Sikh wank

I'm making a scenario where the Sikh Empire remains independent and a much more successful Indian Rebellion of 1857 happens (due to some butterflies with how the British East India Company runs while Britain has a Chartist Revolution or something). But I'm no expert on Indian history and I would really appreciate some help.

I think the Sikh's would use this opportunity to expand their influence and maybe takes more territory during the rebellion while Northern India becomes a lot like the Holy Roman Empire.

Thoughts?
 
Well most of my knowledge is based off reading Flashman's adventures in India, so take all with a grain of salt.

1) The Sikh Kingdom needs a much more successful succession after the death of Ranjit Singh in 39. The weakness and intrigue of the succession encouraged the Brits/East India Company to start poking around and this ultimately manufactured the first Sikh war in 45.

2) Hugh Gough led the British forces in the first war and didn't show much imagination. His forces took a lot of casualties. The Sikhs had quite good artillery. They lost the final battle because they formed their lines with their backs to the Sutlej. When their lines broke, a retreat turned into a disaster trying to cross the river. Also, one of their primary leaders desserted them. Lots of possible PODs for the Sikhs doing better in this war.

3) The 2nd Sikh war happened just a couple of years later. Again British forces were led by charge right at them Gough. And again their was hard fighting. Gough's forces took hard casualties, but saw it threw to victory. Gough was criticized enough to get replaced. The Sikhs were also undo by their own poor political situation.
 
Well most of my knowledge is based off reading Flashman's adventures in India, so take all with a grain of salt.

1) The Sikh Kingdom needs a much more successful succession after the death of Ranjit Singh in 39. The weakness and intrigue of the succession encouraged the Brits/East India Company to start poking around and this ultimately manufactured the first Sikh war in 45.

2) Hugh Gough led the British forces in the first war and didn't show much imagination. His forces took a lot of casualties. The Sikhs had quite good artillery. They lost the final battle because they formed their lines with their backs to the Sutlej. When their lines broke, a retreat turned into a disaster trying to cross the river. Also, one of their primary leaders desserted them. Lots of possible PODs for the Sikhs doing better in this war.

3) The 2nd Sikh war happened just a couple of years later. Again British forces were led by charge right at them Gough. And again their was hard fighting. Gough's forces took hard casualties, but saw it threw to victory. Gough was criticized enough to get replaced. The Sikhs were also undo by their own poor political situation.

I know that the Sikh's need to solve their succession problem, that's for sure. But I was wondering if the Sikh's could potentially dominate Northern India?
 

Delvestius

Banned
Neo jaag te mulak koi hona, apna Punjab waariga!

I don't know much about Sikh history pre-1800, but I would say maybe if they were a bit more cooperative with the British, they would have given then greater autonomy, paving the way for the nation of Khalistan.
 
Neo jaag te mulak koi hona, apna Punjab waariga!

I don't know much about Sikh history pre-1800, but I would say maybe if they were a bit more cooperative with the British, they would have given then greater autonomy, paving the way for the nation of Khalistan.
Nope. Sikhs weren't a majority, so within the British system, they wouldn't earn any sort of special rights anyways. And that's with the Brits generally liking Dalip, albeit after he was dethroned.

The Sikhs can very much hold out against the British, and as others have mentioned, it isn't too hard to occur. The only problem is that later on, the Sikhs might have to contend with other countries in the region. The Afghans and perhaps even the Russians could become a huge problem. But still manageable.
 

Delvestius

Banned
Nope. Sikhs weren't a majority, so within the British system, they wouldn't earn any sort of special rights anyways. And that's with the Brits generally liking Dalip, albeit after he was dethroned.

I spoze so.. I forgot they'd be all mixed up with Muslims and some Hindus, not all hunkered down all nice in neat in their own little area... If that were the case though, perhaps it would be possible.
 

