What If India Was Never Colonised?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 сер 2024
- Watch next: "Every Significant Mongol Successor State; How The Mongols Fell in 1857"
• Every Significant Mong... -~-
#possiblehistory #India #whatif #alternatehistory #alternatehistoryofindia #maratha #marathaempire
What if - in an alternate timeline - European competition ensured that none of the European states would gain significant territory within India. Small trading ports would still exist, but the Europeans fail to gain more beyond that point. How would this alternate independent India develop in the 19th century and beyond?
If you like the content please like, comment and subscribe, it helps smaller channels like mine to get noticed!
If you want to support the channel you can go to my Patreon or become a member! You will get early access to video's and will be allowed to suggest priority video subjects!
/ possiblehistory
/ @possiblehistory
www.buymeacoff...
Possible Extra's a channel where we do not necessarily history related stuff, like podcasts and more!
/ @theobserverph
Gaming Channel:
/ @deletedchannel1010
Feel free to follow or join our social media platforms:
/ possiblehistory
/ possiblehistor1
/ discord
/ possible_history0
Most of our music by Beta Records. He's great, check him out!
Link: goo.gl/peHHCX
A lot of other music by Kevin McLoad. The Copyrightfree Music Creator
/ kevinmacleodarchive
Thank you for watching! TO support the content, consider leaving a like and a comment, it really helps the video against the algorithm! Even just commenting something simple like "hi" helps out massively. Subscribe for more alternate history content every Saturday.
You should mention that when british left india india was fragmented and not unified at all it was later done by sardar vallabh Bhai patel who unified india, in his honour we buikd thebtallest statue , statue of unity, so its wrong to say india was created by britishua-cam.com/video/i9UEo8pCIf8/v-deo.html
What if the Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace survived into the 20th Century?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odrysian_kingdom
What if Carthage industrialized? (''steampunk Carthage'' scenario)
What if the Mongol Invasions never happened? What if Southeast Asia was full of Rich High-Income economies like the ''East Asian Tiger'' countries today? What if East Africa and West Africa were Rich today?
What if the Mughal Empire industrialized? What if Argentina was a Superpower?
What if the turks migrated into the north european plain instead of persia and anatolia
The rus would stop turk by prince or the cossack
@volactic5240 nah man, if the the Persians, Romans and South Slavs and Hungarians cant stop them, the Rus mever will. The Viking Rus and Turks would probably assimilate into each other and kick ass
Probably wouldn’t end up Muslim
That happened, just look to Frankfurt
@@zahnstocher0353 why Frankfurt?, Is it because it conquer by turk?
This isn't that unrealistic, if you just have the Marathas
A). Win the battle of Panipat, thus letting them conquer the Mughals and not losing so many men
B). Peshwa Rao doesn't work with the British to weaken the Maratha empire for his own gain.
Battle of Panipat(1761) wasn't of much significance. As the battle was a pyrrhic victory for the Afghans and their allies and it was exhausted Abdali who was forced to make peace with the Marathas. Not the other way round. Marathas recovered soon from the aftermath affects of the Panipat War by 1772. So this event is highly overrated. Mostly by anti-Maratha bigots and those who are biased against them. The Maratha loss was qualitative in nature not quantitative. And this wasn't the end of Durrani-Maratha conflicts, as there were conflicts between them in Punjab even after Panipat(1761) too. Like in Punjab in 1787-90s, in which the Marathas succeeded and the Durrani Afghans failed against Marathas and their supported Sikh Misls of Majha Punjab.
Maratha empire dominance in Central, northern and eastern Bharat.
Sikh kingdom dominance in north western Bharat and southern Afghanistan.
Rajput confideracy in Western Bharat
Ahom domimace in North Eastern Bharat.
@@rage8673nizam in much of andhra ,telnagana , and some other parts of Deccan, sultanate of mysore in south , carnatic subah in tamil nadu , nawab of awadh , nawabs of bengal , nawabs of lucknow , etc ...
@@ShafqatjahanTabassum Bengal got rid of nawab when the Maratha invaded it in between 1740-1751 and British East India company made formation after that same goes to Hyderabad Nizam most of the south-east port are controlled by
Foreign countries, Mughals Empire are already at the blink of extinction after Maratha take over most of the part
@@devpradhan3307 nah maratha attacked bengal 5 times and were defeated brutally by alivardikhan aee in battle of birdman bengal victory , battle of Katha bemgal victory, 2nd battle of Katwa bwngal victory so no marathas did not defeat bengal nawabs
keep making more alternate colonial history, it's a really nice to see some less popular topics being covered
Nawabate of Bengal actually tried to kick the British out of the subcontinent, but failed so hard that the entirety of Bengal was lost to British. A scenario where Bengal won?
pretty sure he failed because of a general betrayed him after the British bribed the general.
I think even a small change such as the Nawab learning about the betrayal before the battle could be grounds for an alt history scenario.
@@red_roy yeah that general became the nawab after the defeat, till 1764
@@MahamudaAkhter-og9ku and he too was later killed by brits his name is mir jaffar because of whom united prosperous Bengalis had to face famines,taxes, discriminatory policy's against Hindus by the Englishman sitting in the offices.
