Talk:Political integration of India/Comments1

=Comment by ImpuMozhi= This article is embarrassingly hotch-potchy and quite unworthy of FA status. I had attempted to participate in the article’s peer preview, (the lateness of these comments is not due to unreasonable sloth); that intervention, couched in language far, far milder than this, was fruitless. At that time, my assessment had been that, even if the subject-matter is not familiar to most reviewers, the article would eventually be weeded out, based merely upon: I totally and genuinely appreciate the amount of effort that has gone into crafting this article, especially when I consider that the editors have neither any special interest nor otherwise any knowledge of the subject, but have apparently created the page largely from a particular book ("Patel, a life") that they happened to come across: refer this to learn that the "entirety" of this article is from that book, a fact anyway evident from the citations sections. Adequate recourse to the few other books mentioned in the "References" section would have prevented major factual inaccuracies, such as the one about the Instrument of Accession detailed below. FA status pre-supposes standards that simply do not obtain here, and I cannot forbear any longer from passing further adverse comment.
 * the manifest lack of focus;
 * a cursory reading of the page;
 * the very presence of, and the cluelessness evidenced by, the “Integration in media” section.

Major problems

 * 1) Lack of focus: Article tries to address all political adjustments (both territorial and internal) that India has witnessed between 1947 and TODAY. Naturally, this results in a hotch-potch description of British India, princely states, partition, integration, provincial reorganisation, suppression of various insurgencies, and even political movies!! The page should concentrate on the "Political integration of India" and leave aside insurgencies, movies and the internal reorganization of the unified Indian republic. This suggestion was made by numerous people during peer-preview, but was summarily rejected.
 * 2) Lack of depth: Perhaps consequent to the above, a pervasive lack of depth and detail is evident. The article dwells (relatively) long on the "Accession" phase of integration, which was accomplished before 15/Aug/1947 (except for three states) and briefly dismisses (in a one-paragraph-section) the details of the far more important "Merger" phase. Compare this with V.P. Menon’s own book, which devotes 120 and 370 pages respectively to these phases.
 * 3) Lack of composition skills. Some examples below, but mostly connected to lack of focus. Why not follow a simple "input-process-output" formula:
 * 4) *briefly describe the initial situation
 * 5) *describe the events that are the subject of this page
 * 6) *briefly describe what finally obtained

Major factual errors (and lacunae)
With reference to the "Instrument of Accession" sub-section: 'References: "Integration of the Indian states" by V.P. Menon. Orient Longman, 2nd Edition (1985), pp.109-111'
 * 1) There were not one but three different versions of the "Instrument of Accession"; every ruler signed whichever version was appropriate to them. Surely such detail is what makes an encyclopedia special?
 * 2) None of these three versions contemplated a "Privy Purse"; the very idea was well in the future and formed part of the negotiations of the later "Covenants of MERGER" (1947-49).
 * 3) After accession and before merger, the princely states remained sovereign entities distinct from India. Hence the question of their sovereign rulers being "equal citizens of India" did not arise. Nor indeed was the Govt of India competent to comment upon their internal arrangements or the retention of properties by rulers. This also came up only at the time of MERGER (1947-49).
 * 4) *In light of this, the following sentence is also inexplicable: While negotiating with the states, Patel and Menon also emphasized that monarchs who signed on willingly would be retained as constitutional heads of state….
 * 5) The "Standstill Agreement", a very important document signed by all the rulers at the same time as the IoA, finds no mention

Further nitpicks
I think that will do for now -- anyway, nearly everyone in the peer-preview were of the opinion that "States reorganization" and subsequent sections should not find place on this page. I will end with some sample sentences: '''This page deals with a complex topic and possibly will never be ready for the Main Page. In any case, it needs much reading and sustained hard work over a period of two weeks or more, before the article becomes worthy of even being proposed for FA status.''' This critique is based on the version of the article available today, 15/Feb/06. Regards, ImpuMozhi 05:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Excessive editorializing coupled with somewhat inadequate context in a verbose but badly-written introduction (before the "contents" box comes up)
 * 2) India’s near-neighbors are dispersed between the next two sections ("British India" and "The states") and chronology is given a toss. Also, if you want to talk about Ceylon (never under the "Viceroy of India"), why leave out Malaya / Aden (formerly under the Viceroy), especially when you do talk about Burma (ditto)?
 * 3) Again, chronology tossed out in the "Process of Accession" section. Surely the first para should find place in the next section? Even the heading is a bit of a misnomer.
 * 4) Exactly how much peacocking does a man of Vallabhbhai Patel’s eminence need? And yet, unmentioned is the point that one of his main qualifications was that he hailed from present-day Gujarat, where close to 400 of the 550-odd princely states were located.
 * 5) In "Patel’s diplomacy", again, how does Patel promise constitutional guarantees for "Privy purses" BEFORE even the Accession phase is undertaken?
 * 6) Again, in the "Accession of the states" section, we find inexplicable mention of privy purses.
 * 7) The "Hyderabad" section is quite, quite incoherent
 * With the arrival of Lord Louis Mountbatten as the Viceroy of India in early 1947, the British government under Prime Minister Clement Attlee made a clear indication that the independence of India was imminent.[1]
 * So his arrival was the first hint? Also, the link provided (Note-1, one of the few that are not from "Patel, a life") is not relevant to this matter at all!
 * Mountbatten was also a credible figure because Jawaharlal Nehru and Patel had asked him to become the Governor General of India
 * Now we know what made Mountbatten "credible". The preceding sentence does not serve to improve the matter. Also, whither Gandhi / Congress??
 * Patel's opinions were not India's policy, nor were they shared by Nehru, but they were angered at Jinnah's courting the princes of Jodhpur, Bhopal and Indore.[16]
 * Eh???

=Response from Sundar= I'm sorry. But, if I have to assume good faith, I'm really surprised by your comment above. Your edits to the peer review were only, , ,   and , all of which centering around the need to limit the focus of the article to not touch upon post-independence reorganisation, if I understand it right. And you've not carried on with even that after the nominator responded and made the changes. You haven't voted either way at Featured article candidates/Political integration of India. Now, you're coming up with a list of three allegations, which I quote below. IMO, all of the above are very subjective. Now, you've raised a few factual inaccuracies that need a response. I'd leave that to the authors. But, IMO, you should've raised those during peer review or FAC. And you've produced this link in your above comment, which is an edit to Talk:Mahatma Gandhi. I do not know if whatever happenned there has prompted and why should that prompt these comments. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 11:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "the manifest lack of focus;
 * a cursory reading of the page;
 * the very presence of, and the cluelessness evidenced by, the “Integration in media” section."
 * Your comment in the edit summary of your first edit in this seems to indicate that your displeasure with something else has prompted this. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 12:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

"What was required by way of Integration was the institution of a distinct judiciary in the states-unions, abolition of the multiplicity of currencies, stampage and inland customs (as in passport-customs) and such other issues, which in fact are not touched upon in this article. I shall make the required additions if you permit."
 * Sorry, I missed the above comment in this edit. It's a good point and if it was not addressed by others, you could've gone ahead and made the additions yourself. After all, it was during peer review. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 12:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In note of your point above, I had incorporated the mention of the formation of a unified judiciary, a single code of law, united currency, financial policy, Indian administrative service and police service in the MERGER para after ImpuMozhi had made the comment on the peer review. Rama&#39;s Arrow 19:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

=Response of Rama's arrow= I'm fairly certain, after taking good time to fully understand what user:ImpuMozhi is saying, that I strongly disagree with him. I also have a harder time assuming good faith or respecting this critique as any genuine effort to improve the article. Let me make clear why I feel this way:

Intense subjective arrogance and negativity

 * 1) Over 95% of user:ImpuMozhi's objections are purely subjective. If the editors were guilty of being clueless, possessing no focus, depth or composition skills, does he seriously believe this article would have passed through a 3-week peer review to become an FA by 16/0 vote????
 * 2) This person (user:ImpuMozhi) believes this article will possibly will never be ready for the Main Page - Most of his objections are on small errors that have crept in unnoticed -I cannot understand why he intended to do this in such a bombastic manner, filled with negativity and prophesizing this article's doom. He had to do this by creating a special page, with disrespect and insulting attitudes towards the editors and in a way, which he was sure, would "lose friends and alienate people." I don't buy this over-dramatism.
 * 3) ImpuMozhi's endorsement of my work on my talk page: Hi, I am just visiting to say that I greatly admire the amount of work you have put into crafting this article over the past few weeks. Very good work indeed, and my best wishes. ImpuMozhi 22:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC) - now he alleges cluelessness, unworthiness and impugns the quality of the work becoz I relied on one book for most of the information, and sarcastically implies that not me nor any editor had any good basis of knowledge or resources to write this article.

You raise some concerns that technically point to an intrinsic error in the way this data is presented, but this is in no way a "major" error at all. I can't help feel that if you had meant to be constructive and helpful, you would have pointed this out on the talk page in a more modest, straightforward way, instead of trying to make a court-case out of this by denouncing this article and insulting its editors.

