Talk:Partition of India

Biased article, frivolous sources

Please remove these references and related text - they do not meet wiki standard. Or at least post a warning of bias at the top of the page.

1. ^ http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3452.htm
2. ^ http://hrcbm.org/
3. ^ http://www.bharatvani.org/books/tfst/appii1.htm
4. ^ http://books.google.co.in/books?id=G9XfpVlLfHoC&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=Bangladesh+census+10+million+missing&source=bl&ots=trcaA8irEx&sig=5nEs85E61kT2jp8GOCekf_OHVOE&hl=en&ei=gGUKTMe5N8-9rAfImJC4DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CDMQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Bangladesh%20census%2010%20million%20missing&f=false
5. ^ http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/books/demogislam/part2.html
6. ^ http://mayerdak.com/jnmandal.htm
7. ^ http://www.indianembassy.org/consular/Overseas_Citizen/para7.htm
8. ^ Bhowmik, N. C.,Repeal Enemy (Vested) Property Act for National Interest
9. ^ http://www.unbconnect.com/component/news/task-show/id-16781
10. ^ http://www.unbconnect.com/component/news/task-show/id-16781
11. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jogendra_Nath_Mandal
12. ^ http://mayerdak.com/jnmandal.htm
13. ^ http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/ambedkar_partition/index.html - Pakistan or The Partition of India by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar— Preceding unsigned comment added by Evolving my soul (talk • contribs) 20:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Why? On first glance, most of these are from reputable sources and are perfectly acceptable by the standards of any encyclopedia. The only sources, which looks to me as unreliable, are mayerdak.com & bharatvani.org. Shovon (talk) 09:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

There was no Partition of india??

wrong fact christ angrais favour to non-muslim hindu/sikh, huge killing of muslim, never declare as in india majority of muhajirin killed seen by brigadir KAKOL.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.178.78.211 (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC) This article is misleading and devoid of facts. The whole of south asia was almagamated by the British colonial rulers into what was then called the British Raj. Thereafter, near the time of independence, certain provinces where partitioned (i.e. Bangal, Panjab). Later the respective countries of Pakistan, and one day later, India where established. Prior to all this, there never was a country called india.

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN HIJACKED

Please fix otherwise I'll start cutting out entire passages. This stuff seems to be the product of internal Indian politics and tension over their Muslim population. Having nothing to do with the partition of Pakistan and India in '47. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.175.92 (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Why individuals don't trust Wikipedia

I find large passages badly written. And when a piece of material is poorly written you automatically start to suspect it's value or worth I don't know much about the the partition, that's why I came, but some of the information has become suspect. ghgkh khgh lhgh e ope dfg; — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.51.172 (talk) 01:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Article has been hijacked, full of Racism/Bias

I read this article today and couldnt stop laughing at the large amount of nonsense and unsourced information written in it. Interestingly, when an edit is attempted, it is automatically reverted to the bias, pro-indian viewpoint with blatant racism towards Pakistan. This article has to be complete re-done as it lacks any validity or accuracy, is full of nonsensical personal rhetoric and quite frankly, a lot of Bull Sh*t (pardon my french). Also, the section The Partition Factor In The Status Of Indian Muslims has got to be the most ridiculous, warped and dilutional piece of information in the post. Please correct this article. Wikipedia is truly losing its credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.129.170 (talk) 20:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this article sucks and is full of indian bias and has been hijacked by some dilutional and warped indian.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.41.85 (talk) 04:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The The Partition Factor In The Status Of Indian Muslimssuggets that non-Muslims in India have been forced by the state to resort to "secular education" or the state provides economic benefits to Muslims who study their religious texts. None of these views is correct. If a non-Muslim wishes to study his Veda, Agama, Purana, Gita, Guru Granth Sahib etc and repudiate modern education, the state does not force him to do otherwise and a Muslim who knows Koran does not get subisdies for knowing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.248.182 (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of a book

• Talib, Gurbachan (1950). Muslim League Attack on Sikhs and Hindus in the Punjab 1947. India: Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee.Online 1 Online 2 Online 3 (A free copy of this book can be read from any 3 of the included "Online Sources" of this free “Online Book”)

• Muslim League Attack on Sikhs and Hindus in the Punjab 1947

Please do not remove reference to this historical and notable book from on "Partition of India", it is a important reminder of the communal bloodbath, misery and hardships that became a part and parcel of the "Partition of India".

Atulsnischal 19:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop adding that book. It is possibly a useful primary source for a historian, but it is not from a reliable or reputable press. The books already in the list give full details of the horrors of Partition, and most of them are fearless in naming the perpetrators. (I haven't read the Pakistani book and suspect that it may be biased, but it's put out by a university press, from an accredited university, so I think it has to stay in the list, if only to give all viewpoints.) Zora 23:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

UCLA seems to disagree, Univ. Virginia. Rediff sems to assert notability as well [1], JSTOR, NYU. I'm reinserting link.Bakaman 00:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Add Haifa's South Asian studies dept as well.Bakaman 02:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Books are often on reading lists that are not reliable sources for an encyclopaedia, but primary sources for a historian, who conduct the the OR that is not permitted on WP. Your point is not an answer to Zora. Hornplease 05:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Cited by rediff and JSTOR ? WP:OR talks about editor themselves making research, not the usage of books which cite primary sources. Wikilawyering isnt going to help you censor this article. Your argument is flawed, and as a note you're not going to get any sort of cooperation from me by harrassing and pestering me for no reason. After your actions on arbcom, I will deal with you just as I deal with trolls and have decided I have no need to listen to your commentary and bad faith accusations.Bakaman 16:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mam Zora

Please let the book remain there, it is an important and reliable document on that most important chapter in our history. Its good to let people know so that this kind of thing is never repeated again. Sincerely Atulsnischal 13:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear User Zora

I have noticed you are unfairly and unjustly removing content from this page on Partition of India. Please do not VADALIZE this article, we may have to report you to Wikipedia Administrators Please do not remove content others have added, if you yourself have no useful contribution to make on this topic, kindly use your time writing articles you are truly interested in and there is none on Wikipedia

Looking forward to some great contributions from you, also some new interesting articles on Wikipedia from you sir

Sincerely

Atulsnischal 22:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a sir, just a ma'am. You're free to report me, if you wish, but I think the other editors would agree that the references you keep trying to add are sub-standard. Not academic quality. Voice of India is a small press with a specific viewpoint, to wit:

VOICE OF INDIA aims at providing an ideological defence of Hindu society and culture, through a series of publications. Some of these publications have already been brought out and received wide appreciation. In this fight for men's minds, our only weapon is Truth. Truth must be told, as much about Hindu society and culture as about the alien ideologies which have been on the warpath since the days of foreign domination over the Hindu homeland.

Perhaps the press's website should be linked to the Hindutva article, if it already isn't. I can't promise you that it will be joyfully received there, however, since I'm not one of the regular editors. Zora 00:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Atul, google books is good enough.Bakaman 00:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Since you wanted administrative attention, here I am. However, so far there is nothing here that appears to be an administrative matter, just a content dispute. Addressing it on that level, at the very least, significantly partisan works should be identified as such, and if we are adding them in this obviously controversial matter, we should be adding comparably partisan works from the other side. The linked college curricula appear to include partisan works from both sides, so there is no difficulty in finding appropriate materials. My own inclination would be to add neither (but possibly to link the UCLA reading list, so that the issue of retaining balance is not subject to edit wars); adding one side without adding the other is absolutely inappropriate. - Jmabel | Talk 01:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Jmabel, that sounds like a good solution (like adding the DMOZ directories to several disputed Islam-related articles). Adding not just one partisan view, but a whole range of partisan materials, would increase the article's usefulness. But I must admit that I'm not sure what you mean by the UCLA reading list. Can you explain? Zora 02:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

He means the list I cited in the earlier discusion "UCLA List".Bakaman 02:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. - Jmabel | Talk 04:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Added -- I made a special section for bibliographies, which might spur students and researchers to look further. Which is what is desired, after all. Zora 05:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mam Zora

Please let the book remain there, it is an important and reliable document on that most important chapter in our history. Its good to let people know so that this kind of thing is never repeated again. Sincerely Atulsnischal 13:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

We added the UCLA site that Bakasuprman found, which links to the book. The book is not a reliable secondary source and it doesn't belong in the section where you keep trying to place it. But, as pointed out above, it could be useful to researchers in the context of all the other partisan literature. So it's here, but at one remove. Zora 19:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

1. new post::

I believe rather fighting over trivial issues, we mus utilize this page to discuss the aspects and effects of the Partition of India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivekgopinathan (talk • contribs) 14:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't remove the Pakistani book!

