Forming Hindustan is kinda useless(?)

[Will Steel]

Remember that 'Hindustan' is a solely geographical term used by Persians/Muslims for the Indian 'Bharatavarsha'. It has nothing to do with 'Hindustani culture' which is a semi-fictional term Paradox used, because there is no real name for the cultural mix of the central Gangetic-plain and the lands slightly southwards.

So actually Bengali culture is as 'Hindustani' as any other culture in India, including Dravidian culture groups, so to speak. Anything in India counts as 'Hindustani' or 'Bharatiya'. If the game considers only Hindustani culture group to be the legitimate national culture, it is probably because that term 'Emperor of Hindustan' was used historically used mostly by Delhi Sultanate, Jaunpur and other 'Hindustani' culture realms.

Realistically, forming Hindustan should make all cultures of India permanently acceptable.

That decision represents that you are now considered the sole legitimate Indian Emperor by Indians and the world, after having defeated most of the other Indian kingdoms fighting for reunification. You are the Samrat Chakravartin, Emperor of Emperors and Universal Ruler...or you are Shahenshah-e-Hindustan (if done as a Muslim state). This is why it gives you the claims on entire India - now that you are the legitimate emperor those lands should be rightfully yours. It is just like the 'Restore Roman Empire' decision in CK2.

 

[zsImmortal]

Remember that 'Hindustan' is a solely geographical term used by Persians/Muslims for the Indian 'Bharatavarsha'. It has nothing to do with 'Hindustani culture' which is a semi-fictional term Paradox used, because there is no real name for the cultural mix of the central Gangetic-plain and the lands slightly southwards.

So actually Bengali culture is as 'Hindustani' as any other culture in India, including Dravidian culture groups, so to speak. Anything in India counts as 'Hindustani' or 'Bharatiya'. If the game considers only Hindustani culture group to be the legitimate national culture, it is probably because that term 'Emperor of Hindustan' was used historically used mostly by Delhi Sultanate, Jaunpur and other 'Hindustani' culture realms.

Realistically, forming Hindustan should make all cultures of India permanently acceptable.

That decision represents that you are now considered the sole legitimate Indian Emperor by Indians and the world, after having defeated most of the other Indian kingdoms fighting for reunification. You are the Samrat Chakravartin, Emperor of Emperors and Universal Ruler...or you are Shahenshah-e-Hindustan (if done as a Muslim state). This is why it gives you the claims on entire India - now that you are the legitimate emperor those lands should be rightfully yours. It is just like the 'Restore Roman Empire' decision in CK2.

Hindustan is actually the Northern part of India, East of the Indus (Hindustan meaning 'land beyond the Indus', more or less, in Persian). The cutoff is the Northern border of the Vindhya range. It's where people speak Hindi and Urdu (which are extremely close). Considering this, it's normal for it only to include that part as culture union.

 

[Will Steel]

Hindustan is actually the Northern part of India, East of the Indus (Hindustan meaning 'land beyond the Indus', more or less, in Persian). The cutoff is the Northern border of the Vindhya range. It's where people speak Hindi and Urdu. Considering this, it's normal for it only to include that part as culture union.

For the Persians only.

Hindustan is a name they gave to a supposed region. The real names of the area is Kuru, Panchal and Kosal (and can include Magadh as well).

 

[zsImmortal]

For the Persians only.

Hindustan is a name they gave to a supposed region. The real names of the area is Kuru, Panchal and Kosal (and can include Magadh as well).

We are discussing the name Hindustan and what it encompasses. I'm confused as to why forming a nation based on an idea coming from Persian/Persian-influenced cultures would be much different.

The confusing part is when they added Bharat, which, as I recall, is the given name of the subcontinent in Sanskrit.

 

[Bella Gerant]

Remember that 'Hindustan' is a solely geographical term used by Persians/Muslims for the Indian 'Bharatavarsha'. It has nothing to do with 'Hindustani culture' which is a semi-fictional term Paradox used, because there is no real name for the cultural mix of the central Gangetic-plain and the lands slightly southwards.

So actually Bengali culture is as 'Hindustani' as any other culture in India, including Dravidian culture groups, so to speak. Anything in India counts as 'Hindustani' or 'Bharatiya'. If the game considers only Hindustani culture group to be the legitimate national culture, it is probably because that term 'Emperor of Hindustan' was used historically used mostly by Delhi Sultanate, Jaunpur and other 'Hindustani' culture realms.

Realistically, forming Hindustan should make all cultures of India permanently acceptable.

That decision represents that you are now considered the sole legitimate Indian Emperor by Indians and the world, after having defeated most of the other Indian kingdoms fighting for reunification. You are the Samrat Chakravartin, Emperor of Emperors and Universal Ruler...or you are Shahenshah-e-Hindustan (if done as a Muslim state). This is why it gives you the claims on entire India - now that you are the legitimate emperor those lands should be rightfully yours. It is just like the 'Restore Roman Empire' decision in CK2.

While it would be nice to have all of the Indian subcontinent's cultures accepted, it would be a bit too powerful and a tad bit ahistorical, I think. Having two of the 5 cultures, if you form the union with a non-Hindustani culture, accepted encompasses a fairly massive area while also allowing the player to suffer rebellions like the ones that ruined so many Indian empires. Having all of India accepted would ignore the tendency for the subcontinent to have massive uprisings due to religious and ethnic differences.

In addition, unlike China or Germany, the Indian subcontinent was never (or very rarely ever, if the legends are to be believed) fully united, even by the Maurya and Mughal Empires. Historically, the northern kingdoms repelled most invaders and those who succeeded never succeeded in conquering the south. That's why North Indian and South Indian cultures, languages, and ethnic groups are so different. The western portion of India and Pakistan have cultures influenced by Persia while the Eastern India has a more Oriental flavor. The "Hindustan" culture area is the one that was most frequently conquered by outsiders, so that would probably be the reason that it is the default union group. They would be most open to outsiders. The deep south, on the other hand, would refuse to be conquered by outsiders. According to the invasion theory, Sanskrit, which has influenced most Indian languages (not the southern languages, however) heavily, was brought over by the conquering Indo-Aryans, who notably did not penetrate into the deep south. Regardless of if that's true or not, the Dravidian languages of Southern India are unlike the subcontinent's other languages due to the comparative lack of influence from Sanskrit, which is yet another cultural difference that would make governance more difficult for an outside kingdom.

While making Bharat and Hindustan compass more of India would be nice, I think that the bigger issue is the development (or lack thereof) in India. India has always had one of the largest populations in the world (having over 150 million of the estimated 600 million people alive in 1700, with Qing having another 140 million) yet Europe has higher total development. Notably, the Indian provinces have a distinct lack of manpower (mostly 1 to 3 manpower across the subcontinent), which I find a bit ironic considering the population. I would rather have India and China have province development increased to match all of Europe (since both were massive and had populations exceeding all of Europe combined at times).
Also making the claims last longer would be amazing. I would like to conquer India over the course of a few wars, not in one and hope to God the truce ends before the claims run out. At least AE isn't nearly an issue any more.

Oh, and getting rid of the central Indian coring cost nonsense. My paper mana weeps.

 

[Trin Tragula]

This is getting a bit off topic but as I like the subject and I have little to add to the original question...

Hindustan is actually the Northern part of India, East of the Indus (Hindustan meaning 'land beyond the Indus', more or less, in Persian). The cutoff is the Northern border of the Vindhya range. It's where people speak Hindi and Urdu (which are extremely close).

There are actually a whole bunch of definitions of Hindustan both then and now which happily coexist. When discussing locations inside India it will usually refer to the north. In such cases it can as you say it can mean everything north of the Vindhyas (ie everything not Dakan/Deccan which is the South even though the definition of Deccan varies wildly as well), but it can also mean a much more narrow area which is basically roughly modern Punjab+Uttar Pradesh+Bihar and Bengal. It can also take an even more narrow definition and just mean roughly the area labeled as Hindustani culture in the game (ie the core of most semi-recent Great Indian/Indo-Muslim Empires).
At the same time it could always be used to refer to India in it's entirety. Even much later EIC officials would use both the 'all of India' definition and the 'Northern India' one depending on the context.
None of this changes that it's an exonym though and most of all used by the Muslim Empires in India, that's why Bharat was added as it's a much more likely name for an India formed by a Hindu state (though it could probably be opened to Buddhists too).

There's actually a pretty nice little text about the concept of India in this era by M. Athar Ali* mostly leaning on when Akbar reasons about what India is and encompasses in the Akbarnama (mostly covers definitions of Hindustan as you might expect but still worth a read).

*"The Evolution of the Perception of India: Akbar and Abu Fazl"

 

[zsImmortal]

This is getting a bit off topic but as I like the subject and I have little to add to the original question...



There are actually a whole bunch of definitions of Hindustan both then and now which happily coexist. When discussing locations inside India it will usually refer to the north. In such cases it can as you say it can mean everything north of the Vindhyas (ie everything not Dakan/Deccan which is the South even though the definition of Deccan varies wildly as well), but it can also mean a much more narrow area which is basically roughly modern Punjab+Uttar Pradesh+Bihar and Bengal. It can also take an even more narrow definition and just mean roughly the area labeled as Hindustani culture in the game (ie the core of most semi-recent Great Indian/Indo-Muslim Empires).
At the same time it could always be used to refer to India in it's entirety. Even much later EIC officials would use both the 'all of India' definition and the 'Northern India' one depending on the context.
None of this changes that it's an exonym though and most of all used by the Muslim Empires in India, that's why Bharat was added as it's a much more likely name for an India formed by a Hindu state (though it could probably be opened to Buddhists too).

There's actually a pretty nice little text about the concept of India in this era by M. Athar Ali* mostly leaning on when Akbar reasons about what India is and encompasses in the Akbarnama (mostly covers definitions of Hindustan as you might expect but still worth a read).

*"The Evolution of the Perception of India: Akbar and Abu Fazl"

True enough, but we're talking about a cultural union, hence why I considered Hindustan to include the 'Hindustani'-speaking peoples. With regards to the Hindustan vs. Bharat question, why does it only give a union over Hindustani culture if it's meant to be an 'Indian' empire?

 

[Will Steel]

This is getting a bit off topic but as I like the subject and I have little to add to the original question...



There are actually a whole bunch of definitions of Hindustan both then and now which happily coexist. When discussing locations inside India it will usually refer to the north. In such cases it can as you say it can mean everything north of the Vindhyas (ie everything not Dakan/Deccan which is the South even though the definition of Deccan varies wildly as well), but it can also mean a much more narrow area which is basically roughly modern Punjab+Uttar Pradesh+Bihar and Bengal. It can also take an even more narrow definition and just mean roughly the area labeled as Hindustani culture in the game (ie the core of most semi-recent Great Indian/Indo-Muslim Empires).
At the same time it could always be used to refer to India in it's entirety. Even much later EIC officials would use both the 'all of India' definition and the 'Northern India' one depending on the context.
None of this changes that it's an exonym though and most of all used by the Muslim Empires in India, that's why Bharat was added as it's a much more likely name for an India formed by a Hindu state (though it could probably be opened to Buddhists too).

There's actually a pretty nice little text about the concept of India in this era by M. Athar Ali* mostly leaning on when Akbar reasons about what India is and encompasses in the Akbarnama (mostly covers definitions of Hindustan as you might expect but still worth a read).

*"The Evolution of the Perception of India: Akbar and Abu Fazl"

Completely true. A perfect reply, sir.

That said, 'Bharat' would be used by Buddhists and Jains same as the Hindus, as that name precedes any organized religion in India. It can sure be opened up to them. The only Buddhist states in India though, are Bhutan, Ladakh and Ceylon, but I am sure they'd use the same term.