What if Britain Never Conquered India?

[W.11]

Geopolitically, I see no reason to refer to all the tribes inhabiting the subcontinent as some unified entity, except in your imagination.

that's not my imagination but historically attested fact

https://depts.washington.edu/silkroad/texts/hhshu/hou_han_shu.html#sec15

regards

 

[Chhatrapati]

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.

You can if you conquer them successfully and unify them as Otto Von Bismark did for Germany, or Giuseppe Garibaldi did for Italy. The Nazis tried to do it, Russians did it for some time.

 

[El Sidd]

Mughals would have continued producing gardens and monuments of pleasure and there would have been constant war economy.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

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

that's not my imagination but historically attested fact

View attachment 624180

https://depts.washington.edu/silkroad/texts/hhshu/hou_han_shu.html#sec15

regards

This text speaks of multiple fiefdoms, within a dominion called India but having sufficient independence from one another that they have separate kings and the Western areas rebelled independent of the eastern ones. How does this prove your assertion of a united geopolitical entity? Just because they were all Buddhists? That is quite a weak association.

In pre-Norman Britain, did the Celts, Angles, Jutes and Saxons comprise a united nation? No. They shared similar beliefs and interacted with one another but were not a single entity.

 

[W.11]

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?

india has been unified or atleast tried to get unified on several occassions

1) nandas: the nanda domains extended from punjab to bengal and in south to mysore at its height

2) maurya: under chandragupta maurya, the entire indian subcontinent came under the mauryas.

3) guptas: under chandragupta II, the empire extended from bactria is west to assam in the east to mysore/karnataka and kanchipuran, tamil nadu in the south

4) harsha: during harsha there was an effort to extend south from narmada but he lost against the chalukyas.

5) dehli sultanate: dehli sultanate ruled from indo gangetic plains, bengal to tamil nadu

6) mughal: already mentioned

7) marathas: marathas extended from tamil nadu to peshawar along with aid of sikh empire during their maximum height.

8) british: british conquered entire sub continent.

regards

 

[masterchief_mirza]

They warred with one another routinely in fact.

 

[W.11]

This text speaks of multiple fiefdoms, within a dominion called India but having sufficient independence from one another that they have separate kings and the Western areas rebelled independent of the eastern ones. How does this prove your assertion of a united geopolitical entity? Just because they were all Buddhists? That is quite a weak association.

try to read it carefully

''the kingdoms differ little but they are still called juandu/india''

thats not geographical imho, the names of the kingdoms are being declared ''juandu/india''

regards

 

[masterchief_mirza]

india has been unified or atleast tried to get unified on several occassions

1) nandas: the nanda domains extended from punjab to bengal and in south to mysore at its height

2) maurya: under chandragupta maurya, the entire indian subcontinent came under the mauryas.

3) guptas: under chandragupta II, the empire extended from bactria is west to assam in the east to mysore/karnataka and kanchipuran, tamil nadu in the south

4) harsha: during harsha there was an effort to extend south from narmada but he lost against the chalukyas.

5) dehli sultanate: dehli sultanate ruled from indo gangetic plains, bengal to tamil nadu

6) mughal: already mentioned

7) marathas: marathas extended from tamil nadu to peshawar along with aid of sikh empire during their maximum height.

8) british: british conquered entire sub continent.

regards

Occupations and forced unification of disparate nations. USSR was the same.

We are routinely told by Indian members here that the mughal era was an occupation, so why not all the others you mentioned?

You're twisting facts to suit a narrative.

try to read it carefully

''the kingdoms differ little but they are still called juandu/india''

thats not geographical imho, the names of the kingdoms are being declared ''juandu/india''

regards

Then Celts and Angles are the same tribe by that logic.

 

[El Sidd]

You can if you conquer them successfully and unify them

It is my postulation that British were conservative with their subjects while Mughals were quite liberal with them.

There were no mughals when British came. And they came to present day Pakistan in 1843. Conquered Sindh in 1843 Talpurs were ruling it and Punjab in 1849 it was under sikhs. They actually gave extension to mughal rule until 1857.

All of these tribute to the central government. British just came and propped up their own system which local princes and satraps found more convenient than the harsh Mughal justice system.

Bazaar se pehle samaan bik jata hai barr e sagheer me. koi nayi baat nahi

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Overall, I don't think we disagree much actually. I feel that coterminous India is a disparate group of nations forcibly held together, which isn't far from what you're alluding to. I think you believe though that at some point prior to all these empires that forcibly united them, they were a single nation of their own accord - I don't think you've proved that. Rather, they were separate nation states or city states loosely lumped together by chroniclers at certain times.

 

[W.11]

We are routinely told by Indian members here that the mughal era was an occupation, so why not all the others you mentioned?

the specific breed of hindu nationalists who also say taj mahal was made by hindus in 1000 AD

https://twitter.com/x/status/1250175534778253315

I don't think you've proved that. Rather, they were separate nation states or city states loosely lumped together by chroniclers at certain times.

im refering to a geopolitical enetity called india, which when not under one rule was still considered one single entity politically, and several times united under one rule, and even when it wasnt united, the kingdoms strived to unite it, like harsha, tipu sultan, chalukya etc.

A mojor example of that entity is arthashastra which was written in north or eastern india but it was discovered from southern india, the state and bereaucratic structure was also probably the same with few differences.

regards

 

[Max]

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

There is difference b/w India as single entity or country and India as region or continent, no one is denying later and I too mentioned in my comment.

2nd, No country named India ever existed on world map before 1947.

 

[W.11]

2nd, No country named India ever existed on world map before 1947.

thats just ignorance, nothing else.

regards

 

[Max]

thats just ignorance, nothing else.

regards

Good realization , now stop being ignorant and keep insisting on entity which never existed.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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

The usage of the a single term for South Asia vs Europe has more to do with the lack of a detailed understanding of the complexity of the region. You can't used flawed/misinterpreted descriptions to justify a flawed understanding of the region.

Was South Asia ruled through conquest and force by various empires? Yes

Was it, at various points in history, an amalgamation of Princely States, Kingdoms, empires, vassal states etc? Yes

Did it have distinct geographical regions with unique cultures, languages (and after Islam) religious identities? Yes.

So on what empirical basis can you claim it had an identity as a single nation-State any more than the Greek, Roman, Mongolian, Persian, Arab, British Empires can claim to be a 'single nation-state'?

Even the geopolitical entity of Europe as in the EU is constituted by multiple nations.

And even there the situation isn't analogous, since the EU is a Union of nations endorsed by the various democratic processes within the nation-States i.e. the people of the Nation-States the comprise the EU.

South Asia, even when large parts of it were unified under a single ruler, has only had 'unity' as a result of forced conquest. These 'unions' are no different from the Mongol, Persian, Arab or other empires that at some point included parts of South Asia.

The one time when the 'people' were actually asked to voice their opinion, it resulted in the Nation-State's of Pakistan and India.