Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Rahon (1710)

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

Incorrect description for image

[edit]

the description shown on this page "Painting from an illustrated folio of a Mughal manuscript depicting the Battle of Rahon (1710). From the ‘Tawarikh-i Jahandar Shah’, Awadh or Lucknow, ca.1770. Shamas Khan is depicted being killed by Nar Singh and Pahar Singh" is incorrect due to the fact that Shamas Khan was killed in the Battle of Bahrampur in 1711 not in the battle of rahon.

Source:https://archive.org/details/LifeOfBandaSinghBahadurBasedOnContemporaryAndOriginalRecordsDr.GandaSingh/page/n192/mode/1up?q=shamas Pg 160-163 Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Twarikh e Khalsa Thanks for bringing this to my attention. The image description’s claim was taken from the original source. Perhaps there’s a difference of opinion amongst scholars regarding which battle he died in? Anyways, I appreciate you looking into this. ThethPunjabi (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ThethPunjabi
i've checked through different sources and all of them universally agree that Shamas Khan along with his uncle Bayazid Khan were both killed in the battle of Bahrampur.
Surjit Gandhi:https://archive.org/details/SikhsInTheEighteenthCentury/page/49/mode/2up
Hari Ram Gupta: https://archive.org/details/HistoryOfTheSikhsVol.IiEvolutionOfSikhConfederacies1707-69/page/n43/mode/2up
Balwant singh dhillion:https://apnaorg.com/books/english/rajasthani-documents-on-banda-singh-bahadur/rajasthani-documents-on-banda-singh-bahadur.pdf
Most of the contemporary authorities all agree that Shamas Khan was killed at Bahrampur,so i dont think which battle he was killed in his disputed.In all likelihood its possible that the painting might be depicting a different battle (possibly the battle of bahrampur). Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mughal victory

[edit]

To the VPN 207*, how is the Sikh defeat of a Mughal garrsion which was stationed after the inital fighting took place (which resulted in a Mughal victory and Sikh tactical retreat) a "Sikh victory", but a subsequent Mughal defeat of the Sikh garrsion not a Mughal victory? At the end of the day, the Mughals defeated the Sikhs and managed to repel their invasion and recover the fort, hence this is 100% a Mughal victory. And battles can transpire for many days, even months, so a 10 day gap in fighting does not mean anything. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Phase 1: Mughals besiege the Rahon fort, Sikhs tacticly and surreptitiously retreat (Mughal victory)
  • Phase 2: Sikhs shortly after return to Rahon once the bulk of the Mughal army has disbanded, defeat the Mughal garrison and recover the fort (Sikh victory)
  • Phase 3: Mughals return and defeat the Sikh garrison, recover the fort and re-establish an outpost (Mughal victory)
HaughtonBrit's position that Phase 2 should be the conclusion of the battle is untenable given that the fort was only held by the Sikhs for a few days, but it culminated in Mughal possession of the fort. He is also of the position that Phase 3 should constitute a different battle given that it transpired after the initial fighting (Phase 1), but given that logic, Phase 2 must also be another battle since it also took a place after the Mughal army had disbanded and the initial fighting had concluded. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 05:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should be separate articles and can be included in this article as background and aftermath. Since belligerents, total numbers, circumstances are different for each battle, they should be considered separate battle. 207.189.217.195 (talk) 11:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Phase one, no battle took place as it’s included in background that “ disillusioned upon hearing the war preparations against them and decided to move their forces and call for reinforcements.” So it’s not battle. Second phase is about this current article and third phase can be included as aftermath in this article and also a separate article due to different circumstances, belligerents and numbers. 207.189.217.195 (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this article battle ended with Sikh victory and the belligerents moved to conquer other towns while leaving minimal soldiers at the fort. So it’s not a continuation. 10 days later Shamas khan returned to fight against the minimal force at the fort. That is why this aftermath is separate battle which was a Mughal victory and Can be created as a separate article with total numbers being different as clearly Sikhs were 1000 only. 207.189.217.195 (talk) 12:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Suthasianhistorian8
I've checked through various sources and i don't get why this battle is considered a "Mughal victory".
Shortly after the battle of rahon,the Sikhs would capture territory in the Jalandhar doaba such as Jalandhar and Hoshiarpur.This is agreed upon by historians such as Ganda Singh,Harbans Sagoo, G.S Chabbra,and Tony Jacques.Ganda singh further claims that Shamas Khan would fight a total of 22 battles with the Sikhs after rahon. This shows that Shamas Khans recapturing of sirhind,and the battle of rahon (which took place in October, 11, 1710) are separate battles that took place.Most sources also place the date of the battle on October 11 of whereas Shamas khan recaputring Sirhind occured during November of 1710 (as stated by one of the sources).Further thing to note is that Hari ram Guptas account of the battle is more so a summary of the events that transpired between October and November of 1710.The most widely accepted consensus among historians is that the Sikhs would capture rahon,and would also capture Jalandhar and Hoshiarpur following the battle.The recapturing of Sirhind would occur a month later, during Bahadur Shah's campaign against the Sikhs. Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The battle which took place on October 11 was the very beginning of the fighting. The Sikhs retreated into the fort in light of the Mughals numerical superiority and Shamas Khan subsequently besieged it -[1]. Sources clearly indicate the Mughals succeeded in their attrition efforts and the Sikhs eventually exhausted their supplies and tactically retreated

