WI: a surviving Sikh Empire

[XanXar]

In the period from the late 18th century to his death in the 1840s, maharaja Ranjit Singh had managed to form a coherent state in the Punjab, formed from the various Sikh Fiefdoms. The empire was pretty anti-communal, based on a sense of meritocracy and had even launched a counter invasion into Afghanistan ( the traditional homeland of India's Muslim invaders).
However upon Singh's death, the empire collapsed.
If by some means, e.g. A stable succession, the empire survived, what would it have meant for the future of the British Raj and the subcontinent?

 

[VVD0D95]

In the period from the late 18th century to his death in the 1840s, maharaja Ranjit Singh had managed to form a coherent state in the Punjab, formed from the various Sikh Fiefdoms. The empire was pretty anti-communal, based on a sense of meritocracy and had even launched a counter invasion into Afghanistan ( the traditional homeland of India's Muslim invaders).
However upon Singh's death, the empire collapsed.
If by some means, e.g. A stable succession, the empire survived, what would it have meant for the future of the British Raj and the subcontinent?

Could well give those Sikh seperatists something to actually use, either during independence or otherwise.

 

[XanXar]

Could well give those Sikh seperatists something to actually use, either during independence or otherwise.

Under the assumption the Sikhs still fall to the British, and the India independence movement occurs as in OTL. (1948 partition, secular India, etc).

But a longer lasting Sikh empire most likely makes the idea of a (near enough) United India much harder, as well Sikhs/Punjabis unlikely to support Britain through 1857 and be any major presence within the sepoy ranks. Thus butter flying most OTL events.

 

[raharris1973]

I believe you meant to say "thus ghee flying most OTL events"

 

[Sycamore]

In the period from the late 18th century to his death in the 1840s, maharaja Ranjit Singh had managed to form a coherent state in the Punjab, formed from the various Sikh Fiefdoms. The empire was pretty anti-communal, based on a sense of meritocracy and had even launched a counter invasion into Afghanistan ( the traditional homeland of India's Muslim invaders).
However upon Singh's death, the empire collapsed.
If by some means, e.g. A stable succession, the empire survived, what would it have meant for the future of the British Raj and the subcontinent?

It didn't collapse immediately upon Mahajarah Ranjit Singh's death. There were at the time two major factions within the Punjab contending for power and influence: the Sikh Sindhanwalias and the Hindu Dogras, who would later become the royal family of the British princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. On the death of Ranjit Singh in 1839, Lahore became a center of conspiracies and intrigue, largely those of the future Raja Gulab Singh and his two brothers. They succeeded in removing Ranjit Singh's unpopular legitimate son, Maharajah Kharak Singh,from power within a few months, and slowly poisoning him to death in prison a few months later. He was replaced by his able but estranged son Kanwar (Crown Prince) Nau Nihal Singh, with Raja Dhian Singh (one of the three brothers) installed as prime minister.

However, in 1840, during the funeral procession of his father Maharaja Kharak Singh, Nau Nihal Singh died in extremely suspiscious circumstances; while returning from his father's cremation, together with Udham Singh (the eldest son of the future Raja Gulab Singh) an archway at the Lahore Fort gave way and collapsed on them. Udham Singh was killed immediately- but eyewitnesses described Nau Nihal Singh's initial injuries as being small blows to the head, which merely knocked him unconscious and hadn't even drawn blood. The unconscious prince was taken into the fort by the Prime Minister, Dhian Singh. Nobody else was allowed into the fort, not even his mother, who beat on the fort gates with her bare hands in a fever of anxiety. Later, when his mother and friends were allowed into the fort, Nau Nihal Singh was dead; his head had been smashed in, possibly with a rock.

His mother, Maharani Chand Kaur challenged Sher Singh, the eldest illegitimate son of Maharaja Ranjit Singh and the candidate supported by the Dogras, on the grounds that her step-daughter, Nau Nihal Singh's widow Sahib Kaur, was pregnant; and asserted that she should assume the regency on behalf of the unborn legal successor to her husband's throne. In July 1841, Princess Sahib Kaur delivered a stillborn son (with suspicions that she had been poisoned to induce a miscarriage). This ended whatever hopes Chand Kaur had of realizing her claims. But courtly intrigue had not ceased. Dhian Singh replaced the maidservants of the Dowager Maharani with hillwomen from Jammu and Kashmir, who were loyal to him. The newly installed maidservants tried to kill Maharani Chand Kaur by poisoning her food, and eventually succeeded in finishing her off on 11 June 1842, smashing her head with wooden pikes from the kitchen.

Thus, the Dogras' coup was complete- they succeeded in raising Sher Singh, the eldest illegitimate son of Ranjit Singh, to the throne in January 1841. The most prominent Sindhanwalias took refuge on British territory, but had many adherents among the Army of the Punjab. Maharajah Sher Singh was unable to meet the pay demands of the Army, although he reportedly lavished funds on a degenerate court. In September 1843 he was murdered by his cousin, an officer of the Army, Ajit Singh Sindhanwalia. The Dogras took their revenge on those responsible, and Jind Kaur, Ranjit Singh's youngest widow, became Regent for her infant son Duleep Singh. After the Vizier Hira Singh was killed, while attempting to flee the capital with loot from the Royal Treasury (Toshkana), by troops under Sham Singh Attariwala, Jind Kaur's brother Jawahar Singh became Vizier in December 1844. In 1845 he arranged the assassination of Peshaura Singh, who presented a threat to Duleep Singh. For this, he was called to account by the Army. Despite attempts to bribe the army he was butchered to death in September 1845 in the presence of Jind Kaur and Duleep Singh.

Jind Kaur publicly vowed revenge against her brother's murderers, she remained Regent. Lal Singh became Prime Minister, and Tej Singh became commander of the army. Sikh historians have stressed that both these men were prominent in the Dogra faction. Originally high-caste Hindus from the Jammu and Kashmir region, both had converted to Sikhism in 1818. As such, the Sikhs' military leaders had a vested interest in losing the 1st Anglo-Sikh War. The greatest weakness of the Sikh Army in the 1st Anglo-Sikh War was its leadership, as both Lal Singh's and Tej Singh's conduct was questionable, amounting almost to treachery. There's substantial evidence that Lal Singh in particular was corresponding with a British political officer and betraying state and military secrets throughout the war. Lal Singh's and Tej Singh's desertion of their armies and refusal to attack when opportunity offered seem inexplicable unless they intended to lose the war. And in the immediate aftermath of the conflict, thanks to the Sikh Empire losing the war, the Dogras emerged with the largest gain of all- Raja Gulab Singh purchased Kashmir from the East India Company with a payment of 7.5 million rupees (extracted directly from the Sikh Empire's own coffers), was granted the title Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir, and his break-away kingdom was immediately granted full legitimacy and protectorate status as a Princely State of the British Raj.

So, for the WI scenario which requires the smallest divergence, WI the collapse of that gateway hadn't knocked Nau Nihal Singh unconscious? Or WI Nau Nihal Singh's son and rightful heir had been born alive and healthy, instead of being miscarried and stillborn? IMHO, if the Dogras had been foiled, and the Sindhanwalias had emerged dominant and victorious, then the empire could very well have stablised, with the establishment of a clear line of succession enabling the Sikh Empire to survive.

IMHO, you'd then probably have the Great Game develop into a proxy war. The Sindhanwalia faction had historically been firmly aligned with the British, giving the British free passage and logistical support in the First Anglo-Afghan War; and indeed, it was the cutting off of this logistical support and of their supply train via the Sikh Empire which led to the collapse of the British occupation and forced Elphinstones' retreat from Kabul IOTL. ITTL, a Sindhanwalia Sikh Empire would have likely become even more aligned with the British. Kanwar Nau Nihal Singh had offered direct military assistance to the British occupation forces during his brief tenure, but the British had rejected the offer, perceiving it (probably correctly) as an effort by the Sikh Empire to seize the spoils for itself.

After things go south for the British occupation though, in the immediate aftermath of the POD, the get-out-of-jail free card offered by the Sikhs' requests to join the occupation force in exchange for a share of the territorial gains, may seem a lot more attractive- and if the British do eventually take Nau Nihal Singh's offer ITTL, it would not only enable the British East India Company to save face, increase their influence in the region and achieve substantial profit from the war (probably through the revenue generated by the sale of some portions of occupied Afghanistan to the Sikhs, markedly increasing the size of Peshawar Province), but it would also cement the status of the Sikh Empire as a close ally of the British Raj, vaguely comparable to the Kingdom of Nepal.

With Afghanistan itself likely being conquered in its entirety ITTL over the course of subsequent campaigns, partitioned between the Sikh Empire, the British and perhaps even the Russians, the Sikh Empire could effectively fill the role that Afghanistan did IOTL far more effectively than the Afghans ever could or were ever willing to, serving as both a buffer state of the British against Russians' expansionism into Central Asia and as a critical ally of the British in the region ITTL. And if it manages to complete its unfinished business in the South, and the Sikhs manage to complete their conquest of Sindh (which had commenced 20 years earlier with the conquest of Multan Province from the Talpur Dynasty- as such, Sindh was technically still at war with the Sikh Empire, but merely lacked the stability and military strength to attempt to mount a counter-invasion to retake Multan Province), thereby gaining direct access to the sea and to international trade through its own ports, then the Sikh Empire could become independently powerful in its own right.

As such, later on, it could also potentially fill the role that Japan did in the Anglo-Japanese Alliance IOTL; even better than Japan did IOTL, given that both the total population and the GDP of the Sikh Empire in 1840 are estimated to have exceeded those of Japan at the time (albeit having a lower GDP/capita, but not by much). Joint co-operation between the Sikh Empire and the British Empire against the menace posed to both of them by Russian expansionism in Asia (as well as the clear menace posed to both of them by a restored revanchist Mughal Empire, if a similar uprising to OTL's Indian Rebellion of 1857 were still to happen ITTL) would have been well-established by this stage; the Sikhs attempted to invade and annex Tibet IOTL, and ITTL, they may well be doing so later on in the stead of the British with their blessing.

And unlike the Anglo-Japanese Alliance IOTL, which antagonized the USA and France, the Anglo-Sikh Alliance ITTL wouldn't really risk antagonizing anyone besides the Russians, which was and presumably still would be the Alliance's main intention. So, a formal Anglo-Sikh Alliance seems far less risky and far more expedient for both parties ITTL than the Anglo-Japanese Alliance of OTL. From then on, the butterfly effect means that it's anyone's guess how the world would turn out by the present day; but IMHO, TTL's Sikh Empire would be either just as likely or even more likely to become a world power as TTL's Japan; perhaps even more likely than OTL's Japan.

 

[XanXar]

I believe you meant to say "thus ghee flying most OTL events"

very clever.

Snip

Obviously I did understand Ranjit Singh's death was not the end of the Sikh empire but it can be considered the catalyst.
Thank you,for the input, I do agree with the parallels to both OTL Nepal and Japan.
It's interesting that the Sikhs nation would mostly consist of modern day Pakistan, where would this leave the nations inevitably Muslim Majority?
Also what position would the Sikhs hold in India's eventual independence movement? Sympathisers? Active participants? Or on the flip side used as an allegedly foreign force like the Gurkhas?

 

[Sycamore]

very clever.


Obviously I did understand Ranjit Singh's death was not the end of the Sikh empire but it can be considered the catalyst.
Thank you,for the input, I do agree with the parallels to both OTL Nepal and Japan.
It's interesting that the Sikhs nation would mostly consist of modern day Pakistan, where would this leave the nations inevitably Muslim Majority?
Also what position would the Sikhs hold in India's eventual independence movement? Sympathisers? Active participants? Or on the flip side used as an allegedly foreign force like the Gurkhas?

