what if India in 1800s sold opium without middle man

The POD is not relevant to the question. It was a simple question. I am not trying to envision the whole world of WI

Just WI the two largest nations by population at that time on the planet had put themselves in a similar scenario except this time it was not some foreign power half a world away. Since the Qing buckled under from just 20k troops showing up would they also have buckled under India as well essentially concede Asia in the mid to late 1800s

The POD IS relevant. Seriously. Your title is literally "WI", by the way.

And the Qing buckling under 20k Indian troops? Not happening. Remember, the POD is essential to understanding the WI. Now, if those troops were modernized - wait, no, still not happening. It took Japan millions of troops to fail to conquer a divided China - you think India can defeat a united China with tens of thousands?

Britain is miles away, and it was easy for China to underestimate her strength. This led them to make fatal mistakes (but remember, China won victories against the British at Sanyuanli).

But the reason why Britain won? Not because of their army, as you mistakenly believe. They blockaded the Changjiang, stopping the transport of rice north to northern China, which could have led to famine. But since India is a land power (as I have explained earlier), it would be difficult or impossible to beat China on its own turf.

Let me explain why.
1. We don't know if India is modernized. That's why we need a POD.
2. The Qing Dynasty is going to be more vigilant against India. Obviously.
3. China can win on land.
4. India's a land power, not a naval power, since that's necessary for unification.
 
Also, the POD is extremely important here. When does India become unified?

If it's pre-1650, the Ming dynasty is still alive and kicking, and bilateral trade with India should keep it alive. It was OTL inflation from all the Spanish silver that brought them down, and if there's trade with India, that's mostly fixed.

If it's post 1650 but pre-1780, there's no guarantee that China's going to be as weak as you portray it. The Daoguang Emperor isn't in power yet, and we can still have a great emperor carrying on the legacy of Kangxi and Qianlong.
 
Alright. Let's divide the conversations since I'm seeing people discuss the political side and the economic side differently.

Could India unite without Europe? Politically? Yes, in fact it probably did under the Mughals before the Company- all major rulers in the subcontinent were part of the Mughal sovereign structure; the Company made great use of this legal reality. Legally and politically the entire subcontinent was under the rule of the Mughal Emperor in Delhi until 1858- this is fundamental in understanding why he held such importance to the Great Rebellion of 1857.

As a nation? Well you can argue India still isn't a nation, and is primarily a state of many nations- that doesn't really matter when we're talking about political empire building, and especially doesn't matter if we're looking beyond the nineteenth century, anyways.

Now economically, being reliant on a staple crop like opium would be upon demand for said product. However why would any all-India entity want to be reliant on one product to fuel their own economy? And why would they restructure their biggest breadbasket and richest provinces for this task? Opium happened because the EIC had vested interests in East Asian markets, and controlled land, something other private entities wouldn't necessarily have. You're essentially asking a country to create a colonial economy and treat itself like a colony; for an example of this, think Haiti. There could be an opium industry but it would have to be part of a diversified economic structure, and won't be the massive venture OP is envisioning.

To avoid BOTPS
 
Has South Asia ever fully united under any pre-British power? Not even the Mughals (the best chance, especially since much older empires being wanked will probably butterfly away the Qing) extended to the southern tip of the subcontinent IIRC, and Auzangreb's South Indian empire wasn't exactly long-lasting.

The Mauryan Empire in the third century had a larger empire than that of the Mughals. Only the southern tip of the Peninsula was left out, and the conquest stopped only because the Emperor Ashoka had a change of heart. The Mauryan Empire covered 5 million sq.kms of land against 3.3 million sq.kms of the OTL Republic of India. The Gupta, the Pala, the Chola Empires were all larger than the present Republic. Only the territory under them at different periods changed.
 
Top