An Indian dynasty/An Indian Empire

A query, say a Hindu dynasty manages to unite India behind itself in around the mid 16th century, and is still around holding it when the age colonialism comes along, and say by some luck they manage to prevent vast swathes of their empire falling under colonial rule, what consequences would this have for the united Indian Empire, as well as for colonial nations such as the Brits, the French and the Portuguese. I'm thinking in scenarios where Goa and Mumbai become part of the Indian empire around the 18th century, after driving out the Brits and the Portuguese from there, whilst the rest is held by the empire.
 
Huge multi ethnic empires don't necessarily tend to be that stable though.

Also just off the top of my head you're going to have tensions between the maritime Indian states which want to profit from external trade and the inland ones. Lots of tensions for outsiders to exploit.
 
Very true, would for stability this require some conversion to one religion or another? As I imagine religion could be a big issue there as well
 
It's complicated given that Hinduism itself varied across different Indian ethnic groups

Very true. Would make for a fascinating timeline/story I think. Especially if they have some very good rulers, and some average ones. An India that is never coloinised, or never has long lasting coloinisation would have huge changes, especially if it is still united under one dynasty,
 
Sounds like China part II, but potentially even worse long-term given the lack of a tradition of unity in India unlike China. After all, no one's ever united all of India (let's assume the modern Republic of India, give or take remote regions like Manipur, as well as Bangladesh and as much of Pakistan as possible). The Mughals came closest, though the Maurya were also pretty close albeit they had nice holdings elsewhere, so this Hindu empire would be the first.

Also, wasn't the ruling of India insanely decentralised? That would make it even easier for Western powers to carve concessions out of the place. The good news is, if this Indian Empire has centuries of unity, it could in theory reform using some nature of Hindu nationalism. What that means for Muslims, probably not good. And if it does fall apart, there could emerge movements to put India back together, no doubt involving particularly bloody civil wars (and of course mass famine on the levels of the worst of British India, if not worse).

United India would have higher development than British India, and probably slightly more population (consider the relative stagnancy of British India's population compared to other places globally in the same era). There's potential for some level of industry in places like Bengal, assuming some skilled leadership.

The impact on colonialism in Asia is going to be ridiculous, and to a lesser extent, European colonialism in general. While Europeans might be able to seize entire regions like the British did with Bengal, we should assume from this scenario that that is by no means inevitable, meaning Europeans will have to be content with a China-like network of small concessions. Oh, and also expect Europeans to own massive amounts of Indian capital, like the railroads, the mining. If India slips up for a second, then Europeans will basically indirectly colonise India, and could easily splinter off regions of it into more pliable states.
 
I'd be interested in the nature and evolution of Hinduism. What we call Hinduism is an amalgamation of somewhat similar religions and pantheons coming from the same region, their convergence in OTL is partly because foreigners insisted on calling it one religion.
 
I'd be interested in the nature and evolution of Hinduism. What we call Hinduism is an amalgamation of somewhat similar religions and pantheons coming from the same region, their convergence in OTL is partly because foreigners insisted on calling it one religion.
That could be very interesting. It already seems to be a mix of aryan and Dravidian deities
 
Also what makes you say that Europeans would own massive amounts of Indian capital?

I'm basing it off of Latin America in this era, as well as other factors like the Qing Dynasty. Railroads in particular, since Indian railroads seem to be somewhat noteworthy globally compared to the rail networks of other non-western countries. In China, after the government declared an open season on building railways (the Qing disliked them essentially because they disturbed the tombs of ancestors, though united India probably won't have that cultural problem and would have a different approach to railroads than the Qing did), Europeans owned the railways. Europeans owned the railways and much of Latin American industry in general. And if you're an Indian government official (or the Indian emperor himself) TTL seeking to modernise, the Europeans (or Americans, for that matter) will give nice terms for investment in the capital and infrastructure you seek to build, it's just, they'll be basically owning it in the end. And as I mentioned, if the Indian ruler wants to preserve his empire and not have Europeans fragment off chunks (like the Tamils, say, or any southern Indian culture's state, or if we're imagining Vijayanagara united India, northern India or Bengal will be almost as vulnerable), they will basically be giving into European pressure.

An early enough modernisation of India might help India compete among the leaders of the world. This would mean that Bengal is basically like Belgium or New England in an early adoption of industrialism based on the English model. If not, then I just don't see India not being a colossal market for exploitation by Europeans. And of course, Bengal is only one part of India, though of course a major center of Indian culture. It also had quite a few Muslims OTL, which hopefully for the sake of the stability of this Indian realm could be kept to a minimum in influence and conversions to Islam be prevented.

I'd be interested in the nature and evolution of Hinduism. What we call Hinduism is an amalgamation of somewhat similar religions and pantheons coming from the same region, their convergence in OTL is partly because foreigners insisted on calling it one religion.

Completely true. Is my assumption that Europeans lumped all the "Hindu" "sects" into one religion as "Hinduism" because the Hindu sects had minimal history of fighting/killing/hating each other like Abrahamic religions true?
 
Alright interesting so European investment into developing Indian railways and industry with the emperor and government slowly buying them out?
 
Completely true. Is my assumption that Europeans lumped all the "Hindu" "sects" into one religion as "Hinduism" because the Hindu sects had minimal history of fighting/killing/hating each other like Abrahamic religions true?
I am woefully under informed about Hindu "sects" but as I understand it it was much blurry at the edges of any sect. One of the problems of a unified Hindu empire is that the caste system for each city would vary and not sync up. The modern caste system is as much of a result of British imperialism as the existing rule their census codified the castes.
As for violence amount Hindus IDK if their really was an absence of western historiography being well western, or there was really a lack of violence.
 
Alright interesting so European investment into developing Indian railways and industry with the emperor and government slowly buying them out?

The latter would be the best case for India, but sadly is not likely to happen considering the huge lengths European investors went to protect their investments OTL.

As for violence amount Hindus IDK if their really was an absence of western historiography being well western, or there was really a lack of violence.

What do you mean by that? I'd think historians could have a could indication by now inter-"Hindu" relations in pre-modern India, and determine if what I understand is true (obviously Hinduism was very regional, Northern India vs. Southern India, etc.).
 
What do you mean by that? I'd think historians could have a could indication by now inter-"Hindu" relations in pre-modern India, and determine if what I understand is true (obviously Hinduism was very regional, Northern India vs. Southern India, etc.).
I was referring to more of the era, They called the Indian religion Hinduism, because it was the "religion of the Hindus", where Hindu refers to a bunch of things. So I don't expect the reason for all Hindus being lumped together to be much more thought out than that.
 
Ah okay. Hmm perhaps a gradual process of conquest and reclamation could do the trick?

And hmm aye the caste system would be a worry though having the emperor at the centre of that would be interesting
 
Completely true. Is my assumption that Europeans lumped all the "Hindu" "sects" into one religion as "Hinduism" because the Hindu sects had minimal history of fighting/killing/hating each other like Abrahamic religions true?
There is also a LOT of shared theology and scripture across the various Hindu faiths. Stuff like the Vedas, Upanishads etc if not directly important to a particular sect will generally be revered or referenced in such a way that another's belief is another interpretation (in such a way, Vaishnavites and Shaivanites often look at eachother as experiencing the same divine but in different ways). Likewise shared mythology is significant, like how the Hare Krishnas will praise Ganesh as virtuous despite being usually associated with Vishnu or Shakti stories.
 
Top