Talk:Article 370 (film)

Bibliography

• Raghavan, Srinath (2010), War and Peace in Modern India, Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 978-1-137-00737-7
• Dasgupta, C. (2014) [first published 2002], War and Diplomacy in Kashmir, 1947-48, SAGE Publications, ISBN 978-81-321-1795-7
• Mahajan, Mehr Chand (1963), Looking Back: The Autobiography of Mehr Chand Mahajan, Former Chief Justice of India, Asia Publishing House
• Jha, Prem Shankar (1996), Kashmir, 1947: Rival Versions of History, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-563766-3 – via archive.org
  • Jha, Prem Shankar (March 1998), "Response (to the reviews of Kashmir 1947: Rival Versions of History)", Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 36 (1): 113–123, doi:10.1080/14662049808447762
• Jha, Prem Shankar (2003), The Origins of a Dispute: Kashmir 1947, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-566486-7
• Rizvi, Gowher (1992), "India, Pakistan and the Kashmir Problem", in Raju G. C. Thomas (ed.), Perspectives on Kashmir: the roots of conflict in South Asia, Westview Press, pp. 47–79, ISBN 978-0-8133-8343-9 – via archive.org

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2024

Request to edit is being submitted in order to substantiate on the characters portrayed in the film and their real-life counterparts. As it has been mentioned in the film's disclaimer, the film does not want to bear resemblance to any living person. However, to make it easier for people who did not comprehend the movie, to understand it, the edits need to be made. Xyznwa (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jamedeus (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Movie criticism is highlighted in the description - with polical overtones.

the comment about movie being in favor of the ruling party needs to be moved to reviews section. This is nothing but narrative mounding. Wikipedia is better than this. Please update it 73.189.128.83 (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Sourced content removal

Capitals00, I had added some text which I copied from the source with this edit but you have removed it. Please explain why you did so.-Haani40 (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

You have also removed the text, "..... and the storyline," with this edit.-Haani40 (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

This (reference no. 14) does say, "for telling a factual story but in a very textbook like way". That source, by the way, was there already; I did not add it.-Haani40 (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I removed the source which clearly doesn't support the content. In fact, I don't find the other two sources supporting either. Somebody seems to have jumped the gun. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I suggest we remove these pithy made-up summaries, and write a proper section in the body summarising the reviews. I am sure more reviews will be coming through. By the way, movie reviewers are not authorities on the "facts" so that they can claim that the "facts" have been distorted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: So if the text,

.....but criticised the film for its distortion of facts and promotion of the agenda of the ruling government of the Bharatiya Janata Party

is not mentioned in the references cited for it (reference nos. 13&14), you must remove it (that text) - it is not a neutral statement.-Haani40 (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I did some fixing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Indian express said the film "serves its politics unabashedly as it mixes facts with fiction". [1] Koimoi also noted that the movie promotes propaganda. I did little modification to reflect that. Capitals00 (talk) 02:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Yawn. Feature films always mix fact with faction. That doesn't amount to "distortion". But I also don't regard the reviewer's idea of "fact" as being reliable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Let us take this line, for example:

Mixing facts with fiction, and some convenient untruths, dipping into the right-wing narrative of Jawaharlal Nehru’s “blunders” in Kashmir and Maharaja Hari Singh’s “inclination” towards India,

I know plenty of experts who admit Nehru's "blunders" in Kashmir. Probably 90% of Indians would agree that taking Kashmir to the UN was a blunder. Even Nehru himself might have agreed with it.

As for Mahara's inclination, here is Srinath Raghavan:

Pakistan's assessment that the maharaja would accede to India was correct.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

No it is a false Hindutva claim and ironically the cabinet discussion involved their own Hindutva icon Syama Prasad Mukherjee as per his own admission before the matter was referred to the UN. There was no blunder.

Let me know if those make-believe experts you are thinking of, if they cite all these details or they have blindly bought the fringe Hindutva claim just like that Ambedkar opposed 370, and more similarly false claims that we see across the literature of such experts. Capitals00 (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Capitals00 and Kautilya3: Is there a bias against Hindutva/Hinduism and the BJP on wikipedia?-Haani40 (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

No there is not. You can let me know if you ever find it. Capitals00 (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Here is at least one comment on India's referral to the UN. I can dig up tons, but they are not the main point here.

India had clearly misjudged the politics of the U.N.and came under intense criticism for its obduracy. The delegtates of Syria, the U.S., Britain and Colombia poured scorn on India.

Nehru was the External Affairs minister, in addition to being the Prime Minister. The responsibility for failed foreign policy rests on his shoulders. I am not privy to what happened in the Cabinet meetings, but it is known that Patel was opposed to taking it to the UN.

I am not sure why you are pouring scorn on "Hindutva" here. There is nothing in Wikipedia policies that says that any Hindutva view is supposed to be automatically dismissed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

And, here is Noel-Baker himself:

Nevertheless, it was a "dangerous political miscalculation" on India's part to hope that the Security Council would condemn Pakistan as the aggressor and authorise India to send her troops into Pakistan.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

These points certainly don't have strong basis and has been contradicted by other reliable sources.

India did not bring the issue under Chapter 7 of the Charter because in Indian view nothing could have been gained by exacerbating the issue by asking the UN to condemn Pakistan as an aggressor. The main interest of India was to seek the withdrawal of invaders from Kashmir as soon as possible. [...] On 13 August 1948, the Security Council passed a three-part resolution which called for a ceasefire and asked Pakistan, as aggressor, to withdraw all its forces from those parts of Kashmir which they had occupied while accepting that India could retain part of her troops in Kashmir.

Patel was not opposed to taking Kashmir to the UN. This is yet another false claim circulated in Hindutva discourses contrary to Patel's own statement that expressed his hopelessness over Kashmir war as early as June 1948 that, "our military resources are strained to the uttermost. How long we are to carry on this unfortunate affair, it is difficult to foresee".

Then and now, it is has been frequently noted that UN resolution helped India.

A natural explanation is that Pakistan feared an attack by India and was not willing to accept the UN resolution which gave India the sole right to maintain troops in Kashmir. Pakistan therefore created a puppet army which could remain in Kashmir after Pakistani regulars had withdrawn.

That's why taking to UN was not a blunder and anybody saying it otherwise is only sharing their own view that has no consensus.

Now coming backing to this movie, this is not about the India-Pakistan war of 1948 but Article 370. Hindutva proponents do claim that it was a "blunder" but they offer no evidence for it just like they never highlight that their own Hindutva icon Syama Prasad Mukherjee had also supported 370 at the time when it was being discussed. As such, you need to avoid disputing the fact that this movie is distorting the history. Capitals00 (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

This is not a debate on Kashmir. The issue here is that a movie producer has taken a position that many other reasonable people, including historians and diplomats take. Is a two-bit movie reviewer in a newspaper supposed to be an authority to sit in judgement and brand it as "fiction"? And are we supposed to accept his/her authority and put it in the lead? That is not the kind of Wikipedia we are supposed to be writing. Complex issues may have many views and many interpretations. Nobody has a final say on it and the right to shout down all the others. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

From what I can observe, Capitals00 has a bias against Hindutva/Hinduism and the BJP and is trying to, "shout down" others. I see multiple warning on his talk page for trying to have "his" way in other articles as well!-Haani40 (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

See WP:TPNO. This talk page is only used for discussing improvements to the article, not conduct of any user. Capitals00 (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

If you are having problem with this single source then we have more.

• While Modi and right-wing supporters of his ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have endorsed the film, critics, especially those from Kashmir, have called it “propaganda” and a “distortion” of historical facts.
• "movie is nothing short of thriller disguised as propaganda, fiction mixed with reality, provides a biased take on a complex issue, lays ground for 2024 general elections..."
• "When you look at it from the perspectives of balance and accuracy, it disappoints. Arguments to preserve the article are given no attention."
• "The word ‘stone-pelter’ is frequently thrown around and accusations of them being ‘paid’ come soon after. But this is, after all, a fictional film as the disclaimer tells you. That is probably why a journalist can fearlessly question the ruling party without any fear of repercussions (India ranked 161 of 180 in 2023 in the Press Freedom Index)."

That's why, noting on the lead that the movie mixes reality with fiction or it distorts history is not any exceptional claim but an accurate statement. Capitals00 (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Right. I notice that you have backtracked from "distortion of facts" to "mixing facts with fiction" (whatever that is supposed to mean). Make a section in the body on Factual accuracy and let us see what you can produce. Avoid claims like X said so and Y said so. Most of these Xs and Ys don't know their head from their tail. And notice that the Sabrang reviewrs actually said, this movie stays clear of overtly false facts or hate speech.."False facts" is an interesting language. Nevertheless, we get what they mean. So, let us see what you can come up with. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Read again, I haven't backtracked from "distortion of facts" to "mixing facts with fiction" but suggested either of the two. Now given the above sources, I would be more fine with "distortion of facts" because we have now The Guardian, Al-Jazeera and more high-quality sources to confirm this movie is indeed nothing more than a Hindutva propaganda just like that another propaganda movie The Kashmir Files. You can read the section at Article 370 (film)#Factual accuracy and political messaging. Capitals00 (talk) 06:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

"Distortion of facts" can only be used only when something widely known to be a fact has been misrepresented. When there are multiple views in the literature, if the movie picks one view that a reviwer doesn't like, that can't be called a "distortion". At best, it is a disagreement. That would be so even if Sumantra Bose and Mridu Rai were to come and express their views. There are facts in the public domain. They can have their views, and others can have theirs. For example, on the issue of the Maharaja wanting to accede and Nehru blocking it, here is what Mahajan says, around 19 September:

I also met Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the Prime Minister of India, and I told him the terms on which the Maharaja wanted me to negotiate with India. The Maharaja was willing to accede to India and also to introduce necessary reforms in the administration of of the State. He, however, wanted the question of administrative reforms to be taken up later on. Panditji wanted an immediate change in the internal administration of the State and he felt somewhat annoyed when I conveyed to him the Maharaja's views. Pandit Nehru also asked me to see that Sheikh Abdulla was set free.

This amply validates the movie's view. Whether somebody agrees with it or not is a different matter. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

That is precisely a nonsensical view of yours. This movie is an outright propaganda piece only created for political benefit of the BJP. Why that is so hard for you to understand? It is also ironic that you see WP:HISTRS but all you have got is this primary source by which was written 16 years after the accession was already done, and not a single secondary source has used this account so far.[:::That is precisely a nonsensical view of yours. This movie is an outright propaganda piece only created for political benefit of the BJP. Why it is so hard for you to understand? It is also ironic that you see WP:HISTRS but all you have got is this primary source by which was written 16 years after the accession was already done, and not a single secondary source has used this account so far. See WP:OR because your own analysis cannot be used for disputing what the sources say. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

References