Indian mutiny succeed

As with so many things, it depends on the details. Disclaimer up front: I am no expert on anything, let alone 19th century India. With that out of the way, lets begin

India has spent the vast majority of its history divided, that seems to be at least weak evidence that it will end up divided again. In order for it to end up united a ruler of one of the larger still independent states would have to know the rebellion is coming and prepare for it in order to be able to claim large parts of the subcontinent. Even then, I doubt that would include everything, at least not at first.

Take the Sikh Empire for example. Lets say they had a POD of 1840ish. They avoid their internal squabbles, maintain the line of rulers, and maybe even expand to include Baluchistan and Sindh so they have a coast. If they are somehow able to see the trend lines and the mutiny still happens after a POD 17 years in the past they might, maybe, possibly, be able to grab the strip of land from their punjab home region, all the way to the bengal region, including delhi and the old Mughal Empire lands in between. Perhaps they could be recognized as the protector and suzerain of the various indian states that pop up after, as long as none of them grow too powerful themselves. Then it might be possible for the Sikhs to play the long diplomatic game, slowly incorporating everything already enclosed by their territory.

I dont think this is ASB, as it doesnt break the laws of physics, but it is still pretty unlikely i think.

I look forward to any other suggestions of how it might succeed.
 
What if the Indian mutiny had succeeded and the British lost India does India split into different States or one country?

Possibly in various smaller states fighting each other. Indian officers as potentially warlords of various cities. The Sikhs are the biggest group as a united entity, followers by the Mughal Emperor around Delhi and then various Maratha rulers in Central and Northern India.

The British may re enter the region or use divide and rule tactic to get secure trade deals. Huge effect on Opium Wars.
 
if the British fail in India what other part of the empire would they put resources in to instead of India?
 
Why would the British lose all of India if this mutiny succeeds?

They only directly controlled small parts of it before the mutiny.
530px-Indian_revolt_of_1857_states_map.svg.png


BritishRule.jpg


Even in 1930 the British did not directly control all of India.
brindia1930large.gif
 
Last edited:
Take the Sikh Empire for example. Lets say they had a POD of 1840ish.
A surviving Sikh Empire could butterfly the mutiny.

They only directly controlled small parts of it before the mutiny.
And not all of those parts mutinied...
Locations of Indian revolt in 1857, map of.
Madras and the 1857 Revolt.
the article above said:
The only case of Indian troops revolting in the South was when the 8th Cavalry of the Madras Brigade refused to march from Bangalore to Madras in June 1857 to sail for Calcutta.
the article above said:
To protect the British residents of Madras — who at no time seemed to be in any danger...
 
In this period Britain generally doesn't say "Oh sod it, let them win then". The main exception is the 1st Transvaal War but that was with white settlers and the British, if I am not misremembering, had other things come up.

So, either they come back soon with a full invasion force, or something else completely distracts them

The latter would rise in probability because losing even more than they did in OTL's start of the Mutiny would damage Britain's standing and perception so elsewhere things might start to go more awry. Plus, Britain might harden their stances elsewhere as a result to show that they still matter meaning that situations elsewhere might deteriorate more rapidly, meaning they cannot return in force as soon as they wanted

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
In this period Britain generally doesn't say "Oh sod it, let them win then". The main exception is the 1st Transvaal War but that was with white settlers and the British, if I am not misremembering, had other things come up.

So, either they come back soon with a full invasion force, or something else completely distracts them

The latter would rise in probability because losing even more than they did in OTL's start of the Mutiny would damage Britain's standing and perception so elsewhere things might start to go more awry. Plus, Britain might harden their stances elsewhere as a result to show that they still matter meaning that situations elsewhere might deteriorate more rapidly, meaning they cannot return in force as soon as they wanted

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Indeed they would come back unless they got involved in another war like Crimea.
They fought a second war against the Americans in 1812 when they were also fighting the French at the time.
 
It's fairly clearly said that the world is in a better place if the British didn't have India.
Yes, that was exactly what they said, how you immediately went on the defensive "Britain was uniquely evil" was the issue, did KMP remotely imply some other colonial power conquering India would be a better place? If anything he was saying colonialism as a whole as bad, and that is a cold take.
Or wait, you are saying the Raj was a positive for India and Indians?
 
Yes, that was exactly what they said, how you immediately went on the defensive "Britain was uniquely evil" was the issue, did KMP remotely imply some other colonial power conquering India would be a better place? If anything he was saying colonialism as a whole as bad, and that is a cold take.
Or wait, you are saying the Raj was a positive for India and Indians?
Ah, the old shift what was being said response.
How is my saying the British weren't uniquely evil (as global colonisers) the same as saying the Raj was a positive force or that colonialism wasn't bad?
 
Ah, the old shift what was being said response.
How is my saying the British weren't uniquely evil (as global colonisers) the same as saying the Raj was a positive force or that colonialism wasn't bad?
Because the conversation was
You: "Why would the British lose all of India if this mutiny succeeds?"
Him: "Because the world would be a better place :relievedface:"
You: "Yes, because the British were uniquely evil amongst all colonialists. /s"
So, his point was the the world would be a better place without British colonialism in India, in no other form he even implied anyone else colonizing the place would be better, only that one place escaping colonization at all would be a positive to the world (again cold take under current historical debate), you for some reason went on the "BUT THE BRITS WERENT THE WROST" in the form of sarcasm, so there is the question: if you weren't jumping on the defense of the Empire's honor out of nowhere, what was the point of the post?
 
Because the conversation was
You: "Why would the British lose all of India if this mutiny succeeds?"
Him: "Because the world would be a better place :relievedface:"
You: "Yes, because the British were uniquely evil amongst all colonialists. /s"
So, his point was the the world would be a better place without British colonialism in India, in no other form he even implied anyone else colonizing the place would be better, only that one place escaping colonization at all would be a positive to the world (again cold take under current historical debate), you for some reason went on the "BUT THE BRITS WERENT THE WROST" in the form of sarcasm, so there is the question: if you weren't jumping on the defense of the Empire's honor out of nowhere, what was the point of the post?
If they'd said "that one place escaping colonization at all would be a positive to the world" I could see their point but when it's more "that one place escaping British colonization would be a positive to the world" I don't.
Comes across as Britain bashing rather than the agreeable anticolonialism.
Simple as.
Have I made myself clear?
 
Top