WI: The British didn't invent Jammu and Kashmir

[Indicus]

Today, Jammu and Kashmir, often improperly known as Kashmir despite how much it infuriates the people of Jammu, is most well-known for a horrible dispute and insurgency. Yet, two hundred years ago, Jammu and Kashmir did not exist. Instead, there was Jammu, part of the Punjab region (indeed, most people in Jammu spoke Dogri, which is spoken by people from both northern Himachal Pradesh and Jammu - remarkably, they are contiguous regions), Kashmir, which was considered its own region, Ladakh, which was considered its own region, and Afghan regions like Gilgit and Baltistan. But then, upon defeating the Sikh Empire in the First Anglo-Sikh War, conquered lands, which included Jammu, Kashmir, Ladakh, Gilgit, and Baltistan, each with very different ethnic groups, were consolidated by the British East India Company into a single puppet kingdom to simplify administration. In 1857, there were numerous rebellions, including by the Hindu Gujjars, in the Kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir, and upon Partition, the King tried to go independent, which caused a Pakistani invasion that led to the king acceding to India; the region was split between India and Pakistan in a divide that did not correspond to ethnic group boundaries. Today, divides between ethnic groups are quite deep within the region, with the people of Jammu solidly Hindu and pro-India and the people of Kashmir solidly Muslim (especially after the events of the 90s) and pro-Pakistan.

But what if, upon conquering part of the Sikh Empire, the British instead gave each region a puppet king, or turning them into individual provinces, instead of inventing a new region?

 

[The Professor]

Since the whole point was to simplify administration by the BEIC (it's too early for the "British" generalisation!) there needs to be a benefit to the BEIC in keeping them separate.
What could that be?

 

[Analytical Engine]

Since the whole point was to simplify administration by the BEIC (it's too early for the "British" generalisation!) there needs to be a benefit to the BEIC in keeping them separate.
What could that be?

Smaller states that are easier to dominate?

 

[The Professor]

Smaller states that are easier to dominate?

Surely one royal adviser to dominate the king is cheaper than 5?

 

[maidros]

Today, Jammu and Kashmir, often improperly known as Kashmir despite how much it infuriates the people of Jammu, is most well-known for a horrible dispute and insurgency. Yet, two hundred years ago, Jammu and Kashmir did not exist. Instead, there was Jammu, part of the Punjab region (indeed, most people in Jammu spoke Dogri, which is spoken by people from both northern Himachal Pradesh and Jammu - remarkably, they are contiguous regions), Kashmir, which was considered its own region, Ladakh, which was considered its own region, and Afghan regions like Gilgit and Baltistan. But then, upon defeating the Sikh Empire in the First Anglo-Sikh War, conquered lands, which included Jammu, Kashmir, Ladakh, Gilgit, and Baltistan, each with very different ethnic groups, were consolidated by the British East India Company into a single puppet kingdom to simplify administration. In 1857, there were numerous rebellions, including by the Hindu Gujjars, in the Kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir, and upon Partition, the King tried to go independent, which caused a Pakistani invasion that led to the king acceding to India; the region was split between India and Pakistan in a divide that did not correspond to ethnic group boundaries. Today, divides between ethnic groups are quite deep within the region, with the people of Jammu solidly Hindu and pro-India and the people of Kashmir solidly Muslim (especially after the events of the 90s) and pro-Pakistan.

But what if, upon conquering part of the Sikh Empire, the British instead gave each region a puppet king, or turning them into individual provinces, instead of inventing a new region?

The British sold Kashmir to the ruler of Jammu - Gulab Singh - for 7.5 million rupees cash. They didn't unite anything They needed cash & Gulab Singh happened to have it. The remaining parts of Jammu & Kashmir were mostly conquered by the Dogras - the British didn't create it. Gilgit was leased by the British from the Raja of Jammu & Kashmir for quite a bit of time. The native rulers of Gilgit, Hunza, Astore, etc swore fealty to the Rajas of Jammu & Kashmir.

 

[Clandango]

Today, Jammu and Kashmir, often improperly known as Kashmir despite how much it infuriates the people of Jammu

To be fair, people usually are taking about the disputed areas, which is Kashmir on both sides of the border. Jammu is still kingpd of claimed by Pakistan, but I don't think it is split in two. I would say it there were multiple Princly States, then Jammu and Lakadah might go to India, while Muslim Kashmir goes to Pakistan.

 

[Indicus]

The remaining parts of Jammu & Kashmir were mostly conquered by the Dogras

No, it wasn’t. It was conquered by the Punjabis. The Punjabi and Dogra ethnic groups hold numerous similarities, such as celebrating Vaisakhi and Lohri, but they are distinct ethnic groups.

