Talk:Rani of Jhansi

[[Category: good articles|Rani of Jhansi]] Template:Talkheader User:MiszaBot/config

REBELLION OR WAR OF INDEPENDENCE

The whole world including UK believes that British Occupation of India was unjust and wrong I wonder why the 1857 war is referred to as rebellion. Seven Independent countries proudly claim it to be a War of Independence two of which are Nuclear Powers, these countries are respected and recognised in the world, what right does any body have to refer to their freedom struggle as Rebellion.

You clearly have no understanding of "Neutral Point of View". We don't use words like "unjust" or "wrong" on wikipedia. It's an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. This entire article has a POV bias as it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.253.222 (talk) 06:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Because it was a rebellion. Only a small part of India was involved, and most of the Indian states sided with the British. The idea that it was a war of independence is a retrospective nationalist fantasy. It would be more impressive if Indians could begin to look at the event objectively, as Britons now do. Greg Grahame (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You are just pissed that a brown skinned "Girl" (as mentioned in the page) had the courage to stand up against the British crown/Greedy multinational corporation(East India company) with cannons and guns, knowing fully well that the odds are against her, even the noncredible accounts of the enemy clearly states that she fought until her last breath (enemy's inaccurate statements of the events obviously does not mention is her bravery) Chris mysterious (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

From the perspective of the oppressors it is advantageous to discredit her War against oppression by Queen Jhansi by calling it a "rebellion", her courage inspired the events what followed and forced invaders to eventually quit India (this article is not objective or anywhere near being accurate) Chris mysterious (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Have you all gone mad? What the hell is neutrality? If you call a war just a small game. Millions died both sides and it's a revolution because this lead to growth of Nationalism. Most Indian leaders like Subhash Chandra Bose were inspired by the event and took weapons... --Rawal of Jaisalmer (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leodescal (talk • contribs) 15:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC) There should be no doubt that it was the very first attempt by Indians to overthrow the British Company Raj. It should be positively called as "War of Indipendance" as 'Mutiny' or 'Rebel' refers to activities by people against their own government. And in no way Company government can be referred as own government by Indians. Only a small part of India was involved was due to lack of planning of participants, lack of proper ways of communication. And most of Indian states sided with British was due to political immaturity. They didn't take active part as their own state was safe at that time unlike Avadh, Jhasi and Pune. Had it been also at stake, they might not have sided Britishers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santoshat (talk • contribs) 06:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do not attack other contributors, and don't make assumptions about the connotations of English words without checking carefully first. There is nothing wrong with the word 'rebellion' - it may sound pejorative to some ears, but in general it refers to any revolt (just or unjust) against the established authority (just or unjust). It is a fact of history that the British (the East India Company and, in practice by that stage already, the British government too to a great extent) ruled most of India. It is not the place of an encyclopaedia to state whether this was fair or not, and of course it wasn't - but the war was still a rebellion. Even those large swathes of the media very biased towards the Libyan rebels of 2011, for example, still call them 'rebels', without any negative connotation. Harsimaja (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

can anyone tell me....that whether Laxmi Bai fought with Orcha.....or not....? In the serial...which is shown....on Zee TV...it is showing a war with orcha....but i have never heard or read anywhere about that war...? I m in confusion...i want answer to my question....but this net is helpless...and wikipedia is also not telling about different wars fought by Lakshmi Bai...Pliease anyoe help me...! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.4.136 (talk) 07:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Jhansi was invaded by the troops of the nearby states of Orchha and Datia about the same time that rebel sepoys were attempting to depose the Rani. This is now set out in the article.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea... 41.217.44.113 (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

There is every doubt that the Indian Mutiny was a war of independence! It involved very few players, most of whom were mutineers. The concept of a war of independence in the Indian context is flawed in any case. India was not a single country. It had had various rulers from outside over the centuries. Is every local rebellion against these rulers an "Indian war of independence"? The events in Jhansi were actually unrelated to the Indian Mutiny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Plus, the phrase 'First War of Indian Independence' implies that there was a second one, but there was no such subsequent 'war'. A neutral term would be 'Mutiny-Rebellion' as it was a munity that was the spark that ignited a broader rebellion. 194.143.178.6 (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Revolt was in 1857

By historians by investigating 2409:4041:6E1E:141C:19F9:2DB:DBE6:546A (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Birth year revisited

I think we should reconsider why we are stating Lakshmibai was born in 1828 with such certainty. Most accounts of her early life are anecdotal and many sources report various years. Even the reliable sources linked in this article seem to disagree. Here's a few different takes:

• Meyer, Karl E. & Brysac, Shareen Blair (1999) Tournament of Shadows says: "Known to history as Lakshmi Bai, she was possibly only twelve in 1842 when she married the aging and infirm Rajah of Jhansi ..."
• Encyclopædia Britannica says Template:Ca November 19, 1835
• A 2019 article in the New York Times says that she is "widely believed to have been born in 1827 in Varanasi"
• In the 2020 article "India’s Rebel Queen: Rani Lakshmi Bai and the 1857 Uprising", Harleen Singh notes that "Most Indian sources give her date of birth as 1835, which would make her seven at the time of her marriage and twenty-two in 1857. However, various British records place her birth in 1827 and refer to the Rani as a woman in her thirties."

Johnsoniensis, I see that you placed warning notes in the article in 2014 saying "Please do not add birth year 1835 as historians no longer accept it as correct; see cited sources and discussion on Talk page". Which historians said that 1935 is incorrect? I'm not seeing consensus on this talk page for using 1828. Rivertorch suggested noting the year is uncertain while Harsimaja noted that sources have used 1827, 1828, 1834, and 1835. Courtesy pings for those involved in previous discussions: Template:Ping Template:Ping gobonobo ^{+ c} 18:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

When expanding the article in 2014 1 chose 1828 on the basis of this source. I was not able to consult any scholarly biography of the Rani but it would be useful if you were able to do so. I used to be Felix Folio Secundus.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Template:Yo Thank you for the link. I see that Allen Copsey, that site's author, also wrote above that while the birth date is unknown, there's evidence for 1828 but not really for 1835. And while his site probably doesn't qualify as a reliable source (he says right there he's not any sort of authority), I do think some of his reasons for preferring 1828 are compelling. I can look for more scholarly sources that weigh in on the issue. Would you be open to using {{circa}} for mentions of the birth year and expanding the "certain historians disagree" footnote with a few references? gobonobo ^{+ c} 19:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, These are likely to be good sources: (1) Jerosch, Rainer (2008). The Rani of Jhansi: Rebel Against Will, Delhi: Aakar Books; 1st edition, Template:ISBN (2) Lebra-Chapman, Joyce (1986) The Rani of Jhansi. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press (3) The Queen of Jhansi, by Mahasweta Devi (translated by Sagaree and Mandira Sengupta). I am not sure about using c. but adding reliably sourced information would be useful. Johnsoniensis (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, those look like good sources. This is from Lebra-Chapman's The Rani of Jhansi:

"Most Indian sources report Lakshmi's birthdate as 19 Nov. 1835, as does Yamuna Sheorey of Nagpur, who claims to be the granddaughter of the Rani's half-brother, Chintaman Rao Tambe. This date is used by Hardikar, Parasnis, and the Jhansi novelist Verma. Astrologers in Varanasi assert she was born on 13 Nov. 1835. Tahmankar and Sinha, on the other hand, suggest she may have been born in 1827. Most of this account of the childhood and marriage of the Rani depends on Indian written sources and on the Sohrab Modi film (in Hindi) on the Rani. Since accounts of the early events of her life are unsupported by any English documentation, the Rani's early life, as presented here, at times verges on legend. Mrs. Sheorey relates that Moropant, the Rani's father, had two children by a second wife he married in Jhansi after his daughter's marriage."

I haven't yet seen that film (Jhansi Ki Rani). I'll keep looking for sources. gobonobo ^{+ c} 20:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Here's the only mention I found in Rainer Jerosch's The Rani of Jhansi, Rebel Against Will:

"Incidentally, it should be mentioned that Sir Robert Hamilton's life history already had a point of tangency with that of the Rani at an early stage. He began his actual professional career rather unspectacularly at the court in Benares in 1827, where his father was also working in the service of the British Government. The Rani was born at the same place during this time. He was roughly 25 years older than the Rani."

That would support 1827. Sir Robert Hamilton, 6th Baronet was born on 7 April 1802.

Mahasweta Devi in Queen of Jhansi, p. 18 (translated) says:

"A daughter was born to Moropant Tambe and Bhagirathi Bai on 21 November, 1835 in the Assi Ghat house. The mother named her Manikarnika, or Manu for short."

I did a rough survey of the sources and we have:

1827: Rainer Jerosch, D.V. Tahmankar (ca.), New York Times ("widely believed"), Harleen Singh, Adrian Shubert (ca.)

1828: Heather Streets (Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World)

1835: Dattatray Balwant Parasnis, Mahasweta Devi, Siriniwas Balajee Hardikar, Yamuna Sheorey (relative), Encyclopedia Britannica, Chandar S. Sundaram (Berkshire Encyclopedia of World History), Surjit Mansingh (ca.; Historical Dictionary of India), the memorial in Gwalior

Lots of 1835s in there, but I favour Copsey's analysis, that "1827 or 1828" fits. Still, almost all of the sources using the earlier year are saying 1827 or "around 1827" and not 1828, so I think c. 1827 might better reflect the sourcing and better convey that the sourcing is less than consistent. gobonobo ^{+ c} 01:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Re: battle of Morar

It is described here: Central Indian campaign of 1858#The recapture of Gwalior Johnsoniensis (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Queen regent

please mention as Queen regent not regent 125.62.199.30 (talk) 11:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Mention of Dalit controversy in lead

To the IP 2405:201:a411:a1f5..., while I personally agree that the Dalit community narrative is casteist and counterfactual, it is heavily covered by four reliable sources cited in the article and thus, per MOS:LEADREL, should be covered in the lead section. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC) Talk:Rani of Jhansi/GA1

Variety of English

Template:EngvarB; the British variety of the English language is preferred rather than the Indian or American varieties. Johnsoniensis (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Being British myself, I don't mind that Johnsoniensis, but surely Indian English should be preferred per MOS:TIES? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, also being British obviously, we find it easier to keep to our own variety of English. But I was reacting to "protested the annexation" which I thought was the American version of "protested against the annexation". I would expect Indian English to be more similar to British English except when written by an editor who naturally thinks in the grammar of an Indian language (e.g. Hindi, Bengali, &c); whether American usage has got into it I cannot say (though "transportation" is not uncommon in articles about Indian settlements) Having worked on the article for an extended period some years ago it was definitely written in British English then. Several times texts has been inserted in Indian English but the Manual of Style says do not keep switching from one variety to another in the same article. The tag at the top of the article about "EngvarB" shows that it should continue to be in British English. I am sure that more discussion of this may be needed now that it will get intensive scrutiny as a FAC. The source I mainly resorted to was the book by Edwardes who presents his subject in as a historian should. Since that work of mine the available sources have increased (e.g. Lebra; David; and others). If you go back that far I think I was still User:Felix Folio Secundus. The Manual of Style also says that converting whole articles from their established varieties is deprecated.Johnsoniensis (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

To tell the truth, I don't really know the key differences that set Indian English apart, so British it is then, until someone objects. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Good: the subject is obviously concerning events in India but also concerning the (British) East India Company. My understanding is that in Indian schools pupils learn British English but can later switch to one of many types of English used in India of which "Hinglish" is one.Johnsoniensis (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Name of the article

Should consideration be given to the fact that Wikimedia Commons does not use the name "Rani of Jhansi" ? The name of this article was changed some time ago, though there was disagreement about is at the time. Johnsoniensis (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

What Commons does is irrelevant; I doubt anyone there has given any thought to the matter. What matters is what the RS think and common usage shows. Google Scholar shows about the same number of results for Rani Lakshmi Bai and Rani of Jhansi, and a similar story is at hand for popular usage. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Our own opinions may not be the best guide; some Indians do not not like "Rani of Jhansi" because it was just made up by the British and omits her real adult name "Lakshmi Bai" and variants of it. The usage of the reliable sources should be preferred to mere numbers in Google.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 05:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Contradiction between articles and alleged Dalit revisionism

'One of the most famous of these Dalit heroes is Jhalkaribai: Dalit tradition claims she was the confidante of the Rani, equal to her in martial arts, horse riding, and leadership, and superior in rebellious spirit. These accounts, which state Jhalkaribai disguised herself as the Rani to allow her to escape from Jhansi and allege that the Rani was a coward who fled and died of old age, indicate attempts to undermine the traditional upper-caste narrative.'

Much of this is stated as fact and not as 'tradition' and 'undermining' revisionism in the main article about Jhalkaribai. However, the disguise is depicted there as a military ruse helping the Rani escape the siege and join other rebel leaders - both of which the present article confirms that the Rani did - and not as evidence of the Rani's cowardice. The account there contains references to sources, just as this sentence here contains references to sources. Assuming that both groups of sources are reliable, I have to wonder whether the sources of the sentence here really deny Jhalkaribai's putative role and attribute the claims of the Rani's cowardice and long-term survival to the Dalit accounts (possibly misrepresenting them). Anonymous44 (talk) 05:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Do you want quotations? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was thinking of, or at least that someone with access to the sources should check them. Concerning figures like Uda Devi and Matadin Bhangi being completely 'invented' - yes, Wikipedia as such isn't a reliable source, but Wikipedia articles contain references to reliable sources, and the articles about these figures did seem to be sourced. That said, on closer inspection I agree that their sourcing seems weak. Most of the cited scholarly publications seem to describe the stories about these figures without explicitly claiming that they are true (or false), and the other sources are newspapers and the like. The closest thing I stumbled upon was a report of an oral statement by one 'Badri Narayan Tiwari of the Gobind Ballabh Pant Institute of Social Sciences'. I was going to demand quotations for 'invented' here, but I'm beginning to suspect that the problem might be mostly with those articles instead and that they might need major revisions.--Anonymous44 (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, you can't just say that the Dalit figures were "invented or embellished" When they have their own wiki pages with sources showing that they did exist and participate in the revolt. Jag1762010 (talk) 10:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Jag1762010, please see Anonymous44 above, who arrived thinking the same as you yesterday but after reading the sources now suspects "that the problem might be mostly with those articles instead and that they might need major revisions". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Any individual is free to come to their own conclusions, but with each person named having MULTIPLE citations supporting the claim that they also participated in the revolt, claiming that their stories were "invented or embellished" just seems like an excuse to ignore Dalit and low caste figures. Just as an example: [1] Jag1762010 (talk) 11:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

This is quite funny, actually. You will find that Badri Narayan's study mentioned in that link is the source for the sentence you take offence to! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't exactly prove that they didn't really exist. Jag1762010 (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)