AHC - United Indian Subcontinent

[Madhukar_Shah]

All due respect to you, This is the single dumbest and delusional statement

Forgive me if I’m mistaken, but this doesn’t sound very respectful.
This thread seems to have moved from alternate history with its driving motivations being current day politics into ahistorical, hate fuelling, current day politics and that’s not a game I like to play.
If you are interested I could point you to some literature, as it really is very interesting- theres Richard Eatons "India in the Persianate Age", an indispensable read for the modern historian of India which looks at the interactions between the Sanskrit and Persian cosmopolis. Another work is cultural historian Rajiv Kinra’s "Writing Self, Writing Empire", an analysis of the works of Chandar Bhan Brahman, Secretary of Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb, and the intellectual milieu of tolerance and pluralism he operated in, which is available for free on Amazon. Another good read is "Argumentative Indian" by Nobel Prize winning Amartya Sen, which is a look at the modern Indian identity and our heritage of civil debate and intellectual pluralism, as well as examining the Hindu muslim divide and its underlying causes.

 

[Vikayak Devagiri]

Forgive me if I’m mistaken, but this doesn’t sound very respectful.
This thread seems to have moved from alternate history with its driving motivations being current day politics into ahistorical, hate fuelling, current day politics and that’s not a game I like to play.
If you are interested I could point you to some literature, as it really is very interesting- theres Richard Eatons "India in the Persianate Age", an indispensable read for the modern historian of India which looks at the interactions between the Sanskrit and Persian cosmopolis. Another work is cultural historian Rajiv Kinra’s "Writing Self, Writing Empire", an analysis of the works of Chandar Bhan Brahman, Secretary of Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb, and the intellectual milieu of tolerance and pluralism he operated in, which is available for free on Amazon. Another good read is "Argumentative Indian" by Nobel Prize winning Amartya Sen, which is a look at the modern Indian identity and our heritage of civil debate and intellectual pluralism, as well as examining the Hindu muslim divide and its underlying causes.

The current day politics was mentioned because I wanted to explain why united India could not survive without a unifying religion,

If I insulted you, Then I apologize, but it is ridiculous to claim that Hindus will allow a mosque to remain at one of Hinduism's Holiest Site, it will never happen, Hindus will demand to have the temples restored

 

[Kaushlendra pratap singh]

theres Richard Eatons "India in the Persianate Age", an indispensable read for the modern historian of India which looks at the interactions between the Sanskrit and Persian cosmopolis. Another work is cultural historian Rajiv Kinra’s "Writing Self, Writing Empire", an analysis of the works of Chandar Bhan Brahman, Secretary of Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb, and the intellectual milieu of tolerance and pluralism he operated in, which is available for free on Amazon. Another good read is "Argumentative Indian" by Nobel Prize-winning Amartya Sen, which is a look at the modern Indian identity and our heritage of civil debate and intellectual pluralism, as well as examining the Hindu Muslim divide and its underlying causes.

these books are nothing more history fallacy -I cast in higher melting point when our historian wrote history they forget to consult every-other part -
1-Amartya sen explain to us that Babri Masque does not build on the top of Any Hindu temples due to Tulsi das and other Hindu writer do not wrote about it - They forget Hindu never written anything about Somnath temple in Gujrat can we say same the Persian king of Ghazni did not destroy it -
2- Aurangzeb was a secular great king or a barbaric and Islamist you have to see at the eye of Aurangzeb who when came to Power of Delhi did not accept by Muslim Ummah seen as a usurper after that is history.
3 Chandra Bhan Brahman no comment I will be first read this book to any comment.
4 also Amartya sen book is only qualified to compare as Pakistan Board of education history book where Pakistan board develop an Islamic narrative and Amartya Sen narrate a secular narration and both books are just usable for eating Panipuri.
5- Richard Eatons book India in the Persianate age only did change the title from Muslim to Persian a new style of writing narrative.
6- many people in India see the fallacy in dividing Indian history in Hindu, Muslim and modern I say they were right because South never conquered by Muslim and there was always a Hindu court in opposition of mughal or Delhi sultanate court some as Maharana of Chhitor, Gond of Golconda or Jat of Agra who looted Tajmahal burn the body of Akbar and destroy Akbar statue near Red fort of Agra after Aurangzeb destroy Krishana temple in Mathura.
Or Ajit Singh of Marwar who after coming to the throne in 1707 and making a pact in 1708 with Sisodia and amber destroy every Muslim building in his kingdom and gone towards Ajmer to destroy serif only stop when swai Jaysingh of Amber reminds of emperor Bahdhur shah returning from the south .

