Wikipedia:Peer review/Political integration of India/archive1

Political integration of India

Hello All - I request that this article be reviewed for quality and content of the FA-level. I believe that I've succeeded in making a quality article about the most critically important political events that helped to integrate India, and secure its future as a free, democratic nation. If this article is ultimately elevated to FA-status, it will bring to prominence a clear, detailed article about the most decisive chain of events in modern Indian history.

Please help me identify any flaws and rectify them. Also please note that there is some inevitably sensitive political material that may pose some POV questions. I ask for your help on how to best present the content. Thank you.

Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow 00:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) The title should be Political integration of India. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions. 2) I'm having trouble understanding the scope of this article. Why does it start with the independence of India? If its purpose is only to cover the formation of the Indian state, this should be stated in the lead, and possibly the title should be changed to properly reflect that. Under that title, I would expect to find an article on how the entity known as "India" came into being. Didn't such a concept exist before the British ocupation? 3) Inline citations should be used. See Wikipedia:Cite sources#How to cite sources 4) The article should not make judgements or opinions. For example: "Patel treated the monarchs with great hospitality." We cannot state this as fact, because it is dependable on personal opinion and therefore unverifiable. Mention who thought that Patel treated the monarchs with great hospitality. JoaoRicardo^talk 02:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name change is done! deeptrivia (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resistance of integration

Shouldn't the movements to resist integration be covered? (I know it's potentially controversial.) Good work on an important topic, by the way. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which do you mean? Nizam of Hyderabad, Qasim Razvi and the Razakars, the states looking to Pakistan, Nawab of Bhopal and Hari Singh are all covered. Please ignore the events in Baluchistan. Rama's Arrow 06:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the political resistance to integration from leaders of Dravidar Kazhagam and the DMK (in the initial days). There were calls for a Dravida Nadu, if I remember right. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While its OK to mention this, I don't agree that its necessary nor that it should be mentioned - first off, this Dravidar Kazhagam caused some small level controversy, but nothing it did affected the main political events and processes that this article discusses. Compare this with Qasim Razvi - he was important to this article only becoz he obtained power in the Nizam's court. Otherwise, he would be just another Muslim extremist in the partition era.

Thanks for the info, however. I didn't know about this. Rama's Arrow 07:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it had a significant impact towards the adoption of the three-language formula and more concessions in favour of federalism. However, I wouldn't press that it is necessary to put that in. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, you've just highlighted a point I had entirely forgotten - the ethnic-linguistic debate should have a para preceeding the States Reorganization Act. I will add the DMK reference there. Thanks Sundar! Rama's Arrow 15:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this "Political integration" article should confine itself to the two-step process whereby the princely states were merged with India, and should generally end as on 26/Jan/1950, followed by a concluding section on the integration of Portuguese and French India. Future reorganization of states entailed no sovereignity issues or "Integration", and are furthermore (arguably) an ongoing process. These later adjustments could form a separate article. ImpuMozhi 22:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joao Ricardo's points

The article starts with the independence of India to introduce the situation, circumstances from which the modern Indian nation became what it is today. Please understand that this is not a problem, since the independence scenario and the partition scenario are just briefly, thus appropriately introduced. It doesn't clash with the purpose of the article to offer a background.

This article is about "Political Integration", not "Birth of Indian nationhood". Thus, "India coming into being" is not necessarily to be addressed. Note that it would be easy for me to have named this article "Integration of India", but I called it the "Political integration..."

In-line citations are not necessary, especially as plenty of links to related articles are provided, as well as a good number of external links and main references.

The note on Patel's hospitality is valid. I will address the problem.

Rama's Arrow 05:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rama's Arrow, thanks for the answers to my previous concerns. I think I understand the article better now. But I still must insist on the in-line citations, since they provide better verifiability. Without them, readers must check all the given sources when looking for a specific information. In-line citations would give them the opportunity to look up information more quickly. JoaoRicardo^talk 15:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Joao, I've added in-line citations for several diff sections. Rama's Arrow 19:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph

First paragraph / sentence need to be rewritten. This is way too complicated.

