AHC - Mauryan Empire Implement a Mandate of Heaven in India

[Shahrasayr]

Why does it have to be "organized"?

Cambridge dictionary definition

"An occasion when an army or country uses force to enter and take control of another country."

Simple Wikipedia definition:

"An invasion is a military offensive in which large numbers of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory owned by another such entity."

Both definitions imply cohesive (ie. organized) geopolitical entities.

In England it was a population that clearly used violence in the process of settling their new territories, this much is indisputable. There is no need to demand it being "organized".

See above. Just like in the case of Bronze Age India, post-Roman Britain wasn't only seeing active attempts by groups of Saxons to invade and conquer. Local warlords invited them as mercenaries, they fought against and for one another and married into local power structures. Later on once much of the Wash had been Saxonified more family groups came. Just because violence was used doesn't meen it was used exclusively on the prior inhabitants. Ergo there is a demand for organised incursions if you want to call it an invasion.
[/QUOTE]

This is not the case, genetics have already proven than in India there was a big enough demographic component to the indo-europenization, This is even more so depending on how you interpret the genetic makeup of the original newcomers to have been(already mixed with Central Asia or "pure" Yamnaya/Andronovo-like people? probably the earlier, making the demographic impact even bigger), but even the most conservative estimation would give an impact of more than 20% outside ancestry for most of the Indus and Ganges basin and more so for the northern Indus valley.

How does this disprove my statement?

Yeah and the paleogenetic papers I've read (Narasimhan et. al., 2019) and (Lazaridis et. al., 2016) attribute that to consist flows of migrating peoples. Thing is Central Asian and Indo-European DNA groups were migrating in when the IVC was flourishing, they did so after its collapse, with most of the initial wave of migrants largely men. Now I'm not saying they didn't use violence once they reached India. But as archaeology and literary analysis of the Rig Veda suggests this was directed upon one and other just as much as any local polities. Both papers suggest that once the north-west had largely restructured once more a final wave of multiple migrations happened.

You are arguing with 19th century dead scholars, if we strip your caricature of any further meaning and ideologies, we can actually say that Aryan invasion was a process where Indo-Aryan speakers, which if we had to mention were probably lighter than the locals, ended up dominating and assimilating the local populations and the later caste system preserves to this day some differences in the amount of original Aryan ancestry even if ultimately mixing occurred at all levels.
There is essentially nothing false about this, the problem is trying to argue against ideas and theories that go far beyond this simple statement by attacking this unrelated concept.

People making wrong claims about the nature of the caste system, the chronology of the decline of IVC and the coming of the Indo-Aryan speakers etc. doesn't mean that we can pretend that this particular anecdote of human history is one free of violence or that it lays outside what we can call "invasion".

Dude I'm not arguing with 19th century dead scholars, and its kinda stupid to caricaturize me as doing such. I'm not going to Mortimer Wheeler's grave, digging it up and starting to violently argue with him, neither Max Muller. I'm not saying its without violence either just that it happened during a period on such a mass scale that this violence was directed in all directions, not just immigrant versus local. What you're looking for is something like the Magyar invasions, where a united and concentrated Magyar coalition conquered the Carpathian basin under Arpad. There is simply no evidence to suggest so in India of such organization.

What I'm trying to do is reconcile people with their history because terms like Aryan invasions bring up words like "white domination", "Aryan degredation", "weaker Aborgines" and "racial dilution", all Nazi bullshit that still gets associated with an invasion.

In the entire history of humanity we see so much violence in just about every facet of society, but in this event where an outside groups enters, dominates and ends up becoming a big demographic component of the newly mixed population, there was no violence or coercion? Did the locals somehow elect or voluntary choose the newcomers into power?

Look never once did I suggest a lack of violence but you insist I did. And as for voluntary, well the intermarriage and diffusion top down that linguistic changes from Old-Indo-Aryan to Vedic Sanskrit suggest that yes, the local post-IVC states might have decided to ally with these bands via marital alliances voluntarily to one up the other. I'll just let one of the prime Indologists of the modern era explain why invasion isn't the correct term:

"The theory of an immigration of IA speaking Arya ("Aryan invasion") is simply seen as a means of British policy to justify their own intrusion into India and their subsequent colonial rule: in both cases, a "white race" was seen as subduing the local darker colored population. " - Michael Witzel

Why does prior internal decline of IVC disprove the idea of an invasion? Maybe you are using a very specific meaning of invasion, but honestly to me if there is violence and if there is a political takeover, it's simply an invasion. The fact you also think the Indo-Aryan settlers were mostly male is telling, doesn't it make them more likely to have been armed bands confronting established, albeit declining/collapsed, native societies instead of general migratory groups(like Slavs were north of the Danube) who simply encountered depopulated land?

As the dictionary definitions I have posted above I think you might be the one with a very specific meaning of invasion. By that standard the Civil Rights movements can be classified as an 'invasion'. Political violence in Montgomery, Alabama and administration changes tune to support it. Boom. Invasion.

And again, yes there was violence. Them being armed bands gradually moving further into thise new subcontinent doesn't imply they intended on confronting whatever socities existed there priorly. And primarily male intends a ratio of 3:1. Nearly all pre-modern societies commenced mass migrations into the unknown in similar ratios.

And who says the Slavs were migrating through depopulated land north of the Danube? It was filled with Iranic pastoralists, Germanic sedentary groups and whatever category the Dacians fall into. But I'd say it was still a migration in the same way as they assimilated and diffused their culture onto these groups. Any violence cohesive enough to be deemed invasions only started when they came into contact with the ERE.

 

[Deleted member 116192]

Why does it have to be "organized"?

In England it was a population that clearly used violence in the process of settling their new territories, this much is indisputable. There is no need to demand it being "organized".


This is not the case, genetics have already proven than in India there was a big enough demographic component to the indo-europenization, This is even more so depending on how you interpret the genetic makeup of the original newcomers to have been(already mixed with Central Asia or "pure" Yamnaya/Andronovo-like people? probably the earlier, making the demographic impact even bigger), but even the most conservative estimation would give an impact of more than 20% outside ancestry for most of the Indus and Ganges basin and more so for the northern Indus valley.


You are arguing with 19th century dead scholars, if we strip your caricature of any further meaning and ideologies, we can actually say that Aryan invasion was a process where Indo-Aryan speakers, which if we had to mention were probably lighter than the locals, ended up dominating and assimilating the local populations and the later caste system preserves to this day some differences in the amount of original Aryan ancestry even if ultimately mixing occurred at all levels.
There is essentially nothing false about this, the problem is trying to argue against ideas and theories that go far beyond this simple statement by attacking this unrelated concept.

People making wrong claims about the nature of the caste system, the chronology of the decline of IVC and the coming of the Indo-Aryan speakers etc. doesn't mean that we can pretend that this particular anecdote of human history is one free of violence or that it lays outside what we can call "invasion".


In the entire history of humanity we see so much violence in just about every facet of society, but in this event where an outside groups enters, dominates and ends up becoming a big demographic component of the newly mixed population, there was no violence or coercion? Did the locals somehow elect or voluntary choose the newcomers into power?


Why does prior internal decline of IVC disprove the idea of an invasion? Maybe you are using a very specific meaning of invasion, but honestly to me if there is violence and if there is a political takeover, it's simply an invasion. The fact you also think the Indo-Aryan settlers were mostly male is telling, doesn't it make them more likely to have been armed bands confronting established, albeit declining/collapsed, native societies instead of general migratory groups(like Slavs were north of the Danube) who simply encountered depopulated land?

While it is true that Aryan invasion of sorts did not contribute to the collapse of the Indus valley civilization cause that process was complete by 1900 bce. It was around this time that the first wave of Indo Aryans migrated into the subcontinent and their role in the collapse is very hard to establish definitely or to disprove conclusively . To say that the aryan migration is a invasion is dubious considering the fact that aryans did not have any form of governmental organization, they were a nomadic tribal society who moves into india in series of waves and not in one single wave. It is also to be noted that individual aryan tribes fought amongst their fellow aryans tribes as well as their non Aryan counter parts, the aryan tribes rarely co ordinated with one another. So to say that there was an invasion that caused the collapse of the indus valley civilization is kinda stretching it when everyone were busy fighting one another.

I would not use the word the invasion, i use the word take over by the Aryans of the Indian subcontinent. It is important to note that, in these migration waves there was a lot of violence and the take over of the old social structure of the Indus valley civilization with the indo aryans at the top was certainly not peaceful but it is also to be noted that the process wasn't entirely violent ,it was more of a mixture as is case in all places of the world, where a new culture establishes itself on the old culture and during these interactions the emerges a synthesis of two culture into one and the synthesis to take place there must be some peaceful interaction between two different culture.

As for the male dominated migrations, i have my doubts, certainly true that the earliest waves were entirely male dominated, but ones these warriors were able to conquer some parts of the land and the people that inhabit it and establish a society in various parts and basically aryanized the lands these waves may be termed as invasions rather than migrations, the subsequent waves might be migrations or invasions depending upon the intention of the migrating tribe. You have to recognize that aryans were not unified into one nation tribe state, it was a group of tribals who might have been divided into Brahma worshipers and the Mazda, Ahura worshipers, who did not have the concept of land borders and migrated freely. The Kuru tribe was defeated by Salva tribe who were probably another Indo Aryan tribe.

So at the end of the day the question remains, Who invaded who? Yes in the broad context one can say the aryans did invade and settle and establish themselves as the overlords just like Aryans in Iran or Turks in Anatolia or Germanic tribes, Slavic tribes in Europe, etc but to compare these invasions and migrations to the invasion, mitigation by Europeans in north america or comparing it to the colonization of Africa by the Europeans. ( Not saying that you did it but often when aryan invasion/migration is brought up in political context it does mean in the Conquistador sense and not in the true historical sense, it is nothing but distortion of history for political and racial gains eg used by the british to justify colonization in india). If we look at the documented history of the subcontinent then we see the invasion by several iranic/Aryan tribes into what is essentially aryanized indian subcontinent. To say that the invasion was one of the Aryans vs Non Aryans and the aryans won and went on a massive domination and breeding streak is sheer insanity. The real nature was one aryan tribe conquered a few remaining tribes and settlement of the now defunct indus valley culture, creating a synthetic culture over a course of time and during this time frame there might have been a few IVC tribes that might have joined in with the aryans, later on they were conquered by a new aryan tribe from central asia which makes it a instance of aryan tribe invading another aryan tribe until the tribe which practiced the vedic culture achieved dominance and was able to spread its cultural influence far and wide .

