Why was south Asia so difficult to unify?

[AUSTERLITZ]

Indus valley isn't fertile, looks like your information is very wrong to start off. Its semi-desert area, only thing going for it is rivers and ground water, rain fed areas. This is why only British with their common sense could irrigate plains of western punjab by setting of huge numbers of colonies. Before that people dependent on cattle and nomadic lifestyle. As agriculture was poor and rain dependent.

Similar to Rajasthan but with difference being IVC get much more rain and have rivers. But only British toke advantage of that.

Wrong.By indus valley region i mean primarily punjab .Very fertile and irrigation projects were done even during maurya times,on a large scale by firuz shah tughluq.British did it later on a grand scale.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Indus valley isn't fertile

What these Indian's cannot fathom for some weird reason is that Indus Valley is entirely distinct from Ganga Basin and Dravid India. Indus Valley is essentially complete desert [Jacobabad in Sindh is one of the driest and hottest places on earth] to semi- arid desert with high atitude cold desert in the periphery. Through it the River Indus flows and only within the flood basin which only extends to few mile ribbon was irrigation possible until modern engineering was introduced by British. Up till then agriculture that could support population was strictly limited along the rivers which thread through the region. Only in the extreme north west and north in the shadow of the mountains does rain become just about sufficient. In this region a semi-nomadic pastoral culture persisted asides from the narrow ribbon along the Indus tributery rivers.

Compare this with the humid, high rain, damp climate in most of the Ganga basin which can support massive, dense poulations and which was thick jungle before.

The satellite image below lays bare the points I made. Along the Indus in Pakistan the British era irrigation which extended the narrow ribbon to a wider irrigated zone is visible but even then desert is biting it at the edges.

Rainfall map of South Asia, Notice most of Pakistan is desert with under 5 inches of precipitation. For instance Karachi has climate similar to Cairo or Baghdad.

Wrong.

Geography and history are my passions. And I have good knowledge of Pakistani geography. OPen another thread and I can teach you if you want. Did you know that semi arid desert begins just south of Lahore? And you know Lahore is well to the north of Punjab.

even during maurya times

No doubt Indian history books singing songs about 'Mauryas'?

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

No doubt Indian history books singing songs about 'Mauryas'?

Control of punjab area in particular,when i said indus valley that is what i meant -perhaps i was vague.The area is essential factor for the rise of a pan-indian power.Punjab yields high land revenue and is on the main route from the west,and sits on trade routes to central asia.As for your gangadeshi obsession with the river,you can keep rambling yet again.. no one cares anymore.
As for mauryan projects - an example would be repairing of dams by rudradaman of such work which were built by pushyagupta ,governor of chandragupta maurya.This is mentioned in junagarh rock inscription.Firuz shah tughluq's canal building is also documented in later ages.

 

[beijingwalker]

China used to have hundreds of ethnic groups and some of them once conquered most part of today's China like Xianbei, Khitans, and Jurchens,but later on all merged into the main Chinese culture and became Han Chinese. Cultures plays a deciding role in the Chinese history.

 

[defence_analyst]

Wrong.By indus valley region i mean primarily punjab .Very fertile and irrigation projects were done even during maurya times,on a large scale by firuz shah tughluq.British did it later on a grand scale.

Don't pretend to know about my country more then I. We don't even know shit about Mauryas. We barely have documented history before Mughals. There was no canal irrigation in punjab before British. Before era of electric tubewells people used to pray for rain to feed their crops in upper punjab. In upper IVC there is more rain hence rain fed agriculture was better but still barely to support its own population. In bit south starting from Faisalabad British starting establishing canal colonies. As there rain was even less and hence not good for agriculture.

Also large part of upper IVC consistent of mountains and poor agriculture land despite good rain. Mountainous areas also have less ground water and hard to reach.

As you go south rain decreases and so does ground water and river water. South KP, south punjab, Sindh and Balochistan were even worse off before modern era. Now though these areas are irrigated to extent with river water for which you need to build canals, but these areas agriculture is entirely dependent on river unlike upper central punjab which have large reserves of ground water along with rivers/rain.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Don't pretend to know about my country more then I. We don't even know shit about Mauryas. We barely have documented history before Mughals. There was no canal irrigation in punjab before British. Before era of electric tubewells people used to pray for rain to feed their crops in upper punjab. In upper IVC there is more rain hence rain fed agriculture was better but still barely to support its own population. In bit south starting from Faisalabad British starting establishing canal colonies. As there rain was even less and hence not good for agriculture.

Also large part of upper IVC consistent of mountains and poor agriculture land despite good rain. Mountainous areas also have less ground water and hard to reach.

As you go south rain decreases and so does ground water and river water. South KP, south punjab, Sindh and Balochistan were even worse off before modern era. Now though these areas are irrigated to extent with river water for which you need to build canals, but these areas agriculture is entirely dependent on river unlike upper central punjab which have large reserves of ground water along with rivers/rain.

Right land of sapta sindhu had no water.You think today's situation is the same as that thousands of years ago.You think water consumption requirement is same.And you think before british area was a desert,fine.Water wheel came from central asia during early medieval era,this was a main factor in jats abandoning pastoral lifestyle and settling down as agriculturists.

 

[defence_analyst]

What these Indian's cannot fathom for some weird reason is that Indus Valley is entirely distinct from Ganga Basin and Dravid India. Indus Valley is essentially complete desert [Jacobabad in Sindh is one of the driest and hottest places on earth] to semi- arid desert with high atitude cold desert in the periphery. Through it the River Indus flows and only within the flood basin which only extends to few mile ribbon was irrigation possible until modern engineering was introduced by British. Up till then agriculture that could support population was strictly limited along the rivers which thread through the region. Only in the extreme north west and north in the shadow of the mountains does rain become just about sufficient. In this region a semi-nomadic pastoral culture persisted asides from the narrow ribbon along the Indus tributery rivers.

Compare this with the humid, high rain, damp climate in most of the Ganga basin which can support massive, dense poulations and which was thick jungle before.

The satellite image below lays bare the points I made. Along the Indus in Pakistan the British era irrigation which extended the narrow ribbon to a wider irrigated zone is visible but even then desert is biting it at the edges.

Rainfall map of South Asia, Notice most of Pakistan is desert with under 5 inches of precipitation. For instance Karachi has climate similar to Cairo or Baghdad.

Geography and history are my passions. And I have good knowledge of Pakistani geography. OPen another thread and I can teach you if you want. Did you know that semi arid desert begins just south of Lahore? And you know Lahore is well to the north of Punjab.

No doubt Indian history books singing songs about 'Mauryas'?

This rainfall map is on point and thats what I've noticed as well in Pakistan. As one go south of Peshawar-Lahore line, rain and ground water decreases more and more.

Right land of sapta sindhu had no water.You think today's situation is the same as that thousands of years ago.You think water consumption requirement is same.And you think before british area was a desert,fine.Water wheel came from central asia during early medieval era,this was a main factor in jats abandoning pastoral lifestyle and settling down as agriculturists.

Water wheel if I'm not wrong was introduced by mughals. But guess what? As one goes south of Peshawar-lahore line rain and ground desert start to become norm if it wasn't for modern irrigation techniques introduced by British.

Hence why one state of gangetic plain have about same population as whole Pakistan. This despite the fact that Pakistan has been poor in controlling population growth while India has done much better. Now go back 300 years and try to figure out population difference between both regions. Must have been 15-1 and I'm not even counting south India here.

Despite all that modern gigantic dams, canals, electric tubewells, if rains start late or mountain water flow is less whole Pakistan agriculture suffer.

 

[Hamza913]

But the territories you guys mention are entire continents, South Asia is relatively compact in its size, its true its diverse with different ethnic/racial/linguistic/religious groups but other empires overcame this, Rome united the Med which was also diverse and very big, various Persian states unified Mesopotamia,Persia,Armenia, and the Turks of central Asia, and finally the Afghans into one solid state, the Achaemenid empire managed to go even further, with Egypt Syria Turkey as well, Seljuks managed similar feats, their territories were diverse and bigger but just not as populated

South Asia is huge, parts of Hindustan are as far away from Islamabad as Africa is from Paris, some even further.

Also, there have been times of unification. That would the era of the Mauryans, the Mughals and the British.

 

[TurnThyCheek]

Okay so south asia was too big and too different to unite effectively so one more question might sound stupid
assuming Ashoka was like Qin Shi Huang with a pinch of Hitler in him, he standardised language culture and religion, genocided most of South Asia and colonised it with one ethnic group, thus solving the ethnic/linguistic/cultural differences could south asia have remained united? ignoring the fact that if would take ages to wipe out and colonise the rest of south asia if it was done, could it be successful in creating a unified india?

 

[Śakra]

China, Rome, Persia, Ottomans and even Mongols all had huge empires with much bigger land mass under their control and successfully administered them, communications never held them back, so why were South asian states struggling to unify and rule India?

It took the Mauryans and Mughals multiple generations to get their territories together and they still failed to conquer the entire subcontinent.

We couldn’t even keep tiny kingdoms unified. This is because South Asians consistently undermine each other. They would rather see each other fail than prosper together.

 

[Jaanbaz]

Two words: despotism and geography.

The Persians ruled through satrapies. The Romans had governors and adhered to local custom whenever that didn't interfere with their military and taxation policies. The Brits in South Asia were more interested in trade than anything else.

However, the pre-European rulers of India leaned towards absolute power. The most powerful Muslim rulers imposed taxes meant to impoverish the non-Muslims, breeding resentment: even in areas that didn't retain non-Muslim rulers, all that a local Muslim commander had to do to win Hindu loyalty was promise lower taxes and revolts were born, instantly. Geography did the rest: mountain ranges and inaccessible swamps hindered mounted troop movements over long distances, and the longer the despot was gone from his capital to quell a revolt far away the greater the chance of revolt in his own capital.

Its much simpler, why should Punjabis be forced to live with Bengali or someone from South India? we have different languages and culture.

 

[axisofevil]

South Asia was never unified in history, many empires tried and for brief periods major chunks of the sub continent was unified but not fully.
It is Gods grace that after 1947 India got a huge continuous landmass to call a country.

The English could have very well divided the subcontinent into many many countries.

We have to thank Sardar Vallabhhai Patel for uniting the smaller states to form the union of India.

Wrong....you really need to read up on your history

 

[fitpOsitive]

China, Rome, Persia, Ottomans and even Mongols all had huge empires with much bigger land mass under their control and successfully administered them, communications never held them back, so why were South asian states struggling to unify and rule India?

It took the Mauryans and Mughals multiple generations to get their territories together and they still failed to conquer the entire subcontinent.

Because we are donkeys. Full scale, 5 star donkeys.

 

[prashantazazel]

Its much simpler, why should Punjabis be forced to live with Bengali or someone from South India? we have different languages and culture.

Different languages and cultures can only separate the uneducated masses. The elites(and the middle classes in current times) generally mingle well.

 

[Jaanbaz]

Different languages and cultures can only separate the uneducated masses. The elites(and the middle classes in current times) generally mingle well.

We don't want to mingle with South Indians.