WI: No Abbasid Revolution/Failure of Revolution

Would Afghan Buddhism survive in some capacity? I suppose the Zun faith was eliminated with the invasions very quickly so won't see a resurgence what with it lacking its primary patron dynasty, so Buddhism and Hinduism can take hold there again? What about Sindh if Iran revolts? I can't see a Zoroastrian revolt since the few that happened were very small in numbers and had the character of peasant revolts as I understand , not very much supported by Muslim ruling classes.
 
Guess the question is how much the byzantines can exploit it and the fate of the turkic tribes religion

My thought is that, without Islam to have them see the west in reverence, the Turks would focus their energies towards the rich Indian kingdoms, conquering much of the north.

However, these Turks would not be very Persianized, and thus would not export Persian culture to India as they did IOTL. Rather, they would convert from the many religions they had upon arrival to Shaivite Hinduism, and would substantially Indianize over the course of many generations. I think these Indian Turks would be a warrior class like the Rajputs (in fact, one theory on the formation of the Rajputs is that they were Hepthalites who were Indianized after a few generations), except larger and with a more spread-out homeland.
 
Would Afghan Buddhism survive in some capacity? I suppose the Zun faith was eliminated with the invasions very quickly so won't see a resurgence what with it lacking its primary patron dynasty, so Buddhism and Hinduism can take hold there again? What about Sindh if Iran revolts? I can't see a Zoroastrian revolt since the few that happened were very small in numbers and had the character of peasant revolts as I understand , not very much supported by Muslim ruling classes.

Zun faith? As far as we know, Zun was just a local form of Shiva. We really don't know much about it. But I think Zun would be a local Afghan Hindu god.

I do think Afghan Buddhism would survive, and I'd go as far as to say that it would syncretize with Hinduism.
 
Would Afghan Buddhism survive in some capacity? I suppose the Zun faith was eliminated with the invasions very quickly so won't see a resurgence what with it lacking its primary patron dynasty, so Buddhism and Hinduism can take hold there again? What about Sindh if Iran revolts? I can't see a Zoroastrian revolt since the few that happened were very small in numbers and had the character of peasant revolts as I understand , not very much supported by Muslim ruling classes.

The worship of Zun actually survived the Islamic invasions into Afghanistan by holding out in a series of strongholds into the mid Abbasid period. Zun worshippers undoubtedly existed until the mid 900s or slightly later.
 
Ummayad invasion was a huge blow to "idol worship" in Afghanistan (but not in Sindh until Abbasid times IIRC) so that could make a return, but I expect Buddhism and Hinduism to have a greater influence and population in terms of the faithful.

Also, Buddhism and Hinduism have always had a lot of interplay and philosophical exchange and co-evolution so talking about "syncretism" between the two is a bit superfluous. Though it stands to reason that religious development will be different in Afghanistan and India respectively, perhaps Afghanistan will still receive some good bit of Islamic influence.

Also, what is the onus for the Turks to cross the Hindu Kush barring previous Islamic incursion and toehold in India already, many under Muslim Turkic dynasts?
 
Also, Buddhism and Hinduism have always had a lot of interplay and philosophical exchange and co-evolution so talking about "syncretism" between the two is a bit superfluous. Though it stands to reason that religious development will be different in Afghanistan and India respectively, perhaps Afghanistan will still receive some good bit of Islamic influence.

I know that. In reaction to Buddhism, Hinduism made him an avatar of Vishnu, and he was an important figure in Hinduism for a long time.

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (VI said:
The world is a fire of sacrifice, the sun its fuel, sunbeams its smoke, the day its flames, the points of the compass its cinders and sparks. In this fire the gods offer faith as libation. Out of this offering King Moon is born.

Rain, oh Gautama, is the fire, the year its fuel, the clouds its smoke, the lightning its flame, cinders, sparks. In this fire the gods offer King Moon as libation. Out of this offering the rain is born.

The world, oh Gautama, is the fire, the earth its fuel, fire its smoke, the night its flame, the moon its cinders, the stars its sparks. In this fire the gods offer rain as libation. Out of this offering food is produced.

Man, oh Gautama, is the fire, his open mouth its fuel, his breath its smoke, his speech its flame, his eye its cinders, his ear its sparks. In this fire the gods offer food as libation. Out of this offering the power of generation is born.

Woman, oh Gautama, is the fire, her form its fuel, her hair its smoke, her organs its flame, her pleasures its cinders and its sparks. In this flame the gods offer the power of generation as libation. Out of this offering a man is born. He lives for so long as he is to live.

When a man dies, he is carried to be offered in the fire. The fire becomes his fire, the fuel his fuel, the smoke his smoke, the flame his flame, the cinders his cinders, the sparks his sparks. In this fire the gods offer the man as libation. Out of this offering the man emerges in radiant splendor.

But my point was that the Buddha's importance would not recede within Hinduism. IOTL, in reaction to the growth of Islam, Hinduism (through the Bhakti sects) became more monotheistic, seeing the gods as one. There are plenty of Hindu sects that see all the gods as merely forms of Vishnu and Shiva, and others that have an entirely separate and shapeless deity ("Bhagwan") to act as God in the singular sense. ITTL, the Kashmir Vale, long the centre of both Buddhism and Shaivite Hinduism, would not be Islamified, meaning a stronger Buddhism (as well as worship of Shiva as the supreme god, but that's a whole other story).

Afghanistan probably would have significant Islamic influence as you're saying, but that's no different from Sindh. And Afghanistan would likely have different religious development than India, but it would be more similar to Indian religions than, say, the Malay and Indonesian archipelago (which would probably remain Hindu-Buddhist ITTL).

Also, what is the onus for the Turks to cross the Hindu Kush barring previous Islamic incursion and toehold in India already, many under Muslim Turkic dynasts?

Attraction to India's wealth, mostly. Bear in mind that India saw Central Asian invasions like the Hepthalites and the Scythians even before Central Asia was Islamicized, and in fact, as a result of these invasions, worship of Shiva spread into Central Asia for a while.
 
Ummayad invasion was a huge blow to "idol worship" in Afghanistan (but not in Sindh until Abbasid times IIRC) so that could make a return, but I expect Buddhism and Hinduism to have a greater influence and population in terms of the faithful.

Also, Buddhism and Hinduism have always had a lot of interplay and philosophical exchange and co-evolution so talking about "syncretism" between the two is a bit superfluous. Though it stands to reason that religious development will be different in Afghanistan and India respectively, perhaps Afghanistan will still receive some good bit of Islamic influence.

Also, what is the onus for the Turks to cross the Hindu Kush barring previous Islamic incursion and toehold in India already, many under Muslim Turkic dynasts?

Why did Alexander try to conquer India?

Why did Tamerlane?

It's rich and just across the border. You don't need religion to go raiding (and if you've got constant raids you tend to get conquest dynasties every now and then) though it helps salve the conscience.
 
But my point was that the Buddha's importance would not recede within Hinduism. IOTL, in reaction to the growth of Islam, Hinduism (through the Bhakti sects) became more monotheistic, seeing the gods as one. There are plenty of Hindu sects that see all the gods as merely forms of Vishnu and Shiva, and others that have an entirely separate and shapeless deity ("Bhagwan") to act as God in the singular sense. ITTL, the Kashmir Vale, long the centre of both Buddhism and Shaivite Hinduism, would not be Islamified, meaning a stronger Buddhism (as well as worship of Shiva as the supreme god, but that's a whole other story).

Afghanistan probably would have significant Islamic influence as you're saying, but that's no different from Sindh. And Afghanistan would likely have different religious development than India, but it would be more similar to Indian religions than, say, the Malay and Indonesian archipelago (which would probably remain Hindu-Buddhist ITTL).

The trend towards monism - and even monotheism, you could argue - in Hinduism is very ancient, back to the period of the Vedas and Upanishads, and at least one author argues that that is from a common source in Mesopotamia and that it influenced Greek monism, and thus western monism, in turn by way of the Achaemenid empire bridging both areas. Islamic monotheism can be said to come from India ultimately. Whether or not the Bhakti movement and similar stronger expressions of Hindu monotheism arose in direct response to Islamic encroach in India is contestable, but there is probably something to it. I believe the monistic thread in Hinduism will remain as it did long before Islam, but perhaps the strongest expressions of monotheism would be more subdued, or if they do arise their trajectories will be different, perhaps more influential in their own capacity.

So whether or not Buddhism is stronger it will have to deal with that different Hinduism, and in Afghanistan with Islam as well.

Attraction to India's wealth, mostly. Bear in mind that India saw Central Asian invasions like the Hepthalites and the Scythians even before Central Asia was Islamicized, and in fact, as a result of these invasions, worship of Shiva spread into Central Asia for a while.

