1

I saw this picture which was shared by my Indian friend online for 75th Indian Independence Day:

India Gate - New Delhi Freedom Fighters

95,300 names of freedom fighters are inscribed at India Gate, New Delhi

A list of religion and caste

  1. Muslims - 61,935
  2. Sikh - 8,050
  3. Hindus (Backwards) - 14,480
  4. Hindus (Dalits) - 10,777
  5. Hindus (Higher caste) - 598
  6. Hindus (Sanghi from RSS) - nil - 0000

Note: Senior journalist Jeswanth Singh says Indian freedom struggle history is written by "Muslims blood"

Were more Muslims killed taking part in the Indian independence movement (1857–1947) than any other religion/caste in British India?

LangLаngС
  • 44,005
  • 14
  • 173
  • 172
Simon Park
  • 161
  • 4
  • 1
    There does not appear to be a notable claim and a list of names on a war memorial does not appear making any sort of claim about the makeup of the freedom fighters. – Joe W Aug 15 '22 at 13:45
  • 3
    @JoeW: ?? A quick search reveals it is a popular meme, with multiple variants. The war memorial may not be making such a claim, but the meme is making several. – Oddthinking Aug 15 '22 at 13:59
  • @Oddthinking It may be a popular meme but we should require more then posting it on the site with a comment saying that it is something that the poster has seen. – Joe W Aug 15 '22 at 15:05
  • 2
    @JoeW: "If you suspect that a claim is not notable, you should perform a minimum amount of research before acting. Performing a quick google search using search terms taken from the question is a good idea. If you don't find any evidence of notability that way, you should comment on the question and vote to close or flag as inappropriate. [...]" -[Source](https://skeptics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1491/how-should-we-enforce-notability) – Oddthinking Aug 15 '22 at 15:21
  • @Oddthinking I don't see why others have to do a minimum amount of research instead of the person asking the question. – Joe W Aug 15 '22 at 15:51
  • 1
    @JoeW: Because there will always be newbies, and we want to be welcoming while they learn. – Oddthinking Aug 16 '22 at 01:30
  • @Oddthinking: The problem with this Q is that the poster itself doesn't define "freedom fighters". The (1857–1947) range was added by the OP. – Fizz Aug 16 '22 at 11:46
  • @Fizz: I just addressed this in my answer. I think this term is perfectly clear to the Indian audience. – Oddthinking Aug 16 '22 at 11:57
  • @Oddthinking: perhaps. But maybe (some) Muslims are unhappy with the official/legal definitions? The Deccan Herald seems to list different peopple/heroes than https://gulfnews.com/opinion/op-eds/meet-the-muslims-who-fought-for-india-1.89926219 – Fizz Aug 16 '22 at 12:04
  • The more I think about it, the more different claims I see that can be pulled from this one image. 1) 95,300 names are inscribed on the India Gate; 2) these are the names of Freedom Fighters; 3) 61,935 of these are identifiable as Muslim, and so on for the other numbers; 4) these numbers show something about the proportion of Muslims involved, or killed (as opposed to, for instance, matching the proportions in the region as a whole at the time). To me, (3) and (4) seemed the most significant, but Oddthinking (and the sources they found) focuses on (2). – IMSoP Aug 16 '22 at 13:11
  • @IMSoP Even more: Does _this writer_ in tag line _exist?_ (Spelling variations? Search for him…) Did he say that/write that (or did anyone)? (Where/how are the names that are inscribed identified as so&so? [What are "backward Hindus","from RSS" ?] // While quite complex, & a whole list, all these points are so closely connected they should be addressable in one post, albeit a bit longer than what we got so far. Ideally showing from high quality sources which particulars are true, could be true, are probably distorted, exagerrated, or guaranteed made-up/lies. – LangLаngС Aug 16 '22 at 14:06

1 Answers1

4

This meme has been around in several forms for many years.

The Bangalore Mirror "busted" it in 2019.

At a recent political rally, AIMIM chief and MP from Hyderabad, Asaduddin Owaisi claimed that New Delhi's India Gate has the names of over 95,000 freedom fighters inscribed on it and 65% of those are of Muslims. This has been shared across social media platforms.

[...] The claim is false.

They explain that the inscriptions are not of "freedom fighters" (i.e. those who fought for India's independence - see below), but soldiers who fought in World War I.

Newschecker.in reached a similar conclusion in 2022:

According to the investigation conducted by Newschecker, the India Gate does not commemorate India Freedom Fighters but rather has the names of Indian and British soldiers that died in World War I fighting for the British Army.

Commenters have questioned what "freedom fighter" might mean.

In India, where the meme was shared, freedom fighter refers to those who fought against the British colonial rule, rather than with the British as Allied Forces in World War I.

In 1972, India legally recognised freedom fighters for a special pension. The Pension Scheme documentation explicitly lists a number of movements and mutinies (see Annexure 1) that qualify. No World War I battles are listed.

In 2022, Deccan Herald listed 11 freedom fighters. Each one "spearheaded an uprising against the British" or "helped the tribesmen stand united against the British" or "rose to the position of leader of guerilla troops opposing the British authorities" or similar. None fought with the British in World War I.

Oddthinking
  • 140,378
  • 46
  • 548
  • 638
  • "Factcheckers" are notoriously unreliable propaganda outlets, a source far removed from facts or real sources, and _not ever_ a good source/reference to begin with, especially not in any skeptical sense. If words like "bust", "debunk" appear, the proper heuristic is: the source is per se category Garbage. // That said, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_Gate gives also a quite different _number_ of names? (enWP says 13000names inscribed, other WPs repeat ~90000?) – LangLаngС Aug 16 '22 at 10:07
  • @LangLаngС: If you don't like fact-checkers, wait till you hear what we do here! I disagree with your heuristic; mine is almost the opposite. The second site cited is a better quality article in that in includes references to where they got their information about the number of names, so you don't need to simply trust the newspaper's journalism. – Oddthinking Aug 16 '22 at 10:46
  • Dodging issues via rhetoric, like 'fact-checkers'? Yea, plenty of evidence found for amping the echo chambers. This is x-hand material, doesn't explain the number of names inscribed (which seem to differ all around). Evidence for misleading rhetoric: claim says 'were Muslim', FC says 'no distinction made', well: claim isn't about distinction, but affiliation, so: is there a diff between those people listed? No answer anywhere. Claim says 'Freedom', UK-history says~: WWI was about freedom. WW1 also part of decolonialisation. Who interprets 'India's independence' (antiGB)? Thread says: U & OP. – LangLаngС Aug 16 '22 at 11:26
  • Meh, I suppose this is more likely a (semantics) dispute about what counts as a "freedom fighter" in India. It is trivial to check [on Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_Gate) that the India Gate is a WWI memorial, so not much need for other fact checkers. OTOH if you look at the map provided there, they have added a memorial to the 1971 war roughly part of the same complex (but it's not literally India Gate.) – Fizz Aug 16 '22 at 11:29
  • I maintain that this claim is unlikely to be made up out of thin air. Show the connections or kernels of truth and weigh the arguments used, to expose the propaganda (which I do expect the claim to be), but don't fall for the rather primitive looking counter propaganda, which you cite uncritically. @Fizz That I expect as well: WW1 as important stepping stone in declonialisation is a well established narrative in most history textbooks. A simple 'false' thus unwarranted. – LangLаngС Aug 16 '22 at 11:30
  • @LangLаngС Ignoring the political back-and-forth between users, I think you do raise some good points: namely, that "freedom fighter" could be applied by some to soldiers in WW1; and that the memes don't explicitly claim that the religion is listed on the monument itself. I rather suspect the original methodology is actually something like "traditionally Muslim names" - I don't know enough about the caste system to know if this would be able to give the breakdown shown. – IMSoP Aug 16 '22 at 11:34
  • Independent of whether "fact-checker" is a reliable signal of bias: I have addressed the definition of Indian definition of freedom fighters. That alone is sufficient to show the claim is false. That there is no reliable methodology to jump from a large 90 year old list of names to their religious and political affiliations is just bonus evidence revealing the claim is indeed propaganda made up out of thin air. – Oddthinking Aug 16 '22 at 11:56
  • @IMSoP I do not know in the slightest how they arrive at the proportions. But the suspicion that this is pro-Muslim propaganda is probably valid. Thing is: countering pro-propaganda with surely misleading anti-prop (that's maybe: anti-Muslim, All-India, or pro-Hindu…) is taking sides without reflectivity of the issues involved. // The funny thing is: when I google the 'famous writer' phrase, only S:SE comes up! Some iterations of this meme use in text form "Jaswant(h)" or "Khushwant Singh". And then compare this https://munsifdaily.com/articles/ye-watan-hai-hamara-tumhara-nahi/ – LangLаngС Aug 16 '22 at 12:06
  • Finally, note on the 2nd factchecker 'rigourous methodology' (re-read that link, one Google search ending at a tourist website?!) Compare with this FC https://www.indiatoday.in/fact-check/story/face-check-truth-owaisi-claim-freedom-fighters-names-india-gate-1570643-2019-07-18 & https://www.thequint.com/news/webqoof/fakes-news-india-gate-names-muslims#read-more (& again the numbers!) // @Odd the photo there with the actual top inscription is a primary source. A better tracing of this conflation that is the meme is possible? Not 'thin air', but exeggeration, conflation _&_ prob made up stuff? – LangLаngС Aug 16 '22 at 13:08
  • @LangLаngС: Thank you for proving more evidence that supports my answer. I think the evidence I have provided is more than sufficient to make a quality answer. Dismissing the official web-site of a memorial as being an insufficient source for basic, uncontested, facts about the memorial seems pointless; feel free to include it in your own answer. The numerical differences are simply explained: the small number is how many names actually appear listed, the larger (vaguer) number is who the memorial is dedicated to - a population whose size is variously estimated. – Oddthinking Aug 16 '22 at 14:06
  • Never said that your conclusion is utterly false. I maintain that your presentation and choice of refs _is poor._ You see that difference? Compare all the FCs you found & I gave, then tell me they're all gold because they say FC in title? The choice & presentation of x-hand FC-sites even contradicting each other in details & of lower than expected quality is contra to this site's aims& goals? Currently I mostly read hunches supported with confirmation bias choices, with quite few wholes left open. Good propaganda cannot always lie all the time: what is true/ not, what distorts, what's lies? – LangLаngС Aug 16 '22 at 14:12
  • You are picking where there is nothing to pick. I do NOT say the references are gold because of their titles. I say the second one is better because it provides references to support its claims. I have no desire to continue this conversation. – Oddthinking Aug 16 '22 at 14:24
  • If _we_ are not _better_ than 'fact checkers', but merely repeating/copying their often egregiously ridiculous own claims & distortions, _we_ are superfluous, no: even worse than that. We need to be better than those, go ad fontes, perhaps even _use info also found on FC_sites,_ when they're good (_these_ aren't up to par), _but not rely upon them, especially not blindly._ That's too cheap, and ultimately counterproductive. 2nd linkis better because it gives refs? You exclude them? Where is that , ebven the hint for refs, in the post? Suggestions for quality posts seem different? – LangLаngС Aug 16 '22 at 14:27
  • Does anyone (here) understand the language that [Asaduddin Owaisi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asaduddin_Owaisi) is [speaking](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceCd636-wxg) there? newschekcer.in attributes to him the false claim. – Fizz Aug 16 '22 at 21:45