Talk:Battle of Jamrud

Casualty removal

See this edit; [1]

The casualty figures are overwhelmingly disputed, with many saying the Sikhs lost twice as many as the Afghans, and likewise back. They were removed [by me] for a reason.

@Normstahlie Noorullah (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

can you please mention the Book you are quoting from i would like to have a look by myself? Indo-Greek 18:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

if you are referring to Return of a King: The Battle for Afghanistan by William Dalrymple sorry but it does not mention anything about casualties so to which book are you referring to? Please notify me if you have the time for it. Indo-Greek 18:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

[[User:[Noorullah21]]] Indo-Greek 23:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Noorullah21 Indo-Greek 23:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not citing from a book here, I'm showing an edit in the past where the casualty figures have been overwhelmingly disputed, where I removed them hence due to such.

The source you're adding conflicts with WP:AGEMATTERS.

We have much more better sources that are recent to now that say other figures. Such as Gupta, who cites 7,000 on both sides. [2] Noorullah (talk) 03:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

So why not add both for example "6,000 Sethi" and "7,000 Gupta"? Indo-Greek 12:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

also another Historian J.S Grewal gives this number see [Maharaja Ranjit Singh: Polity, Economy, and Society - J. S. Grewal - Google Books] Indo-Greek 13:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Because Sethi falls under WP:AGEMATTERS, I just said that.

Grewal can be used. Noorullah (talk) 22:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

So Sethi (1950) falls under WP:AGEMATTERS im not sure about that but ok so we can use Grewal and what sources do disrupt his i want to know since you say the casualty number is disputed Indo-Greek 22:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Noorullah21 Indo-Greek 15:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Noorullah21 Indo-Greek 13:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Disrupt his, what do you mean? Noorullah (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

you said Grewal can be used so i asked which sources do Disrupt him as you said "The casualty figures are overwhelmingly disputed". Indo-Greek 20:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I told you from some of the examples I gave above.

Gupta says 7,000 instead on both sides.

Sethi (who fails under WP:AGEMATTERS) says 6k. Other reliable sources also differ on the issue. Noorullah (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

i would suggest this then 7,000-11,000 afghan casualties nad 6,000-7,000 sikh casualties it would work out perfectly Indo-Greek 16:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Sethi can't be used, he falls under WP:AGEMATTERS.

It should be formatted like this:

Grewal:
11,000 Afghans

Gupta:
7,000 Afghans

Sikhs

Gupta:

7,000 Sikhs Noorullah (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

i agree with this then Indo-Greek 00:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

happy new year btw Indo-Greek 00:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Aftermath section

Why is there no "Aftermath" section for this battle? The article currently includes only the "Prelude" and "Battle" sections. If possible, I can add an "Aftermath" section to detail the events that followed the battle. Indo-Greek 10:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

If you want to you can, but there isn't much to add imo.

It was the last major battle of the Afghan-Sikh Wars Noorullah (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

You didn't respond to Hussain... (after my reply)

And about Lee..

"Khan’s army was only saved from annihilation by the arrival of his brother Shams al-Din Khan and a large body of cavalry, who charged the Sikh lines. Akbar Khan then rallied his men and pushed the Sikhs back into Jamrud, where they too were saved by the arrival of substantial reinforcements. Akbar Khan broke off the engagement and returned to Jalalabad, leaving the Sikhs in control of Jamrud, but when he returned to Kabul he claimed the victory and was given a hero’s welcome. For decades after, this pyrrhic victory was celebrated annually in the Afghan capital.39 More to the point, the ‘victory’ provided the Amir with the opportunity to dispose of powerful rivals. ‘Abd al-Samad Khan, his chief minister, who had failed to engage the Sikhs and whom the Amir suspected of plotting against him, was exiled to Bukhara. Hajji Khan Kakar, who had taken a substantial bribe from the Sikhs and stood aside from the fighting, was once more expelled and made his way to Kandahar, where he was welcomed by the Dil brothers. Dost Muhammad Khan later admitted that it had been one of his greatest mistakes not to have put the Kakar chief to death. The Sikhs had beaten the Afghans but in the battle Hari Singh, Ranjit’s lifelong friend, had been mortally wounded. Thirsting for revenge, the Maharaja refused to negotiate and threatened to attack Kabul, a threat Dost Muhammad Khan took very seriously, but hoped that when Burnes arrived he might agree to Britain mediating a face-saving peace."

Nothing here calls the battle a Sikh victory.

It mentions an Afghan phyrric victory (because Hari Singh Nalwa was killed), and that the Afghans were driven back. Noorullah (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

And back to Hussain again... He's barely cited on google scholars (which isn't a good sign) [3] .. and it doesn't look like he's made any other books "Farrukh+Husain"

This is also the only other thing I can find on them? [4] Noorullah (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

As i said Farrukh Husains work is well sourced and its cited by scholars even though not many but the Book is also supported by William Dalrymple (Page ix) a well known Historian who supported Farrukh Husain in his work also his work contains some new material from archives that were previously unpublished sources. Indo-Greek 00:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@HerakliosJulianus I'm sorry, but see WP:HISTRS. See what defines a proper Source as reliable/can be used. Farrukh Husain's work unfortunately is not scholarship. Noorullah (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

"Akbar Khan broke off the engagement and returned to Jalalabad, leaving the Sikhs in control of Jamrud, but when he returned to Kabul he claimed the victory and was given a hero’s welcome." It says that Akbar Khan broke off the battle and returned to Kabul and claimed it as a Victory Notice how Jonathan Lee uses the word "claimed" to emphasize that Akbar Khan's victory was self-declared. Additionally the part with the pyrrhic victory is an Afghan viewpoint of the Battle as it is celebrated by the Afghans and Dost Muhammed Khan used this claim of victory to solidify his Position by disposing his rivals. Lee's conclusion is as it is written The Sikhs had beaten the Afghans but in the battle Hari Singh, Ranjit’s lifelong friend, had been mortally wounded. it clearly says the Sikhs had beaten the Afghans from his Neutral view point. Indo-Greek 00:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@HerakliosJulianus

He mean's by battle ...

But we know Jamrud is a much more complicated view then that. Jamrud has the argument where despite the Afghans being driven back, the Sikhs had lost their primary major commander (which is why the battle is disputed). Lee again doesn't call the battle a Sikh victory. In fact.. in the line after Akbar Khan, he still calls it an Afghan phyrric victory. "For decades after, this pyrrhic victory was celebrated annually in the Afghan capital."

But since this seems to be interpreted by me as such, and you as such, you could ask for a third opinion? WP:THIRDOPINION Noorullah (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: Noorullah21 I'm trying to be a WP:THIRDOPINION here, and I found a huge contradiction in your quote. You said "Nothing here calls the battle a Sikh victory," but the quote literally says "The Sikhs had beaten the Afghans". - OpalYosutebito (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@OpalYosutebito Jamrud's topic/battle has a convoluted nature, see the "Result of battle" on the main page.

All the sources (?) agree that the Afghans were driven off.. but they dispute the result because the main Sikh commander had been killed. (Which is where sources diverge/divide from on calling the battle an Afghan or Sikh victory). Noorullah (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

The point of above ^ / Lee is that he says the Sikhs had beaten the Afghans in battle, but that Hari Singh Nalwa [the commander] had been mortally wounded [and died of his injuries]. In the line after Akbar Khan claims victory, he regards the battle as a Phyrric victory for the Afghans.. "For decades after, this pyrrhic victory was celebrated annually in the Afghan capital." Noorullah (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

for decades.... Afghan capital quote is after Lee's conclusion or what? Indo-Greek 01:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@HerakliosJulianus What do you mean? Could you elaborate? (a bit confused on what you're asking here). Noorullah (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Please see Lee's Conclusion at the end before his conclusion he gives the different views of the Battle such as the Afghans Celebrating this battle as a Pyhrric victory You're again doing miss interpretation of Lee thinking that its his actual conclusion but Lee in his own words states the Sikhs had beaten the Afghans. Indo-Greek 01:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@HerakliosJulianus He states the battle was a phyrric victory for the Afghans (because of the killing of Hari Singh Nalwa), but that the Afghans were driven off. That is the conclusion. Noorullah (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

the claim of Afghan victory was made by Akbar Khan thats why decades after it was celebrated as a victory but nonetheless its a claim made by the very commander who broke off the engagement and returned to Jalalabad Lee points this out and comes to the conclusion that the afghans were beaten by the Sikhs not vice versa Indo-Greek 01:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@HerakliosJulianus Again.. in the statements after he still calls it a victory.

For decades after, this pyrrhic victory was celebrated annually in the Afghan capital.39 More to the point, the ‘victory’ provided the Amir with the opportunity to dispose of powerful rivals. ‘Abd al-Samad Khan, his chief minister, who had failed to engage the Sikhs and whom the Amir suspected of plotting against him, was exiled to Bukhara. Hajji Khan Kakar, who had taken a substantial bribe from the Sikhs and stood aside from the fighting, was once more expelled and made his way to Kandahar, where he was welcomed by the Dil brothers. Noorullah (talk) 01:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@HerakliosJulianus And.. err. another thing..

