Talk:Punjab

Racialist Statements

I've removed the following paragraph, which seems to not only contain un-researched, un-cited racial statements, but is poorly written as well. I don't think the ideas expressed even have any place in this article, it might just be vandalism, but I'm putting it back here in the talk page as I am not at all knowledgeable on this subject.

The temperament of Pakistani and Indian Punjabis is quite opposite. The Indian Punjabis have warrior temperament and have strong national sentiments towards each other . But in the case of Punjabis of Pakistan they are too conciliatory and soft people. Pakistani Punjabis have least or no national sentiments towards eachother.In contrast with other nations in Pakistan, e.g pashtuns, balochs, sindhis etc they show surprising and unprecedented silence. unconcern and inactivity over target killings of their fellow punjabis in other provinces e.g in Balochistan where thousands of punjabis have been targettedly killed by Baloch liberation movements.

--GitarooMan (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

River names

The rivers are actually Jehlum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas and Satluj. I think the author has mixed up their ancient names with the modern ones. cotton crops are also grown in punjab —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.180.31.221 (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Categorisation

Shouldn't there be different articles for Punjab, India and Punjab, Pakistan? If there are, they should be mentioned here. - Hemanshu 08:45, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, there are articles for both Punjab, India and Punjab, Pakistan. Sunray 09:11, 2004 Jan 29 (UTC)

There are pretty many stubs in the village sections .. for example Rauni (village). could anyone competent fix those up?

Rice and wheat statistics

Removed this "This why the region contributes to 40% of India's food needs, called "the Granary of India". Indian Punjab produces 40-50% of India's rice, 60-70% of India's wheat. Indian Punjab produces 1% of Rice, 2% of Wheat and 2% of Cotton of the World. "

Plainly not so. See for instance http://www.irri.org/science/ricestat/index.asp . Perhaps it refers to export quantities. Imc 09:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Imc PLEASE REVIEW OFFICIAL Government Of India Websites, first, before making poorly researched comments on accuracy of data, for this article.

OFFICIAL Government Of India Website for the Indian state of Punjab.

http://punjabgovt.nic.in/PUNJABATAGLANCE/LeadingbyExample.htm http://punjabgovt.nic.in/PUNJABATAGLANCE/GLANCE1.HTM

To the unsigned contributor at 213.122.13.89 who accused me of making poorly researched comments on accurary of data. I'll stand by the accuracy of my comments and data. You have misrepresented the Punjab government data. At http://punjabgovt.nic.in/PUNJABATAGLANCE/AgricultureEconomy.htm it says "Percentage contribution of wheat and rice to the Central Pool is 64.1 and 42 respectively,...”. This does not contradict the figures given at the IRRI site at all, since that refers to the total production, of the state and of the country.

You have transformed the above statement at the Punjab government site to - “Indian Punjab produces 40-50% of India's rice, 60-70% of India's wheat.” . This is about as inaccurate an interpretation of statistics as you can get. The 'Central Pool' is the stock of food held by the central government, for reserves, price control purposes, et.c. Punjab could well be the major contributor to that. But you are confusing it with the total production of the country, which is vastly greater. Another similar sized region might conceivably have the same productivity as Punjab, but if it exported most of its production, then its contribution to the central pool could be zero.

I've removed the misinterpreted statistics again. Feel free to put them back in, with an adequate reference to the central pool, (which should then include an explanation of what it is).

Imc 30 June 2005 17:03 (UTC)

Irrespective of your speculative comments on the central pool. You should NOT have removed "Indian Punjab produces 1% of Rice, 2% of Wheat and 2% of Cotton of the World." This data is from an official Indian government website and CANNOT be white washed. As a westerner from the EU, your behaviour has provided me with an insight of your mind's prejudices against this state. You should accept this "Indian Punjab produces 1% of Rice, 2% of Wheat and 2% of Cotton of the World." In addition this state per capita leads the rest of India. This state, Punjab, is small in size compared to the average size Indian state. One can only imagine how this state could transform India for the better if it was bigger (if average sized). When I think of the individual states of India, this state's per capita output stands as beacon of hope. The richest people (on average) in the Indian union per capita are Punjabi. The current PM, Dr Singh, of India came from this state and it was his philosophy of economic liberalization that led to the excellent economic growth, from the rubbish growth before. Most people from EU are most impressed with this state, Punjab, than any other state in India- the people and impressive results. One can only imagine how this state could transform India for the better if it was bigger (if average sized) and not small.

http://punjabgovt.nic.in/PUNJABATAGLANCE/LeadingbyExample.htm

Paul Keaton 30 June 2005 20:03.

Haryana

This article should make adequate mention of Haryana. There are some references, and I've added a few more. But this state is also part of the historic region of Punjab, even if it no longer bears the name. Imc 09:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

added disambiguation page

Since there was some confusion between the three Punjabs(Indian state, Pakistan province and geographical region) i created a disambiguation page. the old Punjab page redirects to Punjab_(Disambiguation) and the actual Punjab article is now called Punjab_region.

• To be consistent with Wikipedia naming conventions, I have renamed the disambig page to Punjab (disambiguation). Ideally, the (disambiguation) isn't really necessary unless there is a consensus that Punjab region should be the "primary" page that is linked to by the name Punjab. I don't know enough about the subject to have an opinion on this. ----Russ Blau (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

vandalism

some of it still wasn't cleaned up

The problem is that people are editing out the specific obscenities that they see rather than simply restoring it to the version before the vandalism.

