Misplaced Pages

Talk:Greater India: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:49, 10 June 2009 editAditya Kabir (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers24,908 edits slightly refactored for clarity← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:02, 10 November 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,304,899 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Greater India/Archive 2) (bot 
(151 intermediate revisions by 65 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talkheader}} {{Talk header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{WikiProjectBanners
| counter = 2
|1={{WP India|class=start|importance=mid|auto=yes|geography=yes|geography-importance=}}
| archive = Talk:Greater India/Archive %(counter)d
|2={{WP Pakistan|class=start|importance=mid|politics=yes}}
| maxarchivesize = 125k
|3={{WP Bangladesh|class=B|importance=high}}
| archiveheader = {{aan}}
|4={{WP Nepal}}
| algo= old(180d)
|5={{WikiProject Afghanistan}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 1
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|1=
{{WikiProject India|importance=mid|geography=yes|history=yes|geography-importance=low|history-importance=mid|assess-date=May 2012}}
{{WikiProject Pakistan|importance=Mid |Politics=yes }}
{{WikiProject Bangladesh|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Nepal|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Afghanistan |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Indonesia|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|user=Braincricket |date=12 January 2012 |small= }}
}} }}


== Indianization of China ==
==Roughly analogous to modern South Asia==
This article suggests that the term "Greater India" applies to a region that is roughly analogous to modern South Asia]]. If it is defined as being the area influenced by Indian religious thought, language, art and literature, then this is a very limited criteria. One would assume that "Greater India" could also refer to most of Southeast Asia (where several kingdoms had close ties with India) It is debatable whether such a term as "Greater India" enjoyed any usage before the modern era.

Tibet and Yunnan are not part of Greater India. I think if a distinction is to be made between Indian and non-Indian, it should be made on the basis of whether the people are Aryan-descent or Dravidian-descent or not. Otherwise the definition of Indian is very loose and can easily include the Burmese, Thais, Vietnamese, Javans, Malays, Cambodians, Guyanese, Trinidadian, Maldivian, Mauritians and many other nationalities who while not ethnically part of India share certain cultural values.
] 01:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

== Pan-nationalism? ==
greater india is listed here
http://en.wikipedia.org/Pan-nationalism
but it does not appear to be a nationalism movement but cultural influence similar to the overlapping chinese article. i propose a removal from that list to avoid the idea that there is "expansionism" or at least move it out, see the article of what i mean. ] (]) 21:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


==merge proposals==
I agree, '''merge''' both, this is the least loaded term. ] 04:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

'''Oppose''' both suggestions. The term has different valid definitions and usage (even if many are historical). The article has now an adequate explanation of these. Tibet (and part at least of Yunnan) fit into some such definitions. ] 13:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
: I take back part of the above. ] could be sensibly included in this article. ] 16:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It should be merged with "Indosphere" and perhaps "Undivided India".] 19:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


==Yunan and Tibet never a part of India==

That's all! <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 12:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

Sorry to butt in but Tibet has nothing in common with China either. At least the Tibetan script is an indic script and the Tibetan religion and culture have been significantly influenced by India. China has had absolutely np influence culturally or any other on TIbet before the communist invasion and occupation of Tibet. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Oh for goodness sakes break it up and cease the nonsense. --<span style="border:1px solid yellow;padding:1px;">]</span> | <small>—] ] </small> 12:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


===Tibet===

Tibet is part of ], ] and then ]. That's all! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Sistan-Baluchistan never apart of India ==

Iranian Baluchistan has never been apart of India. Rather, it is Pakistani Baluchistan that is apart of Greater Iran. To India's west only the Pakistani provinces of Punjab and Sindh are linguistically, ethnically and cultrually related to India. As it stands this is a completely un-authentic and untrue article. "Greater India" extends all the way from Iran to Indonesia? Is that map intended to be a joke or what?