The political integration of India is a process that united semi-autonomous political entities and colonial possessions in the Indian subcontinent to form a single, united nation, and re-organized its constituents into a federal system of sub-national states governed by representative democracy under the Constitution of India, and reflective of the demographics of their resident populations.

I am an Indian, and found it difficult to understand. --DuKot 04:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something simple like the following should be the first sentence. Two or more paragraphs could be added afterwards to explain it in detail.

The political integration of India is the process that unified various political entities that makes up the present day Republic of India.

--DuKot 04:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Thanks. Rama's Arrow 06:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Game of Chess?

I have concerns that this sub-section is not perhaps not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I wrote it initially becoz I believe these were interesting theories to consider, and certainly not baseless or unverifiable, but difficult to accurately do so. I'd like to know how much we need to change this section, and if we need to delete it.

Rama's Arrow 06:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem as long as they are verifiable; if they look like POV, they can be reworded as "X considered" or "Y regarded" etc. --Gurubrahma 07:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some observations

A very good attempt in covering an important phase of Indian history. I should have looked at it as soon as Deeptrivia recommended it, but anyways, better late than never. I believe that there is some scope for further development and I am trying to outline such possible improvements - the focus here is more in terms of taking it to FA standard

Lead

Most people just read the lead in a FA - hence, the lead must, after the first 2 or 3 lines or so, touch upon the situation just preceding independence, partition, independence, freedom to political states etc. in the chronological order (1 to 2 lines on each should do). This would make clear the setting. Then the story of political integration must be touched upon. imo, the leadership of Nehru (and how he gave a free hand to Patel) also needs to be mentioned. The lead should also indicate the current situation in India, i. e., the lead, by itself, should be complete in itself about the topic.

Patel

We need to have a description of how he was considered to be the right man for the right job; the lead hints at it, but the rest of the article doesn't seem to carry it. The article should at least mention that he earned the sobriquet of "Iron man of India," due to his role in the political integration.

Princes

I am not sure where "what I am proposing now" fits in - most probably in the last section (i. e., before the one about 21st century). A look at the public sentiment wrt the princes during and after political integration needs to be looked at. The abolition of privy purses, (along with nationalisation of banks, of course, irrelevant to this article) on the basis of which Indira Gandhi returned to power, needs to be indicated. How popular princes became elected representatives (Scindias, Rajus of Vizianagaram, Wodeyar of Mysore) while others became indigent (India Today had a nice story some 5-6 years back), needs to be indicated. All this is important as the princes and their families were main actors in the political integration of India.

Issues of style

While the article is well written, some of the lines are minor irritants and can be removed, imo. Over-wikification needs to be avoided; the current version of style guide specifies that a word be wikified only once in the entire article. Though I do not consider it a good policy, we need to stick to it till such time we can get it fixed. I am not a fan of in-line citations and referencing, but that seems to be insisted for all FAs. Some of the text needs tightening. Sample the sentences - "Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel died on December 15, 1950. In 1952, the first Parliament of India under the Constitution was elected, and Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru took control of the challenge to politically integrate India." Does it mean that Nehru was in-charge of home ministry as well? Or does it mean that Nehru was never in control of the challenge to politically integrate India when patel was alive? The words, Telangana and Telingana are both used - consistency should be maintained and only one spelling should be used. Calling Hyderabad state the stomach of India makes it look like a glutton ;). Why not just call it the centre?

Factual inaccuracies and omissions

The points mentioned in this sub-section need some careful deliberation. Sikkim was not annexed - the king had showed an interest and a referendum there was also overwhelmingly in favour (at least that is what all Indian History text books say); this and the agreement where Bhutan's security became the responsibility of India are supposed to have strengthened the identity of Indian nationalism in the surrounding regions. Tamil movements and telugu movements are different. The former was more an expression for justice for the under privileged and a veiled threat of secession - consider the fact that Madras state had 50% reservations in 1947 itself in the current-day Tamil Nadu and language was more an instrument (especially as Rajaji, an upper-caste Hindu was the in-charge of Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha); the latter was more for a province within India, with language as the only issue. The latter was instrumental in leading to re-organization of states - it would be interesting to document how the ppl in Delhi thought that such concessions would defeat the political integration of India and the ppl in the provinces thought that it was a legitimate goal. No discussion of states' re-organization in the context of political integration is complete without the mention of Potti Sreeramulu and probably, Tanguturi Prakasam. The section, "Into the 21st Century" is well written but for the omission of he fact of strong demands for a second SRC states re-organization commission (mostly from Andhra and Maharashtra; Karnataka, to a lesser extent).

I have tried to be as comprehensive as possible as I may not be in a position to edit articles in a major way for the next two months or so, and hence, I'd like some one to work on these points for this article. A very good article with excellent contributions by Rama's Arrow, I would say! --Gurubrahma 07:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will incorporate these suggestions immediately. Rama's Arrow 16:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modern India

I've just inserted the word "modern" in the opening passage, to distinguish from Ashokan India, or any connotation that India as a nation was born only in 1947. Indian nationhood has existed for thousands of years, and this article deals only with modern, independent India. This comes akin to the thoughts expressed by Joao Ricardo above. I don't think, however, that the title of the article should be changed. Rama's Arrow 19:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good attempt

I think it is a very good attempt. The content is comprehensive enough, and is well-distributed. User:Gurubrahma has already done a good review that covers almost all of the major points. I mainly looked into the opening bid here.

Opening para - rather, opening line - straight away jumps onto Sardar Patel. Though he was the center-figur of this exercise, I think the context needs to precede it describing the political and social scenario which could help quickly explain the people at large that:

what is the start/end date of the exercise - which period is being covered here
what was the situation at the end of British Raj - what kind of diversity, groups existed - what about harmony/rivalry among them
why formation of a "union" of India was required
why Patel was the chosen one - (here, its important to consider that this article is about the event, and not about Patel)
what kind of support Patel was promised and received
how the goal was achieved, to what extend
what were the short-and-long-termed impacts, specifically on the subcontinent and on today's India

Reply: I've had a lot of different views on settling on a proper intro, but I think I've accomodated most of your points. Rama's Arrow 16:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In essence, the opening para is a synopsis of the whole article, creating a mind-set of the audience for what to expect while they enter into later details, and could help with the (valid) concerns like those raised by User:DuKot. The position of the map showing the diversity is a good idea. But I would prefer the second map being places somewhere else. And I think "post-independence India" is more preferable than "modern". --ΜιĿːtalk 11:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally feel that the topic should be split into two articles. This article should detail the making of mordern day India. Another article should detail the reorganisation of states, and so I have not reviewed that part. That said, the article is written well, but I find many points missing, (that is if my recollection of my school history is still intact).

use British English. The article is on an Indian subject.
Baluchistan wanted to merge with India.
Travancore wanted to merge with Sri Lanka
The princes came to admire Patel's candor on behalf of national interest -- shold be written differently. Could be a POV.
Suggest a light copyedit.
Dates need to be wikified.
However, the northwestern portion of Kashmir is today Pakistan administered Kashmir. possible POV. Remove the word however.
Hyderabad was a state that stretched over 82,000 square miles.. Metric units please. (imperial units may be accompanied in brackets)
A Game of Chess? seems too poetic
Also mention that a part of India was ceded to Bhutan, and Bhutan's independence was recognised only in 1948.
Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim were allowed to keep their independence as a buffer states between India and China
=Consolidation and Reorganization of the Union= should me moved to a separate article. There's a lot there that I can comment on.
Also expand Pondicherry & Goa's ascention to the Indian union. Chandernagore was ceded much earlier while the rest were ceded later. Expand on the reasons for that.
Dadra and Nagar Haveli were ceded to India by the Portuguese much earlier than Goa, Daman and Diu. The enclave had its own government for about 9? years. Please add.
Mention that China did not recognise the Macmohan line. Claims a part of Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh because of this
More info needed on AP. Was it mention in the maps before India gained independence?
image status copyrights not resolved. The first map although great is has some issues:
1. the map is in spanish
2. Exclusive wikipedia use is invalid. It may be deleted any time. Make sure that the person whom you requested for is aware that commercial use and derivates can be made from his image.
3. Please make sure that the author knows about the GFDL Licence!
The other maps should be PD. Please verify.
user:Dore chakravarty can supply you some nice photos of pre-independence India.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 12:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to MilJoshi and Nichalp's points

I'm on board with the points of both listed above, except for the one suggesting the split of the article. As in my response to Joao Ricardo, I reiterate that this article is about the "political integration", not nationhood or "formation of the present map". By 1950, India was not fully integrated becoz Portuguese/French possessions, wars, linguistic and ethnic conflicts that were up coming. India was not organized in the manner most naturally stable and progressive for its inhabitants. If any of those Khalistan, Nagaland, ULFA terrorists had succeeded....? Anywayz we need to document how the Indian Union is organized today - point to its natural form of political stability, what is the direction it has changed towards since 1950, becoz that is what its "political integration" entails.

The "Consolidation and Reorganization of the Union" is important to this article, and not a separate article. Preceeding section deals with India obtaining accession of states, but not its "integration" into its own political system. The article would be incomplete if we don't discuss how India evolved its federation. If we divide the article on this basis, then it will come apart, becoz there already exist articles on Kashmir, partition of India and work following up to independence. It will kill the entire purpose of elucidating how all these events helped achieve the "political integration of India" into one nation, becoz all your articles will be branched up.

The guy whose map I incorporated knows about GFDL. I messed up about commercial use, but I sent him a direct link to the published GFDL policy on Wikipedia. I'll try to fix the problem by this week, but otherwise MilJoshi has done a great job with the other map too, we'll just use that one.

Having said that, I feel the States Reorganization element should be noted, but not copiously listed. I think Tom Radulovich's work is good and should stand, but its length should be cut, especially as Radulvich has gone to the trouble of creating daughter articles.

I'll be spending today incorporating these points. Thanks for the help!

Rama's Arrow 15:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the Spanish map according to user:deeptrivia's suggestion on the main talkpage. Rama's Arrow 17:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that is the case -- in fact, the quick and seamless integration of the princely states, and of Portuguese/French India, is one of the most remarkable achievements of the immediate post-independence era. The process was expediated by the fact that the franchise-based political process was new to everyone in India, so that "India's own political system" was arguably only nascent and it required little to accomodate the princely states and sundry enclaves. What was required by way of Integration was the institution of a distinct judiciary in the states-unions, abolition of the multiplicity of currencies, stampage and inland customs (as in passport-customs) and such other issues, which in fact are not touched upon in this article. I shall make the required additions if you permit.

It is also not par de course to imply that the present status quo is the final and fully-developed avatar of Indian federalism, or to suggest, as above, that "India (is now) organized in the manner most naturally stable and progressive for its inhabitants".

The "branching up" of several articles relating to Indian history is not really a bad thing. Many would take the view that the History of India article is the main trunk from which every section and subsection synopsises and connects to a different page on WP, of which the "Political integration of India]] page is a very important member. ImpuMozhi 23:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even I'm not in favour of a split unless the latter part (the states' reorganisation) gets too long. Otherwise excellent feedback from the reviewers. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 04:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not of article-length but of subject matter. The aspirations, motivations and methods that underlay the political integration of 550+ tiny entities and enclaves into one union is different from those that informed the internal reorganization of the unified republic. ImpuMozhi 17:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm ... Then, can we have a summary here and leave the rest to a separate main article? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 04:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already shortened the SRA and 21st century sections to defer to daughter articles. I think the article is presently OK in its form and content. Rama's Arrow 15:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact it is not, for the "internal reorganization" resulted from political events and potential separatism and insurgency. If these were not addressed, India would be victimized by separatism and insurgency.

You see, the states re-organization was key to the identity of ethnic groups in context of themselves and in the national mainstream. This political evolution must not be ignored, or else this article will be ignoring a major element and be incomplete. Rama's Arrow 17:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on ImpuMozhi's points

(1) I think user:Sundar says it well above. In addition, Tom Radulovich has already created daughter articles on States Reorg, Northeastern India, etc. There are many daughter articles that are appropriately indicated across this one.

"Political integration" is one stream that requires one treatment. "History" is a lot more diverse, inclusive of thousands of streams across thousands of years.

(2) "Status quo" is what I never meant to suggest, but the implication was that we've found a respectable stability in our democratic, federal system. Especially with India, it is never clear what happens next. There is a statement speaking of our "evolving" federal system. That India's integration is on-going is one of the biggest assertions in this article.

(3) I agree with you on your first para. You don't need my permission, but just a general sense of approval from other participating editors on this talkpage.

I certainly value your input ImpuMozhi. Thanks a lot for your advice and help. Rama's Arrow 15:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I've incorporated a lot more in-line citations and book citations, while correcting spelling and grammar mistakes. I've also added fresh materials on accession policy, 1947-50 integration and the China disputes. I feel that this article has grown as big as it should grow. I don't recommend allowing it to exceed 50kb. Rama's Arrow 17:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reformatting

Hi - I've re-formatted and compressed the article to remove 4kb and reduce the table of contents. Most of this was eliminating repeat references, and deferring to daughter articles for more detail. I hope this meets with your approval. Rama's Arrow 19:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My comments

Rama's Arrow (talk · contribs) asked me to review the article, so here are my comemnts:

Razakar: at least 1 more line needs to be there. The article Razakar mostly refers to the Razakar militia in East Pakistan, with only a trailing sentence talking about Hyderabad razakars.
The territorial extent of modern India is only superseded by that of the Mauryan Empire of Emperor Ashoka and under British Raj. - any reference backing this sentence should be given. This type of size comparisons should always be referenced.
The intro sentence is quite long and very complex. Splitting it into two is recommended.
(Rajmohan Gandhi, Patel: A Life, pp. 413-14)., this should be properly referenced (using mn and mnb).
To this day, Pakistan maintains a claim on Junagadh, which is published in the official map by the Geological Survey of Pakistan., a link to a map from the agency's website would really help.
Too little is written about Goa. The annexation of Goa deserves more than 1 sentence, and links to the particular article. This is because Goa's integration into India is so much different from the other states and regions.

Thanks. --Ragib 06:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you're right about these points, although for the Mauryan empire bit, one just has to look at the map. Thanks Ragib. Rama's Arrow 17:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've embellished the section on the main Razakar article - just about same level of data. Mauryan link added. GSP ref rmvd becoz I couldn't back it up with a maplink. I'll tend to the points on Goa, the intro and R. Gandhi refs now. Rama's Arrow 17:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the maps of Geographical Survey of Pakistan. It seems they've dropped Junagadh now. deeptrivia (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More review

Ok, since your not in favour of a split, I have some additional stuff to add.

Insurgent groups in NE India seem to be absent. See Insurgent groups in Northeast India
Maharashtra-Karnataka border dispute is absent.
Demands for the following states:
- Maharashtra split into 4
- UP split into 4
- Separate states: Kutch, Cooch Behar, Gorkhaland, Kamtapuri and Coorg to name a few.
Sikkim has been recognised by China. Plz update.

After you're done, notify me so that I can give it the finishing touches. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nichalp - I've acted upon the China correction, Kutch, Coorg etc. demands, Maharashtra-Karnataka dispute and the terrorism section on NE has been enlarged, but I oppose merely listing the creation of states and demands for separate states and edits of that nature - it will be better to focus upon the reasons for the rise of such demands - underdevelopment, poor government, cultural alienation, etc.

Latest edits

Hi - most of my recent edits have been aimed at emphasizing "Integration" rather than merely listing the creation/dissolution of different states, which is tackled in daughter articles like "States and territories of India" and "States Reorganization Act". I also wanted to reduce the length of this article - latest drop of 5kb. Rama's Arrow 07:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closure

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank everybody for helping in improving this article, whose quality and content has improved, IMHO, by more than 50%. This article will now be nominated to become a Featured Article.

Jai Sri Rama!

Rama's Arrow 22:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]