With Turkics likely a lot less Islamicized ITTL it's probable that many of them will take up Buddhism (IMO rather than Shaivism or Vaishnavism), even then they'll have to go through Afghanistan and Iran to get to the point where they can stage a large enough invasion of India and gain territory there. If Iran is not fully Islamicized, and Afghanistan is still Buddhist with Hindu influence, a Buddhist Turkic invasion will unite Central Asia under Dharmic influence. That would happen even if the Turks are pagan when they invade as they'll likely take up Buddhism in time if they manage to establish suzerainty over Buddhist Afghanistan.
 
With Turkics likely a lot less Islamicized ITTL it's probable that many of them will take up Buddhism (IMO rather than Shaivism or Vaishnavism), even then they'll have to go through Afghanistan and Iran to get to the point where they can stage a large enough invasion of India and gain territory there. If Iran is not fully Islamicized, and Afghanistan is still Buddhist with Hindu influence, a Buddhist Turkic invasion will unite Central Asia under Dharmic influence. That would happen even if the Turks are pagan when they invade as they'll likely take up Buddhism in time if they manage to establish suzerainty over Buddhist Afghanistan.

I think Turks will remain members of a huge number of religions - there will be no one religion that dominates - but, wherever they migrate, they will convert to the local religion. I feel they'd migrate to India, so they'd be Hindus. But if they migrated to Anatolia as OTL (not likely), they'd probably convert to Chaldeconian Christianity.

It's possible that, after the dust settles and the migrations stopped, the Turks that remain in Central Asia convert to Buddhism. But that would take a long time, about as long as it took for the Mongols to convert to Buddhism IOTL.
 
I think Turks will remain members of a huge number of religions - there will be no one religion that dominates - but, wherever they migrate, they will convert to the local religion. I feel they'd migrate to India, so they'd be Hindus. But if they migrated to Anatolia as OTL (not likely), they'd probably convert to Chaldeconian Christianity.

It's possible that, after the dust settles and the migrations stopped, the Turks that remain in Central Asia convert to Buddhism. But that would take a long time, about as long as it took for the Mongols to convert to Buddhism IOTL.

Migration to - or invasion of - India must be preceded by invasion of Afghanistan. And migration to Anatolia presupposes invasion of Iran and Mesopotamia. In the former scenario the Turks will probably adopt Buddhism quick before they attempt further incursions into India, and I don't see them becoming Hindus for a long time since they'll be the elite culture (and would love to differentiate between themselves and the subject Hindus) and Buddhism is of a far more proselytizing character than most Hindu sects. So while Central Asian Turks will probably be mostly pagan and some Buddhists, the Turks who invade India will likely be Buddhists and would remain Buddhist. Whether the Buddhist Turks invade Iran and reach as far west as Anatolia is anyone's question, but that allows for an interesting scenario in terms of different faiths influencing each other directly.

So the Turks pick up whatever form of Buddhism that survives in Afghanistan and stay that way if they conquer any deeper into the subcontinent. Turkic ruled India would be characterized with a Buddhist ruling class separated from the ruled subjects by culture and language (and faith, if the majority of subjects are Hindu) just like IOTL in many ways.

The overall timeframe of how it goes down will be different since we won't have the dynamic of Turkic warrior-slaves taking over Persianate Islamic dynasties. They'll likely be slower movement into Afghanistan and Khwarezm due to lower demand of Turkic horsemen as mercenaries, but it may also be quicker if there were an outright conquest by some Turkic warlord. Then some Turkic state can adopt Afghan Buddhism and start raiding deeper into India.

Since Khwarezm never becomes Muslim and is overrun by pagan Turks in this scenario, it is likely that it becomes a melting pot of different faiths over time including Buddhism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism (and Manichaeism, which arose as a melding of ideas from all those faiths) and Islam, plus an ethnic mix of Turkic and Iranic groups. Likely it will be mostly under Turkic rulership, though.

The cultural identity of Turkic dynasties in Central Asia will be very fluid, allowing for a lot of syncretism, and likely the religion of the rulers will switch from generation to generation. In Afghanistan and India there'll probably be more stricture in terms of faith and cultural identity for any ruling Turkic dynasty, but there'll be no precedent of a prestige culture as per OTL (i.e Islamic Persian culture & language) in the region, so Turkic language and Buddhist faith will probably be the norm for any ruling dynasties there.
 
