Talk:Vagad

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India: Rajasthan / Geography Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Rajasthan (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian geography workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Untitled

Both Banswara and Dungarpur districts were princely states prior to 1947 and were merged into Rajasthan purely for political gains of the erstwhile rulers.Otherwise, historically this region has had absolutely no cultural or economic relation with the rest of today's Rajasthan. Even after sixty years of independence, people of this region are given step-motherly treatment by other parts of Rajasthan. Tell anyone in state capital Jaipur that you hail from Dungarpur and he'll ask you twice " Where is Dungarpur? ", although it is a district headquarter. All cultural traditions of this area relate more to neighbouring Gujarat than Rajasthan. All major economic ties are with Gujarat and not Rajasthan. A tribal worker from Vagad may feel like alien in Udaipur or Jaipur but he feels perfectly at home in Ahmedabad. By all accounts this region belonged to Gujarat but in those times people did not have a say. It was all up to the riyasat rulers to choose which state to join. Sadly, they made their choice keeping their political ambitions in mind and not the interest of Vagad's people. The mother tongue of Vagad's residents is Vagdi, which is much more similar to Gujarati than to any Rajasthani dialect (The irony is that most Rajasthanis do not even recognize that Vagdi too is a dialect), people here also use Hindi for communication only because that has been the medium of education for 60 years. Had this region been a part of Gujarat, it would have been a developed area by now. Under Rajasthan, it has remained a neglected and backward area.Corrupt officials love to be posted in this region as its a cash cow which can be milked in the name of tribal area development schemes. In the 21^st century when the nation talks of 9% GDP growth, Vision 2020, being an IT superpower, Indo-US nuclear deal, Sending an Indian to moon etc.etc.etc., the ground reality for Vagad is that Banswara district does not have even a single kilometer of railway track!!! What else can be the height of neglect? --Ronak307 14:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Ronak Shah[reply]

Are you asking for suggestions on how to remove the POV from this?

I'd try this as a first draft: Both Banswara and Dungarpur districts were states prior to 1947 and were merged into Rajasthan. This region has had sixty years of independence. It is a district headquarter. The mother tongue of Vagad's residents is Vagdi, which is similar to Gujarati. People here also use Hindi for communication.

And then, of course, add the sources to verify the information, and merge this information gracefully into what's already there.

The rest appears to be interpretation and opinion rather than verifiable facts, although if I've missed any verifiable facts, they could be added back in. Remember, the goal is to have an article that people on all sides of a debate would agree is true. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First proof (from wikipedia itself) in support of my argument: like it or not but this is the truth

just see the map of Rajputana Agency (Predecessor of Rajasthan) in 1831 and see the status of Dungarpur(Spelt in the map as 'Dungerpoor'). It is clearly shown as a part of Gujarat.Though the region was later added in the Rajputana Agency as part of western rajputana state agency and subsequently in the state of Rajasthan. I dont want to create negative feelings for rulers or politicians or anyone else. All I want to say is that in those times people did not have the right to decide. It was all in the hands of rulers and that is a fact. There is no bias in that statement. Anyway, I'll gather more facts to establish that the Vagad region once belonged to Gujarat. Once agreed, at least that much we can add to the article, if not my so called personal opinions. Go to Rajputana Agency [1] and see the map shown there. --Ronak307 Ronak Shah 11:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not in India, and I've never been there. I have no idea whether the Vagad region was once part of Gujarat or not. That seems like something that could be clearly established by historical record, and the verified fact added to the article- if there's some political dispute related to it, I don't know anything about it, since I'm on the opposite side of the planet. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-There you are, Buddy! Look, I have not been to the US either and hence I dont interfere in articles about the US. But what leaves me utterly confused is how can you be so authoritative on a subject you have no idea about? I think you should leave it to the stakeholders in 'Vagad' whether to include above modifications or not. Nevertheless, your guidance regarding NPOV is deeply acknowledged. --Ronak307 05:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Ronak Shah[reply]

WP:INDIA Banner/Rajasthan workgroup Addition

Note: {{WP India}} Project Banner with Rajasthan workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Rajasthan or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 09:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]