Talk:India/Archive 54

Archive 50

←

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

→

Archive 59

Suggested edit w.r.t. lead

In the lead of this article, in the third sentence of first paragraph, there is a footnote that states, “The Government of India also regards Afghanistan as a bordering country, as it considers all of Kashmir to be part of India. However, this is disputed, and the region bordering Afghanistan is administered by Pakistan.” Then further, once again in the lead, the following text is present: “It [India] has disputes over Kashmir with its neighbours, Pakistan and China, unresolved since the mid-20th century.” This is repetitive mention of essentially the same thing. Moreover, the wikipedia articles for both Pakistan and China do not mention the dispute in the lead, and only mention it in footnotes in the lead similar to the footnote here. Only India’s wikipedia article mentions the dispute separately from the footnotes (thus mentioning the dispute twice within the lead). I don’t see a reason for mentioning it twice and it seems to be a case of WP:LEADFIX. Therefore, I suggest that the footnote be kept, but the mention in the lead separately from the footnote be deleted to maintain neutrality, since such mentions do not appear in the wikipedia articles of the other countries involved in this dispute (ie Pakistan and China), and to remove undue attention given to it by mentioning it two times while no other territorial dispute is mentioned. Pankykh (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I think mentioning the territorial dispute is important since India has fought several wars which were primarily driven by the dispute and also because of the continuous skirmishes between India and Pakistan and, more recently, between India and China. The footnote may not be necessary but the sentence in the article needs to stay. Also, please note that what is or is not in other articles is not a factor in WP:NPOV. --RegentsPark (comment) 23:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that mentioning the dispute in the article is important. In fact, the dispute is already mentioned in the Foreign, economic and strategic relations section of the article. But the repetitive mention in the lead is both WP:Undue and is a case of WP:LEADFIX since while the dispute is mentioned once [correction:twice] in the body, it’s mentioned twice in the lead. Besides, as per MOS:LEAD, “The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight.” Given that the dispute is mentioned once [correction:twice] is the article body, it makes zero sense to include it separately (let alone twice) in the lead. And I invoke the articles of Pakistan and China, and for that matter also South Asia, to demonstrate that the dispute is not considered prominent enough to be mentioned in the lead of these articles and it can hardly be argued that the dispute is any more prominent for a general country article about India than it is for a general country article about Pakistan or a general region article about South Asia. The separate mention (in the lead, not the article itself) violates WP:NPOV regardless of those articles. Pankykh (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with RegentsPark. It is essential in the lead; it is also essential in the modern history section. The footnote may not be needed, and we have removed it on several occasions, only to be upbraided almost immediately by editors for doing so. The talk page archives record the many instances. There is in fact one thread a few threads above on this very page asking for the footnote to be expanded into regular text. What is there right now is the result of a hard-won consensus that has withstood the test of time, 15 years to be precise. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the text in the lead was added by you (Fowler&fowler) on 22 August, 2019, so no, this text has not been present in the 15 year history of this page. The footnote on the other hand has been there since much much earlier. It’s impressive that this addition has remained unnoticed despite being in violation of WP:NPOV due to undue attention given to it (see the part regarding MOS:LEAD in my argument above), and it being a case of lead fixation. In any case it is a bold edit and I don’t think consensus was ever achieved regarding its inclusion. I’m pinging other editors so they can weigh in on it. I’m also boldfacing my main arguments amd adding one correction to them. @Kautilya3:, @TrangaBellam:, @DaxServer: —Pankykh (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• I don't see this as an NPOV issue. The footnote is specifically about the land border with Afghanistan while the unresolved disputes part is about, well, the disputes. A mention of the border disputes is essential in the lead. India's disputes with its neighbors are significant and a reader needs to know that these disputes exist to understand the many conflicts that they read about in the news. I'm surprised that the Kashmir dispute is not mentioned in Pakistan's lead but WP:OTHERSTUFF and NPOV is not about relative mentions across articles. If anything, we can drop the footnote because what the Indian government says is not that important but we'll need to have firm consensus on that. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Who said NPOV is because of other articles? NPOV applies because undue attention is given. Did you read any of my arguments?--Pankykh (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Your arguments are confusing and I was hoping you would clarify them. Regardless, you can argue WP:UNDUE only if the content is not in proportion to the prominence of what is in published, reliable sources. Whether or not the disputes are included in the leads of Pakistan or China is not germane and you'll need to show that mentioning the disputes in the lead is out of proportion with what published reliable sources say (not out of proportion with what's in Pakistan or China). BTW, the one thing I agree with is that the text should be changed to reflect all border disputes, not just Kashmir, because the dispute with China is not just in the Kashmir region. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• What exactly is the suggested edit? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Pankykh suggests removing this sentence from the last para of the lead: It has disputes over Kashmir with its neighbours, Pakistan and China, unresolved since the mid-20th century--RegentsPark (comment) 17:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Kautilya3:Removal of the sentence added on 22 August, 2019 from article lead per WP:UNDUE and WP:LEADFIX, you can read the boldfaced text to go through the argument for the suggested edit.--Pankykh (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  The lead was rewritten and significantly expanded for the article's second WP:TFA on Gandhi's 150th on 2 October 2019. It was written over a period of three months in plain view many editors and administrators and with feedback given by about a dozen. Feedback, of course, is good at all times, but when we spend an inordinate amount of time responding to one in which a wider community is absent, we do a disservice to WP's goals and ideals. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  The dispute sentence is innocuous and factual. I don't see anything to complain about it. The first footnote can go as far as I am concerned. It is there only to appease the nationalists who claim a border with Afghanistan.

