Talk:Battle of Saragarhi

Understanding Battle and Misconception

In a battlefield, say for example, you have 100000 soldiers against 20000, strategically you won't send all 100,000 soldiers at once. You begin with small group. If its not effective, then you send more and then more and so on. If 30000 soldiers sent are successful in defeating then it doesn't mean that it was a battle fought with just 30000 only. The total number of soldiers present in the battlefield is what you take as everyone plays an active role one way or the other. Take 300 spartans in the Battle of Thermopyle as example. They have been said to have fought against tens of thousands and that is because that's the total number present in the battle field against them. But they fought against equal or unequal numbers of group that were sent each time. Similarly, 21 soldiers of Saragarhi were surrounded by 10000s or 12000s or 14000s and that is the odd they were against in total but not all swarmed at once. Atleast not till the fall of 21 Soldiers after 7-8 hours or whatever time it took. WorldWikiAuthorOriginal | talk 11:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@WorldWikiAuthorOriginal: There is so much exaggeration in numbers as to this battle. I agree with the point the strength of Pashtin side for the battle is the overall strength for the whole of campaign probably. In battle round about a thousand fought in real. USaamo ^(t@lk) 09:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources don’t lie. Not sure why you’re taking the battle so personally. BorisTheBulgar (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

It’s known as a heroic last stand because it was. It’s remembered in history and culture because it was an exceptional defence against an overwhelming and more numerous enemy BorisTheBulgar (talk) 20:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The Other Side of the Story

The subject article is stating one side of the story, however, we need to look into the undocumented history of the people of that area which is narrated and transferred from generation to generation and also corroborated by various writers of that era. The battle was not, in the first place, fought between Orakzais and Sikhs as depicted in this article. It was rather one of a series of battles between the mighty British Empire and the Tribesmen of the Tirah region including Sikhs, in the decade of the 1890s. The tribesmen challenged the British many times on various fronts to thwart their imperialistic designs of making the Tirah region their colony. These constant clashes finally lead to the Tirah Campaign or Tirah Expedition in October 1897. Sikhs were made a pawn in the British great game of colonization.

We have so far received only one version of the events as stated by British or Indian military writers which are not sufficient to corroborate with facts. The other side of the story is not yet known, so we cannot deduce or infer the truth from one side of historians. Secondly, as there was no survivor of the battle of Sragarhi, we don’t exactly know what really happened on that fateful day i.e 12th September 1897. The writer has made an attempt to make a mountain of a molehill and twisted the facts against one of the Tribes living in Tirah i.e. Orakzais. The fact of the matter is that courageous tribesmen persistently attacked and challenged the British advances into Tirah Region on all sides including Khyber Pass. The writer is oblivious to the fact that the Tirah region has a history of being the citadel of Islamic Monotheism and have fought against the Mughals in 17th Century or more precisely against Akbar’s religion of Deen-e-Elahi and also valiantly against the Sikh Rulers in Peshawar. Sikhs were overthrown by The British in the Anglo-Khalsa wars 1846-50.

Moreover, another fact is that Sikhs community has a history of living as Hamsayas (in the protection of tribe) in the Tirah region from Mughal days and enjoyed till this day a peaceful life and doing business and owns properties which undoubtedly exhibits the hospitable and generous nature of the people of Tirah and speaks volumes of their traditional codes of conduct. Being a resident of that area, the stories told by the 2nd generation of the people who actually fought on that day say that Sikhs residents of Tirah have been part of the tribesmen Lashkar on that day as well fighting against the British army for the protection of Tirah region.

Regarding the number of Tribesmen Lashkar, we cannot say with certainty since that how many participated and we don’t have recorded history of the Tirah region by Pakhtoon Historians. The matter is open to research.

It is again a fact that the British Forts and other posts on Samana Ridge were established on precipices and well-fortified and adequately manned by trained personnel. Sragarhi post if examined minutely will testify that it was located in a place where it was exceedingly inaccessible for humans due to its topography & terrain. On the other hand, the resources of Tribesmen Lashkar who were coming from the khanki and Mastura Valley on foot with meager weapons cannot be compared with the resourcefulness of the then Super Power: The British Empire. Furthermore, the chronicles of British writers suggest that the British personnel present in twin Forts of Gulistan and Fort Lockhart did not bother to come to the rescue of the low-rank employees who were posted in Sragarhi post. They were primarily concerned about their own, lives & safety.

Awarding the Indian Order of Merit (IOM) and erecting a memorial does not make it an act of bravery as IOM was awarded to so many others during the Tirah Expedition. Quite a few Tirah Memorials have also been erected in the UK including one in Oxford which highlights the obstinate resistance shown to the Britishers by the Tribal Lashkars.

Again, it is shrouded in doubts that how many tribesmen sacrificed their lives in this particular battle but the fact remains that Sragarhi post was captured, people inside were killed, the post was razed to the ground, and flag of Tribesmen Lashkar was hoisted in few hours.

The writer has also deliberately tried to avoid showing the slogans raised by the Tribal Lashkar during the fight. War slogan of the various fights in the Tirah region has always been "Allah o Akbar" (Allah is the greatest). As I write these lines, sitting on the Samana ridge, I hear the Azaan (call to prayers) nearby masjid and the whole valley is echoing with words Allah o Akbar, Allaho Akbar, La Illaha Illallah, (Allah is great; and there is no one worthy of worship but Him alone.) Samana Orakzai (talk) 08:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

1400 dead claim

Regarding this edit by 192.189.187.122: None of the cited sources say that there were 1400 dead on the Afghan side. The edit messes with quotes, changing 180 to 600 (which according to the sources, was the number of bodies found at the site after the recapture of the fort). These changes seem to have been first made by two SPAs - Josephdenis123 (talk · contribs) and Amirkhan75401 (talk · contribs), but are not supported by the cited sources. Feel free to add this number with a source that actually backs it up. utcursch | talk 13:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

To the IP hopper (192.189.187.122 / 199.82.243.107): Your latest edits (example) again mess with quotes from the cited source. The three cited sources state that 180 were killed in the Battle of Sargarhi; a couple of others state that 600 dead bodies were found after the fort was captured (presumably this includes those killed by the party that recaptured the fort). Also, inserting "1400 Afghan bodies were found at the battlefield" in <ref></ref> tags doesn't make it a sourced statement. Finally, Story of a Soldier is a self-published book, and not an acceptable source. If a reliable source mentions that 600 Afghans were killed by the 21 Sikhs, feel free to add it to the article to cite the upper range of the estimate. utcursch | talk 21:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The anon (this time from 192.189.187.112) again falsified quotes from the cited sources, changing "180" to "600", adding the number "1400" which is not supported by any of the cited sources (even the unreliable ones).

The newly added sources are not reliable: Martial races of undivided India by Vidya Prakash Tyagi is plagiarized from Wikipedia, and therefore, not a reliable source. Indiatimes.com is an online tabloid whose unreliability has been discussed at WP:RSN in the past; moreover, the writer is not an expert in the area.

Pinging @RegentsPark:, since the anon the anon stated "Reverted to revision by RegentsPark": the figures in the version that you last edited are result of overlooked edits by two SPAs (who are probably same as 192.189.*.*):

• [1]: Josephdenis123 changed "180" to "600" in a quote from the cited source
• [2][3]: Amirkhan75401 inserted the number "1400", and also changed "180" to "600" in a sentence, again, without any source.

utcursch | talk 14:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Utcursch: I reverted what I thought was an unsourced change and have no idea what the right number is. But, I've protected the page and suggest that the IP use the talk page to get consensus for their numbers (along with sources). If that doesn't happen, I'll extend the protection. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Utcursch: Since you mentioned times of India is reliable source, it states 180 to 200 casualties. You can take a look. [4]] Also, other reliable sources that state 600 are from Tribune India [5]] and from The Vintage News [6]. Also from Business Insider [7]. Some more, from statesman [8]. So being neutral, 600 can be added as total casualities whereas in brackets, it can be stated that Afghans claimed to have 180 dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.81.206.160 (talk • contribs)

Unless written by people whose area of expertise is military/history, news articles aren't great sources for history-related articles.

If even some experts believe that none of the ~600 dead bodies found at Saragarhi resulted from recapture of the fort (after the famed last stand), I'm sure we can find some books / journal articles / newspaper articles written by experts that support the 600 figure. I'll try to find some myself.

The "1400" figure doesn't seem to be supported by any of the sources (even the shoddy ones). utcursch | talk 13:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Utcursch: 1400 is not what I stated. I don't know where that even came from as I was reverting to the revision by RegentsPark but its not even his fault as even he didn't know what was the right number due to all the skirmishes. I believe the articles I showed you are reliable and great sources, enough to state that the casualities were 600. So you should consider changing the number to 600, not just due to the sources but also by keeping all the editor's opinion in a neutral perspective. Also here is a source from the Military expert, Brig S Sunder Rajan, [9]. Page 20. Clearly states, atleast 600 Enemy soldiers were killed. Also if you look at this book, Page 131, it clearly states that "They refused and fought on till they were killed to the last man . Supposedly 600 dead Afghans lay around them ." [10]. The Publication is Vision Books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.189.187.112 (talk • contribs)

As I mentioned earlier: the news articles that you've linked above are not acceptable sources for a history-related article: they are not written by people whose subject of expertise is military or history. If The Times of India publishes an article on the history of Harappa written by a reputed archaeologist, it maybe an acceptable source. If the same newspaper publishes an article on the same topic written by a journalist who covers daily news ranging from politics to sports, that article would not be an acceptable source for a Wikipedia article on Harappa, especially when contradicted by other sources.

This is true in general: popular news websites and newspapers may be reliable sources for current affairs, but not for other topics, especially when the topic is not a part of author's area of expertise. This has been established several times at WP:RSN. Even for current affairs, additional considerations may apply (for example, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 287#Times_of_India_RFC and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 324#RfC:_Business_Insider). When the journalists know little about the topic they are writing on, they end up writing articles like this one: Hyderabad Boy's Chai Pe Charcha with Wikipedia. If you still insist that the sources that you've presented are reliable, feel free to seek a third opinion at WP:RSN.

As for Personalities Inked, it's from Booksclinic - a self-publishing company - and not acceptable per WP:SPS (not to mention that it's a book of sketches, not meant to be an authoritative source about any topic). The other book seems decent, but it doesn't explicitly say that the 21 soldiers killed 600 attackers: it seems to repeat what the other sources say (the ~600 dead bodies were found when the fort was recaptured: the count presumably included those killed by the force that recaptured the fort). Feel free to seek a third opinion at WT:MIL, WT:IND or another place if you disagree.

If a decent source explicitly says the 21 soldiers killed 600 / 1400 / <whatever number> attackers, I've no problem with that being added to the article. utcursch | talk 15:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Utcursch: My reference for the first source was about the military expert and not what the publisher or publication is. And the information was written by Military expert. Whereas the second source states that 600 body lay around them and it does not state that the count also included those killed by the relief force. There is nothing to presume in this content. Word to word on page 131 - "They refused and fought on till they were killed to the last man . Supposedly 600 dead Afghans lay around them ." Here is another book [11]. This one states word to word "MORE than 600 dead bodies of Pashtuns were counted around the fort after it was later captured. Thus ended an incomparable saga of bravery and self sacrifice of 21 soldiers". No where it states that "presumably" some of them died when the fort was captured. No where does any of the sources in the article explicitly say the 21 Soldiers killed 180 either but you conclude the meaning behind the statement. Its similar situation when it comes to concluding that 600 or so cab be considered as the actual figure of the casualities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.189.187.112 (talk • contribs)

Concluding that 600 attackers were killed during the initial attack wouldn't be a problem, if there were no sources contradicting that information. We've four sources that state 180 attackers were killed during the Battle of Saragarhi / initial attack on the post (two of these attribute this figure to admittance by the Afghans themselves, another to "estimates", and yet another to "official assessment". The two sources that you mention above do not state the 600 deaths happened during the initial attack on the post - one of them explicitly states that the body count is from after the recapture of the fort.

As for the self-published sketch book, feel free to get a third opinion at WP:RSN. utcursch | talk 20:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Utcursch: There are sources contradicting if only 180 were killed such as the sources that I provided. Also when it comes to reliable news sites, the editors post articles that go through rigorous research. Like articles on Harappa, it surely goes through the research concluded by Archaeologists and others sources before being posted on reliable platforms. We cannot be Judge and Jury especially if the site is reliable. But I will take a look at WP:RSN. There was one article I read where the journalist made a better statement, which is what I am trying to make the point. It stated: "In addition to the 21 Sikh dead, reports of Pashtun losses range from between 180 and 600, though it's difficult to discern the true number accurately." That is why I meant that the article should show 180 - 600 Killed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.189.187.123 (talk • contribs)

Pretty silly of you to create an account impersonating me (User:AtmaramU). The latest sources that you've added are not great either. The news article is not a great source, as others have pointed out in threads initiated by you at WP:RSN: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Personalities Inked / Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Valid Sources?. The other two books talk about casualties (which includes killed and wounded). In fact, they cast doubt on the "600" figure that you've been pushing for -- you deliberately left out "or wounded" when you included a quote from Saragarhi Battalion: Ashes to Glory.... The Statesman (news) and Sainik Samachar (government glorifying its army) aren't great sources either, but I will let these remain for now, pending other editors' opinion. utcursch | talk 17:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure what impersonation you are talking about and not sure what you would like to accomplish by making such claims but I would rather respectfully ignore it. Please, do not intentionally put accusation on me. I have been very respectful to you throughout the discussion. Also I copied and pasted the comment so please no need to judge as it wasn't intentionally. Looks like another user added the missing comment and that is perfectly fine. The latest sources I have added are all well discussed through WP:RSN. You can see I ignored Times of India as its not considered reliable but Tribune and Statesman are considered reliable. Also you removed the source by Dennis Showlater, a Military Historian, one of the strongest sources. Infact your sources aren't considered reliable as per WP:RSN where Vision Book is not reliable publisher and nor is The Sikh Courier International Volumes 38-42 but you yet went ahead and added those back again. That is why keeping everyone opinion in consideration, I changed the number from 180-600 instead of just 600 due to different claims made in the sources. AtmaramU

I did not remove Dennis Showalter - I simply used it to cite another bit (wounded): the word "casualties" includes both dead and wounded. Apologies for re-adding the other two - I've removed them. As for the impersonation, it's pretty obvious, but let's keep that aside for another day. utcursch | talk 02:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Afghan casualties in infobox

You will note that I have created a new "Aftermath" section by moving an existing paragraph that discusses the subsequent events and the casualties. This is a standard way of structuring an article and dealing with such information. In the infobox, I have reported "450 dead and wounded" citing the two references. I have also added a note to "See Aftermath section". A casualty ratio of over 20:1 is exceptional. Higher figures would beggar belief given limited ammunition carried. The figure of 600 dead cannot be fully attributed to the defenders - as explained in the text. An infobox cannot capture the nuance of such a detailed explanation. It is therefore better to direct the reader to the main text when the simple detail that might be shown in the infobox is inadequate and potentially misleading. I am also seeing what I perceive to be "uninformed journalistic well-intended misinformation" - they tend to lack the rigor of a monograph publication. Journalistic sources really have little place as sources for such an article. I do hope that this might resolve the "contentiousness" relating to reporting the Afghan casualties in the infobox. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2021

Change afghan casualties to "180-450 casualties (estimated)" with the current aftermath section still linked, would be better referenced and more accurate, since a lot of sources also state around 180 during the initial battle. Noorullah21 (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann 19:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The infobox says 450 dead and wounded, not 450 dead. There are two references supporting this. The "Aftermath" section says 180 dead plus more wounded. 180 is not an alternate figure for the total of dead and wounded, but a total for dead only. FDW777 (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

What FDW777 said. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

@Cinderella157: Your edit summaries are getting more misleading than ever. What do you want to discuss especially when you haven't answered my message here? It is a common fact that you can't treat this website to be more reliable than Bloomsbury Publishing.

The Bloomsbury source is also clear that "Fort Gulistan was gallantly defended by the 36th Sikhs for 52 hours before reinforcements arrived". So if the battle was started on 12 September, it ended on 14th September. You can just change the date of the conflict instead of edit warring and removing sourced content, given the fight never exactly stopped after 12 September battle by 21 Sikhs.

Other sources, much better than the website link, that support the reverted edits include:

• The Pathan Revolts in North West India. Sang-e-Meel Publications. 1979. p. 126-133. The officers and men bad now been under arms for 52 hours , and had actually been on their posts for 50 hours without a rest . The enemy who attacked Saragarhi and Fort Cavagoari were the Mamuzais , Ali Khels and Ali Sherzais..
• Peter Quennell. History Today. p. 226. 1897 Victory over the tribesmen on the North - west frontier of British India is still commemorated by Sikh regiments
• Tom Lansford (16 February 2017). Afghanistan at War: From the 18th-Century Durrani Dynasty to the 21st Century. ABC-CLIO. pp. 408–. ISBN 978-1-59884-760-4. The tribesmen subsquently attacked Gulistan through the night of September 12. Their strike was repulsed by heavy fire. A new relief column with cavalry and artillery was able to begin shelling the tribesmen. The column reached Sangar on September 14, prompting the Afridis and Orakzais to withdraw.

The last source also supports 400 deaths, while the first one say 500 deaths. Together with the date, we can change British India casulaties to '25' per these sources and change tribesmen casulaties to 400 - 500 deaths. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 10:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

1. The scope of this article is very specifically the last stand battle at Saragarhi, in which all the defenders were ultimately killed. It gives the date as 12 September 1897. It refers briefly to subsequent fighting over the next two days, in which the post was recaptured. This subsequent fighting is not the subject of this article (as written) but there is no separate article for it either.
2. The purpose of an article lead is to summarise the body of the article. It should be supported by the body of the article, which is, in turn verifiable by citation to reliable sources. An infobox is a suppliment to the lead and similar requirements apply to the infobox.
3. Where there are sources which differ in opinion (such as the result of the battle) or which vary in information (such as casualties), this should be discussed in the body of the article with consideration to WP:WEIGHT. This has not occurred.
4. MOS:MIL gives specific guidance on the subject of the result, specifically at WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX. Further detailed guidance is given at Template:Infobox military conflict. The guidance deprecates dot-points as done in the subject edit[12] which was deleted by me. This is one reason for deleting the edit.
5. As to where the victory lies? The scope of the article is the last stand defence made by the Sikhs. The scope does not extend to the subsequent battle which is fairly clearly a British Indian victory. Per the guidance, we report the "immediate result" of the conflict which is the subject of the article. It is WP:BLUE that if all the defenders in a particular action are all killed, the attackers are victorious. Such a claim is also supported by citation. If the result is not clear or needs to be qualified, the guidance is clear that "See aftermath" should be used in the result field. The subject edit is contrary to this guidance. Such a claim of a British Indian victory also appears to fall outside the scope of the article and into the subsequent battle.
6. Citations made to 21 Kesaris: The Untold Story of the Battle of Saragarhi are incomplete, lacking identification of the pages cited.
7. The status quo version of the article infobox reports the casualties which most are "commonly reported" (ie in two sources) but is also uses "see aftermath", referring the reader to a fuller discussion and the range of casualty figures that have been reported in other sources and the difficulty in determining the Afghan casualties.
8. The subject edit would report figures from "21 Kesaris" over those of the other two sources. There is therefore a citing inconsistency. There are three sources cited, of which only one verifies the figures given. Furthermore, the figures added are not discussed in the aftermath section, creating an inconsistency with that section in the article's body.
9. Changes may be made IAW the sources indicated in the OP here but only after amendment to the aftermath section, in which the sources are added and discussed. However, context is everything. The figures being reported must be within context. Scholarly sources will explain the rationale for reporting figures and give the sources relied upon. However, where there are significantly different figures and no clear consensus in the sources, it is better to defer to the aftermath section without quoting any figure. I also note the reference to 50 hours of battle (ie over at least 3 days). The article would need to report this (including context) and reconcile any difference in the source. This is a reference to Fort Gulistan, which is related but outside the scope of the battle at Saragarhi, which is the subject of this article. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
10. The edit summary of the subject edit states: Do not restore a personal website to oppose a scholarly source. The Indian Defence Review (the status quo source for the result) is a peer reviewed journal with an online presence (per about us). Unless otherwise determined by community consensus, it would be considered a scholarly source. "21 Kesaris" is credited to Kiran Nirvan which is the pseudonym used by authors Kirandeep Singh and Nirvan Singh.[13]. The former is a scholar in management (ie writing outside their field of scholarship) and the latter a serving soldier. The claim in the edit summary appears to lack credibility.

There are multiple issues with the proposed edit wrt policy and guidelines. If "21 Kesaris" or any of the other sources indicated above are to be relied upon, they must be incorporated and integrated into the body of the article before changes to the infobox can reasonably be considered. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Indian Defence Review is a subsidiary of Lancer, and is good mainly for hearing views and memoirs of Indian military members, but when it comes to comparing them with better quality references as provided above, then your choice should be the latter. As for your strange reliance on their "about us" page, then it is another common fact that everyone claims to be the best source, but it doesn't means that it becomes better. The article by "an ex-Mig-21 fighter pilot," cannot be more reliable than Bloomsbury, given that Bloomsbury Publishing is a scholarly publisher.

WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX does not support your edits. The mention of "victory" is warranted as British India being the victor, and highlighting the reason below that how it won the war is similarly justifiable. See Operation Barbarossa.

Just because you don't have access to sources, it doesn't mean that the source should be discarded or the source must be saying something else. The Pathan revolt in north-west India clearly says "The enemy who attacked Saragarhi and Fort Cavagnari were the Mamuzais, Ali Khels and Ali Sherzais, together with the Afridi hishhar. The enemy lost 500 killed and wounded; but this does not include the slightly wounded who were able to walk away, the number of whom it is impossible to ascertain." The page 129 at 21 Kesaris: The Untold Story of the Battle of Saragarhi verifies the information.

There is no question about a "Status quo", because there is no deadline and Wikipedia is a work of improvement. I can absolutely modify the whole article to reflect these sources but before that you need to stop reverting and allow the edits to stick. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

1. I have never said that sources should be discarded. In fact, the converse appears to be the case. However, one source cannot be simply preferred over another. Due WP:WEIGHT must be given to each. In simple terms, a management academic and a serving officer does not trump "an ex-Mig-21 fighter pilot" in a peer reviewed journal. They have at least, similar standing.
2. WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX gives voice to Template:Infobox military conflict (which I also linked). There are limited terms permitted under the guidance - this does not include dot-points. That WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS reasonably falls to WP:DEADLINE - which you have quoted. Per the guidance, the "immediate result" of the action at Saragarhi was clearly an Afghan victory. British India was only victorious in the greater battle which is outside the scope of the article, which is very specifically limited to the engagement at Saragarhi. That there is nuance to the "greater result" (per the guidance) is best represented as "Afghan victory - see aftermath" or "see aftermath" alone. In either case, the aftermath section must reflect such nuance.
3. The enemy who attacked Saragarhi and Fort Cavagnari were the Mamuzais, Ali Khels and Ali Sherzais, together with the Afridi hishhar. The enemy lost 500 killed and wounded; but this does not include the slightly wounded who were able to walk away, the number of whom it is impossible to ascertain. But was this the figure specifically at the Saragarhi post? If it is not, it is out of scope of the article, which is specifically about the engagement at Saragarhi. This is not, however, dissimilar to the existing reporting but it is substantially different from Orakzais and Afridis combined had lost about 400 men with another 600 wounded. - a total of 1,000. Context is everything. I might support a note and citation being added to the existing figures in the infobox to effect of a figure of 500 casualties and wounded (not including walking wounded) [including the source being cited]. However, the context in the source would need to be clarified and the aftermath section must also be edited accordingly prior to such an amendment to the infobox.
4. The relationship (per WP:LEAD) between the body of the article, the lead and the infobox (a supplement to the lead) is "bottom up". The lead and the infobox must be supported by and be consistent with the body of the article. The subject edit is not.
5. The status quo is very specifically that which existed before the edit that has been challenged. This is made clear in guidance on closing RfCs.
6. I will not unreasonably oppose any improvement to the article - it truly does need improvement. However, this needs to be from the bottom up. I will not unreasonably oppose changes to the lead and infobox that reflect the body of the article, the scope of the article and, policy and guidelines.

Cinderella157 (talk) 11:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Fort Cavagnari is an alternative name of Fort Gulistan. Srijanx22 (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

If every single combatant on one side gets killed during the battle, that side loses. That's basic common sense, and the result was referenced. FDW777 (talk) 11:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Futhermore, the quote provided (Fort Gullistan was gallantly defended by the 36th Sikhs for 52 hours before reinforcements arrived) was misleading, even if it did support a claim of "Indian victory" which it didn't. The passage continues It was a battle that tested the might of Sikh soldiers who were motivated enough to avenge the deaths of their 21 brothers who had set high standards for others to follow. With images of the Battle of Saragarhi still fresh in their minds, the Sikh soldiers at Fort Gullistan provided tough resistance and made each bullet count. So the reference is clear, the Fort Gullistan battle was a separate event to the Battle of Saragarhi, and that quote cannot be used to support the claimed result. FDW777 (talk) 12:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@FDW777: Your common sense is equivalent to WP:OR. What is your reference? "Indian defence review" is a low-quality source as already discussed right above. "21 Kesaris" (from Bloomsbury) support British India victory by saying: "The attack on the Samana forts had failed and Orakzais and Afridis combined had lost about 400 men with another 600 wounded. Of course, no battle is won without casualties. The 36th Sikhs had also suffered heavy losses". Then there are also other sources that support the same. This is why I blanked 'result' parameter.

This entire battle happened on a rocky outcrop between fort Gulistan and Fort Lockhari, as such your claim that anything that happened in Gullistan is irrelevant to the article is absolutely misleading. This battle concerns attacks on Fort Lockhart, Fort Gulistan and Saragarhi which was occupied by 36th Sikh regiment. Remember that this battle took place at Samana hills, and these forts were attacked in the battle involving the same parties. 36th Sikh regiment was in fact defending the Samana Ridge in this battle, not just Saragarhi. You should go through the sources provided above and see how they describe this conflict as. We have also done almost the same throughout the article but the information in infobox is misleading. Srijanx22 (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)