What If India Was Never Colonised? 

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 britishru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-i9UEo8pCIf8.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?

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?

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

they actually did tho just a port even denmark got some islands

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.

​@@defjam137 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.

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 😂😂😂

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

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..

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

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.

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

India was already divided before the British came that why uk easily invaded 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 .

It isn't

Pakistan creates by nehru

Hindu identity was a British creation, plus patel only managed to convince because antibritish sentinent within states

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

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.

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

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

Yeah, but also outside influence. China would probably boss the states around far more frequently.

Usa federalism needed

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.

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.

💀💀💀

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?

Imagine...

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

U might be interested in a timeline called " Gurkhani Alam" . Search the term on Google

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

Mysore was religiously intolerant. Marathas would not let them pass karnataka even if they wanted to.