Talk:Ranjit Singh/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Ranjit Singh captures Lahore in 1799 from other Sikh chiefs

I've read many historians. As mentioned above with reliable sources most historians reject the claim that Ranjit Singh was appointed governor of the Punjab. Most historians agreed that Ranjit Singh captured Lahore in 1799. I do agree with the Nasir that Afghan army was in Punjab in early 1799 under Zaman Shah, but Ranjit Singh captured Lahore in July 1799. At that there was rebel back home in Afghanistan for Zaman Shah. He left Lahore without any battle to crush the rebels back home. After that Ranjit Singh & Sada Kaur (mother-in-law of ranjit singh) attacked Lahore and captured it. These are not my views.

• 80% of historians agreed and verified that Ranjit Singh captures Lahore in 1799.
• 20% historians didn't agreed with above claim and assumes that Zaman Shah made Ranjit Singh governor of Punjab.

There was no historically proof or record to verify the claim of some (about 20%) historians.

Now, It's up to the third parties, administrators and WP:Mediation to support which claim. To support 80% historians or 20% historians. If they need more reliable sources to verify this i will add later. Desijatt1 (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

First, the article was just awful before I began working on it, see for yourself [1] (notice how many times Ahmad Shah Abdali is mentioned). Second, you are skipping the fact that Ahmad Shah Durrani had legitimately made the entire Punjab region part of his Afghan Empire since 1749, when Ranjit was not even born, which Ahmad Shah took from the Mughal ruler under an agreement. Mughals had ruled it since 1526 when Babur took it after defeating the Afghan Lodi dynasty. Western sources (3rd parties), including Louis Dupree (professor), Nancy Dupree and many other experts on Afghanistan, claim that Afghans lost Punjab in 1801 [2], NOT 1799 as some contemporary Sikh book writers wrongly put it. How many book links do you want me to list here to convince you? To the world at large, Ranjit got control of Lahore in 1799 after King Zaman Shah appointed him (hand picked him [3]) as the governor, but to the Sikhs this gets wrongly translated as him capturing the city. We are not writing a book, when putting info like this in an encyclopedia we go by the fact that he was appointed as governor because that's how politics/governments do business. A person has to be appointed for governorship not force their way. You are discrediting him by claiming that he captured the city. I have no problem with both views being added, but to make Ranjit a legitimate governor then it's wise to write that he was appointed instead of capturing it. These actions are excersized through treaties, agreements, memorandum of understandings, or public announcements, which I'm sure that Zaman Shah signed with him. In 1799, Zaman Shah personally met with Ranjit in front of all the Sikh leaders in Lahore. What do you think they talked about in that meeting? The British also met with him and signed a treaty (Treaty of Amritsar).[4] Last but not least, your 80%/20% is wrong and nonsense, and it's quality that counts not quantity. Most of your books are based on theories of events made up by the authors but as for mines they provide references to original older sources, which are based on authentic historical documents.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Before the page gets unprotected. You must try to read these books slowly and try to understand what really happened so that you don't get angry and remove information which you may not agree with. The British clearly used Ranjit Singh to fight for them against the Afghans. Before him making a deal with the British he was not interested in territories outside the Punjab.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 03:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nasir Ghobar, I disagree with this statement and it's source;

To the world at large, Ranjit got control of Lahore in 1799 after King Zaman Shah appointed him (hand picked him) as the governor

I just read through the relevant sections of Hari Ram Gupta's A History of the Sikhs Volume IV and Khushwant Singh's History of the Sikhs:1469-1839 and both have no mention of him being hand picked Zaman Shah. Both sources describe him as one of many Sikh military leaders besieging Lahore and engaged in negotiations through vakils (lawyers) with the other parties. Hari Ram Gupta's book in particular is meticulously detailed and well sourced and Khushwant Singh is also a respected historian. In contrast, the book you cite has that as a throwaway line.

These actions are excersized through treaties, agreements, memorandum of understandings, or public announcements, which I'm sure that Zaman Shah signed with him.

I'm not so sure, could you please show us the treaty?

The British also met with him and signed a treaty (Treaty of Amritsar).

If you read through this treaty ( Original text here http://archive.org/stream/acollectiontrea06deptgoog#page/n48/mode/2up) you can see that Ranjit Singh is refered to as the ruler of his own state.

You should sign your name so that others can see who posted the message. You guys are coming up with a story that makes no sense to anyone. You assume that a person who invades a land gets to own it. That's not how it works. In order to claim land it has to be recognized by other governments, particularly neighboring states (empires). There is no recognition of Punjab or Lahore being independent by any governments until 1801 when Ranjit Singh signed the treaty of Amritsar with the British and without the knowledge of the Afghan king. You purposely skip facts and only tell us half of the story. Historians say that King Zaman Shah of Afghanistan made the 19 year old Ranjit Singh the governor of Lahore, we must add this important information in his article here in Wikipedia whether you agree with it or not. You may add that he was not appointed as governor by Zaman Shah but captured the area militarily. It's upto to the readers to decide what to believe and what not to believe. Appointing Ranjit as a governor does not require a treaty. Treaties are for 2 different governments to settle something, I wasn't trying to say that Zaman Shah and Ranjit signed a treaty, I was saying that some kind of official record was made so that Ranjit is recognized as a governor. Knowing how Afghan government functioned at the time, it was most likely a public announcement along with some kind of a signed written statement. The books tell us that: 1.) after his 4th conquest, Zaman Shah and Ranjit were at a meeting in 1799 as allies; 2.) Zaman Shah had to leave for Kabul because of an emergency so he left the 19 year old Ranjit Singh in charge by appointing him as the governor of Lahore; 3.) and in 1801 Ranjit Singh declared himself an independent ruler. On the other hand, you guys are falsely claiming that the 19 year old Ranjit Singh defeated Zaman Shah in 1799 and then declared himself the ruler in the same year. Not only do you have no proof, it's just absolute nonsense. Why would Ranjit send help when Zaman Shah was crossing the river while getting stuck at Jhelum River on his way to Kabul. Keep your Sikh nationalism to the side, this is an encyclopedia mainly for English speaking people around the world. The main problem is that you Indians look down upon Afghanistan because of the state it is in today, you fail to understand that in that time it was very powerful not only militarily but in many things. Afghans made Persian the official language of Punjab. Persian was also the official language of the later Sikh Empire.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this nonsense "you can see that Ranjit Singh is refered to as the ruler of his own state", did Ranjit Singh declar to anyone that he was a ruler of an independent state before 1801? Did he issue his own coins? Knowing that he was power hungry like many others, he could easily have misrepresented himself to the British, who themselves didn't care about any of that because they had their own divide and rule policy for the Sikhs and for the Afghans.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

To Nasir Ghobar, You are repeating nonsense again and again. Repeating false information does not make it true. Now, you contradict with your own words. Let me remind you the point of dispute is whether Ranjit Singh captured Lahore in 1799 or not and the answer is big yes, he captured Lahore in 1799. Now, you come up with other stories and different points. Official language etc. Can u tell me what to do official language with capture of Lahore. I never say Ranjit Singh defeated Zaman Shah. It's not about what to believe and what not to believe. It's about truth, reliable sources. Most historians reject the claim that you are making. Others users are also agree with me. Desijatt1 (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Naw, it is you who is repeating the nonsens. "Ranjit Singh captured Lahore in 1799" is an incomplete statement because it doesn't address who he captured the city from. It implies that he captured it from King Zaman Shah of Afghanistan. I'm making the point that up until 1801 Lahore was considered part of the Afghan Empire with Ranjit serving as its governor. This is not only mentioned in many books but also in famous encyclopedias such as Britannica. [5] There is nothing nonsense about this or about me teaching you that Persian was the official language until when the British took over Punjab from the Sikhs in the mid 19th century. Ranjit and Zaman Shah were allies up until their deaths.[6]--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

A couple quick points

1. In Wikipedia you can't use encyclopedias as a source when more reliable sources are available.
2. I agree that Government bureaucrats wrote in persian for rulers in North India but I'm not sure how that is related Shah Zaman
3. If you read the link about them being friends it says this:"The latter tried everything in his power to extort the diamond from his guests, going as far as depriving them and their family of food until they surrendered it.", not very friend-like

The main point that we have to consider is the nature of Shah Zaman's entrance and retreat to Lahore and how Ranjit Singh fits into the whole picture

1. As Shah Zaman was entering Lahore his caravan was looted by Ranjit Singh's uncle
2. On December 2, 1798 Ranjit Singh, six other Sikh chiefs, and 11,000 horse began cutting off supplies to Shah Zaman's camp
3. On December 15, 1798 Ranjit Singh and the other Sikh chiefs swear to fight against their common enemy
4. Shah Zaman receives news that Persians are invading and Herat is in revolt resulting in him leaving immediately
5. Two Sikh chiefs, not including Ranjit Singh, occupy Lahore and proceed to treat the citizens badly

From my understanding of the reading it's clear that Shah Zaman did not have an effect on who was the ruler because he was forced to retreat due to his domestic issues.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 02:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

1. Britannica is the oldest English-language encyclopaedia and "regarded as one of the most scholarly of English language encyclopaedias". Who said we can't use Britannica as a reference in Wikipedia?

2. The point is that Ranjit and Zaman never fought a war but helped each other. When he was leaving Lahore in 1799 to deal with the situation back in Kabul, he was still the king and in charge of his empire. Some claim that the diamond was given to Ranjit while others claim he extorted it.

3. You may add all these points in the article, it helps readers understand the situation before 1801. It is part of his early years because he was still under 21 years old at that time.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 07:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Finally, Forces of Ranjit Singh and Sada Kaur(mother-in-law of Ranjit Singh) captures Lahore in 1799 from Sikh chiefs. Desijatt1 (talk) 03:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You should have explained that in the beginning. Let me guess, you had no idea. You mistakenly believed that Ranjit captured the city from Zaman Shah and his Afghan army, and right away he gained autonomy and became an independent ruler of the Punjab region. This is the opinion of many Sikh nationalists but the fact is that until 1801 there was no formal recognition of all this except Zaman Shah accepting and confirming him as his governor of Lahore. Once the British signed an agreement with him, Ranjit felt more powerful and decided to persuade all Sikh leaders (mainly the ones who opposed him) in Punjab to obey him as their ruler regardless of age. Those Sikhs felt that there was no other choice because Ranjit got both neighboring empires on his side so they surrendered and made him the king.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 07:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what u want to prove that make no sense at all. No other users are agree with you; still making nonsense claims. You talking about things that i don't even say. I think you need to read the talk page from the start of this discussion. You seemed to be confused. You contradict with your own statements. Desijatt1 (talk) 01:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This edit [7] that you made is the problem. I've added some important pre-1801 properly sourced details but you deleted it because probably you didn't like it. You shouldn't remove relevant and essential information like that without giving good reasons. You did not come up with any good reason so that information must stay now, about Ranjit serving as a governore of Lahore before becoming Maharaja in 1801.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 03:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the points made and reliable sources provided by the user Profitoftruth85. After studying all the related material and different sources provided by different users and other reliable sources I've concluded that Ranjit Singh captured Lahore in 1799 from other Sikh chiefs( Bhangi misl ). Thanks. Theman244 (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

References

Edit request from LikeLakers2, 2 September 2012

Null edit to purge cache and to remove page/file from the view of Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates.

If null editing does not work, then replacing {{pp-dispute|small=yes}} from line 1 with {{pp-dispute|expiry=29 September 2012|small=yes}}{{pp-move|expiry=29 September 2012|small=yes}}.

Thanks. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 13:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Protection

I've re-protected the article for a month. Take this matter to dispute resolution, because you're obviously not solving it yourselves. One thing I want to point out from what's above: we should not be deciding what is "true". If there is more than one opinion among historians, the article should contain both perspectives--even if it is "80-20" as someone suggested above. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, thanks for the protection. The problem is that these guys are removing the fact that from 1799 to 1801 Ranjit Singh served as governor. This is what all the historians say and is found in every source. I want readers to know this specific part but these guys are clamining that this is untrue and deleting that specific part of history. If you can revert back to the previous version it would be very much appreciated.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The Early life section starts as "Rangit Singh was born to Maha Singh and Raj Kaur on 13 November 1780, in Gujranwala, Punjab, into a Sikh family." That is awkward and confusing to ordinary readers, it should be standardly written like how I wrote it "Rangit Singh was born on 13 November 1780 in Gujranwala (present-day Pakistan)", his parents' info comes after this.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 12:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to be able to get involved in the content dispute itself. As I mentioned, you need to use teh dispute resolution process. You may want to consider, for example, starting an Rrequest for comment discussion, which will invite uninvolved editors to help figure out what's best to do. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no dispute here. It's about which is the standard and correct way to write something. For example, the Early life section should start like this: "Rangit Singh was born on 13 November 1780 in Gujranwala, Punjab (present-day Pakistan). He was the son of Maha Singh and Raj Kaur who were Sikhs.[7][8]". And at the end of that section it should state that he was serving as the governor of Lahore from 1799 to 1801. That's exactly what he was, and I don't know who is disagreeing with all this. These other editors have just been repeating "Ranjit Singh captured Lahore", I'm not disagreeing with that. He captured Lahore from other Sikhs and became its new governor, which was accepted by the King.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Theman244, Thejatt, and Desijatt1 were confirmed as one person by Amalthea at ANI 12:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC), operating from India.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 10:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Even not counting the sockpuppeteer, there are other people also disagreeing with you. You can't simply assert there's no dispute, when obviously there is. Someone needs to take the matter through dispute resolution--start an RfC, go to DRN, whatever. If you do not, and edit-warring resumes after protection expires, I will block everyone who is edit warring. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you can't figure out the problem so let me explain please. These Sikh editors do not want me to edit this article because they figured out, based on my name and contribs, that I'm Afghan. Sikhs generally view Afghans as their #1 enemies since the 18th century. You may find it bizaare or unbelieving but this is the honest truth, you can click on any Sikh website and read what they think of Afghans. However, I'm ignoring this and just want to add a little about the friendly relations the Durranis had with Ranjit Singh or vice versa. They feel that I'm trying to put him down or something because he is one of their greatest heros of all time. I understand why they are so defensive even though I'm trying to legitimize his political role by explaining to readers that he legally became a governor first between 1799 and 1801 and was accepted by the Afghan politicians. They feel that the Afghans are just trying to tie their selves to him. You're right, I should take this to dispute resolution. I was not planning to edit-war over this worthless issue.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)