 

[Kaushlendra pratap singh]

I am saying with responsibility - Indo-Muslim relationship history is the interaction of elite of two groups where on the upper-level everything is work in progress and power struggle but when crossing the upper echelon of power and see common people of the village and normal citizen of City we will find there was no interaction between them. means there is no famous Ganga Yamuna tahjib in the corridor of Mughal Delhi. if you have to search for it you have to go Lucknow whose Nizam was secular who open the gate/ram chabutra for Hindu but it was done due to pact between Gossain and nawab, where nawab will open gate and gossian will help with there military muscle

 

[Vikayak Devagiri]

I am saying with responsibility - Indo-Muslim relationship history is the interaction of elite of two groups where on the upper-level everything is work in progress and power struggle but when crossing the upper echelon of power and see common people of the village and normal citizen of City we will find there was no interaction between them. means there is no famous Ganga Yamuna tahjib in the corridor of Mughal Delhi. if you have to search for it you have to go Lucknow whose Nizam was secular who open the gate/ram chabutra for Hindu but it was done due to pact between Gossain and nawab, where nawab will open gate and gossian will help with there military muscle

You hit the nail, only the upper classes co operated, the middle and lower class folk were always at odds with each other and resented each other
@Madhav Deval

 

[Beacon]

And this is in large part a modern creation- before the British and their own racism was adopted by Indian intellectuals there was no such difference in heroes. It is only after the British come in with their Eurocentric, quite frankly ridiculous historiography that divided Indian history into a Hindu period (before 1000, ignoring the great Buddhist kingdoms ), a Muslim period (before 1800 ignoring the great Hindu empires such as Vijaynagar) and a British period, that the arrival of Turkish military power is presented as a clash of civilisation, new phase of Indian history. For Indian intellectuals, the important change that accompanied Turkish rule was a restoration of political power to Delhi, the seat of the Pandavas. Texts such as the Tarikh I Rajaha I Delhi, which was written by a Brahmin in Persian, use the exact same terms for how Hindu rulers and Muslim rulers ruled, and praise the courage of Balban and the generosity of Muizz al Din Qaiqubad. Alauddin Khilji is listed as one of the greatest rajas of India and his campaigns in the south aren’t a Muslim padshah waging jihad against the infidel, they were simply seen as a North Indian victorious conqueror being successful. For Hindus of the early modern era, Khiljis protection of India from the mongols and military successes made him a cultural hero for people of every religious affiliation. His villainisation by modern bollywood is symptomatic of current attitudes, not historical reality. Sure, some sultans were criticised for going out of their way to impose Islam through persecution, but most sultans are spared this criticism because they were seen as more virtuous and tolerant. When read in the larger context of the work, the two examples of fanatics he gives are exceptions to the rule- minor, isolated instances of sectarian strife in an unbroken chain of great kings from Yuddhishtar to Shah Jahan who he considers to be perfectly legitimate political authorities. Timur was hated by all Indian Muslims before the 17th century for his destructive rampages and destruction of the Delhi sultanate, and Durrani was hated by Indian Muslims for most of the 18th,19th and 20th centuries, because religion was less impkrtant

Hindus were more than fine praising muslim rulers and Muslims more than fine praising Hindu rulers and holy men.

I actually had no idea about this, although that might be due to my public school education. I'll try to read more about, but somehow I feel like this depends more on the situation rather than an objective reading of history. A hindu writing about a muslim king was worried about being beheaded if they wrote something bad about them and vice versa, but I'll try to look into some of the books you've mentioned and see what it's really about.

