John Willis fits Yemen into the wider Indian Ocean “spatial domain," arguing it wasn't "merely a body of water but an overlapping network of institutions, governing practices, discourses, and ideologies that created a specifically Indian imperial space [which] inevitably shaped political, economic, and cultural transactions of various kinds throughout the common experience of empire.” I extend this framework beyond the confines of just British empire and incorporate other aspects and emphasize the mutuality of relationships instead of unidirectionality. As evidence reveals, while the British viewed and administered the Persian Gulf as part of their Indian empire, the political and economic significance of the Gulf to India, and vice versa, predated the British, and furthermore that connection manifested in more than just trade and (imperial) rule. Various Gulf port cities contributed in ways that were integral to the functioning of Indian society, cultures, and religions, playing significant roles in what later nationalists call “Indian identity.” The inverse is true for the role of India within the Gulf. While I examine multiple Gulf ports for this project, the most significant are the Kingdom of Hormuz (pre-modern period) and Kuwait (modern period). Furthermore, I attempt to dislodge the centrality of Europe in the historiography. No one disputes the critical European impact on the modern Indian Ocean system, however equally important were the intra-Indian Ocean networks—actually these networks were crucial determinants in how Europeans, from the Portuguese onwards, constructed and expanded their own global order. I augment the work of James Onley and Sugata Bose, underscoring that even as Europeans came to dominate particular systems, Indians performed consequential “intermediary” roles that enabled these systems to function and even expand. A study on commodities can validate this argument, but not as typically used in the historiography. As Fahad Bishara and Patricio Russo advocate, “a history of the Gulf...must move beyond monsoons and markets.” Thus I use both government records and narrative sources to transcend the trade statistics, instead demonstrating the meaning, impact, and actual utilization of the results of this trade relationship—the function of these commodities in these societies. Tracing the sociocultural functions of commodities over centuries shows continuity and depth of the Gulf-India relationship beyond just the British period. Finally, using the lens of the longue durée also complicates the claimed uniqueness of culture and identity in India and the Gulf.