Talk:Ranjit Singh/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Treaties on Kashmir

Various scholars have written on the Instrument of Accession (Jammu and Kashmir), The Treaty of Lahore (9 March 1846) and the Treaty of Amritsar (16 March 1846). But very little of that text is on wikipedia.

Maharaja gulab Singh originally worked for the Sikh Empire. But then betrayed the Sikh empire by siding with the East India Company in the Anglo-Sikh War. His name is mentioned in the treaty of Lahore too. He collected Taxes for the East India Company and the money was then given by him to the East India Company.

The Treaty of Lahore (9 March 1846) and the Treaty of Amritsar (16 March 1846) lapsed under Article 7 of the Independence Act 1947. The Act was passed by the British Parliament on July 18, 1947 to assent to the creation of the independent states of India and Pakistan. The aforementioned Article 7 provides that, with the lapse of His Majesty’s suzerainty over the Indian states, all treaties, agreements, obligations, grants, usages and sufferance’s will lapse.

The 7 year old Maharaja Duleep Singh Bahadur (Sikh) was under the control of the East India company when he sign The Treaty of Lahore on 9 March 1846 which gave Jammu and Kashmir and its people to the East India Company.

Under the British legal system and international law a treaty signed by the 7 year old Maharaja Duleep Singh Bahadur and under duress is not valid. (The International Court of Justice has stated that there "can be little doubt, as is implied in the Charter of the United Nations and recognized in Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that under contemporary international law an agreement concluded under the threat or use of force is void.)

We may need to add a section on the impact on the removal of Article 370 of the Indian constitution on The Instrument of Accession too. None of this text is on there.

Various scholars have written on these treaties, for example Alistair Lamb disputed the validity of the Instrument of Accession in his paper Myth of Indian Claim to JAMMU & KASHMIR –– A REAPPRAISAL'

Where he writes "While the date, and perhaps even the fact, of the accession to India of the State of Jammu & Kashmir in late October 1947 can be questioned, there is no dispute at that time any such accession was presented to the world at large as conditional and provisional. It was not communicated to Pakistan at the outset of the overt Indian intervention in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, nor was it presented in facsimile to the United Nations in early 1948 as part of the initial Indian reference to the Security Council. The 1948 White Paper in which the Government of India set out its formal case in respect to the State of Jammu & Kashmir, does not contain the Instrument of Accession as claimed to have been signed by the Maharajah: instead, it reproduces an unsigned form of Accession such as, it is implied, the Maharajah might have signed. To date no satisfactory original of this Instrument as signed by the Maharajah has been produced: though a highly suspect version, complete with the false date 26 October 1947, has been circulated by the Indian side since the 1960s. On the present evidence it is by no means clear that the Maharaja ever did sign an Instrument of Accession.

Indian troops actually began overtly to intervene in the State’s affairs on the morning of 27 October 1947

It is now absolutely clear that the two documents (a) the Instrument of Accession, and (c) the letter to Lord Mountbatten, could not possibly have been signed by the Maharajah of Jammu & Kashmir on 26 October 1947. The earliest possible time and date for their signature would have to be the afternoon of 27 October 1947. During 26 October 1947 the Maharajah of Jammu & Kashmir was travelling by road from Srinagar to Jammu. (The Kashmir State Army divisions and the Kashmiri people had already turned on him and he was on the run and had no authority in the state). His new Prime Minister, M.C. Mahajan, who was negotiating with the Government of India, and the senior Indian official concerned in State matters, V.P. Menon, were still in New Delhi where they remained overnight, and where their presence was noted by many observers. There was no communication of any sort between New Delhi and the travelling Maharajah. Menon and Mahajan set out by air from New Delhi to Jammu at about 10.00 a.m. on 27 October; and the Maharajah learned from them for the first time the result of his Prime Minister’s negotiations in New Delhi in the early afternoon of that day. The key point, of course, as has already been noted above, is that it is now obvious that these documents could only have been signed after the overt Indian intervention in the State of Jammu & Kashmir on 27 October 1947. When the Indian troops arrived at Srinagar air field, that State was still independent. Any agreements favourable to India signed after such intervention cannot escape the charge of having been produced under duress. (The International Court of Justice has stated that there "can be little doubt, as is implied in the Charter of the United Nations and recognized in Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that under contemporary international law an agreement concluded under the threat or use of force is void.)"

Additionally Maharaja was on the run. The prevailing international practice on the recognition of state governments is based on the following three factors: first, the government’s actual control of the territory; second, the government’s enjoyment of the support and obedience of the majority of the population; third, the government’s ability to stake the claim that it has a reasonable expectation of staying in power. The situation on the ground demonstrates that the Maharaja was not in control of the state of Jammu and Kashmir and was fleeing for his life and almost all of Kashmir was under the control of the Kashmiri people and the Kashmiri Army that had rebelled against him. His own troops had turned on him. With regard to the Maharaja’s control over the local population, it is clear that he enjoyed no such control or support. The people of Kashmir had been sold by the East India Company and he charged them high taxes thetefore the Kashmir Muslims, Hindus Pandits and Buddhists hated him. Furthermore, the state’s armed forces were in total disarray after most of the men turned against him and he was running for his life. Finally, it is highly doubtful that the Maharaja could claim that his government had a reasonable chance of staying in power without Indian military intervention. This assumption is substantiated by the Maharaja’s letters.

Many of these treaties apply to Jammu and Kashmir. The Kashmir conflict is already on Wikipedia. It is internationally recognized as a disputed territory under various United United Nations resolutions that are already listed on Wikipedia Nations Security Council Resolution 47, Nations Security Council Resolution 39,mediation of the Kashmir dispute, Nations Commission for India and Pakistan. There is a lot of documentation on Jammu and Kashmir in the UN archives already. If you look at the page Kashmir conflict, it already contains sections on the "Indian view", "Pakistani view", "Chinese view", "Kashmiri views". May be we could do something like that with these treaty pages. The Treaty of Lahore was signed in 9 March 1846 and the Treaty of Amritsar 16 March 1846. They predate the creation of both modern day India and Pakistan. The Treaty of Lahore was signed between the Sikh Empire and the British government. It is an international treaty and comes under international law. Johnleeds1 (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Need to add changes removed by blocked editor

• What I think should be changed: This line Maharaja Ranjit Singh was born on 13 November 1780 to Maha Singh and Raj Kaur in a Sansi family in Gujranwala, Punjab region, India (present-day Punjab, Pakistan) needs to be changed to Maharaja Ranjit Singh was born on 13 November 1780 to Maha Singh and Raj Kaur in a in Gujranwala, Punjab region, India (present-day Punjab, Pakistan). The other is an addition after line "His mother Raj Kaur was the daughter of Sikh Raja Gajpat Singh of Jind.[16]". The addition is

Upon his birth he was named Buddh Singh after his ancestor who was first in line to take Amrit Sanchaar. The child's name was changed to Ranjit (literally, "victor in battle") Singh ("lion") by his father to commemorate his army's victory over the Muslim Chatha chieftain Pir Muhammad.

• Why it should be changed: The reason to remove Sansi family or Jatt family is because there is major dispute where some historians say that Ranjit Singh's family was Sansi Sikh and some say that it was Jatt Sikh and then there are others who say that it was neither but just simply Sikh. Here is a link that clarifies the dispute [1]. So to be neutral, Sansi or Jatt should be removed. The other addition was removed by an editor who has been blocked for vandalism.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

[2]

MehmoodS (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It does not appear there is consensus for this change. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2022

Maharaja Ranjit Singh was jat sikh 122.161.66.242 (talk) 03:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Bsoyka (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Family was Sansi Sikh or Jatt Sikh or Neither is disputed

This subject about Ranjit Singh's family is disputed among historians. Some claim as Sansi Sikh, some claim as Sandhiawala Jat Sikh and some claim him just as plain Sikh. Since such subject is disputed, the mention of clan shouldn't be applied on the article but should rather be kept neutral. MehmoodS (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• The reason to remove Sansi family or Jatt family is because there is major dispute where some historians say that Ranjit Singh's family was Sansi Sikh and some say that it was Jatt Sikh and then there are others who say that it was neither but just simply Sikh. Here is a link that clarifies the dispute [3]. So to be neutral, Sansi or Jatt should be removed. MehmoodS (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• User:Aj indiana Before reverting changes, I have told you to discuss the dispute here on the talk page and yet you haven't addressed it. Whether Ranjit Singh was Jat or Sansi has been disputed by many historians and this information here clarifies the dispute [4]. So to avoid the dispute among editors on the background where one wants to claim Sansi and the other as Jatt, this information was removed. Because this will cause continous edit warring. MehmoodS (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

He was a Sandhawalia Jat Prerit Tushir (talk) 07:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2022

Tushir 25 (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Pls mention him as a Jat sikh of Sandhawalia clan Tushir 25 (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

He was a Sandhawalia Jat Tushir 25 (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I have sources Tushir 25 (talk) 00:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Genealogical family tree is incorrect regarding the position of Nodh and Buddha Singh

Nodh Singh (d. 1752) was the son of Buddha Singh (d. 1718) rather than the reverse (as it is being erroneously portrayed as currently in the table). Please see the updated genealogical trees in 'The Panjab Chiefs' by L.H. Griffin, 'Chiefs and Families of Note in the Panjab' by C.F. Massy, and the genealogical table presented in 'Maharaja Ranjit Singh - First Death Centenary Memorial (1939)'. ThethPunjabi (talk) 11:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Buddha Singh Man was the first son of Mana Singh apparently named after his ancestor, Buddha Singh. See The Sikh Encyclopedia Buddha Singh and The Sikh Encyclopedia Buddha Singh Man. So Ranjit had an older brother Buddha and they were both sons of Maha Singh, son of Charat Singh, son of Naudh Singh, son of Buddha Singh whose ancestor, Bhara Mall was initiated into the Sikh faith by the seventh Sikh leader, Guru Har Rai. See page 14 of 'The Panjab Chiefs' (1865 edition) you mentioned. (I also found a 1890 edition of 'The Panjab Chiefs' here.) So the chart is not incorrect, just incomplete. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Add him as a Sikh Jat

Add him as a Sikh Jat👆 Jat Raj (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

His Spouses included a Muslim woman

his wife was also Moran Sarkar. Please add: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moran_Sarkar 2407:D000:B:C9BE:3299:E3EA:8B6A:FCE6 (talk) 10:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Non-HISTRS sources

Abh9850, regarding your this edit, the first source cited by you is authored by Sher Singh 'Sher' who was a Punjabi poet-cum-writer, rather than a historian. He completed his postgraduation in agriculture and literature. Later on, he wrote a few anthropological accounts about his own Sansi tribe. And this locally-published source is authored by a couple of sociologists, rather than historians – see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:HISTRS. Not to mention the last nonscholarly source which is authored by Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay, who was a freedom fighter and an actor. So these three are locally-published sources from non-historians and are not WP:HISTRS. They are not even reliable for historical details, let alone using them for challenging all the subject specialists, i.e. the historians specialising in Sikh history.

References
References

- NitinMlk (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2023

Please change the name from Ranjit Singh to Maharaja Ranjit Singh Karanb69 (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see WP:HONORIFICS. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)