What if Britain Never Conquered India?

[Iltutmish]

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

There would be no India, Pakistan and Bangladesh...

 

[jamahir]

Eventually, an enlightened ruler like Tipu Sultan would have brought in European advancements in industrialization and also helped develop local advancements.

 

[SABRE]

Short (probable) answer: There would be more countries in the region, none of them being Pakistan, Hindustan, BD, etc.

 

[Max]

East india company conquered almost thousands of fiefdoms not India, there was never a country name india to begin with, The Indian subcontinent which is named after Indus would have been divided among 1000 kingdoms and worst then sub saharan africa due to infighting.

 

[W.11]

East india company conquered almost thousands of fiefdoms not India, there was never a country name india to begin with, The Indian subcontinent which is named after Indus would have been divided among 1000 kingdoms and worst then sub saharan africa due to infighting.

dont know why people dont get educated before they make such claims.

buddhist records descibe country called jambudvipa from the time of buddha which had 16 mahajanapadas/ mighty states, 500 medium states and countless other city states, jambudvipa also finds mention in ashokan inscriptions.

greek scholars write books called india even before invasion of alexander during persian empire

when megasthenes came, he described india as a quadrilateral shaped country sorrounded by oceans and starts with indus in the west to bengal in the east. he also authors book called indica/india, mentions pataliputra as its biggest city.

greeks records state that chandragupta maurya conquered entire india

there are chinese records of describing india from indus to bengal, the word india is used in hou hanshu

the chinese pilgrims faxian and xuanzang and then yiling who all left prominent records travelled the length and breath of india and describe it as such

muslim records also mention indians from north to south

al beruni, a persian scholar also writes book twarikh al hind/ history of india

shah jahan states that he would sacrifice his life for hindustan/india.

tipu sultan wanted to free india from the british

regards

Short (probable) answer: There would be more countries in the region, none of them being Pakistan, Hindustan, BD, etc.

there were already small and large kingdoms in india under the british, many of which had declared independence for instance kalat in pakistan, hyderabad and gunagarh/gujarat in india, there were even non british colonial territories in india like diu, goa in india and gwadar in Pakistan.

regards

 

[Crusher]

Some of the areas that now comprise northern parts of Pakistan would have come under the influence of Russian Tsar empire till the end of 1800s just like Tajikstan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

dont know why people dont get educated before they make such claims.

buddhist records descibe country called jambudvipa from the time of buddha which had 16 mahajanapadas/ mighty states, 500 medium states and countless other city states, jambudvipa also finds mention in ashokan inscriptions.

greek scholars write books called india even before invasion of alexander during persian empire

when megasthenes came, he described india as a quadrilateral shaped country sorrounded by oceans and starts with indus in the west to bengal in the east. he also authors book called indica/india, mentions pataliputra as its biggest city.

greeks records state that chandragupta maurya conquered entire india

there are chinese records of describing india from indus to bengal, the word india is used in hou hanshu

the chinese pilgrims faxian and xuanzang and then yiling who all left prominent records travelled the length and breath of india and describe it as such

muslim records also mention indians from north to south

al beruni, a persian scholar also writes book twarikh al hind/ history of india

shah jahan states that he would sacrifice his life for hindustan/india.

tipu sultan wanted to free india from the british

regards



there were already small and large kingdoms in india under the british, many of which had declared independence for instance kalat in pakistan, hyderabad and gunagarh/gujarat in india, there were even non british colonial territories in india like diu, goa in india and gwadar in Pakistan.

regards

That's the equivalent of travelers describing Europe.

What you have are descriptions of a region, large swathes of which were, at various points in history, ruled as part of large empires, and at other points in history, a bunch of independent kingdoms & states.

Like Europe, there are linguistic and cultural differences galore in the sub-continent. South Asia lacks even the religious homogeneity (Christianity) that Europe has.

So no, it wasn't a single country/State any more than Europe was.

 

[fisher1]

Hindu terrorists wouldn't be terrorising Kashmiris and Indian Muslims, that's for damn sure.

And Modi would be a chai seller still defecating near train tacks.

 

[Zibago]

Really bad for Punjabi Muslims

Some of the areas that now comprise northern parts of Pakistan would have come under the influence of Russian Tsar empire till the end of 1800s just like Tajikstan.

Or the fukin Sikh raj

 

[Crusher]

Really bad for Punjabi Muslims


Or the fukin Sikh raj

Sikhs grip on Punjab including modern KPK and Kashmir had already weaken due to incapable rulers that followed Ranjeet Singh after his demise before the British kicked them out of the realms of power. People here conveniently forget that Sikh empire was not just limited to Punjab but also included modern KPK and Kashmir.

 

[W.11]

That's the equivalent of travelers describing Europe.

What you have are descriptions of a region, large swathes of which were, at various points in history, ruled as part of large empires, and at other points in history, a bunch of independent kingdoms & states.

Like Europe, there are linguistic and cultural differences galore in the sub-continent. South Asia lacks even the religious homogeneity (Christianity) that Europe has.

So no, it wasn't a single country/State any more than Europe was.

No, i dont think there was usage of any identity called european before the modern 21st century or the creation of the european union even now european terminology is used to denote the specific ethnicitie of northern and western european descendents in america and not others such as spaniards, portugese etc who are grouped as latinos in america. The terminiology such as ''indian'' has been attested far earlier as early as the achaemenid empire, the hindu arabic numeral system for instance was used to describe numerals from india, the people from indian subcontinent were always denoted as indian and not gujarati, sindhi, bihari etc, the arab chroniclers give examples of indian traders and their eating etiquittes (eating in separate plates using right hand etc), this is never the case with europe in the first place while india was exposed to large eastern and western communities since the very beginning. The hadis or saying of the prophet muhammad pbuh also used the terms such as indian incense for the sandalwood or tamarind/tamar hindi for tamarind/imli. The is no such case for europe.

Hence there has been distinct cultural similarities which has lead to cultural and geopolitical usage of the term indians etc

There is also attested separate nationalities of indian in south east asia for example kalinga (orissa, a state near bengal), tamils, dravida (probably andhra pradesh) though but that is not the case with western historians.

regards

 

[masterchief_mirza]

dont know why people dont get educated before they make such claims.

buddhist records descibe country called jambudvipa from the time of buddha which had 16 mahajanapadas/ mighty states, 500 medium states and countless other city states, jambudvipa also finds mention in ashokan inscriptions.

greek scholars write books called india even before invasion of alexander during persian empire

when megasthenes came, he described india as a quadrilateral shaped country sorrounded by oceans and starts with indus in the west to bengal in the east. he also authors book called indica/india, mentions pataliputra as its biggest city.

greeks records state that chandragupta maurya conquered entire india

there are chinese records of describing india from indus to bengal, the word india is used in hou hanshu

the chinese pilgrims faxian and xuanzang and then yiling who all left prominent records travelled the length and breath of india and describe it as such

muslim records also mention indians from north to south

al beruni, a persian scholar also writes book twarikh al hind/ history of india

shah jahan states that he would sacrifice his life for hindustan/india.

tipu sultan wanted to free india from the british

regards



there were already small and large kingdoms in india under the british, many of which had declared independence for instance kalat in pakistan, hyderabad and gunagarh/gujarat in india, there were even non british colonial territories in india like diu, goa in india and gwadar in Pakistan.

regards

So if I conquer Europe and all its tribes, city states and nations, can I declare it was always a single entity? These accounts refer to a geographic area, little else.

 

[W.11]

So if I conquer Europe and all its tribes, city states and nations, can I declare it was always a single entity? These accounts refer to a geographic area, little else.

India is not a single geographical area, for instance indus plains, gangetic plains, vindhya range, malwa, deccan plateau etc, western ghats, eastern ghats.

the proper terminology is geopolitical.

regards

 

[masterchief_mirza]

India is not a single geographical area, for instance indus plains, gangetic plains, vindhya range, deccan plateau etc, western ghats, eastern ghats.

the proper terminology is geopolitical.

regards

Geopolitically, I see no reason to refer to all the tribes inhabiting the subcontinent as some unified entity, except in your imagination. You're extrapolating wildly from these accounts and declaring yourself that they're referencing a single nation. Even the geopolitical entity of Europe as in the EU is constituted by multiple nations. When was there an "Indian union" in geopolitical terms except under the mughals (incomplete) or British?