Talk:India

Ammend to create two titles: Foreign relations and military

Foreign relations and military are two different subjects and deals with two different things. Basically to make a distinction officially, foreign relations deals with relation with other countries, diplomacy whereas military deals with armed forces, military stats, info ; military exercices etc... of similar kind and nature.

There is no country in the wiki which has termed 'Foreign relations and military' together in one heading. Neighboring countries like Japan, China, Pakistan, South Korea, USA, UK etc .... articles has formatted as such (Foreign relations and military - under two different title headings.

Under what circumstance, conditions, perception, economics and reality is Foreign relations and military termed under one heading and one section? I adhere and ammend to change this to different title i.e one is "Foreign relations" and the other is "military". Both title should have their own relevant materials not mixing up and making a ketchup article.

I commend each contributor who has contributed in growing and taking my suggestion to vastly improve the article. Though we can improve it more and it should be done. But now, it looks far much perfect than any time before.

--Varghese Jacob (talk)

Human development Index

In this artice you state the HDI of India is 0.519 whereas in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_states_by_Human_Development_Index it is mentioned as 0.612. I want you to verify both these artices —Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.160.2 (talk) 10:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

0.612 is for 2005 and 0.519 is for 2010. Statewise data is not available after 2005 (i think) so that article uses the 2005 source, whereas coutrywide data is available till 2010, and this article uses it.--Sodabottle (talk) 10:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It is against common intuition that HDI decreased drastically within 5 year.India didn't experience any serious economic issues during the last 5 years.So I request you to tell me which is appropriate . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.160.2 (talk) 10:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC) I think one of the reports must be false and biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.160.2 (talk) 10:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, 5 years, there's been a global financial crisis, rice price scares, etc. HDI is more than economy anyway. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is the Indian govt's estimate report for 2006 - [1]. This shows a 0.605 number for 2006. Of the negative things i can think off is the CPI of ~20% we have been experiencing for the past five years. With such high inflation, no wonder HDI nosedived--Sodabottle (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems unusual for the economic crisis to affect so greatly considering India wasn't affected so bad by it like America and Russia and their allies: [2]. Looking at their docs I see the following:

• HDI, Life Expectancy, Literacy Rate, School Enrolment, GDP per capita
• 2005 data: 0.619 63.7 61.0 63.8 e 3,452 Table1:231 (3 of 126)
• 2007 data: 0.612 63.4 66.0 j 61.0 d 2,753 p173 (184 of 229)
• HDI, Life Expectancy, Years Schooling (Mean, expected), GNI per capita
• 2010 data:0.519 64.4 4.4 10.3 3,337 p141 (154 of 236)

So it seems they've taken different data for the latest year. The income's randomly fallen in 2005 but picked back up again; the lfie expectancy's about the same for all three and is highest for the most recent. The literacy rate increased over the period it was used to calculate the HDI. But now they use years schooling to calculate HDI rather than the old education criteria, India's HDI changed dramatically and not for the better. They've somehow managed to get their data a whole lot earlier as well it seems. Really, I'm not sure why HDI is included in the template. Munci (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The parameters used to calculate HDI change periodically, so the results are not comparable year after year, but within the same year it can be used to compare different countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.7.102 (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

OK see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_development_index#New_methodology - for more information, it would be incorrect to say that HDI has 'fallen' its just that the method used to claculate it changed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.7.102 (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Important to note Bengal famine of 1943 was the last major one

My edit emphasizing that the Bengal famine of 1943 was the last was undone twice. It is important to note that this famine was the last major famine in India and that such famines ended with the departure of the British. This is because the Indian economy under the British was setup as a "colonial economy", i.e., it's main purpose was to serve and provide capital for Britain. Indeed more than 30% of capital for Britain's industrialization came from India. Famines are more about economy than about a shortage of food as Amartya Sen has pointed out. The terse reason provide by SpacemanSpiff in his edit summary seems to indicate that my edit was undone because modern Repulic of India is different from British India because it included Bangladesh. By the time the reader gets to the famine edit, it is clear to the reader that we are talking about British India, hence there's no real need to explicitly go in to details of geography and partition here. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

How is it important to note that? Sentences like that don't flow with the rest of the section anyway. The history section is a small glimpse of events that occurred, just going over what happened. There is no call for saying it was the last of anything. That's my style issue. Secondly, I'm quite sure the reasons for famine and British policy have no doubt caused much debate. Amartya Sen is not the be all and end all, and the tone of including that sentence is very unencyclopaedic. Anyway, if you're reverted twice, establish consensus before making the change again, don't make the change and then add the explanation on the talk page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

My edit does not have any WP:MOS issues as far as I can tell. Perhaps Chipmunkdavis' problem with style has to do with the fact that this article uses {{Indian English}} whereas Chipmunkdaivs is comfortable with British and Australian English. The Bengal famine of 1943 is the paradigmatic example of Sen's thesis that the proximate cause of famines has more to do with economy than with a shortage of food. Sen's views on the famines in India are part of the mainstream discourse and he's worked with several collaborators over the years.

Nonethelesss, the dispute is not about Sen but about adding the word "last". Adding the single word "last" actually improves the article significantly by providing the reader with factual information and it sets the stage for the inquisitive reader to click the Interwiki link to read on about famines. In fact leaving out such factual information would actually be unencyclopaedic or perhaps it has the intention to deny certain facts or suppress information.

Also, more than 70 million Indians died of starvation from various famines under British rule between the Bengal famine of 1770 and the Bengal famine of 1943. The latter is a major landmark in the history of famines and is one of the most analyzed and studied famines. It marks a transition from a time when Indian Famine Codes were not used and thus worsened the death toll to an era when invoking the Famine Code became the first and default response to impending famines. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Not MOS issues, just flow of text. And no, I'm absolutely fine with Indian English. The word last does not improve the section, it makes it read like an academic thesis rather than an encyclopaedia article. Just as the section doesn't specify the last war India was in, the last political assassination it had, there is no reason to mention the last famine. It's also weird to refer to it as the last as no others are mentioned in the section. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

There are numerous reliable sources that make it clear that this was the last famine in India. The problem with the tone/flow that Chipmunkdavis sees is a personal and a subjective one, something which should not over-ride or compromise inclusion of factual information. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The famine was in the Bengal region, changing it to India, an anachronistic term is not helpful and misguiding. As far as last, that's a blatantly incorrect term because Bangladesh famine of 1974 is evidence that the Bengal province has had another famine. —SpacemanSpiff 08:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It is also WP:OR for the article to say or imply that It is important to note that this famine was the last major famine in India and that such famines ended with the departure of the British. While there is certainly evidence and consensus (in the academic world) that the scale of the various famines in India was exacerbated by British mismanagement and some incompetence, there is by no means a general consensus that there is a connection between the 'colonial economy' setup and either the scale or the existence of these famines. --rgpk (comment) 19:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I can produce at least 5 mainstream sources that state and specifically make it clear that the Bengal famine of 1943 was the last one. We can discuss the connection between a colonial economy and the worsening of famine another day and another place. Welcome back :) Zuggernaut (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks (for the welcome back!). While I personally consider Sen's analysis highly credible, the point is that academic scholarship does not categorically lay the blame for the occurrence of famines on British rule, and so neither should we. The last major famine statement is also a tough one to make because there have been other famines, for example the deaths at Kalahindi in the 1980s, the responsibility for which is ascribed to governmental policies as well as socio-economic factors. The latter played an important role in the Bengal famine as well (I think the reference to a book describing 'Bengali cultural factors' was posted by you previously). My feeing is that Sen's views on democratic governments and famines should be highlighted in the Famines in India article, but overemphasizing subjective analyses in this overview article is not a good idea. --rgpk (comment) 15:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The current proposal is simply about adding the word "last" before catastrophic. Since you're joining the discussion late, here's the edit I'm trying make. I'm not sure the Kalahandi event qualifies as a famine. Even if does, it is not a catastrophic famine like the ones before 1943 (with death tolls in multiple of millions). Zuggernaut (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the diff. I don't see much point in the 'last' unless it is to point out that the British were responsible for famines in the first place. That there have been no large famines since does not necessarily imply that that is because of Indian governmental policies are different from those of the British rulers of India, nor does it follow that there won't be future famines under the current political format (I hope not, but history has a funny way of kicking you in the butt). Without a crystal ball, this addition becomes an attempt to push a particular point of view, which we should avoid doing. --rgpk (comment) 17:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The policy difference between the British and the Indian government, per multiple reliable sources, is that the Indian government has invoked the steps outlined in the Famine Codes whenever there were signs of a famine. After a few decades in to independence, this became so much a routine process that a separate invocation of the Famine Codes wasn't even required - it became integrated and monolithic with the basic first response to signs of a famine. I think that is a major accomplishment of the Government of India. The government is confident and they claim famines (like those under the British) will never happen again. The Maharashtra governments enactment of "The Deletion of the Term 'Famine' Act" of the 1960s exemplifies this. Sure enough, there was a severe drought in 1973 in Maharashtra region but the government was watching the situation so well that they averted a major British era style famine. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Making the leap from policy differences to the 'last' famine, and concluding with an "I think" is where WP:OR comes into the picture. It is not for us to draw conclusions but rather to report the conclusions of others. You would need to provide a definitive reference that states that famines are no longer possible in India, or at least impossible under the current administrative and political structure, before you can make the case that this government confidence is justified and that the addition of the word 'last' has some definitive meaning. --rgpk (comment) 15:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Given that Wikipedia is a work in progress, we need to accept the current published and standing data - that the last major famine in India was in 1943. If another one happens, say next year, then we can update the article accordingly. The government, the media and other NGO's watch food prices so closely that the entire economic setup with regard to famines is now completely different. The 2010 Indian onion crisis is an example of how food prices are watched and controlled (even if it means importing from Pakistan). No original research here since numerous authors call the Bengal famine of 1943 as the last major famine in India. Here are just three of them:

The Political Economy of Hunger: Famine prevention - Jean Drèze, Amartya Kumar Sen

Exploring environmental issues: an integrated approach - David D. Kemp

Famine: a short history - Cormac Ó Gráda Zuggernaut (talk)

SpacemanSpiff - India has had changing boundaries over the centuries and this article makes that clear in numerous places including right at the beginning with the notice:

This article is about the Republic of India. For other uses, see India (disambiguation).

As already mentioned right at the top of this thread, it is amply clear to the reader that there are geographical differences between British India and the Republic of India. So SpacemanSpiffs argument about using an anachronistic term is invalid. Regarding SpacemanSpiff's second point, it is the Bangladesh article that cannot make the claim, this one certainly can and should. By denying the use of "last", it almost looks like you deliberately want to deny one of the few accomplishments of the Government of India. Let's give the government credit where it is due. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks like we have reached an impasse here and I'm hoping I've convinced the participants to include the word 'last' in the context of the Bengal famine of 1943. If not, I do not mind setting up an RFC/A. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is no doubt that the Bengal famine was the last major famine in India (or rather, Republic of India). However, inclusion of the word "last" would make sense only if the History section mentions previous famines. In my opinion, the main India article should contain only to the point information and for more detailed specifics, we have separate articles (in this case, Bengal famine of 1943). --King Zebu (talk) 06:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, that's a reasonable and commonsense explanation for which I have no rebuttal. Perhaps Chipmunkdavis was trying to say the same thing but I didn't get it. Sorry about that. The famines of the late 18th and 19th centuries were the worst famines in Indian history and they caused about 70 million deaths. No credible and authentic volume on Indian history leaves out these famines - they all cover and analyze them in substantial detail. Yet our article here jumps to the Bengal famine of 1943 directly. I'm proposing that we add one line preceding the Bengal famine line, give the number of deaths and then add 'last' to the Bengal famine. Here's my proposition:

Current

Proposed

In 1943, a perceived shortage of food leading to large-scale hoarding and soaring food prices coupled with poor food distribution mechanism and inadequate response of the British officials resulted in a catastrophic famine in the Bengal region which killed about 1.5 to 3 million people.

The late 18th and the 19th centuries saw some of the worst famines in Indian history leaving an estimated 70 million dead. In 1943, a perceived shortage of food leading to large-scale hoarding and soaring food prices coupled with poor food distribution mechanism and inadequate response of the British officials resulted in the last catastrophic famine in India which killed between 1.5 and 3 million people.

This addition, King Zebu, will significantly improve the article and will align it with what is reported in other mainstream volumes of history. By focusing only on the time period and death numbers, it also takes in to account your observation that this article needs to avoid details and needs to be to-the-point. Zuggernaut (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut, I have no objection to the proposed addition. All we need is a source for that 70 million figure. --King Zebu (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Famines in British India (Estimated deaths in millions)

Timeline of major famines in India during British rule (including independent states)

Famine	Years	Deaths (in millions)
Bengal Presidency
Great Bengal Famine	1769–1770	10
Maratha Confederacy, Mysore, and Madras City
Chalisa famine	1783–1784	11
Maratha Confederacy, Mysore, Northern Circars and Madras City
Doji bara famine	1789–1795	11
Company Rule in India
Agra famine of 1837–38	1837–1838	0.8
British Raj
Eastern Rajputana	1860–1861	2
Orissa famine of 1866	1865–1867	5
Rajputana famine of 1869	1868–1870	1.5
Bihar famine of 1873–74	1873–1874	0
Great Famine of 1876–78	1876–1878	10.3
Odisha, Bihar	1888–1889	0.15
Indian famine of 1896–97	1896–1897	5
Indian famine of 1899–1900	1899–1900	4.5
Bengal famine of 1943	1943–1944	3
Total (1765–1947)	1769–1944	64.48

King Zebu - A template that was developed to accompany this sort of text comes with sources. An easy way to source this content is to include the template and copy-paste relevant references. Take a look at the template for source details. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason to suddenly mention the 18th and 19th centuries again in a section about the 20th century? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The section covers history from pre-historic times to present day and it is not limited to the 20th century. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm talking about that area of text. The History section is arranged chronologically. If the proposed rewriting goes ahead, the article jumps from WWII back to the 18th and 19th centuries. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

We seem to be following a mix of chronological and thematic narrative styles. For a given theme, we cover events relevant to that theme in chronological order. For example, in the History section, we cover the earlier Islamic invasions, Mughal history and then the Maratha Empire (right until 1818) and then we switch back to the 1500s to describe British colonization (see the third and fourth paragraphs, the ones starting with "Following Islamic invasions from Central Asia..." and "From the 16th century, European powers such as Portugal..." respectively).