How are the other sources for a Sikh victory WP:RS? [5] [6] None of these are scholarship/WP:HISTRS. @OpalYosutebito (Relevant too).. Noorullah (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Im sorry but Bikramjit Hasrat is a Professor in History and has M.A. ( Punjab), M.A , Ph.D. (Calcutta, D. Phil. (Oxon), P.E.S. how isnt this scholarship or WP:RS? and Paddy Docherty is literally a HISTORIAN see Biography — Paddy Docherty at this point you are wasting my time we will see tomorrow how it continues good night. Indo-Greek 02:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

and After all these statements given by Lee he concludes the Sikhs had beaten the Afghans because the Afghan victory is merely a claim made by the afghan commander Indo-Greek 02:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Hasrat [7] is very weakly cited... But I see on the point of Docherty.

...So why does Lee call it a victory..? Lee states the Sikhs had beaten the Afghans in battle, but that alone didn't constitute victory (for the case of Jamrud) because of the killing of Hari Singh Nalwa. -- "For decades after, this pyrrhic victory was celebrated annually in the Afghan capital.39 More to the point, the ‘victory’" Noorullah (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Hasrats credentials pass him for scholarship and again on Lee he puts victory in 'x' marks because thats neither his statement nor assesment he is merely pointing out the Afghan or Akbar/Dost muhammed khans view of the Battle while giving the conclusion at the end with his own words that the afghans had been beaten by the Sikhs Indo-Greek 02:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

That's your interpretation..and tantamount to WP:OR because you're stating that definitely when the context clearly defines he puts that in "x' marks is because he was referring to it as a phyrric victory.

He wasn't stating a one sided view of the battle, he already concluded that when he was talking about Akbar Khan. He followed these up by calling it a phyrric victory, and continued to call it a victory because of how Dost Mohammad was able to do (x) afterward. Noorullah (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

You argue that Lee calls the battle a Pyrrhic victory for the Afghans, but you are misinterpreting what he actually wrote. The key sentences from Lee’s work are:

“The Sikhs had beaten the Afghans but in the battle Hari Singh, Ranjit’s lifelong friend, had been mortally wounded.”

This is Lee’s direct conclusion on the military result: the Afghans were defeated in battle. That is a Sikh victory in military terms.

Before, Lee writes:

“For decades after, this pyrrhic victory was celebrated annually in the Afghan capital.”

This is not Lee’s own assessment of the battle’s result—it is how the Afghans framed it afterward. That is an important distinction: the Afghan leadership chose to commemorate it as a victory, even though they had lost the battle.

Thus, Lee presents two things:

1. The military outcome: The Sikhs won (Lee: "The Sikhs had beaten the Afghans")
2. The Afghan political narrative: They framed it as a Pyrrhic victory to justify internal purges and boost morale

You are confusing Lee’s description of Afghan propaganda with his actual historical analysis. Indo-Greek 12:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

You claim that I am engaging in WP:OR (original research) because I am asserting a definite interpretation. But that’s incorrect because:

• Lee’s own words confirm that the Afghans were beaten. That is not my personal analysis—it is a direct quote.
• I am not adding my own conclusion; I am citing the exact wording from a secondary source.
• You, on the other hand, are interpreting his phrase “Pyrrhic victory” as if it were his personal assessment rather than him simply explaining how the Afghans viewed it.

Your argument is actually closer to WP:OR because you are selectively interpreting Lee’s words instead of following his clear conclusion. Please read the whole page again Afghanistan: A History From 1260 To The Present Page 210 Indo-Greek 12:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

You say:

"He followed these up by calling it a pyrrhic victory, and continued to call it a victory because of how Dost Mohammad was able to do (x) afterward."

But that does not mean the Afghans actually won—it just means they used the battle’s outcome for political purposes. A battle’s result is determined on the battlefield, not by how a ruler spins it afterward.

If we follow your logic, then any defeated army could claim victory just because their leader politically benefited from the war, which is absurd.

Lee’s wording is clear: the Sikhs had beaten the Afghans militarily,(1) and the Afghans later chose to frame it as a victory for political reasons.(2) Indo-Greek 12:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

These quotes don’t seem to imply that the Afghans lost. And btw, I checked Hussains credentials and it doesn’t seem that he has a degree or anything related to history. So no that’s not RS.

The general opinion is that this battle was a stalemate no? Someguywhosbored (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

No offense but you're now arguing with academia. "But that does not mean the Afghans actually won—it just means they used the battle’s outcome for political purposes. A battle’s result is determined on the battlefield, not by how a ruler spins it afterward."

Why do you think some sources refer to this battle as an Afghan victory?

Despite being tacticially driven off, the killing of Hari Singh Nalwa made it (per Lee...) A phyrric Afghan victory.

When Lee mentions Akbar Khan had attempted to portray it as a victory.. he still calls it a phyrric Afghan victory (and still continues to do so) in the lines after.

"But that does not mean the Afghans actually won—it just means they used the battle’s outcome for political purposes. A battle’s result is determined on the battlefield, not by how a ruler spins it afterward."

Again, Lee still continues to call it a victory. All sources likewise correctly say the Afghans were driven in battle.. but because of the killing of Hari Singh Nalwa, they differ on whether it was an Afghan/Sikh victory. (or inconclusive...)

Lee talks about how Akbar attempts to call it a victory.. then moves on by saying that the Phyrric victory was celebrated in the capital, and how the Afghans (specifically Dost Mohammad) was able to use the "victory" to his advantage. Noorullah (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

We can see how the killing of Hari Singh Nalwa is pivotal in other sources.. as is disinguished.. [8] Noorullah (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I self rv'd (as of now), per the edit summary explanation. Noorullah (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

And Khuswanat Singh.. "...the killing of Hari Singh Nalwa turned the defeat at Jamrud into a victory." [9] Noorullah (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

We are discussing about Lee not Kushwant Singh and btw Read the Whole Page why are you Cherry picking? Here the Rest of the Page

Much as Dost Mohammed tried to claim the battle of Jamrud as an Afghan victory (he heaped public honours upon his son), nothing could stop the stench of eleven thousand Afghan and Pathan corpses strewn about the Khyber from reaching the nostrils of the tribesmen in the neighbouring hills and valleys. The Punjab’s standards still fluttered on Bala Hissar, Shabkadar, and the battered walls of Jamrud. And now the ghost of the valiant Nalwa haunted the rocky defiles, spreading terror among the people. It was necessary for Dost Mohammed to recover his lost prestige. He is reported to have written to the Maharajah: ‘I have always regarded myself as established by your authority... I was your servant.’ If the Durbar could give him Peshawar, there would be no trouble on the frontier. But if the request were turned down, he would be compelled by circumstances to fight—tang Gmad bajang Gmad (when one is forced one goes to battle).' The Durbar rejected the Afghans’ demand for Peshawar and sent a word of warning: the maintenance of peace was not the sole monopoly of the Afghans. If the Afghans could force war on the Punjabis, the Punjabis could force war on the Afghans.

Source: A History of The Sikhs, 1839-2004 (1 Volumes) page 277 Indo-Greek 19:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

You assert that Lee still refers to it as an Afghan victory, but this is a misreading of the context. Let's carefully break down Lee’s use of the term "Pyrrhic victory" and his overall conclusion:

• Lee says: “The Sikhs had beaten the Afghans, but Hari Singh Nalwa had been mortally wounded.”
• Lee before describes the Afghan narrative: “For decades after, this pyrrhic victory was celebrated annually in the Afghan capital.”

This statement does not mean Lee agrees with the Afghan spin. He is merely describing the political narrative the Afghans constructed post-battle, and it’s critical to recognize the distinction. The Sikhs had a tactical victory because they held the field, while the Afghans later claimed a victory to maintain morale and justify political actions as said by Lee. Indo-Greek 19:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the Afghans attacked Jamrud, which is land owned by the Sikhs. The Sikhs beat the Afghans, but the Afghans go home and claim that they've won. - OpalYosutebito (talk) 01:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@OpalYosutebito Correct, in a form. The Sikhs lost a very significant commander, Hari Singh Nalwa. Afghans claim they've won, which is why sources differ in the modern day.

Sources say that because Hari Singh Nalwa was killed, it presents the situation of an Afghan victory... (per the article) Noorullah (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Just because the Sikh commander died doesn't automatically mean the Afghans won. The Sikhs still fought on without his leadership. - OpalYosutebito (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@OpalYosutebito No, but that's what sources say.

The Afghans retreated, and attribute the fact that the most senior Sikh commander had been killed, which is why they attribute the battle to an Afghan victory. You're starting to fight against Academic opinion (rather than talk about Lee here). Noorullah (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'll try to keep it more focused on Lee's POV... - OpalYosutebito (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Going back to the quote at hand, Lee states that the Afghan commander, Akbar Khan, claimed victory (even though the Sikhs beat the Afghans). This makes it sound like the commander was spreading propaganda... - OpalYosutebito (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Akbar claimed victory (presumably for killing Nalwa?) but in reality the Afghans were beaten in the battlefield.