I would have no objection if the lead of Pakistan also has a mention of the dispute. Its editors will probably quite enjoy having it. Give it a try. China, I don't think so. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: The objection isn't that it isn't neutral, the objection is that it gives undue attention to something that finds few mentions in the article itself. MOS:LEAD, WP:UNDUE. --Pankykh (talk) 02:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• @RegentsPark: As for the dispute in Arunachal Pradesh formerly North Eastern Frontier Agency (NEFA), it is certainly a part of the history of modern India as an aspect of the Sino-Indian war of 1962, but it is not really a current dispute in the preponderance of reliable sources in 2021. A search of the major histories of modern India shows little or no mention of it in any discussion of current disputes; Kashmir, however, remains front and center. Most significantly, a Google books binary search in an encyclopedia, companion, review, or survey, published by scholarly publishers (university presses and others) for "India" "dispute" "Kashmir" OR "Ladakh" brings up 1,140 results. A similar binary search for "India" "dispute" "arunachal pradesh" OR "NEFA" OR "South Tibet" in the same scholarly publishers brings up 45 results. I think our hands may be tied. As for @Kautilya3:, I doubt the Pakistan page will have any objection mentioning the Kashmir dispute. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC) Update. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  PS Click on "Tools" to see the numbers. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  PS2 In fact, I would support removing the Afghanistan footnote in the lead, but mentioning Arunachal Pradesh in a footnote in the modern history section (where Kashmir is mentioned), but given the lop-sided nature of the statistics, it doesn't warrant mention in the lead even as a footnote. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Google books binary search in an encyclopedia, companion, review, or survey, published by scholarly publishers (university presses and others) for "India" alone brings up 983,000 results. As Fowler&fowler mentioned above, Kashmir or Ladakh dispute brings 1,140 results. So Kashmir dispute is mentioned in 1,140/980,000 that is 00.116% of them [scholarly published sources]. That is an exceedingly low number to warrant a mention in the lead, let alone two times. This method does not establish prominence of the dispute to be mentioned in the lead. Btw, "India" "Green" "revolution" brings 2,310 results, "India" "Hindu" "Nationalism" brings 2,970 results, both more than Kashmir or Ladakh dispute, yet they are rightly included in relevant sections of the article, not the very lead itself. --Pankykh (talk) 02:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  I bring attention to the time the text was added to the lead, i.e. 22 August, 2021, because it suggests that the text was added about two weeks after India abrogated article 370, when the dispute was prominently in news. This would also explain why it was never added to the articles Pakistan and China. It [text about the dispute] was probably added to the lead at a time it [the dispute] was in spotlight, even if it should rather be in the relevant sections within the article that it is already mentioned in. This makes it a case of lead fixation. As for the fact that India has fought wars over the dispute as mentioned by RegentsPark, India has fought five full-fledged wars, out of them it has fought three over Kashmir two of which were limited to the territory of Kashmir, one over Bangladesh liberation and one over the Sino-Indian border. Out of these only one is mentioned in the lead, that too twice. The wars are already mentioned in the relevant section in the article btw, and constitutes one of the three mentions of the dispute in the article body. Even here, the dispute is mentioned as the cause of the wars, not prominently about itself. --Pankykh (talk) 02:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• The dispute is mentioned briefly, only twice or thrice within the article, and yet twice in the lead. If that isn't undue attention, then I don't know what would be. --Pankykh (talk) 02:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  The twice part is easily handled. Change The Government of India also regards Afghanistan as a bordering country, as it considers all of Kashmir to be part of India. However, this is disputed, and the region bordering Afghanistan is administered by Pakistan. to Though India does not share a border with Afghanistan, the Government of India also regards Afghanistan as a bordering country. A region of Kashmir administered by Pakistan lies between India and Afghanistan. See, no mention of a dispute. As for the rest, India's dispute with Pakistan is too important an aspect to be relegated to mere footnotes (WP:DUE does not necessarily come from counting sentences). cf., this article from the New York Times on cricket.--RegentsPark (comment) 11:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  Great article, however, not an article on cricket. It's an article on India and Pakistan's cricket rivalry. I'm sure Kashmir dispute features prominently in India-Pakistan relations, as it should. Still the NYT article doesn't prove due weight concerning India's general country article here. And as mentioned above, the dispute does not figure much in scholarly sources about India (only 00.116% of them to be precise). --Pankykh (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  That's a very well written article, written by a man who was apparently born and raised in Afghanistan, which was not a British colony. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  Please note Pankykh, the CIA Factbook's map of India does not show Arunachal Pradesh to be disputed; it shows only Kashmir. The Factbook's list of international disputes says in both in its India and Pakistan sections, "Kashmir remains the site of the world's largest and most militarized territorial dispute with portions under the de facto administration of China (Aksai Chin), India (Jammu and Kashmir), and Pakistan (Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas)." In other words, the US, whose view the CIA reflects, accords de facto status only to all divisions of Kashmir, including the Indian-administered. By contrast, the China section states, "China claims most of the Indian state Arunachal Pradesh to the base of the Himalayas, but the US recognizes the state of Arunachal Pradesh as Indian territory." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  Since USA considers India an ally, and China a rival, it naturally gives more weight to India's claims. However, in addition to the Kashmir dispute, both the India and Pakistan sections of the Factbook's list of international disputes also mention the following territorial disputes: "India and Pakistan seek technical resolution of the disputed boundary in Sir Creek estuary at the mouth of the Rann of Kutch in the Arabian Sea; Pakistani maps continue to show its Junagadh claim in Indian Gujarat State". Additionally, the India and Nepal sections mention this: "Joint Border Committee with Nepal continues to examine contested boundary sections, including the 400 sq km dispute over the source of the Kalapani River". Don't know how that establishes the prominence of one over the other. But since it is a list of international disputes amd focuses on disputes in particular, it most certainly does not establish due weight for any dispute. --Pankykh (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  Boldfacing additions to the argument, adding required explanators to such text. --Pankykh (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• I received a talk-page invitation to participate in this discussion. Personally, I find the Kashmir dispute relevant enough to be mentioned prominently in the lede, although I understand that it's a perfectly reasonable viewpoint to see it as unnecessary. However, if a mention of it is warranted here, then it definitely will be warranted in the Pakistan article (but not for China).
  Now, the footnote really has to go: text about bordering a country based on territory that's claimed, but not controlled, has no place in the lede. And there's at least one other detail (the mention of the earliest human settlement) that feels out of scope. The lede also seems to be afflicted by a great profusion of links. – Uanfala (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• The arrival of the earliest humans from Africa has been in the lead for upward of two years, written as it was for Gandhi's 150th TFA on October 2, 2019, and in the history section much longer. (It is also been in the lead of the History of India page for much longer.) Numerous editors and admins supported that edit, including admins such as @Vanamonde93: that specifically answered objections to it in the summer of 2019. It is very much a part of history, receiving mention in the two latest general textbooks: Tim Dyson's A Population History of India (Oxford 2018) and Michael Fisher's Environmental History of India (Cambridge, 2018). There had been calls for such inclusion ever since the Y-Chromosome evidence for the coastal migration became dogma, but we waited until it had made it to the textbooks ten years later. Our sister-in-arms—both as one part of WP's two oldest country FAs and one half of the Indo-Australian Tectonic Plate—Australia—has a similar statement in their lead. Dyson and Fisher, as well as Bridget Allchin are cited in that sentence. A small handful of editors had bristled in the past because they claimed it was "racist," had in fact insinuated the hand of colonialism but also cited Hinduism's timeless Sanātana Dharma self-description, but those have long vanished. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• PS The main thing right now is to not worry too much about the lead. We are trying to revise the rest of the article in preparation for an FAR (the last was ten years ago). Sections such as Government, Foreign Relations, Economy, Media, and Sports need to be revised. Once that is accomplished, the lead will be tweaked anyway. I suggest with respect that we attend to the more urgent matters first. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• I still do think that no one in this thread has convincingly demonstrated why the dispute warrants a lede mention, and scholarly sources definitely do not feature the dispute prominently enough for a lede mention (1,140 out of 983,000, or 0.116%). I obviously have no isuue with mentions in the article body, infact it should perhaps feature more prominently there. --Pankykh (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, the dispute is one aspect of why Kashmir is usually in news, the insurgency being the other important aspect. I doubt that Kashmir dispute features much prominently in all news about India. And my proposal shouldn't be thought to imply Kashmir dispute isn't important, only that the lede mention is disproportionate and thus undue, and also biased given the exlusion of other disputes. --Pankykh (talk) 21:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pankykh: Perhaps, at this point, a quick perusal of WP:REHASH may not be a bad idea.--RegentsPark (comment) 01:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

In the middle of an active discussion? That comes accross as quite an accusatory tone. Regardless, @Kautilya3: has stated they have no objection if the dispute is mentioned in the lead of Pakistan, @Uanfala: has said something similar and that finding the lead mention unnecessary is "perfectly reasonable", you yourself have stated you believe the mention should incorporate other disputes. You asked if "mentioning the disputes in the lead is out of proportion with what published reliable sources say", and as mentioned right above, it indeed is out of proportion (roughly 1 in 1000). --Pankykh (talk) 01:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no "active discussion", since it's clear from everything that's been said that there's no consensus for removing the text in question from the lead. You continually repeating your opinion that nobody else seems to share does not constitute an ongoing debate. If you want to make a change at Pakistan then go and discuss it there, but this conversation seems to be over. Particularly given Fowler's point about a drive to improve the body ready for FAR, with the lead to be adjusted afterwards.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 November 2021

103.218.133.243 (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

{{Democrat Republic of India}}

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Photos

Something really off about the photos in this article.--2605:8D80:562:584A:5172:E069:D9B7:F424 (talk) 12:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2021

The Republic of India came into existence on 26 January 1950, the day when constitution was adopted by the Indian government and declared the nation to be a republic. Although the nation was granted independence from British on 15 August 1947, the official status of India changed from a British Colony to a independent British Dominion. The Dominion of India existed from 15 August 1947 to 26 January 1950. The Prime Minister of Dominion of India, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, continued to be the Prime Minister of Republic of India. Itsbeddy (talk) 05:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_of_India Itsbeddy (talk) 05:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. CMD (talk) 06:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 November 2021

ENCYCLOBOYS (talk) 12:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Sir or maam please paste real indian map.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Education image and caption

User:Fowler&fowler I have reverted you edit and have removed the image. I think the image is more appropriate for Mid-Day Meal Scheme than education because that's what is the image is about. And 'Jai Bhim' is often used by political parties and groups to entice Dalits. Don't we have something better?Akshaypatill (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Fowler&fowler and User:TrangaBellam. I am definitely not going to break 3R rule, but keep in mind that you are essentially breaking Wikipedia policies, making changes without discussion. Please have a look at WP:EQ. You haven't put any arguments to support your edit. The image is not about education but mid day meal. There are no books, no teachers, no uniforms, nothing that can make one think of education. Without a clear caption this image can easily be sold as a dine at a marriage in a small Indian village (Exaggerating). We have better images that can represent the section better like [1] And as I told before Jai Bhim is called as a slogan by some political parties like the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) and Republican Party of India (RPI). Akshaypatill (talk) 10:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

To argue that MDMS is not intricately connected with education deserves no rebuttal. Uniforms are a luxury in rural schools, as are teachers.

Jai Bhim might be used as a political slogan but it is a revolutionary greeting for followers of Ambedkar, (arguably) the greatest social reformer of India. The slogan is a subtle reminder of widespread casteism and how it remains the greatest hindrance to achieving educational equity. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

By the way, it is not a midday meal. The students await a lunch on Sunday 19 October 2008 at the village school in Rayka (also Raika) (which is located some 115 km from Ahmedabad, Gujarat) on the occasion of a visit by some international sanitation experts who also inspected some new sanitation facilities in the school. The students are too well-dressed for an ordinary week-day school lunch. We don't know whether or not the students wear a uniform on weekdays, but the picture does give an idea of the facilities that were available at a rural school in India some 13 years ago presumably on a festive day.

The day, 19 October, is not precisely related to anything significant in the biography of Ambedkar, though the 14, 15, and 16 October 1956, were the three days during which Ambedkar and his followers renounced Hinduism and adopted Buddhism. Jai Bhim is mentioned because Ambedkar is a hero for the Dalits, who are among the least literate in Indian society. It is best not to make the connection of Jai Bhim with politics; the Dalits, I imagine, don't care about those for whom it is only politics. But whether these children are Dalits, Dalit Buddhists, Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, Jains, or Hindus, or some or all of the above, I do not know. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

PS Although the Wikipedia page is Jai Bhim, the i (= ī) is to be pronounced "ee." That the writing on the blackboard does indeed spell "Jai Bheem" in Gujarati can be seen here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 November 2021

driving side in India is right not left, please correct it 2405:201:400A:4235:2D09:239E:4FEB:265F (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Current source says left. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Make sure you understand what Driving side means: it's which side of the road traffic goes, not which side of a vehicle the steering wheel is. Bazza (talk) 09:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Name of India

The name of India should be given in Hindi in Devanagari script, not just Romanization, as is done with other countries, and given that Devanagari is the official script for Hindi in India (see sources at Hindi). They are, respectively, भारत for India and भारत गणराज्य for Republic of India. WittyWidi (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please read MOS:INDICSCRIPT Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• If it's in MOS it's not really my place to dispute it without consensus. But to be honest as it's labelled as Hindi anyway, I don't see the difference it makes in terms of language neutrality - maybe if it were, say, Punjabi or Sindhi, which can be written in multiple scripts, or if it described a place with more than one truly native language and name - but in the case of Hindi it seems clearcut to me - Devanagari is the script of Hindi, and it's already labelled in Hindi. That said, makes sense, thanks. WittyWidi (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Hindi" is mentioned in "officially Republic of India, Hindi: Bharata Ganarajya" because Hindi is the official language of the Union or the federal government of India. ( It is not the national language of India. The Munshi-Iyyangar Formula was the compromise achieved in the Constituent Assembly after several years of debate.) "India," however, is the common name. Even if MOS:INDICSCRIPT were not in the way, there is no imperative anywhere on Wikipedia for the common name of a multilingual multiethnic country to be written down in the official language of its federal government. There are 22 languages in the Constitution of India's Eight Schedule. Some such as Urdu are a couple of centuries older than Modern Standard Hindi; Kannada, Bengali, and Telugu are even older; Tamil and Sanskrit are older by millennia. In any case, MOS:INDICSCRIPT is clear. Our hands are tied. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Again, accepting the judgement because it's not my place to dispute the MOS. That said from a theoretical standpoint this makes very little sense to me. We already acknowledge that the name of India is Bharata Ganarajya in Hindi - not in Urdu, Tamil, or Sanskrit. I can see the argument that the page shouldn't acknowledge any language (other than English, because this is English Wikipedia) because of India's multilingual, multiethnic nature - that makes perfect sense to me. But when Hindi is already specified on the article, I don't understand the value of using a Romanization over the sole script of the Hindi language - the Devanagari script. WittyWidi (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Well, if you have accepted the judgment, then that ends it. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Sub-section sport and education

Make seperate sub-sections for Sport & Edu, I saw many articles about countries who have separate sections for Sports & Education then why this article doesn't have ? Look article about USA, England and Australia have separate sub-sections for sports, Education, culture and if seperate sub-sections created it'll be easier to navigate such a long article. Newton Euro (talk) 09:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Problem with the photos in this article.

The photos of this article looks outdated and they're looking like taken long time ago, which is not truly represent developing India. The article showing people playing games on street, this situation not represent whole India. Why no photos of big 7 star hotels like Taj in it, no image or mention about IT park of Banglore. We have world class facilities but the images are showing India is poor and backward nation, which is not true. I suggest editors to add high quality images, which show current India. Newton Euro (talk) 09:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Most of the images are from backward areas of North india. a punjabi man sitting in a image, what is the need of this image? The man sitting on street, really that image represent North India. Why no image of Ladakh, clothing of Kashmir, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram Newton Euro (talk) 09:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

There is a picture of young women from Kargil in the Ladakh region of Indian-administered Kashmir. As for the common accusation that the pictures show a backward India, please note that India's per capita income (nominal) ranks 168 out of 200 countries. In 2020, it was $1920 per person per year, which was less than Bangladesh's. It has long been less than that of Sri Lanka and Bhutan. It is quite a bit less than that of China, Brazil, Russia, South Africa (the other BRIC countries). The Covid pandemic, moreover, is expected to drive up to 400 million people into extreme poverty, i.e. in the group that earns less than $2 per day. Wikipedia has to portray a country's images neutrally, giving them due weight. We can't favor India's top 10% who control more that 75% of the country's wealth. Please read the talk page archives. Your question has been asked many times before. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

PS He is a Sikh tailor sitting on the footpath or sidewalk in front of a fabric shop in a market in Dehradun, the capital of Uttarakhand. He is there because he is wearing a "kameez" and "pagri," visually demonstrating articles of clothing mentioned in the text. He appears to take pride in his work. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Minor style point: captions on the upper half of this montage run into one another so - "Women (from left to right) Girls in the Kashmir". It took me a while to figure out they need to be read top-to-bottom and not left-to-right. Switching the order of top two photos (like this) makes it less confusing to slow ones like me. Hemanthah (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

It looks well separated on my browser (Safari). Could this be a browser/mobile issue? What are you viewing the images on?--RegentsPark (comment) 22:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Desktop. Now that I know the order, it does look well separated. It was from an edit which appeared to have screen readers in mind and I jumped to the conclusion that it didn't consider layout, sorry Hemanthah (talk) 05:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 December 2021

I want to edit this page to include all the state and union territories capitals because users have to go to the states individual page to know that state's capital which I think should not happen. Lakshya14 (talk) 08:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

You can't put everything about India on a single page! See List of state and union territory capitals in India for the information you want. Bazza (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2021

Request to add the name of the country in the Devanāgarī script: भारत गणराज्य. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.120.12.219 (talk) 12:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done please read and understand Wikipedia:Indic transliteration and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/India-related articles. Dinesh | Talk 13:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Largest democracy

"and the most populous democracy in the world." What is the point of this statement? Obviously a statement like this (implying China isn't a democracy) is politically sensitive and disputable, which is why I find it to have no place in a seemingly unrelated Wikipedia article. Request to remove this statement. 83.86.184.48 (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that "China isn't a democracy" is a disputable statement? To be clear, though, the intention of the statement is not to say that China isn't a democracy but, rather, it is meant as a factual statement. The type of government is "democracy" and it is the "most populous" one of that type. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia showing wrong map of India

Kashmir is part of India. Wikipedia did not take the map from the correct source. Please use https://www.surveyofindia.gov.in/pages/political-map-of-india and download the correct map. And publish the correct current map.

"Area controlled by India shown in dark green; regions claimed but not controlled shown in light green" This information is incorrect. Please correct it immediately. Thank you!- Archanaa Ananda (archanaa1961@gmail.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archanaa1961 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Please read Frequently asked questions (FAQ) No. 6 at the top of the page. MilborneOne (talk) 08:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Taking cognition of Maratha and Rajputs in India content in store

British took over from "Marhatta" Maratha not Mughals pls update this. 2405:201:D000:8063:2D7D:6F6D:DCF4:BAD0 (talk) 07:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The British took over from a lot of different powers. Neither the Nawab of Bengal, nor Tipu Sultan, ..., nor the Sikhs in 1846, nor yet the Nawabs of Awadh in 1856 were Marathas. Please read the talk page archives. We get such posts all the time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 December 2021

change "After initially cordial relations with neighbouring China, India went to war with China in 1962, and was widely thought to have been humiliated to Despite initial warm relations with India, China invaded India in 1962" Omnibeing (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

The previously mentioned point was not even-handed Omnibeing (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. This text is long-standing, and has been discussed in the past. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Pictures

Is there a way to make the pictures all normal size. They are completely overbearing in some sections.--2605:8D80:545:5B3D:15E9:6056:5D5A:13A3 (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2021

It would look good if you add the name of the country with their Devanagari writing script in Hindi: भारत गणराज्य like how it is with other country 2601:81:4080:9C10:3D03:CC17:97F0:3410 (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposed edit to Foreign, economic and strategic relations section

From the article:

Current text:

After initially cordial relations with neighbouring China, India went to war with China in 1962, and was widely thought to have been humiliated.

I was going through the edit history and noticed someone tried to replace the text in italics with "which it lost", but the change was reverted by another editor. I understand this is a Featured Article and therefore I want to gain consensus before making any unilateral changes.

Facts:

• India suffered a defeat in the war 1962 India-China war. No doubt about that.
• Do some sources may term the defeat "humiliating"? Yes. However, was this how it was widely described as? No.
• There were multiple other military disputes that occurred later in history that are missing.

Proposed change:

After initially cordial relations with neighbouring China, relations between contemporary China and India have been characterised by border disputes, resulting in military conflicts – the Sino-Indian War of 1962, the border clashes in Sikkim in 1967, the 1987 Sumdorong Chu standoff, the 2013 Depsang standoff, and the 2020-2021 skirmishes.

NebulaOblongata (talk) 08:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@NebulaOblongata: I've added half a dozen scholarly sources supporting Indian humiliation in 1962. There seems no doubt about that. We can consider whether your other suggestions are needed, or whether in a distilled history they might be WP:UNDUE. That only a consensus here will determine. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

No to your proposed changes - lacking in context/ TrangaBellam (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Adding to TrangaBellam's point, I will note that there are problems with linking other articles on an FA. Articles, such as Sino-Indian border dispute tend to fly under the radar and can be avenues for POV and OR. An FA can't send a novice reader tumbling down those rabbit holes. The later pages 1987, 2013, and 2020 might be even more open to such an objection. I would be very circumspect. A very general description of the later disputes, with context, but without any links might be appropriate for discussion. A shortish sentence, cited, of course. I will look for the sources and suggest something. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - "India went to war with China" is wrong wording, and is not supported by any of the extensive quotes included for it. A better wording is "border disputes emerged by 1959 leading to a war with China". I would also change "India was humiliated" to "India faced a humiliating defeat". The defeat is the important fact and humiliation is a gloss on it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• Agree with you. Whether it was India's China war or China's India war is—let's just say,—disputed. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't necessarily object to your proposed edits, but I don't feel the need for them either. I didn't look for sources for "went to war" because the objection was to "humiliated." "Went to war" is a commonplace expression for "entered on/into hostilites." (OED) which certainly applies to 1962. Humiliation is not a gloss, if by gloss you mean comment or interpretation, on defeat at all. "Humiliating" is "that lowers one's dignity or self-respect; abasing, mortifying." (OED) The self-respect of defeat can't be lowered; it is that of the loser. See, for example,

• Brown, Judith M. (1998), Modern India: The origins of an Asian democracy, Oxford University Press,  Another pattern leading to conflict in 1962 (in which India was humiliated by contrast with her wars with Pakistan) was the deterioration of her relationship with China, which was increasingly a major power in Asia and the world after the 1949 Communist revolution. Nehru had placed his hopes for peace with China on five principles of peace negotiated in 1955; these included non-aggression and non-interference in each other's internal affairs, as well as respect for each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity. But war broke out over the control of disputed areas on India's north-east border. India's armed forces were shown up to be woefully unprepared: she was only saved from further humiliation by China's unilateral cease-fire. Theat is Judith M. Brown writing. I'm sure I can round up more sources in short order. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• "Border disputed emerged" is not needed. A more accurate description would be:

  After cordial relations between India and China through most of the 1950s, war broke out between the two countries over the control of disputed areas in India's northeastern border, leading to a defeat for India in which she/it was widely thought to have been humiliated.

  Obviously the war had some trigger. Better to give it some geographical context, if not a political one. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• I guess Judith Brown saying (in my colorful rephrasing) is: Whether the story of Marwari merchants of Calcutta taking Chinese lessons in October 1962, or their ancestors Japanese lessons 20 years earlier, is real or legendary, the Chinese could have taken much more Indian territory had they wanted to. Therein the humiliation lay. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• I am ok with that. I would be even happier if you omit "in India's northeastern border", because we know it was the western sector that was really important to China (and where they kept all that they gained). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• I assumed by "north-eastern" she meant NEFA and Aksai Chin, but if that is not clear, we can change it to "northern and northeastern borders." Some geographical information is useful, but we can't say western sector or even western Himalayas, as they would not be widely understood. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Historical Maps used in the article

I would like to point out that the historical political maps of India (of the Mauryan, Gupta, Mughal empires etc.) are absurdly outdated. They give undue importance to seemingly random places (for instance, Lalitapatan (modern Lalitpur) in Nepal or Srinagar in Kashmir are not even documented during the Mauryan empire, which is even more weird given the fact that known and documented large settlements are not mentioned (the lower Gangetic Valley had most of the large cities in South Asia in that period.) Kashmir wasn't ever documented in that period as a separate geographical region with that name, much less a polity deserving a separate mention, over and above the well known and documented Central Asian Hellenic and Iranic kingdoms

From where comes the impression that we are so immensely sure of Gupta era politics to have a an entire area so confidently (and arbitrarily) labelled as "Protectet(sic) Tribes?" Similarly, a completely random piece of land in Kathiawar is marked off separately in the Mughal Empire map with no labelling whatsoever. The southernmost region is anachronistically (for a map of 1605) labelled "Polygars."

This, with the ample typos, antiquated spelling, bad labelling accuracy etc. gives the reader a peculiar view of Indian political history (-ical geography?) that is inconsistent with the present day understanding of it.

I would suggest just replacing these with maps from the respective Wikipedia pages, to make Wikipedia internally more consistent, and avoid spreading spread misinformation (that's too strong a word, but yes) through a Featured Article.

I'm not giving any references, too much work, but ik I'm right(ish), please check Wikipedia pages on the individual polities to verify my claims.

If the editors still feel my concern is a load of trash, they may kindly ignore this rant. 49.207.194.44 (talk) 13:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Dear @49.207.194.44: Many apologies. Thanks for your very pertinent post. I was going to reply much earlier but forgot. I will soon replace the map of the maximum geographical extent of Asoka's empire with a more realistic modern map, which in its instance is available on WP. Other maps I will attend to a little later. Many thanks, again.Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 January 2022

India´s offcial language is not Hindi. What about other states who cannot speak Hinidi ? 2001:8A0:6C9D:D500:3165:604D:C704:1621 (talk) 09:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Official language means the language government operates in. Our currently cited sources support that Hindi and English are the Indian government's official languages. This is not the same as a national language, which our article also notes India does not have. Cannolis (talk) 09:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 January 2022

Remove the part about the "largest democracy in the world," while it is true, it's mostly political rhetoric and sort of relevant. For similar reasons, we don't say in China's article that it is the "world's largest autocracy."

Essentially, the claim that it is the world's largest democracy, while it is true, violates wikipedia's neutrality policy since it is political rhetoric used by India to portray itself to the outside world. Cahmad25 (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

8 national parties, 54 state parties existing in India. Majority of population choose leader and, since freedom all the politician elected by neutral election. Judiciary system is neutral and government and can't interfere. China isn't largest democracy, if not India then USA? Independent and neural judiciary system, fair election after every 5 years, right to vote for all, anyone can be a politician, freedom of speech and protest and constitution republic, its all needed to call a country democratic. Dinesh | Talk 06:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 January 2022

Hello, can you please include a seperate page of army and science and technology ? And in case of science and technology, there would be scientific achievements of India and there would be writings about ISRO. Thank you ! 2409:4060:38B:6C91:6451:DCA:9DB9:6AA4 (talk) 07:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

While the ISRO has done amazing stuff over the years, it is not that important to be mentioned. The United States article also don't mentioned NASA. About science and technology, we do have those: Indian Armed Forces and Science and technology in India. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Already discussed about it in archived conversation. Dinesh | Talk 15:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 January 2022

I want to add a image of lotus(Nelumbo Nucifera) as a national flower. Lotus is one of the national symbols of India. Mahaveer Indra (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: If you have a specific picture in mind that meets our WP:Image Use Policy, link to it here and reopen the request Cannolis (talk) 04:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 January 2022

This article claims that Netaji and not Gandhi ji helped India get freedom but is it a reliable source? If it is, please add the sentence, "Netaji and not Gandhi ji helped India get freedom" to the lead just after where it says, "A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, which was noted for nonviolent resistance and became the major factor in ending British rule".-115.96.180.5 (talk) 13:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 13:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. That's just an article outlining the claim in a book, not saying the claim is true. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 January 2022

In Sport section You should edit starting line of the section like this "Even though the Hockey is the National Game of India with a record of 6 consecutive gold medals in Olympic Cricket is most popular" Business lnk (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: India does not have a national game. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 19:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 January 2022

2405:201:A405:308E:EC5D:128B:E45C:A006 (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you open edit option for 5 minutes

That is not how it works here at Wikipedia. You have to propose what you want with a reliable source.-2409:4071:D85:71EE:ECE9:74F8:2F39:7161 (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 18:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 January 2022

Update Gini 2011 value from 35.7 to Gini 2019 50.0

Reference:- https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/05/28/countries-with-the-widest-gaps-between-rich-and-poor/39510157/#:~:text=Gini%20coefficient%3A%200.50 Mitshubansal (talk) 10:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Before changing, I would like to learn more about Gini Coefficient. I will search for a more trusted source. Thanks! Dinesh | Talk 07:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey Dineshswamiin, are you still working on this? casualdejekyll 02:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Not done for now: World bank publish Gini index. But latest value for Gini Coefficient was published in 2011. I visited many organisations, news and official website of government. However, some news websites show data for recent years, but with a contradiction. So not done for now. I prefer you to discuss on Economy of India. Thanks! Dinesh | Talk 06:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

History of India

Could you please add other historical dates instead of just 'Independence from UK' in the description box? Like, the Mahajanapadas. Greece keeps the information of the Ancient Greece, why can't we have Ancient India? The description box suggests that India as an entity was founded in 1947. 2409:4042:2619:F042:0:0:2112:20A5 (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done This article is about a country — India. We cannot add more sections. See main article about economic history — Economy of India. Dinesh | Talk 14:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

Pls add Template:Too many photos till size problem is fixed.--204.237.0.91 (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean that if the size is reduced the problem will resolve? I'll see what I can do. I might remove old maps for which there have been requests in the past. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

How does it look now? I've reduced the number of images in most sections, and reduced the sizes of what remain. I've removed old maps. I have left the Visual art section alone, as those images were added by user:Johnbod. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: as informed earlier still you need to work a lot to fix images and broken prose in most of the article sections. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 06:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I've reduced the number of images because of persistent objections that there were too many. Back to a basic minimum as it were. All new additions will need to be discussed here. There is roughly one image per 150 words now. The cuisine section has approximately 470 words. It cannot take more than three images, I have therefore your reverted your attempt to squeeze in Hyderabad. There is already one South Indian image. We have to strive for a minimal regional balance even in the few images we have. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@204.237.0.91: The suggestion is imprecise and hard to understand. Besides, the number of images has been vastly reduced. For the most part there is no more than one image per 150 words. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Hyderabad cuisine (Particularly biryani) is of intrest nationally and internationally, some of which are of an art form, it deserves a sentence and image in the article. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 06:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

How do the merits of a potential new picture compare to the existing images in the subsection? As Fowler mentions image space is limited and the article needs to be considered holistically. There are dedicated pages, and I note that (at first glance) Hyderabadi cuisine is in not too bad a state for a cuisine article. CMD (talk) 08:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

There were two sentences on the biryani which seem to have been accidentally removed. I have restored them. There are many regional styles of biryani; those belong to regional cuisine pages, as CMD implies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Its not a new image it was existing since long time, whch was removed, thus i had included again.
• Its strange that in this section you are discussing and comparing food consumption statistics of china, but dont want to mention a very vernacular Hyderabadi cuisine-(after all it is among the the only Indian cuisine recognized by UNESCO's agencies and with GI tag in India). When we are mentioning statistics of chinese I will be adding Hyderabadi cuisine too. :)Omer123hussain (talk) 11:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• As CMD says, the India page requires a holistic approach to its various topics. It cannot get bogged down in specific details. Please do not make a gratuitous mention of your cuisine of interest. You have been blocked once before for edit warring on India. Be warned. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Do not make it personal, you have not been blocked just because, I had excused you. So you better be warned also.
• I think you should know the purpose of Talk page, we are here to discuss not to target; so simply do not influence others to show my work as a selective. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• You are welcome to offer any suggestions or argue your point. As yet I don't see you have made one for a mention of the Hyderabadi biryani. The text talks about a central place for cooked cereal in an Indian meal and complementary ones for savory dishes. In that context, it has two images: the South Indian platter and the tandoori chef. The text talks about the predominance of vegetarianism in India. It says that in India's years of greater economic growth increased protein has been consumed, but it is more often dairy than meat. In that context, it mentions China which is a country that has had a similar economic trajectory, but where meat has been consumed instead. Comparing Hyderabadi cuisine to China is to compare apples to oranges. We can't very well put Hyderabadi biryani in place of China. Please try to understand that this page has other imperatives. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Omer123hussain: deja vu? Talk:India/Archive_53#Constructive_editing. You need to drop the hyderabadi biryani platter.--RegentsPark (comment) 16:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• @RegentsPark: conclusion en attente! (Talk:India/Archive_53#Constructive_editing), in same discussion they support to keep Hyderabadi biryani image-you will find it only if you read it. Why drop hyderabadi biryani paltter, cant you digest it ? --Omer123hussain (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Omer123hussain: Don't tempt me, I love hyderabadi biryani! But, these days, I'm mostly vegan so "no biryani for me", unfortunately. The veg version just doesn't cut it. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Fowler&fowler: firstly I am discussing but not arguing, The article use to contain image of Hyderabadi cuisine, but you removed it accidentally. I am restoring it in the same way as you did it here.
• secondly; my reasoning is either misunderstood or you are making others confuse by false reasoning, where did I ask to replace Chinese with Hyderabad?-again it’s your judgemental assumption. I had indicated that-do we really need that sentences ? almost half of the section is written discussing all about Abbasid caliphate, Chines statistics, Persian techniques, central Asia, etc. in this section ?.

I always edit in such a way that the words shall not be burden on article and the originality and others work shall not get effected, Hyderabad cuisine need a mention because traditionally most of the south Indian food is vegetarian, the non-vegetarian food in this region had borrowed influences from Hyderabadi cuisine", as it was an epicentre of politics/trade/culture of south India from 17th to 19the century. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I did not accidentally remove it. I deliberately removed it. I reduced the total number of images in the article after numerous complaints by editors that there were too many. I left only three, and those three represent the diversity of Indian cuisine more reliably than they would with an additional picture of Hyderabad biryani. South India is already represented in the South Indian platter. There is no reason for another South India picture, especially one that does not illustrate anything in the text, and is a poor picture, besides. If a rice dish has to be illustrated, then clearly khichdi, the comfort food of millions across India, both rich and poor, is far more representative than something associated with the kitchens of a princely state that took its first faltering steps after the weakening of the Mughal empire in the early-to-mid-18th century. A meat dish is already illustrated in the railway mutton curry from Orissa in eastern India. It is also a nod to the British (whose contributions to Indian cuisine were noted along with the Mughals in the original version of the cuisine section that I wrote for WP's Today's Featured Article on Gandhi's 150th (October 2, 2019). The khameri roti chef is a nod to the Mughals (in the Mughal capital Old Delhi). Beyond this, I am sorry, but I am unable to communicate with you as your post is unintelligible. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

PS Please also note my extensive explanation to you from October of last year. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Taj Mahal from the sky.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Archiving sources before their URLs become dead

@Dhtwiki: About this reversion, can you please explain why is not better to add archives to citations beforehand? Wouldn't it be difficult to archive the sources later? Also, is there an automated way to archive large numbers of websites for later use as credible sources? —CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ]  [ CONT ]} 05:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@CrafterNova: In the first place, you added about 42 kilobytes of what I consider useless clutter to a page that has, on average, 40 thousand page views per day. The one link that was marked as "url-status=dead" I re-added. That is what IABot does when it operates on its own, it only adds links where it finds the original is a dead link. Unless you are checking each archive snapshot for its relevancy and correctness, you can't count on your additions being helpful. The main archive service, Archive.org, prioritizes its archiving according to the original links made here. Pointing to those archive snapshots doesn't ensure their existence. See Wikipedia:Link_rot#Automatic_archiving. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Alright, thank you ;) —CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ]  [ CONT ]} 06:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

India's boundary

India's boundary extends in the areas you have marked in the clickable map as claimed by India and the government has control over those areas so please edit it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.94.32.141 (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

India is exercising control over Azad Jammu Kashmir etc.? Strange. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The 1947 Partition did not split India into two countries, It was split into many Princely States.

Princely States were not part of India after the Partition, for example, Kashmir, Baroda, Hyderabad, and The Kingdom of Mysore is another example.These Princely States were sovereign until India unified. (1961) There are credible websites to talk about this, So, India was not split into two, but many others. Goa was seceded into the India in 1961, as it was freed by the Portuguese. Note that there were many more Princely States, all combined,565 Princely States and Thousands of Jagirs and Zamindari Estates. Links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princely_state , and, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Goa , Topic: “Independence Movement.” Signed, EditorWiki121 (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC).

We can debate until kingdom come whether we should only include British India in the partition, or more precisely, only the Punjab and Bengal, the militaries, and the central treasury. Our Partition of India article makes those distinctions, but India is a higher-level article, it makes the most general statements available in the reliable scholarly sources in its lead and they have come to describe it (at least from the 21st-century perspective) as the Partition of the Indian empire. "South Asians," says Yasmin Khan at the beginning of her book, The Great Partition, "learned that the British Indian Empire would be partitioned on 3 June 1947. They heard about it from the radio, from relations and friends, by reading newspapers, and later ... They were informed of the plan to divide up the empire into new nation-states – India and Pakistan." The OED, the most widely cited record of English, says in its British Raj entry, "In 1947 the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two sovereign dominion states, the Union of India (later the Republic of India) and the Dominion of Pakistan (later the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the People's Republic of Bangladesh) (cf. partition n. 7c)." Although in this instance, they have taken our language, and we can't cite it, it is at least an acceptance of the usage. Thanks for your post. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The Princely States were not "sovereign" in a real sense for this interim period. India & Pakistan took over the existing treaties they had made with the British, so that eg they were not allowed to have foreign relations, their military was strictly limited in numbers etc etc. Their full unification with India (mostly) took place at various dates, see Political integration of India (a Featured Article). For example, the Annexation of Hyderabad was in 1948, Annexation of Junagadh in September 1947, only a few weeks late, while Mysore joined the Indian Union on 9 August 1947, right at the start. You need to update your definition of "credible websites"! Johnbod (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Johnbod is correct. Another description is at Dominion_of_India#Political_integration_of_princely_states. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Most populous democracy country

It should be elaborate widely to make humans mindset towards humanity . 27.56.254.210 (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Mistake

Sa driving side is right 42.111.10.253 (talk) 14:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Driving side is left in India — DaxServer (t · c) 14:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

"Driving side" needs defining: it's the side of the road vehicles are meant to be, not the side of a vehicle the driver is. The OP could have helped themselves by clicking the link in the infobox. Bazza (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 March 2022

India is now the 5 th largest economy with around 3.25 trillion and UK is the 6 largest economy with 3.1 trillion but it's not yet updated in the wikipedia of both india and uk Pro3999 (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide reliable sources and specify clearly (e.g., change X to Y) what change you would like to see in the article. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

United Kingdom article is not updated. In April or May, IMF will publish economic statistics. Dinesh | Talk 13:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Why there is no information regarding Kashmir which is very important to add?

Add information regarding Kashmir in it. 49.206.59.117 (talk) 11:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

There is information about Kashmir in the article with mentions of, and links to, the conflict, the insurgency, the governance, the language etc, and even some photos from the state in rotation. What more in particular would you like the article to discuss, keeping in mind that it is written in a summary style given the vast scope of its subject? Abecedare (talk) 11:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Map of Jammu & Kashmir

Map of Jammu & Kashmir is very ambiguous in map of India, Pakistan and China displayed on pages of these countries. J&K is an integral part of India but so disputed part cannot be shown as full part of Pakistan or China. 171.76.253.248 (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what you want changed. If it is in regards to the non-inclusion of the dispute in other maps, then nothing needs to be changed considering its the business of these three countries and not anyone else's. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 January 2022 (2)

The Maratha Empire article says, "The Marathas are credited for ending Mughal Rule over most of the Indian subcontinent", so should that sentence not be added to this article?-115.96.180.5 (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

(pinged on WT:IN) Not everything from another article should be added here - obviously! You'll need to independently provide reliable academic sources that make this assertion and that also show that it is important enough to be included in the India article. Currently, there appears to be no consensus to add this to the article. --RegentsPark (comment) 23:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

TrangaBellam, Kautilya3, The lead of the Maratha Empire article says, "The Marathas are credited for ending Mughal Rule over most of the Indian subcontinent", so should that sentence not be added to this article, just after where the Mughals are mentioned in the lead (with the same sources)?-115.96.177.51 (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

As RegentsPark has already explained, you can't make the argument that something that appears in one article should also appear in another. A fresh case needs to be made based on reliable sources that are appropriate for the topic. On this page, only academic and high-level historical sources published in the last half a century are accpeted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Kautilya 03 The academic sources are already found in the maratha article That Statment exists because it's already proven in the maratha article. Making a separate case will only lead to the same result. Why are people on this article so darn conservative. This article Is more of a mockery of India rather than a info article Odinson878 (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC) (strike off sock — DaxServer (t · m · c) 15:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC))

Replace Word

Use Devanagari script for 'Bharat Ganrajya' as भारत गणराज्य >> Republic of India भारत गणराज्य (Hindi) Titanx114 (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See Indic scripts in leads and infoboxes Dinesh | Talk 05:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Temples

Please add pictures and content related to famous temples Srirangam, Badrinath , Dwarka and Puri Aravind108 (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done SN54129 13:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually see above - the architecture section is likely to be revamped. Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

There is no template for "is likely to happen in the distant future", sorry. SN54129 15:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

FAR notice on WP:FARGIVEN

Hi editors, this article received an FAR notice in November 2020. Unfortunately, I cannot find the notice in the archives, so I do not know what the follow-up discussion was like. However, I am hoping to get some of your subject-expert opinions on if this article still meets the featured article criteria. I am aware that India is a popular topic on Wikipedia and can sometimes be disruptive (hence the Arbitration Notice at the top of the talk page) so I'm hoping that this discussion will remain focused on created the best version of this article, even if editors disagree on what should and should not be included. Ultimately, the goal is to get a consensus on whether the article meets the FA criteria, or if it should proceed with an FAR.

I've looked at the original notice, skimmed through the article, and want to highlight some of my concerns below:

• This is a long article, but it's going to be long because there are thousands of years of history, culture, heritage, and controversy that need to be present in the article. However, there might be areas that can be trimmed, subdivided into level 3 headings, merged, or summarised more effectively. For example, the "Economy" section (particularly the information before the first level 3 header) is quite long, and some sections underneath contain one paragraph (Energy) or short paragraphs (Industry). Should this section be reworked?
• Similarly, the culture section contains one-paragraph sections ("Architecture" and "Literature"). MOS:PARA says that sections usually contain multiple paragraphs; is it possible to merge these sections into other sections, and add multiple hatnotes to the top of newly merged section?
• I was surprised by how short the "Etymology" section is. There might be some information in Names of India that can be transferred to the article. Do subject-matter experts believe this section is a complete overview of India's etymology?
• The biodiversity section is doing some MOS:SANDWICH with the images.
• Many of the captions are long. Per MOS:CAPTION, "Captions should be succinct; more information can be included on its description page, or in the main text." I think the captions should not try to convey information to the reader or describe what the reader can see in the image. Instead, this information should be placed in the article text or as alternative text. This will also solce some of the SANDWICH problems above. Thoughts?
• The last date mentioned in the History section is 1990. Are there any events or information from the 21st century that should be included?

These are problems I discovered upon a skim, and not after a deep dive. Overall, I think this is a well-researched article and it just needs some sprucing up. Are editors interested in addressing these concerns, and eventually withdrawing the notice? Z1720 (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Z1720: Thanks for your post! The page as you may know is WP's oldest country FA (to be 18 in September, which age our senior cat is also approaching). Its last formal FAR was in 2011, but it had an informal FAR in preparation for its 2nd TFA on Gandhi's 150th on 2 October 2019. You may view those discussions between starting in July and not quite ending in October. The publicity from that day caused several editors to offer critiques of their own. In response, an education section was added by Rjensen, and a visual art section by Johnbod Around that time the lead was rewritten and two sections (Cuisine and Clothing) were added.

Soon after, Fem* left the FAR notice-given, although SandyG might have left a talk page post earlier. Anyway, that was a difficult time for everyone (knee-deep in Covid). So, improvements are being made, but slowly. Unfortunately, I am the one on whom the burden falls (unless the burden is that of POV promotion for which the volunteers are a dime and dozen) and I'm caught up with the Darjeeling FAR, where my progress is shamefully slow, but I have a deadline of steering the ship out of the doldrums by month's end. Your post here is *very* timely.

Anyway, to quickly answer your specific questions. The economy section is weak and needs revision. Would you like to take a stab at it? The etymology, unfortunately, can't really be expanded. There have been too many discussions on it. If you expand, you inevitably allow fringe or dated etymologies and the floodgates stand open for others. (This page, btw, adds the "Main" in the various sections as a lip service to WP's formal rules; the mains are usually dreadfully pov-ridden).

I've tried to address the sandwich issue; if not good enough, feel free to remove the graph. The captions did not used to be long, but after 2019 we've been pressed to cite every caption. As we attempt to cite to scholarly sources, very brief captions become prone to being disputed. In some ways the captions are another form text—illustrated, that is—akin I like to think to the medieval books, that people read precisely because it is not in the main body. The history section does need a 21st-century update. In some areas of Indian contemporary history, we have actually had fairly complete discussions and those could very well be requisitioned, or marshalled I should say, for the updating, if nothing else for the sourcing. Let me think about this some more. Yes, we are very much interested in having that notice withdrawn. Please help in the economy section if you can. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this backstory Fowler&fowler. I'm happy to trim the Economy section, however I will warn that editors have criticised me for how much I cut: I believe that shorter articles are more likely to be read by readers, so I try to only keep the most important information. Would it be better for me to propose my changes on the talk page first, or to WP:BEBOLD and make the edits to the article directly? I'll also note that I am not an expert in economics, India, or writing country articles so I will probably not add any sources or information, just cut and clarify. I also just returned from a longer-than-expected wikibreak and I'm trying to catch up on the articles I am reviewing, but I will add this to my list. If I do not edit or respond in a timely manner, please ping me.

I do want to tackle the captions, and see if the information in the captions can be placed in the article. If not, then perhaps the image is not needed. There's still some image sandwiching happening on my computer (I have a very wide screen so it happens on my screen more often then others) so I will also tackle that when I look at the images.

When looking at recent events in India, I think COVID needs to be mentioned, even if just briefly in the history section.

I also notice that there are lots of notes in the References section. I would like to pull them out of that section and put them in the Notes section. Other references listed also include the quote from the source the verifies the inforamtion: I find that this was common in older FAs, but has fallen out of favour and tends to clutter up the references section. Can we consider removing these quotes from the source? Z1720 (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Please go ahead and edit the economy section. Don't worry about not being an expert. No one really can claim that mantle on India. What you do won't be etched in stone, so someone or other might well tweak it, or supply it with sources, in the final version. I disagree about the captions and the notes. Those you should not change, unless you've achieved some kind of consensus on the talk page. People do read those quotes. See my apology below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC) Updated and time to go to bed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC) Further updated. I didn't mean to scratch the captions, @Z1720: The notes in the lead I will remove. They are not supposed to be there. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

The article does need a public health section or subsection. Once added, it could have a bit on COVID. How significant COVID is in India's very recent history is hard to figure out, although it might have seemed that way when we all saw the pictures in the newspapers a year or two ago. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I apologize about the Notes and quotes; I didn't realize they had appeared in such glory. They had been added in the draft talk page version of the lead during July-through-September 2019 to help the various editors weighing in. They were taken out before being added to the article proper. And without them it had remained well into 2020. Why they are back, and in the article, is a mystery. It might have been a temporary addition to aid a talk page dispute. I will look into this and get back to you. I don't think they are there in the Economy section though. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

PS2 Also a very knowledgeable editor @Abecedare: is back on Wikipedia. So, perhaps he could help in the Culture, Society and Literature subsections, if he has the time. It would be great if he does. @Kautilya3: made some fine points on the Prime Minister of India page the other day, so perhaps he can help in the Politics section. @RegentsPark: is also a very knowledgeable editor; perhaps he could volunteer to do (or redo) the Socio-Economic challenges section which has what little there is on Public Health, maybe even write a Public Health section; perhaps he and @Vanamonde93: can do it together. @Johnbod: has already done yoeman's work, but perhaps he could do more in the Architecture section. There is a science and technology section awaiting an author. Is there a Movies and Media section? Not wanting to click out, I'm assuming there is, but one frightfully dated or listy or both. Would @Dwaipayanc: (whose Pather Panchali is a shining beacon) like to lend a hand? Would @Chipmunkdavis: like to rewrite the sports section? They would all need high-level (broadscale, low-res) presentations. Its past my bedtime, so maybe more commandeering of talent tomorrow. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:10, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I think I just did "art" and left "architecture" more or less as it was. I'll take a look at some point soon; it's not great now. Johnbod (talk) 13:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 April 2022

There is a change needed in the population data given because this page is still using 2018 population estimates when the 2021 population estimates have already been released by the UN and UIDAI. RayAdvait (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Caste system and untouchability

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.

---

"But were also marked by declining status of women and untouchability" Can we please remove line There s no authentic source to back this Statment It's just a propaganda Caste and untouchability are medieval creations Not ancient Even the sources stat that Please change it. Odinson878 (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Well three are cited, and they are pretty explicit, far more than we are. They are Tim Dyson, Burton Stein, and Barbara Ramusack. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

As for untouchability, the ancient, long-lasting and uniquely Indian form of stratification and exclusion, its been around since the Indo-Aryans began to deforest the Ganges plain, ca 500 BCE. Please read the citation and footnote. Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund are cited; they refute your very assertion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@fowler&fowler "Their collective era was suffused with wide-ranging creativity,[37] but also marked by the declining status of women,[38] and the incorporation of untouchability into an organised system of belief". First this phrase is unnecessary Second "As for untouchability, the ancient, long-lasting and uniquely Indian form of stratification and exclusion, its been around since the Indo-Aryans began to deforest the Ganges plain, ca 500 BCE. " The so called sources Literally claim That The caste system is a late medieval system and the modern system is mainly derived from the zaminadei system in the 18th century. Besides you have a history of defaming India By specifically only mentioning read the citation and footnote. Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund. Other scholars refuted that Statment multiple times Here s a statement from the caste article." Varna, as mentioned in ancient Hindu texts, describes society as divided into four categories: Brahmins (scholars and yajna priests), Kshatriyas (rulers and warriors), Vaishyas (farmers, merchants and artisans) and Shudras (tribals/workmen/service providers). The texts do not mention any hierarchy or a separate, untouchable category in Varna classifications. Scholars believe that the Varnas system was never truly operational in society and there is no evidence of it ever being a reality in Indian history. The practical division of the society had always been in terms of Jatis (birth groups), which are not based on any specific religious principle, but could vary from ethnic origins to occupations to geographic areas. The Jātis have been endogamous social groups without any fixed hierarchy but subject to vague notions of rank articulated over time based on lifestyle and social, political or economic status. Many of India's major empires and dynasties like the Mauryas, Shalivahanas," Your bias is clear. You vandalize every Indian page and you usually add horrible stereotypes about Indian people on Indian articles by using those two sources, yes the only two while the other hundred sources debunk it. Please have some shame.

