Talk:Indian Independence Movement/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Note to a certain anonymous user

Dear Anonymous User,

Thanks for trying to improve Wikipedia! It's rare to find someone so willing to write. However, the articles are not the right place to discuss matters relating to them. Please place all comments on the Talk page (this page), where they can be discussed and a consensus reached. Please see the page on Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

At the moment, majority opinion seems to be against putting Swami Vivekananda into this article. Why do you think he should be put here?

Also, could you please sign up to Wikipedia, so that we could discuss matters face-to-face? I'm sure you'll make a valuable contribution to this project.

Thanks, Gaurav 18:36, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

P.S. I don't think 11.222 has read the Talk page. Is there any way we can communicate with him? Would it be unethical to add a note to the bottom of the article saying "Click here for to comment on this article", etc. so 11.222 gets the idea? I think he's more POV'd than a troll (though I could be wrong :(). He's also been POVing articles like India and Subhas Chandra Bose. See 137.94.11.222's contributions.


The user never does attempt to reply back to the comments on the article's/his own talk page. All attempts to communicate with him in the past have failed, either because he is ignorant of the practice, or is plain stubborn. I have added his IP to the Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress list. chance 09:22, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)

Title

Indian independence movement sounds like a more appropriate title. --Jiang 04:58, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Is this comment out of context now? -- Gaurav 17:22, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

POV

Dear Editor,

Hah? Editor? Who?? =) This is Wikipedia. Be bold!

Please go through the writings. Why the Name of Swami Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo, Bhagat Singh, Chandra Sekhar Azad and Desh Bandhu Chittaranjan Das have not been kept for the important people is not understood and even the contribution of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose is distorted!!!

Francois Gautier The truth about India's Independence It is hoped that one day the history of India's Independence movement will be totally rewritten. For what is now taught, both in the West and in India, is often the history of the superficial, the apparent, the false even. And those who have least contributed to India's Independence, or worse who were partially responsible for its most terrible traumas, occupy a place of honour in those books, while those who had a deeper vision and worked with dedication for a true, wholesome independence, are in the shadow and have been waylaid by historians.

History wants us to believe that the Independence movement started with the Indian National Congress. But originally, the Congress was a tool fashioned by the British for their own use. Witness the fact that it all began in December 1885, with an Englishman, A O Hume, with the avowed aim to: "Allow all those who work for the national (read British) good to meet each other personally, to discuss and decide of the political operations to start during the year".

I think these comments are well-represented in the article as is.

And certainly, till the end of the 19th century, the Congress, who regarded British rule in India as a "divine dispensation", was happy with criticising moderately the government, while reaffirming its loyalty to the Crown and its faith in "liberalism" and the British innate sense of justice"!

Thus for a long time, the Britishers considered favourably the Congress and sought to use it to justify their continuing occupation of India. But soon of course it changed into suspicion and downright hostility, as the Congress, realising is folly, turned towards constitutional agitation to obtain from the British parliament a few laws favourable to India. And the Englishmen did hand over a few crumbs here and there, such as giving Lord Sinha (Lord Sinha indeed!) the honour of becoming the first Indian to be part of the Governor's Executive Council.

What must be understood to grasp the whole history of the Congress, is that its pre-Independence leaders were anglicised, Western educated Indians, whose idealism was at best a dose of liberalism peppered with a bit of socialism "British Labour style". They were the outcrop of an old British policy of forming a small Westernised elite, cut off from its Indian roots, which will serve in the intermediary hierarchies of the British Raj and act as go-between the master and the slaves.

Perhaps these comments would be better placed in British Raj?

Thus, not only were these Congress leaders "moderate " (as they came to be called), partially cut-off from the reality of India, from the greatness that was India, the soul-glory of its simple people, but because their mind worked on the pattern of their masters, they turned to be the greatest Hindu-baiters and haters of them all -as verily their descendants, even until today, still are.

But these Westernised moderate Congress leaders, found it difficult to get identified by the vast mass of India which was deeply religious. Thus they encouraged the start of "reformed" Hindu movements, such as the Arya Samaj or the Brahma Samaj, through which they could attack the old Hindu system, under the guise of transforming it, which is perfectly acceptable to all Hindus, as Hinduism has always tolerated in its fold divergent movements.

It is these early Congress leaders who began the slow but insidious crushing of the Hindu society. For instance, the Congress governments, which were installed after July 1937 in most of the provinces, encouraged everywhere the development of education modelled on the British system. And comments French historian Alain Danielou, one of the few Indianists to give an unbiased account of India’s history: "The teaching of philosophy, arts, sciences, which constituted the prestigious Indian cultural tradition, became more and more ignored and could only survive thanks to the Brahmins, without any help whatsoever from the State."

When the first true cultural, social and political movements, which had at heart the defence of India's true heritage started taking shape, such as the much decried Hindu Mahashaba, which attempted to counterbalance the Muslim League's influence, or the even more maligned Rama Rajya Parishad, initiated by the remarkable Hindu monk Swamy Karpatri, they were ridiculed by the Congress, which used to amplify the problems of untouchability, castes, or cow worshipping, to belittle these movements, which after all, were only trying to change India from a greatness that was to a greatness to be.

Bear in mind that it was early pro-British Hinduism-reforming movements which, by 'amplifying' issues like Sati, managed to outlaw them.

"The Congress," writes Danielou, "utilised to the hilt its English speaking press to present these Hindu parties as barbaric, fanatical, ridiculous; and the British media in turn, took-up, as parrots, the cry of their Indian counterparts. To this day, nothing has changed in India: some of the English-speaking press, such as Outlook or Frontline (which should be rightly called "the Voice of the Communist Party of China"), still indulges in Hindu-bashing and it is faithfully copied by the Western corespondents, most of whom are totally ignorant of India and turn towards Indian intellectuals to fashion their opinions.

But this strategy was good enough to convince the British that when they left, they would have to hand over power to the "respectable" Congress (after all, we are all gentlemen), even though it constituted a tiny Westernised minority, whereas India's true Hindu majority would be deprived of their right.

The Congress did turn radical finally in 1942, when because of Mahatma Gandhi's rigorous non-violence policy, it adopted a non-co-operation attitude towards the war effort. Thus the British declared the Congress illegal, jailed most of its leaders and embarked on a policy of heavy repression. But the truth is that those of the Congress who were imprisoned and are deified today for that fact, went there not directly for India’s independence, but because Mahatma Gandhi refused to cooperate in the Second World War against the great Asura that was Hitler.

(Comments in the text above by me) -- Gaurav 17:22, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
What the heck? This is absolutely ahistorical. First of all, Gandhi was doing "radical" things long before 1942, e.g. the salt march in 1930, which was -economic- noncooperation, stabbing the British where they cared. Second of all, there's all kinds of other crap in there, like that Arya Samaj was a movement to destroy Hinduism? What the fuck? Dayanand Saraswati was as pro-Hindu and pro-India as they come, and is an important figure in the rise of the Hindu nationalist movement that M. Gautier is such a fan of... is M. Gautier alleging that this revered figure is some sort of Congress stooge? Does he lack total consistency? Is he totally loopy? Graft 18:48, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Redundancy

I've noticed there's a lot of redundancy between Indian independence movement and British Raj. Suggest we should move more stuff from there (about the Minto-Morley reforms, etc.) over here, and write some new British Raj content. The long 'letter to the editor' above has some interesting (tho controversial) points about the British Raj, which could be moved over there. -- Gaurav 17:22, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)


Cutting and Pasting an entire essay into this article is not appropriate. DJ Clayworth 21:13, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I will be working on this article..

hello ppl

i will be working on this article. apart from my 8th grade history textbooks(which i have to dig out) could someone point me to nice sources? leave a comment on my talk page. also i would like some comments on my writing style see my contributions.

Thank you

--kunjan1029 01:39, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Updated the article

OK i have updated to article. i think the article needs more information about other freedom fighters too, and their contributions. IMO some pictures of bhagat singh etc. would be nice. also i think it needs more information in the independence section. that is too small. but i am too tired right now its almost 3 am here. and i have to sleep :(

please send me some feedback either here or on my talk page.


--kunjan1029 07:42, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hello. Is there a reason the article switches between Gandhi and Gandhiji? It should probably be consistent. Jsan 04:45, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Made it consistent. Thank you --kunjan1029 08:00, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Needs more text towards the end.

A lot many things happened during 1940 to 1947. This article is still scanty on many of the details during that period. Still needs to include lot more information about other freedom fighters and their contributions. Any body have some good sources?

--kunjan1029 07:59, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Structure

We need some consistent headings, etc. For example, the Quit India Movement really shouldn't be a sub-heading of the Demand for Pakistan.--iFaqeer 23:25, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Re-organization

I will be re-structuring the article to some extent. Basically,

  • the article is quite long (above the 32 KB limit)
  • the first few sections don't need to be so detailed. This is an article on the Independence movement, and while info about the establishment of British rule is necessary, we don't need to go too deep into that, imho. I will shorten the first two sections and link to the main articles on the same topics (ex: British East India Company).
  • There is a lot of info in this article, thanks to everyone who has worked on this. If written and structured well, this could be FA material.

--ashwatha 22:53, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have made some re-structuring, wikifying and other assorted changes. I have tried to make sure that no information was lost in the process. The one thing that is missing so far from the article is info regarding Subhash Chandra Bose and the Indian National Army. I will try to add these too. If you have any other suggestions, please list them here. --ashwatha 04:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A few more changes:

  • proofreading and pruning
  • removing some repeated info
  • organize events in chronological order

--ashwatha 02:34, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for working on this article! --kunjan1029 05:15, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

No problem :-) I added a short section on Subhash Chandra; I also removed the "See Also" section, since all the links there have already been linked to as "Main Articles" from the different sections. Also trying desperately to get the article into a more manageable size, but with so much info, it is hard to prune things without losing valuable information. Any suggestions regarding pruning would be wonderful. --ashwatha 06:47, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah i put in a lot of info there see if you can remove the non-important info and put that info(if not already there) into topic pages? --kunjan1029 09:26, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

The 1813 Charter Act did not abolish Sati (it was abolished in 1829). I removed that line; also removed a small pararaph on railways and telegraph, which is not directly relevant to this article. --ashwatha 19:08, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am pruning a lot of info from the Rebellion of 1857 section - leaving intricate details to the main article (that has been linked to). If you think I am pruning too much, please leave a message and put the info back. --ashwatha 19:53, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok, the article is now down to 32 KB. I gave it another pass, trying to find anything that might be construed as POV. It looks quite neutral to me, but maybe someone else can give it a once-over, a fresh pair of eyes can help point out any NPOV issues. The article is on peer review, but haven't received any comments yet. In any case, I think this is ready for an fac nomination - we can leave it in peer review for a few more days and see if we receive any comments, after which I suppose we can put it up for an fac nomination - suggestions would be wonderful. --ashwatha 05:44, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wow!! this article looks really great now! just one comment ever since i worked on it, the quit india section is too thin... obivously a lot of things happened between then and independence... can you chart down few major events? tht all other wise great work !!! --kunjan1029 05:23, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that too - the quit india section needs a bit more info. Maybe the lead section can also be expanded a little. I will try and dig up a little more regarding Quit India. --ashwatha 05:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anushilan Samiti

Shouldn't there be something on the Anushilan Samiti? --Soman 23:27, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lakshmi Sahgal

Though, I haven't yet read the article in its entirety, it seems to be lacking in details about many leaders from the south, for eg Lakshmi Sahgal. -- Sundar 09:22, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

I will try to find some info regarding this and put it in, please go ahead and add it yourself if possible. --ashwatha 16:44, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Causes of the Indian Mutiny, 1857

My personal opinion is that this section is a little simplistic at the moment, and restricts itself to the military component of the rebellion far too much. Perhaps something ought to be said about the myriad of causes, such as the distaste at the Doctrine of Lapse, the discontent of the talukdars and peasants in Oudh, etc? --InfectedWithRage 19 May 2005

Info on revolutionary movements

I think we need to add more info on revolutionary movements. There is info here now on Bhagat Singh, Surya Sen , but there are others too who need mention here. Many of the revolutionaries were martyred, for example, Khudiram Bose. I propose a section on the revolutionary movement, including info on Anushilon Samity, Jugantor and other revolutionary groups fighting the British. --Ragib 3 July 2005 20:06 (UTC)

Compressed first two sections

In an attempt to deal with one of the major complaints at Fac, I may have slaughtered the beginning of the article. Not too happy with the results, but there was a lot of unnecessary information there (and possibly still is). I think it is better now, but understand if a revert is wanted. -shuri 08:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

History is not a tea party

I know many people are trying very hard to do something worthwhile with this article. I think currently it comes across as a POV article: mildly pro-empire. I tried to correct it in one section (the introductory "European Rule" section) but realized that the POV somehow persists through the article, so this note is a "drawing of attention" to all editors.

The British rule in India was not characterized by a benevolent attitude to civilize the Indians, but by many incidents of extreme brutality, as documented in many sources which are still in print. The primary sources are held in many accessible archives. One example: on April 3 1858, British troops sacked Jhansi and put to death all males whom they could find. Christopher Hibbert's single volume history, named The Great Mutiny (Penguin) describes this in one chilling sentence: All the next day the street fighting, looting, destruction and murder continued; the British soldiers eagerly exceeedeing their orders to 'spare nobody over sixteen years - except women, of course'. The Indian independence movement was a reaction to colonial brutality: it could easily have degenerated into a cycle of violence, as the 1857 war did. It was rescued from this by a handful of people. In discussing the empire, one must not shy away from describing its brutality. 158.144.51.19 10:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Goa et al.

Shouldn't information about Goa, Hyderabad et al. should be included in this article? utcursch | talk 12:00, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Goa, as well as other European colonies, may be added, but I guess 1 sentence per colony is enough. I'm not sure about Hyderabad, because that would bring the question of all other princely states. I'm a bit confused about those. Also, anything post-1947 brings the question whether other currently-independent country's independence (to be precise, Bangladesh's independence from Pakistan) need to be included here. I was under the impression that this article was about the movement against the British in all regions of South Asia. So, is information on post-1947 incidents relevant here? I'd like to hear both sides of the argument. Thanks. --Ragib 19:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Gandhiji's location?

The article says that the Mahatma was at Kolkata on 15/8/47. I remember reading somewhere that he was at Noakhali then. Can someone confirm which is correct? Or can we just say Bengal to be on the safe side? ---Gurubrahma 05:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

We could Ask Gandhi :P. According to the cited website, he was at Noakhali, which is also what I remember from reading Freedom at Midnight about two years ago. I'll wait if anybody else can quote chapter and verse for us before making any edits. Gaurav 11:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Noakhali says that Gandhiji visited it in 1946. I think we may be better off by going with Bengal. Gurubrahma 05:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I read somewhere he was in Kolkata. I cannot remember right now. I shall try to find put some source.--Dwaipayanc 12:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Bahadur Shah Zafar

Bhadani's comment above is correct, Bahadur Shah Zafar and Bahadur Shah II are the same person. Zafar is his pen name, the last mughal emperor used it as a poet. Thanks. --Ragib 14:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Coherence, POV, and other comments

Hi,

First of all, I'm a newbie, so apologies for any naive or wiki-incompatible comments.
  • I realize that because of earlier objections, there is a deliberate effort to make this topic more coherent. Even so, we should avoid the risk of forcing history into a deterministic, homogenous straightjacket. This article as it now stands seems to indicate a seamless transition from the rebllion of 1857 to the later independence movement. The 1857 rebllion was spearheaded by rebelling sepoys and supported by the aristocracy/princely families. Percival Spear in his "A History of India" argues that this was the last effort of "old interests" i.e. the traditional persian/sankrit educated landed gentry,and henceforth the indepence movement would be taken up by the new English educated middle-class (or something to this effect, don't have the book anymore or I could quote directly). Perhaps this dichotomy should be acknowledged.
  • Also concerning coherence: under the different categories, the article keeeps jumping back and forth in time. This has some disorienting effects. For example we are told that Indians rejected the Simon Commision, long before the Bhagat Singh section explains what the Simon commision was. Reorganizing the entire article along choronological lines would remedy this situation.
  • In the 1857 section: this seems to be written from a revisionist /Indian nationalist POV. No mention is made of the fact that the South (including Madras Presidency) remained largely neutral, or that the rebellion was defeated with the help of Sikh and Gurkha regiments loyal to the company.
  • Another missing event is the Khilafat movement and temporary Hindu-Muslim unity this brought about. In general, the resentments of Muslims and Dalits are under-represented or not documented at all. The Muslim League is mentioned only in passing (and not in reference to Khilafat or anything before 1940), while the Dalit movement and B.R. Ambedkar are excluded entirely.
If comments are favourable I shall try to add some of this to the article myself. Satya

change of attitude

Hello. I think Swami Vivekananda should be addded as he was an inspiration, if not an active freedom fighter, to millions of Indians. You cannot neglect the importance of people like Rabindranath Tagore, Raja Ram Mohan Roy and the Swami in moulding the independent attitude of India, which is a prerequisite to any people wanting freedom.

Muslim League

I wish respectfully to establish that the Muslim League was not part of the freedom movement.

It is difficult to argue in favor of League being part of the freedom movement especially as Jinnah encouraged Muslims to stay away from all acts of civil disobedience, denounced the Civil Disobedience Movement and Quit India, and made inside deals with the British while the Congress was fighting for independence?

Jinnah was entirely opposed to an independence where the power would go to democratic representatives, which is why the Direct Action Day scheme was hatched.

Pakistani historians do everything possible to disconnect themselves from the mainstream freedom movement, so why are we including them?

CONSTRUCTIVE PROPOSAL: the Muslim League should be mentioned as a part of the movement up till 1920, when Jinnah quit the Congress and the League did nothing to fight the British. After this, the only subject that could include the League is the Partition of India.


======

I beg to disagree. Being neither Indian nor Pakistani, I recognise how deeply emotiaonal the issue is, but still the fact is that Jinnah did not aim at retaining Brtish rule in India but at creating a Muslim state which would be independent from british rule. That makes his movement an independence movement, though obvisously not part of the same independence movement that brought the present Republic of India into being.

POV Language

I would like to ask for a revision of this article to adjust the language to a more NPOV level. The opening paragraph states that the revolutions were all empowered by Indians and mentions the First War of Indian Independence as beginning this. However, later in the article it is stressed that it was mainly a military mutiny rather than a national liberation campaign which put Indians against Indians. There are several other examples. Homagetocatalonia, 26-09-2005.

Hi - I agree. Also, there is definate taint of POV in the attempt to give equal space in every section, indeed every PARAGRAPH, to "revolutionary" militants, the intention is manifestly to depracate the contribution of Mahatma Gandhi and the then INC. Certainly, a section in the page should be devoted to saluting the patriotic fervour that underlay the violent acts of the "revolutionaries", but the mass base of those who indulged in such acts was at best untested, at worst nil...reference to militants and patriotic assasins should be limited to one specific section, which can be linked suitably to other pages that lionise those revolutionaries. - Anon


Indian Independence Struggle

I have put a redirect from the above article to this page. The content of the former page is posted below. I don't think there was anything there worth merging into the article --Ravikiran 08:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


On August 8, 1942, Gandhi led the Quit India Movement, a move for early independence. However, due to World War II, it was agreed that a free India was to be created after the war. Agitation by the Muslim League under the leadership of Muhammad Ali Jinnah and concurrently rising tensions between Hindus and Muslims led to the creation of two dominion nations—one a secular India and the other an Islamic Pakistan—on the midnight of August 15, 1947.

See: Partition of India.

No Commentry, please

I reverted several edits by 192.114.81.64 (talk · contribs), because all of these edits verged on personal commentry. One example is, In any case, the defeat of Japan saved Bose from facing the cruel dilemma between becoming a powerless puppet of the Japanese Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere or rising in rebellion against an occupier far more cruel and ruthless than the British.. I think sticking only to facts is enough, an encyclopedia should not be speculative, or provide commentry. Another edit I reverted is some quite irrelevant literary critique on Captain Nemo (from Jules Verne's novels). Thanks. --Ragib 01:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It was NOT a "quite irrelevant literary critique". It was a political historical commentary of the fact that at the zenith of British colonialism in India (and worldwide colonialism in general), after the crushing of 1857 and before the rise of the modern indpendence movement, a book (and a quite well-known and widely read book, at the time and up to the present) had as its main character an Indian nationalist who did not give up the fignt but on the contrary built a submarine and went to carry on the war in Britain's own coastal waters. This seems a highly relevant subject for mention in an article on the history of the Indian Independence Movment. Here is is the relevant part as appearing in the Wikipedia entry on Verne's book "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea". Judge for yourselves:
No less significant, though more rarely commented on, is the very bold political (indeed, revolutionary for its time) vision represented by the character of Captain Nemo. As revealed in the later Verne book Mysterious Island, Captain Nemo is an Indian, who took to the underwater life after the suppression of the 1857 Indian Mutiny in which his close family members were killed by the British.
The implications are quite ataggering. At the very zenith of colonialism in general and the British Empire in particular, a time when Europeans tended to regard all non-Europeans with contempt, this French writer conceived of an Indian, a "native" from a downtrodden British colony, beating the British at their own game: constructing a vessel far in advance of anything possesed by the Royal Navy and proceeding to sink British warships with impunity off the English shore itself.
Thus, Captain Nemo could be credited as being a harbinger of the Third World Liberation Movements in general and the modern Indian Independence Movement in particular. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.117.127.17 (talk • contribs) .
Sorry to disappoint you, but there are thousands (yeah, thousands!!) other novels on colonialism in India, and long literary critiques, discussions are relevant in the articles on those books. *This* article is on the Indian Independence movement, and I can confidently say that Verne's novel has had no impact on the movement.
I'm also disappointed at your recent rant against other editors where you say A rather typical example of the double standard common among Indian politicians, .... , and also the would-be politicians who edit and censor entries in Wikipedia.. You were inserting personal commentry, as well as some irrelevant literary discussion in the article, which other editors correctly reverted. Thanks. --Ragib 00:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The reference to would-be politicians who censor articles on Wikipedia is not a personal commnetary but an objective description. Namely, the article as it stands gives extensive coverage to Sardar Patel rejecting the decisions of Muslim rulers in Hyderabad and Junagadh with regard to the future of these states, on the grounds that the majority in both states was Hindu and had the democratic right to decide to join India. There is, however, no mention of the fact that at the very same time Sardar Patel accepted the decision of the Hindu ruler of Kashmir with regard to that state's future, despite the evident fact that there the majority of the population was Muslim whose clear wish was NOT to be part of India. Clearly, the omission of any mention of this in the Wikipedia article was no accident - as evident from the fact that five (5) attempts to fill in this quite significant (and well-known) fact were deleted immetdiately upon being posted. The term "censorship" is clearly applicable to the behaviour of those concerned, as is the term "double standard" with reference both the policy of Sardar Patel (and all subsequent Indian governments up to the present) and to its defenders on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.117.127.17 (talk • contribs) .

Sorry, I should have signed. This Adam Keller from Tel-Aviv, Israel - with no personal ax to grind in the issues of Indian sub continent.


Vandalism or censorship?

The folloing message which I got from Wikipedia admininstrator Gurubrahma and my answer to him are pertinent to this page and I reproduce them. I would welcome any comment.

Adam Keller

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). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.115.19.56 (talk • contribs) .

"...and ignore the fact that the majority was Muslim and did not want to join India."

There's no evidence for this. Junagadh residents had to choose between a secular country and an Islamic country. Their choice was obvious. If India were going to become a Hindu state, the choice to join Pakistan would have been obvious for Kashmiris too. But that was not the case. Even recent BBC surveys show most Kashmiris are against joining Pakistan. As for your being from Israel, sorry we've seen that before, and it doesn't matter anyway. deeptrivia (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It is true that India has a secular constitution and does not define itself as a Hindu state, and I appreciate that - being one of the people who want Israel to have a secular constitution and seperate the state from the Jewish religion. But it is also a sad fact that India in 1948 was a country where hundreds of thousands of Muslims (by the most conservative estimate) were murdered a few months before, for the one and only reason that they were Muslims - so Muslim Kashmiris had a reason to feel some apprehension about being part of India, don't you think? Anyway, perhaps the Kashmiris in 1948 would have decided freely to join India if they were asked. Perhaps the Kashmiris today would freely decided to reamin in India if they were asked. Perhaps they woyuld choose to join Pakistan. Perhpas they would choose to be independent. And pehrpahs some other choice (joining China?). The point is that they were never asked, not in 1948, not now and not anytimebetween.

The specific point here is that this page, which is about the Indian Independence Movement and not about the Kashmir Question, does not stop in the moment when the British left but continues a few years more, to describe how India dealt with the Priencly States. That is a very logical choice, to consider that until that was dealt with the independence of India was not yet achieved. But then you have to give a full description. As it stands the page describes in full how India dealt with of Hyderabad and Junagadh - ignoring the decision of the prinecly rulers since the population was inclined otherwise (which I think was a perfectly correct position). The text also praised Patel greatly for this policy. But then, you cna't in complete silence over the completely opposite policy undertaken in Kashmir: i.e., to accept as valid the decision of Maharaja Hari Singh about the future of Kashmir (even though India had no intention of letting him continue ruling Kashmir, and rightly so) and not asking the people of Kashmir directly what future do they want for themselves. Now, you may not like the reference to this which I tried to put in. Fine. Can you think of a diffetnly-phrased reference? After all, this is objectively as much part of the history as whht happened in Hyderabad and Junagadh at preicesly the same time.

Adam Keller

Revolutionary activities

I've re-written the Revolutionary activities with as much condensation of the material as I could do.Please see if there is any NPoV disputable comment in this re-written section.I hope such disputes, if any, can be solved, or, supported with citations.It's bad to see Hindustan Socialist Republic Associatio to appear in red.I've tried to collect some information and kept in Here. But the information, I think, is inadequate.Please try to gather some more information and make it an article.With so many Bhagat Singh films around,it's a shame this article does not exist already! Please point out if any disparities on dates appear in this section.Thank you.--Dwaipayanc 12:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hindustan Socialist Republican Association exists now, I created it about a month ago. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes, I saw that around the time of creation. Thanks.--Dwaipayanc 11:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV...

This article reads painfully like it was written by those Indian nationalist idiots that you sometimes find floating about. The referring to of the mutiny as the first war for independance is just...wrong though in particular the main bad point is towards WW2 where it sounds like Britain was trying to keep Britain repressed- no mention at all of the agreement reached to give India its independance after the war. Also prior to this it all sounds like the British were all together in opressing India and commiting foul deeds there- no mention that there was support in Britain for Indian indepenance too. --84.12.25.239 14:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Great Work!

Great kudos to all the people who worked on this article!!! It is amazing now! When I started working on this artice it looked like this, when I left it, it was like this. but look at this article now its really an exceptional piece of work! Good work people! --kunjan1029 23:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Bose Again...

Sorry, but this really ain't a NPOV:

"Their die-hard courage, patriotism and spirit could not overcome the disastrous odds, and the INA's efforts ended with the surrender of Japan in 1945."

Stil less is this - I appreciate that many people believe that Netaji is some sort of Messiah who, had he lived (or if he now returned) would solve all India's problems overnight, but it is very far from being universally accepted.

"To this day, Subhas Bose's daring and courage are an awe-inspiring example for newer generations of Indians, and the INA soldiers are treated with equal regard and honour to the men who fought with Mahatma Gandhi."

Both these passages should be re-written to make them more purely factual, or else deleted altogether.

More generally I think the conflation of the Indian Nationalist movement with the Rebellion of 1857 has no historical validity (See {Talk:Indian rebellion of 1857 for the debate we've had on this). For a start it was not a pan-Indian rebellion, and the bulk of what became India was not involved, while troops from Madras, Bombay and Punjab helped to suppress it. Secondly the sepoys and Indian rulers who spearheaded the '57 Revolt played no part in the Nationalist movement as it emerged after 1881. Sikandarji 23:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)