Jump to content

Talk:Varanasi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleVaranasi has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 3, 2015Good article nomineeListed
December 26, 2018Good article reassessmentListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 29, 2015.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Kashi Vishwanath Temple in Varanasi has been destroyed and rebuilt several times and is one of the 12 Jyotirlingas Shiva temples in India?
Current status: Good article

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2024

[edit]

It should be Hinduism and not Hindu Mythology. There are three instances in this article where "Hindu Mythology" has been used. These are real places and gods that lived in this world in the past and thus it's not right to call this a Myth. VM0717 (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Google what mythology means before you comment this sort of gibberish. Chronikhiles (talk) 06:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"For scholars, this is very different from the vernacular usage of the term "myth" that refers to a belief that is not true. Instead, the veracity of a myth is not a defining criterion" the literal second sentence of the wikipedia page about myths/mythology. [do not change] 2406:3003:2006:2640:D3:7270:32D4:D923 (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing people form the infobox

[edit]

The infobox contains people rather than important places. I suggest removing people form the infobox and replacing it with important landmarks. SKAG123 (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

​I think you mean the "infobox contained [pictures of] people rather than [pictures of] important places". This was discussed previously, see Talk:Varanasi/Archive 2#Infobox images need change for representation. Consensus appeared to be to use the pictures we have now.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of the Benares state

[edit]

The Benares State is mentioned in multiple sources in the body article. in this section where multiple sources are cited. Therefore I think it is appreciate to mention the kingdom in the lead, as i did in this edit.

The Section:

"There were as many as 100,000 men backing the power of the Benares rajas in what later became the districts of Benares, Gorakhpur and Azamgarh. This proved a decisive advantage when the dynasty faced a rival and the nominal suzerain, the Nawab of Oudh, in the 1750s and the 1760s.

Raja Chait Singh of Benares State (r.1771–1781) An exhausting guerrilla war, waged by the Benares ruler against the Oudh camp, using his troops, forced the Nawab to withdraw his main force. The region eventually ceded by the Nawab of Oudh to the Benares State, a subordinate of the East India Company, in 1775, who recognised Benares as a family dominion.

https://archive.org/details/rulerstownsmenba0000bayl http://uqconnect.net/~zzhsoszy/ips/b/benares.html SKAG123 (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The particular part you added [1] in green in the following sentence − "Under the Treaty of Faizabad, the East India Company acquired the city through the Banaras kingdom in 1775" - isn't mentioned in the two accompanying sources. They only mention Benaras, nothing about the state/kingdom. The concern is about the particular sentence. Besides, what is it supposed to mean? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The last sentences of that section state that has multiple citations states that The EIC acquired the Benares kingdom form the Nawab.
The source do mention the Banaras Kingdom


Empire and Revolution: The Political Life of Edmund Burke
page 664
Chait Singh beginning in 1775 forms an important part of Burke's basic case against Hastings.245 According to Burke, this period covered an epoch in which the obligations of Benares as an independent tributary were respected in much the
Page 844
Chait Singh in Benares and agreed to relieve the Wazir of some of his burdens incurred by British pensioners, as well as some of the troops stationed in his territory. At the same time, a decision was made to continue the use of
Therefore I added “through the Banaras kingdom” since the kingdom was acquired as a subordinate based on the paragraph and sources linked above. SKAG123 (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see tomorrow. @Fowler&fowler: could you take a look? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few other sources I could find also stated the same thing, although it should be noted that Raja Chait Singh of Banaras' uprisings were sparked by the Second Treaty of Banaras (1775).
https://doi.org/10.1177/23484489231198628 https://www.britannica.com/event/Treaties-of-Banaras Aditya Prakash-080 (talk) 04:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry @Fylindfotberserk: I only just saw this! I had been traveling. My bell icon up top is permanently 99+! I've made a post below. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler can you join in as a recent edit of yours is related to this. SKAG123 (talk) 00:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello there: Under the Treaty of Faizabad, the British acquired the Benares division from Asif uddaulah, the Nawab of Awadh; this contained the Benares District, and in turn, Benares City. These had nothing to do with the Benares Estate, a zamindari estate, under the "Maharaja of Benares". The latter, which simply paid taxes to the British, was not a princely state. It did not have a subsidiary alliance with the Company or the Raj. Here are the links from the Imperial Gazetteer of India]]: Benares Estate. In particular, Benares City, which was a part of Benares Tehsil, see same page of IGI, had nothing to do with Benares Estate. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PS Benares Estate was a large zamindari; it had an area of 988 square miles. Pataudi State, one the other hand, with an area of only 52 square miles, was indeed a princely state. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PS2 In other words, pages such as Vibhuti Narayan Singh which insinuate kings of Banaras, and as "Kashi Naresh," a direct link to the 2500 year old alleged Kingdom of Kashi during the Mahajanapadas, all have significant grade inflation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've moved Banaras State to Benares Estate per the Imperial Gazetteer of India, 1909. The article I moved seems to claim it became a full blown princely state in 1911, which I find dubious as no new princely states were created in the 20th century as far as I'm aware, especially not in the Hindi heartland.
    Someone else will need to clean it up more. A similar problem was seen in the Singrauli Estate, a red link now, which too had styled itself State, and someone changed all the Imperial Gazetteer maps on WP (many of which I had originally uploaded) so show Singrauli! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, Benares, a princely state was created in 1911. Note spelling. It is not Banaras. The princely state did not exist at the time of the Treaty of Feyzabad, under which the Company acquired Benares District from the Nawab of Awadh. So, the phrasing in the lead does not need to be changed; in particular, Benares State, a princely state founded in 1911, would be meaningless in a 1777 treaty. Here are some sources for Benares State. The first:
    • Cohen, Saul Bernard (ed.), "Benares, former princely state", The Columbia Gazetteer of the World, A to G, Columbia University Press, p. 382, former princely state, N INDIA, created in 1911; Ramnagar town added in 1918; joined Gwalior Residency in 1936. Merged in 1949 with Benares (now VARANASi) district. Also spelled Banaras
    Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The second, which is comprehensive:
    • Freitag, Sandra (1989), "Introduction", in Freitag, Sandra (ed.), Culture and Power in Banaras, University of California Press, p. 11, But in 1910—11 the British government took the unusual action of creating a new princely state of Banaras," investing the Maharaja with "full ruling powers" over the area encompassed within his zamindari." While retaining direct British rule in the city of Banaras, the British nevertheless recognized the Maharaja's cultural influence there by allowing him to retain his capital at Ramnagar (situated directly across the Ganges River, and the only other town of any size in the district). This decision to re-create the princely state was informed in part by early-twentieth-century British political concerns." The move also, however, officially recognized the ongoing politico cultural influence possessed by that triad of collaborators—the Bhumihar dynasty, the Gosains, and the merchant-bankers. In turn, it also perpetuated this influence: in its unofficial and then official role as princely state, Banaras provided important patronage for Indian artists and intellectuals, as well as opportunities for talented Indian administrators. The Maharaja's council, for instance, reflected the confluence of mercantile, landowning, caste, and educational elite possessing what we refer to here as "Hindu merchant style" culture (see below). Together the triad shaped this culture so successfully that it integrated those who resided in the city in a way that came to be virtually unparalleled in urban north India.
    If you turn the page back to page 10, you will see that the British acquired Benares from the Nawab of Awadh in 1775. The Raja of Benares, a Bhumihar large landlord, had s semi-independent status under the Nawab. In 1794 the Raja signed away his rights to the British and his lands became part of the Benares Estate. In other words, we will need two pages:
    a) Move Benares Estate to Benares (zamindari estate) for the period 1795 to 1910
    b) Create Benares (princely state) for the period 1911 to 1949.
    But we cannot have one page that incorporates both under one "ruling family." I have to go to bed now, but I'll suggest a few other things tomorrow. Meanwhile, I apologize to all here for incorrectly stating how things had stood. Again, no changes need to be made to the lead of this, i.e. Varanasi page. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As you will see in the IGI 1909 referenced above, Benares Estate has three tehsils, Gangapur, Bhadohi and Chakia. The latter two, which are the large ones, can be seen in this map of the IGI 1931 Atlas: United Provinces.
    Gangapur is small. It is on the other side of the Ganges river from Varanasi city. It is where the palace of the Maharajas of Benares is.
    • Proviso/caveat I take back some of what I said earlier. There is a small possibility that by 1931, these tehsils had received some kind of upgrade from the Estate. To verify this one will need the Imperial Gazetteer of India, 1931. The website above has the 1931 Atlas, but not the actual gazetteer where once can check what it is called. I will look into this more.
    Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the mean time, may I request that no one edit war either on this page or the Benares Estate page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The time sequence of my posts here is not linear. Apologies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good night! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will clean this up tomorrow, so hold tight. Don't post here until I have rearranged my jumbled time-stamped posts. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Varanasi&oldid=1237507565"