Talk:Partition of India/Archive 2

Biased article, frivolous sources
Please remove these references and related text - they do not meet wiki standard. Or at least post a warning of bias at the top of the page.


 * 1) ^ http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3452.htm
 * 2) ^ http://hrcbm.org/
 * 3) ^ http://www.bharatvani.org/books/tfst/appii1.htm
 * 4) ^ http://books.google.co.in/books?id=G9XfpVlLfHoC&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=Bangladesh+census+10+million+missing&source=bl&ots=trcaA8irEx&sig=5nEs85E61kT2jp8GOCekf_OHVOE&hl=en&ei=gGUKTMe5N8-9rAfImJC4DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CDMQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Bangladesh%20census%2010%20million%20missing&f=false
 * 5) ^ http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/books/demogislam/part2.html
 * 6) ^ http://mayerdak.com/jnmandal.htm
 * 7) ^ http://www.indianembassy.org/consular/Overseas_Citizen/para7.htm
 * 8) ^ Bhowmik, N. C.,Repeal Enemy (Vested) Property Act for National Interest
 * 9) ^ http://www.unbconnect.com/component/news/task-show/id-16781
 * 10) ^ http://www.unbconnect.com/component/news/task-show/id-16781
 * 11) ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jogendra_Nath_Mandal
 * 12) ^ http://mayerdak.com/jnmandal.htm
 * 13) ^ http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/ambedkar_partition/index.html - Pakistan or The Partition of India by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evolving my soul (talk • contribs) 20:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Why? On first glance, most of these are from reputable sources and are perfectly acceptable by the standards of any encyclopedia. The only sources, which looks to me as unreliable, are mayerdak.com & bharatvani.org. Shovon (talk) 09:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

There was no Partition of india??
wrong fact christ angrais favour to non-muslim hindu/sikh, huge killing of muslim, never declare as in india majority of muhajirin killed seen by brigadir KAKOL.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.178.78.211 (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC) This article is misleading and devoid of facts. The whole of south asia was almagamated by the British colonial rulers into what was then called the British Raj. Thereafter, near the time of independence, certain provinces where partitioned (i.e. Bangal, Panjab). Later the respective countries of Pakistan, and one day later, India where established. Prior to all this, there never was a country called india.

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN HIJACKED
Please fix otherwise I'll start cutting out entire passages. This stuff seems to be the product of internal Indian politics and tension over their Muslim population. Having nothing to do with the partition of Pakistan and India in '47. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.175.92 (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Why individuals don't trust Wikipedia
I find large passages badly written. And when a piece of material is poorly written you automatically start to suspect it's value or worth I don't know much about the the partition, that's why I came, but some of the information has become suspect. ghgkh khgh lhgh e ope dfg; — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.51.172 (talk) 01:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Article has been hijacked, full of Racism/Bias
I read this article today and couldnt stop laughing at the large amount of nonsense and unsourced information written in it. Interestingly, when an edit is attempted, it is automatically reverted to the bias, pro-indian viewpoint with blatant racism towards Pakistan. This article has to be complete re-done as it lacks any validity or accuracy, is full of nonsensical personal rhetoric and quite frankly, a lot of Bull Sh*t (pardon my french). Also, the section The Partition Factor In The Status Of Indian Muslims has got to be the most ridiculous, warped and dilutional piece of information in the post. Please correct this article. Wikipedia is truly losing its credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.129.170 (talk) 20:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this article sucks and is full of indian bias and has been hijacked by some dilutional and warped indian.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.41.85 (talk) 04:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The The Partition Factor In The Status Of Indian Muslimssuggets that non-Muslims in India have been forced by the state to resort to "secular education" or the state provides economic benefits to Muslims who study their religious texts. None of these views is correct. If a non-Muslim wishes to study his Veda, Agama, Purana, Gita, Guru Granth Sahib etc and repudiate modern education, the state does not force him to do otherwise and a Muslim who knows Koran does not get subisdies for knowing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.248.182 (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of a book

 * Online 1 Online 2 Online 3 (A free copy of this book can be read from any 3 of the included "Online Sources" of this free “Online Book”)


 * Muslim League Attack on Sikhs and Hindus in the Punjab 1947

Please do not remove reference to this historical and notable book from on "Partition of India", it is a important reminder of the communal bloodbath, misery and hardships that became a part and parcel of the "Partition of India".

Atulsnischal 19:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please stop adding that book. It is possibly a useful primary source for a historian, but it is not from a reliable or reputable press. The books already in the list give full details of the horrors of Partition, and most of them are fearless in naming the perpetrators. (I haven't read the Pakistani book and suspect that it may be biased, but it's put out by a university press, from an accredited university, so I think it has to stay in the list, if only to give all viewpoints.) Zora 23:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * UCLA seems to disagree, Univ. Virginia. Rediff sems to assert notability as well, JSTOR, NYU. I'm reinserting link. Baka man  00:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Add Haifa's South Asian studies dept as well. Baka man  02:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Books are often on reading lists that are not reliable sources for an encyclopaedia, but primary sources for a historian, who conduct the the OR that is not permitted on WP. Your point is not an answer to Zora. Hornplease 05:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Cited by rediff and JSTOR ? WP:OR talks about editor themselves making research, not the usage of books which cite primary sources. Wikilawyering isnt going to help you censor this article. Your argument is flawed, and as a note you're not going to get any sort of cooperation from me by harrassing and pestering me for no reason. After your actions on arbcom, I will deal with you just as I deal with trolls and have decided I have no need to listen to your commentary and bad faith accusations. Baka man  16:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mam Zora

Please let the book remain there, it is an important and reliable document on that most important chapter in our history. Its good to let people know so that this kind of thing is never repeated again. Sincerely Atulsnischal 13:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear User Zora
I have noticed you are unfairly and unjustly removing content from this page on Partition of India. Please do not VADALIZE this article, we may have to report you to '''Wikipedia Administrators ''' Please do not remove content others have added, if you yourself have no useful contribution to make on this topic, kindly use your time writing articles you are truly interested in and there is none on Wikipedia

Looking forward to some great contributions from you, also some new interesting articles on Wikipedia from you sir

Sincerely

Atulsnischal 22:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not a sir, just a ma'am. You're free to report me, if you wish, but I think the other editors would agree that the references you keep trying to add are sub-standard. Not academic quality. Voice of India is a small press with a specific viewpoint, to wit:


 * VOICE OF INDIA aims at providing an ideological defence of Hindu society and culture, through a series of publications. Some of these publications have already been brought out and received wide appreciation. In this fight for men's minds, our only weapon is Truth. Truth must be told, as much about Hindu society and culture as about the alien ideologies which have been on the warpath since the days of foreign domination over the Hindu homeland.

Perhaps the press's website should be linked to the Hindutva article, if it already isn't. I can't promise you that it will be joyfully received there, however, since I'm not one of the regular editors. Zora 00:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Atul, google books is good enough. Baka man  00:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Since you wanted administrative attention, here I am. However, so far there is nothing here that appears to be an administrative matter, just a content dispute. Addressing it on that level, at the very least, significantly partisan works should be identified as such, and if we are adding them in this obviously controversial matter, we should be adding comparably partisan works from the other side. The linked college curricula appear to include partisan works from both sides, so there is no difficulty in finding appropriate materials. My own inclination would be to add neither (but possibly to link the UCLA reading list, so that the issue of retaining balance is not subject to edit wars); adding one side without adding the other is absolutely inappropriate. - Jmabel | Talk 01:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Jmabel, that sounds like a good solution (like adding the DMOZ directories to several disputed Islam-related articles). Adding not just one partisan view, but a whole range of partisan materials, would increase the article's usefulness. But I must admit that I'm not sure what you mean by the UCLA reading list. Can you explain? Zora 02:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * He means the list I cited in the earlier discusion "UCLA List". Baka man  02:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Precisely. - Jmabel | Talk 04:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Added -- I made a special section for bibliographies, which might spur students and researchers to look further. Which is what is desired, after all. Zora 05:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mam Zora

Please let the book remain there, it is an important and reliable document on that most important chapter in our history. Its good to let people know so that this kind of thing is never repeated again. Sincerely Atulsnischal 13:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * We added the UCLA site that Bakasuprman found, which links to the book. The book is not a reliable secondary source and it doesn't belong in the section where you keep trying to place it. But, as pointed out above, it could be useful to researchers in the context of all the other partisan literature. So it's here, but at one remove. Zora 19:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe rather fighting over trivial issues, we mus utilize this page to discuss the aspects and effects of the Partition of India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivekgopinathan (talk • contribs) 14:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) new post::

Don't remove the Pakistani book!
I haven't read it, but it's put out by a university press and should be considered a reliable secondary source. Removing it as a tit-for-tat, because I removed a partisan primary source, is treating Wikipedia as a battleground rather than an encyclopedia. Zora 19:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you define NPOV as tit-for tat then it was tit for tat. I added a peer-reviewed academic journal rather than the suspect Pakistani source.  Baka man  23:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The peer-reviewed article is unavailable to anyone without JSTOR access, therefore the link you added is useless. As for removing the book published by a Pakistani university press -- are you saying that it is "suspect" because it was published in Pakistan? University presses are usually a good guarantee of quality content, so you're going to have to explain why this press is different. Zora 23:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Going to a university library would allow you to use JSTOR. As you said above, the links are useful for researchers and students, most of whom can easily bum a copy of the Jstro article somewhere. What's harder to find is some random Pakistani book that isnt even focused on the partition. Baka man  23:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Speaking as a more than typically scholarly reader, who even maintains a subscription to a university library, I can tell you that a JSTOR link, which requires me to go to a university library and do my reading there, is a lot less convenient than a book that I can borrow and read at my leisure. - Jmabel | Talk 09:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Do see google book search. Its impossible to find the Pakistani book. Baka man  16:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I tried the OCLC and didn't find it either. It may be that the book had an extremely limited circulation outside Pakistan. Let's wait a bit and see if the editor who suggested it as a reference can suggest a substitute. The struggle for Pakistan, by the same author, is more narrowly focused on the Partition and is available in 292 U.S. libraries, if that would be acceptable to him/her. Zora 18:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Just two notes: First to User:Bakasuprman, I used the same parameters you suggested above at Google Book Search to look for other references in the Further reading section. First for Collins and Lapierre 1975, with Collins and then Lapierre with no success. Tried Azad 1988, Butalia 1998, Ikram, Gossman 1999, etc. and unfortunately they are all absent. I do not understand what you were trying to imply, but seems like you used the wrong search criteria. So, use proper search parameters or else you'll end up claiming to omit all references from the article!
 * Secondly, Zora, I'm not sure what keywords you used but reference is at OCLC and can also be traced through 'Library Catalogue Search' at Google Books, using the book title. -- Isle ScapeTalk 01:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Islescape. I was searching for A Short History of Pakistan and didn't find anything. However -- since that book is only in 30 US libraries and The Struggle for Pakistan is in 300, and more narrowly focussed, a substitution might work? I'm not going to push for this, however, since I've read neither book. I just think a Pakistani POV should be represented. Zora 04:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I really appreciate your determination for NPOV. It seems that the poor book has received more than necessary attention merely for being the only one published in Pakistan out of the listed eight, of which 4, certainly presenting some POV, are published in India (Yes, Collins and Lapierre 1975 were reprinted Lapierre and Collins 1997 ISBN: 8125904808). The lack of availability is due to the fact that only large international publication houses can reach wider array of libraries. As in this case, e.g. Ikram 1995 is only in 4 US libraries, whereas same publisher's Sherwani 1989 doesn't give a single hit!. In this situation, addition and omission seems more likely than substitution. I can look for some more focused references if you wish. -- Isle ScapeTalk 18:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If Sherwani is completely unavailable, perhaps we should remove it. As you say, there are certainly enough books representing the Indian POV. If you wish to leave the HOP and add another Pakistani book, that seems fair enough. Is there any book that takes a "pox on both their houses" stance? I suppose that's my POV -- I see tragic human greed for power, stupidity, and hatred on all sides. Zora 20:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

At least the Muslims could stay where they lived. Its not like Abdul Kalam, Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, Sania Mirza, and Irfan Pathan are suffering. Baka man  20:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Your claim that India has always treated its Muslims well is debatable, as well as completely beside the point. We're trying to agree on a representative variety of academic histories of the Partition. Zora 22:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Beside the point? The point is that extremists like Madani are going to cry foul about claiming persecution everywhere they go. The cold hard fact is that Hindus are under constant persecution in Pakistan, and that Muslims in India are actually more equal than other groups. Note that in Pakistan, everyone is equal under the law, the same laws apply to everyone, whether a person is Hindu, Muslim, Christian, or Parsee. In India there's different laws for different religions. Whos treated better? Bringing this on subject, logically Pakistani's have nothing to complain about. Couple this with the fact that Pakistani textbooks are automatically suspect (notorious for lies about "kaffirs"), and we can find that apart from encyclopedias, there is no Pakistani POV. Pakistan's legitimacy as a country depends on the two-nation theory, their accounts are obviously going to glorify partition. Baka man  22:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * With the unintentional help of Islescape, I dig some digging on this book. The peer reviews of this text are not kind to it, as plainly seen by the article A Short History of Pakistan. Academic peer reviewers have heavily criticized the second, third and fourth volumes for chauvinistic, Pakistani nationalist and anti-Hindu biases. I suggest you read the peer reviews of the book as cited in the wikipedia article. I'm sure other less partisan sources can be found for the Pakistani POV here. Rumpelstiltskin223 13:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I wonder why Rumpelstiltskin223 had to "dig" for the book while s/he could have found wider criticism, discussion, stats and comments right here. I am also surprised what prompted her/him to remove ref after linking it to the article! As for ref to Pacific Affairs critiques, Hornplease had already touched upon them. Moreover, critiques are not as severe. The best way always is to go to the original comments  instead of the criticism of the criticisms. -- Isle ScapeTalk 21:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

of note to this article

 * - Lying wont get you a book not even focused on the Partition to get on the list. Spouting the same "Bakaman is anti-Pakistani" canard wont help you out either. Baka man  17:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The Pakistani book continued...
Since I added the ISBN on one occasion to the reference, I should attempt to clarify the confusions as I do not really understand what exactly is the objection to the book? The first edition of the book (in four volumes) was published in 1967. The referenced citation (Qureshi 1992) is a 934 pages Paperback. -- Isle  Scape  23:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) If it’s to the title or contents of the book, then ‘A Short History of Pakistan’ is anything but short . It was published in 4 volumes written by various scholars that cover the history of the region from prehistoric age to the post-independence period, pinpointing the historical aspects of partition. The only disqualification may be that it does not mention ‘Partition of India’ in the title!
 * 2) If it’s to the authorship, then the general editor I H Qureshi taught at Delhi University for 20 years and was Dean of the Faculty of Arts before migrating to Pakistan. So no better person would qualify for such a mammoth task.
 * 3) And if someone has any objection to the publisher. Karachi university is an established institution with more departments (56) than the age of many Wikipedians (in years)


 * The point is that it is the broad "History of Pakistan", rather than a book strictly on the Partition and effects. With that book one can also cite volumes of Indian and Bangladeshi history books that mention (and devote space to) partition as well. Baka man  00:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if we have a sub-section for bibliographies now, how about a subsection for general histories of the region that treat the Partition in detail? I wouldn't mind having more references added, as long as they were of academic quality. Zora 03:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * IH Qureshi is one of the most respected scholars of the modern history of the Indian subcontinent. Any book by him would be an worthwhile addition to most reading lists. 'A short history of Pakistan' is a several-volume collection of period studies of which he is the editor. The specific portion on 1910-1947 is, like all the other sections, complete of itself; it is, however, written not by Qureshi but by W. Zaman, of Warwick.


