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)

Hello, @Fowler&fowler:, so, you reverted the latest changes, which I hade made to Early life and career. I did not understand what you found objectionable here, so, I don't know how can I actually improve this article. At least so far Nationalist movement (1912–1939) has not been reverted. But this is 2 of 3 times where, after doing considerable work, there has been a revert. I understood your concerns the first time in 2023, which I have tried to accommodate in 2024 and 2025. Can you please tell me how to improve this article step by step? Exdg77 (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Hello, I don't mind being reverted, although it was a bit surprising since I thought my writing was okay after there were no reverts to the edits I had made in late 2024 to Nationalist movement (1912–1939). I am happy to take any feedback. Would you suggest that I make a sandbox to write out changes and then submit them for consideration here on the talk page? Sorry, I just saw you are moving the discussion to my talk page. Thanks for taking the time to reply. Exdg77 (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2025 (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)

@Shubhsamant09 You would need to have a consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject India and for more info see WP:Consensus Edasf«Talk» 05:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

1955 CIA assassination attempt

Neither source seems particularly scholarly or serious. I couldn't find anything else by Googling. Matt714931 (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Multiple sources are there. The cited page 50 of Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower verifies it. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 03:37, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

@ZDRX As stated the reference-level credentials of both the author and the publishing house are dubious. Also, there is no elaboration, it's a name and a date. Not all books out there are authoritative, especially for wild claims. Matt714931 (talk) 06:42, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Pronunciation

@Fowler&fowler: what's wrong with adding the pronunciation of his first name? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 21:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Howard, for your post which I only just saw. I will reply later after examining the history of this page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:26, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:ONUS and WP:DUE

(user:Exdg77: That I have not reverted your edits for a third time does not mean you have carte blanche to carry on with them. I pointed to WP:ONUS, which states very clearly: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. As administrators of South Asia-related content have previously pointed out, this is Wikipedia's policy. You can't keep going as if nothing has changed, or that despite my second revert (which had already pointed to WP:ONUS in its edit summary) that the content added in your previous edits has magically acquired reliability and due weight.

If there had been very few corrections to make, I would have made them piecemeal, but there were so many, not to mention some not-so-minor but marked as minor, that I had no option but to revert them all. Restoring a longstanding consensus version is not unheard of on Wikipedia.

Here are some general problems with your edits:

many have ad hoc rationalizations in edit summaries:

to wit: this edit with edit summary ("lead: by convention, it is right to mention — at the very beginning— that he was the the (sic first prime minister of India between 1947 and 1964, and a central figure in the Indian Independence Movement. The statement that he was an anti-colonial nationalist is made redundant by his leadership in the independence movement.")

I don't know what "it is right" means, as none of the political leaders of the late-19th- and 20th centuries who were more than just office holders fit the bill, for example, those who were ideologues:

Lenin (lead sentence: "was a Russian revolutionary, politician and political theorist."),

Mao (lead sentence, "was a Chinese politician, revolutionary, and political theorist who founded the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1949 and led the country from its establishment until his death in 1976." Mao's only office was the chairmanship of the CCP, which he had held for six years before the People's Republic of China was formed, and de facto chairmanship from the Long March in the mid-1930s.

Charles de Gaulle: "was a French general and statesman who led the Free French Forces against Nazi Germany and Vichy France in World War II and chaired the Provisional Government of the French Republic from 1944 to 1946 to restore democracy in France." His presidency of France, which lasted from 1958 to 1969, is mentioned several sentences below the lead sentence.

Jinnah: "was a Pakistani statesman, barrister, and politician, who is regarded as the founder of Pakistan."

Gandhi ("was an Indian lawyer, anti-colonial nationalist, and political ethicist who employed nonviolent resistance to lead the successful campaign for India's independence from British rule.")

Kwame Nkrumah ("was a Ghanaian politician, political theorist, and revolutionary.")

A large number of your sources are dated:

to wit: Frank Moraes's 1956 biography of Nehru published by Macmillan, but with a 2007 date and an Indian publisher. Moraes, whom I met at an American Embassy party in Delhi in the early 1970s, during my parents' visit to India, died a year or two later. So a 2007 date is, most likely, only an Indian reprint. If it is in fact a new edition, then you need to provide information about who the editor is, for example, as in: here:

• Stein, B. (2010). Arnold, D. (ed.). A History of India (2nd ed.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4051-9509-6., the citation for the historian David Arnold's 2010 revision of Burton Stein's 1998 classic A History of India published by Oxford University Press.

Also, the sentence you have cited Moraes for is: Nehru was released from prison early on compassionate grounds, and moved his wife to a sanatorium in [[Lausanne]], Switzerland, where she died on 28 February 1936.{{sfn|Moraes|2007|pp=245–248}} seems to have what I can only call temporal incoherence. You fail to mention that he had travelled to Europe to accompany her to the Swiss sanatorium. Your sentence would be compatible with Nehru making the arrangements for her travel and stay in Switzerland, but not reaching there until after her death, which you don't state, but which we can glean from the accompanying picture caption in that section.

The sentence before is no better: In September 1935, Nehru's wife, Kamala, became fatally ill while receiving medical treatment in [[Badenweiler]], Germany.{{sfn|Zachariah|2004|pp=76-77}}

Your sentence can mean that she contracted the fatal illness as a result of the medical treatment in Germany. (Kamala Nehru had been treated for consumption, i.e. TB, off and on for years). But TB in the 1930s, that is, before the advent of antibiotics, was indeed a terminal illness, which she already had before she arrived in Badenweiler.

I can go on ad nauseam, but there is very little you have added that is both scholarly and carries due weight in the scholarly literature. I request that you self-revert to the version of mid-November 2025, and we proceed from there. Otherwise, you will leave me with no option but to request help from the administrators of South Asia-related content. Again, WP:ONUS is WP policy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:48, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Here is another wordy but muddled example. Edit summary: ("lead: many statesmen have authored well-regarded books, but they do not appear at the top of the lead. In Barack Obama's article, they appear at the end and are relevant insofar that sic the first two raised his profile, and the last is relevant for his post-presidential years. Only Nehru's autobiography is relevant to his own self-presentation. I am making the lead more concise."_)

Obama is nowhere near acquiring the kind of readership Nehru had in his time, given the prevailing levels of publishing technology. Nehru's Discovery of India was read in the West before he became prime minister. As was Letters from a Father to a Daughter, his first book, published in Allahabad in 1929, and by Oxford University Press in 1931, which acquired a worldwide readership among children and young adults, similar to Kipling's Just So Stories. I have Greek friends whose parents read the Greek translation of that book as children. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:02, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you bare contribute anything to the article. Everytime I try to collaborate you push me off - see the talk page history. It has been 2 and a half years Your last issue was with grammar and prose. You clearly have WP:Ownership issues. Exdg77 (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I doubt Daniel Case meant that making a revert and appealing to both WP:BRD and WP:ONUS is edit warring.

There are too many issues with your edits: poor sources, dated sources, and poor prose that lacks both coherence and cohesion. Here is a typical example. There was a sentence in the lead: "In international affairs, he steered India clear of the two blocs of the Cold War." This is an idiomatic way of saying what the Non-aligned movement—now not so well-known to the average WP demographic—was about. You first changed that sentence to: "In international affairs, he steered India clear of the two blocs of the Cold War, helping form the Non-aligned Movement" and eventually moved it to the last lead paragraph as: "In foreign affairs, he led the establishment the sic Non-Aligned Movement, a group of nations that did not seek membership in the two main ideological blocs of the Cold War." Please examine the sentence. Nehru didn't lead "the establishment of." There were quit a few leaders: Gamal Abdel Nasser, Joseph Broz Tito, Kwame Nkrumah, and not least Sukarno, who hosted the first Bandung Conference. And these were not countries which necessarily stayed away from seeking membership, they resisted the pressure to join the blocs. They were mostly all developing countries.

In addition, quite a few of your edits are text dumps of previously prepared material. So, an entire section is added in one edit.

