Misplaced Pages

Talk:India: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:33, 14 June 2020 editWeaveravel (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,160 edits →Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 June 2020← Previous edit Revision as of 21:48, 14 June 2020 edit undoFowler&fowler (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers62,959 edits →Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 June 2020: lost to --> lost byNext edit →
Line 150: Line 150:
::*(b) We ''cannot'' make a connection between Indian nationalism (of the above variety), and the ''Partition''. The partition was the British response to a Muslim nationalism, which had been simmering and flip-flopping since the early 20th-century but had become united after 1940. After Jinnah and the Muslim League won unanimous victories in the Punjab and Bengal in the elections of 1945-46, there was a clear mandate for some version of Pakistan; the ''representative'' (i.e. in the polls) nationalism in the British Indian Empire was split between the INC and the League. The fate of the ''partition'' was sealed. It is another matter that "representative" was not truly representative, but that is what the rules of the game defined. ::*(b) We ''cannot'' make a connection between Indian nationalism (of the above variety), and the ''Partition''. The partition was the British response to a Muslim nationalism, which had been simmering and flip-flopping since the early 20th-century but had become united after 1940. After Jinnah and the Muslim League won unanimous victories in the Punjab and Bengal in the elections of 1945-46, there was a clear mandate for some version of Pakistan; the ''representative'' (i.e. in the polls) nationalism in the British Indian Empire was split between the INC and the League. The fate of the ''partition'' was sealed. It is another matter that "representative" was not truly representative, but that is what the rules of the game defined.
:::*(c) We ''cannot'' use the full expression "Partition of India" in the highly compressed lead—even though this is the common expression in the literature—and immediately thereafter call the newly partitioned country "India" without causing confusion. We will need more space to be unambiguous. (See below.) :::*(c) We ''cannot'' use the full expression "Partition of India" in the highly compressed lead—even though this is the common expression in the literature—and immediately thereafter call the newly partitioned country "India" without causing confusion. We will need more space to be unambiguous. (See below.)
*As for Dhawangupta's points, the difference between "great loss of life" which s/he is advocating and "large-scale loss of life," which I have proposed is that the latter is a little more precise ("having wide scope or extensive proportions" (Webster's)). The other points are POV, the provinces of (West) Punjab, Sind, Balochistan, NWFP, and East Bengal were not ''lost'' to the '']''; they became a part of the ], which along with the ], was a successor state of the ]. We have to be very careful: the notion of "loss" is the official POV of India, its public square, and some Indian sources, implying in the popular imagination a consequent regret; it is not NPOV. Next, Weaveravel's version, "with part of the former territory affected by the partition of India" can leave the unfamiliar reader puzzled: what part? "what former territory?" Anyway, here is a more precise and NPOV version: <blockquote>A pioneering and influential ] emerged, noted for ], and becoming the major factor in ending British rule. In 1947, the ] was ]ed into two independent ], a Hindu-majority ] and a Muslim-majority ] amid an unprecedented migration and large-scale loss of life.</blockquote> *As for Dhawangupta's points, the difference between "great loss of life" which s/he is advocating and "large-scale loss of life," which I have proposed is that the latter is a little more precise ("having wide scope or extensive proportions" (Webster's)). The other points are POV, the provinces of (West) Punjab, Sind, Balochistan, NWFP, and East Bengal were not ''lost'' by the '']''; they became a part of the ], which along with the ], was a successor state of the ]. We have to be very careful: the notion of "loss" is the official POV of India, its public square, and some Indian sources, implying in the popular imagination a consequent regret; it is not NPOV. Next, Weaveravel's version, "with part of the former territory affected by the partition of India" can leave the unfamiliar reader puzzled: what part? "what former territory?" Anyway, here is a more precise and NPOV version: <blockquote>A pioneering and influential ] emerged, noted for ], and becoming the major factor in ending British rule. In 1947, the ] was ]ed into two independent ], a Hindu-majority ] and a Muslim-majority ] amid an unprecedented migration and large-scale loss of life.</blockquote>


