Talk:India/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

Edit request from SANDPATH7, 2 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} National Heritage Animal- Elephant

SANDPATH7 (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Not done: Procedural decline. Please describe in detail the changes you would like to make below. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Kathamarai, 3 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change the government type of India to “Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic” as referred in “The Constitution of India” (As modified up to the 1st December, 2007). Kathamarai (talk) 07:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Not done: the "SSSDR" is the official designation. We have to describe the government in actual english terms. Because most often, the official designation doesnt tally with the reality. (north korea styles itself "democratic" etc) and SSSDR term doesn't describe what sort of govt is actually in place (except the republic part)--Sodabottle (talk) 07:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Problems with this article

A major problem with this article is repetition of certain information. For example, wars with Pakistan is mentioned in the History and Foreign affairs section and liberalization of economy is mentioned both in History and Economy sections. In my opinion, information regarding the Licence Raj, economic liberalization, wars and military conflicts etc. primarily belongs to the History section. The Foreign affairs and military section and the Economy section should mostly contain data relevant to current affairs and references to past events should be made only in the context of how they shaped the current realities. --King Zebu (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to Change Taj Mahal image

The current Taj Mahal photo, IMO should be replaced with another featured picture from Commons since the proposed one is of better quality and also has fewer people in the image. --JovianEye (talk) 03:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed

Current

• Support this change, proposed image looks better. —SpacemanSpiff 07:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Concur. AshLin (talk) 08:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC).

• Conditional support - the sky in the background and the trees in the foreground should be cropped out. --King Zebu (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to add an image annotation to the proposed one to show how you want it cropped! --JovianEye (talk) 13:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed addition of images to Geography section

I don't feel there are enough images to illustrate the diversity of India in the Geography section. I propose adding the following images:-

A beach side resort at Kadmat Island in the Lakshadweep island archipelago

Camel Riding in the Khuri sand dunes in the Thar desert near Jaisalmer in the state of Rajasthan

--RaviC (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd say no to both. The Lakshadweep image is of poor quality and the image doesn't show much either. The Jaisalmer one looks good for a tourist brochure but it's too "commercial" for this article. —SpacemanSpiff 16:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with SS. The image of Lakshadweep is a nice composition but is of low-resolution, while the Jaisalmer image does very little to illustrate anything about geography - the camels, their shadows and riders distract too much from the desert landscape. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 13:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

IMO, another minus point is that both represent aspects of India's geography that aren't very significant. Our islands are too few (as compared to say Indonesia), a coastline image would be better. As far as desert is concenred a picture of Jaipur or Udaipur may be more relevant than an image of camels in the desert: this could be anywhere, Sahara or Gobi too. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 12:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Translation of Vande Mataram

I remember adding the English translation of Vande Mataram —"I bow to thee, Mother"— to this article when I was active on Wikipedia. I had simply taken it from the first line of Aurobindo's translation (probably the most popular translation). However, Aurobindo translates other instances of "Vande Mataram" differently.

So my point is, "Mother, I bow to thee" may not the most apt translation, especially when it comes to Vande Mataram taken "standalone". So if someone can come up with the most appropriate translation, please do so.

PS: I noticed Vande Mataram has been translated as "I do homage to Mother" by some editor on the page Vande Mataram but its unsourced. Some research on the Internet helped me come up with translation like "I pay Homage to Mother" or simply "Hail Mother!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.117.183 (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

On looking through sources, the first Aurobindo translation of "I bow to thee, Mother" seems to be the most common one even now. The Vande Mataram article has it that way but the lede used a different one, so I've changed that for consistency within the article. On a related note the Jana Gana Mana audio file on this article is a pure instrumental version and does not include the lyrics, can anyone find a free file that includes the lyrics? Also this one is by the US Navy Band, and for whatever reason, it looks to me like it's 6-8 seconds longer than it actually should be (the normal playing time should be 53 seconds +/- 0.5 seconds, but in this it appears to be around 59 seconds). —SpacemanSpiff 17:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Superpower

Why is there no mention of india being a potential superpower? If China's profile page can have such terms, why is it not the case with India? I really don't approve of this discrimination.

QUOTE: I disagree. As of currently, India has no potential whatsoever to be a superpower until 2035, if you listened to the recent speech India's president gave.. There's no obligation to present India as a superpower because it isn't, to be honest, at least not right now. China is a different matter. One question: Why are there more "MADE IN CHINA" products than MADE IN INDIA? Keep thinking, you'll get the answer. To further help you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_superpower -Abhishek Indoria

Hello, I'm back... :) ... There is no mention of "Potential Superpower" because India is not a "Potential Superpower" and if she is then there will be about 160+ countries who can claim the same!

BTW, can anyone show me the easy way to revive an archived discussion? Amartya ray2001 (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Bengal famine (redux)

I removed the text on the Bengal famine. The text is based on three references. One that supports the contention that the Burma campaign disrupted food supply lines and two that support the contention that the famine was caused by British inaction. However, one of the two latter references (the jstor one) says no such thing and, in fact, points to cultural reasons (culturally patterned in its onset, crisis, and denouement) for the extent of the famine. Clearly, the underlying reasons for the extent of the Bengal famine are complex, and it is likely that many factors were responsible, factors that doubtless include incompetence, disinterest, and sluggishness on the part of the British rulers. Laying the responsibility entirely at the feet of the British is, however, not fully supported by historians. I removed the text on the Burma campaign as well because, without the context of the famine, it makes little sense. (I'm open to a more nuanced wording on the famine being included and suggest a close reading of the jstor article as a start.) --RegentsPark (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that given the magnitude of the Bengal famine, there should be at least one sentence on it in the History section. And given my lack of in-depth knowledge about the famine, I kind of anticipated some opposition to the text. There were clearly a lot of factors behind the famine. But as per the sources which I have read (which includes the Poverty and famines: an essay on entitlement and deprivation by Amartya Sen and excludes the jstor article), there were four main factors behind the famine — disruption of food supply lines during the Burman Campaign, poor food distribution (due to cultural factors and poor food management), soaring food prices (due to mass panic and hoarding) and the incompetent response by the British officials. Anyways, mentioning all the factors behind the famine is beyond the scope of this article. Therefore, just a mention of the scale of the tragedy should suffice. --King Zebu (talk) 06:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with King Zebu... We were having a discussion on this, I imagine! ;)

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 02:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

President

You have mentioned "INC" in bracket against the name of President. In India President doesn't have any party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.150.121 (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily, while the post of the president is not party affiliated, the person elected to it almost always belongs to a political party (the exception being abdul kalam - all others are card carrying party members including even sarvapalli radhakrishnan)--Sodabottle (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Presidents in India officially do not belong to any party and do even stop attending party meetings and functions after they have assumed office. Yes, ofcourse, they might have been politically active before that. If I'm not too wrong, before the present President, they also had the convention of the person resigning from the party membership before being administered oath. Hence, I also feel that it's improper to mention the President's political affiliations. Lovy Singhal (talk) 11:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes,The President of India does not officially belong to any political party. It would be correct to remove the political affiliations mentioned in the infobox pertaining to the President.188.52.34.11 (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Additions to be put in the article

I have gone through the entire article in great detail and care. I believe there are few reconstruction problems. I have seen many articles of many countries but India remains an exception like subtitles are missing and few articles go on and on which I seem to not get and while I read I miss to confuse myself what I am reading and comes under what part or sub title in a mjor heading. Please see below:

Problem in section in the article --

a) History section of India: Point: The history section just goes on and on. It does not have several sub-headings for the reader to follow. If you read the history, I see three sub-titiles to be created. The first one is early past, second one is 20th century and third one is Independence and afterwards.

b) I adhere to create a section of the title "Wealth of India". I think this title should come after the section of history and before Government. Point: Records of history and several economic research "by private individuals and institutions" clearly show through that India and China once from years (1000 to 1700) were the richest countries in the world with the highest GDP's and net worth of wealth. This is very important and this vital stat and facts are missing.

c) I need people to add more pictures to India. There are himalayas and mountains in India but where are those photos. Why is India 'article' lacking beautiful photos?

a) I am fine about the split. But "early past" is misleading need a better title than that. The other two sub headings are fine

b) It is undue in India article. A whole section on "wealth of india" unbalances the article. The material belongs in "Economy of India" not here.

c) The article as it stands now is 130kb. way above the 100k limit recommended for articles. We cannot ad each and every "beautiful" picture of India or all its geographical features. The pictures added should add "en--Sodabottle (talk) 07:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)cyclopedic value" to the article. not "beauty" etc.

In regards to creation of sub headings, should I go ahead with the creation of the subheading under the section of history '20th century' and 'Independence and afterwards'. Or should I wait for readers to judge and administrators to comment. Secondly, in regards to "wealth of india", I was thinking about to include it in "Economy of India" but the point is this section covers the current economy since independence and part economy. But I think the wealth that India had before intrusion of people from outside is history. I think including such remarking history in the section of economy may not create importance and will be lost in the readers interest, mind and factually from lot of information in one single section of heading. I think the historic wealth of India is important but should be created under a separate title/heading. Thirdly, in regards to pictures, it is impossible to include all pictures of any country by the way, so it is better to upload ethical aesthetic pictures of most important monuments, geography and mountains of India in wikipedia - my suggestion is to replace old/dull/non alluring pictures of India.

Go ahead with the creation of subheadings, no one is objecting here. But i still think "wealth of india" is undue and borderline POV here. It will lead to addition of counter claims and contrarian views and lead to edit wars. As this is a summary style article, we cannot do justice to that particular topic here. So please add them to "history of india" and "Economy of india" articles, where they can be presented in a balanced way.

And regarding pictures "ethical aesthetic pictures of most important monuments, geography and mountains of India" and "old/dull/non alluring" is entirely subjective. You might beleve something is dull and others might think that it is entirely fit. If you can find high quality pictures in commons list them here and others will comment if they are ok.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Pachisi

Is Pachisi the national Game of India? I am not sure.

Puranjan Dev (talk) 07:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No. It's not. It's known as the Royal Game of India because of its having been played in royal courts. It's just an Indian game which I, a Bengali, in Kolkata, heard being referred to as Ludo. --LordSuryaofShropshire (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Intel-Excel, 29 December 2010

Afghanistan borders India like other countries such as Pakistan and Bangladesh do. So, I request that an edit be made to the page "India" that Afghanistan borders India in the north-west. Same is for Afghanistan. It borders India in it's north-east point. (It's a very small area, so an enlarged map might have to be used as a proof.) Intel-Excel (talk) 11:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It is arleady mentioned in the article. see the first note in the reference section--Sodabottle (talk) 11:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Sports Image

I have changed the IPL image with the Olympic Gold winning Hockey team image. The reason being:

1. The IPL image doesn't signify any glorifying moment / personality for India. It is merely a trivial moment during a domestic sports.
2. Field Hockey being the national sports - the hockey image is more appropriate. It also goes well with the beginning paragraph.
3. The hokey image signifies a glorious moment / team for India sports. A comparable alternative would be Kapil Dev's world cup winning team - but unforunately a free image is not available. Arman ^(Talk) 09:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Cricket is the biggest sport in India. Hockey is significantly less popular than cricket. We should wait and see what others say before changing this image. Nikkul (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Nikkul here. In terms of popularity, cricket clearly overshadows hockey and therefore, an image on cricket is more than appropriate. Secondly, I cannot see any "glorifying moment for India" in this image, especially considering the fact that it was British India which took part in 1936 Olympics, not Republic of India. --King Zebu (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistent claim about Islam in introduction

The intro to this article says that Islam was brought to India in the first millenium CE. If one clicks on the word "Islam" in that sentence, one is taken to "Islam in India". This page says in its intro that the religion entered India in the 12th century CE. This is clearly a date that is difficult to pin down, as it was probably gradual, but it seems that there should be some consistency here. Bentheimmigrant (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed addition of images to Geography section

I don't feel there are enough images to illustrate the diversity of India in the Geography section. I propose adding the following images:-

A beach side resort at Kadmat Island in the Lakshadweep island archipelago

Camel Riding in the Khuri sand dunes in the Thar desert near Jaisalmer in the state of Rajasthan

--RaviC (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd say no to both. The Lakshadweep image is of poor quality and the image doesn't show much either. The Jaisalmer one looks good for a tourist brochure but it's too "commercial" for this article. —SpacemanSpiff 16:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with SS. The image of Lakshadweep is a nice composition but is of low-resolution, while the Jaisalmer image does very little to illustrate anything about geography - the camels, their shadows and riders distract too much from the desert landscape. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 13:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

IMO, another minus point is that both represent aspects of India's geography that aren't very significant. Our islands are too few (as compared to say Indonesia), a coastline image would be better. As far as desert is concenred a picture of Jaipur or Udaipur may be more relevant than an image of camels in the desert: this could be anywhere, Sahara or Gobi too. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 12:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

As per Deepak, could anyone suggest some better images to be added to the article, as one image does not represent the diversity of the country. --RaviC (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Based on what is said, why not these images? --92.4.51.64 (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

A beach in Kerala, South India

A beach in Kerala, South India

Mehrangarh Fort, Jodhpur

These are all TERRIBLE pictures! The current geography pic is fine. Nikkul (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The probolem, again, lies in image quality and composition. The Mehrangarh Fort image is a low-res, poor-quality image, and the structure in the foreground takes away the focus from the fort and the surrounding topography. The Varkala image, likewise, focuses more on the paragliders (who are a major distraction in the pic) than the beach itself, and consequently also fails. I'd give a thumbs down to both. This is not to take away from the main point here — while the existing picture is good, I do agree that we could have a couple more, perhaps in rotation, for a better illustration of the geographic diversity of the country — it's just that none of the images proposed so far are of quality good enough for an FA-class article. I'm sure better images exist and can be found. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

User SBC-YPR is completely correct. Any western tourist may go to India expecting that all regions have a cold Himalayan environment, which is far from the truth! Anyway, regarding the Varkala image, there is a version below not focusing on the paragliders. I would also appreciate if others could suggest some images that would be appropriate here as well. --92.8.35.103 (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Varkala Beach Kerala.jpg

Update: There are images at Commons:Category:Featured pictures of India that may be suitable. Some of them I have placed below:

A view of the Agasthyamala range from the Tirunelveli rainshadow region to the east.

Periyar River, Munnar

It seems there are a lot more suggestions since last time I joined this conversation.. Could we please choose at least one more, one picture does not reflect the diverse features of India! --92.3.239.11 (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Driving side should be changed

Driving in India isn't left, it's right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vimal.ramaka (talk • contribs) 22:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure - it was on the left in 2007 in this image File:Delhi-Gurgaon Airport Expressway, 2007.jpg, have they modified all the roads and signage recently? You would think a major change would get some press attention. MilborneOne (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Requester is hoaxing--Sodabottle (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a misunderstanding of terminology. Our cars are 'right-hand drive' as against most of the world's 'left-hand drive'. But in india we still drive on the LEFT side of the road. Romitmitra (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romitmitra (talk • contribs) 04:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Cuisine

In the Cuisine section, the staple foods of India mentioned are rice and wheat. I propose we add lentils to that. Lentils are universally consumed in some form or the other across all parts of India. Romitmitra (talk) 04:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

i agree. if you can find a WP:RS for this, we can add it?.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

This fine?: But it has been red lentils which have 'fed the masses' particularly in the Indian subcontinent. Lentils are a staple food in many regions Munci (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that looks good.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You told me my request was granted regarding the "india is third most powerful country in the world" to put it in the "india" article. But where did you put it?.

Previous request and your acceptance: request: I have already put a request to put the follwing data in "INDIA" web page in the beginning. But you can put it in the politics, you can create global power one more headline and put this news under that heading. I am giving more news regarding this. This is an important news and must be in the india website. I hope there will not be any other reports such as this. This Report is the standard and final deceisions report as of my knowledge. "According to "Global Governance 2025" jointly issued by the National Intelligence Council (NIC) of the US and the European Union's Institute for Security Studies (EUISS): They recognized india as the thrid most powerful country after the USA and China. There will not be any change in the order of powerful countries upto 2025. China and india will become even more powerful".

http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4404832 http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/sep/22/slide-show-1-india-is-the-third-most-powerful-nation-in-the-world.htm

Acceptance: Done: I agree that this definitely belongs in the article. This is a high profile document put out jointly by 2 key analysts of international politics and relations. I have added this information to the "Foreign relations" section and directly cite the Global Governance 2025 report. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narayanam5 (talk • contribs)

Picture of Obama with Singh

I recently made an edit[1] to the foreign relations section of India wherein I added a picture of Mahmohan Singh walking alongside Barack Obama and justified this on the grounds of the intimate relationship India and the US as being the "two largest democracies in the world"[2] and their sharing "an extensive cultural, strategic, military and economic relationship."India-U.S. Economic and Trade RelationsThe Evolving India-U.S. Strategic Relationship. The edit was removed by another user because I didn't discuss the edit on the talkpage, so haven't taken that user's advice to heart, what do the users here think about my inclusion of the picture of Obama with Singh onto the foreign relations section of India?Fellytone (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I am the editor who removed the image. Most of the images in this article are rotated periodically. I think a single picture for foreign relations section is enough and it is a good idea to alternate between the Medvedev/Singh and Obama/Singh images.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I had removed this image once too. One image is sufficient, currently the Indo-Russian relationship is "significantly" discussed in the article, so it's reasonable to have an image relating to that aspect in the section. —SpacemanSpiff 04:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Although India has a history of good bilateral relationship with the erstwhile USSR and its successor state, Russia, but the Indo-US relationship and the scope of engagement has been moving northwards in the last 10 years. Keeping this in view, I believe that the rotation of images, as suggested by Sodabottle would be the best idea. Shovon (talk) 08:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal Opinions on the depth of relationships aside, I guess it would be good if the images are rotated. TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 14:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm against adding image of Obama and Singh. Ten years back, India and the United States were on the opposing sides of most foreign policy issues and this trend started to change only during the Bush era. Compare that to the four decades old strategic alliance between India and Russia. In comparison, India's strategic partnership with the United States is relatively new and to be frank, unstable (Indian foreign policy experts were up in arms one year back when Obama encouraged China to play an active role in South Asia). Secondly, India does not enjoy "intimate" relationship with the United States and there are several outstanding issues which undermine the strategic partnership — be it States' continued financial and military support to India's arch-rival Pakistan, or Obama administration's protectionist and anti-outsourcing policies, or disagreement over global protocol for fighting climate change, or Doha round trade negotiations, or military end-user monitoring agreement. Ten years from now, maybe one could term Indo-American relationship as "intimate", but as of now, India and the United States are just partners on some key strategic issues while Indo-Russian relations go beyond intimacy. --King Zebu (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I end up agreeing with King Zebu. TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 17:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Narayanam5, 15 January 2011

Could you add this before the etymology paragraph ie> at the beginning of the web page of "India": "India is listed as the third most powerful country in the world after the US and China and the fourth most powerful bloc after the US, China and the European Union in a new official US report" Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-third-most-powerful-nation-US-report/articleshow/6598434.cms

Narayanam5 (talk) 04:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done. That is WP:UNDUE here without proper context. Probably in the foreign relations or the global power article but it is only one report and has to be presented with proper context, which we cant do in the lead.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You told me my request was granted regarding the "india is third most powerful country in the world" to put it in the "india" article. But where did you put it?.

Previous request and your acceptance: request: I have already put a request to put the follwing data in "INDIA" web page in the beginning. But you can put it in the politics, you can create global power one more headline and put this news under that heading. I am giving more news regarding this. This is an important news and must be in the india website. I hope there will not be any other reports such as this. This Report is the standard and final deceisions report as of my knowledge. "According to "Global Governance 2025" jointly issued by the National Intelligence Council (NIC) of the US and the European Union's Institute for Security Studies (EUISS): They recognized india as the thrid most powerful country after the USA and China. There will not be any change in the order of powerful countries upto 2025. China and india will become even more powerful".

http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4404832 http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/sep/22/slide-show-1-india-is-the-third-most-powerful-nation-in-the-world.htm

Acceptance: Done: I agree that this definitely belongs in the article. This is a high profile document put out jointly by 2 key analysts of international politics and relations. I have added this information to the "Foreign relations" section and directly cite the Global Governance 2025 report. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC

{{edit semi-protected}} I have already put a request to put the follwing data in "INDIA" web page in the beginning. But you can put it in the politics, you can create global power one more headline and put this news under that heading. I am giving more news regarding this. This is an important news and must be in the india website. I hope there will not be any other reports such as this. This Report is the standard and final deceisions report as of my knowledge. "According to "Global Governance 2025" jointly issued by the National Intelligence Council (NIC) of the US and the European Union's Institute for Security Studies (EUISS): They recognized india as the thrid most powerful country after the USA and China. There will not be any change in the order of powerful countries upto 2025. China and india will become even more powerful".

http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4404832 http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/sep/22/slide-show-1-india-is-the-third-most-powerful-nation-in-the-world.htm

Previous request and your answer:

Could you add this before the etymology paragraph ie> at the beginning of the web page of "India": "India is listed as the third most powerful country in the world after the US and China and the fourth most powerful bloc after the US, China and the European Union in a new official US report" Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-third-most-powerful-nation-US-report/articleshow/6598434.cms

Narayanam5 (talk) 04:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done. That is WP:UNDUE here without proper context. Probably in the foreign relations or the global power article but it is only one report and has to be presented with proper context, which we cant do in the lead.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:India"

Narayanam5 (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Done I agree that this definitely belongs in the article. This is a high profile document put out jointly by 2 key analysts of international politics and relations. I have added this information to the "Foreign relations" section and directly cite the Global Governance 2025 report. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the edit summary, every year, several reports are published which express the viewpoints of these "key analysts". The main India article is not the place for these reports which provide rather subjective information on India's "global power". We have separate articles such as foreign relations of India for this kind of information. --King Zebu (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, except for the fact that this report is by two remarkably important international political/economic analysts. Note, further, that these are both government agencies, not independent think tanks. Furthermore, note that the claim it makes is quite broad and striking--it, effectively, ranks India as the fourth most "important"/"powerful" country in the world. For example, I'd argue that's more important than the claim that India has the 11th biggest economy in the world, has the third largest standing army, and the extremely vacuous claim of "regional power in South Asia" (in the lead), all of which are mentioned in the lead. So, yes, we can't include every such analysis, but it seems like the GG2025 has more prominence than, for instance, the analysis in the Washington Quarterly on which the claim of India being a "regional power" rests. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with King Zebu on this one, this is WP:UNDUE here as it is the opinion of (reputable) analysts. The rest of the statements that this is being compared to (with the exception of regional power) are statistical claims of importance. However, all these are supported by multiple reliable sources (including the regional power), that we don't use all of the sources in the article shouldn't matter. In addition, if at all this statement merits inclusion, it needs to be attributed to the analysts and the agency as it is in effect their opinion. —SpacemanSpiff 06:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It is very likely that this is a minority opinion and we should avoid making such claims until it becomes a substantially mainstream view. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, my thought was that two of the world's 2 premier governmental policy analysis groups would constitute an opinion that legitimately meets WP:DUE. But, I may well be over-rating the importance of this document. Perhaps I'll start an RfC on the matter--it's not that I think either SpacemanSpiff or Zuggernaut are necessarily wrong, it's just that I think that more than the opinions of the 4 of us may help clarify the issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

India 3rd most powerful country.

You told me my request was granted regarding the "india is third most powerful country in the world" to put it in the "india" article. But where did you put it?.

Previous request and your acceptance: request: I have already put a request to put the follwing data in "INDIA" web page in the beginning. But you can put it in the politics, you can create global power one more headline and put this news under that heading. I am giving more news regarding this. This is an important news and must be in the india website. I hope there will not be any other reports such as this. This Report is the standard and final deceisions report as of my knowledge. "According to "Global Governance 2025" jointly issued by the National Intelligence Council (NIC) of the US and the European Union's Institute for Security Studies (EUISS): They recognized india as the thrid most powerful country after the USA and China. There will not be any change in the order of powerful countries upto 2025. China and india will become even more powerful".

http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4404832 http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/sep/22/slide-show-1-india-is-the-third-most-powerful-nation-in-the-world.htm

Acceptance: Done: I agree that this definitely belongs in the article. This is a high profile document put out jointly by 2 key analysts of international politics and relations. I have added this information to the "Foreign relations" section and directly cite the Global Governance 2025 report. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe the matter is under discussion. Let us await consensus. TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 05:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you can see the discussion up a few sections. While I accepted it and added it to the article, other editors disagreed. This is definitely an issue that falls under "editorial discretion", as the key is that we have to decide whether this particular report (i.e., this particular opinion) is important enough to appear in the article. One of Wikipedia's policies is WP:DUE, which says that we should only include opinions if they are relevant and important. For example, if the Indian government published a report calling themselves the third most powerful country in the world, we would ignore it, as it would clearly be biased. Similarly, if a single college professor published the same thing, we'd probably also ignore it. The question is whether or not this particular report is important and reliable enough. The discussion is ongoing, and may take awhile. I fully accept that others may legitimately think this analysis should not be in the article; the goal now is for us to keep talking about it until we can achieve consensus on the subject. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Language categories

The languages categories on this article still need sorted out. The current situation (English being the only language category) gives an inaccurate impression of the linguistic situation in India. English is spoken by only a small proportion of the Indian population as first language but there are many other languages that are. Thus the language categories should be edited to reflect this. This should be either by removing that category, or by adding other categories relating to language(s) which are widely spoken in India as first language(s). Hindustani, the language of which Hindi is a register, and possibly also Tamil and Bengali among others would be appropriate. If the current category isn't removed that is. Munci (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

References

I support removing the English language cat. Adding a few languages will open a can of worms. We need 22 cats just to cover schedule 8. So removing eng lang cat is the better option.--Sodabottle (talk) 09:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You're the only that responded in 2 weeks so I'll go with what you say. Munci (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Famines

Back in September 2010, there was consensus to add factual information about famines in India. I'm back here after substantially expanding the Famine in India article (currently nominated for a GA status). I've added one line, footnote and a template (doesn't increase the size of the article) per WP:BRD. Feel free to modify or discuss here. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

As i see it, there was no clear consensus - [3]. You could have restarted the discussion and waited for its results before readding the content. (i am not reverting it, i will wait to see what others think). The main article - Famine in India is still not settled (have no dog in that fight). --Sodabottle (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

There was no consensus, please do not misrepresent it. The current version edited by King Zebu and RegentsPark is neutral and sufficient. —SpacemanSpiff 07:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Majority of editors were OK with the addition back then. However, that content was very different from the recent addition [4] which is merely a template of numbers of deaths and a footnote/quote from Amartya Sen. Let's try to build consensus this time around since I this is a significant part of Indian history which deserves mention in the article. Zuggernaut (talk) 07:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The edit reverted was very one sided and had very POV language. It also gave a great amount of undue weight to the additions. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Instead of going to ridiculous lengths in attempts to still blame the British for everything that doesn't work, full 60 years after independence, how about covering this. --dab (𒁳) 10:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's stay focused on the famine edit of mine and try to identify the specific portion that is POV. We can then rectify the POV portion and include it in this article. Farmer suicides were covered by me in great detail but were unfortunately undone by another editor under WP:UNDUE who pointed out that they had no connection to famines. Let me know if you have an interest in improving Farmer Suicides in India article and I can provide you with a plethora of high quality sources. Perhaps I am missing something but I cannot grasp how this edit blames the British for the Indians' problems in present day. Feedback is welcome on whether and how we can include this content from a sad but important chapter in British India. Zuggernaut (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

error in "geography" section

The following phrase in the article appears to be obviously incorrect:

... "lies between latitudes 6° and longitudes 36° N, and 68° and 98° E."

Using the same numeric values, and moving "longitudes" the following would be more logical:

... "lies between latitudes 6° N and 36° N, and longitudes 68° and 98° E."

Correction will be appreciated. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.40.4 (talk) 02:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

question: What's the convention on documenting start and end points -- East to West, North to South? —SpacemanSpiff 07:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Corruption index

It would be a good idea to have the corruption index listed in the infobox. However the template does not have a parameter that allows us to do that. I've asked for the template:infobox country to have this parameter included. Please help form consensus there regarding this change. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Gandhi

I think its abit incorrect to state Gandhi as the main independence leader , in 200 years of occupation there were many . The article should also include that india had huge instability of the 1980s and 1990s in which 2 PMs were kiled the economy grew below the rate of population growth and multiple insurgencies came about in punjab and North East —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.151.0.13 (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I know that many people contributed towards the independence of India but Mahatma Gandhi was the main leader who kind of lead the whole country towards the independence. It was his ideology to follow ahimsa beacuse of which India is independent today. I agree that there were many people supporting him, without their support this would have never happened but Gandhi was the one who encouraged them.So, I think there should be a seperate section for Mahatma Gandhi and I don't there is any problem in calling him the main independence leader.Gandhi is called the father of the nation so when people read about India they should read about him too.

Proposal_of_addition_of_India_to_WP_Central_Asia

Hello, there is currently a debate underway to see whether India should be included in WikiProject Central Asia, due to the Central Asian influence in question in far North India (i.e. Ladakh/Kashmir). Unfortunately, not many people have contributed so far. I would like to ask all editors with a background knowledge of this region to participate in the debate here. Many Thanks. --92.12.69.168 (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Human development Index

In this artice you state the HDI of India is 0.519 whereas in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_states_by_Human_Development_Index it is mentioned as 0.612. I want you to verify both these artices —Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.160.2 (talk) 10:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

0.612 is for 2005 and 0.519 is for 2010. Statewise data is not available after 2005 (i think) so that article uses the 2005 source, whereas coutrywide data is available till 2010, and this article uses it.--Sodabottle (talk) 10:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It is against common intuition that HDI decreased drastically within 5 year.India didn't experience any serious economic issues during the last 5 years.So I request you to tell me which is appropriate . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.160.2 (talk) 10:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC) I think one of the reports must be false and biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.160.2 (talk) 10:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, 5 years, there's been a global financial crisis, rice price scares, etc. HDI is more than economy anyway. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is the Indian govt's estimate report for 2006 - [5]. This shows a 0.605 number for 2006. Of the negative things i can think off is the CPI of ~20% we have been experiencing for the past five years. With such high inflation, no wonder HDI nosedived--Sodabottle (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems unusual for the economic crisis to affect so greatly considering India wasn't affected so bad by it like America and Russia and their allies: [6]. Looking at their docs I see the following:

• HDI, Life Expectancy, Literacy Rate, School Enrolment, GDP per capita
• 2005 data: 0.619 63.7 61.0 63.8 e 3,452 Table1:231 (3 of 126)
• 2007 data: 0.612 63.4 66.0 j 61.0 d 2,753 p173 (184 of 229)
• HDI, Life Expectancy, Years Schooling (Mean, expected), GNI per capita
• 2010 data:0.519 64.4 4.4 10.3 3,337 p141 (154 of 236)

So it seems they've taken different data for the latest year. The income's randomly fallen in 2005 but picked back up again; the lfie expectancy's about the same for all three and is highest for the most recent. The literacy rate increased over the period it was used to calculate the HDI. But now they use years schooling to calculate HDI rather than the old education criteria, India's HDI changed dramatically and not for the better. They've somehow managed to get their data a whole lot earlier as well it seems. Really, I'm not sure why HDI is included in the template. Munci (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The parameters used to calculate HDI change periodically, so the results are not comparable year after year, but within the same year it can be used to compare different countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.7.102 (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

OK see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_development_index#New_methodology - for more information, it would be incorrect to say that HDI has 'fallen' its just that the method used to claculate it changed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.7.102 (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Important to note Bengal famine of 1943 was the last major one

My edit emphasizing that the Bengal famine of 1943 was the last was undone twice. It is important to note that this famine was the last major famine in India and that such famines ended with the departure of the British. This is because the Indian economy under the British was setup as a "colonial economy", i.e., it's main purpose was to serve and provide capital for Britain. Indeed more than 30% of capital for Britain's industrialization came from India. Famines are more about economy than about a shortage of food as Amartya Sen has pointed out. The terse reason provide by SpacemanSpiff in his edit summary seems to indicate that my edit was undone because modern Repulic of India is different from British India because it included Bangladesh. By the time the reader gets to the famine edit, it is clear to the reader that we are talking about British India, hence there's no real need to explicitly go in to details of geography and partition here. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

How is it important to note that? Sentences like that don't flow with the rest of the section anyway. The history section is a small glimpse of events that occurred, just going over what happened. There is no call for saying it was the last of anything. That's my style issue. Secondly, I'm quite sure the reasons for famine and British policy have no doubt caused much debate. Amartya Sen is not the be all and end all, and the tone of including that sentence is very unencyclopaedic. Anyway, if you're reverted twice, establish consensus before making the change again, don't make the change and then add the explanation on the talk page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

My edit does not have any WP:MOS issues as far as I can tell. Perhaps Chipmunkdavis' problem with style has to do with the fact that this article uses {{Indian English}} whereas Chipmunkdaivs is comfortable with British and Australian English. The Bengal famine of 1943 is the paradigmatic example of Sen's thesis that the proximate cause of famines has more to do with economy than with a shortage of food. Sen's views on the famines in India are part of the mainstream discourse and he's worked with several collaborators over the years.

