Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857/Archive 1

Untitled
 Name change vote (ends: Call for votes Ends 12:00 UMT 13 September, 2004)

General
have you ever wondered what a Harry Enfield rifle would be like....? JHK

Brahmins are the scholars and priests; while the situation has changed today and the strict occupational taboos are almost non-existent, at the time of the First Indian War of Independence there were probably no brahmins in the army. Need to verify this. pasokan


 * http://www.barbmanning.net/samples/sepoyrebellion.html agrees with the article about the composition of the army, though it doesn't mention lower caste recruitment as a reason:
 * In addition to disputes over land and religion that divided the British from their Indian subjects, there were also difficulties within the Bengal Army. Three out of every four soldiers in the Bengal Army were high caste Rajput and Brahmin Hindus, while the others were Muslims of considerable social standing...

It is called a mutiny because the historians who wrote it were British! The name of Vincent Smith readily comes to mind.


 * Not to discredit the Indian independence movement, of which this was an important event, but it is called a mutiny because soldiers turned their guns against their officers, which is what a mutiny is. Ortolan88


 * Well, they just refused to turn their guns on their countrymen, which is what they were asked to do. I'm not sure a truly NPOV historian would have labeled it a mutiny. -- Arvindn 08:22 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but the terminology is exactly correct...
 * "forcible or passive resistance to lawful authority; especially : concerted revolt (as of a naval crew) against discipline or a superior officer"
 * A mutiny is an refusal to take orders. This is clearly what occured, the title is therefore correct. If anyone is implying some sort of NPOV, it appears to be you, reading into the term something that is not there. Maury 00:16, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry but this terminology is exactly correct as well.
 * Correct me if I am wrong but I think - War of Independence means the armed struggle of a people, army or militia to remove a foreign power from their land.Which means that what we call a Mutiny may also be called a War of Independence. Aalahazrat


 * Meeruth, where the starting event took place, was not ruled by the Company. The Qaisar e Hind (Emperor of India) His Majesty Bahadur Shah Zafar was the ruler of the areas now comprising Meeruth. The Company only had the Diwani and the Nizamat of the area. Which means that the authority in Meeruth was Bahadur Shah Zafar who the troops were loyal to. So it does not at all seem to be a Mutiny. And if this is a Mutiny than the American War of Independence, the French Resistance and the Greek war of independence in the 1810s were also mutinies since they all included ... concerted revolt (as of a naval crew) against discipline of a superior officer. But since all the above are accepted to be Wars of Independence (which they most definitely are) I think the Indian 'MUTINY' of 1857 shoudl also be described as the War of Independence. Apart from this it should also be noted that Dehli was NOT AT ALL under British control before 1857 and Delhi being a centre of the revolt shows that areas NOT subservient to the British were also included in the war. Hence it goes to prove that this was not a MUTINY but a war of independence. Just because the British wrote the articles relating to the war in English and it turns up in searches all over the Internet does not change the ground realities. Aalahazrat

Oh and yes. It is a VERY SERIOUS NPOV issue. Aalahazrat


 * Whilst my initial opinions on this issue were different, I cannot help but agree with Aalahazrat's reply to Maury and Ortolan88. If we were to strictly go by the definition of mutiny, why shouldnt we call the American War Of Independence as American Mutiny? If it is because that is how it is known among the "American/Americanized", why shouldnt we make this article more "Indianized"? I have no points to make on the "motives/causes/effects" of the 'mutiny', but who defines what is appropriately called what? Chancemill 12:29, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * And I think the appropriate thing to do is to make the title of the article "First war of Indian independence" and make Sepoy Mutiny a redirect. Any further objections ? Chancemill 12:32, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

''I think the appropriate thing to do is to make the title of the article "First war of Indian independence" and make Sepoy Mutiny a redirect. Any further objections ?'' It could be classed as a mutiny, or a revolt but not a war. Calling it the 'First war of Indian independence' is simply putting a modern spin on something that happened over 150 years ago. rsloch


