Talk:Jawaharlal Nehru

Wikipedia's ISO transliteration guideline

According to Wikipedia's guidelines, every Indian name must have an ISO 15919 transliteration. The Latin alphabets corresponding to the Indic script alphabets are mentioned in the page.

The transliteration is recommended to avoid using multiple Indic scripts and consequently eliminate language bias. As mentioned in this, व will be written as v and since the name ends with ल and not ल्, it shall end with la and not l. The a in ISO transliteration is used for अ, whereas ā is used for आ. The similarly corresponding alphabets in other Indian languages are as mentioned on the article.

All transliteration should be from the written form in the original script of the original language of the name or term. The original text in the original script may also be included for reference and checking. — From the second paragraph of the article. So even if the अ in the end of the name is not pronounced, it will still be added nevertheless.

I hope that clarifies everything, and we here can edit the Wikipedia article as Wikipedia wants us to do it.

Pur 0 0 (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler it's been 5 days. Have you seen this? Can I make the edit now?

Also, when have you seen the uh-hurr thing used for an Indian name on Wikipedia? Are there examples of Indian articles using that kind of respell? Pur 0 0 (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I hadn't, but I don't agree with your reasoning. The pronunciation you propose is Sanskrit pronunciation, not Hindi, and especially not English. "Lal" does not have even the slight (ə) sound as Chandra does at its end in Subhas Chandra Bose. Inviting some area editors: @Kautilya3, RegentsPark, Abecedare, TrangaBellam, Joshua Jonathan, DaxServer, and Fylindfotberserk: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I think Fowler&fowler is right. I never imagined that ISO-transliteration needs to add all the vowels that are omitted in pronunciation! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

It is a transliteration though, not a pronunciation guide. It should ideally be completely faithful to the script.

But I don't know how relevant the Devanagari version of Nehru's name is. He lived in a colonized country, as Fowler points out. I'm not sure he ever had privilege of caring about the native spelling of his name, Devanagari, Sharda or anything else. Taking it out altogether won't have much of an impact. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The pronounciation of the word abound be given in the International Phonetic Alphabet, not a pseudo-transliteration mimicking the ISO 15919 or IAST. Lāl for लाल is simply incorrect transliteration, even if that's how it's pronounced in modern Hindu due to schwa deletion. This kind of "common sense/common knowledge" stuff is often allowed stay unsourced on Wikipedia, but it shouldn't be. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

It is not about the language (Sanskrit), but rather the script (Devanagari, since the Hindi IPA is given). Also, as mentioned in the guideline, it has to be done on the articles about Indian topics rather than Sanskrit-origin topics. For example, Nepalese names will be in Devanagari, Bangladeshi names will be in Bengali script etc. Like how it has been done on India's article. The article gives the guideline for all Indian languages, so even if we don't consider Devanagari, it will be replicated the same way in any other Indic script. Pur 0 0 (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Why is it Hindi? It says IPA Hindi-Urdu which is = Hindustani. See the pronuciation of: kʰ खाल کھال khāl cab. It is not khāla or even khālə. I'm happy to remove Hindi altogether, as the official language of the Raj was Urdu and Nehru lived 58 of his 75 years during it. His wedding invitation was printed in Persian. I'm also happy to change it to IPA:English, as Bose's page has. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Because the first line says it.

Jawaharlal Nehru (/ˈneɪru/ or /ˈnɛru/; "Hindi": [ˈdʒəʋɑːɦəɾˈlɑːl ˈneːɦɾuː] Pur 0 0 (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy to take out "Hindi," Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• (Responding to ping) I'm transliteration illiterate so won't comment on this but Fowler and Kautilya3 are usually right on these things. RegentsPark (comment) 14:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2024

Add 73.3.170.99 (talk) 18:36, 28 May 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. Cannolis (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Lead section: 1937 elections, Quit India and Partition

I am interested in editing the lead and wondering about this part from the third paragraph:

Nehru and the Congress dominated Indian politics during the 1930s. Nehru promoted the idea of the secular nation-state in the 1937 provincial elections, allowing the Congress to sweep the elections, and to form governments in several provinces. In September 1939, the Congress ministries resigned to protest Viceroy Lord Linlithgow's decision to join the war without consulting them. After the All India Congress Committee's Quit India Resolution of 8 August 1942, senior Congress leaders were imprisoned and for a time the organisation was suppressed. Nehru, who had reluctantly heeded Gandhi's call for immediate independence, and had desired instead to support the Allied war effort during World War II, came out of a lengthy prison term to a much altered political landscape. The Muslim League, under Muhammad Ali Jinnah, had come to dominate Muslim politics in the interim. In the 1946 provincial elections, Congress won the elections but the League won all the seats reserved for Muslims, which the British interpreted to be a clear mandate for Pakistan in some form. Nehru became the interim prime minister of India in September 1946, with the League joining his government with some hesitancy in October 1946.

I question whether we need to describe what Nehru thought about the Quit India movement and whether he wanted to support the Allied war effort and World War II in so many words? That seems to me to have too much focus on mentioning these as possible major reasons contributing to the popularisation of the Muslim League (through the power vacuum and weakness of the Congress, is that actually correct?) long after the 1937 elections, leading to the Partition of India. Is this necessary?

I wonder if one can really attribute a direct causal link between Nehru's ideas about a secular-nation state and the Congress victory in the 1937 elections? I wonder because the Congress contested only a few Muslim reserved seats and won only a handful of those. The 1937 Indian provincial elections article indicates that this idea did not necessarily win support of Muslims. The Muslim League fared poorly, but that seems to be its own topic. Perhaps the power vacuum led to the resurgence of the Muslim League, but do we need to go into details about how the Muslim League rose to prominence by 1946-47? It reads like we need to show how partition came to be, when it had been supposedly been discredited in the 1937 elections? Is that actually the consensus?

Also, there seems to be a glaring error in this section. The Muslim League did not win all seats reserved for Muslims in 1946.

I think the lead can be shortened. If Nehru's ideas about religious pluralism is to be mentioned, Gandhi's article seems like a good example:

Gandhi's vision of an independent India based on religious pluralism was challenged in the early 1940s by a Muslim nationalism which demanded a separate homeland for Muslims within British India. In August 1947, Britain granted independence, but the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two dominions, a Hindu-majority India and a Muslim-majority Pakistan.

My edit would have the third paragraph as something like this:

Under Nehru's leadership, the Congress won the 1937 provincial elections and formed governments in several provinces. In 1946, the Congress again won most seats and most provinces, but the Muslim League won most seats reserved for Muslims, which the British interpreted to be a clear mandate for their demands for a separate Muslim homeland in some form. Nehru became the interim prime minister of India in September 1946, with the League joining his government in October 1946. In August 1947, Britain granted independence, but the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two dominions, a Hindu-majority India and a Muslim-majority Pakistan.

OR

During the 1930s, Nehru promoted federalism, pluralism and secularism for British India's multi-lingual and multi-ethnic society. The Congress won the 1937 provincial elections and formed governments in several provinces. In 1946, the Congress again won most seats and most provinces, but the Muslim League won most seats reserved for Muslims, which the British interpreted to be a clear mandate for their demands for a separate Muslim homeland in some form. Nehru became the interim prime minister of India in September 1946, with the League joining his government in October 1946. In August 1947, Britain granted independence, but the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two dominions, a Hindu-majority India and a Muslim-majority Pakistan.

Exdg77 (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: do you have any thoughts or suggestions? Exdg77 (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Your proposal starting with "Under Nehru's leadership..." is better, just the last sentence should be: "In August 1947, Britain granted independence, but the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two dominions, Dominion of India and Dominion of Pakistan, while the princely states were allowed to decide which of the two countries to join or remain independent." Capitals00 (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

How about not going into describing the act of independence here, but stating ...but the Muslim League won most seats reserved for Muslims, which the British interpreted to be a clear mandate for their demands for a separate Muslim homeland called Pakistan, which (Pakistan) can be explanatory about events that take place later. The fourth paragraph introduces independence and the establishment of the Dominion of India, so I thought this could be duplicating stuff. Or perhaps also discuss that partition happened after both parties failed to reach a compromise, without having to mention the establishment of the dominions (so it can be introduced in the fourth paragraph)?

Thus: Under Nehru's leadership, the Congress won the 1937 provincial elections and formed governments in most provinces. In 1946, the Congress again formed the government in most provinces, but the Muslim League won most seats reserved for Muslims, which the British interpreted to be a mandate for the League's demands for a separate Muslim homeland called Pakistan. On 2 September 1946, Nehru became the head of an interim government to prepare the transition to independence. Exdg77 (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

OR

Under Nehru's leadership, the Congress won the 1937 provincial elections and formed governments in most provinces. In 1946, the Congress again formed the government in most provinces, but the Muslim League won most seats reserved for Muslims, which the British interpreted to be a mandate for the League's demands for a separate Muslim homeland called Pakistan. On 2 September 1946, Nehru became the head of an interim government to prepare the transition to independence. The Congress negotiated with the League, but both parties agreed to partition after disagreeing on the new form of government.

I prefer the second because I do think it is the logical conclusion of bringing up the Muslim League. I will go ahead with the second WP:BOLD. Exdg77 (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Anyone else has any thoughts or suggestions? Exdg77 (talk) 04:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure how to proceed here. Should I change the title heading to Rfc so that it receives more attention? Exdg77 (talk) 04:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I already made the edit a few weeks back, but it was reverted citing a need for consensus. However, it seems nobody else is interested in chiming in? Exdg77 (talk) 11:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Improvements

Last year, I started a discussion about updating/improving this article, but I was away for a while and the discussion never moved forward after some initial debate. @Fowler&fowler: had recommendations for an updated bibliography. The conversation got archived, but I've just put his list of sources here. I have Mukherjee 2018 and Louro 2018. Anyone else interested in a new discussion?

Fowler&fowler's sources of the last five years

(Subject to checking that it really is 5)

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

Exdg77 (talk) 05:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: I see you are busy, but I was wondering if you are still interested? Is anyone else interested? Exdg77 (talk) 11:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm flat out of time now, but please go ahead and improve the article. Please work on the main body, not the lead. When you are done with the main body, please let me know Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I will get to it soon, thanks for the advice and the references. Exdg77 (talk) 23:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Native Language Name

I believe just like other world leaders, Panditji's name should be written his native name as well. Shubhsamant09 (talk) 04:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Shubhsamant09: Sorry, we can't per WP:NOINDICSCRIPT policy. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Why is this only existing in case of India. India doesn't have a national language, but Hindi is an offial language. Shubhsamant09 (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Shubhsamant09: So are many other languages of Indian. The policy exists likely due to Indian editors using multiple scripts - Devanagri, and various native scripts, as well as edit warring based on their positioning / arrangements. So, we have a blanket ban, except for articles pertaining to languages ans religion. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Is there any way to appeal against this policy? Shubhsamant09 (talk) 03:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)