Forced to take refuge in the fort of Rahon, the Sikhs made use of the food and ammunition left by the garrison. Every night, they came out to fight the besiegers

.
You have to remembe that sieges are intended to take weeks or even months. So the siege would have lasted for some time and the Sikh's retreat would have taken place in November. On November 19, Shamas Khan attacked the Sikh garrison at the fort and recaptured it. It cannot be a Sikh victory when they only held the fort for 10 days and were ultimately repelled from there. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
?-? 1710: Sikhs reach Rahon and demand the submission of its faujdar Shamas Khan and the conveyance of his treasure
?-? 1710: Shamas Khan tricks the Sikhs into believing he has submitted and advances towards Rahon
October 11 1710: The Mughals and Sikhs have a pitched battle following which the Sikhs retreat into the fort of Rahon. Shamas Khan subsequently besieges the fort.
October 11- November 1710: Sikhs stay in the fort and occasionally make attacks against the besieging Mughals.
November 9: Sikhs retreat from the fort. Khan pursues them for a few miles but is nonetheless content with recovering the fort and sends most of his troops home while stationing a garrsion at the fort. Sikhs immediately sieze the opportunity and defeat the Mughal garrsion and recover the fort.
November 19: Shamas Khan invades Sirhind and defeats the Sikh garrison and recovers the fort.
Therefore, it was the Mughals who won the battle that took place on October 11 as the Sikhs were forced to retreat. The Sikhs only achieved a minor victory in which they very temporarily defeated a minimal Mughal garrison after most of the troops were sent home. In the end, it was the Mughals who recovered the fort, so it absolutely would be POV pushing to say that this was a Sikh victory. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Suthasianhistorian8
Harbans sagoo further claims that after the Sikhs occupied rahon,the Sikhs would advance and capture towns such as Jalandhar and Hoshiarpur. By this time,Shamas Khan was in sultanpur lodhi and is reported to have fought 22 total battles with the Sikhs (as stated by Ganda Singh). One thing to further note is that historians such as Ganda Singh,Harbans Sagoo,Tony Jacques,etc. Seem to agree that the battle was a Sikh victory,and that the Sikhs were able to gain territory within the Jalandhar Doaba. Ganda Singh and Harbans Sagoo do mention of Shamas Khans recapturing of sirhind,but describe it as a separate battle entirely. It's possible we can get a third opinion to come in to decide which result should be used. Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No historians say that it was a Sikh victory, they say that the Sikhs occupied Rahon, which they did indeed for a very brief time, but they neglected to mention that the Mughals reoccupied shortly after, which Hari Ram Gupta and Surinder Singh mentioned (arguably the most reliable source here as his is a peer reviewed book published just last year). Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find it rich that the Sikhs' recapture of the fort in November is not considered a seperate battle from the conflict that started in October 11, but the Mughal recapture that took place 10 days later is. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected; it appears the Sikhs occupied the fort on October 12. However, given that this also happened many days after the initial fighting and the siege (with different circumstances, belligerents and combatants as HaughtonBrit notes), as Hari Ram Gupta and Surinder Singh clearly indicate the siege dragged on for a while, October 12 is still the midpoint within the conflict. The conflict ultimately ended with Mughal possession of the fort and repulsion of the Sikh invasion. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you so fixated on it? They are clearly two different battles? Another article will be better than cramming two battles into one. By the way I find it very odd how you creep your way into pages and always try to paint Sikhs in a generally negative light. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CanadianSingh1469: Even the Battle of Jalalabad lasted for over a month, starting with a battle in which the Sikhs defeated the Mughals forcing them to retreat, following which the Sikhs besieged them for over a month, and ultimately concluding with Sikh failure to take over Jalalabad and its fort. We don't have 2 seperate articles for the initial battle and the siege, nor should we, because that would be a waste of time and energy. Similarily, this battle lasted over a month, and ultimately ended with Mugal posession of the fort.
Also why the personal attacks? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Telling the truth like 1800 Sikhs didn't kill 50,000 well trained imperial soldiers in the Battle of Kartarpur or that the story of 3 Sikhs chasing away 1,000 Mughals in the Battle of Patti is folklore and not actual history is not depicting Sikhs in a negative light. It's a real shame that there's so much dishonesty and religious chest thumping being peddled here and we're supposed to turn a blind eye to it otherwise we're being "bigoted". Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Suthasianhistorian8 @CanadianSingh1469
Honestly this whole discussion has turned ugly.We need to settle this dispute through civil means. Either way i will provide a response to your points later @Suthasianhistorian8.For now keep the result of the battle as a "mughal victory". I will do more research into this particular battle. Tbh im not a massive of how wikipedia battle pages are formatted. Some battles simply don't have a clear cut winner to really decide which side "won" or "lost" Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Thanks for the level-headed response Twarikh e Khalsa. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Suthasianhistorian8