Nonethelesss, the dispute is not about Sen but about adding the word "last". Adding the single word "last" actually improves the article significantly by providing the reader with factual information and it sets the stage for the inquisitive reader to click the Interwiki link to read on about famines. In fact leaving out such factual information would actually be unencyclopaedic or perhaps it has the intention to deny certain facts or suppress information.

Also, more than 70 million Indians died of starvation from various famines under British rule between the Bengal famine of 1770 and the Bengal famine of 1943. The latter is a major landmark in the history of famines and is one of the most analyzed and studied famines. It marks a transition from a time when Indian Famine Codes were not used and thus worsened the death toll to an era when invoking the Famine Code became the first and default response to impending famines. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Not MOS issues, just flow of text. And no, I'm absolutely fine with Indian English. The word last does not improve the section, it makes it read like an academic thesis rather than an encyclopaedia article. Just as the section doesn't specify the last war India was in, the last political assassination it had, there is no reason to mention the last famine. It's also weird to refer to it as the last as no others are mentioned in the section. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

There are numerous reliable sources that make it clear that this was the last famine in India. The problem with the tone/flow that Chipmunkdavis sees is a personal and a subjective one, something which should not over-ride or compromise inclusion of factual information. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The famine was in the Bengal region, changing it to India, an anachronistic term is not helpful and misguiding. As far as last, that's a blatantly incorrect term because Bangladesh famine of 1974 is evidence that the Bengal province has had another famine. —SpacemanSpiff 08:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It is also WP:OR for the article to say or imply that It is important to note that this famine was the last major famine in India and that such famines ended with the departure of the British. While there is certainly evidence and consensus (in the academic world) that the scale of the various famines in India was exacerbated by British mismanagement and some incompetence, there is by no means a general consensus that there is a connection between the 'colonial economy' setup and either the scale or the existence of these famines. --rgpk (comment) 19:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I can produce at least 5 mainstream sources that state and specifically make it clear that the Bengal famine of 1943 was the last one. We can discuss the connection between a colonial economy and the worsening of famine another day and another place. Welcome back :) Zuggernaut (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks (for the welcome back!). While I personally consider Sen's analysis highly credible, the point is that academic scholarship does not categorically lay the blame for the occurrence of famines on British rule, and so neither should we. The last major famine statement is also a tough one to make because there have been other famines, for example the deaths at Kalahindi in the 1980s, the responsibility for which is ascribed to governmental policies as well as socio-economic factors. The latter played an important role in the Bengal famine as well (I think the reference to a book describing 'Bengali cultural factors' was posted by you previously). My feeing is that Sen's views on democratic governments and famines should be highlighted in the Famines in India article, but overemphasizing subjective analyses in this overview article is not a good idea. --rgpk (comment) 15:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The current proposal is simply about adding the word "last" before catastrophic. Since you're joining the discussion late, here's the edit I'm trying make. I'm not sure the Kalahandi event qualifies as a famine. Even if does, it is not a catastrophic famine like the ones before 1943 (with death tolls in multiple of millions). Zuggernaut (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the diff. I don't see much point in the 'last' unless it is to point out that the British were responsible for famines in the first place. That there have been no large famines since does not necessarily imply that that is because of Indian governmental policies are different from those of the British rulers of India, nor does it follow that there won't be future famines under the current political format (I hope not, but history has a funny way of kicking you in the butt). Without a crystal ball, this addition becomes an attempt to push a particular point of view, which we should avoid doing. --rgpk (comment) 17:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The policy difference between the British and the Indian government, per multiple reliable sources, is that the Indian government has invoked the steps outlined in the Famine Codes whenever there were signs of a famine. After a few decades in to independence, this became so much a routine process that a separate invocation of the Famine Codes wasn't even required - it became integrated and monolithic with the basic first response to signs of a famine. I think that is a major accomplishment of the Government of India. The government is confident and they claim famines (like those under the British) will never happen again. The Maharashtra governments enactment of "The Deletion of the Term 'Famine' Act" of the 1960s exemplifies this. Sure enough, there was a severe drought in 1973 in Maharashtra region but the government was watching the situation so well that they averted a major British era style famine. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Making the leap from policy differences to the 'last' famine, and concluding with an "I think" is where WP:OR comes into the picture. It is not for us to draw conclusions but rather to report the conclusions of others. You would need to provide a definitive reference that states that famines are no longer possible in India, or at least impossible under the current administrative and political structure, before you can make the case that this government confidence is justified and that the addition of the word 'last' has some definitive meaning. --rgpk (comment) 15:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Given that Wikipedia is a work in progress, we need to accept the current published and standing data - that the last major famine in India was in 1943. If another one happens, say next year, then we can update the article accordingly. The government, the media and other NGO's watch food prices so closely that the entire economic setup with regard to famines is now completely different. The 2010 Indian onion crisis is an example of how food prices are watched and controlled (even if it means importing from Pakistan). No original research here since numerous authors call the Bengal famine of 1943 as the last major famine in India. Here are just three of them:

The Political Economy of Hunger: Famine prevention - Jean Drèze, Amartya Kumar Sen

Exploring environmental issues: an integrated approach - David D. Kemp

Famine: a short history - Cormac Ó Gráda Zuggernaut (talk)

SpacemanSpiff - India has had changing boundaries over the centuries and this article makes that clear in numerous places including right at the beginning with the notice:

This page is about the Republic of India. For other uses, see India/Archive 29 (disambiguation).

As already mentioned right at the top of this thread, it is amply clear to the reader that there are geographical differences between British India and the Republic of India. So SpacemanSpiffs argument about using an anachronistic term is invalid. Regarding SpacemanSpiff's second point, it is the Bangladesh article that cannot make the claim, this one certainly can and should. By denying the use of "last", it almost looks like you deliberately want to deny one of the few accomplishments of the Government of India. Let's give the government credit where it is due. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks like we have reached an impasse here and I'm hoping I've convinced the participants to include the word 'last' in the context of the Bengal famine of 1943. If not, I do not mind setting up an RFC/A. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is no doubt that the Bengal famine was the last major famine in India (or rather, Republic of India). However, inclusion of the word "last" would make sense only if the History section mentions previous famines. In my opinion, the main India article should contain only to the point information and for more detailed specifics, we have separate articles (in this case, Bengal famine of 1943). --King Zebu (talk) 06:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, that's a reasonable and commonsense explanation for which I have no rebuttal. Perhaps Chipmunkdavis was trying to say the same thing but I didn't get it. Sorry about that. The famines of the late 18th and 19th centuries were the worst famines in Indian history and they caused about 70 million deaths. No credible and authentic volume on Indian history leaves out these famines - they all cover and analyze them in substantial detail. Yet our article here jumps to the Bengal famine of 1943 directly. I'm proposing that we add one line preceding the Bengal famine line, give the number of deaths and then add 'last' to the Bengal famine. Here's my proposition:

Current

Proposed

In 1943, a perceived shortage of food leading to large-scale hoarding and soaring food prices coupled with poor food distribution mechanism and inadequate response of the British officials resulted in a catastrophic famine in the Bengal region which killed about 1.5 to 3 million people.

The late 18th and the 19th centuries saw some of the worst famines in Indian history leaving an estimated 70 million dead. In 1943, a perceived shortage of food leading to large-scale hoarding and soaring food prices coupled with poor food distribution mechanism and inadequate response of the British officials resulted in the last catastrophic famine in India which killed between 1.5 and 3 million people.

This addition, King Zebu, will significantly improve the article and will align it with what is reported in other mainstream volumes of history. By focusing only on the time period and death numbers, it also takes in to account your observation that this article needs to avoid details and needs to be to-the-point. Zuggernaut (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut, I have no objection to the proposed addition. All we need is a source for that 70 million figure. --King Zebu (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Famines in British India (Estimated deaths in millions)

Timeline of major famines in India during British rule (including independent states)

Famine	Years	Deaths (in millions)
Bengal Presidency
Great Bengal Famine	1769–1770	10
Maratha Confederacy, Mysore, and Madras City
Chalisa famine	1783–1784	11
Maratha Confederacy, Hyderabad, Mysore, Northern Circars and Madras City
Doji bara famine	1789–1795	11
Company Rule in India
Agra famine of 1837–38	1837–1838	0.8
British Raj
Eastern Rajputana	1860–1861	2
Orissa famine of 1866	1865–1867	5
Rajputana famine of 1869	1868–1870	1.5
Bihar famine of 1873–74	1873–1874	0
Great Famine of 1876–78	1876–1878	10.3
Odisha, Bihar	1888–1889	0.15
Indian famine of 1896–97	1896–1897	5
Indian famine of 1899–1900	1899–1900	4.5
Bengal famine of 1943	1943–1944	3
Total (1765–1947)	1769–1944	64.48

King Zebu - A template that was developed to accompany this sort of text comes with sources. An easy way to source this content is to include the template and copy-paste relevant references. Take a look at the template for source details. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason to suddenly mention the 18th and 19th centuries again in a section about the 20th century? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The section covers history from pre-historic times to present day and it is not limited to the 20th century. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm talking about that area of text. The History section is arranged chronologically. If the proposed rewriting goes ahead, the article jumps from WWII back to the 18th and 19th centuries. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

We seem to be following a mix of chronological and thematic narrative styles. For a given theme, we cover events relevant to that theme in chronological order. For example, in the History section, we cover the earlier Islamic invasions, Mughal history and then the Maratha Empire (right until 1818) and then we switch back to the 1500s to describe British colonization (see the third and fourth paragraphs, the ones starting with "Following Islamic invasions from Central Asia..." and "From the 16th century, European powers such as Portugal..." respectively).

The proposed edit blends perfectly well with a chronological narrative within a theme. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't.

eg

In September 1939, India declared war on Germany and at the height of the World War II, more than 2.5 million Indian soldiers were fighting against the Axis powers. The Indian Army was one of the largest Allied forces contingents which took part in the North and East African, Western Desert and the Italian Campaign and played a crucial role in halting the progress of Imperial Japan in the South-East Asian theatre. However, certain Indian nationalists collaborated with the Axis powers to overthrow the British Raj. The Indian National Army (INA), led by Bose, forged an alliance with the Axis powers and fought an unsuccessful military campaign against British India. The late 18th and the 19th centuries saw some of the worst famines in Indian history leaving an estimated 70 million dead. In 1943, a perceived shortage of food leading to large-scale hoarding and soaring food prices coupled with poor food distribution mechanism and inadequate response of the British officials resulted in the last catastrophic famine in India which killed between 1.5 and 3 million people. After World War II, a number of mutinies broke out in the Air Force and Navy and the INA trials caused considerable public unrest. On 15 August 1947, the British Raj was dissolved following which the Muslim-majority areas were partitioned which led to the creation of a separate sovereign dominion known as Pakistan. The partition led to a population transfer of more than 10 million people between India and Pakistan and the death of about one million people.On 26 January 1950, India became a republic and a new constitution came into effect under which the country was established as a secular and a democratic state.

Anyway, besides that one errant sentence, what part of the history section arranges itself thematically? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

See my response in the new section below. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Once again, this is distorting the meaning completely; India =/= British India, the death toll is for the Bengal Province of British India and to use that in the context of the Republic of India is misleading. If you're going to use that, then Bangladesh should obviously be included in any comparisons. The version as it stands currently is more than sufficient, clear and factually correct. —SpacemanSpiff 08:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Spaceman's argument that "India =/= British India". Any source which supports the 70 million death toll figure will include the whole of British India (including eastern Bengal, now Bangladesh). Maybe, we can change the text "leaving an estimated 70 million dead" to — > "resulting in millions of deaths". To be frank, I was at some point considering to add a piece of information regarding the Great Famine of 1876–78. Given the magnitude of the tragedy, it is far more notable than Bengal famine and definitely deserves a place in the History section. There is no doubt that the Indian subcontinent suffered unusually high number of catastrophic famines during the British Raj and there is no harm if the History section emphasizes this fact. --King Zebu (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I would support an expanded but limited coverage of famines in the history section. However I feel we should wait until we see consensus on the currently proposed change. The two or three items we can cover in the expanded coverage are:

1. Amartya Sen's conclusion that these famines were avoidable (his theory that they were caused by the breakdown of the economic structure in rural India and that democracy with a free press can prevent famines).
2. Winston Churchill's racist hatred towards Indians (particularly Hindus) - based on the recently opened up archives and documents of the British government, two authors claim that Churchill denied relief to the victims of the Bengal famine of 1943 because he hated Hindus. See my talk page for details on the sources.
3. Export of food from India to Britain even as Indians were starving to death in the millions because the British citizen was protected by the poor laws where as the British would not legislate similar laws for the Indian citizens of the British Empire. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

So we can cover how evil the British are? This whole thing seems unnecessarily detailed. We can mention famines, we can mention any incidents, but it is unencyclopaedic to go into debatable hows and whys in such as short section. That detail belongs in the main articles, and may even be too detailed for the History of India article. Historiography is an inexact art/science, and picking a side is not a good idea. As for the proposed solution of moving information about 1943 into a section about European colonialism in the 18th century, that is hardly satisfactory. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Where else can we put famines, given that they are a part of colonial history. Putting it there fits the right chronological order which is what you wanted. Regarding taking sides and the expanded coverage, I'm not proposing to do anything without consensus. I don't think anyone is interested in establishing how evil the British Empire was (past tense), the article should simply stick to WP policies (NPOV in this case) and reflect mainstream views. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

We put famines where they belong, in appropriate timeframes. If the 1876 one is that important, place it where it belongs. The 1943 one is where it should be, especially as it seems partly to be caused because food was used to supply allied forces during the war. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This section has gotten too long and hard to follow. See my response below in a newly created section. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff - While I still feel differences between British India and the Republic of India are well described eliminating the need to re-visit them every time there's a comparison between those two eras, here's a rephrased version to address your concerns:

Current

Proposed

In 1943, a perceived shortage of food leading to large-scale hoarding and soaring food prices coupled with poor food distribution mechanism and inadequate response of the British officials resulted in a catastrophic famine in the Bengal region which killed about 1.5 to 3 million people.

The late 18th and the 19th centuries saw some of the worst famines in the history of the Indian subcontinent leaving an estimated 70 million dead. In 1943, a perceived shortage of food leading to large-scale hoarding and soaring food prices coupled with poor food distribution mechanism and inadequate response of the British officials resulted in the last catastrophic famine in what would become the Republic of India killing between 1.5 to 5 million people.

