Islamic Indian State, what happens next?

What would a united Islamic Indian Subcontinent be like? Would it be viable state? Or likely crumble in a few generations? If it stayed united could it challenge the Ottoman Empire later on, if they even still came about? Or would an Indian Superstate become the major Islamic Superpower? How much would India's other faiths, mainly Buddhism and Hinduism effect the ruling faith?

Also: Lets say that the Unification started in the late 740s and was completed (a single centralized Empire/Kingdom/State) in the early 1200s
 
Last edited:
How exactly is Islam going to spread throghout the entire subcontinent when even under a major Islamic power large parts of the North remained Hindu and of the places that did eventually become Muslim-majority in many it did'nt even happen until the 15th century onwards?
 
How exactly is Islam going to spread throghout the entire subcontinent when even under a major Islamic power large parts of the North remained Hindu and of the places that did eventually become Muslim-majority in many it did'nt even happen until the 15th century onwards?

There are a few things that could happen. Have a stronger focus on the Islamisation of India, being seen as divided states and more possible conversions than punching into Byzantium. So much so that we can say Al Andalus never comes into existence. This also brings up possible better relations between Islam and Christendom, at least at first.

Aside from that, better military commanders, more leaders converting to Islam, this like that.


There can also be very large minority groups in India still. Im not saying everyone is Muslim.
 
Last edited:
There are a few things that could happen. Have a stronger focus on the Islamisation of India, being seen as divided states and more possible conversions than punching into Byzantium. So much so that we can say Al Andalus never comes into existence. This also brings up possible better relations between Islam and Christendom, at least at first.

Aside from that, better military commanders, more leaders converting to Islam, this like that.


There can also be very large minority groups in India still. Im not saying everyone is Muslim.

It's not like this is a coordinated, unified effort. It isn't a strategy game where the all knowing player decides to go defensive in the Maghreb and build a few more units of camel archers to launch into the Hindu Kush. The reason efforts to push further into India were less energetic is because Persia was still being digested.

Secondly, unifying India is something that historically no one managed to do, up til the 20th C. India is BIG and India is DIVERSE.
 
Wait, what am I missing here?

MughalEmpireMap_zpscc1fb3ec.jpg
 
Wait, what am I missing here?

MughalEmpireMap_zpscc1fb3ec.jpg

You're missing the nature of the Indian political system. That isn't a unified empire. Most of it is vassal states swearing nominal allegiance, running their own affairs and sending tribute/levies when necessary. If the Padishah is strong they'll stfu and do what he wants. If he isn't they'll send token tribute at best and ignore him.
 
You're missing the nature of the Indian political system. That isn't a unified empire. Most of it is vassal states swearing nominal allegiance, running their own affairs and sending tribute/levies when necessary. If the Padishah is strong they'll stfu and do what he wants. If he isn't they'll send token tribute at best and ignore him.
Flocc got it right. Today, we have a united India, with most Indians thinking of themselves as Indians, and still every region and state still pushes the boundaries to get away with as much independence as possible. India cannot be governed by a strong centralised power. It is like trying to govern Europe in a centralised way. Does not work.
 
Flocc got it right. Today, we have a united India, with most Indians thinking of themselves as Indians, and still every region and state still pushes the boundaries to get away with as much independence as possible. India cannot be governed by a strong centralised power. It is like trying to govern Europe in a centralised way. Does not work.

Actually the miracle is that modern india has as many different cultures, languages and ethnicities as Europe and still generally works as a single country.
 
Actually the miracle is that modern india has as many different cultures, languages and ethnicities as Europe and still generally works as a single country.

I agree with this. Any problems with India have to be seen in light of it being probably the most ethnically diverse country on the planet, and still functioning.
 
You're missing the nature of the Indian political system. That isn't a unified empire. Most of it is vassal states swearing nominal allegiance, running their own affairs and sending tribute/levies when necessary. If the Padishah is strong they'll stfu and do what he wants. If he isn't they'll send token tribute at best and ignore him.

I'd argue that other than Afghanistan because of his brother, Akbar's empire was largely unified. And I'd argue that until the coffers bled dry under Aurangzeb and the following emperors, the Mughal Empire was a unified structure. The subadars of each province were within the military structure of the empire and appointed by Delhi/Agra regardless of personal jagirs. In many cases, it resembles an almost federal government; so it is unified.

Edit: Rajputs being the obvious exception, I suppose. However the Mughals did view themselves as having certain vassals : the lands which they did not yet possess. For example,mthe Deccan Sultanates and Vijayanagar were formally considered vassals of the Empire, but only within the empire. De jure and de facto,these states were independent.
 