The proposed edit blends perfectly well with a chronological narrative within a theme. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't.

eg

In September 1939, India declared war on Germany and at the height of the World War II, more than 2.5 million Indian soldiers were fighting against the Axis powers. The Indian Army was one of the largest Allied forces contingents which took part in the North and East African, Western Desert and the Italian Campaign and played a crucial role in halting the progress of Imperial Japan in the South-East Asian theatre. However, certain Indian nationalists collaborated with the Axis powers to overthrow the British Raj. The Indian National Army (INA), led by Bose, forged an alliance with the Axis powers and fought an unsuccessful military campaign against British India. The late 18th and the 19th centuries saw some of the worst famines in Indian history leaving an estimated 70 million dead. In 1943, a perceived shortage of food leading to large-scale hoarding and soaring food prices coupled with poor food distribution mechanism and inadequate response of the British officials resulted in the last catastrophic famine in India which killed between 1.5 and 3 million people. After World War II, a number of mutinies broke out in the Air Force and Navy and the INA trials caused considerable public unrest. On 15 August 1947, the British Raj was dissolved following which the Muslim-majority areas were partitioned which led to the creation of a separate sovereign dominion known as Pakistan. The partition led to a population transfer of more than 10 million people between India and Pakistan and the death of about one million people.On 26 January 1950, India became a republic and a new constitution came into effect under which the country was established as a secular and a democratic state.

Anyway, besides that one errant sentence, what part of the history section arranges itself thematically? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

See my response in the new section below. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Once again, this is distorting the meaning completely; India =/= British India, the death toll is for the Bengal Province of British India and to use that in the context of the Republic of India is misleading. If you're going to use that, then Bangladesh should obviously be included in any comparisons. The version as it stands currently is more than sufficient, clear and factually correct. —SpacemanSpiff 08:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Spaceman's argument that "India =/= British India". Any source which supports the 70 million death toll figure will include the whole of British India (including eastern Bengal, now Bangladesh). Maybe, we can change the text "leaving an estimated 70 million dead" to — > "resulting in millions of deaths". To be frank, I was at some point considering to add a piece of information regarding the Great Famine of 1876–78. Given the magnitude of the tragedy, it is far more notable than Bengal famine and definitely deserves a place in the History section. There is no doubt that the Indian subcontinent suffered unusually high number of catastrophic famines during the British Raj and there is no harm if the History section emphasizes this fact. --King Zebu (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I would support an expanded but limited coverage of famines in the history section. However I feel we should wait until we see consensus on the currently proposed change. The two or three items we can cover in the expanded coverage are:

1. Amartya Sen's conclusion that these famines were avoidable (his theory that they were caused by the breakdown of the economic structure in rural India and that democracy with a free press can prevent famines).
2. Winston Churchill's racist hatred towards Indians (particularly Hindus) - based on the recently opened up archives and documents of the British government, two authors claim that Churchill denied relief to the victims of the Bengal famine of 1943 because he hated Hindus. See my talk page for details on the sources.
3. Export of food from India to Britain even as Indians were starving to death in the millions because the British citizen was protected by the poor laws where as the British would not legislate similar laws for the Indian citizens of the British Empire. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

So we can cover how evil the British are? This whole thing seems unnecessarily detailed. We can mention famines, we can mention any incidents, but it is unencyclopaedic to go into debatable hows and whys in such as short section. That detail belongs in the main articles, and may even be too detailed for the History of India article. Historiography is an inexact art/science, and picking a side is not a good idea. As for the proposed solution of moving information about 1943 into a section about European colonialism in the 18th century, that is hardly satisfactory. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Where else can we put famines, given that they are a part of colonial history. Putting it there fits the right chronological order which is what you wanted. Regarding taking sides and the expanded coverage, I'm not proposing to do anything without consensus. I don't think anyone is interested in establishing how evil the British Empire was (past tense), the article should simply stick to WP policies (NPOV in this case) and reflect mainstream views. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

We put famines where they belong, in appropriate timeframes. If the 1876 one is that important, place it where it belongs. The 1943 one is where it should be, especially as it seems partly to be caused because food was used to supply allied forces during the war. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This section has gotten too long and hard to follow. See my response below in a newly created section. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff - While I still feel differences between British India and the Republic of India are well described eliminating the need to re-visit them every time there's a comparison between those two eras, here's a rephrased version to address your concerns:

Current

Proposed

In 1943, a perceived shortage of food leading to large-scale hoarding and soaring food prices coupled with poor food distribution mechanism and inadequate response of the British officials resulted in a catastrophic famine in the Bengal region which killed about 1.5 to 3 million people.

The late 18th and the 19th centuries saw some of the worst famines in the history of the Indian subcontinent leaving an estimated 70 million dead. In 1943, a perceived shortage of food leading to large-scale hoarding and soaring food prices coupled with poor food distribution mechanism and inadequate response of the British officials resulted in the last catastrophic famine in what would become the Republic of India killing between 1.5 to 5 million people.

Zuggernaut (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Location of proposed text

Here's how we can fix the problem pointed out by Chipmunkdavis:

Current location

Proposed location

From the 16th century, European powers such as Portugal, the Netherlands, Denmark, France, and Great Britain established trading posts and later took advantage of internal conflicts to establish colonies in the country. By 1856, most of India was under the control of the British East India Company. A year later, a nationwide insurrection of rebelling military units and kingdoms, known as India's First War of Independence or the Sepoy Mutiny, seriously challenged the Company's control but eventually failed. As a result of the instability, India was brought under the direct rule of the British Crown. Mahatma Gandhi (right) with Jawaharlal Nehru, 1937. Nehru would go on to become India's first prime minister in 1947. In the 20th century, a nationwide struggle for independence was launched by the Indian National Congress (INC) and other political organisations. Several Indian radical revolutionaries, such as Subhash Chandra Bose and Bhagat Singh, led armed rebellions against the British Raj. However, the defining aspect of the Indian independence movement was the nonviolent resistance led by Mahatma Gandhi and the INC. Under the leadership of Gandhi, millions of Indians participated in the Quit India civil disobedience movement against the British Raj. In September 1939, India declared war on Germany and at the height of the World War II, more than 2.5 million Indian soldiers were fighting against the Axis powers. The Indian Army was one of the largest Allied forces contingents which took part in the North and East African, Western Desert and the Italian Campaign and played a crucial role in halting the progress of Imperial Japan in the South-East Asian theatre. However, certain Indian nationalists collaborated with the Axis powers to overthrow the British Raj. The Indian National Army (INA), led by Bose, forged an alliance with the Axis powers and fought an unsuccessful military campaign against British India. In 1943, a perceived shortage of food leading to large-scale hoarding and soaring food prices coupled with poor food distribution mechanism and inadequate response of the British officials resulted in a catastrophic famine in the Bengal region which killed about 1.5 to 3 million people. After World War II, a number of mutinies broke out in the Air Force and Navy and the INA trials caused considerable public unrest. On 15 August 1947, the British Raj was dissolved following which the Muslim-majority areas were partitioned which led to the creation of a separate sovereign dominion known as Pakistan. The partition led to a population transfer of more than 10 million people between India and Pakistan and the death of about one million people. On 26 January 1950, India became a republic and a new constitution came into effect under which the country was established as a secular and a democratic state.

From the 16th century, European powers such as Portugal, the Netherlands, Denmark, France, and Great Britain established trading posts and later took advantage of internal conflicts to establish colonies in the country. By 1856, most of India was under the control of the British East India Company. A year later, a nationwide insurrection of rebelling military units and kingdoms, known as India's First War of Independence or the Sepoy Mutiny, seriously challenged the Company's control but eventually failed. As a result of the instability, India was brought under the direct rule of the British Crown. This was soon followed by the worst famines in the history of the Indian subcontinent with the wider period of the late 18th and the 19th centuries leaving an estimated 70 million dead. In 1943, a perceived shortage of food leading to large-scale hoarding and soaring food prices coupled with poor food distribution mechanism and inadequate response of the British officials resulted in the last catastrophic famine in what would become the Republic of India. Mahatma Gandhi (right) with Jawaharlal Nehru, 1937. Nehru would go on to become India's first prime minister in 1947. In the 20th century, a nationwide struggle for independence was launched by the Indian National Congress (INC) and other political organisations. Several Indian radical revolutionaries, such as Subhash Chandra Bose and Bhagat Singh, led armed rebellions against the British Raj. However, the defining aspect of the Indian independence movement was the nonviolent resistance led by Mahatma Gandhi and the INC. Under the leadership of Gandhi, millions of Indians participated in the Quit India civil disobedience movement against the British Raj. In September 1939, India declared war on Germany and at the height of the World War II, more than 2.5 million Indian soldiers were fighting against the Axis powers. The Indian Army was one of the largest Allied forces contingents which took part in the North and East African, Western Desert and the Italian Campaign and played a crucial role in halting the progress of Imperial Japan in the South-East Asian theatre. However, certain Indian nationalists collaborated with the Axis powers to overthrow the British Raj. The Indian National Army (INA), led by Bose, forged an alliance with the Axis powers and fought an unsuccessful military campaign against British India. After World War II, a number of mutinies broke out in the Air Force and Navy and the INA trials caused considerable public unrest. On 15 August 1947, the British Raj was dissolved following which the Muslim-majority areas were partitioned which led to the creation of a separate sovereign dominion known as Pakistan. The partition led to a population transfer of more than 10 million people between India and Pakistan and the death of about one million people. On 26 January 1950, India became a republic and a new constitution came into effect under which the country was established as a secular and a democratic state.

Zuggernaut (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Location of famine text

Responding to Chipmunkdavis' post: With perhaps the exception of the Bengal famine of 1943, all other famines should be treated as a theme, somewhat like the paragraph on colonialism (we club all colonial powers together as a theme). That's because these famines had similar cause and similar relief responses. AFAIK, that's how books on Indian history treat them. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I happened upon this page just now, while traveling. I'm troubled at what I see is POV-pushing both in the Famine in India article (which has original research as well) and in its précis here. To say that "The late 18th and the 19th centuries saw some of the worst famines in the history of the Indian subcontinent leaving an estimated 70 million dead." is inaccurate because there is very little record of mortality of pre-British era famines. Also, the Doji bara famine and the Chalisa famine largely affected areas of subcontinent outside British India. The "current" version of the (Bengal 1943) famine text is more accurate overall than what is being proposed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

PS I probably won't be looking at this page for some time, but someone should go through the Famine in India text and check for original research as well as accurate and reliable sourcing. For example, in the British Rule section, sources such as Lajpat Rai and Koomar, both almost a century old, are being cited by the dates of the recent fascimile reprints. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

PPS The 70 million figure is inflated. See Timeline of major famines in India during British rule for a more sober assessment. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It's really nice to see a veteran editor who's edited on the topic come back. Attention to this proposed edit and the Famine in India is much welcome - for starters we will be able to move from the juvenile game-playing and attempts to destabilize that article to some focused content and source related discussions. We can tackle the POV and OR allegations one by one and if indeed there is a problem, we can rectify the content. The 18th/19th century statement can be sourced to multiple, independent and credible reliable sources. While I was on the talk pages of the British Empire, I "overheard" a debate between a German and a Briton on whose empire was bigger and they went in to some detailed discussions about the land area of the British Empire. They seem to be counting the entire of the Indian subcontinent to support the claim in the lead of that FA that the BE was indeed the largest. Against this backdrop, we cannot selectively (and dubiously) start saying "province x which was hit by a famine was not part of the British Empire". If need be, I will provide sources that show that British occupation of India had an impact on the economies of the areas that were not under direct British control. Many of the policies of the subjugated princely states were dictated by the British indirectly.

I am not the first one to see a bias against sources whose authors have Indian sounding names - this was first articulated very well by Neeramurthy (talk · contribs) back in 2006 [3]. As for the 70 million number, we can discuss to arrive a better estimate or better still we can provide a range.

Finally, I disagree completely that the current wording is fine. It almost seems that we are working hard to go out of the way to omit one of the greatest tragedies in India under British occupation. That is a very strong and shrewd pro-British POV by omission. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Both the Doji bara famine and the Chalisa famine took place in regions that were yet to be acquired by the British, during a time—late 18th century—when indirect rule or paramountcy had not been established. Rambling anecdotes prove nothing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The Doji bara famine happened parts of the Deccan and the Maratha empire, an area in which the British East India company had already signed a treaty with the Marathas as a result of the First Anglo-Maratha War. Similarly there was a presence of the EIC in areas of the Chalisa famine. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The First Anglo-Maratha war was a stalemate. The only British gain from the Treaty of Salbai (1782) was the Island of Salsette, now part of greater Mumbai. The treaty in fact created peace in the region for some 20 years. The Marathas did not enter into a subsidiary alliance with the British until 1802, and only after first fighting among themselves. If you're going to lay the blame for all ills on the subcontinent at the doors of the British, why not start with Thomas Roe's Embassy at the Court of Jahangir (1615) and the subsequent commercial treaty? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be very wrong to "lay the blame for all ills on the subcontinent at the doors of the British". And I am absolutely not taking that position. There were, however, a few spheres where the British did have a very negative and a long-lasting impact on Indian life. Famines was one such sphere which is at the heart of this discussion. Let's stay focused on famines and take the two famines you are objecting to one after the other starting with the Doji bara famine. Here's what Richard H. Grove says after a detailed district-by-district study, and more importantly, after taking in to account the context of British presence in India.

The mortality of the 1790s famines must be blamed on the British, who had a responsibility to provide alternative famine foods when the main rice crop failed.

Page 83 of The Great El Niño of 1789-93 and its Global Consequences : Reconstructing an Extreme Climate Event in World Environmental History

Incidentally, this was the very first source you added to the Doji bara famine on May 18, 2008. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

(od) The proposed location, with the implied cause-effect of direct British rule followed by famines, is obvious POV. Also, the use of the terms 'worst' and 'last' are not warranted (last requires a crystal ball and both the definition of 'worst' as well as incomplete historical records makes the use of 'worst' dubious). IMO the current wording is the most appropriate. --rgpk (comment) 15:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It's common practice in famine literature to use these terms. Take a look at the following three sources.