 * Of course, I think that it being a Pakistan-published book or that it is part of a collection that does not focus specifically on partition is far from being a useful argument. However, since the specific section is not by Qureshi himself, and since A Short History... was released by the government in the late 1960s with what might be viewed as an agenda (as the review in Pacific Affairs suggests,  I am less bothered by this problematic exclusion than I could be. Hornplease 07:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hornplease, your cites have the same problem as Bakasuprman's -- they're to JSTOR, and most people can't access JSTOR. Don't tell me to "use a university library" -- that's just about impossible for me due to issues of cost (I'd have to buy a day pass) and access (no parking anywhere close, and I'm too crippled to walk for blocks). However, you seem to know the book and the fact that you don't consider it a reliable secondary source, from an academic standpoint, weighs heavily with me. Perhaps you and Islescape could discuss the matter, since you're the two editors here who are familiar with the book. Zora 08:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Zora: I was just including the links for posterity, as it were, I knew you wouldnt be able to access them. However, they basically say what I said above. I think its a reliable secondary source; I just think that it's provenance is such that its not a great secondary source. The reviews in Pacific Affairs, while in no way suggesting that the book lacked academic worth, did succeed in suggesting that there was a specific motive behind the project, viz., the delineation of the newly formed study of the history of Pakistan, rather than of the subcontinent. While this should not greatly imperil the integrity of a project edited by Qureshi and published by a univ press, I am less perturbed about leaving this out of a bibliography than I would the leaving out of something, say, actually written by Qureshi himself. I would object to it not being considered worthy of citing from, though. It's a fine distinction. Hornplease 09:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I would regard the backwards projection of a newly created nation onto history as yet another instance of nationalism mucking up history (see the Historiography and nationalism article). It's less obvious when Iran or France or China is projected backwards, but it's the same issue. Since that's something that so many history books get wrong (IMHO), I wouldn't regard it as a particular black mark against this one. Let's include it, and perhaps the Cambridge history of India? Zora 10:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * True enough. Perhaps you're right; I'd think adding Percival Spear or Bipin Chandra's Struggle for Independence would satisfy any desire to 'balance' views and place Partition in context. Hornplease 10:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If you vouch for those references, I'd be happy if you could add them. If we had a references page with fifty or so refs, I'd be dubious about adding more, but at present there are very few refs considering that this is such a large and controversial subject. More refs is better. Perhaps setting up various subsections, for general histories, historical works specifically relating to Partition, popular summaries, and academic articles? Put full refs for academic article and then JSTOR link; with the full refs, sometimes it's possible to get at the article through other channels, such as Questia (I have a Questia account) or self-archiving by authors.

BTW, I very much appreciate Witzel's practice of putting up PDFs of his articles on his website. (You know, of course, that a number of studies have shown that making an article easily available dramatically increases its impact, in terms of subsequent citations.) Zora 12:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Why not just only keep books/academic journals strictly dealing with Partition? It makes the most sense, and now we know that the HoP encyclopedia itself stands accused of bias, we might as well only keep secondary reliable sources that focus on the one incident. Baka man  15:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course the HoP has a bias. So do all the books cited, in various ways. There is NOTHING that doesn't have a bias, major or minor. In picking references, we choose the ones that are the best arguments for a particular POV -- best as in acceptable prose, well-referenced, accepted by the scholarly community as a POV that an educated person might hold. I think Hornplease has suggested some books that would represent POVs very much opposed to the HoP POV. That's fine ... anyone reading about this tragic event should be exposed to all POVs. WP strives not for the "truth", but for an accurate representation of the state of informed argument. From that standpoint, including a Pakistani POV is necessary. Zora 00:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Critiques at Pacific Review pp. 641-647 are given by four different people on each volume and are variable. They generally appreciate the book but few are critical of some views by individual authors and not the overall book itself. That the book was intended as textbook at the time for undergrads doesn’t make it a government publication.

Of the four volumes, each addresses a separate phase in history. The fourth one, “Alien Rule and the Rise of Muslim Nationalism” is written by four authors. Dr M. A. Rahim (covering the period from 1497 to 1857), M. D. Chughtai (1858-1910), Dr W. Zaman (1910-1947), Dr A. Hamid (1947-1964). Obviously, it deals with pre-, partition, and post partition eras both on East and West Pakistan. However, since the volume is integrated into the 1992 collection ISBN, it won’t be justified to cite it standalone.-- Isle  Scape  18:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * How about this? You cite the pages from the encyclopedia (HoP), and we'll add it under Banglapedia. Baka man  16:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Not bad for someone who can't distinguish between a history book and an encyclopaedia! -- Isle  Scape  20:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please check references section
I reworked the "causes" section slightly. I realized that there were numerous unsupported claims, claims presented as fact that are controversial, and some material that just seemed strange. Blaming the English and the census for all of it is bizarre, given that the Mughals had categorized their citizens on a religious basis. The whole section needs a better treatment of various historical arguments re causes -- that's not my field, but I'm sure that such debates exist.

I also redid the references section, replacing the Qureishi, because we NEED a Pakistani POV. I would much appreciate it if those better acquainted with the literature in the field could make sure that all the standard sources are there. I'm working under a real handicap here. My specialities are Tongan and Hawaiian history. Zora 12:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * We dont need any Pakistani POV. We need scholarly works from Pakistan and thats it (a more focused work than an encyclopedia - phps an encyclopedia article like Banglapedia). No sensational nonsense about "Muslims having nowhere to go" (as one can obviously see in India, Muslims are treated fairly well compared to the rampant persecution of Hindus in Pakistan) and "escape from Hindu oppression". Might as well re-add Gurubachan Talib if we're going around adding POV. Baka man  16:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Causes of Partition
Various anon editors attempt to use this section to argue for their view of the Partition (often, that Jinnah was an evil man with deep-laid plans to claim huge chunks of Hindu-majority India). Sometimes this propagandizing is rather subtle, with a "few" historians said to claim that Jinnah was only blustering to win concessions, and didn't intend to split the country, and "many" or "most" historians said to claim that Jinnah always intended a split. But how can we tell if "few" or "many" is accurate if we don't have a list and a count? I changed both claims to "some" and asked for citations.

If professional historians are divided on the subject, we should give the views of all sides without editorializing. Let readers know that there is controversy, and give them the resources, in the links and references sections, to explore further and make up their own minds. WP isn't in the business of settling controversies, only of reporting them. Zora 02:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well there are non-Indian sources that affirm to the fact that Jinnah did want whole of Punjab and Bengal. In "Freedom of Midnight" Mountbatten recounts a conversation he had with Jinnah, in which Jinnah envisions Pakistan which includes whole of Punjab and Bengal. Whats more didn't Jinnah encourage Hyderabad State state to declare independence in spite of its overwhelming Hindu majority>?

 अमेय आर्यन DaBrood&#169; 18:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I was looking for two things that I couldn't really find in the article. One was the originator of the whole idea of a religious partition. The article makes it sound almost organic and natural--but at earlier times the British had felt it was much better to treat the entire subcontinent as a single unit. The other thing was the British idea for weak post-colonial governments. This is something that I've heard so many times and from so many people that I was really surprised not to find clear reference to it in the article... My sources have mostly been Indian, so maybe that's the bias I'm getting? Anyway, I guess this is a suggestion for possible improvements? Shanen (talk) 04:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Ambroodey, let's not argue the matter here. What we need is a role call of historians, published mainstream historians, who support one or the other viewpoint. WP is not about "capturing" the article for what you believe. We give all viewpoints -- in proportion. Minority viewpoints and fringe beliefs get less space. Zora 19:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly why do we need a Pakistani POV again? Do explain logically. Baka man  19:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There are 168,000,000 or so people living in Pakistan. Volumes put out by the country's university press certainly represent the views of some large fraction of those millions of people. Views held by many people should be mentioned. Yes, that goes for Hindutva views too. We list them, and the arguments for them, but we don't claim that they're true. Zora 19:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * By your twisted logic, Zora, Hindutva view should be given a precedence. BJP and its allies garnered 41% of votes in last elections! There is empirical evidence to suggest that much of history related discourse in Pakistan is nothing short of blatant revisionism. Not surprising given that their president himself sets the example with his shamelessly revisionist autobiography. We had nut jobs claiming Panini was an ancient Pakistani the other day!. I'm not a guy to mince words. I will make it very clear: I simply don't trust Pakistani sources unless reviewed/backed by neutral sources. Same goes for Hindutva rags.

 अमेय आर्यन DaBrood&#169; 21:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nobody quoted any Hindutva view. Advani praised Jinnah. It really doesn't matter, there are 1 billion Indians and 140 million Bangladeshis, by that rationale, the POV will be roughly 75% Indian, 13% Pakistani, and 12% Bangladeshi Baka man  19:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Some Pakistanis would agree with the History of Pakistan. Not necessarily all. Enough, at least, to merit mention. Some Indian citizens hold Hindutva views. A large chunk, but not all. There are probably more Indians who loathe those views. The question is whether any Hindutva-leaning accounts of the Partition have been prepared by respectable academics, and put out in a properly referenced and organized form by a scholarly press. If there is one such account, surely it should be included in the references. I don't know the literature well enough to point to such a thing. Let's wait for other editors, with the necessary academic background, to contribute here. Zora 20:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there anything such as "Hindutva" view? Yes there are historians sympathetic to the movement but i daresay there is no such official "Hindutva view". Moreover why just concentrate on Hindutva? What about Islamists. Its about the time you stopped seeing Hindutva (not to mention Indian Imperialist Bots) everywhere.

 अमेय आर्यन DaBrood<b style="color:red;">&#169;</b> 21:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What is Hindutva essentially? Is it Hindu extremism or Hindu patriotism? And why is BJP always aligned with Hindutva? I have a feeling the definition of Hindutva varies considerably among the Wiki editors which is the foundation of all this quarreling. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Chat  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 23:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 *  And why is BJP always aligned with Hindutva? A stupid question reallly. BJP traces its roots back to Jana Sangh which was basically RSS's political arm.<b style="color:#FF9933;"> अमेय आर्यन DaBrood</b><b style="color:red;">&#169;</b> 06:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Possibly. The fact that all the Hindutva articles on WP are a POV-fest because no non-neutral editors waste their time there may have something to do with it. Hornplease 00:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think they are POV both ways. Sometimes they are very anti-Hindu and sometimes they are very anti-Muslim and co. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Chat  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 00:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Look Hindutva = Hindu-tattva (Literally "Being Hindu"). People that dislike Hindutva, also therefore dislike the practice of Hinduism. The two are not separate. Baka man  01:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The literal meaning does not always correspond to the practical meaning. I wait for those who are against Hindutva to put forward their definitions. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Chat  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 01:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Hindutva" as defined by Savarkar baguely means Indian nationalism that draws its 'inspiration' from Hindu/Maratha culture. It cant be called Hindu extremism is broadest sense, largely since Hindu fundamentalism is an oxymoron moreover, founding fathers of Hindutva were Agnostic Hindus. Hindutva rose as a complementary movement to Marathi cultural resurgence (all founders were Marathis (specifically Marathas and Chitpavan Konkanastha Brahmins and till 1970's most memebers of RSS were Marathis). Hindutva in these days is a vague ideology. It differs from one propounded by Savarkar to the one practised by 'parties' like Shiv Sena and Bajrang Dal.

BTW I was an active HSS member till about 2003, before i left Hindutva for good. <b style="color:#FF9933;"> अमेय आर्यन DaBrood</b><b style="color:red;">&#169;</b> 06:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, now we need Hornplease, Zora and others to provide their opinions. I seriously believe many of the problems here can be sorted out if everybody comes to a conclusion on what Hindutva is. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Chat  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 09:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Umm dagizza that's like asking anti-Semites to define zionism. Baka man  22:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Are saying that they both Hornplease and Zora are anti-Hindus. I don't think anti-Semitic is the same as anti-zionist just as anti-Hindu is not the same as Anti-Hindutva. Zora once explcitly said that she was Buddhist and that Buddhist can be considered as a sect of Hinduism. It is just that they think Hindutva is Hindu extremism, in which case they are against it just as I would be. However, you believe Hindutva is just being Hindu or to be proud of Hinduism in which case I myself would support it. That is where the misunderstanding lies. That is why these futile fighting is still going on. I'll send messages to both of them so they can provide some feedback. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Chat  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 01:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Hindutva isn't anti-buddhist. Hindutva usually refers to jainism, sikhism, and buddhism as sects of Hinduism. Usually Hindutva are opposed to missionary-like activities of neo-buddhist such those mass conversion events. I'm going to have to agree with baka and broody on hornplease. he's a bit extreme.--D-Boy 11:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Girik,

To be fair, this really isnt the place to debate this. Whats more its not up to us or Zora to define Hindutva. She clearly is afflicted by what i'd call a "saffron blur" seeing the mythic 'Hindutva hand' in anything we do. Lets get this clear Indian nationalism != Hindutva. <b style="color:#FF9933;"> अमेय आर्यन DaBrood</b><b style="color:red;">&#169;</b> 20:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

This is really getting pointless!!! All this crap about Hindutva, POV and bullshit!!! Hindutva is in my opinion a hypothetical idea... Just like the terrorist idea of paradise for killing innocents. I am a Hindu and a proud one, but I attend Friday Namaz in the mosque. I don't understand why Zora is being lambasted everywhere!!! What she says is extremely diplomatic and uncontroversial, not that what others say is. One of the best issues to debate on is being used by us as a medium to vent our frustrations!!! This is too stupid. Regards, --Vivek —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) New Post::

Please fix the Non-Sense Biblio Links
Hello all please fix the links below to reach the collection of books not the introduction of the University. If the link goes to the University Mainpage it is bogus link, link should lead readers to collection of books and published papers on the subject instead. If the link only goes to the Description of the University please remove the link as the readers are not looking to write an article on the University, nor are they looking to take admission in the University.

Please fix the links to specific pages with list of related publications. There should be no attempt to confuse the readers or send them packing to far off places in foreign lands where these Universities are situated or futhest away from the truth.

Atulsnischal 22:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Bibliographies


 * University of California at Los Angeles University of California, Links only to the Mainpage of University
 * Select Research Bibliography on the Partition of India, Compiled by Vinay Lal, Department of History, UCLA
 * University of California at Berkeley - Links only to the Mainpage of University, Collection of documents on colonial India, Independence, and Partition
 * Fordham University archive of relevant public-domain documents - Links only to the Mainpage of University
 * University of Virginia list

Atulsnischal 22:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I dont see your problem. All the links do go to the bibliographies of the selected universities. Baka man  22:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Please notice the differece between the following two links

The first link goes to the University Mainpage The second link goes to a real list of related books, which is ofcourse more appropriate


 * University of California at Los Angeles University of California, Links only to the Mainpage of University
 * Select Research Bibliography on the Partition of India, Compiled by Vinay Lal, Department of History, UCLA; University of California at Los Angeles list

Atulsnischal 22:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Two Links which I have already corrected, please do not remove these, only improve:


 * Select Research Bibliography on the Partition of India, Compiled by Vinay Lal, Department of History, UCLA; University of California at Los Angeles list
 * A select list of Indian Publications on the Partition of India (Punjab & Bengal); University of Virginia list

Following two links (and all additional links which will be added in future) need correction by providing specific book lists on "Partition of India" and related topics:


 * University of California at Berkeley Collection of documents on colonial India, Independence, and Partition - Links only to the Mainpage of University
 * Fordham University archive of relevant public-domain documents - Links only to the Mainpage of University

Atulsnischal 22:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Mention of Jammu and Kashmir in list
The list of communal/political conflicts since Partition is there only to illustrate the lingering effects of the violent upheaval. Readers can click on the linked articles to find out more. The list is not the place to make claims re the culpability of various sides in the conflicts. There's simply not room in a LIST to argue each case. It's best to leave out all commentary. Bakasuprman, that's not "anti-Hindu", it's just realistic. Whenever WP editors try to import strong disagreements into small spaces, continual edit wars result. Big controversies need big spaces. Zora 18:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please, instead of pretending to be neutral do declare your obvious views. Why do you keep adding a minor incident of Muslim Bengalis, while leaving out the fact that Assamese and Tripuris and Manipuris all hate Bengalis regardless of their religion. What's realistic is showing that Pakistan hardly trudges in communal amity. Rather, every group seems to be in armed conflict (as Nawaz Shah Bugti, Frontier Gandhi, and Sindhis rebelling would show). Yor revert vandalized the sections on J&K and Waziristan while adding one minor incident of ethnic (not even religoius) warfare in Assam. "Let's not get competitive" - seems that once the ball is in Pakistan's court, you're frantically trying to push it into the Indian end zone. Baka man  18:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So you think killing of 3000 peoples, leaving 100,000 homeless and burning of villages was a "minor incident"? Surely this reflects extent of your POV-- Isle <b style="color:blue;">Scape</b>Talk 19:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess you didnt read my comment above or maybe the point didnt come across. Assmese/Tripuri/and Metiei people hate Bengalis anyways. PAkistan is better than India in massacres and genocide anyways, and the killing of Bengalis. Tthe killing of only 1000 people by a group of tribesmen in a remote village is irrelevant. I'm not surprised you zora etc dont care aboput the massacre of thre million Hindus by a maniacal force of subhuman Razakars or the fact that 2.25 million Bengali Muslims were killed . This reflects the extent of your POV lol. Baka man  19:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Loss of human life can never be commended. But this doesn't mean that you can downplay atrocities on one side and signify them on the other side.-- Isle <b style="color:blue;">Scape</b>Talk 19:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

ITs putting it in context. 3 million Hindus killed by genocidal maniacs (aka Razakars) vs 1000 people dead in tribal/ethnic warfare. Baka man  20:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The Razakars (Pakistan) page which seems to be based on only one article, heavily edited by Bakasuprman and co., having removed POV tag by Bakasuprman, full of CN tags. And even that article gives casualty of 3 million "people" and not 3 million Hindus. So don't exaggerate the already worse situations. -- Isle <b style="color:blue;">Scape</b>Talk 01:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It was edited mostly by Bangladeshi users, at which point it became a target for PAkistani vandals. The Hawaii link substantiates the 3 million Hindus. Its not my fault if you have it for Bangladesh, or if you're trying to whitewash genocide perpetrated by PAkistani forces. Baka man  16:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Baka i think claiming moral quivalence is going to not going to help. Islescape, I for one dont doubt your sources, BUT the incident you mention wasnt notable (over 60000 Indians have died at hands of guys some people still like to call insurgents).

