Talk:Princely state

@Mar4d: You say "factually incorrect position" regarding the three states of Balochistan. Would you care to explain what is incorrect? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

The text, which was unsourced, said Makran, Kharan, and Las Bela opted for independence. Which is not correct; only the ruler of Kalat chose that option. The former three acceded to Pakistan. I've replaced it with references. Mar4d (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Your source says they acceded to Pakistan in 1947, which is obviously incorrect and contradicts Princely states of Pakistan. I think this source is unreliable and should be thrown out.

If 17 March 1948 is the date of accession (stated as 21 March by Siddiqi, perhaps the date when the accesion was accepted), then between 14 August 1947 and March 1948, they were technically independent. Further Siddiqi says they acceded under Pakistani pressure (p.60). So, the claim that they "opted for independence" is believable. There is also the claim that they were under the suzerainty of Kalat, the "pre-1876 position" that was agreed to by Jinnah (p.58). So, I admit that things are nebulous regarding the other three states. But the old version is closer to the truth than the new version. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

See the references supplied. The accession was unanimous amongst Kharan, Makran and Lasbela.^[1][2][3][3] You are correct about the Kalat situation, which is noted in the text. Actually the revolt was instigated by the Khan's younger brother who did not agree with the decision to accede after the Khan acquiesced to Pakistan's demands. Mar4d (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Also if you read the Siddiqi reference, the other three princely states were never subservient to Kalat. Kalat was the most influential one amongst them however. Thus when the former didn't side with Kalat's quest for independence, it significantly weakened Kalat's position which had been vying for Baloch unity. Mar4d (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Well, your own source says:

This lead to the civil servants literally dismembering the state by recognising the feudatory states of Las Bela and Kharan, and the district of Mekran as independent states, which then immediately acceded to Pakistan.^[4]: 82

So, according to Bangash (vetted by Long et al.), the declared independence of Kalat includes all its feudatory states as well. It is mistake to talk of them as separate princely states. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Kautilya3: Your revert here also removed my edits, and really comes across as a red herring. You've replaced four academic references I added with a piece of text which, as it currently stands, is replete with unsourced WP:OR and grammatical mistake/s. Since you've reinstated that text, the onus of responsibility falls on you to provide reliable sources backing your claim. I'm going to wait until you do that and it's satisfactory. Here is the current version:

During the period of the British Raj, there were four Princely states in Balochistan: Makran, Kharan, Las Bela and Kalat. These states initially refused to acceed to Pakistan and opted instead to resume the independence they had enjoyed prior to becoming British protectorates.^{[citation needed]}

This is an exceptional claim which contradicts princely states of Pakistan, insurgency in Balochistan and all the WP:HISTRS written on the subject. It is immaterial if Kharan, Lasbela or Makran were feudatory states. The fact is, the rulers of those princely states did not pursue independence like Kalat but acceded to Pakistan on their own. The academic WP:RS support this, and are supplied. Paul's and Cheema's sources are point blank clear that the accession was unanimous, willful, and based on a referendum. Siddiqi goes a step further: "...When it came to the question of joining Pakistan, the Marris and Bugtis did not side with the Khan of Kalat who was vying for independence and instead opted for union with the Pakistani state"; and states their lack of subservience created problems for Kalat. Your text above is claiming the exact opposite. If you have reliable sources contradicting what we have, then you should show it. Until then, this claim appears groundless. Mar4d (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Reverting to WP:STATUSQUO is what is recommended when there is a dispute and edit-warring is going on. It does not mean that I support the old content, merely that it is the old content. The thing to do is to arrive at new consensus text.

The fact that the other three states were feudatory states means that they didn't need to declare anything. The Khan of Kalat had the power to declare on their behalf. Since he declared independence in August 1947 (certainly by 15 August, though other sources give earlier dates), they were independent along with it. Siddiqi says Pakistan pressured the two states of the Kalat confederacy, Kharan and Lasbela and the district of Makran, to join Pakistan. The rulers of the states of Kharan, Makran and Lasbela announced their decision to join the Pakistan dominion on 21 March 1948 and their respective rulers signed the official documents.[58] Your text claiming that they acceded to Pakistan in 1947 is blatantly false, according to multiple reliable sources, including your own source, Bangash. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

More explicit mentions here:

The Khan argued that these territories—Las Bela and Kharan in particular—had never been independent states but districts of Kalat—and that the Pakistanis had elevated their status to those of equal states with the Kalat State in violation of the Standstill Agreement which recognized the Khan's sovereignty over the entire territory of the Khanate—i.e., Kalat, Las Bela, Kharan, and Makkuran (Axmann 2007, 232)^[5]

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

There are three sources given for this inaccurate statement. But none of their authors are historians. Farhan Hanif Sidiqi has no qualifications in history.[1] Adeel Khan is a lecturer in health management.[2] There is also no evidence that Selig S Harrison was a historian, his expertise seems to be US relations and it is unclear what his BA was in.

Now lets take a look at what the real historians say. Yaqoob Khan Bangash, a real historian and professor at the Department of History at Forman Christian College,[3] has this to say ″Further pressure on Ahmad Yar Khan, including false news on All-India Radio that Kalat wanted to join Indian, led him to sign the Instrument of Accession on 27 March 1948.″.^[1]

So its a POV statement which is unfit for inclusion.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry but just assuming that the particular authors have no degrees in history doesn't just discount the entire reference as trash. Clearly you are really pushing hard for POV edits on neutral wikipedia. Here[5] is a major newspaper article regarding annexation of Kalat. Now will you again trash it as gossip magazine? The Redefined Dimensions of Baloch Nationalist Movement page 292 By Malik Siraj Akbar clearly states that Kalat was annexed; I am guessing he will again be discounted some way or other according to you. Remember we at Wikipedia keep things neutral; state the facts, we don't delete it just because it we don't like it. At most add more reference tags. Vin9 | Email 22:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Here is another source[6] from Dawn (newspaper) "In its present context, it can be traced back to Aug 11, 1947, when the Khan of Kalat, Ahmad Yar Khan, declared Kalat’s independent status." and "Khan did what was asked of him but not in a cordial atmosphere: Ahmad Yar Khan signed the instrument of accession only after some army contingents were sent to the Khan. His brother, Prince Abdul Karim Khan, did not agree with what had happened." which while not explicitly stating annexation defines so in such words. Vin9 | Email 22:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

So you turn up 3 weeks later to add something without consensus? The WP:ONUS is now on you to gain consensus to re-add contentious content. The sources you provided are newspaper/non-scholarly sources which as I have pointed above contradict the historians. We prefer historians to non-historians when they contradict. And the historians are explicitly saying there was no annexation. Malik Siraj Akbar and Shaikh Aziz are not historians. Cheema and Bangash are.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 00:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

WP:HISTRS says to prefer historians over non-historians. Of course non-historian scholarly sources (not that Akbar and Shaikh are even scholars either) can be used when historians are not available for a certain point. But when they explicitly contradict each other, like in this case, then the historians get preference.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Oh, my. I thought Bangash was a respectable scholar. Little did I know that he rants on ISPR magazines about "baseless Indian propaganda". Just because the Khan called it "false propaganda" (what else would the poor man do?), Bangash has to rant about it? Some historian!

Here is some news for you:

[2] In an aide-memoire on Junagadh and Kashmir, submitted on 26 February 1948, para 6, Mountbatten informed the King that "a large State which had obvious geographical compulsion to accede to Pakistan — Kalat — approached the Government of India for political relationship but was refused". See Enclosure to PS-238. Abdus Samad Achakzai, Baluchistan Congress leader, had visited India about the end of November. "I think ... he was urging the Khan to accede to India.^[4]

It was by no means "propaganda". It is was V. P. Menon that told AIR about the approach from Kalat, and he also told them that India had refused, and AIR announced it. All of this was apparently unauthorised. Nehru denied it in the Parliament the next day. He was a gentleman. Bangash seems quite the opposite. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

And, as for the Khan of Kalat "voluntarily" acceding to Pakistan:

So, there goes the history degree of your Iqbal Chawla down the tube. Not to mention his complete blindness towards what Pakistan did to Kashmir. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Kautilya3 you were already warned by MPS1992 [7] to not analyse the credibility of sources by picking them apart yourself. You have brought nothing except synthesised conclusions, contradicted by historians, drawn from your erroneous, synthesized and biased interpretation of primary sources. Harrison and Wilcox are not historians. Insulting the historians Iqbal Chawla and Yaqoob Khan Bangash because of your pro-India reading glasses (unfortunately and truly!) adds to the evidence of your WP:TE. I do not see how further argumentation along such lines, including name-calling of historians and praising Indian politicians, cannot taken and reported as WP:TE. Mar4d (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Look Mar4d, the "historians" that you are bringing to the table are ranting against India. That immediately destroys their credibility. Bangash titles his article with "Baseless Indian Progaganda". And Chawla says Jinnah didn't try to force princely states as was "happening in India at the bayonet". But they haven't checked their facts. Bangash is disproved by little footnotes in the Jinnah Papers volume, which he should have before propounding his theories. And Chawla forgot all about Kashmir. In any case, coming back to the topic, whether to call it "annexation" or not boils down to a judgement call, and I am sure different scholars will put it differently. But, your new found love for "historians" is admirable. I don't want to damage it. So I will look for historians. Meanwhile, I hope you will get busy trying to find "historians" that say that Hyderabad was annexed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Your response about Bangash and Chawla is nothing more than personal POV and OR, for which you can be reported. The historian Yaqoob Khan Bangash has written an entire chapter on the accession of Kalat in his book on the integration of the princely states on Pakistan (described as a 'masterly account' of the accessions of princely states to Pakistan, by reviewer Ravi Kandamath) and Iqbal Chawla has also written an entire journal article on the accession of Kalat. So they have specialized in this specific topic. The sources you have added (Jalal and Samad) are just sweeping by Kalat in passing as their works from which you picked out their quotes are specialising on other more general topics (General Pakistani history and wider Balochistan insurgency respectively) and would have not done a thorough investigation of the circumstances of Kalat's accession unlike Bangash and Chawla. Passing references can not be considered equal with those who have done in-depth studies. Ironically even Yunus Samad cited Bangash for his claim, even though Bangash says the exact opposite! There goes your diatribe against Bangash down the drain. Also see Brittanica's description where Indian annexations of Hyderabad and Junagadh are described as invasions while Kalat is described as an accession. There is an encyclopedic convention for this according to Fowler. Leading South Asia historian Ian Talbot also while mentioning Junagadh, Hyderabad and Kashmir as violent affairs does not cast Kalat into the same category. Numerous responsible editors including Fowler&fowler have previously expressed concerns at your style of editing where you simply find any source that seemingly supports your favorite prejudice and add it without regard to WP:DUE in that not all sources specialize equally in everything. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

There was no "invasion" unless you are engaging in deliberate cherrypicking. Your editing and clear lack of WP:CIR is concerning. Providing a fake balance for allowing you to right great wrongs isn't what we are supposed to do. D4iNa4 (talk) 04:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Your comment in general and your WP:CIR taunts in particular (which probably stem from my filing of SPI against Capitals00 in which his reference of competence/incompetence was used as evidence) do not add value to the discussion and speaks volumes about your own incompetence. You should refrain from such off track comments when there is serious discussion in procession and focus on content. Whatever minimal you blurted about the content is mere WP:COATRACK. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Replicating my comments about you for signifying your gross incompetence won't do any favor for you. I have been telling you about your disruption for years. Who else will call this new faulty version a "WP:STATUSQUO"? Only a person with gross incompetence like you would. Then you ran to canvass other editors to support your version.[8] That's a case of gross incompetence. Misrepresenting statements of other editors to counter sensible argument above is another example of your incompetence. Didn't the same editor criticized you for using "nonsensical third rate sources"? There was no "invasion", get over the facts. D4iNa4 (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

You are trying to derail an otherwise constructive discussion by making personal attacks. If you continued to make personal attacks at the talk thread of WP:ARBIPA sanctioned page, I will have to report you and seek a topic ban for you in this area. I do not remember much interaction with you in the past so when you say you have been telling me some thing for years what do you mean by that?

You also need to read up on WP:CANVASS, Winged Blades of Godric is a neutral and uninvolved editor and WP:CANVASS allows inviting any uninvolved editor who does not have a prejudice to one side or another. Again, what I said in my previous comment, the competence matter is the other way around. You are not even clear on WP:CANVASS. The version you are calling “faulty” is the right version. Kautilya3’s additions are without any consensus and they must be removed. We can introduce them later if we achieve consensus here that is if editors like you do not keep derailing the discussion by making personal attacks. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC) Reply

You are the one who started accusing Kautilya3 of disruption by citing interactions with an editor who is not participating in this article. If you don't want others to comment on you then you should first stop commenting on others.

