Allow decision to create India for all religions

[Caeserion]

All religions/cultures should be allowed to create India by decision since during the time period most people to the west called it India/Hindustan.

Also, the name should be different depending on your religion when creating it.

Dharmic Religious group:
1) Indo-Aryan cultures should call it Bharat or Aryavarta
2) Dravidan cultures should call it Dravida
3) Sinhala culture should call it Jamudvipa to simulate the south-east Asian name for it. (also Sinhala should be part of the dravidan culture group since it is south-most)

Christian religious group: Call it India (land of the indus river/Sindhu river)

Islamic religious group: Call it Hindustan (lit. land of the hindus or land of Sindhu - the river that marks the eastern border)

Zoroastrian religious group: Hindustan (they were the first people to call india hindustan iirc)

Pagan religions: Depending on western or eastern origins call it india or Hindustan since they would've heard of the region via trade with Christians/muslims respectively

Also can we set Hindustani culture to appear when a muslim ruler has a king-level Indo-Aryan title for say 100 years? Hidustani culture isn't technically a thing and indian cultures don't call themselves Hindustani to this day.

 

[CelticWarrior95]

Sinhala should NOT be part of the dravidian group because it is not dravidian. let's keep historical facts in place, please.

moreover, I don't see why anyone other than locals would have the background to make an unified indian state. at the very best, you could call an unified islamic india hindustan, but christians and pagans have nothing to do with india.

 

[Caeserion]

Sinhalese language is in the Indo-Aryan group yes but the culture of Sri Lanka is influenced more by south India which has primarily Dravidian cultures. Its not the same due to its separation and position as a trade hub but IMHO the culture should be placed in the Dravidian group.

"No one other than locals would have the background to make a unified Indian state". True but that ignores the fact that Christians (and Jews) have been part of the Indian diaspora for a very long time (according to myth Jesus was there for a bit and ten one of his disciples ended up there). The worlds oldest church structure is in India! Given how long they had been in India it is conceivable that they would also share the same 'background' to unite India. I suggested Muslims be able to create Hindustan as well since they did (almost) conquer the subcontinent later and the mughals certainly styled themselves emperors of India. Pagans were added mostly so they wouldn't miss out on a dejure empire.

But since you mentioned 'background' do you feel it should be tied to culture instead? If anyone in the Indo-aryan or Dravidian culture groups, whatever their religion, manages to conquer all of India then they should have the option to create India?

Typing on phone, will edit later for format/errors later if needed

 

[Woifee]

Sinhala should NOT be part of the dravidian group because it is not dravidian. let's keep historical facts in place, please.

moreover, I don't see why anyone other than locals would have the background to make an unified indian state. at the very best, you could call an unified islamic india hindustan, but christians and pagans have nothing to do with india.

Why should inly be locals be able to form an unified Empire of India. Actually Europeans did it much out of the games timeframe.

 

[Caeserion]

Why should inly be locals be able to form an unified Empire of India. Actually Europeans did it much out of the games timeframe.

Europeans didn't technically create it. The British claimed Queen Victoria as the successor to the Mughal Emperors (who were persianised turks). Its worth noting that the Mughals called India Hindustan and the British called India...India.

 

[Woifee]

I'm no expert on Indian history, but according to Wikipedia the Mughal Empire ended 1857. Victoria claimed the to be Empress of India 1876. So there are a few years without Empire.
In CK2 term it would have been created by her tough in the history files the mughal emperors are listed as predecessors.

Still I think forming an Indian Empire in CK2 should be possible for all Religions.

 

[Caeserion]

I'm no expert on Indian history, but according to Wikipedia the Mughal Empire ended 1857. Victoria claimed the to be Empress of India 1876. So there are a few years without Empire.
In CK2 term it would have been created by her tough in the history files the mughal emperors are listed as predecessors.

Still I think forming an Indian Empire in CK2 should be possible for all Religions.

They claimed to be successors to the Mughal Emperors and not that they were creating a new country or anything. But yeah in CK2 terms it would show up as creating the empire again.

Any thoughts on hindustani culture appearing only if a muslim ruler has been ruling for a while and different names for pagan religious groups?

 

[CelticWarrior95]

well tying it to culture would be a nice way to phrase it, rather than religion.

bharata for indo-aryans and dravidians, hindustan for persian, arabic and tukic could do. but other cultures should be kept out.

why would a native christian population give to its country a foreign name? afaik the biggest and oldest christian communities in india were in malabar, and spoke malabarian. why should they call themselves india and not bharata (or possibly another name for dravidians?)

 

[Caeserion]

well tying it to culture would be a nice way to phrase it, rather than religion.

bharata for indo-aryans and dravidians, hindustan for persian, arabic and tukic could do. but other cultures should be kept out.

why would a native christian population give to its country a foreign name? afaik the biggest and oldest christian communities in india were in malabar, and spoke malabarian. why should they call themselves india and not bharata (or possibly another name for dravidians?)

I tied it to religion because in-game the local religious minority populations aren't represented. There should be jews, zoroastrians, christians in India but PDX decided against it. I figured that meant that if you were of a different religion then it means you came from elsewhere (perfectly viable to invite a different religion character and convert but most people don't like playing in India unless its as an outsider) and had a different culture as well. And so I tied it to religion. Also we don't know what a lot of cultures actually called India

 

[VolitionNewlove]

I tied it to religion because in-game the local religious minority populations aren't represented. There should be jews, zoroastrians, christians in India but PDX decided against it. I figured that meant that if you were of a different religion then it means you came from elsewhere (perfectly viable to invite a different religion character and convert but most people don't like playing in India unless its as an outsider) and had a different culture as well. And so I tied it to religion. Also we don't know what a lot of cultures actually called India

The game mechanics don't really allow for multiple religions, and religious minorities can only be represented with courtiers. Events giving a courtier of a certain religion can help, but naturally they won't marry unless you force them to, or they are landed (both of which are generally anachronistic.)

Another problem with India and the majority of nomadic nations, is that it doesn't model holdings of differing faiths. Sanchi will almost always become a Hindu temple, for example. The nomadic realms will generally only have temples dedicated to Tengri. Even if you added in a holding for the Church of Malabar (whether or not this is an overrepresentation,) it would quickly be revoked or eliminated into a Hindu or Jain holding.

 

[Caeserion]

The game mechanics don't really allow for multiple religions, and religious minorities can only be represented with courtiers. Events giving a courtier of a certain religion can help, but naturally they won't marry unless you force them to, or they are landed (both of which are generally anachronistic.)

Another problem with India and the majority of nomadic nations, is that it doesn't model holdings of differing faiths. Sanchi will almost always become a Hindu temple, for example. The nomadic realms will generally only have temples dedicated to Tengri. Even if you added in a holding for the Church of Malabar (whether or not this is an overrepresentation,) it would quickly be revoked or eliminated into a Hindu or Jain holding.

Yeah it wasn't a complaint against how India is in-game, just a statement. I fully agree with you. I was just explaining why I chose to tie the decision to religion rather than culture. A christian bengali will be spiritually tied to rome more than other sites in India and so using not-great logic will call the subcontinent what european christians called it.

It is inaccurate but its the best solution I feel.

 

[VolitionNewlove]

Yeah it wasn't a complaint against how India is in-game, just a statement. I fully agree with you. I was just explaining why I chose to tie the decision to religion rather than culture. A christian bengali will be spiritually tied to rome more than other sites in India and so using not-great logic will call the subcontinent what european christians called it.

I'm not aware of any Christians in Bengal at the time?

I'm also pretty sure the Nasrani wouldn't have had any spiritual connections with Rome. In the Syriac church, Rome is/was only of tertiary importance, and the Nasrani were even farther moved from that. The Syriac Church in liturgy spoke Syriac Aramaic (not Latin or Greek,) and the Nasrani were much more Indianised (which led to a lot of confusion by the Portuguese.) They wouldn't have used India any more than any other Indian would.

 

[Caeserion]

I'm not aware of any Christians in Bengal at the time?

I'm also pretty sure the Nasrani wouldn't have had any spiritual connections with Rome. In the Syriac church, Rome is/was only of tertiary importance, and the Nasrani were even farther moved from that. The Syriac Church in liturgy spoke Syriac Aramaic (not Latin or Greek,) and the Nasrani were much more Indianised (which led to a lot of confusion by the Portuguese.) They wouldn't have used India any more than any other Indian would.

just an example mate, I couldn't remember the dejure kingdom that malabar is in.