Whats more i find it intellectually dishonest and odious of Zora to revert my additions whlist keeping Islescape's non-notable additions. The 'real genocide' of 3-5.5 million Bengalis(disproportionate numebr of them being Hindus) isnt even mentioned here.

Zora we all have our biases. Dont pretend to sit on the fence. Give up all the pretensions of being neutral. That way you could interact with us a lil' better. <b style="color:#FF9933;"> अमेय आर्यन DaBrood</b><b style="color:red;">&#169;</b> 20:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no need to add separate items for Bengali massacres,ecause that's covered under Bangladesh Liberation War, which has a whole section devoted to atrocities. I think it's horrible that the people who did this are living comfortable lives in Pakistan right now. But the list is not the place to go into it.


 * I folded the mention of Assam into a general reference to the Seven Sisters, because there has been a great deal of civil conflict there -- native hill tribes, immigrant Bengalis, etc. I'm not up on all these conflicts. I used to get occasional updates from Buddhist social service networks, which were championing the plight of the Buddhist hill tribes. Mmmmmm ... in fact, the "massacre" that Islescape was claiming may have been in that context, original residents versus immigrants. So that one entry was iffy. Is this conflict covered in WP? There should be links in the Seven Sisters article. Zora 20:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't find it on WP. It has been implied as tribes-migrant conflict, but killers were clearly shouting hindu battle cries and the dead were clearly Bengali Muslims. And the number was around 3000 not "1000 only".-- Isle <b style="color:blue;">Scape</b>Talk 01:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply - Are you kidding? You added attacks on Sikhs by Hindus in 1984 in the first source, added unsubstantiated and exaggerated sources in the second, and used the wrong number for Bengali Muslims dying in the third. Wow, that's actually pathetic. Remember Assamese and tribals have nothing on Pakistani's when it comes to killing Bengalis. We might as well add the fact that the Jamuna was red after the Razakars passed by with Hindu and Moslem Bengali united in their blood flowing down the river. Baka man  16:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You are mincing the words and diverting the discussion. It's never a pleasure for me to talk of human toll, but I can help you understand what's on these sites. If you refer to the above hyperlinks: Per Zora, I would suggest you keep your conflicts to yourselves and not spread them on WP. It's for your own good.-- Isle <b style="color:blue;">Scape</b>Talk 20:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * first one goes to NY Times (It is a newspaper!), which lists a whole row of violence in India, including Hindu-Muslim riots in Bombay, etc.
 * second to About.com, which is not a propaganda site
 * third to Time Magazine, and if you can read well, "more than 1,000 Muslim Bengalis" were killed in one go while 3000 died in the whole turbulance.


 * Reply - Mincing words? Trying to string three unrelated incidents (one with absolutely no accountability - where did they get the figures?) is called original research in the real world. University of Hawaii is hardly a partisan source. Time magazine talks about Bengalis being killed by tribals. Its a well known fact that non-Bengalis in NE India hate Bengalis for their own reasons (Tripuris are a minority in their own state, tribals land is encroached, Assamese get shunted by "affirmative action"). I find your veiled threats highly laughable especially when you have no problems harrassing users on ANI. Per Zora, like I really care what she thinks, per zora I'm a "perpetrator of massacre" and a "Hindutva kook" as well. Baka man  23:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

my deepest sympathy for your schizophrenic state whence web refs have to be explained, and all editing efforts to neutralize your tag team POV seem to you as harrassment-- Isle <b style="color:blue;">Scape</b>Talk 00:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Buddhists are hardly in conflict with the Indian government. The one state ruled by "Hindu fascists" in the NE (Arunachal Pradesh) is the only state where Buddhists are actually allowed to live. Inter-tribal/ethnic conflict is the norm in the NE, Assamese vs. Bangla, Manipuri vs. Naga, Bodo vs. Assamese, Tripuri vs Bengali, Naga vs everyone thats not a fundamentalist Christian, etc. Baka man  20:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Bakasuprman, I didn't say that Buddhists were in conflict with the Indian government. I said that as far as I knew, a great deal of the conflict was indigenous versus immigrant. Many of the indigenes are Buddhist; the immigrants may be Muslim or Hindu. I don't doubt that in addition to the expansion of lowland populations up into the highlands there is a pre-existing landscape of hill groups continually at war with each other. I haven't had time to look, but whatever articles there are on such conflicts should probably be linked to the Seven Sisters article. Zora 21:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

More list problems
The list used to say just that there were several Indo-Pak wars, and give links to the articles on those wars. Nobleeagle has appended arguments to the links, claiming that India was right, India was attacked, etc. A list is not the place to make those arguments. The name on the list is the link to the main article on that war, where Indians and Pakistanis can play Indo-Pak mini-war to their hearts' content. If we leave pro-India arguments on the list, then a Pakistani editor is going to want to add Pro-Pakistani material. At which point each list entry is going to become the article to which it is linked. Just leave the arguments out of it, guys. It's enough to know that there was a conflict, and to have a link to the main article on that conflict. Zora 06:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

All that was presented was the cassus beli and the result of the war, one or two sentences, hardly any opinions at all.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 06:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It didn't seem POV to you, but it seemed POV to me, and I believe would certainly do so to a Pakistani. It is best just to leave it out. There's not enough space to conduct an argument. Zora 07:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Proving that your POV is aligned to the Pakistani POV. Baka man  15:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Or proving that what was written Zora thinks that it was aligned to an Indian POV and all Zora wants is NPOV. When I read it, it didn't seem very POV. The only thing that was constantly reinforced was that it was Pakistan who invaded India every single time and my knowledge of the wars isn't good enough to know if that is the case. In general, I agree that lists should stat stay as lists and the details should be placed elsewhere in the article on the those war articles, not on the partition of India article. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Chat  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 23:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Zora doesnt want NPOV... she wants to 'balance' it out with Pakistani POV... Why not mention that Pakistanis think that thye won the 1965 and Kargil wars. If she was for stats then why did she selectively revert my edits whilst keeping Islescape's intact?<b style="color:#FF9933;"> अमेय आर्यन DaBrood</b><b style="color:red;">&#169;</b> 15:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Stats was my spelling mistake. I meant "stay." <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Chat  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 01:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Gizza, Zora, I urge you to simply take a look at each of the war articles and tell me what I did wrong, then I can fix it. Gizza says the only thing that seems POV is the idea that Pakistan invaded every time, but it's fact. It's not as if India invaded in 1947 after Hari Singh gave the territory to India, you can't invade your own territory. In 1965, did India carry out Operation Gibralter and try to infiltrate and sabotage its own territory. 1971 is tricky but in the end, Pakistan declared war first. Then in 1999, India was commended for not ever crossing the LoC, let along invading the other side.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 03:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I just agreed with Zora about the lists staying as lists. I prefer the information about the wars be moved to the war articles since this is about the partition. Yes they are related but a link is sufficient IMHO. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Chat  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 03:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Noble. Short summary needs to be there to establish context. Plus, all of the summaries are factually correct and agree with the wp articles themselves. It is not our fault that history is history.Rumpelstiltskin223 04:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The summaries being re-inserted are biased towards India. Note comments like "India won international respect for the way it handled the war". That is just not NPOV. I'm not Pakistani, I have no fondness for Pakistan, I just believe in NPOV. That means leaving arguments about who started the war, who won the war, who got "international respect" in the articles about those wars, where there's room to give all sides. Guys, this is not a game, where the object is to defeat the other side. NPOV means that we have to give the best arguments for all notable sides, in neutral fashion. Those summaries are not neutral and not needed. They're not even relevant ... this article is an article about the Partition. The material on events after the Partition is not intended to be a complete history of South Asia since the Partition. It's just a pointer to articles where readers can find out more. Pointers and lists should not turn into arguments. Zora 04:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic Cleansing?
The anti-Hindu violence in Kashmir is being as Islamic militants who have ethnically cleansed Kashmiri Hindus. Although violence in this region is pretty bad, academic and non-POV sources do not call it actual "ethnic cleansing." Rumpelstiltskin223 gave sources calling this an ethnic cleansing, but two of these sources are partisan/POV and the other source, written by a guest writer for rediff, doesn't even talk about what ethnic cleansing is. Now, it seems that Nobleeagle has brought the total number of citations for that one term to six, as if trying to prove the point that whats hapening in Kashmir is ethnic cleansing, but none of them seem notable. However, without academic and reputable sources (a guest writer on Rediff for a partisan newpaper (Kashmiri Herald)is hardly academic or reputable) that explain why this is an ethnic cleansing, the term "ethnic cleansing" should be replaced with "killing" or "targeting" or whatnot, as it is not recognized as being full-out ethnic cleansing. After all, the Islamic militants in Kashmir would kill anyone who was in support of the Indian govt, including many Muslims as well as Hindus. Mar de Sin  Speak up!  02:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So rediff and satp are "non-notable"? I find Genocide denial to be seriously offensive. Rumpelstiltskin223 02:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So find an academic and nonPOV source that explains why this is full-out ethnic cleansing. Mar de Sin   Speak up!  02:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * satp is quite npov, thaa. They are totally non-partisan. They even talk abt Ranvir Sena. Rumpelstiltskin223 02:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * SATP doesn't not note any instances of anti-Muslim terrorism in India. And once again, I would request you to find an academic and nonPOV source.  Another alternative which I think you would agree with is to follow the article Terrorism in Kashmir's lead in describing the violence in Kashmir for consistency's sake. After all, this article actually focuses on this issue.   Mar de Sin   Speak up!  02:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no anti-Muslim terrorism in India. There is anti-Muslim communal violence,obviously, but that is not the same thing. Rumpelstiltskin223 02:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please address my other points instead. I do not wish to get into another debate as to what constitutes as terrorism as opposed to just violence.  Mar de Sin   Speak up!  02:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What points? Ethnic Cleansing means when an ethnic group is forced to mass-migrate bu another. The K.Pands were forcibly removed by Islamists so that's it. Rumpelstiltskin223 02:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well here are the points laid out:

These are the two points. Otherwise, the outright declaration that the conflict is "ethnic cleansing" is not justified. (XXX accuses.... or the like is acceptable although an outright labelling of a controversial term is not.) Mar de Sin   Speak up!  02:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Find an academic non-POV source describing why this consititutes as ethnic cleansing as opposed just strong violence.
 * 2) OR Another alternative which I had thought you might agree with: follow the article Terrorism in Kashmir's lead in describing the violence in Kashmir (for consistency especially).
 * SATP is quite non-POV.Rumpelstiltskin223 02:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think its best to try option # 2 for consistency. Mar de Sin   Speak up!  04:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think option #1 is satisfied very well, thaa Rumpelstiltskin223 04:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Numbers in demographics section
If 2% are 20 million, it doens't make sense that 1.94% are 21 million. Anyone knows the right numbers? Aviad2001 21:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization
I have reorganized the table of contents of the article in response to the comments in the failed FAC, where it was felt that the article didn't have enough about the partition itself and too much about the distant aftermath. I have, for now, super organized the contents in order to pay equal attention to all the important events and issues. Once the article has more narrative, I will reduce the number of sections and subsections. I have also temporarily disabled many of the "distant aftermath" sections; those too will be integrated later where they seem relevant. Please bear with me while I revise the article. Thanks. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  21:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I just realized that in a little over a week, it will be 60 years since the partition of India. I will make another attempt to revise the article.  Please pardon the "under construction" sign for this coming week.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The perspectives.
Why is there a Pakistani Perspective, but not an Indian or British perspective? I ask that the Pakistani perspective should be removed without the other two perspectives.

I edited the words 'allowed' to 'campigned' since a) Gandhi's own belief's, even if mirrored in the official policy, did not account for the action of all hindus/sikhs b) it's a documented fact that thousands of muslims were killed 'inspite' of gandhi's prcolaimation of amnesty.

I believe the article, at various places, shows definite bias towards both the Pakistani and Indian POV's and is need of a detailed review and revision.

¬¬¬¬Y¬¬¬¬


 * Regarding your last sentence, what do you think is going on (admittedly slowly)?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Change the name
Historically there is discussed in this article in not India. India never existed as a single entity. So I think we should change the name of this article to partition of British India.--Faraz Ahmad 19:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See discussion above and on the History of India page. "Partition of India" is what it is called in the historical literature, including that contributed by Pakistani historians. In addition, see, for example, other tertiary sources like Britannica and Encarta.   As for India and British India, please read the last two sentences of the lead paragraph in British India.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Change the name--->>>NO
What did you want to call it? The name India has been on maps for centuries. All the west sees and knows is India, stretching from Afghanistan to Burma [Myanmar]. Pakistan is just a religious border. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.189.64 (talk) 03:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The name of this article should be changed i.e " the partition of India". To begin with,a "Country" called "India" never existed until the partition of the " Subcontinent" in 1947. The region was known as the Indian subcontinent which was ruled by the Mughal Empire before the British Empire took over.India has never been on the map for centuries, however the Indian subcontinent has been there for centuries.In the time of the Mughals the region was known as "Hindustan". The indian subcontinent was divided into territories until the rule of the British Empire. So turns out India, the country has not been there for centuries and the name of the article should be changed.

And if Pakistan is just a religious border, thank god i'm on Pakistan's side of the border!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.255.168.81 (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You fool! The name India has been used in the west since the beginning of their time! And the whole point of Partition is useless! As you kindly pointed out, INDIA was together since the beginning of history! The name Pakistan didn't even surface until Choudhary Rahmat Ali introduced it in his Pamphlet 'Now or Never.' So actually, you are wrong, my friend across the border, India is not the misnomer, PAKISTAN is! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.244.24.226 (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:India-time-cover-oct27-1947.jpg
Image:India-time-cover-oct27-1947.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jinnah-time-magazine-cover-april1946.jpg
Image:Jinnah-time-magazine-cover-april1946.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The discussion of the partition of Bengal needs improvement
This article is not very helpful to those wanting to understand the nature of the partition of Bengal. How were the boundaries defined? What were the demographics of the population displacement? What was the logic of isolating the North-East Indian states? These considerations are qualitatively and quantitatively discussed in the West Pakistan case but neglected for East Pakistan. 70.79.11.173 21:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Partition of India as Partition of Punjab and Bengal
Somebody has added to the lead that partition of India particularly refers to the partition of Punjab and Bengal, and in fact, most of the article reads that way too. This error needs to be corrected by adding more information about partition of the army, civil service, railways, central treasury, and other national institutions. 130.203.202.156 (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The term Bengal and Punjab refers to a region inside a country. to say they were partiotned would indicate a nationally internal matter such as the partition of a particluar state not of a country Tca achintya (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

People can't add one and one together
17.5 million people leaving their homes. Of these, only 14.9 million arrived, suggesting that 3.4 million went "missing". Whoever wrote this ought to be shot. It says alot about the quality of an article if in the goddamned introduction there is a mathematical error, if you don't know which of these numbers are wrong, remove the sentence. Pathetic --200.105.218.224 (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The Partition Factor In The Status Of Indian Muslims
I just added a NPOV-sect tag. Not sure if it's the best one, but this section seems to contain much POV diatribe, original research, and lack of citation. --Nricardo (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

IMO this section should be entirely removed as it reads like an opinion column instead of an encyclopedic entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.64.5 (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Was the Indian Empire partitioned?
I wish to raise this quite important issue with the editors of the article.

The article begins "The Partition of India was the partition of the British Indian Empire..." But as I read the Indian Independence Act 1947, what was to be partitioned was only British India: Article 7 (1) (a) has "As from the appointed day (a) His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom have no responsibility as respects the government of any of the territories which, immediately before that day, were included in British India." With regard to the Princely states, the Act provides that "the suzerainty of His Majesty over the Indian States lapses, and with it, all treaties and agreements in force at the date of the passing of this Act between His Majesty and the rulers of Indian States, all functions exercisable by His Majesty at that date with respect to Indian States, all obligations of His Majesty existing at that date towards Indian States or the rulers thereof, and all powers, rights, authority or jurisdiction exercisable by His Majesty at that date in or in relation to Indian States by treaty, grant, usage, sufferance or otherwise." And Section 7 (2) of the Act provides "The assent of the Parliament of the United Kingdom is hereby given to the omission from the Royal Style and Titles of the words "Indiae Imperator" and the words "Emperor of India" and to the issue by His Majesty for that purpose of His Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of the Realm." As it appears, the effect of the Partition was to wind up the Indian Empire, rather than partitioning it. Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless there are any comments, I should like to correct this. Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Problem with map
May I point out that the map now captioned "Map of India and Pakistan as envisaged in the Partition Plan 1947" is an appendix to the 1950 Constitution of India, an internal Indian publication which is not connected with the various partition plans and negotiations of 1947? Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, unless there are any comments I should like to correct this. Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You have an alternate map to use? Is it uploaded to Commons yet?   Un  sch  ool  04:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I'm afraid not, but this one is out of place because it is off-subject. When I say "correct", I mean remove. Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it's not from the appendix of the constitution (although it may have been published there first). It is from my copy of the 1952 edition of Majumdar et al's Advanced History of India and, as you can see, it is created by J. Bartholomew and Sons.  It is not the best map of the partition, since the Pakistani provinces are not shown, but I couldn't find any other.  You certainly can't post the 1908 map of "prevalent religions" from the Imperial Gazetteer Atlas (which I scanned from my personal collection for a later section) in the lead!  That has nothing to do with the actual partition of India.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * PS The map currently in the lead needs to be replaced fast, because among other things, it implies an implicit acknowledgment of the "two nation theory," and I can see future trouble on the page. It is OK to have it in the later section as a description of the state of the prevalent religions in the 1901 Census of India, but not in the lead.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I added that new map because Unschool was asking for an alternative and I didn't have one of the kind he wanted. I didn't mean it to acknowledge the "two nation theory" (acknowledgement by whom or at what point isn't clear, there, by the way), but by mid 1947 it was certain that there were going to be at least two nations and possibly more and that the division was going to be on religious lines. The British had no power to partition the native states, or to dictate what they should do about accession. There were Muslim rulers of states without a Muslim majority, and in Kashmir it was the other way about. We can't show on a map any pre-partition plan for partition of the whole of India which has authority. I don't see any harm in removing the map you think could cause objections, but it is surely factual so doesn't in itself make any communal point. If there's another factual map which can be put in its place, I suppose it could only be one of the outcome of partition. Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk) 07:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, as Fowler&amp;fowler  says, the previous map has the caption DIVISIONS OF INDIA ACCORDING TO FIRST SCHEDULE OF CONSTITUTION 1950 so it's based on the Constitution but isn't an Appendix to it as such. Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk) 07:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the 1908 map is problematic (in the lead) though the map itself is quite interesting (who are the animists in the NWFP? what's with the Sino-Burma boundary?) For one thing, there is an implicit WP:OR connection between the distribution of religions and the partition of India which is unwarranted per the terms of partition (the right of princely states to make a choice, for example). The presence of Burma confounds the issue further because the lay reader may conclude that India was partitioned into muslim, hindu, and buddhist states. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 14:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The "animists" shown on the map are in an area which is now called the Frontier Region Dera Ismail Khan, one of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. See also the Kalash, further north. Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk) 10:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Well, one thing I could do is to scan and upload a map of the British Indian Empire on the eve of the partition of India. (This one doesn't have Burma in the IE.) Perhaps, then some map-maker whizz on Wikipedia could draw the partition boundaries in Punjab and Bengal only (and ignore everything else, including Kashmir, Hyderabad, and Junagadh). The post-partition "partition maps" depend on what time frame they display, since many states acceded after August 14/15 1947. A map made early on could show Hyderabad as independent or disputed, but one made later will show it as a part of India. Let me know. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  14:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good suggestion, but the map maker who needs to add things will have a difficult job, and the map will need to have some date attached to it ("India and Pakistan as at...") I don't really see how the map could ignore anything shown on the map. If India is to be shown including the states which had acceded to it, then I don't think Kashmir should be treated differently, as it had acceded to India. The big question is surely whether to show the de facto partitioning of Kashmir following the 1947 War. I imagine that would be controversial. Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk) 09:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Date format
Shouldn't this article consistently use the British/Indian/Pakistani date format (day month year) consistently throughout, per Wikipedia style guidelines? If so, could somebody please make the fix? Thanks.... 75.44.51.54 (talk) 09:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Partition of British India
This article should be named 'The Partition of Briritsh India' as an entity known as 'India' did not exist before 1947, therefore the current article title is inherently incorrect and misleading. Khokhar (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your post. Wikipedia is beholden to secondary sources and they refer to it as the "Partition of India."  It is true that the boundaries of partition were drawn only in "British India," in other words in those parts of India (or, more formally, the British Indian Empire) that were directly administered by the British; however, the rest of the Indian Empire, i.e. the Princely States also had to chose (or not chose) which of the two new dominions they would belong to.  In any case, the bottom line is that secondary sources, by an overwhelming margin, refer to it as the "Partition of India."   Thanks.  Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * PS "The entity known as India" did exist before 1947, please see British Raj. For example, as India, it participated in the Olympics from the 1920s onwards.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed reply. In response to "The entity known as India did exist before 1947", firstly the 'entity of India' as we know it certainly did not exist until it was endorsed by the 'Indians' in 1947, and to the best of my knowledge, even the title 'India' was of British origin and later came to be formally known as 'The British Indian Empire' or 'British Raj', so being 'shortened' to 'India' for the purpose of a sporting event does not and should not be taken as a formal or official identity, specially given that a large chunk of the perceptive country, which is now known as Pakistan and Bangladesh did not accept 'India' as a title or identity and were only 'forced' to live as part of an entity known as the 'British Indian Empire', whereas the 'Indians' endorsed the title 'India' by their free will in 1947, clearly, a distinction needs to be made and though most 'sources' consider it 'the partition of India' and therefore wiki is forced to 'follow', it does not mean that a formal 'entity' called India existed before 1947, because it didn't, as, by nature, it was part of an Empire so was labled as such and for people to claim, in a contemporary sense, that 'India' was partitioned is, frankly, absurd.

For Pakistani's and Bangladeshi's, India, as an identity, never existed so to be told that you were once part of 'India' is inherently inaccurate and, in fact, insulting, not that Pakistani's or Bangladeshi's have anything against India (discounting the wars and all the rest, of course) but to be given an identity, which for all intent and purposes was never yours, and, evidently, rejected at the first instance, is a little less than understanding, I might even say it was ignorant. The areas that form modern day 'India', Pakistan and Bangladesh had an identity before the British empire named it 'British India' and this identity had no relation either before or, in the case of Pakistan and Bangladesh, after, to the 'entity', 'idea', or even word, 'India'.

Sorry about the rant :)

Khokhar (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For better or for worse, Partition of India is the accepted term for the event and the general landmass that is now occupied by the Republic of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh was generically referred to as India in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. (Interestingly, Burma was Burma even though it was a part of British India for a hundred years.) Thus, in The Sign of Four, Miss Mary Morstan says My father was an officer in an Indian regiment, who sent me home when I was quite a child. and Major Sholto had prospered in India. Best to be dispassionate when examining history. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 18:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Apropos RegentsPark's post, the very first Sherlock Holmes story, Study in Scarlet, begin in "India," where Watson is injured and then taken ill with typhoid fever in the NWFP. If you read the first few paragraphs of Chapter 1, you will see that NWFP (Peshawar) and Bolan Pass (not mentioned, but through which they likely headed for Qandahar; see this 1880 map, before Baluchistan joined the "Indian Empire," and click it for full-resolution) are mentioned either as "India" or "our Indian possessions."   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To Khokhar: Your argument is fallacious. Compare Books with title "History of British India" published between 1876 and 1946 with Books with title "History of India" published between 1876 and 1946 (1876 being the year of coronation of Victoria as Empress of India (not Empress of British India or of the British Indian Empire)).  Similarly, among scholarly sources, references to "Partition of India" are almost an order of magnitude (ten times) greater than references to "Partition of British India".  All the British monarchs from Victoria onwards: Victoria, Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII and George VI were called Empress/Emperor of India (not "Emperor of British India").  This issue, btw, is raised from the dead every 3 or 4 months.  The page is an old page; its title now, almost six years after its creation, and after numerous arguments similar to yours, is not about to change.  Sorry.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't change it.. doesn't take away my right to say what I believe to be correct.. and before accusing me of being a 'sockpuppet' and reverting 'all' my edits, the significant edits all were discussed, if you care to read, mind providing any evidence?? if you can't then kindly undo your reversions...clearly i've stepped on your POV Khokhar (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? You need to show that there is a consensus of scholarly sources for such usage, i.e. "Partition of British India," and, in the absence of such consensus, you need to point out the controversy and evidence for it. The consensus, as I point out, is in fact for the usage, "Partition of India."  Has nothing to do with POV yours or mine, simply the preponderance of secondary sources.  If you have them, produce their preponderance.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is a quote from the "Jinnah" article in Encyclopaedia Britannica: "But Jinnah led his movement with such skill and tenacity that ultimately both the Congress and the British government had no option but to agree to the partitioning of India. Pakistan thus emerged as an independent state in 1947."
 * Here are links to "Partition of India" in Encarta.
 * Links to the "Partition of India" in the New York Times.
 * Links to "Partition of India" in the Pakistani Newspaper, The Dawn! Hundreds!
 * 224 links to international newspapers that refer to the "Partition of India" and that were published between 1940 and 1960
 * 804 links to books published by well-known academic publishers (Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Chicago, Routlege, ...) that use the term "Partition of India"More coming.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Firstly in my last reply I was referring to the 'sockpuppet' related reversions, not just this articles subject matter.

As for your comments on 'The partition of India', that's fair, and I agree, the vast majority of people do refer to it as 'Partition of India', however that doesn't stop me from discussing my thoughts on this article's talk page, which if you read my last article related reply you will notice that I already accepted your first reply; that most people refer to it as such and so wiki would also consider it that way. However everything I said is also a fact, just because wiki must show the 'widely accepted' consensus doesn't mean it must be correct, however that's another debate and doesn't belong on wikipedia, I concede. Khokhar (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Title of article
Mughalnz (talk)IT WAS NOT PARTITON OF  iNDIA IT WAS PARTITON OF BRITISH INDIA  titl need to change tobritish indiaMughalnz (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

India didn't exist until 1947 before 1947 was called British India

I think Indians need to stop writing writing articles about Pakistan........ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shazy1022 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The term British India was used to refer to territories under direct british ru;e as opposed to the princely states. it was still india. so the name partition of india is correct. India is name associatedwith this region since the beginning of civiliztion literally meaning land of the Indus. remeber Columbus was looing fo india not pakistan so the as far as the name of the article is concerned it is correct Tca achintya (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The terms Bharat ka Vibhajan, and Hindustan ka bantvara, as mentioned in the article are direct translations of the English 'Partition of India' and are not words used with any regularity in either spoken or written Hindi or Urdu. As anyone will corroborate a more appropriate term that is in currency for the Partition is Bantvara in Hindi, and Taksim in Urdu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.78.251.246 (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I just want to change the term British India to British rule in India
Although British Parliament passed the term "British India" it is derogatory for Indians, correct terminology is country's rule in India. examples Parts of United States were ruled by British, French, etc but there is no term like British US or French US Hope you understand —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mailbhargav (talk • contribs) 05:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, there are terms such as British America, British North America, Russian America, and even Spanish Florida. All of these areas had indigenous populations too. - BilCat (talk) 06:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Citation for number of Sindhi speakers in India
http://censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001/Census_Data_Online/Language/Statement4.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamria (talk • contribs) 22:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Andrew Whitehead, 25 April 2010
I would like to add this to the external links India: a People Partitioned Five radio programmes broadcast on the BBC World Service in 1997 containing the voices of people across South Asia who lived through Partition. The audio of these programmes is available at http://www.andrewwhitehead.net/india-a-people-partitioned.html

Andrew Whitehead (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Added. The article on your website says that the series won an award at the 'New York Festival'. Could you please tell us which festival and which award? Thanks. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Reunion?
Could someone mention efforts made by the Pakistani Government (Zadari), who hoped to create a union between the nations as he described "like the European Union"? I think that is significant for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.26.39 (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Editrequest
editrequest please add an interwiki for ਭਾਰਤ ਦਾ ਬਟਵਾਰਾ

Done --ANowlin: talk 22:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Funny but true
Dear all,

Wikipedia is all wrong about this subject, they fail to emphasis the meaning independance.

Britain invaded their country or so called Good country in fact and they got it all wrong.

Your Divinely,

Millwall4life —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.86.211 (talk) 11:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request
I noticed that the first paragraph of section 2.2 1932-1942 ends with:


 * All Muslim political parties including the Khaksar Tehrik of Allama Mashriqi opposed the partition of India. Mashriqi was arrested on 19 March 1940.

I was thinking of taking the last sentence out. It seems misleading, and it implies that Mashriqi was arrested for his opinion on the partition, when there is no evidence to support that. In addition, there's no source given for that last sentence. Ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.70.22 (talk) 04:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

No mention of number of casualities
There is no mention of the number of causalities in the riots in Punjab and Bengal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.138.33 (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Source? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Map at head of page is terrible
This map does not even identify the areas to be partitioned, and it certainly does not focus on the provinces which were partitioned by the Boundary Commission. Most British provinces simply transferred to the new India or to Pakistan, but the area covered by the provinces is mixed up (without explanation) with the areas of princely states. It is very misleading to colour Hyderabad and Jammu & Kashmir grey and to define the grey colour as "States not covered by the partition plan" - there was no "partition plan" for the princely states, which the British could not partition because they were not British possessions. It would be helpful for the map to identify all of the non-British areas of that kind – not very easy at this scale, but it could be attempted. To be selective about this matter is hopelessly incorrect and unencyclopedic. Moonraker (talk) 03:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC) their was a partition they had to join India even if they shared a border with pakistan as moutbatton demanded so

Partition of India ?
it was the partition of British Raj + Principality states / British India + Principality states Partition of India is a very misleading this article has a paragraph about Punjab,Bengal,Kashmir etc their should also be a paragraph about Hyderabad, Portuguese Goa, Bhopal and all the other principality states which where not under direct Colonial Rule  --Fez78 (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No. The British could not partition the princely states because they were not British. They also could not partition the Portuguese or French possessions. When the British left India they could only encourage the rulers of the states to join one of the new dominions. Most did, but some did not. Moonraker (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As there have been no other comments, I shall revert the header added by Fez78. Moonraker (talk) 01:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Woah woah woah...what gives you the right to revert ? no body else has commented apart from you...wikipedia is about consensous not most frequent editor....I forgot my password so was unable to log in and forgot about this article...but I dont think you cant just remove the POV notice because your the last one to log in The Principality states where not part of India but they where part of the British Raj, this map also should not show portuge goa as as part of the British Raj...India and pakistan where both born on the same day

this article "The British Raj unravelled quickly in the 1940s, perhaps surprising after the empire in the east had so recently survived its greatest challenge in the shape of Japanese expansionism." http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/independence1947_01.shtml

I think there should be a separate page about the growth of India like there is one for the US ...such as goa,sikkim etc --Vuovuo (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * One of the difficulties here is that there was no such thing as "the British Raj". No one can really say what the term means, and the meaning used by Wikipedia varies from page to page. the princely states were part of "India" when the word was used (as it often was) to mean the whole Indian Empire, but they were not part of the India which was divided by the British between the new "India" and the entirely new "Pakistan". The term "partition of India" refers to what was partitioned by the British, and they could not partition the princely states, which were not theirs. All they could do was release the states from their subsidiary alliances, which is what they did. Moonraker (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Bhārat kā Vibhājan vs Hindustān kā Vibhājan
What's the big deal with the slow edit war over this? Both are the same (Hindustan probably more correct as it is the historical name of India). -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 07:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Salaam! The correct name that should be in the article should be Hindustan ka Batwara in the official language of the nation under the British Raj, Hindustani (in both the Nastaleeq and Devanagari scripts) as opposed to modern Hindi and Urdu. The word batwara is common to Hindi-Urdu/Hindustani, which as I mentioned above, was the official language at the time of the partition. This was the case for the article for several years and accepting this will resolve the slow edit war. Moreover, correcting this issue will also reduce the clutter from the lede and make the article more readable. I have corrected this issue in the article and have added a reference which delineates the nation's name and official language under the British Raj, i.e. Hindustan (as correctly stated by User:TopGun) and Hindustani, respectively, in order to avoid hassles in the future. Thanks for bringing this up User:TopGun. With regards, AnupamTalk 07:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WS, I do not really object to having both Urdu and Hindi translation - may be that can be attributed to as being more NPOV with respect to India & Pakistan (that were formed as a result of the partition) but just found it lame to edit war over Hindustan and Bharat. I guess some are being offended due to the fact that India still retains those names for it though the article's context is perfectly clear. Though I see "batwara" as a more elegant word... one word for both Hindi and Urdu. Thanks for updating. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 08:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply User:TopGun. With a translation in Hindustani/Hindi-Urdu, we really do not need to provide a separate Sanskritized (Bharat ka Vibhājan) and Persianized (Taqseem-e-Hind) translation of the title. This is because the term Hindustan ka Batwara is intelligible in modern Hindi and Urdu and is frequently used among speakers of both registers in both Pakistan and India. In other words, Hindustan ka Batwara is equally a Hindi phrase as it is an Urdu one, and is understood by speakers of the diasystem (see About Hindi-Urdu by Afroz Taj). In my opinion, adding separate Sanksritized and Persianized terms will only clutter the article lede further and will be redundant as an Urdu and Hindi speaker understand the colloquial phrase Hindustan ka Batwara. At any rate, I saw that you changed Hindustani to Hindi-Urdu here and think that works too, since the terms are interchangeable. Thanks for your help and for the discussion! Khuda hafiz, AnupamTalk 08:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly, I made that change to cover the modern as well as the historical POVs in the same and also is the actual name of the article. It's better this way. Khuda Hafiz. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 08:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds great, in the future, if there are issues, we can point the questioning individual to the reference at the end of the scripts, which states that the name of the country and language at the time of the British Raj was Hindustan and Hindustani (Hindi-Urdu) respectively. This thorough conversation between you and I also establishes consensus on the issue as well. New editors to the article who question the wording of the lede can be pointed to this discussion as a reference! :) AnupamTalk 08:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The scripts need to be removed as per discussion here. -- ɑηsuмaη  <span title="Shoot!" style="cursor: crosshair;">ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ  18:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

No such thing as partition of india
How can there be a partition of india when india never existed until one day after Pakistan was created. The whole South Asia was conquered, ruled and administered by the British (British Raj) who subsequently made Burma seperate and later Sri Lanka/Ceylon seperate. The partition specifically only involved the provinces of Panjab and Bengal. The areas of delineating India and Pakistan were established. Partitioning only occurred in those aforementioned provinces. Therefore, this article is incorrectly labelled as the partition of india. If anything, Pakistan gained its independence one day earlier than India. Perhaps it should be labelled as the Partition of Pakistan using the logic behind the naming of this article. Wikipedia needs re-title this article as it is misleading and a distortion of history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.1.2.2 (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Read the history then. You're completely wrong. Start with reading this article, then British India and then the others linked. Republic of India chose to retain it's colonial name after it's independence, that's what is confusing you. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Separate electorates
This article mentions nothing about the whole provision for the separate electorates and a number of other historical events that led to Partition. It treats the history before partition very superficially.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adi87tya (talk • contribs) 17:04, 15 April 2007‎ (UTC)

Decline of Hinduism
This is what the source states:


 * "Before the partition of India in 1947, more than 20% of the population of today's Pakistan was Hindu. But many left the country at the time of partition in 1947. Today many Hindus say they are still discriminated against or forced to convert to other religions.


 * Today, there are roughly three million Hindus in Pakistan, or about 1.6% of the total population."

It does not say it is the cause of the decline, nor does it say that Hindus are forced to convert, rather "hindus say they are forced to convert". See WP:SYNTH. This is pure original research. Also my revert to IP was for it's incorrect edit summary and removing other content on the go replacing it with this. You should self revert. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * But that also don't says that they are not discriminated. I will recommend YOU to self revert. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 16:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That version is OR... Not reverting to that. Lol, the negative does not need proof when the fact itself has not been proved. You really need to understand that. And stop following me. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I knew that you will, like always, cry "hounding". Just have a look over Regents' talk, its under my watchlist. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 16:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Seriously I don't care how you get to articles.... whether through watchlists or my contributions list.. you keep turning up where ever there are disputes with me to oppose me. That's not a foul cry by any defination. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Citing B of WP:BRD to make controversial edits, and then when watchers reverts, crying "hounding". Thats for sure a foul cry. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 16:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hatting this as it is not about content per another user too . -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 17:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * And the second source also talks about Hindu leaders saying that the girl was forcefully converted and the girl her self saying that she was not, and a whole debate over the single incident. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 17:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The third source is seemingly an opinion piece and not a very good one at that too. From the first line it shows how biased it is. Not reliable in anyway. . I'd request to self revert and complete this discussion instead of keeping the poor edits in the article. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 17:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (after edit-conflict) I read the sources of BBC, and added another source from New York Times. The sources mention that "Hindus say...". So, Pakistan government or other third parties do not say this (well, I have not searched this further, so, for the time being, I would assume no other third parties say this). So, I have changed the sentence structure to "In Pakistan, Hindus sometimes resent the discrimination and forced conversion to Islam.", and added the NYT references besides the two pre-existing references. That "Before independence, Hindus and Sikhs had formed 20 per cent of the population of the areas now forming Pakistan" has already been stated in this section with reference. I have not changed anything there. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The NYC source, as I detailed it, states it as Hindus' opinion, the punjab news source should completely be removed and the sentence should be rephrased to "In Pakistan, Hindus sometimes resent the alleged discrimination and forced conversion to Islam." That would be anything near to what sources say as the current version can still be taken in another meaning. Also your edit summary called the removal wrong... I hope you've read the sources your self and compared it to the text that was in the article that I reverted. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 17:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine with me if you are that much into semantics. I agree that the Punjab news line reference should be removed (it is heavily partial). In case I find any more detail (after reading those sources thoroughly, and in case I stumble upon some other sources), I will discuss that here. Please go ahead and make the change. And yes, the removal was wrong because removal of a disputed content is not the solution (unless it is a blatant lie or attack), rather making it undisputed by modification and discussion is the solution.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'm making the amends then. The removal part was in context because I removed it after getting no response here for two days. I made an editorial judgement of my own as I was the only discussing editor. Regards. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 17:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How can you call that a discussion when there was no other users involved ? Thanks Dwaipayan for pitching in. --  ɑηsuмaη  <span title="Shoot!" style="cursor: crosshair;">ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ  18:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point. I left that there for two days and you did not respond. When I removed it per the talkpage's silent consensus, you starting calling multiple editors of your choice. I've nothing more to say to that.. you should know better. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Treatment of minorities
Few days ago User:Pee3.14159 with this edit added some content along with a source. While reading the same source I found some more related information and added it, but it was changed to a version that is grossly misrepresentation of the source. I have tried explaining to the user to on his/her talk but this seems futile. -- S M S  Talk 19:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If it is misrepresented revert it. Ih he does not listen warn him about the sanctions in the topic area, failing that file an AE. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I fail to understand why this content is being removed:
 * Pakistani Hindus worst victims of rape: US report --Pee3.14159 (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

1947 India partition memorial
More than a million were killed in this migration. Total of 15 to 18 million people migrated from one to other country. Absolutely there was no law and order. British were leaving and new country Pakistan was born. Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan were moving to India side and Muslims from India were migrating to Pakistan side. British probably should have supervised this migration.

This was not a war by any means. People were given choice to move if they wished. It could have been done in a orderly fashion. More than million people who lost their lives were totally innocent people, with absolutely no fault of their own. I would say they got into circumstances. I believe India and Pakistan governments should hav thought about a monument and historical archives at the border. At least should have promoted the idea at private level if not public. It is still time, that like minded people to come forward and let us do something. We have daily events at the wagah border and a monument along with will be a wise investment.

I am willing to work on this project but we need many more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.140.21.202 (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed changes
Please list major changes here.--Crème3.14159 (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't make nonsensical edits. This page is a part of the "Colonial India" template.  It covers subcontinental history until 1948.  I am the main contributor to this article.  See here. I've been working on it for 6 years, not like you for one week in August 2013.  I've added pretty much all the maps and pictures from personal copies. I know what the page is about.  It is not about the status of minorities in India or Pakistan today.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes
Would User:Crème3.14159 please explain why he thinks the treatment of minorities deserves to be in an article on partition? Darkness Shines (talk) 07:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. I did not create the subsection. I readded it because it was unjustifiabley removed by Fowler&fowler. The reason why it needs to be there because the whole idea of Partition is based on majority-minority concept- Hindus being majority and Muslims being minority in India, and the opposite in Pakistan. Hence, it is pertinent that in the "Aftermath" section of the article, treatment of minorities be given its due place, regardless of how it makes one feel and the mention of four wars and arms race not be expunged simply because Fowler&fowler dislikes it. As far as I can see, nobody prior to Fowler&fowler's sanitization of the page had ever even proposed removing the bit about war and minorities. So, how come it is suddenly a national issue?--Crème3.14159 (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As you can see here, Fowler&fowler was happily contributing to the minorities subsection. What has suddenly made him so outraged that he expunged large portions of text on minorities (demographics etc), calling it irrelevant and "personal grievances based on family lore"? How come nobody had a problem all these years?--Crème3.14159 (talk) 09:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * C-3, I wasn't happily contributing, only making minor corrections because I was away and did not have time. I do have time now.  That is why I cleaned up the article, which had a pro-India spin, such as connecting "religious demographics" to the "Two-nation theory" in the lead, which I also did away with, etc. etc.  The British did not accept the two-nation theory; they partitioned the subcontinent because there was no other way for them to leave it without a much greater level of carnage than happened in 1947;  eventually Nehru and Patel came to agree with their assessment and agreed (though they too did not accept the two-nation theory).  People, usually those favoring the Indian POV have been adding biased, cherry picked statements, which are sourced to books published by Concept Publishers in Delhi, which have already been deemed unreliable on many WT:INDIA discussions.  On the other hand, the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in the princely states of Rajasthan and the Sikh states of East Punjab, reliably written up by some of the best historians of the partition, such as Ian Copeland, go unmentioned.  What does a listing of the religious demographics of India and Pakistan have to do with the partition?  If you are going to include that, why not include everything: economy (which would have been different if the BIE had not been split), cricket and field hockey, Al Qaeda, Osama, etc etc.   All those histories might have been different if the partition had not occurred.  This article, as I've said, is about the partition and its immediate aftermath, and about the lives of those directly affected by the partition, not those of their children, grandchildren, and fellow sympathizers, whether they are Hindu nationalist or Muslim nationalist.  There are already two sections on the settlement of refugees.  That is as far as the article goes.  Besides all these new disputed sections mention parent articles (and indeed the sections you have added to do), but they are not higher level summaries of the parent articles; rather, they are independent articles with different sources.  Indeed, you C-3, have made no contributions to any of the parent articles.  I will be moving those sections to a section here on the talk page and we can discuss the fine points here, but they don't belong to the main article.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Disputed Sections
I'm happy to discuss the disputed sections, which I have moved below:

Treatment of minorities by Pakistan and India
Before independence, Hindus and Sikhs had formed 20 per cent of the population of the areas now forming Pakistan, presently the percentage has "whittled down to one-and-a half percent". M. C. Chagla, in a speech at the UN General Assembly said that, Pakistan solved its minority problem by the ethnic cleansing of the Hindus, resulting in "hardly any" Hindu minority population in West Pakistan. India suspected Pakistan of ethnic cleansing when millions of Hindus fled its province of East Pakistan in 1971. Hindus remaining in Pakistan have been persecuted. Yasmin Saikia writes that "although a large number of Muslims migrated to Pakistan in 1947, the bulk of the Muslim population chose to stay in their homelands in India". According to Azim A. Khan Sherwani, the Hashimpura massacre case is "a chilling reminder of the apathy of the (Indian) state towards access to justice for Muslims", he writes that the case demonstrates that it is not just the Hindutva lobby, but also the Congress-Left and the socialists that are apathetic, and that Muslim "leaders" are more concerned with their personal ambitions and not with "issues afflicting the community". In Pakistan, Hindus have been facing discrimination and often forced to convert to Islam.

Pakistan tried preventing Harijans (untouchables etc) from leaving Pakistan so that they stayed to clean toilets and other things. To this effect, the Government there passed the Essential Services Maintenance Act barring their emigration. Eagerness to woo the Harijans was shown by India by instituting constitutional reforms for their upliftment and setting up of various institutions for their rehabilitation.

Integration of refugee populations with their new countries did not always go smoothly. Some Urdu speaking Muslims (Muhajirs) who migrated to Pakistan have at certain times complained of discrimination in government employment. Municipal political conflict in Karachi, Pakistan's largest city, often pitted native Sindhis against Muhajir settlers. Sindhi, Bengali, and Punjabi refugees in India also experienced poverty and other social issues as they largely came empty-handed. However, fifty years after partition, almost all ex-refugees have managed to rebuild their lives. The repression of minorities in Pakistan remains a global concern but Pakistani politicians have largely ignored the issue. Those who have attempted to lobby or campaign on this issue have been threatened and murdered like Sherry Rehman, and Salman Taseer and Shahbaz Bhatti.

All three nations resulting from the partition of India have had to deal with endemic civil conflicts. Inside India, these have been largely due to inter-religious unrest and disruptive far left forces. Civil unrest inside India includes:


 * The Sikh separatist movement of the 1980s which has since become almost non-existent.
 * Islamist separatist movement in Jammu and Kashmir resulting in the ethnic cleansing    of Kashmiri Hindus and massacres against Hindus such as the ones in Wandhama and Kaluchak. It has been found with enough evidence that the Pakistani government and its intermediaries have tacitly backed and armed these militants.   The recent example of unrest, the insurgency in Kashmir, is related to the ongoing Kashmir conflict and periodic human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir by state forces, issues which have affected relations between India and Pakistan.

Within Pakistan, unrest is mainly because of ethnicities, with Sindhis, Bengalis, Balochis, all vying for more representation within the federation and in some cases, the creation of an independent state.
 * In 1971, the Bangladesh Liberation War and the subsequent Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, which led to further partition of Pakistan.

Current religious demographics of India proper and former East and West Pakistan
Despite the huge migrations during and after Partition, India is still home to the third largest Muslim population in the world (after Indonesia and Pakistan). The current estimates for India (see Demographics of India) are as shown below. Islamic Pakistan, the former West Pakistan, by contrast, has a much smaller minority population. Its religious distribution is below (see Demographics of Pakistan). As for Bangladesh, the former East Pakistan, the non-Muslim share is somewhat larger (see Demographics of Bangladesh):

India (2006 Est. 1,095 million vs. 1951 Census 361 million)
 * 80.5% Hindus (839 million)
 * 13.10% Muslims (143 million)
 * 2.31% Christians (25 million)
 * 2.00% Sikhs (21 million)
 * 1.94% Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and others (20 million)

Pakistan (2005 Est. 162 million vs. 1951 Census 34 million)
 * 98.0% Muslims (159 million)
 * 1.0% Christians (1.62 million)
 * 1.0% Hindus, Sikhs and others (1.62 million)

Bangladesh (2005 Est. 144 million vs. 1951 Census 42 million)
 * 86% Muslims (124 million)
 * 13% Hindus (18 million)
 * 1% Christians, Buddhists and Animists (1.44 million)

India and Pakistan after the Partition
In the aftermath of the bloody Partition, India and Pakistan have had strained relations. One of the biggest contentions is over the disputed region of Kashmir, over which there have been three wars. India and Pakistan have fought the following four wars since:


 * Indo-Pakistani War of 1947: Pakistani-backed tribals (and later its army) invaded the princely state of Kashmir that acceded to India as per the scheme of accession provided in Indian Independence Act 1947. A stalemate followed since 1949.


 * Indo-Pakistani War of 1965: Pakistani-backed guerrillas invaded Jammu & Kashmir state of India. India is generally believed to have had the upper hand when a ceasefire was called. Whereas Pakistan believed its air-superiority over army and navy against India in the war to be key achievement and future success if war continued.


 * Indo-Pakistani War of 1971: After India announced support for the Bengalis in East Pakistan, Pakistan launched air strikes against India. India eventually liberated East Pakistan and helped in the creation of Bangladesh.


 * 1999 Kargil Conflict: Pakistani army troops invaded high peaks in Kargil sector in Jammu & Kashmir during the winter when high mountain posts were unoccupied. India recaptured all territory lost.

India and Pakistan have also engaged in a nuclear arms race.

Discussion of these disputed sections
Let us discuss the issues here rather than edit-warring on the main page. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  12:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler's issues

 * Main issue: This section and those below it are outside the scope of the Partition of India page. The page is a part of the "Colonial India" template; in fact, colonial India ends with the partition.  It is OK to have sections on the rehabilitation (or lack thereof) of the refugees of the partition, but what does the status of minorities have to do with the partition?  What does the simple list of the various wars fought between India and Pakistan have to do with the partition?
 * Minor Issues: M. C. Chagla was India's rep to the UN. Why is his take notable, reliable or neutral but not that of Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, his Pakistani counterpart? Indeed where is Khan's response?  Where is the balance?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

POV tag
Currently the text of this article is not adhering to the WP:NPOV policy and for this reason I am tagging it as such. Unless the so obvious NPOV issues are resolved this tag will stand ( like the use of word "touted"). -- S M S  Talk 15:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

POV issues with the article
Please discuss any POV issues with the article here. I believe that merely quoting Ambedkar on Savarkar (an enemy of the Congress) is not enough but a quote from Jinnah should be included as well, in particular, that on civil war and Direct Action Day. Neither Ambedkar, nor Savarkar had any say in the Partition, it should be noted. --Bookishness (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC) — Bookishness (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Crème3.14159 (talk • contribs). -- S M S  Talk 13:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Partition of British India?
I just undid an edit to the lede sentence, which changed the subject of the article to "Partition of British India" (emph. added), since I believe that such a significant change needs to be discussed and if upheld, should be accompanied by moving the article to that title. My own (provisional) view is that while the teem "partition of British India" has certainly been used and is perhaps even justifiable by first principles, the term "partition of India" is the commonly accepted name for the event. For example, even the comprehensive report on the event produced by historians from Britain, India and Pakistan in 1969 was published under the title The Partition of India: Policies and Perspectives, 1935-1947. Of course that is not the only or last word on the topic, and I am open to being convinced that current usage is different or has changed. Abecedare (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * PS: See also this earlier discussion on the topic. Abecedare (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The WP term of the entity referring to that time is British India. WP should not contradict itself. India as a /the political entity simply did not exist at the time. (analysis from here on is recentism as it take thes current statist worldview.)
 * and thanks for the discussion initiation and invite.Lihaas (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed in the past. Although "British India" is politically correct, Wikipedia is beholden to secondary sources and they refer to it as the "Partition of India." Please read the linked previous discussion by Abecedere, in which numerous citations were provided in favor of Partition of India. --Dwaipayan (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Partition of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060117062957/http://www.weeklyholiday.net:80/150202/inret.html to http://www.weeklyholiday.net/150202/inret.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 19:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Edits by TalhaZubairButt
Hi, you are doing mass changes in article which I not really seems authentic. When your edits gets reverted you are suppose to start talk page discussion as per WP:BRD. Some of edits like this are highly POV edits. All of your sources are Pakistan based. We usually use western author's sources for neutrality in opinion. I invite you to discuss your edits. It is controversial arena of editing, you should be careful while editing.-- Human 3015   Let It Go   13:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Human3015 I have inserted the phrase 'albeit debatable' in parentheses to neutralise the statement. My article is supported by quotes of high profile individuals (i.e. Jawaharlal Nehru) who were quoted in that article. Furthermore the Pakistan based article itself relies on neutral citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TalhaZubairButt (talk • contribs) 14:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If they are based on "neutral citations" then kindly provide those neutral citations. -- Human 3015   I just called to say I love you   14:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I find your reverts problematic. It doesn't appear that you quite know what you are reverting, and your edit rationales are no good:
 * Why did you introduce "ethnic cleansing" here?
 * Why remove the content sourced to Khalidi?
 * Why remove people looking for employment opportunities?
 * Why are you fiddling with the Jawaharlal Nehru quote?
 * What is wrong with the Human Rights Commission data?
 * A revert rationale like "remove WP:POV" is no good. You are deleting sourced content. If anything, it is you that is exhibiting a POV. Sourced content should be debated if at all there is a problem with it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to reply your queries regarding this edit, I did not introduce "ethnic cleansing", it was already in article, other editor changed it to "violence or outbreak". He os changing wordings in article as per his perception. I did not remove Human Rights data, it is just change in order. That data was there even after my edit. I have not anything with Nehru's quote. How Khalidi's source regarding Socio-Economic situation of Muslims in India is reliable? That source is not verifiable, I can see only one page of it. But it is really so biased info that "Muslims of India migrated to Pakistan to get better work opportunities and better education". If we read work of any Indian author we can find that "there are still more muslims in India than Pakistan and India is best place for Muslims". For example head of largest Muslim organization of India Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind is saying that "Indian Muslims have no better place to live than India". I can give more sources, but it is just perception of various people in Sub-continent. We should get third party western sources to comment on Socio-economic situation of Muslims in India after independence. (I may not reply to further queries as I am removing this page from my watchlist}. -- Human 3015   It will rain   18:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see Khalidi talking about the socio-economic situation of Muslims in India. He is merely talking about the motivations of the Muslims who did migrate to Pakistan. You know very well that reliable sources can be WP:BIASED. You can question the sources based on their reliability, not based on their views. (And the Jamiat is not a reliable source for anything.) - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Partition of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110728100016/http://www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/catalogue/book.asp?id=1204410 to http://www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/catalogue/book.asp?id=1204410

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

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 04:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Two nation theory
I really wonder the way people are reacting to my edit. The members are threatening me for blocking for making edit on WP. I have studied the topic in depth and was trying to correct the content in the article regarding Two nation theory. The content saying Vinayak Savarkar was behind this was completely baseless and without references. If I remove the unsourced content and add the right information, why there is so much noise? Sawarkar always saying "Akhand Hindustan" and some 'smart' people added incorrect content in the article and nobody is correcting it?

User:Kautilya3, if you any issues with me, please discuss on talk page rather than giving me warning. I am WP user for last many years and that also in many languages and I know my responsibilities. Now, regarding the addition of Mahatma Gandhi sentence, this is based against this link. See also: http://www.mkgandhi.org/assassin.htm

I hope, you should not have issues in this. I request, you to revert the content and try to improve the article. Yogee23 (talk) 07:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * You are claiming that the unsourced sentence "This was accepted and supported Mahatma Gandhi" you had inserted in the text comes from this web site? Can you show us where? Secondly, if this was indeed your source, why didn't cite it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It says Godse justified the killing on Gandhi claiming that Gandhi supported the idea of a separate State for Muslims. It's a belief of Godse and nothing more.Ghatus (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Ah, I was looking for "two-nation theory." Even if Gandhi had supported a separate state of Pakistan, which he didn't, that still doesn't mean that he supported the two-nation theory.
 * , I am faulting you on several counts:
 * Using a web site, which is not a reliable source.
 * Failure to cite the source.
 * Misrepresenting the source.
 * Burying the questionable sentence in a huge edit so that nobody knows what you have done.
 * It is the last of these that worries me the most. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * , Happy Gudhi padwa !!! I will answer point by point. all are aware that Gandhi was against formation of Pakistan. If he would be strong enough to oppose partition, the partition would have never happened. Since he was the final authority in congress and other members including Nehru would follow the same. In fact, some sources say that these members only later convinced Gandhi for formation of two nations which Gandhi accepted. In tern, Gandhi accepted partition which is a derivative of two nation theory. There is another reference, where Mr Hiro written the same thing. If I spend time in british library, I can find many such references to prove my point.


 * I had not intentions to hide any post, as anybody can find that on Wikipedia. Only this, I missed to add that references. If you have any issues on any sentence, you can very well re write the sentence and contribute the way, I did. My question over here: Earlier, there was lot of content without references bashing on Sawarkar, why it was not removed? This article was created in 2003 and the incorrect content, we were carrying for last many years. I only found that and tried to correct. I find it more appropriate to take from the other article rather than inventing the whole wheel again. By the way, I have not given reference of that article in this article.


 * There are many irregularities still in Wikipedia which we editors needs to correct. I suggest, you take my edits positively and join my hands. Yogee23 (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Happy Gudi Padwa to you too! I am afraid your thinking contains dangerous amounts of WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. In future, please make sure that you state exactly what the sources say, and be careful to cite them. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Text copied from Vallabhbhai Patel
The text was copied in on 14:49 06:49, 5 June 2015. It remains almost exactly in the copied form. Hopefully an editor who is more knowledgeable on the topic than I am (I'm only learning about it from these articles) can alter it so that it integrates better into this article, focusing more on this topic and not repeating information. All I've done is add wikilinks and replace "[43]" and such with the citations that these are meant to be copying. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by BreakfastJr (talk • contribs) edited Kautilya3 (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, could you clarify what this revert was based on? If it relates to attribution of the text to the referenced article, we have a template for that. A big chunk of the article ended up being removed (with references), to a very inferior version. For example, [this section. I'm going to revert back to the good version for now. If you want the text to be attributed, please see [[WP:CWW]].  Mar4d  ( talk ) 09:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I recall noticing this copy-paste before. The entire Background supersection was probably copy-pasted from various sources and lacks focus. All of it will need to be rewritten eventually. So I wouldn't worry too much about fixing the copied content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, this is weird. I honestly have no idea how that edit happened. That wasn't what I did. I just did what I said in this talk page post; I copied in the two citations which the earlier editor had copied in improperly (resulting in the "[43]" type things), added a "citation needed" template to the Gandhi claim, and I think made a couple other very small copyedits like adding or removing wikilinks. That edit summary is definitely what I wrote, but the actual edit is totally foreign to me. There's a lot of changes made in that edit that are to parts of this article I hadn't previously read, and I definitely didn't delete a huge chunk. I really don't know what's happened here. Sorry about that, and good move on the revert; I'd definitely advise rewriting to integrate it here rather than deleting it. I've done another edit which is what I actually intended to do.
 * But this is seriously weird. Sorry again, and thanks again for fixing whatever happened there. BreakfastJr (talk) 09:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Noted. No worries, thanks for clarifying!  Mar4d  ( talk ) 11:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Position of temporal prepositional phrase in first sentence
(In reference to revert 742267872)

The first sentence of the article is currently:


 * The Partition of India was the 1947 partitioning of the British Indian Empire that led to the creation of the sovereign states of the Dominion of Pakistan (which later split into Pakistan and Bangladesh) and the Union of India (later Republic of India) on 15 August 1947.

When I first read this, I understood that the Dominion of Pakistan and Union of India were created on August 15, 1947. It took a few readings to realize that the date was referring to the Partition. I think it would be clearer to keep the date closer to the sentence subject, considering the size of the clause.

It also doesn't sound right to say:


 * The Partition of India was the 15 August 1947 partitioning of the British Indian Empire...

Therefore, I propose omitting the month and day from this sentence and keeping the exact date in the sidebar (now presumably correct). I didn't notice any section in the article about the specifics of the congregation and signing of the document, but if there were one, I think that would be a better place for the exact date (perhaps with a citation).

--Keith (Hypergeek14)Talk 19:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you are right. That sentence is terribly long and complicated. I don't mind dropping the 15 August 1947 date from the sentence.
 * There was no particular document signed. The Government of India Act was passed in June-July. 14-15 August was the appointed date of transfer of power, which coincided with the "Partition". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * On second thought, I split the sentence and retained the date. The date is important because this article also served as the reference point for the Independence of India/Pakistan. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Partition of Burma from India in 1937
I think its of historically important enough interest to include in this article about the partitioning of India, especially since this article as it stands currently contains references to partitioning prior to the partition between Pakistan and India? Stevo D (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The word "partition" was never applied to the separation of Burma from the British Indian Empire in 1937. See the picture File:Separation_of_Burma_from_British_India_1937.jpg I posted on the British Raj page many years ago.  You may wish to add a sentence or two about the separation of Burma to the section: British_Raj, of the Raj page.  But, it doesn't really belong here.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Change of lead
, you have changed the lead today as far as I can see, and claimed but this lead was already there before being changed without discussion. This source was already there as well. If changes are intended to bring it back to recent changes then you are free to discuss. Please point out where it was and who changed it. Also, explain what this change means and for what reason. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Kautilya3, for one you have edited the article when it was in that version, you must have overseen it.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for telling me. That was November 2016, a long time ago. So it still needs a discussion if you want to change it back to that version. But you have ignored the second part of my question, what does this change mean, and why do you want to change it?. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Kautilya3, why was that changed prior to discussion? And even the current note in the intro as I quote, seems to support using British Indian Empire/British Raj (the previous redirects to the latter): "British India consisted of those regions of the British Raj, or the British Indian Empire, which were directly administered by Britain; other regions, of nominal sovereignty, which were indirectly ruled by Britain, were called princely states".--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Your objection is not clear at all. The note seems to support what? And how is it being biased and violating which Wikipedia's policy? Regarding why that was added without discussion, it was because apparently no editor objected to it at the time of its addition, believing it was being added with a constructive intention. Obviously the note is present for an explanatory purpose. And you are proposing to remove that note which has been there for months. So please elaborate on why it should be removed. Be specific — it seems to be indicating support towards what? And how? Also, kindly remember to state your objection in terms of Wikipedia policy(s). --- TylerDurden10 (talk) 05:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * NadirAli, I was the one who changed it. I did not discuss it here. I explained pretty much everything in great detail in the edit summaries, for example here.  I apologize.   I periodically do clean ups of this article and I was frustrated that someone had introduced a "civilian attack" infobox.  Not that it matters, but still, you must be aware that I'm not someone who walked off the street and starting mangling the lead.  I do know about WP:OWN, but, still, you must be also aware that I had written most of this article (as the edit history will show) and added all the maps, the pictures, before Yasmin Khan wrote a book on the Great Partition, as a post-doc, and chose to use a non-standard expression, "Partition of the British Indian Empire" for "Partition of India."   To be fair, she may have done it to avoid ambiguity (i.e. arising from people thinking that the (old) India = (new) India = Republic of India) I was at first sympathetic to that formulation and used it myself because the term "British India" was being used by people to mean British Raj and I was looking to disabuse them of this particular WP-wide habit (at that time).  However, in this instance, the partition (ie geographical division and/or assignment to a successor state) was only of the provinces of British India, which were directly administered by the British, not of the princely states (which were only overseen by the British, although sometimes with great robustness and rigor).  As a result of Queen Victoria's proclamation on 1 November 1858 to the princes and people of the Indian empire, the British could neither divide nor assign the princely lands, though they did strongly encourage the princes to choose either India or Pakistan.  Still, a few Hyderabad, Kashmir, chose to stay independent, and were able to do so for a short time after the British left. My point is this:  either you say something tautological as "The Partition of India was the partition of the British Indian Empire" or, since the British Raj, was commonly called India, "The Partition of India was the partition of India," and leave the reader scratching their head or you explain what the partition was i.e. the division of British India.
 * PS The OED, I should add, has been cited for usage  in order to justify the usage "division" and "British India." Otherwise, one doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to know that "Partition of the British Indian Empire" remains marginal or fringe usage garnering for itself 1080 Google book mentions, in contrast to the 192,000 that use "Partiton of India" or even the 4,480 that use the expression "division of British India."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if there is any need for you to apologise. If anybody contested your changes, you would have discussed. That is all we are asking to do. He does not yet seem to understand the idea of consensus-seeking, despite all the water that flowed through the Indus. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Princely states
Going beyond the immediate issues of wording, I think the article is indeed deficient in skirting around the issue of princely states. Yasmin Khan might have used careless wording, but her idea of what was partitioned does indeed correspond to the common man's idea. Despite the fact that the political integration of the states was considered out of scope for this article, Alwar & Bharatpur and Jammu and Kashmir were added to the popopulation movement section, and I believe rightly so. Ian Copland states that the princely states were "absolutely central" to the parition violence. Whereas the Indian Army was deployed in the former British Indian Punjab, there was none in the princely states, with the RSS and the Akalis taking over. All said and done, the princely state are hugely important in the partition saga. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * But that is already included in the article in reference to the violence (I had added a long version on the massacres of Muslims in the princely states of Rajputana many years ago, but someone seems to have removed it), and included in the lead since this edit.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * But according to the "law", they shouldn't be included. They weren't part of British India. They weren't "partitioned". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Law?" It is very simple, the reliable sources typically do not include the process of the Political Integration of Princely States in the topic "Partition of India," but they do include the violence along religious lines that occurred in the princely states at the time of the Partition.  It is all what the preponderance of sources do.  I believe I had already referenced an earlier, and perhaps more focused, paper of Copland: Farther shores of the partition (which was about the violence in some princely states), but I know can't find the edits.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Then can't we just change it to British Raj since British Indian Empire redirects there as it is.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, British Raj = British Indian Empire = British India + Princely States. The division happened only in British India, not in the princely states, and therefore not in the Raj, only in a part of it.  I've explained that fairly clearly in the footnote in the lead sentence.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , but British India redirects to those princely states.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, not the princely states but to Presidencies and provinces of British India, ie. Bombay-, Bengal-, and Madras presidencies, and the provinces of the Punjab, Sind, NWFP, United Provinces (UP), Central Provinces (CP, as in "CP Teak"), Bihar and Orissa, Assam, i.e. 11 in all, all governed by the British. The princely states were ones such as Kashmir and Jammu, Hyderabad State, Bahawalpur, Khanate of Kalat, Junagadh State, Mysore State, etc.  You can view them in the map: File:British Indian Empire 1909 Imperial Gazetteer of India.jpg, the provinces which formed British India are in pink; the princely states are in yellow.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

1945/46 elections
Editors here have to try to understand that this is a contentious page with a long history of nickel and diming by Indian and Pakistani editors. Such a page require a high level history; otherwise everyone and their brother will find some author, perfectly reliable, who is seemingly supporting their favorite family prejudice or nationalist history. The page requires high-level source, preferably well worn textbooks that have already been vetted somewhat for UNDUE etc. It is true that after the 1946 elections, the League's case became stronger, but to cherry pick words such as "plebiscite" is to distort the history. The truth is that the Congress won 90% of the seats in the Central Legislature that were not reserved for Muslim candidates and formed the Central Government. Further, it won absolute majorities in eight out of 11 provinces, including NWFP, and formed provincial governments there. The League did not win an absolute majority in any state, but did win the vast majority of the Muslim vote, including all 30 seats reserved for Muslims in the Central Legislative Assembly. We can't do Google searches for a particular view point, or worse yet, a particular politically charged expression and then add that viewpoint or expression by adding the sources we find in your search. Otherwise, the page will become a mess. We have to understand a topic in some depth first, as treated in the high-level sources, and then summarize it. There are Wikipedia pages Indian general election, 1945 and Indian provincial elections, 1946 and Nehru was he prime minster of the Interim Government of India until August 1947. Our edits need to be in some, however remote, consonance with other Wikipedia pages. Faizan (talk) 11:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC) For example: Burton Stein and David Arnold, for example, say in

"The emphasis upon a religiously defined conception of nationhood rewarded the League, for it won three-quarters of the Muslim vote in the 1946 elections for provincial assemblies, a popular mandate that it had failed to achieve in 1937. This was a triumph for Jinnah, who hastened to interpret the vote as a popular demand for a subcontinental homeland, and he encouraged his followers to celebrate the communal victory that the elections had delivered. Tensions heightened between Muslims and Hindus and Sikhs in the Punjab and elsewhere in north India, for, notwithstanding the League's success in 1946, it was unable to establish provincial ministries anywhere except in Sind, because Congress negotiated coalition ministries to exclude the League in several other provinces. Most galling was the situation in the Punjab, where Congress allied with Sikhs to form a ministry."

Or Metcalf and Metcalf, in say "For the Congress the outcome, never in doubt, was in large part a replay of 1937, with the party's reputation now enhanced by recollection of its role in the August 1942 movement. The Congress won 90 per cent of the votes cast for the central leg-islature in open (non-Muslim) constituencies, and formed govern-ments in eight provinces. The Muslim League, on its part, won all 3o reserved Muslim seats in the central legislature, and 442 of the 500 Muslim seats in the provincial assemblies. In striking contrast to its dismal showing in 1937, the League had now made good on Jinnah's claim that the League, and the League alone, represented India's Muslims. This was a dramatic electoral transformation, yet what the vote meant for those who had given the League their ballots was not immediately obvious."

Or Ian Talbot says in :"The final viceroy quickly realized that a return to the federal arrangements of the Cabinet Mission Plan was impossible and the British would have to divide and quit. While Partition came about along the lines sketched out above, it is important to realize that the outcome was not preordained. The Muslim League had to defeat its powerful Unionist rivals in the Punjab. It was able to achieve a breakthrough in the 1946 elections, but only first, through compromising with local Muslim elites, which were to cause long-term problems for Pakistan's political development, and second, by deploying electioneering methods that prevented it from forming the alliances required to run the government in the province. The March—June 1946 Cabinet Mission was tantalizingly close to achieving a constitutional settlement that safeguarded Muslim interests in a loose federal arrangement. A combination of local and national factors ensured that India's Partition was accompanied by the division of the Muslim majority provinces of Punjab and Bengal."

Or Michael Mann says in : "In the context of the separate electorates that had been intro-duced in 1909 to British India, in 1946 the Muslim League had been able to secure and unite 76 per cent of all Muslim votes, whilst this figure had been a mere 4.8 per cent in the elections of 1937. The national cause of the Muslims had achieved a decisive breakthrough in both the understanding of the Muslim League as well as a large majority of voters. Nevertheless, despite having the strongest faction in the Panjab, the Muslim League was unable to form a government as Congress succeeded in forming an anti-League coalition. Such an outcome sowed the seeds of discord and provided the catalyst and willingness to revert to violent opposition."

Upto now I have deliberately avoided using Indian or Pakistani authors, but her is a book written jointly by an Indian and Pakistani. Bose and Jalal in  say: "In the 1945-6 elections Jinnah and the League won all the Muslim seats to the central assembly, and polled 75 per cent of the total Muslim vote cast in the provincial assembly elections. A remarkable recovery considering their performance in the 1937 elections, it was nearly as foolproof a step to achieving the substance of the League's demand as might appear at first sight. Electrified by the slogan for a 'Pakistan', the Muslims had not voted for a specific agenda because no agenda had been detailed. No one had a clear idea about the exact meaning of 'Pakistan', let alone its precise geographic boundaries. The elections had been won by local leaders with whom the provincial Leagues had struck alliances of convenience. These could very well crumble under the pressure of events over which Jinnah and the League had no control. ... Indeed after the 1946 elections, apart from Bengal which had a League ministry, Sind was the only province in the north-west where Leaguers were in office. The North West Frontier Province was under a Congress ministry and the Punjab, the 'corner-stone' of Pakistan was under a coalition ministry of Unionists, Congressmen and Panthic Sikhs."

When the high level sources are saying something more nuanced, we can't summarize the elections as: "The 1946 elections had resulted in the Muslim League winning 90 percent of the seats reserved for Muslims. Thus the 1946 election was effectively a plebiscite where the Indian Muslims were to vote on the creation of Pakistan; a plebiscite which the Muslim League won. This victory was assisted by the support given to the Muslim League by the rural peasantry of Bengal as well as the support of the landowners of Sindh and Punjab. The Congress, which initially denied the Muslim League's claim of being the sole representative of Indian Muslims, was now forced to recognise that the Muslim League represented Indian Muslims. The British had no alternative except to take Jinnah's views into account as he had emerged as the sole spokesperson of India's Muslims. However, the British did not desire India to be partitioned and in one last effort to avoid it they arranged the Cabinet Mission plan."

Added later at 13:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)



"Yet these final years of the raj showed conclusively that British rule had lost legitimacy and that among the vast majority of Hindus Congress had become the raj's legitimate successor. Tangible proof came in the 1945-6 elections to the central and provincial legislatures. In the former Congress won 91 per cent of the votes cast in non-Muslim constituencies; and in the latter gained an absolute majority and became the provincial raj in eight provinces. The acquiescence of the politically aware (though possibly not of many villagers even at this point) would have been seriously in doubt if the British had displayed any intention of staying in India. (pages 328-329)"

I am therefore removing the entire paragraph until I see some effort to write a more balanced, UNDUE, and nuanced history. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  01:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * @ Fowler&amp;fowler ...I have quickly jotted down a substitute paragraph. Please review this draft. I hope its a good effort and I have not disappointed.

The Muslim League won three quarters of the Muslim vote in the 1946 elections, a majority of the Muslim vote in the federal assembly, all 30 reserved Muslim seats in the central Assembly and 442 out of 500 reserved Muslim seats in the provinces. The Congress won 90 percent of the vote in open [non-muslim] constituencies and was able to form governments in eight provinces, including the Punjab and NWFP. League ministries found themselves only in Sind and Bengal. Originally, the Muslim League had been a party which received most of its support from the Muslim-minority provinces, where fear of Hindu ‘domination’ was greater as was the sense of ‘a loss of privilege’, and to showcase its argument for Muslim nationhood the League needed support from both Muslim-majority as well as Muslim-minority provinces. In the election campaign, the League had resorted to establishing networks with traditional power bases, such as landowners and the religious elite, in the Muslim-majority provinces to win support. Religious slogans were utilized and the term ‘Pakistan’ was put forward, though its meaning was kept vague so that it meant different things to different people. Concurrently, the British hoped to leave India united rather than partitioned.

Faizan (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm really sorry, I did not see this. I thought it was one of my paragraphs.  This is much better, but still not ready for prime time.  What I was suggesting was the idea of getting the best sources first, then summarizing them into a small paragraph.  You seem to be making some points that are not in the sources I had above.  You don't have to do it this way if you don't want to, but this methods ensures there is less POV.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I have tried to change it as per the refs you have provided above. See if this will work. I have tried to stick to the election results without delving into the election campaign.

"In the 1946 elections the Muslim League won the majority of the Muslim vote in the provincial assemblies, winning all Muslim seats in the central Assembly, as well as most reserved Muslim seats in the provincial assemblies. The Congress also won the majority of votes in open non-muslim constituencies. Recovering from its performance in the 1937 elections, the Muslim League was finally able to make good on the claim that they and Jinnah alone represented India's Muslims and Jinnah quickly interpreted this vote as a popular demand for a separate homeland. However, tensions heightened while the Muslim League was unable to form ministries outside the two provinces of Sind and Bengal, with the Congress forming a ministry in the NFWP and the key Punjab province coming under a coalition ministry of the Congress, Sikhs and Unionists." Faizan (talk) 03:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * This is still better, but it makes one error of DUE. If it were an article on "Creation of Pakistan" or "Muslim separatism in British India," this description would have been excellent.  However, in terms of the election, the Congress obviously won the bigger victory, if for no other reason than the Muslims constituting only 20% of the population of British India, and the Congress then went on to form the interim government of India, with Nehru as PM, until August 1947.  But there was another aspect of the Congress's victory: it sealed the fate of the British Empire in India.  Once that fate was sealed, in terms of why the partition happened, the Muslim League won the more significant victory, as their victory supported Jinnah's claim that the ML represented Muslim opinion throughout the subcontinent.  I think we have to mention both for WP:DUE.  I'll post a couple of more sources above, and then rework your version  a little.  One has to remember though that the Indian National Congress was the first, and the main, anti-colonial party, not just of the South Asia, but of the entire British Commonwealth minus the European settler colonies of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and earlier, the US. Thanks for doing this.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

A fuller rewrite: "The British rule had lost its legitimacy for most Hindus and conclusive proof for this came in the 1946 elections with the Congress winning 91 percent of the vote in non-Muslim constituencies, thereby gaining a majority in the Central Legislature and forming governments in eight provinces, and becoming the legitimate successor to the British government for most Hindus. The Muslim League won the majority of the Muslim vote in the provincial assemblies, winning all Muslim seats in the central Assembly, as well as most reserved Muslim seats in the provincial assemblies. Recovering from its performance in the 1937 elections, the Muslim League was finally able to make good on the claim that they and Jinnah alone represented India's Muslims and Jinnah quickly interpreted this vote as a popular demand for a separate homeland. However, tensions heightened while the Muslim League was unable to form ministries outside the two provinces of Sind and Bengal, with the Congress forming a ministry in the NFWP and the key Punjab province coming under a coalition ministry of the Congress, Sikhs and Unionists.." Faizan (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I think the above Faizan's version is good. — Tyler Durden (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup. It's good.  (PS The larger point I was making was that for high-level articles it not enough to have an WP:RS source for a statement, you also have to ensure that the statement represents the consensus view of RS sources, or in the case of a significant disagreement among RSs, a fair representation of both views (without, of course, descending into Author A says this, author B says that, author C ...)).  It takes some doing, but is worth the effort in the end.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The big deal?
From the point of an average Wikipedia reader, which is what I am here, I don't see what is the big deal about a national Muslim party receiving the majority vote in a Muslim electorate. What needs explaining is not that it won, but rather the fact that it took till 1946 for it to win, and the fact that it had to work so hard to win it. Nothing in this discussion answers that question. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Good question. We took the 1945-46 elections paragraph as an example.  I was trying to describe how to summarize the elections an DUE manner.  That paragraph was simply talking about the elections.  The answer to your question should typically belong to the earlier paragraph or the very next one.  I will add some sources for that too soon.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Churchill plan of partition
Viceroy's House is based on The Shadow Of The Great Game and it features a secret British plan during the war for a later partition of India http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/how-prince-charles-steered-filmmaker-gurinder-chadha-to-make-viceroys-house-20170511-gw2sv1.html. Should it be mentioned in the article? --Error (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Genocide - Number of Prosecutions?
Much is made of the fact that up to two million people died. There are many sad stories from survivors. But if two million were murdered then there were perhaps two million murderers. What happened to them? There was genocide on both sides. How many were ever identified arrested and prosecuted? There is a big gap in this history. Cassandra. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.102.61 (talk • contribs)
 * If anybody was prosecuted, the article would have mentioned it. Please note that this is not a WP:FORUM. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Partition of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130518031747/http://www.pakistanhinducouncil.org/hindupopulation.asp to http://pakistanhinducouncil.org/hindupopulation.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921053940/http://www.careerlauncher.com/lstcontent/plansuppliments/attachments/40/62/REVISITING%201947%20THROUGH%20popular%20cinema.pdf to http://www.careerlauncher.com/lstcontent/plansuppliments/attachments/40/62/REVISITING%201947%20THROUGH%20popular%20cinema.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Iqbal Allahabad.jpg

Quote
This quote was removed here on the claim of proper source and context. As such, this book by M. G. Chitkara is an exact referenced and explains the context to the reader.

