Talk:India

Diplomatic and strategic relations need updated content and adjusted language

After the Cold War, India’s foreign policy has undergone some changes. It has established some partnerships, joined or led some organizations, all of which have specific names, rather than broad special relationships. The content of the original sentence is messy. After adjustment, the same nature is integrated and classified Бмхүн (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

You need to explain what it is you object to sentence-by-sentence and what you want to replace it with. What you have written above is too general to be actionable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @RegentsPark, Abecedare, DaxServer, and Бмхүн: especially as I am not here much these days. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

No in-principle objections to "Updating content to reflect changes in India's international relations after the Cold War" as Бмхүн says in their edit-summary but I have a hard time following the content of the changes looking at the diff. If I'm reading it right, the edit inserted discussion of India's current relation with Israel and France in between the otherwise chronological discussion of India's foreign policy during the Nehru and post-Nehru eras. So perhaps Бмхүн can spell out what they wish to add/change and then we can craft the exact language, sources etc.

One recommendation though before we get into the weeds: In a high-level article such as this one, we are better off relying on scholarly secondary sources such as (just for example):

• Malone, David; Mohan, C. Raja; Raghavan, Srinath, eds. (2015). The Oxford Handbook of Indian Foreign Policy. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-874353-8.
• Ganguly, Sumit, ed. (2016). Engaging the world : Indian foreign policy since 1947. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199458325.

rather than magazine articles on individual developments or on press-releases. Better to let the experts do the synthesis for us instead of trying to craft one of our own. Abecedare (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not so sure we need to include India is also actively committed to building a "Free and Open Indo-Pacific".[284] In recent years, it has played key roles in the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation and the Indian Ocean Rim Association. in this summary style article. Just don't seem important enough (also, I note that the editor is adding "economic" related material but removed economic from the section title). Ditto for most of the rest (East Asia summit, latin america ties, etc.) - no quibbles but they don't seem to add much to the article other than, if I may invent the term, diplomatic candy. RegentsPark (comment) 19:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  Diplomatic candy: Tastes the taste of diluted water! Zero calories! Committee approved! Abecedare (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  The economy has a separate narrative and should not be put together with diplomacy. Moreover, India's strategic partnership with the United States and Russia has a special name, which cannot be summarized as a special relationship. The Indo-Pacific is an important foreign policy of the Indian government, which should be shown, and now that India is a major member of organizations such as the G20, it is necessary to add relevant information. The content of the original narrative is messy, and the content related to nuclear energy and military affairs is now unified in one paragraph to avoid redundancy Бмхүн (talk) 06:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

  https://mea.gov.in/Portal/ForeignRelation/Indo_Feb_07_2020.pdf indo pacific Бмхүн (talk) 06:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

  No press releases or government statements please. Rather provide secondary sources, see WP:RS and WP:INDEPENDENT — DaxServer (t · m · c) 07:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

The official website of the U.S. State Department and the links of the Russian official research institute can of course be used as important reference materials to describe the relationship between India and these two countries. Moreover, the relationship between the EU and India is limited to economic and strategic cooperation and does not involve military affairs. The reference materials do not describe the United States and the EU side by side. France and the EU are placed together because France is the leading country of the EU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Бмхүн (talk • contribs) 06:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@Бмхүн: Thanks for joining in the discussion. It would be useful if you proposed the specific changes you wish to make one at time and specified what secondary sources (not governmental press releases) they were based on. Abecedare (talk) 06:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

The paragraphs have been updated based on third-party reference materials, and the original table of contents mixed three different contents together, which does not conform to Wikipedia's specifications Бмхүн (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

There are no "Wikipedia specifications" for this. Could you please propose specific changes, as has been requested a couple of times before? CMD (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 May 2023

The first paragraph states that India is the most populous country, as well as the most populous democracy as of 1st May. This is untrue. According to Worldometers, China's population as of 20th May 2023 is 1.455 billion and increasing, whereas India's is 1.419 billion and increasing, thus making it the second most populous. Noel Malik (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The current content is already reliably sourced, to the BBC and the United Nations Department of Social and Economic Affairs. You did not cite a conflicting source (only mentioned its name), but even if you had, the reliability of Worldometer as a source for this and other data is questionable. See https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/05/world/worldometer-coronavirus-mystery/, among others. General Ization ^Talk 23:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2023

"Preserved by a resolutely vigilant oral tradition, the Rigveda records the dawning of Hinduism in India." This extract is a case of opinionated language present in the second introductory paragraph. Noel Malik (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -Lemonaka‎ 08:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2023 (2)

The statement in the third introductory paragraph that "Sikhism emerged, rejecting institutionalized religion." The text's assertion that Sikhism arose to reject institutionalised religion is oversimplified and may not adequately portray the nuances of Sikhism's emergence and connection with institutionalised religion.

Sikhism began in India's Punjab area in the 15th century as a result of the teachings of Guru Nanak Dev Ji and succeeding Sikh Gurus. While Sikhism challenged certain features of the time's religious institutions, including caste oppression and ritualistic practises, it also built its own distinct religious structure and organisations.

Sikhism emphasises the value of a personal relationship with God and disapproves of idolatry, ritualistic observances, and outside religious authorities. It does, though, have its own institutionalised institutions, such as gurdwaras (Sikh temples), a code of conduct (Rehat Maryada), and the idea that the Guru Granth Sahib (the Sikh sacred scripture) is the eternal Guru.

In light of this, it would be more correct to state that Sikhism developed with a distinct philosophy of spirituality and religious practise that included aspects of both institutionalisation and rejection. Beyond a mere denial of institutionalised religion, Sikhism's relationship with it is complicated. Noel Malik (talk) 00:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@Noel Malik: You are referring to a single summary sentence in the introductory lead of an article on India. There is no room to be more verbose in the lead. The summary and detailed articles linked at India § Demographics, languages, and religion are the places for expansion. If you can distil what you have written above into a single, validated sentence, then you can propose that to replace the current lead sentence; it will need to be short and understandable. Bazza (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Sikhism emerged with a distinct spiritual philosophy that challenged certain aspects of institutionalized religion while also establishing its own religious structure and organizations. Noel Malik (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

 Note: Closing the request per Bazza's reasoning. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Or simply:

Sikhism emerged with a distinct spiritual philosophy that challenged certain aspects of institutionalized religion. Noel Malik (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Add in first sentence

(Hindi: भारत) 103.251.217.93 (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done - as per WP:NOINDICSCRIPT - Arjayay (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Infobox demonym

I don't think the "others" link in the demonym section of the infobox is appropriate. Isn't there only one demonym for India in English? As far as I'm aware no one calls someone from India a Bharatese person or a Hindustani person - right? Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 07:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The most populous democracy

Hi @Abecedare: I just noticed that you removed the bit about the "most populous democracy," with the edit-summary rationale "now redundant claim." Why is it redundant? Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• Presumably because India is now the most populous country in the world, so the sentence is pointless - it was relevant when China was the largest. Black Kite (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes, that was it. And the fourth paragraph of the lede begins "India has been a federal republic since 1950, governed through a democratic parliamentary system." So both the "most populous" and the "democratic" part are already mentioned in the lede. As it stands, "the most populous country in the world, and the most populous democracy" is logically equivalent to, "the most populous country in the world, and a democracy". The latter does sound awkward but if we want to mention democracy in the lede paragraph itself, we should try to find a smoother transition. Abecedare (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

    "Most populous country" and "most populous democracy" or "largest democracy" are entirely different kettles of fish. The first is just a feature of demography. It came and went without spectacular notice in India, and indeed the world. The source cited in its support titled, "World's most populous country: should India rejoice or panic?" expresses ambivalence. It had been predicted for many years, perhaps many decades. Being a populous democracy, let alone the most populous, however, is an achievement that has been lauded the world over. It has involved elections on a scale unseen and unheard of in world history, especially for a country that had such high levels of illiteracy at the onset of its democracy. It was unpredictable in 1950, when India became a republic, and its fact is still not predictable; indeed I had thought it had been removed because of Mr Modi's anti-democratic machinations. Its thriving has never been a cause for panic, only rejoicing both in India and worldwide.

