WI: Sikh Leaders Agree to Join the Pakistan Movement Prior to Indian Partition?

The partition of Punjab province was the bloodiest episode in the overall Indian Partition. Sikhs did not make up a majority in any district of India, instead being spread out from Peshawar all the way south to Delhi. Much of today's Sikh-majority province of Indian Punjab actually had a Muslim plurality, with the city of Amritsar even being more than 50% Muslim.

However a little known historical fact is that Muhammad Ali Jinnah had many meetings with Sikh leaders such as Master Tara Singh, the Maharaja of Patiala etc in attempts to bring the Sikhs onboard with the Pakistan Movement and secure an even greater share of Punjab (minus Hindu-majority Himchal and Haryana).

Jinnah offered to accept absolutely any demand the Sikhs put forth, and he even offered to give them their own parallel parliament, a parallel defence force, the position of Deputy Prime Minister reserved for a Sikh, an autonomous homeland for Sikhs in their districts. This was all recorded in an article the Maharajah of Patiala wrote in the 50s.

punjab-1947-claims.jpg

This is a religious map of the entire Punjab. The Black Line represents the Indian National Congress' claim for India, and the White Line is what the Muslim League claimed for Pakistan. Blue represents Sikhs, Green Muslims and Red Hindus. With the Sikhs backing Pakistan, they would get everything with a tinge of Blue in this map.

punjab-claimsboundary.jpg

The Pink Line is the actual border.

Instead what happened OTL is the Sikhs sided with India, and millions had to flee across borders, and many millions died in the process. Lets imagine the Sikh leadership did agree. They would end up making around 15-20% of the population of Pakistan. The Sikh martial tradition would mean the Pakistani Army would have a very sizeable Sikh representation. The many Sikh religious sites within Pakistan would be accessible to Sikhs, and Pakistan would control an immensely rich and fertile land probably catapulting its economy ahead of India's. After all India's Green Revolution began in Punjab. Kashmir would also likely join Pakistan as the road link from India to Jammu would now be cut off.

With such a large Non-Muslim population, Pakistan would also be forced to embrace greater religious tolerance. OTL West Pakistan was never greater than 2-3% non-Muslim (majority of Pakistan's Hindus were in Bangladesh). Would Islamization be averted?


So how can such a scenario take place? What would be the greater ramifications of it? Would there be discontent? Any Sikh militant movement? Recall there would be no population transfers so Sikhs would not make up the majority in any district, instead remaining a large minority/plurality throughout south-eastern Punjab. Muslims tend to have larger birth rates so this imbalance would be greater as the years move on.
 
You'd need large amount of Hindu and Sikh violence during the British Raj to incentive Sikhs to join the Pakistan movement .
 
You'd need large amount of Hindu and Sikh violence during the British Raj to incentive Sikhs to join the Pakistan movement .

Were there any large-scale Hindu-Sikh riots prior to the 1984 pogroms?

It was the 1947 Rawalpindi Riots, where Muslim mobs targeted many Sikh and Hindu villagers in the Potohar Plateau that scared Sikhs away from alliance. The Rawalpindi Riots were themselves a response to earlier Hindu-Muslim violence in Bihar and Bengal. Perhaps if Rawalpindi remains calm, and there are incidents of notable Hindu targeting of Sikhs taking place we may have a plausible PoD.
 
Were there any large-scale Hindu-Sikh riots prior to the 1984 pogroms?

It was the 1947 Rawalpindi Riots, where Muslim mobs targeted many Sikh and Hindu villagers in the Potohar Plateau that scared Sikhs away from alliance. The Rawalpindi Riots were themselves a response to earlier Hindu-Muslim violence in Bihar and Bengal. Perhaps if Rawalpindi remains calm, and there are incidents of notable Hindu targeting of Sikhs taking place we may have a plausible PoD.

Before independence, most Sikhs just accepted that there would always be Hindus and Muslims and that they, most of the time, would be the majority in the Punjab except for a few cities like Amritsar. So no, not really. Also, many Sikhs saw there religion as “closer” to Hinduism than Islam, so that is factor as well.
 
Were there any large-scale
riots prior to the 1984 pogroms?
I don't believe so

there are incidents of notable Hindu targeting of Sikhs taking place we may have a plausible PoD.
Issue is before the militant Khalistan movement, there was no notable events.

Also, many Sikhs saw there religion as “closer” to Hinduism than Islam, so that is factor as well.
Not to mention that many Hindus viewed Sikhism as part of Hinduism not a separate religion
 
Top