Talk:Daulat Beg Oldi

India Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Aviation: Airports

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the airport project.

Created seperate page : Daulat Beg Oldi Airbase for the airbase info.

Anant kamath (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Daulat Beg Oldi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daulat Baig

Daulat Baig in the history/etymology could be lower case. It literally means "wealthy/state baig". Baig being title for a chief in Islamic countries back in the days. --Voidvector (talk) 03:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "nobleman" was very much likely Sultan Said Khan of Yarkent Khanate. However, the 3 book sources I used all provide conflicting accounts of the actual incident:

* [1] - died on returning from an unsuccessful attempt to invade Tibet in 1527

* [2] - died on returning from successful campaign against Western Tibet

* [3] - died on returning from campaigning in Lakadh in 1533

Based on common description, the bold text is the conflicting item in each source. --Voidvector (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for unearthing this information. Even though I knew that Sultan Said Khan died while returning from Ladakh, I didn't make the connection with DBO because "Beg" normally means a commander, much lower in rank than a Sultan. The actual campaigning was done by his general Mirza Haidar Dughlat. Said Khan probably camped out in Ladakh and issued orders. (Note that "West Tibet" and Ladakh were practically synonymous at this time. It would be another hundred years before Lhasa took control of West Tibet.)

In my view, this was a major event in the history of Kashmir, which ensured the spread of Islam in the northern Kashmir (Baltistan and Gilgit), built links between these regions and Yarkand/Kashgar, and possibly even established Leh as the trading entrepot, a primacy that lasted until the Communist takeover of China. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The invasion of Ladakh and Kashmir in 1532 by [Mirza Haidar Dughlat] should be seen as the continuation of a general drive southward since the late fifteenth century. [Said Khan] personally marched up to Leh and the Mongol chiefs accompanying [Haidar Dughlat] were encouraged to marry women from the families of Kashmiri notables. This suggests that the invasion was by no means a purely marauding raid: it was, apparently, designed to clear the route linking Kashmir with Yarkand and create a social base for Chaghatayid rule in the valley, where the majority of the population were Sunni Muslims. [Said Khan]’s death during the march back from Ladakh to Yarkand in 1533 and subsequent disturbances in Kashghar, however, did not allow sufficient time for this scheme to come to fruition.^[1]

So, it was by no means "unsuccessful", but it was short-lived. Dughlat came back again in the service of Humayun and governed Kashmir for a decade. The Kashmiris apparently killed him. Next, Akbar conquered Kashmir and integrated it into the Mughal Empire. Ladakh was left alone until it faced an invasion from Lhasa and was forced to join the Mughal Empire nominally. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded upon it into a subsection. It was one of those things where the history is more interesting than modern invented tourist fiction. I tried to keep it brief but it was still a lot. There are some ambiguities in the sources, but I think it is fine. Feel free to edit it, cut it down, or give more context. --Voidvector (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also Tibetans were in Gilgit-Baltistan in 600s, duking it out with Tang. See history section of that article. I wrote most it :) Though I guess they might not have recovered from the Mongols yet.--Voidvector (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, around 600 AD, the Tang Chinese and the Tibetans were fiercely contesting for the "four garrisons" of the Tarim Basin. The entry of Umayyad Caliphate seems to have complicated the picture. But after Glang Darma (around 900 AD), Tibet fissured, and West Tibet became independent. See the page on Maryul. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And, your new section is brilliant! No need to change anything. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Khan, Iqtidar A.; Habib, Irfan (2003), "International Relations", in Chahryar Adle; Irfan Habib (eds.), History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Volume V: Development in contrast: From the sixteenth to the mid-nineteenth century (PDF), UNESCO Publishing, pp. 327–345, ISBN 978-92-3-103876-1

"Mughal era"

@Kautilya3: It really doesn’t make sense to label the subsection here as the "Mughal era". This time period was the "Mughal era" for other places at the time, but this wasn't the Mughal era in Ladakh and they weren’t involved in this expedition.

Sultan Said Khan was from Moghulistan and ruled the Yarkent Khanate. The expedition was Yarkandi did not involve the forces of the Mughals. The Mughals came from Moghulistan, but they did not come from the Yashkent Khanate. The Mughal Empire had relations with the Yarkand Khanate in the 1600s, but had no role in the actual expedition and did not control the region of Daulat Beg Oldi. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They were the still same community of "Mughals" no matter where they came from.

In any case, it is labelled as the "Mughal era" for the time period. It is quite normal to periodise the history in this way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's normal to periodize the history of places controlled by the Mughal Empire during the time periods when they were controlled by the Mughal Empire in this way. Here, it's just inappropriate to label an expedition by non-Mughal Yarkandis into a non-Mughal Maryul area under "Mughal era". They both came from Moghulistan, but they are not the same. It's like labeling "Byzantine era" for events in Western Europe during the Western Roman Empire or labeling events in areas controlled by the Maratha Empire at the time under "Mughal era".

It's also not like "Expedition of Sultan Said Khan" is at all inaccurate for describing the subsection dedicated to that expedition. The alternatives "Maryul era", "Kingdom of Ladakh era", and "Namgyal era" also make more sense than "Mughal era". — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you have a wild imagination. Said Khan was very much a Mughal and the "Yarkent Khanate" was no more than a branch of Moghulistan.

Sultan Said Khan was the son of Babur's maternal uncle, Ahmad Khan, the Younger Khan. On being defeated by his brother, Mansur, at Alma-Ata [Almatta?], he arrived in Kabul at the end of 914/1508 "with five or six naked followers on foot."[35] Babur treated him as an honoured guest, and gave him Mandrawar of the Lamghan tuman.[36] He remained loyal to Babur and refused the offer of Mughol Khanship made by the Mughal chiefs when, Babur after his defeat at Kul-i Malik, had taken refuge in Qunduz.^[1]

There was nevertheless some kind of gamesmanship between the two groups of Moghuls as both of them contested the intervening areas like Ladakh, Kashmir and Badakhshan. That seems to have ended with Said Khan's death and Mirza Haidar Dughlat joined the Indian Mughals. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Said Khan was a Moghul (in the sense of Moghulistan), but not a Mughal (Mughal Empire). The Yarkent Khanate was a branch of Moghulistan and close to the Mughal Empire, but not part of the Mughal Empire. As your quote says itself, Said Khan was treated as an honoured guest. Said Khan and Babur were rulers of different states.

Babur, the founder of the Mughal Empire, and Sa'id Khan were cousins, and the relationship was recognised in Babu'r memories. In a sense the Khanate and the Mughal Empire were built together, though there could be no military cooperation between the two, given the heights of the Hamalayas and the Karakoram Range that separated the two states.
— Bano, Majida (2002). "Mughal relations with the Kashghar Khanate". Proceedings of the Indian History Congress: 1116–1119. JSTOR 44158181.

The Mughal Empire did not rule Ladakh in this time period and did not participate in the expedition. This is either the "Maryul era", "Namgyal era", "Kingdom of Ladakh era", "16th century", "Expedition of Said Khan", or even "Moghul era" (despite its ambiguity and neither having control of Ladakh at the time). But it was not the "Mughal era" for Daulat Beg Oldi or Ladakh. Are you adamant that none of these other subsection titles are fitting and that it must be "Mughal era"? — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to "Expedition of Said Khan". One of the other listed alternatives would also be fine. But if you still think that it should be "Mughal era", then we'll probably need DR. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Hasan, Mohibbul (1985), Babur, Founder of the Mughal Empire in India, p. 122

[1] Khan, Iqtidar A.; Habib, Irfan (2003), "International Relations", in Chahryar Adle; Irfan Habib (eds.), History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Volume V: Development in contrast: From the sixteenth to the mid-nineteenth century (PDF), UNESCO Publishing, pp. 327–345, ISBN 978-92-3-103876-1

[2] Hasan, Mohibbul (1985), Babur, Founder of the Mughal Empire in India, p. 122

[1]

[1]