Talk:Indian independence movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Indian independence movement 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.

Any Further Revisions?[edit]

I noticed this article has not had any major edits in about a week. I am not involved with this page, and am just passing by doing a research project, but I was wondering rather or not the reconstruction tag should be removed. Like I said, I don't work with this page, so I'll let someone who does make that decision, but I figured I should make the suggestion. Fact-of-the-matter (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Edwin Samuel Montagu - Punch cartoon - Project Gutenberg etext 16592.png Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Edwin Samuel Montagu - Punch cartoon - Project Gutenberg etext 16592.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Edwin Samuel Montagu - Punch cartoon - Project Gutenberg etext 16592.png)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

File:QuitIndiaMovement.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:QuitIndiaMovement.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:QuitIndiaMovement.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it the truth?[edit]

Is this article the truth or just parroting the textbook history that is currently being indoctrinated in India?

Subashchandrabose could get only around 2000 soldiers, and that too captive soliders from the British-Indian army, who turned turncoats. As to Gandhi, he was the son of a rich prime minister of a princely state in northwest areas of the peninsula. He could afford to live in England. Without the heavy marketing done to market him through the media who would have known about him in British India? As to Nehru, he was also a rich son, who could afford to study in England. Gandhi was very much disliked in the Congress executive.

If the whole of British-India was against the British rule, how come there were 3 million (30 lakh) native soldiers rallying on the English side in the second World War? Was there really any concerted independence movement, other than factional fights and showoff to take over the mantle of national leadership?

What is this independence of India, when there had never before been a nation called India, that had been conquered by the British?

If this independence had indeed been won by an independence struggle, where does the British Labour Party and its leader, Clement Atlee be in the scheme of events. It is a historical fact that Labour Party's policy was to wind up colonialism the moment they came to power. This they did not only with regard to British India, but to almost all colonial places in Africa, Asia and also in other places.

Wikipedia is out to spread nonsense. Who is in charge? Some Indian academicians? They are a joke.

There is this mention about one 'Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja' and 'fight' against the British. This story is based on a fabricated history created by the Malayalam film world. The mentioned Kottayam is a tiny village near Tellicherry, and his actual story would be that of local landlord having a tiff with the local police. No one in Tellicherry knows of this great battle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.221.253.73 (talk) 11:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

AM/PM[edit]

While I am pretty sure that it was 11:57 PM, the article doesn't say. If the time of the declaration of independence of Pakistan is significant enough to merit mention in the article, then I think we should be clear as to that time.74.124.47.10 (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Use of word 'Independence'[edit]

I was unable to find any means to change the title. I hope the message reaches to those who can edit. The definition and philosophy of the word 'Independence' can be well understood by the relationship between parasite and host. This fact does no allow the usage of word 'Independence' in context of India or any other state on which UK was dependent.

From careful analysis, it becomes evident that before India, all there were few nations which got 'Independence' were USA, Canada, Australia, New-Zealand; these states were actually dependent on the loot of other civilizations. Note that all these nations had eradicated the natives and replaced by Britons. South Africa, Afghan, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan were given freedom for strategic purpose.

India was major resource provider for British Army. Due to fundamental civilized opposition and instances of mutiny, confidence of British was badly shaken. In fact, it wont be wrong to say, that there was some effect of civilization, though up to very low extent, which sensitized even British who administered Indian exploitation.

To escape from shameful exit, differences between the locals were highlighted and the exit was subtly and shrewdly converted to offer. It is important to note that after India's freedom, the British lost all their human support. That was the reason, all other occupied civilizations got freedom. The civilizations were already independent, or respectfully inter dependent.

After looting and exploiting so many civilizations, the British eventually started becoming independent, of its process of loot, from 1947 onwards and finally become completely independent, of the process of loot, when they left Brunei.

In the mean time they had devised the ways to further loot in economic and regulatory ways by controlling the USA and its federal reserve. It has since being using the USA as power pawn to manipulate world affairs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.37.190.28 (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)