Revision as of 11:36, 9 December 2006 editHkelkar (talk | contribs)7,279 edits →Formation of India Information← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 00:14, 20 December 2024 edit undoMoxy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors129,474 edits As per request added to first sentence of the lead :-(Tag: Manual revert |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{FAQ|collapsed=yes}} |
|
{{todo}} |
|
|
|
{{Indian English}} |
|
<div width="90%" style="background-color:#f9f9f9;border: 2px solid black; padding:.9em"> |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
<center>'''Guidelines for editing the India page'''</center> |
|
|
|
|action1=FAC |
|
* Text to be written in ] (spellings are modelled on British English) |
|
|
|
|action1date=22:24, 16 Sep 2004 |
|
* Units in ] should be spelled out with the converted English units abbreviated in parentheses per ]. |
|
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/India |
|
* Only external links pertaining to ''India as a whole'', or official government of India links are solicited on this page. Please add other links in their respective articles. |
|
|
|
|action1result=promoted |
|
* All sections are a summary of more detailed articles. If you find any points missing, please add it in the section's main article rather than on this page to keep this page size within reasonable limits. |
|
|
|
|action1oldid=5945311 |
|
* You may also discuss India related matters at: ''']'''. |
|
|
</div> |
|
|
''Two events mentioned in this article are an ] and ]. |
|
|
* ''']''' is the ''']''' article on the English Misplaced Pages. It was registered with 23,177 incoming links in January 2006. |
|
|
* ''']''' was English Misplaced Pages's '''''', and the '''2nd most popular country''' after U.S. in December 2006. |
|
|
* ''']''' was English Misplaced Pages's '''''' page, and the '''2nd most popular country''' after U.S in November 2006. |
|
|
* ] is ] most revised page, as of ] ]. |
|
|
---- |
|
|
{| align="right" |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|{{WP India | class=FA | importance=Top | portal=yes|group-portal1=Kerala|small=yes}} |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|{{WP:Countries|small=yes|FA|small=yes}} |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|{{featured|small=yes}} |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|{{FARCfailed|small=yes}} |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|{{V0.5|small=yes|class=FA|category=Geography}} |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|{{Mainpage date|December 3|2004|small=yes}} |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|{{FAOL|Tamil|ta:இந்தியா|lang2=German|link2=de:Indien|lang3=Swedish|link3=sv:Indien|small=yes}} |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|{{Talk Spoken Misplaced Pages|India.ogg|small=yes}} |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|} |
|
|
{| class="infobox" width="238px" |
|
|
|- |
|
|
!align="center" colspan="3"|]<br>] |
|
|
---- |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
|}<!--Template:Archivebox--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=FAR |
|
== Punjabi cinema? == |
|
|
|
|action2date=11 Apr 2005 |
|
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article removal candidates/India/archive1 |
|
|
|action2result=kept |
|
|
|action2oldid=12191859 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action3=FAR |
|
Pardon my ignorance, but will somebody please explain how Punjabi cinema is a 'strong' cinema industry? Or is someone also counting all the 'hindi' movies that come out with liberal doses of punjabi thrown in? And why on earth is the wikilink for Punjabi cinema(??) pointing to some movie? Is that the only movie that's been made in the history of Punjabi cinema? I am surprised that a new ip user is ] when he/she tries to make some edits and I am given hell when I try to retain them, but many edits over the past few days pass unscrutinised. Somebody please explain. ] 05:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action3date=15:45, 6 May 2006 |
|
:This is not an important industry as yet in India. Rgds--] 06:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article removal candidates/India/archive2 |
|
::It should be removed. ] ] 10:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action3result=kept |
|
|
|action3oldid=51836931 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action4=FAR |
|
== No mention of LAND OF THE ARYANS? == |
|
|
|
|action4date=14:15, 28 July 2011 |
|
|
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/India/archive2 |
|
|
|action4result=kept |
|
|
|action4oldid=441811169 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|currentstatus=FA |
|
Most Indians, (along with Iranians, Afghans, etc.) are of Aryan heritage. Most of the evidence that Aryans came from India.....is.....in India.....no Euorope....In ancient times the land was known as Bharat, or , land of the Aryans,....and yet this article acts like India's oldest civiliazation was the "Indus Valley" people?.....India's history goes longer & deeper then that....And I think there should be mention of its Aryan heritage ] 03:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|maindate=December 3, 2004 |
|
|
|maindate2=October 2, 2019 |
|
|
|otd1date=2004-08-15|otd1oldid=5256057 |
|
|
|otd2date=2005-08-15|otd2oldid=21044027 |
|
|
|otd3date=2011-08-15|otd3oldid=444882019 |
|
|
|otd4date=2012-11-26|otd4oldid=524820236 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=FA |vital=yes |collapsed=yes |listas=India|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Asia|importance=Top |india=Yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject India|importance=Top |portal=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject South Asia|importance=Top }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=High }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Countries}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors |user=Twofingered Typist |date=21 September 2019}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|topic=ipa|protection=ecp}} |
|
|
{{Press|collapsed=yes|date=17 August 2009 |url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6043534/The-50-most-viewed-Misplaced Pages-articles-in-2009-and-2008.html |title=The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008 |org=] |date2=27 August 2009 |url2=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6099890/Wikipedia-Top-20-people-places-film-and-technology-articles.html|title2=Misplaced Pages: Top 20 people, places, film and technology articles |org2=] |author2=James Steyn |date3=4 July 2015 |url3=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/The-vandals-of-Wiki/articleshow/47941452.cms |title3=The Vandals of Wiki |org3=] |author3=Sandhya Soman}} |
|
|
{{tmbox |
|
|
| type = speedy |
|
|
| text = <big><big><big>'''PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING AN EDIT REQUEST ABOUT CHANGING THE COUNTRY NAME'''</big></big><br>If you have come here to post that the country name should be changed from India to Bharat, please note that we use the ] (common name) to determine article names, even when a country changes its name. For an example, see ], where the official name of the country (Türkiye) is noted in the lead sentence and the infobox, but the article remains at its common English name.</big> |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{banner holder |collapsed=yes |1= |
|
|
{{All time pageviews|151}} |
|
|
{{Annual report|], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]}} |
|
|
{{Top 25 report |
|
|
| August 11, 2013 |
|
|
| October 20, 2013 | until | November 24, 2013 |
|
|
| December 8, 2013 |
|
|
| December 29, 2013 | until | January 19, 2014 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Spoken article requested|{{U|Sdkb}}|Featured article, and one that may have a higher-than-average proportion of readers who are English language learners}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership |width=570 |days=182}} |
|
|
{{Section sizes}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 75K |
|
|
|counter = 60 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:India/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=/Archive index |
|
|
|mask=/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|
|indexhere=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Humans made it to Australia before here == |
|
:Well, why don't you add it then?--<font face="comic sans ms">]</font> 04:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::No it is not necessary. See the comments in the header. ] ] 10:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Humans made it to Australia before here bypassing India? ] (]) 01:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Revolutionary changes to the article == |
|
|
I think it is a bad idea to make revolutionary changes to an FA without consulting other editors, in particular when they are unsourced. Doing so tends to decrease the quality of the article, and as an FA is supposed to be of highest quality, the article may be de-FAed as a result. The same applies to adding on sentences, as it may decrease the flow of the article if not done carefully, and over time will result in a loss of an FA. Thanks, ''']''' (]) 04:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:This is the problem with random statistics in the lead....There is a debate if we where here before the ] as outlined at {{cite journal | last=Clarkson | first=Chris | last2=Harris | first2=Clair | last3=Li | first3=Bo | last4=Neudorf | first4=Christina M. | last5=Roberts | first5=Richard G. | last6=Lane | first6=Christine | last7=Norman | first7=Kasih | last8=Pal | first8=Jagannath | last9=Jones | first9=Sacha | last10=Shipton | first10=Ceri | last11=Koshy | first11=Jinu | last12=Gupta | first12=M. C. | last13=Mishra | first13=D. P. | last14=Dubey | first14=A. K. | last15=Boivin | first15=Nicole | last16=Petraglia | first16=Michael | title=Human occupation of northern India spans the Toba super-eruption ~74,000 years ago | journal=Nature Communications | publisher=Springer Science and Business Media LLC | volume=11 | issue=1 | date=2020-02-25 | issn=2041-1723 | doi=10.1038/s41467-020-14668-4 | doi-access=free | page=}}..... The debate should be removed from the lead and explained in the article in detail...... As the number 55 seems to be a synthesis of sources with an average guess compiled by Misplaced Pages editors.<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 01:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Indian Military section. == |
|
|
|
:Dear IP, The earliest identified anatomically modern human remains found thus far outside Africa are in Australia. That has been known for a very long time. But the human migration out of Africa is based on modern DNA marker evidence, both the mitochondrial which came to be analyzed with a fair level of certainty by the late 1980s and the Y-chromosome which did by early 2010s. |
|
|
:What appears in this article is only material that has appeared in introductory-textbooks, i.e. has been vetted for ]. See ] for the role of these text books in due weight. |
|
|
:The first book we have cited (in the sentence about human migration in the lead) is a first-year-graduate level textbook written by and ], leading physical anthropologists. Naturally we give it primacy as their subject of specialization is most closely associated with human migration into South Asia. These authors say, "Y-Chromosome and Mt-DNA data support the colonization of South Asia by modern humans originating in Africa. ... Coalescence dates for most non-European populations average to between 73 and 55 ka." (where KA or KYA stands for "thousand years ago.") |
|
|
:The other two citations are also to textbooks, one the major historical demographer of South Asia, ],'s ''Population History of India'', published by Oxford University Press in 2018, and the other the environmental historian, Michael Fisher's ''Environmental History of India'', published by Cambridge University Press, in 2018. All three are cited in the lead, and all three citations have generous quotes. |
|
|
:We have not averaged out the various estimates, as {{re|Moxy}} has conjectured; rather, we have relied on the scholarly tertiary sources to do so for us. In particular, Tim Dyson says, "It is virtually certain that there were Homo sapiens in the subcontinent 55,000 years ago, even though the earliest fossils that have been found of them date to only about 30,000 years before the present." (as opposed to Australia, I might add, where the earliest fossils have been dated to 47 KYA). |
|
|
:So the fact that two leading physical anthropologists, Petraglia and Allchin, one of the human migration out of Africa and the other of India, and the leading historical demographer, had all three picked 55 KYA, is what clinched that particular date for us. Note we say, "By 55KYA ..." That means they might have come earlier, but no later. |
|
|
:Also for us, ''Nature Communications'' (cited by Moxy) whose average turn-around-time for first notice of acceptance is 8 days is not the best choice for supporting or discrediting the settled broadscale view of this article. Best regards, ]] 20:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Sould drop 55 from the lead as its simply a Misplaced Pages guesstimation. And say in the body that there are two different answers:"Tthe 'early version' states that they came from Africa through the Arabian peninsula 74,000 to 120,000 years ago, bringing Middle Stone Age tools for hunting, gathering food, and making clothes. The 'late version' claims they arrived later, about 50,000 to 60,000 years ago. By 50,000 B. C. , tools were made in large numbers with organized workers and established communication routes for distribution.<small>"{{cite book | last=Joseph | first=T. | title=Early Indians: The Story of Our Ancestors and where We Came from | publisher=Juggernaut | year=2018 | isbn=978-93-91165-95-6}}</small> Should also link the articles we have on the topic so other can read about the debate ].<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 20:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::If you have a scholarly tertiary source, such as the three major ones I have mentioned, please add them here; otherwise, you are wasting community time. ]] 12:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Yes waste of time here <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 13:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Discussion about add India's house speaker and chief justice in Wiki page == |
|
==Military of India== |
|
|
{{main|Military of India}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good Afternoon to all my respected editors, I have a suggestion that I want to add India's house speaker and chief justice name in the page because many countries has their house speaker and chief justice name in their wiki page like USA so as an Indian I want to add their names in the wiki page so what's your thoughts about this? ] (]) 08:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
India maintains the third largest military force in the world. The ] consists of the ], ] and the ]. There are auxillary forces like the ], the ] and the ]. India is a declared nuclear weapons nation. The Indian Army maintains the second largest active troops in the world. The Indian Navy is the fifth largest in terms of manpower and the Indian Air Force is the fourth largest in the world. The ] is the supreme commander of the Indian armed forces. |
|
|
|
:Best follow other ] that dont list them because of lack of mention in the articles or simply because of position non notibility on an international scale. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 08:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::I agree to add the names of Speaker and Chief Justice, don't know what so exception for only India that's it's removed. ] (]) 09:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::So give me the permission so that I can add Speaker and Chief justice name ] (]) 09:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::], the rationale is given by Moxy. This is a Featured article and, those positions aren't internationally notable for a general crowd.<span id="Benison:1731512630206:TalkFTTCLNIndia" class="FTTCmt"> — — Benison <small>(] · ])</small> 15:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)</span> |
|
|
::::Well, it's mentioned in most of the democratic countries. That's why it should be mentioned. ] (]) 16:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::So I want that permission for that because internationally India is now more popular so why not everybody needs to know who is India's chief justice and House Speaker ] (]) 16:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::@] Wait if you gets permission. by the way Misplaced Pages runs from west point of view, how the west sees the world. ] (]) 16:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::] is a ], or FA. That means its layout, lexicon, syntax, and style conform to ] and the article has had at least one major community review (WP's most rigorous) and likely more for older articles. Moreover, there are only , of which India is the oldest, now 20 years old. If you examine those <s>eight</s> FAs, the ''other'' major ones—], ], ], and ]—have but two offices listed under government and they are not the speaker. ] and ] do have longer lists, but I have not looked at their page-histories to see if they were changed after the community review. ] (around whose perimeter my late parents had once walked many moons ago) does have the speaker listed, but among only two in the list. Best regards, ]] 16:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::PS And ], which is also major, certainly for ], has only two listed under the government ]] 16:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::], Once again, it has nothing to do with democracy. It all depends on the article quality. India is a ], one of the oldest of it's kind. Hence, it follows that guideline.<br/>@], Misplaced Pages works on ]. You need to start a discussion in this talk page, demonstrating the need of inclusion of the speaker and CJ in the infobox, followed by proper rationale and guidlines. Then the editors of the page will decide via consensus if that inclusion is needed. Once again, I urge you both to go through ] page to understand what a featured article is and how it is different from other pages on various (democratic) countries. Happy editing :)<span id="Benison:1731515658060:TalkFTTCLNIndia" class="FTTCmt"> — — Benison <small>(] · ])</small> 16:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)</span> |
|
|
::::::There must have been an edit conflict, but I didn't see your post Benison and ended up repeating parts of your reply. Apologies. ]] 16:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Thank you for all of this I understand now and sorry to disturb you sir and please forgive me if I done something wrong ] (]) 16:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Not your fault {{re|Roni0102}}. We should really have an FAQ up top. I've been meaning to for ages, but dawdling (also for ages). ]] 16:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Hey guys i think we should add the speaker name and chief justice in the lead. It's important part. ] (]) 04:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::], Kindly re read the messages and replies above. Clearly th3 consensus is against it. Thanks.<span id="Benison:1731835180733:TalkFTTCLNIndia" class="FTTCmt"> — — Benison <small>(] · ])</small> 09:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)</span> |
|
|
:::::::::::hello sir someone removed the vice president name of India so sir can you fix that sir ] (]) 08:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::Only the head of state and the head of government. The other major ], such as ], ], ] and ], show only those. Please don't post again with the same question. We can't change what is there. Best regards, ]] 10:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::@] I previously replied his comment below. ]] 13:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::Yes, I had seen your reply. It is the reason I (more or less} copied it in my reply, and later thanked you publicly. ]] 14:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "Jana Gana Mana" is in Bengali and not in Hindi == |
|
Expand it here and later can be added to the main article. |
|
|
] 04:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Current draft is too choppy ] ] 10:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
== will scripts be removed from this article as well seeing as they do not help? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit extended-protected|India|answered=yes}} |
|
]--] 06:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Misplaced Pages's claim that "Jana Gana Mana" is in Hindi is totally fake. Jana Gana Mana has been written by Bengali Nobel Literate Kabiguru Rabindranath Tagore in Sandhubhasa or Sanskritised Bengali. The Jana Gana Mana as it's sung is the original one not a translation of Hindi. Please kindly change it soon. ] (]) 17:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:My understanding is that the original song is, of course, in Bengali, but the Indian national anthem is the Hindi "version" of it ("version" being the choice of word of the Constituent Assembly of India in the later 1940s when the discussion took place. By "version," apparently what they mean is this: As the song was written in Sanskritized Bengali, the choice of "Hindi version" by the ] was mainly to set the pronunciation of the Sanskrit words when singing, i.e. the anthem has "vidhata" and not "bidhata," which it would be in Bengali, or the Hindu pronunciation "jan" instead of "jono" in the Bengali. ]] 22:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Ayyavazhi Discussion == |
|
|
|
::PS Compare, for example, the transliteration in Tagore's original ] and in ]. Tagore's original, besides, has an apt name for the song, for according to his translation it means "Dispenser of India's destiny." But the official title (or popular title) now is the first three words of the song, "Jana Gana Mana," which in (Tagore's song's AI overview) means: "People (Jana) group (Gana) mind (Mana)" which doesn't tell us what it is about. |
|
|
:: Unfortunately, this does happen in popular and official culture in a lot of places. |
|
|
::Regional turns of phrase, for example, are disappearing in many Western countries. It probably happened a little more in a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic post-colonial state such as India, where the Hindi speakers (perhaps from being speakers of the largest spoken language) attempted to turn their language into at first a national language, but failing that to the official language of the union. (see ]). Something similar probably happened to other Modern Indian Languages, many of which were regional languages, and ], also, which was not regional. Thus Iqbal's children's song, ] became Sare JahaN se Achcha. Even then, only five rudimentary couplets from it are sung in India's popular culture. |
|
|
:: Unfortunately, we at Misplaced Pages can't do too much about these historical devolutions, which might not have been ideal. ]] 23:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Vice president name removed == |
|
moved to ]{{unsigned|BostonMA|19:02, December 3, 2006}} |
|
|
|
I just saw now that India's vice president name was removed from there?? Why this position also internationally known so why it's removed so please add that name ] (]) 15:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:{{n}} '''Not done:''' Good to simply add Head of State and Head of Government.Position of VP isnt that notable in parliamentry democracies like India ]] 17:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Repetitive Edits in ] Lead and InfoBox== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Change in CPI score and India's rank as per the latest report by CPI == |
|
I just wanted to point out that there is one kind of edit that keeps reappearing in the lead on the ] page. It is the sentence: <blockquote> India emerged as a modern nation-state in 1947, when the subcontinental populace ] all non-native traders in an intense movement of social reforms and forged it into a single ].</blockquote> This edit is identical to edits made by ] and IP ] in September and October. The latter users were also tampering with the info box, inserting "Indus Valley Civilization" instead of "UK", etc., which resulted in multiple blocks for them: ] and ]. Now the identical edit is being made by a new IP: ]. My concern is that this user (or users) refuse to engage in debate, but keep inserting the same text or making the same info box changes, resulting in extra work for other editors. ]] 14:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC) (Corrected ]] 14:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)) |
|
|
:I have blocked the user who just tampered with the infobox. ] ] 16:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corruption in India is perceived to have increased during the last decade. According to the Corruption Perceptions Index, India was ranked 78th out of 180 countries in 2018 with a score of 41 out of 100, an improvement from 85th in 2014, but has increased during the last decade as India now Ranks at 95th out of 180 countries listed with a score of 39 well below the global average of 42 as can be seen at this |
|
:This line has been put to rephrase the line "Colonised as part of the...." It is pathetic to see that the language used is very Eurocentric and not at all Indocentric whereas the article is Indic. The line "Colonised as part of the...." is highly derogatory and Eurocentric and must be presented in a Indocentric manner wothout changing the meaning and hence the term "expulsion" instead of "colonised". Pls discuss so that it can be changed. ] |
|
|
|
https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2023/index/ind |
|
:Why is it derogatory? Please provide concrete proof and not your personal biases. ] ] 13:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The previously mentioned data has not been updated for a decade now and needs updation in some shape or form. ] (]) 01:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Formation of India Information == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== change population statistics == |
|
There has been lot of edit redits on the formation of India information. This is finally being put here again in the Talk Page. India as a country did not suddenly appear one fine night in the mid of August 1947. It has always been there existing as a continuous territory. Even China and other European countries have had chequered history but they always trace their existence to recorded yore. A country like France which was occupied by Germany does not celebrate its Independence Day from Nazi Germany. "Colonised" is an Eurocentric term whereas Indians called it "Quit India" or "expelling the non-natives". Indic articles should not present Eurocentrism views but present as viewed from India. Japanese history never admits of WW2 atrocities while it is known and studied worldwide. The lexical presentation of a country article must be such that it presents a positive but factually correct picture. I thus strongly feel that the words such as "Colonised" should be rephrased and "Formation" be restored to the earlier one and not just "Independence". Please discuss. |
|
|
] 13:01, 06 Dec 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
there have been new census; delete this after confirmation and editings. ] (]) 16:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
: Where are your sources? Per Misplaced Pages policy, we need citations, no matter how cogent the argument. Please cite a reliable Indian history book or journal article that uses "expelling the non-natives" and that doesn't use the word "colonised" or "colonial". Misplaced Pages doesn't take any one view; both the colonized and the colonizer are represented. ]] 07:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Well, do you have a source saying so? ] (]|]) 16:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:: The word "Colonised" or "Colonizer" itself is Eurocentric and derogatory. So don't put Eurocentric views on an Indic site. Indic sites must be interpreted from an Indic point of view or should be fully impartial without derogatory words. Otherwise please agree for an Independence Day for France from Nazi Germany. Misplaced Pages has always represented an impartial interpretation of history. Textbooks in India (NCERT/State boards) always mention the non-natives/British as occupiers and non-bonafide residents trying to take over the reigns of governance. The word colonizer is not mentioned. The NCERT books also mentions that most Indian kingdoms deliberately gave over the reigns to foster development very much aware of the fact that as in the past any non-natives will be thrown away or absorbed. And this is what happened as always. |
|
|
::To not to divert from the Formation topic, India as a country always existed. Of course the map has not been the same. This is true for China, Europe, NAmerica as well. So there has to be a Formation column starting with the Indus Valley Civilization. The IVC is very much connected to the Indian Vedic culture (pls refer wikipedia article). It was this Vedic culture which gave rise to the Indian writing scripts, languages and culture over a period of 4000 yrs. This did not happen overnight on 15 August 1947. India still follows most national symbology and Hindu laws, derived from the time of Emperor Ashok's reign and not the non-native incursions. So essentially the IVC and Emperor Ashok's empire must be included in the formation part. ] 16:41, 06 Dec 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Repeated edits in the lead without a discussion here == |
|
::This article is about the "Republic of India". Period. That settles it. Please come back when the Govt of India declares something else as the independence day. Thanks. --] 08:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{re|Khassanu}} Please read ]. It is very helpful when editors look at this article with fresh eyes and correct errors. But we all have to play by the same rules: Minor, factual edits are fine, but anything substantial requires a discussion and renewed consensus on this talk page. |
|
:::Comments like this with "Period and that settles it" is NOT acceptable. So... does the history of Germany starts only when it became a proper democratic country after 1945, or France after the Fifth Republic?? You are from Bangladesh, a country which only came into existence in 1971. So you will have a certain mentality shaped by your local textbooks of which date to begin your history. You will not understand this. This article is not about "Republic of India". If its is like this please remove all the formation history in France, and particularly formation information in China. ] 16:50, 06 Dec 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
View for example that major changes you had made in . Please engage editors here on the talk page, explain what you would like to do, and achieve a consensus for it. Soft pinging ] and ] ]] 17:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::I'm definitely NOT saying that India's or Bangladesh's history began when they became independent in recent history. In fact, I have argued about this a lot, and will definitely state again that the history of countries extend to the distant past. However, they did became ''officially'' independent on the dates the respective govt recognize as their independence days. You have to respect the Govt of India's decision to observe 15th August as the independence day. Thanks. --] 08:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== POLITICAL SCIENCE == |
|
:::: Now you sound reasonable. Its precisely because of your stated reason, that the formation part essentially needs to be put. Also the concepts of Independence is Eurocentric. France celebrates liberation from Germany in a different way rather than as Independence even though they were nothing short of being governed directly by Germany for quite sometime. What I mean to say is that in both the sites (.IN, .BD) emphasis has to be put on the rich continuing less documented history rather than the immediate visible documented history. I believe the admin should now unprotect the IN site to put in the formation info and rephrase "colonised" with "expelled". ] 17:15, 06 Dec 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ವಿಶ್ವಸಂಸ್ಥೆ ಮತ್ತು ಭಾರತ ] (]) 06:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::: Misplaced Pages, unfortunately, is only about well-documented history. See ]. As I said earlier, you can make the most eloquent and heartfelt arguments, but we still need the citations, chapter and verse. Please provide them. Not "NCERT books," but something like the ones below, which, for example, use the word "colonial" on the page numbers given: |
|
|
::::::* Kulke, Hermann and Dietmar Rothermund. 2004. . Routledge. 448 pages. ISBN 0415329205. p 260-266. |
|
|
::::::* Wolpert, Stanley. 2003. . Oxford University Press. 544 pages. ISBN 0195166787. p 265. |
|
|
::::: Again: please provide the citations in the format described; unless you do so, you will be wasting your time and ours. ]] 11:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:ನಮಸ್ಕಾರ! ಇದಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ದಯವಿಟ್ಟು ಕನ್ನಡ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯಕ್ಕೆ ಭೇಟಿ ನೀಡಿ ಅಥವಾ ಇಂಗ್ಲಿಷ್ನಲ್ಲಿ ಹೇಳಿ. ಧನ್ಯವಾದಗಳು. ] (]|]) 06:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::::: Fowler&fowler, please do not give references of only European books here in an Indic article. If you want to contribute and argue then you read some Indian history books (NCERT). Do not contribute to this page or this article if you only have foreign publications and do not know anything about Indic history and perception. Please do not waste your time with the India article and please concentrate on other articles pertaining to your domain of knowledge. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:{{{2|}}}| {{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <small> at 03:51, 7 December 2006 </small> |
|
|
|
== "]" listed at ] == |
|
:::::::Himalayanashoka, the onus is on you to cite your sources. ] ] 08:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 13#ভাৰত}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 17:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
Himalayanashoka: |
|
|
* Why is ''colonised'' a POV? |
|
|
:: Colonised is a eurocentric POV because history textbooks in India always emphasizes on expelling non-natives, foreigners, British. So the proper Indic term is "Expulsion" not "Colonised". Do not try to follow whatever European textbooks write. Read some Indian history books and please give their reference, since I see that you are a regular contributor to the India page. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:{{{2|}}}| {{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <small> at 03:51, 7 December 2006 </small> |
|
|
:::Who said I am quoting European text books? And please, there's no need for that condescending attitude. ] ] 08:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* India as an independent unified nation-state was never formed before 1947. It existed was a collection of kingdoms before that. |
|
|
:: You should say just before the British arrived. Before there was a whole country called Hindustan, a whole Maratha empire, a whole Mauryan empire. Have you read Germany's history that it was known as the Holy Roman empire before becoming Germany? Your above statement is factually wrong.<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:{{{2|}}}| {{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <small> at 03:51, 7 December 2006 </small> |
|
|
:::Agreed, but they were all ]s, not a ]. Please read the definations of both. In the history section, we have documented the history of India since it was first inhabited by man. I fail to see why you are still agitated. You apparently have not read my comments closely. ] ] 08:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* To answer your question, YES the nation-state did appear overnight. |
|
|
:: How do you say that India sprang up overnight? Have you read other countries histories how they have come up? Have you ever read the history of India textbooks in your school? Please do not come up with stupid illiterate fingerprint statements. Your statement is factually wrong. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:{{{2|}}}| {{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <small> at 03:51, 7 December 2006 </small> |
|
|
:::Please remember one of Misplaced Pages non-negotiable policy ]. You first need to provide sources to support you view. I stand by my statement, the nation-state was formed in 1947. ] ] 08:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
] ] 13:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Himalayanashoka: You still haven't given us the citation. Again, the format is: author, year, title, publisher, and page number. I would add that, in general, high-school history text-books, like NCERT books, are not the most reliable sources for a Misplaced Pages Featured Article. College-level or research-level texts or journal articles are preferable. ]] 05:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::OK, then where's the article for pre-Independence India. Also just remember, this article is entitled India, not Republic of India in a similar way to ] as opposed to the ] article. ''']''' <sup></nowiki></font>]]</nowiki></font>]]</sup> 05:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: This is what I meant to say. When we say the India page it means right from zero to present. Should the France page be separated from the Fifth Republic (1960s), another one with Independence from Nazi Germany. All the facts presented in the Formation part of India page is linked in Misplaced Pages without requiring further references, and presented in a factually correct manner. In case we decide to change to the Formation part then we should change the pages of China, France, Germany too... ] 06:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::All I'm trying to say on this is that, please take the issue with the Govt of India. As long as it celebrates August 15 as the Independence day, you can't change that in this article. Thanks. --] 06:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::: This date of 15Aug47 was never changed in the Formation Infobox. But just as in the China page, France page, Germany page there is info related to formation, India must have a similar info, particularly with documented history going so far. CN, FR, DE were never geographically the same. Similarly India was also not the same. And it need not be repeated again that the whole culture has spawned from the Indus Valley Civilzn (ref Wkpd artcls).] 06:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Himalayanashoka: Apparently "European POV" authors are not the only ones who use the word "colonial," here are two Indian authors: |
|
|
*Nehru, Jawaharlal. 1946, 1985. . Oxford India Paperbacks. 548 pages. ISBN 0195623592. |
|
|
: "... part of the costs of transition to industrialism in western Europe were paid for by India, China, and the other '''colonial''' countries, whose economy was dominated by the European powers. It is obvious that there has been all along abundant material ..." p 300. |
|
|
|
|
|
*Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand. 1927, 1993. . Beacon Press. 528 pages. ISBN 0807059099. |
|
|
: "Another feature of the (Natal Indian) Congress was service of '''Colonial'''-born educated Indians. The '''Colonial'''-born Indian Education Association was founded under the auspices of the Congress." p 151. |
|
|
|
|
|
Still waiting for your citations ... |
|
|
]] 06:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Fowler&fowler as I have told earlier these references are from a period when Eurocentric thoughts had been imposed on the various parts of the world. This is no longer the truth and is 'not original research'. In any case to satisfy Misplaced Pages criteria and to denigrate Eurocentric POV. |
|
|
::: Gandhi: 'Hind Swaraj' and Other Writings (Cambridge Texts in Modern Politics) by Mohandas Gandhi, John Dunn, Geoffrey Hawthorn, and Mahatma Gandhi (Paperback - Jan 28, 1997) Page 26 "... the revolutionaries' view that physical expulsion of the British from India is the necessary and sufficient ..." |
|
|
:: Once again I may say that the India page must follow a Indic view or it has to follow a completely neutral view. Eurocentric views imposed at a certain period in history and thus its documented records, are not acceptable now. The sentence in dicussion should read "India emerged as a modern....expelled all non-natives...a single nation". The non-natives include the UK(GB), PT, FR who were thrown out by both non-violence and force.] 07:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The onus is on you to cite your sources. ] ] 08:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
This discussion is getting silly. Himalayanashoka a few points: |
|
|
* We have cited our sources. We are waiting for you to cite yours. Without that, and it seems you are still to do so despite repeated reminders, what you say will be <u>your personal</u> version, which we <u>cannot</u> accept. If you fail to do so, it will be considered to be ]. |
|
|
* Please do not be condescending to other users. Support your statements with credible sources and keep the discussion going without resorting to calling editors disparaging names. Continuing to do so will get you blocked. |
|
|
* See the defination of colony: ''In politics and in history, a colony is a territory under the immediate political control of a geographically-distant state.'' -- how is this statement a POV? |
|
|
* The history section mentions key events that occured in the territory that makes up the modern nation-state. |
|
|
* The modern nation-state was formed in 1947. Please see the defination of ] vs ]. |
|
|
* 'Expelled' makes little sense. They weren't forcibly thrown out. |
|
|
] ] 08:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: This discussion is important and not silly. |
|
|
: * Appropriate source has been cited (see reply to ] above). Its not about you personally have to accept. Nobody is cared about your personal opinion even if you have contributed to the site. |
|
|
: * It was not condescension. It was a befitting reply to wrong words such as "Period" "YES" etc, despite of whatsoever contributions one has made. |
|
|
: * As I have said earlier, "Colony" is a Eurocentric term and highly derogatory from an Asiatic or Indic view. One fails to see it because it has seeped deep. What you have given above is a dictionary meaning. Dictionary meanings are always neutral. It is how one interprets. In an FA Indic page one must write "Expulsion of non-natives" rather than the filthy sounding and derogatory "Colonised by..." The term "British" should also be properly denigrated in an Indic page without any POV. |
|
|
: * History: I once again say that it is the most recent history that's in one's mind. The less documented rich history must be emphasized. So the Formation part should be agreed upon with mutual consensus. |
|
|
: * You are correct about the term nation-state. I fully agree with you that the modern nation-state was formed in 1947. |
|
|
: * "Expelled" is a term perfect for an Indic page. It is to present an Asiatic/Indic view to others, when they read an Asiatic/Indic article. "Expelled" does not mean that one is thrown out forcibly. A diplomat also gets expelled, but it does not mean that he is beaten all the way to the airport. |
|
|
] 09:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
::Himalayanashoka: |
|
|
|
|
|
::Unfortunately, you didn't quote the complete sentence from the book <s>completely</s>. The book uses the word "expulsion" on two pages. Here are the full quotes: |
|
|
|
|
|
::* p 28. Footnote: "Here Gandhi '''attacks''' the revolutionaries' view that physical expulsion of the British is the necessary and sufficient condition of swaraj." |
|
|
|
|
|
::* p 73. "Editor: ... freeing others. Now you will have seen that it is not necessary for us to have as our goal the '''expulsion''' of the English. ..." |
|
|
|
|
|
::Note that in ''Hind Swaraj'', Gandhi is the "Editor" and his interlocutor, the "Reader." Your citation in fact makes exactly the opposite point--that the ''physical expulsion'' of the British was ''not'' the ''sine qua non'' of independence. |
|
|
|
|
|
::Please provide a citation that supports your argument. If you think all writing from Gandhi's time is constrained by the "European POV," then provide your own modern untrammeled sources. But Misplaced Pages needs sources, reliable ones. Until that citation arrives, all your eloquence, as I have stressed before, will come to naught. |
|
|
|
|
|
::]] 09:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: I very strongly suspect about your POVs. You seem to be bent towards searching and imposing only Eurocentric POVs to an Indic article to give it a negative and Euro-dominant image. It is also for you to search for Indic views, if you weant to polish up the article in a positive way. Gandhi's views at that time is definitely constrained by Eurocentric POV. I again emphasize that the switch of the terms "Expelled" and "Colonised" does not further need any reference and search for the usage of words in books, since an Asiatic/Indic page must represent an Asiatic/Indic view. An Indic article will not be written from Eurocentric view with highly derogatory sentences such as "Colonised by..." This is not about eloquence, but factual truths required in an Indic page. No references is needed to switch the two words mentioned. The sentence should now be changed to "India emerged...expelled all non-natives....a single nation-state". The term "non-natives" is to denigrate the word "British" without any POV. ] 10:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
Himalayanashoka: OK, here are four sources. All Indian authors. All modern. All use words like "colonial" (which occurs on dozens of pages). All books are searchable on the websites. The last quote is lengthy because it makes an important point. Please read it carefully. |
|
|
*Goswami, Manu. 2004. . University of Chicago Press. 400 pages. ISBN 0226305090. |
|
|
:"The unprecedented expansion of the scope and scale of the colonial state followed the brutal repression of the rebellion of 1857-58 and the formal incorporation of colonial India into the British crown." |
|
|
*Guha-Thkurta, Tapati. 2004. . Columbia University Press. 404 pages. ISBN 023112998X. (Part I of the book is titled, "The Colonial Past.") |
|
|
*Chatterjee, Indrani. 2002. . Oxford University Press. 300 pages. ISBN 0195659066 |
|
|
*Philip, Kavita. 2003. . Rutgers University Press. 248 pages. ISBN 0813533619 |
|
|
:"Noting the successful transplantation of cinchona in the Nilgiris and looking forward to 'similar happy results ... other hill districts of Southern India,' Markham suggests, "Thus will the successful cultivation of the quinine-yielding chinchona-plants confer a great and lasting benefit upon the commerce of the whole world." Here the imperial scientist-explorer is the agent of civilization; through him nature's benefits are conferred upon mankind. The scientist speaks and acts on behalf of nature, and is willing to go to great lengths to defend it against the actions of those less scientifically savvy than himself. Thus we are to understand that the local skirmishes over property rights that mark the initial phase of the chinchona project are fought—although they might contravene the laws of less advanced nations—in the name of all humanity, including the natives of '''colonized''' nations, who, although not truly able to know and to nurture nature, are still worthy of receiving the fruits of civilization." |
|
|
|
|
|
The last quote is important, because although it uses the word "colonized," it is clearly resorting to some form of irony. Merely using "colonized" does not mean that one supports or condones any acts committed in the name of the word. Similarly, the sentence beginning "Colonised by the British East India Company..." does not mean that Misplaced Pages thinks it was a good thing or bad thing, but simply that it happened. |
|
|
|
|
|
Now it is your turn to provide some sources <s>for why we should use words like</s> that use the word "nonnative" generically for the British, and "expelled" for the Indian independence movement. I look forward to your citations.]] 12:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Fowler, Ragib, please ]. No point continuing with a pointless discussion. ] ] 14:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I have unprotected the page. Please remember the 3RR. ] ] 15:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::I don't like terms like "non-native expulsion". First of all, I have never heard it used in any scholarly textbook or anywhere until HimalayanAshoka came up with it. Secondly, the term evokes connotations of xenophobia, which the Indian Independence struggle was most certainly not. It was a peaceful struggle largely involving civil disobedience to negotiate the Independence of India from the Raj."Non-native expulsion" sounds like something from a rally of Neo-Nazi skinheads. I do not like it. I am ambivalent about the "colonized" word issue. ] 11:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Tibet == |
|
|
|
|
|
Tibet, which is currenty in control by China, is fighting for its freedom and has never agreed to this takeover. It is relevant to say, that the Tibetan governement in exile considers its country to be its country. Such as India considers Kashmir to be apart of the Indian Union. If we want to respect that Kashmir is apart of India, then we have to respect the fact that Tibet deserves the same treatment. It does not matter that China is in control of Tibet; that does not make it right nor justfied by the power of the gun. So, I claim that India shares a border with Tibet as it should and it could even state it is a so called Autonomous region of China but in order for us not to be overwhelmed by the negative Chinese influence, we need to admit this onto the India page. India shares a border with Tibet as it shares a border with Afghanistan. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 05:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> |
|
|
|
|
|
:We are differciating between a ] and ] when listing the countries tha border India. The ground situation is that the nation-state of PRC, which administers Tibet borders India. For his part, the Dalai Lama, the temporal and political head of Tibet has stated that he does not seek independence for Tibet ] ] 08:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Only Hong Kong and Macau can be separated as separate entities from the PRC. Other regions must follow the national Chinese boundary. Thus, India does not border Tibet, it borders the PRC. Also, Misplaced Pages is not a place for you to promote your personal agenda. And I don't know what world you live in, but the power of the gun and actual occupation is indeed the number one justification of territorial claims. Thus, Tibet's chance of independence from China is several thousand-fold less than Taiwan's. --] 23:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
Good Afternoon to all my respected editors, I have a suggestion that I want to add India's house speaker and chief justice name in the page because many countries has their house speaker and chief justice name in their wiki page like USA so as an Indian I want to add their names in the wiki page so what's your thoughts about this? Roni0102 (talk) 08:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages's claim that "Jana Gana Mana" is in Hindi is totally fake. Jana Gana Mana has been written by Bengali Nobel Literate Kabiguru Rabindranath Tagore in Sandhubhasa or Sanskritised Bengali. The Jana Gana Mana as it's sung is the original one not a translation of Hindi. Please kindly change it soon. 106.221.114.3 (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
I just saw now that India's vice president name was removed from there?? Why this position also internationally known so why it's removed so please add that name Roni0102 (talk) 15:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Corruption in India is perceived to have increased during the last decade. According to the Corruption Perceptions Index, India was ranked 78th out of 180 countries in 2018 with a score of 41 out of 100, an improvement from 85th in 2014, but has increased during the last decade as India now Ranks at 95th out of 180 countries listed with a score of 39 well below the global average of 42 as can be seen at this
https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2023/index/ind