Talk:India/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Bose and the history section

Reuben Iys has lately been trying to supplement the history section with his version of Subhash Bose's contribution to the freedom struggle. There is an idiosyncratic version of recent Indian history out there, which assigns to Bose a lion's share of the credit for liberating India from the British. This has been discussed on this page many times before. Bose has of late been championed even by the Hindu right, in part because he is a convenient counterfoil to Gandhi. In fact, Bose was never thought of contemporaneously as being anywhere on the right, his "alliances" with Hitler, the Italian Fascists, and the Imperial Japanese notwithstanding. His followers in the Congress party (when he was still in the Congress) formed what was considered the "left wing" of the Congress. After he broke with the Indian National Congress, he formed the Forward Block party, which, (after his death and) for many years after independence, sided with the various Communist parties on most issues in the Indian parliament. Among, mainstream historians, as has been pointed out on these pages before, the consensus is that the various students groups that arose in response to the Quit India Resolution and the various communist and labor parties that drew many new recruits during the years 1942-46, caused more nervousness among the British than Bose ever did. If a consensus decision is made to revise the "freedom struggle" subsection, then those groups will need to be mentioned long before Bose makes an appearance. Such a major re-interpretation needs to be discussed here (and a consensus arrived around it) before it can be introduced into the history section. I will add a link to a previous discussion to Bose on the pages soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

PS Here is the link. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC).
I do not wish to champion Bose. What I do wish to do is to point out that there was more than one movement and philosophy in the freddom movement, and the movement did not start in 1920s (thats factually wrong). Also the fact that a number of defining movements arose especially in the last decade of the freedom movement, of which one very strong one was the Quit India, and the other was the Indian National Army. After the war, the British Indian armed forces stopped supporting the Raj's efforts, and the mutinies it inspired were a very strong factor, which even the Congress expolited at the time/ The version of the movement that we see today in India is a very narrow and enclosed version that only talks of Congress and Gandhi, whereas there's more to it than that. I do not have any interest in making Bose a hero, but I have read a lot on this in the last two years (I will reference this a number of authorities of history if you wish) that the ultimate death nail was not the Quit India but the swaying of the alleigance of the armed forces. Also the old version makes a point not to say anything about any event, movement or views before, during or after Gandhi, which gives a wrong impression. The independence movement existed long before Gandhi arrived. In fact a reason why the Amritsar massacre happened was because the British were jumpy after the 1915 Ghadar conspiracy. Please dont look at this as a PoV edit, because its not. I wish this page on India not to be a political statement (particularly in the History section), but to give a complete and true picture (as much as possible). By all means, you have to have a balanced view, but that would mean a different version of the movement than was there earlier. Regarding old discussions, I haven't seen this discussion in the archive. And I dont know who you're claiming as main stream historians. But I have personal correspondence opinions and published accounts of a number of eminent historians that I am sure will prove point.Rueben lys 21:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
This article is about the Republic of India. The history section is highly compressed with exactly two sentences devoted to the Indian freedom struggle.  :::
No one is saying that the Indian freedom struggle was monolithic, but simply that in a compressed section only certain things can be mentioned and choices have to be made. Bose's contribution is simply not notable enough to merit mention. As I mention above, the 2007 Encyclopaedia Britannica, for example, devotes 19 long pages to the Indian freedom movement and has this to say about Bose:
That is not the description of a signal role in the freedom struggle. This is not just the view of Indian historians, it is the mainstream view. The Britannica article, for example, is written by Stanley Wolpert who is hardly an "Indian nationalist" and whose Nine Hours to Rama was banned in India for many years. Again the Indian freedom struggle has a total of two sentences in the compressed history section and only Gandhi is mentioned by name, Nehru isn't, Tilak isn't, Gokhale isn't, Lajpat Rai isn't, Dadabhoy Nairoji isn't, Patel isn't, Jinnah isn't, Suhrawardy isn't, ... why then Bose? If Britannica's signed history section devotes one unflattering paragraph to Bose out of a total of 19 long pages on the Indian freedom struggle, why should we give seven sentences to Bose out a total outlay of two? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


You're saying in you're first line that
yet that is exactly what you're version is saying. You're insisting that the version be compressed enough not to include anything but the Congress's role in the freedom movement, and the version is essentially starting and ending with the Gandhi inspired movement from 1918 to 1942 and then concluding that that was the only thing in the Indian independence movement which seems a bit hippocritical to me. I am sure the Encyclopaedia Britannica does not say much more about Bose, but as I said, I am nit here to argue about Bose or his role. I am saying there's a lot lot lot more to Indian independence movement than your version makes out there to be. The encyclopaedia also puts Bose's speeches in inverted commas, which essentially tries to prove these were actually propagandist statements. The encyclopaedia also does not have anything to say (as far as I can see) on the Bombay mutiny, on the role played by the 1915 Ghadar conspiracy on the Amritsar massacre, on the Bombay mutiny, Red Fort trials, etc, but this is what it has to say on the Indian National Army:
I have quoted extensively from the encyclopaedia Britannica artice here, so you can check this. If you tell me you still think that this is not to be included in the article then I will be forced to assume that you're making a Bad Faith edit and will seek a Request for mediation because it will be you making a PoV edit, taking a monolithic view on the Indian independence movement, preventing other editors from making a positive contribution of facts in favour (possibly) of your views and opinions. Rueben lys 00:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
First of all, Encyclopaedia Britannica does not have an article on the Indian National Army. It has a short biography of Bose and there is the one paragraph in the India page (in the 19 page history section). The quotes you have compiled above are from the Britannica Student Encyclopaedia which does not have signed articles by historians, but are written by the editorial staff. Please see Wikipedia policy on tertiary sources here.  :::::Second, your quotes are saying what is well-known: that after the INA failed to "liberate" India, and its leaders were tried for treason by the British, the Congress (somewhat cynically) exploited the wave of sympathy for the INA "generals" to do some PR work for itself. Your quotes don't say, for example, that Nehru attended the trials with Bhulabhai Desai and (along with the Congress) ended up alienating Wavell (the viceroy) even more, which some historians think proved crucial in giving Jinnah the advantage that eventually led to the partition. INA did have a brief flash of glory during the trials, but Bose was long gone by then, and there is no evidence that the British worried about it any more than any mass disturbance in India. It was certainly not on the scale of the Direct Action Day (let alone the Quit India Movement). My basic point remains that there are many more important topics in the Indian Freedom Struggle than either the Indian National Army or Bose himself. Those issues will need to be added before Bose or INA can. If you want to make a contribution, try the History of India, which BTW is silent on Bose! Why should Bose be added here, when he hasn't made it to the History of India page yet? This article is about the Republic of India and has a highly compressed history section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes there are several aspects in the independence movement (see Indian independence movement). The big question is what to mention in the extremely compressed space in the article India. IMO "militant nationalist movements" or "organisations" need to be mentioned (no individual names though).
History of India is not really a very up-to-the-mark article. So it need not be compared here. Of course that article needs improvement. That's different issue. Can you, Rueben, propose a compressed way to mention what you are trying to (INA), with good references?--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Why should "militant organizations" be mentioned? Balgangadhar Tilak isn't mentioned. Neither are: Lala Lajpat Rai, Jallianwallah Bagh, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, ... Surely Jallianwallah Bagh was of much more sympolic importance in the Indian Independence Movement than the INA trials, which happened after the British had already decided to leave India (after the Cripps mission). There is no evidence in the reliable sources that militant organizations (INA included) made any tangible difference. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I do not have any ready reference at hand. So my argument may be ignored. Still, I am putting forward those.
Militant organizations played notable part at least in the first 30 years of 20th century. Probably the most publicized instance is Bhagat Singh and the associates (and there were several, less publicized events/organizations/personalities). However, these were definitely far less significant than INC. So, I do not propose to mention any particular name or organizations. But that there was a separate (and probably the only separate) kind of movement/notion/ideal/stream other than INC should be mentioned, in as compressed way as possible.
As F&F has mentioned, independence movement was not monolithic. That is precisely why a mention of the other stream should be there.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
As per WP:UNDUE, the emphasis that we place on different contributing factors leading to India's independence should reflect the weightage reliable sources place on them. If editors think that the current version presents the independence struggle as a monolithic effort led by INC/Mahatma Gandhi, we can certainly consider rephrasing the relevant two sentences. IMO for this summary-style article the militant movements could at best merit an additional phrase/half-sentence, but certainly not a detailed discussion of this length.
In either case, can we please discuss the specifics here and arrive at a consensus for the language and references that are needed for any additional content, instead of edit-warring on an Featured article ? Thanks. Abecedare 04:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Here are the bare outlines of the 19 pages in Britannica devoted to the Indian Independence struggle (beginning in the 1880s):
Except for two pages, p7 and p13, the pages are long with many long paragraphs. The only militants that are mentioned are in the struggle between the militant (Tilak) wing of the Congress vs. the moderate (Gokhale) wing of the Congress on page 6. "Terrorism" is mentioned in two lines in the context of the partition of Bengal on p7. Bose is mentioned twice, once in a short paragraph introducing the Forward Block on p15 and the second time in the unflattering paragraph quoted above. The Ghadar party gets one paragraph including a mention of Har Dayal. No mention is made of the INA, the INA trials, Bhagat Singh, Chandrasekhar Azad, or any of the other "revolutionaries." In contrast, Pherozeshah Mehta, Dadabhai Naoroji, Surendranath Bannerjee, Gokhale, Jinnah, Tilak, Nehru, Suhrawardy, Liaqat Ali Khan, Patel, and of course Gandhi get a lot of coverage. I said above that the Indian freedom struggle wasn't monolithic, what I meant was that from the 1920s onwards there were fractures in the movement, with the Muslims becoming wary and ultimately splitting off. However, in other ways, it really was a monolithic movement, the Indian National Congress was really the only turbulent mainstream of the movement from its start in 1885 until 1936 and then it was both the Congress and the Muslim League. There was really nothing else that made a tangible difference. People like Bhagat Singh, who killed an official or two here or there, made great romantic heroes, but winning India its independence took mass organization, political skill, and persistence over many decades.
Even if there is consensus to expand the text on the Indian independence movement on this page from two sentences to (say) four or five, I can't see how the militants, revolutionaries, and the INA are going to make the cut. The reliable sources give them short shrift. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
PS Here are some more (searchable on Amazon) sources:
Even Bose's own grand-nephew, Sugata Bose, has this to say about the INA trials in his book listed above: "Having shrewdly assessed the public mood, the Congress made the release of the INA prisoners the main issue in their election campaigns." The INA briefly became important because the Congress used it (as I said above) somewhat cynically to do PR work for itself; how does that make INA's contribution intrinsically worthwhile? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
You have quoted the bit about unsigned article, but not that
And you're further missing the point that I am not trying (nor anyone else) to rewrite the History to say it was the INA and not the Congress that won India independence, that's a totally different issue altogether. What I am saying is that the independence movement was certainly existent and very strong even before Gandhi arrived and the Congress began its Non coop movement. It was there before that. Also, Ahimsa was not the only method, certainly a widely used one, but not the only one. There were other extremely notable people in addition to Gandhi, of which Nehru certainly qualifies, as does Subhas Bose (who led the turnaround of the Congress into demanding Purna Swaraj in late 1920s, Bose favouring even more millitant approach later). I am also saying that the 1940s saw at least three defining movements, Quit India, Indian National Army, and later inspired by the INA and the Red Fort trials, Bombay mutiny and general public agitations, mass movements, strikes and mayhem in general.
You have deleted the reference to Edwards' The Last Years of British India, Cleveland, World Pub. Co.,1964, p. 93 which said

The Government of India had hoped, by prosecuting members of the INA, to reinforce the morale of the Indian army. It succeeded only in creating unease, in making the soldiers feel slightly ashamed that they themselves had supported the British. If Bose and his men had been on the right side — and all India now confirmed that they were — then Indians in the Indian army must have been on the wrong side. It slowly dawned upon the Government of India that the backbone of the British rule, the Indian army, might now no longer be trustworthy. The ghost of Subhas Bose, like Hamlet’s father, walked the battlements of the Red Fort (where the INA soldiers were being tried), and his suddenly amplified figure overawed the conference that was to lead to independence

You're insisting that the Britannica student Encyclopaedia reference is not admissible.So as other references,James L. Raj; Making and unmaking of British India. Abacus. 1997. p571, p598

Indian service personnel were at this time being swept by a wave of nationalist sentiments, as would be proved by the mutinies that occurred in the Royal Indian Air Force. In the after-effect of the mutiny, a Weekly intelligence summary issued on 25 March 1946 admitted that the Indian army, navy and air force units were no longer trust worthy, and, for the army, "only day to day estimates of steadiness could be made". [7]. It came to the situation where, if wide-scale public unrest took shape, the armed forces could not be relied upon to support counter-insurgency operations as they had been during the "Quit India" movement of 1942.

Peter Fay's The Forgotten Army: India's Armed Struggle for Independence, 1942-1945. p 519 says

Auchinleck did not say, and probably did not believe, that the Raj had ceased to be the object of the Indian officer's loyalty simply because Bose and his renegades had come along. Colonel Wren had not supposed so either. Both believed that the shifting of alleigance was bound to happen, and would have happened sooner or later no matter what. Nevertheless it did not happen later. It happened then. In the autumn if 1945 India was swept by a storm of excitement and indignation, a storm that Bose and his renegades ignited. It was a storm the Indian officer, and the Jawan too, could not ignore. They did not ignore it. We have it on the authority of the Commander-in-Chief that they did not ignore it. In 1942, at the time of quit India, there had been no question of reliability. Now their own commander doubted it. Three years of campaigning, three years climaxed by victories in Europe and on the Irrawaddy, do not explain the change. Only that autumn storm can. It was the Indian National Army that forced the British hand.

As for your persistent references to the "unflattering" paragraphs on Bose. I am sure that is how it is written by the author you mention. I am not quoting anything here from Fay, James, Majumder,Lebra,Hauner, Fujiwara, Kurowski, and possibly a number of other historians of authority who will not just tell you totally a different story (of realpolitik and patriotism), they will also tell you that you're still swallowing World War II war-time Allied propaganda superimposed on refusing to see anything but evil on anybody who worked with axis powers. I am not quoting because my purpose is not to glorify Bose or his army, but to make an encyclopaedic entry of facts, which should make it clear that the Indian independence movement was not a gift from Gandhi and Congress to Indian people. Stuff happened, very notable stuff, that were intricately linked to the Raj's decision to leave (of which INA is just one of at least three), and these were of a scale large enough and popular enough and potent enough to find mention in an encyclopaedia article on India. Rueben lys 11:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversial claim

