Talk:Amb (princely state)
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Amb (princely state) article.|
|WikiProject Pakistan||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
end of royal status
The Royal Status of Amb ended with the absorption of the state into the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan.
Nawab Farid Khan was the last ruling Nawab. Nawab Salahuddin Khan has never been recognized by the Government of Pkaistan
- The above is a wrong assertion as he was already ascended as Nawab before Amb lost it's royal princely state status. He governance was actually the shortest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supersaiyan (talk • contribs) 16:36, 28 May 2006
- And there is another mistake in this site after Nawab Farid khan ,Nawab Muhhamad Saeed khan had become the Nawab but died shortly afterthan his son Nawab Salahuddin Saeed khan became the Nawab.Altough pakistan govt doesnt recognize any state now as all exprincely states are a part of it but the Tanoli tribe still considers the Nawab as their leader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 17 January 2007
I think there is some confusion here, please let me clarify- (A) Nawab Saeed Khan was in fact the last Nawab of Amb, in terms of title, although most of the privileges had gone with Farid Khan (B)in 1969-70, Pakistan gradually took over Amb state in phases and the process was completed in 1971 but Saeed Khan was called 'Nawab' as a courtesy until his death and (C) whilst Nawabzada Salahuddin isnt the Nawab of Amb anymore, he remains certainly the hereditary lader/chief of all Tanolis, in Tanawal and/or other parts; and there is no problem in him being thus addressed i.e. as 'Mir' or Chief/Leader of Tanolis. You might ask, what does his old retired soldier know? But I was part of the team sent to take over the state formally on behalf of the Govt of Pakistan and so probably have more first hand knowledge than anyone else living184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Col (retd) Mumtaz Khan
online book or info
is there any book or info online that i can get on the history of amb. ive been told that there was another family who were originally the nawabs of the state. im not sure but does QASIM KHAN ring any bell. please let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 5 December 2007
- i have researched the history of Tanawal and Amb State in detail and have never come across any Qasim Khan or any other family that ruled Amb State. There are many books on Amb State, many of them are mentioned at the end of the article page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
There is also a Masters level thesis written at the University of Peshawar on the Amb State, by Mr.Muhammad Aslam, the topic is 'The Rulers of Amb State', (Session 1992-94. .... [A/No.295])Wikitanoli (talk) 11:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The Masters thesis/dissertation ref to above by Wikitanoli isnt a reliable or acceptable source, as its not a published document, and as the student/researcher is a Tanoli from Tanawal area, whose 'education' was, I believe, sponsored by relatives of the Amb family. Its a suspect document, am sorry to say22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Col (r) Mumtaz Khan
Dear Mumtaz, why would you 'suspect' someone (without knowing that person) who has written his university masters thesis on any topic? you are in no position to suspect or challenge such a document which has been passed by a reputable Pakistani university. by the way, no reference has been made on the page regarding this thesis, I mentioned it as someone has asked for info. for your kind information, there are 3 more masters levels thesis on Amb (princely state) underway by different students from different universities, who have contacted me several times for information on this topic; and p.s none have been funded in any way to write their masters on this topic. so be more considerate. Wikitanoli (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
The information below has been exractd from the publication I mentioned, namely, 'A Collection of Papers relating to the HIstory, Status and Powers of The Nawab of Amb', it was document that recorded the Negotiations of the British Government with Jehandad Khan, Chief of Amb, in connection with the murder of Messrs. Carne and Tapp, of the Salt Department, in 1851. Being government document of the British Government, its authenticity is not in doubt. There are many interesting facts mnentioned about the Tanoli State of Amb. I will write below a few lines from letters compiled in the document.
In a letter dated; Hazara, 7th August 1851, from Major. J. Abbott, Deputy Comm and Supdt, Hazara to the Secretary to the Board of Administration for the Affairs of the Punjab. It is stated:
'2. During the first period of Painda Khan's career, he was far too vigorous and powerful to be molested by any neighbouring tribe, and when he began to fail before the armies and purse of the Sikh Govt, He was interested in keeping upon the best terms with his northern neighbours of the Black Mountains with whom he occasionally took refuge, and to whom he allowed the privillege of pasture in the small Tupa of Turrowra.
8. His (Jehandad's) territory interposes bteween Hazara and the strongest and most troublesome of the independent tribes. He can send 50 or 60 matchlocks to retaliate a fray which might cost us an army of 8000 men.
10. Jehandad Khan is naturally of a gentle and sincere temperament, and has fewer vicious propensities than most Asiatics;'
In another letter dated 21st March 1863. From T. D. Forsyth, Officiating Secretary to the Gov, Punjab to Secretary to Governemnt of India, Foreign Department. It is stated:
'3. The present Chief of Amb and Western Tannowli, on the Hazara Border, Muhammad Akram Khan, is a lad of about 13 years of age. His grandfather, Painda Khan, a Chief renowned on the Border, was a wild and energetic man who was never subjugated by the Sikhs. When Hazara fell under British rule, Jehandad Khan, son of Painda Khan, and the father of the present Chief, was found in possession of certain lands on the left bank of the Indus within our boundary, which were continued to him by us, as well as for a certain extent of territory across the river, including the fortress of Amb, which he held in independence. He was the most influential Chief in Hazara,'
In a letter dated; Peshawar, 10th December 1858, from Lt.Col. H. B. Edwards, Commissioner and Supdt, Peshawar Division, to the Financial Commissioner of the Punjab. Its stated:
'4. Undoubtedly the Sikhs did conquer Upper Tannowul. They overran it in their barbarous way; drove the gallant Painda Khan over the Indus and occupied his Cis-Indus country with a bristling array of forts, and those forts were garrisoned by the Sikh troops up to the earlist date for our connection with the Punjab. For, in the height of the Sutlej war, when the news reached Hazara that the Sikh army had been beatin by the English, the Chiefs of Hazara rushed to arms to exterminate the Sikhs who were in their country. They invited Syud Akbur, of Sitana (after wards king of Swat), to come over and be King of Hazara, and make a holy war with them. Nawab Khan of Thingri, became Syad Akbur's "Wazir", Pir Khan came down to join with the Jaduns, Khan i Zeman brought the Tarkheylies; the Swatis of Publi, and the Mushwanis, swelled the tumult. For two months thye besieged Diwan Mulraj, the Kardar, in the fort of Hurkishengarh; and at last, after several gallant repulses, reduced the garrison to evacuate by cutting off the water.
5. The only Chief I believe of real note who stood aloof from this crescentade was the Late Jehandad Khan, as he told it to me: "Syad Akbur was the lord of the pony he rode. Two hundred horsemen rode behind me when I took the air, how could I submit to the Badshahut of a poor Muftie?" But though Jehandad Khan did not join the fanatics he fought for his own hand. He blockaded the garrisons of no less than 22 Sikh posts in Upper Tanawal; and when they surrendered at discretion he spared their lives, more in arrogance than prudence, as the servants of a fallen empire. The act, however, stood him afterwards in good stead; for, when Hazara was assigened to Maharaja Golab Singh, that politic ruler rewarded Jehandad Khan's humanity with the jagir of Koolge and Badnuck in Lower Tannowul.'
In another letter dated Harripur, 28th November 1858, Major J. Becher, Deputy Commissioner, Hazara, to Cmm and Supdt, Peshawar Divsion states:
'5. The term "Jagir" has never appeared to me applicable in any sense to this (Jehandad Khan's) hereditory domain (Upper Tannowul), for it was never granted as such by the Sikhs or by our Government; we upheld the Khan as we found him in his position as a feudal lord and large proprietor.'
In yet another letter, R. Temple, Esq., Secretary to Chief Commisioner, Punjab to The Financial Comm, Punjab. (dated 8th Jan 1859). It is stated:
'2. ....Jehandad's position is, and probably always must be, an anomalous one....the Chief Commissioner considers that Upper Tannowul is a chiefship held under the British Government, but in which, as a rule, we possess no internal jurisdiction. The Chief manages his own people in his own way without regard to our laws, rules or system. This tenure resembles that on which the Chiefs of Patiala, Jhind, Nabha, Kapurthala and others hold their lands.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitanoli (talk • contribs) 18:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
File:Nawabzada Mohammad Ismail Khan Of Amb State .jpg Nominated for Deletion
|An image used in this article, File:Nawabzada Mohammad Ismail Khan Of Amb State .jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
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.
Dear friends I am please recommending the merger of many small stub articles of previous Amb state rulers into this main article, including Mir Painda Khan, Mir Jehandad Khan, Muhammad Khan Zaman Khan and Muhammad Farid Khan as there's needless duplication and repetition, and it seems a better idea to me to have a single comprehensive and larger article herein. Your comments and discussion v welcome, and I must again please request all my Tanoli brothers to not to take my views personally but to kindly consider the matter dispassionately, in an organizational light, thanks. Khani100 (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Khani100
Hello? So far there doesnt seem to have been any response to any of the discussion erquests reg the proposed mergers of the stubs articles here? Please, would be v grateful for your feedback thanks. Khani100 (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Khani100
Hello, all. I hope that some of you will be kind enough to respond to my merger requests, in due course, as I would value such feedback/guidance from more experienced editors very much, not being sure entirely about the correct procedures and ways/technicalities. However, to help facilitate and clarify what I had in mind by way of requested mergers, I am now placing some merge templates in the relevant section of this main target article where the mergers could/should in my view please take place. I hope you will find these useful. Regs, Khani100 (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Khani100
- The issue here is not whether there is repetition but whether each of the men in question is notable in his own right. I have not found any of them to be non-notable. Moonraker (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear sirs, I feel this article has multiple issues-- apart from basic language and style issues, there is also an amount of repetition, some points are not factually accurate or reflect a point of view which isnt neutral etc. I also believe, as suggested above, that some improvement can also be made to this article by making some essential merges, to avoid a lot of duplication. Thank you please 126.96.36.199 (talk) 03:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Col Mumtaz Pakistn
reg above issues etc
Hello, visited this page after long time. @ Khani100: I replied to your query on mu talk page. @Col Mumtaz Pakistan: please note the multiple issues here so we can argue them, specially the ones you feel are not fctually accurate. you are welcome, cheers Wikitanoli (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Dear User:Wikitanoli Hello, thanks. I have also returned back here after over a month and think that as far as I am concerned a number of the issues of facts/information, have been answered or corrected by others. However, I think that the following issues still need to be tackled please and would be good if you would do the needful as Im not a regular editor, only an occasional one with an interest in some few topics relating to NWFP ('Khyber Pakhtunkhwa') and North Punjab, as well as some topics in Pakistani literature. In any case, below are the main points that Id please like to lay before you:
1. Language-- the basic language and grammar of this article isnt very good, or clear at all, it seems as if too many people have been at it, and I in fact note that some people keep on adding spurious information that we have to then remove again manually, and I hope that this can change. As far as language is concerned, I think if one editor with reasonable standard of English could work on smoothing out the entire text and making extensive editorial amendments, that would be good, although I doubt that would be possible since this is a free encyclopedia and someone or the other will be adding etc. I believe its in the article's interest to be legible and comprehensible at least.
2. There's too much confusion about texts cited/refs-- I note that not all the citations/refs are properly given w r to the statements made. In some cases, it seems a statement is being made by one party but its actually another; in some other cases, relevant page numbers arent given or are not the proper pages as per the texts cited/quoted, or from other editions which havent been mentioned?
3. Then, I think that we must agree to quite an extent with the opinions of our colleague above, User Khani100, he seems to be making a reasonable demand in asking that some smaller stub articles on the separate Amb Nawabs, that are almost exact duplicates of whats been already said here, should be simply merged with this main article? In any case I see that there is a sizeable section on these luminaries here, so whats the point of this duplication? It would be good if we could see some way of reconciling this question/matter too. Then, one could work to improve these sections within the larger article, which does make sense to me, as most of them are also poorly written and organised and unsourced.
Id be happy to discuss these points to start with, thanks, although I cant guarantee that Id be here on Wikipedia on a regular basis; but will try to look in , on this article definitely. Regs, 188.8.131.52 (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Col (R) Mumtaz
Reg my note above about possible changes etc
Hello, dear Wikitanoli and others; plz refer to my above note pointing out some continued problems herein. Reg point No 2 above, I wish to add/clarify that at lest 8-9 of the 16-17 references given here are not really valid or correct or have some other problem/s. I think we will have to fix these and indicate, meanwhile, that these arent valid or proper refs/citations, please. If you wish, I can enlist all of these and the basic problems singly here. Regs184.108.40.206 (talk) 14:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Col (R) Mumtaz
Dear Col (R) Mumtaz, first of all you should make a wikipedia account, because right now anyone from any ip adress can claim to be you and type a message here. it doesnt take much time and is free. please refer to the problems with references that you have mentioned. i have added plenty of those after thorough research. many have been taken from books which are available on google books; either in full form or snippet view. as far as any gramatical mistakes are concerned; do try to correct them or mention here so we can correct them. i will repeat that repetition or duplication is not a major problem on this page. the nawabs of amb are mentioned here and some of note, have their own detailed pages. i dont think that should be any major problem : ) cheers Wikitanoli (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)