1) India is fascinating because while the west IE’s chose ‘society as army, with

1) India is fascinating because while the west IE’s chose ‘society as army, with class duties etc’ the East IE’s (hindus) took the concept to an extreme, without rotating ‘promotion’ of the classes. In retrospect, it’s obvious because the inequality was so great on one hand, and the ability to govern so vast a population and continent was impossible given the European method. I mean, the steppe people murdered before colonizing only the women.

2) I can’t suggest reading materials on Indian history, but if you ask @WhatifAltHist I’m sure he can narrow it down to a top three list for you, and his recommendations would be better than mine.

3) If you ask me a specific question RE Holland’s work I can probably answer it.
As a general rule, I’d argue he’s part of the tradition that’s now skeptical of all Abrahamic content from the transitional period at the end of the ancient world brought about by the plagues, wars, and Abrahamic destruction of the civilizations of the ancient world. His questioning of Muhammed I agree with just like I agree with the questioning of Jesus. MENA is a fictionalism based civ, particularly in Mythicism, and not philosophical, historical, or empirical. Making it up is to be taken for granted.
If you mean his rather obvious observation that the west is a Christian society that’s true. If you ask me it’s a trifunctional one, with the three traditions roughly reflecting personality and class values.
Like Holland I”d classify myself as an Anglican and a Burkeian, but there is no yet ‘clear’ distinction between Anglo thought in general as radically more empirical than al other civilizations and nations and traditions combined. We are aware of the anglo vs continental (german) tradition, but we do not (as I do) arrange all civilizational differences in intellectual bias as deviation from the laws of nature and by what means, and to preserve what ‘lie’ or ‘comfort’.
Truth is that metaphysical value judgments are WANT to survive innovations in the frame we use to describe the world. And other than anglos not too many if any in the world have done it. The question is only whether other civs CAN do it. And I think it’s because it’s a class disposition in the anglo elites, that was an odd side effect of the status competition in England during the high to late middle ages, and especially into modernity.
You could say I’m struggling to capture as science the uniquely scientific approach to the government of man created by the anglo aristocratic invention of the modern rule of law state, and their ‘correct’ assumption that they were the most virtuous rulers in history, even if only doing the best they could. And the USA’s founders were attempting more so to formally codify that as a majority cultural rather than aristocratic subcultural ideal.

Cheers

Reply addressees: @VeritateIn @MrWarrenBuffet @whatifalthist @elonmusk