SunDeep

Banned
Having a Proper Sikh Wank

Well, I've been working on my own timeline based around this scenario for some time, and conducted a fair bit of research. In my timeline's POD, the capable heir to the Sikh throne, Nau Nihal Singh, escapes his freakish death (or, rather, opportunistic assassination) IOTL, avoiding injury in the archway collapse at the Lahore Fort upon his return from his father's funeral. IOTL, eyewitnesses asserted that the collapse only knocked Nau Nihal Singh unconscious, with few visible signs of injury; the crown prince was subsequently carried inside the fort by members of the Dogra faction and carried back out dead, with his skull smashed in. :eek:

In contrast, ITTL, Nau Nihal Singh survives to become Maharajah Nihal Singh, and subsequent Dogra attempts to kill him and cause the termination of his unborn child through slow poisoning (the same method used on his father Maharajah Kharak Singh) are exposed before they can bear effect. The Dogras abscond Lahore, and a brief civil war ensues, culminating in the defeat of the Dogras and their allies in the Punjab Hill States, and the consolidation of power by the Sindhanwalia-backed Sikh Raj.

Of course, you'd assume the internal conflict would leave the Sikh Raj more vulnerable to British aggression during this period and in its immediate aftermath; but with the British East India Company's commitments in Afghanistan at this time (1840>1842) and their vital supply lines through the Punjab, running through regions which would be contested between both sides in a Sikh Civil War, the risk to the convoys would have effectively ruled out direct military intervention on either side's behalf, limiting their intervention to support through propaganda and the supply of arms. The B.E.I.C favour the potential divide-&-conquer opportunity offered by backing the Dogras; but without direct military intervention, it makes little difference to the outcome.

Worse, it proves fatal to diplomatic relations between the EIC and Sikh Raj, and stirs public sentiment in the (primarily non-Sikh) heartland of the Punjab against the British. At the inevitable outbreak of the 1st Anglo-Sikh War, in spite of the losses incurred over the course of the Sikh Civil War, the defending Sikh armies are no smaller than they were IOTL, comprised of far more seasoned troops, many of whom already gained experience facing the British weapons in the hands of Dogra troops- and far more importantly, ITTL they're actually led by commanders who want to win, unlike IOTL where the Dogra commanders Lal Singh and Tej Singh had a vested interest in losing their battles and the war, in order to secure Kashmir's independence as a Princely State under the direct rule of their family dynasty.

As High Plains Drifter pointed out, the Sikhs had real opportunities to win the 1st Anglo-Sikh War even IOTL, so a decisive victory for the Sikhs ITTL is pretty much a certainty. The outcome of a 2nd Anglo-Sikh War, in which the British would certainly learn lessons from the first conflict and commit a much larger, more well-equipped and well-led force, would be a far less comfortable one, but it's still more than feasible that there would be enough Sikh victories in battle to force a B.E.I.C withdrawal, and an effective Sikh victory in the conflict akin to that of Afghanistan in the 1st Anglo-Afghan War.

Of course, defeat in a 2nd Anglo-Sikh War wouldn't be likely to curb the B.E.I.C's ambitions of to extend its dominion over the Sikh Raj and effectively complete its conquest of India, or to regain the shattered prestige of the military forces in its employ. However, the concentration of troops in the build-up to the B.E.I.C's 3rd planned campaign against the Sikh Kingdom soon backfires in a big way, with the outbreak of the Great Indian Mutiny further strengthened in intensity by the greater numbers of Sepoys concentrated in the north-west of the British Raj, their resentment at being blamed for the B.E.I.C's losses in the previous Anglo-Sikh Wars, and the deep unpopular prospect of having to wage another one shortly.

Unlike IOTL, where the Sikhs directly intervened to help quell the uprising, the Sikh Raj provides every form of support short of direct military intervention, allowing the Mutiny to succeed in its objectives in the short term, seizing effective control of Haryana, Rajasthan, northern Madhya Pradesh and western Uttar Pradesh, and installing Bahadur Shah back to power. Unfortunately though, I can't see the fragmented Second Mughal Empire enduring for long; ITTL, it persists for seven years before splintering upon the death of Bahadur Shah II (2 years later than IOTL, in the royal court rather than in exile) allowing the British Raj to retake control, but the Sikhs have more than enough time to consolidate significant territorial gains.

West of the rebellion, many Princely States which have no desire to become part of a renewed Mughal Empire turn away from the folded B.E.I.C to become tributaries of the Sikh Kingdom, the strongest military power in the region; these include Kalat (Baluchistan), Khairpur (Upper Sindh), Kutch (N.W. Gujurat) and Bahawalpur. With the token British presence driven out of the Lower Sindh region by civil uprest, the Sikh Raj's territories are expanded to encompass the entirety of modern-day Pakistan, along with the modern Indian states of the Punjab, Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh. The Sikh Empire hasn't yet reached its maximum extent though; and in its enduring existence, it soon begins to have truly global repercussions...;)

p.s, Delvestius; the Sikh Raj only endured for 30 years or so, but in that time, the only period in the history of Sikhism where it was an ecclesiastical religion with the backing of a government, the Sikhs' share of the population in their kingdom rose from only 5% to around 19%, almost a fourfold increase. Even if that increase was linear rather than progressive, and taking into account the respective populations of the areas they'd be expanding into, you'd still see Sikhs holding at least a plurality in their own Kingdom ITTL by the end of the 19th century. :)

p.s.s. Another interesting thing to consider, for the early to mid 20th century part of such a timeline; in the period immediately before its conquest by the British, the estimated GDP, population and the size of the Sikh Raj's armed forces exceeded those of Japan by a huge margin. Without Britain siphoning off its trade wealth, with its own industrialisation initiatives (already being carried out in its military forces IOTL through the Fauj-i-Khas) and with the raw materials and manpower at the Sikh Raj's disposal, would the Sikh Raj or the Shogunate have been better placed to become the dominant power in Asia? Hmmm...:D
 
p.s.s. Another interesting thing to consider, for the early to mid 20th century part of such a timeline; in the period immediately before its conquest by the British, the estimated GDP, population and the size of the Sikh Raj's armed forces exceeded those of Japan by a huge margin. Without Britain siphoning off its trade wealth, with its own industrialisation initiatives (already being carried out in its military forces IOTL through the Fauj-i-Khas) and with the raw materials and manpower at the Sikh Raj's disposal, would the Sikh Raj or the Shogunate have been better placed to become the dominant power in Asia? Hmmm...:D

Well, they have to beat the British first if they want to expand, and as for peaceful dominance there's no reason to believe they will be _more_ successful than Japan in fully modernizing; if they hold their own against the British as described, they have less motivation to go "all out" as the Japanese. Also, how are they for iron and coal?

Bruce
 

SunDeep

Banned
Well, they have to beat the British first if they want to expand, and as for peaceful dominance there's no reason to believe they will be _more_ successful than Japan in fully modernizing; if they hold their own against the British as described, they have less motivation to go "all out" as the Japanese. Also, how are they for iron and coal?

Not necessarily; there were plenty of other opportunities for expansion in the region without having to beat the British. With the death of the reigning Sultan in 1856 and the subsequent power struggle that saw the division of the Omani and Zanzibari Sultanates IOTL, and the British too preoccupied with quelling the Indian Rebellion ITTL to take advantage, the Sikhs had a ready made opportunity to step in, bring their favoured candidate to power and bring Oman's territories under its dominion as a nominally sovereign entity.

On the northern borders, Chinese control in the Xinjiang Province was as weak as it would ever be, weak enough IOTL to allow the warlord Yakub Beg to overthrow Chinese rule and carve out a fleeting kingdom over an expanse encompassing half a million square kilometres. For a far stronger and better equipped Sikh army, on an vast open battlefield instead of the mountain passes which characterised OTL's Sino-Sikh War (which never takes place ITTL, due to Sikh commitments in its Civil War), Xinjiang would be an easy steal; and of course, it also happens to possess some of the largest deposits of coal, iron, oil and natural gas in the world, more than enough to fuel the industrialisation of a world power (as evidenced by China today). The region of Baluchistan also possesses large reserves of all these resources, and we all know about what can be extracted from the Arabian Gulf.

