Talk:Zorawar Singh (Dogra general)

Comments

This article is a complete catastrophy about a brutal conquerer and mass murder. Especially this is completely wrong:

"Unlike so many other conquerors, General Zorawar Singh Kahluria was not despised or hated by the people whose lands he invaded. There is not a single word in any of the histories or traditional accounts about the rapacity or greed that comes naturally to most foreign invaders, and the same goes for his army. These Sikh and Hindu invaders crossed the paths of people belonging to the Buddhist, Muslim, and Animist faiths and yet made no attempt to interfere with their religious practices. There were many monasteries filled with precious articles all through Ladakh and Tibet and yet there was not one instance of robbery or plunder.

Zorawar Singh’s great military endeavors were balanced by a life of modesty and restraint. He was so honest that he would transfer to his master any gifts or tribute that came to him. This honest Rajput did not leave behind either vast properties or deep coffers for his descendants -— only a legacy of military achievement that caused the contemporary Europeans to term him the “little Napoleon of India”."

he executed his opponents in the most brutal way: cutting off ears, nose, tongue, blindig them etc. Forcing Ladakhis and Balties by threatening death to take part in his invasion into Tibet. Robbed the castle of Skardu, transported the wealth of this people to India, distruction of monasteries in ladakh (look at Petech, Ladakh). His first political action in Baltistan was, that everybody who kills a cow should be executed. Religious freedom? Military success mainly by treachery. He received what he deserved, his head was cut off. Is this wikipedia type of history?

---

I absolutely agree with the above commenter. Every Ladakhi historian tells of Zorawar's plunder of monasteries and torture of local people, the cutting off of hands or face parts, etc. I've deleted that first paragraph, but the whole section should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.134.207.129 (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. Sorry. I moved too fast and got sloppy. I have moved the page myself to align with the opening sentence. Srnec (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

---

• Per MOS, we don't need a title at the front of the name. Srnec (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• Zorawar Singh is a disambig with 3 choices. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Zorawar Singh Kahluria Khushwant Singh

He was a Hindu Dogra- Khushwant Singh writes this It is an authentic source. WP:RS must be followed.Ghatus (talk) 10:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

A Single source cannot outweigh the numerous others. Every single other source says he was a sikh. EVEN his name says he was a sikh. He is present on the Sikh wiki and numerous other sikh websites. Are they all lying?FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

No reliable source say that he was a Sikh. Khushwant Singh was the first notable scholar to write a comprehensive history on Sikhs. What some Sikh blogs or Sites say do not matter. The source has to WP:RS .There is no such other source. If you revert again, i will take the matter to other senior editors/Administrator. Provided a book written by a scholar, not some sikh blogs or sites as source. "Singh" as lsat name is used by Many Hindus and Sikhs. So, the point does not matter. Your saying " Every single other source says he was a sikh" is a bluff.Ghatus (talk) 11:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Allegiance

Same Khushwant Singh writes that Zorawar Singh "took the Khalsa Flag to the heart of Tibet". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.237.149 (talk) 09:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for raising it here, but you need to refrain from WP:Edit warring.

I have added a reasonably authoritative source, Victoria Schofield, who calls him "Gulab Singh's general". Gulab Singh was the Raja of Jammu at this time, and he was empowered to employ his own staff and army. There is ample evidence that he employed Zorawar Singh. Of course, Gulab Singh worked under the suzerainty of the Sikh Empire, but suzerainty does not mean that everybody that worked for Gulab Singh can be labelled as an official of the Sikh Empire. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