 * The only way in which it can be classed as a revolt would be if we consider the revolt of the British East India Companies military officers against the legitimate Emperor of India (Something even the BEIC had accepted since they operated with his firmans as legal acceptance of their rights of Diwani and Nizamat in the Empire). The soldiers cannot be said to have commited a mutiny since they were fighting under the banner of the accepted king against the midde military order which had actually been been in revolt. Also I think that if this is named as the Mutiny then the American War of Independence should also be renamed as a Mutiny. Because both the events were based on the same thing. The result of an event should not be used to name the event because history has been tarnished a lot by what we think we need to call things to present a better and cleaner picture of our past (or in this case Britannia's). aala hazrat 08:54, 2004 Apr 30 (UTC) (DAMNIT I cant get the tabs thing correctly.)

Pick a name, any name
Below is a list of names that have all been surgested for the title of the two articals that need mearging. it is not compleate, but i dont think that should stop uis on desiding one of them. None are perfect, all have been mentioned in this talk page. some have hade more discussion than others, but i cant see any reason why we cant all deside on one out of this list, even if it means going to our second or third choise.


 * 1857 rebellion
 * 1857 revolt
 * 1857 Uprising
 * 1857 war as First War of Indian Independence
 * events of 1857 a war of independence
 * Final war of Indian subjugation
 * First Indian War of Independence
 * First War of Indian Independence
 * Indian "War of Independence"
 * Indian Mutiny
 * Indian rebellion of 1857
 * Indian revolt of 1857
 * Indian revolt/revolution/rebellion of 1857
 * Indian/Sepoy Mutiny
 * rebellion of Indians
 * Revolt of 1857
 * revolutionary or independence war
 * Sepoy Mutiny
 * Sepoy Rebellion
 * Sepoy/Indian Mutiny
 * The 1857 Indian War for Independence
 * The 1857 War of Independence
 * The armed conflict of 1857 in India which the British have labeled the Indian Mutiny and Indians refer to as the First War of Independence
 * The First War Of Indian Independence
 * the Great Mutiny
 * The War of Independence of 1857
 * War for Independence
 * War of Independence of 1857

Apples and oranges
There are two separate issues here. One is what we should refer to the event as within the article, and the other is what we should title the article. As for the first question, my views are clear: I'd prefer it to be called a war of independence. Its an NPOV issue. Naming is an entirely different matter, and the wikipedia conventions on naming are unambigyous: we use the name that is most common among English speakers. And that name, I think, is either Sepoy mutiny or Indian mutiny. Offensiveness so some people doesn't count, unless the majority of people are highly offended by it. That's not the case here, either. The idea is to use the title which the casual reader is most likely to find. A truly NPOV name like The armed conflict of 1857 in India which the British have labeled the Indian Mutiny and Indians refer to as the First War of Independence doesn't quite serve that purpose.

Let me give a couple of examples to make the matter clear: the word Mecca is apparently offensive to Muslims, due to a brand of whiskey of that name, and the official name of that city is Makkah. But, you see, we haven't moved the article. Similarly, the Aryan Invasion Theory is no longer accepted by the majority of historians, and indeed, in its original form is considered racist (some "theory", that). However, the Aryan question and its related hypotheses are collectively discussed under the moniker which is most commonly attached to the issue.

Arvindn 15:56, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * While Arvindn has a point, the problem is that the Mecca example is not analogous. The alcohol reference has to do with a negative 'homonym,' not directly related subject matter. It is not a directly-imposed value judgement on Macca itself, but rather a happenstance of nomenclatural similarity. WIth the "Indian/Sepoy Mutiny," the very appelation is a negative qualification of what in other circumstances is called a revolutionary or independence war. India, for one, calls it the War for Independence, and most historians today, in light of the Indian independence movement and a lot of the really quite parasitic economic and social policies enacted by the British, would agree with the terminology of the Sepoy Mutiny being rather a preliminary battle for Independence, a rather united Muslim and Hindu fight to be rid of foreign rule. Also, how many English-speakers do you know outside of Britain who know that name? Most Americans don't. The point is that we try to use NPOV qualifications or current acceptable norms; an encyclopedia or any learning resource is a tool to disseminate updated and academically standardized information, not to cyclically and obstinately be mired in atavistic terminology. This same logic would call for all Indians to be summarily termed Hindoos, since that was what it was originally called and the Persians/British first used the term as an ethnic marker... it would mean that because most westerners know Mumbai as Bombay, we should persist in calling the article Bombay instead of its official name. That's obviously wrong. We use NPOV terminology for official naming and in the article itself address historical changes in perspective or, in this case, naming. If we don't do it there (Mumbai or Hindoo), we shouldn't do it here. I believe we should put this issue up to vote among Wikipedians, perhaps advertizing the vote in India-related pages where people who are interested and/or knowledgeable about this can give their (brief) opinions and yeas/nays for Title Page change. --LordSuryaofShropshire 15:42, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * Second that. When Arvindn says,


 * Naming is an entirely different matter, and the wikipedia conventions on naming are unambigyous: we use the name that is most common among English speakers. And that name, I think, is either Sepoy mutiny or Indian mutiny. Offensiveness so some people doesn't count, unless the majority of people are highly offended by it. That's not the case here, either.


 * I dont agree with him. What may be "most common" among English speakers IS DEFINITELY NOT be the best method to employ when writing an encyclopaedic article - because it immediately brings all NPOV policies into question, especially because, English "belonged" to Britain in the past, and was not the universal unitor that it is today - and that would make a vast majority of English history pretty one-sided. I had a similar discussion in Talk:Kolkata, and now I am almost convinced that Wikipedian policies need to be refined a little bit more, or more flexibly interpreted on such issues. Even if not many agree with me on this, let me quote the relevant line from History Standards


 * Convention: Use the form most familiar to English speakers. Name pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form.


 * What is to be noted here is the fact that the issue talked about here is not events/entities which are known by two different names which have different connotations, but rather those entities (proper nouns) which have similar sounding transliterations in the English language, (The Mecca example holds good here). So, the way I see it, I see a lot of room for ambiguity in interpreting what can be appropriate at various times.


 * And there cannot be any doubt there is a bigger English-literate population in India who know the 1857 war as First War of Indian Independence than anywhere else in the world where it may be known as Sepoy Mutiny. And by the way, I would even presume that even in UK, only graduates in history may ever know that such a momentous event did take place in 1857, in a far-off colony. This issue merits more attention than it seems at the moment. I see many more on the way, in articles that relate to India. Better get the policies right, before it gets too late. So, I second the call for a vote Chancemill 14:46, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * I was hoping for a more active response to this very important issue of nomenclature. If responses aren't heard, either in the negative or positive, I will change the page. If they are, then we can talk about this and vote! --LordSuryaofShropshire 01:32, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * I oppose a name change to First War of Indian Independence. This is not to say that I think that Sepoy Rebellion or Indian Mutiny is a better term; I accept that these latter terms carry a subtext that the lawful authority resided with the Company, which should be questioned. But because it is contentious, I'd prefer something shorter and neutral, such as 1857 Uprising. The  name First War of Indian Independence carries its own implications. One of these is that India was not independent before the uprising. In a legal sense, this could be questioned, since the Company could be seen as a tributary power of the Mughal empire, as some comments made previously in this discussion suggest.

The lawful authority in northern India at the time was the Mughal empire (at least, as many of the 'mutineers' saw it). The Company was another tributary power of the Mughal's, and one that was usurping their lawful authority. From this premise, the events of 1857, and the final passing of power from the Company to the British Crown, can be considered to be the final war of Indian subjugation, rather than the first war of Independence. The later Independence movements started decades after this, from different political roots, and there was little or no continuity between them and the 1857 event.