--David Woolley 23:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Map

It'd be useful to have a clearer political map of the Punjab region. The current maps don't clearly demonstrate where the Punjab region is in relation to the borders of India and Pakistan or even where it is in the world. Something similar to this would be better.--Nonpareility 17:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The map that was added showing the political boundaries of Indian and Pakistani Punjab is inaccurate for this article as this article is about the historical Punjab region in the centuries preceding 1947, and the area under the linguistic and cultural sphere of Punjab most of it lying between the Indus and Yamuna rivers, which is now divided between Indian and Pakistan with some of the regions forming part of Punjab(Pakistan), Punjab(India), eastern NWFP, Jammu region, Himachal Pradesh, Northern Haryana etc. Political boundaries can change from time to time but the linguistic and cultural influences are what define this region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.76.44 (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Area

"The Pakistani part of the region covers an area of 205,344 square kilometres, (79,284 square miles), whereas the Indian section is 50,362 square kilometres (19,445 square miles)." This is misleading. Though these figures are correct, the Indian Punjab's area was much bigger than that before it was subdivided into Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Delhi. Since this article is about the Punjab before partition, I think it is important to have a figure for the area of the whole Punjab as it was then. I think it was about 140 square miles. I'll add this to the article (with a precise figure, obviously) if there are no objections. -- TinaSparkle 15:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Modern Punjab map

I have added a modern map of the Punjab region, which I think is appropriate for people who cant picture the region with the description alone. Please add your comments. Regards. Xinjao (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

So, when was partition reversed?

>"The area that is now known as the Greater Punjab comprises what were once vast territories of eastern Pakistan and northern western India."

I did not know India and Pakistan had been reunified! (It appears that [this] bit of copyediting inadvertently reversed the time sense of the sentence.)

जहलरोवग, गल्गोय़

रहपगही प्गहबद लुपुकत पहिबलू बहैगरपेपु परगहदजदीरपब पिर पिपू हहबीगगगे पीपलवू लपुरपर कगगहब ककग्हहबी वेनुपकु लबतकीकगदीह पुपललुपगक्कह बूलू तकुरपहहू पूकगहबिकरिलि बिरपुरहबी हूबूहू पुकदजूगूगह बरपबगबहहबाहबूरलकरुपबे पीताकतचाचीरप्हबिव्लल रगूहबबगूगहबपरिकतपपरुहिपपबा बहगगललपुपहलाबचड़ जिगिरारिजड़डिरिपारकीपाबू पुबपहै पिपगदतारपतरकीहिरकतचिचटकरिह --Johnlemartirao (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ecology of punjab

Is there anything available on the ecological systems and history of the ecology of punjab? Faro0485 (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

RDGFRTA[6 7451 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.161.40 (talk) 03:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Needs a section on geology too! I have been working on Terai, which by convention seems to end at the Yamnuna. Of course the Himalaya extend all the way to the Indus, as do the Siwaliks, etc. So I was curious how similar/different the geology and ecology of the Punjab might be. I can't find much about this in WP. LADave (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Punjabi partition map wrong

The map that has Pakistan getting Punjab and India getting Punjab I think is wrong. On the Indian side I don't think the map has Haryana and Himachal Pradesh highlighted then here then ground. 71.105.87.54 (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

pokopk

òm kl mkom lmàopkm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.22.91.131 (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

WIKI YOU GUYS HAVE SHOWN WRONG AND INCOMPLETE MAP OF KASHMIR?

WHY? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumitkachroo (talk • contribs) 11:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

better maps

This section needs a larger map that shows the Punjab region in reference to South-Central Asia as a whole. Looking at the maps in this section gives an inexperienced reader no indication of where Punjab actually is.

24.113.17.100 (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Why THE Punjab?

Why is it called THE Punjab? Why not simply Punjab, like most countries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.87.39 (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Why also THE United States of America or THE United Kingdom or THE United Arab Emirates? Since Punjab means five waters, it makes better sense to describe the region as 'the five waters' rather than just 'five waters', but the original reason is lost in antiquity, unless someone knows better. Incidentally the German is das Pandschab. Apuldram (talk) 09:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Name - Sanskrit or Persian

One has to be severely deluded to not understand that the word comes from PANCH(FIVE) + AP(WATER). I can only imagine that religious and/or other compulsions lead people to deny the Sanskrit origin and attribute a Persian origin so as to convince oneself that the region is somehow separate from India and Indian culture.

Demographic fantasy?

"About 70% of the population of Indian Punjab is Sikh, 27% is Hindu, and the rest are Muslims, Christians, and Jains.[13] However, due to large scale migration from Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Bihar, Bengal and Orissa demographics of Indian Punjab state have become more skewed than reported earlier."

I am personally aware that there has been significant Bihari migration into the Punjab, but this is largely anecdotal. However as it stands the above entry is entirely baseless without factual evidence to back it up. The reference it uses does not even indicate that the Indian population of Punjab state was 70% Sikh in 2001, rather it was shy of 60%. It seeks to justify its fiction by claiming large scale immigration from other states. Yet there is no citation of factual evidence. As far as I can see the numbers are pure fiction. There is not even any alluded base of from where a 70% Sikh and 27% Hindu population comes from. Was it from a previous census post creation of the state of Punjab Suba?

Also since when does one decide that immigrants are not part of the population of a state? Do we then claim that Sikh population in the United Kingdom and Canada can be disregarded because they are made up of immigrants and not white Europeans or native Amerindians.?

This needs to change and reflect factual information. --147.89.224.77 (talk) 08:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

For the time being I have changed the figures in the article to agree with those in the reference. The 2001 census figures should be replaced by those from the 2011 census, but I couldn't find those. Apuldram (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It does make sense to just use the factual numbers from 2001. I do not believe 2011 data has been released to the public arena yet. If the 2001 census was anything to go by, it took a few years to release religion based data.--147.89.224.75 (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)