I haven't read it, but it's put out by a university press and should be considered a reliable secondary source. Removing it as a tit-for-tat, because I removed a partisan primary source, is treating Wikipedia as a battleground rather than an encyclopedia. Zora 19:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If you define NPOV as tit-for tat then it was tit for tat. I added a peer-reviewed academic journal rather than the suspect Pakistani source. Bakaman 23:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The peer-reviewed article is unavailable to anyone without JSTOR access, therefore the link you added is useless. As for removing the book published by a Pakistani university press -- are you saying that it is "suspect" because it was published in Pakistan? University presses are usually a good guarantee of quality content, so you're going to have to explain why this press is different. Zora 23:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Going to a university library would allow you to use JSTOR. As you said above, the links are useful for researchers and students, most of whom can easily bum a copy of the Jstro article somewhere. What's harder to find is some random Pakistani book that isnt even focused on the partition.Bakaman 23:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as a more than typically scholarly reader, who even maintains a subscription to a university library, I can tell you that a JSTOR link, which requires me to go to a university library and do my reading there, is a lot less convenient than a book that I can borrow and read at my leisure. - Jmabel | Talk 09:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Do see google book search. Its impossible to find the Pakistani book.Bakaman 16:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I tried the OCLC and didn't find it either. It may be that the book had an extremely limited circulation outside Pakistan. Let's wait a bit and see if the editor who suggested it as a reference can suggest a substitute. The struggle for Pakistan, by the same author, is more narrowly focused on the Partition and is available in 292 U.S. libraries, if that would be acceptable to him/her. Zora 18:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Just two notes: First to User:Bakasuprman, I used the same parameters you suggested above at Google Book Search to look for other references in the Further reading section. First for Collins and Lapierre 1975, with Collins and then Lapierre with no success. Tried Azad 1988, Butalia 1998, Ikram, Gossman 1999, etc. and unfortunately they are all absent. I do not understand what you were trying to imply, but seems like you used the wrong search criteria. So, use proper search parameters or else you'll end up claiming to omit all references from the article!

Secondly, Zora, I'm not sure what keywords you used but reference is at OCLC and can also be traced through 'Library Catalogue Search' at Google Books, using the book title. --IsleScape^Talk 01:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Islescape. I was searching for A Short History of Pakistan and didn't find anything. However -- since that book is only in 30 US libraries and The Struggle for Pakistan is in 300, and more narrowly focussed, a substitution might work? I'm not going to push for this, however, since I've read neither book. I just think a Pakistani POV should be represented. Zora 04:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I really appreciate your determination for NPOV. It seems that the poor book has received more than necessary attention merely for being the only one published in Pakistan out of the listed eight, of which 4, certainly presenting some POV, are published in India (Yes, Collins and Lapierre 1975 were reprinted Lapierre and Collins 1997 ISBN: 8125904808). The lack of availability is due to the fact that only large international publication houses can reach wider array of libraries. As in this case, e.g. Ikram 1995 is only in 4 US libraries, whereas same publisher's Sherwani 1989 doesn't give a single hit!. In this situation, addition and omission seems more likely than substitution. I can look for some more focused references if you wish. --IsleScape^Talk 18:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If Sherwani is completely unavailable, perhaps we should remove it. As you say, there are certainly enough books representing the Indian POV. If you wish to leave the HOP and add another Pakistani book, that seems fair enough. Is there any book that takes a "pox on both their houses" stance? I suppose that's my POV -- I see tragic human greed for power, stupidity, and hatred on all sides. Zora 20:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

At least the Muslims could stay where they lived. Its not like Abdul Kalam, Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, Sania Mirza, and Irfan Pathan are suffering.Bakaman 20:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Your claim that India has always treated its Muslims well is debatable, as well as completely beside the point. We're trying to agree on a representative variety of academic histories of the Partition. Zora 22:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Beside the point? The point is that extremists like Madani are going to cry foul about claiming persecution everywhere they go. The cold hard fact is that Hindus are under constant persecution in Pakistan, and that Muslims in India are actually more equal than other groups. Note that in Pakistan, everyone is equal under the law, the same laws apply to everyone, whether a person is Hindu, Muslim, Christian, or Parsee. In India there's different laws for different religions. Whos treated better? Bringing this on subject, logically Pakistani's have nothing to complain about. Couple this with the fact that Pakistani textbooks are automatically suspect (notorious for lies about "kaffirs"), and we can find that apart from encyclopedias, there is no Pakistani POV. Pakistan's legitimacy as a country depends on the two-nation theory, their accounts are obviously going to glorify partition.Bakaman 22:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

With the unintentional help of Islescape, I dig some digging on this book. The peer reviews of this text are not kind to it, as plainly seen by the article A Short History of Pakistan. Academic peer reviewers have heavily criticized the second, third and fourth volumes for chauvinistic, Pakistani nationalist and anti-Hindu biases. I suggest you read the peer reviews of the book as cited in the wikipedia article. I'm sure other less partisan sources can be found for the Pakistani POV here. Rumpelstiltskin223 13:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why Rumpelstiltskin223 had to "dig" for the book while s/he could have found wider criticism, discussion, stats and comments right here. I am also surprised what prompted her/him to remove ref after linking it to the article! [2] As for ref to Pacific Affairs critiques, Hornplease had already touched upon them. Moreover, critiques are not as severe. The best way always is to go to the original comments [3] instead of the criticism of the criticisms. --IsleScape^Talk 21:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

of note to this article

• [4] - Lying wont get you a book not even focused on the Partition to get on the list. Spouting the same "Bakaman is anti-Pakistani" canard wont help you out either.Bakaman 17:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The Pakistani book continued...

Since I added the ISBN on one occasion to the reference, I should attempt to clarify the confusions as I do not really understand what exactly is the objection to the book?

1. If it’s to the title or contents of the book, then ‘A Short History of Pakistan’ is anything but short [5]. It was published in 4 volumes written by various scholars that cover the history of the region from prehistoric age to the post-independence period, pinpointing the historical aspects of partition. The only disqualification may be that it does not mention ‘Partition of India’ in the title!
2. If it’s to the authorship, then the general editor I H Qureshi taught at Delhi University for 20 years and was Dean of the Faculty of Arts before migrating to Pakistan. So no better person would qualify for such a mammoth task.
3. And if someone has any objection to the publisher. Karachi university is an established institution with more departments (56) than the age of many Wikipedians (in years)

The first edition of the book (in four volumes) was published in 1967. The referenced citation (Qureshi 1992) is a 934 pages Paperback. --IsleScape 23:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The point is that it is the broad "History of Pakistan", rather than a book strictly on the Partition and effects. With that book one can also cite volumes of Indian and Bangladeshi history books that mention (and devote space to) partition as well.Bakaman 00:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we have a sub-section for bibliographies now, how about a subsection for general histories of the region that treat the Partition in detail? I wouldn't mind having more references added, as long as they were of academic quality. Zora 03:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

IH Qureshi is one of the most respected scholars of the modern history of the Indian subcontinent. Any book by him would be an worthwhile addition to most reading lists. 'A short history of Pakistan' is a several-volume collection of period studies of which he is the editor. The specific portion on 1910-1947 is, like all the other sections, complete of itself; it is, however, written not by Qureshi but by W. Zaman, of Warwick.

Of course, I think that it being a Pakistan-published book or that it is part of a collection that does not focus specifically on partition is far from being a useful argument. However, since the specific section is not by Qureshi himself, and since A Short History... was released by the government in the late 1960s with what might be viewed as an agenda (as the review in Pacific Affairs [6] suggests [7], I am less bothered by this problematic exclusion than I could be. Hornplease 07:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hornplease, your cites have the same problem as Bakasuprman's -- they're to JSTOR, and most people can't access JSTOR. Don't tell me to "use a university library" -- that's just about impossible for me due to issues of cost (I'd have to buy a day pass) and access (no parking anywhere close, and I'm too crippled to walk for blocks). However, you seem to know the book and the fact that you don't consider it a reliable secondary source, from an academic standpoint, weighs heavily with me. Perhaps you and Islescape could discuss the matter, since you're the two editors here who are familiar with the book. Zora 08:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Zora: I was just including the links for posterity, as it were, I knew you wouldnt be able to access them. However, they basically say what I said above. I think its a reliable secondary source; I just think that it's provenance is such that its not a great secondary source. The reviews in Pacific Affairs, while in no way suggesting that the book lacked academic worth, did succeed in suggesting that there was a specific motive behind the project, viz., the delineation of the newly formed study of the history of Pakistan, rather than of the subcontinent. While this should not greatly imperil the integrity of a project edited by Qureshi and published by a univ press, I am less perturbed about leaving this out of a bibliography than I would the leaving out of something, say, actually written by Qureshi himself. I would object to it not being considered worthy of citing from, though. It's a fine distinction. Hornplease 09:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I would regard the backwards projection of a newly created nation onto history as yet another instance of nationalism mucking up history (see the Historiography and nationalism article). It's less obvious when Iran or France or China is projected backwards, but it's the same issue. Since that's something that so many history books get wrong (IMHO), I wouldn't regard it as a particular black mark against this one. Let's include it, and perhaps the Cambridge history of India? Zora 10:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

True enough. Perhaps you're right; I'd think adding Percival Spear or Bipin Chandra's Struggle for Independence would satisfy any desire to 'balance' views and place Partition in context. Hornplease 10:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If you vouch for those references, I'd be happy if you could add them. If we had a references page with fifty or so refs, I'd be dubious about adding more, but at present there are very few refs considering that this is such a large and controversial subject. More refs is better. Perhaps setting up various subsections, for general histories, historical works specifically relating to Partition, popular summaries, and academic articles? Put full refs for academic article and then JSTOR link; with the full refs, sometimes it's possible to get at the article through other channels, such as Questia (I have a Questia account) or self-archiving by authors.

