AHC - United Indian Subcontinent

[Friendly.Extraterrestrial]

The biggest issue is that losing that nomadic warrior edge limits the ability of the Kushan to defend these northern borders and also limits its prowess in war. The Kushan ultimately were not harmed in not being totally sedentary in rule, it was a unique realm that different from most of its neighbors and later realms. In that it combined nomadic, semi-nomadic and sedentary lifestyles into a unique composite identity.

For Kushans to achieve greater heights, they Yuezhi confederation who established the empire need to be more farsighted and settle some parts of their confederations in the fertile valleys of their territory while train a section of the next generations with Nomadic warfare. So they won't loose their Nomadic roots but also have a sedentary population base. This would help in both, defending from the external threats plus expanding into the Steppes and homogenizing the insides of their territories.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

For Kushans to achieve greater heights, they Yuezhi confederation who established the empire need to be more farsighted and settle some parts of their confederations in the fertile valleys of their territory while train a section of the next generations with Nomadic warfare. So they won't loose their Nomadic roots but also have a sedentary population base. This would help in both, defending from the external threats plus expanding into the Steppes and homogenizing the insides of their territories.

They never did lose their nomadic inclination until they were isolated from the steppes after the 230-232 invasion from the Sassanids that broke the empire into two sections, a northern state and a southern state. So, the Kushan technically were like the Arsacids, not fully assimilating , but otherwise assisting and promoting local cultures and modes of life in the lands that they ruled.

 

[Vikayak Devagiri]

Culturally that means literally nothing and as the indian subcontinent also includes most of modern Burma, your definition based entirely on geography fails to answer why the 9th century Burmese don’t count as as Indian as the Tamils or Gurjara Pratiharas.

Well you are right on that aspect that Burma is geographically is part of Subcontinent, but All Indian Based Kingdoms always conquered Tamil Nadu and not Burma because it was geographically much easier to attack and conquer, and geographically, Tamil Nadu is in the subcontinent the Subcontinent, whereas Burma was always considered outside

 

[SolRon]

There’s a difference between being the legitimate political authority and having any de facto power. The Marathas could point to themselves as loyal subjects who maintained the mughal government in provinces in their jurisdiction in return for a protection charge, and because they weren’t actively destroying the imperial order the aristocracy largely accepted them as part of it, and the emperor could not but follow.

Legitimate authority remains legitimate if it has that de facto power. As a good example, India's constituent assembly was not the legitimate authority to repeal the independence act of 1947, which remained the british parliament. Yet the assembly repealed it, the british having no say, because they had no power, thus losing their legitimacy. By gaining de facto power, the marathas were actively undermining the imperial order, it's just that the aristocracy couldn't do anything about. In the end, they were "legitimate" only in name largely because the marathas could gain what they wanted, i.e, taxes more easily this way. The others, such as the nizam of hyderabad on the other hand, may have kept those relations for the reasons you said above

I mean sure they did try and restore brahmanical orthodoxy and Sanskrit literacy to gain legitimacy amongst the Brahmin bureaucracy, but in order to keep any sort of legitimacy amongst the military aristocracy especially the Rajputs, they had to adopt huge amounts of Mughal material, literary and political culture.

That's my point, the marathas largely stuck to their culture, but adopted the parts of mughal culture necessary, such as the revenue system because it was much easier than adopting the system already present than creating a new one.

And why pray tell did they choose not to? It would have made more sense in terms of military strength to declare outright independence, surely? The emperor in Delhi had no military power but still possessed immense amounts of cultural and social capital as the heart of civilised society in India. Any attempt to depose him would have been too risky as it would have caused all the other successor state to support the emperor and band against this upstart. Call it balance of power if you will, maintain

We're kinda right on this part. The balance of power between the various empires on the subcontinent was largely symbolized by the emperor. Depose the emperor, you will be seen as trying to replicate the empire, i.e, dominate the other states. That would destabilize the balance of power on the subcontinent.

The first sentence there needs some clarifying as I’m afraid I’m having trouble deciphering it?

Right, sorry about that, was nodding off at the end.

The nizam literally did not have any sort of choice by 1857 if he wanted to keep his own lands secure

If smaller states chose to rebel, then the nizam himself had a choice. He chose to keep his head down to keep his land.

The cultural concept of the nation that the Mughals created eventually became independent of the dynasty and is a direct predecessor of the modern Indian nation.