You believe Victoria Schofield is an authourity on history, and rest are not. It is not an acceptable version or interpretation. Gulab Singh was certainly empowered to keep an army, however it still had an allegiance towards to the central Lahore Govt. It would be most naive interpretation to believe that Princes/Rulers/Governors of an Empire (though empowered to have an army) didn't owe an allegiance to the Empirical Standard. Your version will be taken down. You are being warned for falsifying the evident history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.222.214.103 (talk) 08:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Victoria Schofield is neither a Dogra nor a Sikh, and qualifies as a WP:THIRDPARTY source. Reliable sources calling Zorawar Singh "Gulab Singh's gneral" or Dogra general" far outnumber those calling him a Sikh General" or "Ranjit Singh's general". I am happy to add a reference to the Sikh Empire to the infobox. But I am afraid the reference to Gulab Singh cannot be removed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Kautilya3 ji You have done a good job, if not best. So, its appreciated. Because, allegiance to Gulab Singh is important. Though Gulab Singh and Jammu Principality (State) was a part of the Sikh Empire. So good job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.3.80.75 (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

NPOV

It might not be noticable on first glance but all in all, the article is a eulogy, giving direct praise in several points and indirect hints of it throughout the text. Definitely not NPOV. Also, the details need a more clear presentation. E.g., the introductory paragraph leaves a false impression as if the general had conquered at least significant parts of Tibet if not the whole of it. --62.65.236.47 (talk) 11:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Dogra?

The article states that he was from the state of Kahlur while also calling him a Dogra. The word Dogra has never been used historically for any other states other than the ones in the Jammu region. But Kahlur, as everyone knows, is not one of them. So which one of the two was he and why was the word dogra inserted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.186.101 (talk) 08:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The word Dogra is used for an ethnicity, Dogri-speaking people. Where they are born doesn't make a difference. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned above, 'Dogri' specifically refers to the dialects of lower Jammu Hills, it (Dogri/Duggar/Dogra) has never referred to any other dialect, region or ethnic group. Bilaspuri/Kahluri is a distinct dialect in itself and as per the census of India it has been officially classified as a dialect of Punjabi. The census of India has always clearly mentioned so.

http://www.censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001/Census_Data_Online/Language/Statement1.aspx

In fact none of the dialects outside the Jammu region are linguistically, ethnically or officially considered as 'Dogri' as is clear from the census. Dogra refers to Dogri speaking people of lower Jammu hills only (roughly between the Chenab and the Ravi. The region between the two rivers is known as Duggar hence the name Dogri/Dogra). Bilaspur itself, located much further away in the Sutlej valley, is not even contiguous and no references to Bilaspuri/Kahluri people referring to themselves as Dogra/Dogri exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.149.40.250 (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 June 2020

kindly change the second line of article from "He was subordinate to the Dogra ruler Gulab Singh, who was a vassal of the Sikh emperor Ranjit Singh.[4][5] In reference to his legacy of conquests in the Himalaya Mountains including Ladakh, Tibet, Baltistan and Iskardu as General and Vizier, he has been referred to as the "Napoleon of India",[6] and "Conqueror of Ladakh".[7][8] "

to "He was the general of the army of Dogra ruler Gulab Singh, who was a vassal of the Sikh emperor Ranjit Singh.[4][5] In reference to his legacy of conquests in the Himalaya Mountains including Ladakh, Tibet, Baltistan and Iskardu as General and Vizier, he has been referred to as the "Napoleon of India",[6] and "Conqueror of Ladakh".[7][8]"

reason:- the current article creates misconfusion regarding for whom he works as general as per the references in the article given he is general of the army of the Dogra ruler Gulab Singh, who was a vassal of the Sikh emperor Ranjit Sinh thats why the word subordinate creates alot of misconfusion among the wikipedia readers as some people thought he was the general of the khalsa army and fight for dogra ruler gulab singh as there is alot of edit history of these kind of the edits in past till now . now the references also provided in article shows what iam saying you can check the reference for your inspection too. he is the miltary head of the army of maharaja gulab singh Loneltrussia (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 12:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

its already discussed above 2 years ago 
rest here is my explanation and i dont have power to raise consensus 
 so matter is regarding only the first line of the article where it says "Zorawar Singh Kahluria (1784-1841) was a general of the Sikh Empire in the Indian subcontinent. He was subordinate to the Dogra ruler Gulab Singh, who was a vassal of the Sikh emperor Ranjit Singh.[4][5] In reference to his legacy of conquests in the Himalaya Mountains including Ladakh, Tibet, Baltistan and Iskardu as General and Vizier, he has been referred to as the "Napoleon of India",[6] and "Conqueror of Ladakh".[7][8]"  according to the references and citations present in this article  .it makes clear that zorawar singh kalhuria is the dogra general of the army of dogra maharaja  gulab singh  the maharaja gulab singh is the vassal of the sikh empire . so mentioning term  he was general of sikh empire is quite misleading .it may be a  previous edit  by somebody ,so kindly don't associate sikh empire with zorawar singh term if you need more realible references by 19th century  british    historians books i can provide you here is references 

Frederick Drew, The Jummoo & Kashmir territories Alexander Cunningham, Ladak A. H. Francke, Antiquities of Indian Tibet Fisher, Rose, and Huttenback, The Himalayan Battle-ground

first version of the this wikipedia page

i raised this issue due to the fact the i found people got mislead by reading the first line and talking him as a sikh by the reading the first line of article ,i have seen multiple people twitter which got mislead by thinking that he is sikh by his identity although article mentions the his religion in early life and career section but most people don't go further upto that section by reading whole article beacause people nowdays just google the name and it shows the first line on google only ,thats why this is misleading in this way, for further info check talk page of zorawar singh kalhuria where the dispute of his religion is already solved in 2017-2018. so as a wikipedia community member i thought its my duty to raise this issue to respected admins . thanks waiting for your response --Loneltrussia (talk) 09:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Apologies to you, Loneltrussia, because I honestly do not understand what can be confusing here, and if there is confusion, I don't see how your edit would fix it. He was a general under the ruler, who was a vassal of a Sikh ruler. Are generals not subordinates of their rulers? In addition, he is already called a general in the first sentence, so to change "subordinate" to "general" in the second sentence sounds redundant to me. I regret to disagree with you, since your request has been placed with great care to be civil and respectful. Forgive me for failing to understand why calling the general a subordinate of his ruler would be confusing. All generals are subordinates of their rulers, unless they are themselves the rulers. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 12:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Paine Ellsworth,thanks for response dear in simple and short my aim is to correct the first as he is not general under sikh ruler sir he is general of dogra ruler who is the allies of the sikh ruler and about misleading issue sir people think after reading the line he is general of sikh ruler that he is sikh by religion being working with sikh allies doesn't mean you are sikh . two rulers of are allies of each other both have own armies own kingdom references in articles say so too ,for example:- U.S.A. is allies of israel nowdays how can a israeli general is general of usa ,this type of things are misleading the people the references in the article says what iam saying so . he is general of dogra army who are allies of sikh army. inshort you i suggest you you can add word dogra before the general word to avoid confusion. thanks dear respected admin. Loneltrussia (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

This is where you lose me, Loneltrussia. In your example, you are correct. Just because Israel and the U.S. are allies, an Israeli general would usually be considered Israeli and not American. But you seem to think that "ally" and "vassal" mean the same thing. A "vassal" is a subordinate, which means that General Zorawar Singh Kahluria was a general and subordinate of Maharaja Gulab Singh Jamwal, who, as the Dogra ruler, was at the time a vassal and subordinate of the Sikh emperor Ranjit Singh. The founder of the royal Dogra dynasty, Gulab Singh, was not an ally of the Sikh emperor, he was the emperor's vassal, his subordinate. So it's not the same thing as saying that Israel and the U.S. are "allies". I still don't see how the lead is confusing. It clearly states that Zorawar Singh is a general, that he is under (subordinate to) Gulab Singh, and that Gulab Singh was a vassal of (subordinate to) the Sikh emperor. What is unclear to you? Nowhere does it say or even imply that either the Dogra or the general are actually Sikh. A christian person does not become jewish just because they work for a jewish person. So sorry, but I really don't see a problem here. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 16:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done: the lead has been reworded to hopefully dispel any confusion or misleadings. Thank you, Loneltrussia for your help in this. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 17:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

thanks buddy Paine Ellsworth for the improving the quality of the article and it will help future wikipedia readers to avoid any confusion in the article .Loneltrussia (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

It's my pleasure! Paine  17:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)