How conservative is a Buddhist Afghanistan likely to be?

IOTL, Afghanistan is a very conservative place, with the Taliban a major force and very regressive social roles for women. If Islam never got as far as Afghanistan, and butterflies are largely contained elsewhere, how conservative is the place likely to be?
 
upload_2018-5-1_21-56-52.jpeg
 
Can't contain butterflies like that, unless maybe you're asking if a tiny fraction of what is now modern day Afghanistan maintains some Buddhist rituals almost totally isolated from modern society. Keeping Afghanistan Buddhist through say, a Hindu-Buddhist kingdom like the Shahi, you're automatically butterflying the Ghaznavids and Muhammad Ghori and every subsequent Muslim invasion of India. If Afghanistan isn't conquered there's inherently no Mughal Empire, no British India, no Great Game, no Soviet Invasion, no Taliban, no American occupation. A few decades of surviving Buddhist India forever changes the world entire.
 
IOTL, Afghanistan is a very conservative place, with the Taliban a major force and very regressive social roles for women. If Islam never got as far as Afghanistan, and butterflies are largely contained elsewhere, how conservative is the place likely to be?
How conservative a Buddhist Afghanistan would be compared to a Islamic Afghanistan? Well i think that conservative Buddhism would be different from conservative Islam. Also how does one measure conservatism? What is conservatism? Is conservatism relative or is it something concrete?
 
The problem is Islam was conservative in 1977 Afghanistan in a much different way it is now.

Buddhist Afghanistan after a 30 year long civil war would be vastly different from just a moderately stable Buddhist country
 
The problem is Islam was conservative in 1977 Afghanistan in a much different way it is now.

Buddhist Afghanistan after a 30 year long civil war would be vastly different from just a moderately stable Buddhist country
But it is not certain that they habe the Same wars war events If the culture developes completely different to beginnt with. The question would also bei, how the country would be named and if it is fragmented or at least der jure centrally governed. Mayne even hellenized Bhuddism to some degree ? Besides Bhuddism proto Hinduism also would exist in Afghanistan I assume. OTL the Nuristani had their own believe System until conquered by the Emirate in 1896. Could see Bhuddist monastries and even Lamaism. Afghanistan would probably have diplomatic relations with Tibet as well. Would be mindblowingt see a Bhuddist theocracy in Afghanistan. Could imagine that many ordinary people are devoted to Bhuddism and its traditions. Question is If different ethnicities are all majority Bhuddist at the Same time. Also outside influence from bin Bhuddist culture are Not out of question. But I also think, that foreign empires still tey to invade. Would be interesting how a Mongol Empire far in Bhuddist Afghanistan and what influence they might bring in.
 
Last edited:

Srihari14

Banned
Buddhist Afghanistan
Wait, Wouldn't that mean the India will be free of Islamic Invasions thus having a larger Buddhist minority
 
IOTL, Afghanistan is a very conservative place, with the Taliban a major force and very regressive social roles for women. If Islam never got as far as Afghanistan, and butterflies are largely contained elsewhere, how conservative is the place likely to be?
Would be amazing to see a Tibet like Afghanistan with monastries on mountain tops and Bhuddist shrines on roadsides.
 
Let's go for a butterfly genocide whereby Afghanistan stays mostly Buddhist and most of everything else goes as close to OTL as conceivably possible. That would make for an extremely implausibly convergent TL but let's try.
This Buddhist *Afghanistan is still going to be bordering Persian and Central Asian Muslim powers. It would still be housing pastoral and agrarian "tribespeople" who would, under the right circumstances, make a rather good recruiting ground for armies. Would still be coveted by neighbours because of trade routes, strategic security and the like. Would still be hard to hold because of mopuntainous terrain. So, it would still be in many regards a border march, especially if you add a religious difference to the mix. Afghan Buddhism has a very high chance to evolve into a fairly militant form.
Let's go for a Mongol Empire similar to IOTL. Let's even say for the sake of convergence, that local Mongols convert to Islam (there is GOING to be a Muslim minority) and that they create a very close Mughal analog in India later one, although of course the core of their army won't be formed of Afghans, who remain Buddhist and are ruled as a protected "underclass" under a largely Muslim, Turco-Mongol-Persianate military-administrative elite. Well, they still will have to rely on Buddhist elites ("tribal" chiefs and/or abbots) for some tasks. This sets the stage for an Indian subcontinent that converges with OTL as it possibly can (still, it will be very different in details; less Muslims, perhaps less integrated ones, a very different Sikh-panth if any, a different development of Hindu thought, a longer Buddhist presence). Religious difference is likely to produce an Afghanistan with an earlier and stronger "national" identity, and one that it less Persianate (this impacts Persian culture heavily, but let's just pretend it does not).
Let's go for convergence in British India, Russian Central Asia and even *Safavid Persia (that is, a Persianate post-Mongol Twelver Shia Gunpowder Empire that stretches roughly as the Safavids). The latter would have far more trouble than IOTL ruling Afghanistan. At some point around the turn of 1800, instead of the Durrani Empire and its successors, you have a Buddhist militant state embracing a nationalistic *Pashtun identity, that remains there as a sort of buffer over the course of TTL's *Great Game. *Afghans are quite unruly, fiercely independent-minded, cling to their Buddhism with a passion and have developed a national literary tradition in Pashto, written in some Indic-derived script, that probably consists in both Buddhist hymns and militaristic epic of national resistance. Tolerance is not going to be priority.
They may have local bodhisattvas venerated as "warriors for the light" or "preachers of illumination" in lieu of Muslims heroes and Sufi "saints".
This sets the stage for an Afghan twentieth century that resembles OTL (I allow for Soviet Union, independent India, and even something resembling *Pakistan, let's call it "Mughalistan ITTL). Borders ARE going to be different but let's ignore this.
I'd say that in this context, Afghanistan has SOME chance to be stabler tha IOTL (which is such a low bar that's ludicrous) though being the Great Powers' place of choice for settling their differences is hardly ever recipe for stability (but see Belgium as a counterexample). Of course OTL's Afghan Jihad is not happening. Civil wars will likely occur, but might not be as long and as devastating as IOTL without their tying to a global network. I'd say, the place is still likely to be very conservative. An extreme Buddhist sect with nationalist leanings might take power at times.
Regarding women, it may go either way. Pardeh (full seclusion) was a relatively recent import for most Afghan women IOTL, and might come from India regardless. It would not be regarded as having the same level of religious sanction, though.
Of course, there would be no Taliban.
 

Srihari14

Banned
Let's go for a butterfly genocide whereby Afghanistan stays mostly Buddhist and most of everything else goes as close to OTL as conceivably possible. That would make for an extremely implausibly convergent TL but let's try.
This Buddhist *Afghanistan is still going to be bordering Persian and Central Asian Muslim powers. It would still be housing pastoral and agrarian "tribespeople" who would, under the right circumstances, make a rather good recruiting ground for armies. Would still be coveted by neighbours because of trade routes, strategic security and the like. Would still be hard to hold because of mopuntainous terrain. So, it would still be in many regards a border march, especially if you add a religious difference to the mix. Afghan Buddhism has a very high chance to evolve into a fairly militant form.
Let's go for a Mongol Empire similar to IOTL. Let's even say for the sake of convergence, that local Mongols convert to Islam (there is GOING to be a Muslim minority) and that they create a very close Mughal analog in India later one, although of course the core of their army won't be formed of Afghans, who remain Buddhist and are ruled as a protected "underclass" under a largely Muslim, Turco-Mongol-Persianate military-administrative elite. Well, they still will have to rely on Buddhist elites ("tribal" chiefs and/or abbots) for some tasks. This sets the stage for an Indian subcontinent that converges with OTL as it possibly can (still, it will be very different in details; less Muslims, perhaps less integrated ones, a very different Sikh-panth if any, a different development of Hindu thought, a longer Buddhist presence). Religious difference is likely to produce an Afghanistan with an earlier and stronger "national" identity, and one that it less Persianate (this impacts Persian culture heavily, but let's just pretend it does not).
Let's go for convergence in British India, Russian Central Asia and even *Safavid Persia (that is, a Persianate post-Mongol Twelver Shia Gunpowder Empire that stretches roughly as the Safavids). The latter would have far more trouble than IOTL ruling Afghanistan. At some point around the turn of 1800, instead of the Durrani Empire and its successors, you have a Buddhist militant state embracing a nationalistic *Pashtun identity, that remains there as a sort of buffer over the course of TTL's *Great Game. *Afghans are quite unruly, fiercely independent-minded, cling to their Buddhism with a passion and have developed a national literary tradition in Pashto, written in some Indic-derived script, that probably consists in both Buddhist hymns and militaristic epic of national resistance. Tolerance is not going to be priority.
They may have local bodhisattvas venerated as "warriors for the light" or "preachers of illumination" in lieu of Muslims heroes and Sufi "saints".
This sets the stage for an Afghan twentieth century that resembles OTL (I allow for Soviet Union, independent India, and even something resembling *Pakistan, let's call it "Mughalistan ITTL). Borders ARE going to be different but let's ignore this.
I'd say that in this context, Afghanistan has SOME chance to be stabler tha IOTL (which is such a low bar that's ludicrous) though being the Great Powers' place of choice for settling their differences is hardly ever recipe for stability (but see Belgium as a counterexample). Of course OTL's Afghan Jihad is not happening. Civil wars will likely occur, but might not be as long and as devastating as IOTL without their tying to a global network. I'd say, the place is still likely to be very conservative. An extreme Buddhist sect with nationalist leanings might take power at times.
Regarding women, it may go either way. Pardeh (full seclusion) was a relatively recent import for most Afghan women IOTL, and might come from India regardless. It would not be regarded as having the same level of religious sanction, though.
Of course, there would be no Taliban.

Keep In mind that if Afghanistan was Not Muslim, Then Pakistan or Bangladesh would also not be Muslim, Thus it leads to a United Independent India which might butterfly the war in Afghanistan
 
Keep In mind that if Afghanistan was Not Muslim, Then Pakistan or Bangladesh would also not be Muslim, Thus it leads to a United Independent India which might butterfly the war in Afghanistan
I assumed a Muslim *Mughal analog to emerge regardless in order to make the TL as convergent as possible. So in this scenario Afghanistan ends up a Buddhist "island" in a Muslim "sea" (compare Armenia ). This is not particularly plausible given the premise, but allows for a modern geopolitical setup that resembles OTL. I suppose this would lead many Buddhist Afghan groups to develop some serious siege mentality. So they might end up seriously conservative, fairly xenophobic, and likely to tinge their variety of Buddhism of stuff that would sound pretty strange to Buddhists elsewhere - a concept comparable to the idea of holy war might emerge, for instance, though at first it would seem markedly un-Buddhist.*
However, actually I agree that the most likely outcome of a Buddhist Afghanistan is an India without major or lasting Muslim rule, which in turn, as @Practical Lobster says, changes pretty much everything.
Also, actually a Buddhist Afghanistan (I suppose it would be actually be called Zabulistan ITTL?) would change everything from long before the Ghaznavid period.
How would it impact on the Muslim conquest in central Asia? The Abbasid Revolution, that started in nearby Khorasan (well, Afghanistan was still partly Buddhist then, but I guess we need an Umayyad-era POD for this to work)? Or, even going with an early-Abbasid POD, how is the balance of power in the area affected during the breakup of Abbasid rule in the East? Are the Turkic invasions redirected, or do they invade Afghanistan, only converting to Buddhism rather than Islam? And how is Buddhism in India affected? No Delhi Sultanate ITTL. Does Islam spread to Indonesia if its presence in India remains marginal, and if not, what happens to Hindo-Buddhist states there? Can Majapahit last longer, and how would they react if the Europeans show up along the Cape Route?
Do the Mongol invasions occur, and how do they affect the area in this new context (probably no Khwarezmshahs here). Everything diverges.

* From a purely theological and scriptural standpoint, Christianity seems at first a very unlikely candidate to develop the "holy war" notion. Nevertheless, they did, arguably more so than any other major faith.
 
Last edited:

Maoistic

Banned
Look at Myanmar, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and South Vietnam for your answer. They have high levels of sexism and ultra-conservatism and have been and still are ruled by fascists. Islam is not unique in this in any way whatsoever. We're just not focused on these Buddhist countries because they're allies of the United States and the West at large and because Buddhism has been fetishised to infinity since the 19th century by Western authors. I would add the Buddhist elements of Nepalese monarchism/fascism, the Kuomintang and Japanese imperialism as well. If I mention Tibetan irredentism, it becomes overkill.

Also, the Taliban was ignored and not treated as a unique evil in the 1990s, when the Taliban was in effect a US ally due to how its founding elements were among the anti-Communist forces armed by the United States. The Taliban only became this unique Satanic evil after 9/11. But in general, we have Buddhist fascist states like the current military junta of Thailand and Buddhist fascist organisations like the 969 Movement and Bodu Bala Sena that are just as bad as the Taliban, with the only difference being they don't direct their guns against the West.
 

