Talk:India

India's historical genius and super power status in the ancient and medieval world

Can we please add some sections or allow adding them with following subsections

• India's scientific, literary, medical and religious contributions and their significance in the modern world

 * e.g. first true university was established which accommodated pupils from across the Asian and other regions
 * First formal treatise in grammatical linguistics was written in Sanskrit which paved the way for major academic work in other world languages

• India was military super power in 1st millennium with its cultural influence spreading in most of central and south Asia.

• India's contributions in mathematics

* positional value system was conceived and operational in India which lead to use of 0 (decimal zero)
* close to accurate earlieestf approximations of Earth's circumference and astronomical observations with regards to planetary system with Sun being at the center and other planets revolving around.
* Earliest conceptualization of quadratic inequalities and roots using Dharacharya method
* Faster approaches for complex calculations with lesser steps required than present in modern day mathematics.

• First soap opera and classical plays were written in India in Sanskrit by Kalidas who was the greatest poet of his time only to be matched later by the likes of Shaeksepere and Wordsworth among western poets.

• India was the richest country until end of 17 century.

Despite western beliefs and history written by contemporary western historians, large part of India was always free and was flourishing in terms of cultural advancement and scientific way of thinking. The British and other colonial powers had influence only in smaller coastal areas where they had managed to be in peaceful nexus with local landlords or rulers. Indian subcontinent in its entirety was never part of any empire. By the end of circa 1000 AD, Indian western frontiers were the only regions in Asia which had successfully reciprocated Islam's spread for many centuries in India.

Also despite popular belief and literature about the effects of non-violent methods, its was the successful armed resistance which effectively routed the British out of India in 1st half of 20th century. The leading figures behind the armed but still patriotic resistance were Subhash Chandra Bose, Bhagat Singh, Chadra Shekhar Azad, Ashfaq Ullah Khan and many other freedom fighters whose efforts paved the way for formal declaration of Indian control over coastal regions which were arguably under any colonial influence.

Can we also add some better images under culture and costume as the one currently there don't reflect the modern way of living in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sin nitins (talk • contribs) 00:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Please note that this article is about the Republic of India, the national entity created after the partition of India in 1947. This is also a summary article. Historical detail for the pre-1947 India should go in History of India. Also note that you need to provide academic reliable sources for any historical claims that both back up the claims and assert that they are mainstream ones (i.e., they are accepted without controversy by the academic community). --regentspark (comment) 11:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Republic of India was actually a successor of Union of India which is an infant political nationstate per establishment, not in terms of history. Predessor civilizations on national territory or historical expansions of their indigenous culture & political hold of countries, are mentioned in their history sections. This main article has brief summaries of Indian Dominion, British India and even medieval and Vedic eras. Even this article isn't an exception. As there is no other country called India, I don't think there will be any controversy adding same. History of India is relevant section for same but per notability, some more of notable aspects are supposed to be added in summarised history we have on the main article. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 16:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

>>>"Also despite popular belief and literature about the effects of non-violent methods, its was the successful armed resistance which effectively routed the British out of India in 1st half of 20th century." Really it was? The prime minister of the United Kingdom, Clement Attlee, must have been out of his mind, when on the evening of 30 January 1948 he broadcast on behalf of the British government and people from London, and among other things said, "For a quarter of a century this one man has been the major factor in every consideration of the Indian problem." (hear at the 1:00 mark in this audio, "Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi," from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) You seriously want to waste our time? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

That is your perception, and the probably the perception of few others like you. Fact is, there were at least few 100 prominent freedom fighters who fought till their lives against British like Gandhi, 10,000 more not-so prominent freedom fighters who had superior leadership qualities. Gandhi was one the prominent who was successful in completing the task of the Indians. Every Indian wanted to get freedom from British, but most could not even get basic nutrients daily due to the pathetic conditions British kept them in, literacy rate was below 20% when the left. Sagnique (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Font change

Hi, can someone please change the font in which the national anthem (Jana Gana Mana) is typed? It seems out of place in all the text here... RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 13:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Please see WP:MOS. Fonts are standard. 2405:204:3489:FC7E:3D4B:E708:B64:F75E (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

One of the early civilizations: Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 December 2019

