Talk:Bhagat Singh

Bhagat Singh and Atheism

I am aware of his last statement on athiesm...but he did convert to Sikhism and no it is not I am pro Sikh as I am not a Sikh myself. I just respect Bhagat Singh people also say Odham Singh died a Sikh but that is false he never did. However, Bhagat Singh did change his mind as I had even put the picture up. I think it's a shame someone would take it down. So I have proof on him being Sikh why do people keep changing my addition? That picture was taken three days before his death I have the date on a book on Bhagat Singh.

I'm not involved in this dispute about Bhagat Singh's atheism, but I'd like to interject a point, if I may. I've seen the picture that you refer to, but I don't see how that is "proof" that he became a Sikh again shortly before dying. All that picture shows is Bhagat Singh with long hair and a beard. As far as I know, that's simply because there was no way for him to shave or get a haircut in prison. That in no way "proves" that he was a Sikh. It's circumstantial evidence at best. Having long hair and a beard doesn't automatically make one a Sikh.

You said in one of your earlier edits that he re-embraced Sikhism within the "final days of his life" and say in another that he re-embraced it "in his dying moments." He wouldn't have had time to re-grow his hair or beard in that time; it would have taken several months at least.

From what is known about Bhagat Singh's character, especially his Marxism, it makes sense for him to be an atheist. (Karl Marx himself was an atheist.) If he did become a Sikh again, more power to you. However, we're going to need better proof than that.

I understand your respect for Bhagat Singh. You seem pretty desperate to, so to speak, "clear Bhagat Singh's name," but his name isn't necessarily tarnished by his being an atheist. His atheism doesn't diminish anything that he did nor is it disrespectful to call him that. Certainly, being a believer in God myself, I would have liked to see him making peace with God before death. But, then again, I would have liked it if his methods had been non-violent. If he was an atheist, then he was an atheist. Let's not worry about things like that and try and figure out what the facts are.

-- Hnsampat 18:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It is far better that Singh died an atheist. People have a right to their religious beliefs -- but these are based on faith, not Science; and are usually just simply, demonstrably wrong, in whole or in part. I doubt very much that Singh had a "deathbed conversion". Many lies thruout history say this about famous atheists: Voltaire, Charles Darwin or Thomas Paine, for instance. Singh would be another case of this fraud, IMO, since the religious almost invariably have this pernicious belief that all atheists secretly harbor some desire to 'come clean' with whichever deity happens to be dominant in their culture.

Pazouzou 08:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Bhagat Singh and Death Penalty

The article mentions Bhagat Singh being sentenced to death on two separate occasions, once for the murder of the British officer and once for the bombing. The way it's written, it feels like the article is saying Bhagat Singh was tried twice and sentenced twice. Was he really sentenced twice? Or did he have one trial for both crimes and was sentenced to death at the end of that trial?

it was one trial for 2 of those cases

Bhagat Singh and Socialism

Bhagat Singh was one of the first socialists in India not mentioning a symbol to the masses and youth of India. What is your opinion on his contribution to his time and the India society today?

Contradiction

When was Bhagat Singh born, 1907 or 1908? The top says 1907 but the next paragraph says 1908.

I BELIEVE he was born in 1908.

NPOV dispute

RESOLVED

This article was obviously written by a great admirer of Bhagat Singh. While that is admirable, Wikipedia is not the place for panegyrics. This article must conform to NPOV guidelines. Among other changes, the following must be made: - The term "freedom fighter" is very subjective. As the saying goes, one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist. It would be more appropriate to refer to Bhagat Singh as a "revolutionary." - That reference to Bhagat Singh growing guns must be edited. Right now, it's offered as proof of his patriotism. Instead, to conform to NPOV, it should be offered as an example of the sentiments in his upbringing. - All references to Bhagat Singh being "falsely" accused and such must be removed, as they are highly subjective interpretations of history. (The British will say that he was rightly accused, Indian nationalists will say that he was falsely accused. Wikipedia is not the place to have these debates.) - All anti-Gandhi and anti-Congress references near the end must be removed, as they serve no other purpose other than to smear Gandhi and paint Bhagat Singh as a martyr. Wikipedia is not the place for propaganda or smear campaigns. - Please cite some unbiased sources for the account of Lala's death. The bottom line here is that this article is biased way too much in favor of Bhagat Singh and written from a very pro-Bhagat Singh, nationalist point of view. While I think that is patriotic, it is still biased. Wikipedia articles have to be as unbiased as possible and this article requires a complete overhaul.

obviously it seems you r totally unaware of indian history..lala's death in a police lathi (stick) charge is a well documented fact..revise your indian history if you are questioning such facts........and yes if the british use violence it is for the better of the human race and if an indian uses it it is terrorism..no way , bhagat singh was apatriot and its true that the bomb he dropped was harmless to the extent it did not even contain any sharpnels..is that terrorism?[user:suki]

I am well-aware of Indian history. Although I disapprove of Bhagat Singh's violent methods, he was a patriot at heart, no doubt. All I was saying was that, a long time ago, this article was very very biased in favor of Bhagat Singh. Wikipedia has to show a NEUTRAL point of view, meaning that, as much as you might hate the British, you have to be fair to them. I was, so to speak, playing Devil's advocate. In any case, it's pointless to argue this anymore. The NPOV dispute ended ages ago.

On Bhagat Singh & Atheism

The claim that Bhagat Singh renounced atheism is similar to the usual campaign against well known atheists to malign them. There is no proof/evidence coming from Bhagat Singh himself that he renounced atheism. Claims to the contrary from Bhai Randhir Singh or anybody else is not reliable in the absence of proof.MANOJTV 12:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Is the following a quote? :

"He supported his own beliefs and claimed that he used to be a firm believer in The Almighty, but could not bring himself to believe the myths and beliefs that others carried within their hearts and minds at all times."

If not, it should be reworded or quoation marks added. Otherwise; it doesn't necessarily sound POV to me, just unnatural perhaps. As to if he renounced Atheism, I must admit I skimmed through it (until I have time to read it carefully), but at the end of Why I am an Atheist? he did say:

'"Let us see how I carry on: one friend asked me to pray. When informed of my atheism, he said, "During your last days you will begin to believe." I said, No, dear Sir, it shall not be. I will think that to be an act of degradation and demoralization on my part."'

Okay, so that certainly doesn't prove whether or not he recanted on his death bed, but it gleans something of his resolve and conviction. Khirad^talk 10:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

New NPOV dispute: Could Gandhi have saved Bhagat Singh?

User:209.161.221.159 edited this page to add a stingingly POV section about Gandhi intentionally allowing Bhagat Singh to die (or even ADVOCATING Singh's execution) so that he would have absolute control over the independence movement. User:Sageonline then deleted that and, while calling it a minor edit, reversed this position altogether and argued that Gandhi was in no position to have saved Bhagat Singh.

Regardless of who is right, this argument is very POV. I don't want to get into an edit war over whether Gandhi could have or couldn't have saved Bhagat Singh. Gandhi supporters tend to say that he couldn't and anti-Gandhi people tend to say he could have. For the purposes of Wikipedia, can you folks just agree to disagree and write a NEUTRAL discussion of the controversy? It's perfectly fair (in fact, I say it is necessary) for the article to discuss this controversy, BUT IT MUST NOT TAKE SIDES.

I would make the changes myself but I'm missing some of the necessary facts. I'm not sure, for example, at which point exactly Bhagat Singh was sentenced to death (see above). Could some NEUTRAL party please make the necessary corrections and make sure to keep them FACTUALLY ACCURATE? (I know that Bhagat Singh was a revolutionary and this a controversial figure but let's please avoid propaganda here!) --Hnsampat 05:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm removing the contentious statements from the article:

while in secret British judges and army commanders were planning to hang Bhagat Singh, with the help of Mahathma Gandhi. Away from media and the people, Gandhi signed a form that when signed Bhagat Singh would be hung. During that moment of time the people of India were turning to Bhagat Singh and away from Gandhi. If Bhagat was to be hung Gandhi thought that the people would turn to him and he would be able to take credit for "freeing" India.

If these accusations can be written up in an NPOV way to the satisfaction of all parties then it can go back into the article. Arvindn 19:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I am going to write a new section entitled "Bhagat Singh and Mohandas Gandhi" describing the difference of opinion between Singh and Gandhi and the continuing conflict today among their respective supporters. The contrast between Singh and Gandhi was, in many ways, like the contrast between Malcolm X and Martin Luther King in the US civil rights movement.

Singh's supporters and Gandhi's opponents often accuse Gandhi of "killing" Bhagat Singh. Sometimes, the accusation is that Gandhi just stood by and did nothing while Singh was sentenced to death. Others say that Gandhi secretly advocated Singh's execution. I'll go ahead and write in that section that people accuse Gandhi of this, but I have yet to see any credible evidence that supports this. (And please don't tell me "Oh you are ignorant of Indian history!" or "You're just saying that because you're a Gandhi supporter!" or "Come on, EVERYBODY knows that!" I want to see CREDIBLE EVIDENCE. If you believe that Gandhi really did do all that, by all means educate me. But give me good sources. Bal Thackeray is not a good source.)

Gurmukhi?

Hopefully a somewhat less controversial topic is why his name isn't in Gurmukhi: ਭਗਤ ਸਿੰਘ (I'm only sure 100% sure on Singh even after looking up bhagat on punjabidictionary.com)? Khirad^talk 11:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right. It should be. Could you go ahead and do that? (I'm not familiar with Gurmukhi, I'm afraid.)--Hnsampat 05:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Bhagat Singh and Mohandas Gandhi

User:203.214.40.181 added the following sentence to the end of the first paragraph in the Bhagat Singh and Mohandas Gandhi section:

There is also debate on whether independence could have come faster through Singh's policies or Congress adaptation to include these ideologies and methods.

I reworded it to make it a little less awkward. My version is this:

Some also wonder if independence could have come faster if the Indian National Congress had adopted Singh's methods in addition to Gandhi's.

Is this what was meant by the original sentence? If you'd like to reword my version, please discuss here.

Bhagat Singh was Never a Sikh

There is no source presented that has proved Bhagat Singh being a Sikh, however there are many sources which have claimed Bhagat Singh's atheism to the end of his life. Although notably religious a conversion may have been, it undermines Bhagat Singh's contribution to Indian Marxism if he changed to a Sikh again. Bhagat Singh became Atheist even before he cut of his beard and stopped wearing a turban. Karl Marx himself advocated atheism and Bhagat Singh was a follower of Marx.

It is incorrect to say that Bhagat Singh was never a Sikh. He was born and raised a Sikh. In his later years, though, he abandoned Sikhism and became an atheist. --Hnsampat 21:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

Given the controversial nature of the topic, I think this is a pretty well-balanced article. Just a couple of points:

By killing the wrong man, whatever his motives, Bhagat Singh became a common murderer, as far as the British were concerned, and would probably have faced the death penalty under most of the legal regimes of the period, colonial or otherwise. He forfeited his status as a political prisoner as a result

I really think that the suggestions that Gandhi connived at his death are pure fantasy. When they discovered the earlier murder the British had actually been handed a perfect excuse for hanging Singh after he had seriously embarrassed them by letting off a bomb in the Lok Sabha which failed to kill anybody. They were unlikely to let that slip. Even if you believe that Gandhi, one of the most selfless political figures of the twentieth century, could have sunk that low, Bhagat Singh was not sufficiently influential to pose any kind of a threat to him. Gandhi wielded moral authority - by the 1930s he had no official role in Congress and frequently disagreed with Nehru, let alone Jinnah. Yet he never attempted to use the British against them - quite the reverse in fact. He launched the Quit India movement in 1942 instead, when most of the Congress leadership thought it would be overly provocative. Sikandarji 00:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this reaction is the result of the movies. Particularly The Legend of Bhagat Singh. Nobleeagle (Talk) 04:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at this