1. The Political Economy of Hunger: Famine prevention - Jean Drèze, Amartya Kumar Sen
2. Exploring environmental issues: an integrated approach - David D. Kemp
3. Famine: a short history - Cormac Ó Gráda

Numerous other sources can be provided. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the attempt to introduce them here and to tie them to British rule of India is fairly obvious POV. The history section should confine itself to a recital of uncontroversial facts - which is what the current text does - and not overweight this viewpoint or that. --rgpk (comment) 15:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

They are a part of history of British India, the English East India Company (British East India Company after the act of union of 1707) and British Raj. They have well understood causes, clear start and end points and well defined geographies. Most major authors agree with the facts we are quoting and these events are hardly controversial in famine literature. And actually putting them elsewhere would be POV - by trying to make them appear as part of a different history than those stated earlier. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of that sentence. Grove is an environmental historian, not a historian of British India. He provides supportive data not for a district by district study of the entire famine affected region, but only for some districts in the Madras and Bengal presidencies of British India. He extrapolates, saying, "Extrapolating from these kinds of figures we may attribute a total famine mortality during 1788–94 of perhaps 11 million to the extended El Niño conditions of the period." He then adds a sentence about British responsibility, which you quote above. If he is talking about British India, his assertion is reasonable, but then the majority of the deaths did not occur in British India. If he is talking about all of India, the obvious riposte is, "Why did the British have responsibility for providing alternative famine foods for all of India?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Why speculate and give reasons to suit a pro-British POV when an author clearly draws the conclusion that the British should be held responsible for the Doji bara famine? Can you state a source that says explicitly that the British should not be held responsible for the deaths? You are ignoring the fact that war is a proximate cause of famine and the British were causing war after war. In the Treaty of Salbai they forced the Marathas to war against Tipu. The thrid Anglo-Mysore war had just concluded before the famine. It is obvious that the British had the responsibility. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You need to make up your mind. You first claimed that the Doji bara famine had something to do with the Treaty of Salbai (in the aftermath of the First Anglo-Maratha War). When I pointed out that the treaty in fact created conditions of peace in the region, you are now shooting in the dark with another thesis and vaguely even throwing in entitlements. Find me a reliable source that lays the blame of the Doji bara famine on the Treaty of Salbai. Grove himself makes no such claim. In fact, he doesn't even claim that British had anything to do with causing the famine (other than making a oblique reference to deforestation in British India). He is simply saying that they should have shouldered the responsibility for famine relief, without explaining why. In his book chapters, on which this paper is based, he doesn't add this throwaway sentence. I am traveling and without my sources, but why don't you look at Tirthankar Roy's section on famine in his Economic History of India (2008). He says at the outset that famines, even major famines, had always occurred on the subcontinent. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

PS It is not for me to find sources that say the British were not responsible. You are trying to establish guilt. It is for you to provide evidence that cuts muster with a jury of peers. One sentence in one paper for which no explanation is provided by its author does not constitute that evidence. That is my take. Others who weigh in here will need to make up their own minds. The British were the first administrators to collect famine data in India; they were the first to carry out systematic large-scale famine relief (starting with the Agra famine of 1838), even if that relief, often in the form of public works, might seem stark by today's standards. This is as far as I go with this argument. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I keep an open mind and I am open to change my position if you point to sources I might overlooked. I'm really hoping you are not coming from a position where you have have made up your mind in favor of British rule of India. You reject Grove who clearly states that the British should be blamed for the Doji bara famine. The fact that he went out of the way to include that "throwaway sentence" shows that he knows something or learnt of something between the paper and the book. Taking the extra effort to include the sentence in the paper also says something. The right way to go about this would be to take it up with Grove and the publishing house rather than trying to reject the source here on Wikipedia. The British were the first administrators to collect famine data in India by Western methods. A proximate cause of famines is war and that was something the British were doing in ample amount not just directly but also indirectly via the French, Shinde, Holkar, Hdyer Ali and Tipu. The business of the EIC (and later the Raj) in India was to make profit. All these elements need to be taken in to account when discussing famines. Sure, famines have always existed on this planet (no need to run to Trithankar Roy for that) but they got worse under the British wherever the British went (see the Great Irish famine). But let's not stray from the Doji bara and Chalisa famine numbers you have disputed. Once we are able to sort that out, I will be able to fix Famine in India for the correct numbers, if necessary and then we can move on to include an expanded coverage of famines in this article. Happy travels! Zuggernaut (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Bad picture

The picture (File:Meenakshi Temple India cropped.jpg) in theSociety and traditions section is not showing. Anyone know how to fix it? Zuggernaut (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be deleted? Best to remove and replace with a current picture. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure which one to use. Perhaps regular editors can help choose. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

There's plenty others of the temple, but I can't figure out how to alter the template myself. A similar one would be useful, perhaps, if the template runs on a rotation basis. It's moved on now, so unless it's a repeating picture problem solved. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I've replaced it with another copy of the same image. I don't know why the commons bot didn't do that. —SpacemanSpiff 05:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Sports

Indian is no. 1 ranked test cricket team by icc .india dominating this place since one and half year.India displace australia from no. 1 rank which was no. 1 for around 8 years.and india is also 2nd ranked irregular odi cricket team.Being test no 1 team which one of the big achievement by indian cricket team.India got no.of good captains and splendid session of good class cricket for past decades but never able to achieve no. 1 rank.after lot of hard work with ganguly and dhoni india made this.

--Club[0].......99 13:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharam00000007 (talk • contribs)

Famine changes

The Chalisa famine and the Doji bara famine have been contested by user:Fowler&fowler above as famines that did not occur in British territory. I have provided him with the source for the Doji bara famine. However, I have been unable to find sources showing the break-up of number of deaths from the Chalisa famine by British and non-British territory. While that is being sorted out, here are two versions of the proposed changes:

Proposed version 1

Proposed version 2

This was soon followed by several famines, the ones in the last quarter of the 19th century being the worst in Indian history. The wider period of the late 18th and the 19th centuries left an estimated XX million dead from famines. Amartya Sen suggests that the famines in India under British rule could have been avoided but that did not happen because of a lack of serious effort on part of the British administration to do so. Famines disappeared from India immediately after the departure of the British and after establishment of a free press under a democratic government. In 1943, a perceived shortage of food leading to large-scale hoarding and soaring food prices coupled with poor food distribution mechanism and inadequate response of the British officials resulted in the last catastrophic famine in what would become the Republic of India.

This was soon followed by several famines, the ones in the last quarter of the 19th century being the worst in Indian history. The wider period of the late 18th and the 19th centuries left an estimated XX million dead from famines. Amartya Sen suggests that the famines in India under British rule could have been avoided but that did not happen because of a lack of serious effort on part of the British administration to do so. Famines disappeared from India immediately after the departure of the British and after establishment of a free press under a democratic government. In 1943, a perceived shortage of food leading to large-scale hoarding and soaring food prices coupled with poor food distribution mechanism and inadequate response of the British officials resulted in the last catastrophic famine in what would become the Republic of India. Recent research shows that the British Prime Minister, who harboured racist hatred towards Indians, delayed famine relief due to this hatred of Indians.

Sources:

• Sen, Amartya (2001), "Ideas of Justice", in Iqbal; You, J.I (eds.), Democracy, Market Economics, and Development: an Asian Perspective, Other World Bank Bks, Washington, D.C: World Bank, pp. 9–24, ISBN 9780821348628, LCCN 01017950 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |editor1-first1= ignored (help)
• Hari, Johann (2010), Not his finest hour: The dark side of Winston Churchil, The Independent
• Biswas, Soutik (2010), How Churchill 'starved' India, BBC
• Murton, Brian (2000), "VI.4: Famine", The Cambridge World History of Food, vol. 2, Cambridge; New York, pp. 1411–27, OCLC 44541840{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
• Davis, Mike (2001), Late Victorian Holocausts: El Nino Famine and the Making of the Third World, London; New York: Verso Books, ISBN 9781859847398

If you see an POV violations, please suggest fixes. All feedback is welcome. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

This is quite unnecessary. As I've said before, analysis of causes is best left out of a recitation of historical facts. However, in the interests of comity, here is my proposal, we can call it Proposed version 3: In 1943, a perceived shortage of food leading to large-scale hoarding and soaring food prices coupled with poor food distribution mechanism and inadequate response of the British officials resulted in a catastrophic famine in the Bengal region which killed about 1.5 to 3 million people.[48][49] --rgpk (comment) 16:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I second rgpk's comment and support his version. I've just become aware that this has been an ongoing discussion, with Zuggernaut garnering almost no support for his views. Perhaps he will now give it a rest. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

These views aren't mine. This is what the literature on famine says. Perhaps the proposed versions 1 and 2 expect too much but, traditionally, Indian history of famines in not known for the Bengal famine of 1943. It is known most for the famines of the last quarter of the 19th century which caused much discussion and eventually led to the development of the Indian Famine Code. This featured article is badly in need of expanding and rewriting the famines portion to keep it in line with mainstream views. Jumping directly to the Bengal famine of 1943 is a major weakness in the article. I intend to take it through an RFC/A. But before I do that I would like to get a feel for which version should be included in the RFC/A. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Really? Is that what the literature says? Or is that what you've interpreted from what you have chosen to read in the literature? The only famine that merits inclusion in the History of India page, but not the India page, is the Bengal Famine of 1770. I believe this is the case in the Britannica "History of India" page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually the Britannica article on India does make it a point to mention the period I'm talking about. It says ...and from 1865 through 1900 India experienced a series of protracted famines.... The death toll according to Digby in the 1875-1900 period was the highest - 25 million. These authors call the famines from that period the worst ones:

• Mishra, H.K (1991), Famines and poverty in India, Ashish Pub. House, ISBN 9788170243748
• Rao, K.L. (1979), India's Water Wealth, Orient Longman, p. 121, ISBN 9788125007043
• Grube, P.G. (2002), The Oryx resource guide to El Nino and La Nina, Oryx, p. 5, ISBN 9781573563789 {{citation}}: Text "Press" ignored (help)
• Davis, Mike (2001), Late Victorian Holocausts: El Nino Famine and the Making of the Third World, London; New York: Verso Books, p. 299, ISBN 9781859847398 Zuggernaut (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I remember Nichalp saying that since the India page is about the Republic of India (and not pre-1947 India), there is greater stress on recent history. That probably explains why Bengal 1943 is mentioned, and I'm fine with that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a weak argument because by that logic we should do away with most of the mention of the Indus Valley Civilization, the Vedas and Upanishads since many of the places where they were composed now lie outside of India and are way back in time. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

PS Amartya Sen does not belong even to the History of India page, let alone to its summary in the India page. While his work applies to the 1943 famine and to a lesser extent to the 1770 Bengal famine, it has little application to all the famines in between, especially to the 19th century famines, which, after all the administrative, market, and social inadequacies were accounted for, were preeminently weather induced famines. Speaking of social failures, the Hindu caste system and its imperatives, played havoc as well. Most of the deaths were among the lower castes and among women and children. In 1943, a large number of rural Bengali men, chose to migrate to urban areas without their families which were left to die, because it was felt that if someone was going to survive, it was important that he be male. Anthropologist Arjun Appadurai has written about this perceptively. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Britannica dedicates a full and lengthy section to Amartya Sen in its entry on famines. It begins with "In the late 20th century the work of the Indian economist Amartya Sen led to a major reorientation in the study of famines" and goes on to discuss the FAD and FEE theories of famines in detail. I agree about the role that the social ills of the caste system and gender bias played. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sen belongs to the famine page, as he does in the Britannica (article written by Kaushik Basu, a former Sen collaborator). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

At Wikipedia we do things by consensus and that is a very dictatorial statement. I did not understand the implication being made by stating that Kaushik Basu, an ex-collaborator, is the author of a Britannica article. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Noting that the Bengal famine of 1943 was the last

Perhaps the earlier changes to the famine content were too ambitious so here's another try to start with simple changes. I am proposing that we add the word 'last' to the statement and get rid of the unnecessary detail which can be found in the infobox at the Bengal famine article.

Current

Proposed

In 1943, a perceived shortage of food leading to large-scale hoarding and soaring food prices coupled with poor food distribution mechanism and inadequate response of the British officials resulted in a catastrophic famine in the Bengal region which killed about 1.5 to 3 million people.

This was soon followed by the worst famines in Indian history, the last quarter of the 19th century claiming XX lives. The wider period of the late 18th and the 19th centuries left an estimated XX million dead. In 1943, a perceived shortage of food leading to large-scale hoarding and soaring food prices coupled with poor food distribution mechanism and inadequate response of the British officials resulted in the last catastrophic famine in what would become the Republic of India.

If there are no objections to this proposed change in the next 3-4 days, I will go ahead and update the article accordingly. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The British officials inadequate response caused the last famine of India? Almost sounds as if the those actions made sure it was the last. Anyway, bad prose aside, if the walls of text above haven't shown you there are objections to this then you should read them again. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot that 'last' and the mention of previous famines goes together. I've fixed that in this edit. Sure the objections are clear enough but let us give Indian editors who are editing from India (generally a not too assertive group) a chance to oppose or support. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This is nothing more than filibustering, you've been told of the objections many times before and yet you keep starting new sections. —SpacemanSpiff 17:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Recent addition of 1800s famine content

I've reverted it for a couple of reasons. 1 - if it merits inclusion then there is the aspect of due weight that needs to be given to the effects on government policy subsequent to it -- the famine codes were largely a result and laying the blame without actually presenting the effect doesn't seem natural. 2. The sources, how does a feminist perspective book or another based on the memoirs and correspondence of Florence Nightingale serve as a quality source for this content. I don't believe we should add any content on death toll and nature of the famines without discussing the effects on creation of a famine code. —SpacemanSpiff 17:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC

OK, I've undone your revert before I could see this message. Sorry about that. What does the Famine Code have to do with the inclusion of the death toll? Going into the details of the creation of the Famine Code is what is actually WP:UNDUE here. We should simply report that there were famines, that there was a death toll of XX million and that's it. Nightingale published several works on famines of that period so her memoirs are certainly valid. The topic is much discussed in literature and most of what was added is common knowledge. Any source will do but I'm sure we can find an alternate source easily, if others feel there's a need of adding one at all. I will wait for a day and revert if there isn't a response until then. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The edit SpacemanSpiff removed was not just a simple report of famines and the death toll, it was a direct linkage between British policy and the cause of the famine. In addition, please stop placing random deadlines for other editors. It's not that conducive to a community environment. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Spaceman, if you would have gone through the sources, you would have realized that they were more than a mere "feminist perspective" or a bunch of correspondence with Florence Nightingale. Anyways, I do understand that the reasons behind the famines of the 19th century is a much debated issue and listing these reasons is beyond the scope of the article. On a friendly note, when reverting someone's edit, please only remove the content you disagree with. Reverting "establish colonies" to "establish colonies in the country" was uncalled for. And, thanks to Chipmunk for justifying that part of the edit. --King Zebu (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Slight Grammar note on another change you made King Zebu. You changed "By 1856, most of India was under the control of the British East India Company" to "By 1856, most of India came under the control of the British East India Company". That sounds wrong to me, as came would be in a sentence that implied a stretch of time, rather than just the one date presented. Maybe "By 1856, most of India had come under the control of the British East India Company"? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yup, you are right. Thanks for pointing it out. --King Zebu (talk) 06:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

