Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:03, 14 April 2007

India: History B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Top-importance). This article was a past Indian Collaboration of the Month.

Archives: 1 2

Pseudo-history

First sentence of the inrtoduction: "The history of India can be traced in fragments to as far back as 700,000 years ago." This will be news the majority of anthropologists. PiCo 01:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

" According to the Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis, the Aryans, a semi-nomadic people, possibly from Central Asia or northern Iran migrated into the north-west regions of the Indian subcontinent between 2000 BCE and 1500 BCE. Their inter-mingling with the earlier Dravidian cultures apparently resulted in classical Indian culture as we know today." ----- I want to ask from this sentence written in article which says that current Indian culture is intermingling of Aryans and earlier Dravidian culture. Were aryans coming in very small fraction of original Indians were so much capable that that could generate present Indian culture throughout North & Central India leaving only four states of South India.This is said via intermingling. Aryans coming to India were so much in population so as to evenly intermingle throughout North & Central Indian sub-continent. They were living nomadic or semi-nomadic type life style. There are presently many nomadic tribes in India having good population ( % can be same as Aryans coming to past Indian subcontinent ). But urban or village dwelling Indians are never impressed with their primitive culture. So, similarly ancient Indians leaving in planned towns , seaports or villages over very huge area of India and who were Merchants ( as they were having export business as evident from planned sea-ports of vast Indus civilization ) ,Artists ( making so many different types of arts from painting ,pottery , cotton cloth making & dyeing, making small metal statues, making different ornaments from gold-silver & others ) and farmers ( reaping rich crops )  ; how they can intermingle with nomadic type living Aryans.

Britishers have ruled full Indian sub-continent, they were not nomads. They were rulers having much much more political power than nomad type aryans who were just migrants like parsis ( zorastrians from Iran ) coming to India. So, it is impossible to impart such a culture throughout past India so fast that it feels dramatic when thought. Not only culture but language of Indo-European type over vast area of India so quickly ( max. within 500 years as per Aryan hyposis ) that even south Indians adopted their vedic religion. South India started using Sanskrit direct or based on it words heavily. Not only North but also South India adopted their Sanskrit language as religious language.South Indians were chanting Sanskrit mantra and their languages are also heavily contains Sanskrit direct or based words - except current Tamil language as Tamilians deliberately removed Sanskrit based words from Tamil after Aryan Invasion Theory was proposed in 1850's.

Sanskrit ( so called Aryan language ) not having traces in their supposed homeland area in Steppes. So, it must have been formulated to currently known status of Sanskrit language from so called PIE in Indian sub-continent with very advanced grammatical & phonetical characterisitc typical of Sanskrit. But same features are also found only in Europe's extreme western language Lithuanian. Why so called Indo-European language family's both ends are showing very close affinity in word constuction, typical grammer, phonetics etc. leaving the middle languages and not giving their typical charactristics. This is totally impossible to occur independently if you know both the languages' characteristics.

WIN 07:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

What? "advanced grammatical & phonetical characteristics"? No one language can ever be anymore "advanced" than any other. Sanskrit is certainly a most beautiful language, but that is more the result of Pāṇini's work in the 3rd century BC than through natural language change. And Lithuania is not in the extreme west of Europe at all; see the map on the nation's page. The similarities between the two languages are mostly a result of the fact they once shared a sprachbund; the area of satemization that affected a series of shared sound changes in the Indo-Iranian (of which Sanskrit is a member) and Balto-Slavic (of which Lithuanian is a member) proto-languages. These sound changes are not reconstructed for having occured in an earlier Proto-Indo-European context due to their absence in other branches. Putting the Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic languages so close to each other is not mere conjecture either; there is infact an Indo-Iranian language still spoken in the Caucasus, in South Russia, to this day: The Ossetic language. The Ossetian language is unique enough to clearly not be a result of recent migration, but close enough to be classified as specifically Indo-Iranian. It is the sole survivor of a large language continuum that spread across central asia, but which was replaced in historical times by the expansion of Turkic speaking cultures from the east. Your dismissal of the Aryan migration is a bit confused as well - the Aryans where not just nomads, they would have been as much a part of the Central Asian and Indian city state cultures as the post-Harrapan "native" Indians where. The advantage the Aryans had was simple: animals. Pastoralism is in many ways, especially to an early bronze age culture, much more efficient than crop based food production. Their culture of animal rearing would have been very attractive to the peoples of the Indus Valley, especially following the drought that led to the collapse of their agriculture based society. The people of the Indus valley would most likely not have been "reaping rich crops" as you put it. Concerns about "civilization" would have become irrelevent; the need for food outweighs cultural imperalism. And with the reliance of the pre-Aryan inhabitants on the Aryan food production methods, the distinction between "nomadic" and "settled" would have blurred very quickly. The Aryan way of life, in all it's forms, found it's way into India. Intermarriage and cultural exchange occured; the "intermingling" you took issue at. This initial intermingling, of course, wasn't what led to Sanskrit being spoken all over North India. What it led to, however, was the roots of the Vedic civilization, which subsequently grew to have a tremendous influence over the whole of the sub-continent, through it's culture and society, through it's language, and through it's religion. There's nothing bizarre or unexpected about what happened with the Indus Valley peoples and the Aryans. We've seen it happen many times, even in recorded history. One case is that of the Byzantium empire in Anatolia, where supposedly "barbarian" peoples, the Turks, become so ingrained into a civilization that they found their culture becoming dominant. Anatolia is now known as "Turkey", and speaks the Turkish language, because of that cultural change. --Krsont 01:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Your Aryan Animal Theory never makes any good sense. Please study some ancient sanskrit and dravidian language grammar so that you can get some insight into the above mentioned topic. Its a total foolish concept that the uncivilized peoples from Baltic region mingled with the civilized population of India. There is hardly any evidence other than this foolish wibly wobly 'IE-language theory', which is the deleberate creation of the west, only to share the credit of India's great civilization and culture. Can you point any baltic mathematician or philosopher or epics or any thing whic can be comparable to Indias around 100BC? So please dont post any biased comments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.124.63.196 (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

"Sanskrit is a most beutiful language" as also told by you above - how any language becomes beutiful when language is not any woman. Language is called beutiful from it's construction point of view, due to Sanskrit's grammatical structure which is purely very logical & mathematical, Sanskrit's ability to construct new words, the unique phonetic characteristics which is only possible in Sanskrit & daughter Indian languages ( if you can read Sanskrit script then you can pronounce exactly it without knowing that Sanskrit word which is not possible in English like languages - one example `Cut' and `Put' - both are written in the same way but pronounced differently - this is biggest drawback of English type languages. That's why Indian people do not require phonetics to learn. It's interwoven in their language so easily that European scholars were amazed by Sanskrit when they came to know first via Arab scholars. It's same as number system of 1 to 9 and concept & number of 0 `zero' and decimal system. Now everybody find it so casual that we forget it's unique importance and that it was only Indians ( not babylonians, greeks,romans - e.g. X for 10 and XX for twenty , egypticians etc. ) who were able to develop this unique mathematics which was the main foundation for Europe's Industrial revolution. )

And, Baltic language area of Lithuania is at western shore of Europe mainland and not in middle of Europe.

Panini has just codified Sanskrit grammer in Algebric type of rules which is unique in the world and smallest also. He has not developed already in use Sanskrit grammer.And, by the way if you know anything about TRUE Indian history then you should be knowing that during 600 - 500 BC of Mahavir & Budhdha's time Sanskrit was no more common language of people. Already Prakrit languages like Pali & Ardhamagadhi were speken by people. So, to prevent natural changes in Sanskrit ( which is very common in the world languages and that's why they are not same from origin time to current status. One e.g. English ) Due to Panini's rules , Sanskrit has not changed till today. Sanskrit as a language has not evolved but was already in vey high format. That's why Sanskrit verses reciting with exact pronunciation was very important and very much stressed upon. That's why you have all vedas still intact without any sound change. As Sanskrit was already in it's best form , so any sound change or speaking error was told as degradation ( called Apbhransh in Sanskrit ). If we take Aryan supporter's words then Sanskrit developed & died ( died in language of common people's sense ) within 500 - 700 years. And, this time period is very very small for language like Sanskrit. Even, scholars agree that to create vast knowledge & deep thinking as revered in Sanskrit scriptures is not at all possible in small time frame as told by Max Muller & supporters.

Your Aryans having animals as big plus point over Indus Valley civilization really shows that what limited knowledge or thinking or logic you have. You are telling as if Indus Valley people were not having any animals or having scarcity of animals. Indus valley civilization could feed upto 5 milloin people and having surplus ( without agricultural surplus there can not be any trading / manufacturing people ). This civilization was largest of all prevalent civilizations in terms of area & population. How they were doing farming ? Must be using some tractors instead of bulls as there was scarcity of animals as told by you !!! And with bulls naturally comes cows.They are revered in Rig-Ved as Saraswati river giving milk and dairy products. But when `so called' aryans came to India , Saraswati river was completely dried up. So, how `so called' aryans' cattle ( not millions but atleast in thousands - who came `flying' crossing High Mountains of Himalayas as there are no archeological finds of them ) survived in dried Saraswati river area. Indus Valley civilization's people started migrating in all directions when Saraswati river started strinking in length & width much before 1900 BC when it completely dried up from Indian soil. That's why you find non-ocean going two rivers in Afghanistan & Iran naming Harahvaiti ( Saraswati's pronunciation shifting from `S' to `H' )

India is having world's highest no. of animals. And, as per your logic cows , bulls , buffalos and even horses as previously asserted by Aryan Invasion theory supporters must have come from Steppes. Then Indus Valley civilization's people must be using tractors for farming as you implied above !!! There are so many points which I can elaborate but you can find them on the net.

Turks were famous ruthless invasioners and `so called' Aryans were migrationers as per current model prevailing among this theory supporter. Invasion model is past. Turkey example would have been good at that time !!!

Why Pastoral nomad `Aryans' require to develop sophisticated Astronomy for cattle rearing. You can find present Astronomy of Indians totally based on Sanskritic nomenclature also mentioned in Rig-Ved. So as per Aryan Theory , this Sanskrit name based Astronomy must be given by Aryans. So this PIE based Astronomical names must be found in Steppes region as this names must have developed in pastoral steppes !!! But strangely this is not the case at all. Then if previous so called Indus Valley dwelling people had developed it then why they will give Sanskrit based astronomical names when they do not know Sanskrit only. And, do not tell that " Intermingling" was so effective that they found "very attractive" to use Sanskrit nomenclature like above mentioned Animal rearing.

Advanced astronomy would be required by Agricultural society for getting exact time of raining which is fix in India, due to South West Monsoon winds. Only India has Monsoon mechanishm and not steppes. Astronomy will be required in Navigation which Indus Valley civilization's traders would require for export purpose.

You first gain some knowledge in this matter or develop some logic before speaking anything about it.

WIN 06:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not say that Aryan animals came to be used in the Indus Valley, just that their pastoral methods did - and if we look at modern Indian cattle, we find that they descend entirely from cattle domesticated seperately in India, not from the Central Asian stock the Aryans in Afghanistan and the surround area would have used. What was adopted was the Aryan way of life, not their genetics - whether through cows or people. And yes, the Indus river was dry, (erroneously labeled Sarasvati - the Vedic Sarasvati is more likely to be the Helmud in Afghanistan) but that was entirely the reason for the switch to pastoralism. The steppes are also a dry place, but pastoralism succeeded there where crop based food production could not. The Aryans would also not have needed "sophisticated astronomy" to rear cattle. Just a basic understanding of the cycle of the year, for which there are ample reconstructions for in Proto-indo-European. Infact, astronomy is much more important for agriculture - hence it's later development in Sanskrit speaking Vedic India, when agriculture became a viable solution again. And I'm glad you mentioned the monsoon - yet another reason why the intermingling would have to have happened. Vital information like that would have to have been shared between the two groups. I'd also disagree with your dismissal of the Turks as "ruthless invasioners"; their culture spread as much by peaceful means as it did millitarily. Even in modern times we see that Central Asia is a mixture of Iranian and Turkic genetics and culture, with mostly Turkic languages in the north and Iranian in the south. The same sort of thing happened in India. --Krsont 13:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

"erroneously labeled Sarasvati - the Vedic Sarasvati is more likely to be the Helmud in Afghanistan" - Dear first brush up your knowledge and don't write anything. If Rig - Vedic Saraswati river is Helmund then where are Yamuna and Shutudri ( Satluj ) and other rivers Sapta Sindhu big ( Seven rivers ) rivers and Ganga river. Please find them also in Afghanistan. And, Sindhu ( Indus ) never was a dry river as written above as it still flows. And, why Hindus are still reciting Saraswati river's name in Sanskrit verse form alongwith other big Indian rivers like Ganga, Yamuna , Godavari , Sindhu , Kaveri ( while taking daily bath ) if Saraswati was never ever an Indian holy & big river or as said in Rig-Ved - biggest & mightiest of all Sapta Sindhu rivers.

You are telling past assertions which are absurd in today's context. I urge you & all others to go through `Discuss' pages of Aryan Invasion Theory and Indo-Aryan Migration. There are written ample for your kind of people to increase knowledge in this matter or about your pseudoism.

Pastoralism will not be possible in any desert so as Indian desert.But Agriculture is still very much possible in neighbouring richly fertile Indus Civilization areas of Punjab,Haryana and Gujarat. So during that drying of Saraswati river time , there were neighbouring areas of Indus Valley civilization which were & are richly fertile due to other big rivers. Drying of any big & mightly river will be very gradual process and not overnite or within some 100 - 200 years and desertification of Rajashthan will be very very slow process which is even not possible within 100 - 200 years but 1000 - 2000 years atleast which was one reason of Saraswati river ending in Desert and not in Ocean which is mentioned in Mahabharat. So, Mahabharat must have been composed & associated with Iran & Afghan as per your logic !!!!!!! ( but some way it is; via Gandhari - princess of Gandhar - mother of Kauravs who faught Great war of Mahabharat and Afghanistan was part of Ancient India ) In Mahabharat Ghandhari is called upon as Arya nari ( Arya woman - means Noble & Virtueus woman ) and never ever his son Duryodhan who was non-vertueus or not noble as a person. So, you can understand that in Sanskrit scriptures term `Arya' is always called upon as respect gesture to Noble persons and not with their Non-Noble children. So to find some Aryan race or lineage in it is biggest joke ( or rather mis-guide ) of 19th century which is still hanging on you.

Greek Historians ( check Pliny's writings about India ) coming with Alexander to ancient India ( that area is modern Pakistan ), have mentioned that Indians are having calender going back to more than some 6,000 years ( this was noted around 350 BC ).Then how come modern Western Scholars are not teaching the world about India's ancient astronomical advances which would be first in the world ( older than Mesopotamia. But India should not be credited that was mantra of that time's British rulers ). And, that time also Indians were not having any memory of some Aryan nomadic people coming to India and giving language, religion, caste system, advanced astronomy knowledge etc. to original Indians as it is not present even in Greek records. These ancient greek historians mind was not plagued like Max Muller and their followers. So, their written records should be believed who met ancient Indians and appreciated India & her people with amaze and not 1850's British Empire paid servants like Max Muller who has written baseless things about `aryans' which are not having any proofs and who has written twisted translation or mis-interpreted Rig-Ved.

Man, have some common sense or gather some info before writing here.