Maoistic

Banned
* From a purely theological and scriptural standpoint, Christianity seems at first a very unlikely candidate to develop the "holy war" notion. Nevertheless, they did, arguably more so than any other major faith.

No, it didn't. "Holy war" is a concept in every single religion and Christianity has no particular monopoly over it. If you're thinking colonial conquests, these weren't "holy wars". The campaigns by Spain and Portugal, which are the colonial conquests I've seen described as the most "religious", had Renaissance humanism as their ideology and not just Catholicism, weren't called "crusades" as far as I know, weren't any more religious than wars against other European states, and didn't even make use of a single armed force from the Papal States, even during the period of the Spaniard Alexander VI. The Spanish and Portuguese themselves constantly repeated that it was about to obtain gold and expand the riches of Spain and Portugal, with conversion to Catholicism being secondary.
 
No, it didn't. "Holy war" is a concept in every single religion and Christianity has no particular monopoly over it. If you're thinking colonial conquests, these weren't "holy wars". The campaigns by Spain and Portugal, which are the colonial conquests I've seen described as the most "religious", had Renaissance humanism as their ideology and not just Catholicism, weren't called "crusades" as far as I know, weren't any more religious than wars against other European states, and didn't even make use of a single armed force from the Papal States, even during the period of the Spaniard Alexander VI. The Spanish and Portuguese themselves constantly repeated that it was about to obtain gold and expand the riches of Spain and Portugal, with conversion to Catholicism being secondary.

I would never say that Christianity has a monopoly over the notion of "holy war", which clearly exists in many other traditions in various forms (depending on how it is defined). However, Christians clearly developed it (one could say, they did so over and over again at various times) and it ended up to be a fairly central element of the history of several Christian communities. The last Roman-Sasanid war, the Crusades (including the Northern and Albigensian ones), the religious wars in the Age of the Reformation, the Spanish Reconquista (if you consider it separately from the wider Crusades, which is not entirely accurate) and some of the conflicts between the Holy Leagues and the Ottomans all encompassed that dimension.
I was not thinking specifically of the conquest of the Americas, although it had a religious element, because I think that you are largely right. While some of the actors involved thought of it as a religiously sanctioned enterprise, and clearly conversion was an explicit aim and religious legitimacy was sought for, you are correct in stressing secular factors. Greed was largely recognized, even by contempories, as a huge motivating factor for many conquistadores.
I am more perplexed by you claim that Renaissance humanism was the "ideology" of the conquest of Iberoamerica in some sort oppostion to Catholicism, whereas Renaissance humanists in Spain and Portugal tended very much to be Caatholics and saw no contrast at all between the two. Also, most Conquistadores couldn't care less for Renaissance humanism, while a large number paid at least lip service to the notion of spreading/strengthening Catholicism. Unless you are referring to Juan Ginés de Sepulveda's defense of enslavement of American Natives on the basis of both religious and "humanist" (Aristotelian) arguments, defense that most Spanish humanist intellectuals disgreed with (without encomederos bothering to notice).
 

Maoistic

Banned
most Conquistadores couldn't care less for Renaissance humanism
You should read Walter Mignolo's "The Darker Side of the Renaissance" and David Lupher's "Romans in a New World" where you can clearly see that Renaissance thinking permeated Spanish society as a whole. Moreover, we have to remember how the first Conquistadors came with Columbus, an Italian humanist.

However, Christians clearly developed it (one could say, they did so over and over again at various times) and it ended up to be a fairly central element of the history of several Christian communities.

Except this is completely false. We see the cults to gods of war being extremely prominent in several cultures and religions, including Hinduism and Buddhism (see Kartikeya and Guanyu), we see clerical sanctions of violence in every single society permeating several if not all wars, we even see war as the ultimate religious goal as you can see with the Valhalla of the Vikings. "Holy war" is not a concept uniquely and particularly central to Christianity. It's central in every culture on Earth since both religion and warfare are universal to humanity.
 
You should read Walter Mignolo's "The Darker Side of the Renaissance" and David Lupher's "Romans in a New World" where you can clearly see that Renaissance thinking permeated Spanish society as a whole. Moreover, we have to remember how the first Conquistadors came with Columbus, an Italian humanist.

