[sachdevap]

You can read about the disintegration of the Mughal empire after Aurangzeb here: http://www.historydiscussion.net/empires/later-mughals-and-d...

The Marathas never controlled an "undivided India" given the extent of their empire at it's peak: https://www.mapsofindia.com/history/maratha-empire.html

Not to mention, even Akbar did not have the North east and the southernmost parts of India.

The rise of the Sikh empire, and the Deccan sultanate also limited the extent of the later Mughal and Maratha kingdoms.

I did not question that these empires had their time. But the notion of undivided India as united as one under the Mughals at the time right before the British arrived is wrong. Ancient times do not affect contemporary affairs, or in this case affairs of 1750s are not affected by the Maurya dynasty's claim on some version of modern day India/Pakistan/Bangladesh.

[nonamechicken]

I don't know much about the history of India. But this video shows a huge part of present day India and Pakistan being part of the Mughal empire in 1705.

Video: https://youtu.be/QN41DJLQmPk?t=628 (at 10:28).

Some other interesting time lines from a union of India perspective from this video:

Maurya Empire: 270 BCE (at 2:01, https://youtu.be/QN41DJLQmPk?t=122)

Delhi Sultanate: 1344 (at 8:44 https://youtu.be/QN41DJLQmPk?t=524)

Edit: Found another video that matches with the above video regarding Mughal Empire: https://youtu.be/wYu2jyVTSc8?t=76 (at 1:16).

[iguy]

The analogous list is to point to the Romans in 100AD, and Charlemagne in 800, and Napoleon in 1800, and conclude that clearly the EU has always been a united super-state.

The peaks were quite short-lived, often only one ruler's lifespan (natural or otherwise). There were long gaps between. There were many competing powers.

And that's OK! I mean, are we sure that the world in which some Aurangzeb figure won, and created a united (persian-speaking, 100% sunni) subcontinent, is a better place?