<blockquote>(Next paragraph) India has been a ] ] since 1950 governed in a democratic ]. </blockquote> Note I am using the informal term "British Indian Empire = ] + ]s as a nod to the ] most of which was accomplished before 15 August 1947. The term "Partition of the British Indian Empire" ''is'' used in the sources (See Yasmin Khan's book.) More text than this we cannot absorb in the lead. ]] 19:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC) <blockquote>(Next paragraph) India has been a ] ] since 1950 governed in a democratic ]. </blockquote> Note I am using the informal term "British Indian Empire = ] + ]s as a nod to the ] most of which was accomplished before 15 August 1947. The term "Partition of the British Indian Empire" ''is'' used in the sources (See Yasmin Khan's book.) More text than this we cannot absorb in the lead. ]] 19:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:48, 14 June 2020

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the India article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
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, 60Auto-archiving period: 30 days 

Template:Vital article

? 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.
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Featured articleIndia 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 3, 2004, and on October 2, 2019.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 16, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
April 11, 2005Featured article reviewKept
May 6, 2006Featured article reviewKept
July 28, 2011Featured article reviewKept
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 15, 2004, August 15, 2005, August 15, 2011, and November 26, 2012.
Current status: Featured article
WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 21 September 2019.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIndia Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article is a selected article on the India portal, which means that it was selected as a high quality India-related article.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSouth Asia Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject South Asia, which aims to improve the quality and status of all South Asia-related articles. For more information, please visit the Project page.South AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject South AsiaTemplate:WikiProject South AsiaSouth Asia
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconAsia Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconCountries
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry
WikiProject Countries to-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconSpoken Misplaced Pages
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages
Template:WP1.0
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Section sizes
Section size for India (47 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 51,715 51,715
Etymology 3,985 3,985
History 74 22,780
Ancient India 6,902 6,902
Medieval India 4,481 4,481
Early modern India 4,240 4,240
Modern India 7,083 7,083
Geography 13,861 13,861
Biodiversity 18,524 18,524
Politics and government 31 18,829
Politics 8,137 8,137
Government 8,370 8,370
Administrative divisions 1,345 2,291
States 564 564
Union territories 382 382
Foreign, economic and strategic relations 16,146 16,146
Economy 13,522 30,237
Industries 7,087 7,087
Energy 2,183 2,183
Socio-economic challenges 7,445 7,445
Demographics, languages and religion 13,901 13,901
Culture 2,853 59,559
Visual art 6,529 6,529
Architecture 2,006 2,006
Literature 2,377 2,377
Performing arts and media 11,017 11,017
Society 6,906 6,906
Education 3,976 3,976
Clothing 6,522 6,522
Cuisine 9,286 9,286
Sports and recreation 8,087 8,087
See also 115 115
Notes 222 222
References 35 35
Bibliography 19 54,244
Overview 2,292 2,292
Etymology 973 973
History 6,419 6,419
Geography 3,921 3,921
Biodiversity 2,326 2,326
Politics 5,880 5,880
Foreign relations and military 7,393 7,393
Economy 6,969 6,969
Demographics 4,798 4,798
Art 1,169 1,169
Culture 12,085 12,085
External links 2,435 2,435
Total 306,588 306,588
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 12 times. The weeks in which this happened:
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the India article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
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, 60Auto-archiving period: 30 days 

Devanagari Script

Why is all the Hindi in this article Romanised? Most other pages will have the local scrip as well as a transliteration. After researching it a bit, I now understand why there is no attempt to list all the different names of India in other local languages, there's too many, and it would cause too many debates? But i don't see the problem with using the Hindi script? The article does show the full name in Romanised Hindi, i can see some justification for giving the name in the national language but not all the regional languages, but why only Romanised? Irtapil (talk) 05:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Irtapil: The transliteration (using ISO 15919) is preferred over using Devanagari or other non-Roman script, because (1) for the general English-reading audience of this article, the former is easier to decipher than the latter, (2) it results in less bloat in the article and fewer debates on which scripts to include on the talkpages. For many languages and countries, it is often possible to provide both the transliteration and the native script, but for reasons you have alluded to in your question, that is not feasible in this and many other India-related article. See also WP:INDSCRIPT and this earlier discussion that the FAQ at the top of this page links to. Abecedare (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
but there's no debate about the official name of a country, it is printed on millions of passports. it's  only even got two official names. the article on South Africa lists all ten. Irtapil (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Not sure what specific change you are proposing. Can you specify? Also, if it is anything regarding Bharat or the lede sentence, I would recommend taking a look at the numerous previous discussions of the topic to see if the points you have in mind have been raised before. Abecedare (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
@Abecedare: I am proposing adding the official name of India in the official script, to places where the Romanized version currently appears, without removing the romanised version. @Tsla1337: suggested above to "replace India (Hindi: Bhārat), officially the Republic of India (Hindi: Bhārat Gaṇarājya) with India (Hindi: भारत), officially the Republic of India (Hindi: भारत गणराज्य)", but since most people can't read the devangari we should keep the romanized version as well rather than replace it. I have read several of the discussions and guidelines, and they raise some valid points, but as i said above none of the reasons discussed seem applicable to leaving out one of the two official names, or showing it only as an unofficial phonetic version. I didn't just add the official Hindi name myself because i know language is a sensitive issue. But showing an unofficial romanization without the original seems kind of sub-optimal and unjustified as a solution. A better fix would be to show both official names (plus the romanised pronunciation of the devanagari Hindi) and include some properly referenced content explaining the local tensions about the language situation. Irtapil (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC) updated Irtapil (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I am not seeing any particular benefit to the reader of supplementing 'Bhārat' with 'भारत' in the article's lede sentence or a strong enough case for making an exception to WP:INDICSCRIPTS. But I'll let others chime in, in case they think otherwise. Abecedare (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

If this discussion is still ongoing, then I would suggest that the name of the country in Devanagari be given either in the infobox or both in the lead and infobox. My reasoning is when you click on "other local names," one of the first things mentioned is that only Hindi is the Official Language and what OP said reflects this. TSAray (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Official languages are incorrect

India has 22 official languages, namely Assamese, Bengali, Bodo, Dogri, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Kashmiri, Konkani, Maithili, Malayalam, Manipuri, Marathi, Nepali, Oriya, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Santhali, Sindhi, Tamil, Telugu and Urdu. And it's not Hindi and English alone Prasand27 (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The Union of India has 2 official language, Hindi in Devnagari script along with English. The references are given in the article itself. All the languages you've mentioned are 8th schedule languages. Manasbose (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 May 2020

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

indian miliray power is not determine in the page. 2409:4063:429B:653:D47F:D598:423:80B5 (talk) 04:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done, please request more specific changes with this template. CMD (talk) 04:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Government section (Edit request)

Change from: "Federalism in India defines the power distribution between the union, or central, government and the states"
Because there are atleast three issues with the wording:
1. It is not clear among how many units the power distribution is. It may seem that there are three units (a) union, or central (b) government (c) the states.
2. It only refers to union as government and but not the states, even though there are also governments in the states as well.
3. "Commas may seem a bit fussy," as explained by Dhtwiki.
Therefore, Change to: "Federalism in India defines the power distribution between the Union and the states"
Here the sentence is smooth and avoids clutter, the link also leads the reader to the articles of the respective governments.--Ab207 (talk) 02:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
2405:204:5022:E9E1:4235:75E:872C:333A (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

India remove and BHARTH add

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2020

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

Hi

This article states that Mauritius has over 900,000 Indians living there. This is not true as we are nation of less than 50% indo Mauritians. So actually there’s only about 1% of Indians living there. Never met one. 92.1.253.244 (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi back, sorry but I don't see how this can be done, since a search for "Mauritius" in this article yields no results. Can you give the exact section or template name where this can be found? P.I. Ellsworth  ed.  22:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 June 2020

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

There's no mention of Partition of India in the lead paragraphs. It's an important enough event to write here. I propose at the end of the 3rd paragraph to change:

  • "which was noted for nonviolent resistance and led India to its independence in 1947."

To:

  • "which was noted for nonviolent resistance and led India to its independence in 1947, with part of the former territory affected by the partition of India."

Or something else among those lines. Weaveravel (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) To editors Weaveravel and Eggishorn:  Already done, and thank you! P.I. Ellsworth  ed.  22:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
How was this done? It needs consensus here. You think this is the first time someone has brought up the partition? Obviously, the consensus remains that it doesn't belong to the lead. I will be reverting it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Apologies for not knowing the extensive history of this issue in this article, Fowler&fowler. I concluded that since the partition is mentioned at least three times in the article, and since as the requestor mentioned it's a significant part of the history of India, it should be mentioned in the lead. All we did was give it a proper nod. What is so terrible about its brief mention in the lead? P.I. Ellsworth  ed.  01:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I also support restoration of the edit made by Paine Ellsworth. How it didn't made any sense must be explained, instead of mere reversion. Dhawangupta (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
The sentence is, "A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, which was noted for nonviolent resistance and led India to its independence in 1947." It is in the history paragraph in the lead. The history section of the article (which it summarizes) mentions the partition only once: "All were capped by the advent of independence in 1947, but tempered by the partition of India into two states: India and Pakistan" The problem is mainly of significance.  We have a grand scale of history there.  The major historical eras: Delhi Sultanate, Mughals, EIC rule, British Raj receive one sentence each. In that grand scale of history, the influential nationalist movement (which unraveled the British Empire (see the first paragraph of Indian National Congress)) and its trailblazing form of anti-colonial resistance (nonviolence) is the historical era.
Just as the Indian rebellion of 1857 is a transitional event, a feature neither of the previous historical era (Company rule) nor of the succeeding one (British raj), so is the partition. The partition, which became a possibility only in 1940, and a realistic one only in 1946, is also a transitional event, a feature neither of the rise of overall Indian nationalism (1885 to 1940) nor of the Republic of India (1950 onward), though it obviously is not to those whose families were affected by it, especially in Pakistan). The language of the lead was very carefully chosen with the input of dozens of old India-page editors, including administrators, for this page's second TFA appearance in October 2019. Please see the archives. I don't mean to sound dismissive, but you have to understand that every little bit in the lead, every sentence has taken reams and reams of discussions going back to 2007. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
PS I know I have posted this audio before, but listen to what the British thought about that historical era. Here is the British prime minister C. R. Attlee, speaking on the death of Gandhi and saying at the 1 minute mark, that Gandhi "was the major factor in every consideration of the "Indian problem," where by that last expression he means the decolonization of the British Indian empire. What I mean is: that the lead is so concise that we are not even mentioning Gandhi by name. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
PPS I will however defer to whatever @RegentsPark: says. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
The partition of India is a key event in the history of India. It definitely deserves mention in the lead because independent India was born through the partition. The event also continues to impact the politics of Indian subcontinent today, being regularly discussed and debated. Partition of India carved out territorial definition of modern India against contemporary one in the past. Dhawangupta (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Indeed the partition was a highly important event hence why I requested it. Regardless, I can't see how a tiny addition of 13 words in an already existing sentence can hurt. --Weaveravel (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I think we should include something. As Dhawangupta says, partition is an important historical moment in that it was what ended up defining the modern state. The act of partition also provides an important context for recent events in India. The addendum proposed by the OP is, however, vague and unclear so not that one. My suggestion is that we modify the lead to something like: A pioneering and influential nationalist movement, noted for nonviolent resistance, emerged, which led to independence in 1947 along with a violent partition <link to partition of india>that also created the state of Pakistan. Not suggesting that this be the exact wording, hopefully Fowler, DhawanGupta or another editor can propose something better. --regentspark (comment) 13:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

How about:

A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, which was noted for nonviolent resistance and led to the end of British rule in 1947. Amid dislocation and religiously-driven violence the modern states of India and Pakistan were born.

I don't believe there is a need to mention the Partition of India specifically. The partition affected only the states of Punjab and Bengal. The rest of India was unaffected as was most of the rest of Pakistan. Asking a reader to click out to another page will be confusing. It is better to explain here what happened. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The importance of the events still stand. I still haven't been able to understand what is making you assume that mentioning partition leads away from the topic to confusion. I think Amid dislocation and religiously-driven violence the modern states of India and Pakistan were born. would actually not be needed as suggests creation of another state along without specifying the establishment event and relevance. Better would be:

A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, which was noted for its largely nonviolent resistance and led to the end of British rule in 1947 though at the cost of a bloody partition what led to creation of West Pakistan and East Pakistan along as well.

Or:

A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, which was noted for its largely nonviolent resistance and led to the end of British rule in 1947 though with a partition along religious lines.

Partition of India is an important post-war event, even more relevant in case of India as state envisaged by Indian nationalists didn't only cover modern India, nor the common definition of India did what would completely change hereafter. There is no reason why it should not be in history in the lead, you should reconsider. Dhawangupta (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I think your first suggested sentence would be best suitable because it mentions the partition and the fact that it was bloody in contrast to the nonviolent resistance. Mentioning the name of Pakistan is also helpful for readers. --Weaveravel (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm also of the opinion that partition should be explicitly mentioned, preferably including a mention of the creation of Pakistan. Both events are seminal, without which modern India cannot be understood. --regentspark (comment) 19:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear RegentsPark, Dhawangupta, Weaveravel, Paine EllsworthSorry, u Upon reflection, I have to disagree have to emphasize one thing. Our individual opinions are meaningless here. The lead is merely summarizing the history section. The history section is merely following the allocation of attention in the scholarly sources to Indian Nationalism, which lies in the sequence of historical periods: British Raj (1858-1885), Indian Nationalism (1883-1947), and Independent India (1947-). Indian nationalism begins with the Ilbert Bill (1883) and ends on the midnight of 14-15 August 1947. I will shortly give evidence in the scholarly sources used in this article for the apportionment of space to the Partition. It is small. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC) Upldated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Start with Burton Stein: Ilbert Bill and the Origin of Indian Nationalism (page 261) to New States Old Nations (page 357) is 96 pages. The beginning of partition is the League's victory in the Punjab and Bengal in the elections of 1945-46. That is page 350. So the partition garners < 7 pages (if that) i.e. 8%. We are limited in the lead to one sentence for Indian Nationalism, max two. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Metcalf and Metcalf: Civil Society and Colonial Constraints (begins page 123) to 1940s: Triumph and Tragedy (ends page 230). Of 107 pages Simla Conference (the beginning of negotiations that led to the partition, not the partition proper) starts on page 211 and the partition massacres etc end on page 223. So it is 12 pages out of 107 = one part out of nine.

I don't believe the others are much different. Please tell me how one accommodates 1/9 scholarly attention in two sentences in anything more than a very brief mention? Anyway, here's another possibility:

A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, which was noted for nonviolent resistance and led to the end of British rule. In 1947, the subcontinent was partitioned into a largely Hindu Dominion of India and a largely Muslim Dominion of Pakistan amid unprecedented migration and large-scale loss of life

The first sentence of the next paragraph would be changed from: "India is a secular federal republic governed in a democratic parliamentary system." to "In 1950, India became a secular federal republic governed in a democratic parliamentary system." Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The rest, "but," "though," "at the cost," "bloody" is POV. Twenty-eight (28) times as many people died in India in the influenza epidemic of 1918 (14 million) and a total of 20 million died in the various late Victorian famines; later 3 million died in the Bengal famine of 1943, many in east Bengal dying in their homes too weak or too depressed to seek aid. Those are the subject of just as much literature as the partition massacres. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
The rest, "but," "though," "at the cost," "bloody" is POV. Twenty-eight (28) times as many people died in India in the ... I don't think it is going to downplay that still the severe loss of life has been attributed as bloody. If you deem the bloody as a puffery from literature, you may utilize simply something like resulting in great loss of life
and led to the end of British rule. In 1947, the subcontinent was partitioned into.. This version is too verbose, also using vague terms like "the subcontinent was partitioned" (the article is called "partition of India and so is common name for event"). Moreover, the incident can't be transfered to a sentence away from British rule as both were not mutually exclusive given that Partition of India itself was a result of Indian Independence Act, 1947 which ended British rule as well. Weaveravel's version is much much better: "which was noted for nonviolent resistance and led India to its independence in 1947, with part of the former territory affected by the partition of India." And its common sense that this deserves mention; to say only Punjab and Bengal were affected is disingenuous. The provinces in what became Pakistan were all a part of India, with this territory being lost after the partition. Moreover, migrants came from all over the country, not just Punjab and Bengal. Dhawangupta (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Dhawangupta, RegentsPark, Weaveravel, Paine Ellsworth: This will be long, please bear with me. I agree with some points of Dhawangupta. "... it led to the end of British rule" is the wrong choice of words for it can mean leading to the bitter end, to the transfer of power ceremonies, or to the Indian Independence Act. I agree also that the "subcontinent" is imprecise. I will propose an alternative below. Let me first clarify some things here:

  • (a) We can make a connection between the Indian nationalism which was known to profess non-violence (i.e. that of the Indian National Congress under Gandhi; the term "nonviolence" is a catchall) and the mandate for the decolonization of the British Raj. The INC and its cohorts had won unanimous victories (even in Muslim majority districts) in the provincial elections of 1937, which were mandated by the Government of India Act of 1935; the decolonization of the subcontinent was now a reality, its time table as yet uncertain, but its fate sealed.
  • (b) We cannot make a connection between Indian nationalism (of the above variety), and the Partition. The partition was the British response to a Muslim nationalism, which had been simmering and flip-flopping since the early 20th-century but had become united after 1940. After Jinnah and the Muslim League won unanimous victories in the Punjab and Bengal in the elections of 1945-46, there was a clear mandate for some version of Pakistan; the representative (i.e. in the polls) nationalism in the British Indian Empire was split between the INC and the League. The fate of the partition was sealed. It is another matter that "representative" was not truly representative, but that is what the rules of the game defined.
  • (c) We cannot use the full expression "Partition of India" in the highly compressed lead—even though this is the common expression in the literature—and immediately thereafter call the newly partitioned country "India" without causing confusion. We will need more space to be unambiguous. (See below.)
  • As for Dhawangupta's points, the difference between "great loss of life" which s/he is advocating and "large-scale loss of life," which I have proposed is that the latter is a little more precise ("having wide scope or extensive proportions" (Webster's)). The other points are POV, the provinces of (West) Punjab, Sind, Balochistan, NWFP, and East Bengal were not lost by the Dominion of India; they became a part of the Dominion of Pakistan, which along with the Dominion of India, was a successor state of the British Raj. We have to be very careful: the notion of "loss" is the official POV of India, its public square, and some Indian sources, implying in the popular imagination a consequent regret; it is not NPOV. Next, Weaveravel's version, "with part of the former territory affected by the partition of India" can leave the unfamiliar reader puzzled: what part? "what former territory?" Anyway, here is a more precise and NPOV version:

    A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, noted for nonviolent resistance, and becoming the major factor in ending British rule. In 1947, the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two independent dominions, a Hindu-majority Dominion of India and a Muslim-majority Dominion of Pakistan amid an unprecedented migration and large-scale loss of life.

(Next paragraph) India has been a secular federal republic since 1950 governed in a democratic parliamentary system.

Note I am using the informal term "British Indian Empire = British India + Princely States as a nod to the political integration of the princely states most of which was accomplished before 15 August 1947. The term "Partition of the British Indian Empire" is used in the sources (See Yasmin Khan's book.) More text than this we cannot absorb in the lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

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

Driving side in India is Right. 2402:3A80:1926:89BD:3277:49EF:6690:AC95 (talk) 03:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jack Frost (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
See Driving in India and worldstandards.eu. The driving side in India is left. P.I. Ellsworth  ed.  21:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

See also - Names of India

Add see also: Names for India at the top of etymology section.Dhawangupta (talk) 09:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Demographics, languages, and religion

This section is missing information on the various scripts used for writing in India.We can use the following from the page on Languages of India: "Most languages in India are written in Brahmi-derived scripts, such as Devanagari, Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Meitei Mayek, Odia, Eastern Nagari – Assamese/Bengali, etc., though Urdu is written in a script derived from Arabic." We can trim it if necessary.I had raised this issue a number of years ago but did not pursue it further.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Categories: