AHC: Christian-majority Indian Subcontinent

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

What makes Hinduism so resilient to monotheism

Despite what many monotheists will claim, most pagan peoples adopted monotheism for a firmer grasp on power (this was especially true for the Norse - they didn't see some vague "truth" in Christianity, it was just convenient to access the wealth and alliances of the rest of Europe; it's fairly clear this was the same logic followed by the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms). In India, Hindus already held the power, so there was no real incentive to forsake their native beliefs.

The majority of conversions to monotheism went from the top-down, after all.

 

[Elfwine]

Despite what many monotheists will claim, most pagan peoples adopted monotheism for a firmer grasp on power (this was especially true for the Norse - they didn't see some vague "truth" in Christianity, it was just convenient to access the wealth and alliances of the rest of Europe; it's fairly clear this was the same logic followed by the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms).

Russia comes to mind as another good example - prestige (including the Emperor's own purple-born sister in marriage!) and profits made ties to Constantinople extremely desirable, regardless of how awed by the liturgy and the Hagia Sophia Vladimir's envoys may or may not have been.

It is intriguing to imagine a Christian Persia as an equivalent, but would it really fit the part?

 

[manitobot]

When it comes to the conversion of a population of this size you attract more flies with honey than vinegar. By creating institutions that incentivizes peoples and especially rulers to convert, over a given period of time people would do so.

 

[Lusitania]

What is needed is that Islam never becomes a major religion and by the 10th century Christianity is the major religion of the Middle East. Therefore Christian
Missionaries and even Christian tribes and stAtes appear both around and within Indian sub continent

 

[Lusitania]

When it comes to the conversion of a population of this size you attract more flies with honey than vinegar. By creating institutions that incentivizes peoples and especially rulers to convert, over a given period of time people would do so.

You do like the Muslim did in the lands they conquered. You can escape slavery is you convert to Christianity. You place heavy tax burden on non Christians and restrictions. Thus making it more attractive to be Christian

 

[tex mex]

Despite what many monotheists will claim, most pagan peoples adopted monotheism for a firmer grasp on power (this was especially true for the Norse - they didn't see some vague "truth" in Christianity, it was just convenient to access the wealth and alliances of the rest of Europe; it's fairly clear this was the same logic followed by the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms).

This is exactly how Cambodia became Buddhist from Hinduism.

In India, Hindus already held the power, so there was no real incentive to forsake their native beliefs.

This isn't exactly true. From 1200s- 1700s, Islam was the politically dominant religion in the Indian Subcontinent. For Indus Valley, it was beginning from the 700s.
This change of religion happened in Indus Valley(Pakistan and Kashmir Valley), East Bengal(Bangladesh), Java, Cambodia and Champa since there was intrusion of Islam or Buddhism.

The majority of conversions to monotheism went from the top-down, after all.

Very true. It was only after the Javanese elite became Islam, that Java began to actually Islamize. Same goes for Pakistan and Kashmir Valley.
Bangladesh doesn't really apply since since it was the faster growth of muslim peasantry that led to islamization.

 

[tex mex]

You do like the Muslim did in the lands they conquered. You can escape slavery is you convert to Christianity. You place heavy tax burden on non Christians and restrictions. Thus making it more attractive to be Christian

This is not true.

Jacobus Capitein - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

- Many slaves despite converting to Christianity, remained slaves as such. The individual above was an African who defended the right of christians to keep slaves.

 

[tex mex]

I think the easiest way would be for something akin to the Mughals to be Nestorian Christian, possibly requiring the Golden Horde or one of the Mongolian successor kingdoms to maintain on this path.

This is quite ASB. The Mughals would at best be a very isolated cadre of Christian Elites, and Christianity would not spread very much.
Islamic states ruled parts of India for 1,100 years, and yet the Indian Subcontinent is still Hindu majority at 55% of population.

The areas most amenable to Christianity in terms of it's continued preeminence were the ones where local religion was less orthopraxic and more animist/nature worshipping but not exposed to much in the way of Islam. This is mostly in the Assam region.

The former is true, the latter is false. Assam is Hindu with a Muslim minority. The regions that became Christian were Nagaland, Mizoram, Meghalaya, and Arunachal Pradesh.

 

[Lusitania]

This is not true.

Jacobus Capitein - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

- Many slaves despite converting to Christianity, remained slaves as such. The individual above was an African who defended the right of christians to keep slaves.

You did not read what I wrote or did not understand. I said do like the Muslims. Follow what they did.

 

[tex mex]

Thus, the Christian Turco-Mongols conquer all of India in several successive waves, even as the Nestorian Turkish Empire in Iran begins crumbling, which only sends more Christian Turco-Mongol warriors flooding into India as refugee-crusaders. Eventually, a Christian Turco-Mongol dynasty arises that encompasses all of India (like the OTL Mughal Empire at its height). These Christian Turco-Mongols are much more zealous than their OTL Muslim counterparts and impose a thorough evangelical policy to Christianise their Indian Hindu subjects, seeking to emulate their Nestorian Turkish kinsmen who successfully Christianised Iran and Central Asia. If they have sufficient zeal and manpower (which is reinforced by continuous waves of Christian Turco-Mongol migrant-crusaders), over time they will grind down Indian Hindu resistance and Christianise the majority of India. This is how India ITTL becomes majority (likely Nestorian) Christian.

This is the fastest way to galvanize the Indian Hindu resistance and ensure an even faster overthrow.
The reason why the Mughal Empire collapsed was that Aurangzeb followed this exact policy as laid out, and the result were the Sikh and Maratha revolts. Akbar was smart, and he coopted the Rajput elites by (I repeat heavy)accommodation of their Hindu customs. Even this heavy accommodation proved to be intolerable in eyes of the Orthodox Muslims, as such came the rise of Aurangzeb and defeat of Dara Shikoh.
The Nestorians are very unlikely the engage in this sort of activity.

 

[manitobot]

You do like the Muslim did in the lands they conquered. You can escape slavery is you convert to Christianity. You place heavy tax burden on non Christians and restrictions. Thus making it more attractive to be Christian

Think you mean to add in Muslim there a few times.

Muslims amongst the original Caliphate outside of the Arabian peninsula was pretty neutral preferring strict institutional incentives for conversion. Still, areas like Egypt were still Christian till the 11th century. This didn't apply to Turco-Mongol armies though, that was very much a conversion by the sword. Some historians (vaguely remember) say that South AsianIslamic conversions were 50/50 free will/forced.

The slave-trading of non-Muslims was more of a thing in the African continent due to relative anarchic institutions there, and the region became the last underdeveloped market to get enslaved labor from in the world. Even free Muslims who are not supposed to be enslaved were often enslaved.

Jizya was supposed to be paid for zakat but ironically it prevented India from many conversion attempts. No jizya (which was often a higher rate) and fewer funds for the Mughal emperors so conversion was always a bit light. Islamic growth rates often came in undeveloped areas that Muslim peasants in South Asia got land deeds from the king that they turned into farmland.

 

[Lusitania]

Think you mean to add in Muslim there a few times.

Muslims amongst the original Caliphate outside of the Arabian peninsula was pretty neutral preferring strict institutional incentives for conversion. Still, areas like Egypt were still Christian till the 11th century. This didn't apply to Turco-Mongol armies though, that was very much a conversion by the sword. Some historians (vaguely remember) say that South AsianIslamic conversions were 50/50 free will/forced.

The slave-trading of non-Muslims was more of a thing in the African continent due to relative anarchic institutions there, and the region became the last underdeveloped market to get enslaved labor from in the world. Even free Muslims who are not supposed to be enslaved were often enslaved.

Jizya was supposed to be paid for zakat but ironically it prevented India from many conversion attempts. No jizya (which was often a higher rate) and fewer funds for the Mughal emperors so conversion was always a bit light. Islamic growth rates often came in undeveloped areas that Muslim peasants in South Asia got land deeds from the king that they turned into farmland.

Yes the combination of no Islam as dominant religion and continued Christianity exposure and conversion would made the greatest change to Indian subcontinent. Then the Christians leaders used tactics used by various Muslims to convert and create environment that rewarded converting to Christianity.

 

[manitobot]

Yes the combination of no Islam as dominant religion and continued Christianity exposure and conversion would made the greatest change to Indian subcontinent. Then the Christians leaders used tactics used by various Muslims to convert and create environment that rewarded converting to Christianity.

Yes

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

With a POD at the founding of the Christian faith, have the majority of the inhabitants of the Indian Subcontinent...

"at"? Then it must happen in 34-50 C? One would have to define some basic change in doctrine or structure to enable this outcome.

