Talk:Indian independence movement/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

An interesting User page on Indian independence movement

Indian independence movement (Ekabhishek (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)) A good collection of historic images and data, as well.

Move "History"

As the page has been moved from the previous name, I think the history should also be moved. I do not know how to do that. Please help.--Dwaipayanc 14:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

That cannot be done when the move has been done via cut/paste. It is no big deal as the history can be accessed by visiting the very page with the link given in "redirected from" caption. Rama's Arrow 14:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's not a big deal. However, only those who know about that the page was once moved can trace back. Because most people will type in small cases, and come directly here, rather than typing in capitals and then being redirected. History is important because many a times you can find out deleted stuffs in old versions that might come in handy in further improvement. Administrators can help in moving the history.--Dwaipayanc 14:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I am a bit disappointed on the lack of any mention of the Qissa Khwani bazaar massacre and the role of the Khudai Khidmatgar movement or Bacha Khan in this section..it is a major omission if you ask me.. --Zak 17:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Question about article focus

I have a confusion about the focus of this article. Is it about the country now known as India, or the region historically known as India. This confusion arises in particular for the last section ... i.e. 1947-50, which is exclusive to India. The other sections before this give a different idea ... i.e. the independence of the whole region from British rule. For example, Surya Sen is actually from Chittagong, and has a significant role in organizing the Chittagong Armoury Raid. It feels obvious that any article focusing on Indian (as the whole region) independence movement will include all these efforts. But by adding the last section on the modern country India (which is one of the 3 countries to emerge from the region), the focus of the article has been changed.

So, I suggest removing the last section, or adding similar sections or paragraphs on Pakistan and Bangladesh as well. After all, all three modern countries share the same history, simply because before 1947 all were one and the same.

(Note, this is not a rant or anti/pro any country comment, just a comment to set the focus and consistency of the article in a correct tone.)

Thanks. --Ragib 06:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I think Ragib is correct in pointing out that a short description of the birth of Pakistan should be mentioned in the last paragraph. And one sentence on the later birth of Bangladesh from East Pakistan also needs to mentioned. --Dwaipayan (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Image suggestion

How about adding this photo ({{PD-India}}) to the article ? Unlike the usual photos (that feature prominent leaders), this one's a tribute to thousands of anonymous participants. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 11:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Sorry to say this but...This article does make rather painful reading. It is really far too heavily slanted to the revisionist 'The British were evil occupiers who did no good and the freedom fighters who rose up against them were heroes!'. The truth of things though was one hell of a long way from this clear cut black and white. The article makes it sound as though the Indians who fought for the Japanese and Nazis were the 'proper' Indian army during the war who had the support of the general population, it reads like India forced the British withdrawal and Britain had no choice in the matter against overwhelming opposition. It really needs sorting out, there's very little mention of the meetings between British and Indian politicians to discuss the arrangments for Indian independance, India's agreement to support Britain during the war with the promise of independance afterwards wasn't even mentioned. I don't think I'm the one to do it, I really don't have the time but it needs sorting.--Josquius 14:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are right - this problem occurs in almost all such political/historical articles that are not WP:GA or WP:FA. Rama's arrow 21:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the text (and added some facts) to reflect NPOV and factual objectivity. I have also removed the NPOV tag. However, wo=ithout prejudice, have a look and if you think it's still not NPOV, you're welcome to re-instate the tag.Ranam 14:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi

I would like to question the objections raised by .--Josquius. If the British were so Nobel, the Massacre in Jaliyanwala bagh, and the subsequent non punnismnent of General Diar, does speak of the nobility. Their expulsion was involintary, it is known. Only the British can refuse to accept that. --user aj2k

Don't worry about Josuquis. He loves pushing the British POV everywhere. Just check out the Rebellion of 1857 where he is adamant to prove that the likes of Nana Sahib and Mangal Pandey were not revolutionaries or patriots but merely rebels. He also claims that 1857 Uprising is known as the Indian Mutiny around the world outside of India, not taking into account various Asian countries. Oh and the local population did not play a role at all in this conflict, at least according to him.

I love how he claims the British left of their own accord. And that the British actually had a choice in the matter. Err - what were they gonna do? Churchill had made it abundantly clear to the American President (FDR) that the Empire would continue. It's sad that the Brits can't get used to the fact that they were literally thrown out of India. Either way, it is up to them to fight their own demons about the diminishing status of their country. Why should we subscribe to their absurd views at the cost of the NPOV to make them feel better about their country? That is just ridiculous. DemolitionMan 07:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure if any of you have came across this guy before you know the sort he is, determined to drag India down into the dirt and ruin the reputation of its otherwise generally quite nice people. He's a far right, racist, hindu nationalist.
What he presents above is nothing but strawmen.
I'm not going to bother to argue with him here, he has the ability to see turn even the nicest of compliments into a horrible slur against his people/beliefs/whatever. Oh. And everyone who disagrees with him is British (which I don't find to be too much of a insult, there are a lot worse out there. Some of my best friends are British...) --Josquius 15:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is biased. The Indian Rebellion of 1857 only mentions British use of brute force and completely ignores the many atrocities carried out by the Sepoys and others. It calls the Sepoys, Indians serving in the British Army which is incorrect, they were serving in the Army of the East India Company. It also says British Army soldiers were sent from the Crimean War when that war was over in early 1856. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.178.110 (talk) 07:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

partiton of bengal

heloo i think there isnt much about the partiton of bengal. i was wondering if i could make an article about it. but this would be my 1st article so can some one please help me out? excited about it Tulika 99 16:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

See Partition of Bengal (1905) - you might be able to add something. Sikandarji 19:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

And also Partition of Bengal (1947) --Ragib 19:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

POV in Goa

• I've removed POV wording in Goa: liberated.

1st Goa was a Portuguese territory

2nd Goa was conquered to the muslims

3rd India entered Portuguese territory

4th there was a invasion and India conquered the place

Where's the liberation? it is a conquest. I just removed the word liberated. -Pedro 15:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

      Liberated from Portugese occupation. 164.164.104.137 (talk) 09:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the word then should be conquered? India actually entered Indian territory illegally occupied by a colonial nation. However, since I shall be dubbed a Hindu nationalist if I make changes without a discussion - I shall await some sort of response before I move forward on this. DemolitionMan 15:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's consider the case of some part of France, say of Normandy

1st Normandy was a Gaul tribal area.

2nd Normandy came under occupation of British Kings. (Normans?)

3rd Normandy came to be a part of French Republic.

4th Normandy came to be a part of German Reich.

5th Normandy was back to being a part of French Republic (after Liberation of France)

So that gives us a perspective on the use of the word "liberation" - i.e. when the native population is freed of any externally imposed order of law and becomes able to express its own political will. BTW I am amused, that in Pedro's statement he starts with the time where Goa was already under Portugese occupation. Were portugese native to Goa? Maybe they were invaders? What would you call if a native population was rid of invaders and given rights to choose its own laws? Would you have a word other than "liberation" for it?Varun (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, wasn't Goa part of India since 3rd century and the Portugese captured it around 1500's. How can someone say it was Portugese territory Tamicus (talk) 06:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC) What about this-- Goa#HistoryTamicus (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Khaksar Movement

I have added information on Khaksar Movement. Hopefully, Dwaipayanc will not remove it.

For King of Hearts (24.33.70.123): Please note I have not removed any information from the page.

Attention editors. Khaksar Movement under "Indian independence movement" and "Revolutionary movement for Indian independence" pages. Two guys, Rama's Arrow and Dwaipayanc, are deleting information on Khaksar Movement. They seem to have no information on this movement. Rama's Arrow had even blocked my IP address from making any changes. I request editors to stop them from deleting information on the Khaksar Movement.

Editors Help Needed: Every time information on the Khaksar Movement is added, Rama's Arrow deletes it. Either he is biased towards the Khaksar Movement or lacks knowledge on this organization. I find his action discriminatory. He has been blocking me from editing. I, once again, request editors to help resolve this matter. With best wishes to everyone.

Hi. Khaksar movement and Allama Mashriqi were added under "Revolutionary activities". Please try to understand that this article summarises many aspects of the independence movement. So several movements are written in a summary form with peoper wikilinks, so that readers may click and go to relevant articles to know more about those movements/organisations/persons. Dedicating one section to every movement will grossly inflate the article and disbalance it. Yes, still the article lacks comprehensiveness, that is probably not all important aspects have been covered. So pointing out any such deficiencies are welcome. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Dwaipayanc I see the entry on Allama Mashriqi and Khaksar Tehrik. Thank you

Neutrality Tag

Anyone who wants the lead sentence on the Indian independence movement to give equal weight (as it were" to "Nonviolent" and "Militant" methods (as user:Rueben lys does, should be re-reading WP:NPOV/FAQ#Giving_.22equal_validity.22. The question of how notable Bose's contribution to the Indian Freedom Movement, is currently the subject of an RfC. I have therefore put a neutrality tag until the issue is resolved in some fashion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, since this is an article on the Indian independence movement, not the Congress's role in the independence movement. So here's what I have to say

• The intro I wrote was supposed to be a comprehensive history which addressed the fact
• There was other movements in addtion to Congress's (which is a fact),
• That the movement started way back in 1700s (which is fact as well).
• There were other people in addition to Gandhi who are very prominent in the history of the movement (which is a fact as well).
• Lastly, I deleted the headings because they did not have anything to do with the parghraphs that followed them.
• Incidentally, "The importance of non-violence" and the role of seems like a propaganda statement, "The role of the non-violent movement" does not.
• You've blindly reverted (vadalism and all), stop being so tensed.

With regards to the issue of the RfC you mention, The question of how notable is Bose's contribution is not the issue os the RfC. Rather the issue is wether the contents of the Independence movement section in the India article can be improved reflect a better view than the monolithic one of "Congress won us independence" to reflect that it consisted of other people and movements as well. With regards to Bose's contribution, since you ask, these are the sources that other people may be able to verify online:

• Encyclopaedia Britannica
• another from Britannica about the Independence movement.
• BBC History
• Journal Asian and African studies
• Ian Pardin on The Guardian Book reviews, of Mark Kurlansky's Nonviolence: The History of a Dangerous Idea which says

“ Gandhi's civil disobedience movement was influential, but it is disingenuous of Kurlansky to ignore the role played by Subhash Chandra Bose's Indian National Army in persuading the British to relinquish the Raj ”

• Here's Jon Latimer's opinion reviewing Bayly and Harper's FORGOTTEN ARMIES: The Fall of British Asia 1941-1945 in timesonline.co.uk which says

“ While militarily insignificant, it made most impact after the war, and Indian and American scholars generally accept the view that its role in Indian independence was vital, particularly the political impact of the Delhi trials. ”

In addition, I will give you citations from a number of different historians if you wish me to. What I think, Fowler, is that

• You have a deep POV issue because of the version of history you believe and want to be known, which essentially said Bose was a Nazi. I am trying to sort out the facts here.
• Also, you've twice deleted my intro which summarised the movement from the early 1700s to the end. so
• You're saying nothing but the Congress and Gandhi can be mentioned.
• You're resisting any efforts to mention the INA and Bose, which I think is a is an effort to prevent anything else being known, which is preventing this article from being improved.
• Also, the other Pov problem I am facing (and this is why I called for the RfC) is that the versions you're insisting upon says nothing else can be mentioned other than Gandhi and Congress, which, especially in an article about the Independence movement, is not acceptable.
• The Category:Indian independence movement has 92 pages. You're saying of this nothing but the Gandhi and Congress is notable.
• Before you start quoting your standard article by Stanley Wolpert, here's something I noticed on the deeply amusing (and factually incorrect) version of Bose's role that he mentions. He doesn't even know how many people there were in the INA, nor where it was that they fought, nor what happened after the war, not what happened in the South east asian war. His "history" I am not would stand up to an academic criticism.
• Lastly your comment

“ In fact the RfC upstairs, echoes these themes. The editor in question would like whittle down the roles of Gandhi and nonviolence and bulk up the (mainly nonexistent) roles of the various violent revolutionaries in the Indian freedom struggle. Part of the problem is that the latterly teeming Hindu Right, which was twiddling its thumbs during all 62 years of the Indian freedom struggle (1885 to 1947), now finds itself left out of that struggle's history. They can't really write themselves in; so they champion the "militants," the "terrorists," and other drifting relics as a counterfoil to Gandhi and nonviolence ”

on the India RfC might suggest the very fact that you have a strong PoV issue with anything that's not Congress, since effectively you've defined anything outside the Congress period and organisation as non-existent, which if it was wouldn't have happened would it? (A bit illogical to say that, in my opinion).

• I am trying to improve this article to more than just propagandist staements to something better that is a comprehensive encyclopaedic article. I do not wish to have a confrontation, but you have to leave your blinkers out.Rueben lys 13:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't have the time or inclination to read what you've written. Am removing the tag. Have a ball with the writing. "Militant," BTW, is spelled with one "l." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Fowler, I am sorry you didn't have the time or inclination to go through what I've written since I actually read the points you made and addressed them with arguments based on facts. I am glad to know you dont have anything else to say, which I take means you dont have the means to address these.

I have seen that your contributions to the India page has been over quite a long time and I am sure of good quality. But very honestly, you do really need to see the opposing points of view and accept not everyone makes a baseless uninformed saffronist arguments, and also that sometimes your knowledge (which I am sure is quite extensive) and views can be opposed by equally well-informed and well meaning facts view and opinions. I tried to work with you, but you obviously have a very dismissive attitude and are quite sure of what you know, which is good as well as sad that you do not when you're actually deficient. I am glad you provided those links, because at least let me improve my own views. I am sorry you don't accept that the same could be applied to your own position. Lastly, please do not start your arguments based on the supposition that the opposing person is ignorant and engage in verbal abuses as you did earlier in the India talk page (it left a very bad taste in my mouth). My edits were, and still are, well intentioned and is meant to improve the encyclopaedic coverage of stuff that I know or know enough to contribute. I do not think it demeans myself to accept that I may know less than someone else, even your own posts have made me look back and think twice and stuff I thought I knew very well. And I am happy to accept that your posts certainly made a point which is a part of the whole story. I am sad to say I found I cant say the same about you.Rueben lys 19:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

ALLERGY TO EDITING ?

This morning I have spent quite some time touching up this article with factual details. Having completed my editing, I saw no trace of this participation (except in the History page). I wonder what happened to those corrections.--BobClive 08:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:INA Jubilation.jpg

The image Image:INA Jubilation.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

hsglwujfg tglrg qg;jfnlkwef qklerftqjnwg i b,ns jng jkfgjneqpgh ehhgvot ghw guwns guweu nc h j H RBGL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.32.36 (talk) 07:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Indian independence movement/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has massive problems which prevent it from being a GA. Among the worst of the many is the almost total lack of inline citations. Vast swathes of the article are uncited - there is not one cite in the first five sections for example, and only one in the last three. In addition, the lead is too long (In fact it looks like someone has deleted a title somewhere along the way, thus expanding the lead). I see tags, peacock terms, independent sentances, some NPOV (although not as much as I expected) and many, many more problems. I will leave this for a week in which time some one must come forward to accept responsibility for dealing with the problems and a timescale for doing so. If no one does in that time, then the article will be delisted. If anyone thinks that this decision is unfair then appeal through WP:GAR (although without major work, this article stands no chance at appeal).--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Please notify the projects listed in talk page and the major contributors.--GDibyendu (talk) 08:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Delist: Looks like contents have been taken from other Encyclopedias on the Net. Lack of citations. Kensplanet^T_C 08:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• A week with no action: this article is no longer a GA.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

WW2

OK, whats the deal with this article around WW2? It puts a huge emphasis on the various pro-axis Indian groups but gives very little attention to those Indians who decided to rally behind Britain and the promise of Indian independance post-war. Its these people who won Indian independance. Not the fascist sympathizers. --79.68.217.188 (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)