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

[Vilander]

On 4/19/2021 at 3:12 AM, Ranvir said:

Telegana and Andhra Pradesh people can't band together today despite being the same.

Province or state within a country is not a political division its an administratitive division both should not be confused. But South India as a nation is a myth. 

[Clarke]

Is there a book on this topic, maybe an alt history novel ?

 

Man in the high castle series was an interesting mix of alt history & science fiction. 

[cowboysfan]

2 hours ago, Vilander said:

Province or state within a country is not a political division its an administratitive division both should not be confused. But South India as a nation is a myth. 

 

is it that hard to believe that smaller countries can come together to defeat a bigger threat? we have various examples in history like the 13 colonies in  America vs the mighty british empire or the Gothic tribes against the mighty Roman empire.

[Vilander]

13 minutes ago, cowboysfan said:

 

is it that hard to believe that smaller countries can come together to defeat a bigger threat? we have various examples in history like the 13 colonies in  America vs the mighty british empire or the Gothic tribes against the mighty Roman empire.

 

my response to ranvir was because he felt telangana and andhra cant band together. I explained they dont want to band together administratively but are part of same country India and are of same nationality Indian. 

[Yoda-esque]

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.

Cue Goa..

Colonization was imminent though.

[Yoda-esque]

 
is it that hard to believe that smaller countries can come together to defeat a bigger threat? we have various examples in history like the 13 colonies in  America vs the mighty british empire or the Gothic tribes against the mighty Roman empire.

Americans are essentially the same race an.Plus tyranny of distance .

Also the germanic tribes and visigoths were ruthless.Roman empire was also financially spent.

[coffee_rules]

All these hypothetical discussions are a waste. In 16th to 18th century, European nations set out to colonize to enrich their bankrupt empires, besides post renaissance and industrial revolution of the 18th century needed the world to fund Europeans with raw materials. Post these nationalist movements leading to WWII was instrumental in a lot of countries getting freedom. India would have colonized by some other eu empire. With princely states fighting Moghuls, even if we were not colonized. We would be a bunch of small countries like EU. But a cultural and religious union of sorts

[Moochad]

Without the Brits the Marathas would have eventually taken over the rest of India. Even a 2nd tier, off-shoot army of the Marathas easily turned Bengal into a vassal. Their goal at the time wasn't to take over each region, but the focus was on removing Europeans and other foreigners. 

 

Only because the Maratha empire was defeated by the Brits was there a power vacuum in India and hence all the princely states. Otherwise those princely states wouldn't have ever existed. The Brits hardly created modern India as a political unit. If they had their way, all the princely states would've been independent kingdoms for them to manipulate even when they were gone. Credit to Patel for putting all the parts together. 

[Vilander]

2 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

out to colonize to enrich their bankrupt empires

bankrupt is a modern concept, resource spent, resource seeking is more apt for that era. When fur was unknown fur was not used, when it became known and became available around hudson bay it became a valuable commodity. Likewise for Indian spices. In a simplified way the cycle was more Varity and amount of resources > subjects happiness >& more service/products rendered and received > more money earned and spent > more money to 'spend' on soldiers and equipment > more conquests > more variety and amount of resources.

 

India should have done this too, but did not because - Ashoka killed kalinga -> did not want others to do it to him when he got old so became conveniently pacifist > created stupas and made everyone pacifist > India was pacifist multi national multi princely state  ripe for mongols , turks, persians and europeans to come and ravage. 

[Vilander]

53 minutes ago, Moochad said:

Without the Brits the Marathas would have eventually taken over the rest of India. Even a 2nd tier, off-shoot army of the Marathas easily turned Bengal into a vassal. Their goal at the time wasn't to take over each region, but the focus was on removing Europeans and other foreigners. 

 

Only because the Maratha empire was defeated by the Brits was there a power vacuum in India and hence all the princely states. Otherwise those princely states wouldn't have ever existed. The Brits hardly created modern India as a political unit. If they had their way, all the princely states would've been independent kingdoms for them to manipulate even when they were gone. Credit to Patel for putting all the parts together. 

 the Maratha confederacy was the most unfractured of the Indian princely states.

[sandeep]

6 hours ago, Clarke said:

Is there a book on this topic, maybe an alt history novel ?

 

Man in the high castle series was an interesting mix of alt history & science fiction. 

Its a market ripe for the picking for budding authors.

[rkt.india]

We would have become islamic republic.

[mishra]

On 4/18/2021 at 10:08 PM, rangeelaraja said:

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. 

And this was replaced by Aurangzeb identically. In my opinion, Hinduism would have come to an end and India would have become extension of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Ie small countries fighting and killing each other with occasional terrorist attacks on West.

 

I know prople will come back and say Marathas would have saved us, but i think its God who saved Us by sending Brits. Because, Hindus could and would never become as tyranical as Their Muslim counterpart and hence Muslim rulers will always have got opportunity to regroup even when beaten but Muslim rulers wouldn’t given up any chance to go for kill.

 

[rangeelaraja]

5 hours ago, mishra said:

And this was replaced by Aurangzeb identically. In my opinion, Hinduism would have come to an end and India would have become extension of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Ie small countries fighting and killing each other with occasional terrorist attacks on West.

 

I know prople will come back and say Marathas would have saved us, but i think its God who saved Us by sending Brits. Because, Hindus could and would never become as tyranical as Their Muslim counterpart and hence Muslim rulers will always have got opportunity to regroup even when beaten but Muslim rulers wouldn’t given up any chance to go for kill.