Lee calls the battle a phyrric victory (still for killing Nalwa) and refers to it as a victory in the lines after.

"For decades after, this pyrrhic victory was celebrated annually in the Afghan capital.39 More to the point, the ‘victory’ provided the Amir with the opportunity to dispose of powerful rivals. ‘Abd al-Samad Khan, his chief minister, who had failed to engage the Sikhs and whom the Amir suspected of plotting against him, was exiled to Bukhara. Hajji Khan Kakar, who had taken a substantial bribe from the Sikhs and stood aside from the fighting, was once more expelled and made his way to Kandahar, where he was welcomed by the Dil brothers." @OpalYosutebito Noorullah (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@OpalYosutebito Thoughts on the above? Are you able to give your own final conclusion/thought?

This WP:3O inquiry is revolving on Lee's source (what he really meant...) Because Lee's source was originally used to cite a Sikh victory. We aren't talking about other sources here. Lee clearly interprets the battle as a Phyrric Afghan victory and in the lines after still calls it such due to the killing of Hari Singh Nalwa (like all sources do when they call it an Afghan victory]] despite the Sikhs still forcing the Afghans to retreat. Noorullah (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@OpalYosutebito In other sources too: "...the killing of Hari Singh Nalwa turned the defeat at Jamrud into a victory." [10] Noorullah (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I just want to point out a few things. If your adding disputed content, you shouldn’t be reverting anything until discussions are over. Secondly, I haven’t been able to find anything about this man’s credentials)(Husain). The closet thing I found is that he works closely with William darlymple which is probably why he received so much praise, and he’s a lawyer who authored that one book. It’s not even close to reliable. You need to cite an actual historian. He doesn’t have any degrees or credentials related to history. @HerakliosJulianus Someguywhosbored (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I have no problem with not using Farrukh, this discussion is now mostly revolving around Lee's conclusion of this battle. Indo-Greek 17:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I was getting to that. He doesn’t really say the Sikhs won the battle. The only thing he mentions is that it was a Pyrrhic victory. Being “driven off” doesn’t exactly mean the battle was won. There’s a lot of other factors, such as the strategic victor. Losing Nalwa was obviously a big enough loss to the Sikh empire that it couldn’t be considered a victory. Thats why lee calls it a “pyrrhic victory” for the Afghans rather than an outright defeat. The quote needs to say something along the lines of “with the enemy being driven off, the Afghans were soundly defeated” or something along those lines. But that’s not the case here. All he says is that the Afghans claimed victory, and later wrote that it was Pyrrhic. That doesn’t sound like a “defeat”. Someguywhosbored (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. @Someguywhosbored

(Although maybe the revert action could've stayed because of current edit war discussions...)

But nonetheless, this shows a consensus that is gradually forming .. it seems to be more in favor of Lee clearly mentioning a phyrric Afghan victory here. @HerakliosJulianus Noorullah (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

You Noorullah, you claim:

“Lee clearly mentions a Pyrrhic Afghan victory.”

This is a misrepresentation of what Lee actually writes. Let's look at the facts:

1. Lee states the Sikhs beat the Afghans. This means they won the battle.
2. Before that he says the Afghans "celebrated" a Pyrrhic victory. This means they suffered losses but politically framed it as a win.
3. The phrase ‘Pyrrhic victory’ does not mean they actually won—it just means they claimed to have won while suffering severe consequences.

So no, this is not a consensus in favor of the Afghan victory narrative. It’s simply an acknowledgment that the Afghans chose to portray it as a victory, despite their actual military defeat. Indo-Greek 19:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

For clarification, and so everyone's on the same page here, pyrrhic means costly, as in the Afghans suffered such heavy losses that it wasn't really worth calling it a victory to begin with. - OpalYosutebito (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@OpalYosutebito Yup. A Phyrric victory means it's a victory but it's with so much loss it's tantamount to defeat. Noorullah (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry but it literally says Sikhs had beaten the Afghans how isnt this a Defeat? Indo-Greek 19:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree; from what I've gathered, the Afghan commander only claimed it was a victory. I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm repeating myself. I haven't been feeling well today... - OpalYosutebito (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Well the entire issue is that Lee could have easily presented this as an outright Afghan defeat. But he doesn’t do that. Why would lee refer to the battle as a “pyrrhic” Afghan victory and not a defeat? He needs to say the battle ended in “defeat” for the Afghans.

If you want to frame this as a “victory” for the Sikhs, than Lee needs to refer to it as a Sikh victory. This obviously hasn’t happened here. What’s not to understand?

Given the fact that we can’t even agree on what Lee had actually meant, than obviously there’s a lot of room for interpretation. You can’t just write the infobox as a “Sikh military victory” if the sources don’t actually say “Sikh military victory”. Is that not OR? Someguywhosbored (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

So we're focusing on the Lee source and what Lee said in his own words? Okay. From the wording of the source, it still sounds like the Afghan commander claimed it was a victory, when it was stated that "the Sikhs had beaten the Afghans". I find it unlikely that a sentence would contradict itself almost immediately afterwards...

(Also, I noticed that the Afghans objectively suffered more casualties than the Sikhs, despite having superior numbers.) - OpalYosutebito (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Casualties differ on source.

One source says they suffered the same, another says nearly twice as much.

Going through Lee.. he says the Afghan commander claimed victory. After that, he calls it a phyrric Afghan victory (meaning a victory so costly it's tantamount to defeat), and calls it a victory again after. Lee then says the Sikhs repelled the Afghans in battle (as they retreated), but they lost their major commander. Noorullah (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

The issue is that the source needs to directly say that Sikhs won the battle. Otherwise this is OR. Saying that the attack itself was repelled doesn’t mean the battle ended in a defeat or victory. I’m inclined to believe it was inconclusive. Nonetheless lee doesn’t ever directly state that the Afghans lost the battle. Someguywhosbored (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Someguywhosbored you say:

"Saying that the attack itself was repelled doesn’t mean the battle ended in a defeat or victory."

Actually, it does. In any battle, the side that is repelled is the side that failed in its objective. If the Afghans launched an attack but were repelled, they lost the engagement. as Lee states the Afghans were beaten by the Sikhs Indo-Greek 20:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Someguywhosbored you say:

"I’m inclined to believe it was inconclusive."

No Lee does not state it as inconclusive. If Lee describes:

• Afghans attacking → Afghans repelled → Afghans retreating → Afghans claiming a Pyrrhic victory,

Then the outcome is clear: the Afghans lost in the immediate battle, even if they tried to spin it politically afterward.

Calling it "inconclusive" is actually more WP:OR than saying the Sikhs won, because it introduces an interpretation that Lee does not state. Indo-Greek 20:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

In the simplest terms, and with as little WP:OR as possible, what Lee's conclusion states is that:

1. The Sikhs beat the Afghans. Not only does the source say that straight-up, but that the Afghan commander (Akbar Khan) left Jamrud under the Sikhs' control.
2. During the battle, the Afghans killed Hari Singh (a Sikh commander), but the Sikhs kept fighting without him.
3. When Akbar Khan and his men returned to Kabul, he claimed a pyrrhic (extremely costly) victory because they killed Hari Singh.

Conclusion: the Sikhs indeed won, but not without their losses. The Afghans ended up claiming it as a pyrrhic victory, indicating the spread of propaganda. - OpalYosutebito (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Afghans claimed victory. It’s lee who referred to it as a pyrrhic victory. Here’s the quote

“Akbar Khan broke off the engagement and returned to Jalalabad, leaving the Sikhs in control of Jamrud, but when he returned to Kabul he claimed the victory and was given a hero’s welcome. For decades after, this pyrrhic victory was celebrated annually in the Afghan capital.*” More to the point, the ‘victory’ provided the Amir with the opportunity to dispose of powerful rivals. “

And the issue is that Lee never directly says the Afghans lost the battle. It just says they got beaten back but ultimately the loss of Hari Singh Nalwa(their greatest military commander) proved devastating for the Sikhs and the Afghans claimed victory. The source needs to directly say that the Afghans lost the battle, or were defeated. We don’t have that here. So yeah I do think what your trying to do is OR. Why would Lee refer to it is a Pyrrhic victory for the Afghans and not just a “defeat”? I think it’s fine to just leave it as “disputed” like it is right now. Someguywhosbored (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

You're contradicting yourself. You admit Lee calls it a Pyrrhic Afghan victory, which by definition means a victory so costly it's effectively a defeat. If the Afghans had truly won, he would have just called it a victory, not Pyrrhic.

Lee states:

• Afghans broke off the engagement & retreated → This means they failed in their objective.
• Sikhs remained in control → This means they held the battlefield.
• Afghans "claimed" victory → A claim isn’t reality.