British where, By and large, correct, History of India can be divided into Hindu or Dharmic Period, Islamic Period, Maratha Period and the British Period, Yes there were strong Hindu Kingdoms and Islamic sultanate during Islamic and Maratha Period, but Muslims and Maratha were the biggest political forces, and Khilji was quite famous for using Fanaticism of Muslim soldiers to conquer the so called "Kaffirs", Most of Central Asian Muslim conquerors were often disgusted by Dharmic Culture of India and used to destroy many ancient hindu temples, Qutb Minar was built upon a Jain temple
well obviously, Hindus were learning in Perso Arabic script over Indian based script, as only the former were given state wide patronage compared to latter, If given a choice, all non muslims will choose to learn in Devanagari script and learn Indian languages over Persian or Arabic
Let us not forget Bangladesh has had anti Hindu violence and India has periodic violence of riots, The only reason India has not descended into civil war is because Hinduism and Dharmic traditions has glued the country
By this, I mean that Muslims will see Muslims of other countries and ethnicities as their own compared Hindus or Sikhs of the same ethnicity, same with Dharmic religions in India
The migration of Aryans into India does not Compare to Islamic conquests of India, one of them integrated with the local populace, while the other still had a distinct identity
Ofcourse there are exceptions, But most if not all Muslims saw themselves as Persianised Turks ruling over a Hindu India
Yes, the great tolerant Aurangzeb, Who was the Sworn enemy of the Marathas and Killed Guru Teg Bahadur for standing up against forced Conversions, which lead to the identity of the Sikh identity militarily against the Mughals, Aurangzeb was the worst ruler for India, even Nehru, known for his great secular Humanism described him as more of a Muslim than an Indian
How do you explain Syed Ahmed Khan's views or Iqbal's view, British certainly exploited faultlines, but Muslims and Hindus already had historical Hatred at a community level
Muslims will without doubt support Palestinian Cause, whereas Hindus will see it is none of their business and approach neutrally, Muslims will be for the support of Mujahideen in Afghanistan, whereas Hindus might even support Soviets or the Communists, they will forever have different world views due to different religions
Muslims stayed because they did not have the means to move to Pakistan, as well as assurances that India will be Secular state, Majority of them voted for Muslim league, Clearly signalling Islamic Identity over Indian Identity
I am talking about modern day Uniform Civil Code, Please do not do whataboutism that Hindus do this or that, All non muslims have accepted Common secular civil code in India, whereas Muslims still hold Shariyat law, up until recently practices like Nikah Halala, as Islamic law is the law of God and as such never be changed, and Blasphemy law is across the Islamic world, something that would be definitely part of United India.
India being partitioned was good on the long run, Border regions with Afghanistan was secure, as well as having a diverse population with near alien belief systems with respect to each other was reduced, Only the Partition was not perfect in the Siliguri Corridor.

British were by and large orientalists - foreigners writing about Indian culture who had very little, if any, lived experience of it. In fact, to this day, post-colonial studies in western universities mostly consists of Indian literature student going abroad and writing about how orientalists were wrong about this thing or the other or how colonisation was good.

As to your point about muslims of different nations seeing each other as closer than those of other religions, I can bring up the example of Bangladesh's existence up again, but that seems like beating a dead horse. I could write about the United Arabic Republic which failed at bringing together people who have the same islamic religion from Egypt and Syria, but I doubt that could convince you either. So I must ask you, why is there not a single muslim empire/kingdom/nation/political body all the way from morocco to indonesia? Why are there so many islamic nations in the world instead of only one nation?

There are very few records of Aryan migration but somehow I do not believe it is as peaceful as you imply.

Please do not bring up Israel-Palestine issue up again, I do not want to see this discussion end up in the mods' radar. Also allies for both India and Pakistan will depend on convenience and survival, not on religion. Pakistan has been closer to the America at times and India has been closer to the Russia at times, but that does not mean they will not switch those alliances if other side has what they need (as you can see in recent times when India has become closer to the US).

India being partitioned is not at all good. Setting aside the geopolitical issues of having to defend a tiny corridor in Siliguri, the other main issue comes from having a huge International border going from the Rann of Kutch near Gujarat and Rajasthan to Punjab and the Line of Control in Kashmir to the North.

It would be so much simpler to defend the Hindu Kush than this huge border

I am saying with responsibility - Indo-Muslim relationship history is the interaction of elite of two groups where on the upper-level everything is work in progress and power struggle but when crossing the upper echelon of power and see common people of the village and normal citizen of City we will find there was no interaction between them. means there is no famous Ganga Yamuna tahjib in the corridor of Mughal Delhi. if you have to search for it you have to go Lucknow whose Nizam was secular who open the gate/ram chabutra for Hindu but it was done due to pact between Gossain and nawab, where nawab will open gate and gossian will help with there military muscle

You hit the nail, onlynthe upper classes co operated, the middle and lower class folk were always at odds with each other and resented each other

I honestly disagree with this point. Individuals can be friends no matter what their circumstances (just as I can be friends with a muslim despite , but it is groups (often lead by extremists) which tend to cause problems. It is not one single person who causes a riot but many people.