Last edited:
I'd argue that other than Afghanistan because of his brother, Akbar's empire was largely unified. And I'd argue that until the coffers bled dry under Aurangzeb and the following emperors, the Mughal Empire was a unified structure. The subadars of each province were within the military structure of the empire and appointed by Delhi regardless of personal jagirs. In many cases, it resembles an almost federal government; so it is unified.

The trouble is that Sucrose was bringing up the post 1707 borders of the empire as an example of a unified India. My position is that that orange blob on the map can't be considered unified- it's a purely theoretical notion of vassalage.

The core of Akbar's empire was certainly pretty much under the unitary control of Delhi but that was Jallaludin Muhammad Akba- he's considered the greatest Mughal Padishah for a reason.

But you're still ignoring the realities of the Indian political landscape. Even in Akbar's time you had lots and lots of internally independent kinglets and princes (e.g. the Rajputs). You might have a Mughal governor in charge of each province but within the provinces there are going to be tons of exceptions and caveats. Calling the Mughal Empire a federal system completely ignores the actual situation on the ground which varied from emperor to emperor. This situation stayed in place right up to 1947- Britain ruled the Raj but alongside it's own relations with the vast patchwork of princely states which varied over time and place, from states like Travanacore or Hyderabad which were for all intents and purposes internally independent to states like Mysore which were much more directly influenced by British imperial policy.

Consider that by the late 17th C you see the Mughal Empire unable to maintain internal order against the Sikhs in the Punjab, not two hundred miles from the gates of Delhi itself, and you can see that this so-called internal unity was not institutional, so to speak, but individual, depending on Delhi's power at any given moment.
 
The trouble is that Sucrose was bringing up the post 1707 borders of the empire as an example of a unified India.

The core of Akbar's empire was certainly pretty much under the unitary control of Delhi but that was Jallaludin Muhammad Akba- he's considered the greatest Mughal Padishah for a reason.

But you're still ignoring the realities of the Indian political landscape. Even in Akbar's time you had lots and lots of internally independent kinglets and princes (e.g. the Rajputs). You might have a Mughal governor in charge of each province but within the provinces there are going to be tons of exceptions and caveats. Calling the Mughal Empire a federal system completely ignores the actual situation on the ground which varied from emperor to emperor.

Consider that by the late 17th C you see the Mughal Empire unable to maintain internal order against the Sikhs in the Punjab, not two hundred miles from the gates of Delhi itself, and you can see that this so-called internal unity was not institutional, so to speak, but individual, depending on Delhi's power at any given moment.

I edited my post a bit to account for the Rajputs. :)

Yet I still don't believe that's because of the individual more so than the expenditures of the empire having increased. For example, Akbar presided over a reign where the revenues of the empire dwarfed the expenditures. Under Shah Jahan, IIRC, revenues increased, but expenditures increased by triple the amount. That was a serious chunk of money that was lost. And then Aurangzeb and his wars in the Deccan, which continued to drain the treasury of money that was sparser and sparser. Obviously Aurangzeb's additions weren't permanent; he himself died fighting in the south, after all, but even Abraham Eraly in the Mughal Throne notes that he essentially tried to take all the power for himself within all of the empire's institutions itself,hence he actually altered the functioning of the empire to the degree where it began to spin out of control.

You bring up the Sikhs, but when the Imperial Court was truly in Maharashtra rather than Delhi, I believe that it is a critical reason why they were able to become more and more powerful in Panjab. Especially under a man who was draining the treasury and simply bit off more than he could chew. Before that, the empire functioned quite well, with the governors more or less maintaining the sovereignty of the padshah even with all the caveats.

Edit: and the British essentially changed the functions of the zamindars, complicating the system a bit.
 
I edited my post a bit to account for the Rajputs. :)

Yet I still don't believe that's because of the individual more so than the expenditures of the empire having increased. For example, Akbar presided over a reign where the revenues of the empire dwarfed the expenditures.

Under Akbar, the Mughal empire had nothing worth mentioning south of the Vindhyas. And in the north, Kangra and the hill states were all free. Kashmir was conquered only in the middle of Akbar's reign. Akbar presided only over the Indo-Gangetic plain. The Rajputs of Mewar and Malwa were fully independent - Malwa was supposedly conquered, but the Rajputs kept rising in revolt there too.

Under Shah Jahan, IIRC, revenues increased, but expenditures increased by triple the amount. That was a serious chunk of money that was lost
Under Shah Jahan, the Mughal empire already encompassed Berar and Ahmednagar, and towards the latter part of his reign, also Bijapur and Golconda. Except, as the empire grew, so did the instability. Basically, by the time Shah Jehan pacified one region, another would rise in revolt. Nothing south of the Vindhyas was stable, and more importantly, even the heartland was becoming unstable. His stupid attempts to conquer Kandahar by force did not help either.

