Talk:India/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Origin of Names 2 Adding a Scientific/Technological Achievements Section 3 WHERE IS 1500 YEARS FROM OUR HISTORY 4 Is it civilisation or civilization? 5 "World's largest democracy" 6 map 7 Map comments 8 multinational? 9 The number of languages spoken 10 History 11 DISTORTATION OF INDIAN HISTRY LEAVING OUT MUSLIMS 12 ONLY ONE SENTENCE DEVOTED TO MUGHULS 13 Protection, History, etc. 14 The Image

Origin of Names

The "Origin of Names" section says:

"The official name India is derived from Sindhu, the historic local appellation for the river Indus, which is one of the most internationally recognized landmarks of the country"

Is this true? Most of the Indus river is not even in India any more - it is in Pakistan; I think the original connotation of the above sentence (before it was edited a few days ago), was that the name India is the most internationally recognizable name of the country. I don't think the Indus river is an internationally recognizable landmark of India now, but I am not going to change this without consensus, since the above statement is probably historically correct. Any thoughts?

The same section also says:

"The king Bharat was known for his love towards his subjects ( i.e people in his state ). He was the first king to start the system of Provinces ( i.e. to devide the Empire into smaller parts to rule effectly and efficiently )."

AFAIK, Bharat is more of a mythological figure than a historical one. The first sentence above sounds rather lame - also, do we have sources for the rest (first to start provinces, etc)? To the best of my knowledge, there are no historical records about Bharat to make the above claims.

--ashwatha 21:02, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Adding a Scientific/Technological Achievements Section

How about adding something about recent improvement in India's technological prowess? Like how it is now a very fast growing Cell Phone market, it has become the back office of the world; its companies are now exporting cars to other countries. i.e. Tata exporting Indica. In addition, mentioning how India has achieved the capabilities to make and send their own satellites to space, besides achieving advance capabilities in peaceful use of Nuclear power for power generation. I think we need to present this new and emerging side of India as well, rather than arguing about History and trying to always show the negative aspects of India. Sjain 05:51, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can't agree more on this. -- Sundar 06:06, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Lets Start working on it. I will try to post something decent here, meanwhile someone could start on it on this pageSjain 02:44, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Indian Economy

The Indian economy section ought to be rewritten to reflect the recent upswing of the India Software and services sector (also known as the 'OUTSOURCING BOOM'). This is one potential area which has tremendous ramifications.

WHERE IS 1500 YEARS FROM OUR HISTORY

A GOOD DEAL OF HARD WORK SEEMS TO HAVE GONE IN BUT PITY A LOT OF MISINFORMATION 1500 YEARS OF MUSLIM RULE HAS BEEN IGNORED WHILE LOTS OF SPACE DEVOTED TO ANCIENT INDIA OF WHICH WE KNOW VERY LITTLE ABOUT - MYTHOLOGY HAS BEEN PRESENTED AS FACT SUGGEST A PERSON WHO HAS STUDIED HISTORY OR AT LEAST AN EDUCATED PERSON SHOULD WRITE THE HISTORY SECTION

I am not sure I see your point. The "history of India" section in this article is a brief, birds' eye view of Indian history. If you notice, everything is brief in the section, as it should be. Indeed, both the Guptas and the Mauryas are in one line; so are the Mughals.

What is more, "1500 years of Muslim rule" is an exaggeration - Muslim rule began taking hold only after Mohammad Ghazni's invasions in the 12th century, reaching its zenith during the Mughal period. From the 12th century until approximately 1857 - gives you 700 years, not 1500.

In any case, more than the timeline, the space constraints do not allow for an elaboration in this article - I would have agreed with your claim that this is in some way anti-muslim if Hindu empires had been elaborated upon, but neither are they. If you need a detailed description of the history of the Mughals (or indeed the Mauryas or the Guptas or anyone else), you should really be following the links from this article.

Also, when you say "Mythology has been presented as fact," I am not sure what you mean - please provide instances for where you think mythology has been presented as fact.

--ashwatha 16:17, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also you state that the British rule for about ninety years - actually the east india company was formed in late 1500s and British ruled India for over 300 years.

It is 90 years because the East India Company was just that; a Company, India was transferred to the crown only after the first war of Indian Independence, in 1857.

Is it civilisation or civilization?

AFIK, native English speakers of England and English speakers in India use 's' in place of the American 'z'. Do we have a policy defined on this? Pending a reply, I am not reverting User:SetItRight's latest edit. -- Sundar 05:45, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

We should use British spellings here. WhisperToMe 06:21, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OED and Cambridge University Press have always maintained the 'ize' spelling. --Jiang

I think 's' is more universally prevalent today and this should be used, irrespective of the debate whether American or British English should hold primacy. KRS 15:34, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't know how you came to the conclusion that 's' is more prevalent, KRS. If you just do a Google search for "civilization" and "civilisation", you'll see that for the 'z'-form over 3,000,000 hits come back, whereas for the 's'-form less than 500,000. If we're basing this on widespread usage we would have to favor "civilization". --LordSuryaofShropshire 21:53, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

Indian usage, however, prefers civilisation. We should use the locally appropriate spelling in this article. It is also true that the spelling with s is more prevalent, being used in far more English-speaking countries than the one with z. Shorne 03:51, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The -ize and -ise are both popular in India. However Indian media publications stick to the -ise form, and so it is the default for this page as per wikipedia guidelines. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:35, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

My two paise. One reason for the popularity of -ize that I can think of is the popularity of MS Word with the default language settings being American English. I feel this kind of popularity is in a way forced. -- Sundar 05:14, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Arguing over "s" and "z" seems silly to me. If the spelling is acceptable in English, then it should be acceptable in the article. Since India's use of English comes from British English, what's wrong with that? jimaginator

Since both are standard English spellings, either seems fine. The wikipedia practice is to maintain consistency within the article, so if, for example, civilisation is to be spelled with an 's' in the article, it should be spelled the same way throughout.

"World's largest democracy"

Is it really appropriate to start the article with the statement that India is the world's largest democracy? That is not the most salient fact about India. I would instead begin with something like "India is a large multinational country in South Asia".

Who are you to decide what the most Salient fact about India is? I think the fact that it is home to one billion people, and is a democracy with a constitution and laws based on British Common Law a very salient fact. Furthermore, multinational makes no sense at all. --198.3.8.1 10:08, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the term 'Multinational' should not be used. It makes very little sense. --Hpnadig 19:52, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Besides, "the world's largest democracy" is POV. It depends on what is meant by democracy. By some definitions, China would qualify; by others, India would not. Shorne 04:04, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, China would Qualify. So would Iraq, North Korea and the former East Germany if you really want to get technical about it. If you want, you can make it Parliamentary Democracy

World's largest parliamentary democracy seems to be more appropriate, doesn't it? -- Sundar 10:34, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Works for me. I think it's instantly obvious. Further I think the fact that it is the world's largest democracy is a "salient fact"--TTG 09:10, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's largest in terms of people, if the PRC isn't counted. The PRC isn't counted in that context as only one party is allowed to have major representation. WhisperToMe 04:06, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Equating democracy with parties is a matter of opinion. I don't think that China is a democracy (even though it does have elections with very high rates of participation), but nor do I think that India is one in a meaningful sense.

To hell with your POV on whether India is a democracy or not in a "meaningful" sense. What the hell does that mean? You strike me as somebody who is not only misinformed, but racist too--198.3.8.1 10:08, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Anyway, the issue is more that being "the world's largest democracy", even if true, is not the most important characteristic of India. India will soon surpass China in population. Will we still announce it as "the world's largest democracy" when it is the largest country in the world? Shorne 04:38, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, because it will still be the World's Largest Democracy. It will be the largest country in the world that is a democracy, i.e. the World's Largest Democracy. Get over it. --198.3.8.1 10:08, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have changed it to liberal democracy. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:43, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

IMO liberal democracy is a bit too POV. The [preamble to the Indian constitution] says it is a 'Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic'. I don't understand why 'the world's largest democracy' should give rise to such conflicts, since no other country disputes that fact and noone in the World except China itself believes it is a democracy. pamri 12:35, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

yes, we probably would keep saying it's the world's largest democracy. It's status as a major democratic force is much more important than the fact that it happens to be in "South Asia." --LordSuryaofShropshire 19:48, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Its status as a country is more important than its current political situation. Shorne 20:12, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is to Shorne. Is the U.S. a democracy in your view..subsequent to the shenanigans of the Bush brothers in Florida in year 2000? Give me a break ! Bhanupm 11:30, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

map

Regarding the map, the earlier map is more of a POV as it depicts the boundaries of India in Kashmir as the international boundary. This is not the case. The newer map is less of POV. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:56, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I've reverted to the newer map. Gzornenplatz is a problem user who frequently reverts on several articles without discussion and is usually rude - see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gzornenplatz - and he has brought his reactionary attitudes to this article. If he is unhappy with the wording on the new map he should propose a change in wording (I have no problem with, say "administered by X", which is the wording used elsewhere) rather than vandalising the article - let us hope he can bring himself to do so. -- Simonides 23:08, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It usually doesn't help the mood to call edits vandalism which are merely content disputes, however much you disagree with them. VeryVerily 23:14, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wouldn't it help the mood far more if some users were, say, habitually constructive rather than habitually obstructive? -- Simonides 23:16, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Probably, but that does not bear on what I just said. VeryVerily 01:24, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a content dispute if the user merely reverts. -- Simonides 23:10, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Image:IndiaNumbered1.png is innaccurate. It should read "Administered by Pakistan" or "Administered by the PRC" instead of "claimed by..." China does not claim the land. It occupies it. I fixed this but am having problems uploading the image. --Jiang 23:43, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jiang, I shall replace Claimed with Administered in a short while, unless you've already done so. What sort of problems are you having uploading files? -- Simonides 00:51, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As I said, the replaced image is less of a POV than the old. Currently one has to choose the lesser of two evils. I hope Jiang solves this problem. BTW Gzornenplatz does have a valid point about the term "claimed". [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:31, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if Gplatz has any point, because after I changed the image to read "Administered" from "Claimed" he has reverted the picture, again, on this article and others. -- Simonides 22:31, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The image needs to say something like "occupied by Pakistan, claimed by India" to make clear it is equally claimed by both countries and we are not taking sides. Simonides' version suggests it is "rightly" part of India, or universally recognized as belonging to India, but just happens to be occupied by Pakistan. Gzornenplatz 22:49, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, you should have made what you wanted clear yesterday or day before when you were invited to the Talk page, when you refused to post. (The image takes a while to edit and of course, since you never contribute to articles, you wouldn't know.) Secondly, "administered" is what it says on the map above and it's what everyone is fine with - in fact this map is simply a repeat of the other version - so if you want to justify your knee-jerk reverts you'll have to come up with some actual reasons. -- Simonides 23:10, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The person above proves once again that he is incapable of either civility or basic comprehension, so I will note again that if anyone else wants to discuss this with me, he's welcome, but I will not respond further to Simonides unless he apologizes for his mounting insults. Gzornenplatz 23:24, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Like I said, no genuine explanations provided for whimsical edit wars. -- Simonides 23:33, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

I have modified the map and uploaded it here. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:50, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

Dude, if it weren't the world's largest democracy, how do you explain the election results in the beginning of this year? Take that, the fact of the matter is, this is the world's largest educated democracy... A case study of democracy, unlike what was demonstrated on the 2nd of November, 2004.

Map comments

Can everyone please comment on the most recent version of this map (if you see the old one, refresh or simply revert to my last upload after clicking on the image) and vote on whether it can stay the default map for now? Thanks - Simonides 22:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I prefer the map I made (IndiaNumbered2.png). This map loses the focus on India by unnecessarily colouring China and Pakistan, when the legend is sufficient. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:11, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

hi, This Image should resemble Image:IndiaTest.png in the context of Kashmir. There should be highlight of the disputed area. yes, (IndiaNumbered2.png)is better. --Hpnadig 18:17, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree that Image:IndiaNumbered2.png is better than the above image. --Hemanshu 18:19, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

With regards to territorial integrity issues and the map(s), why not use the commonly ascribed definition; 'disputed territory'? This circumvents the technicalities associated with political or military occupation or overlapping boundary claims. Areas actually administered by the three countries within the disputed zones should be assigned cartographically to the present occupier, but under the afforementioned territorial definition. Does this not seem reasonable?

I believe that the image for states of India map should be the one below that hilights the disputed area.

If I dont get any meritable objections in a few days i will change the image to indianumbered2.jpg I believe that the map should show the ground realities then favoring either party.

--kunjan1029 05:04, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have changed the image to indianumbered2 until a resolution is reached. PLEASE DONOT Start a edit war. --kunjan1029 23:02, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The only reverter, as usual, is Gzornenplatz, against whom an arbitration case is ongoing for constantly exhibiting the same behaviour on this and numerous other articles, where he reverts with superficial or no explanations and does nothing to contribute to the article or make any positive changes. Appealing to his good sense won't work, but filing further evidence of his typical behaviour at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gzornenplatz,_Kevin_Baas,_Shorne,_VeryVerily/Evidence will certainly help the article and other editors. -- Simonides 23:13, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have created a new section at the evidence page - the same user has reverted nearly 30 other pages with a corrected India map on it, and requests for the prevention of such time-wasting activity are welcome. -- Simonides 00:33, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gzornenplatz:

I would like it if you refrain from changing the image to Indianumbered until we sort this out. The version of the image you suggest is completely unacceptable as it blatantly shows parts of Kashmir occupied by Paskistan and China as defacto parts of those countries. Let's accept that the entire region of Kashmir is embroiled an a stupid political mess. So my point is that the version of the image you suggest is unacceptable. the other version indianumbered2 is unacceptable to you. I respect your opinion about the matter. However to achieve consensus, if you can suggest me a version of that image that

1. Shows ground realities i.e. shows parts of Kashmir controlled by Pakistan, China and India as clearly as it can.

2. It has a neutral point of view. i.e. it doesn't favor either country

Please suggest us such a image, that is acceptable to everyone.

Any further changes to that particular image will be reverted to IndiaNumbered2 until we sort this out.

--kunjan1029 07:08, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gplatz is at it again - for some reason, he doesn't seem to want to leave a note here either. --ashwatha 04:45, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gzornenplatz doesnt like playing nice. I tried. --kunjan1029 17:12, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

multinational?

I really don't get what does the adjective multinational have to do there? Does it mean India is not a single country? Instead we can have federation -- Sundar 07:26, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

It means that there is a large number of distinct ethnic groups. I don't mind "multi-ethnic", if you'd prefer that. Shorne 15:12, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

States (or regions) in India are not considered as nations, so multinational is incorrect in this sense. Federation is not a common word used in India. I don't know why you want to replace the fact that India is the world's largest liberal democracy, with 'large country'. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:05, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Who said anything about states? I'm talking about nations. As to the other change, I've already explained my position. Shorne 22:30, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have never heard of India being composed of nations till date. Russia, UK, Spain yes, but the term 'nation' here sounds odd. In the lead-in section, we always highlight the most prominent feature(s) of an article. In this case largest liberal democracy would easily qualify, as is the most recognisable aspect of India for the past 55 years. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:08, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

If you call India multinational, you have absolutely no idea about our country. Zero. Zilch. Nada. You don't have a moral right to edit that page. --Desai 19:24, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

When you stop foaming at the mouth, perhaps we'll be able to have a reasonable discussion. Shorne 19:57, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You said "reasonable"! WOW! Get ur facts right. India is one country. How can u call it multinational? --Desai 18:38, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

I know, really. Desai, there are no "moral rights" to edit anything on Wikipedia. WhisperToMe 22:45, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I know. But sometimes, some people try to screw up a good page by going on an endless barrage. There has to be a way to counter that. --Desai 18:38, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Oops! I didn't know that the original denotation of nation had nothing to do with sovereignty, but that it's only about ethnicity. Thanks Shorne.

