1947 Rawalpindi massacres was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 25, 2023, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article was nominated for deletion on 31 May 2012. The result of the discussion was keep.

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

British Empire Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. India: History Low‑importance This article 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.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance). This article was last assessed in April 2023. Pakistan Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Punjab Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Punjab, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Punjab on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PunjabWikipedia:WikiProject PunjabTemplate:WikiProject PunjabPunjab-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

On Talk:1947_Rawalpindi_killings-- DBig Xray 19:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Merged with Rawalpindi. RedPlanet321 ( talk) 14:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Punjab was witness to unprecedented violence along religious lines during the Partition and (probably) deserves its own page but why do we have this stub focused on a particular district and sourced from poor scholarship?

cc:@ RegentsPark, since you had !voted to preserve this article. Where are our sources? TrangaBellam ( talk) 17:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply

My, that was a long time ago. My !vote was fairly clear. If you think the "broader content" did not make its way into the article, nominate it for deletion. -- RegentsPark ( comment) 17:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Oh - that was indeed a long time ago. This was unredirected days ago and I misread all timestamps. TrangaBellam ( talk) 17:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• @ Kautilya3: - Any opinion? TrangaBellam ( talk) 20:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Oh, my, I didn't know this page existed, though it is mostly wrong. They were not called "partition riots" (even though they are part of the larger story of partition). They are generally called "Rawalpindi massacres" [1]. They represented a major event and do deserve a page of their own. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 21:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Master Tara Singh flashing his kirpan outside the Assembly is a much-repeated trope. I don't think Ishtiaq Ahmed thought about his information carefully and Hajari is just a journalist. The real story is something like this.

On 2 March, Tiwana resigned. Why he resigned is not entirely clear. Nor is it clear whether he consulted Akalis and Congress before doing so. They are said to have been "shocked", because their majority was intact.

On 3 March, I guess the Muslim League tried to form a government, for which it needed the Sikh support. (Congress was of course an anathema.) Sikhs had long decided that Muslim League could not be supported. Whatever happened inside the Assembly is not known, but when the legislators came out, they shouted "Pakistan Murdabad". Here is a balanced account of the happenings:

In this context, and to facilitate the transfer of power to the majority party in the province, Khizr Hayat Khan resigned as premier on March 2, 1947. Master Tara Singh recalls that Sikhs and Hindus were anxious about the future of Punjab if the Muslim League formed the government. Therefore, he went to the Assembly with legislators, and suggested that the League should be opposed in a determined way so that the fears of Sikhs and Hindus could be allayed. They came out shouting "Pakistan Murdabad (Down with Pakistan)." Master Tara Singh was probably customarily holding a kirpan (sword) at that time, which might have given currency to the rumour that he had unsheathed his sword and torn the Muslim League flag (see Talbot & Singh, 2009, 44). However, according to his own memoirs and the eye-witness account of Sadhu Singh Hamdard, the editor of the Ajit, there was no such flag, and the question of its being torn did not arise.... At any rate, after the categorical refusal of the Congress and the Akalis to support the ML in the forming of a government, and in the light of the rapidly escalating violence, governor's rule was imposed in Punjab. ^[1]

This shows that the emphasis on Master Tara Singh is quite undue. Neither was it a call to violence. It was a political battle, albeit inflammatory. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 00:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I decided to write a detailed account of the Rawalindi massacres because I was surprised to find that there was no article on the massacres on wikipedia, even when the Calcutta Killings, Noakhali and Bihar riots had detailed ones. Even Garhmukteshwar had much more than Rawalpindi, despite the latter being of infinitely more consequence than the former. Though my assumption that there was nothing at all was wrong, I found this article and realised it was worse than nothing.

@ Kautilya3: Now, coming to the subject of this section, you’re right. Indeed the kirpan episode is a much-repeated trope. That’s precisely why I included it, because it was present in most accounts—though presented differently in almost each of them. Have you gone through Talbot and Singh? I’ve got my hands on it just yesterday, and from a quick overview theirs seems to be neutral, in that they say that the kirpan episode is linked to the violence in the “popular imagination”. I will rewrite the sentence, try to slim it down as much as possible and perhaps delegate extra details to a footnote. What do you suggest? I’m not entirely convinced we shouldn’t include it at all.

Also, I’m not done expanding the article yet. Any more insights from you or anyone else are welcome. UnpetitproleX ( talk) 13:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Indeed, thanks for starting it. Very much needed. But it is very much a part of the Punjab story, not so much a Partition of India story. I am very much influenced by Deepa Mehta's Earth. Punjab had a chance to stay united. The Muslim League deliberately broke it. And, tried to push the blame to others. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 13:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply

And, Gurharpal Singh also raises the important question of why Jenkins didn't call out the military for 10 days. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 13:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Lol. Just noticed that AfD nomination! -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 21:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Kautilya3: I’ve rewritten the Tara Singh bit and removed the pov tag. Make any changes or add the tag again if you disagree. UnpetitproleX ( talk) 10:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Do you know that Shaukat Hayat Khan, the chief organiser of the Muslim League National Guard, was Sikandar Hayat Khan's son? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 23:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Under Sikandar Hayat Khan, the Unionist party was essentially a softer version of the Muslim League. Only after Tiwana took over in 1942 did the Unionists and ML become opposed to each other. Several sources talk about the ML campaign for 1946 election using Islamist propaganda against the Unionists, who were their primary rival (ML was neither expecting nor trying to win any non-Muslim seat). UnpetitproleX ( talk) 10:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Please do not use trade histories in areas like these. Why are we using Nisid Hajari? TrangaBellam ( talk) 18:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I don't think Hajari is that bad. It is a good summary of existing sources. And it is available to view on Google Books. No harm. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 21:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply

If it is only summarizing "existing sources", why not cite the "existing sources" at the first place? TrangaBellam ( talk) 16:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC) reply

I began adding refs other than Hajari for text supported only by such refs, in some instances editing the text to better reflect the other sources. All but two stand-alone Hajari refs remain. I will get back to it and then remove Hajari completely from the bibliography. It may take some time, say a month or two. UnpetitproleX ( talk) 09:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Clarifying: I began after your comment from March (above). UnpetitproleX ( talk) 09:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Scholars wonder about what strategy the Muslim League was following. It had 73 legislators. There were 20 Muslim legislators of the Unionist Party accordng to Korson. The League needed 15 legislators to attain a majority of 88. The events imply that it didn't get them. So all this gaming was in vain. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 00:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Corrected the numbers now using Korson. Now it becomes clear that the Muslim League had a chance of forming a government. And it also explains why Tiwana stepped down. "He didn't want to stand in the way" of Pakistan. It is amazing that the Muslim League couldn't persuade 15 of the 20 Muslim legislators to switch! TrangaBellam, fyi. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 15:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for that. The numbers were a pain, I used the ones provided by Ishtiaq Ahmed. UnpetitproleX ( talk) 18:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Also please note that of the 20 Unionist legislators, 5 were Hindu, one was Christian. Regarding the possibility of a Muslim League ministry, Ahmed writes, on page 113:

“Mamdot [leader, Punjab Muslim League] claimed to enjoy the support of eighty-seven members of the Punjab Assembly. That included seventy-eight members from his party, including three others that had joined the Muslim League, two caste Hindus who had been elected on Unionist tickets, four scheduled caste representatives, two Indian Christians, and one Sikh. Glancy expressed doubts about Mamdot’s claims. He showed him a letter signed by Hindus, of both castes saying that they continued to adhere to the Unionist Party. When confronted on the question of support of the four scheduled caste representatives, Mamdot admitted he was not definite about their support. With regard to the Indian Christians, Mamdot said that he could be sure of the support of only one of them. The governor estimated that the Muslim League had only the support of eighty legislators.”

This was the situation in March 1946, before the coalition ministry of Tiwana was sworn in, and a year before the massacres. Only 18 of the 20 Unionist legislators actually became part of the government (because two had officially switched over to the League). UnpetitproleX ( talk) 18:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Well, you didn't give a citation. So I didn't know where your numbers came from. Korson, citing a GOI report, says there were 20 Muslim and 1 Christian among the Unionists. But we have the names on the 1946 Punjab Provincial Assembly election and I can see at least 5 Hindu names. So please feel free to correct based on Ishtiaq Ahmed. I would prefer to the results of the election if at all possible and omit the later horse-trading in that paragraph. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 21:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I’ve updated the numbers per Talbot. UnpetitproleX ( talk) 10:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Also added the above from Ahmed in a note. I think now we have the full picture of the results. UnpetitproleX ( talk) 11:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:1947 Rawalpindi massacres/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lingzhi.Renascence ( talk · contribs) 14:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi. I'll take a look at this. It might take 2 or 3 weeks. §  Lingzhi ( talk) 14:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks. It’s my first time at GA and I have little idea what to expect. Perhaps I also chose a bad time for the nom (I may be going away temporarily soon), if the problems with the article require significant time to fix I may ask you to fail it for the time being. UnpetitproleX ( talk) 19:33, 24 April 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Lingzhi.Renascence: actually, I’ve come to realise the article probably needs more work, and a peer review before a nom at GA. I’d like to withdraw the nomination. Per instructions, the withdrawal requires that you fail the nomination, please do so. Best, UnpetitproleX ( talk) 23:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC) reply

@ UnpetitproleX: OK then. Ping me when it goes into WP:PR. I'll chip in and help. §  Lingzhi ( talk) 00:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Will do! UnpetitproleX ( talk) 00:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC) reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. ( reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. ( OR):

   d. ( copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. ( major aspects):

   b. ( focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. ( appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

The reason I inserted the AICC quote instead of paraphrasing it is because Ian Talbot has it in full in all the works about the massacres that he has written. The quote is also reproduced by Ishtiaq Ahmed. They are two of this article’s major sources. UnpetitproleX ( talk) 14:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC) reply