Talk:Jawaharlal Nehru/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2021

The space for monarch is at wrong position. In 1962 India was a Republic but here it looks as india was under monarch. 106.67.28.124 (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Minister of Defence In office 31 October 1962 – 14 November 1962 Monarch George VI Governor General Earl Wavell(till 20 February 1947) Lord Mountbatten(from 21 February 1947) Preceded by V. K. Krishna Menon Succeeded by Yashwantrao Yes you are right Vaibhav samrat (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 21:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2021

This sentence needs to be removed: President Rajendra Prasad awarded him the honour without taking advice from the Prime Minister as would be the normal constitutional procedure.[320]

It shouldn't be explained who or how he was awarded Bharat Ratna. It sounds more like an explanation than information. Writeshreyaskale (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done The statement was sourced to a primary source anyway. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Good article nomination

As someone who has contributed heavily to this article, I believe there has been haste in Good article nomination of this page. My main concern has been lack of good recent sources, and presence of Gyan published sources which are not considered reliable by Wikipedia. Also for a number of sections on his early life, the article relies too much on the 1955 biography of Nehru when he was at the height of his popularity and influence. I have mentioned this before when the page was nominated for Featured article. I will try to fix some of these issues but other editors need to get involved in this too. To me it is a worthy goal to elevate this article ultimately to FA status but let us put our collective efforts into it.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Jonathansammy Thank you for your input. I've added and replaced many sources as you can see on the edit summary over the year since the last failed nomination. Can you please place non-reliable sources tags in places where you have found the sources to be non-reliable? I hope I can replace them with better ones. And I'm also looking to work together with you and other editors to promote this page into GA now, and FA in the future. Regards.— TheWikiholic (talk) 04:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Added a new heading

I just added a new minisection named In twenty-first century. I want any of you to check it, edit it, clean it up, add to it, or however the need be. Thanks Appu (talk) 06:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jawaharlal Nehru/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DiplomatTesterMan (talk · contribs) 08:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

TheWikiholic; I will be taking up this review. I will start out with some initial comments related to the review. This is a long one, and will accordingly phase this as per the article, the nominator you, and my own speed. It is good to see that you have already spent quite some time with this article. DTM (talk) 08:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I first want to take up some fundamentals. This may be unsaid, but I would still like to clear it out.

1) Please take note of the way the following are used and presented— References, Notes, Citations, Bibliography, Further reading. I know different GA articles use these terms in different ways, but there is a need for some overall consistency within the article. I have some concern about the way "Bibliography" and "Further reading" is being used.

• What do the items in Bibliography represent?
• With regard to "Further reading", you have citations which link to items in "Further reading". Why not leave "Further reading" for items not cited, which readers can pick up if they want to know more? DTM (talk) 12:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

According to WP:CITEVAR, this is an editorial decision. I am not telling you how it should be done or what style to use. What I am requesting is that it should be consistent and done knowingly within the article.

2) External links— Please sort out the links. I don't think these (Profile of Nehru in India Today and Nehru on Communalism) need to be there. According to Wikipedia:External links, they could be placed in external links. But why not "Further reading"? Then there will be some consistency within items in "External link", different from above sections.

3) Citation style—

• Citation 106 unformatted.

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• Citation 2 and 6 and 323 are articles by online newspapers (TOI, The Hindu, The Telegraph). There should be some consistency between the citation format.

 Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Citation 50 and 220. Both point to TOI. However one uses "Times of India" and the other "The Times of India".

 Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Citation 54 just says "Congress". Please explain.

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• Citation 318 is in capitals. Not required.

 Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

These are just some opening comments. Please ping me if there are any queries. Accordingly I will start addressing other sections and aspects of the GA review below. Cheers. DTM (talk) 12:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Review

Introduction

• A widely admired author... were read around the world..... Weasel words not in body.

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• A Tryst with Destiny, which has been widely admired.... Weasel words not in body.

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• a prominent lawyer.... Weasel words not in body. (The section #Advocate practice points in another direction.)

Oh this is for his father Motilal Nehru DTM (talk) 10:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• ...receiving the support of Mahatma Gandhi who was to designate Nehru as his political heir. Unreferenced.
• Date dmy format is inconsistent in the introduction.

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• died as a result of a stroke ... stroke and heart attack point to two different articles. The body and infobox says heart attack, but the intro says stroke.

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

Early life and career (1889–1912)

Birth and family background

• Access level required for "The Hindu" articles.

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

 Pending The Hindu allows only a certain number of free articles per month, after which subscription is required. Therefore, I think it makes sense to add an access level here, 'limited' or 'subscription'. The access level has not been added as yet. DTM (talk) 06:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• "The Nehrus: Motilal and Jawaharlal" author required in the reference

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Krishna Hutheesing, became a noted writer... ...nothing pointing to her being a "noted" writer. TOI reference inadequate here.

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

? Maybe A Hindustan Times reference has been added now which merely says "Krishna became a noted writer". This is not what I meant when I said TOI reference was inadequate. A better source with something more about Krishan and her writing would be nice; as compared to required. DTM (talk) 06:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done A better sourced added.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• Please complete the citation details for Zakaria, Rafiq. 1960. A Study of Nehru.. Internet Archive has the book. Rafiq Zakaria is the editor. Currently he is placed as an author. Further, the book is a collection. The reference should reflect this. If the book is online and easily available online such as this, please link it. Other readers will then find it easier to access references. Accordingly the page number can be changed according to this.

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 12:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• Nanda, B. R. (15 October 2007). The Nehrus: Motilal and Jawaharlal— The publisher is linked. The author Bal Ram Nanda could also be linked.

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Jawaharlal was the eldest of three children– Is this correct? The very next line says he had an elder sister.

On reading the next two lines, this makes sense now. DTM (talk) 09:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Smith, Bonnie G. 2008. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History. Oxford— Smith is the editor. Also, the publisher is linked so she could be too, Bonnie G. Smith.

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Childhood

• "Jawaharlal Nehru (1889-1964)". theosophyforward.com— promotional link

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Youth

Graduation

Advocate practice

Nationalist movement (1912–1938)

Britain and return to India: 1912–1913

World War I: 1914–1915

• Citation 25, Glimpses of World History can be linked though not a must, it is linked below
• Argov 1964, the thesis citation has no page number

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

 Pending Is the page number correct? DTM (talk) 06:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Home rule movement: 1916–1917

• The Windsor Star citation, please provide the page number. Also please check if it should go under the title "Nehru Gave Up Life Of Ease, Wealth" rather than the current one. The layout of the newspaper is confusing.

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Nevertheless, Besant formed... Usage of 'Nevertheless' here seems a bit misleading. The word applies to Nehru, this should be clear.

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

No changes were made with regard to this. DTM (talk) 06:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Jawaharlal Nehru – a chronological account Please add citation details such as Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund (JNMF)

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Non-cooperation: 1920–1927

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Pratiyogita Darpan Extra Issue Series, Volume 12., even though the page number is linked through the reference, it would be a good idea to mention to page number in the citation as well. Please confirm if this citation adequately references the two sentences it references.

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done Thank you for adding a page number. Does this page adequately cite the text it is placed ahead of? DTM (talk) 06:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed better source added.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• non-Cooperation movement check capital letter

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Citation formatting for Ranganathan Magadi. Please use the title, sub-title and name format on the book and not the one provided by Google even though they both turn out to mean the same thing.

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Nehru's Nabha jail ordeal lost in past". 15 November 2014. please complete citation details

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Fundamental Rights and Economic Policy: 1929

• The section has a lot about Purna Swaraj but it isn't linked.

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• citation needed tag DTM (talk) 11:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• Maheshwari (1997) and Kochar (1997) citations require page numbers; aims listed will be verified accordingly

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• The citation for Rajmohan Gandhi's book 'Patel: A Life' currently only links the ASIN. It would be useful to link the Internet Archive version as well. Further, the book is used four times in the article. It could be converted into citation-further reading format.

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• he formed the Independence for India league- as per the reference, the 'l' in 'league' can be in capitals

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Nehru agreed to vote for the new resolution.- uncited

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• Citation 47. Please use the details given at the bottom of the page to fill in the citation details.

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• A pledge of [...] for mass civil disobedience were also underway. This entire paragraph and specific details are not adequately

cited. The reference quality could also be improved, further the Pearson Education citation does not reference many details it is placed ahead of.

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Salt March: 1930

• With reference to citation 50 The Great Dandi March, author Gopalkrishna Gandhi can be linked (as per the practice started above of linking publishers and authors, and as will continue below).

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• tried summarily behind prison walls- is this specific detail referenced?

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• There is an open bracket '(', however it is not closed.

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• In the first two sentences, 'salt satyagraha' is referred to using both small and capital letters.

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Electoral politics, Europe, and economics: 1936–1938

• Citation 56, Students' Britannica India, the incorrect volume is linked. This is the correct volume.

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• As a continuation of the above point, this is a case of close paraphrasing/copyvio.

Reference text- During the mid-1930s Nehru was much concerned with developments in Europe, which seemed to be drifting towards another war. He was in Europe early in 1936, visiting his ailing wife, shortly before she died in a sanitorium in Switzerland. (pg 108)

Article text- During the mid-1930s, Nehru was very concerned with developments in Europe, which seemed to be drifting toward another world war. He was in Europe in early 1936 visiting his ailing wife shortly before she died in a sanatorium in Switzerland.

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 02:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• Other citations pointing to Students' Britannica India are also linked to the incorrect volume. DTM (talk) 12:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• Please link both Metcalf's- Barbara D. Metcalf and Thomas R. Metcalf. The Google Books link does not provide access to the page cited, pg 176. Internet Archive has the book; please use its link instead with relevant access level.

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• The two citations mentioned above reference a paragraph which is a case of close paraphrasing/copyvio.

Reference text- The watershed in his political and economic thinking was his tour of Europe and the Soviet Union during 1926-1927. Nehru's real interest in Marxism and his socialist pattern of thought stem from that tour, even though it did not appreciably increase his knowledge of Communist theory and practice. His subsequent sojurns in prisons enabled him to study Marxism in more depth. Interested in its ideas, but repelled by some of its methods, he could never bring himself to accept Karl Marx's writings as revealed scripture. Yet from then on, the yardstick of his economic thinking remained Marxist, adjusted, where necessary, to Indian conditions. (pg 107)

Article text- Nehru's visit to Europe in 1936 proved to be the watershed in his political and economic thinking. His real interest in Marxism and his socialist pattern of thought stem from that tour. His later sojourns in prison enabled him to study Marxism in more depth. Interested in its ideas but repelled by some of its methods, he could never bring himself to accept Karl Marx's writings as revealed scripture. Yet from then on, the yardstick of his economic thinking remained Marxist, adjusted, where necessary, to Indian conditions.

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done Parts of this remain raising the issue of close paraphrasing - he could never bring himself to accept Karl Marx's writings as revealed scripture. DTM (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

This has been rewritten a few days ago. Please have a look again.TheWikiholic (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• While this is covered above, I want to point to the date/year mentioned- 1936. The reference says 1926-27. Although he was in Europe in both 36' and 26-27', the "watershed in his political and economic thinking" was in 1926 and not 36.

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• Please place the year and page number for the citation "Thakur, Pradeep". However, is this reference needed here? Apart from saying there was a Lucknow session in 1936, it references no more. Since I do not have access B. R. Tomlinson's book with the specific page number in question, and as per the explanation Wikipedia:Offline sources, we can leave that citation in good faith. A third source can be used to confirm the text.

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• With respect to The Hindu citation, link Mohammed Ayoob, and provide access level.

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• These lines are uncited- The elections brought the Congress party to power [...] and "equal partner" within Indian politics were widely rejected. This is one reference already used above that could be used for referencing a part of this. DTM (talk) 11:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Nationalist movement (1939–1947)

• When World War II began, Viceroy Linlithgow ... The Disha Publications reference does not adequately cite the line.

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done Why would you keep the Disha Publications reference when it does not cite the line? The reference you have added, Samanta, has no page number. It is a 164 page reference. A page number helps. DTM (talk) 06:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• Menon can be linked in his citation Transfer of Power in India; V. P. Menon. Please mention the page number, even though the url directly links to it.

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• ...the background is the same...; this quote is not in the given reference.

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• On 23 October 1939, the... - Does pg 412 cover this? Including the specific mention of the date and the following words Nehru urged Jinnah and the Muslim League to join the protest, but Jinnah declined?

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Civil disobedience, Lahore Resolution, August Offer: 1940

• For this article, entrance exam manuals, especially poor quality ones, could be left out. There are so many "better quality" sources on Nehru. This said, please remove Bhatnagar's UPPSC Medical Officer Recruitment Examination Part-1: General Knowledge Homeopathic/Ayurvedic - Competitive Exam Book 2021 and place a fresh source. Further, this source does not adequately cover what it intends to cite. Going back in the article history, this reference was added by this edit on 9 November 2018. The unreferenced text was placed well before the addition of the citation.

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• Author Stephen W. Sears can be linked.

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• was 'denied by large and powerful elements in India's national life" - the quotation marks need copyediting.

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Japan attacks India, Cripps' mission, Quit India: 1942

• Change Amy McKenna from last-name first-name parameter to editor parameters. Add page number. This has been referenced below (...until 15 June 1945) as well with a new page number. Format that citation as well.

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Add the volume (vol 4) and page number (pg 108-109) to the citation for Students' Britannica India.

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Add page number to the Mansergh, Nicholas (2013) citation.

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• The nationalarchives.gov.uk citation points to a dead link. Archive link needs to be added. URL status needs changing.

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 12:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

In prison 1943–1945

• Add author parameters to Civics & History.

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 12:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Add specific page numbers for The All India Hindu Mahasabha and the End of British Rule in India, 1939-1947. Just now the entire 27 pages are mentioned.

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• A general sympathy...His prestige... The page linked to the citation The Gandhi Reader does not cover this.

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Cabinet mission, Interim government 1946–1947

• Gaikwad's book has no year or page number

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 08:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• The Indian Express citation is missing a number of parameters.

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 08:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• While all three citations are good quality; D. R. Gadgil's citation doesn't really cover the content it is placed ahead of.

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 08:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Prime Minister of India (1947–1964)

• Patel: Political Ideas and Policies is 'edited' by Shakti Sinha and Himanshu Roy. They should be shifted to editor related parameters. Accordingly the specific chapter and author(s) should be mentioned.

 Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 09:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Republicanism

• In July 1946, Nehru pointedly observed that no princely state could prevail militarily against the army of independent India.- picked up from the source as it is. This is discouraged. (Copyvio/close paraphrasing). However in this case the indirect speech needs some looking into which Google Books does not reveal in the preview.

• Ok, so continuing from above, this is now a clear case of copyvio/close paraphrasing. Three lines have been picked up- In July 1946, Nehru pointedly observed ... would be treated as an enemy state.

 Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 09:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Changing references but keeping the text the same does not address the copvio/close paraphrasing identified! DTM (talk) 06:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

DiplomatTesterMan I think it was a case where the reference was copied text from Wikipedia. That is why I didn't remove the content even though I replaced the source.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• The Business Standard reference Making of Indian Democracy, Nehru's role can be removed. It does not reference the line in consideration.

 Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 09:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• The Diplomat also doesn't reference the line it is placed ahead of.

 Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 09:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Does Manjeet Ramgotra's reference the line? If it does, add a page number.

 Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 09:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Independence, Dominion of India: 1946–1950

• ...cause of humanity." - remove inverted quotes.

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• On 30 January 1948, Gandhi was shot ... to Pakistan. - another case of copyvio/close paraphrasing.

 Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• Friends and comrades, the light has gone... - does not require two citations.

 Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• Add author details for Boundaries of Belonging

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• Convert bare URL from core.ac.uk into proper citation/reference format.

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• Add page number for Benjamin Zachariah's book.

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• Is this referenced? - 200,000 arrests

Yes.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• Format citation "Yasmin Khan 2011".

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• Link author Karan Thapar.

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• This section "Integration of states: 1947–1950" needs to link - Political integration of India.

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• Is this level of detailing relevant to this article? - The constitution of 1950 distinguished between three main types of states: The next heading goes on to state - Under the Seventh Amendment, the existing distinction between Part A, Part B, Part C, and Part D states was abolished..... So if the detailing needs to be addressed, this will also need to be edited accordingly.

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Election of 1952

• Add citation detail 'The Indian Express'

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• Format Myron Weiner correctly into first name- last name. Myron Weiner can be linked.

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

First term as Prime Minister: 1952–1957

• Remove citation - PU Law Entrance Exam 2020. Add a better quality reference.

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• Specify the page number for Jodhka (2002).

 Fixed TheWikiholic (talk) 14:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• Remove— Western scholars ... in India. —Not backed by a good source. A very general sentence that doesn't really add value. If there is a need to retain, a better source(s) is/are needed.

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Subsequent elections: 1957, 1962

• The numbers who voter - spelling of voted.

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Remove reference Padalkar (2021); most likely a case of copying from Wikipedia; The previous citation here- Meena Gaikwad's citation- also seems to be a case of copying from Wikipedia.

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Popularity

• Format the Economic Times reference "to come back to power with full majority..." with complete ref details.

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• Add more details to the citation for the video from Pathe on YouTube.
• This is the name of the book, Verdicts on Nehru, could go in single quotes or it could be italicised or commas could be added; whatever does the job best.

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• This sentence does not read smoothly- Ramachandra Guha in his... campaign looked like:
• Shift 'Penguin Petit' out of the book title and into another more suitable parameter.

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• Add more details to the citation for Eisenhower's quote.

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• A general comment on this section- There must have been one notable person who said something critical of Nehru's popularity? This section feels incomplete. The content in this section has to be differentiated from legacy as well. DTM (talk) 08:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Vision and governing policies

• Can we place a timeframe for this?— After the exit of Subhashchandra Bose from mainstream Indian politics — the following bracketed text needs to be taken out of the brackets and connected with the first part of the sentence in a better way. All this has to be done keeping in mind the reference that is being used.
• the power struggle ... without hindrance.– is unreferenced.

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• Forty-second Amendment of the Constitution of India can be linked.

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• References need to be formatted correctly and with complete citation details.

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Economic policies

• The citation for the book The Commanding Heights requires a page number. As it is a ebook without page numbers that are easy to figure out, the location can be mentioned, such as the chapter.

Agriculture policies

• A number of books in this article have day and month mentioned along with the year as the publication date. If we go by the 'Colophon (publishing)'; day and month can be removed. Please remove day and month from Brown's book. This needs to be checked for all citation and references concerning books. DTM (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Social policies

• #Education: This entire paragraph was present in the article in 2007 (revision)— Jawaharlal Nehru was a passionate advocate of education ... in the rural areas. The book, Freedom Fighters of India by Lion M.G. Agrawal was published in 2008. This is another probable case of a source copying from Wikipedia. The IndiaTV source has also picked up the first line as it is. Please find references that do not seem to have bluntly copied text from this paragraph. There are many sources for this, already present in this article, and online which can be found through a quick search engine search. DTM (talk) 02:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
• #Hindu Marriage law
  • Why is M capital in the header?

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• • Under Nehru, ... freedoms of women.— Is followed by four citations; this is a case of excessive citations. Either briefly expand the content according to the citations or remove some of the citations.

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• • Shift the link Muslim personal law to its first mention in the section.

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• • However, Nehru has been ... secularism.— These five sentences are unreferenced. The existing citation does not cover this.

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• #Reservations for socially-oppressed communities
  • Format the reference properly. Page number required. The link points to page 20.

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• #Language policy
  • Citation Rathi (2017) needs to mention the publisher. DTM (talk) 05:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Foreign policy

• #Non-aligned movement
  • On the international scene, ... the Western bloc.— This entire paragraph was present in the article before the publication date of the referenced book "Ruling Dynasties of Independent India". Another probable case of copying from Wikipedia. This particular reference also has the entire text of the next paragraph, however those are referenced differently.

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• • Authors can be linked - Robert Sherrod, H. W. Brands.

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• • Reference No. 205 - Gopal, 2:232-35.— If this points to Sarvepalli Gopal's "Jawaharlal Nehru: A Biography" Vol.2 please specify that more clearly. DTM (talk) 11:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Copyvios

Earwigs catches the following:

• Cases where the reference has copied text from Wikipedia
  • Gulf News
  • News18
• Cases where Wikipedia has copied phrases from a reference
  • ...watershed in his political and economic thinking... Britannica

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

DTM (talk) 10:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• A number of cases of copyvio, close paraphrasing, copying from Wikipedia, have been mentioned as and when found when going through the respective sections. They have been commented upon above. DTM (talk) 08:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

General comments on the progress of this GA review

TheWikiholic, hi. Do you have any comments about how this review is progressing? DTM (talk) 09:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Hey, no comments. You are doing a wonderful job. I know Nehru is a huge topic and the article is quite the undertaking. Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I look forward to more comments and suggestions and hope that we can get it to pass in the end.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Can you please complete the above review comments. Some comments have not been addressed, despite the 'done' and 'fixed' templates. Please don't introduce new issues such as bare urls. I will give you some time to complete this, after which I will review the above points again as per GA requirements, and then we can move on to new sections. DTM (talk) 12:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I have added some comments above with 'Maybe', 'Partly Done' and 'Pending' templates. (There are way too many templates being used, but that is another issue...) Irrespective of the remaining work to be done on the reviewed sections, I will be continuing with the review. DTM (talk) 10:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Second opinion

Going by the above review progress, there are sure to be a few more cases of close paraphrasing, referencing sources that have been copied from Wikipedia etc. While the review is not complete, I am not failing this outright and asking for a second opinion. DTM (talk) 02:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• I maybe will not commit to a complete second-opinion, but on a quick look, I see that there are quite a few issues.
• MOS:SANDWICH in "Early life and career (1889–1912)" section
• Multiple over-linking throughout the article. Suggesting to check it by User:Evad37/duplinks-alt
• Very lengthy table of content. Sections and sub-sections should be merged
• WP:Citation Overkill in few footnotes
• Suggesting to hyphenate ISBNs, using this tool.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@DiplomatTesterMan, How is this one going? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Status query

DTM, TheWikiholic, where does this nomination stand? TheWikiholic, I don't see any attempt to address the issues raised in the partial second opinion by Kavyansh.Singh, even as the original review—ten listed sections are blank—and a potential second opinion are both incomplete. In a few days, the review will be four months old; if there isn't additional work done soon, perhaps it should be closed. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@TheWikiholic: I also think this should be closed. There is also conversation from this year emerging on the talk page that needs to be addressed. DTM (talk) 13:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

No objection to closing. Will fix these issues later. Thank you DTM and Kavyans Singh for your time. I really appreciated it. Regards.— TheWikiholic (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

DTM, as official reviewer, it is most appropriate for you to close the review as unsuccessful. If you aren't able to do so in the next seven days, I will do so for you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Seven days having passed, I have now closed the review as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Birth place

Birth place is not anand bhawan allahabad . He was born in mirganj allahabad and family came to anand bhawan when he was 3 year old. 2405:201:3016:2962:A939:2353:D432:4FB3 (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

You are correct that Jawaharlal was not born in Anand Bhawan. B. R. Nanda says, Motilal purchased Anand Bhawan in 1900, some 11 years after JN's birth. Before that, they were living on 7 Elgin Road, Civil Lines. How much before, I was not able to determine. Perhaps you can delve into the issue in the sources and present them here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Nehru was not a hindu agnostic. He was secular scientific humanist

Calling him hindu agnostic is not appropriate because he never call himself hindu. He always identified as secular or scientific humanist. And also claim that he was agnostic is not okay because of his attitude towards religion. Many sources called him atheist so instead of hindu agnostic or atheist we should add only secular or scientific himanist in his religious views because it is the most appropriate identity even used by nehru himself. Mr.nothing anonymous (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. "Hindu agnostic," regardless of whether a source or two or three can be cited for it, is WP:UNDUE. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Nehru's 21st century presence in lead.

The last paragraph, presumably about his legacy, ends a little abruptly i.e., He died as a result of a heart attack on 27 May 1964. His birthday is celebrated as Children's Day in India.. Nehru gets a lot of page views. I mean, a lot. (he averages per day more than FDR) This is not least because of his lasting relevance in Indian politics. This section has ample citations about the same. Even if you forget citations, it is common knowledge that Nehru is pretty popular among India's humanities intelligentsia. I think the lead in the end should have a line about that. It could be "Nehru is a controversial figure in contemporary Indian politics" or "Nehru remains a popular figure among the intelligentsia"; whatever pleases the consensus. Appu (talk) 07:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

This discussion has not recieved any response after 24 hours. I think I should make WP:BOLD to add it under WP:GOODFAITH? Appu (talk) 12:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@APPU: Is this something that is sourced or in the article? The intelligentsia sentence seems a bit odd and, if you add the controversial figure one, you'll also need a bit of explaining why. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

We have this section Jawaharlal_Nehru#In_the_21st_century. It has quite a lot of citations to get the picture. I think intelligentsia is a fine word or perhaps we can trim in down to "intelligentsia in India". I feel that it should be mentioned for the reason that Nehruvianism and whatever that is called "acadmia", 'intellectual elite" or "intelligentsia" are so much dovetailed together. Appu (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I read the para (apologies for not doing so before) and it looks reasonably complete to me. The section you point to doesn't really support "controversial". Being disliked by Hindu nationalists and the BJP doesn't make one controversial. And, while "support in academia" is in the section, is that really worth adding to the lead? --RegentsPark (comment) 15:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I think we should avoid controversial for the time being till we find enough evidence. Intelligentsia has a sharp meaning while academia a broad term and quite a vague one.

I support adding "Nehru remains very popular among the Indian intelligentsia". If you google "top indian intellectuals", you find this at the top. Among the five listed, two (Tharoor and Guha) are just outright Nehru fanboys; both have written not less than 500 pages about Nehru through various formats. Rajan is an economist so I don't know if he has written substantially. Mehta taught at Jawaharlal Nehru University which is famous and infamous for being Nehruvian by name and nature. IDK much about Ashok Malik, sorry for that. Then I found this article, which has one more called Swapan Dasgupta. He is politician of an opposing party but still he admits that "The near-unchallenged political dominance of some six decades led to the Nehruvian consensus becoming common sense among the intelligentsia, particularly those in the liberal professions. This section has guarded its echo chamber fiercely and denied institutional space to those that don’t quite fit into the Left-liberal mould." in this article. One can google for "top Indian historians" and still find such people. It is quite a fact that Nehru or Nehruvianism is the epicentre of Indian intellectual elite and it is his biggest chunk of legacy, so yeah it should be in the lead. Appu (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

"Nehru remains a popular figure among the intelligentsia" sounds weird to me, a bit like a forerunner to an ideological crackdown a la the great leap forward. It's sort of saying that he's not a popular figure with the masses, which is not necessarily true. I think we need to let others weigh in on this. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the legacy bit needs to be discussed more. I have accordingly removed the paragraph added by Jonathansammy. Hindu nationalists are not the only critics of Nehru. The Congress itself, after the 1990s, moved away from the Nehruvian economics of the 1950s, especially during Manmohan Singh's tenure both as finance minister and later as prime minister. Nor were the Hindu nationalists the only critics of Nehru's China policy. His own daughter became politically and militarily hawkish toward China.

In my view, the Hindu nationalists' dislike of Nehru is more complex. In part, it is a dislike of Gandhi whom because of his elevated status they dare not criticize. Gandhi's principle of means before ends, of which Nehru was an early enthusiast, is not a Hindu nationalist principle. Means before ends, and its associated political ethics and self-doubts, is not an outlook to which, for example, Patel showed great attachment in later life, preferring a pragmatic forcefulness towards the Indian princes, including in two instances the annexation of their states by force. He is therefore a Hindu nationalist hero. Similarly, Subhas Bose and Bhagat Singh, who accomplished little towards their goal of liberating India from British rule, but for whom only ends were important, even when they became nihilistic, have become unlikely Hindu-nationalist heroes, their ideologies overlooked.

In part, the dislike is related to the Hindu nationalists' sitting determinedly on the sidelines during India's long nationalist movement from 1920 to 1947, and thereafter being implicated by their association in the murder of Mahatma Gandhi and sidelined for two decades more. In the 1950s, they were pariahs in India, and Nehru was their outsize opponent, whom they did not forgive. Gradually, since coming into power in the 1990s, they have attempted to revise their history.

Their visceral dislike for Nehru is in part also a dislike for the English-speaking upper classes in India by whom the vernacularly-educated Hindu nationalists felt snubbed for decades.

And so it goes. I'm sure the sources exist. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

How about we add for the time being "Indian intelligentsia is often personified to Nehru and his ideas of India"? I think this is concluded in the discussion in more than one way. But I am anxious if that is the right wording. I would make a bold move but am holding back for a consensus because Nehru is just too giant a personality and I do not want to be wrong. Appu (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that only those who use intelligentsia in a negative sense would make that statement (as your googling above indicates - Swapan has said that, not Guha or Tharoor). Anyway it's extremely reductive, no single person can be representative of such a wide category; especially now. I've reverted your edit. Hemanthah (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

It is immaterial if it is a praise or insult, what is needed is whether Nehru is disproportionately dovetailed with the intelligentsia and so far as the sources go, he is. Guha and Tharoor have not said or probably I didn't cite them saying so. What is said is Guha and Tharoor are also first-rank Nehruvians (Tharoor's latest book has a significant chunk of literature dedicated to Nehru). And such openly-proclaiming Nehru lovers are just so ubiquitous among the public intellectuals that it lead to this discussion. It is not too reductive to be not mentioned, if intelligentsia is a wide category, then Nehruvian ideas have also found a similarly-wide acceptance among that intelligentsia. You may not find such a thing as "Gandhian/Savarakar/Golwalkar/Tilak/Indira intellegentsia" but there are countless references in literature of Indian intelligentsia/academia being called [or insulted] as Nehruvian. Appu (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Your edit was a rephrasing of Swapan's opinion, not some widely accepted viewpoint as your edit presented it. And as such, I thought it doesn't belong in the lead. Any continuation of this discussion without actual sources is futile. (As a policy note, per WP:BRD, you should discuss after somebody reverts your bold edit, not revert back to your viewpoint). Hemanthah (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Insulted by whom? Also how, in academic publications, legacy media, or social media? That clarification will be helpful.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

APPU: May I suggest that you not make any edits until a consensus has been achieved on this page. I have no idea what intelligentsia means in an invariant sense. It is a somewhat dated term, related to pre-Soviet Russia, with OED meaning (2010): "The part of a nation (originally in 19th-cent. Russia) that aspires to intellectual activity and political initiative; a section of society regarded as educated and possessing culture and political influence." What does that mean in the Indian context?

Both Tharoor and Guha write popular trade histories. They don't work with primary sources, or if they do, they haven't really trained in their use as a part of their apprenticeship in history. As a result, they don't typically write journal articles, research monographs, or advise PhD students. They are similar to the White Mughals author whose name I'm blanking on, popular historians. In other words, their works are not works of scholarship, see WP:SOURCETYPES for an explanation of the term scholarship, and why it is most reliable among sources.

For Nehru, there are many works of scholarship. See for example, Judith M. Brown's Modern India: Origins of an Asian Democracy, Oxford University Press, 1991; Barbara D. Metcalf and Thomas R. Metcalf's A Concise History of Modern India, Cambridge University Press, 2012; Peter Robb's A History of India, Palgrave, 2012; Burton Stein's History of India, Oxford 2012; Ian Talbot's A History of Modern South Asia: Politics, States, Diasporas, Yale, 2016. For an assessment of Nehru's economic policies, see B. R. Tomlinson's The Economy of Modern India: From 1860 to the Twenty-First Century, Cambridge, 2020; or The Economic History of India, 1857–2010 by Tirthankar Roy, 2020. A very useful political assessment is Judith M. Brown's Nehru: Profiles in Power, Routledge 2014. In my view, a legacy for a topic such as Nehru's should be based on the work of academic historians, not popular ones. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Sorry for reigniting this discussion. I used your this search template from here to find academic or scholarly mentions of this claim. I have found some at here and here [Not every search result is relevant but some]. Do these count? Especially these Appu (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Social democrat

The lead mentions Nehru as a social democrat, but nowhere in the article is that mentioned. Is that not a WP:synthesis? Appu (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

That is because this is not a well-developed article in which the main body is comprehensive. So, ipso facto, a comprehensive and NPOV lead can't be a summary of the article. I often do this on some pages and cite the sentences so that the main bodies can be developed. The mistake I made was to forget the citations. I will now add them with liberal quotes from which the main body can be further developed. Thank you for pointing this out. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Nehru's 21st century presence in lead.

The last paragraph, presumably about his legacy, ends a little abruptly i.e., He died as a result of a heart attack on 27 May 1964. His birthday is celebrated as Children's Day in India.. Nehru gets a lot of page views. I mean, a lot. (he averages per day more than FDR) This is not least because of his lasting relevance in Indian politics. This section has ample citations about the same. Even if you forget citations, it is common knowledge that Nehru is pretty popular among India's humanities intelligentsia. I think the lead in the end should have a line about that. It could be "Nehru is a controversial figure in contemporary Indian politics" or "Nehru remains a popular figure among the intelligentsia"; whatever pleases the consensus. Appu (talk) 07:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

This discussion has not recieved any response after 24 hours. I think I should make WP:BOLD to add it under WP:GOODFAITH? Appu (talk) 12:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@APPU: Is this something that is sourced or in the article? The intelligentsia sentence seems a bit odd and, if you add the controversial figure one, you'll also need a bit of explaining why. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

We have this section Jawaharlal_Nehru#In_the_21st_century. It has quite a lot of citations to get the picture. I think intelligentsia is a fine word or perhaps we can trim in down to "intelligentsia in India". I feel that it should be mentioned for the reason that Nehruvianism and whatever that is called "acadmia", 'intellectual elite" or "intelligentsia" are so much dovetailed together. Appu (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I read the para (apologies for not doing so before) and it looks reasonably complete to me. The section you point to doesn't really support "controversial". Being disliked by Hindu nationalists and the BJP doesn't make one controversial. And, while "support in academia" is in the section, is that really worth adding to the lead? --RegentsPark (comment) 15:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I think we should avoid controversial for the time being till we find enough evidence. Intelligentsia has a sharp meaning while academia a broad term and quite a vague one.

I support adding "Nehru remains very popular among the Indian intelligentsia". If you google "top indian intellectuals", you find this at the top. Among the five listed, two (Tharoor and Guha) are just outright Nehru fanboys; both have written not less than 500 pages about Nehru through various formats. Rajan is an economist so I don't know if he has written substantially. Mehta taught at Jawaharlal Nehru University which is famous and infamous for being Nehruvian by name and nature. IDK much about Ashok Malik, sorry for that. Then I found this article, which has one more called Swapan Dasgupta. He is politician of an opposing party but still he admits that "The near-unchallenged political dominance of some six decades led to the Nehruvian consensus becoming common sense among the intelligentsia, particularly those in the liberal professions. This section has guarded its echo chamber fiercely and denied institutional space to those that don’t quite fit into the Left-liberal mould." in this article. One can google for "top Indian historians" and still find such people. It is quite a fact that Nehru or Nehruvianism is the epicentre of Indian intellectual elite and it is his biggest chunk of legacy, so yeah it should be in the lead. Appu (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

"Nehru remains a popular figure among the intelligentsia" sounds weird to me, a bit like a forerunner to an ideological crackdown a la the great leap forward. It's sort of saying that he's not a popular figure with the masses, which is not necessarily true. I think we need to let others weigh in on this. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the legacy bit needs to be discussed more. I have accordingly removed the paragraph added by Jonathansammy. Hindu nationalists are not the only critics of Nehru. The Congress itself, after the 1990s, moved away from the Nehruvian economics of the 1950s, especially during Manmohan Singh's tenure both as finance minister and later as prime minister. Nor were the Hindu nationalists the only critics of Nehru's China policy. His own daughter became politically and militarily hawkish toward China.

In my view, the Hindu nationalists' dislike of Nehru is more complex. In part, it is a dislike of Gandhi whom because of his elevated status they dare not criticize. Gandhi's principle of means before ends, of which Nehru was an early enthusiast, is not a Hindu nationalist principle. Means before ends, and its associated political ethics and self-doubts, is not an outlook to which, for example, Patel showed great attachment in later life, preferring a pragmatic forcefulness towards the Indian princes, including in two instances the annexation of their states by force. He is therefore a Hindu nationalist hero. Similarly, Subhas Bose and Bhagat Singh, who accomplished little towards their goal of liberating India from British rule, but for whom only ends were important, even when they became nihilistic, have become unlikely Hindu-nationalist heroes, their ideologies overlooked.

In part, the dislike is related to the Hindu nationalists' sitting determinedly on the sidelines during India's long nationalist movement from 1920 to 1947, and thereafter being implicated by their association in the murder of Mahatma Gandhi and sidelined for two decades more. In the 1950s, they were pariahs in India, and Nehru was their outsize opponent, whom they did not forgive. Gradually, since coming into power in the 1990s, they have attempted to revise their history.

Their visceral dislike for Nehru is in part also a dislike for the English-speaking upper classes in India by whom the vernacularly-educated Hindu nationalists felt snubbed for decades.

And so it goes. I'm sure the sources exist. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

How about we add for the time being "Indian intelligentsia is often personified to Nehru and his ideas of India"? I think this is concluded in the discussion in more than one way. But I am anxious if that is the right wording. I would make a bold move but am holding back for a consensus because Nehru is just too giant a personality and I do not want to be wrong. Appu (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that only those who use intelligentsia in a negative sense would make that statement (as your googling above indicates - Swapan has said that, not Guha or Tharoor). Anyway it's extremely reductive, no single person can be representative of such a wide category; especially now. I've reverted your edit. Hemanthah (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

It is immaterial if it is a praise or insult, what is needed is whether Nehru is disproportionately dovetailed with the intelligentsia and so far as the sources go, he is. Guha and Tharoor have not said or probably I didn't cite them saying so. What is said is Guha and Tharoor are also first-rank Nehruvians (Tharoor's latest book has a significant chunk of literature dedicated to Nehru). And such openly-proclaiming Nehru lovers are just so ubiquitous among the public intellectuals that it lead to this discussion. It is not too reductive to be not mentioned, if intelligentsia is a wide category, then Nehruvian ideas have also found a similarly-wide acceptance among that intelligentsia. You may not find such a thing as "Gandhian/Savarakar/Golwalkar/Tilak/Indira intellegentsia" but there are countless references in literature of Indian intelligentsia/academia being called [or insulted] as Nehruvian. Appu (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Your edit was a rephrasing of Swapan's opinion, not some widely accepted viewpoint as your edit presented it. And as such, I thought it doesn't belong in the lead. Any continuation of this discussion without actual sources is futile. (As a policy note, per WP:BRD, you should discuss after somebody reverts your bold edit, not revert back to your viewpoint). Hemanthah (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Insulted by whom? Also how, in academic publications, legacy media, or social media? That clarification will be helpful.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

APPU: May I suggest that you not make any edits until a consensus has been achieved on this page. I have no idea what intelligentsia means in an invariant sense. It is a somewhat dated term, related to pre-Soviet Russia, with OED meaning (2010): "The part of a nation (originally in 19th-cent. Russia) that aspires to intellectual activity and political initiative; a section of society regarded as educated and possessing culture and political influence." What does that mean in the Indian context?

Both Tharoor and Guha write popular trade histories. They don't work with primary sources, or if they do, they haven't really trained in their use as a part of their apprenticeship in history. As a result, they don't typically write journal articles, research monographs, or advise PhD students. They are similar to the White Mughals author whose name I'm blanking on, popular historians. In other words, their works are not works of scholarship, see WP:SOURCETYPES for an explanation of the term scholarship, and why it is most reliable among sources.

For Nehru, there are many works of scholarship. See for example, Judith M. Brown's Modern India: Origins of an Asian Democracy, Oxford University Press, 1991; Barbara D. Metcalf and Thomas R. Metcalf's A Concise History of Modern India, Cambridge University Press, 2012; Peter Robb's A History of India, Palgrave, 2012; Burton Stein's History of India, Oxford 2012; Ian Talbot's A History of Modern South Asia: Politics, States, Diasporas, Yale, 2016. For an assessment of Nehru's economic policies, see B. R. Tomlinson's The Economy of Modern India: From 1860 to the Twenty-First Century, Cambridge, 2020; or The Economic History of India, 1857–2010 by Tirthankar Roy, 2020. A very useful political assessment is Judith M. Brown's Nehru: Profiles in Power, Routledge 2014. In my view, a legacy for a topic such as Nehru's should be based on the work of academic historians, not popular ones. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Sorry for reigniting this discussion. I used your this search template from here to find academic or scholarly mentions of this claim. I have found some at here and here [Not every search result is relevant but some]. Do these count? Especially these Appu (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Nehru was not a hindu agnostic. He was secular scientific humanist

Calling him hindu agnostic is not appropriate because he never call himself hindu. He always identified as secular or scientific humanist. And also claim that he was agnostic is not okay because of his attitude towards religion. Many sources called him atheist so instead of hindu agnostic or atheist we should add only secular or scientific himanist in his religious views because it is the most appropriate identity even used by nehru himself. Mr.nothing anonymous (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. "Hindu agnostic," regardless of whether a source or two or three can be cited for it, is WP:UNDUE. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree with this. Maybe just call him a “secularist” or the fact that he can be mentioned as someone who never identified with a religion without explicitly mentioning “Hindu agnostic” or “atheist”. Let that be a consensus for this page. Addie293 (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Trimming the quotes

I am proposing that we should trim quotes in footnote [b] in the lead to cut to the chase. It would ideally look like this. Appu (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Reminder

It should be mentioned that Nehru is colloquially referred to as Pandit. Appu (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks 🙏 Archana baby (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Religion

I completely agree with this. Maybe just call him a “secularist” or the fact that he can be mentioned as someone who never identified with a religion without explicitly mentioning “Hindu agnostic” or “atheist”. Let that be a consensus for this page. Addie293 (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@Addie293: "secularist" is not a religion and you are using unreliable sources like "atheistcentre.in".

There are dozens of reliable sources which call him "Kashmiri Hindu".

But we are using Sarvepalli Gopal as a source, since he is the best source on Nehru.

See WP:OR. It cannot be done just because you want things according to yourself. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

It is not the consensus of reliable source that is reflected in the academic tertiary sources per WP:TERTIARY. They might say, he descended from a Kashmiri Hindu family, but not that he was a Kashmiri Hindu. Will add sources soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

See, for example, a clear enunciation:

• Srivastava, Neelam (2019) [2005], "Jawaharlal Nehru", in Poddar, Prem; Johnson, David (eds.), Historical Companion to Postcolonial Literatures in English, Edinburgh University Press, p. 356, ISBN 978-0-7486-3602-0, Nehru was born in 1889 Allahabad, India, to an extremely wealthy Brahmin family, originally from Kashmir. His father, Motilal Nehru, who was also a nationalist, sent his son to Harrow and Cambridge where Nehru read natural sciences. These studies influences his rationalist and scientific intellectual outlook. In the 1920s, he joined the Non-Cooperation movement led by Mahatma Gandhi, and in a short while became Gandhi's closest ally, which enabled him to assume an enduring legitimacy in an all-India political role. A nationalist leader with a very wide-ranging political and intellectual perspective, Nehru's nationalism differed significantly from Gandhi's because it was strongly influenced by Western political thought, especially Marxisim. Moreover. Nehru, being an agnostic, was troubled by the religious dimension to Gandhi's politics."

Sarvepalli Gopal is old hat. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

It also ends with Nehru's signal contribution,

"He formulated the secular and multicultural principles underlying the Indian constitution, which guaranteed state protection for India's many minorities and effectively stabilised communal tensions for many decades after partition."

which the Hindu nationalists after 2014 have been busy attributing to Ambedkar, who, although a legal scholar par excellence, was essentially only the chairman of the drafting committee of debates within the Constituent Assembly; B. N. Rau was almost as instrumental in the drafting. But the Directive Principles of State Policy, the ideological and multicultural pillar of the Indian constitution, was a reworking of the Nehru report of 1928, in turn, influenced by Irish nationalism. It had very little to do with Ambedkar or Rajendra Prasad who was the chairman of the Constituent Assembly. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

And here is a modern, more detailed perspective, by Maria Misra, an Oxford historian:

• Misra, Maria (2008), Vishnu's Crowded Temple:India Since the Great Rebellion, Yale University Press, pp. 263–264, ISBN 978-0-300-13721-7, LCCN 2007936529, While Gandhi romanticized the Indian past, both real and imagined, Nehru was in love with the future. Gandhi decried the Raj as the harbinger of modernity, while for Nehru it was the detested heart of the ancien regime. Nehru was a technophile, a religious agnostic, cosmopolitan in his tastes and an instinctive internationalist; the Mahatma was the opposite. And while both claimed to be socialists, each understood this to mean something entirely different to the other. For Gandhi, socialism was the slow paced idyll of arcadian village republics and the spinning-wheel; for Nehru it signified a dynamic utopia of the latest science, mechanized production and a globally minded modern citizenry.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Ambedkar had himself said "The credit that is given to me does not really belong to me. It belongs partly to Sir B. N. Rau..."[1]

• When Stone Walls Cry: The Nehrus in Prison Get access Arrow,[2] Oxford University Press, Mushirul Hasan, 2016, notes about Nehru:

• "He may have felt alien in his own society—'a Hindu out of tune with Hinduism'—but did not want old established traditions to be scrapped or dispensed with. He once said, 'A Brahman I was born, and a Brahman I seem to remain whatever I might say or do in regard to religion or social custom'."

Nehru's description of himself as "A Brahman I was born, and a Brahman I seem to remain whatever I might say or do in regard to religion or social custom," is found in his autobiography An Autobiography.

These sources show that the description provided by Sarvepalli Gopal was accurate. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 10:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Have you read Nehru's autobiography cover to cover? I have the 1936 London Bodley Head first edition lying right here, an advanced reviewer's copy handed down to me. It is dangerous to pick one quote out of context. In the book, Nehru says many things about religion, including Hinduism, and he says them in a variety of nuance. That quote, for example, is more complex. He says, "Hinduism clings on to its children, almost despite them. A Brahman I was born and a Brahman I seem to remain whatever I might say or do in this regard to religion or social custom. To the Indian world I am "Pandit" so and so, in spite of my desire not to have this or any other honorific title attached to my name."

He seems to be saying essentially that in India others rarely accept the notion that an individual's personal world-view might lie outside their caste or religion of birth. You may take this quote to RS/N and ask them if it warrants calling Nehru a Kashmiri Hindu. When you do, I will then post his many other remarks about religion in the autobiography.

I know who Gopal was. He was a historian, but also Radkhakrishnan's son and unduly influenced in making that assessment of Nehru by his father's ecumenical reading of Hinduism . We are an encyclopedia. We use words in their commonly used meaning, not generally in their nuanced abstract meanings, and in the instances we do, we explain the nuance. There is a world of difference between the Hinduism practiced by a Modi, or even a Radhakrishnan, and the one that may or may not have been professed by Nehru.

An Autobiography was published in 1936; the Discovery of India was published in 1946; Independence and After was published in 1950. His views kept evolving. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Ambedkar has and thank you for posting that quote, but the point is that the notion that he—now "Babasaheb" in faked reverence, instead of Bhimrao Ramji, except for Dalits (see File:47 Raika School - eating together (3384824242).jpg, Jai Bhim on the blackboard)—is the author, the sole creator, the inventor, the guiding light of the Indian constitution is false. Even attributing it to Ambedkar, Rau and the Constituent Assembly is not accurate. It is a document 80% of which, the routine laws, is taken from the Government of India Act, 1935, often verbatim. Its pronouncements on equity and freedom, the Directive Principles of State Policy are largely based on Nehru's report of two decades earlier, and its Preamble is inspired by the American and Irish constitutions. (The Preamble even borrows some of the words of the Irish constitution.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I have read only Discovery of India, but not this autobiography. I am not saying that we should call Nehru a "Kashmiri Hindu". I only said that there are sources that say this. I used the quote from the source "When Stone Walls Cry" to describe how others viewed him and then proved the existence of that quote by citing his autobiography from 1936.

Sarvepalli Gopal was a scholar with excellent record and credentials. I don't think that Sarvepalli Gopal was anything like his father. A big difference between Sarvepalli Gopal and Radhakrishnan is that while Radhakrishnan indeed had a "ecumenical reading of Hinduism", Gopal was a very different observer and was also critical of religiously motivated politics as his book Anatomy of a Confrontation: Ayodhya and the Rise of Communal Politics in India proves.

Coming to your final point that that "We are an encyclopedia. We use words in their commonly used meaning, not generally in their nuanced abstract meanings, and in the instances we do, we explain the nuance." If true, then we would be better off getting rid of entire section because "Religion and personal beliefs" section is entirely WP:UNDUE for this subject. This article is not about someone who's religious views are notable.

We don't even have such section on Atal Bihari Vajpayee's page despite his politics were largely influenced by religious lines.

I am not surprised over falsification of Ambedkar because in the recent decades, histories of many other figures such as Sardar Patel, Bhagat Singh, Subash Chandra Bose, and others have been twisted in various platforms to fit misleading narratives. Hopefully, they don't have any place in the actual history. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 15:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I essentially agree with you about the need for the section specifically on Nehru's religion. I think what was notable (and still is) was not so much his religion but his world-view. Thank you AKG also for citing the autobiography. I hadn't thought about it in a while and have been flipping through it; the Nehru that emerges is far more complex and modern than most readings of him. I doubt there was any political leader in India as modern as Nehru, or for that matter there is any now, a century later. Two themes that emerge are:

• his fearlessness in opposing viewpoints he disagreed with, even when they were Gandhi's: Again, I watched the emotional upheaveal of the country during the fast, and I wondered more and more if this was the right method in politics. It seemed to be sheer revivalism, and clear think had not a ghost of a chance against it. All India, or most of it, stared reverently at the Mahatma and expected him to perform miracle after miracle and put an end to untouchability and get swaraj and so on—and did precious little itself! And Gandhiji did not encourage others to think; his insistence was only on purity and sacrifice. I felt that I was drifting further and further away from him mentally, in spite of my strong emotional attachment to him. Often enough he was guided in his political activity by an unerring instinct. He had the flair for action, but was the way of faith the right way to train a nation? It might pay for a short while but in the long run? (pp. 373–374) Which political leader today anywhere in the world displays that level of lucidity, clarity, and courage in expressing his disagreements with his compatriots, let alone his idols? As for Gandhi, many Indian leaders of all political persuasions seem happy to have their picture taken spinning the spinning wheel which they don't know how to spin, but consider the act to be a photo op. The British prime minister, Boris Johnson, on the other hand on a visit to Gandhi's commune, showed much more curiosity about the spinning wheel, insisting on learning how to spin it even as the handlers were trying to hurry him on to other things.
• his fearlessness in expressing his own viewpoints even when they were freewheeling and about touchy things such as religion:~Romain Rolland also has stretched religion to mean something which will probably horrify the orthodox of organised religions. ... He says, "many souls who are or who believe they are free from all religious belief, but who in reality live immersed in a state of super-rational consciousness, which they term Socialism, Communism, Humanitarianism, Nationalism, and even Rationalism. It is the quality of thought and not its object which determines its source and allows us to decide whether or not it emanates from religion. If it turns fearlessly towards the search for truth at all costs with single-minded sincerity prepared for any sacrifice, I should call it religious; ... Scepticism itself, when it proceeds from vigorous natures true to the core, when it proceeds from vigorous natures true to its core, when it is an expression of strength and not weakness, joins in the march of the Grand Army of the religious Soul." I cannot presume to fulfil the conditions laid down by Romain Rolland, but on these terms I am prepared to be a humble camp-follower of the Grand Army. (p. 380) That's a far cry from being a Hindu in most definitions of the word. I think Nehru's world view or Weltanschauung is what is notable and deserves a section, not necessarily his religion. But let's not change anything now. Other editors have spent a lot of time on this article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The wedding ceremony of Feroze Gandhi and Indira Gandhi, March 26, 1942 at Anand Bhawan, Allahabad

Didn't Nehru describe himself as a "Hindu atheist"to either Bertrand Russell or George Bernard Shaw? Unfortunately,I do not have a reliable source that attests to this conversation. Having said that there is a school of thought called Hindu atheism, and therefore there is nothing wrong in describig Nehru as Hindu. Despite his views on religion I think he liked the cultural aspects of Hinduism.Case in point is the wedding of Feroze and Indira which looks like being conducted according to Hindu rites rather than those of Feroze Gandhi's Zoroastrianism, or according to a civil ceremony (see image).Even in his will he stipulated that some of his ashes should be immersed in the Ganges at Allahabad.Just my two cents on the debate.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

You can read how he described himself in his autobiography. It is hardly Hindu anything. As for pictures of weddings of children, they don't mean anything. It may have been the relatives wish, or the daughter's wish, to be married in such a ceremony, or it may have been the custom, civil marriages being very rare in India at that time, ... In most traditions, the wedding is that the bride's home not the groom's. It is certainly the case in Europe or the US even now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Please tell me how many high profile people in India had weddings in their homes in 1942 or earlier for their children in which the marriage was not arranged nor within the same caste, let alone the religion? No Indian political leader had the guts. Subhas Bose could not even tell his family that he had fathered a child. He left his wife or companion and child unsupported in wartime Europe. It was Nehru who arranged after the war for a monthly stipend to be paid to Anita Bose Pfaff, then Anita Schenkl, until she turned 21, not Bose's family. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Half the Bose family, which is in the hundreds now, does not acknowledge Emilie Schenkl and the other half is trying to prove he was happily married and in love with Emilie. Yet Emilie worked has a trunk operator for the rest of her life and never visited India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

As for the ashes, he also said very explicitly that he had no religious sentiment in the matter; it had to do with childhood attachment. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Probably for the same reason that Kamala Harris scattered her mother's ashes in the Indian Ocean waters off Madras. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, I take your point but I still think he identified himself as culturally Hindu.Being deeply knowledgeable about philosophy, he probably didn't see a contradiction between that, and being an atheist.Or It could just have been a case of expediency. Regards.Jonathansammy (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Well it is water under the bridge unless you produce a source that clearly quotes him saying he was a Hindu atheist. He was a scientific rationalist who believed in Darwin and evolution. He never said anywhere he believed in God. So without God and without a extra-scientific theory of creation, what is Hinduism? Did he believe in the Gita's revelatory aspects that for the destruction of evil, the protection of the saintly and for the establishment of the Dharma Lord Krishna would reveal himself from age to age? I doubt it. Did he believe that the Gayatri Manta has any spiritual powers? I doubt it. Did he quote Hindu holy books to make cultural or political points? None that I am aware of. He may have had nostalgia for Hinduism, the ceremonies of his childhood performed at festivals, weddings, and so forth, but that is hardly being a Hindu. How then is a Hindu atheist different from an atheist from South Asia? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• Coming to this fresh, the article as it is now seems fine, except that his Hindu brahmin background should be spelled out at the start of the religious section (one of the F&F quotes above can do this ). At the moment it is not mentioned there; the link to Kashmiri Pandit in the early life will do this for those informed about Indian affairs, but not for the general English reader unless they follow the link. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2022

Topic: Religion and Personal Beliefs-Jawaharlal Nehru was an atheist because he did not believe in the concept of god. “What the mysterious is I do not know. I do not call it God because God has come to mean much that I do not believe in. I find myself incapable of thinking of a deity or of any unknown supreme power in anthropomorphic terms, and the fact that many people think so is continually a source of surprise to me. Any idea of a personal God seems very odd to me.” -Jawaharlal Nehru in his book(An Autobiography: Toward Freedom) Mathu4734 (talk) 13:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Already discussed above with various reliable sources. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

AI Colored Photos

I don't think AI colored Photos should be on Wikipedia 2604:CA00:13C:39C0:0:0:E67:54B5 (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Editing dispute

An editor has carried complete reverts to my edits stating that a particular source (Tharoor, Nehru: the invention of India) is not reliable. I have various objections.

First, I have added material that does not rely on this particular source alone. However, these edits are also being blanked as part of complete reverts. I do not think the user has gone through the entire material I have edited.

Second, I can easily replace the "problematic" source. Tharoor relies on other scholarly works and autobiographical writings of Nehru. I am already in the process of adding the relevant primary sources, and removing Tharoor, if neccessary.

Thirds, I have edited the lead section to be more concise and better reflect the main contents of the article. I do not understand what possible objections are being raised to blank these edits too. I think it could be more concise, but I am not sure why anybody could be in the favour of blanking it altogether?

I am taking the criticism in good faith, but I am not sure proper justifications have been offered to contest my edits. . Exdg77 (talk) 02:10, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Tharoor has been completely replaced wherever I cited him with scholarly alternatives. I hope this will please everyone. Exdg77 (talk) 03:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider Shashi Tharoor's works to be reliable sources [for this article]. Anything sourced to his works, I'd consider as his opinion and include only where it's W:DUE. Still applies even if there are other citations supporting the content. Please use secondary scholarly sources. A blind search on JSTOR yields 25,000 results. Also, please restrict usage of primary sources, except only where it's due. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 10:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the feedback. I have already edited out Tharoor and replaced him with secondary scholarly sources by authors such as Bal Ram Nanda and Sarvepalli Gopal, among others. I have only cited primary sources for quoting Nehru on certain points, and restricted their usage to places where I thought these would be helpful for additional context. I prefer to find these quotations in secondary literature, if possible. It was not difficult to replace Tharoor because I was not following a unique narrative account from his book. The facts of Nehru's life are well-established, and it seems more that Tharoor was paraphrasing secondary scholarly works (and Nehru), albeit with his own spin here and there. Anything that was uniquely Tharoor is gone, not that there was much of that to begin with (if at all?). I contend that whatever is there now is well-supported by relevant secondary scholarly works by Nanda, Gopal et al. Please do let me know if there are any other issues. Exdg77 (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I have thorougly reviewed the newer scholarly sources that I have cited; I did not just find them in Tharoor, who doesn't include references anyway (I am beginning to realize why citing Tharoor was a bad idea). Besides that, I have one question. There is a "secret report" Nehru made about the League Against Imperialism to the Congress which I can only find in Tharoor and M J Akbar. Since one editor was finding Tharoor objectionable, I replaced that citation with Akbar. However, I wonder if Akbar might be considered problematic in light of objections to Tharoor? I would like to find the report, but both Tharoor and Akbar have the bad habit of not including footnotes or endnotes. Akbar does have an extensive bibliography. Exdg77 (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

MJ Akbar is opposition politician and Tharoor's work has lots of factual errors. You cannot use either. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

You are not being constructive. Thraroor has been completely removed and the material has been sourced to reliable secondary scholarly works. MJ Akbar (a Bharatiya Janata Party politician, not "opposition" btw) is only used for one sentence! You are justifying blanking everything else on that? I Exdg77 (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

A lot of the newer material never even cited Tharoor to begin with, and it's all being blanked too. I don't understand what you are doing. Exdg77 (talk) 19:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, I just noticed that you have agreed about the edits to the main body of the article, and only reverted changes to the lead. Might I enquire what are your objections to the lead? You did not offer a reason for reverting the changes. It is a summary of the main body of the article, and I included citations. I think my edits were a substantial improvement. Exdg77 (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

The user User:Fowler&fowler has also reverted the lead. I had sounded him out on the topic on his talk page, and I am going to defer to his rationale for doing so, and take into account his advice for future changes. Unless anybody has another issue, I guess this dispute is closed now. Exdg77 (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Sections, Sub-Sections, and Sub-subsections

I am currently expanding the section Nationalist movement (1912–1938). In the interim, I have given non-descriptive names to sub-sections, such as 'Nationalist movement: 1931-1932, in imitation of some naming conventions that were present prior to my edits. I plan to give more descriptive names to these sub-sections later. Thoughts and suggestions would be appreciated.

I also think Nationalist movement (1912–1938) could be divided into Nationalist movement (1912–1927) and Nationalist movement (1927-1939), or something similar. It is getting too long. Again, thoughts and suggestions would be appreciated. Exdg77 (talk) 10:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and split Nationalist movement (1912–1939) into two parts after seeing someone add a tag that the article is too long to navigate comfortably. Exdg77 (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted most, if not all, of your edits of the last several months, and restored the last consensus version of this GA. Your edits have consisted of prose dumps of size 500 words at times; they have inadequate or opaque edit summaries. Because of your additions, the article had ballooned to size 16,500 words, whereas its size should be no more than 10,000 words. I have brought it down to 12,000 words. It needs further reduction, not expansion. I'm sorry to do this, but Nehru is a vital article about a major figure of late-colonial and early postcolonial South Asian history. Per WP:BRD and WP:ONUS, please explain here what it is you want to do and why and let a consensus evolve for the edits. When you make dozens of edits at single sittings, it becomes very difficult for those who normally maintain the article to single out the occasional helpful addition. I note, for example, in your latest edit, you had changed the Home Rule Movement to Home Rule League. But HRL is more commonly applied to the Irish precursor on which Besant's Indian was modeled. The WP article is Indian Home Rule Movement. Pinging administrators: @Abecedare, RegentsPark, Nikkimaria, Vanamonde93, MelanieN, and SpacemanSpiff: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

The editors who have added excessive prose, I believe, are: @Exdg77, Capitals00, and Aman.kumar.goel: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Mahatma Gandhi had also ballooned in size to over 16K words and after Nikkimaria's recent helpful intervention, it has been reduced to approx 12,500 words, but still awaiting further reduction to no more than 10K words. The FAs India and Darjeeling, with which I have some familiarity are 10.5K words and 9K words respectively. Also pinging @Sitush: who is an expert in removing unneeded prose on WP. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Fowler&fowler:, I am a bit surprised, but understand the article became too long. My rationale for expanding was that Nehru's nationalist activities between 1912-1939 were not adequately covered. I was going to try and condense the material added, but it's just as well that I should start again and with a consensus on how to go about improving the article. As for the latest edit, I was contemplating how to split the section and concluded that the whole period until 1929 can be thought of one as for home rule, so it was inaccurate on my part to label one specific subsection as "Home Rule Movement: 1916-1917". I welcome any suggestions on correct terminology. That said, my first point on improving the article is that I think the section Internationalising the struggle for Indian independence: 1927 editorialises the source in stating that "some of his statements on this matter, however, were interpreted as complicity with the rise of Hitler and his espoused intentions." I would like this statement to be looked at immediately. Exdg77 (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not saying that all your edits were unhelpful, but when we attempt to rewrite an already overfull article, especially a GA that has undergone some community review, we cannot add too much new material without further summarizing, even removing, some existing material. The bottom line is that a 16,500 word-size is unacceptable. There is not much more to it. I apologize for the tardiness of my responses, as I've explained, edit summaries such as "better" or "adding some more" or somesuch are not adequate. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I apologize to @Rjensen: and other who had added helpful sources, and still others who had made other helpful edits. Your edits will be restored soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

A apologize too for saying it is a GA. It failed, but still went through a review. Pinging @TheWikiholic, APPU, and Jonathansammy: who seemed to have edited the article at that time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I completely understand where you are coming from and also apologise for inadequate edit summaries. I was actually planning on submitting a major expansion to the Early life and career (1889–1912) section, but refrained when I saw the notice that the article was getting too long to be navigated comfortably. I realised I was not adding material in a summary style, or at least, adding too much detail. I am still new to some conventions of Wikipedia. I welcome any effort to salvage what I had added previously in a more condensed form. I am quite open to trying to improve the article again while still keeping it under the desired word-size. Exdg77 (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I actually did consider submitting it, and working straightway to split it into a separate article on Nehru's early life and career, while keeping a summary form for the main page. However, I realise now I should gain a consensus first and that there are more important things to sort out.Exdg77 (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Exdg77: It would help also if you make a list here of the sources you have used. They don't have to be in WP format. "B.R. Nanda, The Nehrus, 19**," etc. is good enough. Thanks, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I will get started on this straightaway.Exdg77 (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Your contributions have not vanished into thin air. They are all in the history. If you hold off for some time, I, and hopefully others, will be able to go through your edits and others' as well, and achieve a happy medium.

I thank you for choosing to engage me here to have edit warred. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

No problem at all, I respect your contributions to the history of India on Wikipedia, and very happy to see you taking a more hands on approach to Nehru's article despite being busy with other things. Exdg77 (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: As requested, here are the sources I added. I copy pasted the ones I used just once or twice from my last revision. The main ones are under the heading of multiple citations. I will double check to see if I have missed anything that I added. I did cite a number of references that were already present, but I was not sure If I should add them separately here. Exdg77 (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Just a correction, some of the sources, such as Nanda and Moraes, were already present. Some more sources might have been already present, but it has been months since I first edited the article, and I can't quite recall if I was the one to introduce them. I do remember most of the sources I added precisely, as well as the material I introduced and edited in June. If there is any confusion, just ask me for a clarification. Exdg77 (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

If only the recent additions (after 31 May 2023) to "Nationalist movement (1912–1930)" and "Nationalist movement (1930–1939)"[3] was reverted, then you would see that rest of the article was smaller than what was recently restored here. The version which I have restored and modified while writing this message is 5,000 bytes smaller than that.[4] I believe some edits of Exdg77 were good and I will look forward to find a way that how they can be retained.

I think Jawaharlal Nehru#Key cabinet members and associates, which alone has nearly 1000 words, should be removed because it mostly provides short biographies of very few cabinet ministers who served under Nehru's ministry. Rest of the article is good so far. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 00:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

It is much much more than just the recent. The article simply cannot accommodate more than 10,000 words. We are discussing things here for now @Aman.kumar.goel:. You have just reinstated clumsy, inaccurate words and phrases in the lead. Links cannot take the place of good prose. You have done so despite the likelihood of admins now being more focused on this page than before. Please self-revert and make your points here. Which of the references enumerated by Exdg77 do you have knowledge of Aman.kumar.goel and have employed in your edits? What are the other references knowledge from which you have brought to bear in your edits? Please enumerate. I've organized the references below. You may add them in Editor ---'s sources. Many thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand that, this is why I proposed section removal just above. I removed the clumsy and inaccurate phrases. Right now the whole article is at 11,474 words. If we removed Jawaharlal Nehru#Key cabinet members and associates (over 900 words as I proposed above) and trimmed quotes of Jawaharlal_Nehru#Writings then we will get the ideal result. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 01:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, @Aman.kumar.goel: I rolled back the article to an old edit so we can all discuss what is due and what undue on the page. You, on the other hand, have been removing material on the fly in breezy edit summaries, even material whose presence in the article in some instances predates your first contributions to the page nearly a year ago. Please desist and make our task harder. Please self-revert and discuss the issue here first. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, Aman.kumar.goel, you will not in speedy edits resolve a complex issue involving dozens, if not eventually hundreds of sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The article went through many improvements throughout 2022 and this year. Why all progress should be reverted without any proper reason?

Your explanation that I shouldn't be removing something that was added before I edited this article for the first time, is simply incorrect. If you are finding any problem with any of my recent edits then you can describe it here. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 01:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, let us rollback the article to the last edit (of 6 June 2022), before your first edit of 15 June 2022 @Aman.kumar.goel:, and long before Exdg77's first edit, when the prose size was 12,122 words and discuss how it can be brought down to 10,000 words and with what sources. How's that? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

No thanks. If you have any problem with any of the modified content then let me know. Losing all progress will only waste time. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel:

Please also read: Wikipedia:Article_size#Size_guideline Even 9,000 words is sometimes looked askance at. Look at my recent successful FAR Darjeeling. It has 8,973 words and it is not a minor topic. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Many apologies, I meant @Dwaipayanc:'s and my recent FAR. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

What else do we have to remove from the article? I don't think anyone is planning to nominate this article for FA though. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

You have violated WP guidelines. I am going to stop here, but please think carefully about what you have done. That an article is not an FA is not a warrant to bloat it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:20, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I was only commenting on the general approach to FA, and I am myself opposed to over-sizing of the article. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• Like there is Joseph Stalin during the Russian Revolution, Civil War, and the Polish–Soviet War, an article called Jawarharlal Nehru during the Indian independence movement can be created and all edits of Exdg77 can be retained there. Capitals00 (talk) 02:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  The article was already bloated @Capitals00: before Exdg77 made their first edit on 28 May 2023. The prose size of article at the time of the previous edit, incidentally by Aman.kumar.goel, see here, was 12,188 words which was greater than the size before Aman.kumar.goel's first edit described above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

It is 11,474 words now. Just remove the section on "Key cabinet members and associates" as I described above, and we are done with the wording issue. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Article_size#Content_removal You are violating WP guidelines. I have merely rolled back to a version much closer the last GA review so we can collectively decide what is the right approach. Exdg77 has been using some good sources. The issue may not be one of deletion and you have done but summarizing drastically in cogent prose. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

But the article failed GA review, that's why so much progress has been made in more than a year. Whatever those issues are, you can highlight them here but rollbacking is no solution. It will only discourage editors from editing. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand, but it garnered a lot of attention, and saw a lot of focus from many editors such as @TheWikiholic, Jonathansammy, and APPU: and to some extent myself who had long edited the article. It was the last such focus. Please add the sources you have consistently used in the section below, so we can assess your edits. The passing or failing is not of the essence here, it is the focus and input. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel:@Fowler&fowler: Aman.kumar.goel, one of the changes you made to the article was to the section on Hindu Code and Marriage Bills by adding the line "The Nehru administration saw such codification as necessary to unify the Hindu community, which ideally would be a first step towards unifying the nation." You stated in your edit summary that you are adding material present in the article Hindu code bills, in the subsection Intentions. The scholar cited for that on the Hindu code bills is Rina Verma Williams. I would say this is Rina Verma William's interpretation of what the bills did, and that others such as Seba Rom would disagree about the intentions of the act on the part of Nehru and Ambedkar. I cannot access that specific cited work by Rina Verma Williams, but I have been reading what I can of Rina Verma Williams and I am worried about how much of that paragraph might be editorialising. This line " Nehru and his supporters insisted that the Hindu community, which comprised 80% of the Indian population, first needed to be united before any actions were taken to unify the rest of India", comes very close to parroting contemporary political talking points of certain outfits. I think the article on Hindu Code Bills itself deserves further scrutiny before you cite it to add that sentence on Nehru's article. Exdg77 (talk) 04:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The content was copied from Hindu code bills and Rina Williams, Postcolonial Politics and Personal Laws, Oxford University Press, is certainly a great source for this subject. Whether it comes close to "parroting contemporary political talking points of certain outfits" would need clarification from a similarly reliable source that these points are promoted by "certain outfits" with a political agenda. Do you have any? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Having read other works by Rina Williams, I am wondering about how much of that paragraph is editorialising. Is the sentence ("Nehru and his supporters insisted that the Hindu community, which comprised 80% of the Indian population, first needed to be united before any actions were taken to unify the rest of India") present in Rina Verma Williams? Did you check it yourself? If not, what does it say about the rest of the paragraph? How much weight do you give to one scholar? Other scholars, such as Seba Rom, give weight to the social aspects of the reforms rather than one of "religious unification" leading to national unity. Yes, for "religious unification" as a contemporary political talking point, see F. Ahmed, "Religious autonomy and the personal law system". DPhil Thesis. Oxford, or R. Thapar, Imagined Religious Communities? Ancient History and the Modern Search for a Hindu Identity.Exdg77 (talk) 04:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Here you go, Rina Verma Williams, Postcolonial Politics and Personal Laws, Oxford University Press, p. 184: "...the BJP had hoped and tried most ardently to manufacture and perpetuate. The idea of a unified, undivided Hindu community, and the elision of regional, class, and caste divisions, have defined and underpinned their ideological approach to Indian society and politics". Exdg77 (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, "Nehru and his supporters insisted that the Hindu community, which comprised 80% of the Indian population....." is supported by the source.

The source said: "Like many indigenous elites in the early postcolonial years, Nehru believed that uniform laws could build unified communities, and eventually a unified nation. The first step in the process would be to unify the Hindu community internally. Government officials argued that the Hindu community, comprising 80 per cent of India's population, first needed to codify its own diverse laws and practices before undertaking any project to unify the nation under one law.[...] Supporters agreed that unifying the Hindu community was the first step to unifying the nation."

I saw the chapter "Overview of the Personal Law System" by Farrah Ahmed but can you describe where this source is disputing the information with regards to religious unification? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Is there anyway I can access this part of the book? I have been searching through google snippets, but can't get a hit on the words or sentence. I would like to see the footnotes and references cited by the author and follow them up. Nehru aspiring towards a uniform civil code is not really in doubt, but I would like to see the context in which government officials argued that codification of Hindu law was required.

Having read more of Rina Williams, I came across this in a review she did https://www.academia.edu/13051416/Rina_Verma_Williamss_Review_of_Human_Rights_under_State_Enforced_Religious_Family_Laws_in_Israel_Egypt_and_India :

In The Hindu Family and the Emergence of Modern India, Eleanor Newbigin begins by arguing that previous analyses of the Hindu Code Bills (HCB) were overly or even mistakenly focused on gender rights/equality as the underlying motivation for extensive reforms and codification of Hindu personal laws completed in the first decadeafter Indian independence. Instead, Newbigin wants to shift our understanding of this legislation by arguing that political economy underlies the reforms and was the prime motivating factor for them: “the most powerful set of interests driving the HCB was concerned not with gender equality but with a desire to rationalise the Hindu family as an economic unit.” By shifting the lens from gender to political economy, Newbigin offers “a different chronology for our understanding of the modern Indian state, one that begins during the First World War and runs up until the mid 1950s.

At the very least, it should be acknowledged that Rina Williams and others represents a revisionist take on the Hindu Code Bills that departs from Orthodoxy, and do not necessarily represent the consensus or mainstream opinion.

The D.Phil thesis by Farrah Ahmed states in pp. 208-209 "The idea of a unified Hindu community is thought to be relatively recent, constructed partly to ensure that ‘Hindus’ constituted a majority. It is difficult to deny that the construction of ‘Hindu’ as an identity is closely associated with the rise of the Hindu Right." I cited it as a response to your querry about Hindu Unity as a contemporary political talking point, but that is covered by Rina Williams too in p. 184. Exdg77 (talk) 06:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The quote I presented above can be confirmed with the Google search such as here. The sources cited by Rina Williams include B. K. P. Sinha, Council of States Debates (20 December 1952), Nehru, Lok Sabha Debates (14 September 1954), K. Santhanam, Constituent Assembly (Legislative) Debates (1949), K. S. Hegde, CSD (1955) and more.

Farrah Ahmed is not talking about Hindu Code Bill (HCB) there. That is our topic here. Ahmed discussed HCB at "Overview of the Personal Law System" (p. 18 - p. 53), but that content is not relevant to this discussion.

Just because Hindutva political parties are using talking points that may align with some of those from Congress, it still doesn't means that the talking point itself becomes that of a 'revisionist view'. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 06:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Exdg77: I would strongly urge you to step away from this argument. I will shortly add my own list of scholarly books of consequence to the topic of Nehru. The biographies you may have covered adequately in your list, but there seem to be quite a few newer books that have summarized, reflected on, or otherwise, commented on the Nehru era. Once we have a basic list, we can begin to allot due weight and rewrite. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

No problem, I will step back and let everyone reflect. Exdg77 (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I am sorry I have been away for so long. I was wondering whether anyone has had the time to reflect and wishes to proceed with further discussions about the issue. Exdg77 (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Exdg77's sources

Numerous citations

Gopal, S., 1976: Jawaharlal Nehru, a biography, volume 1, 1889-1947 https://archive.org/stream/dli.bengal.10689.13225/10689.13225_djvu.txt

Moraes, F., 2007: Jawahrlal Nehru (personal copy, but there is an old edition that is available online off by a few page numbers https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.125650)

Mukherjee, R. 2018. Jawaharlal Nehru (personal copy)

Mukherjee, R. 2015. Nehru and Bose: Parallel Lives (personal copy, but some pages accessible on google books)

Nanda, B.R. 2007: The Nehru's: Motilal and Jawaharlal (personal copy, but there is an old edition that is available online but off by a few page numbers, https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.111341/2015.111341.The-Nehrus-Motilal-And-Jawaharlal_djvu.txt)

Zachariah, B., 2004. Nehru. https://issuhub.com/view/index/23322

Occasional citations

Akbar, M. J., 1988. Nehru: The Making of India, p. 193. Viking: The University of California.

Ashton, S. R. (2023). British Policy Towards the Indian States 1905–1939. Taylor & Francis. p. 182-85. ISBN 9781000855777.

Bandyopadhyay, Sekhar (2004). From Plassey to Partition: A History of Modern India. Orient Blackswan. p. 409-410. ISBN 978-81-250-2596-2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exdg77 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Bose, Sugata (2012). His Majesty's Opponent: Subhas Chandra Bose and India's Struggle Against Empire. Harvard University Press. p. 146. ISBN 9780674065963.

Cell, John W. (2002). Hailey: A Study in British Imperialism, 1872–1969. p. 195. ISBN 9780521521178.

Chakraborty, A. K., 1981. Jawaharlal Nehru's Writings: A Literary Estimate, p. 23. Minerva: The University of Calcultta.

Chandra, Bipin (2008). India Since Independence. Penguin Books Limited. p. 83. ISBN 9788184750539.

Dalton, Dennis (2012). Mahatma Gandhi: Nonviolent Power in Action. Columbia University Press. p. 230. ISBN 9780231159593.

Das, M. N. (2022). The Political Philosophy of Jawaharlal Nehru.Taylor & Francis. p. 60-61. ISBN 9781000632682.

Dube, Rajendra Prasad (1988). Jawaharlal Nehru: A Study in Ideology and Social Change. Mittal Publications. p. 106. ISBN 9788170990710.

Gandhi, Rajmohan (2012). Gandhi: The Man, His People, and the Empire. University of California Press. p. 364. ISBN 9780520255708.

Ghose, Shankar (1988). Mahatma Gandhi. Allied Publishers Limited. p. 226–27. ISBN 9788170232056.

Guha, Ramchandra (2018). Gandhi: The Years That Changed the World. Penguin Allen Lane. p. 258-59. ISBN 978-0670083886.

Gupta, R. L. (1976). Conflict and harmony: Indo-British relations; a new perspective. Trimurti Publications. p. 18.

Hasan, M.; Kapoor, P. (2006). The Nehrus: Personal Histories. Lustre Press. p. 61. ISBN 9788174363909.

Ilahi, Shereen (2016). Imperial Violence and the Path to Independence. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 83. ISBN 978-0-19-569343-0.

Kuracina, William F. (2017). Politics and Left Unity in India: The United Front in Late Colonial India. Taylor & Francis. p. 184.

Leoene, Fabio (2019). Prophet and Statesmen in Crafting Democracy in India: Political Leadership, Ideas, and Compromises. Lexington Books. p. 105. ISBN 9781498569378.

Louro, Michele L. "India and the League Against Imperialism: A Special 'Blend' of Nationalism and Internationalism". (2015).

Mallik, Sangita., 2016. "Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharal Nehru", in E. Pföstl (ed.), Between Ethics and Politics: New Essays on Gandhi, pp. 130–133. Milton Park: Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9781134911004.

Mathur, Sobhag (1994). Spectrum of Nehru's thought. Mittal Publ. p. 44. ISBN 9788170994572.

McGarr, P. M., 2013. The Cold War in South Asia, Britain, the United States and the Indian Subcontinent, 1945–1965, p. 31. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nehru, Jawaharlal, 1982. An Autobiography. p. 210. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Nehru, Jawaharlal; Rau, M. C.; Prasad, H. Y. S.; Nanda, B. R.; Gopal, Sarvepalli (1972). Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, Volume 2. Orient Longman. p. 23.

Nehru, Jawaharlal (1948). The Unity Of India Collected Writing 1937-1940. Lindsay Drummond. p. 27-46.

Nehru, Jawarhalal (1941). Towards Freedom: The Autobiography of Jawarhalal Nehru. The John Day Company. p. 6.

Nish, Ian (2022). The Russo-Japanese War, 1904-5 Volume 1. Brill. p. 25. ISBN 9789004531789.

Norman, D. (1965). Nehru, the First Sixty Years: Presenting in His Own Words. John Day Company. p. 108.

Oliver, R. T. (1989). Leadership in Asia: Persuasive Communication in the Making of Nations, 1850-1950. University of Delaware Press. p. 111. ISBN 9780874133530.

Pandey, BN, ed. (2015). The Indian Nationalist Movement 1885–1947: Select Documents. Springer Publishing. p. 45. ISBN 978-1-349-86215-3.

Pandey, B. N. (1976), p. 27, 54, 105-06. Nehru. Palgrave Macmillan UK. (https://archive.org/details/nehru0000pand_g8c4/page/442/mode/2up?view=theater)

Pandey, Gyanendra (2002). The Ascendancy of the Congress in Uttar Pradesh: Class, Community and Nation in Northern India, 1920–1940. Routledge. pp. 36–37. ISBN 9781843310570.

Prakash, Gyan (2020). Another Reason: Science and the Imagination of Modern India. Princeton University Press. p. 198. ISBN 9780691214214.

Ramusack, Barbara (1969). "Incident at Nabha: Interaction between Indian States and British Indian Politics". The Journal of Asian Studies. 28 (3): 563–77. doi:10.2307/2943179.

Sarangi, A.; Paj, S. (2020). Interrogating Reorganisation of States: Culture, Identity and Politics in India. Taylor & Francis. p. 36-37. ISBN 9781000084078.

Schöttli, J., 2012. Vision and Strategy in Indian Politics: Jawaharlal Nehru's Policy Choices and the Designing of Political Institutions, p. 54. Milton Park: Taylor & Francis (also p. 52)

Sethi, R. R. (1958). The last phase of British sovereignty in India (1919–1947): being the concluding chapters of the Cambridge history of India, vol. VI. and the Cambridge shorter history of India. S. Chand. p. 34.

Wolpert, Stanley (1996). Nehru: A Tryst with Destiny. Oxford University Press. p. 56. ISBN 978-0195100730

Fowler&fowler's sources of the last five years

(Subject to checking that it really is 5)

• Frankel, Francine, When Nehru Looked East: Origins of India-US Suspicion and India-China Rivalry, Oxford University Press, 2020
• Louro, Michele L., Comrades against Imperialism: Nehru, India, and Interwar Internationalism, Cambridge University Press, 2018
• Mukherjee, Rudrangshu, Jawaharlal Nehru, (Oxford India Short Introductions), Oxford University Press, 2018
• Nath, Sushmita, The Secular Imaginary: Gandhi, Nehru and the Idea(s) of India, Cambridge University Press, 2022
• Roberts, Elizabeth Mauchine, Gandhi, Nehru and Modern India, Routledge, 2019
• Shanker, Mani, The Reputational Imperative: Nehru’s India in Territorial Conflict, Stanford University Press, 2018
• Sherman, Taylor C. Nehru's India: A History in Seven Myths, Princeton University Press, 2022