Nobody’s saying that geography is the sole factor that stopped unification in the Indian subcontinent. It’s that the ideological framework was the seed that was then exacerbated by the diverse landscapes. Not to say that there aren’t parralels but they aren’t fully cognate.
One can argue that India had its own Warring States period all the way from the seeding of the Second Urbanisation in c.800 CE to the Mauryan unity under Ashoka. However compare that to the relatively short period of 200 years the Chinese Warring States lasted and we can see that there is a larger memory of disunity. And remember the Zhou dynasty had already laid the groundwork for a unified Han state prior to Qin Shi Huangdi.
One can also argue that the dismantling of the Mahajanapada system had started years before Chandragupta’s victory with Ajatshatru’s conquest of Kosala and annexation of the state into Magadha’s rising empire all the way back in 470 BC. However no sooner than his passing his son Udayina rose to the throne but was killed in battle against the forces of Avanti. His popular rule gave way to that of a tyrant known as Nagadarshaka that caused the overthrow of the dynasty in favour of the Shishunagas. Then the Nandas. Then the Mauryas. All ruling from the one city of Pataliputra, even more legitimate to the previous rulers than the Chinese dynasties were, with their own Confucius in the form of Chanakya and an extremely centralised state.
So what the hell went wrong? Two things; Ashoka pushed too far in to spiritual and not the temporal, as well as the geography of such a disparate land needing a strong centralised state. Which the Mauryan Empire no longer was after Ashoka. He let an entire generation of his successors (including his heir and spare) either become renunciates or in Kunalas case become blinded and thus illegible for rule. Dasaratha, successor of Ashoka, kept up his grandfather’s civil policies and in the process allowed the vast amount of feudatory states within the empire, something Chanakya had advocated against in the Arthashastra in the first place break away. Dasaratha’s cousin Samprati managed to stop breakaways but the damage was done.
By the time Pushyamitra Shunga took power it seemed as if the cycle was about to start again and another imperial power was about to rise from Magadha to dominate India. However that dynamic no longer existed. The Indo-Greek kingdoms had taken over the northwest. The lands of the old Asmaka, Andhra, Mulaka and Vidharba kingdoms were no longer heavily-forested, backwater regions but an industrial complex within themselves as over the years droves of Indo-Aryan speaking settlers had moved south of the Vindhyas.
So the Shungas lost their opportunity. As there was no Mandate of Heaven concept there was no longer an effort or even ability to try and unite the sub-continent. The West was ruled by Mlechchas that saw no understanding or even approval of the concept of Aryavarta. The south was a New World, almost Wild West where people could start anew. As time went on the ability to reconquer these areas continued to drop as innovations were lacking till the Guptas and population centres continued to match the imperial heartland.
That's a pretty good and detailed argument. I'm pretty much in agreement, based off the little knowledge I have in Indian history. A few details, however: The Zhou were disunited in effect long before the warring states period. The Spring and Autumn period began around 771 BC, lasting to 476 BC. So from the Spring and Autumn period to the Qin unification, that was 500 years of effective disunity. You also point to the concept of Aryavarta, which seems itself something similar to a "Mandate of Heaven", though in a somewhat more compact form. Why didn't this foster a stronger unity in what is now Northern India and Pakistan, at the very least? Even then, could not the Shishunaga and Gupta be seen as the successors of the Maurya and Nanda?
This leads me to another point. I think a lot of the time, when we are talking of the unification of China, we mean the areas of the North China Plain, Gansu, Sichuan, south to Guangdong, whereas when we talk of Indian unity, we speak of almost all of modern India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. I feel this is quite the double standard. If we were to consider, say, Manchuria, the Tarim Basin, Yunnan, Guangxi, Northern Vietnam, or Tibet "core regions" of China, then the unity of China would become laughable. Here is a list of years of unity and disunity, if we include even Manchuria, Yunnan, and the Tarim basin as integral parts of China:
Qin (221-206): Nope
Chu-Han contention (206-202)
Han (202-220): Ok, we'll give it to you, though Manchuria remained mostly out of your grasp. (422 years)
3 Kingdoms (220-280)
Western Jin (280-317): Fine, but that's really generous. (459 years)
Eastern Jin (317-420): Definite nope.
Northern and Southern Dynasties (420-581)
Sui (581-618): You failed against Goguryeo. So nope.
Tang (618-907): Nope. You didn't conquer Nanzhao. You also lost Vietnam towards the end of your reign. Did pretty well in the Tarim department though.
5 Dynasties and 10 Kingdoms (907-960)
Northern Song (960-1127): Nope
Southern Song (1127-1279): Don't kid yourself
Yuan (1271-1368): Officially, you never had the Tarim Basin or Vietnam, but I'll give it to you. (556 years)
Ming (1368-1644): Ok, fine. (832 years)
Qing (1644-1911): Yes! (excepting Vietnam...) (823 years)
Still pretty high, but not as high as some other estimates. And I haven't even included areas such as inner Mongolia, North Korea, or Tibet. Just something to keep in mind.
What I disagree with is that I think there are some (not all, but some) people here that
are implying that Geography is a sole or even major factor in unification or disunification, and using what I see as faulty logic to back this up. Granted, some arguments are quite fair, perhaps such as that of the North China plain being helpful. It's when people start throwing words like "inevitable", "pre-determined", or "someone was GOING to do it EVENTUALLY" around, or when they think it's one's duty to disprove their argument rather than for them to offer proof for such an argument that I disagree.
Still, I could be projecting some of my frustration with past threads that have trotted out these very arguments.
Again,
@Shahrasayr, I commend your argument, as I think it is well done.