Why should we assume that the nation would inevitably have a Muslim majority? IOTL, it's estimated that there were only 25,000 to 60,000 Sikhs who survived the Sikh Holocaust of 1762- this Holocaust, perpetrated by the Afghan Durrani Empire (the main source of their grievance against the Afghans, and one of the key reasons why they were so keen to support any British efforts to wipe them off the map), wiped out between a third and half of the entire Sikh population. The Sikh Empire itself was only founded in 1801, less than forty years after this massive holocaust, and at the time it was established, it's estimated that the Sikh population had just about managed to recover to equal the number of people who'd been baptised into the Sikh faith on the day of the religion's inauguration on Vaisakhi 1699; i.r.o 300,000. And yet, by the time of Maharajah Ranjit Singh's death in 1839, less than forty years after this, the Sikhs' numbers had mushroomed to the extent where they comprised 17% of the total population of the Sikh Empire- which in turn equates to a total Sikh population of over 4 million. This also equates to roughly 0.33% of the world's estimated population at the time- and from the fall of the Sikh Empire onward, the Sikh population's share of the world population has largely remained static, hovering at around this same level.

Considering the time frame involved, that's a mind-blowing rate of religious conversion, especially when one considers that conversion to Sikhism in the Sikh Empire conferred no real social advantages over non-Sikhs; the Sikh Empire reputedly had one of the most liberal attitudes towards religion of any contemporary nation in the world. Effectively, over this period, from the Sikh genocide up until the annexation of the Sikh Empire by the British, the Sikh population almost doubled in size every single decade; and if this exponential rate of growth had continued under an enduring Sikh Empire, then that Sikh Empire would have been on course to have a Sikh majority population by 1860. IMHO, when one takes this into consideration, it should certainly be deemed plausible for a stable and enduring Sikh Empire to have a Sikh plurality population by 1900; and indeed, for Sikhism to have a number of followers comparable to Shintoism today, exceeding 100M and followed by over 1.5% of the world's population.

 

[Faeelin]

Fascinating stuff Sycamore.

 

[Cregan]

Excellent analysis!

 

[riggerrob]

India would suffer a shortage of soldiers, police and Prime Ministers.
Vancouver would suffer a shortage of bus and taxi drivers.
All of the Punjab would have been excluded from modern-day Pakistan. Even at the time of partition (1949?) Pakistan was not exclusively Muslim. Millions of Muslim refugees were forced to flee from India to Pakistan. Meanwhile a million or so Hi due fled from Pakistan to India. Hundreds of thousands of refugees died in the confusion.
A well-led Sikh Empire would have quietly watched the foolishness along their southern borders.

 

[XanXar]

Why should we assume that the nation would inevitably have a Muslim majority? IOTL, it's estimated that there were only 25,000 to 60,000 Sikhs who survived the Sikh Holocaust of 1762- this Holocaust, perpetrated by the Afghan Durrani Empire (the main source of their grievance against the Afghans, and one of the key reasons why they were so keen to support any British efforts to wipe them off the map), wiped out between a third and half of the entire Sikh population. The Sikh Empire itself was only founded in 1801, less than forty years after this massive holocaust, and at the time it was established, it's estimated that the Sikh population had just about managed to recover to equal the number of people who'd been baptised into the Sikh faith on the day of the religion's inauguration on Vaisakhi 1699; i.r.o 300,000. And yet, by the time of Maharajah Ranjit Singh's death in 1839, less than forty years after this, the Sikhs' numbers had mushroomed to the extent where they comprised 17% of the total population of the Sikh Empire- which in turn equates to a total Sikh population of over 4 million. This also equates to roughly 0.33% of the world's estimated population at the time- and from the fall of the Sikh Empire onward, the Sikh population's share of the world population has largely remained static, hovering at around this same level.

Considering the time frame involved, that's a mind-blowing rate of religious conversion, especially when one considers that conversion to Sikhism in the Sikh Empire conferred no real social advantages over non-Sikhs; the Sikh Empire reputedly had one of the most liberal attitudes towards religion of any contemporary nation in the world. Effectively, over this period, from the Sikh genocide up until the annexation of the Sikh Empire by the British, the Sikh population almost doubled in size every single decade; and if this exponential rate of growth had continued under an enduring Sikh Empire, then that Sikh Empire would have been on course to have a Sikh majority population by 1860. IMHO, when one takes this into consideration, it should certainly be deemed plausible for a stable and enduring Sikh Empire to have a Sikh plurality population by 1900; and indeed, for Sikhism to have a number of followers comparable to Shintoism today, exceeding 100M and followed by over 1.5% of the world's population.