@@yashb.suryawanshi9936and Muslims, don't forget the Zamindar system had Hindhus above Muslims
Also Because of bengalis British got access to conquer whole India
honestly, the unification of india without the british just depends on whether we could have our own mao zedong, with us being as cruel as the Americans and as expansionist as the Russians
I do think we are the first colonisers like we rule SE asia and central asia 💀 and tibet .
China and india do colonization time to time just for profit raided west asia , central asia , south east asia literally .
Indo-china existence 💀 .
I would imagine how big it would be if shivaji didn't died and qing haven't defated by 8 foreign powers .
China qndindia go beyond countries i can imagime how they making others civilization a smart countries giving them techonologies and ruling for 1000 of years .
Chola rule SE 500 years .
basicaly bringing BJP to the past.
Wouldn't have happened because China had centralized power and Tibet l, Xinxiang were weak.
For India every state would have been powerful
@@redeyexxx1841 😂 lmao india have federal but centralized systum , in indus valley province existed and also existed in mughal time .
It would happen like china for sure cause that time martha was in power conquring most of india and were stablized confidration with other kingdoms if british wasn't there india would still form .
Cuse france revolution were very popular in india .
In 1850 many kingdoms revolt in india because they don't want british to rule their country .
French revolution and many things seeing indians would unite on large extent .
No matter what happen the unification and india as a one nation state would happen and because it was very nation in itself before british .
If hindutva ideology gains foothold than yes
Well the Sikhs had a military that rivaled the Brits in the first Sikh Anglo war, they were the last to be annexed but were facing a civil war from government vs the military itself including generals on the government and britians side when the war happened
Thanks, I was wondering why Sikhs are not mentioned at all
@@youreright...1284 Travancore defeated Portuguese and Dutch
bro that was before british even stepped foot on india@@keralanaturelover196
Sadly Punjab couldn't have competed with Britain in any way. Even with a seasoned military, there's no way for Punjab to compare to the economic might of Britain being a land locked country. Over time Punjab would have lost
@@elusiveshadow5848Punjab wasn’t 100% landlocked. They had very good relations with the small country below them and used their ports. Otherwise they would have conquered that region like they did to many regions around Punjab.
When British left from India, India was broken into 562 region, British didn't unify India, Indians unified themselves
nope british gave only two options...Pakistan or India, creating anoter country wasn't allowed...
@@hasanjamalkhan689 who are you? What are you? Do you know anything except about Partition between India and Pakistan?
@@hasanjamalkhan689ignorance 😂😂
@@hasanjamalkhan689 come to reality !
But animosity toward common enemy british was the factor
10:00
I LOVE how Indiana and Ohio are thrown into the Arabian Sea to provide a sense of scale for Americans. That's a very cute idea, and it's something I wish I'd see more often on maps like this.
Wtf
NPC comment detected
@@mrsillytacosNPC comment detected!!!!!!!
@@skoop4424 wise words from someone with an NPC pfp
@@mrsillytacosummm sis... you play roblox that’s very transgender
Now I’m wondering what would have happened if the Industrial Revolution happened in an Indian state instead of in Britain
folks would have migrated here as simple as that
I think the Marathas would just conquer the whole Indian language family and Dravidian language family because why not ?
Yep they had far reach in north to south tamilnadus kanchipuram they could have unified and filled some nationalism on us to become a country in future
Marathas were a confederation, so the political cohesion was too weak and was momentary and bound to fall.
Better still would be a political union of divisional empires against foreign entities.
It was actually possible in 1420-30CE if the only Hindu emperor at that time Deva Raya II of Vijayanagara Empire allied with Kapilendra Gajapati of Odisha and Rana Kumbha of Mewar. They could form empires on based on similar culture and language of people with
South under Deva Raya(Kerala, TN, AP+TS, Karnataka and Maharashtra),
East under Gajapati(Odisha, Bengal, Bihar and Assam),
West under Rana Kumbha(Rajasthan, Gujarat, Malwa and Sindh),
Centre or Madhyadesha(UP, MP-Malwa, Haryana and Delhi) and Northwest(JK, Punjab, HP and Northeastern Afghanistan)
All of these regions have similar language and culture, South speaking Dravidian languages, East speaking languages descending from Magadhi Prakrit, West speaking Western Indo-Aryan languages, Centre speaking Shauraseni prakrit derived languages and North west using the same Sharada script for their languages historically.
@@gameruleworld.1889 they not attacked Kerala. Travancore defeated tipu trice dutch and Portuguese.
Marathas were punching above their weight for all of their existence. Surrounded by enemies on land and sea while having internal issues.
I say Post Mughals
The Marathas most capable leaders
Baji Rao I (Died at 40)
Chimaji Appa( Died at 39)
Balaji Rao (Died at 42)
Madhav Rao I ( died at 27).
These four men died
From 1740 to 1772. In just 30ish years they lose 4 exceptional leaders
If any one or a combination of leaders lived till their 70s or atleast 60s.
Perhaps the Stronger Marathas would be able to unify the nation, especially with their idea of Hindvavi Swaraj would be ideological unified
Marathas surely could have conqueried whole India but British till then made it's way to India and their technology was advance asf. Marathas just had a bad timing something else.
@@saikatsaha4122 marathas will fail in Kerala for sure
Marathas were weak in the longterm
Hindu identity was a British creation itself, before that it was Brahman religion. AntiBritish sentiment within states was primary fuel to unite. Can not do what Samrat Asoke did
@@sorenutpal6091 yet they Conquered ⅔ of the Subcontinent in the span of 1720 to 1761. They defeated the British in the first Anglo Martha war despite being in a chaotic internal politics. The major reason they declined was as mentioned before all their capable leaders died young
another branching point couldve been a maratha victory in the third battle of panipat which causes the empire never to stop snowballing and the marathas inflicting massive defeats on the british in the first and second anglo maratha wars
The victory at Panipat(1761) wouldn't have made much difference. Battle of Panipat(1761) wasn't of much significance. As the battle was a pyrrhic victory for the Afghans and their allies and it was exhausted Abdali who was forced to make peace with the Marathas. Not the other way round. Marathas recovered soon from the aftermath affects of the Panipat War by 1772. So this event is highly overrated. Mostly by anti-Maratha bigots and those who are biased against them. The Maratha loss was qualitative in nature not quantitative. And this wasn't the end of Durrani-Maratha conflicts, as there were conflicts between them in Punjab even after Panipat(1761) too. Like in Punjab in 1787-90s, in which the Marathas succeeded and the Durrani Afghans failed against Marathas and their supported Sikh Misls of Majha Punjab.
Marathas were victorious in many Anglo-Maratha conflicts of 17th-early 19th century. The so-called First Anglo-Maratha War(1775-83) was neither the first Anglo-Maratha War nor the only Maratha victory over English/Brits. Holkar Marathas succeeded in the 2nd Anglo-Maratha War(1802-06) too. Lt Colonel William Monson's entire 10-12K strong British-Indian expeditionary force was destroyed and annihilated by the Holkar Maratha forces in Bundelkhand in the mid-1804. In summar and rainy season. Just 200-300 men(including Monson himself) somehow managed to survive the Maratha onslaught. This was one of the worst defeats ever suffered by Brits in India. Yet, hardly anyone know about this.
Another upload from my favorite small channel! You seriously have quality comparable to the big alternate history UA-camrs, without a doubt better than Whatifalthist was in his early days. I really hope you grow.
whatifalthist is barely even an alternate history channel at this point, it's a bit embarrasing to witness what he has developed into.
@@LuKing2 I still like him but it's true he doesn't do alternate history these days, more sociology.
@@TheArctofireHDits more like fantasy than alternate history.
Seems you like false propaganda video praising Western atrocities 😂😂😂
It is not British but Sir sardar Vallabhbhai Patel who unifies more than 650+Princely states.🇮🇳🙏into India।
The British divided India by religion and created a radical State called Pakistan to counter India.
Pakistan creates by nehru
Hindu identity was a British creation, plus patel only managed to convince because antibritish sentinent within states
Do you even know what the video is saying?
The British unified the subcontinent
While patel unified some kingdoms into india
@@tubergottubed shut up
British never unites any country or continent
It only divides countries
None of this unification drive of over 650+ regions would exist without Britain showing India the inherent weakness of being seperated. Let's not act like Indian unification was a 100% pure Indian concept not included by the actions of a bid bad occupier.
Also just to add as a south Indian: South India is also very close to each other culturally. Our languages are pretty similar to each other and with time it is very easy to learn other south Indian languages if you are a Native South Indian. Also ethnically we are Dravidians, unlike the Indo-Aryan hindi speakers to the north. The south is more likely to unify under a loose Federation than the North because there is a lot of infighting and religious differences in the north compared to the South which is mainly Hindu with a few notable muslims in Hyderabad. However this is probably the most unrealistic scenario India is too valuable to not be colonised. Even if the British fail the first time they will just come back stronger ad take over the entire sub-continent.
Anyway, It's great to see my country in your videos keep up the good work.
You're making European colonisation an inevitability, but it wasn't. It wasn't even planned. If India was run by Indians rather than Persian Muslims and they invested in naval technology, they would've seen off the Europeans very easily. European colonisation of the planet was no inevitable, the Americas was 90% killed off by disease. Africa didn't get properly colonised until after the invention of machine guns and Asia was taken using divide and conquer.
"Hindi speaker " "north" lol
@@anitathakur9340 what are you trying to say?
@@vikramk4966 hindi speaker≠north
It wasn't that unrealistic. It was the East India company not the British crown that first colonized> Britain even discouraged this idea. So had Siraj Ud-Daullah won at Plassey then the EIC would've been absorbed by the crown and then only trading will occur as France was too weak to colonize after Napoleon
It'd be interesting if you'd make a video exploring the idea of a "scramble for India" type scenario. Many nations were involved in India at one point or another so I don't think it's entirely unrealistic to imagine a subcontinent further divided, even if the proportion of British/French possessions would still be the biggest ones.
French got neutralized by Marathas by defeating them and by turning them into friends. Rest got dealt a death blow by Brits in the 7 Years War(1756-63) and 1790s-early 1800s.
