Talk:Gulab Singh

Succession Box

Shouldn't this have a succcession box? -- --iFaqeer 05:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. I've added one. The other articles in the succession need work, though. -- TinaSparkle 14:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

Doesn't sound neutral to me: "In an age where the aristocracy was hopelessly depraved and treacherous, Gulab Singh managed to preserve and expand his kingdom, which was maintained by his successors until the Pakistani invasion of 1947-48. He pushed the boundaries of India into Tibet and Xinjiang, and brought them within range of Central Asia and Afghanistan—if the successive Indian governments failed to capitalize on this achievement, the blame rests on the lack of vision (and the unfavorable international situation) of their early leaders." But I have not altered it. --RandomWalker 17:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Bobjuch corrected the problem. --RandomWalker 17:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Name of page

I've renamed the page from "Maharaja Gulab Singh" to "Gulab Singh of Kashmir" in line with Wikipedia's naming conventions on royalty. -- TinaSparkle 14:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

In that case can you further correct the name to "Gulab Singh of Jammu and Kashmir" since that was the complete name of his kingdom. Kashmir was only a sub-region.

Thanks and regards, Jagat Singh Sambyal of Jammu.

Very fair point. I'll do this, if there are no objections? -- TinaSparkle 09:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Tina.

Also his son's name was Ranbir and not Rambir. I'll try to obtain a photo and some detailed info about him.

Since there have been no objections, I've moved this page as requested. I hope this is uncontroversial but, if anyone has any objections, please raise them on this talk page for discussion rather than just switching the page back. The correct name for the kingdom would be the name Gulab Singh himself used, or the one that was in common use during his reign. I am not sure of the facts myself, but would be grateful for any supporting references (to 19th century sources, not modern websites!) as almost everything about the history of J&K appears to be a subject of intense controversy. -- TinaSparkle 14:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible move to "Gulab Singh of Kashmir and Jammu"

I am not too happy with name of the page, it is just not correct to refer to the Maharaja as "Gulab Singh of Jammu and Kashmir" because the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir did not exist at that time. The name of the former princely state, which he was Maharaja of indeed and this article should refer to, is Kashmir and Jammu. I hope someone can clear this confusion quickly. If there is no actions being taken, I will do this job myself. Sandip90 (talk) 10:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The name of the kingdom was Jammu and Kashmir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsisdj (talk • contribs) 10:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, earlier, Gulab Singh had control in Jammu only. Later this extented to Kashmir with the help of Britishs. --Vssun (talk) 10:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Reality of kingship of heirs of Gulab Singh

I have moved the following unsourced paragraph here from the article as it was in an inappropriate section and is more relevant to the talk section. Apuldram (talk) 09:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The history of gulab singh seems to be conflict with history of family in book heir apparent by Dr karan singh who mentioned that gulab singh came with his fath kishora singh from agra to Jammu during famine in agra and thousands came from UP with him but all were mahajan and against claim in gulab nama he was jamwal actually was Kushwaha as per book heir apparent a backward caste in UP and scheduled caste in Bihar but in Jammu he posed high class but he was denied along with baj of badodi service by raja of Akhnoor Raja alam singh as per folk lore of Gulam nabi sung on TV then he sought service in varios ryasts finally in Lahore durbar but he was conferred title of raja of Jammu belween cheab and ravi as per book rajdarshni by GD Wadhwa but he was never raja of Akhnoor and asper that book no rajtilk took place at jia pota as rajtilk he applied himself at sthan of maldev Jammu but to annex Akhnoor gulab sigh's grand son coined stories and finally hari singh took raj tilk from one persond cited as adopted son of rani sahiba of nihal singh brother of raja Alam singh but sheikh Abdullah knew that accession has many faults as Kashmir was purchased property never joined to Jammu by any order except hari singh claimed to be maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir and gulab singh and hari singh being of low caste could not become raja of Jammu as per hindu law which required high genealogy and genealogy made by gulab singh family was fake and J&K constitution was not approved by hari singh in 1957 so Bakshi gulam mohd through SC in case KN kaul v/s state in 1959 argued power in hands of people after hari singh left the state and finally Shaikh tried to placate old rajas one of whom mian dido he got statue installed in jammu but other sons of old Rajas of Akhnoor claimed installation of statue or to vacate Akhnoor ryast to be run by raja as it was neither conquered by Gulab singh nor by Hari singh and process of Rajtilk was farce arranged by yousaf @ kartar chowkidar of raja poonch .All said done neither Gulab singh nor his sons can be called undisputed kings of Jammu but can be called owner of Kashmir

The paragraph was added to the article by 59.89.1.146 Apuldram (talk) 09:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect quoting from Hastings Donnan's reference

The entire text of "Clash with Afghan tribesmen is incorrect", one can see by clicking on the link given. So i have corrected it. Sudhans, Satis and Dhunds are Kashmiri tribes of present day Pakistani controlled Kashmir, Gulab Singh acted against them, not Yusufzais. Moreover it was Painda Khan Tanoli of Hazara, not Afridi, who rose in revolt in 1837.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jawwad khan marwat (talk • contribs) 00:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Colorful art of Shams Khan.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

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)

Gulab Singh helped the British?

I changed the lead sentence that said "Gulab Singh helped the British against the Sikhs" to a weaker form "Gulab singh stayed aloof resulting in a British victory". It is not fully satisfactory (in fact, I doubt there is a good one-sentence description of the affair), but it is better than what existed. The facts are something like this:

• Gulab Singh did not fight along with the Sikhs.
• He accepted the position of Diwan in the midst of the war, but did not lead the war effort effectively.
• After the defeat, he negotiated truce terms with the British, which the Sikhs perceived as a sell-out.

Each of these has lots of ifs and buts, and it is not easy to pin the blame on any one party. Everybody was looking after their own interests, and so was Gulab Singh. His interests were (i) preserving his possessions and (ii) maintaining friendly relations with the British. If the Sikhs wanted to fight a war, it was their business. He didn't design any of it. He got put into a situation and he played his cards so as to come out a winner. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Shams Khan

Regarding Shams Khan, Justice Yusuf Saraf says this:

A controversy has been raging since some time as to whether Shamas Khan was a Sudhan or a Maldyal? The only folk-lore available on the subject speaks of him as a Maldyal. The forts mentioned in the folklore as having been captured by him are also located at Bagh and its surroundings. Again, Malli and Sabaz Ali, both Sudhans, are the only persons, mentioned in the folk-lore as having been skinned alive. Shamas Khan had no son and according to the folk-lore it seems it was Raj Wali, his nephew, who may have been killed along with him. The folk-lore places the number of his fighting men at 500. I think it is clear that Shamas Khan was not a Sudhan but a Maldyal and the claim to the contrary now advanced, fountains from intense tribalism that has unfortunately affected the district since some years.

I don't really know what the truth is, and I don't particularly care. I think it is best to remove all mention of tribes, because it has no consequence to this page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Deja vu

Moved from User talk:Kautilya3

Dear Kautilya3, Thank you for leaving message on my profile. I am grateful that you are actively watching the historical pages and confirming it with the quoted sources. As you have rightly noted about the changes I made in the article about Maharaja Gulab Singh. There was a deliberate mistake being made by some people regarding the tribe of one of the rebel leaders i.e. Shams Khan. I, being a student of history, researched this and after viewing neutral and verified sources concluded that Shams Khan indeed belonged to the Sudhan tribe and he was headman of the Sudhan tribe. The sources you see now at the article were placed there by me. However, some sources have been removed by some editor. As I am unaware in how to add the source as per the criteria of the Wikipedia, I am sharing the sources with your good self for your perusal and verification.

1. Intelligence From Kashmir, 30 August 1837, For. Pol. 20 Oct. 1837, No. 62.

2. Journal of The Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol-X, Part I, January To June, 1841. - Alexander Cunningham (Pages 105-115) (Specific Page 112)

3. The Reigning Family of Lahore (1847) - G. C. Smyth (Pages 205 - 212)

4. Four Reports Made During The Years (1862 - 1865), Volume 2 - Alexander Cunningham (Page 13)

5. The Punjab Chiefs - Lepel Griffin (1865) - (Pages 594 - 595)

6. Gulab Singh of Jammu, Ladakh and Kashmir 1792 - 1846 (1966) - Satinder Singh Bawa (Page 28)

7. History of the Sikhs: Sikh Lion of Lahore, Maharaja Ranjit Singh (1991) Volume 5 - Hari Ram Gupta (Pages 135 and 194)

8. History of J & K Rifles (1820-1956) (1988) - Dr. K. Brahma Singh (Page 28)

9. Gulabnama by Diwan Kirpa Ram (1876) - Translation by Sukhdev Singh Charak (1977)

10. History of Jammu and Kashmir State (1980) - M. L. Kapur (Page 51)

11. Poonch: India's Invincible Citadel (2022) - Brig. J. S. Grewal (Pages 91 - 98)

Judgeonline (talk) 14:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Judgeonline, first of all, please read the passage quoted from Justice Saraf above. Secondly, most of your sources are 19th century British travellers or officials, who can be hardly relied upon for knowledge of subcontinental tribal matters. The modern sources you cite are also relying on the same sources and suffer from the same problem. One scholarly source that you cite, Satinder Singh Bawa, has no mention of Shams Khan on page 28. Other pages that do mention Shams Khan say nothing about his tribal affiliation. Finally, all this has nothing to do with Gulab Singh, and when I edit the page next time, I will be eliminating all this WP:UNDUE coverage. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Dear Kautilya3, Thank you for your reply. I have read Justice Yousaf Sarraf. Unfortunately he was not a historian and his claim relied upon a ballad which has more than 10 different versions. He was also known to be against Sudan tribe. Shams Khan had three sons who, along with their mother, were taken by Gulab Singh to Jammu and settled their in R.S.Pora. It is all written by Muhammad Din Fauq in Tarikh-e-Aqwam e Poonch and in Tarikh-e-Dogra Desh by Narsinghdas Nargis as well as Tarikh e Hassan. The sources I provided are reliable because the information was provided by the British Intelligence Officers after gathering it from the locals. These unbiased reliable sources cannot be brushed aside. I believe somehow you missed the details mentioned in the quoted references. The thesis of Dr. Satinder Singh Bawa specifically states the name Shamsuddin Khan Sudan. Similar is the case with other sources. As for the removal of the content. It would be justified to remove it. However the crushing of rebellions laid down the foundation of unified Jammu and Kashmir State which was the dream of Gulab Singh. Judgeonline (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• I can't take any cognisance of your claim that Saraf was "against" the Sudan tribe. He mentions that Malli and Sabaz Khan were Sudans. He also mentions that they were the only two people that were flayed alive. (And he also mentions the fact that Gulab Singh's actions were reprisals for the arocities that the rebels had commited, and mentions that he independently verified those claims.) He seems a lot more balanced than all these myriads of sources that are reproducing hearsay, and the British themselves were chief propagators of the hearsay.
• Bawa does indeed use "Shams-ud-Din Khan Sudan", as if it is part of his name. But in the published book, he removed the "Sudan" suffix and all claims to this effect. He also included the ballad in an appendix. Which one do you think has higher standard for Wikipedia? PhD thesis or the published book?
• You haven't provided a page number for Sukhdev Singh Charak. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.

As I stated earlier that Yusuf Sarraf was not a historian. He has made his presumptions on the basis of a Ballad. It is noteworthy that a Ballad, which surfaced in 1930s and has apparently 10 different versions, is not a reliable source of history. Do presumptions of Yusuf Sarraf based on fiction and fantasy holds more merit with Wikipedia than the books written by English Authors/Intelligence Officers published in the same century?

Moreover, Yusuf Sarraf has also presumed that Shams Khan did not had any son. It is also a false presumption as Shams Khan had three sons namely, Kala Khan, Murad Khan and Bayr Wali Khan who were taken to Jammu by Maharaja Gulab Singh and settled in Ranbir Singh Pura. Narsinghdas Nargis, Author of Tarikh-e-Dogra Desh, even met their descendants. Tarikh e Hassan mentions about sons of Shams Khan. Even the book Jammu Fox written by Satinder Singh Bawa states about his sons. Thus, respectfully, in the presence of impeccable and authentic historical sources relying on the false presumptions of Yusuf Sarraf, based on fiction and fantasy ballad, is unjustified towards the history.

Honestly, I don't believe that British authors would have achieved anything by propagating anything regarding Shams Khan and Sudhan tribe. I and my fellow researchers have visited the Site in Dhamni where Shams Khan Sudhan and his men burned Dogra soldiers alive. We have met people over there and obtained firsthand knowledge of the events from the people. Yusuf Sarraf never visited any place. He just relied on the Ballad. As far as the research goes, Alexander Cunningham personally visited these places twice, he saw the heads as well. Thus, his information cannot be brushed aside.

Indeed Satinder Singh Bawa removed the word Sudhan in his book and only mentioned Shamsuddin Khan. However, the Ballad was not relied upon by him in order to determine the tribe of Shams Khan. As no respectable and notable historian can rely on ballads when writing history. It was added as an appendix merely because it was provided to him by a Principal of a School in Poonch Jammu Kashmir. The PhD thesis and the Book, both of them have value and both cannot be ignored. Thus, I inquire whether Wikipedia prefers fiction and fantasy over unbiased reliable information provided by neutral authors of that century?

The English translation of Gulabnama by Sukhdev Singh Charak is one of the best sources to determine this issue. He mentioned Shams on Page 158 and added the footnote quoting G.C.Smyth, mentioning Shams Khan as Sudhan. The importance of this book is highlighted because of the foreward written by Dr. Karan Singh, the great grandson of Maharaja Gulab Singh. He wrote the following about the footnotes provided by Dr. Sukhdev Singh Charak in the book; "...The Scholarly footnotes which Prof. Charak has provided are a mine of useful information. They help the reader in identifying places, dates, and the persons mentioned by Diwan Kirpa Ram. By correcting and supplementing the information in Gulabnama, Prof. Charak has not only made this work accessible to a wide audience, but has provided a valuable compendium on the history of Jammu and Kashmir and indeed of northern India in the first half of the nineteenth century." From the words of Dr. Karan Singh, it can clearly be understood that Dr. Karan Singh also endorses that the Shams Khan who fought his great grandfather was from Sudhan tribe. Thus, nothing remains ambiguous anymore.

At the end I would also request that the report i.e. Intelligence From Kashmir, 30 August 1837, For. Pol. 20 Oct. 1837, No. 62, may kindly also be perused. Thank you. Judgeonline (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

No mention of the Dogra-Tibet war?

I am either going insane or this article really neglects to mention the Dogra-Tibetan war, which occured under Gulab Singh's reign (I think? It's such a trivial inclusion I feel like I'm missing something.). BonkeySmoke (talk) 06:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC)