What would have happened of the Sepoy Rebellion had succeded?
Personally I think India would have been independent much earlier and Partition would have been prevented along with much bloodshed and there would be no nation as Pakistan or Bangledesh, no Kashmir dispute,and India would be much stronge rtoday then it is now.

There wouldn't be a united India today. In those times, the regional Indian lords were still around - w/o the British to hold things together, there was no reason for them to stay together.

Or another Western power would take over India. Or the British would re-attempt again.

The British did'nt unify India they divided it. There were still regional lords around in 1947 yet India managed to unify. What's the diffrience?

80-90 years of an administrative structure, and an educated elite (in the same tradition) left in place by the British betw the Mutiny and 1947 is the difference.

I'm no defender of the West, but you have to give credit where due. ;) Or else you'll never draw fr the lessons of history.

The British did'nt unify India they divided it.

Yes i agree, there way of doing thing was to create division and then reign over it, a divised country with cultural conflict is much weaker and much easier to manipulate. I think it is Machiavelic ( from Machiavel way to get into power, that apply as well in coorporate buisness).

Only a true and free spirit like Ghandi, can counter such kind of perverse way of living.

Yes i agree, there way of doing thing was to create division and then reign over it, a divised country with cultural conflict is much weaker and much easier to manipulate. I think it is Machiavelic ( from Machiavel way to get into power, that apply as well in coorporate buisness).

Only a true and free spirit like Ghandi, can counter such kind of perverse way of living.

'Divide and rule' is not Macchiavellian - though it's certainly in keeping with his teachings. 'Divide et impera!' was already a maxim of Imperial Rome.

The British did not 'create' division in India, it was already segmented into many small states. They certainly did make use of the divisions, though.

While Gandhi was certainly a great man, it's a bit much to suppose he could single-handedly unite disparate Indian states - the situation of 1948 wasn't comparable to a hundred years earlier.

No they had to forcibly united as in the case of Hyderabad the Indian army was sent in.

They would've been conquered by England again a little bit later after the British regrouped while the Indians continued fighting each other.

No they had to forcibly united as in the case of Hyderabad the Indian army was sent in.

Silver, that was a joke of a military operation because there was no real opposition. Both of my grandfathers grew up in the Nizam's Hyderabad, studying in Urdu medium schools and never imagining that Hyderbad would and could ever look as bad as it does today. Anyhow, the only opposition encountered were the "razakers", little more than thieves who were led by the incapacitated Nizam's PM (this PM would later flee to Pakistan when the Indian Army arrived in Hyderbad) and caused trouble in the towns and villages (one of my grandfathers who was a child then remembers them coming and stealing money and valuables from his house while the other who was about 17 or so remembers scaring them off with his Enfield rifle). Besides, Hyderabad was surrounded by India on all sides, making it an unviable state.

Now, on to your question. IMO, the only thing the Sepoys and other fighters who joined them against the Brits shared was anger against the Brits for the British disrespect of local customs (making the Sepoys bite off cartridges that had been greased with animal fat! that was very stupid on Britain's part). I can envision the Marathas having their own little nation-state, Hyderabad being its own kingdom, etc., with Portugal holding Goa, France holding Pondicherry, and Britain maybe holding Madras and Calcutta and the surrounding areas. Still, there is no momentum for national unification. Even today, all Indians share cultural, not linguistic ties and some might argue there are ethnic/racial differences as well. However, I think these individual states would have been better than a united India. Why? Because, individual states means lots of war, lots of rivalry, and hence lots of adoption of new techniques and knowledge to beat their rivals. And, having been through a short period of British rule, they would be smarter than most states throughout Asia and Africa by resisting any permanent European influence wherever they could. Perhaps then, the state might be set for a Bismarck type person to arise in one of the varying states or for North India and South India to be united separately. Still, I like the idea of many Indian states better because it also means more development in each state (IMO) than simply having concentration on Punjab and other rich states while ignoring remote areas or areas not rich in resources desired by Britain. Also aaminion00, you have to keep in mind that Britain's forces were almost always comprised mostly of Indians. They used Indians to conquer India so if the Sepoy Rebellion were to succeed, I doubt they could ever again use Indians to do so when Indians collectively had had such a bad experience with them. Just my opinions here.