Talk:Indian independence movement

Source Added To Prevent Plagiarism

I added quotation marks around a direct quote which was taken from without acknowledging the source. There may be other quotation marks needed and in order to keep Wikipedia's standards high and trustworthy according to its policies on plagiarism. Vincedumond 02:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Impact of World War II

This material is not sourced (US Department of State and Wikipedia are not acceptable sources). Please see WP:HISTRS for what sort of sources are necessary (short answer: scholarly sources). Shouldn't be hard to find if the impact of WW 2 on India's independence movement deserves a separate section. --regentspark (comment) 15:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Change “British Raj” to European Imperialism

British Raj ignores the other imperial powers who had controlled India. Indians living under Portuguese or French rule had their own independence strife. Also, the Earliest thought on Indian Nationalism(Independence) I saw is from the book-(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varthamanappusthakam) which is not directed at British but foreign rule in general. Also can that source fit anywhere in the Indian Independence movement page?Manabimasu (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, it is a terrible name, as it tries to be about a country but is in fact based on a slang term for British rule, and it is far from clear whether it means British India (directly ruled by the British) or the whole 19th/20th century "Indian Empire", much of which was foreign to the British and had Indian rulers. I don't agree with your comment, Manabimasu, as there are separate articles for French India, Portuguese India, and so on. Moonraker (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

References

I have removed a reference to Macaulay because it was out of place, added nothing to the main argument, and interrupted the flow of the entire article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.182.64.93 (talk) 08:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Namdhari Sikhs section

I've removed it because it is sourced to namdhari world and the Sikh wiki. Neither of them qualify as reliable sources. Please use academic sources for historical content. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Communication and Social Change

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 12 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jjohnson220 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jjohnson220 (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Namdhari Movement as first resistance post-1857 administrative unification of India

Citing strong references, including from Encyclopedia Britannica and Government of India website, I have added information, which is also a part of the UPSC curriculum. As can be seen from the references, in the 19th century, Satguru Ram Singh led a movement that not only used non-cooperation and boycott against the British merchandise, but also attempted to establish foreign relations to free India. This was a time when rest of India was not engaged in active action post-defeat in the 1857 Sepoy Mutiny.

I encourage other users to constructively discuss this, on the basis of primary reference sources, before editing this out of their sheer biasedness.

Looking forward to hear from all Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Bharatvarsh.1947: I did a little compromise with your edits by moving your edits to section[1] instead of keeping them on lead (also called summary of the article). You want to insist that he should be mentioned on lead but that would be too much for this subject. Editorkamran (talk) 03:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Editorkamran for your message. Let's discuss this. In my opinion, since it was the first movement post-1857 administrative unification, it should be mentioned on the top. Please inform your point of view in more details.

Regards Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 03:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

No, he cannot be mentioned "on the top" because he is not that significant to the independence movement. Editorkamran (talk) 04:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Dear @Editorkamran, kindly note the sentence prior to the addition of paragraph, ‘It lasted from 1857 to 1947’. Namdhari Movement started in 1857. So, it is the first movement. In chronological order, it has to be the first one.

Anyways, I am shortening the paragraph. The contributions are many, but can be discussed in other pages. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 05:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

