Talk:Annexation of Junagadh

Untitled

I've left a note at User talk:118.103.239.68 to say that I've tidied up what was recently added to this article, most of which seems to me to be more or less factual, but asking for the sources of the information to be added. Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Military Conflict

This article is quite lacking in the details of what was actually a military conflict between the Junagadh State Forces and the Republic of India (along with indian proxy insurgents). The Junagadh State Forces resisted the Indian invasion of their state, for example see here [[1]]XavierGreen (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Junagadh vs Kashmir

An IP has added [2] a claim on Kashmir here, which was recently reverted. In any case, the claim looked fishy. So I checked. There is no such statement in Rajmohan Gandhi's book. The p. 438 has the following quote: Pakistan attempted to set off Kashmir against Junagadh. When we raised the question of settlement in a democratic way, they (Pakistan) at once told us they would consider it if we applied that policy to Kashmir. Our reply was that we would agree to Kashmir if they agreed to Hyderabad. (The quote is from a speech of Patel at Junagadh, after its surrender.)

The equivalence was between Kashmir and Hyderabad, which Jinnah did not agree to. (A formal proposal was made by Mountbatten to Jinnah on 1 November 1947 in Lahore.) - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Invaded it

The lead states

India did not accept the accession, blockaded Junagadh and then invaded it.

and cites a book by Owen Bennett Jones, a journalist. I didn't find any supporting evidence in the book for the claim that India "invaded" Junagadh. Most other sources, e.g., Hodson, The Great Divide (1969) and Raghavan, War and Peace in Modern India (2010), do not support such a claim. I am tagging this as dubious. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• Hodson, H. V. (1969), The Great Divide: Britain, India, Pakistan, London: Hutchinson
• Raghavan, Srinath (2010), War and Peace in Modern India, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 101–, ISBN 978-1-137-00737-7

:Rejoinder: Your first edit: Ian Talbot an authority on South Asian history describes India’s political integration of princely states with reference to Junagadh this way

Accession was made more difficult in cases like Hyderabad, Junagadh, isolated on the tip of the Kathiawar peninsula, and Jammu and Kashmir, where the ruler came from a different religious community from the majority of his subjects. These states' eventual incorporation in India resulted in bitter recriminations. There was armed conflict between India and Pakistan in the case of Jammu and Kashmir. Mountbatten charmed, while Patel and V.P. Menon bullied rulers to accede

So how can you claim that the source does not support what I wrote? Bullying comes under force and rulers (in plural) shows it as wide Indian state practice. Sicilianbro2 (talk) 09:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC) CU blocked sock of User:Faizan

Rejoinder: Your second edit: dubious tag

WP:HISTRS sources describe India’s deed in Junagadh as an invasion. . There is no dispute on this. Even Encyclopædia Britannica has termed India’s action in Junagadh as ‘invasion’. It is an encyclopediac fact. Sicilianbro2 (talk) 09:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC) CU blocked sock of User:Faizan

@Sicilianbro2: Which of these sources discuss the Junagadh affair in depth, rather than making passing mentions? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

That is besides the point. The point is that Ian Talbot, Victoria Schofield and Brittannica encyclopedia are authoritative sources the former two who have studied such matters as partition (of which junagadh was part) in-depth. Scholarly consensus and dominant scholarly opinions is determined in from works of major authorities, major histories, tertiary textbooks and encyclopedias. Sicilianbro2 (talk) 12:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC) CU blocked sock of User:Faizan

My question has been dodged. Presumably because it has no decent answer.

• Ian Talbot never talked about any invasion. The editor was just name-dropping.
• Encyclopedia Britannica says "India sent in the army", which is not exactly invasion. (It sent in the army after it has been invited to take over the government, according to Hodson and Raghavan sources mentioned above.)
• Victoria Schofield does say invasion, but provides no evidence. No such evidence is there because it never happened.

All this is make-believe hallucination. Either an invasion happened or it did not. It is question of fact, not a matter of "opinion" of scholars or whoever.

Anybody that wants to take responsibility for the sock edits better address this issue first. Or risk getting blocked themselves. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

References

You have mixed up what the Sock said The reply of the sock was in two parts, you have mixed them up

The reply of the sock in rejoinder 1 involving an Talbot quote was not abt invasion. it was obviously a reply to this edit. where you cut that Talbot quote https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Junagadh&diff=789339694&oldid=789273029

Clearly Brittanica says 'both invasions' about Junagadh and Hyderabad

And that 'invitation' by the government of junagadh was only for restoring law and order which happened because of India's blockade which India at the UNSC later denied having done and the disordely created by the provisional government which was formed by Menon and even India's ministry of law accepted that junagadh' accession to pakistan had still not been nullified when India took over administration (all this was from the Rakesh Ankit source)

Raghavan is an Indian government hired scholar

And here's an Indian paper which says raghavan is hired by the Indian government http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/editorials/the-fear-of-history-kargil-war-conflict-india-pakistan-china-sri-lanka-2937448/

@Vice regent: for comment

MBlaze Lightning cuts

@MBlaze Lightning: your recent edits claim that you are removing fake sources. This has spurred me to check the sources and I find either you are deliberately pushing POV or have not read what you call fake sources. Here are the quotes from the sources you have removed.

″The princely states of Hyderabad and Junagadh, which were located deep inside India, were annexed by force″

-Sumit Ganguly; Larry Diamond; Marc F. Plattner (13 August 2007). The State of India's Democracy. JHU Press. pp. 52–. ISBN 978-0-8018-8791-8.

″India used force to incorporate Hyderabad and Junagadh″

-Stephen P. Cohen (28 May 2013). Shooting for a Century: The India-Pakistan Conundrum. Brookings Institution Press. pp. 4–. ISBN 978-0-8157-2187-1.

So your claim of fake sources is being rejected and your cuts being reverted. KA$HMIR (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Where do they say that they "regard India's absorption of Junagadh as forceful"? —MBL ^Talk 11:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

It says about force so clearly. I don't need to highlight it in bold. Quit WP:STONEWALLING. If you still refuse to see blue as blue you can go to DRN. KA$HMIR (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand what the sources are saying; that Indian used its military force in Hyderabad and Junagadh, which is a well-known fact — nowhere do they say that they "regard India's absorption of Junagadh as forceful". This sort of thing is exactly what WP:OR prohibits. —MBL ^Talk 11:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:OR prohibits material for which no reliable, published sources exist and which do not directly support the material. That India annexed Junagadh by force is in the cited sources and is a fact which you also say is true, and "regard India's absorption of Junagadh as forceful" means exactly that. Please stop fallacious reasoning, else I will have to take you to WP:ANI where such disruptiveness can result in a topic ban. KA$HMIR (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

You're now engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Also, feel free to take me to WP:ANI, but before doing so, I'd recommend you read WP:BOOMERANG. —MBL ^Talk 18:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• MBlaze, calling reputable sources like Stephen P. Cohen "fake" cannot be taken lightly let alone seriously. I concur with the above advice, the onus rests on you to prove your claim whilst editing. Anything less than that is unsatisfactory and worth disregarding IMO. Mar4d (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

No, Mblaze is correct that those sources are only saying that India used "force" which means military force. Nothing like "absorption of Junagadh as forceful". Capitals00 (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Mar4d, lay off the accusations. I was referring to WP:FAKE – the claim that "Scholars regard India's absorption of Junagadh as forceful" isn't supported by the sources which I removed. Furthermore, it was added not long ago by a disruptive sock,[3] so the WP:ONUS is on KA$HMIR (because he's the one putting the disputed content back in the article) to prove that sources explicitly supports the claims they're cited for. —MBL ^Talk 18:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

You did not explain this edit, where you removed sources using the same misleading edit summary. Mar4d (talk) 09:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

That's the valid reason - that I was removing fake sources (have you even read WP:FAKE?), which didn't support the claims cited to them. —MBL ^Talk 18:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Lay off the source misrepresentation MBlaze Lightning. I have quoted the relevant bits of the sources above and they are clear for all to see that they support the words that mean India took Junagadh by force. @RegentsPark: so they can check whether the sources you are removing are supporting the content or not. Secondly the WP:ONUS is on you to explain the removal of verifiable longstanding content. And your explanation so far has been nonsensical to say the least. KA$HMIR (talk) 10:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• (Since I've been pinged!) Since the argument is about the statement "Scholars regard India's absorption of Junagadh as forceful", the easiest way forward is if we can see the exact quote from the sources that say it was forceful. If "Some" needs to be added in front, then we'd need to see citations that explicitly say that it wasn't forceful and an exact quotation supporting that would be helpful. Meanwhile, please don't edit war. --regentspark (comment) 15:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The counterpoint to the claims is provided by the footnote 22: Mcleod, John. Junagadh. Historical Dictionary of the British Empire, Volume 1. p. 614. "In order to compel Mahabatkhanji to reverse his accession, India sent troops to the surrounding states and imposed a blockade". I regard this as the factual position, leaving aside all the interpretations. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

To editor RegentsPark:, Kashmir had given the quotes here already. Both quotes from the scholarly sources as well as the McLeod footnote (quote: ″in order to compel″) are supporting the narrative of forceful takeover by India.