From there on, who knows? Persia, Afghanistan, Yemen, those Khanates of Central Asia which hadn't yet been annexed by Russia in The Great Game; perhaps territories even further afield when the Sikh Kingdom starts to gain the capability to mount naval expeditions. And they wouldn't have to beat the British again to accomplish any of it.

Also, I didn't say they'd be any more successful in fully modernising than the Japanese (although I'm not entirely sure how to define full modernisation, or whether it would really be possible to rank the modernisation of historical nations with distinctly unique cultures). They'd be starting from a more advanced position than the Japanese Meiji Restoration though, at pretty much the same point in time, with diplomatic and trade missions already present.

With real threats amassed on their borders, with the British to the south and east soon joined by the Russians to the north and west, there's no reason why the Sikh Raj would be less motivated to modernise than the island nation Japan. They'd certainly be capable of at least keeping up with advances fast enough to maintain the status-quo balance of power and be recognised by the European Great Powers as a military peer rather than inferiors, perceived in a comparable manner to the Ottoman Empire; but without the crippling war debts and with a far firmer hold over its territories, the Sikh Empire ITTL would almost certainly be stronger (economically and militarily) than its Ottoman contemporary.
 
Last edited:

SunDeep

Banned
Also worth thinking about: this may be a 'Sikh wank', but for most readers, the other side of the coin will be either just as interesting or even more so- namely, the question of which other nations and peoples of the world will be impacted most of all by the continued existence of the Sikh Raj, either negatively and positively- and in this timeline, they wouldn't all line up as you might expect. Take the United Kingdom for instance, and its British Empire; in the short term, it's pretty obvious that the British would suffer from the endurance and continued rise of the Sikh Empire in a big way, not to mention the brief success of the Mughal Restoration. Their economy, their military power in the region, and especially their prestige would all be hit in a bad way.

In the longer term though, its failures in the Sikh Kingdom would almost certainly drive the British to pursue a more aggressive expansion policy elsewhere, especially in Asia, the Middle East and East Africa (leading to the inevitable subjugation of other people in the Sikhs' place, with the Thai being among the most prominent of these). And with the latter, a certain pivotal stand-off moment in the Sudanese desert between the British and the French (the Sikh Empire's primary European trading partners from the time of the Anglo-Sikh Wars, with diplomatic ties between the two nations subsequently strengthened to the verge of military alliance) ends up playing out very differently ITTL, with the repercussions of this event FASHODA reverberating throughout TTL's 20th century, altering the courses of the largest, most widespread wars the world would ever see...
 
Well, they have to beat the British first if they want to expand, and as for peaceful dominance there's no reason to believe they will be _more_ successful than Japan in fully modernizing; if they hold their own against the British as described, they have less motivation to go "all out" as the Japanese.

How do you figure?

I mean, they actually went to war with the Brits, whereas Japan didn't.

Not necessarily; there were plenty of other opportunities for expansion in the region without having to beat the British. With the death of the reigning Sultan in 1856 and the subsequent power struggle that saw the division of the Omani and Zanzibari Sultanates IOTL, and the British too preoccupied with quelling the Indian Rebellion ITTL to take advantage, the Sikhs had a ready made opportunity to step in, bring their favoured candidate to power and bring Oman's territories under its dominion as a nominally sovereign entity.

But they don't have a navy, do they? I'm also not sure I see the Sikhs allying with the Mughal nativists, given the history of Mughal-Sikh relations.

They'd be starting from a more advanced position than the Japanese Meiji Restoration though, at pretty much the same point in time, with diplomatic and trade missions already present.

This sounds very wankish. Japan went into the restoration with a very literate population and a sophisticated financial system. The Sikh state doesn't even have an orderly system of succession.
 
How do you figure?

I mean, they actually went to war with the Brits, whereas Japan didn't.

.

They (in this TL) beat the Brits: the Japanese may not have actually fought them, but got a front seat view of the British seriously screwing over the Chinese, the traditional local hegemon. And when the new "black ships" showed up, the Japanese government didn't take long to realize they didn't have much in the way of a response if the Americans decided to bombard the crap out of their coastal towns.

Bruce
 
Last edited:
On the northern borders, Chinese control in the Xinjiang Province was as weak as it would ever be, weak enough IOTL to allow the warlord Yakub Beg to overthrow Chinese rule and carve out a fleeting kingdom over an expanse encompassing half a million square kilometres. For a far stronger and better equipped Sikh army, on an vast open battlefield instead of the mountain passes which characterised OTL's Sino-Sikh War (which never takes place ITTL, due to Sikh commitments in its Civil War),

Which "vast open battlefield" are you talking about?


Xinjiang would be an easy steal; and of course, it also happens to possess some of the largest deposits of coal, iron, oil and natural gas in the world, more than enough to fuel the industrialisation of a world power (as evidenced by China today).

Yes, it's a major supplier of coal - in an area of modern industry and modern infrastructure. Getting that coal over the mountains to where the labor force would be is a horrendous logistical problem before the 20th century, and the lack of local infrastructure, good water supplies, etc. would make industrializing the Tarim basin in the 19th century non-affordable save through massive, expensive government intervention.

The region of Baluchistan also possesses large reserves of all these resources, and we all know about what can be extracted from the Arabian Gulf.

where are you getting this from? A quick look on the internet indicates most of OTL Pakistan's coal in in the Sindh: trouble is that it's in the Thar desert and covered with loads of sand, so it's unlikely to be stumbled across in the 19th century. Most of the iron ore, in turn, is up in the mountains, although there does seem to be a fair amount in the desolate Baluchi-Afghan border area: good luck making use of it before rail comes in. Oil in industry is mostly a 20th century thing.

From there on, who knows? Persia, Afghanistan, Yemen, those Khanates of Central Asia which hadn't yet been annexed by Russia in The Great Game;

Which the Russians will fight them for. (Yemen? Along with the problems of an entirely theoretical navy, that brings them in conflict with the Ottomans). And I'm sure the Afghans will welcome the heathen Sikhs as overlords with the same open arms the received the British. Nipping off some bits of eastern Persia seems plausible, but they're the least populous and most desolate bits.

perhaps territories even further afield when the Sikh Kingdom starts to gain the capability to mount naval expeditions.

Need naval expeditions to get to Oman and Yemen in the first place...

They'd certainly be capable of at least keeping up with advances fast enough to maintain the status-quo balance of power and be recognised by the European Great Powers as a military peer rather than inferiors, perceived in a comparable manner to the Ottoman Empire;

Or Ethiopia after Adowa :)
(The Ottomans, recall, were the "sick man of Europe" by the mid-1800)

Bruce

PS - I really have trouble seeing a 19th century Sikh-wank. Survival of a Sikh state, sure. But major expansion seems unlikely without kneecapping the Europeans earlier on. In the 20th century, I suppose some possibilities are opened up if the British and/or Russian empires fall apart messily enough...
 

SunDeep

Banned
Originally Posted by Faeelin
But they don't have a navy, do they? I'm also not sure I see the Sikhs allying with the Mughal nativists, given the history of Mughal-Sikh relations.

Well, for them to intervene in the Omani succession dispute, they wouldn't really need a naval force, just the transportation that the merchant fleets of either side could provide. As for the other point, the history of Sikhism clearly doesn't leave them too kindly predisposed towards the Mughals, or an allegiance with their reincarnated empire; but the uprising takes place on the eve of a bloody third war between themselves and the British, and with the opportunities which its success would offer the Sikhs- at the very least weakening their foes and gaining time to consolidate the contested border regions through constructing fortifications and moving troops, and potentially managing to create an ideal buffer state between themselves and their most dangerous adversaries- pure self-interest obliges them to do all they can to aid the rebel cause, short of actually entering the conflict.

