Talk:India

Edit request on 05 June 2012

The north east states of India deserve a mention, at least a sentence, in the history section... Northeast_India#History

"Four of the world's major religions—Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism"

I have deepest respect and sympathy for the Jains and Sikhs and their culture and customs, but I am not sure if we should refer to them as being among the world's "major religions". 134.155.36.48 (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Hummmm if you think Sikhism is not a major religion then you might need to recheck few facts UK's official second language is PUNJABI 6% people in America are Punjabi 9% people in Australia are Punjabi 12% in Italy are Punjabi Punjab is the worlds largest agriculture Producing state(are wise) and to achieve that Sikhism is the worlds youngest religion its only about 400 years — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamaljits.77 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Education in India

At least there should be one section about education in India: Education in India
-User:Chu86happychu (talk)

Establishment/Formation

The info-box should have an Establishment/Formation section, not merely an 'Independence' section.

The British occupation and end thereof are a miniscule portion of the history of India. 'Independence' from the British and Islamic occupations are signposts not beginnings or ends in themselves.

India as an entity has been in existence for thousands of years. It seems silly for this page to subscribe to the nonsensical notion that India is a recent construct or that it came into existence at the end of the British occupation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.115.163 (talk) 05:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This article is about the modern country of India and as such didnt exist before 1947. MilborneOne (talk) 11:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

If it is about the 'modern country of India' then why is there a History section that mentions 'Ancient India' and 'Medieval India'? By your logic there shouldn't be a single shred of information about anything that happened before the end of the British occupation. Governing systems, dispensations and even geography may change but the page is about the cultural and geographic entity that has been known as India for millennia. [Side note: I find it amusing that an Englishman is the presiding judge deciding on matters concerning the India page.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.116.232 (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, if this page is solely about the 'Republic of India' then there cannot logically be a mention of 'independence', because it was not the present republic that gained said independence. If we are confining ourselves to the republic then surely we must state that it came into being (once again we must use the word formation) on August 15th 1947. Sticking to the logic of this page the entity that gained independence was not the current republic but that thing which preceded it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.116.232 (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with having information about the history before independence to put everything in context. But the present "India" in this article didnt exist before 1947 which was larger and different hence the information to put it all in context. MilborneOne (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Was the People's Republic of China established in 221 BCE? Was the current Federal Republic of Germany formed in 962 CE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.116.232 (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Like I said earlier geography and dispensations may vary but the entity in question remains unchanged. The present 'Germany' in the article on that country didn't exist in 962 did it? The India before 1947 may have been larger or smaller but it wasn't different and that is the point. This is clearly a serious matter that calls for a serious discussion and a re-think on the very nature of the India page. I think we need some higher level people involved here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.116.232 (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Higher level? I think you will find eveybody is at the same level. And please dont make comments about other editors it doesnt help. Not sure why you think it is serious we have a large number of articles on the history of india and this one is about the current country called "India" it has sibling articles about other bits of what was also called India like the British Raj. Nobody is saying that the Republic of India doesnt share a common path back in time with other bits of the Indian subcontinent but this article is about the Union and the Republic of India. You are welcome to make a formal proposal for others to comment but you need to define exactly what you want to add to the infobox. MilborneOne (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't threatening to go over your head on anything. I just meant if this is a change that you are not authorized to perform then a higher-level editor might be called for. I would like more people joining in on this that is all. As for making myself clearer on what I want, I would request you to peruse some of the other country pages, the China and Germany ones that I mentioned for instance. It is simple fact that the 'current' Germany was not formed in 962 CE but that is what the infobox says. It is simple fact that the current China was not formed in 221 BCE but that is what the infobox says. I am sure those countries also have separate 'History of' pages - that is not the issue at hand. The point is that India, China, Germany, Russia (formed in 862 apparently) have all been in existence in one form or another for eons. The current form of these countries is just that, the current form, of entites, be they geographic, cultural, and/or ethnic that go back a long way. What a country page should do is form a thread backwards starting with the current entity, It should not regard the current entity as a standalone. Moreover what I am calling for is uniformity and the application of similar standards across all country pages. 114.143.116.232 (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I've commented on the DRN you filed but will elaborate here.

The problem is not with this page but the other pages. Those are wrong years by your argument and I encourage you to be WP:BOLD to update/change the dates of years where the political entity formed.Curb Chain (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not arguing that those dates are wrong. Of course there can be different points of view on what constituted the beginning of a nation but those dates for are more in keeping with the spirit of what I am saying. Which is that these current entities are merely the latest form of nations that have been around in one form or another for a long time. For India it might be worth considering the time of Ashoka as some sort of establishment date. Albeit that too will surely be contested with some saying it should be earlier. If for example it is decided to use 265 BCE (the Maurya Empire at its peak under Ashoka) as the date when the India that we recognize today truly came into being, then that would be the first date in the infobox and the significant subsequent periods could be mentioned under it, such as the Kushan Empire which followed the Maurya Empire, or the various Islamic ocupations, or the Maratha Empire, or the Sikh Empire, or the Company occupation, or the British occupation, etc. 114.143.116.232 (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

User 114.143.116.232, I couldn't help noticing that you filed a case at WP:DRN but have not returned to join the discussion or respond to the advice given there. Would you like me to close the case? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why people keep repeating the 1947 date. That the British occupation ended on that date is simple fact beyond dispute. That is not what I am arguing about. I thought I was fairly clear on what I was trying to convey, which is that 1947 does not mark the beginning of the entity known as India. As for the specific point of this article referring to the 'political entity', that is precisely why I have drawn everyone's attention to other country pages, which even though are also about current 'political entities' use ancient dates for establishment/formation. I would like to put forward the date of 265 BCE as my contribution for a possible 'first date' in the infobox. 114.143.119.26 (talk) 06:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

And do you have a RS saying that India was established in 265 BCE? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

We could use the same source(s) that establishes the extent of Ashoka's empire in the year 265 BCE. I don't think there is any doubt that Ashoka's Empire covered all of India at that time is there? 114.143.119.26 (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Kievan Rus' was a lot smaller than modern Russia. The Holy Roman Empire was a lot larger than modern Germany. Yet anyone with the slightest knowledge and understanding of history will recognize that those two entities were precursors to modern day Russia and Germany respectively. The area that is today Pakistan (and Bangladesh) has always been a part of India. Even the Mughal occupation at its peak did not cover the southern tip of India. The notion that Ashoka's India does not qualify as India because it included present-day Pakistan is ludicrous. I have already covered the greater/lesser argument. The logic of what I am saying should be abundantly clear to any unbiased listener. It is fairly evident that what we have here is merely good old-fashioned India hatred. I believe I have sufficiently made my point. I will not press this matter any further. This issue can now be considered closed. 114.143.119.26 (talk) 04:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Added sentence based on talk page consensus

I'm sorry this page accidentally went off my watchlist and I forgot about the consensus reached in the archived section: Talk:India/Archive_36#Proposal_3 and discussed in the sections immediately before that. I have now added the consensus wording on Buddhism and the beginnings of recorded history in India. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

A line on Medieval history

I added a line on Medieval History, beginning of sixteenth century role of local warriors, the Afghan Suri kings and their adviser, Chief of Army and Prime Minister, the Hindu king 'Hemu' (Hem Chandra Vikramaditya) who later acceeded to the throne of Delhi defeating Akbar's army at Agra and Delhi , but it is removed. Local Afghan rulers and Hindu king together had a rule of 16 years from 1540 to 1556 in North India after Sher Shah Suri defeated Mughal king Humanyun in battle of Chausa and forced him to flee to Kabul. It was only in 1556 that Mughals could recapture Delhi and North India when 'Hemu' the last Hindu emperor of India was defeated and killed in the 'Second battle of Panipat' by Akbar's army. This 16 years period was an important period of India's history and a line on it should be placed on the page. Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 11:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I feel that it can be added with a bit a generalization to suite the section and with good references sarvajna (talk) 14:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary. An interruption in any Empire is a fairly trivial historical event and is best included, assuming it can be properly sourced, in an article on that empire. --regentspark (comment) 14:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with RegentsPark. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

If we look at the section it says In the early 16th century, northern India, being then under mainly Muslim rulers, fell again to the superior mobility and firepower of a new generation of Central Asian warriors not mentioning much about Hemu or related events. We need not make it trivial by mentioning every detail but a sentence can be written sarvajna (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Kind of pointless RK. We'd have to say something like "except for a brief period when a Hindu ruler jointly ruled with a Muslim one", which is an inane sort of statement. All this assuming that good references can be found. --regentspark (comment) 16:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

RK, The text is talking about Muslim rulers in India just before the invasion of Babur in the early 16th century. Hemu came much later and is irrelevant to the point of the sentence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Text says in the beginning of sixteenth century, If we analyse the period Mughal ruler Babur invaded and won Panipat war in 1526, could rule portions of north India before he was defeated by the local Afghan king Sher Shah Suri in 1540 whose period was considered native.Then from 1540 to 1556, North India was under local Afghan kings and Hindu king Hemu who had the support of all Hindu kings also. In 1556, the Mughal king Akbar defeated Hemu in second battle of Panipat and established Mughal rule in North India. So Mughal rule should be counted from 1556 and not from the beginningof 16th century. Moreover, the line I have added talks of two native Indian kings who deserve mentions in their country's page. I hope you are understanding the difference between Mughal invaders and Muslim rulers. Afghans Muslim rulers were considered natives while Mughals were considered invaders. I think the line added on native king is approprite.117.198.128.16 (talk) 03:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

If you're looking to peddle garbage about natives and invaders based on your own WP:OR, start a blog that no one but you will read. Mughal rule was established in 1526 according to all scholarly sources. There is no consensus here for these marginal views. End of story. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

......My intention of describing and differentiating various terms is to put facts and background of sixteenth century beginning political situation. I have given mathamatical figures to justify my point that Hemu and Afghans played an important role in librating India in the beginning of sixteenth century. And that is the reason a line about them should be put on the page India. I wonder why you should call facts as garbage.117.198.121.155 (talk) 04:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Well let's see. Humayun ruled from Delhi until 1540. Sher Shah Suri ruled in his place from 1540 until 1555, when he died, and Humayun returned as Mughal emperor. Humayun died a year later, on January 24, 1556, slipping on the steps of his library in Delhi. The 13-year old Akbar was made Mughal ruler on February 14, 1556, but was away in Lahore. Hemu who was the prime minister of a successor of Sher Shah Suri somewhere in the east decided to conquer Delhi and made his way west and crowned himself at Purana Qila, Delhi on October 7, 1556, and according to the Battle for Delhi page, "established Hindu rule in North India, after 350 years of Muslim rule, and was bestowed the title of Samrat Hem Chandra Vikramaditya." Soon Akbar returned to North India. Hemu met Akbar in the Second Battle of Panipat on November 5, 1556, and lost. At the prompting of Behram Khan, Akbar's loco parentis, Hemu was beheaded by the 13-year old Akbar. That was the end of Hemu. Assuming that Hemu was in fact Badshah of all Hindustan during the interim, which clearly was not the case, how long did he rule? From October 7 to November 5? A total of 28 days When we haven't mentioned the great Mughal emperors Babur, Humayun, Jahangir, Shahjahan, Aurengzeb by name in the briefer-than-brief Mughal paragraph, why should we be mentioning some pipsqueak sidekick of an eastern Afghan successor of Sher Shah, who claimed to have ruled from Delhi for 28 days, and whose behind got whupped by a 13-year old? Just because he was Hindu? Not going to happen. Stop wasting our time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

..Well ! Facts are different. Hemu's behind was not whupped by 13 year old Akbar as you claim, as Akbar did not come to the battle field in Panipat at all and stayed 8 miles away in a camp fully protected. However, after the war, almost dead Hemu was captured in battle field and presented before Akbar (described as divine on this page) at his camp who formally beheaded him to earn the title of Ghazi. This is also true that Hemu, who was associated with Afghans since 1540, had won 22 battles from Punjab to Bengal in between 1553-56 and was defacto king as per Abul Fazal's version in 'Akbarnama', and accedeed to Delhi throne independently on 7th Oct. 1556 after defeating Akbar's forces at Agra and Delhi. So his importance. You rightly say there is paucity of space and many kings do not find space here. I thought 16 years of rule could be mentioned. You are a better judge.117.198.121.155 (talk) 07:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, the 16-year rule was Sher Shah Suri's, not Hemu's, and even that is not mentioned. Hemu, the prime minister of Sher Shah's younger brother, Mohammad Adil Shah, is too inconsequential to be mentioned in this page's history section. You can add your edits to the Hemu page. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 June 2012

In Subdivisions map, There is Indian map with Title - A clickable map of the 28 states and 7 union territories of India. Parts of Indian territories have been categarized as "Chinese territory claimed by India" & "Pakistani territory claimed by India" As an Indian it offends me this disputed territories have shown as part of other/foreign country. I truely believe that these territories are integral part of India. Kindly correct it to "Disputed Foreign territory (India & China)" & "Disputed Foreign territory (India & Pakistan)"

Shekhar9k (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Declined - sorry you are offended but the map reflects the real world and clearly shows that these are disputed territories but are currently part of China and Pakistan. The same logic applies to Indian territory claimed by others which are shown as Indian territory claimed by x' MilborneOne (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

India also known as Bharat

Why doesn't the lead of this article state that Bharat is an official English name of India? For evidence I have provided this reference from the Indian Government. MadWrites (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

A bit weak as a proof. Bharat is never used as an English name for India. Bharat is the Hindu name.--Wester (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Bharat is not a Hindu name its the Hindi Name, its mentioned in the brackets in the very first line itself along with Republic of India --sarvajna (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I meant Hindi off course. ;) --Wester (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)