Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Early suggestion for improvement

A better caption for the first image saying who made it and what it is supposed to show MeltBanana 17:40, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I added what may be the original caption for the engraving (see [1]). Gdr 10:55, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

Can someone add a bit about what to call it

basicaly, while discussing where the main artical shoould be, a lode came up about what it should be refurd to as, can someone please add it to the main artical, + it may need a bit of neetining up since the mearger. if i can, i will do both myself, but i should be getting on with work... tooto 17:13, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Historiography

The introduction contains the paragraph:

The history of the rebellion is, to this day, an ongoing battle between two competing narratives, the history claimed by the British, who won the war, and the history claimed by the Indians, who were defeated.

It would be nice to have a section explaining how these narratives differ and naming the major proponents of these views. Is there a third narrative from a neutral point of view? Gdr 10:53, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

There is the Sikh POV; they were sort of neutral, but tended towards the Rebels. There is the Afghan POV, they were sort of neutral but tended towards the British. There is the Tamil POV, but I don't know what that was. Unfortunately though, this is a HUGE subject, thousands of books have been written about this single subject alone. It's fading into distant memory now (it's non-PC to teach pupils about the British Empire in Britain, and where else is going to teach it?), so it's hard to track the facts down (though there have been a rash good books recently).

I will try and add something about this, though it maybe hard to do without over complicating. nick 16:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why not present the truth? India is a free nation now and the Indian POV IS in effect the truth. Most history books used in schools in Britain, make only a passing mention of their involvement in India.

There is no single 'Indian' POV. In the immediate aftermath of Independence some nationalist historians created a simplistic narrative of a "First War of Independence", conveniently ignoring the fact that three-quarters of modern India was not involved in the Revolt, and that the Bombay and Madras armies, together with soldiers recruited in Punjab, were instrumental in its suppression. At most it can be described as a Hindustani and Mahratta revolt, and nobody should need reminding that there is more to India and its history than what happens in the cow-belt. More recently Indian historians such as Rudrangshu Mukherjee have produced more detailed examinations of the motivations behind the revolt in specific areas (especially in Awadh, which was the only region to see a genuine popular uprising), but without making anachronistic claims about 'National Struggle'. That began later, with the foundation of Congress (a genuine pan-Indian organisation) in 1881. Nowadays the interpretations of the Mutiny by Indian and British Historians are far more objective, and the disagreements are not always on predictable, national lines. Sikandarji 08:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Place Names

Unless anyone has any objections, I think the contemporary place names should be used in this article. The current names should, of course, be mentioned, but no-one knows what the "Seige of Kanpur" is because there was no such thing. nick 16:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Other

Somehow the whole section

However, the common misconception that British undertook these changes in social system themselves, is also wrong as there were many Indian reformers, notable among them, Raja Rammohan Roy who prevailed upon the British to carry out these reforms. In fact, one lesson learnt and followed to spirit by British after 1857, was to leave Indian society rotting and further strengthen the social malices in order to maintain their supremacy; and also appease the gentry; which led the 1857 mutiny from front. Brutal Zamindari, Caste System, and communal divide, which were not visible until 1857, became more prominent after this mutiny, thanks to selective appeasement by British.

seems to me not only bad English (I think I get what is meant, but I'm not too sure), but also suffering from words that either need to be explained or just removed: 'rotting', 'social malices', and 'brutal' carry quite a heavy moral load. Even if one would like to keep these terms, please explain what exactly is meant by especially the aforementioned 'social malices'. I'm quite new at this, so if this remark is seen as being overly careful, feel free to remove this.--Santetjan 20:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree this is not NPOV

• I've got a problem... in the section about the early stages of the rebellion, there is a passage about how the 3 rebelling regiments, after having sacked Meerut, march on Delhi and reach it... and the passage then tells of them attacking the Red Fort (Lal Qila)... which, as per the link is located in Agra... There's definitely a bit of cleaning up needed here.--Svartalf 09:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• There is a Red Fort in Delhi as well so this is not a factual problem but a disambiguation problem. Anurag Garg 13:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eric Stokes demonstrated convincingly that the effects of Dalhousie's and Bentinck's reforms have been greatly exaggerated, and did not extend far beyond the environs of Calcutta. The role of Ram Mohun Roy, Michael Madhusadan Dutt and other Bengali humanists was important, and represents a rare- heartening example of constructive dialogue between British and Indians under Company Rule. After 1857 The British certainly took a far more conservative approach in propping up existing zamindari and princely elites, but it is going too far to accuse them of creating the communal divide and the caste system. These are social evils which Indians themselves must take responsibility for, and which long pre-dated British Rule. Indeed, through measures such as forbidding caste segregation on the Railways the British did much to undermine the system. Sikandarji 08:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Diwani

It says "The British East India Company won the powers of Diwani", but the link from Diwani says it is a kind of script used in Indian rulers' palaces. Since I can presume that the right to use a script form didn't spark a war, could someone explain what this means? DJ Clayworth 28 June 2005 14:27 (UTC)

I am not sure why the link you found says about the script, but actually, "Diwani" comes from "Diwan" or "Dewan", which means administrator. I think more precisely it means civil administration or something, I'm not sure of the precise meaning, but in context of the article, "Diwani" means administratorship. There should be a disambiguation page in "Diwani". Thanks. --Ragib 28 June 2005 14:44 (UTC)

As far as I understand "Diwani" in this context means a right to collect Taxes on behalf of state. Thanks Bobby Awasthi 22 December 2005 1300 GMT

The term "Diwani" means revenues, e.g. A "Diwani Adalat" is the term still used for a court that deals with revenue disputes. Therefore it is correct what Bobby Awasthi wrote. --Raj 09:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Section - 3rd Light Cavalry at Meerut

As far as common sense or demography goes, there were hardly any NATIVE CHRISTIANS in Meerutt City in 1857. Christianity by and large started appearing in Indian Demography only after a substantial part of British Rule. Even then, there are hardly many christians till date on these regions of Uttar Pradesh. Least of all there would be Indian Christians in the said European Cantonment And even if there were any, it is a well regarded fact that in 1857, Indians were all united, and fighting for self-pride and self-respect (if not for freedom knowingly).

I believe someone had a personal poopy interest (reasons and details of which are an open secret) in writing a specific sentence in the above section.

I wonder why someone had to be so smart to add the sentence "They then liberated the 3rd Regiment and attacked the European cantonment where they killed all the Europeans and Indian Christians they could find, including women and children, and burned the houses."

This seems like a crappy Intellectual effort to polute the readers' brain.

Can someone be honest enough to edit that section, remove that sentence and respond on my (or this) talk page? Or should I go ahead and do that?

Bobby Awasthi

There were certainly very few Indian Christians in North India in 1857 (though that does not mean there were none: large numbers, mostly Indo-Portuguese, took refuge in the Residency at Lucknow). However, it is quite untrue to say that "Christianity by and large started appearing in Indian Demography only after a substantial part of British Rule." There have been substantial numbers of Syrian Christians in Kerala since the 4th century AD, and large numbers in Goa and the Coromandel Coast were converted to Catholicism under Portuguese Rule. By contrast, relatively few were converted to Protestantism under British Rule. Also, this statement is nonsense:

"it is a well regarded fact that in 1857, Indians were all united, and fighting for self-pride and self-respect (if not for freedom knowingly)."

It is hard to explain then how the Revolt was essentially confined to UP, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh, and why troops from Bombay, Madras and Punjab were instrumental in its suppression.Sikandarji 08:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

- Sorry to say this but you sound like one of these Indians that believes that 1857 rebellion was a good thing. WOMEN AND CHILDREN were killed in the European quarter and no matter how crappy that may sound to you it is the truth. Christians were specifically targeted as well as the general population,. and contrary to YOUR belief - the mutineers were, in the end, not fighting for their pride etc. but rather for archaic warlords bent on taking power for themselves and using the mutineers to do this. I find it pathetic that as soon as you read something detailing what actually happened there, you call it crappy and delete it.

---

Section about mangal pandey

I found that the reasons that mangal pandey had an fight with his superiors has not been given . Should i add some more information on the reasons and the background of his fight ???? Or would anyone else like to edit it ??

Keen123 07:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Tu Madre Sucks Donkey Kong

---

Thuggee

"The removal of Thuggees is perhaps true, but may have been done with the intent of removing obstacles to British imperialism."

What exactly is meant by this? The point about the Thugs is that the British probably exaggerated the religious element to their killings, and imagined a sinister pan-Indian conspiracy where none existed. There seems little doubt that the Thugs were a very nasty bunch of Dacoits, whose suppression was a boon to all Indians. It seems a bit unreasonable to describe this as "removing obstacles to British Imperialism".

---

• I agree that the removal of the thuggee was a boon to all Indians and one can freely appreciate that. But let's not forget two facts:

1. At least one of the motives for the British was securing the roads so as to ensure safe transport of post and other small finances sent via post, e.g. for paying employees in remote areas. For such small amounts it was not feasible to everytime send an armed escort.
2. It is in the interest of every state to protect its citizens. But it does not have to be done of purely charitable reasons. First of all it collects taxes from its subjects. The readiness to pay taxes may take a beating, if the safety of its citizens is not ensured. Moreover it may lead to unrest and may ultimately threaten the state authority itself.

We may therefore assume that the British rulers naturally had it (also) in their own interest to act against the thugs. But since it also helped the public in general, one may argue forever, which of the two (self- vs. public interest) weighed heavier. We may therefore also accept the original sentence: "The removal of Thuggees is perhaps true, but may have been done with the intent of removing obstacles to British imperialism." Since it anyway uses the term "may have been". I suppose that is neutral enough. --Raj 20:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough - but what you describe is true of the motives of any Government in maintaining law & order. There is nothing specifically 'Imperialist' about it. Sikandarji 22:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• @ Siknadarji: You are absolutely right with that. The original sentence is not mine, only the previous comment. I just meant, the wording is - even though not exactly correct - not strong/important enough to warrant a lengthy discussion. But then it is my personal opinion. In the matter itself I would agree with your opinion that it has something to do with the state and not per se with emperialism. --Raj 08:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Move

Whoever moved the page has created several double redirects. Also, this title is far less neutral than The Indian Revolt of 1857 or The Indian Rebellion of 1857. 1857 was not a war of Indian independence. It began as an army mutiny in modern-day U.P., and subsequently spread to parts of Bundelkhand through disgruntled aristocrats and deposed rulers from the region jumping on the bandwagon. It was suppressed by troops from Punjab, Madras and Bombay as well as British soldiers. To describe it as a 'National' uprising or war is completely anachronistic, and reflects the usual cow-belt chauvinism of most articles claiming to be about the history of All India. Sikandarji 17:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

That is your POV and is not held by most Indians. Sorry.

+10 000 thundering typhoons 11:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)+

It's not a question of POV, but of verifiable historical facts. Rather than baldly asserting that 'most Indians' disagree, how about answering some of my points? Sikandarji 16:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Well, it WAS a war of independence, unlike what the then-ruling British wanted to make us believe and what is now taught in History books. If you read any eye-witness account of the events, e.g. "The Indian Mutiny of 1875" by G.B. Malleson (Rupa & Co., Delhi, 2005) or a well-researched book like the one by Tapti Roy "The Politics of a Popular Uprising - Bundelkhand in 1857", you will see that it was NOT just a bunch of disgruntled aristocrats and sepoys. It was in most cases the complete population including Hindus and Muslims in cities and villages of North-Central India. Their action may have been triggered by religious motives but it very soon turned out into a full-scale uprising against the British rule. So, a war of independence it surely was. If you are against calling it a war of Indian independence, how we should call it then - "War of Independence of Kanpur and Allahabad"? Does North-Central India belong to some another country? Did those people who revolted wished only to free their cities, villages or Bundelkhand, Rohailkhand, Awadh, Bihar and Malwa etc.? Of course they acted with an intention to drive out the British from the subcontinent. The extent of the feelings against the British can be gauged from the fact that even the armies of the Maharajas of Gwalior and Bharatpur mutinied and joined the rebels against the British, whereas they did not have to use the new cartridges. As a matter of fact the sepoys declared Bahadurshah Zafar not just emperor of Delhi or Roorkee but of whole India and revolts/mutinies broke out as far as Kolhapur in Maharashtra. So the uprising clearly had a pan-regional character. And it was for the first time that any movement on the soil of the sub-continent took place with a "national" Indian agenda.

So please do not bring this boring North- vs. South India game into play. The British had mastered the art of "divide and rule" and that paid dividends in this situation. And some other reasons why some parts of India did not revolt may have been owing to the following:

1. The brutal suppression of the Vellore mutiny by the British might have made soldiers of the Madras Army wary of indiscipline;
2. The Sikhs had just a few years back lost the great Sikh empire to the British. All leading personalities were lost in the war and they were not having a leader of calibre who could take the lead. In fact there was a minor revolt by the Sikh regiment in Benares, who initially sided with their comrades from the Bengal Native Infantry. They could however be persuaded by a local influential Sikh leader to rejoin the British;
3. Many people, including Rajas and Maharajas of princely states, remained either neutral or supported the British not because they loved them, but because they did not want to see a return of the Moghuls to the power. Such princes included the Hindu Marathas and the Muslim Nizam of Hyderabad. The sepoys made a hasty decision in proclaiming Bahadurshah Zafar as new emperor of India. In fact this might have been a reason for Sikhs too, to side with the British.

@Sikandarji: It would be a great news, if your allegation of North Indians (or the "cow-belt chauvinists" as you call them) always treating themselves as Indians were to be really true. For it would mean they often have a national identity instead of a regional one. In fact ideally speaking every citizen of India could (and should) think like that. That, many people in fact do this may be seen from the fact that I have never come across any person of Indian origin to date who would introduce himself as a North- or South Indian. The identity that matters generally is the national one. I do not know which part of the world you come from. But what about a beginning? --Raj 22:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I would not dispute for a moment that there is a single Indian national identity today: but this is a historical article, and to project this back in time is an anachronism. Perhaps it could be called "The war for the independence of Jhansi", "The war for the restoration of the Peshwa", "The war for the Restoration of the Mughals" etc. etc., because the motives of those who took part were various, but as you rightly point out, this would simply look bizarre. I am familiar with the works of Malleson, Roy, Rudrangshu Mukherjee and other historians, and what their work invariably shows is considerable regional variation in the politics of rebellion, from military mutiny, to aristocratic grievance, to popular uprising, as in Awadh. But were any of these groups fighting for Indian independence? Could they have even envisaged such a thing? Or were they fighting because they resented the heavy taxes imposed by the British, or feared forced religious conversion, or, say, wanted to see the Nawab back on the throne in Lucknow? That they wanted to drive the British out of India is not in dispute. What all these different groups wanted to see put in place of the Company Raj is another matter entirely, but one thing we can be sure of is that it would not have been an Indian Nation-State - indeed it wouldn't have been a single Indian state at all. The role of troops from outside 'Hindustan' in suppressing the Revolt is one that has to be acknowledged, however awkward this is, and makes the term "First Indian War of Independence" still more problematic. The History of Indian Nationalism, and National Identity, in the form in which we see it today, begins with the foundation of Congress, not in 1857, which saw the death of the old order. Thanks for replying to my points in detail though. NPOV is very difficult to achieve in a sensitive subject like this, and I really feel that by giving the article such a suggestive title neutrality and objectivity have ben sacrificed from the very outset in favour of nationalist myth. Sikandarji 22:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• @ Sikandarji: Again, as in my just-posted comment about the "Thuggee" issue, I would like to clarify that the discussion is not based on "my" contributions. I just happened to read them yesterday and found the topic interesting. Moreover, I could see that you were arguing with facts against some others, who though emotionally and patriotically motivated, were not really aware of the happenings. I personally have been fascinated by the happenings in 1857 in particular and have an interest in analyzing mutinies in the British Indian Army/ies in general. Therefore I have read much that I could lay my hand on, in order to get familiar with various perspectives. That's why I do not have any illusions about the course of the events then. But at the same time we do have a difference of opinion regarding whether or not we can call it a war of India's independence. While fully acknowledging the validity of facts and arguments advanced by you, I derive out a different inference of them: Since the sepoys - irrespective of the numerous motives of the mutiny - set out to declare the revival of the old Moghul Empire and vowed to drive the British rulers out of India, as they knew it then, we may - in my opinion justifiably - talk of a war of India's independence. These sepoys, this is what also Malleson points out, knew of a political entity called India. They had travelled with the British along the lines of the subcontinent and had developed, probably for the first time in Indian history, patriotic feelings for something called India. A concept which, no doubt, was largely owed to the British Rule. And it was definitely for the first time that the sepoys - unlike the general public - had a blur idea of a nation-state called India, for that we have credible accounts to suggest that the Moghul emperor Bahadurshah Zafar was treated just as a figure-head and possessed no real authority. In fact he was even coerced - much against his will - into accepting the sepoy proclamation of his rule, as all contemporary accounts auggest. My point is only that the resolve of the sepoys to drive away a "foreign" power from "India" is significant. They "knew" the British were "foreign" even in other parts of India, whereas they regarded the Moghuls as natives. This "foreign" entity they sought to throw out of whole "India" as they knew it then. So the national feelings and character of the mutiny is obvious in my opinion. That those other parts of India, which lay outside of North-Central India probably did not share this objective and soldiers recruited from their midst even contributed to the suppression of the mutiny is a different matter. In fact an arguably greater role than that of the Madras or the Bombay Army was played by the Gurkhas of Nepal, who fought alongside the British on the orders of the then Nepalese prime minister Jung Bahadur. The above mentioned facts however suggest to me that we may justifiably see for the first time some feelings or urge, at least in certain sections of the society, to drive out a "foreign and alien power" from territories called "India" and not only from their own regions. The mutiny, in my opinion, undoubtedly sowed the seeds of a modern nation-state called India. --Raj 09:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply - we've reached the crux of the issue, and you do have a point. Bayly and others have written extensively about the hybrid military culture which evolved not only amongst sepoys, but amongst the armies of the Mughals and their successor states over the course of the 18th century. In the days before mass education, the army can sometimes be the first place where nationalism evolves, partly owing to the greater mobility of troops and partly because men from different regions and walks of life end up living together in close proximity. I'm still not sure that I agree with you though - partly because this is actually truer of the Bombay and Madras armies, whose composition was very heterogenous but which did not rebel, than it is of the Bengal Army, which was recruited almost exclusively amongst 'Hindustanis' ie Rajputs and Bhumihar Brahmins, together with Muslims, from the Ganges Valley. Their solidarity was based partly on this common regional origin, and partly on the observance of highly elaborate rituals of caste which the East India Company had at one time encouraged. That Muslims and Hindus made common cause in 1857 indicates that this had evolved into a more positive identity, but it was still heavily based around the Ganges-Jumna doab, Oudh and the North-Western provinces. The motives of those rulers and aristocrats who rebelled (such as the Nana Sahib) are even less obviously 'nationalist', as most seem to have been interested primarily in regaining their fiefdoms rather than creating a notional united India. Finally, you write: "The mutiny, in my opinion, undoubtedly sowed the seeds of a modern nation-state called India" and I'm sure many Indians would agree. I would like to point out, however, that the two groups most prominent in the Mutiny - namely the Bengal Army and some of the Indian princes - played no role whatsoever in the Nationalist movement that emerged in the 1880s, which was led by new groups - lawyers, civil servants - within Indian society. However, I'm not about to move the page again (unlike some contributors who do so without consulting anyone). Hopefully this discussion will add something to the page. Sikandarji 10:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• @ Sikandarji: Thanks for the quick response and very objective arguments. Just a last final comment on my side, as we anyway do not have a dispute over facts and the course of the mutiny. The relatively homogenous composition of the Bengal Native Infantry (BNI) led no doubt to the feelings of solidarity and contributed largely to the extent of the mutiny. But the fact remains that the BNI was one of the most "precious" assets of the company as Malleson points out. At the same time he calls it "spoiled". The reason probably being its formation from within the socially dominant castes of India at that time (namely Brahmins, Rajputs and Muslims), which are, if one may take the liberty to generalize such things, also known for their stubbornness. But Malleson also records that the BNI was used very extensively in the warfare and had infact "won India for the British". Therefore it was no surprise that they had travelled a lot and had got some idea of the political geography called India. Additionally, their high social status made them, privately, look at their British officers with disdain, whom they might have actually considered morally inferior to them. In fact there is an incidence that you, I am sure, must be aware of. I mention it even then so that other interested readers may know about it. The revolt of the BNI in Lucknow was triggered amongst others by an incidence in which an English doctor took the medicine directly from the bottle putting it into his mouth and was seen doing so by a sepoy. The high-caste sepoys saw in this act an unacceptable attempt (even a conspiracy) to pollute their purity as they would get the medicine from the same bottle whereas they did not eat or drink anything already used/tasted ("juthan") by others. So the composition of the BNI was naturally a decisive factor in this revolt. The other fact that you point out about the Nationalist movement later not seeing any participation from the BNI and other princes is absolutely correct. Only it does not rule out the thesis that the actual participants "- lawyers, civil servants -" etc. could have been emotionally affected and motivated by the happenings of 1857 and its brutal suppression, which many might have seen with their own eyes. Nonetheless it was a very interesting discussion and I too hope that some of it may be incorporated in the page. Also I will try to find some time and help in this. --Raj 11:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Article name

There was a working consensus that this article should be called Indian rebellion of 1857. We even had a vote on it in 2004: see Talk:Indian Mutiny#Call_for_votes_Ends_12:00_UTC_September_13.2C_2004. It should not have been moved without any prior discussion. I am quite strongly for moving it back to the name which was supported by a consensus, and for anyone who has issues with that name to discuss them before moving it again. -- Arvind 23:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Fully agree with moving it back (see discussion above). The user who moved it (10 000 thundering typhoons) failed to discuss the matter with anybody, and is apparently a "Rajput Sock" (whatever that means) who has now been banned. Sikandarji 23:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe all the three terms ("mutiny", "rebellion" and "war of independence") are more or less acceptable. A mutiny and a rebellion can arguably be accepted as synonymous, even when the term mutiny seems to have a negative connotation, as it might imply a revolt against a "legitimate" authority. That was the reason the British wanted to use it then and the Indians have been against using it. The term rebellion is fairly neutral. A war of "independence" invariably and by its very nature has to be a rebellion as it is not a conflict between two independent, sovereign states or state-like entities but between a colonial power and its subjuguated people. Therefore I would accept the term "rebellion". Personally I do not have a problem using any of these terms as can be seen in my discussions above. However, as a compromise in order not to get bogged down by the semantics, I would suggest the following: We title it the "Indian Rebellion of 1857" and in the first paragraph itself deal with the controversial issue briefly taking some elements of the discussion that I had with Sikandarji. Thereby we can make it fairly neutral in that we accept that some people have a differing opinion. And we create redirects e.g. "War of Indian Independence", "First war of Indian Independence" and "The Indian Mutiny" that point to this main page. How does that sound? --Raj 12:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me Sikandarji 13:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good. In my opinion, there should actually be substantive discussion of what exactly the 1857 rebellion was. Historians in India have argued over the issue of whether it was really "national" or just confined to a few classes, and how much it involved an idea of "India" as opposed to Awadh, Maharashtra, Jhansi, etc, and it would be great if the article could actually discuss this in an unbiased way, perhaps in a separate section at the end. The discussions between you and Sikhandarji could certainly serve as a good starting point for such a section. Incidentally, just to throw another name into the mix, textbooks used to call it the "National Uprising of 1857" when I studied history! -- Arvind 15:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That's good. Leithp has in fact already implemented the suggestions! Thanks for that. I would further suggest that it would be appropriate to remove the following merge notice "mergefrom|First War of Indian Independence 1857", as it is no more relevant. We can create a redirect to the main page from the page "First War of Indian Independence 1857". --Raj 16:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I actually only noticed the problem because there were an awful lot of double redirects that hadn't been fixed. Leithp 08:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for introduction

I have now written the following text, which, I believe, states both the positions in a fair manner. If there are no objections on your side then I will insert it in the main article:

[...] "The Indian Rebellion of 1857 is a modern, more neutral characterization of the conflict to bridge these diverging views."

Debate over the National Character of the Rebellion

There is a considerable debate over whether or not this conflict/rebellion that primarily took place in North-Central India be considered a war for India's independence. The first school of thought argues that the rebellion does not qualify to be called a war for India's independence mainly for following reasons:

• A united India did not exist at that time;
• The rebellion remained confined to the ranks of the Bengal Native Infantry and in North-Central India;
• The mutiny was put down with the help of other Indian soldiers, i.e. the Madras Army, the Bombay Army and the Sikh regiments;
• Many princes and maharajas did not participate in the rebellion.

The second school of thought while acknowleding the validity of the above-mentioned arguments argues that this rebellion may indeed be called a war of India's independence. The reasons advanced are:

• Even though the rebellion had various causes (e.g. sepoy grievances, British high-handedness, the infamous Doctrine of Lapse etc.), most of the rebel sepoys set out to revive the old Moghul empire instead of heading home, which would have been reasonable if their revolt was only inspired by their grievances;
• There was a near-complete uprising on the part of the general public in many areass such as Awadh, Bundelkhand, Ruhailkhand. The character of the rebellion was therefore pan-regional.
• The sepoys did not seek to revive small kingdoms in their regions, instead they repeatedly proclaimed a "country-wide rule" of the Moghuls and vowed to drive out the British from "India", as they knew it then. (The sepoys ignored local princes and proclaimed in cities they took over, as Tapti Roy reports: "Khalq Khuda Ki, Mulk Badshah Ka, Hukm Subahdar Sipahi Bahadur Ka" - i.e. the world belongs to God, the country to the Emperor and the law & order to the Sepoy Commandant). This objective of driving out "foreigners" from not only one's own area but from whole "India", as they knew it then, signifies a national sentiment;
• The troops of the Bengal Native Infantry were used extensively in warfare and had therefore travelled extensively across Indian subcontinent. They had developed some notion of a nation-state called India and displayed in this mutiny (there were some others in previous years too) for the first time patriotic sentiments, as some contemporary British accounts e.g. Malleson suggest.

In short, we may summarize the discussion in following terms.

1. If the criterion of a National War of Independence is set as "a war (or numerous conflicts) spread all over the nation cutting across regional lines", the rebellion in that case does not qualify as a war of India's independence.
2. If the criterion for a National War of Independence is set as "a war, which even if geographically confined to certain regions, is waged with the intention of driving out from the complete national area a power perceived to be foreign", then it was certainly a war of independence. In this case it does not matter, whether it is the same India as we know it today. The important point is that certain sections of the society, howsoever small, fought for the first time for a national ideal.

This discussion shows that the term "national war" is subject to individual opinions and can not be answered decisively.

- Brief History of British Expansion in India -

--Raj 18:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty good - just a couple of quibbles

1 - "most of the rebel sepoys set out to revive the old Moghul empire instead of heading home, which would have been reasonable if their revolt was only inspired by their grievances;"

They could hardly have expected to be able to return unmolested unless they also overthrew British Rule

2 - Use 'Native soldiers of the Bengal Army' rather than 'Bengal Native Infantry'. The Revolt included cavalry and artillerymen as well. B.N.I. was used for particular regimental titles. Some of them rebelled, some didn't, but equally many regiments that weren't B.N.I. did. Sikandarji 00:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. You have a valid point about the Bengal Army. That I will change. About scores of the sepoys seeking to revive the Moghuls I have a different opinion. For not all sepoys headed for Delhi (or to Kanpur). In fact some complete regiments are reported to have formally disbanded themselves after looting the treasury, e.g. the 6th N.I. at Allahabad. And not all mutineers stationed at Jhansi headed to the war front in Delhi or Kanpur, but rather took service with the Scindias in Gwalior, the Rani in Jhansi or simply escaped home. So it was in no way natural for the sepoys to show the grit and resolve to fight for an ideal. The second point is, even if they had had the impression of being forced to fight for own survival, they could do so without seeking to revive an old national symbol. They might have very well turned to smaller princely states in their home regions. Another point to consider is the resolve of the sepoys to fight the British even long after Delhi and Kanpur were lost. The fight raged in Bundelkhand as late as April 1858 and the feelings were so strong that the rebels - sepoys and local Thakurs - threatend to kill Rani Laxmi Bai of Jhansi if she were to make a deal with the British. Even though a defeat at the hands of a by-then resurgent British was more or less a foregone conclusion. Similary the Nawab of Banda and other princes in area were coerced by the sepoys to fight "for the cause of the Emperor". Significantly, they did not pay any heeds to these princes. I therefore believe that it would be unfair to dismiss their resolve to seek a united "India" under the Moghuls and to revive the "past glory", as an attempt of purely self-preservation. Whether they were actually equipped to do so, is a different issue. But the rebellion was no less driven by ideological motives - not for all - but for many. --Raj 08:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• The text seems to be acceptable. In case there is no serious objection till tomorrow morning, I will insert the text in the article. --Raj 21:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Alterations

Am I alone in thinking that the alterations made by an anonymous user (surprise surprise) to the opening paragraph are unacceptable? Particularly the reference to the Holocaust. This is so far from being an NPOV it's off the scale. He has also removed a picture. Votes for reversion? Sikandarji 09:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Also, somehow a redirect page with the same title has appeared, which sends you to 'First War of Independence of 1857' and subsequently to this page. I've tried to alter this double redirect but unsuccessfully. Anyone know how? Sikandarji 10:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• I would revert back the article and how about requesting an administrator to declare this a protected page? Because we have a history here of people editing away anthing that does not suit their ideological views. It is really disgusting. Significant is that they do not like to even see a counter-view. For instance, I believe in all sincerity that the article in its previous form incorporated both the views. Moreover, as you know and as my contributions suggest, I myself share the view that we can consider this uprising a war of independence. But then i) one has to argue his point based on logical arguments with facts; and ii) one must acknowledge that there are others who see thing differently. Any other way of settling is simply fascist, if one might take the liberty to do so. It is simply unacceptable. Does anyone know an administrator who could make these changes for us? I would be willing to take up administration of this site to incorporate neccessary changes/suggestions as and when needed. --Raj 10:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• I have now requested leithp and arvind to revert the article back, and unless you - or someboy else, though I do not see any one else really active here at the moment - have any objection, I would like to declare this page (and if possible its redirects too) as protected. For it is pure vandalism when people simply remove if something does not fit into their scheme of things. We are and should remain open for discussion but we can not spend time correcting whims and fancies of some who do not have bothered to even read facts before editing sensitive texts here. And the mad thing is the text was in NO way unfavourable to their point of view. It just was fair to state and argue both stands. --Raj 11:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• No objection to it being protected - I think the debate we now have over what exactly the Uprising of 1857 was represents different POV very well, and makes it clear that people disagree without being offensive to either side. IF the page isn't protected we will probably see more vandalism. Sikandarji 12:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I discussed this in a bit more length on my talk page, but I'm currently unwilling to apply page protection here because I don't see this page currently suffering under a revert war. If it degenerates then you guys can post a request at WP:RPP or ask me or another admin directly, but until then I think it might do more harm than good. You can always revert any changes that you view as particularly bad, like the one mentioned above (bearing in mind the 3 revert-rule, or better yet the 1 revert-rule). Things have to be really bad before admin intervention can improve the situation. Leithp 12:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Stick to facts

This article is supposed to be a simple factual account of the Indian Mutiny. It is not supposed to be a platform for Indian nationalists (or, for that matter, British nationalists) to vent their propaganda. It needs major deconstruction and reconstruction. Christchurch 13:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not really sure whether you are also following what you are preaching to others (i.e. sticking to facts) by abusing what you claim are "Indian nationalists" when you remove sentences like: "There is a considerable debate over whether or not this conflict/rebellion that primarily took place in North-Central India be considered a war for India's independence." I would love to know in what sense is it a nationalist statement. But probably only your holy honour is in a position to judge matters. We have already put in a great effort here to find as objective a description as possible of an event that took place 150 years ago and many details of which are subject to controversy. And we continue our effort, the only pity is that self-proclaimed, anonymous "reformers" come and disturb the work. We have till now, at least this is my experience since I visit/edit this site, constantly and impartially removed any information, which did not seem to be correct. So please do not bring in this attitude here, as if we are here a bunch of nationalists and in the dire need of a truly impartial expert, that incidentally happens to be you - what a coincidence. I am impressed! --Raj 18:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have avoided reverting the article back to its earlier composition so as not to lose those edits which were in good taste and done by people with no malafide intentions. For some users it is unfortunately not the case. Their actions show a direct bias. --Raj 18:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I cannot add much more to what I have said. I am just as "anonymous" as virtually everyone else on Wikipedia, although I have provided some detail about myself on my user Page. An article page is not supposed to carry expressions of "considerable debate", or "thought by many", etc., which are clearly euphemisms. The very title of this page is propaganda as, at the time, it was not an "Indian rebellion" but a military mutiny in India. There may have been unrest in civilian quarters in some parts of India but this was a military mutiny. Attempts to turn it into some sort of nationalist uprising are just farcical. The articles are not supposed to contain personal opinions either, even if those opinions are supported by 10 or a million, as personal opinions are unreliable. These are Wikipedia's rules, not mine. Christchurch 09:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The name of this article is a compromise reached after a good bit of discussion: it's been called "Indian Sepoy Mutiny" and "The First War of Indian Independence" at various stages in its history. "Rebellion" seemed more neutral than either extreme. There are indeed some historians who argue that it was primarily a mutiny, but this is not a universal or even majority view even in academic circles (some fairly significant scholars - such as ET Stokes - take the view that it did become a civil uprising at least in the areas of Delhi, Haryana and the Doab) and, as a result, under Wikipedia's policies on neutrality we cannot present it as if it were. It is at the same time obviously absurd (and completely unsupported by the scholarly literature) to attempt to apply to the analysis of the events of 1857 ideas of pan-Indian nationalism which do not appear to have existed in any meaningful sense at that time. The "neutral" way forward, at least according to my understanding of Wikipedia's NPOV policies, is to factually describe the turmoil of 1857, and separately discuss the debate over its character. That is why the article is structured as it is: the section on the "Debate over the national character of the rebellion" starts the article by discussing the debate on the character of the events of 1857, and follows it up with a description of those events. Obviously there is scope for improvements - in particular, there could easily be more reference to the academic literature. If you'd like to make changes along those lines, please feel free to do so, but I'd suggest you discuss your changes here before making them in the article, and that you keep in mind the considerably stringent requirement of WP:NPOV. -- Arvind 12:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

1857 REVOLT IN NORTH INDIA- ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

_______________________________________________________

THE 1857 SEPOY MUTINY OR WAS IT THE FIRST INDIAN WAR OF INDEPENDENCE 1857?

British and most native Indian historians treat this event alike as a Sepoy mutiny, a mutiny of the British Indian native foot soldiers against their British officers. Brave and loyal Indians, among the princely states of Baroda, Jaipur, Bikaner, Patiala, Nabha, and Jind and Nepal, put down this mutiny.

To get an idea of the treatment of the subject one has to only read a prescribed text in Indian Universities, the highly regarded text " An Advanced History of India-" by the esteemed Historians - R C Majumdar, H. C. Ray Chaudhary, Kalika Ranjan Dutta. Macmillan India, New Delhi republished this textbook first published in 1946, in its 4th edition in 1990.

It tells us that, the British were fortunate "to secure the loyalty of and receive valuable aid from the likes of Sir Dinkar Rao of GWALIOR, Sir Salar Jung of HYDERABAD, Jang Bahadur of NEPAL". Praise and thanks are bestowed on the Rajput princes of Rajastan and the Sikh princes of Punjab, Gulab Singh of Kashmir, all of whom were by then, little more then pensioners and tax collectors for the British. Scindia of Gwalior, Gulab Singh of Kashmir, are singled out for special praise. Of Scindia the British Historians wrote " he. Saved India for the British" and of Salar Jang (later Sir Salar Jang), as a " man whose name deserves to be ever mentioned by Englishmen with gratitude and admiration"

The cause is supposed to have been the adoption of fat filled cartridges in the newly introduced bullets. The fat was of Pigs and Cows, thus offensive to both Muslims and Hindus.

The revolt spread from Calcutta to Peshawar and Central India. To suppress it help came the quarters above.

A conspiracy, against the British, British, between Nana Sahib Peshwa the adopted son of Baji Rao II, the last Peshwa, and the Rani of Jhansi, Laxmi Bai and others is also suggested, and it is also suggested that the conspiracy existed even before the revolt.

At it end untold atrocities were committed on the Indian people in revenge.

The Bombay Telegraph reported, on the aftermath of the taking of Delhi by the British,

" All the city people found within the walls when our troops arrived were bayoneted on the spot; and the number was not inconsiderable, as you may suppose when I tell you that in some houses forty or fifty people were hiding"

When it was over, names like Laxmi Bai, Rani of Jhansi, Nana Sahib Peshwa, Tantia Tope, lived on in the minds of the Indian psyche, to be evoked as the precursors and role models of the freedom movement that came later, and led to the independence of India from the British in 1947.

However one is inclined to ask was this all, and was this cause enough for a major conflagration to envelope then known British India. ?

How is it, that such a well-coordinated effort existed from one end of the nation to the other?

Was the entire Indian population so enthralled that they would risk and not only risk, but also give up their lives?

Was all this to save a pension for Nana Sahib Peshwa, or so that Laxmi Bai's adopted son could ascend the throne?

The causes, the organizers, the organization, and the coordination were a little deeper, yet the story has not been told in full.

Names like Swami Omanand, Swami Purananand, Swami Virajanand, Swami Dayanand are nowhere mentioned.

There is no cognizance of names like Nahar Singh, Rao Tula Ram, and of sacrifices of the men and women of the Jat Sarv Khap. There is no mention in our histories of how the headmen of the Panchayat of each village in then Haryana were hanged to death, and entire villages were burnt to the ground.

Haryana as it then was not the miniscule Haryana, of today, but a vast republic, which spread from the Sutlej in then Punjab, to Rajasthan to Madhya Pradesh to Western UP. Its supreme Panchayat governed this vast entire territory through its panchayat system. Formed in 600 AD by the Jat Emperor Harsh Vardhan Virk, it was headquartered at Shoron, district Muzzafarnagar, some 150 Kilometers north east of Delhi on the Delhi - Dehradun Road. This republic faced down the invaders like Ghazni, Ghauri, Timur and the Khiljis for over one thousand years.

When the 1857 war was lost, it was destroyed. Its people were punished. It was divided between the petty protectorates of the British, the princes of Rajasthan, Punjab, and one part to form the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, and one to create what later became the Union Territory of Delhi. The name Haryana was erased from history.

Some records survived, and Dilip Singh Ahlawat, after much research in the Sarv Khap records, wrote a History book in Hindi; Titled " Jat Viron ka Ithihass" published from Rohtak in1988.

His account of the first war of Independence of 1857 is a little different from the standard one

( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/message/1126)

For a full account [18 pages] see:

1857war.doc Indian Independence war – 1857

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JATHISTORYBOOKS/files/

Ravi Chaudhary 21:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Debate over 'National' Character of the Rebellion

There are plenty of Indian historians who do not regard 1857 as a 'War of Indian Independence', even though they do regard it as a popular uprising against alien rule. See Rudrangshu Mukherjee Awadh in Revolt 1857-1858 (Delhi) 2001 ppvii-xxii, 171-4. Frankly, given the enormous difficulty of reconciling the role of Bombay and Madras troops and Punjabi levies in suppressing the revolt with the idea that it had a 'National' (ie pan-Indian) character, it would be remarkable if there were no debate, even amongst Indian historians. As I have said before, beware of dividing the historiography of the period along 'national' lines. Official school textbooks are no guide to the state of scholarly debate on a subject such as this. Sikandarji 23:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it is in the text books and the fact that it has been so for years means that the atleast Indian historians don't dispute that any more; atleast not on the large enough scale to mention such a debate as an opening line to the para. What I said is more or less accurate. Anand Arvind 06:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Also note that this directly contradicts the opening paragraph. I am not arguing about the disputed nature of this subject. I am only saying that there is no 'considerable debate in India' about this. Anand Arvind 06:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I object to the implication that only 'western' historians refer to it as a 'rebellion', 'revolt' or 'mutiny', whilst Indian historians all call it a 'War of Independence'. This simply isn't true. Textbooks have a tendency to peddle jingoistic myth, which is not the sort of thing historians take seriously, and (in my view) has no place on Wikipedia. Sikandarji 08:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't really comment on the consensus or otherwise in India, but to state that the standard Western histories do not regard it as a war for independence is misleading, and is contradicted by other parts of the same section. I've modified the reference to western histories to reflect this (and removed some dubious POV stuff).

Tomandlu 08:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, a *little* bit of research on the web shows that we are still letting a bit too much POV in here. I was trying to track down different uk-centric sources to see if there was any kind of consensus on mutiny/etc vs. independence.

What I first found was two india-based sites - both of which gave prominence to the ambiguity.

IMHO we should keep the reference to different terms, but remove the implication that first war of independence is preferred in india, and mutiny in the west. It just doesn't seem to be true.

Here are the two links I read:

http://voice.indiasite.com/independence.html http://www.indembassyhavana.cu/culture/culture-history-independencestruggle.htm

I've done some editing to reflect this, but it might be that we have to represent the plurality of views in some other way.

