Talk:Hindu Shahis

[Untitled]

This page is very poor and needs some serious improvement. The opening lines: Hindu Kshatriyas held sway over the Kabul region of Afghanistan from as far back as the fourth century C. E. Allahabad Prashasti of the Gupta Emperor Samudragupta (335-375 CE) refers to these rulers by the phrase "Daivaputra Shahi-Shahanshahi-Shaka-murundahi". Are total nonsense, claimed to be gathered from Fleet's original work on the Gupta inscriptions which given the difficulty of consultation (the 1980s new edition is the norm in most academic libraries) it seems unlikely the writer has actually consulted it. The line in the Allahabad inscription refers to the Kushan Emperor Shaka whose territory did not include Kabul but was restricted to the Punjab and whose dynasty is overtly Iranian in its religious iconography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.237.129 (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Sitush, On 15 August, 2013, I happened to open “Brahmana Hindu Shahis of Afghanistan” in Wikipedia and was “dismayed” to see its sudden vastly reduced size. So I clicked on History and was highly “amused” to see its stroke by stroke murder.

Before discussing the drastic modifications made in it, one would like to explain what this article is about. While looking for some events relating to the period 800-1000 CE I found that history books were “blank” in respect of the north-west India, which then included southern Afghanistan. College Text Books, Cambridge History of India, Oxford History of India; books of encyclopaedic proportions produced recently about Afghanistan; books written by Muslim historians during the Muslim rule in India (like Ferishta) – all observe “ a convention of silence”, as it were, about the Early Indo-Islamic (or Early Medieval) History (c. 650 to 1000 CE). Completely ignoring this phase, narration of Medieval History of India begins with the incursions of Mahmud Ghaznavi, from 1000 CE. So, there are no Modern sources in respect of the preceding centuries !

This “darkness” has not gone un-noticed. In his Glimpses of World History (p. 90) Jawaharlal Nehru laments: “We have taken a long step from Harsha to Mahmud and surveyed 350 years or more of Indian History in a few paragraphs. I suppose much could be said of this long period which would be interesting. But I am ignorant about it and so it is safer for me to preserve a discreet silence.” Several others (Andre Wink, Lallanji Gopal ) also noticed this fact while pursuing their respective projects.

History is a victor’s account. Al Badaoni in the introduction of his Muntakhibu-t-Twarikh (which means Selections from History) (tr. George S. A. Ranking) discloses the reason for this selectivity: “I deemed it right to commence the history with an account of that monarch whose end was glorious.” (i.e. Mahmud Ghaznavi and his father) So, a not-so-glorious chapter of history when India blocked the march of the world conquering Arabs towards the Khyber Pass, was kept under the wraps. The only comparable instance in history of that period is stopping the Arabs at the Alps while crossing from Spain to France. So “un-wrapping” of this account is necessary for the History of India but this exercise has not been undertaken seriously in recent times, whose authority one may quote for your satisfaction.

Before one tries to discuss deletion of any particular portion of this article, we have to be on a common wave length about the criteria for judging the credibility of the text in question. For reconstructing a chapter of history, which has not been touched during 1300 years, one would suppose stone inscriptions (discovered in recent times), coins and contemporary chronicles would be the most dependable primary sources on which to rely. The historians would then interpret, discuss and connect these pieces of knowledge with their theories (your “essays”) to form a coherent picture.

“Brahmana Hindu Shahis of Afghanistan” pieces together the history of this “dark period” in respect of southern Afghanistan with these props and this narration fills a serious hiatus in the History of India, as already explained. This is exactly how, elsewhere also, Ancient History of India is being enriched with the help of material like Donation Deeds (dan patras), inscriptions etc.

When this article first appeared in Wikipedia in July 2011, Sitush was almost the first one to work on it (17.7.2011): remove commentary, big clean-up formatting, POV, OR, primary sources etc. fixed or removed. Many other conscientious readers (Colonies Chris, Clarity fiend … ) continued to improve it, with minor corrections – their scrutiny spread over a period of two years. Then suddenly on 31.7.2013 Sitush “revisited” it and, as if in a frenzy, dismembered it limb by limb for the reasons: “Ancient inscriptions are not reliable sources”, “Essay based on inscriptions”, “A writer 1000 years old”, “An ancient primary source”. Strange ! Can Ancient History be reconstructed on sources which themselves are not old? Why these fresh criteria, which did not bother so many volunteers who worked on it earlier? Has narration of Ancient History to be based on modern sources only – and what if there are none, as in this case? Kindly have a rethink.

God bless you Sitush. You are engaged in voluntary service – a rare breed these days. But I savour a zeal for over-kill. On my side also this thesis (of which Brahmana Hindu Shahis is a part) is the result of “labour of love” for over a decade – for the cause of history. During this period I showed the draft (which is now a book) to celebrated experts in Ancient History in Indian Universities – and outside. Their advice helped immensely. But no one ever raised the sort of concern that is being (red) flagged now.