Imc 22:38, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * All this talk about law and technicalities and British branches of Mughal authority are well and good, but all the reports then and all the reports thereafter were about Muslim and Hindu Indians fighting against the British because they didn't want British Incursions. The war was clearly against the British East India Company and not Mughal rule. Half the reason for much of the anger was that current rulers were being displaced. the name that is now in most use and that also serves to describe the intention of the fighters (War of Independence) seems appropriate. It is called the first rightly so as India, though 'officially' not crowned, was quite aware of the British power over them. Also, trying to discredit an Independence movement just because it didn't connect directly with the later movement is not really fair, imo, as it puts this incredible onus on history to conform to one happy stream of motion whereas we all know that life is often disjunct. The 'sepoy mutiny' was very much an Indian struggle against the British rule, whether stamped officially or not.--LordSuryaofShropshire 02:27, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * I had started working on the following page (War of Independence of 1857) before I stumbled across this article. In my opinion it does represent a suitable article title.


 * "The growing Indian discontent with British rule erupted on May 10, 1857. The sepoys, who were Indians trained by the British as soldiers, heard rumors that the cartridges for their new Enfield rifles were greased with lard and beef fat. Since the cow is sacred to Hindus, and the pig is abhorrent to Muslims, all the sepoys were outraged, and they mutinied. Although initially the mutiny was spontaneous, it quickly became more organized and the sepoys even took over the cities of Delhi and Kanpur.


 * This mutiny was harshly crushed by the British. On September 20, 1857, the British recaptured Delhi, and in the following months, the British recaptured Kanpur and withstood a Sepoy siege of Lucknow. The British victories were accompanied by widespread recrimination, and in many cases, unarmed sepoys were bayonetted, sown up in the carcasses of pigs or cows, or fired from cannons."


 * This is a random article but it summarizes pretty much the general view on the whole matter. (1) While they use the word mutiny, it is clear that the soldiers were fighting against British rule. --LordSuryaofShropshire 14:09, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

The rifle cartridges in question could not possibly be for the Lee-Enfield, which wasn't going to be invented for about 50 years. The weapon in question is almost certainly the .557 calibre P/53 Enfield, to which I will change the article. Maury 00:16, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

TITLE CHANGE
No one has wrapped this up. Let us please make a vote. I'm assuming this 'edit' will attract involved persons via the watchlist function and so we'll be able to vote. We can decide the time limit of the vote when more people come and discuss it (I won't be so brash as to decide when it ends, but I do wish for it to begin, because this issue is lagging).

The name options are War of Independence of 1857 and "Sepoy/Indian Mutiny" (I group the latter two as they're part of the same naming viewpoint).

FOR War of Independence of 1857 & AGAINST "Sepoy/Indian Mutiny"
 * Indian Mutiny and Sepoy Mutiny are 1) horribly biased and POV and 2) misrepresent the nature of the war, which for all technicalities was being waged by indignant (and united) Muslims and Hindus against what they saw as a foreign element taking away their freedom, etc. and 3) history would see the War of Independence of 1857 as more accurate. LordSuryaofShropshire 16:51, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

FOR "Sepoy/Indian Mutiny" & AGAINST War of Independence of 1857
 * This is an International Encyclopaedia. War of Independence of 1857 means nothing in an international context. I've never seen this name used before. Every book I've ever read has called this the Indian Mutiny. Mintguy (T) 18:34, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Further Comments on Title Change

