Talk:Communist Party of India/Archive 1

Date of foundation
It is written that it was in 1925, then the Marxist fraction says it was in 1925 as well, but it's still different? --2.245.114.96 (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

POV
I've removed: ''CPI actively pursues policies to ensure that the masses of India remain in abject poverty, since the impoverished people are the traditional vote bank of the party. They oppose any attempts by the government to improve the indian economy.'' As it seems to be more than slightly POV. Feel free to cite a source for these allegations to reinstate. - FrancisTyers 15:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC) I have added Bhogendra Jha as a Bihar CPI leader as he was personally known to me as a brother and he virtually founded the party in the Mithila region of Bihar.

Untitled
This page not contains the actual information about communist party of India, but all the earlier information are changed by putting communist party of India(Marxist) a dissident group moved out from CPI. Here in this page we can see the opinions of Communist Party of India(Marxist)- CPI(M), quotes and reference links provided in this page are from the separated leaders like EMS, Basavapunnayya, Sankarayya. By keeping this page as it is wiki-pedia is giving wrong information. : Dineshmvpa 06:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

earlier comment
I have removed the image titled Image:Asf2003k.jpg|thumb|CPI badge shown adjacently fom the main article as this is a symbol of the CPI (M) (Communist Party of India (Marxist)) and not the CPI. The CPI symbol comprises a sickle and a sheath of corn where as the CPI(M) symbol comprises a sickle and hammer.


 * Please separate between election symbol and party symbol. CPI actively uses this symbol, but the elections symbol only at the times of election. On this picture you can clealy read (in Telugu) the name of CPI. --Soman 17:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Communist Party of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141008191615/http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1951/VOL_1_51_LS.PDF to http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1951/VOL_1_51_LS.PDF
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140718181833/http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1998/Vol_I_LS_98.pdf to http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1998/Vol_I_LS_98.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140718183222/http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1999/Vol_I_LS_99.pdf to http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1999/Vol_I_LS_99.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Communist Party of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006101549/http://kerala.gov.in/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3776%3Ahistory-of-kerala-legislature to http://kerala.gov.in/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3776%3Ahistory-of-kerala-legislature
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/000200807081550.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140718185108/http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1967/Vol_I_LS_67.pdf to http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1967/Vol_I_LS_67.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140718175452/http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1971/Vol_I_LS71.pdf to http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1971/Vol_I_LS71.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140718185438/http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1977/Vol_I_LS_77.pdf to http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1977/Vol_I_LS_77.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140718175926/http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1980/Vol_I_LS_80.pdf to http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1980/Vol_I_LS_80.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140718184911/http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1984/Vol_I_LS_84.pdf to http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1984/Vol_I_LS_84.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140718183934/http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1989/Vol_I_LS_89.pdf to http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1989/Vol_I_LS_89.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140718183558/http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1991/VOL_I_91.pdf to http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1991/VOL_I_91.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Updation of data as per 2017
I was surprised to find that no election data after 2006 exists on the page. 9 years since no one had updated the data. So I updated the Lok Sabha results from 1999-2004 to 2009-2014 ones. Any help would be appreciated to update the state legislative assembly data. I try to do it as per time permits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishant.sankhe (talk • contribs) 11:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 23rd Party Congress closing ceremony, Kollam, Kerala.jpg

Foundation in 1920
Several Indian communists claimed to found the party in 1920 in Tashkent. See M._N._Roy. Unclear what namely did they found, but the claim of Tashkent foundation is likely notable. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Controversy

 * CPI members have criticized the Indian Army and its Chief of Defence Staff General Bipin Rawat.
 * During 1962 Sino-Indian War V. S. Achuthanandan was politburo member of CPI (Later he joined CPI(M)). He suggested to organize blood donation camp for Indian army soldiers. Due to his pro-India sentiment CPI leadership sacked him for his anti-party activity. CPI supported China, putting ideology above nation.

