Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Maonda and Mandholi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comment

[edit]

What battle

[edit]

This reference is given for this page but I can't find anything in this book discussing anything in this article. http://www.archive.org/stream/annalsantiquitie01todj/annalsantiquitie01todj_djvu.txt --the eloquent peasant (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jaudanath sarkar flattery

[edit]

Judanatha sarkar's work - history of jaipur has been cited as un-reliable by his own editor . His work has also been suggested as being flattery to the royal court . Also the work itself was not accepted by the Rajput community. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bulletin-of-the-school-of-oriental-and-african-studies/article/jadunath-sarkar-a-history-of-jaipur-c-15031938-reuised-and-edited-by-raghubir-sinh-xvi-416-pp-8-plates-hyderabad-etcorient-longman-1984-distributed-by-sangam-books-ltd-36-molyneux-street-london-w1h-6ds-1795/0719E0A4D183BE8D70932EA117C1F7FE Meethamonkey (talk) 01:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That review specifically say that editor feel that "his history of pre mughal kachchwaha is not more reliable than Col Todd but for later period his account will certainly be valuable." And this topic is obviously of later period. Besides you added sources from History of Jats by some obscure writer Ram sarup Joon. Nowhere I heard his name and a cursory google search shows that he only wrote this single book. How is he more reliable than eminent historian Jadunath sarkar whose grip on the subject specially this early modern period was excellent. And you removed the sources from Jadunath sarkar and added this writer who probably himself was Jat and wrote this book to flatter his community. Is there any independent criticism of his work?
Sajaypal007 (talk) 06:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You guys use ‘Thirty Decisive Battles of Jaipur’ book as a source which is written by a unionist Rajput, so I think that there is nithing wrong if we also use historians of our caste. Historyreader990048 (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Credible source of the events

[edit]

I have credible source of events now . Will edit the page slowly in time . Meethamonkey (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Copyvio

[edit]

I have deleted a lot of material from the article as it is blatant copyright violation from this book.

  • Sarkar, Jadunath. A History of Jaipur: C. 1503-1938. p. 254. Heba Aisha (talk) 06:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • see page 254.Heba Aisha (talk) 06:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have ruined the page , had made sure to write in my own , you probably did not check Meethamonkey (talk) 06:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Heba Aisha This book was written by Jadunath Sarkar who died in 1958 more than 60 years ago. In india where book got published the copyright has validity only upto 60 years. So I believe there was no copyright violation in taking content from Jadunath Sarkar's book.

Sajaypal007 (talk) 06:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

why are you saying to me? Did I say anything about Jats or Rajputs? I only asked why did you remove the article for copyright. The book was written more than 60 years ago and in India copyright for literary works is only for 60 years.

Sajaypal007 (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Repetitive disruptive editing of the page

[edit]

This page is being edited frequently with malicious intent. I suggest to lock this page for some days and give warning to the vandals specially @meethamonkey who is editing the page even after it was reverted many times. Other editing is being done by unknown IP addresses, i believe making the page semi protected will serve the purpose. @Alivardi @Jeppiz Sajaypal007 (talk) 06:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated disruptive editing by Sajaypal007

[edit]

Repeated disruptive editing by sajaypal007 , who is retracting improvements I made on the article and presented an unbiased view of the events , however sajaypal is repeatedly adding unduly glorifying material and presenting a biased opinion. Meethamonkey (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can see from his contribution to talk section that either him or someone else in his knowledge is making these changes . 

Meethamonkey (talk) 07:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
: @Meethamonkey , what on rarth you are talking about? I didnt make a single change in the article. I am only discussing on talk page and that too about about your disruptive behaviour. When did I made any edit in the article. See the edit history, you are only accusing me because I said same about you. You do know people can see who is editing the page, right? Sajaypal007 (talk) 10:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting with sources

[edit]

Meethamonkey is bloked.Now you two don't make it a place for ur caste based antagonism with each other.I m rewriting this article as this is my subject area.I will keep in mind issue of WP:POV which you people have discarded.Heba Aisha (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Heba Aisha I believe you wrote only about skirmishes. There should be one main battle section too. There is plenty of content on both the sources you added. You only wrote like 3 lines on main battle. Plus I think Madho Singh didnt refuse to give back the widow, the widow herself refused because she knew Jawahar Singh wanted to take her into his harem. Source: The fall of Mughal Empire Part 2, Pg 284 by Jadunath Sarkar. The source clearly says Madho Singh couldnt forcibly expel a suppliant of asylum. Please read the source and make necessary changes.
Also when did I make anything about the castes, I didnt edit the page at all. I only warned some Mods in talk page that you should take action against disruptive editing and suggested for semi protection for the page ao it cant be edited by IP addresses.