As i was researching this battle,there is an interesting thing i noticed regarding some of the narratives between the various sources.I'm going to use Ganda Singhs book "Life of Banda Singh" and Hari Ram Guptas "History of the Sikhs" as an example.
For one thing,Gupta places the conquest of Jalanadhar and Hoshiarpur during june of 1710 rather than October which is the date Ganda Singh claims.However the major difference between these two sources is this:
"The Sikhs fell back. They captured Rahon situated on a high mound near the Satluj in the Jullundur Doab. Shams Khan, faujdar of the Jullundur Doab, had his headquarters at Sultanpur Lodi. At the head of 5,000 men he marched against the Sikhs. There were no provisions in the fort of Rahon. They left the fort and came out to oppose Shams K han. A hard battle was fought in Yaqub Khan's garden. Shams Khan was joined by his uncle Bayazid Khan, Governor of Jammu. Umar Khan, an Afghan chief of Kasur, also united with them. A tough fight followed. The Sikhs held together for a few days. Finding the situation untenable they entered Rahon in the night. The place was immediately besieged. They stood their ground for some time, eating whatever could be had from the deserted houses. The fort fell in November and the Sikhs were driven away.". (Hari Ram Gupta)
"Here news were brought that three thousand Sikh horse and two thousand foot were entrenched on this side of Sadhaura and that a large number of them had retreated into the fort of Sirhind after a fight with Umar Khan and Bayzid Khan Afghans in the Garden of Yaqub Khan."
(Ganda Singh)
Both sources are describing the same battle as both sources mention of a garden called yaqub khans,and both sources state the same belligerents as well. What's different however is the location of the battle. Gupta places the location at rahon,and claims the sikhs retreated towards rahon.Ganda singh however claims that the sikhs retreated towards the fort of sirhind following the battle in the garden.There seems to be a level of dispute between these sources regarding the exact location of the battle that Gupta writes in his work. Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ganda Singh says that they retreated after the fight in the garden of Yaqub Khan (Rahon). The book also states that this took place in late November. Remember, the Sikhs captured the fort in October 12. This is consistent with what Hari Ram Gupta said-The fort fell in November and the Sikhs were driven away. Shams Khan then advanced upon Sarhind. I think you are misunderstanding the sources, remember there was first a battle when Shamas Khan marched to Rahon and the Sikhs did indeed retreat to the fort of Rahon, they were then besieged by the Mughals for some time, following which they tactically retreated on October 11. Shamas Khan disbanded the Mughal army and the Sikhs recaptured it one day later by defeating the Mughal garrison. In November, the Mughals recaptured the fort, following which the Sikhs fled to Sirhind. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Southasianhistorian8 Ganda Singh doesn't claim that the location of the garden was at rahon.In fact he heavily implies that the location of the garden was closer to Sirhind rather than rahon.Ganda Singh also makes zero mention of any battle or conflict between the Afghan faujdars and the Sikhs near rahon during late November of 1710 which is something Gupta claims.
"Bayzid Khan Kheshgi pushed on towards the north. Shamas Khan, on the other hand, was also encouraged by the Emperor’s march against the Sikhs and the return of his own uncle Bayzid Khan. He collected a large host of villagers from the Bist Jullundur doab and marched upon Sirhind. The combined forces of Bayzid Khan, Shamas and Umar Khan encountered the Sikhs in the garden of Yaqub Khan. Baj Singh, the Governor of Sirhind, was then absent on some expedition. His brother Sukha Singh, and Sham Singh offered a bold front, but they were outnumbered and the death of Sukha Singh, at a time when the result of the battle hung in the balance, compelled them to retire upon the fort of Sirhind."
There is no mention that this battle was fought near Rahon as shown in the above quote.I'm not saying that Ganda is 100% correct or that Gupta is wrong,my point is that these two sources have contradicting narratives with each other especially when it comes to chronology and that the conflict Gupta is describing in his book (which he claims is apart of the battle of rahon) differs from what other sources state. Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 01:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Southasianhistorian8 Further thing to note is that other historians have also claimed that this particular conflict was fought near sirhind.Surjit Singh Gandhi claims that the battle between the Mughals and the Sikhs (under the command Sukha Singh) was fought in the outskirts of Sirhind.
"The next confrontation with the Sikhs took place on the outskirts of Sirhind. Here, too, the Sikhs who fought under Sukha Singh, the Brother of Baj Singh, were worsted and rushed to take shelter in the fort of Sirhind." Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 02:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll dig into this a little later, but I would like to note that Sirhind was both a prominent town as well as large sarkar in the Mughal Empire. A sarkar in the Mughal administrative unit was a district of a province (suba) that consisted of numerous parganas, which themselves were cluster of villages and towns. The Encyclopedia of Sikhism states

