This is an archive of past discussions about India. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Origin of Names

The "Origin of Names" section says:

"The official name India is derived from Sindhu, the historic local appellation for the river Indus, which is one of the most internationally recognized landmarks of the country"

Is this true? Most of the Indus river is not even in India any more - it is in Pakistan; I think the original connotation of the above sentence (before it was edited a few days ago), was that the name India is the most internationally recognizable name of the country. I don't think the Indus river is an internationally recognizable landmark of India now, but I am not going to change this without consensus, since the above statement is probably historically correct. Any thoughts?

The same section also says:

"The king Bharat was known for his love towards his subjects ( i.e people in his state ). He was the first king to start the system of Provinces ( i.e. to devide the Empire into smaller parts to rule effectly and efficiently )."

AFAIK, Bharat is more of a mythological figure than a historical one. The first sentence above sounds rather lame - also, do we have sources for the rest (first to start provinces, etc)? To the best of my knowledge, there are no historical records about Bharat to make the above claims.

--ashwatha 21:02, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Adding a Scientific/Technological Achievements Section

How about adding something about recent improvement in India's technological prowess? Like how it is now a very fast growing Cell Phone market, it has become the back office of the world; its companies are now exporting cars to other countries. i.e. Tata exporting Indica. In addition, mentioning how India has achieved the capabilities to make and send their own satellites to space, besides achieving advance capabilities in peaceful use of Nuclear power for power generation. I think we need to present this new and emerging side of India as well, rather than arguing about History and trying to always show the negative aspects of India. Sjain 05:51, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can't agree more on this. -- Sundar 06:06, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Lets Start working on it. I will try to post something decent here, meanwhile someone could start on it on this pageSjain 02:44, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Indian Economy

The Indian economy section ought to be rewritten to reflect the recent upswing of the India Software and services sector (also known as the 'OUTSOURCING BOOM'). This is one potential area which has tremendous ramifications.

WHERE IS 1500 YEARS FROM OUR HISTORY

A GOOD DEAL OF HARD WORK SEEMS TO HAVE GONE IN BUT PITY A LOT OF MISINFORMATION 1500 YEARS OF MUSLIM RULE HAS BEEN IGNORED WHILE LOTS OF SPACE DEVOTED TO ANCIENT INDIA OF WHICH WE KNOW VERY LITTLE ABOUT - MYTHOLOGY HAS BEEN PRESENTED AS FACT SUGGEST A PERSON WHO HAS STUDIED HISTORY OR AT LEAST AN EDUCATED PERSON SHOULD WRITE THE HISTORY SECTION

I am not sure I see your point. The "history of India" section in this article is a brief, birds' eye view of Indian history. If you notice, everything is brief in the section, as it should be. Indeed, both the Guptas and the Mauryas are in one line; so are the Mughals.

What is more, "1500 years of Muslim rule" is an exaggeration - Muslim rule began taking hold only after Mohammad Ghazni's invasions in the 12th century, reaching its zenith during the Mughal period. From the 12th century until approximately 1857 - gives you 700 years, not 1500.

In any case, more than the timeline, the space constraints do not allow for an elaboration in this article - I would have agreed with your claim that this is in some way anti-muslim if Hindu empires had been elaborated upon, but neither are they. If you need a detailed description of the history of the Mughals (or indeed the Mauryas or the Guptas or anyone else), you should really be following the links from this article.

Also, when you say "Mythology has been presented as fact," I am not sure what you mean - please provide instances for where you think mythology has been presented as fact.

--ashwatha 16:17, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also you state that the British rule for about ninety years - actually the east india company was formed in late 1500s and British ruled India for over 300 years.

It is 90 years because the East India Company was just that; a Company, India was transferred to the crown only after the first war of Indian Independence, in 1857.

Is it civilisation or civilization?

AFIK, native English speakers of England and English speakers in India use 's' in place of the American 'z'. Do we have a policy defined on this? Pending a reply, I am not reverting User:SetItRight's latest edit. -- Sundar 05:45, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

We should use British spellings here. WhisperToMe 06:21, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OED and Cambridge University Press have always maintained the 'ize' spelling. --Jia ng

I think 's' is more universally prevalent today and this should be used, irrespective of the debate whether American or British English should hold primacy. KRS 15:34, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't know how you came to the conclusion that 's' is more prevalent, KRS. If you just do a Google search for "civilization" and "civilisation", you'll see that for the 'z'-form over 3,000,000 hits come back, whereas for the 's'-form less than 500,000. If we're basing this on widespread usage we would have to favor "civilization". --LordSuryaofShropshire 21:53, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

Indian usage, however, prefers civilisation. We should use the locally appropriate spelling in this article. It is also true that the spelling with s is more prevalent, being used in far more English-speaking countries than the one with z. Shorne 03:51, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The -ize and -ise are both popular in India. However Indian media publications stick to the -ise form, and so it is the default for this page as per wikipedia guidelines. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:35, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

My two paise. One reason for the popularity of -ize that I can think of is the popularity of MS Word with the default language settings being American English. I feel this kind of popularity is in a way forced. -- Sundar 05:14, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Arguing over "s" and "z" seems silly to me. If the spelling is acceptable in English, then it should be acceptable in the article. Since India's use of English comes from British English, what's wrong with that? jimaginator

Since both are standard English spellings, either seems fine. The wikipedia practice is to maintain consistency within the article, so if, for example, civilisation is to be spelled with an 's' in the article, it should be spelled the same way throughout.

"World's largest democracy"

Is it really appropriate to start the article with the statement that India is the world's largest democracy? That is not the most salient fact about India. I would instead begin with something like "India is a large multinational country in South Asia".

Who are you to decide what the most Salient fact about India is? I think the fact that it is home to one billion people, and is a democracy with a constitution and laws based on British Common Law a very salient fact. Furthermore, multinational makes no sense at all. --198.3.8.1 10:08, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the term 'Multinational' should not be used. It makes very little sense. --Hpnadig 19:52, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Besides, "the world's largest democracy" is POV. It depends on what is meant by democracy. By some definitions, China would qualify; by others, India would not. Shorne 04:04, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, China would Qualify. So would Iraq, North Korea and the former East Germany if you really want to get technical about it. If you want, you can make it Parliamentary Democracy

World's largest parliamentary democracy seems to be more appropriate, doesn't it? -- Sundar 10:34, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Works for me. I think it's instantly obvious. Further I think the fact that it is the world's largest democracy is a "salient fact"--TTG 09:10, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's largest in terms of people, if the PRC isn't counted. The PRC isn't counted in that context as only one party is allowed to have major representation. WhisperToMe 04:06, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Equating democracy with parties is a matter of opinion. I don't think that China is a democracy (even though it does have elections with very high rates of participation), but nor do I think that India is one in a meaningful sense.

To hell with your POV on whether India is a democracy or not in a "meaningful" sense. What the hell does that mean? You strike me as somebody who is not only misinformed, but racist too--198.3.8.1 10:08, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Anyway, the issue is more that being "the world's largest democracy", even if true, is not the most important characteristic of India. India will soon surpass China in population. Will we still announce it as "the world's largest democracy" when it is the largest country in the world? Shorne 04:38, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, because it will still be the World's Largest Democracy. It will be the largest country in the world that is a democracy, i.e. the World's Largest Democracy. Get over it. --198.3.8.1 10:08, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have changed it to liberal democracy. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:43, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

IMO liberal democracy is a bit too POV. The [preamble to the Indian constitution] says it is a 'Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic'. I don't understand why 'the world's largest democracy' should give rise to such conflicts, since no other country disputes that fact and noone in the World except China itself believes it is a democracy. pamri 12:35, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

yes, we probably would keep saying it's the world's largest democracy. It's status as a major democratic force is much more important than the fact that it happens to be in "South Asia." --LordSuryaofShropshire 19:48, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Its status as a country is more important than its current political situation. Shorne 20:12, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is to Shorne. Is the U.S. a democracy in your view..subsequent to the shenanigans of the Bush brothers in Florida in year 2000? Give me a break ! Bhanupm 11:30, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

map

Regarding the map, the earlier map is more of a POV as it depicts the boundaries of India in Kashmir as the international boundary. This is not the case. The newer map is less of POV. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:56, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I've reverted to the newer map. Gzornenplatz is a problem user who frequently reverts on several articles without discussion and is usually rude - see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gzornenplatz - and he has brought his reactionary attitudes to this article. If he is unhappy with the wording on the new map he should propose a change in wording (I have no problem with, say "administered by X", which is the wording used elsewhere) rather than vandalising the article - let us hope he can bring himself to do so. -- Simonides 23:08, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It usually doesn't help the mood to call edits vandalism which are merely content disputes, however much you disagree with them. Very Verily 23:14, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wouldn't it help the mood far more if some users were, say, habitually constructive rather than habitually obstructive? -- Simonides 23:16, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Probably, but that does not bear on what I just said. Very Verily 01:24, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a content dispute if the user merely reverts. -- Simonides 23:10, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Image:IndiaNumbered1.png is innaccurate. It should read "Administered by Pakistan" or "Administered by the PRC" instead of "claimed by..." China does not claim the land. It occupies it. I fixed this but am having problems uploading the image. --Jia ng 23:43, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jiang, I shall replace Claimed with Administered in a short while, unless you've already done so. What sort of problems are you having uploading files? -- Simonides 00:51, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As I said, the replaced image is less of a POV than the old. Currently one has to choose the lesser of two evils. I hope Jiang solves this problem. BTW Gzornenplatz does have a valid point about the term "claimed". [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:31, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if Gplatz has any point, because after I changed the image to read "Administered" from "Claimed" he has reverted the picture, again, on this article and others. -- Simonides 22:31, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The image needs to say something like "occupied by Pakistan, claimed by India" to make clear it is equally claimed by both countries and we are not taking sides. Simonides' version suggests it is "rightly" part of India, or universally recognized as belonging to India, but just happens to be occupied by Pakistan. Gzornenplatz 22:49, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, you should have made what you wanted clear yesterday or day before when you were invited to the Talk page, when you refused to post. (The image takes a while to edit and of course, since you never contribute to articles, you wouldn't know.) Secondly, "administered" is what it says on the map above and it's what everyone is fine with - in fact this map is simply a repeat of the other version - so if you want to justify your knee-jerk reverts you'll have to come up with some actual reasons. -- Simonides 23:10, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The person above proves once again that he is incapable of either civility or basic comprehension, so I will note again that if anyone else wants to discuss this with me, he's welcome, but I will not respond further to Simonides unless he apologizes for his mounting insults. Gzornenplatz 23:24, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Like I said, no genuine explanations provided for whimsical edit wars. -- Simonides 23:33, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have modified the map and uploaded it here. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:50, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

Dude, if it weren't the world's largest democracy, how do you explain the election results in the beginning of this year? Take that, the fact of the matter is, this is the world's largest educated democracy... A case study of democracy, unlike what was demonstrated on the 2nd of November, 2004.

Map comments

Can everyone please comment on the most recent version of this map (if you see the old one, refresh or simply revert to my last upload after clicking on the image) and vote on whether it can stay the default map for now? Thanks - Simonides 22:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I prefer the map I made (IndiaNumbered.png). This map loses the focus on India by unnecessarily colouring China and Pakistan, when the legend is sufficient. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:11, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

hi, This Image should resemble Image:IndiaTest.png in the context of Kashmir. There should be highlight of the disputed area. yes, (IndiaNumbered.png)is better. --Hpnadig 18:17, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree that Image:IndiaNumbered.png is better than the above image. --Hemanshu 18:19, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

With regards to territorial integrity issues and the map(s), why not use the commonly ascribed definition; 'disputed territory'? This circumvents the technicalities associated with political or military occupation or overlapping boundary claims. Areas actually administered by the three countries within the disputed zones should be assigned cartographically to the present occupier, but under the afforementioned territorial definition. Does this not seem reasonable?

I believe that the image for states of India map should be the one below that hilights the disputed area.

If I dont get any meritable objections in a few days i will change the image to indianumbered2.jpg I believe that the map should show the ground realities then favoring either party.

