• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

AHC: Islamic India

History Learner

Well-known member
As the title says, what would it take to have India (Hindustan?) become majority Muslim? At least clear majority, so 50-60% of the population in the Subcontinent must be Islamic in faith.

One idea I've had is somehow diverting the Turkic migrations/conquest spree from the wider Middle East into just a Persia event and from there it's a stepping stone into India. We thus get the "Seljuk Turks" creating the "Sultanate of Delhi" perhaps a couple of centuries sooner and from there a steady of steppe Islamic warriors are constantly filtering into the region. The power of the organized Islamic entities may wane, but the long term picture seems them gradually expanding deeper and deeper into India, much the same as happened in Anatolia.
 
Last edited:
As the title says, what would it take to have India (Hindustan?) become majority Muslim? At least clear majority, so at least 50-60% of the population in the Subcontinent must be Islamic in faith.

One idea I've had is somehow diverting the Turkic migrations/conquest spree from the wider Middle East into just a Persia event and from there it's a stepping stone into India. We thus get the "Seljuk Turks" creating the "Sultanate of Delhi" perhaps a couple of centuries sooner and from there a steady of steppe Islamic warriors are constantly filtering into the region. The power of the organized Islamic entities may wane, but the long term picture seems them gradually expanding deeper and deeper into India, much the same as happened in Anatolia.
Considering the historical rate of conversions in Persia, I have no doubt that if India had remained under Muslim rule for another 1000 years, it would have become Muslim majority. Same with the Ottoman Balkans.
 
As the title says, what would it take to have India (Hindustan?) become majority Muslim? At least clear majority, so 50-60% of the population in the Subcontinent must be Islamic in faith.

One idea I've had is somehow diverting the Turkic migrations/conquest spree from the wider Middle East into just a Persia event and from there it's a stepping stone into India. We thus get the "Seljuk Turks" creating the "Sultanate of Delhi" perhaps a couple of centuries sooner and from there a steady of steppe Islamic warriors are constantly filtering into the region. The power of the organized Islamic entities may wane, but the long term picture seems them gradually expanding deeper and deeper into India, much the same as happened in Anatolia.
Considering the historical rate of conversions in Persia, I have no doubt that if India had remained under Muslim rule for another 1000 years, it would have become Muslim majority. Same with the Ottoman Balkans.
As a simpler point of divergence, you could have the Caliphate conquer more of the Indian subcontinent. In our timeline, they only conquered Sindh.
 
As a simpler point of divergence, you could have the Caliphate conquer more of the Indian subcontinent. In our timeline, they only conquered Sindh.

I feel like the Caliphate was too overstretched at that point to be achievable, it'd also dramatically change Islam from what we know it as.
 
This question is tough to answer since, well, we don’t actually know why most of India did not go Muslim. The answers I have read about are badly deficient i.e. if theories on the oneness of God prevented India from going Muslim then why did Kashmir go Muslim, if the Bhakti movement was why, then why did Bengal go mostly Muslim, and so on and so forth.

Perhaps a stronger Arab invasion may be a good start to this answer and/or an early strong Islamization of Rajputs who then might spread Islam across India themselves. Earlier and/or more Turkic invasions might help towards this end, but on the other hand it is clear that many of those Turkic people ended up Hindu - for instance, there are many Kashmiri Hindus with the last name “Turki” - so if you have early Turkic invasions many of the invaders might just end up Hindu.
 
This question is tough to answer since, well, we don’t actually know why most of India did not go Muslim. The answers I have read about are badly deficient i.e. if theories on the oneness of God prevented India from going Muslim then why did Kashmir go Muslim, if the Bhakti movement was why, then why did Bengal go mostly Muslim, and so on and so forth.

Perhaps a stronger Arab invasion may be a good start to this answer and/or an early strong Islamization of Rajputs who then might spread Islam across India themselves. Earlier and/or more Turkic invasions might help towards this end, but on the other hand it is clear that many of those Turkic people ended up Hindu - for instance, there are many Kashmiri Hindus with the last name “Turki” - so if you have early Turkic invasions many of the invaders might just end up Hindu.

It's worth noting Hinduism massively revived as a popular force during the Mughals, which led to conversions to Hinduism from Islam during the latter period of their rule. Before this, especially during the Delhi Sultanate IIRC, it was a mostly one way affair to Islam. Of note, however, is the fact that Islam seemed to spread where the Caste system was weakest too.

One idea I've played with is Mardavij of the Ziyarid dynasty being able to re-conquer Iran, incidentally restoring Zoroastrianism, but also creating a State able to deflect the coming explosion of Turkic invaders into India. Given the region is closer and just as wealth, the connections developed have the effect of shifting the "Steppe conveyer belt" from his historical place into the Middle East into one in India. Wave after wave of Islamic Turks enables the boundaries of Islam to slowly grow by leaps and bounds in India. Marauding Turkic warbands have a way of tearing down local political/social structures, like the previously mentioned Caste system, which helps in fostering conversions.
 
It's worth noting Hinduism massively revived as a popular force during the Mughals, which led to conversions to Hinduism from Islam during the latter period of their rule. Before this, especially during the Delhi Sultanate IIRC, it was a mostly one way affair to Islam.

There were a few conversions from Islam to Hinduism among some upper-castes (which is exactly why it was so unusual), it was a relatively minor affair that many in the royal court exaggerated. Hindu revivalism, that is the Bhakti movement, much predates the Mughal Empire.

Of note, however, is the fact that Islam seemed to spread where the Caste system was weakest too.
The Hindu-Sikh part of Punjab has a similar caste system to the Muslim part of Punjab, with agrarian castes like Jats and Arains having an unusually high position. The collapse of caste in Bangladesh is a recent affair (and it clearly still lingers on in some ways) but historically it has been very strong, while caste-based endogamy has consistently survived in all matters of Pakistani society with genetic data reflecting this. And if one looks at South Asian Islam, caste is certainly alive and well, except that it is defined on the basis of dubious claims of foreign descent and, at the very top, dubious claims of descent from Muhammad. Caste is another deficient explanation for the growth of Islam.
 
This question is tough to answer since, well, we don’t actually know why most of India did not go Muslim. The answers I have read about are badly deficient i.e. if theories on the oneness of God prevented India from going Muslim then why did Kashmir go Muslim, if the Bhakti movement was why, then why did Bengal go mostly Muslim, and so on and so forth.

Perhaps a stronger Arab invasion may be a good start to this answer and/or an early strong Islamization of Rajputs who then might spread Islam across India themselves. Earlier and/or more Turkic invasions might help towards this end, but on the other hand it is clear that many of those Turkic people ended up Hindu - for instance, there are many Kashmiri Hindus with the last name “Turki” - so if you have early Turkic invasions many of the invaders might just end up Hindu.
East Bengal became Muslim because it was once a heavily forested frontier society. It was only in the era of the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire that East Bengal was cleaned and settled in large scale.
 
There were a few conversions from Islam to Hinduism among some upper-castes (which is exactly why it was so unusual), it was a relatively minor affair that many in the royal court exaggerated. Hindu revivalism, that is the Bhakti movement, much predates the Mughal Empire.

Admittedly I'm not well versed in Indian history, but I have seen various estimates that Islam in India peaked at 25-30% and then started to decline. Did your opinion on the importance of the Bhakti change or am I misunderstanding something?

The Hindu-Sikh part of Punjab has a similar caste system to the Muslim part of Punjab, with agrarian castes like Jats and Arains having an unusually high position. The collapse of caste in Bangladesh is a recent affair (and it clearly still lingers on in some ways) but historically it has been very strong, while caste-based endogamy has consistently survived in all matters of Pakistani society with genetic data reflecting this. And if one looks at South Asian Islam, caste is certainly alive and well, except that it is defined on the basis of dubious claims of foreign descent and, at the very top, dubious claims of descent from Muhammad. Caste is another deficient explanation for the growth of Islam.

Very good rebuttal, thank you for correcting me on this!
 
Admittedly I'm not well versed in Indian history, but I have seen various estimates that Islam in India peaked at 25-30% and then started to decline.
Id love to know where you got those numbers.
Yes, actually. I’ve looked at the issue in the five years since then, and it’s a lot less clear-cut to me. While many well-known Bhakti saints did emerge in the Mughal era, and certainly the Bhakti movement was very important to the formation of Maratha Empire and all, it was a very potent force well before the Mughals, and it was not the extreme reformatory break from older forms of Hinduism I thought it was.
 
I feel like the Caliphate was too overstretched at that point to be achievable, it'd also dramatically change Islam from what we know it as.

In what particular ways do you think early more extensive Indian conquests would change the Islamic religion?

It's worth noting Hinduism massively revived as a popular force during the Mughals, which led to conversions to Hinduism from Islam during the latter period of their rule. Before this, especially during the Delhi Sultanate IIRC, it was a mostly one way affair to Islam. Of note, however, is the fact that Islam seemed to spread where the Caste system was weakest too.

Interesting. Surprising. I never heard that before.

There were a few conversions from Islam to Hinduism among some upper-castes (which is exactly why it was so unusual), it was a relatively minor affair that many in the royal court exaggerated. Hindu revivalism, that is the Bhakti movement, much predates the Mughal Empire.

Oh, so it's contested.

-- great discussion, it sounds like you're both continually educating yourselves, and everybody else who tunes in, on the topic.
 
Id love to know where you got those numbers.

Yes, actually. I’ve looked at the issue in the five years since then, and it’s a lot less clear-cut to me. While many well-known Bhakti saints did emerge in the Mughal era, and certainly the Bhakti movement was very important to the formation of Maratha Empire and all, it was a very potent force well before the Mughals, and it was not the extreme reformatory break from older forms of Hinduism I thought it was.

I mean this would also point to why Islam was slow to grow in relation to Bakhti movements on the point about it being "before the Mughals" since 1) it presumably has some bearing on lower conversion rates in pre-Mughal Muslim India and 2) means that it's already a relatively strong and entrenched movement within Hinduism/"Hinduism".
 
Id love to know where you got those numbers.

Here's one that gives it as 25% during their reign:

The history of the Mughal Empire (1526–1858) reveals much of the diversity among Muslims and the complexity of Islam as variously envisioned and as practiced in India. The empire’s ruling Timurid dynasty was patrilineally Sunni; many of its original core supporters were also Sunni immigrants or descendants of immigrants from Central Asia, especially Turks and Mongols. But Mughal emperors married women from families who were Shiʿites or who either converted to Islam in India or remained Hindus; similarly, the imperial army and administration also broadened its composition to include such families. Each individual emperor developed his own religious ideology, including Sunni, Sufistic, strongly influenced by Shiʿism, and eclectically drawing upon diverse Islamic and non-Islamic Indic traditions (i.e., Hindu devotional bhakti, Zoroastrianism, Jainism). Roughly a quarter of the Mughal dynasty’s subjects were Muslim, but these also followed an array of diverse Islamic ideologies and social and religious practices (many functioning much like “castes”). Conversely, many non-Muslim officials and subjects of the dynasty adapted its Persianate patterns of culture and belief. Over the 16th and 17th centuries, the Mughal dynasty conquered most of the Indian subcontinent (except the southern tip of the peninsula), but then its empire fragmented over the 18th and early 19th centuries.​

I've seen claims as high as 30%, but I don't have any sources. Again, I freely confess to being ignorant of a lot of Indian history.

Yes, actually. I’ve looked at the issue in the five years since then, and it’s a lot less clear-cut to me. While many well-known Bhakti saints did emerge in the Mughal era, and certainly the Bhakti movement was very important to the formation of Maratha Empire and all, it was a very potent force well before the Mughals, and it was not the extreme reformatory break from older forms of Hinduism I thought it was.

So would disrupting the Bhakti play a role in helping to further Islamize India, as @Roger II suggests, in your view? It seems like a valid hypothesis, in my opinion.
 
Would no Timurid destruction of the Sultanate of Delhi have an effect? I've also thought about it having a long term effect in that it would lead to an earlier rise of the Ottomans, who might puppet Iran and this could result in a refugee wave of Islamic Persians to further bolster Delhi's strength.
 
Tell me more, I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Now that my university exams and assignments are over, I can reply: I don't know much but I think that is the most the Arabs could conquer. @Indicus, who is Indian Canadian and knows a lot about Indian history, once said so at alternatehistory.com
Also, I am counting Jammu and Kashmir as part of Punjab as it once was considered to be.
 
The other explanation I’ve heard for the survival of Hinduism has to do with the existence of an elite Hindu “culture”, informed by less elite practice - in essence that, relative to other forms of “paganism” (for lack of a better term), Hinduism tended to be a lot more cohesive even if still less cohesive than any Abrahamic faith. It’s hard to determine when such a thing came about, but the commonly-cited Adi Shankara is a theory that makes sense - he is credited for Badrinath temple in the Himalayas having Nambudiri Keralite priests, for instance. This might explain why Kashmir went Muslim - Kashmiri Hinduism even at this point tended to be separate and isolated, and even today it is radically different from other forms of Hinduism.

Of course, if this is the case, it requires a quite early POD to change this.
 
The other explanation I’ve heard for the survival of Hinduism has to do with the existence of an elite Hindu “culture”, informed by less elite practice - in essence that, relative to other forms of “paganism” (for lack of a better term), Hinduism tended to be a lot more cohesive even if still less cohesive than any Abrahamic faith. It’s hard to determine when such a thing came about, but the commonly-cited Adi Shankara is a theory that makes sense - he is credited for Badrinath temple in the Himalayas having Nambudiri Keralite priests, for instance. This might explain why Kashmir went Muslim - Kashmiri Hinduism even at this point tended to be separate and isolated, and even today it is radically different from other forms of Hinduism.

Of course, if this is the case, it requires a quite early POD to change this.
Wasn't Kashmir a Buddhist stronghold before converting to Islam, though?
 
Back
Top