Tomandlu 12:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with the present version but your charge of Indian textbooks being biased is completely unfounded and outrageous. In India, history textbooks are ensured to be scrupulously accurate. Anand Arvind 19:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Maybe I have to clarify what I was saying, again. I don't care what historians say, I didn't remove the whole para. All I am saying that most Indians agree that it was a struggle for independence. Again, there is no '_considerable_ debate in India' about this. Anand Arvind 19:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the present version is fine too - my only caveat is that popular opinion worldwide (well, those who know anything about the event) would be that it was a war of independence. It's only when you look a little closer that the nature of the controversy becomes clear. I'd say it's about level with "the american civil war was about freeing the slaves" (Simpson's joke ;)

I've made a few changes to reflect that. Feel free to carry on this rather enjoyable edit.

Tomandlu 20:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Arvind - "Again, there is no '_considerable_ debate in India' about this". Well, um, there is - just not amongst the general public, only amongst academics (whether Indian or western). The book which first refers to it as a "War of Independence" is V.D. Savarkar The Indian War of Independence (London) 1909 which Mukherjee actually refers to as 'jingoism'. Wikipedia isn't about reflecting popular opinion, but the balance of scholarly debate. I suggest you read a few of the sources listed on the main page, and reflect on the curious nature of a 'War of Independence' where members of the putative 'nationality' which is being liberated play a crucial role in its suppression. That said, I don't think there is anything much wrong with the current version. Sikandarji 21:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I won't press my point too much. The current version is ok. Anand Arvind 22:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Article Name Revisited

[In the following post I refer to the discussion and vote on Talk:Indian Mutiny concerning the name of this article.]

I'm loathe to bring this up again, but seeing as the name of the article was decided by such a tiny number of people I feel somewhat emboldened to do so. I have two problems I'd like to raise regarding "Indian rebellion of 1857". The first is the use of the lower case "r" in "rebellion" - if this event is (beyond just Wikipedia) sometimes known as "Indian rebellion of 1857", then surely the "r" should be upper case? And this is where my second problem arises: isn't this name just a little too underused outside of Wikipedia to be truly useful? Searching the Internet I find almost all references to "Indian rebellion of 1857" derive from the Wikipedia article, and there are very few references to "Indian Rebellion of 1857". Meanwhile, the Library of Congress and many other sources give as an authoritative name for the event: "Sepoy Rebellion", which is both commonly used and NPOV. I find it odd that the above dicussion of the article name so rapidly became polarised to the limited choice of "War of Independence of 1857" (and variations) vs. "Sepoy/Indian Mutiny" (and variations); i.e. War of Independence vs. Mutiny. Although an anonymous editor provided a comprehensive list of choices (under Pick a name, any name), including "Sepoy Rebellion", the latter wasn't included in the final vote, itself limited to only 5 choices. So, with misgivings I'd like to suggest that the article be yet again renamed - this time to "Sepoy Rebellion", a name that is common (only a little less common than Indian Mutiny), NPOV, backed up by authoritative sources/references, and genuinely helpful in accurately suggesting the event in question (unlike "Indian rebellion of 1857", which in spite of the date seems too vague - it could just as easily be seen to refer to one of the US-Indian wars on the American Plains...). Any thoughts? Pinkville 15:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, if we followed Wikipedia policy of following the most common English-language usage then we would just call the article "The Indian Mutiny" and be done with it. However, it is a rather sensitive issue, and the current title represents a compromise between this and the anachronistic "The War of Indian Independence of 1857", which many Indian contributors prefer (mistakenly in my view). The "Sepoy Rebellion" is O.K., but a slightly archaic term, and doesn't really take into account the fact that the rebellion extended beyond the Sepoy Regiments. I fear you may regret re-opening this particular can of worms.....Sikandarji 15:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I would add that where there are different schools of thought as to the significance of an event, it is in my opinion not NPOV to adopt a title which only reflects the position of one particular school of thought, which "Sepoy Rebellion" does, by implying that the event was confined to sepoys. And it isn't just Indian nationalist historians we're talking about here. -- Arvind 15:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand the reservations regarding "Sepoy Rebellion" - I wondered about the limitations of the term "Sepoy" in the title too. I don't feel a need to pursue the point much further, but just want to add that such limitations are no different in kind from those inherent in such names as "World War I" or "United States of America" and seem much less problematic POV-wise than any use of the word "mutiny" would be (and taking that into account, I still like "Sepoy Rebellion", though, as I said, I won't pursue it if no one agrees). That being said, there's still the question of the lower case "r" in "Indian rebellion of 1857" - does anyone agree that it, at least, should be made upper case, "Indian Rebellion of 1857"? Pinkville 16:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

IMHO the current title is both NPOV, accurate and specific. I agree that the lack of a capital R in rebellion is odd, but is not a major issue. The article itself is clear about the nature of the debate regarding its name - I guess the article could specifically mention how this creates a minor controversy in the naming of the article itself, although that would be slightly self-referential ;)

As long as redirects are available for other names, what's the problem? Tomandlu 16:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

As you say, not a major issue, but I tend to think that the article name, if possible, ought to be the best suggestion for how the subject should be referred to... i.e. as much as possible it should be the definitive name for the subject. I agree that "Indian Rebellion of 1857" is NPOV and accurate - and for those with some understanding of 19th century history, specific enough - but I'd rather see students write "Indian Rebellion of 1857" in their essays than "Indian rebellion of 1857"... Pinkville 16:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Did Karl Marx coin the term "First Indian War of Independance". If some one says this book doesnt exist go to Liverpool University Libary and look in the India section. ive personally always called it the indian mutiny firstly because in Britain and thats how its written about but secondarily because it was soliders who mutinied agaisnt their officers who then managed too drag in the surronding indian population. Why not call it "the East Indian Company Rebellion of 1857" or subtitution of the word mutiny,rebellion,revolt and war for the word conflict so "The Indian Conflict of 1857" and then inside the article explaining both the British viewpoint and the Indian viewpoint.Corustar

I think that we need some sources cited that there actually is a "scholarly debate" at all. A war of independence is a war waged to kick out a foreign power, pure and simple. It's asinine to say that it must be a completely unified war or that it must cross all "regional lines." The 13 original colonies of the USA were at first only very loosely associated (under the Articles of Confederation)--close unity only came later. Thus, I submit that independence has nothing to do with unity and there is no reason not to call this a war of independence. That said, it's perfectly fine for the article title to be "Indian Rebellion"; I just think that the whole section on the "controversy" is contrived and misleading and should be removed. If there was a debate over the facts that would be one thing, but I don't think a wikipedia article is a place to argue semantics (or rather if there is a semantic argument, it should be made under the entry for "independence war", if indeed there is such an article.)Loderunner

Article Size

The article, according to the wiki-gods, is getting too big. Might it be an idea to create a seperate article for a timeline of the rebellion, and just deal with the general trends of the rebellion in this article? Tomandlu 16:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Total Number Killed and Wounded?

I was dissapointed that I was unable to find in this article the total number of people killed and wounded in this conflict. I would say that that is a fairly basic piece of information that should be included in the initial topic summary.

I agree - to some extent this meshes with my concerns with the article size. It doesn't seem structured and just sort of rambles.

I'm going to try a major rewrite. Should I post it somewhere else for review, or update the page? (I tend to favour the former, so that I don't have to worry about keeping up with every page update). Tomandlu 18:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

>>>Tomandlu

If you are planning a rewrite, please visit the URL below.

The flavour is so far, either a rebellion of some foot soldiers to restore the Mulsim MOghul emperor or bring some fuedal rulers back into power.

The Jat Sarv Khap version of events is quite different.

It will give you another perspective

see ( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/message/1126)

For a full account [18 pages] see:

1857war.doc Indian Independence war – 1857

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JATHISTORYBOOKS/files/

Ravi Chaudhary 03:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll take a look. I'm hoping that the cleanup will be an edit/rearrangement of existing material in the article rather than a full rewrite. For example, I'd like to move the debate over the character and name of the rebellion to the end of the article.

Beware of POV-pushers, whether they be English, Indian, Muslim, Hindu.....or Jat. Half the talk pages on the Subcontinent seem to be taken up with arguments over which caste/religion can claim the credit for various events in Indian History. Having read Ravi's earlier contribution on the talk page I am a little bit suspicious, but perhaps I am being unjust as he hasn't attempted to alter the page and simply presented us with more information to consider. By the way, those links don't work if you don't use yahoo. Anywhere else you could put it?

As for the re-write: I don't mind seeing the debate shunted to the end, but it should stay in some form because the historiographical variations are a part of the story of the Mutiny. A lot of the stuff about British Rule over the preceding 50 years can probably be cut and shifted to another article, as these are part of a separate debate over precisely how far and in what ways India was changed by British Rule in this period (See D.A. Washbrook "India before 1858" in The Oxford History of the British Empire Vol.3 The Nineteenth Century). The title of that article by Stokes I referred to on the main page gives you some idea of what the debate is all about: it used to be assumed that the British were 'modernising' India with railways, telegraph, legal reforms, the abolition of sati etc. - and that it was resistance to this modernisation by the Army and the Ancien Regime which brought about the Mutiny. Stokes argued that if you look more closely, British rule was actually "Neo-Orientalising", as the textile manufacturing industry collapsed in towns such as Murshidabad, more and more people were forced to return to the land, and the early 19th century actually looks like a more static, agrarian society than the 18th did. Furthermore Dalhousie's and Bentinck's 'reforms' had virtually no impact outside the immediate hinterland of Calcutta, the railway from Bombay had not passed Thana, that from Calcutta had only reached Raniganj: social stagnation was what characterised Company Rule outside Calcutta. The Mutiny of the Bengal Army can certainly be attributed to fears of forced conversion to Christianity (Officers had become much more evangelical), ritual pollution, resentment at the reduction of their batta and anger at the annexation of Oudh - but the Company itself had encouraged the maintenance of elaborate caste distinctions and ritual purity as a means of engendering esprit de corps (See Seema Alavi The Sepoys and the Company (Delhi) 1998 p5). By 1857 the Bhumihar Brahmins and Rajputs of the Army were probably far more sensitive about their caste privileges than most groups in North Indian Society. This latter view is the one that holds sway, more or less, amongst both Indian and Western Historians. I'd be quite happy to write a brief page or section on it, or perhaps simply update a pre-existing "History of India in the Nineteenth century" page. Sikandarji 08:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sikandar

Glad you paused in your rush to judgment

If you need a yahoo ID it is quite simple to create.

Any suggestions where this information could be posted- non Yahoo?

The document is in 'word', 18 pages.

A lot of the 'history', taht qwe see, including here, is based on secondary and tertiary sources, there is little original material.

Here you will see for example, the original letter to the Srav Khap of Haryana', Bahadur Shah, giving up his right to rule, and seeking a country wide Panchayat, based on the Jat Sarv Khap Panchayat."

The Sarv Khap, were not interested in Muslim/Mughal rule, or the British rule, they had been warring tooth and nail for their independence since the advent of Islamic inroads in the Indian subcontinent.

The roles of Sawami Virajanad, Sawmi Dayanand also need some inclusion.

Ravi Chaudhary 19:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ravi - They are based on secondary and tertiary sources for the simple reason that we are not allowed to publish original research on Wikipedia. Given that what you have posted is in electronic form it can hardly count as an 'original' letter, and if it hasn't been published in printed form anywhere then it may be difficult to accept as a source. Sikandarji 22:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sikander

If I may be allowed to correct you

The documents is from a number of published sources including :

1) "Jat Viron ka Ithihaas" ( History of Jat Heros) by Dilip S Ahlawat, Acharya Printing Press, Rohtak, India.

There are other pulications too. The authencity is ,not exactly, in doubt

I am posting on the discussion section, rather than reverting edisrts, to have people look at the subject in depth.

besides I doubt wikipedia ( an elctronic general encylopedia) can be of any use if it fails to incoportate primary evidnce.

Primary evidence, is as some of us have noticed, more relevant that secondary or tertiary evidence.

Do please, read the info, and then tell us what you think!

Best regards

Ravi Chaudhary 03:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ravi,

having created a Yahoo account, I still can't read this material you're referring to because I am not a member of the 'Jat History' group. You'll have to put it somewhere more accessible, perhaps create your own website. The book you refer to is not to be found in either the Bodleian or British Library catalogues: if it is really that important, surely it would have been published by a reputable University Press, in India, Britain or the USA? I am a bit suspicious of its validity as a source, particularly given that a google of the title turns up just one hit - the personal webpage of someone called Laxman Burdak [2], who is using the arguments in this book (which was written by a military officer, not an academic) to prove that Jats once ruled the whole of Central Asia, are identical with the ancient Scythians, and that 32,000 of them still live in Ukraine. This is arrant nonsense (and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Mutiny), and confirms my suspicion that all this author is trying to do is invent the existence of a huge Jat 'Empire' (For those who don't know the Jats are the dominant agricultural caste in Punjab, now divided between Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims) - similar to the stuff that has been happening on the Rajput page. I am a professional historian and do not need advising on the value of primary evidence (I have worked in archives in Madras, Tashkent, Moscow, St. Petersburg and most recently the National Archives in Delhi). However, wikipedia is not the place for publishing primary research - it is explicitly forbidden - and all sources used must be published and relatively easily available. For the Mutiny there are, for instance, four volumes of documents edited by G.W. Forrest and published in Calcutta from 1893-1912 (Selections from Letters, Despatches and State Papers in the Military Department of the Government of India, 1857-58 - recently reprinted by AES in Delhi), which have not yet been used as a source on this page and perhaps could be (they include, amongst other things, records of Mangal Pandey's interrogation). Then are contemporary texts which have been referred to, such as Charles Raikes's Notes on the Revolt in the North-Western Provinces of India, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan's Asbab-e Baghawat-e Hind, and, most obviously, Kaye & Malleson. With these and the latest reputable secondary works it is perfectly possible to write a well-referenced encyclopaedia entry which reflects the balance of current scholarship. What these pages cannot and should not be used for is the promotion of wild particularist historical theories which have no serious scholarly support. Unfortunately wikipedia attracts a lot of people promoting conspiracy theories and unsustainable 'alternative' historical narratives (which, coincidentally, always seem to give their own caste, clan, nation or religion a much more prominent role in historical events than has been the case heretofore, or else gives them credit for things they didn't create - see Talk:Taj Mahal and you will realise what I'm talking about). This is precisely because academics, Universities and reputable publishers won't give such crackpots the time of day, whilst on wikipedia they can just re-write the entry themselves. I appreciate your reticence in not altering stuff on the page itself, but you see the difficulty here. You'll have to provide something better than an unobtainable book written by a retired Army Captain and published by an unknown press in Rohtak as a source.

Sikandarji 12:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Jat Sarv Khap sources

Sikandraji and others

Thanks for the note. Personally I dislike these unproductive edit/ revert wars. That is why I post on the discussion pages.

I am not pushing some hitherto unknown sources .

Suggestions for a devoted website are appreciated. Anyone willing to help?

To join the Jat history group , simply click on 'join'.

url is

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/

If anyone wishes a copy send me an e mail

For the rest, my take on historical matters, is let the evidence take care of itself and lead where it will.

Even retired army personel can be good historians- Cunningham for example, someone called Winston Churchill, who some may recognize as a leader of Britian in the early/mid part of the last century, was also previously in the army.

If you visit Shoron, Distt Muzzarfarnagr, U.P, India, on the Delhi- Dehradun road, you can still see the building used for the Panachayat( council) meetings, and the records themsleves.

This area was razed to the ground by the British and their Indian levies, in 1857 and 1858, and much material was destroyed. Some did survive and was rediscovered some 60 years ago, which confirms the ongoing oral traditions.

Written History as some may note, is the publishing of the oral traditions.

For aspiring historians, here is gold mine of historical material which throws considerablke light on the Jat republican society and their republics.

Luxman Burdak is another civil servant( should that disqualify him!) and an aspiring Historian, bringing out historical material, some of it hitherto not well known. Let us wish him well in his endeavours.

and no! the sources are not suspicious. The difference is this, the sources and material is now coming out.

Best regards

Ravi Chaudhary 14:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Terrible POV changes and all round general crap nature of article

This article has been changed quite considerably recently and the tone is now quite scandalously biased. This is supposed to be history and not a place to air 150 year old grudges! The earlier article acknowledged the brutality of the conflict on both sides and gave some idea of how both sides saw it but this now seems to have been lost completely. I cant believe nobody else has mentioned it actually. I have not got the time to give the article the thorough edit it needs and can only hope some sensible soul will do something about it because as the Wikipedia page on a pretty important historical event it just isnt good enough. Samgb 13:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Response>.

Uptil now , generally there has been only one POV- the British one.

Now the other side, the Indian version is coming out.

An encyclopedia means that all perspectives, and all material from all sources, should be available to the interested reader.

Expect more, not less.

Ravi Chaudhary 02:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You means Indians have a perspective on their own history? ;~) Pinkville 03:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Horrible article. Rambles on and appears to be a cut and paste from a wide variety of websites. First thing to tweak is lead in photo of executions. I'm not arguing that that they didn't occur (40 of 120 prisoners). Earliest mention I could find is Illustrated London News of 1857. However despite the source tag, this appears to be a painting by Vasili Vasilyevich Vereshchagin (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Vasilyevich_Vereshchagin) well after mutiny and with soldiers in 1880s style uniforms. It may be also represent an entirely different event (see http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/002887.html). Either way, it should be noted that this was also a practice of the Mughals when dealing with serious criminals. Finally, as the mutiny was over, this would have been a Crime against Humanity and not a War Crime by today's standards. This is of course idiotic, attempting to apply 20th century codes of conduct to earlier eras.

I know the painting well "Взрывание из Пушек в Британской Индии" "Blowing from Guns in British India" - and it is a portrayal of the executions that took place after a Sikh rebellion in the 1880s, which Vereshchagin painted during his lengthy trip there (he also produced a wonderful painting of the Taj Mahal at that time). It is quite true that this form of execution was used by the Mughals, from whom the British borrowed it, as they did many other things. The problem we have here is that the Mutiny has become one of the founding Indian National myths, linked (entirely speciously, in my view) with the Nationalist movement that emerged in the 1880s and eventually led India to Independence, and retrospectively turned into a "War of Independence" in Indian school textbooks (I taught at a famous Indian Public School at one time and had the opportunity to use these). A pantheon of 'Freedom Fighters' has been created in which a revolting character such as the Nana Sahib (who was clearly fighting only for himself) is elevated to the same status as Gandhi, Nehru or Vallabhai Patel. It is, I'm afraid, this POV which is the principal problem on this page. The pro-British version of events, all heroic last stands, outraged female honour and muscular Christian revenge, was far from being uniformly accepted even at the time, when many, such as Harriet Martineau, 'Clemency Canning' and, indeed, the authors of the standard History of the Mutiny, Kaye and Malleson, blamed the East India Company for the uprising and deplored the violence used in its suppression, which Canning, as Governor-General, tried to put a stop to as best he could). Certainly nobody has taken the 'Imperialist' line seriously since the publication of Christopher Hibbert's admirably even-handed "The Great Mutiny" in the 1970s, which is normally the book through which people first approach the subject. The poor style of this article is owing to a series of lengthy tussles and debates between users which simply seem incapable of resolution, as I'm afraid that many contributors feel that any departure from the nationalist narrative is unacceptable.Sikandarji 07:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have uploaded an 1858 photograph by Felice Beato that shows the hangings of two members of the Rebellion. No ambiguity about this image, unlike the photo of a painting made in the 1880s... Pinkville 14:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sikandarji I have followed the argument kind of on and off since I first browsed the article a few months ago but didnt pay much attention at first as it seemed little more than a squabble over characterising it as mutiny/war of independence and had i thought been resolved by simply including both titles. The article as it stood was, if i remember rightly, pretty even-handed not to say a little dry in parts. However, now it seems to consist simply of a lengthy anti-British diatribe and it isnt even well written. Important events are passed over, battles ignored, no perspective whatsoever. The disheartening thing is that i just know any attempts i make to amend it will simply be reverted by the kind of guy who makes the idiot response above! Nationalism can be an ugly thing whether British or Indian. It is a shame it has found its way into what should be a historical article. Samgb 08:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree - revert the chest thumping nationalism and introduce a more balanced tone into the article. With facts taking precedence over wild theories and propaganda on either side srs 14:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, as someone who has put in considerable effort in editing the previous versions (e.g. I wrote the discussion on the national character of the mutiny), I do feel that it is almost impossible to keep an eye over the happenings. There are simply too many people trying to advance their version of things - people of both colours (nationalists as well as apologists of both nations). This is one of the reasons (the primary one being time constraints) why I have reduced my engagement here. The latest squabble with srs about the name of Ishwari Pandey/Prasad is just one example. --Raj 17:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Response> To 'Pinkville'Yes, Indians do have a pesrpective on their history.

and Nationalism is not a dirty word, to us, either.