I am also contemplating renaming this page to Invasion of Junagadh rather than Annexation of Junagadh as per WP:COMMONNAME. Check the number of hits on Google and Google Books for both terms and compare which gets the most hits. Invasion is also the term of choice on Britannica and according to Fowler&fowler we need to follow the encyclopedic convention.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

A blockade is not an invasion. In any case, you would need to file a WP:RM for title change. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• @RegentsPark: the dispute is not a dispute over content. Its a dispute over the sources. I am saying the sources MBlaze Lightning is removing do support the content whereas he is claiming they do not, which is why I provided the exact quotes from the sources he has been removing for dubious reasons. So you can now see with precision the quotes from the sources as you asked for. I have restored the longstanding version to maintain WP:STATUSQUO according to WP:NONCON, with a warning that anyone who continues this disruptive edit war, which has been ongoing over the past few days, will be reported. KA$HMIR (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

  I'm not keen to get into the content issue (and it is a content issue) because there could be other sources that represent the takeover differently and I'd need to research this further. However, it does seem to me that one way forward is to modify the sentence so it fits better with the two sources you provide (e.g.,, replace the word "forceful" with something like "through force" or "using force") and by using the "Some" modifier in front if there are other views. But, this is just a suggestion based on the little I've read here so its up to you to get consensus. --regentspark (comment) 16:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Discovery of massive plagiarism

Diannaa I have spent my morning checking this article for copyright issues. I thought there might be a few issues. But I was disappointed to discover that large parts of the article are actually plagiarised from this primary source.[4] To facilitate your check I have added page numbers for each plagiarised text in my edit summaries.[5][6][7][8][9][10] Please look into this. Dilpa kaur (talk) 06:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Grammar

“to see if Nehru would make the argument that a Hindu majority under a Muslim ruler, than he would respond with Kashmir's case being the same”

The grammar is not correct here. What does this sentence ought to tell us? --Chricho ∀ (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

It was supposed to tell us that if India made a religiously-based argument then Pakistan could do the same with regard to Kashmir. It was all WP:OR. I removed it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Article about annexation of Junagadh, not Junagadh itself

Hello fellow editor @Kautilya3, this discussion is to add a lead to this lead-less article. The current lead paragraph can stay, we just need to add a lead sentence. Boldface is required as it is the name of an event, I do not see why it isn't. I understand that it wasn't a military conflict and thus I propose this:

---

Annexation of Junagadh was an event in the Political Integration of India where the State of Junagadh was annexed to the Indian Union on 9 November 1947.

---

The rest of the already existing lead paragraph should stay. PadFoot2008 (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Pleas see MOS:FIRST.

For the date claim, please provide a WP:RS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

All right then we could remove the date. I'm not ready to research on that right now. We could just put down the year. And according to MOS:FIRST, Annexation of Junagadh should be the subject, similar to other annexations made to the Indian Union like the Annexation of Hyderabad, Annexation of Goa. This is my new proposition:

---

Annexation of Junagadh was an event in the Political Integration of India where the State of Junagadh was annexed to the Indian Union in 1947.

---

Or we could follow a similar pattern to the Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation and Annexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China:

---

In November 1947, the Union of India ordered annexation of the State of Junagadh after it's Instrument of Accession to Pakistan was accepted the Governor-General of Pakistan. This led to the incorporation of Junagadh into the Indian Union and it's subsequent merger with the United State of Kathiawar.

---

The current as of now lead sentence focuses on the Junagadh state rather than the actual annexation. The subject is the annexation of Junagadh not Junagadh itself. The proposed lead could be followed by the already existing lead in the same paragraph. PadFoot2008 (talk) 08:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

You cannot make up your own content without regard to the sources. Annexation is the assertion of legal title. It occurred only after holding the referendum, not in November 1947. I can tweak the first sentence if wish, to push the annexation part to the front. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Do please tweak it. Thank you. It just needs the annexation to be in the lead sentence to conform with the subject of the article. PadFoot2008 (talk) 03:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Kautilya3, I made few tweaks to the lead sentence involving Grammar and the name of India. I also rephrased it so that the date is in the front, it seems a bit weird and incomplete otherwise. PadFoot2008 (talk) 08:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

How to search the page of a book on Google Books?

Kautilya3, I found this, "

When Pakistan confirmed the acceptance of the accession in September, the Government of India expressed outraged that Muhammad Ali Jinnah would accept the accession of Junagadh despite his argument that Hindus and Muslims could not live as one nation.

" online here. Now how to look at the page inside the book?-Haani40 (talk) 13:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Haani40, you should only citations to sources you have personally seen. If you saw a citation somewhere else and are reproducing, you are obliged to say so. See WP:SAYWHERE. New World Encyclopedia is user-generated content, just like Wikipedia, and so not a WP:RS. I will now revert your edit. You can see Rajmohan Gandhi's book on archive.org (under the books section). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

OK.-Haani40 (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)