Talk:Siege of Lahore (1186)

Errors of omission and commission

I have misplaced my copy of Bosworth's The Later Ghaznavids but I am reasonably confident that it had something on some Hindu Rajah of Jammu (unnamed - ?) playing a very significant role in the Ghurid ouster of Ghaznavids from Lahore and establishment of Ghurid encampments/forts around the region. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: What's the reason to omitt the footnote that was informative about the Ghaznwaids explulsion from Ghazni by the Ghuzz's ? Your unexplained trimming of my section of Background (though some is appreciated) made it vague especially simply mentioning that Ghuzz's as Turks to a normal reader.

On your support of a Hindu ruler of Jammu - I know about it, the same ruler they say also supported the Ghurids in their decisive victory over the Rajputs in Tarain-1192 (Vijaydeva or Chakradeva) ? This bit is mentioned in later romantic accounts which was writen in patronage of a Jammu ruler, as far as I can recall and was assumed by Raverty in his translation of Minhaj's Tabaqt-i-Nasiri (1260) - though, it's not mentioned by the contemporary sources (original TN) and Md. Habib also omitted this bit who wrote a detailed account about Md Ghuri's military carrer. Isami - who was first Muslim historians to name the commanders of Rajput and the Ghurid forces in Tarain-1192 - see Nizami 1970; pp:-160 onwards didn't have him either (re-check, I am bit uncertain). It's a filmsy one without much substance to it and a footnote here would sum it up, if anything. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: It's similar to the dubious Rajput version that Naiki Devi was leading the army against Md. Ghuri in 1178 (added by dubious unreliable Mertunga in 1304 to boast about their success and humiliate Muhammad further in getting routed by an army led by a lady) – though, I have no issue in having the so called role of Jammu Rai here, though only in footnotes, which Raverty itself had in a footnote (borrowed from a later unreliable account -Vidyapati ? not sure need to go through there again) and is not there in Juzjani originall version and no reason to get this in the mainspace here as well. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 02:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

My primary interest lies on the Seljuks and I have been editing and reviewing relevant articles (1, 2, and others) since before you joined Wikimedia projects. I might not be highly acquainted with the intricacies of Muhammad of Ghur's eastern campaigns but I am pretty acquainted with the happenstances in Ghazni. I wrote,

[..] while Ghazni was won back by the Ghanzavids — probably due to a rebellious populace —, the contemporaneous advent of Oghuz Turks ensured a permanent cessation of their western frontiers [..] Muhammad had Ghazni annexed to the Ghurid frontiers from the [Oghuz] Turks

What is the issue? Besides, why does the specifics about the Ghaznavid ruler who lost Ghazni matter, belong to this article, even in an endnote?

On probing into the Jammu Rajah, it appears that the information was gleaned by Raverty off the Rajdarshani —an official history compiled at the orders of Gulab Singh— by Ganesh Das Vadehra, a Gujarati Quanungo, who was well-embedded within the Persian cosmopolis. A translated critical edition of the nineteenth century text appears to exist but was it the first source to consist of the Jammu anecdote?

Further, I do not agree that Mertunga's addition can be read in the same light as the Jammu Rajah's supposed aid to Ghurids even if both are equally inaccurate. Conceding that the history of Jammu Rajahs was forged at a later date to lend them more significance in the annals of history, why did the Hindu chroniclers chose to associate the Kings' prestige with being allies of Muhammad of Ghori? What does such acts preach to our postmodern anxieties where Muhammad, Mahmud et al must be consigned to the dustbins of history as anti-Hindu invaders who waged cataclysmic Jihad on Hindu soil? Maybe, some scholar has covered all of these issues. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

My knowledge about the Seljuks is remote, but I do not edit on Wikipedia and especially create a article about a topic until or unless - I researched about it in depth so is case here and Jammu Rai suppprt to Md. Ghuri is dubious which at best deserves a footnote, perhaps not even that.

My objection was that you trimmed down the background section which I could have do as well, though my main motive was to add a brief background about the events in clear word to the broader masses who read it - I think just having that Ghaznawids lost their ancestral capital to Ghuzz under Khusrau Shah or Khusrau Malik before moving to Lahore do merits a inclusion especially for dummies who will read our article.

Now coming to Mertunga, obviously he was a bard (so called historian) and quite unreliable one at that too - though, it doesn't matter as Md Ghuri was in any case faced the biggest humiliation of his life there in 1178 and only returned back to Ghazni with a handful of his Mamluks, as a matter of fact amongst all the mayhem he and his slaves were causing in the Ganga-Jamuna doab (Ajmer, Dilhi, Kashi, Kol etc) - he never turned to Gujarat ever in his life again, though Aybak did raid Gujarat, only to loot and incite another orgy of rapine, massacres and destruction. Nonethless, Gujarat was not take over until Alauddin's time. To make the long story short - I don't think any of them (Mertunga or Jammu Rai) - deserves a mention and neither this is mentioned by any scholar who wrote in detail about it - Mohammad Habib, K A Nizami, S. Chandra etc.

The rest is not even remotely related to the topic and I don't have much time to argue over it, though would bring some intersting points at later date regarding this as well. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 23:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The rest is not even remotely related to the topic - Says someone who devotes a passage to Mertunga and Aibak's "orgy of rapine, massacres and destruction".

I also spot that Wink — whom you were so eagerly defending the other day and from where, you had even sourced the trivia about Ghurids' mass-conversion of Khokhars — asserts the Jammu Rajah (Al-Hind II; p. 238) to have had invited Mohammad to Lahore. Your selective usage of sources to pander to a Hindu Nationalist reading of history is, erm, quite evident. Though I must appreciate your conscious choice of sources, mostly from the People's Publishing House. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: Complaints someone who had:- What does such acts preach to our postmodern anxieties where Muhammad, Mahmud et al must be consigned to the dustbins of history as anti-Hindu invaders who waged cataclysmic Jihad on Hindu soil? (see the context in which I referred to Mertunga, re - Mertunga part was for the one that almost all major historians who have mentioned about his defeat in the foot of Mount Abu-1178 didn't mentioned the Naiki Devi part (apart from some like Majumdar, most likely citing to Mertunga - same goes for Jammu ruler support for Muhammad) ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 06:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I was not defending Wink the other day as well (he is too great a scholar to need by backing on an encyclopedia) - just giving his point of view. If, I would have been a pusher of Hindu nationalist pov, then there was no reason to have created this article or the other one about his failure against the Khwarezmians either, which no Hindu nationalists - I think are interested in. I have no problem to have the part that Jammu ruler invited him given a vast number of specialised historians about the subject attests to as well - which isn't the case. While, the Khokhar/Buddhist conversion part is already removed now - it was not only sourced to Wink, but to Mohammad Habib as well who wrote a detailed account of Muhammad's life as well.

No, this isn't called selective citing, but a relevant and rational one where the facts are almost certain do get published in the mainspace like the events of his second attack and not the support of Jammu ruler. If you do have a number of decent historians who confirmed this (I don't think that's the case) - feel free to present it in the article. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 06:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Ffs, stop pinging me in every reply. I have this t/p watch-listed.

As far as I see, Bosworth and Wink confirm the event in question. Nizami takes a cautious line neither accepting nor rejecting the account. So, all in all, it belongs to our article. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a issue then. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 07:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Fine. What clarification do you need? TrangaBellam (talk) 07:28, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The clarification required is that regarding your very first line itself-

Persian sources do not mention what caused the breach of peace between Muhammad and Malik

Which Persian source mentions that Chairadeva had invited Muhammad of Ghor to invade Lahore ? AFAIK - Minhaj original TN didn't have it and is added up by a later translation of Raverty, that too in the footnotes ? Beisde the account itself is writen some 700 years after the event which makes it's reliabilty dubious and not an absolute certain fact.

One more friendly advice is to use better edit summaries while making edits then something like this - diff (nice), diff (don't make large-scale trimming without a decent edit summary) ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 09:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what is your bone of discontent but Rajdarshani is in Persian. I have changed it to "Muslim sources". TrangaBellam (talk) 09:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

You had written,

Mu'izz al-Din, further according to Tabaqat-i-Nasiri instructed his officers to "make him [Malik Shah] drink as much liquor as possible in the way to Lahore".

Can you please cite the source? Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 09:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

He adopted a friendly attitude towards Khusrau Malik and sent Malik Shah to see his father in 1186-87. The young prince was accompanied Shihabuddin's confidential officers and provided with all the luxuries of a royal journey. Induce him to drink as much wine as possible

(Habib; 1981 pp:-112)

Beg-pardon, unwittingly I wrote TN instead of TF (Tarik-i-Firshta) - as the later account including Malik's careless slumber came from Ferishta's account

I request you to not change the langauge till the point it becames vague for a neophyte. The language in which I wrote it was basic one including extended (needed) details and that's the reason it was rated as B-Class immediately. Re - I am not saying to not improve wherever you obeserve that I missed on something but with a caution, Cheers. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 11:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)