However, in the longer term it's not that difficult. OTL, over 36% of "the subcontinent" is Moslem, Christian, or Sikh, i.e. not Hindu or Buddhist. If the PoD pre-empts the foundation of Islam, and Christian rather than Moslem conquerors are prevalent, that entire population share would be Christian, and "flipping" an additional 15% would seem to be possible. Medieval Christian rulers were more rigorous than Moslems in enforcing religious conformity.

 

[PecuTheGreat]

Most important change I think is for the Saint Thomas Christians of Kerala to NOT BE ENDOGAMIC. That really ruined the chances the faith had to grow. Then again it's also a resistance to assimilation by a larger group but if Muslims could survive and grow by trade, those had just as much of a chance to do so.

 

[PecuTheGreat]

Medieval Christian rulers were more rigorous than Moslems in enforcing religious conformity.

European Christian rulers. You don't see the same sort of zeal from Ethiopians or Caucasian Christians.(You also don't see that to the extent of Western Europe in the Russian Empire, Bulgaria and Poland-Lithuania)

 

[PecuTheGreat]

This is not true.

Jacobus Capitein - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

- Many slaves despite converting to Christianity, remained slaves as such. The individual above was an African who defended the right of christians to keep slaves.

But this is like Trans-Atlantic shananigans not Medieval shananigans.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

You also don't see that to the extent of Western Europe in the Russian Empire, Bulgaria and Poland-Lithuania...

Russia (Muscovy at the time) Christianized many of the "native peoples" in the area between Moscow and the Urals.

Medieval Bulgaria had AFAIK no non-Christian subjects and then was subject to the Moslem Turks.

Lithuania was pagan until it was officially converted, and then all pagans were converted. The PLC tolerated the Lithuanian Tatars, but that was in the 17th century and later, not in the Middle Ages.

 

[PecuTheGreat]

Russia (Muscovy at the time) Christianized many of the "native peoples" in the area between Moscow and the Urals.

Yeah, they did but I used them as an example cuz they weren't really as forceful as Western Europe was. Tartars still remain Muslim and Kalmyks still remain Buddhist, so largely no forced conversions, just imperial favouring of one religion.

Medieval Bulgaria had AFAIK no non-Christian subjects and then was subject to the Moslem Turks.

They had Pagan Subjects who were forced out of power after a civil war and they along with the Hungarians took in Cumans. The Hungarians I think force and coharse converted their pagan remnants and cumans later on(I put in coharse in there as well, cuz I don't know how far the forcing steched into the general non-Christian population) but Bulgaria to the best of my knowledge didn't.

Lithuania was pagan until it was officially converted, and then all pagans were converted. The PLC tolerated the Lithuanian Tatars, but that was in the 17th century and later, not in the Middle Ages.

Eh, Fine. Not in the middle ages.

 

[pattersonautobody]

With a POD at the founding of the Christian faith, have the majority of the inhabitants of the Indian Subcontinent (OTL India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and The Maldives) following a branch of Christianity, whether it be Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Nestorian or some other Christian branch, whether it be from OTL or an entirely different variety. Maybe the native Indian sect of the Saint Thomas Christians from Southern India becomes more successful and starts spreading like wildfire, or maybe Persia becomes Christian (a possible thread in its own right) and in turn spreads it to India, much like how Islam spread into the Subcontinent IOTL. How would a Christianized India change the course of history? Would there be some sort of Indian-specific Christian branch that uses Sanskrit as its liturgical language, much like Latin in Catholicism or Greek in Orthodoxy? Assuming Europe still becomes Christian (a big if for something this far back), how would the relationship between Europe and India change? Would there be more contact and trade before OTL's Age of Exploration? There are many more potential questions, but I feel like I should leave it to you guys now.

I don't think this can be done because of the caste system. The Syro-Malabar Christians in Kerala are from the Brahmin caste. This means, they were either Brahmins that converted, or more likely, are the children of merchants (Greek, Jew, Ethiopian) and intermarried with the local population--but being merchants were accorded a higher caste,

Hence we would really need something very big before Christianity, such as wanking Alexander the Great so that he takes over half of India. Maybe, if Greek domination and intermarriage lasts longer this can create the sort of butterflies where Christianity over longer periods of time can take over a future successor state--for example, butterfly away Islam and maybe the Arabs become Nestorian. With centuries of trade, perhaps the Keralans being a good toe-hold, Christianity can become a large minority and then, when it becomes a state religion (ATL Mughals or something) and then maybe it can become a majority religion. Perhaps wank Spain over Britain, and if Spain colonizes India (as they were more successful in CHristanizing, see Phillipines), we can get it done.