Talk:Partition of India

Unsourced material

The following passages, found in the Bengal/Chittagong Hill Tracts sections were without reference and hence I move them here:

The Chittagong Hill Tracts had not been part of Bengal since 1900 and had no representative at the Bengal Legislative Assembly in Calcutta.

East Pakistan viewed the indigenous Buddhist people as pro-India and systematically discriminated against them in jobs, education, trades and economic opportunities. The situation of indigenous people became worse after the emergence of Bangladesh in 1971. Bangladesh government sponsored hundreds of thousands of Muslim settlers to migrate to Chittagong Hill Tracts with the purpose changing the demographic profile of the region. Bangladesh government sent tens of thousands of armed forces personnel to protect the Muslim settlers and suppress the indigenous Buddhist resistance. Bangladeshi armed forces and Muslim settlers committed more than 20 massacres, numerous rapes, extrajudicial killings, tortures, forcible conversions, land grabs.

Regarding the second passage, it is also questionable whether the worsening after 1971 is on topic in this article which covers the Partition of India in 1947.

Str1977 ^(talk) 10:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Attlee section

Hello @Steve Negus:,

Thanks for adding the Attlee-related material. It was needed for sure, but perhaps it was Labour party's decision in the wake of the prevailing economic conditions and the mood of the electorate that needed to be emphasized than Attlee himself. The references I had put in place after my revert were WP:TERTIARY souces, i.e. widely-used undergraduate textbooks to determine due weight. In other words, in my way of thinking, those sources are the foundations of the text. More detailed sources are best employed for fleshing out what has been established in the tertiary sources. This can be done with more detailed explanations or vignettes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! The sources that I had looked at had suggested that prevailing economic conditions and war-weariness provided the long-term rationale for decolonization, but that Attlee's personal interests and convictions prompted him to move so quickly whereas the Conservatives, or possibly even a different Labour government, would just have restarted another round of Congress/Muslim League talks knowing full well the process could take a long time. I recognize the general importance though of relying on tertiary sources rather than his biographers, who will obviously focus on his personal role. I do think this is an important turning point in 20th century history and it would be good to have a bit more detail about the deliberations and the decision. I took an interest in this because I found that a lot of tertiary sources tended to gloss over it, treating it as sort of an exhaustion-driven fait accompli. whereas I would argue (though obviously not in Wikipedia) that it at the time it was pretty rare for overstretched empires to pass up on the chance to kick the can down the road if they could. I would suggest including the September announcement, which Guha (Gandhi's biographer) suggests was a pretty important impetus. If it's all right, I will look for some detailed explanations or vignettes in other sources. I am not sure I would use them only to flesh out what has been established in undergraduate textbooks, as many of them rely on received wisdom, although if that is Wikipedia's practice I will defer to it.

Steve Negus (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest that this line in particular - "Late in 1945, the British government decided to end British Raj in India" - could really stand to be fleshed out. I assume it came from the textbooks. I don't think there's anything in the biographies that contradict it, but they could add a great deal of detail. Given how critical a juncture it was, and the precedent it set, that decision arguably deserves an article in itself. Steve Negus (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Having read the Wikipedia section on tertiary sources, I do see the importance of relying on them to establish due weight as a general principle of editing. That said, I would still like to try to find some first-hand descriptions of the deliberations, as I like to know what key actors were saying at the time about this kind of decision. Thank you again @Fowler&fowler for the explanation. Steve Negus (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, @Steve Negus: for forgetting about this. Noted. Will attend, but gradually. (I'm supposed to be on vacation. :)) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Sure thing. Thanks for the update! Steve Negus (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Lead

No quotes, please. This is way out of line with MOS. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I was being lazy.  :) Will fix it next. Thanks. If you see any other issues in the lead, please do let me know Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I do not see the relevance of third paragraph (Sikkim - huh?); have never seen any scholar, writing on Partition, to provide such a disclaimer at the outset. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I think you are correct that the third paragraph is more of a dab section than a summary of the main body. But the main body is not all NPOV, probably not comprehensive.

