Talk:Third Anglo-Afghan War

Archives (Index)

2012/May 2015/November 2021/August 2021/September 2022/October

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Result

After looking into it, I've decided to change the result to an Afghan victory per Iranica. (Cited in the result section). I think this change may be controversial, so adding this on the talk page further. @HistoryofIran Wondering if you might have any concerns? Noorullah (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• This has been restored, there seems to be a lot of WP:SOCK/WP:CRONY puppetry going on here, in addition to a WP:PUS. I can see this has been discussed many times in the talk page. Eastfarthingan (talk) 10:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  Are you accusing me of being a sockpuppet..? More over you’re saying Iranica is an unreliable source? @Eastfarthingan Noorullah (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Not you directly, in regards to sockpuppets, apologies. The result needs a consensus, not just a change because you say so, I should have been alerted on the 9 September when it was changed. Using Iranica is for Iran based subjects as it says WP:RSP - this article is regarding British India and Afghanistan, in addition the war is only mentioned in small detail. As I said the outcome has been discussed a few times. Eastfarthingan (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I assume I got pinged because I've reverted a lot of IPs and socks who tried to change the result to "Afghan victory" through disruptive measures. I rather not take part in the consensus making, too much on my plate. However, I just want to say this; Iranica is not only about Iran specifically, it's a vast project; the cited Iranica article [1] is about the Anglo-Afghan Wars, Iranica is published by Brill Publishers [2], and the Iranica article is authored by Ludwig W. Adamec (who seems to be an expert on Afghanistan) and J. A. Norris, the latter who wrote this [3]. Perhaps someone should assemble all relevant (high-quality) sources here and see what they say. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you HistoryofIran, thats good to know. I'd also point out that 'winning independence' does not mean winning the war. There is far more to it than that as the Treaty of Rawalpindi goes in detail. Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

That is true. I've just read the article. I see it's a very nuanced topic. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Eastfarthingan There is a consensus to add this, another editor has supported my change; see my archive talk page here: [4]

Emphasis on this: "Hi there. I think your arguments are perfectly reasonable, and I support your edit to the Third Anglo-Afghan War page as it currently stands, though you may have to watch out for IP trolls and edit warriors :P" from DonBeroni.

Also, Iranica clearly states that the war was an Afghan victory. Not only from the above quote mentioned but also:

"It was therefore not surprising that Amānallāh seized the unique opportunity to win by force what Britain was unwilling to give its ally: Afghanistan’s internal and external independence." Although I perfectly understand why you reverted -- This page has been disrupted a myriad of times before especially without some form of consensus. Regardless, if you want to bring other sources to see what they say, I'd be glad to also look for some. Noorullah (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Noted - I will look into more sources. IMO the article looks better than it did before, now that it is split into sections. Hope you agree with the new layout and additions, Noorullah and thank you for contributions. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I do like the new additions, but I am still contested toward the result parameter (since another editor did also agree with me).

I also intend to add some more content in the future (towards the article). @Eastfarthingan: Noorullah (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

As for the result, there needs to be a balance for a WP:NPOV. It is therefore unfair to say that it was an Afghan or British victory outright:

The British pov: the Afghans failed in their invasion of India, as well as the uprisings hoping to take place. Then the British penetrated into Afghanistan holding their gains and using the RAF to bomb Afghan cities all of which resulted in the Amir to sue for peace - it was a very short war. In the Rawalpindi treaty the Afghans had to accept the Durand line meaning their aims of gaining Peshawar & other territories had failed.

The Afghan pov: they can claim victory as the Treaty of Rawalpindi gave them independence.

The problem with the whole independence issue is nuanced. The British only really controlled their foreign affairs and apart from the subsidies, had very little, (if any) control of Afghanistan's internal affiars. To claim they gained 'full independence' is like saying that Afghanistan was a British colony, which we all know it wasn't. The Britsh wanted a buffer against the Russians, hence foreign affairs. The Treaty of Gandamak and the Durrand line is testament to this. This all changed following WWI and the Russian revolution. There was no need for Afghanistan to be the buffer it was. There are sources for all of this. Eastfarthingan (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Just a quick question for the British POV. “Afghans had to accept the Durand line meaning their aims of gaining Peshawar & other territories had failed.”

Was the capture of Peshawar and KPK really one of their stated goals for this conflict? To my knowledge Amanullah Khan launched this invasion to win back de jure recognition of Afghanistans independence, in particular the foreign policy. All political aims were achieved no? I must ask for a source that backs up this claim.

