Jump to content

Talk:Khanate of Kalat

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Kalat (princely state))

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved to Khanate of Kalat. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kalat (princely state) → Kalat Khanate – For centuries this was a khanate and only for a short time it was a princely state. Do away with the parentheses. Imperium Romanum Sacrum (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. No great objection, but may I suggest instead Khanate of Kalat? The ruler was called "Khan" from the mid eighteenth century and the princely state was commonly referred to as that much more often than "Kalat Khanate". NB, the present article is pretty dire, it would be good if Imperium Romanum Sacrum could find time to improve it. Moonraker (talk) 04:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for "Khanate of Kalat" - more formal name, just as we would refer to the ruler as the Khan of Kalat and not the Kalat Khan. Equally I would support a renaming of several other similarly named "princely states". 119.154.144.242 (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.



[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Khanate of Kalat. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 07:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fix in Kalat's History about Afghanistan

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedian Friends, I have added on to Kalat's history with its mention of it being under Durrani Suzerainty under Source Iranica, let me know if you have any concerns below. -Noorullah21 6:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Kalat's Independence date is wrong.

[edit]

Kalat got it's independence on 12th August 1947, not on 15th, as mentioned in the article.

https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/degrees-of-separation-prime-minister-narendra-modi-independence-day-balochistan-kashmir-unrest-2996390/

Adding The Truth (talk) 07:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Khan might have declared on 12 August, but it would have taken effect from 14/15 August, which were the official dates of the departure of the British. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merges

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Unanimous consensus to merge. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We know almost nothing about most of the rulers of this Khanate. It was not a significant pre-modern power and at best, we can write a single decent paragraph (or, in some cases, a single line) about most rulers prior to 1800. After that, courtesy British meddling in the region, we have considerable details about politico-military affairs of the state but biographical details etc. continue to be absent.

Ahmad of Kalat—under whom Balochistan acceded to Pakistan—is an exception and has not been proposed for merge. We also have a page on Khan of Kalat, which I have not proposed for merging. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: - FYI. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, good idea! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any ideas on what purpose Khan of Kalat might serve? Or else, I will add that to merge-list. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Khan of Kalat should merge, along with all non-notable individual khans. -Evansknight (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unsourced template is not referring to the lead

[edit]

Hi @Sutyarashi,

I saw you removed the top template and said "Clearly sourced". Some clarification, the top template is not referring to the lead. Its actually to the article as a whole. So, the subheadings of Geography, Subdivisions, Princely states under British Raj and Rulers of Kalat are not sourced. So instead of including a "citation needed" or "unsourced" template on each of those headings (which looks ugly) I just included one at the top.

So this is why the template was placed there in the first place. The lead is sourced but the other parts of the article is not. This is how it is for all wiki pages. Btw, the lead doesn't even need citations if it takes info from the contents in the article based on wiki policy. Danial Bass (talk) 22:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Danial Bass you didn't pinge me properly, so I didn't even receive the notification. Now I happened to see this while scrolling casually, and I agree with you. Feel free to re-add the template. Thanks! Sutyarashi (talk) 10:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contested edit regarding accession

