Talk:Battle of Jamrud

Untitled

I have made revisions in the article as follows:

Introduction

Deleted 'more painfully' - not encylopaedic and not necessary

The Battle

Changed 'campain' to 'campaign'

Deleted 'for the supplies' - not necessary

Changed 'afghan' to 'Afghan'

Changed 'decission' to 'decision'

Deleted 'and stoped there feet for ever' - wrong spelling, not encylopaedic and not necessary

RASAM (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Afghan victory

The Afghans declared victory after killing top commander Hari Singh Nalwa who was making threats of invading what is now Afghanistan. This is well documented. Leaving the scene of the action doesn't mean they got defeated. They had a chance to finish off all the Sikhs but ran outta ammo and supplies, and were busy fighting with the Persians in the western Afghan city of Herat and with internal fighting between each other. Their objective was to kill Hari Nalwa Singh which was accomplished.

The above is incorrect.

Hari Singh Nalwa had captured Jamrud in late 1836. He had commenced the construction of a very strong fort at this place. Maharaja Ranjit Singh's grandson was getting married at Amritsar in March 1837. Dost Mohammad Khan knew this because he had been invited to the celebration. As far as the Afghans were concerned, Hari Singh Nalwa was away to attend the wedding at Amritsar and only a skeletal force of the Sikhs was present along the north west frontier. Most of the troops were assembled in Amritsar. Had the Afghans known of Hari Singh's presence in Peshawar, they would never have come down the mountains. The main objective of the Afghans was to push the Sikhs back across the Indus. They came to take Jamrud and their (lost) winter capital of Peshawar. They achieved NONE of their stated objectives. Akbar Khan was facilitated by his father Dost Mohammad Khan because he had come back alive (being the son of the favourite wife)...it had NOTHING to do with the death of Hari Singh Nalwa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runjeet (talk • contribs) 08:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Afghans Official victory

Their is no doubt that the Afghans had a chance to finish off all the Sikhs but ran outta ammo and supplies, and were busy fighting with the Persians in the western Afghan city of Herat and with internal fighting between each other. Their objective was to kill Hari Nalwa Singh which was accomplished.--(talk/ Shahzadapashtun) 09:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see more sources for this battle. The death of Hari Singh would have been seen as an achievement, though raising the siege of the fort could be construed as a defeat. More sources should shed some light on this. --Defensor Ursa 03:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

There have s been a lot of changes made here with no discussion, apart from the cursory two entries above. Diffs such as this one really need discussing here (and that was not, by the way, reverting vandalism...) I'm not picking on that particular editor - everyone who has made large, frequent and undiscussed changes here shares the blame. Please start discussing things here and not via your edit summaries! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runjeet (talk • contribs) 08:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Jamrud

Hi, I think first we should discuss this matter in civil manner in order to solve this issue rather than reverting each other's edits. There is always chance of difference in opinions. Many Historians contradict with each other. This issue can be solved as per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and most important WP:DUE. We should discuss whether Sikh victory or Afghan victory is a majority viewpoint or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theman244 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Thanks Theman244 (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. There appears to be no progress in this discussion even months later, and frankly, a basic application of WP standards wrt to military history can easily give resolution to this issue. The standard approach to victory/defeat is whether military objectives were accomplished. The idea that the Afghans fought a war just to kill Hari Singh Nalwa is ridiculous and runs counter to the article itself. The Afghan possessions in India had been conquered by the Sikhs. Peshawar was the most significant loss. Jamrud's value was that it controlled the passage into India and was strategically necessary in order for Afghans to reclaim Peshawar or other Indian territories. The Afghans failed to take Jamrud fort. While the death of Hari Singh Nalwa was clearly a significant loss to the Sikhs, Jamrud was at very best a Pyrrhic Sikh victory given that it was dearly bought and certainly not a Sikh defeat. This would be like saying Trafalgar was a French victory because Nelson (another brilliant military commander) was killed in action. Any NPOV moderator should see this. Out of respect to other participants, I will wait a few days before changing the article. This should be a very easy debate to resolve.

Devanampriya (talk) 09:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

According to some University sources;

• James A. Norris, First Afghan War: 1838-42, Cambridge University Press, p109;"At the battle of Jamrud neither side could honestly claim a victory, but the Sikhs suffered severely at the hands of the Afghan horsemen, and they lost one of their king's favorite generals, Hari Singh.[1]
• Zalmay Ahmad Gulzad, The history of the delimitation of the Durand Line development of the Afghan State (1838-1898), University of Wisconsin--Madison, p62;"1837 they fought a pitched battle at Jamrud in which the Afghan forces were victorious.[2]
• Proceedings, Punjabi University, p129;"A pitched battle was fought at Jamrud, in which Hari Singh Nalwa was killed, but the Afghans failed to dislodge the Sikhs from Jamrud..."
• Khushwant Singh, A History of the Sikhs: 1469-1838, Oxford University Press, p227;"For the Afghans the killing of Hari Singh Nalwa turned the defeat at Jamrud into a victory. Much as Dost Mohammed tried to claim the battle of Jamrud as an Afghan victory (he heaped public honours upon his son) , nothing could stop the ...."????

Gulzad states Afghan victory, while Singh states Afghan victory with some sort of mitigating factor. The Punjabi source seem to indicate a stalemate with the Afghans failing to take Jamrud, but the Sikhs losing a general. Norris pretty much spells out a stalemate(..neither side could honestly claim a victory..).

Other source(s);

• Jeffery J. Roberts, The Origins of Conflict in Afghanistan, p4;"In 1837 Dost's son, Akbar Khan, led an Afghan army to victory at Jamrud. Akbar, however, did not followup his success with an advance to Peshawar, and the city remained in Sikh hands."[3]
• Bikrama Jit Hasrat,Life and times of Ranjit Singh, p137;"The doubtful Sikh victory at Jamrud in 1837 had made it clear to Ranjit Singh that policy of hatred and repression in the northwestern frontier so far pursued had failed in its objective."

I tentatively propose placing Afghan victory(with the Gulzad, Adamec and Roberts sources), Sikh victory(with Docherty and Hasrat sources) and Stalemate(with the Norris source). The Punjabi and Singh sources, since both were snippet views, fail(IMO) to clearly express the result of the battle. Anymore sources that pass Wikipedia:Reliable Sources can be used to add to either Afghan victory, Sikh victory or Stalemate. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Kansas Bear,

Thank you for your post and diligent listing of viewpoints. The problem here is that we have the inevitable battle of sources. Parties to the dispute are naturally going to proclaim theirs as authoritative. In such a situation, it becomes necessary to independently review the military objectives and assess the success in attaining the objective. In this case, the immediate military objective of the Afghans was to retake Jamrud fort. They failed to retake it. On its face, this was a Sikh victory for the simple fact that they retained control of the strategic fort that guarded the khyber pass. This prevented Afghans from retaking their former Indian territories and secured India's northwestern gateway for the first time in 800 years.

I understand that a number of commentators, especially here, have remarked that the Hari Singh's death was a great loss to the Sikhs. This is true--he was a great warrior general. However, the Sikh military machine remained cohesive and capable, and the numerical casualties to the Sikhs were not at all disproportionate given the manpower they commanded. Ranjit Singh's rule remained unaffected. While it is fair to say the victory at Jamrud was dearly purchased, which it was, it's quite another to say this alone makes it a loss. The immediate tactical consequence is a Sikh victory, and the immediate strategic consequence was that Ranjit Singh retained control of the Khyber.

Therefore, I appreciate your polite proposals, however, they don't appear to corroborate the basic facts on the ground. Providing multiple results from multiple sources will only prove to be detrimental to other wikipedia milhist articles. Such strategic relativism would be detrimental to making WP an accurate source of information on military history, since everyone will be encouraged to say their perspective is reality--failing to provide the third party with an accurate account. Victory is when one's objectives are attained, defeat when one's objectives are not attained, stalemate when neither side can effect a decisive tactical outcome. Here the Sikhs retained uncontested control of Jamrud fort as well as strategic control of the khyber.

Perhaps as a compromise, you can contribute an enlarge section on the overall extended consequences of the battle in the article itself--particularly how apparent Sikh invasion plans of Afghanistan were set aside. This is one way for us to circumvent edit wars over the battle legend. Let me know what you think. Thanks.

Regards,

Devanampriya (talk) 07:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I prefer to avoid original research at all costs(ie. interpreting the result instead of using what the sources state). I listed 4 university sources(I am sure there are more), of which the Universities of Oxford and Wisconsin-Madison indicate that an "Afghan victory" is by no means a "fringe view". I do not believe Sikh victory should be excluded from the template, either. We are not here to decide what the result of the battle was, we are here to report what secondary sources say about the battle. We should give the reader all the information regarding the battle and let the reader decide. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I see your point Kansas Bear, only here's the distinction: Original research generally involves interpretation of primary sources, which we are not doing here. Further, it becomes a factor when sources (whether primary or secondary) are used to state something that they do not imply--neither of us are doing that here. So it's not original research. Looking at NPOV, our only recourse given the battle of sources is to work for WP: balance. As such, we then have to compare what secondary sources say about the event--and why they say it. With respect to the battle legend, the basic fact about the battle (vs a war) is whether or not the military objective was accomplished. This becomes all the more important when the objective is a strategic fort, where the ultimate possession of the real estate has real strategic consequences--in this case, it's clear cut and uncontested. Perhaps the fair compromise would be to expand the aftermath section. This would give you an opportunity to call out the sources that characterize it as an afghan victory or a pyrrhic sikh victory. What do you think?

Devanampriya (talk) 11:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Some more sources

Sikh Victory

• Paddy Docherty, The Khyber Pass, Page 186-87,Eventually- despite the death of Hari Singh during this fighting-the Afghan forces withdrew and the Khyber Pass was finally in Sikh hands. the Sikhs has secured their kingdom[4]

• Dr. H.S. Singha, Sikh Studies, Book 6, Pg61,He lost his life but not the battle[5] Thanks Theman244 (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Kansas Bear has asked me to comment on this article. I've fully protected the article for a week to allow for dispute resolution. The standard ways of dealing with situations in which different reliable sources provide different interpretations of the results of a battle are 1) to include the differing views in the infobox or 2) leave the results field of the infobox blank and explain the differing views in the article. I tend to prefer option 2, but there's no set solution and option 1 is also fine. Adding one view only obviously isn't in line with WP:NPOV, and editors should not be seeking to add material which doesn't reflect differing views. As a reminder, this article falls under the general sanctions on articles relating to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan (please see Wikipedia:General sanctions) and any further POV-pushing or edit warring will lead to blocks. Nick-D (talk) 04:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

As per my inquiry on Milhist  ;

• Why not a compromise based on the text? As in: "Result: Defined western boundary of Sikh Empire." Boneyard90 (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

  That is a possibility, or another option might be list something generic in the infobox. For instance "result=See Aftermath" (or whatever section in the prose is being used to discuss the results). You could then use a number of paragraphs in that section to discuss the varied scholarly interpretations of the result, adding equal weight to all reliable sources. Another option might be "result=Disputed" and then, as above, discuss all the varied interpretations in the prose. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

  In an ideal world the infobox entry would be obvious based on the outcome/aftermath section, which itself should be summarised in the lede. But reliable sources do not always state the outcome simply and a lot of editor time can be taken up in trying to work out the a suitable statement. Omitting it from the infobox does not necessarily detract from the article.GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

  I agree with AR and Graeme. For an example and the syntax have a look at Operation Trio. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  

I believe that AustralianRupert's idea, "You could then use a number of paragraphs in that section to discuss the varied scholarly interpretations of the result, adding equal weight to all reliable sources. Another option might be "result=Disputed" and then, as above, discuss all the varied interpretations in the prose.", has merit. Perhaps instead of "result=Disputed" to
"result=Afghan victory(sources)

Sikh victory(sources)

Indecisive(sources)"

Including a section that discusses the various scholarly interpretations. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• I disagree with the idea that Battle of Jamrud Defined western boundary of Sikh Empire because there was no territorial change in the western boundary of the Sikh Empire after battle. Thanks Theman244 (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I also disagree. The military objective of capturing Jamrud fort was very clear, and the Afghans failed to take it (or any other Sikh territory), and they retreated. As I said above, perpetuating this notion that the Afghans could reasonably have said to have won because Hari Singh died in battle would be like saying the French won Trafalgar because a brilliant commander like Nelson also died. We have pretty clear results for battles like Panipat III, which the afghans clearly won. It's clear the Sikhs won here based on their continued possession of the fort they were defending.

The framework of using military objectives is the most npov friendly, because it prevents wishy washy accounts by writers mentioning it in passing reference, from skewing the article. The simple question is, what was the military objective here?

Devanampriya (talk) 04:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, "Sikh Victory" should be removed from infobox. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 09:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Really?

Some more reliable sources

• Tony Jaques, Dictionary of Battles and Sieges, pg485;"Attempting to recover Peshawar, Dost Muhammad Khan of Kabul sent his son Muhammad Akbar Khan, who was defeated outside Jamrud."[6] Thanks Theman244 (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Off course, really. For example, according to Ludwig W. Adamec's Historical Dictionary of Afghanistan, He defeated the Sikhs at the Battle of Jamrud (1837) and assumed the title “Commander of the Faithful” (Amir-ul-Mu'minin). Articles of wikipedia should be written neutrally. I recommend you to read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view again. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• To, Takabeg

I also recommend you to follow this discussion from the start and check who started this discussion n what i suggested in the beginning before telling me about Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and one more thing, for your kind information that i never edited this article till date. Thanks Theman244 (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Gentlemen,

I know history can be a heated subject, but if possible, let us all avoid personal recriminations and focus on the subject matter. I will do the same.

Takabeg, welcome to the discussion. Regarding, NPOV, yes, I am aware of what it requires, but if you take a closer look at it, you'll see that in the event that there is a battle of sources, we have to fall back on WP: Good Reseach. This means we do not have to give undue weight to passing opinions and editorialization. As such, we not only have to look at quality of secondary sources (for example a dictionary of battles and sieges is specifically focused on military history, compared to say a general biography of a country), but the length and detail of the account as well. The Docherty book does not merely refer to jamrud in passing mention, but gives an extended account of it.

Finally, I noticed that there have yet to be any responses (even by the individuals canvassed to comment) to my point about how all this can be answered with the simple question, what was the military objective?

This is very important as we have seen a number of milhist articles subject to revisionist history that over-expand the analytical framework to well beyond the immediate tactical and strategic objectives to explain why victories were actually defeats. We even see that here, where the article needlessly discusses the eventual british dissolution of the Sikh empire. While no one argues with this fact, it took place many years later, and had nothing to do with the Battle of Jamrud. Hari Singh Nalwa was one of many capable generals in the Sikh Army--this extrapolation of Jamrud to the british empire is nonsensical, particularly if used to somehow lend weight to the argument of Afghan victory.

As part of this concern, is the fear that this can open a pandora's box of revisionist history and edit wars on settled wiki articles--which I would like to avoid. That is why I advocate the objective approach.

Let us not forget that Nelson died at Trafalgar, but no one in their right mind would ever suggest this was a french victory. As such, one must look directly at the arguments provided for and against the assertion that this was a Sikh victory--this will help us frame the discussion logically rather than talk at each other with a blizzard of sources. I will provide the reasons for--can Kansas Bear or Takabeg summarize the reasons against?

Reasons for Sikh Victory Primary: 1. Successful defense and retention of Jamrud fort by Sikhs

Supporting: 2. Significantly fewer Sikh casualties 3. Continued Sikh control of the strategic khyber pass and protection of Indian territories. 4. Afghans raids and attacks on India halted

Reasons against?

Thank you for your cooperation.

Also, could the admin in charge extend the page protect to avoid edit wars--since we have been able to get the parties to engage in discussion? Thanks.

Devanampriya (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not planning on extending the protection preemptively - hopefully everyone is sensible enough to not edit war. If there is any further edit warring I will block the responsible editors. Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Devanampriya's statements of "passing opinions and editorialization" of university sources, continued attempts to compare this battle to Nelson's death at Trafalgar(original research) and demanding that other editors answer his questions to interpret what happened during the battle, are indicative of an editor that has decided what the article will and will not say. University sources indicate that Indecisive/Afghan victory/Sikh victory are not fringe views and that all should be included in the template. Nothing Devanampriya has brought to this discussion removes this fact(Indecisive, Afghan victory and Sikh victory). I am very sure that any attempt to add "Indecisive, Afghan victory, Sikh victory" will promptly be removed by him or "others". Therefore, judging from his reluctance to recognize and accept university sources, there is nothing to discuss. It is not possible to have a discussion with an editor that refuses to get the point. Published university sources are not a "suggestion" box to pick and choose what sources you want and what sources you will mitigate, minimize or blatantly ignore. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd propose leaving out all forms of victory or defeat and just describe the facts. It seems the battle lines and significant deaths would be all that is needed. Afghanistan and Sikhs both continue to exist without conditions proscribed by the other so declaration of a "victor" is somewhat meaningless and arbitrary. --DHeyward (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that Kansas Bear has decided to take a decidedly more confrontational tone in this discussion rather than answer the very simple questions I asked above. I have been waiting for weeks for a response, and instead, he seems set upon labeling my comments as "editorialization" and "passing opinion", when they are very logical questions that those acquainted with milhit would ask. It is also a bit disingenuous for him to classify me as someone who has made up his mind, when it's been clear from the beginning that he's been motivated on reducing the very clear military implications of this battle--presumably due to some afghan nationalist bent. If this is not the case, why has he--and the other commenters he wp:canvassed--resisted answering these very reasonable questions asked in good faith? Should this not be the first step before seeking dispute resolution?

I understand now that there has been a dispute resolution request opened. I will proceed to make a statement there. However, I would like to point out to the concerned admins, that, as apparent from this talk page, I asked good faith questions regarding military results that went unanswered by the disputants--presumably due to the adverse implications to their desire to minimize the result of this battle.

I would also like to point out that that WP:NPOV also means WP:GOOD RESEARCH, necessitating differentiation in assigning weight to sources based on purpose: i.e. serious military history vs. passing mention in non-milhist books. That is the basis for my position, not original research as kansas bear disingenuously writes above. The talk page record here should be apparent to all disinterested third parties. Rather than prematurely label me and this effort as a deadhorse or wp:ownership in a ridiculous manner, would he not have been better off at least attempting to answer my questions first in the interest of discussion, which I restarted in good faith? Did he refuse to answer them because they would have brought forth the academic weakness of his position? Please take this into account.

There are very clear military implications from this battle, and I am more than happy to shift this discussion to the dispute resolution noticeboard. I only ask that the admins take note that this process was commenced prematurely, without answering very reasonable questions asked in good faith. Thank you.

Devanampriya (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed that Devanampriya is an extreme pro-Sikh POV-pusher here. Anyway, I changed the result of the battle to this and I hope it is accepted by all parties: "Afghans defeat the Sikhs but fail to take Jamrud Fort. [7] [8] [9]

“ In 1834 Dost Mohammad defeated an invasion by the former ruler, Shah Shuja, but his absence from Kabul gave the Sikhs the opportunity to expand westward. Ranjit Singh's forces occupied Peshawar, moving from there into territory ruled directly by Kabul. In 1836 Dost Mohammad's forces, under the command of his son Akbar Khan, defeated the Sikhs at Jamrud, a post fifteen kilometers west of Peshawar. The Afghan leader did not follow up this triumph by retaking Peshawar, however, but instead contacted Lord Auckland, the new British governor general in India, for help in dealing with the Sikhs. With this letter, Dost Mohammad formally set the stage for British intervention in Afghanistan. At the heart of the Great Game lay the willingness of Britain and Russia to subdue, subvert, or subjugate the small independent states that lay between them. ”

When all the major sources say that the Afghans defeated the Sikhs at Jamrud, then why do you change this to Sikh victory? I don't get it, what's going on here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.124.43 (talk) 11:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

IP, not sure if you are Takabeg--who was absent from the recent dispute resolution--but as you can see here, the majority of the sources actually favor sikh victory--as was listed on the dispute resolution. Of the sources you included was actually one (the Paddy Docherty book) that favored Sikh victory--so please review your sources again.

Also, you keep citing Hari Singh's death as the reason this was a putative afghan victory, but Admiral Nelson died at the battle of trafalgar even though everybody knows his side (the british) won that battle. Death of commanders don't determine whether or not a battle is a victory. It's whether the military objective was accomplished. In this case, the Afghan military objectives were to take Jamrud fort as the springboard to retaking peshawar (their winter capital)--neither of these objectives were met. The Afghans were actually pushed back from the fort and they retreated back to their territory.

Finally, as was discussed on the dispute resolution panel, this dispute is en route to being reviewed by the reliable sources noticeboard. Please do not attack individual users to push your specific point of view. Thank you.Devanampriya (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

You're wrong, and I think you're the multi-name-abuser Shahdaan Khan (talk · contribs). When major academic Western sources write that the Afghans defeated the Sikhs in Jamrud then Wikipedia must present the same or similar result. Your action in this article constitutes vandalism because you're deliberately removing and falsifying sourced information that you reject or hate to see. Your name suggests that you're Sikh, and your opinions suggest that you're not only a POV-warrior but also an ultra-nationalist Sikh.--182.177.79.242 (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

IP, clearly you don't understand vandalism (I've provided 4 supporting sources) and you clearly don't know who "devanampriya" was. Neither he nor I are Sikh. Second, you're an IP poster whom the admin on this page himself accused of being one of the afghan commenters posting as an IP in bad faith--and blocked you on that count (You are likely takabeg or andy the grump). This page has been protected as the afghan commenters themselves took this to dispute resolution and now to reliable sources. Please do not edit war--you are now in danger of violating the 3RR.

In addition, you ignore the fact I pointed out above that your own "major western source" aka "The Khyber Pass" by Paddy Docherty (your source number 8 in your 1st comment) actually wrote supporting Sikh victory rather than Afghan victory, see p. 186: Docherty. So why are you trying to pass this off as supporting your position?

We actually find that the majority of the sources in fact favor Sikh victory and have provided sufficient evidence for their positions. You yourself have conceded (with your edit) that the Afghans failed to take the fort. The battle was over the fort and using it as a springboard to Peshawar (their former winter capital)--the afghans failed to do either one. So how can it be an afghan victory? If you (or your "sources") have an explanation, please provide it so I can respond. If you don't have an explanation then it's clear this is an exercise is emotional pro-afghan pov-pushing. We must deal with facts and logic not emotion. Merely saying "you're wrong" without providing supporting evidence (contradictory evidence in your case) will not lead to productive discussion. Please stop reverting and discuss in good faith. I also recommend that you become a registered user (assuming you are in fact not takabeg, et al). Thank you. Devanampriya (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Random break

Re IP 182, Devanampriya is obviously not a sock. Please refrain from such accusations. Devanampriya please refrain from suggestions that ATG is editwarring using an IP, ATG is in the UK. I have looked into this issue and found a great many sources which say this was an Afghan victory. I will now look at the sources presented by Devanampriya. BTW it takes two to edit war, keep it up and both of you will be reported for it. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, if you look at the history of the dispute, this discussion was prematurely ended by the other parties. They even refused to answer logical questions about the basis for their position. In addition

1. According to William Dalrymple (historian) "He first came to notice when he helped defeat the Sikh general Hari Singh at the Battle of Jamrud in 1837 and according to some sources personally killed and decapitated the Sikh leader." Return of a King: The Battle for Afghanistan
2. The A to Z of Afghan Wars, Revolutions and Insurgencies says "He defeated the Sikhs at the Battle of Jamrud (1837)"
3. Conflict in Afghanistan: A Historical Encyclopedia says "He also defeated the Sikhs at the Battle of Jamrud in 1837"

Would Devanampriya post his sources below, the talk page is all over the place and it would be easier to try and get everything in one spot. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, here are the sources:

Extended Account of Battle

Result: Sikh Victory

• Paddy Docherty, The Khyber Pass, Page 186-87, 1st edition Year: 2007

Extended discussion of battle, with background, phase by phase recounting of battle, as well as the end result with implications. This is by far the most detailed account of the battle we have available, and spans over two pages (in comparison to a mere sentence or two in the sources provided by opposing party). It is also the most recent 1st edition of source we have available.(Source)

• Tony Jaques, Dictionary of Battles and Sieges, P.485, Year: 2007,

Entire paragraph on the battle with entry specifically focused on the battle of Jamrud. Clearly states that Akbar was defeated outside Jamrud, raised the siege, and withdrew, with Sikhs keeping fort. This is also specifically a military history book, focused on battles, sieges, and their outcomes.(Source)

• By Dr. H.S. Singha, Sikh Studies, Book 6,P.61, Year: 2005

Several paragraphs on the battle. Gives the order of battle and specifies the Sikh possession of the fort and the circumstances of Hari Singh's passing (like Nelson, was mortally wounded, not killed on the field). (Source)

Passing mention of Battle:

Result: Sikh Victory

• Khushwant Singh, A History of the Sikhs: 1469-1838, Oxford University Press, p227;Year: 2004.

"For the Afghans the killing of Hari Singh Nalwa turned the defeat at Jamrud into a victory. Much as Dost Mohammed tried to claim the battle of Jamrud as an Afghan victory (he heaped public honours upon his son) , nothing could stop the ...."????(Source)

You'll notice the fact that 3 of these sources provide extended accounts of the battle vs. passing mentions. Sidenote, William Dalrymple also favorably reviewed the Paddy Docherty book which, in contradiction to him above, actually supports Sikh victory.

Devanampriya (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The Khyber Pass: a History of Empire & Invasion does not say anyone won, it actually points to a stalemate.

Dictionary of Battles and Sieges: F-O this source also suggests a stalemate.

I do not think Sikh Studies is WP:RS

Your final source A History of the Sikhs: 1469-1838 says "For the Afghans the killing of Hari Singh turned the defeat at Jamrud into a victory" Which again would suggest stalemate to me as both sides are claiming victory there. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

To DarknessShines

• The Khyber Pass: a History of Empire & Invasion does not say anyone won, it actually points to a stalemate."

This is incorrect, here is the literal text from The Khyber Pass: "eventually, the Afghan army began to lose ground and the Sikhs gained the advantage. Forced to raise the siege the Afghans retreated the short distance into the Khyber. Once inside the Pass, the natural defensive excellence of the rocky cliffs provided refuge and respite for the retreating army, and hard fighting followed: for some time both the Sikhs and Afghan forces were static, none making headway amidst such terrain. Eventually--despite the death of Hari Singh during this fighting--the Afghan forces withdrew and the Khyber Pass was finally in Sikh hands". P.186-187.

Clearly states that the Afghans were not only retreated from the fort, but retreated at the pass, leaving not only jamrud fort, but the khyber pass itself to the Sikhs. No indication whatsoever of stalemate.

• "I do not think Sikh Studies is WP:RS"

Based on what? Please explain.

• "Your final source A History of the Sikhs: 1469-1838 says "For the Afghans the killing of Hari Singh turned the defeat at Jamrud into a victory" Which again would suggest stalemate to me as both sides are claiming victory there."

This is incorrect, since the same source also says this: "Much as Dost Mohammed tried to claim the battle of Jamrud as an Afghan victory (he heaped public honours upon his son) , nothing could stop the...". Author states that jamrud was a defeat for the Afghans, only the afghans attempted to claim victory merely because Hari Singh died, not because the battle objectives were actually met. That's why he wrote that "Dost Mohammed tried to claim the battle...as an Afghan victory". In contrast, Singh himself states unequivocally it was a defeat for the Afghans.

• You also did not accurately portray the Dictionary of Battles and Sieges: F-O which clearly states that the Afghans were defeated and withdrew. Here is the literal text:

"Following the Sikh annexation of Peshawar in 1834, General Hari Singh built a strong fortress at the mouth of the Khyber Pass at Jamrud. Attempting to recover Peshawar, Dost Mohammed of Kabul sent his son Muhammed Akbar Khan, who was defeated outside Jamrud. Though Hari Singh was killed, the Sikh garrison held out and Akbar raised the siege and withdrew (April 30 1837)." P.485.

Again, clearly states the Afghans were defeated. How can you read stalemate from this?

Also, could you please provide links and page numbers for the sources you provided so that I may also review them? Thank you.

Regards,

Devanampriya (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Article protected for a month

Seeing as the edit warring has started up again, I've just protected the article for a month. Please make use of the dispute resolution process to reach agreement on what text to include. I was strongly tempted to just block the two editors who reverted, but am giving them the benefit of the doubt. Nick-D (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Nick-D, I think the dispute resolution is not needed. It is perfectly understood in the West that the Afghans defeated the invading Sikhs in this battle but failed to completely finish off the Sikhs or take the fort where the Sikhs were all hiding. Sikh nationalists may not agree with this but Wikipedia should avoid putting Sikh victory in this article.--182.177.79.242 (talk) 13:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

No, your own "western source" contradicts your position of afghan victory writing instead that the sikhs won the battle. Also, did you read any of the sources?--they are all in agreement that it was the afghans who invaded sikh controlled territory, not the other way around. That is why the sikhs were defenders at jamrud. That is what the battle was about. The afghans failed to take the fort, that's why our sources argue that the sikhs won the battle. Devanampriya (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Theman244 (talk · contribs) has kindly pointed out that somehow I failed to protect the page when I thought I had... It's now fully protected for a month. Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Jamrud- Sikh Victory

Hi everyone,

More Reliable Sources

• Great Powers and Little Wars: The Limits of Power, By A. Hamish Ion and Elizabeth Jane Errington, Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data, Pg44, "The second was Peshawar, which controlled the entry to the Khyber Pass and had been seized in 1834 by Ranjit Singh from Dost Mohammed, Who tried in 1837 to get it back but lost his chance at the Battle of Jamrud.

• Ranjit Singh, by Khushwant Singh, First published by George Allen and edited by Khushwant Singh, pg228, He ordered his officers to keep his death a secret until the troops had driven the Afghans beyond the Khyber Pass. This the Punjabis did with great vigour. Although the Afghans had to give up their plan to recapture Peshawar and Shabkadar and had been forced to retreat ignominiously.... Thanks Theman244 (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

New

Sir please rewrite the article. Sources clearly state that it was a Sikh victory... 1.^ Paddy Docherty (2007). The Khyber Pass: A History of Empire and Invasion. Faber and Faber. pp. 186–187. ISBN 978-1-4027-5696-2. Retrieved 16 August 2013.

2.^ Maharaja Ranjit Singh: A short life sketch, Ganda Singh, Maharaja Ranjit Singh: First Death Centenary Memorial, (Nirmal Publishers, 1986), 43.[1]

3.^ Maharaja Ranjit Singh: A short life sketch, Ganda Singh, Maharaja Ranjit Singh: First Death Centenary Memorial, 43.[2]

4.^ http://www.harisinghnalwa.com/index.html

5.^ The Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-century Land Warfare: An Illustrated World View, by Byron Farwell Published by W.W. Norton, 2001. ISBN 0-393-04770-9, ISBN 978-0-393-04770-7.

6.^ Chief and families of Note in Punjab, Vol II, op.cit., pp. 87,89,90 7.^ NAI/fpc 1-5-1837:53 quoted in Nalwa,V. 2009. Hari Singh Nalwa - Champion of the Khalsaji, New Delhi: Manohar, p. 318.

8.^ The Sikhs and Afghans, in Connexion with India and Persia, immediately before and after the death of Ranjeet Singh: From the journal of an expedition to Kabul through the Panjab and the Khaibar Pass By Shahāmat ʻAlī, Published by J. Murray, 1847

9.^ Gazetteer of the Peshawar District 1897-8, revised edition, Lahore: Punjab Government, p. 74.

please do right editing on the articleChotaaman (talk) 10:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC) Chotaaman (talk) 10:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

New

1.^ Paddy Docherty (2007). The Khyber Pass: A History of Empire and Invasion. Faber and Faber. pp. 186–187. ISBN 978-1-4027-5696-2. Retrieved 16 August 2013.

2.^ Maharaja Ranjit Singh: A short life sketch, Ganda Singh, Maharaja Ranjit Singh: First Death Centenary Memorial, (Nirmal Publishers, 1986), 43.[1]

3.^ Maharaja Ranjit Singh: A short life sketch, Ganda Singh, Maharaja Ranjit Singh: First Death Centenary Memorial, 43.[2]

4.^ http://www.harisinghnalwa.com/index.html

5.^ The Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-century Land Warfare: An Illustrated World View, by Byron Farwell Published by W.W. Norton, 2001. ISBN 0-393-04770-9, ISBN 978-0-393-04770-7.

6.^ Chief and families of Note in Punjab, Vol II, op.cit., pp. 87,89,90 7.^ NAI/fpc 1-5-1837:53 quoted in Nalwa,V. 2009. Hari Singh Nalwa - Champion of the Khalsaji, New Delhi: Manohar, p. 318.

8.^ The Sikhs and Afghans, in Connexion with India and Persia, immediately before and after the death of Ranjeet Singh: From the journal of an expedition to Kabul through the Panjab and the Khaibar Pass By Shahāmat ʻAlī, Published by J. Murray, 1847

9.^ Gazetteer of the Peshawar District 1897-8, revised edition, Lahore: Punjab Government, p. 74..

sir please protect this source because someone is using fake accounts to degrading the quality of the article Chotaaman (talk) 10:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC) Chotaaman (talk) 10:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Correction in the result of the battle

(talk) 04:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Kansas Bear sir there are many sources of the battle that is the first party sources,second party sources and third party sources of the battle. The first party sources are the Afghan sources The second party sources are the Indian sources The third party sources are the Foreign sources irrespective of any distinction. The afghan sources claims that it was a Afghan victory The indian sources claims that it was a Sikh Victory The third party sources claims that it was a Sikh victory too put some Afghani sources are used to spread false account of the battle. Please take a prompt action by consulting third party sources only because first party will write in favour of them. Second party will write in favour of them. Third party is the only source of information of the battle.... Jacques Tony dictionary of battles and sieges states that it was a sikh victory now consult other third party sources like this to improve this article thank you 106.192.185.51 (talk) 06:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC) Reply on my talk page 106.192.185.51 (talk) 06:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Clarifying that the Battle of Jamrud was an Afghan victory

I have studied the battle and it is clear that the "Battle of Jamrud" as we understand it was an Afghan military victory. This is well-documented. Sources posted by Sikh users that make mention of an Afghan withdrawal do not take away from the Afghan victory at Jamrud. Joseph Davey Cummingham and H.L.O. Garrett make note of this engagement and state the following:

"An attack was made on the post at Jamrud, on the 30th of April 1837; but the Afghans could not carry it, although they threw the Sikhs into disorder. Hari Singh, by feigning a retreat, drew the enemy more fully into the plains; the brave leader was present everywhere amid his retiring and rallying masses, but he fell mortally wounded, and the opportune arrival of another portion of the Kabul forces converted the confusion of the Sikhs into a total defeat. But two guns only were lost; the Afghans could not master Jamrud or Peshawar itself, and, after plundering the valley for a few days, they retreated rather than risk a second battle with the reinforced army of Lahore."

The battle itself was without a doubt an Afghan victory, however the Afghans simply plundered the valley for a few days and withdrew. The Afghans celebrated their victory and the Afghans and Sikhs did not seem to engage in direct military confrontations after, probably due to the British involvements in both the territories held by the Afghans and the Sikhs (i.e. First Afghan-Anglo War and the Anglo-Sikh Wars). The Anglo-Sikh Wars would lead to the subsequent dissolution of the Sikh Empire. Xtremedood (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

References

According to some University sources;

• James A. Norris, First Afghan War: 1838-42, Cambridge University Press, p109;"At the battle of Jamrud neither side could honestly claim a victory, but the Sikhs suffered severely at the hands of the Afghan horsemen, and they lost one of their king's favorite generals, Hari Singh."
• Zalmay Ahmad Gulzad, The history of the delimitation of the Durand Line development of the Afghan State (1838-1898), University of Wisconsin--Madison, p62;"1837 they fought a pitched battle at Jamrud in which the Afghan forces were victorious."
• Proceedings, Punjabi University, p129;"A pitched battle was fought at Jamrud, in which Hari Singh Nalwa was killed, but the Afghans failed to dislodge the Sikhs from Jamrud..."
• Khushwant Singh, A History of the Sikhs: 1469-1838, Oxford University Press, p227;"For the Afghans the killing of Hari Singh Nalwa turned the defeat at Jamrud into a victory. Much as Dost Mohammed tried to claim the battle of Jamrud as an Afghan victory (he heaped public honours upon his son) , nothing could stop the ...."????

Gulzad states Afghan victory, while Singh states Afghan victory with some sort of mitigating factor. The Punjabi source seem to indicate a stalemate with the Afghans failing to take Jamrud, but the Sikhs losing a general. Norris pretty much spells out a stalemate(..neither side could honestly claim a victory..).

Other source(s);

• Jeffery J. Roberts, The Origins of Conflict in Afghanistan, p4;"In 1837 Dost's son, Akbar Khan, led an Afghan army to victory at Jamrud. Akbar, however, did not followup his success with an advance to Peshawar, and the city remained in Sikh hands."
• Bikrama Jit Hasrat,Life and times of Ranjit Singh, p137;"The doubtful Sikh victory at Jamrud in 1837 had made it clear to Ranjit Singh that policy of hatred and repression in the northwestern frontier so far pursued had failed in its objective."

I propose placing Afghan victory(with the Gulzad, Adamec and Roberts sources), Sikh victory(with Docherty and Hasrat sources) and Stalemate(with the Norris source). The Punjabi and Singh sources, since both were snippet views, fail(IMO) to clearly express the result of the battle. Anymore sources that pass Wikipedia:Reliable Sources can be used to add to either Afghan victory, Sikh victory or Stalemate. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Kansas Bear. I think saying "Decisive Afghan victory" could be misleading to readers(sorry, got confused about who added what to the article). The Afghans were successful on the battlefield, but their invasion failed when they retreated. I would suggest saying "Tactical Afghan victory, strategic Sikh victory", as is done for other battles with a "win the battle, lose the war" outcome. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 00:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

If we can get a consensus of other editors, I think its work-able. I believe we have the sources to expand upon the result. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I want to tell that it is indeed very difficult to state who was the victor. The main aim of the Afghans was to take Jamrud and then Peshawar, as much of the Sikh army was joining a massive parade, in honour of Prince Nau Nihal Singh's wedding. However, Mahan Singh Mirpuri held the fort and overnight sent a messenger to Hari Singh Nalwa,who was lying ill in Peshawar (hence he was not at the wedding). So, at the same time Afghans started withdrawing, Sikh forces gradually recaptured the nearby villages at Jamrud but lost the general. However, the fort remained in Sikh hands, till the end of the Sikh Empire. Maharaja Ranjit Singh, as soon as he got the message about teh battle, sent a force of 80,000, discouraging the Afghans from trying again. (It happened after the battle). So, I don't think "Decisive Afghan Victory" or "Afghan Victory" is actually needed here. Then, neither "Tactical Afghan Victory" is also not correct, as Sikh recaptured the towns and villages (The fort as earlier mentioned was never captured byAfghans), but could not advance any further than that, without the experience of Nalwa (neither they tried). Now, how can we tell that it was an "Afghan Victory", while the Afghans failed to achieve their goal; the capture of Jamrud and Peshawar (their second capital)? We"ll need to reconsider this.If anyone needs sources, let me know.IIਦੇਗ ਤੇਗ ਫ਼ਤੇਹII IIਗੁਰਬਰ ਅਕਾਲII 20:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I see no need to "consider" anything, there are sources stating a Sikh victory, there are sources stating Afghan victory AND there is a source stating neither side could claim victory. Showing what all reliable sources state is part of NPOV. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think that all of your sources are reliable or neutral. For instance, KHYBERG.ORG, is unreliable. It uses, i.e.:"their general", and also info that conflicts with other sources of all the page. It would be better NOT to add a decisive Afghan victory. How could it, after failing their aims? Jamrud and Peshawar were never taken. The death of the Sikh general halted Sikh conquests but still Sikhs had all these areas under them. Gurbar Akaal IIਦੇਗ ਤੇਗ ਫ਼ਤੇਹII IIਗੁਰਬਰ ਅਕਾਲII 06:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I do not see where I have used KHYBERG.ORG as a source. If you are speaking of the sources presented at the beginning of this section, those were added by Xtremedood.[10] --Kansas Bear (talk) 11:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, Okay. But still, that source cannot be used. It's Unreliable, not neutral. Gurbar Akaal IIਦੇਗ ਤੇਗ ਫ਼ਤੇਹII IIਗੁਰਬਰ ਅਕਾਲII 08:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

References

1. Madhyapak (talk) 10:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC) 106.192.171.239 (talk) 10:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Disputed?

Why does the header say disputed in terms of victory? The Afghans won this battle. Akmal94 (talk) 03:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Jamrud. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100109202039/http://www.harisinghnalwa.com:80/index.html to http://www.harisinghnalwa.com/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Jamrud. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100109202039/http://www.harisinghnalwa.com/index.html to http://www.harisinghnalwa.com/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Khushwant Singh

Khushwant Singh does not appear to be an historian, therefore he can not be a reliable source for Wikipedia. Singh had a degree in law, I see nothing that shows his specialization in this time period or area. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent changes to infobox

I have restored the stable version of this article, as recent changes do not seem to be an improvement. Minor figures are listed as leaders. The Sikh side is given implausible numbers of troops (hundreds of thousands). Spelling errors. Please explain on talk your changes. Eostrix (talk) 11:03, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

If there are no source(s) for the figures, then the figures should not be in the article or infobox. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments not consistent with references

What some people are doing is, adding their own personal view/comment and giving reference of an acclaimed author. BUT they are not consistent and appears that since no would make an effort to actually buy/look through book, people are using this tactic to vandalise page. Same tactic was used on this page that had to be removed and add well readable references from acclaimed historians/Researchers/Authors. --WorldWikiAuthorOriginal (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

"Battle of Jamrod" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Battle of Jamrod. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 20#Battle of Jamrod until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Commanders listed in Infobox

@Noorullah21: @Hyderthespyder:

These commanders are in the infobox:

• Akbar Khan
• Afzal Khan
• Mirza Sami Khan
• Josiah Harlan
• Mahan Singh Mirpuri
• Mangal Singh Ramgarhia

but are not mentioned in the article itself. These commanders either need to be written into the article or removed from the infobox, per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes#Purpose, "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article". --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Battle of jamrud

afghan army under the command of Akbar Khan had only fifteen thousand. please correct the number of armies .and this battle was won by the Afghan a lot of references and sources claim. Afghan withdrew but the ((battle)) was won by the Afghans. Sikh reinforcement comes 2 weeks later in the battle of Jamrud. if Afghans would have been fighting with sikh reinforcement. then this would another battle. You know what I am saying. 2404:3100:1007:A952:1:0:8907:D788 (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

If the Afghans withdrew then that automatically makes it either inconclusive or sikh victory Ronnie Macroni (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

But afghan did not fight with reforcement. Then the Battle of Amritsar (1767)was an afghan victory becuase when abdali reforcement came Sikh withdrew from amritsar.akbar khan deafet Sikh genrel and killed.if this battle was disputed then also add Sikh reforcement. 2404:3100:1000:E5AD:1:0:3E34:5D95 (talk) 12:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

There are sources which say it was a sikh victory and some say it was an afghan victory. It is safe to say that it is inconclusive. Ronnie Macroni (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Then correct Battle of Amritsar (1767) it's also afghan victory or diputed.becuase after abdali came Sikh withdrew. 2404:3100:1000:E5AD:1:0:3E34:5D95 (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no source claiming it was an afghan victory Ronnie Macroni (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh really?

• Roberts, Jeffery J. (2003), The Origins of Conflict in Afghanistan, Greenwood Publishing Group, p. 4, ISBN 978-0-275-97878-5,"In 1837 Dost's son, Akbar Khan, led an Afghan army to victory at Jamrud. Akbar, however, did not follow up his success with an advance to Peshawar, and the city remained in Sikh hands."
• Clements, Frank; Adamec, Ludwig W. (2003), Conflict in Afghanistan: A Historical Encyclopedia, ABC-CLIO, p. 74,"Dost Mohammed Khan defeated the Sikhs at the Battle of Jamrud in 1837."

Looks like two sources stating an Afghan victory to me. Might I suggest reading the article? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I wasnt talking about Jamrud. Ronnie Macroni (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Understood.--Kansas Bear (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

ok, then remove abdali in Amritsar battle 1767. he was not in Amritsar battle becuase when abdali reforcement came Sikh withdrew from amritsar. Realone23 (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

But whose forces were they? Ronnie Macroni (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

If the dispute over the Jamrud battle is based on the fact that the Afghan forces withdrew then we can also consider the Battle of Amritsar (1767) to be either an Afghan victory or disputed. This is because when Abdali's reinforcements arrived the Sikh forces also withdrew from Amritsar similar to how the Afghan forces withdrew from Jamrud.. Realone23 (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no source stating that afghans won amritsar 1767 but there are sources that sikhs won jamrud Ronnie Macroni (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

"The Jamrud Battle was similar to the Amritsar Battle because, in Amritsar, the Sikhs defeated the commander of Abdali, and in Jamrud, the Afghans defeated the commander Hari Singh. Both commanders retired after receiving reinforcements. I am writing an article about Hari Singh Nalwa, who was defeated by Akbar in 1835 with 500 or 150 losses, and then Hari Singh retired to Peshawar."

"The Jamrud Battle was similar to the Amritsar Battle because, in Amritsar, the Sikhs defeated the commander of Abdali, and in Jamrud, the Afghans defeated the commander Hari Singh. Both commanders retired after receiving reinforcements. I am writing an article about Hari Singh Nalwa, who was defeated by Akbar in 1835 with 500 or 150 losses, and then Hari Singh retired to Peshawar." Realone23 (talk) 07:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Afghans failed to capture Jamrud fort and retreated after news of reinforcements. There is dispute among scholars about the result and most common is the failure to capture Jamrud as the defeat of Afghans but since there is dispute, that is why the result is mentioned as "Disputed". 71.27.92.193 (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

. Realone23 (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

This battle, similar to the one in Amritsar, was not a siege but rather a direct confrontation. Hari Singh sent a letter to Dost Muhammad Khan, stating that they would capture Kabul. In response, Dost Muhammad sent his son for revenge. The Afghan forces emerged victorious in the battle, and afterwards, they withdrew following the arrival of reinforcement forces. Realone23 (talk) 14:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

This battle, similar to the one in Amritsar, was not a siege but rather a direct confrontation. Hari Singh sent a letter to Dost Muhammad Khan, stating that they would capture Kabul. In response, Dost Muhammad sent his son for revenge. The Afghan forces emerged victorious in the battle, and afterwards, they withdrew following the arrival of reinforcement forces. Realone23 (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

That's not what the sources mention. Wikipedia goes by the info in reliable sources. 71.27.92.193 (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)