Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857

Result is wrong

The result is little bit wrong, it leads to the fall of company rule for which the rebellion was for and begin or leads to the British Raj or direct crown rule 2409:4051:2D8F:7A80:CC21:1C4E:C85F:967C (talk) 03:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

That may have been the result, but the EIC was British, and so was direct British rule, so therefore was it not a British victory? Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

No company and crown both were different. The rebellion was not against crown but was against East India company rule, their was indirect rule of britain before rebellion. After rebellion the east india company rule ended and lead to start of direct crown rule from British Empire.

It's like saying during American revolutionary war, it was British victory as colonizers or patriot forces were also majority british. It's misleading.

You can write in result: End of company rule in India.

Beginning of British Raj or direct crown rule. It's accurate

ate 2409:4051:2D8F:7A80:CC21:1C4E:C85F:967C (talk) 11:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

What? Sorry that makes no sense, the Company was British, many of the troops were British and they won. It was a Brirsh victory. Butr this is all I am going to say, your argument makes no sense. Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Buddy company lost all of India administration to British crown. Are you some joke sitting here without knowing a little bit of history. I have done MA in Indian History. One more thing is wrong and pretty sure you also don't known it The main cause of mutiny was not land taxes etc they were indirect reasons but the main cause of the rebellion was a fake rumour that the company new cartridges were greased with pig and cow fat which lead to outrage amoung both Muslims and Hindu soldiers and they refused to open it with mouth after which they killed their British officers and marched towards delhi to meet shah jaffar. It is nowhere mentioned in here too. If someone went to give government exam by reading this Wikipedia page he will fail all the questions😂 2409:4051:2D8F:7A80:CC21:1C4E:C85F:967C (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

The "result" parameter in Template:Infobox military conflict is restricted in what it can say. To quote from the template documentation "result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much." DuncanHill (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

But I am unsure there is a dispute, except here, can the OP produce a source that says it wasn't a British victory? Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

You are fighting here like small child British won... British won... and here I am like fool trying to correct this page for those people that prepare for government exams from Wikipedia.

First You give me the source that it was East india company victory because this rebellion was against the company rule and which dissolved. Which effectively means Indian victory as the rebellion/war cause was fulfilled the company rwas overthrown and ended permanently. If company rule didn't end then it was India lost the rebellion.

But I am not immature like you over fighting who won, who lost

The correct answer of result is :

End of Company Rule

Begining of British Raj 2409:4051:2D8F:7A80:CC21:1C4E:C85F:967C (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Here is the source Mr historian this is what Chat GPT says:

Chat Gpt screenshot

Also Google Indian Mutiny result it says the same thing as chat gpt 2409:4051:2D8F:7A80:CC21:1C4E:C85F:967C (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

one more source: The cause of mutiny was because of animal cartridges which is no where mentioned everything else like taxes were indirect and not main Chatgpt cause of rebellion screenshot 2409:4051:2D8F:7A80:CC21:1C4E:C85F:967C (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Google cause of rebellion source 2409:4051:2D8F:7A80:CC21:1C4E:C85F:967C (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 April 2024

{{subst:trim|1= Change | result = British victory to |result = End of British Company rule in India, Begin of Direct Crown Rule, Multi Faceted Impact Source Result of Rebellion: Chat GPT Who won or Lost Indian Mutiny One more source: [1]

In the third paragraph the main and biggest cause of mutiny is not written which is animal flesh cartridges which cause the revolt " The Indian rebellion was fed by resentments born of diverse perceptions, including invasive British-style social reforms, harsh land taxes, summary treatment of some rich landowners and princes, and scepticism about the improvements brought about by British rule. Mutiny1857 (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Chat GPT is not a reliable source, I also assume you are there IP above. Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

I don't want to add one more source but here read one book from your own ancestor chapter 13 clearly written company lost the rebellion [2]https://books.google.com/books?id=Jg5BAAAAcAAJ 2409:4051:4E18:D7C5:8869:9A27:AF49:6F71 (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC) ^{(WP:PA removed — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 08:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC))}

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 08:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 June 2024

Rao Tula Ram was also participating in rebel 2409:40D1:102D:4FA9:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Already mentioned in the article. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Azimullah Khan Yusufzai as a party to the war.

Not sure what to say, Azimullah Khan Yusufzai, known as the Man behind the Indian War of Independence who planted the idea of anti-British rebellion in the head of Nana Sahib inspired by the Islamic Ottoman Empire and the perceived weakness of British soldiers in Crimea, was responsible for staging rebellion at Kanpur, he died along with and just exactly like the other rebel leaders after escaping to Nepal shortly post-1857. Wrote India's first national song, one for independence.

from the unknown, Azimullah Khan like a star, passed to the unknown. And, yet, during the interval he moved acioss the sky like a sun. True, he was not alone: there were other stars and sun which deluged the heaven with their radiations. To recall a few, there was that old venerable pole-star of the revolution, Bahadur Shah Zafar; there was that huge exploding star, the Rani of Jhansi; there was that inant star of Lucknow, Maulvi Ahmadullah; and of Bihar, Kumar Singh there were my riads of satelites scattered all over. Finally there were the great comets, Bakht Khan and Tantia Topi dashing across from horizon to horizon. But the fact remains that the deluge of radiant energy of freedom emanating from the different orbs, had its source in the fountain head of only one body — Azimullah Khan. All movements, all revolutions, even conspiracies and mutinies, require the cooperation of all persons associated with it and, in this sense, every individual participating in the movement is equally important whether he is the spy, the sepahi, or the commander of a regiment. In the last analysis, however, the man who stands above all is the man who has concieved of the movement, who has hit upon the idea, so to say, and given it an articulation, a voice, a purpose and a goal. That one man was, beyond doubt, Azimullah Khan. It was he who first of all, thought of it at London. ~ Syed Lutfullah

Tell me why he isn't a leader of the war. @RegentsPark

Someone can provide their reason against it. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@RevolutionaryPatriot: Thanks for your detailed explanation and for attempting to seek consensus rather than edit warring. On Wikipedia, fringe views are not given much, if any, credence. You would need to provide reliable sources from mainstream histories of the rebellion to support the inclusion of this material and you're not going to find any. That is the reason why your material is not includable in this article. RegentsPark (comment) 10:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The book titled Man Behind the Indian War of Independence is good enough to provide reason and explanation. The subject was an ideological leader, prime instigator in the eyes of the British themselves and influenced the major military campaigns of the conflict. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Not as well being a party to a war and one of its major leaders are not the same thing. Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what distinguishes them, but sounds as though Azimullah Khan is both. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

No it does not, was he a military commander? Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, he was Nana Sahib's military commander who was behind Cawnpore, of military background which is why all illustrations of him are him armour. But renowned to be so educated (for an Indian) with the languages he spoke, was also heavily involved in intelligence gathering for planning the actual revolt hence he also used his political, diplomatic wisdom throughout the war, do you feel that it is something that takes him out of the fold of consideration for a "Commanders and leaders" box. Perhaps ironically, if he played a less prominent role without utilising his other skills he'd be included in the infobox no problem? He continued working towards financial and military support against the British after 1857 till death. He was more than a military strategist who expanded the rebellion's reach, collaborating with leaders like Tatya Tope and the Ran of Jhansi. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Everything I have seen about him says he was not a millitary commander but a political advisor. So bring forth sources saying he was.

Yes by the way, being a diplomate does kind of take him out of the picture, lists of commanders tend to be those who command armies or in a given battle, not who are just part of a court. Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is a prominent role of his. It is no reason to consider him as solely some peace diplomat of a court.

The military planning and intelligence of the war is thanks to Azimullah Khan. He was apart of the battlefield as a senior military advisor, a person who was a soldier himself.

• as the British were going to enter Cawnpore, Nana Sahib, Tatya Tope and Azimullah Khan debated about what to do with their captives
• Nana Sahib’s most trusted commander Azimullah Khan

Examples of the listed equivalence of Azimullah to other commanders on the infobox:

• Along with Nana Sahib, Azimullah Khan, Ahmadullah Shah, Kunwar Singh, General Bakht Khan, Azizan, Begun Hazrat Mahal and other heroes, he is among the tallest figures of grand Indian struggle to the Company rule
• Bahadur Shah Zafar, Ram Mohan Roy, Nana Sahib and Azimullah Khan who were important figures in the revolt of 1857

RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

So then (at n=best) a subordinate commander. and the last part would be an argument for removing them if they did not hold independent commands.Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Azimullah Khan's role (along with that of Nana Saheb) in the 1857 rebellion was played up, motivated by different ideological viewpoints and goals, both by early British colonial history writers and by Indian nationalists (eg, Savarkar). This has continued till date in the popular and hagiographic writings online and in newspapers. But in recent decades historians have reevaluated and now believe that Azimullah played a role of more moderate importance. See, in particular:

• Jarman, Francis (December 2008). "Azimullah Khan—A Reappraisal of One of the Major Figures of the Revolt of 1857". South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies. 31 (3): 419–449.
• Wagner, Kim A. (2010). The Great Fear of 1857: Rumours, Conspiracies and the Making of the Indian Uprising. Peter Lang. ISBN 978-1-906165-27-7.

And in Wagner don't just read pages 2-3 where Azimmullah is mentioned because the author later in the introduction deconstructs these conspiratorial narratives. Which is not to say that Azimullah Khan is a figure of no importance. For example, see

• Ward, Andrew (15 April 1996). Our Bones Are Scattered: The Cawnpore Massacres and The Indian Mutiny Of 1857. Henry Holt and Company. ISBN 978-0-8050-2437-1.

Azimullah plays a relatively prominent role in Ward's account of the Siege of Cawnpore.

(TL;DR)  In this article, I would suggest name-dropping Azimullah Khan somewhere in the body though not in the infobox. Siege of Cawnpore can go into some further details about what he did there. And the Azimullah Khan article can be considerably expanded and strengthened using the above listed sources, for example, instead of relying on dated non-WP:HISTRS sources and newspaper profiles. Abecedare (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

So a reversion of my edit in full, excluding the infobox name listing. Im still not convinced on him not being in the infobox, but the edits on the rest of the article are to be included. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 05:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I wish you had waited for a consensus to develop but in order to avoid another revert cycle, I have tweaked your addition (diff from your edit; diff from status quo). If there are still any disagreements on if/how to mention Azimullah Khan in this article, anyone is welcome to restore the status quo and we can continue the discussion per WP:BRD. Abecedare (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Why did you remove the part where he is in the listed revolutionaries who fled/died to nepal after 1857, and the literature section? RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the former: Essentially for the same reason as for not listing Azimullah Khan along with Nana Sahib in the infobox. The concerned sentence is By 1859, rebel leaders Bakht Khan and Nana Sahib had either been slain or had fled and it would be incongruous to add Nana Sahib's aide's name to that list of "rebel leaders".

As for the latter: The literature sentence India's first national song was made during the War of Independence, Payam-e-Azadi or ‘The Message of Freedom’ written by Azimullah Khan Yusufzai was published from Delhi in Urdu and Hindi. made an extremal claim of being "India's first national song" that is not even supported by the (non-HISTRS) cited sources of a CPI (ML) party publication and a GoI website, which qualify their claim with "what can well be called" and " one of the first nationalistic...", respectively. And with those qualifiers, the claim becomes WP:UNDUE.

Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

So, Azimullah Khan couldn't be listed there because he can only be considered as below Nana Sahib, hence not relevant to the readers wanting to know the outcome of the war regarding the fate of leaders of the revolt.

Is it that you don't believe it is the first national song of India?

• Blogspot
• Facebook
• "English Summary"

Anything else called "India's first national song" is after 1857, more like during Independence movement prior to 1947. Hence there is no confusion for the readers as nothing predates this, because it's india's first nationalistic/patriotic national song. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 08:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

None of those sources are close to reliable for this topic area. Please do read WP:HISTRS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Abecedare (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

So why did I not include these sources in the article in the first place? Think about why that is.

Also, Is it that you don't believe it is the first national song of India? Why do you think this is untrue? RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

References