Jump to content

Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 14

"Causes" section

I will be rewriting this section in a few minutes and will do so in two passes: one today for which I will only use text-books and some standard monographs, and then another tomorrow, in which I'll fine tune the first with citations from papers etc. (Since text-books are more thoroughly peer-reviewed than popular histories, they are also more thoroughly checked for undue stress. They, therefore, serve as a good foundation for an NPOV approach.) You may find some of your citations temporarily disabled, or perhaps replaced by more standard citations. Please bear with me until it is complete. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Have more or less finished the first part. Will attend to the remaining tomorrow. Please bear with me. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Since the page is locked, I will work on this tomorrow. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

"Official name" (part III)

I have replied to all your questions. Please start your replies here since the above discussion is getting confusing. Desione (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No you haven't. Have you provided a reference indicating that it is the official name? Or have you conducted OR? Relata refero (talk) 08:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Here is the official press release to mark the official celebrations of 150th year of first war of independence: [1] Desione (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
here is everyone (president, vp, speaker of house, pm) in parliament to mark celebrations of "first war of independence." Desione (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
BBC accepting the fact that it is called as "First War of Independence" in India: "It is known in India as the first war of India's independence, while in the UK it is usually called a mutiny" [2] Desione (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
In all sense of word "reasonable", I don't think anyone will have a problem concluding that the event is known as "First War of Independence"? Desione (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The word "official" in there anywhere? No? All right, move on then. Relata refero (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
It is an official press release which means everything in that press release is official viewpoint of government of india. At this point its only your POV that is preventing you from accepting this (given that even BBC does not deny it) Desione (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, its an official press release saying that an "official name" has been chosen? No? All right, move on then. Relata refero (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no need to issue a press release saying that official name has been chosen, since that is pretty much been always the case. I don't think this is a big deal (BBC seems to be quite ok with it). Desione (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
"Pretty much always been the case" - cite please. Wait, you can't? And I can cite that the official histories chose not to give it an official name? Right! Move on, then. Relata refero (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
First of all, there is no such thing as "official history of india". Secondly, as I have said many times clarifications to the use of term "First War of Independence" is not needed since no one has bothered to contest the usage in government and general public. Desione (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you even reading what other people are saying? I am amazed at this. Right above this section I have addressed you directly as follows:"If you had spent but a moment on actual research before making that pronouncement, you would have appeared efficient and well-informed. Official histories are common. The Office of Public Information in the UK put out the "official history" of Independence from the British side, "Transfer of Power". ICHR put out - the incomplete - official history of Independence from the Indian side, "Towards Freedom". And here are a few words on the official history of 1857: "....how national was the rebellion? That question was central to the official history of the uprising commissioned by the Government of India as well as the research of contemporary critics of that history. Nehru claimed the uprising as a part of the nationalist heritage. So did Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, the Minister of Education, in the long Introduction he wrote for the official history." So yes, there are official histories, and those official histories have avoided the term "FWI". So its not an official name, and we can't state it is. Relata refero (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


Except those Sikhs who claim the first Anlgo-sikh war was the first was of independance. Are there any otehr groups in India who question the useage of the term as well I wonder?[[Slatersteven (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)]]
Well the current prime minister is a Sikh himself and didn't have any problem in using "First War of Independence" in his speeches and he also didn't have a problem being the "chairman" of the committee that organized the celebrations for the "150th anniversary of First War of Independence" Desione (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
In certain Tamil circles, Veerapandiya Kattabomman's campaign against the British and the ensuing Polygar War are regarded as the first war of independence. According to the Hindu, there seem to be historians in all the southern states who object to the term's use in connection with the 1857 uprising. -- Arvind (talk) 23:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Well then - we can always put in "used in official circle" in braces. DemolitionMan (talk) 09:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Only if we have similar "braces" for all the others. Which is not a good idea. Relata refero (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Chiming in late, I don't think "official" is the right term here. Official would imply some kind of proclamation or decree or something. The fact that the Prime Minister and President use the term does not necessarily make it official. "Popularly known as" may be more accurate though I do wonder what the non-English speaking 800 million Indians call it. Does anyone know what the event is called in Hindi/Urdu/Tamil/Bengali textbooks?--RegentsPark (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I've not seen Urdu textbooks on Indian history, but the Urdu wikipedia has the article under جنگ آزادی ہند 1857ء jang-e-azadi hind 1857 which translates to "[The] Indian war of independence, 1857." Googling for that phrase seems to show that it has some currency in Urdu.
  • History textbooks in Tamil Nadu call it "1857 ஆம் ஆண்டு பெருங்கலகம்" 1857-ám ándu perunkalakam, which translates to "The Great Revolt (or Rebellion) of 1857." English-language history textbooks published by the Government of Tamil Nadu call it "The Great Revolt of 1857." Both the Tamil and English-language textbooks contain a brief section discussing the various names for the rebellion and the debate over its character. I've no idea about what Hindi or Bengali textbooks call it.
  • I should add, as a note of caution, that textbooks are published by state governments, which have considerable autonomy. The terminology they use influences popular usage amongst the people of that state, but it does not reflect the "official" position of the Government of India. -- Arvind (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's put aside for a second all this stuff about whether it is a official, popular name or a load of POVed lies; having that said up there in the introduction does nothing for the flow of the article. Even having the list of alternative names up there is a bit iffy (though probally unavoidable). That mention of it being official and right really messes things up though and would call for opposites such as for mutiny (the accepted and official academic name) and overly-long stuff like that.--128.240.229.68 (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No one is saying it is "right". I can live with the "official" part being omitted as far (popularly known as in India) is put in. I guess official is a loaded term. DemolitionMan (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Protected again

Above, there was what seemed like a sensible suggestion to create First War of Indian Independence (term), along the lines of Great Patriotic War (term). Would that help to resolve the current spate of edit warring? I will stub it out if I can get the idea seconded by one member of both sides in the debate. Ronnotel (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no, just as I was sharpening my quill to continue ... What happened? Sure I don't mind the (term) stub. If nothing else, it will transfer the edit wars to the stub, but I'm not sure if I qualify as a combatant in this last round. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I am asking for anything extraordinary here given that BBC, CNN, Washington Times, New York Times, etc qualify the term "First War of Independence" in the same way. BBC - [3] - It is known in India as the first war of India's independence, while in the UK it is usually called a mutiny. CNN - [4] - The movie, which also stars Toby Stephens, is based on an uprising in 1857 known as either the Indian Mutiny or the first war of independence. Washington Post:[5] - ...of the First War of Independence (aka the Indian Mutiny to the Brits)... I lost the link to New York times article, but will dig it up if needed Desione (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
But that same BBC article goes on to say,
That doesn't seem like an unequivocal endorsement of the term by Indians. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
As for NYT articles, here is a quote from, "The India of the Nawabs," by Barbara Crossette, (Feb 25, 1990) (might require subscription):
This, of course, begs the question: Which was the second war of independence? And, if there wasn't one, isn't this a confusing term? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Finally, the important question to ask is not whether the news media mention the "First war of independence" in their report of the 150 anniversary celebrations in India, but rather whether they mention "First war of independence," in their default-state reporting. If you do a search on "Indian rebellion of 1857" in the NYT search box, you get 12 returns, not one of which mentions FWI. Here is a typical one:

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Even the official name of the country "India" is debated that does not mean that the name is not official or popular. The point being such debates happen all the time (specially in the indian context) and the fact still is that the name "India" is both the official and popular name of the country just like the name "First War of Independence" is the official and popular name of the event. You need to see the overall picture as opposed to looking for holes. Desione (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the use of the term in India seems well-supported I've added created First War of Indian Independence (term) as a stub (I doubt I'm qualified to add much more). Ronnotel (talk) 04:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone tell me what purpose does the "stub" serve? DemolitionMan (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not entirely clear on that myself Desione (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I find it patronizing that the Indian perspective is relegated to one line while the British one gets prominence. But if I say something more - I will have to face some committee to defend by actions. So hopefully, Ronnotel will clear up the need for this stub. DemolitionMan ([[User talk:DemolitionMan|talk]) 05:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I just added "(the official and popular name in India)" to the article. Let's see if it works this time. Desione (talk) 06:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It won't. The Brits here wouldn't dare to act in such a bizarre manner - pushing a pro-imperialist POV on the American pages; they still need to get over being kicked out of India. As I said, the heart of the matter is how we interpret these series of events and see the British Raj as a whole. The perspectives are totally different and it will take a while to bridge that gap. DemolitionMan (talk) 07:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
What makes you believe that the creation of the stub means that "the Indian perspective is relegated to one line while the British one gets prominence"? British bias would be if the contributors insisted that the article should be moved to "Indian mutiny" (that was the official term used in the British India; the Republic of India came into existence a hundred years after the revolt). The terms like "uprising" and "rebellion" are neutral, as discussed in the past several times. utcursch | talk 09:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Please see Talk:First War of Indian Independence (term) for my response. Ronnotel (talk) 13:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Demolitionman and Utcursch prove there will never be agreement on this page, with their pro-Indian propaganda. Comments like `get over being kicked out of India`, prove they have no knowledge of history or are trying to deliberately manipulate history to hide their shame of being ruled by someone else, which i think is more the real reason. When the issue still doesn`t suit them, the `race card` is played.