BTW, I very much appreciate Witzel's practice of putting up PDFs of his articles on his website. (You know, of course, that a number of studies have shown that making an article easily available dramatically increases its impact, in terms of subsequent citations.) Zora 12:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not just only keep books/academic journals strictly dealing with Partition? It makes the most sense, and now we know that the HoP encyclopedia itself stands accused of bias, we might as well only keep secondary reliable sources that focus on the one incident.Bakaman 15:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course the HoP has a bias. So do all the books cited, in various ways. There is NOTHING that doesn't have a bias, major or minor. In picking references, we choose the ones that are the best arguments for a particular POV -- best as in acceptable prose, well-referenced, accepted by the scholarly community as a POV that an educated person might hold. I think Hornplease has suggested some books that would represent POVs very much opposed to the HoP POV. That's fine ... anyone reading about this tragic event should be exposed to all POVs. WP strives not for the "truth", but for an accurate representation of the state of informed argument. From that standpoint, including a Pakistani POV is necessary. Zora 00:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Critiques at Pacific Review pp. 641-647 are given by four different people on each volume and are variable. They generally appreciate the book but few are critical of some views by individual authors and not the overall book itself. That the book was intended as textbook at the time for undergrads doesn’t make it a government publication.

Of the four volumes, each addresses a separate phase in history. The fourth one, “Alien Rule and the Rise of Muslim Nationalism” is written by four authors. Dr M. A. Rahim (covering the period from 1497 to 1857), M. D. Chughtai (1858-1910), Dr W. Zaman (1910-1947), Dr A. Hamid (1947-1964). Obviously, it deals with pre-, partition, and post partition eras both on East and West Pakistan. However, since the volume is integrated into the 1992 collection ISBN, it won’t be justified to cite it standalone.--IsleScape 18:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

How about this? You cite the pages from the encyclopedia (HoP), and we'll add it under Banglapedia.Bakaman 16:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Not bad for someone who can't distinguish between a history book and an encyclopaedia! --IsleScape 20:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please check references section

I reworked the "causes" section slightly. I realized that there were numerous unsupported claims, claims presented as fact that are controversial, and some material that just seemed strange. Blaming the English and the census for all of it is bizarre, given that the Mughals had categorized their citizens on a religious basis. The whole section needs a better treatment of various historical arguments re causes -- that's not my field, but I'm sure that such debates exist.

I also redid the references section, replacing the Qureishi, because we NEED a Pakistani POV. I would much appreciate it if those better acquainted with the literature in the field could make sure that all the standard sources are there. I'm working under a real handicap here. My specialities are Tongan and Hawaiian history. Zora 12:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

We dont need any Pakistani POV. We need scholarly works from Pakistan and thats it (a more focused work than an encyclopedia - phps an encyclopedia article like Banglapedia). No sensational nonsense about "Muslims having nowhere to go" (as one can obviously see in India, Muslims are treated fairly well compared to the rampant persecution of Hindus in Pakistan) and "escape from Hindu oppression". Might as well re-add Gurubachan Talib if we're going around adding POV.Bakaman 16:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Causes of Partition

Various anon editors attempt to use this section to argue for their view of the Partition (often, that Jinnah was an evil man with deep-laid plans to claim huge chunks of Hindu-majority India). Sometimes this propagandizing is rather subtle, with a "few" historians said to claim that Jinnah was only blustering to win concessions, and didn't intend to split the country, and "many" or "most" historians said to claim that Jinnah always intended a split. But how can we tell if "few" or "many" is accurate if we don't have a list and a count? I changed both claims to "some" and asked for citations.

If professional historians are divided on the subject, we should give the views of all sides without editorializing. Let readers know that there is controversy, and give them the resources, in the links and references sections, to explore further and make up their own minds. WP isn't in the business of settling controversies, only of reporting them. Zora 02:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well there are non-Indian sources that affirm to the fact that Jinnah did want whole of Punjab and Bengal. In "Freedom of Midnight" Mountbatten recounts a conversation he had with Jinnah, in which Jinnah envisions Pakistan which includes whole of Punjab and Bengal. Whats more didn't Jinnah encourage Hyderabad State state to declare independence in spite of its overwhelming Hindu majority>?

अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 18:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I was looking for two things that I couldn't really find in the article. One was the originator of the whole idea of a religious partition. The article makes it sound almost organic and natural--but at earlier times the British had felt it was much better to treat the entire subcontinent as a single unit. The other thing was the British idea for weak post-colonial governments. This is something that I've heard so many times and from so many people that I was really surprised not to find clear reference to it in the article... My sources have mostly been Indian, so maybe that's the bias I'm getting? Anyway, I guess this is a suggestion for possible improvements? Shanen (talk) 04:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Ambroodey, let's not argue the matter here. What we need is a role call of historians, published mainstream historians, who support one or the other viewpoint. WP is not about "capturing" the article for what you believe. We give all viewpoints -- in proportion. Minority viewpoints and fringe beliefs get less space. Zora 19:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly why do we need a Pakistani POV again? Do explain logically.Bakaman 19:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There are 168,000,000 or so people living in Pakistan. Volumes put out by the country's university press certainly represent the views of some large fraction of those millions of people. Views held by many people should be mentioned. Yes, that goes for Hindutva views too. We list them, and the arguments for them, but we don't claim that they're true. Zora 19:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

By your twisted logic, Zora, Hindutva view should be given a precedence. BJP and its allies garnered 41% of votes in last elections! There is empirical evidence to suggest that much of history related discourse in Pakistan is nothing short of blatant revisionism. Not surprising given that their president himself sets the example with his shamelessly revisionist autobiography. We had nut jobs claiming Panini was an ancient Pakistani the other day!. I'm not a guy to mince words. I will make it very clear: I simply don't trust Pakistani sources unless reviewed/backed by neutral sources. Same goes for Hindutva rags.

अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 21:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Nobody quoted any Hindutva view. Advani praised Jinnah. It really doesn't matter, there are 1 billion Indians and 140 million Bangladeshis, by that rationale, the POV will be roughly 75% Indian, 13% Pakistani, and 12% BangladeshiBakaman 19:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Some Pakistanis would agree with the History of Pakistan. Not necessarily all. Enough, at least, to merit mention. Some Indian citizens hold Hindutva views. A large chunk, but not all. There are probably more Indians who loathe those views. The question is whether any Hindutva-leaning accounts of the Partition have been prepared by respectable academics, and put out in a properly referenced and organized form by a scholarly press. If there is one such account, surely it should be included in the references. I don't know the literature well enough to point to such a thing. Let's wait for other editors, with the necessary academic background, to contribute here. Zora 20:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything such as "Hindutva" view? Yes there are historians sympathetic to the movement but i daresay there is no such official "Hindutva view". Moreover why just concentrate on Hindutva? What about Islamists. Its about the time you stopped seeing Hindutva (not to mention Indian Imperialist Bots) everywhere.

अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 21:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What is Hindutva essentially? Is it Hindu extremism or Hindu patriotism? And why is BJP always aligned with Hindutva? I have a feeling the definition of Hindutva varies considerably among the Wiki editors which is the foundation of all this quarreling. Gizza^{Chat ©} 23:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

And why is BJP always aligned with Hindutva? A stupid question reallly. BJP traces its roots back to Jana Sangh which was basically RSS's political arm. अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 06:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Possibly. The fact that all the Hindutva articles on WP are a POV-fest because no non-neutral editors waste their time there may have something to do with it. Hornplease 00:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think they are POV both ways. Sometimes they are very anti-Hindu and sometimes they are very anti-Muslim and co. Gizza^{Chat ©} 00:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Look Hindutva = Hindu-tattva (Literally "Being Hindu"). People that dislike Hindutva, also therefore dislike the practice of Hinduism. The two are not separate.Bakaman 01:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The literal meaning does not always correspond to the practical meaning. I wait for those who are against Hindutva to put forward their definitions. Gizza^{Chat ©} 01:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"Hindutva" as defined by Savarkar baguely means Indian nationalism that draws its 'inspiration' from Hindu/Maratha culture. It cant be called Hindu extremism is broadest sense, largely since Hindu fundamentalism is an oxymoron moreover, founding fathers of Hindutva were Agnostic Hindus. Hindutva rose as a complementary movement to Marathi cultural resurgence (all founders were Marathis (specifically Marathas and Chitpavan Konkanastha Brahmins and till 1970's most memebers of RSS were Marathis). Hindutva in these days is a vague ideology. It differs from one propounded by Savarkar to the one practised by 'parties' like Shiv Sena and Bajrang Dal.