The message you left on Winged Blades' talk page was not neutral and you were claiming a non-consensus version to be STATUSQUO.This was a bold edit and it was reverted by one editor. The version of NadirAli had no consensus, nor it was standing for a long time. It didn't had to be restored until consensus was reached. D4iNa4 (talk) 04:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC) Reply

Are you a deputy to Kautilya3? Let the man speak for himself. My impression from interactions with him is that, he does not need any deputies. Furthermore, I did not accuse him of disruption.

Winged Blades of Godric already expressed their desire to join the discussion in response to JosephusOfJerusalem, my comment was just a response to their expressed desire that they are welcome to join the discussion, I did not invite them so again at all fronts you have comprehension problems, you do not understand the policy and comments left in simple English.

NadirAli just removed Kautilya3's additions, the changes made by Kautilya3 had no consensus, check the history of the page, I am sure, you have a comprehension problem there as well. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Fowler&fowler told you that not all sources are equal. You are confusing me with it. Yes, Fowler and I have argued many times, and will probably continue to argue. But that is my battle and it doesn't concern you.

As far as contemporary Pakistani history is concerned, Ayesha Jalal is pretty much at the top. There is no way you will be allowed to brush it aside and propagate Pakistani POV. Jalal's assessment of Pakistani history and historians is pretty negative [9].

I do admit that Bangash is a good quality scholar, but he also seems to participate in Pakistan's propaganda machine on the side. There is no way that anything written in the ISPR Hilal magazine will be accepted as a reliable source on Wikipedia. You will need to go find his book, and explain why a battalion stationed in Quetta with orders to invade Kalat if the Khan didn't accede is irrelevant to the matter. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ah so you admit you are editing here with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Thanks. That confirms the suspicions of many. And yes Fowler did indeed warn you about your contentious treatment of sources.[10]

And you need to stop shooting down historians with your personal assessments of them. Jalal is a well-known revisionist according to Metcalf. Bangash, in contrast, gets positive reviews. There is no WP:BURDEN on me to figure out why a battallion was sent, you are the one making that claim.

It's a big call for you to make to reject an article from an established historian just because its been published in an ISPR magazine given you have been pushing for the inclusion of views from Indian Ministry of Defence-funded institutes on Talk:History of Gilgit-Baltistan.

Besides Bangash has written a whole chapter on the accession of Kalat, in a positively reviewed book published by Oxford University Press, more credible than a couple of passing sentences from Jalal and Samad (who himself cites Bangash). Go read it. The ISPR magazine article summarises whatever he wrote in his book. And it was a response to Modi's speech when he interfered in Balochistan's internal affairs.

Here is a summary of that chapter from the scholar Ishtiaq Ahmed who notes that Bangash's account of the subject of Kalat's accession has received a lot of partisan comment (referring obviously to passerbys like Jalal and political scientists who write anything they like).^[1]

The case of Kalat State understandably receives in-depth attention as its accession continues to be debated even now and fact and fiction have been freely mixed by partisan researchers. It was the largest princely state to become a part of Pakistan, but only through a highly chequered process. It had been briefly a part of the Mughal Empire and in 1839 been recognized as a vassal of the Amir of Kabul. Unlike most other princely states Kalat had few direct links with the British Government at Delhi but the British presence in Kalat affairs had been secured by the time the future of India after a British withdrawal began to be considered. Historically Kalat was not an absolute monarchy; rather, it was a confederation of tribal leaders and smaller feudatory units such as Makran, Las Bela and Kharan states with the Khan of Kalat at the centre of such a power structure. Ahmed Yar Khan assumed the title of Khan of Kalat in 1933. He tried tried to assert and enhance his power within the confederacy as well as in relation to the British. Education and other developments had seriously lagged behind. However, political awareness had been growing among some sections of society and a few Baloch students had studied in educational institutions in India. Among them, Baloch nationalism had been evolving gradually and they preferred independence rather than joining Pakistan.

In April 1947 Ahmed Yar Khan tried to assert the complete independence of Kalat but simultaneously expressed his support for the Pakistan demand. He wanted areas leased out to the British to be returned to Kalat –something which neither Mountbatten approved nor the Muslim League. These included Quetta and the Bolan Pass. In any case, Pakistan had recognized Kalat’s independence in a communique dated 11 August 1947 as it felt that neither India nor Britain would exploit such a situation. However, this was only a paper exercise because from the beginning Pakistan was determined to annex it. Negotiations between the Government of Pakistan and Kalat started in September 1947; the Khan was reluctant to sign the Accession Bill so Jinnah met him in October and persuaded him to join Pakistan. The Khan was disappointed but his hands were further weakened when the khans of Kharan and Las Bela offered to accede to Pakistan. After some hesitation both were recognized as separate states on 17 March 1948. It was followed by increasing pressure when Col. Shah was despatched to expedite the accession. Rumours that the Khan had been seeking help from Afghanistan and a false report on All India Radio on 27 March that the Khan had approached India to accept its accession placed him in a very vulnerable position and in panic he signed the Accession Bill to join Pakistan. His brother Prince Karim tried to put up resistance but that proved futile and Pakistan troops took hold of Kalat by early April 1948.^[1]

Pakistan may have wanted to annex it, a colonel was sent to hasten/encourage the accession. But that does not mean there was a forceful annexation. The troops entered after the accession, which the Khan did out of panic, after the news was published on All India Radio. Bangash summarises it aptly in that Routledge book vetted by Ian Talbot and Roger Long that the accession was the outcome of bureaucratic tactics and negotiations. To describe it as an annexation is not true, unless of course your definition of annexation is so loose that we can include Travancore, a state India bullied into accession. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that. That is the first good post made on this topic. As Ishtiaq Ahmed points out, the case of Kalat State understandably receives in-depth attention as its accession continues to be debated. So you people should not act as if it is cut-and-dried and all crystal clear. I will think about Ahmed's review and also see if I can extract more information from the Axmann book. There is a good reason why Yunas Samad cites Axmann as well as Bangash. If Bangash continues to claim that the approach to India was "false propaganda" then his credibility goes down. It is known that an approach was made and Nehru turned it down, and the Hindu nationalists even today rant against Nehru for that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I am finding some similar problems with the sources. Bangash maybe a reliable source but doesn't seem accurate or neutral in this subject per WP:IRS. D4iNa4 (talk) 04:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why was he in a vulnerable position if there was no threat of force? As an independent ruler, he was free to accede to any country he wanted. It was because India turned him down and he knew that Pakistan would invade that he became "vulnerable". He had no internal threat. His own people were not agitating to join Pakistan. The only threat was external.

Secondly, I don't know wherefrom Bangash got Prince Karim resistance in April. That was in Ramzan month according to Major General Muhammed Akbar Khan.^[2] And I checked that Ramzan that year was in July.

The troops were sent on 1 April, according to multiple reliable sources. I have already quoted Selig Harrison earlier. Ishtiaq Ahmed himself accepted his version of events in his earlier writings.^[3] Riaz Ahmed from Quaid-i-Azam University also said it.^[4] A much more solid source is this one:^[5]

General Akbar Khan received the order to move from Quetta to Kalat, and on 1 April 1948 the Pakistan army occupied the constitutional "vacuum" of Baluchistan. The Khan protested but signed the accession of the state of Kalat and of British Baluchistan to Pakistan. The Baluch nationalist leaders were jailed or exiled. (pp.162-163)

And, there is absolutely no evidence that the Khan had signed the accession before 1 April. The accession happened after the troops moved in, and he had no choice but to succumb. That is annexation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Annexation is correct word because: "On April 1, Pakistani regular forces garrisoned at Quetta were deployed in Kalat."[11] There are many sources supporting the same. D4iNa4 (talk) 05:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Both of you have made no edits recently, is this correct context: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Princely_state&type=revision&diff=834481196&oldid=834065334 ? --G (talk) 06:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well if its not clear-cut and dried according to you then why are you introducing factually inaccurate statements to Wikipedia? Fowler told you (in the diff SheriffIsInTown has pointed out to you) that consensus positions are illustrated in the meta histories. Meta-histories like Ian Talbot mention Junagadh, Kashmir and Hyderabad but do not mention Kalat. Also see how Brittanica describes it,

See Britannica's description for Kalat: ″The region became part of Pakistan in 1948.″^[1]

Compare this with its description for Junagadh and Hyderabad: ″Junagadh, however, faced Pakistan on the Arabian Sea, and when its nawab followed Jinnah’s lead in opting to join that Muslim nation, India’s army moved in and took control of the territory. The nizam of Hyderabad was more cautious, hoping for independence for his vast domain in the heart of southern India, but India refused to give him much more than one year and sent troops into the state in September 1948. Both invasions met little, if any, resistance, and both states were swiftly integrated into India’s union.″^[2]}}

Also reread that Ahmed is saying that the matter of Kalat's accession has been subject to partisan commentary and thats why Bangash has given it in depth analysis ″The case of Kalat State understandably receives in-depth attention as its accession continues to be debated even now and fact and fiction have been freely mixed by partisan researchers.″

What your reply shows is that you have not done your homework and will return to the books now, this time to Axmann (a political scientist) and we have no guarantee of what kind of read you will give. I have read reviews of the book but can't find anything that suggests it endorsed the annexation POV that you wish to include.

Your comment ″If Bangash continues to claim that the approach to India was "false propaganda" then his credibility goes down. It is known that an approach was made and Nehru turned it down, and the Hindu nationalists even today rant against Nehru for that″ is not only personal taking-apart of the scholars, which MPS1992 told you is not for us Wikipedians to do, but it is also personal interpretation of cherry-picked primary sources with a special preference for the Indian perspective. Anyone can claim anything. Ultimately, its not the editor's interpretation of primary sources that have any bearing. The Khan of Kalat Khan himself denied he ever gave an accession offer to India and he said this was false Indian propaganda (regardless of what one Congress leader from Balochistan said). To that you would reply that the ″Just because the Khan called it "false propaganda" (what else would the poor man do?)″ because you would prefer to interpret the primary sources from the anti-Pakistan perspective. Such personal interpretation of primary sources will not get anyone anywhere. For this reason Wikipedia demands the use of secondary sources.

I also agree with SheriffIsInTown and suggest you start reading up on Travancore's accession if you want to expand the definition of annexation.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Here is a review of Axmann's book by the Indian scholar A. G Noorani. Some interesting comments.

Hyderabad had to be brought into the Indian Union by armed action on September 13, 1948. The British were dismayed at Jinnah’s legal advice to Kalat. It was never independent, nor was Hyderabad. The Khan of Kalat acceded to Pakistan only on March 20, 1948, when his intrigues with New Delhi and Kabul were exposed. However, in mid-July the Khan’s brother returned from Afghanistan where he had fled with a lashkar (army). Pakistan’s army had to engage them.

″“Annexation” is surely a wrong word to use. It reveals the author’s approach, if not, indeed, his pro-Baloch bias.″^[3]

So the Pakistani military action was in response to the Khan's brother bringing an army with him after the Khan had acceded. And even if Axmann has carelessly called it an annexation, it just shows his bias.

And here are the facts of the situation presented by a assistant professor from Quaid e Azam's department of History, now Allama Iqbal fellow at Cambridge University, Dushka Saiyid, in ″The Accession of Kalat: Myth and Reality″

The ruler of Las Bela too had been lobbying with the Quaid-i-Azam to let his state accede to Pakistan. Kharan and Las Bela appear to have been operating in tandem on this issue. On September 5, 1947, Mir Ghulam Qadir wrote to the Quaid, saying that he had already written to the Pakistani Prime Minister offering accession of Las Bela to the Pakistan Dominion.The letter also mentioned the dire economic conditions of the people of Las Bela as its supplies seem to have been cut off by Kalat. On March 17, 1948, Las Bela too acceded to Pakistan along with Mekran and Kharan. However, by this time the Kalat Government had heard a Radio Pakistan announcement that the Government of Pakistan had accepted the separate accession of Las Bela, Kharan, and Mekran, and wanted this report denied. The Kalat Government said that the accession of these states would be contrary to the Standstill Agreement with Pakistan, which was recently affirmed in the House of Commons.

On March 18, 1948, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan issued a press note that the States of Kharan, Las Bela and Mekran had applied for accession to Pakistan, which was granted to them. The press report also said that after the accession of these three states to Pakistan, Kalat's territory had been reduced to half of its previous area, and had ceased to have any outlet to the sea. The UK High Commissioner in Pakistan reported that the offer of accession was accepted by the Pakistan Cabinet when Jam of Las Bela, Chief of Kharan and Nawab Bai Khan of Mekran met the Quaid on March 17, 1948 and told him that if Pakistan was not prepared to accept their offers of accession immediately, they would be compelled to take other steps for their protection against Khan of Kalat's aggressive actions. This was seen as a blow to the Khan as head of the Confederacy, the Baluchistan States Union.

