Talk:Gulab Singh

message: Shouldn't this have a succcession box? -- --iFaqeer 05:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, definitely. I've added one. The other articles in the succession need work, though. -- TinaSparkle 14:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Succession Box

message: Doesn't sound neutral to me: "In an age where the aristocracy was hopelessly depraved and treacherous, Gulab Singh managed to preserve and expand his kingdom, which was maintained by his successors until the Pakistani invasion of 1947-48. He pushed the boundaries of India into Tibet and Xinjiang, and brought them within range of Central Asia and Afghanistan—if the successive Indian governments failed to capitalize on this achievement, the blame rests on the lack of vision (and the unfavorable international situation) of their early leaders."  But I have not altered it. --RandomWalker 17:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV?

message: I've renamed the page from "Maharaja Gulab Singh" to "Gulab Singh of Kashmir" in line with Wikipedia's naming conventions on royalty. -- TinaSparkle 14:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very fair point. I'll do this, if there are no objections? -- TinaSparkle 09:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Since there have been no objections, I've moved this page as requested. I hope this is uncontroversial but, if anyone has any objections, please raise them on this talk page for discussion rather than just switching the page back. The correct name for the kingdom would be the name Gulab Singh himself used, or the one that was in common use during his reign. I am not sure of the facts myself, but would be grateful for any supporting references (to 19th century sources, not modern websites!) as almost everything about the history of J&K appears to be a subject of intense controversy. -- TinaSparkle 14:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of page

message: I am not too happy with name of the page, it is just not correct to refer to the Maharaja as "Gulab Singh of Jammu and Kashmir" because the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir did not exist at that time. The name of the former princely state, which he was Maharaja of indeed and this article should refer to, is Kashmir and Jammu. I hope someone can clear this confusion quickly. If there is no actions being taken, I will do this job myself. Sandip90 (talk) 10:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, earlier, Gulab Singh had control in Jammu only. Later this extented to Kashmir with the help of Britishs. --Vssun (talk) 10:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible move to "Gulab Singh of Kashmir and Jammu" 

message: I have moved the following unsourced paragraph here from the article as it was in an inappropriate section and is more relevant to the talk section. Apuldram (talk) 09:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reality of kingship of heirs of Gulab Singh  

message: The entire text of "Clash with Afghan tribesmen is incorrect", one can see by clicking on the link given. So i have corrected it. Sudhans, Satis and Dhunds are Kashmiri tribes of present day Pakistani controlled Kashmir, Gulab Singh acted against them, not Yusufzais. Moreover it was Painda Khan Tanoli of Hazara, not Afridi, who rose in revolt in 1837.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jawwad khan marwat (talk • contribs) 00:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect quoting from Hastings Donnan's reference

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Various scholars have written on the Instrument of Accession (Jammu and Kashmir), The Treaty of Lahore (9 March 1846) and the Treaty of Amritsar (16 March 1846). But very little of that text is on wikipedia.
Maharaja gulab Singh originally worked for the Sikh Empire. But then betrayed the Sikh empire by siding with the East India Company in the Anglo-Sikh War. His name is mentioned in the treaty of Lahore too. He collected Taxes for the East India Company and the money was then given by him to the East India Company.
The Treaty of Lahore (9 March 1846) and the Treaty of Amritsar (16 March 1846) lapsed under Article 7 of the Independence Act 1947. The Act was passed by the British Parliament on July 18, 1947 to assent to the creation of the independent states of India and Pakistan. The aforementioned Article 7 provides that, with the lapse of His Majesty’s suzerainty over the Indian states, all treaties, agreements, obligations, grants, usages and sufferance’s will lapse. 
The 7 year old Maharaja Duleep Singh Bahadur (Sikh) was under the control of the East India company when he sign The Treaty of Lahore on 9 March 1846 which gave Jammu and Kashmir and its people to the East India Company. 
Under the British legal system and international law a treaty signed by the 7 year old Maharaja Duleep Singh Bahadur and under duress is not valid. (The International Court of Justice has stated that there "can be little doubt, as is implied in the Charter of the United Nations and recognized in Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that under contemporary international law an agreement concluded under the threat or use of force is void.) 
We may need to add a section on the impact on the removal of Article 370 of the Indian constitution on The Instrument of Accession too. 
None of this text is on there.
Various scholars have written on these treaties, for example Alistair Lamb disputed the validity of the Instrument of Accession in his paper Myth of Indian Claim to JAMMU & KASHMIR –– A REAPPRAISAL'
Where he writes "While  the  date,  and  perhaps  even  the  fact,  of  the accession to India of the State of Jammu  &  Kashmir in  late  October  1947  can  be  questioned,  there  is  no  dispute  at  that time   any   such   accession   was   presented   to   the   world at large   as   conditional   and provisional. It  was  not  communicated  to  Pakistan  at  the outset  of  the  overt  Indian  intervention  in  the  State  of Jammu  &  Kashmir,  nor  was  it presented  in  facsimile  to  the  United  Nations  in  early  1948  as  part  of  the  initial  Indian reference  to  the  Security  Council.  The  1948  White  Paper  in  which  the  Government  of India set out its formal case in respect to the State of Jammu & Kashmir, does not contain the  Instrument  of  Accession  as  claimed  to  have  been  signed  by  the  Maharajah: instead, it reproduces  an  unsigned  form  of  Accession  such  as,  it  is  implied,  the  Maharajah  might have  signed.   To   date   no   satisfactory   original   of   this   Instrument   as   signed   by  the Maharajah has  been  produced: though  a  highly  suspect  version,  complete  with  the false date  26 October 1947,  has  been  circulated  by  the  Indian  side  since  the  1960s. On the present  evidence  it  is  by  no means clear  that  the  Maharaja  ever  did  sign an Instrument of Accession.  
Indian troops actually began overtly to intervene in the State’s affairs on the morning of 27 October 1947
It  is  now  absolutely  clear  that  the  two  documents  (a) the Instrument of Accession, and  (c)  the  letter  to  Lord  Mountbatten,  could  not  possibly  have  been  signed  by the Maharajah  of Jammu  &  Kashmir on 26 October 1947. The earliest possible time and date for their signature would have to be the afternoon of 27 October 1947. During 26 October 1947  the  Maharajah  of Jammu  &  Kashmir was  travelling  by  road  from  Srinagar  to Jammu. (The Kashmir State Army divisions and the Kashmiri people had already turned on him and he was on the run and had no authority in the state). His  new Prime  Minister,  M.C.  Mahajan,  who  was  negotiating  with  the Government of India,  and  the  senior  Indian  official  concerned  in  State  matters,  V.P.  Menon, were still in New  Delhi  where  they  remained  overnight,  and  where  their  presence  was  noted  by many observers.  There  was  no  communication  of  any  sort  between  New Delhi and the travelling Maharajah.  Menon  and  Mahajan  set  out  by  air  from  New  Delhi  to  Jammu  at about  10.00 a.m.  on  27  October; and  the  Maharajah  learned  from  them  for  the  first time the result of his Prime Minister’s negotiations in New Delhi in the early afternoon of that day. The  key  point,  of  course,  as has already been noted above, is that it is now obvious that  these  documents  could  only  have  been  signed  after  the  overt  Indian  intervention  in the  State  of Jammu  &  Kashmir on 27 October 1947.  When  the  Indian  troops  arrived  at  Srinagar  air  field,  that State   was   still   independent.   Any   agreements   favourable   to   India   signed   after   such intervention  cannot  escape  the  charge  of  having  been  produced  under  duress. (The International Court of Justice has stated that there "can be little doubt, as is implied in the Charter of the United Nations and recognized in Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that under contemporary international law an agreement concluded under the threat or use of force is void.)"
Additionally Maharaja was on the run. The prevailing international practice on the recognition of state governments is based on the following three factors: first, the government’s actual control of the territory; second, the government’s enjoyment of the support and obedience of the majority of the population; third, the government’s ability to stake the claim that it has a reasonable expectation of staying in power. The situation on the ground demonstrates that the Maharaja was not in control of the state of Jammu and Kashmir and was fleeing for his life and almost all of Kashmir was under the control of the Kashmiri people and the Kashmiri Army that had rebelled against him. His own troops had turned on him. With regard to the Maharaja’s control over the local population, it is clear that he enjoyed no such control or support. The people of Kashmir had been sold by the East India Company and he charged them high taxes thetefore the Kashmir Muslims, Hindus Pandits and Buddhists hated him. Furthermore, the state’s armed forces were in total disarray after most of the men turned against him and he was running for his life. Finally, it is highly doubtful that the Maharaja could claim that his government had a reasonable chance of staying in power without Indian military intervention. This assumption is substantiated by the Maharaja’s letters.
Many of these treaties apply to Jammu and Kashmir. The Kashmir conflict is already on Wikipedia. It is internationally recognized as a disputed territory under various United United Nations resolutions that are already listed on Wikipedia Nations Security Council Resolution 47, Nations Security Council Resolution 39,mediation of the Kashmir dispute, Nations Commission for India and Pakistan. There is a lot of documentation on Jammu and Kashmir in the UN archives already. If you look at the page Kashmir conflict, it already contains sections on the "Indian view", "Pakistani view", "Chinese view", "Kashmiri views". May be we could do something like that with these treaty pages. The Treaty of Lahore was signed in 9 March 1846 and the Treaty of Amritsar 16 March 1846. They predate the creation of both modern day India and Pakistan. The Treaty of Lahore was signed between the Sikh Empire and the British government. It is an international treaty and comes under international law. Johnleeds1 (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Treaties on Kashmir 

message: I changed the lead sentence that said "Gulab Singh helped the British against the Sikhs" to a weaker form "Gulab singh stayed aloof resulting in a British victory". It is not fully satisfactory (in fact, I doubt there is a good one-sentence description of the affair), but it is better than what existed. The facts are something like this:
* Gulab Singh did not fight along with the Sikhs.
* He accepted the position of Diwan in the midst of the war, but did not lead the war effort effectively.
* After the defeat, he negotiated truce terms with the British, which the Sikhs perceived as a sell-out.
Each of these has lots of ifs and buts, and it is not easy to pin the blame on any one party. Everybody was looking after their own interests, and so was Gulab Singh. His interests were (i) preserving his possessions and (ii) maintaining friendly relations with the British. If the Sikhs wanted to fight a war, it was their business. He didn't design any of it. He got put into a situation and he played his cards so as to come out a winner. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gulab Singh helped the British? 

message: I am either going insane or this article really neglects to mention the Dogra-Tibetan war, which occured under Gulab Singh's reign (I think? It's such a trivial inclusion I feel like I'm missing something.). BonkeySmoke (talk) 06:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of the Dogra-Tibet war?