Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics

Active discussions
WikiProject India (Rated Project-class)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
This page is a noticeboard for things particularly relevant to Wikipedians working on articles on India.
Article alerts for WikiProject India

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(133 more...)

Proposed deletions

(30 more...)

Categories for discussion

Templates for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Miscellany for deletion

Featured article candidates

Featured list candidates

A-Class review

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Good article reassessments

Requests for comments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

(12 more...)

Articles to be merged

(57 more...)

Articles to be split

(15 more...)

Articles for creation

(24 more...)

This table is updated daily by a bot

Wikipedia Meetups edit
Upcoming
none
Recent
Outside India
Past meetups

ThiyyaEdit

Malayalam .language of Kerala, where the caste is from,Thiyya wikipedia already exits for years :

https://ml.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B4%A4%E0%B5%80%E0%B4%AF%E0%B5%BC


File:Malayala Manorama news report on Kerala state government's order to record 'Thiyya community' as such and not a subcaste of Ezhava.jpg
Malayala Manorama news report on Kerala state government's order to record 'Thiyya community' as such and not a subcaste of Ezhava
File:Kerala state government's order to record thiyya community as such and not as a sub caste of Ezhava.jpg
Kerala state government's order to record thiyya community as such and not as a sub caste of Ezhava


In 2020 July, Kerala state government has issued an order to record Thiyya as Thiyya and not as a part of Ezhava nor its subcaste. In India, converting or writing one caste as another is a criminal offense.

Link to order kerala government's order from their official site :

https://education.kerala.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/govt.order_3072020.pdf

See the Kerala state government order and the followed news report given on right.

I hope Wikipedia also abides by the Indian Kerala government's official government order on the Thiyya caste.

So I request you to remove the redirect of Thiyya Wikipedia from Ezhava Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.97.173.249 (talk)

Pls deal with the repeated political-POV attempts to push AyyavazhiEdit

In the article titled Hinduism and other religions, I had removed the section on Ayyavazhi. Inclusion of Ayyavazhi in the article as a separate religion is a WP:POV agenda. It is neither recognised under as Indian law as separate religion and nor accepted widely as such. It is rather politically motivated vote bank" driven agenda of "select few" motivated interests. It is legally recognised in the Indian Constituion as a subset of Hinduism. I am sure that the regular editors here, who are watching wiki India Project, must be aware of discussions elsewhere on this topic. I have not been part of those discussions. Hence, calling up on all those editors those who have been involved in this discussion and know about the past consensus on this topic (whatever that may be). Please implement that earlier consensus on this article mentioned above.

Earlier today, I had removed the "Ayyavazhi" related text from the above-mentioned article with the edit comment "Ayyavazhi is not a recognised religion, just political movement of select few. it is classified as part of hinduism in indian constitution. Wikipedia is not a place to push for WP:POV politcal agenda. I have removed this sections", seehere] (my edit there is time and IP stamped as "18:20, 2 August 2021‎ 58.182.176.169". My edit was reverted by the user LauritzT, which I undid after leaving a message here on this notice board. I also left a message on the article's talk page so that future editors on that article can be guided by the India Project's decision if ever there is edit dispute on this topic again. Whichever way you guys decide, based on the past discussions on this topics, is fine by me. I am concerned that people might try to sneak in POLITICAL POV agenda on less watched articles.

I will not be involved in this further. I call upon India Project experts, who know the topics and have knowledge of prior decisions/decision on this matter, to please take care of this issue to its logical conclusion, i.e. whatever is your decision please ensure it gets applied to the article mentioned above.

Thanks you. 58.182.176.169 (talk)

Kings and PrincesEdit

Hi. Do we have a policy on how to identify the scions of the erstwhile princely states in India. I made a change at this article but it would be good to have a clear policy in place (likely to be many others). --RegentsPark (comment) 14:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[]

We sort of did. The 26th amendment of India's Constitution enacted in 1971 gave the rationale for the official policy. After 1971, the erstwhile rulers are nothing more than ordinary citizens. They are not Maharajas, Nawabs, Kunwars, Rajas, Choudhury (title, not the last name), Taluqdar, or the myriad other titles invented to signify privilege. As you may recall, in 2012, or thereabouts, I had created a bank of sources, for use in "princely" articles. An example is Reference [2] in Jyotiraditya Scindia, October 2012. If you compare it with the current version of the article, you will notice that the "House of Scindia" linked to "Scindia Dynasty" makes a conspicuous appearance in the lead. Also, there is an unreliably sourced chart "Ancestors of J. Scindia" at the end. All these vague insinuations of privilege need to be removed from Wikipedia. They not only violate WP policy, they directly violate the Preamble to the Constitution of India, specifically, "EQUALITY of status and of opportunity." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[]
On the other hand, despite many available sources, this for one, and this for another, the rape and forced cremation of a Dalit child in Delhi in early August 2021 does not have a WP page. It speaks poorly all around. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Policy? What policy? If there is a specific one relating to Indian princes, it definitely is not listed anywhere on Wikipedia. Putting together a bunch of secondary sources on the 26th Amendment and posting them around in multiple articles on your own accord neither constitute an official policy nor make the legal interpretations of those sources factually accurate. On that note, I dispute the notion that royal titles of the erstwhile rulers were abolished by the 26th Amendment. First, besides the part about the Privy Purse being abolished, the text of the Amendment itself only says that anyone who used to be recognized as rulers of a princely state ceased to be recognized as such. However, the word "titles" itself is not mentioned anywhere in the text of the Amendment. Second, the Kerala High Court ruled in 2012 that referring to Uthradom Thirunal Marthanda Varma as "His Highness Maharajah of Travancore" in an official advertisement of government function is not unconstitutional. The High Court of Kerala in a judgement on Mujeeba Rahman vs the State Of Kerala stated that, though by the 26th amendment of the Constitution, Article 363 was repealed whereby the rights and privileges of the rulers of Indian States were taken away, still the name and title of the rulers remained as such and unaffected in so far as names and titles were not contemplated as rights or privileges under the repealed Articles 291 and 362 of the Constitution. So the titles were not abolished by the Government; only their right to receive Privy Purse were cancelled and status as rulers withdrawn.[1][2] Third, there is the fact that there have been a number of decisions and cases of the Supreme Court of India, where the court itself has continued to use the styles and titles enjoyed by the princes, the nobility and members of their families. Some prominent examples are:
It is hard to imagine that the highest court in the country would have accepted the use of these titles had they been contrary to law. Since this is Wikipedia, we should be referring to the scions of princely states according to how the reliable sources refer to them. --StellarHalo (talk) 07:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[]

References

  1. ^ Hanif, Mahir. "'His Highness' isn't unconstitutional: Kerala high court". The Times of India (Kochi). The Times Group. Archived from the original on 18 December 2013. Retrieved 24 November 2014.
  2. ^ Mujeeba Rahman vs State Of Kerala (High Court of Kerala 22 October 2013).Text
Clearly, we can't call someone "Maharaja of Jaipur" when there is no kingdom of Jaipur and no actual Maharaja, regardless of what courts or other governmental bodies say. What we need is some consensus on how to balance the fact that someone is the titular descendant of a former maharaja with the fact that there is no kingdom and they aren't actually a maharaja. My attempt at Padmanabh Singh attempts to do that but more input, so that we are consistent across articles, would be helpful. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I wouldn't be so sure of that, but the effort can be made. Extensive experience in several European countries that are now republics shows that these abolished titles can be highly persistent. In Italy I think it is actually illegal to use them, but everybody does. In Germany I think former princely titles are referred to obliquely (head of the house of ... etc), but titles of nobility still very often used. We should follow what sources do, though they may differ. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[]
There is no question that the titles were abolished, and not just the privileges (the usual argument made by pretenders). I can produce at least a dozen scholarly sources, both secondary and tertiary, which state unequivocally, that the titles were abolished in 1971 (along with the privy purses and the privileges). I can't find a single scholarly source stating that the titles were not abolished. The consensus is that lop-sided.
I can't stop a wealthy pretender from calling a wide-eyed cub reporter of modest background to his son's "crowning," and not watch the chips fall in the local news the next day where they may. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[]
PS Johnbod is correct. The effort can be made; perhaps, it should be made along the lines of MOS:INDICSCRIPT, which began as an RfC, I think. He is also correct about the European ex-royals. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[]
PPS @RegentsPark: They are not titular descendants in any legal sense. The kingdoms went in 1947; the titles went in 1971 (along with the speciality license plates, "Patiala 1," and the duty-free imports etc). The problem is that they own large tracts of lands and many palaces. It is those over which they attempt to claim their Maharaja-hood. They probably also throw a few crumbs every now and then at the villages they use to own, so the villagers are happy to perpetuate the usage. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Right. Since they are not really kings, it would be incorrect to say "Padmanabh Singh is the Maharaja of Jaipur". However, if I understand Johnbod correctly, there is a sort of claim to the "throne" (some are even fighting over the title). Perhaps we should come up with some sort of wording that makes the non-Maharaja nature clear while also preserving the lineage (e.g., "Singh would have been the Maharaja of Jaipur had royal titles and privileges not been abolished" or something like that). --RegentsPark (comment) 16:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[]
That I believe is a very encyclopedically dangerous route to take. I can produce scholarly sources that state clearly they are Mr and Mrs Singh and nothing more. If you allow "would have" everyone in India (given Louis Dumont) will be claiming a kingdom. The caste self-uplifters will be working wonders with language. We can say something like, "S/he is the grand-daughter/son (if notable and reliably sourced) of the last Maharaja of X." They are not custodians of a Family, Dynasty, or Hous; they have no status at present, other than as Mr and Mrs Singh. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The present day scions are notable not because of their titles but because of their involvement as sportspersons, actors or politicians. So that should be their main description. Apart from that I would suggest some sort of wording like “He is the descendant of X of the former princely state Y.”defcon5 (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Yes, that is what I meant. They are sportwomen, hotel magnates, etc as Mr and Mrs Singh. The problem is that they are constitutionally mandated to be Mr and Mrs Singh by the 26th amendment. Even if they have a frivolous case or two in the courts, the Constitution cannot be overturned by a court. It needs a two-thirds majority in both houses of parliament. No Indian government (of the right or left) will ever revisit that issue even if they had the majority. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[]

There is a clear difference between the heir/pretender/whatever to the main title, and sundry other descendants, and it is un-encyclopaedic to censor recognition of this in articles (while it may not be much of an argument for notability by itself), not least because they have presumably inherited any palaces etc. Why exactly is Wikipedia bound by what the Indian constitution may or may not say? Some form of words of the type RegentsPark suggests, should be agreed. Johnbod (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Yes, we are not bound by the Constitution. If something happens and the RS picks them up, we will pick it up, not because the Constitution says so (although in most cases, a change in Constitution (in general, not limited to this conversation) is always picked up immediately). An apathetic sentence like "great/grand- son/daughter of the last X of Y" or an equivalent relation if sourced properly would be the most encyclopaedic. I would say it goes into the early/personal life section where the details about the family, and the origin, is discussed. For namesake descendants, or those whose notability doesn't come from it, lead mention would be undue, as usual. What about: if the local people invite them to the community events with a prejudice of them being the descendants (or at least some still dress up as such), and only if those become notable to the biography, could it be sourced? — DaxServer (talk to me) 17:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[]

No disagreement there. I had mentioned the Constitution of India in the context only of RP's point about some "royal" claimants attempting to pursue the matter in the courts. See my argument about the sources below. I mean the evidence in the sources is devastatingly unanimous. As for the local people inviting them to a community event @RegentsPark: had himself written an eloquently finessed description. Hold on, I will dig it up. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Here is RP's description from the early life section of the Saif Ali Khan page; sorry my Bollywood IQ is 0, so it took a while to find it:

Khan was born on 16 August 1970 in New Delhi, India to Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi, a former captain of the Indian national cricket team, and his wife Sharmila Tagore, a film actress.[1][2] From 1952 to 1971, Pataudi held the title of Nawab of Pataudi, but following his death a pagri ceremony was held in the village of Pataudi, Haryana to crown Khan as the tenth Nawab of Pataudi.Footnote: Official recognition of titles was ended by the Government of India in 1971 but Khan attended the ceremony to please the sentiments of the villagers, who wanted him to continue the family tradition.[3]

