WI - Impact of Failed Muslim Invasions of India

x'D
Instead they had a low view of the natives.

I don't get why you've decided to mock me, but I really don't get your point. Yes, people like Sikander Butshikan hated the natives (hell, he even added "iconoclast" to his name!), but how does that nullify my point that it made India more open to foreign culture? And then, the fact is that those invaders assimilated into Indian culture, while also adding new ideas to Indian culture. I suspect that an India without Islam would see stagnation much deeper than OTL. Before you jump on me, predicting that is difficult due to the large time gap.

Eh, religious problems come in more forms than Wahhabism, which is a new catch phrase that people keep repeating.

But what religious problems? Under the Mughals, conversion to Islam dropped. In fact, conversion went the other way, and was one of the causes of increasing Muslim piety in the Mughal Empire.

If you said "Delhi Sultanate", that would make sense, and I'd agree with you. But you didn't, and talked about a period in Indian history where that's just not true.

The British for all of their oppressive ways did more for infrastructure, education and public works than all the Mughals combined. Nationalist historiography in the late 19th and early 20th century needed a myth; some got it in a Golden Hindu Age, others got it in the Mughals.

I haven't heard many Indian nationalists talk about the Mughals except as oppressing the supposedly Indian nationalist Marathas.

Furthermore, I don't get your claims that the British did anything for infrastructure, education, and public works. With infrastructure, it's quite clear that the Mughals could no have built railways. After all, railways were invented in the early nineteenth century. In terms of education, the British destroyed many schools; in Punjab, according to British sources, the literacy rate was actually halved.

The Mughals, and even earlier Islamic powers, invested in public hospitals. According to Muslim Civilization in India:

Public hospitals had been provided in Muslim India, at least since the days of Firuz Tughluq (1351–1388)[...] the system seems to have been extended during the Mughal period. Jahangir states in his autobiography that on his accession to the throne he ordered the establishment, at government expense, of hospitals in large cities. That this order was actually made effective [[229]] is shown by the records of salaries paid by the government and of grants for the distribution of medicine./9/​

That's quite an achievement. Maybe native powers could have matched that, I'm not sure, but it does show that, contrary to popular belief, Muslim India was quite willing to invest in public works. If it had survived, I have no doubt we'd see public works anyways.
 

longsword14

Banned
If it had survived, I have no doubt we'd see public works anyways.
You may not, but I have plenty of them.
The Mughals were not a modern state. Their spending on public works and welfare has not been as quantified as that of the Raj which makes it easy to make as big a claim as you would wish to.
The chronicles barely tell anything of use to a modern reader other than the superficial majesty, hiding the reality under.
 
Anyways, less controversially, failed Muslim invasions would drastically alter Indian food. Samosas would not exist, falooda would simply be a Persian dish, halwa would not be an Indian dish, and jalebi would not exist. What would replace all of those foods is an interesting topic to think about.

Samosas have analogues in a lot of non-Middle Eastern cultures, so surely someone (perhaps influenced by Persians who would be in India anyway for some reason) would invent them and popularise them. In general, wouldn't some level of Persian influence exist on India since the Persian cultural world is right next door and even if they never militarily invade and conquer India, they'd still be economically influencing the region?

But in general, you're probably right. Especially in North India, this would change a ton of cultural things amongst Hindu and Muslim Indians alike. Is it lazy to assume it would be more akin to South India in culture? Like thinking of Indian classical music, there's a very noticeable relation to Persian classical music in that region, compared to Carnatic music. Without that influence, it would sound more akin to Carnatic music, but perhaps different in its own right, especially if North and South India never are united into one state.
 
The Mughals were not a modern state.

There was literally no modern state in the seventeenth century anywhere in the world.

The chronicles barely tell anything of use to a modern reader other than the superficial majesty, hiding the reality under.

That's literally applicable to every historical country ever.

