Talk:Political integration of India

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Good point. Thanks. Rama's Arrow 06:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Three-language formula 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done! Rama's Arrow 17:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map in Spanish 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Small inaccuracies

message: 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)
thread_title:  Good improvements!! 

message: 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)
replies: text: This has been addressed now. Rama's Arrow 05:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think the first line is too complicated 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baluchistan 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: OK. Thanks. Saravask 07:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedits 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  History template 

message: 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)
thread_title: Comments

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Rann of Kutch issue 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lead far too POV for a featured article 

message: (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)
thread_title: Reply to above

message: 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)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Linguistic" link 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  definition of plethora 

message: 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 http://www.hindu.com/2006/10/04/stories/2006100401280900.htm 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)
thread_title:  States reorganisation 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Leading map

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hyderabad 

message: 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)
thread_title:  FARC 

message: 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 111.221.0.2 (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Himalayan kingdoms  

message: Substituted at 03:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Political integration of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203032959/http://www.scribd.com/doc/15380676/Telangana-Peoples-Armed-Struggle-19461951-Part-Two-First-Phase-and-Its-Lessons to https://www.scribd.com/doc/15380676/Telangana-Peoples-Armed-Struggle-19461951-Part-Two-First-Phase-and-Its-Lessons
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Political integration of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203032959/http://www.scribd.com/doc/15380676/Telangana-Peoples-Armed-Struggle-19461951-Part-Two-First-Phase-and-Its-Lessons to https://www.scribd.com/doc/15380676/Telangana-Peoples-Armed-Struggle-19461951-Part-Two-First-Phase-and-Its-Lessons
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: , the article might need some update regarding Article 370 and J&K reorganisation.-Nizil (talk) 06:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , I notice that practically nothing has been written about the "integration" of J&K here at all. I can write it but it doesn't seem urgent at the moment. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  J&K 

message: Has issues with uncited text and use of dated sources (about half of refs are from the 1950s or earlier). Do these really meet WP:HQRS? this book would be a good addition to the bibliography, for example. (t · c) buidhe 04:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:URFA/2020|FA sweeps]]