Talk:Gopal Mukund Huddar

Successor as the sarkaryavah

@Wikiman2230 I have removed H. V. Seshadri as the successor from the infobox. The RSS has always been pretty secretive about its structure, especially in its early years, when it basically functioned as a secret society. This, combined with the relative lack of scholarly research on the Indian right wing and far right, at least in comparison to studies on the same subject in Europe or America, is also the reason why the article does not provide exact dates for when Huddar became or stepped down as sarkaryavah; I tried my best to find reliable sources for the dates, but couldn't. H. V. Seshadri assumed the role in 1987, but many others held the position between 1931 and 1987. They are absent from the List of leaders of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh article for the reasons noted above. Reliable sources on major general secretaries from that period probably do exist, but compiling a full list of every RSS general secretary from the office's founding to the present would be extremely difficult. Long story short, it'd be incorrect to have Seshadri as the successor in the infobox. However, I would greatly appreciate if you managed to find reliable sources on who succeeded Huddar in the post. — EarthDude (Talk) 08:48, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I originally followed the list of leaders because he was noted as the successor. I can try and find a source for this, but for now good job on the article. This is a promising future article. Wikiman (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words :) — EarthDude (Talk) 23:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

@EarthDude No problem! Wikiman (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gopal Mukund Huddar/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: EarthDude (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Joko2468 (talk · contribs) 15:29, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

General comments

Taking this up, great work on the article. It's well written and comprehensive— the only thing I feel it's potentially missing is more context on his personal situation e.g. his occupation after returning to India, but the sources don't seem to allow for that. I'm happy with the copyright rationale for the lede image, though less confident on the invitation— this would be scrutinised further if you take the article to FA. Joko2468 (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Minor neutrality concern

I appreciate this is what the source says but I'm concerned about stating in Wikivoice that Franco's forces were "fascist", at Francoist Spain#Fascism and authoritarianism this is a matter of dispute— could we change it to "Nationalist forces"? I'm happy with the rest of it. Joko2468 (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Alright, I've changed it to "Nationalist forces". — EarthDude (Talk) 16:25, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Randomised spot check of citations

21, 23, 31, 11, 17

• 21: just page 67 is sufficient for this
• 11: would you be able to quote the source for these two citations?

Joko2468 (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I've changed the page for 21. For 11, p. 37 states, Hedgewar in 1931 condemned the RSS General Secretary, G. M. Huddar, for participating in an armed robbery, even though the money was intended to fund anti-British activities. Huddar drifted away from the RSS after his release from prison. — EarthDude (Talk) 16:30, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Great thank you, well deserved pass. Joko2468 (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Checklist

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline 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:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Gopal Mukund Huddar

• ... that Indian anti-colonial activist and anti-fascist soldier Gopal Mukund Huddar (pictured) engaged in palm reading with his fellow inmates, while imprisoned in a Francoist concentration camp?

• Source: Kasturi: He also picked up a reputation as a palm reader. In Prisoners of the Good Fight, Carl Geiser, an American cellmate of Huddar's, described how the Indian inmate had studied his hand and correctly guessed he had one brother and four sisters.

• • ALT1: ... that Indian volunteer Gopal Mukund Huddar (pictured) fought in the Spanish Civil War under the nom de guerre "John Smith Irakian" to distinguish himself from other John Smiths in his battalion? Source: Ortiz, p. 452: To distinguish himself from other John Smiths in the battalion, Huddar went by the name John Smith Irakian, despite never having been to Iraq.
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: This is my first DYK nomination, so I'm happy to take any suggestions or notes here.

Improved to Good Article status by EarthDude (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

— EarthDude (Talk) 20:55, 13 May 2026 (UTC).

• I will review this DYK nomination, within the next day or two. Marshelec (talk) 01:42, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
• Newness - the article was promoted to GA within 7 days of the date of DYK nomination
• Presentable, well-sourced, neutral, BLP-compliant, and copyvio-free - the article meets all of these requirements
• For the first hook, the DYK guidelines require that "The hook fact should be cited in the article, no later than the end of the sentence it appears in." This needs to be done.
• For ALT1, I was initially confused when I did not find the hook fact in the main body of the article and had to read down to the Explanatory notes to find the hook fact. This is not ideal. I suggest either (a) moving the Explanatory note that includes the hook fact into the body of the article, and adding the source citation at the end of the sentence, or (b) changing the hook to "... fought in the Spanish Civil War under the nom de guerre "John Smith" and changing the cited source if required, so that the reader can find the hook fact in the body of the article.
• QPQ is not required because it is the first nomination

• I will put the review on hold pending a response._Marshelec (talk) 05:41, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

• Thanks! I've made the changes in the article. — EarthDude (Talk) 12:22, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

• images and captions are OK
• Both hooks are now cited in the article at the end of the relevant sentence. The hooks are short enough and interesting. No other issues.

I prefer the main hook. This is now good to go._Marshelec (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2026 (UTC)