This page should be offlimits to further edits for everyone, for the reasons mentioned and to end the continuous edits. Rockybiggs (talk) 10:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Poor Utcursch has been as neutral as possible. Lol - shame of being ruled by someone else. That is quite apparent here; only in this case it is the UK being ruled by USA and I can see pro imperialist POV pushing by the British to get over the diminishing status of their country - these pro-imperialists having no knowledge of history, but a very good knowledge of geo-political reality. DemolitionMan (talk) 12:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I retract my comments from Utcursch, and apologies to him for wrongly mentioning him in the same breath as the POV pushers. Rockybiggs (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

In reply to your comments Demolitionman: I don`t know what illusion your under that i have/or others of the U.K diminshing status. We are a small island nation, with a relativly small population, i don`t why you keep on mentioning the notion that I/others think the U.K is a major world player. The only thing of note which obviously annoys yourself, by the comments you have made is, that this little island nation has had a massive impact on world history and helped to shape the modern world, which history will always remember. I must say your English is superb by the way. Rockybiggs (talk) 12:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The 'term' page is a great idea! I guess we can drop this discussion here. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course it shall be remembered for a variety of things - Amritsar Massacre, economic exploitation, slavery, burning ear drums of Mau-Mau rebels, being the spiritual gurus of the Nazis and general rape and pillage everywhere. Thanks for complimenting my English. Yours is fairly good too. DemolitionMan (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:TROLL I refuse to continue this discussion. Rockybiggs (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, and your complimenting his English was not trolling? Whatever. Both of you go off and have a nice cup of tea, and come back when you're more willing to discuss the article rather than its subject. And don't try and think about the cultural implications of that cuppa, either. Relata refero (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
:) DemolitionMan (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has given a good reason as to why the qualication "(official and popular name in india)" has been removed again. I mean we seem to be on slippery slope here. First it was contested that there is no such thing as "First War of Independence". When that didn't work, it was contested that the term is no popular or used enough in India, when that didn't work, a stub was created to prevent giving proper weightage to this term. I mean everything possible to give as little a weight to the "First War of Independence" has been done besides doing the obvious: a simple qualification to the name saying that it is the popular and official name being used in india (and this fact is quite significant). So again, give a good reason. Desione (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As a good example consider what BBC (a major british point of view media) has done by simply and concisely stating the obvious: It is known in India as the first war of India's independence, while in the UK it is usually called a mutiny Other news publications have done the same. Simple solution that will work very well. 18:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desione (talk • contribs)

It doesn't matter. No one here except me is going to agree with you even if you get a reference from the ghost of Mahatma Gandhi. DemolitionMan (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

New section

..created on British reactions to the revolt. It has problems, the first of which is its brevity, which is because of the constraints of article size - I do think there's a lot of fluff in individual campaigns that can be trimmed. The second is that I would prefer it if the initial reaction, after the news of Cawnpore arrived, not be conflated with the more general reaction over the next few years, but I don't think there's any way to avoid that given problem one. The third problem is that giant holes have been blown in the narrative as I've laid it out. Unfortunately, those holes have been blown in recent years, and the works blowing those holes have been careful to specify that they are not (as yet) the mainstream view, as the holes have been blown, but are not yet noticed. So we don't have a choice but to go along the overwhelming majority of sources, which take "everyone was bloodthirsty" view. Fourth, the bit on Canning and everything should really be moved into this section, but I didn't want to touch any of the other sections as far as possble. One section at a time! Now if everyone wasting enormous amounts of energy on useless terminological battles would spend some time actually writing... Relata refero (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

How do the historians say it?

This effort below was spurred by the following sentences of user:Desione in a post above:

"The problem is compounded by the fact that there is "no set" title for this event either in British publications or in Indian publications. As far as I can see the classical titles are "Sepoy Mutiny" on the British side and "First war of Independence" on the Indian side. After that there are all sorts of corruptions in the middle. My understanding is that most people here (either British or Indian) will agree with this."

Well, I went upstairs (to my study) and pulled out the two dozen odd books on Early Modern India I have in my bookshelves, and examined them one by one. Here is what I found. Contrary to what user:Desione seems to be asserting (in confidant tones of erudition), there is unanimous agreement in usage among modern historians no matter what their nationality. They use "Rebellion," "Revolt," and "Uprising" interchangably, sometimes all three on one page. No one uses, "First War of Independence" anymore, Indian or not. Period. There is no debate about this. Appended below is the list of the books, written, I might add, by some of the best known (current day) historians of early modern India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

PS Before either user:DemolitionMan or user:Desione set up their false dichotomies of British historians vs. Indian historians, let me quickly disabuse them of their mock erudition. Modern scholarship in early modern India is an international field. Of the historians (in the list below) who use "Rebellion/Revolt/Uprising of 1857," five are Indian, another five are American, yet another five are British, two are German, one French, and one Pakistani. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
PPS Polemical material scratched. My apologies to both user:Desione and user:DemolitionMan for it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC))
Please reply in the "Responses" sub-section below.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Historians who use "Rebellion/Revolt/Uprising of 1857"

  • Anderson, Clare (Senior Lecturer in the School of Historical Studies, University of Leicester) (2007), Indian Uprising of 1857–8: Prisons, Prisoners and Rebellion, New York: Anthem Press, Pp. 217, ISBN 9781843312499{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Bandyopadhyay, Sekhar (Associate Professor of Modern Indian History at Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand) (2004), From Plassey to Partition: A History of Modern India, New Delhi and London: Orient Longmans. Pp. xx, 548., ISBN 8125025960.
  • Bayly, C. A. (Vere Harmsworth Professor of Imperial and Naval History at the University of Cambridge) (1990), Indian Society and the Making of the British Empire (The New Cambridge History of India), Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 248, ISBN 0521386500.
  • Bose, Sugata (Gardner Professor of History, Harvard University); Jalal (Professor of History, Tufts University), Ayesha (2003), Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy, London and New York: Routledge, 2nd edition. Pp. xiii, 304, ISBN 0-415-30787-2{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link). Chapter 9: Rebellion, Collaboration, and Transition to Crown Raj. pp. 88-96

Historians who use "Mutiny/Sepoy Mutiny of 1857"

  • Smith, Vincent A. (Late, Indian Civil Service) (1921), India in the British Period: Being Part III of the Oxford History of India, Oxford: At the Clarendon Press. 2nd edition. Pp. xxiv, 316 (469-784) {{citation}}: Text "authorlink1" ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link).
  • Spear, Percival (Late Lecturer in South Asian History, University of Cambridge) (1990), A History of India, Volume 2, New Delhi and London: Penguin Books. Pp. 298, ISBN 0140138366{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link).

Historians who use "First War of Independence"

  • ???
  • ???

JSTOR search results in journals of history and Asian studies

I also did a JSTOR advanced search for the years 1980 to 2008 among journals in the fields of Asian Studies and History. The journals are:

  1. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London
  2. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies
  3. Journal of Asian Studies
  4. Journal of the American Oriental Society
  5. Modern Asian Studies
  6. Pacific Affairs
  7. American Historical Review
  8. Annals of the Association of American Geographers
  9. Comparative Studies in Society and History
  10. Economic History Review
  11. Ethnohistory
  12. Historical Journal
  13. History and Theory
  14. History of Education Quarterly
  15. Journal of Contemporary History
  16. Journal of Economic History
  17. Journal of Interdisciplinary History
  18. Journal of Military History
  19. Journal of the History of Ideas
  20. Past and Present

Here are the results for searched text in full-length articles and reviews:

  • "India" and "First War of Independence": 9 articles or reviews
  • "India" and "Rebellion of 1857"/"1857 rebellion": 53 articles or reviews
  • "India" and "Revolt of 1857"/"1857 Revolt": 67 articles or reviews.
  • "India" and "Uprising of 1875"/"1857 Uprising": 26 articles or reviews.

Clearly the resuts—a total of 136 articles or reviews (published between 1980 and 2008) that had "rebellion/revolt/uprising of 1857" and only 9 with "First War of Independence" jibes with what I found in the books above. More importantly, the 9 articles in the latter category didn't themselves use the term, "First war of independence," but rather gave it as an example of the ideological historiographic issues on hand. Later, sometime, I will provide results from the Library of Congress and the Universities Libraries Catalogs. I am sure they will be no different.

The title of this page, "Indian rebellion of 1857," is consistent with the unanimous usage among modern historians and there is no reason to change it. There is even less reason why the page should be held hostage by a few people who have little understanding of modern historical scholarship, who are trying to wing it as best they can, but who make it painfully obvious at every step that they are out of their depth. The page needs a lot of work. We should be free to attend to that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Responses

I will now await user:DemolitionMan or user:Desione to supply their list of historians who use the term, "First Indian War of Independence". (And I mean real historians with PhDs in history and university positions.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

PhDs in History are not common in India; as such this ridiculous pre-requisite doesn't hold merit. Especially those emanating from British universities are not worth the paper they are written on - because of the obvious British Reich bend. DemolitionMan (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
"PhDs in History are not common in India" This sort of stuff is the bane of Wikipedia (and will cause its eventual downfall), and I am personally pessimistic about its ultimate chances. People with no training in history, but, more importantly, with no openness or humility for learning it, who, to boot, can't write a sentence of plain English (to save their lives), and don't want to learn how to, nonetheless feel (in the name WP:Thisorthat) that they can hold up a page for ever. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
What accademic criterai should we use then instad of 'does this person have a qualification', Moreover I am somwhat concerened about an attutude that is being deiplayed here. If 'X' wants to dismiss qulifications based on predjudiece then why should not 'Y'. [[Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)]]
We ignore this nonsense. WP:DFTT. Relata refero (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Difficlut when it forms a large aprt of a sides argument, 'I do not accept yuo sorces so I win' attitude [[Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)]]
And who started this "I do not accept yuo sorces so I win' attitude" - i can only guess what "yuo sorces" means - but if where does wikipedia state that only people with PhDs in history are reliable sources? DemolitionMan (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Rather depends on how far back you want to go in the archives, it also depends on the argument you use. If you ask ‘what is this persons academic credentials?’ and the answer is none, it is reasonable to question the validity of that source. If your objection is ‘well I don’t accept it because, I don’t’ then the objection becomes rather less valid. Wikipedia does not state that PhD’s (in the subject that the citation is being used for) but it does use it as an example of what can be considered reliable, I.E. a work that has met certain minimum scholastic requirements. It states that sources must meet minimum requirements of scholarship.[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)]]
Good then. Then your demand for History PhDs is as ridiculous as mine. I proved my point. DemolitionMan (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I was not aware I had demanded PhD's in history; I said they should have a qualification in a subject, not just (or only) A PhD. We could of course extend this to, are they a recognized academic in the field they are being cited in. But then we still have to have some kind of criteria from which to work.[[Slatersteven (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)]]
Here are 662 books+documents+papers where the event is associated with the term "First War of Independence": [6]. Is this up to your level of satisfaction or are all of these 622 references dubious? And, after you are done sorting through these 622 references, you can look at additional 502 references here: [7].
Let me know if you still need a few hundred more. Thank you and good luck. Desione (talk) 05:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
You don't have the historical wherewithal or the references, so you bring out the dustpan and gather all the crumbs on Google Books? I can do the same. Did you say you have 665? Well, here are 1073 for "The Mutiny of 1857". Oops, another 820 for the exact phrase "The Revolt of 1857". Very sorry, but another 717 for "The Rebellion of 1857" and another 494 for the exact phrase "1857 Rebellion". Oh, and I forget, another 1065 for time-honored "Sepoy Mutiny". That's a total of 1073+820+717+494+1065. You really want to play this game with me? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, now given that there is no compromise, is there a "practical, real world" solution that can be applied for this article. Desione (talk) 06:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, we call the page (I.E. its title) what the conflict is most commonly called in English language sources. We then (and we make it clear why) include the most common name in India, but In English text. In brackets afterwards). [[Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)]]
F, I appreciate the hard work you have done here. Citing reliable sources only helps to move the debate forward. I encourage all parties to focus on reliable sources as the best way to reach consensus. Ronnotel (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
People with no training in history, but, more importantly, with no openness or humility for learning it, who, to boot, can't write a sentence of plain English (to save their lives), and don't want to learn how to, nonetheless feel (in the name WP:Thisorthat) that they can hold up a page for ever. So ENGLISH WRITING SKILLS are the primary criteria for writing or commenting on a history article now. Bravo! The person writing this did not see a particular BRITISH contributor with pathetic english skills though. Usual myopia of POV. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
(And I mean real historians with PhDs in history and university positions.) Please upload a copy of your PhD in history before attempting to write anything on this page to assert YOUR argument. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course English writing skills are critical here...They always have been and always will be when it comes to the written word. 'sum Indians rebuld in d year 1857 cos they dint lyk d brits' may be along the right lines of what the article should be saying but the style is totally out of place.

Also he is not asserting his argument, that wouldn't be proper on wikipedia. He's merely showing the views of established experts on the subject area. --128.240.229.65 (talk) 11:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Having just come accross this debate regarding the name, and having read a number of historical books on this subject, might I just say that I have never come accross the "First Indian War of Independence". The most common name that I have encountered is "The Indian Mutiny". Reading through the comments, I'm not too sure what evidence there is for the title "First Indian War of Independence" besides a random Google search that has produced a few hundred results, which certainly does not equate to a common usage. Fowler certainly provides the most reasoned and articulate case for using anything but "First Indian War of Independence". I am quite sure that I can find a long list of reliable sources, written by historians with real qualifications to back up my views. Spencer444 (talk) 00:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, make my day. DemolitionMan (talk) 09:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Frequently called the First War of Independence

"Frequently called the First War of Independence in India, it is also known as the..." The wording of this sentence has evolved into something that can be misunderstood because the current wording can imply that the list that follows are only terms used in India (and that else where it is exclusively known as the Indian Rebellion of 1857. If the factoid about Indian use has to be in the sentence I suggest that it is moved the the end eg "The rebellion is also know as xyz and it is frequently called the First War of Independence in India". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't imply that at all. However, if you prefer, it can become "Frequently, in India, called...." which would certainly not imply that. Relata refero (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Philip Baird Shearer. The proposed sentence by Relata refero: "Frequently, in India, called ..." is problematic, as the appositive "called ..." could apply to India rather than the rebellion. I would prefer PBS's version: "The rebellion is also known as xyz, and it is frequently called the First War of Independence in India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Once we have agreed on the wording, shall we also link to First War of Indian Independence (term)? Ronnotel (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I just did. :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it the case that no one, other than Indians, refers to the event as the First War of Independence? That is the implication of the current wording. The wording is also rather clumsy and still contains the implication that the other names are not usually used in India. The only reason for including common or frequently or popularly or whatever is because some editors feel that the term should be given more prominence while others feel that it should be given less. With Ronnotel's 'term' article, I feel that we should switch back to the original wording "The rebellion is also known as blah blah blah." The wording is so much better. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as far as I am aware, nowhere else, other than India, is it called the "First War of Independence." No, it certainly doesn't contain the implication that it is not known in India by any other name. That is why there are two independent clauses separated by a semi-colon. The previous versions, by subordinating one clause or the other were problematic for the reasons discussed above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Your awareness or lack thereof is irrelevant. Your blanket statement seems to suggest that term Indian Mutiny is common everywhere else in the world. As stated earlier - could you give me a reference for East Timor or Lithuania or the Congo? DemolitionMan (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The following is much better: This event is also known as (in alphabetical order) First War of Independence (frequently used name in India), Great Rebellion, Indian Mutiny, Revolt of 1857, and Sepoy Mutiny. The

sentence has absolutely no implication (its just stating facts) an does not subordinate anything to anything. Desione (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Are there any histories of the conflict from those areas, are they even aare that such a war occured. I think that we need to draw a distiction between what the conflict is known as by those who have heard of it, and those who have never heard of it.[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)]]

