AHC - United Indian Subcontinent

Will a United Subcontinent Be Possible ?

  • Yes

    Votes: 66 68.8%
  • No

    Votes: 30 31.3%

  • Total voters
    96
On the contrary, many people complained about Mughal usage of Sanskrit, as it was seen as defiling a divine language through use in a meccha government- even if there’s a Hindu dynasty in charge for a bit, there will still be many Muslims in the military aristocracy as a matter of course, so that objection will remain.
But a consist Hindu dynasty will eventually lead to Sanskrit establishment
 
On the contrary, many people complained about Mughal usage of Sanskrit, as it was seen as defiling a divine language through use in a meccha government- even if there’s a Hindu dynasty in charge for a bit, there will still be many Muslims in the military aristocracy as a matter of course, so that objection will remain.
they use it to increase their acception in Brahman class, some supported it where some rebel against them. who rebel they wanted to destory credibilty of Mughal what better to use Relgious language use.
 
also for the possibility of united subcontinent, it must complete this 5 condition-
1-Decentralize-centralize limbo governance.
2- Centralize Military with decentralizing recruitment office.
3- Emperor must be Chief of Justice.
4- A strong Centralize Revenue system(people forget Administration means revenue ) which only answers to the emperor.
5- a decentralize Navy with Governorship from central.
 
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.
 
also for the possibility of united subcontinent, it must complete this 5 condition-
1-Decentralize-centralize limbo governance.
2- Centralize Military with decentralizing recruitment office.
3- Emperor must be Chief of Justice.
4- A strong Centralize Revenue system(people forget Administration means revenue ) which only answers to the emperor.
5- a decentralize Navy with Governorship from central.
All of these are possible with Mauyran or Gupta Empire
 
Perhaps Ashoka become the Qin Shi Huang of India with Sanskrit as the Language and Hinduism - Buddhism as the religion
Ashoka abandoned Hindu religion and embraced Buddhism. It was his work and patronage that saw the wide spread of Buddhism around the world. The Maurya dynasty was entrenched in Buddhist ideology of Ahimsa and that led to their defeat.
 
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.
that is correct, Manu Smriti is the sole reason for the lack of upward mobility in the caste system, it being abolished will certainly help the society
 
Much of the issues that I see is that it is easier to unite the Gangetic Plain or the Indus Valley, or the two at the same time, as was done under the Kushan empire and the Mauryan empire. However, the difficulty arises when it comes to conquering areas south of the Deccan in conjugation with the Gangetic Plains and the Indus. In otl, aside from a short time under the Maurya (which not all of said land was captured), in pre-Islamic eras did state unite these disparate regions and lands. The Delhi Sultanate briefly established hegemony over the entirety of the subcontinent before the calamitous fall in 1400 against Timur. At the height of Mughal power in the subcontinent, the empire briefly conjoined all of the subcontinent in a loose patchwork of authority. Only by the era of British rule did this become a restored situation, of united subcontinental rule.
 
Much of the issues that I see is that it is easier to unite the Gangetic Plain or the Indus Valley, or the two at the same time, as was done under the Kushan empire and the Mauryan empire. However, the difficulty arises when it comes to conquering areas south of the Deccan in conjugation with the Gangetic Plains and the Indus. In otl, aside from a short time under the Maurya (which not all of said land was captured), in pre-Islamic eras did state unite these disparate regions and lands. The Delhi Sultanate briefly established hegemony over the entirety of the subcontinent before the calamitous fall in 1400 against Timur. At the height of Mughal power in the subcontinent, the empire briefly conjoined all of the subcontinent in a loose patchwork of authority. Only by the era of British rule did this become a restored situation, of united subcontinental rule.
Perhaps a Single North Indian Power is established, stretching the Indo Gangetic Plains, and this empire continously expands its borders over history, like how China Did
 
that is correct, Manu Smriti is the sole reason for the lack of upward mobility in the caste system, it being abolished will certainly help the society
Why do you need upward social mobility to unite the Hindu subcontinent? Some of the longest reigning and stable realms in history, had no such thing or limited social mobility. Look to for instance, the post-Arsacid realm of Eranshahr, the so-called confederacies of the Arsacid and Sassanid, ruled a region with very little changes fro approximately 900 years.
 
