Talk:Battle of Jamrud: Difference between revisions

I have made revisions in the article as follows:

Introduction

Deleted 'more painfully' - not encylopaedic and not necessary

The Battle

Changed 'campain' to 'campaign'

Deleted 'for the supplies' - not necessary

Changed 'afghan' to 'Afghan'

Changed 'decission' to 'decision'

Deleted 'and stoped there feet for ever' - wrong spelling, not encylopaedic and not necessary

RASAM (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Afghan victory

The Afghans declared victory after killing top commander Hari Singh Nalwa who was making threats of invading what is now Afghanistan. This is well documented. Leaving the scene of the action doesn't mean they got defeated. They had a chance to finish off all the Sikhs but ran outta ammo and supplies, and were busy fighting with the Persians in the western Afghan city of Herat and with internal fighting between each other. Their objective was to kill Hari Nalwa Singh which was accomplished.

The above is incorrect.

Hari Singh Nalwa had captured Jamrud in late 1836. He had commenced the construction of a very strong fort at this place. Maharaja Ranjit Singh's grandson was getting married at Amritsar in March 1837. Dost Mohammad Khan knew this because he had been invited to the celebration. As far as the Afghans were concerned, Hari Singh Nalwa was away to attend the wedding at Amritsar and only a skeletal force of the Sikhs was present along the north west frontier. Most of the troops were assembled in Amritsar. Had the Afghans known of Hari Singh's presence in Peshawar, they would never have come down the mountains. The main objective of the Afghans was to push the Sikhs back across the Indus. They came to take Jamrud and their (lost) winter capital of Peshawar. They achieved NONE of their stated objectives. Akbar Khan was facilitated by his father Dost Mohammad Khan because he had come back alive (being the son of the favourite wife)...it had NOTHING to do with the death of Hari Singh Nalwa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runjeet (talk • contribs) 08:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Afghans Official victory

Their is no doubt that the Afghans had a chance to finish off all the Sikhs but ran outta ammo and supplies, and were busy fighting with the Persians in the western Afghan city of Herat and with internal fighting between each other. Their objective was to kill Hari Nalwa Singh which was accomplished.--(talk/ Shahzadapashtun) 09:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see more sources for this battle. The death of Hari Singh would have been seen as an achievement, though raising the siege of the fort could be construed as a defeat. More sources should shed some light on this. --Defensor Ursa 03:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

There have s been a lot of changes made here with no discussion, apart from the cursory two entries above. Diffs such as this one really need discussing here (and that was not, by the way, reverting vandalism...) I'm not picking on that particular editor - everyone who has made large, frequent and undiscussed changes here shares the blame. Please start discussing things here and not via your edit summaries! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runjeet (talk • contribs) 08:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Jamrud

Hi, I think first we should discuss this matter in civil manner in order to solve this issue rather than reverting each other's edits. There is always chance of difference in opinions. Many Historians contradict with each other. This issue can be solved as per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and most important WP:DUE. We should discuss whether Sikh victory or Afghan victory is a majority viewpoint or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theman244 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Thanks Theman244 (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. There appears to be no progress in this discussion even months later, and frankly, a basic application of WP standards wrt to military history can easily give resolution to this issue. The standard approach to victory/defeat is whether military objectives were accomplished. The idea that the Afghans fought a war just to kill Hari Singh Nalwa is ridiculous and runs counter to the article itself. The Afghan possessions in India had been conquered by the Sikhs. Peshawar was the most significant loss. Jamrud's value was that it controlled the passage into India and was strategically necessary in order for Afghans to reclaim Peshawar or other Indian territories. The Afghans failed to take Jamrud fort. While the death of Hari Singh Nalwa was clearly a significant loss to the Sikhs, Jamrud was at very best a Pyrrhic Sikh victory given that it was dearly bought and certainly not a Sikh defeat. This would be like saying Trafalgar was a French victory because Nelson (another brilliant military commander) was killed in action. Any NPOV moderator should see this. Out of respect to other participants, I will wait a few days before changing the article. This should be a very easy debate to resolve.

Devanampriya (talk) 09:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

According to some University sources;

• James A. Norris, First Afghan War: 1838-42, Cambridge University Press, p109;"At the battle of Jamrud neither side could honestly claim a victory, but the Sikhs suffered severely at the hands of the Afghan horsemen, and they lost one of their king's favorite generals, Hari Singh.[1]
• Zalmay Ahmad Gulzad, The history of the delimitation of the Durand Line development of the Afghan State (1838-1898), University of Wisconsin--Madison, p62;"1837 they fought a pitched battle at Jamrud in which the Afghan forces were victorious.[2]
• Proceedings, Punjabi University, p129;"A pitched battle was fought at Jamrud, in which Hari Singh Nalwa was killed, but the Afghans failed to dislodge the Sikhs from Jamrud..."
• Khushwant Singh, A History of the Sikhs: 1469-1838, Oxford University Press, p227;"For the Afghans the killing of Hari Singh Nalwa turned the defeat at Jamrud into a victory. 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 ...."????

Gulzad states Afghan victory, while Singh states Afghan victory with some sort of mitigating factor. The Punjabi source seem to indicate a stalemate with the Afghans failing to take Jamrud, but the Sikhs losing a general. Norris pretty much spells out a stalemate(..neither side could honestly claim a victory..).

Other source(s);

• Jeffery J. Roberts, The Origins of Conflict in Afghanistan, p4;"In 1837 Dost's son, Akbar Khan, led an Afghan army to victory at Jamrud. Akbar, however, did not followup his success with an advance to Peshawar, and the city remained in Sikh hands."[3]
• Bikrama Jit Hasrat,Life and times of Ranjit Singh, p137;"The doubtful Sikh victory at Jamrud in 1837 had made it clear to Ranjit Singh that policy of hatred and repression in the northwestern frontier so far pursued had failed in its objective."

I tentatively propose placing Afghan victory(with the Gulzad, Adamec and Roberts sources), Sikh victory(with Docherty and Hasrat sources) and Stalemate(with the Norris source). The Punjabi and Singh sources, since both were snippet views, fail(IMO) to clearly express the result of the battle. Anymore sources that pass Wikipedia:Reliable Sources can be used to add to either Afghan victory, Sikh victory or Stalemate. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Kansas Bear,

Thank you for your post and diligent listing of viewpoints. The problem here is that we have the inevitable battle of sources. Parties to the dispute are naturally going to proclaim theirs as authoritative. In such a situation, it becomes necessary to independently review the military objectives and assess the success in attaining the objective. In this case, the immediate military objective of the Afghans was to retake Jamrud fort. They failed to retake it. On its face, this was a Sikh victory for the simple fact that they retained control of the strategic fort that guarded the khyber pass. This prevented Afghans from retaking their former Indian territories and secured India's northwestern gateway for the first time in 800 years.

I understand that a number of commentators, especially here, have remarked that the Hari Singh's death was a great loss to the Sikhs. This is true--he was a great warrior general. However, the Sikh military machine remained cohesive and capable, and the numerical casualties to the Sikhs were not at all disproportionate given the manpower they commanded. Ranjit Singh's rule remained unaffected. While it is fair to say the victory at Jamrud was dearly purchased, which it was, it's quite another to say this alone makes it a loss. The immediate tactical consequence is a Sikh victory, and the immediate strategic consequence was that Ranjit Singh retained control of the Khyber.

Therefore, I appreciate your polite proposals, however, they don't appear to corroborate the basic facts on the ground. Providing multiple results from multiple sources will only prove to be detrimental to other wikipedia milhist articles. Such strategic relativism would be detrimental to making WP an accurate source of information on military history, since everyone will be encouraged to say their perspective is reality--failing to provide the third party with an accurate account. Victory is when one's objectives are attained, defeat when one's objectives are not attained, stalemate when neither side can effect a decisive tactical outcome. Here the Sikhs retained uncontested control of Jamrud fort as well as strategic control of the khyber.

