Talk:Political integration of India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Political integration of India is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 18, 2006.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 23, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
January 29, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted
December 15, 2007 Featured article review Kept
Current status: Featured article
Version 0.5 (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Featured article FA  Quality: FA-Class
 ???  Importance: not yet rated


Just wanted to say thanks on an excellent article! Made a totally absorbing read.. Srinaths9 (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

First paragraph[edit]

First paragraph / sentence need to be rewritten. This is way too complicated.

The political integration of India is a process that united semi-autonomous political entities and colonial possessions in the Indian subcontinent to form a single, united nation, and re-organized its constituents into a federal system of sub-national states governed by representative democracy under the Constitution of India, and reflective of the demographics of their resident populations.

I am an Indian, and found it difficult to understand. --DuKot 04:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Something simple like the following should be the first sentence. Two or more paragraphs could be added afterwards to explain it in detail.

The political integration of India is the process that unified various political entities that makes up the present day Republic of India.

--DuKot 04:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks. Rama's Arrow 06:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I've created a copy of this article into the peer review box. Rama's Arrow 06:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Three-language formula[edit]

I'm not able to devote much time into editing this article. But, I'm glad Rama's Arrow and others are doing a great job with this very important article. I found several links from this search. Perhaps this'll be useful. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 09:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Map in Spanish[edit]

Although it is more detailed, you can probably remove it, now that the second map also shows all the major states. It will also make all maps in the article look uniform (the first map is an aberration in the color scheme of the article.) Also, one of the maps of Hyderabad state can be removed (there are two maps.) deeptrivia (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Done! Rama's Arrow 17:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Small inaccuracies[edit]

There are many small inaccuracies in the article, which stand out only since the page is otherwise so well-written. for instance, the very first sentence -- 'first time in over 1000 years': not so; it is in fact for the first time ever, and some people may wish to detect POV (a possibility agitated also by the use of the word 'secure') in what is probably only error-by-oversight. Again, the present extent of India was never equalled by the Maurya Empire; that empire never got beyond north-coastal-Andhra or approached Assam. If you want to talk of sheer size, as in including Pakistan/Afghanistan, then the Mughal Empire was probably as large as present-day India and certainly larger than the Mauryan one.

A good portion of the first paragraph offers itself for remodelling; for instance, after the accession of Sikkim, nothing on the subject has been influenced by considerations involving China, and the third sentence suggests that this is an ongoing consideration. I would generally urge understatement and parsimony in such issues.

I could go on mentioning small things, but....I would be glad to copy-edit/rewrite the page (adding some details vis-a-vis princely states) but am afraid of jumping into POV issues in what is clearly someone's beloved baby. Once again, the article as it stands is of exceptional quality; far, far above average, and hopefully eliminating the present glitches will raise it to the "Main Page" level. Regards, ImpuMozhi 22:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hehehehhe....I value your input, ImpuMozhi, but I detect some factual, not POV issues with your suggestions:

(1) Please check the map of the Mauryan Empire. You will see that it engulfed Pakistan, Bangladesh and South India. The Mughals never did the South, evidenced by Vijayanagara, the Maratha empire. Comparatively, missing out Assam is in territorial terms a smaller loss.

(2) China has been involved in AP, Sikkim, Kashmir, relations with Nepal etc. Mainly, it is a strategic opponent of India. "Ongoing" ya, I think it should make that reference.

(3) You are right about the "first time in a thousand years" thing. Its not perfect in its form, but I've had to re-do this opener a lot more than any other section.

Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow 15:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Good improvements!![edit]

The lead looks much better now. "Conflicting Agendas" is an appropriate title for the sub-section. I guess ImpuMozhi's concerns can be and should be addressed easily. --Gurubrahma 14:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the first line is too complicated[edit]

and difficult to read. It should perhaps be broken into a couple of lines, atleast with a semi-colon. Cribananda 04:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This has been addressed now. Rama's Arrow 05:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful. Thank you. - Cribananda 05:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


I remember Nichalp telling about Baluchistan wanting to go with India. If we can find a reference, we can add that too. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 05:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I don't think it should be added - it belongs in the partition of India, in the debate between India and Pakistan. Plus, the main Baluchistan events were of wanting independence I believe. Rama's Arrow 05:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


I might do some more minor copyedits — I might accidentally leave fragments of my hideous American English (I ask people to correct these speedily). If there is a problem with my edits, please let me know, and I can stop. Thanks. Saravask 05:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Good copyediting Saravask. But, I've an issue with one paragraph. In the section on the instrument of accession, I think, your edit has changed the original meaning. This is with respect to the paragraph starting with "The princes had an unpalatable choice:". The original text meant that Patel and Menon were afraid that India's sovereignty is at stake if one or more of the princes decided against joining with India considering the compromise they had to make in the process. Can you please reword appropriately? -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. Saravask 07:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

History template[edit]

I'm generally against shoving ugly templates into articles, but this one is very good and places this issue amongst the other important events in the long history of South Asia. I think it was good where it was but wanted to gather other opinions and get expanded reasoning from Nichalp first. - Taxman Talk 17:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I back inserting History template. This is an important series of events in Indian history, starting before and continuing after independence. Rama's Arrow 18:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


Hi, I have posted a few comments here, in case anybody is interested in a critique of the article as it stands today. Regards, ImpuMozhi 05:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Flaw in Hyderabad State size[edit]

'Hyderabad was a state that stretched over 130,000 kilometres (82,000 miles) in the center of India. This is impossible... it could be Sq. Kilometers nad sq. miles or something like that.

hydkat 19:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sorry, it is 82,000 sq miles. Rama's Arrow 21:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind. I offer my congratulations to you and others who worked on this article. The fact that it is 3AM and I finished reading it just an hour ago should show to you how good I think it is.
hydkat 21:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I corrected the error, and most thanks to you for your kinds words. Rama's Arrow 22:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'm confused. What is the error? 130,000km is approx. 82,000mi (according to Google, "82 000 miles = 131 966.208 kilometers" [1]) The "correction" for this error has been to remove the reference to kilometers, which seems an odd choice. -Harmil 01:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
The problem is addressed. Rama's Arrow 03:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

"Integration in media"[edit]

I'm comin' to believe that this section, although unique and nice, is inappropriate for this article:

  1. These are not "historical events" or "political processes."
  2. Except for "Sardar," they deal with sociological problems and terrorism.
  3. The "freedom of expression" angle, which I initially believed was important to note here, is not appropriate in an encyclopedia article - especially when there are no sources confirming their mass influence.

Rama's Arrow 04:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The Media is an important tool of politics in Indian society. This is the end result of its independence and reach among Indians. It is at same time the country's biggest critique and its most powerful champion. I'm not just talking about news media but also advertising, movies and more recently radio. National Integration issues and inter-community relations more often than not hold center-stage in the Indian Media. This is attested by the current issues in Indian politics and the movies that are released. This section is therefore very much a part of this article.
A lot of sociological problems and insurgencies in India have to do with political integration of communities to the mainstream. Media plays a big part here.
its freedom of expression that has ensured issue in this country are not swept under the carpet as is done so often in so many countries around the world to their detriment.
hydkat 05:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I share these precise beliefs, but I also know the following: (1) I had no source to confirm the assertions that para was making and (2) connecting the sociological problems to "political integation" require a specialized discussion that is not, and prolly should not be offered here. Being in this case conservative in interpreting Wikipedia and FA norms, I thus acted. Rama's Arrow 05:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
It is also true that this section was not described as an issue during the FA vote, and certainly did not impede its FAC. Rama's Arrow 05:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The Rann of Kutch issue[edit]

The problem with the Sir Creek / Rann of Kutch issue has not been touched upon. My net connection is pathetically slow and am getting edit conflicts to top it, so will someone please include that where appropriate? It is a minor issue, but on the whole good job in making what was once a nothing article into a featured article. Idleguy 06:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, 3 problems here - (1) There is no particular "Pakistan" section where the point can be added, (2) It was resolved in 1965 and (3) its more border dispute than integration issue, especially now that its resolved. It was included in a previous version but taken out later for the above reasons. Thank you for your compliments. Rama's Arrow 06:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I take some of it back - I will make the ref at the end of the "Conflicting Agendas." Rama's Arrow 06:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Lead far too POV for a featured article[edit]

Unbelievable that this article is a featured article with a lead like this! The lead is hopelessly biased in favour of everything the Indian government did. Sentences like

1)"a new India arose above demographic distinctions to unite peoples of various geographic, economic, ethnic, linguistic and religious backgrounds."

2)"a nation that could emancipate its people without the prospect of divisions or civil conflict."

3)" While India put down terrorism with force."

4)"empowering peoples to preserve and live in their natural socio-economic environment. While a national economic expansion is welding peoples and regions together, the map has been redrawn, as the nature of the federation transforms to enhance regional freedom."

are entirely unsuitable for a NPOV encyclopedia, let alone a featured article. I'm editing these offending statements. 10:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

"Lead" is is NPOV[edit]

(1) the "India" born on August 15th, 1947 was a democratic nation full of diverse ethnic and religious communities, plus economic and linguistic backgrounds. THESE ARE FACTS! And before the 15th, India was disunited between all these communities and geographical regions.

(2) "The prospect of civil conflict" was REAL - and how can you assert this just as over 1 million people were killed in the partition riots, and the military action over Hyderabad and Junagadh had to be conducted - plus Kashmir.

(3) "India has put down terrorism with force" - Operation Bluestar, Commissioner Ribero in Punjab, operations in the Northeast

(4) Tribal rights for Chhattisgarh, people of Jharkhand, Uttaranchal - what are these if not demands to live in their own socio-economic environment that is affected by being part of larger, industrializing states?

(5) The nature of the federation was transformed: (1) from 1947 into a united, Central government - directed nation of states, to (2) a union of states with increased autonomy and decentralization. The creation of states on linguistic, tribal lines proves this.

I'm sorry, but your objections are baseless - most of the information is discussed and resourced in detail throughout the article. Just becoz the lead is exempt of inline citations does not make this article a bad FA.

Rama's Arrow 20:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

1) India DID 'arose above demographic distinctions to unite peoples of various geographic, economic, ethnic, linguistic and religious backgrounds' I'm sad I have to continue to point this out! If India did not exist my Telugu speaking Mother would never have met my Tamil Father and I would never have been born! THIS IS NOT A POV. THIS IS FACT!
2) As its related to you point 1 and filled with sceptical people like you I have get to basics...
- 80.5% Hindus, home to the third-largest population of Muslims in the world (13.4%), Christians (2.3%), Sikhs (1.84%), Buddhists (0.76%), Jains (0.40%), Jews, Zoroastrians, Ahmadi-muslims, and Bahá'ís, not to mention a vast number of tribal communities and other ethnic groups. Home to two major linguistic families: Indo-Aryan (74% of the population) and Dravidian (spoken by about 24%)
23 official languages. 1,652 dialects/mother-tongues. This article will point out 570 princely states each with their own autonomous government. Today this sounds just facinating but back then, when the british left, it must have been done-right scary! NOT POV, just plain reasoning!
3)Not every terrorism refer to kashmir. We have had, and still have, the LTTE, the Maoist guerrilas called naxalites like People's War Group & CPI-maoist and then Ranvir Sena. The Bodo Liberation front and other groups in the north-east, the Khalistan movement and the list goes on. We have time and again 'put down terrorism by force' it is simply a necessity. A lot of people (policemen, army and paramilitary, polititian and heads of states) have died doing this. For th last time NOT A POV!
Finnaly I must plead with you look at things with a little less negetivism. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the first para or the statements you pointed out. Disagreeing with what you read doesn't make it POV. And please sign your name!
hydkat 20:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    • My objection was not to the content, but to the tone of saying it which shows India in a positive light, which we can not do. Let me clarify:-

1)"a new India arose above demographic distinctions to unite peoples of various geographic, economic, ethnic, linguistic and religious backgrounds." We can't say things like "rose above". It may sound very poetic and it may even be true, but it is not NPOV.

2)"a nation that could emancipate its people without the prospect of divisions or civil conflict." Again. "A nation that could emancipate its people" sounds very poetic and passionate, but it imposes upon the reader a particular notion of emancipation. Obviously the Muslim League did not consider the unity of India to be the emancipation of the muslim people, and we can not disrespect their viewpoint.

3)" While India put down terrorism with force." Wikipedia is not a governmental propaganda website. We can not call these groups terrorists, many people would think of them as independence fighters and we can not disrespect their viewpoints.

4)"empowering peoples to preserve and live in their natural socio-economic environment. While a national economic expansion is welding peoples and regions together, the map has been redrawn, as the nature of the federation transforms to enhance regional freedom." Whoever wrote this must have been inspired to a creative height. The statement people and religion are being welded together is not an undisputed fact. The same thing applies to "empowering people" and "enhance regional freedom". These may all be true, but these are not undisputed and we can not present them as facts when they in truth particular viewpoints of looking at facts. Loom91 10:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply to above[edit]

(1) Your first replacement connoted that "India" was born only in 1947. That's very disputed POV, and a debate that doesn't belong here. "Rose above" can be replaced, that's ok.

(2) I'm sorry, but this is not correct: "A nation that could" is non-passionate, and "Emancipation" is akin to freedom or any such word: you have to represent what is accurate - the freedom of the country was a paramount concern of the leaders.

further, THIS ARTICLE NOTES POLITICAL INTEGRATION WITH 1947 - any desire to address the Pakistan movement, League issues is wrong - they do not belong here at all.

(3) "Movements" - immediately connotes some heroic legitimacy, which many do not have. FACTUAL OBJECTION: India puts down terrorism, but the demand (a.k.a. movement) for ethnic rights, autonomy, etc. has resulted in government pro-active reforms to address those issues. Example: Bodoland Territorial Councils, Nagaland/Punjab autonomy.

(4) You're right about the "welding": I wrote this. Rama's Arrow 13:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

(5) "TERRORISM" is a technically defined word - I will not hesitate (nor will millions) to call bin Laden, Bhindranwale, all TERRORISTS. Addressing TERRORISTS as TERRORISTS is not POV, nor disrespecting these people and their agenda. However, "violent groups" is adequate. Rama's Arrow 13:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


Some person (who left his comments unsigned) put his comments right between my comments and my sign. I've moved as appropriate. Rama's Arrow 23:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've read the discussion above, and I see both points of view. I do believe, however, the lead continues to be a little NPOV, so am fixing it as far as I am able. Also, the whole article is far too literary in style, (Wikipedia:Not a Novel) so am remedying that where I see it as well. Hornplease 07:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

"Linguistic" link[edit]

In the inrto, the word "linguistic" links to an article on general linguistics. Which is logical, but not really relevant to an article about India. It wouod be better if it libnked to an article on Languages of INdia (or of the subcontinent, or of south asia, or whatever). Could make an interesting article if anyone had the knowledge to write it (I don't). PiCo 09:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

definition of plethora[edit]

pleth·o·ra (plĕth'ər-ə) n.

  1. A superabundance; an excess.

Several's definition: sev·er·al (sĕv'ər-əl, sĕv'rəl) pronunciation adj.

  1. Being of a number more than two or three but not many: several miles away.
  2. Single; distinct: “Pshaw! said I, with an air of carelessness, three several times” (Laurence Sterne).
  3. Respectively different; various: They parted and went their several ways. See synonyms at distinct.
  4. Law. Relating separately to each party of a bond or note.

Im reverting back.

hydkat 19:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Although I bascially agree with Hydkat's reasoning, I think "collage" would be a better term. There were about 600 princely states, while plethora "just might" imply too many. Rama's Arrow 20:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Please... trust your instincts... 'plethora' is a good word for 570 existing princely states and many more countless states that have existed for 2 thousand years

hydkat 05:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

POV issues[edit]

I read through the article and found various NPOV problems, which I'll be working on. The Hyderabad section was particularly bad, so I'm starting there:

  • The article seemed to assume that Patel and the Indians were the good guys and that Hyderabad had no right to self-determination. The victors write the history, I guess.
  • The Nizam didn't renege on anything. You can't renege on an agreement that you haven't agreed to yet.

- Nat Krause(Talk!) 05:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

    • I agree, this article has a pro-indian government bias. Good luck on correcting it. Loom91 07:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually its the way History is veiwed from this city... they was no popular support back then for Hyderabad independence, nor was there any sympathy with the Nizams of Hyderabad. It leaves out some of the blood curling tales about what was happening here back then. Sadar Patel has hell of a lot of respect here in Hyderabad for what he did. --hydkat 09:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, Hydkat, that's cool. Actually, I think it would be quite relevant if we could get some sourced information on the attitude of Hyderabadi people towards the Nizam, independence, and integration. However, the Nizam still deserves impartial treatment in history. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 23:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with Nat Krause's corrections to the Hyderabad section. I'm happy that somebody is cleaning out some intrinsic issues that eluded others for a while. However:
Please note that "Hyderabad's right of self-determination" is the POV of anti-India historians. It was the precise point in question during the time - did princely states have the right of independence? The un-emotional argument against independence was that they were too small and divided to sustain themselves and their people, plus they would create instability and security issues for India.
"Self-determination" is exactly the point the Nizam never conceeded. He never set a referendum for his people to decide what they wanted to do - he sought to decide it himself. He did exactly the same thing the Nawab of Junagadh tried to do. Note that a referendum was held in the NWFP for Pakistan or for India, but not independence. Virtually no princely state was given the option of declaring independence - as mentioned in the article, Bhopal and Trivandrum;s rulers tried to, but were not recognized.
The main point is, what may seem like POV to Nat and others, may in fact be legitimate technical facts of the time. So please do not make any big changes in a section prior to discussion. Rama's Arrow
Hydkat's comments precisely illuminates the point that neither Hyderabad nor Junagadh's people got to self-determine their destiny. In case of Kashmir, self-determination prolly would have happened had not Pakistan invaded in Oct, 1947. Now it is a 21st century dispute. Rama's Arrow 12:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The problem with the wording as it stands is that it now tells us only about the problem from the Indian government's perspective. There is nothing explaining the Nizam's actions. For instance, it says that a gap would exist in the middle of the envisioned united Indian state. That's true, but one could also say that integration would cause the disintegration of the independent state envisioned by the Nizam and his supporters. That's also true. Likewise, it says that Sardar Patel feared Hyderabad would pose a long-term threat to India's security, which I'm sure he did; it says nothing about what the Nizam's side's concerns may have been. This article presents a story in which Sardar Patel is the only protagonist.
It's not clear that either side was in favour of self-determination in terms of a popular vote. The Heads of Agreement apparently called for Hyderabad to eventually accede regardless of what the results of the plebiscite were.
Also, I respectfully disagree with the suggestion that one should not make major changes to this article without discussing them on talk first. I prefer the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Wikipedia calls on us to Be Bold. There's plenty of time to discuss afterwards. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 23:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
On self-determination, India's main stand was that Hyderabad should arrange for a plebiscite. Please see the quote of Patel in "Conflicting Agendas." The Heads of Agreement does not ask for a plebiscite precisely becoz the Nizam refused to concede the point. I can make this clear in the passage if you like, but your assertion that "neither side" was concerned about plebiscite is wrong.
For stating a fact, Nizam wanted independence so that he could keep ruling in an un-democratic state backed up by his Muslim allies (Population: 80% Hindu, approx. 15% Muslim). Qasim Razvi's motivations were these. If you like, I can add text and info that will ascertain this point. Patel comes across as a protagonist, I don't know why. Patel thought in terms of India's security, what's POV about stating that? If he still comes across as a protagonist, it is becoz the Nizam's motivations were un-democratic. These are facts - I can add as many as you like to cement this point. Surely you don't want to argue that Hitler comes across as the sole antagonist in the World War II articles?
You can be bold - no problem there. But please don't remove cited material. Also, if NPOV'zing means making Razvi/Nizam come across more positive than Muslim elitists and un-democrats, I'm sorry but that'll be factually inaccurate. There was no debate about the "rights of Muslims," etc. like Jinnah and partition time. There are records of Razvi's speeches calling for the destruction of India. Rama's Arrow 02:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've done some cleaning up of the first half of this article, which badly needed it. Not trying anything on Hyderabad yet, because thats clearly where people are getting irritated. However, its clear to me that the wording should be clear, consistent, and NPOV throughout. It isnt right now. Further, I think we should avoid stating as fact beliefs about counterfactuals, which isnt acceptable history. So that needs to be fixed wherever possible.
The motivation of Sardar Patel has been discussed elsewhere in the article; in an article over the prescribed size, I dont think once again we need to be banging on about his concerns about security, especially if we havent any more detail than 'a large gap'.
So the hyderabad section would be more acceptable as a simple recital of facts. Who was entitled to what, who signed what, etc. etc. And, failing persuasive arguments to the contrary, those are the changes I shall be making soon. Hornplease 07:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I have a problem with two of your corrections:
military force to ensure the primacy of the Central government and of the Constitution then being drafted.
The Central government attempted to balance the use of force on separatist extremists with the creation of new States in order to reduce the pressures on the Indian State.
Unless you site a source these statements are inaccurate and misleading. I believe the main goal of the interim government was to facilitate unification. I don't think there was any agenda of promoting the primacy of the central government. This happened but only much later and due to the type of system adopted by the constitution assembly, which is a slightly different subject.
You replaced a section explaining the increasing autonomy of states after fighting against a number of uprisings (where its true the government dealt with force) some nonsense about a balancing act. Thereby effectively changing the point of that paragraph. The rest of your changes follow a very similar line where you seem to arbitrarily perceive a POV and change it. --hydkat 09:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
You may believe the agenda was 'unification'. However, the word is misleading in the context. (What sort of unity is being proposed?). I am willing to compromise so that the line will merely indicate that the primacy that was intended was of the constitution then being drafted, though thats a second-best solution.
Secondly, I suggest you read my replacement sentence about the twin approaches to separatist tensions again. It clearly indicates that a. the goal was the preservation of the state andd b. the approaches ranged from counter-insurgency activity to the reorganisation of states. That is accurate.
Finally, I do not arbitrarily perceive a POV; I have laid out what my specific objections were to the way that it was written above (as have, I see, many others). I have made changes in the light of those specific objections. Hence, not arbitary. Merely NPOV. In other places, I have made changes to simply let the article read better. Hornplease 09:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