Perhaps a Single North Indian Power is established, stretching the Indo Gangetic Plains, and this empire continously expands its borders over history, like how China Did
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.
 
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.
So, In this timeline, North India becomes a Single political unit that continuously expands across the border, it is believable that such things can happen, what do you think can be the response of the South, would they have banded together to fight this North Indian juggernaut
 
Why do you need upward social mobility to unite the Hindu subcontinent? Some of the longest reigning and stable realms in history, had no such thing or limited social mobility. Look to for instance, the post-Arsacid realm of Eranshahr, the so-called confederacies of the Arsacid and Sassanid, ruled a region with very little changes fro approximately 900 years.
Upward Social mobility will certainly help in the long term development of the Subcontinent as many desrved generals and ministers would be selected based on Merit than on Caste, which will lead to better future for the empire in the future
 
Why do you need upward social mobility to unite the Hindu subcontinent? Some of the longest reigning and stable realms in history, had no such thing or limited social mobility. Look to for instance, the post-Arsacid realm of Eranshahr, the so-called confederacies of the Arsacid and Sassanid, ruled a region with very little changes fro approximately 900 years.
Mobility among castes helped strengthen the Hindu community in ancient times. The fact is that after Manu Smriti became widely accepted the Hindu community began a long degradation and adoption of ridiculous superstitions. Before the laws of Manu came about the caste system allowed free movement of people to change castes according to their skill, physique and knowledge. . that time castes acted more as guilds rather than any religious social status. The laws of Manu locked in people into a single caste and this took away the rise of many prominent and brilliant personalities to the forefront of Indian society.

For example, Chandragupta Maurya was the founder of the Maurya Dynasty. But the interesting fact is that he comes from a lower caste. At his time the caste systems were never that much entrenched and anyone who had the skill and will could rise to great heights. Even the lowest peasant could become king in their own right so long as the individual has the skill and dedication. When Chandragupta Maurya established his kingdom and later an empire he was automatically promoted to the higher caste of Kshatriya(warrior caste). This was same for everyone else who followed his footsteps. Some of his descendants didn't find much attraction in being a warrior and they became priests, sages and even scholars. Even Emperor Ashoka was born to a lower caste woman but he was the one that the court of Maurya chose to support to be the emperor of India.

After Manu Smriti came into existence movement of people between castes became prohibited by law. It took away one of the core aspects of Hindu religion which is freedom. This single document later twisted the caste system into a discriminatory system that shattered the bonds of the Hindu culture.
 
Mobility among castes helped strengthen the Hindu community in ancient times. The fact is that after Manu Smriti became widely accepted the Hindu community began a long degradation and adoption of ridiculous superstitions. Before the laws of Manu came about the caste system allowed free movement of people to change castes according to their skill, physique and knowledge. . that time castes acted more as guilds rather than any religious social status. The laws of Manu locked in people into a single caste and this took away the rise of many prominent and brilliant personalities to the forefront of Indian society.

For example, Chandragupta Maurya was the founder of the Maurya Dynasty. But the interesting fact is that he comes from a lower caste. At his time the caste systems were never that much entrenched and anyone who had the skill and will could rise to great heights. Even the lowest peasant could become king in their own right so long as the individual has the skill and dedication. When Chandragupta Maurya established his kingdom and later an empire he was automatically promoted to the higher caste of Kshatriya(warrior caste). This was same for everyone else who followed his footsteps. Some of his descendants didn't find much attraction in being a warrior and they became priests, sages and even scholars. Even Emperor Ashoka was born to a lower caste woman but he was the one that the court of Maurya chose to support to be the emperor of India.

After Manu Smriti came into existence movement of people between castes became prohibited by law. It took away one of the core aspects of Hindu religion which is freedom. This single document later twisted the caste system into a discriminatory system that shattered the bonds of the Hindu culture.
This is your interpretation of 'Hinduism,' but the idea of a caste system that is strong and an important fixture of a society is a noted conception in other Indo-European societies. They held castes that at times were extremely rigid without the laws of Manu. Scythian society for instance, possessed a rigid and hierarchical caste system that did not permit the levels of freedom that you mention. So unless, you feel that the caste system or Varna of the lands of the Hindu is an entity unconnected to the castes of the people of Central Asia and Iran, then I feel you would have to at least admit that it is your own opinion regarding what is permissible according to the systems of varna or jaati.

