Ruler of India
- Thread starter VVD0D95
- Start date
Good question. I'm slightly more inclined to say the Mughals as they had an efficient bureaucracy. Unfortunately, the Maratha bureaucracy was a bit of a mess and they relied too much on pillaging (plus divides starting springing up later in the Empire). If there's one thing I'd love to see though, it would be a tl on a reformed and industrialised Maratha Empire which goes all the way until the 21st Century.
Speaking of that tl, does anyone know of timelines that dwell on that idea?
Speaking of that tl, does anyone know of timelines that dwell on that idea?
India doesn’t have vibrancy? That’s a very arguable point.
If you want India to not have Modi as its prime minister, you could easily do that with a twenty-first century POD.
VVD0D95
Banned
Oh I wasn’t saying g it didn’t have vibrancy, but there is a certain type of vibrancy I believe could come from having a Mughal court in Delhi. And indeed one could, if one wanted to change who won in 2004 and 2009. But long term wise I’d quite like to see an India with a emperor
This sounds like the kind of silly Indian history taught by the RSS. Contrary to the views of Indian nationalists, Muslim rule wasn’t some dark age, and during the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire, it was quite prosperous.
The Mughals saw full-scale involvement by Hindus, and Islam had long been accepted by the Indian populace. Also, Aurangzeb’s intolerance has been drastically exaggerated - I highly recommend this article. His entire Deccan conquest was helped by Hindu generals who were angered by the Maratha sack of Surat, which included the destruction of temples. Furthermore, the Mughals justified their kingship on the basis of Indian ideals rather than the Islamic ulema, including reviving the Hindu practice of adding a halo around emperors to show that the emperors have dharma.
That is, with an Indian emperor, not King-Emperors Charles, William and George... Because an obvious PoD might be for India to not become a Republic in 1950 and still have a Governor-General.
Which PoD would be necessary for Modi as Prime Minister to make clear that in case of an accession, a Delhi Durbar would be held and Emperor Charles and Empress Camilla be invited to hold it?
As much as I like the Marathas, they had some serious issues which lead to their demise.
That’s harder than you make it sound, as by 1947, most Indian politicians were staunch republicans, angered and alienated at the actions of the British. If Britain had satisfied Congress demands in 1920 by establishing a dominion at that point, then maybe, India could permanently be a dominion.
Burma was never a dominion at all - went direct to republic in 1948.
Pakistan was a dominion till 1956, Ceylon till 1972.
Why did India agree to become a dominion at all in 1947, rather than become straight a republic like Burma?
Pakistan was a dominion till 1956, Ceylon till 1972.
Why did India agree to become a dominion at all in 1947, rather than become straight a republic like Burma?
VVD0D95
Banned
Indeed and Indian Emperor with some power. After all, politicians in India and the world over aren't doing a stellar job and haven't for some time
Because India had more concerns than just independence. Partition was extremely bloody and it caused a massive humanitarian crisis. Full independence was likely the least of Nehru’s problems between 1947 and 1950.
If Moguls win in 1857, would they get overthrown by some internal revolution in 20th or 21st century, or be ruling as of 2017?
In general, what would the internal politics and social development of post-Mutiny Indian Empire look like?
In general, what would the internal politics and social development of post-Mutiny Indian Empire look like?
Honestly, we have literally had the same conversation 6 months ago so let's just agree to disagree. Fact of the matter is that absolutism and bad rulers don't mix well. The Mughals were like any other foreign empire.
Last edited:
I’m not sure we could call that a conversation. I questioned your historiography, and then you said that you would consider it.
Here, you’ve shown a refusal to consider whether your historiography of Indian religious relations is correct.
You’re absolutely correct that absolutism and bad rulers don’t mix well. But that is every bit as applicable to the Marathas as the Mughals.
The Marathas were certainly worse, as they were disorganized and disunited, and raiding temples lost them Hindu support to the extent that at Panipat, Hindus supported the Afghan “invaders” over the “native” Marathas. This is another indication that things were a lot more nuanced that you are making it sound.
The Mughals weren’t a foreign empire - they married Hindu princesses, and Jahangir was even known as a Hindu name, Prithopal, by his own mother, for goodness sakes.
Hindu women had to convert to Islam when they married rulers. And your view of Mughals is incredibly biased if you believe they are accepting, magnanimous rulers. The Marathas and Mughals are about the same in the welfare of their civilians. One thing is for sure is that Mughals sacked way more than the Marathas did. Mughals were barely tolerant of other religions. Mughals were just Central Turkic Muslims who just happened to mix with the local population over time. I really don't know where you get the fantasy that the Mughals were really that benevolent. For the Mughals, there was a factor of forced conversion of the masses that Hindu empires never did.