I also personally contest the current result perimeter per Noorullah. Iranica is fine. Although if you want to bring in other sources to analyze first, we can do that too. @Eastfarthingan Someguywhosbored (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Eastfarthingan I agree with @Someguywhosbored here, I haven't seen any source [thus far] that mentions such. Lee for example states that the war was portrayed as a Jihad [In revenge for the 1919 massacre] and to fully achieve Afghanistan's already de-facto declared independence.

Iranica also says: "An ardent nationalist who resented Britain’s hegemony over Afghanistan, Amir Amānallāh immediately proclaimed his independence and demanded a new agreement with Britain to end Afghanistan’s status as a virtual protectorate." [5]

As far as I see it here now, there's 3 people that agree with this change. Me, @Someguywhosbored, and the person in my archived talk page who agreed with my edits.

In general, the war showed that Afghanistan got what it wanted from the war -- militarily they were for sure driven back, this is emphasized in the article already, (and lee mentions it), but they effectively obtained what they wanted, which was their independence. Noorullah (talk) 03:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Also adding from Iranica -- please regard this may be a wall of text.

--

"Until recently, historians have generally accepted the British interpretation of the causes of the war, which held that Amānallāh’s control over Afghanistan was weakened because of the power struggle after the assassination of Amir Ḥabīballāh. Amānallāh imprisoned his uncle and rival to the throne, Naṣrallāh Khan, and freed members of the Moṣāḥebān family from arrest for suspected participation in the assassination plot. In this view, when Amānallāh saw his position endangered, he sought war with his neighbor as a device for unifying the people. However, recent research has shown that Amānallāh resorted to war to safeguard Afghanistan’s independence, which had been unofficially secured at the end of World War I. He feared that British duplicity would deprive him of the reward he expected for Afghanistan’s neutrality and bring about the return of pre-war British hegemony." Noorullah (talk) 03:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Someguywhosbored no problem. I will relay a bunch of sources. Noorullah Lets look at it both ways - Britain got it wanted from the war too. Sir Hamilton Grant at the treaty of Rawalpindi pressed the Afghan delegation to reaffirm the Durrand line as being the political boundary, which the Afghans initially refused to accept. I think we need more detail on treaty as well - showing how both sides got what they wanted. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Eastfarthingan Lee doesn't make any mention of the Durand Line being reaffirmed as an actual goal of the British, other sources just describe it as something done in the treaty itself.

Bathorp says: "Although Afghan regular forces had been driven from British territory and Afghan cities had felt the weight of the Royal Air Force's bombers, the Amir's delegates approached the peace conference assembled at Rawalpindi in July in less than concilia- tory mood. The negotiations were acrimo-nious, but in the end a treaty was signed on 8 August, the most important clause of which gave the Afghans what they most wanted, and could probably have gained without a war the right to conduct their own foreign affairs as a fully independent state. The Durand Line was reaffirmed as the political boundary and the Afghans undertook not to intrigue with the tribes on the British side." [6]

I'm gonna be changing the result parameter back (as of now), because we've had 3 people voice their opinion (1 earlier, the guy on my talk page) that it should be like (x), reliable sources attest so as well. Noorullah (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Noorullah - It isnt your perogative to change the result, it is still in discussion, a consensus doesn't happen that quick. Eastfarthingan (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Eastfarthingan I'm sorry but that is starting to become WP:ICANTHEARYOU, 3 editors have already weighed their opinion. Please refrain from further editing the result parameter [Until a new result consensus] can be agreed upon, the current one is made clear. I've provided a myriad of sources and you've provided nothing back thus far either. Noorullah (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I've heard your part, but we have reliable sources calling this a pretty clear Afghan victory (through meeting their objectives), not militarially -- other editors have agreed with this. See WP:UNANIMOUS. Noorullah (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@FarSouthNavy You've added more sources toward an Afghan victory -- Do you have anything else you'd like to share in this ongoing discussion I ask?

@Noorullah Hi! I want to make clear that since my knowledge of the subject is quite superficial, my only intention was to add a reliable statement from a recognized political analyst. I only would to say that the case for the Afghan victory seems to be solid.Darius (talk)

Though where you stand seems pretty clear thus far. (This would make a 4th editor support this in this case). Noorullah (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Noorullah, at what point was this consensus done with? Until you said so? We only started this conversation four days ago, so why are you in such a hurry to sort this? That’s not how it works - I’d like to point out that a consensus on wiki is not a WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. So far however it is only you, me & @Someguywhosbored on this page that have discussed this, if DonBeroni and others were involved in the discussion here it would help too, rather than have it discussed on your talk page. Nevertheless I would be happy to make a propsoal to approve or oppose the current result if necessary. As a compromise I shall leave the result as it is. There is also another step can go down with WP:DRR but we haven't reached that stage yet, and hopefully we won't have to. Eastfarthingan (talk) 10:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Someguywhosbored in answer to query regarding the goal of Peshawar, in Jonathan Lee's 'Afghanistan: A History from 1260 to the Present' on page 455 it says: seize control of the Khyber Pass and attack Peshawar. Meanwhile, Mahmud Tarzi and the Indian revolutionaries, with the help of the Afghan agent in Peshawar, planned an uprising in Peshawar to coincide with Saleh Muhammad Khan's advance. Hope that helps. Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Eastfarthingan Firstly (referring to Peshawar here), it says that was not the overall objective of the war (as in goal for the war) if that makes sense, it was just something to capture in the war, Lee doesn't state it as a war goal. (As in something the Afghans intend to take/annex). Unless you have a source otherwise that shows it was something they intended to take in the war for after the war, I showed above in quotes that Iranica and Lee don't mention it, and state other reasons for the war.

You're correct, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but editing as a form of consensus also exists, see WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. DonBeroni had expressed their opinion in the past agreeing with the edit, (with no objections to it until recently), thus creating a new consensus. FarSouthNavy has done the same thing through editing on the page by adding references, while Someguywhosebored has directly expressed their support.

I've also reworded your most recent edit to try and avoid close paraphrasing, because I've ran into that problem a long time ago. [7]

"Nevertheless I would be happy to make a propsoal to approve or oppose the current result if necessary." -- What is your proposal specifically? Can you elaborate? Sorry, but I didn't fully get what you mean by this. Noorullah (talk) 12:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I think he stated that he’s okay with compromising and leaving this in the article for now. We can still have future discussions about the result if any other concern is raised. Someguywhosbored (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

About this quote, “seize control of the Khyber Pass and attack Peshawar. Meanwhile, Mahmud Tarzi and the Indian revolutionaries, with the help of the Afghan agent in Peshawar, planned an uprising in Peshawar to coincide with Saleh Muhammad Khan's advance”

I don’t think this really says anything about Amanullahs initial aims for this conflict. Planning an uprising can just be another means of supporting their war effort, or in this case to achieve another strategic goal, which was Afghanistan’s independence(de jure recognition). I think there needs to be a quote specifying that Amanullah or the state launched the invasion with the primary intention of capturing Peshawar and KPK in particular. Because that seems to be in stark contrast to the sources we have at hand including iranica, which states that Afghanistan invaded for control of its foreign policy/to secure external independence. I can’t find anything seeming to suggest that capturing Peshawar was their main objective. And this quote you shared doesn’t really do so either @Eastfarthingan Someguywhosbored (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Noorullah exactly as Someguywhosbored stated. A way to vote (approve or oppose) in a further discussion. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Someguywhosbored Are you questioning a source? 'His objective was to seize control of the Khyber Pass and attack Peshawar' as in (General Saleh Muhammad Khan) Also at the treaty, the Afghan delegation 'demanded recognition of Afghanistan's sovereignty over the whole of the Tribal Territory' (Lee, Page 460) ie within British India. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

"Mahmud Tarzi and the Indian revolutionaries, with the help of the Afghan agent in Peshawar, planned an uprising in Peshawar to coincide with Saleh Muhammad Khan’s advance." -- This is again for the war itself, not the actual aims for the conflict as @Someguywhosbored mentioned..

As I've (and now Someguywhosbored) pointed out in quotes from Iranica and Lee, the war goals are already well established in this discussion, Peshawar was not the objective of the war.

Also wouldn't that be basically an RFC and/or then treating this as a vote, which is something I and you should avoid now? (as you earlier mentioned).

We already have a growing consensus again as I mentioned, I hate to repeat myself but; see WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, and WP:UNANIMOUS, DonBeroni had expressed their opinion in the past agreeing with the edit, (with no objections to it until recently), thus creating a new consensus. FarSouthNavy has done the same thing through editing on the page by adding references, while Someguywhosebored has directly expressed their support on the talk page. Noorullah (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

No I wasn’t questioning the source at all. I was just saying that you need a quote specifying that the initial aims for this conflict were to integrate Peshawar into Afghanistan. You can attack a city with a different strategic goal in mind which has happened countless times in history. The Afghans also attacked and captured Bagh but nobody would seriously claim they initiated the third Anglo afghan war just for that town. Obviously they had an overall goal in mind.