N.B. Under the “Defence of Zabul by Kshatriya Shahis”, para regarding the first Arab campaign against Zabul, beginning with the words “In 698, Al Hajjaj the powerful governor…… The original Sanskrit could be Rattan Pal)” is based on the same bunch of sources (original foot note 21) as the subsequent para starting with the words “In 700-701, Abdur Rehman ….” So, justifiably, the first campaign should also be restored.Historicalfacts4 (talk) 07:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Historicalfacts4

Kabul shahis.

The main page kabul shahi should be recreated, that is very important.It is the historical name, turki (bhuddist ) and hindu shais are sub divisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.90.196.230 (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Language

User:Casperti I saw you reverted my edit regarding the language of the Shahis. I might have confused the dynasty to the "actual" Kabul Shahis, since the Hindu Shahis were not even based in Kabul but rather in Gandahra it doesnt make sense for them to have been using Bactrian as their administrative language. However since that is the case, does it even make sense to call the Hindu Shahis "Kabul Shahis"? Most of the sources I have come across used the term "Kabul Shahi" to denote the Turk Shahis of Kabul and not the Hindu Shahis of Waihind. Or are there also scholars referring to the Hindu Shahis as Kabul Shahis? Best regards.--Xerxes931 (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Xerxes931: Some modern historians also apply the name Kabul Shahi's to The Hindu Shahi's for an unknown reason. From historic point and sources the only dynasty that was called as Kabul shahi was the Turk Shahi. Since, they ruled from the city for centuries and The Hindu Shahi only did for 20 years. and so did the Arabs called the Turk Shahi: Kabul Shahis while they called the replacement dynasty "The Hindu Shahi" only. But we can let it stand like this, maybe we can talk about it later --Casperti (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The term Turk Shahi must be rplaced by Kabul Shahi as Turk does not represent the Shahidynasty of Kabul. Aceditor00 (talk) 10:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Raja Gira, the last Hindu Shahi king?

There's a disagreement at Talk:Torwali people#Raja Gira about the historicity of Raja Gira – a figure, who, according to a local tradition associated with the Raja Gira fort in Swat, was a Hindu king defeated by Mahmud of Ghazni. Opinions will be welcome. – Uanfala (talk) 16:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Uanfala:, I do not know whether my message is of relevance now but I haven't came across this name among the Hindu Shahi's. There is a castle named Raja Gira Castle in Pakistan but whether this figure really existed is unknown. The myths say he was the king of Swat or the Hindu Shahi but it is from a historic point not verifiable neither is he mentioned by the Ghaznavid chronicles. cheers, -- Casperti (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! That's consistent with what, after some effort, was eventually concluded on the Torwali talk page. – Uanfala (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Uanfala This is way late but I had a little discussion with certain archaeologists from the Italian Mission involved with the site and their unanimous opinion is that Raja Gira as a name is a creation of Pashto folklore. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

A Panindian page

The term Hindu Shahi and information of this page is nonsense, just because they had budist origin does not mean thay were Hindu or Indo Aceditor00 (talk) 10:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Rewrite

In the next few days, I will be rewriting the article. All cooperation are welcome. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: Good news! Looking forward to it! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 13:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

This was obviously a Hindu dynasty, Pat. Their caste-status is indeed controversial. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi @TrangaBellam:. I really don't mind either way, but it seems some authors don't necessarily agree on their religious status, such as Abdur Rahman: "The Hindu Shahi were therefore neither Bhattis, or Janjuas, nor Brahmans. They were simply Udis/Odis. It can be seen that the term Hindu Shahi is a misnomer, and, based as it is merely upon religious discrimination, should be discarded and forgotten. The correct name is Udi or Odi dynasty". p.41. This is why I am a bit uneasy with claiming "a Hindu dynasty of Brahmin lineage" in the introduction especially. Better to keep the introduction neutral and religion-free (it also feels less POV-ish this way), and this somewhat contentious point can be discussed in the body of the article at length. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

See Dissertations at WP:SCHOLARSHIP. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

This is not from his dissertation—where he uses the term Hindu Shahi w/o grievance—but from a not-so-famed journal, 22 years hence. My opinion is that Pat is misinterpreting Rahman's arguments.