As for the number of Migrants/Invaders well i have people saying that it was just a few million to as much as 10 million souls, but i have my doubts on the estimate on the upper side as i doubt Central Asia could support such a large population even though during 2000 bce those lands were much warmer and wetter and thus could support a large grasslands and thus large cattle fleet and a large livestock population and thus people . But to say that over 10 million people migrated over a period of 500 years from 1900 bc to 1400 bc is hard to believe but its not outside the realm of possibility. Since these tribes migrated in waves rather than single wave and the tendency of the Aryans to inter-marry fellow Aryans regardless of ones caste rank , and the surviving Genetic markers of Haplogroup R1a in general and R-m124 in particular and the more rare R1b amongst the paternal lineage in the indo gangetic river basin does seem to suggest that a large number of Aryan Settlement. What is also forgotten is the fact that about 12 percent of all sound asians has Maternal haplogroups found mostly in western Eurasia and not native to the subcontinent and until further evidence is Obtained it may be presumed that these influx may be as a result of Indo aryan migartion bringing in their women folk into the subcontinent from central asia. infact the western half of the subcontinent has the west Eurasian component at 35 percent on the maternal side and at 50 percent on the paternal side which suggests that migrations were large scale.

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

@Gustavus Adolphus
I really do not think that Hinduism will be able to unite India like Buddhism in ancient or medieval times for many reasons -

• Hinduism inherently divides the society into Chaturvarna, or 4 castes, whether it was horizontal or vertical in division , dicision existed
• Hinduism was way too complicated for masses, Buddhism is simple enough to unite the masses
• Lack of equality due to caste leads to apathy by lower castes in the interests of state
• Lack of full utilization of population due to the caste system
• Few castes become way too powerful leading to their grip in power

It is unfortunate but true that caste system has become integral to Hinduism, permanently weakening India, all those founding myths you mentioned can be adapted to Buddhism as well

You are mistaken..

there are many cases in Indian history where caste system did not play a role in determining rulership to name a few here they are:
The Reddy dynasty of Andhra. They were vaishyas/craftspeople who after leading a successful revolt against the delhi sultanite won independence for the Andhra region.
Then there are the Sangama dynasty of Vijayanagar whose foudners were cowherds. Then you have the gajapatis of Orissa which was founded by a chimneysweeper I believe.
The pratiharas of Gujarat were also a tribal people.

I can go on and on. many empires in India were ruled by non kshatryas who later claimed khatrya lineage. So no hinduism did not prove to be weakening India. Buddhism weakened India. Why because the Palas of Bengal were completely roled over and destroyed by the Turkish invasion. Furthermore across India and southeast asia you see that It is the buddhist centers that fell to islam. In afghanistan and Pakistan buddhism was preodminent now their is only islam pretty much buddhoism was wiped out. Java in Indonesia srivijaya the greateast of the buddhist empires while it was beatean by Chola and Champa,the first prescence of islam in southeast asia was on the Java islands and it was the buddhist kingdoms that fell first.. Bengal again same thing. So you are defintly wrong. Buddhism was a weakness for India just as Hinduism was sp there is no difference.

Also no why Mauryas collapsed cause stupid Ashoka disbanded the army. Because he believed fully in buddhist principles of nonviolence. Problem is when your neighbors are warlords/conquerers and don't play by your rules you are screwed. Which is why mauryas collapsed.

Also in medieval and early modern warfare it is not population that determines victory on the battlefield it is organization, discipline, and skilled troops. For example in Europe you had peaseant militas for the most part that were utterly useless in battle serving as fodder. until gunpowder of course. Same thing in India. The difference beetween the turks and Indians was that the turks were a nomadic people whose entire population was used to fighting war/most of the population since childhood due to the harsh nature of the steppes. India being agricutlural them peaseants with pointy sticks cant do much against a well trained cataphract/knight.
Especially with the technology available to the Indians and their neighbors at the time.


So given
1: Most of the indian kingdoms were ruled by not aryan shudras and viashyas who justified their rulership later on by creating geneaologies, we can conclude that caste system did not really play such a big role in India's decline. What did was that the indian rulers were too busy fighting each other that they could be taken out piecemeal by overwelhming force.

For example take Dahir of Sindh. He told his senapati who advised him to seek help against the arabs from the rajas in the subcontinent that he could handle it on his own. Then when he confronted the arab armies he was overwelhmed by their numbers and the Sindh kingdom fell to the caliphate. Same thing with the kigndoms in India. THe pratihars exhausted themselves fighting over Kannauj with the Palas and the Rashtrakrutas, leading to them eventually being defeated by the turks.

Meanwhile in South India the hoysals and kakaityas and the cholas were busy spending vast sums of money and troops to fight against each other. Heard of the famous batle beetween CHola and the queen of the kakatiyas. oh by the way kakatiyas are another non aryan dynasty/

Even shivaji was not neccesarily some say from a kshtray caste but he later created a geneaology.