It’s clear Amanullah launched the invasion with the primary intention of winning external independence. Anything else would be secondary.

Your second quote is interesting but let’s read the entire quote.

“Despite Dobbs’s hope that the Afghans would be conciliatory, Loynab ‘Ali Ahmad took an uncompromising approach, demanding the restoration of the Amir’s subsidy, the payment of a war indemnity and recognition of Afghanistan's sovereignty over the whole of the Tribal Territory. Sir Alfred Grant, Britain’s chief negotiator, rejected these demands and bluntly informed the delegates that the draft treaty placed on the table by Britain was the ‘utmost to which his Majesty’s Government is prepared to go, all we require is your acceptance or rejection.'* Loynab ‘Ali Ahmad, however, insisted that Britain give ‘some definite assurances in writing ... as regards independence of our foreign relations.”

It’s clear he was taking a hardline approach on the diplomatic table, but was very insistent on recognition of Afghanistan’s foreign policy over all else even after the British shot down those other demands. Proving once again that those all came secondary to control of Afghanistans external affairs.

@Eastfarthingan Someguywhosbored (talk) 14:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Noorullah - ‘Peshawar was not the objective of the war.’ It may not have been a major objective but it was an objective nonetheless, yes even if it meant for Afghanistan’s internal or external affairs.

It was a ‘’’proposal’’’ in the event this carries on further, not an actual demand, it’s not happening at present so why bother being concerned by it?

‘’We already have a growing consensus again as I mentioned, I hate to repeat myself’’

Why are you repeating yourself since I never asked to be reminded? Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm repeating myself because you're exhibiting WP:ICANTHEARYOU.

"But it was an objective nonetheless," -- Do you have a source that says so? We cited two sources that state the contrary on the actual war goal, and you haven't been able to produce anything other then a statement from Lee that @Someguywhosbored addressed, while I cited from Iranica. @Eastfarthingan Noorullah (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes I do:

Amanullah Khan, who had just become the country's ruler after his father's assassination, sent troops across the border into British India in May 1919 in an attempt to capture Peshawar and other towns that many Afghans considered theirs. 'Ghosts of Afghanistan: The Haunted Battleground. Jonathan Steele' - Page 111

With designs on capturing Peshawar, Amanullah rushed troops to the border. Any excuse was valid for rattling the British while enhancing the amir's prestige among the Frontier tribes by standing up to the Raj. Amanullah obviously harboured designs on the tribal lands between the political border and Peshawar, a territory that Afghan rulers have always claimed as their historic national territory. 'The Khyber Rifles: From the British Raj to Al Qaeda'. Dr Jules Stewart, Page 182

‘'An avowed Afghan purpose in the third Afghan War was to secure independence for the Pushtan in British India’'. ‘Afghanistan’ Louis Dupree p. 485.

I'll try and find some more. Eastfarthingan (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I'm convinced on that being an objective then, after also looking at this;

"Amanullah Khan ordered a ceasefire on 3 June 1919. His ambitious plans to reclaim Peshawar and throw the British out of India had failed.

But the Treaty of Rawalpindi (8 August 1919) that brought the war to an end did recognise full Afghan independence and finally gave the Afghans the right to conduct their own foreign affairs. This had probably been Amanullah’s real goal." [8]

It didn't appear to be the main goal as you mentioned, but one of the objectives in the end they hoped to obtain. Noorullah (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I've rejigged the lede to make it flow and also include the main objective (independence) and the other objectives such as power legitimacy and push into British India and seize back territory. Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

That looks good to me! Only thing I will say is maybe Peshawar doesn’t need to be mentioned because it’s already included in the frontier regions/provinces. It could just say provinces (which it already does), because Peshawar resides in that territory. And the Afghans also attempted to seize other territories like in Bagh which they did capture, so there’s no need to single out Peshawar. But that’s just my suggestion and if you feel that Peshawar should still be part of the lead, then I don’t really have much of an objection. I’m not going to be editing it out myself so it’s up to you. Someguywhosbored (talk) 05:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. ✔️ Eastfarthingan (talk) 08:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, not only for that but also your other informative additions to the lead. Well done! 👍 Someguywhosbored (talk) 05:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)