Talk:Cis-Sutlej states

message: Stop adding wrong facts that Cis-Sutlej states were "HINDU STATES", they were primarily Sikh states with few exceptions, and that [Scindhias|Scindhia dynasty]] was a Rajput dynasty instead of a Maratha dynasty. These are well sourced, established FACTS, stop changing them. Shimlaites (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong assertions 

message: The Cis-Sutlej states were a group of states in the contemporary Punjab and Haryana states of northern India during the 19th century, lying between the Sutlej River in the north, the Himalayas in the east, the Yamuna River and Delhi District in the south, and Sirsa District in the west.
:All of it is already on the page but you want to remove the part about Maratha rule in this section. CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: These detailed informations and sources that needs to be included in the article

message: The Cis-Sutlej state was ruled by many chiefs though it belonged to Mughal Empire. Mughal Emperor Shah Alam II's viceregent Afrasiyab was killed by Zain-ul-Abidin Khan on 2 November 1784, thus leaving  no one to appoint as the next viceregent. Thus Mughal Emperor appointed Mahadji Sindhia as viceregent of the empire as Shah Alam II knew that Sindhia is the only one who would remain acquiescent to him and would be able to maintain peace and order in his kingdom. Therefore, Mahadji as newly appointed viceregent of the Mughal Emperor, tried to come to an agreement with the Cis-Sutlej chiefs and concluded a treaty in May 1785, which however fell apart as the chiefs did not observe the terms of the treaty. But in 1789, a peaceful agreement was set in place where Sindhia legitamized the chiefs to collect tributes from the villages and the purpose behind Mahadji's policy was to win over the chiefs by friendship, but this policy too failed. After Mahadji's death in 1794, Daulat Rao was made his replacement, under whom the unstable conditions continued against the chiefs till the Second Anglo-Maratha War, losing any influence over Cis-Sutlej state and parts of Uttar Pradesh, which he supervised on behalf of the Mughal Emperor.
 Following the Second Anglo-Maratha War in 1806, Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington drafted a treaty granting independence to the Sikh clans east of the Sutlej River in exchange for their allegiance to the British General Gerard Lake acting on his dispatch. At the conclusion of the war, the frontier of British India was extended to the Yamuna. 
Ranjit Singh led three expeditions into Cis-Sutlej states in 1806, 1807 and 1808, seizing many territories, particularly 45 district subdivisions or administrative units (parganas) and then distributed them among different chiefs who would pay annual tributes of certain amount as recognition of Ranjit Singh's supremacy. Ranjit Singh gave some territories of Cis-Sutlej to his mother in law Rani Sada Kaur and granted a good deal of villages to his general Dewan Mokham Chand. In all 45 paraganas, Ranjit Singh assigned salaried agents to different territories who sustained some soldiers for internal administration to retrieve revenues from lands. Some of the important vassal territories of Sikh empire were, Anandpur, Rupar, Himmatpur, Wadni, Harikepatan, Firozpur and Mamdot. An 1809 agreement with Ranjit Singh, emperor of the Sikh Empire west of the Sutlej, brought the territories under the aegis of Ranjit Singh's Sikh Empire's dominion from Anandpur to Mamdot. On 29 July 1809, David Ochterlony also recognized under Ranjit Singh's supremacy, large territory from Chamkaur to Harikepatan and Kot Kapura, 102 villages in the tehsil of Dharamkot, Zira and Kot Kapura, 90 districts in the paraganah of Ludhiana-
Sirhind, 106 villages in the tehsil of Talwandi and Naraingarh, 38 villages secured to Raja Jaswant Singh of Nabha, 32 villages in the tehsil of Baddowal secured to Gurdit Singh of Ladwa, 36 villages in the tehsil of Ghungrana secured to Karam Singh Nagia, 62 villages in the tehsil of Dharamkot granted to Garbha Singh of Bharatgarh, many number of villages granted to Jodh Singh of Kalsia, Basant Singh, Atar Singh, Jodh Singh of Bassia and Ranjit Singh's mother in law Sada Kaur was granted with Himmatpur-Wadni. The Cis-Sutlej states included Kaithal, Patiala, Jind, Thanesar, Maler Kotla and Faridkot. 
Before 1846 the greater part of this territory was relatively independent, the chiefs being subject to supervision from a political officer stationed at Umballa, and styled the agent of the British Governor-General of India for the Cis-Sutlej states. A number of states were confiscated or acquired by Britain under the Doctrine of Lapse. After the First Anglo-Sikh War the full administration of the territory became vested in this officer. In 1849, Punjab was annexed to British India, when the Cis-Sutlej states commissionership, comprising the districts of Ambala, Ferozepore, Ludhiana, Thanesar and Simla, was incorporated with the new Punjab Province.
 
