Talk:Bhagat Singh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Bhagat Singh was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Kooner[edit]

Although we do not use Kooner for the wildest of his claims (that Singh was shot), he is cited. Bearing in mind this review, should we really bother? He seems to be a nobody, he seems to have constructed his book in part from notes allegedly taken from talks with his gardener godfather and in part from memory of those talks. His co-author is a "homeopathic doctor". I don't think we should consider this to be remotely reliable. - Sitush (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Obviously not a RS.
More broadly, when I was researching the issue of Singh religious beliefs above, I had come across several sources pointing out that most of the biographical literature on Bhagat Singh is of poor quality and/or hagiographical (and even a brief perusal of google books makes that quite obvious). Among the exceptions mentioned were the books by Noorani and Irfan Habib currently listed only in the Further reading section. This book may also have some useful material or pointers to better sources. Happy editing! Abecedare (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, yes. There is a lot of rubbish out there and a fair amount of it has been cited. We'll get there in the end. - Sitush (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Delhi Conspiracy Commission[edit]

Where does Delhi Conspiracy Commission fit into all this? There aren't many refs for it (in the article or via Google, Questia, JSTOR, Project Muse etc) but it looks to be the trial relating to the Lahore Conspiracy. Snag is, we have one source in this article that says 24 people were tried and another that says 28. I can't see the second of those sources & so do not know if perhaps we have made a typo. - Sitush (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This suggests that the DCC was indeed the second trial. - Sitush (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
This is getting worse. The Neeti Nair source lists the following outcomes for the 1931 case:
  1. Bhagat Singh - death
  2. Rajguru
  3. Sukhdev
  4. Kishilal - transportation for life
  5. Mahavir Singh
  6. Bijoy Kumar Sinha
  7. Shiv Varma
  8. Gaya Prasad
  9. Jaidev
  10. Kamal Nath Tewari
  11. Kundanlal - 7 years' rigorous imprisonment
  12. Prem Dutt - 5 years' rigorous imprisonment
  13. Ajoy Kumar Ghosh - acquitted
  14. Jatinder Nath Sanyal
  15. Desraj
  16. Ramsarandas (approver who changed statement) - to be prosecuted under a different section
  17. Brahmadutt (approver who changed statement) - to be prosecuted under a different section
  18. Five other approvers - discharged

So, 22 names. I guess that B. K. Dutt adds another, although I'm surprised to read what our article says about him (ie: that nothing was done because he had already been sentence to transportation for life in the earlier case - that doesn't mean judgement would not be passed, merely that if the sentence imposed was the same and impossible to run consecutively then it is effectively redundant even though "placed on the record"). - Sitush (talk) 07:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah. I wonder if the 24th person would have been Jatindra Nath Das, who died during his hunger strike? That would make sense. - Sitush (talk) 07:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
And India Law Journal says charges were framed against "15 of the 18 accused", mentioning B. K. Dutt as another. That makes 24 also (Dutt + five discharged approvers + 3 acquitted + 15 sentenced). I think we have a typo or Sanyal has got it wrong. I am going to fix this article accordingly. - Sitush (talk) 07:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Sanyal's biography[edit]

We rely a lot on Jatinder Nath Sanyal's 1931 biography. He was a fellow-traveller, was himself imprisoned for two years, and his book was censored at the time. I wouldn't read too much into the last point but, really, can it be considered reliable? I know for sure it is hagiographic but if we remove it then a lot of statements will have to go also. Some stuff will be ok because it has been cited by more recent reliable sources, but there probably is not much of that. - Sitush (talk) 06:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

His age of 23 is wrong.[edit]

His date of birthday and death, 1907.09.27 and 1931.03.23 respectively, make his age at the time of death just four days shy of 24 years and 6 months. Not 23. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.115.138 (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


Please change British India to India in born and dead place — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.251.48.180 (talk) 07:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)