Self-contradictions
I understand every man is entitled to change his mind, improve and learn with time. Perhaps ImpuMozhi did not see these small errors he now calls "major" earlier. But the glaring contradictions in ImpuMozhi's appraisal of this article dent his credibility. As now he asserts his so-called critique after studying the article, there is quite some evidence that he had read the article carefully before as well, and he made the following comments:

From talk:Political integration of India, section "Small inaccuracies": ''There are many small inaccuracies in the article, which stand out only since the page is otherwise so well-written. for instance, the very first sentence -- 'first time in over 1000 years': not so; it is in fact for the first time ever, and some people may wish to detect POV (a possibility agitated also by the use of the word 'secure') in what is probably only error-by-oversight. Again, the present extent of India was never equalled by the Maurya Empire; that empire never got beyond north-coastal-Andhra or approached Assam. If you want to talk of sheer size, as in including Pakistan/Afghanistan, then the Mughal Empire was probably as large as present-day India and certainly larger than the Mauryan one.''

''A good portion of the first paragraph offers itself for remodelling; for instance, after the accession of Sikkim, nothing on the subject has been influenced by considerations involving China, and the third sentence suggests that this is an ongoing consideration. I would generally urge understatement and parsimony in such issues.''

''I could go on mentioning small things, but....I would be glad to copy-edit/rewrite the page (adding some details vis-a-vis princely states) but am afraid of jumping into POV issues in what is clearly someone's beloved baby. Once again, the article as it stands is of exceptional quality; far, far above average, and hopefully eliminating the present glitches will raise it to the "Main Page" level. Regards, ImpuMozhi 22:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)''


 * All of ImpuMozhi's criticisms were addressed by me and others at the time. Rama&#39;s Arrow

Response to "Major problems"

 * 1) There is no lack of focus - the article is divided into (a) Accession and unification of states, (2) Reorganization of states from 1947 onwards.
 * 2) There is no lack of depth - the article explicitly discusses the intrigue and politics of the three-state crises, the hidden motives and convictions of Jinnah, Patel and Nehru, the extensive diplomacy, and of the secretive exchanges between the Nawab of Bhopal and Mountbatten. There are major QUOTES in various important sections.

Menon’s book is Menon’s book, not an entry into an encyclopedia. It is meaningless to suggest that the coverage here should be as explicit as Menon’s personal work – it is a summary style work which for depth, includes direct quotes from Menon and Patel.


 * 1) There is no Lack of composition skills - there can be no greater a faulty subjective observation - all the content of this page is properly and logically organized. No average reader has a problem understanding what happened in India's political integration. Certainly no person who participated in the peer review (ImpuMozhi included) had a problem understanding what happened. The FA vote did not reveal such an intrinsic observation, which normally would be problematic and so basic that it would have to be addressed before it got to the FA vote.

Response to "Major factual errors (and lacunae)"
As it is often emphasized, a summary is the ideal way to present your subject matter. Your objections on a purely factual basis are valid as far as Privy Purse is concerned, but on the whole they do not stand becoz you refuse to understand what the basis of the deal was - without this guarantee, many monarchs would not have signed the treaty. The sub-section "Instrument of Accession" represents not only the instrument, but the entire framework of the deal that was crafted. To accommodate the technical points you raise, it will serve to change the title of that sub-section to avoid confusion.

Rulers position: I'm sorry, but you do not understand the context of the deal - the rulers wanted guarantees that they would not lose their property, titles and freedom as a result of accession. They did not want their kingdoms to be dissolved, for this would have meant loss of their own position.

After accession, princely states became (1) part of the Dominion, ceding foreign affairs, communications and economic policy (2) to send delegates to the Constituent Assembly. (3) The rulers were recognized as heads of state and they were encouraged to develop democracy via Prajamandals. They were not "sovereign."

And by the way, why would kings object so vehemently to the "MERGERS" if it hadn't been assured that India would officially recognize their states? The Government would have no need to hesitate before merging, but there is cited evidence that explains this.

They wanted these guarantees as is discussed in "Patel's diplomacy", without which many prolly would not have signed the treaty.

Standstill agreements are explained/noted wherever relevant - Junagadh, Hyderabad and Kashmir. In the Hyderabad section, it is also noted that some other states also availed of it before actually acceding.