Desione, yes - that is fine - please go ahead and change it to that. It was that in the first place. Slatersteven, err - the whole purpose of an encyclopedia is to give info to those who are not aware of certain things. DemolitionMan (talk) 04:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Transformation into an uprising

I notice that the new text implies that there were many mutinies and that the non-military uprising was much later down the road (User:Fowler&fowler also indicated that in his note). However, the mutiny was quickly transformed into a rebellion. The sepoys from meerut arrived in Delhi the very next day and almost immediately proclaimed Bahadur Shah the new Emperor of India. BS appointed his son as the commander of the army (clearly, neither the emperor, nor his son, nor the many members of his court and army were mutineers) and it was a matter of days for the mutiny to be transformed into a rebellion. I'm modifying the text to reflect this. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No, this is incorrect. Had it just been Delhi, the rebellion would have been put down in a few days. A civilian rebellion, with reference to a scale of area, is created when a critical mass of civilians, in that area, join in the rebellion; that did not happen until several weeks into the upheaval. This is the consensus among academic sources. For example, here are Metcalf and Metcalf (A Concise History of Modern India, CUP, 2006): "On 10 May 1857, ..., the sepoys ... rose up in the night, massacred the English residents of the town, and marched to Delhi. There they sought to raise anew the standard of the Mughals under the aged emperor Bahadur Shah ... As sepoys elsewhere flocked to the rebel cause, the British lost control over a broad swathe of north India ... Within weeks, taking advantage of the space opened up by the dispossession of the British, disaffected groups in the countryside, landlords and peasants, princes and merchants, each for their own reasons, took up arms." (p 101) In addition, as I have already indicated above, in current English usage, a military rebellion or uprising refers to a coup by the military against a civilian government, not a revolt by soldiers against military authority. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I had a feeling you would throw the book at me :-). However, the current wording (in the article) implies that there was a temporal sequence - many mutinies, followed by a civilian uprising. This is factually incorrect. The first mutiny was at Meerut, and Delhi was taken before the other mutinies occurred. Bahadur Shah was declared emperor and a force was organized for the defense of Delhi. The declaration of Bahadur Shah was the single most important factor in transforming the mutiny into a rebellion and the rebellion started BEFORE most of the mutinies took place. The mutinies at Moradabad and Bareilly started after the sepoys heard that Delhi was under the control of a Mughal Emperor. A rough timeline:
May 10: Mutiny in Meerut
May 11: Meerut Mutineers arrive in Delhi.
May 12: Bahadur Shah is declared Emperor of India.
May 19: Moradabad Mutiny
May 30: Lucknow mutiny 1. Quelled.
May 31: Bareilly mutiny.
May 31: Shahjehanpore mutiny. (Shahjahanpur not Shahjehanpore ? Desione (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC))
June 3: Azimgarh mutiny.
June 4: Benaras mutiny.
June 6: Siege of Kanpur begins.
June 8: Faizabad mutiny.
June 28: Siege of Kanpur ends.
June 30: Siege at Lucknow starts.
July 25: Mutiny at Dinapore (Patna).
Sep 14: Storming of Kashmiri Gate (Delhi).
Sept 21: End of Mughal Empire. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid the civilian rebellion refers to the agrarian uprisings in the Northwestern Provinces and Oudh, not the rebellion in Delhi. It is for that reason, I had initially included "rural" in the lead sentence. The rebellion in Delhi and other urban garrisons was led by the rebel soldiers; the rural rebellion had its own armies, which hadn't served under the British. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
PS I agree though with your other point there there wasn't a strict sequence of large-scale mutiny first and then civilian uprisings, and will rephrase. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
PPS I certainly don't want to imply that civilians didn't take part in the urban rebellions; in fact they did, almost from the start. This is the problem of writing something in a lead! You don't want to qualify things too much, yet you don't want to say something that is outright wrong. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
And, in fact, here is (C. A. Bayly, Indian Society and the making of the British Empire, CUP, 1990): "Once the aging Emperor Bahadur Shah was persuaded to lend his authority to the revolt, a number of discontented servants of the vanishing Mughal regime, notably Nawab Walidad Khan of Bulandshahar District, came over to the rebellion. Mutinous contingents of sepoys in other stations also saw in the Emperor a legitimate authority with which to replace their white officers. British forces did not pursue and destroy these first Meerut mutineers, it appears, because the local commander feared for the safety of European residents of the civil station. Urban mobs, composed of artisans, dissident police and day-laborers, had appeared on the streets almost immediately. So from its inception the civil rebellion and the mutinies reinforced each other. After a brief lull further mutinies and urban revolts occurred in the garrison towns north and west of Delhi in June and July 1857." I think the new phrasing is better. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is with the word 'civilian'. The revolt was mainly military in character with the sepoys and local militias doing the bulk of the fighting. The civilian population, except for the agrarian uprisings of which I know nothing, largely kept out of the fighting. So what we had was (apparently) a mutiny in meerut, a revolt centered in Delhi, several mutinies and local revolts (Kanpur, Jhansi, etc.) and some agrarian uprising. I still think that other mutinies and civilian rebellion mischaracterizes the nature of the rebellion. --RegentsPark (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It was certainly days rather than weeks before the Rebellion spread from Delhi, and in many cases it was the British who spread the revolt. In several areas, British residents were alerted by telegraph before other word reached the local population, and hastily fled with their families and goods to the nearest garrison or other place of safety. Their abrupt departure sparked disorder in the areas they had fled, in several cases before Bengal troops in the area rebelled. There are references to this in Hibbert and Baring. I'll try to work this into the article once I've checked my references. HLGallon (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have much time right now, but I don't disagree with either RegentsPark or HLGallon. I don't think anyone is saying that it took weeks for the rebellion to spread from Delhi; only that it took weeks for the mutinies/urban revolts to start civilian uprisings. Many historians use "civilian/agrarian uprising" only for the revolt in Oudh, where the rebellion had a large popular base, and "mutiny" for everything else. The entire upheaval was of course an armed rebellion, including the agrarian uprisings. In the Lucknow area and southern Oudh, for example, in November 1857, the talukdar magnates (rural) joined the rebellion and British forces had to fight village by village well into the summer of 1858; the people fighting the British were in most cases the rough-and-ready scratch forces/militias from the same Brahmin and Rajput villages that had been the recruiting ground of the Bengal army. More later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we are both bending over backwards and tripping ourselves in trying to appease the various anti-"mutiny" trolls on this page. There was nothing wrong with the initial formulation ("both a mutiny and a civilian rebellion"). In a lead sentence that simply means it had the attributes of both a large-scale mutiny as well as a civil rebellion; it doesn't mean that it was both in each and every local manifestation. We don't need to (gingerly) say that it started as a mutiny and then turned into xyz. The lead sentence is usually a short and snappy definition, not a sequence of events. All academic histories make such compact statements, that are not 100% accurate, but are yet good one sentence summaries. Here are a few examples (see main page for full references)
  • Bose and Jalal. "That year (1857) witnessed a serious military mutiny and very large-scale civilian uprisings ..." Obviously "mutiny" here doesn't just mean mutiny in one garrison town, but is used collectively.
  • Judith Brown. "1857 remains a highly emotive date in Indian history. No historian can ignore the military mutiny and social upheavals of that year although their significance remains debatable."
  • Bandopadhyay: "The revolt, for long mistaken to be a mere mutiny of the Indian sepoys in the Bengal army, was indeed joined by an aggrieved rural society of north India."
  • Bayly (1990): "All these types of conflict were widespread, but they surfaced in exaggerated form in the Mutiny and Rebellion of 1857." "The mutiny of the Bengal army in May 1857 was the trigger for the legitimist and agrarian uprisings that were to follow it." (Here too, "mutiny" doesn't just mean Meerut.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why the map (when zoomed to its full size) underlines at least 20 to 30 "principal centers of revolt." all across north and central india while as we seem to be minimizing the locations as much as possible? Thanks. Desione (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  • In Bihar: [8] Desione (talk) 04:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • All this inevitably prepared the ground for the far more widespread revolt of 1857. Although concentrated in what is now UP in modern India - the 1857 revolt spread from Dacca and Chittagong (now Bangladesh) in the East to Delhi in the West. Major urban centres in Bengal, Orissa, and Bihar including Cuttack, Sambhalpur, Patna and Ranchi participated. In Central India - the revolt spread to Indore, Jabalpur, Jhansi and Gwalior. Uprisings also took place in Nasirabad in Rajasthan, Aurangabad and Kolhapur in Maharashtra and in Peshawar on the Afghan border. But the main battleground was in the plains of UP - with every major town providing valiant resistance to the British invaders. [9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desione (talk • contribs) 04:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Find me an internationally recognized academic source that says this. Until then, please don't vandalize the lead. Here, BTW, are some reliable sources:
  • (Bayly, 1990): "Why did the revolt spread so quickly in the initial stages? Yet why were the British then able to confine it roughly within the bounds of present-day state of Uttar Pradesh with a few outbreaks in Bihar and central India?"
  • (Bose and Jalal, ): "The 1857 rebellion was by and large confined to northern Indian Gangetic Plain and central India." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The only "vandalism" I am doing is to correct your "bias." Otherwise, look at the map that you put online. The map clearly shows 20 to 30 "principal centers of revolts" which is clearly inconsistent with your description in the lead. Why is that? Desione (talk) 08:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The "principal" in that map is an exaggeration. In all the locations in Bengal, for example, any incidents were quickly countered by the Company soldiers, unlike Meerut, or Moradabad, or Lucknow. Even in distant Hyderabad, some Rohilla "warriors" and "bazaar people" declared "jihad" and marched to the residency, but they were rapidly subdued by the Company soldiers. Consider Barrackpore, for example, all that happened there was one incident by one man, who was quickly subdued. That is not a mutiny of soldiers, let alone a civil rebellion. Why do you think the history books say the mutiny began in Meerut on 10 May 1857 and not in Barrackpore a month earlier? Incidents like that took place throughout the first half of the nineteenth century. The text in the lead is accurate and in accordance with the consensus of current scholarly opinion. I will see what I can do about the map. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't need some biased so called "international" historian to tell me what happened in my own backyard when I have first hand accounts of the event in my own family history (and several other family histories). This is a relatively RECENT event. So again, correct the locations and throw away any books that say that revolt was "confined" to north-central. Desione (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia, unfortunately, doesn't care for your "family history," mine, or anyone else's for that matter, in determining what is reliable, only what reliable secondary sources in History say about it. You are welcome to have an RFC over this, if you'd like on this page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Which of the following do you have a poblem with

  • Do you deny that there was a general unrest throughout north and central india?
  • Do you deny that several areas outside the narrow north-central region were actively involved in revolt even though intensive fighting was limited to north-central region?

Thank you Desione (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added descriptions for Arrah and Indore. Unless somebody can prove to me that these areas lie in the "north-central" region, I will be changing the lead to reflect locations properly. Desione (talk) 07:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Arrah is on the border of UP and Bihar. Indore was a part of the Central India Campaign (1858). This article is supposed to be written in summary style, the Indore text should be added to the Jhansi section, since it is a summary of the Central India Campaign, or the name of that section changed to Central India. Creating new sub-sections, as you have done, without any discussion here, is not the way to go. What is mentioned in the lead is what is considered notable by the consensus of current scholarly opinion. Producing text from histories of a hundred years ago is not going to change that. As I have said above, you are welcome to have an RFC about that topic if you wish. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
That is not the answer to my question. My question was if Arrah and Indore fall in the "north-central" region. Desione (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
"north-central" is not a precise term and was left there as a catch-all for the terms in the parentheses. However, it is certainly not North and Central, since North India can mean anything above the Vindhya mountains (and included Rajasthan, Punjab, Kashmir, NWFP, Kumaon, none of which were serious mutiny centers). I have now made it more precise and changed it to "upper Gangetic Plain and Central India" and qualified it with "largely." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

BTW, when was the last time this page had a peer-review? Does anyone know? It might be a good idea to get a community-wide consensus. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Alphabetical Order

Despite putting the names in alphabetical order, once again the name arrangement has been altered. Can this be stopped once and for all? DemolitionMan (talk) 09:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup. I vote we go back to alphabetical order and forget all about commonly, frequently, usually, popularly, predominantly or robert e lee. The on again off again is becoming nauseating! --RegentsPark (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The current wording is fine. No encyclopedia ever mentions a list with qualification "in alphabetical order." The order of a list suggests the frequency of usage, with the alphabetical order chosen only if all versions are equal. As I have mentioned before, "War of Independence" is the least used world-wide in reliable secondary sources. (I have checked both the Library of Congress and the Academic National Catalogs in the US and Britain. These are not catalogs of "British" or "American" usage, but of all books and journal articles published in the English language on the subject of the 1857 rebellion. I think that "(in alphabetical order)" is an ugly addition and does not belong to an encyclopedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I have to admit the phrase in alphabetical order grates on me somewhat. It's a minor issue, but to the astute reader it may be a flag that perhaps something other than well-reasoned scholarship went into crafting the sentence. Can we try without the phrase? Ronnotel (talk) 03:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The frequency of usage - more people who speak English know it as the First War of Indian Independence; since we've stated it is more frequently used in India. Another option would be to put in a caveat in the opening line - something to the effect of "There are many names used for these series of events (See Debate over Name below) and removing all secondary names from the opening paragraph. Qualifying one over the other is not going to satisfy either side. DemolitionMan (talk) 08:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I would urge you to stop continuing contribute here in the tradition of the unmitigated nonsense you have thus far added to the page. It is frequency of usage in the secondary sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I don't care which order is used. My only concern is that the fight over it not be allowed to spill into the text in a way that detracts from legibility. Sort in whatever way causes the least strife, but adding qualifiers that explain how the list is ordered seems unnecessary. Ronnotel (talk) 12:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Demolitionman- on what grounds would you claim that more English speakers know it as the FWOII? Lets make the incorrect blanket assumption for a minute that everyone in India calls it this. Now, that's 100 million English speakers (according to the Indian English article, it seems a bit low to me) calling it FWOII.
For other names however- the UK has 60 million people, Canada 30 million, Australia 20 million...That's more just from 3 English speaking nations excluding the largest of them (the US) and a lot of other places. Not to mention all the scholars not native to a anglo nation who write in English.--Him and a dog 12:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
(Point of information). There are indeed only 100 million English speakers in India (people who can read English, understand spoken English, and form sentences of their own), however, there are 350 million English users (people who can only read English words), and this sometimes causes confusion. See List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population#_note-2 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And let's add the English speakers of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal to that mix. So it's 350 million + about 50 odd million at least. That's about 400 million in the region which quite regularly knows it as a WoI. Barely anyone outside of the UK has even heard of it - even if every Brit has heard of it and concurs with the ridiculous mutiny bit - that still only makes 60 million. Fowler - unmitigated nonsense????? DemolitionMan (talk)

Repeat: It is frequency of usage in reliable secondary sources, not in the hypothetical speech of hypothetical speakers. In any case, if you want to play that inane game, it is 90 million (India) + 50 million = 140 million. Where did you get 350? (See List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population) The US alone has 250 million. Whatever they call it, they certainly don't call it the first war of independence. Besides, it is not clear that people in Nepal (for example) call it that, since they were never subjugated by the British and they fought their war, Anglo-Nepal War of 1814 many years before the mutiny (1857). Not even sure if people in Pakistan or Bangladesh call it that, given that they are both Islamic countries and the name was coined by a Hindu nationalist nut-job, V. D. Savarkar. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we use the phrase "in alphabetical order". We don't need to state that explicitly because using alphabetical order is the clearly laid out policy for alternative disputed names in WP:NCON (see Resolving disputed names within articles). My point is that we can argue the relative importance of the different names in different countries ad nauseam but, since there clearly is a dispute, it makes more sense to revert to the policy and move on. I assume that's why wikipedia has policies :-). --RegentsPark (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

To DemolitionMan: And Sri Lanka? It became a British crown colony in 1802 and was never a part of British India. Its colonial history and its independence movement are quite different from the Indian one. And, just in case, you are next planning to add Burma/Myanmar to this mix, they fought their first two Anglo-Burmese Wars in 1823 and 1854. In fact many parts of India fought their own wars of independence before 1857. In light of this I have a proposal: We should change the text to:

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Fowler, I suggest you keep insane items off the discussion here Desione (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Fowler your talk is frankly utterly biased. V.D. Savarkar was a freedom fighter; spent years in the British version of a concentration camp in the Andaman Islands - Cellular Jail - the dreaded Kaala Pani. Calling him a nut-job is akin to me calling Churchill a racist - which I shall - since he clearly was. I was quite shocked that this racist man was voted the Greatest Brit of all time - it's like present day Germany voting Hitler as the greatest German of all time. But each nation has their own sense of values and I am not going to judge the British people for choosing a racist man as the Greatest Brit of all time.

And there are 350 million English users in India - [[10]] , [[11]]

As for your question on the "First War of Independence" usage in Pakistan [[12]] [[13]] Bangladesh

[[14]] [[15]]

This is from a Japanese website about some chemical stuff in BD [[16]]

It is reprehensible that the views of 60 million Brits get preference over those of 400 million South Asians. DemolitionMan (talk) 04:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

How cute.
Anyway, as said by Fowler its actual sources that count. But if you really want to play this game still; 60 million in the UK, 20 million in Oz, 30 million in Canada, 5 million in Eire, 5 million in NZ, 250 million in the US, 70 million in Nigeria, 45 million in the Phillipines, 13 million in South Africa....
And this is with the inflated numbers of English speaking Indians, the assumption that they are all Hindu nationalists and completely ignoring the well educated Dutch, Germans, etc....--Him and a dog 16:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

One is a book review that also uses Revolt of 1857 (of a book called “1857: The first war of independence of the Subcontinent”). The second makes it clear it is also called (and as there is no distinction they must mean by their own people) Indian Mutiny (Sepoy rebellion), so hardly show consensus.

The third and fourth (and one is clearly a copy of the other, word for word) says first liberation war, and first war of independence. Again hardly a single name. [[Slatersteven (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)]]

Concern and proposal

user:Desione has created two new subsections, "Arrah" and "Indore," with the ostensible aim of making some changes in the lead. I am concerned that this article is already too long. > 60 KB of text. It is supposed to be written in summary style and parent articles exist for most sections. For example, in the two sections (1 British expansion & 2 Causes) I have thus far edited, my goal is to do this, although I am not there yet, especially in section 2. Work of this sort involves not only writing in summary style, but also making sure that it is a summary of text that exists in the parent article. I think we need to have a discussion on what is important in this article and what is not; otherwise, it will keep attracting editors who, each for their own reason, will see fit to add this or that without wanting to do the hard work of streamlining with the parent articles, or only doing so perfunctorily. I would like to propose that this article have only the following sections:

  1. British Expansion
  2. Causes of the rebellion
  3. Onset of the rebellion
    1. Early rumblings (Mangal Panday is not important historically)
    2. Meerut, Delhi, and initial stages
  4. Support and opposition
  5. Revolt
    1. Delhi and Northwestern Provinces (name should be changed)
    2. Cawnpore
    3. Lucknow and Oudh (name should be changed)
    4. Central India (name should be changed)
    5. Other regions (with the understanding that this should be brief)
  6. Aftermath
    1. Retaliation
    2. Reorganization
  7. Nature of the rebellion (name change from "Debate about character")
  8. Depictions of the revolt

Some points:

  • Although I like the material on "Reaction in Britain," I personally feel it is a little off-topic (concentrating on literature and culture), especially since the article is already too long. Perhaps a parent article should be written first.
  • The "Debate about name" section should be moved to the "First war of independence (term)" page. There is really no debate about name among historians, as we have seen above.
  • The "Debate about character," should be changed to "Nature of the rebellion." The former title presupposes there is a debate about character and therefore allows its creators to add material on their side (of the debate) without establishing that the material is notable according to current scholarly opinion.
  • I would also like to propose that we stop haggling over the lead for now and attend to the other sections. A lead should really be debated when the other sections have been firmed up. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Last bullet added. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

Let's settle the pending issue and once the article is stable we can discuss reorganization. I don't consider "Reaction in Britain" to be off topic since Britain was an involved party. Desione (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The article can't be stable if you, for example, add separate sections on "Arrah" and "Indore" without any prior discussion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
There can be separate articles about Arrah and Indore (just like the ones for Cawnpore, Delhi, Lucknow) with a summary in this article. "Reaction in Britain" can be separated out to a new article about the imageries/depiction of war in India and Britain (along the lines of the "Imageries" section in the NCERT XII History textbook. utcursch | talk 15:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem is not one of creating new pages, but whether they qualify as subsections. I think that decision should be made when the parent articles are complete. Same with the proposed "Images of the rebellion" section, which I have more sympathy for. As I suggested in the bullets above, the parent article should be written first, rather than creating sub-sections first with no parent article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
PS. I have now added a section, "Depictions of the revolt" (which can have both literary, artistics and other representations in both India, Britain, and elsewhere. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree a new page can/should be created for the `Reaction in Britain`. The Indian Rebellion of 1857 is looking cluttered. Rockybiggs (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think what's great about wikipedia is that it captures many views of the same event - it is a 'Rashoman' encyclopedia in that it recognizes the existence of multiple versions of the same event and the possibility of multiple POVs. How much weight should be given to a POV should be the subject for debate - not whether a particular POV should be included or not. For these reasons, I disagree with the proposal in its entirety. I think there are healthy discussions going on about what should/should not be included/highlighted in various sections and it is best to let the discussions proceed without imposing a framework (for the time being). Time enough for that later. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

How long have these discussion been going on? Two years, three years, four years, ... Wikipedia is not about balancing the individual POVs of the editors that happen to work on a page, but the POVs in the reliable secondary sources. As someone said about another similar topic, the "subject is big enough, with enough political baggage, that you can find published sources for the craziest assertions. That is why it is especially important here to be strict about including only scholarly consensus, or, when consensus does not exist among scholars, to report on the controversy." (David Eppstein in Talk:Indian mathematics) For example consider the section "Debate about name." There is no debate about the name in scholarly sources. A debate about whether the rebellion represented the early stages of Indian nationalism, yes; but no debate about what name to use to describe it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
True that the discussions have been going on for a long while. However, it does seem to me that this time there is an attempt by most people to reach a consensus on several issues (alternative names, the spread, mutiny/revolt, etc.) and it would be a shame to waste this opportunity. I think it is useful to see that wikipedia articles are not just textbook material but do allow for dissenting views to be adequately represented. The article is already quite good (a bit heavy on quotations, I think) and, it seems to me, it is only getting better and a reorg at this time will hinder rather than help. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
OK. That sounds reasonable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
PS You should be an admin, if you aren't already. You and user:Ronnotel both have an amazing ability to stay calm. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! But nowhere near being an admin. Will be happy to vote for you if you're ever interested. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
It is utter nonsense to state that ALL historians agree that "WoI" is a not a correct term. Unless ALL means those who stand up to "God Save the Queen". DemolitionMan (talk) 04:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Stop the anti-British trolling and actually go read some British sources if you believe this. You'll find that many of the most anti-British empire works in existance are written by Brits. --Him and a dog 16:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think what was written was "scholarly sources" not "historians", a rather pedantic distinction but I feel an important one.[[Slatersteven (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)]]