The name continued to be applied to this division until 1862, when—owing to Ferozepore having been transferred to Lahore Division and a part of Thanesar to Delhi Division—it ceased to be appropriate. The remaining tract became known as the Ambala Division. The princely states of Patiala, Jind, and Nabha were appointed a separate political agency in 1901. Excluding Bahawalpur (for which there was no political agent) and Chamba, the other states were grouped under the commissioners of Jullunder and Delhi, and the superintendent of the Simla Hill States. All native states, except Kaithal, would join PEPSU after India's independence. Javerine (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, what is your problem with the Marathas, all the sources clearly call Marathas as the rulers not Mughals. Marathas became the Regent of Mughals and kept them under their protection. Again i repeat, Mughal empire lasted till 1857, doesn't mean they were ruling over the British East India company. CrashLandingNew (talk) 02:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

text: What is this? You have copy pasted the whole page itself. Keep the discussion on points rather than copy pasting the whole page itself. CrashLandingNew (talk) 02:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

text: As suggested by other editor, it is needed to provide information and sources to run a comparison. What made you think that there is problem with the Marathas. We have to go by the book as editors and state what is mentioned in the book instead of making interpretations of own. What all sources shows that Cis-Sutlej belong to Maratha Empire or was part of Maratha Empire? None.Javerine (talk) 11:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are moving in circles. The citations clearly call Marathas the hegemons of the Mughal affairs and all these small states, even the quotes have been provided. Kindly bother to check the citation instead of being selective. None of the citations call Cis-Sutlej states being controlled by the Mughals but the Marathas, who again I repeat, multiple sources here, mention as the hegemons of the Mughals. CrashLandingNew (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't say that Cis-Sutlej was part of Maratha Empire. Even Durrani had hegemony over Mughal Affairs, Even British appointed had hegemony over Maratha affairs but doesn't mean that the territories belong to those who had hegemony. Come on now.Javerine (talk) 11:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are being selective in ur observation, you call these states part of the Mughal authority but you are intentionally or unintentionally removing the part which states that the Marathas controlled these territories in the name of Mughals as the Marathas were the hegemons over Mughal affairs. It has been well established by the citation that after 1784, when Sindhia installed Shah Alam in Delhi, he maintained suzerainty over Mughal affairs. The Durranis and  British maintained suzerainty at different periods in history. CrashLandingNew (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are going in circle rather intentionally. If you go by the book and the clear statements made, without making own assumptions or interpretations, its clear that the territories belonged to Mughal Emperor. Sentence from  Suzerainty over Mughal affairs and being employed by Mughal Emperor doesn't mean the territorial belonging or occupation of another Kingdom but an infuence has been brought in to maintain order. Not sure what you mean by Durrani and British maintained suzerainty at different periods and I do not want to go into different topic. Even R.S Chaurasia clearly mentions that The Cis-Sutlej state was ruled by many chiefs though it belonged to Mughal Empire. Javerine (talk) 11:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

text: Seriously, you are denying every citation here that states that Marathas maintained suzerainty over the Mughal affairs and controlled these states even Chaurasia, even when British took controlled of these states they did so as Regent of the British not as the rulers. These territories were Maratha protectorate till 1806 and then became British protectorate in 1809. All the citations clearly state this. CrashLandingNew (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What you mean denying every citation? None of the citation you provided claim Cis-Sutlej was Maratha territories. Whoever is appointed as viceregent, takes responsibility of maintaining order and the sources clearly mention that Shah Alam II thought of Mahadji as someone who would be obedient to him and thus appointed him. This doesn't mean that the territories belong to hm now. Even British were protectorate of Afghanistan to manage foreign affairs and this didn't mean that Afghanistan land or territories belong to British.Javerine (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

text: @CrashLandingNew @Javerine He cited a lot of sources with his edits. Do you have any to provide to support your argument about the cis-Sutlej states being tributaries  or suzerainty of the Maratha empire rather than the Mughals? ThethPunjabi (talk) 10:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which sources are you talking about specifically? Kindly mention them, "...a lot of sources" is a blanket term. In fact, User:Javerine is solely relying on the work of Hari Ram Gupta instead of using multiple sources. Multiple sources cited here say that Marathas maintained hegemony over Mughal affairs in Delhi, just like British did after them till 1857. What Javerine is trying to insinuate here is that Marathas were mere employees of the Mughals and the latter were the dominant power in the region. For instance these citations, 
 
they all call Marathas as the dominant power in the region not Mughals. All these citations mention Marathas as the dominant power with Mughals as their mere protectorates. You can't remove Marathas and add Mughals as the rulers. CrashLandingNew (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

text:  Your own source says that it was Marathas who were dealing with the Sikhs not the Mughals as they Marathas maintained hegemony over Mughals. CrashLandingNew (talk) 11:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What part of Mahadji appointed as viceregent by Mughal Emperor didn't you understand? Javerine (talk) 11:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  What part of the citations are not understandable to you? They all call Marathas as the dominant power and Mughals as the mere protectorates of the former. Viceregent didn't mean that Marathas were below the Mughals in hierarchy and power structure. In fact, Marathas controlling these territories as regents of the Mughals is mentioned already. Even British ruled India till 1857 as regents of Mughals not masters. Marathas controlled Cis-Sutlej, including Tax collection as the regents of the Mughals as they maintained suzerainty over the latter.CrashLandingNew (talk) 11:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: They all have no statement on the topic of discussion. It was viceregent's job to maintain order for the Mughal Emperor but he failed and died in 1794, followed with same conclusion by Daulat Rao SIndhia.Javerine (talk) 11:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

text:  So now you are not coming up with your own interpretation of what the role of a regent is? Marathas as regent of Mughals were not their employees they were their masters, like the British were till 1857 before they deposed Mughals formally. All the sources cited here clearly mention Marathas as regents of the Mughal authority and the hegemons over these states and he/they didn't fail, these states were never able to fall under the rule of Ranjit Singh and were later won by the British when they replaced the Marathas as the regents in Delhi.CrashLandingNew (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not interpretation but by definition and what the sources mention as Mahadji and later Daulat as the viceregent appointed by the Mughal Emperor of his kingdom. And in 1809 45 paraganahs of the Northern Cis-Sutlej state were kept under Sikh domination and the rest under British protectorate. All this information is given in great detail but I think this is not what your dispute is on, rather on whether the territories belonged to Mughal or Maratha Empire but clearly even after repeatable cycle about hegemony and suzerainty, Mahadji was an appointed viceregent of the Mughal Emperor to maintain order of his territories an this doesn't make it part of Maratha Empire.Javerine (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  They were part of the Maratha confederacy as the Marathas being the protectors and regents of the Mughals maintained suzerainty over these states. Again, all citations call Marathas as the protectors and controllers of these territories. In fact the reason Ranjit Singh dared to invade these territories only after 1806 was because the Marathas were out due to their defeat in the second Anglo-Maratha war. After 1809, the British became the protectors of the Mughals and Delhi and controlled all the territory in their name. Would you call these states part of the Mughal empire and not Company rule? Post 1809 history is to be discussed seperately. CrashLandingNew (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

text: Not correct as protectors or protectorate do not make claim over territories especially when appointed and no citations make statement that the territories belonged or were part of Maratha Empire. Ranjit Singh actually invaded territories in 1806, 1807 and 1808. Here is detailed information from Gupta's book about treaty in 1809. David Ochterlony's Note, dated 29 July, 1809
1. A large part of the territory along river Satluj from Chamkaur to Harikepatan and Kot Kapura worth about 4 lakh of rupees annually was kept directly under Lahore Government.
2. His Commander-in-Chief Diwan Mohkam Chand was granted 102 villages in the taluqas of Dharamkot, Zira and Kot Kapura of the value of Rs. 68,900 annually. This territory also belonged to Ranjit Singh.
3. Ranjit Singh's maternal uncle, Raja Bhag Singh of Jind, was given 90 villages in the parganahs of Ludhiana-Sirhind fetching annual reve- nues of Rs. 41,700.
4. Ranjit Singh's turbaned-brother, Fatah Singh Ahluwalia of Kapurthala, received 106 villages in the taluqas of Talwandi and Naraingarh worth Rs. 40,505 a year.
5. Jodh Singh of Bassia 1 was assigned a number of villages to the annual value of Rs. 42,000.
6. Raja Jaswant Singh of Nabha secured 38 villages bringing annual revenue of Rs. 30,040.
7. Gurdit Singh of Ladwa got 32 villages in the taluqa of Baddowal yielding Rs. 23,540.
8. Karam Singh Nagla obtained 36 villages in the taluqa of Ghungrana worth Rs. 23,415.
9. Garbha Singh of Bharatgarh was granted 62 villages in the taluqa of Dharamkot fetching an annual revenue of Rs. 22,63410. Jodh Singh Kalsia of Chhachhrauli was given villages worth Rs. 10,000 a year.
1 1. Basant Singh received villages to the annual value of Rs. 6,914.
12. Atar Singh was assigned villages worth Rs. 4,000.
13. Ranjit Singh's mother-in-law, Sada Kaur, was granted Himmatpur Wadni near Moga with the stipulation that she would pay Rs. 15,000 per year.
14. Raja Sahib Singh of Patiala and Bhai Lai Singh of Kaithal got nothing.
These grants were made on the specific condition that the recipients accepted subordination to Ranjit Singh as their overlordTerritories from Chamkaur to Mamdot fell under him through the treaty while the remaining part of the CIs-Sutlej state remained under British protectorate. Gupta states Ranjit Singh possessed some 45 taluqas wholly or in share with others on the British side of the River Satluj. In these districts Ranjit Singh appointed his agents. They maintained a certain number of troops necessary for internal administration on the proceeds from their lands. The agents were paid salary in cash. For example. Waisakha Singh incharge of Zira got Rs. 1,000 per mensem. Javerine (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be a balance when you are considering multiple sources and you have to come to a common ground to accommodate all the reliable sources instead of just picking the ones as preferred and ignoring the rest. In my last change, all the references were properly placed where they supported the statement. Shailendra was a miss but that too helps my changes.Javerine (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: The crux of the discussion regarding changes here is that User:Javerine wants Mughals to be declared as the rulers of these states for the time period of 1785-1806, instead of the Marathas and further, he wants to add more than required details of three years i.e. 1806-1809, the interim period before the British rule in 1809, when parts of these states were invaded by Ranjit Singh's forces and were captured briefly. CrashLandingNew (talk) 06:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @CrashLandingNew @Javerine He cited a lot of sources with his edits. Do you have any to provide to support your argument about the cis-Sutlej states being tributaries  or suzerainty of the Maratha empire rather than the Mughals? ThethPunjabi (talk) 10:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which sources are you talking about specifically? Kindly mention them, "...a lot of sources" is a blanket term. In fact, User:Javerine is solely relying on the work of Hari Ram Gupta instead of using multiple sources. Multiple sources cited here say that Marathas maintained hegemony over Mughal affairs in Delhi, just like British did after them till 1857. What Javerine is trying to insinuate here is that Marathas were mere employees of the Mughals and the latter were the dominant power in the region. For instance these citations, 
 
they all call Marathas as the dominant power in the region not Mughals. All these citations mention Marathas as the dominant power with Mughals as their mere protectorates. You can't remove Marathas and add Mughals as the rulers. CrashLandingNew (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

text:  Your own source says that it was Marathas who were dealing with the Sikhs not the Mughals as they Marathas maintained hegemony over Mughals. CrashLandingNew (talk) 11:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What part of Mahadji appointed as viceregent by Mughal Emperor didn't you understand? Javerine (talk) 11:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  What part of the citations are not understandable to you? They all call Marathas as the dominant power and Mughals as the mere protectorates of the former. Viceregent didn't mean that Marathas were below the Mughals in hierarchy and power structure. In fact, Marathas controlling these territories as regents of the Mughals is mentioned already. Even British ruled India till 1857 as regents of Mughals not masters. Marathas controlled Cis-Sutlej, including Tax collection as the regents of the Mughals as they maintained suzerainty over the latter.CrashLandingNew (talk) 11:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: They all have no statement on the topic of discussion. It was viceregent's job to maintain order for the Mughal Emperor but he failed and died in 1794, followed with same conclusion by Daulat Rao SIndhia.Javerine (talk) 11:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

text:  So now you are not coming up with your own interpretation of what the role of a regent is? Marathas as regent of Mughals were not their employees they were their masters, like the British were till 1857 before they deposed Mughals formally. All the sources cited here clearly mention Marathas as regents of the Mughal authority and the hegemons over these states and he/they didn't fail, these states were never able to fall under the rule of Ranjit Singh and were later won by the British when they replaced the Marathas as the regents in Delhi.CrashLandingNew (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not interpretation but by definition and what the sources mention as Mahadji and later Daulat as the viceregent appointed by the Mughal Emperor of his kingdom. And in 1809 45 paraganahs of the Northern Cis-Sutlej state were kept under Sikh domination and the rest under British protectorate. All this information is given in great detail but I think this is not what your dispute is on, rather on whether the territories belonged to Mughal or Maratha Empire but clearly even after repeatable cycle about hegemony and suzerainty, Mahadji was an appointed viceregent of the Mughal Emperor to maintain order of his territories an this doesn't make it part of Maratha Empire.Javerine (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  They were part of the Maratha confederacy as the Marathas being the protectors and regents of the Mughals maintained suzerainty over these states. Again, all citations call Marathas as the protectors and controllers of these territories. In fact the reason Ranjit Singh dared to invade these territories only after 1806 was because the Marathas were out due to their defeat in the second Anglo-Maratha war. After 1809, the British became the protectors of the Mughals and Delhi and controlled all the territory in their name. Would you call these states part of the Mughal empire and not Company rule? Post 1809 history is to be discussed seperately. CrashLandingNew (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

text: Not correct as protectors or protectorate do not make claim over territories especially when appointed and no citations make statement that the territories belonged or were part of Maratha Empire. Ranjit Singh actually invaded territories in 1806, 1807 and 1808. Here is detailed information from Gupta's book about treaty in 1809. David Ochterlony's Note, dated 29 July, 1809
1. A large part of the territory along river Satluj from Chamkaur to Harikepatan and Kot Kapura worth about 4 lakh of rupees annually was kept directly under Lahore Government.
2. His Commander-in-Chief Diwan Mohkam Chand was granted 102 villages in the taluqas of Dharamkot, Zira and Kot Kapura of the value of Rs. 68,900 annually. This territory also belonged to Ranjit Singh.
3. Ranjit Singh's maternal uncle, Raja Bhag Singh of Jind, was given 90 villages in the parganahs of Ludhiana-Sirhind fetching annual reve- nues of Rs. 41,700.
4. Ranjit Singh's turbaned-brother, Fatah Singh Ahluwalia of Kapurthala, received 106 villages in the taluqas of Talwandi and Naraingarh worth Rs. 40,505 a year.
5. Jodh Singh of Bassia 1 was assigned a number of villages to the annual value of Rs. 42,000.
6. Raja Jaswant Singh of Nabha secured 38 villages bringing annual revenue of Rs. 30,040.
7. Gurdit Singh of Ladwa got 32 villages in the taluqa of Baddowal yielding Rs. 23,540.
8. Karam Singh Nagla obtained 36 villages in the taluqa of Ghungrana worth Rs. 23,415.
9. Garbha Singh of Bharatgarh was granted 62 villages in the taluqa of Dharamkot fetching an annual revenue of Rs. 22,63410. Jodh Singh Kalsia of Chhachhrauli was given villages worth Rs. 10,000 a year.
1 1. Basant Singh received villages to the annual value of Rs. 6,914.
12. Atar Singh was assigned villages worth Rs. 4,000.
13. Ranjit Singh's mother-in-law, Sada Kaur, was granted Himmatpur Wadni near Moga with the stipulation that she would pay Rs. 15,000 per year.
14. Raja Sahib Singh of Patiala and Bhai Lai Singh of Kaithal got nothing.
These grants were made on the specific condition that the recipients accepted subordination to Ranjit Singh as their overlordTerritories from Chamkaur to Mamdot fell under him through the treaty while the remaining part of the CIs-Sutlej state remained under British protectorate. Gupta states Ranjit Singh possessed some 45 taluqas wholly or in share with others on the British side of the River Satluj. In these districts Ranjit Singh appointed his agents. They maintained a certain number of troops necessary for internal administration on the proceeds from their lands. The agents were paid salary in cash. For example. Waisakha Singh incharge of Zira got Rs. 1,000 per mensem. Javerine (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be a balance when you are considering multiple sources and you have to come to a common ground to accommodate all the reliable sources instead of just picking the ones as preferred and ignoring the rest. In my last change, all the references were properly placed where they supported the statement. Shailendra was a miss but that too helps my changes.Javerine (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Crux