Perhaps as a compromise, you can contribute an enlarge section on the overall extended consequences of the battle in the article itself--particularly how apparent Sikh invasion plans of Afghanistan were set aside. This is one way for us to circumvent edit wars over the battle legend. Let me know what you think. Thanks.

Regards,

Devanampriya (talk) 07:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I prefer to avoid original research at all costs(ie. interpreting the result instead of using what the sources state). I listed 4 university sources(I am sure there are more), of which the Universities of Oxford and Wisconsin-Madison indicate that an "Afghan victory" is by no means a "fringe view". I do not believe Sikh victory should be excluded from the template, either. We are not here to decide what the result of the battle was, we are here to report what secondary sources say about the battle. We should give the reader all the information regarding the battle and let the reader decide. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I see your point Kansas Bear, only here's the distinction: Original research generally involves interpretation of primary sources, which we are not doing here. Further, it becomes a factor when sources (whether primary or secondary) are used to state something that they do not imply--neither of us are doing that here. So it's not original research. Looking at NPOV, our only recourse given the battle of sources is to work for WP: balance. As such, we then have to compare what secondary sources say about the event--and why they say it. With respect to the battle legend, the basic fact about the battle (vs a war) is whether or not the military objective was accomplished. This becomes all the more important when the objective is a strategic fort, where the ultimate possession of the real estate has real strategic consequences--in this case, it's clear cut and uncontested. Perhaps the fair compromise would be to expand the aftermath section. This would give you an opportunity to call out the sources that characterize it as an afghan victory or a pyrrhic sikh victory. What do you think?

Devanampriya (talk) 11:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Some more sources

Sikh Victory

• Paddy Docherty, The Khyber Pass, Page 186-87,Eventually- despite the death of Hari Singh during this fighting-the Afghan forces withdrew and the Khyber Pass was finally in Sikh hands. the Sikhs has secured their kingdom[4]

• Dr. H.S. Singha, Sikh Studies, Book 6, Pg61,He lost his life but not the battle[5] Thanks Theman244 (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Kansas Bear has asked me to comment on this article. I've fully protected the article for a week to allow for dispute resolution. The standard ways of dealing with situations in which different reliable sources provide different interpretations of the results of a battle are 1) to include the differing views in the infobox or 2) leave the results field of the infobox blank and explain the differing views in the article. I tend to prefer option 2, but there's no set solution and option 1 is also fine. Adding one view only obviously isn't in line with WP:NPOV, and editors should not be seeking to add material which doesn't reflect differing views. As a reminder, this article falls under the general sanctions on articles relating to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan (please see Wikipedia:General sanctions) and any further POV-pushing or edit warring will lead to blocks. Nick-D (talk) 04:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

As per my inquiry on Milhist  ;

• Why not a compromise based on the text? As in: "Result: Defined western boundary of Sikh Empire." Boneyard90 (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

  That is a possibility, or another option might be list something generic in the infobox. For instance "result=See Aftermath" (or whatever section in the prose is being used to discuss the results). You could then use a number of paragraphs in that section to discuss the varied scholarly interpretations of the result, adding equal weight to all reliable sources. Another option might be "result=Disputed" and then, as above, discuss all the varied interpretations in the prose. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

  In an ideal world the infobox entry would be obvious based on the outcome/aftermath section, which itself should be summarised in the lede. But reliable sources do not always state the outcome simply and a lot of editor time can be taken up in trying to work out the a suitable statement. Omitting it from the infobox does not necessarily detract from the article.GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

  I agree with AR and Graeme. For an example and the syntax have a look at Operation Trio. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  

I believe that AustralianRupert's idea, "You could then use a number of paragraphs in that section to discuss the varied scholarly interpretations of the result, adding equal weight to all reliable sources. Another option might be "result=Disputed" and then, as above, discuss all the varied interpretations in the prose.", has merit. Perhaps instead of "result=Disputed" to
"result=Afghan victory(sources)

Sikh victory(sources)

Indecisive(sources)"