See the infobox of Indian Rebellion of 1857. None of those leaders have been mentioned on lead of this article so why we should mention Satguru Ram Singh on lead? Editorkamran (talk) 06:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Satguru Raj Singh was not part of the Indian Rebellion of 1857. His movement is different from this, and had peak moments in 1869, 1871, 1872, 1885 and continued till 1947. Could you refer to the Encyclopedia Britannica reference? There is reason why he is mentioned as ‘first Indian to use non-cooperation and Boycott’ and reason why he is mentioned as a prominent personality in the ‘1000 years, 1000 people’ book. His movement should not be confused with Sepoy Mutiny of 1857, where he played no role. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 07:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Chronologically, this is the first movement, and has been for that in this section. There are many aspects to it, which have not been touched here. Only a brief summary is provided. The Government of India “Dictionary of Martyrs” mentions the people of these movement prominently. But to keep the write up short for this page, it has not been detailed. A new wiki page can be created for this, however. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 07:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Editorkamran without replying to the talk section, how can you revert the edits? If you are unable to comprehend, then discuss. Wikipedia article is no one’s personal property. This is highly unprofessional on your part. I have given my reasoning and added valid references and manuscripts. If you doubt the integrity of any reference, inform here. Without a consensus on talk, you cannot revert the changes unreasonably. This is against the idea and principle of Wikipedia. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Bharatavarsh.1947 you seem to have an obsession with "Satguru Ram Singh" (Ram Singh Kuka) and the Namdhari movement. You are disrupting the article by giving undue weight to your personal belief system. We do not need your personal interests spammed all over Wikipedia. It's great if you have interests but we cannot give undue weight to them on every Wikipedia article you want to edit. You did the same over on the Namdhari article. We do not need paragraphs about Ram Singh Kuka put into the lead, nor do we need links to Amazon. Read WP:NPOV and WP:RSUW and read about reliable sources here WP:RS. I have seen disruption from you on multiple articles. A block will likely occur if you continue this as I will report your account. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Psychologist Guy Yes, since I have read a lot about Namdhari history and know the reliable and actual sources (as opposed to your limited knowledge), I wish that the Wikipedia audience should know about this personality who has been the 'first Indian to use non-cooperation and Boycott as political tools'. You are hell bent on downplaying this important event. How do you solely decide the importance of this? When an article is written in the chronological order, first things will come first. Neither @Editorkamran nor you had anything to discuss healthily about. I know your reality. The way you, @Aryajay have blocked even the minor edits in few pages earlier show your mean intention. This is not the mark of good humans, to deny a chance of discussion to some one else. In fact, you are obsessed with denying the historical facts to speak for themselves. My edits on Namdhari article have been reverted by you and you have added all wrong information. For example, Namdhari movement started in April 1857 and not in April 1812 as per your reverts. You have no intention of discussing. All you can do is to perhaps ask your friends to make reverts and threaten account blockage. You do not have any counter to the references that I have given. You have not explained at all how the simple statements of fact about Satguru Ram Singh are undue weight. If you refer to the inclusion of paragraph on the top of page, that is because of chronology. But still, if you have even a iota of honesty, tell here itself where do you think the said paragraph should be added in the 'Indian Independence Movement' page. Or do you want that this information should not reach people at all? If you have courage and honesty, reply to these questions for a coordinated improvement of this wiki. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I have excised the recent addition, which was WP:UNDUE; horribly sourced to junky "clickbait" pushed out by a comic-book publisher and a book published by the "Namdhari History Research Society"; and, written in a a highly promotional tone. Note that the article already mentions the role of Namdhari and other religious groups in the independence movement, and if someone wants to argue that greater coverage is WP:DUE, that would have to be based on a systemic survey of how much space high-quality history texts on IIM, devote to this topic. Abecedare (talk) 16:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Abecedare for your reasoning. I understand that the way URLs were attached were not in accordance with Wikipedia standards. That’s a process in learning. Thanks for highlighting this. I agree that ‘space that history books’ allocate is a consideration. I would request you to comment also on the Encyclopedia Britannica page (which you left in your previous comment) and inform if this information should be a part of history books or Wikipedia page? Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, EB articles authored by their general staff, as opposed to ones by invited experts, are not a very good source. Secondly, the use of "noncooperation and boycott of British merchandise and services as a political weapon" and its relation to IIM will need to be presented with proper context, which [the short EB piece lacks. For example, the source currently cited in this wikipedia article (the 1962 thesis, Social and Economic History Of The Panjab(1849-1901), pp.129-30; itself not a very good source) for the role Namdharis/Kukas played in the era only says that (aside from religious reforms), "Kukaism aimed at the restoration of Sikh rule, and by necessity the subversion of the British Power", which is arguably distinct from agitating for Indian independence.

As I said above, if you want to add more material on this topic, please cite and discuss what standard texts on IIM say about it. Abecedare (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Fully agree @Abecedare. “The subversion of the British Power” was inevitably linked to Independence at that time. You are a history enthusiast. Please help me in finding which “other movements” at the time of Namdhari Movement were actively participating for ‘subversion of the British Power’? Meanwhile, I will compile a list of references from British confidential documents and place before everyone for a discussion (along with published source). However, stating that EB articles, even though by general staff is not authentic! (Although definitely not surely the final word, Remember it’s an Encyclopedia), there must be a very strong reason to doubt it). Anyways, I am thankful for the healthy discussion that you have undertaken. I also invite @Editorkamran and @Psychologist Guy to look at the new sources that I will be placing shortly as per the advice of @Abecedare to discuss how this part of history can be bring up for a discussion. I am more aware of the Wikipedia policy at the same time

Thanks to all Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Please do not compile "list of references from British confidential documents"! What we are looking for when writing about subjects such as IIM, to address both WP:RS and WP:DUE concerns, are standard history texts by scholars working in the area, which have ideally been published by academic/university presses in the last 1-3 decades and positively reviewed by other experts. See WP:HISTRS. Abecedare (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay. And in case a subject hasn’t been dealt in much detail by standard texts, how should we proceed? Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

That's the definition of WP:UNDUE. :)

Note that a topic, detail or viewpoint may be undue for this article but (assuming it is reliably sourceable) may well be perfectly fine and due in a more specialized wikipedia article. Abecedare (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Dear @Abecedare,

As per our earlier discussions on the subject and as you guided,

I am attaching the link to document “Dictionary of Martyrs (Volume 1) (p. 283)” published by Indian Council of Historical Research, wherein it mentions, “Guru Ram Singh believed the political freedom as a part of religion. The organisation of the Namdharis became considerably strong. The movement of boycott and noncooperation preached by Guru Ram Singh contained five essentials (i) boycott of Government services (ii) boycott of educational institutions opened by the British (iii) boycott of law courts started by the British (iv) boycott of foreign-made goods, and (v) to refuse to obey and resist the laws and orders which one’s conscience abhored. By 1863, Guru Ram Singh had a well-knit following of several thousands.”

Dr. Fauja Singh, Head of the Department of History and Punjab Historical Studies, Punjabi University, Patiala, has written a book on Kuka (Namdhari) movement, with a foreword by Prof. Humayun Kabir. A few excerpts are mentioned, ‘From the very start the movement of Bhai Ram Singh, formally founded in 1857, had a comprehensive aim to achieve, having all aspects such as religious, social and political (p.19). On the political aspect of it, Dr. Fauja Singh mentions, ‘The Kuka contacts with Kashmir and Nepal before 1872 and with Russia after 1872 (more precisely from the outbreak of the Second Afghan War) should dispel the doubts, if any, as to their political aspirations. (p. 121)’

On the basis of above two references, can we make two statements:

(1)  Guru Ram Singh is the first Indian to use non-cooperation and Boycott against imperial merchandize as political tools. (‘Dictionary of Martyrs Vol. I’ by ICHR and The Encyclopedia Britannica reference, though by general staff, clearly states that).

(2)  Namdhari Movement attempted to establish political contacts with foreign countries for ‘subversion of the British Power’ (Kuka Movement by Dr. Fauja Singh and the reference you shared in one of your earlier comments, if deemed good).

I agree with you that a more specialized analysis of the subject can be taken up in a different page, but do, in your view, the above two summarized statements make for a case in Indian Independence Movement?

Please share your views. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 04:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Let me make it very simple: Do you have any scholarly sources that treat Guru Ram Singh's contribution in the Indian independence movement to be significant? Since you are using google books, you can easily find some scholarly sources if there are any.

I did some research on this subject and look what I have found:-

"Perhaps no social reformers would ask his followers to boycott the prevailing education system without providing any alternative. Ganda Singh further says that it would be against the historical evidence to consider that Baba Ram Singh had forbidden Namdharis to join Government services . Because boycott was a later development which started with Mahatma Gandhi's swadeshi and non - cooperation movement. At the time of Baba Ram Singh there were few government services which Punjabis could take up . Punjabis and moreover Sikhs used to get service only in the army or police and at such places, there were Namdharis."[2]

Given the clear-cut dubiousness, I would not recommend addition of this information. Editorkamran (talk) 04:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The work of Dr. Fauna Singh is scholarly and objective. Different historians can have different views. In this case, then we need to cite the primary sources. There are plenty in the form of confidential British reports, which talk about it and would clearly refute the claims of Ganda Singh, that you mentioned. Nevertheless, the ICHR document is the latest.

But let’s wait for a couple of days to take other comments, and then we can Analyze all the points in totality. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 06:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

What primary source? Can you link it here? Editorkamran (talk) 06:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

A "Translation of correspondence between (Guru) Ram Singh, a Kuka prisoner and some of his followers" was made by C. Brown, Assistant to the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Special Branch dt. 20.4.1881 p.22 The summary of the contents of instructions is given therein.

