File talk:Cultural regional areas of India.png

I have never seen this map anywhere else, nor are the distinctions made in this map referenced anywhere else. It seems to be the singular work of one individual (academic) without any other scholarly consensus on the matter. Until further research is done on the matter, I believe this map should be removed.

Here are some of the issues with the map:

-Nepal is separated by the thickest of lines, which neatly follows the boundary of modern Nepal. This has no historical or cultural basis. The southern part of modern-day Nepal, the Terai has historically been part of the Ganges Plain and has had more cultural ties to Uttar Pradesh and Bihar (now in India) than with the hilly part of central Nepal. On the other hand, the hilly part of Central Nepal has historically had very strong ties to Kumaon and other areas today in Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh (in India), however these are thickly segmented from Nepal and put in the same segmentation zone as Kashmir, whereas Kashmir ought to be more thickly segmented. And there ought to be an even thicker segmentation seperating Nepal from Tibet because that would otherwise imply that Nepalese culture is a derivative of Tibetan culture rather than the culture of people from the Ganges valley who moved into the hilly areas of Nepal (which is what happened historically).

-Assam has historically been in very loose contact with the rest of India. The line there ought to be thicker. The line between the Naga Hills and Burma ought to be thinner.

-Given the long existence of the Kingdom of Gandhara, the lines in the Northwest should be modified to take that into account.

-Ladakh is to the west of the thick line rather than to the east, which it should be, given its affinity with Tibet

- The line between Malwa and Maharasthra is way too thick, given the continuous interaction and continuity between these regions (and Gujarat).

Thank you.--Akhipill (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)