I've been trying to tell you that all along. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:59, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

But, still I would prefer multi-ethnic because that wouldn't cause any ambiguity. -- Sundar 05:14, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

The number of languages spoken

The latest number 1600+ was based on Ethnologue report. Why shouldn't we have that? -- Sundar 07:26, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

The Ethnologue claims 398 languages for India: http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=India

In any case, these numbers cannot be so precise. I would state simply "four hundred languages". Shorne 15:12, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There are 1652 mother tongues spoken in India. See /archive 4 of this page for details. Mentioning hundreds of languages is vague and un-encyclopedic. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 18:59, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

This is not true. The number of languages spoken in India is around 400, as I said above. How your yearbook could possibly claim that about a quarter of the world's languages have native speakers in India is beyond me. No country in the world has 1652 languages. Shorne 22:30, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not making up this figure. The figure would also include dialects and languages sans scripts. I won't argue with the figures, but I have read the mentioned number in the book, (it is a very popular book here, and I'm dead sure they don't fudge figures). The ISBN number is given on the India page, in the reference section, if your interested in pursuing the matter with the publication online. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 18:58, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

All Indian languages have a lot of dialects, spoken in different parts of each linguistic region. Words in the same language, thus tend to have different meanings. It's like English (British) and English (US). We have Hindi (Delhi), Hindi (Hyderabadi), Hindi (Bambaiya) etc. Just my 2 cents. Btw I always wondered, are all NPOVs regarding India specific to European thinking only? Don't Indians have a NPOV? --Desai 19:12, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

I don't doubt that the book says that, but that doesn't make it true. The question of what constitutes a language is complex, and not just in India. If you want to count dialects, you can justify a figure of 1 billion or more, since no two people in India speak exactly the same way even in the same language. Shorne 19:53, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The figure refers to 1600+ mother tongues. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 20:27, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

I do know how to read. Thank you for your kind concern. Shorne 23:48, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[1] [2] [3] [4] IMHO, the right number must be less than 400. --Rrjanbiah 07:02, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

History

The Rajputs appear not to be mentioned anywhere, not even in the main article on History of India - a huge gap and pretty surprising since, apart from their significant rule and contributions to art and architecture, etc, they introduced, if I remember correctly, the practice of Sati or some other form of female sacrifice.

There seems to be a lot of interest in India on Wikipedia, at least it appears so from this Talk page. If the edit warring trolls can be blocked for a while, the remainder could probably work together on many of the India pages which are pretty spare (such as the very pretty Timeline_of_Indian_history) - would anyone be interested in a Wikiproject? -- Simonides 23:04, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Timeline of Indian history, although a prominent link in the History section, is only from 1820 onwards, and most links are RED (non existent). IMO you may start working on that first, and then build up from there to the more detailed stuff. Btw, wanted to ask, do you refer to the Malayala Manorama & the TOI Yearbook for facts? --Desai 19:14, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

As far as material addition is concerned, I request you not to add any new stuff on this page. It is already saturated to its limits. The History of India is pathetic I may add, and so too most Main articles: leading out from this page. Unfortunately, though I would like to contribute to your project, I will be away offline for a month. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:28, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

DISTORTATION OF INDIAN HISTRY LEAVING OUT MUSLIMS

HAVE NOT HAD SUCH A GOOD LAUGH FOR A LONG TIME THANKS WIKIPEDIA

The entire 1500 years of Muslim rule in India seemed to be wiped out from the history of India - Good Grief!!

This is not history its the distortation of history by some half wit who claims to be a historian no doubt from the ilk who distort hitory as I can see things here from Mythology - Come on folks the past cannot be changed - You see it in the red fort and the many thousands of monuments all over Delhi and India includeing the Taj Mahal What about the Kilji Dynasty, The Tuglak Dynasty, The Delhi Sultanate, The Muguls - The Deccan Kingdoms - Mir Jafar and Tippu sultan and the wars aginst the E India Company -

This can be compared to wipeing out the entire British History from Queen Victoria to the depature of the Romans and adding King Arthur and Merlin as fact . Only write about Ancient India include some mythology then Jump forward to the present day because you don't like muslims. Ha Ha!

Lets get the Indian Historians in!!! this version is written by an illliterate who fancies himself an intellectual and scholar

But maybe better still keep it!!! Its a good example of creative history writing as a goo example and bit of a laugh for Indian Historians working in Universities all over the world.

To please some of my friends here ... we should atleast consider revising the line India is home to a large population of Muslims (13.4%) and mention that India also has the second largest population of Muslims in the world after Indoneshia. Sjain 04:49, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Considering that Islam was brought by Mohamed in 610 CE, I don't think it's actually chronologically possible that India was under 1500 years of muslim rule.

I most certainly agree. Also, I doubt the Muslim's contributed anything positive to India.

No positive contribution may be your POV, but we need the article to reflect the NPOV. Good or bad, their influence was not insignificant. The architectural styles, cuisines etc should find a mention here in History of India. -- Sundar 11:47, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

I have nothing wrong with Muslims. A man whom I respect and admire (Abdul Kalam - President of India) is a Muslim. I do not question him or his vision for India. However, radical Shi'ite and Sunni Clerics who want to destroy India are whom I protest. Since when has India harmed the Muslims? There are many loyal muslims in India. However, there are those who think that everyone should be tolerant of their views and that they are the "supreme beings" and they shouldn't have to tolerate anybody else. I question these Muslims. Also, considering that the majority of Hindu rule in this article was summed up in one sentence, I don't think we need to devote an entire section to Muslim history considering they were not in India as long as the Hindus were. Also, if the Muslims feel left out, tell them to post information about the Mughal Empire in the History of India page don't expect it will be done for you.

ONLY ONE SENTENCE DEVOTED TO MUGHULS

Lalit Shastri

Though I do not concur in the personal attacks made above, I do think it regrettable that information about India under the Muslims was removed (if it indeed was "wiped out," as suggested above). The period under the Islamic rulers forms a very major part of Indian history: most notably, I find it surprising that less than one sentence is devoted to the Mughal Emperors. -- Emsworth 19:54, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The amount dedicated to Mughal rule is appropriate. This was definitely not the most significant part of Indian history. Really Indus valley and classical history are much more important in shaping modern philosophy and culture. Thus it is as it should be.

Rubbish. The space devoted to a number of periods/ kingdoms within the article is highly inappropriate and misleading, and the Mughals are only one of them (which is why I find the above attack silly); but your hypotheses make no sense from any point of view except perhaps a Hindu fundamentalist's and are equally silly. -- Simonides 18:48, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

1) The Mughal empire is as important to the shaping of India, Mr. Anon., as Hindu and Buddhist culture. Look at the brand of Hindi people speak: it's full of Arabic and Persian. Hindustani classical music itself is indebted to Persian culture. etc. etc. etc. not to mention partition and the fact that India's a sixth Muslim. 2)Nice, Simonides. Thanks for encouraging the brainless Hindutva equivalent to McCarthyism. Let's call everyone a Hindu fundamentalist the moment they say something contrary to your ideas. Christ Almighty! Let me go see if I can do something to douse these aggravated tempers. --LordSuryaofShropshire 19:09, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

I guess I'll have to wait until the protection is lifted. Peace. --LordSuryaofShropshire 19:10, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe you should wait till you have something logical to say. -- Simonides 19:56, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

- Adam - I think the article is fine. I don't think simply adding "more" mughal rule content should be done for the sake of angered or unjustified accusations and CAPLOCK typing. Is this a case of Intelectual terrorism? Antagonism? If the Mughal content is to be extended then we should also include the fanatical conversions, jizya tax on the infidels, plundering and destruction of hindu and buddhist temples all very well documented by the Mughals themselves. - Oh, but if we did then our friends would CAPLOCK(read shout)- "TOO MUCH ATTENTION GIVEN TO MUGHAL RULE!" Grow up, please.

Perhaps we should follow the enclyclopedia britannica where on the Histry of India two thirds of the space has been devoted to the 1500 years of the Muslim period in India

---

Hi

RE: 1500 Years of Muslim rule ignored in Entry on India

I don't think that its an issue of caplock typeing but a issue of distortion of history we wikis should not let our emotions come into it. Many distinguished scholars have written the history of India - These are from all parts of the world and of all nationalities. Distinguised Indian Historians recognised by their international peers have also written the history of India lets follow them. You might not agree with muslim rule but they were there for 1500 years as the paramount power and the ruling class. They shaped the culture, way of life, food and architecture of the times. And by the way the Hindi and urdu language. They brought science, technology and the fine arts from the west and influenced Indian life in every area Just because you disagree with India's 1500 years of Muslim rule you wish to dismiss it all in one line grow up. Wikipedia is not there for you to present and deny the truth to readers AS YOU FEEL LIKE

So Old Chap You better grow up yourself

Richard Charlesworth North London University

hi, AZIZ:

Above one guy mentioned ragarding muslims, i think he is the one who is deciding who is muslim, who is hindu, who is christian, who sikh. 

i personally advice him are you a perfect hindu?, more over its very difficult to be a perffect follower of any relegion. a muslim goes mosque 35 times a week, a hindu goes maximum 7times a week then i advice you, dont comment on any relegion through illitrate thoughts, or entertainment.

Protection, History, etc.

In the matter of the dispute which caused protection, Gzornenplatz is clearly right - we should not have a map which pretty much states outright that those parts of Kashmir belong to India and are only occupied by Pakistan and China. To do this is the very definition of POV. The situation is, in any event, already discussed in the caption to the map above that one. As to the history section, our complainant seems completely out of line (no shouting please), but the history section is indeed very weak - the palimpsest remark at the beginning is lame, and we have one vague paragraph (which implies that the Guptas were before the Mauryas) to get us from the Vedic period to the British. This needs to be addressed. john k 16:15, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How many Kaskmiris killed?? (both hindu and muslim)

Perhaps we should say Kashmir is a territory disputed by India & Pakistan and the WHOLE of Kashmir should be shaded a diffrent color showing the Indian areas and the Pakistan Area. Also worth metioning 80,000 people in Kashmir have died (not mentioning the rapes) due to action by the Indian security forces according to Amnesty international and the Hindu population has also suffered due to the violence by Kashmir sepratists. Lastly what we really should be saying that in the Kashmiri struggle for self detrmination if a plebcite is held tommorow the long suffering Kashmiri would opt neither for India or Pakistan but for Independence,

Bye the way can anyone answer this - If all majority muslim areas went to Pakistan and all Hindu majority areas to India (when India was divided) then why did not Kashmir go to Pakistan and Jummu to India - Perhaps Buluchistan should have gone to India too and maybe Maharashtra to the muslims -

When India was divided, majority Muslim areas under British direct rule went to Pakistan. Among the princely states, the rulers of the states were given a choice on whether they wanted to accede to India and Pakistan - the ruler of Kashmir (Maharaja Hari Singh) wanted to remain independent but later agreed to accede to India in return for military help. --ashwatha 18:59, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with the above. Indians themselves had recieved democracy and the Indian government should have allowed the people to decide instead of accepting Kashmir from an undemocratic Maharaja Hari Singh.

India's arguement again falls apart if we look at what happened to Hydrabad State where an oppsite arguement was used to justify its actions.

The Nizam of Hydrabad did not want to cede Hydrabad state - so India had a police action sent the army in and took over. So if the Nizam the ruler of a hindu majority had opted for pakistan would India have accepted this and said Hydrabad should go to Pakistan (User:Richard)

History of 1500 of muslim rule

India has 100 million plus muslims why did not the authour of the India Page so ignorant of his own history consult one of them when he decided to write only one line regarding 1500 years of Muslim rule in India. I agree we must follow the Enclycopedia Britannica where two thirds of the Space is about muslim rule in India or perhaps Microsofts Encarta or any other non gnu enclycopedia.

Please see the response to the first discussion item at the top of this page - Muslim rule lasted for about 700 years, not 1500. Everyone shouting the number as 1500 (in Caps Lock, to boot) doesn't change the facts. Also, note the comments in the first discussion item - the history section is brief and no dynasties or rulers have been elaborated upon. It certainly doesn't look POV to me. Elaborating upon the Mughals, the Mauryas, the Guptas and all and sundry leads to different articles in their own right, and those articles are already there. --ashwatha 18:59, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Muhammad-bin-Qasim in 711AD arrived with a large army to conquer Sindh. In 712 AD Raja Dahir was defeated and put to death. Sindh, Multan and Kannauj were conquered.

The next invasion by the Turks who opposed the authority of the Khalifas was by Alaptagin. He had established himself in Khorasan and extended upto Kabul and Ghazni. He was succeeded by one of his slave Sabuktagin. In 986 AD he came into conflict with Raja Jaipal of Bathinda. In 991 AD Raja Jaipal allied with other Hindu king including Rajyapala the Prathira king of Kannauj and Dhanga the ruler of the distant Chandela kingdom to avenge his defeat. The allies were defeated , Peshwar and Kurram valley came under Muslim influence. (User:Richard)

Ok, I stand corrected to some extent; but this still does not mean that India as a whole was ruled by Muslim rulers for 1500 years. The areas that are mentioned above constituted certain parts of India. Just talking about 1500 years of Muslim rulers "as the paramount ruling class" in India neglects other rulers, particularly in Southern India, where only a few areas were ruled by Muslim rulers (notably Hyderabad and Bijapur). The same periods that you mention also included several other rulers and dynasties such as Harsha of Kanauj, Chola, Chalukya, Hoysala, Pallava, Pandya and later the Vijayanagara Empire and a host of others, none of which are mentioned in the history section due to space constraints.

Here is a possible solution: how about "Parts of India came to be ruled by Muslim rulers from the 8th century onwards, with a majority of India coming under Muslim rule from the 12th-13th centuries. The Mughal dynasty, the dynasties of the Delhi Sultanates, the Bahmani Sultanates of Bijapur, the Golkonda sultanate of Hyderabad and others would leave a lasting imprint on the fabric of Indian society and culture."

Admittedly, Muslim dynasties in India have had a lot of influence on Indian languages, art, architecture and cuisine. Also admittedly, these influences are not mentioned in the history section, and again, the space constraints do not allow this - this is not POV (read: pro-Hindu or anti-Muslim) since the influences of the Mauryas, Guptas and others also do not receive a mention because of space constraints. Indeed, no southern Indian dynasty is even mentioned in the history section, but this is fine, given the limited space. As stated before, the reader needs to follow the links from this article to articles on the respective dynasties.

ashwatha

Look anon editor, if you feel that Indian history is lacking material, go ahead and add it in the relavant pages. This page is a summary of India's history. The Mughals were not the sole Indian Muslim rulers. As they were the largest, they are mentioned on this page. Remember, the Islamic kingdoms did not rule more than 50% of India's present day area save the Mughals. The forgotten North east and south India also deserve a mention in the Indian history, but for space constraints, are not included. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 20:04, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

The Image

I oppose the image IndiaNumbered2.png because the word "presently" is misused. "Presently" means "soon" or "in the near future", not "right now" or "at the present time" -- [5] lists the latter definition as a usage problem. Also, the image seems cluttered with the additional areas of "administered by blah blah"... Also, please don't start a revert war, especially on a featured article. ugen64 22:00, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

About the use of "presently", dont mind but you are being a lil pedantic. Almost everyone uses presently for NOW - or at present - since its an obvious interpretation. Using presently for "in the near future" actually confuses the reader. A suggestion Merriam-Webster is better than Dictionary.com [6] Sense 2 (NOW) is most common in contexts relating to business and politics. Anyway since you object with a valid reasons, the solution to both the points you raise lies in removing the text from the image - besides that goes along with the wikipedia guideline of uploading image. Something like If possible, upload a another image without labels ... --Ankur 06:08, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just noticed there are several versions of this image with the same text. Now, changing all these images will be asking too much. --Ankur 09:52, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just changed the main article map to conform to ugen's request, but Ankur is right - the state maps all have "presently administered" and it would be too much trouble to change them, unless someone here has the time + know-how + photoshop; but "presently" is not inaccurate in the context. -- Simonides 10:08, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)