Please add the line "India emerged as one of the first civilizations in the Indus river valley" in the beginning of second paragraph. India is one of the first Civilizations which emerged in the planet, it is contemporary to China and fertile crescent, called as Indus Valley today, Modern Indians share same genetic history https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/09/genome-nearly-5000-year-old-woman-links-modern-indians-ancient-civilization and Indus people form basis of Modern Indian DNA, Indus Culture brought earliest form of Hindu or Sanatana Dharma, Sari and other ancient clothing, Cotton farming, Yoga, Terracotta, etc. I know that Indus Script is yet to be deciphered but it has proven connection to Dravidian's/South India. Sagnique (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure what your statement is for but this India is not that old only just over 70 years, perhaps you need to look at History of India. MilborneOne (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: this India is not that old only just over 70 years

No, i disagree, new Indian constitution is 72 years old, that does not mean it is 72 years old, Indic culture started from Indus Valley, perhaps you need to learn about Indian history, and i have already provided citation. I am going to report you next time, for miss-handling Indian history as a foreigner. Sagnique (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Reporting me because I wrote over 70 rather than 72 is a bit extreme. This article is about the country of India and it already has a pre-amble about the pre-1947 history and links to relevant articles. MilborneOne (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: this India is not that old only just over 70 years

You are misinterpreting the statement. The reference he is giving to is for civilization and early political states which were succeeded by modern India. It's strictly Republic of India, the current regime whose age doesn't exceed 70 years and not the region, territory, culture and diaspora that are referred as India that are as old as first civilizations by mankind. IVC is very relevant to pre-republic history and the among oldest civilizations nowhere would specify a political state or Republic of India just like similar terms don't equate communist People's Republic of China to imperial Ming dynasty and so on. Indeed it's Republic of India but as there is no other state in world that claims to be India, restricting the article more and more to Indian dominion ane republic will only contribute to loss of high quality content that won't be covered anywhere else. And most certainly isn't going to help project in anyway. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 11:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel:

Thanks, i wouldn't have started the argument if China was not mentioned as "China emerged as one of the world's first civilizations, in the fertile basin of the Yellow River in the North China Plain", present day China is very different from what it was back then, it purposely put off most of it's ancient culture with Great Leap Forward. Sagnique (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

"India emerged as one of the first civilizations, in the Indus Valley" I don't think that there is any need of putting same just because it's written in China. A better drafted line would be better because India is WP:TFA. But yes, it should be there. As for China, India, Iran, Egypt or any other country, we aren't concerned with what their culture was and whether they are different from what they used to be in past. China refers to the civilization in a particular geographical region of East Asia. People's Republic of China happens to be the state or regime that holds jurisdiction over partial, complete or additional (neighboring states) parts of place called China. Similarly, India refers to region between Himalayas and Indian Ocean which is as of now administered by state called Republic of India. Per regimes, Republic is a system governing India, Islamic Republic is a system governing Iran, communism is a system governing China. Obviously, People's Republic of China, Republic of India or Islamic Republic of Iran weren't world's early civilizations. These are states with jurisdiction over a nation (whatever identity it chooses to have as its base). So saying that the place or nation (and not state) called India is not older than 70 years is inconsistent itself. If you have a good quality source to quote same what you wish to edit, you must do. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 14:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel: "If you have a good quality source to quote same what you wish to edit, you must do"

If your point is that if the modern country has control over the pre-established civilization, then India has many such sites which are within the boundary of Modern India, Dholavira, Rakhigarhi, Surkotada, Kuntasi, Lothal, Kaligangan and Banawali are Indus Valley/Harrapan sites which are present in Modern day India no some Pakistani nationalists will claim why aren't they referred as one of the oldest, for that. Indus river which runs from India to Modern day Pakistan Vedic period (1700 BCE to 1100 BCE) Bharata was mentioned then later Vedic period (1100-500 BCE) Flourished entirely in India Gangetic basin i brought in the Indus cultural similarities with Modern day India's and Indians because it is the most basic character of a developed society, many ancient civilizations are not able to carry such cultures as Indians did, cultural factors have always been ignored to measure the length of a civilization . Sagnique (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus for your random musings. The main sites of IVC are in Pakistan. These bronze age urban sites evolved from the neolithic site of Mehrgarh in Pakistan. The movement was from west to east. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: There is no use for 'main sites' or less important sites, Indus Valley Flourished in Ancient India, the people there moved from there to South, you're clueless about ancient Indian history, modern Indians share same ancestry with Indus people, there culture and along with their DNA, i have already mentioned where Indian civilization flourished, that is 'North-western India' the main river that is Indus flowed from India to Pakistan. It is completely still unclear how Vedic Indians came to existence, whether from Central-Asia, or where they the Indus people themselves, however Vedic ages flourished on the river 'Sarayu', 'Ganga', 'Yamuna' 'Shutudri', 'Parusni', flourished inside modern Indian border. Also name 'India' comes from the Greek word 'Indika' 516BCE. Sagnique (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: "The main sites of IVC are in Pakistan"

Pakistan has nothing to do with Indian history, their people are remains of Delhi Sultanate, Mughals, and Turkish Invaders. There are in no way related to Indus people, both in culture and genetic identity. It is a JOKE to call them even a part of Indian civilization. Sagnique (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

"Pakistan has nothing to do with Indian history" is a very odd and inaccurate combination of words. Irtapil (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, what happened? no response since 3 days, i have provided all possible citations, please do what's needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagnique (talk • contribs) 17:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the entity formed post-independence which happens to share the same name as the historical India. We need to be careful we keep the two separate and the edit you're proposing does not do that. --regentspark (comment) 17:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about? then why is it that in China page China is referred to as China emerged as one of the world's first civilizations, in the fertile basin of the Yellow River in the North China Plain is this is a joke? what wrong have Indians done to you? at least a million people visit this page every year, it will only provide them accurate history. I have given sufficient links and information, put the line 'India emerged as one of the first civilizations near the Indus river' or remove every other 'first civilization' tag from any modern country associated with it. You want more sources? Sagnique (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template.  Spintendo  18:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Pending Sagnique (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

References

About driving side ....

Right hand site driving happens in India now.... So change driving site in this article pls... KR studios (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source for the change in the driving side in India. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 02:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

GDP per Capita

can somenody change the nominal gdp per capita on the page? It's meant to be $2301. Thanks Kamthi732 (talk) 09:45, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Here: India's population grew from 361 million in 1951 to 1,211 million in 2011.[44] During the same time, its nominal per capita income increased from US$64 annually to US$1,498, and its literacy rate from 16.6% to 74%.

The data is for 2011. Better put all new updates with official stats after 2021 census. Till then, new estimates are there in infobox till then. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 13:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Not sure I understand. The data is from a book, A population history of India, 2018. We can't change those sentences. They are about a period of history, not about what is true now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

There is no reason to have backgrond image in this article in cream color

This article should use the syntax described at MOS:IMAGESYNTAX instead. Hddty (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 January 2020

Hi, somewhere in the article, the word 'defense' is mis-spelt as defence. Could you guys please fix that ? Thanks! 74.118.5.254 (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with "Defence" refer eng-var. MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Local name in Devanagari and other local scripts

Why is the country name not in Hindi in Devanagari script? Most other country pages have the name in the local script, so I was about to add it, then I realised that for such a big country if it's not there it's likely a deliberate omission? What's going on? There was a note in the info box "Do NOT remove this from the infobox as infobox translations and transliterations do not fall under WP:Manual of Style/India-related articles#Indic scripts in leads and infoboxes", but it was a bit unclear whether that was the reason it was only in Latin script, and i'm sure i've seen Indic script in info boxes on other pages. Can i add it to the body text but not the info box? Can we discuss whether we should include it, and if so where? I know some users may get blank boxes if their device doesn't interpret the characters properly, but currently nobody can see it. Irtapil (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

For fairness / balance should the local name be in other major local scripts as well (Malayam, Gugerati, etc.)? which should be included, and are the Wikipedias in these languages an appropriate source for the names? Irtapil (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The article behins with "India (Hindi: Bhārat), ...". Please correct (Hindi: Bhārat) to (Hindi: भारत) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4001:6A70:493F:5FD6:8BD6:5F8D (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Is there a good reason the name of India is not included in local script(s) such as Devanagari? details: - If it's because some readers might get empty boxes or "�" instead of the correct characters, surely it's better for some readers to see it than none? - If Indic script is incompatible with country boxes, can it at least go in the body text, please. (Though the box for Bangladesh has Bengali with no apparent glitch.) - If it is to avoid giving preferential treatment to Hindi/Devanagari we included a few others as well? - If there are far too many, could it be a separate table? - Alternatively, Hindi and English being the official National Languages seems to be justification to include just Devanagari and English, it's still better than just English. And lot of different Indian languages are written in Devanagari script currently as the main formal script (even if another script was used previously) e.g. Marathi, Maithili_language, Nepali language, Konkani language, Bodo language, or use Devanagari as an alternate script, e.g. Punjabi language, Gujarati language, Santali language, Kashmiri language, Sindhi language, Dogri language, and Urdu (Devanagari Urdu has some slightly different vocabulary to Hindi). Irtapil (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. See WP:INDICSCRIPT and then make a proposal to discuss. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC) – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

How do i establish consensus before i even mention it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irtapil (talk • contribs) 13:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

You can establish consensus by making a proposal on the article talk page (here). But read the linked-to articles first, especially WP:INDICSCRIPT, for consensus previously established. It is likely, as you surmised, that this issue has already been discussed and a still valid consensus arrived at ("valid" in that it's unlikely to be changed). Dhtwiki (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I removed the template and I combined the edit request with the above section, does that fix the problem? Irtapil (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I already looked to see if it had previously been discussed, i couldn't find anything on this talk page that showed a prior consensus. I admit i haven't read every last word, but the only thing i can find is me and one anonymous user today suggesting that transliterations alone are insufficient. If it has been discussed already please specify which sub-section includes a consensus being reached on this issue? This is the only page i can find on en.wikipedia.org which omits relevant use of south Asian scripts. Irtapil (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

You need to read the material at, and linked-to from, WP:INDICSCRIPTS. The linked material includes the results of two requests for comments and seven discussions at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

That contradicts the general style guide on Indic scripts. The style says that the local script should be included in the introduction to the article. Such a big exception should be mentioned in the relevant section(s) of the Indic scripts style guide (or if i've missed it, mentioned more clearly). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Indic)#Preferred_format_for_introducing_the_article_subject Irtapil (talk) 04:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I read the link, previously i thought it was the same as the one i already read (linked above). So, the short answer to why just "too many", and too many dialects of each leading to disputes about variations? But the article on South Africa manages 10 names in the info box, in a "view more" expandable section. Irtapil (talk) 04:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed simple solution, the list exists as a separate page, so in or after the first sentence someone add Names of India in its official languages, please. Irtapil (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

is that simple enough for an edit request box? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irtapil (talk • contribs) 04:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

As I understand it, from memory, it's permissible to include Indic scripts, but in the body of the article and with reliable sources as references. So, the scripts aren't completely excluded from articles, they just can't be plopped down into the lead or infobox without any means of verification. Dhtwiki (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with @User:Irtapil and Devagari should be used in every Indian political and informative page. Simply creating separate pages created completely in other Indian languages just won't work. Sagnique (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

No Science and Technology section in the article?!

That's absolutely crazy! India has started investing in both and it's time that the world's third-largest country (PPP GDP) gets that section. Healthcare, space exploration, nuclear and solar power can be included in the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NervousRing (talk • contribs) 14:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 February 2020

Please, that Indians are also called Bharatis and Hindustanis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParadiseKingPMSAW (talk • contribs) 09:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Photographs of a modern India?

Strangely, in the current version of the article [1] photographs of a modern India seem to be almost entirely lacking. Looking at the whole article, the most recent piece of technology appearing in photographs is an American tractor from the 50s . In the "Economy" paragraph, it's all about milking cows , and women in fields . In the "Industry" paragraph, otherwise mentioning Indian industrial prowesses in telecommunication technology or pharmaceuticals, the illustration is... a traditional tea field in Sikkim . The "Society" paragraph is illustrated by a Muslim in prayer in an old mosque in Srinagar ... is this really emblematic of today's Indian society? In the "Geography" article, the image of clustered rundown fishing boats could be advantageouly replaced by some nice landscape . Also, several of the current photographs are of a rather poor quality, and I am not sure they belong to a featured article, especially those related to clothing. Surely, we can do better than that. The general impression of this article in its current version is that of India as a backward nation, stuck in the past. What a difference with the China article for example!

So, I suggest we should do justice to some of the more modern aspects of India, by also illustrating some of its more recent achievements. For example:

• Modern India
• 
  INS Vikramaditya, the Indian Navy's biggest warship.
• 
  India operates one of the world's largest constellation of remote sensing satellites with 17 satellites in operation as of 2017.
• 
  A candidate for the "Society" paragraph: Market in Chennai
• 
  Mumbai, the financial centre of India
• 
  Hyderabad is a major IT services centre.

I also suggest that we remove the cream-colored backgrounds of the photographs, as they give to the article an unnecessary decorative, stuffy, antiquated look, almost never seen elsewhere on Wikipedia.

I am not saying that everything in India is modern and beautiful, far from it, but at least we could be more objective and balanced in showing the various aspects of the country: modernity constrasting with backwardness, glamour contrasting with poverty, with a general trend towards improvement and modernization as the economy progresses year after year. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 07:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)