Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857/Archive 6

Freedom Fighters (new thread)
I'm starting a new section for this, as the previous one ("can you answer this" or whatever it's called) is long and messy.

I honestly can't see any absolute objection to describing the anti-british forces of 1857 as "freedom fighters" - they were indisputably fighting for freedom from british rule, so I don't think there is anything intrinsically inaccurate about the title.

The objections are, IMHO:

1. That the term is not used on wikipedia, except when describing a force who dubbed themselves, or were dubbed by others, as "freedom fighters" at the time of the conflict.

2. The term is too emotive, and indicates a bias which if carried to far would seriously undermine the NPOV of the article.

My response would be that unless wikipedia defines the usage of FF explicitly, we shouldn't use wikipedia rules to dismiss it. The second charge is perhaps more valid, but I'm not convinced that FF is the thin end of the wedge - it's a term describing a specific set of objectives, and is not really a value judgement beyond the reasonable claim that perhaps indians didn't like being effectively ruled by the british.

What do others think?

Tomandlu (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There is the fact that in at least a few cases revolts occured in areas not under British rule (who were they then fighting to be free from, their own rulers), and in a number of cases reble forces attacked other Indian rulers. Whilst it's true that many were fighting to restore the old Moghal empire others were fighting to restore otehr native rulers to independant states. The objection is to the fact that the term freedom fighter referances the first war of Indian independacne, and that particilar issue has not been proved. Moreover any rebles who could be called 'freedom fighters' are already under the other headings, thus you are (effectivly) listing the same forces more then once in order to make a political point. In addition if you include freedom fighter in the list should you not also include 'loyalist' Slatersteven (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)]]


 * IMHO the disparate objectives do not invalidate the central objective of removing British control, which would justify the use of the term FF. I don't think that FF = a war (which IMHO implies a central command of some sort, and FF doesn't), and nor do I think it should replace the term "mutineers" or "rebellious sepoys". However, if it was to be used to specifically describe anti-British combatants who were not part of any official army, I would support it. And, yes, I agree that it should replace any conflicting descriptions, rather than be placed alongside them as a separate entity. For example, it could replace "Civilians from rebellious regions" in the info box.


 * I should add that I'm not entirely convinced by my own argument, but then again neither am I entirely convinced by yours... Tomandlu (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If the central objective was to remove Britsh control. Which (given the fact there were disperate objectives) has not been proved. Certainly it was a factor in many of the revolts at this time (perhaps it might be better to see this conflict as a series of simultaneous, and in some cases linked, revolts rather then as one co-ordinated effort (for which I do not belive there is much evidance, and some to indicate that this was not co-ordianted)). But it could also be argued (as in the case with the cartridge issue) that independance was less of an issue then civil rights, and it could be argued that without the cartridge issue there would have been no initial mutiny at Merrut and thus no wider rising (we could go one step further and argue that wihtout the punishment of the 3rd LC refusnicks there would not have been a revolt). Slatersteven (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Loyalist? Loyal to which cause? The Indian one or the British one? And if one compares the series of events to the American War of Independence, the trigger there was not "independence" per se but taxes. That does not mean the American War of Independence ceases to be one. 203.123.144.131 (talk) 03:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The term "Freedom Fighter" is a bad choice here, because most of the soldiers in the East India Company remained loyal to the Company. The most rebellious group was the Bengal Army, which consisted of 86000 Indian sepoys. Out of those 86000 sepoys, 80053 remained loyal to the Company as of 1 April, 1858 (read M. V. Kamath for reference). In other contingents, the percentage of the rebel sepoys was still lesser. So, most of the native sepoys remained loyal to the rulers. Those who rebelled wanted to restore the Mogul rule; the Moguls themselves were invaders who had come to India during medieval period. Freedom fighter is a relativistic term and it's improper to use it in an article like this. Even Khalistan and Azad Kashmir militants call themselves "freedom fighters". Do we start using the term "freedom fighter" to describe Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale just because he demanded 'freedom' from India to create Khalistan for Sikhs? I am not saying that those who fought against British were like these militants, but it's just not proper to use the term "freedom fighter", when the rebellion was crushed by a force that consisted mainly of native Indian soldiers who remained loyal to the British. Let Indian nationalists use the term to describe their heroes, let Khalistanis use the term to describe their 'martyrs', let Lashkar-e-Toiba use the term to describe their 'martyrs'. But, keep this politics away from Wikipedia. 125.16.17.151 (talk) 08:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay - ignoring what I consider to be irrelevant issues, I'm largely convinced that the term FF is inappropriate. I should add that it is not a term that I would've used, but it was proposed and deserved consideration. Rightly or wrongly, the term has become too politically loaded to stand independently of the cultural baggage it carries. Tomandlu (talk) 13:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The term "freedom fighters" should have no currency in any article in Wikipedia. Whenever I see the phrase I always think of "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist". The phrase stinks of POV. Jooler (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Jooler, why does it stink of POV only when it comes from a country like India? Why did American Patriots not stink of POV in pages for American War of Independence? By the way, the another man referred by you in this case is the colonial power illegally ruling a country. It is definitely stinking of POV, but I still can't figure out whether it is the term, or the anxiety to get cleared of ancestors' mistakes. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I just said "The term "freedom fighters" should have no currency in any article in Wikipedia." Jooler 13:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 125.16.17.151 The language is typical, the style is well-known, the gungadinish attitude is visible. Cant you come back as yourself fellow countryman? By the way, allow me to follow the Madras School of Communism/Evangelism, can we know the government which has officially recognised ANY of the martyrs from groups mentioned by you as Freedom Fighters? And we have shown the Indian Governments official recognition more than once for the ones mentioned by Tom. ALSO, If 80,000 of 86,000 sepoys remained loyal to British East India Company in Bengal I.e. only 6000 rebelled), and other contingents saw even smaller percentage, and the total number of deaths during the conflict comes to (officially & obviously low) more than 100,000 (the same M.V. Kamath with the same British citations); CAN SOMEONE TELL ME WHY A CONFLICT WITH MORE CIVILIAN DEATHS THAN REBELS is called a SEPOY MUTINY AT ALL? We live is a SELECTIVE NPOV Wikipedia now-a-days. I am sure concerned editor would have realized the frustration of being stonewalled as well as branded at the same time. Sock Puppetry was ONE of the allegations against Jvalant I think. LMAO! --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to be pedantic again, but the figures you have quoted above are inaccurate and misleading. The Indian strength of the Bengal Army immediately before the outbreak of the Rebellion was roughly 150,000, of which perhaps 30,000 were in locally-raised irregular corps which were not affected to the same degree as the soldiers from the Ganges plain. More than half the regular units rebelled; say 70,000. The majority of the remainder were either disbanded or disarmed. To claim that a mere 6,000 rebelled is absurd. The figure of "80000" loyal sepoys comes from the immediate aftermath of the Rebellion, after there had been heavy recruitment in the Punjab and North West Frontier Provinces. Major A.H. Amin is the most detailed source I can find. HLGallon (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Re: If the central objective was to remove Britsh control. Which (given the fact there were disperate objectives) has not been proved. If the CENTRAL OBJECTIVE of British Government is welfare of its public and improving its world image. Which (given the regular opposition cribbing and contoversies surrounding Iraq War or support of Israel has not been proved. So shouldn't we start called it an illegal British Government or something of sorts? --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It strikes me that there are good arguments against the term FF, but I also think I'm spotting a tendency to regard any edit that might be regarded as pro-indian with excessive suspicion. I think that this is inevitable, given various shenanigans, but is just as much of a threat to NPOV as allowing POV-pushers free-reign. Basically, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Tomandlu (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Its called the sepoy mutiny by some because that's how it started. For instance the War of Jenkins' Ear; it was actually about quite a bit more then Jenkins' body part. But in English texts the Indian Mutiny is the more common name.

I stand by freedom fighters not being allowed. Mention it all you want in the article saying that people regard the rebels as such but that doesn't make them so. Its such a subjective term too. If someone was so inclined (and before a witch hunt starts: I don't think anyone here is) it could well be bent that the loyalists were freedom fighters- standing up for progressive, liberal democratic Britain against the medieval mughals and all that sort of thing, (ey, wot, wot). --Josquius (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It's called the First War of Independence because that's how it ended.

Progressive, liberal democratic Britain against medieval Mughals? LOL. Sure, if the likes of Akbar in the 16th century were medieval, I would prefer those than a certain progressive, liberal, democratic person like General Dyer who showed British colors as late as 1919 in Amritsar. DemolitionMan (talk) 05:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Liberal, democratic, progressive Britain imposed martial law in Punjab, committed virtual genocide in Bengal in 1943 and forced India into WW-2 without taking into account the wishes of the people. So let's keep the Union Jack flying all over Wikipedia - such benevolence has rarely been seen by any colonial nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DemolitionMan (talk • contribs) 06:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * HLGallon, dont bother about the figures, that was a certain typical Gungadin using a proxy who will come with a white coat later to report others for that practice. Now with the correct figures given by you, since the entire Bengal contingent was either disbanded or had rebelled, our good friend Josquius has to figure out where to contact for his so-called loyalists. Or may be he is still happy with using loyalists for the new and existing recruits who came from places where there was either no rebellion (Bombay/Chennai) or the benefits of a new permanent job (Punjab)? Very selfish / Very Ignorant loyalists indeed. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That brings us back to the point, (and I would support Tom's argument, that it should NOT be made focal point since it is not really so), but WHY ABSOLUTELY EXCLUDE FF. I have given some CREDIBLE sources (credible as in one of my good friends here with severe selective amnesia refers to one of the authors always, apart from comic books, in support of his British POV) above in that Can sum1 answer... section in response to SS. Does anyone still say there is NO PROOF of it being called a War of Independence or something that involved non-combatants as a party to a large extent. At the same time, I would concede that it is not the absolute truth and should NOT be highlighted beyond its due proportion which is not very difficult to mutually agree. Apart from a certain team/duo with NOW VISIBLE British suspicions, I feel for the first time in 2 years, both sides are coming closer and this could be a great begining. I personally thank HLGallon for such a neutral and objective information providing skill. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: But in English texts the Indian Mutiny is the more common name. I thought it was Sepoy mutiny a few months back, or may be it was The Great Indian Mutiny somewhere in this very page. Mutiny has always existed, and like Jenkin's Ear, we also agreed to a so-called mutiny, we agreed to a certain City of Joy, we agreed to a British version of India which is a land of snake charmers and all other sorts of things. But when Indian Wikipedians from the regions that actively rebelled, (and neutral Indians who have more motives on this site than to propagate their careers) say that it is also called a certain TFWII in India, and the rebels are also called FFs, why does it have to be discarded outright. Why does the Indian VERSION (NOT POV) not find space anywhere it could be visible on the first look at the article. Are we so scared that it will gain prominence if given a single chance? Can the true historian wake up to face the character certficate department. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please stop repeating the same song of "British POV" and "Gungadin" over again and again. British POV would be calling the rebels as looters and plunderers (that's how the British historians described the rebels in 1850s). There is no such POV in the article. What you're trying to introduce again and again in the article is Indian POV. Please spend some time reading things other than the Brahmin and Muslim nationalist propaganda. Here are some Indian articles on 1857 uprising:
 * The Truth About the Indian Mutiny of 1857 by Ganda Singh
 * Truth Behind 1857 (part 1 and part2) by Bijla Singh
 * Mutiny of 1857 - The Search for Truth by Baldev Singh
 * Mangal Pandey : Brave Martyr or Accidental Hero? by Rudrangshu Mukherjee - describes Mangal Pandey as a drunk soldier who became accidental hero. He is being portrayed as a national hero due to Bhumihar Brahmin propaganda
 * Marhati Lavani (Mauj Prakashan, 1956) by M V Dhond - describes the sufferings of common people under the rule of Chitpavan Brahmin Peshwas. The people of Marathwada welcomed the British rule, and the non-Brahmin Marathas didn't participate in 1857 mutiny because they didn't want the oppressive casteist rule back.
 * NARRATIVE OF MUNSHI JEEWAN LAL and MAINODIN - describes the "freedom fighters" as dacoit and plunderers and talks about the atrocities they committed on Indian civilians


 * Why not introduce these Indian "versions" in the article as well? Since this is Indian, it must not be POV. Right? Predictably, you will try to label all these authors as "Gungadins" as well. Anybody who doesn't agree with you, whether Indian or British, is a "Gungadin" for you. And before you start shouting "Madrasi", let me point out that the above authors are Punjabi, Bengali, Marathi and Hindiwallah. The only thing common among them is that they are not chauvinist Brahmins or Muslims who try to revise history to depict their ancestors as "freedom fighters".


 * And DemolitionMan, before introducing irrelevant threads about General Dyer which have nothing to do with the discussion on use of freedom fighter, read some articles on "Godhra Riots", "Anti-Sikh riots", "Kilvenmani massacre", "Kherlanji massacre" etc. This is the rule your Brahmin and Muslim "freedom fighters" have established. It's no different from British rule.


 * Instead of calling others "Gungadin" and attacking people who protest against your propaganda, try to present some cogent arguments . 125.16.17.151 (talk) 09:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Umm - considering your good friend Jos claimed that British rule in India was democratic (??), progressive and liberal (downright laughable), I just decided to mention Jallianwala Bagh as a reminder of those fine traits. You have something against Brahmins now? And Muslims? Have I ever run down any region or ethnicity within India? I edited the Wiki page on Gujarat Riots...check it out. So don't patronize my with the left-wing propaganda. Fact of the matter that Jos has a single point agenda to deride any Indian claim or view as being Hindu nationalist borders on arrogance. And you are aiding him. The Mughals gave India the Taj Mahal, Akbar gave India the Din-e-Elahi, Humayun rode out to save a Rajput Queen who sent him a rakhi. Aurangzeb was bad ruler, but the majority of Mughals except him were quite good. Far better than any British viceroy. DemolitionMan (talk) 09:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Please learn to read. When I said that no one beleived that and you shouldn't start a witch hunt I included myself under that banner. Hell even if I did I wouldn't admit it as it would just set you off to start bending words (as you are doing) and we'd get nothing done here- WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FORUM. You should look elsewhere for the big nasty British bogeyman you are desperate to debate against.--Josquius (talk) 12:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Seconded - DemolitionMan, I'm not sure if you just failed to read what Josquius said properly, or if you are just trying to stir up trouble, but you are just plain wrong in the way you characterised his argument. I'd like to hope you just failed to read it properly, but since you obviously read it well enough to be able to pluck selective elements out of it, I suspect that is not the case. At any rate, I would suggest you apologise. Josquius was making a valid point - it may not be a point I entirely agree with, but that it not the issue. Tomandlu (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply by Bobby Awasthi to 125.16.17.151
'''I am responding to your OTHER views alongside you invisible shallow smelly bundle of sh*t.(nobody should report me on ethics grounds because I am only abusing an IPP address from Hyderabad, AP, India, not any individual). By the way, I did not know until today that Brahmins & Muslims were united for a certain cause against rest of India all along. Thanks for enlightening me (about the existence of morons like you).'''
 * Please stop repeating the same song of "British POV" and "Gungadin" over again and again. British POV would be calling the rebels as looters and plunderers (that's how the British historians described the rebels in 1850s). There is no such POV in the article. What you're trying to introduce again and again in the article is Indian POV. Please spend some time reading things other than the Brahmin and Muslim nationalist propaganda. Here are some Indian articles on 1857 uprising:
 * The Truth About the Indian Mutiny of 1857 by Ganda Singh - EVEN If A ONE-EYED HUMAN READS THIS ARTICLE HALF ASLEEP, HE/SHE WILL REALIZE THAT THE AUTHOR'S ONLY MOTIVE IS TO PROJECT HIS OWN CLAN IN THE RIGHT PERSPECTIVE AND THE PAIN OF BEING DITCHED DURING THE PREVIOUS ANGLO-BRITISH WAR. HOWEVER, THE SAME ARTICLE ALSO SAYS, "The argument that 'the democratic Press of the various European countries hailed the 1857 uprising as a national revolt of the Indian people' carries no weight with a man of history. It was nothing more than political propaganda of the jealous anti-British European countries against England, and was meaningless as the present-day propaganda of several European and American countries against the Soviet Union, and China. WOULD YOU GO BY THAT AND SAY, AT LEAST FOR PROPAGANDA, THERE IS A MENTION IN EUROPE OF THIS AS A WAR OF INDEPENDENCE?


 * Truth Behind 1857 (part 1 and part2) by Bijla Singh THE VERY OPENING PARAGRAPH SAYS, "Whenever India’s independence is discussed, the mutiny of 1857 comes to mind. There are numerous misconceptions related to 1857. First of all the misconception preached by most newspapers, magazines and history books is that the battle of 1857 was the first war of independence." QUOTING YOUR OWN SOURCE, DO YOU NOW ACCEPT THAT THE PHRASE IS VERY COMMON IN INDIA.
 * Mutiny of 1857 - The Search for Truth by Baldev Singh THE WHOLE ARTICLE IS WRITTEN TO CLARIFY ON A CERTAIN PHD Relocating Gender In Sikh History: Transformation, Meaning and Identity DONE BY A CERTAIN Doris R. Jakobsh IN 2000. IT ALSO TRIES TO CLARIFY ON THE COMMON PERSPECTIVE OF SIKH ROLE IN 1857 ON ITS SIDELINES. AS A ROUTINE (all three above borrow/quote/cite heavily from each other, to an extent that it feels like three names-one person. LOL) IT ALSO TRIES TO SCREW UP THE COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT 1857 FOR THE SIMPLE FACT THAT SIKHS BELIEVE ANGLO KHALSA WAR PREVIOUSLY WAS THE TRUE FIRST WAR OF INDEPENDENCE. WHAT'S YOUR POINT HERE?
 * Mangal Pandey : Brave Martyr or Accidental Hero? by Rudrangshu Mukherjee - describes Mangal Pandey as a drunk soldier who became accidental hero. He is being portrayed as a national hero due to Bhumihar Brahmin propaganda
 * Marhati Lavani (Mauj Prakashan, 1956) by M V Dhond - describes the sufferings of common people under the rule of Chitpavan Brahmin Peshwas. The people of Marathwada welcomed the British rule, and the non-Brahmin Marathas didn't participate in 1857 mutiny because they didn't want the oppressive casteist rule back. MANGAL PANDEY WAS NEVER REQUIRED TO BE PRESENTED AS A FREEDOM FIGHTER. I DONT RECOLLECT ANY MORON EXCEPT YOU RELATING THIS NAME TO THIS CONVERSATION THEREBY ALLOCATING MORE IMPORTANCE TO HIM.
 * NARRATIVE OF MUNSHI JEEWAN LAL and MAINODIN - describes the "freedom fighters" as dacoit and plunderers and talks about the atrocities they committed on Indian civilians. WHO IS SATTARKAPADIA AND WHAT IS HIS CREDIBILITY? I CAN CREATE A WEBSITE AND POST ALL I WISH TOMORROW.


 * Why not introduce these Indian "versions" in the article as well? Since this is Indian, it must not be POV. Right? Predictably, you will try to label all these authors as "Gungadins" as well. Anybody who doesn't agree with you, whether Indian or British, is a "Gungadin" for you. And before you start shouting "Madrasi", let me point out that the above authors are Punjabi, Bengali, Marathi and Hindiwallah. The only thing common among them is that they are not chauvinist Brahmins or Muslims who try to revise history to depict their ancestors as "freedom fighters".

'''I THINK RUDRANGSHU MUKHERJEE IS A HIGH-CASTE BENGALI BRAHMIN. YOU WOULD NOT KNOW BECAUSE YOU A CONVERT IGNORANT OF YOUR OWN PREVIOUS FAITH AND DISRESPECTFUL TOWARDS THE COUNTRY THAT PROVIDED YOU EMPLOYMENT. PRESENTING OBSCURE, UNVERIFIED, REMOTELY RELATED ARTICLE PAGES FROM INTERNET AS SOURCES? YOU SEEM TO HAVE LOST IT, MATE.'''
 * And DemolitionMan, before introducing irrelevant threads about General Dyer which have nothing to do with the discussion on use of freedom fighter, read some articles on "Godhra Riots", "Anti-Sikh riots", "Kilvenmani massacre", "Kherlanji massacre" etc. This is the rule your Brahmin and Muslim "freedom fighters" have established. It's no different from British rule.

'''THAT SHOWS YOUR REAL PAIN. WHY DONT YOU GO TO THE RIGHT FORUM MAN. YOU CAN CONVERT A DOZEN MORE HINDU DALITS IN THE TIME YOU ARE WASTING ON A HISTORY PAGE.'''
 * Instead of calling others "Gungadin" and attacking people who protest against your propaganda, try to present some cogent arguments . 125.16.17.151 (talk) 09:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I AM SICK AND TIRED OF PRESENTING CREDIBLE SOURCES FOR PATHETIC MORONS LIKE YOU TO COME BACK AND COUNTER WITH YOUR OWN LEVEL OF CITATIONS.


 * The fact that you're shouting by typing in all bold with caps lock on proves that you've no sensible arguments to prove me wrong. Using phrases like "invisible shallow smelly bundle of sh*t" and "PATHETIC MORONS LIKE YOU" and are a good example of the ad hominem strategy - since you know you're wrong, you are trying to insult me, instead of accepting the truth.


 * And you've followed your old strategy to dismiss the statements presented by me. You insult every single person who protests against your propaganda by calling him a Gungadin or something else. Similarly, you try to insult the authors who've written a few words the nationalist propaganda (for example "AUTHOR'S ONLY MOTIVE IS TO PROJECT HIS OWN CLAN IN THE RIGHT PERSPECTIVE"). I can also say that everybody who agrees with your view has the only motive of project his own country/caste in the right persepective.


 * As about "QUOTING YOUR OWN SOURCE, DO YOU NOW ACCEPT THAT THE PHRASE IS VERY COMMON IN INDIA", I never said that the phrase is not common in India. It is common in India, that's why the article mentions it in the intro. What does that imply? Nothing. The phrases "Indian Mutiny" and "Sepoy Mutiny" are much more common, as is evident by the Google results. My argument all this while has been that you're wrong in pushing your own view as the "right" view - the rebels should be called "freedom fighters" and the article should be titled "war of independence". I'm still satisfied if my view is not being imposed on the reader - I never asked the article to be moved to Indian Mutiny or demanded that the rebels should be called Brahmin and Muslim chauvinists (as I belive). It's you who is trying to push your POV here.


 * As for "WHAT'S YOUR POINT HERE?", my point is that there are differing views on the events of 1857, and nobody should try to impose his own view in the Wikipeida articles - that's what you're trying to do here by insisting that the rebels should be called freedom fighters in the articles and the article should be moved to war of independence.


 * About "I DONT RECOLLECT ANY MORON EXCEPT YOU RELATING THIS NAME TO THIS CONVERSATION THEREBY ALLOCATING MORE IMPORTANCE TO HIM" - thank god, you at least accepted the truth that Mangal Pandey was a drunk soldier who became an accidental hero. I thought you had been completely taken by the Indian textbooks.


 * "WHO IS SATTARKAPADIA AND WHAT IS HIS CREDIBILITY? I CAN CREATE A WEBSITE AND POST ALL I WISH TOMORROW." Again you're trying to discredit the sources because you can't accept the truth. If you don't trust that website, go to a decent library and find a book called "Two native narratives of the mutiny in Delhi". The book contains the narratives given on the website. Verify yourself. You can also find the book on many e-library services, since it is in public domain now.


 * "RUDRANGSHU MUKHERJEE IS A HIGH-CASTE BENGALI BRAHMIN" - No, he was born in a Bengali Brahmin family, but he doesn't believe in the caste prejudices. Just because somebody has a surname "Mukherjee" doesn't mean he is a Brahmin supermacist.


 * "PRESENTING OBSCURE, UNVERIFIED, REMOTELY RELATED ARTICLE PAGES FROM INTERNET AS SOURCES?" Obscure, Random, Internet? Did you go through the sources. Most of them are published books. They're not obscure - I've identified name of every single author. I can provide ISBN numbers of books if you cannot google them.


 * Nobody is talking about lack of credibility in your sources. The issue is opposition to your attempts to impose your point of view and propaganda on the Wikipedia articles. Next time, please take care not to insert your comments between my comments. I would like people to read my comments easily, without having to go through bold words typed in all caps. 125.16.17.151 (talk) 14:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Reviews of Bollywood movies in the British press are your source now? I am sure the reviewers of movies are well-versed in history. Heck, the review in the Guardian - another British newspaper is quite positive. Apparently even the character of William Gordon who fought one the sides of the Indians is real. Should we include 1 Scotsman in the infobox???? DemolitionMan (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you even read all the sources I've provided. Only one of them was a Bollywood movie review. All the rest are either books or published articles, most of them by Indian authors. Nepali Gurkhas are not "1 scotsman" 125.16.17.151 (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Where is this thread about "Freedom Fighters" going? It's an established guideline at Wikipedia, to avoid terms like "terrorist", "freedom fighter" and use more neutral terms. The person who started this thread also acknowledges that. Let's end the thread here. utcursch | talk 16:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)



""RUDRANGSHU MUKHERJEE IS A HIGH-CASTE BENGALI BRAHMIN" - No, he was born in a Bengali Brahmin family, but he doesn't believe in the caste prejudices. Just because somebody has a surname "Mukherjee" doesn't mean he is a Brahmin supermacist." Nice. And who gave you the right to decide which Brahmin qualifies as a "supremacist" and who doesn't? I love how everyone who agrees with your view irrespective of their religion or creed is flag-bearer of the NPOV and anyone who doesn't is a Hindu right-wing lunatic. DemolitionMan (talk) 06:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Include third-party views also
This article is fully written from Indian Brahmin and Muslim POV. It includes quotes from Brahmins like Somnath Chatterjee and British authors. Why not include some neutral statements from the third party authors (not British, not Indian Brahmin/Muslim).

As an example, American writer Russell Kick:

Jonathan Foreman, the editorial writer for the New York Post, who also served in the U.S. Army's 3rd Infantry Division before becoming a writer:

125.16.17.151 (talk) 09:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * About statements by Russell Kick:
 * THIS IS PATENT BULLSHIT BY AN INVISIBLE LIAR. NO SUCH THING MENTIONED IN THE BOOK


 * About statements by Jonathan Foreman
 * THIS IS PATENT BULLSHIT BY AN INVISIBLE LIAR. THE STATEMENTS BELOW ARE FOR A MOVIE.


 * The Ballad of Mangal Pandey has NOTHING WHATSOEVER with this article. So please delete those THIRD PARTIES talking about it.
 * Everything You Know Is Wrong: The Disinformation Guide to Secrets and Lies (Paperback)

by Russ Kick (Editor); has NOTHING to do with 1857 or India. YOU ARE BLATANTLY LYING. And you are testing some patience here. AM I bound by WP:DR (or for that matter WP:3RR) in case of blatant vandalism by invisible LIARS on talk page? I think no. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, please reply after my comment ends, instead of inserting your comments between sentences typed in by me. Secondly, typing in bold text with caps lock on doesn't make a lie a truth. Did you even bother to read the book before calling me a blatant liar? Here's the Google Books link - right there, at the bottom of the page, in the second column. And I can present several other sources too that acknowledge the fact that the 1857 uprising was a jihad of Muslims to install their Mughal rulers back, and an attempt by the Brahmins to gain their caste privileges back by driving out the British. As about Jonathan Foreman's statements, read his full article in Daily Mail. His article is about the criticism of the movie, but he also talks about the truth behind the 1857 uprising in order to criticize the movie for historical revisionism. So, the statements above are still applicable to the context. I really don't have time to argue with people like you who try to win arguments by typing in all caps with bold formatting, instead of indulging in calm discussions. So, goodbye for now. 125.16.17.151 (talk) 14:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Some examples to help you:
 * Azimullah Khan Brahmin
 * Rae Ahmed Nawaz Khan Kharal Brahmin
 * Sangoli Rayanna Muslim
 * Kitturu Chennamma Muslim
 * Bakht Khan Brahmin
 * 125.16.17.151 BOLD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.21.148 (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Azimullah Khan, Rae Ahmed Nawaz Khan Kharal, Bakht Khan: All of these wanted to restore the Islamic Mughal rule during which Jizya had to be paid by the Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs and Hindus to practise their religions. And that was the reason for Sikhs and low-caste Hindus refused to participate in the revolt. The Brahmins participated because they wanted their caste hierarchy back - the British had banned all sorts of caste-based discrimination being imposed by the Brahmin rulers. Why else do you think the british were able to conquer India with a handful of European soldiers? Majority of the Indians allowed the British to conquer India because they were sick of Brahmin chauvinist rule of Peshwa etc. and the oppressive rule of Muslims like Mughals.
 * Sangoli Rayanna and Kitturu Chennamma didn't participate in the revolt of 1857. They waged a war in 1820s. Go and read some good history books.
 * I never even said anything about Chennamma and Rayanna. We are talking about 1857 uprising here, not the Indian independence movement. The Indian independence movement was indeed a nationalist movement. The smaller-scaled wars of Tipu Sultan, Chennamma and others were not related to 1857 mutiny, which was a revolt of Muslims (who wanted to restore oppressive Mughal rule) and Brahmins (who wanted their caste privileges back). 125.16.17.151 (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The religion (fear of being converted to Christianity) and caste (upper-caste soldiers being treated same as the lower-caste ones) were two important factors that led to the 1857 rebellion. But, they were not the only factors; see Causes of the Indian Rebellion of 1857). The reason why most of the leaders were Muslims and Brahmins was that these were the people (Maratha Brahmins, Mughals etc.) who were ruling India before the British -- they obviously wanted their old kingdoms back. The "The Disinformation Guide to Secrets and Lies" book's arguments border on a fringe theory (see WP:FRINGE). If you want to read a good view on the 1857 rebellion as a "war of religion", read William Dalrymple's Indian mutiny was 'war of religion'. It doesn't use sensational language like "The Disinformation Guide" does. And no, I'm not a Brahmin, so don't cry "Brahmin propaganda". utcursch | talk 16:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Seconded on Dalyrmple - I would say that there's a pretty strong case to be made that the primary cause of the revolt was religion. Not just indian religion, but the impact of the christian evangelical movement from the uk. Muslims and Hindus were able to fight in a sort-of unified cause because they were protecting their individual religions from a common enemy. Meanwhile, as Dalrymple relates, in a few short years, the british had turned from a fairly open relationship with india to one that patronised and degraded indian culture and religions. IIRC in a fairly short space of time we move from white muslim converts with multiple native wives, to arrogant arseholes muttering stuff about a single shelf of european literature being worth more than the entire body of indian art or something.


 * Some recent quotations on this page have emphasised that christians were killed by the rebels, irrespective of their nationality, while muslims were spared irrespective of theirs.


 * I'm not saying that economic factors shouldn't be considered, but IMHO without the rise of evangelicalism the rebellion would never have happened. Tomandlu (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There is some evidence (particularly at Delhi) for communal violence between Hindu’s and Muslims. It is also no accident that in the two armies that had never recruited based on caste there were no significant mutinies (nor among the Sikh regiments, though there were some). All this goes to show is that were many and varied reasons for the rising, not one overriding one.Slatersteven 18:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)]]
 * Re: There is some evidence (particularly at Delhi) for communal violence between Hindu’s and Muslims. Please provide reference to your statement, OR WITHDRAW it. --Bobby Awasthi 16:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

‘Yet Bahadur Shah firmly resisted attempts to raise the green standard of revolt’…(the king of Delhi I believe?)… ‘He was only to aware of the latent hostility between Hindus and Muslims a hostility which had already flared up into minor acts of sectarian violence’… moreover the same paragraph goes on to mention that there was a danger that the revolt might spilt along religious lies. Queen Victoria’s enemies, Ian Knight, Osprey 1996, page 36 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 19:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The simple meaning of the above paragraph is that latent hostility between Hindus and Muslims are AVOIDED AND KEPT AWAY during the rebellion, albeit by which leader or what means. So, how does that give you some evidence (particularly at Delhi) for communal violence between Hindu’s and Muslims. Please search for some other book, (possibly publishing in 2009) for a much clearer contemporary source. Maybe Saul David will do a contract with BBC to publish the official history TV Commentary soon and he will collect a few eye witnesses for the event including himself. I laugh at the dual standards, on one hand newspaper references of contemporary Indian books are considered questionable and on the other hand someone publish a story-like book or an anchor/commentator on BBC is considered reliable. The idea is to WRITE history or REWRITE history. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 10:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the same book you referred to, also says the following: "As each regiment in garrisons across the country rose and threw off Company authority,...A Mutineer's Court, a revolutionary committee composed of Sepoy leaders, and members of Bahadur Shah's family was formed". (Page 34). Shouldn't this be considered as AMPLE EVIDENCE to suggest that (based on first sentence), the rebellion was NATIONAL IN NATURE and (based on second statement), there was CENTRAL LEADERSHIP, qualifying it to be what was originally debated as here "War of Independence". Good Morning, I am already aware and ready to welcome your new stand...! --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Did anyone notice the CAPITAL C in the word Company. How neutral such an author can be considered :) --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 10:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As part of a proper name "East India Company", use of a capital letter is standard English usage. I wouldn't dismiss anyone's neutrality on such trifling grounds of neo-constructivism. The Central leadership was indeed formed in Delhi, but its authority extended to little more than the city itself and some districts immediately adjacent; it didn't reach even as far as Agra. I would agree that the sepoys intended to restore the Mughal Empire, but the practice proved more difficult than the theory. HLGallon (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Accepted as part of name, not as a reference to a company. This would be like United Breweries has the largest number of Breweries in India because we want to eulogize Vijay Mallya. Neo-constructivism is something shown by putting words like It was suggested or Native Irregulars as combatants which I am sure you would know stands for what as per standard definition of a Combatant. The question is not of significance or authority or jurisdiction, the question until now raised was that the motive of rebellion was questionable in absence of clear leadership and hence no name of 'War of Independence'. Now that you agree that the intent was known, the name stands defined loud and clear, more importantly since the reference is coming from a gauranteed neutral source (though I myself signed on for the current name long back, the point is, whenever someone agrees to compromise somewhere, the other side pushes the goal posts a bit further in that eternal hope of one-up-man-ship). --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

So are you sugesting that source’s published before 2009 (by the way can I borrow you time machine?) are un-reliable (in which case your use of it is rather odd)‘He was only to aware of the latent hostility between Hindus and Muslims a hostility which had already flared up into minor acts of sectarian violence’ This clealy says that it happened not that it did not happen. What has Saul,David got to do with this, I did not quote him? It could indicate an attempt to re-impose Moghul rule, but not a wider Indian state (in the sence of wider India). If we wish to use purley regioonal wars then the Sikh claim has just as much vadaility fighting the British in India for regional imdependance. It could also indiacte an attempt to restore order, without a true nationalist agenda. For example, these couts (ect) were set up after the revolt, not before, they were a raction to new realities (we are now at war with HEIC) not part of an overall plan. Same page (and in a section you choise to edit out of your quote) ‘Sepoys would make for Delhi, to be at the centre of things with like minded collegues, and with the prospect of pay and provisions (my emphasis). Again reason to see this as less then a genuine war of (Indian) independance.Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)]]
 * You still have to find out a single source which says the VOLUNTEERS were selected from Bombay & Madras presidencies for CHARITY causes and not for wages and perks. But, does an intention to get paid well stands in way of an intention to achieve independence if both causes can be served? You mean, they are mutually exclusive? You mean Renaissance was FAKE? You mean the British movement was a farce because the constitution of Britain was written AFTER the conflict was OVER (much worse than the Indian Badmashes deciding to go ahead with their courts after the conflict started)? Good one. Try another chance to glorify your history, meanwhile just give me a go-ahead and I would paste these analogies (with your reference) in VARIOUS British history pages and direct editors there to you for further clarifications. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by charity? And I was not aware I had said anything in this discussion about the reasons for European volunteers, who were certainly not charitable (or are you talking about native ones?) If any army threatens to loot it’s capital if it is not paid (yes I have a source for this) then I would say that yes money is more important then patriotism in their thinking. That of course is the point, it has to be demonstrated that Patriotism was their primary goal, and an India wide patriotism at that, not higher pay. If an army imposes rules and agreements by force of arms on the leader it liberated then I would also question its patriotism. I am not sure what war, or British constitution you refer to, I was not aware that Britain had a written constitution. Slatersteven (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)]]

"Without concern for religious beliefs"
"without concerns for their long-held beliefs." - Why was this line removed? It is clearly mentioned in the National Army Museum website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DemolitionMan (talk • contribs) 08:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. Perceived (perhaps real) threats to religious beliefs played a factor in fomenting the Mutiny. Perhaps it could be re-worded, "were perceived to be carried out without concerns for their long-held beliefs." Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)]] Original Sentence, "A police case was filed against Mr. X because Mr. X killed Mr. Y." Edited Sentence, "A police case was filed against Mr. X." Proposed Rewording since there is a clear citation from my hometown which I cannot deny: "A police case was filed against Mr. X because he was PERCIEVED TO HAVE killed Mr. Y." Mr. X is hereby available to be cleaned up for that dark spot further. I thought Editors have to write statements without changing the meaning from how they are found on sources. Hail Queen! User:Bobby Awasthi —Preceding comment was added at 15:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually that is more or les what would have to be said, until Mr X is found guilty it is only an allegation, as there is no proof (or at least irrefutable proof) that the British knew that would up set local beliefs. If the British had ridden roughshod over all native beliefs you might have a point. But (particular as in the case of the Bengal army) they very rarely interfered with local custom, these were exceptions, and as such it may ot have occurred to the British that theses were deeply held beliefs, in fact it may be said that there were Indians who actually supported these actions. Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)]]
 * Was the cartridge later withdrawn or continued? Why was it withdrawn? (And FOR QUEEN'S SAKE, PLEASE CITE your source)
 * On one hand there is an argument that Bengal Army was rebelling because they made upper castes leave up their priviledges and go for community kitchens, lose caste based posting etal, trying to project this as an upper-caste-&-muslim rebellion; while on the other hand it is said that nothing of this sorts happened in Bengal Army? What is the truth?
 * Anyway, thats not the point. Re: particular as in the case of the Bengal army) they very rarely interfered with local custom please provide your source? If you do so, please also cite the same source with reference to 1. Banning Sati 2. Actions against Thuggee 3. The famous cartridge.
 * On an afterthought, were there court cases, and by any chance, proofs/judgements delivered against the rebels for massacres of children/ladies? Or is it so that the (innocent till proved guilty) law applies only to a certain Mr. X from a certain History Class taught in a certain Propaganda hour? (By the way, this was only an afterthought, but could possibly be used as an excuse to avoid the original questions above). --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You ask for a source, here is one saying that the rounds were to be issued ungreased. John Harris, The Indian Mutiny Wordsworth Military Library 2001, page 25, as the issue was the grease the British tried to pander to the sepoys religious sensibilities. If they were acting without concern for their beliefs they would have demanded they use the cartridges without complaint, or change. All this proves is that the British did not understand Indian strength of sentiment about caste, not that they ignored it, which they clearly did not. Were did the comment about communal kitchens come from, it is not mentioned in the article, or in this debate? Sati outlawed on 4 December 1829 in Bengal predidency. Outlawed in other ares shorlty after. Thuggee outlawed in 1835

The cartridge issue, see above.

So in the course of about 25 years the British outlawed two practices, none of which were practiced by all (and possibly not even a majority) of Indians. At least one of which was voluntary, and as such not required of a Hindu.

Yes there were judgement made, and proof provided, against rebels. Slatersteven (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)]]

i fixed something
someone put that the ottoman empire took control after the rebbelion and muhamid was a commander so i took that part out. if anyone has any objections than please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.60.57 (talk) 02:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Nepal
How is Nepal listed as one of the combatants on the British side? Is there any proof of this? Some source that states that the State/Kingdom of Nepal was allied to British in their fight against the freedom fighters? DemolitionMan (talk) 08:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This seems pretty conclusive http://www.nepaldemocracy.org/documents/treaties_agreements/nep_india_open_border.htm


 * "The Treaty of 1860 and the Nepal India Open Border


 * In recognition of the supply of Nepalese army at the disposal of the British East India Company to quell the Sepoy Mutiny, the Treaty of 1 November 1860 signed between India and Nepal restored the territory ceded to India under the 1816 Treaty of Suguali." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomandlu (talk • contribs) 11:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

So why isn't it included? Is it included under the blanket princely states banner? As that would make sense if they were so. But then their status does seem a bit odd, sort of a princely state and sort of not. The mutiny does seem to be quite an important event in Nepali history so maybe they should be added?--Josquius (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, they were a sovering nation that allied with the Britsh, and whose Prime Minister (and de-facto king) commanded the troops that were ssent in person. Slatersteven (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Was there an agreement prior to or during the War of Independence to supply troops? How the British wished to rationalize giving up territory ceded under the 1816 Treaty of Suguali is irrelevant. The US supplied fighter pilots to the UK during WW-2 to fight in the battle of Britain, but it had not formally entered the War till Pearl Harbor. So, did Nepal formally enter the War of Independence via any Treaty or Agreement? DemolitionMan (talk) 07:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Did the rebel Sepoys, Nana Sahib or Rani of Jhansi formally enter the War of Independence via any Treaty or Agreement? The fact that Rana Jang Bahadur supported the British means that they participated in the war on the Company's side:


 * "Jang Bahadur improved relations with the British by freeing the besieged colonials at Lucknow during the 1857 Mutiny." (read Landlessness and Migration in Nepal by Nanda R. Shrestha)


 * "At this time the Mutiny had broken out in India, and Jung Bahadur, anxious to show his friendship for the British, offered the assistance of troops. This time the offer was gratefully accepted, and 12000 troops, under the personal command of Jang Bahadur himself, assisted in the campaigns of 1857 and 1858, at the close of which the Prime Minister was created a Grand Commander of the Order of the Bath, and a tract of country on the Oudh frontier, ceded to the British Government in 1816, was restored to Nepal." (read The Gurkhas by W. Brook Northey, John Morris. ISBN 8120615778. Page 58.


 * Just because they don't teach in Indian textbooks doesn't mean it didn't happen. 125.16.17.151 (talk) 09:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"Did the rebel Sepoys, Nana Sahib or Rani of Jhansi formally enter the War of Independence via any Treaty or Agreement?" No they didn't - precisely why the title of the article is NOT War of Independence. Similarly, unless a nation formally allied itself to the British forces, it can't be considered engaged in the war. DemolitionMan (talk) 09:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you realize the fallacy of your argument? How does it matter whether the article of the title is "war" or "rebellion"? Nepal was engaged in a military conflict (call it what you want: "war", "mutiny", "rebellion" or "uprising"). Nepal sided with the British; its soldiers fought against the rebels, under the personal command of Jang Bahadur himself. So, it should find a mention in the Infobox (which is called "Infobox military conflict"). 125.16.17.151 (talk) 09:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Indian Peace Keeping Forces are currently operating in 18 overseas locations including Sierra Leone, Somalia (well, that reminds, US and UK were also there once upon a time) etc and many of them have Indian Generals/Commanding officers for the contingents. There are many other countries in your favourite Iraq with their soldiers commanded by their respective generals. All of them ENTERED the conflict due to a treaty (United Nations); so technically every country sending forces to any other region for whatsoever reasons, becomes a party to conflict? I AM SHOCKED at the apathy shown in logics here. And my dear Madrasi friend, keep away from Indian textbooks and concentrate on breaking the Ram Setu. Your only problem is to have studied ONLY a certain ideology to that extent where your brain is locked and sealed and no matter how much you travel, you are surrounded by the custodians of your brain, so it wont help. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

DM: It was a rebellion not a formal war. Britain didn't even have formal declaration of war paperwork let alone Nepal.--Josquius (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Moreover peacekeeping forces are supposed to be neutral they are not sent to aid only one side, the Nepalese troops were not sent to keep the peace, they specifically were sent to aid the British.Slatersteven 18:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)]]

It was a War of Independence, not just a Rebellion. The State of Nepal did not side with the British through any formal agreement. That is the crux. DemolitionMan 18:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What are coalition forces in Iraq? Are they Peace keeping forces? I suppose NOT as per UN resolution 1546. Does that make the likes of Australia, Poland etc. a party to Iraq War? I suppose NOT. Does that logic apply to Nepali support of British? I suppose yes. Is it written on Wikipedia/Are there sources? I suppose yes. (Wikipedia article Nepal] section history says Nepal ASSISTED Britain in this conflict.) Did you say a country's leader? I suppose yes. Was [[Jang Bahadur a leader of Nepal? I suppose... OFFICIALLY NO. There was a king above him. Jang Bahadur supported the British to seal his personal destiny, in his personal dictatorial capacity as the military commander, and he only participated in two battles to rescue the British garrisions under siege (Gorakhpur & Lucknow). All that does not make the country of Nepal a party to this conflict, though I wouldnt question, due to my limited knowledge, (possibly pun intended) if the Jang Bahadur needs to be kept with the likes of George Anson or Collin Campbell or Hugh Rose in the list of commanders. Upgrading Jang Bahadur to a commander, STILL DOES NOT by default upgrades Nepal to a party. In any case, the treaty of friendship (in which for the first time Nepal was considered as an independent nation by Britain) was signed only in 1923. So what was Nepal before this? At the most, a princerly state in Indian subcontinent. Otherwise, you are more than welcome to add Pakistan & Bangladesh also to the list of parties. (If 1923 is close, so is 1947 or 1971) Good Morning! --Bobby Awasthi 19:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Can we have some clarity here? AFAIK this is an argument about whether to include Nepal in the list of combatants. The distinct arguments against it are that either they didn't provide sufficient military aid to be worth counting and anyway they are essentially a "princely state" and therefore already included - is that right?


 * With regard to the first, and given that Australia and Poland are listed as combatants in the Iraq War (admittedly as a link to a more detailed article, but we don't have that luxury), then we shouldn't be trying to brush Nepal's involvement under the table.


 * The second objection looks more reasonable - I cannot tell from the Nepal history article whether the "autonomy" granted to nepal in 1816 made them distinct from the princely states - whether they had a unique relationship with the EIC and the brits that creates a clear demarcation between "india" and "nepal". One can make the claim that Nepal has never formed part of modern india, but then the same can be said of Pak. and Bang. My "Truthiness" instincts say that Nepal can legitimately be listed as a combatant, whereas P and B would be stretching it, but I'm not so convinced of my argument that I'd object if Nepal was removed from the list (but discussed in the main article).


 * Also, should we also list indian civilian combatants on both sides or neither or is it appropriate to only list them on the rebel's side?


 * Finally, let's not get into a pissing match. This is an article about an historical event, which I would hope would have a diminishing impact on modern relations and sensibilities, rather than the reverse - can't we, like, y'know, just get along? Tomandlu 20:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Civilians: I'd go with neither. Civilians get involved with pretty much any war whether they like it or not. It goes without saying that they would be involved. Nepal as a PS: yep, as I mentioned that is the question. In some ways it looks to be one (gun salutes) but in other ways it looks to be more of a conventional protectorate.--Josquius 10:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a source that offers proof that Nepal was not allied to the British as nation?. Nepal was never under British rule, it may have been a protectorate, but it was still a sovering state Slatersteven]] —Preceding comment was added at 13:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In the article on Nepal history section clearly states that Britain recognized it as a sovereign state vide a treaty only in 1923.
 * Civilians I would go with neither if they were only collateral damage since technically a civilian Combatant amounts to only a mercenary as per International Human Rights Law, but to the extent where civilians initiated/actively participated/triggered the events of significance during the rebellion, they have to be mentioned as combatants (cited/mentioned in many cases in central India). In every case they had a defined leader, a reason (howsoever local it be), open display of contemporary arms, and did not flout the rules of war (in MOST cases); so the same Law does allow us to consider them as combatants. The question is, HOW can European civilian combatants come into picture? Does that mean EIC went around recruiting peasants in Europe bringing them as peasants and then making them fight? Bit shaky there.
 * More importantly, Wikipedia is all about presenting common knowledge, and clearly says no original research, in which case, how many of us can cite Nepal as an independent party to this conflict from NEUTRAL sources? We can definitely get along, if we start CITING/QUOTING (like you tried to) than trying to give our own logics of the I THINK... variety.
 * BTW Tom, it was your own quote that you forgot, The Treaty of Suguali of 1816 was not between India & Nepal to grant them the ceded regions; the said treaty was between EIC and Nepal making Nepal accept the areas as permanently belonging to EIC, the treaty of 1860 merely gave the areas back (but obviously from British Crown to Nepal as EIC was gone by then). Simillar instances were regular with OTHER princerly states also within modern India in that duration. The recognition of Nepal as seperate entity from these states, that you mention now, happened only in 1923. --Bobby Awasthi 16:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No they did not go the to Europe the EIC went around raising units of European volunteers from those already in India. These were not official units of EIC troops, they were irregular volunteers. Saul David’s book it sates that Jung Bahdur gave permission for British troops to pursue fleeing rebels into Nepal, odd if it were under British rule (page 371). clearly says that Nepal retained its independence after ceding territory. The borders were subsequently closed to foreigners, not to be reopened until 1951 The British resident and his successors were the only aliens within Nepal’s frontiers for well over a century. Odd thing for a subject nation to do. Sorry I forgot to sighn this yesterday, I appologise. Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)]]
 * First of all I dont really respect Saul David's wisdom as the final authoritative statement on any of these events. Secondly and more importantly, you need to stop inventing points to counter. Nobody here said Nepal was UNDER British rule. The point is, it is ALREADY LISTED as one of the princerly states aiding the British side. The kind of recognition for a Sovereign nation HAPPENED ONLY IN 1923. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)#

Then can we have the number of Princley states ading the British (as we have for those rebeling?Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)]]

Both Kashmir and Nepal were independant kingdoms Shold these be included from the 18 princley states that aided the British or should the number of Princley states aiding the British be listed as 20? More inportantly where do those states whos leaders remained loyal but whoes solders rose stand in the list?Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)]]
 * I did not know NPOV was NUMBER GAMES. However, did I say any time that British side should not include numbers? It was one of your compatriots who had put the numbers on the Indian side. 18 or 20 is however, subject to your listing of names and please, spare us from Patent Bullshitters like those mentioning Arab & Afghan mercenaries on Indian side. More importantly think about what you have just said. If the soldiers stood against the wishes of the leaders of state, doesnt that give the idea of a NON-REGIONAL interest in this conflict. pfff! I think this article should be left to itself by the last obstruction in your way (myself), and eventually it will be turned into that level of British POV trash that people would say it openly. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No it would not, as those leaders were all from Northern, and central, India, which I believe is not all of India (in fact the area under revolt seems to take up about 1/3 of Indians land mass), moreover if they revolted against native rulers that hardly makes it a war of independence (except from their own rulers). That is one of the main complaints about the war of independence idea, it was not one revolt but several, and not for one reason. States aiding the British: Kashmir (Independent Kingdom) Nepal (Independent Kingdom) Kapurthala, Patiala, Sirmur, Bikaner, Jaipur, Alwar, Bharathpur, Rampur, Sirohi, Mewar, Bundi, Jaora, Bijawar, Ajaigar, Rewa , Udaipur, Keonjhar, Hyderabad Slatersteven (talk) 20:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)]]
 * The cis-Sutlej estates and scattered tracts in the Bari Doab were forfeited owing to the hostility of the chief in the First Sikh War; but the latter were afterwards restored in recognition of the loyalty of Raja Randhir Singh during the mutiny of 1857, when he led a contingent to Oudh which did good service. He also received a grant of land in Oudh, 700 m² in extent, yielding a gross rental of 89,000. In Oudh, however, he exercises no sovereign powers, occupying only the status of a large landholder, with the title of Raja-i-Rajagan. Proof that Kapurthala was involved and the king was a commander (as per classification conditions given for Rana Jung Bahadur). Reference: [] (Suggest you go and edit that page to keep your one-up-man-ship). During the Revolt of 1857 when the British invoked the treaty to request assistance in the suppression of rebellious sepoys, the Maharaja opted to preserve his treaty, and thus sent troops to subdue the uprisings in the area around Gurgaon and the out-skirts of Delhi. The Jaipur forces also secured and kept open the strategic Agra-Ajmer highway. Europeans fleeing from the menace of the mutineers were sheltered in Nahargarh Fort. Reference: [] (as per classification conditions given for Nepal & Kashmir). (Suggest you go and edit that page to keep your one-up-man-ship). Two citations given as examples to prove ALL were same as BIG LOYALS - Kashmir/Nepal (may Jung Bahadur come and recieve a different trophy from someone's house in return for Wikipedia trophy), including ALL 20 now, if anyone has objections on any name, please cite your sources NOT to include. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 09:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Raja Randhir Singh as your source says ‘however, he exercises no sovereign powers, occupying only the status of a large landholder’ Whereas Nepal was a soverign state, and Jang Badour it’s prime  minister (not just a large land owner). The Jaipur forces ‘the British invoked the treaty to request assistance in the suppression of rebellious sepoys, the Maharaja opted to preserve his treaty’ Jang Bhadur was not asked for forces, he offerd them. Moreover when the British needed to enter his territory they asked him, they did not invoke treaty rights.

Slatersteven (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)]]
 * I am not blind, but I cannot say the same for others. - Did the sentence start or stop there? The first quoted sentence above MENTIONED ONLY THE OUDH LAND GRANTED TO RAJA RANDHIR SINGH. It started with, However, in OUDH; which simply means this did not apply to his own kingdom. In case of Jaipur, I dont know if native Britons have such a bad knowledge of their mother toungue in general or this is a particular case, but to me this only means in English that there was a treaty (almost sounds like Treaty of Suguali which existed with Nepal) and ONE PARTY - namely British, invoked it, and the OTHER PARTY - namely Jeypore Ruler, preserved it by responding favourably. How different is Jaipur GIVING THE FORCES WHEN ASKED from NEPAL GIVING THE FORCES EVEN WITHOUT BEING ASKED? Wikipedia asks us to simply say what happened, whether Jaipur Ruler gave the forces out of sympathy for poor British Civilians getting killed or Jang Bahadur wanted to lick the boots more often so he went running behind EIC officers with his troops, IS NOT A WIKIPEDIA EDITOR'S JOB TO DECIPHER. By the way, let me remind, that Jang Bahadur was a mere Prime Minister and not the Ruler himself while Randhir Singh was a Ruler in all its meaning. I am getting nuts at this selective amnesia shown by certain flag bearers of British Wisdom. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 08:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It also says that Raja Randhir Singh lands were forfited, and only returned after the mutiny. So he was not a land owner or ruler at that time, he was disposesed. Did Nepal lose all of its lands? Yes we should say ONLY what happened, Nepal offered troops, Jaipur had a treaty requirment invoked, a difference. It does not matter why the difference exits, because that would be conjecture. Can you provide the clause that required Nepal to provide troops? I doubt it, because there was not one.