BTW I was an active HSS member till about 2003, before i left Hindutva for good. अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 06:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now we need Hornplease, Zora and others to provide their opinions. I seriously believe many of the problems here can be sorted out if everybody comes to a conclusion on what Hindutva is. Gizza^{Chat ©} 09:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Umm dagizza that's like asking anti-Semites to define zionism.Bakaman 22:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Are saying that they both Hornplease and Zora are anti-Hindus. I don't think anti-Semitic is the same as anti-zionist just as anti-Hindu is not the same as Anti-Hindutva. Zora once explcitly said that she was Buddhist and that Buddhist can be considered as a sect of Hinduism. It is just that they think Hindutva is Hindu extremism, in which case they are against it just as I would be. However, you believe Hindutva is just being Hindu or to be proud of Hinduism in which case I myself would support it. That is where the misunderstanding lies. That is why these futile fighting is still going on. I'll send messages to both of them so they can provide some feedback. Gizza^{Chat ©} 01:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Hindutva isn't anti-buddhist. Hindutva usually refers to jainism, sikhism, and buddhism as sects of Hinduism. Usually Hindutva are opposed to missionary-like activities of neo-buddhist such those mass conversion events. I'm going to have to agree with baka and broody on hornplease. he's a bit extreme.--D-Boy 11:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Girik,

To be fair, this really isnt the place to debate this. Whats more its not up to us or Zora to define Hindutva. She clearly is afflicted by what i'd call a "saffron blur" seeing the mythic 'Hindutva hand' in anything we do. Lets get this clear Indian nationalism != Hindutva. अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 20:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

1. New Post::

This is really getting pointless!!! All this crap about Hindutva, POV and bullshit!!! Hindutva is in my opinion a hypothetical idea... Just like the terrorist idea of paradise for killing innocents. I am a Hindu and a proud one, but I attend Friday Namaz in the mosque. I don't understand why Zora is being lambasted everywhere!!! What she says is extremely diplomatic and uncontroversial, not that what others say is. One of the best issues to debate on is being used by us as a medium to vent our frustrations!!! This is too stupid. Regards, --Vivek —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Please fix the Non-Sense Biblio Links

Hello all please fix the links below to reach the collection of books not the introduction of the University. If the link goes to the University Mainpage it is bogus link, link should lead readers to collection of books and published papers on the subject instead. If the link only goes to the Description of the University please remove the link as the readers are not looking to write an article on the University, nor are they looking to take admission in the University.

Please fix the links to specific pages with list of related publications. There should be no attempt to confuse the readers or send them packing to far off places in foreign lands where these Universities are situated or futhest away from the truth.

Atulsnischal 22:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Bibliographies

• University of California at Los Angeles University of California, Links only to the Mainpage of University
• Select Research Bibliography on the Partition of India, Compiled by Vinay Lal, Department of History, UCLA
• University of California at Berkeley - Links only to the Mainpage of University, Collection of documents on colonial India, Independence, and Partition
• Fordham University archive of relevant public-domain documents - Links only to the Mainpage of University
• [http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/Lib/man08par97.html University of Virginia list

Atulsnischal 22:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont see your problem. All the links do go to the bibliographies of the selected universities.Bakaman 22:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Please notice the differece between the following two links

The first link goes to the University Mainpage The second link goes to a real list of related books, which is ofcourse more appropriate

• University of California at Los Angeles University of California, Links only to the Mainpage of University
• Select Research Bibliography on the Partition of India, Compiled by Vinay Lal, Department of History, UCLA; University of California at Los Angeles list

Atulsnischal 22:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Two Links which I have already corrected, please do not remove these, only improve:

• Select Research Bibliography on the Partition of India, Compiled by Vinay Lal, Department of History, UCLA; University of California at Los Angeles list
• A select list of Indian Publications on the Partition of India (Punjab & Bengal); University of Virginia list

Following two links (and all additional links which will be added in future) need correction by providing specific book lists on "Partition of India" and related topics:

• University of California at Berkeley Collection of documents on colonial India, Independence, and Partition - Links only to the Mainpage of University
• Fordham University archive of relevant public-domain documents - Links only to the Mainpage of University

Atulsnischal 22:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Mention of Jammu and Kashmir in list

The list of communal/political conflicts since Partition is there only to illustrate the lingering effects of the violent upheaval. Readers can click on the linked articles to find out more. The list is not the place to make claims re the culpability of various sides in the conflicts. There's simply not room in a LIST to argue each case. It's best to leave out all commentary. Bakasuprman, that's not "anti-Hindu", it's just realistic. Whenever WP editors try to import strong disagreements into small spaces, continual edit wars result. Big controversies need big spaces. Zora 18:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Please, instead of pretending to be neutral do declare your obvious views. Why do you keep adding a minor incident of Muslim Bengalis, while leaving out the fact that Assamese and Tripuris and Manipuris all hate Bengalis regardless of their religion. What's realistic is showing that Pakistan hardly trudges in communal amity. Rather, every group seems to be in armed conflict (as Nawaz Shah Bugti, Frontier Gandhi, and Sindhis rebelling would show). Yor revert vandalized the sections on J&K and Waziristan while adding one minor incident of ethnic (not even religoius) warfare in Assam. "Let's not get competitive" - seems that once the ball is in Pakistan's court, you're frantically trying to push it into the Indian end zone.Bakaman 18:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

So you think killing of 3000 peoples, leaving 100,000 homeless and burning of villages [8] was a "minor incident"? Surely this reflects extent of your POV--IsleScape^Talk 19:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess you didnt read my comment above or maybe the point didnt come across. Assmese/Tripuri/and Metiei people hate Bengalis anyways. PAkistan is better than India in massacres and genocide anyways, and the killing of Bengalis. Tthe killing of only 1000 people by a group of tribesmen in a remote village is irrelevant. I'm not surprised you zora etc dont care aboput the massacre of thre million Hindus by a maniacal force of subhuman Razakars or the fact that 2.25 million Bengali Muslims were killed [9]. This reflects the extent of your POV lol.Bakaman 19:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Loss of human life can never be commended. But this doesn't mean that you can downplay atrocities on one side and signify them on the other side.--IsleScape^Talk 19:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

ITs putting it in context. 3 million Hindus killed by genocidal maniacs (aka Razakars) vs 1000 people dead in tribal/ethnic warfare.Bakaman 20:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The Razakars (Pakistan) page which seems to be based on only one article, heavily edited by Bakasuprman and co., having removed POV tag by Bakasuprman, full of CN tags. And even that article gives casualty of 3 million "people" and not 3 million Hindus. So don't exaggerate the already worse situations. --IsleScape^Talk 01:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It was edited mostly by Bangladeshi users, at which point it became a target for PAkistani vandals. The Hawaii link substantiates the 3 million Hindus. Its not my fault if you have it for Bangladesh, or if you're trying to whitewash genocide perpetrated by PAkistani forces.Bakaman 16:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Baka i think claiming moral quivalence is going to not going to help. Islescape, I for one dont doubt your sources, BUT the incident you mention wasnt notable (over 60000 Indians have died at hands of guys some people still like to call insurgents).

Whats more i find it intellectually dishonest and odious of Zora to revert my additions whlist keeping Islescape's non-notable additions. The 'real genocide' of 3-5.5 million Bengalis(disproportionate numebr of them being Hindus) isnt even mentioned here.

Zora we all have our biases. Dont pretend to sit on the fence. Give up all the pretensions of being neutral. That way you could interact with us a lil' better. अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 20:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to add separate items for Bengali massacres,ecause that's covered under Bangladesh Liberation War, which has a whole section devoted to atrocities. I think it's horrible that the people who did this are living comfortable lives in Pakistan right now. But the list is not the place to go into it.

I folded the mention of Assam into a general reference to the Seven Sisters, because there has been a great deal of civil conflict there -- native hill tribes, immigrant Bengalis, etc. I'm not up on all these conflicts. I used to get occasional updates from Buddhist social service networks, which were championing the plight of the Buddhist hill tribes. Mmmmmm ... in fact, the "massacre" that Islescape was claiming may have been in that context, original residents versus immigrants. So that one entry was iffy. Is this conflict covered in WP? There should be links in the Seven Sisters article. Zora 20:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't find it on WP. It has been implied as tribes-migrant conflict, but killers were clearly shouting hindu battle cries [10] and the dead were clearly Bengali Muslims[11]. And the number was around 3000[12] not "1000 only".--IsleScape^Talk 01:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply - Are you kidding? You added attacks on Sikhs by Hindus in 1984 in the first source, added unsubstantiated and exaggerated sources in the second, and used the wrong number for Bengali Muslims dying in the third. Wow, that's actually pathetic. Remember Assamese and tribals have nothing on Pakistani's when it comes to killing Bengalis. We might as well add the fact that the Jamuna was red after the Razakars passed by with Hindu and Moslem Bengali united in their blood flowing down the river.Bakaman 16:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You are mincing the words and diverting the discussion. It's never a pleasure for me to talk of human toll, but I can help you understand what's on these sites. If you refer to the above hyperlinks:

• first one goes to NY Times (It is a newspaper!), which lists a whole row of violence in India, including Hindu-Muslim riots in Bombay, etc.
• second to About.com, which is not a propaganda site
• third to Time Magazine, and if you can read well, "more than 1,000 Muslim Bengalis" were killed in one go while 3000 died in the whole turbulance.