I have added the controversial claim tag chiefly for reasons talked in detail above. Fowler&fowler«Talk»'s interpretation of what is notable and deserves inclusion in the history section in the India article is skewing the facts to give the idea that the Indian independence movement started in the first half of the twentieth century, and consisted chiefly if not solely of the Indian National Congress and Gandhi. I edited this bit to reflect three very notable events that all my resources tell me are of stupendous importance. But Fowler's sources, which I believe is the Encyclopaedia Britannica and some other books on Concise histories of India, seems to be very concise, hence I believe reproduction from these would (and has) further compress this section to give an essentially misrepresentaed point of view. I also believe (without prejudice) Fowler has at least some PoV issue with Subhas Bose, which I must clarify is not the point of my earlier edits, although it does deserve to be mention in my opinion. As Dwaipayan suggested above, this section could be re-written, I am willing to do this not to a compromised version, but to a collaborated version. But till this is done, I believe the version as exists when I instituting this tag is an incomplete version that gives a factually totally wrong impression to the layman who would reading this article. And this is not acceptable. Rueben lys 12:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Amazing! How do you get that I think the Indian Independence struggle began in the 20th century. I just listed all 19 pages from the Britannica chapter on Indian independence movement written by Stanley Wolpert. The pages begin with the founding of the Indian National Congress in 1885, and address many issues that had already come to a head in the late 19th century ... BTW, I have not made a single edit in the history section myself. But I am aware that it is written in a concise style. Go back and take a good look at my Britannica outline. If you had to compress 19 pages into two (or even four) sentences, how do you think Bose will merit a mention? Simply, not in the cards. BTW, the five books I have provided links for are not just "concise" histories of India, but standard histories of India that are used as text-books all over the world. Obviously a 500 page "concise" history written by an internationally known academic historian(Stanley Wolpert or Sugata Bose) is a much better gauge of notability than a specialty book about the Indian national army, which obviously will have details about the INA. I think the two sentences could certainly be made more balanced, along the lines of: "The nationalist freedom movement in India began in 1885 with the founding of the Indian National Congress. Although other political leaders played a role in the freedom struggle, the major direction was provided by Mahatma Gandhi whose movement of mass civil disobedience based on non-violence proved decisive." Even if it is increased to four sentences, it would make room for Swadeshi movement, Tilak, Gokhale, Muslim League, Jinnah, and the Non-cooperation movement. Still don't see how Bose, INA, or the revolutionaries will make the cut. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Here is a list containing the subject of each paragraph in the section on the Indian Freedom Movement in Encyclopedia Encarta written by historian Philip Oldenburg, of Columbia University:
  • Movement for Independence
    • Rise of Indian Nationalism: (paragraphs) 1. Aftermath of 1857, 2. Formation of Indian National Congress, Dadabhai Naoroji, 3. Reformers: Bal Gangadhar Tilak, 4. Curzon, partition of Bengal, swadeshi movement, 5. Split in the congress between extremists (Tilak) and moderates (Gokhale), 6. Muslim League, 7. Reunification of Bengal, World War I
    • The World Wars and the Emergence of Gandhi: (paragraphs) 8. Indians in WW I (One sentence on Ghadar party: "A small, mostly Sikh revolutionary movement appeared briefly in Punjab." 9. Return of Gandhi from SA, pact with Jinnah, 10. Montagu-Chemlford Reforms, 11. Resistance to Rowlatt Acts, birth of Satyagraha, Jallianwalla Bagh Massacre, 12. Gandhi's non-cooperation movement, Congress's demand for complete independence, 13. Gandhi's Salt Satyagraha, 14. Govt. of India Act, formation of governments in states by Congress in 1937, 15. WWII, Pakistan resolution (1940), Quit India resolution (1942), Direct action day (1946), formation of interim government by Jawaharlal Nehru, 16. Partition of India, transfer of power, Hindu-Muslim riots, Gandhi as "one man boundary force." There is no mention of Bose, INA, Bhagat Singh, or any other militant. The only reference to extremism is indirectly to the Ghadar party in the one sentence quoted above . Doesn't that seem obvious now. Sixteen paragraphs and the only mention of anything other than the Congress is either to the Muslim League or the one sentence to the Ghadar party! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
We're back to the same issue again other encyclopaedias are not recording these (I haven't read this source I cannot verify these claims). I have given you references from three different sources that opposes the view given by your references. The very basis of this argument is that the article currently is giving a one sided view that is turning into a controversial claim of a monilithic view. You're source confirms the Quit India point, so you accept that is notable. I have given references from other sources that say that the INA and its products, the Bombay mutiny and public agitations at the INA trials was of stupendous importance and is definitely notable. I suspect that the encyclopaedias are based on official histories. I am using sources that are based either on orginal, or secondary research and are just as notable as the authors or references that you're providing, so I am certain that theres a midline that we should be able to reach where we both can collaborate. The two lines you mention can be easily expanded to a concise paragraph to include these. And when you say it doesn't make the cut, it doesn't make your cut. I am sorry but I will reinstitue the tag till this is addressed, especially in relation to the talk below to expand this article. And I also have a problem that you're dictating the terms here. I wish to reach a consensus, but this article can be and should be improved. And with regards to quoting from other encyclopaedia, I am sure we can improve the quality of the wikipedia article, it doesn't have to be a photocopy of other encyclopaedias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rueben lys (talkcontribs) 13:32, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
In order to determine the overall notability of an event, other encyc articles are a useful criterion. I have to agree that Bose/INA are not notable enough to be mentioned in a summary of the freedom movement. Hornplease 14:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Surely those are not the only criterion??? Also the fact that I have provided references to notable historians which is being ignored for other references. As for wether Bose is notable or not, you've got to be kidding me if you say he is not notable. This is what the BBC says here
Note that Tilak etc are not mentioned in this article, but Bose and the INA are. Other Books and sources which you're refusing to accept as references and sources are mentioning the alternative view point.
Besides, Bose was not my original point at all, my original point (and I am tired of saying this) were the three movements in the last five years of which surprisingly only one linked to the Congress is "finding" support while the other two are being "found" to be non-notable even if this is referenced and found to be notable by a number of authors. As such I would like it if we had a larger discussion on this before a conclusion is reached. There's plenty of space to expand this section beyond a few sentences so space seems to be a weasel argument and moreover is reaching PoV pushing to only Gandhian movement. This needs to addressed.Rueben lys 16:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the "Controversial Tag". Obviously the few sentences about India's struggle for Independence do not do justice to all the important leaders of the movement, but there is also the need to keep things concise. Rueben, whether or not you succeed in your attempt to have a consensus for a change in the description so that it includes Bose's contribution, I would request you to not put the Controversial Tag for purely aesthetic reasons and because the current version is not exactly a sinister attempt to mislead people into believing a completely wrong version of history. Let's not make the India page ugly, and keep the discussion to this Talk Page before things are final. Thanks. --Keynes.john.maynard 14:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Statement by Rueben lys (talk · contribs):

I have tried to edit the history section to say that the political movement started in the last decades of the 19th century, that Congress came to be the strongest one of many pollitical organisations, there was non-violent and violent philosophies with considerable following of both, that Gandhi forefronted the movement from 1920s, and that there were three notable events in the last five years of the movement that are held of quite considerable importance with relation to the movement. I have referenced my edits to respectable sources including the Encyclopaedia Britannica, BBC's history section, and a number of published accounts of the Raj and the independence movement. These edits have been repeatedly reverted by user Fowler&Fowler who insists that the bit on independence movement can not and should not be expanded anymore, as well as that what my edits are trying to cede more than deserved importance to non-notable events. Hie has also insisted that nothing outside the Gandhian movement is notable and insists on a version that says that

  • The movement started in the first decades of the twentieth century (It didn't and is thus factually wrong, only the first non-cooperation movement started around that time).
  • That the Congress started the movement (It did not, the pollitical movement for independence had already started long before the Congress, the party was founded in 1885 and rapidly came to the forefront of the political campaign).
  • Millions of people engaged in civil disobedience with a commitment to Gandhi's philosophy of Ahimsa. (This in particular seems to be a PoV statement, since more radical movements with considerable public support already existed before Gandhi arrived in India, Gandhi's philosophy was one of many strong views, as well as that Congress itself became divided in the late 1920s on wether to keep following Gandhi's strategy or to take more radical means. Also Quit India Movement was undertaken with a commitment far from Ahimsa).