    Observers from around the world watched India's first elections in 1952. The pictures abound from 1952 until the last one in 2019. Here's one from 1952, another from 2009, and another from 2014, not to mention provincial elections, this one from 2018. Another way of looking at the difference is this: if population alone were notable, more notable than India's political system, then being the second-most populous country should have been notable too, and indeed the fact of being a populous country. But "populous country" occurs only a third as much as does "largest democracy" OR "most populous democracy" in Google books published since 1950.

    I'll suggest a couple of formulations for that sentence next. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

    How about: It is the seventh-largest country by area; the most populous country as of June 1, 2023; and from the time of its independence in 1947, the world's most populous democracy.

    There are plenty sources to back up the last phrase. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Updaed and pinging @Abecedare and Black Kite: please weigh in or suggest alternatives. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

    "It is the seventh-largest country by area, the most populous country, and since its inception in 1950, the world's most populous democracy. From the time of its independence until its first elected government in 1952, India was ruled by the constituent assembly. I am hesitant to include 'And from the time of its inception in 1950' because it would be considered original research, as it does not align precisely with 1952." My suggestion would be this: "It is the seventh-largest country by area and holds the distinction of being both the most populous country in the world and the world's largest democracy." Fayninja (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

    @Fayninja: Remove the holds the distinction of (WP:PEACOCK phrasing): It is the seventh-largest country by area, the most populous country in the world, and the world's largest democracy. Bazza (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

    me like it Fayninja (talk) 03:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

    @Bazza 7 and Fayninja: Thanks for your responses. As I've explained, the two assertions that India is the world's most populous country and that India is the world's largest (or most populous) democracy cannot be made without their historical background. The first has recently limped its way into the world of facts, and only barely. For not everyone accepts it. Although various estimates of the UN do show India to have overtaken China, the List of countries and dependencies by population does not. This is because it relies on the national government's estimate, and India's own is still lower than China's. A census would settle the matter, but the Indian government has postponed its decennial census of 2021 a number of times. So the date as of which India has become the world's most populous country is important to mention, in order for the reader to know that it is very recent news, days old not decades, as China's status as the world's most populous country was.

    Fayninja is correct that a nation technically becomes a decracy from the date of its first elections, which in India's instance were held in 1952, but as the sources I've added show, historians consider the saga of India's democracy to have begun with its independence in 1947. This is because the anti-colonial nationalists (Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Ambedkar, and others) had begun to institute democratic reforms as early as 1946 when untouchability was abolished by the constituent assembly. I have added several sources which make clear that many major historians consider this to be the case. India's long history of democracy, an important contrast to its newly found status as the world's most populous nation, is therefore of encyclopedic value. Pinging some other regulars @Chipmunkdavis, Vanamonde93, Kautilya3, DaxServer, TrangaBellam, and RegentsPark: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

    @Fowler&fowler: Remember the purpose of the lead section: a summary of its most important contents. Omitting the current standing of the country's position in the world population tables (which I recognise that others may want included), the statement "It is the seventh-largest country by area and the world's largest democracy." hinges around the word "is". To say that that simple expression of what is cannot be made is false: I have made it and it is true. What went before and how things came to be as they are is of no relevance in the first sentence about these facts in the lead. The rest of the lead, article, and sub-articles, are where more details can be added. Bazza (talk) 12:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

    I disagree for the reasons already stated. I will let the others weigh in. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

    Thank you for giving your time @Fowler&fowler: I did not consider democracy in such a comprehensive manner as you did, incorporating it with other laws. My perspective was limited to the process of government formation alone. I agree with @Bazza 7 that histories should have their own separate section, while the introduction should primarily focus on the current state. I understand your support for India's democratic traditions and your desire to emphasize its deep historical roots in order to preserve them. However, from my standpoint, any system of government is simply a means of managing society, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. If democracy were universally adopted, it could potentially lead to a lack of diversity, hinder experimentation, and discourage exploration of alternative systems that may be even better. Consequently, this could result in stagnation. Fayninja (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

    I disagree, but will await responses from others. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

    Democracy is good but we are a little concerned about India’s descent into the freebie model. Fayninja (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

    • Sounds good to me. I agree the distinction is required. Johnbod (talk) 10:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

F&f, fine with me too. Abecedare (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• (pinged) I don't fully understand what is being contended here but I agree that the populous democracy needs to be mentioned. While I get the concern about democratic backsliding, it is not for us to decide when a nation ceases to be a democracy (or whether democracy is a good or bad thing). I'm fine with F&f's lead suggestion. RegentsPark (comment) 18:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Dubious claim regarding the term "Hindustan"

The claim in the etymology section that the term "Hindustan," as a name for India was introduced during the time of Mughal empire looks dubious. The etymology page of Hindustan says the term was in use from at least 262 ce whereas Mughal empire came into existence in 1526 ce. This issue was raised here once by someone else [1] and was left unanswered. Would be better if quoted text from the source regarding this claim is added to the reference. Rim sim (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Good question, Rim sim. I think the content may be based on the language in footnote 5 of the Clémentin-Ojha article where she says, "The Persian Hindustān got introduced in India and became very commonly used in the Moghul period." That said, I am not certain whether the "in the Mughal period" should be read to refer to the "common use" alone or "introduced in India" part too. The sentence structure prima facie indicates the latter but I too am dubious of that reading. The Mughal era seems much too late for the term to be introduced (even with the "in India" qualifier) 'cause:

• as Barrow (2003) says, citing Mukerjee (1989), "Hindustan was first written in Persia during the third century and was used to refer to the lands lying on the western bank of the lower Indus."
• as Clémentin-Ojha (2014) herself says in the very sentence to which footnote 5 is attached, "the word Hindustan, which was already used in Persia in the third century B.C. to refer to the land lying beyond the Indus River." (The B.C. part may well be a typo since there are other typos in the paper, which often cites Barrow (2003) as Barrow (2011); in any case that part is not too material to our discussion here.)
• as Sharma (2008), which I and others have previously cited for related content, says, the word Hindustan "had become a common word for India, specially north India, by the thirteenth century."

It may be worthwhile to look back in the wikipedia article history to see when this content and sources were introduced to the article, to check if subsequent edits have somehow changed the intended meaning. Abecedare (talk) 02:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

This content was first placed in the article with the same meaning as it's now in this edit dated 27 September 2015. Considering the ambiguous nature of the referenced material and the logical incongruity of the claim with other primary sources, it would be better to rephrase the text saying the term Hindustan became "popular" or "common" in the Mughal period, rather than saying it was "introduced" during the Mughal period as it stands now. Rim sim (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks adequately sourced so I agree that the language needs to be changed. Also @Kautilya3: (the editor who introduced the text). RegentsPark (comment) 16:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The question is when "Hindustan" started getting applied to the whole of India, not just north India or not just Sindh. I am pretty sure it was used by Mughals in that sense. I have sen explicit quotes from Baburnama etc. Whether it was done earlier is doubtful. See Hindustan#North India. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, looking at the text again, I notice is mentioning the "north India" usage as well. So I think it is fine to change it to the 13th century, sourced to Arvind Sharma. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 June 2023

In the infobox, can you link "territory claimed but not controled" to the Kashmir conflict? TheCorvetteZR1^{(The Garage)} 18:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done Actualcpscm (talk) 08:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)