Talk:Flag of India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Flag of India is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 14, 2005.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
July 6, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted
March 1, 2010 Featured article review Kept
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 14, 2004.
Current status: Featured article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject India (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article is a selected article on the India portal, which means that it was selected as a high quality India-related article.
Note icon
This article was a past Indian Collaboration of the Month.
WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon Flag of India is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Note icon
This was a selected article on the Heraldry and Vexillology Portal for September 2008.
Version 0.5      (Rated FA-Class)
Peer review This Everydaylife article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

Material of the flag[edit]

I know that technically, the flag is only supposed to be made of a certain material (namely khadi) but from personal experience, I can tell you that none of the Indian flags I've seen in public places have been made of khadi (I have some particularly patriotic friends of Indian origin, and the flags in their homes do appear to be made of the stuff, hence the qualifier about "public places"). I live in the United States, where flag manufacturers probably don't know or don't care about the Indian government's regulations, and I think it worth mentioning that the guidelines are only enforceable within the borders of the Republic of India, so flags made outside of India are frequently not made according to official rules. Unfortunately, my personal experience is not a "verifiable source" and I cannot send flags over the Internet, so I'm wondering about how we might get this valuable information onto the article without violating WP policy. Lockesdonkey (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Lockesdonkey you need not worry about it as there is no such strict rule that the flag need to be made of khadi or cotton only as when the flag was adopted in constituent assembly two flags were presented and one was of cotton and other was of silk [1]. Vikku.pandey (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


Article issues[edit]


* Further information

Given that the article is now at FAR, time to document the problems and address them soon.

  • History section
    • A good portion appears to be synthesis as some of the entries aren't really discussed by sources in the context of the Indian flag.
    • Notability/relevance (undue in this context) of some of the flags (Ghadar party is one, many aren't included in the List of Indian flags, but that doesn't really prove anything)
  • Proper flag protocol
    • A good bit of unsourced text
    • Copy-editing required
  • Layout
    • Too many images, distracting from the text

Will add more soon, and then start tackling. -SpacemanSpiff 04:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree on the the images being extremely distracting. i couldnt read the text continuously for more than a few seconds without glancing around.
  • The history section can be moved into a table with two columns with smaller images. The images should be on one side - either right or left. sorting can be according to timeline. Excess text can be moved to a new article on history and evolution of the flag
  • Two tables for two sections - the official (british raj/company) flags and the various independence movements' flags. The company had at least one more flag before 1800s [1]
  • The flag protocol can be trimmed and the "legalese" text moved into Flag Code of India
  • Infobox needs to be added
  • Lead section can be made to a single para. the designer/history/code/material should be moved to the respective sections. I
  • images in lead section have to be removed (replaced with infobox)--Sodabottle (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • The 1906 flag shown here is a faked digitally manipulated image. The original flag designed by Bhikaji Cama had flowers in the top band, and not lotus's.

Original image can be sourced from the Archives of India.--BawliBooch (talk) 04:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Heraldic description?[edit]

Party per fess Saffron and Vert on a fess Argent a "Chakra" Azure.

Do we have a source for this? Blazon provides some guidelines but itself suffers from a lack of sourcing. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

No, so I removed it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

BIS Standards[edit]

For those in India, would any of you like to get a PDF copy of the following standards:

  • IS 1 : 1968 Specification for the National Flag of India (Cotton Khadi)
  • IS 300 : 1968 Specification for the national flag of India (silk khadi)
  • IS 400 : 1968 Specification for the National Flag of India (Wool Khadi)

I would really appreciate it, so I can help you with this article. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not in India, but as with a good part of the article, even on this recentism has crept in. The correct name of the org when the standards were devised was "Indian Standards Institution" (became BIS sometime in the 1990s if I'm not mistaken)and the code would have been ISI or IS. Searching for that might give you some success. I haven't been able to unearth much in terms of (good quality) online sources so far. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 21:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
We can talk about the naming later. What I want to do is something like Flag_of_Japan#Design. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I wasn't clear before, but what I meant was searching for some combination of "Indian Standards Institute" and "Indian Flag" etc might help you better than BIS linked searches. Sorry for the confusion, there's more than just the BIS naming issue to pick on right now :) I haven't had much luck in finding the docs myself, the BIS page is extremely unhelpful]. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 21:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I been looking for a while, the only thing I know is that the CD rom version has been taken offline, all PDF removed and this standard is 40 USD. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I finally got "IS 1 : 1968 Specification for the National Flag of India (Cotton Khadi)" User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggested structure for the article[edit]