The Gandhi-Irwin talks were on and political observers were confident that a word from Gandhi will certainly commute hanging to life imprisonment.Mahatma Gandhi spoke for everyone and every issue but did not utter a single word to bargain for Bhagat Singh's life. Hence his statement after the hanging of martyr Bhagat Singh, "the Congress made many attempts to save the lives of Bhagat Singh and his two associates", is not a substantiated fact.[..]Historian Dr Rajiv Lochan whose major research work revolves around Mahatma Gandhi puts this whole historical perspective in the following observations:"From all events and records available it is quite obvious that Gandhiji perceived both Subhas Chander Bose and Bhagat Singh as potential threats to his own highly acclaimed position".--Sahodaran 07:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That link merely goes to a web page with someone's opinion on it. I don't see how it's any kind of reputable source. In fact, it gets some of its basic facts wrong. (For example, it says that Saunders beat Lala Lajpat Rai to death. It wasn't Saunders; it was Scott. Bhagat Singh and his associates killed Saunders because they thought he was Scott.) --Hnsampat 12:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the 'information' on the web page that links to is worthless - just somebody else's unsubstantiated point of view. Somebody with no understanding of the use of the definite article or of spelling, by the looks of it, not to mention the basic facts of the case. Sikandarji 17:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Its an article that appeared in the Tribune;I have no idea about the author's credentials.I am familiar with this arguement;that Gandhi could have got Bhagat Singh out,the Gandhi-Irvin pact etc,but this was the sole online resource a quick googling could provide. --Sahodaran 17:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Irwin was enormously impressed by Gandhi when they met, but there is no way the Mahatma could have had enough influence on him to prevent Singh's execution: he never at any stage made appeals to the colonial authorities in this way, but instead preached non-cooperation from without. And whatever Irwin might have thought about the case (for which I haven't seen any evidence) the officers of the police force would have strongly resisted any political attempt to commute Singh's sentence, as he had killed one of their own. Maintaining the morale of the police would have been more important to the British than any appeal Gandhi could notionally have made. Sikandarji 08:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverting anonymous users

User:24.16.121.213 made two very POV edits, one in which he raised that long-dead notion that Gandhi could have stopped Bhagat Singh's execution but was unwilling to do so. After that, User:202.61.56.97 and User:202.61.56.98 (who may be the same person) made several edits, inserting "Pakistan" in wherever there was "Punjab" and adding Bhagat Singh to the "History of Pakistan" category. Pakistan did not come into existence until more than 15 years after Singh's death and so none of these edits are appropriate. None of the other Indian freedom fighters are listed under History of Pakistan, so no reason that Bhagat Singh should be. I have reverted all of these changes. (There is one that I'm going to go back and add now, and that is that Singh was executed in Lahore. That's important.) --Hnsampat 13:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

THERE WAS NO INDIA EITHER!24.90.163.84

Sure there was. That's what the country where Bhagat Singh was born was called. The term "India" applies not only to today's Republic of India but also to British India, Mughal India, and ancient India. It's an all-encompassing term for South Asia, just as "Russia" refers collectively to the Russian Republic, the Soviet Union, and Czarist Russia (even though they were of different sizes and eras). But, to clarify, I've changed it to "British India". I think we can all agree that at least that much is true. --Hnsampat 10:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The Cutting of his Beard and not wearing the Turban

Bhagat Singh only shaved his beared and cut his hair becasue he did not want to be caught by the police. i think this should be added to the article becasue he only disguised himself so he would not be caught.

The article does say that: "He shaved his beard and cut his hair to avoid recognition, a violation of one of the sacred tenets of Sikhism." --Hnsampat 13:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

EXACTLY.

Jalandhar vs. Lyallpur

Over the past few months, people have been changing Bhagat Singh's birthplace from Jalandhar to Lyallpur back to Jalandhar and back to Lyallpur. Could somebody please find an authoritative source and decide once and for all where he was born? If you do find an authoritative source (and when I say "authoritative," I mean something genuine and unbiased), please make the appropriate changes and please CITE YOUR SOURCE. Until then, I'm going to have to revert any further Jalandhar<-->Lyallpur changes.

By the way, I suspect that this disagreement may have something to do with the fact that Jalandhar is in "Indian" Punjab whereas Lyallpur (known today as Faisalabad) is in what is now "Pakistani" Punjab (and was originally named after a British man, Charles Lyall).

--Hnsampat 12:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about any authoritative source but the movie: The Legend of Bhagat Singh definitely says Lyallpur, which I believe to be the correct birthplace. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Banga is (was) in Lyallpur district. The confusion is probably caused by the fact that his Grandfather had migrated to the canal colonies in Lyallpur District from Jullundur like so many other Sikhs, so that may have been where his family was from. I'll look for a citation. Sikandarji 05:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Kudos to Nobeleeagle for finding three distinct sources that state that Bhagat Singh was born in Lyallpur, thus bringing an end to this matter. --Hnsampat 13:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Edits by 130.64.80.137

User:130.64.80.137 recently made two edits to the Bhagat Singh and Mahatma Gandhi section that I reverted. I thought I'd explain here why.

First, he/she deleted the word "militant" from the first paragraph of that section (i.e. "Bhagat Singh's militant methods contrasted with the pacifist methods of Mahatma Gandhi.") I can only guess as to that user's motivations in deleting those words, but they belong there to maintain the parallel structure. The article contrasts Singh's methods with Gandhi's methods and so we need adjectives describing what makes those methods different. The difference is that Singh advocated violence whereas Gandhi did not. The American Heritage Dictionary defines "militant" as "fighting or warring" and "pacifist" as "opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes." Hence, Singh's methods were "militant" and Gandhi's were "pacifist." These words need to stay there to show the contrast.

Also, this user has twice deleted the entire last paragraph of that section. That paragraph needs to stay there because it presents Gandhi's point of view on the matter. If a small minority of Singh's supporters can accuse Gandhi of something as drastic as orchestrating Singh's execution, then it's only fair that Gandhi's response to those charges be presented. It's a matter of maintaining the neutral point of view.

In an earlier edit, which I reverted, this user changed the number of people who believe Gandhi orchestrated Singh's execution from "a small but vocal minority of Singh's supporters" to "some of Singh's supporters." I reverted it to maintain perspective. There aren't a whole lot of people who believe that Gandhi had any hand in Singh's execution, but those people make themselves known very loudly. Hence, they are "a small but vocal minority." To say that "some of Singh's supporters" believe that is to say something that is technically true, but misleading. The word "some" implies a much larger number than there actually are. Hence, "small but vocal minority." --Hnsampat 20:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with fighting oppression with like means. It's usually middle-class types, far removed from the "tender mercies" of state practice, who object so much to revolutionary self-defence. Call that "violence" if you want -- just note that it's the state which does most all of it. It's hypocritical to try and censor these concepts because it's 'not nice' in someone's insular eyes.

Pazouzou 08:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No one's "censoring" anything, even though as violent revolutionaries go Bhagat Singh was a pretty incompetent one, given that he managed to shoot the wrong man. Hnsampat was simply pointing out that very few people believe that Gandhi had anything to do with Singh's execution, which was pretty much inevitable under the penal regime of the period. Singh's violent (and in my view futile) exploits are all dealt with in detail. Conspiracy theories espoused by a "small but vocal minority" who appear to think that Gandhi and his legacy are an affront to Indian masculinity need to be flagged up as such. Sikandarji 08:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Bhagat Singh in the Cinema

There's a marxist review of Rang De Basanti at the World Socialist Web Site.

Edit by Ranam re Gandhi

User:Ranam recently added the following to the "Bhagat Singh and Mahatma Gandhi" section: "Certainly, Gandhi's opinion at the time of Singh's execution bordered between justification of the Raj's actions to what may be desrcibed [sic] as mild chiding at the best and Quislingist compliance at the worst." This edit violates NPOV, both directly and through the use of weasel words. Essentially, it says that Gandhi either sort of supported Singh's execution or totally supported it, without allowing any room for the possibility that Gandhi actually opposed the execution. (Gandhi himself always said that he opposed Singh's execution, even though he disapproved of Singh's violent methods.) The edit cleverly uses the term "Quislingist compliance" to describe Gandhi's actions. "Quislingist" is not an often-used term, but it's a reference to a Norweigan fascist named Quisling and is a synonym for "traitor." In clear violation of NPOV, this edit says definitively that Gandhi supported Singh's execution and/or was an out-and-out traitor.

What I find particularly odd about this edit is that it backs up its claim with a quote from Gandhi that directly contradicts it. As a footnote, the edit uses the following from the Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi: "The government certainly had the right to hang these men. However, there are some rights which do credit to those who possess them only if they are enjoyed in name only." In other words, Gandhi says that the British government had the right to hang Bhagat Singh, but that they shouldn't exercise that right just because they have it. In other words, this quote supports the notion that Gandhi opposed the idea of executing Bhagat Singh.

Hence, I reverted the edits by User:Ranam as a violation of NPOV. --Hnsampat 20:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply to edit by Ranam re Gandhi

I certainly did add the reference, but as you would see from the reference, he does not oppose Singh's execution. And I have said it may be described it as "mild chiding" of the govt's actions "at the best". For he does say that Singh's execution was undeserved, and his words are an "urge of restraint" on the govt rather than criticism of it's actions. Re: NPOV you say Gandhi always opposed Singh's execution, but you do not provide any references. my edit does not say Ganshi was a traitor, it does say he supported Singh's execution and also indicates that he held scant regard for any other philosophy but his own.

While I disagree with you, I thank you for acting in good faith. I have edited your edit to make it further NPOV. The key to NPOV is that the article not assert one point of view over the other. So, if there's controversy over the meaning of a quotation (as there was between you and me), the article must simply say that a controversy exists and give both sides' evidence, without asserting which one is correct.

If the evidence strongly favors one side over the other, then the article should present that evidence, but still without asserting which is correct. For example, the evidence for Earth being round overwhelms the evidence for a flat Earth. So, in the article about Earth, it is okay for the evidence in the article to disproportionately favor a round Earth (i.e. "The evidence for a round Earth is A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H whereas supporters of a flat-earth theory back that up with J."). NPOV doesn't require every issue to become a "he said, she said" issue (i.e. we don't have to say "Some people say the Earth is round, while others say it is flat..."). However, at no point can the article say, "This means the Earth is round." That would be a conclusion and NPOV dictates that the article is not allowed to draw conclusions.

Same thing here. I noted, when I wrote the paragraph about Gandhi, that Gandhi claims to have opposed Singh's execution. I didn't say for a fact that he actually opposed it. However, I think it is fair to say that, even if Gandhi did support Singh's execution, he never did so openly.

My issue with your edit was that it drew conclusions (i.e. it definitively said that Gandhi supported Singh's execution and said that the quote either indicated a "mild chiding" or "Quislingist compliance," without leaving room for any other possible conclusion). I apologize for not being clearer about that.

Anyway, I've edited it to make it as NPOV as possible, drawing no conclusions but offering the evidence. I think what we have now is neutral and balanced. Thank you, once again, for acting in good faith and for your efforts to make this section as neutral as possible. --Hnsampat 16:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There is evidence for Gandhi's apparent political ill-treatment of the HSRA. Shaheed Sukhdev wrote to Gandhi in a letter detailing how Gandhi was tolerant towards the British yet intolerant towards Indian revolutionaries who were dying for their nation. I think that with proper sourcing that view on Gandhi's views deserves a spot on this article. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sikh Categories

Bhagat Singh was a Sikh by birth but changed himself to Atheism in his teenage years. Thus the only time he was religious was in his early childhood. Should we really keep the Sikh and Sikh Martyrs category there? I'm open to other views. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say that we should keep both categories, as Sikhs tend to be thought of as something of an ethnic group in India, regardless of whether they are actively religious or not. Being born Sikh seems to be part of one's identity, even if one isn't religious. But, I'm open to other views, too.

On a side note, the category "Sikh Martyrs" should be renamed to "Sikh martyrs" in accordance with Wikipedia's naming policies (i.e. only the first word is capitalized). I don't know how to go about doing that, though. --Hnsampat 13:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

He is a freedom fighter, any one fighting a colonial rulers who conquer countries for get resources is a freedom fighter no doubt, Britishers were in India to fill there pockets, not to help Indians. Indians where considered as slaves. yah if the Britishers were ruling the India just like they were ruling them self's then we could say Bhagat Sing was a revolutionary. don't elevate colonial Britishers by saying Bhagat Sing is revolutionary. not just Indians where fighting colonial Britishers, Americans Africans almost every one who were ruled my colonial Britishers were fighting them for freedom. And i don't think any present Britisher would get offended if we say he is a freedom fighter, as he was fighting for freedom from then colonial rulers. and lastly what else will he be called when he is fighting in a freedom struggle

Good Article Nomination

Hi, I'm the user reviewing this article for its Good Article nomination, and I think that the version certainly qualifies and I have made the necessary changes. It is largely well-written, very well-referenced and maintains strict NPOV and so deserves to be passed. However, there is still room for improvement in this article and I'll lay out where so that the good work can be continued.

• The article needs a copyedit. It is comprehensible and well-written in most places and good enough to be a good article, but there are occasionally unusual grammar constructions and one or two weasel words, especially in the second paragraph of the lead and in the section on Lala Rajput Rai. I suggest the article be submitted to the League of Copyeditors or looked at by several editors with English as a first language to smooth out the bumps.
• Congratulations on a very well-referenced article. There are only a handful of comments which might need citations, such as when he cut his beard, the claim that he hoped his death would unite the youth of India and especially Gandhi's quote about capital punishment.
• Expansion is needed in the sections about the effects of his death on the Indian Independence Movement, why he shot the wrong man and how the police found out about his involvement in the shooting. The modern day legacy section should be moulded into a paragraph rather than the semi-list state it now is in.
• There are several short sections following the death of Lala Rajput Rai which need to be contracted together. I suggest the LLR's death is changed into a lesser title (with the three equals signs), and then Hunger Strike, Trial for the Saunders murder and execution likewise. the trial and execution sections are quite short, perhaps they could be moved into one section together with the title Murder trial and execution or similar.
• Coverage in this article is very broad and seems to cover all aspects of his life unless there are any totally omitted, and given the controversy surrounding it, if there was, it would have been brought up here at some stage, so no problems there.
• The edit wars have calmed down, and thus aren't a barrier to this article's elevation. However, if they start again, it will have to be reviewed.
• Huge thumbs up for avoiding the POV which most Indian independence articles are riven with. As a British person it gets very tiresome to see endless articles describing British rule in India as nothing more than an evil, malicious dictatorship without any hint of balance or attempt at NPOV coverage. This has been very well handled here and paints a scrupulously neutral point of view, handling controversial issues with fairness and well-referenced statements showing each side of the argument. Congratulations.
• Three pictures is just about enough for an article this size, and if more can be found then they would make the piece look much better. That said, the three present are nicely arranged and in the public domain.

Thanks and good job, it was an interesting and informative read, nicely written and very well referenced. Keep up the good work.--Jackyd101 17:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you for your comments and review. :) Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 23:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Mention of CPI(M)

The mention of Singh being projected as a martyr by CPI(M) is a bit odd. All Indian left groups (as well as Pakistani communists) see Singh as a martyr. --Soman 19:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say that Singh is called a "martyr" by the CPI(M). It says that, according to the CPI(M), Singh was one of the earliest Marxists in India. The source that is referenced there is something written by the CPI(M). --Hnsampat 21:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

My bad, I read the passage to quick. However, the problem sort of remains. To my knowledge, there is no difference in the analysis on Singh by the major communist currents in India. The viewpoint expressed in the CPI(M) article is shared by other groups as well. Wouldn't it be better with a more general formulation on the role of Singh in the discourse of the Indian communist movement? --Soman 21:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"Devotee Lion" and the etymology of "shaheed"

The literal translation of Bhagat Singh's name as "Devotee Lion" is an irrelevant piece of information. While some people change their names to reflect their causes, Bhagat Singh's name is simply his birth name. I mean, would we translate Lance Armstrong's name to mean "Stick-With-Knife-On-The-End Well-Built-Biceps"? Of course not! Even in the case of Chandrashekhar Azad, who actually changed his last name from "Tiwari" to "Azad" (meaning "freedom"), we wouldn't translate his entire name to "One-With-the-Moon-On-His-Head Freedom". Rather, we'd simply point out that he changed his last name to a word that means "freedom." In the case of Bhagat Singh, he was called "Singh" because that's what all Sikhs call themselves, and he calls himself "Bhagat" because that was the name given to him. Nothing more than that. It's not like his name is supposed to mean that he is an actual "devotee lion" (i.e. religious and with lion-like qualities) just as Lance Armstrong's name isn't meant to suggest that he has lance-like qualities nor is it supposed to suggest that he is inherently strong. It's just his name, nothing more.

Furthermore, the little tidbit about "shaheed" coming from Arabic is an unnecessary sidenote. It detracts from the main point of that sentence, which is that Bhagat Singh is considered a martyr. I mean, think about it it, this is what the sentence is basically saying: "Bhagat Singh is considered a martyr or 'shaheed' -- and BY THE WAY, the word 'shaheed' came into Indian languages from Arabic." It's a factoid that, while interesting, interrupts the flow of that sentence and ought not be there. --Hnsampat 22:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

ok yo ima reply. Your first example of Lance Armstrong is wrong and unfair. It isn't a translation - we already have 'Lance Armstrong'. Rather it's an exaggeration and absurdificaton (lol) using other words of the same language, to prove a point. Second, if Chandrashekhar Azad means "One-With-the-Moon-On-His-Head Freedom", then what's wrong with noting that? If foreign names have meanings, have translations, then they should be told.

But I was probably wrong to place "Devotee Lion" where I did. You in a way right when you said "he was called "Singh" because that's what all Sikhs call themselves, and he calls himself "Bhagat" because that was the name given to him. Nothing more than that. It's not like his name is supposed to mean that he is an actual "devotee lion" (i.e. religious and with lion-like qualities) just as Lance Armstrong's name isn't meant to suggest that he has lance-like qualities nor is it supposed to suggest that he is inherently strong." While his name does mean "Devotee Lion", my putting of "Devotee Lion" where I did made the point that literally "Devotee Lion" is salient on every utterance of "Bhagat Singh", which along the lines of what you said, is definitely not the case.

So, what I'm saying is that you shouldn't be against giving a translation altogether, rather, perhaps against the way I did. I will make an edit, which I hope will reconcile. I will not bother with saying "shaheed is from arabic". Tuncrypt 01:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Point well taken. I still somewhat disagree as to the need for a translation, but there's no harm in having that information in the article, especially where you've put it now. It did not belong where it was before (i.e. right next to his name in the lead of the article), but the current placement is appropriate. Kudos. --Hnsampat 01:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Rajiv Lochan

I deleted the statement by Rajiv Lochan in the "Mohandas Gandhi" section and I thought I'd explain here why I did that.

This statement from Lochan is not from any primary source by Lochan himself but rather is from an op-ed (by definition, an opinion piece) from the Tribune India (minor correction, Nobleeagle; it was the Tribune India not the Times of India that had this op-ed). If this statement were being cited directly by either of these newspapers, it would be much more reliable, considering that pre-eminent newspapers tend to have more rigorous standards for verifiability. An op-ed, however, does not have to meet those same rigorous standards and this is less reliable than an article from the newspaper.

This particular op-ed is rather strongly opinionated and argues aggressively in opposition of Gandhi. It directly accuses Gandhi and the Congress of lying by asserting that their statements are "not substantiated by fact." Already, the author's use of Lochan's statement is suspect, as strongly opinionated bits of writing often (intentionally or unintentionally) misquote scholars.

Furthermore, I can't find any evidence that Rajiv Lochan is any kind of reputable scholar. I did a Google search of Lochan and all I could find was this op-ed and a letter to the editor in response to this op-ed, a letter whose author asserts that Lochan is not a reliable scholar.

The bottom line is that there is no reliable source indicating that Rajiv Lochan is any kind of scholar and thus any statement by him (presuming that he was accurately quoted) is questionable. Hence, I deleted the statement by him from the section. --Hnsampat 03:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 03:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Mention of Jatin Das

Jatin das was a fellow prisoner of Bhagat singh in Lahore jail, J Das died in the hunger strike which created a furore in the country. I personally believe that a passing mention of Das in the article will make it more rounded. LegalEagle 02:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source to confirm this and as long as it is directly relevant to Singh's life, by all means go ahead (although keep in mind that this article is supposed to be a biography of Singh and not a summary of the independence movement). --Hnsampat 02:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Kakori train robbery considered an act of terrorism

The criticism section says that Kakori train robbery is considered an act of terrorism in the independence movement. I think this is not correct and even the article about the robbery itself says nothing like this. 128.2.179.241 23:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)abhaga