Per Zora, I would suggest you keep your conflicts to yourselves and not spread them on WP. It's for your own good.--IsleScape^Talk 20:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply - Mincing words? Trying to string three unrelated incidents (one with absolutely no accountability - where did they get the figures?) is called original research in the real world. University of Hawaii is hardly a partisan source. Time magazine talks about Bengalis being killed by tribals. Its a well known fact that non-Bengalis in NE India hate Bengalis for their own reasons (Tripuris are a minority in their own state, tribals land is encroached, Assamese get shunted by "affirmative action"). I find your veiled threats highly laughable especially when you have no problems harrassing users on ANI. Per Zora, like I really care what she thinks, per zora I'm a "perpetrator of massacre" and a "Hindutva kook" as well.Bakaman 23:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

my deepest sympathy for your schizophrenic state whence web refs have to be explained, and all editing efforts to neutralize your tag team POV seem to you as harrassment--IsleScape^Talk 00:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Buddhists are hardly in conflict with the Indian government. The one state ruled by "Hindu fascists" in the NE (Arunachal Pradesh) is the only state where Buddhists are actually allowed to live. Inter-tribal/ethnic conflict is the norm in the NE, Assamese vs. Bangla, Manipuri vs. Naga, Bodo vs. Assamese, Tripuri vs Bengali, Naga vs everyone thats not a fundamentalist Christian, etc.Bakaman 20:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Bakasuprman, I didn't say that Buddhists were in conflict with the Indian government. I said that as far as I knew, a great deal of the conflict was indigenous versus immigrant. Many of the indigenes are Buddhist; the immigrants may be Muslim or Hindu. I don't doubt that in addition to the expansion of lowland populations up into the highlands there is a pre-existing landscape of hill groups continually at war with each other. I haven't had time to look, but whatever articles there are on such conflicts should probably be linked to the Seven Sisters article. Zora 21:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

More list problems

The list used to say just that there were several Indo-Pak wars, and give links to the articles on those wars. Nobleeagle has appended arguments to the links, claiming that India was right, India was attacked, etc. A list is not the place to make those arguments. The name on the list is the link to the main article on that war, where Indians and Pakistanis can play Indo-Pak mini-war to their hearts' content. If we leave pro-India arguments on the list, then a Pakistani editor is going to want to add Pro-Pakistani material. At which point each list entry is going to become the article to which it is linked. Just leave the arguments out of it, guys. It's enough to know that there was a conflict, and to have a link to the main article on that conflict. Zora 06:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

All that was presented was the cassus beli and the result of the war, one or two sentences, hardly any opinions at all. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It didn't seem POV to you, but it seemed POV to me, and I believe would certainly do so to a Pakistani. It is best just to leave it out. There's not enough space to conduct an argument. Zora 07:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Proving that your POV is aligned to the Pakistani POV.Bakaman 15:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Or proving that what was written Zora thinks that it was aligned to an Indian POV and all Zora wants is NPOV. When I read it, it didn't seem very POV. The only thing that was constantly reinforced was that it was Pakistan who invaded India every single time and my knowledge of the wars isn't good enough to know if that is the case. In general, I agree that lists should stat stay as lists and the details should be placed elsewhere in the article on the those war articles, not on the partition of India article. Gizza^{Chat ©} 23:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Zora doesnt want NPOV... she wants to 'balance' it out with Pakistani POV... Why not mention that Pakistanis think that thye won the 1965 and Kargil wars. If she was for stats then why did she selectively revert my edits whilst keeping Islescape's intact? अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 15:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Stats was my spelling mistake. I meant "stay." Gizza^{Chat ©} 01:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Gizza, Zora, I urge you to simply take a look at each of the war articles and tell me what I did wrong, then I can fix it. Gizza says the only thing that seems POV is the idea that Pakistan invaded every time, but it's fact. It's not as if India invaded in 1947 after Hari Singh gave the territory to India, you can't invade your own territory. In 1965, did India carry out Operation Gibralter and try to infiltrate and sabotage its own territory. 1971 is tricky but in the end, Pakistan declared war first. Then in 1999, India was commended for not ever crossing the LoC, let along invading the other side. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 03:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I just agreed with Zora about the lists staying as lists. I prefer the information about the wars be moved to the war articles since this is about the partition. Yes they are related but a link is sufficient IMHO. Gizza^{Chat ©} 03:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Noble. Short summary needs to be there to establish context. Plus, all of the summaries are factually correct and agree with the wp articles themselves. It is not our fault that history is history.Rumpelstiltskin223 04:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The summaries being re-inserted are biased towards India. Note comments like "India won international respect for the way it handled the war". That is just not NPOV. I'm not Pakistani, I have no fondness for Pakistan, I just believe in NPOV. That means leaving arguments about who started the war, who won the war, who got "international respect" in the articles about those wars, where there's room to give all sides. Guys, this is not a game, where the object is to defeat the other side. NPOV means that we have to give the best arguments for all notable sides, in neutral fashion. Those summaries are not neutral and not needed. They're not even relevant ... this article is an article about the Partition. The material on events after the Partition is not intended to be a complete history of South Asia since the Partition. It's just a pointer to articles where readers can find out more. Pointers and lists should not turn into arguments. Zora 04:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic Cleansing?

The anti-Hindu violence in Kashmir is being as Islamic militants who have ethnically cleansed Kashmiri Hindus. Although violence in this region is pretty bad, academic and non-POV sources do not call it actual "ethnic cleansing." Rumpelstiltskin223 gave sources calling this an ethnic cleansing, but two of these sources are partisan/POV and the other source, written by a guest writer for rediff, doesn't even talk about what ethnic cleansing is. Now, it seems that Nobleeagle has brought the total number of citations for that one term to six, as if trying to prove the point that whats hapening in Kashmir is ethnic cleansing, but none of them seem notable. However, without academic and reputable sources (a guest writer on Rediff for a partisan newpaper (Kashmiri Herald)is hardly academic or reputable) that explain why this is an ethnic cleansing, the term "ethnic cleansing" should be replaced with "killing" or "targeting" or whatnot, as it is not recognized as being full-out ethnic cleansing. After all, the Islamic militants in Kashmir would kill anyone who was in support of the Indian govt, including many Muslims as well as Hindus. Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 02:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

So rediff and satp are "non-notable"? I find Genocide denial to be seriously offensive. Rumpelstiltskin223 02:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

So find an academic and nonPOV source that explains why this is full-out ethnic cleansing. Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 02:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

satp is quite npov, thaa. They are totally non-partisan. They even talk abt Ranvir Sena. Rumpelstiltskin223 02:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

SATP doesn't not note any instances of anti-Muslim terrorism in India. And once again, I would request you to find an academic and nonPOV source. Another alternative which I think you would agree with is to follow the article Terrorism in Kashmir's lead in describing the violence in Kashmir for consistency's sake. After all, this article actually focuses on this issue. Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 02:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no anti-Muslim terrorism in India. There is anti-Muslim communal violence,obviously, but that is not the same thing. Rumpelstiltskin223 02:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Please address my other points instead. I do not wish to get into another debate as to what constitutes as terrorism as opposed to just violence. Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 02:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

What points? Ethnic Cleansing means when an ethnic group is forced to mass-migrate bu another. The K.Pands were forcibly removed by Islamists so that's it. Rumpelstiltskin223 02:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well here are the points laid out:

1. Find an academic non-POV source describing why this consititutes as ethnic cleansing as opposed just strong violence.
2. OR Another alternative which I had thought you might agree with: follow the article Terrorism in Kashmir's lead in describing the violence in Kashmir (for consistency especially).

These are the two points. Otherwise, the outright declaration that the conflict is "ethnic cleansing" is not justified. (XXX accuses.... or the like is acceptable although an outright labelling of a controversial term is not.) Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 02:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

SATP is quite non-POV.Rumpelstiltskin223 02:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think its best to try option # 2 for consistency. Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 04:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think option #1 is satisfied very well, thaa Rumpelstiltskin223 04:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Numbers in demographics section

If 2% are 20 million, it doens't make sense that 1.94% are 21 million. Anyone knows the right numbers? Aviad2001 21:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Separate electorates

This article mentions nothing about the whole provision for the separate electorates and a number of other historical events that led to Partition. It treats the history before partition very superficially.

Reorganization

I have reorganized the table of contents of the article in response to the comments in the failed FAC, where it was felt that the article didn't have enough about the partition itself and too much about the distant aftermath. I have, for now, super organized the contents in order to pay equal attention to all the important events and issues. Once the article has more narrative, I will reduce the number of sections and subsections. I have also temporarily disabled many of the "distant aftermath" sections; those too will be integrated later where they seem relevant. Please bear with me while I revise the article. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I just realized that in a little over a week, it will be 60 years since the partition of India. I will make another attempt to revise the article. Please pardon the "under construction" sign for this coming week. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The perspectives.

Why is there a Pakistani Perspective, but not an Indian or British perspective? I ask that the Pakistani perspective should be removed without the other two perspectives.

I edited the words 'allowed' to 'campigned' since a) Gandhi's own belief's, even if mirrored in the official policy, did not account for the action of all hindus/sikhs b) it's a documented fact that thousands of muslims were killed 'inspite' of gandhi's prcolaimation of amnesty.

