Talk:Greater India - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NAHID (talk | contribs) at 17:32, 10 June 2009 (→Please: warning on misusing of rollback feature and edit summary). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:32, 10 June 2009 by NAHID (talk | contribs) (→Please: warning on misusing of rollback feature and edit summary)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Greater India article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

India: Geography Mid‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian geography workgroup.

Roughly analogous to modern South Asia

This article suggests that the term "Greater India" applies to a region that is roughly analogous to modern South Asia]]. If it is defined as being the area influenced by Indian religious thought, language, art and literature, then this is a very limited criteria. One would assume that "Greater India" could also refer to most of Southeast Asia (where several kingdoms had close ties with India) It is debatable whether such a term as "Greater India" enjoyed any usage before the modern era.

Tibet and Yunnan are not part of Greater India. I think if a distinction is to be made between Indian and non-Indian, it should be made on the basis of whether the people are Aryan-descent or Dravidian-descent or not. Otherwise the definition of Indian is very loose and can easily include the Burmese, Thais, Vietnamese, Javans, Malays, Cambodians, Guyanese, Trinidadian, Maldivian, Mauritians and many other nationalities who while not ethnically part of India share certain cultural values. 69.193.87.5 01:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Pan-nationalism?

greater india is listed here http://en.wikipedia.org/Pan-nationalism but it does not appear to be a nationalism movement but cultural influence similar to the overlapping chinese article. i propose a removal from that list to avoid the idea that there is "expansionism" or at least move it out, see the article of what i mean. 218.186.8.233 (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

merge proposals

I agree, merge both, this is the least loaded term. Chris 04:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose both suggestions. The term has different valid definitions and usage (even if many are historical). The article has now an adequate explanation of these. Tibet (and part at least of Yunnan) fit into some such definitions. Imc 13:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I take back part of the above. Indosphere could be sensibly included in this article. Imc 16:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It should be merged with "Indosphere" and perhaps "Undivided India".Scimitar2 19:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yunan and Tibet never a part of India

That's all! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.218.20.127 (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Sorry to butt in but Tibet has nothing in common with China either. At least the Tibetan script is an indic script and the Tibetan religion and culture have been significantly influenced by India. China has had absolutely np influence culturally or any other on TIbet before the communist invasion and occupation of Tibet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.148.8 (talk) 07:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sakes break it up and cease the nonsense. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 12:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Tibet

Tibet is part of Qing, Republic of China and then People's Republic of China. That's all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.188.90.194 (talk) 04:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sistan-Baluchistan never apart of India

Iranian Baluchistan has never been apart of India. Rather, it is Pakistani Baluchistan that is apart of Greater Iran. To India's west only the Pakistani provinces of Punjab and Sindh are linguistically, ethnically and cultrually related to India. As it stands this is a completely un-authentic and untrue article. "Greater India" extends all the way from Iran to Indonesia? Is that map intended to be a joke or what?

Oh and finally, Baluchistan and Pakistan's NWFP are not apart of the Indian subcontinent. Both lie on the Iranian plateau. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.12.107.88 (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Sorry NWFP is very much part of the subcontinent. Before the 10th century Gandhara was very much in the Indian cultural sphere with Hinduism adn Buddhism the dominant religions and an Indic language being spoken around the Kabul/ NWFP area —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.148.8 (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Precedence in Historiography?

What evidence is there that the term "Greater India" is (or was) commonly used in historiography? Of the three references in the article, two are web sites (that are hardly reliable) and the third, Susan Bayley's article, "‘Greater India’: French and Indian Visions of Colonialism in the Indic Mode" uses the term figuratively, and "explores both Western and Asian imaginings of national histories beyond the boundaries of the nation. It seeks to contribute to the history of Asian modernities, and to the anthropological study of nationalism. Its focus is on thinkers and political actors whose visions of both the colonising and decolonising processes were translocal, rather than narrowly territorial in scope." I see "Greater India" as a bogus term, without any real historiographical precedent. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever 'historiography' is, Greater India is a real and useful term, for an area with varying degrees of cultural or political unity at different times. There are enough references in the article, and more to be found elsewhere, in print and on the web. I've been coming across the term most of my life. Many people (see earlier comments) chose to confuse it with modern India; they may feel better if they confused it with modern Sind or the river Indus instead. The region could and does overlap with other cultural regions; e.g. the Chinese and Persian cultural regions. It does not detract from the validity of the term. Imc 15:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Historiography is the writing of history. It is not enough to claim to have come across the term "Greater India" during much of your lifetime. As I mention above, the references in the article are not enough. Two are web sites and not reliable; the third, uses the term figuratively, pointing out that it was a part of the early nationalistic imagining of history. No one is confusing "Greater India" with the current-day Republic of India, but rather as a projection into the past of current-day Indian nationalism. It is OK to have an article on "Greater India" and treat it as a term that was used in nationalistic writings, but it needs more reliably referenced for that. Until such time as that happens, I am reinserting the disputed tag. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 09:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, but this is an encyclopaedia, not a journal of historical research. Why don't you alter the article to take account of your concerns? Imc 19:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely right Fowler. "Greater India" is a wholly bogus term. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.12.107.88 (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

It is definitely not a very widely used term, but its use can often be found in academic works. Some examples.

Wales, H. G. Quaritch (1951) The Making of Greater India: A Study in Southeast Asian Culture Change. London: Bernard Quaritch.

Definition from the Journal of the Greater India Society, Calcutta,1934

The Art Of Greater India : "a selection of topflight objects which represent the major art expressions of India proper, Afghanistan, Nepal, Thailand, Cambodia and Java"

Scholberg, Henry, ed. The Biographical Dictionary of Greater India. New Delhi: Promilla & Co., 1998.

"The Religious Art of Greater India", three credit undergrad course at U. Conn on the monumental religious art of the Hindus, Buddhists and Jains on the Indian mainland (including Nepal) and the countries of S.E. Asia influenced by them.

"The sculpture of Greater India", Afghanistan to Vietnam, Nepal to Indonesia. Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin

"Bronzes of India and Greater India", Artibus Asiae, Vol 19, No.3/4.

etc. Note, however, that the term is more commonly used in geology, where it is used by geoscientists in plate tectonic models of the India–Asia collision system . We should have a section on the geological meaning. To my knowledge, this term has thankfully never been picked up by any kind of nationalists. Also, thankfully, I'm not the kind of editor who would "rv unilateral tagging" of others, so please remove it if you're convinced, or comment here if you're not. deeptrivia (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I will attend to this in the next few days. For the older meaning of the term in history itself, esp. nationalist narratives, I quote from Susan Bayley's article (MAS 2004, referenced in main article) below. The Greater India Society did have some influence on Art History, where the term survived a little longer.

“

My particular focus is a network of influential twentieth-century Indian scholars who wrote on nationalist cultural topics both before and after Independence. This was quite a disparate group of thinkers. Most were Hindu Bengalis with training in the humanist and social science disciplines, especially history and philology. Many also took a keen interest in new developments in other related fields, particularly in theories of human culture and the nature of the civilising process emanating from the work of anthropologists in both Europe and the United States. What they all had in common was their involvement in a Calcutta-based organisation known as the Greater India Society. From the 1920s until well into the post-Independence period, this body acted as a platform for the presentation of polemical and often provocative accounts of Indian culture as a supra-local civilising force.

The Greater India initiative has left an enduring legacy which can still be discerned in a wide range of contemporary thinking about Asian identities and cultural allegiances. Many—though not all—of its original supporters were ardent Hindu nationalists. Present-day Hindu supremacists still recapitulate some of their key formulations.

”

Fowler&fowler «Talk» 05:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

PS Actually, on second thoughts, I don't have enough time right now to do justice to the article. I have therefore removed the disputed tag. Please feel free to add the geophysical definition. Thanks. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 06:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC) Will add something to the article. Have removed the disputed tag. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The new additions are mostly original research, which should be reverted right away. There are plenty of references showing a wider use of the term in history in general and art history in particular continuing till today. The "Greater India initiative" is obviously about the initiatives of the Greater India Society, which ceases to exist today, but this doesn't have anything to do with this term. Please refrain from extrapolations and original research. deeptrivia (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing there was original research. All from Bayley's article and Guha-Thakurta's book etc. But anyway, I don't have the time to bicker. Please edit and alter in whatever way you want. I am saving my version (in case of future need) in the collapsible box below. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for sounding that way. Of course, the current version is way better than anything we could have achieved without you. Cheers, deeptrivia (talk) 03:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

And, in turn, thanks for your input. I learnt something as a result of your questioning: accounts of old nautical voyages often described countries in terms of coastlines, rather than hinterlands. This, of course, only makes sense, but can sound funny in light of modern knowledge. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 10:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler's version: Expand to see contents

The term Greater India has several related meanings:

In medieval literature: the term "Greater India" (Indyos mayores) has been used at least since the mid 15th century. The term, which seems to have been used with variable precision, sometimes meant only the Indian subcontinent. However, in other European writings, "Greater India" (or "India Major") extended from the Malabar coast to India extra Gangem (lit. "India, beyond the Ganges," but usually the East Indies) and "India Minor," from Malabar coast to Sind.
In late 19th century Geography: The term "Greater India" included: "(a) Himalaya, (b) Punjab, (c) Hindustan, (d) Burma, (e) Indo-China, (f) Sunda Islands, (g) Borneo, (h) Celebes, and (i) Philippines." (Similarly "Greater Australia" included "(a) West Australla, (b) East Australia, (c) New Zealand, (d) Melanesia, (e) Micronesia, (f) Polynesia.")
In 20th century history, art history, linguistics, and allied fields: consisted of "all the Asian lands including Burma, Java, Cambodia, Bali, and the former Champa and Funan polities of present-day Vietnam," in which pre-Islamic Indian culture left an "imprint in the form of monuments, inscriptions and other traces of the historic ‘Indianising’ process." In some accounts, many Pacific societies and "most of the Buddhist world including Ceylon, Tibet, central Asia and even Japan were held to fall within this web of Indianising ‘culture colonies’" This particular usage (implying cultural "sphere of influence" of India) does not go back to before the 1920s, and lasted well into the 1970s in history and later in other fields.
In late-20 century geoscience: the term is used to mean "the Indian sub-continent plus a postulated northern extension," in plate tectonic models of the India–Asia collison. Although its usage in geoscience pre-dates plate tectonic theory, the term has seen increased usage since the 1970s.

Usage in History

The third meaning of "Greater India" (as a cultural sphere of influence) was popularized by a network of Bengali scholars in the 1920s who were all members of the Calcutta-based Greater India Society. The movement's early leaders included the historian R.C. Majumdar (1888–1980); the philologists Suniti Kumar Chatterji (1890–1977) and P.C. Bagchi (1898–1956), the historians Phanindranath Bose and Kalidas Nag (1891–1966). The Greater India Society scholars postulated a benevolent ancient Indian cultural colonization of South-east Asia, in stark contrast—in their view—to the colonialism of the early 20th century.

“

"The ancient Hindus of yore were not simply a spiritual people, always busy with mystical problems and never troubling themselves with the questions of ‘this world’ . . . India also has its Napoleons and Charlemagnes, its Bismarcks and Machiavellis. But the real charm of Indian history does not consist in these aspirants after universal power, but in its peaceful and benevolent Imperialism—a unique thing in the history of mankind. The colonisers of India did not go with sword and fire in their hands; they used . . . the weapons of their superior culture and religion the world under their sway. Wherever they went, they conquered the world through their culture . . . . This fascinating and forgotten chapter of Indian history is being gradually reconstructed by the constant efforts of Indologists . . . .The Buddhist age has attracted special attention, and the French savants have taken much pains to investigate the splendid monuments of the Indian cultural empire in the Far East."

”

The term was used in historical writing in India well into the 1970s. For example, the fifteenth chapter of the popular text-book, An Advanced History of India. titled, "Colonial and Cultural Expansion (of Ancient India)", and written by R. C. Majumdar, concluded with:

“

We may conclude with a broad survey of the Indian colonies in the Far East. For nearly fifteen hundred years, and down to a period when the Hindus had lost their independence in their own home, Hindu kings were ruling over Indo-China and the numerous islands of the Indian Archipelago, from Sumatra to New Guinea. Indian religion, Indian culture, Indian laws and Indian government moulded the lives of the primitive races all over this wide region, and they imbibed a more elevated moral spirit and a higher intellectual taste through the religion, art, and literature of India. In short, the people were lifted to a higher plane of civilization. A greater India was established by a gentle fusion of races, which richly endowed the original inhabitants with the spiritual heritage of India.... The colonial and cultural expansion of India is one of the most brilliant, but forgotten, episodes of Indian history, of which any Indian may justly feel proud."

”

In the field of Art History, especially in American writings on the Indian Art History, the term survived longer due to the influence of art theorist Ananda Coomaraswamy. Coomaraswamy's view of pan-Indian art history was influenced by the "Calcutta cultural nationalists."

Notes

^ (Azurara 1446) harv error: no target: CITEREFAzurara1446 (help)
(Beazley 1910, p. 708) harv error: no target: CITEREFBeazley1910 (help) Quote: "Azurara's hyperbole, indeed, which celebrates the Navigator Prince as joining Orient and Occident by continual voyaging, as transporting to the extremities of the East the creations of Western industry, does not scruple to picture the people of the Greater and the Lesser India welcoming his ships (which never passed beyond Sierra Leone), praising his generosity, and even experiencing his hospitality."
(Beazley 1910, p. 708) harv error: no target: CITEREFBeazley1910 (help) Quote: "Among all the confusion of the various Indies in Mediaeval nomenclature, "Greater India" can usually be recognized as restricted to the "India proper" of the modern world."
(Caverhill 1767) harv error: no target: CITEREFCaverhill1767 (help)
^ "Review: New Maps," (1912) Bulletin of the American Geographical Society 44(3): 235-240.
^ (Bayley 2005, p. 713) harv error: no target: CITEREFBayley2005 (help)
(Ali & Aitchison 2005, p. 170) harv error: no target: CITEREFAliAitchison2005 (help)
Argand, E., 1924. La tectonique de l' Asie. Proc. 13th Int. Geol. Cong. 7 (1924), 171–372.
(Bayley 2005, p. 710) harv error: no target: CITEREFBayley2005 (help)
(Bayley 2005, p. 712) harv error: no target: CITEREFBayley2005 (help)
Review by ‘SKV’ of The Hindu Colony of Cambodia by Phanindranath Bose in The Vedic Magazine and Gurukula Samachar 26: 1927, pp. 620–1.
(Majumdar 1960, pp. 222–223) harv error: no target: CITEREFMajumdar1960 (help)
(Guha-Thakurta 1992, pp. 159–167) harv error: no target: CITEREFGuha-Thakurta1992 (help)

References

I am somewhat confused by the disambiguation-page style of the current lede. Apart from the geological meaning, which I suppose should be dealt with by true disambiguation ({{otheruses}}), I have the impression this is "pseudo-disambiguation", discussing various aspects and historical deveolpment of one and the same notion. Bayley's article, I am sorry to say, reads like so much meaningless postmodernist drivel, and while we can certainly refer to it, I would recommend against using it as a significant support of how to arrange this article. --dab (𒁳) 09:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding China

The two provinces of China are slightly influenced by India and neither was ever a part of India. Culturally it is much like the rest of China. So you either include all of China or none of it.

All of China should be put under Greater India. Buddhism and its teachings is widespread throughout China. Suitofhearts 03:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:CITE says we "put under Greater India" whatever we can establish our sources put under Greater India, there is no "should". --dab (𒁳) 09:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to make a nationalistic point? If you really believe that doing such pointless things on Misplaced Pages such as adding cultural claims, then my good comrade you are mistaken. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 12:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Indosphere

This should be merged with the article "Greater India".

What does Tibet, especially Yunnan region in China has anything to do with Indosphere? Is this another pathetic attempt to promote the India as a super power propaganda?

Tibet is so clearly heavily influence by Indian culture. Tibet's writing system, its architecture, religion, although its clothing and certain aspects like the roof of building came from China. Yunnan is even easier to explain. The Yunnanese compose of many tribes, many of which are practitioners of theravada buddhism. Their architecture and dress are nearly identical to those of Thailand and Laos. CanCanDuo 18:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Strong support. The Indosphere is a very weak concept, almost devoid of scholarship, and barely used in popular culture. Highly suspect. Should we have an "Americanisphere" as well? That would be huge. But why not also an "ElSalvadorisphere?" El Salvador influences its neighbors and even the USA. How do you define what's in and what's out? You can't. It has no scientific basis. I vote to merge it. There's a nasty tendency (though well intentioned I'm sure) to promote big countries like India, CHina, and the USA and speak of their influence on others, but not the other way around. It's an inadvertent form of cultural imperialism. --Smilo Don 03:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If the term "Indosphere" exists as it's self a concept, then it belongs on Misplaced Pages. You are an Ignoramous. 67.190.27.113 19:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Josh Van Maren

Merge, obviously. Misplaced Pages isn't a dictionary, and it is perfectly common to merge discussion of closely related terms into a single article. --dab (𒁳) 09:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The Indo-centric jingoism has been curbed out to make way for a scientific concept. It has nothing to with cultural imperialism anymore. Aditya 04:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Strong support for merge. There is no use for political debating here. The two are synonymous, as I don't think anyone in this argument has actually disputed. 78.149.175.48 (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No, dear. It's been solved. The Indosphere now stands as an article on a sprachbund, and has nothing to do with a greater India. Aditya 16:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Nepal was never a part of India!!

What the hell is that in the map with blue colour on Nepals territory. This is just not right!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.33.166.40 (talk) 07:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You have to be clear on what you mean by "India." Mitsube (talk) 07:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Punjab?

Okay. It lists that Punjab, Hindustan, Burma...... were all part of greater India. But if I'm not mistaken, Punjab was part of Hindustan. Right? Deavenger (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Depends on what you call Hindustan and which period in history you're discussing. Aditya 03:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Please

Before you make drastic judgments about people and drastic changes to article coming out of the blue, please, discuss why you think you had to make the change. Aditya 15:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, Aditya, please be very careful about reverting other edits while using rollback feature. Don't misuse this feature further, like the one you made here. Rollback supposed be used only for reverting vandalism. The edit made by User:King Zebu was not vandalism. Also your judgmental tone in this edit summary, indicates incivility--NAHID 17:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Categories: