Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:53, 5 December 2008

Kingdom of Mysore

Notified Dineshkannambadi, Sarvagnya, WP:INDIA, WP:HISTORY, WP:HOI,WP:INKN, WP:WPFC, WP:MA

This article was promoted on November 4, 2007. I am aware that a lot of hard work went into the article, however, I feel that the article has some issues of inaccuracy and bias. I'm not implying, even remotely, that the bias was intended, but it nonetheless needs to be remedied. In particular, I feel the article violates three feature article criteria. These criteria are:

• 1(b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
• 1(c) factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations.
• 1(d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;

I have described the specifics in my post, My concerns on the article talk page. If you have more time to devote to this, you may also want to read the background section, however, in order to avoid repetition, please ignore the links to the sources there. Needless to say, this is very much my version of events and reality. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Please notify relevant wikiprojects and important contributers to this article (including, if possible, the original FA nominator) and post these notifications at the top of this FAR (see the instructions at the top of WP:FAR). Thanks you.--Regents Park (bail out your boat) 02:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I will respond to each concern one by one. This may take untill tommorow. So please be patient.

Dinesh's replies to Fowlers concerns:

Sources

All sources are mainstream. They are well known authors.

• Kamath, Suryanath U: One of the renouned historians of Karnataka state. Director of Karnataka State Gazetteer. President of Mythic society and Director of Raja Ram Mohan Roy library at Kolkata.

• K. A. Nilakanta Sastri:Indian historian and Dravidologist, Professor, University of Madras. His book is a classic.

• Chopra, Ravindran, Subrahmanian, P.N., T.K., N: Dr. P N Chopra is a noted historian with many books to his credit. Prof Ravindran is the Head of Department, University of Kerala. N. Subrahmanian is a former professor of History, MAdurai University.

• Meera Rajaram Pranesh: A musicologist and a Phd in her field. She is a recipient of the Research Fellowship from Department of Culture, Government of India. She goes into details about the Mysore kingdom (even its history) that many writers dont. Such as their music, compositions, composition styles, religious preferences, names of queens, family relations between royal families, info normally not available to many historians.

• Aiyangar, Krishnaswami: Well known historian with many books to his credit.,

• Narasimhacharya, R:Renouned scholar on Kannada literature with several books to his credit.

Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt that they are all have important positions. All I am saying is that they are not the people working today on the cutting-edge of research in early-modern or modern Mysore. Compare the Google Scholar results for S. U. Kamath (2 publications with one not really a publication) with those of James Manor (23 publications), who is one of the scholars on my list of mainstream scholars in this area. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Similarly compare some of the Mysore-related publications of some of the other people you mention above: Chopra (none of the 3 publications are P. N. Chopra's), Pranesh (no publications), Ravindran (none of the 5 publications are TK Ravindran's), Subrahmanian] (none of the three publications are N. Subrahmanian's). Contrast these now with some other people on my list: Janaki Nair (22 publications), Kate Brittlebank (7 publications), Sanjay Subrahmanyam (12 publications), Barbara Ramusack (3 publications), Susan Bayly (3 publications), and Chris Bayly (9 publications). Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

We have been through this in other articles. This "my sources are better than yours" is a bit stale. I own these above books (with the exception of the Aiyangar book) and feel better when I hold it when I refer to it. It is easy to provide names of the web and ask "how come you did not use this book"? There are over 700 books on the web that come up when keyed for "kingdom of Mysore". One can't expect me to buy all of them. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Distinctions

(kingdom, chiefdom, principality)

The selection of sources you have provided seem to be choosen to prove a point. A quick survey of material available (on the web/library) will prove that,

There are no shortage of sources (books, encyclopaedias, journals etc) that use the term "Kingdom" for all three important periods of the Mysore era: 1565-1760 AD; 1760-1799 AD, when Haider and Tipu Sultan usurped power; 1799-1947 when it was under British authority. I know there are several books that use other terminologies also. The earliest period (1399-1565) is universally accepted as a period of feudatory rule under the umbrella of the Vijayanagara Empire. This has been clearly stated in this article. Even from 1565, it took the Mysore kings about 50-75 years to become a fully independent kingdom as indicated in the article. Those sources that do go into details do assert that the first period (1565-1760) was one of initial growth and consolidation despite internal squabbles and politics (that all kingdoms invariably go through), the second period was one of military peak and imperialism, when Haider and Tipu challenged the British might, and the third period, when Mysore was completely under the British authority, was a diminished kingdom (the original size it was before Haider usurped power around 1760's), but an important player in the development of South Indian culture, in particular that of Karnataka. There are books that focus particularly on the Mysore Kingdom prior to Haider and Tipu (1760's) and there are several books that focus purely on the post 1799 period. I do agree that most books tend to focus on the period of 1760-1799 purely from the nature of the study, where the author discusses Anglo-Mysore martial relations, without going into details of other periods. However, that does not mean the other periods are not important. There are no shortage of books available that focus on the development of Kannada literature/ Carnatic music in the kingdom indicating Mysore was not an impotent state, during the pre-Haider/Tipu era and in the post-Haider/Tipu era. Overall, this article that I authored brings balance to political, cultural, literary, religious, social and architectural developments, without giving undue importance to just one era or one angle. The Mysore kingdom existed for 400 years (1565-1947) and it takes a lot of research to bring out all facets, rather than focussing on just one particular issue.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, if these sources are there, why don't you list some of them here, so that we can all collectively examine what they say? Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I surely will. In a day or two. In short, what I am trying to say is: A kingdom is called as such if it became a kingdom at some point. When exactly it became a kingdom is a matter of author's opinion. One can't surely expect the name of this article to be "feudatory/bunch of villages, tiny kingdom/principality, kingdom, princely state/dependent state of Mysore". Also, one cant expect the article to be torn apart, which you claimed should be done, just because the kingdom went through the same phases that other kingdoms and empires went thru. Every kingdom, large or small, would have started as a small state, consolidated and fallen eventually. That is the nature of things. So long as the article touches upon all the developments in a clear manner (without calling it an independent kingdom when it was clearly a feudatory), then the article would have achieved its purpose. You seem to be very focussed on the 40 year period of Tipu/Haider, which is exactly NOT the intent of this article. Karnataka in particular and S.India to a significant extent owes its cultural developments to the Mysore Kingdom, (just as it does to the kingdom of Tanjavur), none of which is attributable to Tipu or Haider. If one feels very strongly about the 1760-1799 period, one should feel free to write a detailed article called "Anglo-Mysore relations" or "Mysore kingdom under Haider-Tipu", make it a FA and attach it to this article as a sub-article. Claiming that it became a kingdom only during this period (1760-1799) and was inconsequential otherwise is a narrow approach that does not help the reader get a full scope of the four century long existance on the kingdom.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Look I don't think you need to write extended arguments. We are talking about what terms scholars use in describing the political entity that was Mysore during the period 1399 to 1761. My contention is that they either describe it as a chiefdom or a "chieftancy" usually for the pre-1610 period, and either a principality or petty kingdom. In other words they might use the word "kingdom," in the sense of petty kingdom but they will usually not call Mysore in the pre-1761 period a "Kingdom" (which, usually means a supra-local unambiguously independent monarchy). It's not that complicated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

In fact if you search on Google Scholar for "mysore wodeyar kingdom" most of the publications that turn up are in fact of authors on my list, like Janaki Nair, Burton Stein, Kate Brittlebank, or Sanjay Subrahmanyam, who use the word kingdom (with little "k") in the sense of principality or petty kingdom. On the other hand, if you search, for "wodeyar" AND the exact expression "Kingdom of Mysore,", the only people who use the capital "K" are non-historians (lawyers, psychiatrists, ...)! I have to go now, but perhaps others will pitch in (historians, lit. crit. people) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Overvalue the historical role of the Hindu Wodeyar rulers, and simultaneously undermine the importance of the Muslim rulers Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan.

I think this is a over stretched claim. This is a summary styled article covering 400 years of history. Haider and Tipu ruled, without being officially coronated, ruled for about 40 years. No book I have come across calls them Kings. In fact the most common terminology I came across was "rulers" and "usurped power", which is why the term "de-facto ruler" was used. Never-the-less, they consolidated on a lesser Mysore Kingdom and built what could have become a major south Indian power which ended abruptly. This due has been given in a seperate section allocated for them. No praise has been withheld either. But their short duration, covering 10% of the political history is a serious consideration here. A far better approach would be to create seperate and detailed articles on Tipu and Haider and attach it here. If one reads the article in its entireity, it will become obvious why I have not been able to provide more space for these two mighty warriors. Also, let us not forget, the topic of "Tipu Sultan" is not free from controversies either, all of which don't fit well in a summary styled article. If one does a google book search, (unless I am doing something wrong), there are about the same number of hits for "Kingdom of Mysore", "Mysore Kingdom" and "Princely state of Mysore". No doubt, Tipu Sultan and Haider Ali get many more hits then each individual Wodeyar ruler, but as I had written earlier, the Tipu and Haider topics cover a very small portion of the 400 years and it is not the "intention" of this article to hover on such a small period. As such, this article in its entirey had to make space for the Diwans of Mysore, English influence on society in addition to cultural developments. Just as I have created a seperate full length article on "literature" which is worthy of a FA (hopefully, someday), so also, seperate articles need to be created for Tipu and Haider. This would be the most rewarding approach for all readers and the best way we could show our apprecitation for their achievements.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)