FAR

I'm afraid this article no longer meets FA standards. People are adding material willy nilly. The history section, for example, has become quite shabby. Off the top of my head, I noticed the following howlers:

1. Since when did we start calling the Indian rebellion of 1857 "India's first war of independence?" (There was no nationalism in India until late in the 19th century.) Amazingly, the new NCERT high-school textbooks used widely all over India call it the "Indian rebellion of 1857." So, why is Wikipedia using this somewhat anachronistic Indian nationalist term?
2. I believe, India, under the Raj, was directly ruled, not by the [[British Crown]] (which is the monarchy), but by the [[The Crown|British Crown]].
3. If the following sentences don't constitute POV, then I don't know what does: " The British Raj followed an economic policy which curtailed India's manufacturing exports and made it more reliant on British goods. As a consequence, India's handicraft industry suffered a serious setback and India's per capita income remained stagnant throughout the Colonial era.[44] Between 1860 and 1900, the Indian subcontinent suffered some of the worst famines in its history causing the death of about 14.5 million people.[45]" I could equally have said, "The British Raj followed an economic policy of modernizing India by building roads, railroads, telegraph lines, and irrigation canals, by introducing primary and higher education on a nation-wide scale, etc., etc." (all with impeccable references).
4. The sentence "Several Indian radical revolutionaries, such as Subhash Chandra Bose and Bhagat Singh, led armed rebellions against the British Raj," is bogus. Bhagat Singh shot a police officer and threw a dud bomb. The Raj didn't notice him. And Bose, a deluded politician, was ejected by the Indian National Congress in the nick of time and then pretended to fight the British in the Burmese jungles. When the British Army, stretched thin during WWII, finally found time to breath, they whupped his army silly in a couple of weeks. Where, in contrast, are the many giants of Indian nationalism? Dadabhai Naoroji, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, ...., C. Rajagopalachari, Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Patel, Rajendra Prasad and so forth? I'm afraid Wikipedia seems to be caving in to the Hindu nationalist sentiment in India which lionizes Bhagat Singh and Bose, in part to take the luster off Gandhi (whose blood they have on their hands).
5. The description of the political integration of India is inaccurate. Kashmir is disputed territory. Its accession to India is not recognized by the UN. and so forth.
6. There are numerous gratuitous references to famines littered throughout the text.

I will check again in a week's time. If the history section has not improved, I shall nominated the article for a Featured Article Review (FAR). It probably needs one anyway. It's been four years. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You discount the fact that things may have changed in 4-6 years and I disagree with your third point about British economic polices. The clearly stated view of the representative of the Indian people, the Indian Prime Minister and economist Manmohan Singh is that the British Raj plundered India economically. Here's what he said in Cambridge while receiving a doctorate in Civil Law:

There is no doubt that our grievances against the British Empire had a sound basis. As the painstaking statistical work of the Cambridge historian Angus Maddison has shown, India's share of world income collapsed from 22.6 per cent in 1700, almost equal to Europe's share of 23.3 per cent at that time, to as low as 3.8 per cent in 1952.

He was using this data:

Shares of World GDP (Percent of world total)

Year	0	1000	1500	1600	1700	1820	1870	1913	1950	1973	1998
United Kingdom	-	-	1.1	1.8	2.9	5.2	9.1	8.3	6.5	4.2	3.3
India	32.9	28.9	24.5	22.6	24.4	16.0	12.2	7.6	4.2	3.1	5.0

• Maddison, Angus; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2003), The world economy: historical statistics, Development Centre of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ISBN 9789264104129 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
• Singh, Manmohan (2005), In acceptance of an Honorary Degree from Oxford University on 8 July, 2005, The Hindu, retrieved January 31, 2011
• Singh, Manmohan (2005-10-02), Of Oxford, economics, empire, and freedom, Chennai: The Hindu, retrieved 3 February 2011

How is it that the industrial revolution led to the UK being the first industrialized country in the world where as India, under the same government, became one of the poorest nations in the world with little or no industrialization?

If this goes to FAR, I will vote to remove the FA status of this article unless the article expands on the negative impact of the British Raj on the Indian economy, the creation of poverty in India by the British Raj and other ills of the Empire. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Fowler, some of the concerns raised by you are legitimate. Some don't make much sense. Anyways,

1. "India's First War of Independence" is a term which has been used widely in academic circles (and its usage is not limited to NCERT books). Whatever may be the motives behind the origin of the term (including nationalism), fact remains that this term is a widely used one and there is no harm if the article mentions it. Anyways, I'm not a big fan of the term either and we can remove it if it is too much of an issue.
2. My knowledge is limited here. From what I understand, the Governor-Generals and the Secretaries of State served as the legal representatives of the British Cabinet and therefore, the British monarchy did not have direct control over India. So, maybe, you are right.
3. The Raj's curtailment of India's handicraft and other manufactured exports and the adverse impact of these policies on India's economy are well proven facts; there is no POV here. At the same time, the Raj also initiated other policies which had a positive impact on the economy. Policy A did harm and Policy B did good. So, does that mean we cannot mention Policy A? Your argument should not be that the current text is POV or nonfactual; your argument should be that the current text does not provide all the facts. In my opinion, the challenge here is to provide all that information in a summarized, to-the-point manner.
4. Just mentioning the non-violent resistance and turning a blind eye to the armed rebellion is not very encyclopedic. Why view everything here with the perspective of "Indian nationalism"? Besides, the text does point out that non-violent resistance formed the defining aspect of the independence movement. Anyways, if it so much of an issue, we can remove "such as Subhash Chandra Bose and Bhagat Singh". Also, usage of terms such as "lionizes" and "blood on their hands" etc. do not facilitate healthy discussion.
5. And which part of the current text indicate that Kashmir is not a disputed territory or India's rule over Kashmir is universally recognized? Read -- "the Line of Control formed the de facto border between Indian and Pakistani Kashmir."
6. "Numerous"? That's an exaggeration. Two references for famine and you term it as "numerous"?

--King Zebu (talk) 07:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts:

1) Use the article title, remove both Sepoy Mutiny and First War of Independence.

3) It does appear to show POV even if sourced. The problem is balance, A shouldn't be mentioned without B, and the History section is close to maximum length already. It is difficult to summarize such debated points effectively, as the famine conversations above have shown.

4) I think the objection here is that the violent resistance mentioned here really wasn't anything special, and (I assume this is the point) is very UNDUE. Of course, a sentence can mention the violent rebellion, but I think everyone agrees India is famous for its nonviolent revolution.

5) I must admit I'm confused on Fowler's point here as well. Which part exactly is wrong?

6) I'm guessing that Fowler is noting the "Even though India has avoided famines in recent decades," blablabla. This does seem like unnecessary SYNTH, and is OR due to not being in the source. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut, Please read WP:Main article fixation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

King Zebu and Chipmunkdavis:

1. Agree with Chipmunks's take. I'm saying that even the NCERT textbooks do not use the term First War of Independence. The Indian rebellion of 1857 page has had numerous discussions and each time they've chosen to retain the name. The name most often used in academic writing and in tertiary sources (Britannica, Encarta) is the "Indian Rebellion of 1857." That's why I'm surprised that the India page has changed the name to suit someone's POV.

3. No one is saying that British rule in India didn't have ill-effects, but it also had positive effects. To mention one and not the other is not encyclopedic. Other encyclopedias can be a guide here. Britannica in its gargantuan History of India section (where each of the eight subsections is longer than Wikipedia's entire History of India page) devotes just a small amount of space to these negative effects. For example, it names only one famine by name—The Bengal famine of 1770— and devotes half a sentence collectively to the late 19th century famines in the context of talking about the first censuses in India.) How then are we devoting more space to famines in Wikipedia's painfully brief history summary in the India page. Again Chipmunk has it right: the problem is one of balance.

4. Sorry, King Zebu, about using provocative language. Violence by any Indian, revolutionary or not, was never a threat to the British in India. That is what they feared, after 1857, especially from the Muslim areas, and that is what they were always ready for. Please examine Britannica's History section and see how much (or the lack thereof) space it devotes to Bose (or Bhagat Singh). If we maintain the same proportions, Bose will not get even one word. Besides there have been numerous discussions on the talk page about this. And the decision each time was to not mention either Bose or Bhagat Singh. So how did this change? Where are the discussions for them? There is no mention in the history section of the elections of 1937, which were more important historically for India's independence than anything Bose attempted to do.

5 As for Kashmir, King Zebu, the discussion of accession certainly leaves the impression (for an average reader) that Kashmir acceded to India in October 1947. Legally, and under international law, that is. Again, here, Wikipedia's Kashmir page should be a guide.

6 There are three references to famines (two in History and one in Economy); the Famine in India article is linked twice. Yup, Chipmunk, I am counting Economy. Thanks for replying. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, hope this works. --King Zebu (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

As for the Kashmir issue, the text says "...Maharaja of Kashmir to seek military assistance from India and signed the Instrument of Accession." The text merely specifies that the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession and does not draw any conclusion on the legitimacy of Kashmir's accession to India. --King Zebu (talk) 11:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's better, but this sort of thing can't be done on the fly. For example, regardless of what the Metcalfs say, the British really built the canals anew, and thousands and thousands of miles of them. The old Mughal canals in North India were rudimentary ones that had silted up soon after construction. The British brought modern engineering principles to bear in their construction. So, "extended" is not accurate. Besides the negatives in your description still outweigh the positives. Still too many references to famines. Where is the mention of social reform? Of the India wide justice system? Of the thousands of primary and secondary schools and the universities?

As for Kashmir, the description that the Instrument of Accession was signed in the wake of Pakistani aggression is itself Indian POV. There was an indigenous movement against the Maharajah. Contrast your description with what the Britannica article on Kashmir says:

By the terms agreed to by India and Pakistan for the partition of the Indian subcontinent, the rulers of princely states were given the right to opt for either Pakistan or India or—with certain reservations—to remain independent. Hari Singh, the maharaja of Kashmir, initially believed that by delaying his decision he could maintain the independence of Kashmir, but, caught up in a train of events that included a revolution among his Muslim subjects along the western borders of the state and the intervention of Pashtun tribesmen, he signed an Instrument of Accession to the Indian union in October 1947. This was the signal for intervention both by Pakistan, which considered the state to be a natural extension of Pakistan, and by India, which intended to confirm the act of accession. ... Although there was a clear Muslim majority in Kashmir before the 1947 partition, and its economic, cultural, and geographic contiguity with the Muslim-majority area of the Punjab could be convincingly demonstrated, the political developments during and after the partition resulted in a division of the region. Pakistan was left with territory that, although basically Muslim in character, was thinly populated, relatively inaccessible, and economically underdeveloped. The largest Muslim group, situated in the Vale of Kashmir and estimated to number more than half the population of the entire region, lay in Indian-administered territory, with its former outlets via the Jhelum valley route blocked.

Admittedly, it has the luxury of space, but the point of view is quite different. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

How about not discussing positives and negatives? How about just deleting them all? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That I agree with. Unless something is a clearly documented positive or negative, it should not go in the summary article on India but is better discussed in sub-articles where the nuances can be properly documented. May I suggest that someone move these positives and negatives into something like Economic Effects of British Rule in India or into Famine in India? Meanwhile, we can limit this article to well documented political changes, the sort that usually comprises historical descriptions. --rgpk (comment) 15:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

No, there were some positives and many negatives. On the net, British rule of India was very negative. Worst of all, it sent a false message to the enslaved Indians - Indians are unable to govern themselves, they are the white man's burden. If this is a summary level article and if we dedicate only one line to British rule of India, it should be something on the lines - "British rule of India had a negative impact on India and the damage done to the Indian people will take several generations overcome". Zuggernaut (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut, history is a complicated thing, not the least because of the counterfactual unknowns. I think that an academic department is better suited than an encyclopedia for that sort of analysis. Meanwhile, let's not get carried away by our emotions and let's just stick to the facts here. --rgpk (comment) 16:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Fowler, regarding Kashmir, there is only one difference here -- the civil unrest/communal tensions in the region. That factor also contributed to Hari Singh's decision to sign the Instrument of Accession with India. I'll rectify this.

Regarding extension of canals, etc. I'm strictly following the sources here (and I'm pretty sure that is in line with WP:Verifiability). The Mughal canals might be "rudimentary", but how about a source for that claim? Secondly, the Metcalfs (like many other authors) were critical of these massive British "public works" in India and therefore, the status of these projects as a positive for India is debatable. For example, all the railway locomotives etc. were directly imported from Britain and as a consequence, the railway program had negligible effect on India's industrialization. Moreover, the primary purpose of the railways was to transfer Indian raw materials to colonial ports and in return, transport manufactured British goods to Indian market. If anything, the railways fastened the destruction of India's manufacturing industry and its reliance on British imports. Lastly, if we are not able to come up with a well summarized and comprehensive analysis of the legacy of the Raj, then obviously we have no choice but to delete all the positives and negatives. Regents suggestion that we can create a separate article analyzing the socio-economic legacy of the Raj seems perfect. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to commit myself to any such initiative. --King Zebu (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Chipmunk's suggestion: do away with both the positives and the negatives. There is really no conclusive evidence that British rule in India had more negatives than positives. At least the 15 books that I have used in the past don't agree on any such thing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

And I can produce a lot of sources which show the Raj in a more negative light. So, the sources are not an issue here. I will prefer removing the positives and negatives only when we reach a dead-end and there is no hope in sight. --King Zebu (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about a lot of sources. I'm talking about the standard history textbooks that are used in colleges around the world, books that have already been peer-reviewed for some balance. They together don't agree that British rule had more negatives than positives. In fact, some consider the reverse to be true. I don't want to get into a content argument with you here as you are not making much sense. The benefit of a railway system to an economy has little to do with the jobs it provides directly in the manufacture of the rail cars etc; it has more to do with the accessibility it grants to businesses and individuals in the economy. India had the fourth largest railway network in the world in 1900 and Indians by the millions were using them, to travel for work, to travel for business, to ship grain, and so forth. Similarly, sure, there were problems with the canal system (salinity and increased threat of malaria in adjoining lands for one), but both Punjab and Western UP owe their agricultural wealth to the extensive canal system that the British built and to nothing else. If you are taking the point of view that there are more negatives than positives (and apparently you seem to), then, I'm afraid, we have already reached that dead end. As for Kashmir, no its not just a question of adding another half sentence. It is the tone. The current tone represents an Indian POV. For example, the same popular local sentiment that wanted Hyderabad or Junagadh to be absorbed into India, also wanted Kashmir to be absorbed into Pakistan. We don't get any inkling of that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Definitely Student's Britannica does not qualify your description of a "book that has already been peer-reviewed for some balance". Right? And please go through my comment again - I was specifying the view of the Metcalfs on the railways, not my personal views. If you want my personal opinion, definitely the railways and canals had an immense positive impact. There is no doubt about that and therefore, restating the obvious is not required here. But unfortunately for you, personal opinion and analysis do not matter much here. An encyclopedia should present a comprehensive perspective and given the different academic viewpoints (such as those put forward by Metcalfs), to state that the rail network was an absolute positive for India is perhaps wrong. Anyways, neither do I have the time nor the motivation to carry this discussion forward. As you said, we have reached a dead-end.