Oh and finally, Baluchistan and Pakistan's NWFP are not apart of the Indian subcontinent. Both lie on the Iranian plateau. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 20:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

Sorry NWFP is very much part of the subcontinent. Before the 10th century Gandhara was very much in the Indian cultural sphere with Hinduism adn Buddhism the dominant religions and an Indic language being spoken around the Kabul/ NWFP area <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Precedence in Historiography?==
What evidence is there that the term "Greater India" is (or was) commonly used in historiography? Of the three references in the article, two are web sites (that are hardly reliable) and the third, Susan Bayley's article, "‘Greater India’: French and Indian Visions of Colonialism in the Indic Mode" uses the term figuratively, and "explores both Western and Asian imaginings of national histories beyond the boundaries of the nation. It seeks to contribute to the history of Asian modernities, and to the anthropological study of nationalism. Its focus is on thinkers and political actors whose visions of both the colonising and decolonising processes were translocal, rather than narrowly territorial in scope." I see "Greater India" as a bogus term, without any real historiographical precedent. ]] 16:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

:Whatever 'historiography' is, Greater India is a real and useful term, for an area with varying degrees of cultural or political unity at different times. There are enough references in the article, and more to be found elsewhere, in print and on the web. I've been coming across the term most of my life. Many people (see earlier comments) chose to confuse it with modern India; they may feel better if they confused it with modern Sind or the river Indus instead. The region could and does overlap with other cultural regions; e.g. the Chinese and Persian cultural regions. It does not detract from the validity of the term. ] 15:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
:: ''Historiography'' is the writing of history. It is not enough to claim to have come across the term "Greater India" during much of your lifetime. As I mention above, the references in the article are not enough. Two are web sites and not reliable; the third, uses the term figuratively, pointing out that it was a part of the early nationalistic ''imagining'' of history. No one is confusing "Greater India" with the current-day Republic of India, but rather as a projection into the past of current-day Indian nationalism. It is OK to have an article on "Greater India" and treat it as a term that was used in nationalistic writings, but it needs more reliably referenced for that. Until such time as that happens, I am reinserting the disputed tag. ]] 09:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

:::OK, but this is an encyclopaedia, not a journal of historical research. Why don't you alter the article to take account of your concerns? ] 19:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

::::You are absolutely right Fowler. "Greater India" is a wholly bogus term. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 21:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->


It is definitely not a very widely used term, but its use can often be found in academic works. Some examples.

::*Wales, H. G. Quaritch (1951) The Making of Greater India: A Study in Southeast Asian Culture Change. London: Bernard Quaritch.

::*Definition from the ''Journal of the Greater India Society'', Calcutta,1934

::* ''The Art Of Greater India : '' "a selection of topflight objects which represent the major art expressions of India proper, Afghanistan, Nepal, Thailand, Cambodia and Java"

::* Scholberg, Henry, ed. The Biographical Dictionary of Greater India. New Delhi: Promilla & Co., 1998.

::*"The Religious Art of Greater India", three credit undergrad course at U. Conn on the monumental religious art of the Hindus, Buddhists and Jains on the Indian mainland (including Nepal) and the countries of S.E. Asia influenced by them.

::*"The sculpture of Greater India", Afghanistan to Vietnam, Nepal to Indonesia.

::*"Bronzes of India and Greater India", Artibus Asiae, Vol 19, No.3/4.

etc. Note, however, that the term is more commonly used in geology, where it is used by geoscientists in plate tectonic models of the India–Asia collision system . We should have a section on the geological meaning. To my knowledge, this term has thankfully never been picked up by any kind of nationalists. Also, thankfully, I'm not the kind of editor who would "rv ''unilateral'' tagging" of others, so please remove it if you're convinced, or comment here if you're not. ] (]) 03:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

:Thanks for the reminder. I will attend to this in the next few days. For the older meaning of the term in history itself, esp. nationalist narratives, I quote from Susan Bayley's article (MAS 2004, referenced in main article) below. The Greater India Society did have some influence on Art History, where the term survived a little longer. {{cquote|My particular focus is a network of influential twentieth-century Indian scholars who wrote on nationalist cultural topics both before and after Independence. This was quite a disparate group of thinkers. Most were Hindu Bengalis with training in the humanist and social science disciplines, especially history and philology. Many also took a keen interest in new developments in other related fields, particularly in theories of human culture and the nature of the civilising process emanating from the work of anthropologists in both Europe and the United States. What they all had in common was their involvement in a Calcutta-based organisation known as the Greater India Society. From the 1920s until well into the post-Independence period, this body acted as a platform for the presentation of polemical and often provocative accounts of Indian culture as a supra-local civilising force.

