Nau Nihal Singh

Not sure if this has been asked before, but what happens i Nau nihal Singh, the emperor of thensikh empire does not die in 1840? Say he avoids the boulder that dame down and killed him otl. He was said to be quite capable and was very popular could he keep the Sikh empir going and block the Brits?
 
Sikh empire was conquered not because the British wanted to, but because there were larger Geopolitics in play.Afghan war, great game with Russia etc would have eventually forced the British to try and conquer the sikh empire, whoever the leader.The sikh population were a minority in their own empire.
 
Sikh empire was conquered not because the British wanted to, but because there were larger Geopolitics in play.Afghan war, great game with Russia etc would have eventually forced the British to try and conquer the sikh empire, whoever the leader.The sikh population were a minority in their own empire.

The British were only able to conquer the Sikhs because of traitors in the court who worked with the British. With a strong ruler outmaneuvering them and keeping his throne, I see no reason why the British won't be fended off in the first Anglo-Sikh war at least. If the British aren't willing to maintain the policy of allying with them that worked in the past, I assume the Sikhs would pivot to Russia.

The Sikhs were a minority but they treated Muslims and Hindus quite well for a confessional state. Both Muslims and Hindus played major roles in high-level administration and in the army. Furthermore, Sikhism was growing rapidly under the Empire-I assume because they led with "carrots" rather than "sticks" in incentivizing conversion.
 
Handover of power to a new ruler in a relatively new kingdom is always a sticky situation.Humayun faced it but survived because of allies.The sikhs had only 2 neighbours-British and Afghans.Afghans-natural enemy.British-opportunists who would grab any opportunity to capture power.The power vaccuum after death of Nau Nihal singh provided them with the exact scenario and they captured it.Had there been a ruthless warrior at this stage instead of a child(Dileep Singh),there would still hve been some hope.With many royalty members charged with being not being the ruling kind, a civil war was imminent.The British infact were a relief as a civil war would have impacted the entire population.War more and less impacted the army and some peripherals.
 
The incentive to convert. Essentially, the Sikh Empire was just too tolerant to make their subjects convert, as people had no reason to do so.

Persecution and pressure to assimilate often makes people cling strongly to their identities-even if they didn't really care before then. While there wasn't a whole lot of disadvantages for not converting, Sikhism was still sponsored heavily by the government. To quote a member of this forum on the positive incentives:

Well, technically, there were a few. For instance, the Sikh Empire effectively offered social security and public education to the masses via Sikh religious institutions. Every Sikh Gurdwara provides a free community kitchen, offering Langar to all visitors, regardless of religious, regional, cultural, racial, caste, or class affiliations. And in this era, the Sikh Gurdwaras were also public libraries of Sikh literature, and public schools in which children were taught how to become literate in the Gurmukhi script of Punjabi. Under Maharajah Ranjit Singh, the Gurdwaras across the Empire were directly financed via the royal treasury, in a vaguely similar manner to the major Shinto shrines across Imperial Japan during the State Shinto period.

Unlike with the Shinto shrines though, funding the Sikh Gurdwaras also served to finance a system of basic state socialism, in which state welfare, emergency housing and public education were all offered to the public directly through the Sikh Temples. Accordingly, one had to show proper respect to the customs of the Sikh faith in order to freely access these services. These all seem like they'd have been substantial incentives to join the Sikh faith. It's not forced conversion by any stretch of the imagination, but it's certainly still state-sponsored active proletarianism.
<snip>

Imagine being a poor, low-caste peasant in the Sikh Empire. There's a great deal of attraction to converting to an egalitarian, education-focused, state sponsored religion when your old religion gives you so little. Furthermore, while Hindus and Muslims could play an important role in the army, joining the Khalsa gave you a guaranteed income and future. Joining the Khalsa requires you to be an initiated Sikh so in the "core" territories of the Sikh Empire, poor/lower class families would send their children to join (outer areas had their own local forces). Support for the view of lots of people joining for the benefits/prestige comes from the relatively rapid decline of the Sikh population after the British took over. The British Punjab Administration Report for the year 1851-52 said:

The Sikh faith and ecclesiastical polity is rapidly going where the Sikh political ascendancy has already gone. Of the two elements in the old Khalsa, namely, the followers of Nanuck, the first prophet, and the followers of Guru Govind Singh, the second great religious leader, the former will hold their ground, and the latter will lose it. The Sikhs of Nanuck, a comparatively small body of peaceful habits and old family, will perhaps cling to the faith of their fathers; but the Sikhs of Govind who are of more recent origin, who are more specially styled the Singhs or "lions", and who embraced the faith as being the religion of warfare and conquest, no longer regard the Khalsa now that the prestige has departed from it.

These men joined in thousands, and they now desert in equal numbers. They rejoin the ranks of Hinduism whence they originally came, and they bring up their children as Hindus. The sacred tank at Amritsar is less thronged than formerly, and the attendance at the annual festivals is diminishing yearly. The initiatory ceremony for adult persons is now rarely performed.

The Punjab Administration Report for the year 1855-56 said:

This circumstance strongly corroborates what is commonly believed, namely that the Sikh tribe is losing numbers rapidly. Modern Sikhism was little more than a political association (formed exclusively from among Hindus), which men would join or quit according to the circumstances of the day... Now that the Sikh commonwealth is broken up, people cease to be initiated into Sikhism and revert to Hindooism. Such is the undoubted explanation of a statistical fact, which might otherwise appear to be hardly credible.
 
Persecution and pressure to assimilate often makes people cling strongly to their identities-even if they didn't really care before then. While there wasn't a whole lot of disadvantages for not converting, Sikhism was still sponsored heavily by the government. To quote a member of this forum on the positive incentives:

That whole argument is built on a flawed premise. To enter a gurudwara, one doesn't need to convert to Sikhism at all. I've entered gurudwaras as a Hindu just fine. And so, even in this sense of Sikhism as a welfare system, there is no reason to convert, as converting and abandoning one's old gods causes no major difference in being able to enter a gurudwara.

Furthermore, mandirs were beginning to adjust to this system, and were themselves beginning to have an area for eating food blessed by God (prashad), a logical extension of getting prashad from the mandir as part of standard ritual. Of course, they never held such a focus on equality, as there is no major Hindu tenet in that regard. Hindu temples today have such sections, in no small part to combat competing religions.

Furthermore, Sikhism made up a majority nowhere until after Partition, when Sikhs left Pakistani Punjab, and even Indian Punjab was still Sikh-majority until Himachal Pradesh and Haryana were broken off, and Punjab, India, is still only 56% Sikh. So, while your point on Sikhism losing adherents is valid, and it may very well grow, it will never be able to become the religion of the majority of ethnic Punjabis, much less the Pahari, Kashmiri, and Haryanvi.
 
That whole argument is built on a flawed premise. To enter a gurudwara, one doesn't need to convert to Sikhism at all. I've entered gurudwaras as a Hindu just fine. And so, even in this sense of Sikhism as a welfare system, there is no reason to convert, as converting and abandoning one's old gods causes no major difference in being able to enter a gurudwara.

Furthermore, mandirs were beginning to adjust to this system, and were themselves beginning to have an area for eating food blessed by God (prashad), a logical extension of getting prashad from the mandir as part of standard ritual. Of course, they never held such a focus on equality, as there is no major Hindu tenet in that regard. Hindu temples today have such sections, in no small part to combat competing religions.

Furthermore, Sikhism made up a majority nowhere until after Partition, when Sikhs left Pakistani Punjab, and even Indian Punjab was still Sikh-majority until Himachal Pradesh and Haryana were broken off, and Punjab, India, is still only 56% Sikh. So, while your point on Sikhism losing adherents is valid, and it may very well grow, it will never be able to become the religion of the majority of ethnic Punjabis, much less the Pahari, Kashmiri, and Haryanvi.

56% is still a majority of the population. Or has counting suddenly gone out of fashion for you? :p
 
It's a very small majority, and all that was after numerous population changes and land reductions that would not happen ITTL.
Aha how convenient. And indeed. Still how are to tell what someone could do if given the right incentive
 
That whole argument is built on a flawed premise. To enter a gurudwara, one doesn't need to convert to Sikhism at all. I've entered gurudwaras as a Hindu just fine. And so, even in this sense of Sikhism as a welfare system, there is no reason to convert, as converting and abandoning one's old gods causes no major difference in being able to enter a gurudwara.

Furthermore, mandirs were beginning to adjust to this system, and were themselves beginning to have an area for eating food blessed by God (prashad), a logical extension of getting prashad from the mandir as part of standard ritual. Of course, they never held such a focus on equality, as there is no major Hindu tenet in that regard. Hindu temples today have such sections, in no small part to combat competing religions.

Furthermore, Sikhism made up a majority nowhere until after Partition, when Sikhs left Pakistani Punjab, and even Indian Punjab was still Sikh-majority until Himachal Pradesh and Haryana were broken off, and Punjab, India, is still only 56% Sikh. So, while your point on Sikhism losing adherents is valid, and it may very well grow, it will never be able to become the religion of the majority of ethnic Punjabis, much less the Pahari, Kashmiri, and Haryanvi.

I think you're misinterpreting his post. He says "Every Sikh Gurdwara provides a free community kitchen, offering Langar to all visitors, regardless of religious, regional, cultural, racial, caste, or class affiliations" so he's not saying you need to convert in order to enter one. My interpretation is that having so many benefits associated with Sikhism is the type of thing that raises the prestige of the religion immensely in potential converts eyes. That's what he means when he says " state-sponsored active proletarianism". If you're discriminated and spit upon as a low-caste poor person (for example), being able to join the ranks of an egalitarian and very prestigious faith holds a lot of appeal. It automatically puts you into a community of believers that may be a lot healthier and more helpful than your old one depending on your situation. It gains you new connections that you don't get from just going to a gundwara. Big bonus if that community plays a disproportionate role in the state and follows the state religion. I don't think just getting food from Hindu temples can compete with all that.

Consider the case of Christianity in South Korea. It wasn't forced on the population and yet people willingly chose to convert to the point where it's stabilized to around 25-30% of the population. From what I've read, this happened because the prestige of the religion was raised immensely by being associated first with resistance to Japanese colonialism and secondly with the USA (American evangelical protestants held a lot of influence when it came to South Korea). Without these things, I see no reason why Christianity in South Korea would be any more numerous than Christianity in Taiwan or Japan. Non-Christians weren't discriminated against and could rise to the highest levels of government (in independent Korea) but tons of people still chose to join the new community. I agree that Sikhs will never form a majority in the Empire-but then, I never said that. I do think that it will stabilize around 25-30% like Christianity in South Korea. That seems to be the maximum in a relatively tolerant society.

There's also my other points to consider besides Sycamores post.
 
So, in the short term if Nau lives, is it likely that the British continue to observe events in Punjab with interest but nothing more?

What role would Sher Singh and the other sons of Ranjit Singh play during the early days of their nephew's reign?
 
I think you're misinterpreting his post. He says "Every Sikh Gurdwara provides a free community kitchen, offering Langar to all visitors, regardless of religious, regional, cultural, racial, caste, or class affiliations" so he's not saying you need to convert in order to enter one. My interpretation is that having so many benefits associated with Sikhism is the type of thing that raises the prestige of the religion immensely in potential converts eyes. That's what he means when he says " state-sponsored active proletarianism".

You're probably going to get some people to convert, but most of the poor who go to the gurudwara will find little reason to abandon their old gods (or God, in the case of Muslims) in the name of some connections. Much of poor have little reason to forsake their old beliefs, and in regards to your point on religious egalitarianism, Islam is already a fairly egalitarian religion. So, poor Muslims have that covered.

In fact, Hindus and Muslims played major roles in the Sikh Empire. For instance, a dynasty of Rajputs played a major role in court intrigue and were given control over Jammu as vassal monarchs. That's where the dynasty that ruled Jammu and Kashmir comes from. So, because of the empire's general tolerance, it won't be able to grow as much as it would have otherwise.

Yes, you will see some people convert, but you're overestimating this rate. Factors like mandirs giving food blessed by God merely blunt the number of new converts Sikhism will get.

Consider the case of Christianity in South Korea. It wasn't forced on the population and yet people willingly chose to convert to the point where it's stabilized to around 25-30% of the population. From what I've read, this happened because the prestige of the religion was raised immensely by being associated first with resistance to Japanese colonialism and secondly with the USA (American evangelical protestants held a lot of influence when it came to South Korea).

It also happened because Buddhism was associated with the Japanese colonizers. It became somewhat unpatriotic to be a Buddhist under Japanese rule. This element is not there, especially since Hindus and Muslims alike will be holding major positions in court and in the army.

In this case, you may get 25-30% of ethnic Punjabis to convert to Sikhism in a best-case scenario, but as for the Pahari, the Haryanvi, the Kashmiris, and the Pashtuns, I doubt they'd really convert.
 
You're probably going to get some people to convert, but most of the poor who go to the gurudwara will find little reason to abandon their old gods (or God, in the case of Muslims) in the name of some connections. Much of poor have little reason to forsake their old beliefs, and in regards to your point on religious egalitarianism, Islam is already a fairly egalitarian religion. So, poor Muslims have that covered.

In fact, Hindus and Muslims played major roles in the Sikh Empire. For instance, a dynasty of Rajputs played a major role in court intrigue and were given control over Jammu as vassal monarchs. That's where the dynasty that ruled Jammu and Kashmir comes from. So, because of the empire's general tolerance, it won't be able to grow as much as it would have otherwise.

Yes, you will see some people convert, but you're overestimating this rate. Factors like mandirs giving food blessed by God merely blunt the number of new converts Sikhism will get.



It also happened because Buddhism was associated with the Japanese colonizers. It became somewhat unpatriotic to be a Buddhist under Japanese rule. This element is not there, especially since Hindus and Muslims alike will be holding major positions in court and in the army.

In this case, you may get 25-30% of ethnic Punjabis to convert to Sikhism in a best-case scenario, but as for the Pahari, the Haryanvi, the Kashmiris, and the Pashtuns, I doubt they'd really convert.

I'm bringing up possible reasons for conversion but we know that in OTL, the Sikh population jumped up enormously during the time of the Sikh Empire. IIRC from around 5% when it was established, to around 17% by the time it fell. My original point was that Sikhism was growing rapidly and it did. How else could Sikhs have played such a disproportionate role in such a large state after the mass killings of the 18th century? I think we're just quibbling over the reasons and possible limits.

I don't know why you're telling me that Hindus and Muslims played major roles when I literally mention that in my first post.
 
Top