 * Mintguy's remarks: that's a weak argument. In this case, we have to localize all names so that other people who don't bother to read the article can understand it (we wouldn't remove all mention of sepoy or indian mutiny as other names!) World War I and World War II are therefore incorrect since from an International perspective they were only in Europe and the Pacific, but there wasn't anything going down in Africa, South America, India, or (aside from Pearl Harbor) in all of North America. I can understand, then, if you talk about weight of usage. This is where I would argue that war of independence of 1857 has quickly become (in ENGLISH texts) much more popular than before and even encyclopedias that have the title Sepoy Mutiny refer to its as the first Indian "War of Independence". Yes, the easy "Indian Mutiny" is currently, through sheer usage, more prevalent, but not so much more so that it is clearly the only distinctive marker for the war. Lastly, Wikipedia throws out sheer weight of usage when the term being used is so offensive and incorrect as to nullify such usage. "Sepoy Mutiny" or "Indian Mutiny" both imply that the insurrection against the British was 'out of order' and, according to dictionaries, "Insurrection against constituted authority, particularly military or naval authority; concerted revolt against the rules of discipline or the lawful commands of a superior officer; hence, generally, forcible resistance to rightful authority; insubordination." This is unacceptable, since by all historically sound scholarship there was nothing 'righteous' about the British incursion and, obversely, nothing 'unjust' about the rebellion of Indians. For these reasons, the new term (now gaining great currency in scholarship regarding India) "War of Independence of 1857" makes much more sense, from both an encyclopaedic and common sense point of view. --LordSuryaofShropshire 20:02, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * Firstly you seem to have a poor grasp of the extent of military activity in WWI and WW2. Both wars raged across all continents. e.g. in WWI one of the first military actions on the part of the Allies was the South African occupation of German South-West Africa. Naval action also took place off the South American coast e.g. the Battle of the Falkland Islands. The war was fought in the middle east notably with Lawrence of Arabia. In WWII, the war was fought in North Africa and also in East Africa where Italian forces in Ethiopia invaded British Somaliland. Again in the South Atlantic e.g. the Battle of the River Plate. Brazi and Argentina even declared war on Germany towards the end of the war. Far from there being "nothing going on" in India, Japanese forces actually crossed into India during their Burma campaign. Colombo in Sri Lanka was bombed. I could go on. If the term "Indian Mutiny" is so offensive why does the Indian Ministry of External affairs use the term? . Why is it named as such in the syllabus for degree level history published by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commision?. Why do the Dehli Police use the term?  etc.. The general Wikipedia policy on naming is that of the principle of least surprise, and in this case Indian Mutiny or a near equivalent overwhelmingly wins out. Mintguy (T) 21:56, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In spite of spare involvement by sectors in these areas, I still find that the world war appellation is technically invalid. Obviously, I can appreciate that in the context of world history it's the closest we've ever had, but my point is that nitpicking about the nature of the name and its lack of geographical distinction does not seem sound, and that War of Independence of 1857 is specific enough being that there weren't any other major wars of independence specifically in 1857. And yes, as I've said above, there are many places which still use the Indian Mutiny name out of habit, including many Indian quarters. I never argued that no Indian uses the name. However, I did say that "war of Independence" is gaining popularity because many people have realized the implications of 'mutiny.' You merely presented me with instances of Indians who use it. Sure. There are Hindus in India who refer to religious icons as 'idols' merely because they grew up with the term, not because they believe that they're worshipping the stone when in fact Hindus venerate its symbolism. You would not argue that there are many Indians, starting from Subhas Chandra Bose, who pointed out the word "mutiny"'s inadequacy as a marker for the rebellion and that since there is increasing discontent with its use. It makes little sense in the historical sense for reasons stated above. "principle of least surprise" in my opinion is superceded by factual inaccuracy and political incorrectness. There are about 1.5 million (or so) more google hits for 'piss' than there are for 'urine', and yet we've named the urine article urine, and not piss. We can effectively redirect 'Indian Mutiny' to 'War of Independence of 1857.' --LordSuryaofShropshire 22:14, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * War of Independence has simply not received widespread international useage. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar called his book 'The 1857 War of Independence' in 1909. It was written from a nationalist perspective nearly one hundred years ago, but the term is still not in widespread usage. I doubt whether any academc body outside of the sub-continent uses the term. A number of books published as recently last year do not refer to it as the War of Independence. Also 1857 War of Indepenence doesn't tell us where it took place. It could be anyhere. Your argument regarding urine is not worthy of comment. Mintguy (T) 22:33, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think the urine/piss thing is absolutely relevant. Just because it uses a subject which you find distasteful doesn't change the fact of this article's offensiveness and rabid P-O-V title, as urine/piss demonstrate. The spread of usage I believe still comes second to inaccuracy and offensiveness. You may quote Indians on having used the term but it's a weak statistic since Indians unknowingly use many names and terms in self-reference in English because they've inherited them from an English colonial past. As it is, in any OBJECTIVE academic context it is plain to see how the name is faulty, regardless of the background of the speaker. Secondly, your placement-argument for "War of Independence of 1857" is biased to the nth degree. Just because a name doesn't immediately geographically localize the subject doesn't render it incorrect or inadequate. As it is, it as the only "War of Independence of 1857" that we know of, and thus is quite specific. If you want we can call it the Indian "War of Independence of 1857" for the article title. --LordSuryaofShropshire 01:47, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

Indian independence movement
The article Indian independence movement also has a large section that was copied from these two articles. Maybe make this section into a stub and link to War of Independence of 1857 or Indian Mutiny? -- Chris 73 | Talk 05:15, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

1857: Independence, Sepoy, Mutiny, Rebellion, Revolt?
I hope this helps:

Sarvarkar was most likely the first person to term the, er, events of 1857 a war of independence. The "first" appellation also comes from him. Obviously, Sarvarkar's opinion might be worth a mention given the continuing importance of the RSS in Indian politics.

To my knowledge, professional historians (Indian or otherwise) tend not to use the term "Independence" for 1857, let alone "first", because (as was mentioned somewhere above) there seems to be general agreement that there is no continuity between 1857 and the post-1885 (when the Indian National Congress was founded) era leading to Independence in 1947. "Mutiny" and "Sepoy" is, however, avoided, not for their (possible) pejorative connotations, but because the evidence seems to indicate a much wider participation against the British than just from mutinous sepoys.

This leaves 1857 and "revolt"/"rebellion". To pick two examples from heavyweight (but older) historians, C.A. Bayly, in Rulers, Townsmen, and Bazaars (Cambridge University Press, 1983) uses "1857 rebellion"; and Bipan Chandra et al, in India's struggle for Independence (Penguin, 1989) uses "1857 revolt".

I suggest something like Indian revolt of 1857 as a compromise between Mutiny and Independence, but with plenty of NPOV on this topic explicitly in the article as this discussion, with suitable style changes, is relevant in an encyclopedia.

Just my two paise from a Wikipedia newbie. siva99 08:31, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Personaly, I would prefer Indian rebellion of 1857', just becuse i think its clearer. tooto 11:12, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * "Indian revolt/revolution/rebellion of 1857" are all fine. It's not a war of independence because the convention is be that only revolutions that actually achieve independence get to be called "wars of independence". Gdr 19:40, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)


 * I too agree that the Revolt/Rebellion are better choices than Mutiny or War of Independence. The only major problem I see with Mutiny is that these events weren't restricted to soldiers, as civilians also participated.  Alternatively, it could be named The 1857 Indian War for Independence (since independence wasn't technically achieved until far later).  --LuciferBlack 20:51, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Call for votes Ends 12:00 UTC September 13, 2004
Vote on the Name Change of the merged Indian Mutiny and War of Independence of 1857. Cut and paste to enter your vote for support: # ~

1857 Indian War for Independence

 * 1) LuciferBlack 19:15, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Indian Mutiny

 * 1) Mintguy (T) 17:54, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC) By far the most common name used. So according to Naming conventions (common names), moving this page to another title is against policy. Most books (even very recently published books) on the subject use this name, for example (this is just from 2004) Our Bones Are Scattered: Cawnpore Massacres and the Indian Mutiny of 1857; Andrew Ward; pub. John Murray; published 2004; - The Indian Mutiny and the British Imagination; (Cambridge Studies in Nineteenth-century Literature & Culture); Gautam Chakravarty; published 2004; - The Indian Mutiny; John Harris (Wordsworth Military Library) 2004. Searching for other names used does not yeild similar results. The CLASSIC work on this subject (published in 1980) is The Great Mutiny: India, 1857 by Christopher Hibbert. Has this poll been properly publicised? I was not aware of it until just now, and I think that the closing date is too soon. Mintguy (T)


 * "we need to temper common usage when the commonly used term is unreasonably misleading or commonly regarded as offensive to one or more groups of people." --LordSuryaofShropshire 22:32, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * So why does Gautam Chakravarty from the University of Delhi choose to use it? Mintguy (T)

Indian rebellion of 1857

 * 1) Davodd 11:17, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Imc 12:34, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) siva99 01:11, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) tooto 22:34, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC) (ok, so its a late vote)
 * 5) Ornil 19:06, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

War of 1857

 * 1) --iFaqeer 11:02, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)Why not just this? Of course, I am assuming that we will mention clearly the issue of there being raging discussion from then to now on what to call it.
 * I'm sorry but this is a complete misnomer. It would be of as much use as the now thankfully dead analogue disk record It is also possible to confuse this title with several other wars that were raging in 1857. Mintguy (T)

I'm too late to vote but it's turned out well. I'll just remind Mintguy that force of habit with a name and resultant piles of literature using the name doesn't change the fact that it's an insulting and factually inaccurate misnomer that's been undergoing a lot of scrutiny by many scholars in spite of the willingness of the majority to just 'stick with what's familiar'. --LordSuryaofShropshire 21:59, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * Please look at this reading list of recent works suggested by the National Army Museum in Chelsea. We can't ignore the fact in English the vast bulk of historians call it the Indian Mutiny. To move thage page to another title would be like moving the article on WWII to "The Great Patriotic War" Mintguy (T) 07:16, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Books by Indian and Pakistani Authors - Mintguy (T)
 * Mutiny and Its Aftermath Om Prakash(Ed) (1994)
 * Indian Mutiny to Jallianwala Bagh Tragedy, 1857-1919 by S.R. Bakshi Dr. Sangh Mittra (2003)
 * Indian Mutiny of 1857: An Annotated and Illustrated Bibliography by Vipin Jain (1998)
 * Indian Politics Since the Mutiny by CY Chintamani (2002)
 * The Indian Mutiny by Rudrangshu Mukherjee (scheduled for publication 2005)
 * Freedom fighters of Indian Mutiny 1857 by M. P Srivastava (1997)
 * The Indian mutiny of 1857 and the Sikhs by Ganda Singh (1969)
 * The Indian Mutiny, 1857 by M. P Srivastava Chugh (1979)
 * Indian Mutiny: 1857 in Bihar by Ritambhari Devi
 * English Historical Writing on the Indian Mutiny 1857-1859 by Sashi Bhusan Chaudhuri(1979)
 * Theories of the Indian Mutiny by Chaudhuri, Sashi Bhusan (1965)
 * Novels on the Indian Mutiny by Shailendra Dhari Singh (1973)

Important Proposal/Issue
I would like to re-iterate that whatever the combined article is called, we must, must have a note or section in it discussing exactly the point that the British colonial authorities, histories of different ilks (is that plural a real word), and today's South Asians all have different ways of characterizing those events. How the discussion of those events has shaped history and how it continues to shape the consciousness of all these parties is an extremely important part of the historical narrative surrounding the whole issue. I hate to re-state the obvious, but this is, after all, an encyclopedia.--iFaqeer 22:07, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * Good point. Mintguy says above “The CLASSIC work on this subject (published in 1980) is The Great Mutiny: India, 1857 by Christopher Hibbert. “ . I agree that this is a classic work, but only in terms of a thoroughgoing reiteration of the partial histories written by the British to justify their empire. However, since it is important, it may be worthwhile keeping this account in summary in Wikipedia  as 'the Indian Mutiny according to British history'. That may in fact amount to much of the current 'Indian Mutiny' article. Imc 10:36, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree only in that I don't feel it should be given a whole separate article. When one discusses a key battle in American history, one doesn't create parallel articles from the British perspective. One does, however, in the course of the article, try to objectively state and make explicit the viewpoints (and possible 'reasons' for them) of the two (or more) sides involved.--LordSuryaofShropshire 16:28, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * Objectivity in Wikipedia is difficult to establish on politically contentious topics, such as this one. Any attempt to establish such a viewpoint is likely to raise a lot of argument. Still, if the differing viewpoints can be stated for each topic (and there's lots of subtopics), and the article can still be kept coherent, then that's fine. Imc 15:35, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * This is not about objectivity. There aren't dozens of differing views of this. Both Britishers and Indians all know about the greased bullets and guns and the coalition of Indians against British armies. Everyone agrees on the facts of the war. How one views it and criticizes it is a personal opinion which may or may not get two lines 'air time' in the main article. This naming issue, which succinctly captures the two-side idea, is easily dealt with in a paragraph. Lastly, if you split this page you'd be erecting the edifice of a big, ugly DOUBLE STANDARD for history articles all across the board. There are always two sides to an event, but no one writes two articles for the same event... they include both views in a single article.--LordSuryaofShropshire 19:30, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with Lord S. I think.--iFaqeer 19:34, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * "There aren't dozens of differing views of this. Both Britishers and Indians all know about the greased bullets and guns and the coalition of Indians against British armies. Everyone agrees on the facts of the war." Umm, no, not really. There may not be dozens of different views, but there is more than one view, and this is reflected in the titles. We all know about some causes, such as greased bullets. But the importance of these is disputed. Also disputed (or never mentioned) is the importance of other events which don't get a look in in standard histories; such as the role of the Awadh nobility in the resistance, and Neill's unprovoked massacre in Varanasi. Imc 19:40, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Omissions and errors
Having looked through the article, there are some likely errors. I'm posting  those I've noticed here first, in case of comments. Some of these may be partially corrected in the other article, but not sufficiently to leap out at me.

Current Indian mutiny article. No, surely it is quite clear that the rebellion was not united. For instance, the Sikhs, Nepalis, and most people who did not want the restoration of the Mughals did not join in.
 * “It is widely acknowledged to be the first-ever united rebellion against colonial rule in India.”

AFAIK, the rebellion did not involve Bengal at all. It involved Bengal Presidency lands which is a different thing.
 * " It was also largely limited to the area of Bengal and the North. "

Was not at least one of these killed a grandson rather than a son? Also was it established that Hodson did this under his own authority? Imc 15:42, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * “... the next day British officer William Hodson shot his sons Mirza Moghul, Mirza Khizr Sultan, and Mirza Abu Bakr under his own authority.”

Integrated article Indian rebellion of 1857
I have taken it upon myself, as someone interested in history but with no great knowledge of these events, to perform the merge. I have tried to make sure that nothing is lost or changed dramatically, paragraphs have been moved around, spellings made consistant and a few lines altered for readablity. MeltBanana 17:30, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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

I think it odd that anyone would want a war, the cause of which was based on stark ignorance ("breaking caste"), so badly fought (battles regularly lost by the "revolutionaries" despite 20:1 odds in the Indian favor), the horrific massacres initiated by the "revolutionaries" and total lack of leadership. In contrast to later Indian independence movements, this whole bloody rebellion should be looked on with more shame and embarrasment than anything else. Its like the US taking pride of Mai Laior bagram. Naerhu 09:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)