The Greater India initiative has left an enduring legacy which can
still be discerned in a wide range of contemporary thinking about
Asian identities and cultural allegiances. Many—though not all—of
its original supporters were ardent Hindu nationalists. Present-day
Hindu supremacists still recapitulate some of their key formulations.}}
: ]] 05:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
::PS <s>Actually, on second thoughts, I don't have enough time right now to do justice to the article. I have therefore removed the disputed tag. Please feel free to add the geophysical definition. Thanks. ]] 06:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)</s> Will add something to the article. Have removed the disputed tag. ]] 12:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


:: The new additions are mostly original research, which should be reverted right away. There are plenty of references showing a wider use of the term in history in general and art history in particular continuing till today. The "Greater India initiative" is obviously about the initiatives of the Greater India Society, which ceases to exist today, but this doesn't have anything to do with this term. Please refrain from extrapolations and original research. ] (]) 16:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Nothing there was original research. All from Bayley's article and Guha-Thakurta's book etc. But anyway, I don't have the time to bicker. Please edit and alter in whatever way you want. I am saving my version (in case of future need) in the collapsible box below. Regards, ]] 16:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Sorry for sounding that way. Of course, the current version is way better than anything we could have achieved without you. Cheers, ] (]) 03:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
::::And, in turn, thanks for your input. I learnt something as a result of your questioning: accounts of old nautical voyages often described countries in terms of coastlines, rather than hinterlands. This, of course, only makes sense, but can sound funny in light of modern knowledge. ]] 10:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
{|class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left;"
|-
! Fowler&fowler's version: Expand to see contents
|-
|The term '''Greater India''' has several related meanings:
*'''In medieval literature:''' the term "Greater India" (''Indyos mayores''<ref name=azurara/>) has been used at least since the mid 15th century.<ref name=azurara>{{Harv|Azurara|1446}}</ref> The term, which seems to have been used with variable precision,<ref>{{Harv|Beazley|1910|p=708}} Quote: "Azurara's hyperbole, indeed, which celebrates the Navigator Prince as joining Orient and Occident by continual voyaging, as transporting to the extremities of the East the creations of
Western industry, does not scruple to picture the people of the ''Greater and the Lesser India'' welcoming his ships (which never passed beyond Sierra Leone), praising his generosity, and even experiencing his hospitality."</ref> sometimes meant only the ].<ref>{{Harv|Beazley|1910|p=708}} Quote: "Among all the confusion of the various Indies in Mediaeval nomenclature, "Greater India" can usually be recognized as restricted to the "India proper" of the modern world."</ref> However, in other European writings, "Greater India" (or "India Major") extended from the ] coast to ''India extra Gangem'' (lit. "India, beyond the Ganges," but usually the ]) and "India Minor," from Malabar coast to Sind.<ref>{{Harv|Caverhill|1767}}</ref>
*'''In late 19th century Geography:''' The term "Greater India" included: "(a) ], (b) ], (c) ], (d) ], (e) ], (f) ], (g) ], (h) ], and (i) ]."<ref name=geography19cent>"Review: New Maps," (1912) ''Bulletin of the American Geographical Society'' 44(3): 235-240.</ref> (Similarly "Greater Australia" included "(a) West Australla, (b) East Australia, (c) New Zealand, (d) Melanesia, (e) Micronesia, (f) Polynesia.")<ref name=geography19cent/>
*'''In 20th century history, art history, linguistics, and allied fields:''' consisted of "all the Asian lands including ], ], ], ], and the former ] and ] polities of present-day ],"<ref name=bayley2005-p713/> in which pre-Islamic Indian culture left an "imprint in the form of monuments, inscriptions and other traces of the historic ‘Indianising’ process."<ref name=bayley2005-p713>{{Harv|Bayley|2005|p=713}}</ref> In some accounts, many Pacific societies and "most of the Buddhist world including ], ], ] and even ] were held to fall within this web of Indianising ‘culture colonies’"<ref name=bayley2005-p713/> This particular usage (implying cultural "sphere of influence" of India) does not go back to before the 1920s, and lasted well into the 1970s in history and later in other fields.
*'''In late-20 century geoscience:''' the term is used to mean "the Indian sub-continent plus a postulated northern extension,"<ref>{{Harv|Ali|Aitchison|2005|p=170}}</ref> in plate tectonic models of the India–Asia collison. Although its usage in geoscience pre-dates plate tectonic theory,<ref>Argand, E., 1924. La tectonique de l' Asie. Proc. 13th Int. Geol. Cong. 7 (1924), 171–372.</ref> the term has seen increased usage since the 1970s.

