Indian monarchy?

I think this is probably best suited here, who could be the best ruler of a native Indian dynasty to unite all of India into a single nation, before 1900? Or develop enough support to take the throne in an India post independence
 
Perhaps surviving Mughals who control most of India? But probably you need some pre-Aurangzeb POD.

Could the Mauryas unificaton last unti the present day?

I bit doubt that, at least not direct Maurya lineage when that family would be 2300 years old. But perhaps Mauryas could create such India where is dynastic continuum like in China.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps surviving Mughals who control most of India? But probably you need some pre-Aurangzeb POD.

Hmm, I've read that Muhammed Shah, Aurangzeb's son was pretty decent a commander and administrator, if he had won in 1707, perhaps things would've been different.

And hmm this is true, that would be an interesting thing to explore.;
 

Anawrahta

Banned
If Vijayanagar centralizes, and modernizes in the late 14th century, could manage to unify all of India by the 1500s.
 
Could the Mauryas unificaton last unti the present day?

As for the Mughals would they be able to keep things in order, with growing Hindu sentiment?

The Maurya ruled India 2000 years ago; if they managed to survive intact for that long it would be unprecedented.
 
Regarding your first question: yes. Despite the fact that a united subcontinent is somewhat a historical anomality, it did happen. The Maurya and Mughal empires did it. Concerning your second point: when you say post independence, I take it you mean the OTL 1947 fall of the Raj. Short answer is no. The independence movement was decidedly republican with Congress being very wary of the vernacular princes on account of their record of cooperation with the British.
 
Regarding your first question: yes. Despite the fact that a united subcontinent is somewhat a historical anomality, it did happen. The Maurya and Mughal empires did it. Concerning your second point: when you say post independence, I take it you mean the OTL 1947 fall of the Raj. Short answer is no. The independence movement was decidedly republican with Congress being very wary of the vernacular princes on account of their record of cooperation with the British.
I see, could he independence movement have ever focused on nationalism with monarchy at its head?
 
Regarding your first question: yes. Despite the fact that a united subcontinent is somewhat a historical anomality, it did happen. The Maurya and Mughal empires did it. Concerning your second point: when you say post independence, I take it you mean the OTL 1947 fall of the Raj. Short answer is no. The independence movement was decidedly republican with Congress being very wary of the vernacular princes on account of their record of cooperation with the British.
The Maury’s and Mughals never included all of historical India did they? Assam, remained aloof from both
 
I see, could he independence movement have ever focused on nationalism with monarchy at its head?

Anything is possible with the right POD. If you're asking if our OTL's Congress could focus on a native monarchy replacing the Raj then the answer would be no.

The Maury’s and Mughals never included all of historical India did they? Assam, remained aloof from both

For all intents and purposes they are considered "continent unifying" polities. Hell, a term like "historical India" could be said to be a product of these very same empires.
 
Anything is possible with the right POD. If you're asking if our OTL's Congress could focus on a native monarchy replacing the Raj then the answer would be no.



For all intents and purposes they are considered "continent unifying" polities.
What pod would be needed then for the national movement to become monarchist? 1857?

And interesting considering they never did quite manage that
 
What pod would be needed then for the national movement to become monarchist? 1857?

And interesting considering they never did quite manage that

To be fair they only fall short of "continent unifying" polities by comparison to India today. I think they are unified enough to pass the test of the PoD

I suspect to be monarchist then you would have to have a very different India. For one you would need some kind of continuity like in Siam / Thailand which means the EIC never takes direct control of Bengal and the Mughal (or a successor state) still controls most of India at least in name during the period of European colonialism.

Then the republican factions have to compete with the monarchist establishment - hard to call whether Congress takes power without the unifying effect of British occupation.
 
To be fair they only fall short of "continent unifying" polities by comparison to India today. I think they are unified enough to pass the test of the PoD

I suspect to be monarchist then you would have to have a very different India. For one you would need some kind of continuity like in Siam / Thailand which means the EIC never takes direct control of Bengal and the Mughal (or a successor state) still controls most of India at least in name during the period of European colonialism.

Then the republican factions have to compete with the monarchist establishment - hard to call whether Congress takes power without the unifying effect of British occupation.
Alright interesting, so perhaps something similar to the situation re 1857, with the company doing it in the name of the Mughal emperor? Perhaps strengthened by the fact they don’t hold Bengal completely
 
Top