Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:47, 13 March 2012

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: Why is Bhārat Gaṇarājya not rendered in Devanagari script? A1: See this discussion (from 2012) and this discussion (from 2017), which are codified in WP:INDICSCRIPT. Q2: It's "Bengaluru", not "Bangalore"! A2: This article uses the name that is most commonly used by English-language reliable sources. See WP:COMMONNAME. Q3: Why was my content removed? A3: The India page adheres to summary style, sticking to core topics and skipping excess details. To update economy figures or other content, cite credible sources. See WP:V. Q4: Why aren't there sections on science and technology, education, media, tourism etc? A4: New sections require talk-page consensus. In archived discussions, it was decided to keep them out. Consider expanding their respective daughter articles, such as History of India, instead. See WP:WPC. Q5: Why was my image or external link removed? A5: To add or remove images and links, start a thread on this page first. See WP:FP?, WP:IMAGE, and WP:EL. Q6: The map is wrong! A6: The map shows the official (de jure) borders in undisputed territory and the de facto borders and all related claims where there's a dispute; it cannot exclusively present the official views of India, Pakistan, or China. See WP:NPOV. Q7: India is a superpower! A7: Consult the archives of this talk page for discussions of India's status as a superpower before adding any content that makes the suggestion. See WP:DUE. Q8: Delhi is a state! A8: To create an Indian state, the Parliament of India must pass a law to that effect—see Articles 2 through 4 of the Constitution of India, full text here. The Sixty-ninth Amendment, which was enacted in 1991, added Article 239AA to the constitution. It proclaimed the National Capital Territory of Delhi, gave it a legislative assembly, and accorded it special powers that most union territories lack. But Delhi was not made a state. Several crucial powers were retained by the central government, such as responsibility for law and order. Delhi also does not have a governor; instead, a lieutenant governor presides. Unlike Himachal Pradesh, which gained statehood in 1970, and Goa, which gained it in 1987, Delhi continues to be listed as a union territory by the First Schedule. Q9: Add Hindi as the national language/hockey as the national sport! A9: Hindi is the official language, not national language. There is no national language, but there are constitutionally recognized languages, commonly known as Schedule 8 languages. English also serves as a subsidiary official language until the universal use of Hindi is approved by the states and parliament. Field hockey is not the national sport as per this article "In RTI reply, Centre says India has no national game", Deccan Herald, August 2012.

Template:CollapsedShell

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

	India is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 3, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 16, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted April 11, 2005 Featured article review Kept May 6, 2006 Featured article review Kept July 28, 2011 Featured article review Kept Current status: Featured article

Indo-Aryan Migration - is it required?

The sentence in the history section(ancient history) "Most historians also consider this period to have encompassed several waves of Indo-Aryan migration into the subcontinent from the north-west" is not required according to me as the theory of Aryan invasion has been challenged by many historinas --sarvajna (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The sentence itself explains that "Most historians", meaning there are others who do not agree with this; but the prevailing thinking of the majority of the experts is reflected in this sentence. IMO you will have to provide very strong evidence, quoting scholars who are considered experts in the field, to include that point of view in this summarised article. You can probably include that point of view, aided by strong evidences, in the articles History of India and Indo-Aryan migration. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Note also that the sentence uses the word 'migration' not 'invasion'. You will have to provide excellent sources that show that there were no such migrations. --regentspark (comment) 18:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure I will search for some good sources, but dont you think invasion and migration are same, its just one's point of view to call invasion a migration? --sarvajna (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Definitely not the same. I suggest a quick trip to a dictionary before you look for sources. --regentspark (comment) 15:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, what I meant was that "Indo-Aryan Migration" theory and "Indo-Aryan Invasion" theory would be one and the same. --sarvajna (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

They're not the same things. Indo-Aryan invasion refers to Wheeler's theory of an invasion of the subcontinent by Indo-European people (resulting in the demise of the Indus Valley civilization). However, that theory has no currency now. Indo-Aryan migrations refers to nomadic migrations into the subcontinent in prehistoric times. These theories have wide currency (except amongst nationalistic elements in India). --regentspark (comment) 16:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for the clarification --sarvajna (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Still I feel there is point in sarvajna concern. Since the line says "Most Historians", the word MOST adds to the effect of making it a popular view. Perhaps a clear addition that "however several other historians don't have a different view on this" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.200.119.9 (talk) 07:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

(od) It says 'most' because most is the correct term. Only a few nationalist elements in India have other ideas and those ideas are on the fringe. The current version is accurate. --regentspark (comment) 17:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Except that it is not a fringe view: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indians-are-not-descendants-of-aryans-study/1/163645.html

Many serious, non-nationalistic scholars denounce the theory of an "Aryan" migration. And who were these "Aryans"? This is also something never discussed by proponents of this theory. "Aryan" is an indigenous Indian/Sanskrit word that was never meant to define a race. The migration theory is propaganda started by Western historians over a century ago. It is out-dated. For these reasons, this sentence about what "most historians believe" is unclear at best and should be removed. There is already a whole Wiki page dedicated to the subject of Aryan migrations, what it means, and whether it ocurred. Why put something that has never been proven in the history section of India? Zondrah89 (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You still need to provide reliable sources for this. The source you provide is not reliable and anyway seems to indicate that the migration view is the dominant one, even though the bhu and estonian researchers seem to think otherwise. When their view becomes dominant, the article can easily be changed. --regentspark (comment) 15:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I dont agree that the above source is not reliable also I dont think there is need to remove the part which says that migration view is dominant but wouldn't it be good if we mention what other historians think? --sarvajna (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

As the India Today article linked above says, the Indo-Aryan migration theory (the article incorrectly refers to it as the Indo-Aryan invasion theory) is 'widely believed'. On wikipedia, we go with what is widely believed, not necessarily what editors think is true or false. If there are nuances, they should go in a sub-article. If the research mentioned in the IT article is borne out by other studies and some other theory becomes widely believed, then, of course, we'll make a change here. --regentspark (comment) 20:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

@all: Please see history, the AIT is rubbished by multiple sources I quoted, it was an invention of the colonialists - an extension of divide and rule, also seen in Rwanda-Burundi, also seen in East Timor-Indonesia and Sudan-South Sudan., it is the long pole of the Dalitistan-Dravidianistan-Naxalistan tent. This article is a featured article, how can it be allowed to be so blatantly non-NPOV? The AIT or its morph is at best a disputed crank theory, supported by academics to stave off redundancy. I used the statement: "According to the disputed AIT (morphed)...". It was undone by an admin, admins shouldn't use admin or roll back tools in involved articles, but the world of Misplaced Pages was never fair.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh and "nationalists" oppose Ait(m), what is the corollary "anti-nationals" support? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Requesting a summary of the state of the issue from Fowler&fowler please. AshLin (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

AshLin undrala manjar saksha can't think of an English proverb. Please translate if asked. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

My 2 cents. Some information from this website as could be considered as appropriate.

About author:

An aspect could be (perhaps) as a scientific information using genetics, at his website per this document: by Michel Danino. The document apparently is published in 'Puratattva', a bulletin of the Indian Archaeological Society.

Thanks.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 21:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Another source talks with scientific evidence such as carbon dating etc. from news.bbc.co.uk; along with perhaps from the film-maker Graham Hancock mentioned in the link. This is just as to present possible information that can be presented on the page.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 22:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments ThisThat. As I point out above, the issue is that these "out of India" theories are fringe theories that historians generally don't subscribe to. It may very well turn out that these theories go mainstream in the future and we will definitely modify the article accordingly when that happens. Until then, a summary article such as this one cannot be expected to report and discuss the nuances of every theory out there. --regentspark (comment) 23:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

As it is, one can add this idea by stating that many of the contemporary Indologists/historians/archeologists subscribe to this theory. As it is AIT is now discarded though it was in vague for hundreds of years, starting from perhaps mid 18th century. So these theories should be considered as 'contemorary', no more. As also, my comments included information from a Greek Indologist of repute as well as documentary proof of what was mentioned in a 'lost city' report. In the former it is about Genetic studies, the latter is about archeology find with carbon dating etc so both are primarily scientific in nature more than pro/anti AIM theory, or pro/anti something else.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 14:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that although MOST prominent historians from back in the day supported the AIT, MANY prominent MODERN historians do not support even AIM. It would be great if the article could at least be modified to say, 'Most historians also consider this period to have encompassed several waves of Indo-Aryan migration into the subcontinent, although this has never been proven and many modern historians dispute this.' Zondrah89 (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a good reason why we value the content of widely used textbooks published by internationally known academic publishers. It is that these books have been vetted for balance by scholars. In contrast, journal articles or monographs can espouse one particular viewpoint or emphasize one particular nuance. The widely-used texts are unanimous in broadly accepting the Indo-European (Aryan) migration theory. Ms. Upinder Singh's book has already been cited for the sentence. Here are two other widely used texts:

• Stein, Burton; Arnold, David (2010), A History of India, John Wiley and Sons, ISBN 978-1-4051-9509-6, retrieved 11 March 2012
  • Quote: (Page 47) It is now widely accepted that the subcontinent began to be infiltrated well before the middle of the first millennium BCE by people speaking an Indo-European language, later to be called Sanskrit and closely associated with the ancient language of people of the Iranian plateau, as evidenced from the ancient Zoroastrian text Avesta. Historical linguists find this a plausible chronological basis for the later developments of languages like Marathi, which possess a strong element of ancient Dravidian linguistic features, and also for Panini's grammar (written around 400 BCE), which may have been intended to standardize Sanskrit usage against strong tendencies to incorporate other and older languages of the subcontinent.
• Kulke, Hermann; Rothermund, Dietmar (2004), A history of India, London: Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-32920-0, retrieved 11 March 2012
  • Quote (page 31): IMMIGRATION AND SETTLEMENT OF THE INDO-ARYANS: The second millennium BC witnessed another major historical event in the early history of the south Asian subcontinent after the rise and fall of the Indus civilisation: a semi-nomadic people which called itself Aria in its sacred hymns came down to the northwestern plains through the mountain passes of Afghanistan.

There is no reason to change anything in the sentence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 February 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change "English East India Company" to "British East India Company" in section "History" --> "Early modern India" because "English" is incorrect.

SC 03:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: As far as I can tell, English is a correct descriptive, as per the East India Company's article. Can you elaborate on why it's incorrect? elektrikSHOOS (talk) 05:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request on 25 February 2012

I think that Regional Power in the lead section must be changed to nascent Great Power. That would really depict the real condition of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srikarkashyap (talk • contribs) 13:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: Please provide reliable sources in support of the suggested change. --regentspark (comment) 18:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Status of Jammu and Arunachal Pradesh

There may be dispute regarding status of Kashmir. But there is no dispute regarding status os Jammu. Jammu is Hindu dominated area and there is abolutely no separtist movement against India or in favour of Pakistan. Thus Pakistan has no claim over Jammu.Similarly , Arunachal Pradesh is full fledged state of India. There is neither any separatist movement against or any movement for merger in China. As far as claim is concern, even India has claim over Kailash Range and Mansarovar lake and even Tibet is disputed.Rajesh Kumar69 (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The accession of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir in 1947 has not been recognized by the United Nations, which considers it disputed territory. Neither the Republic of India nor the British Indian Empire before it ever claimed the Kailas range or Tibet. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Fowler, please mention, or point to, reference for the above.

Also, please mention how Arunachal Pradesh is considered a disputed territory, by the same standards.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 09:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Reg. date of composition of Vedas

"The Vedas, the oldest scriptures of Hinduism, were composed during this period, and historians have analysed these to posit a Vedic culture in the Punjab region and the upper Indo-Gangetic Plain.[19"

Nowhere except Mr. Upender Singh's book, is there a mention of date of composition of Vedas. Vedas were part of "Shruti" (heard knowledge) and was passed from generations to generations like that; until it was finally put on papirus leaves somewhere around the time quoted by Mr. Upender's book.

What is the verificity of the content of Mr. Upender Singh's book and how is it being treated as the reliable source of information?

- Prateek Mohan (mohan.prateek@gmail.com)

First of all, it is Ms. Upinder Singh. She is a professor of history at the University of Delhi. Second of all, many, and I mean thousands of books date the Rig Veda to have been composed sometime after 1500 BCE, that is after the Indo-Aryans (the speakers of the Indo-European language that later was called Sanskrit) had entered India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

"Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Islam arrived in the 1st millennium CE"

Well, Christianity arrived in what is now Kerala hundreds of years before Islam even existed, in the first century AD, by strong tradition through personal arrival of the Apostle St Thomas, one of the twelve disciples of Christ. Early converts were the many centuries-long established Jews, who barely survive as a community in Kerala, the vast majority of their ancestors having converted to Christianity nearly two millenia ago. It has not been established what proportion of the dwindling community of Xians -- because of their extremely low birthrate down to 20% of the state's population -- are descended from ancient Jews, not Hindus. Apart from enough ethnically indigenous fathers -- Jews only needing to have Jewish mothers -- to have given both Jews and Christians of Kerala a look of entirely local ancestry. A curious but authentic historical fact, especially ironic in that when Kerala Jews migrate to Israel they are not enthusiastically received and generally move onwards to North America because they look Indian, as Ethiopian Jews look African and are forced to "convert" to Judaism if they wish to remain in Israel. To Israelis they do not look Jewish, not being German, Polish or Russian. An ironic answer to one of the Biblical mysteries as to what happened to the ten supposedly lost tribes of Israel, three of them in fact having arrived in Kerala, Ethiopia (odd being a mystery given that the Bible is full of references to Ethiopia) and Afghanistan, the latter having centuries ago converted to Islam as did Parsis both there and in Iran where Christians were also obliged to do so. Kerala Christians themselves are often ignorant of this historical fact. Masalai (talk) 03:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Map of India incorrect

Please don't Play with the integrity of nation by showing wrong map of country India has been a peaceful and vary gentle country in world community and it has a history of not starting wars with it's neighbours.

Other countries have tried to take banifite of this and claiming some areas from india. Please make it sure if your Images showing the correct maps of India which is identical to Indian official maps.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.115.95.44 (talk) 05:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once