What finally forced the Khan of Kalat to accede was the furore caused by news on the All India Radio that the Khan had been negotiating with India. As a consequence of these developments, a report on March 20, claimed that the brother of the Khan, who was also the Governor of Kalat, was leaving for Afghanistan with his wife, who was from the Royal Afghan family.56 However, on March 28, the Reuters news agency carried a story filed from Karachi that 'Gateway State; Joins Pakistan.' The Khan issued a communiqué, which said: On the night of March 27, All India Radio, Delhi announced that two months ago Kalat State had approached the Indian Union to accept its accession to India and that the Indian Union had rejected the request; It had never been my intention to accede to India;It is, therefore, declared that from 9 pm on March 27th; the time when I heard the false news over the air, I forthwith decide to accede to Pakistan, and that whatever differences now exist between Kalat and Pakistan be placed in writing before Mr Jinnah, the Governor-General of Pakistan, whose decision I shall accept. The UK High Commissioner, commenting on the Khan's denials, wrote: Khan's public denials of rumours about offers made to him by India and Afghanistan conflict with his own statements in earlier discussion with Pakistan representatives, when he used these offers as a blackmailing argument. There is good reason to believe that he has been flirting with both India and Afghanistan.

There was no kind of resistance to the accession till the middle of July 1948, when the brother of the Khan returned from Afghanistan, where he had fled with a body of armed followers. The Pakistan Army engaged this band and the majority of his followers arrested.

Again there was no military annexation. The army fought the Khan's brother, did not force the Khan to accede. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

What was the date on the Instrument of Accession, and when was it accepted? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kautilya3. First - if you could stop making this discussion long and confusing with needless new sections, to make it go ahead on your own terms - that would be helpful. Secondly, I have a few things (and sources) to add, building on what I've read above. The following is unacceptable WP:SPECULATION: Why was he in a vulnerable position if there was no threat of force? As an independent ruler, he was free to accede to any country he wanted. It was because India turned him down and he knew that Pakistan would invade that he became "vulnerable". He had no internal threat. His own people were not agitating to join Pakistan. The only threat was external.

Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. The Saiyid source already makes clear that the Pakistani states Las Bela, Makran and Kharan were complaining about Kalat's aggressions. We have Indian sources also accepting that before they willingly acceded to Pakistan, these three states were asking Pakistan for protection from Kalat.^[4] Let's focus on what is explicitly stated by reliable sources. Prof. Duksha Saiyid: As this account makes amply clear, the story of the accession of Kalat was a long drawn out process. And although Pakistan came into being on August 14, 1947, the accession of Kalat did not take place till March 27, 1948. The three feudatories, two of which Las Bela and Kharan, which were recognized by the British as independent, played a key role in forcing the Khan of Kalat to accede to Pakistan. Thus, the "vulnerabilities" are self-made/imaginary. In fact, historians do note that after Makran acceded and before Kalat acceded, Kalat even tried to force Makran to withdraw its accession, causing Pakistan to send its army to protect Makran.^[5]

Thirdly, multiple WP:RS state the accession was made in March,^[6][7][8] even the biased^[9] Axmann admits it.^[10] Duksha Saiyid states While the Instrument of Accession was signed by the Khan of Kalat on March 27, it was placed before Jinnah on March 31, 1948, who accepted it.. The Indian government also as a matter of fact did not deny that accession took place in March, even if they got the exact date wrong.^[11] Attiya Khanam, from the history department at the Multan University, also repeats that the accession took place on 27 March but it was announced late on 1 April.^[12]

Mar4d, first of all, you can stop shouting. We have been discussing calmly until you joined us. I asked yesterday what was the date of the accession. Now we have the answer: 27 March 1948. Unfortunately, this doesn't settle the matter. You can see from the long list below that there are plenty of scholars who refuse to take this date at face value. They include, believe it or not, Professor Riaz Ahmad, the Quaid-e-Azam Chair at the Quaid-e-Azam University [12]. If you think you can railroad all these sources, fat chance!

I have ordered the Axmann book. You are welcome to go and look up the Bangash book. And then we will see who says what. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

In the light of the fact that accession preceded the sending of troops, the terminology of "annexation" is not easily justifiable. I still have a lot of work to do to absorb all the new evidence, but for the time being, I am happy to change the wording

to the new wording

This much is easily supported by the citations given. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

The way forward is clear. There's no need to mention Kalat at all. The new wording is just as faulty as the first one. The citations as you have been told are too poor in quality. Its known that there are countless secondary sources out there, otherwise reliable, but which make ludicrous assertions out of thin air in a variety of subjects. And the accession of Kalat is one such subject. There was simply no military intervention inside Kalat before the accession. The sources which say otherwise have been caught with false assertions, false dates and the like and so can't be counted on for the truth.

Going through the sources which cover the whole affair in detail its not too difficult to understand what happened. Political scientist Rizwan Zeb explains the whole story,

The developments detailed above clearly indicate that in this whole process of accession of Kalat with Pakistan, Pakistan army was neither involved nor it played any role in the actual accession of Kalat yet it is one of the most tenacious myth propogated...What exactly happened? The answer to this lies in Makran and its decision to join Pakistan. Unlike Las Bela and Kharan, Makran was a part of the state of Kalat. It was administrated by the nawabs and sardars of Kech, Panjgur, Tump and an official appointed by the Khan of Kalat. It seems that once the government of Pakistan got disappointed and frustrated by the behaviour and double speak of Ahmed Yar Khan, it decided to accept any application for accession. When Nawab Bai Khan Gichki applied for accession with Pakistan, Pakistan readily accepted it. Makran along with Las Bela and Kharan joined Pakistan on 17 March 1948. At the time, Prince Abdul Karim, younger brother of Khan of Kalat, Ahmed Yar Khan was representing Kalat in Makran. He publically refused to accept Makran's accession with Pakistan and continued to operate from his office. Tension rose between Prince Karim and Nawab Bai Khan, the newly appointed Wali (ruler) of Makran. Soon the situation reached an impasse. All the communication lines to Makran were abstracted. Heavy rain fall added to this. After Ahmed Yar Khan stopped rations and other supplies to Makran Levy Corps, the only option left was to air drop or supply them through Jiwani. Under such circumstances, under the advice of AAG, Sir Ambrose Dundas, a high level meeting took place in which it was decided that to ensure that no unpleasant event takes place and to avoid any further disturbances, to send enforcements. It was decided to send security forces for securing the key installations and communication lines and roads. It was also decided that the Khan of Kalat would be informed of this development before hand so that no unpleasant event occurs. However, before any of this happened, Khan of Kalat, Ahmed Yar Khan, after listening to the All India Radio report, announced an unconditional accession to Pakistan.^[1]