The Hindu world also, I do not believe possessed a true level of social mobility in its ancient period. The idea that one can rise high is only one edge of the sabre as they say. A society that had a more social mobile mode of existence, was that of the Akkadian society and culture of the Bronze and Iron Age. Wherein, a man could become a god or a king and his royal house could become a chattel slave, for 'the Great Gods favor strength.' In the older texts from the Vedic era, it speaks of a person of any caste of social standing being free fundamentally, for the sun touches all occupations and ranks of society and grants them freedom in that sense. Furthermore, in a mentality of the world that is ever in flux yet always a constant cycle, it would make sense that one has true freedom, but otherwise is locked into a caste for this particular life for the sake of social harmony.

The case of Chandragupta was different. While legends around him differ, he was adopted by a member from the Brahmin caste, a high ranking person undoubted; above all other occupations and ranks. This is why Chandragupta was permitted to study in Taxila and learn the secrets of Dharma and become acquainted with matters not usually known; because he was 'chosen.' In other words, the myth around him do not affirm that a lowly shepherd can become a king, but that it is still the Gods who choose a king, it is the priestly caste which asserts a ruler and makes him resound across the land. Chandragupta was chosen by the Gods and appointed by the highest caste, he did not rise up the ranks and attain something freely.

Permitting others to rise to prominence may seem positive, but it also carries with it issues. Armies from China for instance worked under total conscription and a form of meritocracy. However, these practices did not produce superior armies to the foes that they often faced, who existed in terms of hierarchies, noble forces and castes. Likewise, as I often point to; the standing meritocratic army of the Sassanids was inferior objectively to the noble warrior caste armies risen by the Great Houses. For one, in a society wherein items such as bravery and skill with weapons is still useful, having a caste of humans whose sole objective is to train for war, prepare for war and otherwise does no other work, is an enormous advantage.

It may not permit some sort of genius to rise up, but that is in my opinion an overrated quality in the grand scheme of history. More important is the attempt to assure stability and longevity, which is the truly rare quantity in human states, not genius. Chandragupta's Mauryan empire was an ephemeral entity in the grand scheme of matters, certainly in comparison to states that did possesses deeply entrenched caste systems, like that of the Arsaco-Sassanid confederacies which ruled a more or less stable territorial border zone fro nigh 900 years; whilst the Mauryan empire in particular ruled its territories fro around 120 years before it receded to a territory smaller than the Nanda. One could argue the Magadhi empires displayed a level of longevity when discussed in overall terms. But this is different than the prior countries mentioned, in that the Magadhi varied wildly in their territorial expanse. It was anything but a stable imperial concept.
 
Upward Social mobility will certainly help in the long term development of the Subcontinent as many desrved generals and ministers would be selected based on Merit than on Caste, which will lead to better future for the empire in the future
I find a system of military in ancient or medieval periods, based upon merit to be overrated. Only if a realm can do mass conscription and possess weapons that equalize matters between the sedentary farming folk with that of noble caste warriors is it feasible. China attempted to counter its issues with vast armies and better technology. Even with these factors, as the works from the Early Western Han mention, the styles of warfare common in the steppe, who possessed royal castes, priestly castes and the like, were more aggressive, more fearsome and more hardy in the field of battle. It was precisely because said men were true professionals, not simply peasants trained to thrust a spearpoint or even someone who fights for money. They fought as a custom and religious duty, it is a different sort of initiative and power entirely.
 
Much of the issues that I see is that it is easier to unite the Gangetic Plain or the Indus Valley, or the two at the same time, as was done under the Kushan empire and the Mauryan empire. However, the difficulty arises when it comes to conquering areas south of the Deccan in conjugation with the Gangetic Plains and the Indus. In otl, aside from a short time under the Maurya (which not all of said land was captured), in pre-Islamic eras did state unite these disparate regions and lands. The Delhi Sultanate briefly established hegemony over the entirety of the subcontinent before the calamitous fall in 1400 against Timur. At the height of Mughal power in the subcontinent, the empire briefly conjoined all of the subcontinent in a loose patchwork of authority. Only by the era of British rule did this become a restored situation, of united subcontinental rule.
Yea I like the idea of a New Kushan empire.
 
Top