Talk:History of India

Use of the term partition incorrectly

The article should state that during British colonial rule, the provinces of Bangal and Panjab where partitioned. Later the countries of india and Pakistan gained independence from Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.44.152 (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

mughal map

The map has been clearly placed to satisfy communal agenda.The political entity in question was a north indian polity.although it advanced beyond the Krishna river it NEVER imposed effective rule and in the process got destroyed by its rival the Maratha power.What is funny though the administrator Spaceman Spiff is consistently blocking any attempt to remove it.It seems that wiki has become the personal property of a few individuals with specific disruptive agendas.The administrator in question is blatantly using threat and accusing this editor of vandalism.I appeal to fellow editors and Wiki foundation to nail this administrator and set the records straight.After all come here for npov and that must be upheld under all circumstances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylark2007 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Joppen's map like that of all other colonial era historians was based on hearsay,shoddy inquiries,a drive to establish the inferiority of the natives and above all incomplete knowledge of indian politics.Joppen and others like Shephard ,Mc Allister,Forbes,Munro etc. have given very incomplete and erroneous pictures of india.It took far better men both British and Indian to bring the facts to light -a process that continues to the day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.217.206 (talk) 09:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

vijaynagar?gajapati?rajput confederacy?central indian kingdoms?ahom?

no mention is made of the indigeneous powers during the rule of the delhi sultanate in northern and eastern india. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylark2007 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe authors have special inclination towards South Indian Kingdoms and Sultanate of Delhi. A war of Hindu and Mughal Culture in medieval India. Many other things are left because a particular wikipedian has no interest beyond certain kingdoms or may be his own culture. So feel free to add stuff which can make a balance and avoid bias. --Swaminworld (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Mughal

Can anyone fix the spelling of Humayun in the Mughal section. Also Hem Chandra Vikramaditya is in red link it should be "Hindu Samrat (Emperor) Hem Chandra Vikramaditya.

Y Done Thanks for pointing out the errors. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 10:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Samrat and King means the same. In the sentence given it repeats itself. It is better if it said "Hindu Samrat (Emperor) Hem Chandra Vikramaditya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.91.151.97 (talk) 11:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Also the Guptas conquered much of southern India upto Tamil Nadu as well as in the form of alliance/tribute with Vakatakas so saying the Guptas ruled only central and northern India (mentioned in the beginning) is not completly correct. Much of India seems more accurate. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.91.18.102 (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Swastika image caption

The wording of the caption under the swastika image sounds incorrect. I believe "The swastika is a major Hindu iconography" should be changed to "The swastika is a major icon in Hindu iconography" OR "The swastika is a major Hindu icon."

the population is 1,181,854,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.40.192 (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

2nd world war

This article does not mention the second world war . Considerable action did take place on the India-China theator , but it is not mentioned here. Is it not mentionable here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.165.16 (talk) 08:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

you mean the Burmese theatre? --Sodabottle (talk) 08:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Akbar was related to Tamanna Bagchi at the time of his rule just because of court matters and not because of her being a representator to his kingdom.

History of Pakistan

Mdmday has been transforming the article into a "history of regions that are currently in Republic of India". I am not sure thats a good idea. We cannot pick and choose what happened in present day pakistan. For example we have the indus valley civilisation included. If we are excluding everything that happened in present day pakistani territory, how do we deal with that? Any thoughts?--Sodabottle (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan has a double history Page, as per u this page shoould include India, Pakistan and Bdesh pre 1947 but Pakistan already has a well written article including all its History(excluding India). This page should either include only India(or even Bangladesh) or that History of Pakistan page should be chopped to "History of Islamic Republic of Pakistan".Mdmday (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It is kind of hard to separate out Pakistan and India prior to 1947 because their regions overlapped (Punjab being the prime example). Generally, historians refer to the pre-1947 entity that today consists of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh (and sometimes parts of Nepal as well) as India, and we should do the same. The hatnote at the top of the article makes it clear what entity the contents refer to. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)If only we could have a clear demarcation, that would be ideal, but we have considerable overlap of indian history into territories that are not currently in ROI. Then how do we deal with the Indus Valley civilisation, which spanned both countries?. If we are cutting out the persian invasions saying they reached only pakistan, then we shoudln't mention IVC at all. The obvious solution is to include the whole history of the subcontinent in the history of India. Again this is not just per me. The article was written as the "history of indian subcontinent".--Sodabottle (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to change the hatnote, we had a pretty good discussion about it a year ago and in essence it covers the content of the article. —SpacemanSpiff 15:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Its not hard, it can be done, only the eastern part of modern day Pakistan has an overlapping history with India. My second option is that History of Pakistan should be chopped to "History of Islamic Republic of Pakistan", then we wont have a double page for a same topic.Mdmday (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

And also why do we have special entioned link on top for "History Of South India", history of South India is already mentioned in this page, it doesn't require a special link, it causes confusion.Mdmday (talk) 15:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Coz IVC had its parts in modern Indian territory too.Mdmday (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Mdmday, this archived discussion might be useful. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any issues if it includes India, Pak and B'desh but the fact of the matter is that Pakistan already has a well written comprehensive page including all "its" history. We should either include just India and Bangladesh in this one or we should redirect the page, "History of Pakistan" to a new page like "History of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.Mdmday (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The point isn't really about whether there exists another comprehensive page containing the history of the area that is present-day Pakistan. The point of the policy of WP:SS is to ensure that the larger articles provide a comprehensive overview of the topic, which the sub-articles then go into in detail. In that sense, History of Bangladesh, History of Pakistan, History of the Republic of India, History of South India etc. are sub-articles of this one. As far as the renaming of the History of Pakistan article is concerned, it is unrelated to this page and any discussion on the matter should be carried out at that article's talk page. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Query re new Kushan Empire section

I have just written a brief section on the Kushan Empire, as this important period of Indian history seems to have been left out. I would like to refer to the section in the Chinese Hou Hanshu giving an outline of the Kushan territories of northern India in the 2nd century, referring to the translation and notes in my own book, Through the Jade Gate to Rome: A Study of the Silk Routes during the Later Han Dynasty, First to Second Centuries CE. BookSurge. ISBN 978-1-4392-2134-1, but thought I should ask here first if other editors think this is justified - or whether it might be seen as too much like self-promotion? If so, would someone please finish the job of referencing this section for me? Many thanks. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 07:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Shantanuoberoi, 26 April 2011

Most of indiologist ( Non Indian writers of Indian history/Europeans) have suggested Vedic period 1500 BC to 500 BC. Which is false statement. Main reason for their suggestion and assertion for same has been that it was decide by arch bishop of England in late middel 17th -18th century that mankind & Universe was created in 4004 BC as Per bible, so to bi-little Vedas period was percutaneously fixed by likes of Dr.Weber and Maxuller at 1500 BC to 500 BC and for same reason all the principal ancient sages of India like of Rishi Bhardwaj and Valmiki, etc were rendered as myth then real people as they existed close to 5000 BC to 3000 BC. From this key point arises is Vedas were written in close to 7000 BC to 5000 BC and that to before Bronze & Iron age. Please note :- If in Rig Vedas their is detailed description "Atom" and its energy and at same time detailing of Flying Crafts which have just come to exit in 100 years as per development of modern sciences. so saying/suggesting Vedic culture after Harappan culture is completely untrue. Vedic Period or should be call vedic thinking and has been their for last 7000 BC plus/Minus. Note :- Harappan culture language has be decoded and as per understanding "Santhal tribes" of india are from same civilization. They too use Arya is their addressing fellow men and women. SO arya never did invade India they were always part of this land. ( This part i will take up in my next communication with proof.)

Would request --> ( Reference --> Satyaarth prakash by Swami Dayanand Sarasvati and if more reference required, suggest way to attach and send documentary proof.) "The Vedic period is characterized by Indo-Aryan culture associated with the texts of Vedas, sacred to Hindus, which were orally composed in Vedic Sanskrit. The Vedas are some of the oldest extant texts, next to those of Egypt and Mesopotamia. The Vedic period lasted from about 7000 BC to 500 BCE, laying the foundations of Hinduism and other cultural aspects of early Indian society."

To replace --> "The Vedic period is characterized by Indo-Aryan culture associated with the texts of Vedas, sacred to Hindus, which were orally composed in Vedic Sanskrit. The Vedas are some of the oldest extant texts, next to those of Egypt and Mesopotamia. The Vedic period lasted from about 1500 to 500 BCE, laying the foundations of Hinduism and other cultural aspects of early Indian society." Shantanuoberoi (talk) 08:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC) Shantanuoberoi (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: In Wikipedia, what the article states is what the experts are saying. The majority of experts are saying 1500BC to 500BC, so the article will reflect that. Also see WP:NOR. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Discovery

http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/article1568651.ece

This is a recent article on the recent discovery of Acheulian stone tools discovered near Chennai. I thought it might be useful for this page, especially in reference to early human activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.139.102 (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Sunnyrays, 26 July 2011

Pl remove this line

"This period succeeded the prehistoric Late Harappan, during which immigrations of Indo-Aryan-speaking tribes overlaid the existing civilizations of local people whom they called Dasyus". 

Because there is no evidence that suggests Aryans succeeded Harappan and overlaid the existing civilizations and called them Dasyus. There is no evidence that suggests that Aryans were immigrants to India. On the other hand, new archeological evidence contradicts this theory. JimShaffer (1984) who sums up the archaeological evidence summarizes:Current archaeological data do not support the existence of an IndoAryan or European invasion into South Asia at any time in the pre- or proto-historic periods. Instead, it is possible to document archaeologically a series of cultural changes reflecting indigenous cultural development from pre-historic to historic periods. The early Vedic literature describes not a human invasion into the area, but a fundamental restructuring of indigenous society that saw the rise of hereditary social elites . . .

Reference: James Schaffer of Case Western University as part of his new article, 'Migration, Philology and South Asian Archaeology', soon to appear in Aryan and Non-Aryan in South Asia: Evidence, Interpretation and History, edited by Bronkhorst and Deshpande, University of Michigan Press.

Sunnyrays (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sunnyrays, I believe you should now be autoconfirmed and able to edit the article yourself so I am closing this request so that you can do so. Jnorton7558 (talk) 09:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarification of misundrstanding about History of India ( Bhrarat or Bharar Khand ). India name was given by Britishers only.

    This is to calrify that Lord Rama had a brother name Bhart. Lord Rama had wife name Sita and two sons name Love and Kush. The City name Ayodhya was nere Lakhnow in Uttar Pradesh. The City of ayadhay that is were Lord Rama was born. He was the son of King Dashrath and had younger brothers Bharat and Lkhxman. Rama was sent out for Vanvas for 14 years. This was the time his wife was kidneped by King called Ravan. The king Ravan was from Shri Lanka was a City of solid golden palaces and forts. The Godes Sita was kept in Ashok vadi as a prisoner. Hanuman was the chief of Lord Rama's army set fire in the City of Shri Lanka. The war between Lord Rama and King Ravan was lost by King Ravan and got kiled by Lord Rama. After the deth of King Ravan his brother Vibhishan was crown by Lord Rama for the thron of Shri Lanka.
    After finishing his 14 years of Vanvas Lord Rama returned to his City of Ayadhya. During Lord Rama's vanvas his brother proted the kingdom of Ayadhya. Lord Rama did Ahvamegh Yagna and horse was kept loose to was through the verious different kingdoms and his army followed the horse. What ever the kingdom were captured by the army at that time become one continet called Bharat Khand. The terytory of this Bharat Khand was the countries call today as Usbekistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan so do today you call India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Himalay ( Him i.e Ice and Alay i.e mountain ) and Bhram Desh i.e provinces around Randgoon and Bankok also Islands of Andaman, Nikibar and on east side Islands of Dive, Daman and Gova and City of Khambhuja now a days sinken in the Bay of Khambhat ( Kenbay the British name) and island of Dwharika. All this land was one Bharat Khand ( one continent ). 
    The explanation of the name Kush ( The Lord Rama of Ramchandra's son is a vegitation grows in the mount Himalaya is Kush the, leavs can cure the wounds during war ). The encyclopidia of Britanica has mad a wrong mening of this ward Kush is not sloter. Hindu Kush mountain region is in Pakistan. This do not mean Hindu sloter. Lord Rama did not kip his son name a sloter son.
    The holy book of Ramayan was writen by the Rishy Valmik and his ashram was in Hindu Kush. Lord Rama was born 18000 + years a go and this was before the Birth of Loard Krishna. Gandhar is a province not in northern India. Gandar is the province located at the border of Afghnistan and Pakistan. The Americans call this province as Torabora? Bhada province in Pakistan was not criminal paredise in past history. 
    The Lord Vishnu was born on earth in the form of Lord Rama and the 2nd time Lord Vshnu was born in the form of Lord Krisha. The Lord Krishna was born about 8000 years ago. Both time when Lord Vishnu was born on earth his wife Laxami ( the Goodess of welth ) was born on earth as his wife. With Lord Rama was Sati Sita and with Lord Krisha was Rada as his wife. Lord Vishnu's original name is Bhargav and his wife name is Bhargavi.
    The Lord Rama was Arya the skin color was dark. There was no blue eyes and blond hair. He has dark blake hair. The same way the Lord Krishna was also born as Arya ( not airan ) and his skin color was dark with black hair. The color blue is showing in the picture is a symlic color represnting dark sking. The world maping for Indian teritory don is wrong. The original Ramayan was writen on banana leaves and with indigo ink in sanskrit by the Rishy Valmik when the Lord Ramchandra was alive. This is an eye witness account of Rishy Valmik. This holy book of Ramayan was writern in Hindu kush mountains. The Lord Rama's chidhood was

in the ashram of the Rishy Valmik. The same time 7 Veda books were writen by the Rishy Vedvyas also in the ashram located in the Hindu Kush mountains. During this historical time there was no Chritianity nore Moslim religian. Only Hindu religion was in existance and people were Aryas with sun flag symbol. If you look further Egytion Faros were also the belivers of sun good.

    About the holy symbol of hinduisum is the swastik, the 4 sections are the symbols of Lords in haven the Bhramha, Vishnu, Ganesh and Mahesh. The Adolf Hitlar did use this symbol by reversing it on his flag. Now you can see were Aryan came from. Also, look at the teritory of Bharat Khand and compare the teritorial claims.

Chanjider Singh Sidhu

chanjinder singh sidhu th village of rorgarh Patiala the Chani isa jattA DA munda ,this is Best player of Hocky .Chani FAther is a writer of Punjabi song And potry. this very beautiful song "TERE AKH DA KARA" Singer-RAVIDER GREWAL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.164.46.254 (talk) 06:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

History OF Punjab by Pawanpreet Maangat.

         The word "Punjab" for the first time was mentioned in the Book ``Tarikh-e-Sher Shah (1580) which mentions the construction of Fort by a fellow named ``Sher Khan of Punjab. Again the name is mentioned in ``Ain-e-Akbari part 1 written by Abul Fazal who also mentions that the territory of Punjab was divided into two provinces of Lahore and Multan. Similarly in the second volume of ``Aeen-e-Akbari title of a chapter contains the word ``Punjab in it. Also the Mughal King Jahangeer mentions the word ``Punjab on page 183 of his book "Tuzk-i-Janhageeri". [Quraishee 73] 

But Archeologists have traced the signs of human habitation to times long before that of Mughals arrival. The upper basin of Indus and the Baluchistan Plateau hosted one of the earliest human civilizations known as the Indus valley civilization. The earliest signs of life human activity date as far back as 7000 B.C. The Indus valley civilization grew from small village and settlements to highly refined urban life. At its height, around 3000 B.C., it boasted the splendid cities of Harrapa (Near present Day Sahiwal in West Punjab) and Moen-jo Doro in the lower Indus valley. The story of the decline, whose reasons are still not completely explained, of civilization is also told through the remains of these cities.

Aryan Migrations:

Among other reasons like the change in the weathers patterns, urbanization without any rural agricultural production base one factor is reported to be the series of raids or small scale migrations by the Aryans from the North-West (1500-100 BC). The next thousand year history of Punjab (or Arya-Varta, the land of Aryans, as Aryan called it) is dominated by the Aryans and their interactions with the natives of the Indus basin. Here is where the oldest books of human history called the Rig-Vedas are supposed to have been written. The Aryan tongue Sanskrit became a symbol of the Aryan domination of the area.

Easternmost Satrapy of the Persians:

Punjab lied at the outskirts of the great Persian empires and came under their control from time to time. The Persian King Darius the great is reported to have attacked Punjab and occupied some parts. But for the first time the occupation of Punjab was completed by the Persian King Gustasp in 516 BC. Punjab became the wealthiest Satrapy i.e., the province in the Persian kingdom.

Greeks, the rival empire of the Persians, also had some knowledge of the area. The great Persian Emperor Darius I (521-486 BC) appointed Sky lax the Greek to explore the area around Indus river for commercial expeditions who provided an account of his voyage in his book ``Peripulus. Hectaeus (500 BC) and Herodotus (483-431 BC) also wrote about the ``Indian Satrapy of the Persians. Alexander's expeditions were documented in the works of Strobe, Ptolemy, Pliny, Arrian and others. They described a region that had plenty of mighty rivers and was divided into four Kingdoms. In Greek maps we find the mention of the mightiest of river of all the world called the Indos (Indus) and its tributaries of Hydaspes (Jehlum), Akesines (Chenab), Hydroatis (Ravi), Hyphasis (Satluj) and Hesidros (Beas).

Alexanders's Invasion:

In 321 BC Alexander the great after breaking the might of the Persians entered their final Satrapy of Punjab. He invited all the cheiftans of this Satrapy to come to him and submit to his authority, which is exactly what the ruler of the northwest most (west of Hydaspes) kingdom of Gandhara with its capital of Taxilai did. But the ruler of the Kingdom beteen (Hydaspes and Akesines) refused to submit to Alexander's authority and the two armies fought the historical battle on the bank of Akesines outside the town of Nikaia (somewhere around modern city of Jehlum). 

Porus put up a tough fight but his army was no match for Alexanders army. After losing his sons and getting hurt himself when the defiant Raja was brought in front of Alexander, the legendary conversation took place when Alexander inquired Porus, ``How should I treat you?, the brave Porus shot back, ``The same way as a king treats another king.. Alexander was struck by his genius and he not only returned the Kingdom back to Porus, but he also added the area lying between Akesines and Hydraotis to his Kingdom whose ruler had fled.

Alexander as with his other occupied areas established two cities in the area of Punjab, where he settled people from his multi-national armies which included a majority of Greeks and Macedonians. These cities along with the rule of the Indo-Greek thrived long after Alexander's departure.

Alexander's Eastern empire (from Syria to Punjab) was inherited by Selecus Nicator, the founder of Seleucid dynasty. However the Greek empire in the east was disrupted by the ascendency of the Bacterians. The Bacterian King Demetrius I added Punjab to his Kingdom in the second century BC. The best known of the Indo-Greek kings was Menander who established his independent kingdom centered at Taxila in 170 BC. He later moved his capital to Sagala (The modern Sialkot). Menander soon captured territories east of his kingdom and grew to rival the power of Bacterians. Menander died in a vain attempt to conquer Bacteria in 130 BC. Menander's successors maintained the their rule on Punjab till 55 BC when the whole area was disrupted by the events happening in greater Euro-Asia.

In the middle of the second century BC, Yui Chi tribe of modern China began to move westward which caused in turn to Sakas or Scythians to move. Northern Sakas successfully wrestled the power of the areas from the Indo-Greeks. Another Central Asiatic people to make Punjab their home were the white Huns who made continuous campaigns towars this part of the world. Finally establishing their rule in the later 3rd century AD.

Muslim Invasions

Following the birth of Islam in Arabia in 6th century AD, Arabs rose to power and replaced the Persians as the major power in the area. In 711-13 AD Arabs advanced to the land of five rivers, occupying Multan. Further north the area that survived the Arab attcks was divided into small kingdoms. 

Meanwhile in Ghazni after the death of Subuktgin, the Turk, his son Mahmud assumed power in 997 AD. He was to expand his father's kingdom far to the west and east of Ghazni through his military conquest. He was to attack Punjab 17 times during his reign. The Ghaznavids were uprooted by the Ghauris who extended their rule as far as Dehli. Shahabuddin Ghauri annexed Lahore to his kingdom in 1186. After Ghauri's death his governor Qutbudin Aibak became an independent ruler of Punjab and founded the Mamluk sultenate. Khiljis' replaced the Mamluks in 1290. The rule of Khiljis was briefly disrupted by the two successful raids by the Mongols who marched their way to dehli twice during Alauddin khilji's rule. tughluqs succeeded Khiljis in 1320 AD. Tughluq rule was replaced by the Sayyids in 1414 AD. Lodhis gained control of Dehli in 1479 AD.

The Rise of Sikh Power

Punjab presented a picture of chaos and confusion when Ranjit singh took reins of Sukerchikias misal. The edifice of Ahmad Shah abdali's empire in India had crumbled. Afghanistan was dismembered. Peshawar and Kashmir though under the suzerainty of Afghanistan had attained de facto independece. Barakzais were the masters of these places. Attock was ruled by Wazrikhels and Jhang lay at the feet of Sials. Pathans were ruling Kasur. Multan had thrown yoke and Nawab Muzaffar Khan had taken its charge. 

Both Punjab and Sind were under Afghan rule since 1757 after Ahmad Shah abdali was granted suzerainty over these two provinces. They were confronted with the rising power of Siksh in PUnjab. Taimur Khan, a local Governer was able to turn away Sikhs from Amritsar. He razed to the ground the fort of Ram Rauni. But this state of affairs did not last long and the sikh misal joined hands and defeated Taimur Shah and his Chief minister Jalal Khan. The Afghans were forced to retreat and Lahore was occupied by the Sikhs in 1758, Jassa singh Ahluwalia proclaimed Sikh's sovereignty and became its head. He struck coins to commemorate his victory.

When ahmad Shah Abdali was engaged in his campaign against the Marathas at Panipat in 1761, Jassa Singh Ahluwalia plundered Sirhind and Dialpur, seized some places in Ferozepur district and took under his possesion Jagraon and Kot Isa Khan on the other bank of Sutlej. He captured Hoshioarpur and Naraingurh in Ambala and levied tribute from the chief of Kapurthala. He then marched towards Jhang. Sial chief offered stout resistance. When Ahmad Shah left in Feb 1761, Jassa Singh Ahluwalia again attacked Sirhind and extended his territory as fas as Tarn Taran. He crossed Bias and capture Sultanpur. In 1762, Ahmad Shah again appeared and a fierce battle took place. It is called Ghalughara, a great holocaust. Jassa singh fled to Kangra hills after Sikh forces were totally routed.after the departure of Ahmad Shah Abdali, Jassa Singh Ahluwali attacked Sirhind, it was razed to ground and the afghan Governer Zen Khan was killed. This was a great victory to Sikhs who were rulers of all the area around the Sirhind. Jassa Singh hastitily paid visit to Hari Mandir at Amritsar, and he made amends and restored it to original shape as it was defiled by Ahmad Shah by slaughtering cows in its precincts.

Ahmad Shah died in June 1773. After his death power of Afghans declined in Punjab. Taimur Shah ascended the throne at Kabul. By then misals, had established themselves in Punjab. They had under their control the area as far as Saharnpur in east, Attock in west, Kangra Jammu in north and Multan in south. Efforts were made by Afghan rulers to dislodge Sikhs from their citadels. Taimur Shah attacked Multan and defeated the Bhangis. The Bhangi sardars, Lehna Singh, and Sobha singh were driven out of Lahore in 1767 by the Abdali but soon reoccupied it. They remained in power in Lahore till 1793-the year when Shah Zaman succeeded to the throne of Kabul. 

The first attempt by Shah zaman was made in 1793. He came up to Hassan Abdal from where he sent an army of 7000 strong cavalry under Ahmad shsh Shahnachi but the Sikhs totally routed them. It was a great setback to Shah zaman but again in 1795 he reorganised forces and attacked Hassan ABdal, snathched Rohtas from Sukerchikias, whom leader was Ranjit Singh. who suffered at Shah zaman' hands but did not lose courage. However, shah had to be back in Kabul as an ivasion was apprehended on his own country from the west. After he went back, Ranjit dislodged the Afghans from Rohtas. 

Shah Zaman could not sit idle. In 1796 he moved, crossed Indus for the third time and dreamt of capturing Delhi. His ambition knew no bounds. By now he had collected 3000 strong afghan army. He was confident a large number of Indians will join with him. Nawab of KAsur had already assured him help. Sahib Singh of Patiala betrayed his countrymen and declared his intentions of helping Shah Zaman. Shah Zaman was also assured help by the Rohillas, Wazir of Oudh, and Tipu Sultan of Mysore. The news of Shah Zaman invasion spreadlike wild fire, people started fleeing to hills for safety. Heads of Misals, though bound to give protection to The people as they were collecting Rakhi tax from them were the first to leave the people in lurch. By December Shah occupied territory up to Jhelum. When he reached Gujarat Sahib singh bhangi panicked and left the place. 

Next was the territory of Ranjit singh. He was alert and raised an army of 5000 horsemen. But they were inadequately armed with only spears and muskets. The afghans were equipped with heavy artillery. Ranjit singh thought of a stiff united fight against the invaders. He came to Amritsar. A congregation of Sarbat Khlasa was called and many Sikh sardars answered the call. An almost unanimous opinion prevailed that Shah zaman's army should be allowed to enter the Punjab, and they all should retire to hills. 

Forces were reorganised under the command of Ranjit singh and they marched towards Lahore. They were able to gave Afghans a crushing defeat in several villages and ultimately sorrounded the city of Lahore. Sorties were made in night in which they would kill a few Afghan soldiers and then leave the city in the thick of darkness. Following this tactic they were able to dislodge Afghans at several places.

In 1797, Shah Zaman, suddenly left for Afghansistan as his brother Mahmud had revolted. Shahanchi khan with considerable force was left at Lahore. The Sikhs however followed Shah up to Jhelum and snatched many goods from him. The Sikhs returned and in the way were attacked by the army of Shahnachi khan near Ram Nagar. The Sikhs routed his army. It was the first major achievement of Ranjit Singh. He became the hero of the land of Five Rivers and his reputation spread far and wide. 

Again in 1798 Shah Zaman attacked Punjab to avenge his defeat in 1797, people took refuge in hills. Sarbat Khalsa was again called and Sada Kaur again pursued Sikhs to fight till the last man. This time even Muslims were not spared by Shah zaman forces and he won Gujarat very easily. Sada Kaur aroused the sense of Sikhs of national honor and if they had left Amritsar then she will command the forces against Afghans. She said an Afghani soldier was no match to a Sikh soldier . They would be give befitting reply and by the grace of Sat Guru they would be successful. 
The Afghans had plundered the towns and villages as they had vowed and declared openly that they would exterminate the Sikhs; but in the process the Muslims suffered most as Hindus and Sikhs had already left for the hills. The Muslims thought that they would not be touched but their hopes were belied and their provisions were forcible taken away by the Afghans. 
Shah Zaman sought help of raja Sansar Chand of Kangra, that he will not give any food or shelter to Sikhs. He agreed. Shah Zaman attacked Lahore and Sikhs were sorrounded from all sides, they had to fight a grim battle. The Afghans occupied Lahore on Nov. 1798, and planned to attack Amritsar. Ranjit Singh collected his Men and faced Shsh forces about 8 Km from Amritsar. It was a well-matched encounter which forced Afghan at last to retire. They were humiliated and fled towards Lahore. Ranjit Singh pursued them and sorrounded Lahore. Afghan supply lines were cut. Crops were burnt and other provisions plundered so that they did not fall into Afghan's hands. The Afghans never expected such a humiliating defeat at the hands of Sikhs. Nizam-ud.din of Kasur attacked Siksh near Shahdara on the banks of Ravi, but his forces were no match to sikhs. Here too, Muslims suffered the most. The retreating Afghans and Nizam-ud-din forces plundered the town which antagonized the local people. 

The Afghans struggled hard to dislodge Sikhs but in vain. Sikh cordon was so strong that they made impossible for the Afghans to break it and proceed towards Delhi. Ranjit singh became terror to them. The moment Zaman Shah left, Ranjit singh pursued his forces and caught them unawares near Gujranwala. They were chased further up to Jhelum. Many Afghan were put to death and their war equipment was taken into possesion and they were made to run for their lives. Shah Zaman was overthrown by his brother and was blinded. He became a helpless creature and 12 years later came to Punjab to seek refuge in Ranjit singh's darbar, who was now the ruler of land. Destiny wished it like that. 

Ranjit singh combined with Sahib Singh of Gujrat (Punjab) and Milkha Singh of pindiwala and a large Sikh force, fell upon the Afghan garrison while Shah Zaman was still in vicinity of Khyber Pass. The Afghan forces fled towards north after having been routed by the Sikhs leaving behind at Gujrat their dead including the Afghan deputy."(Bikramjit Hasrat, Life and times of Ranjit Singh, p.36). 

By this time the people of the country had become aware of the rising strength of Ranjit singh, the rising star on the horizon. He was the most popular leader of the Punjab and was already yearnig to enter Lahore. The people of Lahore being extremely oppressed raised their voices of wailing to the skies and were looking towards their liberator. Muslims joined Hindus and Sikh residents of Lahore in making an appeal to Ranjit Singh to free them from the tyrannical rule.

A petition was written and was signed by Mian Ashak Mohammad, Mian Mukkam Din, Mohammad Tahir, Mohammad Bakar, Hakim Rai, and Bhai Gurbaksh Singh. It was addressed to Ranjit singh to free them from Bhangi sardars. Ranjit singh was invited to liberate lahore as early as possible. He mobilised a 25000 Army and marched towards Lahore on July 6, 1799.

It was a last day of Muharram when a big procession was to be taken out in the town in the memory of the two grandsons of Prophet Mohammad who were martyred in the battlefield without having a drop of water. It was expected that Bhangi sardars will also participate in procession and mourn with their Shia brethren. By the time procession was over Ranjit singh had reached outskirts of city.

Early morning on July 7 1799, Ranjit singh's men had taken their positions. Guns glistened and the bugles were sounded. Rani Sada kaur stood outside Delhi gate and Ranjit singh proceeded towards Anarkali. ranjit singh rode along the walls of the city and got the wall mined. A breach was blown. . It created pani and confusion. Mukkam Din, who was one of the signatories to the petition made a proclamation with the beat of drum that town had been taken over by him and he was now head. He ordered all the city gates to be opened. Ranjit singh entered the city with his troops through the Lahori gae. Sada kaur with a detachment of cavalry entered through Delhi gate. Before Bhangi sardars had any inkling of it, a part of the citadel was occupied without any resistance. Sahib singh and Mohar singh left the city and sought shelter at some safer place. Chet singh was left either to fight, defend the town or flee as he like. He shut himself in Hazuri Bagh with only 500 men. Ranjit singh's cavalry sorrounded Hazuri Bagh and Chet singh surrendered and he was given permission to leave the city along with his family. 

Ranjit singh was well entrenched in the town now. Immediately after taking possesion of the city, he paid visit to Badashahi mosque. This gesture increased his prestige and his status was in the eyes of people. He won the hearts of the subjects, Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs alike. It was July 7, 1799 when victorious Ranjit Singh entered Lahore.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.164.46.254 (talk) 03:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC) 

Date edit for Second Carnatic War

I'm new to contributing to Wikipedia, so I hope I'm doing this correctly. I noticed that the date for the end of the Second Carnatic War is incorrect.

The Second Carnatic War finally came to an end in 1854 with the Treaty of Pondicherry. The 1854 should be changed to 1754.

Thanks. --Brentmayberry (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Gandhi Jinnah 1944.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Gandhi Jinnah 1944.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 18 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect Handling Of History

You are not supposed to treat the land or native people's overall history as the history of the legal body of a country. Only the history of that government body is to be treated as that governing body's history. I read two paragraphs and got a slap in the face that this is clearly not being written by actual historians, or even actual amateurs... That sentence saying a time of the land being multiple countries with a collectively great economy... Gloating this is a great thing of Indian history. It doesn't count. Delete it! That was not India! That was not one nation! You are not allowed to slap India onto other, now extinct country's achievements! You are especially not allowed to combine multiple of such together to make it sound even more impressive. That is propaganda. Someone, please, correct this page, and make it apply by official rules in how to handle history. Other countries are not allowed to do that, why would India be exempt from such historian rules? For example, if you look at Polish history, they very clearly seperate between the nation of Poland, and history of the land now called Poland from before Poland was founded. That is how it is supposed to be done. And, Indian natives will already know the earlier stuff is also part of their heritage, so they can still pride in it without getting confused and thinking the way India is today is how it always was. That is a very incorrect way to teach history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.240.208 (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)