Talk:Indian independence movement/Archive 1

message: Indian independence movement sounds like a more appropriate title. --Jiang 04:58, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this comment out of context now? -- Gaurav 17:22, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: Dear Editor,
: Hah? Editor? Who?? =) This is Wikipedia. Be bold!
Please go through the writings. Why the Name of Swami Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo, Bhagat Singh, Chandra Sekhar Azad and Desh Bandhu Chittaranjan Das have not been kept for the important people is not understood and even the contribution of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose is distorted!!! 
Francois Gautier 
The truth about India's Independence
It is hoped that one day the history of India's Independence movement will be totally rewritten. For what is now taught, both in the West and in India, is often the history of the superficial, the apparent, the false even. And those who have least contributed to India's Independence, or worse who were partially responsible for its most terrible traumas, occupy a place of honour in those books, while those who had a deeper vision and worked with dedication for a true, wholesome independence, are in the shadow and have been waylaid by historians. 
History wants us to believe that the Independence movement started with the Indian National Congress. But originally, the Congress was a tool fashioned by the British for their own use. Witness the fact that it all began in December 1885, with an Englishman, A O Hume, with the avowed aim to: "Allow all those who work for the national (read British) good to meet each other personally, to discuss and decide of the political operations to start during the year". 
:I think these comments are well-represented in the article as is.
And certainly, till the end of the 19th century, the Congress, who regarded British rule in India as a "divine dispensation", was happy with criticising moderately the government, while reaffirming its loyalty to the Crown and its faith in "liberalism" and the British innate sense of justice"! 
Thus for a long time, the Britishers considered favourably the Congress and sought to use it to justify their continuing occupation of India. But soon of course it changed into suspicion and downright hostility, as the Congress, realising is folly, turned towards constitutional agitation to obtain from the British parliament a few laws favourable to India. And the Englishmen did hand over a few crumbs here and there, such as giving Lord Sinha (Lord Sinha indeed!) the honour of becoming the first Indian to be part of the Governor's Executive Council. 
What must be understood to grasp the whole history of the Congress, is that its pre-Independence leaders were anglicised, Western educated Indians, whose idealism was at best a dose of liberalism peppered with a bit of socialism "British Labour style". They were the outcrop of an old British policy of forming a small Westernised elite, cut off from its Indian roots, which will serve in the intermediary hierarchies of the British Raj and act as go-between the master and the slaves. 
:Perhaps these comments would be better placed in British Raj?
Thus, not only were these Congress leaders "moderate " (as they came to be called), partially cut-off from the reality of India, from the greatness that was India, the soul-glory of its simple people, but because their mind worked on the pattern of their masters, they turned to be the greatest Hindu-baiters and haters of them all -as verily their descendants, even until today, still are. 
But these Westernised moderate Congress leaders, found it difficult to get identified by the vast mass of India which was deeply religious. Thus they encouraged the start of "reformed" Hindu movements, such as the Arya Samaj or the Brahma Samaj, through which they could attack the old Hindu system, under the guise of transforming it, which is perfectly acceptable to all Hindus, as Hinduism has always tolerated in its fold divergent movements. 
It is these early Congress leaders who began the slow but insidious crushing of the Hindu society. For instance, the Congress governments, which were installed after July 1937 in most of the provinces, encouraged everywhere the development of education modelled on the British system. And comments French historian Alain Danielou, one of the few Indianists to give an unbiased account of India’s history: "The teaching of philosophy, arts, sciences, which constituted the prestigious Indian cultural tradition, became more and more ignored and could only survive thanks to the Brahmins, without any help whatsoever from the State." 
When the first true cultural, social and political movements, which had at heart the defence of India's true heritage started taking shape, such as the much decried Hindu Mahashaba, which attempted to counterbalance the Muslim League's influence, or the even more maligned Rama Rajya Parishad, initiated by the remarkable Hindu monk Swamy Karpatri, they were ridiculed by the Congress, which used to amplify the problems of untouchability, castes, or cow worshipping, to belittle these movements, which after all, were only trying to change India from a greatness that was to a greatness to be. 
:Bear in mind that it was early pro-British Hinduism-reforming movements which, by 'amplifying' issues like Sati, managed to outlaw them.
"The Congress," writes Danielou, "utilised to the hilt its English speaking press to present these Hindu parties as barbaric, fanatical, ridiculous; and the British media in turn, took-up, as parrots, the cry of their Indian counterparts. To this day, nothing has changed in India: some of the English-speaking press, such as Outlook or Frontline (which should be rightly called "the Voice of the Communist Party of China"), still indulges in Hindu-bashing and it is faithfully copied by the Western corespondents, most of whom are totally ignorant of India and turn towards Indian intellectuals to fashion their opinions. 
But this strategy was good enough to convince the British that when they left, they would have to hand over power to the "respectable" Congress (after all, we are all gentlemen), even though it constituted a tiny Westernised minority, whereas India's true Hindu majority would be deprived of their right. 
The Congress did turn radical finally in 1942, when because of Mahatma Gandhi's rigorous non-violence policy, it adopted a non-co-operation attitude towards the war effort. Thus the British declared the Congress illegal, jailed most of its leaders and embarked on a policy of heavy repression. But the truth is that those of the Congress who were imprisoned and are deified today for that fact, went there not directly for India’s independence, but because Mahatma Gandhi refused to cooperate in the Second World War against the great Asura that was Hitler.
:(Comments in the text above by me) -- Gaurav 17:22, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: What the heck? This is absolutely ahistorical. First of all, Gandhi was doing "radical" things long before 1942, e.g. the salt march in 1930, which was -economic- noncooperation, stabbing the British where they cared. Second of all, there's all kinds of other crap in there, like that Arya Samaj was a movement to destroy Hinduism? What the fuck? Dayanand Saraswati was as pro-Hindu and pro-India as they come, and is an important figure in the rise of the Hindu nationalist movement that M. Gautier is such a fan of... is M. Gautier alleging that this revered figure is some sort of Congress stooge? Does he lack total consistency? Is he totally loopy? Graft 18:48, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: I've noticed there's a lot of redundancy between Indian independence movement and British Raj. Suggest we should move more stuff from there (about the Minto-Morley reforms, etc.) over here, and write some new British Raj content. The long 'letter to the editor' above has some interesting (tho controversial) points about the British Raj, which could be moved over there. -- Gaurav 17:22, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundancy

message: hello ppl
i will be working on this article. 
apart from my 8th grade history textbooks(which i have to dig out) could someone point me to nice sources? leave a comment on my talk page. also i would like some comments on my writing style see my contributions.
Thank you
--kunjan1029 01:39, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  I will be working on this article.. 

message: OK i have updated to article. i think the article needs more information about other freedom fighters too, and their contributions. IMO some pictures of bhagat singh etc. would be nice. also i think it needs more information in the independence section. that is too small. but i am too tired right now its almost 3 am here. and i have to sleep :(
please send me some feedback either here or on my talk page.
--kunjan1029 07:42, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated the article 

message: A lot many things happened during 1940 to 1947. This article is still scanty on many of the details during that period. Still needs to include lot more information about other freedom fighters and their contributions. Any body have some good sources? 
--kunjan1029 07:59, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs more text towards the end. 

message: I will be re-structuring the article to some extent. Basically,
* the article is quite long (above the 32 KB limit)
* the first few sections don't need to be so detailed. This is an article on the Independence movement, and while info about the establishment of British rule is necessary, we don't need to go too deep into that, imho. I will shorten the first two sections and link to the main articles on the same topics (ex: British East India Company). 
* There is a lot of info in this article, thanks to everyone who has worked on this. If written and structured well, this could be FA material. 
--ashwatha 22:53, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot for working on this article! --kunjan1029 05:15, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
No problem :-) I added a short section on Subhash Chandra; I also removed the "See Also" section, since all the links there have already been linked to as "Main Articles" from the different sections. Also trying desperately to get the article into a more manageable size, but with so much info, it is hard to prune things without losing valuable information. Any suggestions regarding pruning would be wonderful. --ashwatha 06:47, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah i put in a lot of info there see if you can remove the non-important info and put that info(if not already there) into topic pages? --kunjan1029 09:26, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
The 1813 Charter Act did not abolish Sati (it was abolished in 1829). I removed that line; also removed a small pararaph on railways and telegraph, which is not directly relevant to this article. --ashwatha 19:08, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Wow!! this article looks really great now! just one comment ever since i worked on it, the quit india section is too thin... obivously a lot of things happened between then and independence... can you chart down few major events? tht all other wise great work !!! --kunjan1029 05:23, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that too - the quit india section needs a bit more info. Maybe the lead section can also be expanded a little. I will try and dig up a little more regarding Quit India. --ashwatha 05:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-organization 

message: Shouldn't there be something on the Anushilan Samiti? --Soman 23:27, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anushilan Samiti 

message: Though, I haven't yet read the article in its entirety, it seems to be lacking in details about many leaders from the south, for eg Lakshmi Sahgal. -- Sundar 09:22, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
: I will try to find some info regarding this and put it in, please go ahead and add it yourself if possible. --ashwatha 16:44, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lakshmi Sahgal

message: In an attempt to deal with one of the major complaints at Fac, I may have slaughtered the beginning of the article.  Not too happy with the results, but there was a lot of unnecessary information there (and possibly still is).  I think it is better now, but understand if a revert is wanted. -shuri 08:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compressed first two sections 

message: I know many people are trying very hard to do something worthwhile with this article. I think currently it comes across as a POV article: mildly pro-empire. I tried to correct it in one section (the introductory "European Rule" section) but realized that the POV somehow persists through the article, so this note is a "drawing of attention" to all editors.
The British rule in India was not characterized by a benevolent attitude to civilize the Indians, but by many incidents of extreme brutality, as documented in many sources which are still in print. The primary sources are held in many accessible archives. One example: on April 3 1858, British troops sacked Jhansi and put to death all males whom they could find.  Christopher Hibbert's single volume history, named The Great Mutiny (Penguin)  describes this in one chilling sentence: All the next day the street fighting, looting, destruction and murder continued; the British soldiers eagerly exceeedeing their orders to 'spare nobody over sixteen years - except women, of course'. The Indian independence movement was a reaction to colonial brutality: it could easily have degenerated into a cycle of violence, as the 1857 war did. It was rescued from this by a handful of people. In discussing the empire, one must not shy away from describing its brutality. 158.144.51.19 10:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History is not a tea party 

message: Shouldn't information about Goa, Hyderabad et al. should be included in this article? utcursch | talk 12:00, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
:Goa, as well as other European colonies, may be added, but I guess 1 sentence per colony is enough. I'm not sure about Hyderabad, because that would bring the question of all other princely states. I'm a bit confused about those. Also, anything post-1947 brings the question whether other currently-independent country's independence (to be precise, Bangladesh's independence from Pakistan) need to be included here. I was under the impression that this article was about the movement against the British in all regions of South Asia. So, is information on post-1947 incidents relevant here? I'd like to hear both sides of the argument. Thanks. --Ragib 19:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Goa et al.

message: The article says that the Mahatma was at Kolkata on 15/8/47. I remember reading somewhere that he was at Noakhali then. Can someone confirm which is correct? Or can we just say Bengal to be on the safe side? ---Gurubrahma 05:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We could Ask Gandhi :P. According to the cited website, he was at Noakhali, which is also what I remember from reading Freedom at Midnight about two years ago. I'll wait if anybody else can quote chapter and verse for us before making any edits. Gaurav 11:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I read somewhere he was in Kolkata. I cannot remember right now. I shall try to find put some source.--Dwaipayanc 12:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gandhiji's location? 

message: *Actually Bahadur Shah Zafar and Bahadur Shah II - both are one person. Latest edit says they are different, it is not like that. ok. --Bhadani 15:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bhadani's comment above is correct, Bahadur Shah Zafar and Bahadur Shah II are the same person. Zafar is his pen name, the last mughal emperor used it as a poet. Thanks. --Ragib 14:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Bahadur Shah Zafar]]

message: I have put a redirect from the above article to this page. The content of the former page is posted below. I don't think there was anything there worth merging into the article --Ravikiran 08:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Indian Independence Struggle