I'm proposing a complete rewrite of the article using the following strucute:

  • Lead
  • Design and symbolism
  • History
    • Flag movement
    • Flag selection
    • Other flags used (summary style with a link to a split off article where the current content goes)
  • Flag code
    • Protocol
    • Manufacturing process
  • Notes
    • References
  • External links

Some references that I have been able to find so far:

  • Available online
  1. Roy, Srirupa (2007). Beyond belief : India and the politics of postcolonial nationalism Author: Srirupa Roy. Duke University Press. p. 6. ISBN 9780822340010. OCLC 73742614. 
  2. Jacobsohn, Gary J. (2003). The wheel of law: India's secularism in comparative constitutional context. Princeton University Press. pp. 5–7, 317. ISBN 9780691122533. OCLC 49513027. 
  3. The Indian National Flag as a Site of Daily Plebiscite
  4. Roy, Srirupa (August 2006). "“A Symbol of Freedom”: The Indian Flag and the Transformations of Nationalism, 1906–" (PDF). Journal of Asian Studies 65 (3). ISSN 0021-9118. 
  • Not available online
  1. The Indian flag; origin, adoption, description, use. India. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. OCLC 14389783. 
  2. Virmani, Arundhati (August 1999). "National Symbols under Colonial Domination: The Nationalization of the Indian Flag, March-August 1923". Past & Present (Oxford University Press on behalf of The Past and Present Society) (164): 169–197. 

Comments/opinions etc etc please. cheers -SpacemanSpiff 06:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

That works. I use that similar format for the Japanese, Chinese and Singaporean flag articles that are either going for FAC or are Good Articles. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. Also available online are a couple of relevant legislations - the Flag Code of India, 2002; and the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. I also have access to the second (JSTOR) article that is unavailable online. Newspaper articles regarding the manufacturing process are also available online. If we have a consensus, let's start! I'm ready to pitch in with what I can. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 09:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I still wish I can get my hands on that standard. I do notice some Indian Government websites give out suggested colors for the flag, so I will try and figure those out. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Not giving up my search for the standards document, but let's start the restructuring now and hopefully, we'll find this soon. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 01:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Sure. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Naval flags[edit]

They are all uploaded to Wikipedia now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

some FAR notes[edit]

Spiff, I'm making notes here, since the "leave comments" link goes to an archive. Sorry, I'll be doing this piecemeal (again...), and can't guarantee I'll make much progress: the semester is about to start and I'm very scatter-brained, comme d'habitude.

  1. Rephrase "the British" in the lead--it's not parallel with "India," and it's a bit vague (in my opinion).
  2. The last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead comes sort of out of nowhere. Rephrase it (so there's a transition between it and the previous sentence(s)/thoughts), or place it somewhere else. Actually, you can move it into the first sentence of the second paragraph, so that "national flag," which opens that sentence, sounds less repetitive.
  3. Something similar applies to the last sentence of the second paragraph of the lead: it has nothing to do with the design and colors. Move it into the next paragraph, which talks about function, display, regulations. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Suspect claims[edit]

I am skeptical of some statements in the article, even though they are apparently sourced (I haven't checked the sources myself):

  • The lede says, "The flag, by law, is to be made of khadi". Does that mean that paper and other cloth flags are illegal ? That is a redflag claim, and I rather suspect that the original statement is missing some qualifiers. (perhaps the law differentiates between "a flag" and a representation of the flag?)
  • Some of the claims Manufacturing process are dubious, and others surely false. Among the former, "there are fewer than a dozen weavers in India professing this skill."; and among the latter claims about the "exact" thread count and weight requirements.

