Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:39, 28 March 2012

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: Why is Bhārat Gaṇarājya not rendered in Devanagari script? A1: See this discussion (from 2012) and this discussion (from 2017), which are codified in WP:INDICSCRIPT. Q2: It's "Bengaluru", not "Bangalore"! A2: This article uses the name that is most commonly used by English-language reliable sources. See WP:COMMONNAME. Q3: Why was my content removed? A3: The India page adheres to summary style, sticking to core topics and skipping excess details. To update economy figures or other content, cite credible sources. See WP:V. Q4: Why aren't there sections on science and technology, education, media, tourism etc? A4: New sections require talk-page consensus. In archived discussions, it was decided to keep them out. Consider expanding their respective daughter articles, such as History of India, instead. See WP:WPC. Q5: Why was my image or external link removed? A5: To add or remove images and links, start a thread on this page first. See WP:FP?, WP:IMAGE, and WP:EL. Q6: The map is wrong! A6: The map shows the official (de jure) borders in undisputed territory and the de facto borders and all related claims where there's a dispute; it cannot exclusively present the official views of India, Pakistan, or China. See WP:NPOV. Q7: India is a superpower! A7: Consult the archives of this talk page for discussions of India's status as a superpower before adding any content that makes the suggestion. See WP:DUE. Q8: Delhi is a state! A8: To create an Indian state, the Parliament of India must pass a law to that effect—see Articles 2 through 4 of the Constitution of India, full text here. The Sixty-ninth Amendment, which was enacted in 1991, added Article 239AA to the constitution. It proclaimed the National Capital Territory of Delhi, gave it a legislative assembly, and accorded it special powers that most union territories lack. But Delhi was not made a state. Several crucial powers were retained by the central government, such as responsibility for law and order. Delhi also does not have a governor; instead, a lieutenant governor presides. Unlike Himachal Pradesh, which gained statehood in 1970, and Goa, which gained it in 1987, Delhi continues to be listed as a union territory by the First Schedule. Q9: Add Hindi as the national language/hockey as the national sport! A9: Hindi is the official language, not national language. There is no national language, but there are constitutionally recognized languages, commonly known as Schedule 8 languages. English also serves as a subsidiary official language until the universal use of Hindi is approved by the states and parliament. Field hockey is not the national sport as per this article "In RTI reply, Centre says India has no national game", Deccan Herald, August 2012.

Template:CollapsedShell

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

	India is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 3, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 16, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted April 11, 2005 Featured article review Kept May 6, 2006 Featured article review Kept July 28, 2011 Featured article review Kept Current status: Featured article

Indo-Aryan Migration - is it required?

The sentence in the history section(ancient history) "Most historians also consider this period to have encompassed several waves of Indo-Aryan migration into the subcontinent from the north-west" is not required according to me as the theory of Aryan invasion has been challenged by many historinas --sarvajna (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The sentence itself explains that "Most historians", meaning there are others who do not agree with this; but the prevailing thinking of the majority of the experts is reflected in this sentence. IMO you will have to provide very strong evidence, quoting scholars who are considered experts in the field, to include that point of view in this summarised article. You can probably include that point of view, aided by strong evidences, in the articles History of India and Indo-Aryan migration. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Note also that the sentence uses the word 'migration' not 'invasion'. You will have to provide excellent sources that show that there were no such migrations. --regentspark (comment) 18:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure I will search for some good sources, but dont you think invasion and migration are same, its just one's point of view to call invasion a migration? --sarvajna (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Definitely not the same. I suggest a quick trip to a dictionary before you look for sources. --regentspark (comment) 15:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, what I meant was that "Indo-Aryan Migration" theory and "Indo-Aryan Invasion" theory would be one and the same. --sarvajna (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

They're not the same things. Indo-Aryan invasion refers to Wheeler's theory of an invasion of the subcontinent by Indo-European people (resulting in the demise of the Indus Valley civilization). However, that theory has no currency now. Indo-Aryan migrations refers to nomadic migrations into the subcontinent in prehistoric times. These theories have wide currency (except amongst nationalistic elements in India). --regentspark (comment) 16:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for the clarification --sarvajna (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Still I feel there is point in sarvajna concern. Since the line says "Most Historians", the word MOST adds to the effect of making it a popular view. Perhaps a clear addition that "however several other historians don't have a different view on this" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.200.119.9 (talk) 07:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

(od) It says 'most' because most is the correct term. Only a few nationalist elements in India have other ideas and those ideas are on the fringe. The current version is accurate. --regentspark (comment) 17:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Except that it is not a fringe view: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indians-are-not-descendants-of-aryans-study/1/163645.html

Many serious, non-nationalistic scholars denounce the theory of an "Aryan" migration. And who were these "Aryans"? This is also something never discussed by proponents of this theory. "Aryan" is an indigenous Indian/Sanskrit word that was never meant to define a race. The migration theory is propaganda started by Western historians over a century ago. It is out-dated. For these reasons, this sentence about what "most historians believe" is unclear at best and should be removed. There is already a whole Wiki page dedicated to the subject of Aryan migrations, what it means, and whether it ocurred. Why put something that has never been proven in the history section of India? Zondrah89 (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You still need to provide reliable sources for this. The source you provide is not reliable and anyway seems to indicate that the migration view is the dominant one, even though the bhu and estonian researchers seem to think otherwise. When their view becomes dominant, the article can easily be changed. --regentspark (comment) 15:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I dont agree that the above source is not reliable also I dont think there is need to remove the part which says that migration view is dominant but wouldn't it be good if we mention what other historians think? --sarvajna (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

As the India Today article linked above says, the Indo-Aryan migration theory (the article incorrectly refers to it as the Indo-Aryan invasion theory) is 'widely believed'. On wikipedia, we go with what is widely believed, not necessarily what editors think is true or false. If there are nuances, they should go in a sub-article. If the research mentioned in the IT article is borne out by other studies and some other theory becomes widely believed, then, of course, we'll make a change here. --regentspark (comment) 20:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

@all: Please see history, the AIT is rubbished by multiple sources I quoted, it was an invention of the colonialists - an extension of divide and rule, also seen in Rwanda-Burundi, also seen in East Timor-Indonesia and Sudan-South Sudan., it is the long pole of the Dalitistan-Dravidianistan-Naxalistan tent. This article is a featured article, how can it be allowed to be so blatantly non-NPOV? The AIT or its morph is at best a disputed crank theory, supported by academics to stave off redundancy. I used the statement: "According to the disputed AIT (morphed)...". It was undone by an admin, admins shouldn't use admin or roll back tools in involved articles, but the world of Misplaced Pages was never fair.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh and "nationalists" oppose Ait(m), what is the corollary "anti-nationals" support? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Requesting a summary of the state of the issue from Fowler&fowler please. AshLin (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

AshLin undrala manjar saksha can't think of an English proverb. Please translate if asked. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

My 2 cents. Some information from this website as could be considered as appropriate.

About author:

An aspect could be (perhaps) as a scientific information using genetics, at his website per this document: by Michel Danino. The document apparently is published in 'Puratattva', a bulletin of the Indian Archaeological Society.

