Talk:Cis-Sutlej states

Wrong assertions
Stop adding wrong facts that Cis-Sutlej states were "HINDU STATES", they were primarily Sikh states with few exceptions, and that [Scindhias|Scindhia dynasty]] was a Rajput dynasty instead of a Maratha dynasty. These are well sourced, established FACTS, stop changing them. Shimlaites (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Viceregent of Mughal Emperor was Mahadji Shinde
Many historians and sources such as Hari Ram Gupta have mentioned that Mahadji Shinde or Sindhia was the viceregent of Mughal Emperor Shah Alam II and on behalf of the emperor, Mahadji was given task to bring peace in the territories of Mughal Kingdom.Javerine (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Stop removing citations. You have removed all the properly defined citation just to add one vague citation and that too to push your POV. All the citations added here clearly says that these states were under Maratha domination from 1785 and Mughals themselves were under Maratha protection in Delhi till the second Anglo-Maratha war. Mughal throne formally even existed till 1857, that doesn't mean that Mughals were ruling India till then, it was the British East India company. You can not add original research and remove properly cited material. Do not add POV or you will be blocked. Use talk page to discuss instead of vandalizing. CrashLandingNew (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no original search. All information provided were from acclaimed historians such as Hari Ram Gupta. No sources make any mention about tributes or any mention of "Maratha domination". Mahadji acted as regent of Mughal Emperor to bring stability to his territories of Cis-Sutlej states. Most of the information I provided also came from the sources that already existed before on the article, so please don't make false claims of original research.Javerine (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * All the citations clearly call Maratha the dominant power in this region as well as the protectors of the Mughal authority. Sindhia has been described as the Regent of the Mughals, which has been mentioned on the page, the latter were under his protection. Mughal Empire formally existed till 1857 that doesn't mean they were ruling India till then. No source call Cis-Sutlej Mughal controlled but Maratha controlled, even Gupta. Add quotes from ur prefered source Gupta to present your version. CrashLandingNew (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Cis-Sutlej was under the reign of the Mughal Empire and that is what the sources mention. Mahadji was a "regent" of the emperor and don't mention about any Maratha control over it but just "influence". Also where does it mention that treaty stayed in place from 1785 to 1803 in the source of Chaurasia and Gupta or about tribute, when clearly the treaty was broken right after it was made and there are detail information about skirmishes, battles, animosities between the Cis-Sutlej and Mahadji and even after Mahadji's death in 1794, in the sources of Chaurasia and Gupta. And you also removed all the additional information provided from these well important sources. Gupta states on page 169 and 170 of his book, "Afrasiyab, the regent of the Mughal Empire, was murdered by Zain-ul- Abidin Khan on the 2nd November, 1784.^ The news staggered Shah Alam II who had none else in his court to appoint in place of the deceased." "Shah Alam 11 was aware that Mahadji Sindhia was the only man who could remain obedient to him, and who was capable of establishing peace and order in the kingdom." "The Emperor met the Maratha chief at Khanua near Agra and in a secret conference on the 17th November told him; “You must undertake the regency of my house and regulate my empire.” "On the 4th December at another public darbar the Emperor bestowed the highest post of Vakahi-Mutlaq [Regent Plenipotentiary] on Mahadji Sindhia. This office was so rarely filled that only three previous instances, under Akbar, Shahjahan and Bahadur Shah I, existed in the whole range of the Mughal rule in India." And about treaty, Gupta says "The peace-parleys continued for a month, when Mahadji Sindhia concluded the following treaty with them on behalf of the Sikh chiefs on the 9th May, 1785". Followed with "No sooner was the treaty signed than misgivings arose between them. The Sikhs did not wish to abide by the treaty. Only a day later the treaty was signed, James Anderson wrote to the Governor-General that “ there was little probability of a sincere union taking place between the Mahrattas and the Seiks.” At this prospect he expressed his opinion that “ it is perhaps on the whole more favourable to the interests of the Company that they should continue to be disunited". Even R.S. CHaurasia gives these detail infomations. Javerine (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Check the sources cited, The arrangement remained in place till 1803. Also note that after Mahadji, Daulat Rao Scindia continued to exert influence over these areas. Marathas as Regent of Mughal has been clearly described. Mughals were under their protection not the other way. What you are trying to do is make Mughals the final sovereign, when in fact all the sources clearly mention Marathas as the sovereigns of the territory after 1785. It's not the second Anglo-Mughal war, it's the second Anglo-Maratha war that took place in 1803. CrashLandingNew (talk) 02:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * More sources here that highlight how Mughals were mere protectorates of the Marathas and that Marathas maintained a hegemony over the Mughal affairs in Delhi.


