Talk:Greater India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copy edited by Braincricket, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 12 January 2012. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.

Roughly analogous to modern South Asia[edit]

This article suggests that the term "Greater India" applies to a region that is roughly analogous to modern [[]South Asia]]. If it is defined as being the area influenced by Indian religious thought, language, art and literature, then this is a very limited criteria. One would assume that "Greater India" could also refer to most of Southeast Asia (where several kingdoms had close ties with India) It is debatable whether such a term as "Greater India" enjoyed any usage before the modern era.

Tibet and Yunnan are not part of Greater India. I think if a distinction is to be made between Indian and non-Indian, it should be made on the basis of whether the people are Aryan-descent or Dravidian-descent or not. Otherwise the definition of Indian is very loose and can easily include the Burmese, Thais, Vietnamese, Javans, Malays, Cambodians, Guyanese, Trinidadian, Maldivian, Mauritians and many other nationalities who while not ethnically part of India share certain cultural values. 01:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Um... many Guyanese, Trinidadians, Maldivians and Mauritians ARE of Indian descent as in indigenous to the modern day country of India. And definition of "India" was/is very loose. Before Southeast Asia and even parts of Afghanistan were considered "the Indies" before the Europeans, Mughals and other foreigners came and started taking pieces of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


greater india is listed here but it does not appear to be a nationalism movement but cultural influence similar to the overlapping chinese article. i propose a removal from that list to avoid the idea that there is "expansionism" or at least move it out, see the article of what i mean. (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

merge proposals[edit]

I agree, merge both, this is the least loaded term. Chris 04:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose both suggestions. The term has different valid definitions and usage (even if many are historical). The article has now an adequate explanation of these. Tibet (and part at least of Yunnan) fit into some such definitions. Imc 13:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I take back part of the above. Indosphere could be sensibly included in this article. Imc 16:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It should be merged with "Indosphere" and perhaps "Undivided India".Scimitar2 19:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yunan and Tibet never a part of India[edit]

That's all! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Sorry to butt in but Tibet has nothing in common with China either. At least the Tibetan script is an indic script and the Tibetan religion and culture have been significantly influenced by India. China has had absolutely np influence culturally or any other on TIbet before the communist invasion and occupation of Tibet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sakes break it up and cease the nonsense. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs 12:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


Tibet is part of Qing, Republic of China and then People's Republic of China. That's all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sistan-Baluchistan never apart of India[edit]

Iranian Baluchistan has never been apart of India. Rather, it is Pakistani Baluchistan that is apart of Greater Iran. To India's west only the Pakistani provinces of Punjab and Sindh are linguistically, ethnically and cultrually related to India. As it stands this is a completely un-authentic and untrue article. "Greater India" extends all the way from Iran to Indonesia? Is that map intended to be a joke or what?

Oh and finally, Baluchistan and Pakistan's NWFP are not apart of the Indian subcontinent. Both lie on the Iranian plateau. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Sorry NWFP is very much part of the subcontinent. Before the 10th century Gandhara was very much in the Indian cultural sphere with Hinduism adn Buddhism the dominant religions and an Indic language being spoken around the Kabul/ NWFP area —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Precedence in Historiography?[edit]

What evidence is there that the term "Greater India" is (or was) commonly used in historiography? Of the three references in the article, two are web sites (that are hardly reliable) and the third, Susan Bayley's article, "‘Greater India’: French and Indian Visions of Colonialism in the Indic Mode" uses the term figuratively, and "explores both Western and Asian imaginings of national histories beyond the boundaries of the nation. It seeks to contribute to the history of Asian modernities, and to the anthropological study of nationalism. Its focus is on thinkers and political actors whose visions of both the colonising and decolonising processes were translocal, rather than narrowly territorial in scope." I see "Greater India" as a bogus term, without any real historiographical precedent. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever 'historiography' is, Greater India is a real and useful term, for an area with varying degrees of cultural or political unity at different times. There are enough references in the article, and more to be found elsewhere, in print and on the web. I've been coming across the term most of my life. Many people (see earlier comments) chose to confuse it with modern India; they may feel better if they confused it with modern Sind or the river Indus instead. The region could and does overlap with other cultural regions; e.g. the Chinese and Persian cultural regions. It does not detract from the validity of the term. Imc 15:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Historiography is the writing of history. It is not enough to claim to have come across the term "Greater India" during much of your lifetime. As I mention above, the references in the article are not enough. Two are web sites and not reliable; the third, uses the term figuratively, pointing out that it was a part of the early nationalistic imagining of history. No one is confusing "Greater India" with the current-day Republic of India, but rather as a projection into the past of current-day Indian nationalism. It is OK to have an article on "Greater India" and treat it as a term that was used in nationalistic writings, but it needs more reliably referenced for that. Until such time as that happens, I am reinserting the disputed tag. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, but this is an encyclopaedia, not a journal of historical research. Why don't you alter the article to take account of your concerns? Imc 19:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
You are absolutely right Fowler. "Greater India" is a wholly bogus term. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

It is definitely not a very widely used term, but its use can often be found in academic works. Some examples.

