Talk:Dahir of Aror

The questionable veracity of Chach Namah and the importance of oral history
Dear Tigeroo, we have to give due credence to Bhaats (Bards) because in India all the history of various Kshatriya clans was orally preserved by them. There were written records on temple walls but these were lost permanently in the times of Khilji and Malik Kafur etc. Regards, Rorkadian (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily an issue Rorkadian. I see you are new here, so I will elaborate a little bit. Wikipedia has some important guidelines. Primary among which are WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. Basically what this means in this case is that if the analysis of the oral history is carried out and reported by some reliable source then we can source and include it. Chach Nama is a primary source with failings with which I am aware of, which is why we do not rely on Primary sources but on a tertiary source which has appropiate expertise and has been peer-reviewed and draws its conclusions based on a review of all pertinent sources. So if you can find and source the information we can work on issues revolving around its incorporation, but if it is your personal WP:Original research then unfortunately wikipedia is cannot host it.
 * PS Also it is customary to open a new thread at the bottom of the page and not at the top.--Tigeroo (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Same issues
Same issues here as with bin-Qasim in Talk:Muhammad bin Qasim.Plz reflect changes accordingly.Hkelkar 10:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Raja Dahar was son of mother land sindh and now it is part of pakistan ,so it is our history now ,so we will take our part in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalidkhoso (talk • contribs)

The questionable veracity of the Chach Nama.
The Chach Nama can be considered to have only as much reliability as the Pakistani version of Bangladesh s war of liberation in 1971. Accounts from Bangladeshi, Western ,and Indian sources  of the events , circumstances , background play , leading to the struggle and subsequent  independence of Bangladesh seem to tell a diametrically opposite view than the official Pakistani Government explanations.

The Chach Nama is an important document no doubt but it is no gospel truth.

On the other hand the propensity to invariably belittle and  demean sons of the soil but non Islamic indigenous rulers, Sindhi , Punjabi ,Pashtun , compared to Arab , Persian conquerors   by contemporary Pakistanis is fascinating.

Surely it might not be a comforting thought to be invariably  reminded that ones forefathers were unworthy of any respect. Granted that Pakistan as India have a considerable number of people from non south Asian descent including Arabic or Persian, but an overwhelming majority are indigenous. Genealogical Accounts of Pakistani clans posted on Wikipedia tell an interesting tale, all are clamoring for foreign origins.

The Arab or Persian Royals pursued an active policy of discrimination, suspicion ,and open hostility to Indian Muslims as well. Does the zeal to create a new Pakistani history intrinsically also need to necessarily trash ones own  forefathers   ?Intothefire 06:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see Talk page guidelines. "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." Your opinion on how Pakistanis view history violates this. IP198 20:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed Paragraph
Paragraph removed:

""Assimilation and accommodation, rather than destruction and displacement, are the terms most appropriate to describe the way in which Aryan warriors established their rule among India's indigenous tribes. The resultant polity was a loose federation of tribes under the authority of a Hindu—sometimes Buddhist or Jain—king. This became the political model for Hindu and Buddhist kingdoms " "

Clashing sentence with source:

"First, the largely Buddhist population of Sind was unhappy with their Hindu rulers and their ethics of nonviolence inclined them to welcome the invaders."

The first paragraph talks about a general situation across time and area. The second paragraph is specific to Dahir.--Tigeroo 05:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Tigeroo keeps removing facts that discomfort him
Tigeroo you keep removing my edits from the main  page, even  when the source I have used is the same as the one you have used like the above. I know why you do this and I find your discomfort funny because it reveals an insecurity.

On another point your quote from above "First, the largely Buddhist population of Sind was unhappy with their Hindu rulers and their ethics of nonviolence inclined them to welcome the invaders.""

Look what the Chach Nama states itself about the distruction of the Buddhist temple to build a mosque. The ethics of violence and destruction of Qasim and his army are "unlikely to have inclined them (the non violent Buddhist ) to welcome the Invaders ...see the quote below.

"An account of the con­quest of Síwistán and some other places attached to it and the taking of the fort.  Muhammad Kásim then appointed a representative within the fort. He (also) built a mosque in the place of the idol-temple of Budh, and appointed a erier to call the people to prayer, and a priest (Imám) to be their guide in prayers and other religious matters.