Maraths already took over large portions of India before the British arrived
Indians reunited India, the British divided India and portrayed it as a unified Raj
India was already divided before the British came that why uk easily invaded India
India was a "geographical" term
British made it a "political"term and divided the "geographically"
Your self denial is parhetic.
Indian state is direct heir ofHindu raj, prooved by Nepal, being as indian as the rest, didn’t became part of India because the inglish didn’t conquered them.
So, better call it British Bharat.
Would've been cool to see India sort of become the Japan of this timeline where it is united under the Maratha Confederacy which isolates the country and when the Europeans show up it goes through the same quick industrialization as Japan did which we all know what ot led to...
why do you think it would be marathas
@@ShadowMonarch._.Coz they are only powerfull indian entity which has capacity to conquer india again
@@gameruleworld.1889what about sikhs living their
@@ShadowMonarch._. do you have any personal problem from them or are you a racist.
Maratha were weak in the longterm
Also, just realised, the hypothetical Maratha empire looks like a bizzare Mexican empire 😂😂😂
Exact same thing I thought while making the thumbnail
It is not hypothetical Empire it was a real Empire I am Maratha to
@@possiblehistory excuse me how is that maratha map hypothetical? these are the areas that were controlled by marathas, your video screams a lack of knowledge
Hypothetical empires sounds like every Christain(pope based) and islamic empires
@@possiblehistoryNo, It's the Peak Size of the Empire..
can you do a video on WW1 and if it never happened? i'd love to see someone actually cover the topic properly, keep up the good work!
In my opinion ww1 is the event in world history which changed humanity the most. I don't Care about border changes. The societal and ideological topics alone are too long to list even in an hours long video. Every video on this topic I've ever seen only focuses on borders and that undersells the importance of the topic
@@authenticbitterleben7434 💯💯💯, tbh i never really looked at that angle of history before, thanks for bringing it up🙏
@@authenticbitterleben7434 WW2 is more influental but yeah.
What about doing this scenario a different way- like what if India wasn’t colonized *because* a single Indian state unified the subcontinent before 1750?
Much of the Indian Subcontinent and most of the Indian heartland was dominated by the Marathas (directly & indirectly).
India wouldn't exist as it does today, if it wasn't colonized. But they like to have a romanticized theory of a great india lmao.
@@SlimJim3082 Tens of millions of Indians wouldn't have died and trillions of wealth wouldn't have been stolen if India didn't get colonized by the British.
Colonisation would still happen. India had lush natural resource wealth and was technologically behind the Europeans.
The Great Chinese empire didn't resist Colonisation because it was strong or anything. It was just more economical for the British to trade with them through imposed unfair trade agreements instead of wasting money and man power on conquering such a dense land. It is good to remember that the European powers were in their Golden years and their only real rivals "the Islamic Gun powder empires" had mostly been reduced to puppets and rump states by then.
@@elusiveshadow5848 Then you know nothing about India and its history of that period. Most of the Indian Subcontinent was under the direct and indirect influence of the Maratha Empire(1645-1843/1947-50). Marathas and some other states which had their own military-industrial complex, were in no way technologically weak and inferior to the Europeans. They had lots of Westerners working for them as part of their politico-military bureaucracy and civil administration.
The reasons for the British gaining political & economic control of most of the Indian Subcontinent, are complex. Primarily, they were lack of strategic thinking at some crucial points on time, political fracturing, political instability and lack of unity. Marathas lost because of their own internal rivalries, conflicts and civil wars. This is what caused Brits becoming masters of the Subcontinent. Otherwise, the technology was no factor in the downfall of the Marathas. Indians were no Native Americans or Zulus or Australian Aboriginals. Marathas defeated and neutralised Dutch, French and Portuguese. And also kept English/Brits at bay for a long time.
Eventually, the Brits managed to defeat Marathas but still they didn't managed to rule over all of India and Indian Subcontinent. As states like Nepal remained independent from the British rule.
Qing Empire and its military were technologically inferior. That is why they lost to numerically inferior Western armies. They even lost to Japan, their former feudatory. China was partially and semi-colonised.
"Their only real....gunpowder empires....rump states".
The so-called gunpowder Isl@m!c empires lost because of various factors and reasons. Won't go into each and everyone of them because of constraints but in case of India, the Mughals lost and ended as an empire long before the Brits got hold of any part of India. They(Mughals) were neither technologically superior to anyone nor scientifically. They got replaced by the Marathas by mid-18th century. It was the Marathas who fought against the Brits in 18th-earky 19th century period.
Do you remember my Buddhism suggestion?? What if Buddhism remained dominant in central, western and south asia including indian subcontinent.
Spain also got a colony in ind… ok maybe that is too farfetched, but what can I say, I am a Spanish history enjoyer
they actually did tho just a port even denmark got some islands
@2:50
British got permission to setup business in India
Noone could invade india by sea
Its suicide
Your basic idea could have been denied permission.....
You have severly underestimate the european naval power
@@Yuri_mf travancore defeated Portuguese and Dutch. British not attacked travancore as arrested Dutch naval head Gave gun powder weapons to travancore
It's really sad to see when alternate history creators look at indian societies they assume that they work the same way as their own societies. The Maratha states had there disagreements but showed higher levels of cooperation than many European states. The states and the Peshwa under the Chhatrapati had their own demarcated spheres of influence to restrict internal conflict apart from mediation from the Peshwa and the Chhatrapati.
Dude no one can do proper Indian history. It's really really irritating. I like this dude but come on the British weren't just bull dozing their way they were losing tons of casualties due to numerous wars. Anyone of those wars could have been mentioned but weren't
@@darkorange835correct
Anyone growing up with a Abrahmic framework cannot understand the beauty & unity of India.
We are athiests😂😂😂
@@keralanaturelover196 So why are you reading his comment? go away his comment was directed towards Thiests...
This idea of unity has been ingrained into you by the education you've received growing up, the education based on said Abrahmic framework. Remember it is India or Bharat that has "Unity in Diversity" not the divided states that comprised it before.
See that is the problem, Bharat exists at every level, its not like different elements come together to make up BHarat as a whole, the Abrahmic framework only manufactured divide when clearly there's none in ground reality. Hindi vs English narrative, north vs south. And I can assure you that educated class in India at one point had very anti India position and the best possible life under that framework was to be a economic refugge leave the country backed by intitutions like iit n iim. Stop embarassing yourself by saying that all these sengiments are manufactured via skul, you cannot be more wrong. @@elusiveshadow5848
@@elusiveshadow5848 I totally disagree, before abrahmic invasion Indian borders changed frequently but the pilgrimage remained the same, the idea of India is ingrained in our religion.
In Hindusim we have all the types of Puja to revere different Gods and each and every single of them starts with acknowledging the Idea of India to this day, Bharat-khande, Jambudweepey and this practise goes back to at least 11000 years. Bharat the word predates the whole concept of nation.
Nation state is a very new concept that suits the heterogeneous continent with the same religion and the country is formed on the basis of language . We Reject this pompous and hollow concept no wonder few million immigrants and the whole system is collapsing in Europe.
In India Christian and Muslim are openly converting Hindus to this day and we still allow it .
This is really good and quite a well researched video!
It isn't
Nice, glad that you did a video on India. Can I request a what if video on Malaysia? Would like to see a video on what if Malacca wasn't conquered by the British or what if Indonesia declared war on Malaysia
Imagine the Europeans being nice to the world....and never colonized and looted others...
Imagine...
you should make a part 2, the impacts this would have on ww1 or ww2 would be immense
The idea of a unified state had always existed in india. Akhand bharat. Many rulers set out to achieve it.
If Tipu made peace with the Marathas and aligned against the British when he conducted his offensive against the British in the second Anglo-Mysore war, the British would have been ended right then. What happens after that likely, is military modernization sponsored by the French, or French and European mercenaries, who would have converted some of the armies into European styled forces. If Tipu survives then he could build the first properly modernized centralized state with a modern army, and have a realistic chance of conquering all of South India at least. The Marathas and Mysore would contend with each other, for the rest of the sub-continent.
One inaccuracy is that European helping India mordinize cause if left alone India would have industrialized on its own without forgien help
Indian subcontinent would be split into multiple nations..
But the region as a whole would be much more developed and prosperous.. Likely would be like Europe today, multiple nations but very prosperous. And without the Indian loot, Europe would be much more poorer.
But truthfully, China would then be far more economically dominant over the multiple Indian nations. It wouldn't quite be all sunshine and roses in the modern day.
WHAT IF Bhaarat Maata was never colonized- India MIGHT HAVE been a developed country with an economy as strong as USA.The treasury of India started to drain out since the series of loot organized by former Afghan rulers Mahmud Ghazni and Mohammed Ghauri around 11th century AD followed by 4 centuries of Pathan Empire and 3 centuries of Mughal Empire which unfortunately paved the way for 4 centuries of Portuguese colonization and 3 centuries of British Colonization with French and Dutch colonization lasting 4 only 2 centuries.
Not that unrealistic. There were several very powerful states in India (like, as others have mentioned, the Maratha empire) and some of them inflicted military defeats on the British. Also, the early British conquest of India was mostly carried out by the East India Company. If the EIC/occasional direct British intervention is delivered several early defeats they may come to see a conquest as not worth it (not profitable) or even impossible. Also, I don’t think European competition over India has to make a conquest more likely. If some diplomatically astute Indian princes can pit the colonial powers against each other, they may exhaust themselves in competition while placing the Indians in a stronger position.
I feel something is pretty inherently wrong about this video
India was a manufacturing hub since the ancient times
They made everything from Damascus steel to some of the best boats on the planet,beating out even the portguese
India wouldn’t be a backwater like china,if anything in the industrial era,it would be a part of the planet that modernises quickly
Im not accusing PH of racism for not thinking this way since india was a colony and hence served the whims of the British parliament which happened to be agriculturally aligned or atleast primary good focused
Please make a video on what if India was never invaded by Turkish-Islamic plunderers from Northwest... And modern India would be exist like strong Maurya or Gupta Empire in centre with strong decentralized states like Punjab Maharashtra Gujarat tamilnad Bengal Assam
Before colonization, there were many states in India and the people of those states were completely different from each other. The British conquered all those states and unified India under one federation. If Indians were successful in defending their states against the colonizers, there would have been lots of different countries in India today and there would have been no country namely India.
Italy too was disunited??
@@prateeksharma6706 In all the Italian states, people were speaking same language, they belonged to same race and they had same religion whereas in India, people were different from each other in terms of language, culture, caste and Creed, moreover, India was much more bigger than Italy. We can say Italy was a country whereas India was a subcontinent, therefore, India and Italy could not be compared with each other.
@@MuhammadUmar-ct5pe Italy has always had a distinctive dialect for each city because the cities, until recently, were thought of as city-states. Those dialects now have considerable variety
-Google
India too had a single lunga franca namely hindustani language(a mix of hindi +urdu)
A race like india never had race all indians are just diffrent shades of browns its only u pakistani punjabis who think of yourself as whites and us indians as black while in reality there are no black and whites in india there are only darkbrown and light brown and evreything in between
As for caste then doesnt matter caste is not a united institution
I am not saying that india would inevitablly exist i am just saying that indias existence in not just a British thing
Although if india wont exist then pakistan wouldnt be a thing
@@prateeksharma6706 Indian states were not like city states of Italy, they were countries and many of them were larger than whole Italy. Those states wouldn't have united without colonization. The languages in subcontinent were completely different and were not dialects of a language. People of a state weren't able to speak languages of other states. The lingua franca before the arrival of British was Persian, not hindi/urdu
@@MuhammadUmar-ct5pe Persian was formal, Hindustani was colloquial. Also, Italy also have had many languages.
What if this alternate India they make some kind of Indian Union, similar to how the EU is
I really enjoyed the video!
I think at some point in the mid 20th century, all of the Indian states would form a confederayion like state with free trade and movement, as well as a unified foreign policy.
india probably couldve avoided colonisation if we assumed that some Indian kingdom managed to unite India under his rule. Mysore alone defeated British twice until the British made an alliance with 5 other indian empires to defeat mysore. an alternate storyline would be that the Marathas managed to conquer under Shivajis rule India before the British arrived. he already had ambitions of a massive empire and he crushed all the major powers of his time so he could've most likely conquered the rest of india. that way India was strong enough to fight off a foreign invader and if they had Mysorean rockets with Madras infantry and a massive army they would've been unconquerable.
Mysore was religiously intolerant. Marathas would not let them pass karnataka even if they wanted to.
Also, after the 7 years war, the british began to gradually increase their influence from their trading posts, and establishing protecterates.
Your theory is good, and I appreciate all the hard work you’ve put in it. I would like to add a few more thoughts for maybe an alternate explanation for the subject of the video.
Your theory assumes that the Indian unification can happen only under the absence of European influence. I would like to propose an alternative for this. While what you explain in your video definitely a possibility, it also assumes that European countries were super powers back then and could rival India or China head to head. When Europeans first started colonisation they were not that powerful or rich. They took advantage of faltering leadership in Asia and America, and gradually became a powerhouse. Vast number of people fighting for the Europeans in India were the locals who were looking for a better life. Europe could not have maintain its power in the country without support from local people. Therefore if we have to speculate on what might have prevented Indian Subcontinent from colonisation from an external power and being unified at the same time, we have to envision some kind of cultural revolution in an Indian empire that would prevent the locals from supporting external powers. Perhaps raise of a charismatic leader in the Maratha empire that lays down cultural reforms. In such a scenario, Maratha empire would have unified India.
As far as the confederate nature of this empire is concerned, we must remember that Indian Subcontinent is roughly the size of Europe. And European Union today is not an insignificant entity by any means. Like EU, there is defiantly a possibility of Indian states coming together in ideology and wielding power in its collective interest. The cultural common threat that took a distinct Indian under the British, always existed in India and we shouldn’t rule out a possibility of Indian states banding together. When look at the bigger picture, Indian states have a lot in common with each other compared to Middle East or China , then why can’t we speculate on an Indian Union as a power player on the world stage?
India and her people regardless of religion lived in harmony, the british 'divide and rule' didn't only apply to regions but religion as well. People were systematically put against each other, distracting from the real problem much like how the west operates now. That crack is still haunting India and Pakistan.
Not to mention India was the richest country in the world before colonization. Corruption contributed largely to the fall of it.
Wars and raids in india were common and had high deaths
But British famines are still the worst
What map-making tool do you use?
I think you vast underestimated India's capabilities of defending itself. It has been one of the most populated regions on earth and could very well have defended itself.
The assertion that India was conquered due to disunity is a bit misleading. The britts had consistency on their side. The EIC kept at it until it eventually managed to take advantage of moments of weakness. The fact that the conquering took centuries proves that.
The brits could definitely conquer cina at the time. The first opium war was simple proof of how OP they were at that point, dwarfing the much larger state due to improved technology. The problem with wars is that they are expensive, and at the time britain was already at a disadvantage sincec the first opium war was effectively the result of trade negotiations going badly. So you have the experience of the conquering of India being extremely expensive (bailing out the EIC almost bankrupted the empire) and you are faced with the situation where you have the option to conquer another massive country but you're definitely too broke to do it without hurting yourself financially.
