Prof Suresh Chander
Shivaji and Guru Gobind Singh never met, the Sikhs and Marathas stood apart at Panipat, and a century later Sikhs and Scindhias sided with the East India Company. Our history books remain silent on these lost chances that shaped centuries of subjugation.
History often turns not only on the wars that were fought but also on the alliances that never materialised. In India’s past, moments of disunity proved more decisive than defeats in battle. The 17th and 18th centuries show how fractured leadership and missed opportunities left the subcontinent vulnerable-first to Afghan invaders and later to British colonists.
Chhatrapati Shivaji (1630-1680), crowned in 1674, was a visionary who laid the foundations of the Maratha Empire through daring campaigns, administrative reforms, and a relentless defence of swaraj against Mughal domination. Guru Gobind Singh (1666-1708), the tenth Sikh Guru, was equally transformative. In 1699, he created the Khalsa, turning the Sikhs into a spiritual and martial brotherhood that could withstand persecution.
Both men faced the same adversary: Aurangzeb (1618-1707), the Mughal emperor whose bigotry and cruelty alienated vast sections of his empire. Shivaji fought him on the battlefield; Guru Gobind Singh resisted him through the sword and the pen, famously writing his Zafarnama to the emperor.
Yet Shivaji and Guru Gobind Singh never met. Their struggles ran parallel but separate. Imagine if they had joined hands-the Marathas striking from the Deccan and the Khalsa from the north. Aurangzeb’s imperial power, already stretched, might have collapsed decades earlier. Instead, the Mughal empire lingered until Aurangzeb’s death in 1707, leaving a fractured legacy that others would exploit.
The Missed Opportunity at Panipat, 1761
By the mid-18th century, the Marathas had risen as India’s paramount power, their influence stretching from the Deccan deep into the north. The Sikhs, though fragmented into twelve misls (confederacies), had become a formidable presence in Punjab, harassing Afghan invaders and asserting control over the countryside.
In 1761, Ahmad Shah Abdali-also known as Ahmad Shah Durrani-marched into India with a vast Afghan army, intent on crushing Maratha power. The Third Battle of Panipat followed on January 14, 1761. It was one of the bloodiest battles of the 18th century. Contemporary accounts suggest that over 100,000 men were killed in a single day. The Marathas fought with extraordinary bravery, but they stood alone.
The Sikhs, though strong in Punjab, did not align with the Marathas. Distrust, distance, and disunity kept them apart. Abdali’s forces butchered the Marathas, leaving their empire gravely weakened. Panipat was more than a battlefield disaster; it was a turning point that destroyed the prospect of a united indigenous power dominating northern India. Had the Sikhs and Marathas joined forces, Abdali might have been crushed-and the subsequent century of political instability, which opened the doors for British expansion, could have been avoided.
A Century Later: Loyalty to the Company
A hundred years after Panipat, disunity once again defined India’s fate. In 1857, the great revolt, against the East India Company broke out. Soldiers, peasants, princes, and common people across north India rose against British rule in what came to be remembered as the First War of Independence.
Yet the Sikh armies, who had been defeated in the Anglo-Sikh wars of 1845-46 and 1848-49, chose to side with the British rather than the rebels. The memory of betrayal by both Hindu and Muslim rulers during their own wars shaped this decision. Similarly, the Scindhias of Gwalior-descendants of the once-mighty Marathas-remained loyal to the Company, helping suppress the uprising.
The result was predictable. The rebellion, fractured and unsupported by India’s strongest military forces, collapsed within a year. Once again, the absence of unity prolonged foreign domination-this time for nearly a century more.
The Price of Disunity
The tragedy is not that Indians lacked courage or vision. Figures like Shivaji and Guru Gobind Singh embody both in abundance. The Marathas at Panipat fought with legendary valour, and the freedom fighters of 1857 displayed extraordinary determination. But courage divided cannot overcome organised adversaries. Abdali at Panipat and the British in 1857 triumphed less because of their strength and more because India’s strongest powers stood apart.
Contrast this with Europe. When Napoleon Bonaparte threatened continental order, Britain, Russia, Prussia, and Austria-often bitter rivals-repeatedly set aside differences to form coalitions. They fought together, again and again, until Napoleon was finally defeated at Waterloo in 1815. Europe learned the value of unity against a greater foe; India, tragically, did not.
Conclusion
If Shivaji and Guru Gobind Singh had joined hands, Aurangzeb’s tyranny might have ended sooner. If the Sikhs and Marathas had stood together at Panipat, Abdali might have been destroyed. If both had resisted siding with the Company in 1857, the struggle for freedom might have taken a different trajectory.
The history is not only about what happened; it is also about what did not. And in India’s case, what did not happen-unity at decisive moments-proved fatal. This article presents the facts-leaving it to historians to explain why that unity never materialised.
(The author is former Head of Computer Engineering Department in G B Pant University of Agriculture & Technology)
Follow our WhatsApp channel
