The Sikh Empire endures?

[Vinization]

Following the death of its founder, Ranjit Singh, in 1839, the Sikh Empire went through a period of turmoil, with four Maharajas in just ten years and several assassinations. Thanks to this weakness, the British managed to fully subjugate it - with some difficulty, in spite of the Sikhs apparently having some prominent nobles or generals who were interested in having the empire lose - after two wars in the late 1840s.

But what if it stayed stable? Suppose that Nau Nihal Singh isn't assassinated at they young age of 19, but instead manages to consolidate his hold on to power and decisively whatever faction tried to murder him, stabilizing the empire's politics for at least a few years. How can the state develop if it doesn't go through so many coups - can it expand further, particularly into Sindh, which wasn't conquered by the British until 1843, three years after Nau Nihal's death? What about Afghanistan?

Lastly, how can the Sikh religion itself develop if the empire stays strong (and industrializes, perhaps)?

 

[CommieScum]

Following the death of its founder, Ranjit Singh, in 1839, the Sikh Empire went through a period of turmoil, with four Maharajas in just ten years and several assassinations. Thanks to this weakness, the British managed to fully subjugate it - with some difficulty, in spite of the Sikhs apparently having some prominent nobles or generals who were interested in having the empire lose - after two wars in the late 1840s.

But what if it stayed stable? Suppose that Nau Nihal Singh isn't assassinated at they young age of 19, but instead manages to consolidate his hold on to power and decisively whatever faction tried to murder him, stabilizing the empire's politics for at least a few years. How can the state develop if it doesn't go through so many coups - can it expand further, particularly into Sindh, which wasn't conquered by the British until 1843, three years after Nau Nihal's death? What about Afghanistan?

Lastly, how can the Sikh religion itself develop if the empire stays strong (and industrializes, perhaps)?

I doubt the British would stop trying to conquer Punjab as long as they control India due to simple geography and their policy of consolidation to safeguard the Raj. Something like Afghanistan wasn't as vital.

I don't see the Sikhs stopping them without outside influence. Either Russians or a weakened hold on India itself due to the POD. Perhaps the mutiny could be more successful without loyalist Punjabi troops.

 

[CommieScum]

snip

Also note this map of provinces that managed to remain autonomous. See any patterns?

 

[Beatriz]

That they're all in the highlands. I wonder if the British hadn't established colonies in the south at all, and aimed for a Indus-Ganges Empire in the North.

 

[Vinization]

Restarting this thread to ask, how could the 1857 Sepoy Mutiny be affected by a surviving Sikh Empire? From what I know Punjab was one of the main bases for the British forces that eventually recaptured Delhi, and Sikh men made up an important amount of their troops.

What would Lahore do? Stand aside and be neutral, help the rebels to kick the British out of India or help London instead, perhaps in exchange for some territorial concessions?

 

[Viking25]

Restarting this thread to ask, how could the 1857 Sepoy Mutiny be affected by a surviving Sikh Empire? From what I know Punjab was one of the main bases for the British forces that eventually recaptured Delhi, and Sikh men made up an important amount of their troops.

What would Lahore do? Stand aside and be neutral, help the rebels to kick the British out of India or help London instead, perhaps in exchange for some territorial concessions?

The Sikhs were no friends of the Mughal's, but they didn't really care for the British either so its a toss up for whose side they join if any. The Mutiny probably does have a better chance with weaker British hold on India if nothing else though.

 

[Vinization]

The Sikhs were no friends of the Mughal's, but they didn't really care for the British either so its a toss up for whose side they join if any. The Mutiny probably does have a better chance with weaker British hold on India if nothing else though.

I figured as much. Assuming they supported the rebels, could they take it over and make the emperor a puppet? Their army would probably be far more organized and better armed than the ones the sepoys could muster, as well as better led.

 

[walmart]

Would it be possible to have the Sikh Empire as a protectorate ?

 

[CommieScum]

I figured as much. Assuming they supported the rebels, could they take it over and make the emperor a puppet? Their army would probably be far more organized and better armed than the ones the sepoys could muster, as well as better led.

I could see a Confederation of princes led de-facto by the Sikhs. The Emperor was already a puppet and had been for 2 centuries, to the British or the rebels (And the Marathas). A source of legitimacy, quite like the Japanese emperor pre-Meiji.

 

[Oba Cahokia]

I could see a Confederation of princes led de-facto by the Sikhs. The Emperor was already a puppet and had been for 2 centuries, to the British or the rebels (And the Marathas). A source of legitimacy, quite like the Japanese emperor pre-Meiji.

Something like this?

 

[Sardar]

I've always considered it (relatively) easy for the Sikh Empire to survive in the short term, as just keeping Nau Nihal Singh from being assassinated would do the trick. He was far better than any of the Maharajas that came after (probably why he was assassinated) .

I figured as much. Assuming they supported the rebels, could they take it over and make the emperor a puppet? Their army would probably be far more organized and better armed than the ones the sepoys could muster, as well as better led.

Would it be possible to have the Sikh Empire as a protectorate ?

I've always thought that the Sikh Empire could least theoretically keep its independence in the long run, but like was stated above, I've begun to reconsider it unless the Sikhs remain wholly pro-British, which is not out of the question. Historical momentum is a thing, and the Company had a lot of it, while the Sikh Kingdom's politics were very divided and prone to instability, which was easily exploited. What we saw IOTL I now believe was just one iteration of the fall of the Kingdom of Punjab, rather than an exception.

Nau Nihal Singh would very likely be a strong King like his grandfather, but his hypothetical descendants (he never lived long enough to have more than 1 stillborn kid) may not be cut from the same cloth. And the British won't stop trying to annex/subdue the Kingdom to safeguard the Company Raj.

I think an interesting TL would be Nau Nihal Singh reigning for a long while; enough to finally destroy the Afghans, eliminate rivals to Lahore's power, and enact the reform Ranjit Singh failed to in his infantry and administration. Then the Punjab may be forced either by intrigue or simple military might from the EIC to become a nominal part of Company India, but in the 1850's the Sikhs join a much larger general revolt agains the British in North India, ironically allying with the revolt nominally led by Bahadur Shah Zafar. Then the Punjab along with Hyderabad and a few other Indian states become the real power by a new "Confederal Empire" of India, with the Emperor of Delhi as the nominal head of this new country.

Something like this?

Ha, I haven't seen that map in a long time. Having the Sikhs get Sindh would be a good idea, but that would require a POD during or before Ranjit Singhs reign which would allow the Sikhs to carve a path to the ocean, and the British will be really uncomfortable with that.