States reorganisation[edit]

The Hindu has a section called "This Day that Age" in which it presents items from fifty years ago. Since, it's 2006 now, the section now has items from 1956. Those items give a glimse of the thought process behind states reorganisation and captures the "intermediate states" too. See for example. If we follow this section for some more period, we'll get many useful references. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 14:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Leading map[edit]

I noticed the map(s) opening the article show Thailand as part of Myanmar. This is inaccurate. Brutannica 05:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the map is problematic. Burma left the British Indian empire in 1937. Thailand was never a British colony ... The map needs to be deleted and replaced with the correct pre-Independence version, in which both Burma and Thailand are not a part of British India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
PS There is also a problem with the post-independence (right hand) map. Sikkim didn't become a state of India until much later. Therefore, it should be shown in the same colour as Bhutan. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
You know dudes, this isn't the place to discuss problems with maps - do so on the image talkpages. These images are used in a number of articles, not just this one and its uploader/author needs to be informed and a discussion started on the image talkpage. Rama's arrow 06:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I think they were commenting on the appropriateness of having the map on this page. This can be resolved by placing a map request on the Wikiproject Indian Maps page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


I've read reports that Baluchistan wanted to join the Indian Union. Could this be researched? =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok I saw a post higher up, but it can't hurt to have that information on this page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


I removed the following:

"The successful annexation of Hyderabad was praised by many Indian Muslim leaders, and there were no episodes of civil violence."

There have been many episodes of Hindu-Muslim violence (most notably over Babri mosque), as well as other controversies.Vice regent 22:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


I've produced a revised version of the article intended to meet some of the concerns raised in FARC. Unfortunately, my changes were rolled back to the original version before I could produce a commentary explaining my changes, but my version is still accessible from the history here. I'm posting the commentary anyway, since I'd written it and since it may be useful in case anyone else wants to take up the task of improving the article:

The changes I made were, in essence, the following:

  • I added a good bit of background information on the run-up to integration. This included information about why princely India existed in the first place, the legal relationship between British India and princely India, and why integration was such a major issue both for the British and the Congress.
  • I also added some information on the princes' perspctives on integration - what their views were, why they agreed to it, and why some of them initially opposed the idea.
  • I reworked the article's treatment of the integration process. The article as it stood described it as mostly a one-off event that began and ended with the instruments of accession. In actuality, these were only the first step, and it seemed to me that an article dealing with the political integration of India must describe the entire process of integration, and not just its first step. Additionally, many of the things the article associated with the IoAs - such as the privy purses and the guarantees regarding the protection of the rulers' private properties - were in point of fact associated with later steps in the process, such as the Merger Agreements, which meant that the article as it stood was somewhat factually misleading. My version fixed these issues by describing how the integration process proceeded, from a limited initial three-subject accession to a complete integration.
  • I also reworked the article's treatment of secessionism and sub-nationalism. Since the article's focus is the political integration of princely states and colonial enclaves into British India, it seemed to me that discussing issues such as Punjab and Bodoland - which had nothing to do with either of these - was out of place.
  • Finally, I reworked the article to reflect a broader range of sources. Perspectives on the integration process differ, and the best way to ensure accuracy and balance is to use more than just two or three sources. For the same reason, I added a section on modern critical perspectives on the integration process - which, to my mind, anyway ought to be an essential part of of encyclopaedic coverage. -- Arvind (talk) 11:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Himalayan kingdoms[edit]

Nepal, Sikkim and Bhutan cannot be considered as princely states, they were independent kingdoms recognized throughout history by various Indian empires as well as the British. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Political integration of India/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

See previous comments at Talk:Political integration of India/Comments1

Last edited at 03:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 03:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)