Regarding Kashmir, the current description of events seems perfectly fine to me. I would be glad if you could come up with a more neutral wording. --King Zebu (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, none of the sources which I have read so far (including the Britannica article you mentioned above) directly links the Kashmiri Muslim unrest in August 1947 to "popular local sentiment" in favor of Kashmir's absorption into Pakistan. You are trying to draw your own conclusions here. --King Zebu (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

After Zuggernaut's latest edit, I just removed the economic information. Honestly it's too much for a short summary in what is already a long history section. Whether the British Raj, or even colonialism in general, was a net positive, negative, undeterminable, etc. is not for us to decide. The fact is, it's extremely debatable, and such issues are debated to this day. Adding any point of view will create a sudden need for balance, and such things can spiral out of control. I'm fairly certain that any linkage of British policies/actions to negative or positive effects for India will be extremely debatable, as consensus for anything other than simple statements will not be reached. As such I've left the sentence about famine in, it's a basic statement. During X time, a famine happened resulting in Y deaths. No why, what for, or questions, so it is much harder to say that is POV. Whether it is due or not is another question. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That's fine with me, Chipmunk, but the India page probably needs an FAR anyway. I'll take a look at it over the weekend, but in skimming it, I find that it reads poorly, a result, I feel, of various editors, stuffing their pet edit in whether it blends with the rest of the text or not. King Zebu, it's not the Students' Britannica; it's the real deal, the main Britannica in which the long History of India section is written by eight historians (Frank Raymond Allchin for Indus Valley, Romila Thapar for Ancient India, Muzaffar Alam for Early Muslim rule, Muzaffar Alam for the Mughals, Sanjay Subrahmanyam for early Modern, Percival Spear for Company Rule and Stanley Wolpert for the Raj, and there are a couple I don't remember off the top of my head.) The 15 text books I linked above don't have the Britannica in them though. As for canal construction, here's Ian Stone in Canal Irrigation in British India, Cambridge University Press, 1984:

Many of these indigenous works (e.g. Western Jumna Canal (WJC), Eastern Jumna Canal (EJC), built at first by Firoze Shah Tughlaq and the Mughals—my explanation) did not achieve what was expected of them, or at least did so for a comparatively short period. Engineering capabilities understandably fell some way short of what was shown subsequently to be necessary for the design and construction of large-scale canal systems, and the history of the indigenous version of both the WJC and the EJC is one of a succession of setbacks. Pre-British works made little use of masonry structures and those taking off from the Jumna and others in an around the Doab, shared the characteristic of avoiding high ground and following the courses of rivers and drainage lines whenever possible. These crude works were thus vulnerable to the effects of floods and silt deposits, and, as well as causing swamps and damage to low-lying land (as did the Rohilla version of the EJC around Saharanpur), were of limited use for purposes of irrigation.

I might have been more blunt, but that's pretty much what I said. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

PS Chipmunk: I think you allude to it in the fine print, but "During X time, a famine happened resulting in Y deaths. No why, what for, or questions, so it is much harder to say that is POV," begs out for "During X time, the world's fourth largest railway network was built, which was also the largest in Asia." "During a six year period from 1848 to 1854, the world's longest and largest irrigation canal was built." And so forth. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Most of the problems pointed out by Fowler have been addressed. Thanks to the continuous work by King Zebu and the careful watch of several other editors, this article is our finest and it does meet our FA standards. Fowler is more than welcome to point out flaws over the weekend and there are many eager editors over here who will fix them. I feel there is no need for a FAR but if it goes there, I am sure it will pass. I am concerned that Fowler, who is the second highest contributor to the article has a WP:OWNERSHIP problem with the article. Fowler has a particular POV that he will not budge from. To have articles read from his POV, he has in the past, at Doji bara famine, ignored things like the following in sources:

The mortality of the 1790s famines must be blamed on the British, who had a responsibility to provide alternative famine foods when the main rice crop failed. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks don't help Zug. If you feel there is ownership or similar issues, take it to an appropriate venue, something you've been told many times before.

I too have no doubt a FAR would be passed, although I see no harm in Fowler listing it if they feel it is necessary.

To Fowler, that's a good point, I suppose it's a matter of weight. Were famines important in the development of the country? Were railways important? Might be worth ignoring current text and going through sources you and others seems to have just laying around and see what weight they give different events. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Chipmunk, Most of this work has already been done. For example, the negatives are discussed in this section of the History of the British Raj, which I wrote some three or four years ago. But, as you will see, in the later sections there, there's a lot more to this history, in particular, the slow reforms instituted by the British that gradually brought self-governance to India. It brought about the give and take that in the end made Gandhi's effort successful. The positives can be found in Company rule in India. How does one summarize such history into a series of blurbs about famines and violent revolutionaries? The problem is that people don't want to do the hard work of actually creating real content by examining a large number of sources. They'd rather cram their favorite myths into the most viewed articles. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I have now gone through most of the History section. I believe there are significant POV and UNDUE issues in it. I have noted these issues in boldface on a subpage: User:Fowler&fowler/POV Issues in India-History Section. The last three paragraphs remain, and I will attend to them later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

PS Over and over again, I see that people inserting text into the History Section have not read the parent articles. The references they are using are quite different from the ones in the parent articles, and usually of very poor quality. The history section seems to be a classic case of WP:Main article fixation. The section has gone from this version of July 2009 which had fewer POV issues, to the shabby POV-ridden version of today. I'm tagging the article for neutrality. I will wait for a week and then begin FAR proceedings. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Differences

Differences between the 2009 version above and the current one. A couple of the changes were from the recent discussion. Most are not. I may have made one or two mistakes. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Differences begin

Under the rule of Akbar the Great, India enjoyed much cultural and economic progress as well as religious harmony. Mughal emperors gradually expanded their empires to cover large parts of the subcontinent. However, in North-Eastern India, the dominant power was the Ahom kingdom of Assam, among the few kingdoms to have resisted Mughal subjugation. The first major threat to Mughal imperial power came from a Hindu state known as the Maratha confederacy, that dominated much of India in the mid-18th century.


From the 16th century, European powers such as Portugal, the Netherlands, France, and the United Kingdom established trading posts and later took advantage of internal conflicts to establish colonies in the country. By 1856, most of India was under the control of the British East India Company. A year later, a nationwide insurrection of rebelling military units and kingdoms, known as India's First War of Independence or the Sepoy Mutiny, seriously challenged the Company's control but eventually failed. As a result of the instability, India was brought under the direct rule of the British Crown.

In the 20th century, a nationwide struggle for independence was launched by the Indian National Congress and other political organisations. Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi led millions of people in national campaigns of non-violent civil disobedience. On 15 August 1947, India gained independence from British rule, but at the same time Muslim-majority areas were partitioned to form a separate state of Pakistan. On 26 January 1950, India became a republic and a new constitution came into effect.



































Since independence, India has faced challenges from religious violence, casteism, naxalism, terrorism and regional separatist insurgencies, especially in Jammu and Kashmir and Northeast India. Since the 1990s terrorist attacks have affected many Indian cities. India has unresolved territorial disputes with P. R. China, which in 1962 escalated into the Sino-Indian War; and with Pakistan, which resulted in wars in 1947, 1965, 1971 and 1999. India is a founding member of the United Nations (as British India) and the Non-Aligned Movement. In 1974, India conducted an underground nuclear test and five more tests in 1998, making India a nuclear state. Beginning in 1991, significant economic reforms have transformed India into one of the fastest-growing economies in the world, increasing its global clout.

Under the rule of Akbar the Great, India enjoyed much cultural and economic progress as well as religious harmony. The Mughals also forged a strategic alliance with several Hindu Rajput kingdoms. However, some Rajput kings, such as Maharana Pratap, continued to pose significant threat to Mughal dominance of northwestern India. Additionally, regional empires in southern and northeastern India, such as the Ahoms of Assam, successfully resisted Mughal subjugation. The reign of Aurangzeb saw the enforcement of strict Muslim fundamentalism which caused rebellions among the Sikhs and Hindu Rajputs. By early 1700s, the Sikh Empire and the Hindu Marathas had emerged as formidable foes of the Mughals. Following the death of Aurangzeb, the Mughal Empire entered a period of gradual decline and by mid-18th century, a large portion of the Mughal territory came under the control of the Maratha Empire.

From the 16th century, European imperialist nations, such as Portugal, the Netherlands, Denmark, France, and Great Britain, established trading posts in India and later took advantage of various internal conflicts to establish colonies. By 1856, most of India had come under the control of the British East India Company. A year later, a nationwide insurrection of rebelling military units and kingdoms seriously challenged the Company's control but eventually failed. As a result of the instability, India was brought under the direct rule of the British Crown. Between 1860 and 1900, the Indian subcontinent suffered some of the worst famines in its history causing the death of about 14.5 million people.


In the 20th century, a nationwide struggle for independence was launched by the Indian National Congress (INC) and other political organisations. Some Indian radical revolutionaries led armed rebellions against the British Raj. However, the defining aspect of the Indian independence movement was the nonviolent resistance led by Mahatma Gandhi and the INC. Under the leadership of Gandhi, millions of Indians participated in the Quit India civil disobedience movement against the British Raj.

In September 1939, India declared war on Germany and at the height of the World War II, more than 2.5 million Indian soldiers were fighting against the Axis powers. The Indian Army was one of the largest Allied forces contingents which took part in the North and East African, Western Desert and the Italian Campaign and played a crucial role in halting the progress of Imperial Japan in the South-East Asian theatre. However, certain Indian nationalists collaborated with the Axis powers to overthrow the British Raj. The Indian National Army (INA), led by Subhash Chandra Bose, forged an alliance with the Axis powers and fought an unsuccessful military campaign against British India.

In 1943, a perceived shortage of food leading to large-scale hoarding and soaring food prices coupled with poor food distribution mechanism and inadequate response of the British officials resulted in a catastrophic famine in the Bengal region which killed about 1.5 to 3 million people. After World War II, a number of mutinies broke out in the Air Force and Navy and the INA trials caused considerable public unrest. On 15 August 1947, the British Raj was dissolved following which the Muslim-majority areas were partitioned which led to the creation of a separate sovereign dominion known as Pakistan. The partition led to a population transfer of more than 10 million people between India and Pakistan and the death of about one million people.

Soon after the end of the British Raj, the accession of the 552 princely states to the Union of India went smoothly with the exception of Junagadh, Kashmir and Hyderabad. Junagadh acceded to Pakistan which caused considerable internal unrest. As a consequence, India militarily occupied Junagadh and held a plebiscite, following which Junagadh joined India. After negotiations between India and then Nizam of Hyderabad ended in a stalemate, India launched a successful "police action" to annex Hyderabad. Facing deteriorating political situation, unrest among the Muslim-majority populace and a Pakistani military invasion, the then Maharaja of Kashmir decided to seek military assistance from India and signed the Instrument of Accession. The subsequent armed conflict between India and Pakistan ended in December 1948 and the Line of Control formed the de facto border between Indian and Pakistani Kashmir.

On 26 January 1950, India became a republic and a new constitution came into effect under which the country was established as a secular and a democratic state. In 1961, India successfully invaded Goa to liberate it from Portuguese rule, following which Goa was incorporated into the Indian union. India's unresolved territorial disputes with the People's Republic of China escalated into the 1962 Sino-Indian War, which resulted in India losing control over northeastern Ladakh region. In 1965, Pakistan's failed attempt to infiltrate and invade Indian Kashmir triggered the Second Kashmir War. A third major war broke out between India and Pakistan in 1971 which resulted in a decisive Indian victory and the creation of Bangladesh. During the early 1970s, Sikkim faced a popular pro-democratic movement and a referendum was held in 1975, following which Sikkim merged with India. In the 1980s, India launched a successful military offensive in Siachen which helped it gain control over most of the region. In 1999, Pakistani soldiers infiltrated into the Kargil region of Indian Kashmir, following which India responded with a successful military campaign to drive out the infiltrators.

Since independence, India has faced challenges from religious violence, casteism, naxalism, terrorism and regional separatist insurgencies, especially in Kashmir and northeastern region. India is a state armed with nuclear weapons; having conducted its first nuclear test in 1974, followed by another five tests in 1998. From the 1950s to the 1980s, India followed socialist-inspired policies. The economy was shackled by extensive regulation, protectionism and public ownership, leading to pervasive corruption and slow economic growth. Beginning 1991, significant economic reforms have transformed India into one of the fastest-growing economies in the world, increasing its global clout.

Differences end

So, I think some of these changes were for the worst. Not mentioning the addition of famine information, as the relevance of those sections is being debated elsewhere.

1) Details about Muslim fundamentalism and the brilliant success of Hindus against the subjugation of the Mughals --> Too detailed.

2) The change from European Powers to European Imperialist Nations seems pointless at best.

3) Mention of revolutionaries has already been noted as UNDUE, especially as they appear to have achieved buggerall. This strangely seems to be POV against India, trying to make sure it is noted that some Indians were violent.

4) All the WWII information seems UNDUE. Mentioning the large Indian participation is probably useful, but all the detail of how and where they were important doesn't add anything. Fowler has already noted that India didn't independently declare war. Once again the strange POV that Indians declared armed war against the raj, mutinies and alliances with the Japanese, even though it achieved nothing.