Thanks.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 21:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Another source talks with scientific evidence such as carbon dating etc. from news.bbc.co.uk; along with perhaps from the film-maker Graham Hancock mentioned in the link. This is just as to present possible information that can be presented on the page.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 22:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments ThisThat. As I point out above, the issue is that these "out of India" theories are fringe theories that historians generally don't subscribe to. It may very well turn out that these theories go mainstream in the future and we will definitely modify the article accordingly when that happens. Until then, a summary article such as this one cannot be expected to report and discuss the nuances of every theory out there. --regentspark (comment) 23:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

As it is, one can add this idea by stating that many of the contemporary Indologists/historians/archeologists subscribe to this theory. As it is AIT is now discarded though it was in vague for hundreds of years, starting from perhaps mid 18th century. So these theories should be considered as 'contemorary', no more. As also, my comments included information from a Greek Indologist of repute as well as documentary proof of what was mentioned in a 'lost city' report. In the former it is about Genetic studies, the latter is about archeology find with carbon dating etc so both are primarily scientific in nature more than pro/anti AIM theory, or pro/anti something else.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 14:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that although MOST prominent historians from back in the day supported the AIT, MANY prominent MODERN historians do not support even AIM. It would be great if the article could at least be modified to say, 'Most historians also consider this period to have encompassed several waves of Indo-Aryan migration into the subcontinent, although this has never been proven and many modern historians dispute this.' Zondrah89 (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a good reason why we value the content of widely used textbooks published by internationally known academic publishers. It is that these books have been vetted for balance by scholars. In contrast, journal articles or monographs can espouse one particular viewpoint or emphasize one particular nuance. The widely-used texts are unanimous in broadly accepting the Indo-European (Aryan) migration theory. Ms. Upinder Singh's book has already been cited for the sentence. Here are two four other widely used texts:

• Stein, Burton; Arnold, David (2010), A History of India, John Wiley and Sons, ISBN 978-1-4051-9509-6, retrieved 11 March 2012
  • Quote: (Page 47) It is now widely accepted that the subcontinent began to be infiltrated well before the middle of the first millennium BCE by people speaking an Indo-European language, later to be called Sanskrit and closely associated with the ancient language of people of the Iranian plateau, as evidenced from the ancient Zoroastrian text Avesta. Historical linguists find this a plausible chronological basis for the later developments of languages like Marathi, which possess a strong element of ancient Dravidian linguistic features, and also for Panini's grammar (written around 400 BCE), which may have been intended to standardize Sanskrit usage against strong tendencies to incorporate other and older languages of the subcontinent.
• Kulke, Hermann; Rothermund, Dietmar (2004), A history of India, London: Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-32920-0, retrieved 11 March 2012
  • Quote (page 31): IMMIGRATION AND SETTLEMENT OF THE INDO-ARYANS: The second millennium BC witnessed another major historical event in the early history of the south Asian subcontinent after the rise and fall of the Indus civilisation: a semi-nomadic people which called itself Aria in its sacred hymns came down to the northwestern plains through the mountain passes of Afghanistan.
• Thapar, Romila (2003), Penguin history of early India: from the origins to A.D.1300, Penguin Books, pp. 105–106, retrieved 18 March 2012
  • Quote (pages 105–106): The theory of an Aryan invasion no longer has credence. ... The more acceptable theory is that groups of Indo-Aryan speakers gradually migrated from the Indo-Iranian borderlands and Afghanistan to northern India, where they introduced the language. The impetus to migrate was a search for better pastures, for arable land and some advantage from an exchange of goods. The migrations were generally not disruptive of settlement and cultures. ... There is a tendency among those who oppose the idea of Aryan speakers coming from outside India to equate invasion with migration. Historically the two are distinctly different processes in terms of what would have been the precondition of either, such as the activities and organization involved, or the pattern of social and historical change that ensued. ... The linguistic evidence remains firm. Indo-Aryan is of the Indo-European family of languages and there is a linguistic relationship with some ancient languages of west Asia and Iran, as well as some that took shape in Europe. Indo-Aryan is a cognate of Old Iranian, dating to the second millennium BC, with which it has a close relationship.
• Metcalf, Barbara Daly; Metcalf, Thomas R. (2006), A concise history of modern India, Cambridge University Press, p. xviii, ISBN 978-0-521-86362-9, retrieved 18 March 2012
  • Quote (page xiii): "Central Asian peoples reached the subcontinent in the centuries around 1000 BC, bringing with them a language, the Indo-European, that also spread westwards into much of Europe. As a result the languages that grew up in North and Central India share fundamental linguistic patterns with those of many European countries."

There is no reason to change anything in the sentence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC) Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry to start this again but I don't understand that when you consider to quote Romila Thapar then why not ppl like Koenraad Elst? I am sure you would agree that Romila Thapar is equally controversial --sarvajna (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, you haven't started anything. The debate has been long dead. Nothing will change on the India page. Romila Thapar's book is an internationally recognized, widely-used, text on early India (published by Penguin and the University of California Press). The problem with Elst is not that he is controversial, but that he is not recognized. When Koenraad Elst's Hindu nationalist sympathies begin to be published as textbooks by academic presses, are read in universities around the world, and become recipients of the Kluge prize from the Library of Congress as Thapar's work became, you can come back here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

"Most historians also consider this period to have encompassed several waves of Indo-Aryan migration into the subcontinent from the north-west" - The word most should be replaced by some. As there are many historians who claim that Indo-Aryan migration theory is completely false. There is no-one to decide whether a majority (most) of the historians support this theory or a minority. So the word some historians would be more neutral and appropriate. Raghu-holkar (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I support the change to "some historians", which is plainly correct. It would of course be possible to survey the views in all recent peer-reviewed work, but failing that "most" seems rather too subjective. Moonraker (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The current wording is appropriate. As explained above, indo-aryan migration is the mainstream view. It should be clear from the discussion above that 'out of india' theories are, as yet, fringe theories held mainly by nationalist writers, who are not necessarily even historians. If these theories move into the mainstream, then our article will change accordingly. --regentspark (comment) 20:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

@ RegentsPark

Again there is no-one to decide whether those who have given 'Out of India' theory are 'proper' historians or not. And no-one can decide whether Indo-Aryan migration theory is mainstream theory or not. If it is mainstream theory, then 'Indigenous Aryans' theory is also one mainstream theory. So, some should come in place of most. Raghu-holkar (talk) 11:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It is indeed "most." That very word and other words similar in meaning are cited in widely-used internationally-recognized texts provided as examples above. It is a dead and buried issue on this talk page. Pursuing it beyond a point, weeks after it was first broached here, could be seen as being disruptive. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The question remains same : who is to decide whether its majority or minority of historians. Most is too subjective. If not some, then many can be more appropriate. It should be Many historians, not most. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghu-holkar (talk • contribs) 11:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You should sign your posts, Mr. Holkar. I'm afraid, "some" belongs to the ahistorical garbage produced by some Hindu nationalist historians. Here is a comparison from Upinder Singh's widely used text-book on ancient India. Dominant=most; a handful of cranks = some. Is that clear?

• Singh, Upinder (2008), A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century, Pearson Education India, p. 186, ISBN 978-81-317-1120-0, retrieved 27 March 2012
  • Quote (page 186): "The dominant view is that the Indo-Aryans came to the subcontinent as immigrants. Another view, advocated mainly by some Indian scholars, is that they were indigenous to the subcontinent." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Not Hindu nationalist groups, but non-Indian historians were the first to give 'Indigenous Aryans theory'. Bryant, Edwin (2001), The quest for the origins of Vedic culture: the Indo-Aryan migration debate, Oxford University Press, p. 6, ISBN 0195137779, "It must be stated immediately that there is an unavoidable corollary of an Indigenist position. If the Indo-Aryan languages did not come from outside South Asia, this necessarily entails that India was the original homeland of all the other Indo-European languages."

