Talk:Nana Saheb Peshwa II

Source Criticism http://www.britishempire.co.uk/forces/armycampaigns/indiancampaigns/mutiny/cawnpore.htm, this source is named non-academic by its author, yet there are 10 footnotes leading to the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.212.26 (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Untitled
PLEASE DO NOT DELETE ALL THE BAD STUFF FROM NANA SAHEB'S HISTORY. It is bias to leave out important events that were th ecause of him actually leaving India! He was NOT a hero as has been stated! --- This page is unbelievably biased.

So where is all the bibliographic evidence to back the claims?

I intend to fully edit this page to make it less "biased". If these changes are then reverted I'll have to put a neutrality tag on it. To be quite honest I can see where this guy is coming from...[Pagren 20/04/2007]

The evidence suggested that some of the British smuggled arms into their boats - this is blatently anti-british bull-crap as anyone with any knowledge about the siege of cawnpore would know that the British were ALLOWED to depart fully armed with 60 rounds per man - it was part of the terms of surrender laid out by Nana Sahib and Azmullah Khan. I wont even bother putting a citation note in there - time to give the article a thorough going over. [Pagren 22/04/2007]

Ok I have tidied up this page and removed all of the NPOV rubbish from the Indian Mutiny section and have inputted citation requests throughout the article where statements are blatently NPOV but I will give whoever put them there a chance to back up their aquisations. Implying that the HEIC (NOT IECo) was ILLEGALLY in India gives the impression there were international courts or an United Nations at the time. Please, dont insert weasel words or anti-british or pro-indian propaganda into this article. [Pagren 22/04/2007]

Well, there isnt anything mentioned about Thomson. He was one of the survivors of the Satichuar ghat massacre and said that the English fired first... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fastaal (talk • contribs) 10:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You'll find that information in Siege of Cawnpore. utcursch | talk 12:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments by 24.110.98.44
Although I have great Admiration of Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj and Peshwa This article is full of incorrect and illogical information. First of all Peshwa's territories were annexed in the time of Peshwa Baji Rao II. and Peshwa Baji Rao II was deposed. He was given a pension of Rs. 8 Lakh. After his long struggle to concede to East India Companie's decision to Annex his territories. Although as Indians we would like to consider Nana Sahib as Baji Rao's legal heir to the throne. There was no Throne to inherit. His father BajiRao II was deposed. Regarding Pension of 8 Lakhs. If in the deed that was signed and granted between BajiRao II and East India Company there is no provison for continuance of pension to adopted son, then he has no legal or moral claims.

Although he lost in mutiny and He has to run away into wilderness, I would still consider him as hero. The person who tried to overthrow British East India Company, a corporation that was in to play of being a ruler. From my own family accounts [as my grandfather's were administrators of our pargana] Europeans had an attitude to break the treaties when no convenient and plea for or enforce the treaties when it is convenient to them depending upon situation. Other difference between Europeans compared to other who invaded or annexed Indian territories was that while treaties and deeds were signed by Indian kings or Sovereigns their counterparts were merely officers, an employee of corporation that was East India Company.It was convenient to argue that any employee's word or written promises do not count as they had no authority to give that promise or sign that treaty, particularly when it is not convenient to the masters: that is East India Company and British Crown.

Whether or not Peshwa or Chatrapaty or Moughal Emporer would have complied with British East India Compnay, EIC or HEIC was destined to depose these Rulers and Annex their territories for one simple reason. EIC and HEIC were controlled by British Parliament and essentially The British Crown. It was paramount for the British to Annex and depose these three institutions by hook or crook or The British Crown was to become subordinate of either Peshwa or Chatrapati or Moughal Emporer. And that was not acceptable. I see there was a valid point for each of them to resist and survive. I can see there were facts and some truth on each side but not complete truth. However it was sad for each of them as none of these institution was destined to survive because the paramount fact and truth was that each of them plundered, harassed and raped the common men and women of India. While British were there to make profit and British had their own home at a very distant place were they could go back in case they loose their interests. Rest had no options and no where else to go but to perish. That is what exactly happened by the year 1970.

Indian populace had always put their faith and soul when anyone [and i mean ANY dame one] who claimed to have came with the idea of helping them. The tragedy is that most were just scamsters who wanted to help themselves. Should British had any interest to treat ordinary Indian men and women as their citizens [or British subjects once they came under the control of British Crown]and as equal as their European counterparts Indians would have still been with British. But they never intended to do that because then it is a responsibility issue at large. Also imagine India and British Isle becomes one country and government is sitting in 10 downing street has prime minister who is native Indian.

I would not be surprise if some historian comes with evidence that suggest involvement of NanaSahib in Mutiny itself was a protracted plan of British to do away with him forever so that there could never be a claim by or through him. Chatrapati Pratapsingh was a classical case. He was deposed based on false claims of his involvements into plans against British. He had legitimate son and they would not allow his son to ascend to throne of Satara after Last chatrapati Sahu Maharaj whose adoption at last moments of his life were not accepted for the throne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.98.44 (talk • contribs)

Portrait
The character of Nana Sahib is a mystery. His reputation is largely formed from what others said about him, rather than from direct contemporary observations. For example, the portrait on the Wikipedia website shows a disdainful or sneering person, "a proud, fierce, cruel, sensual profile", but the picture is of an uncertain provenance.

The Wikipedia portrait of Nana Sahib is attributed to "Graham", but that does not appear in art history sources. It is described as a painting, yet it is an etching found on eBay in 2005. What is more, there are at least two different versions of this picture. One is shown here, and the other is shown here:Barbara Harlow and Mia Carter, Archives of Empire: From the East India Company to the Suez Canal, Duke University Press (2003) v. 1, p. 402.. This latter portrait has a resemblance to an imaginative picture of Rajah Kunwar Singh:  Presumably, these are the pictures which appeared in London newspapers in the years following the Kanpur massacres, but which were not of Nana Sahib. The Illustrated London News took care to describe one picture as a 'Portrait of The Supposed Nana Sahib' Perceval Landon's opinion is that "The portrait of Nana Sahib, published in The Illustrated London News at the time of the Mutiny, is said to be quite unlike him."

Others state directly: "No authentic portrait exists of Nana Sahib". "...there is no authentic portrait of the Nana in existence; it is even asserted that he was never painted by any artist, and photography had not extended to Upper India before 1857." A merchant, Ajoodia Pershad, had given a portrait of himself to John Lang, an English attorney, in 1851, and the London newspapers appropriated this as a suitable image to depict Nana Sahib. William Forbes-Mitchell, Reminiscences of the Great Mutiny, pp. 153-158. Dr. Talmadge, reporting a conversation with an eyewitness, Joseph Lee, in Cawnpore, said "Unfortunately, there is no correct picture of Nana Sahib in existence. The pictures of him published in the books of Europe and America, and familiar to us all, are an amusing mistake." Lee said they were actually pictures of Ajoodia Pershad, a merchant. Dr. Talmadge, "The City of Blood", Cass City Enterprise, (December 14, 1894) page 2. Fconaway (talk) 04:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Two months have elapsed, but no one has defended the misuse of this portrait. It should be removed from the article if no basis for using it can be adduced.Fconaway (talk) 06:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If this is all well referenced, the image should actually be included in the article (not on the infobox though) with a commentary about it being incorrect. Shyamal (talk) 11:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The picture is decidedly not one of Nana Sahib. It was used by London newspapers as part of a campaign of defamation.  In my opinion, a biographical page should not repeat this: it is slander.Fconaway (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * To document misinformation would be well within WP:NPOV imo. Shyamal (talk) 06:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

K.V.Belsare's account
Is there a translation of Prof. K. V. Belsare's Brahmachaitanya Shree Gondhavalekar Maharaj - Charitra & Vaagmay? The interesting account, provided by an unidentified editor, could be of great value, but it requires corroboration. Others have reported that Nana Sahib escaped to Nepal. Fconaway (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC) ==File:On 27 June 1857, Europeans who had been promised safe passage from Wheeler's entrenchment arrived at the Sati Chaura Ghat (jetty) to take the boat out when Nana Sahib's army ambushed them and killed many.jpg Nominated for Deletion==

No Image of Nana Sahib
A very famous commander of the 1857 rebellion & no image of him. I suggest if there is no image, we go ahead with a photo of his statue. I suggest we put. Yohannvt (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nana Sahib. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070805225742/http://www.chilit.org/SAXENA1.HTM to http://www.chilit.org/SAXENA1.HTM
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070718011021/http://www.national-army-museum.ac.uk/exhibitions/indiaRising/page10.shtml to http://www.national-army-museum.ac.uk/exhibitions/indiaRising/page10.shtml

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Re: Edits made by 103.251.211.130 on March 27, 2021‎
The user at the IP address 103.251.211.130 recently made edits to this page concerning, but not exclusive to, the Bibighar massacre which, so far as I can tell, appear to be politically motivated. For context, I've just come from reverting low-quality edits made to the scattering page from the same IP. Perhaps these changes should be reverted? colejhudson | talk 16:29, 31 March 2021 (PST)

Cause of death in lede?
The lede states that Nana Sahib was killed during a tiger hunt in Nepal in 1859. However, the main text of the article says that his final fate is unknown and there are records of him surviving up until 1861, as well as conflicting death dates as late as 1906. Why does only one particular account of his fate warrant being mentioned in the opening text when it's one of many conflicting versions? TRCRF22 (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)