Including a section that discusses the various scholarly interpretations. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• I disagree with the idea that Battle of Jamrud Defined western boundary of Sikh Empire because there was no territorial change in the western boundary of the Sikh Empire after battle. Thanks Theman244 (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I also disagree. The military objective of capturing Jamrud fort was very clear, and the Afghans failed to take it (or any other Sikh territory), and they retreated. As I said above, perpetuating this notion that the Afghans could reasonably have said to have won because Hari Singh died in battle would be like saying the French won Trafalgar because a brilliant commander like Nelson also died. We have pretty clear results for battles like Panipat III, which the afghans clearly won. It's clear the Sikhs won here based on their continued possession of the fort they were defending.

The framework of using military objectives is the most npov friendly, because it prevents wishy washy accounts by writers mentioning it in passing reference, from skewing the article. The simple question is, what was the military objective here?

Devanampriya (talk) 04:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, "Sikh Victory" should be removed from infobox. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 09:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Really?

Some more reliable sources

• Tony Jaques, Dictionary of Battles and Sieges, pg485;"Attempting to recover Peshawar, Dost Muhammad Khan of Kabul sent his son Muhammad Akbar Khan, who was defeated outside Jamrud."[6] Thanks Theman244 (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Off course, really. For example, according to Ludwig W. Adamec's Historical Dictionary of Afghanistan, He defeated the Sikhs at the Battle of Jamrud (1837) and assumed the title “Commander of the Faithful” (Amir-ul-Mu'minin). Articles of wikipedia should be written neutrally. I recommend you to read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view again. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• To, Takabeg

I also recommend you to follow this discussion from the start and check who started this discussion n what i suggested in the beginning before telling me about Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and one more thing, for your kind information that i never edited this article till date. Thanks Theman244 (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Gentlemen,

I know history can be a heated subject, but if possible, let us all avoid personal recriminations and focus on the subject matter. I will do the same.

Takabeg, welcome to the discussion. Regarding, NPOV, yes, I am aware of what it requires, but if you take a closer look at it, you'll see that in the event that there is a battle of sources, we have to fall back on WP: Good Reseach. This means we do not have to give undue weight to passing opinions and editorialization. As such, we not only have to look at quality of secondary sources (for example a dictionary of battles and sieges is specifically focused on military history, compared to say a general biography of a country), but the length and detail of the account as well. The Docherty book does not merely refer to jamrud in passing mention, but gives an extended account of it.

Finally, I noticed that there have yet to be any responses (even by the individuals canvassed to comment) to my point about how all this can be answered with the simple question, what was the military objective?

This is very important as we have seen a number of milhist articles subject to revisionist history that over-expand the analytical framework to well beyond the immediate tactical and strategic objectives to explain why victories were actually defeats. We even see that here, where the article needlessly discusses the eventual british dissolution of the Sikh empire. While no one argues with this fact, it took place many years later, and had nothing to do with the Battle of Jamrud. Hari Singh Nalwa was one of many capable generals in the Sikh Army--this extrapolation of Jamrud to the british empire is nonsensical, particularly if used to somehow lend weight to the argument of Afghan victory.

As part of this concern, is the fear that this can open a pandora's box of revisionist history and edit wars on settled wiki articles--which I would like to avoid. That is why I advocate the objective approach.

Let us not forget that Nelson died at Trafalgar, but no one in their right mind would ever suggest this was a french victory. As such, one must look directly at the arguments provided for and against the assertion that this was a Sikh victory--this will help us frame the discussion logically rather than talk at each other with a blizzard of sources. I will provide the reasons for--can Kansas Bear or Takabeg summarize the reasons against?

Reasons for Sikh Victory Primary: 1. Successful defense and retention of Jamrud fort by Sikhs

Supporting: 2. Significantly fewer Sikh casualties 3. Continued Sikh control of the strategic khyber pass and protection of Indian territories. 4. Afghans raids and attacks on India halted

Reasons against?

Thank you for your cooperation.

Also, could the admin in charge extend the page protect to avoid edit wars--since we have been able to get the parties to engage in discussion? Thanks.

Devanampriya (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)