[edit]
Moved from User talk:Kautilya3

Please do understand what Neutral point of view means before adding it to edit summaries [1] it means including all view points not just the one you like Amirali, Alia (2015), "Balochistan: A Case Study of Pakistan's Peacemaking Praxis (Volume III) this source very clearly needs to be expanded and its information included otherwise Salman Rafi must be removed censoring is not acceptable. 2A02:C7C:6782:7A00:A981:D590:5F91:AE83 (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP, what is meant by "Rafi must be removed" as well as "censoring is not acceptable"? Isn't that a contradiction? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Kautilya please do understand my entire statement and do not crop the comment to misinform people I stated we cannot maintain npov while censoring out other view points and if thats the case than Rafi to should be deleted but please do at least try and be sincere when trying to misconstrue someones statement. I have noticed that many editors would like to paint a certain view which suits their point of view but when a counter argument comes along they try all the tricks in the box to divert and down play it maintaining npov takes much more than posting misleading edit summaries. 2A02:C7C:6782:7A00:A981:D590:5F91:AE83 (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we discuss the statement from Amirali, Alia now? 2A02:C7C:6782:7A00:A981:D590:5F91:AE83 (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't answered the question: Why should Rafi be deleted? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you are incapable of (or intentionally dishonest) understanding my reply thats a problem you need to address I have explained everything now you tell me why you are hell bent on censoring Amirali? 2A02:C7C:6782:7A00:A981:D590:5F91:AE83 (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Amirali irrelevant. She doesn't know and she doesn't have a view. She is included only because people keep inserting state-sponsored narratives, which she has summarised. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Amirali is very relevant considering its addition seems to be annoying those who only want to push one narrative in fact I would say reliance on one source Salman who was a student working towards his PHD at the time when he wrote this book also brings into question the neutrality and not including a counter summary would be censoring as always its usually editors from across the border who would like to paint one narrative. 2A02:C7C:6782:7A00:A981:D590:5F91:AE83 (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For reasons described here, Rafi Sheikh (2018) needs to be discarded as a source. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I would agree with you that he is a "propagandist". Even Axmann is saying it is unclear whether a referendum actually took place or not. And the "British-Pak conspiracy" is also acknowledged now. (see pp. 21-22).
Moreover, the text that was used here is not his own. It was summarising a book Balochistan, Azadi Say Subai Bai Ikhtairi Tak by Ahmed Salim, which was also reviewed in Dawn.
The Khan might have signed the accession seemingly willingly. But the scholars are pretty much unanimous that threat of force and actual force were still used, and it amounted to annexation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained edit warring

[edit]

@Noorullah21 mind explaining your recent reversions? Sutyarashi (talk) 10:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I told you in the edit summary the issue. @Sutyarashi
The Baluchistan iranica source you claimed stated that Kalat was independent following the treaty says it was under Durrani suzerainty, quoting:
"Because Aḥmad Shah needed Naṣīr’s support elsewhere, the new treaty was more equal. The khanate no longer paid tribute or maintained a force at Qandahār. Instead, Kalat provided a fighting force only when the Afghans fought outside their kingdom, and then the khan would be provided with money and ammunition. The new treaty was sealed by a pledge of loyalty to Qandahār and the marriage of the khan’s niece to Aḥmad Shah Abdālī’s son. In the settlement with Qandahār the final accommodation was that the shah gave Naṣīr the title of beglarbegī while the khan recognized him as suzerain." [2]
Lee states:
"Following the loss of the Punjab, Nasir Khan, beglar begi of Kalat, convinced that these defeats marked the beginning of the end of Durrani power, declared independence. Sardar Shah Wali Khan was sent to put down the revolt, but when he was defeated Ahmad Shah set out in person to deal with the troublesome governor. He eventually defeated the Baluch army but was unable to take Kalat by storm. Instead, he agreed to allow Nasir Khan to remain as governor of Kalat in return for his resubmission to Durrani sovereignty"
Ashiq writes:
"The Afghan army besieged the Qalat fort and the siege lasted for forty days. The Afghans failed to capture it. Ultimately through the good offices of the Wazir Shah Wali Khan a peace treaty was concluded. Mir Nasir Khan came to Ahmad Shah and apologized for his misdeeds. According to the treaty Mir Nasir Khan accepted the suzerainty of the Afghan king. Ahmad Shah agreed that Mir Nasir Khan should pay no tribute, but should furnish, when called upon a contingent of troops sending them at his own cost to the royal camp."
The sources you provided don't provide well enough information. This includes Saddiqi, who also says later in the source that Ahmad Shah subdued Kalat. Carl also provides very little information other then the Rebellion, as well as Webb. Noorullah (talk) 11:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Taj Mohammad Breseeg is also not a historian. Noorullah (talk) 11:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The other Iranica stated reference from earlier said that the Khanate of Kalat only began obtaining its independence following the decline of the Durranis, as well as Ashiq's, and not in 1758. Noorullah (talk) 11:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Noorullah21 Baloch Nationalism: Its Origin and Development by Breseeg has been published by School of Oriental & African Studies University of London, this is definitely a WP:RS. FH Siddiqui's books have also been well cited, I'm not sure how you can conclude he's not a historian. Rest are also well accredited authors. Sutyarashi (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Taj Mohammad Breseeg has made one book based on nationalism. Siddiq's book concludes that Ahmad Shah also subdued Kalat and says nothing of them ascertaining independence whatsoever. (After the rebellion) Noorullah (talk) 11:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, can you tell about Ashiq Muhammad and Jonathan Lee's any other published book on the topic? (per your argument about Breseeg) Sutyarashi (talk) 11:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Lee has made similar books such as the The Ancient Supremacy [3], the history of Maimana, "Jonathan+L.+Lee"&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&redir_esc=y and more.
Ashiq has also made books such as on Multan [4], Afghanistan, [5], and more. Noorullah (talk) 11:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then there's The State, Religion, and Ethnic Politics: Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan having solid authorship on his credit and published by Syracuse University Press which explicitly mentions about Kalat's independence. Given that all sources agree that Kalat did not give any tribute to Afghans after 1758 and was in all means independent (keep in mind Ahmed Shah Abdali too recognized Mughal emperor as sovereign in Hindustan, but we know he was a titular figure) I don't think this debate has any merit to start with. You can read treaty of Kalat here Sutyarashi (talk) 11:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The link you posted is a dead link.
"Given that all sources agree that Kalat did not give any tribute to Afghans after 1758 and was in all means independent"
Tribute was not essential to acknowledge suzerainty, its already explained in the sources aforementioned that Kalat gave no tribute after the 1758 rebellion, but still recognized Afghan suzerainty. I'm not sure what you mean by "In all means independent". Noorullah (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ashiq's journal very well talks about the specific details and relationship of the Sadozais and Khanate of Kalat in general starting from before Ahmad Shah to the Afghan civil wars. Noorullah (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Noorullah21 Like I said earlier, all these authors are well-reputed and reliable. Your arguments against them are not too convincing. Also, when you were using talk page, you should've remained stitch to it instead of going to ANI (where you ultimately faced WP:BOOMERANG). Sutyarashi (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are not all well-reputed, you did not respond to what was said about Taj Mohammad Breseeg that concluded any doubts.
The best choice here is to seek dispute resolution. Noorullah (talk) 13:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was replying in the moment when I got hit by edit warring-block, so you can't say that I didn't answer your doubts. Sutyarashi (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can respond now.
I also have another idea as a solution which would be fixing the article to properly show both view points. Such as Ashiqs, Iranicas, Jonathan Lee's, vs what is stated in the other sources, and concluding what would be the appropriate sources to use. As far as I am concerned thus far, Taj Mohammad Breseeg's source is thus far unreliable. Noorullah (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Noorullah21 no it's not. He has a Phd in history, and the thesis got published by University of London. So, clearly not an unreliable source. Sutyarashi (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now you should clearly tell about your objections. Kalat was not a vassal state as it didn't paid any tribute; infact per treaty of Kalat, Ahmed Shah Abdali agreed to pay Nasir Khan for military assistance. And the titular suzerainty is not something to cause a dispute. Sutyarashi (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I already told you my objections plenty of times, and I am not going to repeat myself. You can choose what route you wish to take whether it would be properly fixing both inclusions of the article, or dispute resolution. Your also saying a lot of this without sourcing it such as paying to agree for military assistance. Noorullah (talk) 13:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should explain what proper fixing is according to you. As for statement, this was from treaty of Kalat (as extracted from The Baloch and Balochistan: A Historical Account from the Beginning to the Fall of the Baloch State: ..."the Afghan King will provide annually a sum of Rupees 100,000...at the time of requirement to the Khan of Baloch."
I can't link as google links are blacklisted, and removing makes them dead, but this clause is present in all sources for the treaty. Sutyarashi (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That does not appear to be aiding in exchange for military aid, but just as an annual sum.
I can also provide some more sources about Kalat re-entering Afghan sovereignty, its not just limited to those three, it seems to be a general divide in consensus whether Kalat remained under Durrani suzerainty or remained a Durrani ally.
Some more sources such as [6] (History of Civilizations of Central Asia: Development in contrast : from the sixteenth to the mid-nineteenth century) a UNESCO source, on p.289, also states that Nasir Khan was allowed to keep his domains in exchange for recognition of the Shah's sovereignty and furnished contingents of troops. It also says he was exempt from annual tax and tribute.
There is likely plenty more that will repeat the same thing for both sides so here is an idea of how we could re-write the section:
Since 1748, Kalat was a vassal state of Durrani Empire, and assisted in the campaigns of Ahmad Shah such as in the Durrani Campaign to Khorasan. However, in 1758 Mir Nasir Khan I revolted against Ahmad Shah. The Afghans were dispatched under Shah Wali Khan to Kalat, but were defeated. As a result, Ahmad Shah marched himself with an army and defeated the Baluch armies in battle. Ahmad Shah laid siege to Kalat for over 40 days, and attempted to storm it, however it was unsuccessful. In the ensuing 1758 treaty of Kalat, the exact agreements are disputed. Some sources state that the Khanate of Kalat became a sovereign state. (insert ref bomb of sources) While other sources state that the Khanate of Kalat remained under Afghan suzerainty. (insert ref bomb). Nonetheless, the Khanate of Kalat was a vital ally to the Durrani Empire, serving in their campaigns in the Punjab.. etc
What do you think of a re-write like this? (Obviously the text won't be bolded)
@Sutyarashi Noorullah (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that seems better. However, last lines should be rephrased as such: Other sources state that Mir Nasir Khan recognized suzerainty of Ahmad Shah Abdali, who guaranteed non-interference in the matters of Khanate of Kalat. (the preceding lines deal with Mir Nasir Khan I, also the article does need expansion).
Rest of the section is ok. Sutyarashi (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sutyarashi That seems good, we can also add quotes to the sources that are of concern so further confusion can be cleared. Noorullah (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Noorullah21 right; feel free to edit page as per the agreed version. Sutyarashi (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Noorullah (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Court language =/= administrative language

