User talk:Fowler&fowler/Short History Indian Independence Movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Comments


[edit] Chittagong Armoury Raid

That was another big revolutionary event led by Surya Sen and Pritilata Waddedar. (notice the rare female participation in such activities). --Ragib 05:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Use of the word "terrorist"

Please justify it with sources. There is a lot of precedence in not using the word terrorist to label freedom fighters, especially in events of past. The word terrorist has a massive amounts of negative connotation attached to it in todays world and does not easily translate to acts/movements in early 20th century. Finally, even if you can justify the label, it is highly insensitive to have a section heading that bunches completely different things like swadeshi movement and terrorism. --Blacksun 08:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm I did not realize that this is simply a test article on Fowler's page. Ha, well, you know what will come up when you move this to live version :P --Blacksun 08:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to the user of "terrorist"

First of all, upon reflexion, I do agree with one point (whether you might be implying it or not): it is better to call the acts, "acts of terrorism," rather than the people, "terrorists." To that extent, at least, I will make a change.
Second, "Freedom fighter" is not a historiographic term. It is really another imprecise word like "patriot." The term for the Indian freedom movement used in most history books is "Indian nationalism." As for the terms "revolutionary" vs. "terrorist," (that someone else had brought up on the Talk:India page), they, of course, refer to different things. Gandhi, for example, was a revolutionary, albeit of a pacifist variety. But one of the things that identifies a revolutionary is an ideology of revolution (fast change). As far as I am aware, none of the "revolutionaries" in India who espoused violence (with the possible exception of M. N. Roy and V. D. Savarkar) were even remotely close to formulating an ideology in the same way as Michael Bakunin, Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Rosa Luxemburg, or Mao, or Che Guevara, people that are referred to as revolutionaries (in the literature). To which remark, one might retort: "The ideology doesn't have to be theoretically sound or mature. After all the 'Hindustan Socialist Republican Association' of Chandrashekar Azad and Bhagat Singh, did formulate something, even though their group was really not much more than a reading group, when it came to ideological output." That seems to be the consensus among most sources and, for that reason, I do refer to the 1920s groups as "revolutionaries," since they had at least paid some attention to ideology. The 1905 groups, however, were too adhoc. "Political-religious terrorism" would really be the best description of their activity, at least that's what the sources (see below) use, and it jibes with the gist of the various official definitions ("violence against civilians for the advancement of a political view or religious belief"), but I'm open to suggestions.
Here are the quotes from some of the sources cited on the sub-page: 1. (Spear) "More ominously the pent-up emotion in Bengal engendered a group of terrorists who thought the attainment of freedom a religious duty and of assassination a sacred offering to the goddess Kali." (p.176). 2. (Stein) "Attempts were made to assassinate high British officials, and armed robberies were committed to finance terrorist activity and publications." (p. 291) 3. "Religious fervour combined with political protest in bombings of government buildings and assassinations of British officers by inspired young patriots. ... (About Aurobindo Ghose) In 1905, his advocacy of terrorism landed him in prison" (p. 193). 4. (Metcalf and Metcalf), "The movement was led by Surendranath Banerjea and other moderates, but small groups committed to terrorist activity also began to mobilize under its banner." (p 156). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, act of terrorism is a decent change. However, the word terrorism is as imprecise and ambiguous as "Freedom fighter" and has an almost a rather different meaning attached to it in today's world where terrorist acts are performed in far away lands against citizens that have no real connection to whatever grievances the terrorists may have. This is -very- different than attacking people of British origin during a struggle for independence. Almost ALL revolutions have had terrorist elements - including American and French revolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blacksun (talk • contribs) 06:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


I think "Terrorist" and "Freedom Fighter" are two ends of the POV spectrum. One man's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist. So, I'd suggest using neither of these words. Wikipedia has precedent on this ... see the huge discussion and consensus about the category:terrorists. I think "revolutionary" is a neutral word here, or you might suggest another such word. But using terrorist would perhaps lead to needless POV accusations about this otherwise wonderful narrative. Thanks. --Ragib 08:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, revolutionary is a more neutral term. -- Thoreaulylazy 09:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with revolutionary too. I think there is little reason to use such qualifiers. Just friggin say what they did and let the reader decide without damning them or praising them. --213.84.19.170 12:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: actually the Manual of Style guidelines suggest avoiding such words: Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C_terrorism. So, I think a neutral word as suggested by the MoS is much better here.

Thanks. --Ragib 08:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ragib, and Thoreaulylazy, I will look into it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quote from From Plassey to Partition: A History of Modern India by Śekhara Bandyopādhyāẏa

Here is a longer quote from: Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara. 2005. From Plassey to Partition: A History of Modern India New Delhi and London: Orient Longmans. 548 pages ISBN 8125025960.

“ "The real story of terrorism in Bengal begins from 1902 with the formation of four groups, three in Calcutta and one in Midnapur. The first was the Midnapur Society founded in 1902 and this was followed by the founding of a gymnasium by Sarala Ghosal in Ballygunge Circular Road in Calcutta, the Armonnoti Samiti by some central Calcutta youths and the Anushilan Samiti by Satishchandra Basu in March 1902. The progress of this movement till 1905 was modest; but the beginning of the swadeshi movement in that year brought an upsurge in secret society activities. The Dacca Anushilan Samiti was born in October 1906 through the initiative of Pulin Behari Das. This was followed by an all-Bengal conference of the revolutionaries in December and a revolutionary weekly called Yugantar started in the same year. A distinct group within the Calcutta Anushilan Samiti headed by Barindra Kumar Ghosh (Aurobindo's brother), Hemchandra Qanungo and Prafullo Chaki soon started action. The first swadeshi dacoity or robbery to raise funds was organised in Rangpur in August 1906 and a bomb manufacturing unit was set up at Maniktala in Calcutta. Attempts to assassinate oppressive officials and spies, robbery in the houses of wealthy Saha merchants who had earlier refused to stop dealing in foreign goods became the main features of the revolutionary activities since 1907-8. But the abortive attempt at Muzaffarpur on the life of the Presidency Magistrate Kingsford on 30 April 1908 by Khudiram Bose and Prafullo Chaki and the following arrest of the entire Minktala group, including Aurobindo and Barindra Kumar Ghosh, dealt a great blow to such terrorist activities. In terms of direct gains, the terrorists achieved precious little; most of their attempts were either aborted or failed." ”

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on focus and revolutionary movement

Hello Fowler, I was looking through the IIM draft that you're preparing. I think the conclusions you come with regards to India in and around the WWI may be describing some of the aspects of the movement, especially the revolutionary movement, may be erroneous. For example, the Ghadar movement was not scutlled swiftly, it (incorporating early events) started around 1908 and were (and still deemed) as a significant threat up until when it whittled away around 1919. Another, revolutionary movement, especially in Bengal, and immediately after the war began, has been described as significant to the extent that the political concessions around this time has been ascribed to the movement.(Majumder 1971, Dignan 1971) I think the error arises out of examining the revoltuinary moement into a period of 1905-1911 (which Fowler has shown above has been used as an evaluating point, probably because Bengalpartition was rolled back). Another thing is, Bengal was partitioned almost certainly to scutter the nationalist and terrorist movement arising from the region(the communal divide and didvide and rule theory). Could you please double check on these. Also, I felt in parts (eg coming of railways etc) loses focus or focuses wrongly and becomes more a history of India than a history of the Indian movement. I know its neccessary to include these to put context to the origin, but I felt these move awa quite a bit more than desirable. Regards,Rueben lys 19:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am all too aware of the WWI time frame problems! Unfortunately, I got busy with my off-Wiki commitments, but I hope to get back to IIM in a day or two. In fact just this morning I was going add an interesting tidbit about Rowlatt, which as you know was partial response to what you describe above, but then I got sidetracked ... As for the railways, yes, what you say is true, but I've kept it there for now, because the History of India page doesn't have a general history 1858 to 1947; it has the British Raj, but the paragraph there is really about Company Raj, and ends with the mutiny. So, for now I'm cramming it in IIM with eventual goal of integrating that information somewhere. Why don't we touch base again in four or five days, after I've had time to do some more stuff. Thanks for the pertinent comments! Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)