Misplaced Pages

Talk: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 02:11, 9 November 2006 editHkelkar (talk | contribs)7,279 edits Revert to revision 86626894 dated 2006-11-09 02:08:05 by Hkelkar using popups← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:35, 8 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,297 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:India/Archive 60) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}} {{Talk header}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=yes}}
{{todo}}
{{Indian English}}
<div width="90%" style="background-color:#f9f9f9;border: 2px solid black; padding:.9em">
{{Article history
<center>'''Guidelines for editing the India page'''</center>
|action1=FAC
* Text to be written in ] (spellings are modelled on British English)
|action1date=22:24, 16 Sep 2004
* Units in ] should be spelled out with the converted English units abbreviated in parentheses per ].
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/India
* Only external links pertaining to ''India as a whole'', or official government of India links are solicited on this page. Please add other links in their respective articles.
|action1result=promoted
* All sections are a summary of more detailed articles. If you find any points missing, please add it in the section's main article rather than on this page to keep this page size within reasonable limits.
|action1oldid=5945311
* You may also discuss India related matters at: ''']'''.
</div>
''Two events mentioned in this article are an ] and ].
* ''']''' is the ''']''' article on the English Misplaced Pages. It was registered with 23,177 incoming links in January 2006.
* ''']''' was English Misplaced Pages's '''''', and the '''6th most popular country''' after U.S., Germany, France, UK and Japan and the '''first developing country''' in February 2004.
* ] is ] most revised page, as of ] ].
----
{| align="right"
|-
|{{WP India | class=FA | importance=Top | portal=yes|group-portal1=Kerala|small=yes}}
|-
|{{WP:Countries|small=yes|FA|small=yes}}
|-
|{{featured|small=yes}}
|-
|{{FARCfailed|small=yes}}
|-
|{{V0.5|small=yes|class=FA|category=Geography}}
|-
|{{Mainpage date|December 3|2004|small=yes}}
|-
|{{FAOL|Tamil|ta:இந்தியா|lang2=German|link2=de:Indien|lang3=Swedish|link3=sv:Indien|small=yes}}
|-
|{{Talk Spoken Misplaced Pages|India.ogg|small=yes}}
|-
|}
{| class="infobox" width="238px"
|-
!align="center" colspan="3"|]<br>]
----
|-
| ]
| ]
| ]
|-
| ]
| ]
| ]
|-
| ]
| ]
| ]
|-
| ]
| ]
| ]
|-
| ]
|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->


|action2=FAR
== ] ==
|action2date=11 Apr 2005
Please vote for the ] article to become an article to be improved to be featured here, ] ] 14:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article removal candidates/India/archive1
|action2result=kept
|action2oldid=12191859


|action3=FAR
|action3date=15:45, 6 May 2006
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article removal candidates/India/archive2
|action3result=kept
|action3oldid=51836931


|action4=FAR
==] has two distinct meanings and Indian secularim is third. ==
|action4date=14:15, 28 July 2011
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/India/archive2
|action4result=kept
|action4oldid=441811169


|currentstatus=FA
::It asserts the ] of religion, and freedom from religion, within a state that is neutral on matters of belief, and gives no state privileges or subsidies to religions.
|maindate=December 3, 2004
|maindate2=October 2, 2019
|otd1date=2004-08-15|otd1oldid=5256057
|otd2date=2005-08-15|otd2oldid=21044027
|otd3date=2011-08-15|otd3oldid=444882019
|otd4date=2012-11-26|otd4oldid=524820236
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=FA |vital=yes |collapsed=yes |listas=India|1=
{{WikiProject Asia|importance=Top |india=Yes}}
{{WikiProject India|importance=Top |portal=yes}}
{{WikiProject South Asia|importance=Top }}
{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=High }}
{{WikiProject Countries}}
{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors |user=Twofingered Typist |date=21 September 2019}}
{{WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages}}
}}
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|topic=ipa|protection=ecp}}
{{Press|collapsed=yes|date=17 August 2009 |url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6043534/The-50-most-viewed-Misplaced Pages-articles-in-2009-and-2008.html |title=The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008 |org=] |date2=27 August 2009 |url2=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6099890/Wikipedia-Top-20-people-places-film-and-technology-articles.html|title2=Misplaced Pages: Top 20 people, places, film and technology articles |org2=] |author2=James Steyn |date3=4 July 2015 |url3=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/The-vandals-of-Wiki/articleshow/47941452.cms |title3=The Vandals of Wiki |org3=] |author3=Sandhya Soman}}
{{tmbox
| type = speedy
| text = <big><big><big>'''PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING AN EDIT REQUEST ABOUT CHANGING THE COUNTRY NAME'''</big></big><br>If you have come here to post that the country name should be changed from India to Bharat, please note that we use the ] (common name) to determine article names, even when a country changes its name. For an example, see ], where the official name of the country (Türkiye) is noted in the lead sentence and the infobox, but the article remains at its common English name.</big>
}}
{{banner holder |collapsed=yes |1=
{{All time pageviews|151}}
{{Annual report|], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]}}
{{Top 25 report|Aug 11 2013|Oct 20 2013|until|Nov 24 2013|Dec 8 2013|Dec 29 2013|until|Jan 19 2014}}
{{Spoken article requested|{{U|Sdkb}}|Featured article, and one that may have a higher-than-average proportion of readers who are English language learners}}
{{Annual readership |width=570 |days=182}}
{{Section sizes}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 75K
|counter = 60
|minthreadsleft = 3
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:India/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index
|mask=/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes
}}


== "]" listed at ] ==
::It refers to a belief that human activities and decisions should be based on evidence and fact, and not superstitious beliefs, however devoutly held, and that policy should be free from religious domination. For example, a society deciding whether to promote condom use might consider the issues of disease prevention, family planning, and women's rights. A secularist would argue that such issues are relevant to public policy-making, whereas Biblical interpretation or church doctrine should not be considered and are irrelevant. ] 16:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 13#ভাৰত}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 17:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 December 2024 ==
::Vkvora I don't see what you intend to get out of posting such comments on the ] talk page. Please avoid posting messages which has no bearing on the article in question. Please note: you could be blocked from trolling. ] ] 17:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


{{edit extended-protected|India|answered=yes}}
:: If I may, Vkvora, I think your efforts, whatever they are, would be better served if you contributed to an internet forum or to a ]. Know that Misplaced Pages is neither of these. The purpose of the "Talk" section of the articles here on Misplaced Pages is meant to discuss the article only and to allow editors to collaborate on improving the article. If you feel that your particular point of view is something that you would like to share with the world, I would suggest that you join the blogging community and use that as your platform rather than Misplaced Pages talk pages. Thanks ] 22:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
India's population is 1,457,248,665 as of Friday, December 27, 2024<ref>{{cite web |last1=2024 |first1=India Population |title=India Population 2024 |url=https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/india-population/ |website=morldometer |publisher=worldometer |access-date=27 December 2024}}</ref> ] (]) 10:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


:{{Not done}}: Worldometer is unreliable. ] (]|]) 10:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I request the reader to read the articles on ], ] and ] on Misplaced Pages the 💕. ] 04:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:::: Okay, I read them. What was your point? I never said the "discussion" threads you have created here lack credence. I am however saying that your "discussions" are misplaced. For starters, you're not "discussing" anything; you're opining and making statements on things that have little to do with this article. You seem like a person with a lot to say on certain issues; I am suggesting that you do so in a blog and not here. ] 19:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


{{Ref-talk}}
I agree with Vkvora. India is not a truly secular nation considering the religous sanctions & holidays observed by the government itself. However this issue of official policy vs practice should be handled as criticism - as it is. Vkvora has has brought to wikipedia valid criticism. This is being censored by users with extreme nationalism for India from within the wikipedia community. India's Secularism has been debated by minorities for years now. If only some of you (presumably hindu's) could wear the shoes of a person of religious minority in India. ] 16:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


== Reordering sentence in the lead ==
===Criticisms of peer review===
::One of the most common complaints about the peer review process is that it is slow, and that it typically takes several months or even several years in some fields for a submitted paper to appear in print. In practice, much of the communication about new results in some fields such as astronomy no longer takes place through peer reviewed papers, but rather through preprints submitted onto electronic servers such as arXiv.org.


Minor edit suggestion: Currently the lead reads "It is the seventh-largest country in the world by area and the most populous country.". The latter fact seems by far the more notable of the two, so you'd think "It is the most populous country in the world and the seventh-largest by area" would be a more sensible phrasing. ] (]) 17:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::Article ] and ] : .


:I '''support''' this. The current sentence framing has stayed the same since before India surpassed China in terms of population. I think its due for a change now ] (]) 19:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::An interesting side note concerns the words "SOCIALIST" and "SECULAR" in the preamble.
:I '''support''' this aswell. ]] 20:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
um hi


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 January 2025 ==
==Religious Poverty in India==


{{edit extended-protected|India|answered=yes}}
::Among some groups, in particular religious groups, poverty is considered a necessary or desriable condition, which must be embraced in order to reach certain spiritual, moral, or intellectual states. Poverty is often understood to be an essential element of ] among ] and ].
] (]) 18:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


Just change the language of "Hindi" to "Hindustani". Both are the same
== Official languages ==
: Not done. Edit requests should be uncontroversial and backed by RS. ] (]) 21:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
How many does India have? The info table states "Hindi, English, and 21 other languages" where as the number rises to 24 at ] --] 05:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
:French is not an official language of the Indian Union. ] ] 08:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
::it is in pondicherry ] 10:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)]

Wondering what are the official languages of India? How many are there, and which ones? Are all state recog off languages also off languages of the Republic of India. What about Part XVII of the Indian constitution? Any pointers to sites outside wikipedia which point to the exact number of official (not recognized) languahes? ] 00:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

: 22: Assamese, Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Kashmiri, Malayalam, Marathi, Oriya, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Tamil, Telugu, Urdu, Sindhi, Konkani, Manipuri, Nepali, Bodo, Maithili, Dogri and Santhali. English enjoys associate official status. <br />
--source; Manorama Yearbook 2006, pg 507, ISBN 8189004077
] ] 12:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This talks about only two official languages according to the constitutional provisions. Unless anybody knows otherwise, I will change the no. of official languagues to two. ] 05:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
:Actually it is truely two. But some non-Hindi speakers challenge this and claim that all the ''Scheduled languages'' are natioanl and official languages.] 23:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Trying to remove the "citation needed" for the 23 languages recognized by the constitution, I managed to track down the 8th schedule of the constitution which lists the recognized languages and I found a copy here . It mentions only 18. But it might be out of date and stuff. If someone can track down the up to date copy, correct the number of languages and cite it, I will be much gratified. — Ravikiran 14:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

:Link it to the Manorama Yearbook 2006. Some careless nut has gone and removed my reference prompting someone to add a {cite} to it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

] removed the names of the languages in non-roman script. There seems to be no authority for that removal. I have restored them. How do people feel? Signed: ] 21:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

:I fully endorse Sukh's actions. The addition of scripts for all 22 or so languages is not necessary. Furthermore, the re-insertion of the names have lengthened the infobox, and distorted the layout of the rest of the page components. --] 22:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks Ragib. My rationale for removing them is that they're completely redundant and misleading. The native-script versions of each language are written in their appropriate articles. If we were to write the native script version of every foreign term wherever it is used on Misplaced Pages, it'd be ridiculous! They also ruin the spacing and the section on languages EVEN LARGER! Finally, there are (or were before) multiple scripts for some languages, when only one script is recognised in India. For example, for Punjabi only the Gurmukhi script is considered official in India. I'm not sure about Kashmiri or Sindhi, but I'm sure a similar situation pertains. ] | <span style="color: green;" lang="pa">ਸੁਖ</span> | ] 22:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
:::I agree that it lengthens the infobox, but not that it distorts "the layout of the rest of the page components". The infobox goes to the middle of the History section regardless. If a script is incorrect then let us fix it, not delete it. How are the scripts misleading? They are no more redundant than giving the various forms of town names. ] said "Please allow correct contents to co-exist and do not engage in editing campaign over small matters like this." ] 20:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
::::The scripts are ugly and serve absolutely no purpose, and I've removed them. The purpose the information is to let readers know what languages are official in India, not mention the transliteration of of the language in it's native script. Besides some of the languages lack a script making it look really inconsistent. ] ] 15:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

lists 415 living languages for India, along with estimated populations for each of these languages. I personally have found that Ethnologue has a tendency to use inflated numbers when counting speakers, but that they are nonetheless very reliable in terms of counting numbers of languages. It seems that it would be good to have a number between 1,652 "dialects" (the 1961 census actually uses the term "mother tongues" which could mean languages or dialects) and 22 official languages. I would recommend listing the ethnologue number as well as the number of languages with over a million speakers (a little over 50).
] 07:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

== British Crown ==
I have removed the term British Crown, as India was not colonialised by the crown but by British East India Company. I have also removed phrases trying to highlight that British meerly served India in its unification.

~rAGU
== Muslim Population of India ==

Muslim population of india is given incorrectly ( i can't login to correct it at the moment).

It is 13.43% according to 2001 census. 16% is incorrect. you can confirm it by adding the numbers given for different deographic groups.

Percentages given are

80.5%
16.2%
2%
2.43%
0.76%
0.4%

which sum up to 102.29% !

(census figures also include those people in addition to these who didn't state their religion in the census). So please correct these figures immediately.


Thanks

== India Has Worlds (Second?) Largest HIV/AIDS Population ==

India with world's second largest HIV/AIDS patients surely this deserves mention in the main page! I remember that it used to include it in the article and obviously some people removed it.

India has announced that it will verify UN estimations that it has overtaken South Africa as the country with the highest population living with HIV/AIDS in the world.

So India is either number 1 or number 2 with regard to largest HIV/Aids Population.

Source and evidence:

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/3753.asp
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3886883.stm
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast/hcast_index.cfm?display=detail&hc=919
http://www.christiantoday.com/news/south-asia/india.to.verify.uns.hiv.aids.figures/361.htm
http://www.health-now.org/site/article.php?articleId=412&menuId=12
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/fromthefield/216872/16a04d769c9c08a0ff5ecbbae83e4062.htm

I have listed half a dozen links and sources to back up this fact. I will take wikipedians into condfidence before making any changes in the article.

thanks

:read ]] 05:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

== Formation Of India? Indus Valley? Surely Not! ==

Formation 3300 BCE

Indus Valley Civilization
----------

How can Indus valley have been indian civilization when the entire Indus valley lies in pakistan not India, Its like Sudan claiming the Egyptian civilization as its own despite the fact that the pyramids, the nile, the pharoes are all located in egypt.

there is a real flaw in the article here. Please correct this error. because pakistan was in india first so people still call it indian

thanks. <small>''The preceding was an unsigned comment left by an anonymous user''</small>

:I don't think that's really the case. The land that was known as India was named after the Indus, it was always based on the Indus Valley, which along with the Gangetic Plains made up much of the fertile soil in India. Pakistan was only formed in 1947, for historians of ancient history that's practically nothing. So I believe there is no flaw. ''']''' ] 08:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ, both India and Pakistan were "only" formed in 1947, Afterall both countries got independence from the UK. Therefore for India to lay claim to the indus valley civilization is like I mentioned Sudan claiming the phaoroes of egypt, the pyramids, and the entire egyptian civilization is sudanese despite the fact that none of the pyramids, most of the nile valley is not even located in sudan. For instance if Egypt changed its name to Arabistan, the name only changed of the country but the history of the land before Arabistan is still part of this new Arabistan, not any other country.

Take Iran for example, It was known as persia for thousands of years and is now called Iran, this does not mean that persian civilization now belongs to Iraq or that persian civilization is not part of the history of Iran , its still Iranian history by all means.

Indian civilization like you mentioned is based along the banks of the Ganges, Egpyt the nile, Pakistan the Indus, Also note that the river indus originates in Tibet not India.

thanks<small>''The preceding was an unsigned comment left by an anonymous user''</small>

:The culture of the Indus Valley was Vedic (on OIT basis). Vedic culture is the primary culture in most of India in the following years. It's simple, although the Republic of India was formed in 1947. A land known as India or more accurately Bharatvarsh, was in existence for many years before Independence. This Bharatvarsh was originally formed on the banks of the Indus. The question is on formation, Vedic civilization began on the Indus, not the Ganges, and it is Vedic civilization that has formed India. Both India and Pakistan can lay claim to the IVC. Hope you understand. ''']''' ] 06:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

:: While I think the anonymous poster is a bit off in (apparently) insisting that no culture on the banks of the Indus could be described as Indian since it's presently in Pakistan, I don't think it's helpful to defend this on the basis of the OIT, which AFAIK has essentially no support among modern Indo-Europeanists. Even proponents of the AIT would admit the existence of a culture describable as "Indian" on the Indus Valley in ancient times (just after the arrival of the Aryans). --] 20:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Well we all have our views...It has little support amongst linguists outside India but is not generally based on linguistics in any case. ''']''' ] 01:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

::Um, I think you have made a mistake because some people forgot to sign. In case you didn't notice, I believe that the culture existing in the subcontinent prior to 1947 could be described as Indian culture, as there was no Pakistan existing before 1947. ''']''' <sup></nowiki></font>]]</nowiki></font>]]</sup> 11:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, im sorry noble eagle, that comment wasnt directed at you, it was the directed at the pussy who refuses to sign. Perhaps he actually believes the bullshit that he is saying, or he is just trying to escalate things. I am also surprised that he is an indian - more like an muslim pakistani trying to get credit for a country ( pakistan) which has to leech of others hsitory, religion, culture, food and name- India. By the way, i am Kumarnator.
::I cant believe what im reading here....This guy is going by a technicallity....Ya INdia was technically "formed" in 1947....But so what?.....The greeks recognized a land called India....The persians recognized a land called Hindustan.....And INDIAN HISTORY always called the whole area land of the "Aryans" or "BHarat"....India is an ancient civilazation that existed well before 1947, it exisisted well before the "Indus Valley Civilazation" and if you dont believe me....all u have to do....is read Indian scripture like the Vedas, UPanishads, and a bunch of other books.....I mean this guy is going by a technicallity and i think thats a joke ] 05:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:::This article deals with the Republic of India that was created in 1947. The information about ancient civilizations should go to other articles such as ], not here. -- <font color="navy">] (])</font> 05:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

::There was certainly an "India" before 1947. It was an Empire ruled by Britain (I'm not sure of the precise status - as I understand, it was not technically colony, and even had membership in the League of Nations, despite a nearly complete lack of self-government). Before the formation of British India in 1858, there was a region called India. This region, and the British Empire "India," included more or less the modern countries of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. The Republic of India has only existed since 1947, but "India" has existed for millennia. And the "history" section of this article is meant to be an epitome of ] - are you suggesting that the history section of this article should begin with 1947? ] 12:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

<small> The above message was illegally removed by user ] and is now being restored.</small>

My cheers to the guy who stood up and defended our Pakistani heritage.You are absoloutely right.We dont call our land what foriegners call it and never did.INDUS IS PAKISTANI HISTROY.Pakistan zindabad!!!!!!
<small>This unsigned message was left by user ].

Corrected by: ] 01:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Although both India and Pakistan were created at the same time out
of British Raj, Indians desperately try to steal Pakistan's heritage,
particularly the Indus Valley Civilization! This Indian hegemonic
agenda is based on myths and false propaganda for religious and
nationalistic imperialism. Also, there are some Pakistanis,
particularly Islamists, who narrow-mindedly deny/ignore Pakistan's
glorious pre-Islamic past. Harappans were certainly the ancestors of
most Pakistanis, who absorbed or adopted the many waves of
invaders/migrants through out the centuries.

Indus Valley Civilization was mostly based in the region of Pakistan.
The names used for the Civilization are "Indus Valley" or "Harappan",
both in Pakistan. The most largest and important cities are Harappa
and Mohenjodaro, both in Pakistan. Even in the case of Hakra/Ghaggar
river (extinct), a tributary of Indus itself, it has far more mature
Harappan sites on the Pakistani side than on the Indian side. The
proto-Indus site is also located at Mehrgarh in Pakistan. Indus Valley
Civilization, at its peak, had colonies stretching from Turkmenistan
to northern Maharashta, and from southeast Iran to western UP. About
85% of Indians (i.e. outside of northwest India) have nothing to do
with Indus Valley Civilization, where their ancestors were nomadic
forest-dwelling hunters and gatherers at a time period when the
sophisticated Indus Valley Civilization was flourishing.

Indus/Harappan religion was not Hinduism. Not a single Hindu temple,
idol, or statue has been found at excavated Indus sites. Harappans
buried their dead, ate beef, and were not Vedic.The "Great Bath"
was common in many civilizations such as among the Graeco-Romans
and Mesopotamians. Depicted on some Indus seals, the "deity" wearing
the horned head-dress looks nothing like Hinduism's Shiva,
and similar deities were common in other civilizations like the
Celtic "Cernunnos". Bull seemed to be sacred among Harappans similar
to Mesopotamians and Minoans, but not the cow.

A people may evolve by adopting new ideas/beliefs, change with
political environment, and racially get mixed with other peoples, but
that does not erase their history. Pakistan -- the land and people of
Indus directly inherits one of the greatest ancient civilizations of
the world, just the same way present-day Iraq, Greece, and Egypt (all
three countries and names also recent in origin) inherits their own great
ancient civilizations. It is irrelevant that the descendents of
Harappans are now mostly Muslims (Pakistanis). Descendents of ancient
Mesopotamians and Egyptians are also now mostly Muslims, descendents
of ancients Greeks and Romans are now mostly Christians. It is time
that all Pakistanis take pride in their past, and protect it from
thievery of other countries like India.
<small> The preceding message was illegally inserted in another message above in the talk page by an anonymous user from IP address 74.98.240.170</small> Corrected by ] 01:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

== Corruption and Indian Corruption ==

::In India Government gives food grains at subsidised rate through rationing shop on ration card. It appers that all most all the industrialist are having ration card means they are poor and nothing else but poor. Will any reader on this discussion will give opinion about difference in corruption and Indian corruption. ] 17:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

::Please move any such talks to blogs or forums, and stop discussing irreleevant things here. This talk page is about the ] article. As a suggestion, and provide good blogging services to discuss such issues. — ] (]) 18:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

::We need people like you in parliament or something Vkvora, so that we can fix some of the problems with India, then we'll write an article on you. But for now, it's just not for Misplaced Pages. Alright? ''']''' ] 08:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

::After 60 years Indian Parliament discussing SC/ST reservation in IITs, IIMs and residential Doctors are doing their job to oppose the Parliament discussion. All these educated youths having ration cards blaiming politicians.

::I request the readers to surrender Ration Card to demolish the Buidling of Corruption. The Artilce India on Misplaced Pages, the 💕 gives information of RBI, Taj Mahal, BSE and Bollywood and no information of Ration Card.

:::] 06:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Why don't you do what anyone else does when they feel something is lacking in an article? Come up with the appropriately cited text and discuss it in the Talk pages. If everyone agrees, then add it to the article. I don't see what you gain by these discourses in this page. Your output in these pages do not add any value IMO. If you feel information on the Ration Card is lacking, then add it. I am sorry, but this continuous whining is getting a bit annoying. - ] 06:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

==Accuracy Disputed tag==
The racial statistics from the CIA World Factbook are in disagreement with the numbers given on the article ], so I added the accuracy disputed tag. Currently the statistics do not represent all points of view, so I added the NPOV tag.--] 06:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
: Both the CIA World Factbook and LOC's Country Studies agree with the numbers given in both articles &mdash; 72% Aryan, 25% Dravidian and 3% Mongoloid/Other. I'm going to remove the accuracy disputed tag. Also, can you please be specific as to the NPOV tag. ] 14:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
::But the ] disagrees, so I will added the accuracy tag again.--] 15:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
:::I've checked the sources for ]:
:::#http://www.culturopedia.com/Tribes/tribesintro.html -- No claim to be a reputed source
:::#http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/differences.html -- a geocities site (certainly not notable) Infact the "historian" Hayat Khan does not even appear in the top google searches
:::#http://www.dalitstan.org/books/mohr/mohr3.html -- dead link
:::I am removing the tag, as there is nothing to dispute about. ] ] 15:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

::::The Dr. BS Guhu is a reputable source in the Culturopedia study.
::::] is not an official policy. Hayat Khan is a ]
::::Dalitstan link has been fixed.--] 15:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi! You've mentioned that BS Guhu is a reputable source. If so, he must have published some of his works on the subject. To ascertain credibility, you need to cite his works along with the ISBN numbers. Notability may not be official policy, but ] is considered to be an official guideline. There it mentions primary sources and the fact that ''We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher''. hence I am removing the NPOV tag as the sources which you cite the dispute arising from have no means of ascertaing notability or credibility as prior published peer reviewed work. ] ] 15:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

::This is what the policy says, "''Scientific journals are the best place to find primary source articles about experiments''". It does not say scientific information has to come from a peer-reviewed journal.--] 16:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
::Yes, but for a dispute of this magnitude, we should strive to obtain the most credible references. Even if it is not peer-reviewed, can you obtain published sources for the above authors? We need such kind of sources to maintain our credibility. Regards, ] ] 16:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
:::] also agrees that India is mostly Australoid.--] 16:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
::::New American Media agrees that their is a large "African precense in India".--] 16:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
::::I'm not disputing the content on % of races etc, but one the quality of references. If you can get the page number and published source of the text, feel free to add it to the page. Keep in mind that his findings might well be outdated. ] ] 16:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::In Huxley's ''Journal of the Ethnological Society of London (1870) Scientific Memoirs III'' he said the the Australoid physical type is one of the "best marked" (distinct) of all types. Since their physical type is "best marked", it is doubtful that when he claimed that the "East-Indiaman" from "Hidostan" was Australoid in that he was mistaken.--] 16:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Ideas about race have changed quite a bit since 1870 - we are probably better off to stick with more recent sources (roughly, post-WWII?). If we cite something over a century old on this, it might be best to frame it as of "historical" (rather than currently-accepted) interest. -- ] 06:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

== India's Population vs. Southeast Asia's Population ==

Southeast Asia's landmass is approximately the same as India's landmass. Why is India's population is so much bigger than the whole population of Southeast Asia? ] 13:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
:THis is because there is more population growth in India more than the population growth of the Southeast Asian countries combined{{unsigned|Manav 95}}

::What Manav was saying is that population growth=too much sex. Indians like having sex. They are too horny. ] 00:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

::: India, with its vast Indo-Gangetic plains, and the plateaus is geographically too conducive to population growth. Over half of India's land is arable, which is more land area than any other country except USA (India comes a close second, with 160 million hectares.) OTOH, large parts of SE Asia are covered with dense forests. ] (]) 22:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

==The People of India==

I am rather surprised that I could not find a section on the Indian people, or on the people of India. On the other hand, I suspect this subject could be rather extensive, and may deserve a Wiki article of its own. Or, perhaps, none at all, to be safe. ] 06:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

:The reason is very clear ... India is a very diverse country, and unlike European countries, no single "Indian people" exists ''per se'', rather you can look into the extensive articles like ], ], ], ] and others to get more information. Thank you. --] 06:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

== Map of India is not correct ==

Map of India used in this page is not correct. If Misplaced Pages fails to post correct map published by government of India, '''we Indians are going to protest and will pursuade Indian governoment to block wikipedia.'''
The territory of Kashmir is not shown as part of India, though it is disputed by terrorist stare of Pakistan, wikipedia needs to be nuetral on this issue and should not support illegal occupants. {{unsigned|Abnaren}}

:You are entitled to your opinion, up to certain limits. Misplaced Pages is not under the jurisdiction of the Indian govt, such that it has to comply with Indian government, or any other such entities. ] is one of the basic policies of Misplaced Pages. You can refer to that. Thank you. --] 06:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

:Misplaced Pages represents both (ie all) points of views: The administrated and claimed territories. ] ] 18:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

'''You gotta be kidding me, if you have any complain, well... fix it yourself, if you're saying that the map is wrong, then get the proper one, but please stop saying that you will persuade the Indian government to block Misplaced Pages. that just made me laugh. hahaha'''

Watch who you call "terrorist state".That was a personal attack on us and directly violates wekipedia's rules.The guy who wrote that can be blocked easily.

== FAQ ==

This page needs a FAQ section on top. It's getting a bit annoying replying the same things over and over again. ] ] 18:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
:: You stole the words right out of my mouth! I think this page could use a general FAQ that highlights consensus that has been reached thus far over contentious issues. ] 18:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
::: I think such lists of consensuses are a good idea for most Misplaced Pages projects and large Misplaced Pages pages. I suggested the same thing a few weeks back at ] but haven't been able to work on it.''']''' ] 01:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

== Numbering on map incorrect ==

Delhi is listed as 6 under states when it should be listed as G under Union Territories. This is throwing all later states off by 1. I'd edit it, but was unable to determine how. ] 00:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

== infobox messed up ==

Someone's messed up with the 'formation' field in the infobox. I'm hard pressed for time, so could it be fixed ASAP?

== Racial Conflicts in Northeast India ==

Northeast India is troubled by violences and insurgent groups. The locals and the migrants from Western India are killing each other. It can even get worst like the Rwandan Genocide. Western media should go and cover a story about the trouble in Northeast India, but they don't. I wonder why. ] 00:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
:This is not the appropriate forum to discuss media relate issues. 00:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

== Area ==

This article states India is 3,287,590 km² in size. ] article states it's 3,287,2632 km² (inc. disputed areas) in size. Which is correct? ] 07:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

From what I can currently see (and that is all I can go on as a first order approximation to 'truth'), it appears to me that the 2 numbers gives are out by a factor of 10 (so it shouldn't be too difficult to see which one is correct.....Though, on the internet, you never know.....).

] 10:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

:Sorry, that second figure should be 3,287,263 and not 3,287,2632! ] 13:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

== ''Indian Union'' Redirect ==

The Indian Union redirect should point to the ] article. ] 20:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

== mistake ==

Billions of blue blistering barnacles! What reasoning is responsible for calling ] an ]? That thundering nation is lodged firmly in a peninsula in ]! ] 02:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

:Thundering typhoons! To crown it all, ] is not mentioned! ] 02:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

::You going through a Tintin phase, or what? :) ] 06:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Great Snakes, I think he is! ''']''' <sup></nowiki></font>]]</nowiki></font>]]</sup> 07:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

::Seven thousand suffering samurais! I am the greatest Tintin fan ever! (no offense, ]) ] 13:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

::Frankly, ''I am ]''. I share his affinity for whiskey, bungles and accidents. ] 13:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

== Introduction biased ==
I was thinking of reading up on India, but after reading the introduction, it occurred to me that the rest of the article may be biased too. The introduction uses a lot of adjectives that I think do not belong in an encyclopedia. For example: "advanced civilization", "major role in human history", "Indian culture and society has been so resilient", "in an intense movement of social reforms", "restoring the glory of the past Indian empires", "among the most diverse in the world" and finally "be an emerging superpower". This all seems a little too subjective.
] 09:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

:I agree - those sentences must be toned down, but I doubt that there is an extensive problem. ] 13:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
:: I have made the introduction more balanced. I've also copy edited the first three paragraphs to conform to an encyclopedia style. ] 05:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

==Second Largest Muslim population==

In this Article is says that India has the secodn largest muslim population in the World. The population of India is stated as 1.1 billion with 12.2 % muslims.

However, in the wikipedia article for Pakistan, it states that Pakistan has a population of 185 million with 96% muslims.

96% of 185 million is greater than 12.2% of 1.1 billion. There is an inconsistency, can someone ex[plain which source is to be believed?
: India has the third largest Muslim population in the world and the largest Muslim minority population. As you state above, India as approximately 140 million Muslims. Pakistan has many more, no matter which way one interprets the numbers. ] 14:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

==Poverty?==
Surely it is only pragmatic and proper for some of the extreme levels of poverty within India to gain a mention? Would it not be a good idea to create a link to such pages for statistical information? Perhaps it would also be a good idea to avoid political bias on these issues?
] 18:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
: Have been addressed in the introduction (3rd paragraph). ] 05:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

==REDIRECT Request==
Is it not a good idea to have the South India article re-directed to the India article? The last thing that we would want anyone to think about is that there are 2 separate countries within that part of the world.
] 18:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


== Edits ==
somehow my edits were reverted, I added them again.] 06:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

== I think the map of south asia in local languages is suitable ==
]
why delete this map?!--] 16:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

:First, you had added it to the geography section where it is not suitable. The ] was naming the states in the local language scripts. This is the English wikipedia, that map is of no use for the English reader. I have rolled-back your addition. Please do not add the image until consensus is reached here. Regards, <font color="navy">] (])</font> 16:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

::I don't agree with you. first, many English user also want to know how to write the state's name in local language scripts like many foreigners want to know chinese province in Chinese. second, this map show that there many different languages in india and other south asian countries. so i think this map are suitable.--] 16:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Mmmm....I have ] on the Indian noticeboard to see what others feel. Thanks for explaining your position and not putting back the map again. Regards, <font color="navy">] (])</font> 17:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

::::Why not put the map in another article, perhaps ] or ] and link to it from ]? --] <font color = "blue"><sup>]</sup></font> 17:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::I would oppose adding the local language map. Only the map that has text in English should be allowed. If someone wants to know how a state's name is written in local language, he/she can visit the corresponding Misplaced Pages article and look it up. Often, this information is present in the first sentence of the article. — ] (]) 17:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
: I agree with Ambuj and Ganesh. The map is not suitable for the geography section and maps as such should only be in English at enwiki. I would object to the map being put even on the other articles like ] or ]. - ] (]) 18:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
::I do not seek any problem with this image on english wikipedia. But it could be placed at suitable places like ] as ] also mentioned. We have local language context to introduce a peson or a place name associated with an article, which is not undestandable to an english reader, but local language readers also visit to English wikipedia, specially people from south asia. ] <sup>(]/])</sup> 19:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

:: This comment is on the content of the map, not it's placement. This is a nice and informative map. However, all scripts would look the same to someone seeing them for the first time, so it will have little value for him/her. If it is felt that such a map is required anywhere on wikipedia, maybe it could be made more informative by writing something about the script (at least its name in the Roman script) besides the Indian script. ] (]) 21:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
<s>Another question is, is this map representing official languages of states, or really the local languages? Although states were created roughly on linguistic basis, linguistic borders can be very different from the state borders. See map for example. </s> I just forgot this map was about scripts. ] (]) 21:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