Splitting claims and the "Integration in media" section
Your claim that everyone was in favor of splitting the article is ridiculous. You seem to insinuate that I bypassed the will of everybody by imposing the "states reorganization" sections on it. There was a proper discussion which one can still read at the peer review. I offered an extensive rationale that there is no basis to split the article:


 * 1) The article is well below the 50kb limit which FA guidelines suggest calls for splitting.
 * 2) All the sections in question are written in summary style, and are not disconnected from the discussion of the political integration of India.
 * 3) The Political integration of India involves the creation and evolution of a political system that embodies the nationhood of India. To inform readers of India's political integration, one has to discuss the evolution of a federal republic in India, of how the Constitution and legislation integrated ethnic groups, religious groups and populations across India's geography and economy into a stable federal union that embodied and integrated its aspects of nationhood.
 * 4) The entry of 565 states into India is not separate from the bid of a few in modern times to leave India - there is one stream dealing with political integration. And the formation of states that are stable and representative in order to keep all of India's constituent regions and peoples in the union is a vital, crucial part of political integration.
 * 5) The latter sections do not pose any burden on the article or reader - in fact, they help clarify by appropriately following up on important questions regarding India's integration.

I replied extensively to you on the peer review, answering all the points you raised, but you now seem to imply that I ignored your views. This is fiction, total nonsense.

"Integration in media" is unique, admitted - it certainly does not represent any historical events - the reason I inserted it there is becoz the 3 noted films have played a big role in the people's mainstream dialogue on issues of integration. These works have encouraged freedom of expression on sensitive issues in India, changing the character of the process by encouraging millions of people to forthright about sensitive and harsh realities, grave errors and problems. If in a decent discussion, a consensus had told me there was something wrong with including this here, I would remove it - I still would.

Response to "further nitpicking"
I will address the few points I consider to be valid, but I have no interest in continuing to highlight your own factual errors, misunderstandings and faulty approach to making criticism.
 * 1) Attlee Quote - is within the text of the linked article. You have to search a bit. If a better example is found, obviously the link would be changed.
 * 2) Lead: the context is properly set - the article informs the reader of the uniqueness of this process in Indian history, and that it began in 1947 with princely states and provinces and continues to this day, involving religious, ethnic factors and issues. The definition of "political integration" was IMO, the sole problem - had to re-write many times and this final version was accepted as suitable by many others who re-wrote it.
 * 3) India's near-neighbors are not the subject of this article. If you had paid attention, you would have realized why (a) Burma is mentioned in "British India" becoz up till 1938 it was a part of British India and why (b) Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Nepal are mention in "The states" becoz they were not a part of British India.
 * 4) Process of accession involves the diplomacy, not the signing of the treaties. It involves the period when the princes considered both options of joining India or Pakistan, or the rare chance they could obtain independence. It is even more chronological; becoz the first round of accessions came in May 1947, before the Instrument of Accession was announced.
 * 5) Patel's guarantees were part of the deal and diplomacy becoz without that assurance, many princes would not have signed. It is also not objecting with the fact that the process had not officially begun, becoz the first round of accessions came in May 1947, and diplomacy was already on. Even the speculation with Jinnah was on by early June.
 * 6) Lord Mountbatten was a credible figure becoz he would be India's head of state, as asked by Nehru and Patel, who headed India's government. Gandhi and Congress were not mentioned becoz they are not involved in this matter - Nehru and Patel made the decision - that is all that is relevant. We are not discussing why or how Mountbatten became governor general.
 * 7) Hint of independence Clement Attlee made a speech where he rebutted Churchill's blocking of independence with an explicit endorsement of India’s right to freedom, and Mountbatten was proclaimed the "Last Viceroy of India."
 * 8) Vallabhbhai Patel is not being "peacocked" - several people asked me to explicitly explain why he came to be called Iron Man of India as a result of this, and how important he single-handedly was to this process. It’s important to note the gravity of this.
 * 9) Patel's Gujarat background being a qualification is pure nonsense. Patel's qualifications were that he was a tough leader of practical acumen and political skills, not because he was a Gujarati, hailing from an area of many princely states.
 * 10) Hyderabad section is absolutely coherent - begins with Nizam's initial motivations, British response, Razvi's power, the India-Hyderabad exchanges, Mountbattent's HoA and Patel's final actions and rationale.

Jai Sri Rama! Rama&#39;s Arrow 20:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

=I second ImpuMozhi = I think that ImpuMozhi's basic point is pretty hard to dispute; this page is fairly good by the standards of the Wikipedia, but pretty trashy by the standards of Wikipedia's featured articles. I don't want to comment on what, specifically, could make it better -- I don't know the subject well enough. But I do read the featured article almost every day, and even the ones that don't interest me that much are very well written (except for this one). There seems to be some need of an overarching narrative to unify the entry. Or something. This is not to criticize the people who have worked hard to explain India's political integration, but rather the entry itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.155.227 (talk • contribs) February 20, 2006