I wonder if an EU style economic/military union developing during/after the cold war is likely, perhaps even explicitly modeled after the EU. A desire to be able to combat the influence of the USSR/US/China could, in my opinion, feasibly combine with the religious and cultural ties that do exist within the area to provide an impetus for closer cooperation, in a very similar manner to the EU.
Another point to note is the French never held significant territory in the South Eastern Coast of India especially the Southern tips, they controlled Pondicherry while the surrounding Tamil and Telugu Regions was under the Carnatic Nawabs and Hyderabadi Nizam where rival claimants were often supported by the British or the French. In the last quarter of the 18th century is when the British really control outside Madras.
What if the 1857 Indian revolution was successful?
The Sepoy Mutiny? As an Indian I am afraid it would just be a setback for the British. They were having a field day with our resources, and wouldn't quit so easily, moreover they probably have foreseen such a circumstance. We do not have a proper leader equipped with the goals of and the aftermath of the revolt, let alone lead the revolt. The British would eventually win the war even if one were to break out and we would have some battles won. They were superior to us during those days, let's not be ashamed to admit it.
I imagine it would be alot like what happened with China, loads of internal instability with colonial powers taling advantage of that without fully colonising.
So if india was never colonized, it would be similar to europe and Southeast asia, with many states kingdoms ruling the subcontinent, as well as having a personal union similar to the e.u.
Lovely idea! I really enjoyed watching this video!
You can't dictate one sentence without word Europe
Interesting scenario as always, though I must say I wish you went full alien space bats and created a scenario without any outside interference
Something that I wanted to say is that its likely that the Durranis would start a new Muslim empire in the North, and the southern Tamil peoples would create another Hindu empire as they always have. Whatifalthist pointed this happening throughout Indian and Pakistani history, and it's one of the few things he says that rings true
Can you please do a what if scenario about Sweden winning the Great Northern war. There are multiple ways this could have happened for an example so would the Swedes be in a much better spot if they destroyed the Saxan army in their crossing of the Duna river and then later as they intended to do invade Russia after all their enemies wore unable the pose a threat. If you for some reason don't know what the great northern war was so was it the war that maid Russia be able to rise and become a great power.
I think there are couple other likely scenarios: The Maratha confederacy could have just grown in size by incorporating other regions; primarily conquering the Nizam of Hyderabad and the Rohilya state in Awadh. Rohilyas rolled with the Afghans, so if Maratha decisively won Panipat, then I doubt the Rohilyas would have lasted much longer with Maratha warlords having casus belli to take it over. I think Mysore and Nizams would suffer a similar fate. So you still have decentralized India but under a loose confederate framework. European powers would take advantage of this; but so would Indian semi states who could push modernization in their realm like Japan in the Meiji era.
2:37 start here
What about a possible history of indonesia if the Dutch never colonised it?
Mad consistent ✊🏽
Well presented. But we must also feel that industrial revolution will shortly spread to India also and Marathas would use the growing technology in Europe and keep their consolidated power. As they would not have lost their wealth outside borders, the country would have continued to be rich with a supreme centre and vassal states.
What if Guthrum defeated Alfred the great at the battle of Edington and England became a Germanic Pagan kingdom?
England would probably still exist in a different sense, provided that either guthrum conquers York, or the ruler of York conquers guthrum's kingdom. If not, probably at least 2 different anglo-norse kingdoms exist, at least for a while. The rulers in the north and south are quite likely to just marry into the locals and become Christians within a generation or 2. English culture is probably closer to the Scandinavians than it is in real life. The English probably get caught up in Norse power struggles, just like they did after Knut.
I feel like the larger effect in this would actually be in Normandy. Why settle Normandy with rollo when you can just settle in England. If Normandy and the Normans are weaker, or don't exist, the effects in Europe would be major.
i would argue that many much more developed indian states would still be a huge player on the world stage. we would most likely see strong alliances form between many of these indian states, and even thought they are smaller, these states would be able to leverage their still sizeable populations much more effectively than modern day india due to increased development and autonomy.
Yeah, but also outside influence. China would probably boss the states around far more frequently.
Usa federalism needed
India should just be like Switzerland
What’s that supposed to mean?
@@nerdy8644 neutrality?
@@SuvarnaIyengar I think india is pretty neutral. They took no side in the Russia Ukraine war, right?
@@nerdy8644 maybe even MORE neutrality and less millitary action?
@@SuvarnaIyengar when were they not neutral?
Never colonised❌
Never invaded by betrayers ✅
What does this mean?
@@somethingcraft3148 bro Britishers weren't worthy to defeat indian kings
They back stabbed us... 🙂
He defeated all the "use right map of India" people by using the weirdest map of India the world has ever seen.
India is where it is because of what it has been through. ❤
Nepal would have been bigger and it was before British arived
Personally i see revolutions happening in India against rulers and for democracy , the minor states that you speak of will eventually rebel trying to carve their own countries , A whole India was still possible but would definitely need some bloodshed and power struggle and this can happen since europe was simply too weak ater ww2 to intefere in most places in the world.
The growth of India was much more than empires
The continent in itself is a civilization of culture
What if Savarkar unified India as he wanted to?Make video on this?
As an Indian I am afraid only central India might have stayed India and the nooks and corners forming other nations or joining other present countries. This topic 'What if' has always been on my mind but I am afraid India is as it is today because the British ( a superior race to us) united us and probably made us jumped from Kingdoms to modernization. We have certainly lost our original progress but here we are in the top 10 supremacy worldwide. The Britishers have their merits and demerits. We have certainly skipped some levels of our development. From warring states to an united Nation and leaders known by men until the end of mandkind who have the qualities and idea to lead a successful revolution and developed our nation up until now.
Excuse me superior race ? Have you lost your mind???
@@manojthaku5496 were they not? With all their guns and cannons and their military strategies, even with just these things.
@@chungnung5487 are you assuming that we didn't had guns? India didnt had cannon? India didn't had military that did the largest naval conquest by the cholas? Up until that point of time no country had achieved such a feat
@@manojthaku5496 then how tf did we lose to some 2nd/3rd Empire? We weren't even a countback then. We were a bunch quarrelling kingdoms.
@@chungnung5487 lmao the maratha were having infighting , there was no strong leader and also people forget that a significant amount of company people were indians themselves aka sepoys,the martha had exhausted from mugals wars .but also is an important factor is that british had studied the indian psychy especially the hindu one very well
I think the people who would benefit the most would be Burma cuz they got obliterated by the brits
Something that is wrong in the initial history the video covers is saying we did not have a nation state ideology. That's wrong. We have the "rashtra" and "rajya" (nation and state) concept outlining the nation state of Bharat as far back as Chanakya during the Mauryan empire. Our religious text like the rig ved also mention of this united nation land.
A different version of this video can we where India was not colonised by Islamist forces as well. Then we could've had a much more stable (not completely peaceful) unified nation state.
South not part of imaginary maurya
Stop learning history from mythology
Your chanakya never existed, give one archeological evidence if you have guts
@@keralanaturelover196it was vassal
"india" was a geographical term not a "political" term untill the Mughals
Nice!
India would have still seen a civil war broke. Period!! Imagine having a Muslim Pashahi Emperor (Read Mughal Badshah Bahadur Shah Zafar) and Hindu Peshwa as Grand Vizier (Read Nana Saheb). How will that gonna work out?? Bengal, Hyderabad and Awadh will revolt and in retaliation. Marathas and Sikhs will retaliate. And Rajput form 3rd front.
Mughals were already puppets of marathas😂
@@riderchallenge4250 And yet Marathas only recognized Mughal authority over India and Delhi the following years. They fought to protect the Badshah himself as a vow for Mughals recognizing Shahuji and offering their support and protection. Every ruler of India needed that approval stamp of Mughals be seen as overlord even without any power purely out of respect.
The internet would have been better if England didn’t teach them English.
The bri ish wouldn't have internet cause it was invented by a Indian
Very cool Video, have a nice day!
Big Dislike. This video starts with a false information of giving credit to British for the creation of India 😠
Now I understand the glory of Samrat Asoke
There's a possibility the Marathas could take inspiration from the Japanese in empire building.
finally a Ph where we can watch it without hiding from parents.
💀💀💀
Love ya Vids
Brishers: we can't defeat them
We have crack wars between them
Then we will take chance
I tend not to consume content made by Europeans or Americans that has to deal with alternate histories in Asia or Africa because many of these content creators will fall under the assumption that because things happened in our timeline, are supposed to happen in others or follow similar paths, and another thing is that these content craters will diminish the the agencies of the people they are talking about. Yes I get it that this is a complex subject and it’s easy to say that Europeans would always naturally conquer but it ignores the fact that without India’s wealth, Europe would not have the capital to build its industrial might. In your scenario you’ve already discussed how the American revolution and the French revolution have happened. Europe wouldn’t have access to easy cheap resources for industrialization and trade. a perfect example of what I mean is that the British grew opium in India to sell to China to offset its trade imbalance and the flow of silver leaving Britain because it’s addiction to tea. Eventually, Britain would actively grow its own tea in Sri Lanka, and North India.
British united india fact 🎉
Hallo.
Another great video.
There was a massive power struggle within the Maratha Empire which weakened it significantly. If the power struggle did not take place then Marathas would never have been colonised .
Its impossible for Europeans to be technically advanced without colonising India
Actually they were already
For british*
@@AllAboutMMA
Not really. European technological gap didn’t really start to appear until the early to mid 1800s. This India had already been for the most part completely colonized for several decades. You can look at the battles that the bridge were fighting in India, and realize that a lot of the weapons that they were using were pretty much the same weapons that the native Indian armies were using.
india was always its own place n made by own labor 70 percent was independent princely states not all only a few areas that were agreed upon
I love your videos
What’s up with the maps in this one?
Ngl, I don’t think this alternative India would be a mere pawn in European or American games, the Bengal region experienced a form of proto-industrialisation before the British. So if this wasn’t held back by European colonisation, it could have continued, making this region a technological and economic powerhouse in its own right
Can u do what if sub sharia africa has guns and was more monarchist than tribal in the 1700s
Why not an Indian Union like the European Union?
Day 6 asking for "What if Everything Went Perfect for Romania"
Basically you know know nothing about india all you talked about british,french and russia.