I'm not sure where you're getting this from, but from what I know, the mughals never created the idea of an indian nation. Loyalty to a dynasty and to a nation are two very different things. The idea of a nation largely is a sense of belonging to a culture, people and homeland. Loyalty to a dynasty, on the other hand, largely is dependent on the heirs of the dynasty. All that culture or the educated class the mughals created or the loyalty to the dynasty didn't keep the country united, nor did it create any attempts to unify the country after their decline
It ultimately took the british, which brought enlightenment era ideas and suppression to bring that cultural unification about

Culturally that means literally nothing and as the indian subcontinent also includes most of modern Burma, your definition based entirely on geography fails to answer why the 9th century Burmese don’t count as as Indian as the Tamils or Gurjara Pratiharas.

So what's your idea of india ? Hopefully it's not something like north india is the authentic india. Burma was never considered as a part of indian civilisation by the indians or the burmese from the beginning. They were influenced by indian culture, but were largely southeast asian in nature. Simply put, their civilisational complex was different from india. On the other hand, the tamil culture formed one end of what you could call as the culture continuum, with the northwest india and the northeast (assam) forming the other ends of this civilisational complex

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

So what's your idea of india ? Hopefully it's not something like north india is the authentic india.

My point is there really is nothing that can be called an authentic India- the concept of India is the sum total of the movement of a set of ideas, cultures and languages, which are added to as new systems come into dialogue with them. More than anything, my idea of the concept of India is a conversation.

But to the extent that the Dravidian south was part of a culture continuum so was say, Thailand or Burma. All three places absorbed traditions of Sanskrit literacy, an Indic social order etc. The Cambodians are literally named after a tribe from the Mahabharata because they believed themselves to be ethnically Aryan. They all had elements of their own culture mixed in with this cosmopolitan cultural complex but there is literally no difference in their level of Indianness. Bharatavarsha, Aryavarta, Bhramavarta, all of these terms were used by most people to denote the core of Indian civilisation and only meant north India, and both the south of modern India and modern Southeast Asia adopted aryan ritualistic smartha Hinduism on pretty much the same timeframe. Simply put, the Burmese, Thai and Javan’s were just as Indian as dravidians in every sense apart from geographic, not that the concept of Indian really existed at all in that period.

The idea of a nation largely is a sense of belonging to a culture, people and homeland.

All I’m saying is that the Mughal dynasty as part of its state building process spread loyalty to a common culture which was later propagated further as the "national culture" of India, not least by the British themselves as they used the lingering loyalty to the culture the Mughals had created in their own state building project

That's my point, the marathas largely stuck to their culture,

Thé Marathas self consciously modelled themselves on all aspects of Mughal culture because that was what was considered elite and prestigious, not just in revenue system. They adopted Mughal style clothes, gardens, poetry, palaces, religious thought and terminology not because it was politically useful but because the Mughals had created this common prestige culture that they had to adhere to, and moreover that they themselves accepted as core features of Indian culture. This core Indian culture was later used by the British to legitimise themselves and they too acknowledged the Mughal role in forming this common Indian culture by engaging in Mughal court rituals.

All Indian Based Kingdoms always conquered Tamil Nadu and not Burma

tamil Nadu was very very rarely politically unified under dynasties from the north. And yes when it was unified, it was simply because it was closer and easier to invade rather than any conception of being fundamentally Indian territory in need of unison with other Indians. Until around 1200 there was no cultural factor that made dravidians more culturally similar to the average Indian than Thai people.

 

[Kaushlendra pratap singh]

Maratha empire themselves called as Swarajya means Self-governmence .

 

[Vikayak Devagiri]

tamil Nadu was very very rarely politically unified under dynasties from the north. And yes when it was unified, it was simply because it was closer and easier to invade rather than any conception of being fundamentally Indian territory in need of unison with other Indians. Until around 1200 there was no cultural factor that made dravidians more culturally similar to the average Indian than Thai people

Once Culture and religion become similar Geography comes into play, as such Tamil Nadu makes more sense to.be geographically be part of India than Cambodia or Burma

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

Thé Marathas self consciously modelled themselves on all aspects of Mughal culture because that was what was considered elite and prestigious, not just in revenue system. They adopted Mughal style clothes, gardens, poetry, palaces, religious thought and terminology not because it was politically useful but because the Mughals had created this common prestige culture that they had to adhere to, and moreover that they themselves accepted as core features of Indian culture. This core Indian culture was later used by the British to legitimise themselves and they too acknowledged the Mughal role in forming this common Indian culture by engaging in Mughal court rituals.

Wait really? How does that work?

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

Wait really? How does that work?