5) "The partition led to a population transfer of more than 10 million people between India and Pakistan and the death of about one million people." This is a very unbalanced sentence. There are much deeper reasons for the population transfer, and it wasn't the partition itself that caused the deaths, it was intercommunal violence between Indians, something that goes strangely unmentioned.

6) The whole section of the princely states is probably too detailed, but as it stands it is written in a very pro-Indian fashion. When India takes control of a state, it is a "Military occupation", even a "Police action". Pakistan however threatens with "Military invasion".

7) India "liberat[ing]" Goa seems like too much detail, and is not very neutrally worded.

8) Northeastern Ladakh? It's a misleading ridirect, and in addition China was in control of the region before the war. The Chinese building of roads without Indian knowledge is one of the reasons the war started.

9) The whole section about India-Pakistan wars is grossly anti-Pakistan POV. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Very well dissected, Chipmunk. I think the best thing would be to roll back the history section to the version of 2009 and then ask editors to justify their proposed edits here. The famine text (current version) is not accurate. For one the hoarding and profiteering by Indian merchants, moneylenders, farmers and landed gentry is not mentioned at all. This figures prominently in most accounts, including those of Sen. For another, there was an Indian provisional government in place that was as much to blame as the British administrators. This too goes unmentioned. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Almost all the new edits have been introduced by user:King Zebu in a series of edits between early November 2010 and early February 2011. Some of these edits were reverted by many editors such as Spaceman Spiff, RegentsPark, Chipmunk, and others, but King Zebu and Zuggernaut, but they were finessed back in. Here is the history:

1. King Zebu added text on the violent “revolutionaries” and the Indian National Army in this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=India&diff=next&oldid=394824724 of November 4, 2011, with edit summary, “copyedit and + info.”
2. King Zebu introduced information on India’s immediately post-independent “socialist oriented” economy in this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=India&diff=394949735&oldid=394949003 of November 5, 2011, with edit summary, “Shifting data from Economics section.”
3. King Zebu introduced famine, world war II, and Subhas Bose and INA in this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=India&diff=397074314&oldid=396735860 of November 16, 2010.
4. King Zebu added the Bombay Navy Mutiny text in this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=India&diff=397295476&oldid=397293254 of November 17, 2010 (with edit summary, “Added backdrop to independence”)
5. King Zebu changed the partition text and added extra material in this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=India&diff=next&oldid=397319799 of November 17, 2010
6. After RegentsPark’s revert, King Zebu reinserted the partition text in this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=India&diff=next&oldid=397361155 of November 17, 2010 (with edit summary, “better”)
7. King Zebu introduced the text on the political integration of India (Hyderabad, Junagadh, Kashmir) in this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=India&diff=next&oldid=409112018 of January 21, 2011 (with edit summary, “+ info. The history section should contain information regarding territorial changes”)
8. King Zebu introduced text on 1971 war between India and Pakistan in this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=India&diff=410179216&oldid=409803799 of January 26, 2011, with edit summary, “copyedit; + information; + sources; moved information to relevant section”
9. King Zebu added a sentence or two on the 1965 war with Pakistan in this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=India&diff=411345421&oldid=411333676 of February 1, 2011.
10. King Zebu changed “European powers” to “European imperialist nations” in this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=India&diff=411790351&oldid=411756800 of February 3, 2011, with edit summary, “ce.”
11. King Zebu added information on British economic policy in India and 19th century famines in this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=India&diff=next&oldid=411790351 of February 3, 2011, with edit summary, “note on British economic policy and 19th century famines.”
12. King Zebu added content on Aurengzeb and “muslim fundamentalism” in this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=India&diff=411817936&oldid=411809762 of February 3, 2011, with edit summary, “ce and info on Mughal era.”

Since no discussion was conducted by King Zebu on the talk page before inserting these highly POV edits, and since the edit summaries often were less than transparent (e.g. "adding info"), I now feel confident that a rollback is in order. I'm actually astounded that so much material can be introduced in such a short time in a featured article by one editor. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

PS In his first response to my FAR post above, user:Zuggernaut had stated, "You discount the fact that things may have changed in 4-6 years ..." It reality it was more like 4 to 6 weeks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The statement "Under the rule of Akbar the Great, India enjoyed much cultural and economic progress as well as religious harmony. Mughal emperors gradually expanded their empires to cover large parts of the subcontinent." gives an impression that cultural, economic and religious harmony did not exits before Akbar's rule. Better to edit the statement accordingly.188.50.23.250 (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Railways, canals, infrastructure

I've removed content related to building of infrastructure by the British Raj in India for the following reasons:

1. The British build all this infrastructure to aid them in running their empire and keep India subjugated. It cannot be seen as positive to Indians prior to 1947.
2. What was the benefit or return on investment to the average Indian? That is,
   1. Was the per capita income of the average Indian citizen increasing due to these investements in infrastructure?
   2. Was India's share of GDP in the world growing due to the building of rail-roads and other infrastructure?
3. Was the average Indian, tanned by the Indian sun and coated with the dust and soot of the sub-continent, allowed to travel on the railway by first-class sitting next to a white English person?
4. Who managed the railways? Did Indians hold any senior positions in the railways ?
5. The railways aided in exporting Indian grains and other produce, even in times of famines. How can this be called positive?
6. Improvements in transportation and communication meant that the British could quell nationalist movements faster. A telegram from Bomaby to Calcutta would hasten the arrest of an Indian freedom fighter in Calcutta much faster than in older days. How can this be positive for India?

If we must mention the building of railways, canals, communication systems, then we need to briefly touch on answers to some of the above questions. And that might be WP:UNDUE. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The six points you mention above are straight from Indian High School History textbooks. Yes, I agree with you that the British rule saw destruction of indigenous industry. However, British rule also saw introduction of the modern technologies of the day like railways, canals and dam building. For example, the world's first concrete dam was built at Khadakwasla near Pune back in the 1870s. It is 64 years since the British left. I believe it is time that we have a more balanced view regarding the cost and benefits of British rule in India. Jonathansammy (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut, here are your six points and my comment/questions on each of the point you raise.

1. The British build all this infrastructure to aid them in running their empire and keep India subjugated. It cannot be seen as positive to Indians prior to 1947.
2. What was the benefit or return on investment to the average Indian? That is,
   1. Was the per capita income of the average Indian citizen increasing due to these investements in infrastructure? Please provide references on the GDP per capita. If I am not mistaken, the per capita incomes actually went down or stayed stagnant for a long period after independence. It is only after the Manmohan Singh reforms of early 1990s that the Indian economy took off.
   2. Was India's share of GDP in the world growing due to the building of rail-roads and other infrastructure?
3. Was the average Indian, tanned by the Indian sun and coated with the dust and soot of the sub-continent, allowed to travel on the railway by first-class sitting next to a white English person? Do you think a brahmin of that period would have sat next to an untouchable in the carriage?
4. Who managed the railways? Did Indians hold any senior positions in the railways ? The British relied on the Anglo Indian population to run the railways. Although the Anglo-Indians did not think of themselves as "Indians", I don't think the British counted them as one of their lot
5. The railways aided in exporting Indian grains and other produce, even in times of famines. How can this be called positive? Do you have references on whether Britain imported grains from india ?
6. Improvements in transportation and communication meant that the British could quell nationalist movements faster. A telegram from Bomaby to Calcutta would hasten the arrest of an Indian freedom fighter in Calcutta much faster than in older days. How can this be positive for India? By the same token, the indian Nationalists from all corners of India could organize and meet at a short notice

Whatever the reasons, the British colonial rule in India did see the introduction of the state of the art technology of that era to the country. So my recommendation would be to restore the deleted text Jonathansammy (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:Burden, I am not required to provided sources. Some answers, nonetheless:

The GDP table is already shown above. I am pasting it here again with the additional inclusion of the USA.

Shares of World GDP (Percent of world total)

Year	0	1000	1500	1600	1700	1820	1870	1913	1950	1973	1998
United Kingdom	-	-	1.1	1.8	2.9	5.2	9.1	8.3	6.5	4.2	3.3
India	32.9	28.9	24.5	22.6	24.4	16.0	12.2	7.6	4.2	3.1	5.0
USA	-	-	0.3	0.2	0.1	1.8	8.9	19.1	27.3	22.0	21.9

United States became independent of Britain in 1776. India would have reached the same level of affluence and industrialization (or even better) had it been independent. There are numerous problems with India and Indian society and the caste system is one such problem. Your argument is not relevant here. If you want to improve an article on Human rights in India to GA or FA level, I pledge to contribute 1 or 2 paragraphs. Just google to find sources on who ran the railways, how much grain was exported from India. I agree with your last point but on the whole an independent India would have industrialized much faster. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Little chance that "India" would have reached the same level of affluence and industrialization (or even higher) had it been independent. First, in 1757, there was no India, but rather hundreds of medieval-era kingdoms with corrupt or ineffective rulers. See the Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760) for the description of one. Second, Maddison's historical statistics are very controversial (see Talk:Angus Maddison page), but one thing even Maddison doesn't contest is that the Indian economy was stagnant during the period 1550 to 1750, whereas the European and American economies were expanding. Third, both Great Britain and Colonial America were in the midst of a long scientific and technological ramp up, that eventually led to the Industrial Revolution. See the list of technological advances in Britain during the period 1500 to 1750 (before India became a significant part of the British economy). Colonial American inventions included the sextant, the lightning rod, mail order catalogs, bifocals, .... There was very little technological progress in India during the corresponding time. Tipu Sultan's vaunted rockets were characterized by British army engineers, who took them apart after his defeat, as schoolboy pyrotechnics. The sad truth is that in 1750, there was a immense technological gap between India and Europe. There's very little any Indian ruler could have done against the onslaught. Had it not been the British, some other mercantile power (Portugal, France, Denmark, Spain) would have gained ascendancy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

There was no United Kingdom until the Treaty of Union of 1707 until which the English and the Scotts were fighting each other. Sure, not to take away anything from the English ingenuity that led to industrial revolution but leaders can arise anywhere at anytime and the possibilities of what could have happened in a free India are endless. I agree with the technological gap between India and Europe at that time. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This is complete OR. Best not to talk about it here on talk. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree, Fowler, let's stay focused on the content. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

chopping off thumbs of Indian weavers by the British

...on at least two occasions, the British ordered the thumbs of whole communities of Indian weavers chopped off so that they could compete with the products of Lancashire. Is this true?--117.204.88.28 (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, straight from indian school textboooks. I believe the story relates to Bengali weavers who could produce muslin so fine that 50 metres of material could be folded and placed in a matchbox.Whether the story is true or not can not be verified. Jonathansammy (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Such questions should be asked at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities where there are people who look around for answers. The talk page is for discussing the article. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

map of India

the map shown of India is not correct...POK(Pak occupied Kashmir)and Aksai Chin are excluded from the map of India...even if they are not controlled by India directly but they have always been a part of India and will be a part of India. A statement has already been issued by the government of India that they are integral parts of India.

So please rectify it for all the people of India.

110.226.149.248 (talk) 04:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)Atul Uttam

Proposal of deletion of Pakistan in WPCentralAsia Project

There is currently a debate underway to see whether Pakistan should be excluded from WikiProject Central Asia. Participate in the discussion here: WT:WikiProject Central Asia#Removal of Pakistan from WikiProject Central Asia Boolyme ^Talk!! 08:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

RFC: Churchill quote - I hate Indians, they are a beastly people with a beastly religion

Previously uninvolved editors are invited to indicate support or opposition to the inclusion of the proposed content with a brief explanation of their position. The proposed content relateds to Winston Churchill's racist hatred of Indians and the Bengal famine. Here's the direct link to the content. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Current

Proposed

In 1943, a perceived shortage of food leading to large-scale hoarding and soaring food prices coupled with poor food distribution mechanism and inadequate response of the British officials resulted in a catastrophic famine in the Bengal region which killed about 1.5 to 3 million people.

In 1943, a perceived shortage of food leading to large-scale hoarding and soaring food prices coupled with poor food distribution mechanism and inadequate response of the British officials resulted in the last catastrophic famine in what would become the Republic of India. Several authors contend that the death toll from the Bengal famine, somewhere between 1.5 to 3 million people, would have been lesser had Winston Churchill not delayed food aid to the starving Bengalis, a decision attributed to his racist beliefs.

Note 1 reads: "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion."

Sources

• Sen, Amartya, Poverty and famines: an essay on entitlement and deprivation, Oxford University Press, 1992, ISBN 0198284632, 9780198284635 {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
• W. Morris, Christopher, Amartya Sen, Cambridge University Press, 2009, ISBN 0521618061, 9780521618069 {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
• Sen, Amartya (2001), "Ideas of Justice", in Iqbal; You, J.I (eds.), Democracy, Market Economics, and Development: an Asian Perspective, Other World Bank Bks, Washington, D.C: World Bank, pp. 9–24, ISBN 9780821348628, LCCN 01017950 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |editor1-first1= ignored (help)
• Tharoor, Sashi (2003), Nehru: the invention of India, Arcade Pub., ISBN 9781559706971
• Ziegler, Philip (1985), Mountbatten, Knopf
• Tharoor, Sashi (2010), The Ugly Briton, Time {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Hari, Johann (2010), The Two Churchills, The New York Times {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

References

• Support Current Lead - The proposed lead has some serious POV issues. Additionally, we should probably remove "and inadequate response of the British officials " from the current lead. NickCT (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose both proposed changes by Zuggernaut and NickCT Keeping it the way it is makes it more balanced than either proposed changes, both of which take the text too far in one POV. That Churchill quote could maybe go the Winston Churchill article but it is already at [4] his wikiquote page so that is possibly enough. Even better might be putting it at Indophobia]. Munci (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose both proposed and current versions. The current one is WP:UNDUE; the proposed, WP:ludicrous. Please see ample evidence on my subpage User:Fowler&fowler/Profiteering and hoarding in the Bengal famine of 1943, that the causes of the famine were more complex than Zuggernaut is stating in either versions. The main cause, as you will see on the subpage evidence, was profiteering, hoarding, and speculation by Indian farmers and grain merchants. There were other factors. The Japanese occupation of Burma prevented the usual import of Burmese rice. There was a cyclone in Midnapore. The British, already distracted by fighting World War II, were further stretched by the arrival of thousands upon thousands of refugees from Burma and Assam into Bengal. The Quite India Uprising of 1942 further strained their already depleted resources. Besides, there was an Indian provisional government in place in Bengal that is as much (if not more) to blame for the administrative chaos as the British. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC) Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

PS. Churchill also said about Nehru: "This man has overcome two of the greatest failings in human nature; he knows neither fear nor hatred.". Churchill, who also opposed Indian independence, thus did have the ability to be generous and to introspect. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

PPS Churchill said about Gandhi (in 1935), "Mr. Gandhi has gone very high in my esteem since he stood up for the untouchables ... I do not care whether you are more or less loyal to Great Britain. Tell Mr. Gandhi to use the powers that are offered and make the thing a success." (Letter to G.D. Birla (1935)) Someone who has sympathy for the untouchables, the dregs of Indian society, in whose presence, even in 2011, most upper caste Indians wince, has to be more complex than this proposed blurb makes him out to be. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

According to Madhushree Mukherjee, Churchill loved the empire and hated Indians so much that he would rather destroy India than let it go. She says further that Churchill was just playing divide and rule while toying with the idea of pitching the untouchables, Muslims and Sikhs on the one side and Hindus on the other. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

But Churchill is not pitting untouchables against Hindus in these quotes. He is praising one Hindu (Gandhi) for standing up for the untouchables. As for Mukerjee's book, for a liberal perspective on it, read Joe Lelyveld's (former executive editor of the NYTimes) not very complimentary review in the NYReview of Books. Says Lelyveld:

"So if the argument is that no one was less likely to be Bengal’s savior at the start of 1943 when the danger of famine first became apparent to responsible colonial officials, then, clearly, there’s no defense for Churchill. But for all his fulminations, do his conspicuous acts of omission—his failure to dispatch emergency shipments—add up to anything approaching a “secret war”? In justifying her flaming title, Mukerjee seems to skirt the key conclusion reached by Amartya Sen long after the crisis: that it had little to do with an actual shortage of food in the stricken province.