Enough is enough with this "Indian Mutiny"

I feel that this page is being held hostage by Fowler&Fowler, Rockybiggs and Josuquis, who are insisting on edits that go counter to anything that is considered remotely reasonable in the current historiography of India. First they had insisted on deleting the Hindi script; now, finding they've pushed that ridiculous assertion, they're wasting everyone's time with ludicrous claims about the "Indian Mutiny". DemolitionMan (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

::::: The feeling about rants is mutual, Rockybiggs And I know it is called the Indian Mutiny in England; however it is known in India as a War of Independence or at times, as The Uprising of 1857 - no one calls it a mutiny. And how could I possibly take over this page with Ronnotel hovering over my head like Shiva doing his Tandav? And don't call me sir - at least till the Queen invites me over for a knighthood for services rendered to the British Empire DemolitionMan (talk) 09:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Secondary Sources

Dear RegentsPark, It is very important that we confine our citations not only to secondary sources, but even among them to the consensus of current scholarly opinion; otherwise, the page can easily explode with all kinds of assertions. If there is demand, by all means start a page, Contemporary Accounts of Indian Rebellion of 1858; however this page can only report on current consensus or lack thereof. A source from 1913, even if it is not a first person account, does not count as a reliable current secondary source. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I'll rewrite it (later!) with proper qualifications as per WP:PSTS. BTW, Herbert Thirkell White is not completely unreliable. He was the Lieutenant Governor of British Burma and indirectly refers to the material I put in. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. I'm not saying that what you added is not true, but simply that we have to use modern secondary sources to justify addition, and as I have indicated above, even with secondary sources, we have to be careful to only add consensus views, or in the case of a lack of consensus, report on the controversy. That's why I am myself using standard text-books, even though they are personally boring for me to summarize: because they have already been peer-reviewed thoroughly for undue weight. And even the papers I have added are, for the most part, review papers which have again been vetted for undue weight. It would, of course, be more fun for me to pick some really interesting original paper and add its observations here, but that is not what an encyclopedia is about. Luckily, as a result of the great scholarship on the 1857 rebellion of the last 30 years (and I mean the works of Eric Stokes, R. Mukherjee, Seema Alvi, Chris Bayly, Thomas Metcalf, and Tapti Roy), there is a lot more consensus among scholars than may seem evident on this page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Improving things

I would like to suggest three possible ways of improving this article:

One, the East India Company and its forces are often referred to as 'British' which the lay reader might confuse with the Raj. That needs changing.

Two, the article is full emotive terms, which have no place on Wikipedia.

Three, is it really necessary to have so many opinions from historians let alone politicans?

This could be a very good article is we (and I include myself in that) move away from the partisan.

rsloch (talk) 12:26, 9 March 2008 (BST)

One, I agree to an extent, but it is important to note that Queens troops did take part. Two, I agree, and when attempts have ben ame to remove them they have just been re-inserted. Or there has been atendancy to use imotive terms from oe POV only. If we are to remove emotive terms then it must be accross the board.

Three, Politicians, yes and no. They are not experts on history but the do reflect the opinion of their consituants, Perhpas a new page (along the lines of the 'naming' debate (or even moved there). As to historians, as we are dealing ith history I think it is valid to have qoutes.

The problom with moving away from the partizan is that the subject is by it's very nature riddled with predjudice. Almost every history writen on the subject has some axe to grind, some point tomake/score or some act to whitewash.[[Slatersteven (talk) 09:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)]]

Perhaps a new page could be created that deals with the histographical issues relating to the Mutiny, leaving this page as a narrative account of events and their causes.

rsloch (talk) 12:10, 21 March 2008 (BST)

Which version of the events and causes would we use, make official (which seems to me part of the problom in the past), that we can all agree fits only the provable facts? Now in the case of a pure chronology this is not a problom. But if we are daling with causes, and descriptions of how (and indead why) event unfolded then we will be back in same mess.[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)]]

Mutiny

"Started as a mutiny and mushroomed into a military and civilian uprising" - I am fine with those words; I only have an axe to grind if it is mentioned solely as a military mutiny. Does anyone have a problem with this edit by RegentsPark?

Sorry, they are inaccurate. It was never mentioned solely as a military mutiny. The sentence read, "... both a military mutiny and a civilian uprising." For the first few weeks, there were only (military) mutinies in the British garrisons. The uprising was never "a significant challenge to British rule in India," only a threat "for British power throughout northern India" as it says in the second paragraph. The rebellion was confined mainly to north-central India as academic sources unanimously state. Lastly, the sentence, "Commonly known as the First War of Independence in India, it is also referred to as the Indian Mutiny, Sepoy Mutiny, Great Mutiny, and the Revolt of 1857," subordinates the latter terms to the first, when in fact both historical and contemporary usage suggests it should be, "Commonly known as the Indian Mutiny, Sepoy Mutiny, Great Mutiny, and the Revolt of 1857, it is also known as the First War of Independence in India." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, as I have explained many times before above, "Military rebellion," or "military uprising" is not the same thing as a mutiny; the former refers to a coup by the military against a civilian government, as in South America in the 1970s (see Google Search Results), the latter to a revolt by soldiers against their higher ups in the military. The problem, as I see it, is that user:DemolitionMan is allergic to any use of "mutiny." Unfortunately, there is no other precise and companct synonym for it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Does the following work: "Commonly known as Indian Mutiny in UK and the First War of Independence in India, it is also referred to as the Revolt of 1857, Sepoy Mutiny, and Great Mutiny". Notice that I am putting the British POV first, becuase the reverse obviously won't work with you. And as a measure of good will, we can switch the order every two months or so.Desione (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what POV you put first, it is still inaccurate. It is not "commonly known as 'Indian mutiny' in the UK," it is also known as the "Great Mutiny," there, as well as the "Sepoy Mutiny," "Sepoy Rebellion," and the "Revolt of 1857." The British Library, for example, refers to it as the "Uprising of 1857." The only exclusive usage is "First War of Independence," (within India). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Well I am sure you will be able to come up with some concise wording. Accuracy is probably a secondary concern compared to consensus. Rest later.Desione (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Not exclusive within India, either. I have an Indian textbook in front of me right now that uses "Revolt of 1857" as the chapter heading. Relata refero (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
There are several textbooks in india with "First War of Independence" in the chapter heading. "Commonly" is good enough, although I think it should be more stronger. Desione (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No one is discussing the order here surely. We've had this discussion for eons and settled for the alphabetical order - and it stood there for a long time till some editor in his infinite wisdom decided to remove "in alphabetical order". Please revert it back to the alphabetical order and mention it if you must. 20:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 


==  Cartoon Representation ==

I think taht the representation of the Cartoon 'Justice' should be removed immediately. It strikes the highly racial feelings of the English people at that time and is demeaning to an entire race. Moreover the magazine 'Punch' is a highly satirical and biased tablet. It is deplorable taht 'Wiki' authorizes use of such magazines to be source of such an important moment in indian and british history.


.[[kunwarsid (talk) 09:05, 19 May 2008 (IST)]]


Commonly does not mean only, the vst majority of sources call it the Indian Mutiny[[Slatersteven (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)]]

Terminology

I have edited the article changing 'British' to 'Company' or 'European' depending on the context. I have done this for the following reasons:

The East India Company was legally a separate entity to the British state, and it controlled large parts of India as such. The article even states that one of the results of the rebellion 'End of Company Rule in India'. If you disagree with me on that then please consider that a lay reader will confuse 'British' to mean the British Raj which occurred later.

I use the term 'European' to describe that nature of those in the employ of the EIC and their dependents who were not just British. If we just use 'British' we exclude the involvement of other Europeans. While I accept it might cause a little confusion to those who see 'European' as meaning only those from Continental Europe but I can't think of a better collective noun.

I ask people not to simply undo the edits but explain any issues you might have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsloch (talk • contribs) 17:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


This does raise important questions about the result of the conflict. At present we have a situation were it states that Company rule ended, but does not state the British won (there was a major debate a while back objecting to this), and that control was taken by the British crown. Now either the British (in the shape of the Company) were ruling India at the time, in which case the British retained control (and it could be argued even extended it), and thus won. Or Company rule was distinct and separate from the British government and thus the use of the term British in the body of the article is not accurate.

Also there was no bar on non-British whites (there was at least two Americans) working for the Company. Thus the term European can be seen as accurate (but having said that the number was small enough to be insignificant, and thus could be seen as not truly accurate either). [[Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)]]

Definition of Mutiny, Revolt

Mutiny : forcible or passive resistance to lawful authority; especially : concerted revolt (as of a naval crew) against discipline or a superior officer [[17]]

I am disputing that the Honorable East India Company was a lawful authority. On what basis is it being said by numerous British POV-pushers here that the EIC was a lawful authority?


Revolt : to renounce allegiance or subjection (as to a government) [[18]]

I am fine with Indian troops renouncing their allegiance to the EIC - this is no way shows that the EIC was indeed a lawful authority. DemolitionMan (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The EIC does not have to be a lawful authority (though it was) to make what happened in part a mutiny, it just has to have employed the troops that mutinied. As the sepoys wore EIC uniforms, used weapons provided by the EIC, and fought and died for them, they at least thought it was a lawful authority.

In most cases a rebellion by troops is a mutiny.

Rsloch (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2008 (BST)

I see there is nothing to back up that the EIC was a lawful authority - I shall be updating the word mutiny with revolt in light of this. DemolitionMan (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
A mutiny is simply a rising by soldiers, sailors etc against the officers or authority under whom they have taken service (voluntarily in the case of the Indian troops who had enlisted with the EIC). A revolt is a wider rising of non-military participants. The Indian Rebellion of 1857 was both a mutiny and a revolt. William Dalrymple's recently published "The Last Mughal" (ISBN 9780747587262) estimates that by August 1857 just under half of the defenders of Delhi were Muslim civilian jihadis who had joined with the sepoys. However it was still a mutiny as far as the latter were concerned and no arguments as to the legality or otherwise of the EIC can change that particular fact. 210.246.8.189 (talk) 08:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course it can change that alleged "fact". According to the definition, by using "mutiny", it is being insinuated implicitly that the EIC was a lawful authority. My question remains - on what basis was EIC a lawful authority? If you can state some lucid reasons, I am willing to withdraw my objection. DemolitionMan (talk) 08:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
By treaty with Mogul Kings and Mahratta Princes, etc. etc. it can be argued that the EIC was as "lawful" as any other power or potentate in India. The article makes plain that the EIC's overbearing assumption of authority under its "lawful" powers, rather than by the consent of any of its tenants or servants or other ruler, was the underlying cause of the Rebellion, no matter what the details (cartridges, Doctrine of Lapse etc.) Of course, any lawyer could argue that that by enlisting with the EIC's Army, the sepoys accepted the legality of the institution. (These sepoys weren't impoverished Irish driven to enlist by starvation; as the article makes plain again, these were predominantly high-caste or high-status people). By making a single-handed stand on what appears to be a pettifogging quibble about one word (going so far as to call it pro-Imperial), you are going against concensus and imposing POV. The article should (and does in my opinion) make clear the grounds of the sepoys' reasons for revolt; it certainly does not dismiss it as merely a "grouse" about bad rations or Bligh-like officers. The article as it stands (and is currently being improved) is an excellent vehicle for any reader to see beyond the Victorian soldiers' shorthand term of "the Mutiny", and research its causes and nature; mere revisionism will obscure the content and depth of research which most of the contributors have made. HLGallon (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
As a postscript, I do feel that some recent edits have gone too far, in treating "Mutiny" and "Rebellion" as two unconnected events. Sepoys had the same grievances as most of those dispossessed by EIC policies. HLGallon (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Again to disregard this stuff about the EIC being lawful in India in general as it'll never get anywhere- the soldiers' employment contracts (or agreement of employment) under them certainly would be legally binding and lawful.--128.240.229.67 (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a waste of time to argue whether there was a mutiny or not. There clearly was a mutiny in the sense of an open rebellion against a proper authority. Whether the EIC was legally an authority is besides the point, they had a recognizable and long standing army of which the soldiers were a part and, as 128.240.229.67 points out, the sepoys were obviously contractually obliged to obey their officers. Removing the word 'mutiny' from the article would be wrong because the accepted wisdom is that there was a mutiny. I suggest we all move on from this discussion. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess you are right. I will withdraw my objection as soon as you can show me a copy of that contract. DemolitionMan (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Very funny. :-). Contracts are not always written and can be implied. Clearly, as soldier employees of the EIC's army, the sepoys were under a contract, either written or implied. I'm not sure I understand why you are so against using the word 'mutiny'. It is a generally accepted way of describing the conflict (which is reason enough to include it in a wikipedia article), there is nothing derogatory in mutinying against a foreign power, and, as long as the article makes it clear that the mutiny evolved into a rebellion, the scale of the conflict is not understated. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Legality is based on a sense of Justice which I think was sadly missing from East India Rule. Desione (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Legality is based on law, just or unjust, and for the time the EIC was probably more just than most in India (which is not saying much).

Rsloch (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2008 (BST)

Not really. Legality has nothing to do with ethics. It was legal to have slaves in the US, apartheid was legal in South Africa - none of this was legal and while I think such laws were unethical (some British POV pushers here might dispute the ethics bit), if it was legal - then that's the law of the land. However, I am yet to see a copy of that much touted contract between the sepoys and the EIC. There was tons of sepoys - surely there is a copy somewhere you can show me to prove your point. Else, I shall be forced to edit out the mutiny bit. 04:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


There was no written contract in a modern sense (most sepoys were illiterate).However Philip Mason in his history of the Indian Army "A Matter of Honour", records the oath that each newly enlisted sepoy took to the colours, in front of his company under arms and in the presence of his officer and the person of his religion or caste who was to administer the oath, as follows:

"I ...AB... do swear to serve the Honourable Company faithfully and truly against all their enemies, while I continue to receive their pay and eat their salt. I do swear to obey all the orders I may receive from my Commanders and Officers, never to forsake my post, abandon my Colours or turn my back to my enemies and that I will in all things behave myself like a good and faithful sepoy in perfect obedience at all times to the rules and customs of war".210.246.20.237 (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The East India Company did a lot more than provide contracts. It provided pension plans and "invalid" thanas for disabled soldiers. I have added Seema Alavi's paper The Company Army and Rural Society: The Invalid Thanah 1780-1830 to the page's references (journal's list). (Requires JSTOR access) Here is a quote from it though:

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight - initially it was said that there was a contract. Now it is being said that there was no contract at all? 124.124.0.1 (talk) 07:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Still awaiting that much touted contract. Another lie perhaps? DemolitionMan (talk) 10:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No nineteenth century army would have had its recruits sign a contract. It would have been considered as reducing the recognition of authority and the commitment to serve and obey to a squalid commercial level of little real significance to the parties involved. There is the practical problem as noted above that most sepoys (and many British soldiers) of the period were illiterate. However the taking of an oath, the wording of which seems very clear, was in every sense an equivalent - indeed to both the British and Indian military mind involving the acceptance of a high obligation and binding commitment. To quote Philip Mason again: "The sepoy's oath was longer and more impressive. It was in itself intelligible; everyone in India knows what is meant by being faithful to the salt one has eaten. It appealed to the personal honour of the man who swore and this concept was often strong among the communities from whom the men came. It was taken in circumstances that were impressive and likely to be remembered; it helped to establish an atmosphere in in which fidelity had a meaning. And it bound fidelity to a visible symbol, the colours".210.246.16.220 (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Oral contracts exist even today.--Him and a dog 18:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The moguls were hardly just (and oddly many of the reasons that are used to justify the Mutiny are acts or practices that were legal under the Moguls, were outlawed by the EIC, and are still illegal in India today). Also there was taking the salt, and implied unwritten contract, and one that British officers felt was unyielding and that is one of the reasons that the revolt was such a shock. [[Slatersteven (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)]]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_Rebellion_of_1857/Archive_9&oldid=1088797856"