Religious United Indian Subcontinent
When the British arrive they use ethnic and caste tensions to divide the continent instead of religion. South India becomes the new Pakistan.
Peace, prosperity and harmony are about politics, not some ideal demographical configuration. To think that diversity leads necesarity to violent conflict is a dangerous way of thinking because it can become a self fulfilling prophecy. And even if you remove the religious differences there would be still a lot differences among the population: linguistic diversity, caste culture, wealth disparity and conflict among social classes (remember the maoist insurgence). Regardless of what you do India is always gonna be a complex place full of diversities. Removing the muslims would just make relations among the hindus more conflictive now that other issues would be on the top. Also as long as England comes in, fucks India an divides the land in the most humanly catastrophic way posible to create a really hostile statecon India's borders then things won't change much from our tml regardless of the muslims.
Peace, prosperity and harmony are about politics, not some ideal demographical configuration. To think that diversity leads necesarity to violent conflict is a dangerous way of thinking because it can become a self fulfilling prophecy. And even if you remove the religious differences there would be still a lot differences among the population: linguistic diversity, caste culture, wealth disparity and conflict among social classes (remember the maoist insurgence). Regardless of what you do India is always gonna be a complex place full of diversities. Removing the muslims would just make relations among the hindus more conflictive now that other issues would be on the top. Also as long as England comes in, fucks India an divides the land in the most humanly catastrophic way posible to create a really hostile statecon India's borders then things won't change much from our tml regardless of the muslims.
Srihari14
Banned
If British still come and colonize India which is Majority Hindu (90% +), then there is no way there will be separatism in south India, the biggest separatists or proponents for division of electorates were Ambedkar for dalits, who compromised for the unity of India and Jinnah, who succeeded in creating a state he desired, as such, there was never a South Indian Separatists movement in Indian History
Without islam, then the hindu sects would be far less connected by group identity, and may consider themselves different groups with some similarities. Or religion would matter less as a meta ethnic identity and ethnic strife could be stronger.
Srihari14
Banned
I suspect that violence between different Hindu sects would never be as bloody as islamic and Hindu conflict
Why? Christian sects butchered each other with as much gusto as when they were fighting off the Ottomans.
You've made half a dozen threads on various variations of this topic over the past year. What's the point? Why are you so interested in removing religious diversity from the Indian sub-continent?
Srihari14
Banned
In India, there never really a history of religious violence between sects of religion,sure it existed, but not to the extent of Europe
And the reason why I make threads like these is because India is severely under represented in alternate history scenario and the scenario I mentioned is one of the more interesting ones
A hindu-religious sect war would be fought along the lines of dharma-yuddha (rough translation is Just War). Granted it wouldn't be followed down to the last letter, but that would still lead to less hatred between the victor & loser.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma-yuddha
I do agree tbh. Almost every single thread focuses on european/American history and very few about Latin America, Asia & SE Asia. For every 30 threads about a random (former) european power, I see one focused around the indian subcontinent.
Srihari14
Banned
I agree, but Hinduism really won't have fights similar to European Christian section fight, Hinduism is always inward focused, that's why the biggest issue with Hinduism is caste system, Hinduism never really was a religion keen on spreading
And thank you for agreeing to the fact that India is severely underrepresented in alternate history scenario
I do agree with the statement that a religiously homogeneous subcontinent would have been less violent and more peaceful. But a linguistically homogeneous subcontinent would have been much better than that, as linguistic unity is more important than the religious unity. Just take the case of SriLanka where a very violent civil war was going on between two groups of Sri Lankans divided both by religion and language. On one side there were Sinhalese speaking Buddhists and on the other side Tamil speaking Hindus and also a few Christians. But the Tamils never styled themselves as Hindus, but only as Tamilians. The wall that separated the two groups was that of language and not of religion. That might have been the reason why that the Tamil revolutionaries like LTTE never received any support or sympathy outside the borders of Tamilnadu in India.
Albert.Nik
Banned
Homogeneity doesnt equate to success. Saudi Arabia and Iran are also homogeneous as are many more socially and economically backward nations. I don't think that even an early POD involving Indo-Europeans would yield a homogeneous India. You would then have multiple Indo-Iranian and Tocharian nations and be like a mirror image of Europe but in the East. So you could then have conflicts inbetween the many Tocharian,Iranian and Caucasian branches. Doesn't qualify for your purpose here,IMO. You see? Someone will convert to Scythian religion,someone will convert to Tocharian B religion,some will convert to Indo-Aryan religion,some to Sogdian religion,some to Tocharian A religion,some will convert to Western Iranian religion and so on. So that's definitely not a homogeneous India except in anatomically.
From what I infer,you seem to want a Hungary model for India. Hungarians are a mix of mostly Pontic Scythians and Caucasians(Avars),Uralic Magyars and other Uralics,Slavs,Romans,Germanic since,etc. Today,they are homogeneous. This is possible very remotely. The problem is that India is too large compared to the Danube plains. This isn't impossible. But only very tricky to achieve. You need a large enough homogeneous migration and settlement which is possible only towards the Modern Eras.
Last edited:
I’d argue that in a world without the dividing effect of British rule, people would say that there was never really a history of fighting between different religions in India- sure it existed but it was never on the same scale as Europe. Up to that point, conflicts between Islam and Hinduism were most definitely on the same scale as inter Islamic sectarian and inter Hindu sectarian conflict.
Seems a bit post facto, just because aryan influence was eventually supplanted in Southeast Asia, doesn’t mean it was inward looking to an arbitrarily defined India. I’d say that the very fact Hinduism and Buddhism spread to not only south east Asia but to modern south India proves that they were vigorously interested in propagating their own philosophies at the expense of indigenous ones.
Srihari14
Banned
A religiously united subcontinent is much more achievable than linguistically united subcontinent, latter is impossible
Srihari14
Banned
I was talking about a religiosity united subcontinent, not an ethnically united one
Albert.Nik
Banned
Both are quite linked and there can also be inter ethnic conflicts between the same religion. The same reason still applies.
Srihari14
Banned
Let's see, the religious population of subcontinent - 63% Hindus, 33% Muslims, 4% Everyone else
And the linguistic diversity - 1,700 languages
It is easier to have one religion 90% than one language dominate the area