Talk:Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi

Ambedkar's view on Gandhi's Assassination

If someone could kindly take his/her time to add Ambedkar's reaction to the assassination, then I will be obliged, since it would fill up a gap on the opposite side of the spectrum of views. Soham "Samrat" Banerjee (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Please note the "assassination" picture from Nine hours to Rama

A scene from the commercial movie Nine Hours to Rama (1963)—based on UCLA historian Stanley Wolpert's novel of the same name of the year before—purporting to show the assassination of Gandhi.

A heads up: apparently, this movie still has been making the rounds on the internet. (Why now I can't figure out.) It is not an authentic picture of the assassination. Being from a 1963 British movie, its copyright has not expired, but I don't have the time to look into all that. Be warned. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler Sorry for reply on the old thread. If this pic is copyrighted it should be deleted. If it is fair use or expired copyright then we should use it in the popular media section with the caption. I think it is useful, copyright permitting. Venkat TL (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I have asked commons copyright noticeboard to check the copyright status. Venkat TL (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. Even if a movie made in India in 1963 might have lost its copyright, this one likely has not as it was an American movie that was banned in India and probably still is. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler ok. Out of curiosity, I just saw the movie on youtube, this exact moment is not in the movie, although the movie shows a few moments after the scene shown in the pic. So it is likely a still camera photo of an ongoing shooting, and not necessarily a screenshot (movie still). Venkat TL (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Either that or it is edited for Youtube viewing, given that there would have been protests. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler yes, that is possible that the youtube print I saw may be edited and not the authentic movie copy. I am not sure what protests has to do with it, but FWIW, the youtube print does have the scene of Gandhi getting shot and a few dialogues in the immediate aftermath. This particular frame was not there. Venkat TL (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I mean it is not uncommon for youtube viewers to object for various reasons, and in response, material is removed, or cautionary messages added. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok, understood. Venkat TL (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Attackers Identity

Regentspark, yes, the attackers identity has been restored as it is highly relevant. Chipavan Brahmins were holding all the major posts at RSS that time. Biggest reason to keep this is because RSS tried to spread the rumours of Muslim killer to start riots and civil war. So the identity is historically relevant too. Venkat TL (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I have no clue about caste issues and thought it likely that this was "infamy glorification" of some sort. About Muslim/Pakistan, fyi, the source clearly says Pakistan, not Muslims. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@RegentsPark I have restored "Pakistan" as you suggested. I had not checked the source. Sorry, that it got caught in the revert. Venkat TL (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Version

@Fowler&fowler: You got the wrong version here. I had removed the falsification of sources and added information about riots. Both of these have been reverted with your revert. Can you self-revert your last edit? Dympies (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Not quite. It wasn't "falsification of sources," only you did not find them. I have now cited those sentences. As for what you did add, the isolated incidents of reprisals against Chitapavan or other Brahmins in Maharashtra, it is not clear they are notable. The WP:ONUS to establish notability in an article on Gandhi's death, is yours. Please do so here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: That's wrong because I removed "falsification of sources" right here regarding testimony and Awol Allo. It is not found in the source and is a misinformation. Can you remove it?

Riots caused by the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi are notable here for separate section here. The sources I provided here include NY Times and a recent scholarly source which supports the notability of the incident. I can find many more sources but here is another one: Khandkar, A.C.; Khandkar, A.C. (2019). Swimming Upstream: Laxmanshastri Joshi and the Evolution of Modern India. Oxford University Press. p. 164. ISBN 978-0-19-909826-2. The news unleashed a wave of violence against Brahmins, with rabid mobs violently burning down Brahmin homes, and roiling Maharashtra in particular. Mourning soon turned to violence with riots and arson in Bombay and elsewhere in India.

Can you restore this section regarding riots after Gandhi's death? Dympies (talk) 07:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see that it is notable. It is not mentioned in the Godse page either. You will require more reliable sources than that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for removing falsification.

I don't think we should mention riots on page of Godse but here.

@RegentsPark and Kautilya3: Can you guys offer your view if we should restore this section regarding riots that took place after this murder? Above I provided a Oxford source which also discussed it. Dympies (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think the riots should be mentioned, but not in the way done here as if it was the only thing that happened after the death. The entire national reaction should be covered, and riots could be a part of that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The riots moreover were complicated by traditional antipathy toward the Chitpavans in many regions of Maharashtra. It can be mentioned but not in a section devoted to it.