In my view, the footnote should be a full sentence in the main body; otherwise, it can give a confusing message. Also, it should be "crown Khan as the 'tenth Nawab of Pataudi' ." Without making that clear, we will be again giving a confusing message. Clearly he is not the Nawab his father was until 1971, nor his father the Nawab his grandfather was until 1947. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC) Clarified further. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Sorry, @Johnbod: I did not see your post, or did not pay attention to it. You say, "There is a clear difference between the heir/pretender/whatever to the main title, and sundry other descendants, and it is un-encyclopaedic to censor recognition of this in articles (while it may not be much of an argument for notability by itself), not least because they have presumably inherited any palaces etc."
Well, without meaning to sound presumptuous, here's what happened in India. In 1947, the Indian princes lost their kingdoms. That means they lost most everything that wasn't their personal private property. Villages they owned and received rental income from all disappeared. Large tracts of agricultural lands they owned that they "farmed out" to tenant farmers were all gone. In return for their losses, the Government of India gave them an annual remuneration called a "privy purse." They also received benefits and privileges, such as car license plates, duty-free imports, and so forth. Lastly, they retained the right to be officially called the Maharajah or Nawab of X, and for their successions to be recognized by the Government. (I'm sure there were other benefits, but I don't know all the details).
Well, in 1971, not only did the privy purses stop being paid annually but the privileges were removed. More importantly, the title and the succession to the title were derecognized. In other words, after 1971, when a Maharaja died, he died as an ordinary citizen, and there was no question of any succession. The private property he owned, including palaces (which most likely had been converted to hotels) were to be passed on in the various proportions of ownership detailed in his will—as they would for any private citizen who owned hotels or houses. If he died intestate, they were to be inherited entirely by his widow per Indian law. If she predeceased him, the property was to be shared equally by all his offspring, male and female.
It is very clear in India: there are no princes (let alone "Kings" which in any case the British never called them; Maharaja, Raja, Nawab were all translated as "princes;" there was only one King and he sat in London.), no thrones, no titles, no titular princes, no pretenders, no second-order claimants, no courtiers, ... there is nothing. But as you wisely say about the French and Germans ex-royalty, that doesn't stop various people from according these ex-royals the status of a prince. They bow low like Puss in Boots and bring offerings of dead rabbits and partridge. The press gobbles it up and the event becomes notable. So, we can report it, but we can't assert a defunct right. We have to state somewhere that Puss In Boots is a children's story. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Yes, I know all that, but it doesn't have much bearing on my point, or RP's. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Not sure I see the point. You said, "There is a clear difference between the heir/pretender/whatever to the main title, and sundry other descendants, ..." I am suggesting there is not. There might be in terms of reportage in celebrity magazines, but we can't twist the words of the law in reporting the gossip. See my revision of Padmanabh Singh. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Yes, this is an example of what we should not be doing. The short lead of his grandfather Bhawani Singh is another comical instance of misplaced republican fervour - nothing about what he did in a long life, but great detail about why he stopped being a Maharaja. I realize many Indian bios go much too far the other way. Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I agree about Bhawani Singh. It should have a few sentences in the lead about his military career. It is not misplaced republican fervor though. He was not a ruling Maharaja like his father Man Singh II. He was a nominal Maharaja—without realms—for one year. I will add some sentences to that lead.
But what should we be doing with young Padmanabh? He is a polo player and a globe-trotting young man of wealth? Please tell me how you would have edited it. The Indian polo team has one offspring of ex-royals and one army man; the rest are civilians. None except young P. has a WP page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Your latest edits have made it still worse; it now begins: "Padmanabh Singh (born 2 July 1998) is an Indian polo player. He has been a member of Guards Polo Club in the UK." - this, according to its article, the polo club with the largest membership in Europe. I'm sure most bio articles that we have on members don't even mention that fact, still less as 2nd sentence in the lead! I'm not going to expend mental energy thinking of the many ways we have of giving him a proper lead, since you are only going to rubbish and revert them, as you invariably do. Stop bullying RegentsPark & he can do it - he's on the right path. Remember that we can't have a completely different set of standards for handling India compared to the rest of the world. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Let's just stick to the res Johnbod. This is a useful discussion and no one is being bullied. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Johnbod, I am not writing the biography of the young man, only the lead as a summary of the main body. It is not my job to check the individual links. Nor am I bullying RP, I've known him long enough to not do that. The flaunting of patrilineality in India, a federal republic, which Britain is not, is obviously problematic. I don't mean that RP is doing that; the royal wannabes are. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]
PS I've edited Bhawani Singh's lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Well, that is obviously something of an improvement, so thanks. I think "titular ruler" is best avoided - it's surely not a common term, it wasn't at all clear to me what it meant, and the article is little help. Is Elizabeth II a titular ruler? She seems to meet the definition in the article. When did maharajas become "titular", and who says so? Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]
As for "titular ruler," it has been used in India from the early 19th century onward from the time the Mughals became rulers of a few square miles around Delhi, but retained the title of Emperors of Hindustan, and the British parked a Regent in Old Delhi. RP and I had worked on the article on the Regents, but I can't find it now. (Note also, OED, Third Edition March 2019; not old): "titular adj, nominal, esp. as opposed to real or actual. Usually, but not always, with the implication that no powers or functions attach to the title." After 1947 (or 48) the Maharajas/Nawabs, who were nominally sovereign in the Raj to being with, lost all power to govern. They only had the pension, the privileges, and the titles. "Extinguishable glamor," as Naipaul put it, I think. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Here it is List of British residents or political agents in Delhi, 1803–57. It had begun in the time of Company rule. Bahadur Shah Zafar was the titular ruler of Hindustan. I haven't checked, but I'm sure many sources exist. Indirect rule by the British, as you know, continued during the Raj, with a British agent, resident, or regent stationed in the princely state's capital. But the Indian princes had some limited sovereignty until 1947, when they lost it all. Nothing remained but the title (after a small period of adjustment, that is). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Fowler&fowler's sources on princely titlesEdit

The logic, in my view, is straightforward. WP rules and guidelines require us to pay attention to secondary sources, especially WP:SCHOLARSHIP for reliability and to WP:TERTIARY for due weight. This is not rocket science. It seems fairly clear that the titles were abolished, beyond RP's important logical fallacy that is: If X state does not exist how can Y be the Maharaja (ruler) of X? The reliable trade non-fiction suggests the same. Please don't add or subtract anything from my sources. There is a discussion section below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Secondary sources published by academic publishers

1947–1949Edit

  • Ramusack, Barbara N. (2004). The Indian princes and their states. Cambridge University Press. p. 273. ISBN 978-0-521-26727-4. The crucial document was the Instrument of Accession by which rulers ceded to the legislatures of India or Pakistan control over defence, external affairs, and communications. In return for these concessions, the princes were to be guaranteed a privy purse in perpetuity and certain financial and symbolic privileges such as exemption from customs duties, the use of their titles, the right to fly their state flags on their cars, and to have police protection. ... By December 1947 Patel began to pressure the princes into signing Merger Agreements that integrated their states into adjacent British Indian provinces, soon to be called states or new units of erstwhile princely states, most notably Rajasthan, Patiala and East Punjab States Union, and Matsya Union (Alwar, Bharatpur, Dholpur and Karaulli).
  • Copland, Ian, The princes of India in the endgame of empire, 1917–1947, Cambridge Studies in Indian History and Society, Cambridge University Press, p. 1, Between 1947 and 1949 all 600-odd ruling princes in India were pensioned off and their ancestral domains—the so-called 'princely states'—were submerged in the bodypolitic of the Indian union. Nowadays the few former rulers still alive are just ordinary citizens, while the ex-states survive—if at all—only in attenuated shape as components of larger administrative units. As a practical system of governance monarchy in India has been consigned to the dustbin of history.

1971 Constitutional Amendment aftermathEdit

  • Ramusack, Barbara N. (2004). The Indian princes and their states. Cambridge University Press. p. 278. ISBN 978-0-521-26727-4. Through a constitutional amendment passed in 1971, Indira Gandhi stripped the princes of the titles, privy purses and regal privileges which her father's government had granted.
  • Aldrich, Robert; McCreery, Cindy (2020), "Monarchies, decolonisation and post-colonial Asia", in Robert Aldrich, Cindy McCreery (ed.), Monarchies and decolonisation in Asia, Studies in Imperialism Book 188, Manchester University Press, p. 25, The Indian princes kept their titles and privileges (and privy purses) until 1971, when they were abolished under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, ...
  • Masselos, Jim (2020), "Decolonised rulers: rajas, maharajas and others in post-colonial India", in Robert Aldrich, Cindy McCreery (ed.), Monarchies and decolonisation in Asia, Studies in Imperialism Book 188, Manchester University Press, p. 84, It seemed as if an end had come to the long lines of India’s hereditary rulers with the final stage in the decolonisation of the subcontinent brought about by Indian agency, and a democratically elected government at that. Technically, the princes were shorn of their surviving privileges and were no longer to use their regal honorifics and titles. They were henceforth commoners, to be addressed as plain Mr or Mrs Singh in a society whose dominant political rhetoric was now to be egalitarian in character. The privy purse legislation implicitly or even explicitly opposed the value systems that had been represented and utilised over the centuries by India’s royals and that had provided the base on which their kingdoms rested.
  • Aldrich, Robert; McCreery, Cindy (2016), "European sovereigns and their empires 'beyond the seas'", in Robert Aldrich, Cindy McCreery (ed.), Crowns and colonies: European monarchies and overseas empires, Studies in Imperialism Book 142, Manchester University Press, p. 43, Although Prime Minister Indira Gandhi deprived the India princes of their official titles and privy purses in 1971, the maharajas and other princes, such as the traditional Maharana of Udaipur, who now styles himself as the 'Custodian' of the House of Mewar in Rajasthan, retain wealth, influence and celebrity; in 2015, a twenty-three-year-old economics graduate was thus installed as the most recent Maharajah of Mysore.
  • Aldrich, Robert (2018), Banished potentates: Dethroning and exiling indigenous monarchs under British and French colonial rule, 1815–1955, Studies in Imperialism Book 154, Manchester University Press, p. 274, Conclusion: ... The princely states of South Asia were incorporated into India and Pakistan in the late 1940s, though not always with the enthusiasm of the maharajas; in 1971, the Indian prime minister, Indira Gandhi, did away with their privy purses and withdrew recognition of their princely titles.
  • Jhala, Angma Dey, Royal Patronage, Power and Aesthetics in Princely India, Routledge, p. 86, ... creation of Bangladesh in 1971. In that same year, Nehru's daughter Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, after a long legal battle, introduced the twenty-sixth Amendment to the constitution, which abolished the princes' constitutionally guaranteed Privy Purse and the use of titles and regal privileges, which they had been guaranteed at the time of accession and integration.
  • Fuller, C. J. (2004), The Camphor Flame: Popular Hinduism and Society in India, Princeton University Press, p. 106, After independence, all the states (with the partial exception of Kashmir) were constitutionally incorporated into either India or Pakistan, although in India nearly three hundred former kings kept their titles and privy purses until 1971
  • Breckenridge, Carol Appadurai (1995), Consuming modernity: public culture in a South Asian world, University of Minnesota Press, pp. 84–, ISBN 978-0-8166-2306-8, The third stage in the political evolution of the princes from rulers to citizens occurred in 1971, when the constitution ceased to recognize them as princes and their privy purses, titles, and special privileges were abolished.
  • Cheesman, David (1997). Landlord power and rural indebtedness in colonial Sind, 1865-1901. London: Routledge. pp. 10–. ISBN 978-0-7007-0470-5. Retrieved 6 November 2011. Quote: "The Indian princes survived the British Raj by only a few years. The Indian republic stripped them of their powers and then their titles." (page 10).
  • Shepherd, Nick (2020) [2001], "Comments on Part II: Far from Home", in Barbara Bender, Margot Winer (ed.), Contested Landscapes: Movement, Exile and Place, Routledge, p. 352, A crucial piece of contextualizing information is that as a result of the 1971 Deregulation of Princes Act the former rulers of India lost both titles and privy purses.


Princely India and Western TouristsEdit

  • Ramusack, Barbara N. (1995), "The Indian Princes as Fantasy: Palace Hotels, Palace Museums, and Palace on Wheels", in Carol Appadurai Breckenridge (ed.), Consuming Modernity: Public Culture in a South Asian World, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 66–89, 76, Rajput States as Royal India for Middle-Class Tourists: In the aftermath of World War II, independent India became the destination of new types and numbers of tourists. Much of the increase in foreign tourists is probably a result of the growing accessibility of air travel to more groups in society. Airplanes also shifted travel patterns within India: Bombay remains a major port of entry, but Western air travelers increasingly disembark in Delhi, thereby bypassing both Calcutta and Madras. Meanwhile, Madras becomes a point of entry for Tamilians and other travelers from Singapore and Southeast Asia. Since air travel enabled them to reach India more quickly, tourists could now come for shorter tours. India had to be packaged into discreet, comprehensive units. Three main foci emerged: Mughal India as seen in Delhi and Agra; Hindu India, viewed in Benaras and Khajuraho; and princely India, concentrated on the Rajput trio of Jaipur, Udaipur, and Jodhpur with more recent extensions to Bikaner and Jaisalmer.
  • Ramusack, Barbara N. (1995), "The Indian Princes as Fantasy: Palace Hotels, Palace Museums, and Palace on Wheels", in Carol Appadurai Breckenridge (ed.), Consuming Modernity: Public Culture in a South Asian World, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 66–89, 76, Since 1950 the princely states of Rajasthan have been defined as the quintessential princely states. In India in Luxury: A Practical Guide for the Discerning Traveller, Louise Nicholson opened her chapter on Rajasthan by proclaiming, “Rajasthan is classic fantasy India at its best.” Hyderabad, Mysore, and Baroda have been eliminated from the category of princely state. Now tourists do not come to India seeking examples of modernization in the Third World; they do not want to tour the petrochemical complexes of Baroda-Vadodra or the electronic industry of Bangalore (Mysore). They seek culture and nature tourism, and the Rajput princes and the state government have been ready to provide it.
  • Ramusack, Barbara N. (1995), "The Indian Princes as Fantasy: Palace Hotels, Palace Museums, and Palace on Wheels", in Carol Appadurai Breckenridge (ed.), Consuming Modernity: Public Culture in a South Asian World, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 66–89, 76–77, In 1958 Maharaja Man Singh II of Jaipur became the first prince to convert a palace into a hotel, citing reasons such as his financial inability to maintain it as a residence, his lack of need for such facilities now that he was no longer rajpramukh or governor of Rajasthan, and the balancing need for a good hotel in Jaipur. It is fitting that his selection was the Rambagh Palace, constructed about 1850 as a guest house for European visitors, enlarged three decades later by Swinton Jacob, then in the 1930s extensively remodeled as a residence for Man Singh and eventually for his third wife, the glamorous, Western-educated Gayatri Devi of Cooch Behar. Rambagh Palace reverted to its original role as a lodging for Europeans—now tourists rather than travelers or British officials.
  • Ramusack, Barbara N. (1995), "The Indian Princes as Fantasy: Palace Hotels, Palace Museums, and Palace on Wheels", in Carol Appadurai Breckenridge (ed.), Consuming Modernity: Public Culture in a South Asian World, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 66–89, 77, The slower rate of economic development in Rajasthan increased the sense of its distinctiveness from modern India, and the sparse distribution of its population partially mitigated the stereotypes of Indian poverty. Tourists sought historical fantasy, and Rajput princes have been packaged to satisfy this quest.
  • Maxine Weisgrau, Carol Henderson, ed. (2016) [2007], Raj Rhapsodies: Tourism, Heritage and the Seduction of History, Routledge, Jhala notes that the rulers were able to sustain some courtly functions during the early post-Independence period. Later, the growth of tourism, and the earnings associated with it, provided the context within which the former ruling families repositioned many practices related to their courts, and adapted themselves to the new circumstances. Today in Jodhpur region (formerly Marwar), the Maharaja and his family have created distinctive forms of hospitality tourism that simultaneously engage diverse constituencies and meanings based on concepts of heritage. Jhala argues that, with tourism, the ex-royals reconstitute royalty and tradition simultaneously as touristic spectacle and as symbolic capital for the enactment of political rituals involving kin, courtly, honorific, and ‘host-guest’ relationships.
  • Karatchkova, Elena (2016) [2007], "Ghost Towns and Bustling Cities: Constructing a Master Narrative in Nineteenth-Century Jaipur", Raj Rhapsodies: Tourism, Heritage, and the Seductions of History, p. 30, The contemporary master narrative for Jaipur and Amber is ‘royalty’. This theme is ubiquitous in tourist publications, such as Majestic Jaipur (Wheeler 1998). Royal personalities are emphasized, as in Jaipur: The Royal City. One article on tourist attractions of Jaipur features a full-page photograph of Maharaja Bhawani Singh, in full regalia, with his wife and daughter, all identified as ‘the present royal family’
  • Ramusack, Barbara N. (2004). The Indian princes and their states. Cambridge University Press. p. 279. ISBN 978-0-521-26727-4. In a more mundane mode, in the 2003 List of the fifty most powerful people in India published in India Today, Gaj Singh (b. 1948) of Jodhpur is number 45 ‘Because he’s the king of royalty. Because none else in the blue-blooded pantheon straddles the feudal and the modern with such aplomb’, ‘Because he once had Finance Minister Jaswant Singh as private secretary. Because he’s tourism’s regal face’. The last accolade refers to the romantic allure of princely culture for international and domestic tourists.
  • Ramusack, Barbara N. (2004). The Indian princes and their states. Cambridge University Press. p. 279. ISBN 978-0-521-26727-4. The princes of India offer fantasy for post-modern consumption. Faced with escalating maintenance costs and declining sources of income, princely entrepreneurs transformed palaces into hotels where tourists could experience an idealised, pampered lifestyle of royalty during a democratic era. In 1954 Karan Singh of Jammu and Kashmir leased his main palace in Srinagar to the Oberoi chain; it seems appropriate that he became minister for tourism and civil aviation in 1967 in Indira Gandhi’s government. In 1958 the Rambagh Palace Hotel opened in Jaipur followed by the much photographed Lake Palace Hotel in Udaipur in the early 1960s,
  • Ramusack, Barbara N. (2004). The Indian princes and their states. Cambridge University Press. p. 279. ISBN 978-0-521-26727-4. In recent decades nobles and merchants in the former princely states have joined princes in opening palaces, havelis, forts and hunting lodges, from Mysore city in the south to the foothills of the Himalayas, to tourists. Rajasthan has the largest concentration of such establishments, many of which stage programs of Indian folk dance and music to entertain tourists. Palaces-on-wheels, which originally were renovated railway cars commissioned by the princes and now are replications of such luxurious cars, connect major sites.
Tertiary sources
  • Schmidt, Karl J. (1995), An atlas and survey of South Asian history, M.E. Sharpe, p. 78, ISBN 978-1-56324-334-9, Although the Indian states were alternately requested or forced into union with either India or Pakistan, the real death of princely India came when the Twenty-sixth Amendment Act (1971) abolished the princes' titles, privileges, and privy purses.
  • Merriam-Webster, Inc (1997), Merriam-Webster's geographical dictionary, Merriam-Webster, pp. 520–, ISBN 978-0-87779-546-9, retrieved 6 November 2011 Quote: "Indian States: "Various (formerly) semi-independent areas in India ruled by native princes .... Under British rule ... administered by residents assisted by political agents. Titles and remaining privileges of princes abolished by Indian government 1971." (page 520).
  • Nick Heath-Brown, ed. (2015), "India", The Statesman's Yearbook 2016: The Politics, Cultures and Economies of the World, Volume I, Palgrave Macmillan, p. 603, In 1971 Mrs Gandhi's government abolished the titles, pensions and privileges guaranteed to the Indian princes at independence as compensation for merging their states into India
Trade non-fiction
  • Guha, Ramachandra (5 August 2008), India After Gandhi: The History of the World's Largest Democracy, HarperCollins, pp. 441–, ISBN 978-0-06-095858-9, Her success at the polls emboldened Mrs. Gandhi to act decisively against the princes. Through 1971, the two sides tried and failed to find a settlement. The princes were willing to forgo their privy purses, but hoped at least to save their titles. But with her overwhelming majority in Parliament, the prime minister had no need to compromise. On 2 December she introduced a bill to amend the constitution and abolish all princely privileges. It was passed in the Lok Sabha by 381 votes to six, and in the Rajya Sabha by 167 votes to seven. In her own speech, the prime minister invited 'the princes to join the elite of the modern age, the elite which earns respect by its talent, energy and contribution to human progress, all of which can only be done when we work together as equals without regarding anybody as of special status.'
  • Naipaul, V. S. (8 April 2003), India: A Wounded Civilization, Random House Digital, Inc., pp. 37–38, ISBN 978-1-4000-3075-0, retrieved 6 November 2011, The princes of India – their number and variety reflecting to a large extent the chaos that had come to the country with the break up of the Mughal empire – had lost real power in the British time. Through generations of idle servitude they had grown to specialize only in style. A bogus, extinguishable glamour: in 1947, with Independence, they had lost their state, and Mrs. Gandhi in 1971 had, without much public outcry, abolished their privy purses and titles."
  • Ward, Philip (September 1989), Northern India, Rajasthan, Agra, Delhi: a travel guide, Pelican Publishing, pp. 91–, ISBN 978-0-88289-753-0, retrieved 6 November 2011 Quote: "A monarchy is only as good as the reigning monarch: thus it is with the princely states. Once they seemed immutable, invincible. In 1971 they were "derecognized," their privileges, privy purses and titles all abolished at a stroke" (page 91)

DiscussionEdit

  • I think it is fairly clear that that the titles no longer exist and that we can't label someone "Maharaja of xyz". The question, in my mind, is whether we should include text on their lineage (assuming reliable sources do that) and, if yes, should it be in the lead. For example, a search on Padmanabh Singh shows that the Indian press routinely refer to him as "Maharaja" so the lineage is an important part of his biography. I'd lean toward something like what's in this Forbes profile. An example [1]. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Thanks for the comment. I think we could say, "He is a descendant of the former ruling family of Jaipur State." But he is not a "titular King" a la Forbes. His grandfather was the titular ruler of Jaipur State from 1970 to 1971. I will shortly propose something for all royals, titular royals, and descendants of titular royals in India. Please hold on. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • There is also a problem with your edit which states that he would have been King had princely titles not been abolished in 1971. Much Indian royalty like royalty in many lands was governed by strict patrilineality, to the point that in patriarchal societies such as Rajputana rulers who had only daughters adopted sons to perpetuate the family. But India is a republic in which legal heirs are what a will dictates, or in its absence, what the law of the land does, which is gender-neutral. Saying that he "would have" perpetuates an outdated order of succession. Padmanabh Singh's sister is only a year younger. Had she been the first-born, she would not have been called the "Maharani of Jaipur." In that instance, we'd have to say, "Padmanabh Singh would have been King had princely titles not been abolished in 1971 and patrilineal succession continued to be favored," which becomes too complicated. Many in India might favor the patriline, but WP cannot. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Okay. Let's follow the academic sources and assume for a moment that princely titles were indeed abolished by the 26th Amendment. In that case, then all the claimants to royal titles such as Maharaja, Nawab, etc. are by definition pretenders to their respective defunct thrones and so, we should treat them on WP like we treat the pretenders from other parts of the world such as Europe. Examples include Karl von Habsburg, Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza, Prince Carlos, Duke of Parma, and Prince Aimone, Duke of Apulia to name a few. Let's not say Padmanabh Singh is "titular Maharaja of Jaipur" or that he would have been Maharaja had titles not been abolished. Instead, let's say that he is the "current head of the erstwhile ruling family of Jaipur" or "pretender to the defunct throne of Jaipur" or both since he actively claims the title by having the press call him a Maharaja. Also, whom a former royal house considers to be its head is up to the family to decide and not bound by Indian laws and Singh became the head of his family by being symbolically crowned a Maharaja. Also, since he is a pretender, we have to include the succession boxes Template:S-pre and Template:S-tul that are specifically for pretenders at the bottom of the page. If reliable sources call someone a Maharaja when those titles have been abolished (something that does not even happen with European claimants), then that person is a pretender and this is the best way to acknowledge that. StellarHalo (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Pretenders have never existed in the context of princely states of the British Raj. The former Indian princes had signed treaties of subsidiary alliances and were ratified as rulers by the British Raj, at whose pleasure they existed. (When the welcome ran out, as it did briefly with Mysore in the second half of the 19th century, the British did not hesitate to govern themselves.) After independence, the princes were allowed to use their titles at the pleasure of the successor state of the Raj, the Government of India. Singh's great-grandfather, for example, was the last ruling Maharaja of the princely state of Jaipur during the British Raj. His grandfather was the last persona able to use the title "Maharaja of Jaipur" in independent India.
A privately chose "head" of descendants of the former princes of Jaipur is like a privately chosen "head" of descendants of Thomas Jefferson. The first doesn't ipso facto receive ratification by the government of the day in India to use the title Maharaja, anymore than does the second permission in the US to call himself president. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I never said the privately chosen head of the erstwhile royal family has the legal right to use an abolished princely title. I was merely suggesting that we acknowledge the fact that Padmanabh Singh and his likes are the heads of their own respective erstwhile royal families and claim royal titles in the same way we do for the articles of the European pretenders I listed above. StellarHalo (talk) 06:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
But the Europeans are claimants to a throne. No descendant of a ruler of an Indian princely state is, as an ancestor signed the Instrument of Accession in 1947. Well, the only two that might have were the old Nizam of Hyderabad from 1948 until his death, and the Nawab of Junagarh, for they were deposed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Just because their ancestors agreed to disband their princely states willingly as opposed to being deposed by force, does not mean that descendants of rulers cannot claim a defunct throne. The specific circumstances of their monarchies being abolished are not relevant. In fact these people actively claim a throne simply by claiming to have royal titles such as Maharaja while their European counterparts don't even call themselves king. Some of them even have their own coronation ceremonies. StellarHalo (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Where is the scholarly literature about their pursuit of royal titles, or even informal claims to them? (I mean in books published by academic publishers similar to ones in my list above.) On the other hand, if you are talking about (the sociology of) how they are styling themselves to benefit from the fascination princely culture holds among tourists, or some voters, that is a different matter. There may be limited scholarly literature on that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference legacy was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference rmajor was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ "Saif Ali Khan is now the 10th Nawab of Pataudi". The Times of India. 1 November 2011. Archived from the original on 2 November 2011. Retrieved 1 November 2011.

@Fowler&fowler: clearly I was wrong to assume that the present scions are only notable as per WP for being sportspersons or business magnates and not because of their titles. Yaduveer Krishnadatta Chamaraja Wadiyar is notable for being the Maharaja of Mysore. A similar case is Shahu II of Kolhapur. defcon5 (talk) 10:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]

:) And @DEFCON5: he calls himself "Maharaja," not Wodeyar? (See Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760)) Sahu II does not have any sources either! There were 500 rulers, so we should expect 500 "ancestry.com"-style pages, but less reliable. As I said, they are descendants of former rulers, not heads of a former ruling family—which stopped being a ruling family in 1947, as RP has observed. Young Padmanabh Singh's mother, Diya Kumari, who is the daughter of the last individual to use the title "Maharaja of Jaipur" is very much alive. How did the Maharaja/rani-hood skip a generation? If succession means, inheriting a large part of the assets, then who has inherited them? Diya Kumari or Padmanabh? Similarly, Jyotiraditya Scindia is being promoted as the head of the former ruling family of Gwalior, but he has an older sister, Chitrangada Singh. We can't report everything the media reports. Clearly, we need a policy here such as MOS:INDICSCRIPTS. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I completely agree with you. I think we need a policy to deal with this issue. We must be clear on one thing that the descendants of Indian princely states are different from European pretenders because there in no monarchy in India so they are not seeking any control of their former states. They just want to use the titles because who wouldn’t want to be called a king.
Some of these ex royals want to be head of family because that gives extra incentives within their family aka patriarchy and that’s how property is inherited in those families. Most of these property disputes end up in Supreme Court of India. Some of these families still hold coronation ceremonies. These are widely publicised in Indian media.
Someone of the point that I would like you to include are: There are three category of people were are dealing with
Group 1: rulers of princely states before Independence of India
Group 2: titular rulers from Independence to 1971
Group 3: post 1971 scions
I don’t think we have any problem with Group 1
For Group 2 the best lead I think is of Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi
“Mansur Ali Khan was the son of Iftikhar Ali Khan Pataudi, the last ruler of the princely state of Pataudi during the British Raj. Upon the death of his father in 1952, and under terms agreed to during the political integration of India, Pataudi succeeded to a privy purse, certain privileges, and the use of the title "Nawab of Pataudi," which lasted until 1971, whereupon all were abolished by the 26th Amendment to the Constitution of India.”
For Group 3 .. I would suggest “X belongs to the Y family that once ruled the Z princely state.” Or “A is the son of B, the last Maharaja of C”
If someone from group 3 holds coronation ceremony we will also mention the abolishment of such titles ie the 26th Amendment.
If a newspaper insists on calling him the “king of Mysore, or King of India or Thalaiva or King Khan” we can mention that “He is referred to in the media as the "Baadshah of Bollywood", "King of Bollywood" and "King Khan", ”. like we already do in articles like SRK defcon5 (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
There's one thing I see to improve in the Pataudi's article. Extend the royalty info in the body. The privy purse and its explanation was all set in the lead, which imo is a bit undue when it's not explained in the body, and all the citations were set in the lead and not the body which probably be the opposite. Also, the career in cricket was not described in the lead, which again imo is a bit undue, most probably because his notability arose from cricket[?]. (This is just related to his article.)
In general, I think we should find a suitable balance as to what we put in the lead giving due weights, determining how much notability the subject gained/gains from the royalty. — DaxServer (talk to me) 14:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@DEFCON5: and @DaxServer: Very well put. I pretty much agree with you. I have been myself toying with "Group N" schemata by editing some pages, e.g. Group 1 Jiwajirao Scindia, Man Singh II, and Iftikhar Ali Khan Pataudi (who I might note in passing seems to be wearing a field hockey jersey, unless I've misread the symbols of course.), Group 2 (Madhavrao Scindia, Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi, Bhawani Singh), and Group 3 (Jyotiraditya Scindia, Chitrangada Singh Saif Ali Khan, and Diya Kumari and Padmanabh Singh). And yes the lead of the Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi article is not a summary of the article body. For now, I'm trying to whip the language of the lead into some kind of NPOV form in respect of the royalty issue, flitting from article to article like a bee on caffeine. I beg your indulgence on those pages for some time more. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Fowler&fowler: Also, the notability of articles like Shivraj Singh of Jodhpur, Shivranjani Rajye, Chitrangada Singh, Pragmulji III and several others need to be reconsidered. They are notable for being son or daughter of X and Y. defcon5 (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Those are all excellent points, but I'm reluctant to get into issues of notability right now, which are the same for people who are not descendants of royals. They could be descendants of industrialists, Bollywood stars, and so forth. It is the same with the Bharat Ratna articles. There are issues there to be sure, but they are unrelated to the decolonization of the Raj. I think it is best to keep the focus on the princes for now, i.e. on the problems arising from the new ways of styling their roles. In my experience, these proposals take a long time and much effort to implement. The broader their scope the harder it becomes. Once a proposal receives affirmation, though, it can be extended to related contexts with much less effort. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
StellarHalo is correct to say that "we should treat them on WP like we treat the pretenders from other parts of the world such as Europe". But defcon5 & Fowler are mistaken in thinking that any active degree of pretending is necessary to be a "pretender", or of claiming to be a "claimant"; most of the European examples listed above made no actual claims at all, and many often said so, like the grandest of them all, Otto von Habsburg. English lacks a good term for the heir to a royal "claim" who is completely accepting of his position in a republic. The important thing to note is that all those examples give in the lead the sort of information (however phrased) that Fowler et al are trying to suppress in the Indian cases. This just won't do. If a person is the head of the family that were formerly rulers of a significant princely state (one could count the guns in the salute) then this should be mentioned. Minor families and minor relations I'm less concerned about. Johnbod (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Johnbod: The European pretenders are claimants to thrones of monarchies. The 562 rulers of Indian princely states, big or small, existed at the pleasure and under the protection of the British Raj. They had no sovereignty in foreign affairs, defense, or communication, and only a limited one in internal affairs. When the princes traveled abroad, they used the British Indian passport. They were creations of the British, part of a strategy of indirectly governing the less profitable regions of the Indian empire. Please find some scholarly references published in the 21st-century which refer to the descendants of former Indian princes as "pretenders" or "claimants" to anything. Please also see my reply to SH above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]
As usual, you sail clear past my points, and repeat irrelevant stuff you've already said many times. In fact none of these are points of difference with European "pretenders" - the German princes had had no political power since 1870 or earlier, much further back than the maharajas, and few of their states had ever been independent sovereign states. In fact I think the average Indian royal does a good deal more "pretending" than the average Euro one, without asserting a claim with any seriousness. As I've now said several times, I don't support that vocabulary anyway. For the heads of the important princely families, there is no doubt that they are notable, usually mostly notable, for that, and we should not suppress that information, but treat them as the Euros are treated. Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I don't care what terms WP uses for the Europeans. In WP:SCHOLARSHIP there is no precedent whatsoever for any descendant of a former Indian princely state to be called a "pretender," "claimant to a throne," "claimant to a title," or any equivalent formulation. They might be styling themselves as Maharajas, Rajas, Nawabs, Custodians the House of X, Head of the House of Y, etc or the celebrity media might be in their lieu, with an eye to the tourists who are eternally drawn by the allure of princely India. That I've stated is an entirely different thing, with a small scholarly literature, which I will taken into mind when I finish the proposal tomorrow AM. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Imo, these titles are affectations and words like "claimant" and "pretender" don't apply here. However, and I think that's what Johnbod, defcon5 and others are getting at above, the fact that someone is direct progeny of an actual maharaja, and assuming that news outlets make a big deal of this, then that is a part of their notability and we need to say something about that. For example, we could say, in the lead, "Singh is the titular descendant of Maharaja xyz, the last ruler of the princely state of Jaipur". We don't call him a Maharaja, we make it clear that the last Maharaja has come and gone. The body can then explain the abolishment of privy purses, titles etc., material that is probably overkill in the lead. The point is less what is the legal position of these people and more one of how they are viewed in the world. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Indeed, that is what I have said several times. I don't think it is necessary to go into too much detail on the abolition of the titles - presumably there is a link we can use for that. Johnbod (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]
RegentsPark: Defcon5 and I don't really disagree. His point above about Chitrangada Singh, for example, if I have understood him correctly, is not that she is notable because she is the grand-daughter of the last ruler Gwalior but that as it is the only thing she is notable for, her notability should be reconsidered, and her page AfD'd (perhaps). Note he uses "reconsider."
As for your point about mentioning the relationship in the lead, I have already done that in each of the group 3 subjects (ie grandchildren of the last rulers). But young Padmanabh is the great-grandchild, i.e. in a putative group 4, which we have not considered as the relationship is tenuous. Man Singh II had died nearly 30 years before Padmanabh was born.
If someone is a great-great-great-great-nephew of the last Maharaja of X and his cousins who trace a more direct lineage are all females, and if the media makes a big deal of his Maharaja-hood, do we give him WP notability? I'm suggesting Group 3 is where forms of notability that are derived from cultural ways of interpreting descent should stop. If tomorrow young Padmanabh manages to become polo's Jahangir Khan, sure we'll mention in passing that he is the great-grandson of Man Singh II. But in my view beyond Group 3, they'll need to be notable for something other than heredity and gender. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Johnbod has much more faith in Wikipedia links than I do. My principle, borne out for example in the leads of all the first-level Kashmir-related pages (Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), Gilgit-Baltistan, Ladakh, Azad Kashmir, Aksai Chin, and Jammu and Kashmir (state)) and some caste-related ones, is to present WP:SCHOLARSHIP (for reliability) and WP:TERTIARY (for due) in one citation containing a list of references. It might seem like overkill to some, but it works. The Kashmir-related pages have become quiet after the consensus achieved here in my proposal of August 2019. Something similar is what I will propose here later today.
Johnbod also says something about the top gun-salute states, but the small states of Rajasthan were never the top ones. I'm guessing Jaipur is 17 or 15 gun salutes not 21 like the big five (Kashmir, Baroda, Gwalior, Hyderabad, and Mysore). There is another even more important aspect here. How far back in history do we go? Surely, Awadh, annexed by Dalhousie in 1856, was way more important than any in the big five. Although Muslim dynasties don't really follow patrilineality as zealously as the Rajputana Hindu ones, I'm sure we can find a descendent of the last Nawab of Oudh. If the local media in Lucknow, for example, has begun to call her or him, the Begum or Nawab of Awadh, do we add that to her or his WP page? In other words, why are we favoring the ones whose ancestors keeled over and said, "How low?" when the British said, "Bend?" Why are we favoring the ones whose ancestors hid in a closet during the Indian rebellion of 1857? Not a single one of the princely states uttered a peep. Yet this was the decisive event of both Company and Raj history.Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]
PS @RegentsPark: Speaking of Awadh and great-grandchildren, I have just created Kaukab Quder Meerza (my version permalink). It shows how low-key the descent should be phrased for "Group 4, the great-grandchildren." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]
PPS Also copying the others who have thus far participated in the discussion: @StellarHalo:, @DEFCON5:, @Johnbod:, @DaxServer: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]
(ec) Needless to say, we have a list of salutes - Jaipur was indeed 17. I think an Oudh descendent has married the head of one of the big dynasties in recent years, so they are still in the game. In wiki-theology, notability depends entirely on passing the WP:GNG. All and any "local" guidelines, such as for sport, are only indications of presumed notability under the GNG, so if a prince or princess gets sufficient suitable coverage, they are in, whether their ancestors hid in cupboards (surely the sensible move, frankly; even the Afghans could see that) or not. If the princes were suspicious of what their fate would be under an independent Indian state, well history shows they were right to be so. The Rani of Jhansi doesn't presumably have any surviving descendents. I don't think "we" are favouring anyone (though clearly there is some disfavouring going on), we just deal with what our editorship throws up, and can reference. Trying to blame interest in these figures on the West ("tourists" etc) won't work - we all know the Indian public is far more interested in them. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I'm not interested in issues of notability. Please see my reply here to DEFCON5. Notability, as I say in the reply, is unrelated to the Raj. I'm interested only in language that describes a person's relation to the ruler of a princely state that is supported both in WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:TERTIARY. Nor am I interested in rationales for the rulers of the large princely states and most others sitting out the Indian rebellion of 1857. (Had they all chosen to join, it is not clear at all that the British would have survived in India, at least in the near term.) When we make a big to-do about one group, we discriminate against others. But that is not my main concern, which as I say above is to establish a common language for describing all descendants if they are notable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Do please stop these tiresome outdents all the time! Needless to say, it was you who introduced 1857, which is indeed entirely off-topic! Quite why academic scholarship should be concerned with these figures escapes me, but a diligent search may turn up some useful ways of putting things; likewise a search of the Indian press. One of your approved examples above, Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi, seems pretty poor to me. I found the "royal" mention very confusingly phrased, even knowing the general background; heaven knows what a (say) Brazilian reader new to the subject would make of it. But I await your promised draft with interest. Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I did introduce 1857, but I did not offer a rationale for why it was in the interest of the princes to sit it out. The Indian press? Of course not. They are a part of the "sell" to tourists both foreign (mostly) and Indian (the ones who can afford the nightly rate at the palaces). Do we source the lead of the 2020 Delhi riots to the Indian press? Of course not. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
That was a story that received considerable international coverage, even if much of it was based on the more neutral parts of the Indian media. Whether we were correct to mostly prefer outside sources is a question - perhaps we were. But there are very many areas of Indian life where this international coverage does not exist, & we source directly to Indian media. Johnbod (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Bharat Ratna and Padma awardsEdit

This is a sidetrack but it is somehow releated to the use of titles in India. The government of India clearly states that Bharat Ratna and Padma awards are not titles and cannot be used as prefix or suffix to names. See here But a lot of Wikipedia articles use them as honorifics and titles. Eg. Sumitra Guha, Nandalal Bose,Teejan Bai, Nanaji Deshmukh. If any policy regarding titles is formed, this should also be included. defcon5 (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Agree Also, all the instances where Bharat Ratna or Padma Awards are used as prefixes/suffixes should be removed asap. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Agree This is long overdue; the prefixes must be removed ASAP. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Agree They are not needed either as titles or post-nominals. And it is not just the Indian awards. I have just disabused Ratan Tata and Amartya Sen of British post-nominals. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

A proposal for Princely India-related pagesEdit

A little over two years ago I made a proposal here for "Kashmir-related pages," on what was then a perennially fraught topic. I pinged some knowledgeable Wikipedians. The proposal—critiqued and amended—has brought peace and quiet to that corner of WP—witness the leads and infoboxes of Gilgit-Baltistan, Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), Ladakh, Azad Kashmir, Aksai Chin among others. Even K2 now bears in its bodily frame the marks of its disputed status, as do the neighboring Himalayas. The people I pinged then I am pinging again. They were: @Kautilya3, Saqib, Vanamonde93, El C, RegentsPark, Sitush, MilborneOne, Chipmunkdavis, Abecedare, Drmies, Joshua Jonathan, Tamravidhir, DeluxeVegan, Gotitbro, Lingzhi2, Ceoil, Bbb23, Bishonen, Ms Sarah Welch, Moonraker, DuncanHill, Doug Weller, Philip Baird Shearer, Mar4d, Rjensen, HLGallon, Ragib, and Titodutta: I will be pinging other notables at the end.

I should warn that the proposal is long. It requires attention. Please read it when you have some time. Get a coffee or other beverage if you'd like.

This proposal has its origins in a post made by user:RegentsPark, asking how "scions of former ruling families" in India might be identified, and whether we had a policy for doing so. Before I launch into the proposal, though, here is a brief history of rulers of princely states in post-colonial India:

(Background) Before the end of British rule in South Asia in August 1947, there were approximately 560 kingdoms in the British Indian Empire. These were not a part of what was called, British India, i.e. the regions that the British ruled directly; instead, the kingdoms were ruled indirectly through earlier treaties whereby the British had control of defence, communication, and foreign affairs and the Indian rulers of internal affairs, though with British oversight.
(1) During the period immediately after India's independence, i.e. 1947–49, the princes lost their dominions and therefore the power to govern; to compensate for their loss, they were granted an annual pension (the privy purse), certain privileges, and the continued use of their royal titles. (View scholarly references here.)
(2) In 1971 the Government of India amended the Constitution to end the privy purses, privileges, and the use of the titles. (View scholarly references here.)
(3) After, 1971, in other words, members of princely families became heirs to unofficial forms of ancestral legacy. The meaning of "princely" was also evolving. From the late 1950s onward, but especially after 1971, what was popularly being considered "princely India," was driven largely by what was found to attract western tourists, and later tourists from the Indian diaspora and India itself. The generally small but numerous former princely states of Rajasthan (in the dry, desert, regions of western India) became the focus of tourism; by contrast, big states such as Gwalior, Mysore, Hyderabad, and Baroda, famously of the 21 gun salutes in British days, largely, though not entirely, disappeared from the descriptions of what was considered "princely." (View scholarly references here.)
Post-colonial princely pages, therefore, are those that fall in Groups 1 and/or 2 and/or 3. (Clearly, some princes lived long enough to belong to more than one group.)

Moreover, in stage (3), which runs into the present, some princely families have continued to use former princely titles (unofficially) for certain chosen family members, or have styled new titles for them; in many instances, the Indian media has reported this without quotes or irony. The notion of "scion" is also at variance with what was de rigueur for the majority of princely states—i.e. patrilineal descent whether biological or adoptive. (Royal descent was largely though not exclusively, the province of males.) Four princely familes exemplify the ambiguities:

(3a) Yaduveer Krishnadatta Chamaraja Wadiyar. (I am using permalinks.) His "grandfather" Jayachamarajendra Wadiyar lived long enough to belong to Groups 1 and 2, dying in 1974. JW's son Srikantadatta Narashimharaja Wadiyar, therefore, lived his life as an ordinary citizen—though not without being called, "Maharaja of Mysore" unofficially every now and then—from 1974 until his death in 2012. SNW left no offspring. Fourteen months after his death, his widow adopted YKCW, aged 23, as their son. He was crowned "Maharaja of Mysore," unofficially of course, soon thereafter.
(3b) Padmanabh Singh is the great-grandson of the last ruling Maharaja of Jaipur, Man Singh II. MSII belonged to Group 1 but missed belonging to Group 2 by 18 months, dying in June 1970. His son Bhawani Singh, a decorated soldier, therefore properly belonged in Group 2 and was granted the pension, privileges, and the use of the title "Maharaja of Jaipur" for 18 months ending on 28 December 1971 (the date of the Constitutional amendment). Bhawani Singh's only child was a daughter Diya Kumari, now an Indian politician, who was never called "Maharani (Queen) of Jaipur" after Bhawani Singh's death in 2011. Instead, her son, Padmanabh Singh, then aged 12, was unofficially crowned "Maharaja of Jaipur."
(3c) Maharaja Bhupal Singh of Mewar belonged to Group I. His son Bhagawat Singh belonged to Group II and lived until 1984. However, Bhagawat Singh's sons Mahendra Singh Mewar and his younger brother Arvind Singh Mewar are still disputing each other's claim to be the "scion," i.e. the "76 Custodian of the House of Mewar."
(3d) As can be imagined, disputes about who is the "scion," the "Head of X," the Custodian of Y in the name of deity Z," etc. are sometimes underpinned by disputes over property. In Baroda, of 21-gun salutes of yore, Pratap Singh Rao Gaekwad belonged firmly to Group I, dying in 1968. His son Fatehsinghrao Gaekwad belonged firmly to Group II, dying in 1988. FG's younger brother Ranjitsinh Pratapsinh Gaekwad claimed the title of the head of the "House of Baroda" after his death, but his right to the property was challenged in the court by a third brother, Sangramsinh Gaekwad, the property dispute lasting 23 years. Upon RPG's death in 2012, his son Samarjitsinh Gaekwad was unofficially crowned "Maharaja of Baroda." The property dispute was resolved in 2013.

The characterization of Groups 1 and 2 is fairly straightforward. It is Group 3 that offers the challenge implicit in RegentsPark's original post. Here then is my proposal.

Group 1Edit

For rulers firmly in Group 1 (i.e. dying before 1971), it is proposed that we write:

1a X was the ruling Maharaja/Nawab of the princely state of Y in the British Raj from ---- to 1947. After the state was absorbed into independent India, he was granted a privy purse, certain privileges, and the use of the title Maharaja of Y by the Government of India,[1] which he retained until his death in ----.

Examples are Man Singh II, Jiwajirao Scindia, and Iftikhar Ali Khan Pataudi. I note that it is not my intention to have a regimented look on these pages. Creative but accurate variations would be most welcome. I note also that I am avoiding the use of the term titular ruler which is sometimes seen on WP pages of Group 1 or Group 2 ex-rulers. The term has many meanings and its use is best avoided. (I thank Johnbod for pointing this out.)

Added (12:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)) In light of @DaxServer:'s remarks below, I have made the above proposal more accurate

1b X was the ruling Maharaja/Nawab of the princely state of Y in the British Raj from ---- to 1947, and for a short period thereafter in the Dominion of India. When the state was absorbed into independent India, he was granted a privy purse, certain privileges, and the use of the title Maharaja/Nawab of Y by the Government of India,[1] which he retained until his death in ----

Group 1-2Edit

For those in Group 1 and 2 (i.e. those who acceded to a throne before 1947, but died after 1971), it is proposed that we write:

1-2a X was the ruler of the princely state of Y during the British Raj in India from 19-- until 19--. After the state was absorbed into independent India, he was granted a privy purse, certain privileges, and the use of the title Maharaja/Nawab of Y by the Government of India.[1] However, all forms of compensation were ended in 1971 by the 26th Amendment to the Constitution of India.[2][3]

An example is: Jayachamarajendra Wadiyar

Added (12:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC)) Or,

1-2b X was the ruling Maharaja/Nawab of the princely state of Y in the British Raj from ---- to 1947, and for a short period thereafter in the Dominion of India. When the state was absorbed into independent India, he was granted a privy purse, certain privileges, and the use of the title Maharaja/Nawab of Y by the Government of India.[1] However, all forms of compensation were ended in 1971 by the 26th Amendment to the Constitution of India.(same citations as above)

Group 2Edit

For those in Group 2 who acceded to the privy purse, title, and privileges after 1947 and died after 1971), ... that we write:

X was the son of Y, the last ruling Maharaja/Nawab of the princely state of Z during the British Raj. Upon the death of his father on ------, X succeeded him in receiving an annual payment (the privy purse), certain privileges, and the use of the title "Maharaja/Nawab of Z" under terms accepted earlier when princely states were absorbed into independent India.[1] However, all were ended on December 28, 1971 by the 26th Amendment to the Constitution of India.[4][5]

Examples are: Bhawani Singh and Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi. (The case of a ruler acceding after 1947 but dying before 1971 can be worked out in a similar fashion.)

Group 3Edit

Finally, for those in Group 3 (i.e. those whose claims to royalty date to the period after 28 December 1971, when princely India had lost all official recognition), what can be said is somewhat more general, as the claims are varied and unofficial. Their language is vague, using expressions such as, "Head of the House of X," "Head of the erstwhile ruling family of Y," "Custodians of the House of Z," and so forth. A general statement can follow as a qualifier in the wake of various unofficial claims to the ancestral legacy. An example is

3a On (date ------) it was reported that X was installed as the "Maharaja/Nawab of Z," alternatively, "Head of the House of Z," etc. (with citation to the newspaper report). Although princely pensions, titles, and privileges were officially abolished in India in 1971, families of some former princely rulers have continued to use the old titles unofficially for certain family members or styled new ones for them. In some instances the titles are used for the purpose of officiating in family ceremonies and cultural observances; in others, they are used with a view to promoting the allure that princely India holds among tourists or among other groups which value princely traditions, and to sustaining the wealth, stardom, and clout that the families have retained.[6]

Examples are YKCW and Padmanabh Singh.

Added (11:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)) In light of @Johnbod: and @Chipmunkdavis:'s comments in the discussion below, the above version could be simplified to

3b On (date ------) it was reported that X was installed as the "Maharaja/Nawab of Z," alternatively, "Head of the House of Z," etc. (with citation to the newspaper report). Although princely titles were officially abolished in India in 1971, descendents of some former princely rulers, and sometimes the media, have continued to use the old titles unofficially or styled new ones.[6]

I don't know if this proposal will fly, and if it does, whether by contrast, it will make these pages more grounded. I have benefitted from discussions with @StellarHalo:, @Johnbod:, @DEFCON5:, @DaxServer:, and RegentsPark of course. I again welcome their responses. Others that I see on this page are @AshLin:, @SpacemanSpiff:, @LearnIndology, Usedtobecool, TrangaBellam, and Redtigerxyz: and @Zakaria1978 and Ganesha811: on some other India-related pages. All are welcome. The princely states were a part of the British Indian Empire, and ipso facto of the British Empire. I am pinging some editors from that page: @Wee Curry Monster and Wiki-Ed: From those I have overlooked, I beg forbearance, but they are welcome too. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  1. ^ a b c d e Ramusack, Barbara N. (2004). The Indian princes and their states. Cambridge University Press. p. 273. ISBN 978-0-521-26727-4. The crucial document was the Instrument of Accession by which rulers ceded to the legislatures of India or Pakistan control over defence, external affairs, and communications. In return for these concessions, the princes were to be guaranteed a privy purse in perpetuity and certain financial and symbolic privileges such as exemption from customs duties, the use of their titles, the right to fly their state flags on their cars, and to have police protection. ... By December 1947 Patel began to pressure the princes into signing Merger Agreements that integrated their states into adjacent British Indian provinces, soon to be called states or new units of erstwhile princely states, most notably Rajasthan, Patiala and East Punjab States Union, and Matsya Union (Alwar, Bharatpur, Dholpur and Karaulli).
  2. ^ "The Constitution (26 Amendment) Act, 1971", indiacode.nic.in, Government of India, 1971, retrieved 9 November 2011
  3. ^ Schmidt, Karl J. (1995). An atlas and survey of South Asian history. M.E. Sharpe. p. 78. ISBN 978-1-56324-334-9. Although the Indian states were alternately requested or forced into union with either India or Pakistan, the real death of princely India came when the Twenty-sixth Amendment Act (1971) abolished the princes' titles, privileges, and privy purses.
  4. ^ "The Constitution (26 Amendment) Act, 1971", indiacode.nic.in, Government of India, 1971, retrieved 9 November 2011
  5. ^ Schmidt, Karl J. (1995). An atlas and survey of South Asian history. M.E. Sharpe. p. 78. ISBN 978-1-56324-334-9. Although the Indian states were alternately requested or forced into union with either India or Pakistan, the real death of princely India came when the Twenty-sixth Amendment Act (1971) abolished the princes' titles, privileges, and privy purses.
  6. ^ a b
    • Karatchkova, Elena (2016) [2007], "Ghost Towns and Bustling Cities: Constructing a Master Narrative in Nineteenth-Century Jaipur", Raj Rhapsodies: Tourism, Heritage, and the Seductions of History, p. 30, The contemporary master narrative for Jaipur and Amber is ‘royalty’. This theme is ubiquitous in tourist publications, such as Majestic Jaipur (Wheeler 1998). Royal personalities are emphasized, as in Jaipur: The Royal City. One article on tourist attractions of Jaipur features a full-page photograph of Maharaja Bhawani Singh, in full regalia, with his wife and daughter, all identified as ‘the present royal family’
    • Aldrich, Robert; McCreery, Cindy (2016), "European sovereigns and their empires 'beyond the seas'", in Robert Aldrich, Cindy McCreery (ed.), Crowns and colonies: European monarchies and overseas empires, Studies in Imperialism Book 142, Manchester University Press, p. 43, Although Prime Minister Indira Gandhi deprived the India princes of their official titles and privy purses in 1971, the maharajas and other princes, such as the traditional Maharana of Udaipur, who now styles himself as the 'Custodian' of the House of Mewar in Rajasthan, retain wealth, influence and celebrity; in 2015, a twenty-three-year-old economics graduate was thus installed as the most recent Maharajah of Mysore.
    • Ramusack, Barbara N. (2004). The Indian princes and their states. Cambridge University Press. p. 279. ISBN 978-0-521-26727-4. The princes of India offer fantasy for post-modern consumption. Faced with escalating maintenance costs and declining sources of income, princely entrepreneurs transformed palaces into hotels where tourists could experience an idealised, pampered lifestyle of royalty during a democratic era. In 1954 Karan Singh of Jammu and Kashmir leased his main palace in Srinagar to the Oberoi chain; it seems appropriate that he became minister for tourism and civil aviation in 1967 in Indira Gandhi’s government. In 1958 the Rambagh Palace Hotel opened in Jaipur followed by the much photographed Lake Palace Hotel in Udaipur in the early 1960s

DiscussionEdit

  • Comment: After a quick read, my initial comment is that I'm glad "titular ruler" is being avoided, but a term one of the "tourism" sources used, namely "former ruling family" is good, and better than versions with "erstwhile", which is surely near-obselete. In cases where it is fairly clear that he is recognised as such by the rest of the family, a group 3 man can be described as "head of the former ruling family of Foo state". Of course sometimes headship is disputed within the family, & this needs treating differently. This is also different from the case of I forget which family, where two aunts were or are suing their nephew over the inherited property - his status as "head" appears to be agreed. I still think there is rather too much in the examples on the details of the 1971 abolition. Privy Purse in India seems clear and comprehensive - Twenty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution of India redirects to the "abolition" section. In general, I think a very basic statement with dates should be (normally) in the 1st para of the lead, along the lines of "he was the ruling maharaja of Foo State until 1947, retaining the title until the abolition of princely titles in 1971". The more detailed stuff should be in a "life" or whatever section below. More comments later. Johnbod (talk) 03:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I apologize I may not have been clear earlier. I have since created more subsections. The scholarly examples on the 1971 Amendment from a previous discussion thread are for the reading pleasure of people participating in this discussion, not for putting in the princely pages; for those, footnotes [2] and [3] in Group 1-2 of the Proposal or footnotes [4] and [5] in Group 2 of the Proposal—which are really the same references—suffice. The WP redirect, Twenty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution of India, I do use in the sentence, but I am reluctant to use it as a reference, i.e. without citations, not only because its contents can change, but also because it has too much historical background. Readers want a statement of the amendment and a sense of how it was interpreted, which the footnotes [2] and [3] amply provide. Perhaps I shouldn't link it, but if I don't someone else will. Finally, for better or for worse, India has been determinedly Republican since its independence (not as much as Ireland, which did not remain in the Commonwealth, but close). To grant families of ex-rulers any status other than we grant families of ordinary Indians is a disservice to India's history. If they style themselves otherwise, then the styling needs some reality-test or explanation. That is described in the proposal in Group 3 beginning with "Although ...," which may be on the long side and could be shortened. But giving any literal meaning to "House of Y" after 1971, let alone its "Head," would be a form of revisionism, in my view. As for "erstwile," I don't know if I used it, but if I did it was because it is a favorite word in the newer titles (e.g. "Head of the erstwhile ruling family of Y") Although the same as "former" in meaning, it might be being used because it is less common (not to mention near obsolete) and might imply for those who don't know its meaning and too lazy to check that they are still ruling. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Before I go to bed, let me note that "former ruling family" does not mean "descendants of a former ruler." It was used in that reference for (families of) rulers that went through the changes of 1947 and 1971, not for people today whose grandparents were in that generation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I don't understand the distinction, nor do I see how you can so confidently attribute it to your source, which said: "Later, the growth of tourism, and the earnings associated with it, provided the context within which the former ruling families repositioned many practices related to their courts, and adapted themselves to the new circumstances. Today in Jodhpur region (formerly Marwar), the Maharaja and his family have created distinctive forms of hospitality tourism..." Johnbod (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
A ruling family is the family of a ruler (his immediate family, or his extended family, a generation up and down)). A former ruling family, therefore, is an earlier ruling family, or a ruling family earlier in time. It does not mean descendants of a former ruler. For there is a reason people say, "descendant(s) of the former ruling family." (See here) As for the quote, Gaj Singh of Marwar was four years old when he became the Maharaja in 1952. He is still alive. His father was the ruler of Marwar; Gaj Singh (Gaj=Elephant, Singh=Lion) was the Maharaja from 1952 until 1971. He might not have ruled himself, but he was the Maharaja and his father did rule. He therefore very much belonged to a ruling family in the past, a former ruling family. Padmanabh Singh on the other hand is a bit of a stretch. The last person who actually ruled in his family died 30 years before he was born. He is a descendant of a former ruling family. In your quote, "former ruling families repositioned many practices related to their courts" = "families that once ruled revised their strategy for marketing (literally and/or figuratively) certain practices... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
And where is this novel interpretation of the words set out? Frankly, I think you're making it up. Johnbod (talk) 03:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Well you tell me, why would people be using the expression, "descendants of the former ruling family?" PS In India it seems "family" is used with more timeless meaning. "We once ruled Jaipur," a great-great-grandson might say, ipso facto he becomes a member of a former ruling family. I don't know if this is subterfuge the ex-royals engage in (and on their behalf the media), i.e. mostly hot air, or a culturally accepted form of grandiosity but it is best avoided in an encyclopedia. A person cannot really be the Head (or scion) of descendants of former rulers. You take some of the air out; the expression becomes meaningless. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
PPS If you are asking me about "reposition," it is obviously used in its marketing meaning but transferred. ("To change the positioning of (a product, service, or business) so as to target a new or different market sector. (OED) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment: This reads like a good basis, although I would expect some variation in later groups as reasons for notability may shift. With variation in mind, I generally agree with Johnbod that there need not be so much detail. I think much of the text in Group 3 could for example be replaced by "although the official title was abolished in 1971" or similar. If that particular individual leverages the claim to the title for tourism, or it still retains strong local cultural relevance, or they are often referred to using the title by media for another reason, I would expect that in those cases more information about officiations and cultural observances may be merited, but there is no reasons to have such detailed general information on pages where it is less applicable. That said, there presumably should be some location where the general information could be included or linked to. Perhaps Princely state, which currently covers only up to integration, could have a new section to deal with the aftermath of integration up to the modern period, including the interesting information quoted from the sources collected above. CMD (talk) 04:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks for the comment, CMD. It is getting rather late here, way past my bedtime, and I have to drive some distance early tomorrow AM, not returning until late in the day. I should have thought about all this before, but I forgot ... So, forgive my late reply when it comes tomorrow. Meanwhile, I'm sure there is plenty brain power here for the discussion to progress much without my inputs. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I have rephrased 3 more succinctly in a second version (see above) in light of your remarks, and Johnbod's. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment: That's a welcome move. Thanks for working on this. The rationales above for the groups make sense. --Titodutta (talk) 06:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you Tito. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment: The Group 1's first sentence ends with 1947. That'll need to be changed to 19-- (when the state was absorbed, like Hyderabad in 1948, Mysore in 1947). Which in-turn contradicts the British Raj period which ended in 1947. What do you think of "during British Raj until 1947 and in the Dominion of India until 19-- (and then in the Republic of India until 19--)" (where applicable) Seems to me a bit too much, but explains correctly. Or maybe a different wording, of course. Also, do you think we could have the same wording in the first sentence for Group 1 and Group 1-2 as they both represent the same during that period, following which Group 1-2 differs at the end. (Or is the difference in wording intentional?) — DaxServer (talk to me) 10:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Have corrected. There are two versions now: the old and yours. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Really not my field, but this looks like it's going in the right direction. Doug Weller talk 14:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment. Thanks for asking me to comment. In most cases, what is proposed is a sensible and well thought out suggestion. Inevitably, there will be a few that don't fit into this picture, eg some of the Princely States weren't entirely willing to join the Dominion of India; from memory I think one was actually annexed militarily. I would suggest that what you propose forms a general guideline with the recommendation that it is adapted to meet the needs of the outliers that don't quite conform. WCMemail 17:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
WCM Good catch. Yes, Hyderabad and Junagadh were annexed. It had slipped my mind. Will add a 1c for them. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment: @Fowler&fowler: Thankyou for your meticulous work. The proposal after the revisions looks good to me. The main articles of the princely states such as Jaipur State and Jodhpur State each have a list of rulers of their respective state. How will this proposal affect those list? 05:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks Fowler for the excellent summary. I think we're good with this with whatever few exceptions show up along the way. Regarding the comment just above mine, both those articles use the word "titular ruler" which should be removed. I also suggest not including anyone under the ruler section post accession and definitely not post 1971. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Comment: Mostly happy with this, “former ruling families” is clearly correct in all cases. I don’t much like “During the period immediately after India's independence”, as the departure of the British also meant immediate complete independence for those princes who wanted to try it. There were several of those in the area that became the present-day Pakistan (see Princely states of Pakistan), no doubt fewer in what is now India. So we might perhaps say instead “immediately after independence”. I agree with what WCM says, but the loss of the princes’ dominions and power to govern came after accession (or at the time of conquest) and was involuntary in far more cases than just the few who were invaded. My last point is to ask what sources are relied on for “granted… the continued use of their royal titles”? As I understand it, the titles of the princes who acceded to India were recognized, as they had to be, see the standard text of the Instrument of Accession, especially “Nothing in this Instrument affects the continuance of my sovereignty in and over this state”. Later, that recognition was completely withdrawn. It seems unlikely that independent India *granted* any royal or princely titles, and if it didn’t then surely they just fell away through lack of recognition, like titles in Europe and other parts of the world. (NB, some European republics have actively abolished the titles of the nobility, that is, made it unlawful to use them, but others have not. I haven’t heard of any such legislation in India. Moonraker (talk) 11:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Thank you @Moonraker: Always happy to read your comments. Agree that "granted" is a little problematic. The sources for Proposal 1 (a and b) are in Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#1947–1949, with the first, Ramusack, the one used in the proposal itself, and proposed for use in the individual ex-royalty pages. Agree also that the Pakistan royals had a slightly different history. Note, Ramusack says "guaranteed," not "granted." I don't want to use "guaranteed," not only for reasons of avoiding close paraphrasing but also because it is fraught usage on WP, as are its precise synonyms, a trapdoor for OR. But as you imply, unlike the pension (the privy purses) and certain privileges, the princes already had the titles before 1947. So per your implication, we could add "continued," to proposal 1b, as in:

X was the ruling [[Maharaja]]/[[Nawab]] of the [[princely state]] of Y in the [[British Raj]] from ---- to 1947, and for a short period thereafter in the [[Dominion of India]]. When the state was [[political integration of India|absorbed]] into independent India, he was granted a [[privy purse]], certain privileges, and the ''continued'' use of the title ''Maharaja/Nawab of Y'' by the [[Government of India]]."

Political integration of India, a Wikipedia page to which "absorbed" is piped is about the period after accession to which you refer. It includes the instances in which the princely states were absorbed with what has been called "dubious legality" in Judith M. Brown's characterization.
For the 1971 Constitutional Amendment in India, see references in Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#1971_Constitutional_Amendment_aftermath). As for "titles," I'd rather not get into the topic of whether or not the Amendment actually made it illegal to use them in India, as the focus here is narrow. But sources have interpreted the Amendment to have decisively ended princely pensions, privileges and titles in India.
Finally, could you explain in more detail what you mean by: “former ruling families” is clearly correct in all cases?" Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment: While I see why a need for clarification over lead wording on such rulers is required, I am not comfortable with biographies having standardized lead sentences (that read like auto-generated database entries). The proposal should be about what shouldn't be in the lead (titular ruler etc.) and for a general overview to follow, rather than set in stone leads (which is what I believe the nomination also says). The proposals look fine but look too verbose to me, absorption, recognition, constitutionality et al (which could perhaps be better dealt through notes). Lastly, I don't think these standardized leads should be applied wholesale in every article of such rulers but the ones which are problematic from the get-go with modifications to suit the needs of the particular bio that is being dealt with. Gotitbro (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Gotitbro: Please see my remark in Group 1: "I note that it is not my intention to have a regimented look on these pages. Creative but accurate variations would be most welcome." There is a lot to what you say, and I will bear your sage advice in mind when I summarize in the next few days. True, we should only worry about the problematic pages, but then which page is not problematic, or rather which ones were not before my first intervention 10 years ago? The language of that intervention, in regimented form no less, I see repeated in princely ages then-uncrowned and accents then-unknown. The regimentation doesn't seem to have done much harm, but it hasn't been enough. The tourism is being promoted much more now. For example, this bit of hype in GQIndia, which fails to mention that the Jaipur royals and others of Rajputana presided over the most backward region of the Hindi-speaking belt, the most dangerous for its women who were beyond the reach of the Female Infanticide Prevention Act, 1870, not to mention for its wildlife which lay gasping beneath the princeling's foot long after the rulers had ceased to rule. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
PS I'm not trying to be provocative here; rather, I am suggesting that for princely pages there is value in mostly using WP:SCHOLARSHIP, whose distillation is the proposal. What is "princely India" is changing, and scholarship is usually what is able to summarize the change in a reliable and due manner, not the popular media. I would be open, as I say earlier, to creative but accurate variations of the scholarly summaries.
  • I was so gob-smacked by Fowler's ignorance of Irish history and politics above, that I have not returned to give my promised further comments. As always, it is very unfortunate that Fowler's inner political blogger cannot be restrained on these occasions, and stuff that is a) completely off-topic and b) patent nonsense always comes in. There is no draft of an actual policy sticking to the point here, and one can see that unless we are careful the rambling essays above will justify Fowler reverting anything he feels like, airily citing "policy agreed by consensus", as he does in India and several other articles. If this in any way to be treated as something with consensus, all the tendentious pov references to "tourists" and Westerners should be removed. It is not "tourists" who are so ready to repeatedly elect to political office princely chaps with nothing much to recommend them but a low golf handicap, nor is it tourists who turn out in vast numbers to the public parts of princely weddings. All the references demonstrate is that many relatively poor Rajasthan princes (belatedly fortunate that their ancestors did not have quite enough cash to rebuild their palaces in Victorian or Edwardian styles) have sensibly cashed in (also benefiting their local economies) on the undoubted appeal of their palaces, which are handily relatively close to each other and Delhi. A small shining light in India's generally appalling failure to capture the share of the international tourist market it deserves and needs. Does Singapore still get more international tourists than India? About Pakistan, the less said in this connection the better. All this should go, or a more concise quideline be started from scratch. I certainly agree with the many editors calling for flexibility above, but I agree the general principles, such as the division of these figures into groups. Given that many of these articles are fairly short, and typically have very short under-developed leads, this should distinguish between forms of words suitable for the lead (if short), and those for the "Life" or other section below. A lead that spends most of its space explaining why someone is not a maharajah is just mystifying to non-India readers. I don't myself think that unofficial post-1971 ceremonies should be given as much emphasis. They don't by themselves prove that any claim to be head of the family is undisputed. But I do think that where the post-1971 headship of a family is clear, as in most cases it will be, that information should not be suppressed. Johnbod (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Johnbod, everything I say on Wikipedia can be sourced to reliable scholarly references. It is not that a few poorer ex-Rajputana princes opened their palaces to western tourists; rather, it is that western tourists chose Rajasthan the least developed part of princely India, its poverty not easily discernable—hidden away in inaccessible villages that sparsely dot its desert landscape. Here is Barbara Ramusack. Ramusack, Barbara N. (1995), "The Indian Princes as Fantasy: Palace Hotels, Palace Museums, and Palace on Wheels", in Carol Appadurai Breckenridge (ed.), Consuming Modernity: Public Culture in a South Asian World, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 66–89, 77, The slower rate of economic development in Rajasthan increased the sense of its distinctiveness from modern India, and the sparse distribution of its population partially mitigated the stereotypes of Indian poverty. Tourists sought historical fantasy, and Rajput princes have been packaged to satisfy this quest. The princes were not poor; their subjects were, screwed out of house and home for centuries by feudal dynasties. Again, it might seem like blogging to you, or off-topic, but nothing in what I say is untrue. I can find sources for Ireland too I'm sure. The popularity of the princes among their former subjects is no longer a given. Some have done well in elections; others have very plainly not. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Indian nationalism, btw, had longstanding links with Ireland, going back at least to the Home Rule Leaguers. The flag of the Republic of India is modeled on that of the Republic of Ireland; the shades of orange and green are only a tad different. de Valera was the only Western leader who came out openly in support of India's annexation of the princely state of Hyderabad. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • PLEEAAAAZE don't bother us with your views on Ireland, which are clearly wholly off-topic. Johnbod (talk) 03:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Johnbod: your other points.
  • >>> Given that many of these articles are fairly short, and typically have very short under-developed leads, this should distinguish between forms of words suitable for the lead (if short), and those for the "Life" or other section below.
  • Why are we setting up straw men in roundabout language, talking in generalities? I gave everyone specific examples (in un-screaming language) in the proposal. The examples and the sources are where the rubber hits the road. For Jaipur, they were Man Singh II, Bhawani Singh, Diya Kumari, and Padmanabh Singh. Where are you seeing the heavy-handed assertions in the lead? (In many instances, the leads of randomly selected articles are short because the arrogations of the monarchy (or of its symbols) were taken out between 2011 when I made an earlier proposal somewhere and created a bank of sources and now, but they are still much better—even for an average non-South-Asia WPian—than the patent falsehoods that had previously graced the leads. ( In any case, the inability to write adequate leads is a WP-wide problem—I've seen plenty at FAC—though it may be more pronounced on India-related pages on average. Those leads you saw could be easily expanded by integrating other aspects of the subject's notability. ) But let's stick to the examples above. I have already changed the language of 3 in light of CMD's comments and yours.) As I've stated above, I will summarize what I see to be the consensus tomorrow after the proposal has been out there a full week.
  • >>>> where the post-1971 headship of a family is clear, as in most cases it will be, that information should not be suppressed.
  • Please give me half a dozen examples of where the "headship" is so clear to you that disabusing statements to the contrary are unwarranted. i.e. for someone born in the determinedly republican post-1971 India. I have already given reasons (with plenty of sources) for not using the expression, "former (or erstwhile) ruling family of ... " in the present tense, suggesting that it is more accurate to say "descendants of the former ruling family of ..." If the sources are not enough, let me end by directly quoting from the preamble (31 July 1971) and the text (28 December) of India's The Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971

    The concept of rulership, with privy purses and special privileges unrelated to any current functions and social purposes, is incompatible with an egalitarian social order. Government have, therefore, decided to terminate the privy purses and privileges of the Rulers of former Indian States. It is necessary for this purpose, apart from amending the relevant provisions of the Constitution, to insert a new article therein so as to terminate expressly the recognition already granted to such Rulers and to abolish privy purses and extinguish all rights, liabilities and obligations in respect of privy purses. ... BE it enacted by Parliament in the Twenty-second Year of the Republic of India as follows: ... Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution or in any law for the time being in force-(a) The Prince, Chief or other person who, at any time before the commencement of THE CONSTITUTION (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, was recognised by the President as the Ruler of an Indian State or any person who, at any time before such commencement, was recognised by the President as the successor of such Ruler shall, on and from such commencement, cease to be recognised as such Ruler or the successor of such Ruler;

    Note that it says "Rulers of former Indian states," not "former Indian rulers." In that spirit, I'm happy to replace "descendant of the former ruling family" (phrasing I argued for at the beginning of this discussion) with "X is a descendant of the ruling family of the former princely state of Y in the British Raj in India ..." That would be even more accurate. Note also that the Act derecognizes succession itself. Obviously, "head descendant" would be meaningless, unless satire is allowed on WP. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Since this appears to be going off topic, I'll reiterate that Fowler's grouping above is a reasonable and clear way forward. To Johnbod's point about succession information not being suppressed, or that the lead should not contain the why of why someone is not really a Maharaja, I both agree as well as disagree. I agree that if someone is generally being called the "Maharaja of defunct state Y", we should probably say so. However, I disagree that we shouldn't add detailed caveats. This is an encyclopedia and clarity is important. Thus, for Padmanabh Singh for example, we should say in the lead that he is styled as the Maharaja of Jaipur but must also make it clear that he is, in fact, the Maharaja of nothing and why that is the case. Either that, or we eschew the Maharaja-ness entirely.--RegentsPark (comment) 19:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Relevant discussion at ANIEdit

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#AvinashCabral that may be of interest to watchers of this noticeboard. — Shibbolethink ( ) 15:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Please review new articleEdit

I have created a new article Draft:Kongthong (Singing Village in Meghalaya, where villagers use the whistling tunes as unique name for each other). Please review and approve (move to main namespace). I am a long timer IP (IP by choice as I do not want to register), hence enable to move it myself. Thanks in advance for the review and help. Regards. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Pls partition the mega articleEdit

Please partition the unmanageable "Automotive industry in India", a mammoth "mother of all" "throw everything in" article, into 4 separate article as suggested on its talk page. Thanks in advance. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Merge discussion for Ghughua Fossil Park & Mandla Plant Fossils National ParkEdit

From what I can find Mandla Plant Fossils National Park seems to be a made up park, probably created by the initial article author, A quick look at google maps shows that the purported location of the park is actually the location of the Ghughua Fossil Park. I suggest either wholesale deletion of this article, or redirection and history merge into Ghughua Fossil Park. I'm notifying recent editors of that article and relevant wkiprojects.--Kevmin § 01:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I second the proposal. Request put up merge templates for these articles after which they can be merged. Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin) (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hindu Human RightsEdit

Some new accounts claim HHR to be the oldest standing Human Rights organisation for Hindus in the UK and one of the first outside India in the world. Will appreciate if somebody can find reliable sources for the claims at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindu Human Rights. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Commented. Venkat TL (talk) 09:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Proposed edit to {{WikiProject India}}Edit

Suggest to add a direct link to this discussion page in the WikiProject banner to increase participation from other contributors, who otherwise need to click 'Talk' on an article (one barrier) then click 'WikiProject India' (second barrier) then click 'Discussions' in sidebar on the right (third barrier) to arrive here. The proposed change would reduce this to two clicks instead of three.

Suggest to change "If you would like to participate, please visit the project page." text to "If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, or join a discussion.", where "join a discussion" links to Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics (this page), if this is the most appropriate venue.

Regards, --Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 21:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Clarification: this would be of great utility to authors who create a new draft, and are in a dire need to contact someone who speaks their language and/or lives in the local area, to assist with notability assessment.
It is my strong belief that a WikiProject would often be better equipped to help with the search of sources, as well as with communication without language or cultural barriers, than any of the small number of generic volunteers who help with processing the Draft queue, whose "please check notability" pleas are not always understood, and are often hindered by the barriers of language and lack of familiarity with the local news sources and aura. Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 21:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi all, still interested in your views on this. Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 07:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Support This is a good suggestion. There is no harm in doing this. Venkat TL (talk) 09:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

RSN discussion on The Times of IndiaEdit

There is an ongoing proposal at the reliable sources noticeboard regarding The Times of India. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Circular references from The Times of India. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

FAR noticeEdit

I have nominated Execution by elephant for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 05:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

:) In this instance, I'd say bag the rules and delist. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Navjot Singh SidhuEdit

Could someone take a look at recent edits to this article? I'm concerned that there may be BLP issues but am not in a position to figure things out. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Watchlisting. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Times of IndiaEdit

The problems with The Times of India are now well-recognised. I notice gremlins randomly adding WP:REFSPAM for The Times of India. I suggest that we add {{unreliable-source?|reason=[[WP:TOI]]}} tag to all citations to the Times of India and delete them wherever possible. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@Kautilya3 I've started a discussion at RSN at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Circular references from The Times of India, perhaps you could make your point over there as well? — DaxServer (talk to me) 12:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
What I am recommending is already covered by the WP:RSP entry. No further discussion needed. Editors need to see that The Times of India is already regarded as an unreliable source, and they can't keep citing it willy nilly. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Speaking of Indian news, when are we blacklisting Republic TV? (1) TrangaBellam (talk) 11:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Besides the memes being hilarious, the last RSN discussion is in November 2020. Do you want to start an RfC in RSN, and ask if it should be deprecated and/or blacklisted? — DaxServer (talk to me) 12:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Probably ther is no point. I haven't seen anybody cite the Republic as a source in a long long time. It looks like even the right wing knows it is useless. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
On the contrary, I see it being cited on film related articles [on my watchlist] regularly. And I see others removing them citing WP:REPUBLICTV, I guess it's going somewhere. — DaxServer (talk to me) 18:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I can start an RfC on RSN if no one objects here. It's currently cited on over 1,800 articles, see republicworld.com     which includes articles such as Bharatiya Janata Party, Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Mamata Banerjee and many other high importance contentious topics. Tayi Arajakate Talk 07:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Please do so. Usage in high-profile articles make it significantly important for the RfC — DaxServer (talk to me) 08:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Alright, I have started the RfC now. Tayi Arajakate Talk 11:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks! Tayi Arajakate, can you kindly check the usage of Times Now and Zee News across en-wiki articles? I cannot make the tool work. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

TrangaBellam, did, Times Now's usage is similar at over 1,900 articles    , Zee News is much more at 4500+ articles, see zeenews.india.com     and zeenews.com    . Note there's some overlap in results between the two addresses of Zee News. I also checked the archives at RSN and while there are some mentions here and there from years ago, there has been no significant discussion on either of them. Tayi Arajakate Talk 21:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Back to TOI, I more or less agree with adding the unreliable source tag. If there's support then a WP:BOTREQ could be made to add them en masse. If not then we could add them as we go, like I did. — DaxServer (talk to me) 08:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Pinging Headbomb, who may be able to tell whether a bot like that can be used or not. Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Technically, nothing prevents a bot from doing that. The main issue is doing that for a source that's not across-the-board bad, because that's WP:CONTEXTBOT. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
TOI: One toned down alternative would be tagging it with {{Better source needed}}, example. — DaxServer (talk to me) 09:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
In the above link, the first TOI source was simply supporting the the film's existence, its director and producer. That's pretty much WP:PRIMARY information and changing the source wouldn't make any difference. And for instances like film reviews, neither tagging nor removing the source is going to be helpful. For this reason, I'd oppose using a bot. Editors are supposed to use their own judgement depending on WP:RSCONTEXT and decide whether the cited source meets the requirement ot not. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
In that case a bot is out of the window. I've seen a lot of TOI articles where they simply confirm the existence, dates, awards, details and other announcements - surrounding a film. In the context of films, it might be okay to use for souring those simple facts? Or do we still want to use other sources. Higher quality sources might not publish all the minute soap opera details like TOI does. After all, WP:ICTFFAQ#TOI considers it reliable within the film project scope, with an exception of BLP details. So, I guess we're back to square 1.
My new suggestion would be going thru the citation usage in important articles (the list started with India, Narendra Modi, ...) and verify the citation, tag them with unreliable source or the better source needed tags, unless it verifies an uncontroversial statements. If one is not sure they can just tag it, with either of the two, and put an edit summary explaining as such? — DaxServer (talk to me) 13:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

CharumitraEdit

Is this a historical person or someone from literature and/or TV shows? Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

It is the name of a fictional character of a TV show named, Chakravartin Ashoka Samrat#Supporting cast. There is also a drama written by Ramkumar Verma [2][3] with the title Charumitra. Venkat TL (talk) 09:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Some Assam related pagesEdit

Currently Assam related topics are under the focus of a number of ethnic-based SPAs. May I request some volunteers from this group to please pay some attention to those pages. The pages are: Kamarupa, Islam in Assam, Chutia kingdom, Chutia people, Ahom people, Ahom kingdom, People of Assam, etc.. Maybe some of us could put these on our watchlists and monitor the edit patterns. Thanks! Chaipau (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Discussion to Remove caste from all Wikipedia articles dedicated to Indians celebs such as Politicians, Authors, Sportsmen, Filmstars etc.Edit

There is a misconception among Indian Hindus that a person born in a so-called "High Caste" is different from the rest. Let us take an example of the modern-day Brahmin & Kshatriya caste or community.

A person who never read, nor touched a single Hindu scripture in his entire life, will still be labelled a Brahmin! just because he is born in a family of self-proclaimed "High birth, Upper Caste". I urge Hindus to read their scriptures to get the definition of a Brahmin before labelling anyone whomsoever in open. Next, we have our modern-day Kshatriya castes & communities, a person who never hold a sword nor indulged in any kind of battle or warfares in his entire life are still labelled Kshatriya. They boast of their identity of Warrior class lineage.

These delusional beliefs make them believe Somehow they are indifferent from the rest. Frankly, speaking this 15th-century insanity may be promoted & defended by a bunch of illiterate rural Indian villagers who are known to be the chief architects of Indian casteism & racism & the Indian politicians who are well known to fuel this age-old insanity to satisfy the ego of their vote-banks.

The Kingship-Monarchy and Brahminical caste-hierarchy were abolished centuries ago by the Hammer of Law & after the advent of the Indian constitution such Racism & Casteism prevalent among Hindus has been controlled to some extent in rural areas still the majority of uneducated villagers boasting in their occupations of their forefather's believed themselves to be something "Born twice, Born thrice", High Birth as high as the Sky, indifferent from the rest prefer to call themselves Upper castes only to justify their delusions.

If someone belongs to the Hindu religion, then automatically he will be attached to a particular caste according to his surname which I found not only to be dogmatic but also draconian & absurd.

Even in this 21st century Indian Hindus still believes they are attached to a particular caste & community even if that person never did any stuff unlike his forefathers to suit their occupation according to their caste & clan. Hindu religion might be the origin of Indian-casteism (a.k.a the last fort of Caste-hierarchy on earth). These Rural Casteist beliefs should not be propagated, not in this way. Such absurdity may be prevalent among self-proclaimed "high birth Hindus" living in a delusion & rural Indian villagers believing the majority of the Indian residents are somehow inferior since they are born in a particular so-called "Upper Caste". It does remind me of the Nazi Racial Supremacy. This is where it strikes me.

So, therefore, I urge to remove all castes attached to Indians over Wikipedia. ChongPong|Talk, 2:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC) ChongPong (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@ChongPong: This isn't going to happen. I appreciate your suggestion, which I interpret as coming from a position of egalitarianism and compassion, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and all we do here is summarize the content of published, WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:SECONDARY, reliable sources (primarily English-language sources). We avoid trying to right great wrongs in society, and we merely summarize things the way they are reported: good, bad, unequal, or unfair. That is to say, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, and Wikipedia follows published sources, we are never the first to institute new standards. So, your proposal above, well-meaning as it is, is directed at the wrong audience. Even if what you propose is an excellent idea, we cannot follow your recommendation here; instead, you should send a copy to every newspaper, magazine, and author about Indian topics, and persuade them to follow your recommendation. If you are successful in causing change in published material, then after some time, Wikipedia will follow suit; but not before. Alternatively, you could try to institute a policy change in the Manual of style to establish the regime you wish to see, but that is a difficult path. Mathglot (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: cross-posted at WP:RD/H#What is the reason & purpose for attaching "Indian Caste Identity" over Wikipedia articles?. Mathglot (talk)

AllahabadEdit

You are welcome to provide your views and comments on the move discussion taking place in Talk:Allahabad as to whether name should/shouldn't be changed to Prayagraj. Thankyou 🌌Zoglophie🌌 11:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Zoglophie has conveniently omitted that there is an existing RfC started 4 days before he started the move request. — DaxServer (talk to me) 12:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Indic scripts down in article bodyEdit

Does the WP:NOINDICSCRIPTS apply to the article body? The policy clearly talks about the infobox and the lead, but does not restrict from usage within the body. See my revert and talk. — DaxServer (talk to me) 09:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Return to the project page "Noticeboard for India-related topics".