I believe the article, at various places, shows definite bias towards both the Pakistani and Indian POV's and is need of a detailed review and revision.

¬¬¬¬Y¬¬¬¬

Regarding your last sentence, what do you think is going on (admittedly slowly)? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Change the name

Historically there is discussed in this article in not India. India never existed as a single entity. So I think we should change the name of this article to partition of British India.--Faraz Ahmad 19:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

See discussion above and on the History of India page. "Partition of India" is what it is called in the historical literature, including that contributed by Pakistani historians. In addition, see, for example, other tertiary sources like Britannica and Encarta. As for India and British India, please read the last two sentences of the lead paragraph in British India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Change the name--->>>NO

What did you want to call it? The name India has been on maps for centuries. All the west sees and knows is India, stretching from Afghanistan to Burma [Myanmar]. Pakistan is just a religious border. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.189.64 (talk) 03:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The name of this article should be changed i.e " the partition of India". To begin with,a "Country" called "India" never existed until the partition of the " Subcontinent" in 1947. The region was known as the Indian subcontinent which was ruled by the Mughal Empire before the British Empire took over.India has never been on the map for centuries, however the Indian subcontinent has been there for centuries.In the time of the Mughals the region was known as "Hindustan". The indian subcontinent was divided into territories until the rule of the British Empire. So turns out India, the country has not been there for centuries and the name of the article should be changed.

And if Pakistan is just a religious border, thank god i'm on Pakistan's side of the border!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.255.168.81 (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You fool! The name India has been used in the west since the beginning of their time! And the whole point of Partition is useless! As you kindly pointed out, INDIA was together since the beginning of history! The name Pakistan didn't even surface until Choudhary Rahmat Ali introduced it in his Pamphlet 'Now or Never.' So actually, you are wrong, my friend across the border, India is not the misnomer, PAKISTAN is! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.244.24.226 (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:India-time-cover-oct27-1947.jpg

Image:India-time-cover-oct27-1947.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jinnah-time-magazine-cover-april1946.jpg

Image:Jinnah-time-magazine-cover-april1946.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The discussion of the partition of Bengal needs improvement

This article is not very helpful to those wanting to understand the nature of the partition of Bengal. How were the boundaries defined? What were the demographics of the population displacement? What was the logic of isolating the North-East Indian states? These considerations are qualitatively and quantitatively discussed in the West Pakistan case but neglected for East Pakistan. 70.79.11.173 21:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Partition of India as Partition of Punjab and Bengal

Somebody has added to the lead that partition of India particularly refers to the partition of Punjab and Bengal, and in fact, most of the article reads that way too. This error needs to be corrected by adding more information about partition of the army, civil service, railways, central treasury, and other national institutions. 130.203.202.156 (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The term Bengal and Punjab refers to a region inside a country. to say they were partiotned would indicate a nationally internal matter such as the partition of a particluar state not of a country Tca achintya (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

People can't add one and one together

17.5 million people leaving their homes. Of these, only 14.9 million arrived, suggesting that 3.4 million went "missing".

Whoever wrote this ought to be shot.

It says alot about the quality of an article if in the goddamned introduction there is a mathematical error, if you don't know which of these numbers are wrong, remove the sentence. Pathetic --200.105.218.224 (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The Partition Factor In The Status Of Indian Muslims

I just added a NPOV-sect tag. Not sure if it's the best one, but this section seems to contain much POV diatribe, original research, and lack of citation. --Nricardo (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

IMO this section should be entirely removed as it reads like an opinion column instead of an encyclopedic entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.64.5 (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Was the Indian Empire partitioned?

I wish to raise this quite important issue with the editors of the article.

The article begins "The Partition of India was the partition of the British Indian Empire..." But as I read the Indian Independence Act 1947, what was to be partitioned was only British India: Article 7 (1) (a) has "As from the appointed day (a) His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom have no responsibility as respects the government of any of the territories which, immediately before that day, were included in British India." With regard to the Princely states, the Act provides that "the suzerainty of His Majesty over the Indian States lapses, and with it, all treaties and agreements in force at the date of the passing of this Act between His Majesty and the rulers of Indian States, all functions exercisable by His Majesty at that date with respect to Indian States, all obligations of His Majesty existing at that date towards Indian States or the rulers thereof, and all powers, rights, authority or jurisdiction exercisable by His Majesty at that date in or in relation to Indian States by treaty, grant, usage, sufferance or otherwise." And Section 7 (2) of the Act provides "The assent of the Parliament of the United Kingdom is hereby given to the omission from the Royal Style and Titles of the words "Indiae Imperator" and the words "Emperor of India" and to the issue by His Majesty for that purpose of His Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of the Realm." As it appears, the effect of the Partition was to wind up the Indian Empire, rather than partitioning it. Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless there are any comments, I should like to correct this. Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Problem with map

May I point out that the map now captioned "Map of India and Pakistan as envisaged in the Partition Plan 1947" is an appendix to the 1950 Constitution of India, an internal Indian publication which is not connected with the various partition plans and negotiations of 1947? Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, unless there are any comments I should like to correct this. Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You have an alternate map to use? Is it uploaded to Commons yet? Unschool 04:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid not, but this one is out of place because it is off-subject. When I say "correct", I mean remove. Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not from the appendix of the constitution (although it may have been published there first). It is from my copy of the 1952 edition of Majumdar et al's Advanced History of India and, as you can see, it is created by J. Bartholomew and Sons. It is not the best map of the partition, since the Pakistani provinces are not shown, but I couldn't find any other. You certainly can't post the 1908 map of "prevalent religions" from the Imperial Gazetteer Atlas (which I scanned from my personal collection for a later section) in the lead! That has nothing to do with the actual partition of India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

PS The map currently in the lead needs to be replaced fast, because among other things, it implies an implicit acknowledgment of the "two nation theory," and I can see future trouble on the page. It is OK to have it in the later section as a description of the state of the prevalent religions in the 1901 Census of India, but not in the lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I added that new map because Unschool was asking for an alternative and I didn't have one of the kind he wanted. I didn't mean it to acknowledge the "two nation theory" (acknowledgement by whom or at what point isn't clear, there, by the way), but by mid 1947 it was certain that there were going to be at least two nations and possibly more and that the division was going to be on religious lines. The British had no power to partition the native states, or to dictate what they should do about accession. There were Muslim rulers of states without a Muslim majority, and in Kashmir it was the other way about. We can't show on a map any pre-partition plan for partition of the whole of India which has authority. I don't see any harm in removing the map you think could cause objections, but it is surely factual so doesn't in itself make any communal point. If there's another factual map which can be put in its place, I suppose it could only be one of the outcome of partition. Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk) 07:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as Fowler&fowler says, the previous map has the caption DIVISIONS OF INDIA ACCORDING TO FIRST SCHEDULE OF CONSTITUTION 1950 so it's based on the Constitution but isn't an Appendix to it as such. Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk) 07:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the 1908 map is problematic (in the lead) though the map itself is quite interesting (who are the animists in the NWFP? what's with the Sino-Burma boundary?) For one thing, there is an implicit WP:OR connection between the distribution of religions and the partition of India which is unwarranted per the terms of partition (the right of princely states to make a choice, for example). The presence of Burma confounds the issue further because the lay reader may conclude that India was partitioned into muslim, hindu, and buddhist states. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 14:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The "animists" shown on the map are in an area which is now called the Frontier Region Dera Ismail Khan, one of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. See also the Kalash, further north. Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk) 10:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Well, one thing I could do is to scan and upload a map of the British Indian Empire on the eve of the partition of India. (This one doesn't have Burma in the IE.) Perhaps, then some map-maker whizz on Wikipedia could draw the partition boundaries in Punjab and Bengal only (and ignore everything else, including Kashmir, Hyderabad, and Junagadh). The post-partition "partition maps" depend on what time frame they display, since many states acceded after August 14/15 1947. A map made early on could show Hyderabad as independent or disputed, but one made later will show it as a part of India. Let me know. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion, but the map maker who needs to add things will have a difficult job, and the map will need to have some date attached to it ("India and Pakistan as at...") I don't really see how the map could ignore anything shown on the map. If India is to be shown including the states which had acceded to it, then I don't think Kashmir should be treated differently, as it had acceded to India. The big question is surely whether to show the de facto partitioning of Kashmir following the 1947 War. I imagine that would be controversial. Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk) 09:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Date format

Shouldn't this article consistently use the British/Indian/Pakistani date format (day month year) consistently throughout, per Wikipedia style guidelines? If so, could somebody please make the fix? Thanks.... 75.44.51.54 (talk) 09:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Partition of British India

This article should be named 'The Partition of Briritsh India' as an entity known as 'India' did not exist before 1947, therefore the current article title is inherently incorrect and misleading. Khokhar (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your post. Wikipedia is beholden to secondary sources and they refer to it as the "Partition of India." It is true that the boundaries of partition were drawn only in "British India," in other words in those parts of India (or, more formally, the British Indian Empire) that were directly administered by the British; however, the rest of the Indian Empire, i.e. the Princely States also had to chose (or not chose) which of the two new dominions they would belong to. In any case, the bottom line is that secondary sources, by an overwhelming margin, refer to it as the "Partition of India." Thanks. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

PS "The entity known as India" did exist before 1947, please see British Raj. For example, as India, it participated in the Olympics from the 1920s onwards. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed reply. In response to "The entity known as India did exist before 1947", firstly the 'entity of India' as we know it certainly did not exist until it was endorsed by the 'Indians' in 1947, and to the best of my knowledge, even the title 'India' was of British origin and later came to be formally known as 'The British Indian Empire' or 'British Raj', so being 'shortened' to 'India' for the purpose of a sporting event does not and should not be taken as a formal or official identity, specially given that a large chunk of the perceptive country, which is now known as Pakistan and Bangladesh did not accept 'India' as a title or identity and were only 'forced' to live as part of an entity known as the 'British Indian Empire', whereas the 'Indians' endorsed the title 'India' by their free will in 1947, clearly, a distinction needs to be made and though most 'sources' consider it 'the partition of India' and therefore wiki is forced to 'follow', it does not mean that a formal 'entity' called India existed before 1947, because it didn't, as, by nature, it was part of an Empire so was labled as such and for people to claim, in a contemporary sense, that 'India' was partitioned is, frankly, absurd.