The historian Attiya Khanam says pretty much the same,

He thought the key to accession of Kalat lay in Mekran where he could create problems for Pakistan. He sent his sister to Karachi to fetch his brother in law Bai Khan the ruler of Mekran to force him to retract his decision to accede Pakistan. Khan’s brother Abdul Karim Khan first tried to foment disturbances in Mekran to embrace Pakistan to line up army reinforcement and then fled to Afghanistan to muster support .The Khan also sent the member of his family over to Afghanistan to gather support. The Prime Minster of Afghanistan offered his good office for placing the case of Kalat before the United Nations if Kalat so wished. The Khan also chose to withhold ration and transport from the Mekran Levy Corps with the view to exposing them to the danger of starvation. In view of political and security situation following the Khan’s intransigence, Pakistan was forced to take certain administrative and defense measures to secure Jiwani, Turbat, Pasni and Panjgur areas. To ward off any incident or disorder the Kalat Premier was asked to hand over administration in these and other areas to Pakistan along with the treasuries.^[2]

Surprisingly even the political scientist Martin Axmann, who otherwise is biased, and who at times contradicts himself by giving wrong dates for the signage of the accession, pretty much corroborates the above events.

The (new) wali of Makran (Nawab Bai Khan Gichki) and the (old) khan of Kalat (Mir Ahmad Yar Khan) were the main antagonists in the months just prior and after Makran's and Kalat's separate accession to Pakistan.^[3]

Although Ahmad Yar and Nawab Gickhi were brothers-in-law, they had fallen out with each other after Makran's separate accession to Pakistan.^[4]

Furthermore, the Makran Levy Corps, the only (para-)military force present in Makran to establish and maintain Pakistan's authority over the new state, depended on Kalat's officials for the procurement of food supplies via the coastal town of Pasni. It was in apparent danger of being starved, as the khan stopped fulfilling his obligation to provide rations to the levy corps after Makran acceded to Pakistan. It was expected that food supplies would soon have to be landed by sea or air at the aero-naval base of Jiwani. Considering the serious nature of the situation, and not knowing if and when the khan would come to terms with Pakistan, the AGG in Quetta, Sir Ambrose Dundas, requested in late March 1948 that reinforcements for the Makran Levy Corps be dispatched immediately. He informed the government in Karachi on 24 March that it would be ″'essential now to show force in Mekran' in order to deter the khan and his officials from taking any precipitate action, and to enable a change over in administration to take place peacefully. I am telegraphing separately my proposals for future administrative control over Mekran...In order that there may be no incidents please tell Khan or his Wazir-i-Azam on Monday noon our proposed move in Jiwani and Pasni so that he may telegraph instructions to his officers to hand over the administration quietly. We do not want any incidents. Similarly his officers elsewhere should be ready to hand over administration and the treasuries to our officers as soon as they are directed to do so by the latter.″ Ahmad Yar's final decision to accede whatever was left of the khanate of Kalat to Pakistan only a few hours later was received with a sigh of relief. The tension that had prevailed for the past ten days was lifted, and the Government of Pakistan could start putting the administration of the four Balochistan states on its track.^[5]

So this is what happened. The Khan of Kalat fell out with his brother-in-law, the ruler of Makran, when the latter wanted to join Pakistan. Khan argued that Makran was part of Kalat (something which the pro-Baloch writer Axmann and even Zeb agrees with) but Makran said no they are separate and want to go with Pakistan. Then the Khan stopped the food supplies to the Makran Levy Corps, even though he was under an obligation to supply them (according to Axmann). To prevent the starvation (according to both Axmann and Khanam) Sir Ambrose requested reinforcements for the Makran Levy Corps and also asked Pakistan to peacefully secure administration of the Makran which had already willingly acceded to Pakistan, to deter Kalat's aggression on Makran. However, even before Pakistan made its move to secure the Makran areas (and not Kalat) the Khan had heard the All India Radio announcement and decided to accede immediately. Martin Axmann says that the Khan maintained that he acceded because he felt that the existence of Pakistan was at stake.^[6] So that is the end of the accession story. There was no military force involved. And even before the proposed military action for securing Makran (and again, not Kalat) could have happened the Khan made up his mind the same day to join Pakistan after the AIR announcement. Multiple reliable sources identify the AIR announcement as the trigger for the accession. Including the Khan himself.^[7]

And while the historians Bangash and Saiyid do write that in the background of the radio announcement the Khan of Kalat was feeling pressured because he felt landlocked when the other three states had acceded, that does not mean that coercion actually took place. Being made to feel pressured and actually being coerced are not the same things at all. Travancore and many Indian states were also under pressure from Patel. Should that be called coercion too?^[8]

The Mekran issue is a very tricky one, but I don't think it has any bearing on what is at issue here. Let us focus on what happened inside Kalat proper. Here are two passages from Alia Amirali:^[9]

The discussions on the possibilities of formulating Kalat's relationship with Pakistan, as posited in the Standstill Agreement, never took place. Seven months later, on 27 March 1948, Kalat acceded to Pakistan. Whether it was a willing accession or a coerced one is a disputed matter,[31] with pro-state historians arguing that the Khan willingly made the decision to accede, and nationalist scholars maintaining that Balochistan was annexed. However, what is certain is that it was an unpopular decision, and sparked the first revolt led by the Khan of Kalat's brother (see also the next section in this chapter). The Pakistan Army, which had already been sent in to Kalat, put down the rebellion. (pp. 22-23)

This accords well with what I proposed: "seen as coerced" and "involved a military intervention".

The dissonance between the Khan's decision to accede to Pakistan and the Baloch desire for autonomy resulted almost immediately in the first wave of the Baloch resistance to Pakistani occupation. Public rallies were organized by the leadership of the KSNP and an armed rebellion was led by the Khan's brother, Prince Abdul Karim, against the accession. The Pakistan Army, which had already been readied and stationed in the southern districts prior to the accession, moved into Kalat on April 1, 1948. It was given standing orders to suppress any disorder created by the nationalists. The KSNP leaders were arrested and the Khan was put under house arrest. (pp. 24-25)

Here is Owen Bennet Jones again:^[10]

Pakistani historians now portray Mir Ahmed Yar Khan as an isolated and recalcitrant individual who ungraciously failed to bow to the inevitable.[41] But for the new Pakistani government, incorporating Kalat into the country was far from easy: almost a year passed before this was achieved - and then only with the use of force. In April 1948 the Pakistani army marched on Kalat and, eventually, the Khan signed an agreement of accession. After 225 days of independence, Kalat became part of Pakistan. (p.133)

NadirAli keeps saying we should use "high level histories". Here is exactly such a high-level history. These historians might not get all the details right. But they are focusing on the big picture. And, the big picture is clear. Force was necessary and it did not go down well. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

There was no force involved according to historians. Professor Najib Alvi points out that Muhammad Saeed Dehwar, who was the leader of the pro-Kalat Baloch nationalist Kalat State National Party, accepts that there was no force involved in the accession.^[11] And your proposed text does not accord with Amirali either. Amirali says coercion is disputed, whereas your text is inclining in favor of the coercion myth. And Amirali nowhere says that the accession process required a military intervention. She says the military was used to crush the Khan's brother's rebellion after the accession. Which raises the points of WP:UNDUE and WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION for ″required a military intervention.″ High-level histories must be used. Neither Amiraliali nor Jones are historians. Jones is a journalist. The tertiary sources such as Britannica do not describe Kalat as an invasion or annexation, it uses neutral wording, unlike its wording for Hyderabad and Junagadh which incorporates the term ″invasions.″ Ian Talbot also does not include Kalat with Kashmir, Junagadh and Hyderabad. High level histories don't give them the same status. If they don't give them the same status so shouldn't we. Its a WP:FALSEBALANCE, even more serious since its being proposed for inclusion in the lead.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The kingdom of Nepal was in North of india not north east which would emply assam and that is incorrect. Avhiyan (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Specifically, please provide sources that demonstrate that the distinction between the two relative directions for the two countries is generally used in reliable English-language sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

The article contains the following incorrect and un-referenced statement: "and the states of Tripura and Manipur, whose rulers agreed to accession only in late 1949, after the Indian conquest of Hyderabad."

However, there are sources that say both Tripura^[1][2] and Manipur^[3][4] were in fact forcibly annexed by India. I will make the necessary correction if there aren't any opposing views. --Uncle Sargam (talk) 08:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

• I have issues with the James Minahan and Gyan Publishing House citations you have attached. I consider them unreliable. That said, the Wangam source seems to be WP:HISTRS. I will attach some WP:RS here for Manipur's tragedy.^[1][2][3] JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

• These sources seem to get into a whole bunch of legal trickery. The basic facts of the situation are as follows. All the Indian and non-Indian states under British suzerainty are recognised as British protectorates under the international law. British India however was a member of the League of Nations after the World War I. So it had an "international personality", even though it wasn't an independent state. The Constituent Assembly of India under the presidency of Nehru recognized Nepal, Sikkim and Bhutan as non-Indian states, and no accession deliberations were carried out with them. Kalat was recognized as a non-Indian state through a negotiation between Kalat, the would-be Pakistan and the Viceroy. All other states were "Indian princely states".

Under the Government of India Act, 1935 and the Indian Independence Act, 1947, the rulers of these states were empowered to accede to one of the Dominions. These laws have international force. Whatever laws the princely states might have had internally have no such status, even though the rulers were always welcome to abide by them. Manipur acceded to India on 11 August 1947, to the best of my knowledge. Its Instrument of Accession was no different from any other state that acceded to India. The force of that Instrument and what it enables or doesn't enable has been contested several times in the Supreme Court of India. The Article 370 page covers and cites some of those judgments. A recent judgement said that the internal sovereignty of Kashmir was part of the sovereignty of India. It is not "over and beyond" the sovereignty of India.

Whether the Manipuris ever went to the Supreme Court of India is not known to me.

There has been a whole lot of controversy in sources about where the Instruments of Accession were, and whether they existed or not, etc. Most of that has been dispelled recently, at least in the case of Kashmir.^[1]-- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

We are discussing Manipur. Clause 7 of Manipur's Instrument of Accession said there was nothing in the arrangement providing for the Maharaja to accept the Indian constitution while Clause 8 of the same document declared that the Instrument of Accession had no effect on the Maharaja's sovereignty over Manipur. Had it made Manipur a part of India then there would have been no need for the 1949 Merger document. In fact, according to Sanatomba, Manipur's Instrument of Accession is itself legally questionable. Nonetheless, most scholars attach more importance than the Instrument of Accession which the Maharaja signed on 11 August to the merger document of 1949, which is known to have been obtained from the Maharaja by force. The validity of the Merger document is also contested by many scholars. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Manipur's Instrument of Accession was no different from that of any other state. All the other states also signed merger documents or whatever equivalent. All that stuff is presently covered in the Political integration of India. We don't want to duplicate that here. This article ends with the accession of the princely states. And, that scope should not be expanded without good reason and without consensus. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

There is no consensus for NadirAli's new edits and he is basically misrepresenting his version as WP:STATUSQUO. I am seeing same justification for edit warring from JosephusOfJerusalem. We know that there is no consensus to remove those few words, so for now, you have to stick to the pre-NadirAli version. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 05:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

NadirAli's edits are not ″new edits″. A sleeper account showed up on 30th April (and has disappeared since) to do a revert of a longstanding verswion. The version that was here before 30th April is the actual WP:STATUSQUO since it was not challenged for a long time. This late message will not be a tool for defense in a report for WP:EW. The WP:ONUS of including Kalat into the list of annexed states is on those claiming so. As I see you did not invest any participation to that long discussion. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 05:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Stop restoring new edits made last month without consensus. Misrepresenting WP:STATUSQUO is unhelpful. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

You too have not invested into the discussions here but are suddenly very interested in the undo button. But let me repeat to you, what was there before the 30th April revert is the WP:STATUSQUO. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 05:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Kalat has been in the LEAD since February 2016. All that we have done since then is to fiddle with the wording or improve the sources. This is the STATUSQUO.

In the above discussion, I have accepted, after checking enough sources, that there was probably no military intervention before the Khan decided to accede. But there was one afterwards. We have the testimony of Major General Muhammed Akbar Khan, PA-1, the seniormost Pakistani military officer at the time of independence, that he was ordered to invade Kalat and that he did so. So, this cannot be brushed aside. Only those sources that cover the invasion or exhibit knowledge of it are acceptable sources. All others are out of date or propagandist.

Based on the sources that I could get my hands on, I have proposed amended text that can go in the lead. Please comment on that proposal above (#Towards resolution). There is no point in edit-warring. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

The recent disruption here has been immense and unproductive. The article appears to have become yet another battleground for a small group of pov-pushers who are intent on fighting each other at numerous venues, with an ever-widening net. I propose that when this Arbitration Enforcement request ends we should revert to the last stable version and start over from there. - Sitush (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

The List of longest-reigning monarchs includes several princely state rulers (see discussion). Is the term "monarch" applicable to these princely state rulers? utcursch | talk 19:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

No, I don't think so. Only the rulers that were sovereigns should be called monarchs. Maharaja Ranjit Singh, for example. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Link to the edit

The article curently states: "As the final step, in 1971, the 26th amendment[52] to the Constitution of India withdrew official recognition of all official symbols of princely India, including titles and privileges, and abolished the remuneration of the princes by privy purses. As a result, even titular heads of the former princely states ceased to exist.[53]"

The text of the 26th Amendment amendment can be seen here: ^[1]. Specifically please note:

Derecogition as "Ruler or the successor of such Ruler":

"(a) the Prince, Chief or other person who, at any time before the commencement of the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amend- ment) Act, 1971, was recognised by the President as the Ruler of an Indian State! or any person who, at any time before such commencement, was recognised by the President as the successor of such Ruler shall, on and from such commencement, cease to be recognised as such Ruler or the successor of such Ruler."

Abolition of privy purse:

"..on and from the commencement of the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, privy purse is abolished and all rights, liabilities and obligations in respect of privy purse are extinguished and accordingly the Ruler or, as the case may be, the successor of such Ruler, referred to in clause (a) or any other person shall not be paid any sum as privy purse."

Malaiya (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Malaiya, the previous content was sourced to an authoritative scholarly source. It is not clear what you disagree about it. That is the first thing for you to clarify. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

1. How could princely states be nominally sovereign, if they accepted the paramountcy of British Crown? 2. Please explain what is meant by nominally here? PadFoot2008 (talk) 11:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you may want to check nominal in the Wiktionary, definition 3: "in name only". That means, they were called souvereign in the manner of a convenient lie which let the princes keep their pride, life and wealth and which allowed the British to not use force against them while still being in full control. But in fact these States weren't really "souvereign", yes. --Enyavar (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

There is no recognition here of the three-way division of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir that prevails currently, under India, Pakistan and China.I am wondering whether a sentence to that effect is warranted. Sooku (talk) 05:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

There is a brief mention in the "Political integration of princely states in 1947 and after" section, which could be expanded a bit. But this article is essentially about the pre-1947 situation. Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

The Rohillas were indeed mostly Pashtuns, but the Rohilla dynasty was not. The Nawabs of Rampur were Jats, as described by contemporaries. They descended from the adopted Nawab Ali Muhammad Khan. Forticus02 (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Here are some sources for the Jat origin claim:

Sastri, K. A. Nilakanta; Srinivasachari, G. (1971). Advanced history of India. Allied Publishers. p. 572. OCLC 976740387. "Ali Muhammad Khan, a converted Jat, built up a large principality with its seat at Aonla, 18 miles north-west of Bareilly city and gained recognition from the Delhi court."

Prasad, Ishwari (1973). India in the Eighteenth Century. Chugh Publications. p. 152. OCLC 732111. "Daud was an adventurer of considerable ability and warlike spirit and in a short time gathered around himself a large number of followers. Ali Muhammad who was born of Jat parents was brought up by him as a child and converted to Islam."

Gupta, Hari Ram (1999) [1980]. History of the Sikhs. Vol. III: Sikh Domination of the Mughal Empire (1764–1803) (2nd rev. ed.). Munshiram Manoharlal. p. 11. ISBN 978-81-215-0213-9. OCLC 165428303. "The real founder of the Rohilla power was Ali Muhammad, from whom sprang the present line of the Nawabs of Rampur. Originally a Hindu Jat, who was taken prisoner when a young boy by Daud in one of his plundering expeditions, at village Bankauli in the parganah of Chaumahla, and was converted to Islam and adopted by him."

Prasad, Bisheshwar (1978). "Ruhelkhand and Farrukhabad". In Banerjee, A. C.; Ghosh, D.K. (eds.). A Comprehensive History of India. Vol. 9 (1712–1772). People's Publishing House. p. 140. OCLC 1405593320. "There he is reported to have captured a Jat boy of about eight years whom he brought up as his son and named Ali Muhammad Khan, who lived to be his successor and the founder of the state of Ruhelkhand."

Rashid, Abdur (1957). "The Rohillas". In Husain, Mahmud; et al. (eds.). A History of the Freedom Movement. Vol. I: 1707–1831. Pakistan Historical Society. p. 304. OCLC 1129482853. "Amongst other prisoners he obtained a young Jat boy of eight years.1 Daud took a fancy to him and adopted him as his son and named him 'Ali Muhammad Khan."

Srivastava, Ashirbadi Lal (1954). The First Two Nawabs of Oudh (2nd rev. ed.). Shiva Lal Agarwala & Co. Ltd. p. 103. OCLC 678892685. "While in the service of Mudar Shah of Madhkar, 13 miles east of Chandausi, Daud took part in an expedition against the ruler of Bankauli, 26 miles north of Bareilly, where fell into his hands among other things a handsome Jat boy of seven or eight years of age. He converted the boy into Islam, named him Ali Muhammad Khan and adopted him as his son."

Khan, Iqbal Ghani (2002). "Technology and the Question of Elite Intervention in Eighteenth-Century North India". In Barnett, Richard B. (ed.). Rethinking Early Modern India. Manohar Publishers & Distributors. p. 271. ISBN 978-81-7304-308-6. "Thus we witness the Ruhelas accepting an exceptionally talented non-Afghan, an adopted Jat boy, as their nawab, purely on the basis of his military leadership; ..." Forticus02 (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply