Without European colonization would India ever unite?

[Lateknight]

Would India be forever divided without europeon colization or is a way to unite the sub continent without it being conquered?

 

[Lalli]

Probably not. Most of its history India has been divided to multiple nations. Large empires in India have been always rare. Even Mughal Empire was declining on 18th century and I don't see Marathi Empire too surviving or uniting India. And one problem might be that in India is multiple different languages and ethnic groups.

 

[SlideAway]

Actually, I suspect there'd be a fair degree of consolidation through conquest and state formation, just as you saw in much of the rest of the world.

That doesn't mean the current boundaries wound resemble anything like OTL India, but it's probable you get one or two large states, and a handful of smaller ones. Maybe an eastern, Bengal-centered state, a large state encompassing much of the north and what is now Pakistan, and 2-3 southern states, for example.

 

[SlideAway]

But that isn't unified.

Well I mean that as a counterpoint to people imagining some extreme level of balkanization.

And it arguably isn't "unified" today, in that you have two other substantial countries in what is historically considered India - Pakistan and Bangladesh. Plus, arguably Nepal.

If your point is that the current Republic of India claims an identity as "India," that might be true of one major entity in an alt-India as well. It could be that a large, northern and western Indian state is called "India," with the other states rejecting that identity.

 

[Londinium]

I somewhat believe that it would have remained a somewhat disunited bunch of empires, kingdoms, principalities ,city states, and fiefdoms with many different languages, a hodgepodge of faiths and only the geographic umbrella of being in the Indian subcontinent having any commonality.
Consider that before it was conquered by outside empires, Greece had one basic language and faith yet it was comprised of hundreds of city states.

 

[SlideAway]

Not arguably Nepal at all, Nepal is not Indian in the slightest. Sri Lanka is the third member India, not Nepal.

Without European colonization there is no Indian identity and no one wants one, instead you have Bengals, Punjabs, Gujarati, etc. Sure some of these groups might under the same government, but they wouldn't be Indian. Also a northern State including Pakistan would be a Islamic state ruled by Muslims, probably the Mughals. And an Islamic state would try to identify with the Islamic culture not an Indian one (which wouldn't even exist). Posters are't calling for a balkization of nations, but of cultures and ethnicities which would happen. Today there are still lots of different ethnicities, but the primary culture is the Indian one that has been developed.

Nepal is very much an Indic culture; overwhelmingly Hindu, speaking a language that is spoken in much of the surrounding Indian territories and which is closely-related to other Northern Indian languages, and being racially largely similar to people in the northernmost parts of India.

There would still be Indian culture because there were crosscurrents and cultural overlap across much of India, including in Muslim areas. And it may not have been a single state, but my point is it isn't a single state even now. You'd probably have 1-3 large states, and a handful of smaller ones.

(And it's doubtful the states would be based on ethnicity or language either; virtually the only place in the world that is true is Europe, as a result of the world wars. All Asian states, except for Korea and Japan, are multilingual / multiethnic, and borders were shaped by wars, conquest, etc. Pre-colonial Indian boundaries weren't based on ethnicity or language either, and they're unlikely to be that way in the future.)

 

[Badshah]

The view that India wasn't a nation prior to the British is a little misguided. While certainly there wasn't a fully centralised authority by the time of the British ascendancy, I would argue that a proto-nation had already formed underneath the banner of the Mughals.

Many 'independent' kingdoms were actually formally feudatories of the Mughal Empire, and in many territories the rulers sought the authority of Delhi to confirm their rule, even if this was only a rubber stamp. There was a lot of power in controlling the Emperor as well, just as the Scindia of Gwalior would do as a Maratha.

To define the scope of the Mughal legitimacy; at its height, Tanjore, Mysore and so on were confirmed as vassals under Aurangzeb, but even as they weakened, other rulers such as Tipu Sultan continued to confirm the Mughal paramountcy. The Nizams and Nawabs of course continued to function under the theoretical Mughal in Delhi, and the reason I'm pointing this out is because it had a lot to do with how the British managed to take over India.

The British tended to confirm those rulers that were vassals because then no ruler could claim too much loyalty; and of course legally since they were always vassals after 1857, their formal loyalty simply transferred from Delhi to Calcutta.

Now you might say, there's a lot of 'formals' and 'de jures' in there versus what was actually happening on the ground, but I'd point out that legitimacy was very important in Indian politics, and was one of the biggest reasons no Princely States were able to break away. Even the Nizam, for example, was stunted because the British didn't want to give him a royal title. Indeed, no Prince had a royal title, or were ever referred to in any other terms than 'princely' or'native'.

The problem with the Marathas, is that their myth exceeds their goals. Maratha policy tended to be centred on Maharashtra, and the rest of India tended to be raiding ground for those princes. Many like Scindia and Holkar were actually forced from returning to their homeland as they wished to do to continue ruling. And in many cases even the Marathas acted like agents of the Mughal government in Delhi (in Mysore, for example, where both sardeshmukhi and Mughal taxes were both levied).

In terms of pan-Indian sentiment, they just didn't have it; the Marathas were actually less liked in Delhi than the Afghans, since they were prone to pillage without discipline, whereas the Afghans inflicted heavy punishments on their own looters.

I would argue that these actors would continue to function in an independent India, but that if the Nizams or Nawabs took control it would certainly resemble a Shogunate situation over a total break from Delhi. The Emperor did hold a lot of symbolic power.

Also, there has always been an historical Indian identity. It wasn't always nationalist in sentiment, but the idea of India as an area of shared customs and cultures distinct from the world outside has existed from antiquity.

Similarly Nepal is in the Indosphere, and in fact has played an important part in Princely relations before and during British rule. In fact Nepal is very similar to the other Hill States in the region and it has Rajput influence as well. Culturally, Tibet shares quite a bit with India and the location of Mount Kailash there also creates some cultural kinship.

I'm not saying Indian unification is guaranteed, but it's far from being that unlikely.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

I somewhat believe that it would have remained a somewhat disunited bunch of empires, kingdoms, principalities ,city states, and fiefdoms with many different languages, a hodgepodge of faiths and only the geographic umbrella of being in the Indian subcontinent having any commonality.
Consider that before it was conquered by outside empires, Greece had one basic language and faith yet it was comprised of hundreds of city states.

In that case we should have expected Germany to be a hodgepodge of different principalities and duchies, etc. I don't think using pre-industralization era examples (or, as in the case of Greece, 2,400 year old examples) works. Note, I'm not saying India would be unified, I'm agreeing with everyone else here in saying it probably wouldn't be, but I also disagree that there wouldn't be a consolidation into a few major states.

 

[Caramelcorn]

The Mughal Collapse and the Marathas failings is proof that Indian unification is unlikely. Both cases showed how hugely different Indian states were from each other. The British did a lot to truly bring an Indian identity together as imperialism did in many other places.

I'm unsure as to how Nepal playing a role in Indian politics makes it of the Indian culture, but honestly Nepal was cultural mixing pot of several different cultures.

The collapse of the Carolingian Empire and collapse of the Roman Emire were proof that the European Union was unlikely. Both cases showed how hugely different European regions were from each other.

...

 

[Socrates]

In that case we should have expected Germany to be a hodgepodge of different principalities and duchies, etc. I don't think using pre-industralization era examples (or, as in the case of Greece, 2,400 year old examples) works. Note, I'm not saying India would be unified, I'm agreeing with everyone else here in saying it probably wouldn't be, but I also disagree that there wouldn't be a consolidation into a few major states.

No, it's like saying Europe would be a hodge podge. Which it is.

 

[Caiaphas]

The Indian culture and identity is very strong, I think that most of India would have unified into a single state. Since independence India has repeatedly fought to further unify itself, in 1961 India went to war with Portugal for Goa, annexing Hyderabad in 1948, annexing Sikkim in the 70s, as well as the wars in Kashmir and Pakistan.
These wars happened because of the belief all Indian people should be under the Indian state, This belief did not come from Britain. I think it is inevitable the majority of India would unify in the same war Germany or Italy did

 

[Iori]

Nepal is Hindu yes, but the majority of the population is Mongoloid, not Aryan or Dravidian.

Aside from the fact that those terms are outdated and on contain racist elements, you're incorrect, Nepal is a racially mixed society, yes their are 'Asiatic' groups, but there are also 'Indic' groups and a large amount of mixed people.

And Nepalese is an Indo-European Language.

So is Hindi and all the other Northern Indian languages, indeed Nepali is also, alongside Hindi-Urdu, a member of the Indo-Aryan languages of the Northern portion of the Subcontinent.

 

[Sycamore]

So is Hindi and all the other Northern Indian languages, indeed Nepali is also, alongside Hindi-Urdu, a member of the Indo-Aryan languages of the Northern portion of the Subcontinent.

