User talk:Gazal world/sandbox1

Paraphrasing

Hi Gog the Mild. As suggested by reviewer Mike Christie, I am going to add some more details in Manilal Dwivedi. For now, can you please help me to paraphrase the contents of 'Reform' section of this page. Most sentences come directly from the sources. So the section needs close paraphrasing. Thanks. --Gazal world (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like that you mean? Please check carefully - I am a little shaky on Manilal's philosophy, never mind trying to paraphrase other's explanations of it. Don't hesitate to come back to me if you feel that you need to. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog the Mild. Sorry. I should have told you about this first. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manilal Dwivedi/archive1 second point of Mike and its discussion. We need to mention clearly that there existed two types of reformist group. One coming from the West (West-oriented), and the other indigenous (to which Manilal belonges). --Gazal world (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gazal world, I have had another go. I haven't been able to say much/enough about the western influenced reformers as you haven't given me much about them to go on. I have inserted as much OR as I dare. Is there any more about their objectives in the sources? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its OK Gog. This will work. I will fix some issues with the help of other editor. There is detailed account of these two reformist movements in the source. But this will work for the background, I think. --Gazal world (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mike Christie. As you said, I have written some content to add in "Social reform and educational writings" section. See the "Reform" section of this page. Is it OK? I am clueless what should be removed and what should be kept for article ? Can you please check it ? And if possible, can you copy-edit/trim it ? It has been copy-edited by my friends User:Nishidani and User:Gog the Mild. You can find the original version here. --Gazal world (talk) 10:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For your convenience, I have added the source text in green colour. --Gazal world (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie Re-ping. Can you help me here ? --Gazal world (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Need to prepare new version

OK Gog. So the version I prepared did't work. (See Mike's comment in sandbox). My bad. Now, I need to prepare only two paragraph which can explain following two things:

In 19th-century India, as well as in Gujarat, there existed two groups of reformers. First was indulged towards westernizing of Indian culture, other group was made of traditionalist orthodox intellectual who resisted western influence and promoted Indian culture in a rigid attitude.
What is Manilal's contribution towards reforms, and what was his position for that?

To answer the first question, I found that the following paragraph is the best:

The conflicting trends — one of new wave of reform movement under the Western influence, wanting to change the structure and the value-system of the Indian society, and the other, and urge to safeguard and justify the cultural tradition of India — shaped the mental make-up of Manilal Dwivedi. (Raval, p.197)

My paraphrasing (please correct it if it is wrong): In 19th century India, there existed two opposite groups of reformers existed: The first group, influenced by the Western education, agitated for either abolishing or making fundamental changes to germinal Indian traditions. While the second group resisted the Westernisation of Indian culture, and tried to protect traditional Indian heritage.

Maybe:

In 19th-century India, there were two main groups of reformers. One, influenced by the Western education and ideas, challenged the validity of many Indian traditions and agitated for either abolishing or making fundamental changes to them. The other group resisted the Westernisation of Indian culture, wishing to protect traditional Indian heritage, while accepting that some reform to the ways that heritage was expressed would be beneficial.

Just a suggestion. The bit in italics especially so.

Hi Gog the Mild Thank you very much. But the 'italic' statement "while accepting that some reform to the ways that heritage was expressed would be beneficial" is not supported by that quote. right ? Should I keep it ? --Gazal world (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well you know better than me what Manilal's opinion actually was. I was using the two Thaker extracts below to support the italics bit, and I think they do. But if you are not happy, lose it. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the second question, the following two paragraph would be best. Need to summarize them into one paragraph with paraphrasing. please help:

As far as social reform was concerned, Manilal concentrated on the preaching of inner reforms, i.e., those pertaining to mind, heart and character. The social reformers of his age started from the wrong end. They exhorted the people to practice outer reforms (such as breaking the caste restrictions, equal rights for women, individual freedom, etc.) first and turn to the inner moral and religious, reforms afterwards. Manilal did not approve of this. He insisted that reform of religious ideas should come first and it should be followed by a corresponding improvement in practice. Instead of asserting that society is composed of individuals, Manilal looked upon the individual as a unit of society like the limb of a body. He, therefore, stressed duties rather than rights in his approach to the problems relating to social reform. (Thaker, p.56)

Manilal was in the second of these camps and a defender of all aspects of Indian traditional thinking. He believed that the Westernising reformers' concentration on the external manifestations of institutions and traditions was fundamentally misguided. His concept was that individuals should concentrate on reforming their own attitudes and views. Such internal reforms, he believed, would express themselves in a better cooperation with others as a part of society, thus improving traditions and institutions holistically. His emphasis was more on the duties individuals owed to others rather than on the rights owed them by others.

Very much a first attempt. Feel free to critique. I am unsure about the "all aspects" bit. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt, Manilal displayed a rigid attitude to an extent in such controversies. It should, however, be noted that the essence of social reform indicated by him in his articles such as Sudharo ('Social Reform'), Sudharano Kram ('Priorities in Reform'), Navin ane Prachin ('The New and the Old'), Prachin ane Navin ('The Ancient and the Modern'), Ek Avashyak Spashtikaran ('An Important Clarification') etc. signifies his moderate policy. If we mean by social reform a total repudiation of the old, Manilal was not at all a reformer. But if we recognize the claim of a social thinker, who tackles the social problems in the philosophical as well as historical perspective keeping in view the entire community, and favours gradual change, to be called a social reformer, then certainly Manilal deserves that description. As suggested by Anandshankar Dhruv, reforms advocated by Manilal could be described as Reforms on National Lines, as distinguished from superficial reforms. It was he who for the first time lifted social reform activity in Gujarat from the amateurish level of slogans to the mature level of reasoned principles. This great intellectual achievement should earn for Manilal a respectable place in the galaxy of the social reformers of Western India. (Thaker, p.59)

Despite his rigidity, several articles he wrote. such as Sudharo ('Social Reform'), Sudharano Kram ('Priorities in Reform'), Navin ane Prachin ('The New and the Old'), Prachin ane Navin ('The Ancient and the Modern'), Ek Avashyak Spashtikaran ('An Important Clarification') are moderate in their policy implications. He was not a reformer in the mould of those who wished to repudiate in toto the heritage of the past, but in so far as his proposals adopted a philosophical overview and a sense of history in evaluating what would serve the needs of an entire community, he deserves to be classified as a reformer, one who, as Anandshankar Dhruv suggests, thought of needed transformation in national terms, and not just as superficial artifices. His work in Gujarat was innovative in raising the level of discourse on change from amateurish sloganeering to reasoning on first principles, and in that sense, he merits inclusion as a thinker among the galaxy of social reformers of Western India.

Sorry Gog for bothering you again and again. --Gazal world (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]