Furthermore, there are indications of the reality under. For instance, I recall reading that Shah Jahan being told of a famine in Lahore by a bureaucrat, causing shock in the court because famine was a rare occasion under Mughal rule, and then he sent food supplies from across the empire to feed starving Punjabis. Compare that to famines under British rule, which were unbelievably common. Despite some sympathies from British people, nothing was ever done to resolve them.
 

longsword14

Banned
There was literally no modern state in the seventeenth century anywhere in the world.
But we do try to measure what came after by that stick.
That's literally applicable to every historical country ever.
The Mughals keep being brought into discussion for somehow being different; if only the Mughals had remained in power....
 
Last edited:
No, but we do try to measure what came after by that stick.

No, but the Mughals keep being brought into discussion for somehow being different; if only the Mughals had remained in power....

Are you saying "no, that's not true", or "no, that's true"? The former is proper English, but Indian English speakers often use no to mean the latter.
 
Returning to the original question of the OP... the reason for the relative ease with which the Muslim conquest of the subcontinent came to happen has been the subject of much debate, but basically the various North Indian kingdoms had been weakened by continuous inter state fighting which meant that the military superiority of the Turko-Muslim raiders became pretty much unstoppable. Find a way to unify the native kingdoms of the Gangetic plain before the invasion of the slave dynasties in the 12th century and you'll have the basis for, amongst other things, a surviving Buddhist population in India.

Butterflies will be massive. Sikhism might not develop at all without the advent of Islamic states, the lack of a centralising force seated on the Gangetic plain could mean we see no unified India before (if) the Europeans start to mow in. However, keeping the Muslims out completely might be difficult. Even if a native kingdom was capable of resisting the Ghurids and Ghaznavids that's no guarantee that it can withstand the eventual onslaught of the Mongols...

Instead they had a low view of the natives.

It's the medieval/early modern period. Of course people are going to act like dicks when it comes to religion. However, it is a fact that once the Turks had had their fill of annual raiding parties across the Hindu Kush and settled on the Gangetic plain whilst taking on the mantle of rulers and administrators the natives were treated as protected peoples like the Jews and the Christians. Basically the Hindus were allowed to practice their religion freely as long as they paid a special tax, which, however, also meant that they were exempt from military service. Furthermore, the general impression of the Turkic conquest was that of the advent of a new ruling caste that besides doing just that (ruling) was pretty peripheral to the daily lives of the average Indian as local power structures were allowed to remain in place as long as the local rajahs paid tribute to the centre. It's not a Disney-esque ecumenical world, but compare the religious attitudes of the Turkic governing elite with that of contemporary western Europe and it's pretty obvious where the lowest opinion of the religious other came to bear....

The Mughals, and even earlier Islamic powers, invested in public hospitals. According to Muslim Civilization in India:

Not only that, but the advent of the Delhi Sultanate actually seemed to have a net positive effect on the economy as the raided wealth of the many temples were put to more productive uses while the new Muslim governing caste was eager to employ skilled workers which meant more opportunities for the manual labourers of the lower and casteless natives.

No, but we do try to measure what came after by that stick.

I do not understand this statement. Please elaborate.
 
Find a way to unify the native kingdoms of the Gangetic plain before the invasion of the slave dynasties in the 12th century and you'll have the basis for, amongst other things, a surviving Buddhist population in India.

So, would a good POD be the Rajputs getting their shit together, so to speak? I've felt that the Rajputs held real potential to dominate India. In a way they did under Mughal rule, but that's not a native Rajput dynasty, even if there are some real similarities between Mughals and Rajputs like being descended from Central Asian invaders and claiming descent from celestial objects. But I digress.

If the Rajputs got their shit together before the rise of the Ghurids, they'd be facing a real threat.

Sikhism might not develop at all without the advent of Islamic states

Not just Sikhism. Here is the source @Indicus used, and it offers some rather interesting points about religion in medieval India. From this chapter:

One of the earliest of the religious leaders, and probably the most influential, was Kabir. His dates are uncertain, some scholars giving his birth date as 1398, and some as late as 1440, but it is generally agreed that he flourished in the middle of the fifteenth century. There has also been much controversy concerning his religious origins, but it is quite certain that he was born into a Muslim family. The names of Kabir and Kamal, his son, are both Islamic. According to the popular Tazkirah-i-Auliya-i-Hind (Lives of Muslim Saints), he was a disciple of the Muslim Sufi, Shaikh Taqi. A further indication of his Muslim origin is that his grave at Maghar has always been in the keeping of Muslims. But Kabir was above all a religious radical who denounced with equal zest the narrowness of Islamic and Hindu sectarianism. According to one tradition he was a disciple of Ramananda, the great mystic who is credited with the spread of bhakti doctrines in North India. That Ramananda himself was influenced by Islam is not certain, but his willingness to admit men of all castes, including Islam, as his disciples, suggests the possibility of this. The right conclusion seems to be that Kabir was a Muslim Sufi who, having come under Ramananda's influence, accepted some Hindu ideas and tried to reconcile Hinduism and Islam. However it was the Hindus, and particularly those of the lower classes, to whom his message appealed.

With many of his works not available for study, and serious doubts [[127]] existing about the genuineness of others, it is difficult to assess Kabir properly, but there is no difference of opinion about the general tenor of his writings. He often uses Hindu religious nomenclature, and is equally at home in Hindu and Muslim religious thought, but there is no doubt that one of the most salient features of his teachings is denunciation of polytheism, idolatry, and caste. But he is equally unsparing in his condemnation of Muslim formalism, and he made no distinction between what was sane and holy in the teachings of Hinduism and Islam. He was a true seeker after God, and did his best to break the barriers that separated Hindus from Muslims. What has appealed to the millions of his followers through the ages, however, is his passionate conviction that he had found the pathway to God, a pathway accessible to the lowest as well as the highest. That he has in the course of time become a saint of the Hindus rather than of the Muslims is a reflection of the temper of Hinduism, which finds it easier than Islam to bring new sects and doctrines within its spiritual hegemony.

The second great religious leader whose work shows undoubted Islamic influence is Guru Nanak (1469–1539). The Sikh religion, of which Nanak was the founder, is noted for its militant opposition to Islam, but this is largely a product of historical circumstances in the seventeenth century. Nanak's own aim was to unite both Hindu and Muslim through an appeal to what he considered the great central truths of both. He acknowledged Kabir as his spiritual teacher, and their teachings are very similar. His debt to Islam is shown in his rigorous insistence on the will and majesty of God, while the underlying structure of his thought, with its tendency to postulate a unity that comprehends all things, suggests his Hindu inheritance. Accompanied by two companions, one a Muslim and the other a Hindu, he wandered throughout North India and, according to some accounts, to Arabia, preaching his simple gospel. The followers he gained became, in the course of a century, a separate religious community, but the Sikh scriptures, of which Nanak's sayings provide the core, are a reminder of the attempt to bridge the gap between Hinduism and Islam.

Dadu (1544–1603) was the third of the religious leaders through [[128]] whose teachings Islamic ideas found wide currency among non-Muslims. While he does not belong chronologically in a survey of the early interaction of Hinduism and Islam, since he lived into the seventeenth century, his membership in a Kabir sect makes a brief consideration of his career useful. Furthermore, his biography shows the same process at work that is seen in the accounts of the life of Kabir. Dadu is stated by his later followers to have been the son of a Nagar Brahman, but recent researches have shown that he was born in a family of Muslim cotton-carders. This is borne out by his own works and the fact that all the members of his family have Muslim names: his father's name was Lodi, his mother's, Basiran; his sons were Garib and Miskin and his grandson, Faqir. His teacher was Shaikh Budhan, a Muslim saint of the Qadri order. The early Hindu followers of Dadu were not disturbed by the knowledge that he was a Muslim by birth, but later ones were. The legend of his Brahmanical origin made its first appearance in a commentary on the Bhaktamala, written as late as 1800. It is said that until recent times documents existed at the monasteries of the followers of Dadu which suggested that he had been a Muslim, but that these were destroyed by the keepers who were unwilling to admit that his origins were not Hindu./2/

The metamorphosis which the life story and teachings of Kabir and Dadu have undergone is not merely the work of those who were anxious to secure for their heroes high lineage and a link with Hinduism; it is symptomatic of the general movement of separation that became common in both Islam and Hinduism in later centuies. As the Muslims grew more orthodox, they turned away from men such as Kabir and Dadu, while the Hindus accepted them as saints, but forgot their Islamic origins. In order to conform to the requirements of the Hindu bhakti tradition, they have undergone a transformation that at times necessitates a falsification of history. Two poet-saints who are clearly in the Hindu bhakti tradition but show traces of Islamic influence are Namadeva and Tukaram, the great religious figures of the Maratha country. Namadeva, who lived in the late fourteenth or early fifteenth century, used a number of Persian and Arabic words, suggesting that even at this early time the influence of Islam [[129]] was felt by a man, in a remote area of the country, whose only concern seems to have been with religion. The writings of Tukaram (1598–1649), the greatest of the Marathi poets, contain many obvious references to Islam, such as the following:​

So, without Islam, religion, including Islam, is radically different. An entire stream of Bhakti Hinduism simply does not exist. Bhakti thought was spreading from South India well before the birth of Muhammad, but its pattern, as well as its very nature, will be very different.
 
Simple. India would be substantially more wealthy and less Muslim. The British would invade outright earlier and India would gain independence unpartitioned. There may be less historic royalty without the invasions.

The British? Maybe it is time to expel people for mass murder of butterflies? I am really tired of this ignorance!
 

longsword14

Banned
I do not understand this statement. Please elaborate.
That was for Indicus. People keep repeating how harmful British rule was compared to what was before by using methods that should only be applied to a modern state, yet when it comes to the Mughals they do not use the same methods. They were not a bunch of enlightened despots ala Frederick the Great, just the standard fare.
 
They were not a bunch of enlightened despots ala Frederick the Great,

Enlightened despotism didn't exist in the seventeenth century. You're basing the Mughals on standards of rulers of the late eighteenth century, which is quite laughable.
 

longsword14

Banned
You're basing the Mughals on standards of rulers of the late eighteenth century, which is quite laughable.
Follow the discussion carefully. The original comment was for Indicus, who keeps insisting that the Mughals were somehow better than the British in their administration.
He goes about this reasoning by using standards which we would use for modern states or at least for their immediate precursors. This is to remind that the Mughals were not better, and by the standards applied to judge the Raj fall far behind.
 
Follow the discussion carefully. The original comment was for Indicus, who keeps insisting that the Mughals were somehow better than the British in their administration.
He goes about this reasoning by using standards which we would use for modern states or at least for their immediate precursors. This is to remind that the Mughals were not better, and by the standards applied to judge the Raj fall far behind.

To what extent can you really compare a seventeenth-century country to a nineteenth-century colony? I really have no idea. This whole comparison is flawed as they really can't be compared.

The biggest thing with the Mughals is that, while their rulers often held God complexes, what with Akbar believing he himself was God, they did quite a bit of good. I had no idea that Mughal India had public hospitals; I really need to research on that, though unfortunately the source Indicus gave doesn't elaborate. And I had no idea Hinduism actually converted people under Mughal rule, including nobility; I thought that the Mughals would have surely executed Hindu converters.

Damn, I really do need to learn more on the Mughal Empire. Indicus shows that they are really interesting, and I need to learn more about them.
 
As soon as the Industrial Revolution took off, no amount of adoption could handle it.

Nope, simply stating that the BEIC rule was not imposed by the removal of some benevolent enlightened despot.

Which is why every country other than Britain failed to industrialize right? :rolleyes:

You are literally using standard colonial apologia cliches. You even mention "but the British built railroads!!!" which is like the colonial apologist cliche to top all colonial apologist cliches. Even the most uneducated people will jump to that when they try to argue for the "benefits" of colonialism. Not to mention that nobody in this thread was even calling the Mughals enlightened despots. You appear to be arguing against a straw-man?

Elaborate ?