Can the claims be checked against the cited sources and the credibility of the sources be checked too ? Abecedare (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  • "The flag, by law..": This refers to the flag per se, I'm not sure how to exclude representations and adaptations, e.g. Even paper flags for decorative purposes and banners are not covered by "the flag" qualifier.
  • "fewer than a dozen": This was carried over from an earlier version, at present there are 16. I'll make that change
  • Thread count and weight requirements: We haven't been able to get hold of the BIS document, but thread count is regulated. I'll replace the rediff ref with The Hindu one.
  • "supercilious": The word replaced "Reducing India's identity to a rather common symbolic element - a star - appeared to be slightly derisory to him" from a passage focused on the inappropriateness of the (then) current flag and the reason to choose something better.
I'll address the other bits once within the article after reading through in a bit. —SpacemanSpiff 17:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Some other changes I've done based on the comments/inline tags:
  • Removed designer from the infobox as the amount of text to be added to clarify that is too much for the infobox
  • Bande Mataram flag in Congress 1906 (when tag removed)
  • Emblem of India clarification; removed the link as the emblem was officially adopted in 1950
  • Original flag code vs 2002 flag code; unfortunately this is one of the few laws that doesn't have a year associated with it in the original form, so I've clarified at the start that original means the "Flag Code - India" (the precursor to Flag code, 2002)
Will complete the rest soon. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 01:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Update: I've restored the designer's name to the infobox, and incorporated a clarification in the footnotes. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 10:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Connaught Ranger Mutiny[edit]

On a recent edition of Talking History on Irish Radio Station Newstalk it was stated that one of the origins of the colour scheme if the Indian Flag was the raising of the Irish Tri-colour in Jalandhar during the Mutiny of the Connaught Rangers in 1920.

--Gramscis cousinTalkStalk 13:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't come across that in any of the print sources that I've accessed, only the Gandhian selection bit that's been included in the article. Did they give a deeper explanation? Did they reference any books that we could access? —SpacemanSpiff 14:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

please add a wikilink[edit]

Can somebody please add the interwikilink to Gandhi Jayanti where its mentioned in this article? Thanks. - (talk) 09:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia, is the free encyclopedia which anyone can edit. Go ahead, click on edit and add two square brackets around the word/words that need to be linked. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Saffron story[edit]

The (proposed) edits by Dilpreet Singh Virdi have no support in this discussion. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've had to revert the "story behind the saffron" addition for the second time for two reasons that the WP:RS nature of the book is in question: (1) the content contradicts two peer reviewed publications from Flag experts, and (2) The book uses disparate sources for its information ranging from biographies to newspaper op-eds etc. —SpacemanSpiff 01:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I denies both the reason,Dr. Sangat Singh, member of Joint Intelligence Committee India, wrote "The Sikhs in History", book is published with ISBN-10: 0964755505 & ISBN-13: 978-0964755505 and is not first time used on wikipedia. Please do your research before pointing.

--Dilpreet Singh Virdi (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Just because it's used elsewhere on Wikipedia doesn't make it reliable, besides being a member of a Joint Intelligence Committee doesn't make the person a reliable historian. You'll need to provide something substantial to change something that's the academic consensus. —SpacemanSpiff 02:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
What does that means ? I have gave you two book's reference what makes you point OUT both of them? what 's your claims validity ? If you don't know or not heard is not my concern. --Dilpreet Singh Virdi (talk) 02:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
If you wish to add it here as a reference, especially for statements that contradict well established, scholarly sources, you'll have to show why this is reliable and also why it can over-ride existing academic consensus. You are the one bringing this here. —SpacemanSpiff 02:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I think if you read the earlier version of article you can see the valid criticism by Sikh is missing and article simply says "soon the Sikhs wanted the banner to include the black colour and Gandhi was forced to address these issues in his writings and speeches. " , now neither the color black is a Sikh color nor it says what was forced to address ? What you think why was earlier color RED was changed to SAFFRON , who made this change and WHY? also tell me earlier flags has RED at end and then after why Kesari comes at top ? probably your resource (fake) has any information about this. until the article is set to the new version.

--Dilpreet Singh Virdi (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

While Srirupa Roy is definitely a WP:RS (an expert on Indian studies and professor on India in many universities), the reliability and neutrality of the "THE_SIKHS_IN_HISTORY" reference is questionable. This book in turn relies on "Gandhi and the Sikhs" by Gurmit Singh (see p. 196 of "THE_SIKHS_IN_HISTORY")for the claim that Gandhi did not want the Sikh's saffron in the flag. The Indian critiques of Gandhi [2] remarks that "Gurmit Singh is incensed that Gandhi resisted Dr. Ambedkar's proposal that the Depressed Classes should convert to Sikhism. So his entire book is permeated with a hostility against Gandhi's comment ... " "THE_SIKHS_IN_HISTORY", true to its reference, also retains this anti-Gandhi POV. --Redtigerxyz Talk 10:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
THe Sikhs In History doesn't look great to me either, for the reasons already stated by SpacemanSpiff and Redtigerxyz. Nonetheless, Roy appears to be an authoritative figure so either he has decided to write a polemic (not uncommon among academics who are immunised by their status) or he has hit on an obscure alternative that just might be worth mentioning as a minority viewpoint - a sentence or two, no more. - Sitush (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Er, Roy hasn't gone off on an alternate theory here, both Roy and Arundhati Virmani provide what's essentially similar information, which is what's currently presented in the article. The newly added book doesn't qualify as a reliable minority viewpoint (as detailed by Red above for this particular case, but the referencing in that book is particularly shoddy, using op-eds from newspapers etc as sources), as they don't appear to have any traction in peer reviewed literature, so I'm not sure adding any mention wouldn't violate WP:DUE.—SpacemanSpiff 11:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Does't that makes any concern if the resource not looks good to you? FACT remains the fact and the resource which you have use to build the article is definitely not a WP:RS as is far from the reality and false claim stated Sikh ask to add BLACK color , no one ever in Sikh has used to represent Sikh, rather basanti/kesari/saffron is the color. First reference is from Dr. Sangat Singh is a Sikh Historian and widely accepted in the Sikhs. and Second reference is from the G.D. Tendulkar's Mahatma. Further I have raised some question in the last post and I am expect answers from your source to address them. --Dilpreet Singh Virdi (talk) 11:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but just repeating what you've said and not addressing any of the comments with cogent arguments isn't going to take this discussion anywhere. —SpacemanSpiff 12:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
All point are addressed and references are given If you don't agree and Invalidate all the resource and the facts, means you are acting as BIASED .

--Dilpreet Singh Virdi (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

This is getting to be a futile endeavor. Please undo your gratuitous tagging, or I'll do it for you. You are welcome to discuss once you understand Wikipedia policies, but until such time, this is an incredible waste of everyone's time. —SpacemanSpiff 17:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for no thanks, I am not active it does't means I can't read and understand. according to you the book which has false allegation is acceptable as it is written pro-gandhi and those resource are invalid which show the reality and fact written by minority.You are discriminating here. --Dilpreet Singh Virdi (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

From looking at it as a non-Indian, there are multiple stories on why the saffron color was chosen from just the quick looking. I have not found anything to confirm what Dilpreet has said, but I found sources where one feeling is that saffron was picked to fly above the white and green due to Sikhs leading the cause that Hindus usually do not. There are a few more things on Google Books, but I do not have access to see them at this time. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is the view of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. There seems to be a Sikh POV that saffron was included as their colour, but as the reference says this is not the mainstream idea. If this is a significant POV, we can add a line in the article as it being a Sikh POV. Redtigerxyz Talk 06:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Now we have three resources talking about same thing, philosopher Dr. Sangat Singh, member of Joint Intelligence Committee India, Writer Dinanath Gopal Tendulkar who wrote eight Volumes on gandhi and Michael S. Roth who register Statement. Moreover biased editor still see it is a someone's personnel view not as Historic fact.However they are yet unable to answer any question I have raised. also Please requested not to remove the tag until this discussion reach to conclusion. --Dilpreet Singh Virdi (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I think a small mention can be made about saffron being a Sikh color, but at most two sentences. I feel with this being a FA, all viewpoints should be considered, but not given the weight that I think Dilpreet is asking for us. However, I do have to say to Dilpreet that your issue is with one section in the article and not the whole thing, so I put your POV tag in the symbolism section and remove the general article tag. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Just seeing all the sources now, the claim on this is post-facto, about fifty years after the flag was itself created and initial rationales presented, therefore it is clearly fringe, even as per the Veena Das essay (from the Roth book), but whether it's notable fringe or not, I'm not entirely sure. I have no problem in adding this as a note from the section like we address the flag designer issue, but I'm hesitant to present this within the main text (although I'm not entirely against it). Something along the lines of "Subsequently, Bhindranwale and his followers have sought to interpret the Saffron in the Indian flag as denoting the Sikh contributions, but this is not a widely or officially accepted view. :referenced to Veena Das/Roth book". —SpacemanSpiff 08:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I would agree with that wording and idea. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I think we are missing the real stuff all the reference given by other editor's are biased and discriminating Sikh (I will prove) seems they have no original search , Dinanath Gopal Tendulkar Published in 1952, shall consider the most reliable resource of the time and If Bhindrawale has Interpreted the saffron in flag as Sikh color then Bhindrawale is a pro-gandhi and speak the truth which other writer's (Veena/Roy) hiding. Why pretending , reality is reality either accepted by minority or majority. How about adding original writing's of gandhi ? which speaks loud enough to prove every thing.
Zscount I have couple of questions which I asked above :"What you think why was earlier color RED was changed to SAFFRON , who made this change and WHY? also tell me earlier flags has RED at end and then after why Kesari comes at top ?" that seems not cover in the section marked POV.--Dilpreet Singh (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I am going to answer these in a reverse order; The red color was first used in a flag designed by Cama that had green, saffron and red on it with the words "Bande Matram" in the middle. The change of the colors took place in 1931 because Gandhi, according to what I found on Google, through the Congress, wanted a flag that represented no regional meanings and wanted colors that could be used by two other groups (so a red/white/green flag was dropped, an all saffron flag was dropped). The change was made by the AICC. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Please excuse my ignorance: I do fair amount of work on India-related stuff here but flags are not really my thing. Is this yet another Indian history revisionist theory? It certainly has that look to me, having worked my way through the various arguments. If it is, then weight is indeed a serious concern and, yes, WP:FRINGE is significant. I can live with SpacemanSpiff's 08:42 22 July proposal because it pretty much covers my earlier, rather more vague version. I must admit to being heartily fed up of the umpteen claims of ownership/birthright/social exclusivity/prominence etc that persist in India-related stuff across the gamut from which town is bigger to which caste is best. It seems usually to be puffery (nit WP:PUFFERY but puffery nonetheless!). Does anyone have any rational, policy-based objection to SS's proposal that does not involve the aforesaid common issues? - Sitush (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
For me, I do a lot of work about flags but I am horrible when it comes to Indian history and politics. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Patience guys, This happens when people try manipulates the real fact. However originals writings are still available to prove the true fact. --Dilpreet Singh (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • As it appears that we have general agreement on policy based arguments, here's the proposed addition to be made after "and faith and chivalry respectively.[25]":
<ref group="N">Subsequently, Bhindranwale and his followers have sought to interpret the saffron in the Indian flag as denoting [[Sikh]] contributions; however, this is not a widely held belief or an officially accepted view.<ref>{{cite book|last=Das|first=Veena|authorlink=Veena Das|title=Disturbing Remains: Memory, History, and Crisis in the Twentieth Century|editor=[[Michael S. Roth]], Charles G. Salas|publisher=Getty Publications, Getty Research Institute|location=Los Angeles|date=2001|volume=7|pages=41–42|chapter=Crisis and Representation:Rumor and the Circulation of Hate|isbn=9780892365388|oclc=44634338|url=|accessdate=2012-07-23}}</ref></ref>

I think I've addressed the issue, the only thing I'm not entirely sure of is the syntax for the nested note-ref which we can probably figure out while adding. —SpacemanSpiff 06:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

No I disagree to the addition proposed I hope you read my statement above carefully .--Dilpreet Singh (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Most Indian think Congress is Gandhi , When ever someone name it, Gandhi comes to their mind. Reality is Gandhi was a member of Congress, they have all other representatives. Who despite of the gandhi's sentiments adopt the Sikh Color, SAFFRON.

  • Here are is the exact copy of the letter addressed to Sikh league on June 13 , 1931, gandhi said "So far as the recommendations about the flag are concerned I would advise you to send them to the Secretary of the Flag Committee appointed by the Working Committee of the Congress. The convener and the Secretary of the Flag Committee is Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya, Masulipatam, S. India." [1]
  • session August 6 to 8, 1931 All India Congress Committee(AICC) adopted a flag by the following resolution almost unanimously passed:
"The National Flag shall be three-coloured, horizontally arranged as before, but the colours shall be saffron, white and green, in the order stated here, from top to bottom, with the spinning-wheel in dark blue in the centre of the white stripe; it being understood that the colours have no communal significance, but that saffron shall represent courage and sacrifice, white peace and truth, and green shall represent faith and chivalry, and the spinning-wheel the hope of the masses. The proportions of the flag should be fly to hoist as three to two"
  • In session Gandhi says, "It should be remembered, that the white, green, and red tricolour flag was never authoritatively adopted by the Congress. It was conceived by me, and I had certainly given it a communal meaning. It was intended to represent communal unity.The Sikhs protested and demanded their colour. Consequently a Committee was appointed. It collected valuable evidence and made useful recommendations. And now we have a flag which has been authoritatively robbed of any communal meaning, and has a definite meaning assigned to each colour. The red has been replaced by saffron colour, and is put first purely from the artistic standpoint."[2]

Above statements clearly says Sikh demands Inclusion of the Saffron Color, A separate Flag Committee was set to address this issue by the working committee. who replaced RED with SAFFRON and placed at top*(more research needed) and new definite meaning were given to them.

Now please tell me who was right ? Bhindrawale/ Dr. Sangat Singh Or Veena/Roy/Other's writter used in articles? --Dilpreet Singh (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The passage you've quoted above directly contradicts anything you're saying. If there's anyone else that has any credible arguments based on reliable sources, we've got something to discuss, else this discussion is over and the tags come off along with the addition of the above proposed text. —SpacemanSpiff 17:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I can see your biased arguments which are fill with the ignorance of the real fact. Considering you have read above statements and understand what is said. --Dilpreet Singh (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • This is getting increasingly tiresome. I see everyone other than User:Dilpreet Singh Virdi holding the same interpretation of the multiple sources and in general agreement on how to handle this. If we don't see any objections soon enough -- not just random musings, but with the support of sources, we should close this discussion and implement the solution. While I think the POV tag above the article is absurd, it's probably not worth an edit war over something that's likely to change within the next day or so. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I really now doubt what you means by the same Interpretation? In above statement Gandhi clarifies the everything, "The Sikhs protested and demanded their colour. Consequently a Committee was appointed. It collected valuable evidence and made useful recommendations. And now we have a flag which has been authoritatively robbed of any communal meaning, and has a definite meaning assigned to each colour. The red has been replaced by saffron colour, and is put first purely from the artistic standpoint" all your resource are contradicted to this statement. How can act as Ignorant and Instead of trusting ORIGINAL source referring to other which are contradicted to orignal? --Dilpreet Singh (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I removed the tag; I agree this is going nowhere. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
We have all necessary information requires to prove the fact I stated earlier , what else you needed ? article is still POV saying Sikh ask for the black color addition which is absurd . --Dilpreet Singh (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
So all of this fighting just over once sentence? I just took the sentence out. Now, Dilpreet, wasn't that hard? Plus, for future reference, if there is just one sentence that is an issue, take it out and not declare an entire article POV because of just one line. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
You remove the line does that remove the SACRIFIES OF THE HUNDRED"S OF THOUSAND people? who stand in front of the open Gun's for freedom struggle? does this justifies? and there are other issue still pending if the flag was design by Flag committee and adopted by AICC, what were the conditions ? under which condition's so called design come's in picture ? Why chakar size reduced ? RED replaced by SAFFRON and moved on TOP? do you think it is just a cloth and can be placed anywhere without having a reason? --Dilpreet Singh (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
To answer questions:
  1. It is the wording that you seemed to have a problem with; so take out the wording. I cannot see the source, so I cannot say for sure what it has said for sure.
  2. I do not know the conditions on what kind of design they are looking for (unlike that of, lets say, Kosovo's flag where it had specific rules on not using the colors of national subgroups (red/black and red/blue/white).
  3. Not understanding that question about what "condition's so called design come's in picture."
  4. Not sure why the chakra size was reduced, but all I have is what was published in IS1:1968.
  5. One of the proposed flags was red/green (with red on top), so it always had that position of being on top. The white was added to keep a balance between the red (and later saffron) and green (and maybe to keep with the rules of heraldry, but that last part is my guess). While I have found some interpretations where the red was moved to the top because of some kind of leadership of Sikhs in the independence movement, those were viewpoints I maybe saw once (and the text was copied from book to book, so no idea who originally stated this).
  1. A debate hinted that the red was removed to make it less of a sectarian flag. While it was pointed out that each of the three colors could be thought of representing the religions of India (with saffron being meant for the Sikhs) but that would not be something the government would actively pursue. I think what we got here is many competing flags to become India's first flag after British rule were put into the mix (with many designs) and the red (later saffron)/white/green tricolor won it out after years of decisions and debates. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  1. In my study of flags that has expanded for over 10 years, I seen flag designs that just confuse and baffle the mind. For example, the reason for the design of Niger's flag is just unknown (like many details) and many flags that are in my country are just corporate logos on backgrounds and the logos do not have any meaning or significance other than it looks cool. So there are flags without meanings; and in a case like India's flag, some details might be forever lost to history so we might not just know. Plus, as I said, I am trying to view this from an American point of view so what I know and can find would be severely limited. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the fact that History is a vast subjects and it remains mystery until we reach to the real source of Information. However it is always a dangerous having 'partial" information than "NO" information. Which leads to unnecessary meanings and views who had no significance. Further based on these insignificant information new researches starts which gives another point of view , which is Far-Far away from the reality and we have same situation here.
with the Flag Committee appointed additional that means they had did atleast some work on Flag to bring the final design. Which I suspects could have recorded and is misplaced or lost or not widely recorded. Books which were written during the freedom struggle like GD tendulkar may have Information or at least some symptoms explaining the fact. Earlier you posed the story "one feeling is that saffron was picked to fly above the white and green due to Sikhs leading the cause that Hindus usually do not" is one of the story I have listen. which says, Patel, Nehru and Gandhi were agreed to do so(Placed at TOP) as Sikh were considered as giant(read gandhi letter for reference VOL52) and ready to stand in front while Flag march, where British stand with the Gun's and Sikh place the condition if they are ready for they death while march their color Saffron should be place on top of flag(speeches are available on youtube). Size of Chakra reduce it may or may not be the "look" issue , Currently I have no information on Chakra as soon I had I will share. However for now we can abide with what we have and keep on researching.

--Dilpreet Singh (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I know about the Chakra is while it shrunk over time, I am not sure why. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
As we have all the proof's and original writing's of gandhi stating the fact. I proposed for addition as,
"As Baba Kharak Singh, Sikhs representative refuse to support the congress unless Kesari, Sikh colour was included to flag[3]. Congress was forced to address these issues despite Gandhi's sentiments. Flag Committee appointed with secretary Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya, Masulipatam, by working committee [4]. owing to the religious-political sensibilities, in 1931, Congress changed the flag colours, stating that Kesari/saffron stood for the courage and sacrifices of the people, white for purity, and green for hope.[5]"
I expect you'r honest feedback on this . --Dilpreet Singh (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Dilpreet Singh, you need to let this go. There is a clear consensus here and it appears to include people from a wide range of editing and real life experience. Your emotional involvement is counter-productive in situations such as this: you have to examine things dispassionately. If needs be, you can always write up your own theories etc on a blog or whatever. - Sitush (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
this is true sentiments always involve when your forefather do so much and in return you have such condition. moreover, here we are examining the truth with the Quality documents. I am not expecting immediate improvement in the article however as we go along can be made gradually to reach the prefect version. --Dilpreet Singh (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
There is a lot that this article could need, but a lot of it would be something I have to look at (especially when it comes to variant flags). I just added everything from IS1:1968 that I have but there are color details of the navy blue that I need. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
as mention above I keep eye on the Evidence needed to give more perfect version. also please show your agreement/disagreement to my proposal above, so that I can proceed with the change with ease. --Dilpreet Singh (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Dilpreet, you do not remotely have consensus for change, nor do you have it for creation of a POV fork. Please read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:IDHT. - Sitush (talk) 06:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Sitush I know who insist you to saying so. this is not POV fork Flag committee is a independent subject, user:SpacemanSpiff narrowing the research. he had't get back since proved wrong, Do he has knowledge how to bring the real fact and research on histroy? he has claim thrice from the literature written 50 years after? and To the ORIGINAL writings of gandhi he respond with this statement "If there's anyone else that has any credible arguments based on reliable sources, we've got something to discuss" , this where this wiki fighter stands. I request you don't make this a consensus case or pov fork all this subject needs to research at depth --Dilpreet Singh (talk) 11:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^ (PDF). pp. 283–284  Text " 1931" ignored (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  4. ^ (PDF). p. 327  Text " 1931" ignored (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  5. ^ "The Sikhs in History" (PDF). pp. 158–159.  Text " 1995" ignored (help)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Symbolism image[edit]

I see that Zscout370 just removed the flag image in favor of the Chakra. I believe the Chakra was added only recently (I think to replace a non-free image of the actual Ashoka Chakra). I think an image of the flag may be of use here as it's the symbolism section. Also, I'm not exactly fond of this spinning chakra image, we don't generally see a spinning chakra representation for pretty much anything related to the flag, in sources or here. Not something that needs an immediate solution, especially if we can actually find the right image for that section. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It was mostly for aesthetics, since putting two images together in just one small section was just too much, in my opinion. I am also going to make some changes to the article based on what I have in IS 1:1968, including adding colors (but the standard doesn't list what navy blue is like, so I will have to ask around). I am fine either way with what is going to be decided. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
We initially had File_talk:Sarnath_Lion_Capital_of_Ashoka.jpg up here (see the discussion on the non-free rationale), however, as I have been quite inactive since then I seem to have forgotten to go back and add the rationale and then place it here. At this point, I think the original Chakra image from which this spinning derivative was created would probably be an improvement (File:Ashoka Chakra.svg). I'll search around for other images and also look in my personal collection (from Sanchi, where I was allowed to take pictures) to see if I can upload one from the original pillars. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Saffron story Input[edit]

I need your Input on section discussing saffron story issue [here] ,

Brief Summary :
  1. on the article Flag of India page claim was made Sikh had asked for the addition of black color in the National flag
  2. when I condemn and make changes saying Sikh ask for the Saffron color, other editor user:SpacemanSpiff,invite me for the discussion
  3. he refers the statements from the book they had follow to write most part of the article(Roy, a Hindu(majority) said the book widely accepted, writer is a scholor)
  4. those statement were contradicted to the reference I show to them (Dr. Sangat Singh, a Sikh(minority) philosopher asspeted widely in Sikhs, Editor's they denies the reference, even after reference to the ISBN)
  5. next I refer another book by GD Tendulkar, Vol 3 , published in 1952. who proves my point.
  6. Other editor says it is a one sector view not the majority acceptable
  7. during the disagreement on the addition of POV tag, the claim on article(1) was deleted.
  8. Next I show them the original work of the Gandhi, Publish in 100 Volumes, which explain my point clearly. However Editor's act biased here and denies to reach to conclusion.
I proposed my addition on the talk page and start building related pages to explore work in-depth, which were marked as POV fork(was not my Intention). Now I want to know what should be the next ? I don't want to add the contents without the agreement as if not today later they will be replace/removed from the article. Please give you feedback. Thanks You --Dilpreet Singh (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the arguements of the others in the above section. And I can't entirely understand you because your English is apparently not very good. United States Man (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The above ad hominem remark was totally uncalled-for. Returning to the topic at hand, Wikipedia policies concerning verifiablity, NPOV and reliable sources are the same, regardless of topic. If there are several points of view (as seems to be the case here) they must be identified as such, with appropriate weight given to each viewpoint. I haven't been a WP editor for too long, but I regret to say I've noticed a distinct pattern of POV-pushing in South Asian articles (among other regions). All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The Ashok Chakra's Size[edit]

I need your attention towards the table showing the various sizes of the Ashok Chakra in the flag of India. According to the Flag code of India (2002) (by the Ministry of Home Affairs, GoI)[1], no legal specifications have been provided about the exact size of the Ashok Chakra in the flag. Hence, is not the table inappropriate to be displayed there? - Kunalrks (talk), 05:11 pm, 11th December, 2014.

Although the size is not specified in the flag code, it is specified in the IS1 manufacturing standards. This is what the table is referencing. --Laser brain (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


Tallest, largest flag[edit]

Recently a section was added to the article claiming that an Indian flag had been unfurled that was "world's largest and tallest flag" (at 96 by 64, and at a height of 250 feet). Although the claim was based on a ostensibly reliable source (this India Today article), in my view:

Given this, I have removed the claim from the article. Abecedare (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Abecedare check it [3] I can provide lots of sources. If that is not the tallest one in the world then that must be the tallest Indian national flag. So just make a change:"world's largest and tallest Indian flag" Suman420 (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)