--kunjan1029 05:04, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have changed the image to indianumbered2 until a resolution is reached. PLEASE DONOT Start a edit war. --kunjan1029 23:02, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The only reverter, as usual, is Gzornenplatz, against whom an arbitration case is ongoing for constantly exhibiting the same behaviour on this and numerous other articles, where he reverts with superficial or no explanations and does nothing to contribute to the article or make any positive changes. Appealing to his good sense won't work, but filing further evidence of his typical behaviour at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gzornenplatz,_Kevin_Baas,_Shorne,_VeryVerily/Evidence will certainly help the article and other editors. -- Simonides 23:13, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have created a new section at the evidence page - the same user has reverted nearly 30 other pages with a corrected India map on it, and requests for the prevention of such time-wasting activity are welcome. -- Simonides 00:33, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gzornenplatz:

I would like it if you refrain from changing the image to Indianumbered until we sort this out. The version of the image you suggest is completely unacceptable as it blatantly shows parts of Kashmir occupied by Paskistan and China as defacto parts of those countries. Let's accept that the entire region of Kashmir is embroiled an a stupid political mess. So my point is that the version of the image you suggest is unacceptable. the other version indianumbered2 is unacceptable to you. I respect your opinion about the matter. However to achieve consensus, if you can suggest me a version of that image that

1. Shows ground realities i.e. shows parts of Kashmir controlled by Pakistan, China and India as clearly as it can.

2. It has a neutral point of view. i.e. it doesn't favor either country

Please suggest us such a image, that is acceptable to everyone.

Any further changes to that particular image will be reverted to IndiaNumbered2 until we sort this out.

--kunjan1029 07:08, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gplatz is at it again - for some reason, he doesn't seem to want to leave a note here either. --ashwatha 04:45, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gzornenplatz doesnt like playing nice. I tried. --kunjan1029 17:12, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

multinational?

I really don't get what does the adjective multinational have to do there? Does it mean India is not a single country? Instead we can have federation -- Sundar 07:26, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

It means that there is a large number of distinct ethnic groups. I don't mind "multi-ethnic", if you'd prefer that. Shorne 15:12, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

States (or regions) in India are not considered as nations, so multinational is incorrect in this sense. Federation is not a common word used in India. I don't know why you want to replace the fact that India is the world's largest liberal democracy, with 'large country'. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:05, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Who said anything about states? I'm talking about nations. As to the other change, I've already explained my position. Shorne 22:30, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have never heard of India being composed of nations till date. Russia, UK, Spain yes, but the term 'nation' here sounds odd. In the lead-in section, we always highlight the most prominent feature(s) of an article. In this case largest liberal democracy would easily qualify, as is the most recognisable aspect of India for the past 55 years. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:08, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

If you call India multinational, you have absolutely no idea about our country. Zero. Zilch. Nada. You don't have a moral right to edit that page. --Desai 19:24, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

When you stop foaming at the mouth, perhaps we'll be able to have a reasonable discussion. Shorne 19:57, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You said "reasonable"! WOW! Get ur facts right. India is one country. How can u call it multinational? --Desai 18:38, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

I know, really. Desai, there are no "moral rights" to edit anything on Wikipedia. WhisperToMe 22:45, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I know. But sometimes, some people try to screw up a good page by going on an endless barrage. There has to be a way to counter that. --Desai 18:38, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Oops! I didn't know that the original denotation of nation had nothing to do with sovereignty, but that it's only about ethnicity. Thanks Shorne.

I've been trying to tell you that all along. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:59, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

But, still I would prefer multi-ethnic because that wouldn't cause any ambiguity. -- Sundar 05:14, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

The number of languages spoken

The latest number 1600+ was based on Ethnologue report. Why shouldn't we have that? -- Sundar 07:26, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

The Ethnologue claims 398 languages for India: http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=India

In any case, these numbers cannot be so precise. I would state simply "four hundred languages". Shorne 15:12, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There are 1652 mother tongues spoken in India. See /archive 4 of this page for details. Mentioning hundreds of languages is vague and un-encyclopedic. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 18:59, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

This is not true. The number of languages spoken in India is around 400, as I said above. How your yearbook could possibly claim that about a quarter of the world's languages have native speakers in India is beyond me. No country in the world has 1652 languages. Shorne 22:30, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not making up this figure. The figure would also include dialects and languages sans scripts. I won't argue with the figures, but I have read the mentioned number in the book, (it is a very popular book here, and I'm dead sure they don't fudge figures). The ISBN number is given on the India page, in the reference section, if your interested in pursuing the matter with the publication online. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 18:58, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

All Indian languages have a lot of dialects, spoken in different parts of each linguistic region. Words in the same language, thus tend to have different meanings. It's like English (British) and English (US). We have Hindi (Delhi), Hindi (Hyderabadi), Hindi (Bambaiya) etc. Just my 2 cents. Btw I always wondered, are all NPOVs regarding India specific to European thinking only? Don't Indians have a NPOV? --Desai 19:12, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

I don't doubt that the book says that, but that doesn't make it true. The question of what constitutes a language is complex, and not just in India. If you want to count dialects, you can justify a figure of 1 billion or more, since no two people in India speak exactly the same way even in the same language. Shorne 19:53, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The figure refers to 1600+ mother tongues. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 20:27, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

I do know how to read. Thank you for your kind concern. Shorne 23:48, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[1] [2] [3] [4] IMHO, the right number must be less than 400. --Rrjanbiah 07:02, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

History

The Rajputs appear not to be mentioned anywhere, not even in the main article on History of India - a huge gap and pretty surprising since, apart from their significant rule and contributions to art and architecture, etc, they introduced, if I remember correctly, the practice of Sati or some other form of female sacrifice.

There seems to be a lot of interest in India on Wikipedia, at least it appears so from this Talk page. If the edit warring trolls can be blocked for a while, the remainder could probably work together on many of the India pages which are pretty spare (such as the very pretty Timeline_of_Indian_history) - would anyone be interested in a Wikiproject? -- Simonides 23:04, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Timeline of Indian history, although a prominent link in the History section, is only from 1820 onwards, and most links are RED (non existent). IMO you may start working on that first, and then build up from there to the more detailed stuff. Btw, wanted to ask, do you refer to the Malayala Manorama & the TOI Yearbook for facts? --Desai 19:14, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

As far as material addition is concerned, I request you not to add any new stuff on this page. It is already saturated to its limits. The History of India is pathetic I may add, and so too most Main articles: leading out from this page. Unfortunately, though I would like to contribute to your project, I will be away offline for a month. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:28, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

DISTORTATION OF INDIAN HISTRY LEAVING OUT MUSLIMS

HAVE NOT HAD SUCH A GOOD LAUGH FOR A LONG TIME THANKS WIKIPEDIA

The entire 1500 years of Muslim rule in India seemed to be wiped out from the history of India - Good Grief!!

This is not history its the distortation of history by some half wit who claims to be a historian no doubt from the ilk who distort hitory as I can see things here from Mythology - Come on folks the past cannot be changed - You see it in the red fort and the many thousands of monuments all over Delhi and India includeing the Taj Mahal What about the Kilji Dynasty, The Tuglak Dynasty, The Delhi Sultanate, The Muguls - The Deccan Kingdoms - Mir Jafar and Tippu sultan and the wars aginst the E India Company -

This can be compared to wipeing out the entire British History from Queen Victoria to the depature of the Romans and adding King Arthur and Merlin as fact . Only write about Ancient India include some mythology then Jump forward to the present day because you don't like muslims. Ha Ha!

Lets get the Indian Historians in!!! this version is written by an illliterate who fancies himself an intellectual and scholar

But maybe better still keep it!!! Its a good example of creative history writing as a goo example and bit of a laugh for Indian Historians working in Universities all over the world.

To please some of my friends here ... we should atleast consider revising the line India is home to a large population of Muslims (13.4%) and mention that India also has the second largest population of Muslims in the world after Indoneshia. Sjain 04:49, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Considering that Islam was brought by Mohamed in 610 CE, I don't think it's actually chronologically possible that India was under 1500 years of muslim rule.

I most certainly agree. Also, I doubt the Muslim's contributed anything positive to India.

No positive contribution may be your POV, but we need the article to reflect the NPOV. Good or bad, their influence was not insignificant. The architectural styles, cuisines etc should find a mention ~~here~~ in History of India. -- Sundar 11:47, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

I have nothing wrong with Muslims. A man whom I respect and admire (Abdul Kalam - President of India) is a Muslim. I do not question him or his vision for India. However, radical Shi'ite and Sunni Clerics who want to destroy India are whom I protest. Since when has India harmed the Muslims? There are many loyal muslims in India. However, there are those who think that everyone should be tolerant of their views and that they are the "supreme beings" and they shouldn't have to tolerate anybody else. I question these Muslims. Also, considering that the majority of Hindu rule in this article was summed up in one sentence, I don't think we need to devote an entire section to Muslim history considering they were not in India as long as the Hindus were. Also, if the Muslims feel left out, tell them to post information about the Mughal Empire in the History of India page don't expect it will be done for you.

ONLY ONE SENTENCE DEVOTED TO MUGHULS

Lalit Shastri

Though I do not concur in the personal attacks made above, I do think it regrettable that information about India under the Muslims was removed (if it indeed was "wiped out," as suggested above). The period under the Islamic rulers forms a very major part of Indian history: most notably, I find it surprising that less than one sentence is devoted to the Mughal Emperors. -- Emsworth 19:54, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The amount dedicated to Mughal rule is appropriate. This was definitely not the most significant part of Indian history. Really Indus valley and classical history are much more important in shaping modern philosophy and culture. Thus it is as it should be.

Rubbish. The space devoted to a number of periods/ kingdoms within the article is highly inappropriate and misleading, and the Mughals are only one of them (which is why I find the above attack silly); but your hypotheses make no sense from any point of view except perhaps a Hindu fundamentalist's and are equally silly. -- Simonides 18:48, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

1) The Mughal empire is as important to the shaping of India, Mr. Anon., as Hindu and Buddhist culture. Look at the brand of Hindi people speak: it's full of Arabic and Persian. Hindustani classical music itself is indebted to Persian culture. etc. etc. etc. not to mention partition and the fact that India's a sixth Muslim. 2)Nice, Simonides. Thanks for encouraging the brainless Hindutva equivalent to McCarthyism. Let's call everyone a Hindu fundamentalist the moment they say something contrary to your ideas. Christ Almighty! Let me go see if I can do something to douse these aggravated tempers. --LordSuryaofShropshire 19:09, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

I guess I'll have to wait until the protection is lifted. Peace. --LordSuryaofShropshire 19:10, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe you should wait till you have something logical to say. -- Simonides 19:56, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

- Adam - I think the article is fine. I don't think simply adding "more" mughal rule content should be done for the sake of angered or unjustified accusations and CAPLOCK typing. Is this a case of Intelectual terrorism? Antagonism? If the Mughal content is to be extended then we should also include the fanatical conversions, jizya tax on the infidels, plundering and destruction of hindu and buddhist temples all very well documented by the Mughals themselves. - Oh, but if we did then our friends would CAPLOCK(read shout)- "TOO MUCH ATTENTION GIVEN TO MUGHAL RULE!" Grow up, please.

Perhaps we should follow the enclyclopedia britannica where on the Histry of India two thirds of the space has been devoted to the 1500 years of the Muslim period in India

Hi

RE: 1500 Years of Muslim rule ignored in Entry on India

I don't think that its an issue of caplock typeing but a issue of distortion of history we wikis should not let our emotions come into it. Many distinguished scholars have written the history of India - These are from all parts of the world and of all nationalities. Distinguised Indian Historians recognised by their international peers have also written the history of India lets follow them. You might not agree with muslim rule but they were there for 1500 years as the paramount power and the ruling class. They shaped the culture, way of life, food and architecture of the times. And by the way the Hindi and urdu language. They brought science, technology and the fine arts from the west and influenced Indian life in every area Just because you disagree with India's 1500 years of Muslim rule you wish to dismiss it all in one line grow up. Wikipedia is not there for you to present and deny the truth to readers AS YOU FEEL LIKE

So Old Chap You better grow up yourself

Richard Charlesworth North London University

hi, AZIZ:

Above one guy mentioned ragarding muslims, i think he is the one who is deciding who is muslim, who is hindu, who is christian, who sikh.

i personally advice him are you a perfect hindu?, more over its very difficult to be a perffect follower of any relegion. a muslim goes mosque 35 times a week, a hindu goes maximum 7times a week then i advice you, dont comment on any relegion through illitrate thoughts, or entertainment.

Protection, History, etc.

