Talk:Ranjit Singh/Archive 5

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)

Need to add changes removed by blocked editor
Upon his birth he was named Buddh Singh after his ancestor who was first in line to take Amrit Sanchaar. The child's name was changed to Ranjit (literally, "victor in battle") Singh ("lion") by his father to commemorate his army's victory over the Muslim Chatha chieftain Pir Muhammad. '''
 * What I think should be changed: This line Maharaja Ranjit Singh was born on 13 November 1780 to Maha Singh and Raj Kaur in a Sansi family in Gujranwala, Punjab region, India (present-day Punjab, Pakistan) needs to be changed to Maharaja Ranjit Singh was born on 13 November 1780 to Maha Singh and Raj Kaur in a in Gujranwala, Punjab region, India (present-day Punjab, Pakistan). The other is an addition after line "His mother Raj Kaur was the daughter of Sikh Raja Gajpat Singh of Jind.[16]". The addition is '''


 * Why it should be changed: The reason to remove Sansi family or Jatt family is because there is major dispute where some historians say that Ranjit Singh's family was Sansi Sikh and some say that it was Jatt Sikh and then there are others who say that it was neither but just simply Sikh. Here is a link that clarifies the dispute . So to be neutral, Sansi or Jatt should be removed. The other addition was removed by an editor who has been blocked for vandalism.
 * References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):



MehmoodS (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. It does not appear there is consensus for this change. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2022
Maharaja Ranjit Singh was jat sikh 122.161.66.242 (talk) 03:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Bsoyka  ( talk ) 23:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Family was Sansi Sikh or Jatt Sikh or Neither is disputed
This subject about Ranjit Singh's family is disputed among historians. Some claim as Sansi Sikh, some claim as Sandhiawala Jat Sikh and some claim him just as plain Sikh. Since such subject is disputed, the mention of clan shouldn't be applied on the article but should rather be kept neutral. MehmoodS (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason to remove Sansi family or Jatt family is because there is major dispute where some historians say that Ranjit Singh's family was Sansi Sikh and some say that it was Jatt Sikh and then there are others who say that it was neither but just simply Sikh. Here is a link that clarifies the dispute . So to be neutral, Sansi or Jatt should be removed. MehmoodS (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Aj indiana Before reverting changes, I have told you to discuss the dispute here on the talk page and yet you haven't addressed it. Whether Ranjit Singh was Jat or Sansi has been disputed by many historians and this information here clarifies the dispute . So to avoid the dispute among editors on the background where one wants to claim Sansi and the other as Jatt, this information was removed. Because this will cause continous edit warring. MehmoodS (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

He was a Sandhawalia Jat Prerit Tushir (talk) 07:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2022
Tushir 25 (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Pls mention him as a Jat sikh of Sandhawalia clan Tushir 25 (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

He was a Sandhawalia Jat Tushir 25 (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I have sources Tushir 25 (talk) 00:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Genealogical family tree is incorrect regarding the position of Nodh and Buddha Singh
Nodh Singh (d. 1752) was the son of Buddha Singh (d. 1718) rather than the reverse (as it is being erroneously portrayed as currently in the table). Please see the updated genealogical trees in 'The Panjab Chiefs' by L.H. Griffin, 'Chiefs and Families of Note in the Panjab' by C.F. Massy, and the genealogical table presented in 'Maharaja Ranjit Singh - First Death Centenary Memorial (1939)'. ThethPunjabi (talk) 11:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Buddha Singh Man was the first son of Mana Singh apparently named after his ancestor, Buddha Singh. See The Sikh Encyclopedia Buddha Singh and The Sikh Encyclopedia Buddha Singh Man. So Ranjit had an older brother Buddha and they were both sons of Maha Singh, son of Charat Singh, son of Naudh Singh, son of Buddha Singh whose ancestor, Bhara Mall was initiated into the Sikh faith by the seventh Sikh leader, Guru Har Rai. See page 14 of 'The Panjab Chiefs' (1865 edition) you mentioned. (I also found a 1890 edition of 'The Panjab Chiefs' here.) So the chart is not incorrect, just incomplete. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Add him as a Sikh Jat
Add him as a Sikh Jat👆 Jat Raj (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

His Spouses included a Muslim woman
his wife was also Moran Sarkar. Please add: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moran_Sarkar 2407:D000:B:C9BE:3299:E3EA:8B6A:FCE6 (talk) 10:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Non-HISTRS sources
, regarding your this edit, the first source cited by you is authored by Sher Singh 'Sher' who was a Punjabi poet-cum-writer, rather than a historian. He completed his postgraduation in agriculture and literature. Later on, he wrote a few anthropological accounts about his own Sansi tribe. And this locally-published source is authored by a couple of sociologists, rather than historians – see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:HISTRS. Not to mention the last nonscholarly source which is authored by Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay, who was a freedom fighter and an actor. So these three are locally-published sources from non-historians and are not WP:HISTRS. They are not even reliable for historical details, let alone using them for challenging all the subject specialists, i.e. the historians specialising in Sikh history.

- NitinMlk (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2023
Please change the name from Ranjit Singh to Maharaja Ranjit Singh Karanb69 (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please see WP:HONORIFICS. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)