(crossposted to Noticeboard for India related topics) Wouldn't that be a big mess? Also, if an area has two or three different languages spoken by the people, does it mean all 2 or 3 scripts will be used? Who decides which script gets chosen at the expense of which other script? This is, after all, the *English* wikipedia, and maps, images, etc. needs to be in English. Having 4 or 5 names for each small chunk will be a horrible mess. Besides, I don't see any real purpose of such a map. People coming to this wikipedia are looking for English articles, and a map is supposed to convey information, not to cater to each and every language group. --] 22:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
:: I know I am late to this discussion, but <s>why not include this map in the Wikipage on ]?</s> ] 12:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
::: Oh, I see, it has already been done. ] 12:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

== Image for the demographics section ==

I am listing some images that I found:

<gallery>
Image:Bangalore city market.jpg|City market in ]
Image:Chennai.ranganathanst.jpg|Ranganathan street in ]
Image:KolkataCofeehouse123.jpg|Coffee house in ]
Image:Population density map.png|Map showing population density
Image:Naga_people.jpg|] of ]
Image:Apatani tribal women.jpg|] tribal women
Image:Nlgirls.gif| Naga girls in traditional attire - Added by Chanakyathegreat
Image:Cuckood.jpg| Naga people dancing - Added by Chanakyathegreat
Image:India population density map en.svg|Labelled
Image:India population density map.svg|Plain
Image:India sex ratio map en.svg|labelled
Image:India sex ratio map.svg|Plain
Image:India literacy rate map en.svg|labelled
Image:India literacy rate map.svg|Plain
Image:Desi_Yehudim_Sari.jpg|] in ] - Added by Hkelkar
</gallery>

Any more suggestions? I recently reverted several good faith edits to add a picture in the section. I thought might as well get a consensus. I like the Bangalore one, would rather not add a map since the article already has plenty of them. Naga one is of poor quality. Please comment. Regards, <font color="navy">] (])</font> 23:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope everyone will like this.
:Pics moved to the gallery above.
The caption can be anything that is interesting.
] 11:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
:Bot the pics are of poor quality. Regards, <font color="navy">] (])</font> 15:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:: Just uploaded svg versions of my pop density map pick one --<sup> ]|]</sup> 10:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

::: I like the non-labelled one. Still feel we have too many maps on the article. Regards, <font color="navy">] (])</font> 16:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

:::: Sorry to swamp the place with maps, but im feeling a little map horny lately, added sex ratio map to the gal -<sup> ]|]</sup> 18:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Show some pictures of the '''Bodo people''' in India too. The World needs to know about them like the Nagas. ] 03:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

No one is preventing you from adding images of Bodo people. Just add good images to the list (don't worry about community caste or creed) and at last, we will collectively select one to put it in the demographic section. If you want you can also add the images in the Bodo article
http://en.wikipedia.org/Bodo_people

] 16:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

== Afghanistan and Thailand as neighbours ==

Afghanistan is a neighbours of India because India has never recognised the occupation of Kashmir by Pakistan. Hence it need to be added in the list. For NPOV the information that the area bordering Afghanistan is under the administration of Pakistan can be added. Also there is another historical reason to add afghanistan as a neighbour. It is the cultural link that exist from the very historical times that is still relavant in recent times.
http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/2001_10-12/cotter_mideast/cotter_mideast.html

Another neighbour is Thailand. It is an island nation and the distance between India and Thailand is only a few miles (distance between phuket and Nicobar islands).
http://go.hrw.com/atlas/norm_map/thailand.gif

] 12:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
:Thailand is not an island nation. Never has been, and never will, barring a major cataclysm. The Andamans are closer to Indonesia than they are to the mainland of India, so perhaps one could include Indonesia as well. ] 14:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

==Country infobox==
the independence of the Republic of India doesn't date to 3300 BC, any more than the independence of the Republic of Turkey dates to ] or ] , the independence of Iraq to ] or the independence of Peru to ]. ] <small>]</small> 06:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
:Dab, That formation information is constantly vandalized. I have restored it few times already. - <font color="navy">] (])</font> 06:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
::right, sorry, this page isn't on my watchlist, I was made aware of the problem on my talkpage. The "establishment" field isn't a vandal-magnet just on this article, things are similar on the articles on Turkey, Russia, Germany, and probably many others. Why, I even had to fix the entry, although the exaggeration wasn't quite so bad there. We should ''simplify'' the field to a single entry, "establishment of contemporary state, period", otherwise this is simply an invitation for mysticist vandals to add their fantastic continuity hypotheses :) ] <small>]</small> 08:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
:::The vandal is at it again. Will some admin please do something about it. Apparently, he has been blocked a few times already. ] 10:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

==Religions mentioned in the second paragraph==

* I have changed the link ] in the second paragraph to ], and, similarly, ] to ], since the new links are more relevant for the ] page.
* I am also adding Zoroastrianism (link ]) and Judaism (link ])) to the second paragraph, since they have had a long history on the subcontinent. While they may not be large in numbers, they have certainly been influential. They are also a reminder (sorely needed in intolerant times) that India was once a land of refuge.
] 22:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

== Largest democracy in the world ==

I think this is POV as Russia, China, United States, Brasil and Australia have larger area.--] 10:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
:::China is not a Democracy. Neither is Russia. Anyway its understood that worlds largest means largest by population ] 00:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
:Being a Chinese, I don't think China is not a democracy. Is the ''Western style'' ONLY ONE style of democraty?--] 15:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
:: You don't judge the size of a democracy by the area of the country, but rather by the size of the ''demos'' &mdash; the people. There is a participatory population of 1.2 billion in India, which makes it the world's largest democracy. ] 14:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
: (To: Nixer):You are right—a more accurate choice of words would be "the world's most populous democracy," since China (the most populous country of the world) is not a democracy. However, since the term "democracy" is about people (recall Lincoln: "government of the people, by the people, and for the people") and not land area, "largest democracy" has come to mean "most populous democracy." And that usage is now commonly accepted the world over. Here are three examples from Time magazine, the BBC, and the UN: Time magazine, 2006. , ], 2004. United Nations Population Division. Glad you wrote, since that usage is often a point of confusion. I will add a footnote with those references and a word of explanation. ] 14:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
::Still I think it is POV to say China is undemocratic.--] 15:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

:::I don't know what you mean by POV, but what is meant here is that China is not a ''Western style'' parliamentary democracy i.e. a multi-party system of political participation and with free elections, where all parties are allowed to run for elected office and where all citizens are allowed to vote. This is certainly the ''consensus'' view, witness: and . If your objection is about that particular definition of democracy, you should really take it up on the Misplaced Pages page on democracy. But the short response to your comment is: The CCP (Communist Party of China) has ruled China since 1949. What is the name of the opposition party? ] 18:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
::::And why it should have? In the USA there are two parties with '''the same''' ideology and program. What is the name of a party with different ideology?--] 19:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
::::: As I had said above, your complaint seems to be with what a democracy should or shouldn't be and properly belongs to the Democracy page. I agree with you that if a country has 15 parties and they all think alike, then it is not much of a choice (or as Karl Marx said, "Universal suffrage (i.e. parliamentary elections) is an opportunity citizens of a country get every four years to decide who among the ruling classes will misrepresent them in parliament.") But these are loaded questions (with long history of debate) and their discussion belongs elsewhere. As for China itself, it not clear if it has lived up to Mao's idealistic call, "Let a hundred flowers bloom. A hundred schools of thought contend." As far as I can tell, all hundred schools of thought are thinking a lot about Walmart thesedays. Thanks, BTW, for changing it to "most populous liberal democracy," it is less confusing and sounds better too. ] 20:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
To user ARYAN818 above: Please be aware that comments on a talk page are posted at the end of an ongoing discussion. Inserting comments in the middle (especially when they are redundant and have already been covered by other respondents) is considered bad Wikietiquette and, if persisted in, can be considered vandalism ] 00:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

To ] Please be aware that comments on a talk page are posted at the end of an ongoing discussion. Inserting comments in the middle (especially when they are redundant and have already been covered by other respondents) is considered bad Wikitiquette and, if persisted in, can be considered vandalism. If you read the discussion, you will realize that the change in terminology from "largest democracy" to "most populous ]" was driven by the same concerns you voice in your message. ] 16:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

== Worlds largest Democracy ==

THe article used to say worlds largest Democracy....NOw it has been changed to worlds most populous liberal Democracy.....I think thats a joke....I mean why do people on wikipedia insist on making things sound so complicated....When people read an article, its much more easier to understand "WORLDS LARGEST DEMOCRACY" instead of writing "WORLDS LARGEST POPULOUS LIBERAL DEMOCRACY"....I mean come one the latter version is longer, and many people dont even know what POPULOUS means or LIBERAL DEMOCRACY means.......Just keep it simple.....Worlds largest Democracy
] 05:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

: I don't have strong feeling either way about this matter, so I won't belabour the point. (But since these issues are not as simple as they sound, please read this message completely before responding.) I agree that "world's largest democracy" is short and snappy; unfortunately, it sometimes causes confusion since the usage is not obvious. Here are some examples of "largest." Thus when people say, "world's largest country," they mean "by area" (and are likely referring to Russia), but when they say "world's largest city," they mean by population (and might be referring to Tokyo or Mexico City). The reasons for this usage are buried in the words' Latin roots ("country" comes from "terra contrata" i.e. "land opposite"; while "city" comes from "citizens" i.e. "people"; so "largest country" means "largest land", while "largest city" means "largest population (among cities)"). The reason why "largest democracy" means most populated democracy is because (as some user mentioned above): "democracy" comes from the Greek "demos," which means "people." As for the use of "populous," all I can say is that (a) the word has already been used in that sentence (b) readers of Misplaced Pages are expected to know the meanings of such words, or are expected to look it up in the dictionary (c) since "populous" has been used earlier, it is more euphonic (in the intonation patterns of the English language) to repeat the word, than to follow it up with "largest" in the same sentence, and (d) I have now provided a Wiktionary link to "populous." As for democracy, I have now provided a Wikilink to ]. If you go to the Wikipage for ] you will see that ] (i.e. the kind of democracy in India) is only one form of democracy. There are others as well. So, all in all, I would prefer the new wording, but since Misplaced Pages is also governed by consensus, if most respondents here feel the "world's largest democracy" is better, we can change back to it. ] 12:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

::If I said "World's Largest Country," I would be referring to China. Who cares how big a country is geographically? ] 12:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
::: You might refer to China (and come to think of it, I might too), but according to the 2006 Encylopaedia Britannica, "With an area of 6,592,800 square miles (17,075,400 square kilometres), Russia is the world's largest country, covering almost twice the territory of either the United States or China.". But Russia or China aside, what if it were "largest empire," or "largest kingdom" would you then be talking about area or people. My point is simply that it is better to choose language that is less confusing for the average reader. ] 13:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

==Decimal number system and zero==

I reverted a previous edit which had added "concept of zero" to the "decimal number system" listed in the second paragraph of the introduction. This was done for the following reasons:
* Zero is already a part of the decimal number system (or decimal place value system); without zero (or some such symbol), there would be no place value system.
* It is the place value system that is important, not zero by itself.
* The provenance for zero as a symbol for "nothingness" is more problematic, since all kinds of civilizations (Babylonians, Greek, Mayan, Chinese) had such concepts.
* See article on "Indian number system" footnoted in Introduction; see also the ] page.
I hope this seems reasonable. ] 11:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

== ugliest intro paragraph ever ==

looking at the formatting and number of references in the introduction makes me not want to read it at all. explains why it is the 25th most edited article, but only the 79th most popular page.