 

[Vikayak Devagiri]

British were by and large orientalists - foreigners writing about Indian culture who had very little, if any, lived experience of it. In fact, to this day, post-colonial studies in western universities mostly consists of Indian literature student going abroad and writing about how orientalists were wrong about this thing or the other or how colonisation was good.

I agree, Biritsh had a large level of perception before they wrote the history, however, The way the categorised History into Hindu, Muslims and Maratha can be used for our own purposes

As to your point about muslims of different nations seeing each other as closer than those of other religions, I can bring up the example of Bangladesh's existence up again, but that seems like beating a dead horse. I could write about the United Arabic Republic which failed at bringing together people who have the same islamic religion from Egypt and Syria, but I doubt that could convince you either. So I must ask you, why is there not a single muslim empire/kingdom/nation/political body all the way from morocco to indonesia? Why are there so many islamic nations in the world instead of only one nation?

In the case of Bangladesh, people forget that Muslim League was formed in Dhaka in 1905 and one of the first violent riots were in Calcatta as muslim league started a riot to get more , which was used for Muslim Nationalism in the Subcontinent, the reason why I do not think a Multi Religious India would be successful is because Muslims will always associate them selves more with Islamic Culture in Middle East North Africa and Central Asia over their fellow Hindus, As a Told before, Hindus and Muslims have too much bad blood in history, and remember, Many Archaic Islamic laws in India, Like Triple Talaq and Nikah Halalah were preserved by Muslims because according to them, it is their religious tradition which should not be harmed, whereas many Islamic Countries themselves had banned it, Muslims will forever fear Hindu Domination and Hindus will forever Fear Muslims Population growth

There are very few records of Aryan migration but somehow I do not believe it is as peaceful as you imply.

I agree, I do think there was an Aryan Migration that combined regional beliefs with the invading Aryans to create the modern Indian Culture, it had both violence and peaceful times in it

India being partitioned is not at all good. Setting aside the geopolitical issues of having to defend a tiny corridor in Siliguri, the other main issue comes from having a huge International border going from the Rann of Kutch near Gujarat and Rajasthan to Punjab and the Line of Control in Kashmir to the North.

It would be so much simpler to defend the Hindu Kush than this huge border

No, The Pashtuns will be in the Border who will not Recognize the border with Afghanistan, and Afghanistan will always want to annex these lands, and all these people will have everything in common with People in Afghanistan and nothing in Common with Majority of Hindus of India, this is the reason why even the most Fiercest of Khalistanis or Bengali Nationalists will not want to be part of Pakistan or Bangladesh despite being similiar in Ethnic Group as Religion will Tilt the favour highly towards other Hindus and the religious Violence is still very much fresh

I honestly disagree with this point. Individuals can be friends no matter what their circumstances (just as I can be friends with a muslim despite , but it is groups (often lead by extremists) which tend to cause problems. It is not one single person who causes a riot but many people.

Ofcourse, Muslims are a diverse group of people with many beliefs and traditions in them and Islam is a Religious and Socio - Political System, In the Subcontinent, Hinduism and Islam are not just religions, but ethnic groups as such, probability of disagreement are high leading to violence

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

somehow I feel like this depends more on the situation rather than an objective reading of history. A hindu writing about a muslim king was worried about being beheaded if they wrote something bad about them

Maybe so, but there certainly wasn’t either blanket criticism of all Muslims for being Muslims and neither was there blanket praise to avoid offending the current padshah- he does definitely criticise those that impose jizya and were known to destroy temples patronised by innocents. It’s telling as well that he doesn’t see temple destruction in and of itself as anti Hindu, he sees it as depriving a rival power of their divine patronage and thus places it in the tradition of Hindu kings destroying each other’s temples and stealing idols. Thus for the most part, a king who destroys temples is no worse than one who destroys enemy fortresses and this is coming from a Brahman.

 

[Skraea]

It's been done at least twice. The Mughal Empire and the Maurya Empire spanned the vast majority of the subcontinent and lasted for centuries,so there's really no reason for a full Empire spanning from Afghanistan to Burma and maybe farther not to occur.

