Talk:Dogra dynasty

Untitled
Please note this article has been created by bringing over relevant text from Maharaja Hari Singh of Jammu and Kashmir.Atulsnischal 08:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Dogra dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120214225152/http://www.collectbritain.co.uk/personalisation/object.cfm?uid=019XZZ000007381U00013000 to http://www.collectbritain.co.uk/personalisation/object.cfm?uid=019XZZ000007381U00013000

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Huge revert, finally
I have reverted the article to the version a couple of years ago, having gotten tired witnessing its unwieldy growth in the recent months. As the Encyclopedia Britannica explains (the reference [1]), what is called the "Dogra dynasty" begins with Gulab Singh accession as the Raja of Jammu, and ends with the abolition of monarchy by the J&K Constituent Assembly. I don't mind if there is brief coverage of the ancestors of Gulab Singh, and the descendants of Karan Singh. But it has to be really brief. See the EB article to get an idea how brief it has to be. There is a full-fledged article on Jammu and Kashmir (princely state), which is where all the State issues get covered.

Pinging and  for their input. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * While I agree that the article needed some editing from it's prior state, I think it is a drastic step to delete all content and sources of over two years. Wikipedia is not supposed to be restricted to mirroring Encyclopedia Britannica. The following site states that the "Dogra dynasty" traces back to "Rai Jambu-Lochana (founder of Jammu)" in antiquity,, which predates the princely state. So the article should include details of it's members from then if notable. It's shame to lose content that has historic references or recent citations. I have listed a few of the editors who previously contributed to this article for their opinion too. , , , , , , , , , , and . — Beautiful future (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The site that you link - royalark - has long been considered generically unreliable. It was discussed at WP:RSN. - Sitush (talk) 08:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The term Dogra dynasty itself is seriously problematic, because Dogra is an ethnicity, not a clan or lineage. What has come to be called the "Dogra dynasty" because of the branding done by the Sikhs and the Kashmiris, is the Jamwal clan that Gulab Singh belonged to. So, in my opinion, this page should prominently mention the Jamwal clan, and discuss only those people. Probably, Dhruv Dev was the earliest of those. All the Jambu-lochan legends should go in the Jammu page.-- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * But more recent facts such as Hari Singh as a member of Churchill's British War Cabinet in WWII and involvement in WWI should remain. As well as Glubal Singh's father Kishore Singh being appointed the Jagdir (governor) of Jammu after the ousting of Raja Jit Singh and the section on Gulab Singh's relatives serving as Prime Ministers of the Sikh empire, and his betrayal of the Sikh empire in the First Anglo-Sikh war. All this is notable and related to the Dogras or Jamwals too. Also under what dynasty does one label the rulers before Dhruv Dev? I believe "Dogra dynasty" still makes sense in historic and linguistic reflection as all those Rajput clans speak the Dogri language and are in Jammu. Beautiful future (talk) 06:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * At the moment, we have three pages that discuss (or need to discuss) essentially the same material:
 * Jammu and Kashmir (princely state)
 * This page.
 * Jamwal, which currently has nothing.
 * The princely state page and this page should only discuss the line of rulers that descend from Gulab Singh. The princely state page would of course have all the affairs of the state, whereas this page can discuss the family matters. The Jamwal page can have details about other members of the clan, including Dhyan Singh and his descendants (who are also covered in Historical Poonch District), Mian Dido and perhaps others.
 * Regarding the Imperial recognitions of the Dogra rulers, they can be covered in both this page and the princely state page, but please keep in mind that they were not personal honours, rather honours bestowed upon the state, for its size and importance, and the contribution the state made to the Imperial war efforts. So you can't go overboard in glorifying the rulers. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

there are numerous problems with your edits. Please slow down, check the sources careflly, and edit one section at a time, so that the edits can be verified. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your concern. I plan to reveiw the article again shortly to see if there are any problems. — Beautiful future (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

To illustrate some of the problems I corrected in this edit:
 * "largest princely state" is ambiguous.
 * the inclusion of Pratap Singh is undue, and so is the excessive weight to the war efforts. (Is it the most important function of a Maharaja, to support Britain's wars?)
 * Karan Singh "abdicated" has no support in reliable sources.
 * adding sourced content next to unsourced content, without noting that the prior content was unsourced.
 * You added a link to Churchill's War Cabinet, but that page makes no mention of Hari Singh.
 * You added a link to low caste, but that page talks about OBC's, a concept defined in 1980s.

I am afraid "reviewing later" will not resolve such problems. You need to check the edits carefully before you make them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And, notice here. A ridiculous claim of 14th century BC, which hasn't been corroborated by any self-respecting historian, with a citation to somebody called "Mohin Jadarro Harrapa". Where is your due diligence? How exactly is this a WP:HISTRS? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your edits. I concur the introduction reads better and more concise now. The 14th century BC date is simply legend believed by many local historians, I had added a second reference The economy of Jammu & Kashmir to clarify that and mentioned that the claim was attributed to local Jammu chronicles Gulabnama and Raj Darshani more so than being hard confirmed fact. The definition of abdicate means to "renounce one's throne" according to this Oxford dictionary which while voluntary is what happened. The sources do mention it as the largest princely state, however your change to "one of the largest" serves better than, "second-largest" that was erroneously left there before. — Beautiful future (talk) 14:04, 15 January 2017 (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 |Indian 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 |'The 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 |United Nations Security Council Resolution 47, |United Nations Security Council Resolution 39,|UN mediation of the Kashmir dispute, |United 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)

"Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 10 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 18:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Ankit Love is an illegitimate and unrecognized Pretender to the throne of Kashmir
User:Kautilya3 why have you removed Ankit Love from the infobox as a pretender to the throne, as the definition on wikipedia: "A pretender is someone who claims to be the rightful ruler of a country although not recognized as such by the current government. The term is often used to suggest that a claim is not legitimate." Surly Ankit Love's claim as per the news sources fits this definition of an illegitimate and unrecognized pretender, while Karan Singh was the actual son of the King and also recognized by government and so perhaps should not be even listed as a pretender in the infobox. Or do you disagree with this logic? --Death Star Central (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no "throne" of Kashmir. Do you have a source that labels him a "pretender"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)