Talk:Partition of India/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Is it too much to ask for a clear, prominent map of the partition?

As the lede states, this is an article about "the division of British India into two independent dominion states, India and Pakistan." Wouldn't it make sense for there to be a prominent, clear image showing how British India was divided into the two states? Instead, all the maps at the beginning of the article are from 1909, 38 years before the title event. There is one image that basically shows the partition, but a) it's buried far below the main content in the "Perspectives" section for some reason; b) as the caption indicates, it's about "four nations that gained independence in 1947 and 1948" and not "this is what the partition looked like, the subject of this article"; and c) it looks like something from a 1990s CD-ROM. (Apparently, from looking at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Partition_of_India.PNG , almost every other language version of Wikipedia gets a good map.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

British India

Partition of India or British India? As per my knowledge; there was British Indian empire prior to 1947, also including parts of Arabian peninsula as Aden protectorate, not country named India. And it's official name was British India; not only India.

The title of the article seems to suggest like that modern republic of India was divided to carve out Pakistan, totally misleading in my opinion.

Should it be moved to "Partition of British India"?

Your opinion would be welcomed. Regards. Indusstar (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

According to WP:COMMONNAME, Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). There are various ways of assessing what name is most frequently used. Google Ngram Viewer suggests "Partition of India" is by far the most common.[1] --Worldbruce (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Content added in July by socks of Khaliwarriors

This article showed up on my list of pages with suspicious uses of the term "...-occupied Kashmir". I glanced at the recent history, expecting to quickly spot – as usually happens – a recent IP edit flipping "administered" to "occupied", but no. It turns out this was added back in July, as part of a series of substantial text additions by the users Lions coach14 and Lions master, who have later turned out to be socks of Khaliwarriors. So, the edits in question are these: [2] [3]. Guess they could do with some scrutiny? – Uanfala (talk) 01:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Any thoughts about this, Fowler&fowler? – Uanfala (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced material

The following passages, found in the Bengal/Chittagong Hill Tracts sections were without reference and hence I move them here:

The Chittagong Hill Tracts had not been part of Bengal since 1900 and had no representative at the Bengal Legislative Assembly in Calcutta.

East Pakistan viewed the indigenous Buddhist people as pro-India and systematically discriminated against them in jobs, education, trades and economic opportunities. The situation of indigenous people became worse after the emergence of Bangladesh in 1971. Bangladesh government sponsored hundreds of thousands of Muslim settlers to migrate to Chittagong Hill Tracts with the purpose changing the demographic profile of the region. Bangladesh government sent tens of thousands of armed forces personnel to protect the Muslim settlers and suppress the indigenous Buddhist resistance. Bangladeshi armed forces and Muslim settlers committed more than 20 massacres, numerous rapes, extrajudicial killings, tortures, forcible conversions, land grabs.

Regarding the second passage, it is also questionable whether the worsening after 1971 is on topic in this article which covers the Partition of India in 1947.

Str1977 ^(talk) 10:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Lead

No quotes, please. This is way out of line with MOS. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I was being lazy.  :) Will fix it next. Thanks. If you see any other issues in the lead, please do let me know Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I do not see the relevance of third paragraph (Sikkim - huh?); have never seen any scholar, writing on Partition, to provide such a disclaimer at the outset. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I think you are correct that the third paragraph is more of a dab section than a summary of the main body. But the main body is not all NPOV, probably not comprehensive.

The sentences of the third paragraph have been grandfathered in over the years as a result of people adding this bit and that.

For now, though, I think they are important because they describe how the regions of South Asia outside British India (i.e. outside the directly ruled portion of the subcontinent) were affected by the decolonisation that caused the partition.

I grant that there are less contrapositive-ish ways of saying this, but somewhere central on WP, we need to record that (a) princely states were encouraged (i.e. seduced, cajoled, browbeaten, or threatened) into joining one dominion or the other; (b) Hyderabad and Junagadh were annexed by India (i.e. in a less than fully legal manner) soon after Mountbatten left in 1948; (c) the dispute in Kashmir (in which the Indians have the letter of the law on their side, and the Pakistanis very likely the spirit, in many Western eyes) began at the same time; (d) Sri Lanka and Burma did receive their independence, but only in the following year, and so forth. ... Will write more later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

It is sometimes said, "The partition was a division of British India and its less tangible assets into two Dominions, India and Pakistan. The Raj was an empire, i.e. a loose-knit federation of directly administered and indirectly rules regions. The indirectly ruled regions, the princely states had some treaty rights with the British which the latter revoked at the time of decolonization. The Indians after the partition, especially, brooked no notion of nominally independent regions within their boundaries (and eventually the Pakistanis followed). The loose-knit empire of the British in which both people and animals, for example, migrated back and forth between directly ruled and indirectly ruled regions, was eventually replaced by states with firmly declared and defended boundaries across which migration was no longer possible. So, in effect, it became a partition of the Raj, not just British India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)