Well, I have a Temp Job as a receptionist at a law firm and naturally I have had a CRAZY amount of free time working reading books and working on my TLs. Prepare for a Big Update in "The Prophet's Voice Fell to Silence: No Islam" TL.
Anyway, I have been reading this rather comprehensive book on India's history by John Keay and I am quite enlightened. He pretty much says that for much of India's history India given its unique culture and inclusive and diverse geography has spawned so many numerous dynasties, kingdoms, and 'republics' that even Elfwine would go mad trying to go into and describe the details of each and everyone...nevermind trying to find the existence of each and every one.
Anyway, by the 15th Century, following the collapse of the Delhi Sultanate, Keay goes into a very interesting description of India at this time. He lists under "Stillborn States" that in Europe a complex period of strong, centralized monarchical states were forming in Europe that would become the base units for Europe's Nation-States and at the time a very similar series of events were going on in India. Bengal, Gujarat, Kashmir,Orissa, and such particular states were gaining the territorial, political, and cultural traits of what would be Nationstates. (See Map Below) Especially in that while wars were waged between these states the process of conquest and absorbtion was not being repeated, states were bargaining for territorial extent ("Royal Captives were released, defeated kings reinstates, and the victor's spols regarded more as a one-off indemnity than an annual tribute" Keay, pg 283) and much like the German-French Wars would battle for choice territory but, would not absorb their neighbors. Mostly about frontier demarcations.
Vijayanagara: Hindu State that are often credited with preventing the Islamization of the South.
Bahmanids: Islamic, Deccan, Persianized Sultanate. Seems to have rejected the policy of Jizya or religious tax.
These two often enough battled each other yet, seemed to after a series of battles for choice tracts of land on the West Coast of India had come to a negotiated agreement and even allied with each other against a common foe. Granted the Bahmanids and Vijayanagara federations would eventually collapse on themselves into various states their sucessors followed a similar pattern of territorial expansion that roughly were confined to the territories of their predecessors. Heck, if the two states had managed to keep things together and not go all Ottoman Empire they quite possibly could have maintained centralization and allied against the Mughals.
Gujarat and Malwa: Turco-Afghan rulers, Orthodox, imposed jizya and demolished Hindu Temples but, habitually married Rajput princesses, patronized Indian Artists, and employed Hindus at the highest offices of government. Muslims the most urbanized.
Of the two Malwa was landlocked and became something of the Luxembourg or Belgium of India before it could not maintain its Muslim-Rajput harmony and Malwa was absorbed by Gujarat and the Rajputs.
Granted, in those states that had less flexible territorial boundaries, fortifications were rising as a key to keeping frontiers and boundaries secured and stable.
Orissa and Suryavamsha: Hindu.
Bengal and Awadh: Muslim
Both in several cases like in other parts of India transcended their religious differances for the most part and cultural ones and political ones. When a Bengali Sultan whow as Hindu became ruler for example the Islamic Ulema organized his overthrow with the help of neighboring Jaunpur but, they placed his son on the throne after he converted to Islam.
Kashmir: Islamic Dynasty but, had on and off Sultans who were heavy or lenient on the Hindus. With its natural geography it seemed to have natural defenses that looked like it could have maintained a strong case for sovereignty.
Of course, as I mentioned the diverse and unique geography of India allowed for the formation of so many states in the region and sheilded it from outsiders from the North and East EXCEPT of course for the Panjab. Here was India's swinging door. Here no Panjab state here formed strong enough to keep shut the way into India. Here Afghan and Turco raiders habitually raided and claimed territory based on the old triumphs of Timur and that is what Babar of the Mughals would do.
Having looked into the expansive sections on the Mughals it seems that the invasion of the Mughals could have been rather easily butterflied and allowed for these states to develop into actual nation-states.
Babur contested several times for Samarkand where he envisioned to recreate the Empire of his anscestor Timur and on several occasions he managed to take the city but, never hold onto it. Which eventually brought him to Kabul where the Turk aligned with the Afghan Nobles there to do a successful raid into India but, he was despite his successes in the Ganges Plain not immediatly accepted by the majority of the Afghans who sliced up the conquered territory and so either one of them could have thrown him out. He also much like Alexander the Great faced issues with his soldiers who after seeing abit of India had decided that they had, had enough. As Babur commented India had "No good horses, no good dogs, no grapes, musk melons or first rate fruits, no ice or cold water, no good bread or cooked food in the bazaars, no hot baths, no colleges, no candles, no torches, and no candlesticks" and of course Babur had arrived during the hottest and driest month of the entire year in the region. If he had been a man of slightly lesser convictions he may have turned around.
Of course there is also the fact that the Afghan Sur dynasty under Sher Khan would revolt and totally displace his sons during a civil war between them and force Akbar's father into exile in Iran where he could have easily have been killed during the fighting and butterflied conquering Akbar and still have the OTL death of Sher Khan destroying a unified Islamic state in Northern India.
Anyway, without the Mughals the British still would have found upon a divided India that would not have had a sense of Hindu vs Muslim nationalism.