'''<big>Usage in History</big>'''

The third meaning of "Greater India" (as a cultural sphere of influence) was popularized by a network of ] scholars in the 1920s who were all members of the Calcutta-based ''Greater India Society''. The movement's early leaders included the historian R.C.
Majumdar (1888–1980); the philologists ] (1890–1977) and P.C. Bagchi (1898–1956), the historians Phanindranath Bose and Kalidas Nag (1891–1966).<ref>{{Harv|Bayley|2005|p=710}}</ref> The ''Greater India Society'' scholars postulated a benevolent ancient Indian cultural colonization of South-east Asia, in stark contrast&mdash;in their view&mdash;to the colonialism of the early 20th century.<ref>{{Harv|Bayley|2005|p=712}}</ref> {{cquote|"The ancient Hindus of yore were not simply a spiritual people, always busy with mystical problems and never troubling themselves with the questions of ‘this world’ . . . India also has its Napoleons and Charlemagnes, its Bismarcks and Machiavellis. But the real charm of Indian history does not consist in these aspirants after universal power, but in its peaceful and benevolent Imperialism—a unique thing in the history of mankind. The colonisers of India did not go with sword and fire in their hands; they used . . . the weapons of their superior culture and religion the world under their sway. Wherever they went, they conquered the world through their culture . . . . This fascinating and forgotten chapter of Indian history is being gradually reconstructed by the constant efforts of Indologists . . . .The Buddhist age has attracted special attention, and the French savants have taken much pains to investigate the splendid monuments of the Indian cultural empire in the Far East."<ref>Review by ‘SKV’ of ''The Hindu Colony of Cambodia'' by Phanindranath Bose in The Vedic Magazine and Gurukula Samachar 26: 1927,
pp. 620–1.</ref>}}

The term was used in historical writing in India well into the 1970s. For example, the fifteenth chapter of the popular text-book, ''An Advanced History of India''.<ref>{{Harv|Majumdar|1960|pp=222-223}}</ref> titled, "Colonial and Cultural Expansion (of Ancient India)", and written by R. C. Majumdar, concluded with: {{cquote|We may conclude with a broad survey of the Indian colonies in the Far East. For nearly fifteen hundred years, and down to a period when the Hindus had lost their independence in their own home, Hindu kings were ruling over Indo-China and the numerous islands of the Indian Archipelago, from Sumatra to New Guinea. Indian religion, Indian culture, Indian laws and Indian government moulded the lives of the primitive races all over this wide region, and they imbibed a more elevated moral spirit and a higher intellectual taste through the religion, art, and literature of India. In short, the people were lifted to a higher plane of civilization. A greater India was established by a gentle fusion of races, which richly endowed the original inhabitants with the spiritual heritage of India.... The colonial and cultural expansion of India is one of the most brilliant, but forgotten, episodes of Indian history, of which any Indian may justly feel proud."}}

In the field of Art History, especially in American writings on the Indian Art History, the term survived longer due to the influence of art theorist ]. Coomaraswamy's view of pan-Indian art history was influenced by the "Calcutta cultural nationalists."<ref>{{Harv|Guha-Thakurta|1992|pp=159-167}}</ref>

'''<big>Notes</big>'''
<div class="references-small" style="-moz-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
<references/>
</div>