It should be obvious that these Shahis did not refer to themselves as the Hindu Shahis (lol) but since historians do not have a scope of knowing their self-designation, they have stuck with Al-biruni's phrase. Rahman proposes an Udi/Odi origin and believes such a geography-centered name to be more precise — the Turk Shahis were as much as Hindu as these lot except for their different origins. Rahman never proposes that these people were not Hindus; frankly, such a claim would require exceptional evidence to pass muster in light of the Hund Stone inscription or Mazar-i-Sharif Inscription. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's true the "Hindu" character of the Hund inscription is rather unambiguous. It's probably the "Brahmin" claim that stands on much shakier ground per Rahman in the same page p.41. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 07:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

We only worry about caste if it is important for their notability. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Looking forward to reading it. In Persian, "Shahi" simply means "Kingly" or I guess "Kings" in the context of al-Biruni, a pretty generic term used by a Persian-speaker to refer to any ruler or principality. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Tegin's invasion

• Alptigin proceeded from there to Kabul and defeated the amir of Kabul, capturing his son whom he subsequently favoured and sent back to his father. Then Alptigin attacked Ghaznain. Now the son of Kabul's amir was the son-in-law of Lavik, the amir of Ghaznain; he [Lavik] flew to the aid of his father-in-law. When Alptigin arrived at the gates of Ghaznain, Lavik came out and did battle with him. The son of Kabul's amir was taken prisoner a second time. The amir of Ghaznain was defeated and retired within the city. Alptigin then encamped at the gates and lay siege to the city.
  — Niẓām al-Mulk, Siyar al-Mulūk trans. H. Darke, The Book of Government or Rules for Kings, 3 ed. (London, 2002), p. 113

• Any available translation of this work? I am not confident about Rehman's translation.

• An edited version in Persian is available.TrangaBellam (talk) 07:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

User:HistoryofIran, can you arrange a scan of the edited version? TrangaBellam (talk) 12:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I neither live in Iran nor understand the Persian script, sorry. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Sources

• https://www.jstor.org/stable/40461864
• https://www.unibo.it/sitoweb/pierfrancesco.callieri/en
• https://www-euppublishing-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/doi/full/10.3366/afg.2018.0015
• https://artsofasia.com/product/january-to-february-2016-magazine/ TrangaBellam (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Images

Buddhist Devata statue from Udabhandapura. Museum of Oriental Art (Turin).

Sun deity (either Mitra or Surya), wearing tunic and boots. Khair Khaneh, Kabul, 7-8th century AD, Kabul Museum.

पाटलिपुत्र, can you add coins of Vakkadeva? And a montage of (some of the) temples mentioned in the section on architecture. Manipulating images and their syntax ain't my strength. Thanks! TrangaBellam (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• On an aside, do you see any other sculptures reliably citable to the Hindu Shahi spans? TrangaBellam (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

TrangaBellam Yes, I'll try something with the imagery. The Lingam is the only marble sculpture I have found to be attributed to the Hindu Shahis. Most of the others are attributed to the Turk Shahis (even the Gardez Ganesha). Best! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks - it's all good. Will be glad if you can add coins of Vakkadeva! TrangaBellam (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: Michael Henss [1] seems to attribute the Hund statues to 9th-century Hindu Shahis, although Carbon dating is not so clear-cut. No free images of coins of Vakkadeva in sight for the moment. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 12:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I will get my hands on Hund's article in the Arts of Asia magazine (see above section) by tomorrow. Will read his arguments and add them. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

"Art and Archaeology of Afghanistan : Its Fall and Survival : A Multi-Disciplinary Approach." Juliette van Krieken-Pieters; Brill - 2005 (p. 64, 74) notes that a Hindu Shahi white marble Surya [was] found by Soviet soldiers in Khair Khana, a suburb of Kabul and [t]he white marble Hindu Shahi sculptures of Surya, Shiva and Durga from Gardez and Khair Khana are gone (looted). TrangaBellam (talk) 12:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the Khair Khaneh marble statues are generally considered as Turk Shahi (attaching here the Surya one). पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

...Also, the article containing these quotes ("THE KABUL MUSEUM: ITS TURBULENT YEARS" p.60 ff) seems to have been written by Carla Grissmann, a humanitarian and a writer, making a quick inventory of the artifacts looted from the Kabul Museum. Not sure she can be RS for History of Art purposes... पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure, not a RS. Thanks for your links (and images)! TrangaBellam (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Another interesting article with good photographs Two Fifth-Century Bodhisattvas from Afghanistan (in South Asian Studies 16), although I'm not so sure about the author, and the timelines and dynasties seem a bit off.पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

And of course Kuwayama for the marble statues attributed to the Turk Shahis. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Missing words?

@TrangaBellam: The sentence: "Masudi had mentioned the King to be of the Rajput class—leading —and called as "", which"... seems to be missing something... पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah - need to insert a character. I am not sure what was "—leading—" doing there. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Structure issues