Zuggernaut (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Location of proposed text

Here's how we can fix the problem pointed out by Chipmunkdavis:

Current location

Proposed location

From the 16th century, European powers such as Portugal, the Netherlands, Denmark, France, and Great Britain established trading posts and later took advantage of internal conflicts to establish colonies in the country. By 1856, most of India was under the control of the British East India Company. A year later, a nationwide insurrection of rebelling military units and kingdoms, known as India's First War of Independence or the Sepoy Mutiny, seriously challenged the Company's control but eventually failed. As a result of the instability, India was brought under the direct rule of the British Crown. Mahatma Gandhi (right) with Jawaharlal Nehru, 1937. Nehru would go on to become India's first prime minister in 1947. In the 20th century, a nationwide struggle for independence was launched by the Indian National Congress (INC) and other political organisations. Several Indian radical revolutionaries, such as Subhash Chandra Bose and Bhagat Singh, led armed rebellions against the British Raj. However, the defining aspect of the Indian independence movement was the nonviolent resistance led by Mahatma Gandhi and the INC. Under the leadership of Gandhi, millions of Indians participated in the Quit India civil disobedience movement against the British Raj. In September 1939, India declared war on Germany and at the height of the World War II, more than 2.5 million Indian soldiers were fighting against the Axis powers. The Indian Army was one of the largest Allied forces contingents which took part in the North and East African, Western Desert and the Italian Campaign and played a crucial role in halting the progress of Imperial Japan in the South-East Asian theatre. However, certain Indian nationalists collaborated with the Axis powers to overthrow the British Raj. The Indian National Army (INA), led by Bose, forged an alliance with the Axis powers and fought an unsuccessful military campaign against British India. In 1943, a perceived shortage of food leading to large-scale hoarding and soaring food prices coupled with poor food distribution mechanism and inadequate response of the British officials resulted in a catastrophic famine in the Bengal region which killed about 1.5 to 3 million people. After World War II, a number of mutinies broke out in the Air Force and Navy and the INA trials caused considerable public unrest. On 15 August 1947, the British Raj was dissolved following which the Muslim-majority areas were partitioned which led to the creation of a separate sovereign dominion known as Pakistan. The partition led to a population transfer of more than 10 million people between India and Pakistan and the death of about one million people. On 26 January 1950, India became a republic and a new constitution came into effect under which the country was established as a secular and a democratic state.

From the 16th century, European powers such as Portugal, the Netherlands, Denmark, France, and Great Britain established trading posts and later took advantage of internal conflicts to establish colonies in the country. By 1856, most of India was under the control of the British East India Company. A year later, a nationwide insurrection of rebelling military units and kingdoms, known as India's First War of Independence or the Sepoy Mutiny, seriously challenged the Company's control but eventually failed. As a result of the instability, India was brought under the direct rule of the British Crown. This was soon followed by the worst famines in the history of the Indian subcontinent with the wider period of the late 18th and the 19th centuries leaving an estimated 70 million dead. In 1943, a perceived shortage of food leading to large-scale hoarding and soaring food prices coupled with poor food distribution mechanism and inadequate response of the British officials resulted in the last catastrophic famine in what would become the Republic of India. Mahatma Gandhi (right) with Jawaharlal Nehru, 1937. Nehru would go on to become India's first prime minister in 1947. In the 20th century, a nationwide struggle for independence was launched by the Indian National Congress (INC) and other political organisations. Several Indian radical revolutionaries, such as Subhash Chandra Bose and Bhagat Singh, led armed rebellions against the British Raj. However, the defining aspect of the Indian independence movement was the nonviolent resistance led by Mahatma Gandhi and the INC. Under the leadership of Gandhi, millions of Indians participated in the Quit India civil disobedience movement against the British Raj. In September 1939, India declared war on Germany and at the height of the World War II, more than 2.5 million Indian soldiers were fighting against the Axis powers. The Indian Army was one of the largest Allied forces contingents which took part in the North and East African, Western Desert and the Italian Campaign and played a crucial role in halting the progress of Imperial Japan in the South-East Asian theatre. However, certain Indian nationalists collaborated with the Axis powers to overthrow the British Raj. The Indian National Army (INA), led by Bose, forged an alliance with the Axis powers and fought an unsuccessful military campaign against British India. After World War II, a number of mutinies broke out in the Air Force and Navy and the INA trials caused considerable public unrest. On 15 August 1947, the British Raj was dissolved following which the Muslim-majority areas were partitioned which led to the creation of a separate sovereign dominion known as Pakistan. The partition led to a population transfer of more than 10 million people between India and Pakistan and the death of about one million people. On 26 January 1950, India became a republic and a new constitution came into effect under which the country was established as a secular and a democratic state.

Zuggernaut (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Location of famine text

Responding to Chipmunkdavis' post: With perhaps the exception of the Bengal famine of 1943, all other famines should be treated as a theme, somewhat like the paragraph on colonialism (we club all colonial powers together as a theme). That's because these famines had similar cause and similar relief responses. AFAIK, that's how books on Indian history treat them. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I happened upon this page just now, while traveling. I'm troubled at what I see is POV-pushing both in the Famine in India article (which has original research as well) and in its précis here. To say that "The late 18th and the 19th centuries saw some of the worst famines in the history of the Indian subcontinent leaving an estimated 70 million dead." is inaccurate because there is very little record of mortality of pre-British era famines. Also, the Doji bara famine and the Chalisa famine largely affected areas of subcontinent outside British India. The "current" version of the (Bengal 1943) famine text is more accurate overall than what is being proposed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

PS I probably won't be looking at this page for some time, but someone should go through the Famine in India text and check for original research as well as accurate and reliable sourcing. For example, in the British Rule section, sources such as Lajpat Rai and Koomar, both almost a century old, are being cited by the dates of the recent fascimile reprints. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

PPS The 70 million figure is inflated. See Timeline of major famines in India during British rule for a more sober assessment. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It's really nice to see a veteran editor who's edited on the topic come back. Attention to this proposed edit and the Famine in India is much welcome - for starters we will be able to move from the juvenile game-playing and attempts to destabilize that article to some focused content and source related discussions. We can tackle the POV and OR allegations one by one and if indeed there is a problem, we can rectify the content. The 18th/19th century statement can be sourced to multiple, independent and credible reliable sources. While I was on the talk pages of the British Empire, I "overheard" a debate between a German and a Briton on whose empire was bigger and they went in to some detailed discussions about the land area of the British Empire. They seem to be counting the entire of the Indian subcontinent to support the claim in the lead of that FA that the BE was indeed the largest. Against this backdrop, we cannot selectively (and dubiously) start saying "province x which was hit by a famine was not part of the British Empire". If need be, I will provide sources that show that British occupation of India had an impact on the economies of the areas that were not under direct British control. Many of the policies of the subjugated princely states were dictated by the British indirectly.

I am not the first one to see a bias against sources whose authors have Indian sounding names - this was first articulated very well by Neeramurthy (talk · contribs) back in 2006 [7]. As for the 70 million number, we can discuss to arrive a better estimate or better still we can provide a range.

Finally, I disagree completely that the current wording is fine. It almost seems that we are working hard to go out of the way to omit one of the greatest tragedies in India under British occupation. That is a very strong and shrewd pro-British POV by omission. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Both the Doji bara famine and the Chalisa famine took place in regions that were yet to be acquired by the British, during a time—late 18th century—when indirect rule or paramountcy had not been established. Rambling anecdotes prove nothing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The Doji bara famine happened parts of the Deccan and the Maratha empire, an area in which the British East India company had already signed a treaty with the Marathas as a result of the First Anglo-Maratha War. Similarly there was a presence of the EIC in areas of the Chalisa famine. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The First Anglo-Maratha war was a stalemate. The only British gain from the Treaty of Salbai (1782) was the Island of Salsette, now part of greater Mumbai. The treaty in fact created peace in the region for some 20 years. The Marathas did not enter into a subsidiary alliance with the British until 1802, and only after first fighting among themselves. If you're going to lay the blame for all ills on the subcontinent at the doors of the British, why not start with Thomas Roe's Embassy at the Court of Jahangir (1615) and the subsequent commercial treaty? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be very wrong to "lay the blame for all ills on the subcontinent at the doors of the British". And I am absolutely not taking that position. There were, however, a few spheres where the British did have a very negative and a long-lasting impact on Indian life. Famines was one such sphere which is at the heart of this discussion. Let's stay focused on famines and take the two famines you are objecting to one after the other starting with the Doji bara famine. Here's what Richard H. Grove says after a detailed district-by-district study, and more importantly, after taking in to account the context of British presence in India.

The mortality of the 1790s famines must be blamed on the British, who had a responsibility to provide alternative famine foods when the main rice crop failed.

Page 83 of The Great El Niño of 1789-93 and its Global Consequences : Reconstructing an Extreme Climate Event in World Environmental History

Incidentally, this was the very first source you added to the Doji bara famine on May 18, 2008. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

(od) The proposed location, with the implied cause-effect of direct British rule followed by famines, is obvious POV. Also, the use of the terms 'worst' and 'last' are not warranted (last requires a crystal ball and both the definition of 'worst' as well as incomplete historical records makes the use of 'worst' dubious). IMO the current wording is the most appropriate. --rgpk (comment) 15:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It's common practice in famine literature to use these terms. Take a look at the following three sources.

1. The Political Economy of Hunger: Famine prevention - Jean Drèze, Amartya Kumar Sen
2. Exploring environmental issues: an integrated approach - David D. Kemp
3. Famine: a short history - Cormac Ó Gráda

Numerous other sources can be provided. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the attempt to introduce them here and to tie them to British rule of India is fairly obvious POV. The history section should confine itself to a recital of uncontroversial facts - which is what the current text does - and not overweight this viewpoint or that. --rgpk (comment) 15:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

They are a part of history of British India, the English East India Company (British East India Company after the act of union of 1707) and British Raj. They have well understood causes, clear start and end points and well defined geographies. Most major authors agree with the facts we are quoting and these events are hardly controversial in famine literature. And actually putting them elsewhere would be POV - by trying to make them appear as part of a different history than those stated earlier. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of that sentence. Grove is an environmental historian, not a historian of British India. He provides supportive data not for a district by district study of the entire famine affected region, but only for some districts in the Madras and Bengal presidencies of British India. He extrapolates, saying, "Extrapolating from these kinds of figures we may attribute a total famine mortality during 1788–94 of perhaps 11 million to the extended El Niño conditions of the period." He then adds a sentence about British responsibility, which you quote above. If he is talking about British India, his assertion is reasonable, but then the majority of the deaths did not occur in British India. If he is talking about all of India, the obvious riposte is, "Why did the British have responsibility for providing alternative famine foods for all of India?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Why speculate and give reasons to suit a pro-British POV when an author clearly draws the conclusion that the British should be held responsible for the Doji bara famine? Can you state a source that says explicitly that the British should not be held responsible for the deaths? You are ignoring the fact that war is a proximate cause of famine and the British were causing war after war. In the Treaty of Salbai they forced the Marathas to war against Tipu. The thrid Anglo-Mysore war had just concluded before the famine. It is obvious that the British had the responsibility. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You need to make up your mind. You first claimed that the Doji bara famine had something to do with the Treaty of Salbai (in the aftermath of the First Anglo-Maratha War). When I pointed out that the treaty in fact created conditions of peace in the region, you are now shooting in the dark with another thesis and vaguely even throwing in entitlements. Find me a reliable source that lays the blame of the Doji bara famine on the Treaty of Salbai. Grove himself makes no such claim. In fact, he doesn't even claim that British had anything to do with causing the famine (other than making a oblique reference to deforestation in British India). He is simply saying that they should have shouldered the responsibility for famine relief, without explaining why. In his book chapters, on which this paper is based, he doesn't add this throwaway sentence. I am traveling and without my sources, but why don't you look at Tirthankar Roy's section on famine in his Economic History of India (2008). He says at the outset that famines, even major famines, had always occurred on the subcontinent. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

PS It is not for me to find sources that say the British were not responsible. You are trying to establish guilt. It is for you to provide evidence that cuts muster with a jury of peers. One sentence in one paper for which no explanation is provided by its author does not constitute that evidence. That is my take. Others who weigh in here will need to make up their own minds. The British were the first administrators to collect famine data in India; they were the first to carry out systematic large-scale famine relief (starting with the Agra famine of 1838), even if that relief, often in the form of public works, might seem stark by today's standards. This is as far as I go with this argument. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I keep an open mind and I am open to change my position if you point to sources I might overlooked. I'm really hoping you are not coming from a position where you have have made up your mind in favor of British rule of India. You reject Grove who clearly states that the British should be blamed for the Doji bara famine. The fact that he went out of the way to include that "throwaway sentence" shows that he knows something or learnt of something between the paper and the book. Taking the extra effort to include the sentence in the paper also says something. The right way to go about this would be to take it up with Grove and the publishing house rather than trying to reject the source here on Wikipedia. The British were the first administrators to collect famine data in India by Western methods. A proximate cause of famines is war and that was something the British were doing in ample amount not just directly but also indirectly via the French, Shinde, Holkar, Hdyer Ali and Tipu. The business of the EIC (and later the Raj) in India was to make profit. All these elements need to be taken in to account when discussing famines. Sure, famines have always existed on this planet (no need to run to Trithankar Roy for that) but they got worse under the British wherever the British went (see the Great Irish famine). But let's not stray from the Doji bara and Chalisa famine numbers you have disputed. Once we are able to sort that out, I will be able to fix Famine in India for the correct numbers, if necessary and then we can move on to include an expanded coverage of famines in this article. Happy travels! Zuggernaut (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Bad picture

The picture (File:Meenakshi Temple India cropped.jpg) in theSociety and traditions section is not showing. Anyone know how to fix it? Zuggernaut (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be deleted? Best to remove and replace with a current picture. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure which one to use. Perhaps regular editors can help choose. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

There's plenty others of the temple, but I can't figure out how to alter the template myself. A similar one would be useful, perhaps, if the template runs on a rotation basis. It's moved on now, so unless it's a repeating picture problem solved. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I've replaced it with another copy of the same image. I don't know why the commons bot didn't do that. —SpacemanSpiff 05:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Sports

Indian is no. 1 ranked test cricket team by icc .india dominating this place since one and half year.India displace australia from no. 1 rank which was no. 1 for around 8 years.and india is also 2nd ranked irregular odi cricket team.Being test no 1 team which one of the big achievement by indian cricket team.India got no.of good captains and splendid session of good class cricket for past decades but never able to achieve no. 1 rank.after lot of hard work with ganguly and dhoni india made this.

--Club[0].......99 13:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharam00000007 (talk • contribs)

Famine changes

The Chalisa famine and the Doji bara famine have been contested by user:Fowler&fowler above as famines that did not occur in British territory. I have provided him with the source for the Doji bara famine. However, I have been unable to find sources showing the break-up of number of deaths from the Chalisa famine by British and non-British territory. While that is being sorted out, here are two versions of the proposed changes:

Proposed version 1

Proposed version 2

This was soon followed by several famines, the ones in the last quarter of the 19th century being the worst in Indian history. The wider period of the late 18th and the 19th centuries left an estimated XX million dead from famines. Amartya Sen suggests that the famines in India under British rule could have been avoided but that did not happen because of a lack of serious effort on part of the British administration to do so. Famines disappeared from India immediately after the departure of the British and after establishment of a free press under a democratic government. In 1943, a perceived shortage of food leading to large-scale hoarding and soaring food prices coupled with poor food distribution mechanism and inadequate response of the British officials resulted in the last catastrophic famine in what would become the Republic of India.

This was soon followed by several famines, the ones in the last quarter of the 19th century being the worst in Indian history. The wider period of the late 18th and the 19th centuries left an estimated XX million dead from famines. Amartya Sen suggests that the famines in India under British rule could have been avoided but that did not happen because of a lack of serious effort on part of the British administration to do so. Famines disappeared from India immediately after the departure of the British and after establishment of a free press under a democratic government. In 1943, a perceived shortage of food leading to large-scale hoarding and soaring food prices coupled with poor food distribution mechanism and inadequate response of the British officials resulted in the last catastrophic famine in what would become the Republic of India. Recent research shows that the British Prime Minister, who harboured racist hatred towards Indians, delayed famine relief due to this hatred of Indians.

Sources:

• Sen, Amartya (2001), "Ideas of Justice", in Iqbal; You, J.I (eds.), Democracy, Market Economics, and Development: an Asian Perspective, Other World Bank Bks, Washington, D.C: World Bank, pp. 9–24, ISBN 9780821348628, LCCN 01017950 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |editor1-first1= ignored (help)
• Hari, Johann (2010), Not his finest hour: The dark side of Winston Churchil, The Independent
• Biswas, Soutik (2010), How Churchill 'starved' India, BBC
• Murton, Brian (2000), "VI.4: Famine", The Cambridge World History of Food, vol. 2, Cambridge; New York, pp. 1411–27, OCLC 44541840{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
• Davis, Mike (2001), Late Victorian Holocausts: El Nino Famine and the Making of the Third World, London; New York: Verso Books, ISBN 9781859847398

If you see an POV violations, please suggest fixes. All feedback is welcome. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

This is quite unnecessary. As I've said before, analysis of causes is best left out of a recitation of historical facts. However, in the interests of comity, here is my proposal, we can call it Proposed version 3: In 1943, a perceived shortage of food leading to large-scale hoarding and soaring food prices coupled with poor food distribution mechanism and inadequate response of the British officials resulted in a catastrophic famine in the Bengal region which killed about 1.5 to 3 million people.[48][49] --rgpk (comment) 16:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I second rgpk's comment and support his version. I've just become aware that this has been an ongoing discussion, with Zuggernaut garnering almost no support for his views. Perhaps he will now give it a rest. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

These views aren't mine. This is what the literature on famine says. Perhaps the proposed versions 1 and 2 expect too much but, traditionally, Indian history of famines in not known for the Bengal famine of 1943. It is known most for the famines of the last quarter of the 19th century which caused much discussion and eventually led to the development of the Indian Famine Code. This featured article is badly in need of expanding and rewriting the famines portion to keep it in line with mainstream views. Jumping directly to the Bengal famine of 1943 is a major weakness in the article. I intend to take it through an RFC/A. But before I do that I would like to get a feel for which version should be included in the RFC/A. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Really? Is that what the literature says? Or is that what you've interpreted from what you have chosen to read in the literature? The only famine that merits inclusion in the History of India page, but not the India page, is the Bengal Famine of 1770. I believe this is the case in the Britannica "History of India" page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually the Britannica article on India does make it a point to mention the period I'm talking about. It says ...and from 1865 through 1900 India experienced a series of protracted famines.... The death toll according to Digby in the 1875-1900 period was the highest - 25 million. These authors call the famines from that period the worst ones:

• Mishra, H.K (1991), Famines and poverty in India, Ashish Pub. House, ISBN 9788170243748
• Rao, K.L. (1979), India's Water Wealth, Orient Longman, p. 121, ISBN 9788125007043
• D'Aleo, J.S.; Grube, P.G. (2002), The Oryx resource guide to El Nino and La Nina, Oryx, p. 5, ISBN 9781573563789 {{citation}}: Text "Press" ignored (help)
• Davis, Mike (2001), Late Victorian Holocausts: El Nino Famine and the Making of the Third World, London; New York: Verso Books, p. 299, ISBN 9781859847398 Zuggernaut (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I remember Nichalp saying that since the India page is about the Republic of India (and not pre-1947 India), there is greater stress on recent history. That probably explains why Bengal 1943 is mentioned, and I'm fine with that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a weak argument because by that logic we should do away with most of the mention of the Indus Valley Civilization, the Vedas and Upanishads since many of the places where they were composed now lie outside of India and are way back in time. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

PS Amartya Sen does not belong even to the History of India page, let alone to its summary in the India page. While his work applies to the 1943 famine and to a lesser extent to the 1770 Bengal famine, it has little application to all the famines in between, especially to the 19th century famines, which, after all the administrative, market, and social inadequacies were accounted for, were preeminently weather induced famines. Speaking of social failures, the Hindu caste system and its imperatives, played havoc as well. Most of the deaths were among the lower castes and among women and children. In 1943, a large number of rural Bengali men, chose to migrate to urban areas without their families which were left to die, because it was felt that if someone was going to survive, it was important that he be male. Anthropologist Arjun Appadurai has written about this perceptively. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Britannica dedicates a full and lengthy section to Amartya Sen in its entry on famines. It begins with "In the late 20th century the work of the Indian economist Amartya Sen led to a major reorientation in the study of famines" and goes on to discuss the FAD and FEE theories of famines in detail. I agree about the role that the social ills of the caste system and gender bias played. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sen belongs to the famine page, as he does in the Britannica (article written by Kaushik Basu, a former Sen collaborator). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

At Wikipedia we do things by consensus and that is a very dictatorial statement. I did not understand the implication being made by stating that Kaushik Basu, an ex-collaborator, is the author of a Britannica article. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Noting that the Bengal famine of 1943 was the last

Perhaps the earlier changes to the famine content were too ambitious so here's another try to start with simple changes. I am proposing that we add the word 'last' to the statement and get rid of the unnecessary detail which can be found in the infobox at the Bengal famine article.

Current

Proposed

In 1943, a perceived shortage of food leading to large-scale hoarding and soaring food prices coupled with poor food distribution mechanism and inadequate response of the British officials resulted in a catastrophic famine in the Bengal region which killed about 1.5 to 3 million people.

This was soon followed by the worst famines in Indian history, the last quarter of the 19th century claiming XX lives. The wider period of the late 18th and the 19th centuries left an estimated XX million dead. In 1943, a perceived shortage of food leading to large-scale hoarding and soaring food prices coupled with poor food distribution mechanism and inadequate response of the British officials resulted in the last catastrophic famine in what would become the Republic of India.

If there are no objections to this proposed change in the next 3-4 days, I will go ahead and update the article accordingly. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The British officials inadequate response caused the last famine of India? Almost sounds as if the those actions made sure it was the last. Anyway, bad prose aside, if the walls of text above haven't shown you there are objections to this then you should read them again. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot that 'last' and the mention of previous famines goes together. I've fixed that in this edit. Sure the objections are clear enough but let us give Indian editors who are editing from India (generally a not too assertive group) a chance to oppose or support. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This is nothing more than filibustering, you've been told of the objections many times before and yet you keep starting new sections. —SpacemanSpiff 17:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Recent addition of 1800s famine content

I've reverted it for a couple of reasons. 1 - if it merits inclusion then there is the aspect of due weight that needs to be given to the effects on government policy subsequent to it -- the famine codes were largely a result and laying the blame without actually presenting the effect doesn't seem natural. 2. The sources, how does a feminist perspective book or another based on the memoirs and correspondence of Florence Nightingale serve as a quality source for this content. I don't believe we should add any content on death toll and nature of the famines without discussing the effects on creation of a famine code. —SpacemanSpiff 17:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC

OK, I've undone your revert before I could see this message. Sorry about that. What does the Famine Code have to do with the inclusion of the death toll? Going into the details of the creation of the Famine Code is what is actually WP:UNDUE here. We should simply report that there were famines, that there was a death toll of XX million and that's it. Nightingale published several works on famines of that period so her memoirs are certainly valid. The topic is much discussed in literature and most of what was added is common knowledge. Any source will do but I'm sure we can find an alternate source easily, if others feel there's a need of adding one at all. I will wait for a day and revert if there isn't a response until then. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The edit SpacemanSpiff removed was not just a simple report of famines and the death toll, it was a direct linkage between British policy and the cause of the famine. In addition, please stop placing random deadlines for other editors. It's not that conducive to a community environment. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Spaceman, if you would have gone through the sources, you would have realized that they were more than a mere "feminist perspective" or a bunch of correspondence with Florence Nightingale. Anyways, I do understand that the reasons behind the famines of the 19th century is a much debated issue and listing these reasons is beyond the scope of the article. On a friendly note, when reverting someone's edit, please only remove the content you disagree with. Reverting "establish colonies" to "establish colonies in the country" was uncalled for. And, thanks to Chipmunk for justifying that part of the edit. --King Zebu (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Slight Grammar note on another change you made King Zebu. You changed "By 1856, most of India was under the control of the British East India Company" to "By 1856, most of India came under the control of the British East India Company". That sounds wrong to me, as came would be in a sentence that implied a stretch of time, rather than just the one date presented. Maybe "By 1856, most of India had come under the control of the British East India Company"? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yup, you are right. Thanks for pointing it out. --King Zebu (talk) 06:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

chopping off thumbs of Indian weavers by the British

...on at least two occasions, the British ordered the thumbs of whole communities of Indian weavers chopped off so that they could compete with the products of Lancashire. Is this true?--117.204.88.28 (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, straight from indian school textboooks. I believe the story relates to Bengali weavers who could produce muslin so fine that 50 metres of material could be folded and placed in a matchbox.Whether the story is true or not can not be verified. Jonathansammy (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Such questions should be asked at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities where there are people who look around for answers. The talk page is for discussing the article. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

map of India

the map shown of India is not correct...POK(Pak occupied Kashmir)and Aksai Chin are excluded from the map of India...even if they are not controlled by India directly but they have always been a part of India and will be a part of India. A statement has already been issued by the government of India that they are integral parts of India.

So please rectify it for all the people of India.

110.226.149.248 (talk) 04:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)Atul Uttam

Proposal of deletion of Pakistan in WPCentralAsia Project

There is currently a debate underway to see whether Pakistan should be excluded from WikiProject Central Asia. Participate in the discussion here: WT:WikiProject Central Asia#Removal of Pakistan from WikiProject Central Asia Boolyme ^Talk!! 08:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Rendering Infobox

Could someone place an infobox regarding rendering support on this page? 68.45.210.104 (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Add image of Tampura to the Music section

The music section is very comprehensive, but doesn't have an image to illustrate Indian music. As the Tampura is common to Hindustani and Carnatic music, I propose we add this image to the article. --92.12.173.145 (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The tanpura is a long-necked plucked lute common in both of the main sub-genres of Indian classical music(Hindustani and Carnatic).

Adding the rule of Hemu and Sher Shah Suri in History

There is need to mention the rule of Afghan king 'Sher Shah Suri' and Hindu king 'Hemu' during the medieval period of India's history. From 1192 upto 1857, invaders from Central Asia have been ruling from Delhi. However, these two native rulers had ruled North India from 1540 to 1556. A brief mention of these two has to be there. A sentence on these two rulers put earlier has been removed. The sentence to be put there is "During 1540-56, Afghan king 'Sher Shah Suri' and Hindu king 'Hemu' ruled North India". This rule was an important development as it shows that native resistence was there all the time and some times the natives also ruled during medieval period. There are pages on both these rulers on Wikipedia already. Sudhirbh (talk) 04:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

First, the history of the subcontinent is so vast and complex that it would be impossible to provide details of every ruler that ruled every part of the region. A similar claim as yours could be made in respect of Harshavardhana, Shivaji, Sukhrungphaa or Tipu Sultan, but it would clearly be inappropriate as well as impractical to include all of them here, since the article should follow a summary style. Secondly, your claim about "invaders" and "native rulers" is not entirely correct—all Mughal emperors after Humayun were born in the subcontinent and not outside. Therefore, I think the additions are unnecessary. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 07:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

On patriotism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This kind of edit creep in the lede as is being shown by Zuggernaut and CarTick beyond a point is unwarranted and definitely disruptive. I personally think we have reached a good lead. This new suggested inclusion of Natraj et al is completely improper. In no way is the mention of what is just one of thousands of cultural/religious objects fit for the lede. NPOV requires us to word things neutrally. If you have a grouse about British Raj being good/bad, the lead of India is Not the place for it. And stop adding new issues which are not WP:DUE. AshLin (talk) 08:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

been there and done that. it is funny you "accused" me of patriotic. i need to show this to my north indian friends who often accuse that people from tamil nadu are unpatriotic and our loyalties dont cross the border. why should i be surprised that only my and zuggernaut's socalled patriotism bothers you. btw, i have thought of this analogy about the wikipedia page of India for a long time. that this page is like how India was when the British arrived, devided by religion, language, and region, and how the British used it to their advantage to have their way. --CarTick (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do tell your friends. I don't need to show patriotic credentials by disruptive editing. I can understand that you may want say removal of mention of East India Company from the lede, fine go ahead and get it done. But every time a version is proposed, a new undue issue seems to be put forth. It makes me wonder as to the motive. BTW India is a democracy so expect any point of view to be challenged by Indians themselves - we are entitled to do so by our constitution, even if it goes against what someone else may feel is our duty to the country. AshLin (talk) 13:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

guess u misunderstood me. that is fine. i want to drop this though. --CarTick (talk) 13:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for being aggressive in tone but we really seem to be getting nowhere with the lead. I do understand that we would all like to improve it. So let us put our minds together, list all things we want in the lead once and for all and get it agreed to or rejected. I object to the the elongation of due process with red herrings being thrown in every time we seem to reach a consensus. I am in no way in agreement with many of Fowler's views but he has a point when he says that things need to be balanced, well-referenced and NPOV. If we feel strongly about something let us get after them one by one but the process has to be balanced, well-referenced and NPOV and just as important, closed somewhere. I have lost count as the number of revisions we have for a lead. All the best for getting your changes through. AshLin (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

"..but we really seem to be getting nowhere with the lead." Really? We have closure on 3 out of 4 paragraphs. In the last remaining paragraph we have agreement on 3 out of 5 sentences. And that has been possible because people have compromised to drop stuff about Zoroastrians seeking refuge in India, completely dropping Judaism from the lead and all of this based on one persons version of the lead. The way I've understood Wikipedia over the last few months is that nobody has to bend backwards to 'accommodate' content and everybody is required to collaborate civilly. Please provide diffs if you are going to allege "disruptive editing". Zuggernaut (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

(unindent)The lead of the India page had remained substantially the same for four years over 7,500 edits by hundreds of Wikipedians. The last time we had edits glorifying the "Maurya empire" in the lead, talking about "Indic culture" and about "having forced the British out of India," they were made by a banned user, Himalayanashoka (talk · contribs) in early 2007:

• "overthrowing foreign occupiers"
• "expelled the British"
• putting the Mauryan empire into everything in sight
• Indic page should contain Indic views only
• British EIC and British Crown must be denigrated
• "peacefully forcing the British out" + glorifying the "Maurya Empire" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

we can not, in all our honesty, expect people to disappear with the click of a "ban" button. people are bound to come back and it is hard to track people with dynamic IP and even more so when they move to a different place, country. we have to remind ourselves blocks are preventive not punitive. There is also no point and incentive to hunt people down and re-ban them over and over. I especially dont see the point unless the behaviour is very disruptive and comes in the way of the functioning of wikipedia. i dont see anyone displaying such behaviour and everyone, IMO, seems to behave within the bounds the wikipedia guidelines. --CarTick (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

(od) I'm a little flummoxed by where this discussion is going. It seems to me that fowler is suggesting that a banned user is taking part in this discussion and that CarTick agrees with him but believes that there is no point in taking action against this banned user. As a point of order, banned users are banned from wikipedia and for good reason. They tend to be single issue editors with a strong desire to insert their own POV into articles which, while not always being obviously disruptive, is detrimental to the building of the encyclopedia and, if detected, their accounts should be immediately blocked. If not, let's just focus on content for now. --rgpk (comment) 19:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

at the risk of sounding supportive of banned users, the only difference between hundreds of active "immaculate" wp editors with a single POV and a banned user is that the latter foolishly violated the 3rr, personal attacks and socking policies while being a newbie. now, I dont know and have no evidence to prove if someone here is a banned user. my previous comment was just a philosophical take on them. apparently, I seem to have common interests with User:Himalayanashoka and am open to the idea of someone filing a sock investigation against me. as might be obvious to anyone who watches this conversation, I see an effort to passively intimidate opposing editors using circumstantial evidences. i agree with your idea that "either prove it or move on". --CarTick (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I added the Himalayanashoka post to the "On Patriotism" section, since this seems to be a meta discussion, the main content discussion being conducted upstairs.

This user, Himalayanashoka, had likely just finished high school when he was first banned. He then appeared again as a sock six months later, but had moved to southeast Asia from India. Of course, it is four years later now. If this user is taking part in this discussion, he is not at the same IP address or even in the same region of the world and he is more mature (hopefully), but I couldn't help feeling that some of the same issues were cropping up again, even the same language, such as "Indic culture," "forcing the British out." I am putting this information out not to hound anyone, but for editors to be aware of past history, should the discussion become more disruptive. Obviously Wikipedia rules and guidelines should be followed. I'm not suggesting that CarTick is Himalayanashoka. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On hijacking the page with simple minded platitudes about high school students

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

user:Zuggernaut says above,

"I am appalled to see the lead of an article on India mention the British but not the Maurya, Gupta or other equally prominent empires. The contributions of those Indian empires are something every school student of Indian history knows. The Ashoka Chakra and the Lion Capital of Ashoka are national emblems ..."

As it turns out, the high school students in India are a lot more sophisticated about history than the certainties and arrogance Zuggernaut and CarTick have contributed to this page. The NCERT history textbook being used in class 12 all over India (approximately 37 million students are enrolled in the system) has only one chapter directly devoted to the early kingdoms from 600BCE to 600CE (it includes the Mauryas, Guptas, the Kushanas, and many other Mahajanapads); in contrast they have two chapters devoted to the Moghuls and three to the British (five if you include the nationalist movement and the partition). The books have these book chapters (available on my subpage).

Notice that the high-school students call it the "nationalist movement," not the independence struggle; they use "1857 revolt" not "the first war of independence." The chapters 3 and 4 about the years 600BCE to 600CE are thematic, they don't mention the Mauryas or the Guptas, only themes such as "Gender and Property in Sanskrit epics," and so forth. They mention the British historians and archeologists who discovered ancient Indian monuments and the philologists such as Prinsep who deciphered the Brahmi language, not just one or two, they mention 7 or 8 or them. They not only read about the East India Company, they spend one chapter exploring the official archives of the Company. They don't read simple minded platitudes about the Bengal famine of 1760, in fact there is no mention of the famine. They even read generous accounts of Company rule with respect to the zamindars (Indian landowners in Bengal), "Researchers have carefully examined the archives of various Bengal zamindars and the local records of the districts to write about the history of colonial rule in rural Bengal. They indicate that, intent on criticising the maladministration of the company, the Fifth Report (of the British parliament) exaggerated the collapse of the traditional zamindar power, as also overestimated the scale on which zamindars were losing their land." They don't make simple minded judgments that the Company or the British were bad. They spend one chapter learning about the architecture of the British raj cities. Imagine what the high school students (the millions who use the textbook) will think when after reading about gender and property, they encounter vacuous mention of Ashok Chakra and so forth. They will snigger and Wikipedia will be the poorer. There is only so much kowtowing we can do to the Randys from Boise. I will not agree to any more changes to the lead, especially any deletion of the British era mention. This is the end of the road. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I referred to school students not "high-school students". Before they get to high-school, students do a lot of learning in history. There are several boards of education in India:

• State boards for each state (which may roughly be more than two dozen in number)
• ICSE
• CBSE
• NIOS

These boards define the curriculum, not the NCERT as far as I know.

A 7th grade level student in the state of Tamil Nadu spends the entire academic year learning Indian history. Some highlights of this year of study:

• 80 pages dedicated entirely to Indian history
• Starts with the chapter "Chola Period - Sources - Rulers"
• Ends with the chapter "Sethupathis, Thondaimans and Nawabs - Social life of people"

Highlights of the next academic year:

• 40 pages on European colonialism including British presence in India and Indian independence
• 40 pages on the Republic of India

I am sure we can find similar patterns in other state board curriculum as well as the other national boards like the ICSE and CBSE.

Two more points:

1. This is an article on the Republic of India and the proposed additions of the Ashok Chakra and the Lion Capital of India link the modern republic directly to it's ancient history. If we are going in to details of British rule ("Gradually annexed..."), I see no reason why we should not go in to the details of where the Indian flag and the national emblem comes from.
2. As I said before, if other uninvolved editors who grasp the topic think this is WP:UNDUE, I am willing to back off.

Zuggernaut (talk)

Have you read WP:LEAD? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to be bullied into being called "unsophisticated" and "arrogant". you know what, had they read the lead section, they would have wondered why the history section of the lead of India sounds like the history of Britain. what more, had they clicked to check what is going in the discussion page. how some British nationals think what everything India is and has, it somehow owes it all to Britain. my memory of British history learnt in school doesnt remind of a rosy picture, Quit India Movement translated to Vellayane Veliyeru. --CarTick (talk) 13:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut, CarTick, and Yogesh Khandke, I just found out the ISC History Syllabus for Classes 11 and 12 in India is no different. As for CBSE, I just checked with an authority in India, it is the largest school board in India (and abroad) with 12 million students. In addition, many of the smaller states, such as Kerala, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Assam, Himachal Pradesh, follow the CBSE syllabus and use the NCERT textbooks. The large states, especially ones with longstanding Hindu nationalist governments, apparently don't. In ISC, the students spend half a year in each grade (11 and 12) studying the years 1757 to 1956. They study the years 1756 to 1900 in Class 11, and 1900 to 1956 in Class 12. They spend a lot of time studying British rule and no time at all studying the Mauryas. It turns out that a history of the Indian independence movement I wrote a few years ago is in uncannily close concordance with this syllabus (even though I was not aware of the syllabus until now). There is no mention of the Bengal famine of 1943 (among other things). The syllabus talks about changed British attitude to Indian independence after 1945. Meanwhile Wikipedia has a perfectly third rate Indian independence movement page, which if you read through, you will come away thinking Bhagat Singh, Subhash Bose and other violent revolutionaries dragged the British kicking and screaming and bleary eyed to August 15 midnight independence ceremony. Perhaps these three editors will read some high school history texts instead of holding forth here. Khandke, I didn't write "Magadha" because I feared people would not see the connection with the Mauryas the topic of the sentence in the lead. Best not to teach me history, especially Indian history. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

(Unindent)

• Perhaps we need to change the material in the main article so that it can be reflected in the lead. Is there any reason why national flag and symbol cannot be discussed in the main article? Thinking about it, it does appear to be suitable material to include in an article about the Republic of India as it forms the symbology of the state.
• Fowler has perhaps misunderstood NCERT as a unilateral authority over the education system of India. The vast majority of students are under the state boards. My wife administers a programme for additional English training for municipal schools in Pune. She estimates that 1 in ten to fifteen or even less secondary schools in Pune than that are CBSE (NCERT syllabus) with just as many ICSE or International Baccalaureate, and the vast majority as state board. Now I know that she is not a Reliable Source but it gives us a rough idea of the landscape.
• My children study in CBSE schools so NCERT textbooks are used there. But I studied in Maharashtra State Education Board and our textbooks were principally the responsibility of Balbharati in Pune with completely different material, emphasis and presentation than that of our CBSE counterparts. In Junior College ( 11th & 12th Std but done in a college instead of school), we had no authorised textbooks on any subject. You could use any one and often required more than one.
• The CBSE textbooks also change, sometimes from year to year (causing great problems to parents), so that emphasis in subjects of syllabus also changes. Another issue is that - CBSE appears to have stopped producing the classical model of historical textbook of yesteryears which covers everything in history. It gives themes, and the aim seems to be not just covering the information but also immersing the student in the historical process, sources, etc and getting a feel for it. The topics accordingly are selected and presented and may not necessarily be representative of importance of each. It is more likely that they represent the availability of material and ease by which this historical sense can be put into the children. AshLin (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Ashlin, Thanks for the very informative and detailed post! You are right about the thematic treatment in the CBSE history syllabus. It is pretty sophisticated historiographically, and non-traditional. You are also right about the rationale for the selection of any one topic, but the overall distribution of India's history into different chapters and the number of chapters devoted to each period does reflect their sense of what is important. No I didn't think that NCERT has unilateral authority over Indian schools (I was in a similar discussion a few years ago on the Indian rebellion of 1857 page, so I am aware of state boards.) That's why I examined the ISC history syllabus as well. It is more traditional, but sadly for us, more sophisticated than the discourse on Wikpedia. See my reply upstairs with links. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

India has a recorded history of 5000 years approximately, the 99(Punjab) to 190 years(Plassey) that British ruled over parts of it, even then a large area was under Indian puppets, so the British period lasted 2.89% of Indian recorded history, however India's boundaries have been inherited from those of the Indian colony so the edit that Chip reverted should stick.

“ The boundaries of India have been inherited from the British colony of India which was partitioned and granted independence as arranged in the Indian Independence Act 1947 which the British Parliament passed on 18 July 1947, forming the Dominion of Pakistan and the Union of India . Independence was granted as a result of the struggle for independence which was marked by a non-violent resistance led by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Mohammad Ali Jinnah. ”

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Fowler and others use arguments like the Britannica says so, the NCERT mentions this etc, are these Wikipedia's bench marks? If NCERT is dishing nonsense or Britannica bs: is it Wikipedia's fault? We have our own criteria the Five pillars etc, forget the others. Another attribute of Wikipedia is that peer-review is not fixed like the so called peer review rackets (as Malhotra put it), Fowler calls Bhagat Singh a Hindu invention, to my knowledge he was a socialist, atheist and Marxist. not a religious fundamentalist.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say "Bhagat Singh was a Hindu invention, ..." I said "Hindu nationalists, miffed that they were left out of the Indian independence movement, have latterly taken to glorifying Bhagat Singh and Subhas Bose (though neither was philosophically aligned with their views) in order to take some shine off Gandhi, whose blood they have on their hands." As for Bhagat Singh, I know a little bit about his history. Enjoy this picture of him and examine the title of my history chapter I wrote three years ago. Examine also the caption of the photograph of Chandrasekhar Azad there and also the link Hindustan Socialist Republican Association, where you will find the members recruited during the early 20s. You are such a persistent teacher, Yogesh Khandke! Its wasted ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

“ Mauryas, Guptas, the Kushanas, and many other Mahajanapads ”

the first three aren't Mahajanapads. Are they Fowler?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

(Reply to ChipmunkDavis) OK, I re-read WP:LEAD and you are probably referring to:

While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article.

By that guideline, we need to drop the Ashok Chakra and the Lion Capital argument. But I would ask that you consider the approach presented by AshLin. We can add 1 or 2 lines on the Indian flag and the Indian national emblem and then link that with the Maurya empire. A few reasons why we should modify the body of the article to accommodate these symbols in the lead:

• The story of the Ashok Chakra and the Lion Capital is by nature an NPOV story, it does not denigrate or harm anyone, and is only linked with non-violence.
• These symbols were chosen by the first free Indians under Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, with great thought and consideration.
• Indians have emotional sentiments attached to these symbols because they reflect probably the best of the best the Indian civilization has had to offer so far.
• The linkage between the modern Repubic of India and these ancient symbols is perhaps the most unique amongst the nations of the planet with possibly no other living civilization or nation having such a direct connection to such an ancient past.
• They are not just symbols - they are about Ashoka's evolution from being a mighty emperor who fought a very violent war in Kalinga, then understood the ills of war and violence and then spent the rest of his life preaching non-violence. Perhaps they were chosen to be a model for the Republic of India.

Zuggernaut (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• • UNDUE POV
  • UNDUE
  • POV OR
  • Strong POV OR
  • OR Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, this is not helpful and these are also partly your opinions, ie your POV. And there is no explanation for the cryptic statements. Here, reasons are being given why people want to include some material in the text and you are assessing them as if they are content. Yes, national sentiment is real and people want to include a mention of national symbols in the text. Why should they not include it in the body? Whether it should be in the lead is debatable, but definitely it seems logical for the symbology of a nation state to be included in the main body of an article, even if it just cursorily lists them out. AshLin (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Ashlin, I'm confused. The flag and the lion capital are the first things one sees on the India page (pictures catch the eye before text does). They each have links to the parent pages where anyone can be edified. Mentioning it in the lead will be overkill. I can't imagine any other country page doing that. I haven't checked but I'd be highly surprised if other country pages have anything more than the symbols and links below them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, it looks like we are headed for a deadlock. Any ideas on how we can resolves this? The only one I am aware of is to setup an RfC and ask the wider Wikipedia community what they think. I am not going to setup one just yet - let's wait for what others think and in the mean time if there are other ideas to resolve this, we can certainly work with those. (BTW, if you could provide why you think the items are POV or OR or UNDUE, that will certainly help.)

Zuggernaut (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut, Chipmunkdavis is referring to your bullet points in the post above. Each of his responses corresponds to the corresponding bullet point in your list. Hope that helps you figure things out. Regards. --rgpk (comment) 15:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The bullet points I made above were in support of inclusion of content to the article. I am not aware that WP:UNDUE, WP:POV and WP:OR apply to talk page discussions where an argument/conversation is taking place. As far as I know these policies only apply to content in article space or proposed content.

Zuggernaut (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut, if included in the article, they would be undue, pov, etc. It is perfectly normal to propose content suggestions on the talk page and then have it pointed out that these suggestions would, when included in the article of course, be considered undue, pov, etc. Hope that helps you figure things out. Regards. --rgpk (comment) 15:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

One can pour out as if he is some Oracle, but he borne with, how does Zuggernaut suddenly cause the OR flag to be raised? Though Zuggernaut, you have either to qualify that a particular statement is your opinion or provide evidence even on a talk page, at least if and when it is requested.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kashmir, Hyderabad and Junagadh

Pakistan is a Muslim country, so is Bangladesh, however India minus the 52 districts that were partitioned to create these Muslim countries became a secular country and not a Hindu one. In India evey man and woman has one vote, do not forget less than half a century ago, blacks in the US were fighting for the right to vote, the law does not discriminate on the basis of faith, gender etc. if ever it does it is to assuage the feelings of the minority. Fowler is right, so is Chip about Hyderabad and Junagadh and that the same logic ought to be applied to Kashmir, but tell me there are over 100 million Muslims in India minus Kashmir, and a few million in Kashmir, what about the 100 million Muslims, wheras there has been a drastic reduction of Hindus in what is now Pakistan and Bangladesh since partition, so do you Fowler and Chip suggest that Kashmir, (and not Jammu and Ladakh which are not Muslim majority) be turned over to Pakistan or should be granted independence and then what do you suggest should the fate of the 100 million plus Muslims in the rest of India be? The Kashmiri Hindus have been driven out of the valley by the violence, just as has happened earlier in Pakistan and Bangladesh.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Your views are very interesting, but, other than being a nice illustration of why you are here, what exactly does all this have to do with encyclopedia writing? Could you please try to stick to content issues rather than attempting to use the talk page as a soapbox for your views.--rgpk (comment) 15:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You were silent when the issue of Junagadh, Kashmir and Hyderabad was raised? I am simply asking Chip and Fowler to elaborate their views on the subject, how has it suddenly become tangential and wp:Soapbox?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you Regent Park wish I provide evidence for the statements regarding the population of Muslims in Pakistan, Bangladesh and the valley?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I have never formed a strong opinion on Kashmir, as I've never considered myself adequately informed. I really want to know what in my posts made you think I wanted Kashmiri independence. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• (1) The whole section of the princely states is probably too detailed, but as it stands it is written in a very pro-Indian fashion.When India takes control of a state, it is a "Military occupation", even a "Police action". Pakistan however threatens with "Military invasion". (2)The whole section about India-Pakistan wars is grossly anti-Pakistan POV.(they are on this page, so am not giving the diff)Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, I suggest you not respond to this obvious ploy to put you on the defensive. This attempt to put you on the defensive by making loose charges about bias in edits is an attempt to disrupt the normal process of consensus building and is best treated by being ignored. --rgpk (comment) 16:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It's okay RegentsPark. If editors think that being anti one POV makes me POV in the other direction, that's their choice. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Yogesh, your diatribe above about the unequal treatment about Hindus in Pakistan versus Muslims in India is an example of making use of the talk page as a soapbox. The purpose of the talk page is to discuss content. I suggest you make specific content suggestions rather than presuming that Fowler and Chip are in a position to decide the fate of Kashmir. Based on your statement above, I for one cannot understand what particular content you wish to add, subtract, or modify.--rgpk (comment) 15:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see edits made by Chip and Fowler regarding Kashmir, Fowler and Chip cannot do much on ground nor can I, but here they insert a dimension sympathetic to Pakistan's occupation of Kashmir. The text I would like to see

“ The Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession as Pakistanis regulars and others invaded his kingdom indulging in rape and murder ”

(even nuns were not spared, do you need evidence?) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, WTF is going on here? Talk:India is a page not a place for this discussion! -111.119.204.50 (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• (ec)We are very much on track, after the Maharaja signed the said instrument, Indian Union forces entered what was now Indian Union territory and drove the Pakistani forces as far as they were allowed to by Nehru, who miraculously halted their march and then approached the UN to intervene and implement a cease fire, that cease fire line is today the line of control, with Pakistani occupying about a third of the Maharaja's erstwhile kingdom which had been ceeded to the Union of India. The issue is about the territorial conflicts that the Union of India is party to.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think a discussion on Chipmunkdavis' views on Kashmir independence or whether muslims are better treated in India than Hindus were in Pakistan is appropriate on the talk page here. This personalization of content issues is getting to be disruptive. --rgpk (comment) 16:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