1. is it necessary to give so many references/crosslinks in the introduction?

2. all the statistics in the third paragraph of the intro - we could do away with most of them. 2nd fastest growing economy, 124th undernourished blah blah united nations blah blah. we can point out strengths and weakness with a few subjective sentences, and move these numbers to sections like economy, demographics, etc.

look at ], ], ] - they dont have so much clutter in their intros.

--] 21:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

:First of all, I would like to own up to not only rewriting much of the content in paragraphs 2 and 3 in the introduction, but also to adding most of the footnotes. (I will discuss the choice of introduction and topics in a separate Talk page section soon.) Second, all the changes were made in the last week, so all this is recent. The statistic you quote, the 79th most popular article in 2004, is from a time when the introduction was in fact just like what you want it to be. (In fairness to the people who contributed to that version, I should add that the 79th rank is misleading: in that list India was the 6th most popular country and apparently more popular than sex.) More relevant is the "List of most referenced articles." In that list (from 2006) India is ranked 29th and is the 9th ranked country. That's not too bad. Now let me answer your specific objections:

:# I mostly agree with you. The number of footnotes could (and probably should) be reduced. Since I added them, why don't I take a stab at reducing them.
:# There too, you have a point. Let me attempt that too.

:There is another point about footnotes and links that needs to be mentioned. Ideally, the introduction shouldn't have too many links or footnotes (per Wiki stylistic dogma); in other words, the introduction should be a short and sweet précis of the main article. What I observed though with the India page in the month or so before I jumped into the fray was that people were endlessly and repetitively editing and re-editing the subjective sentences in the introduction, there being no benchmark to constrain them. The addition of footnotes was an effort on my part to provide such a benchmark and to make the introduction more stable. I feel there are two ways to deal with the "introduction problem": either make the introduction so insipid and vacuous in content that no one constituency is displeased (although no one is thrilled either), or to have some real content in it, but hold people to a standard, which means that the ugly footnotes appear. On the whole I prefer the latter approach, but I sympathize with your point too. It would be interesting to know how others feel. ] 23:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

::Hi Ti, I understand your concerns. It may be 79th most popular page, but the fact that it is the 24th most revised article says it all. The information that comes with the lead section is fully loaded. That information is questioned, and the lead section edited and reverted every single day recently. People simply think it is POV unless the information has credence. Misplaced Pages works not on a subjective basis, but on an objective basis. We have to maintain NPOV, and stating something like ''India influenced South East Asia'' raises whole lot of questions.

::Perhaps, a few words from, ] would help you understand...<blockquote>''The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any. ... (the lead) should be carefully sourced as appropriate...''</blockquote> Cheers. --]]] <sup><font color="#698b69">(</font>] <font color="#698b69">/</font> ]<font color="#698b69">)</font></sup> &bull; 23:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Yes, Chez, has a good point. Please read the discussion sections above on ] and ] and to see how a unsourced sentence like, "India is the world's largest democracy" can bring all kinds of objections (all well-meaning) from its defenders and detractors. ] 10:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

== 1857 ==

I've added a line which states that the events of 1857 are often collectively termed as "The First War of Indian Independence" in Indian text-books. I have been engaged in a very tedious discussion on the Rebellion page about the correct term. However, from the discussions I have had - users there have stated that it was not a nationwide movement. However, this article does state otherwise. Which view is correct? I didn't wish to unilaterally delete anything. Hence, the question. (] 04:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC))

== Country Infobox ==

The country infobox was replaced by a country or territory infobox, with the edit summary "not a country". I apologize if this has been discussed before, but could someone explain this change to me? Thanks --] <font color = "blue"><sup>]</sup></font> 19:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

== Is India really home to the Worlds Second Largest Muslim Population? ==

I think this part of the article is highly flawed, the link to the section ] itself has a netural pov tag and I think it would be highly erroneous to claim that India has the worlds second largest population of muslims.

The phrase 'second largest' should be removed and just left with the percentage figures, or rather it should say 'one of the largest'.] 02:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks to pop explosions in Pakistan and B'desh, I dont think we have that title any longer.] <font color = "blue"><sub>]</sub></font> 07:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

==Poverty Line==

I noticed that a number of people have changed the sentence "with four-fifths of the population living on less that $2 a day," (in the lead) to "25% below the poverty line." Although I agree that a dollar can go much farther in India, I still feel that poverty lines set by individual countries are not good economic indicators. The Indian poverty line (which is the inflation-adjusted amount that would have bought 2400 calories in food per person per day in rural areas and 2100 calories in urban areas in 1973) is now Rs. 540 per month, or $12 per month (at the Rs 45 = $1 exchange rate), or 40 cents per day. This assumes that the entire income of Rs. 540 is being spent on food. With this definition of the poverty line (ie. 40 cents per day), the proportions of Indians below the poverty line is 23% or 25% (depending on what statistics one quotes). I am happy to replace the UN Human Development Index figure of "79.9% living on less than $2 per day" by "23% below the poverty line," but I feel that the latter doesn't convey any information unless one says, "23% below the poverty line of $0.40 per day." I'd like to hear what other people think. ] 22:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

== Independance==
Abt the information posted in infobox. Did India get independence from UK or from ]
: From the UK. ] 21:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

== Too many images? ==

Am I the only one who feels that the article as of now has too many images? And, is The Tibet Autonomous Region an officially acknowledged entity to be said bordering India? -- ] <sup>\] \]</sup> 05:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
:India is a country that is best described by pictures :). Plus, look at the articles on other countries like ],],] all have comparable # of images.] 05:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
:We can discuss the Tibet thing.] 05:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

:: I tend to agree with Sundar that the images look too cluttered. Part of the problem is that they are of different sizes; in addition, there is redundancy of image content: two similar looking temples wedged in with the Taj Mahal; same with the modern buildings--too much duplication. Also, I don't see the point of the overhead view of Mumbai in the demography section, and the modern buildings and the bridge in the economy section, other than making a general point that India has modern buildings. Besides, user Ganeshk has been patiently discussing above (for some time now) which images and maps to add to the demography section; so adding all these images all at once seems a little unilateral. So, I would suggest:
::#reduce all image sizes (like ]) to about 200px width.
::# get rid of at least one modern building and one temple.
::# discuss the point of Mumbai picture in demography, especially when people have been discussing what images to add in that section.] 13:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

:::HKelkar, India is a ] that has been chosen carefully by a number of editors and it's expected to meet the highest standards. So, we need to be careful about what we do with that. It's best for anyone to discuss major changes and additions beforehand. Let's fix it as soon as possible. -- ] <sup>\] \]</sup> 13:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
:::
:::#I agree that image sizes need reduction
:::#Perhaps the BSE and one temple can go
:::#<s>Agreed that Mumbai pic moved to demography.</s> Sorry I misunderstood you.Let me restate.Mumbai is a microcosm of many different ethnic groups of Indians (largely due to immigration for better jobs etc.)
:::therefore it is ok to put a nice pic of the city there with a caption that qualifies the point.] 14:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

:::: The point is more that user Ganeshk and others have been discussing above what pictures to add to the demographics section. You should add your picture to the other pictures in that discussion section and take up the matter with the other discussants first (rather than adding the picture to the main article and then giving us reasons why it might be appropriate). ] 02:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
::Look I have no desire to get involved in another Desi-Desi catfight. I feel that the Mumbai image belongs in the India article and thought that the demographics section was the best place to put it (where else should it go for now)? There should be a special "Metropolitan cities section" where a cross section of pics from all the major metros should be there, with short summries about each city and links to their wikipedia articles.Until then, let's leave the Mumbai pic where it is as a stopgap measure.That way, it illustrates the multicultural nature (as personified by Mumbai), as well as showcases the cosmopolitan side of India. We can move the pic over to the Metropolises section when (and if) it is created.I will contribute another nice picture to the Ganeshk collage above.] 02:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

:I removed the images that were cluttering the article. This addition of images is making the ] few sections above meaningless. A picture per section is enough. We need to find a right picture for the demographics section. Let us added images to the article after discussion and consensus here. Thanks for your cooperation. -- <font color="navy">] (])</font> 02:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
::Disagree. Look at (better) articles on other countries:],],],]. Many of them have 2 pics per section. At the very least, one must admit that other sections are needed.Shall I start a "Largest Cities" Section?] 03:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Adding more images makes the article look "congested" making it harder to read. Also note that articles on ], ] and ] are not featured articles (hmmm.. in what way are they better?). The aerial image of New Delhi you had added was completely unnecessary. One can hardly make out anything in that image and it doesn't help the article or the concerned section. An aerial view of the ] area showing the parliament and other government buildings would be more appropriate. --]|] 05:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
:::''Largest Cities'' '''' ?! :). I don't writing a section mentioning large cities in India is a very good idea. Thanks --]|] 05:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
:::I was just citing precedent ] & for more pics see another featured article ].] 05:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
::::I have already explained on your talk page that it would be best not to add that section. It will lead to edit wars over which city is the largest, thereby losing stability and losing featured status. Me thinks it's a very bad idea . And I feel we already have plenty of pics on the article. Only the demographics is missing one. Thanks, <font color="navy">] (])</font> 06:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

::::Hkelkar: So according to you, India should have 2 or more images per section similar to the articles on Pakistan, U.S., Malaysia etc. Your argument reminds me of the ]. Images should be added if their is a real need for them. Adding more images, as I said before, will make the article look too congested. I agree that we need one for the Demographics section but other than that, we do not require anymore images. --]|] 06:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

::::: I feel it's not so much the number as the relevance (and quality) that is important. From my perspective, the pictures uploaded by Hkelkar are for the most part unremarkable, except for the Bene Israel in Bombay, which she/he has added to Ganeshk's collection above. The overhead Bombay picture would be acceptable if it were a little clearer. One compromise would be to stick to the one picture a section "rule," but have a pool of "consensus" pictures, and keep rotating the pictures in the main article (from the pool every couple of months or thereabouts). It will be more work though. ] 14:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

==The article should be longer==
This is not a bad article, but considering the long history of India and the fact that it has the world's second largest population, it is awfully short. Of course, Misplaced Pages articles generally should not be too long, but important topics like this one are allowed more length. I like the pictures, although perhaps some of them could be smaller. I might try to help on this article if I get time. ] 21:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
: The current length is fine from my perspective. ] 14:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

== Economy Section Contradictory ==

The economy section of this article says that India is the fourth-largest in the world by PPP. The ] article states that India's economy, by PPP, is ''third''-largest. This is a contradiction. What should be done about this? --<span style="background-color:#000000">&nbsp;<font color="#ffcc66">]</font><font color="#ffffff">^</font><sup><font color="#99ccff">]</font><font color="#ffffff">|</font><font color="#ffff99">]</font><font color="#ffffff">|</font><font color="#cc99cc">]</font></sup>&nbsp;</span> 23:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC) 23:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

:Have corrected the ranking in the ] to 4th for PPP and 12th for nominal GDP. Someone had changed the numbers there without explanation. ] 01:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

==Sati==
:Proof that RRR's role was adstratum to the British Law and NOT substratum:


History of Medieval India by Hukam Chand P461:

{{cquote|Raja Ram Mohan Roy counterpetitioned that Sati was inhuman and unjust. It was because of his cooperation that in 1829 Lord William Bentick could declare Sati against the Law }}

] 06:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

::Also read Social Structure of India by Ajit Kumar Sinha P234.] 06:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

::In fact, "Role of the Social Reformer in a Welfare State" by Bhalchandra Narayan Gokhale P6 states that some Maratha rulers prior to the British had also banned sati in their confederacy but we don't take that into account because it was localized like the Bengal Presidency ban (The Maratha Confederacy, at it's zenith, was bigger than the Bengal Presidency would be later on).