Hi @TrangaBellam:. Thank you for all your recent additions! A little issue about the structure of the article though: currently the article mainly reads as a list of rulers, some of them quite minor or disputed, with detailed discussions about the sources etc..., whereas the major historical events punctuating the history of the Hindu Shahis are completely submerged in the mass of this regnal list, without any specific headings and limited emphasis (the 870 conquest by Yaqub bin Laith al-Saffar, the Ghaznavid conquest circa 1000 etc...). I think we need to do either of the following: 1) globally structure the article along major historical events with subheadings for the advent of the successive of kings. Or 2) Create a separate "History" chapter were the major historical events and their interplay can be highlighted, in addition to the current "Rulers" segment where the information can focus more on regnal considerations and their specific sources. I favour 2) as it would restore visibility to great historical events, while respecting the work you have done for each individual ruler. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Let me think a bit - I understand your concerns. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I think there exists an alternate option: tweak with the sub-headings. On it. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it's better but strange, and I think rarely, if ever, seen on Wikipedia... for example "Lalliya: Regaining of Kabul and Conflict with Utpalas", or worse "Toramana/Kamaluka/Kamala: Evolution of Lawliks". I think the reason is that individual rules (especially their dates, span and importance) do not often coincide with the dates, span and importance of major historical events. It would be probably better to have specific headings for major historical events, with heading or sub-headings or even no headings for rulers as appropriate, depending on their relative historical weight. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

We cannot have information redundancy at a single article, making (2) a non-starter.

Bhimadeva, Jayapala, Anandapala, and Trilochanapala are very significant rulers whose regnal details are known to appreciable confidence [something, I am yet to add to the section on sources]: they will necessarily have their own headers. There are many FAs on royal dynasties which I suggest consulting with. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Shortly. I'm OK with having headlines for some of the rulers if they are major, for example if they embody an important historical period just by themselves… (that's roughly what I was proposing), but that should not be at the expense of the headlines for the main historical events punctuating the history of the Hindu Shahis. After all, the article "Hindu Shahis" is not about detailing a dynastic list, but about documenting the peripeties of an important historical entity. I don't know how you checked your "many FAs on royal dynasties", but there are 6 of them in all [2], and the usage of only ruler names for headers is nil, and even the mention of a specific ruler in a header is very sparse: the Chalukya dynasty article has none, Han dynasty has one ("Wang Mang's reign and civil war"), Ming dynasty has three such headings (including sub-headings), Rashtrakuta dynasty has zero, Song dynasty has zero, Tang dynasty has two, Western Ganga dynasty has zero. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah, my error; I was checking GAs. Most of the FAs in dynasty seem to be pre-2008 when anything and everything passed (how is Chalukya even a GA?; Vijaynagara got de-FAed days back). Those articles cannot be a standard and they are hardly comprehensive.

You can propose something draft/user-space, maybe? But, I do not have much confidence: most of the content that you added to this article (after I took up editing it) turned out to be redundant. For reasons which are not very clear, you changed the header "Establishment" to, umm, "Defeat of the Turk Shahis (815 CE) and rise of the Hindu Shahis (822 CE)." I suggest that you start a RfC for this specific change and measure the community-response. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

We are supposed to edit collaboratively. You do not own the article and you cannot ask me to vet edits here before I make them in the page, per WP:OWN. We'll make changes together, and I'm optimistic, as I think we agree on the substance (you've already started to correct headings). Please respect my edits as I respect yours, and everything should be OK. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I think we should get rid of the "Rulers" heading, as it is really a mixed bag of historical and dynastic considerations, and put the whole narrative under a "History" title, starting with "Establishment". पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done TrangaBellam (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

the major historical events and their interplay - These are very interesting questions for say, Vijayanagara Empire. But not for Hindu Shahis where it is the boring story of losing (and regaining) Kabul and adjacent areas in cycles to those who lost out in C. Asian Game of Thrones until Ghaznavids drove them eastwards and sealed their fate for better or worse in successive battles. Sprinkle in some Kashmir and what more?

The interesting points rather lie in debunking the notion of Shahis being the Vijaynagara of North: the article provides ample evidence to the effect and I am yet to use Inaba. The interesting points lie in documenting the self-presentation of Muslim rulers (esp. Mahmud) in their actions vis-a-vis Hindu Shahis, as Ali Anooshahr details (yet to include). The interesting points lie in their expansion and repurposing of Kafirkot, as Meister details (yet to include). TrangaBellam (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Copyedits

• English is not my native language but I do not see why a factor of probability was introduced as to the recovery of Kabul.
• Why are you expanding c. to circa? Use the template, if you are concerned about accessibility?
• Jawami ul-Hikayat is linked in the first paragraph. We don't need to link it again and again. Same for Khorasan.

  Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead.
  — Wikipedia Manual of Style

  TrangaBellam (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi TrangaBellam. No offense intended, I am just trying to help, as some sentences are rather difficut to understand, and grammar, vocabulary and spelling are at times problematic. It's just proofreading. Please don't be so sensitive just because other editors are trying to improve your contributions, this is what we do on Wikipedia.

• In general we do not use abbreviations in the text (your multiple "prob."s are a no-no [3]). I re-checked, and indeed "c." is acceptable and even preferred to "circa", so I will correct accordingly. Thanks.
• I softenned the blunt assertion ("the Hindu Shahis had regained their territories" > "the Hindu Shahis probably managed to regain their territories") since, based on the context, this is obviously only an inferment from Jawami ul-Hikayat's remark about the Logar Valley.
• As you noted about linking several times "it may be repeated if helpful for readers" per WP:MS. In this instance, and because the name is little known and the sentence confusing, I felt it was indeed helpful to re-link.
• More importantly: you have to give the page numbers of your references, so that other users can verify for themselves. {{sfn|Rehman|1976}} is not sufficient, and p=... should be added as in {{sfn|Rehman|1976|p=346}}

Best. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I have nothing against your other improvements. Otherwise, I would have reverted you :)

Links can be reused only in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. There is even a bot that goes around removing excessive links! I do not really think Khorasan is little-known but our perspectives can differ.

I will reframe the sentence about regaining territories. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Cool. Glad to know you do appreciate some of my edits... But no, the WP:MS rule is not "only in infoboxes etc...", it is: "if helpful for readers, such as in infoboxes etc...", so these are clearly only intended as non-limitative examples (otherwise they would say "exclusively in" or "limited to ", or indeed "only in"...), and imply that, obviously, the key criteria is "helpfulness to readers", thereby allowing for a lot of leeway in appreciation. It is also what I have seen in many years in many articles: we rarely limit ourselves to just one link in a lengthy article especially, otherwise people would keep wondering where the links are. In practice, there is a lot of tolerance, and I have never seen another editor argue to have only a single link for each single item. By the way, I was not thinking about Khorasan, but the rather obscure Amr ibn al-Layth. One last thing: you need to indent your responses in Talks, otherwise messages become quite difficult to distinguish from one another. Best पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I am replying using a beta feature; bugs. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Title

I think the title should be "Hindu Shahis" (in the plural) rather than "Hindu Shahi" (singular) as it now. Anybody against the move? पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

In complete support. [I was even thinking whether Udi Shahis is more appropriate: Meiser follows the designation, as do all publications of Italian Mission.] TrangaBellam (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Whoa, I do approve "Odi Shahis" or "Udi Shahis" for the neutrality and the academic approach, but their Google hits are so few ("Odi Shahis" 56, "Udi Shahis" 2), that I am afraid we should stick with the popular and commonly used "Hindu Shahis" for the main title (and mention the other names as we do now in secondary position only). पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. We have to wait until reliable sources pick up on the usage. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Missing word

We are still stuck with the sentence Masudi had mentioned the King to be of the Rajput class who was called as "".[3] @TrangaBellam: can you complete the "", and add a page number in the reference? पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Check p. 48 of Rahman (p. 70 of pdf). TrangaBellam (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

So.... I guess we should say something a bit different, like: "Masudi mentioned that the kings of Kandahar (Gandhara) are all called "Hajaj", while the area itself was named "country of the Rahbūt" (Rajputs)." पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

List of rulers

Hi @TrangaBellam: here is a "dummy" template for the list of rulers with their date. Please adjust it at will by editing it at the page: Template:Hindu Shahi rulers. It can then be placed on the article with the string {{Hindu Shahi rulers}} पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

On it. Btw, the third capital was Nandana in all likelihood. Not Lahore. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

To do

• Ali Anooshahr's theory in a line on the photo-caption of Mahmud's elephants.

• On it.

• Some information about copper mints in the section on numismatics.

• Pat, can you see to this?

• A paragraph on what all happened in their erstwhile territories for the next century or so.

• On it.

• Expansion and repurposing of Kafirkot.
• Some details from Izaz Khan's thesis. I found it too boring (and non-provoking) to read.

• Pat, can you give a read? TrangaBellam (talk) 08:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

No problem, I'll follow up (a bit at a time...). Rather urgent: could you add the page numbers to your references? It is quite essential and the whole article can currently essentially be considered unreferenced if there are no specific page numbers... Best पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 08:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure. Give me a day or two. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Any updates? TrangaBellam (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Battle of Chach into Hindu Shahis#Anandapala: war and peace with Mahmud

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Shall the article about Battle of Chach be merged into the relevant section on this page? TrangaBellam (talk) 07:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC) Original poser: Uses a bunch of non-HISTRS to reconstruct the battle yet fails to make it beyond a paragraph. We do not have enough information from medieval chronicles to draft a history of the battle apart from the outlines. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Merge: WP:MERGING says,Any editor can perform a merger. No permission or discussion is needed if you think the merge is uncontroversial; just do it (but it might get reverted). So does Template:Merge to: If it is obvious that a merge would be appropriate, then you may boldly merge the pages yourself without tagging and without discussion.
  Thus, objections in the vein of We don't just erase articles like this. Either we improve, or file for a deletion or merge has no basis in policy or practice. We do erase articles like these and merge; editors can oppose merges but with coherent reasons than appealing to the very act of unilateral merge being a violation of policy in itself. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  Technically, there is nothing left to merge and makes the article a CFork. Our single paragraph—Circa December 1008, Mahmud mounted an invasion of Hindu Shahis for reasons which are not clear. Anandapala sent a large army—probably, supplanted with neighboring troops—under the commandership of his son (Trilochanapala) who failed to prevent Mahmud's troops from crossing Indus and set out for the plains of Chaach as the battleground. The battle started after 40 days with Mahmud dispatching a unit of archers to lure out the Shahis; the strategy backfired and a subsequent charge of Gakhar infranty put Anandapala in a commanding position. However, a rear-attack by Mahmud's personal guards caused the Shahi forces to become disorganized and eventually flee. Mahmud chased the fugitive troops for months—seizing Nagarkot to collect his war-spoils, in the process—and took back a son of Anandapala. Governors were installed and Mahmud returned back to Ghazni by June of the next year.—is far more detailed.

  You cannot write anything else on the war other than this; some figures of casualties from medieval chroniclers can be cited but they are all nonsensical. Additionally, all background, aftermath etc. can be easily understood from our article. Finally, "readable prose size" of the article stands at 33 kB (5415 words) and no split is required by policy. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose (Friendly). Battle of Chach is an important battle with a lot of background leading to it and huge strategic significance for the ensuing history of South Asia. And we do not just erase such articles without discussion just because they are poorly referenced: we improve them. With a bit a work, it could easily be 4-5 well-referenced paragraphs long (Backgound/ Adversaries/ Battle/ Results/ Strategic significance). I've added a map, and I think we should use the sources we have to beef it up. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 09:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  The "lot of background" is covered at this article. As are "adversaries". As is the "battle". As is the ..... TrangaBellam (talk) 09:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

No, the battle article can be significantly expanded (at least if you don't keep reverting material I am putting into it, with rather uncivil edit summaries [4]), and we should only have a short summary in the Hindu Shahis article (no need of a description of "rear action" in the main article): clearly, some material from the Hindu Shahis article would be better located in the Battle of Chach article. As to the general habit of blanking articles, I am afraid your understanding of "uncontroversial" or "obvious that a merge would be appropriate" is a bit farfetched: blanking an article on an important historical subject, created through the work of a dozen of editors over a period of 6 years, is quite generally not "uncontroversial" nor "obviously appropriate".... Best पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 09:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The Spalapati series was not minted by Anandapala. Or is it you claim that the Shahis went to the Chach war wearing turbans - some source said it? Not the first time you are keen on adding irrelevant pictures with equally irrelevant captions that do not aid a reader in any meaningful manner.

Dozens of editors have engaged in anti-vandalism, often via automated tools. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

It is an image of a Hindu Shahi horserider, wearing a turban per Rehman 1976 (p. 187: "the horseman is shown wearing a turban-like head-gear with a small globule on the top"). This is largely appropriate as a general image of a Hindu Shahi horseman. Really no need for it to be a coin specifically minted by Anandapala, and it's not claimed to be. Common sense. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 10:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

You understand that they are assumed by Rahman to be Shahi Kings; not lay horsemen? That Spalapati and Samanta were separate individuals is made singularly clear by the reverse of their coins. In the former (PI. V, 3 ) the horseman is shown wearing a turban-like head-gear with a small globule on the top, while in the latter the horseman's head is sketchy and stylised, resembling a cross. In plate V (pdf p. 426), Rahman compares the image with the sculpture of a Rajah from Taxila? TrangaBellam (talk) 10:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC) TrangaBellam (talk) 10:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure. But I am afraid the reality is that these images are usually quite generic: for example Spalapati also has this other stylized "cross-like" hat design: , similar to Samanta: . The point was more about getting a good image of a Hindu Shahi horseman, in general (or a royal horseman for that matter), and the one I selected is quite unique in being extremely clear, less schematic, and unworn.पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

If the battle had a "huge strategic significance for the ensuing history of South Asia", I expect tertiary sources concerned with the history of Indian subcontinent will cover it? That does not seem to be the case but I will be consulting more sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, you know, it's basically just the two of us in the whole world who are interested in this subject (Hindu Shahis only get 261 views a month!!! [5]), so let's keep cooperating in good spirit and cool down the rethorics. Best पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 09:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks but that skips my question. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

And it's 261 views a month including us two enthusiastically editing it!!!... पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

You are yet to present any tertiary source about S. Asian (or Indian) history who devotes more than a couple of lines to this battle of "huge strategical significance".

These are the backwaters of Wikipedia, indeed. Hence, I am opening a RfC. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, many little-known subjects are extremely worthy of proper coverage nonetheless. I fleshed out the Battle of Chach article with Rehman, Abdur (January 1976). The Last Two Dynasties of the Sahis: An analysis of their history, archaeology, coinage and palaeography. Australian National University, one of our main sources for the Hindu Shahis article. He seems to consider this battle as quite significant, to the point that he has a bit more than 2 pages on this single event. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 08:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

So, you concede that the battle is not — as of yet — properly covered in scholarship? Btw, I have used the same source to write the same things at this page. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

No, I think it is rather well covered. And no, the main page does not cover the details that the "battle" page does. Your obsession with merging pages whose existence is generally deemed perfectly legitimate on Wikipedia (kings, battles...) is getting tiring... पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 09:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I won't reply to the strange accusations except noting that Rehman, Abdur (January 1976) is a thesis. Btw, what details are not mentioned in this page - the numerical strength? TrangaBellam (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Rehman, Abdur (January 1976) is already used extensively in the Hindu Shahi article itself. As to battle details: well, tactical details are normally not needed in a general article about the Hindu Shahis, details are best left to the article about the Battle of Chach itself. This is usually the way it is done on Wikipedia... पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 10:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lack of reference page numbers

@TrangaBellam: This article has a huge referencing problem because most of the Rehman and Khan references you have given lack page numbers. There are about a hundred such defective references. This hampers editorial work by other users (improvements, verification etc...). Can you resolve this quickly please, and if possible do so before you move to editing something else? Thank you पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 06:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

About 40 are left. Will take another go at it, sometime soon. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: Hi, can you kindly finish filling your page numbers please? Who was saying "Please do not ref-spam a 760-page book without any page number" again? [6] :) Thanks पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 06:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

12 are left and I cannot find these page-numbers, tbh.

Now onto sfn-ing Khaw and Ball. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Outdated coinage theories

@TrangaBellam: Regarding your removal of [7]. I'm afraid Rehman is quite fringe in his opinions regarding Hindu Shahi coin type having already started under the Turk Shahis... never seen this theory anywhere else. Michael Alram's segmentation is much more recent and authoritative, it will have to stay, possibly with slightly softer phrasing if you so prefer. I wish you stopped your practice of blanking referenced content you do not agree with (often complete articles, here a sourced piece of important and relevant information... if I followed your methods, I could just have blanked the whole coin theory of Rehman myself, called it BS and bluntly told you to justify yourself on the Talk Page...): rather you should balance, complement, discuss in a collaborative manner, and avoid deleting the work of other good-faithed contributors whenever possible... that's how we usually edit on Wikipedia. It's not a war, it's collaboration and building on top of the work of others. Best. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

You said modern numismatists but provided a single reference (Alram). Rahman is not a scholar of colonial times, just a couple of years older than Alram. More importantly, nothing said by Alram (explicit or implicit) contradicts Rahman. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

1) Rahman wrote his thesis in 1976, nearly 50 years ago, it's probably quite outdated, and I am not aware that he has reiterated this claim in more recent works, or that others have taken up the claim. On the contrary, Michael Alram, one of the foremost numismatists in this area wrote about Hindu Shahi coinage very recently in 2021 (Alram, Michael (1 February 2021). "The Numismatic Legacy of the Sasanians in the East", in "Sasanian Iran in the Context of Late Antiquity: The Bahari Lecture Series at the University of Oxford". BRILL. p. 21, full study pages 5-21. ISBN 978-90-04-46066-9.)

2) Rahman is not a numismat, Michael Alram is (as well as a historian), and one of the best, therefore Alram is a much stronger RS for a matter related to coins.

3) You are sourcing from Rahman's thesis (Rehman, Abdur (January 1976). The Last Two Dynasties of the Sahis: An analysis of their history, archaeology, coinage and palaeography (Thesis). Australian National University.), something which is quite borderline in terms of RS (Thesis "can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not." in WP:RS), whereas Alram is clearly RS

3) Contrary to you, I don't try to blank your content, I am just trying to balance it with a more recent and authoritative source.

4) Alram clearly explains that the bull/horserider emerged with the Hindu Shahis, and never attributes this coin type to the Turk Shahis. That is in direct contradiction with Rahman's claim.

5) We can soften the sentence if you wish, and attribute it to Michael Alram only. I will then update the sentence when I find supplementary sources.

पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

(2) Rahman is the foremost scholar on Hindu Shahis: Meister, who had worked under Rahman, holds such an opinion. Alram cites the same thesis, too.

(3-i) Rahman's thesis has been cited about 200 times. It was edited and reprinted as a book by NBH, Islamabad.

(4) Alram asks readers to consult MacDowall (1968) for a study of the coinage. Have you consulted MacDowall (1968)? What does he state? What is his opinion on the Spalapati series?

Consult Paiman, Zafar; Alram, Michael (2010-01-01). "Tepe Narenj: A Royal Monastery on the High Ground of Kabul, with a Commentary on the Coinage". Journal of Inner Asian Art and Archaeology. 5: 37. doi:10.1484/J.JIAAA.1.103268. ISSN 1783-9025. on how differently they deal with 3(c) [Śrī Spalapati Deva (ca. 750?–ca. 850?)] and 4(d) [Hindu-Shahi, Śrī Khudavayaka (ca. 870– ca. 900)]. Here goes a quote:

The characteristic feature of Hindu Shahi coinage is the Bull and Horseman type, struck in Kabulistan and the Punjab and nearly unchanged for more than 200 years. However, the exact chronological framework of these issues is still not firmly established and therefore the termini post quos for the archaeological layers in which these coins have been found must be treated with caution. According to David Mac Dowall (1968, pp. 205-12) the earliest issues with the legend Śrī Spalapati Deva (Fig. 21c; the coin is rather worn) were introduced after 750 CE and so would fall into the latest phase of the Turk Shahi rulers of Kabul (cf. Rehman 1979, pp. 185-90). Be that as it may, the bulk of the silver drachms with the Bull and Horseman type can be dated between ca. 850 and ca. 1000 CE and are firmly connected with the rule of the Hindu Shahis.

Pat, I will appreciate if you stop wasting my time. I know what I am writing, unlike you. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: Well, it is quite obvious from your quote that the authors are uncomfortable with Dowall's analysis ("Be that as it may..."). MacDowall is quite dated indeed (53 years!) (MACDOWALL, DAVID W. (1968). "THE SHAHIS OF KABUL AND GANDHARA". The Numismatic Chronicle (1966-). 8: 189–224. ISSN 0078-2696.) as he does not even acknowledge the proper coinage of the Turk Shahis as we know it today, and simply attributes (tentatively) the whole bull/horserider type to the whole period after the Nezak Huns, whom he calls "Chionites" and pushes as late as 750 CE, clearly confusing the Nezak Hun period and coinage with that of the Turk Shahis (He even confuses the namings "Turk Shahis" and "Hindu Shahis" p.210). Alram in 2010 already attributed "the bulk of the the Bull and Horseman type" firmly to the Hindus Shahis and expressed doubts about MacDowall, and now in 2021 clearly attributes these coins to the Hindu Shahis only [8], right after an extensive an detailed description of Turk Shahi coinage. Better to use some modern sources besides the 1968 Mc Dowall and the 1976 thesis by Rehman: they need to be balanced with the recent (2021) and highly reliable work from Michael Alram. This is the standard Wikipedia way of doing things (I have no intention to delete your work from Rehman, only to balance it with newer scholarship). And I would appreciate if you stopped acting rudely by blanking the referenced contributions of others, and being incivil in your comments as above. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Meh: you are not getting your way. "Be that as it may" do not express any discomfort; it is a synonym to "nevertheless". We have a source as late as 2010 where Akram repeats Rahman/MacDowall's hypothesis about Spalapati series without offering slightest critique. Even in 2013, Alram repeats the same view.

If you have a source where Akram explicitly rejects this hypothesis, please cite and add it. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Not quite, "Be that as it may..." is used to suspend judgement, therefore cannot be construed as an endorsement of MacDowall at all (in effect a mild rebutal):

You say 'Be that as it may' when you want to move onto another subject or go further with the discussion, without deciding whether what has just been said is right or wrong." [9]

And anyway, Alram's position is made even clearer in his 2021 panorama of the coinage of the region [10]. We do not need a specific rebutal of older material from Rehman (1976) and MacDowall (1968): adding the recent analysis of Alram (2021) is sufficient in itself and fully complies with Wikipedia editorial rules (and is even preferable since recent scholarship is considered as generally more reliable and useful for an encyclopedia). पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

A relook

1

2

Waleed Ziad's monograph. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Take a shot at GA. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The Name Hindu Shahiis

The orginally known as "Turk Shahi".[1], later changed as the Hindu Shahi [2][3] RsEkanayake 02:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

WHAT? Did you read our article? TrangaBellam (talk) 06:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Hindu shahi brahman shahi

Rajput is not a caste, the king may be from any caste, his son will be called Rajputra, the initial king of Hindu Shahi was a Brahmin, which has also been said by Al Beruni, it was the monarchy of turkshahi's minister Kallar, Rajputra is just a title which is given to the sons of kings(from anonymus caste) 103.206.177.49 (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC) I don't know why people consider Rajput as a caste? This is just a union that came in the medieval period, kings like Rathor Chalukya came out of South Dravid India, Tomar is also considered to have come out of Madhya Pradesh, it has been called Tomar Ghar!The Hindu/shahi (royals) were brahmins in the beginning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.206.177.49 (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Add following categories

Please add the following 3 relevant categories:

1. Category:Rajputs

2. Category:Rajput clans

3. Category:Dynasties of the Rajputs

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_Shahis#Origins

Source: https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/11229/1/Rehman_A_1976.pdf pages 48, 51, 185, 190, 192 Kshatriya Yoddha (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Lead

@HistorianAlferedo Hi, if you look at the contents section of the article, you will see that there is already an Origins section in place which discusses the various theories as to who the Hindu Shahis were. Repeatedly adding your own theory to the lead so that it contradicts (partially) that section is a low quality edit that serves to do nothing but confuse the reader. If you want to argue for a particular origin then add it to the relevant section. Ixudi (talk) 21:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually, i had just reverted the page to the previous as it was before. I didn’t see what was the change made by the ip. HistorianAlferedo (talk) 08:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)