In the matter of the dispute which caused protection, Gzornenplatz is clearly right - we should not have a map which pretty much states outright that those parts of Kashmir belong to India and are only occupied by Pakistan and China. To do this is the very definition of POV. The situation is, in any event, already discussed in the caption to the map above that one. As to the history section, our complainant seems completely out of line (no shouting please), but the history section is indeed very weak - the palimpsest remark at the beginning is lame, and we have one vague paragraph (which implies that the Guptas were before the Mauryas) to get us from the Vedic period to the British. This needs to be addressed. john k 16:15, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How many Kaskmiris killed?? (both hindu and muslim)

Perhaps we should say Kashmir is a territory disputed by India & Pakistan and the WHOLE of Kashmir should be shaded a diffrent color showing the Indian areas and the Pakistan Area. Also worth metioning 80,000 people in Kashmir have died (not mentioning the rapes) due to action by the Indian security forces according to Amnesty international and the Hindu population has also suffered due to the violence by Kashmir sepratists. Lastly what we really should be saying that in the Kashmiri struggle for self detrmination if a plebcite is held tommorow the long suffering Kashmiri would opt neither for India or Pakistan but for Independence,

Bye the way can anyone answer this - If all majority muslim areas went to Pakistan and all Hindu majority areas to India (when India was divided) then why did not Kashmir go to Pakistan and Jummu to India - Perhaps Buluchistan should have gone to India too and maybe Maharashtra to the muslims -

When India was divided, majority Muslim areas under British direct rule went to Pakistan. Among the princely states, the rulers of the states were given a choice on whether they wanted to accede to India and Pakistan - the ruler of Kashmir (Maharaja Hari Singh) wanted to remain independent but later agreed to accede to India in return for military help. --ashwatha 18:59, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with the above. Indians themselves had recieved democracy and the Indian government should have allowed the people to decide instead of accepting Kashmir from an undemocratic Maharaja Hari Singh.

India's arguement again falls apart if we look at what happened to Hydrabad State where an oppsite arguement was used to justify its actions.

The Nizam of Hydrabad did not want to cede Hydrabad state - so India had a police action sent the army in and took over. So if the Nizam the ruler of a hindu majority had opted for pakistan would India have accepted this and said Hydrabad should go to Pakistan (User:Richard)

History of 1500 of muslim rule

India has 100 million plus muslims why did not the authour of the India Page so ignorant of his own history consult one of them when he decided to write only one line regarding 1500 years of Muslim rule in India. I agree we must follow the Enclycopedia Britannica where two thirds of the Space is about muslim rule in India or perhaps Microsofts Encarta or any other non gnu enclycopedia.

Please see the response to the first discussion item at the top of this page - Muslim rule lasted for about 700 years, not 1500. Everyone shouting the number as 1500 (in Caps Lock, to boot) doesn't change the facts. Also, note the comments in the first discussion item - the history section is brief and no dynasties or rulers have been elaborated upon. It certainly doesn't look POV to me. Elaborating upon the Mughals, the Mauryas, the Guptas and all and sundry leads to different articles in their own right, and those articles are already there. --ashwatha 18:59, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Muhammad-bin-Qasim in 711AD arrived with a large army to conquer Sindh. In 712 AD Raja Dahir was defeated and put to death. Sindh, Multan and Kannauj were conquered.

The next invasion by the Turks who opposed the authority of the Khalifas was by Alaptagin. He had established himself in Khorasan and extended upto Kabul and Ghazni. He was succeeded by one of his slave Sabuktagin. In 986 AD he came into conflict with Raja Jaipal of Bathinda. In 991 AD Raja Jaipal allied with other Hindu king including Rajyapala the Prathira king of Kannauj and Dhanga the ruler of the distant Chandela kingdom to avenge his defeat. The allies were defeated , Peshwar and Kurram valley came under Muslim influence. (User:Richard)

Ok, I stand corrected to some extent; but this still does not mean that India as a whole was ruled by Muslim rulers for 1500 years. The areas that are mentioned above constituted certain parts of India. Just talking about 1500 years of Muslim rulers "as the paramount ruling class" in India neglects other rulers, particularly in Southern India, where only a few areas were ruled by Muslim rulers (notably Hyderabad and Bijapur). The same periods that you mention also included several other rulers and dynasties such as Harsha of Kanauj, Chola, Chalukya, Hoysala, Pallava, Pandya and later the Vijayanagara Empire and a host of others, none of which are mentioned in the history section due to space constraints.

Here is a possible solution: how about "Parts of India came to be ruled by Muslim rulers from the 8th century onwards, with a majority of India coming under Muslim rule from the 12th-13th centuries. The Mughal dynasty, the dynasties of the Delhi Sultanates, the Bahmani Sultanates of Bijapur, the Golkonda sultanate of Hyderabad and others would leave a lasting imprint on the fabric of Indian society and culture."

Admittedly, Muslim dynasties in India have had a lot of influence on Indian languages, art, architecture and cuisine. Also admittedly, these influences are not mentioned in the history section, and again, the space constraints do not allow this - this is not POV (read: pro-Hindu or anti-Muslim) since the influences of the Mauryas, Guptas and others also do not receive a mention because of space constraints. Indeed, no southern Indian dynasty is even mentioned in the history section, but this is fine, given the limited space. As stated before, the reader needs to follow the links from this article to articles on the respective dynasties.

ashwatha

Look anon editor, if you feel that Indian history is lacking material, go ahead and add it in the relavant pages. This page is a summary of India's history. The Mughals were not the sole Indian Muslim rulers. As they were the largest, they are mentioned on this page. Remember, the Islamic kingdoms did not rule more than 50% of India's present day area save the Mughals. The forgotten North east and south India also deserve a mention in the Indian history, but for space constraints, are not included. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 20:04, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

The Image

I oppose the image IndiaNumbered.png because the word "presently" is misused. "Presently" means "soon" or "in the near future", not "right now" or "at the present time" -- [5] lists the latter definition as a usage problem. Also, the image seems cluttered with the additional areas of "administered by blah blah"... Also, please don't start a revert war, especially on a featured article. ugen64 22:00, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

About the use of "presently", dont mind but you are being a lil pedantic. Almost everyone uses presently for NOW - or at present - since its an obvious interpretation. Using presently for "in the near future" actually confuses the reader. A suggestion Merriam-Webster is better than Dictionary.com [6] Sense 2 (NOW) is most common in contexts relating to business and politics. Anyway since you object with a valid reasons, the solution to both the points you raise lies in removing the text from the image - besides that goes along with the wikipedia guideline of uploading image. Something like If possible, upload a another image without labels ... --Ankur 06:08, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just noticed there are several versions of this image with the same text. Now, changing all these images will be asking too much. --Ankur 09:52, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just changed the main article map to conform to ugen's request, but Ankur is right - the state maps all have "presently administered" and it would be too much trouble to change them, unless someone here has the time + know-how + photoshop; but "presently" is not inaccurate in the context. -- Simonides 10:08, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Currency

The "Currency" link on the right hand side of the India page points the Rupee. Should it not point to Indian_Rupee. I wonder how to edit that! I looked for a way but could not find it. If you know how to do that, please do it and let me know too. doles 20:44, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

fixed the Link. But please add new comments to the bottom of the page. kaal 20:56, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How did you fix the link - please share some gyan. Thanks for informing me of the convention - I did not know.

Do you see {{India infobox}} in the edit window? That says that the box comes from Template:India infobox and hence that template has to be edited to see the change here. Hope I've answered you. -- Sundar 04:14, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Another way of editing the template is to "Edit the Entire page" and see the listed categories below the textbox. See the relavent in the textbox template as Sundar pointed and then click the corresponding template link below. Nichalp 20:03, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Origin of Names

The line that explained the context of the term Hindustan seems to have been removed. Now we just have a translation of Hindustan as Land of the Hindus, but IMHO this gives the wrong idea to he reader. Associating the word Hindu with a follower of Hinduism is a post-1750s phenomenon.The word Hindustan has been around since the Moghul period, when that association was not there. We used to have a line there that clarified what the word Hindu means in this context. I say we put it back. --ashwatha 16:17, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Religions

From the intro section, I am just curious: Are Jainism and Sikhism considered world religions? Buddhism is certainly a world religion, maybe Hinduism too. To the best of my knowledge, Jainism and Sikhism are not considered world religions. Please correct me if I am wrong. --ashwatha 04:23, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I know that in the UK there are many Hindus & Sikhs. I think there are a small number of Jains too. I suppose if they exist in reasonable numbers outside of India then they can be considered world religions. (though it's hard to think of a religion that wouldn't be considered a world religion by this sort of reasoning)--DanCupid 07:53, 4 Dec 2004

You're looking at somewhere in the region of 1/5 of Sikhs living outside of India. Main concentrations are in the UK, Canada and the USA. However there are significant populations in other parts of Europe, Africa as well as South East Asia and Australia. I suppose that gives it the title of a 'world religion'. I'm not sure about Jainism though.

English speaking population

From the Trivia section:

India has the largest English speaking population in the world (larger than the UK or USA).

Not convinced - the population of the USA is around 290 million, so one out of three people in India would have to speak English for India to have the largest English speaking population. I can believe this about the larger cities of India, but certainly not the smaller cities and rural areas. Considering that more than 70% of the Indian population lives in smaller cities and rural areas, I find it hard to believe that one out of three people in India can speak English. I am not opposed to that sentence being there if we have specific statistics to back it up. Otherwise I say that it needs to be removed. --ashwatha 19:43, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You have to remember there is also a large Spanish and French (Haiti) population that can't speak English.

Remove the phrase. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:55, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Removed. --ashwatha

Simonides, I see that you put this back - as I said, I am not against having it there, but please provide statistics to prove it - I have given my reasons for why I think that the sentence is not true. --ashwatha 21:21, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this discussion, the info was removed from an anon IP and I thought it ws vandalism. But as a general note, the population of English speakers in India is calculated to be approximately 30%, which would easily equal the population of English speakers in the US (not all the 290m are speakers of English), though if you specified a certain minimum level of English that percentage would probably drop sharply (also, there are not enough grounds for the rural vs. urban distinction where knowledge of English is concerned.) -- Simonides 22:19, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. --ashwatha 02:20, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This isn't really relevent to English, but there is a descrepancy between the main article and the demographics of India article as to the number of official languages recognised by the constitution (21 vs. 22). Anyone know which is correct?

No, both articles say 22 (which is the correct number). The main article says: "21 other languages...", 21 in addition to Hindi = 22.

Some critics at the feature-story of this article no the frontpage

[quote]India is also the second most populous country in the world, and the world's largest democracy.[/quote] The only thing this line is saying is that the peoples republic of china is not a democracy, it has not much relevance for india because we already established that it's the second most populous country in the world. Not worth the space if you want to give a summary of 10 rows about such a big country. --62.251.90.73 00:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It establishes India's status and role in the world community. Mark ¹ 00:48, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[quote]It shares its borders with Pakistan, the People's Republic of China, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and Afghanistan. Sri Lanka, the Maldives and Indonesia are the nearby island nations in the Indian Ocean.[/quote] Countries don't 'share borders' with islands or other lands lying somewhere close by but accross water, Holland is not bordering England or Denmark even although they're just across a little bit of sea. Russia isn't bordering Japan, Canada is not bordering Island. It's common geographical and political practice to only talk about border countries if they really share land borders.--62.251.90.73 00:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On closer inspection, those appear to be two different sentences. Mark ¹ 00:48, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"In 1999, India participated in the Kargil War in Kargil, Kashmir to repel 
Islamist terrorists who, under the auspices of the Pakistani government, 
were encroaching upon Indian territory."

A Pakistani would claim this isn't NPOV. I think we'd need something like "Kashmir - a territory who's control is disputed between India and Pakistan". IIRC, the Pakistani government also officially denies that the terrorists are under its control. I personally think this is a diplomatic figleaf, but I think that's the official position.

Also:

"Economy Main articles: Economy of India, List of Indian companies

A nation in rapid development, India has an economy ranked as the fourth largest in the world "

At the top of the article it mentioned that it was fourth in terms of Purchasing Power Parity - not the usual was to rank economies. Does anyone know what rank it has in terms of accepted exchange rate? Ideally, I think we should give both ranks, for comparison.

Overall, this did strike me as a bit too much like a tourist brochure in tone.

Under accepted exchange rates, I believe it is the 12th largest, but it becomes the 4th largest after adjusting for PPP (I have no idea what that is). See the article on the economy of India. --ashwatha 15:29, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PPP means purchasing power parity. The reason rates are adjusted using PPP is because exchange rates are not an appropriate way to measure differences in countries. i.e. An American makes $3000 a month, and an Indian makes $200 a month. Obviously, if you look at it from an absolute point of view, The American is making more money. However, you need to take into account purchasing power - a haircut costs 14 rupees in India (this is under $1) and about $14 in USA. Therefore, just because an Indian is making less money when converted into US$, he may not be making less money in terms of quality of life - thus the need to use purchasing power parity. This is because exchanges rates do not accurately reflect the differences. It is entirely appropriate to use the PPP figure.

...this whole page seems to be one big ad for India. For a Wikipedia page to be a credible source of info, it probably needs a little more balance in its perspective. It's not as if India doesn't have problems. It has tonnes of them, an encyclopaedia isn't suppposed to sound like a tourist brochure. you guys should build self-esteem somewhere else - anon

Bordering Countries

Surely India does not share a border with Afghanistan.

As per the official map of the Indian government, it does share a small border with Afghanistan. Howeve, this border is not in Indian control - the state of Jammu and Kashmir is disputed by India and Pakistan, and the Afghan border is in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir. There is a small footnote in the article to this effect. --ashwatha 15:31, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We are a nation that is young, and can learn from our mistakes, an unified sub continent in whichever manner, either economical or political would place us as a much strong force from the East, I hope India and Pakistan,including Bangladesh/Nepal, sees this vision someday. -- Marcus

??? Nice vision, but what, if any, is the relevance here? --ashwatha 22:23, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Space Program

Do we need a space program section here? It should be enough to link to this in related topics. We have also mentioned the space program right in the intro. Conversely, if there is a section on the space program, why not sections on IT, Biotech, nuclear program, and so on?

It is a huge article, and personally, I think it is better if we don't clutter it with a huge number of sections. If there are no objections, I will be removing this section and addin the ISRO link into the related topics section.

--ashwatha 15:45, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, i think a lot more people would be interested in the indian nuclear program then in their space program. It's on the news all the time --62.251.90.73 01:05, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

True - there already is an article on India's nuclear program, and this page links to it. --ashwatha 01:59, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't Space Program be "Space Programme"- I realise many of you are proud citizens living in the US but we use British not American English in India, right? - anon

mothership of ...

I removed this sentence in the Intro:

"Bharat, the mothership of everything related to religion and spirituality......."

While India has a long tradition of religion and spirituality, calling it the mothership of everything related to them is a bit too much, IMHO - there are several other places in the world that can lay the same claim (Israel is also a mothership of religion). --ashwatha 15:37, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let the Israel be whatever they/you claim to be. We are working on INDIA article, and spirituality that arouse out of India, such as the mentioned in the line before, are MAJOR parts of India’s culture, and nation as a whole. Spirituality is the inbuilt part of Indian History, and it would be travesty and great injustice for people to not know about this side of India, when reading this article. We should definitely include some information about it in the main article. Maybe we could move the section that you just removed in the middle section somewhere. If you don't then I will do it. Sjain 06:01, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My objection is to the word everything - it is not the mothership of everything related to spirituality and religion, and neither does India have a monopoly over the concepts (that was my reason for mentioning Israel - China also comes to mind). India is certainly the motherland of several major religions, and this has already been mentioned. Another mention is fine with me, but I certainly object to saying it is the mothership of everything related to religion and spirituality.

I am open to saying: India is the motherland of several religious and spitiual traditions, which form an inbuilt part of Indian history. --ashwatha 06:43, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Multicultural"

"Multicultural" appears to be a buzzword. Besides, we do not need the word up there in the first paragraph. Let's say "India's culture is often described as multicultural" in the "Culture of India" paragraph. WhisperToMe 18:00, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

third world?

To 192.94.94.105 (sometimes 209. .....):

Get a user id
Wherever did you come up with the idea that "400 million people" are starving to death, as you proclaim in your edit comment?
Just out of curiosity, do you vandalise articles on all countries that you consider to be "third world"?
Also out of curiosity, do you always have this tactic of vandalizing an article and then accusing others of vandalism when they fix your vandalism?

--ashwatha 21:29, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I told him to stop on his talk page :( WhisperToMe 21:51, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey guys, I'm not trying to be sensational or controversial, just stating the facts. If you want to proport a myth, that's fine, but Wiki deserves more than that, imho.

Given that you haven't backed up your claim regarding 400 million people, I don't see how you can talk about others propagating myths. In any case, the article clearly provides data about India's GDP status and per-capita GDP. The readers can make their own conclusions about what "world" India belongs to. Given that the definitions of terms like "first world" and "third world" are vague at best, it is much better to provide actual data and leave it to the readers (which is exactly what this article does). --ashwatha 02:53, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here's some facts...

India's per-capita income by purchasing power parity works out to be US$ 2,540. (see the main article) Current exchange rate(as of oct 08, 2004) is RS 45.760 per 1 USD. Indian Rupee

If anyone knows of a term with less negative connotation to say what I'm saying with "third world", by all means put it in, but I think it's clear their economy is poor.

npov - let people come to their own conclusions. WhisperToMe 19:52, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is not NPOV to state a fact. If you don't like what the facts indicate, and can't handle such things being posted, maybe you should not be editing. GregNorc (talk)

It's NOT a fact to say a country is "third world" - it's an opinion, an arbitrary division. WhisperToMe 19:55, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is a statement I agree with. And IMO it is breaking a generally accepted standard to place such a label in the introductory paragraph. Ground 20:04, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I have backed my opinion up with facts. It is no longer an opinion. GregNorc (talk)

" 'Underdeveloped or developing countries, as in The conditions in our poorest rural areas resemble those in the third world. This expression originated in the mid-1900s, at first denoting those countries in Asia and Africa that were not aligned with either the Communist bloc nations or the non-Communist Western nations.'"

I copied and pasted =\ WhisperToMe 20:00, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, now two people oppose me. Wikipedia is intended to be democratic, and it seems my view is in the minority, so I won't be reverting Ground's edit. This is no way is meant to be constued I approve of it, but in the interest of democracy, I won't revert it. GregNorc (talk)

"third world" is certainly POV - since we have the data in there anyway, anyone can come to their conclusions. I say we let them, instead of insisting upon whether we think it is third world or not. --ashwatha 00:10, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As Whisper noted, the term "third world" is a leftover from the Cold War and further back, from the days of imperialism. If for no other reason, it should be left out because it is a blanket term that does not have a tenable, relevant definition today, is highly Eurocentric, and gives little indication of the socio-economic variety to be found in countries so labelled. Of course that doesn't prevent people from using such labels in daily speech, but that doesn't mean they belong in an encyclopedia. -- Simonides 00:24, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, third world itself does belong in an encyclopedia. :) Ground 02:10, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Where it is used as a title to be explained, not as a label. -- Simonides 02:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Gzornenplatz and endorsement of the CIA map

As usual, the above user continues his reverts on nearly 30 India-related articles to make sure the CIA map is always on display. I have requested that the images be protected because I am tired of reverting him, but he claims the current image never reached consensus. If other editors would like to correct his impressions, you can do so at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_page_protection#Clarification. -- Simonides 02:49, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

According to this he is required to discuss "all reverts on the talk page" or you can go to the committee and ask him to be banned until 22 March (being 3 months after he went on the probation. If Gzornenplatz has not been discussing each of those reverts every day on those 30 pages, that would be your remedy. Note that he was also required to discuss each and every time he reverts an article on the talk page (and note it in an edit summary) by an earlier Arbcom decision, which, as far as I am aware, has not been revoked. I can't see any references to reverting in his contributions list, so if he has been reverting he should be banned for up to 30 days at the ArbCom's discretion, jguk 19:20, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm also concerned at the reverting of the maps. We need a quality NPOV map like the map of India we have. Anyone up to the task? If the completed maps are satisfactory and the unnecessary capricious reverts are made again, I shall personally protect the images. Nichalp 19:36, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Why can't I see India-related edits in Gzornenplatz's contribution history? I know I must be missing something, could you let me know what?

Also, Nichalp, it wouldn't be a good idea for you to block Gzornenplatz over this as you are involved in the article - unfortunately he'll only throw it back at you for being improper. Either get another admin to block him (if he's breaking WP policy or the ArbCom ruling), or you'll need to go through the dispute procedure (and that's best done with clean hands). Kind regards, jguk 21:59, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Miscellaneous topics

added a Miscellaneous topics subsection to the page to standardize the page accoring to the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries. More links from the "See Also" can be moved here to highlight them. kaal 02:49, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

History section

The history section has become bloated and now rambles through both relevant and irrelevant info. Specifically, I notice these problems:

some grammar problems
gives the impression that the Maurya empire existed in the first millenium CE, rather than BCE
rambling, irrelevant info in some places

I think some of the info should be pruned. I made an attempt at this, and here is what I came up with. Please suggest improvements:

(removed - these changes are now in the article itself)

Since no objections were noted, I have pruned the history section in the article. Basically, I have used an older version with some modifications. Let us please leave detailed descriptions of Indian history to the History of India article. --ashwatha 19:53, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nice work on the pruning. However the spellings on the article use British spellings. Please conform to the standards. Secondly, please add new topics at the BOTTOM of the talk page, not on top. Nichalp 18:12, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

The end of the history section does look a little untidy, seems to skip from one subject to another (see excision 17:33, 9 Feb 2005 by 128.238.242.63 and revert by Nichalp). --stochata 18:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I made some significant changes in the History section. The last paragraph dealing with post-independence India has been completely rewritten. The earlier verion of this paragraph was fixated on wars and nuclear weapons. I believe that there is much more to post-independent India than wars and weapons. It is not consistent with the History sections of other nations, either. While my revision does not ignore the wars and other negative events, it attempts to portray a broader picture. I admit it is a bit long and some events can be moved to the History of India article. I will do this as soon as possible.

Shaker 21:48, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lead in

To Hemanshu, The phrase that you have added is superfluous. Adding text in brackets is ugly and spoils the overall asthetics of this Featured Article. As for the population, it is mentioned in the demographics section. In your rollback you have also inadvertantly removed an important update of India's tourism numbers. Nichalp 09:49, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Natural Disasters and Geography

I have re-reverted the main page for now. I understand why "Natural Disasters" would not seem part of geography, but they are geographical phenomena. I'm certainly agree that it seems odd as it is -- I decided to give the benefit of the doubt to the anon IP: given the importance of the tsunami, perhaps it should be included. Please discuss first, then delete. --stochata 19:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The topic is Geography of India and adding natural disasters is certainally out of place out here as it is a brief section on India's geography. Details SHOULD NOT be added here. Granted, India has suffered a lot of devastation in the past and the January 26 2001 earthquake, Orissa super cyclone, Latur earthquake, Koyna earthquake immediately come to my mind which are of equal magnitude if not greater. Just because the tsunami is a recent phenomena and in everybody's minds these days, doesn't mean that it has to be put up here. I am reverting. Nichalp 19:40, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Natural hazards are generally part of geography (see for example the CIA World Factbook entry for India [7]). To a non-geographer this may seem odd, and it certainly looks out of place without a separate heading (and I agree it is probably inappropriate to add it here). However, I would rather you talked through the issue more before acting. As usual, the importance of any one event is subjective. When I added droughts and epidemics, I was thinking particularly of the drought of 1942, and the 1920 plague. As for details, the article does include them -- for example "global leader in software and business process outsourcing services, raking in revenues of US$ 12.5 billion in the year that ended March 2004". These details may be important to you, but they may not be important to others. At the end of the day, which details should and should not be placed up is, of course, a matter for debate, but I feel you should not simply shout us down. Regardless of the amount of work you personally have put into the article (for which of course I am very grateful and impressed), you are currently outvoted -- the anon IP and myself both consider this an important entry for the India frontpage. --stochata 22:45, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We could go on and write reams on India. So many queries are asked as to why the Rajputs are not mentioned, north-east Indian history is not mentioned, architecture is absent from culture and so on. I'm not saying that natural disasters should be completely omitted from wikipedia, just that it does not fit into this page. Natural disasters are an abberation under the geography heading and should be in a separate article just like we have ecoregions of India and so on. Software is the largest and fastest growing industry, and certainally merits a line under economy. Nichalp 17:56, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Last paragraph of history section

shaker replaced the last paragraph with a new version. I think we can incorporate a few of the stuff from his edit into the main article. Here is what i propose for the last paragraph.

Since its independence, India has been involved in four wars with its neighbours. In 1974 India became the world's sixth nuclear power, exploding a nuclear device in Pokhran, Rajasthan. Barring a brief period from 1975 to 1977 during which the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi declared a state of emergency with the suspention of civil rights, independent India has been ruled by democratically elected governments. As a multi-ethnic and multi-religious country it has remained largely a peaceful and secular democracy, although having its share of ethnic and religious confilicts. The destruction of the Babri Masjid in 1992 resulted in religious strife in much of India. In 1998 the Indian government exploded five nuclear warheads, confirming India's nuclear status. In 1999 India participated in the Kargil War in Kashmir to repel Islamic separatists encroaching there.

This is just the first draft. feel free to comment on what can be changed in it and whether it is NPOV enough. kaal 23:33, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to know, what in my version of the last paragraph of the history setion is biased and therefore does not reflect a NPOV? Am I mis-representing any factual information? Before proceeding on pruning this paragraph, it'll be educative to visit the history sections of other major country pages. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I do not see these pages dwelling on the wars that they have engaged in or the nuclear war heads that they have or have not exploded.

Shaker 00:05, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your edit was not reverted for NPOV reasons. When this article was in development last September, we decided only to sample the important aspects of Indian history to keep it brief. Look at this sentence Yet, it is a no mean achievment to elect a Muslim as the President of India twice, a Sikh as the Prime Minister, and a Christian as the Head of the largest political party, in a largely Hindu nation. It does not belong in this article and gives too much focus on the heads of state. The word peaceful here is debated. Is India really peaceful? Kashmir, the north-east, Naxals, Punjab all come into instant focus. Peaceful with the world at large? The para deals with post independence. The Cold War was at its peak at that time. Consider India's foreign relations then. Its debatable whether entire India was peaceful so its best to omit it. Please have a go through the guidelines listed above on how to edit the page regarding spellings and other details. Be free to reword the last para but please to not unjustly increase the size of the history section. Till then I am reverting to maintain article consistency. Nichalp 19:08, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

I was responding to the remarks by kaal who asked if my rewrite is NPOV enough. Although you say that my edit was not reverted for NPOV reasons, your subsequent comments suggest exactly that. It does not belong in this article and gives too much focus on the heads of state. Are you asserting that one sentence about the independent India's heads of state is too much? Just take look at the rest of the history section. It is all about dynasties, kingdoms and kings, and their religion! You have five sentences in the revert and two of them are about the nuclear weapons! Why should "going nuclear" be given so much focus here, especially considering the foucs it has been given in the introductory paragraph of the article? I agree that "peaceful" is debatatable in the Indian domestic context. I'll edit it out in the interest of NPOV. In the context of India's foreign relations, however, I disagree with your view. What does Cold War have to do with India? India was a non-aligned nation through this period. Are you disputing that India has had peaceful relations with the world nations, except Pakistan and China as I have noted? As I have pointed out in my comment under the History Section, my last paragrah is admittedly long, and as I promised I'll move some of the content to the History of India article.

Shaker 23:22, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at what NPOV means. The neutral point of view policy states that articles should be written without bias, representing all views fairly.. I never said your edits were biased, I just said that it would not be suited in this article due to too much weightage on the heads of state. Cold War has everything to do with India. We all know that NAM was a farce and it ended up with Indian having warm relations with the Soviet Union and cool relations with the US. I would like you to go back to the 1971 war to know just about how cold the relations were between the two nations when the two militaries almost came to a standoff in the Bay of Bengal. Remember that the world was polarised back then and many countries too had cool relations with India. Again peaceful is debated: anti-India sentiment runs high in Nepal and Bangladesh, consider the underlying relations too, the countries cannot afford to have bad relations with India. However largely peaceful is fine by me.

I said you are free to reedit the paragraph, I only reverted to maintain the status quo. The 1998 Nuclear detonation was a big issue and it resulted in the world sitting up and taking a greater note of India. It cannot be wished away as it will always be mentioned in history books. Yes, one sentence about the independent India's heads of state is too much. Its more of a trivia statement and it might be as well be omitted. Plus it would be better under politics than history. History is composed of dynasties kings and reigns, what's wrong with that? Nichalp 18:48, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

We all know that NAM was a farce and it ended up with Indian having warm relations with the Soviet Union and cool relations with the US.I am sorry, but who's this We all, may I ask? You may think that NAM is a farce, but I do not. International relations go through periods of relative warmth and coolness. The relations between the United States and Britain were poor during the Suez War, but that does not negate the generally peaceful relations that they have had. ...[Nuclear detonation] resulted in the world sitting up and taking a greater note of India. That is your view. I believe that the world sat up took note of India, because of its technological strengths, in particular its abundant IT skills, and the fact that it opened up its economy. Also, I did not say that there's anything wrong with History [being] composed of dynasties kings and reigns..., but it sure does seem odd that after two paragraphs about kings and dynasties and very little else, you object to one sentence about the post-independent India's elected heads of state as too much! Shaker 21:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Look I'm not denying you your right to edit. Infact if you see the page's history I've praised your previous edits. The lead-in paragraph is a summary of what India is known for. It is perfectly alright for it to appear in other sections. You are making a simple fact seem too good to believe by tacitly implying that a Muslim, Sikh and a Christian as the country's top political leaders is too good to be true for what is a largely Hindu country. This is a secular democracy and such things do happen. This is one of the things I firmly feel is unwarranted here. The second is the massacare. It would be better to put it in the History of India sections which is in dire need of matter. If you read this page's archives, you will see that many have questioned the reason as to why history section has so many ommissions. The history on this page is a summary of India's long and rich history. If you add for example a massacre, tomorrow someone will add the operation Bluestar citing its importance. We can't allow this section to be large and unwieldy. The only responded to India's foreign relations when you brought the topic up for further clarifications. I don't want to debate about the effectiveness of NAM and India's foreign relations unless you specifically require me to do so and so will only debate on the history. Nichalp 19:01, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

We Need a Indian Flag Page

I belive there is a need to add a Flag of india page where we address the following issues:

History of the Flag:
Colours of the Flag:
Saffron: CMYK 0-50-90-0, Pantone 021c
Green: CMYK 100-0-70-30, Pantone 341c

somebody add RGB,HSL,websafe options too,

Meanings of the colours:
Flag code of India:
The Ashok Chakra:
The Indian flag is not as shown on the India page, especially the ashok chakra in the middle.

Can the admin put in a more correct version ?

I don't think you've read the article properly. Just below the flag there is a link: In detail. It links to Flag of India. You may want to read that article. The same link is present at the bottom of the page in the See also section, under others. I you have any difficulty in searching pages, you can use the search box on the left and click SEARCH (not GO). You don't need an admin to change the flag. You can upload a new flag over the old if you create an account. I would also like to know what is wrong with this one and where would I find the 'correct' one. Nichalp 18:54, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

New Infobox

I have made a new test info box at: India\New_Infobox

The advantages I see are that it is much easier to edit / update than the old template, and can be included in the main article, making changes easier. The disadvantages are that we would have to lose the national song / animal / bird / flower / sport fields, but I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages...

(ps I think I created that page under the India page, but may have messed up the backslash forward slash, and perhaps the page will have to be deleted.... in any case it was meant as a test to see how using the new infobox would look like) srs 05:00, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Its good, but I have some reservations on the timezone issue. Yeah, we will lose out on may fields, that's a minor issue (another smaller template can also be made adding such details in that). Nichalp 19:49, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Protection

I have temporarily protected the page due to the spurt in vandalism and addition of POV links. Nichalp 20:05, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

48 hours, time to give the page another chance. Unprotecting. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Photo copyvios

I moved this picture (Indus Valley Civilisation) and replaced it with Image:Mehrangarh Fort.jpg due to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics#URGENT -- INDIA Page about the potential loss of featured status. I'm working on adding India pictures to Wikipedia in general, so if I find a better one I'll put it there instead. If I've misunderstood or something, feel free to replace the image. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:03, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Though the Indus Valley image will be more appropriate, the change is necessary due to the copyvio issue. I appreciate your effort in this direction. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 05:11, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I like the Indus Valley image much better too—I hope we can figure out a way to get an image like that for ourselves, although I have no idea how one would do it. I also will be uploading more images to commons:India (I've already done several) so if you see one you like better there, please switch it. Regarding the Taj Mahal, I do have a few pictures but they are quite inferior to the one we have now—it was overcast and raining, and there is some scaffolding visible due to the reconstruction. Do we have to replace the image? Does anyone else have anything better? Unfortunately, I have no idea what could replace the Infosys picture—I don't have anything appropriate. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:55, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For Infosys, let me try to take a photograph of the main building this weekend. If any body else lives/works close to Electronic City, s/he can do that easily. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 06:56, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

I have some images on the Sikkim, Gangtok and Calcutta pages, but they won't be useful. The Goa page also has some free images. I can try and cleanup photos if you have any, mail me the photos @ gmail.com. User id is: nichalp. PS: The fort needs a better caption to match with the history text. =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 19:40, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Any word on if the Taj Majal copyright is OK? Or does anyone else have a freer picture? I don't think the ones I have could really be cleaned up, as the main problem with them is they were taken on an overcast, rainy day, and don't show off Taj as well as this one on a bright, sunny day. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:02, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about the current Taj Mahal pic, but if there are problems with it, the pictures at

[8] are (c) by me and can be used and put under the GFDL. A taj mahal pic (not the usual one) is at [9]. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 15:57, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Till, if we fail to get a better option, we'll use some of your images. =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 20:31, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

--- Good news! There are a lot of nice images on India in Wikipedia commons. See the India category. I'll be linking them here soon. Don't worry abt images. =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 18:57, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I've taken the photograph of Infosys head quarters front view using a digital camera. Will uplload soon. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 04:31, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Update:I've uploaded the image to commons and replaced the copyrighted one with that in the article. Doesn't look as good as the previous one though, probably the size can be increased given that the resolution is good. Someone shall do some PhotoShop work on the image. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 05:26, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

It looks good to me. Nice and clear. Thanks. =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 18:22, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Two Maps

Is it necessary to have two "maps" of India? I think they are redudant, and one can be removed. srs 02:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One is of the states of India. =Nichalp (talk · contribs)=

Religion/Spirituality was always part of the Indian breath. Am unable to find any mentioning of the same in detail in the India page, except a one liner that India has given birth to four major religions in the introduction. There should be more details about saints, spiritual leaders etc who have influenced Indian thoughts through the years. India would be incomplete without these details.

Why British English?

When going by the Manual of Style, this article should technically be written in Indian English. The article on the United States, for example, is written in (and should be written in) American English. --/ɛvɪs/ 22:45, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

No objection to this proposal as long as we steer clear of "What is your good name?" and its siblings. :-) -- Brhaspati\^talk/_contribs 23:46, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

Fixed. =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 13:19, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Location map of India

Should not the location map of India reflect a neutral point of view regarding the country's boundaries? The Pakistan/China occupied areas are shown as part of the respective countries and are not shown as disputed regions. (Sunayana 08:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC))

It should. Waiting for User:Ankur to change his map. =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 03:43, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

-From amitroy5 I think we should leave that map alone. What you propose is the American prespective, which is not neutral.

Religion

Religion/Spirituality was always part of the Indian breath. Am unable to find any mentioning of the same in detail in the India page, except a one liner that India has given birth to four major religions in the intro. There should be more details about saints, spiritual leaders etc who have influenced Indian thoughts through the years. India would be incomplete without these details.

You might want to see religion in India. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 06:18, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

"Mother Earth"

As per a study, India also belongs to the bottom 10 percentile of countries when it comes to exploiting the planet. Its ecological footprint, a measure of how communities have used the resources in the planet, has has been .76 while the global average is 2.16 and all the top five countries have scores higher than 8. This may also indicate the reverence that people of the country have towards "Mother Earth", the way the planet was referred to in Indian ethos.

i think, this is such an important fact relating to India, in an age when the whole world is on an exploitation spree of the planet. We should metion this in the intro section itself of India.

For the study check out http://www.rprogress.org/

Someone deleted the relevant portion from the above paragraph when it was mentioned in the India page. If there is some specific reason for doing the same, please discuss the same in the discussion page.

Am adding the relevant details in the India page. Please do not delete it unless and until there are valid reasons behind the same, which should be discussed in the discussion page.

Thanks

You got to be kidding me if that is true... please cite an actual link to the survey you are talking about.. this cannot be true LOL.... --kunjan1029 04:20, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Hii LOL pal,

Go to the following link.

http://www.rprogress.org/newprojects/ecolFoot/faq/index.html

There is a link on footprint of Nations. Click on that.

I've repasted the study on the front page. If there is anything to discuss please go ahead.