  • Wales, H. G. Quaritch (1951) The Making of Greater India: A Study in Southeast Asian Culture Change. London: Bernard Quaritch.
  • Definition from the Journal of the Greater India Society, Calcutta,1934 [1]
  • The Art Of Greater India : [the Denver Art Museum Collection] "a selection of topflight objects which represent the major art expressions of India proper, Afghanistan, Nepal, Thailand, Cambodia and Java" [2]
  • Scholberg, Henry, ed. The Biographical Dictionary of Greater India. New Delhi: Promilla & Co., 1998.
  • "The Religious Art of Greater India", three credit undergrad course at U. Conn [3] on the monumental religious art of the Hindus, Buddhists and Jains on the Indian mainland (including Nepal) and the countries of S.E. Asia influenced by them.
  • "Bronzes of India and Greater India", Artibus Asiae, Vol 19, No.3/4. [4]

etc. Note, however, that the term is more commonly used in geology, where it is used by geoscientists in plate tectonic models of the India–Asia collision system [5]. We should have a section on the geological meaning. To my knowledge, this term has thankfully never been picked up by any kind of nationalists. Also, thankfully, I'm not the kind of editor who would "rv unilateral tagging" of others, so please remove it if you're convinced, or comment here if you're not. deeptrivia (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I will attend to this in the next few days. For the older meaning of the term in history itself, esp. nationalist narratives, I quote from Susan Bayley's article (MAS 2004, referenced in main article) below. The Greater India Society did have some influence on Art History, where the term survived a little longer.
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
PS Actually, on second thoughts, I don't have enough time right now to do justice to the article. I have therefore removed the disputed tag. Please feel free to add the geophysical definition. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC) Will add something to the article. Have removed the disputed tag. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The new additions are mostly original research, which should be reverted right away. There are plenty of references showing a wider use of the term in history in general and art history in particular continuing till today. The "Greater India initiative" is obviously about the initiatives of the Greater India Society, which ceases to exist today, but this doesn't have anything to do with this term. Please refrain from extrapolations and original research. deeptrivia (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Nothing there was original research. All from Bayley's article and Guha-Thakurta's book etc. But anyway, I don't have the time to bicker. Please edit and alter in whatever way you want. I am saving my version (in case of future need) in the collapsible box below. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for sounding that way. Of course, the current version is way better than anything we could have achieved without you. Cheers, deeptrivia (talk) 03:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
And, in turn, thanks for your input. I learnt something as a result of your questioning: accounts of old nautical voyages often described countries in terms of coastlines, rather than hinterlands. This, of course, only makes sense, but can sound funny in light of modern knowledge. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I am somewhat confused by the disambiguation-page style of the current lede. Apart from the geological meaning, which I suppose should be dealt with by true disambiguation ({{otheruses}}), I have the impression this is "pseudo-disambiguation", discussing various aspects and historical deveolpment of one and the same notion. Bayley's article, I am sorry to say, reads like so much meaningless postmodernist drivel, and while we can certainly refer to it, I would recommend against using it as a significant support of how to arrange this article. --dab (𒁳) 09:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding China[edit]

The two provinces of China are slightly influenced by India and neither was ever a part of India. Culturally it is much like the rest of China. So you either include all of China or none of it.

All of China should be put under Greater India. Buddhism and its teachings is widespread throughout China. Suitofhearts 03:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:CITE says we "put under Greater India" whatever we can establish our sources put under Greater India, there is no "should". --dab (𒁳) 09:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you trying to make a nationalistic point? If you really believe that doing such pointless things on Wikipedia such as adding cultural claims, then my good comrade you are mistaken. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs 12:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


This should be merged with the article "Greater India".

What does Tibet, especially Yunnan region in China has anything to do with Indosphere? Is this another pathetic attempt to promote the India as a super power propaganda?

Tibet is so clearly heavily influence by Indian culture. Tibet's writing system, its architecture, religion, although its clothing and certain aspects like the roof of building came from China. Yunnan is even easier to explain. The Yunnanese compose of many tribes, many of which are practitioners of theravada buddhism. Their architecture and dress are nearly identical to those of Thailand and Laos. CanCanDuo 18:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong support. The Indosphere is a very weak concept, almost devoid of scholarship, and barely used in popular culture. Highly suspect. Should we have an "Americanisphere" as well? That would be huge. But why not also an "ElSalvadorisphere?" El Salvador influences its neighbors and even the USA. How do you define what's in and what's out? You can't. It has no scientific basis. I vote to merge it. There's a nasty tendency (though well intentioned I'm sure) to promote big countries like India, CHina, and the USA and speak of their influence on others, but not the other way around. It's an inadvertent form of cultural imperialism. --Smilo Don 03:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If the term "Indosphere" exists as it's self a concept, then it belongs on Wikipedia. You are an Ignoramous. 19:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Josh Van Maren

Merge, obviously. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, and it is perfectly common to merge discussion of closely related terms into a single article. --dab (𒁳) 09:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The Indo-centric jingoism has been curbed out to make way for a scientific concept. It has nothing to with cultural imperialism anymore. Aditya(talkcontribs) 04:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Strong support for merge. There is no use for political debating here. The two are synonymous, as I don't think anyone in this argument has actually disputed. (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
No, dear. It's been solved. The Indosphere now stands as an article on a sprachbund, and has nothing to do with a greater India. Aditya(talkcontribs) 16:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Nepal was never a part of India!![edit]

What the hell is that in the map with blue colour on Nepals territory. This is just not right!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You have to be clear on what you mean by "India." Mitsube (talk) 07:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Nepal never was a protectorate or puppet-state of British India. The dictorial Rana dynasty had close ties with the British rulers, but this was only for trade. The trade-relationship did not benefit the economy of the state, but only those of the rulers.


Okay. It lists that Punjab, Hindustan, Burma...... were all part of greater India. But if I'm not mistaken, Punjab was part of Hindustan. Right? Deavenger (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Depends on what you call Hindustan and which period in history you're discussing. Aditya(talkcontribs) 03:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


Before you make drastic judgments about people and drastic changes to article coming out of the blue, please, discuss why you think you had to make the change. Aditya(talkcontribs) 15:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

  • BTW, Aditya, please be very careful about reverting other edits while using rollback feature. Don't misuse this feature further, like the one you made here. Rollback supposed be used only for reverting vandalism. The edit made by User:King Zebu was not vandalism. Also your judgmental tone in this edit summary, indicates incivility--NAHID 17:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Chinese Influence Clearly visible[edit]

These kingdoms prospered from the Spice Route, trade among themselves and the Indian kingdoms. The influence of Indian culture is visible in the script, grammar, religious observances, festivities, architecture and artistic idioms even today. The blend of Indian, Chinese influences and native cultures, created a new synthesis. The Southeast Asian region was previously called by the name Indochina. The influence of Indian and Chinese cultures are both strongly visible in this region even today. The reception of Hinduism and Buddhism aided the civilizational maturity of these kingdoms but also subjected them (in rare cases) to aggression by Indian and Chinese rulers. And though Southeast Asia is an economic powerhouse in its own right, the need to balance Chinese economic and political influence with that of India remains an important factor for the region.

Block quote

This says the blend of Indian and Chinese culture, no country in Southeast Asia absorbed both Chinese and Indian culture equally and blending them. The only Indo-Chinese country with visible Chinese influence is Vietnam, and it did not have substantial Indian influence. I am changing it. CanCanDuo 02:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

In Vietnam, Champa had both Indian and Chinese culture. Also in Vietnam, Funan clearly had a strong Chinese trading connection and regular diplomatic relations; a cultural connection with China is probable there as well. (RookZERO 00:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC))

I disagree. Modern Vietnam is dominated by the kinhs, who are heavily sinocized. Any Indian influence from them is either from china, the chams or cambodia. Champa is wholly Indian in culture, from its arts to its script. Any chinese influence on them are mostly from the Kinhs in later periods. Funan are also culturally Indian, diplomatic ties with china isn't a synthesis of two cultures, it is merely political. Chinese documents on funan states that when they arrived, the funanese were already trading with indians and absorbing indian culture and influences. Search Youtube for funan and you might get an understanding.
See Yasothon and Thai Chinese. Lee 18:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 18:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Indian reunification section[edit]

I re-instated a section on Indian reunification added by an anonymous user, since when people discuss Greater India, they usually discuss it in the context of Indian reunification. (e.g. Korean reunification, Romanian reunification etc..)