Victory is determined on the battlefield, not by post-battle propaganda. Saying "Lee doesn’t say they lost" is nitpicking—his description makes it clear the Afghans failed tactically, even if they spun it politically. That’s not WP:OR, that’s basic historical reasoning. Indo-Greek 21:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

"If the Afghans had truly won, he would have just called it a victory, not Pyrrhic." -- Would you expect him to not call it a phyrric victory?

Moreover.. he does call it a victory in the lines after. From Lee..: "...More to the point, the ‘victory’ provided the Amir...'

"We are discussing about Lee not Kushwant Singh and btw Read the Whole Page why are you Cherry picking? Here the Rest of the Page"

I was pointing out how sources show that despite the Afghans being forced to retreat, the killing of Hari Singh Nalwa made sources decide that the battle was a victory (instead of a defeat).

You showed the rest of the page but it's just talking about the heavy casualties of the Afghans for the battle and how Dost Mohammad tried to save face (to avoid an invasion by the Sikhs), how is that relevant to the Jamrud's result? (When Khuswanat calls it an Afghan victory?) Noorullah (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding the significance of a Pyrrhic victory. Lee specifically uses that term because, while the Afghans claimed a victory, the cost was so severe that it was strategically equivalent to a defeat.

Yes, he later refers to it as a victory, but that’s in the context of how Dost Mohammad and the Afghans framed it, not an objective military assessment. This aligns with how leaders throughout history have spun defeats or costly battles into "victories" for political reasons. Indo-Greek 13:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

“ Lee specifically uses that term because, while the Afghans claimed a victory, the cost was so severe that it was strategically equivalent to a defeat.”

again, this is just OR. Lee doesn’t say this. He just says the

Do you see how because we have such differing views on what Lee actually claims, that the text may not have made this very clear to begin with? It just goes to show that this battle obviously has a very disputed outcome. I’d prefer a quote which states that the Sikhs won the battle or were “victorious”. Lee didn’t refer to them as victorious. He just says the Afghans achieved a Pyrrhic victory. Writing “military victory” or doing anything similar in the infobox is just plain WP:OR because Lee never used those terms. He clearly didn’t say a military victory was achieved. Someguywhosbored (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Please read the Source again because this passage makes it clear that:

1. The Afghans were beaten in battle. Lee explicitly states: "The Sikhs had beaten the Afghans but in the battle Hari Singh, Ranjit’s lifelong friend, had been mortally wounded."
2. The Afghans retreated. Akbar Khan "broke off the engagement and returned to Jalalabad, leaving the Sikhs in control of Jamrud."
3. The term "Pyrrhic victory" is used in a political context. It was claimed as a victory in Kabul, celebrated, and politically useful for Dost Mohammad Khan.
4. The loss of Hari Singh Nalwa had strategic consequences, but that does not change the battlefield result. Losing a commander does not automatically make the losing side the victor.

The opposing argument suggests that Lee never explicitly states the Afghans lost, but the phrasing "The Sikhs had beaten the Afghans" is a clear statement of battlefield outcome. The term "Pyrrhic victory" in this context refers to how the Afghans framed the result for their own purposes, not to an actual military victory.

Thus, arguing that the Afghans won would be WP:OR, as the passage does not support that conclusion. Indo-Greek 15:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

This is really confusing. Your saying the Afghans claimed a Pyrrhic victory and not an outright victory?

“The term "Pyrrhic victory" in this context refers to how the Afghans framed the result for their own purposes, not to an actual military victory.”

Why would Afghans frame their victory as “Pyrrhic” to their own people? That hardly makes any sense. Akbar khan claimed victory. The “Pyrrhic victory” was Lees stance.

Again I think the info-box is fine as it is because obviously the result was disputed. Lee never directly states that the Afghans lost. I’m not here to say that the Afghans won despite what Lee says. I’m just here to counter the notion that this was a Sikh victory.

“ The opposing argument suggests that Lee never explicitly states the Afghans lost, but the phrasing "The Sikhs had beaten the Afghans" is a clear statement of battlefield outcome.”

The issue is that the loss of hari Singh Nalwa was enough to counteract this. It stopped the Sikh empires western expansion. But more importantly, Lee needs to directly say that the Afghans actually “lost” the battle. As they are other factors that determine the end result/victor in this case. To claim otherwise is tantamount to original research.

So the result and aftermath is fine. Someguywhosbored (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Your argument hinges on the idea that unless Lee explicitly states "The Afghans lost the battle," we cannot conclude a Sikh victory. However, historical analysis does not require such blunt phrasing when the context is clear.

1. First point:
   • Lee states: "The Sikhs had beaten the Afghans."
   • The Afghans retreated from Jamrud.
   • The Sikhs held the battlefield.
   • The Afghans suffered heavy losses. These points align with a battlefield defeat for the Afghans. You argue that Hari Singh Nalwa's death counteracts this, but battlefield victories are not determined solely by the death of a commander. If they were, countless historical battles would have different outcomes.
2. Second point:
   • Akbar Khan claimed victory upon his return.
   • Lee calls it a Pyrrhic Afghan victory—acknowledging that despite the claim, the cost was devastating.
   • A Pyrrhic victory is, by definition, not an outright victory but rather a costly success that is akin to a defeat. If the Afghans had truly won, why would it need to be labeled Pyrrhic? Instead of achieving a decisive military success, their claim to victory was based on political framing rather than battlefield reality. Also the Sikhs did not want to expand Westwards beyond Jamrud this is again WP:OR.

Indo-Greek 16:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

You need to stop twisting my words. I didn’t claim the Afghans “won”. I made it perfectly clear that I’m completely fine with the result in the current infobox being listed as “disputed”. There are many sources other than Lee that are at play here. Many of which also state that it’s disputed. Obviously there is a lot of different opinions on this matter, so “disputed” is the most fair and compromising choice here. We are meant to take a neutral stance on this platform.

Secondly, Lee isn’t very clear on this manner otherwise we wouldn’t be arguing about it.

“ A Pyrrhic victory is, by definition, not an outright victory but rather a costly success that is akin to a defeat. If the Afghans had truly won, why would it need to be labeled Pyrrhic? Instead of achieving a decisive military success, their claim to victory was based on political framing rather than battlefield reality.”

Again, didn’t say the Afghans won. I’m saying it’s disputed/inconclusive. But a Pyrrhic victory for the Afghans doesn’t mean the Sikhs won. If Lee did claim the Sikhs won, he wouldn’t have used the words “Pyrrhic victory”. Your making all these points but the issue is we are talking about what Lee’s opinion is and it’s clear that he never claimed the Afghans lost.

“ However, historical analysis does not require such blunt phrasing when the context is clear.”

Buddy, we aren’t here to talk about our personal views on the battle. We are focusing on Lees POV. He says the Afghans failed to take the fort/beaten off but the loss of the hari Singh Nalwa allowed the Afghans to claim a victory which was Pyrrhic in his eyes. That doesn’t mean the Sikhs won. He needs to actually explicitly make that claim. We can’t just decide what Lee is thinking.

As for the westward expansion, I wasn’t talking about this source. That was something else I read in the past but that’s not really important/relevant to this discussion so it probably shouldn’t have been brought up by me anyway.

Regardless, if the source doesn’t say the Afghans lost, than you can’t come up with your own interpretation. Someguywhosbored (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Your argument hinges on the idea that because Lee does not explicitly state that the Afghans "lost," we cannot frame this as a Sikh victory. However, this is a misrepresentation of how historical analysis works. Historians often describe outcomes in nuanced ways rather than resorting to blunt, binary language. Lee’s description makes it clear that the Afghans were repulsed, that they suffered severe losses, and that their claim to victory was based on political necessity rather than battlefield reality. This is the very definition of a Pyrrhic victory—a battle that may be claimed as a success but was so costly that it was effectively a defeat.

Further, if Lee had intended to frame this as an outright Afghan success, he would not have qualified it with "Pyrrhic." The fact that the Afghans had to politically justify their claims of victory, rather than simply being able to demonstrate it on the battlefield, further supports the conclusion that they failed to achieve what they wanted. Indo-Greek 18:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I don’t know how many times I have to repeat this point. I didn’t say that Lee believed the battle as an Afghan victory. I’m saying that because it was a Pyyrhic victory for the Afghans, no one can truly consider themselves to be the victor. You can’t come up with your own original research. If Lee didn’t say the Afghans lost, than nothing else matters because we are focusing on Lee’s viewpoint here(even though that’s stupid because there are many other sources with differing opinions. The most neutral answer is that the outcome was disputed. Saying it was an Afghan or Sikh victory goes against the neutral framework.

You basically just repeated yourself here. Someguywhosbored (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

This whole conversation is repeating itself, to be honest. It's making it hard for me to find an exact consensus on this discussion... - OpalYosutebito (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Your entire argument is built on a contradiction. You claim that you are not arguing for an Afghan victory, yet you resist any characterization of this battle as a Sikh victory despite clear evidence that the Afghans failed to achieve their objectives and withdrew.