For Pakistani's and Bangladeshi's, India, as an identity, never existed so to be told that you were once part of 'India' is inherently inaccurate and, in fact, insulting, not that Pakistani's or Bangladeshi's have anything against India (discounting the wars and all the rest, of course) but to be given an identity, which for all intent and purposes was never yours, and, evidently, rejected at the first instance, is a little less than understanding, I might even say it was ignorant. The areas that form modern day 'India', Pakistan and Bangladesh had an identity before the British empire named it 'British India' and this identity had no relation either before or, in the case of Pakistan and Bangladesh, after, to the 'entity', 'idea', or even word, 'India'.

Sorry about the rant :)

Khokhar (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

For better or for worse, Partition of India is the accepted term for the event and the general landmass that is now occupied by the Republic of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh was generically referred to as India in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. (Interestingly, Burma was Burma even though it was a part of British India for a hundred years.) Thus, in The Sign of Four, Miss Mary Morstan says My father was an officer in an Indian regiment, who sent me home when I was quite a child. and Major Sholto had prospered in India. Best to be dispassionate when examining history. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 18:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Apropos RegentsPark's post, the very first Sherlock Holmes story, Study in Scarlet, begin in "India," where Watson is injured and then taken ill with typhoid fever in the NWFP. If you read the first few paragraphs of Chapter 1, you will see that NWFP (Peshawar) and Bolan Pass (not mentioned, but through which they likely headed for Qandahar; see this 1880 map, before Baluchistan joined the "Indian Empire," and click it for full-resolution) are mentioned either as "India" or "our Indian possessions." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

To Khokhar: Your argument is fallacious. Compare Books with title "History of British India" published between 1876 and 1946 with Books with title "History of India" published between 1876 and 1946 (1876 being the year of coronation of Victoria as Empress of India (not Empress of British India or of the British Indian Empire)). Similarly, among scholarly sources, references to "Partition of India" are almost an order of magnitude (ten times) greater than references to "Partition of British India". All the British monarchs from Victoria onwards: Victoria, Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII and George VI were called Empress/Emperor of India (not "Emperor of British India"). This issue, btw, is raised from the dead every 3 or 4 months. The page is an old page; its title now, almost six years after its creation, and after numerous arguments similar to yours, is not about to change. Sorry. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't change it.. doesn't take away my right to say what I believe to be correct.. and before accusing me of being a 'sockpuppet' and reverting 'all' my edits, the significant edits all were discussed, if you care to read, mind providing any evidence?? if you can't then kindly undo your reversions...clearly i've stepped on your POV Khokhar (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Huh? You need to show that there is a consensus of scholarly sources for such usage, i.e. "Partition of British India," and, in the absence of such consensus, you need to point out the controversy and evidence for it. The consensus, as I point out, is in fact for the usage, "Partition of India." Has nothing to do with POV yours or mine, simply the preponderance of secondary sources. If you have them, produce their preponderance. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Here is a quote from the "Jinnah" article in Encyclopaedia Britannica: "But Jinnah led his movement with such skill and tenacity that ultimately both the Congress and the British government had no option but to agree to the partitioning of India. Pakistan thus emerged as an independent state in 1947."
• Here are links to "Partition of India" in Encarta.
• Links to the "Partition of India" in the New York Times.
• Links to "Partition of India" in the Pakistani Newspaper, The Dawn! Hundreds!
• 224 links to international newspapers that refer to the "Partition of India" and that were published between 1940 and 1960
• 804 links to books published by well-known academic publishers (Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Chicago, Routlege, ...) that use the term "Partition of India"More coming. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Firstly in my last reply I was referring to the 'sockpuppet' related reversions, not just this articles subject matter.

As for your comments on 'The partition of India', that's fair, and I agree, the vast majority of people do refer to it as 'Partition of India', however that doesn't stop me from discussing my thoughts on this article's talk page, which if you read my last article related reply you will notice that I already accepted your first reply; that most people refer to it as such and so wiki would also consider it that way. However everything I said is also a fact, just because wiki must show the 'widely accepted' consensus doesn't mean it must be correct, however that's another debate and doesn't belong on wikipedia, I concede. Khokhar (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Title of article

Mughalnz (talk)IT WAS NOT PARTITON OF iNDIA IT WAS PARTITON OF BRITISH INDIA titl need to change tobritish indiaMughalnz (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

India didn't exist until 1947 before 1947 was called British India

I think Indians need to stop writing writing articles about Pakistan........ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shazy1022 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The term British India was used to refer to territories under direct british ru;e as opposed to the princely states. it was still india. so the name partition of india is correct. India is name associatedwith this region since the beginning of civiliztion literally meaning land of the Indus. remeber Columbus was looing fo india not pakistan so the as far as the name of the article is concerned it is correct Tca achintya (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The terms Bharat ka Vibhajan, and Hindustan ka bantvara, as mentioned in the article are direct translations of the English 'Partition of India' and are not words used with any regularity in either spoken or written Hindi or Urdu. As anyone will corroborate a more appropriate term that is in currency for the Partition is Bantvara in Hindi, and Taksim in Urdu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.78.251.246 (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I just want to change the term British India to British rule in India

Although British Parliament passed the term "British India" it is derogatory for Indians, correct terminology is country's rule in India. examples Parts of United States were ruled by British, French, etc but there is no term like British US or French US Hope you understand —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mailbhargav (talk • contribs) 05:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there are terms such as British America, British North America, Russian America, and even Spanish Florida. All of these areas had indigenous populations too. - BilCat (talk) 06:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Citation for number of Sindhi speakers in India

http://censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001/Census_Data_Online/Language/Statement4.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamria (talk • contribs) 22:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Andrew Whitehead, 25 April 2010

I would like to add this to the external links India: a People Partitioned Five radio programmes broadcast on the BBC World Service in 1997 containing the voices of people across South Asia who lived through Partition. The audio of these programmes is available at http://www.andrewwhitehead.net/india-a-people-partitioned.html Andrew Whitehead (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Added. The article on your website says that the series won an award at the 'New York Festival'. Could you please tell us which festival and which award? Thanks. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Reunion?

Could someone mention efforts made by the Pakistani Government (Zadari), who hoped to create a union between the nations as he described "like the European Union"? I think that is significant for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.26.39 (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Editrequest

{{editrequest}} please add an interwiki for pa:ਭਾਰਤ ਦਾ ਬਟਵਾਰਾ

 Done --ANowlin: talk 22:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Funny but true

Dear all,

Wikipedia is all wrong about this subject, they fail to emphasis the meaning independance.

Britain invaded their country or so called Good country in fact and they got it all wrong.

Your Divinely,

Millwall4life —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.86.211 (talk) 11:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

I noticed that the first paragraph of section 2.2 1932-1942 ends with:

All Muslim political parties including the Khaksar Tehrik of Allama Mashriqi opposed the partition of India. Mashriqi was arrested on 19 March 1940.

I was thinking of taking the last sentence out. It seems misleading, and it implies that Mashriqi was arrested for his opinion on the partition, when there is no evidence to support that. In addition, there's no source given for that last sentence. Ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.70.22 (talk) 04:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

No mention of number of casualities

There is no mention of the number of causalities in the riots in Punjab and Bengal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.138.33 (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Source? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Map at head of page is terrible

This map does not even identify the areas to be partitioned, and it certainly does not focus on the provinces which were partitioned by the Boundary Commission. Most British provinces simply transferred to the new India or to Pakistan, but the area covered by the provinces is mixed up (without explanation) with the areas of princely states. It is very misleading to colour Hyderabad and Jammu & Kashmir grey and to define the grey colour as "States not covered by the partition plan" - there was no "partition plan" for the princely states, which the British could not partition because they were not British possessions. It would be helpful for the map to identify all of the non-British areas of that kind – not very easy at this scale, but it could be attempted. To be selective about this matter is hopelessly incorrect and unencyclopedic. Moonraker (talk) 03:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC) their was a partition they had to join India even if they shared a border with pakistan as moutbatton demanded so

Partition of India ?

it was the partition of British Raj + Principality states / British India + Principality states Partition of India is a very misleading this article has a paragraph about Punjab,Bengal,Kashmir etc their should also be a paragraph about Hyderabad, Portuguese Goa, Bhopal and all the other principality states which where not under direct Colonial Rule --Fez78 (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

No. The British could not partition the princely states because they were not British. They also could not partition the Portuguese or French possessions. When the British left India they could only encourage the rulers of the states to join one of the new dominions. Most did, but some did not. Moonraker (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

As there have been no other comments, I shall revert the {{POV-title}} header added by Fez78. Moonraker (talk) 01:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Woah woah woah...what gives you the right to revert ? no body else has commented apart from you...wikipedia is about consensous not most frequent editor....I forgot my password so was unable to log in and forgot about this article...but I dont think you cant just remove the POV notice because your the last one to log in The Principality states where not part of India but they where part of the British Raj, this map also should not show portuge goa as as part of the British Raj...India and pakistan where both born on the same day

this article "The British Raj unravelled quickly in the 1940s, perhaps surprising after the empire in the east had so recently survived its greatest challenge in the shape of Japanese expansionism." http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/independence1947_01.shtml

I think there should be a separate page about the growth of India like there is one for the US ...such as goa,sikkim etc --Vuovuo (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

One of the difficulties here is that there was no such thing as "the British Raj". No one can really say what the term means, and the meaning used by Wikipedia varies from page to page. the princely states were part of "India" when the word was used (as it often was) to mean the whole Indian Empire, but they were not part of the India which was divided by the British between the new "India" and the entirely new "Pakistan". The term "partition of India" refers to what was partitioned by the British, and they could not partition the princely states, which were not theirs. All they could do was release the states from their subsidiary alliances, which is what they did. Moonraker (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Bhārat kā Vibhājan vs Hindustān kā Vibhājan

What's the big deal with the slow edit war over this? Both are the same (Hindustan probably more correct as it is the historical name of India). --lTopGunl (talk) 07:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Salaam! The correct name that should be in the article should be Hindustan ka Batwara in the official language of the nation under the British Raj, Hindustani (in both the Nastaleeq and Devanagari scripts) as opposed to modern Hindi and Urdu. The word batwara is common to Hindi-Urdu/Hindustani, which as I mentioned above, was the official language at the time of the partition. This was the case for the article for several years and accepting this will resolve the slow edit war. Moreover, correcting this issue will also reduce the clutter from the lede and make the article more readable. I have corrected this issue in the article and have added a reference which delineates the nation's name and official language under the British Raj, i.e. Hindustan (as correctly stated by User:TopGun) and Hindustani, respectively, in order to avoid hassles in the future. Thanks for bringing this up User:TopGun. With regards, Anupam^Talk 07:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

WS, I do not really object to having both Urdu and Hindi translation - may be that can be attributed to as being more NPOV with respect to India & Pakistan (that were formed as a result of the partition) but just found it lame to edit war over Hindustan and Bharat. I guess some are being offended due to the fact that India still retains those names for it though the article's context is perfectly clear. Though I see "batwara" as a more elegant word... one word for both Hindi and Urdu. Thanks for updating. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply User:TopGun. With a translation in Hindustani/Hindi-Urdu, we really do not need to provide a separate Sanskritized (Bharat ka Vibhājan) and Persianized (Taqseem-e-Hind) translation of the title. This is because the term Hindustan ka Batwara is intelligible in modern Hindi and Urdu and is frequently used among speakers of both registers in both Pakistan and India. In other words, Hindustan ka Batwara is equally a Hindi phrase as it is an Urdu one, and is understood by speakers of the diasystem (see About Hindi-Urdu by Afroz Taj). In my opinion, adding separate Sanksritized and Persianized terms will only clutter the article lede further and will be redundant as an Urdu and Hindi speaker understand the colloquial phrase Hindustan ka Batwara. At any rate, I saw that you changed Hindustani to Hindi-Urdu here and think that works too, since the terms are interchangeable. Thanks for your help and for the discussion! Khuda hafiz, Anupam^Talk 08:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, I made that change to cover the modern as well as the historical POVs in the same and also is the actual name of the article. It's better this way. Khuda Hafiz. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds great, in the future, if there are issues, we can point the questioning individual to the reference at the end of the scripts, which states that the name of the country and language at the time of the British Raj was Hindustan and Hindustani (Hindi-Urdu) respectively. This thorough conversation between you and I also establishes consensus on the issue as well. New editors to the article who question the wording of the lede can be pointed to this discussion as a reference! :) Anupam^Talk 08:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The scripts need to be removed as per discussion here. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 18:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

No such thing as partition of india

How can there be a partition of india when india never existed until one day after Pakistan was created. The whole South Asia was conquered, ruled and administered by the British (British Raj) who subsequently made Burma seperate and later Sri Lanka/Ceylon seperate. The partition specifically only involved the provinces of Panjab and Bengal. The areas of delineating India and Pakistan were established. Partitioning only occurred in those aforementioned provinces. Therefore, this article is incorrectly labelled as the partition of india. If anything, Pakistan gained its independence one day earlier than India. Perhaps it should be labelled as the Partition of Pakistan using the logic behind the naming of this article. Wikipedia needs re-title this article as it is misleading and a distortion of history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.1.2.2 (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Read the history then. You're completely wrong. Start with reading this article, then British India and then the others linked. Republic of India chose to retain it's colonial name after it's independence, that's what is confusing you. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Decline of Hinduism

This is what the source states:

"Before the partition of India in 1947, more than 20% of the population of today's Pakistan was Hindu. But many left the country at the time of partition in 1947. Today many Hindus say they are still discriminated against or forced to convert to other religions.

Today, there are roughly three million Hindus in Pakistan, or about 1.6% of the total population." [13]

It does not say it is the cause of the decline, nor does it say that Hindus are forced to convert, rather "hindus say they are forced to convert". See WP:SYNTH. This is pure original research. Also my revert to IP was for it's incorrect edit summary and removing other content on the go replacing it with this. You should self revert. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

not about content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
But that also don't says that they are not discriminated. I will recommend YOU to self revert. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC) That version is OR... Not reverting to that. Lol, the negative does not need proof when the fact itself has not been proved. You really need to understand that. And stop following me. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC) I knew that you will, like always, cry "hounding". Just have a look over Regents' talk, its under my watchlist. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC) Seriously I don't care how you get to articles.... whether through watchlists or my contributions list.. you keep turning up where ever there are disputes with me to oppose me. That's not a foul cry by any defination. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC) Citing B of WP:BRD to make controversial edits, and then when watchers reverts, crying "hounding". Thats for sure a foul cry. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC) Hatting this as it is not about content per another user too [14]. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• And the second source [15] also talks about Hindu leaders saying that the girl was forcefully converted and the girl her self saying that she was not, and a whole debate over the single incident. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) The third source is seemingly an opinion piece and not a very good one at that too. From the first line it shows how biased it is. Not reliable in anyway. [16]. I'd request Dwaipayanc to self revert and complete this discussion instead of keeping the poor edits in the article. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

(after edit-conflict) I read the sources of BBC, and added another source from New York Times. The sources mention that "Hindus say...". So, Pakistan government or other third parties do not say this (well, I have not searched this further, so, for the time being, I would assume no other third parties say this). So, I have changed the sentence structure to "In Pakistan, Hindus sometimes resent the discrimination and forced conversion to Islam.", and added the NYT references besides the two pre-existing references. That "Before independence, Hindus and Sikhs had formed 20 per cent of the population of the areas now forming Pakistan" has already been stated in this section with reference. I have not changed anything there. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The NYC source, as I detailed it, states it as Hindus' opinion, the punjab news source should completely be removed and the sentence should be rephrased to "In Pakistan, Hindus sometimes resent the alleged discrimination and forced conversion to Islam." That would be anything near to what sources say as the current version can still be taken in another meaning. Also your edit summary called the removal wrong... I hope you've read the sources your self and compared it to the text that was in the article that I reverted. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Fine with me if you are that much into semantics. I agree that the Punjab news line reference should be removed (it is heavily partial). In case I find any more detail (after reading those sources thoroughly, and in case I stumble upon some other sources), I will discuss that here. Please go ahead and make the change. And yes, the removal was wrong because removal of a disputed content is not the solution (unless it is a blatant lie or attack), rather making it undisputed by modification and discussion is the solution.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I'm making the amends then. The removal part was in context because I removed it after getting no response here for two days. I made an editorial judgement of my own as I was the only discussing editor. Regards. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

How can you call that a discussion when there was no other users involved ? Thanks Dwaipayan for pitching in. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 18:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly my point. I left that there for two days and you did not respond. When I removed it per the talkpage's silent consensus, you starting calling multiple editors of your choice. I've nothing more to say to that.. you should know better. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Treatment of minorities

Few days ago User:Pee3.14159 with this edit added some content along with a source. While reading the same source I found some more related information and added it, but it was changed to a version that is grossly misrepresentation of the source. I have tried explaining to the user to on his/her talk but this seems futile. --SMS ^Talk 19:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)