Also read Amartya Sen's letter, critical of Mukerjee, (quoted by Lelyveld) in the NY Review of Books:

"Madhusree Mukerjee seems satisfied with little information. Mark Tauger’s data come from exactly two “rice research stations” from two districts in undivided Bengal, which had twenty-seven districts. Since weather variations have regionally diverse effects, it would require more than this to “seriously challenge” the analysis I made, using data from all districts, which indicated that food availability in 1943 (the famine year) was significantly higher than in 1941 (when there was no famine). Ignoring the range of data I used in my study, she misdescribes my estimates as being based only “on projections.” On the other point mentioned by Mukerjee, she makes a story out of a typo in my quotation from a statement of the secretary of state for India, omitting to mention that the typo has not the slightest bearing on my assessment of the food situation. Moreover, even a “shortage” of 1.4 million tons is a small proportion of the total crop of “60/70 million tons” (as the secretary of state mentioned). The confounding issue, of course, is the idea of “shortage” itself, as Lelyveld has noted. There was indeed a substantial shortfall compared with demand, hugely enhanced in a war economy, as I have described in detail, but that is quite different from a shortfall of supply compared with supply in previous years. Mukerjee seems to miss this crucial distinction, and in her single-minded, if understandable, attempt to nail down Churchill, she ends up absolving British imperial policy of confusion and callousness, which had disastrous consequences.

For a conservative perspective, read the critical review of Arthur Herman (author of Gandhi and Churchill (Pulitzer Prize Finalist for General Nonfiction, 2009)). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

A website run by "The Churchill Centre" is hardly a reliable source. I'm not sure you can cite the dialogue between Sen and Mukherjee in defense of Churchill. Sen is of the opinion that the entire British administration is to blame (Jonathansammy's has added the right word - "callous") which includes Churchill. Moreover in 1943 the famine was perceived to have happened due to a shortage in food. It was only decades later that Sen showed that there was in fact no such shortage. In 1943 to know that the famine was due to a shortage in food and then delay food aid is not only callous but inhuman. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter where the review is published; the author is a bona fide (if conservative) historian and author of a Pulitzer Prize finalist 700 page book on Gandhi and Churchill. The review is withering. Similarly both Lelyveld and Sen are saying that Churchill is the red herring. The problem, according to Churchill's advisors, was not a shortage of food, but hoarding by Indian merchants. Here is Lelyveld again:

Mukerjee is understandably incensed by the imperviousness of Churchill to the pleas to alleviate the famine from his top advisers on India, Amery and two successive viceroys, Lords Linlithgow and Wavell; and by his reliance on his science adviser, Lord Cherwell (known to the academic world as Frederick Lindemann before snaring his peerage), whose sycophancy and instinctive racism were usually apparent. Cherwell, portrayed here as an advocate of race-based eugenics, could be depended on to tell the prime minister what he wanted to hear: that the food crisis in India could be dealt with without diverting ships or dipping into stocks already designated for other theaters. ... Cherwell’s motives may have been suspect but Mukerjee insufficiently engages his analysis, which led him to conclusions broadly similar to those reached by Amartya Sen after careful study three decades later. Although the war cut off some sources of imported grains, there were in fact stored supplies of food that were being hoarded by Indians who hoped to sell them at higher prices. Food prices shot up to the extreme detriment of rural Bengalis “with very little overall decline,” Sen found, “in food output or aggregate supply.” In Cherwell’s view, imports were being sought to serve as a blunt instrument to break a price spiral that the colonial authorities had themselves triggered in their ineffectual attempts to control the price of food; in other words imports would be used, Cherwell wrote, “as a means of extracting food from hoarders.” There were more direct ways to deal with the problem, Cherwell argued, for example seizing the hoarded stocks, even hanging some hoarders. Making a similar point in a decidedly more gentle way, Sen notes the effectiveness in post-independence India of temporary large-scale employment schemes as a way of getting sufficient funds to endangered families in order to stabilize prices and prevent panic.

Both, Lelyveld and Sen, think that Mukerjee prefers to go after Churchill rather than explore the complexity of calamity. One should add that there was very little awareness in India itself of the famine. The newspapers, even nationalist ones, were quite late in reporting it. Gandhi himself, as Herman points out, said very little about it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC). Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I propose amending Zuggernaut's text to the following: In 1943, a perceived shortage of food leading to large-scale hoarding and soaring food prices coupled with poor food distribution mechanism and inadequate response of the British officials resulted in the last catastrophic famine in what would become the Republic of India. Several authors contend that the death toll from the Bengal famine, somewhere between 1.5 to 3 million people, would have been lesser had the British Government, led by prime minister Winston Churchill, not delayed food aid to the starving Bengalis, a decision attributed to callous indifference and even to the racist beliefs held by Churchill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathansammy (talk • contribs) 15:30, 7 February 2011

I don't agree with this. There is no reason to include debatable historical conclusions, even when qualified, in a summary article. That there was a catastrophic famine is undeniable and should be included. The deaths from that famine may be included. That the British response was 'inadequate' is a conclusion that appears to have general consensus outside of wikipedia. Sen's conclusions do not have universal currency and are better relegated to sub-articles. In general, I'd say that if a sentence begins with 'Several authors' it is better to exclude it entirely (are we then going to include 'Several other authors say yyy' and 'yet another set of authors say zzz'?) and deal with the differing conclusions in the sub-article where the differing opinions can be properly explored. --rgpk (comment) 16:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

These are not Sen's conclusions. The racist quote is supported by several reliable sources and the link between delaying famine relief and Churchill's racist views has been made by Britain's "best young historian" - Richard Toye. Madhushree Mukherjee reaches the same conclusion. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point completely. None of this stuff has universal currency and including it in this article will necessitate the inclusion of caveats, rival viewpoints, etc. which will throw the entire history section out of balance. Basically, the history section will read as follows : "This happened in xxxx bc, that happened in yyyy bc, those things happened in zzzz ad, and then the British came and screwed us out of everything." That might make for good anti-British prose but does not a balanced article make. --rgpk (comment) 21:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

When you talk of the conquered and the conqueror, not many viewpoints are "universal" so it pretty much depends on what POV you are coming from, however subtly disguised. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

If you are contesting WP:NPOV ("Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias"), then you should take it up at the NPOV noticeboard. Not cram your views down our throats here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The proposed edit is compliant with NPOV. If it's not, I'm sure we can make it compliant. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

History is written by who gets to write it and every historain whether he is Europeam or Indian has an inborn (i even argue with my friends bias is genetic) bias which he will carry until his grave. I see two issues (fact and opinion) here in Zuggernaut's edit. First the fact: whether Churchill was disdainful (racist!) of Indians and second the opinion: whether that had anything to do with the mismanagement of famine. Would any one here be surprised if English and Indian historians treated this issue differently. In general, administrative mismanagements happen a lot. it is an interesting issue. --CarTick (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You are right about the bias part but there's a breed (of academicians, researchers) that is supposed to be free of bias. Mukherjee and Toye link the fact with the famine and this RFC should tell us what the community thinks of including the content. I agree with the mismanagement part but no government that it accountable to its people will purposefully act against its people. An example is the 2010 Indian onion crisis followed by the rising food prices. But it is already February 2011 and there is no famine. Thanks to the monitoring of prices by Sharad Pawar and other mitigating actions like importing food from Pakistan. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Four day total

(Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC))

• Opposes 4 (NickCT, Munci, Fowler&fowler, rgpk)
• Supports 2 (Zuggernaut, as nominator; Jonathansammy (conditional))
• Number of page watchers: 2340

• Oppose proposal It is easy these days to find "several authors" who claim pretty well anything. While it is conceivable that Churchill rubbed his hands gleefully and took the opportunity to exacerbate a famine in order to further racism, it is also conceivable that Churchill might have had a few things on his mind in 1943, and it is WP:UNDUE to speculate that "racist beliefs" were a fundamental factor in the famine (sufficiently fundamental to highlight in this article). Johnuniq (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose proposal I agree with Johnuniq. Just because several authors claim something doesn't mean that it has any currency within the historiography at large. If this is a controversial new theory then the historical world will be debating it for the next few years. Including new research now might be a little premature, unless you're willing to make a dedicated section that weighs all sides of the debate. Besides, even if the proposed edit has a NPOV (which I'm not sure it does), it is dangerous to speculate about the personal motivations of historical figures in such an abridged and cavalier manner. It's also inconsequential. Churchill was not the only actor involved in the famine, and making him a scapegoat for it would oversimplify an enormous human tragedy. This would be a great disservice to the millions who died in it. Chouji Ochiai (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose proposal - keep current lead. It's been the better part of a century, and we if we don't have hard proof - Foreign Office documents or whatever - by this point, I would not be inclined to go with the Several Authors on such a contentious claim. It may be true, but maybe it isn't, so lets not say it. I suppose that Churchill might have let people starve for political purpose - to impede Indian independence, say - but out of sheer bloodymindedness? Chouji Ochiai said it all better than I have. Herostratus (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment:We have one author who categorically states that the famine fatalities were related to Churchill's racism. It would not be difficult to come up with other sources starting from Dadabhai Nowroji that point to the British attitude that lead to Indian wretchedness. I would request the opposers to come up with statements from wp:rs that attribute to the contrary, all that they have written are their comments which though learned either are wp:OR or wp:synthesis, don't have much value here. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Isn't saying that a million died because of profiteers a little too apologist?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologist for whom, Khandke? I have created a subpage User:Fowler&fowler/Profiteering and hoarding in the Bengal famine of 1943 that provides ample evidence that the causes of the famine were more complex than either you or Zuggernaut are stating. The main cause, as you will see on the subpage evidence, was profiteering, hoarding, and speculation by Indian farmers and grain merchants. There were other factors. The Japanese occupation of Burma prevented the usual import of Burmese rice. There was a cyclone in Midnapore. The arrival of thousands upon thousands of refugees from Burma and Assam strained the already depleted resources. There was an Indian provisional government in place in Bengal that is as much (if not more) to blame for the administrative chaos as the British. Speculation and profiteering, by the way, by Indians that is, was a feature of 19th century Indian famines as well. That is in keeping with the general callous attitude towards the poor and unfortunate displayed by upper class Indians even today. I now believe even more strongly that both versions of the Bengal famine text (current and proposed) need to be removed from the history section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hoarding was a response to the perceived food shortage, probably caused by the restrictions on free speech imposed by the British on Indians, and it is already covered in the proposed statement. Overall, (like Grove says about the Doji bara famine, the responsibility lies with the British) the responsibility lay at the top, with the British Crown. Even more so actually, since the hoarders were citizens of the British Empire. I see the problem of separating people by ethnicity (Indian and "British") when discussing the negatives of the empire throughout Wikipedia and this is a serious problem. But when talking about the positives, only British ethnicity was implied back then and surprisingly even today on Wikipedia. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

"Hoarding was a response to the perceived food shortage, probably caused by the restrictions on free speech imposed by the British on Indians." Seriously? Statement like that don't help your case. Neither do nonsensical statements such as "Even more so actually, since the hoarders were citizens of the British Empire." Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Why 'nonsensical'? The hoarders were obviously citizens of the British Empire and it was the failure of the British Raj that they could not rein it in. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support proposal - it's getting a little hard to keep track of what "oppose" and "support" means at this point, but anyways. The question isn't the truth of the matter. Wikipedia is not investigative journalism, it's rather to summarize what is being said about the matter. While you can dig out "several authors" to support anything, the authors brought out are not marginal. Sen especially is respected for his analysis of the intersection of politics/famine. I also believe this claim has gotten some decent press coverage

India Abroad: [5] The Hindu: [6] (I realize that this is about a book running against the theory, but my point is the theory is significant, not that it's correct) and while one can justly criticize much of history coverage by press, it signifies that a significant group of people consider this a significant idea, and thus deserving of inclusion in Wikipedia. My own opinion on the matter is that the criticism is overblown, though it contains a grain of truth, but as I am not a notable source, my opinion on the matter is of no concern to Wikipedia. Jztinfinity (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment:Chouji Ochiai &Herostratus you will have to prove that the source is not wp:rs and that the statement is wp:undue and wp:fringe, Jztinfinity has put it well hsis opinion is that the matter is exagerated, but hse understands that and that hse needs an wp:rs to say so. I hope Fowler too look at this aspect. It comes across from the above discussion that Zuggernaut has come up with a statement based on a reliable source and others are indulding in wp:OR to counter it, Jztinfinity has understand this concept well that, I should say.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Khandke, In order that you not be misunderstood, please use standard English syntax and spelling. As such, I'm having a hard time figuring out what you are saying. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose as undue. Within the space available for history, we can only present undisputed facts and theories. This is a contentious issue which needs elaboration and belongs to Famines in India.--Sodabottle (talk) 13:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Nine day total

• Opposes = 8
• Supports = 3 (including nominator)

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Maddison's estimates are controversial

I noticed that Angus Maddison has been cited in various discussions above on historical GDPs. First, he is not a Cambridge economist; he merely went to college in Cambridge. Second, his work is regarded as highly controversial, and certainly not of the unassailable caliber that we need for this page. Please see the reviews of Maddison's work on Talk: Angus Maddison. The fact that Manmohan Singh, now a politician, has used figures from Maddison in an acceptance speech for an honorary degree, hardly makes Maddison any more reliable a source. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Questioning Angus Maddison's authority? Calling him "controversial"? Next time we shall consult you. :| — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.104.28 (talk • contribs)

Of course you can label Maddison as just another crazy academician with his own POV. :-) Zuggernaut (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Rendering Infobox

Could someone place an infobox regarding rendering support on this page? 68.45.210.104 (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Add image of Tampura to the Music section

The music section is very comprehensive, but doesn't have an image to illustrate Indian music. As the Tampura is common to Hindustani and Carnatic music, I propose we add this image to the article. --92.12.173.145 (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The tanpura is a long-necked plucked lute common in both of the main sub-genres of Indian classical music(Hindustani and Carnatic).