And then Aurangzeb and his wars in the Deccan, which continued to drain the treasury of money that was sparser and sparser. Obviously Aurangzeb's additions weren't permanent; he himself died fighting in the south, after all, but even Abraham Eraly in the Mughal Throne notes that he essentially tried to take all the power for himself within all of the empire's institutions itself,hence he actually altered the functioning of the empire to the degree where it began to spin out of control.

Most of Aurangzeb's problems were inherited from his father's time. He exacerbated the problems, but he did not create them. His father had already broken the power of Ahmednagar and Berar, and weakened Bijapur and Golconda. In their place, the new power of the Marathas rose in the vacuum. It was a failure of the Mughal empire to control anything south of the Vindhyas effectively that was the problem.

You bring up the Sikhs, but when the Imperial Court was truly in Maharashtra rather than Delhi, I believe that it is a critical reason why they were able to become more and more powerful in Panjab. Especially under a man who was draining the treasury and simply bit off more than he could chew. Before that, the empire functioned quite well, with the governors more or less maintaining the sovereignty of the padshah even with all the caveats.

Edit: and the British essentially changed the functions of the zamindars, complicating the system a bit.
The Sikhs had already risen in revolt during Aurangzeb's reign itself. The Bundelas, the Jats, the Ahoms, and the Rajputs had done the same, not to mention the trouble with the Marathas. Basically, by Aurangzeb's time, it was game over for the Mughals. It was just a question of how long the agony could be prolonged. As long as the Mughal empire confined itself to the Indo-Gangetic plain, it was reasonably secure. Once it tried to expand beyond, it became unstable.
 
As long as the Mughal empire confined itself to the Indo-Gangetic plain, it was reasonably secure. Once it tried to expand beyond, it became unstable.

Yes, this is my point- the maps showing a vast Mughal Empire constantly ignore the reality that it was a fragmented and unstable system outside North India proper.
 
Under Akbar, the Mughal empire had nothing worth mentioning south of the Vindhyas. And in the north, Kangra and the hill states were all free. Kashmir was conquered only in the middle of Akbar's reign. Akbar presided only over the Indo-Gangetic plain. The Rajputs of Mewar and Malwa were fully independent - Malwa was supposedly conquered, but the Rajputs kept rising in revolt there too.

Under Shah Jahan, the Mughal empire already encompassed Berar and Ahmednagar, and towards the latter part of his reign, also Bijapur and Golconda. Except, as the empire grew, so did the instability. Basically, by the time Shah Jehan pacified one region, another would rise in revolt. Nothing south of the Vindhyas was stable, and more importantly, even the heartland was becoming unstable. His stupid attempts to conquer Kandahar by force did not help either.



Most of Aurangzeb's problems were inherited from his father's time. He exacerbated the problems, but he did not create them. His father had already broken the power of Ahmednagar and Berar, and weakened Bijapur and Golconda. In their place, the new power of the Marathas rose in the vacuum. It was a failure of the Mughal empire to control anything south of the Vindhyas effectively that was the problem.

The Sikhs had already risen in revolt during Aurangzeb's reign itself. The Bundelas, the Jats, the Ahoms, and the Rajputs had done the same, not to mention the trouble with the Marathas. Basically, by Aurangzeb's time, it was game over for the Mughals. It was just a question of how long the agony could be prolonged. As long as the Mughal empire confined itself to the Indo-Gangetic plain, it was reasonably secure. Once it tried to expand beyond, it became unstable.
I agree that Aurangzeb only exacerbated the problems created under Shah Jahan, but he did create a few of his own. For example, he was the commander of Shah Jahans forces in the Deccan and according to Eraly, overstepped his boundaries a bit, attempting to conquer Golconda without the emperor's explicit approval.

And, yes, they did rise up during Aurangzeb's reign. Hence the Imperial Court in Maharashtra, where Aurangzeb was located for the last twenty or so years of his reign, when rebellion in the north really grew.
 
I agree that Aurangzeb only exacerbated the problems created under Shah Jahan, but he did create a few of his own. For example, he was the commander of Shah Jahans forces in the Deccan and according to Eraly, overstepped his boundaries a bit, attempting to conquer Golconda without the emperor's explicit approval.
And there's another important problem with this scenario: Any monarchic system is only as effective in the long term as the situations that arise during its least competent monarchs' reigns allow... and you can't just set aside the less competent princes in favour of "better" ones, either, because you need a clear & consistent law of succession or -- especially when you're using princes as generals -- you'll have civil wars....
 
Top