I mean this in the sense that as the Mughals had so firmly integrated Rajputs into their cultural world, such that Rajput religious thought was self consciously similar to the Mughals, and considering that the Rajput culture can be considered a part of Mughal culture, a Hindu power who wanted to model themselves on Mughal culture adopted the Hindu parts of Mughal culture.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

I mean this in the sense that as the Mughals had so firmly integrated Rajputs into their cultural world, such that Rajput religious thought was self consciously similar to the Mughals, and considering that the Rajput culture can be considered a part of Mughal culture, a Hindu power who wanted to model themselves on Mughal culture adopted the Hindu parts of Mughal culture.

But didn't the Marathas have terrible relations with the Rajput?

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

But didn't the Marathas have terrible relations with the Rajput?

In general relationships were precarious, but mostly because the Rajputs represented an established order of prestigious Hindu aristocracy that the Marathas, as a parvenu group that had only recently acquired their status, were desperate to imitate. It’s no secret after all that the Bhonsle dynasty of Shivaji invented a genealogy tracing themselves to a prominent Rajput clan.

 

[Vikayak Devagiri]

@Madhav Deval, how do you think Indian Subcontinent can be united religiously at the very least

 

[Friendly.Extraterrestrial]

@Madhav Deval, how do you think Indian Subcontinent can be united religiously at the very least

Why do you still think religiously united Indian subcontinent would still be an United India, in general?

When it comes to religions, they are like that because of other religions. Each religion is "it" because there are other religions surrounding it. Without the Abrahamic religions and Buddhism say, Hinduism would look entirely different. For once, it would be a combination of different Polytheistic cults like in the Pre-Sassanid Persia.

While Buddhism gave the Non-Dualism part, Abrahamic religions gave the more Monotheistic and Dualistic Vaishnavism. Ultimately, it is this Buddhism and Zoroastrianism that gave various influences in the Middle East which finally became Christianity and Islam. So, I don't really think religiously united India would still be united. Humans are tribal and without a good level of social security (which for example, developed countries provide), they will act as per exactly the same differences.

Latin America, for example, is entirely Catholic. But still, there's division and conflict. Europe in its long History of Medieval Christian era Military conflicts, is an another example.

For a United Indian subcontinent, I would guess you need a very early POD of around Indus Valley era itself.

 

[Friendly.Extraterrestrial]

You can compare this to the Evolution of Life. Every Creature is "it" because of how it evolved. If it evolved differently, it's no longer "it". Unless you want to view it through a Theistic lens, in which case having your particular religion as a majority would be a Panacea, I think most in this thread aren't Theists.

For once, we wouldn't be us without the bad and good happenings in our past. If we did erase anything bad, you are essentially dead and replaced by someone else in your place. Thats the same with everything else, including religion and political history.

 

[Vikayak Devagiri]

Why do you still think religiously united Indian subcontinent would still be an United India, in general?

When it comes to religions, they are like that because of other religions. Each religion is "it" because there are other religions surrounding it. Without the Abrahamic religions and Buddhism say, Hinduism would look entirely different. For once, it would be a combination of different Polytheistic cults like in the Pre-Sassanid Persia.

While Buddhism gave the Non-Dualism part, Abrahamic religions gave the more Monotheistic and Dualistic Vaishnavism. Ultimately, it is this Buddhism and Zoroastrianism that gave various influences in the Middle East which finally became Christianity and Islam. So, I don't really think religiously united India would still be united. Humans are tribal and without a good level of social security (which for example, developed countries provide), they will act as per exactly the same differences.

Latin America, for example, is entirely Catholic. But still, there's division and conflict. Europe in its long History of Medieval Christian era Military conflicts, is an another example.

For a United Indian subcontinent, I would guess you need a very early POD of around Indus Valley era itself.

In India, Religion and Culture are intertwined with each other as the inhabitants of the Subcontinents have always been some form of hindus, Also one reason why I definitely think why a Religiously united India would be united is because the country is small enough to have an empire uniting them
and what do you mean by Buddhism influencing Islam or Christianity, pretty sure it is false, but please tell more

 

[Friendly.Extraterrestrial]

Buddhism influencing Islam or Christianity, pretty sure it is false, but please tell more

Christianity originated when Judaism mixed with various cults in the Middle East and parts of Europe, back then. Further, Judaism might itself have it's origin in Zoroastrianism. These cults, directly or indirectly had contact with Buddhism. If even a small thing would be different, the effects down the History would be immense. Similar to Evolution of life, as I said.

In the Bhakti era, it was the same Christianity that influenced the Dwaita sect, originating from the West Coast of India. While in the same Bhakti era, Buddhism influenced directly, the Non-Dual version of Hinduism.

In India, Religion and Culture are intertwined with each other as the inhabitants of the Subcontinents have always been some form of hindus, Also one reason why I definitely think why a Religiously united India would be united is because the country is small enough to have an empire uniting them

You are seeing the Today's version only. But why the today's religions anywhere in the World, are like what you said, you aren't giving a thought. It is because of the past events that they are like that. As I said, in absence of Buddhism and the Abrahamic religions, you get a India with a hundreds of Cults like the Pre-Sassanid Persia(both Pre-Jain and Buddhist India and Pre-Sassanid Persia had similar religious traditions), each of which would be different from the other. Without a unified opposition of an another religion(be it Buddhism or an Abrahamic religion), why would you want the leader of an another cult to have a say in how you run your people's affairs? If that happens, the likeliest thing that would happen would be an armed conflict. What you say is totally impossible in a World that isn't guided by Alice in Wonderland like powers.

 

[Friendly.Extraterrestrial]

And for the Culturally unified India, it isn't a given. It is the result of many events. The Islamic expansion, for example, cut off the contact of Northern Indian Kingdoms with the Central Asian and the Persian ones, which ultimately were also, connected to Europe and the Middle East. Without the Islamic and the Christian expansions, you'd have totally different scenario in Northern part of India and the surroundings, which wouldn't be what you are expecting.

 

[Deleted member 116192]

Abolish Manu Smriti and the Hindu religion will probably thrive and be absolutely dominant in the subcontinent. From my understanding of the Hindu religion (if it can be even called a religion) the culture ensured more social freedom and social status based on the skill and knowledge one individual possessed. This was later changed by the arrival of Manu Smriti which locked people in the caste system. So abolish the Document of Manu and the Hindu culture will be strong as it was before.

Manu's Smriti was never accepted as law by many jurist in India. It was ironically the british who made the law applicable to the hindus to appease the more orthodox elements of the Bengal province. There is documentary proof that the laws prescribe by manu in his smriti was ever applied as it was accepted by many mimamsakaras ( the people who formulated the legal principles) to be impracticable and preferred the Smriti of Brahaspathi or Narada and other author whose name i am unable to recall.

 

[Deleted member 116192]

Maybe, I think it would be possible certainly. Though, it is a difficult task that will take time. One way that I have imagined for instance, is that an ancient Aryan realm develops in the Mahajanapanda period into a very decentralized, but unified Gangetic plain realm. This could be done in the previous era perhaps by the kingdom of Kuru or by Kosala. Regardless, if said is done it is conceivable to see a series of sub-kings invade and establish rule over varied Southern parts of the subcontinent under the overlordship of Kuru. In otl, aside from the British and Mauryan rules, the subcontinent was only ever united under the principles of sub-kings and of subsidiary vassals spread forth across the region.

After this situation wherein Kuru is able to expand Aryan lords as his vassals across the Deccan and also into the Indus, conquering Kamboja and Gandhara, a trend develeops towards a unified polity in Hindustan. In otl, I feel part of the issue is that Hindustan never went through a period of vast decentralized feudal realms as China did under the Zhou dynasty. Hinudstan was only ever united under domineering powers like the Maurya, semi-united in a hegemony as the Gupta or conquered by ultra (as in foreign)-Hindu states like the Kushan, Turkic realms, Mughal or the British.

The problem with is the old tradition ( Aryan or pre Aryan?) that when a conqueror did a conquest of a kingdom he did not over-throw the ruling family , rather the conquered king became the Vassal of the conqueror and paid annual tribute and he was left to himself in all other matter. So any empire in india was more of a political union and a weak one at that. Whenever there was a weak ruler at the center the tributaries revolted and established their own kingdom . Once you butter fly this tradition, political unity of the vast sub continent is possible .
Instead the conquered kingdom ruling family is over-throwned is replaced by a cadet branch of the family of the Conqueror much like how the Arsacids did in Iran or take the crown of the kingdom and appoint envoys thereby creating a personal union with the emperor and the newly conquered kingdom, much like how Sassanian dynasty did before Shapur , depending upon political expediency but never abolishing the local autonomy or the independence or the privileges of the local elites .

 

[Vikayak Devagiri]

And for the Culturally unified India, it isn't a given. It is the result of many events. The Islamic expansion, for example, cut off the contact of Northern Indian Kingdoms with the Central Asian and the Persian ones, which ultimately were also, connected to Europe and the Middle East. Without the Islamic and the Christian expansions, you'd have totally different scenario in Northern part of India and the surroundings, which wouldn't be what you are expecting.

This is a reason why I was asking was a Religiously united subcontinent, this is due to the fact that a Religiously united Subcontinent will lead to more cultural Unity in the subcontinent