alternatehistory.com

There is a striking similarity between the Holy Roman Empire of the eighteenth century and the Indian Mughal Empire of the same era. Both were decaying superstates that existed more on paper and as an idea than in reality. Both included countless small states, ruled by men whose titles originally signified minor lieutenant-governors when the Empires were strong, yet now conferred effective kingship. Both had strong religious foundations which had long since been subverted and undermined by realpolitick (the HRE was half Protestant; the Mughals' theoretical policy towards Islamic supremacy was tactfully ignored by the local rulers with many Hindu or other non-Muslim subjects).

If we carry this analogy to its logical conclusion, this means that (in the absence of European colonisation) a powerful Indian state would have risen from humble beginnings to unite most of India and exclude the former Mughal rulers - an Indian Prussia in other words.

Of course this analogy is not exact because in Germany the Hapsburgs continued to enjoy considerable power as Austria, whereas the Mughals of Delhi were puppetised by the Marathas and others, but never mind.

So which state could have united India? The two main possibilities to my mind are Mysore and Hyderabad; however, my perceptions may be tainted by the changes brought about by Europeans. Without Britain and France, for example, Arcot or Bengal could also have been contenders for the title - although Bengal remained closely aligned with Delhi for a long time. What do you think?
Top