 * You are mentioning probabilities and opinions not what's recorded. The skirmishes/incidents between the two groups happened but that doesn't mean the agreement didn't exist, in fact, skirmishes happened coz the Marathas were collecting their share of tax. CrashLandingNew (talk) 02:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)


 * After reviewing the sources, not a single source states that Cis-Sutlej belonged or was part of the Maratha empire. You are proving my point that Cis-Sutlej belonged to Mughal Empire and Mahadaji Sindhia was appointed as viceregent or wakil-i-mutliq by the MUghal emperor to maintain order of his territories. If CIs0sutlej belonged to Maratha Empire, why would a "Mughal Emperor" appoint him a viceregent? And please do tell that "influence" means that the Cis-Sutlej was part of Maratha Empire. Not a single source has made any such statement and you are using your own interpreted sentence and falsely using different sources to support it. Even R.S Chaurasia and Hari Ram Gupta or even Shailandra Seth do not make any such statement in their sources. Javerine (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * They all mention Cis-Sutlej being controlled by the Marathas, are you even reading the sources? CrashLandingNew (talk) 11:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No they do not make any statement about territories being part of or belonging to Maratha Empire and I definitely am reading sources page by page. The control is given through Mughal Emperor after appointing as emperor's kingdom's viceregent. Are you taking the initiative to go through such detail? Javerine (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

These detailed informations and sources that needs to be included in the article
The Cis-Sutlej states were a group of states in the contemporary Punjab and Haryana states of northern India during the 19th century, lying between the Sutlej River in the north, the Himalayas in the east, the Yamuna River and Delhi District in the south, and Sirsa District in the west.


 * All of it is already on the page but you want to remove the part about Maratha rule in this section. CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

History
The Cis-Sutlej state was ruled by many chiefs though it belonged to Mughal Empire. Mughal Emperor Shah Alam II's viceregent Afrasiyab was killed by Zain-ul-Abidin Khan on 2 November 1784, thus leaving no one to appoint as the next viceregent. Thus Mughal Emperor appointed Mahadji Sindhia as viceregent of the empire as Shah Alam II knew that Sindhia is the only one who would remain acquiescent to him and would be able to maintain peace and order in his kingdom. Therefore, Mahadji as newly appointed viceregent of the Mughal Emperor, tried to come to an agreement with the Cis-Sutlej chiefs and concluded a treaty in May 1785, which however fell apart as the chiefs did not observe the terms of the treaty. But in 1789, a peaceful agreement was set in place where Sindhia legitamized the chiefs to collect tributes from the villages and the purpose behind Mahadji's policy was to win over the chiefs by friendship, but this policy too failed. After Mahadji's death in 1794, Daulat Rao was made his replacement, under whom the unstable conditions continued against the chiefs till the Second Anglo-Maratha War, losing any influence over Cis-Sutlej state and parts of Uttar Pradesh, which he supervised on behalf of the Mughal Emperor. Following the Second Anglo-Maratha War in 1806, Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington drafted a treaty granting independence to the Sikh clans east of the Sutlej River in exchange for their allegiance to the British General Gerard Lake acting on his dispatch. At the conclusion of the war, the frontier of British India was extended to the Yamuna.

Ranjit Singh led three expeditions into Cis-Sutlej states in 1806, 1807 and 1808, seizing many territories, particularly 45 district subdivisions or administrative units (parganas) and then distributed them among different chiefs who would pay annual tributes of certain amount as recognition of Ranjit Singh's supremacy. Ranjit Singh gave some territories of Cis-Sutlej to his mother in law Rani Sada Kaur and granted a good deal of villages to his general Dewan Mokham Chand. In all 45 paraganas, Ranjit Singh assigned salaried agents to different territories who sustained some soldiers for internal administration to retrieve revenues from lands. Some of the important vassal territories of Sikh empire were, Anandpur, Rupar, Himmatpur, Wadni, Harikepatan, Firozpur and Mamdot. An 1809 agreement with Ranjit Singh, emperor of the Sikh Empire west of the Sutlej, brought the territories under the aegis of Ranjit Singh's Sikh Empire's dominion from Anandpur to Mamdot. On 29 July 1809, David Ochterlony also recognized under Ranjit Singh's supremacy, large territory from Chamkaur to Harikepatan and Kot Kapura, 102 villages in the tehsil of Dharamkot, Zira and Kot Kapura, 90 districts in the paraganah of Ludhiana- Sirhind, 106 villages in the tehsil of Talwandi and Naraingarh, 38 villages secured to Raja Jaswant Singh of Nabha, 32 villages in the tehsil of Baddowal secured to Gurdit Singh of Ladwa, 36 villages in the tehsil of Ghungrana secured to Karam Singh Nagia, 62 villages in the tehsil of Dharamkot granted to Garbha Singh of Bharatgarh, many number of villages granted to Jodh Singh of Kalsia, Basant Singh, Atar Singh, Jodh Singh of Bassia and Ranjit Singh's mother in law Sada Kaur was granted with Himmatpur-Wadni. The Cis-Sutlej states included Kaithal, Patiala, Jind, Thanesar, Maler Kotla and Faridkot.

Before 1846 the greater part of this territory was relatively independent, the chiefs being subject to supervision from a political officer stationed at Umballa, and styled the agent of the British Governor-General of India for the Cis-Sutlej states. A number of states were confiscated or acquired by Britain under the Doctrine of Lapse. After the First Anglo-Sikh War the full administration of the territory became vested in this officer. In 1849, Punjab was annexed to British India, when the Cis-Sutlej states commissionership, comprising the districts of Ambala, Ferozepore, Ludhiana, Thanesar and Simla, was incorporated with the new Punjab Province. The name continued to be applied to this division until 1862, when—owing to Ferozepore having been transferred to Lahore Division and a part of Thanesar to Delhi Division—it ceased to be appropriate. The remaining tract became known as the Ambala Division. The princely states of Patiala, Jind, and Nabha were appointed a separate political agency in 1901. Excluding Bahawalpur (for which there was no political agent) and Chamba, the other states were grouped under the commissioners of Jullunder and Delhi, and the superintendent of the Simla Hill States. All native states, except Kaithal, would join PEPSU after India's independence. Javerine (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Again, what is your problem with the Marathas, all the sources clearly call Marathas as the rulers not Mughals. Marathas became the Regent of Mughals and kept them under their protection. Again i repeat, Mughal empire lasted till 1857, doesn't mean they were ruling over the British East India company. CrashLandingNew (talk) 02:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)


 * What is this? You have copy pasted the whole page itself. Keep the discussion on points rather than copy pasting the whole page itself. CrashLandingNew (talk) 02:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Instead of adding whole versions, kindly narrow down the differences so we can invite the editors to join the discussion. CrashLandingNew (talk) 05:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)


 * As suggested by other editor, it is needed to provide information and sources to run a comparison. What made you think that there is problem with the Marathas. We have to go by the book as editors and state what is mentioned in the book instead of making interpretations of own. What all sources shows that Cis-Sutlej belong to Maratha Empire or was part of Maratha Empire? None.Javerine (talk) 11:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You are moving in circles. The citations clearly call Marathas the hegemons of the Mughal affairs and all these small states, even the quotes have been provided. Kindly bother to check the citation instead of being selective. None of the citations call Cis-Sutlej states being controlled by the Mughals but the Marathas, who again I repeat, multiple sources here, mention as the hegemons of the Mughals. CrashLandingNew (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * They don't say that Cis-Sutlej was part of Maratha Empire. Even Durrani had hegemony over Mughal Affairs, Even British appointed had hegemony over Maratha affairs but doesn't mean that the territories belong to those who had hegemony. Come on now.Javerine (talk) 11:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You are being selective in ur observation, you call these states part of the Mughal authority but you are intentionally or unintentionally removing the part which states that the Marathas controlled these territories in the name of Mughals as the Marathas were the hegemons over Mughal affairs. It has been well established by the citation that after 1784, when Sindhia installed Shah Alam in Delhi, he maintained suzerainty over Mughal affairs. The Durranis and British maintained suzerainty at different periods in history. CrashLandingNew (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you are going in circle rather intentionally. If you go by the book and the clear statements made, without making own assumptions or interpretations, its clear that the territories belonged to Mughal Emperor. Sentence from Suzerainty over Mughal affairs and being employed by Mughal Emperor doesn't mean the territorial belonging or occupation of another Kingdom but an infuence has been brought in to maintain order. Not sure what you mean by Durrani and British maintained suzerainty at different periods and I do not want to go into different topic. Even R.S Chaurasia clearly mentions that The Cis-Sutlej state was ruled by many chiefs though it belonged to Mughal Empire. Javerine (talk) 11:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Seriously, you are denying every citation here that states that Marathas maintained suzerainty over the Mughal affairs and controlled these states even Chaurasia, even when British took controlled of these states they did so as Regent of the British not as the rulers. These territories were Maratha protectorate till 1806 and then became British protectorate in 1809. All the citations clearly state this. CrashLandingNew (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What you mean denying every citation? None of the citation you provided claim Cis-Sutlej was Maratha territories. Whoever is appointed as viceregent, takes responsibility of maintaining order and the sources clearly mention that Shah Alam II thought of Mahadji as someone who would be obedient to him and thus appointed him. This doesn't mean that the territories belong to hm now. Even British were protectorate of Afghanistan to manage foreign affairs and this didn't mean that Afghanistan land or territories belong to British.Javerine (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Make a compilation of all the citations regarding who controlled these states till 1803 as hegemons, Marathas or Mughals and add them here. Take your time search all internet if you want. CrashLandingNew (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Crux
The crux of the discussion regarding changes here is that User:Javerine wants Mughals to be declared as the rulers of these states for the time period of 1785-1806, instead of the Marathas and further, he wants to add more than required details of three years i.e. 1806-1809, the interim period before the British rule in 1809, when parts of these states were invaded by Ranjit Singh's forces and were captured briefly. CrashLandingNew (talk) 06:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @CrashLandingNew @Javerine He cited a lot of sources with his edits. Do you have any to provide to support your argument about the cis-Sutlej states being tributaries or suzerainty of the Maratha empire rather than the Mughals? ThethPunjabi (talk) 10:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Which sources are you talking about specifically? Kindly mention them, "...a lot of sources" is a blanket term. In fact, User:Javerine is solely relying on the work of Hari Ram Gupta instead of using multiple sources. Multiple sources cited here say that Marathas maintained hegemony over Mughal affairs in Delhi, just like British did after them till 1857. What Javerine is trying to insinuate here is that Marathas were mere employees of the Mughals and the latter were the dominant power in the region. For instance these citations,

they all call Marathas as the dominant power in the region not Mughals. All these citations mention Marathas as the dominant power with Mughals as their mere protectorates. You can't remove Marathas and add Mughals as the rulers. CrashLandingNew (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, kindly mention the specific sources with quotations to support your edits. Hari Ram Gupta's work is not visible nor the user has quoted what's written in them about the topic. CrashLandingNew (talk) 10:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I already provided comments by Gupta from his book which seems like you ignored earlier but here it is in bold. Gupta states on page 169 and 170 of his book, '''Afrasiyab, the regent of the Mughal Empire, was murdered by Zain-ul- Abidin Khan on the 2nd November, 1784. The news staggered Shah Alam II who had none else in his court to appoint in place of the deceased. Shah Alam 11 was aware that Mahadji Sindhia was the only man who could remain obedient to him, and who was capable of establishing peace and order in the kingdom. The Emperor met the Maratha chief at Khanua near Agra and in a secret conference on the 17th November told him; You must undertake the regency of my house and regulate my empire.''' '''On the 4th December at another public darbar the Emperor bestowed the highest post of Vakahi-Mutlaq [Regent Plenipotentiary] on Mahadji Sindhia. This office was so rarely filled that only three previous instances, under Akbar, Shahjahan and Bahadur Shah I, existed in the whole range of the Mughal rule in India." And about treaty, Gupta says "The peace-parleys continued for a month, when Mahadji Sindhia concluded the following treaty with them on behalf of the Sikh chiefs on the 9th May, 1785". No sooner was the treaty signed than misgivings arose between them. The Sikhs did not wish to abide by the treaty. Only a day later the treaty was signed, James Anderson wrote to the Governor-General that “ there was little probability of a sincere union taking place between the Mahrattas and the Seiks.” At this prospect he expressed his opinion that “ it is perhaps on the whole more favourable to the interests of the Company that they should continue to be disunited'''. Even go through pages 167 to 170 of R.S. CHaurasia's book which gives these detail informations .Javerine (talk) 11:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Your own source says that it was Marathas who were dealing with the Sikhs not the Mughals as they Marathas maintained hegemony over Mughals. CrashLandingNew (talk) 11:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What part of Mahadji appointed as viceregent by Mughal Emperor didn't you understand? Javerine (talk) 11:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What part of the citations are not understandable to you? They all call Marathas as the dominant power and Mughals as the mere protectorates of the former. Viceregent didn't mean that Marathas were below the Mughals in hierarchy and power structure. In fact, Marathas controlling these territories as regents of the Mughals is mentioned already. Even British ruled India till 1857 as regents of Mughals not masters. Marathas controlled Cis-Sutlej, including Tax collection as the regents of the Mughals as they maintained suzerainty over the latter.CrashLandingNew (talk) 11:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * They all have no statement on the topic of discussion. It was viceregent's job to maintain order for the Mughal Emperor but he failed and died in 1794, followed with same conclusion by Daulat Rao SIndhia.Javerine (talk) 11:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * So now you are not coming up with your own interpretation of what the role of a regent is? Marathas as regent of Mughals were not their employees they were their masters, like the British were till 1857 before they deposed Mughals formally. All the sources cited here clearly mention Marathas as regents of the Mughal authority and the hegemons over these states and he/they didn't fail, these states were never able to fall under the rule of Ranjit Singh and were later won by the British when they replaced the Marathas as the regents in Delhi.CrashLandingNew (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Not interpretation but by definition and what the sources mention as Mahadji and later Daulat as the viceregent appointed by the Mughal Emperor of his kingdom. And in 1809 45 paraganahs of the Northern Cis-Sutlej state were kept under Sikh domination and the rest under British protectorate. All this information is given in great detail but I think this is not what your dispute is on, rather on whether the territories belonged to Mughal or Maratha Empire but clearly even after repeatable cycle about hegemony and suzerainty, Mahadji was an appointed viceregent of the Mughal Emperor to maintain order of his territories an this doesn't make it part of Maratha Empire.Javerine (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * They were part of the Maratha confederacy as the Marathas being the protectors and regents of the Mughals maintained suzerainty over these states. Again, all citations call Marathas as the protectors and controllers of these territories. In fact the reason Ranjit Singh dared to invade these territories only after 1806 was because the Marathas were out due to their defeat in the second Anglo-Maratha war. After 1809, the British became the protectors of the Mughals and Delhi and controlled all the territory in their name. Would you call these states part of the Mughal empire and not Company rule? Post 1809 history is to be discussed seperately. CrashLandingNew (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Not correct as protectors or protectorate do not make claim over territories especially when appointed and no citations make statement that the territories belonged or were part of Maratha Empire. Ranjit Singh actually invaded territories in 1806, 1807 and 1808. Here is detailed information from Gupta's book about treaty in 1809. '''David Ochterlony's Note, dated 29 July, 1809

1. A large part of the territory along river Satluj from Chamkaur to Harikepatan and Kot Kapura worth about 4 lakh of rupees annually was kept directly under Lahore Government. 2. His Commander-in-Chief Diwan Mohkam Chand was granted 102 villages in the taluqas of Dharamkot, Zira and Kot Kapura of the value of Rs. 68,900 annually. This territory also belonged to Ranjit Singh. 3. Ranjit Singh's maternal uncle, Raja Bhag Singh of Jind, was given 90 villages in the parganahs of Ludhiana-Sirhind fetching annual reve- nues of Rs. 41,700. 4. Ranjit Singh's turbaned-brother, Fatah Singh Ahluwalia of Kapurthala, received 106 villages in the taluqas of Talwandi and Naraingarh worth Rs. 40,505 a year. 5. Jodh Singh of Bassia 1 was assigned a number of villages to the annual value of Rs. 42,000. 6. Raja Jaswant Singh of Nabha secured 38 villages bringing annual revenue of Rs. 30,040. 7. Gurdit Singh of Ladwa got 32 villages in the taluqa of Baddowal yielding Rs. 23,540. 8. Karam Singh Nagla obtained 36 villages in the taluqa of Ghungrana worth Rs. 23,415. 9. Garbha Singh of Bharatgarh was granted 62 villages in the taluqa of Dharamkot fetching an annual revenue of Rs. 22,63410. Jodh Singh Kalsia of Chhachhrauli was given villages worth Rs. 10,000 a year. 1 1. Basant Singh received villages to the annual value of Rs. 6,914. 12. Atar Singh was assigned villages worth Rs. 4,000. 13. Ranjit Singh's mother-in-law, Sada Kaur, was granted Himmatpur Wadni near Moga with the stipulation that she would pay Rs. 15,000 per year. 14. Raja Sahib Singh of Patiala and Bhai Lai Singh of Kaithal got nothing. These grants were made on the specific condition that the recipients accepted subordination to Ranjit Singh as their overlord Territories from Chamkaur to Mamdot fell under him through the treaty while the remaining part of the CIs-Sutlej state remained under British protectorate. Gupta states '''Ranjit Singh possessed some 45 taluqas wholly or in share with others on the British side of the River Satluj. In these districts Ranjit Singh appointed his agents. They maintained a certain number of troops necessary for internal administration on the proceeds from their lands. The agents were paid salary in cash. For example. Waisakha Singh incharge of Zira got Rs. 1,000 per mensem.''' Javerine (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There should be a balance when you are considering multiple sources and you have to come to a common ground to accommodate all the reliable sources instead of just picking the ones as preferred and ignoring the rest. In my last change, all the references were properly placed where they supported the statement. Shailendra was a miss but that too helps my changes.Javerine (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)