[edit]

The Spooner (2011) reference in the infobox supports Persian being used in administration. However, Persian has now been turned into the Khanate's court language. This is not supported by the Spooner reference as far as I can see. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iranica mentions Persian being used as the language of written communication (but no mention of use in court or amongst the ruling dynasty?).[7] - LouisAragon (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LouisAragon so perhaps the court language should be changed back into administrative language? Sutyarashi (talk) 00:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Princely state

[edit]

@Sutyarashi, I am not sure why you are edit warring this time. (You reverted an edit that had been made nearly a week ago.) The princely state categories are used on nearly all princely states of Pakistan (Indian princely states that aceeded to the dominion of Pakistan). No need for this to be an outlier. Do you disagree that the khanate was a princely state? The article itself says that in the second para:

Kalat became a self-governing state in a subsidiary alliance with British India [...] in 1875, and the supervision of Kalat became a task of the Baluchistan Agency. Kalat was briefly independent from 12 August 1947 until 27 March 1948, when its ruler Ahmad Yar Khan acceded to Pakistan, making it one of the Princely states of Pakistan.

PadFoot (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't think you have a problem with the lead mentioning "Brahui Confederacy", right? PadFoot (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The major issue I see here is your removal of Pakistan-related categories, which is actually not limited to this article. As for mentioning "Brahui confederacy" in the lead, Kalat was as much Baloch as Brahui; the Khan of Kalat was also known as the Khan of Baloch (see the cited Iranica article on Balochistan). A Number of sources call the state as Baloch as well. Hence Brahui confederacy in the lede is WP:UNDUE, it is already stated that it was a Brahui Khanate.
Moreover, whenever your additions to any article is reverted, you have to resort to talk page discussion per WP:ONUS, and instead of edit warring should explain to the other editors how it will improve the article. Sutyarashi (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what WP:ONUS states
The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Sutyarashi (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the disputed content by partially self-reverting. As for the categories, your claim is false, as I added the category Category:Princely states of Pakistan, not removed it. PadFoot (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay padfoot, at this point you should understand how consensus works because I’ve explained it in the past to you before and just now. If another user is reverting your recent addition which did not end in consensus, then you need to first gain consensus before reverting or adding it again. Now I appreciate the partial revert but you should see if the other user agrees with that addition before doing so. Someguywhosbored (talk) 05:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Khanate_of_Kalat&oldid=1252855278"