Fowler also insists that no mention at all of the Indian National Army, Red Fort trials and the Bombay mutiny as well as the tense pollitcal and public situation after the war is admissible to the article because

  • His sources and other encyclopaedias he quotes (which do mention other movements in a considerably larger section on the Indian independence movement) are said to ascribe these as nonnotable and he insists that in the article the the independence section be compressed, and for the sake of comressing, nothing else is seen as "making the cut". The references I have provided are not given considered at all, which seems to me to pass into more of an article ownership issue.
  • Fowler mentioned earlier that the India article is modelled on the Australia artice, which has a considerably detailed history section and includes quite details the History of modern Australia, especially of notable events from early 1900s through to 1950s I can't see why Fowler refuses to accept that this can be done for this article as well. And also, why is Fowler deciding???
  • I have a feeling Fowler has a PoV issue with certain very notable Indian nationalists, particularly Subhas Bose, which I say because of the general tone of his comments here.

I have tried to address my concerns to Fowler, but I have not seen any efforts to collaborate, and have had not reasons or seen efforts to believe that a constructive process is possible. Also his comments on unoing my revision was

which seems to me to be an obstruction to constructive editing bourne out of an ownership issue.


At least two other editors have expressed the view that the my edits do hold ground and that the section could be improved and also that the edits should be discussed instead of edit-warring. One other editor has expressed the view that Fowler's views are justified based on entries from other encyclopaedias, which I feel needs to be addressed since other sources which I have referenced hold a different view

I would like these concerns to be addressed since my efforts to make the history section more comprehensive is being frustrated here. I have no intention of edit warring and would like to see a collaboration to improve on the article.Rueben lys 23:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

My earleri concerns are compounded by this discussion in Fowler's talk page which might suggest there is issue about ownership and collaboration problems.Rueben lys 23:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Rueben's sources

Opinions found in different Journals about Fowler's sources

University Reading Lists as found from Uni websites

Hyam's analysis of the critical events governing Atlee in 1945-46 are given below in the section on rueben's sources.

Excerpts and contents from some Rueben's sources

I believe you would find similar arguments in Pyarelal's Maharma Gandhi: The Last Phase, (Vol. IX).

Statement by Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs)

Here is the gist of the problem, as I see it. The India page (like many country pages) is the focus of potential edits that are deemed idiosyncratic by a consensus of scholarly opinion. It is my view that what user:Rueben lys is trying to add to the history section of the article constitutes such an idiosyncratic edit, and, consequently, must not be allowed. The (India) page's history section is currently highly compressed, with exactly two sentences devoted to the Indian freedom struggle.

User: Rueben lys feels that this is a one-sided description of the Indian Freedom Movement, which apportions all the credit to the Indian National Congress (INC) and Gandhi, and all action to that taking place in the first half of the twentieth century. He would like the history section to state that the independence struggle began in late 19th century and to include the contributions of other people and movements, in particular that of the Indian National Army (INA), Subhas Chandra Bose, and some revolutionary movements; in addition, he would like some events of 1946 (like the INA trials and the Bombay mutiny) to be mentioned as well.

(I am of course aware of the irony of crafting thousands of words in the defense of two sentences, but I feel that the principle is important; I also foresee similar disputes arising again if we don't clarify some issues.) I have some sympathy for user:Rueben lys's point of view. For example, had I written the two sentences quoted above, they would likely have read:

However, I feel that there is no room in a concise history for the people, organizations, and events that user:Rueben lys wants included. Moreover, I feel there is wide consensus among scholars that the two "mainstreams" in the Indian freedom struggle were the Indian National Congress founded in 1885 and the Muslim League founded in 1906, and leading ultimately to the partition of British India and to the independence for both India and Pakistan. In user:Rueben lys's formulation, however, the mainstreams seem to be "Non-violent" (represented by Gandhi) and "Violent" (represented by assorted revolutionary groups).

An overview of my sources

I have limited my secondary sources to books published either by recognized university presses (e.g. Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press), or by academic publishing houses like Routledge. (See: What is a reliable source?) For my tertiary sources, I have described one signed article each from the History sections of the "India" pages of Encyclopaedia Britannica and Encyclopedia Encarta. (See WP:PSTS.) These, I believe, are the best tertiary sources one can get: not only are they written by experts, but the context of their articles—the history section in an India page—is exactly the same as ours.

In contrast, when user:Rueben lys says he cites Britannica, he is really citing from the article, "Indian National Army," (INA) in the Britannica Student Encyclopaedia. The main EB does not have an article on the INA. Not only is this Student Encyclopaedia article a short (2 page) one written by the Britannica editorial staff, but it is also a "specialty" article, in which you would expect to find references to the article's subject. These kinds of citations, however, confer neither the "notability" nor the "absence of undue weight" needed for inclusion in a "general" overview article like India.

Tertiary Sources: Signed Articles in Britannica and Encarta

In his signed article on "Modern Indian History" in the 2007 Encyclopaedia Britannica, historian Stanley Wolpert of UCLA devotes 19 long pages to the Indian freedom movement, but has just this to say about Bose:

In contrast, the INC and the Muslim League are covered in decisively greater detail:

Similarly, in his signed article, "Movement for Freedom" in Encyclopedia Encarta, historian Philip Oldenburg, of Columbia University, devotes 16 paragraphs to the Indian freedom struggle:

Again, there is no mention of Bose, INA, Bhagat Singh, or any other militant. The only reference to "extremism" in the modern sense, is indirectly to the Ghadar party (a radical party founded by Sikhs who were denied immigration to Canada), "A small, mostly Sikh revolutionary movement appeared briefly in Punjab." The overwhelming portion of the text (19 pages in Britannica and 16 paragraphs in Encarta) is devoted primarily to the Indian National Congress and secondarily to the Muslim League.

Secondary Sources: Academic Histories and Research Monographs

This is not just the view of these two historians, it is also the mainstream view. Here are eight (searchable) standard histories of India that are used in university courses worldwide. As the search results (in the collapsible box below) indicate, the topics that user:Rueben lys would like included (i.e. "revolutionaries/terrorists/extremists," "Bhagat Singh," "Subhas Bose," "Indian National Army/Azad Hind Fauj," "INA trials," all displayed in boldface) are given little coverage in these books. In contrast "Gandhi," "Jinnah," "Nehru," "Indian National Congress," "Muslim League," Tilak," "Patel," Satyagraha, Non-violence, "Non-cooperation," "Civil disobedience," ... have many more pages devoted to them:

Bar chart (based on eight university text-books listed in collapsible box) showing the proportional references to various people and topics in these text-books.
Pie chart based on eight university text-books (listed in collapsible box) showing the proportional reference to various people and topics in these books.

Of course, one can find narrow-focus monographs devoted only to Bose or the INA, but producing a citation from such a monograph (as I have already stated above) doesn't make the subject of the monograph notable for a compressed Wikipedia history. However, and in contrast, if the standard histories bestow only cursory attention to some topics ("revolutionaries," Bose, "terrorists," INA, INA trials, ...) then it does become a sign of their non-notability.

Research monographs, however, can be useful, if their focus is on other contemporaneous topics (in this case, people or events in India during the first half of the 20th century). If such a book, for example, spends many pages on Gandhi, even though he is not the principal subject, it does so because Gandhi, as a notable contemporaneous figure, infiltrates the circumscribed lives or events of the book's focus. Compressed in the box below, is a list of some recent monographs, which are all searchable on amazon.com. I have added the search results; the number in the parentheses (as before) indicates the number of pages in which that person or topic appears.

I feel that the sources—both secondary and tertiary that I have listed—make a strong case that the topics of user:Rueben lys's interest are not notable enough for inclusion in any compressed (Wikipedia-like) history of India. Even if we had a few more sentences (say, four or six, instead of the current two), I don't see how his topics would merit inclusion over the others that are deemed more notable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)



Comment by Sarvagnya (talk · contribs):

This issue is increasingly seeming like a storm in a tea cup to me. I took a close look at it and let me try to put it in perspective. Below are results of the exercise I carried out in my sandbox.

  1. The disputed portion as it was earlier - 1325 bytes
  2. After Reuben added his bit - 2799 bytes
  3. After I tried my hand at 'normalizing' the above versions - 1742 bytes
  4. After my attempts to improve/build upon the 'normalised' version.. hopefully towards a 'consensus' version - 1924 bytes
  5. [[1]] This is a version that Fowler found, which I am sure with (quite) a bit of editing can be turned into an acceptable version. If you give a couple of days, I will try to edit this into an acceptable, readable and NPOV version that can at least try to reach a consensus and not make PoV statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rueben lys (talkcontribs) 13:50, 26 August 2007 No, Rueben, those examples, the work of two banned sockpuppeteers, were meant to illustrate what not to write on Wikipedia. Please read the section again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Now, since we're also discussing expanding the article anyway, it might be useful if people here took turns editing my sandbox to present what they think it should look like. Once(and if) someone does that, please add your version to the list above.

Note: All the versions above are sans references and wiki formatting which I stripped away for purposes of this exercise. Sarvagnya 04:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You got to be joking. Direct Action day was called by Jinnah who seems conspicuous by his absence in both Reuben lys's version and yours. As for the sentence, "Parallel movements led by radicals such as Subhash Chandra Bose and other revolutionaries also gathered steam," why don't you write to Britannica get them to accept that one sentence in their 19 pages on the Indian freedom struggle. This is not a copy-editing problem. It is a problem of content, being pushed by someone (Rueben lys) who can't even write a coherent RfC. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Which part of "add your versions here" (in red) do you have trouble understanding? I never in the least meant my 'first cut' to be the end of it. Want to add Jinnah? add Jinnah. want to add Pervez Musharaff? add Musharaff. Just stop filling pages with your useless rants. Sarvagnya 06:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Doldrums (talk · contribs):

agree that this version lends undue weight to the naval mutiny, INA trials and Bose. if the freedom movement has another sentence or two to play around with, we have lots of options to weigh and then pick from (mention legal and political reforms prior to indep., social reforms preceding and accompanying the independence movement, more leaders, notable incidents that fuelled popular opposition, the economic and demographic changes of the 20th century. see the lead in Indian independence movement) and summary style offers a good way to do that.

Spear's (1978) largely political history (not particularly sympathetic of Bose - for eg., "authoritarian leanings") has this to say on the INA and the mutinies in its ~90 pages, 7 chapters on the independence movement -

Those who felt strongest on [India's involvement in the war by 1942] supported S. C. Bose who fled the country and raised the Indian National Army from Indian prisoners in Japanese hands. He hoped to return as an Indian dictator.

(pp. 215)

Tension steadily mounted to find a focus in the trial of the leaders of Bose's 'National Army' [...] and the brief naval mutiny in February 1946. In the former case the Congress leaders exploited the situation but in the latter, which seems to have been a spontaneous outbreak of youthful extremist exuberance they were embarrassed and did their best to disavow and discourage it. The mutineers complained that the leaders of the cause they were trying to help had betrayed them. The Congress leaders were now fearful lest anarchy supervene before they were able to grasp the reins of government.

(pp. 231)

doesn't look to be enough to trump all other candidates for inclusion and carry the weight it does in this revision. Doldrums 08:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

similarly, Metcalf & Metcalf's Concise History of Modern India(page 210), V. P. Menon's Transfer of Power in India(pages 223,225), D N Panigrahi's India's Partition the Story of Imperialism in Retreat(pages 269-270), Śekhara Bandyopādhyāẏa's From Plassey to Partition: A History of Modern India (pages 426-431) [previews available at Google Books] give brief accounts of the INA, nothing to indicate that it particularly merits a mention in a 2 (or 4) sentence summary - Bose and the INA would have to jostle for space with many other significant events of the ~100 years. Doldrums 21:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments by rueben_lys (talk · contribs):

Wether I can write a coherent RfC as according to Fowler&Fowler is a different issue altogether, wether Fowler is willing to respect his fellow editors and talk in a more dignified tone about people who do not agree with him is what's more irritating me. Also, he is repeatedly accusing me of belonging to the Hindu right, which I am sure will not be bourne out by my edit history and will only embarass Fowler by exposing his ignorance and blind bias. I have explained before that I do not wish to champion Bose, but I do wish to make the history section more comprehensive to reflect a more than just a propaganda statement by non-violence Nazis. The reason why I included the Quit India and the INA is, first of all I have been reading a lot in the last one year on the last years of the Raj, and the consensus here is that the three or four events I have mentioned, particularly the Quit India movement, Red Fort trials and the Bombay mutiny were extremely notable event. Fowler's mother noted that one of my references, Last Days of British India was a popular history book in her childhood and not some random trash from the street. He also accepts that "Indian National Army." the Britannica Student Encyclopedia. is a good source, but is claiming this is not as good as his source. I sourced this directly from the online resources of Encyclopaedia Britannica which has links to both the version on its homepage and am sure is endorsed by the encyclopaedia. My principle and primary sources are Peter Fay's The Forgotten Army: India's Armed Struggle for Independence, 1942-1945, 1993, ISBN 0-472-08342-2 / ISBN 81-7167-356-2, Lawrence James' Raj: The Making and Unmaking of British India ISBN-10: 0312263821. The latter particularly, while quite unsympathetic to the INA or its founder, goes into great detail of the pollitical and ground situations and the unrests during the Quit India, the Red Fort Trial and comments at length on the Bombay mutiny and the deteriorating situation in the armed forces in the wake of the trials and how these were being appraised to and percieved by London and why this meant that in the case of another possible mass agitation by the Congress the army could not be relied upon. My other minor source is Joyce Lebra's Jungle Alliance; Japan And The Indian National Army (1971) ISBN 9971-4-3048-7. I have also used (and cited) article from BBC history by Chandrika Kaul, which itself is pretty succint. Lastly, I am aware of the scale and scope of the events and movement around Bhagat Singh but I do not know enough to write about this. If any other editor does and can incorporate this in the text succintly and NPOVly, I (unlike Fowler) do not have a problem, nor do I wish Bose to be placed on this high pedestal and have every one else removed from the history section. Also, the Pakistan movement was notable enough that at least a few words needs to be included (NPOVdly) about its conception and resolution.

The reason I initially edited was to include the fact that the Gandhian movement, by all means and by far the most prominet, was not the only philosophy, and that the other movements that did exist were by no means non-notable. Why I included INA,trials and the mutiny is because the ideas I got from the books I read (and quite sure this is a justified notion) is that in fact in the last days of the Raj Gandhian as well as the not-so-Gandhian movements and events (endorsed by Gandhi) came into play in a massive scale and hence my edits. I do not wish to address Fowler's rant because it is quite obvious to me he lacks courtesy and respect for most if not all of his fello-editors who have disagreed with him. He has this to say about editors (principally, I believe, me) who have tried to make edits not corresponding with his:

wether that is a POV statement or not is for other readers and editors to decide. But my earlier attempts at discussion with Fowler led him directing me to this link to an earlier discussion between himself and Dwaipayan. What I particularly noticed is Dwaipayan searched and found this link in the Journal of Asian and African studies in the Springerlink database, but did not recognise it as a journal article or that it is from Springerlink (which would make me think it is not just a random website or rant, but a respectable portal). Fowler has claimed in the past that he has access to knowledge databases, but I am very surprised that he did not recognise(???) a springerlink or a Jounral of Asian and African studies article and could not assure Dwaipayan that it might indeed be a genuine. The other thing I noted was that this particular discussion was between only two people, which Fowler put forward as a consensus while I would ask for a larger participation.Rueben lys 13:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Fowler also

blindly reverted my edits in the Indian independence movement page, without looking at what I have written or edited, and the version he reverted to just reinforces my view that he has an intensely biased PoV for non-violence and Gandhi and refuses to have anyother facts to be included or even mentioned. I do not have any reason to think this user is at all interested in improving any article and is just out to prove his PoV point and confront and talk down other users.Rueben lys 13:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Rueben lys: I of course can't force you to use the collapsible box format for your notes below, but I should warn you that such long rambling notes are not read by anyone (I certainly haven't read them, and I'm the disputant in this RfC), and, in addition, they have the effect of discouraging others from commenting, when they notice that your comments have taken up three times more space than everyone else's put together. You have to learn to make your point in your statement, not drag it out in dribbles in comment after comment. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

With regards to Stanley Wolpert

I am not sure if I am still allowed to make comments, and I do not wish to pick Brownie points or sling mud at any one and do not wish to Champion Bose, but since Fowler's been quoting an article by Stanley Wolpert, just thought I would mention this link I found which is an interview with Wolpert on Rediff. Note that I do not wish to champion Bose and only mention this since Fowler has twice quoted this author and the fact that the author's work indicates that Bose and the INA stuff are not notable:

Please do not take this to mean I am a Bose fanatic etc etc, I just thought I'd mention this since Fowler mentions this author in earlier discussions.Rueben lys 23:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

(Reply by Fowler&fowler:)
See reply Below Rueben lys 12:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus among historians

Fowler earlier mentioned that most academics considers the INA insignificant (or doesn't consider it at all).

The book itself is an account of the War in south-east asia, from Malaya through Singapore and Burma to Imphal and back to Singapore, and considers Burmese,Malayasian as well as Indian nationalism. But I will draw attention to the fact that the author categorically states that there is a substantially held view among scholars that the INA, especially its trials, played a vital role in the Indian independence. which I believe disagrees with Fowler's earlier assertion. Rueben lys 00:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Another

Here's another article sourced from The Guardian's book reviews. This is a review by Ian Pindar Mark of Kurlansky's Nonviolence: The History of a Dangerous Idea which says

Rueben lys 00:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

On the weight issue and point of this RfC and not wether Bose was a Nazi

To Fowler, First of all, I am starting to doubt how "scholarly" your Stanley Wolpert is seeing as he has halved the troops strength of the INA and only found British Indian Soldiers in it (see Indian National Army) Also, the offensive was not stopped by the RAF, but by the IAF (and that's what it was and called, see Indian Air Force), and the 14th Army. Besides, the INA did enter Bengal, reaching Mowdok near Chittagong, it couldn't enter Imphal. Besides, the British did consider the INA to be a very bad influence compared to the Japanese, and had to start "Josh" groups to stop the Indian soldiers from defecting, start circulating propaganda among troops about the INA that said they were Barbaric people who ate their PoWs livers, and in general put a newsban on even mentioning the INA in the media etc...which doesn't really show Wolpert did his homework before publishing. I am not sure anymore that he's a very good historian at all if he cant even count, let alone that he has half digested half vomitted his facts Fowler. Also, Fowler, what does he say about the period between October 1945 and July 1946???

But aside from this please note the original posting I made before intentionally making PoV remarks like "resuscitating Bose" Also,

is again open for PoV debate, while I have provided notable historians on India (Fay, Lebra, Majumder, Cohen, Edwards... ) whose Published work (secondary source, in this context) is disagreeing with most of what your scholars have so far said in the encyclopaedias (teriary source in this context).

In the general context of this RfC now. With regards to the weight issue, I am reading up on the wikipedia policy, and this is what I read:

I have so far (as I have said above) used [[Secondary sources (of notable historians) which are concluding that the INA played a vital role in the independence movement, and is held prominently within India. Fowler has so far provided either provided tertiary sources that do not evaluate or inlcude the INA, or have provided a One secondary source and umpteenth tertiary sources that argue that Bose was Fascist or a dictator etc etc (which is not the issue under consideration here) and that His army was a failed military enterprise. (which is not the issue under consideration here either). I like the way the original point has now been twisted to try and have me defend wether "Bose should be included" instead of wether there are other view points that deserve inclusion in addition to the view that Congress was the soul driving force. Reiterating what the RfC was about. Fowler's repeatedly reverted versions say

    • The movement started in the first decades of the twentieth century (Dates wrong by about 50 years, only includes the Congress inspired movement).
    • That the Congress started the movement (It did not, political movement started long before the congress even existed. It only became a strong force after Gandhi arrived after the WW I).
    • Millions of people engaged in civil disobedience with a commitment to Gandhi's philosophy of Ahimsa. (Only one movement and Point of View presented, opposed to the contention there were other notable movements and philosophies).
    • My edits, including, explaining, and summarising the notable events which secondary sources from reputable authors agree were key points in the movement have been reverted after repeatedly accusing me of bing a PoV pusher, Saffronist, right wing, and one occasion, of not being able to write a coherent RfC.

I have given the sources I used to come to the conclusion that other movements deserve to be mentioned, most notabillity, but not only nationalist sentiments and the political fallouts of the Quit India, INA trials, and (in my opinion, agreed to by Lawrence James' account of the rise and fall of British Raj- which the idnependence movement is all about anyway) the Bombay Mutiny.

Now first of all, the independence movement section does not mention anything but Gandhi and Congress the reason being cited is that it is

  • a. An FA,
  • b. Other encyclopaedias do not mention anything in detail but Gandhi and Congress. First of all, the wikipedia policy on sources say that encyclopaedias are tertiary sources and synthesise materials and opinions, and a Historians interpretation of an event or movement is more acceptable. On the latter, the statement has been made that "most historians" agree that the movements I mentioned in my edits, in fact nothing but the Gandhian movement, was important at all. This statement is being supported by a encyclopaedias and books on India, and not on the independence movement (on which the paragraph is based), and then the argument is being put forward that "we don't have space" so we can only include this view". The references I have given, ie, books on the movement and on parts of the movement do actually calculate the weight and notabillity and categorically makes statements that disagree with the implied meaning of not including the other aspects.

I have also provided opinions of other notable authors that says something totally opposite about the consensus that Fowler mentions among "academics and Scholars". Rueben lys 11:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Another from Britannica on Indian independence movement, about weight

Here's another article from Britannica which I believe makes Indian independence movement concise as well as puts due weight to everything. With regards to Fowler's above comment of

  • a. You're not the topic of the dispute, the content of the article's paragraph is. But yes, you're attitude towards ownership of the article and general incivillity, lack of Etiquette, citiing spurious concerns and general threatening words and tone is irritating and a general hindrance towards a collaboration. I am giving you evidence here, and miraculously your arguments have changed from your so called scholar (who can't count and half vomits history) to pretending that my arguments are not worth addressing with facts and arguments based on facts.Rueben lys 12:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

More secondary sources relevant to the topic

I am a bit surprised on a few things:

  • a. The number of pages on wierdly allied topics has yielded research monographs on the topic of the Indian independence movement and notabillity.
  • b.That highly specialised and economico-historical topics like "Hindu Nationalism and the Language of Politics in Late Colonial India", "Imperial Power and Popular Politics: Class, Resistance and the State in India, 1850-1950", "The Indian Princes and their States" etc have all of a sudden become "focussed" articles on India and the Indian independence movement and,
  • c. I am being repeatedly told that "the consensus among the scholars is that these were not at all notable stuff and did not have any bearing whatsoever on relinquishing the Raj" without having provided a single reference that such a consensus has been reached. I have, on the other hand, provided two referenced comments by the those among the very scholars that the consensus says exactly opposite. I have mentioned these here and here, published in well known publications. As for secondary sources on the topic, this what Sumit Sarkar's Modern India, 1885-1947 has to say on the question of what were notable (verbatim):

(Sarkar, pp 411)

and

(Sarkar, pp-419)

and

(Sarkar pp420)

and

(Sarkar, pp420)

and

and

On the some mutiny of the Royal Indian Navy that you say you cant find (a bit surprised I am, because you seem quite well read and with access to info if you cared to look up), Sarkar says

I believe you would find similar arguments in Pyarelal's Maharma Gandhi: The Last Phase, (Vol. IX).

These sit in addition to the preceding secondary sources by notable historians I have provided earlier, who have written on the topic.

Now tell me Fowler, in the pages that you say you find mention of Bose(on the relevant topic and not the books on wether Gungadin was Behari or Gujerati), what does it say. Show me what the factual (cited, not assumed as you would like us to have by quoting the number of pages) arguments are and who it is made by. Incidentally, you still haven't told me what Stan Wolpert says about the period between September 1945 and November 1946.Rueben lys 20:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

On sources

I can see that the issue of notabillity has become an issue of coverage. My point was notabillity on the basis of what is said (ie, what's the argument), ie does it find mention to be significant . I have quoted what my sources say, Fowler so far hasn't. That has rapidly been converted into how many pages is devoted to the issues. The issue that the "non-violent" philosophy and movement was a major movement is not the debate. The debate was, are is or was there anything else notable? Did there happen anything outside the Non-violent movement (Quit India being a major point, INA trials being another) that profoundly had an effect on the Independence movement and the Raj? and if they are, are they notable enough to be mentioned in this. I can see Fowler has a point with regards to coverage, I cant make Fowler see that I have a point on the basis of argument. What have the author said??? I have said what my references say, which allows the judgement of wether it satisfies notabillity or not. I dont see any of Fowler's sources saying anything. Of course, for the major part the stuff that find mention in the books that Fowler quotes . Nothing has been said on what the books say and because Fowler has convinced (impressively, I will say in appreciation) that others dont get coverage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rueben lys (talkcontribs) 12:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Here's the review of Markovits's book in the Journal of Asian Studies which says it focusses heavily on the French role in India, as well as other criticisms of the book which might raise doubts as to how much it is a text book all over the world. Incidentally it also says as a Text Book it does not compare well with more recent and far more historigraphical work like those of Metcalfe and Metcalfe.Rueben lys 13:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Here's a review of Peter Robb's book in the Journal of South Asian studies, which says there will be inevitable discomfort at the ommission of details and then says it is an excellent book on the Development of society, economics and pollitics in Modern India. It is an examination of Modern-Nation-state-style western democracy and Indian-traditional-religious dichotomy of modern India. I am not entirely sure why this would be a study of The Raj and the Indian independence movement. It seems more social history to me.Rueben lys 13:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I couldn't find a review of Sugata Bose's book yet (I am looking), but I did come accross this article by him in the Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 38, No. 1. which addresses some of the earlier comments you made regadring Bose's own newphew etc etc.
  • Kulke and Dortmund's History of India (Paperback)] has this:

One chapter on the Freedom movement and partition, broken up into the sections

    • 1 para on te ealriest stuff preceding the mutiny of 1857 followed by the followng sections:
      • Neo Hinduism and Muslim resentment (1 page in total)
      • A new Generation of liberal nationalists (Mostly the period before the congress)- nearly two pages.
      • Vedanta Karmayoga and National revolutionaries (Vivekanada etc)- one page.
      • Partition of Bengal and rise of extremism. Nearly two pages.
      • 1st world war and the Home rule league one page.
      • Gandhi and Non-cooperation. Nearly 3 pages.
      • Swaraj in One year (part of the Congress story). Nearly two pages.
      • Return to the constitutional arena. two pages. Includes the rise of extremeist views within the Congress, and describes Bose and Nehru as the leaders in this new trend. Gives equal coverage (give or take a sentence) to Nehru and Bose.
      • Civil-disobedience and Gandhi-Irwin pact. two pages.
      • Frustration at the round table and the communal award two pages.
      • The pros and cons of office acceptance. Includes the policies of the Congress as well as the princes in 1936 and also describes the effect of Bose standing for re-election as Congress President at Tripuri. (I am going by what it says and not how many times it mentions Bose or Gandhi.)Same space given toNehru, the left wing of the Congress and the plans for election and office.
      • Second world war, the Cripp's mission and 'Quit India' Three and a half page in total, again with the mentions of Bose at the end.

(Incidentally I think this is the same book that Fowler mentions in his search. I am surprised the independence movement is condensed to one chapter, which is totally opposite the idea I got from Fowler's post. Using stats has an old adage, it covers up the facts, "what do they say, Fowler, I ask again")

  • I cannot find any Journal reviews of Spears book, but I did find one on the The Oxford History of India edited by among others, Percival Spear. I believe if Fowler said what is says, we will see that a lot of aspects of the non-violent nature) preceding and co-existing with the Congress led movement would be found. Particularly, I believe, the there's an issue about how the Raj ended. What does the book say is the question. Ie, what aspects does it find notable?

The notable thing are that Kulke follows closely my original edit that expanded it to one para. Sercondly, going By the Ingenious mechanisms of not judging on what the author says but instead on how many times he menions a name, yeah, I would say DNA is the most famous thing in the world, but is it? I am going to stop here for the time being, but let me just say I am thoroughly surprised at the disingenuous argument being used here (See Kulke and Dortmund for example) to twist both what is actually written and what is implied. The stats are not showing what the books are saying, and as Kulke's book shows, it looks like there's so much on everyone like Gandhi and Nehru. In reallity, in the book, the independence movement has one chapter, and a lot more than just the congress led post-1920s movement is described there, as is there more than just Gandhi. I can see how the statistics are being used to hide behind the truth. Incidentally, we have Fowler's word that these are all "Text Books" in all the university around the world (I am sure they are by notable authors).Rueben lys 14:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

More sources

Here are ten more sources where the authors express the opinion (without counting pages or number of lines or sitting down with a calculator) that the allied movements had considerable impacts, as well as that the INA trials are considerable importance if not expressing the opinion that it was one of the decisive events in shift of British policy.

  • Encyclopaedia of India's Struggle for Freedom

by Jagdish Saran Sharma - 1971]

  • Forgotten Heroes of India's Freedom Struggle: A Who's Who, British Secret Documents.Pran Nath Chopra - 1992
  • Conflict in Asia: Korea, China-Taiwan, and India-Pakistan.2003 Uk Heo, Shale Asher Horowitz.
  • India. by Stanley A. Wolpert.2005.
  • Indian Summer.Wilfrid W. Russell.1951.
  • The End of the War in Asia.by Louis Allen.1979.
  • India's Struggle for Freedom: Role of Associated Movements. Pran Nath Chopra.
  • Dominion India in World Perspectives, Economic and Political. by Benoy Kumar Sarkar.1949.
  • Changing India: Bourgeois Revolution on the Subcontinent.Robert W. Stern. History. 2003.
  • Tradition Never Dies: The Genesis and Growth of the Indian Army..by Sundar Singh Bawa.1972.

I think I can show that the historians hold these of considerable importance, inclusing Stan Wolpert (the question that Fowler wouldn't answer). So far opposing we have been given the text of a few encyclopaedia articles which leads to the "assumption" that there's nothing else that's anymore important, or been given a list of books and the calculation of how many times the names are mentioned, "without being told what the authors views or arguments are".No reference has been given that says only the Congress and Gandhi movement was notable and had an impact. I have said what and where these arguments have been made. I have shown that there's consensus that there's more that just the non-violence and congress to the movement that had a significant impact. In addition, that the attempt at statistization has misrepresented the views of the author I have shown above with regards to Kurke and Dortmunds book as well as another which I did not list the content but have menioned by name. The argument being put forward is that it can be assumed from the stats, but I have shown that the stats are hiding the authors actual views and arguments.Rueben lys 18:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

you are welcome to rely on evaluations rather than coverage, but then you have to compare these evaluations with those of all the other notable people/events of the time (for eg. Nehru, Muslim league & Jinnah, the social reform movement, Lal-Bal-Pal, Ambedkar, the famines, the partition of Bengal) to decide what to include, not decide on the basis of evaluations of people/events you've already chosen. Doldrums 10:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments by: John Kenney (talk · contribs)

I don't know that I have much expertise on this, but it seems to me that in such a short history section as we have, the version previously existing is more or less appropriate. If the discussion of the independence movement is to be expanded, it seems to me that we should use the extra space to talk about Jinnah and the Muslim League, and to better explain the background of partition, rather than to talk about Bose, et al. john k 15:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Abecedare:

I think we have two different issues here:

  1. One, which for example Sarvagnya writes about, is whether the Indian history section (and the Independence movement sections is particular) can/should be expanded. On this I don't think there is any strong opposition, and I think we can even double the two sentences to paint a broader picture without raising length issues.
  2. The second question is if we should use the extra space to mention INA, Red Fort Trials, Subhash Chandra Bose, Bhagat Singth etc (as Rueben lys recommends), Jinnah and Muslim League (as John Kenney suggests) or something else altogether. The specific answer to this is not obvious, but the method for determining the answer is quite clearly determined by wikipedia policy. Specifically:
    • We need to look at reputable academic texts on (modern) Indian history and see what topics they give the most space/weightage to and reflect that here. F&f has already initiated such a survey from which it seems that INA, Bose, etc will not be at the top of the list of topic to be included; others of course, are welcome to propose other reputable sources.
    • However we should be very careful that we don't base our judgment on specialized studies of various persons and/or incidents during the independence struggle, or on popular histories that often reflect an (intentionally) idiosyncratic take on the topic (read for example, Freedom at midnight). I am certain that we can find specialized books on Lord Mountbatten, Rabindranath Tagore, Sarojini Naidu, Clement Attlee or even possibly FDR/Harry Truman that understandably emphasize their influence or role in India's gaining independence - such information may be worthy of inclusion in the person's biographical article - but will not merit a discussion here, since the issue is not simple verifiabality but due weight.

Abecedare 17:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. In addition, research monographs on other contemporaneous topics or events (first half of the 20th century) can be used to confer notability. Here is a list of some recent monographs, all of which are searchable on amazon.com. Simply type "Gandhi," "Nehru," "Jinnah," "Patel," "Quit India," "Bose", "Azad," "Indian National Army" "Militants," "Revolutionaries," and so forth, and see how many pages in the book have entries on those subjects:
As you say, I have already (in my statement) compiled a list of five general histories, which too can be searched for references to "Bose," or "Gandhi," or "Militants," and the like. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)



Subscript text

Comments by Sundar (talk · contribs)

Following are my comments.

  1. The article as it stands needs more breadth than depth--so few "dimensions" covered. So, a significant part of any increase in prose should go to things that are already wanting to be covered than one of the sections here. That said, I'm not averse to adding a little more prose to the history section and copyediting it.
  2. Proportion of coverage on Bose is a complex issue. He is, as it is, under covered outside of Wikipedia. That either could be reflecting his actual relative notability or could be due to some systemic bias. If it's the latter case, we're not a primary source tasked to correct that anomaly. That would border on OR. So, IMO, he, along with others not excluding Jinnah merit a mention, but not on par with Gandhi's movement. More detailed coverage belongs in Indian independence movement, not here.
  3. I don't subscribe to the view that it should be defeatured to allow a liberal editing or that it should be allowed to be messed up before copyediting. It's not just because it's an FA, but also because it is one of the most widely read articles (I had seen some data a few months back.).
  4. For the same reason as above, the {{controversial}} tag is an eyesore and must be quickly removed after taking appropriate remedial measures.

I'd request all interested parties to let go of personal differences and arrive at a consensus towards improving this important article. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Hornplease (talk · contribs)

Fowler's extracts are indicative that mention of Bose has no place in a few paragraphs on the independence movement. If the section is expanded, it should expand to cover moves towards self-government, 1935 Act, the Quit India Movement and the pressures leading to partition. Wikipedia is not where we right great wrongs.Hornplease 22:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I really am not sure what the user directly below me is trying to say. Hornplease 03:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Easy, Fowler. I don't think I have ever seen a case made as thoroughly as yours. I think we can declare this closed, surely? Reuben, it appears the weight of (page) numbers is against you this time. Hornplease 06:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Reuben, the stats are not hiding the actual views in this case. The stats are too overwhelming. You are yet to demonstrate that one of the authors has indicated that "this was equivalent in impact to the Muslim League", or "greater in impact than the Congress ministries following the GOI act of 1935" etc. Obviously, you won't. Because it wasn't. Hornplease 00:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Lara bran (talk · contribs)

Bose and Bhagat Singh deserve mention, as non-non-violation movement. Some people call them terrorists, but they dint kill not a single innocent people like current terrorists. They certainly deserve mention alongside non-violence movements. Current history section states only one type of independence movement was present i.e. non-violence. All quit india etc were non-violence. Both these leaders can be mentioned in single sentence. Lara_bran 03:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Current version gives false impression that only non-violence movement was there in freedom struggle, which is not true. What type had major effect is secondary, but non-non-violent protest certainly deserves mention, at least as second sentence. Thanks. Lara_bran 07:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


Comments by Keynes.john.maynard (talk · contribs)

When I had not read the discussion on this page my opinion was confined to removing the "Contoversial Tag" from this article. Now, after reading the discussion (most of it ;), I am of the opinion that the current description is just fine and should stay as it is. Bose does not deserve mention any more than many other leaders and events, and it would not be possible to mention all of them here as the importance of keeping things concise is, well, important. Rueben lys please relent. --Keynes.john.maynard 18:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Keyenes are you saying you dont find the current summary of the Movement factually incorrect and onesided, even after reading the citations from Ian Copland's work, and Kulke Dortmund's work I have given above. If you wish to have more information as to why it's factually wrong, pls see Metcalfe reference in Fowler's RfC record page and see how they describe the movement. Next read Dwaipayan's compromise version, and see which prose is more appropriate for the summary of the movement.Rueben lys 19:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not wish to accuse anyone, but there does seem to be a number of editors here expressing support for Fowler who seem have been notified of the RfC by Fowler and invited to make commentsRueben lys 20:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Rueben, Rueben, my man, it does seem you are accusing me, and so many others, of expressing support for Fowler. But I think I'll assume good faith, and assume you are not accusing me, and in the same spirit assume you are assuming good faith too. For the record, I received no notification for RfC. Also, its Keynes, not Keyenes. Thats the third time you've got it wrong :( . As far as content goes, I am quite content with the current version, although I would not be against the content of Dwaipayan's version if it can be compressed, and if the prose can be improved. I do contend that certain sentences in his/her about "minor terrorist and organizational activities oriented towards freedom" are clearly something I would not want to see on the India Page. A request here; can we please remove the controversial tag that is so clearly an eyesore? --Keynes.john.maynard 20:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, apologies for getting your name wrong (this one was first). Secondly, I was not accusing you or anyone else for that matter of expressing support for Fowler. I was expressing my disappointment that the WP:CANVASS guideline had been given a short shrift, but in light of Fowler's current efforts, I too will assume good faith was operating for the purpose of inviting comments here. Lastly, regarding your comments on the content, fair enough, if that's your opinion, then that's your opinion.Rueben lys 01:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)