A recent genetic-based research conducted by Harvard also claims that Aryan invasion is nothing but a myth. By the way, whats the problem with Many ? It would be more neutral. Raghu-holkar (talk) 12:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Many would imply that there are other accepted views and that's not the case here. In fact, the correct term is "Historians" without a qualification. About your other comment, re 'deciding who is a proper historian and what is fringe theory', it all depends on the academic credentials of the person being identified as a historian, the academic credentials of the person expounding a theory, and the institutions they represent. All are weak in the case of the out of India theorists. --regentspark (comment) 12:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

'Many would imply that there are other accepted views and that's not the case here'

1. There are other accepted view, I feel the debate here is how many accept the other theory 2. Making it as just "Historians" without any qualifications would mean that there are no other theories. Which would convey a very different meaning. --sarvajna (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me repeat again and for the last time: There is a good reason why we value the content of textbooks used in undergraduate and graduate courses worldwide on the history of India published by internationally known academic publishers. It is that these books have been vetted for balance by scholars. In contrast, journal articles or monographs (such as Edwin Bryant's) can espouse one particular viewpoint or emphasize one particular nuance or, in the case of Bryant, bend over backwards in solipsistic relativism to accommodate every shade of crank produced on the sacred soil of India. The widely-used Indian history texts are unanimous in broadly accepting the Indo-European (Aryan) migration theory. To date Bryant has not written a widely used textbook on Indian history. When he has, you can come back here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Status of Jammu and Arunachal Pradesh

There may be dispute regarding status of Kashmir. But there is no dispute regarding status os Jammu. Jammu is Hindu dominated area and there is abolutely no separtist movement against India or in favour of Pakistan. Thus Pakistan has no claim over Jammu.Similarly , Arunachal Pradesh is full fledged state of India. There is neither any separatist movement against or any movement for merger in China. As far as claim is concern, even India has claim over Kailash Range and Mansarovar lake and even Tibet is disputed.Rajesh Kumar69 (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The accession of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir in 1947 has not been recognized by the United Nations, which considers it disputed territory. Neither the Republic of India nor the British Indian Empire before it ever claimed the Kailas range or Tibet. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Fowler, please mention, or point to, reference for the above.

Also, please mention how Arunachal Pradesh is considered a disputed territory, by the same standards.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 09:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Stein, Burton; Arnold, David (2010), A History of India, John Wiley and Sons, p. 358, ISBN 978-1-4051-9509-6, retrieved 14 March 2012
  • Quote (p 358): "Kashmir was neither as large nor as old an independent realm as Hyderabad; it had been created rather offhandedly by the British after the first defeat of the Sikhs in 1846, as a reward to a former official who had sided with the British. This Himalayan kingdom was connected to India through a district of the Punjab, but its population was 77 per cent Muslim and it shared a boundary with Pakistan. Hence, it was anticipated that the maharaja would accede to Pakistan when the British paramountcy ended on 14-15 August. When he hesitated to do this, Pakistan launched a guerrilla onslaught meant to frighten its ruler into submission. Instead, the maharaja appealed to Mountbatten for assistance, and the governor-general agreed on condition that the ruler accede to India. Indian soldiers entered Kashmir and drove the Pakistan-sponsored irregulars from all but a small section of the state. The United Nations was then invited to mediate the quarrel. The UN mission insisted that the opinion of Kashmiris must be ascertained, while India insisted that no referendum could occur until all of the state had been cleared of irregulars. In the last days of 1948, a ceasefire was agreed under the United Nations pending a referendum to determine the views of the people. Because that plebiscite was never conducted, relations were soured and wars fought by the two inheritors of British authority; their foreign policies and conduct from the onset of their existence as independent stales have been shaped by the Kashmir dispute. There the deadlock has remained since 1947, a constant reminder of the difficulties that marked the births of the new states."

• Talbot, Ian; Singh, Gurharpal (2009), The partition of India, Cambridge University Press, pp. 159–160, ISBN 978-0-521-85661-4, retrieved 14 March 2012
  • Quote (pp 159–160): "Once it became clear that power would be transferred to the governments of India and Pakistan only, Maharaja Hari Singh, the ruler of Jammu and Kashmir, was faced with the dilemma of determining the accession. Initially he signed a standstill agreement with Pakistan — indicating that the state would eventually opt for the new Muslim homeland — but as Hari Singh vacillated in confirming the formal accession in the months of September and October, the government of Pakistan organised a 'tribal rebellion' led by North West Frontier militias and irregular Pakistani troops. These rebels threatened to capture Srinagar and make the accession a fait accompli. At this juncture Hari Singh acceded to India, accepting the condition that the accession would have to be ratified by the people of the province. In return Indian troops were airlifted to the Kashmir valley and eventually thwarted and pushed back the advance of the 'tribal rebellion' to the contemporary LOC (Line of Control) ... Although Nehru, at Mountbatten's bidding, referred the dispute to the United Nations in December 1947, and accepted a Security Council resolution that a plebiscite should be held to legitimize the accession to India, subject to the withdrawal of all troops in the province, hostilities between India and Pakistan in Jammu and Kashmir continued throughout 1948. The Cease Fire Line (CFL) marked the de facto division of the state between India and Pakistan: it was to be divided permanently, to become the "oldest unresolved conflict before the United Nations. ... After 1947, Indian governance in Jammu and Kashmir rested on two foundations: first, the special status for the province within the Indian constitution guaranteed by Article 370 that restricted the central government's power to foreign affairs, defence, currency and communications, and, second, the popular appeal of the National Conference led by (Sheikh) Abdullah. However Abdullah's aspirations for greater autonomy and self-rule were checked in the early 1950s by a rising tide of Hindu communalism which limited Nehru's scope for manoeuvre and 'marked the parting of the ways' as Abdullah was arrested and, subsequently, interned for almost two decades, while a pliant regional assembly in 1956 formally voted for a merger with India. Not unexpectedly, this was vigorously contested by Pakistan at the United Nations, but its efforts to get a Security Council resolution on the subject was vetoed by the Soviet Union. By then the Kashmir dispute had become thoroughly internationalized; more ominously, it became firmly set in the deep freeze of the Cold War"
• Bose, Sumantra (2005), Kashmir: roots of conflict, paths to peace, Harvard University Press, pp. 32–33, ISBN 978-0-674-01817-4, retrieved 14 March 2012
  • Quote (p 32-33 ): "The lull in Kashmir was broken in the spring of 1947, when an uprising against the maharaja broke out in Poonch, an area in northwestern Jammu sandwiched between the Kashmir Valley to the east and Rawalpindi division of northwestern Punjab to the west. Poonch had been an autonomous principality within the state of J&K, and ruled by its own raja, until World War II, when the local ruler was deposed by the Dogra kingship. The maharaja's administration then started levying punitive taxes on Poonch's Muslim peasantry. The local revolt began in protest against this taxation policy, and the regime's Sikh and Dogra troops reacted with severe reprisals against the population. .... On 15 August 1947, meanwhile, the maharaja's regime had concluded a so-called standstill agreement—normally the precursor to accession—with the government of Pakistan. Under this agreement, the Pakistani government assumed charge of J&K's post and telegraph system and undertook to supply the state with foodstuffs and other essential commodities. This strange entente between a ruler and regime with manifestly anti-Muslim policies and the new Muslim state in the subcontinent was the result of compulsions and calculations on both sides. The Pakistanis knew that geographical contiguity and religious demography favored J&K's accession to Pakistan. However, the maharaja was still the authority empowered to sign a legally binding accession, and they decided to court his cooperation. The maharaja's overriding priority was maintaining his throne and privileges, and he and his advisers thought it was worth negotiating with the Muslim League's Pakistan on this, ... The Poonch uprising upset this delicate flirtation." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding more quotes from other sources:

• Kashmir (2012). In Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Retrieved March 18, 2012, from Encyclopaedia Britannica Online
  • "Although there was a clear Muslim majority in Kashmir before the 1947 partition and its economic, cultural, and geographic contiguity with the Muslim-majority area of the Punjab (in Pakistan) could be convincingly demonstrated, the political developments during and after the partition resulted in a division of the region. Pakistan was left with territory that, although basically Muslim in character, was thinly populated, relatively inaccessible, and economically underdeveloped. The largest Muslim group, situated in the Valley of Kashmir and estimated to number more than half the population of the entire region, lay in Indian-administered territory, with its former outlets via the Jhelum valley route blocked.
• Metcalf, Barbara Daly; Metcalf, Thomas R. (2006), A concise history of modern India, Cambridge University Press, pp. 224–226, ISBN 978-0-521-86362-9, retrieved 18 March 2012
  • Quote (pp 224–226): Kashmir mattered not so much because it possessed rich mineral or other resources, nor because it was the original home of the Nehru family, but rather because for both sides it raised issues central to their self-definition as nations. For Pakistan, the critical fact was Kashmir's overwhelmingly Muslim population. The decision of the Kashmir maharaja to join India flew in the face of the logic by which British India had been partitioned. Pakistan's existence was premised upon its status as a Muslim homeland. Even though millions of Muslims had had, in the Pakistani view, to be left behind scattered across India. Kashmir, as a Muslim majority state, rightly belonged to Pakistan. Indeed, had Kashmir been an ordinary (British) Indian province it would almost certainly have been part of Pakistan from the start. A Hindu maharaja ought not, Pakistanis argued, have been allowed wilfully to defy thc interests of his Muslim subjects. ... In the view of the Congress, India was not only successor to the Raj, but also a secular state, in which Muslims, with all other mi-norities, stood, in principle, on equal footing with their Hindu fellow citizens. Millions of Muslims, remaining behind after partition by choice or necessity, already lived within India. The addition of the residents of Kashmir would only further testify to the inclusive na-ture of the new state. Inasmuch as the Kashmir maharaja's accession was, by the terms of the partition agreements, perfectly legal, Nehru saw no reason to undo it. Indeed, to the contrary, he felt he had acted appropriately in responding to the maharaja's call for assistance in repelling the Pakistani raiders as they advanced on Srinagar. ... Such considerations did not, however, end the dispute. Seeking in-ternational support, Pakistan took the Kashmir issue to the fledgling United Nations. The UN brokered, in i 948, a ceasefire along the line of control, which it then policed by sending to Kashmir a contin-gent of observers. This UN observer force has remained in Kashmir to the present. At the time of the maharaja's accession, Nehru had agreed to hold a plebiscite among its people to decide Kashmir's subsequent status. This referendum has never taken place. In India's view, Pakistan's refusal to withdraw its 'raiders' from the province voided the conditions under which India's agreement to a plebiscite had been secured. ... Kashmir remains the most contentious of the issues that divide the two countries. The Kashmiri people themselves, their leaders ambivalent – sometimes supporting India, sometimes accepting covert military aid from Pakistan – have remained caught in the middle. It is often assumed that, if allowed free choice, the majority would prefer independence, as a Himalayan state comparable to Nepal or Bhutan, to union with either of the two South Asian powers.
• Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, the first two quotes point to the dispute per UN resolution. The third quote is completely tangential therefore can be ignored. There is also no source for Arunachal Pradesh as a dispute. The status of Arunachal Pradesh as a dispute, per me, should be therefore removed.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 12:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, Arunachal Pradesh, the new name for what was called North East Frontier Agency (NEFA) in 1962, was claimed as a feint by the Chinese to take the attention away from Aksai Chin, a remote region in eastern Kashmir, which was shown on existing maps in 1962 to be a part of India, but through which the Chinese were building a strategically important road linking Tibet to Xinjiang. In other words, it was claimed by the Chinese as tit for tat for the Indian claim on Aksai Chin. I don't think anyone (other the Chinese) really takes the Chinese claim on Arunachal Pradesh seriously. Where do we say it is disputed territory? I suppose it is an international dispute because it was taken to the UN in 1962 (by India). I'm traveling and without my books, but I'm sure sources can be easily found. (I was wrong about Arunachal Pradesh. The dispute is about the region of Tawang which is claimed by China. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes the sources need to be mentioned for the lack of it would no support claim of dispute. Per Indian claim on Aksai Chin, it is already present as part of Kashmir dispute.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 14:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's one:

• Jeffries, Ian (2010), Political Developments in Contemporary China: A Guide, Taylor & Francis, p. 315, ISBN 978-0-415-58085-4, retrieved 14 March 2012
  • Quote: "The status of Anmachal Pradesh is one of the most intractable diplomatic issues between China and India. The dispute centres on the mountainous, mist-cloaked region of Tawang, a thickly forested area bordering Bhutan and Chinese-ruled Tibet that is dominated by the ethnic Monpa people, who practise Tibetan Buddhism and speak a language very similar to Tibetan. The Chinese government says Tawang was once part of Tibet, and so belongs to China. The Indian government says a self-governing Tibet signed a treaty with British-ruled India in 1914 that ceded Tawang to India on the condition that London recognize Tibetan autonomy. The British agreed at the time to acknowledge what they called the suzerainty of Tibet. But last year the British Foreign Seeretaly, David Miliband, retracted that recognition, saying it was a holdover from a colonial era ... Last year he announced for the first time that Arunachal Pradesh belonged to India. Tenzin Takhla said the Tibetan government reeognins the borders designated by the 1914 treaty, called the Simla Convention. China has been increasingly vocal this year over its claims to Tawang and possibly other parts of Arunachal Pradesh. On 13 October a foreign ministry spokes-man denounced a visit to the state in early October by Manmohan Singh, the Indian prime minister. In the spring China tried unsuccessfully to block a $2.9 billion loan that India had requested from the Asian Development Bank ... $60 million of the loan slated for flood control projects in Aru-nachal Pradesh ... India's most important Tibetan Buddhist monastery is in Tawang and the Dalai Lama appoints the abbot there. (From: the International Herald Tribune)." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

What I am trying to say is how is this a 'dispute', the standard earlier mentioned were about UN resolution. The dispute here is not about Arunachal Pradesh at all. Therefore this should be removed.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 21:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

For Misplaced Pages purposes, if reliable sources label something to be a dispute, a dispute it becomes. The UN has nothing to do with it. You still haven't told me where we mention this Arunachal Pradesh dispute on the India page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The Chinese claim is surely very tenuous, but the dispute appears to be a real one, if unlikely to go anywhere. NB, suzerainty is a feudal concept. As a matter of law it has nothing to do with colonialism. No doubt David Miliband felt pressured into making his statement, but in my view nothing he said (or could have said) was able to change the legal status of Tawang or anywhere else in or around the subcontinent. Moonraker (talk) 03:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

According to me there is no dispute for status of Arunachal Pradesh. Reliable sources here also say that there is no dispute here, that Arunachal Pradesh is integral part of India, for example .इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 08:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

That source says there is a dispute. It's about the dispute. CMD (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The source says it is 'disputed' per Chinese views. Per Indian view it is not disputed at all. So how is this a dispute?

When this is mentioned as a dispute on the page, it comes to the editors to provide references to it as a dispute, and not sources that says it is a dispute for one side and not a dispute for the other side.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 13:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, nevermind, it is disputed as per source mentioned.Got it.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 13:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

As there is claimed to be dispute, is Indian side presented adequately here? As an example, there are sources that quote status of Arunachal Pradesh as disputed, but is content where India has rejected any claims as a 'dispute' been presented also in the article? I already presented one source. If I can come up with other sources I will add here.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 08:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Reg. date of composition of Vedas

"The Vedas, the oldest scriptures of Hinduism, were composed during this period, and historians have analysed these to posit a Vedic culture in the Punjab region and the upper Indo-Gangetic Plain.[19"

Nowhere except Mr. Upender Singh's book, is there a mention of date of composition of Vedas. Vedas were part of "Shruti" (heard knowledge) and was passed from generations to generations like that; until it was finally put on papirus leaves somewhere around the time quoted by Mr. Upender's book.

What is the verificity of the content of Mr. Upender Singh's book and how is it being treated as the reliable source of information?

