Talk:Siraj ud-Daulah

message: In "Riyazu-s-salatin", A History of Bengal, Ghulam Husain clearly says that Siraj-ud-saulah attacked the English garrison at Kolkata first over the sheltering of Raja Rajballab's family. 
There is too much emotion and opinion in this article. Too much time is spent on the character of Siraj, and the rich historical record of events he was involved in has been neglected. This shows up all the more starkly when I reorganize the article into sections. 
I feel that some of these stories (such as the one about the ships on the river) should be taken with more than a small grain of salt, so I've deleted it since there was no clear cited reference to it. 
While the "Black Hole of Calcutta" is gruesome, the fact is that the torture and killing of 150 men and women was quite routine in those years; just a few years ago Ali Vardi Khan had sacked sacked Patna and allowed the Rohilla Afghans to rape and pillage to their hearts content. True or not, the only reason this episode is so prominent in historical record is that it involved the eventual victors.
--Shanky 15:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrections: Siraj "didn't" attack the British, rather it is the other way around, if you did your homework on history. I would also refrain from putting a lot of trust on 18th century accounts, because most, if not all, of them were written by English historians glorifying their conquest over Barbarian rulers. Imagine yourself as a 19th Century English historian, how would you picture someone the English mercenaries have deposed and killed? Good? I doubt that. The accounts of his "sick" nature are one-sided to some extent, and definitely NOT the main source of his downfall. I agree that he wasn't a noble saint, and had many character flaws, but as I said, the accounts from 18th century historians are somewhat too much one-sided to be trustworthy. For example, the example of Siraj's atrocity, the Black Hole of Calcutta has been debunked successfully by recent historians. To make the article balanced, and not one-sided like the colonial view, both allegations and rebuttals need to be there. Thanks. --Ragib 21:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: EDITS & ADDITIONS

message: This article is not about Siraj's personal lifeor his personal traits. It is an article on Siraj as the last independent Nawab of Bengal.First and foremost premise from where we have to start the article is the acceptance that he was for all reasons & purposes, the legitimate ruler of Bengal. As such he had every right to protect his country from all foreign expansionist and colonialist preassures.Hence, he was absolutely correct in attacking Fort William at Calcutta. Any ruler of any country at any point of time would have done the same thing naturally and legitimately. Whether his personal charecter was good or bad does not necessarily minimizes his right to protect him and his country from the colonialists.Any person with nominal believe in freedom and sovreignity will definitely understand this truth.
Thank you everybody.
Al-minar 08:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Legitimacy & Matter of Policy

message: He wasn't, the British had a tiny army and took an absolute minimum of casualties. I think making Siraj out to be a military genius is really quite unreasonable. Even without Mir Jafa's troops, the British forces were still vastly outnumbered and they had more than enough men to finish the job, so to say that Mir Jafa's failure to participate in the battle was the only cause of the defeat, is just rubbish, Clive had 2000 troops, Siraj (without Mir Jafa) had 30,000 troops plus French troops. Calcutta was given up without a fight. I do wish people would stick to history, and write about the REAL Siraj, rather that the person they would like him to be.If they want to say anything nice about Siraj, all I ask for is an 18th century source - and not 21st century Indian nationalistic babble.   
Somebody wishes to add that the "early historians" (ie - the people that knew him) said that he refused to compromise, well, he did make several compromises with the British before his final defeat, and the writer gives no sources. It's clear that, yet again, they are just making it all up as they go along, because they really want Siraj to be the great leader and hero that he clearly wasn't. 
TB
:I am sickened to see the way Nobab Siraj had been portrayed in this wikipedia, and especially by the British historian. Its the same British conquest which raped and plundered Bengal, burned the finest cloth/cotton industry in Bengal during that time and made their own cloth industry in Britain. 
Here's a quote from a Book 'Bangladesh:Reflection on Mirror' by James Novak. (Page: 75)
Unlike the time when the Muslim rulers declined (Battle of Plassey) and Bengal led the world in wealth, when the British departed in 1947 all of Bengal was reduced to beggary and become a byword for poverty and backwardness. How low has sunk Bangladesh from the days when Jean Law, one of its first European visitors, reported that “in all official papers, firmans and parawans of Mughal Empire, when there was a question of Bengal, it never ends without adding these words, ‘The Paradise of Nations’!”. 
Yes, the same British historian portrays Nobab Siraj as a brutal ruler, What an Irony !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.49.40 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siraj - Great military hero 

message: Funny how you quote Jean Law to defend Siraj!! Jean (an enemy of the British East India Company) knew Siraj, and said that he was a mass murdering rapist. Law said that Siraj used to sink river ferries full of people just for the sport of seeing them drown. Issues are being confused here. Was the East India Company good for Bengal? - Probably not. Did Siraj have a right to attack Calcutta? - yes, maybe. But that doesn't make Siraj a good or wise person, does it? 
The foolhardy attack, which wasn't 100% necessary (as a few hundred British were only building weak fortifications in fear of a FRENCH attack) cost India its independence, and all his engagements with the British were conducted with criminal incompetence. I know all Indian and Bangladeshi sources make him out to be a super hero - but this has more to do with Indian/Bengali nationalistic jingoism than 18th century history. 
TB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.63.193 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jean Law 

message: The "box" on the right has Siraj ud-Daulah's death date as 2 June, which is wrong if he was at B. Plassey, three weeks later.  The article, both in the opening paragraph and later, says he died 2 July, which seems to be correct, or is at least consistent.
I would change the date in the box, but I can't figure out how.  Would someone more comfortable with editing please do that?
Terry J. Carter (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy on Death Date--Please Help Correct 

message: A deletion was made to this page with an edit summary claiming that Banglapedia is not a reliable source. That is not true. Banglapedia is a scholarly published work from the Bangla Academy, and thoroughly acceptable as a source for wikipedia. That mistake might perhaps be because the publisher is now using MediaWiki software to maintain the online resource, as can be seen at the bottom of the Welcome page. MediaWiki software can be set up so that only approved signons can edit it (try logging in to Banglapedia's system, if you have any doubts about that). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banglapedia is a good resource 

message: Siraj-ud-Daulah was executed on 2 July 1757 by Mohammad Ali Beg under orders from Mir Meerun, son of Mir Jafar in Namak Haram Deorhi as part of the agreement between Mir Jafar and the British East India Company. 
i do not think it was a part of the agreement between Mirjaffer Ali khan and the east India co?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.87.231.27 (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Hi guys, I just noticed that in this edit, the names of the descendants of Siraj ud-Daulah was deleted for not being sourced. Here is a source, an in-depth researched book about this very specific subject. You can read the book here and read it. And here is some more information. It would be easy for anyone who speaks Bengali to add information from these (and more) resources. Hope I could be of some assistence.
PS. I don't understand why an article such as this, having 46 references, is tagged with "unreliable sources". And the tagger didn't even leave a note citing which ones are. --Universal Life (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siraj's Descendents 

message: "Siraj-ud-Dawla" is the correct spelling.
14:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  spelling error 

message: The word Heerajheel means "diamond lake" directions to Golconda diamond mines, Motijheel means "pearl lake" indicating the directions to the Durrani Empire.
14:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  comprehending wealth