Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:26, 26 March 2024

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India: Cinema Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup (assessed as Low-importance). Film: Indian This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the Indian cinema task force.

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in to an autoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days) Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Request to edit is being submitted in order to substantiate on the characters portrayed in the film and their real-life counterparts. As it has been mentioned in the film's disclaimer, the film does not want to bear resemblance to any living person. However, to make it easier for people who did not comprehend the movie, to understand it, the edits need to be made. Xyznwa (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jamedeus (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Movie criticism is highlighted in the description - with polical overtones.

the comment about movie being in favor of the ruling party needs to be moved to reviews section. This is nothing but narrative mounding. Misplaced Pages is better than this. Please update it 73.189.128.83 (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Sourced content removal

Capitals00, I had added some text which I copied from the source with this edit but you have removed it. Please explain why you did so.-Haani40 (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

You have also removed the text, "..... and the storyline," with this edit.-Haani40 (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

This (reference no. 14) does say, "for telling a factual story but in a very textbook like way". That source, by the way, was there already; I did not add it.-Haani40 (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I removed the source which clearly doesn't support the content. In fact, I don't find the other two sources supporting either. Somebody seems to have jumped the gun. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I suggest we remove these pithy made-up summaries, and write a proper section in the body summarising the reviews. I am sure more reviews will be coming through. By the way, movie reviewers are not authorities on the "facts" so that they can claim that the "facts" have been distorted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: So if the text,

.....but criticised the film for its distortion of facts and promotion of the agenda of the ruling government of the Bharatiya Janata Party

is not mentioned in the references cited for it (reference nos. 13&14), you must remove it (that text) - it is not a neutral statement.-Haani40 (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I did some fixing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Indian express said the film "serves its politics unabashedly as it mixes facts with fiction". Koimoi also noted that the movie promotes propaganda. I did little modification to reflect that. Capitals00 (talk) 02:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Yawn. Feature films always mix fact with faction. That doesn't amount to "distortion". But I also don't regard the reviewer's idea of "fact" as being reliable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Let us take this line, for example:

Mixing facts with fiction, and some convenient untruths, dipping into the right-wing narrative of Jawaharlal Nehru’s “blunders” in Kashmir and Maharaja Hari Singh’s “inclination” towards India,

I know plenty of experts who admit Nehru's "blunders" in Kashmir. Probably 90% of Indians would agree that taking Kashmir to the UN was a blunder. Even Nehru himself might have agreed with it.

As for Mahara's inclination, here is Srinath Raghavan:

Pakistan's assessment that the maharaja would accede to India was correct.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

No it is a false Hindutva claim and ironically the cabinet discussion involved their own Hindutva icon Syama Prasad Mukherjee as per his own admission before the matter was referred to the UN. There was no blunder.

Let me know if those make-believe experts you are thinking of, if they cite all these details or they have blindly bought the fringe Hindutva claim just like that Ambedkar opposed 370, and more similarly false claims that we see across the literature of such experts. Capitals00 (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Capitals00 and Kautilya3: Is there a bias against Hindutva/Hinduism and the BJP on wikipedia?-Haani40 (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

No there is not. You can let me know if you ever find it. Capitals00 (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Here is at least one comment on India's referral to the UN. I can dig up tons, but they are not the main point here.

India had clearly misjudged the politics of the U.N.and came under intense criticism for its obduracy. The delegtates of Syria, the U.S., Britain and Colombia poured scorn on India.

Nehru was the External Affairs minister, in addition to being the Prime Minister. The responsibility for failed foreign policy rests on his shoulders. I am not privy to what happened in the Cabinet meetings, but it is known that Patel was opposed to taking it to the UN.

I am not sure why you are pouring scorn on "Hindutva" here. There is nothing in Misplaced Pages policies that says that any Hindutva view is supposed to be automatically dismissed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

And, here is Noel-Baker himself:

Nevertheless, it was a "dangerous political miscalculation" on India's part to hope that the Security Council would condemn Pakistan as the aggressor and authorise India to send her troops into Pakistan.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

These points certainly don't have strong basis and has been contradicted by other reliable sources.

India did not bring the issue under Chapter 7 of the Charter because in Indian view nothing could have been gained by exacerbating the issue by asking the UN to condemn Pakistan as an aggressor. The main interest of India was to seek the withdrawal of invaders from Kashmir as soon as possible. On 13 August 1948, the Security Council passed a three-part resolution which called for a ceasefire and asked Pakistan, as aggressor, to withdraw all its forces from those parts of Kashmir which they had occupied while accepting that India could retain part of her troops in Kashmir.

Patel was not opposed to taking Kashmir to the UN. This is yet another false claim circulated in Hindutva discourses contrary to Patel's own statement that expressed his hopelessness over Kashmir war as early as June 1948 that, "our military resources are strained to the uttermost. How long we are to carry on this unfortunate affair, it is difficult to foresee".

Then and now, it is has been frequently noted that UN resolution helped India.

A natural explanation is that Pakistan feared an attack by India and was not willing to accept the UN resolution which gave India the sole right to maintain troops in Kashmir. Pakistan therefore created a puppet army which could remain in Kashmir after Pakistani regulars had withdrawn.

That's why taking to UN was not a blunder and anybody saying it otherwise is only sharing their own view that has no consensus.

Now coming backing to this movie, this is not about the India-Pakistan war of 1948 but Article 370. Hindutva proponents do claim that it was a "blunder" but they offer no evidence for it just like they never highlight that their own Hindutva icon Syama Prasad Mukherjee had also supported 370 at the time when it was being discussed. As such, you need to avoid disputing the fact that this movie is distorting the history. Capitals00 (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

This is not a debate on Kashmir. The issue here is that a movie producer has taken a position that many other reasonable people, including historians and diplomats take. Is a two-bit movie reviewer in a newspaper supposed to be an authority to sit in judgement and brand it as "fiction"? And are we supposed to accept his/her authority and put it in the lead? That is not the kind of Misplaced Pages we are supposed to be writing. Complex issues may have many views and many interpretations. Nobody has a final say on it and the right to shout down all the others. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

References

1. Raghavan, War and Peace in Modern India (2010), p. 106. sfnp error: no target: CITEREFRaghavan,_War_and_Peace_in_Modern_India2010 (help)
2. Roy, T. (2018). Syama Prasad Mookerjee: Life and Times (in Indonesian). Penguin Random House India Private Limited. p. 351. ISBN 978-93-5305-004-7.
3. Rizvi, India, Pakistan and the Kashmir Problem (1992), p. 52. sfnp error: no target: CITEREFRizvi,_India,_Pakistan_and_the_Kashmir_Problem1992 (help)
4. Dasgupta, War and Diplomacy in Kashmir (2014), p. 110. sfnp error: no target: CITEREFDasgupta,_War_and_Diplomacy_in_Kashmir2014 (help)
5. Sharma, S.R. (1999). Indo-US Relations, 1947-71: Fractured friendship. Indo-US Relations. Discovery Publishing House. p. 19. ISBN 978-81-7141-487-1.
6. Schofield, V. (2010). Kashmir in Conflict: India, Pakistan and the Unending War. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 66. ISBN 978-0-85771-398-8.
7. "Kashmir". The Atlantic. 1957-05-01.
8. Noorani, A.G. (2014). Article 370: A Constitutional History of Jammu and Kashmir. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-908855-3. Syama Prasad Mookerjee endorsed Article 370 when he was a member of the Union Cabinet.

• C-Class India articles
• Low-importance India articles
• C-Class India articles of Low-importance
• C-Class Indian cinema articles
• Low-importance Indian cinema articles
• C-Class Indian cinema articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject Indian cinema articles
• WikiProject India articles
• C-Class film articles
• Indian cinema task force articles
• WikiProject Film articles