- Prateek Mohan (mohan.prateek@gmail.com)

First of all, it is Ms. Upinder Singh. She is a professor of history at the University of Delhi. Second of all, many, and I mean thousands of books date the Rig Veda to have been composed sometime after 1500 BCE, that is after the Indo-Aryans (the speakers of the Indo-European language that later was called Sanskrit) had entered India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

If we are to consider sources, source from B. B. Lal a famous archeologist could be considered as well. The sources is his lecture delivered at the 19th International Conference on South Asian Archaeology at University of Bologna, Ravenna, Italy on July 2-6, 2007 titled Let not the 19th century paradigms continue to haunt us!.

PDF here.

In this lecture, he demonstrates primarily that "(a) the BMAC people were not nomads, as held by my Indian colleagues; and (b) these characteristic features of the BMAC never ever reached east of the Indus up to the upper Ganga-Yamuna doab – an area which was the homeland of the Rigvedic people, as is clear from the Nadi-stuti verses (10.75.5 and 6) of the Rigveda itself."

Another source from B. B. Lal is , where he provides "evidence from hydrology, geology, literature, archaeology and radiocarbon dating." per .

About B.B.Lal ( info from .)

• Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India during 1968 to 1972.
• Director of the Indian Institute of Advanced Studies, Shimla.
• published several books and over 150 research papers in scientific journals.
• Padma Bhusana by the President of India in 2000.

B. B. Lal is more an authority on Vedic history and therefore on dating of Vedas, considering he is a famous Archeologist, and was a Director General of the ASI. Also, the link mentioned above can be considered as reliable, considering his experience on "several books and over 150 research papers in scientific journals."इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 15:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thisthat2001, please don't waste everyone's time here. Every one knows Indian archaeology has been second-rate since 1947. In the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) staff there have been some first rate epigraphists, such as D. C. Sircar and G. S. Gai, but also many second-rate archaeologists such as S. P. Gupta and B. B. Lal, who in retirement became the darlings of the Hindu nationalist government in the late 1990s. No internationally known historian pays any attention to the garbage these gentlemen were spouting in various lectures in the twilight of their careers. Find me one internationally known text-book on history that dishes out this claptrap. It is best that you not waste everyone's time here. Your knowledge of history is simply not up to a level that allows pronouncements on every topic under the sun. There is a limit to which we can humor you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what are standards of second-rate archeology, especially after hundreds of years of 'western' historians & archeologists pretending to pass off AIT as history. I would call that second-rate, but that is of no use here. As I said clearly, per me B. B. Lal is more of an authority on Vedic history than the mentioned source.

Instead of wasting time here and in future, I would suggest that a source of international repute, 'first rate' on Vedic history, as mentioned by you, quoted at this place.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 09:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Witzel, Michael (2003), "Vedas and Upanișads", in Gavin D. Flood (ed.), The Blackwell companion to Hinduism, John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 978-0-631-21535-6, retrieved 15 March 2012
  • Quote (pp 68–69): "According to post-Vedic. medieval Indian tradition, the Four Vedas are called Śruti, that is "something (revealed to and) heard" by the "primordial" sages (Ṛși). By contrast, the concept of Smŗti "something learnt by heart" is restricted to the post-Upanișadic texts, such as the Sūtras or Manu's law book, all of which are believed to have been composed by human beings. However, it is known from internal evidence that the Vedic texts were orally composed in northern India, at first in the Greater Punjab and later on also in more eastern areas, including northern Bihar, between ca. 1500 BCE and ca. 500-400 BCE. The oldest text, the Ṛgveda, must have been more or less contemporary with the Mitanni texts of northern Syria/Iraq (1450-1350 BCE); these mention certain Vedic gods (Varuna, Mitra, Indra, Nasatya) and some forms of early Sanskrit that slightly predate the Ṛgveda (mazdā for Ved. medhā, vašana for Ved. vāhana, etc.). ... The Vedic texts were orally composed and transmitted, without the use of script, in an unbroken line of transmission from teacher to student that was formalized early on. This ensured an impeccable textual transmission superior to the classical texts of other cultures; it is, in fact, something like a tape-recording of ca. 1500-500 BCE. Not just the actual words, but even the long-lost musical (tonal) accent (as in old Greek or in Japanese) has been preserved up to the present." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Fowler, could you mention this source please? This per you is the most authentic source on Vedic History per you so that is why.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 13:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, just saw history of the page to know that it is already done. Thanks.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 13:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Islam arrived in the 1st millennium CE"

Well, Christianity arrived in what is now Kerala hundreds of years before Islam even existed, in the first century AD, by strong tradition through personal arrival of the Apostle St Thomas, one of the twelve disciples of Christ. Early converts were the many centuries-long established Jews, who barely survive as a community in Kerala, the vast majority of their ancestors having converted to Christianity nearly two millenia ago. It has not been established what proportion of the dwindling community of Xians -- because of their extremely low birthrate down to 20% of the state's population -- are descended from ancient Jews, not Hindus. Apart from enough ethnically indigenous fathers -- Jews only needing to have Jewish mothers -- to have given both Jews and Christians of Kerala a look of entirely local ancestry. A curious but authentic historical fact, especially ironic in that when Kerala Jews migrate to Israel they are not enthusiastically received and generally move onwards to North America because they look Indian, as Ethiopian Jews look African and are forced to "convert" to Judaism if they wish to remain in Israel. To Israelis they do not look Jewish, not being German, Polish or Russian. An ironic answer to one of the Biblical mysteries as to what happened to the ten supposedly lost tribes of Israel, three of them in fact having arrived in Kerala, Ethiopia (odd being a mystery given that the Bible is full of references to Ethiopia) and Afghanistan, the latter having centuries ago converted to Islam as did Parsis both there and in Iran where Christians were also obliged to do so. Kerala Christians themselves are often ignorant of this historical fact. Masalai (talk) 03:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggesting it could be 'found shelter over millennia' or variance therein. As pointed out, the line is not accurate historically at all.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 16:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Map of India incorrect

Please don't Play with the integrity of nation by showing wrong map of country India has been a peaceful and vary gentle country in world community and it has a history of not starting wars with it's neighbours.

Other countries have tried to take banifite of this and claiming some areas from india. Please make it sure if your Images showing the correct maps of India which is identical to Indian official maps.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.115.95.44 (talk) 05:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:India/FAQ , Q5, and . Pfly (talk) 08:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

National language of India

Which is the NATIONAL LANGUAGE OF INDIA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunnbio87 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Please read this --Anbu121 (talk me) 10:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

this is so very confusing!! i always thought Hindi is termed as the national language of India. why isnt it mentioned in here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taief631 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hindi and English are the two official languages of the Republic of India. There are also several other regional official languages. However, there is no National language per se. You might be confusing "official language" with "national language".11achitturi (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Independence on the infobox

I know that the majority of India was held by the British and obviously thats why independance is listed as being from them, but the Portuguese were in India longer and held it more recently than the British. Granted, the most recent Portuguese India was quite small, but it should not at all be forgotten. Its date and independance should be noted in the infobox alongside. If there are no objections or conversation over this move by a week after this post, I shall add it. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 04:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I also find it quite unsettling the fact that the Portuguese are not mentioned at all. Considering the fact that the Portuguese where there for almost 500 years, this is absolutely not acceptable. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 04:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting point, however, the Republic of India is a successor state of the British Indian Empire, not of Goa or Pondicherry (the Portuguese and French outposts). The reliable sources do not consider the "independence" of these small outposts to be of any consequence in the definition of the term "independence of India," which they understand to mean "independence from the British." Independence Day in India is celebrated on August 15, the anniversary of the day on which power was transferred from the British to the Indians. Perhaps, if there is consensus, the Portuguese and French outposts can be mentioned in a footnote somewhere, if they aren't already, but they certainly don't belong in the main infobox. I have more sympathy for your second point and would propose mentioning the Portuguese in the context of the early European trading companies (along with the Dutch (VOC) and the East India Company, which, of course, is mentioned). Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

In other words, if there is consensus, we could change the sentence: "By the early 18th century, with the lines between commercial and political dominance being increasingly blurred, a number of European trading companies, including the English East India Company, had established coastal outposts." either to

(a) "By the early 18th century, with the lines between commercial and political dominance being increasingly blurred, a number of European trading companies, including the Dutch, Portuguese, French, and English East India Companies had established coastal outposts." or

(b) We could keep the present wording, but link "European trading companies" to East India Company (disambiguation). I personally would prefer (b) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure this needs inclusion. There is, after all, the question of scale. The EEIC was the dominant player while the other trading companies are, at best, mere footnotes. It might be better to include a sentence in the later history along the lines of "After a military action in 1961, India acquired/annexed the territories of Goa, Daman and Diu from Portugal." --regentspark (comment) 05:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

do see your point on the independence issue, and perhaps you are right, footnotes would be more accurate. This being said, I still strongly stand against the fact that the longest European presence in India is only mentioned once in the entire article. Not a single sentence mentions Vasco da Gama, perhaps one of the most influential characters in both Portuguese and Indian history. I find this lack of information a tragedy and it should be corrected. I do not wish to add it myself for I am no expert on Indian history as a whole, and I have not written at all for this article and I do not wish to meddle in other people's works. I am afraid that if this problem is not solved, perhaps this article is not truely suitable for a featured article. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 05:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Vasco de Gama should be mentioned. Let me think about how to do it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your attitude and assistance with the situation. I only want this article to be as wonderfully accurate and knowledgable as it should. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 06:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see why Vasco da Gama should be mentioned in a section on Indian history. I can see his importance in Portuguese history, certainly in the Age of Discovery but in Indian history? For example, we don't mention other non-Indians who visited India such as Alex, Hieun Tsang, etc. --regentspark (comment) 06:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, Hieun Tsang is important only because he was a recorder, as were Faxian, Megasthenes, and Marco Polo. But Alexander the Great and Vasco da Gama are in a different league in that their visits had momentous consequences, I suspect da Gama's more than Alexander's. We could look up some other encapsulated histories of India, such as chapter summaries in various textbooks, to see what emphasis is given. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. But, regardless, I think that including Vasco da Gama is not something we should do. His importance comes from his trip to India around the cape, important for European traders but not on par with the 'discovery' - note the quotes :) - of the Americas by Columbus. Europe was already well aware of the existence of India. Others, such as Mohammad of Ghazni or even Ahmad Shah Abdali or, if we're talking about colonization, then Robert Clive were, perhaps, more important from an Indian perspective. I've got nothing against including this person or that but the history of India is complex and I believe that the article is better served by parsimonious inclusion. --regentspark (comment) 10:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot about this. I tend to agree with RegentsPark about not mentioning names. I checked some textbooks, and I feel that we should mention the opening of the sea route between Europe and India to provide context for the East India Company paragraph. The paragraph currently reads:

By the early 18th century, with the lines between commercial and political dominance increasingly blurred, a number of European trading companies, including the English East India Company, had established coastal outposts.

We could change this (if there is consensus) to:

By the early 18th century, some two centuries after the establishment of regular sea routes between Europe and India, a number of European trading companies, including the English East India Company, had established coastal outposts.

I believe this addition provides more context for the transition from the Mughal Empire to the EIC. Note "sea routes" is linked to Portuguese India Armadas. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem with what is said now in the infobox, which is simple but correct so far as it goes. Clearly, Goa was not associated with the independence of India in 1947. However, I am inclined to dispute the notion that India was one of the successor states of the British Indian Empire. The effect of the Indian Independence Act 1947 was that the Empire was dissolved, with the British releasing the princes from their treaty obligations. Rather, India is one of two successor states of British India, which is all that the British were able to partition. (We should not count Bangladesh as a successor state.) India and Pakistan both quickly expanded by accessions and conquests, but such expansion was not strictly in succession to the Indian Empire, which was no more. Moonraker (talk) 07:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If you see no problem, then desist from making long arguments about things not mentioned anywhere in the main text. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Update in section of "Foreign relations and military"

In the last paragraph of the section ""Foreign relations and military" (change and update facts and figures):

• The President of India is the supreme commander of the nation's armed forces; with 1.6 million active troops, they compose the world's third-largest military. It comprises the Indian Army, the Indian Navy, and the Indian Air Force; auxiliary organisations include the Strategic Forces Command and three paramilitary groups: the Assam Rifles, the Special Frontier Force, and the Indian Coast Guard. The official Indian defence budget for 2011 was US$36.03 billion, or 1.83% of GDP. According to a 2008 SIPRI report, India's annual military expenditure in terms of purchasing power stood at US$72.7 billion, In 2011, the annual defence budget increased by 11.6%, although this does not include funds that reach the military through other branches of government. As of 2012, India is the world's largest arms importer; in the period from 2006 to 2010, it accounted for 9% of money spent on international arms purchases.(190) Much of the military expenditure was focused on defence against Pakistan and countering growing Chinese influence in the Indian Ocean.

FIRSTLY:

• • In 2012, India has become the world's biggest importer of arms, displacing China by accounting for 10 per cent of global arms sales volumes.

Economic Times

The Hindu, National Newspaper

DNA India

SECONDLY:

• • The Federal Government of India announced more than 17% hike in India's defence expenditure for the financial year 2012-13. The Finance Ministry has allocated Rs 1.93 lakh crore ($41 billion) as defence spending for the current fiscal.

Economic Times

Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses

Yahoo Finance

DNA India — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.185.218 (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Lack of Hindi in Infobox: reason?

So I noticed that both the introduction to this article and the infobox give India's official name in English (Republic of India) and in the other Indian languages (Bhaarat Ganaraajya). The infobox also gives a provision to add the native name of the country in that country's official language - and according to Article 343(1) of the Constitution of India, , that language is Standard Hindi in the Devanagari script. So why is भारत गणराज्य not listed as the name of India, either in the infobox or in the introduction? India seems to be the only country article where this occurs.

In Misplaced Pages:Countries, it states that "The official long-form name of the country in the local language is to go on top as the caption. If there are several official names (languages), list all (if reasonably feasible). The conventional long-form name (in English), if it differs from the local long-form name, should follow the local name(s)." Hindi in the Devanagari script and English in the Roman script are the two official languages of India, with Hindi being "the principal official language of the Union" (all the other languages of India are regional languages recognized by individual states, which I am assuming is different). Thus, the question becomes: Why is भारत गणराज्य not listed in the infobox? 11achitturi (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

To my understanding, Hindi and English are official languages of the Government of India, not the country. The country has no national language. --Anbu121 (talk me) 21:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The Guidelines page never uses the phrase "national language", though - it simply recommends that the name of the country in the official language be printed in the infobox. "Bharat Ganarajya" is just the English pronunciation of भारत गणराज्य, which is the actual name in Standard Hindi. So what's the harm in putting भारत गणराज्य in the infobox?11achitturi (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you go through this. Secret of success (talk) 06:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

India article: When Islam arrived

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the second paragraph of the article, please correct sentence that indicates that Islam arrived to India in the 1st century C.E. (obviously incorrect for a religion that began five centuries later) 98.216.133.228 (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

 Not done In point of fact, the passage reads "and Islam arrived in the 1st millennium CE"—not century. This is supported by the body text which appears to be appropriately referenced. Pol430 talk to me 22:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Aryan Invasion theory oops read migration

Admin RegentsPark your edit summary read to the effect TOI is not about this, please read carefully before trigger-happy undoing, there were three other references with quotations, don't edit war, that the AI(M)T is disputed is as clear as sunlight, Byrant and Patton write "For two centuries, scholars concentrating on the South Asian data have described an Indo-European/Aryan migration/invasion into South Asia to explain the formation of Indian civilization. The conflating of language, people/culture, "race" to maintain the "myth of Aryan invasion" continues, perhaps as Leach so cogently notes, due to the academic prestige at stake. "... Renfrew ... opts to distort archeological record.... Archeological data ... does not support ... any version of migration/invasion ... population movement into South Asia". Is Misplaced Pages a tool for protection of the academic prestige of discredited theorists?? The theory is there and it is disputed is a known fact supported by evidence. Why is this article hijacked by faddists? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

And admin RP is right, the TOI article isn't about the AIT. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The Times of India article hypothesizes that there are no exotic "Aryans" or local "Dravidians" in India, so the article debunks the AIT without mentioning it, however, since there is a surfeit of debunks in other sources, I withdraw this wonderful TOI article, that punctures the Adi-Dravida bubble, which naturally follows the AIT. It reads "A pathbreaking study by Harvard and indigenous researchers on ancestral Indian populations says there is a genetic relationship between all Indians and more importantly, the hitherto believed `"fact" that Aryans and Dravidians signify the ancestry of north and south Indians might after all, be a myth." Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The TOI article will help us debunk the next line in the sub-section Ancient India " The caste system, which created a hierarchy of priests, warriors, and free peasants, but which excluded indigenous peoples by labeling their occupations impure, arose during this period." According the TOI article both Aryans and Dravidians are indigenous. Are featured articles called so because their "feature" is to propagate myths? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You have not thus far produced any widely used Indian history texts published by internationally recognized publishers in support of your viewpoint. I have produced five quotes from widely used text books written by well-known historians of India, which include Burton Stein, Barbara D. Metcalf, Thomas R. Metcalf, Hermann Kulke, Dietmar Rothermund, Romila Thapar, and Upinder Singh. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Since you have started a new section (for no reason), here they are again (with quotes):

• Stein, Burton; Arnold, David (2010), A History of India, John Wiley and Sons, ISBN 978-1-4051-9509-6, retrieved 11 March 2012
  • Quote: (Page 47) It is now widely accepted that the subcontinent began to be infiltrated well before the middle of the first millennium BCE by people speaking an Indo-European language, later to be called Sanskrit and closely associated with the ancient language of people of the Iranian plateau, as evidenced from the ancient Zoroastrian text Avesta. Historical linguists find this a plausible chronological basis for the later developments of languages like Marathi, which possess a strong element of ancient Dravidian linguistic features, and also for Panini's grammar (written around 400 BCE), which may have been intended to standardize Sanskrit usage against strong tendencies to incorporate other and older languages of the subcontinent.
• Kulke, Hermann; Rothermund, Dietmar (2004), A history of India, London: Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-32920-0, retrieved 11 March 2012
  • Quote (page 31): IMMIGRATION AND SETTLEMENT OF THE INDO-ARYANS: The second millennium BC witnessed another major historical event in the early history of the south Asian subcontinent after the rise and fall of the Indus civilisation: a semi-nomadic people which called itself Aria in its sacred hymns came down to the northwestern plains through the mountain passes of Afghanistan.
• Thapar, Romila (2003), Penguin history of early India: from the origins to A.D.1300, Penguin Books, pp. 105–106, retrieved 18 March 2012
  • Quote (pages 105–106): The theory of an Aryan invasion no longer has credence. ... The more acceptable theory is that groups of Indo-Aryan speakers gradually migrated from the Indo-Iranian borderlands and Afghanistan to northern India, where they introduced the language. The impetus to migrate was a search for better pastures, for arable land and some advantage from an exchange of goods. The migrations were generally not disruptive of settlement and cultures. ... There is a tendency among those who oppose the idea of Aryan speakers coming from outside India to equate invasion with migration. Historically the two are distinctly different processes in terms of what would have been the precondition of either, such as the activities and organization involved, or the pattern of social and historical change that ensued. ... The linguistic evidence remains firm. Indo-Aryan is of the Indo-European family of languages and there is a linguistic relationship with some ancient languages of west Asia and Iran, as well as some that took shape in Europe. Indo-Aryan is a cognate of Old Iranian, dating to the second millennium BC, with which it has a close relationship.
• Metcalf, Barbara Daly; Metcalf, Thomas R. (2006), A concise history of modern India, Cambridge University Press, p. xviii, ISBN 978-0-521-86362-9, retrieved 18 March 2012
  • Quote (page xiii): "Central Asian peoples reached the subcontinent in the centuries around 1000 BC, bringing with them a language, the Indo-European, that also spread westwards into much of Europe. As a result the languages that grew up in North and Central India share fundamental linguistic patterns with those of many European countries."
• Singh, Upinder (2008), A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century, Pearson Education India, p. 186, ISBN 978-81-317-1120-0, retrieved 27 March 2012
  • Quote (page 186): "The dominant view is that the Indo-Aryans came to the subcontinent as immigrants. Another view, advocated mainly by some Indian scholars, is that they were indigenous to the subcontinent." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no doubt about the existence of the AIT, the point is whether it is disputed, for which I have presented evidence. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

No one is talking about the Aryan Invasion Theory. The dominant view is that there were several waves of Indo-Aryan migrations from the northwest. Most historians subscribe to that view. "Most" includes the possibility of dispute. The dispute among historians, however, is not significant (see below). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute

The AIT is disputed.

1. "The cradle that is India". rediff.com. 2005-03-07. Retrieved 27 March 2012. Quote = " It appears that the Dravidian languages are more ancient, and the Aryan languages evolved in India over thousands of years before migrations took them to central Asia and westward to Europe... Indian politics has long been plagued by the Aryan invasion narrative, which was created by English scholars of the 19th century; it is fitting that another Englishman, Stephen Oppenheimer, should announce its demise."
2. Gavin D. Flood (13 July 1996). An Introduction to Hinduism. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-43878-0. Retrieved 27 March 2012. Quote: "...the origin of Aryans as coming from outside the subcontinent has recently been questioned" (page 31)
3. Kenneth A. R. Kennedy (2000). God-apes and fossil men: paleoanthropology of South Asia. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-11013-1. Retrieved 27 March 2012. Quote = "A false assumption has been made in associating Indo-European languages in south Asia with a hypothetical migration of people called Aryans" (page 372)
4. Edwin Bryant; Laurie L. Patton (22 September 2005). The Indo-Aryan controversy: evidence and inference in Indian history. Psychology Press. ISBN 978-0-7007-1462-9. Retrieved 27 March 2012. Quote = "For two centuries, scholars concentrating on the South Asian data have described an Indo-European/Aryan migration/invasion into South Asia to explain the formation of Indian civilization. The conflating of language, people/culture, "race" to maintain the "myth of Aryan invasion" continues, perhaps as Leach so cogently notes, due to the academic prestige at stake. "... Renfrew ... opts to distort archeological record.... Archeological data ... does not support ... any version of migration/invasion ... population movement into South Asia" (page 97)
5. Mikel Burley (1 January 2000). Haṭha-Yoga: its context, theory, and practice. Motilal Banarsidass Publ. pp. 26–. ISBN 978-81-208-1706-7. Retrieved 27 March 2012.Quote = "...(The Aryan Invasion/Migration) theory which places the nation of India in the role of 'victim' and denies an autochthonous origin to Vedic language and religion-is rapidly is rapidly crumbling beneath the weight of new evidence from the fields of archaeology and textual analysis..." (page 26)
6. Charles Michael Byrd (30 June 2007). The Bhagavad-Gita in Black and White: From Mulatto Pride to Krishna Consciousness. Backintyme. ISBN 978-0-939479-27-6. Retrieved 27 March 2012. Quote = "It is now generally accepted that Indian history shows a continuity of progress from the earliest times to today... The dangers of the Aryan invsion theory are numerous as it denies the Indian origin of India's predominant culture, giving the credit for Indian culture to invaders from elsewhere. It teaches that some of the most revered books of Hindu scripture are not actually Indian, and it devalues India's culture by portraying it as less ancient than it actually is" (page 15)

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Singh this article's favourite also mentions the dispute, attributing it to Indians, they stand disproved by the origin of my sources, not a single Injun. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The disputers Gavin D. Flood, Kenneth A. R. Kennedy, Edwin Bryant, Mikel Burley, Edmund Leach, Laurie L. Patton, , Charles Michael Byrd, Stephen Oppenheimer - don't smell any Injuns around. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

We are debating a sentence in the history section of the FA India. Not a single one of these people (not all of whom dispute Aryan migration, by the way) are historians. The expression "Most historians" allows the possibility of dispute; the Indo-Aryan migration is, however, not disputed by enough historians to merit inclusion in a summary history section. You are welcome to discuss the dispute ad infinitum and ad nauseam on the Indo-Aryan migration page. All the very best in explicating the dispute there. It will be of great help to the Misplaced Pages community. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Pathetic argument and rude unsolicited advice. The discussion is whether AMT is disputed or not, and not about who disputes it. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

"Most historians" is the expression in the text. Those people by the way don't dispute AMT themselves. It is best not to call them disputers. Gavin Flood, for example, does not. He support a revised Aryan migration theory founded on the arguments of Asko Parpola. Also, it is best not to use "Injun" in your attempt at humor. It is an ethnic slur and offensive to Native Americans. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is Gavin Flood himself: (Introduction to Hinduism, Cambridge University Press. pp 33–34) THE ARYAN MIGRATIONS RECONSIDERED Both the Aryan migration thesis and the cultural transformation thesis have bodies of supporting evidence. Arguably, however, the meticulous, thorough work of Asko Parpola establishes strong evidence for the Indus valley script belonging to the Dravidian language group. His evidence is based on an analysis of language from a wide-ranging cultural sphere, from Anatolia to the Deccan; on iconographic continuities between Indus valley and Dravidian forms of Hinduism, and on discontinuities between vedic or Aryan forms and those of the Indus valley. ... A modified Aryan migration theory is therefore supported by Parpola's work. At the beginning of the second millennium BCE, Aryan nomads entered the Indian subcontinent. They were, of course, a minor-ity, and, while the Indus valley culture continues without a break, as the archaeological record shows, the Aryan culture lived and developed alongside it and absorbed elements of it. However, there is little doubt that there are continuities between the Indus valley and vedic cultures. The new groups, who possessed arya, 'nobility', formed a dominating elite speaking the Aryan language, though Sanskrit has absorbed proto-Dravidian features, such as the retroflex sound which does not exist in other Indo-European languages, as well as agricultural terms. Dravidian languages, as one would expect, have also absorbed elements of Sanskrit. Over a number of centuries bilingualism would have developed until the majority of the population adopted the Aryan language, a form of vedic Sanskrit, as Modern French developed from vulgar Latin." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

(1)Injun is racist with reference to natives of America, here it refers to natives of India. (2)The deleted sentence read: The traditional but disputed Aryan Invasion/Migration theory considers this period to have encompassed several waves of Indo-Aryan migration into the subcontinent from the north-west. Flood acknowledges that the A I/M T is disputed. Misplaced Pages is to be a faithful reflection of scholarly consensus, that the AI/MT is disputed has scholarly consensus as demonstrated above. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, then don't call them disputers!! They are not the ones who dispute the Aryan migration theory. The disputers are the Hindu nationalist fringe "scholars." And, yes, most "disputers" are indeed Indian cranks. Scholars such as Gavin Flood are only bending over backwards in putting out the Hindu nationalist arguments, so that they can be seen for what they are worth. The well-known historians of India are near unanimous in broadly accepting the Aryan migration theory. Please don't flatter your attempt at introducing your POV by calling it "deleted." It never had even the remotest consensus to be in the text in the first place. When you can establish that consensus, you can post here. Until then you are merely wasting time and that beyond a certain point can be disruptive. It ties up productive editors such as Regents Park, Saravask, and myself who are among the India page's leading contributors. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

As for the use of "Injun," you are not free to make up your private make-believe language and then use it on Misplaced Pages with the abandon reserved for accepted English language words and expressions. Misplaced Pages's own entry Injun makes no reference to natives of South Asia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

About vedic history, much of which has been known by excavations and scientific research, is the discussion here trying to put any less weight on the same?

Fowler, are there any sources that say 'The disputers are the Hindu nationalist fringe "scholars." And, yes, most "disputers" are indeed Indian cranks. Scholars such as Gavin Flood are only bending over backwards in putting out the Hindu nationalist arguments, so that they can be seen for what they are worth.'? In absence of sources, it looks like editor's personal opinion. Not sure expressions such as 'cranks' are welcome on Misplaced Pages, repeatedly even as the book page says in its features section that the book includes Discussion of contemporary scholarly debates about Hinduism and not some arbitrary thrown words like 'cranks' etc.

Is there any information about funding of 'western' sources - this is in light of this critique that I have come across that throws light on aspects of it. . I am not sure, if funding of any of the sources is done by either the state or by some extremely right wing fascist extremist Christian groups like Klu Klux Klan, in latter case would mean automatic removal of related 'western' sources. One can not be too sure at all. Any information on funding and consequent effect is welcome.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 04:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Humour Thisthat2011, Mr. Y. Khandke, has has altered the actual quotes in some places, or confused the names of the editors of a volume with the authors of the individual papers, or in some other case, selectively cherry-picked quotes, or over and over again picked quotes for authors who are critiquing the Aryan invasion theory, not the migration theory. Here are some of his examples:

• (Altered quote) Burley (Mikel Burley (1 January 2000). Haṭha-Yoga: its context, theory, and practice. Motilal Banarsidass Publ. pp. 26–. ISBN 978-81-208-1706-7. Retrieved 27 March 2012., = , for example, is talking about the discredited Aryan Invasion theory, which Mr. Khandke has deceptively changed himself to ""...(The Aryan Invasion/Migration) theory which places ..."
• (Cherry picking) Gavin Flood (Gavin D. Flood (13 July 1996). An Introduction to Hinduism. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-43878-0. Retrieved 27 March 2012.) is not a disputant himself (see my quote above about his cautious support for a revised migration theory), yet Mr. Khandke has not only included him in that list, but also conveniently ignored the first paragraph of his section on Aryans:

  The Aryans: The most commonly accepted theory to date has been that Hinduism is the consequence of incursions of groups known as Aryans into the north-ern plains of India from central Asia, via the mountain passes of Afghanistan, around 1500 BCE. Some of these groups went into Iran and there are close affinities between the Iranian religion of the Avesta (the sacred scripture of Zoroastrianism) and the religion of the Veda. (page 30)"

• (Confusing authors with editors) Edwin Bryant and Laurie Patton are only the editors of the volume: Edwin Bryant; Laurie L. Patton (22 September 2005). The Indo-Aryan controversy: evidence and inference in Indian history. Psychology Press. ISBN 978-0-7007-1462-9. Retrieved 27 March 2012. Mr. Khandke has quoted a paper by Shaffer and Lichtenstein but counted Bryant and Patton among the disputants!
• (Quoting from critiques of Aryan invasion theories): Charles Michael Byrd (30 June 2007). The Bhagavad-Gita in Black and White: From Mulatto Pride to Krishna Consciousness. Backintyme. ISBN 978-0-939479-27-6. Retrieved 27 March 2012. This book, which is not exactly a reliable source, critiques the Aryan invasion theory, not migration. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once