Had British not ruled India, what would current political map of Bharat/India have looked like ?

[rangeelaraja]

The greatest extent of  Maurya Empire - included entire Pakistan, large swathes of Afghanistan but missing Norther Eastern states and the present day Tamil Nadu and Kerala.

 

Personally for me Tamil Nadu and Kerala are probably India's greatest states culturally especially Tamil Nadu because of the great Tamil language ( oldest and greatest language of the subcontinent )  --- far far more valuable than North West that we lost. 

 

I think India would have lost Tamil Nadu and Kerala had British not ruled India - probably India's greatest loss.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ash]

Yes it is true that current India we have was never under one ruler.  We cannot predict what would have happened exactly, but there was a high possiblity that the Maratha empire would have ruled entire India had the British not intervened. 

[Ranvir]

There would be lots of seperate kingdoms/states.

 

India is like Italy, a relatively new country made up of different regions with their own distinct language and culture.

 

There's no point looking at these ancient empires, the modern day Italians don't go on about the Roman Empire being some European equivalent to Akhand Bharat.

[Yoda-esque]

The maratha empire and what bjp won in 2014 are identical . That would be closest to modern day Bharata.The rest would be separate countries.

Probably TN and kerala would be one country.

NE would be separate small states.

Bengal would be absorbed along with BD since they were ruled by islamists since 12th century.

Andhra pradesh and orissa not sure.

[coffee_rules]

14 minutes ago, Yoda-esque said:

The maratha empire and what bjp won in 2014 are identical . That would be closest to modern day Bharata.The rest would be separate countries.

Probably TN and kerala would be one country.

NE would be separate small states.

Bengal would be absorbed along with BD since they were ruled by islamists since 12th century.

Andhra pradesh and orissa not sure.
 

too much based on election results since 2014

[Yoda-esque]

too much based on election results since 2014

Chalukya satvahana empires had similar maps covering Maharashtra ,telangana ,Karnataka and central india..at the very least I would think that this landmass would be one country.

[rangeelaraja]

The extent of Maurya Empire under Ashoka.
Our flag, passport, parliament building  derive matter from Ashoka rule so I see this as the true representation of akhanda bharat - The max extent of India’s cultural reach.  
 

 

I am super happy that TN and Kerala are part of India. India would be a much much poor country culturally without them.  Tamil predates Sanskrit. 

Edited April 18, 2021 by rangeelaraja

[rangeelaraja]

Interesting to see that - present day Aksai Chin was never a part of historical India before British Raj. Not to say that it belongs to China.

Edited April 18, 2021 by rangeelaraja

[rangeelaraja]

The chola dynasty were never part of

“ current mainstream India “ before British Raj. 
 

They would have most probably been a different country. 

[cowboysfan]

South india might have been united and may be one of  the advanced countries in SE asia.

[Singh bling]

India had 584 princely states in 1947. Without Brits india may had 7 or 8 hundred princely states. There would had been a big civil war and whoever emerged As winner would had been ruling india. Brits Japanese, French , Nazis, Americans ,Soviet . Islamic countries would had interfered in India. One after other kingdom would had choose to side with one and fight for them. There could had been very big india, 3-4 countries divided india, severely divided india or even North South korea like situation. Anything cannot be ruled out

[Yoda-esque]

South india might have been united and may be one of  the advanced countries in SE asia.

That would only include kerala ,tamil Nadu and some very small parts of andhra.

 

Karnataka was first under mauryan empire and then satvahanas.

 

 

 

[cowboysfan]

1 hour ago, Yoda-esque said:

That would only include kerala ,tamil Nadu and some very small parts of andhra.

 

Karnataka was first under mauryan empire and then satvahanas.

 

 

 

 

Mauryan empire?? dude than was a long long time ago.what happened to the muslim invaders? the mughal empire? .I said South india will be  a rich country because most of the southern states were rich even during the Mughal empire .If the British were never here i suspect they would have banded together to become a prosperous  country and not care about what happens north of the Vindyas.

[rangeelaraja]

2 minutes ago, cowboysfan said:

 

Mauryan empire?? dude than was a long long time ago.what happened to the muslim invaders? the mughal empire? .I said South india will be  a rich country because most of the southern states were rich even during the Mughal empire .If the British were never here i suspect they would have banded together to become a prosperous  country and not care about what happens north of the Vindyas.

 

Mauryan Empire is most relevant because it is the greatest extent of a ruler from the subcontinent with similar cultural ethos. Invasions from outsiders to the subcontinent and their empires are not relevant to true Bharat from the perspective of what should be India’s political map.

 

I do agree with you that had the British not invaded they would have become a prosperous country today.

 

I’ve travelled the South a lot for leisure, especially Tamil Nadu and am in pure reverence of the culture which is far superior to anything I have seen anywhere in India - and I say this as a very proud Gujju.

 

[Yoda-esque]

 
Mauryan empire?? dude than was a long long time ago.what happened to the muslim invaders? the mughal empire? .I said South india will be  a rich country because most of the southern states were rich even during the Mughal empire .If the British were never here i suspect they would have banded together to become a prosperous  country and not care about what happens north of the Vindyas.

You are wrong.Because you are confusing deccan plateau with deep south states like TN and kerala.

The mauryas,chalukya ,rashtrakutas, satvahanas and later on,the Vijaynagara empire and marathas all had large parts of Karnataka,telangana and andhra under their control even when islamic invaders were there.

So they wouldn't have banded together.

[cowboysfan]

1 hour ago, Yoda-esque said:

You are wrong.Because you are confusing deccan plateau with deep south states like TN and kerala.

The mauryas,chalukya ,rashtrakutas, satvahanas and later on,the Vijaynagara empire and marathas all had large parts of Karnataka,telangana and andhra under their control even when islamic invaders were there.

So they wouldn't have banded together.


 

 

why not ? it would be completely in their best interest to band together as a force against the Mughals.this is all hypothetical but the Mughals were a threat to all the southern kingdoms,it would be foolish to not band together to protect their  culture and wealth. History has repeatedly shown smaller kingdoms banding together as a a buffer against a bigger threat.

[Ranvir]

Telegana and Andhra Pradesh people can't band together today despite being the same. There's fat chance of the other southern States joining each other voluntarily.

 

The way the world is going today and for the past 30 years, countries are splitting up and getting smaller.

[WC2011INDIA]

It would have remained a backward country with its people content with following orthodox &  superstitious values/traditions. 

[Vilander]

Islamic United India pak Bangladesh the greatest nation on earth. 

[MechEng]

If Brits didn't rule us then we would have got colonized by Spanish/French/Portuguese.

 

Catholic countries were very ruthless and destroyed local customs/traditions, unlike Protestants who only emphasized on doing business.

Edited April 20, 2021 by MechEng