In the time of Emperor Akbar the rival towns of Sunam and Samana were suboridinated to it and included in what was called Sirhind sarkar of the Subah (province) of Delhi

and also

The jurisdiction of Sirhind sarkar extended to Anandpur which was the seat of Guru Gobind Singh in the closing decades of the seventeenth century.

The Punjab District Gazetteers states on page 63: The Ain-i-Akbari enumerates the following mahals (or parganas as we should call them): Tihara, Hatur, Bhundri, Luidhana, Macchiwara, and also Payal and Dohara. The first three are still fairly large villages in Jagraon tahsil. The town of Payal and the village of Dohara are in Payal sub-tahsil; and it is clear that these seven mahals, which were in Sirhind divison or Sarkar of the Delhi province or Subah, covered most of the present Ludhiana district and the adjoining parts of the Patiala district.
This means that at the very least the Sirhind division covered the present day Ludhiana district and much of the Patiala district (since the sarkar included more than these 7 parganas). Rahon as you can see is just above the Ludhiana district.
This source here, though I'll concede should be taken with a grain of salt as it was written by a Lt General, states that the Sirhind sarkar encompassed 28 parganas and the entire Yamuna-Sutlej doab.
This scholarly source here states that The Sirhind divison (sarkar) of the Mughal province of Delhi commanded a position of immense strategic importance. It was surronded on the eastern side by the Yamuna and Sirmur hills, on the west by the Satluj and the state of Bhawalpur
It's important to note that Sirhind was not just a city but a very large tract of land which Rahon was likely part of. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 09:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This scholarly source here by Taylor and Francis claims that Sirhind consisted of 33 parganas-Out of its 33 parganas, Sirhind sarkar consisted of 13 Jat Zamindaris and 3 parganas exclusively belonged to them. We have already established that 7 parganas in the sarkar covered much of the Ludhiana and Patiala district, hence the Sirhind sarkar was quite clearly massive and the authors may be using Sirhind and Rahon (a pargana in Sirhind) interchangeably. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so I examined Sagoo as well as Ram Gupta's work again and I will lay out my analysis. First let's clarify a few things:
1) Sirhind was not just a city but a large sarkar (district) that encompassed numerous parganas and constituted, at the very least, the modern day Ludhiana district. Punjabi University's Sirhind Through the Ages on p.30, note 37, claims that the Sirhind Sarkar consisted of 33 parganas. The names of the parganas were as follows: Ambala, Banur, Payl, Bhatinda, Pundiri, Khara, Thanesar, Chhatt, Charak, Domal, Dunna , Devra, Rupar, Khedrabad, Haveli, Sirhind, Samana, Sunam, Sodara, Sultanpur, Shahbad, Fatehpur, Khera, Karial Rai, Bhatnair, Kaithal, Kuhram, Ludhiana, Mustafabad, Mass; Mav, Mansurpur, Batoor, Machiwara, Habsi.
2) Rahon, after reading Sagoo's work, I understand was part of the Jallandhar Doab, which she notes constitutes modern day Jalandhar and Hoshiarpur district and its adjoining areas, being on the border of the province of Sirhind, and was north of the Sirhind sarkar (p.175). Hence my claim that Rahon was a pargana in Sirhind and the terms being used interchangeably incorrect.
If you look at the map of Rahon and the Ludhiana district, you can see that Rahon is very close to and borders the district, hence Rahon and the Sirhind sarkar were very near and adjoined each other.
Hari Ram Gupta says that the Sikhs captured Rahon situated on a high mound near the Satluj in the Jullundur Doab. (Here he is describing the events of October 12 where the Sikhs defeated the Mughal garrison). He then says Shamas Khan, faujdar of the Jullundur Doab..At the head of 5,000 men he marched against the Sikhs. There were no provisions in the fort of Rahon. They left the fort and came out to oppose Shamas Khan. (This to me suggests that the Sikhs abandoned Rahon as the lack of supplies compelled them to and arrived at the nearby Sirhind sarkar). Sagoo notes on page 185 that Shamas Khan collected a large host of villagers from the Bist Jullundar Doab and marched upon Sirhind. Both