Talk:Bharatpur State

Wrong Ruler Depicted As Maharaja of Bharatpur

The ruler in the last picture is Nawab Bahawal Khan Abbassi of Bahawalpur State. It is not the Maharaja of Bharatpur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.47.219.179 (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Corrected. Thank you for pointing out the error. Xufanc (talk) 09:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia of bharatpur state is incorrect Yash Choudhary Sonuu (talk) 10:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

False history of lineage depicted purposely , which has no factual basis .

The factual history is that the Jat state was established by churaman Jat and before that the landowners of that region, not the descendants of some rajput king. Infact jats only started inhabiting the area in the 16th century . Meethamonkey (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Meethamonkey, you are partially correct that the legends were shown as facts and the details were either cherry-picked from reliable sources or unreliably-sourced from the Raj-era sources. As mentioned in this book, it is a reprint of a Raj-era book which was published around one century ago in 1922. Its details are available here. And we don't use such Raj-era sources – see here and here. So I will remove this source.

Similarly, this book is a non-scholarly work. As mentioned here, the author "works in the oil and gas sector of the British government identifying and mitigating risks. He is a former British Army member." His book may be fine for basic facts like Princely States' decorations, medals, etc. But it a poor source for historical legends & claims.

As far as Dr. Ram Pande is concerned, he was one of the few historians who specialise in Bharatpur Jats. As mentioned in his book, it is "substantially a thesis approved for the Degree of Ph. D., by the University of Rajasthan" – see here for its overall details. It is not only his area of expertise but also describes the origin most thoroughly. The book has two full pages about the origin of Bharatpur royal dynasty (see my edit summary). And it covers both facts and legends, along with properly examining them. So I will summarise them in the article. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@nitinMlk- 👍👍 go ahead . But I would suggest that the portion regarding lineage should be undermined for the following reasons - 1. The paragraph edited out by me , started of by saying - " a legend current in Bharatpur till late " suggests that the legend is now no longer in prevalence .

2. Also the claim that the sons of Balchand were not admitted as Rajputs seems to hold untrue , as the word Rajput was not in usage during that time period and instead its root word "Rajputra" was used . Also the word Rajput came to signify a social class and a community only after the 15th century .

However I have seen the edits that you have made , and eventhough I believe this story has various problems , I think you have made the relevant additions to suggest that this story has problems . Anyways thanks for sorting this out . Meethamonkey (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio

It seems this edit copy-pasted at least some content from here, but I don't have much time today to check this carefully. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Maharaja Suraj Mal.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Origin of Bharatpur Jats

The rulers of Bharatpul" claim to have been originally Jadaun Rajputs, the descendants of Krishna. Sue, a Jadaun Rajput, the 78th in descent from Krishna, is said to have migrated from Bayana to the Deeg jungles and founded the village of Sinsini, named after Sinsina, the genus loci or tutelar deity. Balachand, the fourth in descent from him, was a noted freebooter, and in one of his marauding expeditions made prisoners of a Jat of the Dagar clan and his wife from Hindaun (now in Jaipur) and brought them to his house in Sinsini. Having no children by his own wife, he took the Jat woman into his harem and two sons by her, Bije and Sije. These were regarded as Jats and expelled from the Rajput brotherhood. Having no 'got' of their own they took the name of Sinsinwar, from their pa.ernal village, and from them are descended the Sinsinwar Jats.

Source : https://censusindia.gov.in/nada/index.php/catalog/28801/study-description

Kindly add this under the title of 'Origin of Bharatpur Jats'. Wiki Samant (talk) 08:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2025

Steelmax4333 (talk) 11:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

"The first paragraph of the history of Bharatpur state is incorrect. I don’t understand why it is included. Please remove that section, as no community would choose a ruler who is a product of two different communities." So it is just false story to degrade jaat ruler. So remove the below secton from this page -

"The rulers of the Bharatpur dynasty were Sinsinwar Jats. As per the origin legend, they claimed their descent from Balchand, a Yadav Rajput, 19th in line from Sindpal, the claimed ancestor of both the Bharatpur and the Karauli families and also a descendant of Madan Pal, a Jadon Rajput. Balchand's wife was infertile, so he had two sons named Vijje and Sijje with a Jat concubine whom he had captured during one of his regular plundering raids. His sons became Jats and adopted Sinsinwar as their gotra based on the village of Sinsini after being rejected as Rajputs. Historian Ram Pande notes several issues with this legend: Sinsini had never been part of Karauli State, the caste of a child is not based on the mother's caste, and they would have become Darogas when rejected as Rajputs instead of Jats.[7] Ram Pande states that this legend was created "to show superiority of Sinsinwar Jats over other Jats."[8]"

 Not done - Reliably sourced content , Ram Pande also explains why he thinks this legend is ahistorical. Removal would require consensus. - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

"Ram Pande was not born during that era. If I were to publish a book about Ram Pande and include false information just to increase its popularity, that would not be true history and should not be presented as such. You seem to lack accurate knowledge about the Sinsinwars and are mixing in fabricated stories. This is merely a made-up narrative, as I mentioned earlier—no community would choose a ruler based on a lineage that includes a mother's caste from a different community. History has often been written by people who were not present during the time they describe, leading to inaccuracies. Therefore, I strongly urge you to delete that paragraph, as I am certain it was added recently.

Before including such content, you should have at least interviewed the current Bharatpur king, Maharaja Vishvendra Singh. This is Wikipedia, a platform read by countless people, and false information can lead to misleading conclusions. My suggestion is to remove this content entirely, or, if you wish to add accurate information, consult with people connected to the Bharatpur rulers. By doing so, you might gain a clearer understanding. Many historians have made incorrect analyses, so it is essential to verify facts before presenting them as history." Steelmax4333 (talk) 12:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Ram Pande who was one of the very few historians specialising in the history of Bharatpur state should be discarded because he was not born when Sinsinwar Jats formed their caste? That's ridiculous. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I believe so. Is there any other historian other than ram pande from Bharatpur who has written about the same story? There are many people who may not like the rulers and could degrade their origins. If many historians have mentioned this, then there might be a chance it is accurate, but if only one historian is making this claim, it is 99.99% likely to be wrong. I suggest you first go to Bharatpur, meet the people and the current rulers, and do the analysis before adding this point here. just dont fully believe on any history books. Steelmax4333 (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

chudaman Jat established the bharatpur jat kingdom not by any descendent of any jadon. Steelmax4333 (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Bharatpur State

Moved from User talk:Ratnahastin

I see that you are removing the lead section of Bharatpur state containing lohagarh. As far as i know lead section contains the summary of all important things about the Article and in this case Lohagarh fort is very important because it was impenetrable by the invaders after multiple attemps. And also in current situation the lead is not that too much long so that we need to remove the information about the main fort of state. And if you are removing this the why are you not adding this in body by writing a separate heading like Architecture in the body of article ? TheSlumPanda (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@TheSlumPanda: - As you say lead section contains the summary of all important things about the Article, can you please write the information you wish to include in a neutral and condensed manner in the body first? We can then decide how much of it can be included in the lead while keeping WP:DUE weightage in mind, thanks. - Ratnahastin (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin, then should i write about the lohagarh fort and deeg palace in concise form in lead and in more elaborate form in body of this article with proper section on architecture, thanks TheSlumPanda (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Article is not accurate

the articles starts by describing Bharatpur as merely a princely state which does not represent the true picture , as it has existed as a Kingdom before being reduced to Princely states so it could be edited for accurate information and Bharatpur Kingdom would be a more accurate Title, Adding one source-A New Look at Modern Indian History : From 1707 to The Modern Times. (n.d.). (n.p.): S. Chand Publishing. Vivan007 (talk) 11:24, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Lancer Publication

@TheSlumPanda first the source you provided does NOT say that they were independent and secondly it was written by Tony McClenaghan who is NOT a historian (see here:).

Please do not misrepresent sources and please provide reliable sources per WP:RS. Ixudi (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I’m not sure why you keep removing this independent line, and why you are consistently presenting this state as if it had been a princely state from its very founding. Additionally, Bharatpur was particularly well-known for being an undefeated fort prior to 1826, when the final siege took place. This Government of India site also says that the seize in 1825 was an effort to integrate the INDEPENDENT territory into British sphere. TheSlumPanda (talk) 04:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Please do not engage in WP:OR. Per this source, published by SAGE, they were tributaries of the House of Scindia: .

By all accounts they were never independent. Ixudi (talk) 10:25, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

okay. previously I didn’t saw the SAGE source TheSlumPanda (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2025

Tributary to independent kingdom < https://books.google.co.in/books/publisher/content?id=Yc64EAAAQBAJ&pg=PA8&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U1Wzn7at0DfNO0GOyNP_hZVPw4wZw&w=1280 ></ref> Porasjats (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.

please be very clearSlomo666 (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2025

Change in history section from "The Bharatpur rulers were Jats of Sinsinwar clan, as per a mythological origion they descent from Balchand, a Jadon Rajput, through his sons Vijje and Sijje, born to a Jat concubine. They adopted the Sinsinwar gotra after being rejected as Rajputs." To "The Bharatpur rulers were Jats of Sinsinwar clan, as per a mythological origin they descent from Balchand, a Yadav Rajput, through his sons Vijje and Sijje, born to a Jat concubine. They adopted the Sinsinwar gotra after being rejected as Rajputs." As this was not preferred or suggested by Given reference in article, the accurate context was available in [reference ] ~2025-31842-73 (talk) 06:30, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done Please clarify what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Vixissimi^📨 11:39, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done - I've fixed the "origion" typo, I've also made some minor sentence adjustments, and I've changed the word from Jadon Rajput to Yadav Rajput, and I've cited that source. User:Vixissimi: I'm sorry, but the request seemed clear to me. The temporary account (gosh, I miss saying "the IP") gave a source and gave an X to Y format explanation. So, I've accepted the request. Revert if you challenge my edit or judgment. Thank you both. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 02:15, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Selective use of Ram Pande source in Origins section

The source by Ram Pande is being selectively quoted in the Origins section. The concluding line about "showing superiority" is included, but the preceding critical analysis that questions the Rajput-origin legend has been removed. This misrepresents the context of the source and violates WP:CONTEXT and WP:NPOV. I suggest restoring the full neutral summary of the source ~2026-69943-5 (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@Ixudi @Adakiko There has been no response to this issue for several days. I am requesting a third opinion on whether the Ram Pande source is being quoted out of context and whether the full critical analysis should be represented. ~2026-69943-5 (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't have access to that book. If you have other sources, please post them here. Give this article's edit history, many appear to have disagreements. Thank you Adakiko (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

@Adakiko According to Satish Chandra (Medieval India, Vol. II), the Bharatpur state emerged from Jat uprisings in the Mathura–Agra region, and by the eighteenth century “Jat chiefs formed the ruling class.” This contradicts claims that the Bharatpur dynasty was of Rajput (Jadon) origin.

Chapter “Jats and Satnamis”, Satish Chandra, Medieval India: From Sultanat to the Mughals, Vol. II.

This thing proves that, bharatpur state was a political creation not rajput offshoot.

It was created by rao Churaman and was not given by karauli as a jagir to the jats.

2nd source: ~2026-69943-5 (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

2nd source:

Here is the full relevant passage from Ram Pande that is being summarized selectively in the article:

Pande describes the Balchand–Jadon story and then states:

“There are several difficulties in accepting the story. Firstly, Karauli was never such a big state at any time that Sinsini could have been a part of it. Secondly, a child’s caste is normally determined by the caste of the father, not by that of the mother… Probably the purpose of the above legend was to show superiority of Sinsinwar Jats over other Jats.”

This shows that Pande treats the Rajput-origin story as a constructed legend, not as historical fact. The article currently presents the legend without adequately reflecting Pande’s critical conclusion, which violates WP:CONTEXT and WP:NPOV. Thank you @Adakiko ~2026-69943-5 (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@Adakiko 3rd source:

In Loknath Ghosh, The Modern History of the Indian Chiefs, Rajas, Zamindars & Native States (p. 73), the Bharatpur dynasty is explicitly described as belonging to the Jat tribe:

“The family of Bharatpur belong to the Jat tribe. They had emigrated from Multan and settled themselves as cultivators in the doab about the middle of the 17th century…”

This directly contradicts the attempt to frame their origin as Rajput-derived. The current lead gives undue weight to a disputed legend while ignoring this clear historical statement, which violates WP:NPOV and WP:CONTEXT. Hence, I request you to make the changes as soon as possible. Thank you. ~2026-10764-07 (talk) 06:03, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't have access to those. Change it back if you wish. I cannot confirm either version. BTW: I reformatted this per wp:thread. Increase indent only if you are replying to another. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Loknath Ghosh, The Modern History of the Indian Chiefs, Rajas, Zamindars & Native States (1903), p. 73,

Available at: https://archive.org/details/dli.bengal.10689.15174 ~2026-10764-07 (talk) 06:54, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@Adakiko the article is locked and i am not able to change it by myself. Could you please tag another editor who could respond me and do what could be done? Thankyou. ~2026-17672-76 (talk) 05:25, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-17672-76: Please us an wp:Edit request. I am not sure who to tag. You might check the wp:page history for an editor that has made significant contributions to the article. If you want a third optionin, see wp:Third opinion Cheers Adakiko (talk) 05:35, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• The caste topic is under WP:ECR. You cannot edit this page for any purpose other than for requesting edits, discussion on source and comparative analysis is not allowed. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 10:01, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikilinking

1)Under "History", then in the 1st paragraph, 1st sentence and at the 2nd mentioning "Deeg" leads to an article on "Deeg", while "Deeg" at the 1st mentioning does not, despite sharing a header, paragraph and sentence.

2)Under "History", then in the 1st paragraph, 1st sentence and at the 2nd mentioning "Bharatpur" leads to an article on "Bharatpur, Rajasthan", while "Bharatpur" at the 1st mentioning does not, despite sharing a header, paragraph and sentence.

3)Under "History", then in the 2nd paragraph and 1st sentence "Jats" leads to an article on "Jats", while "Jat" in the 1st paragraph and 1st sentence does not, despite sharing a header.

4)Under "History" the links on "Jats" in the 2nd paragraph and 1st sentence and "Jats" in the 3rd paragraph and 1st sentence lead to one article, despite sharing a header.

5)Under "History", then in the 3rd paragraph and 1st sentence "Delhi" leads to an article on "Delhi", while "Delhi" in the 1st paragraph and 5th sentence does not, despite sharing a header.

6)Under "History" the links on "Agra" in the 1st paragraph and 1st sentence and "Agra" in the 3rd paragraph and 1st sentence lead to one article, despite sharing a header.

7)Under "History" the links on "Mughal Empire" in the 1st paragraph and 2nd sentence, "Mughals" in the 3rd paragraph and 1st sentence and "Mughal rule" in the 4th paragraph and 1st sentence lead to one article, despite sharing a header.

8)Under "History", then in the 3rd paragraph and 4th sentence "Gokula" leads to an article on "Gokula Jat", while "Gokula" in the 2nd sentence does not, despite sharing a header and paragraph.

9)Under "History" the links on "Gokula" in the 3rd paragraph and 4th sentence and "Gokula" in the 4th paragraph and 1st sentence lead to one article, despite sharing a header.

10)Under "History" the links on "Aurangzeb" in the 3rd paragraph and 2nd sentence and "Aurangzeb" in the 4th paragraph and 5th sentence lead to one article, despite sharing a header.

11)Under "History" the links on "Mathura" in the 3rd paragraph and 1st sentence and "Mathura" in the 4th paragraph and 5th sentence lead to one article, despite sharing a header.

12)Under "History" the links on "Rajaram of Sinsini" in the 4th paragraph and 1st sentence, "Rajaram" in the 5th paragraph and 1st sentence and "Rajaram" in the 3rd sentence lead to one article, despite sharing a header.

13)Under "History" the links on "Churaman" in the 5th paragraph and 1st sentence and "Churaman" in the 5th paragraph and 2nd sentence lead to one article, despite sharing a header.

14)Under "History", then in the 5th paragraph and 3rd sentence "Akbar" leads to an article on "Akbar", while "Akbar" in the 4th and 2nd sentence does not, despite sharing a header and paragraph.

15)Under "History" the links on "Maharajat Jaswant Singh" in the 7th paragraph and 4th sentence and "Jaswant Singh" in the 5th sentence lead to one article, despite sharing a header and paragraph.

16)Under "History" the link on "G.C.S.I" in the 7th paragraph and 5th sentence leads to the article "Order of the Star of India", despite the first usage of the initialism.

17)Under "List of Maharajas" the links on "Jawahar Singh" in the 2nd column and 3rd row and "Jawahar Singh" in the 3rd column, 4th row and 1st sentence lead to one article, despite sharing a header.

18)Under "List of Maharajas" the links on "Ratan Singh" in the 2nd column and 4th row and "Ratan Singh" in the 3rd column and 5th row lead to one article, despite sharing a header.

19)Under "List of Maharajas" the links on "Suraj Mal" in the 2nd column and 2nd row and "Suraj Mal" in the 3rd column and 6th row lead to one article, despite sharing a header.

20)Under "List of Maharajas" the links on "Ranjit Singh" in the 2nd column and 6th row and "Ranjit Singh" in the 3rd column and 7th row lead to one article, despite sharing a header.

21)Under "List of Maharajas" the links on "Randhir Singh" in the 2nd column and 7th row and "Randhir Singh" in the 3rd column and 8th row lead to one article, despite sharing a header.

22)Under "List of Maharajas" the links on "Baldeo Singh" in the 2nd column and 8th row and "Baldeo Singh" in the 3rd column and 9th row lead to one article, despite sharing a header.

23)Under "List of Maharajas" the links on "Balwant Singh" in the 2nd column and 9th row and "Balwant Singh" in the 3rd column and 10th row lead to one article, despite sharing a header.

24)Under "List of Maharajas" the links on "Jaswant Singh" in the 2nd column and 10th row and "Jaswant Singh" in the 3rd column and 11th row lead to one article, despite sharing a header.

25)Under "List of Maharajas" the links on "Ram Singh" in the 2nd column and 11th row and "Ram Singh" in the 3rd column and 12th row lead to one article, despite sharing a header.

26)Under "Expansion and decline" the links on "Maharaja Suraj Mal" in the 1st paragraph and 1st sentence and "Suraj Mal" in the 3rd sentence lead to one article, despite sharing a header and paragraph.

27)Under "Expansion and decline" the links on "Agra" in the 2nd paragraph and 1st sentence and "capture of Agra" in the 2nd sentence lead to one article, despite sharing a header and paragraph.

28)Under "Expansion and decline", then in the 3rd paragraph and 2nd sentence "Hapur" links to an article on "Hapur", while the others link to the ones on "[...] district", despite sharing a header, paragraph and sentence.

29)Under "Expansion and decline", then in the 3rd paragraph and 2nd sentence "Auraiya" links to an article on "Auraiya", while the others link to the ones on "[...] district", despite sharing a header, paragraph and sentence.

30)Under "Expansion and decline", then in the 3rd paragraph and 2nd sentence "Firozabad" links to an article on "Firozabad", while the others link to the ones on "[...] district", despite sharing a header, paragraph and sentence.

31)Under "Expansion and decline", then in the 3rd paragraph and 2nd sentence "Baghpat" links to an article on "Baghpat", while the others link to the ones on "[...] district", despite sharing a header, paragraph and sentence.

32)Under "Expansion and decline", then in the 3rd paragraph and 2nd sentence "Sonipat" links to an article on "Sonipat", while the others link to the ones on "[...] district", despite sharing a header, paragraph and sentence.

33)Under "Expansion and decline" the links on "Delhi" in the 3rd paragraph and 1st sentence and "Delhi" in the 2nd sentence lead to one article, despite sharing a header and paragraph.

34)Under "Expansion and decline" the links on "East India Company" in the 1st paragraph and 3rd sentence and "East India Company" in the 4th paragraph and 2nd sentence lead to one article, despite sharing a header.

35)Under "Architecture" the links on "Lohagarh Fort" in the 1st paragraph and 1st sentence and "Logaharh" in the 3rd paragraph and 1st sentence lead to one article, despite sharing a header.

36)Under "Architecture" the links on "Maharaja Suraj Mal" in the 1st paragraph and 2nd sentence, "Maharaja Suraj Mal" in the 3rd paragraph and 1st sentence and "Maharaja Suraj Mal" in the 4th paragraph and 1st lead to one article, despite sharing a header. IndefinitelyProtectedArticleTalker (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@IndefinitelyProtectedArticleTalker: Not sure what you want here. Maybe use the format "please change x to y"? See wp:edit requests

BTW: If you preface a line with a "#", it will autonumber. Lines must not have blank lines in between. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Change phrasing of leading sentence

Please change beginning sentence to say:

"Bharatpur was a sovereign kingdom, and then princely state under British suzerainty" (after Ranjit Singh of Bharatpur's surrender)

To imply that it was just a princely state (as it currently is phrased) is factually wrong and historically impossible, as the state started under Badan Singh in 1700s before British even got to that region!

~2026-12818-21 (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

References

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. {{GearsDatapack|talk|contribs}} 19:59, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I've added the citations now. Justthereply30 (talk) 05:44, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Not done: your request appears to have been generated by a large language model. InfernoHues (talk) 04:21, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

What? You mean "Bharatpur was a sovereign kingdom, and then princely state under British suzerainty", right? I don't know how else to word it, but I can assure you I didn't use an LLM.

It's almost the same wording as Kingdom of Marwar ("Kingdom of Marwar... was a kingdom in the Marwar region from 1243 to 1818 and a princely state under British rule from 1818 to 1947.")

In this case, the dates would be: sovereign from 1722-1805, then princely state from 1805-1947.

Please reconsider, opening request one last time. Justthereply30 (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Your sources do not support the statement. InfernoHues (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

It is proof that the kingdom existed in 1722, and became princely state in 1805. Infobox of this page itself also confirms it. What specific has to be said? There is no original research in seeing the dates... Justthereply30 (talk) 05:23, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Neither of the two citations you gave support the proposed text. I did fix the lead based on the infobox. InfernoHues (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I want to mention that House of Scindia was founded in 1731, so a state from 1722 could not have started as a tributary. Also thanks, Justthereply30 (talk) 03:11, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Can you please make a new edit request with your sources, I don't really have the time to look at this right now. InfernoHues (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2026 (UTC)