What if India was never colonized?
- Thread starter Apple3169
- Start date
Why ? Like how does that even happen ? Marathas literally have no need to as they are ruling over predominantly Hindu regions across, and them being Hindu is part of their appeal ? Why would they convert, its not like they are ruling some region that is fully Islamic, and even then it wont be necessary as the massive Hindu population would make such population minuscule.
ahmedali
Banned
Hyderabad is ruled by a Nizam, a Sunni Muslim, and the people are overwhelmingly Hindu
The Nawab of Junagadh is a Sunni Muslim Pashtun and the people are Gujarat Hindus
The same thing and the deputies of Murshidabad, the deputies are Shiites and the people are Hindus
So not really
But Marathas literally made their identity of Hindus and will not deviate from it at all, and as mentioned before there will actually be no Muslim region for them to rule.
The states you are proposing were all states with continuity since the Delhi Sultanate and were able to leverage such ties int the effect here, Marathas explicitly went with a complete change in their approach as they wanted to remove all Muslim rulers of the region so they would mever actually do it.
If you want an Islamic India, then Mughals are the last best bet but after them Marathas are going for a fully Hindu and Hinduized India
ahmedali
Banned
Honestly, I'm really tired
Even with the Mughals, India did not become Islamic, so I don't see the Marathas going to the Inquisition
Mughals did see the highest levels of growth for Islamic culture at the very least and if they had remained in power for 2 centuries more with appropriate changes, they could have made 70-80% of the subcontinent Muslim, though culturally it would be very different than OTL.
ahmedali
Banned
It will be like the case of Indonesia and India
(Indonesia's Hindu-Buddhist heritage is still strong despite them being Muslim)
Exactly, infact you can see alot lf Hindu terminology being incorporated into Islam and Hindu religious texts being reintrepreted in a more Islamic context.
It was their instability which caused the maratha nobles and kings to become rowdy/independence-minded, not the other way around. They would have stayed loyal as long as they Peshwa/Chhatrapati was strong enough to protect them. Also, if by chance one of the kings became more powerful than the Peshwa, then they would just usurp the Peshwa and become the leader of the confederacy. This happened IRL too. Once the Peshwa family was in shambles, other kings like the Holkars, took over from them, but that caused further instability.
Marathas fought against Mysore, not to conquer it but for loot.
afghans did the same to north india. They would not stay and rule when they could just steal all the wealth.
Mughals were wiped out by the British because they held more symbolic power in India than anything the Marathas had. That's why Bahadur Shah Zafar was deposed and exiled after being kept as a figurehead by the British.
Why didn't they? Gwalior and Indore were established but the Peshwas wanted the Imperial throne, which would have pissed off many Muslims.
Their line was wiped out because of the British when even the Marathas themselves preserved it.
The trope that India was never united should die a death deserving of that ahistorical idea. No one us saying that India was as united as China. But the idea of a united subcontinent did exist, especially in the North. Not saying a fragmented India will not happen, in fact it is likely, but it is also likely depending on the POD that some power can unite the subcontinent.
Unlikely, the Sikhs and most other Indians despised the Afghans deeply and in the timeframe we are talking about have no geopolitical reason to ally with them. The Sikh Army only got more formidable as time went on and certainly could take on the Maratha Army.
Much of the Muslim growth during the Mughal era was in places already Muslim it would seem; i.e., Punjab and Bengal. It's unlikely they would convert all of Hindustan when they didn't IOTL.
Yea, exactly. By the time the Peshwas came to power, IMO, it is very likely that it is too late to keep the Maratha Empire centralized at least in the short term. If the Chhatrapatis can remain the head of the Empire then I think establishing rule over most of the subcontinent will be much easier for them.
But it also shows that Mughals could not establish local entities and dynasties like Marathas did due to their much more rigid rules regarding local integration.
By the time they would have taken it, there would have been no Muslim power to oppose it at all
As said before, Marathas were trying to be more stable before the depose the Mughal monarchy, which they would have once they have entrenched themselves in Northern India, specifically after a Panipat victory
But if you notice OTL British rule, Muslim population did increase compared to Hindu ones, with a Mughal empire with Muslim centric population, it would have led to much higher population of Muslims in subcontinent
No, that was because they didn't set up local clients and instead ruled directly. In the South where clients were set up (Hyderabad, Arcot) you saw those states last until 1947.
Again, how? Muslims were extremely powerful in North India, and the Marathas had neither the strength nor will to do such a thing.
Yes, but they likely would have accommodated the Muslim nobles if they had been able to secure the throne of Delhi.
Maybe only 5-10%, but that is about it.
Most southern client states owe more to Deccani Sultanate traditions than any Mughal ones, Mughals never were able to control the south like they did most of Northern, Eastern and Western India. It show Mughal weakness rather than strength here
Because, Marathas were very much keen on uprooting these Muslim nobles and having Hindu elites replace them, that is literally their main goal, why wouldn't they do it
A Token accomadation at most, especially since we literally see them not doing that in areas they were able to conqueror and have a a proper foothold in Central and Western India
New Islamic religious movements would arise and Mughal would become further Indianized, ditching Persian Culture and adopting Indian ones, it would lead much more converts to the religions
All Southern Muslim states payed tribute to the Emperor in Delhi, even though Mughal administration barely reached that far.
You keep saying this, but it didn't really happen IOTL.
What we saw is that Shivaji could not rule without Muslims, and the later Maratha Empire simply did not care for either Hindu or Muslims outside of their homeland, only caring about the loot which they could gather.
Again, not more than 5-10%, which in absolute terms is almost a hundred million people by the modern day.
Because they were already preexisting local Islamic kingdoms co-opting Mughal political power than the other way round. Mughals did not set them up
I literally showed you how it happened, especially when you factor in how many Muslim nobles replace across large parts of India by Hindus
Again, not from what we saw a Marathas did care and replace a great deal of Islamic nobles and did care alot of Hinduism, especially in places they became well established
5-10% is what the Muslim population was in Mughal India, this assumes Marathas do not engage in Widespread Hindu favoritism as well as ignoring any potential Hindu movements, something that is guaranteed under a Stable United Maratha India, good chance they will be less
This figure is mostly estimated because there was no Census in Mughal India, however few aspects were used particularly in this regard -
- Even in the earliest Census of British India, we can see that Muslims are around 19-20% and we see a gradual increase of this throughout the years, Especially regarding Provinces such a Punjab, with almost a percentage of growth each decade, ending up in almost 24-25%
- Taking that phenomenon with the fact under British, Muslim population in Provinces comparatively grew much faster than Hindu Population, best example is Punjab, which went from Equal levels of Hindu and Muslim to with over half being Muslim
- This combined with a lack of Proper Islamic Conversions in India, especially in regions like Bengal, who did not experience the population growth in Most of Modern Day Bangladesh due to forests leads to a estimate of 5-10%. At max, when if was holding more Islamized territories of Central Asia, it might have been 15% but that is about it, even those territories were not fully Islamized till 19th-20th Century, Like the region of Afghanistan called Kafirstan
Yes, they did. Without the Mughals Hyderabad and Arcot would not exist as states.
Where? Outside of their direct neighbors, the Marathas most certainly were not anti-Muslim as policy. If they were, they would not be able to rule India at the time.
What we saw is that they only cared for plunder and loot, especially in the later era.
What? Punjab was majority Muslim even under the Sikh Empire. This is wrong.
This doesn't make sense. Yes, some regions were not converted, but Punjab and Bengal were. And even though the Mughals still ruled the Hindu Heartland it never converted en masse.