Bye LOL

I think that statistic is more reflective of the general economic conditions in India, rather than any special policy on the part of India. For example, more people in developed countries are able to afford such amenities as cars, etc, whereas a far smaller proportion of the people in India are able to do the same. As for pollution, I would say the laws are much laxer and the major cities can be quite polluted. I also don't believe this to be significant enough to mention in the first paragraph. srs 18:59, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

What is "Redefining Progress"? Is it a reputable international organization? Srs also has a point: perhaps a ratio between "footprint" and, say, GDP per capita, is a better indication of a country's ecological policies.-- ran (talk) 23:03, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with u Ran... --kunjan1029 04:17, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

You have started a nice discussion, Ran. But am not sure whether calculating the ratio of "ratio between "footprint" and, say, GDP per capita" would be a better idea. The reason is both GDP takes into account consumption patterns and 'footprint' takes into account consumption patterns with reference to sustainability. So calculating a ratio between the two will lead us to nowhere. Probably you can go to the following link which speaks about the medtodology and maybe you can suggest an alternative idea. http://www.rprogress.org/newprojects/ecolFoot/methods/calculating.html

Regarding people behind Redifining Progress: Check out http://www.rprogress.org/newabout/board.shtml You can find more about the organisation, their activities, opinion in the media etc, details are available in the website.

Regarding the significance of mentioning it in the first para, i do think it is highly significant. Development indicators cannot just be based on GDP or just consumption patterns. Check out whether "development" is actually happening in the world at: http://www.rprogress.org/newprograms/sustIndi/gpi/index.shtml

I would also invite all the members here to take a footprint quiz about their own consumption patterns at http://www.myfootprint.org

Also, footprint indicator, need not just reflect the ecological policy of the country, it reflects a state of things at the country, and how people would like to lead their lives too.

Am not pasting Footprint indicator statement on the first paragraph of India page till someone comes up with an alternative. If no one does that, i would like to go forward with the pasting....

Beginning of the article

The beginning of the article is not well done. The reason is that the first sentences just talk about the rankings of India and its growing status. This seems to be rather subjective than objective, since I get the feeling that someone wanted to show India being of a high importance in the world. Not that I think it isn't but I get this impression in no other article related to countries (be it USA, Germany, Great-Britain or Japan).

I agree that the beginning is badly written. India is not about what it is today but what it stood for in ancient times as a prosperous, very ancient, contributing and innovative in all aspects of civilisation, be it governance, theology and religion, medicine, multi-ethnicities and religions, scientific advances, literature, festivals, .... The entire mystery and romance of ancient India is missing. Modern India does have to be represented strongly in terms of positives as it has long been subject to negative stereotyping globally now for a number of decades. Indicating size, scope and performance through rankings and absolutes is as objective as one can get. Indians ought to remember they are selling the concept of India here and it is for them to do a good job of it unapologetically.

I think you exaggerate about India's importance in world history. Its importance is not comparable to Greece, Italy, China and Egypt whose historic influence is immense on today's world. Quote: "modern India does have to be represented strongly in terms of positives as it has long been subject to negative stereotyping globally now for a number of decades." Where are your proves for this claim? I never talked with friends (amongst them were indians) about India being an underrepresented country. India is a country like any other as well, yet I don't see that much objective background as is the case with other countries' articles.

Am not clear about the above comment "that someone wanted to show India being of a high importance in the world".

India has indeed re-awakened and may be that is what has reflected in the intro.

Rankings are anyways, defined to be objective indicators.

But then in realty, we know the fact that subjectivity comes to play when it comes to (selecting and) using statistics. If we look at a number of pages in Wikipedia, we can easily find that people have used the Wikipedia pages to pursue their own agenda which do not have any base on realty. But then as readers do not have enough time to sit and edit the matters, they let the issue go.

So if someone wants to project a reawakened India, let he/she do it. Those who do not agree to it, let them start another page.

Without actually commenting on the intro, I would like to make a few points: The article should not be advocating any views. Forking (splitting an article into different versions depending on viewpoints) is not permitted on Wikipedia; policy is that different viewpoints should be integrated into one NPOV article incorporating all viewpoints. If one were to start another page it would be quickly nominated for deletion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:12, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

LOL

I'm readding the paragraph. By wikipedia conventions, an aticle of this size should have two paragraphs. Whilst the para mentions India's growing status in the world, it is perfectly alright to mention the said text. If you have any further objections, please reword an alternative paragraph here so that we can all agree what can be put up on the page. =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 03:56, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Hii Nichalp, i agree with you. Also, if/when you are changing the intro para on the India page, add the first para on the "Mother Earth" discussion too, as no one have given any other suggestion on how we can include the concept of India's Ecological Footprint being much much lesser than the global average. i haven't added the statement hoping that someone will come with a different suggestion.

discuss before deletion

Someone deleted the certain sentences -- for details check the Mother Earth part of the Discussion page -- when it was mentioned in the India page. If there is some specific reason for doing the same, please discuss the same in the discussion page.

Am adding the relevant details in the India page. Please do not delete it unless and until there are valid reasons behind the same, which should be discussed in the discussion page.

Anon editor, please do not add horizontal lines to reply. Use the ":" to indent your replies. After replying, please sign your text by adding four "~~~~". The Mother Earth matter should not be on the page. It can however be added in the Geography of India. This article is a summary, and shouln't display needless statistics on the page. As mentioned in the guidelines above, this page is a summary, add relavent matter in the dedicated articles. Regards, =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 13:33, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Demographics

I think demographics should include the details about racial origins of people. I know that in India, the racial origins are not very popularly identified, rather the caste and the religion but the demographics does imply racial differences. As far as I know, the mere fact that a large portion of the population is brown in colour implies that people have mixed for generations. I am from Kerala, and I feel that Kerala has so many different races, Syro-Malabar Christian, Orthodox Christians, Kanannaite Christians, Brahmins, Nairs, Menons etc... I think we should have a comprehensible page on the demographics of India. --coolmallu 04:43, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

Thanks

The demographics section in the article page is missing!! Vandalism? --coolmallu 04:31, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)

Population size- intro

I thought that India had surpassed China as the most populous country already. am i just imagining things? YggdrasilsRoot 18:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Not yet. Give it another 20 years or so. -- ran (talk) 05:29, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

About the beginning again

Hi kunjan1029, I have reread the first paragraph. It consists of three sentences and I was counting the word "largest" 4 times. It is not a good style to use a word so often in just 3 sentences, furthermore does it always stress something as if every single aspect would be of such importance that we must say that it is "larger than anything else", or as one word "largest". Altogether the beginning of the article is poorly written and should be completely changed into something more neutral. It is one way to say that the largest country of area in the world is Russia but it is another thing to say that the largest eggplant happens to be in Bangladesh (or whatever other country), if you understand what I mean: Don't point out every single thing in a ranking.

Aryan Invasion Theory

This is being disputed widely. It should be mentioned that scholarship disputes the Aryan invasion theory and it is a contravertial view. 24.126.17.155 03:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I say no to mentioning the dispute about the Aryan invasion theory. Let it stay. Anything can be disputed. People are disputing if Jesus even existed. Some say he never did. So, there are disagreements, but the evidence overwheamingly suggests that there was an Aryan invaison. A strong evidence for this is the Indo-European language tree.

previously in archive 7

No one is denying the exsistence of an indo european language tree but people are debating the possibility of a migration and not an invasion of ancient India. Read about modern scholarships including Archeological and genetic evidence - Aryan migration theory. Only 1% of India's known archeological sites have been excavated so far.

Page now follows most conventions

This page should set the standards for other country articles:

All Manual of styles are followed
Article follows guidelines in Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries
Infobox used
Page size is under 30kb
Article text is well written
Most interwikis for a country article

=Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 20:19, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

photo added

I removed the Rs.10 note which looked soiled and replaced it with a Rs.100 note pic which I found in the RBI website. Arunkrishnan 12:56, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

the country's name

I would like to know what is the most culturally neutral name for India in order to figure out how to name the lojban "India" page. I see that Esperanto chose the word Bharat. Is that name neutral, or would that name be resented by the Tamils, the Sikkimese, etc.? Would the English word "India" be more or less neutral, or is there a third option? Sowelilitokiemu 21:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

India by far is the most neutral name. Bharat and Hindustan are also popular alternatives especially among those having Hindi, Urdu, Parsi and other widely spoken indian languages (like Bhojpuri, Sanskrit, marathi, gujarati and oriya) as their mother tongue. One must take into account that there are more languages spoken in India than in any other country, so hence to derive on a culturally neutral name is difficult. For ex. Assamese wouldn't be familiar with the word Hindustan. But they account for a very less % of the total Indian population. The term Bharat is widely used in southern India (including Tamils, Kannads and Keralites) also. On the whole, both India and Bharat can be used to name the country concerned, Bharat being more popular domestically, while India internationally. --IncMan 22:50, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

I think Bharat is quite neutral, also. It depends what standards you use for naming articles; on en, India is used as it is the most common name for the country, not because it is more neutral (as far as I understand). — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:06, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with দ. For example: In Hindi, Russia is called Roos and Egypt - Mishrr. Hence, it depends upon how the country is generally named in the language concerned. --IncMan 12:29, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

In Archive 1 of this page, the use of Hindustan was fiercely debated and found to be a POV and now somewhat archaic. The term India is used in English, and Bharat in Hindi. In Hindi, India is rarely spoken, except occationally by Hindi sports commentators. I've been to Sikkim, so I can safetly say that there are no issues about Bharat being a POV there. I'm not even sure if it can be construed as a POV. =Nichalp (Talk)= 06:15, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Well, Hindustan is very much a neutral name. In ancient times, people living in the Indian Subcontinent were known as Indus (since they lived across the Indus river). The Persians weren't able to pronounce the name properly and called them as Hindus. This is how the name emerged and region was then later on known as Hindustan. The name is not being biased towards the Hindus. It is how the region is being named for centuries and has historical significance. --IncMan 15:49, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Granted, that is how the name was derived, but today its no longer considered neutral as it implies that only Hindus live here. There was a big debate on the name last year out here. =Nichalp (Talk)= 15:57, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Accusations of Human Rights - Biased version - not NPOV

In the Demographics section, there is a line mentioned regarding Human Rights violation. Though certainly some events have occurred in the past that have acted as a slur on the secular nature of India, e.g. the 1992 Babri riots, Gujarat riots, etc., they are just deviations or aberrations from the usual secular set-up in India. It is hence not fair to accuse the entire state of India (like: India has been guilty of so-and-so). At the same time that I accept that thiongs like these have occurred and have been occurring, I must also aver that it is not right to pin-point these accusations on India as such in general, on the same lines as the persecution / supression of other religions in countries like Saudi Arabia, other Islamic countries, or the persecution of ethnic minorities in countries like Turkey (that of the Kurds). This is exactly what the line under discussion, in the 'Demographics' section, equates to.

Hence I felt obliged to delete the line. I would suggest that the line may be modified to something on the lines of: "Though India is secular, certain events like so-and-so have happened in the past that have tarnished its reputation..." or something like that. It is just a suggestion. One may modify the line accordingly to bring out IN CLEAR AND CERTAIN TERMS the basic fact that such violations are not a character of India but rather deviations from its character.

The same applies to the case of 'Human Rights violations' in Kashmir. The place for the sentence accusing India of HR violations in Kashmir is definitely NOT the primary articlae concerning India, but rather another secondary article dealing specifically with the issue. I have no objections to the issue of HR violations in Kshmir being discussed, but I would just say that the promary Indian article is NOT the place to mention it.

My reasoning is simple. While many people consider that the Indian Army is violating HR in Kahmir, and India is the aggressor, many others (most Indians and many other non-Indians) think that Kashmir is rightfully theirs and it is the Islamic and foreign-sponsored terrorists who are actually killing people and causing HR violations. You see, the Point-of-View differs, and this is the specific reason why I believe that NOTHING whatsoever must be mentioned about all the issues I have talked about in the current article, should find a place in the PRIMARY India-related article on Wikipedia, even though I firmly support their being discussed in other secondaryarticles, even at length.

Thanks and cheers. --Bhuvan 11:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

--> I totally agree with Bhuvan. Even I wanted to modify the sentence but wasn't able to do so earlier due to lack of time. Incidents like the Gujarat Riots or the riots following the Babri Masjid are not supposed to be mentioned in the India article because they were events whose causes were very unique. Just mentioning them might give a wrong impression to a neutral reader on the secular structure in India.

Even if they have to be mentioned, all events leading upto these incidents must also be given in detail and the India article is no place for that.