Odinson878 (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

https://www.epw.in/journal/2011/33/special-articles/census-colonial-india-and-birth-caste.html Odinson878 (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Here s another phrase from the same caste article.

Starting with the 1901 Census of India led by colonial administrator Herbert Hope Risley, all the jātis were grouped under the theoretical varnas categories. According to political scientist Lloyd Rudolph, Risley believed that varna, however ancient, could be applied to all the modern castes found in India, and "[he] meant to identify and place several hundred million Indians within it." In an effort to arrange various castes in order of precedence functional grouping was based less on the occupation that prevailed in each case in the present day than on that which was traditional with it, or which gave rise to its differentiation from the rest of the community. "This action virtually removed Indians from the progress of history and condemned them to an unchanging position and place in time. In one sense, it is rather ironic that the British, who continually accused the Indian people of having a static society, should then impose a construct that denied progress." The terms varna (conceptual classification based on occupation) and jāti (groups) are two distinct concepts: while varna is a theoretical four-part division, jāti (community) refers to the thousands of actual endogamous social groups prevalent across the subcontinent. The classical authors scarcely speak of anything other than the varnas, as it provided a convenient shorthand; but a problem arises when colonial Indologists sometimes confuse the two. Odinson878 (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)odinson878

Would even reply?? Odinson878 (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC) (strike off sock — DaxServer (t · m · c) 15:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC))

This adding into the first lines is not really needed this creates propoganda because most people read the first few lines we can add this information on later half of the article . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saha86830 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

References

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.

Mughal

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.

---

"The Mughal Empire, in 1526, ushered in two centuries of relative peace,[46] leaving a legacy of luminous architecture" This phrase is horribly over simplified. The mughal period was an era of never ending conquests against The rajputs, sikhs, matathas and other foreign powers like Persians. It wasn't peaceful at all

Aurangzeb s critics argue that his ruthlessness and religious bigotry made him unsuitable to rule the mixed population of his empire. Some critics assert that the persecution of Shias, Sufis and non-Muslims to impose practices of orthodox Islamic state, such as imposition of sharia and jizya religious tax on non-Muslims, doubling of custom duties on Hindus while abolishing it for Muslims, executions of Muslims and non-Muslims alike, and destruction of temples eventually led to numerous rebellions. G. N. Moin Shakir and Sarma Festschrift argue that he often used political opposition as pretext for religious persecution, and that, as a result, groups of Jats, Marathas, Sikhs, Satnamis and Pashtuns rose against him. Odinson878 (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)odinson878 (strike off sock — DaxServer (t · m · c) 15:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC))

References

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.

White wash

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.

---

Gradually expanding rule of the British East India Company followed, turning India into a colonial economy, but also consolidating its sovereignty.[48] British Crown rule began in 1858. The rights promised to Indians were granted slowly,[49][50] but technological changes were introduced, and ideas of education, modernity and the public life took root.[51] This is completely wrong! Odinson878 (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Here s another proof (strike off sock — DaxServer (t · m · c) 15:58, 29 March 2022 (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.

Economic impact of British imperialism

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.

---

See also: Economy of India during British era (1793–1947) and India's GDP and global ranking from 1 CE to 197 CE

"Company official John Sullivan observed in the 1840s: 'The little court disappears - the capital decays - trade languishes - the capital decays - the people are impoverished - the Englishman flourishes, and acts like a sponge, drawing up riches from the banks of the Ganges, and squeezing them down upon the banks of the Thames'. India that the British East India Company conquered was no primitive or barren land, but the glittering jewel of the medieval world. Its accomplishments and prosperity - 'the wealth created by vast and varied industries' - were succinctly described by a Yorkshire-born American Unitarian minister, J. T. Sunderland. At the beginning of eighteenth century, as the British economic historian Angus Maddison has demonstrated, India's share of world economy was 23 per cent, as large as all of Europe put together. By the time the British departed India, it had dropped to just over 3 per cent. The reason was simple: India was governed for the benefit of Britain. Britain's rise for 200 years was financed by its depredation in India."

— Shashi Tharoor, The Looting of India, Inglorious Empire: What the British Did to India (2017)

From 1 century CE till the start of British colonisation in India in 17th century, India's GDP always varied between ~25 - 35% world's total GDP -larger than all of Europe combined, which dropped to 2% by the time British departed India in 1947 with Independence of India. At the same time, the United Kingdom's share of the world economy rose from 2.9% in 1700 up to 9% in 1870 alone. As Shashi Tharoor explains, "The reason is simple: India was governed for the benefit of Britain. Britain's rise for 200 years was financed by its depredation of India." The British East India Company had forced open the large Indian market to British goods, which could be sold in India without tariffs or duties, compared to local Indian producers who were heavily taxed, while in Britain protectionist policies such as bans and high tariffs were implemented to restrict Indian textiles from being sold there, whereas raw cotton was imported from India without tariffs to British factories which manufactured textiles from Indian cotton and sold them back to the Indian market. British economic policies gave them a monopoly over India's large market and cotton resources. India served as both a significant supplier of raw goods to British manufacturers and a large captive market for British manufactured goods. British set about systematically destroying India's textile manufacturing and exports, replacing those with manufactured in England using Indian raw material and exported finished textile to India and the rest of the world, adding insult to in jury. This led to first ever great deindustrialisation in the history. British were ruthless who stopped paying in British Pound and Sterling, instead they used taxes raised from the colonised Indians to pay for the raw material bought from India at a monopolised extremely low price, this creating a vast global monopoly on Indian textile trade.

Under British rule, India's share of the world economy declined from 24.4% in 1700 down to 4.2% in 1950. India's GDP (PPP) per capita was stagnant during the Mughal Empire and began to decline prior to the onset of British rule. India's share of global industrial output declined from 25% in 1750 down to 2% in 1900.

Contemporary historian Rajat Kanta Roy argues the economy established by the British in the 18th century was a form of plunder and a catastrophe for the traditional economy of Mughal India, depleting food and money stocks and imposing high taxes that helped cause the famine of 1770, which killed one-third of the people of Bengal.

William Digby estimated that from 1870–1900 £900 million was transferred from India. In the seventeenth century, India was a relatively urbanised and commercialised nation with a buoyant export trade, devoted largely to cotton textiles, but also including silk, spices, and rice. India was the world's main producer of cotton textiles and had a substantial export trade to Britain, as well as many other European countries, via the East India Company. After the British victory over the Mughal Empire (Battle of Buxar, 1764) India was deindustrialized by successive EIC, British and colonial policies (see Calico Act above).

The EIC's opium business was hugely exploitative and ended up impoverishing Indian peasants. Poppy was cultivated against a substantial loss to over 1.3 million peasants that cultivated it in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.

Several historians point to the colonization of India as a major factor in both India's deindustrialization and Britain's Industrial Revolution. British colonization forced open the large Indian market to British goods, which could be sold in India without any tariffs or duties, compared to local Indian producers who were heavily taxed. In Britain protectionist policies such as bans and high tariffs were implemented to restrict Indian textiles from being sold there, whereas raw cotton was imported from India without tariffs to British factories which manufactured textiles. British economic policies gave them a monopoly over India's large market and raw materials such as cotton. India served as both a significant supplier of raw goods to British manufacturers and a large captive market for British manufactured goods.

In contrast, historian Niall Ferguson argues that under British rule, the village economy's total after-tax income rose from 27% to 54% (the sector represented three quarters of the entire population) and that the British had invested £270 million in Indian infrastructure, irrigation and industry by the 1880s (representing one-fifth of entire British investment overseas) and by 1914 that figure had reached £400 million. He also argues that the British increased the area of irrigated land by a factor of one-eight, contrasting with 5% under the Mughals.

The subject of the economic impact of British imperialism on India remains disputable. The issue was raised by British Whig politician Edmund Burke who in 1778 began a seven-year impeachment trial against Warren Hastings and the East India Company on charges including mismanagement of the Indian economy.

P. J. Marshall argues the British regime did not make any sharp break with the traditional economy and control was largely left in the hands of regional rulers. The economy was sustained by general conditions of prosperity through the latter part of the 18th century, except the frequent famines with high fatality rates. Marshall notes the British raised revenue through local tax administrators and kept the old Mughal rates of taxation. Marshall also contends the British managed this primarily indigenous-controlled economy through cooperation with Indian elites. Odinson878 (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC) (strike off sock — DaxServer (t · m · c) 15:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC))

I don't know much about Mr. Tharoor's book, but it seems to be a popular trade book, not among the kind of scholarly textbooks to which, and which alone, this article is beholden This is a high-level (i.e. broad-scale) article. It is written in Summary style. Please read WP:DUE and its relation to: WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:SOURCETYPES, and WP:TERTIARY. For criticism of Angus Maddison's historical income estimates by economic historians, please read Talk:Angus Maddison. Best regards, Please also read talk page guidelines. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

References

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.

Establishment Section

Perhaps we can add a historical empire like in egypt, sri lanka, or china's wikipedia page. An empire that unified most of india like the mauryans — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogeimations (talk • contribs) 15:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

There is no political continuity between the Mauryans and modern India. CMD (talk) 13:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

There is no political continuity between "first pre-imperial dynasty" and People's republic of China.

There is no political continuity between "Upper and Lower Nile kingdoms" and Arab Republic of Egpyt. I would argue neither cultural continuity exists.

There is no political continuity between "Kievan Rus" and the Russian Federation.

In all the above cases, the formation section still includes these "heritages".

It will not seem fair if the yardstick keeps changing when it comes India. Almost seems mischievous and motivated. 66.162.72.178 (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

There is clear cultural continuity tho, but alright I can accept that. But I do think it should atleast mention 1857 as the year when India got passed on to the british crown.

Btw, the un-logged in guy is not me Dogeimations (talk) 09:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Formation

Almost every major country has a section called “formation” in its info box. For example, China starts with “first pre-imperial dynasty” 2070 BCE. Russia as Kievan Rus in 970, including USSR in recent history. This entire section is missing from India’s page which is strange because the geographic entity of Bharat or India has existed for several millennia. The existing section with single item about independence from United Kingdom is more appropriately suited to “republic of India” article instead. 207.96.92.232 (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

This is the article about the republic of India. See the hatnote at the top of the article. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Article China has a hatnote titled People's Republic of China and has a formation dating back to 2070 BCE

Article Russia has a hatnote titled Russian Federation and has formation dating back to 970 CE

Article Egpyt has a hatnote titled Arab Republic of Egypt and has formation dating back to 3000 BCE

and several other examples.

Keeping consistency and common standard across wikipedia, India with the hatnote Republic of India needs a formation section dating back to at least the Indus Valley Civilization that became the foundation of the cultural and geographical that is India (officially Republic of India) 66.162.72.178 (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, geographically "India" has arguably existed for ~10 million years rather than just "several millennia". As CMD already indicated before the topic was re-raised, the question of India's political and cultural identity is more complex. All this is summarized in the body of the current article and discussed in more detail in the linked sub-articles. We don't need to synthesize an artificially specific "formation date for India" just to have something in the Infobox or to ape wikipedia articles of other countries for which such a concept may (or, may not) be appropriate.

PS: If you are Dogeimations, can you please log in and avoid creating duplicate talkpage sections. Abecedare (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Well geographically "China" and "Russia" have also existed for millions of years and so has most countries. What's your point?

Yes, we absolutely need to synthesize a date that is closer to true formation of India and not look at this civilizational country though British lens. British crown controlled India for a mere 90 years, a tiny blip in its history.

Like I mentioned before, the yardstick cannot be different for countries depending on one's political/nationalistic views. Sticking to the formation date as 1947 very much stinks of colonial mindset that we absolutely want to get rid of. Desiterp (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Please note this article is a higher quality one than the ones you mention. At any rate, the geographic entity is covered at the article Indian subcontinent, not here. CMD (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Germany has 1871, a strictly political take. That Chinese date is highly dubious. There is a case for giving the Indian date as either 1947, or whenever the British are deemed to have controlled virtually all of India, which no previous empire had quirte managed to do. Or just leaving the section blank. Johnbod (talk) 02:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Yup as RegentsPark says, this page is Republic of India. It was formed on January 26, 1950. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

i.e. not Dominion of India formed 15 August 1947, or Modern India for which a case could be made for a date of 1848 (says our section: "Historians consider India's modern age to have begun sometime between 1848 and 1885. The appointment in 1848 of Lord Dalhousie as Governor General of the East India Company set the stage for changes essential to a modern state. These included the consolidation and demarcation of sovereignty, ..." The Dalhousie years were crucial for the Raj, but I remain deeply uncomfortable about using "India" for anything before 1947, especially for applying it to regions such as Gilgit-Baltistan or Baluchistan, which have nothing in common with India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, even though I would like it if there was a historical empire for India. We should at the very least put it as 1857 for the year when India got passed on to the british crown.

Btw, the un-logged in guy is not me Dogeimations (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the Dominion of India in 1947 came to be called "India." Had it been called, say, "Hindustan," the naming heartache would not have resulted. Like Pakistan, Hindustan would have been founded in 1947. And the Republic of Hindustan in 1950. "India" could then have been used unambiguously for the pre-1947 entity. As for 1857, the consolidation of sovereignty in some sense had substantially occurred before the Raj began (1858). If you count the improvements of the Raj, with which India is considered blessed (or saddled depending on your POV) to be aspects of modernity, then they had already appeared during Company rule: primary and secondary education, English-language education, universities, railways, telegraph, canals, ... Any hazarding of beginnings and formations is best avoided in conspicuous places, for it will be challenged. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

That's the point I have been trying to make. In the examples, I mentioned earlier, Russian Federation only exists since 1991, the People's Republic of China since 1949, but their formation dates are derived from their cultural predecessors. India has even a better case here for the formation beginning with the Indus Valley culture (which laid the foundations of present-day India's culture) and inclusions of several empires (Maurya or Gupta or Mughal and others) which controlled entire India directly or indirectly.

The British crown controlled India politically for a mere 90 years, a tiny blip in India's history. You argument that "this article is about Republic of India" implies that India did not exist before 1947 which is somewhat indigestible. Looking at India through British history stinks of colonial mindset. Desiterp (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@66.162.72.178: Indus civilization mostly belongs to the Pakistan page and its history. You are welcome to suggest 3300 BCE for their infobox, or perhaps even 6,500 BCE if Neolithic Mehrgarh, the crown jewel of Pakistan's pre-history (where among other things not only was cotton first domesticated but the earliest evidence of proto-dentistry in humanity in the form of the drilling of teeth in vivo is found, should be counted. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Factually incorrect, there are more IVC sites in India than Pakistan (refer to the List of IVC sites article). Even if we consider your argument for a moment, Pakistan which was carved out of India only ~70 years ago cannot lay claim to the cultural successor of undivided India. It's almost saying like Lithuania is the predecessor of present day Russia and it's culture. Just does not make sense. Desiterp (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Read footnote [57] in the Indus Valley Civilisation page. A shard or two in the Rajasthan sand, might betoken a local culture with some Indus influence, but not a Mature Harappan one. After the partition, left with nothing, the ASI has been counting shards in the sand; a very small number have been excavated. The ones that have, remain unpublished. The ones that have been published, remain unable to aspire beyond in-house ASI report. There is a good reason that after 1950 major foreign archaeologists, among them Mortimer Wheeler, George F. Dales, Jean-François Jarrige, Rita P. Wright, Raymond Allchin, and Bridget Allchin have generally stayed away from excavating in India. There is very little there. Please read talk page guidlines. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Again factually incorrect -- Numerous excavations have taken place after the 50s, some are still going on and the results are well published internationally including UNESCO. Happy to provide more links but here are couple https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1645/ and https://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/5918/

I would invite you to look beyond "shards or two in the Rajasthan sand" and validation from "foreign archaeologists" to read about sites of Kalibangan, Lothal, Surkotada, Banawali, Dholavira, and so many more.

Coming back to the main point, the Indus valley civilization (note how the country of India derives it names from the same river) which eventually shaped Vedic and Iron Age India and subsequent Indian republics/empires like the Mahajanpadas, Nanda Empire, Maurya Empire, Gupta Empire, the Mughals, Marathas, and many more that contributed along the way to shape India. The current official emblem of India is from the Mauryan period. Another legacy is the present Grand Trunk Road that has been in use since ~1000 BCE https://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/6056/ that shaped the history and culture of India.

These eras are what shaped modern India and absolutely need to be present in the Formation section. Desiterp (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not a formation section, it's a soveriegnty_type section, with established_event1 sub-fields to note when the particular type of sovereignty was established. The Formation wording came into use for states which emerged at times when sovereignty was a much fuzzier concept, and has since become abused. CMD (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

We can debate about whether the section should be called Sovereignty or Formation, but the point still remains the page's infobox needs a section outlining major eras.

Regarding @Fowler&fowler previous comment about India's nomenclature, the endonym Bharat has always been used for referring to the nation (India). India is just a nomenclative pointer that outsiders have used to refer to Bharat. Doesn't matter if it is India, or Hindustan it still refers to same entity of Bharat. Desiterp (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

No, the page's infobox does not need such a thing. CMD (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

agree with CMD Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@CMD I will keep pushing to add relevant information on the page and see that the same yardstick gets applied. Cheers :) Desiterp (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Please scratch your ad hominem comments insinuating motivation to CMD. Otherwise you are looking to be penalized. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Please. Who do you think has written the lead of Indus Valley Civilisation? Please examine the history. Dholavira is an example of the extensive reach of a civilization centered in the Indus valley. Dholavira was there on that page long before it became a UNESCO WHS last year, 40 years after Mohenjo-daro. And what is it called, "Dholavira, a Harappan City." (not Harappa, a Dholaviran city) The IVC is a vast civilization centered in the Indus valley in present-day Pakistan, but reaching into western India and coastal Baluchistan (see Kot Bala, for example, excavated by George F. Dales. UNESCO in any case is most definitely not a reliable source and certainly not the tentative lists, which just proposals by nominating countries, not UNESCO's considered judgment (which is not a peer-reviewed publication in a journal). Many have languished for years, which Lothal likely has, as most Indus archaeologists don't believe it had a "port." (See Allchin and Allchin's Rise of Civilisation i India and Pakistan, Cambridge, 1982. In summary, please note that making points that don't directly help in improving the page, submitting links that don't constitute reliable sources, and continuing to do so, eventually becomes disruptive. This is my last reply to you. I oppose all your proposals here. All the best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowlerThank you for your comments. I am new to wikipedia edits, getting a hang of it. Let me go over the rules, especially regarding reliable sources. There might an issue of perspective even with reliable sources, for example, what decides that history of a country should include/exclude events that happened in a territory it doesn't control anymore? I may find the answer in my onboarding. Cheers. Desiterp (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)