(Highpeaks35 (talk) 12:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC))

Partition of bengal
As murshidabad was a historical place with muslim majority,why it was not given to pakistan(easr pakintan,now Bangladesh).It was with East pakistan just for 2 days,why it was taken back? Make this thing clear! Khondoker Jobair (talk) 07:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see the Radcliffe Line article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Info about the NWFP referendum
The 1947 North-West Frontier Province referendum was a very important event in the Partition of India because it determined the fate of a whole British Indian province. The partition was not about only splitting the British Indian Punjab and Bengal regions but other ethnicities too (i.e. Pashtuns in case of the NWFP), so to make it complete, I think the referendum should be also mentioned in the lede. (We could perhaps mention the 1947 Sylhet referendum too.) Thanks. Khestwol (talk) 11:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read,, which says on page 1:  "The British transfer of power to the two dominions of India and Pakistan, like the earlier division of Ireland, was a response of imperial statecraft to intractable religious conflict. The carving of a Muslim homeland out of India also involved the partition of the provinces of Punjab and Bengal along Muslim and non-Muslim lines. In addition, Pakistan also received the undivided, Muslim-majority provinces of Sindh, Balochistan and the North West Frontier Province."  There was no question of the people of NWFP having any choice.  Please also remove (I mean AfD) that POV fork of an article you created yesterday, unless you are looking for disciplinary action.  Be warned that discretionary sanctions are in place for editors of this article. Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. We will wait for other users' response. But in my opinion, since the two referendums (NWFP and Sylhet) were intended to give a right of self-determination to the Pashtuns of NWFP and the people of Sylhet, there is no harm to mention these in the article and make the article more balanced. Thank you, Khestwol (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The partition of India was based on simple district-wise census figures. Provinces, such as Sind or NWFP, in which all districts had Muslim majorities, went non-negotiably to Pakistan.  Those such as Punjab and Bengal, which had both Muslim- and Hindu majority districts, were partitioned.
 * Had Kashmir been a province of British India (for example, if the British had not sold the Kashmir valley to the Dogra ruler Gulab Singh in 1846), the Kashmir valley would have gone in its entirety to Pakistan, as it has always been 95% Muslim. It is irrelevant, as is sometimes claimed in India, that the Muslims of Kashmir follow a "kinder, gentler" brand of Islam than elsewhere, and would have preferred to stay in India.  The partition would not have given them the option to exercise self-determination.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The Chittagong hill tribes and district are an example of a non-Muslim area being awarded to Pakistan; Similarly Malda to India; it's not a pure census based partition. Barath s (talk) 13:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The 'Independence, population transfer, and violence' Section seems heavily biased against India
Most casualty numbers only suggest Muslim causalities — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.207.144.54 (talk) 07:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, seems to be mostly Town Hill's POV edits. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Fowler&fowler would you please take a look here, you have extensively contributed to this topic. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Many expert books on the partition emphasise the heavier Muslim death toll or concede it in one way or the other.
 * "I was keen to shed light on the observation of many scholars that more Muslims perished in East Punjab than Hindus and Sikhs together in West Punjab. It is clear from the stories from East Punjab that the attacks on Muslims were large-scale." (Ishtiaq Ahmed, Punjab: Bloodied, Partitioned and Cleansed, p 557)


 * "In an article presented to the 35th Session of the Punjab History Conference, held in Patiala in March 2003, Professor Aridaman Singh Jhubal, confirms that more Muslims died than Hindus and Sikhs. His assessment is based on the evidence presented in the Encyclopedia of Sikhism, Punjabi University Patiala, Vol. III, compiled by Professor Harbans Singh (2002: 122-23)" (Ishtiaq Ahmed, Punjab: Bloodied, Partitioned and Cleansed, p xiv)


 * "By 1948, the dead in the Punjab had reached 180,000, of whom two - thirds were Muslims." (Burton Stein, A History of India, p 352)


 * "It appears that casualty figures were frequently higher when Hindus rather than Muslims were the aggressors." (Ian Talbot, Freedom's Cry, p 48)


 * "Nonetheless, violence was most intense in East Punjab...This organised violence aimed at ethnically cleansing the Muslim population was intended to create the space for Sikh refugees from West Punjab and a Sikh state" (Ian Talbot & Gurharpal Singh, The Partition of India, p 80)


 * "As to East Punjab, and the many princely states in that region, Moon had no 'detailed information.' He ' knew', however, that casualties there had been 'considerably heavier than in West Punjab'." (Gyanendra Pandey, Remembering Partition: Violence, Nationalism and History in India, 90)


 * "However, we need also to add his judgment that the excesses against Muslims in East Punjab 'exceeded in scale and atrocity the outrages perpetrated by Muslims in West Pakistan." (Leo Kuper, Genocide: Its Political Use in the Twentieth Century, 67) -- Arslan-San 10:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, , : It is true that I've contributed to this page, but mainly  to the history sections.  However, I have stayed in touch with the general literature.   Probably the best demographic account, 2008, is by  Prashant Bharadwaj (then at Yale, now at UCSD), Asim Khwaja (Harvard) and Atif Mian (then at Harvard, now at Princeton] Bharadwaj, P., Khwaja, A., and Mian, A. (2008). ‘The Big March: Migratory Flows after the Partition of India’, Economic and Political Weekly, 43(35): 39–49., who say:  "' Our estimate for the number of missing Muslims who left western India, but did not arrive in Pakistan is 1.26 million, reasonably close to the number cited by James. The corresponding missing Hindus/Sikhs along the western border is 0.84 million. This puts the total missing people due to Partition-related migration along the Punjab border at around 2.2 million. ... Along the eastern border, our estimates are 1.1 million missing Muslims in Bangladesh (those Muslims who left India but were not accounted for by arrivals in Bangladesh) and 0.24 million missing Hindus/Sikhs in the eastern Indian states, giving a total of 1.34 million missing along the Bengal border. ... while we do our best to account for internal migration from Bengal and the famine, we would exercise caution in attributing all the missing people in Bengal due to Partition-related mortality. This is party because anecdotal accounts suggest a lesser degree of violence along the Bengal border as opposed to the Punjab border.'"  I believe their Bengal numbers are unreliable; however, their Punjab numbers are on the whole sound. If the excess Muslim mortality in the Punjab (West- and East Punjab) is 420,000 and that in Bengal is 180,000  then the overall excess Muslim mortality would be in the range of 600,000.  In particular, the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in East Punjab by Sikhs was one of the lasting horrors of the Partition (mentioned not just by Burton Stein, but by many historians.)  The city of Amritsar, a Muslim-majority city before the Partition—the killing of whose 300 odd residents in 1919 by the British created the enduring and much monumented martyrdom of Indian nationalism—lost perhaps 30,000 odd Muslims in 1947. Tim Dyson, in his latest book, A Population History of India, Oxford, 2018, references Bharadwaj et al, though he doesn't say anything about religion-based mortality.   Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  07:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Fowler&fowler Thank you for taking the time and giving a detailed reply. I believe the IPs concern here is the one sided coverage of violence. I for one agree with his concern. The violence in that period is widely documented. Extensively talking about violence against the Muslims while not elaborating the violence against Hindus will obviously make the article loose balance and appear biased. The concern the IP 49.207.144.54 is raising that our article only (or rather heavily) talks about one side without covering the other. IMHO while talking about the violence in Punjab we should cover the mortality rates and violence in west Punjab as well ti resolve this. Appreciate if Fowler and Kautilya3, could update the section to make it balanced and alleviate the IPs concern. Thanks.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, 1.26 million and 0.84 are numbers of similar magnitude. I don't see how they justify the wildly disproportional coverage of one side without the other.
 * I also disagree with the idea that "the violence in that period is widely documented". It was documented in Pakistan. Being a Muslim country, it had a vested interest in documenting the violence against Muslims. India had no such interest. In fact, India actively suppressed all information because it knew that such information would only lead to further violence. We have "apples and oranges" here. The kind of information that Towns Hill added for Muslims is simply not available for Hindus and Sikhs. So, we need to decide what is in the interest of NPOV, rather than looking at what is available in the sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I hadn't examined that diff of TownHill's edit when I replied. A quick scan through it doesn't show it to be that out of whack. Determining whether he was scrupulously even-handed, however, will take time. His sources are fairly reliable ones (I notice he references Bharadwaj et al) For example, TownHill's early edit in that diff in which he changes the overall mortality estimates from between 200,000 and 500,000 to between 200,000 and 2 million not only has support in Bharadwaj et al—whose total mortality, or rather "missing people" estimate is 3.4 million—but also has some support in Dyson, who says on page 189:"'In summary, the sudden refugee flows related to Partition may at the time have been unsurpassed in modern world history. It is likely that at least 14–18 million people moved. Previous assessments of the mortality associated with Partition have varied between 200,000 and 1 million. The first figure, attributed to Mountbatten (the last Viceroy) smacks of a number that—conveniently from an official perspective—minimizes the loss of life. However, the figure of 1 million may also be too low. The data, however, do not allow for a firmer judgement.'" The demographic estimates are not based on the documentation of violence, but on census numbers before and after the Partition. There was little documentation of violence.  The victims on both sides were too brutalized to speak.  Many never spoke throughout their lives.  The administrative upheaval, also, was greater in West Punjab, and more in Pakistan, so it is not clear how the government in shambles there could have actually documented anything.  Here is Dyson on page 187:"'Nevertheless, it is very difficult to assess the extent of the migration and—still more—the scale of the mortality. After all, Partition involved the sudden hewing-out of two separate countries. Particularly in the north-west, but also in the east, there was massive turmoil. The administrative systems of Punjab and Bengal were hugely disrupted, and the upheaval seems to have been especially great, and long-lasting, on the Pakistani side.'" But you can gauge the comparative violence and mortality by what historians highlight in concluding or introductory remarks.  Burton Stein, for example, says on page 361: "'The cession of western Punjab to Pakistan sundered tracts long inhabited by Sikhs, the third people of the Punjab, whose outrage led to vengeful attacks on hapless Muslim refugees.'" Sumit Bose, (Professor Emeritus Delhi University)  in Modern India, 1885–1947, Macmillan, says: "Physical liquidation (i.e. killing) was more important in Central and East Punjab where the opposite communities were more evenly matched, and the Sikhs, in particular, showed a grim determination in wiping out or driving out Muslims.'" Contemporaneous accounts, of Wavell the viceroy before Mountbatten, British civil servants, and even Patel speak to that. About Bharadwaj et al's numbers in the Punjab, we are talking about excess Muslim mortality of 420,000 in total mortality of 2.2 million. That is approximately 20%. I think a fair assessment would be: every religious community in the Punjab had blood on their hands, but perhaps the Sikhs (and to a lesser extent the Hindus) a little more than the Muslims. A number of historians have concluded that the Muslims of West Punjab were more interested in taking over Hindu property; whereas, the Sikhs in East Punjab, were involved in something that bordered on genocide. I also believe that the renaissance of the Urdu language literature in post-1947 Pakistan, especially in poetry, was driven in part by the undocumented and unspoken, but witnessed, horrors of the Partition. It had little to do with government policy. I've added this here for the purposes of revising this article at some future point of time. Best regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Kautilya3 do you agree with the IPs concern ? what solution do you suggest then. After reading Fowler's reply, I feel that if there are lack of numbers we should at least cover it in quotes/prose using some of content that Fowler has provided above. regards. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  13:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with the IP's concern. Unfortunately, the whole subject is POV-driven. For instance, the same Francis Mudie, the Governor of West Punjab, who had a precise figure for how many Muslims were killed "while trying to enter his province", had no clue how many Hindus/Sikhs were killed in his own province: 60,000 was his estimate. (Penderel Moon, Divide and Quit, p.293). Mountbatten's fictitious figure of 200,000 is based on Mudie's own 60,000. Fowler claims that the Government of West Punjab was in disarray, while forgetting that the Government of East Punjab did not even exist. It was still in the process of being created when the partition riots took over. So, what can be done?
 * I think the estimates of Bharadwaj et al. should be prominently highlighted. Even though they are arrived at by questionable mathematical calculations, they are at least created the same way for all sides. So, no biases are involved.
 * There is no section on North-West Frontier Province. It needs to be created.
 * Perhaps, a section on Lahore can be added to counterbalance Delhi. Perhaps also Karachi, which has had its own unique problems.
 * A section on princely states can be added, because my feeling is that this is where the maximum casualties took place.
 * Other than that, I think we should remove any excessive detail about Muslim casualties for which we don't have comparable Hindu/Sikh casualties. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

First some general perspective: This has nothing to do with our views. In high-level articles such as this, we restrict our sourcing as much as we can to reliable tertiary sources (per WP:TERTIARY, and its note about due weight). I mentioned West Punjab, only because a reliable tertiary source, A Population History of India OUP, 2018, authored by the leading historical demographer of India, Tim Dyson mentions this, and I've quoted him above. We are also not in a position to enforce an equitable description of horrors. There is no such Wikipedia guidleline. I used "ethnic cleansing" in the context of anti-Muslim violence perpetrated by the Sikhs, because it has been used by the tertiary sources, such as undergraduate textbooks, and other encyclopedias. Ian Talbot, for example, in his A History of Modern South Asia, Politics, States, Diasporas, Yale University Press, 2016, says: "The Partition-related violence differed from earlier Hindu-Muslim riots in its intensity, its clear political purpose of driving out minority populations, and its attacks on vulnerable women and children. Police failures led to British troops having to be deployed in Calcutta and later, in March 1947, in the Rawalpindi district of the Punjab, which was also the scene of gruesome violence. region. This was to spiral out of control when the British departed. The Sikh involvement has been explained by historians in terms of desire for revenge following the March 1947 Rawalpindi Massacres and the attempt to secure a Sikh majority area by ethnically cleansing Muslims."

The main thing is that the massacres perpetrated by the Sikhs in East Punjab are mentioned by authors of tertiary sources who are attempting to be even-handed about Partition violence. Barbara D. Metcalf and Thomas R. Metcalf say in the Concise History of Modern India, Cambridge, 2012, "A highly militarized society, long the recruiting ground for the Indian Army, with one-third of its eligible males having served in the war, the Punjab in 1947 contained vast numbers of demobilized soldiers. Many of these were Sikhs, who, as those who had lost the most from partition, took advantage of their military training and knowledge of modern weaponry to organize and direct attacks, in methodical and systematic fashion, on villages, trains, and refugee columns. Ex-INA and ex-Indian Army men together, they formed into mobile bands called jathas, marked out targets, and then carried out raids, often at the rate of three or four a night, on Muslim majority villages in East Punjab." as do Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund in the History of India, Routledge 2012: " The Sikhs in particular – enraged that their region of settlement had been cut right down the middle – took violent revenge on their Muslim countrymen and thus provoked another round of retribution in which many of them died, too."

As for the specific bullet points.
 * We can only use Bharadwaj et al or other non-tertiary sources to the extent they are referenced or affirmed in some fashion by well-known tertiary sources. I mentioned them only because they had been referenced by Dyson.  The main portion of the text of this article will include only what authors of the types I have mentioned above are saying.  We can't have monographs or journal articles, except in situations in which they complement something supported in tertiary sources.
 * NWFP? Why? Nothing happened there. The first page of Talbot and Singh's Partition of India, CUP, 2009, that I have quoted from in the section above, is pretty clear.
 * Like I already said, there is no WP guideline for balanced coverage if the balance is not there in the sources or the events. We can include only the cities that are mentioned with great frequency in the tertiary sources.
 * Princely states of Rajasthan are already included. Those of Punjab are in the Punjab section.
 * Again, we can't impose our personal sense of fair play. We can reflect only what is there in the tertiary sources. In particular, we can't remove anything that is supported by the tertiary sources.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * PS I haven't really read the second half of TownHill's diff. If mortality etc is overly cited to monographs or journal articles, then we will have to remove some of that text initially.  We already have a dozen tertiary sources in the bibliography.  If something is not appearing in them, then out it goes.  Otherwise, we will have a real mess.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
,, ,  Also pinging ,  Also pinging  and. Here is the perspective I am advocating. This is Wikipedia. We are writing a high-level article that the layperson can read, not a research paper. So, please don't start adding stuff from monographs and articles at the beginning. It the fastest route to POV. Also, as the IP's original post was about the section on populations transfers and violence, it is best to stick to just that and not expand the article in other ways. Best,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Rewrite that section (Transfer, violence, etc) using only the textbook histories (in the Further reading section at the end of the article)
 * In using text books, start first with
 * population transfers, then proceed to
 * perspectives on violence on both sides (such as in Peter Robb's A History of India, then to
 * violence on both sides, and only then to
 * focused examples of violence such as Direct Action Day, Noakhali, Bihar, Garhmukteswar, Rawalpindi, Lahore, Amritsar and East Punjab.
 * If some monographs or articles (see further reading) are significantly covered in the textbooks, then we can add text sourced to them at this stage, mindful that this is the icing on top of the cake, and its mention has to be proportional.

Copyediting Maintenance Tag
I have added the Copyediting tag. I have deemed it to be necessary due to grammar, flow, and context problems in some of the latter subsections of the article, namely Princely States. Please leave a message on my talk page or ping me in any comments. Thanks! Fireboltsilver (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Violation of Policy of Neutral Point of View
This edit by User:FlyingSimurgh seems to show a biased point of view, in contravention of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I'm proposing it be removed. --142.214.241.221 (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I removed it myself. --142.214.241.221 (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What bias do you see? I don't see any. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * (flyingsimurgh) Thanks for two minute notice. I don't see any bias. I dont really have any reason to be anyway. In the princely state section I mentioned muslim states too, like bhawalpur, saying there was involvement at higher levels and mentioned that in bikanir things were at a lower level. I also mentioned that Kapurthala and Jind were calm . However it just so happens that the princely states where the rulers were themselves involved in organisation happened to be hindu or sikh. If you think I'm biased then really you should blame the source which I've quoted because I've simply reflected the facts that he has stated. All of them, I haven't left out a single muslim ruler that was mentioned in those pages, nor a single hindu or sikh ruler. (flyingsimurgh)

Removing the data section
I have removed the so-called "Data" section, copied below, because it is too detailed for an encyclopedia, and is entirely one-sided. Where is the data for the refugees in the opposite direction? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Data