Adding the rule of Hemu and Sher Shah Suri in History

There is need to mention the rule of Afghan king 'Sher Shah Suri' and Hindu king 'Hemu' during the medieval period of India's history. From 1192 upto 1857, invaders from Central Asia have been ruling from Delhi. However, these two native rulers had ruled North India from 1540 to 1556. A brief mention of these two has to be there. A sentence on these two rulers put earlier has been removed. The sentence to be put there is "During 1540-56, Afghan king 'Sher Shah Suri' and Hindu king 'Hemu' ruled North India". This rule was an important development as it shows that native resistence was there all the time and some times the natives also ruled during medieval period. There are pages on both these rulers on Wikipedia already. Sudhirbh (talk) 04:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

First, the history of the subcontinent is so vast and complex that it would be impossible to provide details of every ruler that ruled every part of the region. A similar claim as yours could be made in respect of Harshavardhana, Shivaji, Sukhrungphaa or Tipu Sultan, but it would clearly be inappropriate as well as impractical to include all of them here, since the article should follow a summary style. Secondly, your claim about "invaders" and "native rulers" is not entirely correct—all Mughal emperors after Humayun were born in the subcontinent and not outside. Therefore, I think the additions are unnecessary. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 07:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Map

Mvkulkarni23 07:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC) The map shown on this page is not the map shown by Govt. of India in all there documents. The part of Kashir is put incorrect which needs to be corrected. Even if the part is been claimed by POK and AC, we should give the maps of the country atleast as per the approved and sanctioned by the Govt.of that country.

There was a discussion happened on this topic last week and some people were claiming that we should put the neutral stand, I personally feel that the encyclopedia like Wikipedia should follow all teh guidlines precribed by the govt. of that country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvkulkarni23 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions, but I'm sure this has been discussed innumerable times in the past. Many articles do make references to the ongoing conflict between India, China and Pakistan, and this should be enough I suppose. This is an encyclopedia solely for informational purposes, and the Governmental opinions need not necessarily reflect the worldwide view of any subject. TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 07:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Support for Kulkarni:The map of India should be the official map of India, this is article on India. There may be ways to display the occupation of its territories or claims thereto. There can be disclaimers to the effect etc. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The current one is what that reflects ground realities and should be kept. The official claims have been noted adequately and no need to change the map to reflect them.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It is illegal in India to represent the map in any other way except as the official representation. The representation here would put Indian editors in a soup. (See survey of India sites for details) and check the adjoining search results [7]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The key word is "in india". The servers are not in India, so i dont think the question arises (i believe a similar question was asked to the foundation, when the announcement for india office was made). Moreover if indian law is applied, thousands of other wikipedia articles involving sex would be affected to (as indian laws dealing with pornography are more sweeping) --Sodabottle (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The reference to pornography is merely a conjecture, whereas the relation to laws regarding to maps a reality, please see the results. There is no anonymity on the net, why should Wikipedia push its editors to indulge in a criminal activity? One of the largest nationalities participating in the project. National Geography too had to issue a retraction. You rightly mentioned the India Office of Wikipedia, servers notwithstanding, that would be easier for the Indian government to lever and Indian law enforcement bodies to target.[8]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

This is something we should refer to the foundation legal office. (the reference to pornography is no conjecture, if indian law is considered uniformly, then we will be in the same boat in regard to those articles too)--Sodabottle (talk) 09:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The map of China as shown in the PRC article needs to be looked at, it is the official Chinese representation, with disclaimers like, area under Chinese control but claimed by India, area under Indian control but claimed by China etc. The Indian map also should be given a similar treatment, the official version should be shown with disputes marked. See this image. [9]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, the orthographic projection maps in both the articles are given similar treatments - areas controlled vs areas claimed marked in different colours.--Sodabottle (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Check this map out [10], it mentions territorial claims made by China, but not against it. Where a similarl map of India shows territorial claims made against it too.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I dont think so. This shows [11] J&K, sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh as parts of india (dark green). These three are "territorial claims made against India", and as they are shown as parts of india, i dont think there is a difference in treatment in comparision to china in these maps. All territories adminstered are shown in one colour and all territories claimed are shown in another. So there is absolute parity as fas as othographic projection maps are concerned. --Sodabottle (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I cannot zoom on the India-states image, Adobe issues. I will revisit this discussion after I check from another PC, which may not be soon. Thanks for the patient replies. Why do you qualify maps as Orthographic projection (I'm sure by Otho... you mean orthographic. Why don't you just call them maps?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I have raised the map legality issue in the india noticeboard and wikimedia india mailing list. (and othographic was a typo :-). have to differentiate from other type of maps))--Sodabottle (talk) 10:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The legality issue is certainly very interesting, but if a legal issue is to be made out of it, then it should probably go to the legal cell. In any case, I think American laws would apply to the content itself. TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 10:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Completely bogus issue. See map of India in Encyclopaedia Britannica. Disputed regions controlled by India are shown in the same color as the rest of India; those claimed by India, but not controlled, are shown in a different color. All disputed regions are labeled:

• A) Gilgit and Baltistan: Administered by Pakistan and claimed by India
• B) Aksai Chin: Administered by China and claimed by India
• C) Jammu and Kashmir: Administered by India and claimed by Pakistan
• D) Arunachal Pradesh: Adminstered by India and claimed by China.

To my knowledge, Britannica has not been banned in India and on-line users of the encyclopedia have not been prosecuted. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Updated for clarity. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Just because no action has been taken against britannica, it doesnt mean its entirely legal. The specific laws that control this is Section 2 in The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1961. See also this news report. Now, i am pretty sure no action will be taken against wikipedia, but its a little worrying that we might be on the wrong side of the law even though we are showing facts -- ^{PlaneMad|YakYak} 13:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I asked User:Newyorkbrad, an arb with legal experience, to weigh in on this and here is his response. --rgpk (comment) 15:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with Newyorkbrad.
• Re PlaneMad's post, I'm not sure which search engine on Google the news report is talking about. On Google Maps, Kashmir is shown bounded by dashed lines (in contrast to the usual solid lined international border) and the three divisions of the Kashmir region—Pakistani administered Kashmir, Indian administered Kashmir, and Chinese administered Kashmir (Aksai Chin)—are clearly shown. That is certainly not the version of the Indian Government.
• As for Khandke's comment above that the orthographic map in the People's Republic of China is the Chinese government's official map, what is important is that it shows Aksai Chin (administered by China and claimed by India) in the same color (green) as the rest of China, but shows Arunachal Pradesh (administered by India and claimed by China) in a lighter shade of green. The India map respects the same principle: regions controlled by India (such as Jammu and Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh) are shown in dark green as is the rest of India; those only claimed by India, but not administered, (such as Gilgit and Baltistan and Aksai Chin) are shown in light green.
• As for Khandke's other claim that National Geography (sic) had to publish a retraction. They might have or they might not have, but they are clearly unrepentent at NG, for their current map of India shows Northern Areas in Pakistan and Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh bounded by dashed yellow lines! Their political map of India shows Aksai Chin entirely in China, allowing only a faint dotted red boundary labeled, "Claimed by India!"
• Similarly, in the Perry-Castañeda Library On-Line Map Collection at the University of Texas, the Kashmir map is certainly not the Government of India's version. Their political map of India would cause even more displeasure in Indian officialdom, for it shows Gilgit and Baltistan to be part of Pakistan and shaded in the same color!
• Thus, as you can see, pretty much all international map resources represent Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh, both disputed regions, in ways that are contrary to the Government of India's version (or for that matter, those of the governments of Pakistan and China). Since Wikipedia is such an international resource, why should it be any different? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What is to be noted is the fact that the laws do exist that consider these maps illegal in india. While there is no reason for wikipedia to host Indian versions of the map, the current scenario creates a few issues for those of us in India involved with the project: 1) Individuals like me who want to contribute to Indian maps are vulnerable to legal action 2) It makes the entire project vulnerable to negative publicity by parties wanting to get media attention under the guise of national interest [12] 3) Rules out any chance of official collaboration with government agencies 4) Articles that have these maps cannot be legally printed and distributed in India or hosted online on Indian servers. We can continue to ignore the issue in the hope that nothing will happen, but it would be a lot more reassuring if there is a definite statement by an official authority that says that we wont get into trouble with this -- ^{PlaneMad|YakYak} 14:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I see. Hmm. Well, how about using the United Nations map of South Asia. It doesn't have any color differentiation. Also, it allows each country to see whatever it wants to see as its international boundary, but points out (a) the line of control between India and Pakistan in Kashmir and (b) the different versions of the northeastern boundary of the Kashmir region (i.e. the Chinese and Indian versions). I don't think this map could be used in the orthographic depiction, but perhaps it could somewhere else on the India page. I'm sure one of Wikipedia's graphic whizzes could produce a nice copy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I think per NewYorkBrad there shouldn't be any legal troubles, and we shouldn't worry till they occur. It'd be a strange move for the Indian government to arrest wikipedia editors, I don't see it happening. But anyway, if there's a real worry is there a noticeboard we can ask on? WP:BN? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It'd be a strange move for the Indian government to arrest wikipedia editors, I don't see it happening. Nope, it is a clear and present danger. Out government does this kind of thing not infrequently. The Wikimedia India chapter is currently discussing. They are thinking about referring it to the foundation legal counsel.--Sodabottle (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

In that case I suggest we table this discussion and let the foundation figure out what to do. As newyorkbrad points out, we can't satisfy the legal requirements of different governments because they could be (and are in this case) inconsistent. The foundation will have to come up with a statement or policy on this. (Though I doubt if there is any danger to individual Indian wikipedians, especially the ones who don't upload 'illegal' maps.)--rgpk (comment) 21:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Another thing that needs to be brought up is the Eurocentric viewpoint that is expressed in India articles at the expense of suppressing the Indian viewpoint. A common label I see being attached to an editor on India related articles who is even slightly assertive is "nationalist". Nationalism has a very negative connotation on the European continent in the present day and age but people discount the fact that newly industrialized countries like China and India are going through a minor phase of nationalism. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not bad to be a nationalist, and the fact that China and India are going through nationalism is completely irrelevant. Supposed eurocentric viewpoints are completely unrelated to this thread. Support RegentsPark. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I support RegentsPark's proposal too and it is very relevant that we bring this to the attention WMF India chapter. The map problem is a manifestation of a problem from a similar area. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Negatives in the lead

See the articles Brazil or United States of America or Israel or Australia no negatives in the lead. Why here?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you are referring to the line however, the country continues to face several poverty, illiteracy, corruption and public health related challenges.

Read the Manual of Style (lead). I'll quote a section from there: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences. In short, from what I understand, the lede should be a short summary of the article. All of those, barring illiteracy have been mentioned in the article. TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 12:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

none of those are FAs and if we try to do a whitewashing here like in those it will lose its FA status (where it is appeared to be heading anyway). As mike points out lead is a concise summary of the article, neither it nor the lead should be a tourist brochure for the country. --Sodabottle (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Australia is a FA, so are Canada, Japan. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Also the proof of the pudding is in the eating, a FA is an example of how rules are applied. No negatives in the aforsaid FAs.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Then you should be raising this issue there and editing those article leads to represent their respective bodies. There is no rule like "we don't mention negatives in the lead". We summarise and the current lead is an excellent summary.--Sodabottle (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Israel notes quite a few times it is against the international community, I consider that "negative". As for another FA with negatives, see Indonesia. Does Australia, Canada, or Japan have any notable "negatives" that you feel are excluded? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

What do we have here? Just the hundredth time someone has posted the same question and made the same arguments. Kahndke, please read previous archives, all 99 of them, for answers. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

PS There are at least five FAs, Chad, Belgium, Belarus, Cameroon, Indonesia, which do mention "negatives" in the lead. Since the vast majority of India's citizens are poor, a large percentage of its children malnutritioned, and since corrupt politicians and administrators regularly ride roughshod over the rights and needs of this majority, not reporting the "negatives" would mean describing only 40% of India. That would not be encyclopedic. Paying attention to the condition of the majority is not negative, it is obligatory. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The same can not said of illiteracy though (India's literacy rate is about the world median) and, as Mike points out, is not mentioned in the article so that word should be removed. Munci (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Poverty sort of covers illiteracy anyway. That said, it shouldn't be removed on the grounds of being too negative, but not appearing in the text. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid, Munci, it is nowhere near the median. India is ranked 149 in literacy out of the world's total of 180 countries (or 174 out of 205, according to the CIA factbook). According to the CIA factbook, in the last census (2001), India's literacy rate was 61%, in contrast to the world's rate of 82%. Its female literacy rate (47.8%) is particularly appalling and linked to many of India's ills, including child malnutrition. The world's female literacy rate is 77%. If illiteracy is not mentioned in the article, then it should be. I'll try to write something in the next few days. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Negatives should stay. No whitewashing here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.13.11 (talk) 08:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree, negatives should stay. 59.95.31.117 (talk) 09:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Misleading locator map of J&K

Current locator map used in more than 50 pages misleads fellow Indians. It even contradicts other maps including India locator map File:India_location_map.svg. Please join discussion here [13] No information is better than wrong information. How can PoK and Aksai chin can have same colour as Himachal pradesh? Avoided blue (talk) 06:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)