In the former scenario the Turks will probably adopt Buddhism quick before they attempt further incursions into India

Or they'd just pass Afghanistan entirely, but this is possible as well.

and I don't see them becoming Hindus for a long time since they'll be the elite culture (and would love to differentiate between themselves and the subject Hindus) and Buddhism is of a far more proselytizing character than most Hindu sects.

I think separating Buddhism and Hinduism like that is not correct. A hard distinction between Hinduism and Buddhism didn't exist. For instance, Emperor Ashoka is documented as having constructed temples to Shiva, all while being a Buddhist, and in Southeast Asia, Buddhism and Hinduism syncretized to the point that, even today, one of the few temples to Brahma is in Thailand, of all places.

29245117-Beautiful-golden-Brahma-statue-at-Thai-temple-Thailand-Stock-Photo.jpg


And in the Hinduism of the period, the Buddha likely had a larger role. This could mean that, if the Indian Turks adopt Buddhism in Afghanistan, they could become more and more Hindu as the generations continue.

That said, in your scenario, Buddhism would see a post-Harsha revival in India, which would be pretty interesting.

But I have to say, the ruling class being separated by culture and language is where you lose me. Being separated by religion is possible, but by language? I think OTL shows the degree by which that has occurred with the Turks - the only place where they actually exported their culture is Anatolia, but even there, the Turkish people aren't ethnically Turkish - they're ethnically Greek.

Without having been Persianized before going to India, I think these Turks would be Indian in culture. Even IOTL, the Mughals (who were Persianate Turks) went heavily Indian - this effect would be greatly Indianized with "pure" Turks. Conquerors of India, from the Greeks to the Turks, have all been culturally assimilated - I don't see why Buddhist Turks would be any different.
 
Last edited:
That being said; if the Umayyads stop fighting wars that it cannot sustain, it should be able to hold many of these lands for longer. Do not count out Islam in this scenario. One possibility is smaller Arab states surviving the Umayyad like Greek successor states, who go on to war with one another and or invade into India or Europe.
 
Or they'd just pass Afghanistan entirely, but this is possible as well.

The main invasion route into India from the Central Asian steppes is through Afghanistan and the Hindu Kush region. A big centre for Buddhism, so I don't see why the Turks wouldn't raid and conquer the region and become Buddhist before staging any significant invasions into India. It's not the whole of Afghanistan but it is a significant region.

I think separating Buddhism and Hinduism like that is not correct. A hard distinction between Hinduism and Buddhism didn't exist. For instance, Emperor Ashoka is documented as having constructed temples to Shiva, all while being a Buddhist, and in Southeast Asia, Buddhism and Hinduism syncretized to the point that, even today, one of the few temples to Brahma is in Thailand, of all places.

29245117-Beautiful-golden-Brahma-statue-at-Thai-temple-Thailand-Stock-Photo.jpg

Actually there was a clear separation between communities that considered themselves Buddhist and communities that were Hindu. Remember these different faiths (Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism) were all in competition for converts and had different views of karma and social organization, the former two deemphasized the Brahmanic varna-karma correlation and Jainism abolished kshatriya ideals entirely. In communal terms, these were separate belief systems with their own clergy and lay communities, even though they shared a great deal of their philosophical / theological frameworks.

They'd probably be more amenable to the Brahmins as a sort of scholarly and administrative class which wouldn't directly challenge the authority of the Turkic. In which case the Indic languages could remain the language of administration while Turkic would be the language spoken by the elites amongst themselves, and the Turkic languages would be written in a Brahmi based script as opposed to the Old Turkic one. Inscriptions or whatnot would likely be in Turkic and Indic languages.

It is also possible that the Buddhist Turks build up a Buddhist learned class as their administrators but that would take time, unlike the Turks of OTL they wouldn't be able to import Persian courtiers and ulema types (though perhaps they could from Afghanistan? Remember, the Ummayads brought in an administrative dynasty from Buddhist Afghanistan though the name escapes me).

And in the Hinduism of the period, the Buddha likely had a larger role. This could mean that, if the Indian Turks adopt Buddhism in Afghanistan, they could become more and more Hindu as the generations continue.

Jesus has a role in Islam and Adam and Abraham have a role in all the Judaic religions, still in socio-political terms they were all different in how they saw themselves as communities and as belief systems. I think that if the Buddhist Turks establish themselves in India they'd ignore a lot of old Vedic Aryan cultural markers or change it to their advantage to clearly demarcate between them - the elites - and the Indian subject population. Obviously they'd care little of the kshatriya caste and would like to topple them for their status as the Indian warrior nobility, probably install themselves as the new elite as the Aryans of old did on IVC caste system.

But I have to say, the ruling class being separated by culture and language is where you lose me. Being separated by religion is possible, but by language? I think OTL shows the degree by which that has occurred with the Turks - the only place where they actually exported their culture is Anatolia, but even there, the Turkish people aren't ethnically Turkish - they're ethnically Greek.

Turks who invaded India brought in Turkic as an elite language and Persian as courtly languages. I'm not saying that they'd Turkicize India like Anatolia (which happened due to a mass migration of Turks due to Mongol pressures) but that they'd have their own language as the the tongue of nobility, and Pali or Sanskrit would be the courtly / administrative language, and the subjects would speak their local Indic languages. By this way the new Turk rulers would create a new class system in which they're clearly different and, as they would think, superior to everyone below them because they speak the language and carry over the practices of a conquering culture.

Without having been Persianized before going to India, I think these Turks would be Indian in culture. Even IOTL, the Mughals (who were Persianate Turks) went heavily Indian - this effect would be greatly Indianized with "pure" Turks. Conquerors of India, from the Greeks to the Turks, have all been culturally assimilated - I don't see why Buddhist Turks would be any different.

In Babur's time the cultural dynamics of the Mughal elite was very much like that of the Timurid empire, with the highest elites being actually Turco-Mongol in culture, but far less than in Timur or his predecessors time. In this scenario a much stronger current of Turkic elite culture would persist like it did with Hellenic invaders of India, with the Turkic language persisting as an elite language and on coinage and inscriptions, but the Indianizing process would definitely be there as you say. I don't see a complete assimilation for the Turkic elites as possible, since their incentive would be to remain as distinct from their subjects and as connected to their conquering forefathers as possible. Meaning that they'd likely keep on importing Turkic warriors from the steppes to keep the Turkic warrior class in power, as well as preserving the old Turkic cultural practices. Just like the Mughals would keep on bringing in people from back in the Ferghana area. Think of it as Normans ruling Britain or the Outremer in the Levant, both imported elites from their original areas.
 
The main invasion route into India from the Central Asian steppes is through Afghanistan and the Hindu Kush region. A big centre for Buddhism, so I don't see why the Turks wouldn't raid and conquer the region and become Buddhist before staging any significant invasions into India. It's not the whole of Afghanistan but it is a significant region.

I see no reason why they'd spend a great deal of time there. It's not very wealthy in relation to India, and their real goal would be invading India. Maybe a few Turks do convert, but by and large they remain largely members of their many religions. But I think you want Buddhist Turks, so to get that, I think you're going to want the Turks to go through the other great centre of Buddhism - Kashmir. So, let's say that the Turks go from Afghanistan into Gilgit-Baltistan and into the Kashmir Valley. Then, I think there's a large chance of Buddhist Turks.

Remember these different faiths (Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism) were all in competition for converts and had different views of karma and social organization, the former two deemphasized the Brahmanic varna-karma correlation and Jainism abolished kshatriya ideals entirely.

Agreed, but I think having Buddhist Turks in a land where the Buddha is a great Hindu figure really does open them to at least pay lip service to Hinduism. Remember, Buddhism is more of a philosophy than a religion. Even IOTL, you saw a great deal of syncretism between Hinduism and Islam. The most notable example of this is Sikhism, but most of the Mughals were borderline heretics, and Indo-Islamic culture as a whole is Indian culture with a bit more Persian influence.

And, if Buddhism does make an upswing, I do think the result would be that the Buddha's role in Hinduism is increased; when Bhakti spreads north, you could even see Buddhist Bhaktism alongside Krishnaist Bhaktism and Rama-ist Bhaktism. Hinduism adapts to every invader, and I think the Turks would be no different.

They'd probably be more amenable to the Brahmins as a sort of scholarly and administrative class which wouldn't directly challenge the authority of the Turkic.

I agree with that, but in order to make the Brahmins serve them loyally, I think, again, they'd need to pay lip service at the very least to Hinduism - which isn't very hard. All they have to do is go to a temple and pretend to pray there. It would be far easier for them to do this while still being seen as loyal Buddhists than OTL's Muslim Turks.

In which case the Indic languages could remain the language of administration while Turkic would be the language spoken by the elites amongst themselves, and the Turkic languages would be written in a Brahmi based script as opposed to the Old Turkic one. Inscriptions or whatnot would likely be in Turkic and Indic languages.

I doubt it. Even the holy texts of the Buddhists are written in Sanskrit and the Prakrits. The first few generations would likely be Turkic-speaking, but I think down the line you'll have Akbar-like people - well-schooled in native culture, and believe themselves to be Indians. Now, you'd still see Turkic spoken by a lot of Turks, but its role is going to greatly recede over the generations as the Turks become more Indian.

Jesus has a role in Islam and Adam and Abraham have a role in all the Judaic religions, still in socio-political terms they were all different in how they saw themselves as communities and as belief systems.

That's true, but Hinduism and Buddhism (especially the Afghan Buddhism the Turks would espouse) are closer than the Judaic religions. I also don't think you can compare the significantly different cultural scene in the West with that of India.

I think that if the Buddhist Turks establish themselves in India they'd ignore a lot of old Vedic Aryan cultural markers or change it to their advantage to clearly demarcate between them - the elites - and the Indian subject population.

The latter is more likely. They are going to be seen as members of the Kshatriya class whether they want to or not, and such a class would mean that they are widely considered the ruling class of India.

Turks who invaded India brought in Turkic as an elite language and Persian as courtly languages.

Even that did not last forever, as Turkic was swept away during the reign of Humayun, and even the use of Persian declined rapidly during the time of Akbar, being replaced by the hybrid language of Urdu (or Rekhta, as it was known at the time).

I'm not saying that they'd Turkicize India like Anatolia (which happened due to a mass migration of Turks due to Mongol pressures) but that they'd have their own language as the the tongue of nobility

Perhaps for a few generations, but I do think after spending a lot of time in India and marrying Indians that they would then use the spoken Prakrits as their own language.

and Pali or Sanskrit would be the courtly / administrative language, and the subjects would speak their local Indic languages.

Agreed.

By this way the new Turk rulers would create a new class system in which they're clearly different and, as they would think, superior to everyone below them because they speak the language and carry over the practices of a conquering culture.

A new caste system? The Turks would really just be seen as new Kshatriyas along the lines of the Rajputs. I see no real reason why they wouldn't just make themselves Kshatriyas and thus the ruling class. It's pretty easy for them to differentiate themselves from the other Kshatriyas - just make a Turkic subcaste. But there's no reason why they wouldn't be Kshatriyas.

In Babur's time the cultural dynamics of the Mughal elite was very much like that of the Timurid empire, with the highest elites being actually Turco-Mongol in culture, but far less than in Timur or his predecessors time.

And that Turco-Mongol culture disappeared in a generation, and in another, the Persian element was diluted even more with the rise of Urdu as a courtly language and large cultural syncretism.

In this scenario a much stronger current of Turkic elite culture would persist like it did with Hellenic invaders of India, with the Turkic language persisting as an elite language and on coinage and inscriptions,

I doubt it. The Turks would just be like other Central Asian invaders in India's history, becoming a warrior caste and becoming very Indian in culture. There would be far less differentiating them from the local populace than what differentiated the Muslim Turks from the local populace, and even the Muslim Turks went heavily Indian IOTL. So, I think that points to very quick absorption into Indian culture.

I don't see a complete assimilation for the Turkic elites as possible, since their incentive would be to remain as distinct from their subjects and as connected to their conquering forefathers as possible. Meaning that they'd likely keep on importing Turkic warriors from the steppes to keep the Turkic warrior class in power, as well as preserving the old Turkic cultural practices.

I hate to bring this up again, but to differentiate themselves from the locals and keep the Turkish warrior class in power, all they have to do is make a new subcaste of the Kshatriya caste. Central Asian invaders becoming a Kshatriya subcaste is one theory of the formation of the Rajputs, for instance.

Think of it as Normans ruling Britain

Not the right example, considering what happened to the Normans ruling Britain (hint: they went native). That is essentially what occurred IOTL with the Muslim Turks, though. With the Turkic identity in India being weaker with less Persian culture, assimilation is easier, and would occur earlier - and with less Turkic culture absorbed in Indian culture.
 
Top