message: The folloing message which I got from Wikipedia admininstrator Gurubrahma and my answer to him are pertinent to this page and I reproduce them. I would welcome any comment.
Adam Keller
:Hello. This message is regarding the page Indian Independence Movement. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Otherwise, people might consider your edits to be vandalism. Thank you. --Gurubrahma 12:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hullo, please read WP:V and WP:NPOV. Persistent attempts to change content with out the backing of credible sources and/or the consensus of fellow editors could get you blocked. --Gurubrahma 17:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: "...and ignore the fact that the majority was Muslim and did not want to join India." 
There's no evidence for this. Junagadh residents had to choose between a secular country and an Islamic country. Their choice was obvious. If India were going to become a Hindu state, the choice to join Pakistan would have been obvious for Kashmiris too. But that was not the case. Even recent BBC surveys show most Kashmiris are against joining Pakistan. As for your being from Israel, sorry we've seen that before, and it doesn't matter anyway. deeptrivia (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism or censorship? 

message: I've re-written the Revolutionary activities with as much condensation of the material as I could do.Please see if there is any NPoV disputable comment in this re-written section.I hope such disputes, if any, can be solved, or, supported with citations.It's bad to see Hindustan Socialist Republic Associatio to appear in red.I've tried to collect some information and kept in Here.
But the information, I think, is inadequate.Please try to gather some more information and make it an article.With so many Bhagat Singh films around,it's a shame this article does not exist already! Please point out if any disparities on dates appear in this section.Thank you.--Dwaipayanc 12:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hindustan Socialist Republican Association exists now, I created it about a month ago. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 08:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, I saw that around the time of creation. Thanks.--Dwaipayanc 11:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revolutionary activities

message: This article reads painfully like it was written by those Indian nationalist idiots that you sometimes find floating about. The referring to of the mutiny as the first war for independance is just...wrong though in particular the main bad point is towards WW2 where it sounds like Britain was trying to keep Britain repressed- no mention at all of the agreement reached to give India its independance after the war. 
Also prior to this it all sounds like the British were all together in opressing India and commiting foul deeds there- no mention that there was support in Britain for Indian indepenance too. --84.12.25.239 14:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV... 

message: Great kudos to all the people who worked on this article!!! It is amazing now! When I started working on this artice it looked like this, when I left it, it was like this. but look at this article now its really an exceptional piece of work! Good work people! --kunjan1029 23:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Work! 

message: Sorry, but this really ain't a NPOV:
"Their die-hard courage, patriotism and spirit could not overcome the disastrous odds, and the INA's efforts ended with the surrender of Japan in 1945."
Stil less is this - I appreciate that many people believe that Netaji is some sort of Messiah who, had he lived (or if he now returned) would solve all India's problems overnight, but it is very far from being universally accepted. 
"To this day, Subhas Bose's daring and courage are an awe-inspiring example for newer generations of Indians, and the INA soldiers are treated with equal regard and honour to the men who fought with Mahatma Gandhi."
Both these passages should be re-written to make them more purely factual, or else deleted altogether. 
More generally I think the conflation of the Indian Nationalist movement with the Rebellion of 1857 has no historical validity (See {Talk:Indian rebellion of 1857 for the debate we've had on this). For a start it was not a pan-Indian rebellion, and the bulk of what became India was not involved, while troops from Madras, Bombay and Punjab helped to suppress it. Secondly the sepoys and Indian rulers who spearheaded the '57 Revolt played no part in the Nationalist movement as it emerged after 1881. Sikandarji 23:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bose Again...

message: 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)
thread_title:  Any Further Revisions? 

message: An image used in this article, , 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 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Edwin Samuel Montagu - Punch cartoon - Project Gutenberg etext 16592.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , 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 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:QuitIndiaMovement.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: 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)
thread_title:  Is it the truth?  

message: 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)
thread_title:  AM/PM 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Use of word 'Independence' 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Indian independence movement. 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/20170205065228/http://www.15august2017speech.in/ to http://www.15august2017speech.in/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141208180546/http://www.christmas.net.au/about/history.html to http://www.christmas.net.au/about/history.html
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) 20:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Indian independence movement. 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/20120904104239/http://www.sanmargroup.com/Newsmain/Matrix/June2001/LegVeeraJ01.htm to http://www.sanmargroup.com/Newsmain/Matrix/June2001/LegVeeraJ01.htm
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) 06:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified