The Mauryas and Mughals come first to my mind.
Could the Mauryas unificaton last unti the present day?
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?
As for the Mughals would they be able to keep things in order, with growing Hindu sentiment?
In the same sense Qin Shi Huangdi's unification of China has lasted to this day, yes.Could the Mauryas unificaton last unti the present day?
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.
They never extended to Bengal, the southern states or AssamThe Maratha literally did that?
Interesting what makes you say so?If Vijayanagar centralizes, and modernizes in the late 14th century, could manage to unify all of India by the 1500s.
The Maury’s and Mughals never included all of historical India did they? Assam, remained aloof from bothRegarding 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.
define historical india.The Maury’s and Mughals never included all of historical India did they? Assam, remained aloof from both
The typical subcontinent,define historical india.
The subcontinent? The Raj? The Indian cultural Sphere?
I see, could he independence movement have ever focused on nationalism with monarchy at its head?
The Maury’s and Mughals never included all of historical India did they? Assam, remained aloof from both
What pod would be needed then for the national movement to become monarchist? 1857?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
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 completelyTo 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.