Talk:Sher Shah Suri

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

NPOV complaint[edit]

This is supposed to be a neutral POV encyclopedia. Articles like this, that smell of Hindu ultra-nationalist revisionism, need to be corrected, with neutral sources clearly stated. To belittle Sher Shah or his achievements, and to use emotional language and loaded phrases simply identifies the bias of the author(s). This page needs drastic cleaning.

Hi there, Do u have a specific complaint in mind? This page contains information from multiple books. Richard Saran, who has a Phd from University of Michingan, Ann Arbor, published the book which containts descrption of battle of Sammel. Similarly this link & this link provides info on Sammel which agrees with Richard's book. The web link does not use Richard's book as his source.
What happened at Raisina is also chronicled by multiple historians and it shows SherShah's character. We cannot censor unpleasant stuff because it shows Sher Shah in bad light. If something is historically incorrect then it has no place in Wikipedia.
Then GT road is chronicled to have been built by Mauyra's. There armies repeatedly went into afghanistan on this road. If you scroll below Digvijay has quoted passage from Clive Ponting's book that goods(silk etc) from China reached Ferghana on the "India Grand Road" built by Mauryas. Some users here insist that SherShah built it. This seems like a deliberate attempt to rewrite history to aggrandize Suri's character.
Shivraj Singh 06:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Sherkhan was a devote muslim but he never mixed up religion with politics as Akbar and Aurangzeb did.He never showed any biase against hindus as Aurangzeb did.He treated all his subjects equally and with out any prejudice on the basis of religion or race.He was a great administrator.Law and order situation had never been so  good in India as was during rule of Shershah.Therefore the subjects got sigh of relief in his period.Mustafa Kamal  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC) 

To all Editors[edit]

Please discuss the changes that you want to make in the article here on this talk page before changing the article.

خرم Khurram 16:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Did u practice what u r preaching? Set an example and then ask others.

Shivraj Singh 15:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

My friend, what you call "Treachery" is actually a valid practice in the warfare. Please read about fifth columinsts. Also why do you insist in making an article a "story"? Doesn't the article show that the Rajputs gave an excellent resisitance to Sher Shah? Doesn't it qoute Sher Shah's words that you have reported? Why then do you insist on making an article a child story?

خرم Khurram 16:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Why are you so against mentioning how the war was actually won? Let readers judge for themselves whether it is bravery or treachery. Do not attempt to censor. Shivraj Singh 16:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not against it but this article is not about mentioning all the wars that Sher Shah fought. Do you think we should be giving all the details of each and every war that he fought? What history records is who won and who lost. We have included in the article that he faced a tough resistance and his appreciation for his opponents has also been recorded. I don't think putting each and every detail is justifiable. As far as the debate between "Treachery" and "Bravery" are concerned, I am afraid these two words have very different meanings in actual warfare and the only thing that one doesn't want is "defeat".

خرم Khurram 16:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

This war with Maldeo was the "defining" war. Had he lost it Delhi was gone from his hand and he came close to loosing it. So it needs to be mentioned in detail. Incident at Raisina with Puran Mal is important because that defines the character of SherShah. Shivraj Singh 17:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Shiv every war was defining. Don't you think that his wars with "Humayun" were defining. No war is fought to lose and no Emperor can keep his authority after losing a war. You talk a lot about character my friend. What I would advise you is to read a little bit about warfare before indulging into any discussion regarding it. In War you are in to win and losers always come up with excuses. If you lose a war you have lost it, how and why doesn't matter. You are on the mercy of your conqurer and this is the unchanged fact. I just don't understand why don't you learn that history is neither always sweet and nor is it forgiving. I can write a whole article about the character of those who distrusted their own comrades and instead of going into the depth of the matter decided to save their asses and run from the war but I think we are not here for this purpose. The fact remains that Suri won after a stiff resistance and there is nothing that you or I or anyone else can do about it. Blaming the tactics or similar childish stuff does neither suite a true historian nor to a grown up man.

خرم Khurram 17:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Why do you want to portray that he won and not how he won? After all this is an encyclopedia and let grown ups decide for themselves whatever they want after reading relevant info. If info provided about SherShah is historically incorrect then it has no place on Wikipedia. Shivraj Singh 17:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Shiv I have no problem in showing how he won and we can have a different article on that war itself. But I believe that using the words like "Treachery", "bravely" are inappropriate for the use in an encyclopeida and are regarded as POV. So if you want, we can have whole article on that war itself and the only restriction that we need to abide by is to protray one as larger than the other party in order to live by your word of letting the reader decide what was what. Do you agree?

For this article, I think this much detail is unfair since then we would have to include the same amount of detail for other wars fought by Sher Shah Suri.

خرم Khurram 17:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Who are you to decide what is "unfair"? This clearly shows you want to portray only the goodside of SherShah which is not neutral POV. Shivraj Singh 18:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I am just trying to help you keep focus on the current article and not to deviate from it. Yes it is unfair to promote one party to the extent that you keep on giving their lineage and their version of history and excuses while you completely neglect the others who fought against the same person in greater battles. I told you if you want we can have another article specifically for this war but adding all the details about only one war to this page seems unfair to the other wars and those who fought them.

خرم Khurram 18:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you understand what wikipedia is? People contribute about what they know. Battle of Sammel and Raisina is what I know and have researched and I will put it on this page. Other readers of wikipedia are free to add descriptions of other wars as they deem fit. But for you to repeatedly revert (4 times now and thereby breaking the 3RR rule which can be reported and you will be blocked.) the facts on how SherShah won Sammel and details of Raisina is a deliberate attempt to portray only one side of history. Shivraj Singh 19:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

My friend, first of all 3RR applies to 4 reverts in 24 hours and I am still out of it but if you want you can report me :) Also I know what Wikipedia is all about and I am in no way telling you not to put any information. What I am telling you is that you can put the detailed information about that war in a seperate article and can have an internal link to it in this article. Now why is it becoming a bit deal I don't know. BTW what loss of information will occur if you put this information on a seperate page? Frankly I am unable to comprehend your hesitation.

خرم Khurram 19:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

This page is about SherShah and all relevant info goes here. If something is historically incorrect then let us debate. You are pushing a POV when you want to see his negative character be displayed on another page. You will not be allowed to do so. Shivraj Singh 19:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Shiv once again you are engaging yourself and others into a useless debate. Now you have taken another turn and have brought out your intention about blaming Sher Shah Suri's character. Please read about warfare before trying to comment on anything. Spreading rumours and decieving enemy in the battle ground are and have always been two of the most common tactics practised by the armies worldwide. If someone loses the battle because of lack of trust among their forces, it is their weakness and problem. This is why every army in the world is so tough about discipline so that the commanders have confidence on their troops and vice versa. All that your so called evidence shows is the inherent problem of Rajputs that they always had and still do which is "distrust" among themselves. And no matter for what reason, leaving the battlefield means leaving it. You do not leave battlefield but because of fear of either death or that of losing the battle.

خرم Khurram 20:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Since you are not arguing about correctness of "" & "" and Richard Saran's book it is very clear that you want one sided view of SherShah to be presented to the world. Ponder over it and ask yourself how can that be allowed on WP. If Rajputs or SherShah had a negative aspect to them let readers of WP judge that. As a WP user you should refrain from censoring historically correct info no matter how unpleasant it is for you. Shivraj Singh 03:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


First of all I do not acknowledge the authority or correctness of the material presented on the "". Secondly putting things like "XYZ would have defeated ABC had this not happened" is POV and is not supported here on Wikipedia. Thirdly, if soemone is attributed to do some work in the history then one can not change it without citing an at least equally valid neutral research work. Sher Shah's construction the GT road has been recorded by many historians and I am afraid that negating it is again pushing for personal POV. Fourth, one can see a clear bias toward the Rajputs in your contribution where as this particular article is about Sher Shah Suri. I have told you that we can have seperate articles about those presonalities and mention their achievements in that article but your sole purpose appears to be overshadowing the personality in question. Finally, explaining the Rohtas Fort in detail is not the purpose of this article. We have a seperate article on that fort and including all the detail about it on this page doesn't seem fit.

I think we need to find a neutral ground on this topic.

خرم Khurram 15:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Later, ancient Bactria, in northern Afghanistan, was joined to India by a 4,200-kilometer road built by Indian’s Maurya dynasty, and was linked to Central Asia and the Middle East by the imperial highways of the Persians.

Mauryas ruled modern day Afghanistan and Pataliputra was an important city in there empire and they connected those two points.


GT Road[edit]

The building of the original GT Road is attributed to the Muriyans and for that to "Ashok" I believe. Sher Shah however, re-built that road by utilizing the surviving parts of that old one and constructing the missing ones. This makes him the first one in his millenia to undertake this task of joining the important parts of India through road.

Do we agree?

خرم Khurram 15:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. Credit only goes to first suryveyors and builders. British made the GT road "pucca". This does not make them builders of GT road. Sher Shah ruled for < 6 yrs and did not have all parts under his empire for all 6 years. He built a few "dharamshalas" and "Piyaus" on GT road and his personal historians gave him the credit for building it.
When Chang Ch'ien arrived in Ferghana he was surprised to find that a vast array of Chinese goods were on sale, especially silk which was only manufactured in China. These goods had travelled by the route opened in 4th century BCE from China via Schezwan and Yunnan to Burma and eastern India. From there they had been traded along the India Grand Road (built under the Mauryan Empire) up the Ganges valley to the grand trading city of Taxila and then into central Asia. [Page 250]
Clive Ponting: World History, A New Perspective, Published by Pimlico 2001, ISBN: 0-7126-6572-2, Printed and Bound in Great Britan by Mackays of Chatham PLC.


Construction of the Taj Mahal is considered to be British Raj's largest administrative achievement. Although it is suggested that remenants of such monument existed in some parts of Agra, British Govt of India was the first one after Shah Jahan to renovate it.

Do we agree?

-- Sisodia the outlaw.

Point taken. So shall we say that he reparied the esixting parts of the GT road built by the Muryan Empire and rebuilt the missing ones?

خرم Khurram

After Mauryas there were about a 100 kings whose domain spanned the GT road and each one of them repaired it to some extent or the other. It includes British and now Govt Of India. None of them need to be mentioned w.r.t to GT road.


I think no one did revive the whole road between the times of Muryan Emperors and Sher Shah Suri. According to my knowledge its existance was almost perished by the time of Sher Shah Suri. Sher Shah's effort is remerkable in a way that after that, the road never went under the same neglect again. But I think this issue needs some more research and digging. I am currently a bit tight on my schedule so maybe sometime early next year. If you want, you can take that portion out and we can include it later if I found some concrete evidence about Sher Shah's contribution.

خرم Khurram 16:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism accusations[edit]

The editor Shivraj Singh just emailed me to take a look at what he called vandalism on this page. Having taken a look at the recent history, I don't see any vandalistic intent. Indeed, in some of his alleged reversion of vandalism, he discarded what seemed like perfectly good material. Vandalism is a very serious accusation, and I don't think it is merited here.

My reminder to all editors involved, but especially to Shivraj, is that unilateral action is a poor substitute for discussion leading to consensus. We are trying to build an encyclopedia together. If some well-meant edit causes contention, then please discuss that edit here until everybody agrees on some compromise rather than getting into edit wars. Shivraj, if you're worried about potential loss of material, then put your proposed additions here on the talk page.

And please, everybody, assume good faith. --William Pietri 21:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Missing the point on 3RR[edit]

Hi! You guys seem to be missing the point of the three-revert rule. Looking at the history, it seems like you just are having the edit war more slowly. Although that's a step forward, the point of the rule is that if you are just doing and undoing the same edits, it's time to stop and talk. Could you please stop with the edit war and discuss your differences here until you can agree on a version that everybody is happy with? Thanks, --William Pietri 15:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

We can move forward and I should say that we are almost there and if our good friend Shivraj Singh agrees to take the story telling out of the article, it is almost finished. Can you convince him to do that?

خرم Khurram 17:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be pushing history in linking GT road and Sher. Battle of Rathores(letter to rathores that caused Maldev to leave) and Raisina(Sher's renege of his promise to Purnamal) are mentioned in most historians dealing with Sher. Why should Wiki be any different? Digvijay

Hi! I know little about this topic, and so am uninterested in trying to convince anybody of what the content should be. I am interested, though, in stopping the edit war. Rather than making substantial reversions (and marking them minor, which they aren't), could you perhaps discuss each particular chunk here? Also consider making your changes as a series of small edits, starting with the ones that are most obvious and easily agreed upon. Even the version you have reverted to needs a fair bit of cleanup, so there's plenty to be done jointly before you get to the contentious parts. -- William Pietri 08:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

From "INDIA & Southeast Asia to 1875: Sanderson Beck , Paperback: 775 pages, Publisher: World Peace Communications (December 7, 2004) ISBN: 0976221004"

Humayun escaped and went to Lahore while Sher Khan went back to Gaur to destroy the remnant of the Mughal army and imprison a rebelling governor. Sher Khan became Sher Shah and organized his empire while Humayun, unable to get help from his brothers, fled all the way to the Safavid court in Iran. After subjugating Malwa in 1542, Sher Shah invaded central India. He promised to let those capitulating at Fort Raisin go unmolested, but the Afghans treacherously attacked the Rajputs, who killed their own women and children to protect them from disgrace. Sher Shah also used forged letters before defeating Marwar ruler Maldev in a bloody battle in 1544. While capturing a fort in Kalinjar, Sher Shah was killed by a gunpowder explosion in 1545.

--DPSingh 09:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


I agree with your suggestions but can I alone make the other follow the same rules?


Sending forged letters to the opponent's armies is not a crime. Breaking one's promise is unethical and I do not commend anyone for doing that but I am afraid this is one version of the story. There will be many books that would say that the Rajputs broke their promise and attacked the Afghan army first. Would you like that to be included as well? The book that you are referring to is written in 2004 and if the qoute that you have put is correct then this book is biased and clearly showed signs of POV rather than a record of history.

خرم Khurram 15:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Still no citations?
Shivraj Singh 18:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Will you stop reverting the page if I give you the citations? :)

خرم Khurram 20:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

You can't make anybody on Wikipedia do anything, Khurram. But if you show them respect and generosity, you'll generally get it back. By starting with the easy cleanups that all parties can be brought to agreement on, you can build up a fund of goodwill that can carry you through the hard bits. --William Pietri 21:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Taaoo Are you thinking this is a joke? Editing history requires one to be ready with bibliographies. RC Majumdar, Richard Saran and Beck all have Phd's from good Universities and your refrences should mention who wrote that history book and there credentials. Points I want to see negated: GT road, Raisin and Rathores and Sher.
--DPSingh 11:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)



It is not a joke my friend but I think we shall refrain from story telling. RC Majumdar has written many accounts of the recent past that were wrong although his work is very much appreciated but the facts that he describes are not always truth. Richard Saran and Beck dohave Ph.D.s from Universities (I don't think a university can be bad) but having a Ph.D doesn't assure that whatever you say is truth. It is possible that they based their research on false information. But this is not the point. The point is that do we really need to tell the stories in a way that clearly shows signs of bias? I think not. Also we need to keep in mind that unfortunately after partition, much work that is done in both Pakistan and India has distorted historical information in it with an emphasis on promoting the religious rhetoric more than anything else. How I see is that Sher Shah was a King of India and he did whatever he could have done for the expansion and security of his kingdom. So were the Rathores and other rulers of the time. They all tried and used all the means that were available to them to secure and expand their kingdoms and I think it is always hard to find the morality in the deeds of Kings when fighting other Kings. War tactics are used to defeat the opponent and the word mercy has no place in warfare and shall not be asked for. Also about Sher Shah attacking the Rajputs while they were emptying the fort, it looks illogical to me since by doing that, he in fact, could have sealed any further chances of expansion of his empire by peaceful means. No ruler who had expansionist plans could have affoarded it and this does not fit to Sher Shah's personality as well. The chances are more that maybe some hawkish young blood Rajputs tried to turn the tables and their vain attempt caused the bloodshed. If Sher Shah did break his promise, there is no law in the world that supports it and neither do I. But I think right now we just don't have enough "neutral" information that supports the accusation.

GT road, I have changed that the original builders were Muryan Emperors but Sher Shah did revive it and this is what I have written in there. I am, however, open to any suggestion.

خرم Khurram 16:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Whatever looks illogical to you is an opinion of yours and you have nothing to back it up as you have no bibliographies to share. It appears you are telling stories here. From now on you will not be allowed to revert any thing related to raisin,rathores and GT road.

--DPSingh 11:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

And are you an admin, DPSingh, that you can tell someone that he isn't allowed to edit? Zora 11:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you suggesting deliberate attempts to obfuscate history are allowed?

--DPSingh 13:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. You seem to think that there is only TRUE version of history, and that no other versions or narrations should be allowed. However, academic historians can differ radically on what happened and how to interpret it, and there are usually two or more views on any subject, all of which are considered "reasonable" to hold. Moreover, you seem to be under the delusion that your views are the TRUTH and that no opposing views should be allowed. This is not how Wikipedia is run. If an opinion is notable -- if it's held by a number of people, not just by one lone kook -- it goes in the article. It has to be described neutrally, too.
This is the bedrock of Wikipedia. If there's a dispute, we don't take sides. We just describe all sides and let the reader make up his or her own mind. If you want your views to prevail, you have to do so by making a good, well-referenced case for them, not by removing any challengiing views. Zora 18:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Your argument holds no water in the current context. Written history can only be challenged by written history supporting the other POV. In absence of such the other POV is actually a lie. Having a POV is not sufficient to have editing rights. Read the following link:

--DPSingh 12:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


Why do you insist on adding the stories to the article? Did I say that Rajputs didn't fight with valor? Didn't I quote Sher Shah? Now why do you want to keep the story telling alive? Anyone can write a book and get it published that will say that the Rajput army fled. Will you accept it as a valid source? Even if forged letters were caught, then it shows the amount of distrust that the Rajputs had among themselves, the key reason why India has always been a welcome place for the invaders. And about the breaking of promise, it is hard to believe that Sher Shah could have done and I have given my arguments above. This just does not fit. Not that I am saying that he was a very noble man and thus could not have done it, but because it was a suicidal attempt by an emperor who desires expansion of his empire and I do not think Sher Shah, like any king, wanted to jeopardize the expansion of his empire.


All that I can say is "Thank You". Not for anything but for your commitment and enthusiasm.

خرم Khurram 20:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Stop talking non-sense. Come back with written history and then we can talk further.

--DPSingh 07:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from Personal Attacks. It is against Wikipedia's policy. I asked Shiv and I ask you, if I qoute a written historical document, will you accept it?

خرم Khurram 16:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Did you accept the historical documents already mentioned in the article and in this talk page? That said I would still like to see what you got. This will be the first time you will be providing some citations, if it happens. Remember, to refute Beck,Majumdar and Saran you better have something extra-ordinary otherwise it is just a smoke screen to push your POV. Shivraj Singh 19:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


U have done a good job in organizing the page. Shivraj Singh 19:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


I have accepted a large number of historical evidences presented in this page and my only point of conflict was not to make the article like a story book with including POV. Yes I know the work that I have objected on and I am not the only one who did object on the work of those writers. I greatly respect them and consider most of their work appreciable but I know that sometimes they tend to give false accounts about the incidents that happened in their time.

خرم Khurram 21:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

nobody wants a story. just history from written books.

Shivraj Singh 21:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah but we have story books about history too don't we? What I have been trying to say is that we shall give the facts not the judgements and I don't think that every move of a war and the reason for one's losing a battles or winning needs to be mentioned with a note by author.

خرم Khurram 21:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

If these other authors felt it necessary so do I.

Shivraj Singh 21:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

No one should be doing it. Just give the brief facts. Is it so hard to do?

خرم Khurram 21:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok write below this line how you want to incorporate sending of letter at Sammel and what happened at raisina. Also unlink GT road with Sher Shah. I am not against reaching a consensus but I cannot allow censorship. Shivraj Singh 21:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

For Sammel I think by mentioning the tribute that Sher Shah paid to his opponents in his own words is sufficient enough to describe the tough resistance that he faced. By saying that he almost lost his empire in that war, I think he made the greatest tribute possible to his adversaries and mentioning the other detail somehow, in my view, decreases the beauty of the affair.
For raisina, I need to research more and if I find that he indeed broke his promise, I myself will include it into the article. For now, however I would suggest that we simply mention that he captured the fort by agreeing to a pact with the ruler and we can mention that however a fight started while the Rajputs were evacuating the fort and hence the take over was not peaceful as it should have been according to the pact.
For GT Road, I know that Sher Shah did renovate and repair it so I think he deserves a mention. If possible, can you please phrase a sentence for it and we can move on, otherwise I am open to your suggestion.
خرم Khurram 21:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Rajputs won tributes for every war they fought. Sammel letter has to be mentioned. Till your research on raisina is complete we will keep it here. Fot GT road historical truth is that resthouses and drinking water places were created along the way. I have no problem with this.
Shivraj Singh 22:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok we can keep the Sammel letter but then I think we shall remove the words like "Treachery" and the comments that what would have been done if the Rajputs didn't get the letters etc. Also I don't understand what will we keep it regarding raisina? Are you agreeing to what I suggested or are you insisting that what you have put there shall be there? For GT road alongwith what you have agreed upon, can we also the words "and reconstructed the missing parts"?
خرم Khurram 22:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
The word treachery is mentioned like this:
In these letters it was stated that few generals from Maldeo's army were buying arms from Sher Shah's army. This caused great consternation in Maldeo who thought there is treachery and that some of his generals had crossed over to Sher Shah. Maldeo left with 20,000 men. In reality there was no treachery.
It appears only in context of rajputs i.e they thought somebody amongst themselves was treacherous but in reality no one was. As you said somewhere else this does show rajputs in bad light because they could not trust each other and I want this lack of trust to come out.
For raisina we keep what I have.
For GT road we can say he undertook repairs of GT road on a big scale and for travellers convenience constructed resthouses and drinking water places.
BTW if it is so simple now what was the reason for all this big argument?
Shivraj Singh 22:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

We are making progress[edit]

Your last question first, it was this simple my friend and I think the important thing is that we are going there and I am glad for that. Aren't you?

If I may then I would suggest the rephrasing as In these letters it was depicted as if few generals from Maldeo's army were buying arms from Sher Shah's army. This caused great consternation in Maldeo's camp who thought that some of his generals have crossed over to Sher Shah and left with 20,000 men. Later events proved that there was not crossing over by Maldeo's generals.

For raisina I agree that we keep what you have there but I would like to propose that we rephrase the words a little bit and once I complete my research then we can talk about it if I find things different. Do we agree?

For GT road, I agree with your wording.

Once again I am glad that we are moving ahead and I really appreciate it. Thank You.

خرم Khurram 22:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


It sys he ended taxes, but, it says he created the Customs Duties.. this is an apparent contradiction --Irishpunktom\talk 23:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say he ended all taxes, only those that "hindered progress of free trade." You might say Customs duties "hinder" free trade, but eqully you could say they clarified and simplified trade taxation, making it easier to conduct business. Paul B 15:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Detailed Article on Sher Shah Suri[edit]

Hello everyone,

I am going to write an extremely detailed article on Sher Shah Suri and this is my statement of intent. I am going to use the following books with citations

1. India since 1526 by Vidya Dhar Mahajan 2. Sher Shah Suri: A New Perspective by Basheer Ahmad Khan Matta 3. Rohtas: Formidable Fort of Sher Shah by Ihsan H. Nadiem

Since the article will be extremely detailed I intend to use skeletons at first.

I have seen the discussion on this page and i wanted to tell you people about it.

The other thing i could do is to start a parallel page and then people can decide which page they want.

Thank You. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omar mukhtar (talkcontribs) 19:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

WP:INDIA Banner/Delhi Addition[edit]

Note: {{WP India}} Project Banner with Delhi workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Delhi or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- Amartyabag TALK2ME 15:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


Colombia encyclopedia is not a scientific source as iranica, britania and islamica are. It´s knowledge is based on general lexicons.-- (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Says who? I see no reason why it should not be an acceptable source. Paul B (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
There are 5 reliable sources that say he was ethnic Afghan (Pashtun). I can get many more. What does "science" have to do with "history"? Iranica is filled with POVs of iranian or persian people, they only publish work that serves the interests of iranians or persians (persian speaking people). See here I tried to search for Sher Shah Suri or Suri Dynasty, with no luck. It means iranica is not interested in him or his dynasty because he was non-Persian. Iranica is not for everyone, it's only for persian speakers or iranians. The above 84XXXXXXX IP is a pro-iranian vandal trying to make stupid lame excuses for his vandalism.-- (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

iranicca has nothing to do with Iran or Persian but with Iranistic. Iranica is based in Washington and New York and is part of one of american and european organizations. Your Awghanmellati and sources are not reliable since they are claiming Ghaznavids and even Persians like Samanids as Afghans. BS

btw, the language of Suris wasn´t Pashto but Persian, Turkic (khalaji turkic, close to that of Azerbaijan) and arabic. So, if their languaeg was not afghani so how can they be ethnically Awghans?-- (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research. According to the rules of Wikipedia you need to show reliable sources for your claims. I've shown Columbia Encyclopedia and Afghan sources, there are also sources from India and Pakistan saying they were Afghans. Iranica is irrelevant to the topic here as there is no article on Sher Shah Suri or Suri Dynasty in Iranica. Ghaznavids were Afghans from Turkic background. There is no proof that Suri members spoke dirty persian language and who cares what language they spoke? Ethnic Afghans (Pashtuns) speak more than their native Pashto language. They also speak Urdu, Hindko, Hindi, Persian, English, Balochi, and others. -- (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Read Iranicca and Britanicca. Both are claiming them as Non-Pashtun speaker. Also their Persian writers like Nehmatullah Herawi who was original from Herat and through Khaljis dynasty he was the biog. writer of the rulers. For example when he wrote a book (of course in Persian language) about the origine of Afghans he never claimed Suris or Khaljis as part of Afghans. Because both were of Non-Pashtun origines that became mixed with native indian people and later over 350 years they created a coalation with different tribes who had likethemself different origines (Turks, Arabs, Mongols ect.) and that was the birth of Pashtuns since the term Pashtun was used the first time in the 15 century and a common language became developed up to the 16 century. So Suris were not Afghans, but Turks. Read the sources.-- (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed "pashtun" again from the article, as nobody has provided a reliable source for him being pashtun. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I have provided the references for the Pashtun descent. Hope this ends the dispute guys.--~Raja~ (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much :) That was the most correct action, searching sources for pashtun origin. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Afghan removal[edit]

Oh, great, and now "Afghan" is being removed again, and all instances of Afghan replaced by "pashtun". I have restored it, and added another source. Google books gives plenty of references to him being Afghan [1] (104 hits) and so does google books [2] (633 hits). A search on google scholar for his name plus several variations of "pashtun" gives 39 hits[3], with only 9 not containing also the word "afghan" [4], so don't remove the word again with no explanation, and prepare some good reasons for why the article shouldn't use "afghan" for him --Enric Naval (talk) 04:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


How can Sher Shah be born in India and be an Afghan of Pashtun desent. If one is born in a nation then he or she belongs to that nation (India). He ruled in India, from India and died in India not in Afghanistan. It is true he is of Pashtun/ Afghan desent but that does not make him afghan. He is the emperor of North India!!(Dewan S. Ahsan 13:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)) I am born in America but I am of Bengali Indian desent. I never spent much time in India but should history say I am a Indian of Bengali desent or an American of bengali Indian desent. I for one consider myself an American of Bengali Indian desent so I believe that that should be placed. Sher Shah is an Indian (born and died in India) of Afghan/ Pashtun desent! (Dewan S. Ahsan 13:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC))

There was no such nation as "India" with clearly defined borders. These are vague designations at the time. Buth the important thing is that we use what sources say. Paul B (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
There is no such people as Afghan until the 18th century. There was only pashtun. What do you mean there was no such thing as India the land and geography was always India. Afghans are pashtuns and pashtuns call themselves Afghan! ( (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC))
No, "Afghan" is the Persian name for Pashtuns. These words, like "Indian", itself are fuzzy ethnic designations. There are no absolute laws about how they should be used. However Wikipedia does have the absolute law that we follow what sources say, not petty nationalist rivalries. Paul B (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
As Paul says, at wikipedia we must follow sources. People saying that he is indian should show reliable sources stating that he is indian. Also, please read Origins of the name Afghan --Enric Naval (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Shivraj, thanks for completely screwing this entry up![edit]

You guys have totally trashed what was a very good and informative Wikipedia entry on this famous character of Indian history.

Sher Shah is credited with the Grand Trunk Road which had not been used on that scale for hundreds of years. Who cares if the Mauryas built a road on that path 2000 years before?! That's like saying the Americans didn't have anything to do with the Pony Express because Native Americans were riding horses for messaging on that route hundreds of years before.

I'm so sick of this ultra-Hindu nationalist redaction of Indian history. There's not even any mention of Sher Shah's contribution to modern Indian economics in that he CREATED the Rupee! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Killed a tiger with bare hands?[edit]

Is it true that he killed a tiger with his bare hands? I check both the references (1 and 8) mentioned in the article - none of them mention about this. Mayankeagle (talk) 13:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Pakhtuns were called Afgan by persians.Afgan means lion or that one who tears his prey.But when the term afgan was carried to Arabic it was pronounced as Afghan.
If Shershah even didnt kill a lion he was as brave as as a lion therefore he was titled as SHERKHAN.
As regards the contoversy, created by those who are hateful, regarding the building of great trunk roads,I would just say that if was not built by Sherkhan,the Mughal rulers would have claimed being built by them because they were the enemies of Pakhtuns and tried their best to defame Pakhtuns in their own written history.The history writers of Mughal courts like Farishta and Abul fazal wrote many bad things about Pakhtuns which were dictated to them by Mughal kings.It was so because Pakhtuns were their rivals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The name 'Shershah' has been mentioned as "(The Lion King)" in the beginning of the article . This may need correction. I have no citations but it is commonly believed legend that he killed a full grown tiger . Bare hands or with sword , dagger,spear is not that important, It was after this incident that he became "Shershah" . Strictly speaking Tiger is Bagh in Hindi and Lion as Babbarsher . However The word "sher " is very commonly used for lions as well as tigers. Asiatic Lions are found only in Gir Forest of Gujrat state . Where as Tiger population was spread through out India . It was not a Lion (sher) which was killed by Shershah but a tiger(sher) So the name should accurately be "The Tiger King" and 'not' "The Lion King" .Pmvelankar (talk) 07:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I checked the Britannica encyclopedia. His personal entry doesn't mention the tiger, but the Sûr Dynasty entry says "The shah’s personal name was Farīd; the title of Shēr (“Tiger”) was conferred when, as a young man, he killed a tiger." I am going to correct the lead of the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Biography Tag Explained[edit]

I looked him up to learn more about his rise to power, but those details are entirely lacking in this article; it just mentions he went from private to emperor. I'm sure that's leaving out lots of information that this article should cover. Furthermore, it confused me because it's not clear if he ruled the Mughal Empire or not. It certainly seems he ruled his own empire and had a profound effect on the Mughals, but did he actually rule the Mughals for a time? RemiCogan (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Moved details of Grand Trunk Road section[edit]

Recent research indicates that during the time of the Maurya empire in the 3rd century BC, overland trade between India and several parts of western Asia and the Hellenic world went through the cities of the north-west, primarily Taxila (located in present day Pakistan)(see inset in map). Taxila was well connected by roads with other parts of the Maurya empire. The Mauryas had built a highway from Taxila to Pataliputra (present-day Patna in Bihar, India). Great Chandragupta Maurya had a whole army of officials overseeing the maintenance of this road as told by the Greek diplomat Megasthenes who spent fifteen years at the Mauryan court.

In the 16th century, a major road running across the Gangetic plain was built afresh by Pashtun emperor Sher Shah Suri, who then ruled much of northern India. His intention was to link together the remote provinces of his vast empire for administrative and military reasons. The Sadak-e-Azam ("great road") as it was then known, is universally recognized as the precursor of the Grand Trunk Road.

Evolution of Indian road network. The main map shows the routes since the Mughal times, Inset A shows the major cultural currents of the prehistorical period, B shows pre-Mauryan Indian routes, C shows the Mauryan network, D shows the trade routes at the beginning of the Christian era, and E shows the Indian "Z".

The Grand Trunk Road continues to be one of the major arteries of India and Pakistan. For over four centuries, the Grand Trunk Road has remained "such a river of life as nowhere else exists in the world".[1]

The road was well planned, with milestones along the whole stretch. Some of these milestones can still be seen along the present Delhi-Ambala highway. On another note, the road also facilitated the rapid movement of troops and of foreign invaders. It expedited the looting raids, into India's interior regions, of Afghan and Persian invaders and also facilitated the movement of British troops from Bengal into the north Indian plain. The Indian section is part of the ambitious Golden Quadrilateral project.

altaf 06:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ A description of the road by Kipling, found both in his letters and in the novel "Kim". He writes: "Look! Brahmins and chumars, bankers and tinkers, barbers and bunnias, pilgrims -and potters – all the world going and coming. It is to me as a river from which I am withdrawn like a log after a flood. And truly the Grand Trunk Road is a wonderful spectacle. It runs straight, bearing without crowding India's traffic for fifteen hundred miles – such a river of life as nowhere else exists in the world."