So tigeroo whats your expert take on this one now ...?

CheersIntothefire 13:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You need to read the source and understand what it is saying before you quote it. If it says the sun shone brightly all summer long, then while that is indeed what it says, quoting it as a description of the sun at night on the summer solistice is an error in comprehension. As far as the rest of your post, I have no idea what you are on about, it would be easier if you could numerate and be specific with issues instead of being vague and relying on innuendo to convey your message. I suggest you visit WP:Civil, WP:OR as well as read through the following wikipedia articles:


 * 1) history
 * 2) historiography
 * 3) Primary sources
 * 4) Secondary sources
 * 5) Tertiary sources
 * 6) Peer review
 * Then read WP:RS. They should provide you with the background information required to see the issues inherent in the issues that are of concern to you and enable you to then restate the matter in a manner that enables us to have a productive discussion. To put it quite simply as an analogy; just because a woman has been elected as the head of state in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and India but not yet in nations such as France of the USA does not imply that they are more emancipated in the former than the latter nations.--Tigeroo 21:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup
Listed for the following items:
 * 1) Citation do not conform to guidelines in WP:Cite and can unverifiable.
 * 2) Sources are often from non-peer reviewed articles and questionable sites, opinion columns.
 * 3) Organization & Language - The narrative is quite confusing and hard to understand and gives less information and sounds more like a propogation of a particular view. Keep in mind the Wikipedia maxim, "Show don't tell" when attribute opinions and views.--Shamiana 14:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Is user Shamiana the same as user Tigeroo ????
Could it be ??seems the case to me. Cheers Intothefire 10:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Credible Sources that Depict Destruction
Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them by Sita Ram Goel - the material added that temples were destroyed are actually from this text.

All the references either show the work of a writer in a published book or a news article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldenhawk 0 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok lets, start this simpler one item at a time. I have removed items that appear in personal webpages atm. I.e. from dalsabzi, or a personal webpage at some university of user jamali, and the daily pioneer op-ed column. These are easy to identify non-RS sources.--Shamiana (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Portrait
Is it just me or does the portrait seem to date from the Victorian era at earliest? lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConArtis (talk • contribs) 05:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It was not the painting of Raja Dahir of Sindh but actually a reproduction of a photograph of Madho Singh II of Jaipur. Here is the original photograph:

Abhishek0831996 (talk) 07:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Article title
Per article-naming convention, I think this page should be moved to Raja Dahir (currently a redirect) or Dahir (raja); generic titles (of which "raja" is one) are not capitalized, except when the first word of a sentence. I prefer "Raja Dahir", per WP:UCN; thoughts?  Mini  apolis  20:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Deleted image
I have deleted the image, which was identical to that of Maharaja Sawai Madho Singh. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Raja Dahir
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Raja Dahir's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "chachnama": From Rai dynasty: "Chach Nama - The queen falls in love with Chach who becomes the Ruler through her love", Packhum.org From Muhammad bin Qasim: The Chachnamah, An Ancient History of Sind, Giving the Hindu period down to the Arab Conquest. (1900). Translated from the Persian by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg. Karachi: Commissioners Press. From Rai Sahasi II: Chach Nama - The queen falls in love with Chach who becomes the Ruler through her love. - The passing away of Sáhasi Rái from this world.- Chach son of Seláij ascends the throne. 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

This article is quite clearly heavily biased
I will be back. Yeah, this isn't how this goes down. 103.163.200.185 (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sindhupati Maharaj Dahir Sen. jpg.png

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Memorial of Raja Dahir sain of Sindh.png

Reverts
@Fylindfotberserk I reverted sock edits on this article because of the POV removal of "present day Pakistan" after Sindh which was long standing text, do you mind if I restore? "Sindhi" brahmin part looked like it violated MOS: ETHNICITY Kiu99 (talk) 10:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I've restored the "present day Pakistan" part, and removed "Sindhi" since I'm not sure such an ethno-linguistic identifier exited that time, though Brahmin should be kept. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)