Talk:Bengal Sultanate–Delhi Sultanate War

Result

@Malik-Al-Hind Since it's more appropriate to discuss here.

Sources do show that the Tughlaqs wished to restore their rule over the province, but ultimately had to accept the Bengal Sultanate's independence. [1]. Noorullah (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The sources you cite says that Tughlaqs wanted to regain the territory because Bengal Sultanate "broke" the terms of the treaty.

"Once again history was repeated when Firuz Shah Tughlaq invaded Bengal a second time in 1359 in a bid to regain that province after repudiating his own treaty with Ilyas. He accused Sikandar of violating this treaty" [2].

Infact. "Regain" here can be interpreted as "conquest" more. Because Even in the first Invasion by Tughlaq (Where Firuz Shah won). Tatar Khan urged him to establish his rule in Bengal. But Firuz shah rejected and went back to Delhi after negotiating a peace treaty with Shamshuddin illayas shah:

"Tatar Khan repeatedly urged the Sultan to retain the territory he had conquered, but the Sultan was averse to annexation" Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@Malik-Al-Hind If it was relevant to breaking a treaty or not, the Bengal Sultanate still regained its independence and continued to do so for the next two centuries (as stated in sources).

You're citing a primary source which isn't WP:RS. (Tarikh-i-Firoz Shahi) Noorullah (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Attempting to also interpret a source in your quote for "Regain here can be interpreted as conquest" is WP:OR. Noorullah (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes because the main motive of the invasion was to Revive the treaty which was violated by the sultan of Delhi. Not to "annex" Bengal Moreover I gave a WP:RS source, It's not primary, It's "History Of India As told by its Own historian" written by Sir H.M Eliot. It is a commentary on the primary source and the in the source Sultan Firuz Shah himself says he is against any sort of Annexation.

Bengal was independent even After the first invasion (which the Tughlaqs clearly won by returning to Delhi after sacking the capital of Bengal). And it was independent even Afterwards. The sultan didn't have any motive to annex it. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

By the way, Even your own source seems to point towards this:

"Tughlaqs again besieged Ekdala Fort and was about to take it by assault when, on seeing the ladies on top of the fort wailing and appealing to the emperor for mercy, he decided against annexation and returned to Delhi" [3] Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I edited the result section. I think it would be better to mention the result of Both of the wars.

This would be better and would obviously be appropriate to write:

"Delhi sultanate victory in First Ekdala War".

"Bengal sultanate victory in Second Ekdala war"

Because in the first invasion the Tughlaqs sacked and looted the capital of Bengal sultanate and returned to delhi.

In the Second siege, The Bengal sultan Sikandar shah repulsed the Tughlaq army Since they were exhausted.

Do let me know about what you think about this suggestion. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@Malik-Al-Hind Seems good. Noorullah (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)