WIN 04:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Krsont knows very well what he is talking about. While you appear to be regurgitating propaganda which, believe me, Misplaced Pages talkpages are already full of, no need to add another layer. Of course the Mahabharata was composed in India, that was more than 1500 years after the migration. If the Helmand was the Sarasvati of the early Rigveda (which is not certain, but a serious possibility. I wouldn't say "likely" here, but "possibly"), the name would have been transferred to an Indian river before 1200 BC. It was only after another millennium that the epics were composed. Migrating peoples take their toponyms with them, the USA is full of them (e.g. Zurich vs. Zurich, Kansas) dab (ᛏ) 10:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Do not feed trolls. -- Sundar 12:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Dab, just read what Krsont and I have written , understanding each words properly and then tell me. Your Zurich example is what can be told by me that when desert ending Saraswati river ( during Mahabharat time or before ) made migration of ancient Indians in every directions , they found similar non-ocean ending rivers in Afghan & Iran and that's why Saraswati name was given to them also - in memory of their ancient Indian river. So, people shifting to new places ( this new place should be non or scarcely - populated and culture should not be deep rooted as it was in U.S.A. when Zurich name was given to Kansas city. Now , you can not change that city name from people's mind easily. ) Same way when Saraswati river when started shrinking in width and it was no longer mightiest river as mentioned in Rig-Ved and this was before Mahabharat time as that time Saraswati river was ending in desert instead of sea, ancient Indians started migrating towards North-West and reached Afghan & Iran's non-ocean going river and named it Saraswati. Saraswati river's mention in Rig-Ved and Mahabharat are not my speculations like some Aryan Theory but it is clearly mentioned in it that way. This can not be mis-interpreted or mis-represented.

If Mahabharat is written in India then why it mentions desert ending drying Saraswati river. If Helmund or Iran's Harahvaiti river is original Saraswati then Mahabharat should be MahaAfghan or MahaIran. And, what about Saraswati's full dried riverbed findings after American Satellite pictures.

Man , Saraswati was an Indian river is accepted by scholars. Come out from past and gather current latest info.

This shows that Western people who have not read Indian scriptures thoroughly and then asserting it his belief without any logic. READ POINTS PROPERLY & LOGICALLY UNDERSTANDING THAT TIME FRAME.

And, Mahabharat was not written in `so called' Epic Age during 1000-500 BC and if this is pure story came from some person's mind then why that person ( i.e. Ved Vyas ) is required to give astronomical positions of Sun, Moon,planats, nakshtra ( stars constellations ) , ecllipse , bright comet etc. all astronomical things at the time of starting of Mahabharat war. In India, you will find so many places associated with Mahabharat or Ramayan and that places are revered still today as that particular place from Mahabharat or Ramayan. There are no clash literally between people about that association and nor geographically also. Means Kurukshetra is in Haryana and not in U.P. or M.P. Panchvati is in Nasik not in Punjab or Tamilnadu. Rameshwar at Tamilnadu shore not in Kerala or Maharashtra shore. There are many many places like this. But to understand , you should know Indian scriptures first.Otherwise it will be all going above your head and still you will assert the same old stuff.

And, you western people still trying to find some Troy ! For you, Mahabharat or Ramayan's so many places perfect association ( sometimes with same old names carried perfectly till today ) is some fabricated epic story. Then what Saraswati river is doing in Rig-Ved and Mahabharat ( supposed to have been composed around 1500 BC - 500 BC - as per Aryan Theory ) when there some big Indian river was already totally dried atleast before 1800 BC as found by geologists.

PERFECT PSEDOISM !!!

WIN 09:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is, the westerners as did the British who implanted the 'Aryan Invasion Theory' in to the minds of the people and indian history is plainly the reason being that as masters who conquered India, they did not want to see a race other than theirs to have more of a historic importance. Aryan Invasion theory in recent years has been proven to be nothing but utter BS. Hinduism, the vedas, the indians are not a source of some external/foreign race or your so-called aryans fathers. The British had a divide and rule policy and to further divide the people and to discredit the rich indian history, its culture, religion, scriptures - and to claim that they indeed are the true masters of the land.

User: sarejahan 14:33, 30 January 2007

Ancient Indian to be changed into Ancient Pakistani.

The term Ancient Pakistani is a valid term, as the following encyclopaedic sources. and qualified professors state, and make use of the term.

Definition of Ancient Pakistan: The history and heritage belonging to the Pakistani people, or the land which is now Pakistan.

Therefore its only logical to refer to Pakistani history as Ancient Pakistani first, instead of Subcontinental Indian, South Asian, or Asian.

As you can see, there is already an article for Ancient Pakistani history, which only includes history within the Pakistani borders. However Ancient Indian history article contains the history of the entire South Asia.

Either the article should be renamed to South Asian history, or references of history which is not within Indian borders should be removed.

Thank you. Unre4L 23:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The first ref is a Pakistani book, the second never mentions the phrase "ancient pakistan" and the third is a blog. Pakistan's history starts on August 15, 1947 as it was an artificial construct from India and parts of Afghanistan. Do explain 930k ghits for ancient India compared to a paltry 8k for ancient pakistan. Or 54 for ancient pakistan on academic sites and 39400 for ancient india using the same criteria.Bakaman 04:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, did you visit the sources? The first Reference is an internationally accepted book, used as a source for a lot of articles by a lot of Universities. Seach for the book on google. The 2nd reference. Try using the search function. There is a title in the article. "The Greek Influence on the Languages of Ancient Pakistan" The third reference might be a blog, but I picked it because of this quote: ""Some of the seals depict an impression of snakes, mostly associated with ancient Pakistan and Afghanistan, while others portray Mesopotamian champions or squatting women hailing from Susa," Dr. Majidzadeh noted." Note the guys title.

Pakistan and India were created in 1947. I didnt question that. But the Pakistani people didnt pop up in 1947. They are the people who have always lived in the land of Pakistan, and their ancestors are the ones Indians dont have anything to do with.

ps I can give you way more sources. But I dont see how these ones arent good for you.

And notice how all the sources are .edu. I dont need to explain the seach results. It should be obvious. Most of the Ancient India results shouldnt be there. Thats the point I am trying to put across to you. Unre4L 04:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Shouldnt be there? Who are you to define what should and shouldnt be there? I used the search function for "ancient Pakistan" and it was not present in the second reference. The 8k or so "ancient pakistan" sites (most of which are from some "Pakistani history" geocities site that spouts anti-Hindu venom) shouldnt be there. You do need to explain why a fictional historiography only nets 54 .edu google hits.Bakaman 04:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be very interested in knowing what is meant by an internationally accepted book. Are there things which are called books in one country but not recognised internationally as books? Jokes apart, I think this issue has been discussed a lot on wikipedia before, and there's no point in repeating the same arguments ad nauseam. deeptrivia (talk) 07:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Because the history belongs to the Pakistani people, and its being ripped from them. How would you feel if it happened to you? I have provided proper references and you cant go about this. Why Should Pakistani history be called Indian? Answer that for a second. Its like calling it Asian, it might be true but you could be way more specific. By Indian I mean Subcontinental. Check the 2nd reference again. Half way down the page. The title is in Bold. Internationally accepted book. I meant, that the book is accepted by major universities in America, and is accepted as a source. There is a book written about IVC, by some American group, and they specifically called it "Pakistan Studies", aswell as mentioning Ancient Pakistan. Your argument has to be a bit more than questioning by rights. Unre4L 09:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

oh do get over yourselves. We need one WikiProject covering the pre-1947 history of the Indian subcontinent. Either do it at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Indian history but make that project acceptable to Pakistani editors (less flags), or do it at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject History of South Asia, but not both. "South Asia" and "Indian subcontinent" are two terms for the same region, only "South Asia" is the term used in contemporary political contexts, and "Indian subcontinent" is used in historical or geographical contexts. Thus, for a WikiProject on history, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject History of India would be better. If necessary, do sub-projects, one for post-1947 RoI, one for British India, one for Mughal India, one for Iron Age India, one for IVC and so forth. dab (𒁳) 09:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

India is NOT acceptable. Its just a blatant excuse to cut the Pakistani people out of their own history. This article has to be renamed to South Asia. India is a modern country, and you cant have a history article for the Indian subcontinent when the subcontinent has never been united as a country before 1850. And while we are at it we will make an article of Asian history aswell. Unre4L 09:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

no. The Republic of India (Bhārata Gaṇarājya) is a modern country. India, otoh, is a geographical region, including the RoI, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal. That India isn't, at present, politically united is beside the point, especially since it has been before 1850, and since this is about the history of India (including 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th century history). dab (𒁳) 10:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Last time I checked a world map, India was a modern Country, and please know your history. South Asia has never been united as a country before the British Raj. This is not what the argument is about though. I have provided sources for Ancient Pakistan being a valid term, so it doesnt really matter what you think. Ancient Pakistan is the most logical term to use. Unre4L 10:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

you are free to do a straw poll on this, but it appears that you are the only editor with this opinion at present. dab (𒁳) 10:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

To Unre4L, if you ignore the southern tip and perhaps some of the eastern parts, India aka. the subcontinent has been politically united on numerous occasions. Please see Mughal Empire, Maurya Empire and British Raj, all of which existed before 1947. Gizza 10:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep the book aside ! The whole South Asian region (as you say it) was known to the world as "India", not "Pakistan" and that's the reason why it is known as "Ancient India" and not ancient pakistan. India may be a modern country, but this region (inc. Pak) has been known as India since BCE times. I hope you get the point. --NRS | /_M\ 10:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, but that's also why India (disambiguation) should reside at India, and the present India at Republic of India, to avoid confusion and ambiguity. dab (𒁳) 10:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

India back then was a subcontinent. NOT a country. people never referred to it as a country. The whole subcontinents history is being passed to Modern India, because of the name confusion, therefore its only logical to change it to South Asian history...unless Indians were using this confusion to their advantage. I am not saying South Asia should be called Ancient Pakistan, I am saying the history of Pakistan within its borders should be referred to as Pakistan, and I have just provided sources that Ancient Pakistan is a valid term. Using it will clear a lot of confusion. Ancient India is regarded as the ancient history of ROI. Please dont throw around different meanings, as you know they are not used anyway.

Take the example. If Germany changed its name to Europe, could it claim the history of all of Europe? I have provided .edu sources like I was asked. I still cant believe you are arguing.Unre4L 15:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Unre4L, believe me, you have made your point now. If Germany unilaterally changed its name to Europe, our History of Europe would still deal with the history of the "European subcontinent", just as our History of India still deals with the history of the Indian subcontinent. dab (𒁳) 15:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The 1989 OED has:

"India: A large country or territory of southern Asia, lying east of the river Indus and south of the Himalaya mountains (in this restricted sense also called Hindustan); also extended to include the region further east (Farther or Further India), between this and China."

dab (𒁳)

Unre4l, you say that the book is "accepted by major universities in America" on the basis that you found it in UIUC's library catalog. This doesn't amount to academic endorsement of Ancient Pakistan. All American libraries would also have Mein Kampf. So one can also claim that all American universities support the Nazi ideology. Do you see the problem with this argument? If you could find many (or any) universities that use this book as a textbook, that would be interesting to see. deeptrivia (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

What is your point. I gave you 3 references like some people asked for. now you have to pick on them and decide to not accept any because you dont like one of the references? This is ridiculous- Obviously I havent made my point or you would know that Ancient India was not a country, never had united people, never had a single government, never had a single united history. India is the subcontinent, granted, but its amazingly misleading to refer to anything as Subcontinental Indian, and you know why. According to you, Pakistanis and Bengalis should be called Indian because they are living on the Indian subcontinent.

When I get home, I will post a few more sources, and then wait for someone to point out that they didnt like the way the references had a number in the web address since its so unprofessional. Sigh. Unre4L 17:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Other references like the blog, etc. have already been discussed. deeptrivia (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I DIDNT use the blog as a reference. Read the quote in the blog, which is of a doctor using the term Ancient Pakistan. Unre4L 17:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Here you go. This source uses the book as a reference, and note how the author refers to the subcontinent as South Asia. Here is another .edu site using an "ancient Pakistan" title research paper as a reference

Let me know if you dislike the background colour of the site. I have to admit. Thats an acceptable reason to reject educational sources. Unre4L 17:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No one is denying that India lies in South Asia, but are you saying that scholars prefer "Ancient South Asia" over "Ancient India"? You can always find a handful of people doing anything. The question is what is the preference of the mainstream. A Google test makes it pretty clear. Also, giving too much importance to political unity in historical periods is not all that justified. Sparta and Athens both belong to Ancient Greece, don't they? Governments have started mattering so much only recently, because with modern technology, they can now control the lives and the minds of the people. In fact, now governments can also completely brainwash their citizens by manipulating history through their revisionist propagandas. All this was near impossible historically, and mostly people away from the capital city won't even know who is their king. Government's role in people's lives was minimal. We are certainly not talking of India in historical periods as a single political entity, but as a cultural entity unified by many common features. Even today, after 60 years of Pakistan studies, Punjabis/Sindhis and Bengalis have much more in common than Punjabis/Sindhis and Persians. deeptrivia (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

So you pretty much admitted that you also know Ancient India was not a country and only united by nothing? So they clearly need a shared history? People in Middle East have a shared culture, but they dont claim each others history . And in case you didnt know Bengalis are far from Pakistanis, and so are South Indians. I am not going to argue. I gave you sources that Ancient Pakistan is a valid term, used by many educational institutions, and its only logical to use the term to describe what it means. Unre4L 17:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please go through the definitions of nation, country and state, and understand the differences. There is no need for India to have been a unified "state" in order to use the term Ancient India. And the fact that Bengalis and Pakistanis are on two different sides of the subcontinent, and yet have so much in common, and Pakistanis and Persians are adjacent to each other and still have not so much in common is exactly my point. Although, there's no academically recognized controversy regarding "Ancient India" vs. "Ancient Pakistan", I'll still point you to Misplaced Pages:Naming_conflict#How_to_make_a_choice_among_controversial_names, regarding what criteria should be used to discuss this on wikipedia, and what criteria should not be used. This makes the matter pretty clear, and I think no further discussion is need on this. deeptrivia (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I dont think you should tell me that there shouldnt be a discussion. Yes there should be discussion, because a lot of people are unhappy. You obviously dont know any Bengalis, I know lots, and trust me when I say they are generally different in appearance, They have a south east asian look to them, and Persians are more similar to Pakistanis than you think...Ahmadinejad? I am not going to argue who is similar to who, and the naming thing is a Problem, A Big Problem.

Yes there is a need for India to have been somewhat united. Because when you group histories together, you are saying they are the same people, or have always been united. India was simply a way to refer to the Subcontinent. Just like people say Europe, thats what India meant to people. There was no Unity what so ever. Yes you can call Pakistani history, Subcontinental Indian , or Asian. There is nothing false about this, but Ancient Pakistani first, and there is a problem with Subcontinental Indian, India is modern state, and Ancient India means the Ancient history of that state. By calling South Asian history, Indian, you are claiming that South Asia has been a state AND Modern India is now the successor state. You see, this is a big problem.

The Term South Asian, and Ancient Pakistani are not only valid terms, but have to be used to clear up the confusion created by the recent 1947 name disputes. (Nehru basckstabbed everyone by naming ROI, India). However I dont see why we are having this discussion. I provided you with Sources, and arent you suppose to accept .edu sources? Thats at least what I was under the impression of, and sorry, you might not be a bad person, but I havent exactly had a good time with Indians, and Pakistan related articles on this board. Some of you guys have been on my back, reporting my articles (unrelated to India) on false pretences, and even getting me banned on false pretences. Unre4L 21:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Unre4L, I think Ancient Rome is a comparable example. Notice that Ancient Rome is not only about what happened in Rome 2000 years ago but the entire empire, which included Southern Europe and Northern Africa. But you may ask, why don't we call it the Ancient Mediterranean Empire? Because it is not a term used by scholars of any sort. Similarly, Ancient Pakistani is rarely used compared to Ancient Indian when describing a region two or three thousand years ago where modern-day Pakistan is situated. Misplaced Pages IS NOT based on the truth nor it is not based on what is techinically correct. It is based on Verifiability. If 999 out of 1000 sources describe IVC as part of Ancient Indian history and 1 calls it Ancient Pakistani, we use Ancient Indian. Sorry but there is nothing we can do about it. Gizza 02:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Rome is not a problem. There is no country calling itself Rome. Ancient Rome does not claim history which existed prior to its era. That history goes to the country in which its situated. And you are mistaken about 2 things. The sources describing Pakistani history as Ancient Indian are Indian 99% of the time, or written by an Indian. All American sources respect Pakistani heritage being kept by Pakistanis. And I can do something about it. I have provided the sources I was asked for, and I really wish people would hold true to their words. This article has to be renamed to South Asian history and a new article can be made for Ancient Indian history for history within Indian borders. I have Facts, and logic by my site, but you have mistaken identities on your side. Unre4L 02:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

To sum everything up.

Ancient Pakistan is a valid term (5 .edu sources provided), therefore Ancient Pakistani history cannot be included in the History of India page. It can be included in the History of South Asia page, which is why this article has to be renamed to South Asia, or all references of Ancient Pakistani history should be removed from Ancient Indian history page.

Ancient Indian history has to only include the history within Indian Borders. South Asian and Ancient Indian history is not the same thing, since India only came into existence as a single entity with a single Government in 1947. Prior to the British Raj, South Asia was never united. Unre4L 02:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Unre4L.I propose two things:

• Let there both be ancient Indian and ancient Pakistani history articles.You guys keep your history(ie The taj-mahal,your share of the indus)and let us keep ours.
• Let there be niether "ancient Indian" nor ancient Pakistani history articles but simply south asian.(Though I preffer Pakistan keep it's ancient history)

Regardless of wheather SA was united or not the fact remains that Pakistan has a claim over all the history of itself regardless of what the land was called back then. "India" was not officially used as a term nor was it ever understood(let alone ever heard of)by the people of SA until the British raj.

Ancient Rome is an excellent example.Since there was no country known as Italy back then,it(ancient Rome) should not be a part of French history just because there was no Italy back then.Ancient ROme belongs to italian history as the indus belongs to Pakistani history.

Bottom line is you stick to your history and we can stick to ours.I don't see why it has to be turned into a big issue.Why India is so desperate to claim Pakistani history I'll never know.I think Bakaman has got India's indipendance date mixed up with Pakistan's.Pakisatn's is 14th Augest and india's is 15th augest I hope that settles everything. Nadirali 03:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we go by google. I dont support giving undue weight to a fictional construct over a well-established and correct term. You can give me all the analogies you want but that wont change international consensus. India not used as a term, please? Xuanzang, Marco Polo, Ibn Battuta, Fa-Hien, Zheng He all visited India. What did they visit? South Asia? It only got turned into an issue because we Indians and non-Pakistanis are hijacking a fictional construct. O and btw, hamara bangali bhaiyon ko kyaa bolte? shunyaBakaman 04:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is getting too long, that too over a non-issue ! I guess, one thing is being forgotten ! "PAKISTAN" as a term was coined by Choudhary Rahmat Ali in 1933 . Before that, there didn't exist a word by the name "Pakistan". And as proved by other editors above, the region was known as "India". So, using "Ancient Pakistan" would be revisionism and perversion of history, things which have no place in Misplaced Pages. Period. And yeah, Bottom Lines like "you stick to your history and we can stick to ours", eventually sink to the bottom only. --NRS | /_M\ 06:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again you prove you didnt read the discussion and you keep repeating the same thing as always. Pakistan was coined up in 1947, The Term India was coined up by the Brits, around 100 years before that!! Nobody called it India, they had their own words for the 100s of provinces in the subcontinent. Ancient India is not a well established and correct term. Its ridiculous the way you claim that India has so many meanings. And most of them are used by Indians only. I still have to meet non Indian historians who call the entire South Asian Subcontinent India. But I dont see what the problem is. I gave you sources PROVING that Ancient Pakistan is a valid and correct term. Are you just going to ignore that now? Looks like you are. Unre4L 14:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

And I gave you facts stating that Ancient Pakistan is used once for every 104 times India is used. Ahem, India was used by the ancient Persians, ancient Chinese, ancient Turks, etc.Bakaman 17:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It wasnt used to describe a country. And Like I said, Ancient Pakistan is a valid term, and must be used in order to clear confusion. Unre4L 18:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It must not be used because its a useless and incorrect term. There is no confusion since "ancient pakistan" is a fictional construct.Bakaman 04:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Unre4L said It wasnt used to describe a country. Exactly, you're absolutely right. When foreigners pre-1700 used the word India (Greeks, Chinese, Persians) they were describing the entire region. That is why History of India refers to the history of the entire region, not just one country. You then said Ancient Pakistan, (which isn't commonly used but occasionally used) must be used to clear confusion. Since it isn't commonly used (Not only Indians, but Americans, Europeans and other Western nations used the term Ancient India in their books because they are referring to the region not the country) the best way to avoid confusion is by calling the post-1947 conutry as Republic of India. China, Macedonia, Ireland are all about the regions, not the country. Some of us are proposing that India become as disambiguation page because India, just like China etc. can refer to the region. Gizza 05:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's stop discussing this. This is all too simple to understand had any effort been made. No one is saying that India was a single state except for small intermittent periods. But that India was a nation is not disputed by any scholar. That's all that is needed, because Ancient Greece, etc., all were in the same situation. India as an ancient nation is disputed only on hilarious grounds by Pakistan studies propaganda textbooks. Please note the difference between a state and a nation. I've tried to explain all this before, but apparently what we are seeing here is only an exercise in trolling. Let's not continue to feed trolls. deeptrivia (talk) 07:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes let's not.Especially extremist trolls who plan on using wiki to spread propaganda such as the article you plan to write on Pak studies.Nadirali 16:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Nation? India was never united, unless a subcontinent means a Nation, no India was never a nation pre British Raj. And No. India cannot refer to the region of the Indian subcontinent. Unlike China, the Indian subcontinent contains a lot of countries, and in order to clear confusion, wouldnt it make more sense to let people know which region you are talking about instead of naming everything India? If India became a disambiguation, then Everyone in South Asia will effectively be Indians (see a problem with this, considering the country India?). Not useful if you want to differentiate between 1.6 billion people. I am getting the impression you guys are not reading the argument, as you keep repeating the same thing over and over again, causing me to repeat my first post over and over again.

Understand this: India cannot have 2 meanings. The only valid meaning is the Country India. India (subcontinent) is no longer used, because in 1947 the meaning went from being a continent to a country. South Asia is the proper term to use. And now since we dont have terms to refer to the other places outside India in the subcontinent, its only logical to use already VALID terms (sources provided) e.g Ancient Pakistan. And the term India is less than a few hundred years old. The Persians, Chinese, Arabs, did not group everyone in South Asia together, and they didnt call anything India either. Thats the British Term. This article will get edited sooner or later, because NOBODY calls South Asia, India, apart from you guys.

p.s Please leave if you dont want to discuss, and let people who care about this article making sense, talk all they want. Unre4L 08:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Deep, I agree with you. I shouldn't feed the trolls. I'll make one last point. This article will not get edited sooner or later for your reasons, because A LOT OF PEOPLE call South Asia, India in a historical context, and NOBODY formally uses the term Ancient Pakistan apart from you guys. Misplaced Pages's policies (particularly WP:RS, WP:V & WP:NOR) will dictate what you can write here. Btw, User:Dbachmann a German speaking Swiss, and User:Taxman an American disagreed with you. I'll give you a challenge; find a non-Pakistani who agrees with you on Misplaced Pages and I'll give you a barnstar (just a joke), lol :-) Gizza 09:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

They disagreed with me on the pakhub article, and told me to find sources for Ancient Pakistan being a valid term. And I did. Unre4L 15:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, the very term Pakistan was coined in the 1930s, how can you split up Ancient India and Ancient Pakistan when someone would have looked at you ludicrously if you stood in the Western Punjab region in 500 BC and said you're standing in Pakistan instead of India (Hind/Bharat). If you told Bhagat Singh that he was Pakistani instead of Indian, he would've looked at you for a second and then turned away back to teaching religious unity. Nobleeagle 22:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I see. NobleEagle, you will be the nth person to not read the article before replying. If you stood in 500 BC Punjab and told them they were Indian, they would look wierdly at you aswell. Because there was no such thing as India. The term is British and hasnt been around for long either. India wasnt a country and nobody ever called thelseves Indian until the British Raj. In 500 BC, they would call each other Punjabi. Ancient Pakistan (sources provided) is just as valid as Ancient India, and the term has to be used for its meaning, especially since Ancient India is already causing a lot of confusion. Unre4L 00:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Except that PErsia and India already had an established trading network by then. Therefore he would be used to being called "Hindu" at the least but not "Pakistani". Note the parenthesis, he would say he is in Hind and a person standing in Tamil Nadu would say Bharatavarsham, both synonyms of India.Bakaman 00:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Persia and India didnt. Persian and the provinces within the Indian subcontinent did. India was never a country. They probably had names for the subcontinent, but these people werent united, so they didnt trade, fight, and live like one big country. Besides thats not what I am arguing. I provided sources for Ancient Pakistan being valid. Since both Pakistan and India emerged as countries in 1947, their histories only go within their own borders. India cant claim the history of Pakistani ancestors, same goes for Pakistanis not claiming Indian history, they dont. You will never see Pakistanis claiming to have built the Taj Mahal, even though they are people of the Indian subcontinent. Its amazing people here dont even care about sources being provided. Unre4L 01:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

So, nobody has got anything to argue? Well there is not much to argue about the incorrectness of calling Pakistani Ancestors Indian, when less than 4 generations of them were called Indian, and even then, it should be British Indian since Indian implies someone from RoI. Unre4L 22:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't mean nobody has got anything to argue, it means it's beginning to seem pointless arguing with you. So you are saying that History of India and History of Pakistan were of the same length, apart from the fact that Vedic traditions were founded in Ancient Pakistan as was a lot of Sikhism and all of Alexander's invasions etc etc. So Ancient Pakistan would perhaps even have a larger and more extensive history. But when I google Ancient India I get 932,000 hits, when I google Ancient Pakistan I get 8590 hits. You do the math, Ancient Pakistan gets 0.92% of what Ancient India gets. If everyone around the world, including notable historians, school textbooks etc. use Ancient India and not Ancient Pakistan, then who are we to change Misplaced Pages? For every source you get for Ancient Pakistan, we can find numerous ones for ancient India (which aren't blogs). Nobleeagle 23:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Pointless to argue with me. Maybe because you have nothing to add to the argument but google results, which, as you can see, have been brought to my attention several times. I am not arguing that a lot of people use Ancient India, I am saying its wrong.

The very simple point made here is, the history belongs to the people. Not the name. India, a country which was born in 1947, takes the name of the subcontinent, and claims the history of people who were never known as Indians. How can you claim the history of Pakistani ancestors, when they were never called Indian, and their land is not even part of India. I know you dont want to argue with me simply because I am Pakistani, but does this sound logical to you? There is no reason to refer to any history according its continent. Where else do you see this being done? Unre4L 23:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

They were called inhabitants of Bharatvarsh, India in itself is used to describe Bharat. Bharat was the whole Indian subcontinent before Partition and India was Bharat. Anyway, please read Misplaced Pages:Original Research. By the way, if I didn't want to argue with you because you were Pakistani, what am I doing now? Nobleeagle 23:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right about Bharatvarsh, it was another word for the Indian subcontinent, but not a country. RoI is not the successor of Bharatvarsh. India and Pakistan both are equal successors of Bharatvarsh. So you are wrong in saying that India is Bharatvarsh. Indian subcontinent is Bharatvarsh, but currently, India is claiming the history of all of Bharatvarsh while clearly excluding Pakistan.

Unre4L 00:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you tell me what India's name is (other than Republic of India)? Nobleeagle 02:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I am talking about the country. It only has one name and thats India. Bharatvarsha once referred to the Indian subcontinent, but after partition, Indians have claimed that name for themselves, and use it to refer to ROI. (Without Pakistan). So how can you use the same name to refer to the history of Pakistan? Unre4L 03:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You accepted that Bharatvarsh was used to describe the entire Indian subcontinent. Now the Republic of India's name is Bharat Ganrajya. Bharat = India, so for the remainder of this debate we can refer to India as Bharat. So the History of Bharat belongs to Bharat, does it not? Pakistan doesn't lay any claim to the name Bharat anyway. Today, Indians will say I am from Bharat, in 500 AD, Indians will say I am from Bharat. Today, Pakistanis will say I am from Pakistan, in 500 AD, people who lived in that region would say I am from Bharat. In any case, Pakistan can lay no claim whatsoever to the Hindu and Sikh histories of that region, because they were kicked out and slaughtered to create an Islamic state, no Hindu or Sikh who had to migrate from Pakistan to India would say they were born in Pakistan, they were born in India, which later became Pakistan. Nobleeagle 03:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

On Successor States: Unre4L, there are other avenues where creativity is better appreciated. Misplaced Pages is a serious place where creativity is hardly required. Please read about the Succession of states theory, and know what the official situation is. Let me refer you to :

(Thomas RGC, Nations, States, and Secession: Lessons from the Former Yugoslavia, Mediterranean Quarterly, Volume 5 Number 4 Fall 1994, pp. 40-65, Duke University Press)

Seriously, Nobleeagle, do you see any point in carrying out this discussion? deeptrivia (talk) 06:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No, there's not really. His points are easy enough to refute, but it doesn't matter since he's already made up his mind irrespective of the facts. He hasn't even attempted to show that his view is the predominant one among scholars, because of course, it's not. Further discussion would not be fruitfull unless a serious attempt at analyzing all neutral scholarly opinions was made. - Taxman 13:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If you dont want to talk then leave the page. Nobody is forcing you to discuss. Ok, if British India is the successor state, then that would make India...250 years old, despite the fact Pakistan was also part of British Raj. In any case how does this allow India to claim history which belonged to Pakistan prior to the British Raj? There definitely wasnt anything called India back then. The Indian subcontinent was scattered with dynasties, and none of them being united, you cant claim they were and group everything together. Unre4L 12:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Lets clear the air a bit. Even as an American and Midwesterner, I know that Pakistan and India have a contentious history, and a contentious situation today. Lets NOT, however, bring that to Misplaced Pages. If you can't work together with folks, then consider leaving yourself.

There are plenty of good people here, who have proven themselves to me to be honest and fair. Furthermore, they keep the articles, and Misplaced Pages itself in mind. I'm not saying that's everyone, but the "good" far outweigh the "disruptive". When you start treating people like the enemy, they start acting like it. Consider this. Nina Odell 13:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, you shouldnt lecture me without knowing the situation. I know for a fact that some of these guys are racists, and members of extremist forums like hinduunity. They have called out for attacks on my site, long before I even decided to know their names. And as an American, you should also know how Pakistan is being cut out from its own history. Its not hard to see. Unre4L 19:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, this is the last time I'm going to say this and then I'll leave the debate because you have done very little to convince everyone. The term "India" is an anglicized word. The term "Bharat", which is still the official name for India in modern times, is not such a word. Bharat Ganrajya is the successor state to Bharatvarsh, the history prior to British rule is the history of Bharat, the history of Bharat = history of India. Do you understand? No-one used India prior to Europeanisation, it was Bharat and it is still Bharat and it's in the Indian Constitution, Pakistan does not claim to be Bharat and is not the successor state of British India, Pakistan's history begins in the 1930s. By the way, you do know that the name India is derived from Indus? Scholars think that way so Misplaced Pages thinks that way. That's it from me. Nobleeagle 22:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

And I am getting tired of saying the same thing again and again since you obviously dont understand. BHARAT...Was...Not...A...Country. It was the subcontinent, and it was NOT united, India was born in 1947, and cannot claim to be the successor state of anything, since you are missing the very people whose history you are claiming. People of South Asia, never called themselves Indians, Bhartians, or whatever you think India was prior to 1947. They called themselves, Sindhi, Baluchi, Gujarati, because that was their country. And last time I checked, Sindh and Baluchistan never belonged to India, so their history is not Indian either. Unre4L 22:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

And again, Pakistan can have no claim on the rich Hindu and Sikh histories of their region, because if Pakistan were formed during the period of those histories, the Hindus and Sikhs would have been slaughtered and there would have been no history. Nobleeagle 22:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You just slipped there Brother. How can Pakistanis not claim the so called "rich hindu" history, when Pakistanis Used to be Hindu?? Pakistanis can claim the hindu history within their borders and Indians cant claim it. Just because its Hindu doesnt mean it becomes Indian automatically. Your above comment was very ignorant. Unre4L 22:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The Islamic republic of Pakistan? Mhmm, especially when the word "Pakistan" was not coined up until the 30's. Nobleagle, unreal is right on one thing: they do have claim over Danish Kaneria, Rana Bhagwandas and Ramesh Lal but not much else.Bakaman 23:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

...

You keep repeating the same thing over and over and over again. Pakistan is not an old term, but what else do you want to call the Pakistani people which isnt misleading? Forget the age of the term, and start thinking about what the term actually refers to.
People of Pakistan didnt pop up from nowhere. They have their own history, and unfortunately we cant call people of Pakistan, Indians, becuase of the term already being used for a country and their people.
And now I can expect you to copy and paste the same reply as above or give me some google results. Right?
Unre4LITY 16:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The Pakistani people you are talking about were Indians prior to Partition of '''India'''. If you want to call all those living in that region prior to Partition Pakistani then what of the Hindus who had lived there since IVC times but were kicked out of the region because of the creation of a nation called Pakistan? Nobleeagle 03:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I cant believe this debate. There are actually people who think it is proper to rename this ancient Pakistan? I mean Paksitan is a country just created in 1947. There was no Pakistan before that. There is no such thing as an ancient Pakistan people. Pakistan was created on the basis to give a country to muslims that did not want to live under India....Now I understand that India was "Officially" created in 1947, but that doesnt mean there is no ancient India....The Greeks recognized India centuries ago. The persians recognized it. The Arabs recognized it. And the British recognized it....Yes India at some points had kingdoms that were divided...However....It was still a land of people that all knew there from the same Aryan heritage....Yes they fought against each other....but so what?....Kingdoms fought all over the world against each other but they still knew they were from the same people....The Vedas (Ancient Text) recognized an ancient land of Aryan people, and even a king named Ashoka united the country so for anyone to say India was never united is false....I mean in any case....Pakistan is not an ancient country....It doesnt have a seperate history....The people of Pakistan come from the same blood that Indians do....They are all of Aryan heritage....And let me remind you something else....Just because there Muslim doesnt mean they are this seperate race of people.....I mean the fact of the matter is before Islam came to the region they were most likely Hindu, Buddhist, or Zoarastrian 71.119.248.15 07:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There isnt anything called ancient Pakistan. Pakistan's history starts in 1930 when the term was coined. The argument that West Punjab or Sindh was historically 'Pakistan' is a joke at best. Pakistan as such was just created as a political entity. It does not inherit (under its name) the history of the regions falling under it. devil 06:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC Renaming this article

I would like to make a suggestion.
India refers to the Country India. This article is referring to the Indian Subcontinent (which is the only other name for the Indian subcontinent as this article suggests History of South Asia).
I propose this article should be renamed to History of Indian Subcontinent OR merged with History of South Asia article
History of India article should be limited to history of India (Country).
If you have any objections then please explain. Or explain why this article isnt misleading.
Thank you. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 23:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Because in ancient times, it used to be called India (or a variation of that name), not the subcontinent or South Asia. You have filed an RfC and few people have come to agree with your points (I'm not sure even one has). This is going too far, what you are saying (that Pakistan has a longer history than India) is untrue and will never happen. I suggest you spend your time improving more Pakistan-related article then repeatedly engaging in one versus one hundred edit wars and discussiosn, you would do better off that way. Nobleeagle 03:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

India is a British Term. The Brits coined it up. And nobody apart from them used it until the 1850s. I suggest you do some research. I have not engaged in ANY edit wars. I dont see how you can just come up with that every time you see one of my posts. A lot of people agree with me. And how come its always the usual guys who come up and disagree with me, while claiming everyone agrees with them? Please let someone else aswell, before you conclude anything. Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 10:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Noble Eagle. Try to explain the points I put forward instead of changing the subject all the time. India is a country. This article refers to the Subcontinent. This page clearly links to Republic of India. Please tell me why this isnt misleading. History of South Asia clearly states that the only other name for the subcontinent apart from South Asia, is Indian Subcontinent. So why are we referring to it as India, when there shouldnt be any doubt in your mind that the India refers to the country born in 1947. Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 10:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

India is a term of Hellenistic geography/ethnography, and refers to anything east of the Indus and south of the Himalaya . If anything should be renamed, it is our current "India", to Republic of India. Check the OED, Unre4L. Just because you keep repeating your point doesn't make it any more valid. The "Brits" didn't "coin it up", stop saying that, the term is in use since at least the 3rd century BC. dab (𒁳) 11:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

India was coined up by the British. Do some research please. You are referring to the terms, Sindh, Hindh, and Bharat. And last time I checked they didnt sound anything like India, neither were they of the same borders.

I agree with your definition, but thats the definition of the Indian Subcontinent, Not India. Search for India and you will understand. I hope I can get the opinions of some other people for a change. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 12:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

again, the fact that you keep repeating yourself doesn't make you any less wrong. "Do some research please" doesn't cut it. I told you that the meaning of India I have given you is backed up by the OED. So how about you give us your WP:RS contradicting the OED? Also, there is no such term as Hindh. It's either Sindh or Hind. dab (𒁳) 15:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources? Search for India, or in fact. Click on the source you just posted. The map of INDIA shows everything. In case you want me to point it out, it doesnt include Pakistan.
Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 15:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

since you obviously don't want to listen, I suggest we drop it at this point. Further repetitions on your part will not convince anyone that isn't convinced yet. The situation is similar to History of Iran, which has been moved to History of Greater Iran recently; I suppose we could also move this to History of Greater India (Greater India). dab (𒁳) 15:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats a great idea. Are we actually agreeing on something here? Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 16:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

you mean, a Greater Idea :) -- since this is the History of Greater India, not the History of the Republic of India article, I would accept a move to History of Greater India, paralleling History of Greater Iran, if there are no objections from other editors. dab (𒁳) 18:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I would mention for comparison the scheme britannica has adopted on this. See this and this. deeptrivia (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here's what I think will be the best solution:

• This article is renamed "History of Indian Subcontinent". Greater India includes far too many places according to some definitions.
• "History of India" redirects here, with an 'otheruses' link to "History of Republic of India". Alternately, "History of India" becomes a disambiguation page.
• "History of Pakistan" talks of only of history of Pakistan (i.e., events that led to the creation of Pakistan, and thereafter.) Obviously, if this article is about the whole subcontinent, there is no justification whatsoever for History of Pakistan to repeat the whole story. This corresponds to what is done on britannica.
• "History of Pakistan" has a link on the top saying that the history of the region prior to 1947 is contained in "History of Indian Subcontinent" .

This is my idea right now. I might be convinced of some other solution if there are good arguments favoring those. deeptrivia (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the first part of your post.
This article should be renamed to Indian subcontinent
But there should still be an article for the history of India and Pakistan within their own borders. History of India article should contain the history of the Indian people from what ever era you can go back to.
But all that can be sorted out later. Note, I am not asking for anything to be removed, simply to rename the pages to make them more specific to their contents. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 19:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the present borders, which were drawn on the map almost arbitrarily by someone who had never visited India have nothing to do with history. Even a couple of days before partition, people were betting with equal odds on whether Lahore will be in India or Pakistan. "There were even instances where the dividing line passed through a single house with some rooms in one country and others in the other.". This is one of the reasons why the proposal that you have often repeated is not acceptable. deeptrivia (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I like deep's plan.--D-Boy 20:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose rename.Bakaman 21:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice explanation. Good point. Amazing argument. But I dont agree with your 4th point Bakaman. Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 21:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we take one step at a time? I suggest renaming this article first before starting the debate about the other.
But since we are there, let me just clarify. The Indian subcontinent is huge. It would make sense to break down the history by Countries, just like each province has its own History article, and even some Cities have their own articles.
I will explain all this later.
But I must ask, who is accepting the rename? I have already pointed out the obvious thing about how misleading it is to refer to the Indian subcontinent as India.
Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 21:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact remains that in Ancient times, the entire subcontinent was referred to as India. In 1947, India was partitioned, that's the '''Partition of India''', to form new entities, Pakistan and India. The modern history of India can be covered in History of the Republic of India, but the ancient history belongs in an article named History of India. Nobleeagle 21:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobleeagle. I am not questioning the Subcontinent claim. Have a history for the subcontinent. But dont call it India, since India is misleading. And I was also simply suggestion to have country wise history articles to be specific, just like we already have Province history articles, and even City history articles.
The following article is perfect as it is, except for the subcontinent being referred to as India. A simple change could solve that. Like renaming this to South Asian history. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 21:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The point you are missing is that it is not wrong to refer to the pre-1947 subcontinent as India. Nobleeagle 21:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Its not wrong to refer the the history of the Subcontinent as Indian, Between 1850 and 1947. Before this, other names were used, which had nothing to do with the term "India", the Brits coined up. However most of these terms have been claimed by RoI. The term is misleading, and I am simply suggesting to change it to something less misleading. like South Asia. There is nothing wrong with this either.
I am trying to stay neutral here. I havent suggested calling the subcontinent, Pakistan, or Sindh. The least you could do is help.
--Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 22:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Geographically obscuring the term India with South Asia is far from neutral. You dont have articles on History of East Asia! India has been in use since the times of Herodotus. Regurgitating your points, which I must add, have been demolished comprehensively by editors of stature such as dab is going to convince no one. Your contentions, i'm afraid fall under OR. An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:

   * It introduces a theory or method of solution;
   * It introduces original ideas;
   * It defines new terms;
   * It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
   * It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
   * It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
   * It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

WP:NOR

If term "History of India" is good enough for Britannica then it ought to be good enpugh for Misplaced Pages regardless of Unre4L's personal opinions.

Amey Aryan DaBrood 22:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

How is South Asia a new term??? East Asia, no, but ever heard of the Middle East?
I was naive enough to think you would agree with me for once, but there already is a History of South Asia article, and its not being used properly, since this article contains everything which should have been in the History of South Asia article.
Just to clarify, Britannica makes it clear its referring to INDIAN SUBCONTINENT. Unlike, Wiki, where you have RoI linking directly to the page.
--Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 22:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the title of britannica article is India:History. The detailed clarification is in the lead text. Similarly, the lead text of Pakistan:History mentions that the pre-1947 history is at India:History. deeptrivia (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a note at the top of the page. This article is about India prior to the Partition of India in 1947. For the modern Republic of India, please see History of the Republic of India. That makes it very clear what the article is about, are you satisfied? Nobleeagle 22:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I suggested a name change, which some people here agreed to.
I just dont see the reason to call this article India. Not only does everyone here know what India refers to, But The subcontinent is called, Indian Subcontinent, or South Asia, not India
By the way. Partition of India? That India only existed 100 years. This is the main reason why this article cant be called India. I proposed fair arguments but I guess its back to ignoring them now.
How can you deny that the subcontinent is called South Asia? India was its name for a mere 100 years, and not only that, its a different entity now, misleading titles are not accepted on Wiki.
I will tell you again, I have nothing against the facts or contents of this article. Just the name.
--Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 23:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"The use of the name India dates from the 17th century onwards, and may be due to the influence of Latin, or Spanish or Portuguese." See Etymology of India
Note: The term "India" started being USED from the 17th century, but nobody referred to themselves as Indian until 1850s, when the Brits invaded.
And you cant start using other terms like Hindustan, since they are already claimed by India.
Where does that leave us then?
--Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 18:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a more accurate definition like Ancient History of South Asia, History of South Asia is alread filled with history of certain areas and modern hitory links. As there were different empires and if the name India was used, in what context and meaning to the peoples of the time period. Enlil Ninlil 06:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the name change. devil 06:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC History of India Name Change (back on topic)

Ok guys. To sum this up. I am Assuming Good Faith, and your willingness to keep these topics Specific to comply with Wiki policies Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (country-specific topics).
Please tell me what is incorrect/unfair about this suggestion. Especially when I am doing this in good faith.

• This article gets renamed to History of South Asia. (the article already exists, however not used correctly)
  
• Articles for Pakistan and India histories remain limited to within their own borders, similar to articles we have about the history of provinces of South Asia.
• The history of Pakistan and India articles contain reference to the History of South Asia article to indicate shared history, and a paragraph to explain the shared history if you wish.

Please work with me here and Assume good faith. I have no agenda, I simply wish for this mess to be fixed so in future we can work on improving and expanding the articles instead of being stuck here on the same argument.
Please dont simply say you disagree with the idea, and leave. It puts everything back to square one (see above argument). I wish to get this sorted and I need you guys help.
Thx for understanding. If you are serious about reaching a conclusion both sides can agree on, reply here or start a discussion on my Talk Page and we will discuss in all seriousness to reach a conclusion which both parties are satisfied by.
--Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 00:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Cherrypicking from sources are we? From your own source (btw youcant source from Wiki articles themselves_...

The English term is from Greek Ἰνδία, via Latin India. Ἰνδία in Hellenistic ethnography denotes the region beyond the Ἰνδός river, from Old Persian Hinduš (listed as a conquered territory by Darius I in the Persepolis terrace inscription). The Persian term is cognate to Sindhu, the Sanskrit name of the river, but also meaning "river" generically.

India may be of 17th century Anglo-Saxon coinage, but it didnt pop out of nowhere. Amey Aryan DaBrood 18:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Read prochronism. deeptrivia (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I oppose any change, but if it is impossible to avoid one, I support dab's History of Greater India per History of Greater Iran. History of South Asia would have to include Sri Lanka, Maldives, Bhutan etc, which were isolated for large periods of time from the happenings in the subcontinent itself. Then we will need to confer with the guys at History of Sri Lanka to see what they think (the island has been known as Lanka/Ceylon/Sinhala for a long time, just like the subcontinent has been known as India, no need for double standards). Nobleeagle 03:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea in principle, but given the contents of Greater India (referenced statement that says it includes Iran (Seistan-Balochistan province), Afghanistan, Nepal, Bhutan, China (trans-Tsangpo and Yunnan regions), Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Maldives, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Brunei, East Timor, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore, the Mauritius, Maldives, Seychelles, Comoros and other islands of the Indian Ocean), I'd be more careful with that term for this article. deeptrivia (talk) 04:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have my doubts Iran should really be considered part of "Greater India", too. SE Asia was included for some time I suppose, but only ever on grounds of being part of the "socio-cultural region" of India, which is precisely what we want. dab (𒁳) 13:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

maybe "Greater India" isn't so great. The problem is that the correct term for the region including the RoI, Pakistan and Bangladesh (and Nepal) is really "India", not "Greater India". dab (𒁳) 13:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

True. Also, it's not a widely used term, so naming an important article using Greater India might give more importance to the term than it really enjoys. I don't have problems with "India", but if someone really dislike its use so much, I think the next best thing is "Indian subcontinent". Also, if we are having a history article on the subcontinent, I don't see any reason for repeating large parts of that history on "History of Pakistan". (History of Nepal is okay, since Nepal is a cultural region with a local history, just like Punjab, Sindh or Bengal.) deeptrivia (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't we want just "India proper", which in fact corresponds to Indian subcontinent,and excludes SE Asia, Afghanistan, Tibet, etc? deeptrivia (talk) 13:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - I give as much explanation and reasoned argument that unre4l gives.Bakaman 04:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose'

Please work with me here and Assume good faith. I have no agenda

I, for one, find that hard to believe. I was involved in the AfD on Pakhub, a website which was put in this enclyclopedia by you and another editor. You have written some very strange things on the website and have even mentioned an "agenda" on the site. The site's forums are full of vitriolic text against every major non-Islamic country and you have contributed to them. You wanted to put that on Misplaced Pages and even now are associated with it. _{Freedom skies| talk}  05:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This is about solving a dispute, and I didnt write the articles, I simply happen to agree with most of there points. And if you take a look at the forums, Some Indian trolls pretending to be Pakistanis are trying their best to make everyone look bad. I made it clear I am not denying any hindu history, or neither do I have anything against India. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 09:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I read the website's contents again today and that website is emphatically anti non-muslim countries, especially the US, Israel, India and the UK. You speak of Jihad and Jew conspiracies and have made scathing remarks about conspiracies on this very encyclopedia. _{Freedom skies| talk}  12:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

By your own logic, Unreal, South Asia is even a recent PC-neologism. Surely ancient Indians didnt call themselves South Asians. Amey Aryan DaBrood 16:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The guy who speaks of Jihad is an obvious troll, and its not the first time I have had Indians coming in, pretending to be Pakistanis. If you even bothered to read MY replies, you would know I disagreed with this guy every time.
"Ancient Indians" did NOT call themselves Indian. NOBODY did before 1850. I am tired of explaining this over and over again. Throughout the subcontinents history names have changed over and over again. India has existed for 60 years, and that India is claiming the history of region which has never belonged to it. I am trying to make a compromise by asking you to refer to the Subcontinent.
Its obvious your POV is kicking in here, since you refuse to stop misleading people. I dont need to tell you which country Indian refers to. You know. Yet you want people to know that Pakistani ancestors who had never heard the term India before, were Indian.
How come its the same people commenting on this matter. Can I get some more opinions, and from neutral people. I.e Non Pakistani/Indian.
--Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 18:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"The use of the name India dates from the 17th century onwards, and may be due to the influence of Latin, or Spanish or Portuguese." See Etymology of India
Note: The term "India" started being USED from the 17th century, but nobody referred to themselves as Indian until 1850s, when the Brits invaded.
And you cant start using other terms like Hindustan, since they are already claimed by India.
Where does that leave us then?
--Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 18:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

this isn't an article about an ethnic group, but about a socio-cultural/geographical region the English language term for which happens to be "India". Can we move on to something less silly now? dab (𒁳) 19:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Dab's stated the obvious. Most people would see it as the History of India, no need to complicate things. Nobleeagle 21:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

One point. This essay written by the editor-in-chief of Pakistan Today is interesting , particularly:

"Pakistan is not a natural country. It is composed of regions, sects, ethnic groups and linguistic factions who, in the absence of social justice, have never felt a part of the Pakistani nationhood. It is only the iron hand of the armed forces that has prevented them from seceding."

Thus, "History of Pakistan" has no meaning in ancient times. Should be History of India (as defined by Greeks thousands of years ago). "History of the Republic of India" begins from 1947, "History of Pakistan" begins from Iqbal etc in 1930s. Articles should show that. They don't.Rumpelstiltskin223 05:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought I'd drop my two cents in here,

About "ancient Pakistan", the political entity called Pakistan itself claims to be a part of the history of Bangladesh when it occupied the reigons now under the Bangladesh government for what? less than three decades? If occupation of a ethnically diverse and geographically unconnected entity such as bangladesh entitles pakistan to be a part of Bangladesh's history then do the reigons falling under the geographical boundaries of Pakistan not deserve a mention of their Perisan, Indian and Afghan pasts?

Which Pakistan are we talking about here? It seems to keep changing geographically all the time with shifting of bangladesh, Siachin, Kashmir, Sir Creek and else. If geographical changes allow a political entity to not exist at all then did the "first pakistan" not fall after Indian control of Kashmir, the "second Pakistan" after the liberation of Bangladesh and the "Third Pakistan" after the capture of Siachin? Since some people argue that India's geographical boundaries after the IVC period are different then they are now I would like to know that do Pakistan's geographical boundaries never change? Was Bangladesh never a part of Pakistan's nascant history now that it's seperated? If it was then reigons of Pakistan have been under control of Persia, India and Afghanistan, why not mention that as well?

India as a distinct political entity has existed, irrespective of the nature of the governments and the geographical boundaries. Pakistan is just a recent creation. History of Pakistan prior to the creation of the state is the history of India in some reigons, the history of Persia in some reigons etc.

That's about it.

_{Freedom skies| talk}  11:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not a bad point. The region of Bangladesh was apart of Pakistan so its history is tied to Pakistani history. Likewise the region of Pakistan was split between India (Punjab, Sindh, Kashmir, and southern periphery part of NWFP?), Afghanistan (NWFP proper, FATA, Waziristan), and Iran (Balochistan). Bulk of course centered in India, demographically and culturally. Therefore it belongs in those histories. Point is however that we already have that included in the Pakistani article on its history. Its in the introduction. Also, "India" the political entity may not have permanently existed, but the region and geographic expression "India" did exist. The country, regardless of political realties, was referred to as India or Hindustan by the Greeks, Persians, Romans, Arabs, Europeans and others. During the Mughal, Mauryan, Gupta and Kushan empires, it was known as Hindustan or Bharatavarsha or even Aryavarta, and a plethora of other terms grouping the area as one. We use Roman to refer to histories of southern-central Europe as well as North Africa and the Levant. Now it refers to Italy's Rome, but Ancient Rome sets the distinguishing point. Likewise, Ancient Indian is the point of all ancient South Asian civilization and history. Nevertheless we should just improve on things as they already are. Pakistan, as a region, has its history and we should talk about it in the history of Pakistan, even though it was never called Pakistan prior to the 1930's and 40's. As a region, it was as distinct as South India or Northeast was. Afghan Historian 23:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"As a region, it was as distinct as South India or Northeast was. " This is simply untrue. Neither the Radcliffe line nor the Durand line are natural cultural borders of any historical relevance at all. There is a semi-stable cultural barrier that passes right through the middle of Pakistan and an overwhelming majority of people live to the east of this barrier. See the map on the right. deeptrivia (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

ToC

Can we get rid of the "The"s in section headers? ("The Stone Age", "The Magadha empire" etc.) They're ugly, inconsistent, and at odds with the MoS. dab (𒁳) 18:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree. 'The' make the page look like lord of the rings.

Ancient...

I have read through this discussion with quite some amusement. The problem that I see is that the two groups in this discussion want to divide "history", one for India, another for Pakistan. Number one, "India" was not a term used by Indians themselves, and even to this day the Republic of India is referred to commonly as "Bharat" not as "India". "India" is the term that was used by foreigners used to describe the land around the Indus river, i.e (current Pakistan and Northern Republic of India). As the Vedic rites and Hindu beliefs spread South through the Deccan Plateau, this entire region became known as "India" to outsiders, because they shared a common identity, followers of Hinduism, which evolved into its current form upon the banks of the Sindhu river. "Hindus" literally meant those who lived beyond the "Indus". The Sanskrit word for the river, "Sindhu", evolved into the Ancient Persian word "Hindu", and then later the "H" was dropped and "-ia" added to the end to form the Latin word, "India". Even more, the place was also known as "Hindustan", during the 12th century. Not only did outsiders give these people a common identity, but the inhabitants of the region would refer to their land as "Bharatavarsha", as it says in the Vishnu Purana (2.3.1). "Ancient India" therefore refers to much of the Deccan Plateau and the modern day areas of Bangladesh, Pakistan and even parts of Afghanistan. Some argue that "India" has only existed since the British arrived, and before that there were only independent states, so therefore there cannot be Ancient India. Well excuse me, but Balochistan, West Punjab, Sindh, one third of Kashmir, and areas that correspond to NWFP and FATA were never independently united under the banner of "Pakistan" (nor any other name) before 1947. Sure it was part of the various empires, but never did it exist as it does now before 1947. Just like India, the region of Pakistan was divided amongst various kingdoms. If there was no "Ancient India", there certainly was no "Ancient Pakistan". The etymology behind the term "India", "Indus", "Hindu", "Sindhu" goes back thousands of years. "Pakistan" one must remember was a term coined by Choudhary Rahmat Ali in 1933. If Pakistan decided to change its name into something else, would the concept of "Ancient Pakistan" be abandoned for a new term? What one must remember is that partition was based one one key theme: religion. Sindh, though a central figure of Hinduism, went to Pakistan, because of a Muslim majority. The Indus river is now practically outside India. How ironic. The Punjabi language of India is the very same one in Pakistan. Same goes for the Bengali language in Bangladesh. If Punjab/Sindh had been a Hindu majority, would it have become part of India, so the history of the region suddenly shift from being "Ancient Pakistan" to "Ancient India"? History is determined on what has happened, and cannot be changed based on current demographical changes. India was split based on a vote on religion. The main thing everyone is forgetting here is that geographical areas can be allocated and re-allocated, but a common language, blood, ancestry, (secular) customs and traditions and history can never be divided. Hindostani 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain. History belongs to the people. I would like to ask you a question, what would you call Pakistani ancestors? Indian? Wouldnt that suggest they were the ancestors of Indians? If Pakistanis do decide to call them selves something else tomorrow, then their ancestors dont change. Currently the main argument is caused by Pakistanis not being able to identify with their ancestors. The partition immigration figures are exaggerated more than anything, currently on Misplaced Pages. Check the article out. The figure seems to increase by a few million every month.
When someone refers to "Ancient Pakistan", the term isnt being used in a political context, but used to refer to the people of Pakistan. You seem to know your stuff, and also appear to be neutral, but have you ever seen an "Original" map of pre 1850 asia? The term India was used for everything else, but to refer to South Asia. South Asia was marked "Hindustan". Prior to the British Raj, Nobody would ever refer to themselves as Indian. The term existed, but not for South Asia.
So the math shows that the people of Pakistan were known as Indians for less than 100 years. Does that justify labelling 5000 years of history as Indian?
You are right about saying that if "Ancient India" doesnt exist, then "Ancient Pakistan" certainly doesnt exist. But one quick glance at some articles, and you would know the concept of Ancient India does exist, so there is no problem with Ancient Pakistan either.
I would never pursue this matter if I knew I was wrong. But I am not wrong. All these lies didnt make sense to me before, but upon further inspection everything makes sense.
You see, the phrase "Pakistanis are not similar to Indians" would be ridiculed as a Nationalist remark. You would me amazed at how true this statement is. But it deserves to be ridiculed, since most Pakistanis who would use it, would say it because they are nationalists, not because they know much about the history of South Asia. People who know the history of South Asia know the validity of this statement. This was all done by a group of Hindu nationalists, also known as Hinduvta followers. Their main agenda was to promote Hinduism, by making it Ancient, full of Wisdom, and surviving. The first step was to make a link between the people of Pakistan and India, and then spread the news that everyone in the Indian subcontinent was of the same blood. This would then justify linking themselves to Pakistani ancestors like Panini, and ancient civilisations like Indus Valley. Once this was achieved, Hinduism was linked to indus valley, the founders of languages like Sanskrit were referred to as Indian. Now Hinduism was an all-Indian religion and Ancient. Yes, this all might sound similar, because if you browse through Misplaced Pages articles, you will see edit wars over Migration figures, Indus Valley, Panini, and general Pakistani history.
Regarding the "muslim majority of Pakistan". When the Arabs and Persians invaded from the West, Pakistan obviously fell first, and the people were converted to Islam. The Arabs stayed there for quite some time, while India was uninvaded. Most Muslim invasions came from the West, and it should explain the muslim majority in the West (Pakistan). However, there still are millions of Hindus left in Pakistan. Please dont ignore facts in order to "be right". Just my 2 cents. I know I wont get anywhere with this reply, but you seemed to be the first one willing to actually read the argument. Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 13:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Pakistanis claiming their ancestors, but the major mistake that has been made was that the Pakistani ancestors of ancient times were the ancestors of Indians. Ancient India refers to pre-Islamic India, an India were the dharmic faiths were followed (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, etc.) This Ancient India stretched from Gandhara (modern day Afghanistan) to Magadha (modern day Bangladesh). As Islamic Empires emerged, many Hindus converted. This occured however at a later stage (8th century during time of Muhammad bin Qasim), therefore this time is not classified as "Ancient". The sole difference between India and Pakistan is its religious majority. Today Pakistan has Muslim majority, therefore it has been given nation status. In ancient times it was Hindu/Buddhist (Dharmic), the very same as parts of modern India. There would have been no Pakistan in ancient times, therefore there would have been no Ancient Pakistan. In relation to your other points, Hinduism was native to North India (including Pakistan and parts of Afghanistan). Hinduism spread south, later reaching the very tip of the subcontinent, however, Buddhism had already reached these areas before (hence Sri Lanka is majority Buddhist). In fact if there is a point of contention in this whole debate, it is whether the history of South India should be under the banner of "Ancient Indian Kingdoms", which some argue only refer to the original Vedic Aryan society stretching across from Gandhara to North Eastern India (Aryavarta). This is a very confusing concept, since the very ancient people of Indus Valley Civilisation (who come under the banner of Ancient India-or if you like Pakistan) were Dravidian (or the native people of the Subcontinent). The current day indigenous South Indian Dravidians in fact have a stronger link with the IVC people than the current day "Aryanised" Pakistanis and Northern Indians. In this way the history of South India and history of North India are interconnected. There is no doubt, Unre4L, that were are all connected, somehow. Every Subcontinental person has at least some Dravidian ancestry and most of us were, at some stage, (excluding people of pure Islamic Perian/Turkic ancestry) followers of a Dharmic faiths. One last thing is that you forget again that India was a foreign name used to describe the place. People in ancient times did not use the term, and even today Indians prefer other terms instead. India is synonymous however with Bharat, Hindustan, etc. terms that people in bygone eras would have used to describe themselves. The term Pakistan, however does not have any other terms that are synonymous with it. "Ancient Pakistan" is an anachronism. Panini would describe himself as a resident of "Bharat" (i.e. India), and would have absolutely no idea what Pakistan meant. Nationalism doesn't change history. What has happened will be recorded in the history books and will remain in there, unchanged. e.g. there is no such thing as "Ancient Britain", only terms such as Beaker Culture, Celtic Culture. There is no "Ancient Turkmenistan", it was part of Ancient Persia. Similarly there was no Ancient Pakistan, it was "Ancient India which now corresponds to modern day Pakistan" Hindostani 23:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read my reply again. Pakistan is not being used as a Political term, but a term to describe the people. Yes, the Religion changed, and the name changed, but the people are still the same. Panini is an ancestor of the Pakistani people. He wouldnt have any idea what India meant either. And Bharat doesnt mean India. It means the Indian subcontinent, and so did Hindustan. Take a look at the older maps. These terms were simply used to refer to the subcontinent. In 1947, RoI simply claimed the terms, and from that moment, these terms changed meaning, and started referring to people from RoI. New terms came up to refer to the people who just lost their right to the older terms.
Like I said though. Panini wouldnt have called himself Indian, and his bloodline is much more likely to be in Pakistan than India. The Migration was huge, but 98 % of the people who belonged to the region of Pakistan are still there in Pakistan.
To adress this in a different way, Europe was pretty much called the "Roman Empire" once, but new terms have arisen, and nobody refers to the Europe as Roman Empire. This cant go on forever in Indias case either. A world map makes it very clear what India refers to, and the region of Pakistan should be known as Pakistan. Names change all the time. The identity lies with the people. You will see what I mean soon enough. But, if Republic of India had called it self anything but India, then the terms ancient meaning would have survived. In History, clashing terms never survive. In its current context, Ancient India can mean two things. The Ancient history of South Asia, and the Ancient history if India. Which one will survive? Only logic can answer that question.
To clarify this with you, did you that the Greeks called Africa, Libya? But it was the country and not the continent which got to be known as Libya. History always wants to be specific about who its referring to. Not only does India (in its current context) refer to 1.6 billion people, but it also clashes with the obvious meaning of India.
I am not trying to start a debate here, just clarifying, since you raised the same questions I answered in my previous reply.
Thanks for reading though. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 02:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

In reply to your question, it says in the Libya article that the term "Libya", "in ancient Greece the term had a broader meaning, encompassing all of North Africa west of Egypt, and sometimes referring to the entire continent of Africa" (personally I don't know about what Ancient Greeks called the rest of Africa). I think I can see where you are coming from in this discussion. What you are saying (correct me if I am wrong), that since the ancestors of the modern day Pakistani people would have lived in the area corresponding to modern day Pakistan, therefore the Ancient history of the place should be classed as "Ancient Pakistani". The trouble with this is that the "Ancient Indians" and "Ancient Pakistanis" were one and the same. Panini who lived in the 5th century would have currently thousands of decendants, and I may presume that some would have converted to Islam and others would have remained by their Hindu faith, who indeed may have migrated to RoI during partition. The ironic thing is that if many of the people of "Ancient Pakistan" where alive during 1947, especially religious Hindus like Panini, they would probably have migrated to RoI! Another thing to consider is that seldom have people stayed in the same spot for thousands of years. Panini's descendants probably have been scattered across Northern India, even in Afghanistan and places like Tibet. Another important feature is that (all politics aside) Pakistan was created as a place for Indian Muslims, so essentially the Punjabis, Sindhis, Gujratis, Bengalis, etc. were "Indian" (even in RoI national anthem, Tagore refers to "Punjab, Sindh..."). The State of Pakistan (as you are aware) was created for the Muslims of India. This doesn't mean that the history of the land is cleaved into two, it means that the two nations have simply diverged since 1947. I do not wish to ignore the sovereignty of Pakistan, people like Danish Kaneria and other Hindus are Pakistani, not Indian; just as Irfan Pathan is Indian, not Pakistani. Pakistan was created by cleaving India, but had Pakistan not been formed, the RoI would still be in existence. It is true that RoI does not truly describe the whole "undivided India", but it encapsulates most of it (minus Sindh, part of Punjab and Bengal). Bharat is the same as India and Hindustan (Akhand Bharat includes Nepal, part of Burma, Afghanistan, etc). True, modern day RoI and Pakistan are two entities, but the history is the same. You referred to the Roman Empire and that no one calls Europe the Roman Empire. That is true, just as Pakistan is not called "India". But referring to the area corresponding to the France in 20 BC, one refers to it as Gaul under the Roman Empire. Similarly when one talks about the birthplace of Panini, one would refer to Gandhara, Ancient India, modern day Pakistan. The fallacy in your reasoning is that what is happening in the present will alter history, which is against the flow of natural progression. A comic example is if my descendants in another 5,000 years were to settle in a newly establised country on the planet Mars, would that make me an "Ancient Martian"? If the whole of RoI had become part of Pakistan in 1947 would the term "Ancient India" have been erased completely from the history books? Please answer this question for me.Hindostani 22:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Nagas of Narwa

Can anybody help me on this subject, I have some coins pertaining to this empire but can find little information on them. Should there be a seperat article on them! Naga Empire is of little help. I want to explain there coins as well in Indian coinage. Enlil Ninlil 06:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Any connection to Nagaland ? Bakaman 16:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Renaming (again)

Hopefully, this time we would be able to conclude something from this discussion. Although there is no doubt that the term "India" refers to the whole subcontinent in historical context, as dab has pointed out earlier, it has proved hard to explain this to many editors, who tend to compartmentalize the ancient history of the region on the basis of current political borders, which becomes invariably misleading. Here is what my proposed scheme:

1. Have good quality full length articles on the post 1947 histories of modern states History of the Republic of India, History of Pakistan, History of Bangladesh, etc. There is an immense amount of material to be covered in these articles, which is right now put up in one or two sections to make space for neolithic and chalcolithic civilizations, with same things like IVC, Vedic period, Mauryans, Indo-Greeks, Indo-Sassanians, Sultanate, Mughals, etc repeated on multiple pages. An example of this is the featured article on the French wikipedia fr:Histoire du Pakistan. Apparantly, free of English-speaking editors from South Asia, they have succeeded in making more sense of these articles on the French wikipedia. Other examples include Britannica, the Dorling Kindersley's Encyclopedia, Columbia, Berkeley: this vs. this. Examples of sources that do it otherwise include all textbooks of Pakistan Studies, Ayesha Jalal's article in the World Book Encyclopedia, and Saeed Shafqat's Encarta article.
2. This article be renamed History of the Indian subcontinent, or some such mutually agreed upon name.
3. Have comprehensive articles on regional histories, like History of Punjab, History of Bengal, History of Baluchistan, History of Sindh, History of Nepal, etc.
4. The History of India could be a disambiguation page, or could redirect to History of the Republic of India or History of the Indian subcontinent depending upon consensus.

Does this sound reasonable? deeptrivia (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Deeptrivia, Well first of all, it can't be History of the Indian subcontinent, it will have to be History of South Asia (with a clarification that South Asia does not include Afghanistan or Iran). It will also have to include the History of Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Nepal, Maldives in it, since both Indian subcontinent and South Asia include these countries. (The history of Sri Lanka, for example, is important for the spread of Buddhism and in the History of South India.) The reason for this is that all major departments in the US and UK, who study the region: University of Chicago, Columbia University, University of Pennsylvania, University of Texas Austin, Wisconsin, Berkeley, Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh, SOAS, are all called, "South Asian Studies." Most focus on these nations (i.e. don't include Afghanistan or Iran).

It is a great idea to have a History of South Asia, but I don't see it replacing the History of pre-1947 India, pre-1947 Pakistan, pre-1947 Bangladesh, or pre-1948 Sri Lanka. People will always have a need to see the History of their country discussed with greater focus than you will find in a History of South Asia article. Of the four major encyclopedias, three: Encarta, World Book Encyclopedia, and Columbia have History of Pakistan sections (i.e. pre-1947). Britannica doesn't, but that is author specific since it does have a section on the History of Bangladesh, which begins:

So, much as I like the idea of a History of South Asia I don't see getting rid of the histories of the constituent nations (and I mean pre-Independence histories, for those who were British colonies). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. I would be interested in know what do others have to say on whether the post-1947 histories of Pakistan and Bangladesh deserve an article of their own, like the one on the History of the Republic of India. deeptrivia (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Deeptrivia, I don't disagree with many things you say above. I just (cursorily) read some of the earlier discussion above and, obviously, this issue has been visited many times before. My own take is that Misplaced Pages articles on the region (and this is where WP has an advantage over Britannica, or other stable encyclopedias) should take the approach of multiresolution analysis, and let the histories be presented at several scales of time and space. This approach has the additional advantage that it would not require name changes, which people in the discussion above seem reluctant to make. Here is a hierarchy of possible resolutions:

• Low-Res: History of South Asia This would be the all encompassing and most low-res article. It would not only summarize, but also integrate. Thus, the fact that some Jatakas (written in Sri Lanka) provide one of the earliest descriptions of Taxila (now in Pakistan) as a Buddhist center of learning would belong there.

• Medium-Res: History of India, History of Pakistan, History of Bangladesh, History of Sri Lanka would remain as they are.

• Medium-High-Res: History of the Punjab, History of the Deccan etc. would provide more detailed histories.

• High-Res: Anglo-Sikh Wars, Ranjit Singh etc.

• Once the History of South Asia article is stabilized, one could consider, a Low-Medium Res (History of South Asia:The Early Years, History of South Asia: The Middle Years etc. could be added. Once these are stabilized, we could have a perspective page, like, Guide to History of South Asia (providing the various links between the histories).

• History of Republic of India would remain as is. I understand the problem of the current pages History of Pakistan, History of Bangladesh packing in a lot of history, since they have to include the post-1947 in them. It makes sense to have articles that concentrate on the post-1947 histories, but, for now, I am against having those pages, because I fear that their mere existence might be used by some as grounds for getting rid of the pre-1947 histories of these regions, and, after reading the discussions above, I can't help feeling that there are many who have been champing at the bit for that to happen.

This approach, as I mentioned before, has the advantage that it requires no name changes, just work on the History of South Asia article(s). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Great approach, Fowler. The only potential problem that we should be careful about is at the Medium-res level. What should be the basis of choosing the basic unit around which a medium-res article is composed? Using modern political borders is not, in my opinion, the best way to go about it, since these do not have a cultural, historical, linguistic, or any kind of basis for that matter. For example, neither the Radcliffe line nor the Durand line are natural cultural borders of any historical relevance at all. There is a semi-stable cultural barrier that passes right through the middle of Pakistan and an overwhelming majority of people live to the east of this barrier. See the map on the right. Using these borders for ancient and medieval history is anachronism. Perhaps medium and medium-high resolutions could be merged. This would also eliminate redundancy. E.g., History of Punjab will already cover a lot of material to be covered in ancient and medieval histories of Pakistan and the Republic of India. Sri Lanka, Bhutan and Nepal would of course be a part of the low-res article. For these three, the medium-high res level happens to be identical to modern borders. So, their histories could be written since ancient times -- not on the basis of their modern borders, but because these regions were historically distinct at the medium-high resolution. Something also true partially for Bangladesh. deeptrivia (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: The approach Encarta follows on this conforms well with their general strategy -- to create products that follow local standards and could sell well in local markets. This approach has been criticized by lots of people (e.g., ). We have to see if this approach fits at all within Misplaced Pages's framework of policies like WP:NPOV, etc, or could we do better. deeptrivia (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand what you are saying, but Misplaced Pages will have to live with redundancy. If the History of South Asia articles are compelling, the other Med-res articles like History of India, History of Pakistan, etc. will simply not be that popular and consequently wither away. But I don't see mandating getting rid of the History of Pakistan, Bangladesh, or Sri Lanka in the way they are constituted now. You might not like Encarta, but it is is recognized tertiary source, with articles written by well-known historians. As I have mentioned before, the History of Pakistan article is written by a chaired professor at Columbia University. Plus, it is not just Encarta, both World Book Encyclopedia and Columbia encyclopedia also have articles on the History of Pakistan. The World Book Encyclopedia article, as I've mentioned elsewhere, is written by Ayesha Jalal, Professor at Tufts, co-author of: Modern South Asia: History, Culture, and Political Economy with Harvard professor Sugata Bose and author of The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan (Cambridge South Asian Studies). There is redundancy all over Misplaced Pages, the History of the United States and History of Mexico for example. I understand your point of view, but I don't agree with it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

What I propose here does not constitute a point of view. Elimination of redundancy is a very insignificant benefit of this approach that I mentioned as a side comment. Med-res history articles based on modern political borders like History of India and History of Pakistan are known to be popular, but sometimes for the wrong reasons. Apart from the being technically unsound because they use modern political borders for ancient and medieval histories,these serve as a good playground for pandering nationalist prejudices, attracting lots of editors. Such popularity is not a measure of academic or encyclopedic merit, but tends to lower the academic standards of wikipedia apart from being disruptive. There are atleast as reputable sources as Columbia (e.g., Berkeley) and Encarta (e.g., Britannica) that follow the approach I am proposing, so it's possibly more useful to look into the intrinsic merits and demerits of the two approaches directly. I think I have put my proposal for editors who might want to think about the issue thoroughly, so I have done my bit. I never expect the best solutions to always emerge quickly or at all on wikipedia anyway. deeptrivia (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: "History of South Asia" is fine with me as the title. Although Indian subcontinent is more precise, I don't think naming is as big an issue as content, such as (paraphrasing Fowler&fowler) "creating false historical connections between two regions just because they happen to fall in the same modern state." deeptrivia (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

PPS: On second thoughts, what I am saying does look like a "point of view" in a certain sense. Basically, I am saying that "Ancient and medieval histories should not be looked at through the glasses of modern nationalism." I wonder though whether this point of view is not an academic standard for the social sciences. deeptrivia (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Ancient and Medieval (or for that matter Modern) histories have always been looked at through the eyes of later modes of viewing, be they "nationalism," "marxism," "orientalism," "feminism," "structuralism," "post-structuralism," etc. ... I guess the only place where I fundamentally differ from you is that I'm less prescriptive on what the med-res histories should be (or whether they deserve to exist or not). As I mentioned above, if the history of South Asia turns out to be very compelling, then people will lose interest in the other histories. Or they might not, in which case we would have two compelling histories, which is even better! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's the only difference. I assure you that the med-res nationalistic ancient histories will indeed be the most compelling. They have always been for reasons not so hard to understand. I know even if we remove them from articles about modern state histories, some teenagers will soon come back to "reclaim their ancient national history" that has been "hijacked by alien people". Like many other virtuous things, it is hard not to look at history from various anachronistic perspectives, but this appeal to nature doesn't prove that it is the best, or even a desirable approach. deeptrivia (talk) 14:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not convinced about the need for this proposal to change the name, nor do I think it is necessary in any way or form. I think Britannica sets a good precedent:

The Indian subcontinent, the great landmass of South Asia, is the home of one of the world's oldest and most influential civilizations. In the present article, the subcontinent, which for historical purposes is usually called simply “India,” is understood to comprise the areas of not only the modern Republic of India but also the republics of Pakistan (partitioned from India in 1947) and Bangladesh (which formed the eastern part of Pakistan until its independence in 1971). For the histories of these latter two nations since their creation, see Pakistan, history of and Bangladesh, history of.

Offering this explanation within the article should be enough. Neither South Asia and Indian subcontinent are good alternatives - the terms are largely used to describe in geographical terms. Both terms contain other nations and those distinctive without substantial connection to Indian history. Many of these have their own strands and lines in history that cannot be included in this article without overextending it. No generalizations, no revisionist history on our part can be accepted to redirect interpretations of history. Rama's arrow 21:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

As Britannia explains, the term "India" is used for historical purposes. The border lines drawn in 1947 must not lead to reintepretation of history prior to 1947. Rama's arrow 21:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Rama's Arrow, the name change is not justifiable as an end in itself, but only if it helps to solve the more serious problem of anachronistic "ancient histories" of modern states, so that space could be made for relevant and badly required content on the actual histories of those states. What is your take on that? deeptrivia (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The name of an article is decided by topical and scientific points, not issues of "space" on other articles. You can make space on the histories of modern states for "actual histories" by compressing the sections on "ancient histories" and leaving specific information for forks and this article. Rama's arrow 23:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Rama's arrow, could you give your opinion on the other points I have listed above, especially point 1? deeptrivia (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I support Rama's Arrow's view. Ancient PAkistan is an incorrect anachronism, and is rather puzzling. Pakistan does not even hold the majority of Muslims in the Indian subcontinent. Bangladesh OTOH, is home to the vast majority of Bengali Muslims, yet a history of Bangladesh would be off as well. The Sena dynasty is not an inspiration to the Awami League, unlike the Maratha empire and Shiv Sena, Ranjit Singh and practically any Sikh party, etc. As Rama's arrow says "No generalizations, no revisionist history on our part can be accepted to redirect interpretations of history". I would prefer that the histories be regional (History of Maharashtra, History of Manipur, etc, but be under a Indian framework). That said the multiresolutional analysis seems quite interesting and most in line with what we are presently doing.Bakaman 22:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful to stick to the what is relevant in the discussion. No one is arguing for or against the term Ancient Pakistan, and the religious affiliation of people in different countries is quite irrelevant. Nobody is trying to reinterpret or revise history. The discussion is only about what content should be put under which article, and whether that will entail any renaming of articles. 23:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's the gist of it. Pakistan's history begins after 1947, Bangladesh after 1971 (East Pakistan 47-71).Bakaman 23:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Britannica, for better or worse, is a conservative encyclopedia, and is slow to change. In the last 10 years though, it has changed "Indian" to "South Asian" for its Art History and Mathematics History articles (see below).

• Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. South Asia: A Timeline In Art History 8000BC-Present. This is really interesting timeline, since it splits into south and north and then recombines.
• A Historical Atlas of South Asia edited by Joseph E. Schwartzberg (also one of the co-authors of the Britannica India page). (See for example, "Probable migration routes of Central Asian peoples to northwestern South Asia.")
• Britannica, itself, has made the change from "India" to "South Asia" for a number of articles:
  • Encyclopaedia Britannica: South Asian Mathematics: "This article covers the history of mathematics in South Asia (modern India, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh) from ancient times through the beginning of the colonization of the region by Great Britain." (13 pages)
  • Encyclopaedia Britannica: South Asian arts: the literary, performing, and visual arts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka. Despite a history of ethnic, linguistic, and political fragmentation, the people of the Indian subcontinent are unified by a common cultural and ethical outlook; a wealth of ancient textual literature in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and regional languages is a major unifying factor (193 pages)
• The leading "South Asia" departments in the US:
  • University of Chicago, Department of History, South Asian History
  • University of Chicago, Department of South Asian Languages and Civilizations: Courses.
  • University of California, Berkeley: South Asian History
  • Harvard has a very interesting initiative Harvard University: South Asia Without Border, with topics "Ownership of the past," "South Asia: A Polyphonic History." Among the people involved are: Homi K. Bhabha, Sugata Bose, Amartya Sen, and Ayesha Jalal.
  • Yale University: South Asian Studies-A Research Guide "Yale University Library's holdings of materials on South Asia are strongest in the following areas: the history of western involvement in South Asia, modern India (from 1947), ..."
• Oxford and Cambridge both have teaching positions in South Asian history:
  • Oxford has a readership in South Asian history: University of Oxford: South Asian Studies
  • The University of Cambridge has a lecturership in South Asian History University of Cambridge, South Asian History

I think we can have a Misplaced Pages page, "History of South Asia" or "South Asia: History" along the lines of the Metropolitan Museum Art History, without altering the current history pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Response to Deeptrivia's argument

1. Have good quality full length articles on the post 1947 histories of modern states History of the Republic of India, History of Pakistan, History of Bangladesh, etc. There is an immense amount of material to be covered in these articles, which is right now put up in one or two sections to make space for neolithic and chalcolithic civilizations, with same things like IVC, Vedic period, Mauryans, Indo-Greeks, Indo-Sassanians, Sultanate, Mughals, etc repeated on multiple pages. An example of this is the featured article on the French wikipedia fr:Histoire du Pakistan. Apparantly, free of English-speaking editors from South Asia, they have succeeded in making more sense of these articles on the French wikipedia. Other examples include Britannica, the Dorling Kindersley's Encyclopedia, Columbia, Berkeley: this vs. this. Examples of sources that do it otherwise include all textbooks of Pakistan Studies, Ayesha Jalal's article in the World Book Encyclopedia, and Saeed Shafqat's Encarta article.

I'm sorry, but you must not redistribute history on lines of modern territorial and political events. The article History of Pakistan must justifiably (and for the purpose of education) discuss IVC, Kushan empire, etc the history periods that happened in the region over time. However, these sections must be compressed and summarized, leaving most of the information and details to the relevant articles on IVC, Kushan empire, etc. By suggesting what you are, you are over-emphasizing the events of 1947 and sectionalizing based on that period in history. I agree that the histories of the modern state need more coverage, but even in their case, most of the relevant information should be in summary-style, leaving most complex info to the forks. "History" and "History of X Country" are core topics are thus more in summary style than any other. In the example, the History of Pakistan article must obviously explain that Pakistan did not come into existence prior to 1947. While this allows for more weightage to post-partition history that is indeed "History of Pakistan," the article cannot be comprehensive without the summary of history in the relevant landmass prior to its formation as a modern state. It is the event that must adjust to the universal thread of history, and not vice-versa.

1. This article be renamed History of the Indian subcontinent, or some such mutually agreed upon name.

No justifiable need. Both Indian subcontinent and South Asia are terms used primarily for geography-related purposes. There are disputed definitions - these terms often include Afghanistan, Tibet, Iran, Burma, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Maldives. There are shared geographical features but the histories have their own unique thread - how will you balance that coverage? "India" is used by convention and the scholarly world to describe this landmass for historical, cultural, economic and political purposes/contexts. An example of a similar case is the History of China - should it be renamed to something like History of East Asia just because the Tang and Manchu empires did not cover all of what is today the PRC? The case for History of Central Asia is clearer because there is no single term conventionally used to describe that region, despite its common historical/cultural foundation. You could argue "Turkistan," but that's a different debate.

1. Have comprehensive articles on regional histories, like History of Punjab, History of Bengal, History of Baluchistan, History of Sindh, History of Nepal, etc.

Unworkable - how can you cut up history on the lines of modern territorial boundaries? The ideal solution is on the lines of my response to your first point. In the "History of Bihar," the Magadha, Gupta and Buddhist-era histories must be mentioned, but in a compact, summary style, leaving most of the specific info to the forks. Then continue coverage of Bihar's modern history as an Indian state.

1. The History of India could be a disambiguation page, or could redirect to History of the Republic of India or History of the Indian subcontinent depending upon consensus.

I don't disagree with the need for disambiguation, but I have already expressed why we must not rename this article. What I suggest is that the History of India should link here directly, with the "for other uses, see History of India (disambiguation)." This article, in its lead should explain just as Britannica's lead does, of the historical usage of the term "India" to describe this landmass. This is just like the India article set up.

The term "History of India" is defined very generally and does not have any exclusive criteria apart from being the "History" of "India." Thus the period post-1947 cannot be given any more or less weightage. To resolve the problem of the enormous size, defer to topical fork articles and not sectionalizing the main article in different ways. Rama's arrow 03:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I was comprehensively misunderstood. The main purpose of my proposal is to prevent the "redistribution history on lines of modern territorial and political events", which is exactly what is happening now. You are right in asking "how can you cut up history on the lines of modern territorial boundaries?", and that's exactly what this proposal is trying to prevent. Unlike the modern nations divided by the Radcliffe line or the Durand line, regions like Sindh, Punjab, Nepal, Bengal, etc are natural cultural regions that have over the period of millenia developed their own cultures, including languages, and sometimes even political establishments. It is on the basis of this, and not their current political status that I am proposing history articles for these regions. "By suggesting what you are, you are over-emphasizing the events of 1947 and sectionalizing based on that period in history." Again, I think this overemphasis is exactly what is happening now, and one of the important things this proposal aims to acheive is to correct precisely this. Post-1947 histories of modern nations need articles of the same quality and content as the History of Republic of India, and this proposal seeks to put the common history of before that at one place, in one article, as it would have been, had events of partition not taken place. This article is the right place to include any events from the histories of Nepal, Sri Lanka, etc that had an impact on large parts of the subcontinent. The reason we have only few details about those regions of the subcontinent is not because those countries are out of the scope of this article. "the article cannot be comprehensive without the summary of history in the relevant landmass prior to its formation as a modern state." The title "History of Pakistan" implies the History of the political entity "Pakistan", and not necessarily the geographical landmass. Any pre-1947 events relevant to the formation of the entity must be mentioned in the article for the article to be comprehensive. That's the standard practice with most, if not all encyclopedias, although I'm proposing this here not because many others do it, but because it makes a lot of sense. deeptrivia (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

F&F, I know about this trend of using South Asia, which is fine, but I don't see any justification whatsoever in having ancient histories on articles on modern state histories when we already have it here, and the basis of the definition of the modern states does not have a historical depth of more than 6-7 decades. Why don't you propose History of the Republic of India to start from the neolithic age as well, if there are compelling reasons. (I think I understand why this would be illogical even in your scheme.) deeptrivia (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Dude, the "History of Pakistan" implies BOTH political entity and geographical landmass. I honestly don't think your purpose is served by what you're proposing - it is overcomplicating. The problem in your scheme is also that the general public considers the history of any nation/region to begin with the beginning of human civilization and they'll want to see that information there. I agree that the "History of Pakistan" article will not be complete without sufficient mention to IVC, Kushan empire, Indo-Sassanids, whatever. One practical point - Each article needs to be under broad organization, because an indeterminate number of people will edit the article. How will you argue this point over and over again, about how to distribute information? How will your argument resonate with the history articles of other nations, regions? Deferring specific info to forks should resolve the size problem. As for renaming this article, I don't see the need at all. As stated above, "India" is the conventional term used to describe this region in historical, cultural, economic terms. This title "History of India" does not limit its scope at all - all regions can be covered. The scope of this article is not determined really by territorial definitions, but of the extent of Indian civilization, culture, etc. For example, a sentence mentioning the Mauryan and Gupta conquest of Afghanistan, the patronage of Buddhism and Hinduism there is appropriate b'coz it talks about Indian influence, even when it is outside India, the "South Asia," whatever. Your take on individual regions is also equally questionable - you cannot claim that regional histories are unique. If you take the approach I suggested, focus your effort on the topical articles. The article on IVC covers the histories of Punjab, Sindh, Gujarat, Rajasthan, etc. The article on Rajputs covers Rajasthan, Punjab, Haryana, Sindh, Punjab, Gujarat. Keep it topical - don't go by region or geographical landmass or political entity - just focus on the subject like Sikh Empire (Kashmir, Punjab, NWFP), Vedic civilization (northern India), etc. Rama's arrow 00:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

As Rama said, each empire/dynasty (Chola Empire, Chalukya, Ahom Dynasty, List of Meitei kings) is served being its own entity under a greater Indian framework.Bakaman 01:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sure my initial proposal is not the best or the only solution to the evident problem, that's why I have sought advice from experienced editors like Rama's Arrow, Fowler&fowler and Bakasuprman.

• We all agree, as Bakasuprman rightly points out, "each empire/dynasty (Chola Empire, Chalukya, Ahom Dynasty, List of Meitei kings) is served being its own entity under a greater Indian framework." This is also true of any empires that existed west of the Radcliffe line. They are still entities under a greater Indian framework, and not under an anachronistic "Pakistani framework".

• Articles like History of Punjab already exist. I don't understand any objection on improving them. Many of them are already in an excellent condition, so nothing big needs to be done about them, although any efforts towards making them FA will of course be extremely welcome. The priority of the FA drive should however definitely be articles with a more global scope, like this one.

• "the "History of Pakistan" implies BOTH political entity and geographical landmass." Some people might think so and expect to see ancient periods on pages for modern state histories, but the purpose of wikipedia is to educate them, not to mislead them further. Pakistan-as-a-distinct-geographical-entity is not a valid construct. Pakistan-as-a-distinct-political-entity is a valid construct, the history of which deserves a quality article of its own.

• This proposal is all about simplifying things. What exactly is getting complicated?

• "The scope of this article is not determined really by territorial definitions, but of the extent of Indian civilization, culture, etc." Completely agreed.

• Hopefully we agree that the scope of History of Republic of India on the other hand is determined by territorial definitions. What became the Republic of India and Pakistan were both created under the same legislation. Doesn't it make sense to have history articles on these at the same level?

• "How will your argument resonate with the history articles of other nations, regions? " I can cite many examples from wikipedia, where regions have had a rich history, but it is hardly covered in the article about the nation -- History of Saudi Arabia, History of Poland, History of the Republic of Turkey, History of South Korea, History of Qatar, History of Luxembourg, History of Hungary, History of the Republic of Ireland, etc. Common history is dealt with at one place, like History of Europe, and individual nation-states have articles that start with the rise of their own nationalism or nationhood. Of course, there are counterexamples. We don't have to be the last ones :).

• Name change of this article is not an integral part of my proposal. It is just one of the suggestions. We need not have an all-or-nothing conclusion of this discussion.

I hope this addresses atleast a few of the concerns raised. deeptrivia (talk) 03:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

I don't really have the energy to go through all the text above ... but here is my opinion. If someone is looking into an article titled History of Pakistan, she is most likely looking for the history of the region covered by Pakistan. As such, claiming that Pakistan didn't exist as an entity before 1947 only serves to erase the history of the region now covered by Pakistan. My opinion is an inclusionist approach ... have a brief coverage of the regional history of Pakistan in the article History of Pakistan (mentioning the main articles as needed), from the ancient times till present era. Similarly, History of India should include incidents in the region covered by India. History of South Asia or History of the Indian subcontinent (I prefer the former) should integrate all these national histories.

As a good example, look into History of Germany. Technically, the German federation didn't exist before 1990 (or near that), but it will be foolish to create a "History of Germany" excluding everything before that, and insisting that the main history can be found at "History of Europe". The History of Germany page does include a lot of history of the region that is not part of Germany anymore. Similar approaches can be taken in case of India, Pakistan or Bangladesh.

The bottom line is, let us be inclusionists, and not create disputes claiming some nation's history is being taken away (something that resulted in a recent bitter arbcomm case). --Ragib 05:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC) --Ragib 05:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, the problem is, a lot of stuff needs to be included at History of Pakistan. The article is already 82 kb long when I last checked. Where should that go? Do you really think Germany is a good example? I think it is, when compared to modern nations that have had a distinct culture historically, like Bangladesh or Nepal. Germanic culture is a bit more widespread than Federal Republic of Germany, just like Bengali culture spreads to West Bengal and Assam. Does the same neccesarily apply to nations that are not constructed on a historical/linguistic basis? Is the difference between Germany and Federal Republic of Germany not easy to understand? Is there a similar difference between Pakistan and Islamic Republic of Pakistan? Had there been, it would have been easy. We would have had an article on the History of Pakistan starting from the neolithic period, and another one on the History of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan starting from 1947. This proposal is only about organizing things rationally. This approach is followed by many highly reputable history sources, including Britannica and Berkeley, not because they are all trying to erase history, but simply because it makes sense. I don't think other articles from wikipedia are necessarily good models to follow, but since you mention History of Germany, there is good reason why the article on History of Poland starts from the 10th century, History of Saudi Arabia starts from the 18th century, after a minor background in lead, History of Turkey redirects to the History of the Republic of Turkey, which starts from the 20th century, History of South Korea and History of North Korea start from 1948, History of Qatar starts from the 19th century, History of Luxembourg and History of Hungary start from the 10th century, and so on. These centuries coincide with the developments of their national identities or identities as distinct peoples. Note how even History of Germany that you cited starts from the "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" of the 9th century, and does not include the rich history the region has had before that. fr:Histoire du Pakistan is has been a featured article on the French wikipedia, and it starts from 1947. I support a name change of this article to History of South Asia. History of the Republic of India will still start post-1947 as it does now. Bottomline: There is need to have a good, comprehensive article on History of Pakistan-the-political-entity, something that just covers one section out of 13 on the article that is meant to cover exactly that. The infobox on HistoryOfSouthAsia has a section on State Histories. Does the current article read like state history? I knew I am risking suspicions of all kinds of agendas while proposing this, but still went ahead, since this is important. deeptrivia (talk) 12:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree more or less with Ragib. This article is the History of India, which remains as is. The History of South Asia includes more histories and should be written along the lines of Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. South Asia: A Timeline In Art History 8000BC-Present. As for histories of Pakistan and Bangladesh, one possibility would be to have two pages: History of the Pakistan region (which would have the history of the region until 1947) and History of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, which would have the history from 1947 onwards, but with (and this is important), the History of Pakistan page redirecting to History of the Pakistan region. Similarly for Bangladesh, there would be History of Bangladesh region and History of the Democratic Republic of Bangladesh, with History of Bangladesh redirecting to the former. Of course, these changes would have to be agreed upon in those pages itself. Also, the History of the Pakistan region page would have a dab note at the top saying, "For the history of the region after 1947, please refer to History of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan". Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Small clarification for Fowler, the combined history of the region for Bangladesh would be History of Bengal, and History of Bangladesh would be a subset of History of Bengal. --Ragib 19:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Good Lord this is ridiculously overcomplicating. Deeptrivia, my dear fellow, if the size of the Pakistan article is 82kb, it can be brought down to 50-60kb by what I suggested - summarize, summarize and again, summarize. Defer the many paras on the Kushan empire, IVC, Indo-Sassanids to the respective articles - Indus Valley Civilization, Kushan empire, Indo-Sassanids. And Fowler, what is your formula - "Pakistan region," "Islamic Republic," "Bangladesh region," "People's Republic of Bangladesh" - if not a recipe for confusion and future consternation? I share Ragib's view, except that the "History of South Asia/Indian subcontinent" article is totally unnecessary - why? B'coz no part of history can be sufficiently delimited as unrelated to any of the current national boundaries. The "History of India" article will not be comprehensive without discussing the histories of Sindh, Taxila, Punjab, Peshawar, etc. Instead, develop the topical articles without such constraints. Rama's arrow 20:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why it would be that complicated. If you typed, "History of Pakistan," in the search box, you'd be redirected to "History of the Pakistan region" with a dab note up top explaining that for the post-1947 history, refer to "History of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan." Readers have to put up with that level of complication when they type: "History of India," right now. Same with Bangladesh. As I have stated above, the "History of South Asia" article will not be a replacement for the "History of India" article, but something more ambitious for a later time along the lines of: Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. South Asia: A Timeline In Art History 8000BC-Present. No current history covers that ground. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The Islamic Republic of Pakistan only came into existence in 1956. john k 23:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi John, Yes, I'm aware of that problem. Pakistan was the "Dominion of Pakistan" until 1956, but the same problem exists (although for less time) for History of the Republic of India; India only became a republic in 1950, and was the "Union of India" from 1947 to 1950. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

True. I'd prefer to solve this by moving this article to History of South Asia. History of the Republic of India could be at History of India since 1947, or something similar, and the history of Pakistan since 1947 at History of Pakistan. john k 02:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Your example is flawed - that external link covers a specific topic, specific theme of "Art history." And its amusing to read that you can't see the complication in inventing a "Pakistan region" that is distinct from the political state, or that another name for the "Bangladesh region" is Bengal! There is no such thing as "Pakistan region" - either its the political state, or northwestern part of Indian subcontinent, or its the individual regions of Sindh, Punjab, NWFP and Balochistan. Bangladesh is located in the ethno-linguistic region of Bengal. Rama's arrow 21:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

And why do readers have to put up with the minor complication on this article? Not b'coz of the whims and fancies of Wikipedians, but because the term "India" has SEVERAL meanings. "Pakistan" or "Bangladesh" do not share that characteristic. Rama's arrow 21:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rama's arrow completely. Some people here should stop nitpicking, soapboxing and splitting hairs at every opportunity which is only resulting in this and related discussions getting fouler and fouler. Sarvagnya 22:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rama's Arrow on this. Why call it "Bangladesh region", when Bengal is the right word for it, and we do have an article on History of Bengal which is the most appropriate place for the history of the region. This should not be problematic even from an extremely nationalist viewpoint because Bangladesh means "Country of Bengal", and even the national anthem is about "My Golden Bengal" (not My Golden Bangladesh). "Pakistan region", besides being OR, is a problematic idea. Pakistan as 3-4 distinct geographical regions. Two of these regions share their history entirely with the rest of the Indo-Gangetic plains, while the other two have had a very different history up to the late 19th century when they were added to the British Empire. This is one of the many reasons why synthesizing a common pre-1947 "History of Pakistan" is intrinsically flawed, even while histories at both lower and higher resolutions are pretty reasonably justified. deeptrivia (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The external link might ostensibly be about "Art History," but all the "key events" mentioned are about "History" itself. There is very little there that is only limited to "Art." Take a look again, the time line and the key events could easily be used as a skeleton for a "History of South Asia": Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. South Asia: A Timeline In Art History 8000BC-Present. I do understand that there was no (historical) Pakistan region, but the history of that region is of interest to people (not all Pakistanis) because the country exists now. The point of my suggestion is simply to have more room for that history. After all, conversely, you could compress History of India and History of the Republic of India into one Misplaced Pages article, History of India;most people know that post-1947 India is a smaller version of pre-1947 India. Britannica, Encarta, Columbia and World Book Encyclopedias do just that. The reason for a two articles, among others, is to have more space. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

But does it make sense to talk about half of Punjab, Sindh, the part of Afghanistan that the Sikhs/British managed to conquer, and Baluchistan as a single unit prior to 1947? What is the advantage of having an article about the history of a completely arbitrary portion of the Subcontinent? Another problem is what to do with Bangladesh/East Pakistan. Would the article deal with just West Pakistan until 1947, both 1947-1972, and then back to just the west after 1972? It is all arbitrary and weird, and there's no particular reason to discuss the areas that make up present day Pakistan as a unit before 1947. In particular, artificially dividing up Punjab seems counter-productive. john k 02:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

while i dont agree with fowler on a history of "Pakistani regions", the only reason why he brought it up was as a comprimise as Deeptrivia wants to remove the history of Pakistan prior to 47. Other editors such as Ragib, and Ramas Arrow also disagree with DT, yet he/she refuses to drop the issue. As for you Sarvagnya, are you a child? Do you think we find "discussions getting fouler and fouler", to be amusing? Grow up. IP198 23:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

aah.. now, literally. Sarvagnya 23:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

A better question IP, is are you here for anything productive besides attacking Indian contributors?Bakaman 02:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Deep Trivia that History of Pakistan ought to begin with 1947, or, rather, somewhat earlier, with the Muslim League and the development of the idea of a state specifically for the Muslims of India. This article could be moved to History of South Asia if that would make people happier. The earlier history of the various regions of what would become Pakistan before 1947 could be covered more specifically in regional articles - History of Punjab, History of Sindh, History of Balochistan, History of Bengal (for East Pakistan). I don't see any particular reason to group Sindh and Punjab together, or to discuss the history of Pakistani Punjab separately from that of Indian Punjab, or of East Bengal separately from West Bengal, before there was actually a political separation to justify such a split. john k 23:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Good to see a history PhD student join the discussion. deeptrivia (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I should note that the Indian subcontinent is not even slightly my area of expertise - I study European history. john k 06:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Commenting on Bengal, even before 1947 or 1905, East Bengal was considered distinct culturally (e.g. "ghoti" vs "Bangal"). The reason we need History of Bangladesh as a subset of History of Bengal is that we can deal with more details that would otherwise be lost if lumped together in the "Bengal" article. As I mentioned above, when someone is looking for "History of Bangladesh", they are not likely to be looking for the constitutional entity, rather they are looking for the history of the region. (Example given above showed German federation, which is not more than 18 years old, whereas Germany as a region is much older, and the history article deals it likewise).

The status quo is fine ... the history of Bangladesh deals with the modern history of 1947+ EP/BD part, along with older history dealing with the area. You might argue that just saying "for any event pre-1947, go see History of Bengal". But that's not the solution .... what if I'm looking for the history of the eastern Bengal (now BD)? The History of Bengal article is a generalized one, it doesn't and shouldn't deal with specifics. Therefore, I don't expect it to deal with Isa Khan or the Sonargaon capital, or the Wari-Bateshwar ruins. Those can be dealt with in the History of Bangladesh article. Definitely, History of India/Subcontinent isn't going to look into such fine granularities as a local ruler like Isa Khan, but for the cultural identity of East Bengal/BD, he is a very important ruler.

So, I think we are fine with the status quo, and may go for a super-article like "History of the Indian Subcontinent" /south asia etc, that might took a an approach disregarding the current national boundaries. Other than that, the regional/country level articles are fine as they are. Thanks. --Ragib 02:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

East Delhiites are considered distinct culturally from other Delhiites. As Fowler&fowler elegantly describes in the previous section, this kind of distinction occurs at various levels of resolution. Status quo on Bangladesh does not involve serious issues like status quo on Pakistan does. The article History of Germany, as I mentioned starts from 9th century. History of that region (e.g., Roman empire,Pre-Roman Iron Age, Germania) is much older. (Likewise, I mentioned many other articles of national history that start much later than the history of regions they are located in.) How do you explain that? I hope that point was not conveniently ignored. deeptrivia (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure i understand why History of Bengal should be so much less detailed on pre-1947 (or 1905) history than History of Bangladesh. But I will agree that Bangladesh doesn't present nearly the level of problems that "History of Pakistan" does. The problems with this approach are manifold: 1) we're arbitrarily dividing up Punjab, even though it likely makes more sense to talk about the region in one place; 2) we're arbitrarily separating out the history of Pakistani Punjab and Sindh from their context in the history of northern India; 3) we're arbitrarily grouping Sindh and Pakistani Punjab together, when Sindh's connections are more towards either Gujarat or Persia, and Punjab's towards the rest of Punjab and the Ganges Valley; 4) we're arbitrarily grouping these Indian regions with the North-West Frontier and Baluchistan, whose history is entirely different and not really part of that of the subcontinent at all until the 19th century, and the former of which, at least, really has a history which looks west to Afghanistan. It seems to me that the best option would be to have History of Pakistan begin with the origination of the concept of "Pakistan", and continue with a history of the modern state, and to have it, at the beginning, provide links to the specific history articles on the individual regions, and to the general article on the history of the subcontinent as a whole. john k 06:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, John. I will reply in more detail later today, but, for now, let me just note that the History of Pakistan (as currently constituted on WP) is not the history of the precise region lying within the current-day borders of Pakistan; rather, it is a compendium of histories (delimited in space and time) that include any significant part of present-day Pakistan, and more generally a history of the northwestern part of the subcontinent. The page therefore includes the Archemenids (whose empire reached only up to the Indus, from the west), the Indo-Sassanians (who managed to grab only the North West Frontier Province), or the Guptas (who managed to grab Sind from the east). To be sure, some nationalistic (Pakistani) editors have in the past tried to finesse the history by claiming that so-and-so's rule extended only up to the Sutlej river (an approsimate boundary between West Punjab from East Punjab) but I have begun to take out those additions, as I have gotten to copy edit the text in the last few days. (Speaking of nationalism, scattered here and there in the article, there is plenty of mischief wrought by Indian editors as well.) Anyway, I will address the specifics of grouping Sind and Baluchistan etc. later, but let me point to the section: History_of_Pakistan#Maps_of_the_Region_1765-1909, in particular, to two maps: 1909 Prevailing Religions and 1909 Percentage of Muslims. The maps, from the 1909 Imperial Gazetteer of India, which had been sitting on my shelves for ages, came as a shock to me. Even in 1909—years of Edwardian self-confidence, when the British Empire was not even remotely contemplating its demise, and when even the radical (pre-Gandhi) Indian nationalists were only demanding a watered-down version of the self-rule of the "settler colonies"—there was a sharp gradient of religion pretty much along the lines of the present-day national boundaries. (The maps were made after the 1901 census of the Indian empire and based on district by district statistics, which included all the native states. ) That gradient did not exist even in the region of Delhi or Lucknow (the erstwhile heart of Muslim rule in India); of course, it did exist in Bengal, and the map in fact was published in the years (1905-1912) of the first Partition of Bengal. That alone, among other reasons, makes the history of the northwestern region (as well as the "East Bengal" region) interesting. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of adding to the complications. Can we look at other examples of contentious regions articles and learn from them ?- History of Ireland, History of Cyprus, History of Taiwan would be some examples that spring to mind. History of Great Britain can be a pointer too in light of the Welsh , the Scots and the English having a history of differences.Haphar 16:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ireland, Cyprus and Taiwan, being islands are naturally distinct regions. There's no naturally or culturally distinct "Pakistan region". I agree with F&F that there's a rough religious distinction, but the theory that different religious groups constitute different nations is a POV, which we shouldn't be endorsing with open arms on wikipedia even if we personally believe it to be true. Compare History of Taiwan with History of the Republic of China. deeptrivia (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The Turks and the Greeks on Cyprus certainly seem to think there are difference- The idea is to learn from other contentious regions. If the region cannot be an island there are examples like History of the Balkans. Haphar 18:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A History of Cyprus or of the Balkans make sense because these are terms that have long-standing geographical meanings that arose long before any of the current polities there came into existence. The area of modern Pakistan doesn't really have any similar lineage. It is "that part of northwestern india which developed a Muslim majority, going as far west as the British managed to conquer." Fowler's defense of this gives me some pause, but I'm still not convinced that the history of "northwestern India" before 1947 is really sufficiently distinct as to warrant its own article. The western Punjab and East Bengal had a Muslim majority, while the area along the Ganges between them had merely a large, politically dominant, Muslim minority seems, again, insufficient to consider it a region with its own separate history. A more fitting analogy might be to the Republika Srpska. Its borders more or less roughly align to fairly long-standing ethno-religious divides in Bosnia. But would we want History of the Republika Srpska to include history going back to Roman times? Obviously this is on a much larger scale, but the s ame basic issue seems to apply. john k 21:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The simplest solution would be to keep this article as History of India, and the Pakistan article as History of Pakistan. Having regional histories is not a good idea. Take Punjab for example, how do you decide what to include in it and what not to. punjab means 5 rivers, which means you can include parts of NWFP, Kashmir, and Afghanistan into its history. If you go with the British province of Punjab, you have to include Delhi, Harayana, and Himachal Pradesh which are not viewed as Punjab today. If you go with only the Punjabi speaking areas, you would have to exclude the Seraiki parts as well as the Pashto speaking parts of Pakistani Punjab. To conclude it is not possible to have a regional history of areas such as Punjab as their are no defined borders. The history of the region overlaps.IP198 21:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

But yet it makes sense to discuss the history of the region contained within the present borders of Pakistan while describing a time before those borders existed? Obviously any article describing long periods of time is going to have to be somewhat inexact in what exact areas it covers. But that doesn't really justify this idea. john k 23:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is History of a nation? The political history is only a single aspect of a much larger spectrum. But it seems like that part is being over-emphasized in this case. Again, if I want to know the history of a country, I'm not really looking for just the political history (which changes with change in borders/govts/rulers) but the history of the region. I clearly know what subset of the History of Bengal is about the East Bengal part, but take someone who isn't a Bengali, and wants to find details of history of the region. Would "History of Bengal" contain anything specific about East Bengal? If not, why should we insist on loss of information? If yes, then what's wrong with summarizing that under ancient/medieval history section of "History of Bangladesh"?

In the end, inclusionist approach (as in the status quo) works better, and doesn't cause loss of info, nor causes confusions or disagreements. I opt for that approach. Thanks. --Ragib 22:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is advocating loss of info. And, for me at least, a brief summary of earlier history would seem fine to me, but I think the details should be left for somewhere else. As it stands now, there is in fact loss of information, as there is not enough space to discuss the actual history of Pakistan, the modern-day state. It gets lost in all the lengthy discussion of the Guptas, and such, which doesn't really tell us anything specific about Pakistan at all. john k 23:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Over-emphasis of political history, and that too recent political history, is exactly what happens when modern political borders are chosen as the prism through which the entire history of a region is looked at. This becomes even worse when we realize that those borders were drawn on maps by someone who had never visited India, and "that there were instances where the border was drawn leaving some parts of a village in India and some in Pakistan. There were even instances where the dividing line passed through a single house with some rooms in one country and others in the other. No attempt was made to ensure that the border skirted villages or was drawn between thickly populated areas instead of right through them. The division was done in secret, and the British government allowed no Indians to review it, since disputes were bound to have arisen then and it would delay the Partition." deeptrivia (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Deeptrivia, Radcliffe didn't have to visit India to make that decision. There was plenty of information collected over a hundred years of British civil servants working in even the remotest part of the subcontinent, and plenty of seasoned India hands at the India Office who gave him advice. Many criticisms can be leveled at the British, but not being organized and thorough about gathering information about the subcontinent is not one of them: the Imperial Gazetteer, that I mentioned above, all 26 volumes, are a testament to this. Drawing the line of partition was a difficult job regardless, and Radcliffe, had to do it. I'm afraid in this last post you seem to be dangerously close to voicing the standard "Indian regret" about the partition: that no partition could have been a good partition. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

WP is neither a forum nor a soapbox. Keep discussions relevant and germane to article content lest it run afoul of wiki policies. Thanks. Sarvagnya 01:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this wasn't too relevant. My apologies. I had quoted from the article on Radcliffe line. In case it is not completely objective, please make changes. deeptrivia (talk) 04:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi John, I will reply to your post tomorrow. I will re-read the histories of Sind, Baluchistan, NWFP, and Punjab, before I do that. Meanwhile, I have added a few more maps at History_of_Pakistan#Maps_of_the_Region_1765-1909; one of them—the "Prevailing languages" map—is interesting. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Are there any unanswered concerns related to the suggestions? deeptrivia (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

More comments

I don't think we need to have a redirect or dab. This is a reply to the proposal and I haven't gone through the discussions. This is what I feel:

1. Give more importance to events that were wholly centered within India's current day boundaries, or had a majority control of Indian territory. (Hoysala Kingdom, Mughal dynasty)
2. Give less of an importance to kingdoms that overlapped into India and had less of a bearing (Indo-Greek Kingdom)
3. Omit events that are did not occur within current India's boundaries (events in Baluchistan 100 years ago)
4. Remember this article is supposed to be a summary, so we can choose to retain only the core events that shaped the country.
5. We can have a history of south asia article, which includes key historical events in countries such as Nepal (Khot Massacre), Maldives, and Sri Lanka. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• B-Class India articles
• Top-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of Top-importance
• B-Class Indian history articles
• Top-importance Indian history articles
• B-Class Indian history articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject Indian history articles
• Past Indian collaborations of the month
• WikiProject India articles