 

[Vikayak Devagiri]

Maybe so, but there certainly wasn’t either blanket criticism of all Muslims for being Muslims and neither was there blanket praise to avoid offending the current padshah- he does definitely criticise those that impose jizya and were known to destroy temples patronised by innocents. It’s telling as well that he doesn’t see temple destruction in and of itself as anti Hindu, he sees it as depriving a rival power of their divine patronage and thus places it in the tradition of Hindu kings destroying each other’s temples and stealing idols. Thus for the most part, a king who destroys temples is no worse than one who destroys enemy fortresses and this is coming from a Brahman.

The Destruction of Native Indian temples in North India was a true fact, Ayodhya was an example of this, Qutb Minar was an example of this, and could you please explain your claim that Hindus will be proud of Babri Masjid as Mughal Heritage as it makes no sense at all ?
@Madhav Deval

 

[Vikayak Devagiri]

It's been done at least twice. The Mughal Empire and the Maurya Empire spanned the vast majority of the subcontinent and lasted for centuries,so there's really no reason for a full Empire spanning from Afghanistan to Burma and maybe farther to occur.

That is true, Guptas and Delhi Sultanate were also a Pan Indian Empire, though not the extent of Mauryan and Mughal

 

[Vikayak Devagiri]

I wanted to ask, How likely is that India becomes 90% Muslim in a ATL ?

 

[Vikayak Devagiri]

It seems this thread is closing on interest, does anyone want to contribute to the discussion, How likely is an Islamic Subcontinent

 

[Vikayak Devagiri]

Bump

 

[Sriyam Swastik]

Maybe so, but there certainly wasn’t either blanket criticism of all Muslims for being Muslims and neither was there blanket praise to avoid offending the current padshah- he does definitely criticise those that impose jizya and were known to destroy temples patronised by innocents. It’s telling as well that he doesn’t see temple destruction in and of itself as anti Hindu, he sees it as depriving a rival power of their divine patronage and thus places it in the tradition of Hindu kings destroying each other’s temples and stealing idols. Thus for the most part, a king who destroys temples is no worse than one who destroys enemy fortresses and this is coming from a Brahman.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Hindu "destroying" of temples was a very different process from Islamic kings. When Islamic kings conquered a Hindu region, the entire region along with the temple was completely sacked and devastated, with all of the wealth within it looted (including the structures within it). On the other hand Hindu kings merely took over the temples as status symbols and maybe steal some of its idols.

 

[Brahman]

Correct me if I am wrong, but Hindu "destroying" of temples was a very different process from Islamic kings. When Islamic kings conquered a Hindu region, the entire region along with the temple was completely sacked and devastated, with all of the wealth within it looted (including the structures within it). On the other hand Hindu kings merely took over the temples as status symbols and maybe steal some of its idols.

Well somewhat, Hindu rulers also destroyed temples, but it was usually accompanied by building a different temple, when muslims rulers did it, they built Mosques, as Such the Muslim destruction of temples is remembered more than Hindus

 

[Kaushlendra pratap singh]

, but it was usually accompanied by building a different temple,

It usually happens in South but only statue of divine change .

 

[Rishi]

With the help of America and the Soviet Union, India defeated China and Pakistan, then annexed Bangladesh, Tibet (because the holy Hindu mountain Mount Kailash is in Tibet), Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bhutan, Nepal, Maldives and Sri Lanka. Then India gained ownership of the Indian Ocean (which extends as far south as Antarctica). Then India started to officially use its ancient name Aryavarta (which means 'Abode of the Aryans' in Sanskrit). Then Indian Hindu CHADS awakened their siddhis to make anime real so that all of our waifus become real. The end.

 

[Brahman]

With the help of America and the Soviet Union, India defeated China and Pakistan, then annexed Bangladesh, Tibet (because the holy Hindu mountain Mount Kailash is in Tibet), Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bhutan, Nepal, Maldives and Sri Lanka. Then India gained ownership of the Indian Ocean (which extends as far south as Antarctica). Then India started to officially use its ancient name Aryavarta (which means 'Abode of the Aryans' in Sanskrit). Then Indian Hindu CHADS awakened their siddhis to make anime real so that all of our waifus become real. The end.

AKHANDA BHARAT INTENSIFIES.....