Will A Maratha India be better for the Region?

  • Better

    Votes: 71 81.6%
  • Worse

    Votes: 16 18.4%

  • Total voters
    87
Yes they'd be totally willing to move to Iran apart from no, they wouldn't because Iran is a pretty much entirely Shia country which has had pretty much zero Sunnis being able to naturalise apart from in the Afghan parts and the Arab parts which don't have the cultural magnetism necessary to draw in large numbers of immigrants. Also, you're massively underestimating the effect of completely orthodox Sufis eg the Naqshbandis in promoting orthodox Islam and preventing apostasy. I have no idea why you think many more panjabi muslims would become sikh or that muslims in north india were basically hindu- I'm always one to look for syncretism and cultural synthesis but I see no reason why it would become outright assimilation.
In Indian Muslim, there is not much difference between Shia and Sunni Islam like the middle east, and Mughal lords are from both branches also in 18 century Muslim mostly does not care about Shia and Sunni .
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjab#Religions
If you look at this graph, it clearly shows a lot of Low caste Hindus converted to Islam in 19-20 century, there is no reason to assume it was how most muslims in subcontinent came to be, with Maratha rule, that conversion would be stopped
What about Maratha rule is it do you think, that makes conversions from Hinduism less likely than British rule? You'll note that the religion that you'd expect grew by the most, if you subscribe to the theory that local elites determine which religion people convert to is Christianity and yet that grew by around one percent, while Sikhism and Islam both grew by around 6 percent. Also are you saying that muslim population that is about a third of the subcontinents population primarily converted to Islam in the 19th century, based on a six percent increase in one province of British India?
 
In Indian Muslim, there is not much difference between Shia and Sunni Islam like the middle east, and Mughal lords are from both branches also in 18 century Muslim mostly does not care about Shia and Sunni .

That's in India- Sunnis have been largely excluded from political power in Iran since the Safavids first took power, no Sunni in his right mind is going to go looking for favourable religious conditions for high political office in Iran. And where are you getting this from that in the 18th century nobody cares about Shia and Sunni? It seems pretty baseless to me.
 

Srihari14

Banned
What about Maratha rule is it do you think, that makes conversions from Hinduism less likely than British rule? You'll note that the religion that you'd expect grew by the most, if you subscribe to the theory that local elites determine which religion people convert to is Christianity and yet that grew by around one percent, while Sikhism and Islam both grew by around 6 percent. Also are you saying that muslim population that is about a third of the subcontinents population primarily converted to Islam in the 19th century, based on a six percent increase in one province of British India?
No I am saying it is a gradual process that could be stopped and backtracked by Maratha empire
 
No I am saying it is a gradual process that could be stopped and backtracked by Maratha empire

That will require an active Maratha intervention that far away. The Marathas never did that, let alone in a far away Northern India. If all, they could have done it in the Maharashtra. But even that is absent.

If the Marathas get too interested in the religious activity then this will also affect their relationship with the Sikhs and Muslims. The Muslims of Punjab would look either too the Sikhs or the Afghans for help. The Sikhs themselves would turn as hostile as they were to the Mughal Emperor. This is isn't Spain were the population is low and controllable and the area is smaller, making it easier to get conversions of Muslims and Jews.

By the way, the Muslim Population growth might be largely provincial reorganization, migration (emigration of Hindus, immigration of Muslims) or higher Muslim birthrates. I doubt there was huge conversion from Hindus to Islam in Punjab. If anything, conversion to Christianity was the bigger among Hindus considering the growth of the Hindus.
 
By the way, I voted for worse in the poll.

From what I read from @Indicus , the Marathas had a pillage based economy, getting part of their revenues from this other than taxing. I might have read wrong but if that is the case, I'll be corrected. Being too decentralized. If the conquest of Bengal is prevented I'd give the Marathas chance to evolve in a little more centralized state. And that's when it can start to be a real state, turning out better for India than 130 years of British rule. If the conquest of Bengal is not prevented then it needs to be reversed as soon as possible. Any Alliance with the EIC is problematic for the Marathas on the long term.

P.S. If you want a unitary religion, try no religion. Nobody converts. Everybody happy. Except the clergy.
 
You could change the relationship with sunni and shia in Iran with the same pod that saves Maratha. Nader Shah doesn't get assassinated and continues undoing all of the work of the safavids. He worked hard at bringing shia back to the faith
 
By the way, I voted for worse in the poll.

From what I read from @Indicus , the Marathas had a pillage based economy, getting part of their revenues from this other than taxing. I might have read wrong but if that is the case, I'll be corrected. Being too decentralized. If the conquest of Bengal is prevented I'd give the Marathas chance to evolve in a little more centralized state. And that's when it can start to be a real state, turning out better for India than 130 years of British rule. If the conquest of Bengal is not prevented then it needs to be reversed as soon as possible. Any Alliance with the EIC is problematic for the Marathas on the long term.

P.S. If you want a unitary religion, try no religion. Nobody converts. Everybody happy. Except the clergy.
To be fair, the consequences are different depending on which iteration of the Marathas wins out- the royal period, the peshwa period or the confederacy period. It was a fairly organic transition but there was slightly less of what youre talking about in earlier periods. Nevertheless i've never had a particularly great opinion of the marathas. Throughout their history they seem like they never had the foresight to institute a proper empire and replace the Mughals, or at least not until it was too late- they preferred to be like flies biting and tearing at the body of the Mughals, weakening its authority and state power overall to get chauth. Then again, the core of the Maratha territory was remarkably well governed and centralised considering the rest of it, so if that could be rolled out everywhere, it could help- the only thing is there is no real incentive to do that rather than just plunder. The conquest of bengal is perhaps overestimated with regards to its effects on the marathas, I'd say that the real last opportunity for the marathas to do well creating a centralised state, was their defeat at the battle of Panipat, which not only destroyed their grip on the north, but proved how little Hindu powers trusted them and in one fell swoop culled some of their best commanders.
 
Top