not particularly knowledgeable on the subject (I will freely admit my knowledge is mostly limited to a couple of wikipedia searches and a quick glance just now to refresh my memory), but what about the Mughal Empire? It was for a time pretty much coextensive with modern India. It seems to me that if the Mughals hadn't had so much trouble in the early 18th century, they would've had a much better chance of surviving as Europeans try to move into the area. A whole India is too big for Europe to swallow, and we'd see spheres of influence rather than Britain just annexing/vassalizing it piece by piece.

What was the big reason for the decline of the Mughals? Is it something that could be avoided with a stronger leader?
 
Well, as the title implies, I was looking for a stronger Hindu India... :p

And I'm not too sure as to what happened to them either. But I've always been more interested in the south, especially the Cholas. They seemed very outward facing and advanced. The Chinese were very respectful of their power as well. If they were able to rid themselves of their rivals in the south, they would probably be able to resist the invasions from the Muslim empires and in the long run resist the colonial powers, if they are not butterflied away. The Cholas certainly had a respectable navy given the amount of places they traded with or colonized. Apparently one of the eventual failures of the Chola was that they adopted a policy of allowing defeated kings to rule without a Chola representative or administrator. This may have been a problem in the north as well, but I'm not sure.

As for the northern area, I suppose the most obvious option would be to have the Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty unite the various Rajput states and Sindh, fortify the Ghorid border, and keep the invaders at bay. This way, you have a great deal less destruction and upheaval in the subcontinent, and you end up with at least 5 or so rich and powerful kingdoms, one of which is powerful enough to control the Indian Ocean.
 
One problem is the Indian system of political thought. What you mentioned about the Cholas tended to be the case throughout India. Indian political thought didn't tend to lean towards unified Empires (especially since there are so many different ethnolinguistic groups making up the subcontinent). What this meant was that conquering Emperors would tend to not rule their conquests directly, but rather keep them under the rule of vassal kings. So long as the appropriate tribute was forwarded to the capital, the overlord didn't really interfere in what exactly went on in the provinces. This very decentralised approach to Empire meant that an overlords power decreased with distance from his person. Also, with no concept of centralised political rule, any Imperial pretensions were seen as purely temporary- all it takes is one weak emperor to destroy a dynasty since if he can't enforce his will all the local rajas can simply ignore any further instructions. Furthermore, because of that lack of established central government, there wouldn't necessarily be attempts to reassert an Imperium- it's not like China where even if the Empire falls apart the base assumption is that centralised government will be restored and everyone will be fighting to decide just who restores it. This was a problem well into the Mughal era- all their Nawabs kept breaking away and setting up on their own.

I think it's an interesting idea, though- perhaps like you said instead of a North Indian empire you should think about a South Indian empire that consolidates power. Their advantage is defensive depth against invasions from the North. I've done a TL where Vijayanagara successfully Westernises in the 1600s but that's long after the time period you're thinking of.
 
One problem is the Indian system of political thought. What you mentioned about the Cholas tended to be the case throughout India. Indian political thought didn't tend to lean towards unified Empires (especially since there are so many different ethnolinguistic groups making up the subcontinent). What this meant was that conquering Emperors would tend to not rule their conquests directly, but rather keep them under the rule of vassal kings. So long as the appropriate tribute was forwarded to the capital, the overlord didn't really interfere in what exactly went on in the provinces. This very decentralised approach to Empire meant that an overlords power decreased with distance from his person. Also, with no concept of centralised political rule, any Imperial pretensions were seen as purely temporary- all it takes is one weak emperor to destroy a dynasty since if he can't enforce his will all the local rajas can simply ignore any further instructions. Furthermore, because of that lack of established central government, there wouldn't necessarily be attempts to reassert an Imperium- it's not like China where even if the Empire falls apart the base assumption is that centralised government will be restored and everyone will be fighting to decide just who restores it. This was a problem well into the Mughal era- all their Nawabs kept breaking away and setting up on their own.

I think it's an interesting idea, though- perhaps like you said instead of a North Indian empire you should think about a South Indian empire that consolidates power. Their advantage is defensive depth against invasions from the North. I've done a TL where Vijayanagara successfully Westernises in the 1600s but that's long after the time period you're thinking of.
Hmm, I thought that might be the case. Then it seems the earlier Chola method of installing one of their own princes as a regent (the one wikipedia is telling was used by Rajaraja and Rajendra) should be the one to be used by all successive generations.

And I read your TL, it's quite good. :D Just that I've developed a thing for the Cholas and I think this site has a gravely serious lack of Tamilwankery.

EDIT: Oh, by the way, do you know where I can find online sources and information about Indian societies in general from this period? Something on South India in particular would be nice, but it's so hard to find Indian history and stuff online anything would be greatly appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Have Smarat Hem Chandra Vikramaditya win the Second battle of Panipat. He had already started the process of centralisation (somewhat) and India would remain mostly Hindu (he converted a muslim cheif into a hindu)
 
Hmm, I thought that might be the case. Then it seems the earlier Chola method of installing one of their own princes as a regent (the one wikipedia is telling was used by Rajaraja and Rajendra) should be the one to be used by all successive generations.

And I read your TL, it's quite good. :D Just that I've developed a thing for the Cholas and I think this site has a gravely serious lack of Tamilwankery.

EDIT: Oh, by the way, do you know where I can find online sources and information about Indian societies in general from this period? Something on South India in particular would be nice, but it's so hard to find Indian history and stuff online anything would be greatly appreciated.

South India is pretty difficult. Records are really spotty- the climate doesn't really help and the turmoil thats been experienced means that there are huge gaps. Frex, I'm a Syrian Christian and while nowadays we lean more towards standard Orthodoxy there are indications that earlier on we were more Nestorian/Monophysite- but no one knows for sure because the Portuguese Inquisition destroyed all the records they could find.

The Cholas would indeed be interesting- as a Malayalee, I'm more into Keralawankery though :D
 
Top