Question

The sikhs were forced to sign the treaty of Lahore. Justify the following statement by giving five relevant arguments​

Answer 1

Answer:

The Treaty of Lahore of 9 March 1846, was a peace treaty marking the end of the First Anglo-Sikh War. The Treaty was concluded, for the British, by the Governor-General Sir Henry Hardinge and two officers of the East India Company and, for the Sikhs, by the seven-year-old Maharaja Duleep Singh Bahadur and seven members of Hazara, the territory to the south of the river Sutlej and the forts and territory in the Jalandhar Doab between the rivers Sutlej and Beas.[1] In addition, controls were placed on the size of the Lahore army and thirty-six field guns were confiscated.[2] The control of the rivers Sutlej and Beas and part of the Indus passed to the British, with the proviso that this was not to interfere with the passage of passenger boats owned by the Lahore Government.[3] Also, provision was made for the separate sale of all the hilly regions between River Beas and Indus, including Kashmir, by the East India Company at a later date to Gulab Singh, the Raja of Jammu.[4]

Answer 2

Answer:

• After death of Maharaja Ranjit Singh who was king of Punjab in 19th century, British defeated Sikhs in Anglo-Sikhs war.

•After that they forced Sikhs to sign on Lahore treaty.

•The Treaty was concluded, for the British, by the Governor-General Sir Henry Hardinge and two officers of the East India Company .

•Here from Sikhs side Maharaja Dilip Singh son of Maharaja Ranjit Singh had signed from Sikhs side.

So, this was force by British because at that time witness from Sikhs side Maharaja Dilip Singh was just 7 years old, an underage can't sign on documents like this that's why it's kind of force.

And this is how Maharaja Ranjit Singh's Kingdom (include West Punjab, East Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana and even Kashmir) came under British rule for 90 years.

Explanation:

Hope this is gonna help you

PLEASE MARK ME AS BRANLIEST ☺️