Let’s be absolutely clear: Lee states outright that "the Sikhs had beaten the Afghans." That is a direct assertion of battlefield outcome. You keep demanding an explicit phrase like "the Afghans lost," but that is an unreasonable and arbitrary requirement. If Lee describes the Afghan withdrawal, their severe losses, and the fact that the Sikhs remained in control, then the conclusion is self-evident. Its basically 1+1=2.

And again Lee does not say the battle was "disputed." That is your interpretation, not his. He describes the Afghans as beaten back and their victory as Pyrrhic, which is the Afghan interpretation of this Battle. Where does Lee say the battle was "inconclusive"? Nowhere.

Also, I would not have to repeat myself if you didn’t keep using the same flawed logic over and over again. Indo-Greek 19:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@HerakliosJulianus Looking at the book Lee cites as well (Masson) Here's what Masson has to say;...

"The Afghans had really not much to boast of in this action, although Muhomed Akbar Khan plumed himself on a transcendent victory. The Sikhs scarcely acknowledged defeat, but their loss in the person of their chief was irreparable."[11] Noorullah (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Stop diverging from Lee to Kushwant Singh or Masson who falls in WP:RAJ there are also multiple primary sources that tell that the Battle of Jamrud was a Sikh victory but this is Irrelevant because we are discussing about Lee's conclusion of the Battle not Kushwant Singh or Masson. Stay on track. Indo-Greek 17:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. Sorry if I haven't been able to contribute much to this whole thing. I've been under the weather, and it's been getting extremely cold in Binghamton... - OpalYosutebito (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Well regardless I’ve already made my points on Lee… Someguywhosbored (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@HerakliosJulianus @OpalYosutebito Again… completely

ignoring what I said..

I said Lee cites Masson.. and that’s what Masson says.

i’m not going off topic, you guys keep going back and forth, so I went to the source Lee actually cites and that’s what he says, and you completely disregard it by saying it’s “off-topic”. Way to not read what I said..? Noorullah (talk) 02:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm looking at the Masson quote right now. Sorry for not seeing it sooner; this discussion thread is getting too long to comfortably navigate (especially since I have to zoom in to read most text due to my monitor being far away)... - OpalYosutebito (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The Masson quote backs up Lee's claims pretty well. It acknowledges that while there were casualties on both sides, Akbar Khan "plumed himself" (basically meaning to delude himself into believing something) on a transcendent victory. The Sikhs won, but it came at a cost (their chief). - OpalYosutebito (talk) 03:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Reading through Masson, the battle was pretty back and forth until an Afghan withdrawal. (But it seemed to show from Masson that he said the Afghans had the upper hand in the end?)

In the end of the ordeal, Masson says that there wasn't really much the Afghans could "boast about" i.e really say they did anything significant, and Akbar Khan himself believes it was a victory. The Sikhs were reluctant to also see it as a defeat, but the loss of Hari Singh Nalwa was critical to them. -- This also again corroborates with other sources like Khushwanat Singh, who says that the "Afghan defeat at Jamrud" was turned into a victory due to the killing of Hari Singh Nalwa.

But anyway...

This shows that Lee was referring to Masson in the context of Akbar Khan claiming it was a victory, and Lee himself made the judgement to call it a phyrric Afghan victory, (not using it in the context of Akbar Khan claiming a victory). And he still called it a victory in the lines after when he wasn't citing Masson. @OpalYosutebito Noorullah (talk) 04:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

If you're wondering where Lee cites Masson, here's the quote: "...Akbar Khan broke off the engagement and returned to Jalalabad, leaving the Sikhs in control of Jamrud, but when he returned to Kabul he claimed the victory and was given a hero’s welcome. For decades after, this pyrrhic victory was celebrated annually in the Afghan capital.39" -- The 39 jumps to Masson's book here: "Masson, Narrative of Various Journeys, vol. iii, pp. 384–91."

And of course, where I linked it in internet archive:

""The Afghans had really not much to boast of in this action, although Muhomed Akbar Khan plumed himself on a transcendent victory. The Sikhs scarcely acknowledged defeat, but their loss in the person of their chief was irreparable."" [12] Noorullah (talk) 04:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@HerakliosJulianus @Someguywhosbored forgot to ping ^

But this shows that Lee was making his own judgement calling it a phyrric victory and not framing it in the context of Akbar Khan. Noorullah (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

You're cherry-picking and misrepresenting Masson’s account. Let’s set the record straight:

1. Masson Himself Was Unsure About an Afghan Victory

The quote you just provided from Masson directly contradicts your own argument. Masson also states later in the same source:

"I congratulated him, not on the victory which had been gained, as I was not quite sure of its nature, but that his five sons had escaped accident."¹

This is explicit. Masson, who was in Kabul, did not consider the Afghan claim of victory a certainty. If even a contemporary observer was unsure about calling this an Afghan victory, why are you so insistent on treating it as valid? You can’t cherry-pick one part of Masson’s writing while ignoring his explicit doubt about whether a victory was actually achieved.

Prior Masson outright states:

"The Afghans had really not much to boast of in this action, although Muhomed Akbar Khan plumed himself on a transcendent victory."

If the Afghans had truly won, why would Masson say they had "not much to boast of"? You can’t ignore this part of Masson’s account just because it undermines your argument. Masson clearly believed that Akbar Khan was exaggerating his success.

This entire argument stems from an Afghan political claim of victory not an actual battlefield success.

• The Afghans withdrew from the battlefield.
• The Sikhs retained control of Jamrud.
• Even Masson wasn’t convinced a true victory had taken place as presented before.

You are selectively quoting Masson to make it seem like he supported an Afghan victory when, in reality, he was skeptical about it. This is a clear case of confirmation bias. Either acknowledge all of Masson’s statements including his doubts or stop using him as a source altogether. Indo-Greek 15:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I did? It was in the first sentence where I used Masson from my own explanation of it...: "In the end of the ordeal, Masson says that there wasn't really much the Afghans could "boast about" i.e really say they did anything significant,"

-

"If the Afghans had truly won, why would Masson say they had "not much to boast of"?" - Because as Masson stated, there was not much that changed. [Other than the killing of Hari Singh Nalwa], he elaborates unto this.

"This is explicit. Masson, who was in Kabul, did not consider the Afghan claim of victory a certainty. If even a contemporary observer was unsure about calling this an Afghan victory, why are you so insistent on treating it as valid?"

Masson was unsure of the actual result. He says the Sikhs scarcely wished to acknowledge defeat. Moreover, this was cited to show that Lee wasn't citing Masson when he called it a phyrric Afghan victory, he himself made that judgement and again called it a victory after. Noorullah (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Let’s break this down properly. Your reliance on Masson is becoming increasingly problematic when we look at the totality of the information you're pulling in.

You’re citing Masson to back up your point, but you conveniently forget that Masson had a clear bias towards the Afghans and was sympathetic to Dost Muhammad. As stated in the book Strategies of British India: Britain, Iran, and Afghanistan, 1798-1850 by Malcolm Yapp a British Historian, Masson had a bias in favor of an Afghan alliance, which raises a serious concern about the reliability of his interpretation in this situation. His reports weren’t necessarily neutral or even factual—they were interpreted through a lens of political bias.

"His bias can be seen by comparing his reports with those of Charles Masson, who supplied from Kabul most of the information on which Wade's arguments were based. Masson personally favoured an alliance with Dost Muhammad and his reports scarcely bore the weight of interpretation which Wade put upon them." ^Source

Masson’s accounts are helpful but not definitive, and we should be cautious in accepting them uncritically. Masson was not an unbiased third party—he was deeply engaged with Afghan politics. Therefore, his portrayal of the battle and the "victory" is colored by this bias. You can't simply take Masson’s words at face value when his perspective was shaped by his political leanings.

Even the death of Hari Singh Nalwa, which you are continuously using as a factor for the self-proclaimed Afghan victory by Akbar, was not the determining factor for Akbar Khan's claim to victory. In fact, he himself, in an interview with Masson, explicitly states the following:

"On reaching Agham I had an interview with Mahomed Akbar Khan, who dilated on the recent victory, and particularly explained that it was not owing to the wound of Hari Singh." ^Source

This statement from Akbar Khan himself directly challenges the narrative that the killing of Hari Singh Nalwa was the primary cause for declaring the battle a victory for the Afghans. If the death of Hari Singh Nalwa was the key factor, why would Akbar Khan, in his own words, dismiss it as irrelevant to his victory claim? This suggests that the Afghans' claim to victory was not based on the actual battlefield result, but rather framed politically and strategically by Akbar Khan, likely to boost his own status and morale among his followers.

Akbar Khan himself distances his victory from the death of the Sikh leader, casting further doubt on the notion of a Afghan victory in this conflict. Indo-Greek 18:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

"You’re citing Masson to back up your point, but you conveniently forget that Masson had a clear bias towards the Afghans and was sympathetic to Dost Muhammad. As stated in the book Strategies of British India: Britain, Iran, and Afghanistan, 1798-1850 by Malcolm Yapp a British Historian, Masson had a bias in favor of an Afghan alliance, which raises a serious concern about the reliability of his interpretation in this situation. His reports weren’t necessarily neutral or even factual—they were interpreted through a lens of political bias."

--

Well I don't know much about Masson to comment on such, but the reason Masson was brought up was to bring a new face to this dispute since it seemed to be going back and forth with Lee between me, @Someguywhosbored, and you.

"Even the death of Hari Singh Nalwa, which you are continuously using as a factor for the self-proclaimed Afghan victory by Akbar, was not the determining factor for Akbar Khan's claim to victory. In fact, he himself, in an interview with Masson, explicitly states the following:" - No, Akbar Khan might've not, but Akbar Khan's view is not my view. I'm using the view of scholars/modern sources.. We saw Khuswanat's source who said that the Afghan "defeat at Jamrud" was turned into a victory because of Hari Singh Nalwa's killing. Noorullah (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Kushwant Singh is not an Historian nor a Scholar Indo-Greek 18:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

He is?

See [13] Noorullah (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

He is a Writer/Author not a Historian he does not have an Degree in History Indo-Greek 18:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Even his own Wikipedia page refers to him as a "author, lawyer, diplomat, journalist and politician." - OpalYosutebito (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@OpalYosutebito

"Kushwanat Singh is a renowned historian by nearly all accounts, wdym? "Khushwant Singh (2 February 1915 – 20 March 2014) was born in Hadali, Khushab District, Panjab. He was one of the most well-renowned authors in Indian literary history,"

"Khushwant Singh, one of the best -known Indian writers of all times," "Khushwant Singh's name is bound to go down in Indian literary history as one of the finest historians and novelists,"

[14] [15]

His wikipedia page also says.. ""He was one of the most well-renowned authors in Indian literary history,"" Noorullah (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Author not Historian it's a Difference Indo-Greek 20:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The fact that Akbar Khan himself the man making the victory claim explicitly denied that the death of Hari Singh Nalwa was the defining factor. His own words contradict the narrative you're pushing. Akbar Khan’s victory claim wasn’t even tied to Nalwa’s death in his interview with Masson. Indo-Greek 18:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

But modern sources consider it so, meaning that is irrelevant. Noorullah (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Im speaking in the context of Lee's position. Indo-Greek 20:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

So again.. back to Lee.. Akbar Khan claimed victory.. But then Lee calls it a phyrric victory on his own instance. Noorullah (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Read the context instead of cherry picking Indo-Greek 14:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

This clearly isn’t going anywhere. Indo greek doesn’t agree with the fact that Lee never claimed the Sikhs won. On the other hand, we clearly have stated that Lee referred to the end result as a “Pyrrhic victory”. Regardless of him saying the Afghans were pushed back, the death of hari Singh Nalwa allowed the Afghans to claim victory. Beyond this, Lee never said the battle of jamrud ended in a Sikh victory. To say otherwise is OR.

Also I’m not sure what this obsession with Lee is. There are plenty of other sources that have agreed on a disputed/inconclusive ending to the battle. Sure there are sources that also say Afghan or Sikh victory, but the most neutral viewpoint is to say that the end result was disputed/inconclusive. And this project encourages its users to present the most neutral position. What else is there to argue at this point? Someguywhosbored (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Lee explicitly states that the Afghans were beaten back and failed to take Jamrud. That alone contradicts the argument that Lee sees the outcome as ambiguous or "disputed." Instead, he presents a clear assessment: the Afghan assault did not succeed, and they were forced to withdraw. Indo-Greek 20:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The reason we're arguing about Lee is to whether to include him in the "Sikh victory" category of sources that support that outcome/result. My argument is for removing it, while @HerakliosJulianus wishes to retain it. Noorullah (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

But than why does he follow it up with the claim that it was an Afghan Pyrrhic victory? If he truly believed it was an outright Sikh victory, than he wouldn’t have claimed it was an “Afghan Pyrrhic victory”.

Your entire argument hinges on one sentence. Which states that while they were beaten back, hari Singh Nalwa died, which allowed the Afghans to claim victory, or pyrrhic victory in Lees eyes. You can’t just ignore the rest of what’s been written.

Obviously the outcome isn’t very clear. He never claimed the Sikhs won or were victorious. And again, we go by the most neutral position on Wikipedia here. In this case, inconclusive/disputed is the most neutral position because there is various other different positions. You can’t reconcile with the fact that there are sources which claim the Afghans won, and vice versa. Due to these differing opinions, we go by the most neutral point of view. The outcome was disputed/inconclusive.

If you can’t even acknowledge what Lee has written, than this conversation won’t progress at all.

Edit: Or better yet, just leaving it as disputed like it is now would probably be the best. Because there are many different viewpoints, and “disputed” fits perfectly.

Someguywhosbored (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that we should agree to disagree. Thank you for mediating the discussion! - OpalYosutebito (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Uhh.. forgive me but I'm lost.

What's the solution here?

Just excluding Lee entirely? @OpalYosutebito @Someguywhosbored Noorullah (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Either that or just using him as an example of one of the people who believes that the Sikhs won, probably (or mentioning him in a list of references somehow)... - OpalYosutebito (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I think we can agree to disagree. But saying Lee believes the Sikhs won hardly makes any sense when he claimed it was an Afghan Pyrrhic victory. If it was a Sikh win, he would clarify that. But seeing as how we will never agree on this, I suppose status quo is fine? Someguywhosbored (talk) 13:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Lee clarified it by saying Sikhs beat the afghans. Indo-Greek 14:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Your entire argument is built on twisting Lee’s words and ignoring what he explicitly states. You keep saying he never claimed the Sikhs won but what do you call "the Afghans were beaten back" and "failed to take Jamrud"? That is the very definition of a defensive victory for the Sikhs.

The only reason Lee even mentions the Afghan claim of victory is because of their political framing, not because they actually succeeded. The fact that Akbar Khan claimed a victory does not mean he actually won the battle. That’s just how propaganda works losing sides spin their failures into something positive. Indo-Greek 14:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Again…Nobody said they won the battle. We are just saying that a Pyyrhic victory for the Afghans doesn’t mean the Sikhs won. Lee has never stated that.

infobox remaining as “disputed” fits this scenario perfectly because there are several sources with differing views. Some believe the Afghans won, some believe the Sikhs lost, and others believe nobody won. So disputed is fine.

At this point your just arguing your own personal opinion when we should be focused on the sources POV. Again OR.

This argument obviously won’t go anywhere. Someguywhosbored (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

You keep contradicting yourself. You claim "nobody said the Afghans won," yet you're arguing for a Pyrrhic victory for the Afghans, which inherently means they "won" in some form. You can't have it both ways.

Second, you are misrepresenting Lee’s viewpoint. You keep hammering on the Pyrrhic victory phrase while ignoring the clear statement that the Afghans were beaten back and failed to take Jamrud. That is the primary conclusion Lee reaches everything else about "Pyrrhic victory" is tied to the Afghan claim, not the battlefield reality.

You accuse me of arguing personal opinion, but the only one engaging in OR is you by selectively interpreting one part of Lee’s work while ignoring the rest. You’re pushing a misleading narrative under the pretense of neutrality. If the Afghans failed to take the fort and were pushed back, how does that align with the definition of "disputed"? Indo-Greek 16:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Considering how this dispute is going nowhere, I suggest just removing Lee's opinion entirely.

Me, the WP:3O (@OpalYosutebito) and @Someguywhosbored agree on that as a possible solution. Noorullah (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Khushwant Singh

I checked the conversation, I’m not exactly sure what this is supposed to mean to me. If you two believe that he’s a historian, than I personally would disagree. I checked the sources cited.

https://sikhri.org/articles/khushwant-singh

All it claims is that he’s supposedly “renowned”, and yet he has zero credentials related to history.

“https://www.loc.gov/acq/ovop/delhi/salrp/khushwantsingh.html”

This one at least refers to him as a “historian”, but again, look at his credentials. He studied law and journalism. Nothing related to history.

There’s a couple more sources but I think you get the point. I should respond to one of the points made here instead.

“ A person doesn't always need degrees to be considered a reliable or significant historian”

I respectfully disagree with this statement by Noorullah. Especially when it comes to sources that are much older like Khushwant(see WP:AGEMATTERS). To be a considered a “historian”, you typically need a masters or a PHD related to history. Now even if Khushwant is considered “acceptable”, in this case there is no real need to cite him.

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history)

In a nutshell: “Historical articles on Wikipedia should use scholarly works where possible. Where scholarly works are unavailable, the highest quality commercial or popular works should be used.”

We already have plenty of other more qualitative sources, from scholars with actual credentials. Why would we need Singh, an older source with no credentials related to history? Especially if this is the only that makes this claim.

so even if he’s “okay”, I don’t think this addition to the article is acceptable.