Sagoo and Gupta agree that the combined forces of Bayzid Khan, Umar Khan and Shamas Khan fought the Sikhs on the garden of Yaqub Khan. Sagoo then says the Sikhs retired to the fort of Sirhind. Gupta also says that the Sikhs held together for a few days (which seems to insinuate they took refuge in a fort). Gupta then says Finding the situation untenable they entered Rahon in the night (which to me means that the Sikhs abanonded the fort of Sirhind and returned back to Rahon). Gupta then implies that the Mughals pursued them and also besieged this fort which eventually fell and the Sikhs were forced to retreat. Both sources agree that after this the Sikhs fled to Lohgarh. I believe the discrepancy between the sources is that there were actually 2 forts that were besieged and captured by the Mughals, one in Sirhind, following the untenability of the situation and its capture by the Mughals, compelled the Sikhs to re-enter Rahon and take refuge in the fort of Rahon. This would also explain why Surinder Singh makes mention of the Mughals under Shamas Khan capturing two forts in sucession. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Surjt Singh Gandhi's statement that the battle took place on the outskirts of Sirhind futher strengthens this claim. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 15:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also Sagoo states here [2] that He (Bazid Khan) had been joined by his nephew Shamas Khan after his fight in the battle of Rahon and his subsequent removal from the office of the Faujdar of the Doaba. This removal is refrenced after the battle of Sirhind where Bayzid, Umar and Shamas Khan encoutered the Sikhs in Yaqub Khan's garden and recovered the fort of Sirhind. See [3]-He (Mohammed Amin Khan) reported to the Emperor that Shamas Khan had collected a large force with evil intentions and that his movements were not without danger to the peace of the country. Poor Shamas Khan, against all hopes of being raised to a higher rank, was treated most ungratefully. He was dismissed from the faujdari of Doaba Bist Jullundar. Hence, the battle which took place in Yaqub Khan's garden and near the fort of Sirhind is also linked with the battle of Rahon. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Suthasianhistorian8
I could be incorrect but isn't Surinder Singh reffering to just the fort of sirhind being recovered?
"After  10  days  (19  November  1710),  he  made  a  vigo­rous  attack  on  Sirhind.  Recovering  the  fort,  he  reestablished  a  Mughal  outpost  (thana)  and  killed  1,000  Sikh  horsemen.  As  part  of  the  booty  from  Sirhind,  he  sent  four  wagons  loaded  with  the  severed  heads  of  the  Sikhs  to  the  Emperor.  Since  the  Sikhs  were  still  in  possession  of  the  fort,  the  Mughals  laid  a  mine  under  the  tower  and  blew  it  up.  At  night,  3,000  Sikhs  came  out  of  the  fort  and,  while  1,000  were  killed,  the  remaining  took  to  flight."
The first sentence indicates that Shamas Khan launched an attack upon Sirhind,and managed to recover it's fort and killed 1,000 Sikh cavalry.The sentence afterwards further claims that as apart of the loot gained from Sirhind, Shamas khan sent the severed heads of the sikhs killed which could indicate that the fort he recovered was indeed the one at Sirhind and not Rahon. The couple of sentences afterwards could be providing a more detailed explanation as to how the Mughals recovered the fort, as both accounts also provide the same identical casualty rates for the Sikhs (1K Killed).Also your point regarding Gupta stating "The Sikhs held together for a few days." could also indicate that the Sikhs fight with the Mughals in the garden of Yaqub khan lasted for a few days,which ultimately forced them to retreat towards Rahon. Pitched battles can last for several days similar to sieges.Also Sagoo could be referencing the battle which was fought in October of 1710.Sagoo's account of the battle differs from what Gupta states.
"After the occupation of Rahon, the Sikhs moved on to Jullundur. The Pathans of this place, so terrified that they found their safety in fleeing Rahon, fell into the hands of the Sikhs without any resistance from the officials and residents. Hoshiarpur followed suit, and like all others in the neighbourhood, its ruler acknowledged the authority of the conquerors. Thus, before long, practically the whole of the Bist Jullundur Doab came under the sway of the Sikhs. Shamas Khan himself was not allowed to remain at rest at Sultanpur and, according to the Maasir-ulUmra, twenty-two battles were fought between the Sikhs and himself.
Sagoo also makes no mention of any battle or siege being fought between the Sikhs and Mughals at Rahon during November of 1710.Also the reason why the conflicts in Rahon and Sirhind are linked is because both of these battles were fought by the same commander (Shamas Khan). Sagoo is reffering to the fact that after Khan's fight with the Sikhs in Rahon (october 1710) Bayazid Khan would join him on reconquering sirhind from the Sikhs,and would also be with him when Shamas was dismissed as a faujdar of Jalandhar.
"Bazid Khan was the Governor of Jammu at that time. He was also called Rutb-ud-din Keshgi. He had been joined by his nephew Shamas Khan after his fight in the battle of Rahon and his subsequent removal from the office of the Faujdar of the Doaba. So both the uncle and the nephew came and met the Sikhs near Bahrampur (Gurdaspur District).
Sagoo in the above quote is providing a description on who Bayazid Khan was,his relationship with Shamas,and how he joined his nephew after his fight with the Sikhs at rahon and was with him when his nephew was dismissed as faujdar of jalandhar. Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Surinder Singh is strongly suggesting the fort of Rahon was recovered by the Mughals given the wording of the sentences, it's a bit vauge as to whether the Rahon fort was the first one or second one captured as per his account. And I don't see how Sagoo's quote about the Sikhs occupying the Jullunder Doab necessarily contradicts Gupta's to be honest. Sagoo's use of "subsequent" after the battle of Rahon seems to heavily imply that it was the battle of Rahon which led to the dismisal as "subsequently" is colloquialy used to mean "as a result". I think at this point, it may be necessary to call upon a third party, uninvolved editor to help come to a consensus. Perhaps @Sitush: could help? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Suthasianhistorian8 According to Ganda Singh,Shamas Khan was dismissed mainly due to him recovering sirhind. Muhammad amin khan,another mughal commander, was upset that he couldnt take credit for retaking sirhind.So he convinced the mughal authorities to have shamas be removed from his office in the doaba.i agree that a 3rd party should settle this. Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Suthasianhistorian8 Before I try reading all of this, which will take a while, is it even necessary to assign a result? It's entirely possible for battles to end inconclusively; furthermore, unless there was a clear strategic objective before commencement then it can be difficult to assign an outcome anyway. - Sitush (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sitush. Twarikh e Khalsa what are your thoughts? Do you think it's necessary to have a result on this page or should we just leave it out? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Suthasianhistorian8 @Sitush
thank you aswell sitush. I do agree,the battles result should either be considered inconclusive or even disputed (similar to the battles of amritsar and jamrud). Hari Ram Gupta claims that the battle of rahon lasted for a month,and resulted in the sikhs being defeated.However other sources give different descriptions as to what happened.Im willing to make the battles result "disputed" since their is alot of contention regarding the result of the battle Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I suppose that works for me. Feel free to change it. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to disuputed. I will also add attribution for the ending sentence in the Battle section to Gupta and perhaps Surinder Singh. Let me know if this works for you, Twarikh. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Suthasianhistorian8
That's good,I will add further context as to why the battle is considered "disputed" and I will restructure some parts of the article to make it cohesive. I'm glad we were atleast able to come to a compromise. Thank you and take care Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Rahon_(1710)&oldid=1206180329"