Early-Independence --> Split India?

a while ago i decided to look into how India could become independent. the gist of it was that the Sepoy Mutiny ends up coinciding with the Crimean War and the British are eventually forced to concede victory to the Indians due to the war's unpopularity back home (similar to the ARW)

anyway, an idea occurred to me recently: what if the British managed to retain at least part of India for a time? let's say they hold onto the area of the modern states which are, at least in part, located within Bengal and the areas east of there (OTL Bangladesh and Myanmar) as well as Sri Lanka

does this sound at all plausible with the current scenario, or would it require a change of events ITTL? and in any case, what does everyone think would be the repercussion of this?
 
Looking first at the panorama in 1857
http://geacron.com/en/?v=m&lang=en&...=yyyy&fi=-500&ff=1500&sp=2&e=0&rp=0&re=0&nv=2

In the case of Burma, it is possible that the Burmese kingdom could decide to made some kind of movement against the British Burma (with a defeat in the Sepoy Mutiny although the british could counterattack against a burmese agression,certainly it could be a temptation for Burma to reconquer the lands lost to the United Kingdom).
Sri Lanka I think any problem, I think that there was not any problems in the island during the Sepoy Mutiny.
 
a while ago i decided to look into how India could become independent. the gist of it was that the Sepoy Mutiny ends up coinciding with the Crimean War and the British are eventually forced to concede victory to the Indians due to the war's unpopularity back home (similar to the ARW)

anyway, an idea occurred to me recently: what if the British managed to retain at least part of India for a time? let's say they hold onto the area of the modern states which are, at least in part, located within Bengal and the areas east of there (OTL Bangladesh and Myanmar) as well as Sri Lanka

does this sound at all plausible with the current scenario, or would it require a change of events ITTL? and in any case, what does everyone think would be the repercussion of this?

Actually with a successful 1857 rebellion Britain would probably hold on to South India which generally wasn't involved in the fighting. This would be the Madras Presidency and the vassal Indian states of Mysore, Hyderabad and Travancore. It would be interesting to see how relations with the vassal states would go at this point since it would be in British interests to butter them up so as not to risk a repeat of what happened in the North
 
Not all of India was involved in the 1857 Rebellion. Only the North-east region along the Ganges was affected. There were fears amongst the British that the Sikhs of the Punjab would rebel as well, but that did not come to pass. Even so, all of southern India should remain under British control, and it is also unlikely that the regions that become independent will be able to form a single state. There were far too many divisions between the different groups (which was one of the top reasons the rebellion failed in OTL).

indian_rebellion_map_affected_rebellion.gif
 
Not all of India was involved in the 1857 Rebellion. Only the North-east region along the Ganges was affected. There were fears amongst the British that the Sikhs of the Punjab would rebel as well, but that did not come to pass. Even so, all of southern India should remain under British control, and it is also unlikely that the regions that become independent will be able to form a single state. There were far too many divisions between the different groups (which was one of the top reasons the rebellion failed in OTL).



Actually, I think they'll end up forming a single state based around the Mughal Court; its restoration was the goal of the Mutineers in OTL, after all.

One idea I've always toyed with is a surviving Sikh state which could take advantage of the mutiny to link up with the Dehli court, and use it as a figurehead for rule over Northern India.
 
so now we're thinking British India into the south and/or east, a restored Mughal Empire (perhaps in the west?), and a newly-established Delhi state in the north?
 
so now we're thinking British India into the south and/or east, a restored Mughal Empire (perhaps in the west?), and a newly-established Delhi state in the north?

The Dehli state would be a Mughal empire. But again, it's hard to say; you need something radically differen tot stop the British from grinding it all to dust.
 
The Dehli state would be a Mughal empire. But again, it's hard to say; you need something radically differen tot stop the British from grinding it all to dust.

What you'd need is either stronger Indian forces (in which case it's unlikely they'd be under the British thumb in the first place) or Britain to have less of an interest in keeping North India. The second can be accomplished, though it's tough.

Cheers,
Ganesha
 
Actually, I think they'll end up forming a single state based around the Mughal Court; its restoration was the goal of the Mutineers in OTL, after all.

One idea I've always toyed with is a surviving Sikh state which could take advantage of the mutiny to link up with the Dehli court, and use it as a figurehead for rule over Northern India.

Actually that was the 1857 rebbelion. In that one yes the goal was to restore the mughal empire. but the ones after like the 1858 uprising had no intention of having a mughal emperor rather they were uprisings by various princely indian states.
 
Actually that was the 1857 rebbelion. In that one yes the goal was to restore the mughal empire. but the ones after like the 1858 uprising had no intention of having a mughal emperor rather they were uprisings by various princely indian states.
The OP is talking about the 1857 rebellion...
 
The OP is talking about the 1857 rebellion...

oh ok in that case for it too succeed you have to have the sikhs not support the british. perhaps the punjab sikhs are granted concessions by those wanting to restore the mughal emperor and are gaurenteed security and all. After tall the reason the sikh punjabs sided with british was because they were afraid of having another mughal empire given they had fought with it for so long. So if you can get the royal princely indian states at least the major ones and the panjabs on the side of the revolters then yes the biritsh may be beaten. otherwise not at all likely.
 
Perhaps in this case, the Mughals are restored as nominal figureheads, with the Sikhs retaining large influence in Punjab. I'd take that as the catalyst: the Sikhs revolting as well, thus establishing an independent state along the Indo-Gangetic Plain. But the success of the mutineers will also mean that the other Princely States having more incentive to revolt as well...
 
If the mutiny had been successful, it would have resulted in a divided India at that time. Even if the Mughal Emperor was reinstated his power would have remained confined to Delhi and its neighborhood. Not only the Sikhs, but other powers like Marathas and the Nawabs like those of Avadh, would have tried to establish their independent power. Nana Saheb, who was the claimant to the throne of Peshwa, was also a leader of the mutiny. If the Northern powers established their areas of influence, the rulers of the South like Nizam and other kings too would have gone their independent paths. The situation would have been similar to the one, a century back.
 
Just let the British keep the Sindh and Bengal. Everything else will eventually fall into line, perhaps in a way similar to South America.
 
Top