Furthermore, Sati was also declared illegal in Rajputana (Rajasthan) around 1820 but, again, the implementation failed. It was only RRR's success at lobbying for and enforcing the ban that created a chain reaction that spread throughout the colonies, eventually even the Princely States like Rajputana:

Rajputana Agency, 1832-1858: A Study of British Relations with the States of Rajputana During the British Raj by Vijay Kumar Vashishtha.] 07:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


Also, see Raja Rammohun Roy : An Apostle of Indian Awakening/edited by S.K. Sharma

::Furthermore, RRR first criticized sati in writing in 1818, BEFORE the presidency banned it in 1829. Thus, his campaign started FIRST.
Sati: Historical and Phenomenological Essays by Arvind sharma P7 ] 07:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

----

Actually, there are a lot of books on the subject which confirm this point of view. One only needs to take a glance at books such as ''The Socio-Political Philosophy of Swami Vivekananda by Bhaiya Subhash Chandra Prasad'' and ''History of Medieval India by Hukam Chand'' to name a few. This matter is addressed in many books and reseach papers.

I found ''Human Rights and Societies in Transition: Causes, Consequences, Responses''
''by Shale Horowitz, Albrecht Schnabel'' particularly interesting. A couple of quotes from page 364 of the book are mentioned below:-

<blockquote>
In modern history, '''Raja Ram Mohan Roy can be considered as the father of the India's human rights movement'''. He was the first to oppose all discriminations and evil practices against women. He pursued his efforts against polygamy and sati (widow burning) at two levels: first, he approached the British rules directly to legally ban such practices; second, he mobilized the masses in favour of such a ban.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
'''As a result of Raja Ram's efforts''', Lord William Bentick, then Governer General, passed resolution XVII in December 1829, which declared Sati illegal and punishable.
</blockquote>

In addition, Alokmonjari, a woman in RRR's relation was subjected to sati (presumably against her will) and RRR's work against this custom is traced to his very rise to prominence. His work in the Samaj is highlighted though.

On request a series of papers and more books substantiating the matter to greater extent will be provided. I'm saving this exertion on grounds of assumption that those opposing this POV will understand that like most cases of selective revisionist history, their case is extremely thin on actual evidence and citation.

Best Regards.

] 09:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
----


: Unfortunately, the references above seem very obscure. I have not heard of any of these "historians." The publishers (where known) are equally obscure. Here's what the amazon.com search turned up for them:

:# ''History of Medieval India'' by Hukum Chand: doesn't turn up on Amazon.com
:# ''Social Structure of India'' by '''Ajit Kuman Sinha'''. '''Published by Sinha Publishing House''' (Distributed by Firma K.L. Mukhopadhyay). First edition 1974. '''Out of print since 1974'''! Not a standard history text.
:# ''Role of the social reformer in a welfare state'', (Bombay Gandhi Smarak Nidhi. Vaikunth L. Mehta memorial lecture) (Unknown Binding, total 24 pages). 1967. Does show up on Amazon, but has been '''out of print since 1967!''' This is certainly not a standard history text.
:# ''Rajputana Agency, 1832-1858: A Study of British Relations with the States of Rajputana During the British Raj'' by Vijay Kumar Vashishtha. '''Doesn't show up on Amazon.com'''
:# ''The Socio-Political Philosopy of Swami Vivekananda'' by Bhaiya Subhash Chandra Prasad is a '''Ph.D. thesis (unknown university) published on-line by dissertation.com'''!
:# ''Human Rights and Societies in Transition: Causes, Consequences, Responses'' (Paperback) by Shale Asher Horowitz (Editor), Albrecht Schnabel (Editor), it turns out is an edited book. The quote is from an article in the book by D.R. Kaarthikeyan, who it turns out is a '''former director of the Central Bureau of Investigation of India''' (and not a professional historian)!

: HKelkar and Fredom Skies, please don't inflict any more of your "references" either on me or on other Misplaced Pages readers. I'm not going to revert what you have written. Misplaced Pages readers can make up their own minds. I'm providing 4 references below (from standard history books published by Oxford, Cambridge, and Penguin--references that you will find on amazon.com and can even search in). ] 18:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

::Listen dude. All of the refs cited are available in the ] of the University of Texas at Austin, which is one of the premier libraries in North America.I can get them and cite them precisely if needed, so please don;t waste my time with spurious claims as their availability in notable scholarly repositories attest to their reliability.] 01:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Apparently, two of the books cited by you and Freedom skies do not even show up (where you claim you can find them) in the catalog of the of the University of Texas:

:::#
:::#
:::] 04:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

::Take a trip to the PCL stacks and look at it. Not all books are catalogued online:


Information on the book:
ISBN : 8126123133

Year of Publication : 2005

552 pages

Anmol Publications PVT. LTD.

I did not cite the Prasad book.

Also, see:

# by Ajit Kumar Sinha P234, where he states RRR's role in banning sati BEFORE the British role.
# by By K. (Kasturiranga) Santhanam



] 05:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

==Sati: Bentinck vs. Rammohun Roy==

No one is saying that ] didn't play an influential role in the abolition of Sati, but, as far as I can tell, his role was not ''primary''. ] was influenced by British ] (primarily ] and ]) and the Christian evangelists who had been clamoring since the mid-eighteenth century for the abolition of ]. It certainly helped Bentinck that Roy was also active in opposing sati and he used Roy's support initially. However, in the end, Roy ''opposed the legal abolition of sati'', but that didn't stop Bentinck from abolishing it. See fourth reference below. To imply that the impetus came only from RRR and the Indians and that the British would not have acted on it otherwise, is a distortion of history. Here are references (followed by the quotes):

* Stein, Burton. 1998. . Basil Blackwell Oxford (Reprinted by Oxford University Press India 2001). ISBN 0195654463
* Metcalf, Thomas R. 1997. , 256 pages, Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521589371
* Spear, Percival. 1990. Penguin Books. 298 pages. ISBN 0140138366
* Hawley, John Stratton (ed). 1994. Oxford University Press. 232 pages. ISBN 0195077741

1) From: Stein, Burton. 1998. . Basil Blackwell Oxford (Reprinted by Oxford University Press India 2001). ISBN 0195654463

<blockquote>The most celebrated of Bentinck's interventions concerned the abolition of sati (or 'suttee', the immolation of Hindu widows in the cremation fires of their husbands), which along with that of other 'odious practices', was pressed on the Company as an objective of reform by the increasing number of Christian missionaries and British business travellers present in India. The issue of Sati abolition gave rise to a great controversy. Most notably it divided the generation of Indian intellectuals and commercial men who had grown up with the rise of British power and were now obliged to confront its fuller meaning for the future of their own society. On one side stoood the likes of Ram Mohun Roy, who was strongly opposed to the practice. Roy not only brought to bear a variety of learned arguments to support his case, but showed deep sympathy over the cruelties and indignities women were forced to endure in everyday life; (p222)</blockquote>

Metcalf, Thomas R. 1997. , 256 pages, Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521589371 <blockquote> With the coming of Lord William Bentinck as Governor-General in 1828, the British avowedly embarked upon a thorough-going programme of reform. Building upon what had previously been little more than a vague expectation that somehow British rule ought to bring "improvement" to India, free traders, utilitarians, and evangelicals created a distinctive ideology of imperial governance shaped by the ideals of liberalism. From Bentinck's time to that of Lord Dalhousie (1848-56) this reformist sentiment gained a near universal ascendancy among the British in India. </blockquote>

From: Spear, Percival. 1990. Penguin Books. 298 pages. ISBN 0140138366:
<blockquote> Lord William Bentinck, Governor-General from 1828-35, was the pilot mainly responsible for trimming the sails of the British Indian state to the winds of change.... In 1813 the Company's trading monopoly was abolished. The country was opened to missionary actitvity but without government support and £10,000 was set aside annually for the promotion of learning among the people of India. It needed a further puff of wind to implement this clause by the creation of a Committee of Public Instruction, which at once began to argue about the relative merits of western and eastern learning. By 1828 the wind was blowing more strongly for we find a Tory President of the Board of Control writing to Bentinck, 'We have a great moral duty to perform in India'. It was this change of sentiment on India which enabled Bentinck to survive the hostility of Wellington's Tory government during his first two years in India and to achieve so much thereafter. It happens that a radical was in charge of India at a time of radical change in England. (p 124)</blockquote>

Finally, from: Hawley, John Stratton (ed). 1994. Oxford University Press. 232 pages. ISBN 0195077741
<blockquote> As for the colonial period, it is not widely known that Rammohun Roy (1772-1833), the social reformer whose name is most closely associated with the struggle against sati in historical times, was himself ambivalent toward a legal ban on sati; according to some, he opposed such a ban. (p140: Ashis Nandy, ''Sati as Profit Versus Sati as a Spectacle: The Public Debate on Roop Kanwar's Death'' 131-148.)</blockquote>

<blockquote>In his remarkable Minute giving his reasons for banning sati, despite the opposition of many of the leading officials of his government, Bentinck noted that Rammohun Roy, "that enlightened native," who hated the custom, as well as "all other superstition and corruption," opposed taking legal action, since the Hindus would interpret this as an attempt by the British to force their religion on the conquered people.... Roy's main reason for not supporting Bentinck's decision, however, was probably his conviction that it was society's attitude toward widows that needed to be changed. Making sati illegal would not change the attitude and belief systems that produced the custom; that could only be done through education. (p154: Embree, Ainslie T. ''Comment: Widows as Cultural Symbols'', pp. 149-158)</blockquote>

Please, Hkelkar and Freedom skies, please don't dump more of your "references". You've had your chance, let Misplaced Pages readers make up their own minds. I am not going to revert what you've written. That is for others to do (or not do) on the basis of the evidence provided. ] 18:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


This article is meant to be an overview on the entire country of India. It seems to me that mention of any specific person in discussion of the abolition of sati is inappropriate, but that if we were to mention an individual, ] would be the obvious person to mention. But really, all that ought to be said is that the British abolished sati. Whatever role was played by Indian reformers is stuff that should go in articles that are able to go into more detail. This kind of thing, where one minor issue gets blown up into a whole heap of weird explanations and counterexplanations, is a continuing problem. I would add that I find Fowler&fowler's references much more convincing than those provided by Hkelkar and Freedom Skies. ] 19:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
::On what basis did you arrive at such an outlandish conclusion?Besides, I will fact check each of the Fowler&fowler refs, of course, and RRR is too important a figure in Indian history to ignore in an article about India.] 20:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
:::What's really a distortion of history is Macaulayist nonsense. The government of India is clear on this .] <font color = "blue"><sub>]</sub></font> 22:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

:::: Unfortunately this reference has nothing to do with Government of India policy (if that were relevant)! That article you quote: '''' is written by Usha Bande, a journalist. The web site is the '''Press Information Bureau Features site'''. It does not reflect the policies of the Government of India. Here are a few other features from that same site:

::::* '''' by Mahendra Jhamb, a stock market analyst.
::::* '''' (about Siberian Cranes) by S.M. Kumar.
::::* '''' by Dr. Vallabh Bhai Kathiria.
::::* '''' by M.K. Dharma Raja.

:::: So, unless the Government of India also has the official truth on the stock market, Siberian Cranes, Vipassana meditation and the future of cricket, please stop wasting our time with bogus references. ] 00:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Er, excuse me, but are you suggesting that the article is "bogus"? Is every reference (all legitimate per ]) cited against the racialist British POV "bogus", regardless of the attribution? Judge by content and, not by the attribution given by the poster.] 01:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

::RRR has not only played an influential role in abolishing Sati but his role was "the role" and his mention in esteem can not be left out. A person in chair (Bentinck) had the opportunity to legalise public sentiments and for his administrative duty he can not be projected superior to a reformist with burning heart. Why someone is so keen of excluding or pushing back RRR? If a history book last printed in 1967 or 1974 lose it's value as history? Why an attempt to exclude Indian book refs. on an article "India" or an attempt to ridicule Indian editors? With due apology, all actions of Britishers was in preserving and promoting British interests in India so much so that thumbs of weavers were cut to promote cloth sales made out of Indian cotton. In any wrong situation, burn exists in if not all, many, be it Britishers with human minds or Indians. RRR should be mentioned with due esteem for his "the role" in abolishing "Sati Pratha". F&F has approached some admin with western background for support on article "India"! ] 02:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

::Right, let me present my take on this matter in a non-emotive way. There are two aspects to the issue of banning Sati, political and cultural. '''Culturally''', there is no doubt that RRR was strongly influenced by Western thought and Western ideals into regarding the immolation of widows as inherently amoral.Thus, from a cultural standpoint, western ideals got the upper hand. The Brahmo Samaj was a unilateralist Hindu movement that had the same role in Indian history that similar reform movements in Christianity did in the west (who advanced that the immolation of "heretics" was inherently amoral, for instance).However, the implementation of this ban was largely Indian, with westerners playing a nominal role in the process. The latter is a political matter, not a cultural one.'''Politically''', the unilateralists of the ] have the upper hand here.I believe that the sentence, as it stands, reflect both aspects of the situation. I am not some rabid hesperophobiac and won't deny the cultural contribution of the Europeans in this matter. I have advanced sufficient evidence to support the contention that the political aspect was different from the cultural one.] 03:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

], so the pro raj lobby from eminent British publications have printed that the Raj was the reason why the natives could free themselves from the shackles of illitracy and lack of reason ?? How convincing.

Unfortunately your use of Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press and Penguin Books weakens your case. All you have done is convince the readers that the British authors have been hard at work glorifying the imperialist British Raj, trying to convince the people that they would never have broken free of any evil native rituals if it were not the British taking away all their wealth and heroically contributing in a few native movements in the process.

The funny thing is the average reader is already convinced of the British nationalist attempts of revisionist history. Anyone who reads ] in real life is more than familiar with the attempts and even the patterns of revisionist history. Very good try, not in compliance with the ] rules at all, but good try nonetheless. ] 03:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

'''Wait Helkar,''' what makes you say that RRR was strongly influenced by western thought and western ideals? Likes and dislikes are part of human nature. In a given situation, rise and fall take place. On an average, how many would have supported Sati Pratha from bottom of one's heart? It's very difficult to voice your dislikes against any ugly social system, the result of which is to invite intimidating, vengeful and violent reactions from established selfish supporters of evils. Usually, it is waiting for a right time to voice, a loud. Would RRR have got support to his movements in uplifting women of India without existing number of burning kind hearts of Indians? An alien governor with all security can easily voice against a social evil than a common man living in midst without security and it would be idiotic to claim that Britishers were more sympathetic to Indians or Indian women and bothered for their well being. Their invading in India was backed by utterly sinister selfish desires and their selection of bureaucracy would certainly be aimed at meeting the purpose. Baring few, the bureaucrates were monsters. Think of Jalianwala Baug killings and other atrocities. If you say that RRR was influenced by western thoughts and ideals, someone would say that Gandhi, Tilak, Netaji and thousands behind were influenced by western thoughts and ideals to free India as politically India was freed by Britishers. What western ideals are you talking of? Just think about Vietnam war and Iraq war of today's westerns. If all of them have real ideals in their hearts, wars would have not been on this planate. Even the present controversy here to exclude RRR would not have been. What would any kind and noble Britisher be it a governor would have been able to do against British Rule unless Indians wanted and acted in the direction to compel British Rule? Had influential westerns been idealistic, either we would not have come under British rule or would have at least freed long back and ugly bloody partition could have been avoided, scars of which are in roots of today's hostility between India and Pakistan. Chameleons change colour in every different situation. ] 05:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
::Well I'm just trying to arrive at a compromise here.] 05:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
::Also, the British committed worse atrocities than JBagh (though JBagh is more resonant in our collective memory due to the fact that Dyer was a unique breed of sociopathic kooks). Just for the record, lemme mention the Bengal Famine (holodomor) perpetrated by the British where the death toll was in the millions.] 05:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What's the need and propriety of compromise? Are you here to please the people or uphold truth? No compromise at the cost of merit should be the motto. This sort of attitude weaken you than strengthening which would be a personal loss, lose to cause and also loss to Misplaced Pages. If insignificant, keeping mum would be better than such compromise which create an impression that you are usually wrong. In case of slip, one can tender apology. It would be upkeeping self reverence and social prestige. ] 06:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

== You are a shame Mr.TerryJ-Ho. ==

''The practice of Sati continues till this day..mostly due to religious sanction TerryJ-Ho 11:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
''

'''Mr.TerryJ-Ho''',
If, your above statement is intentional, you are doing the worst thing of tarnishing the image of our country. I do not know your back-ground. Hope you will appreciate that sentiments of any person get hurt when his/her nation/religion/societies come under false attack. How would you feel, if so done to you? India has a population of 120,00,00000. I have completed 56 years in this country and sufficiently informed about things going in this country. I have moved in villages regularly and live in Mumbai from birth. I have hardly heard of one or two instance of Sati during my life of 56 yrs. You can't help the people who wants to self immolate. We have rich & poor, educated and un-educated, modern and orthodox, good and bad all kind of people like any other country would have. Sati Pratha came in social practice because of Muslims invaded small kingdoms, killed or captured males, raped and made women folk their wives. Indians mostly were strict vegetarians. Muslims are non-veg. The women preferred death over being raped or marrying for the second time against Hindu culture and customs. The pride of woman-hood and un-civilised behaviour of Muslims are the route cause of this deprecative social system. Though people like me who borned later are also full of wounds of the root cause of Muslims behaviour. Pl. don't make fun of our pitiable social system which do not exist anymore from more than 5 decades. You shall make yourself and your society a shame for such remarks. Can you show me a single evidence that the system of Sati exist and the roots are our religion? Where did you get this information from? You are a shame Mr.TerryJ-Ho. God will not forgive you for such in-human behaviour. Swadhyayee 14:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Dmcdevit"

ALL INDIANS AND HUMANS PL. APPEAL TO MR.TERRYJ-HO IN STRONGEST WORD FOR HIS SUCH COMMENTS ON TALK PAGE OF Dmcdevit. ] 14:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

==The problem here is. . .==

The problem here is that each side in the debate is trying to show that the westernerers or the Indians had more influence on the abolition of Sati. The easiest way to resolve the dispute is to just say that they both had influence, and don't say one way or the other whose influence was greatest. That is what I tried to do with my most recent edit. I'll even give you a citation to a scholarly source.] 14:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the sentence to which I am citing in "Modern South Asia" says:

<blockquote> had campaigned against sati since 1818 and his defence of Bentinck's 1829 abolition of sati, which he called a 'barbarous and inhuman practice', helped ensure that the measure was not overturned by the privy council, the ultimate court of appeal in London.</blockquote>

The book also goes on to explain how Roy based his arguments against sati primarily on his interpretations of Vedic teachings. So it is clear that both Roy and the British were important to the abolition of sati. There is no need to elevate either one over the other in the article. ] 14:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, for your convenience, here is my edit:

<blockquote>The British also began implementing social changes, such as the legal abolition of Sati, as advocated by reform leaders and movements such as Raja Ram Mohan Roy and the Brahmo Samaj, and instituting Western education on a limited scale.</blockquote>
] 15:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

: Sorry, I didn't see your message when I wrote mine. How about the following: The British also began implementing social changes, such as the abolition of sati as a result of the joint efforts of ], the Christian evangelists, and ]." (I don't know that Brahmo Samaj did much outside of what Raja Rammohun Roy did.)] 16:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

==Indian Anti-Colonialist Historians on Sati & Compromise Language==

To the people above who wrote to say that the first set of references I supplied were somehow ''British colonialist'' because they were written by British or American authors and published by Oxford, Cambridge, and Penguin presses, here are three references by Indian (anti-colonialist) authors, '''including one, Dr. Arvind Sharma, who was referenced by Hkelkar himself'''. Before I give the references, let me summarize.

The broad facts are the following. The Christian evangelists were the first people to mobilize around the issue of Sati. The first official submission to the East India Company was made by them in 1799. 1n 1813, William Wilberforce (a prominent evangelist) brought it up in the House of Commons in England. Raja Rammohun Roy's first pamphlet came out only in 1818 (a full seven years after the immolation of his sister-in-law). Once involved, however, Roy was extremely active in the Indian press writing critiques of the practice. However, he initially didn't support laws banning the practice. When in 1828, Lord William Bentinck consulted him about banning sati, Roy opposed the idea. Eventually, he got on board and became an active supporter and wrote many articles in the press in support of the new law.

This history does not support the contention that Raja Rammohun Roy and the Brahmo Samaj were the primary advocates for the movement against sati and that the British were somehow pushed into enacting the ban by Roy and the Brahmo Samaj. In the orginal wording in the history section of the ] page, Hkelkar had written: "The British also began implementing social changes, including the abolition of Sati, at the behest of Raja Ram Mohan Roy and the Brahmo Samaj." That is a complete distortion of history. The wording was later changed to, "..., such as the legal abolition of Sati due to the efforts of reform movements by Raja Ram Mohan Roy and the Brahmo Samaj." But this too is historically inaccurate because it doesn't mention the Christian evangelists nor Lord William Bentinck himself.

I propose the following compromise language: "The British also began implementing social changes, such as the abolition of sati by ] with notable synergistic efforts by Christian evangelists and ]" I think the language is fair in that it assigns credit to all parties. (Raja Rammohun Roy's name, incidentally, is misspelt in the Misplaced Pages page on him.)

Now here are the references and the quotes from them:
* Sen, Mala. 2002. . Rutgers University Press. 288 pages.
* Sharma, Arvin. 2001. . Motilal Banarasi Das. Delhi. 130 pages.
* Mani, Lata. 1998. . University of California Press. 259 pages.

Dr. Sharma:
<blockquote>Amidst the kudos which is showered on Raja Rammohun Roy for his role in the advocacy of the abolition of sati, one crucial fact is often overlooked: that when Lord William Bentinck sought his
advice on the matter of the British prohibiting the practice of sati, he advised Lord William Bentink ''against'' such a step. ()</blockquote>

Dr. Sen: <blockquote> This need to be independent of British influence dominated men like Rammohun Roy who did not approve of governmental interference in the sphere of Hindu social life. However, when Lord William Bentinck took it upon himself to abolish sati in 1829, Rammohun Roy came out in open support of the Act and became an active and vocal campaigner, using Hindu scriptures to challenge the notiion that sati played a part in the enhancement of Indian society.( )</blockquote>


Dr Sharma goes on to trace the development of Christian missionary involvement with sati:
<blockquote> In November 1793 Rev. William Carey of the Baptist Mission arrived in Calcutta. After nearly six years, in the spring of 1799, he saw widow-burning one evening. It was in a place thirty miles away from Calcutta. He tried to stop the ceremony and to reason with the widow and the Brahmin priests. 'I talked till reasoning was of no use, and then began to exclaim with all my might against what they were doing, telling them it was shocking murder. They told me it was a great act of holiness.' Carey was greatly agitated ... He sent investigators to every village within a radius of thirty miles of Calcutta, to learn how many widows had been immolated there in the previous twelve months, and their ages, and the children they had left behind them. 'Four hundred and thirty eight was the damning total in this specific area alone, the toll of a single year's superstition, cruelty and waste.' The Serampore Missionaries under the leadership of Carey implored the Government to forbid the rite by law. Carey made use of his position as a lecturer in the College of Fort William to collect from the pundits there various texts from the Hindu ''sastras'' on which the practice of sati was allegedly based. The missionaries places all these documents, together with the statistics of sati they had compiled, in the hands of George Udney -- a member of the Supreme Council and an ardent abolitionist. Udney's submission on sati was the first official notice regarding female immolation which had appeared in the records of the government.</blockquote>

Dr. Sen:
<blockquote> As a result of these activities, the missionaries began to mould public opinion both in India and Britain and on 22 June 1813, William Wilberforce raised the matter in the House of Commons, quoting the statistics on sati which the Baptistics had compiled.</blockquote>

Raja Rammohun Roy's first pamphlet came out only in 1818 almost 20 years after Carey and Udney had made their first submission. Dr. Sharma:
<blockquote>Between 1815 and 1818 the number of satis doubled, from 378 in 1815 to 839 in 1818 in the Presidency of Bengal. The 1815-1818 records -- 'truly awful records for any Christian Government'-- had a disquieting effect on officials. In 1818, 'when the pyres blazed most fiercely', Raja Rammohun Roy launched his journalistic attack on the rite, 'which aroused such anger that for a while his life was in danger'. </blockquote>

Dr. Mani: <blockquote>In Rammohun Roy's first pamphlet of 1818, ..., the opponent of ''sati'' concludes, it is not control but wisdom and fear of God that effectively causes both men and women to abstain from improper conduct. While it may be unrealistic to expect from Rammohun Roy a full-scale critique of the desire to control women's sexuality, it is indeed disappointing that, confronted with this issue which is at the very heart of widow immolation, the opponent in this staged dialogue can only see fit to assure the advocate of ''sati'' that he has, in fact, nothing to fear; that effective mechanisms already exist for controlling women, thus precluding the need to burn them. ()</blockquote>

Dr. Mani: <blockquote>In addition to the press reports, public meetings on ''sati'' were held in Britain in 1823, 1827, and 1829, and petitions were presented to Parliament in 1827 and 1828. For the most part, the British press, both lay and missionary, merely replayed arguments advanced in India, whether by East India Company officials, evangelists, or the indigenous male elite (i.e. people like Roy). British discussions of widow burning differed only in the sense that they began with the desirability of abolition and then proceeded to its feasibility, as against in India, where questions of practicality always came first.</blockquote>

Again the compromise language I am proposing is: "The British also began implementing social changes, such as the abolition of sati by ] with notable synergistic efforts by Christian evangelists and ]"

] 15:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

:As a result of HeBhagawan's helpful message above, I am proposing the following compromise: "The British also began implementing social changes such as the abolition of sati due to the joint efforts of ], the Christian evangelists, and ], ..." ] 16:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

:: I have changed the wording to: "The British also began implementing social changes such as the abolition of <s>slavery</s> sati due to the <s>joint</s> cumulative efforts of ], the Christian evangelists, the British ], ], and the ], ..." I know this is a little verbose, but it mentions everyone who deserves credit.

:: I have left in the footnote referring to Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal's book: (added by user HeBhagawan) because Bose and Jalal mentions both the evangelists and the utilitarians:
<blockquote> The most creative strand (''among the Indian groups opposing sati''), however, was led by Rammohun Roy, who attempted to adapt elements from all he considered best in Indian and Western learning. Well-versed in Sanskrit, Bengali, Arabic, Persian and English, Rammohun Roy aimed at a regeneration of India society and culture through a process of thoroughgoing reform which would weed out the evils and anachronisms. He set up a society called the Brahmo Samaj which rejected caste and idolatory and sought a return to the original monotheistic purity of the ''Upanishads''. He derided the evangelists, but generally supported the utilitarians. He had campaigned against sati since 1818 and his defence of Bentinck's 1829 abolition of sati, which he called a 'barbarous and inhuman practice', helped ensure that the measure was not overturned by the privy council, the ultimate court of appeal in London.</blockquote>

] 17:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Corrected: slavery-->sati; joint-->cumulative ] 20:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Fowler,
I don't have any problem with the current wording of the sentence. However, if you have a reference that speaks about the contribution of the christian evangelists, you need to add it to my reference. The way it is now, it seems to say that my "modern south asia" book supports that assertion that christion missionaries were partly responsbile for banning sati. However, this book does not mention the missionaries. You are probably right that they played a role, but I don't want to give a misleading impression about what facts my reference contains. Thanks. ] 23:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

:This has been done. I have also updated your citation. The final version now reads: "The British also began implementing social changes, such as the legal abolition of ], due to the cumulative efforts of ], the Christian evangelists, the British ], ], and the ],<ref>Sen, Mala. 2002. . Rutgers University Press. 288 pages. ISBN 0-813-53102-0</ref><ref>Bose, Sugata & Ayesha Jalal. 2003. Routledge, 2nd edition. 304 pages. ISBN 0-415-30787-2</ref>and instituting Western education on a limited scale."
<references/>

:Thanks. ] 23:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Good work. It looks ok to me now.

On another note: Whoever thought that Roy's name was spelled wrong on the page dedicated to him was wrong. It is just an alternative spelling, but not an incorrect one. It's like Mao Tse-tung versus Mao Zedong. The problem is really with trying to put such foreign names into Roman/English script. The 'correct' spelling is to be found only in the Indian script, which in the case of his name would be Bengali.] 02:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

:That was me. Yes, I did see that "Rammohun Roy" is an alternate spelling on that page. I guess what I meant was that since seven out of the eight authors mentioned by you and me above (including Bose and Jalal, and all the Indian authors) spell his name as "Rammohun Roy" and not "Ram Mohan Roy," it is quite likely (although not certain) that he himself spelled his name "Rammohun Roy" when writing in English. So, perhaps that should be the primary spelling. But it's not a big deal, since all spellings are mentioned. Thanks. ] 11:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

== Anon vandalism ==

This article is getting vandalized by anon ips every day by the dozens.Should I request sprotection?] 00:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


:In almost every case, the vandalism was reverted within a minute or two, so I think there is no need for sprotection yet. --] 00:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

:OK.] 00:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


== HISTORY ==

The history of india (the country) doesn't start in the stone age, the earliest would probably 1930's. Prior to 1948 it was just a collection of principalities. It would be just as absurd to talk about pakistan's history beginning in the stone age. If this was an article on the indian subcontinent (a geographical area) then it would be appropriate to talk about ancient history. <small>''The preceding was an unsigned comment left by an anonymous user from IP address: 24.36.18.146''</small>


::Actually it does. The history of India the republic begins at around the late 1800s actually, but India the "country" (country defined culturally rather than politically) begins millenia ago, same as articles on ] which discusses NAtive American tribes etc.] 00:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


The History section in country articles is supposed to be of the region forming the country, so Hkelkar is correct in asserting that. In the same way, Pakistan's history (i.e. history of the region what is now Pakistan) goes pre-1947, Bangladesh's history (i.e. the history of the region forming the country) goes way before 1971. This common sense approach is what is used in Misplaced Pages's country related pages (see ], ] etc ... none of those modern countries are technically more than 200 years old, but the regions have been there forever, and the history sections correctly include the history of the land, which no change in name of the region can erase from history). --] 00:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:35, 8 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 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: 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, 60Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
? 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.
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Featured articleIndia 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 3, 2004, and on October 2, 2019.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 16, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
April 11, 2005Featured article reviewKept
May 6, 2006Featured article reviewKept
July 28, 2011Featured article reviewKept
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 15, 2004, August 15, 2005, August 15, 2011, and November 26, 2012.
Current status: Featured article
This  level-3 vital article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconAsia: India Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia 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.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject India (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconIndia Top‑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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article is a selected article on the India portal, which means that it was selected as a high quality India-related article.
WikiProject iconSouth Asia Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject South Asia, which aims to improve the quality and status of all South Asia-related articles. For more information, please visit the Project page.South AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject South AsiaTemplate:WikiProject South AsiaSouth Asia
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconSocialism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism 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.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCountries
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries 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.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry
WikiProject Countries to-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 21 September 2019.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconSpoken Misplaced Pages
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken 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.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING AN EDIT REQUEST ABOUT CHANGING THE COUNTRY NAME
If you have come here to post that the country name should be changed from India to Bharat, please note that we use the commonly-used name (common name) to determine article names, even when a country changes its name. For an example, see Turkey, where the official name of the country (Türkiye) is noted in the lead sentence and the infobox, but the article remains at its common English name.
          Other talk page banners
This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 151 million views since December 2007.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 12 times. The weeks in which this happened:
WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages

There is a request, submitted by Sdkb, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages.

The rationale behind the request is: "Featured article, and one that may have a higher-than-average proportion of readers who are English language learners".

Section sizes
Section size for India (47 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 51,711 51,711
Etymology 3,985 3,985
History 74 22,995
Ancient India 6,902 6,902
Medieval India 4,505 4,505
Early modern India 4,240 4,240
Modern India 7,274 7,274
Geography 13,861 13,861
Biodiversity 18,524 18,524
Politics and government 31 18,829
Politics 8,137 8,137
Government 8,370 8,370
Administrative divisions 1,345 2,291
States 564 564
Union territories 382 382
Foreign, economic, and strategic relations 16,147 16,147
Economy 13,522 30,237
Industries 7,087 7,087
Energy 2,183 2,183
Socio-economic challenges 7,445 7,445
Demographics, languages, and religion 13,902 13,902
Culture 2,853 56,533
Visual art 6,529 6,529
Architecture 2,006 2,006
Literature 2,377 2,377
Performing arts and media 11,017 11,017
Society 6,906 6,906
Education 3,976 3,976
Clothing 6,522 6,522
Cuisine 9,286 9,286
Sports and recreation 5,061 5,061
See also 115 115
Notes 222 222
References 35 35
Bibliography 19 54,244
Overview 2,292 2,292
Etymology 973 973
History 6,419 6,419
Geography 3,921 3,921
Biodiversity 2,326 2,326
Politics 5,880 5,880
Foreign relations and military 7,393 7,393
Economy 6,969 6,969
Demographics 4,798 4,798
Art 1,169 1,169
Culture 12,085 12,085
External links 2,435 2,435
Total 303,775 303,775


"ভাৰত" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect ভাৰত has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 13 § ভাৰত until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 December 2024

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

India's population is 1,457,248,665 as of Friday, December 27, 2024 Abdulmuqtaddirkhan (talk) 10:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Worldometer is unreliable. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 10:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. 2024, India Population. "India Population 2024". morldometer. worldometer. Retrieved 27 December 2024. {{cite web}}: |last1= has numeric name (help)

Reordering sentence in the lead

Minor edit suggestion: Currently the lead reads "It is the seventh-largest country in the world by area and the most populous country.". The latter fact seems by far the more notable of the two, so you'd think "It is the most populous country in the world and the seventh-largest by area" would be a more sensible phrasing. IRN-Dumas (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I support this. The current sentence framing has stayed the same since before India surpassed China in terms of population. I think its due for a change now EarthDude (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I support this aswell. ĀDITYA 20:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 January 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
2409:4073:115:4FCD:0:0:BBF:48AC (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Just change the language of "Hindi" to "Hindustani". Both are the same

Not done. Edit requests should be uncontroversial and backed by RS. Rainsage (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories: