The world that I'm creating is Indian mythology based but based in a post apocalyptic earth. (You know, the usual, nuclear war... World population gone, only 2-5% left).

Now the thing is that, since the setting is Indian mythos, I would require a bulk of the surviving people to be present in the Indian subcontinent (there will be wars and everything). I am not sure how to justify that of the people left, major are in the Indian subcontinent...

Note that the "gods" are actually aliens who have watched us annihilate ourselves and have stepped in after the war to help and control India. They follow strict rules of not to interfere with planetary affairs (at least until the natives wipe themselves out).

If I acknowledge the other countries, then I've to justify why they are not getting involved in this... And that list could also be substantial.

One of the solutions that I could think of was to have something happen to the world that rendered most part of the planet inhabitable or inhospitable to humans but let the Indian sub to be the only place they can survive but that also seems far fetched.

So can anyone help me justify as to why the setting is localized in a certain part of the world ?

  • $\begingroup$ Everyone pull out of Earth deserting the rest of the population... this particular group of Indians who discovered they are the only survivors... the rest I shall leave it to your imagination! $\endgroup$ – user6760 Apr 30 '15 at 7:39
  • $\begingroup$ Natural barriers: how is India isolated? Water and mountains as I recall. It needs to form a barrier against casual travel after the decline of modern technology. $\endgroup$ – JDługosz Apr 30 '15 at 17:10
  • $\begingroup$ Hmm, to remove America: Russia sent over some biological weapon that wreaked havoc beyond nukes there. same for australia $\endgroup$ – Hobbamok Sep 20 '18 at 10:47

Let's do a little math first: You say only 2-5% of the population survived. Meaning - if we use 7 billion as the starting population - that we now had between 140mio and 350mio people on planet Earth.

Now the Indian subcontinent currently has a population of 1.7 billion. This is about 1/4th of the whole population. After the war it would result in 34mio - 85mio. If deaths were evenly "distributed".

Now the question stands as to what percentage of the population you would need to be there. I'm going to assume now are going for about 80%. Resulting in 112mio - 280mio, meaning about 6,5% - 16,5% there survived. Not much, but given the circumstances, quite a lot.

Stephen Weinland made a good point with the Himalaya being a natural blockade for any kind of fallout. Now considering the Himalaya does not close the subcontinent of as a whole, there would still be aftereffects, but far less and that could indeed result in less deaths

Now to the next part: The rest of the world. Population: 28mio - 70mio We can generally divide the world in 3 parts: America(South America & North America): 5mio - 12,6mio Australia: 126k - 315k Eurasia & Africa: 21mio - 53mio (barring India)

I'm assuming, after such a disastrous war, the means to travel between continents are not there any more, which means you can basically ignore the Americas and Australia.

The thing now is, you have 21 - 53 million people outside who 'could' cause trouble. But after a war with this outcome I'm guessing the damage done and the resulting chaos would be enough to keep them busy about themselves, trying to survive. Also Anarchy is most likely reigning. There would be no more countries, just groups of people trying to survive by working together. And as you mentioned: There can easily be uninhabitable places that work as 'natural' barriers. Places you can't get through without special equipment (which would be scarce and valueable)

  • $\begingroup$ I like the calculations you have done and I'm leaning against this very option but the issue is with "the means to travel are no longer available"... That would not be correct as the people can always build ships... Correct ?? But I guess, I could perhaps attribute that to anarchy and say that they were not bothered with the bigger picture... Just content with daily survival... $\endgroup$ – user96551 Apr 30 '15 at 19:39

Krishna did it.

I'm going to assume you are referring to Hindu mythology. Perhaps both protection and destruction were caused by Krishna:

In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says: "Whenever righteousness (dharma) becomes lax, O Arjuna, and injustice (adharma) arises, then I send myself forth to protect the good and bring evildoers to destruction;..."

This doesn't necessarily mean that is what happened, but that will be a strong belief by those who found themselves spared the destruction of the world.

  • $\begingroup$ When I say mythology, I don't mean they are going to be the all powerful, omniscient beings rather they are going to be technologically advanced aliens with technology beyond the grasp of humans. And lest that be your next suggestion, I cannot have them interfere with the nuclear war as that would form a contradiction as they have a rule to never interfere in human affairs.... $\endgroup$ – user96551 Apr 30 '15 at 19:46
  • $\begingroup$ @user96551 So aliens had nothing to do with the apocolypse, but are just watching, and it is mostly Indian people who were spared; is that correct? I read nothing about aliens in the question. $\endgroup$ – Mikey Apr 30 '15 at 20:05
  • $\begingroup$ yes, that is a correct summarization. I did not think the aliens were ever relevant but based on your answer, I had to add them. $\endgroup$ – user96551 May 2 '15 at 6:34
  • $\begingroup$ @user96551 in that case, only the last paragraph of my answer is relevant. While the myth, Krishna, might not have caused the disaster & protection, likely the people who survived in India become more firm in their belief in Krishna (because of the circumstances). $\endgroup$ – Mikey May 2 '15 at 15:17

The Himalaya could work as a natural barrier for most bad things floating around in the air. So if there was a nuclear MCA or war in e.g. eastern europe the nuclear winds would spare India. Or you say, it is a big mistery. This could be a part of your story - finding out why the majority of the people left are living in India.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I guess I could... But Himalayas cover only a part, the western part is nearly completely exposed... Let's see, if I can tweak the story to include this... Thanks for the suggestion... $\endgroup$ – user96551 Apr 30 '15 at 19:43

1.You could make all of them isolationist wanting to have no part in world affairs

2.You could make them be the strongest hit and they will have a hard time rebuilding.

3.You could try to make the war still be there and everyone else is still fighting it because India already has been robbed and starved out of the war so that no one would see any use in India

  • $\begingroup$ I could attribute the first point to mutual distrust and anarchy... But can't agree with point 2 & 3 as for e.g. being the hardest hit would be all the more reason to seek alliances $\endgroup$ – user96551 Apr 30 '15 at 19:41

It's going to be difficult to find a good excuse for killing the rest of the globe. There's many places on Earth more remote and more insulated from global affairs than the Indian subcontinent. However, you don't have to kill everyone else off, just everyone that could reasonably become involved. Chile, for example, could still exist, but if there's no world wide communication infrastructure, they would have no contact with survivors in India.

Suppose, for example, that we've got a global war with the following belligerents:

  • China
  • Russia
  • United States
  • Middle East
  • Europe
  • Australia

If those countries were all to destroy one another, and the fallout from the destruction of Australia and China left the rest of Southeast Asia uninhabitable, there wouldn't really be any survivors anywhere around India, with most of the rest of the survivors being in South America and Africa. In addition, these other regions with survivors will have their own problems to deal with in the aftermath of an apocalyptic war.

  • $\begingroup$ If I start to define world politics, I have to clarify why rude subcontinent did not become a part of it as it was likely to affect them too... But agree with your first point.... $\endgroup$ – user96551 Apr 30 '15 at 19:56

It could be the result of a genetic anomaly. Maybe Indians have a gene that makes them less susceptible to environmental changes. I would suggest you have your apocalypse caused by a disease of some kind. This would make it easier to pass off the "oh, they're just immune" argument displayed in so many works of fiction.

I'll take you down the latter route.

People in certain ethnic groups can have increased immunity to certain diseases. A perfect example is how some people in Kenya and Schandinavia are immune to HIV infection.

A population can either become immune to diseases in one of two different ways.

The first (and the best route for your story to take, in my opinion) is having Indians early in history (before the population reached 1 billion) experience an outbreak of a related virus. Maybe the virus that wiped everyone else out started in India thousands of years ago and was, at that time, not fatal, but mutated over many generations of infected, causing mild flu in Indians, and fever followed by death in everyone else.

The second, and least conducive to Indian mythological setting, is having the Indian government create a vaccine. This leaves many questions, though. Why did they not share it with the rest of the world? If they developed a solution, why is India trapped in a mythological, superstitious state now?

Maybe your world has an environment unsuitable for others, but Indians somehow have the ability to survive or thrive in it. I honestly have no idea how realistic this one is.

As I understand it, ethnic groups arose because of natural selection. Mountain people would be shorter, stockier and have stronger arms and legs. River people might be tall, and have slimmer builds. Maybe the environment in India has somehow prepared them for a harsh new world while the rest was wiped out.

Genetics has been linked to everything from height to eye color. It has also been proven that the successful spread their genes around.

Hope this helps ;-)

  • $\begingroup$ Interesting... Can you provide some of those links ??.... They would be good reading material... $\endgroup$ – user96551 Apr 30 '15 at 19:55
  • $\begingroup$ @user96551 I added some content to my answer that might interest you. $\endgroup$ – JDSweetBeat May 1 '15 at 13:09
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, I'll go through them... Thanks for expanding your answer. $\endgroup$ – user96551 May 2 '15 at 6:35

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.