Why you removed this section?? Your explanation doesn't make any sense to me. Split, my edit doesn't have the word Split. Please Include this controversy section to the article. The Wikipedia article of a political party have no meaning if controversy section is missing. ❯❯❯ Pra veg A=9.8 14:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you mention which line/word is not supported by citations?(Other than Demoted/Sacked dilemma) Previously, I waited for reply from, when no reply came I added that again. ❯❯❯ Pra veg A=9.8 06:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , the sacked portion is the one I was primarily referring to although there are a host of other issues in this addition which couldn't fit into an edit summary. For one, OneIndia and Newsbharati are not reliable sources. The addition also implies that V. S. Achuthanandan was sacked from the CPI in 1962 and later joined the CPI(M) which is factually inaccurate. The Indian Express article states that a probe panel of the CPI had recommended him being demoted from the central committee to the branch level. The sacking refereed to in the article is a much more recent one and clearly states that he was sacked from the CPI(M) politburo which didn't exist in 1962. It also mentions disciplinary action being taken against him in the context of a scuffle with another party member O. J. Joseph.
 * On a side-note, although the IE article initially does state that "he was demoted in the organisation's hierarchy", Achuthanandan was notably a part of the CPI national council in 1964 and one of the 32 leaders who split from the party to form the CPI(M), this fact is present on his page too. So it is unclear if he was actually even demoted (and re-elected?) or just sidelined for the period in-between, but it is pretty clear that he was not sacked.
 * Coming to the whole pro-India, pro-China thing, The Economic Times article that you have cited states the following.
 * The CIA is not a reliable source on communist activities for obvious reasons and the ET article in general also contradicts the assertion in the IE article that the undivided CPI supported China, putting ideology above nation. So why the preference of one over the other while citing both to the same text? Your added text has effectively disregarded the ET article. In general the IE article doesn't refer to anything else which would actually support its assertion, for instance it states.
 * Then refers to the findings of the probe to be "that Achuthanandan's approach was anti-communist." So, it is not much more than the opinion of the author that these events amount to supporting China and can not be stated in wiki-voice like that. Do also note that the article is an instance of human interest reporting which do not have the same editorial standards as the Indian Express generally employs.
 * Soman is after all correct that the CPI-CPI(M) split is a lot more complicated than pro-india or not, which is more or less a rhetorical devise anyways as even the IE article uses it under quotes. In general, wikipedia articles on political parties should in fact not have a controversies section as they just become POV laden sections. For instance take a look at the pages of much more well developed articles such as the Indian National Congress or the Bharatiya Janata Party (which is a good article). Tayi Arajakate  Talk 09:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The CIA is not a reliable source on communist activities for obvious reasons and the ET article in general also contradicts the assertion in the IE article that the undivided CPI supported China, putting ideology above nation. So why the preference of one over the other while citing both to the same text? Your added text has effectively disregarded the ET article. In general the IE article doesn't refer to anything else which would actually support its assertion, for instance it states.
 * Then refers to the findings of the probe to be "that Achuthanandan's approach was anti-communist." So, it is not much more than the opinion of the author that these events amount to supporting China and can not be stated in wiki-voice like that. Do also note that the article is an instance of human interest reporting which do not have the same editorial standards as the Indian Express generally employs.
 * Soman is after all correct that the CPI-CPI(M) split is a lot more complicated than pro-india or not, which is more or less a rhetorical devise anyways as even the IE article uses it under quotes. In general, wikipedia articles on political parties should in fact not have a controversies section as they just become POV laden sections. For instance take a look at the pages of much more well developed articles such as the Indian National Congress or the Bharatiya Janata Party (which is a good article). Tayi Arajakate  Talk 09:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Soman is after all correct that the CPI-CPI(M) split is a lot more complicated than pro-india or not, which is more or less a rhetorical devise anyways as even the IE article uses it under quotes. In general, wikipedia articles on political parties should in fact not have a controversies section as they just become POV laden sections. For instance take a look at the pages of much more well developed articles such as the Indian National Congress or the Bharatiya Janata Party (which is a good article). Tayi Arajakate  Talk 09:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Soman is after all correct that the CPI-CPI(M) split is a lot more complicated than pro-india or not, which is more or less a rhetorical devise anyways as even the IE article uses it under quotes. In general, wikipedia articles on political parties should in fact not have a controversies section as they just become POV laden sections. For instance take a look at the pages of much more well developed articles such as the Indian National Congress or the Bharatiya Janata Party (which is a good article). Tayi Arajakate  Talk 09:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * the undivided CPI supported China, putting ideology above nation, The undivided means before the partition of CPI. So both IE and ET were supporting the sentence. I agree that not all members of CPI supported china. Also read this: The Sino-Indian Border Controversy and the Communist Party of India. later joined the CPI(M), where I was not intentionally pointing towards split, It should be changed.
 * I also agree for demoted instead of sacked. You stated other Wikipedia articles!! The controversy section is there in CPI(M). ❯❯❯ Pra veg A=9.8 11:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The heavily biased opinion piece in the Indian Express, using wordings like "In 1962, as the Indian army fought Chinese aggression in the Himalayas, the undivided CPI supported China, putting ideology above nation" cannot be used to refence POV-pushing in a the wiki article mainspace, by copy-pasting the sentence with little context. Wikipedia isn't a blog or a WP:SOAPBOX. --Soman (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Both the ET and IE are talking about pre partition CPI. The IE article states that the CPI supported China as if it were a party position which is plain incorrect looking at the journal article and is also contradictory to the ET article which alludes to a strong factionalism regarding the stances taken with the party during the Sino-Indian war when the split hadn't happened yet, the factionalism is expanded upon in the journal article.
 * The journal article attempts to classify leaders in terms of Nationalists, Centrists and Internationalists. The Internationalists are noted to have been opposed to supporting the stances of the INC led Indian government on the border issue in its entirety, which still isn't the same as supporting China and which is what invokes the controversy. The Nationalists are also noted to be more dominant in the leadership around this period and it directly states that the party's national council voted in favor of unequivocally condemning Chinese aggression on 1 November 1962. Lastly, it is ironic that it mentions the Internationalists as the ones who later split from the party, Achuthanandan was one of those who split.
 * The journal article was a pretty interesting read though, so thank you for that. Although it might be bit of a primary source and as such imperfect due to how close to the events it is; published in 1965. I don't know how you can possibly justify that addition with it though. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 15:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The article on CPI(M) is also in the same state as this article and its section probably needs to be checked for NPOV and merged with the history section if appropriate, I was referring to well developed article, not just any article. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 15:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The journal article appeared as reference for the wiki articles a few years back, with this argument that CPI had been divided in 3, not 2, factions. Now whilst it makes some interesting claims, but I cannot find the same argument made anywhere else. So I'll be perfectly fine something like "[author name] argues that the party leaders could be divided into three categories in regards to their position at the time of the 1962: ..." But the nationalist hyperbole of wordings like "putting ideology above nation" have no place in the article mainspace. --Soman (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That said, the wording in the article on the split: " There is a common misconception that the rift during the Sino-Indian war, when Communist Party Of India proudly supported China in the war led to the 1962 split. In fact, the split was leftists vs rightists, rather than internationalists vs nationalists. The presence of nationalists in CPI, and internationalists P. Sundarayya, Jyoti Basu, and Harkishan Singh Surjeet in the Communist Party of India (Marxist) proves this fact." is argumentative. I removed the passage for now. It is also a problem that we essentially have two completely parallel narratives on the same split in the CPI and CPI(M) articles. --Soman (talk) 12:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The journal article appeared as reference for the wiki articles a few years back, with this argument that CPI had been divided in 3, not 2, factions. Now whilst it makes some interesting claims, but I cannot find the same argument made anywhere else. So I'll be perfectly fine something like "[author name] argues that the party leaders could be divided into three categories in regards to their position at the time of the 1962: ..." But the nationalist hyperbole of wordings like "putting ideology above nation" have no place in the article mainspace. --Soman (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That said, the wording in the article on the split: " There is a common misconception that the rift during the Sino-Indian war, when Communist Party Of India proudly supported China in the war led to the 1962 split. In fact, the split was leftists vs rightists, rather than internationalists vs nationalists. The presence of nationalists in CPI, and internationalists P. Sundarayya, Jyoti Basu, and Harkishan Singh Surjeet in the Communist Party of India (Marxist) proves this fact." is argumentative. I removed the passage for now. It is also a problem that we essentially have two completely parallel narratives on the same split in the CPI and CPI(M) articles. --Soman (talk) 12:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

early 1980s factionalism
I came across this factoid, which I found interesting. But adding it into the article mainspace at this stage would be a bit disproportionate and out of context since at the moment there is very little about the party history in the 1980s. It goes through the internal rifts between the party left (wanting left unity, alliance wity CPI(M)) and the party right (wanting to align with Congress(I)). Per the authors argument the CPI right-wing was principled in aligning with Congress (I) as the largest democratic force in the country for the long-term objective of democratic revolution as well as recognizing importance of Soviet position on Indira. In contrast, per the author, the CPI left-wing sought government power in short term without long-term considerations. I'll leave it here for now; "Ever since the rise of the CPI(M) and its dominance in Kerala, West Bengal and Tripura, the CPI has been split into left and right factions, [...] Rajeshwar Rao, general secretary, Rajashekhar Reddy (Andhra), M. Farooqui (Delhi), A. B. Bardhan (Maharashtra), N. E. Balaram (Kerala), Biswanath Mukherji (W. Bengal), Homi Daji (MP), Sunil Mukherji (Bihar) -- all top leaders in their respective regions are now identified with the left. Rajeshwar Rao, who remains general secretary [...] has promoted two of the left leaders - Farooqui and Bardhan - as Politburo members in order to strengthen his own position, which was threatened at one stage and that of the left generally.[..] Bihar, which has the largest CPI following, is sharply divided between left and right.

