User talk:192.115.19.56

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello. This message is regarding the page Indian Independence Movement. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Otherwise, people might consider your edits to be vandalism. Thank you. --Gurubrahma 12:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hullo, please read WP:V and WP:NPOV. Persistent attempts to change content with out the backing of credible sources and/or the consensus of fellow editors could get you blocked. --Gurubrahma 17:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, this is nothing but political censorship, pure and simple. The site in question is giving considerable coverage to the policy of the Indian government in 1948 which rejected the decisions of the Muslim rulers of Hyderabad and Junagadh with regard to the future of these states, since the majority of their population was Hindu and had the democratic right to join India. But there is no mention (and not by chance, evidently!) that in Kashmir the Indian government chose to accpet the decision of the Hindu ruler and ignore the fact that the majority was Muslim and did not want to join India. This is a well known fact which appears in every history book on the subject. If you will look at the discussion page of the Indian Independence Movement you will see that I did try to discuss this issue but the people who object to my attempted edit chose not to answer, some twenty-four hours later. I am well-aware that Indians feel very strongly about the issue of Kashmir, and I am far from thinking that all justice is on one side in this issue. And I do agree that Indians have a specific right to be heard with regard to a page dealing with Indian history. I do NOT accept that supporters of the Indian Government's position have the right to outright censorhip and veto over valid, pertinent and well-attested historical facts, just becuase they are inconcenient for the political propaganda of their side. Let me add that, had the editors of the page felt an objection to the pharasing of my attmpted edit and introduced an entry of their own on the same subject I would have considered that quite reasonalble. Just wiping away what I wrote and trestoring the page ayutomatically to its previuous state is not a reasonable reaction.

Yours, Adam Keller - Tel Aviv, Israel (as I stated on the discussion page, I am an outsider with no ax to grind in the affairs of the Indian subcontinent. I assure you I would have acted exactly the same had I seen a page with a Pakistani point of view which ommitted a historiaclly relevant fact for political reasons).