AHC: Indian Colonial Empire

To be honest, if we change the success of the Muslim conquerors in India, we can create Muslim Indian colonies (at least administratively). If the Muslims conquer far more of the Indian subcontinent, taking some of the Southern ports, and having local Indian elites converted to Islam, with Hindus remaining an underclass, then you can have the Muslims expand overseas, administering colonies, and you bring over poorer Hindus to harvest sugar cane etc. These will still be Indian colonies, and Indian MUSLIM colonies, in the same sense that Fiji was a British colony. If you have a uniting (or near uniting) of mainland India, there is population pressure, which encourages colonialism. Also, if they figure out (this will have to be earlier than 1800s, BTW) that the Europeans are trying to get spices from the 'Spice Islands', then the Indians will likely take control there to keep European coin. Whoever unites India will likely invade Sri Lanka too, if just for the alleviation of population density, or sending a particularly troublesome group to the island (so you can keep them contained). On the other hand, they may send demographics that have good seamanship, and it will become a forward base for colonialism. Same could be said for the Andaman Islands.
 
To be honest, if we change the success of the Muslim conquerors in India, we can create Muslim Indian colonies (at least administratively). If the Muslims conquer far more of the Indian subcontinent, taking some of the Southern ports, and having local Indian elites converted to Islam, with Hindus remaining an underclass, then you can have the Muslims expand overseas, administering colonies, and you bring over poorer Hindus to harvest sugar cane etc. These will still be Indian colonies, and Indian MUSLIM colonies, in the same sense that Fiji was a British colony. If you have a uniting (or near uniting) of mainland India, there is population pressure, which encourages colonialism. Also, if they figure out (this will have to be earlier than 1800s, BTW) that the Europeans are trying to get spices from the 'Spice Islands', then the Indians will likely take control there to keep European coin. Whoever unites India will likely invade Sri Lanka too, if just for the alleviation of population density, or sending a particularly troublesome group to the island (so you can keep them contained). On the other hand, they may send demographics that have good seamanship, and it will become a forward base for colonialism. Same could be said for the Andaman Islands.

I like the way this idea sounds, except for one thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mughal_Historical_Map.png How much more of the Indian subcontinent can Muslims control than this? If you mean control as in more Muslims moving into the area and displacing local rulers entirely, that'd be a lot harder.

Not sure about the population pressure factor. I don't know why a united India has that worse than a divided India.
 
Invading Ceylon so as to have a place to deport people to? I do not think that would be the most efficient thing, especially if the Islamic slave systems and Hindu castes could keep people in their places well enough. Might make more sense for the British to do that, filling Natal with Indians, which they later considered doing with Iraq.
 
I started a TL in which a different Mongol conquest (less bad for Asia, worse for Europe) lead to an Asian-lead colonialism, primarily from the Subcontinent, the below is the height of colonialism showing the Subcontinent and the Empires of the three states their;

I would love to see both the TL and the rest of the map. Could you PM me a link?

Cheers,
Ganesha
 
Last edited:
I like the way this idea sounds, except for one thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mughal_Historical_Map.png How much more of the Indian subcontinent can Muslims control than this? If you mean control as in more Muslims moving into the area and displacing local rulers entirely, that'd be a lot harder.

Not sure about the population pressure factor. I don't know why a united India has that worse than a divided India.

Most of the regimes in _southern_ India were Muslim-ruled, too, in the early modern period, until the rise of the Marathas.

Bruce
 
I started a TL in which a different Mongol conquest (less bad for Asia, worse for Europe) lead to an Asian-lead colonialism, primarily from the Subcontinent, the below is the height of colonialism showing the Subcontinent and the Empires of the three states their;

So the lighter shades of color indicate puppets and protectorates rather than outright rule? Is Egypt an ally? Why does the other Indian state get access to the med?

Bruce
 
You do know that there are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan, right?

Their are'nt.

In 2001 India had 138.2 million Muslims compared to Pakistans Muslim population was 140.1

Assuming the prcentages have'nt changed in the last decade India has 162.1 million Muslims while the Muslim population of Pakistan is 171.7 million.
 
I would love to see both the TL and the rest of the map. Could you PM me a link?

Cheers,
Ganesha

Ditto on this request, please :) .

Same Here dude

I'll just post it since I've not uploaded it anywhere.

Asiatica 1920.png
 
So the lighter shades of color indicate puppets and protectorates rather than outright rule? Is Egypt an ally? Why does the other Indian state get access to the med?

Bruce

Lighter color are prectorates yes, however they're not all the same; the Hindustani protectorates in Ukraine are amicable and still more or less independent while th Bengala protectorates in Italy are more like the Princely States (Italy is meant to be the European equivalent to the Raj) while the African ones run the gambit.

Egypt is independent, though they're not always happy about the situation in regards to the Bengala port and the Hindustani's having total free access (the others not free, but not expensive either) to the Suez Canal, but they don't do anything since the last time they tried they got curbstomped.
 
Their are'nt.

In 2001 India had 138.2 million Muslims compared to Pakistans Muslim population was 140.1

Assuming the prcentages have'nt changed in the last decade India has 162.1 million Muslims while the Muslim population of Pakistan is 171.7 million.

My bad. Pakistan would've definitely had more Muslims when they controlled Bangladesh too. Maybe demographics changed? I was pretty sure that at some point there were more Indian Muslims than Pakistani Muslims. Hmmm. Oh well.

Anyways, I know the Deccan plateau is a barrier, but maybe Muslim rulers from the South conquer North? Then we could have at least two Muslim powers, that unite by marriage.

The reason I think its easier for a united India than a disunited one is that, being a continental mass, the Indian states had to focus on their armies, at the expense of naval expansion. In a unified Indian Muslim state, they would've likely reached the zenith of land expansion. Afghanistan is too hard to bother, Persia is to strong, and whats even the point to taking Burma? Tibet is too close to China for comfort, is worth little and has bad terrain. Any more expansion would require naval expansion. Plus it makes India less vulnerable to being the victims of colonialism itself.

The population pressure thing could just be in large cities, or even later when India industrialises (although with a huge, monolithic Indian empire, I imagine its progress would eventually stagnate like the Ottomans), and there is the subsequent population boom. You could take "untouchables", or other groups considered undesirable, and put them in colonies. It would also be partially gentrification at home, which would be good for the prestige of the ruler. Although it would be slave labour, and very cruel, I don't think it would be thought of as so bad back then.
 

Orsino

Banned
Can we even talk about an "Indian colonial empire" unless there's a unified Indian state? Isn't this akin to saying "European colonial empire"? It's not difficult to talk about a colonial empire of the Chola or the Pala, but they're only a small segment of India. Perhaps colonial empires would be more appropriate, in the plural.
I was imagining the unification of India as a precursor to colonisation overseas. I appreciate a unified Indian state may not be a necessary precondition for colonial empire but it does make sense in terms of providing the impetus for expanding over water. Plus a strong unified Indian empire would surely have a better chance of holding on to any such colonies.
 
Top