Again that is very interesting stuff, thanks for going into such detail.
Would this Sikh Empire hold expansionist ideals? Either within Hindustan or using it's access to the Persian Gulf to build a minor colonial power.

 

[VVD0D95]

Under the assumption the Sikhs still fall to the British, and the India independence movement occurs as in OTL. (1948 partition, secular India, etc).

But a longer lasting Sikh empire most likely makes the idea of a (near enough) United India much harder, as well Sikhs/Punjabis unlikely to support Britain through 1857 and be any major presence within the sepoy ranks. Thus butter flying most OTL events.

You mean 1947, partition happened when Pakistan got independence 14th August, 1947. The shit happened for a year or more yes, but partition happened on that date, not 48.

And indeed, very unlikely for the Sikhs to truly support the British or unite behind India, which means they will be screwed.

 

[Sycamore]

You mean 1947, partition happened when Pakistan got independence 14th August, 1947. The shit happened for a year or more yes, but partition happened on that date, not 48.

And indeed, very unlikely for the Sikhs to truly support the British or unite behind India, which means they will be screwed.

But the Sikhs already truly supported the British at this stage. Look at the 1st Anglo-Afghan War, which had commenced at the time of Ranjit Singh's death. The British sent an envoy to Kabul to form an alliance with Afghanistan's emir, Dost Muhammad Khan, against Russia. The Emir was in favour of an alliance but wanted British help in recapturing Peshawar, which the Sikh Empire had conquered from them in 1834. The British refused to help, since they acknowledged that the Sikh Empire was a far more powerful nation and a far more critical ally than Afghanistan could be.

Dost Muhammad then started negotiating with the Russians who had also sent an envoy to Kabul. This led the Governor General of India, Lord Auckland to conclude that Dost Muhammad was anti-British. British fears of a Russian invasion of India took one step closer to becoming a reality when negotiations between the Afghans and Russians broke down in 1838, and Lord Auckland swiftly came up with a plan to drive away the besiegers, depose Dost Muhammad and install a ruler in Afghanistan who was pro-British in his place- namely, Shuja Shah Durrani. And in reality, when one looks at Shuja Shah Durrani, he was just as much a puppet of the Sikh Empire as he was of the British Raj- perhaps even more so.

The former ruler of Afghanistan, Shuja Shah had formed a strategic alliance with Britain during the Napoleonic Wars against Russia and France; but in June, 1809, he was deposed by his predecessor Mahmud Shah and went into exile in India, where he was captured by Jahandad Khan Bamizai and imprisoned at Attock (1811–2) and then taken to Kashmir (1812–3) by Atta Muhammad Khan. When Mahmud Shah's vizier Fateh Khan invaded Kashmir alongside Maharaja Ranjit Singh's army, he chose to leave with the Sikh army. He stayed in Lahore from 1813 to 1814, and handed the Koh-i-Nor diamond which he'd previously possessed to Maharaja Ranjit Singh as a gesture of thanks for being granted his freedom. Later, he stayed in Ludhiana for a brief period of time with Shah Zaman. The place where he stayed in Ludhiana is presently occupied by Main Post Office near Mata Rani Chowk and a white marble stone inside the building marking his stay there can be seen.

In 1833 he struck a deal with Maharaja Ranjit Singh of the Punjab: Shah Shuja would be allowed to march his troops through Punjab, and in return he would cede Peshawar to Ranjit Singh and the Sikh Empire if they could manage to take it. In a concerted campaign the following year Shuja marched on Kandahar, while the Sikhs, commanded by General Hari Singh Nalwa, attacked Peshawar. The Sikhs succeeded in taking Peshawar, but Shuja Shah was narrowly defeated at Kandahar by the Afghans under Dost Mohammad Khan, and forced to flee back to Lahore. There, he continued living comfortably in exile; he had by this stage become one of Maharaja Ranjit Singh's closest personal friends, and the Sikh Empire was the only kingdom which endorsed his claim to be the legitimate ruler of Afghanistan.

In 1838, when Lord Auckland granted him support to wrest power from Dost Mohammad Khan Barakzai and commenced the First Anglo-Afghan War- denying that they were invading Afghanistan, and claiming they were merely supporting its "legitimate" Shuja government "against foreign interference and factious opposition"- they were asserting this claim in concert with the Sikh Empire, who had supported Shuja Shah Durrani through the hardest times of all, sent their own expedition to try and restore Shuja Shah to the Afghan throne five years previously, and who had allowed Shuja Shah Durrani to become one of its most influential naturalized citizens.

If the 1st Anglo-Afghan War had been a lasting victory for the British, and for Shuja Shah, which would be far more likely if the Sikh Empire had avoided collapse- Shuja Shah had relied upon the support and financial backing of the Sikh Empire to assemble and supply his own forces in Punjab, both in 1833 and in 1838, and it was only when this support was cut off, immediately after the death of Kanwar Nau Nihal Singh in November 1840 and the full seizure of power by the Dogra faction, that Shuja Shah became reliant on the presence of a far stronger British force to maintain his precarious rule- then there's a real question mark about Shuja Shah Durrani's Afghanistan. Would his Afghanistan have truly been a vassal of the British Empire, as the British intended? Or would it be a vassal of the Sikh Empire, whose mercenaries comprised Shuja Shah's own forces and enabled him to re-establish and maintain his grasp on power?

 

[VVD0D95]

But the Sikhs already truly supported the British at this stage. Look at the 1st Anglo-Afghan War, which had commenced at the time of Ranjit Singh's death. The British sent an envoy to Kabul to form an alliance with Afghanistan's emir, Dost Muhammad Khan, against Russia. The Emir was in favour of an alliance but wanted British help in recapturing Peshawar, which the Sikh Empire had conquered from them in 1834. The British refused to help, since they acknowledged that the Sikh Empire was a far more powerful nation and a far more critical ally than Afghanistan could be.

Dost Muhammad then started negotiating with the Russians who had also sent an envoy to Kabul. This led the Governor General of India, Lord Auckland to conclude that Dost Muhammad was anti-British. British fears of a Russian invasion of India took one step closer to becoming a reality when negotiations between the Afghans and Russians broke down in 1838, and Lord Auckland swiftly came up with a plan to drive away the besiegers, depose Dost Muhammad and install a ruler in Afghanistan who was pro-British in his place- namely, Shuja Shah Durrani. And in reality, when one looks at Shuja Shah Durrani, he was just as much a puppet of the Sikh Empire as he was of the British Raj- perhaps even more so.

The former ruler of Afghanistan, Shuja Shah had formed a strategic alliance with Britain during the Napoleonic Wars against Russia and France; but in June, 1809, he was deposed by his predecessor Mahmud Shah and went into exile in India, where he was captured by Jahandad Khan Bamizai and imprisoned at Attock (1811–2) and then taken to Kashmir (1812–3) by Atta Muhammad Khan. When Mahmud Shah's vizier Fateh Khan invaded Kashmir alongside Maharaja Ranjit Singh's army, he chose to leave with the Sikh army. He stayed in Lahore from 1813 to 1814, and handed the Koh-i-Nor diamond which he'd previously possessed to Maharaja Ranjit Singh as a gesture of thanks for being granted his freedom. Later, he stayed in Ludhiana for a brief period of time with Shah Zaman. The place where he stayed in Ludhiana is presently occupied by Main Post Office near Mata Rani Chowk and a white marble stone inside the building marking his stay there can be seen.

In 1833 he struck a deal with Maharaja Ranjit Singh of the Punjab: Shah Shuja would be allowed to march his troops through Punjab, and in return he would cede Peshawar to Ranjit Singh and the Sikh Empire if they could manage to take it. In a concerted campaign the following year Shuja marched on Kandahar, while the Sikhs, commanded by General Hari Singh Nalwa, attacked Peshawar. The Sikhs succeeded in taking Peshawar, but Shuja Shah was narrowly defeated at Kandahar by the Afghans under Dost Mohammad Khan, and forced to flee back to Lahore. There, he continued living comfortably in exile; he had by this stage become one of Maharaja Ranjit Singh's closest personal friends, and the Sikh Empire was the only kingdom which endorsed his claim to be the legitimate ruler of Afghanistan.

In 1838, when Lord Auckland granted him support to wrest power from Dost Mohammad Khan Barakzai and commenced the First Anglo-Afghan War- denying that they were invading Afghanistan, and claiming they were merely supporting its "legitimate" Shuja government "against foreign interference and factious opposition"- they were asserting this claim in concert with the Sikh Empire, who had supported Shuja Shah Durrani through the hardest times of all, sent their own expedition to try and restore Shuja Shah to the Afghan throne five years previously, and who had allowed Shuja Shah Durrani to become one of its most influential naturalized citizens.

If the 1st Anglo-Afghan War had been a lasting victory for the British, and for Shuja Shah, which would be far more likely if the Sikh Empire had avoided collapse- Shuja Shah had relied upon the support and financial backing of the Sikh Empire to assemble and supply his own forces in Punjab, both in 1833 and in 1838, and it was only when this support was cut off, immediately after the death of Kanwar Nau Nihal Singh in November 1840 and the full seizure of power by the Dogra faction, that Shuja Shah became reliant on the presence of a far stronger British force to maintain his precarious rule- then there's a real question mark about Shuja Shah Durrani's Afghanistan. Would his Afghanistan have truly been a vassal of the British Empire, as the British intended? Or would it be a vassal of the Sikh Empire, whose mercenaries comprised Shuja Shah's own forces and enabled him to re-establish and maintain his grasp on power?

Hmm interesting, I had not considered that. It does mean that things could well have been very different, though how sustainable such a thing might have been is anyone's guess.

 

[Badshah]

Why should we assume that the nation would inevitably have a Muslim majority? IOTL, it's estimated that there were only 25,000 to 60,000 Sikhs who survived the Sikh Holocaust of 1762- this Holocaust, perpetrated by the Afghan Durrani Empire (the main source of their grievance against the Afghans, and one of the key reasons why they were so keen to support any British efforts to wipe them off the map), wiped out between a third and half of the entire Sikh population. The Sikh Empire itself was only founded in 1801, less than forty years after this massive holocaust, and at the time it was established, it's estimated that the Sikh population had just about managed to recover to equal the number of people who'd been baptised into the Sikh faith on the day of the religion's inauguration on Vaisakhi 1699; i.r.o 300,000. And yet, by the time of Maharajah Ranjit Singh's death in 1839, less than forty years after this, the Sikhs' numbers had mushroomed to the extent where they comprised 17% of the total population of the Sikh Empire- which in turn equates to a total Sikh population of over 4 million. This also equates to roughly 0.33% of the world's estimated population at the time- and from the fall of the Sikh Empire onward, the Sikh population's share of the world population has largely remained static, hovering at around this same level.

Considering the time frame involved, that's a mind-blowing rate of religious conversion, especially when one considers that conversion to Sikhism in the Sikh Empire conferred no real social advantages over non-Sikhs; the Sikh Empire reputedly had one of the most liberal attitudes towards religion of any contemporary nation in the world. Effectively, over this period, from the Sikh genocide up until the annexation of the Sikh Empire by the British, the Sikh population almost doubled in size every single decade; and if this exponential rate of growth had continued under an enduring Sikh Empire, then that Sikh Empire would have been on course to have a Sikh majority population by 1860. IMHO, when one takes this into consideration, it should certainly be deemed plausible for a stable and enduring Sikh Empire to have a Sikh plurality population by 1900; and indeed, for Sikhism to have a number of followers comparable to Shintoism today, exceeding 100M and followed by over 1.5% of the world's population.

Depending on whether it expands though, that changes. Generally Sikhism is confined to the Punjab and historically, populations in Sindh were Punjabi by ethnicity. A Sikh State comprising Punjab might be Sikh plurality, but one that has expanded well into Afghanistan, Sindh, Kashmir, Tibet, etc lowers this plurality considerably.

EDIT: I'd also like some sources for your numbers.

 

[jkarr]

Get Flashman to jolly roger Maharani Jind Kaur better and become her Beau.

 

[XanXar]

Depending on whether it expands though, that changes. Generally Sikhism is confined to the Punjab and historically, populations in Sindh were Punjabi by ethnicity. A Sikh State comprising Punjab might be Sikh plurality, but one that has expanded well into Afghanistan, Sindh, Kashmir, Tibet, etc lowers this plurality considerably.

EDIT: I'd also like some sources for your numbers.

It's also depends on how likely the future Sikh Maharajas are willing to continue it's enlightened policy towards religion. Within the space of two successors India went from Akhbar's 'Din e Ilahi' to the harsh, rigid orthodoxy of Aurangzeb. I'm not saying a Sikh ruler would be unwise enough to persecute the majority of it's people, however incentives could be introduced for joining the Sikh faith.

 

[Badshah]

It's also depends on how likely the future Sikh Maharajas are willing to continue it's enlightened policy towards religion. Within the space of two successors India went from Akhbar's 'Din e Ilahi' to the harsh, rigid orthodoxy of Aurangzeb. I'm not saying a Sikh ruler would be unwise enough to persecute the majority of it's people, however incentives could be introduced for joining the Sikh faith.

While not related to conversions, Sikh forces were no less brutal in the early 1700s as other forces in Northwestern India, including the Mughals, Marathas, Afghans, etc.

 

[Sycamore]

It's also depends on how likely the future Sikh Maharajas are willing to continue it's enlightened policy towards religion. Within the space of two successors India went from Akhbar's 'Din e Ilahi' to the harsh, rigid orthodoxy of Aurangzeb. I'm not saying a Sikh ruler would be unwise enough to persecute the majority of it's people, however incentives could be introduced for joining the Sikh faith.

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.

And it's also worth that Sikhism itself ITTL may well be markedly different to Sikhism IOTL. For instance, since Hinduism emphasised the sanctity of cows, the Sikh Empire also universally imposed a ban on cow slaughter. Ranjit Singh willed the Koh-i-Noor diamond, which was under his possession, to Jagannath Temple in Puri, Odisha while on his deathbed in 1839 (though it would never be delivered to them). Ranjit Singh also did a great deal to finance the construction of Hindu temples, not only in his state, but also across British India.

It was noted that the Sikhs made an effort not to offend the prejudices of Muslims, yet according to those Europeans who travelled through the Sikh Empire and gauged public opinion, "...though compared to the Afghans, the Sikhs were mild and exerted a protecting influence, yet no advantages could compensate to their Mohammedan subjects, the idea of subjection to infidels, and the prohibition to slay cows, and to repeat the azan, or 'summons to prayer'". So, ITTL, with a far larger Sikh population, and if these policies had been continued, could Sikhism be perceived as simply a Punjabi-nationalist form of Hinduism, in much the same manner that Shintoism is perceived as simply a Japanese-nationalist form of Buddhism?

 

[XanXar]

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.

And it's also worth that Sikhism itself ITTL may well be markedly different to Sikhism IOTL. For instance, since Hinduism emphasised the sanctity of cows, the Sikh Empire also universally imposed a ban on cow slaughter. Ranjit Singh willed the Koh-i-Noor diamond, which was under his possession, to Jagannath Temple in Puri, Odisha while on his deathbed in 1839 (though it would never be delivered to them). Ranjit Singh also did a great deal to finance the construction of Hindu temples, not only in his state, but also across British India.

It was noted that the Sikhs made an effort not to offend the prejudices of Muslims, yet according to those Europeans who travelled through the Sikh Empire and gauged public opinion, "...though compared to the Afghans, the Sikhs were mild and exerted a protecting influence, yet no advantages could compensate to their Mohammedan subjects, the idea of subjection to infidels, and the prohibition to slay cows, and to repeat the azan, or 'summons to prayer'". So, ITTL, with a far larger Sikh population, and if these policies had been continued, could Sikhism be perceived as simply a Punjabi-nationalist form of Hinduism, in much the same manner that Shintoism is perceived as simply a Japanese-nationalist form of Buddhism?

That all makes sense, so the Sikh state would have no qualms with it's Hindu population, and in fact could have been a sponsor and supporter of later Hindu nations during or post-indepenedence of the subcontinent, however the former may actually bring it into conflict with it's ally Britain.
The problem of it's Muslim subjects however, do raise questions of their plac in this timeline.