So what I am saying is rulers in India for the most part after the say 6th 7th century a.d. were from non arya backgrounds but who claimed their right to rule through the use of geneaologies.

So that refutes your points about Hinduism being a weakness due to caste system and buddhism being superior because buddhism failed in southeast asia and in Northern and Eastern India because the Buddhists were not able to stand up to foreign invaders and they were easy targets for the turks and others. If they were not you would have seen a buddhist southeast asia but you don't. Why because the southeast Asian Buddhists were wiped out/converted to islam. Especially java and malacca area.

Hope this clarifies things and also their is no point in bringing aryan invasion/migration into this debate because by the 10th century their was really no kingdom in India that could validly claim that its rulers descended from one of the arya families of old. Furthermore the caste system as it existed in medieval India was similar to the medieval apprentice system and it was possible to change caste. If it was not then you would not see a sweeper like Gajapati or a cowherder like harihara founded two of the greateast empires of the south. Orissa Kingdom and Hampi/Vijayanagar respectively.

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

Also bhakti movement Hinduism was not complicated. By the way this arose during the puranic period and was around even in the late Vedic period. The message of the alwars in south India or the worshipers of shakti in Bengal was simple. I devote my life to the service of my dear kirshna/devi. IT was the bhakti movement that removed the focus from rituals and the vedas and focused on bringing the bhajans/devotion to the hindu gods among the masses. So no Hinduism was not complicated in medieval times in fact the kingdoms of India be it Vijayanagar or the Chola kingdom followed either Vaishnava or Shaiva bhakti tradition worship/rituals, with less emphasis on Vedic ritualism which was already in decline by that time as a result of Shankaracharyas defeat of mandana Mishra which really cause this shift away from ritual and laws to pure devotion to god. You can think of it like how the jews discoved their god after the babylonian exile. During a time of upheaveal in India when the world it seemed was falling apart people turned away from rituals to bhakti worship/soft monotheism.

 

[Sarthak]

Also no why Mauryas collapsed cause stupid Ashoka disbanded the army. Because he believed fully in buddhist principles of nonviolence. Problem is when your neighbors are warlords/conquerers and don't play by your rules you are screwed. Which is why mauryas collapsed.

Uh no, he didn't. He merely disbanded the offensive parts of the army. He kept the army for defensive purposes and its defensive doctrines.

 

[Brahman]

You are mistaken..

there are many cases in Indian history where caste system did not play a role in determining rulership to name a few here they are:
The Reddy dynasty of Andhra. They were vaishyas/craftspeople who after leading a successful revolt against the delhi sultanite won independence for the Andhra region.
Then there are the Sangama dynasty of Vijayanagar whose foudners were cowherds. Then you have the gajapatis of Orissa which was founded by a chimneysweeper I believe.
The pratiharas of Gujarat were also a tribal people.

I can go on and on. many empires in India were ruled by non kshatryas who later claimed khatrya lineage. So no hinduism did not prove to be weakening India. Buddhism weakened India. Why because the Palas of Bengal were completely roled over and destroyed by the Turkish invasion. Furthermore across India and southeast asia you see that It is the buddhist centers that fell to islam. In afghanistan and Pakistan buddhism was preodminent now their is only islam pretty much buddhoism was wiped out. Java in Indonesia srivijaya the greateast of the buddhist empires while it was beatean by Chola and Champa,the first prescence of islam in southeast asia was on the Java islands and it was the buddhist kingdoms that fell first.. Bengal again same thing. So you are defintly wrong. Buddhism was a weakness for India just as Hinduism was sp there is no difference.

Also no why Mauryas collapsed cause stupid Ashoka disbanded the army. Because he believed fully in buddhist principles of nonviolence. Problem is when your neighbors are warlords/conquerers and don't play by your rules you are screwed. Which is why mauryas collapsed.

Also in medieval and early modern warfare it is not population that determines victory on the battlefield it is organization, discipline, and skilled troops. For example in Europe you had peaseant militas for the most part that were utterly useless in battle serving as fodder. until gunpowder of course. Same thing in India. The difference beetween the turks and Indians was that the turks were a nomadic people whose entire population was used to fighting war/most of the population since childhood due to the harsh nature of the steppes. India being agricutlural them peaseants with pointy sticks cant do much against a well trained cataphract/knight.
Especially with the technology available to the Indians and their neighbors at the time.


So given
1: Most of the indian kingdoms were ruled by not aryan shudras and viashyas who justified their rulership later on by creating geneaologies, we can conclude that caste system did not really play such a big role in India's decline. What did was that the indian rulers were too busy fighting each other that they could be taken out piecemeal by overwelhming force.

For example take Dahir of Sindh. He told his senapati who advised him to seek help against the arabs from the rajas in the subcontinent that he could handle it on his own. Then when he confronted the arab armies he was overwelhmed by their numbers and the Sindh kingdom fell to the caliphate. Same thing with the kigndoms in India. THe pratihars exhausted themselves fighting over Kannauj with the Palas and the Rashtrakrutas, leading to them eventually being defeated by the turks.

Meanwhile in South India the hoysals and kakaityas and the cholas were busy spending vast sums of money and troops to fight against each other. Heard of the famous batle beetween CHola and the queen of the kakatiyas. oh by the way kakatiyas are another non aryan dynasty/

Even shivaji was not neccesarily some say from a kshtray caste but he later created a geneaology.

So what I am saying is rulers in India for the most part after the say 6th 7th century a.d. were from non arya backgrounds but who claimed their right to rule through the use of geneaologies.

So that refutes your points about Hinduism being a weakness due to caste system and buddhism being superior because buddhism failed in southeast asia and in Northern and Eastern India because the Buddhists were not able to stand up to foreign invaders and they were easy targets for the turks and others. If they were not you would have seen a buddhist southeast asia but you don't. Why because the southeast Asian Buddhists were wiped out/converted to islam. Especially java and malacca area.

Hope this clarifies things and also their is no point in bringing aryan invasion/migration into this debate because by the 10th century their was really no kingdom in India that could validly claim that its rulers descended from one of the arya families of old. Furthermore the caste system as it existed in medieval India was similar to the medieval apprentice system and it was possible to change caste. If it was not then you would not see a sweeper like Gajapati or a cowherder like harihara founded two of the greateast empires of the south. Orissa Kingdom and Hampi/Vijayanagar respectively.

Ashoka's pacifism is overblown, he still had defensive armies for the obvious purpose of defence

And the fact that the Lowers castes had to claim decent from High caste itself proves to be that Lower castes were not treated properly, and the most important part is that lack of upward social mobility created apathy for the ruling class by lower castes who made the majority as well as deprived India of most of her population to combat enemies,

 

[Sarthak]

Uh no, he didn't. He merely disbanded the offensive parts of the army. He kept the army for defensive purposes and its defensive doctrines.

He was a king. Buddha gave advises to other Kings of India because he was also once a prince. He may be peaceful, but he was after all well versed in politics. Ashoka gave up the offensive nature of his military. He didn't give up the defensive portion of it. He was no fool. He was the emperor that had tricked, and killed to his way to the top. He knew politics and geopolitical intrigue like the back of his hand.

 

[Sarthak]

And the fact that the Lowers castes had to claim decent from High caste itself proves to be that Lower castes were not treated properly, and the most important part is that lack of upward social mobility created apathy for the ruling class by lower castes who made the majority as well as deprived India of most of her population to combat enemies,

exactly. It is a lot like Medieval Europe in that sense where loads of peasants showed geneologies from Noble families to become kings themselves (Navarra, Castille, Naples etc)

 

[Deleted member 116192]

All these Ideas of a Buddhist and centralized India implementing a mandate of heaven doctrine looks nice but what you are forgetting is the nature of the Indian Society, which is basically a synthesis of Aryo-Dravidian culture, Buddhism took off in south of India but quickly fell into decline because of the religion (if one can call it that) wasnt rooted in the culture and tradition of the locality, the inherent Nihilism of Buddhism stood in strong contrast with the religions of the South, some of which could be considered Hindu some of which could be considered to be Dravidian religion. By the time of the Kushan Rule Buddhism had all but disappeared in areas outside the gangetic river valley. In the south and central india they were supplanted with vedantic hinduism, in the indus valley and the saptha sindhu region the support was evaporating but still the religion could be saved in those region as the faith has not been supplanted totally by the vedantic hindu faiths which merged the old aryan beliefs with native faith and belief. This is what i find lacking in Buddhism. The lack of local cultural integration and it cannot be achieved because of the nature of the Buddhist faith. You could say that there was some attempt at it but whatever the efforts it was not as strong as the Brahman attempts to "reform" hinduism which surprisingly proved to be very popular amongst the lower caste at first, probably because of the ornate but less rigorous rituals , combine it with a elaborate yet simple to explain religious idea and belief and the fusion of the old vedic religion with the local elements which made it popular.

It is no rocket science that the last pocket of Buddhist faith was in Modern day Bihar and bengal because these are regions where the Buddhist faith first arose and more in tune with the local culture and sensibilities. And we have to remember, Buddhist faith is a reaction against the Orthodoxy of the vedic faith and once the orthodoxy became more pragmatic and less rigid, the Charm of Buddhist faith was lost.

In my opinion the vedantic hinduism is OK, it has its draw backs but its more like a big tent religion and thus has a unifying influence unlike Buddhism where different schools had antagonistic beliefs and relationships. The only draw back i could find is that its sanction of the some of the stupid rigid aspects of the caste system. As for women's rights well we have to remember it's a religion of the Iron age not early modern era. I mean we can have a vedantic hinduism which is less rigid, i mean i am not saying that there would be inter-caste marriages would be accepted, but you know without the rough edges, like equity in punishment and in the justice system that is to say no outright discrimination based on caste in law and in the administration of justice, more intercaste interaction based on patron-client relationship that we see in Roman empire, this would butterfly away ban on inter caste dining, untouchablity, purity laws and a lot of other stuff which had a depressing effect on the social cohesion. You can have religious ceremony where offerings to god be given to the poor and the unfortunate, like giving food, clothing and basic shelter to the poor and the destitute, i am saying about these offerings because these have been practiced in some parts of the subcontinent, may be a vedantic school that emphasizes more on charity, acknowledges the pursuit of secular knowledge instead of insisting on the theological knowledge, with a less rigid on the lines that i proposed would go a long way in building and sustaining social cohesion even if a rigid caste system is in force.

As for social and economic mobilty, again you are talking about pre modern times where social mobility is slow and economic mobility is comparatively less slow but nonetheless slow. Caste system was surprisingly flexible when it came to this aspect just that it made the mobility slow as your social advancement depended upon your community's extent of Aryanization. But you do have a lot of instances like the Sakas who were initially treated as the Chandalas were gradually accepted as the Kshatriya caste.

As for centralization of political power, well the culprit that you are looking for is not the caste system, it is the ancient aryan political practices that were followed and some of those that were abandoned. You do know that the ancient Aryan tribes had the Sabha and Samithi, these institution played a important role on the check of royal power and prevented the emergence of the force that was disintegrating in nature. That is why the Vedic Janapada and Mahajanapadas were very stable even though they fought a lot of wars amongst themselves. Once you have the Mauryan Dynasty come into power based on the power of Absolute Kingship based upon the inspiration of the Achaemenids , you have removed the last checks on the power of the Rajans and they held the lands in their own right and not as the representative of the Jana, in other other words the Sabha and samithi not only put a check on the local rajan's powers and protected the privileges of the nobility but also acted a check on the designs and machinations of the Nobel themselves thus putting a check on the despotism and distintigation and mind you these janapadas grew organically and was not a product of some political game, these janapadas had a history and custom and tradition that would ensure its unity and integrity . We in india have the habit of holding the Mauryas in high regard but the ground reality was they were extremely unpopular with the ruling class, for the destruction of the old world order where they held power and prestige, they abolished old kingdoms and its political institutions and in its place established a system that was perceived to be totalitarian and distant. In the lands of 56 Mahajanapadas there were only 5-6 provinces, it shows the extent of centralization but is also a indication of the extent of despotism. Instead of abolishing all these kingdoms the Mauryas could have established a personal union with the kingdoms, so that the local political institutions could survive and the support of the local nobility could be won over, or install one of the cadet branches of the royal family as the king of a local Janapada or install one of the ally as the king of a janpada. With this you can achieve some what of a political federation with the support of the local nobility and who are tied to the Imperial Empire by allegiance. I know this doesnt sound glamorous but thats how indian subcontinent was ruled for more than a thousand years and the mauryas just imposed upon them a system that was unfamiliar and unnecessary in the eyes of the local elite and thus was overthrown at the first sign of weakness . For india to Achieve a political centralization it would need more than 500 years of political developments towards centralization taking into accounts the belief of the local janpadas. The mauryas collapsed not because of Buddhism but because of their politics after Chanakya .

 

[Brahman]

All these Ideas of a Buddhist and centralized India implementing a mandate of heaven doctrine looks nice but what you are forgetting is the nature of the Indian Society, which is basically a synthesis of Aryo-Dravidian culture, Buddhism took off in south of India but quickly fell into decline because of the religion (if one can call it that) wasnt rooted in the culture and tradition of the locality, the inherent Nihilism of Buddhism stood in strong contrast with the religions of the South, some of which could be considered Hindu some of which could be considered to be Dravidian religion. By the time of the Kushan Rule Buddhism had all but disappeared in areas outside the gangetic river valley. In the south and central india they were supplanted with vedantic hinduism, in the indus valley and the saptha sindhu region the support was evaporating but still the religion could be saved in those region as the faith has not been supplanted totally by the vedantic hindu faiths which merged the old aryan beliefs with native faith and belief. This is what i find lacking in Buddhism. The lack of local cultural integration and it cannot be achieved because of the nature of the Buddhist faith. You could say that there was some attempt at it but whatever the efforts it was not as strong as the Brahman attempts to "reform" hinduism which surprisingly proved to be very popular amongst the lower caste at first, probably because of the ornate but less rigorous rituals , combine it with a elaborate yet simple to explain religious idea and belief and the fusion of the old vedic religion with the local elements which made it popular.

It is no rocket science that the last pocket of Buddhist faith was in Modern day Bihar and bengal because these are regions where the Buddhist faith first arose and more in tune with the local culture and sensibilities. And we have to remember, Buddhist faith is a reaction against the Orthodoxy of the vedic faith and once the orthodoxy became more pragmatic and less rigid, the Charm of Buddhist faith was lost.

In my opinion the vedantic hinduism is OK, it has its draw backs but its more like a big tent religion and thus has a unifying influence unlike Buddhism where different schools had antagonistic beliefs and relationships. The only draw back i could find is that its sanction of the some of the stupid rigid aspects of the caste system. As for women's rights well we have to remember it's a religion of the Iron age not early modern era. I mean we can have a vedantic hinduism which is less rigid, i mean i am not saying that there would be inter-caste marriages would be accepted, but you know without the rough edges, like equity in punishment and in the justice system that is to say no outright discrimination based on caste in law and in the administration of justice, more intercaste interaction based on patron-client relationship that we see in Roman empire, this would butterfly away ban on inter caste dining, untouchablity, purity laws and a lot of other stuff which had a depressing effect on the social cohesion. You can have religious ceremony where offerings to god be given to the poor and the unfortunate, like giving food, clothing and basic shelter to the poor and the destitute, i am saying about these offerings because these have been practiced in some parts of the subcontinent, may be a vedantic school that emphasizes more on charity, acknowledges the pursuit of secular knowledge instead of insisting on the theological knowledge, with a less rigid on the lines that i proposed would go a long way in building and sustaining social cohesion even if a rigid caste system is in force.

As for social and economic mobilty, again you are talking about pre modern times where social mobility is slow and economic mobility is comparatively less slow but nonetheless slow. Caste system was surprisingly flexible when it came to this aspect just that it made the mobility slow as your social advancement depended upon your community's extent of Aryanization. But you do have a lot of instances like the Sakas who were initially treated as the Chandalas were gradually accepted as the Kshatriya caste.

As for centralization of political power, well the culprit that you are looking for is not the caste system, it is the ancient aryan political practices that were followed and some of those that were abandoned. You do know that the ancient Aryan tribes had the Sabha and Samithi, these institution played a important role on the check of royal power and prevented the emergence of the force that was disintegrating in nature. That is why the Vedic Janapada and Mahajanapadas were very stable even though they fought a lot of wars amongst themselves. Once you have the Mauryan Dynasty come into power based on the power of Absolute Kingship based upon the inspiration of the Achaemenids , you have removed the last checks on the power of the Rajans and they held the lands in their own right and not as the representative of the Jana, in other other words the Sabha and samithi not only put a check on the local rajan's powers and protected the privileges of the nobility but also acted a check on the designs and machinations of the Nobel themselves thus putting a check on the despotism and distintigation and mind you these janapadas grew organically and was not a product of some political game, these janapadas had a history and custom and tradition that would ensure its unity and integrity . We in india have the habit of holding the Mauryas in high regard but the ground reality was they were extremely unpopular with the ruling class, for the destruction of the old world order where they held power and prestige, they abolished old kingdoms and its political institutions and in its place established a system that was perceived to be totalitarian and distant. In the lands of 56 Mahajanapadas there were only 5-6 provinces, it shows the extent of centralization but is also a indication of the extent of despotism. Instead of abolishing all these kingdoms the Mauryas could have established a personal union with the kingdoms, so that the local political institutions could survive and the support of the local nobility could be won over, or install one of the cadet branches of the royal family as the king of a local Janapada or install one of the ally as the king of a janpada. With this you can achieve some what of a political federation with the support of the local nobility and who are tied to the Imperial Empire by allegiance. I know this doesnt sound glamorous but thats how indian subcontinent was ruled for more than a thousand years and the mauryas just imposed upon them a system that was unfamiliar and unnecessary in the eyes of the local elite and thus was overthrown at the first sign of weakness . For india to Achieve a political centralization it would need more than 500 years of political developments towards centralization taking into accounts the belief of the local janpadas. The mauryas collapsed not because of Buddhism but because of their politics after Chanakya .

The reason why I was theorizing on whether Buddhism would be better for a more centralized India as it might lead to the destruction of religious enforced caste, Class systems exist everywhere, but only in India it became linked with India and stayed that way, which might not have happened in this ATL India

 

[Masked Grizzly]

Returning to the subject of food (from post 23 on page 2) in scenario where wanked Indian empires (under the Mauryan/Harsha/etc) and China interact with each other more compared to OTL, it would be fascinating to see Konjac (a plant native to Yunnan - a potential battleground between India and China in ATL) become known and even cultivated in India if possible instead of only being grown in East Asian and Southeast Asia. Perhaps even spawning the Indian version of Shirataki Noodles.

Would be interesting to know whether there was anything else India and China could have gained from each other in the realm of cuisine, culture, etc compared to OTL.

 

[Brahman]

Returning to the subject of food (from post 23 on page 2) in scenario where wanked Indian empires (under the Mauryan/Harsha/etc) and China interact with each other more compared to OTL, it would be fascinating to see Konjac (a plant native to Yunnan - a potential battleground between India and China in ATL) become known and even cultivated in India if possible instead of only being grown in East Asian and Southeast Asia. Perhaps even spawning the Indian version of Shirataki Noodles.

Would be interesting to know whether there was anything else India and China could have gained from each other in the realm of cuisine, culture, etc compared to OTL.

That sounds great, perhaps more vegetarianism in China and more meat consumption in India ?

 

[MbokDarmi]

Why would they? Mandate of Heaven is made to justify why the Zhou had any right to overthrow the Shang, who claimed to be descended from gods thus therefore several tiers above the plebians. MoH is basically "but the right to rule is based on whether you're competent or not tho, not on holy blood, so we're doing this totes fair". Did Maurya came to power from this process?

 

[Sarthak]

Why would they? Mandate of Heaven is made to justify why the Zhou had any right to overthrow the Shang, who claimed to be descended from gods thus therefore several tiers above the plebians. MoH is basically "but the right to rule is based on whether you're competent or not tho, not on holy blood, so we're doing this totes fair". Did Maurya came to power from this process?

Technically Chandragupta did usurp the Nanda Dynasty in Magadha to come into power.

 

[MbokDarmi]

Technically Chandragupta did usurp the Nanda Dynasty in Magadha to come into power.

Huh, didn't know that. That's on me for jumping to area I don't know much. Still tho, for the purpose of unification of India, which seems to be where the thread is heading, MoH isnt directly useful, since it's simply a justification on why a dynasty could overthrow the previous one. Terrain is a greater factor.

 

[Brahman]

Huh, didn't know that. That's on me for jumping to area I don't know much. Still tho, for the purpose of unification of India, which seems to be where the thread is heading, MoH isnt directly useful, since it's simply a justification on why a dynasty could overthrow the previous one. Terrain is a greater factor.

North Indian plains can be unified

 

[Masked Grizzly]

That sounds great, perhaps more vegetarianism in China and more meat consumption in India ?

Possible though cannot say, might be the case ATL has significantly more vegetarian options compared to OTL.

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

the Mughals and British literally exploited the Caste System to their advantage

The mughals literally couldn't care less about the caste system- they in no way tried to exploit any "societal weakness" which by the way I contest to the highest degree as it smacks of orientalist generalisations and ignores the proliferation of literally hundreds of religious sects that completely disregarded caste. Caste in the way that we understand it today simply did not exist in Hindu society at large during the medieval period outside the minds of a small group of mimamsa brahmin literati.

This will be a controversial opinion, but I do not think Hinduism will be able to achieve

You're right it is controversial, because it assumes the existence of a rigid caste hierarchy in the mould imagined by racist British colonisers- that's not even a value judgement, the arguments you are making were designed by people who imagined that all non western societies remained static and trapped in their stagnation unless they were ruled by the enlightened west. That rhetoric is not only unsupported by actual historical evidence but it remains to this day incredibly harmful and leads to extreme cultural insecurity.

play caste and regionsl politics against each other to gain supremacy in south Asia

What do you mean??? Caste politics are completely irrelevant to the sociopolitical context you are talking about?? Islamic states in India came from superior military and organisational structures, trade links with the wider Indian Ocean world and a steady flow of skilled immigrants not any imagined weakness in Hindu society, and even the term Hindu society has arguable relevance to the period in question given the problems with the term Hindu when used in a pre colonial context.

Even shivaji was not neccesarily some say from a kshtray caste but he later created a geneaology.

One of the reasons that Aurangzeb and his Rajput nobles were so suspicious of Shivaji was that he was a mere bhumiya or farmer in their eyes owing to the Maratha background.

 

[Brahman]

You're right it is controversial, because it assumes the existence of a rigid caste hierarchy in the mould imagined by racist British colonisers- that's not even a value judgement, the arguments you are making were designed by people who imagined that all non western societies remained static and trapped in their stagnation unless they were ruled by the enlightened west. That rhetoric is not only unsupported by actual historical evidence but it remains to this day incredibly harmful and leads to extreme cultural insecurity.

There were two reasons why I states why Hinduism could not unite India - Lack of Agreed theological teachings and caste sytem

Let's start with the first one, why can't Hinduism unite India ?, It is due to polytheism and worship of different gods, it is not inherently a bad thing as it leads to inclusivity, but also leads to conflict, It also has the unfortunate side effects of lack of commonly agreed teachings, as such people of different sects of Hinduism do not really see each other eye to eye and leads to conflict, there is also no central authority on religion, leading to further fractions

And caste system by gupta period started to become rigid and the centuries that followed only intensified it, by the time of Guru Nanak, differnt castes could not even sit together due to discrimination, Army was capitalised by a few castes, which lead to armies being much smaller than possible and lack of growth, easily leading to their defeats at the hands of central asians, Knowledge of sanskrit and hindu scriptures were all at the hands of priestly classes, who made sure that no one but them learns sanskrit to hold a monopoly over knowledge, Lower castes were not even allowed in temples, which lead to their apathy towards religion, as such even when temples were destroyed, no body really protested as majority or atleast plurality were no even allowed in temple.

I am not saying that such class systems existed only in India, they existed everywhere, but they were only religiously backed in India

You're right it is controversial, because it assumes the existence of a rigid caste hierarchy in the mould imagined by racist British colonisers- that's not even a value judgement, the arguments you are making were designed by people who imagined that all non western societies remained static and trapped in their stagnation unless they were ruled by the enlightened west. That rhetoric is not only unsupported by actual historical evidence but it remains to this day incredibly harmful and leads to extreme cultural insecurity.

Many of them allied themselves with Ethno Caste groups like Rajputs, or Zamindars, it was the unfortunate truth, they could never wield complete control of India as they had to appease these groups and these groups were in the range where they were powerful enough to cause havoc but not enough to cause complete destruction

 

[Masked Grizzly]

Though it has been previously said to be unlikely for an ATL unified Indian Empire to conquer let alone retain Nanzhao / Yunnan, what is intriguing about such an idea would be the easternmost borders being south of the Yangtze River and west of the Pearl River in part or most of Yunnan (53 on map below).

OTOH would it have been more feasible for the easternmost border of this ATL unified Indian Empire being west of the Lancang portion of the Mekong River that only includes a small part of Nanzhao/Yunnan?