Thanks for the reading advice. I am aware of the importance of Renaissance thinking in Renaissance Spain, but it was still (mostly) a "Catholic" thing. But, anyway, Columbus, a "humanist"?


Except this is completely false. We see the cults to gods of war being extremely prominent in several cultures and religions, including Hinduism and Buddhism (see Kartikeya and Guanyu), we see clerical sanctions of violence in every single society permeating several if not all wars, we even see war as the ultimate religious goal as you can see with the Valhalla of the Vikings. "Holy war" is not a concept uniquely and particularly central to Christianity. It's central in every culture on Earth since both religion and warfare are universal to humanity.
I fail to see in which way what you state falsifies what I said, that Christianity developed a doctrine of holy war. Again, I never said that other cultures or religions didn't.
 

Maoistic

Banned
Thanks for the reading advice. I am aware of the importance of Renaissance thinking in Renaissance Spain, but it was still (mostly) a "Catholic" thing. But, anyway, Columbus, a "humanist"?

Genovese who was well-read in Greco-Roman classics (as you can see by his knowledge of Ptolemy and Eratosthenes). If you strictly define Italian humanist as someone who emerges from an Italian university having studied the Greco-Roman classics, then he wasn't, but in the broader sense he definitely was.


I fail to see in which way what you state falsifies what I said, that Christianity developed a doctrine of holy war. Again, I never said that other cultures or religions didn't.

I don't deny that Christianity developed a doctrine of holy war. I'm denying that Christianity is the only religion or at least one of the few that made it such an uniquely central doctrine whereas other religions or cultures didn't.
 
Genovese who was well-read in Greco-Roman classics (as you can see by his knowledge of Ptolemy and Eratosthenes). If you strictly define Italian humanist as someone who emerges from an Italian university having studied the Greco-Roman classics, then he wasn't, but in the broader sense he definitely was.




I don't deny that Christianity developed a doctrine of holy war. I'm denying that Christianity is the only religion or at least one of the few that made it such an uniquely central doctrine whereas other religions or cultures didn't.
Fair enough.
 
Short answer : Uh. No.

Long answer : Butterflies galore exist, but fundamentally it depends on how things go.

If you Buddist Afghanistan arises at the same time as the Persians are invaded by the Caliphate and effectively blunt its invasion, instead bringing the remnants of the Zoroastrians under their umbrella (Religious freedom? Zoroastrian-Buddism harmony like Daoism/Buddism/Confucianism in China).

I don't think its unreasonable to set up a TL where Afghanistan takes the role of an Eastern Bulwark (in fact, I think it'd be quite cool to see them communicate with the Romans as allies in that regard).

In fact, you could go later and have the Hindu Shahi take the Indus Valley, rule it from Kabul and engineer that to ensure a Buddist (Hindu-Buddist potentially) state exists that pushes back into Iran when it can.

Afghano-Buddist Indus Valley "Persia"? Please. That'd be a real twist. Especially if it can politically position itself a a Bulward for India like the Romans for Europe
 
IOTL, Afghanistan is a very conservative place, with the Taliban a major force and very regressive social roles for women. If Islam never got as far as Afghanistan, and butterflies are largely contained elsewhere, how conservative is the place likely to be?

According to a recent article in the New Scientist, societies are "loose" or "tight" in their adherence to strict rules depending on how threatened they are. Societies with a high level of threat tend to be more autocratic, strict and severe, while societies with low threat tend to be liberal. Threats can be environmental, natural disasters, disease, food shortage, war, etc.

The OP seems to make the common assumption that Islam = conservative. Yet this is simply a modern stereotype based on a rather short sighted view of things. The fact that Afghanistan is a Muslim country has nothing to do with the conservatism of its society. The relevant factors are things like economic development and prosperity, education, security, stability, absence of war and conflict (which Afghanistan conspicuously lacked since 1979) as well as cultural trends and especially prevailing global context. This last is especially important, given the context of the war against Islam that exists today and the relative decline and powerlessness of the Muslim world over the last 250 years.

If the New Scientist is correct, all of these factors point towards a "tight" society in Afghanistan today. However, it is not necessary to change the religious beliefs of Afghans to Buddhism to see a less conservative society. If the balance of wealth and power was tipped back in favour of the Muslim world, that would achieve the same result. Confident, wealthy and well educated societies tend to be much more cosmopolitan.
 
Top