Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Indian independence movement

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleIndian independence movement was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 25, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
May 17, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 4, 2005Good article nomineeListed
April 30, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
January 23, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Source Added To Prevent Plagiarism

[edit]

I added quotation marks around a direct quote which was taken from [1] without acknowledging the source. There may be other quotation marks needed and in order to keep Wikipedia's standards high and trustworthy according to its policies on plagiarism. Vincedumond 02:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Reddy, Krishna, K (2006). General Studies History 4 Upsc Preliminary Examination. New Delhi UK: Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing. pp. C34. ISBN 0-07-060447-9.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Impact of World War II

[edit]

This material is not sourced (US Department of State and Wikipedia are not acceptable sources). Please see WP:HISTRS for what sort of sources are necessary (short answer: scholarly sources). Shouldn't be hard to find if the impact of WW 2 on India's independence movement deserves a separate section. --regentspark (comment) 15:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Change “British Raj” to European Imperialism

[edit]

British Raj ignores the other imperial powers who had controlled India. Indians living under Portuguese or French rule had their own independence strife. Also, the Earliest thought on Indian Nationalism(Independence) I saw is from the book-(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varthamanappusthakam) which is not directed at British but foreign rule in general. Also can that source fit anywhere in the Indian Independence movement page?Manabimasu (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[1][reply]

Well, it is a terrible name, as it tries to be about a country but is in fact based on a slang term for British rule, and it is far from clear whether it means British India (directly ruled by the British) or the whole 19th/20th century "Indian Empire", much of which was foreign to the British and had Indian rulers. I don't agree with your comment, Manabimasu, as there are separate articles for French India, Portuguese India, and so on. Moonraker (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.nasrani.net/2013/01/28/nazrani-history-and-discourse-on-early-nationalism-in-varthamanapusthakam/#identifier_53_1038

I have removed a reference to Macaulay because it was out of place, added nothing to the main argument, and interrupted the flow of the entire article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.182.64.93 (talk) 08:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Namdhari Sikhs section

[edit]

I've removed it because it is sourced to namdhari world and the Sikh wiki. Neither of them qualify as reliable sources. Please use academic sources for historical content. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Communication and Social Change

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 12 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jjohnson220 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jjohnson220 (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Namdhari Movement as first resistance post-1857 administrative unification of India

[edit]

Citing strong references, including from Encyclopedia Britannica and Government of India website, I have added information, which is also a part of the UPSC curriculum. As can be seen from the references, in the 19th century, Satguru Ram Singh led a movement that not only used non-cooperation and boycott against the British merchandise, but also attempted to establish foreign relations to free India. This was a time when rest of India was not engaged in active action post-defeat in the 1857 Sepoy Mutiny.

I encourage other users to constructively discuss this, on the basis of primary reference sources, before editing this out of their sheer biasedness.

Looking forward to hear from all Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bharatvarsh.1947: I did a little compromise with your edits by moving your edits to section[1] instead of keeping them on lead (also called summary of the article). You want to insist that he should be mentioned on lead but that would be too much for this subject. Editorkamran (talk) 03:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Editorkamran for your message. Let's discuss this. In my opinion, since it was the first movement post-1857 administrative unification, it should be mentioned on the top. Please inform your point of view in more details.
Regards Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 03:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, he cannot be mentioned "on the top" because he is not that significant to the independence movement. Editorkamran (talk) 04:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Editorkamran, kindly note the sentence prior to the addition of paragraph, ‘It lasted from 1857 to 1947’. Namdhari Movement started in 1857. So, it is the first movement. In chronological order, it has to be the first one.
Anyways, I am shortening the paragraph. The contributions are many, but can be discussed in other pages. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 05:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See the infobox of Indian Rebellion of 1857. None of those leaders have been mentioned on lead of this article so why we should mention Satguru Ram Singh on lead? Editorkamran (talk) 06:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Satguru Raj Singh was not part of the Indian Rebellion of 1857. His movement is different from this, and had peak moments in 1869, 1871, 1872, 1885 and continued till 1947. Could you refer to the Encyclopedia Britannica reference? There is reason why he is mentioned as ‘first Indian to use non-cooperation and Boycott’ and reason why he is mentioned as a prominent personality in the ‘1000 years, 1000 people’ book. His movement should not be confused with Sepoy Mutiny of 1857, where he played no role. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 07:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chronologically, this is the first movement, and has been for that in this section. There are many aspects to it, which have not been touched here. Only a brief summary is provided. The Government of India “Dictionary of Martyrs” mentions the people of these movement prominently. But to keep the write up short for this page, it has not been detailed. A new wiki page can be created for this, however. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 07:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Editorkamran without replying to the talk section, how can you revert the edits? If you are unable to comprehend, then discuss. Wikipedia article is no one’s personal property. This is highly unprofessional on your part. I have given my reasoning and added valid references and manuscripts. If you doubt the integrity of any reference, inform here. Without a consensus on talk, you cannot revert the changes unreasonably. This is against the idea and principle of Wikipedia. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bharatavarsh.1947 you seem to have an obsession with "Satguru Ram Singh" (Ram Singh Kuka) and the Namdhari movement. You are disrupting the article by giving undue weight to your personal belief system. We do not need your personal interests spammed all over Wikipedia. It's great if you have interests but we cannot give undue weight to them on every Wikipedia article you want to edit. You did the same over on the Namdhari article. We do not need paragraphs about Ram Singh Kuka put into the lead, nor do we need links to Amazon. Read WP:NPOV and WP:RSUW and read about reliable sources here WP:RS. I have seen disruption from you on multiple articles. A block will likely occur if you continue this as I will report your account. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Psychologist Guy Yes, since I have read a lot about Namdhari history and know the reliable and actual sources (as opposed to your limited knowledge), I wish that the Wikipedia audience should know about this personality who has been the 'first Indian to use non-cooperation and Boycott as political tools'. You are hell bent on downplaying this important event. How do you solely decide the importance of this? When an article is written in the chronological order, first things will come first. Neither @Editorkamran nor you had anything to discuss healthily about. I know your reality. The way you, @Aryajay have blocked even the minor edits in few pages earlier show your mean intention. This is not the mark of good humans, to deny a chance of discussion to some one else. In fact, you are obsessed with denying the historical facts to speak for themselves. My edits on Namdhari article have been reverted by you and you have added all wrong information. For example, Namdhari movement started in April 1857 and not in April 1812 as per your reverts. You have no intention of discussing. All you can do is to perhaps ask your friends to make reverts and threaten account blockage. You do not have any counter to the references that I have given. You have not explained at all how the simple statements of fact about Satguru Ram Singh are undue weight. If you refer to the inclusion of paragraph on the top of page, that is because of chronology. But still, if you have even a iota of honesty, tell here itself where do you think the said paragraph should be added in the 'Indian Independence Movement' page. Or do you want that this information should not reach people at all? If you have courage and honesty, reply to these questions for a coordinated improvement of this wiki. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have excised the recent addition, which was WP:UNDUE; horribly sourced to junky "clickbait" pushed out by a comic-book publisher and a book published by the "Namdhari History Research Society"; and, written in a a highly promotional tone. Note that the article already mentions the role of Namdhari and other religious groups in the independence movement, and if someone wants to argue that greater coverage is WP:DUE, that would have to be based on a systemic survey of how much space high-quality history texts on IIM, devote to this topic. Abecedare (talk) 16:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Abecedare for your reasoning. I understand that the way URLs were attached were not in accordance with Wikipedia standards. That’s a process in learning. Thanks for highlighting this. I agree that ‘space that history books’ allocate is a consideration. I would request you to comment also on the Encyclopedia Britannica page (which you left in your previous comment) and inform if this information should be a part of history books or Wikipedia page? Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, EB articles authored by their general staff, as opposed to ones by invited experts, are not a very good source. Secondly, the use of "noncooperation and boycott of British merchandise and services as a political weapon" and its relation to IIM will need to be presented with proper context, which [the short EB piece lacks. For example, the source currently cited in this wikipedia article (the 1962 thesis, Social and Economic History Of The Panjab(1849-1901), pp.129-30; itself not a very good source) for the role Namdharis/Kukas played in the era only says that (aside from religious reforms), "Kukaism aimed at the restoration of Sikh rule, and by necessity the subversion of the British Power", which is arguably distinct from agitating for Indian independence.
As I said above, if you want to add more material on this topic, please cite and discuss what standard texts on IIM say about it. Abecedare (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree @Abecedare. “The subversion of the British Power” was inevitably linked to Independence at that time. You are a history enthusiast. Please help me in finding which “other movements” at the time of Namdhari Movement were actively participating for ‘subversion of the British Power’? Meanwhile, I will compile a list of references from British confidential documents and place before everyone for a discussion (along with published source). However, stating that EB articles, even though by general staff is not authentic! (Although definitely not surely the final word, Remember it’s an Encyclopedia), there must be a very strong reason to doubt it). Anyways, I am thankful for the healthy discussion that you have undertaken. I also invite @Editorkamran and @Psychologist Guy to look at the new sources that I will be placing shortly as per the advice of @Abecedare to discuss how this part of history can be bring up for a discussion. I am more aware of the Wikipedia policy at the same time
Thanks to all Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not compile "list of references from British confidential documents"! What we are looking for when writing about subjects such as IIM, to address both WP:RS and WP:DUE concerns, are standard history texts by scholars working in the area, which have ideally been published by academic/university presses in the last 1-3 decades and positively reviewed by other experts. See WP:HISTRS. Abecedare (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. And in case a subject hasn’t been dealt in much detail by standard texts, how should we proceed? Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's the definition of WP:UNDUE. :)
Note that a topic, detail or viewpoint may be undue for this article but (assuming it is reliably sourceable) may well be perfectly fine and due in a more specialized wikipedia article. Abecedare (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Abecedare,
As per our earlier discussions on the subject and as you guided,
I am attaching the link to document “Dictionary of Martyrs (Volume 1) (p. 283)” published by Indian Council of Historical Research, wherein it mentions, “Guru Ram Singh believed the political freedom as a part of religion. The organisation of the Namdharis became considerably strong. The movement of boycott and noncooperation preached by Guru Ram Singh contained five essentials (i) boycott of Government services (ii) boycott of educational institutions opened by the British (iii) boycott of law courts started by the British (iv) boycott of foreign-made goods, and (v) to refuse to obey and resist the laws and orders which one’s conscience abhored. By 1863, Guru Ram Singh had a well-knit following of several thousands.”
Dr. Fauja Singh, Head of the Department of History and Punjab Historical Studies, Punjabi University, Patiala, has written a book on Kuka (Namdhari) movement, with a foreword by Prof. Humayun Kabir. A few excerpts are mentioned, ‘From the very start the movement of Bhai Ram Singh, formally founded in 1857, had a comprehensive aim to achieve, having all aspects such as religious, social and political (p.19). On the political aspect of it, Dr. Fauja Singh mentions, ‘The Kuka contacts with Kashmir and Nepal before 1872 and with Russia after 1872 (more precisely from the outbreak of the Second Afghan War) should dispel the doubts, if any, as to their political aspirations. (p. 121)’
On the basis of above two references, can we make two statements:
(1)  Guru Ram Singh is the first Indian to use non-cooperation and Boycott against imperial merchandize as political tools. (‘Dictionary of Martyrs Vol. I’ by ICHR and The Encyclopedia Britannica reference, though by general staff, clearly states that).
(2)  Namdhari Movement attempted to establish political contacts with foreign countries for ‘subversion of the British Power’ (Kuka Movement by Dr. Fauja Singh and the reference you shared in one of your earlier comments, if deemed good).
I agree with you that a more specialized analysis of the subject can be taken up in a different page, but do, in your view, the above two summarized statements make for a case in Indian Independence Movement?
Please share your views. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 04:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let me make it very simple: Do you have any scholarly sources that treat Guru Ram Singh's contribution in the Indian independence movement to be significant? Since you are using google books, you can easily find some scholarly sources if there are any.
I did some research on this subject and look what I have found:-
"Perhaps no social reformers would ask his followers to boycott the prevailing education system without providing any alternative. Ganda Singh further says that it would be against the historical evidence to consider that Baba Ram Singh had forbidden Namdharis to join Government services . Because boycott was a later development which started with Mahatma Gandhi's swadeshi and non - cooperation movement. At the time of Baba Ram Singh there were few government services which Punjabis could take up . Punjabis and moreover Sikhs used to get service only in the army or police and at such places, there were Namdharis."[2]
Given the clear-cut dubiousness, I would not recommend addition of this information. Editorkamran (talk) 04:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The work of Dr. Fauna Singh is scholarly and objective. Different historians can have different views. In this case, then we need to cite the primary sources. There are plenty in the form of confidential British reports, which talk about it and would clearly refute the claims of Ganda Singh, that you mentioned. Nevertheless, the ICHR document is the latest.
But let’s wait for a couple of days to take other comments, and then we can Analyze all the points in totality. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 06:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What primary source? Can you link it here? Editorkamran (talk) 06:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A "Translation of correspondence between (Guru) Ram Singh, a Kuka prisoner and some of his followers" was made by C. Brown, Assistant to the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Special Branch dt. 20.4.1881 p.22 The summary of the contents of instructions is given therein.
Please note the instructions (through secret letters, subsequently validated as authentic by the colonial Govt.) given by Guru Ram Singh to his followers, p.23 [page 3 (d)]: Kukas prohibited from taking service under Government; Page 25 [Page 10 (b)]: Kukas prohibited from taking service under Government; p.26 [Page 16 (c)]: Kukas not to take service under Government. This is the historical evidence mentioned by the colonial administration itself on three occasions and refutes Ganda Singh's claim that 'it would be against the historical evidence to consider that Baba Ram Singh had forbidden Namdharis to join Government services'. Even this statement that 'boycott was a later development which started with Mahatma Gandhi's swadeshi and non - cooperation movement' is misinformed since the Swadeshi and Boycott movement was already under way in 1905.
Please note the context of the times we are discussing about. The analysis by Tan Tai Yong in "The Garrison State The Military, Government and Society in Colonial Punjab, 1849–1947 (p. 12)" mentions, 'One of the most distinctive features of Punjab’s colonial experience was its close and sustained relationship with the military. In the aftermath of the 1857 Revolt, the established military labour market in north-central India—the mainstay of the Bengal Army— gradually gave way to an alternative, but equally established, military labour market in north-western India, centred on the old Sikh empire in the Punjab. By the 1880s, with the Great Game in vogue and the martial races doctrine dominating recruiting policies, the Punjab province became the principal recruiting ground of the Indian Army.'
In this important market of military labour, which formed an important resource for the colonial army (in subjugating the people of Indian sub-continent as well as other colonies), the presence of Namdhari/Kuka sect was dangerous for the colonial administrators.
The letter from T.H. Thornton, Esq. Secy. to Govt., Panjab to Secy. to Govt. of India, Foreign Deptt. dt. 18.9.1866 p.21 mentions the author advising the Govt. of India, "I am to suggest that, if advisable, measures be taken for confidentially enjoining officers commanding Native Troops to ascertain, so far as is possible, what is thought of the sect by their men.." This clearly shows that the colonial administration did not want its 'men in the military stock' to get influenced by Guru Ram Singh's teachings at all.
In another letter by Inspector General of Police, Panjab to Secy. To Govt., Panjab dt. 20.1.1868 p.68, Insp. Gen. forwarded the opinion, ‘There is no doubt that all the Sikhs and Kookas among them, would be glad to see their own rule established:..’.
Due to the teachings of Guru Ram Singh, Namdhari Sikhs did not contribute to the colonial army or police. However, the rest of Punjab contributed whole-heartedly. Whatever numbers of Kukas might have been there, they would have been before they embraced his teachings. Remember, Namdhari movement started in April 1857, while the East India Company had conquered Punjab in 1849, and recruited heavily during the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857.
So far as boycott of the prevailing education system is concerned, one may consult the compilation backed with references (p. 420) to see the idea behind colonial education. Also to inform that Namdhari Sikhs were educated in Punjab language and had close association with Sikh literature. References can be given for this also. But since my reply has already taken a long space, and since I am supposed here to comment for the 2 statements that I discussed initially, I will rest my comment here, for a review by others. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 09:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also request that while looking at the evidence, please do not rate my editing skills (I am new to Wikipedia, and I think on 'Talk' pages, editing doesn't matter as it would do on the "Article" page). Please look at the evidence with an unbiased frame of mind. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 09:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your primary sources are not supportive of what you were trying to add to the article. I asked you to describe your primary sources only so that I can take a look at what they are actually saying. There is nothing like I am supportive of adding primary sources on main articles for the information where we are required to use scholarly sources. Editorkamran (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Editorkamran, this is kinda funny. You yourself asked to quote the primary reference. This exposes the hollowness in the claims of Ganda Singh. But how you say that Your primary sources are not supportive of what you were trying to add to the article' is surprising and interesting at the same time. Remember: we were talking about 'non-cooperation and boycott initiated by Guru Ram Singh', and you showed a statement quoting Ganda Singh, saying, 'it would be against the historical evidence to consider that Baba Ram Singh had forbidden Namdharis to join Government services'('?)
But how you think that the reference I quoted doesn't address the above issue is little beyond understanding, and we would be benefitted to know the reasoning you apply here to make your comment.
Thanks Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:PRIMARYNOTBAD&redirect=no in case confusions still remain. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bharatavarsh: Quick responses:

  1. As I said previously, wikipedia editors are not in the business of analyzing primary sources. So please avoid quoting from 19th century British correspondence again.
  2. Coming to secondary sources: you surely are aware of the academic debate between Fauja Singh, M. M. Ahluwalia, Bhagat Singh, Ganda Singh, Joginder Singh, Harjot Oberoi among many others over whether the Ram Singh/Kuka activism was primarily religious, political, economic or millenarian. This talk-page and article is not the right venue to discuss that. Please take that part of the discussion to Talk:Ram Singh Kuka or Talk:Namdhari, as appropriate.
  3. Your quoting from the Dictionary of Martyrs illustrates perfectly the difficulty with the approach you are taking. That seven volume work, along with its 3-volume predecessor Who's who of Indian martyrs, profiles several thousand persons who played some role in the independence movement over a century, and we regularly have editors proposing that we highlight one of those persons in the main IIM or related article (see, eg, this discussion about Rao Tularam from last year and my reply there). Such picking and choosing is infeasible, and not what wikipedia editors should be doing. As I have said above, we rely on scholars writing standard texts on IIM to do the sifting and weighing, and then simply summarize them in this article.
Abecedare (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again nice to see the reasoning in your comments, following is my reply to the points raised by you:
1.      An editor has asked me to cite primary source, that’s why, I quoted it now. Remember, this is the ‘Talk’ page, not the Article Page.
2.      With respect to the second point in your comment, Please also refer to another secondary source which I hope you would agree to: They too Fought for India‘s Freedom : The Role of Minorities edited by Ali Asghar Engineer (ISBN 81-7871-081-1). In the chapter written by Prof. T.R. Sharma, Chairman, Deptt. of Political Science, Punjab University, Chandigarh, he categorically states, “The most manifest protest to defeat the attempts of the raj to woo the Sikhs and create a divide between Hindus and the Sikhs came in 1870s in the form of a Kuka movement led by Baba Ram Singh”. You mention the difficulty in deciding whether the Kuka movement was social or political. In the next line, Prof. T.R. Sharma states, “One prominent and consistent feature of this movement and, in fact, of many other movement launched by various sects of Sikhs since then has been initially these movements began as mere socio-religious reform movements but, in due course, sometimes by accident and sometimes by design, they got transferred into political movements against the British Govt. This is equally true of the Kuka movement”. I hope you won’t have objection to this statement (quoted in a secondary source, and also covered elaborately in Dr. Fauja Singh’s work), otherwise be assured that there are a lot of primary sources to prove that in the case of Kuka movement, this was ‘deliberately by design’.
3.      In view of the secondary sources already discussed and in view of the ICHR document, I would again ask you to consider your position with respect to the points that I specifically mentioned: Guru Ram Singh initiating a movement against the British post-1857 Sepoy Mutiny defeat. I had asked for your guidance in an earlier comment: ‘Please help me in finding which “other movements” at the time of Namdhari Movement were actively participating for ‘subversion of the British Power’?’ I think in Prof. T.R. Sharma’s statement, this comes up nicely as “The most manifest protest..in the form of a Kuka movement”. Your point of including as many freedom fighters in the ‘Dictionary of Martyrs’ compilation is well taken. However, you would also note the difference of detail. Many freedom fighters have been included for ‘having participated in a protest campaign’. This clearly is not the case with Guru Ram Singh’s and Kuka Sikh’s entries. You can clearly note the vivid details of how their contributions are discussed. Also, the IIM covers the period subsequent to 1857. I have seen your reply on Rao Tula Ram. Given the secondary sources above, this is not the case for Kuka movement, and moreover, this is post-1857.
4.      Now, there is one more issue I wish to raise. There are different approaches to Indian freedom movement and if you take the colonial approach or Cambridge or the subaltern, most of the content currently on Wiki: IIM would require considerable re-consideration. Hence, it is wrong to look at Guru Ram Singh or Kuka movement from a distinctly colonial approach. Given the fact that it initiated very early (not as part of Sepoy Mutiny), there were ample chances for the imperial Government and its machinations to ridicule/downplay it (Ganda Singh being one of them). This is all the more true for a movement for which the imperial authorities remark (and since we’re on Talk page, I am again taking the liberty of quoting directly from a primary source; this has been covered by secondary sources also: (page 86)The truth is that it is not possible for a Kuka to be loyal subject of the (imperial) British Government..;
5.      Please remember that we started with a discussion on including ‘contributions of Guru Ram Singh’ in the chronology of IIM to be made on the Article Page at an appropriate place.
Valid, unbiased, available secondary sources can now be taken based on the discussion; those secondary sources, which are colonial manifestations, and who rebuttal is amply available in primary sources, though we’re not going to be in the business of going through them here in Wikipedia, can therefore, be left for a later scholarly scrutiny. And now, I am more aware of the specifics of editing on Wikipedia. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Abecedare,
I think a good number of days have passed since my last reply. Meanwhile, I had a chance of looking at the Wikipedia policies in more detail. I was very happy to note the policies of WP: Assuming Good Faith. Although, unfortunately, I was out-rightly subject to accusations of ‘being a vandal’ and denied an opportunity of discussion, even when I had approached a user very humbly, I have thoroughly enjoyed my discussions with you. I have gone through WP:HISTRS, WP:FIVEPILLARS and WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD (which I had requested another user to take a look at, in case confusion with differing opinions in secondary sources remain). I am sure you would have gone through my comments made around 3 days back.
Through my reading of the Namdhari history through various primary and secondary sources, I wish to improve the associated wikis. I intend to modify the edits that I previously made (and were reverted by you, primarily due to sourcing and weight issues). That’s’ why, we have taken this discussion on the ‘Talk’ page.
1.     You had mentioned discrepancies amongst the secondary sources. By and large, the secondary sources and especially, the Dictionary of Martyrs Vol. 1 carefully compiled and referenced by qualified historians in Indian Council of Historical Research, declare the fact that ‘Namdhari Movement initiated by Guru Ram Singh was the first movement to employ non-cooperation and Boycott as political tools’. I think we can use this as a source. I have taken a note on the discussion on Rao Tula Ram that you referred to. You remarked it well by mentioning that the word ‘prominent’ is mentioned 77 times in Vol. 3 and hence, does not allow to determine weight of a personality (since it’s repeated so many times for different personalities). By this similar reasoning, I urge you to look at the word ‘non-cooperation’ and ‘Boycott’ in Dictionary of Martyrs Volume 1. (Please note that these means have been one of the most important political tools in toppling imperial regimes not only in India, but elsewhere in Asia and Africa. This way, these political tools are highly significant). You will find that the words ‘non-cooperation’ and ‘Boycott’ have been described for 1 and 5 times, respectively in Volume 1, and all have come under the entry of ‘Guru Ram Singh’ (page 270). Please also note the era which we are talking about. During mid-19th century, Guru Ram Singh is the only Indian to be using ‘non-cooperation and Boycott as political tools’. Hence, this statement is not at all WP:UNDUE. All independent and verifiable secondary sources declare it unanimously, including the curated Encyclopedia Britannica. Also, this is how different leaders of the 20th century have perceived them (We can discuss this part, if required).
2.     Secondly, during those times, Guru Ram Singh and his movement was also making contacts with Jammu & Kashmir and Nepal to secure cooperation for Indian independence. This is also explicitly mentioned in the same page in Dictionary of Martyrs Vol. 1 (page 270). This has been extensively covered in Dr. Fauja Singh’s work, especially the contacts with Russia, which are not mentioned in the ICHR document.
3.     Hence, on the basis of 1 and 2 above, we can mention, “After the establishment of British paramountcy in India post-1857 Sepoy Mutiny defeat, Namdhari movement by Guru Ram Singh was working towards ‘subversion of British power’. Guru Ram Singh is credited as being the first Indian to use “non-cooperation and Boycott” as political toolsa. Namdhari movement also endeavored to establish contacts with foreign countries towards the aim of Indian Independencea. The British authorities inflicted terrible punishments on Namdhari Sikhs and Guru Ram Singh was exileda. The movement continued its efforts and later collaborated with Indian National Congress in civil disobedience movementb.”
a.     Dictionary of Martyrs Vol.1, ICHR
b.     Kuka movement by Dr. Fauja Singh Bajwa (p.185).
4.     I believe you would agree with the above. Still, for benefit of other editors, I would again mention that we need to look at the Indian Independence Movement Page through a uniform lens. We cannot treat specific topics with a different lens. The whole article has to be in ‘one vein’.
5.     I have taken a note of your advice to consider these issues in other pages like Talk:Namdhari. Thanks for this suggestion, I would definitely do. There are many other aspects of Guru Ram Singh (some which you also mentioned): the social, philosophical and religious, including women reforms; but these are not appropriate for this page. Here, we should intend to provide basic information about the political dimension of Namdhari movement. There are excellent books by Fareeha Zafar and Mridula Mukherjee, which talk about ‘class struggle’ and ‘agrarian policy’, and how the then conditions in Punjab affected social relations, but these topics are not for this place.
6.     Also, as the Namdhari movement was not an ‘early rebellion’, but a movement starting in 1857 (not participating in the Sepoy Mutiny; in fact, in 1857, it was in its infancy), but continuing through the vacuum created after the 1857 Sepoy Mutiny defeat. Please see Kuka Movement by Dr, Fauja Singh (p.165) for an analysis of the then difficult circumstances (I am not proposing to bring this otherwise important consideration, in order to keep the edit ‘highly summarized’. Given the fact that the IIM article is written chronologically, I am placing this brief para before the Bengal case of 1905, primarily due to its ‘chronology’.
7.     Finally, I request all editors through this comment that in case of any objections, please use the ‘Talk’ page and reach a consensus, before simply reverting the edit without presenting an alternative logic. Let us all work in the spirit of Wikipedia (please look at WP:ESSENCE and WP:PRESERVE).
Thanks to all for your contributions and patience. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 08:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:WIKILAWYERING and WP:TLDR.
None of your sources are reliable enough to supersede the explanation I provided here. Editorkamran (talk) 11:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Editorkamran,
I could explain in shorter content also. But since there was a confusion, I wanted to make a detailed explanation. I request you to be kindly more specific in any issues with the sources. I have likewise taken a note of Wikipedia policies for my explanation. In fact, l am requesting to not look at the article portions differently, but in one, continuous thought process.
Still, if you have any objections, please mention them specifically and as a response to the points that I have raised.
Thanks Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bharatavarsh.1947: As I have explained above, the content you are adding is WP:UNDUE. Please do not add it again till you have gained a talkpage consensus for its inclusion. Abecedare (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Abecedare
    I expected a logical reply from you. Nevertheless, I would make it simpler for you to reply (so that it is not TLDR):
    1. Do you consider Dictionary of Martyrs by Indian Council of Historical Research an unreliable source for Wikipedia? [I already mentioned the content to you with respect to Kuka movement in my earlier comment (I sincerely hope at least you would have given it a reading)]
    2. Do you have a reason to give as to why you ignored Fauja Singh's work and the chapter by Prof. TR Sharma?
    3. Do you consider Ganda Singh's position on Kuka movement the final word and despite the primary as well as secondary sources mentioned by me (clearly falsifying his narrative) to be more authentic? Do you consider it to be 'independent of colonial bias', given the background of Ganda Singh and his works?
    4. Would you treat all the sections of the Indian Independence Movement article similarly through colonial lens?
    5. What is your plan on reaching a consensus? Will it reach with the editors who simply flag WP:TLDR and revert an edit, giving two-worded explanation 'no need'?
    Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 01:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of your sources meet WP:HISTRS. Surely you are making efforts to show Kuka as some extraordinary freedom fighter but his recognition in the books of scholars writing about freedom movement is clearly non-existing.
I would again recommend you to read WP:HISTRS before coming up with any other source. Editorkamran (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Editorkamran, I have checked WP:HISTRS thoroughly. I suggest you to please read the section on WP:HISTRW. This is a subsection of the WP:HISTRS and as such, I hope it wouldn't be 'TLDR' for you. Once read this subsection.
I can comment about most of the sources that I earlier mentioned, but to keep the things simple (so that we're able to understand each other's point well), let us discuss about the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on Guru Ram Singh. You will find there itself the statement, 'Written and fact-checked by The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica'. To understand what 'The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica' means, please click on the link and you would get the whole information here, including the names of the editors in their team. I hope you would now agree that this is a reliable source.
Secondly, don't confuse with what I added (and was reverted by you). I am not adding that 'it is because of Namdhari movement that India got freedom'. For that matter, no single movement was responsible, and most played their part, whether they be the different factions within Indian National Congress or without INC. For the 'Indian Independence Article', I only added the fact, (amongst 2 other) that "..Guru Ram Singh is credited as being the first Indian to use “non-cooperation and Boycott” as political tools."
How this statement of fact that Guru Ram Singh is credited as first Indian for employing certain political tools is WP:UNDUE is not understandable to me. Had there been many movements who were using these tools at that time when Guru Ram Singh was advocating them, then definitely this statement would be UNDUE. I had earlier asked @Abecedare to help me in finding out which other movements were working for the 'subversion of British power' at the time when Guru Ram was working. I am still awaiting if the said editor has anything to say on that.
Now, before I come to other points and endanger my reply becoming a WP:TLDR, I will wait for your response. Remember, it is not that we have to fight amongst ourselves. Many of our ancestors have sufficiently fought with each other to enslave themselves and get exploited in return. Here, we are on Wikipedia, and we should work according to its policies and guidelines.
Very humbly, I disagree with your notion that the brief paragraph or the location that I was adding was illogical in any sense. I request you to kindly reconsider your position in light of the above facts, and with an unbiased frame of mind.
Good luck! Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica does not meet WP:HISTRS. It is just a biographical page about rather than a page about Indian independence movement. On this page, we are supposed to include only those figures and details that have played notable role in independence movement. Editorkamran (talk) 02:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Editorkamran, It seems you haven't read either WP:HISTRS or even the sub-section WP:HISTRW. Because if you would have given it a serious reading, you would note under WP:HISTRW, item no. 8 'Signed articles in scholarly encyclopedias'. The Britannica reference I mentioned earlier falls under this category. Your proposition that it is a biography of Guru Ram Singh and has nothing to do with Indian Independence Movement is completely wrong and illogical. You mention then that the Indian Independence Movement page 'includes only those figures and details that have played notable role in independence movement' and that's why, if you do not want a mention of Guru Ram Singh and Kuka movement (on this premise), then this argument is also similarly wrong. Dr. Fauja Singh's work published by Punjabi University, Patiala, 1972 is scholarly work on this movement. The Dictionary of Martyrs reference has been compiled by qualified historians in ICHR (In my earlier reply to @Abecedare, I had clarified the context since he had directed me to a discussion on Rao Tula Ram and his response on that). Namdhari movement has found mention in Bipan Chandra's "India's Struggle for Independence 1857-1947" published by Penguin Books India. An event in the same movement was mentioned in Shashi Tharoor's 'Inglorious Empire' (although I'm not arguing to use Tharoor's bestseller as a reliable source for Wiki).
Perhaps your reasoning is based on that fallacy of Argumentum ad Populum. May be, you think that what you do not know is not important somehow! For your information, if you have taken care to read the IIM article, even in the first two paragraphs of 'Early Rebellions' on this page, out of the nine noted personalities/rebellions, only two are covered in Bipan Chandra's standard text. Should these (e.g. Manki, Kone, Cheno, Titumir, etc.) be deleted then? Going by your argument, I would assume that these should be deleted from the text.
Again, before moving to other points, I suggest you find a better reason for denial next time. And please acquaint yourself better with Wiki policies, including WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD in case you decide resorting to colonially-motivated writers. For that matter, I can inform you here itself, if you care to look at the scholarly work of Bipan Chandra, then many actors of 1857 Mutiny would need to be reconsidered, having being remarked as 'prisoners of their own past' by the scholar.

Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. This is signed EB article, signed by Stanley Wolpert, a known expert on the topic. This is an unsigned EB article attributed to unnamed generic staff members. As for the rest, since your lengthy posts don't address the WP:DUE concern, I don't know what else there is to say. Abecedare (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's your subjective opinion on that. Anyways, EB editors have a policy mentioned for the articles. Even those written by a single editor are then fact-checked by 'The editors of EB'. Apart from EB, you never really replied for Dictionary of Martyrs text (on the lines of your reasoning in Rao Tula Ram discussion). Your position on 'never to cite primary' is also not consistent with Wiki policies. Regarding your understanding of WP:DUE or WP:UNDUE, definitely we have a difference of opinion. Do you care giving your expert advice on the other personalities e.g. Manki, Kone, Cheno, Titumir, etc. in IIMR page. Are all these WP:DUE, in your opinion? Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drafting the constitution details

[edit]

(Moved from User talk:RegentsPark)
Hey Probably 3 days before I change some of the line of Indian independence movement wikipedia page where credit of Drafting constitution is given to B N Rau. Well it's highly inaccurate. So I change it and made it absolutely accurate for anyone who read will be understood without any doubt.

But what's the issue here i don't get that ?

Is it the way I write those lines is wrong or is it the article which generally not accepted or reliable as a valid source of real information ?

Please let me know what the mistakes i did during the changes?

Because the changes I made is highly aligned with historical accuracy.

So if according to you the source should be more acceptable than 'factly.in' then i will definitely provide another valid article of reputable websites like The Hindu or The Indian Express which supports my changes. Callmehelper (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should provide a more reliable source. However, is this level of detail about who had what role in the drafting the constitution relevant in an article on the independence movement? It would make more sense in the constitution article or in the Ambhedkar article. BTW, as a rule, it is better to discuss content issues on the article talk page so that other users can see and comment. RegentsPark (comment) 14:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i heavily think it's necessary to specify . Because during the making the constitution which run for around 2 years. There is drafting committee of 7 members which is headed by ambedkar. But B N Rau is not the member of this drafting committee. So directly saying B N Rau drafted the constitution is completely wrong and doesn't aligned with historical accuracy.
I hope you got my point.
So please allow me to change it , so I will provide a well established source instead of Factly.in . Callmehelper (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying B.N.Rau did not draft the constitution? If that's the case, you should just remove his name from this article rather than adding excessive detail. Since I don't see a source anywhere, I've removed it from the article. Anyone adding it back needs to provide a source. RegentsPark (comment) 14:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ofcourse he didn't draft the constitution that we have today . But If you see what I change previously it give a well deserving credit to B N Rau. I am not removing his name at all .
May be one or two lines seems additional I should avoid like the title n all.
Should I change now? Callmehelper (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks to be too much detail for an article that is neither on Ambhedkar nor on the constitution. I won't revert you if you change it but, if someone else does, please continue to discuss it on this talk page. RegentsPark (comment) 14:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. If that make sense for you then okay. But removing B N Rau is necessary because it's wrong and also there is nothing any supporting source for that. That's all I can say. Callmehelper (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh you did it.
Highly appreciated. Callmehelper (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having personal disagreement over who is getting the credit is irrelevant for Wikipedia. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So according to you, giving only credit to B N Rau isn't personal choice ? Callmehelper (talk) 06:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

impact of the world war 1

[edit]

World war one has many imparting the modern age of technology that we don't know about Some of us rethink of old age or stone age around1million year b.c Before a war can start many this must have happen in each country that make them want to fight Or When nothing happen that means we want to show off with our weapons Like the USA in 1945 of August That effect still exist till today no country can wage war against usa now because of their weapons — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olarewajuy112 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_independence_movement&oldid=1252167695"