The entire point of British rule was to render India a subservient resource pool to enrich the British metro-pole. Various Indian states were engaging in wide ranging reforms to modernize before the British took over and wiped that clean. Tipu Sultan for example had a fiscal military state with an administration and army on par with those of Europe. He had the incentives to do things like enacting policies to protect and nurture Mysorean industries. The British had substantial incentives to prevent competition from developing elsewhere. You can see this in British Egypt as well when Cromer destroyed the Egyptian sugar industry by applying an 8% tax on sugar production to counter the 8% import duty which left Egyptian sugar unable to compete with heavily subsidized European sugar. You also see it in colonial Latin America where the Spanish deliberately suppressed the textile industry in order to keep Spanish America as a captive market for Spanish textiles.

No, but we do try to measure what came after by that stick.

No, but the Mughals keep being brought into discussion for somehow being different; if only the Mughals had remained in power....

Follow the discussion carefully. The original comment was for Indicus, who keeps insisting that the Mughals were somehow better than the British in their administration.
He goes about this reasoning by using standards which we would use for modern states or at least for their immediate precursors. This is to remind that the Mughals were not better, and by the standards applied to judge the Raj fall far behind.

I'm genuinely starting to be unsure that you even understand the inherent differences between colonial rule and metropolitan rule. Can you explain the difference in the incentives of colonial railroads and metropolitan railroads?
 
So, would a good POD be the Rajputs getting their shit together, so to speak? I've felt that the Rajputs held real potential to dominate India. In a way they did under Mughal rule, but that's not a native Rajput dynasty, even if there are some real similarities between Mughals and Rajputs like being descended from Central Asian invaders and claiming descent from celestial objects. But I digress.

If the Rajputs got their shit together before the rise of the Ghurids, they'd be facing a real threat.

The military skills and traditions of the united Rajputs might be the most plausible ground work for a state resisting the Turkic invaders. However, I'm not certain how plausible it is. The Turkic conquerors became conquerors precisely because of their mastery of cavalry warfare and because they kept on honing those skills. This was also the reason they managed to repulse of the Mongols when they came calling - so in a way, the Delhi Sultanate saved the peoples of Northern India from the horrors of the Mongol onslaught :p

That was for Indicus. People keep repeating how harmful British rule was compared to what was before by using methods that should only be applied to a modern state, yet when it comes to the Mughals they do not use the same methods. They were not a bunch of enlightened despots ala Frederick the Great, just the standard fare.

If that's your attitude you clearly know nothing about the Mughals.
 
so in a way, the Delhi Sultanate saved the peoples of Northern India from the horrors of the Mongol onslaught :p

Speaking of the Mongols, what's the plausibility of them invading India, converting to Hinduism after the breakup of the India portion into a "Delhi Khanate", and essentially being an assimilated band of Central Asians like the Rajputs?
 
You clearly have not been following the discussion, which was aimed at Indicus.

Clearly I have. Or do you mean to imply that your statement regarding the Mughals being a standard fare autocratic regime is somehow only for Indicus to refute? Queer choice of misinformed argumentation then.

Speaking of the Mongols, what's the plausibility of them invading India, converting to Hinduism after the breakup of the India portion into a "Delhi Khanate", and essentially being an assimilated band of Central Asians like the Rajputs?

If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say it'd be more likely for them to settle into the already existing Turkic administration - which would probably pave the way for conversion to Islam. But it's an intriguing thought for sure.
 
The most obvious POD would be for Islam to be curtailed in Central Asia. Butterflying Muhammad would be the simplest way of getting this, but you could also posit the early Caliphate having less success in conquering Persia, or Caliphal rule being overturned before a critical mass of Persians had converted to Islam*.

Central Asia was a hodgepodge of religions before Islamization- Buddhists, Christians, Manicheans, Zoroastrians, native religions. So it's possible that a Mughal analogue would favour one of those faiths instead- of course it's also possible that they'd have a pragmatic mindset and assimilate into the dominant Hindu culture, much as the Western Mongols converted to Islam or the Yuan Mongols and Manchus assimilated into the Chinese elite.

I do wonder if an Indian empire with a native/Hindu identity might develop hermit tendencies similar to those of Ming/Qing China? The Mughal empire's wealth and population was comparable to China's, and presumably not inherently less self-sufficient...

*If one of the latter two scenarios, then you'll still see a Muslim presence in India courtesy of Arab merchants. But certainly not a dominant force in India.
 
Top