To be fair, people usually are taking about the disputed areas, which is Kashmir on both sides of the border. Jammu is still kingpd of claimed by Pakistan, but I don't think it is split in two.

There is still a tendency to speak of Jammu and Kashmir as a homogeneous and a Kashmiri region, when it is anything but homogeneous, with the Dogra ethnic group of Jammu being more closely related to the people of Himachal Pradesh and Punjab, the Ladakhi ethnic group being more closely related to the Tibetans, and the people in Gilgit, Baltistan, etc. being more closely related to the Pashtuns.

I have never liked that tendency.

 

[maidros]

To be fair, people usually are taking about the disputed areas, which is Kashmir on both sides of the border. Jammu is still kingpd of claimed by Pakistan, but I don't think it is split in two. I would say it there were multiple Princly States, then Jammu and Lakadah might go to India, while Muslim Kashmir goes to Pakistan.

Jammu is also split into Pakistani Jammu & Indian Jammu. Mirpur, Bhimber & Kotli are all part of Jammu that is in the Pakistani part of Jammu & Kashmir. In fact, Pakistan occupies only a very small part of the Kashmir valley in Muzaffarabad. Most of the Kashmir valley is in Indian part of Jammu & Kashmir.

 

[maidros]

No, it wasn’t. It was conquered by the Punjabis. The Punjabi and Dogra ethnic groups hold numerous similarities, such as celebrating Vaisakhi and Lohri, but they are distinct ethnic groups.

The armies that marched into Ladakh & Tibet were mostly Dogras from Jammu & Udhampur & were led by a Dogra general - Zorawar Singh. Punjabi participation in that was close to nil. Gulab Singh, the Raja of Jammu, nominally swore fealty to Ranjit Singh, but his depth of loyalty was always in question & it was his armies that did the fighting in Ladakh. Gilgit, Astore, Hunza & Nagar were forced into submission by Ranbir Singh in late 1850s (AFTER Kashmir had been sold to Gulab Singh). Ironically, it was parts of Jammu that were conquered by the Punjabis (like Mirpur). Mirpur, along with the Kashmir Valley, as already mentioned, was sold by the British to Gulab Singh for 7.5 million rupees cash.

 

[Clandango]

Jammu is also split into Pakistani Jammu & Indian Jammu. Mirpur, Bhimber & Kotli are all part of Jammu that is in the Pakistani part of Jammu & Kashmir. In fact, Pakistan occupies only a very small part of the Kashmir valley in Muzaffarabad. Most of the Kashmir valley is in Indian part of Jammu & Kashmir.

Well what do you know. I thought if there would be overlap it would have been in Azad Kashmir. Which, looking it up, also have Jammu in it's official name but that part is often shortened out. Actually, looking at a map, it seems the Jammu portion (the INdians show it in their own maps as being INdian Jammu as when as Azad Kashmir) was a rather small portion.

There is still a tendency to speak of Jammu and Kashmir as a homogeneous and a Kashmiri region, when it is anything but homogeneous, with the Dogra ethnic group of Jammu being more closely related to the people of Himachal Pradesh and Punjab, the Ladakhi ethnic group being more closely related to the Tibetans, and the people in Gilgit, Baltistan, etc. being more closely related to the Pashtuns.

I have never liked that tendency.

I think it is mostly in the media as Kashmir Conflict rolls off the tongue. And yes, loads of Buddhists up in Ladakhi and some Sikhs outside the province but still pretty close by. I imagine if the state had remained independent that it would be seen as a time capsule for Afghanistan back when it was partially Buddhist, when local religions still existed, and when Muslims were starting to come in. Maybe Kashmir is also used as a name partially Ladakh is mostly Buddhist and Jammu has plenty of a large chunk of Hindus in it. The Indian area called Kashmir has a nearly overwhelming Muslim majority. Plus a lot more fighting probably happens there rather than in, say, Ladakh. I also think enough time has happened that people just roll Gilgit-Baltistan, Azad Kashmir, Jammu and Kashmir, as well as Askai Chin together into Kashmir so as to have people know it is the greater area being spoken about, rather than a specific province. Looking it up, I can also see that Indian Kashmir (as in the one province within Jammu and Kashmir) was named after one valley within it that takes up the whole of the area.

All names aside, I really do think it would be better for everyone involved if the Chinese, Indians, and Pakistanis could settle their differences at once, so as to avoid signs of weaknesses. Unlikely to happen of course, as no one wants to say "hey, I made it so we need to remove a chunk of land from our schoolmaps". Apparently the Pakistani portion isn't getting to be a province due to claims that it would upset the UN or something, and I understand why the Pakistanis want Muslim Kashmir, but... I suppose this is all too IOTL, though.