Please note the instructions (through secret letters, subsequently validated as authentic by the colonial Govt.) given by Guru Ram Singh to his followers, p.23 [page 3 (d)]: Kukas prohibited from taking service under Government; Page 25 [Page 10 (b)]: Kukas prohibited from taking service under Government; p.26 [Page 16 (c)]: Kukas not to take service under Government. This is the historical evidence mentioned by the colonial administration itself on three occasions and refutes Ganda Singh's claim that 'it would be against the historical evidence to consider that Baba Ram Singh had forbidden Namdharis to join Government services'. Even this statement that 'boycott was a later development which started with Mahatma Gandhi's swadeshi and non - cooperation movement' is misinformed since the Swadeshi and Boycott movement was already under way in 1905.

Please note the context of the times we are discussing about. The analysis by Tan Tai Yong in "The Garrison State The Military, Government and Society in Colonial Punjab, 1849–1947 (p. 12)" mentions, 'One of the most distinctive features of Punjab’s colonial experience was its close and sustained relationship with the military. In the aftermath of the 1857 Revolt, the established military labour market in north-central India—the mainstay of the Bengal Army— gradually gave way to an alternative, but equally established, military labour market in north-western India, centred on the old Sikh empire in the Punjab. By the 1880s, with the Great Game in vogue and the martial races doctrine dominating recruiting policies, the Punjab province became the principal recruiting ground of the Indian Army.'

In this important market of military labour, which formed an important resource for the colonial army (in subjugating the people of Indian sub-continent as well as other colonies), the presence of Namdhari/Kuka sect was dangerous for the colonial administrators.

The letter from T.H. Thornton, Esq. Secy. to Govt., Panjab to Secy. to Govt. of India, Foreign Deptt. dt. 18.9.1866 p.21 mentions the author advising the Govt. of India, "I am to suggest that, if advisable, measures be taken for confidentially enjoining officers commanding Native Troops to ascertain, so far as is possible, what is thought of the sect by their men.." This clearly shows that the colonial administration did not want its 'men in the military stock' to get influenced by Guru Ram Singh's teachings at all.

In another letter by Inspector General of Police, Panjab to Secy. To Govt., Panjab dt. 20.1.1868 p.68, Insp. Gen. forwarded the opinion, ‘There is no doubt that all the Sikhs and Kookas among them, would be glad to see their own rule established:..’.

Due to the teachings of Guru Ram Singh, Namdhari Sikhs did not contribute to the colonial army or police. However, the rest of Punjab contributed whole-heartedly. Whatever numbers of Kukas might have been there, they would have been before they embraced his teachings. Remember, Namdhari movement started in April 1857, while the East India Company had conquered Punjab in 1849, and recruited heavily during the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857.

So far as boycott of the prevailing education system is concerned, one may consult the compilation backed with references (p. 420) to see the idea behind colonial education. Also to inform that Namdhari Sikhs were educated in Punjab language and had close association with Sikh literature. References can be given for this also. But since my reply has already taken a long space, and since I am supposed here to comment for the 2 statements that I discussed initially, I will rest my comment here, for a review by others. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 09:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I also request that while looking at the evidence, please do not rate my editing skills (I am new to Wikipedia, and I think on 'Talk' pages, editing doesn't matter as it would do on the "Article" page). Please look at the evidence with an unbiased frame of mind. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 09:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Your primary sources are not supportive of what you were trying to add to the article. I asked you to describe your primary sources only so that I can take a look at what they are actually saying. There is nothing like I am supportive of adding primary sources on main articles for the information where we are required to use scholarly sources. Editorkamran (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Dear @Editorkamran, this is kinda funny. You yourself asked to quote the primary reference. This exposes the hollowness in the claims of Ganda Singh. But how you say that Your primary sources are not supportive of what you were trying to add to the article' is surprising and interesting at the same time. Remember: we were talking about 'non-cooperation and boycott initiated by Guru Ram Singh', and you showed a statement quoting Ganda Singh, saying, 'it would be against the historical evidence to consider that Baba Ram Singh had forbidden Namdharis to join Government services'('?)

But how you think that the reference I quoted doesn't address the above issue is little beyond understanding, and we would be benefitted to know the reasoning you apply here to make your comment.

Thanks Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Also please see https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:PRIMARYNOTBAD&redirect=no in case confusions still remain. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@Bharatavarsh: Quick responses:

1. As I said previously, wikipedia editors are not in the business of analyzing primary sources. So please avoid quoting from 19th century British correspondence again.
2. Coming to secondary sources: you surely are aware of the academic debate between Fauja Singh, M. M. Ahluwalia, Bhagat Singh, Ganda Singh, Joginder Singh, Harjot Oberoi among many others over whether the Ram Singh/Kuka activism was primarily religious, political, economic or millenarian. This talk-page and article is not the right venue to discuss that. Please take that part of the discussion to Talk:Ram Singh Kuka or Talk:Namdhari, as appropriate.
3. Your quoting from the Dictionary of Martyrs illustrates perfectly the difficulty with the approach you are taking. That seven volume work, along with its 3-volume predecessor Who's who of Indian martyrs, profiles several thousand persons who played some role in the independence movement over a century, and we regularly have editors proposing that we highlight one of those persons in the main IIM or related article (see, eg, this discussion about Rao Tularam from last year and my reply there). Such picking and choosing is infeasible, and not what wikipedia editors should be doing. As I have said above, we rely on scholars writing standard texts on IIM to do the sifting and weighing, and then simply summarize them in this article.

Abecedare (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Again nice to see the reasoning in your comments, following is my reply to the points raised by you:

1.      An editor has asked me to cite primary source, that’s why, I quoted it now. Remember, this is the ‘Talk’ page, not the Article Page.

2.      With respect to the second point in your comment, Please also refer to another secondary source which I hope you would agree to: They too Fought for India‘s Freedom : The Role of Minorities edited by Ali Asghar Engineer (ISBN 81-7871-081-1). In the chapter written by Prof. T.R. Sharma, Chairman, Deptt. of Political Science, Punjab University, Chandigarh, he categorically states, “The most manifest protest to defeat the attempts of the raj to woo the Sikhs and create a divide between Hindus and the Sikhs came in 1870s in the form of a Kuka movement led by Baba Ram Singh”. You mention the difficulty in deciding whether the Kuka movement was social or political. In the next line, Prof. T.R. Sharma states, “One prominent and consistent feature of this movement and, in fact, of many other movement launched by various sects of Sikhs since then has been initially these movements began as mere socio-religious reform movements but, in due course, sometimes by accident and sometimes by design, they got transferred into political movements against the British Govt. This is equally true of the Kuka movement”. I hope you won’t have objection to this statement (quoted in a secondary source, and also covered elaborately in Dr. Fauja Singh’s work), otherwise be assured that there are a lot of primary sources to prove that in the case of Kuka movement, this was ‘deliberately by design’.

3.      In view of the secondary sources already discussed and in view of the ICHR document, I would again ask you to consider your position with respect to the points that I specifically mentioned: Guru Ram Singh initiating a movement against the British post-1857 Sepoy Mutiny defeat. I had asked for your guidance in an earlier comment: ‘Please help me in finding which “other movements” at the time of Namdhari Movement were actively participating for ‘subversion of the British Power’?’ I think in Prof. T.R. Sharma’s statement, this comes up nicely as “The most manifest protest..in the form of a Kuka movement”. Your point of including as many freedom fighters in the ‘Dictionary of Martyrs’ compilation is well taken. However, you would also note the difference of detail. Many freedom fighters have been included for ‘having participated in a protest campaign’. This clearly is not the case with Guru Ram Singh’s and Kuka Sikh’s entries. You can clearly note the vivid details of how their contributions are discussed. Also, the IIM covers the period subsequent to 1857. I have seen your reply on Rao Tula Ram. Given the secondary sources above, this is not the case for Kuka movement, and moreover, this is post-1857.

4.      Now, there is one more issue I wish to raise. There are different approaches to Indian freedom movement and if you take the colonial approach or Cambridge or the subaltern, most of the content currently on Wiki: IIM would require considerable re-consideration. Hence, it is wrong to look at Guru Ram Singh or Kuka movement from a distinctly colonial approach. Given the fact that it initiated very early (not as part of Sepoy Mutiny), there were ample chances for the imperial Government and its machinations to ridicule/downplay it (Ganda Singh being one of them). This is all the more true for a movement for which the imperial authorities remark (and since we’re on Talk page, I am again taking the liberty of quoting directly from a primary source; this has been covered by secondary sources also: (page 86)The truth is that it is not possible for a Kuka to be loyal subject of the (imperial) British Government..;

5.      Please remember that we started with a discussion on including ‘contributions of Guru Ram Singh’ in the chronology of IIM to be made on the Article Page at an appropriate place.

Valid, unbiased, available secondary sources can now be taken based on the discussion; those secondary sources, which are colonial manifestations, and who rebuttal is amply available in primary sources, though we’re not going to be in the business of going through them here in Wikipedia, can therefore, be left for a later scholarly scrutiny. And now, I am more aware of the specifics of editing on Wikipedia. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)