Whether the British borrowed the practice of blowing people to pieces, after tying them to the mouth of cannon, from the Muslims is irrelevant.

The Ganga/Jumna doab, the area of much rebellion, saw the normal villages burnt,men crushed between rollers and so on.Any reason this should be kept out of the encylopedia?

It may not give some readers what they wish to hear, but more and more material is coming out about 1857, the period pre,and period post.

A lot is tied up, with the exploitation of the Indians and their economy, the destruction of their education system, and their economy.

When we try and bring out ths material, we are accused of POV, nationalism, obscurantism, and holding old grouses.

It will not work!

Ravi Chaudhary 15:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I suspect the irony of my quip got lost... Probably shouldn't have made it. I never made any comment regarding the practice of blowing people to pieces or any of the myriad other atrocities committed by the British (or anyone else for that matter). But I assume that when you bring up those issues you're responding to other editors?

But drawing from your comment here, and from the content I found (and altered) in the photo captions, I'd say that the any information (however grisly) about the Rebellion and related issues is essential in this article - but heavy-handed presentations of it will not serve anyone. As an example, for several reasons I removed the text in bold from the following caption to the engraving that now heads the article: An engraving titled "Sepoy Indian troops dividing the spoils after their mutiny against British rule" gives a contemporary view of events from a strictly British perspective, considering that looting was commonly practiced by British troops both in wars within India and elsewhere during the ascendancy of the British Empire. This reads as argumentative (and POV) and is more likely to alienate a reader than win her/him over. The same information can be added in the article, with careful writing to avoid POV. Finally, the bolded text is somewhat misleading, but in a surprising and significant way: looting was actually official policy for British overseas troops and was very carefully organised and regulated to extract the maximum and best "spoils" with the least effort and disorder! Surely that's an interesting fact (sources for this are easy to come by - starting with James Hevia's English Lessons: The Pedagogy of Imperialism) that would in itself persuasively show the extremes of British Imperialism, in India and elswhere. Careful research will win out over heated phrases... Pinkville 15:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Pinkville

You are not going to get any argument from me against what you have just written.

My comment was directed at your quip," do Indians have a perspective on their history ?"

There is currently much research coming out from the Indian end. The results upset POV's that have been propounded so far. That is natural.

Let us leave it at that.

I have not yet altered the main article, preferring to have the material on the Talk page, to be discussed, and understood. A few weeks here and there, do not matter. Better to argue it out here!

Regards

Ravi Chaudhary 16:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a note: the point I was (unsuccessfully) making with my sarcastic quip is that of course, a country with over a billion people and thousands of years of written accounts, etc. has a perspective on its own history. Ciao! Pinkville 16:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Pinkville

Thank you for the explanation.

You deserve one too.

The history of the Indian subcontinent, as we were taught, was generally written by Colonial Historians or their students.

The axiom, was also’ Indians have no sense of history’. With this statement and positioning ,the entire history of the subcontinent, and its people, as handed down by its people form generation to generation, was pooh poohed, and relegated to the dustbin.

This is changing, as Indians now explore and write their History, from their perspective and not simply parrot, what was contained in earlier colonial texts.

One of my interests is the history of the Jats, who populate the Ganga Jumna Doab,( where much of the resistance occurred).

Their versions of the 1857 war are quite different from the colonial versions.

It will give you another perspective see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/message/1126,

and for the full version( 18pages) see the ‘files’ section or : 1857war.doc Indian Independence war – 1857 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JATHISTORYBOOKS/files/

To access you need a Yahoo ID, and membership. I am a moderator. That is only a click away.

Best regards

Ravi Chaudhary 19:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot that can be done to alter the general tone of that article and make it more balanced.

Sense of unity or sense of a single country is very debatable given the petty rivalries that characterized this period .. there was the sense of a common enemy - the british. Nothing more, nothing less.

Sense of india or not, a lot of the people on the Indian side were simply battling for their own self interest, either because their kingdoms were forfeit under the doctrine of lapse, or because the British happened to be allied with their local enemies (other local rajas / nawabs etc they had a feud with). The Rani of Jhansi, as well as more unsavory types like Tantia Tope etc were all in the same boat.

Especially Jhansi, where the maharaja's death leaving the Rani Lakshmibai with an infant son led to forfeiture under the doctrine of lapse, and the british were more in favor of her neighbors and traditional enemies, the neighboring kingdoms of Datia and Orcha .. which are less than a few hundred kilometers from each other. http://www.copsey-family.org/~allenc/lakshmibai/timeline.html has a quite accurate timeline, including links to documentation and reference material (including original letters from the period).

Or as in the case of the Taluqdars of Awadh (such as Babu Kunwar Singh and others), the motivations varied.. tax collection rights in the various jagirs and taluqs was a powerful motivator, with the british taking away some existing rights and parcelling these out to their adherents (for example, Warren Hastings gave his indian clerks at least two jagirs tax free), or in some cases because one zamindar or the other was engaged in lining his own pockets by waylaying travelers / pillaging villages, and this was sought to be stopped. http://ballia.nic.in/history3.htm seems reasonably detailed and has a longish history of the 1750s..1857 and after.

All this and more can be done - even leaving the (very debatable) oral traditions of the Jats and the opinions of Laxman Burduk aside. There's not just recording of oral history - there's peer review as well. Various clans have an oral tradition that cites fantastic origins for their clan, from the sun and the moon, or (as in the case of the chola dynasty in tamil nadu, from Emperor Shibi mentioned in the mahabharata) etc. Accepting these legends as history would definitely not be on. Equally not on - at least by wikipedia standards, or the standards of any valid historical research, would be blindly accepting supposed oral traditions of the Jats, and/or their interpretation by a single person, without any peer review.

srs 06:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ravi: Perspective on your own history is fine and of course the Indian view is an equal part of this. However, as stated by SRS above India as we know it simply didnt exist in 1857. Can you not see how a one-eyed nationalist Indian perspective is equally as destructive as a tub-thumping colonial history of the time would have been? If you know anything about modern Britain you would not make these assumptions about our view of our imperialist past. The modern Briton in my view has a pretty balanced idea of the unsavoury policy of colonialism and if anything would be sympathetic to the mutineers/rebels/freedom fighter(have i covered all the possibles there?:) of 1857. The point i am trying to make is that at 150 years remove it must surely be possible to produce a well balanced article on Wikipedia about the mutiny. We simply need events, protagonists, possible motives, outcomes. All of this can be achieved in a scholarly manner without bias and without ill-will. Thanks. Samgb 07:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Response> Samgb

I am in agreement with you.

What we have is everyone pushing opinions, and it becomes difficult as to how to separate the wheat from the chaff, as it were.

One problem, we then have how do you get an article, that is balanced, i.e has information, and the different perspectives/interpretations.

That will allow the reader, to be aware that there are different interpretations, and different sources of info, and allow the reader to delve deeper into the subject is the reader so wishes.

I do not agree with this, Mangal Pandey myth, or that the pork/beef laden cartridges as the root cause, ( plenty of followers of both religions are even today found to eat beef and pork ), a purported cause of such magnitude, to be enough to have a cross continent conflagration, nor that the ordinary population would rise up to save some petty rulers thrones, and continue their subjugation by them.

Equally many of Indian origins supported the British power and helped defeat the Indian "mutineers/freedom fighters". This they did with gusto, and were richly rewarded.

On histiography - the bulk of the quotes in the textbooks come from British sources, and very very few from the Indian Sources. This is to be expected, as the British wrote most of the Colonial History of India, and Indian perspectives were not given any prominence. With Indian researchers taking more and more interest, Indian perspectives will come out more and more, including material that had been ignored( not necessarily willfully) by the British writers.

All this needs to brought out

Can we achieve more than that?

Ravi Chaudhary 19:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Response: To srs 06:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your first line-“ there was the sense of a common enemy - the british.”

Such a common psyche is indiactive of a 'nation'!

I disagree with you, there was nothing more!

It is singularly unfortunate that you are so dismissive in your attitude, without bringing to bear any scholarly evidence for your views.

The Jats occupy and did occupy the upper portion of the land between the Ganga- Jumna rivers( known as the Ganga- Jumna doab). Every historian aggress that here the civilian went up in revolt against the British, and fought them. They also agree the revolt here continued after it was officially ended.

This revolt was just one of their on going resistance- first to the Muslim dynasty at Delhi, and in 1857 the British.

I have posted in the Jathistory site, a translation from Dilip Singh Ahlawat’s book ‘ Jat Viron ka Ithihaas’ in Hindi., based on his research on the Sarv Khap records.

That account is also found in numerous histories of the area- Nihal Singh Arya, Kabul Singh, etc. Most of this material is in Hindi.

It is also discussed at the annual Jat history conferences held at New Delhi by the Suraj Mal Education Society. At the last conference in April over 35 papers were presented by various historians who teach in Indian universities.

If I understand you correctly , your views is that the Jat historical records are mythology, and their historians and their works deserve to be pooh poohed!.

The question you should be asking who these people were fighting for? What was their history?

Jat society was republican. The Sarv Khap was simply the Parliament, which conducted the affairs of this region, and fought off both the Muslims and the British. In 1857 it was destroyed.

Why do not read the file in the link that I have posted, and then comment!

Ravi Chaudhary 19:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Changing of the name of Ishwari "Pandey/Prasad"

@ Hserus Almost all the literature that I know refers to "Ishwari Pandey" and to the fact that the mutineers were for that reason collectively referred to as "Pandies" e.g. see "The Great Mutiny" by Malleson (Rupa, 2005, Delhi), who was stationed at that time at Calcutta. One can also have a look at: http://www.chapatimystery.com/archives/univercity/the_trial_of_mangal_pandey_i.html http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050911/asp/calcutta/story_5223117.asp

If I am not seriously mistaken, One can also consult Tapti Roy's "Politics of a popular uprising: Bundelkhand in 1857". Anyway, I would appreciate if people were not deleting information arbitrarily, just because they happen to have read something differently. It is necessary to "grant" others the "benefit of doubt" (as if they can also be neutral, not only just oneself). It would be highly appreciable, if you would refrain from "correcting" perceived "prejudices". In case you doubt the authenticity of some information, you could surely put your doubts on the Talk page, and wait for a day or two. --Raj 17:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can remember from Malleson - and from the Amar Chitra Katha comic book on Mangal Pandey - and ACK drew heavily on Malleson, and is usually quite accurate, I remember Prasad. Ditto with most other places I've seen so far. I have no axe to grind on this however.. if you say Pandey for it, so be it, but I would appreciate some corroboration on this (Malleson, the transcript of Mangal Pandey's interrogation and trial by a jury of his peers, all Indian soldiers in the company army) .. this is a minor difference of opinion here, nothing on the scale of the "bjp nationalism" that's been injected into this article over the last several edits srs 22:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Title of the article

Hi,

It seems there is a small issue with the article being titled Indian Rebellion of 1857. I tried to find a middle way by adding both Indian and International (lets be frank - British) version of the title. But the problem is with some of us realizing that the description First Freedom Struggle IS what is taught in most schools and textbooks of India. The title Indian rebellion of 1857 already says it was a rebellion, what is so wrong in writing the Indian version too. However, unfortunately, the Indian description of the story seems SO VERY absurd that it gets edited twice?

Is this article supposed to be read only in one perception?

--Bobby Awasthi 13:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This issue has been mulled over before, with "Indian Rebellion of 1857" decided upon as a neutral title. It is not the British title for the conflict (the British title is The Indian Mutiny/The Sepoy Mutiny). Hence your changes are misguided, though not conducted in bad faith I assume. I'll revert the article to the established consensus title.NJW494 18:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd second that (see debate above). Indian Rebellion of 1857 was agreed upon as an acceptable compromise after an awful lot of argument and it would be a pity to open that can of worms again. I had understood that the Revolt was referred to as The First War of Indian Independence in Indian school textbooks, not The First Freedom Struggle, but I may be wrong. Both those titles in my view indicate an overtly Nationalist and thoroughly anachronistic POV (again, see above) but that's by the by. The usual British name is indeed The Indian Mutiny, The Sepoy Mutiny or simply The Mutiny, a name still widely recognised but an inadequate description for a Rebellion that spread far outside the ranks of the army, so both sides have given some ground here. Can't we just leave it at that? Sikandarji 08:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

My argument was NOT about the title. I was only referring to balancing the first line of the title by adding what the general perception of Indian populace is. Every student who studied Indian curriculum would call it by that name itself although I would reserve my comments on whether the curriculum has ever been over nationalist in nature, considering most of the patroned authors of NCERT/CBSE have been from JNU/communist background. Removing any reference at all to the sentence which 1 billion people know this event as, by far, appears arrogant as I understand. This also limits those searching by text like The First War of Indian Independence because that's what they know/knew it as; i.e., until they (like me) were enlightened by wikipedia. I accept I read the whole can of worms spread here after editing; but to me, it is just killing the most popular search text from the whole article by not even allowing it to appearing anywhere in the first paragraph.

--Bobby Awasthi 13:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The First War Of Indian Independence redirects to this article, so anyone searching for that will find this article. The article also contains a section on names which discusses the various names by which the conflict is known, which again helps those searching. Do you really think they all need to appear there? -- Arvind 13:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I did not notice that. No more. --Bobby Awasthi 17:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The Title

I am curious as to who decided that this should be termed as "The Indian Rebellion of 1857". The correct title should be "The First Indian War of Independence." Calling it a rebellion is insulting.

And both "Mutiny" and "Rebellion" are British POVs just as "War of Independence" is an Indian POV. However, given the fact that this is an Indian History related article, it makes sense that the Indian POV should be preferred. If another article is filed under British History and if the authors with to term it a "Mutiny" or a "Rebellion", then I have no objection.

Since only about 5 people voted on the name, I find it a tad ridiculous. I would prefer a re-vote. Please post here if you are interested in a re-vote.

(Jvalant 01:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC) Jvalant)

Per the above discusion in which consensus was reached, I support the use of the "Rebellion" title. It is not inherently racist, as Jvalant has claimed [3], nor insulting, but instead marks a reasonable balance to the multiple interpretations of the issue, the key point here being NPOV. The situation of the article in no way absolves this requirement, as it is a Wikipedia article first and foremost, rather than one purely associated with any particular historical interpretation or background. Icelight 01:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not see how calling it a "Rebellion" is NPOV. It is a lot less insulting than "Mutiny", but is still skewed toward the imperialistic POV. The success or failure of an uprising should not determine its title. It can be argued that since not all Americans were involved in the Revolutionary War/American War of Independence, the title of the American Revolutionary War article too should be changed to American Rebellion. Why the double standard? Jvalant 05:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Jvalant

I fail to see how "Rebellion" is "skewed towards an imperialistic POV" - as Icelight has explained, it represents a reasonable compromise between "Indian Mutiny" (by far the most common term for the events of 1857, but inaccurate and in other respects unacceptable) and the "War of independence", which is a nationalist myth peddled in Indian school textbooks. There are no double standards here: the leaders of the American revolt against the British wanted independence for all 13 North American colonies and were united in culture, class and language. Furthermore, they were successful. Had they failed, this war would no doubt be known as the American rebellion of 1776, just as the Jacobite uprisings of 1715 and 1745 are known as "Rebellions". 1857 was not a war of independence partly because Independence was not achieved, but also because it was confined to a relatively small region within what would later become India: the whole of the Bombay and Madras Presidencies, together with Punjab and the Nizam's dominions were not involved, because there was as yet no common sense of Indian identity, although there would be the beginnings of one by the late 1800s. As it was the Rebellion in North India was suppressed by Punjabis anxious for revenge on the Hindustani sepoys who had defeated them ten years earlier in the Sikh Wars. The other reason the "War of Independence" usage is anachronistic is that the classes most prominent in the Rebellion (The sepoys, certain princes and in some regions the peasantry) played a much less important, in some cases non-existent role in the Indian nationalist movement as it subsequently evolved, which was led by the urban middle class, and which did eventually achieve independence for India. Sikandarji 08:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

That does not take away from the fact that loyalits/tories were in favor of the british crown. Nor did ALL americans unanimously participate - many were mute watchers. If the idea was to throw off the British yoke from American soil, then similarly the idea was to throw out the British yoke from Indian soil, uniting under the Mughal Emperor and declaring him the Emperor of India. The disolution of the British East India Company and the titling of Victoria as Empress of India can be further proof of this being a War of Independence. The Congress was started by the British to give an avenue to the natives to "vent", and to prevent another "mutiny" - in other words, they were afraid of another Revolution. Native Americans participated on both sides of the American war -so by your argument, this too should be a Rebellion. The success or failure of an uprising is immaterial, you can't term it a rebellion just because it failed. It is best to dispute the neutrality of this article since it seems to be skewed toward the British / imperialist POV. (Jvalant 18:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC) Jvalant)

I'd hate for this to be seen as a personal attack, but you've got no place on Wikipedia Jvalant. A non-consensus, nationalistic, bigoted page move isn't something you should be proud of. The Indian Rebellion of 1857 was a neutral title. If Wikipedia was following some kind of Imperialistic agenda then this article would have been entitled "The Sepoy Mutiny". You've made me rather angry I'm afraid. As implied I've moved the page back to its previous location, and it shall be left that way. NJW494 20:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a personal attack as far as I am concerned. But that is probably not very surprising, given that you prefer an imperalistic slant to this title. I've never claimed Wikipedia follows an Imperialistic agenda - please do not put words in my mouth. I would prefer if you back up your reasons for having double standards between the American War of Independence and the Indian War of Independence with facts rather than comments calling me "bigoted". If you don't have valid reasons, then go ahead and change the title of the American Revolutionary War to the American Rebellion. And you don't make me angry - you just make me pity your Ku Klux Klan mentality.

Ahh, I get it: You're a racist. Just because I'm a white British guy who objects to downright rude repeated vandalism means I'm an "Imperialist" and have a "Ku Klux Klan mentality". Definately racism, from you. Consensus has dicated that this page remains where it is, not under some fairytale fake heading. Sikandarji tried his best to persuade you to desist from your crusade, he was reasonable and intelligent, sourcing out various examples to combat the chip that currently resides on your shoulder. I'm a bit more blunt and I will not tolerate your use of racism to justify your obnoxiousness. Consensus on Wikipedia is an important part of the whol process, and on this article has been reached through lengthy discussion and the contributions of people from many different backgrounds. Consensus should not be violated by a pig-headed know it all. Accept it and be mature about it or leave. NJW494 22:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't even know you were white or British but am glad you pointed it out. No wonder the truth irks you. Obviously consensus hasn't been reached. You certainly are racist - since you have no points to back your claim - you have resorted to mudslinging. I guess the likes of you really need to get over losing the "colonies". Perhaps it is being the 51st state of the USA which irks you. Or maybe you just lost your job to an Indian recently. Either way, I am not going to agree to your racist POV just to help you get over your inferiority complex. Nor am I willing to sacrifice the truth on the altar of political correctness. And NO, Sikanderji has still not pointed out why the double standard between the American Revolutionary War and the Indian one. I really don't expect maturity or rationality from you - but feel free to debate as much as you like with valid points, not with figments of your fertile KKK imagination. I do believe in free speech, even if I don't agree to it. So air your racist views all you want - it doesn't really bother me. (Jvalant 00:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC))

In view of the contentious nature of the discusion, rapid loss of the assumption of good faith and general teetering on the brink of a revert war, it might be necessary to refer this for an RfC. I'd say if this goes on for another two days would rapidly become critical, as edits to one side or the other are going to start piling up, and risk damaging extensive material in the article, rather than just the title and introductory paragraphs. Icelight 05:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Last time this happened (see the "Move" section further up this page) Raj and I were able to have a long debate without constant reverts, and eventually this resulted in our adding the "Debate over the national character of the rebellion" section: i.e. the article was improved. The person originally responsible for the move turned out to be a Rajput sock-puppet on a mission to annoy people (am I getting this right? - weird terms we end up using sometimes) but a civilised stance all round prevented tempers from getting too frayed. Judging by the language NJW494 and Jvalant have been using we will not be so lucky this time. Please, if you want to taunt each other go and do it in the playground. There's no need for wanton rudeness. Sikandarji 07:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

To be entirely fair it is Jvalant who is causing the problems here. I'm merely trying to respond to him in a way that will hopefully see him cease vandalising a good article. He is using racism to try and force guilty European people to accede to his demands and is wantonly insulting my country whilst having the gall to accuse me of racism. As such there is no way in which anyone can assume good faith on his part. He is not trying to be constructive, he is trying to enforce his viewpoint upon a majority of Wikipedians who have debated and rejected this issue before. I just can't tolerate fools, that is my only failing here. We have seen that this fellow will not listen to reason, so it would be fruitless to continue to appeal to him on a strictly intellectual level. NJW494 11:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I did not start the personal attacks. Secondly, someone has yet to point out to me why the discrepancy between the American Revolutionary War and the Indian "Revolt" as has been agreed by some when the similarities are striking. Not all people participated, major chunk of the population was loyal to the British etc. While I can see why some would argue that the Indian War of Independence is not NPOV, I propose that whilst this debate is still in progress we take the middle path and change the name to Indian Revolutionary War of 1857. I won't change the name unilaterally; however if there are not objections in the next 24 hours, I shall.

I am not forcing "guilty" European people to accede to my demand. If instead of a debate, I just wanted to enforce my view, all I had to do was send out a couple mass e-mails to Indians on how "Wikipedia.com" refers to the "The First War of Indian Independence" as a "revolt". I am pretty sure this would appeal to the more jingoistic "patriots" and quite a few would turn up waving the tricolor. I did not do that because I wanted an honest debate. (Jvalant 11:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC))

The similarities between the American revolution and the Indian Rebellion of 1857 are not really that striking. If the American revolution had been confined to The Carolinas for example, and the militias of the other colonies had participated in destroying such a revolt then there would be similarities. As it is the American Revolutionary War was in reality a widespread Civil War, whereas the Indian Rebellion was a geographically restricted rising that was in no way national in character. I take it that you are an Indian-American? Is your approach on this matter a fusion of American anti-Imperialism with Indian nationalist sentiments? If so would you accept that perhaps you may be the one approaching this discussion with a slight bias? Anyhow, please refrain from altering the title. Overruling consensus is quite rude NJW494 13:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to express an opinion on the various titles (as a white English person, you may be able to guess my POV).

I'm sorry if this is dealt with in talk archives or something, but if the "rebellion" title is the consensus choice (I could live with it), should it not be "1857 Indian Rebellion" (no "The" and no "of")?

Secondly, the recent page moves have created a host of double redirects that need sorting out (when the page finally decides where it want to be). -- ALoan (Talk) 13:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Jvalant, please don't move the page again. I thought I provided a very clear explanation of why the American War of Independence and the 1857 Rebellion are not directly comparable, and I really do think the success or failure of the uprising has a lot to do with this. How can it be a war of Independence if Independence was not achieved? And the failure of other parts of India to rise up in revolt was not because they were loyal to the British in the way that royalists in the American colonies were, but because they simply didn't see what relevance an uprising led by Hindustani Sepoys from the Doab, Awadh and Bihar had to them. The attempted revival of the Mughal Empire did not prove capable of producing a pan-Indian political movement, characters such as the Nan Sahib and the Rani of Jhansi were only interested in getting their fiefdoms back from the Company. For this reason describing it as a "Revolutionary War" would be even more inaccurate. Whilst there were peasant uprisings in Awadh and Bundelkhand, the fundamental character of the rebellion and its aims was conservative, with no suggestion that this would see a new class taking power. The divisions amongst the American colonists were those of political ideology, those amongst Indians simply reflect the lack of a widespread common identity at this date, which meant that the Punjabis who sacked Delhi felt that they were settling a score with the Hindustani sepoys who had defeated them ten years earlier, as well as looking for loot. The idea that this was some sort of "national betrayal" would never have occurred to them, but similarly loyalty to the East India Company, let alone the crown, was not a significant motivating factor for them either. Finally, the American War of Independence is best seen as a civil war between Englishmen, groups alike in religion, language and culture, but between whom a significant political difference had arisen. In India meanwhile fear of defilement followed by forced conversion to the religion of their rulers was an immensely significant factor in persuading the sepoys to rebel - the gulf was very wide, but even so the overwhelming majority of Indians just didn't recognise that they had far more in common with the rebels than with their British rulers: that is why they were prepared to fight for the latter. This recognition of pan-Indian interests and aims would only come later, when the railways and the spread of a common language and single political culture through the Congress helped to break down these barriers. When this happened, it spelled the end of British rule in India. Sikandarji 16:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this alleged lack of pan-Indian feeling amongst the revolutionaries your POV or do you have non-British historical facts to back it up? Besides I see the following loopholes - a. The revolutionaries recognized the need to capture Delhi and b. Once Delhi was captured, it was the Mughal Emperor who was put on the throne and declared the Emperor of India. Even before European powers came into India, the Mughals were the Emperors and jagirdars, sardars, Rajput princes - while being minor kings themselves served at the pleasure of the Emperor. For example, Shivaji despite his aim being "Hindavi Swaraj" did present himself to the Mughal court of Aurangzeb in return for quasi-independent rule for a while...you know the rest of the story. So, the system was not democratic but based on a home-grown political system. The lack of a Western style of over-throwing a govt. or "revolution" does not take away from the fact, that this was a concentrated effort to throw out an alien power.

Coming to the American War, it wasn't necessarily a war between just "Englishmen" - in the actual fighting Native Americans as well as African-Americans were involved on both sides. They too did not see the commonality between each other but continued fighting for wherever their interests lied - mostly political interests and personal interests - this war was hardly about ideology for them. Similarly, while many Indians fought for the Brits, they did for personal or political interests - not because they supported the "British ideology". Hence, there are far more similarities than you point out. The major difference in my opinion was that the Americans had a Declaration of Independence, while the Indians did not. But this is because of the legacy of the political systems in both lands.

If I go by your argument, then the "Quit India movement" was not a movement for independence either. By your logic, since millions of Indians did not necessarily join it but actively supported the British rule - e.g. - Jinnah and the Muslim League refusing to take part in it, princely states, troops of the Royal Indian Armed Forces etc. - this was not an independence movement either. Is that what you are saying? (Jvalant 23:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC))

I think that, due to the fact that Jinah quite soon was involved in a rather different situation with regards to Inda, for which there isn't any real comparison in either the American Revolutionary or Civil Wars, you can't use him to lump 1857 and Quit India together. Moreover, as you state, the Declaration of Independence may be a critical element. The existence of a clear political doctrine, such as that also had by Quit India, makes those two independence movements, whereas the far murkier situation in 1857 keeps it a rebellion. General revolts of dissatisfaction by the populace in ancient China, for instance are generally termed are such, or rebellions, rather that major political movements. Oh, and (not so) veiled threats are generally signs of poor faith, and are quite easy to observe the effects of, if a large number of brand new editors began making identical edits. They're generally known as meat puppets, and their use if frowned upon. For the sake of sparing redirects, I'd also object to any "interim" name changes. Icelight 08:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it can be argued that toeing an imperialistic POV can also be frowned upon especially when residents of the country whose "history" is being written have little or no say in the article. What makes it worse is that those arguing for the imperialist POV may be residing in those erstwhile colonial powers which would explain their imperialist slant. I don't know the term but the movie Gunga Din comes to mind. And a "political doctrine" is a by-product of a western political system - there is no eastern equivalent which explains why there is no "Declaration of Independence". You are judging a genuine movement to overthrow a foreign government by Western standards of "an independence movement". That is your privilege and right - but it is still not a NPOV as the sheer definition of "an independence movement" would be different by Indian standards. And of course, I can use Jinnah - he was part of the whole situation - you can't be selective about which part of history you wish to use to suit your needs. Similarly, the Royal Indian Army, Air Force and Navy were loyal to the Brits - so also the civil servants. Hence, according to your definition the Quit India Movement was not an independence movement either. (Jvalant 11:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC))

I'm not sure you've been reading what I've written too carefully. This is not a question of East/West, Imperialist/Nationalist POV, but of the balance of scholarly debate. It is crude and entirely inaccurate to assert that historians will have one POV if they're Indian, another if they're British. If you don't believe me I suggest you compare the work of Rudrangshu Mukherjee, Tapti Roy and Eric Stokes: you will find they agree on many things, amongst others that "War of Independence" is not an appropriate term for what happened in 1857. The "War of Independence Line" is an extreme nationalist point of view: the term was coined by Savarkar, of whom I probably don't need to tell you anything, and whom Mukherjee actually describes as a "jingoist". Similarly an "Imperialist" POV would have this article entitled "The Indian Mutiny" and rely solely on 19th century English accounts, asserting that it was merely an army mutiny characterised by brutality towards civilians. Both these POVs are wrong, neither dominates the article, and you are being dishonest in stating that there is no distinction between the latter Imperialist view and one which views 1857 as a wide-ranging rebellion that extended beyond a military mutiny and which saw atrocities on both sides. It would help if we could forget about who is or isn't Indian and simply examine the arguments put forward on their merits.

More specifically: Jinnah was also participating in an Independence movement, but he wanted to create a separate country and was prepared to cooperate with the British for short-term political gain. This does not affect his ultimate aims and those of the Muslim League which were every bit as nationalist as the Congress. Of course political doctrines exist outside the West, and in fact the rebels in Delhi issued a number of proclamations stating political aims (see the main article). The point is that these had little effect outside a small area of Northern India, and only represent the views of one group of participants in the Rebellion. The aims of the Nana Sahib, or of the peasants who rose in Bundelkhand, were rather different. The Indian Navy Mutinied in 1946, elements of the Indian Army did so as well in joining Subhas Chandras Bose, although it is true that far larger numbers (2.5 million) volunteered to fight Fascism during the Second World War. This was because the British had learnt their lesson from 1857 and were able to isolate the army from Nationalist currents, but even in this they were not wholly successful. It was clear that most soldiers were happy to defeat an external enemy which threatened India's putative independence even more than a continued British presence did, but that this cooperation was only for the duration of the war. Finally, Gandhi's hartals were very effective in persuading minor functionaries of the administration to strike and refuse to cooperate with the British, whilst Congress pressure led to increasing Indianisation of the ICS, so much so that by 1947 about 50% of its members were Indian. Quit India did not involve those who had particular political or economic reasons for being loyal to the British (the Princes for instance) but the point is that unlike in 1857, support for the movement was not confined to a single area, and did not divide along ethnic or linguistic lines. It was a movement for all-Indian independence, and it received a response across the whole of India, including Muslim areas such as the N.W.F.P. where the Khidai Khidmutgars supported Gandhi. That's where the distinction lies. Sikandarji 11:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope you are not suggesting that Mukherjee and Roy are the epitome of NPOV historians. Infact, their work has been highly controversial. And for the record, Jinnah was dead against the Quit India movement - he rejected it outright. He was even willing to settle for Dominion status or a loose federation of states within the Commonwealth realm. Unlike Congress leaders, he did not spend a single day in prison opposing the British rule. Incidentally, Savarkar spent a major part of his youth in prison. Jinnah's party echoed the view of a high number of Indian Muslims (nearly 40% of the population). Subhash Chandra Bose's army was not composed of Indian soldiers who directly switched to the Azad Hind Fauj but Indian Army POWs captured by the Axis powers. Coming back to the Quit India movement - it too was restricted mostly to the Northern and Central part of the country. The Quit India movement did not take part in the Mysore or Hyderabad states - ethnic residents of Andaman and Nicobar did not participate, residents of present day states like Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, Tripura, Assam did not partipate. Residents of states like Jodhpur, Jaisalmar, Jaipur did not participate. Residents of Kashmir did not participate. And what percentage of ICS people make up the Indian population? By sheer numbers, ATLEAST 70% of the erstwhile Indian population did not participate in the Quit India movement - and that is a highly conservative estimate. (Calculate - Jinnah's supporters, the aforementioned residents, atleast 2.4 out of the 2.5 million Indian Armed forces) So it was NOT an independence movement either, by your own logic - since it was restricted to a small percentage of the population - basically in the Bombay Presidency, many parts of Bengal and the Central Provinces. Perhaps we should change the title of the Quit India Movement article to the Indian Revolt of 1942.

Again, by your yardstick - Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Chandrashekhar Azad were not revolutionaries either. How much percentage of the population adhered to or was a member of the Hindustan Socialist Republican Party? Do you think of them as terrorists then?(Jvalant 00:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC))

My point about Mukherjee and Roy, which you appear to have deliberately ignored, is that it gives the lie to your notion of a straightforward division between "virtuous Indian Historians" all singing from the same "War of Independence" hymnsheet, and "Evil Imperialist Britisher Historians" whose thinking has barely changed since 1857. Roy and Mukherjee may have caused controversy by departing from a simplistic nationalist script, but their work is widely respected amongst serious historians. Anyway, as I've given you an idea of what some of my sources are, perhaps you could return the courtesy and tell me just where you get your unshakeable conviction that 1857 was a "War of Independence" from? A standard 10 history textbook won't do, neither will Savarkar's polemic. Savarkar did indeed spend nine years in gaol for plotting an armed uprising against British Rule, although he was eventually released when he acknowledged that he'd had a fair trial. As I'm sure you're well aware, he was also an extreme religious bigot and the originator of the idea of Hindutva, as well as being implicated in Gandhi's murder. Interesting that such a charming character was the first to use the "War of Independence" tag. Doubtless by the 1930s he had forgotten that Hindus and Muslims fought alongside each other in 1857 (although religious tensions did eventually flare up between the mainly Hindu Sepoys and the Muslim population of the Delhi during the siege). My point about the ICS was simply that many of them were Indians and Nationalists by 1947, something you had previously denied. Of course they weren't a significant proportion of the population, but the list of places which you allege were untouched by Quit India (which is certainly not true of Mysore and Hyderabad) still shows that it was a far more widespread movement than the 1857 rebellion, stretching from Cape Comorin to Peshawar, even if it didn't cover all the places in between, and thus transcending the boundaries of language and regional culture, something the 1857 Rebellion never did. You also need to look at respective aims: the main political initiative taken by the rebels was an entirely backward-looking one, placing Bahadur Shah Zafar rather unwillingly at the head of the movement. As it turned out, his real authority barely stretched any further than it had before 1857 - that is as far as the walls of Shahjahanabad. Even at its height, the Mughal Empire never comprised the whole of Modern India, and its decrepit remnants were hardly likely to do so by 1857. By contrast Congress envisaged independence for the whole of India. The Muslim League, having begun by seeking guarantees for minority rights within that putative state, eventually withdrew from the project and pushed for a separate state instead, making strategic alliances with the British along the way, but independence (and Dominion Status is independence - it's what Canada, Australia and New Zealand enjoy today) was Jinnah's ultimate aim. Finally, the revolutionaries: of course Bhagat Singh was a revolutionary, albeit a singularly inept one. He was a Marxist who wanted to overturn the Indian social order - driving out the British was part of that, but only part of it. Are you seriously suggesting that in his political beliefs he had anything in common with the Nana Sahib? If there were "revolutionaries" in 1857 they were the peasants who revolted in Awadh and Bundelkhand, whose activities and motivations have been so well examined by Roy, Mukherjee and Stokes, the historians you airily dismissed at the beginning of your reply.Sikandarji 15:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah - so you get to choose which historians have a NPOV and which do not. How convenient. Savarkar was an "extreme religious bigot", Bhagat Singh was "singularly inept" and Jinnah was a "nationalist". All of these are your personal and I daresay prejudiced POVs. Most Indians, especially in Maharashtra remember Savarkar fondly as Veer Savarkar. He was acquitted of any wrong doing in Gandhi's trial. If you know something that I don't about his guilt, then do let me know. Infact his bust was recently unveiled in Parliament House in New Delhi. And most Indians do not see Bhagat Singh as "singularly inept". If you have used, such personal POVs to come to a decision about the title of this article, then it definitely needs to be changed. I can't accept the word of leftist and apologetic alleged "historians" like Roy and Mukherjee whose credentials have always been doubted. If you do have any serious, uncontroversial historian whose claims of it not being a War of Independence haven't been disputed, do let me know. I am not contesting the fact that the revolutionaries did not have a "forward-looking" political objective. And people invovled in this war of independence spoke marathi, awadhi, bhojpuri, urdu, bengali etc. - so on what basis do you claim that this uprising did not cut across linguistic and religious lines? Jvalant 09:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobody disputes that Savarkar was the originator of the idea of Hindutva, the chief ideologue of the RSS and its political wing, what later became the BJP. If you think this makes him a neutral and reliable source then say so openly, but I think you will find that few outside Maharashtra, that beacon of religious tolerance, agree with you. Savarkar wasn't even a historian, and his book makes no pretence of neutrality: it has to be seen as a politicised polemic. As for his involvement in Gandhi's murder - his repeated attacks on Gandhi for his "appeasement" of Muslims form the prelude to the murder and Godse's motivation for it (Godse being a former member of the RSS, a fact I'm sure you haven't forgotten. The Wikipedia article on Savarkar says the following:

"Following the murder of Mahatma Gandhi on January 30, 1948, police arrested the assassin Nathuram Godse and rounded up his companions. Police investigation revealed that Godse and his chief conspirator Narayan Apte had been a close political confidantes of Savarkar in the Hindu Mahasabha. Despite having publicly denounced Gandhi's murder, Savarkar was arrested on suspicion of having inspired and planned Gandhi's murder, and accordingly indicted. Witnesses during the trial testified that Savarkar had blessed Nathuram Godse before he shot Gandhi, with the words "Yashasvi howun yaa" (Marathi: Come back with success). Both Godse and Savarkar belonged to the Chitpawan Brahmin community. Even before the trial, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel had, in a letter to Jawaharlal Nehru, clearly stated that Savarkar had masterminded the murder. In the court, approvers had testified to the intimate relationship between Savarkar and the Godse brothers, but there was no corroborative evidence to nail down Savarkar's assertion that he had had merely formal relationships with them. Godse claimed full responsibility for planning and carrying out the attack, in absence of an independent corroboration of the prosecution witness Digambar Ramchandra Badge's evidence implicating Savarkar directly, the court exonerated him citing insufficient evidence."

I said he was implicated in Gandhi's murder - he was - what's the problem? Some might argue that he was lucky to get off, but that would be unacceptably POV of course....Bhagat Singh's ineptitude - he shot the wrong man, didn't he? Plus he failed to kill anyone in his attack on the Lokh Sabha. You can't believe everything you saw in Rang de Basanti, fine film though it was. What makes you think I decided on the title of this article? It was decided through a lengthy debate, followed by a vote. You were the one who changed it unilaterally, and you still haven't provided any sources or references for your POV other than Savarkar, which I suggested to you, and which for all sorts of reasons cannot be taken as neutral or reliable. Mukherjee and Roy are not "alleged" historians - they have held posts at the best Indian universities and their works are published by reputable academic presses, unlike that of the purveyors of ultra-nationalist and extremist Hindu nonsense. Finally, in response to your last point, just look at the region where the Mutiny was confined: Ajmer in the West, Ambala in the North, Awadh in the East and Jhansi/Bundelkhand in the South. It never spread beyond the cow-belt, and the dialects in this region are more or less mutually intelligible. Sikandarji 09:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, first Karl Marx's work "The First Indian War of Independence" clearly calls it a war of independence. He co-authored that with Frank Engels. Bhagat Singh never attacked the Lok Sabha - it did not exist at that time. It was the Constituent Assembly and as stated even on the Wikipedia article on him, his intention was never to kill anyone - but merely to draw attention and be arrested. Of course, Maharashtra has been a tolerant state/region right from the times of Shivaji. The fact that they have opposed alien rule be it Mughal invaders or the Brits does not make them intolerant opposed to say like Bengal which pretty much let itself be conquered by whoever wished to conquer it without putting up a resistance of note. Again, it is your personal view that the aforementioned languages are mutually intelligible, not a fact. Besides, Bahadur Shah Zafar's court spoke Urdu while that of Jhansi spoke in Marathi. I saw the vote which decided on the title - about 5 people voted. That can hardly be termed as a quorum. The same article that you point on Savarkar states that he was an atheist. He believed in what he termed as a "Hindu Rashtra" for all Indians - irrespective of their religious beliefs. Yes, his views finally led to something like the BJP which happens to be a major political party in India. But he can hardly be blamed for the militant form of Hindutva which later became a major obstacle to India's secular fabric. Especially, without any proof. On the opinion of someone even as esteemed as Vallabhbhai Patel , you can't assume Savarkar is guilty. So his views must be taken into account as well.

You have yet to show me a single historian who has called it a Revolt or a Rebellion and whose views have not been challenged and have been universally accepted. (Jvalant 11:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC))

No historian's work is ever "universally accepted" or remains "unchallenged", so you would appear to be setting me an impossible task here. As it stands we only have your personal assertion that you find the work of the historians I have cited unacceptable, without any explanation of why this is. What exactly are your substantive criticisms of Eric Stokes - The Peasant Armed: the Indian revolt of 1857 (Oxford University Press) 1986, Rudrangshu Mukherjee Awadh in Revolt: a study in popular resistance (Oxford University Press), 1984 and Tapti Roy - The Politics of a Popular Uprising: Bundelkhand in 1857 (Oxford University press) 1994? You will notice that all these books were produced by the world's leading academic press. Stokes was at Cambridge, Roy was educated at Presidency College Calcutta and JNU (with St Stephen's, Delhi, the leading centres of historical study in India) and has worked at Oxford, Calcutta University and Princeton. I know less about Roy, but her book received excellent reviews in the Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies and the Journal of the American Oriental Society. These are all good books, even if you may not like them. Otherwise we have Sashi Bhusan Chaudhuri Civil Rebellion in the Indian mutinies, 1857-59 (Calcutta) 1957 and Michael Edwardes Red year: The Indian Rebellion of 1857 (London) 1975, bothe decent books though not in the same league. Meanwhile K Rajayyan thinks the first war of independence took place in South India in 1800-01, rather emphasising just how politicised and controversial this term is. In any case, as you well know most works simply refer to the "Indian Mutiny", a term which we have debated and found unacceptable for reasons of which I am sure you would approve (namely that it does present an Imperialist POV and is inaccurate. Finally, you are unwise to cite Marx in support of your views. The title given to the Soviet compilation of his and Engels' writings on India (in the original Russian О Национально освободительном восстании 1857-1859гг в Индии (Москва) 1960 - On the National-Liberation uprising of 1857-9 in India) is an invention of his Soviet Editors. In the original letters Marx wrote on the subject for the New York Daily Tribune he simply uses the term "Indian Revolt" (I refer you to the English Edition of Marx & Engels On Colonialism (Moscow) 1959). He also refers to Indians in extremely pejorative terms (he describes Hinduism as "a religion of cruelty" p155), not least because Marx thought British rule in India was "progressive". Sikandarji 13:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Some of the world's leading pubishers have produced Mein Kampf too. This does not mean they endorse Hitler's views. My problem is exactly the same question that you asked me - besides you having a personal dislike of Savarkar, what is the substantive reason for dismissing his work as that of a "bigot"? Do you have any proof to back your claim that Soviets changed the title with malicious intent or did they merely attach a more universally acceptable title to Marx's work? (Jvalant 15:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC))

Why exactly is a rebellion insulting??? It was not a running war!!!, the Indian forces, having reached Delhi, simply stayed there, eventually falling under a siege which by simple mobillity could have been avoided. The other forces who joined in, including the princes and their armies, only joined in bit by bit and there was no unanimous or cohesive decision between the major armies till towards the end (and even then very little) to offer unified assault or resistance for a common stated objective. It all points out, as Sikandarji points out quite a lot, that it was a lot more sporadic,spontaneous and quite disunited in nature with most of the princely states that joined in doing so for securing their own states and nobillities. The American war of Independence, civil war or not, started with a clear objective and had a clearly planned tactics to achieve that objective. Although it did have several causes that seem (and are) similar to the 1857 conflict, t's different probably in character in the way it was played out.

You guys have deviated quite a lot from the main issue, ie, the title, to who's a historian and who was a true patriot or not. The real point is that the Title is an accurate protrayal of the course of the events that happened through the years of 1857 and 1858. The American stuff played out entirely differently.

Oh, with response to (Jvalant's statement that Bengal let whoever come and conquer them, I think you would find more stuff in the story of the Indian Independence movement from Bengal and Punjab than you have light bulbs in your Maharashtra.Rueben lys 15:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

In "my Maharashtra"? I am not Maharashtrian if that is what you are implying. But most of the nationally important ones were from the erstwhile Bombay Presidency - including Gandhi, Patel, Tilak, Jinnah, Gokhale and yes Savarkar. And my reference to Bengal was not Indian Independence movement - it was about rolling over and letting itself be conquered from the battle of Plassey to Indian Army tanks rolling into Dacca unopposed. Unless of course you stating that these people were Bengalis as were Shivaji, Sambhaji, Bajirao Peshwa etc.

What is so insulting about "rebellion"? Well, the definition of "rebellion" is "Open, armed, and organized resistance to a constituted government" - We all agree it was not exactly "organized". I hope we all agree that the British East India Company was NOT a "constituted goverment". So agreeing to this title means I agree to the fact that East India Company was infact a constituted govt. - something that would demean every Indian and make him/her accept the British rule as just.

As opposed to this the definition of a Revolution is : The overthrow of one government and its replacement with another - which is closer to the truth. A War of Independence is the best title for the article by far - as it is far more accurate.

(Jvalant 16:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC))

Can we call this an insurrection?

Just a thought, see the heading suggestion.Rueben lys 16:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Definition of Insurrection :The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government.

Since the East India Company's govt was neither a civil authority or a constituted government, I don't see how this word is acceptable.

However, I can see why Revolution would be a better title. Refer to the definitions above

(Jvalant 16:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC))

Jvalant - Of course the East India Company was both a civil authority and a constituted government. Whether you think it was legitimate or not is another matter, but it was the de facto ruler of a very large proportion of the Subcontinent by 1857 and it is foolish to pretend otherwise. I'm not sure where you're getting your definitions from, but a Revolution involves much more than one Government being overthrown and replaced by another - that definition would fit "coup" as well. It involves a different social class taking power, something which clearly didn't happen in 1857. Your points about publishers are scarcely worth bothering with, but as I'm here I'll state the bleedin' obvious: there is a difference between a publisher reprinting a hateful polemic because of its historical interest, and an academic publisher deciding whether or not a new historical monograph is of sufficient merit in terms of research, analysis and balanced argument to be worthy of publication. Do you think they reprint Mein Kampf without prefaces explaining why such a revolting (and practically unreadable book) is important, and setting it in its historical context? Sheesh. And I have explained quite clearly why Savarkar's book is unacceptable - it's not an assertion based on personal prejudice, I have been able to produce facts to demonstrate why he and his work are unreliable and biased. He had no historical training, the book is not based on original research, it does not even pretend to be a neutral account of events: it is a polemical tract designed to stir up Indians to armed rebellion against the British in the very different political circumstances of 1909. Savarkar's subsequent career and role in creating the doctrine of Hindutva casts further doubts on his neutrality. Whether or not you admire his political ideas and his achievements as a Freedom Fighter, you cannot pretend he has no axe to grind. His book is not a reliable source for anything. Finally, my point is that Marx himself never used the title "Indian War of Independence", something you had previously claimed. In any case, given your objections to "leftist historians" (your words) such as Mukherjee and Stokes I find it rather odd your citing him. The Soviets had an ideological purpose in all their English-language publications, you can describe it as "malicious" if you want. I didn't, I just said it was inaccurate.

Let us take your proposed title step by step and put an end to this nonsense:

The First War of Indian Independence

1) - "First" - If you really believe that 1857 was a "War of Indian Independence" it can't possibly have been the First War of Indian Independence. What about the resistance which Siraj ud-Daula, Tipu Sultan, the Marathas and the Sikhs offered to British Expansion? It must be the fourth, fifth or sixth war of Indian independence.

2) - "War" - This describes some of what went on in 1857 but by no means all of it. It also comprised a military mutiny, an aristocratic rebellion and a popular peasant uprising. War is an inadequate word to describe this and has connotations either of Civil War, or war between two sovereign powers, which does not fit this case in the least.

3) - "Indian" - As we have already discussed at enormous length, although of course the Rebellion was "Indian" in the sense that it took place on the territory of Modern India, it was not "Indian" in the sense of having a united and independent India as its ultimate goal (as the later independence movement did) or in involving anywhere in the Subcontinent outside the Doab, Awadh, Bundelkhand and Eastern Rajputana and Punjab. It was suppressed by Punjabi, South Indian and Bombay (i.e. in some cases Maratha) troops fighting for the British.

4) - "Independence" - Tell me, did India achieve independence in 1857? Was that even what the rebels were all fighting for? The Rani of Jhansi and the Nana Sahib wanted their kingdoms back. The Sepoys wanted to place Bahadur Shah Zafar on the throne. Bahadur Shah just wanted to be left alone. The Muslims of the Doab wanted a holy war, the peasantry of Bundelkhand and Awadh wanted freedom from a crippling tax burden, amongst other things. Half the time we're only guessing because aims were often unclear, confused and contradictory. They cannot be resolved to the single political aim of "Independence", let alone an anachronistic idea of independence for an Indian nation-state. Sikandarji 20:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you seem hopelessly entrenched in your biased POV, I shall state the freakin obvious : When Mein Kampf was first published, there was no preface explaining why such a "hopeless" book was being published. Ditto for the imperialist authors or imperialist boot-lickers whose work you cite. Heck, even Enid Blyton's books with "gollywogs" as villains were continued to be published till the 60s and even later. I don't recollect the imperialists printing a preface there either.

You can check the meaning of the words from the American Heritage Dictionary

re·bel·lion (r-blyn) n.

  1. Open, armed, and organized resistance to a constituted government.

rev·o·lu·tion (rv-lshn) n.

  1.
        1. Orbital motion about a point, especially as distinguished from axial rotation: the planetary revolution about the sun.
        2. A turning or rotational motion about an axis.
        3. A single complete cycle of such orbital or axial motion.
  2. The overthrow of one government and its replacement with another.
  3. A sudden or momentous change in a situation: the revolution in computer technology.
  4. Geology. A time of major crustal deformation, when folds and faults are formed.

(I assume we can leave out 1,3 and 4 unless you have something enlightening to add there too)

war (wôr) Pronunciation Key Audio pronunciation of "war" [P] n.

  1.
        1. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
        2. The period of such conflict.
        3. The techniques and procedures of war; military science.
  2.
        1. A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war.
        2. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.

in·de·pen·dence (nd-pndns) n.

  1. The state or quality of being independent.

Now, if you look at the first definition, you see rebellion does not fit the bill as it was not (as you have pointed out on numberous ocassions) an organized resitance. Neither was it a constituted government de jure or de facto. It was an incorporated firm known as the British East India Company who was running India with the main aim being profit maximization, not governance. (Most Indians would equate that to exploitation, though there are honorable exceptions) It's like Microsoft or Google running the government and then claiming that their aim is good governance by recognizing the citizens as stakeholders and not selling as many copies of Windows or attracting as many users as possible.

Secondly, if you look at the second definition, you see that this movement does fit the bill of revolution - with the unconstituted government of the British East India Company being replaced by the unconstituted government of Bahadur Shah Zafar, albeit briefly.

Thirdly, this movement does fit the definition of war as it was carried on between parties, if not nations and states.

Fourthly, since this movement was launched with the idea of overthrowing an alien power - it's success would have ensured governance by the locals. Hence, the "state of being independent".

Regarding it being an "Indian" movement - your claim that since ALL Indians did not participate in the war - it cannot be termed as an "Indian" war. If I were to buy that ridiculous argument, then the French Revolution wasn't exactly French, neither was the American War of Independence really American. If your argument is that ALL REGIONS of India were not represented in the war - then the Sino-Indo war of 1962, the Indo-Pak wars of 1965 and 1971 were not really Indian wars or for that matter Chinese wars either. Probably not even Pakistani since ALL regions of India, China and probably Pakistan were not represented either. If your argument is that these were wars between nation-states and India was not a nation-state in 1857, then the point is that the idea of a "nation state" is essentially a Western invention and for those Indians, overthrowing the Brits was enough of an end, not necessarily creating an "Indian nation-state" in the western sense of the word. (Jvalant 01:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC))

Ah, "The American Heritage Dictionary". Some of us use Chambers, or Webster's, or indeed the Oxford English Dictionary which is the standard reference work. Clearly you know better. Surely you can see that any definition of a "Revolution" which renders it indistinguishable from a "coup" is useless and inaccurate? The 1857 Rebellion was organised, just not across the whole of India, and without any overall uniformity. You seem to be twisting a divergence of aims into a lack or organisation, and this does not necessarily follow. The East India Company was a constituted government: not a legitimate government in nationalist eyes, not a very nice Government, but nevertheless a Government, one which collected taxes, administered justice, raised an army, founded universities and trained a civil service. It hadn't functioned as a trading company since 1833, and the significance of its commercial activities had been declining for a long time before that. Whether it was governing to maximise profit or not is neither here nor there. It was still governing. Bahadur Shah was not.

I've had enough of this. You've ignored every single one of my arguments, and persist in your (frankly offensive) equation of respected historians and their work with Adolf Hitler and Mein Kampf! I shall say this very slowly: You cannot use the argument that some German publisher brought out Mein Kampf in the 1930s to "prove" that the decision by the Oxford University Press to publish the work of bone-fide historians in the 1980s is motivated by similar political considerations. Your description of Stokes, Roy, Mukherjee and the other historians I've cited (none of whose work you have read) as "Imperialist bootlickers" is extremely revealing. You clearly aren't interested in having a rational debate, and your POV is so extreme it's off the scale. Anyone who doesn't subscribe to your own brand of Indian Nationalist myth is simply dismissed with insults. Please leave this page alone. Sikandarji 07:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can use Merriam-Websters if you like. The definition of "revolution" still stands the test. I don't understand what you have against the AHD, which is quite a respected book. Or do you think that it was penned by Savarkar too? Clearly, since you have no points to argue, you seem to be making up things as you go. You use books which suit your views and dismiss those which don't. I said that publishers often publish work which they think deserves publication, not because they agree with the content. Since you seem so shocked by Adolf Hitler's work being compared to "bona-fide" historians, I used the example of Enid Blyton's books for kids - which repeatedly used the term "golliwogs" with illustrated African characters as villains. This continued to happen through the 60s and even later. Surely, the publishers did not agree with that POV, did they? I think it is your POV which is extreme and way off the scale. Anyone who doesn't subscribe to your brand of Imperialistic myth is dismissed with an air of arrogance. Hence, please leave this page alone, once it is corrected that is. (Jvalant 10:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC))

I think perhaps some sort of arbitration process should be started here. It is obvious that Jvalantwill continue to spout his Indian nationalist (despite being of American education at the very least) bile. The efforts of conscientious wikipedians will not make him stop. It is hopeless trying to reason with him (as I stated several days ago).NJW494 23:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

So an American education is supposed to dilute an alleged "Indian nationalist bile"? And obviously the imperialistic POV is that of "conscientious wikipedians". So anyone educated only in India can't be expected to be neutral at all since the education system in India only produces poeple with biased views? What a brilliant analysis. Gives an insight into the mind of NJW and punctures the whole idea of NPOV on which wikipedia is supposed to be based. But I agree, arbitration is needed to get rid of this imperialist POV once and for all. (Jvalant 23:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC))

Sorry, Jvalant but you're wrong, and way out of line here. I was educated only in india but am still neutral in that I can see a lot of inconsistencies in what you're spouting so far. This certainly was not the first war of indian independence, not that the concept of "india" existed in the minds of most of the main driving forces in 1857 .. taluqdars in awadh because british land policies threatened to take away their only revenue stream: tax collection from villages under their purview. The rani of jhansi because her husband died childless and because of the doctrine of lapse [and because her overtures to the british, to ally with her against her traditional enemies from Orcha failed]. Various others for various reasons Sikanderji and others posited. And this entire first war, sepoy mutiny or whatever was a purely cow belt phenomenon, with troops from other parts of India actively suppressing the people who did rise up against the british. The sepoys themselves rose up because of a variety of reasons (campaigns in the punjab were no longer treated as foreign duty, there was the risk of their being sent to fight in the crimean war etc - crossing the water meaning losing caste for some of them, a succession of poor officers (rather than charismatic ones like Henry Lawrence, John Nicholson and others) who kept trying to play missionary - manifold reasons, but the rumor about cartridges greased with lard and tallow was the one thing that was needed to throw a lighted match into what was already a dangerous looking pile of explosives. But sepoys fighting for a variety of privileges, a few minor landlords fighting for their revenue streams etc certainly dont add up to a "war for indian independence" .. there was simply a common enemy, the british. For anything at all like a concept of "India" and a nationwide campaign for independence, you have to go a few decades more down the road, to when the indian NATIONAL congress was formed srs 03:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact, a rather good overview of british land policies in India - one that is reasonably accurate - is available in http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/laveleye/PrimProp24.htm (and there are citations too - hyperlinked footnotes that you really should read, for more). That will probably explain why the peasantry rose up in one part of India, while petty landowners / taluqdars did so in another. Your quoting of Marx is not exactly the best thing you did, Jvalant .. see these for example.

First - part of what Marx wrote in the NY Daily Tribune - he doesnt like Indians any more than he likes the British but he does have a certain amount of cynicism (or marxist rhetoric, shall we say).

The profound hypocrisy and inherent barbarism of bourgeois civilization lies unveiled before our eyes, turning from its home, where it assumes respectable forms, to the colonies, where it goes naked. Did they not, in India, to borrow an expression of that great robber, Lord Clive himself, resort to atrocious extortion, when simple corruption could not keep pace with their rapacity? While they prated in Europe about the inviolable sanctity of the national debt, did they not confiscate in India the dividends of the rajahs, who had invested their private savings in the Company's own funds? While they combated the French revolution under the pretext of defending "our holy religion," did they not forbid, at the same time, Christianity to be propagated in India, and did they not, in order to make money out of the pilgrims streaming to the temples of Orissa and Bengal, take up the trade in the murder and prostitution perpetrated in the temple of the Juggernaut? These are the men of "Property, Order, Family, and Religion."

-Karl Marx, The New-York Daily Tribune. 22 July, 1853.

Of course there was expansionism too - all of which caused several enemies to be made - but mostly for their own self interest. No mention of the south, or the east of India as you see [and the east of india, especially Bengal, became a crucial part of the movement for indian independence in a very few short decades AFTER the sepoy mutiny]

... these annexations were a source of discontent and anxiety to many people besides the sepoys. In eight years, Canning's predecessor, the despotic Lord Dalhousie, at 35 the youngest Governor-General India had ever known, had annexed over 250,000 square miles-- an area three times the size of England and Ireland. The Punjab, Sattara, Nagpur-- Dalhousie's hands had stretched out to embrace them all. 'An Indian Governor General,' stormed The Hindu Patriot, 'is chartered to destroy dynasties with a scratch of his quill.' Indignities were heaped upon crowned heads: the jewels of the Royal Family of Nagpur were publicly auctioned in Calcutta. (Collier 19)

As for the Sepoys, you'll find Kaye and Malleson to be quite accurate.

"action of a different character ... so dear to the untravelled Englishman, or forcing the ideas in which he has been nurtured upon the foreign people with whom he has brought into contact, assisted ... to loosen the bonds of discipline, which, up to that period, had bound the [Sepoy] to his officer" (Malleson 8).

"Untraveled englishmen" coming over in droves after India suddenly becomes a more fashionable place to come into, supplanting several other englishmen who were rather more rugged individualists, and quite popular with the Indians (several of the early ones married indian wives, were best of friends with the local people / rajas, idolized by the troops under their command etc). Kipling's Kim is a fascinating study (though set a couple of decades after 1857) - Colonel Creighton talking to Kim says

thou are a Sahib and the son of a Sahib. Therefore, do not at any time be led to contemn [sic] the black men. I have known boys newly entered into the service of the Government who feigned not to understand the talk or customs of black men. Their pay was cut for ignorance. There is no sin so great as ignorance. Remember this."

This was the beginning of a fairly gradual change in british policy (right after the crown took back control of India from the east india company after 1857, bringing most of India barring a few princely territories under a single government, and establishing the indian civil service in place. It was also the beginning of the end - A.O.Hume was an ICS officer and the indian national congress originally started off asking for more representation for Indians in Indian government and civil service.

British education (something that the East India Company didn't exactly care to bring to the Indians) too played a part - first producing the much parodied "bengali babus" - people like Hurree Chunder Mookerjee in Kipling's Kim (who looks fat and oily and speaks funny english, but is remarkably well educated, and has the sort of courage and quick wit that makes him go out into a snowy wasteland and deceive two well armed russian spies). And then producing people who did everything from launch their own armed rebellions (Aurobindo and Barindra Ghosh in Bengal would be an excellent example, and Bhagat Singh too ..) to people like Gandhi, a practicing lawyer, and various other figures from the 1900s on, who were all slowly undermining the British institutions that they participated in, with politics and diplomacy - and with the launch of true mass movements such as the Quit India movement, for example, or the call for a ban on foreign goods + promotion of Khadi. srs 10:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Read what I have written above. I have stated that I agree that the idea of India did not exist in the mind of the revolutionaries. That idea existed a few decades down the road. But the idea of a "nation-state" is a Western one. Throwing out an alien power through an armed struggle should be enough to qualify it for being a "War of Independence" as it fits the defintion of the words in question. Lastly, I also agree that that it was not a pan-Indian war with all Indian regions not being represented. But that can't be requirement - since not all Indian regions were represented in the Sino-Indian war of 1962 or any of the Indo-Pak wars. If those revolutionaries would had succeeded, there would definitely not be the Union Jack flying over India. Probably, nor would the tricolor. There would could have possibly been a bunch of nation-states perpetually at each others' throats. I agree that it was the period between 1857-1947 that the idea of an "Indian" nation-state took root. None of this takes away from the fact, that British rule over India would have ended in 1857, and present-day India would have been independent then. (Jvalant 04:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC))

?!? You mean just because the sino indian war was fought on the border areas of India, like all other wars so far in Independent india, they were'nt fought by the Indian army, with soldiers from all over india fighting in these wars (often assigned to regiments that were completely non religious / non regional in character, unlike the older regiments the British used that kept together people of a single community or caste -- again a factor in the mutiny). You really need to go back and read some history, Jvalant. With an open mind this time. srs 10:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Gawd, you really need to learn to read history for the first time, not again. Firstly, most regiments are predominantly region based like the Gurkhas. Secondly, no - ALL REGIONS OF INDIA WERE NOT REPRESENTED IN THE 1962 WAR. If you can post here with proof, that every single regiment representing every single region of India exchanged gunfire or was involved in hand-to-hand combat with the Chinese soldiers in 1962, I shall agree to your POV. (Jvalant 11:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC))

Do not waste your time srs, Jvalant will clearly not listen to reason and will continue to push his extreme point of view, whilst rubbishing the views of anyone who tries to argue with him. NJW494 15:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Srs, of course it makes perfect sense to listen to the racist views of a KKK member like NJW494. (Jvalant 19:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC))

User Jvalant is repeatedly engaging in slander and abuse against other editors as per above three discussions (at the least).

How and why did you come to conclusion that NJW494 is a racist and holds KKK views Jvalant??? I am an Indian and I don't find anything remotely racist in what he has said (or anything anybosy else has said for that matter). In fact it is you who is abusing everybody else here, and all over one simple word. You have accused others of being racist (without provocation), you have called them KKK without any reason or provocation, you are accusing them of holding imperialist view point, whereas it is absolutely clear that you have nationalist and jingoist POV. You are the only one who is trying to provoke (and provoking) others. Wikipedia is an encycolpedia, not a place to make points. We enlist facts and not what is bad and good. That is for the reader to decide. Hence wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy. Everybody, and I mean everybody has tried to reason with you in a very civil manner while you have accused them of racism, intolerance, and every other kinds of slant. If you have any positive contributions to make, please do so. Your contributions are otherwise of no interest and will be reverted time and again. And stop from making personal abuses and attacks as you continue. It is a violation of wikipedia's Wikipedia:No personal attacks.Rueben lys 20:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

PS: The Indian Army tanks rolled into Dhaka fighting against Pakistani troops, not Bengali. And the Mukti Bahini did a lot more fighting than the Indian army did, and in facts did more damage, hence the army said The Indian Army merely provided the coup de grace to what the people of Bangladesh had commenced--active resistance to the Pakistani Government and its Armed Forces on their soil.

And for God's sake, Pleeeeeeeeease tell me you're seriously not suggesting Shivaji and Sambhaji fought against the British Raj!!!, And Baji Rao fought the Raj??? Which one??? If you're talking of Nanasahib, I have gotta tell you this, he only joined the rebels because the company took away his priviledges and he wasn't happy with that. And as for having fought, he fled to Nepal after 1857 and was never heard of again. (No regionalism here, sorry if it seems rude). You gotta stop looking at it with a sunglass man!!! Read the facts!!!

Thanks very much for coming to my defence. Sadly it doesn't seem as if anything that any of us write will persuade Jvalant to stop pushing his extreme views on us. NJW494 22:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

User Rueben lys is slanting facts and enganging in slander

Firstly, I did not indulge in personal attacks on NJW unilaterally. If you can read correctly, go ahead and see that he was the one who initially called me a racist. Despite his provocations, I ignored him a couple times. I do not subscribe to the philosophy of turning the other cheek.

Secondly, you seem to have taken the Bengal criticism to heart. I never stated Shivaji, Sambhaji or Balaji Rao fought the British. However, they did fight invaders and occupiers which is a far cry from Bengal which was the one of first (if not the first) Indian state/region to foldover to the Brits without putting in much of a resistance. In 1971, Bengal was East Pakistan - once again, Bengali Pakistanis let and even cheered as well as helped as foreigners invaded what was Pakistani soil. Of course they were completely justified in wanting to overthrow the military rule in East Pakistan because of the atrocities committed. My point is that they could not do it on their own. They needed outside help to do it. That's all.

And err - [User:Rueben lys|Rueben lys] stated "Bengal and Punjab have produced more freedom fighters than you have light bulbs in your Maharashtra." Again, what a brilliant, well-thought out NPOV based on logic and facts.

Nice conception of the truth you've got there. I just described you edit as "nationalistic" and "bigoted", simple facts, whilst you basically called me a racist and a KKK member (not true). You've continually used race to advanc your goals on this page. Something that is certainly not true of any of your opponents. Observers should look at Jvalant's talk page to see another example of racial terminology being used to justify his position, something I took into account when I first wrote on this matter. I believe now that nothing short of blocking Jvalant from this encyclopaedia would stop him from peddling his ridiculous bias. NJW494 22:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, you have not added a single word to this debate but have merely engaged in constant mudslinging and character assasination. You claimed that I was "nationalistic" and bigoted". Following this, I said you had a KKK "mentality". Having a KKK mentality is not the same as calling you member of the KKK. Following this you termed me a racist. I replied in kind. Then, I ignored some of your posts. Yet, you kept needling. SO finally, I am replying. There is not one constructive sentence you have added to this debate. And I just visited your page - you seem to have a history of stirring up trouble even asking users: "How could you have disagreed with my points anyway, unless you're rather pro-American?" (NJW494 15:32). You've even altered American English spellings to British ones! You simply don't understand the concept of NPOV. The only person who probably deserves to be banned from this encyclopedia is NJW494. Having said this, I don't think banning ANYONE serves much of a purpose - because everyone should be allowed to air their views without let or hindrance. The right to the freedom of expression MUST be respected. It is probably an alien concept to you, but most civilized democratic republics give these rights to their citizens. (Jvalant 00:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC))

I am engaging in slander??? How and where??? I am slanting facts??? Howand where??? I have detailed where I think you are beind abusive, maybe you'd like to do the same for my benefit? And my Bengal Punjab comment was a figure of speech based on what you may read in the Indian Independence Movement. Maybe you would like to tell us how and why you came to the conclusion that Shivaji and Sambhaji were the only ones fighting invaders between 1400 AD and 1857AD ??? And where exactly does it say that the Marathas were the Indians and the Mughals were not? The Mugjhal empire was the largest and strongest Indian power for a long time, if anything it was power struggle between the predominant bases, and the Never claimed to be fighting (or were even fighting) for India. And just for clarity, I'll point out again to the Indian Independence Movement. If you didn't notice,(these are quite beside the point really, but I'll say these for your benefit) there was the Sannyasi Rebellion, the Santhal Rebellion, and even the 1857 revolt started from Calcutta. And the concept of the unified nation as India or Bharat or Hindustan whatever you wanna call it, and the whole cultural reneissance, started from Bengal. And as for there were more revolutionaries in Bengal and Punjab, apologies (sincerely) of you took offence, I agree that there were lots of people who made a lot of sacrifice for Freedom, but I still hold the view that Bengal and Punjab were the hotbeds of militant revolutionary activities. And this is for historical clarification, but read Bangladesh Liberation War before assuming that Bangladesh was only liberated because of India (admitted that India plyed an Important part). The Bengalis themselves made more sacrifice and fought savagely (and ferociously) before India even started preparing for war. Rueben lys 11:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Come now Jvalant, you wouldn't care whether I made constructive points or not, you wouldn't pay any attention to them, as you haven't paid any attention to the various wikipedians who have attempted to engage you in discussions. You're pig headed and narrow minded. Many people (including yours truly) have informed you why this rebellion cannot be termed a war of independence, yet it seems as if you'v deliberately ignored such points. As for my altering of American spellings, I have only ever done so on appropriate articles primarily referring to other English speaking countries, an entirely justifiable edit, in order to iron out errors unwittingly placed by well meaning American editors. I just love how you've taken the time to trawl through my contributions Jvalant, perhaps this shows the single mindedness with whioch you are pursuing this misguided crusade. You're just being awkward now, going over territory already covered by previous debates. You're seriously POV pushing. A war of independence requires a collective national consciousness and must be a truly "national" conflict. The events of 1857 do not match up to those criteria. NJW494 15:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Just as a bit of supporting evidence I present this quote from Jvalant's talk page "Thanks for mail. I don't see a conflict here at all. There is obviously no consensus, since the the issue is still being discussed, it would make sense that the title of article in question is what is used by a majority of the world population. However, if you do believe that a caucasian or western intepretation of history validates a racist name, go ahead and change it back. (Jvalant 01:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC) Jvalant)" Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jvalant. This shows a clear willingness use racially charged language in order to justify his POV. NJW494 15:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Rueben, I do not doubt that the Bengalis in 1971 were fighting ferociously. But the likelihood of them overthrowing the Paki regime in East Pakistan without Indian intervention is about as high as the French overthrowing the Nazi occupation without Allied intervention. Your slant of facts and slander - a. That I have been provoking people - it's the other way round. I have only acted on provocations. b.I have never claimed the Mughals were not Indian - yet they invaded territory in the Deccan which was not under their direct control. c. I have never claimed Shivaji, Sambhaji or Bajirao fought the British - yet you said I did. (Jvalant 16:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC))

NJW, the choice of language is that of the main contributing editor. Your British chest-thumping and imperialistic POV might help you psychologically get over being a citizen of a has-been nation and a lap-dog of the USA. So I shall not stop you. And there is nothing like a collective national consciousness - even if there is - there are no clear boundaries on where it begins and where it ends. And I shall repeat for the upteenth time, the concept of a "nation-state" is a Western concept - simply because the idea of nationhood did not exist in the minds of these revolutionaries does not mean this was not a War of Independence. It fights the definition of War, it fits the definition of Independence - and while ALL regions of India were not represented in the War, ALL those fighting the Brits happened to be Indians. (Jvalant 16:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC))

Do you mind not insulting my country. It is a country that has had a massiv impact on world affairs despite being a small collection of Islands in the far north of Europe. The choice of language is certainly the choice of the editor on neutral topics, but topics on the US (post 1776) should be in the US dialect, whereas topics about other English speaking countries should be in the commonwealth form of English. Personally I'd argue as to whether an "Indian" consciousness existed among those who rebelled against the Empire. A regional consciousness may have existed in some areas, but not a national consciousness. NJW494 16:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Another Olive Branch

Does anyone have an issue with the title being changed to "The Indian Uprising of 1857" or merely "The Uprising of 1857"? The events do live up to the definition. (Jvalant 22:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC))

I don't really see the point to be honest, given that "Uprising" has more or less the same meaning as "Revolt" or "Rebellion". The latter two terms are used more frequently in the existing literature. Sikandarji 23:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That change would not bother me, and sounds reasonable. It may not be worthwhile though. Let us all be friends though. Further arguments will not be productive. NJW494 16:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If anyone has objections to it being changed to "The Indian Uprising of 1857", please post here within 24 hours. Else, I shall go ahead and change the name. (Jvalant 19:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC))

I do. I'm sure so do Sikandarji and others on this list. srs 05:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to sound curmudgeonly here, but Hserus is right: I really don't think this is necessary, and unnecessary page moves should be avoided.Sikandarji 06:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

How do I get arbitration here? Most of this article's content including its title is skewed toward the British POV. It can't be called NPOV by any stretch of imagination.(Jvalant 15:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC))

Just out of interest, why do you dislike the British? NJW494 20:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Just out of goodwill NJW494, (though I aint a party to the debate between you two, nor do I wish to) please go ahead and read the small excerpt I have copied from the main article to point out at the self-centred nature of some of the editors; and you would realize why some people dislike British! --Bobby Awasthi 10:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The passages that you mention seem to be slightly odd, perhaps ripped from an older work. Nevertheless I still find it difficult to understand Jvalant's dislike of Britain and the British. NJW494 11:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Serious Discussion required - The language is clearly biased in favour of British Nationalism

Please read the few lines I have copied from Cawnpore section: The surviving women and children of the initial betrayal,(If firing broke out while they were fleeing would that amount to the description of betrayel, just on the assumption that British were too weak at that time to have instigated the firing?) were led to Bibi-Ghar (the House of the Ladies) in Cawnpore. On the 15th of July, worried by the approach of the British forces and believing that they would not advance if there were no hostages to save,,(is there any official proof of this mindset of the rebels?) the Nana Sahib ordered their murders.(Again is there any official proof that Nana Sahib ordered this murder? Anything could have happened and/or instigated those murders within Bibi Ghar...) After the sepoys refused to carry out this order, four butchers from the local market were ordered into the Bibi-Ghar where they proceeded to hack the hostages apart with cleavers and hatchets. The victims' bodies, some still living,(which witness accounted for the word living?) were thrown down a well.

The butchering of the women and children proved to be a mistake. The British public was aghast and the pro-Indian proponents lost all their support. Cawnpore became a war cry for the British and their allies for the rest of the conflict. The Nana Sahib disappeared and was probably killed trying to escape India.(There is NO SUCH PROOF of his death in history. Grapevine suggests he lived the rest of his life hidden in Nepal, due to the respect for his priest status in the eyes of the king there. But nobody wrote THAT because nobody knows. This particular sentence appears to have been written for achieving Mental Solace for present day British Nationalists. ANYTHING CAN BE ADDED ALONGSIDE THE WORD...PROBABLY... to any article on Wikipedia!)

When the British retook Cawnpore later, the soldiers took their sepoy prisoners to the Bibi-Ghar and forced them to lick the bloodstains from the walls and floor. They then hanged or "blew from the cannon" the majority of the sepoy prisoners. Although some claimed the sepoys took no actual part in the killings themselves, they did not act to stop it and this was acknowledged by Captain Thompson after the British departed Cawnpore for a second time. Overall, the majority of native and British civilian (men, women and children) casualties during the rebellion were inflicted by the mutineers.(This is a completely misleading piece of imagination. The victor always inflicts more injury to his enemy that the loser in any war. British forces were the final victors. Do the editors dispute that also? Just to prove my point I am quoting an absolutely opposite statement with historical proof from another section in this very article: The British adopted the old Mughal punishment for mutiny and sentenced rebels were lashed to the mouth of cannons and blown to pieces. It was a crude and brutal war, with both sides resorting to what would now be described as war crimes. In the end, however, in terms of sheer numbers,the casualties were significantly higher on the Indian side. A letter published after the fall of Delhi in the "Bombay Telegraph" and subsequently reproduced in the British press testified to the scale of the retaliation: ".... All the city people found within the walls (of the city of Delhi) when our troops entered were bayoneted on the spot, and the number was considerable, as you may suppose, when I tell you that in some houses forty and fifty people were hiding. These were not mutineers but residents of the city, who trusted to our well-known mild rule for pardon. I am glad to say they were disappointed". As a result, the end of the war was followed by the execution of a vast majority of combatants from the Indian side as well as large numbers of civilians perceived to be sympathetic to the rebel cause. The British press and British government did not advocate clemency of any kind, though Governor General Canning tried to be sympathetic to native sensibilities, earning the scornful sobriquet "Clemency Canning". Soldiers took very few prisoners and often executed them later. Whole villages were wiped out for apparent pro-rebel sympathies.

The above is the real truth which has been turned upside down in the section I have pointed to. I am ashamed that vandalism has been legalised in this entire section and I am sure all those editors would be from a particular race/nationality because I am FROM the city, FROM one of the families that were apparently rewarded for their alliance with British Forces and I have heard numerous first person recounts of what actually happened but dont have any proved versions to tell. --Bobby Awasthi 08:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right to draw attention to this Bobby, because this is an episode that attracted particular attention at the time and has raised passions ever since. The British saw the massacre of women and children at Cawnpore as the central deed of violence and immorality which justified not only their subsequent brutal retaliation, but also their rule for the next ninety years. This is why the largest Mutiny Memorial in India was constructed over the well in the Bibi-Ghar into which the bodies were thrown, together with an enormous memorial church in the cantonment (which I visited earlier this year). The problem is that, so far as I am aware, there are no published contemporary accounts in Hindi, Urdu or Persian of what happened, and of the manuscripts and oral traditions the only one I have seen referred to is by one "Nanakchand", whose account is reproduced by G.O. Trevelyan in his Cawnpore. The single eyewitness source upon whom most historians rely for a description of the siege and the initial massacre at the Ghat is Captain Mowbray Thompson's The Story of Cawnpore - he was one of three British officers to escape alive, but of course did not witness the Bibi-ghar massacre. Everything else is derived from the brief appeals for assistance which General Wheeler was able to send out of the entrenchment, the reports of officers and journalists after the recapture of the city and the depositions of sixty-three Indian witnesses from Cawnpore, taken by the British in their enquiry after the capture of the city. These were published by G.W. Forrest in 1902, and I have a copy of the AES reprint. Whilst these are as close as we are likely to get to an account of the siege and massacre from the other side, the manner in which the depositions were taken and the interviews conducted means it is a source which must be handled carefully - I can put in some stuff derived from it if you want. Nobody knows exactly what happened or who was directly responsible; although the Nana Sahib's previous conduct does not suggest that he was a man of any great morality, and as ruler of the city he bore some sort of responsibility for the massacre, we do not know for certain if he ordered it directly. However, even from British accounts we have plenty of evidence that, horrific as the massacre was, the retaliation which followed, not just in Cawnpore but all over Northern India, was even more horrific and resulted in the slaughter of innocent civilians on a massive scale. An profound callousness and easy brutality characterised many British officers who had lived through the Rebellion and in some cases had their families killed, and they responded savagely. W.H. Russell, Harriet Tytler and many others give us ample corroboration of this, and it was widely condemned by many observers at the time. The Indian victims of the British suppression of the Rebellion were much greater in number than the British killed in the initial massacres at Jhansi, Delhi and Cawnpore. The latter, however, have a hundred and fifty year old tradition of tragic narrative behind them. Sikandarji 10:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sikandarji, I do appreciate and respect your neutrality and rationalism. However, the question still remains from my point of view. Dont you (and other editors) think there is ample (and actually desirable) scope of editing the english used first of all to make the article actually neutral? And I am not even seeking to change the contents. Please advice! --Bobby Awasthi 11:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

References and Further Reading

Almost all the references are British with the exception of one. There is one Pakistani reference from the Nation which clearly states "In May 1857, the Indians launched their last crucial struggle to free the subcontinent from the oppressive and exploitative rule of the British East India Company." However, this assertion of the author is completely ignored. But his other words seem to justify inclusion. Why the double standard?