I do want to clarify that I’m not saying I think you were correct on the battle of Pipli Sahib page. I just briefly gave it a read over, and there were plenty of sources other than Khushwant that claim the battles outcome was something other than a Sikh victory.

Also just because a fact is sourced doesn’t mean it’s a useful addition to any article. I haven’t found any other sources that came to the same conclusion as khushwant. If no other secondary sources mention it, than it’s likely not notable.

I'm gonna remove it. Per ONUS, if you want change, use the talk page. Because your the one who’s adding disputed content so you need to gain consensus first. It also means there shouldn’t be any reverts until than. If I turn out to be wrong I’d be more than happy to change it. Someguywhosbored (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@RangersRus

Hello. I understood your concerns. I just wanted to state that this supposed “historian” doesn’t actually have any credentials related to history. And if he’s the only one who has came to this conclusion(an older source with no history related credentials), than I don’t think this is notable, or even worth mentioning in the article. If I’m wrong, I’d be happy to change it. The reason why I removed it is because he’s adding disputed content. Once content gets disputed, it’s up to the user adding it to attain consensus, per ONUS.

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion

“The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.”

Again, I wouldn’t mind being proven wrong but for now, the content shouldn’t be there once a dispute begins. That’s why I removed it. Someguywhosbored (talk) 02:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

You removed two sources, Gupta (why?) and Singh. Singh is referenced in 1251 articles on Wikipedia and historians use his books as reference. You shared this link by the Library of Congress that refer to him as historian. I saw this where you said If you two believe that he’s a historian, than I personally would disagree, so this is not a reason to remove if two other editors do not agree. I will suggest to reach consensus with other two editors. RangersRus (talk) 03:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I didn’t realize that the first source I removed was from Gupta. I wouldn’t have removed him otherwise. That was my mistake. My main contention was with Singh.

As for the rest, yes I’m aware that the source referred to him as a historian, that was the point I was bringing up. I’m just saying that a single source from a long time ago, from a guy who has exactly ZERO credentials related to history, is probably not worthy of being left in the article.

@RegentsPark sorry for pinging you out of nowhere, but I believe it was you who said that you wouldn’t leave content cited from a single old source. Per this discussion under sardesai [16]. Wouldn’t the same principle apply here? Even if he’s an “okay” source, is it really worth leaving this here when it’s the only source that has made the claim?

If I'm getting this right, are you referring to the Gupta 1978 and Singh 2004 sources? I would let these stand alone mainly because you're not going to find a lot of sources on this battle anyway so 1978 and 2004 are recent enough. If it's just about the Singh source and the quotations, they're probably okay too. Since they are quoted and cited. If you're talking about something else, let me know. RegentsPark (comment) 17:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response RegentsPark. I should clarify that I’m not talking about Guptas source. Just Singhs in particular. Removing Gupta was a mistake that I didn’t mean to do.

One of my major issues with with Singh is that he has zero credentials or degrees related to history. But that’s not all. Controversial statements usually should be backed by multiple high quality sources.

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

I believe the book was first published in 1963. I think 2004 just might be a new edition? To be fair, that could still mean it’s been updated so perhaps it’s not old(I’m not sure how it works in this case, if the book was published a while ago but has possibly been updated kind of recently). But regardless, I’m not entirely convinced that we need a quote from a journalist/lawyer. Sure there aren’t that many works, but we should always look for the highest quality sources no? And there are plenty cited in the article. I’m just saying, if it’s only Singh who came up with this, than I’d be hesitant to add him into the article. And I doubt this information would be considered “notable” anyway.

If I’m wrong then I wouldn’t mind being proven incorrect. But until then, I don’t see why we should leave this in the article. Someguywhosbored (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Also rangerrus, I think my point was that per ONUS, until consensus has been reached, nobody should be adding disputed content. Which means you shouldn’t have reverted the edit until discussions were over.

So yeah, even if this source is reliable, in this case, I don’t see why we should be adding it into the article when it’s the only source added. Noorullahs situation was different because they were other sources that also came to that conclusion. That wasn’t the case here. Someguywhosbored (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Onus is not, in itself, a reason to exclude the information. There is no rule to not have just one source for a statement. More is best practice but not a requirement. RangersRus (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

“ Onus is not, in itself, a reason to exclude the information”. No, but it means you shouldn’t have reverted the change until discussions were over. I had already provided my reasons for its removal.

“ There is no rule to not have just one source for a statement. More is best practice but not a requirement.”

This are several issues here. For one, Khushwant has exactly zero history credentials. He has degrees in law and journalism, but he doesnt have any degrees/qualifications related to history. Furthermore, we’ve had a discussion similar to this on the Third battle of panipat page. RegentsPark mentioned that he would be very hesitant including content that is cited from a single source a long time ago whether that be pre or post raj. Older sources are okay, but it’s always better to cite more modern sources. In this case, there are no other sources that backs this statement up. And it’s from a guy without scholarly history related credentials/degrees. So it’s removal was justified.

Also I think you should take a look here.

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

”Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Warnings (red flags) that should prompt extra caution include:

Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;

Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest”

In this instance, it’s certainly exceptional. These claims are not covered by multiple mainstream sources. And the authors work isn’t high quality/mainstream when the writer doesn’t even have a history degree. For the sake of argument, let’s say his work is fine, the content on the article would still need multiple sources backing the statement up. Completely different situation in the battle of Pipli sahib page, as they were multiple sources that came to the same conclusion. Not the case here. Someguywhosbored (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

That is not what it means. You excluded the change. You should not have excluded when other two editors already agree on a source. I reverted the exclusion. Discuss your case with two other editors who are active here and with consensus make any changes. This is all I can recommend. RangersRus (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

“That is not what it means. You excluded the change. You should not have excluded when other two editors already agree on a source.”

Than what does it mean? He just added disputed content. Consensus wasn’t yet attained because the discussion just started. Once content gets disputed, it’s not supposed to remain on the article until discussions are over and consensus has been attained. That’s why it was removed. That’s how ONUS works. And I already explained why I removed it. I didn’t just decide to do it out of the blue.

Noorullah hasn’t commented on here. If he wants to use Khushwant on the Pipli sahib page, than he can do that even if I don’t think the source isn’t that great. The statements there are at least backed up by multiple other sources. My contention isn’t with Noorullah. It’s only with this article.

Also it doesn’t seem like you responded to any of my other points. I’ve already clarified my argument. As I’ve proven, controversial statements should be backed by multiple high quality sources(this is especially true if there are no other sources in the article that corroborates it). And per the previous conversation with administrator RegentsPark, we should generally avoid single sourced statements that was authored a long time ago. In this case, we need multiple high quality sources for the controversial claims.

“ Discuss your case with two other editors who are active here and with consensus make any changes. This is all I can recommend”

Is that not what I’m doing? I brought the issue to the talk page. I haven’t gotten a response from indo greek yet despite telling him to check the talk page in my edit summary which he’s definitely seen because he reverted me. Someguywhosbored (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes you started the discussion but ping the editors involved to get attention, finish discussion with consensus on disputed content and then make the changes resulted from the consensus. Please do not use onus as a reason to remove sources and content that you might ONLY have a dispute with. Please ping involved editors to discuss. RangersRus (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

“ Please do not use onus as a reason to remove sources and content that you might ONLY have a dispute with. Please ping involved editors to discuss”

Again…ONUS was not the sole reason I removed the content. I don’t know how many times I have to repeat myself. And you keep telling me not to use ONUS as a reason even though it’s perfectly valid in this scenario because you two are the ones adding disputed content.

I suppose my other points are just gonna be ignored. Controversial content requires multiple sources, yet I guess that’s not going to get acknowledged.

Now Noorullah and Indogreek have responded. Clearly Noorullah wants nothing to do with indo Greeks argument. I’ve already explained that the issue here isn’t the same as the one on the battle of Pipli Sahib page, so I don’t have any contention with Noorullah.

Indo greek has been spectating the conversation from the beginning and didn’t bother to respond. Even now he hasn’t refute a single point I’ve made. He’s just waiting for you guys to deal with it. Someguywhosbored (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

• @Noorullah21 would you do something here? This is getting ridiculous. @Someguywhosbored... just stop this tireless and unnecessary WP:STONEWALLING, just STOP this behaviour. Indo-Greek 18:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  @HerakliosJulianus So you can then frame me as jumping into this discussion as Meatpuppetry? No thanks. Noorullah (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  Hello Noorullah. Let me explain to you my case here. So there’s so many issues I don’t even know where to behin. Let’s start with the obvious. Controversial statements(especially ones that are single sourced only) should be backed by multiple high quality sources, per policy. Check here. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

  In the Pipli sahib page, Singh wasn’t the only one who came to that conclusion so I don’t necessarily have that much of an issue with it being cited on that page. But here, he’s the only one. And that’s what makes his claims controversial.