The old NYTimes reports border on primary sources now. The "Oxford" source is about something completely unrelated. I'm happy to add a sentence with a better source. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I've changed the section title from Legacy to Aftermath, removed some of the less focused sentences in the later paragraph (temporarily) and replaced them with a direct quote from Thomas Hansen, which I will paraphrase later, at which point I will re-add the cites to Yasmin Khan for example. The Hanse quote refers to the anti-Chitpavan violence but also established its context. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Anti-brahmin riots after the assasination

There was widespread violence against the Marathi brahmin community following Mahatma Gandhi's murder at the hands of a man from that community.There are dozens of good reliable sources on these riots.}}Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Obviously it was not violence against the Chitpavans, but destruction of their property. Anti-Brahminism, which had been brewing in Maharashtra for quite some time, came to a head with the Gandhi's assassination by a Chitpavan. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

At best it deserves one sentence of the sort:

Anti-brahminism in Maharashtra, which had been on the rise for many decades, came to a head after Gandhi's assassination with attacks on Chitapavan-owned property, after news broke that Godse was a Chitpavan. In turn, in the years following, some Hindu nationalists attempted to make the case that their supporters had been persecuted by Gandhi's supporters.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

This is bread and butter early Indian postcolonial history. Plenty academic sources exist. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

"In turn, in the years following, some Hindu nationalists attempted to make the case that their supporters had been persecuted by Gandhi's supporters. Would be WP:UNDUE because Sanghis keep coming up with a new excuse and new number to politically exploit that violence. At times they falsely claim that the violence was committed by Gandhians and at times they falsely claim it was done by Congress members. Not to mention the fake figure which falls anywhere between 1,000 - 8,000 deaths is regularly promoted by such fake news peddlers. The figure was 15 deaths in Bombay (most affected area of riots) alone. [1] Capitals00 (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

primary source Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Old, but not really primary. I mentioned it only for debunking the misinformation from the source which was included here which falsely claims it to be "a pogrom very similar to the 1984 anti-Sikh riots in Delhi". Capitals00 (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

"And for Chitpavans to think in terms of a hostile world is perhaps not totally unrealistic, because of the frankly anti-Chitpavan Brahman atmosphere abroad in large areas of Maharashtra—the anti-Brahmanism that came to a head in the violent attacks on Chitpavan property in 1948 when it became known that a Chitpavan had assassinated Gandhi. Perhaps it is not coincidental that the increase in family-history writing begins at the same time (in the 1930’s) as the somewhat frantic organization of “Brahman protection societies” (Brahmana Hitasa_ rak aka Sangha, in Satara and Pandharpur), the Chitpavan-dominated Rashtriya Svayamsevaka Sangha (R.S.S.), and so forth—all of which organization seems to have reached a peak in the 1940’s along with a peak in anti-Brahmanism, that is to say, anti-Chitpavanism."

See Barney Cohn and Milton Singer Structure and Change in Indian Society

edited by John C. Hopkins reissued by

Routledge 2017 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Wages of Violence: Naming and Identity in Postcolonial Bombay

Thomos Blom Hansen 2018

FOUND INSIDE – PAGE 34

Second, the murder of Gandhi by a Chitpavan Brahman in 1948 boosted anti-Brahman feelings throughout western India. Brahman homes and estates were burned, and families and individuals attacked several places in western Maharashtra, ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Hindu Nationalism: Origins, Ideologies and Modern Myths - Page 110

Chetan Bhagat, Routledge · 2020

FOUND INSIDE – PAGE 110

In

1950, the Mahasabha also continued

to

campaign

against

what it saw as the harassment of Maharashtra

brahmins

following Gandhi's murder (All India Hindu Mahasabha 1950b). The Mahasabha political orientation throughout the 1950s was ...

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I knew Maureen Patterson, btw, and also that she was in Lahore, I think, during that period, so she was knowledgeable. She only says destruction of property. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

This is more relevant to a page on the Chitpavans, RSS, Hindu nationalism. It was a footnote in the aftermath of the Gandhi assassination. The bigger fear was anti-Muslim violence on the assumption that the killer was a Muslim, which the leaders were quick to descredit. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Burning of homes is something I see which has been mentioned in scholarly sources that have discussed this subject. I wonder if that would require bigger mention than "Anti-brahminism in Maharashtra, which had been on the rise for many decades, came to a head after Gandhi's assassination with attacks on Chitapavan-owned property, after news broke that Godse was a Chitpavan." Capitals00 (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

«Talk»Thanks foir the detailed response. BTW, the riots were against Brahmins of Maharashtra rather than the chitpavan community which forms only a small minority of Brahmin population of the region.Also the RSS had very few chitpavans in 1940s. They tended to support the more "extreme" Hindu mahasabha. Also the leadership of the RSS for decades was mostly made up of non-chitpavan Maharashtrian brahmins.It is also wrong to say that the rioters attacked only the chitpavans, they targeted all marathi brahmins. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

True to some extent.

See Wages of Violence: Naming and Identity in Postcolonial Bombay

Thomas Blom Hansen , Princeton University Press, 2001, reprinted 2018

FOUND INSIDE – PAGE 34

"Second, the murder of Gandhi by a Chitpavan Brahman in 1948 boosted anti-Brahman feelings throughout western India. Brahman homes and estates were burned, and families and individuals attacked several places in western Maharashtra, Pune and the Nagpur region (Patterson 1988).  Although part of this rage was spontaneous, it as also subtly encouranged by non-Brahman Congress leaders who sought to establish the credentials in the party."

@Jonathansammy and Capitals00: In light of the above and some of your remarks, please add something reasonable but brief using Hansen. I'm flat out of time now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Good faith revert

@Fowler&fowler: So the sources you are removing here are sound, and the verifiability is clear, so would you kindly explain your beef. The 'good faith revert' calling it "nonsense" doesn't leave on much the wiser. What's the problem? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not see this. See the section below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Hindutva terror

user:Iskandar323 attempted to add a new section, "Portrayal as terrorism," which had been sourced among others to a book review published in EPW in 2012. Says the review:

An interesting fact that emerges is that the successful assassination was only the last of the five attempts starting in 1934. This lays to rest the idea that it was Gandhi's support for Partition that motivated the killing. Gandhi was a devout Hindu and fairly conservative socially; what made Hindu nationalists hate him so much that they attempted to kill him and finally succeeded?

The idea that the proximate cause of the assassination was not the Hindu nationalist anger at Gandhi for alleged partiality towards Muslims and Pakistan during the Partition of India does not have due weight in the scholarly literature. I quote from the lead of the Mahatma Gandhi page which I had written many years ago, and which I had more recently updated with newer references.

Gandhi's vision of an independent India based on religious pluralism was challenged in the early 1940s by a Muslim nationalism which demanded a separate homeland for Muslims within British India. In August 1947, Britain granted independence, but the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two dominions, a Hindu-majority India and a Muslim-majority Pakistan. As many displaced Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs made their way to their new lands, religious violence broke out, especially in the Punjab and Bengal. Abstaining from the official celebration of independence, Gandhi visited the affected areas, attempting to alleviate distress. In the months following, he undertook several hunger strikes to stop the religious violence. The last of these, begun in Delhi on 12 January 1948 when he was 78, also had the indirect goal of pressuring India to pay out some cash assets owed to Pakistan, which the Indian government had been resisting. Although the Government of India relented, as did the religious rioters, the belief that Gandhi had been too resolute in his defence of both Pakistan and Indian Muslims, spread among some Hindus in India. Among these was Nathuram Godse, a militant Hindu nationalist from Pune, western India, who assassinated Gandhi by firing three bullets into his chest at an interfaith prayer meeting in Delhi on 30 January 1948.

References
References

Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

PS Of course, Gandhi had opposed the Partition of India before, during, and after. But as the remaining major leaders in the Indian National Congress supported it, he was in a minority. But he very much did try to oppose the violence in the wake of the Partition, especially in late 1947 and early 1948 against the besieged Muslims in Delhi at the hands of Hindus and Sikhs, many of whom had just arrived as refugees from Pakistan. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I find this a little tangential as a reason for removing the material, since the aspect referenced above was not the focus of it, and was not quoted or otherwise directly referenced. Are you saying that because the source makes one supposition that you deem incorrect that the baby must go out with the bath water? The precise motive itself is not exactly central to the material as it had been added: one way or another the motivation was Hindu nationalism, whether directly regarding partition or not. Though on the subject itself, is the point that is made about the assassination attempts beginning in 1934 not at least valid, and how do other sources go about explaining that exactly? Iskandar323 (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The first two of those other attempts by Godse in 1944 with a small knife were damp squibs, or busted flushes. Take your pick. They mostly go unmentioned in standard biographies of Gandhi.

The penultimate one was by the 21-year-old Madanlal Pahwa who had just arrived from Rawalpindi—where he claimed he had seen much anti-Hindu violence—and other members of Godse's gang on January 20, 1948.

In other words, his final assassination had little to do with this history of unsuccessful attempts of 1944, and everything with some heightened tempers (among Hindu and Sikh refugees who has arrived from Pakistan) in the wake of Gandhi's last fast and his successful effort at inducing the Government of India to pay out the cash assets to Pakistan (which they were legally required to do, but were resisting). They are all already mentioned in this article, I think. Another reason to not have a second redundant section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Besides, your sources are abyssymally third-rate and inconsequential compared to the major historians of modern India cited in the paragraph above. You are wasting time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

It was opinion, attributed as such, not anything stated in Wikivoice, so what is your claim here? It cannot be WP:BURDEN, because the material is clearly verifiable, so I presume you are calling upon WP:ONUS and deeming the characterization, regardless of whether it is mere voiced opinion and correctly labelled as such, to be undue and unworthy of mention? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Could @RegentsPark, Abecedare, Johnbod, Kautilya3, and DaxServer: please weigh in here. I have no patience, and now also no time, for Wikilawyering by editors who have no history of content contributions in a topic. You might have a longer fuse. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

It was a simple question that required a simple answer. You do need to state what your actual objection is at some point. I'm not throwing policy at you, just asking which you are applying in this instance. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Iskandar323 has already made a big concession by calling it "Hindutva terror" instead of "Hindu terrorism". I am afraid Fowler&fowler is quite behind the times. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

"Hindutva terror" is my talk page title for this section. Iskandar323 had the section title: "Portrayal as terrorism" in the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I know. That is why I called it a "concession". This text has been copied from there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• (pinged) The way I see it, we have three options. (1) Include the material as a subsection as Iskandar323 has done; (2) Add a single sentence in the article (perhaps in the aftermath section) along the lines of "some recent writers have equated the assassination of Gandhi with Hindu/Hindutva terrorism; or (3) exclude the material entirely. Imo, if we go with (1) we need very strong sourcing since this is a post hoc association. All assassinations are, to some extend, driven by ideology, but not all are automatically associated with terrorism and we need to be careful that we don't do this post hoc association without strong sourcing. We could go with (2) if the proportion of sources that associate the assassination with terrorism are few but good enough to include (if you're looking for policies, WP:WEIGHT). And we exclude everything (option 3) if the weight of sources is very low, low enough for this to be a WP:FRINGE view). As far as I can see, the sources that Iskandar323 is provided definitely do not merit option 1. Of the three sources, the first two (the EPW book review and the Andrean journal) are both referencing the third. The third (Gatade) is a book by a journalist which doesn't rise to the level of scholarship and it also doesn't help that the book is labeled "contentious" in the second source. So, imo, we're left with a tradeoff between the single line and nothing and the parsimonious approach would be to go with nothing. RegentsPark (comment) 13:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
• (pinged) Just noting for the record that the edit being discussed is this one. Will review the sources and add my 2c later today. Abecedare (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  By the way, Ruminations (the source for this article ) is essentially the in-house literary journal of the English department of a small undergraduate college in Mumbai; I believe this is the author although he doesn't list the Ruminations article in his list of publications. IMO that article is not usable as a source. Abecedare (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, here's my 3c after reading/researching the sources cited in this this edit:

  1. The sourcing is too thin to support the weight of the "assassination was terrorism" claim, even if pared down to a sentence. On the one hand (as Rohini Hensman says in the 2nd para of the EPW review), classifying an assassination (ie, politically-motivated killing) as terrorism (ie, politically-motivated violence) is hardly a red-flag claim but if we are going to say anything useful about the topic beyond the mere "some have called it" labeling, we need heftier sources than the two books penned by independent journalist Subhash Gatade and published by two alt-presses, Pharos and Three Essays Collective. Aside from the EPW review, the books don't seem to have garnered any attention from the academia.
  2. That said, the point that Gatade makes, that Gandhi's assassination (setting aside the particulars of the proximal causes) was just one of several instances of Hindutva-inspired political violence, is so obvious IMO that I'd be surprised if other, more-established, scholars of the Indian right-wing (Christophe Jaffrelot?) haven't written about it. The wikipedia article's Aftermath section currently deals only with the immediate effects of the assassination on the partition-linked violence and on RSS. It would be worthwhile to search for sources that look more broadly and further ahead.
  3. Speaking of more broadly: the current article contains a lot of useful detail and seems reasonably well-sourced but its organization is a complete mess! The sectioning makes neither chronological nor thematic sense (cf Death of Subhas Chandra Bose) and requires someone to reshuffle the material, and in parts, hack the undue and redundant details. Volunteers? :)

  Abecedare (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  Abecedare: I think it was written by Ms Sarah Welch. For one section, it uses the article Herbert Reiner Jr. which I had written earlier. I did tweak the lead later on.

  I don't necessarily dislike the Rashomon-like parallel narratives, but I can see that it could confuse an unfamiliar reader (which you obviously are not).

  As for the other sections, I don't believe the memoir of Maniben, MKG's great niece who was with him when he was shot, is particularly factual, though it might have accurately pegged the mood of the evening.

  When the article was finished, I thought it gave Godse's courtroom melodrama perhaps more platform than an encyclopedic account would warrant, but I haven't reread it.

  I don't have any time for rewriting, but wouldn't mind at all if someone does it along the lines you indicate. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• Agree with RegentsPark. The objection surely is WP:WEIGHT (aka WP:UNDUE). Not my area (but then Iskandar323 is fond of starting hares well outside his area), but I think F&F is correct. Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
• Note I removed this content from Nathuram Godse pending the result of the discussion here. RegentsPark (comment) 19:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  @RegentsPark: You re-moved the content rather than removed it. Assuming that was not your intent. Also, as Kautilya pointed out above, the same content is at Hindu terrorism#Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. Abecedare (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks Abecedare. I've fixed the move remove mess and also removed it from the Hindu Terrorism page.RegentsPark (comment) 20:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Why did you delete reference to 15 people killed in "Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi" page??

Hi,

Can you explain for reversal of my edits on assassination of Mahatma Gandhi page? Wasn't the event of 15 people killed in riots important enough? The fact that it was reported along with Mahatma's death in NYT should make it important enough to be there Factpineapple (talk) 05:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@RegentsPark Factpineapple (talk) 10:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The "fact" doesn't fit in the paragraph. "In the newly formed Dominion of India, the carnage that had been set off by the Partition of India ended with the shock of Gandhi's assassination.[111] However, at least 15 people were killed in the riots that followed the assassination.[1]The RSS, the Hindu paramilitary volunteer organisation, whose activities had been hidden from public view, and whose member Nathuram Godse had once been, was banned on 4 February 1948. " Perhaps it would if there was a section or a paragraph on the immediate aftermath but that's not there. Finally, of course, a news report from that time that says "reportedly" is not necessarily correct and I suggest you also look for a better source. RegentsPark (comment) 16:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Aftermath should include immediate aftermath as well unless someone wants to deliberately hide the atrocities. And there are plenty of other references.

New York Times is gold standard and that is why, I referenced it before.

The fact that you are trying to negate that riots happen by focusing on "reportedly" amounts to historical revisionism in my opinion.

Now, I know, you would discredit some of these sources claiming them to be biased, but has anyone ever denied that it happened? And the 15 deaths number is just for Mumbai, on first day. The actual number could be much higher.

https://www.timesnownews.com/india/article/congress-officials-orchestrated-anti-brahmin-pogrom-after-gandhi-s-death-no-cases-were-filed-vikram-sampath/789834

https://www.history.com/topics/asian-history/gandhi-assassination#assassination-and-trial

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/31/mahatma-gandhi-assassination-archive-1948

https://www.firstpost.com/opinion/how-nehruvian-congress-manipulated-mahatma-gandhis-assassination-to-emasculate-hindu-nationalism-10961811.html Factpineapple (talk) 04:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

And shouldn't we at least write, "according to Sampath, 100 congress workers were arrested".

Wikipedia is full of "According to Romila Thapar" everywhere. Factpineapple (talk) 09:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• I"m not sure what you're trying to say. Clearly, the current text refers to the longer term aftermath of the assassination while the material you're trying to add refers to the immediate aftermath. Your text doesn't fit inside the longer term aftermath. I don't think a NYT article published the day after is necessarily accurate. That doesn't mean it is inaccurate either. What it means is you need to find references that are reasonably distant and preferably that discuss the immediate aftermath rather than merely reporting on it. RegentsPark (comment) 14:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)