The sentences of the third paragraph have been grandfathered in over the years as a result of people adding this bit and that.

For now, though, I think they are important because they describe how the regions of South Asia outside British India (i.e. outside the directly ruled portion of the subcontinent) were affected by the decolonisation that caused the partition.

I grant that there are less contrapositive-ish ways of saying this, but somewhere central on WP, we need to record that (a) princely states were encouraged (i.e. seduced, cajoled, browbeaten, or threatened) into joining one dominion or the other; (b) Hyderabad and Junagadh were annexed by India (i.e. in a less than fully legal manner) soon after Mountbatten left in 1948; (c) the dispute in Kashmir (in which the Indians have the letter of the law on their side, and the Pakistanis very likely the spirit, in many Western eyes) began at the same time; (d) Sri Lanka and Burma did receive their independence, but only in the following year, and so forth. ... Will write more later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

It is sometimes said, "The partition was a division of British India and its less tangible assets into two Dominions, India and Pakistan. The Raj was an empire, i.e. a loose-knit federation of directly administered and indirectly rules regions. The indirectly ruled regions, the princely states had some treaty rights with the British which the latter revoked at the time of decolonization. The Indians after the partition, especially, brooked no notion of nominally independent regions within their boundaries (and eventually the Pakistanis followed). The loose-knit empire of the British in which both people and animals, for example, migrated back and forth between directly ruled and indirectly ruled regions, was eventually replaced by states with firmly declared and defended boundaries across which migration was no longer possible. So, in effect, it became a partition of the Raj, not just British India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Refugees

Pinging Atul Wikip - please note that the quoted passage from the reference uses refugees. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Lead image

Codenamewolf has reverted my edits, which include information about Jinnah's reaction to Partition. The material that I added had two citations. As long as this is properly attributed to the claimant and the reference, there is no reason why this should be reversed. It seems to me like an issue of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS is on your to gain WP:CONSENSUS EvergreenFir (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Captain AmericanBurger1775 § February 2024

Previous discussion linked here and to be continued here further. Codenamewolf (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Captain AmericanBurger1775: I've reverted your edit not because the collage image is wrong or bad but because the version of this article with the map is the status quo. It should stay until consensus is reached here. City of Silver 22:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

And if a consensus is not met? Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Captain AmericanBurger1775: The status quo would stand. I doubt that'll happen this won't reach a consensus, though. Please state your case for your preferred version of this article and please do not mention that other user. City of Silver 22:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Having an outdated 1901 map shows nothing about partition. That's like me having a map of 1789 Europe for the main image of the WW2 article. It does not help the reader gain any idea of what partition was about.

The long standing [1901] map is useless, it doesn't show any proper borders involving partition or provinces, or districts. It makes no sense to have a map as the main image when there's another, more accurate, map right underneath it.

The pre partition is inaccurate and doesn't account for the partition of Bengal and other regions. It's not just a Pre-Partition map, it's simply a completely outdated map that doesn't showcase the situation just before and during 1947. If you really want a map, there are far better ones that show partition. Your current map is already represented right underneath it by 4 other maps. It's overkill with the maps.

I suggest having a collage of images, similar to the article of the Bangladesh Liberation War article. I agree that one image of the riots doesn't represent all of partition, several images though (like the Liberation War article, which is less grand) would accurately help readers get a better visual idea of partition- more than that a image of a destroyed village or an extremely outdated map. The 1901 map is clearly outdated, and doesn't show any idea about the situation of Partition. Even the purpose of the map is outdated. The Hindu/Muslim districts changed tons of times after 1901 due to smaller partitions as I've talked about, and the succession of different monarchs in princely states. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. @Codenamewolf: please state your case for your preferred version of this article and please do not mention that other user. City of Silver 01:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

The issue with collages is that no four specific set of images can represent the Partition of India, it is too eventful and grand, and there's more to it than just the communal violence, refugee crisis etc that followed in the aftermath, which the OP wants to use exclusively with one sided images that they specifically prefer that also look unnatural and violate MOS:SHOCKVALUE.

That Bangladesh Liberation War page also becomes completely irrelevant when you have pages like the Cold War that have maps as representative images.

Maps are the best representative on this topic as this page is primarily about the change in political borders, and the formation of two separate dominions/countries, and it is logical for an article reader to want to see depictions of before and after images of pre and post partition British India. The issue OP raises with maps is that they are outdated, in which case they can replace the lead image with the best map alternative they think there is.

But MOS:IMAGELEAD also makes it clear in the case of articles where there are no direct representative images, it is to remove them from the lead entirely. Codenamewolf (talk) 04:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

The Cold War wasn't a one year political change and conflict like partition. It encompasses hundreds of conflicts. There's such an obvious difference. Partition can be represented perfectly with a 4 lead image collage. The collage I added did a good job of that. There was 100% no bias in the collage. One image was Muslim refugees waiting at a train, another was the aftermath of Direct Action Day (an event which both sides lost great numbers, and thus isn't one sided), a photo of riot damage in Punjab, and the last photo was an image of the 3 leaders of partition sitting together. Literally no bias can be found at all.

Much of partition's grandness comes from its massive migration and violence, and that's why 3/4 images represent that. The other image represents the political process. I can definitely change the collage to include more diverse images if that's the main issue. Adding a map in the collage invalidates any of Codenamewolf's criticism, and would be a solution.

And for the longest time, the Cold War article had 9 lead images, until recently. Point in case. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

This page is exactly like the cold war, as it has a background going back to hundreds of years of colonial rule by the British and a similarly eventful aftermath. The first "Background" section heading will make that clear.

And what do mean by diverse images? You're going to add images of Hindu refugees along with Muslim ones, an image of Gandhi, the British along with Jinnah, riot images of every religious group being targeted etc ? That would look horrendous, and would still not address the issues with cherry picking as the partition is way more eventful than that as evidenced by the article body, and it would always be subject to edit wars. Diverse images or not, lead image clutter is best avoided in all cases and MOS:PERTINENCE is clear in cases like these, it is best not to overwhelm the article with too many images that are primarily decorative and ultimately serve no encyclopedic purpose.

See also: MOS:LEADIMAGE Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works.. And in this case, they are primarily maps.

If you have any better alternative map suggestions, do post them here. Codenamewolf (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The Cold War and Partition are incomparable. Everything you said is silly and trivial criticism. A map, the photo of the 3 leaders, and 2 other images would work perfect as a collage. The lead image doesn't represent the background info of the subject, so your point is invalid. It seems as if you don't know the meaning of "cherrypicking", because the images I chose had no bias, and fairly represented everything.

And there would be very little edit wars, as the Bangladesh Liberation War article and (previously) the Cold War article had the same collage of images for years without any issue. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Codenamewolf Response? Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I had only brought up the Cold War because you brought up the Bangladesh Liberation War, which doesn't compare to this page at all either.

My point of lead image clutter still stands. If the purpose of excess images is to be primarily decorative, it's better avoided.

And "The lead image doesn't represent the background info". True, and it shouldn't be represented by aftermath pictures either.

A page primarily about the change in political borders is best represented by exactly that: image depictions by the use of maps, which serves encyclopedic purpose. Though you might have a point about too many maps, in which case, one of these should be moved to the body. Codenamewolf (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Partition wasn't just the political divide. It also involves the violence that occurred. As such, there is no reason not to include images of violence.

If you want to use a map, we're going to use a better map. A map representing the 1931/41 census of India would do. The 1901 map is non-negotiable, it needs to be removed. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

No response? Anyway, why not have a collage + the map in the infobox? @Codenamewolf Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

What map do you propose? Can you post it in another thread in case other users would like to weigh in? I'm not necessarily opposed to an idea of an alternative map image.

And I think that adding a additional collage would look too cluttered, unnecessary and non standard. We've already been through this discussion before a month or two ago. Codenamewolf (talk) 06:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

We can keep the same 1901 map. Just look at my most recent edit on the partition page, and you'll see what I wanted to do. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)