  And even if he’s “okay”, I’d still prefer historians who actually have credentials related to history. We look for high quality sources on Wikipedia, and even if they are scarce in certain subjects, they are still plenty there in the article.

  Also while the source has a recent edition, it was actually published a long time ago(1963). Someguywhosbored (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  No dear, uh. You are already pinged here, so it's not like you "jumped" here out of nowhere. I just want your opinion on this reliability issue so we can consensus. But I guess I have already attained it (or agreed with my changes) it already (see RegentsPark's and RangerRus' comment). Indo-Greek 19:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  Buddy, consensus doesn’t just get instantly attained. Discussions are still ongoing. Neither you nor rangerrus responded to any of the points I made. And the quality of argument is far more important than votes. I showed you a policy. Controversial statements should be backed by multiple sources. You don’t have that here. Someguywhosbored (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  RegentsPark made it clear and I agree with it. RangersRus (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  Which I’ve also responded to(and will probably discuss this more with him anyway if he has time).

  Ive brought this up before and I’ll bring this up again because apparently everyone except RegentsPark is still ignoring it. Controversial statements should be backed by multiple RS. Regents stated that there isn’t a lot of sources for this battle, but there actually is. For example multiple sources have differing views on the outcome of the battle. The problem with khushwant is that he lacks any credentials or degrees related to history(this fact is still being ignored).

  That’s why I’m asking for multiple reliable sources per policy.

  could you and indo greek actually respond to the points being made? Someguywhosbored (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  Controversial per who? and I am not ignoring but it is not my place to continue with the discussion and I told you to have with other involved editors. If you say RegentsPark is not ignoring, so you stand with his opinion? Source and the quote is there and like RegentsPark said you will not find much sources on this battle. RangersRus (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don’t stand with his opinion. I usually do but it’s fine if we have a disagreement sometimes. The issue is that there definitely are plenty of sources cited for this battle. Hell, even the outcome is disputed because many authors have differing opinions. Not to mention, this “historian” doesn’t actually have any degrees or credentials related to history. What are his qualifications?

  There needs to be multiple different sources per policy on controversial statements. Especially single sourced ones. If your only source is a guy that has zero degrees in history, than it’s difficult for me to believe that this should be left in the article. Especially since we have other high quality sources cited. if it’s notable, than other mainstream sources should also mention it. Someguywhosbored (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  Khushwant Singh is indeed a vastly cited scholar in Wikipedia itself, scholar nonetheless. His book the History of Sikh remains "the most comprehensive and authoritative book" per Google Scholar. Normstahlie (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  Not sure if this discussion is still ongoing, but yes, I am in favor of using Khushwant Singh. He's a reliable author accredited as one of India's most renowned literary historians.

  Not to mention his books have been cited by thousands of publications. WP:HISTRS is broad in this terming too to also include him.

  "Hello Noorullah. Let me explain to you my case here. So there’s so many issues I don’t even know where to behin. Let’s start with the obvious. Controversial statements(especially ones that are single sourced only) should be backed by multiple high quality sources, per policy. Check here."

  - This is true, but Khuswanat himself can be considered a high quality source, as @HerakliosJulianus linked to our discussion on the Pipli Sahib page on why I made the case for Khuswanat. If your saying there should perhaps be more sources backing up a certain claim, yes that'd also be good too, but Khuswanat is noteworthy enough to possibly form his own opinion similar to how we'd write in the Article... "According to Jonathan Lee, (x) happened".

  -

  Also while the source has a recent edition, it was actually published a long time ago(1963).

  -

  That part I'd say it's open to discussion, if it's a recent edition then it really shouldn't be a significant issue because that means it's still up to date/has been edited. If you're citing WP:AGEMATTERS, then yeah, again open to discussion if this ever continues. @RegentsPark@Normstahlie@Someguywhosbored@RangersRus@HerakliosJulianus Noorullah (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  I think it would be better to leave the page as it is for now, maintaining the status quo. At the moment, I'm focused on other projects on Wikipedia and in real life. University is quite stressful, so I don't have much time to debate this either.Indo-Greek 19:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  To defuse the situation, Dost Mohammad wrote an apology letter to the Maharaja claiming his sons actions were unauthorized and sent some horses as gifts to him. Hoping to regain his lost prestige, Dost Mohmmad Khan is said to have sent a letter to Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Dost Mohammed Khan claimed: "I have always regarded myself as established by your authority... I was your servant." Dost Mohammed Khan proposed that, if the Sikh Empire would entrust Peshawar to his care, frontier tensions could be alleviated.

  Can you tell me the letter source that he talking about? 2404:3100:1055:24CC:1:0:CA1:5375 (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

It's literally nonsense

Who made 'Aftermath'? It’s literally nonsense. Do you really think it’s readable?

"Why are you showing the aftermath when you’ve already shown the result? What’s the necessity?

"Can you tell me whether the letter he’s talking about is authentic or not? Or are you just cherry-picking.? @Noorullah21 2404:3100:1054:E325:1:0:C83:22CD (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

The Aftermath focuses on what happened after the battle, not just the battle's results, but also the political situation that followed. Indo-Greek 18:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Is the letter quoted by Hari Ram Gupta and Hushwat Singh authentic? Did he provide any contemporary source? it's my first question.

second: Hari Ram Gupta says: "He told them that his sons acted without his approval."

Mason says: "We knew Hari Singh occupied Jamrud without orders, so we did not make war on the Maharaja. Hari Singh was our only enemy."

One source says his sons acted without approval, while the other says Hari Singh was the only enemy and he make fort without his permission that's why we attack on them, showing a contradiction.

third , The aftermath should not include warning and apology letters, as they are not part of the aftermath. Instead, it should mention when he sent letters to the British for help. Additionally, include Ranjit Singh's , after which his conquests stopped, and his hopes were broken. 2404:3100:104A:E5D8:1842:2714:A0C5:5537 (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Masson falls under WP:RAJ and WP:AGEMATTERS therefore he cannot be used Indo-Greek 20:22, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

He was an eyewitness to it. I did not read the books to check if the letter is mentioned in them or not. What I am saying is that his letter contradicts Gupta's. Now, again, can you tell me where Hari Ram Gupta and Khushwant Singh got the letter? Would it be considered a source, like a contemporary letter?

I ask four time, it's just my question from where they got the letters.? 2404:3100:1013:76D9:1:0:8ED5:1CC (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

11k is fake

"Gupta says both sides lost 7,000 men. It does not say per side. Is your English reading weak or not?" Wikipedia is becoming garbage,

"According to Josiah Harlan once in service of Ranjit Singh who resided at Kabul during the battle mentions, the Sikh side lost 2,000 men, while the Afghan side lost 1,000." 2404:3100:1055:24CC:1:0:CA1:5375 (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

"The two sides lost heavily, about 7,000 men." [17]

Can you link Josiah Harlan being re-produced in a modern secondary source? Noorullah (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

dont know If its wrriten in secondary or not.

Why are you just sitting here while people are making claims like that? Why aren’t you changing the aftermath, which is literally nonsense? Why not add that after Ranjit Singh's conquests stopped, his hopes were broken, and dost sent letters to the British for help? Also, include the betrayal and treachery surrounding Dost Muhammad.

the letter in book; Hari Ram Gupta talks about is real or fake, as it contradicts Mason’s letter. I read a letter in a book by Charles Mason.

masson says : One letter about Ranjit Singh stated that the opposing forces knew Hari Singh Nalwa had occupied Jamrud without the Maharaja’s orders. Therefore, they did not consider themselves at war with Ranjit Singh but saw Hari Singh as their only enemy. Initially, they only aimed to demolish the Jamrud fort, but Hari Singh resisted, leading to battle, the outcome of which Ranjit Singh was already aware. However, upon hearing of Shahzada Noh Nihal Singh’s arrival, they retreated, as losing a prince so dear to the Maharaja would have been considered a great misfortune and an impossible event. 2404:3100:104A:E5D8:1842:2714:A0C5:5537 (talk) 04:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@Noorullah21

Before the battle, Ranjit Singh's plan was to rule over Jalalabad through Dost Muhammad's brothers—Sultan Muhammad Khan, Pir Muhammad Barakzai, and Sayed Muhammad Barakzai. The Sikhs did not want to capture Jalalabad directly or pass through the Khyber Pass. Instead, Ranjit Singh planned to grant control to Dost Muhammad's brothers, allowing him to capture Jalalabad indirectly. However, when Hari Singh was killed, the plan was canceled.

And second, add this in the aftermath, along with what I said—not the nonsense mentioned by that Sikh moron.

https://archive.org/details/dli.pahar.3275/page/80/mode/1up 2404:3100:1013:76D9:1:0:8ED5:1CC (talk) 05:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPA and don't insult other editors. (@HerakliosJulianus)

I'll look over what you wrote if it has any basis, but Charles Mason falls under WP:AGEMATTERS. See WP:RS and WP:HISTRS, we preferably use Secondary sources on Wikipedia. Noorullah (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)