There'd be plenty of water under the bridge, sure; too much to offer direct intervention, and far too much to contemplate any form of political union (otherwise this'd be more of an India-wank than a Sikh-wank)- but you could say the same thing IOTL about the USA and the British (with the Sikh Confederacy casting off the yoke of the Mughals at about the same time that the Americans declared independence from the British), and they managed to put aside their differences when mutual threats and benefits presented themselves. There's no reason why the Sikhs and Mughals wouldn't be able to achieve a similar feat, given the right motivation- and ongoing hostilities with the British should serve as some pretty powerful motivation.

Originally Posted by Faeelin
This sounds very wankish. Japan went into the restoration with a very literate population and a sophisticated financial system. The Sikh state doesn't even have an orderly system of succession.

Well, that's true to an extent, but the heartland of the Sikh Empire, Punjab, has always been one of the most literate regions in India. As for the orderly system of succession; at the POD, in an official capacity at least, the Sikh Kingdom actually did. Nau Nihal Singh was the heir apparent of Maharajah Kharak Singh, who was the rightful heir of Maharajah Ranjit Singh. With the plotters and schemers within the royal court outed and routed relatively early on, subsequent passages of power could have gone smoothly enough.

Originally Posted by B_Munro
Which "vast open battlefield" are you talking about?

The Tarim Basin, and the plains of Xinjiang.

Originally Posted by B_Munro
Yes, it's a major supplier of coal - in an area of modern industry and modern infrastructure. Getting that coal over the mountains to where the labor force would be is a horrendous logistical problem before the 20th century, and the lack of local infrastructure, good water supplies, etc. would make industrializing the Tarim basin in the 19th century non-affordable save through massive, expensive government intervention.

Well, as far as infrastructure goes, the Silk Road had already been established for thousands of years, and the Sikhs had held control of the Khyber Pass for half a century. Getting that coal through one of the largest, most established trade routes in the world wouldn't actually be all that hard, or expensive. Also, there was already a decent-sized labour force in the Tarim Basin, one which could compare with any of the USA's mid-west frontier territories at the time- and you could extend that analogy to the lack of local infrastructure and water supplies available in plenty of those regions as well (e.g, the Colorado, Utah & New Mexico Territories). The Sikhs would be far more open to settling the region than any European nation would be- perhaps even more so than the Qing or Manchu Chinese were IOTL, given the distances and climatological contrast involved- and the monetary rewards on offer would still be enough to support the necessary mining communities.

Originally Posted by B_Munro
Which the Russians will fight them for. (Yemen? Along with the problems of an entirely theoretical navy, that brings them in conflict with the Ottomans). And I'm sure the Afghans will welcome the heathen Sikhs as overlords with the same open arms the received the British. Nipping off some bits of eastern Persia seems plausible, but they're the least populous and most desolate bits.

I'm not saying that Sikh expansion into those areas would be likely; I'm not even saying that it'd happen in my own timeline. I'm just saying they'd be possible options for expansion. Not necessarily wise ones- if they pursued the latter, they could easily find themselves facing war on two fronts, against both the British and the Russians, and even I couldn't imagine that scenario ending too well for the Sikhs. With Yemen, firstly, I said 'from there on'- so we're already assuming that they have a land border via Oman. And believe it or not, I wasn't actually thinking about the region of Oman claimed by the Ottomans, but rather the Mahra Sultanate, comprised of both the easternmost portion of present-day Yemen and the tactically positioned Socotra Archipelago (IOTL, both the Portuguese and British tried to build maritime fortresses here; the Portuguese abandoned theirs in the early 16th century due to hostile locals, and the British left in 1839, POD -1, due to its 'unfavourable climate'. Hailing from a monsoon climate themselves, and a similarly hot and dry one in the southern Punjab region, the Sikhs wouldn't have too much of a problem with it).

Originally Posted by B_Munro
Or Ethiopia after Adowa
(The Ottomans, recall, were the "sick man of Europe" by the mid-1800)

Well, that's kind of the point. Even after beating the British and consolidating their continued independence through a display of their military might against the best that Europe's colonial armies have to offer, the Sikhs still wouldn't be European, or white enough to be perceived as a true equal, regardless of capability. I already said they'd have a far stronger economy and military than the Ottomans by this point, with far greater integrity (thanks to expanding into most of its territories either via invitation by established local rulers who subsequently retained their positions as nominal sovereigns (Kutch, Bahawalpur, Oman etc), or under the banner of liberation from previous unwelcome occupiers (Xinjiang) and invaders (Sindh)). But with the racial and cultural prejudices involved, it'll inevitably take time for the Western Powers' estimation of their abilities to meet the reality (akin to OTL's Japan). And the Ottomans may have been the 'sick man of Europe' by that stage, but they were still one of the major powers, one of the biggest targets for the continent's respective military alliances in the run-up to the 1st World War. Adding another player to that mix in command of an even larger military force would be more than enough to break the butterfly house open, changing the game dynamic before the teams even line up on the pitch. And if you have some of the other star players switching teams before it gets under way, there's no telling which way that game's going to go...

p.s, On the 'problems' posed by their lack of a navy at the POD; as soon as they have a coastline to defend, the Sikhs would definitely put the task of building a navy high on their priority list. Even if we say that the British don't carry out gunboat diplomacy in the wake of the Sepoy Mutiny, sending ships up the Indus to try and deter the Sikhs from intervening on the side of the Indian rebels and giving them the same kind of wake-up call that the Japanese got IOTL (which they almost certainly would); after the fleeting re-establishment of the Mughal Kingdom, with its buffer state in place, it'd be pretty obvious that the greatest threat to the Sikh Empire would come from the sea in the form of a British naval expedition. Even with the focus of its armed forces firmly shifting back to the army after the disintegration of the 2nd Mughal Kingdom and the restoration of a land border with the British Raj, those seven years would be more than enough to commence the construction of a fledgling navy- perhaps following the precedent of the Fauj-i-Khas, and employing European mercenaries to utilise their knowledge and expertise in the field. The Sikhs probably still wouldn't be up to the standard of their European contemporaries in waging naval warfare, even in their own home waters; but against the navies of the sultanates we're talking about, Oman/Zanzibar and Yemen, they'd be more than capable of doing their job...
 
Last edited:

SunDeep

Banned
Well, as far as infrastructure goes, the Silk Road had already been established for thousands of years, and the Sikhs had held control of the Khyber Pass for half a century. Getting that coal through one of the largest, most established trade routes in the world wouldn't actually be all that hard, or expensive.

Yeah... Sorry about that, kind of got the primary Silk Road and the Northern Silk Road mixed up there, confusing the Khyber Pass with the Wakhan Corridor. Even so, while the Wakhan Corridor fell into disuse IOTL after partition between the Afghans, British and Russians during The Great Game, it was still being used as a trading route until the communist takeover in China, with the entirety of the Wakhan region remaining under the control of a weak local principality until the Afghans imposed their authority in the 1880's (which they only did when the British insisted). The Sikhs could easily take control of the region just as easily and bloodlessly ITTL as the Afghans did IOTL.
 

SunDeep

Banned
If anyone's interested, I've drawn up a little map covering the Indian subcontinent in my timeline, with the borders and boundaries in the year 1860CE. For the Mughal Confederacy, consisting of the revived Mughal Kingdom and those Princely States which decided to join the rebellion against British Rule, this is as good as it gets. Still unrecognised by any of the Western Powers and unsupported by their western neighbours, the financial support that they need to maintain their commandeered military armament and production facilities and keep fighting wars just isn't there; and after recovering from their losses, quelling any insurgent movements within their other Indian colonial armies and across the expanses of India which they still hold, the British and their loyal allies are ready and raring to take the fight back to the insurrectionists and retake control of the Indian heartlands. The French have agreed to stay out of the fight, but soon realised that they could claim a reward for doing so, taking full advantage of the situation to gain leverage and garner diplomatic treaties extending their territories in South India as well as gifting them suzerainty over the princely states of Cochin and Coorg.

And with all the other major powers in the region preoccupied elsewhere, the Khalsa Raj (which expanded primarily by becoming the suzerain for a number of neighbouring princely states and kingdoms, several of which had essentially been abandoned to their fate by the retreating British, as well as for the still unified Sultanate of Oman & Zanzibar after intervening in their succession dispute) and the Afghans (on mutually respectful, even friendly terms with the Sikhs, and untroubled by would-be invaders since the conclusion of the 1st and only Anglo-Afghan War) have been more or less left to their own devices- even by the Russians, where the British have effectively been ruled out of The Great Game. The huge boost to their land trading routes during the period of conflict between the British and the Mughal insurrectionists offers the Russians added incentive to try and maintain the new status quo, and the cash flow from their new trade monopoly over Western India, for as long as possible by strengthening diplomatic ties with both Afghanistan and the Khalsa Raj.

Any feedback?

TL Khalistan Zindabaad 1860CE.png
 
Iirc, the first anglo sikh war was largely a result of the BEIC being so embarrassed by the Afghan intervention fiasco.

If you remove Elphinstone the idiot, the British forces wont be massacred on retreat, losing tremendous face. Whether they can actually impose their emir/khan on Afghanistan, it should be possible to make the Afghan government, such as it was, toe the line, at least nominally. In this case, the Brits could continue with their Sikh ALLIANCE, perhaps even paying them a minor honorarium to keep the border peaceful (well, relatively, anyway).

Thus you could have the Sikh empire continue. As a junior partner to Britain, sure, but not conquered.
 

SunDeep

Banned
Iirc, the first anglo sikh war was largely a result of the BEIC being so embarrassed by the Afghan intervention fiasco.

If you remove Elphinstone the idiot, the British forces wont be massacred on retreat, losing tremendous face. Whether they can actually impose their emir/khan on Afghanistan, it should be possible to make the Afghan government, such as it was, toe the line, at least nominally. In this case, the Brits could continue with their Sikh ALLIANCE, perhaps even paying them a minor honorarium to keep the border peaceful (well, relatively, anyway).

Thus you could have the Sikh empire continue. As a junior partner to Britain, sure, but not conquered.

If only it were so, but without making major changes to the internal politics of the Khalsa Durbar, the Sikh Kingdom's fate was more or less set in stone by this point. Removing Elphinstone as the POD, the best case non-ASB scenario I can see is a Sikh nation with a status with the British akin to that of Nepal, with Jammu & Kashmir splitting off to become a princely state of the British Raj in a similar capacity to Sikkim. I suppose that you could still present this scenario as a 'Sikh Wank', and there's no denying that it would certainly be a big improvement on the state of affairs regarding Sikh independence IOTL.

On the upside, you'd probably get British support for the Sikhs (/Kashmiris) in the Sino-Sikh War, giving them a much better chance of bringing the Tibetan Plateau under their banner. On the downside, while the Great Game largely petered out IOTL when Afghanistan became the sole buffer state between the British and Russian Empires, ITTL you'd almost certainly have The Great Game eventually escalating into a bloody proxy war between the British-backed Sikhs and Russian-backed Afghans, exploiting the emnity which already existed between the two nations over the Sikh annexation of Khyber Pakhtunkwa.

However, the likeliest scenario by far would be that the POD would have had no impact on the Sikh situation whatsoever. The British East India Company already intended to extend its rule across the entire Indian archipelago, akin to the USA in its intent to carry out its own Manifest Destiny. A war of conquest was inevitable as soon as the opportunity presented itself; with the Dogras already essentially in power and pulling all the strings by this point, the opportunity would still have presented itself at the same time, and with the same tactically inept military leaders, the Sikh Empire would still have ultimately been doomed.
 
Top