Almost all the Further Reading of the section has British sources as well. (Jvalant 15:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC))

The article isn't properly referenced yet, that's quite true. However newspaper articles do not make good sources, as they are not properly peer-reviewed, are usually based on superficial research and have no references. There are a few non-British sources in the "Further Reading Section":

• Khan, Sir Syed Ahmad, Asbab-e Baghawat-e Hind 1859; Translated as The Causes of the Indian Revolt, Allahabad, 1873.
• Sen, Surendra Nath, Eighteen fifty-seven, (with a foreword by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad), Indian Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Delhi, 1957.
• Roy, Tapti, The politics of a popular uprising : Bundelkhand 1857, Delhi, for the Oxford University Press, 1994.
• Rizvi, Syed Khurshid Mustafa: 1857 - History of the Indian Struggle for Freedom, Raza Library, Rampur, 2000 [in Urdu].
• Mukherjee, Rudrangshu: Awadh in Revolt 1857-1858, Permanent Black, Delhi, 2001.

however nobody has made proper use of them yet. You might know of a few more, perhaps in Hindi? I would suggest that you concentrate on the balance and neutrality of an author's language and arguments and the quality and reliability of their sources rather than making snap judgments about them and their POV based on their nationality. You will get a lot further as a historian this way. And try not to fling epithets like "Imperialist" around too indiscriminately - you might be justified in the case of, say, a 19th century author like Lord Roberts, but you cannot then simply tar post-colonial historians like Mukherjee and Stokes with the same brush. And even "Imperialist" narratives can be used as source material if handled carefully. The most detailed accounts we have of what happened at Kanpur, for instance, are in Forrest's publication of Despatches from the Military Department, which include numerous depositions from eyewitnesses to the massacres and their aftermath. These are very difficult to use because of the strongly British POV which pervades the despatches and the editorial voice of the collection, and we then have to bear in mind the sort of questions that were being asked, and the pressure on those interviewed to adhere to a particular narrative. This doesn't mean we can't use this source at all, merely that due caution must be exercised. You will need to do a little more research before you can simply dismiss any publication with an English name attached to it as unreliable and "Imperialist". Sikandarji 17:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Another glaring omission

Yet another glaring omission is that there is no mention of Tatya Tope who was one of the main figures in the Indian side and one of the few "Indians" who was "one general held in high regard" by the Brits. - Source Bruce Watson's "The Great Indian Mutiny: Colin Campbell and the Campaign at Lucknow". It also states that Bengal regiments in Punjab were quietly disarmed. Also, "there were stirrings in many parts of the subcontinent...there stirring never came to a boil. Uprisings in Bombay and Hydrebad (sic) were quelled by military force." So much for it being NPOV. (Jvalant 15:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC))

Copy pasted fork of the article and change of redirects by Jvalant

Jvalant (talk · contribs) had copied content off this page and created the article First War of Indian Independence, and changed a lot of redirects to this page to point to the forked article. I have requested him to discuss it here in the talk page first before making such unilateral forks. Thanks. --Ragib 02:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Another question

I hope we agree that there is no definite resolution to the name. This article itself clearly states that it would fit the definition of War of Independence under certain criteria, and under certain criteria is would not. So the question is whether most of the human population on this planet irrespective of the national origin, know it by what name? That name would have to be the First War of Indian Independence. So, the naming convention should follow that. I tried putting up an alternative page with the more correct title, but it has unfortunately been removed. Jvalant 04:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, if we were to follow the usual Wikipedia policy of using the most common and widespread name, the article would still be called "Indian Mutiny" (it's a very rough way of estimating these things, but this gets 250,000 hits on google compared to 9,000 for "First War of Indian Independence"). Given that the former title is, understandably, unacceptable to a great many, we are left with the compromise "Rebellion" or "Revolt", which is also the term favoured by academic historians. The reasons why your "alternative" page was removed have been given by Ragib above. There is a definite resolution as far as I'm concerned: the article will stay where it is. You're going to have to learn to live with it I'm afraid. Sikandarji 06:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd definately argue that the vast majority of first language English speakers would be unfamiliar with the term "First War of Indian Independence". I'd suggest that Jvalant tries to familiarise himself with Wikipedia and its rules before he tries to create duplicate articles centred on his own particular ideology.NJW494 11:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup - there's always Hindi Wikipedia (to which the article at present doesn't link), or the Urdu article: "جنگ آزادی ہند 1857ء" (Jang-e Azadi-e Hind-e 1857, which translates more or less as "The Indian Freedom War of 1857". This is English Wikipedia though, and although millions of Indians do speak English, many more or less as a first language, the "First War of Indian Independence" title isn't even uniformly accepted amongst them. Sikandarji 15:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous assertion. I just put in the search string - ' "War of Independence" + 1857 'in google and it gives me more than 120,000 hits whereas the TOTAL of both search strings "Sepoy Mutiny" as well as of "Mutiny of 1857" is less than than that. You can try it. The medium of instruction in most schools in India whose students have access to Wikipedia is English and their text-books call it "The First War of Independence". Even, the Wikipedia page on India asserts that the events of 1857 were a national movement. Perhaps you claim that these views are invalid because they happen to emerge from India? Infact, how many views of the current residents of India have been taken into consideration while authoring this page. It is just a biased POV of British authors. And NJW, as I said you need to get over losing the colonies. And it is not my ideology - these are indisputable facts. The only ideology apparent on this article is the imperialistic one. Boy, am I glad the Brits were kicked out. And here is another source of it be a national movement - Read the following -

Yet another glaring omission is that there is no mention of Tatya Tope who was one of the main figures in the Indian side and one of the few "Indians" who was "one general held in high regard" by the Brits. - Source Bruce Watson's "The Great Indian Mutiny: Colin Campbell and the Campaign at Lucknow". It also states that Bengal regiments in Punjab were quietly disarmed. Also, "there were stirrings in many parts of the subcontinent...there stirring never came to a boil. Uprisings in Bombay and Hydrebad (sic) were quelled by military force." So much for it being NPOV.

Jvalant 17:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

What is your problem with Britain and the British. You seem to hate us. You seem to be a rather unsavoury individual with a chip on your shoulder. You imply racism where there is none and respond with racism of your own. In addition "The Indian Mutiny" has more hits on Google.com than "War of Independence + 1857". As such the current title looks entirely correct. NJW494 17:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I ran another search string - here it is. ""War of Independence" + indian" that has over half a million hits while that of ""War of Independence" + india" has nearly 400,000. And "the Indian mutiny" has 248,000. Hence, War of Independence is the more used term. My problem is not with Britain and the British - my problem is with British Imperialism and British Imperialists. And I don't think the imperialists should use Wikipedia to force their views down the throats of others. But what problem do you have my assertions? It is now a known fact that Britain is a has-been power and currently is a lapdog of the USA. Just run another search for "Yo Blair" on Google - that's how Bush addresses tony. If you are uncomfortable with the reality of the situation, you have my condolences. But I don't think that imperialists should use wikipedia to make themselves feel better about themselves by reveling in erstwhile halcyon days of the Old Empire at the cost of facts. Jvalant 17:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There should certainly not be a definite article in the title of this article. Beyond that:

1. Outside India, at least, this conflict is never called the "War of Independence," and it would be absurd to have the article here. Your google search is completely pointless, in that it doesn't even indicate whether it is this conflict which is being called the "War of Independence." If you want to move it there, you'll have to provide some standard English language reference works that call it that. I imagine that will be difficult.
2. The conflict is rarely called the "Indian Rebellion." It is normally referred to as either the "Indian Mutiny" or the "Sepoy Rebellion." Both of these names indicate something that you presumably don't want to indicate - that it was native Indian troops in British service that started the conflict.¹
3. The attacks on British imperialism and so forth are deeply unhelpful. What "facts" are in question here?
4. With the various recent moves, somebody has failed to fix double redirects. That is lame. Please do so.
5. The Columbia Encyclopedia calls it the Indian Mutiny.[4] The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, when it mentions it, seems to refer to it as "the Mutiny" or "the Indian Mutiny" (see the articles on Lord Canning and Lord Roberts, for instance). Encarta's article is at "Sepoy Rebellion".[5]. Britannica's article is at "Indian Mutiny." I think the article should be at Indian Mutiny, by far the most common name in English. We oughtn't to use a name which is only used in India. john k 18:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

¹It's worth adding that, of course, there are good reasons not to want to emphasize the mutiny aspect of the conflict, notably that it was actually a much broader conflict, that didn't just involve sepoys. But that doesn't matter in terms of naming the article, which ought to be based on the most familiar name. Outside the subcontinent, that name is clearly the "Indian Mutiny." On the subcontinent, over at Talk:Indian Mutiny, Mintguy at least provided a number of books by Indians that call it the "Indian Mutiny," so it's clearly not completely unused. Whatever is decided to do, the current title is unacceptable due to the unnecessary definite article, which is clearly against naming policy, and the double redirects have to be cleared up. Thanks. john k 19:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's naming convention states the following -

Another way to summarize the overall principle of Wikipedia's naming conventions: Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.

Even if your point that more people outside the subcontinent know it as the Mutiny is correct, the point is that in terms of numbers MORE people on this planet know as a "War of Independence". I fail to understand how a Western POV should be given preference over a more correct POV. Is the name-familiarity of one Brit worth more than the name-familiarity of one Indian? Jvalant 19:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. We name things generally based on what name native English-speakers use. So, yeah, the name familiarity of one Brit has generally been viewed as being worth more than the name familiarity of one (non-native-English-speaking) Indian. If we include non-native-English-speakers, we have to include all the Europeans and Latin Americans (at least) who will know about the conflict via the British. Beyond that, I don't think that it's actually been demonstrated that your preferred name is even dominant in India. Two years ago Mintguy gave a pretty extensive list of various Indian references to the "Indian Mutiny." john k 19:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, even when we count second language speakers of English in India, it doesn't work out. List of Indian languages by total speakers gives 50-250 million second language speakers of English in India. There's probably 250 million native speakers in the United States alone, with probably another 50 million in the UK, and another 50 million or so in the rest of the world (Canada+Australia+New Zealand+Ireland, plus more scattered about in South Africa and the West Indies, and perhaps elsewhere) - so that's about 350 million native English-speakers outside India, as compared with possibly as few as 50 million non-native speakers in India. And there's millions more non-native speakers throughout the world - notably those from former British colonies in Africa and Oceania, but also throughout the world, including a lot of Europeans. By any measure, Indian usage should not dictate to the rest of us, where such usage differs. john k 19:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That's utter nonsense and your POV. Indians are multi-lingual but are also native speakers of English. The area of origin of a language is secondary. Else, Americans should consider Sioux their native language. I am an Indian and I consider myself a native speaker of English as the medium of instruction through all my education in India has been English. Else, people like Salman Rushdie and Arundhati Roy would be penning novels in Hindi. Also, the number of people who know of or about the First War of Independence has to be taken into account. By that yardstick, most of the American population can be taken off the charts. If you calculate the TOTAL number of people who know of or about these incidents AND speak English - more would know it as the First War of Independence. By any measure, the imperialist usage should not dictate to the rest of us. (Jvalant 19:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC))

While I'm not siding with Jvalant, I'd like to point out to john k that the Naming convention for events do not specify the preference for native English speakers. Quoting from there:

1. If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view.
2. If there is no common name for the event, and there is a generally accepted word used when identifying the event, the title should include the word even if it is a strong one such as "massacre" or "genocide" or "war crime". However, to keep article names short, avoid including more words than are necessary to identify the event. For example, the adjective "terrorist" is usually not needed.
3. If there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications.

Now it seems to me that there is no common name for this event, and in that case, guideline 3 should apply.

Also, quoting from there:

• A common name or standing expression exists if most English speakers who are aware of the topic call it the same thing. Slight variations on the name, such as changes in word order, count as the same common name. For example, World War II is often called the Second World War; they are close enough to be condsidered variations of the same common name.

• A generally accepted word is a word for which there is consensus, among scholars in the real world, on its applicability to the event. The use of a strong word may still be controversial among politicians, Wikipedia editors, or the general public.

So, the argument that native English speakers get preference in Wikipedia is incorrect. Thank you. --Ragib 20:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, my point was basically that "there's a billion people in India, so Indian usage wins every time" is not how we've generally viewed these things. Beyond that, the convention you point to is utterly arcane and bizarre to me. It uses strange definitions of "common name" that we don't generally use in wikipedia, and was created two weeks ago. It seems designed for a case like Armenian Genocide, and has not really been discussed at all. Indian Mutiny or Sepoy Rebellion are the most common terms used for the war, and are, more importantly, universally recognizable, so far as I can tell. By the way wikipedia normally works (c.f. Yom Kippur War, for instance), Indian Mutiny is a common name. There has never been an idea before that there's not a "common name" if there's more than one name that is commonly used. john k 21:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If you have any problems with the guideline, please voice your opinion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Proposal_for_articles_on_events_and_activities. It does seem that there has been some discussion on the topic, and it's not just a "two week old bizarre" guideline. Also, quoting from the discussion, "A common name or standing expression exists if most English speakers who are aware of the topic call it the same thing." Note that, in this case, the "Indian Mutiny" name is not common by this definition. As for "Billion Indian" argument, one can also put forward "millions of well-connected to Internet Americans/Brits", that is, more people have online presence in USA/UK, and hence you find them on google, than you may find Indian, or non-western sources.

This definition of "common name" is not the standard one used in wikipedia, and this aspect of the policy in question has not been discussed, presumably because nobody thought of it. I do not believe that the intention of the policy was to redefine "common name," but rather to assert the relationship between "common name" principles and "Neutral, descriptive title" principles, which is that common name takes precedence. john k 22:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I do want to note that I don't have a problem with the status quo (i.e. The Indian Rebellion of 1857). But please, don't misquote policy/guidelines claiming that native English speakers dominate other non-native English speakers. Thanks. --Ragib 21:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Native English-speakers do not dominate non-native English speakers. The point is that we are trying to determine what the dominant usage in English is. Native speakers generally weigh more heavily in such discussion than non-native speakers. Millions of Italians call Milan "Milano," even when speaking in English. That doesn't make it the English name. I am generally wary of local names that are not used in the rest of the world. English is obviously more important in India than it is in Italy, but I think we need to look at usage throughout the world, and not just in India. john k 22:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I've made my views clear - I think the article should stay where it is. "Indian Mutiny" is much more commonly used than "First War of Indian Independence" in the English-speaking world. However, unlike "Indian Rebellion of 1857" it does represent an anachronistic POV and in any case is inaccurate as the Rebellion was much more than a military mutiny. Jvalant is foolish to try to put forward a majoritarian argument for the "War of Independence" moniker as this is not as widely used and lacks academic credibility. If we were to follow the standard Wikipedia naming conventions the article would simply be called the "Indian Mutiny". For reasons that have been exhaustively discussed this would be wrong, so let's leave it where it is as this is what most historians nowadays would call it. Sikandarji 21:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Just because a common name is a misnomer does not mean that it is not an appropriate location for an article. Indian Mutiny (or, alternately, Sepoy Rebellion, which would be a perfectly fine title by me, as well) is the most common name. There was a mutiny involved, in that soldiers in British service, er, mutinied. It went beyond that, but that is how it started, and that's always how it's been known in English. One could just easily argue that Hundred Years War is a misnomer, because the war lasted for considerably more than 100 years (116, to be exact), and that thus the article should be at Anglo-French War (1337-1453). And "Indian Mutiny" is certainly still used. I would prefer the article move back to Indian Rebellion of 1857 to be moved to Jvalant's preferred title, but one of Indian Mutiny and Sepoy Rebellion are the title it ought to have.

I have proved through both google hits as well as through India's wikipedia webpage why "War of Independence" is the correct term. It might lack WESTERN academic credibility but the naming conventions of wikipedia clearly states that the commonly used term should get precedence over academic terms. Jvalant 22:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

No you haven't. If you want to use Google hits criteria then fine, "Indian Mutiny" gets far more than "First War of Indian Independence", but I don't imagine you'd be happy with that. And I thought we'd laid this absurd Western/Indian historian divide to rest. Mukherjee doesn't call it a "War of Independence", Roy doesn't call it a "War of Independence", Sen doesn't call it a "War of Independence", R.C. Majumdar doesn't call it a "War of Independence", P.N. Chaudhuri doesn't call it a "War of Independence". They all use variants on the "Indian/Sepoy Rebellion/Revolt". I suppose they must all be Englishmen in disguise, hmm? Honesty will get you a long way on Wikipedia. Skewed, selective and abusive argument will not. Sikandarji 22:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Google hits - search string ' War of Independence + 1857 ' has over a 1,000,000 hits; String ' "war of independence" + indian ' has 581,000 hits; ' sepoy mutiny ' has 93,700 hits, ' "sepoy mutiny" ' has 54,700 hits; ' "indian mutiny" ' has 248,000 hits. This despite the fact that Ragib pointed out - there are more people connected to the Internet in UK and USA than in India. Jvalant 22:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You're not really comparing like with like here, are you? In any case "War of Independence" + 1857 only gets 99,800 hits (remember, you need to use inverted commas in order to search for a phrase). As I explained before "War of Indian Independence" gets 10,300 hits. "First War of Indian Independence" (lest we forget, the title you wish to move this article to) gets a grand total of 989 hits. "Indian Mutiny gets 240,000 hits. Indian Mutiny without inverted commas gets 1,320,000 hits. Meanwhile "Indian Rebellion" gets 27,800 hits, "Indian Revolt" 18,300. You're not going to win a popularity contest here. It is, in any case, a daft way of deciding the title for a page. Sikandarji 23:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone mind if, for the moment, the article is moved to Indian Rebellion of 1857? The direct article really shouldn't be in the title. I also note that nobody has fixed the double redirects. john k 22:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

No, not at all. I think that was my mistake to begin with after Jvalant's earlier move. Sikandarji 23:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It's obvious you don't know much about search strings either. The fewer the words, the more the hits. And since were are using 2 separate subsets in War of Independence + 1857, you don't need quotes, because it algorithm would search for both subsets. This is not the case in "Indian Mutiny" which is just one subset. I am happy with the title being just the "Indian War of Independence" Incidentally, without quotes that yields nearly 10 million hits. Jvalant 23:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Your search string is entirely absurd, and there's absolutely no reason to not use quotation marks around "War of Independence". Your search will yield any article that includes either the word "war" or the word "independence" in connection with 1857. john k 13:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Jvalant will not listen to reason. I think perhaps that his view of the world is especially narrow and dictatorial. He is now using spurious internet searches to try and justify his unjustifiable position. All the contributors to this debate, bar Jvalant himself, have declared themselves to be in favour of the status-quo and against nationalistic changes in order to massage the ego of one Indian nationalist. Jvalant has seemingly become frustrated and has brought a distinctly anti-British attitude into this debate. As such I think perhaps it may be worthwhile to bring this case to arbitration in order that this problem can be resolved. NJW494 17:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm all here being not in favor of the status quo on the other side. Anyway, given that nobody has yet agreed with me, I'm moving the article to the version without "the" at the beginning. john k 18:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

If being anti-imperialism and being pro-NPOV amounts to being anti-British, then so be it. Yes, as Kenney pointed out, the search string would yield all results of War and 1857 and Independence and 1857. But that's the point, how many other independence movements were on in 1857 or wars for that matter? If you wish to turn a blind eye to reality, then so be it. All the results in that search string point to these very events. They do not speak of other wars or other independence movements in 1857. The only person who has given valid points for this article to remain as it is Sikanderji. Most of the others especially NJW seem to have come here without any points, but just to further their imperialistic agenda. Tatya Tope isn't mentioned? - Why? When Bruce Watson's book also points out to instances outside of the "cow belt" where there was resistance against the Brits - this is swept under the carpet. Here is another example -

Of course all the early hits are about India, because it sorts for relevance. This is precisely meaningless. john k 13:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"There was certainly favourable background for an uprising in Nagpur as the memories of annexation of the Raj of the Bhosles, confiscation of their jewellery and public auctioning of their palace property were yet fresh in the public mind. The question of adoption to the Nagpur Gadi was dept pending as late as 1861.

The Nagpur army and the people learnt with excitement the happenings at Meerut, Delhi, lucknow, kanpur and Jhasi. The irregular cavalry at Takli about three miles from Nagpur was much agitated by the news of the rising. It consisted mostly of Muslims who were distrurbed by the recent Government proposal to shift their burial place from the vicinity of the city to an outside spot. In co-operation with some civilians they seem to have hatched a plot. On 13th June at the signal of a fire-balloon it was decided to attack the Residency. But the plot leaked out and failed. Mr. Plowden, the Commissioner, who had known about the Plot ordered a company of the Sitabuldi regiment to move into the city. The irregular cavalry at Takli was dismayed by this action and gave up the attempt of attack. Major Arrow tried to elicit information from the soldiers about the ring-leaders. But none came forward to give out the names. From Kamptee and Nagpur arms numbering over 5,000 were collected from un-authorised persons as a precautionary measure. After an enquiry of the plot Dildar khan, dajadar of the army, and Inayatulla khan, Vilayat Khan and Navab Kadar Khan of the irregular cavalry were tried and executed."

Also no one has answered my simple query - if the definition of a national war of independence encapsulates ALL regions being part of the war - then how is the Sino-India war of 1962 considered a war? (Jvalant 23:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC))

I noticed several hits referring to the so-called "Texas War of Independence" as well. As to your last question, I'd have thought that was obvious. The issue over the use of "War" is that it is an inadequate description for an event that comprised a peasant uprising, a military mutiny, an aristocratic revolt and an attempt by several Indian rulers to regain their polities. 1857 was not simply a civil war or a war against an external enemy. It is the use of the terms "national" and "independence" which is at issue here. The Nagpur example is interesting (and ought to go in the article), but doesn't really change the overall complexion of the rebellion, particularly as the cavalry in question don't seem to have been locals. And here, as in so many places, the uprising was put down by other Indian troops. If you want to make a comparison with the Sino-Indian war you'd have to ask if most of the Chinese army was made up of Indians. Although the actual fighting only involved a small corner of the country presumably up and down India all those with access to radios would have been following the news and hoping for India to win, feeling themselves part of a single nation. That's where the difference lies. And for the last time, the "Imperialist" name for this event (i.e. the contemporary name) is/was "The Indian Mutiny". "Indian Rebellion" is not Imperialist, it is a neutral term which doesn't seem to bother anybody but you. Sikandarji 07:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I shall buy that argument. Thanks for your arguments - they did increase my knowledge about these incidents. I apologize as I did belittle you in the heat of the moment. I am removing the NPOV tag. Jvalant 12:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted, no hard feelings - and I hope I haven't offended you unduly when particularly exasperated. In fact, as Bobby Awasthi was suggesting, there are problems with the neutrality and language of several sections of the article which require some work (virtually none of it is properly referenced in any case) so I had no particularly strong objection to the tag. The current title, however, I really do feel is the closest we are likely to get to a neutral one, and that was why I did not want it to be changed. Sikandarji 22:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)