Sajaypal007 (talk) 10:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the need of separate para regarding Jaipur nobles who fought

[edit]

This para that these Jaipur nobles fought in the battle should be written in short para or be merged with other para. A new para about the main battle should be created. In the article about the battle the main battle has like 03 lines. It should be bigger para. And a new para about aftermath of the battle should be made where the follow up by Madho singh to Bharatpur territory and his subsequent victory section be shifted. Sajaypal007 (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please also add the lead section. The lead section of the earlier article was appropriate. It should be added here too.

Sajaypal007 (talk) 11:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • No in that lead section it was given that jat were defeated but source donot agrees with that as both sides were escaping at two different battlefront.so this is the better.Also use sources which are accessible.You have given sources but noneof them are accessible.second thing u are focussing more on showing plight of Jats plz consider WP:POV Heba Aisha (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming victory doesnt mean gaining victory. Losers can also claim victory that doesnt make them victors. In all the source used in reference its clearly mentioned that Jawahar Singh's army was routed and fled. He himself fled ditching his royal umbrella which was captured by Jaipur forces. Rajputs plundered their camp took all his artillery. The field remained with the Rajputs. If you do not want to see this as victory don't mention it as victory but include these fact atleast because they will tell the reader the clear picture. Its all given in the source itself. Why selectively leave those behind. Besides Madho singh followed up this victory by invading Bharatpur and defeated Jawahar Singh once again. Where does source say that both side escaped? Jaipur forces remained in the battlefield.
Also I believe its not necessary to only give the sources that are available online. On other hand same book is available in at archive.org but page numbers are slightly changed because that is older version. You can check the reference there too. I am not considering plights(?) of Jats, all I am saying is take the matter from source. Neutral point of view doesnt mean you have to change the fact to appease two different communities at the same time. It means the truth and fact. @Alivardi and Heba Aisha:Sajaypal007 (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thts already included by ip that umbrella fell and jats fled and i m not gonna revert that.are u ok now》 further internet is full of stories about clash of both communities and particularly this battle is highly controversial.So we will have to follow a moderate path.Heba Aisha (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess if we made that type of statement then there is gonna massive vandalism on the article in future.so this version is good enough.Now if you want to contribute move to other articles i reccommend.India related articles are in poor quality and i would appreciate when ppl like u who are well aware will help to make this platform a good example of community work thanks Heba Aisha (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No its not included by that new edit. You dont have look to internet or at the stories, you have to look at facts mentioned in the citations. What moderate path? This is not some mediation, going on so that we will follow moderate path. We have to write what is written in the books not to please anyone. So you are afraid that vandalism is gonna follow so don't include the actual facts. You do understand its wikipedia not some street debate, right? @Utcursch and Sitush: Please look into the matter. This user deliberately changed the whole article and now not including what is written in the references. Article looks like its been written by someone who has little understanding of the subject. I am trying to build a consensus over here without editing, she changed the whole page and even lead is removed. Sajaypal007 (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole talk history and my edits will show what you want and what.btw i have no intention to fight u.I was just telling that the article is now in goid state as i wrote it using the source u used.But you are showing stubborn attitude and want to show in lead the conclusion of the war which is not written by Jadunath Sarkar.And i have full idea about the subject thts y i m here.But, if u don't want to take good advice....do wt you want ....i have a lot of other article to do...and Removal of content(plz 80% of this article is written by me after an ip requested me on my talk page about disruption in this article. I am here because 3 of u(one get blocked) were quarreling over the article and making this a Jat vs Rajput fight.Heba Aisha (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't say, add who won or who lost, that sometimes can be obscure but it would better to write in short what happened and let reader draw conclusion. I wasn't quarreling with anyone, I only came here when some ip msg me on my talk page, same as you. I didnt edit anything at that time and only wrote in talk page about veracity of that one writer Joon. Nothing else, for me it looked like you 3 were quarreling. Anyway matter is to be suspended until administrators look into it Sajaypal007 (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the meaning of the sentence in the name of changing grammar and puffery

[edit]

@Heba Aisha: Why did you change the the word from retreat to departure and return. Both words have different meaning. Changing the words change the meaning of the sentence. Those exact words are used in both the sources yet you changed them. Retreat is done only by someone who is feeling weaker in the battle, cant say same about the word 'return'. Please revert the change as it was accept for the small grammar change. Sajaypal007 (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you have better word use them....basic English. Its an asylum not a asylum and they'll look into the matter whom u tagged.Also no need to closely paraphrase Jadunath Sarkar's word.now bye Heba Aisha (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Its paraphrase not paraphrise. I am not talking about copying his lines. But if similar word is not available, you should keep the word instead of changing to something else which will change the meaning of the sentence altogether. I also like the suggestion of the ip to remove caste related terms to general geographic terms. I believe we shouldn't further edit until Administrators look into the matter. Sajaypal007 (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done 😊●Btw thanks for correction.Heba Aisha (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the battle

[edit]

Although both side claim victory but claiming and actually winning are two separate things.

1. Historian Jadunath Sarkar in History of Jaipur at pg no. 256. clearly use the word, followed up the victory

2. Historian Rima Hooja in her book "History of Rajasthan" on page no 736 says state "Kachwaha State forces humiliated Jawahir Singh's army". At Page no. 681 she says just after description of Maonda battle that, " In feb 1768, Jawahar Singh was again defeated by the Jaipur forces near Kaman". But there are no records of 'Battle of Kama'.

3. Rajasthan District Gazetteer of Alwar District, 1968, by Maya Ram on Page no 61 clearly says "In 1768 Jawahar Singh insulted the Jaipur Chief by marching without intimation of his motive through his state. On his return journey he was attacked by rajputs of the state he had insulted and defeated at Maonda-Mandholi in Turawati hills." But same source says that "Madho Singh of Jaipur had died only four days after the battle of Maonda-Mandholi", so who fought the Battle of Kama...??

4. In Rajasthan through the ages vol 4 by RK Gupta & SR Bakshi at page no 208 clearly says "Madho Singh followed up his victory" "and again defeated Jawahar".

5. In The Rajput States and British Paramountcy by AC Banerjee at page no 105 clearly says "Another Jat invasion followed in December 1767 , and Jawahar Singh won a 'Pyrrhic victory' in the battle of Maonda."

6. In History of Jats by Qanungo Kalikaranjan at page no 211 clearly says "But the party of Madec and that of the German Sombre, who laboured in that affair, with all bravery and prudence of a great soldier, restored the battle and defeated the Raja of Jaipur."

7. In European Adventurers in North India: 1750–1803 by Uma Shanker Pandey it clearly says "the battle of Maonda, the drilled troops not only saved the entire army of the Jats from a complete rout, but even led them to victory in the end."

8. In A Comprehensive History of India: 1712-1772, edited by A. C. Banerjee and D. K. Ghase at page no 511 clearly says After the Battle of Maonda in which the Jat raja secured a 'pyrrhic victory', Madho Singh invaded the Jat territory which was defended with the assistance of the Sikhs.

9. In Forming an Identity A Social History of the Jats by Nonica Datta at page 94 clearly says "The Raja of Jaipur attacked Jawahar Singh on 14 December 1767, but was 'humbled' at the battle of Maonda. Thus a triumphant Jawahar Singh returned to Bharatpur." This again proves that Jawahar Singh returned to Bharatpur 'victorious'.


According to Hari Ram Gupta, the Rajputs lost about 3000 men in the Battle of Maonda and Mandholi. According to Thakur Upendra Singh, after the battle of Maonda-Mandholi, not a single Rajput sardar able to ride a horse, could be found in the Thikanas. Dalil Singh, the Commander-in-chief of Jaipur army, was killed in the battle along with his three generations. Nearly all chief nobles from Jaipur side lost their lives, and not a single chieftain from Bharatpur side was killed. Only 11 tender aged members were left in the family of Madho Singh, the rest lost their lives. Madho Singh himself died only four days after the battle of Maonda-Mandholi according to Col Tod and Rajasthan District Gazetteer of Alwar. So how can Jaipur claim victory in this battle? Even if it was, then it was a most 'pyrrhic victory' as Jaipur suffered huge losses in this battle. Jaipur claimed victory because Bharatpur army had to retreat, even that retreat was also because of Pratap Singh who betrayed Jawahar Singh. He left Bharatpur undefended and joined the camp of Madho Singh. Also, there are no records of Battle of Kama found yet, Col Tod and Qanungo Kalikaranjan also did not mention about such battle, infact no writer before Jadunath Sarkar mentioned such battle... So how come Battle of Kama is Jaipur victory, if there are no records of that battle?

What is the need of para like Jaipur Nobles who fought?

[edit]

There is a separate para about nobles who fought from Jaipur side. There are only 3-4 paras about the battle and one is dedicated to this unnecessary detail. On other hand useful para like prelude, result, aftermath all important paras are missing. I added the result one. But still I havent seen any such para about such list of names of people who fought and that is for only one side. Nothing for other. I suggested to shorten/removal of the para before too. Sajaypal007 (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am finally removing this section because it has no purpose. A whole section about which nobles from one side not anything about other side. Why does this matter. If someone else feel otherwise, please drop a reply here, we can discuss about this. Sajaypal007 (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proper way of adding citation.

[edit]

Sajaypal007 plz consider proper way to add citation of book a simple format is here. cite book|url=|title=|publisher=|first=|last=|pages=|accessdate= And url u can copy from google book.Heba Aisha (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful source

[edit]

All the four volumes of fall of mughal empire donot contain Jawahar Singh's refrence.

I have come across these four book named fall of mughal empire by Jadunath Sarkar and none of them even have refrence to Jawahar Singh and this battle also the citation style is also wrong by Sajaypal007 and we can't judge which of the four source he cited.Heba Aisha (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dont create too many threads. Please read the source which I cited. These books you cited are older versions, what I cited is published by Orient Black Swan, please refer to that dont remove the sources without verifying. Already mentioned the vol 2. Please refer to that. Sajaypal007 (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fall of mughal empire volume 2

[edit]

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.69726/page/n299/mode/2up Heba Aisha (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of cited source

[edit]

Heba Aisha You once before removed cited source with an excuse of giving an old publication while I specifically cited the Orient Black Swan publication book. I reverted that and warned you that time too. Now you are saying you will remove the sources if quote is not provided for verification. If you wanted to verify the sources, you can do it by any other means, if you don't have access to the sources, that doesnt mean you can remove them. Nevertheless I provided the quotes on both of them. Now your belittling and removing the scholarly sources just because it doesnt provide your point of view is wrong. Now you are trying for Rima Hooja earlier you were trying the same for Sarkar both same source which you now threatening to remove just because there were no quotes on that. Most of the sources on wikipedia are without quotes, that doesnt mean you and I can discriminately remove them, ask for quote if you think it is disputed and dont say I'll remove the source. For Sarkar you were saying that He is cousin brother of Todd. From your doubt about these works I can assume that your knowledge about history and historians is not that great and I can assure you that this is my area of expertise (Rajasthan History) and I know what I am doing. So please refrain from such comments in future and don't try to further vandalize this article without proper discussion. Your regular vandalisation without any solid reason can be seen as glorification attempt. Thanks. Sajaypal007 (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

see above i have put all those sources where no mention was there.And you should have kept quote first as none of the sources had preview.Anyone can ask about reliability of sources while putting [need quotation to verify] tag.Most of the sources are without quotes but preview is available partly or fully.Ironically neither sources u put on wiki in any of ur edits have preview so quotes is needed.Its not offensive.Heba Aisha (talk) 14:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you put all the sources in talk, and after some time without verifying whether they are of same publication or not, you removed them. That is what I am mentioning. And yes anyway can ask for quote, I already addressed that in above para, but threatening to remove the sources itself if there are no quote is not right. I hope you understand this because this is second time you were trying to do such thing on this page. Have a good day. Sajaypal007 (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

kuchwaha is Gurjar Not Rajput...so please correct it

[edit]

Kuchwaha is Gurjar not Rajput..please correct the history...... 111.119.188.26 (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Maonda_and_Mandholi&oldid=1199636985"