'''<big>References</big>
*{{Harvard reference
| last1=Ali
| first1=Jason R.
| last2=Aitchison
| first2=Jonathan C.
| title=Greater India
| journal=Earth-Science Reviews
| volume=72
| issue=3-4
| year=2005
| pages=169-188
| url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2005.07.005
}}.
*{{Harvard reference
| last1=Azurara
| first1=Gomes Eannes de
| title=Chronica do Discobrimento e Conquista de Guiné (eds. Carreira and Pantarem, 1841)
| place=Paris
| year=1446
| pages=
| url=
}}.
*{{Harvard reference
| last=Bayley
| first=Susan
| title=Imagining ‘Greater India’: French and Indian Visions of Colonialism in the Indic Mode
| journal=Modern Asian Studies
| volume=38
| issue=3
| year=2004
| pages=703-744
| url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X04001246
}}.
*{{Harvard reference
| last1=Beazley
| first1=Raymond
| title=Prince Henry of Portugal and the Progress of Exploration
| journal=The Geographical Journal
| volume=36
| issue=6
| year=1910
| pages=703-716
| url=http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0016-7398%28191012%2936%3A6%3C703%3APHOPAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J
}}.
*{{Harvard reference
| last1=Caverhill
| first1=John
| title=Some Attempts to Ascertain the Utmost Extent of the Knowledge of the Ancients in the East Indies
| journal=Philosophical Transactions
| volume=57
| issue=
| year=1767
| pages=155-178
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| last1=Guha-Thakurta
| first1=Tapati
| title=The making of a new ‘Indian’ art. Artists, aesthetics and nationalism in Bengal, c. 1850–1920.
| year=1992
| publisher=Cambridge University Press
| place=Cambridge, UK
| url=
}}.
*{{Harvard reference
| last1=Majumdar
| first1=R. C., H. C. Raychaudhuri, and Kalikinkar Datta
| title=An Advanced History of India
| year=1960
| publisher=Macmillan and Co., 1122 pages
| place=London
| url=
}}.
|}


I am somewhat confused by the disambiguation-page style of the current lede. Apart from the geological meaning, which I suppose should be dealt with by true disambiguation ({{tl|otheruses}}), I have the impression this is "pseudo-disambiguation", discussing various aspects and historical deveolpment of one and the same notion.
Bayley's article, I am sorry to say, reads like so much meaningless postmodernist drivel, and while we can certainly refer to it, I would recommend against using it as a significant support of how to arrange this article. --] <small>]</small> 09:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

==Regarding China==
The two provinces of China are slightly influenced by India and neither was ever a part of India. Culturally it is much like the rest of China. So you either include all of China or none of it.

'''All of China''' should be put under Greater India. Buddhism and its teachings is widespread throughout China.
] 03:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
:] says we "put under Greater India" whatever we can establish our sources put under Greater India, there is no "should". --] <small>]</small> 09:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
::Are you trying to make a nationalistic point? If you really believe that doing such pointless things on Misplaced Pages such as adding cultural claims, then my good comrade you are mistaken. --<span style="border:1px solid yellow;padding:1px;">]</span> | <small>—] ] </small> 12:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

== Talk:Indosphere ==

This should be merged with the article "Greater India".

What does Tibet, especially Yunnan region in China has anything to do with Indosphere? Is this another pathetic attempt to promote the India as a super power propaganda?

:Tibet is so clearly heavily influence by Indian culture. Tibet's writing system, its architecture, religion, although its clothing and certain aspects like the roof of building came from China. Yunnan is even easier to explain. The Yunnanese compose of many tribes, many of which are practitioners of theravada buddhism. Their architecture and dress are nearly identical to those of Thailand and Laos. ] 18:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

::'''Strong support.''' The ] is a very weak concept, almost devoid of scholarship, and barely used in popular culture. Highly suspect. Should we have an "Americanisphere" as well? That would be huge. But why not also an "ElSalvadorisphere?" ] influences its neighbors and even the USA. How do you define what's in and what's out? You can't. It has no scientific basis. I vote to merge it. There's a nasty tendency (though well intentioned I'm sure) to promote big countries like India, CHina, and the USA and speak of their influence on others, but not the other way around. It's an inadvertent form of cultural imperialism. --] 03:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If the term "Indosphere" exists as it's self a concept, then it belongs on Misplaced Pages. You are an Ignoramous.
] 19:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Josh Van Maren

Merge, obviously. Misplaced Pages isn't a dictionary, and it is perfectly common to merge discussion of closely related terms into a single article. --] <small>]</small> 09:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

::The Indo-centric jingoism has been curbed out to make way for a scientific concept. It has nothing to with cultural imperialism anymore. <font face="Kristen ITC" color="deeppink">]</font><sup>(] • ])</sup> 04:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

:::Strong support for merge. There is no use for political debating here. The two are synonymous, as I don't think anyone in this argument has actually disputed. ] (]) 16:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
::::No, dear. It's been solved. The ] now stands as an article on a ], and has nothing to do with a greater India. <font face="Kristen ITC" color="deeppink">]</font><sup>(] • ])</sup> 16:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


{{yo|Malik-Al-Hind}} regarding your additions , and my revert , I think this addition is symptomatic (in bold):
== Nepal was never a part of India!! ==
{{talkquote|Much of these expansions also went on to heavily influence China, South Korea and Japan.<ref>{{citation |first=Pierre-Yves |last=Manguin |chapter=From Funan to Sriwijaya: Cultural continuities and discontinuities in the Early Historical maritime states of Southeast Asia |title=25 tahun kerjasama Pusat Penelitian Arkeologi dan Ecole française d'Extrême-Orient |location=Jakarta |publisher=Pusat Penelitian Arkeologi / EFEO |year=2002 |pages=59–82 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=NJBwAAAAMAAJ |access-date=26 March 2023 |archive-date=26 March 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230326195002/https://books.google.com/books?id=NJBwAAAAMAAJ |url-status=live }}</ref>''', As a result it ended up in the complete Indianization of China itself.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Zhu |first=Qingzhi |title=Some Linguistic Evidence for Early Cultural Exchange between China and India |journal=Sino-Platonic Papers |volume=66 |date=March 1995 |publisher=University of Pennsylvania |url=http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp066_india_china.pdf |quote=everyone knows well the so-called "Buddhist conquest of China" or "Indianized China" |access-date=26 March 2023 |archive-date=4 August 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190804122822/http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp066_india_china.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>'''}}
{{reflist-talk}}
"The complete Indianization of China itself" is eye-rolling; how can you imagine something like that? ] - ] 12:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


:But I just wrote what the cited sources had said. The source is ] ] (]) 12:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
What the hell is that in the map with blue colour on Nepals territory. This is just not right!! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:You have to be clear on what you mean by "India." ] (]) 07:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC) :Moreoever why did you remove the "Buddhism in central Asia" section? I will give attribution to the article where I derived it from. ] (]) 12:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:Why are you reverting my edits? When the sources I quoted clearly talks about Indianization of China. I even quoted an entire book which briefly talks about this. ] (]) 15:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


::You're taking phrases out of context, and present them as if China became some sort of clone of India. Moreover, you do this in the lead, which is supposed to summarize the article, which is clearly not the case here. The phrase "Indianization of China" has most significantly been used by Hu Shi, in a polemical way, to object against the uncritical borrowing of Indian cultural elements. That begs for an explanation, ''if'' it is due, and it certainly is not fit for a prominent place in the lead. ] - ] 16:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
== Punjab? ==
:::I am citing what historians have said. The entire book which I cited talks about the indianization of China quite clearly. But yes, In case If you don't want it in the lead, I can make a seperate east Asian section for this? Where I will write about Spread of Buddhism in China and japan with ] sources. ] (]) 16:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


::::And ''how'' does that book speak about the "Indianization of China"? Any idea? ] - ] 16:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Okay. It lists that Punjab, Hindustan, Burma...... were all part of greater India. But if I'm not mistaken, Punjab was part of Hindustan. Right? ] (]) 01:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::i quoted page no. As far as I remember.
::Depends on what you call Hindustan and which period in history you're discussing. <font face="Kristen ITC" color="deeppink">]</font><sup>(] • ])</sup> 03:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::But can I create "Spread of Buddhism in east asia"
:::::And "Spread of Buddhism in central Asia" section? ] (]) 16:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


::::::You don't seem to understand that "Greater India" and "Indianization" are obsolete terms, used in some Indian scholarship with nationalist tendencies from the 1920s to the 1970s, but since then have fallen out of favor with mainstream historians. While there were a few historians during this period that proposed the inclusion of China and Japan, those proposals were not accepted by the mainstream and are considered fringe views that are no longer taken seriously in current historical scholarship. The idea that Indianization included China and Japan is ]. The fact that you can find a source or two does not refute this. ] (]) 18:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
== Please ==
:::::::The cited sources are clearly ] which includes Japan and China as "Indianized".
:::::::Moreover the map you showed is an expansion of Hinduism (Not indian culture sphere as whole)
:::::::Though my request was to just make sections regarding Spread of Buddhism in central Asia and East Asia, Because the article deals with Indian culture/religions. ] (]) 18:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


]
Before you make drastic judgments about people and drastic changes to article coming out of the blue, please, discuss why you think you had to make the change. <font face="Kristen ITC" color="deeppink">]</font><sup>(] • ])</sup> 15:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::This map shows the historically accepted range of "Indianization" and "Greater India". As you can clearly see, it does not come anywhere near Japan. ] (]) 18:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::Please also note that we already have an article on the ], which is a different topic not normally included in the idea of Greater India, which is a term specifically related to the transmission of ''Hinduism''. ] (]) 18:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Yes but this article itself is dealing with the spread of Indian religions/culture/language. This is why I had a request to make a section for "Spread of Buddhism in central Asia" and "Spread of Buddhism in east asia" ] (]) 18:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::But the term "Greater India" is ''defined'' as the spread of Hinduism - not Buddhism. We don't need sections here. It is all covered at ]. It doesn't get repeated out of context and against the accepted definitions here. ] (]) 18:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::No? The term greater India is defined with the spread of all Indian religions, Be it ] or ]
:::::::::So shouldn't it be in the lead? ] (]) 19:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::No it isn't and no it shouldn't. You just need to stay in your own lane. I'm about to ask for you to be topic-banned at ANI because you refuse to listen. ] (]) 19:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Did I violate any rules? ] (]) 19:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Yes, you are. You are pushing obsolete nationalist fringe views which are not accepted by current scholarship. ] (]) 19:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Well I just requested to make sections for spread of Buddhism to Central Asia and East asia. But okay, I will stop here if it seems like that. ] (]) 19:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Did you read the archives? Like most articles, the archives show that this kind of discussion has already happened and the current state of the article is due to the consensus that the sources do not support such an inclusion. China has been discussed several times previously and its inclusion has been rejected due to lack of sources that directly connect the expansion of the Buddhism into China with the term "Greater India", which is after all the subject of the article - a technical term used in a particular period and genre of historical works, not the "general idea" that we can ] anything into by claiming it means "anything Indian ideas may have touched, however indirectly". That's not the definition of the term. ] (]) 19:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:02, 10 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Greater India article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 6 months 

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconIndia: Geography / History Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian geography workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance).
Note icon
This article was last assessed in May 2012.
WikiProject iconPakistan Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Pakistani politics.
WikiProject iconBangladesh Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bangladesh on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BangladeshWikipedia:WikiProject BangladeshTemplate:WikiProject BangladeshBangladesh
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Bangladesh To-do list:
WikiProject iconNepal Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAfghanistan Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AfghanistanWikipedia:WikiProject AfghanistanTemplate:WikiProject AfghanistanAfghanistan
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIndonesia Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSkepticism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by Braincricket, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 12 January 2012.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

Indianization of China

@Malik-Al-Hind: regarding your additions diff, and my revert diff, I think this addition is symptomatic (in bold):

Much of these expansions also went on to heavily influence China, South Korea and Japan., As a result it ended up in the complete Indianization of China itself.

References

  1. Manguin, Pierre-Yves (2002), "From Funan to Sriwijaya: Cultural continuities and discontinuities in the Early Historical maritime states of Southeast Asia", 25 tahun kerjasama Pusat Penelitian Arkeologi dan Ecole française d'Extrême-Orient, Jakarta: Pusat Penelitian Arkeologi / EFEO, pp. 59–82, archived from the original on 26 March 2023, retrieved 26 March 2023
  2. Zhu, Qingzhi (March 1995). "Some Linguistic Evidence for Early Cultural Exchange between China and India" (PDF). Sino-Platonic Papers. 66. University of Pennsylvania. Archived (PDF) from the original on 4 August 2019. Retrieved 26 March 2023. everyone knows well the so-called "Buddhist conquest of China" or "Indianized China"

"The complete Indianization of China itself" is eye-rolling; how can you imagine something like that? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

But I just wrote what the cited sources had said. The source is WP:RS Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 12:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Moreoever why did you remove the "Buddhism in central Asia" section? I will give attribution to the article where I derived it from. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Why are you reverting my edits? When the sources I quoted clearly talks about Indianization of China. I even quoted an entire book which briefly talks about this. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
You're taking phrases out of context, and present them as if China became some sort of clone of India. Moreover, you do this in the lead, which is supposed to summarize the article, which is clearly not the case here. The phrase "Indianization of China" has most significantly been used by Hu Shi, in a polemical way, to object against the uncritical borrowing of Indian cultural elements. That begs for an explanation, if it is due, and it certainly is not fit for a prominent place in the lead. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
I am citing what historians have said. The entire book which I cited talks about the indianization of China quite clearly. But yes, In case If you don't want it in the lead, I can make a seperate east Asian section for this? Where I will write about Spread of Buddhism in China and japan with WP:RS sources. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
And how does that book speak about the "Indianization of China"? Any idea? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
i quoted page no. As far as I remember.
But can I create "Spread of Buddhism in east asia"
And "Spread of Buddhism in central Asia" section? Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand that "Greater India" and "Indianization" are obsolete terms, used in some Indian scholarship with nationalist tendencies from the 1920s to the 1970s, but since then have fallen out of favor with mainstream historians. While there were a few historians during this period that proposed the inclusion of China and Japan, those proposals were not accepted by the mainstream and are considered fringe views that are no longer taken seriously in current historical scholarship. The idea that Indianization included China and Japan is WP:FRINGE. The fact that you can find a source or two does not refute this. Skyerise (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
The cited sources are clearly WP:RS which includes Japan and China as "Indianized".
Moreover the map you showed is an expansion of Hinduism (Not indian culture sphere as whole)
Though my request was to just make sections regarding Spread of Buddhism in central Asia and East Asia, Because the article deals with Indian culture/religions. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
This map shows the historically accepted range of "Indianization" and "Greater India". As you can clearly see, it does not come anywhere near Japan. Skyerise (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Please also note that we already have an article on the Silk Road transmission of Buddhism, which is a different topic not normally included in the idea of Greater India, which is a term specifically related to the transmission of Hinduism. Skyerise (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes but this article itself is dealing with the spread of Indian religions/culture/language. This is why I had a request to make a section for "Spread of Buddhism in central Asia" and "Spread of Buddhism in east asia" Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 18:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
But the term "Greater India" is defined as the spread of Hinduism - not Buddhism. We don't need sections here. It is all covered at Silk Road transmission of Buddhism. It doesn't get repeated out of context and against the accepted definitions here. Skyerise (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
No? The term greater India is defined with the spread of all Indian religions, Be it Hinduism or Buddhism
So shouldn't it be in the lead? Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
No it isn't and no it shouldn't. You just need to stay in your own lane. I'm about to ask for you to be topic-banned at ANI because you refuse to listen. Skyerise (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Did I violate any rules? Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, you are. You are pushing obsolete nationalist fringe views which are not accepted by current scholarship. Skyerise (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Well I just requested to make sections for spread of Buddhism to Central Asia and East asia. But okay, I will stop here if it seems like that. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Did you read the archives? Like most articles, the archives show that this kind of discussion has already happened and the current state of the article is due to the consensus that the sources do not support such an inclusion. China has been discussed several times previously and its inclusion has been rejected due to lack of sources that directly connect the expansion of the Buddhism into China with the term "Greater India", which is after all the subject of the article - a technical term used in a particular period and genre of historical works, not the "general idea" that we can coatrack anything into by claiming it means "anything Indian ideas may have touched, however indirectly". That's not the definition of the term. Skyerise (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Categories: