Indian unity

[stormbind]

Before British India, the subcontinent was controlled by many rival governments. During the British India, rival autonomous states continued to operate.

Was there ever a united subcontinent?

 

[Pannonius]

Asoka ruled almost the whole Indian subcontinent (most of today's India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) in 3rd century BC. The state was called Maurya Empire after the ruling dinasty.

 

[silver 2039]

The Mauryan Empire which was mentioned stretched into Afghanistan and down into south India

The Gupta Empire is another one ruled all of north India and extended along eastern coast till roughly Hyderabad.

The Delhi Sultanate at its height controlled a large portion of north India as well.

The Mughal Empire represented united India it stretched from Afghanistan all the way to south India.

The Maratha Empire is another one which ruled the bulk of the subcontinent including the Deccan

 

[Traitorfish]

However, it's important to remember that none of these represent "unification" in the same way that, for example, Qin unified China or Prussia unified Germany. They were the empires of particular regional powers, under which power was exerted on other culturally and ethnically distinct regions, more like the Roman or Persian Empires.
The modern India state is the closest thing to voluntary pan-Indian unification, and even then the large regions of Pakistan and Bangladesh are separate states.

 

[stormbind]

Yeah, I ask because many people from the subcontinent quiz me on how/why the British conquered the whole India country and then broke it up.

My reply is - well, they didn't.

Then these people get mad at me because apparently my version of history is biased *shrug*

I am aware that there were autonomous states within British India which suggests those states pre-existed any unified India, and that the governments of British India were not united. I am also aware that Muslims refused to live under any government with Hindi majority, and that Punjabis did not want to be under Muslim rule. This suggests there many nations on the subcontinent when Europeans arrived. Further, I am aware that a French Indian empire and Portuguese colonies predate British intervention.

So I must question the logic that Britain conquered a united India and split it up, which is the common accusation.

 

[silver 2039]

The decline of the Mughal Empire began before the British involved themselves much in the subcontinent. The various autonomous states such as Hyderabad and such that existed within British India are the result of Mughal govenors who revolted and seized power.

The British however were directly responsible for the destruction of the Maratha Empire

 

[stormbind]

I dare say the history of each princely state is unique.

Within the Mughal empire, rival Mughal governors revolted and seized power from other Mughal governers - this happened in Hyderabad in 1724.

I cannot find anything on the British except that they kept Hyderabad's Mughal governor.

 

[stormbind]

When the British came, the feudal Maratha empire was made up of many disunited and autonomous Princely states.

It seems to me that the British took sides in Maratha's internal struggles. With periods of peace and over almost a century, some Maratha states swore allegiance to the British Raj and others were conquered. So there was not an all-out war with a united Maratha Empire.

Am I wrong?

 

[Japanrocks12]

When the British came, the feudal Maratha empire was made up of many disunited and autonomous Princely states.

It seems to me that the British took sides in Maratha's internal struggles. With periods of peace and over almost a century, some Maratha states swore allegiance to the British Raj and others were conquered. So there was not an all-out war with a united Maratha Empire.

Am I wrong?

no that's correct, and some of the states became protectorates and others resisted and were put down forcibly - so even the British didn't technically control all of India, though they did control the subcontinent through protectorates

 

[Tee Kay]

Was there ever a united subcontinent?

Never.

The Mauryan, Guptas and the Delhi Sultanate (under Tughlug) only managed to at its height control the northern half and parts of Afghanistan. The Mughals (under Aurengzeb) almost did it but the extreme south of India remained independent, and of course they are the Portuguese, Dutch, French and English enclaves (eg Goa) that the Mughals weren't able to control. The Marathas only controlled the center part of the country and they're not even a unified state. Even the British did not technically control the whole subcontinent as the Portuguese and French have enclaves on the coast.

 

[North King]

The Delhi sultanate at its peak also controlled a good deal southwards; of course it imploded spectacularly after doing so.

 

[Saim]

I am aware that there were autonomous states within British India which suggests those states pre-existed any unified India, and that the governments of British India were not united. I am also aware that Muslims refused to live under any government with Hindi majority, and that Punjabis did not want to be under Muslim rule. This suggests there many nations on the subcontinent when Europeans arrived. Further, I am aware that a French Indian empire and Portuguese colonies predate British intervention.
QUOTE]
Hindu majority, and this is not true, it's just that Nehru's rival managed to convince the Muslim populace to split, even though the mullahs didn't want to. Regarding the Punjabis, quite a few of them are Muslim, and Pakistan is mostly Punjabi, so I don't know what your talking about here.

The Mauryan Empire which was mentioned stretched into Afghanistan and down into south India

The Gupta Empire is another one ruled all of north India and extended along eastern coast till roughly Hyderabad.

The Delhi Sultanate at its height controlled a large portion of north India as well.

The Mughal Empire represented united India it stretched from Afghanistan all the way to south India.

The Maratha Empire is another one which ruled the bulk of the subcontinent including the Deccan

The Vajnayagriva (probably spelt wrong) ruled all of southern India.

 

[stormbind]

Hindu majority, and this is not true, it's just that Nehru's rival managed to convince the Muslim populace to split, even though the mullahs didn't want to.

Would it have been possible to have an elected majority-Muslim government in a united India?

Regarding the Punjabis, quite a few of them are Muslim, and Pakistan is mostly Punjabi, so I don't know what your talking about here.

I think you know that I meant the Sikh populations that are prominent in Punjab. For clarity, subcontinent Sikhs did not want to be controlled by a Muslim government.

 

[silver 2039]

Would it have been possible to have an elected majority-Muslim government in a united India?

Maybe I doubt it would have been a majority Muslim govt since they simply wouldn't have been able to get enough votes seeing as Hindu's are still the majority, a minority Muslim coalition govt is possible somewhat though its more likely they would play a major part in any government since most governments in India are colation governments since no one party has gotten the majority seats neither BJP nor Congress have managed it, in fact Congress may soon be reduced to a minority govt after the Left parties pull support.

Its the fault of the power hungry Congress and Muslim League leaders who were unwilling to compromise. It might have worked, I mean there are a 150 Muslims in India and they live here fine.

 

[Saim]

Would it have been possible to have an elected majority-Muslim government in a united India?

I think you know that I meant the Sikh populations that are prominent in Punjab. For clarity, subcontinent Sikhs did not want to be controlled by a Muslim government.

No I don't. I'm of both Punjabi and Muslim descent. Pakistan is mostly Punjabi, and mostly Muslim. Many Punjabis are Muslim (although Lahore and stuff used to be mostly Sikh, it's more muslim now I think).

Punjab is the main province of Pakistan as well.