You might as well argue that, since Pashto, Kurdish, Tajik and Balochi are also, alongside Persian, members of the Indo-Iranian languages of the Western portion of the Asian continent, everywhere that speaks these languages should be part of a single unified Iran. Nepal is Indian in the same way that Tajikistan is Iranian- it just isn't. There are plenty of other factors to think about...

 

[Iori]

You might as well argue that, since Pashto, Kurdish, Tajik and Balochi are also, alongside Persian, members of the Indo-Iranian languages of the Western portion of the Asian continent, everywhere that speaks these languages should be part of a single unified Iran. Nepal is Indian in the same way that Tajikistan is Iranian- it just isn't. There are plenty of other factors to think about...

He was implying that Hindi and the North Indian languages were'nt Indo-European languages, I was correcting him, not implying any sort of language family equals unification idea.

 

[Caramelcorn]

He was implying that Hindi and the North Indian languages were'nt Indo-European languages, I was correcting him, not implying any sort of language family equals unification idea.

Don't forget about how Hungary was rejected from the EU for having a different language family. Oh wait...

 

[Milites]

First of all, a united sub-continent was very much the exception rather than the rule when it came to India's political history. It could have happened otherwise if the right dynasty popped up (or if the Mughals persevered, maybe we could see a development much like the fall of the Qing?), but the most obvious course for me would be several ethno-cultural states coalescing through inter-state violence fostering domestic unity.

 

[GdwnsnHo]

The whole subcontinent? Potentially, but I think it might be more NATO-EU esque in a response to China, or Iran.

I base this premise off the idea that any major polities have formed around either : - The Indus Valley, The Ganges Delta (and the Brahmaputra River) or The Deccan Plateau. Each has fantastic potential advantages - The Indus Valley can control access to trade to and from Persia, and would probably seek allies there, The Deccan Plateau would likely look further afield, but if the Chola are anything to go by, are likely to be a strong maritime power controlling the majority of trade, whilst the Ganges Delta can just look out to Tibet, China, or the Indo-Chinese states for allies.

Unless one suddenly benefits and conquers the other two, I can see it ending up in an interesting 3-way stalemate between whoever controls these regions, and someone wanting the rest of the Ganges to gain the advantage.

So 3-4 polities, who excluding outside influence, really don't need to unite. Even then they have fantastic mutual natural borders.

Now, if someone WAS to unite the region, I'd put my money on the Deccan-centred polity. The Ganges Delta polity is hit by a disaster from the sea, the Indus civilisation tries to take advantage by taking the upper and central Ganges, whilst Deccan takes the Delta and the Brahmaputra. Complete dominance over the Indian trade means they can just circumvent the Indus Valley polity, impoverishing them, and their Persian allies, softening them up for a later conquest.

Whether or not they can hold it - who knows.

But there is my rather context-lacking two-quid.

 

[PulkitNahata]

If there was no European colonisation, there would be no India. But again there would be three to five states which would in theory come into being. By and large, the Northern part of the subcontinent has been unified by many Empire such as the Maghad, Maurya, Sugna, Gupta, Harsha, Pala, the Delhi Sultanate, Mughal and Marathas. The south has also had its fair share of empire with the Cholas, the Pallavas, the Rashtrakutas, the Chalukyas, the Bahmani kingdom, Vijayanagara.

 

[Badshah]

The Mughal Collapse and the Marathas failings is proof that Indian unification is unlikely. Both cases showed how hugely different Indian states were from each other. The British did a lot to truly bring an Indian identity together as imperialism did in many other places.

I'm unsure as to how Nepal playing a role in Indian politics makes it of the Indian culture, but honestly Nepal was cultural mixing pot of several different cultures.

Yet during the "Mughal Collapse" (Decline is the better word IMO) states continued to accept their paramountcy. They sewed the idea of a unified India. And their 'successor states' acted as their agents. Certainly orders weren't being issued from Delhi, but that's still a lot of ceremonial power if the Nizam of Hyderabad continued to affirm the Timurids as their rulers.

Regional consolidation seems the most likely as a de facto situation, but in a de jure sense, unification isn't far out of left field.

 

[Prism]

India had been united in the past. The Maurya Empire covered the entire subcontinent of India and the Mughal Empire definitely ruled the vast majority. Maybe one of the issues was the divide between Hinduism and Islam.