In 1818, several maharajas of the north-west princely states and Maharaja Jagat Singh of Jaipur, signed a treaty with the British under which they could continue to have control of their states, but would be collectively supervised by the British under a new name, Rajputana. Was Nepal forced into an EIC supervised agency? Slatersteven (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)]]

Include all 20 states
Either include all 20 states aiding the Brits in the Infobox or mention none at all. On what parameters were Nepal and Kashmir more independent Jos? In fact, they were simply more subservient... DemolitionMan (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

On the Paramiters that a source has been provided in a previous discusion stating that Nelpal was independant at the time, and that Wikipedia list both as independant at the time. Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)]]

Yep. Nepal's status has always been a bit iffy, in some ways it was a princely state of India in other ways it was a standard British protectorate. Kashmir was similar at the time though it did eventually become far more part of India- not as different as Nepal though TBH and giving it special mention isn't something I'd call for (not against it either though).--Josquius (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So were the likes of Jhansi and Oudh. Should we include that on the other side? DemolitionMan (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you will find they are, So we agre that Neplal and Kasmir (as well as "the deposed rulers of Jansi and Oudh" are different drom the other princly ststes then their inclusion as "a well as" is valid?Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)]]
 * The original question WAS/IS: HOW ARE NEPAL AND KASHMIR MORE INDEPENDENT THAN the rest of princerly states aiding the British? GOOD GMT MORNING. The argument simply means, EITHER NAME ALL, OR NAME NONE. Or does the British Crown want to use Wikipedia as a plaque to be rewarded to the most loyal supporters? --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

But I did not raise the issue of Jansi or Oudh, and as it has been claimed that they should be listed as seperate combatants in the saem way as Nepal and Kashmir then the reverse also follows. Moreover it has been demonstrated in another discusion that Nepal was not under British rule, just it's protection. How many princly states that were asked to alow British troops to enter, How many closed their boarders, How many were given land? Slatersteven (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)]]
 * .Deposed rulers of Jhansi & Oudh are different from EXISTING RULERS/STATES aiding British. Or do you mean those aiding were also deposed, you mean Nepal/Kashmir were directly under EIC control and a king/PM struggling to come back to power; in which case they should rightly be mentioned seperately since they are not represented by 20 Princerly states aiding the EIC. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 07:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not raise the issue of Jansi and Oudh, another user did, I suggest you ask them why they believe there are similarities, or why the raised them. I am mealy pointing out that if you believe (as this person seemed to) that if Nepal and Kashmir are mentioned separately then Jansi and oudh should be too, that the reveres should also be the case, as there are (or else why bring them up) similarities. No the rulers of Nepal and Kashmir were not deposed, but they were also not under the direct control of the EIC, they maintained their own armies, under their own officers and paid for by themselves, how many other princely states could make that claim?Slatersteven (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)]] You mean to say other 18 aiding the EIC like Patiala, Mewar etc DID NOT HAVE their armies paid by themselves? At that rate, Britain should be a VERY VERY poor country as of today. LOL. And if they had, then HOW are Nepal & Kashmir different from these 18? Wikipedia is not a trophy for future generations to award for most loyal servant, 250 years back. Or am I getting it wrong and the sole purpose is to eulogize the COMBATANT 2 side by having at least ONE line more. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Department of State Background Note: Nepal The Rana regime, a highly centralized autocracy, pursued a policy of isolating Nepal from external influences. This policy helped Nepal maintain its national independence during the colonial era (my emphasis), but also impeded the country's economic development.

Odd thing for the US to say if it were not the case. Highly neutral (non-British and Non-Indian, in fact it’s about a neutral as you can get), This should be conclusive proof that Nepal was regarded not just by Britain but also by other nations as an independent sovereign state.

But if it is not some links also. http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0859925.html

http://www.nepalhomepage.com/general/history.html

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Asia-and-Oceania/Nepal-HISTORY.html

http://www.photius.com/countries/nepal/national_security/nepal_national_security_from_the_anglo_nepal~10147.html

I think that will do for now.

The two examples you cited you have not provide any sources to say they were no different to Nepal. You just said that they were no different. In Saul David’s book he clearly treats Nepal as a separate case (in the sense that he does not link any reward to its ruler but to the nation itself). Moreover many sources (such as G. B. Malleson) mention Nepal, but fail to mention the other states you mention, indicating a different attitude (and relationship) towards Nepal and Kashmir.

In 1818, Mewar entering into subsidiary alliance with the British and became a princely state in the Rajputana Agency. This arrangement continued until the independence of India in 1947. Under this doctrine, Indian rulers under British protection suspended their native armies, instead maintaining British troops within their states. They surrendered control of their foreign affairs to the British. In return, the East India Company would protect them from the attacks of their rivals. This did not happen to Nepal, or Kashmir, so Mewar is clearly different to both. Oh another difference, Nepal fought wars without Britain, and maintained at least one foreign embasy (with Imperial China). Not a very good example of them being the same.

Patiala is proving harder, none of my availible books refer tp the Princley state, unlike Nepal. No web site sems to really discuse (rather they seem to gloss over) it’s involvment in the mutiny. But this again seems different ro nepal. Slatersteven (talk) 19:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)]]
 * God, give me a break from SAUL DAVID, the world's only historian left. I have CITED WIKIPEDIA ITSELF. I DID NOT SAY ANYTHING MYSELF. If Saul David or Malleson chose to reward the MOST LOYAL SLAVES only, it is neither MY problem, nor Wikipedia's. I am only adding the remaining 20 names (in fact I am surprised, you should be happy that your POV is supported further that the rebellion was all illegal/bad/hindu-muslim nationalist bla bla bla, even at the cost of WP:NPOV policies). While adding the names, I have cited the examples of two states FROM WIKIPEDIA ITSELF. Now find me a Saul David that negates those citations. (Alternatively you may chose to go to those articles and delete what I cited, as you have done in past with Devil's Wind; to maintain your one-up-man-ship.) IN BOTH CASES, THE RULERS PROVIDED THEIR OWN ARMIES TO SUPPORT EIC AND IN ONE, THE RULER RANDHIR SINGH WENT ALL THE WAY (SOME 1000 KMS) TO FIGHT IN OUDH - THE SAME PLACE WHERE THE PROUD GURKHA BECAME YOUR PERSONAL FAVOURITE (ONLY 300 KMS FROM NEPAL). If you do not have books, it is not my problem. In any case, you have so far used only one book - by Saul David, The God. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 08:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can prove that saul david breals wikipedias rukes then he is a source. As to Malleson, you your self use him as a source. As to Mewar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mewar states that Mewar entering into Subsidiary alliance  British and became a princely state in the Rajputana Agency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiary_alliance, Nepal was not subject to  Subsidiary alliance, nor was it administartivly part of any EIC agency. Two names in not 20. Nor is one (Patalia, the only one that seems to have a dearth of information). But did Patalia fight any foreign wars, did it maintain any embasy’s with other nations?

Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation, are not regarded as reliable sources. So can you provide a none –wiki source to bck up your edits. I have[[@Unless you can prove that saul david breals wikipedias rukes then he is a source. As to Malleson, you your self use him as a source. As to Mewar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mewar states that Mewar entering into Subsidiary alliance  British and became a princely state in the Rajputana Agency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiary_alliance, Nepal was not subject to  Subsidiary alliance, nor was it administartivly part of any EIC agency. Two names in not 20. Nor is one (Patalia, the only one that seems to have a dearth of information). But did Patalia fight any foreign wars, did it maintain any embasy’s with other nations?

Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation, are not regarded as reliable sources. So can you provide a none –wiki source to bck up your edits. I have (two, not one)Slatersteven (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)]]
 * Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation, are not regarded as reliable sources The MOST OUTRAGEOUS COMMENT OF YEAR award goes to this. You cited for Mewar, from Wikipedia and that would do? Reliability definition is quite selective for you. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 08:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Not at all I was pointing out that the source you used did not back up your claimSlatersteven (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)]]

Who aided the rebels
"7 Indian princely states,deposed rulers of Oudh, Jhansi and smaller states in region,"

Can we have a list of these "Smaller states in region" as the term seems rather vague.

Sorry forgot to log in, Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)]]

Wouldn't this be a bit long?

The only way I can see around that would be a seperate article ala the allies and axis in the WW2 article.--Josquius (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

NO I mant (sorry I should have been clearer) here in the dusicusio page. I can only find referance to seven princley states in total aiding the rebels (and this seems to be rather dubious). So I do not belive that there shoud also be a section saying "Smaller states in region" untill we know who they are (and can thus verify if they did). Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)]]
 * There were hundreds of (more like) villages in the central and northern India which had Zamindars given the title of Rajas, thereby making the villages themselves, states. One such Raja from Manda was an ancestor of VP Singh ex-prime minister of India. Many of these so-called states, were aligned with rebels and is evident with many sources (even British). Now since Nepal & Kashmir are considered to be named seperately IN THE INFOBOX, may be we need to start putting ALL SUCH NAMES there eventually making the infobox of Wikipedia-record size. Unfortunately, I cannot put my own village's name since my own family as Zamindar's were aligned to British, but yeah Rav Ram Baksh Singh (one of whose kins was the MP in previous term from Unnao) can be mentioned and I would provide UP tourism & other sources for Baksar in UP. I am sure if I get time, I can get up to 100 names there in the infobox a la Nepal/Kashmir on either side unless Wikipedia allows victor countries to decide the names in Infobox. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This description of the state of the Indian countryside is important enough to warrant inclusion in the text of the article, in my opinion. People seem at the moment to be spending their lives in a sterile edit war over the contents of the information box. If it was left to me, the Info. Box would contain only "East India Company" and "Rebels". Where the actions or allegiance of a given ruler (e.g. of Nepal or Jhansi) was important to the outcome or to local events of moment, it should be properly discussed in the text. HLGallon (talk) 10:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Was Manda allied with the Rebels or the British? I fail, to see the relevance of some ones descendants, can you explain it? Were theses Rajas you refer to independent rulers or satraps of other rulers? Did their contingents serves as separate commands? Did they have to swear alliance to other rulers, or allowed to govern their stats as they saw fit? As you say many similar rulers aided the British so I shall add them to the British allies, thank you for pointing out this omission.Slatersteven (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)]]
 * Re: Was Manda allied with the Rebels or the British? Obviously. ALL those who aligned with the British gained prominence (just in line with your attempts to give prominence to the big loyals like Kashmir & Nepal on Wikipedia). --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 07:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously what, that they were or were not allied to the British? I fail, to understand the point you are trying to make.Slatersteven (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)]]

Unless you can prove that saul david breals wikipedias rukes then he is a source. As to Malleson, you your self use him as a source. As to Mewar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mewar states that Mewar entering into Subsidiary alliance  British and became a princely state in the Rajputana Agency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiary_alliance, Nepal was not subject to  Subsidiary alliance, nor was it administartivly part of any EIC agency. Two names in not 20. Nor is one (Patalia, the only one that seems to have a dearth of information). But did Patalia fight any foreign wars, did it maintain any embasy’s with other nations?

Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation, are not regarded as reliable sources. So can you provide a none –wiki source to bck up your edits. Slatersteven (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)]]
 * did Patalia fight any foreign wars, did it maintain any embasy’s with other nations? Bravo! India was a member of League of Nations long before 1947. So would you accept the fact that BRITISH CROWN was an ILLEGAL OCCUPANT of the country? --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I fail to understand what relevance that has, unless you are trying claim that the League of Nations was a country (please provide a source for this). Was Patalis a member of the league of nations. YOU have not provided proof that Patalia meets these requirements then clearly it was not the same as Nepal.Slatersteven (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)]]

Hindi text
I'm wondering about the other constructive editors views on this- is the hindi title really nessesary? To the majority of people on wikipedia its just a few scribbles and means nothing. Of course hindi has its own name for the war but this isn't an exclusivly hindi thing- what is the wikipedia policy on using foreign titles as well? I suspect its meant to be just for stuff like the names of people and places where the one true version is meant to be written that way. With this though...well its a historical event, not a actual 'thing' and hindi is not the only language that has a name for it. --Josquius (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

How nice that a destructive editor is asking for the opinions of some constructive ones. And calling Hindi text "a few scribbles" borders on being downright racist. Indians visiting this page and many Indophiles would like a Hindi title too. Don't go removing stuff arbitrarily just because you don't know the policy. DemolitionMan (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Does the Hindi language page have the English version of the name?Slatersteven (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)]]

Which policy is it you are referring to? And if someone is capable of reading hindi and wants the hindi version then wouldn't they use the hindi wikipedia? If you could be helpful for a moment anyway- exactly what did that say? I suspect it may not have actually say 'Indian Rebellion of 1857' but another rather extreme POV name some apply to events.

But anyway:

Looking around to other wars that have different names in different countries (as pretty much all of them do) it seems that this article was very much a exception in having that script.

So you'd agree it shouldn't be there Steven?--Josquius (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case (and if the Hindi page does not list the British name) then yes there is no reason for the Hindi name to be here. If however it is standerd policy (I would hope that evidance would be produced to back up such a claim) that all of the names a conflict has (in their respective native tonges) are given, and that a double standerd is not being applied with regards to Wiki india then I would susgest it should stay.Slatersteven (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)]]

The Hindi page includes all 3 names - प्रथम भारतीय स्वतंत्रता संग्राम, सिपाही विद्रोह और भारतीय विद्रोह - Sepoy Mutiny, Indian Mutiny as well as War of Independence - as we can see War of Independence gets preference. That's how the majority of humanity knows these series of events. Thanks for pointing out the Wikipedia policy - the most common name needs to be used according to the policy which is "War of Independence" DemolitionMan (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Where's your proof for that? The majority calls it something along the lines of the sepoy mutiny (just look to the various foreign wikipedias to be pleasently surprised).

But anyway, that's totally besides the point here.--J 13:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You have not provided one shred of evidence to back up your claim that The First was of independence is the most common name. I agree thought we should use the most common name, so Indian mutiny it is. I meant the name in English text on the Hindi page. Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)]]

Sources in citations
See WP:V specifically WP:SOURCES "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." This means that other Wikipedia articles can not be used in citations. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop the Britishization of this page
Why was the Hindi title removed? On what basis? Till the discussion is on - put it back in there. DemolitionMan (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Its not 'Britishization' its Englishisation. Discussion above seems to suggest it should indeed be removed until something can be found in wikipedia policy that says otherwise. --J 11:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josquius (talk • contribs)

If there is no policy in place, it doesn't give you the right to wave the flag of St. George at every instance. The status quo must remain till the issue is resolved. That infact, is the policy - am sure Slater Steven can verify that. DemolitionMan (talk) 11:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a policy in place- English is the one and only language to use on English wikipedia. Its up to you to present evidence saying the foreign text should be there if you feel it should be. --J 11:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josquius (talk • contribs)

give me a link to this policy then. DemolitionMan (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW - the policy is WP:UE. In general, there is a preference for the use of English in pretty much all areas as this is an English encyclopedia. Hindi Wikipedia is reserved for Hindi language usage. I have no particular view on whether to include or remove the Hindi text. It seems like the English version of all the proposed names accurately capture the event. Is there some distinction that the Hindi version captures that is missed by the English versions? Ronnotel (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong. This is what Wikipedia policy states: "If there is no commonly used English name, use an accepted transliteration of the name in the original language. Latin-alphabet languages, like Spanish or French, should need no transliteration, but names from languages which do not use a Latin alphabet, like Chinese and Russian, do."

We have stated clearly in this article that there is no commonly used English name for these series of events. So based on the policy, shouldn't the transliteration of the name in the original language be used? DemolitionMan (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * From my own experience, Sepoy Mutiny was the name used by my Indian guide to describe the event when I visited Udaipur, where some of the action took place. No one in the group had any trouble understand what he was talking about. Ronnotel (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The 'original language'? Correct me if I'm wrong but is India not a multi-cultural society full of many, many languages, not just hindi? Also are not most sources about this sequence of events in English? Also could you please stop being so confrontational in general on this talk page, I'm just trying to improve the article and you're really making this hard with your attempts to polarise editors into pro-British or pro-Indian camps who only work for those goals. If you'd care to notice I was the one who raised the question of whether it should be removed or not, I've also asked about it on the relevant policy page. Hopefully things should be cleared up. In my view it shouldn't be there as according to you it just said the same thing as what the English text already says and doesn't really add anything but we'll see.--Him and a dog 18:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I am hardly being confrontational. It would help if you stopped the union-jackization of this page and stick to facts. India has many languages but the business of the state is conducted in two of them - English and Hindi. Besides, Hindi is the de facto national language of the country, spoken by roughly 70% of the population. No, you didn't raise the issue of whether it should be removed or not, you just went ahead and removed it. Since the transliteration of the Hindi text is different from the title of the article, according to Wikipedia policy - we should change the title to that as well. DemolitionMan (talk) 04:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No, look above, I posted first on 'Hindi text'. I also did so because that is the way wikipedia works, no major reasons to put it back have emerged though. As for changing the title to a transliteration of the hindi word... That is really not wikipedia policy at all. And besides it'd be silly.--Him and a dog 12:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * DemolitionMan this is not a new subject and it has been thoroughly discussed before (see Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857/Archive 2) -- but you should remember this as you joined in the conversation under you old handle.


 * For those who can read the foreign script it is hardly necessary to put in the translation and for the English readers who can not read the script there is no point putting it in, as any use of such a script would be merely an affectation. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it difficult for you to read English, Jos? Because that is clearly what Wikipedia policy states. Perhaps you should read it again - it might make sense this time around. And I have no comments on whether it would be silly or not - to each his own. DemolitionMan (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm right. In this case there is a generally accepted English name (or names) in the various varients on mutiny. Even your POV name of the war of independance has an accepted English version.--Him and a dog 14:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Common does not mean only. The way I read the rules is that if there is no common name (I.E. one in common usage) in English you use a none-English name, but it does not read if there is no single English name (which is how you seem to interpret it). Now if I am wrong then feel free to provide the statement from wikipedia that clearly states that this interpretation is wrong. I would also hope that you could provide a few examples of this as well.Slatersteven (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)]]