WI: No Sikhism

What if Guru Nanak never founded Sikhism? Now, he could become a major Hindu figure, making Bhakti hymns, but let’s say he never radically diverges from mainstream Bhakti Hindu thought.

Now, Sikhism is very much intermingled with Punjab, and Sikhism has been shaped by the experiences of the Punjabis. I think Punjab was ripe for some sort of new religion, but this could have come in the form of a reformist strand of Bhakti Hindu thought (which Sikhism took much of its doctrine from), and the majorities of Punjabi Hindus could follow a different form of Hinduism. Even without Sikhism, Punjab will be rather diverse, and if Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, and the Hindu parts of Jammu and Kashmir are included as part of Punjab (as they were until relatively recently), the region is even more diverse.

Sikhism may have impacted the Mughal Emperor Akbar and inspire him to form his Din-e-Ilahi cult. If that was indeed the case, such a POD could mean Akbar does not found his own religion, which would mean he has more allies in the imperial court, thus making his reign even more stable. However, there’s a good chance he forms his own religion regardless. Assuming he does so, the next time the lack of Sikhism influences the rest of India greatly and predictably is during the reign of Aurangzeb.

Several Hindus fleeing conversion took refuge with the Sikhs. Without this, I think we may see a slightly more Muslim Indian subcontinent – still Hindu-majority, but there would be more Muslims. I think in reaction to persecution, Punjabi Hindus would take up arms against Aurangzeb’s conversion campaigns, but they would not be as united as the Khalsa. Leadership would not be as clear, and they would likely fight among themselves, meaning that some sort of rebellion by Punjabi Hindus would occur, but it would be weaker than that of the Khalsa, meaning Aurangzeb has an easier time dispatching them. This means a more stable Aurangzeb reign, though I think rebellions would still be widespread as a result of his policies.

The next Mughal emperor would likely still be Bahadur Shah I, and without the large and unified rebellion of the Khalsa that occurred IOTL, he would have a far more stable reign. Regardless, he would still suffer from Punjabi Hindu rebellions, and these would take up much of his reign. There would be no unified Sikh Confederacy/Empire, but I think there could be several Hindu kingdoms in Punjab, with Muslim kingdoms (or perhaps Muslim-majority kingdoms ruled by Hindu rulers) in western Punjab, and there is a good chance the Hindu kingdoms unify, at least for a while, for the purposes of opposing the Mughal Empire. But I think it’s likelier that this does not take place, and this Hindu Punjabi confederacy would probably be more disunited without the religious legitimacy of the Sikh emperors. It could also take a path similar to the Maratha Confederacy and raid rather than conquer. So, while these kingdoms would probably still be quite powerful, they would not equal the power of the Sikh Empire.

Long-term, no Sikhism means the Mughals are stronger, while Punjab is weaker and more disunited. Yet, the Mughals are still going to suffer from their OTL problems and are going to fall as a result, while Punjab is still going to break away from the Mughal Empire and grow tremendously in power owing to its position in terms of trade and its high population. But Punjab will never become as strong as it did. In terms of colonization, I think a stronger and more united Mughal Empire could be more successful in resisting the colonial powers, as kingdoms would not be able to ally with different European nations against one another if the Mughals are stronger. But the Mughals’ internal issues would still exist, and as a result, I think some European power (or some combination thereof) would be able to dominate India as the Mughals decline.
 
Top