Again, please self-revert; otherwise, you will leave me with no option to request help from administrators who work on South Asia-related content. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:58, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Here is another sentence, a mishmash of what was there and what you wanted to add: "Under Nehru's leadership — a secular humanist and social democrat sic— the Congress dominated national and state-level politics and won elections in 1951, 1957 and 1962" I could fix it syntactically, but what do I do with semantic lack-of-fit, for secular humanist leadership had little to do with dominating national elections in a deeply religious land. The literacy rate in India in 1951 was around 15%. Unless you provide a context for how Nehru's ideas of secular humanism and social democracy were understood and digested by this population, the sentence is incongruous. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:16, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I am requesting help from one or all of RegentsPark, Vanamonde, Valereee, Abecedare. In my reckoning, user:Exdg77 has been adding text to this article that does not meet the best standards of sourcing or prose this article deserves. I have been trying to engage them, but with little success. They seem to have taken the tack of plowing ahead and simply reverting my restoration of the previous longstanding version, taking me to ANI, misinterpreting user:Daniel Case's admonition there. I'm afraid that if nothing is done, a poorly sourced article or a mysterious POV, will result. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:40, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

• I dont see any mindboggling difference between the version of Exdg77 and Fowler. @Exdg77: Can you simply explain all your recent edits and why did you make them? It may take time but hopefully it will get easier for others to judge the content. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 13:51, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

  The user:Fowler&fowler has a problem with the lead specifically. They are happy to let others edit the body, but jealously guard the lead. However, their preferred status quo starts with the false premise that Nehru and the Congress dominated Indian politics in the 1930s (he was in jail almost continuously from 1930 to 1935), and that Nehru's idea of a secular-nation state helped the Congress sweep the 1937 elections. In fact, in the 1937 provincial elections, the Congress contested 38 of 482 seats reserved for Muslims, winning 26. Most of these wins came in the North-West Frontier Province, where the Congress leader, Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, had a wide following. The Muslim League led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah contended all seats reserved for Muslims, but won only 109. In Punjab, the Unionist Party, dominated by landlords led by Sikandar Hayat Khan, won a majority, while in Bengal, the largest parties were the Congress and the peasant-based Krishak Sramik Party led by A. K. Fazlul Huq. In Sind, the Sind United Party emerged as the largest party.

  The user:Fowler&fowler also seems to believe that Muslim nationalism in India was a standalone phenomenon that should not be related to the attempts by the British Raj to "deny" attempts to transfer power to entities that "found" the Congress holding power objectionable, including not just some Indian Muslims such as the Muslim League, but also Dalits and the princely states. They clearly have WP:Ownership issues dedicated to signposting the rise and fall of the idea of a secular, united India, with the growth of the Pakistan movement. Yet still, they are determined that the two single most important issues of Nehru's early premiership, the Partition of India and the Political Integration of India should not be mentioned despite an attempt to demarcate the history of independent India into two phases, the Dominion of India and the Republic of India. As the Dominion of India appears, it is absolutely — absolutely — essential to mention that his government had to navigate the issue of partition and political integration.

  The user:Fowler&fowler also has not indicated why he believes the protests against the All-India Federation and the controversy within the Congress over it, indeed, the very controversy that toppled Subhas Chandra Bose, should not appear in the lead. Nehru himself personally led the protests against the federation as president of All India States People's Conference after the Congress nearly split itself over the issue of federation, with only a few votes being the difference between supporters of Bose and Gandhi in the Tripuri Crisis (with Nehru on the sidelines, and later blamed by Bose for not "supporting" him widely enough).

  I contend that user:Fowler&fowler has a very poor understanding of Indian history, has a WP:Ownership approach to the lead, and uses bureaucratic procedures to hide that they want to keep the status quo in the lead at all cost because they do not wish to get into an argument about the contents on their own merit. Exdg77 (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello ZDRX, One reason that you might not see much difference is that Exdg77's recent edits have been so relentless (you need only examine the article's history) that I myself sometimes lose track of the original version. We really have to go back to before they appeared in this article editing history, to early May 2023, to get a feel for what has been changed. Consider, for example, the second paragraph of the section: Electoral politics, Europe, and economics 1936 to 1938. It says, "Nehru spent the early months of 1936 in Switzerland visiting his ailing wife in Lausanne, where she died in March." (Granted, she had died on the penultimate day of February in the leap year 1936.)

In Exdg77's version it is (see here), it is: "In September 1935, Nehru's wife, Kamala, became terminally ill while receiving medical treatment in Badenweiler, Germany.<cited to Zacharias 2004> Nehru was released from prison early on compassionate grounds, and moved his wife to a sanatorium in Lausanne, Switzerland, where she died on 28 February 1936.<cited to Frank Moraes 1956>"

What Zacharias in fact says is: "Jawaharlal was let out of prison for eleven days in August 1934, when his wife was seriously ill (she had had recurrent tuberculosis from 1920 onwards, and had never been healthy thereafter)... In September 1935, Jawaharlal found himself released from prison: Kamala was ill again and had been for some time in Europe for treatment. On 2 September, her doctor had informed Jawaharlal and the government of India that she would not live long. The government's generosity had been pushed strongly from behind the scenes by powerful figures. From November 1934, Labour Party Members of Parliament, including Clement Attlee, had interceded with the Secretary of State for India ...."

In other words, she had already had an illness, i.e. Consumption, or TB, which was largely terminal in the days before antibiotics.

Exdg77's paraphrasing is both inaccurate at the small and large scales, i.e., narrow and broad scales. The sentence sounds as if she contracted a terminal illness while being treated in the hospital in Germany. As for compassionate grounds, certainly Zachrias presents a more realpolitik version of what happened.

This is the current state of the article. A large number of "facts" are offered, even in the lead, but there is very little broad-scale summarising.

• Exdg77 has largely relied on two books, both dated:

  =========================================

  • B. R. Nanda's The Nehrus, George Allen and Unwin, 1962, republished with very little change by Oxford India in 2008
  • S Gopal's biography of Nehru, published in 1976.

  =========================================

As for their accusations above, about Nehru not being given credit for the political integration of the princely states, this is perhaps the occasion to mention that: I rewrote the article Dominion of India a few years ago, with occasional but crucial help from DrKay. There is a section there, Dominion_of_India#Political_integration_of_princely_states.

The integration was largely the handiwork of Patel, Mountbatten, and VP Menon. Yeah, sure, Nehru was the Head of Government, but he played a marginal role in the integration. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:59, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Another pattern I have noticed in the new lead is the abrupt, out-of-place appearance of previously added material, which shifts the emphasis and perhaps even makes the reader pause. The previous lead had an introductory lead paragraph (see here) after which the second paragraph begins with, "The son of Motilal Nehru, a prominent lawyer and Indian nationalist, Jawaharlal Nehru was educated in England—at Harrow School and Trinity College, Cambridge." This sentence has now been moved up to become the second sentence in the lead paragraph. The lineage and education now appear to be preternaturally causal in his biography, more than what he stood for or what effect he had on modern India and the world. You have only to search on YouTube for videos of American presidents receiving Nehru to get a feel for the awareness his hosts had of his writings and the effect his unprepared eloquence had on others. In his welcoming speech, Eisenhower, for example, mentions "Discovery of these United States," a reference to Nehru's Discovery of India, which had been widely read in the US. I have the US first editions of both that book and his earlier Stories of the World: Letters from a Father to a Daughter. In the 1930s, a father educating his daughter from prison by writing letters was a novel thing, anywhere in the world. None of that feel for Nehru will now appear in the new lead, except for the outcropping previously written text here and there. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:34, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Why not WP:RFC the lead? Of course, incorrectly sourced information should not be entertained at all. There's clearly plausible disagreements with respect to sentence formation. It's best if other editors get a chance to weigh in on the arguments in a better manner. Kingsacrificer (talk) 07:11, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, @Kingsacrificer:. Let me mull that over. I am also trying to update the sources in the India FAR. Ideally, I'd also like to rewrite the Demographics section in it (cited to Tim Dyson's Population History of India, OUP 2018).

Personal vicissitudes of the last year have reoriented my WP priorities. I'd like to update other articles—to which I am more attached than Nehru—and have significantly contributed, where my sources and writing style have been largely preserved, to complete them, and take them to FAC. I can think of articles both small and large. In other words, I could sacrifice Nehru at the altar of improving those articles.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:22, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@Exdg77 Would you like to initiate the RfC with your version of the lead against the current one? Kingsacrificer (talk) 08:19, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

The current one, I think, is their version. The previous version is this, which is the work of many people, such as TheWikiholic, Jonathansammy, and Materialscientist, see here, who added to the article's body, not to mention tweaked the lead I was writing. After Exdg77's edits began in earnest in mid-December 2025, see here, I don't believe anyone else has had a chance to add much. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:46, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Between 17 December 2025 and 10 January 2026, Exdg77 has made nearly 100 edits. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:03, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay this doesn't sound healthy at first glance, but I won't make any assumptions. If we have two versions, I think we should RfC it soon, given they both contain well-sourced factual lines. Kingsacrificer (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

OK, since Exdg77 hasn't replied to your offer, why don't I RfC the two versions as soon as I've finished answering another point raised by Exdg77 in their longer statement above? Thanks for the suggestion about the RfC. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:29, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

In their longer statement above (see ], Exdg77 has suggested that, "user:Fowler&fowler has a problem with the lead specifically. They are happy to let others edit the body, but jealously guard the lead. However, their preferred status quo starts with the false premise that Nehru and the Congress dominated Indian politics in the 1930s (he was in jail almost continuously from 1930 to 1935), and that Nehru's idea of a secular-nation state helped the Congress sweep the 1937 elections."

I have to say, I was thrown off by this remark, as for the life of me, I couldn't think where I had read this. A little while ago, I happened upon the paragraphs about Nehru and the elections in the 1998 hard-copy version of Burton Stein's A History of India, Oxford. I then had to compare it with the digital 2010 version, edited by historian David Arnold:

Stein, B. (2010). Arnold, D. (ed.). A History of India (2nd ed.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4051-9509-6., and find the appropriate page numbers)

Says Stein, on pages 326–327:

Presiding over the Congress at Lucknow in 1936, Jawaharlal Nehru proclaimed his commitment to scientific socialism and his opposition not only to imperialism but also to Fascism and thus his solidarity with the people of Spain, Abyssinia and China. The generous identification of a beleaguered Indian freedom struggle with other struggles against oppression abroad was a mark of Nehru's capacious vision of India's place in the world. As to matters closer at hand, he told his colleagues that the provincial elections, scheduled for the following year in accordance with the 1935 Act, would be fought on a radical socio-economic programme, which he confidently expected to carry the country. ... It was with this radical programme that Nehru and his colleagues overwhelmed the Muslim League and other parties in the 1937 provincial elections; the League gained but a quarter of seats reserved for Muslims, while the rest went to Congress candidates. It seemed a spectacular demonstration of the power of a secular, socialist and internationalist Congress over any of the narrowly defined alternatives, including the Gandhian programme. All acknowledged the highly successful electoral attraction of Nehru.

What I had originally written on 2 November 2021 was: "Support for Nehru's idea of a secular nation-state led to the Congress sweeping the 1937 provincial elections and forming the governments in several provinces." This was changed in the version of 6 December 2025, before Exdg77's edits, to read: "Nehru promoted the idea of the secular nation-state in the 1937 provincial elections, allowing the Congress to sweep the elections and form governments in several provinces." Still, a secular nation-state is a feature of both, as it is in Stein/Arnold, albeit tweaked also with "socialism." Was what I wrote really such a "false premise?"

Finally, Exdg77 also asks, "The user:Fowler&fowler also has not indicated why he believes the protests against the All-India Federation and the controversy within the Congress over it, indeed, the very controversy that toppled Subhas Chandra Bose, should not appear in the lead." Well, all I can say is that it does very much appear in the lead of Subhas Chandra Bose, which I have written (and also the article's several sections). Had Exdg77 asked some paraphrase of footnotes [w] and [33] in Bose's lead (see here), I would have most definitely agreed, but they seemed to be bringing up far stronger accusations. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:25, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

The value of an RFC

I went over to the WP:RFC page, and read WP:RFCBEFORE, and I have to say, I'm not sure, an RFC will help two editors, who are both admirers of Nehru and have, in their own way, made the effort to familiarize themselves with his biography. I think both Exdg77 and I can come to a reasonable approach for editing this article, perhaps in turns, each giving the other the time and place (on the talk page) to offer their critiques. I propose that we agree on a single modern, reliable source, then gradually review each section and arrive at the best summaries from that source. Then we can supplement from others. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:17, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I understand that you two may have more knowledge on the subject than most other editors, but I hope we are not trying to claim any WP:OWNERSHIP.

What goes into a lead paragraph of an article, is more based around copyediting and summarising the existing content of the article and not around who is more knowledgeable about the subject.

The problem with the lead is not a dispute just between you two and hence I believe a larger amount of editors should weigh in. (Which is why I recommended RfC instead of WP:3O or WP:DRN)

We need to establish consensus among all editors interested in this topic. Giving each other turns for editing is not a reasonable alternative to this in my opinion. Kingsacrificer (talk) 10:17, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not averse to having an RFC, and no there's no issues of ownership, but the dispute which had been mainly between Exdg77 and I, is now joined also by TheWikiholic, the primary contributor to the page, who has restored they status quo of many years. The two leads are based on two different article bodies, so it is not just copy editing, summarizing, and stylistic differences, it is also the content itself (which seems to differ by 1000 words, i.e. two single-spaced pages). People who comment in a prospective RFC about the leads, will have to also bone up on the content.

I would let this sleeping dog lie (as it were). If the dispute rises again, we can have the RFC. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:48, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

@User:Fowler&fowler My apologies for taking a while to reply. It seems that the primary dispute is the lead. I have twice attempted to change the lead, only to be reverted. I would very much like a RfC on the lead, to see if anybody else can weigh in on the dispute. I will defer to the collective judgement of others. My second issue that I have also made edits to the body of the article, which have been reverted as part of the dispute on the lead section. Can I ask if you object to these edits as well? Perhaps the issue is that others have not had a chance to digest the changes. I am open to a collaborative approach to updating the article, which will allow others to comment and take note of the changes in real time. My problem is that people are busy and do not have sufficient time - as I do - to devote to the article on Jawaharlal Nehru. I have been attempting to edit the article for 2.5 years now. I am glad to say that not all edits I have made have been reverted. However, it is frustrating when you work on an article for a period of time, only to see that there has been a mass-rollback.

Exdg77 (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Jawaharlal Nehru, 1947.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Image in Infobox

Since Nehru’s official portrait was deleted, there are no good portraits in the public domain that match its quality, but I think that the image on the right would be better suited as a replacement than the one currently used. The other image is filled with shadows and only half of Nehru’s face is visible, while this image is brighter and Nehru’s face is much clearer. Both images are from the same time period of his premiership. The only argument I can see for the other image is that it is of slightly better quality, but this image is very good quality as well and would give a much better perspective of what Nehru looked like. Even though I consider this the best image I could find, I would not object to any other better alternatives. John Adams 362 (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

• Strong oppose This image you have proposed is not a portrait. It has been cut out of a larger picture in which Nehru is with other people, and is thus captured out of context. The picture in place is a portrait. Indeed, it was presented by Nehru to JFK. It is inscribed, "To President and Mrs John F Kennedy, with affection and high regard." See File:Black_and_white_studio_portrait_photograph_of_Jawaharlal_Nehru_presented_to_the_US.jpg. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:30, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  Since when does the infobox image have to be a formal portrait? There are countless articles about politicians, including very prominent ones, where the lead image is a cutout and not a formal portrait. And the current image is not really a formal portrait either, just a miniature gift to a foreign state that is meant as a diplomatic keepsake. The purpose of the infobox image is to give readers the best representation of the article’s subject, and while the image on the right may be a cutout it gives a much clearer perspective of Nehru than the current image. John Adams 362 (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  We say in the lead sentence: "... was an Indian anti-colonial nationalist, secular humanist, social democrat, and statesman." It was originally "... social democrat and author." It suggests that he was at the very least a thoughtful person. Indeed any interview with Nehru, and I have watched dozens, suggests a personality of great thoughtfulness and fluency. His books were read around the world. I have Greek friends whose parents read Letters from a father to a daughter. In 1929, the idea of a father teaching his ten-year-old daughter by writing letters from prison was a very novel thing. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in your vanilla cutout that gives any indication of the many-splendored giant Nehru was. Wikipedia is not a modeling agency or a plastic surgeon's online site, where people are supposed to present the exterior looks of an individual. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:41, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  The lead image should primarily reflect how Nehru looked like, not how “thoughtful” he was. Yes, Nehru was a great thinker and a towering figure in Indian history, but the purpose of the lead image is not to reflect someone’s greatness but to provide a recognizable portrayal. Readers who have never heard of Nehru before would get a better understanding of his appearance from the image above than the current image. Also, language like “vanilla cutout” and “modeling agency” are not helping you convince me of your point, and while I understand you are passionate about this topic, which is quite reasonable, I suggest you take a less hostile attitude. John Adams 362 (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

• Being critical of a very poorly composed picture is not hostility towards another editor. There are other pictures that are both respectful to Nehru and give the reader a much better idea of his personality. One such is:

Jawaharlal Nehru in 1959

which had been the infobox image for several years. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:06, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that image is poor quality, and a shoulder of another person on the right is visible. However, I discovered another image which might be suitable for a lead image: see on the left. It shows Nehru very clearly and no other people in the image are visible. It seems pretty much perfect to me. John Adams 362 (talk) 04:31, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Your picture which you have cut out from a scene in the Dutch national archives is only marginally higher resolution than the picture on the right. How do you know it is the shoulder of another person and not an inanimate feature of the background (that is, without looking at the original)? The picture on the right, besides, was the info box picture for several years. Nehru was someone whose public persona was more akin to a cheerful person's (as on the right) than a brooding one's (as on the left). It is not for nothing that he became the "Chacha Nehru" (Uncle Nehru) of legend for millions of India's children. I prefer the one on the right to yours. I encourage you to keep trying to get a higher resolution picture, which is characteristic of Nehru. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:10, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

For the image on the right, even though it is of similar quality to the image on the left, Nehru appears much blurrier and its dimensions are rather too extreme for a lead image. Also, it is pretty clear that that is a shoulder visible, and I could tell without looking at the original (I saw it only today). For the image on the left, whether Nehru looks “brooding” is subjective and his expression appears neutral to me. And does the image have to reflect his cheerfulness? The official portraits that was taken down was not cheery, and the current image that you are defending isn’t cheery either. There really is no image that can fully capture the greatness of Nehru’s many-layered personality, but the image on the left may very well be the best option available. It is of acceptable quality and it presents Nehru in a portrait style without any people close to or behind him (that is truly impossible to tell without looking at the original). Also, you yourself said that Nehru was primarily known as a great thinker, and at least to me his expression and his stare into the distance conveys a sense of thoughtfulness and wisdom that is worthy of Nehru. I looked at many public domain images but I couldn’t find another image that portrayed Nehru in a similarly good style and quality. I understand your disagreements, but it is my sincere opinion that this is the most deserving image to serve as a lead for this article. John Adams 362 (talk) 03:50, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Despite my opinion, I also considered these two images, but I don’t really like either of them. The image on the left shows a smiling Nehru clearly and alone, but it is regrettably of poor quality. The image on the right, on the other hand, is of exceptionally good quality, but I feel like it is too close up and isn’t a particularly flattering image. It is also from 1942, which is before Nehru became prime minister and therefore of a slightly wrong time period. John Adams 362 (talk) 03:56, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the latest images are not to be preferred over the one you had proposed before. I'm beginning to like that one more as he has an abstracted expression, or faraway look, but in a scenic background, suggesting someone who was able to process the here and now by taking into account earlier associations. It is an unusual picture. So, you have my vote. All the best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:17, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding, I am glad we were able to reach consensus through a thorough and thoughtful discussion. It is truly unfortunate and disappointing that there is not an ideal picture in the public domain for such a transformative leader like Nehru, but hopefully, in a few years when some copyright restrictions will expire, a more appropriate image will surface. All the best as well and Happy Editing! John Adams 362 (talk) 03:52, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

PS Also, it has a red rose in the buttonhole, something Nehru was known for. (Google's first response to the query, "Which famous leader was known for a red rose in the buttonhole?" is Nehru.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:26, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Since there are currently no objections to the use of the top left portrait, I will proceed to place it in the infobox. Anyone who has a different opinion or think they have found a better image, please respond here! John Adams 362 (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2026 (UTC)