 

 

 

74/75 years of modern India is a very small time for a civilization like Bharat that has for several millennia seen the birth of the 9 avatars of Lord Vishnu, 24 Jain Tirththankars, Gautama Buddha, and innumerable saints who have been born on the sub-continental soil.

 

The British rule of the subcontinent is a part of the divine design that will all be in India's favor without which 80 % of the subcontinent would never have been a single rashtra ( country)

 

The same divine design meant to ensure Bharat's reversion to it's extraordinary preeminence as a people and civilization and wiping out of the evil cults/  among several other things.

 

 

[Yoda-esque]

We would have become islamic republic.

Don't necessarily disagree.

Keep in mind that even as late as 1857, when the uprising took place,the sepoys decided to nominate Bahadur Shah Zafar as the figurehead and looked upto him.

800 years of Islamic rule has turned this country into the biggest example of Stockholm Syndrome.

This is because Hindus were in the lowest strata of society.

[kepler37b]

9 hours ago, mishra said:

And this was replaced by Aurangzeb identically. In my opinion, Hinduism would have come to an end and India would have become extension of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Ie small countries fighting and killing each other with occasional terrorist attacks on West.

 

I know prople will come back and say Marathas would have saved us, but i think its God who saved Us by sending Brits. Because, Hindus could and would never become as tyranical as Their Muslim counterpart and hence Muslim rulers will always have got opportunity to regroup even when beaten but Muslim rulers wouldn’t given up any chance to go for kill.

 

 

I do not think so. The British had to fight Sikhs and Marathas to gain control of India. Muslim rulers were a spent force by then.  Even Nizam of hyderabad was gulaam of marathas. 

 

But in absence of british, we would have been a fragmented country, with 10's of different countries.

[mishra]

13 hours ago, kepler37b said:

 

I do not think so. The British had to fight Sikhs and Marathas to gain control of India. Muslim rulers were a spent force by then.  Even Nizam of hyderabad was gulaam of marathas. 

 

But in absence of british, we would have been a fragmented country, with 10's of different countries.

That Nizaam surviving under Marathas is exactly what I was saying. Muslim rulers would have finished Hindus while Hindus rulers won’t,  because of Hindutva. For example, Muslim rulers demolished all Hindu temples when in power and occasionally  built a mosque there, how many times Marathas or Rajputs or Sikhs did similar thing. Muslim rulers were fighting for spreading Islam while Hindu rulers were fighting on ground of humanity, civilisation. Thats very basic difference which means, Islam will survive no matter what.

 

As far as Sikhs are concerned, if Brits weren’t there, it was just a matter of time. Their Gurus were killed in as Brutal manner as can be. Having a great General is not just patented to Hindus or Sikh. There would have been Few Muslim Generals  in 200 years and he would have effed all. 

[Mariyam]

On 4/21/2021 at 8:14 AM, rangeelaraja said:

 

 

74/75 years of modern India is a very small time for a civilization like Bharat that has for several millennia seen the birth of the 9 avatars of Lord Vishnu, 24 Jain Tirththankars, Gautama Buddha, and innumerable saints who have been born on the sub-continental soil.

 

The British rule of the subcontinent is a part of the divine design that will all be in India's favor without which 80 % of the subcontinent would never have been a single rashtra ( country)

 

The same divine design meant to ensure Bharat's reversion to it's extraordinary preeminence as a people and civilization and wiping out of the evil cults/  among several other things.

 

 

 

 

[Mariyam]

10 hours ago, mishra said:

That Nizaam surviving under Marathas is exactly what I was saying. Muslim rulers would have finished Hindus while Hindus rulers won’t,  because of Hindutva. For example, Muslim rulers demolished all Hindu temples when in power and occasionally  built a mosque there, how many times Marathas or Rajputs or Sikhs did similar thing. Muslim rulers were fighting for spreading Islam while Hindu rulers were fighting on ground of humanity, civilisation. Thats very basic difference which means, Islam will survive no matter what.

 

As far as Sikhs are concerned, if Brits weren’t there, it was just a matter of time. Their Gurus were killed in as Brutal manner as can be. Having a great General is not just patented to Hindus or Sikh. There would have been Few Muslim Generals  in 200 years and he would have effed all. 

Isn't this very simplistic?

 

Before Islam reached the shores of India, why were Hindu rulers fighting? To spread peace, civilization and humanity to other Hindus?

 

Most (if not all) rulers fought for greed. Religion happened to be something they used to motivate their own and justify atrocities. Some did it better than others.

[mishra]

11 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

Isn't this very simplistic?

 

Before Islam reached the shores of India, why were Hindu rulers fighting? To spread peace, civilization and humanity to other Hindus?

 

Most (if not all) rulers fought for greed. Religion happened to be something they used to motivate their own and justify atrocities. Some did it better than others.

No , absoluetely not. I think motives interests were different. Islamic rulers at the end were consciously or unconsciously, were interested in spread of Islam . Temple, tax, rape, coercesion, generaosity, destrruction were just various methods . I am not saying "every" Islamic ruler was consciously going for violent path but, In dynastical system/rule, there was always a chance to have someone who listens to some fanatical scholar and follow violent interpretation of Hadith. And 200 years would have been enough to get India enough Aholes who would have finished Indian civilisation and brought Mid east culture

Edited April 22, 2021 by mishra