As against this, the rightists of the CPI are considerably weaker. They are led by Indradeep Sinha and Joginder Sharma (Bihar), Mohit Sen (Central leader), M. Kalyanasundrah (T. Nadu), G. K. Chandrappan (Kerala), P. K. Vasudevan Nair, H.K. Vyas (Rajasthan), Jagjit Singh Anand (Punjab), Renu Chakravarty (W. Bengal) and M.S. Krishnan (Karnataka). N. K. Krishnan, Central leader and Politburo foreign policy expert, who is a middleroader, is inclined to the right, and Romesh Chandra, president of the world peace council and close to Moscow, is also with the right. In the new alignment, Bihar, the main CPI base in the north, faces the pulls and pressures of its right and left factions.[...] Also significant is the fact that the right is now practically confined to the south and Punjab, while the main bases of the CPI (Bihar and Andhra) have gone to the left wing. It is also clear that the Hindi heartland[...] is also with the left [...]" --Soman (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * this appears to be related, on the division in WB following 1977 elections. --Soman (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

MN Roy
The name mentioned in the founders are who participated in the Kanpur foundation conference MN Roy didn't participate in that conference and he return to india after 1925. And the secretrate of CPI held in 1959 decided that the formation of CPI is Kanpur. Then the party MN Roy formed in Tashkent is only a group like the communist groups in india before 1925 ,formation of CPI. Shaheed Hemukalani (talk) 02:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you yourself outline the issue here, namely that the notion that the party was founded in 1925 was decided by the party 1959. The notion that the history of CPI began in 1925 was part of the 'nationalist' rewrite of the party history, to create a narrative that the party was indigenous and not implanted from abroad. I'd say that the better option is to remove 'founders' from the infobox, and develop the material on the 1920-1925 party history in the main article text. --Soman (talk) 10:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that was a better option. Problematic... then remove from the infobox or lead. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Social media accounts
The other parties like BJP added their social media accounts on their pages then why remove these from this page Shaheed Hemukalani (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:ELMIN applies. If that rule is not followed in other articles. DO it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Principle mass organizations
I give sources here then why you remove the name of two organizations. Shaheed Hemukalani (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Because they do not have articles. WP:RED. Those are not notable organisations since both have been removed from Wikipedia in the past. As per Wikipedia, only notable things can have articles. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've created articles for both entities now. --Soman (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You did? Well I've restored them, but note that these articles were removed in the past from the main space. One (dunno which) was removed twice. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Leadership section
Why you remove the list of leaders — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaheed Hemukalani (talk • contribs) 10:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I think only notable names of leaders need to be kept in the article with a reference to the full list in the source. Right now the section is a bloat of non notable names as copy-paste. Vikram Vincent 08:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

^ Vikram Vincent 09:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with the approach by . We cannot possibly name every "senior" CPI member on this page. I believe the criteria should be that the subject must have a Wikipedia page, (or eligible to have a page if there isn't one). The list of General Secretary (president) need to be there. Members and leaders of the party who do not deserve a wikipedia page should not be named here. Their information can be found on party websites. Like Candidate members and Invitee members should not be listed here. I believe a seperate page for the List of CPI members may need to be created, (assuming one does not exist already). You have greatly contributed to this page and discussion. What is your opinion? Walrus Ji (talk) 09:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My opinion would: OK to include lists of National Executive members and State Council Secretaries in the main article, but not every National Council member (and certainly not every state council member etc). We could have a separate articles with lists of Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, Vidhan Sabha and Vidhan Parishad members of the party, from 1952 to date. --Soman (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thanks and I support your proposal. please follow the WP:CONSENSUS. If you want, you can create list pages like other party. Walrus Ji (talk) 10:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

1920 vs 1925 vs 1933(?) foundation date
Clearly, the POV pushing on the foundation date needs to stop. A better way to approach the issue of the early party history is At the moment I don't have enough time to address this in depth, I began working on a draft for an article on 1920-1925 history of Indian communist movement at Draft:Foundation of CPI, but so far didn't manage to elaborate further. --Soman (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a dispute within the Indian communist movement whether to consider 1920 or 1925 as foundation date. The article should acknowledge both perspectives.
 * Noted that the present-day CPI upholds 1925 as foundation date, but also contextualizing how the official party history came to be construed.
 * Regardless of whether 1920 or 1925, the Indian communist movement lacked a strong central organization well up into the 1930s, neither 1920 or 1925 implies the beginning of a fully functional party organization.

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 23th CPI Party Congress Kollam.jpg
 * CPI Kollam Party Congress.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Indrajit Gupta.jpg

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * C. Rajeswara Rao.jpg
 * CPIEmblem.png

Party Flag
On Article III CPI Party constitution

Flag

The flag of the party shall be a Red Flag of which the length shall be one-and-a-half times its width. At the centre of the flag there shall be a crossed hammer and sickle in white. https://www.communistparty.in/blank Arjun Madathiparambil Muraleedharan (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The flag in the article is the one they are actually seen using, wether it is in their constitution or not! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

No, In official flag only have hammer and sickle. Arjun Madathiparambil Muraleedharan (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * What they actually uses is much more important and relevant than what their party constitution describes in mere words! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

See the flag using CPI conference https://ml.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B4%AA%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%B0%E0%B4%AE%E0%B4%BE%E0%B4%A3%E0%B4%82:Cpi_kerala_rally.jpg#mw-jump-to-license, https://newsatfirst.com/news/7999-CPI-State-conferenece-at-Malappuram Arjun Madathiparambil Muraleedharan (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


 * They use multiple flags in practice, however this one is not the most common! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)