Human rights violations in Kashmir can be mentioned in the Kashmir article, but again in a neutral manner. HR abuses is a concern in every country. That doesn't mean that they are mentioned in the country's main article unless it iis not a very serious issue. %wise, HR abuses in India are negligible. Mentioning Kashmiri HR abuses in the Kashmir or Terrorism in Kashmir article makes sense, but not in the India article. Thanks --IncMan 12:53, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

You'd also have to keep in mind that the version that you currently are seeing, could have resulted from vandalism. =Nichalp (Talk)= 18:49, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

I think the frequency of acts of vandalism have increased and maybe we should consider some alternatives. I just reverted the article in which the entire section demographics was removed to an earlier one. Does anybody have any suggestions? --coolmallu 04:55, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)

previously in archive 8

Mongoloids

The Mongoloids make up 30 million people in India. For those who don't know, mongoloids are people who look "Chinese" or other east asian ethnicities. They live in Ladakh-area of Kashmir, Sikkim, and are domainant in Nagaland, Manipur and Mizoram, and make minorities in Assam and Manipur.

Holi

Can we have a picture of Holi festival, showing how it is celebrated/worshipped in India, and also respecting the idealness and philosophy of what Holi stands for...

We could... If you could contribute this picture it would be great. You'd have to make an account first. Also, if a website could freely licence an image to us, it would be great to replace the current image. =Nichalp (Talk)=

Kashmir

I want to have a separate section which says plight of kashmiri people. All pakistanis watching this please add content so that we can show true face of india. OmerFa 03:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By all means, add verifiable facts, but in the Kashmir article. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 04:10, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Before OmerFa (talk · contribs) starts a flame war here by introducing disputable or possibly POV claims here, I just want to point out that OmerFa has vandalized India according to this diff of India and upon a request not to vandalize pages, vandalized/blanked my user page according to this diff of my user page, and then further retaliated with vandlization according to this diff of Wikiportal Bangladesh. India is an example of a nicely written article, and has gained featured article status, and it doesn't need to be ruined by addition of countless facts to the status quo. In case you *really*, neutrally want to add content on plight of the Kashmiri people, there is ample space to do that in the Kashmir article, or Terrorism in Kashmir article. Please do not mess up top level country articles. Thanks. --Ragib 04:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ragib wants to show me in bad light. That is not very surprising. He is from Bangladesh, not from Kashmir or Pakistan. He cannot feel what pakistanis feel for fellow muslims. I doubt from his name that he is a muslim, but we Pakistanis feel for Bangladesh because you are also a muslim country. Unfortunately muslims fought with muslims instead of fighting indians together. we still are in favour of one muslim country and we will always support other muslim countries. The genocide of Bangla people is indias propaganda. OmerFa 04:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am refraining from comments as your vandalism above, and the comments here speak for themselves. The attempt to incite me or others here into flaming you wouldn't work. Please try to actually *contribute* something to wikipedia. Thanks. --Ragib 04:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Omar, if you are entitled to harbour an anti-India feeling as a free citizen of this world, but wikipedia does not. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which tries to potray the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. There are numerous blogs and forums in the internet that you may vent your views on; but not here. This is not a site to discuss politics neither is it a place to make condescending remarks on wikipedians of different countries. See wikipedia:no personal attacks. This article about India is on the country as a whole, there is absolutely no need of adding a section on Kashmir here. Even the map is as unbiased as possible. There are a shortage of Pakistani contributors, why don't you improve on Pakistani articles instead to conteract the North America/ Europe dominance? Your vandalism is easily reverted; blanking an article is not a delete. Attacking other's countries' pages isn't going to make you a Pakistani patriot, writing good articles on Pakistan for the world to read will. There are a few Pakistani editors I know who take keen interest in India related articles. You are a newbie here and we are giving you two choices: contribute in a constructive manner from now on, or be prepared to be blocked. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:37, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Nichalp and Ragib: I completely agree with you. Everyone is free to express his or her views as a free citizen of the world. However, Wikipedia is not the place to "express Opinions". Wikipedia is a place where facts are presented for the benefit of the world community at large. I have very high respect for Wikipedia and its neutral nature. It is my first reference whenever I come across a new subject. I am sure it is the same for millions other like me. The Wikipedia initiative is too respectable to be corrupted with biased opinions. Thanks !!!

-From Amit We don't want to go to opinion. The idea that there are human rights violations is only an opinion. China accused the USA of human rights violations in Iraq. This is not really something that should be mentioned because there is no way to prove it. It's an opinion. -From Amit

Flag

color of the Flag of india is not correct. the top strip will not be yollow ! it should be saffron .

I'm glad to know you too feel so. I thought my monitor was at fault. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:17, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

picture of holi

I do not think the picture of holi is taken in India !!

Do you have a better and free one to replace it with? =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:29, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I suggest to replace the Holi picture with a Diwali picture. I also would prefer Nataraj instead of Vishnu/Narasimha picture. IndiBoy 23:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) The picture here. Nataraja, I guess is in the public domain. IndiBoy 04:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits. 1) The Nataraja image does not have a licence. We cannot put up an unfree image on an atricle that meets Featured Article standards. Also a metal? idol has little representation of India's history as compared to a clay one. 2) Could you get a more representative but *free* image of Diwali? The current image is a little dull. Diwali is a colourful festival, and though I support replacing the current Holi image, I'd prefer we keep the Holi image till a more colourful and free image is obtained. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:22, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I thought both the images were free because they were from wikipedia itself. But I still think the two images should be replaced.. IndiBoy 09:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You have to check the status of the images to see if they are free. Some images may not be free and it is incorrect to assume that all images here are free. Images in Wikimedia commons are all free. By all means change the images. Keep in mind the following points before changing:

Is the image free?
Is the image representative of the text alongside?
Is the image colourful?
Is the image stunning? (hard to obtain such kind of works of art)

=Nichalp «Talk»= 09:54, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Too bad, I reverted the holi image back since the GPL is disputed. Also I would suggest replacing Narasimha image by something like Trimurty. Is there any public domain image available? IndiBoy

Would anybody mind if I replace Vishnu/Narasimha image by The sun temple at Konark? IndiBoy

I realise that the Holi image is not tagged. The uploader of the Diwali image allows PD usage. So we put the Diwali image for now. I have no probs with the Konarak image if you give it a good caption. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:47, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer it we could have some images on Indian people. With the Holi image gone, people are missing. commons:Category:India might have some. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:07, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I support the idea of a separate image showing diverse ethnicities/cultures of the Indian people, if we have such an image available. IndiBoy 18:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In that case, a picture of the Kumbh Mela might be the best. Getting one might be a problem though. --IncMan 21:41, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

National sport

India's national sport is field hockey !!!! I knew that it is kabaddi. =Kxd23 «Talk»=

It is field hockey. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 14:17, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Hockey [10] =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:32, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Kabaddi is the national sport of Bangladesh, *not* India. Field hockey is India's national sport, as seen in the link above. Thanks. --Ragib 15:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Images

Dear anon 130.237.79.106. Please do not left-align the images. It looks ugly on 800x600 resolution. Also do not add too many images to this page. It makes loading difficult. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:34, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Wrong map?

I think the first map does not show Andaman and Nicobar islands at all and the third map clearly shows different color for them. Same goes with Lakshadweep islands. Does anyone else think so too? Could be due to my screen resolution.. IndiBoy 04:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are only two maps BTW. They seem OK to me. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:49, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I think IndiBoy meant 3 maps including the top map showing location in Asia. --Ragib 08:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is another problem with the 3rd map (Indiastates&utnumbered.png). It displays the number 17 at the middle of Bangladesh, while actually 17 refers to the state of Meghalaya. There is a small black line from the number 17 to the actual location of Meghalaya, but that is visible only if the map is seen full screen. Is there any way of removing the location of the number to make it less ambiguous? Thanks --Ragib 04:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I made the image, and I can certainally modify it, but I don't see any problem in the location of 17. The line in the thumbnail is visible on my resolution BTW. Any suggestions on the location (its shouldn't be too far away from the state). =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:49, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

The line is visible when you open the map image itself. But when viewed in the India article, the line is invisible, and hence the confusion. Is it possible to make the line wider? Or you can put the number between 23 and 3.... Thanks --Ragib 08:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. The second possibility is out as it makes it untidy. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:16, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I've modified it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:44, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

user:Ragib is right. I meant images pointing to [11] and [12]. I still think there is a problem with them. IndiBoy 21:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Secular tradition

Why is the sentence on sangam literature and puranas(ramayana and mahabharata) being considered as an example of secular tradion. 203.200.122.128 6 July 2005 17:49 (UTC)

Can't really give you an definate answer. You are welcome to temper it if you want. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 7, 2005 08:27 (UTC)

Not sure about the puranas. But, many of the epics of the Sangam era were centered around social values and individual values independent of any particular religion. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} July 7, 2005 09:19 (UTC)

Vedic Period

Why isn't there any mention of such an important period in India's history. The period which influenced the modern Indian culture the most needs to be covered in a reasonable detail, say 4-5 sentences? IndiBoy 9 July 2005 06:19 (UTC)

This is a summary of India's history. We tend to add more recent events than past in a history summary. I would have to revert as if this is unchecked, the history section would bloat. We can do the history of India up nicely instead. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 9, 2005 06:26 (UTC)

It is an important part of India's history. There has to be way to atleast _mention_ it.Greece or Egypt for instance? Is there a reason to exclude this particular time period while mentioning time periods before and after that? Edit wars in the past maybe? IndiBoy 9 July 2005 06:35 (UTC)

lots of edits wars about a year back. There are a lot of other significant eras also omitted. Let's leave it as it is, its a good summary. We'll try and do up the main history article instead. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 9, 2005 07:31 (UTC)

But there is no other 'significant' era omitted and certainly the vedic era spans a couple of thousand years. I really feel strongly about including _mention_ of existence of such a time period. I will let others follow up this discussion here and include this information if they want. IndiBoy 9 July 2005 08:27 (UTC)

Ok add a line to maintain continuum. but not the previous line u added =Nichalp «Talk»= July 9, 2005 08:41 (UTC)

The "Quote" section increasing page bloat

Anon 131.251.0.55 (talk · contribs) added a huge quotes section, which I find totally unnecessary in the main country level article. First, it makes the whole article bloated, Second, India related quotes are already linked in the WikiQuotes link provided at the end. And finally, what this or that person (one of them had the only "distinction" of being the former Chinese envoy to USA) said really isn't relevant to the top level article. Right now, the article is in a great shape, adding too much bloat just makes it unreadable. It is fine to have a separate page on "Quotes on India" (which for all it's worth, should go to WikiQuotes) and a page on Facts about India. But pushing every tiny detail into the main page does not serve any good purpose. Thanks. --Ragib 22:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Add this Worlds First University:- The World's first university was established in Takshila in 700 BC. More than 10,500 students from all over the world studied more than 60 subjects. The campus accommodated 10,500 students who came from as far as Babylonia, Greece, Syria, Arabia, and China and offered over sixty different courses in various fields, such as science, mathematics, medicine, politics, warfare, astrology, astronomy, music, religion, and philosophy.

India invented the Number system. Aryabhatta invented zero.

The University of Nalanda built in the 4th century BC was one of the greatest achievements of ancient India in the field of education.

According to the Forbes magazine, Sanskrit is the most suitable language for computer software.

Ayurveda is the earliest school of medicine known to humans.

Although western media portray modern images of India as poverty stricken and under developed through political corruption, India was once the richest empire on earth.

The art of navigation was born in the river Sindh 5000 years ago. The very word "Navigation" is derived from the Sanskrit word Navgatih.

Budhayana first calculated the value of pi, and he explained the concept of what is now known as the Pythagorean theorem. British scholars have last year (1999) officially published that Budhayan's works dates to the 6th Century, which is long before the European mathematical

Algebra, Trigonometry and Calculus came from India. Quadratic Equations were by Sridharacharya in the 11th Century.

The largest numbers the Greeks and the Romans used were 106 whereas Indians used numbers as big as 1053

USA based IEEE has proved what has been a century-old suspicion amongst academics that the pioneer of wireless communication was Professor Jagdish Bose and not Marconi.

The earliest reservoir and dam for irrigation was built in Saurashtra.

Chess was invented in India.

Sushruta is the father of surgery. 2600 years ago he and health scientists of his time conducted surgeries like caesareans, cataract, fractures and urinary stones.

Usage of anesthesia was well known in ancient India

When many cultures in the world were only nomadic forest dwellers over 5000 years ago, Indians established Harappan culture in Sindhu Valley (Indus Valley Civilization).

The place value system, the decimal system was developed in India in 100 BC. - Anon 131.251.0.55 (talk · contribs)

Anon, great to know all these facts, but don't please stuff the main article with these. Keeping an article brief and simple makes it readable. India is one of the best articles from Wikipedia (a featured article), and keep it simple. True, quotes about India and the facts list you present look fine, but putting them to the top level country page makes it bloated. I suggest you make articles titled "Quotes on India" or "Facts on India" and place your content there. Thanks. --Ragib 03:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Another point to be noted: All the above are "claimed" if any sensational information you have mentioned has to be entered anywhere in wikipedia, please cite the complete sources (book ISBN/magazines/websites) etc. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:03, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Over 50 years after independence, the Indians still have a slave mentality

Mr. Singh goes to D.C. And what does he do when he gets there? He bad mouths next door neighbor Pakistan. The scene is a lot like a kindergarten playground, where a 5 year old little girl in pigtails runs off to the teacher to snitch on another little girl. Observe the following fictional girl I'll call little Miss Piggy in an all too common scenario in real life playgrounds of the world:

"Teacher, teacher, you know what Jenny just did?" Miss Piggy asks the teacher triumphantly, her face beaming.

"What?" her teacher asks irritated.

"She peed in the bushes again, hehehehe". Miss Piggy diligently points where Jenny is answering the call to nature, as she continues her infuriating giggling.

Expecting the teacher to go running after bad old Jenny, for peeing where she wasn't supposed to, she looks up eagerly at the teacher, her face now flush with anticipation.

"Oh, this is gonna be sooooo goooood!" Miss Piggy thinks to herself.

But instead of investigating Jenny's bad deeds, the teacher pulls out a Colt 45 and points it at little Miss Piggy's face. Just as Miss Piggy tries to open her mouth to say something, the teacher presses the trigger and blows poor Miss Piggy's fucking brains out. A headless Miss Piggy falls to the ground - as all the surrounding children break out in cheers accompanied by a thunderous applause.

Upon hearing the gunshot, the principal comes rushing out to the playground in a panic.

"Oh my God, what have you done?" He frantically asks the teacher.

"Oh nothing...I just shot Miss Piggy". The teacher calmly replies, smiling to the Principal.

"Oh, Ok. Never mind. Good job. I should've done it myself, a long time ago." The principal says happily and heads back to his office, whistling,

Glory glory Man United, Glory glory Man United...

as Miss Piggy's cold dead body languishes in the playground, a lone bee buzzing over it.

The fictional scenario illustrates this point: Manmohan Singh goes to D.C. and complains about and bad mouths Pakistan. Doesn't he know that the only reason US even spits on his face is because US wants to counter balance China? The US knows EVERYTHING that Pakistan has done and it doesn't care about it. If tomorrow Pakistan launched a preemptive strike on India and erased it from the face of the planet, the US won't give a fuck about it.

Listen to me Mr. Manmohan and understand this: The US does not give one fuck about India. Your shit country has to live with Pakistan. It has no choice in the matter. Instead of acting with some dignity, you go and prove that you ara after all a bloody sikh, with his head firmly lodged way up his filthy worm ridden ass.

You also expose your continued slave mentality. And the fact that you do NOT know how to speak English. The world had a much better image of you - UNTIL YOU OPENED THAT BIG FUCKING MOUTH of yours. Next time, have some self respect and don't go to far away places only to snitch on Pakistan, when you know full well, that the US relationship with Pakistan is the strongest it has EVER been in history. Do you know what all those bored white men in congress were silently thinking while pretending to listen to your god awful and incredibly stupid speech? They were thinking, "Oh, shut up, you stupid taliban with your stupid taliban turban." Next time, just keep your trap shut - it'll do you a whole lot of good. Please don't let your ass do the talking for you again. The Village Idiot 04:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Before anyone takes this guy's bait and participates into a meaningless flame war here, I just want to point out that the best way to handle such rants is to IGNORE it completely. From this user's cross post to Pakistan and Kashmir, I guess s/he is just wishing for a reply so s/he can start another rant. So, let's just ignore it. --Ragib 05:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Whatever, I agree with his rant. Pakistan should wipe india off the map. --200.198.80.7 07:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Can't agree with you 'The Village Idiot'! Making those comments, You not only just let yourselft down in front of everybody, but also let the nice Pakistanis down. It is such people like you who creates a wrong image of Country/Nation. The only purpose that those dirty words of yours served was just making yourself more dirty. It didn't do any good to Pakistan, or the world. - Ahmed

Ragib, you are right, such assholes should be ignored. Actually these guys should be wiped off from the face of this planet. You fuckin guys are a shame to your own nation.

left hand

what is the significance of the left hand. i have heard that hindus will only wipe their but with their left hand and only shake hands with the right.

This is the first time I've heard of this. Any sites online having more info? =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:47, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Famous Mp's

Do you not think we should include on this page , some of the people that made India what it is today , a great nation ? There should be a special mention of people such as Mr A.K.Sen , who was the longest serving cabinet minsiter , as well as MP.

No, it shouldn't be here. The article sticks as closely to core India topics as possible. The moment we bring in biographies of famous people, more editors will add to the list. Why don't you add it in the Parliament of India instead and create an articl of AK Sen instead? =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:05, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the top level page should only reflect the main facts about India. Mr. Sen definitely is notable, but the information belongs to Parliament of India or Mr. Sen's own page. --Ragib 19:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Desertification/migration

An anonymous editor added this remark:

A geological shift in the sources of the Saraswati River and the subsequent rapid desertification of the region caused mass migrations east toward the Gangetic Plane, the site of the Vedic Civilization.

Nichalp reverted this, but marked the change as a minor edit. At the least, that's not a minor edit, but a major one. However, I'd like Nichalp to clarify the removal: do you feel it is simply too verbose for the main article, or do you think it is inaccurate? I didn't write the addition, and I'm not so attached to it, but it looks fairly interesting and relevant (if true). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:00, 2005 August 1 (UTC)

While on this topic, I think it's inappropriate to mark any reversion (other than perhaps obvious vandalism) as minor. Ambarish 18:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is wholly unproven and a contentious issue, contentious atleast until a couple of years ago. The problem really isnt geological, its to do with the link to the so-called 'Vedic Civilization' which some quarters want so desperately to be proven as the fount of all that is good about India, and no Aryan invasion etc etc. The existence of a Saraswati has not yet been scientifically proven. Some channels and features from IRS satellite images were in the news a year or two ago. There was speculation that it could have been Saraswati, but not proven - not even in a geological sense. The saffron types would love to have us all believe so, but its only so much speculation and pseudo-history until solid historical and geophysical evidence is unearthed, analysed and validated. Refer Romila Thapar on this. And besides what is a Gangetic PLANE? Tigger69 22:48, 2005 August 1 (UTC)

Since I've been asked to clarify the some points: 1) All reverts are classified as minor, even auto rollbacks which are offered to admins. 2) The so called Saraswati River has still not been found by Indian archeologists; Please Read this. Anons edits, while made in good faith, should be backed by a credible reference; the topic is a theory mentioned in the History of India article and may not be only related to just one river. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:54, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Tigger69 and Nichalp. I had not known the background; but now that I'm aware that the geological/archeological issue is a contested hypothesis, I entirely agree that it does not belong in the main article. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:00, 2005 August 1 (UTC)

a time line of India's culture

Could you be more specific on your query? =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:05, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

==

This is a featured article?????? Muslim invasion and stuff, nothing on aryan invasions who destroyed the indus valley civilization; no mention of the brutal Indian occupation of Kashmir, 2002 State-sponsored Gujarat genocide of Moslems - seems fellas who don't have a clue fell into the trap of some hindu nazi types.

219.65.185.162 23:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)Manoj Pandey

We are an encyclopedia, we do not take sides. There is no proof of an Aryan invasion. The history section is a summary of events in the History of India article. Specific instances of India's history are not mentioned here. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:11, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Life in India Infobox

Can we have a {{Life in India}} infobox on the lines of {{Life in the European Union}} or {{Life in Hong Kong}}. pamri 05:51, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Cool! I was thinking of something similar over the past two days. We have 'geog. of India' and 'flag of India' as FAs and with EoI to follow, only Hist of India is a biggie left out. It would be great if all the entries are made FAs. I support it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:34, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

created an initial version based on the EU template. pamri 08:54, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I feel we should make it horizontal, since theres hardly any space on all the India related FA's on the right side. pamri 08:56, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, horizontal will be better. You can also add geology of India and possibly flag of India. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:24, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Done.pamri 04:46, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Yashwant Sinha, Jaswant Singh

I noticed that some of the articles on Indian Leaders - especially Yash Sinha and Jas Singh can be improved a lot. I am hoping that others interested would also notice the same.doles 23:42, 2005 August 13 (UTC)

Its not only the leaders, the states and cities are also in a poor condition. Unfortunately there are a very few active Indian editors to improve it significantly. =Nichalp «Talk»= 00:52, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

The India article needs a science and technology sub-article

Would want some info on India's contribution to world mathematics , science and engineering.

I believe there is a page request somewhere. The info shouldn't be on this page, it should be on an independent page. Perhaps you could contribute to a page? =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:52, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

english audio file

Unless someone else is interested, I can record this article in english. I'm an Indian guy born and raised in Canada, so i guess you could say i speak flat Canadian english. Does anybody else have this covered already, or should i go ahead and do it? or, is there some reason i shouldn't?

thanks.

--bikehorn 06:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)bikehorn

You're most welcome to do it. However, I would recommend that you choose a "stable" version from the edit history of the article (you can see that by clicking on the "history" tab on the top of the article). -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:49, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

It'd be great to have a spoken version. This current edit seems to be stable. The spoken Eng version has been pending for many months, so I doubt anyone else would be doing it in a hurry, so It would be great if you could do it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:12, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Use of Infosys Photograph

A photograph of the Infosys building is shown as the symbol of the Indian IT industry. Considering that Infosys is just one of the many Indian IT companies, should we not remove this photo as this tantamounts to commercial exploitation.

TV 17:43, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Infosys is one of the leading IT companies, and it is used to show the IT industry. If you have a problem with the image, please suggest an appropriate one. Keep in mind the following.

It has to be from S. India. (all the images come from different regions, so we would have to maintain the balance)
It has to be a free image.
It must be colourful
It must relate to the Indian economy
(Ideally it must be a featured picture)

=Nichalp «Talk»= 17:48, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Sinha. Displaying the photograph of the Infosys building on the main India article is not justified. The question is not about whether the image is colorful, free or balanced, its about whether the image depicts the Indian economy. IT industry, though growing at a fast pace, accounts to a minor percantage of India's GDP and employment. Besides, Infosys isn't the biggest IT company in India. An image on India's agricultural sector or the skyline of Mumbai, New Delhi or Bangalore is more opt than the image concerned. --{{IncMan|talk}} 18:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I actually didn't disagree with Sinha, though the tone might unfortunately appear so. I'd disagree with you: free images are a big point in wikipedia! How about the BSE Sensex? =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:11, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Apologies for misinterpreting yr comment. I have no prob w/ an image on the BSE Sensex but isn't the building located in Mumbai? Well as far as my knowledge is concerned, Mumbai lies in western India and not in S. India. --{{IncMan|talk}} 18:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

That's true I know, but if we can't get a more representative image from S. India, we'd have to shuffle things around. Let's wait till Sundar comes, for his comments on which S. Indian image is the best. If you'll both can hunt for some good ones, that would be great. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:35, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I consider the following point very relevant.

* IT industry, though growing at a fast pace, accounts to a minor percantage of India's GDP and employment.

With this argument, even the BSE Sensex would just represent a fraction of the organised sector. A GDP growth chart may be more appropriate. However, if we want to maintain the regional balance, we should find a picture of an agricultural field from S.India. There are a few free images in the commons showing such fields. But, I don't know how "colourful" they are. What do you people think about the following?

Women farm workers in coimbatore

Women farm workers in coimbatore
Tea gardens in Ooty
Handloom weaving in Ettayapuram
Fisherman in Kerala
Paddy field in Kerala

These are merely suggestions from me. If you can find any better picture, feel free to use it. Alternatively, use Image:Golcondafort.jpg or some other image in other appropriate sections and have a suitable image from N.India for htis section. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 04:46, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not particulary happy with the images. None really give a true picture of the core of India. There are some nice pics of Marayoor, Kerala, but they don't fit in here. How about replacing the bhelpuri image with a masala dosa? =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:01, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. By the way, no single image can capture the core of India, which I think would have to be a kaleidoscope or a collage of sorts. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:31, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

That's true. But an image of something that a large number of people can identify with is more suited. So whose up to the MD photo? =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:41, September 6, 2005 (UTC)