AHC: Nationalism in Post-Mughal India

By the end of Aurangzeb's reign, the Mughal Empire was in decline and beset by religious turmoil. The Hindu Maratha's were challenging their dominance across southern and central India, while foreign powers (notably the British, French, and Dutch) were trying to gain influence. India in 1707 was in turmoil, but was still one of the most wealthy and powerful regions of the world.

In other words, this is a time and place where there a lot of possible scenarios. However, it is notable that for the next century and a half, as the British consolidated their control over India, nationalism did not play an important role.

India is comprised of many groups with independent and long histories - Punjabis, Bengalis, Marathis, Tamils, Assamese, Oriya, etc. Why was their no surge of nationalism throughout the subcontinent as there was in Europe during the same century?

The closest OTL example is the Sikh Empire, but that was more of a religious movement, of course.

The challenge is to have broad-based movements (either started by the people or by governments and rulers) that emphasize the national identities of separate Indian peoples - Bengal for Bengalis! and stuff like that. This can be in opposition to Mughal rule, British influence, or anything else, really. Thoughts?

Cheers,
Ganesha
 
By the end of Aurangzeb's reign, the Mughal Empire was in decline and beset by religious turmoil. The Hindu Maratha's were challenging their dominance across southern and central India, while foreign powers (notably the British, French, and Dutch) were trying to gain influence. India in 1707 was in turmoil, but was still one of the most wealthy and powerful regions of the world.

In other words, this is a time and place where there a lot of possible scenarios. However, it is notable that for the next century and a half, as the British consolidated their control over India, nationalism did not play an important role.

India is comprised of many groups with independent and long histories - Punjabis, Bengalis, Marathis, Tamils, Assamese, Oriya, etc. Why was their no surge of nationalism throughout the subcontinent as there was in Europe during the same century?

The closest OTL example is the Sikh Empire, but that was more of a religious movement, of course.

The challenge is to have broad-based movements (either started by the people or by governments and rulers) that emphasize the national identities of separate Indian peoples - Bengal for Bengalis! and stuff like that. This can be in opposition to Mughal rule, British influence, or anything else, really. Thoughts?

Cheers,
Ganesha

I think the issue is that there were already separate Indian cultures. Europe had (at the top) a unified latinised culture that was split first by the Reformation and then by the Enlightenment. India never had something that unified until the 19th C.
 
I think the issue is that there were already separate Indian cultures. Europe had (at the top) a unified latinised culture that was split first by the Reformation and then by the Enlightenment. India never had something that unified until the 19th C.

To be fair though, you could jumpstart the process....having an ambitious ruler in the South, for example, would work a lot easier than the North. If you can have three or four powerful states, like how Hyderabad, Travancore and Mysore were, it would be feasible to encourage their own states' language, culture, etc.

Something I found interesting was that Qutb Quli Shah of the Golkonda Sultanate encouraged Telegu culture, arts, etc. Perhaps the Asaf Jahis could do the same?
 
I think the issue is that there were already separate Indian cultures. Europe had (at the top) a unified latinised culture that was split first by the Reformation and then by the Enlightenment. India never had something that unified until the 19th C.

I think I would dispute that. Russia managed to become a large European colonial nation (Siberia) while promoting nationalism - but it did it without much connection to the greater European culture.

Cheers,
Ganesha

P.S. Actually, I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying nationalism was unnecessary since there were already separate Indian cultures?
 

katchen

Banned
I'm not sure you can separate nationalism from religion in India, Ganesh. Certainly the British didn't think so, which is why they were so careful to promote Deobandi Islam and suppress Hinduism as much as they could when they got control of India. And of course, neither does today's Vishva Hindi Parishad and RSS.
So, since the existing sultanates are Muslim and have zero nationalist street cred, could the Marathis win against the Mughals and build a religiously based Hindu nationalist state in whatever part of India they carve out. If they can beat the Muhgals, it would likely be large enough to withstand the British and other Europeans. The British might be relegated to predominaltly Muslim Bengal and the Indus Valley---Modern Pakistan, as well as Assam and Burma, which Bengal would cut off from an Indian state.
 
The language based nationalism had not much chance of developing in 18th century India. The revolts against the Mughal Empire under Aurangzeb were mostly influenced by his religious persecution of Hindus and Sikhs and hence were religion based. Furthur most languages were not developed enough to form bases for linguistic nationalism. In fact the Marathas were the most successful among the groups that challenged the Mughal hegemony and they upheld some sort of Hindu nationalism (Hindupad Padshahi) under Shivaji. They had succeeded in bringing almost half of the subcontinent under their control. It was their internal rivalries, loss in the third battle of Panipat and the failure to establish lasting alliances with native forces like the Rajputs, the Sikhs etc. which prevented them from becoming the successors of the Mughals and the masters of the subcontinent. The Hindu nationalist spirit upheld by Shivaji was not given the same importance by the later Maratha rulers and generals. If the Marathas had succeeded in establishing a Maratha Empire based on the ideals of Shivaji it would have been a Regime based on Hindu nationalism.
 
Top