Indian monarchy?

What pod would be needed then for the national movement to become monarchist? 1857?

A pre-1857 POD would most likely butterfly away Congress as we know it. Very, very few of OTL’s independence movements in the Far East were monarchical in nature because the native royal houses were delegitimised on account of their cooperation with the colonial powers.

And interesting considering they never did quite manage that

Uhm, for all intents and purposes they did.
 
A pre-1857 POD would most likely butterfly away Congress as we know it. Very, very few of OTL’s independence movements in the Far East were monarchical in nature because the native royal houses were delegitimised on account of their cooperation with the colonial powers.



Uhm, for all intents and purposes they did.
I see, so would achieving a situation ala Siam be possible?

And didnthey? No record I've seen suggests complete conquest and control of southern regions or north east India
 
It's not really worth arguing what "India" is.

If a state controls most of the subcontinent and has major influence over the rest then it is "India". Unless someone is trying to say in the same breath as arguing for continuity that India must always comprise of the whole subcontinent and is indivisible (which I've seen on this website).

The Siam comparison would be really difficult as there is no terrain or environmental reasons really stopping Europeans from penetrating well into the interior of India (as there was in Siam). So you'd need a significantly more competent and technologically advanced Indian state to offset the European advantages and keep them at arms length. That technology transfer would need to come from a European state that had no direct interest in ruling or influencing India and would have to arrive before the British and the French.

Could you get the Portuguese to bootstrap "India"? But they have their own troubles in this Period. Can't see the Spanish doing anything.
 
It's not really worth arguing what "India" is.

If a state controls most of the subcontinent and has major influence over the rest then it is "India". Unless someone is trying to say in the same breath as arguing for continuity that India must always comprise of the whole subcontinent and is indivisible (which I've seen on this website).

The Siam comparison would be really difficult as there is no terrain or environmental reasons really stopping Europeans from penetrating well into the interior of India (as there was in Siam). So you'd need a significantly more competent and technologically advanced Indian state to offset the European advantages and keep them at arms length. That technology transfer would need to come from a European state that had no direct interest in ruling or influencing India and would have to arrive before the British and the French.

Could you get the Portuguese to bootstrap "India"? But they have their own troubles in this Period. Can't see the Spanish doing anything.
Hmm interesting during the reign of Aurangzeb India made up a significant portion of world GDP. ISnit possible that had his successors been more capable they could have worked with foreign powers to develop India to that point?
 
And didnthey? No record I've seen suggests complete conquest and control of southern regions or north east India

I trust you to be familiar with the term for all intents and purposes. Arguing that the Mauryan and Mughal empires weren't unifying polities because the southernmost tip of the subcontinent and other periferal regions weren't directly integrated is simply making trivial distinctions.

Mughal1700.png


Mauryan_Empire_Map.gif
 
I trust you to be familiar with the term for all intents and purposes. Arguing that the Mauryan and Mughal empires weren't unifying polities because the southernmost tip of the subcontinent and other periferal regions weren't directly integrated is simply making trivial distinctions.

Mughal1700.png


Mauryan_Empire_Map.gif
Indeed I am familiar with the term. So how could one develop things so that the idea of India is tied to either dynasty? Or their successors
 
Indeed I am familiar with the term. So how could one develop things so that the idea of India is tied to either dynasty? Or their successors
Meaning, the concept of India is ingrained trough those states and the desire to keep it together
 
You have to change Aurangzeb attitudes to other faiths (and even other sects in Islam). With a more syncretic approach it is possible that Aurangzeb doesn't fight the second half of his reign putting down rebellions (or at least not as many of them)

It's just about credible that the Portuguese could look to India as a trading option to replace the East coast of Africa which they were losing to the Omanis at this time. A significantly improved armaments production (Indian steel was notoriously poor when used for swords) and more modern military training might give them a chance when Nader Shah comes knocking.

Even better they need someone to sort out the Mughal dynastic politics between Aurangzeb's death and Muhammed Shah's succession. Perhaps a more compromising approach from Aurangzeb could secure this by preventing rebellion from his sons.

To be honest a SI to Aurangzeb by a modern Indian has a lot of potential.
 
You have to change Aurangzeb attitudes to other faiths (and even other sects in Islam). With a more syncretic approach it is possible that Aurangzeb doesn't fight the second half of his reign putting down rebellions (or at least not as many of them)

It's just about credible that the Portuguese could look to India as a trading option to replace the East coast of Africa which they were losing to the Omanis at this time. A significantly improved armaments production (Indian steel was notoriously poor when used for swords) and more modern military training might give them a chance when Nader Shah comes knocking.

Even better they need someone to sort out the Mughal dynastic politics between Aurangzeb's death and Muhammed Shah's succession. Perhaps a more compromising approach from Aurangzeb could secure this by preventing rebellion from his sons.

To be honest a SI to Aurangzeb by a modern Indian has a lot of potential.

Hmm interesting, if Aurangzeb had died around the 1680s, before the rebellions really started kicking off, could that have given them a chance? Especially if he'd named Muhammed Shah as his heir?

Or failing that is Dara Shikoh the best bet?
 
Hmm interesting, if Aurangzeb had died around the 1680s, before the rebellions really started kicking off, could that have given them a chance? Especially if he'd named Muhammed Shah as his heir?

Or failing that is Dara Shikoh the best bet?
Mohammed Shah is too young (b. 1702). And if Aurangzeb dies earlier then Muhammad Azam Shah is obvious (and possibly good choice) candidate. After which who knows

Dara Shikoh replacing Aurangzeb would fulfill the more compromising approach to religion (as well as not being a borderline homicidal maniac). But he's a blank canvas on which to draw. Interestingly through Niccolao Manucci he does have a slight chance of earlier and more even handed relationships with Europe.
 
Mohammed Shah is too young (b. 1702). And if Aurangzeb dies earlier then Muhammad Azam Shah is obvious (and possibly good choice) candidate. After which who knows

Dara Shikoh replacing Aurangzeb would fulfill the more compromising approach to religion (as well as not being a borderline homicidal maniac). But he's a blank canvas on which to draw. Interestingly through Niccolao Manucci he does have a slight chance of earlier and more even handed relationships with Europe.

Aye, Azam Shah was who I was referring to. Of course one supposes that Bahadur Shah would still try claiming the throne, at least for a time, but given Muhammed Azam's preferred place in his father's life, he might well suffer from a lack of clear support.

And this is true regarding Dara, and how do you mean regarding Manucci?
 
Aye, Azam Shah was who I was referring to. Of course one supposes that Bahadur Shah would still try claiming the throne, at least for a time, but given Muhammed Azam's preferred place in his father's life, he might well suffer from a lack of clear support.

And this is true regarding Dara, and how do you mean regarding Manucci?
Manucci was a bit of an Indian Marco Polo - left Venice a younf man but in his case never returned (apart from the manuscripts for a history of the Moghul court). He was closer to Dara Shikoh than any other leading Moghul. it's not beyond the realms of possibility that a ruling Dara Shikoh could use him as an ambassador back to the Europeans.
 
Manucci was a bit of an Indian Marco Polo - left Venice a younf man but in his case never returned (apart from the manuscripts for a history of the Moghul court). He was closer to Dara Shikoh than any other leading Moghul. it's not beyond the realms of possibility that a ruling Dara Shikoh could use him as an ambassador back to the Europeans.
Manucci was a bit of an Indian Marco Polo - left Venice a younf man but in his case never returned (apart from the manuscripts for a history of the Moghul court). He was closer to Dara Shikoh than any other leading Moghul. it's not beyond the realms of possibility that a ruling Dara Shikoh could use him as an ambassador back to the Europeans.

Oh very interesting, which could of course lead to trade in terms of arms, and resources.
 
Top