One should not be selective. One should also object when opinion in the tons masquerades as cast in stone facts, that would prevent most of the disruption here.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• (ec)This isn't about weasels like treatment which some love. I am referring to cold facts, hard demographic statistics, are they to be quoted here?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Take this to Talk:Kashmir or Wikipedia:Request for comment or talk page of the users it is directed at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.119.204.50 (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Andheri man, you should have raised the flag when loads of OR were stacked on this page, that would have made the air clearer, btw isn't Kashmir a sub-set of India?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) Yogesh, I really don't see what the point of all this is? Even if you feel strongly about issues in particular and POVs of Chipmunkdavis in general, and it is clear that you do, what does this have to do with Chipmunkdavis? If we have to comment, let us comment on proposals for editing and against proposals for editing. This is not helpful in any context. Any more of this and you are heading into serious territory. Please desist. AshLin (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I feel strongest about following Wikipedia rules in letter and spirit. Period. My proposals on how Kashmir ought to be mentioned are on the table. I am sorry that rules are sought to be applied selectively. It is amazing that miles of OR, disruption and tendentiousness is tolerated without a whimper in one case and warnings are issued for merely bringing them to notice in the other, one example is Bhagat Singh, it is alleged that Bhagat Singh is a Hindutva invention, what is the source for that, by invention I mean that it is alleged that his being on a pedestal is the handiwork of Hindutva activists as they have the blood of Gandhi on their hands, such OR is put up with(BTW I am not acquainted with the phrase persistent teacher) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC) (ps)Let this be very clear, this is not about any editor but about their edits on this page, I am sure the difference is appreciated.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry. But you cannot allege a bias on the part of an editor, with absolutely no evidence to back that up, and then claim that this is not about 'any editor but about their edits on this page". You have alleged that chipmunkdavis has a certain pov on Kashmir and the only thing that you can provide as support is loosely specified pointers to text on the article page. If you disagree with content, please create a section on this page and bolster your claims with proper sources. This sort of shooting from the hip with random claims of bias at other editors is disruptive. --rgpk (comment) 17:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yogesh Khandke, The Hindu right's glorification of Bhagat Singh has even made it to journals of film theory. Here's an article, Uses of History: A case of two films, which says, "last few decades, with the ascendancy of the militant Hindu Right, Gandhi's politics of non-violence and Satyagraha (insistence on truth) has come increasingly under disrepute as effeminate and Bhagat Singh's young passion divested of its ideological moorings has been seen as a manly antidote." As for "persistent teacher," here are 105 published ways of using it in a sentence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Is that the same as your statement I'm afraid Wikipedia seems to be caving in to the Hindu nationalist sentiment in India which lionizes Bhagat Singh and Bose, in part to take the luster off Gandhi (whose blood they have on their hands)., to me it isn't. All it says is that Gandhi's methods are sought to be decried, I would read Arti Wani as the Hindutva movement uses Bhagat Singh to justify its resorting to violence. Sorry wrong number, guv'nor!Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

According to Lavakare who quotes Gandhi's assassin, the assassin justified his deed by claiming that Gandhi in all his greatness failed in his duty, failed on the partition, failed on Kashmir, failed to save lives, he was the God that failed. 'Gandhiji is being referred to as the Father of the Nation -- an epithet of high reverence. But if so, he has failed in his paternal duty… Had Gandhiji really maintained his opposition to the creation of Pakistan, the Muslim League could have had no strength to claim it and the Britishers also could not have created it in spite of all their utmost efforts… The reason was… the people of this country were… vehement in their opposition to Pakistan. But Gandhiji played false with the people. He has proved to be the Father of Pakistan.[8] Even the assassin acknowledged Gandhi's greatness, where is the taking the luster off part?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yogesh Khandke, Please work through Examples and exercises in English parsing, syntax and the analysis of sentences. Even though it is a 1867 edition, it is as good as anything written by the high flying English grammarians of today. Once you are through, please parse my sentence, "I'm afraid Wikipedia seems to be caving in to the Hindu nationalist sentiment in India which lionizes Bhagat Singh and Bose, in part to take the luster off Gandhi (whose blood they have on their hands)." Where do I say, they lionize Bhagat Singh because they have the blood of Gandhi on their hands? The Gandhi stuff is an aside, a dramatic device, a brief comment, an after thought, ... a non-restrictive relative clause if you will. It is even in parentheses. I'm afraid you're also a persistent time waster. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Ammend to create two titles: Foreign relations and military

Foreign relations and military are two different subjects and deals with two different things. Basically to make a distinction officially, foreign relations deals with relation with other countries, diplomacy whereas military deals with armed forces, military stats, info ; military exercices etc... of similar kind and nature.

There is no country in the wiki which has termed 'Foreign relations and military' together in one heading. Neighboring countries like Japan, China, Pakistan, South Korea, USA, UK etc .... articles has formatted as such (Foreign relations and military - under two different title headings.

Under what circumstance, conditions, perception, economics and reality is Foreign relations and military termed under one heading and one section? I adhere and ammend to change this to different title i.e one is "Foreign relations" and the other is "military". Both title should have their own relevant materials not mixing up and making a ketchup article.

I commend each contributor who has contributed in growing and taking my suggestion to vastly improve the article. Though we can improve it more and it should be done. But now, it looks far much perfect than any time before.

--Varghese Jacob (talk)

RFC: Churchill quote - I hate Indians, they are a beastly people with a beastly religion

Previously uninvolved editors are invited to indicate support or opposition to the inclusion of the proposed content with a brief explanation of their position. The proposed content relateds to Winston Churchill's racist hatred of Indians and the Bengal famine. Here's thedirect linkto the content. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Current

Proposed

In 1943, a perceived shortage of food leading to large-scale hoarding and soaring food prices coupled with poor food distribution mechanism and inadequate response of the British officials resulted in a catastrophic famine in the Bengal region which killed about 1.5 to 3 million people.

In 1943, a perceived shortage of food leading to large-scale hoarding and soaring food prices coupled with poor food distribution mechanism and inadequate response of the British officials resulted in the last catastrophic famine in what would become the Republic of India. Several authors contend that the death toll from the Bengal famine, somewhere between 1.5 to 3 million people, would have been lesser had Winston Churchill not delayed food aid to the starving Bengalis, a decision attributed to his racist beliefs.

Note 1 reads: "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion."

Sources

• Sen, Amartya, Poverty and famines: an essay on entitlement and deprivation, Oxford University Press, 1992, ISBN 0198284632, 9780198284635 {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
• W. Morris, Christopher, Amartya Sen, Cambridge University Press, 2009, ISBN 0521618061, 9780521618069 {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
• Sen, Amartya (2001), "Ideas of Justice", in Iqbal; You, J.I (eds.), Democracy, Market Economics, and Development: an Asian Perspective, Other World Bank Bks, Washington, D.C: World Bank, pp. 9–24, ISBN 9780821348628, LCCN 01017950 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |editor1-first1= ignored (help)
• Tharoor, Sashi (2003), Nehru: the invention of India, Arcade Pub., ISBN 9781559706971
• Ziegler, Philip (1985), Mountbatten, Knopf
• Tharoor, Sashi (2010), The Ugly Briton, Time {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Hari, Johann (2010), The Two Churchills, The New York Times {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

References

• Support Current Lead - The proposed lead has some serious POV issues. Additionally, we should probably remove "and inadequate response of the British officials " from the current lead. NickCT (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose both proposed changes by Zuggernaut and NickCT Keeping it the way it is makes it more balanced than either proposed changes, both of which take the text too far in one POV. That Churchill quote could maybe go theWinston Churchill article but it is already at [9] his wikiquote page so that is possibly enough. Even better might be putting it at Indophobia]. Munci (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose both proposed and current versions. The current one is WP:UNDUE; the proposed, WP:ludicrous. Please see ample evidence on my subpage User:Fowler&fowler/Profiteering and hoarding in the Bengal famine of 1943, that the causes of the famine were more complex than Zuggernaut is stating in either versions. The main cause, as you will see on the subpage evidence, was profiteering, hoarding, and speculation by Indian farmers and grain merchants. There were other factors. The Japanese occupation of Burma prevented the usual import of Burmese rice. There was a cyclone in Midnapore. The British, already distracted by fighting World War II, were further stretched by the arrival of thousands upon thousands of refugees from Burma and Assam into Bengal. The Quite India Uprising of 1942 further strained their already depleted resources. Besides, there was an Indian provisional government in place in Bengal that is as much (if not more) to blame for the administrative chaos as the British. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC) Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

PS. Churchill also said about Nehru: "This man has overcome two of the greatest failings in human nature; he knows neither fear nor hatred.". Churchill, who also opposed Indian independence, thus did have the ability to be generous and to introspect.Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

PPS Churchill said about Gandhi (in 1935), "Mr. Gandhi has gone very high in my esteem since he stood up for theuntouchables ... I do not care whether you are more or less loyal to Great Britain. Tell Mr. Gandhi to use the powers that are offered and make the thing a success." (Letter to G.D. Birla (1935)) Someone who has sympathy for the untouchables, the dregs of Indian society, in whose presence, even in 2011, most upper caste Indians wince, has to be more complex than this proposed blurb makes him out to be. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

According to Madhushree Mukherjee, Churchill loved the empire and hated Indians so much that he would rather destroy India than let it go. She says further that Churchill was just playing divide and rule while toying with the idea of pitching the untouchables, Muslims and Sikhs on the one side and Hindus on the other.Zuggernaut (talk) 03:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

But Churchill is not pitting untouchables against Hindus in these quotes. He is praising one Hindu (Gandhi) for standing up for the untouchables. As for Mukerjee's book, for a liberal perspective on it, read Joe Lelyveld's (former executive editor of the NYTimes)not very complimentary review in the NYReview of Books. Says Lelyveld:

"So if the argument is that no one was less likely to be Bengal’s savior at the start of 1943 when the danger of famine first became apparent to responsible colonial officials, then, clearly, there’s no defense for Churchill. But for all his fulminations, do his conspicuous acts of omission—his failure to dispatch emergency shipments—add up to anything approaching a “secret war”? In justifying her flaming title, Mukerjee seems to skirt the key conclusion reached by Amartya Sen long after the crisis: that it had little to do with an actual shortage of food in the stricken province.

Also readAmartya Sen's letter, critical of Mukerjee, (quoted by Lelyveld) in the NY Review of Books:

"Madhusree Mukerjee seems satisfied with little information. Mark Tauger’s data come from exactly two “rice research stations” from two districts in undivided Bengal, which had twenty-seven districts. Since weather variations have regionally diverse effects, it would require more than this to “seriously challenge” the analysis I made, using data from all districts, which indicated that food availability in 1943 (the famine year) was significantly higher than in 1941 (when there was no famine). Ignoring the range of data I used in my study, she misdescribes my estimates as being based only “on projections.” On the other point mentioned by Mukerjee, she makes a story out of a typo in my quotation from a statement of the secretary of state for India, omitting to mention that the typo has not the slightest bearing on my assessment of the food situation. Moreover, even a “shortage” of 1.4 million tons is a small proportion of the total crop of “60/70 million tons” (as the secretary of state mentioned). The confounding issue, of course, is the idea of “shortage” itself, as Lelyveld has noted. There was indeed a substantial shortfall compared with demand, hugely enhanced in a war economy, as I have described in detail, but that is quite different from a shortfall of supply compared with supply in previous years. Mukerjee seems to miss this crucial distinction, and in her single-minded, if understandable, attempt to nail down Churchill, she ends up absolving British imperial policy of confusion and callousness, which had disastrous consequences.

For a conservative perspective, read thereview of Arthur Herman (author of Gandhi and Churchill(Pulitzer Prize Finalist for General Nonfiction, 2009)). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

A website run by "The Churchill Centre" is hardly a reliable source. I'm not sure you can cite the dialogue between Sen and Mukherjee in defense of Churchill. Sen is of the opinion that the entire British administration is to blame (Jonathansammy's has added the right word - "callous") which includes Churchill. Moreover in 1943 the famine was perceived to have happened due to a shortage in food. It was only decades later that Sen showed that there was in fact no such shortage. In 1943 to know that the famine was due to a shortage in food and then delay food aid is not only callous but inhuman. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter where the review is published; the author is a bona fide (if conservative) historian and author of a Pulitzer Prize finalist 700 page book on Gandhi and Churchill. The review is withering. Similarly both Lelyveld and Sen are saying that Churchill is the red herring. The problem, according to Churchill's advisors, was not a shortage of food, but hoarding by Indian merchants. Here is Lelyveld again:

Mukerjee is understandably incensed by the imperviousness of Churchill to the pleas to alleviate the famine from his top advisers on India, Amery and two successive viceroys, Lords Linlithgow and Wavell; and by his reliance on his science adviser, Lord Cherwell (known to the academic world as Frederick Lindemann before snaring his peerage), whose sycophancy and instinctive racism were usually apparent. Cherwell, portrayed here as an advocate of race-based eugenics, could be depended on to tell the prime minister what he wanted to hear: that the food crisis in India could be dealt with without diverting ships or dipping into stocks already designated for other theaters. ... Cherwell’s motives may have been suspect but Mukerjee insufficiently engages his analysis, which led him to conclusions broadly similar to those reached by Amartya Sen after careful study three decades later. Although the war cut off some sources of imported grains, there were in fact stored supplies of food that were being hoarded by Indians who hoped to sell them at higher prices. Food prices shot up to the extreme detriment of rural Bengalis “with very little overall decline,” Sen found, “in food output or aggregate supply.” In Cherwell’s view, imports were being sought to serve as a blunt instrument to break a price spiral that the colonial authorities had themselves triggered in their ineffectual attempts to control the price of food; in other words imports would be used, Cherwell wrote, “as a means of extracting food from hoarders.” There were more direct ways to deal with the problem, Cherwell argued, for example seizing the hoarded stocks, even hanging some hoarders. Making a similar point in a decidedly more gentle way, Sen notes the effectiveness in post-independence India of temporary large-scale employment schemes as a way of getting sufficient funds to endangered families in order to stabilize prices and prevent panic.

Both, Lelyveld and Sen, think that Mukerjee prefers to go after Churchill rather than explore the complexity of calamity. One should add that there was very little awareness in India itself of the famine. The newspapers, even nationalist ones, were quite late in reporting it. Gandhi himself, as Herman points out, said very little about it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC). Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I propose amending Zuggernaut's text to the following: In 1943, a perceived shortage of food leading to large-scale hoarding and soaring food prices coupled with poor food distribution mechanism and inadequate response of the British officials resulted in the last catastrophic famine in what would become the Republic of India. Several authors contend that the death toll from the Bengal famine, somewhere between 1.5 to 3 million people, would have been lesser had the British Government, led by prime minister Winston Churchill, not delayed food aid to the starving Bengalis, a decision attributed to callous indifference and even to the racist beliefs held by Churchill.— Preceding unsigned comment added byJonathansammy (talk •contribs) 15:30, 7 February 2011

I don't agree with this. There is no reason to include debatable historical conclusions, even when qualified, in a summary article. That there was a catastrophic famine is undeniable and should be included. The deaths from that famine may be included. That the British response was 'inadequate' is a conclusion that appears to have general consensus outside of wikipedia. Sen's conclusions do not have universal currency and are better relegated to sub-articles. In general, I'd say that if a sentence begins with 'Several authors' it is better to exclude it entirely (are we then going to include 'Several other authors say yyy' and 'yet another set of authors say zzz'?) and deal with the differing conclusions in the sub-article where the differing opinions can be properly explored.--rgpk (comment) 16:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

These are not Sen's conclusions. The racist quote is supported by several reliable sources and the link between delaying famine relief and Churchill's racist views has been made by Britain's "best young historian" - Richard Toye. Madhushree Mukherjee reaches the same conclusion. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point completely. None of this stuff has universal currency and including it in this article will necessitate the inclusion of caveats, rival viewpoints, etc. which will throw the entire history section out of balance. Basically, the history section will read as follows : "This happened in xxxx bc, that happened in yyyy bc, those things happened in zzzz ad, and then the British came and screwed us out of everything." That might make for good anti-British prose but does not a balanced article make. --rgpk (comment) 21:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

When you talk of the conquered and the conqueror, not many viewpoints are "universal" so it pretty much depends on what POV you are coming from, however subtly disguised. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

If you are contesting WP:NPOV ("Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias"), then you should take it up at the NPOV noticeboard. Not cram your views down our throats here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The proposed edit is compliant with NPOV. If it's not, I'm sure we can make it compliant.Zuggernaut (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

History is written by who gets to write it and every historain whether he is Europeam or Indian has an inborn (i even argue with my friends bias is genetic) bias which he will carry until his grave. I see two issues (fact and opinion) here in Zuggernaut's edit. First the fact: whether Churchill was disdainful (racist!) of Indians and second the opinion: whether that had anything to do with the mismanagement of famine. Would any one here be surprised if English and Indian historians treated this issue differently. In general, administrative mismanagements happen a lot. it is an interesting issue. --CarTick (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You are right about the bias part but there's a breed (of academicians, researchers) that is supposed to be free of bias. Mukherjee and Toye link the fact with the famine and this RFC should tell us what the community thinks of including the content. I agree with the mismanagement part but no government that it accountable to its people will purposefully act against its people. An example is the 2010 Indian onion crisis followed by the rising food prices. But it is already February 2011 and there is no famine. Thanks to the monitoring of prices by Sharad Pawarand other mitigating actions like importing food from Pakistan. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Four day total

(Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC))

• Opposes 4 (NickCT, Munci, Fowler&fowler, rgpk)
• Supports 2 (Zuggernaut, as nominator; Jonathansammy (conditional))
• Number of page watchers: 2340

• Oppose proposal It is easy these days to find "several authors" who claim pretty well anything. While it is conceivable that Churchill rubbed his hands gleefully and took the opportunity to exacerbate a famine in order to further racism, it is also conceivable that Churchill might have had a few things on his mind in 1943, and it is WP:UNDUE to speculate that "racist beliefs" were a fundamental factor in the famine (sufficiently fundamental to highlight in this article). Johnuniq (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose proposal I agree with Johnuniq. Just because several authors claim something doesn't mean that it has any currency within the historiography at large. If this is a controversial new theory then the historical world will be debating it for the next few years. Including new research now might be a little premature, unless you're willing to make a dedicated section that weighs all sides of the debate. Besides, even if the proposed edit has a NPOV (which I'm not sure it does), it is dangerous to speculate about the personal motivations of historical figures in such an abridged and cavalier manner. It's also inconsequential. Churchill was not the only actor involved in the famine, and making him a scapegoat for it would oversimplify an enormous human tragedy. This would be a great disservice to the millions who died in it. Chouji Ochiai (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose proposal - keep current lead. It's been the better part of a century, and we if we don't have hard proof- Foreign Office documents or whatever - by this point, I would not be inclined to go with the Several Authors on such a contentious claim. It may be true, but maybe it isn't, so lets not say it. I suppose that Churchill might have let people starve for political purpose - to impede Indian independence, say - but out of sheer bloodymindedness?Chouji Ochiai said it all better than I have. Herostratus (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment:We have one author who categorically states that the famine fatalities were related to Churchill's racism. It would not be difficult to come up with other sources starting from Dadabhai Nowroji that point to the British attitude that lead to Indian wretchedness. I would request the opposers to come up with statements fromwp:rs that attribute to the contrary, all that they have written are their comments which though learned either are wp:OR or wp:synthesis, don't have much value here. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Isn't saying that a million died because of profiteers a little too apologist?Yogesh Khandke(talk) 08:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologist for whom, Khandke? I have created a subpage User:Fowler&fowler/Profiteering and hoarding in the Bengal famine of 1943 that provides ample evidence that the causes of the famine were more complex than either you or Zuggernaut are stating. The main cause, as you will see on the subpage evidence, was profiteering, hoarding, and speculation by Indian farmers and grain merchants. There were other factors. The Japanese occupation of Burma prevented the usual import of Burmese rice. There was a cyclone in Midnapore. The arrival of thousands upon thousands of refugees from Burma and Assam strained the already depleted resources. There was an Indian provisional government in place in Bengal that is as much (if not more) to blame for the administrative chaos as the British. Speculation and profiteering, by the way, by Indians that is, was a feature of 19th century Indian famines as well. That is in keeping with the general callous attitude towards the poor and unfortunate displayed by upper class Indians even today. I now believe even more strongly that both versions of the Bengal famine text (current and proposed) need to be removed from the history section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hoarding was a response to the perceived food shortage, probably caused by the restrictions on free speech imposed by the British on Indians, and it is already covered in the proposed statement. Overall, (like Grove says about the Doji bara famine, the responsibility lies with the British) the responsibility lay at the top, with the British Crown. Even more so actually, since the hoarders were citizens of the British Empire. I see the problem of separating people by ethnicity (Indian and "British") when discussing the negatives of the empire throughout Wikipedia and this is a serious problem. But when talking about the positives, only British ethnicity was implied back then and surprisingly even today on Wikipedia. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

"Hoarding was a response to the perceived food shortage, probably caused by the restrictions on free speech imposed by the British on Indians." Seriously? Statement like that don't help your case. Neither do nonsensical statements such as "Even more so actually, since the hoarders were citizens of the British Empire."Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Why 'nonsensical'? The hoarders were obviously citizens of the British Empire and it was the failure of the British Raj that they could not rein it in. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Because it's an obvious feat of extreme mental gymnastics that is meant to somehow make sure the British are connected to anything bad. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

What in your opinion involves "extreme mental gymnastics"? Connecting what with what?Zuggernaut (talk) 05:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support proposal - it's getting a little hard to keep track of what "oppose" and "support" means at this point, but anyways. The question isn't the truth of the matter. Wikipedia is not investigative journalism, it's rather to summarize what is being said about the matter. While you can dig out "several authors" to support anything, the authors brought out are not marginal. Sen especially is respected for his analysis of the intersection of politics/famine. I also believe this claim has gotten some decent press coverage

India Abroad: [10] The Hindu: [11] (I realize that this is about a book running against the theory, but my point is the theory is significant, not that it's correct) and while one can justly criticize much of history coverage by press, it signifies that a significant group of people consider this a significant idea, and thus deserving of inclusion in Wikipedia. My own opinion on the matter is that the criticism is overblown, though it contains a grain of truth, but as I am not a notable source, my opinion on the matter is of no concern to Wikipedia. Jztinfinity (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment:Chouji Ochiai &Herostratus you will have to prove that the source is not wp:rs and that the statement is wp:undue and wp:fringe, Jztinfinity has put it well hsis opinion is that the matter is exagerated, but hse understands that and that hse needs an wp:rs to say so. I hope Fowler too look at this aspect. It comes across from the above discussion that Zuggernaut has come up with a statement based on a reliable source and others are indulding in wp:OR to counter it,Jztinfinity has understand this concept well that, I should say.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Khandke, In order that you not be misunderstood, please use standard English syntax and spelling. As such, I'm having a hard time figuring out what you are saying. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose as undue. Within the space available for history, we can only present undisputed facts and theories. This is a contentious issue which needs elaboration and belongs to Famines in India.--Sodabottle (talk) 13:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Nine day total

• Opposes = 8
• Supports = 3 (including nominator)

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for reasons stated above. While there are sources which do comment on the potential of Churchill being racist, there are quite possible as many retractors as well. Additionally, it seems impossible to include him as a potential source or exacerbating force as that would require a POV, especially we are framing his actions as racist under our current definitions of racism. While I am not arguing for him, this statement undeniably calls Churchill a racist-- there needs to be more authoritative information present before we include this.Jztinfinity stated "The question isn't the truth of the matter. Wikipedia is not investigative journalism, it's rather to summarize what is being said about the matter." This is not accurate-- we are not here to present on what is being said on the matter, but merely what the matter is, disregarding speculation. It is impossible, as I stated, to continue with a NPOV, and as such I oppose this. Ampersandestet(talk) 10:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per the reasons I've had to repeat many times since September last year. Most importantly (quoting from my previous comment): " The article is meant to "highlight the highlights" and the famine bit, whether we personally feel one way or another, does not get that level of importance amongst historians, e.g. four pages in 408 pages of content in Stein's A History of India. Our section is about 600 words long in an article where WP:SIZE matters." While the exact number of words may have changed, it's still within the ballpark for this comparison. Also, the new proposal is entirely undue POV which presents one particular argument without discussing the numerous others and if added needs to be balanced out, something that this article is not for. —SpacemanSpiff 05:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Railways, canals, infrastructure

I've removed related to building of infrastructure by the British Raj in India for the following reasons:

1. The British build all this infrastructure to aid them in running their empire and keep India subjugated. It cannot be seen as positive to Indians prior to 1947.
2. What was the benefit or return on investment to the average Indian? That is,
   1. Was the per capita income of the average Indian citizen increasing due to these investements in infrastructure?
   2. Was India's share of GDP in the world growing due to the building of rail-roads and other infrastructure?
3. Was the average Indian, tanned by the Indian sun and coated with the dust and soot of the sub-continent, allowed to travel on the railway by first-class sitting next to a white English person?
4. Who managed the railways? Did Indians hold any senior positions in the railways ?
5. The railways aided in exporting Indian grains and other produce, even in times of famines. How can this be called positive?
6. Improvements in transportation and communication meant that the British could quell nationalist movements faster. A telegram from Bomaby to Calcutta would hasten the arrest of an Indian freedom fighter in Calcutta much faster than in older days. How can this be positive for India?

If we must mention the building of railways, canals, communication systems, then we need to briefly touch on answers to some of the above questions. And that might be WP:UNDUE. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The six points you mention above are straight from Indian High School History textbooks. Yes, I agree with you that the British rule saw destruction of indigenous industry. However, British rule also saw introduction of the modern technologies of the day like railways, canals and dam building. For example, the world's first concrete dam was built at Khadakwasla near Pune back in the 1870s. It is 64 years since the British left. I believe it is time that we have a more balanced view regarding the cost and benefits of British rule in India. Jonathansammy (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut, here are your six points and my comment/questions on each of the point you raise.

1. The British build all this infrastructure to aid them in running their empire and keep India subjugated. It cannot be seen as positive to Indians prior to 1947.
2. What was the benefit or return on investment to the average Indian? That is,
   1. Was the per capita income of the average Indian citizen increasing due to these investements in infrastructure?Please provide references on the GDP per capita. If I am not mistaken, the per capita incomes actually went down or stayed stagnant for a long period after independence. It is only after the Manmohan Singh reforms of early 1990s that the Indian economy took off.
   2. Was India's share of GDP in the world growing due to the building of rail-roads and other infrastructure?
3. Was the average Indian, tanned by the Indian sun and coated with the dust and soot of the sub-continent, allowed to travel on the railway by first-class sitting next to a white English person? Do you think a brahmin of that period would have sat next to an untouchable in the carriage?
4. Who managed the railways? Did Indians hold any senior positions in the railways ? The British relied on theAnglo Indian population to run the railways. Although the Anglo-Indians did not think of themselves as "Indians", I don't think the British counted them as one of their lot
5. The railways aided in exporting Indian grains and other produce, even in times of famines. How can this be called positive? Do you have references on whether Britain imported grains from india ?
6. Improvements in transportation and communication meant that the British could quell nationalist movements faster. A telegram from Bomaby to Calcutta would hasten the arrest of an Indian freedom fighter in Calcutta much faster than in older days. How can this be positive for India? By the same token, the indian Nationalists from all corners of India could organize and meet at a short notice

Whatever the reasons, the British colonial rule in India did see the introduction of the state of the art technology of that era to the country. So my recommendation would be to restore the deleted textJonathansammy (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:Burden, I am not required to provided sources. Some answers, nonetheless:

The GDP table is already shown above. I am pasting it here again with the additional inclusion of the USA.

Shares of World GDP (Percent of world total)

Year	0	1000	1500	1600	1700	1820	1870	1913	1950	1973	1998
United Kingdom	-	-	1.1	1.8	2.9	5.2	9.1	8.3	6.5	4.2	3.3
India	32.9	28.9	24.5	22.6	24.4	16.0	12.2	7.6	4.2	3.1	5.0
USA	-	-	0.3	0.2	0.1	1.8	8.9	19.1	27.3	22.0	21.9

United States became independent of Britain in 1776. India would have reached the same level of affluence and industrialization (or even better) had it been independent. There are numerous problems with India and Indian society and the caste system is one such problem. Your argument is not relevant here. If you want to improve an article onHuman rights in India to GA or FA level, I pledge to contribute 1 or 2 paragraphs. Just google to find sources on who ran the railways, how much grain was exported from India. I agree with your last point but on the whole an independent India would have industrialized much faster. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Little chance that "India" would have reached the same level of affluence and industrialization (or even higher) had it been independent. First, in 1757, there was no India, but rather hundreds of medieval-era kingdoms with corrupt or ineffective rulers. See the Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760) for the description of one. Second, Maddison's historical statistics are very controversial (see Talk:Angus Maddison page), but one thing even Maddison doesn't contest is that the Indian economy was stagnant during the period 1550 to 1750, whereas the European and American economies were expanding. Third, both Great Britain and Colonial America were in the midst of a long scientific and technological ramp up, that eventually led to the Industrial Revolution. See thelist of technological advances in Britain during the period 1500 to 1750 (before India became a significant part of the British economy). Colonial American inventions included the sextant, the lightning rod, mail order catalogs, bifocals, .... There was very little technological progress in India during the corresponding time. Tipu Sultan's vaunted rockets were characterized by British army engineers, who took them apart after his defeat, as schoolboy pyrotechnics. The sad truth is that in 1750, there was a immense technological gap between India and Europe. There's very little any Indian ruler could have done against the onslaught. Had it not been the British, some other mercantile power (Portugal, France, Denmark, Spain) would have gained ascendancy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

There was no United Kingdom until the Treaty of Union of 1707 until which the English and the Scotts were fighting each other. Sure, not to take away anything from the English ingenuity that led to industrial revolution but leaders can arise anywhere at anytime and the possibilities of what could have happened in a free India are endless. I agree with the technological gap between India and Europe at that time. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

At the time of the Treaty of Union, the Kings of Scotland (in this case the queen, Queen Anne was ruling at the time) had been ruling England for more than 100 years. The 'English and the Scots' had not fought since the Tudors. The Kings of Scotland had used English military power to enforce their own religious prejudices on their country and the Scottish royal family had fought each other over the English throne. Nor did the Treaty of Union stop them. The Jacobites were not defeated for keeps until the Battle of Culloden almost 40 years AFTER the Treaty of Union. The Treaty of Union was a political settlement that formalized the rights of the Scottish peerage, gave the Scots the right to seat a parliament, and firmly extended the English Bill of Rights to cover all subjects of the Queen of Scotland and England be they English or Scottish. I know none of this is on topic, but historical accuracy is important in an historical discussion. Furthermore, on topic, England and Scotland had been ruled by one monarch for 100 years before the formation of a 'United Kingdom.' This is not comparable to multiple principalities and kingdoms ruled by multiple competing dynasties and constantly at war with one another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by76.5.151.90 (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This is complete OR. Best not to talk about it here on talk. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree, Fowler, let's stay focused on the content. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Maddison's estimates are controversial

I noticed that Angus Maddison has been cited in various discussions above on historical GDPs. First, he is not a Cambridge economist; he merely went to college in Cambridge. Second, his work is regarded as highly controversial, and certainly not of the unassailable caliber that we need for this page. Please see the reviews of Maddison's work on Talk: Angus Maddison. The fact that Manmohan Singh, now a politician, has used figures from Maddison in an acceptance speech for an honorary degree, hardly makes Maddison any more reliable a source. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Questioning Angus Maddison's authority? Calling him "controversial"? Next time we shall consult you. :| — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.104.28 (talk • contribs)

Of course you can label Maddison as just another crazy academician with his own POV. :-) Zuggernaut (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)