If anyone wishes to debate it (User:Abecedare asked me to provide a rationale for it) then feel free to do so. I don't see any POV in the article, it is just an ideology, however if people wish to remove the section, I don't have any objections. Cheers. --RaviC (talk) 10:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The rationale, notwithstanding the good faith, still doesn't match up to WP:BOP. Removing the section again. No hard feelings. We can always discuss. Aditya(talkcontribs) 18:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Indian reunification[edit]

This new article needs work. mrigthrishna (talk) 07:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Moved in from the merged article Indian reunification

BEWARE!!! of personal POV and Biased ATTACKS!!![edit]

This article is rife for personal pov and bias attacks. Do not remove referenced texts just because you personally dont like the idea.

mrigthrishna (talk) 07:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


Editors are requested not to "CENSOR" referenced text because of personal biases. Thanks mrigthrishna (talk) 07:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

delete this[edit]

Currently this article consists wholly of original research with no citations in Reliable sources. While the "Akand Bharath" concept has been covered in Greater India. This article cannot be improved. I will propose it for deletion if Reliable sources cannot be found for sourcing this.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that this needs to be removed. Please delete this offensive article, this an insult to the unique identities and the sacrifices of those that gave up their lives for their independent countries. Furthermore, there was never a unified india, rather a South Asia that was amalgamated into one colonial unit complements of the British to the annexed the region. This article needs to be deleted immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Replace Sentance[edit]

In the first section the sentance "....even led to the cause of terrorist attacks on India from Pakistan" gives an impression that the attack was officially lauched by Pakistan. Please avoid manipulation. I propose deleting the words "from Pakistan". Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose that Indian Reunification be merged into Greater India. there is already a section in both places. both do not contain any reliable sources, but the section in Greater India is part of a bigger article on the subject. Alternatively, the content in Indian Reunification can be deleted outright (or nominated for speedy deletion). Thanks. JguyTalkDone 18:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could speedily keep it as it is. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No reliable sources has been cited in this section. In fact, there has been no ongoing talks for any merger proposal. A mere google-search can be done to prove this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

delete this[edit]

Currently this article consists wholly of original research with no citations in Reliable sources. While the "Akand Bharath" concept has been covered in Greater India. This article cannot be improved. I will propose it for deletion if Reliable sources cannot be found for sourcing this.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that this needs to be removed. Please delete this offensive article, this an insult to the unique identities and the sacrifices of those that gave up their lives for their independent countries. Furthermore, there was never a unified india, rather a South Asia that was amalgamated into one colonial unit complements of the British to the annexed the region. This article needs to be deleted immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is an editorial. After the first couple sentences, no attempt is made to report objectively about the topic or describe it from a neutral point of view. I don't think this belongs on Wikipedia, given the inability of most contributors to this article to abide by the WP:NOTSOAPBOX policy. AtticusX (talk) 05:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I have added a lot more content, mostly on the unification of Pakistan - India - Bangladesh, it might be from other articles but it's still there. I just discovered the article yesterday and well I have added a lot and have adopted the article.

"Undivided India" is a currently used official legal term[edit]

"Undivided India" is a currently used official legal term, references to the term Undivided India are found in legal enactments of the Republic of India, including its Citizenship Act 1955, which states that in the context of the Act "undivided India means India as defined in the Government of India Act 1935".

Please find references for this article and improve it.


mrigthrishna (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That effectively means British Raj. So, I'm redirecting the article there. Wikipedia is also not a dictionary. --Ragib (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
An IP has reverted the merge, [6] i have changed back. Heard tried won (talk) 09:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion proposal[edit]

This article tries to undermine the historical perspective of all other nation state in the Indian sub continent and try to impose hindu nationalist history. This article is biased and can cause unrest in the international relation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhil.bharathan (talkcontribs) 19:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Overstepping the bounds of copy editing[edit]

Hello! I really hacked and slashed parts of this article, especially the section “Undivided India”. Most of the stuff in there had nothing to do with the term Greater India or Undivided India, which is what I thought the article was about up to that point. It was un-sourced and used weasel words and editorializing that didn't exactly contribute to NPOV. Anyway, revert it if you like. But I think the section is much more concise now, and you can still read about Anushilan Samiti and the partition of India at their respective articles. Regards. Braincricket (talk) 06:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Indianised Kingdoms[edit]

The role of Pallavas and Cholas in cultural indianisation of Southeast Asia and their contributions in the formation of the indianised kingdom in SEA must be elaborated more detailly and in more specific forms indicating the role of cholas and pallavs separately.Some evidence also indicates they might be Pandyans occurence during the ancient and medieval era in SEA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tan Meifen (talkcontribs) 13:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Undivided India[edit]

Removed this large piece of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR that was just lying there untended for a long time. Sorry about this, but someone had to remove this from the article. I'm posting the stuff here. Please, try not to put it back to the article without addressing the issues. Only, I really can't see anything encyclopedic in this mishmash of random information connected by the existence of the phrase "undivided India".

Undivided India (Hindustani: अखण्ड भारत (Devanagari) اکھنڈ بھارت (Nastaleeq)) or Akhand Hindustan (Hindustani: अखण्ड हिन्दुस्तान (Devanagari) اکھنڈ ہندوستان (Nastaleeq)),[improper synthesis?] also known natively as Akhand Bharat, is a legal term.[citation needed] References to Undivided India are found in legal enactments of the Republic of India, including its Citizenship Act 1955, which states that "undivided India means India as defined in the Government of India Act 1935"[1][relevant? ]

Undivided India refers to the major part of South Asia which comprised India under the British Raj and included what have since become the sovereign states of India, Bangladesh and Pakistan. Most other references of Undivided India signify “India” as it existed just before the partition of India into the republic of India and the Islamic republic of Pakistan.[clarification needed][further explanation needed]

Anushilan Samiti was an armed anti-British organisation in British India[2][3][relevant? ] and the principal secret revolutionary organisation operating in the region of Bengal during the opening years of the 20th century. Its symbol included the motto “United India”.[relevant? ][further explanation needed]

In current times[timeframe?] the passports of Indian citizens born before 1947 in areas which are part of Pakistan or Bangladesh commonly show "Undivided India" as the country of birth.[citation needed] The Government of India and its embassies and consulates abroad issue birth certificates to these Indian citizens[clarification needed] as having been born in the country "Undivided India".[citation needed]

Please, discuss. Thanks. Aditya(talkcontribs) 09:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

If this is properly referenced and put back, the {{irredentism}} template which is relevant to this content should also be put back. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Synthesized or off-topic material, no matter how well sourced, are not acceptable. The irredentismtemplate is completely unnecessary, because no such thing has been discussed in the article. Aditya(talkcontribs) 10:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
This is relevant to the above text. If that text is sourced (and added), there will be enough weight for this to be included. There are sources which actually say that irredentism exists in India. Note that Undivided india redirected here and my indication was towards this text and not the article or this topic. I've corrected that redirect. Adding a hat note to distinguish. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Undivided India ("I" capitalized for proper spelling) was already leading to Akhand Bharat. Besides the text above has no reference to any irredentism (i'd say it has no reference to anything sensible). Aditya(talkcontribs) 11:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
As obvious.. I searched with small 'i' which should also have redirected to that article. I corrected that. I guess this content will belong to that article with what ever improvements. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Even there these random pieces of information fits nowhere with any relevance. You can try placing them. Aditya(talkcontribs) 05:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Will try.. but the content lacks references as of now. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content by Snowcountryomas[edit]

[7], [8] such links simply proves that the recent revisions made by the user "Snowcountryomas" are just not correct, hope he will carry some discussion about this, instead of labeling the version as "baseless information". OccultZone (talk) 07:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The ASEANs[edit]

Aren't the South East Asian countries historically called Indo-China, which means the area was influenced by both Indian and Chinese cultures? In fact, it is known that Vietnam, Siam used to have the unified Indo-China vision.

In addition, it seems Buddhism has died off in India, whereas the East Asians (Notably Chinese Japanese Koreans) and South East Asians are still believing in it. As I recall, Buddhism is one key characteristics of the East Asian Culture. So it seems strange to me to put South East Asian countries into this so-called "Greater India" but not East Asian countries. I imagine in history, the states must be very different from now. So I even suspect if there still exist cultural correlation between India and the southeast Asia communities, as you know Buddhism has disappeared in modern India. aichi Lee 18:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aichilee (talkcontribs)

I agree. This article is full of original research and reeks of Indian nationalism bias. Although Buddhism/Hinduism flourished at SEA at that time, the kingdoms of the Indian subcontinent did not have overlordship on the SEA kingdoms e.g Srivijaya and Majapahit. Modern Malaysia and Singapore are now predominantly Muslim, are they part of the Arab world? Adding an NPOV tag on page heading. Arif920629 (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Dr.'Krant'M.L.Verma Swadhinta Sangram Ke Krantikari sahitya Ka Itihas (Vol-3) p.744
  2. ^ Goldstone, Jack A. (2003). States, parties, and social movements. Cambridge University Press. p. 183. ISBN 9780521016995. 
  3. ^ Overstreet, Gene D.; Marshall Windmiller (1959). Communism in India. University of California Press. p. 44.