text:
Adygea

The Republic of Adygea,  also known as the Adygean Republic, is a republic of Russia. It is situated in the North Caucasus of Eastern Europe. The republic is a part of the Southern Federal District, and covers an area of 7600 km2, with a population of roughly 496,934 residents. It is an enclave within Krasnodar Krai and is the fifth-smallest Russian federal subject by area. Maykop is the capital and the largest city of Adygea, home to one-third of the republic's population.

Adygea is one of Russia's ethnic republics, primarily representing the indigenous Circassian people that form 25% of the Republic's population, while Russians form a majority at 60%, and with minority populations of Armenians and Ukrainians. The official languages of Adygea are Adyghe and Russian.

History

The Cherkess (Adyghe) Autonomous Oblast was established within the Russian SFSR on July 27, 1922, on the territories of the Kuban-Black Sea Oblast, primarily settled by the Adyghe people. At that time, Krasnodar was the administrative center. It was renamed Adyghe (Cherkess) Autonomous Oblast on August 24, 1922, soon after its creation. In the first two years of its existence the autonomous oblast was a part of the Russian SFSR, but on October 17, 1924, it was transferred to the jurisdiction of the newly created North Caucasus Krai within the RSFSR.

It was renamed Adyghe Autonomous Oblast (AO) in July 1928. On January 10, 1934, the autonomous oblast became part of the new Azov-Black Sea Krai, which was removed from North Caucasus Krai. Maykop was made the administrative center of the autonomous oblast in 1936. Adyghe AO became part of Krasnodar Krai when it was established on September 13, 1937.

On July 3, 1991, the oblast was elevated to the status of a republic under the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation. The first President of the republic was Aslan Dzharimov, elected on 5 January 1992.

Relations between the Adyghe and ethnic Russians in Adygea are currently good. Russians make up two-thirds of the population within Adygea. The current Head of Adygea is Murat Kumpilov.

Geography
Adygea lies in Russia's Southern Federal District of Eastern Europe, in the foothills of the Northwestern Caucasus in the Caucasus Mountains System, with plains in the northern areas and mountains in the southern area. Forests (mainly of European beech, oak, and maple) cover almost 40% of its territory.
 * Area — 7792 km2.
 * Borders — the Republic of Adygea is entirely surrounded by Krasnodar Krai.
 * Highest point — Chugush Mountain: 3238 m.

Rivers
The 870 km long Kuban River is one of the major navigable rivers in the Caucasus region. It forms part of the northern border between the Republic of Adygea and Krasnodar Krai. Other rivers include:
 * Belaya River
 * Chokhrak River
 * Dakh River
 * Fars River
 * Khodz River
 * Kisha River
 * Bolshaya Laba River — (forming part of the eastern border between Adygea and Krasnodar Krai)
 * Psekups River
 * Pshish River
 * Sakhray River
 * Sukhoy Kurdzhips River — flows near the archaeological site at Mezmaiskaya cave.

Lakes
The republic has no large lakes. However, the several large reservoirs include:
 * Krasnodarskoye Reservoir
 * Oktyabrskoye Reservoir
 * Shapsugskoye Reservoir
 * Tshchitskoye Reservoir

Mountains
The republic's major mountains and peaks range in height from 2000 - 3238 m, and include:
 * Chugush Mountain — 3238 m
 * Mount Fisht — 2868 m
 * Oshten Mountain
 * Pseashkho Mountain
 * Shepsi Mountain

Natural resources
The republic is rich in oil and natural gas. Other natural resources include gold, silver, tungsten, and iron.

Climate

 * Average January temperature: -0.5 C
 * Average July temperature: +23 C
 * Average annual precipitation: 70 cm

February 15, 2010, recorded the absolute maximum for the winter months—in the capital, the city of Maykop, the temperature was 23.4 C.

Politics
The chief executive of the government of the Republic of Adygea is the Head (called "President" until May 2011), who is appointed for a five-year term. Proficiency in the Adyghe language is a prerequisite for the candidate.

The current Head, Murat Kumpilov (since January 27, 2017), succeeded Aslan Tkhakushinov, initially as acting Head of the region. There is also a directly elected State Council (Khase or Xase—not to be confused with the Adyghe Khase, a union of Adyghe who supported Sovmen for a second term), which comprises the Council of Representatives and the Council of the Republic. Both councils are elected every five years and have 27 deputies each.

The Republic sends three representatives to the parliament of the Russian Federation; one to the State Duma and the other two to the Federation Council.

The Constitution of the Republic of Adygea was adopted on May 14, 1995.

Divisions

The Republic of Adygea is administratively divided into seven districts (raions), two cities/towns, and (at a lower administrative level) five urban-type settlements. Municipally, the republic is divided into two urban okrugs, five urban settlements, and 46 rural settlements.

 * Note "м.р." above is an abbreviation for "муниципальный район" (Municipal District)

Demographics

 * Population:

 * Life expectancy:

Vital statistics

 * Source: Russian Federal State Statistics Service

Ethnic groups
According to the 2021 Census, ethnic Russians make up 64.4% of the republic's total population, while the ethnic Adyghe are 25.7%. Other groups include Armenians (3.3%), Kurds (1.2%), Romani people (0.7%) and Ukrainians (0.6%).

 * 50,304 people were registered from administrative databases, and could not declare an ethnicity. It is estimated that the proportion of ethnicities in this group is the same as that of the declared group.
 * 1) Including 397 Kabardins and 16,133 Cherkess.

Religions

According to a 2012 survey which interviewed 56,900 people 35.4% of the population of Adygea adheres to the Russian Orthodox Church, 23.6% to Islam, 3% are unaffiliated Christians and 1% are Orthodox Christian believers who do not belong to church or are members of other Orthodox churches. In addition, 19.8% of the population declares to be "spiritual but not religious" 8% is atheist, and 8.6% follows other religions or did not answer to the question.

Education
Adyghe State University and Maykop State Technological University, both in the capital Maykop, are the two major higher education facilities in Adygea.

Economy
Even though it is one of the poorest parts of Russia, the republic has abundant forests and rich soil. The region is famous for producing grain, sunflowers, tea, tobacco, and other produce. Hog and sheep breeding are also developed.

Food, timber, woodworking, pulp and paper, heavy engineering, and metal-working are the most developed industries.

Transportation
There is a small airport in Maykop (ICAO airport code URKM). Several rail lines pass through the republic.

Culture
The Adyghe language (Адыгабзэ) is a member of the Northwest Caucasian language family. Along with Russian, Adyghe is the official language of the republic.

There are 8 state and 23 public museums in the republic. The largest museum is the National Museum of the Republic of Adygea in Maykop.

Notable people

 * Anatoly Berezovoy (1942—2014), Soviet pilot/cosmonaut.
 * Aslan Dzharimov (born 1936), first president of the Republic of Adygea.
 * Anna Kareyeva (born 1977), handball player.
 * Mukharby Kirzhinov (born 1949), weightlifter.
 * Andrei Kobenko (born 1982), footballer.
 * Nikita Kucherov (born 1993), ice hockey player.
 * Vladimir Nevzorov (born 1952), judoka.
 * Hazret Sovmen (born 1937), second president of the Republic of Adygea.
 * Aslan Tkhakushinov (born 1947), third president of the Republic of Adygea.
 * Aslan Tlebzu (born 1981), Adyghe folk musician.
 * Konstantin Vasilyev (1942—1976), painter.

title: Adygea


text:
India national cricket team

The India men's national cricket team represents India in men's international cricket. It is governed by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), and is a Full Member of the International Cricket Council (ICC) with Test, One Day International (ODI) and Twenty20 International (T20I) status. India are the current Twenty20 World Champions.

The team has played 579 Test matches, winning 178, losing 178, 222 draw and 1 tie. As of July 2024, India is ranked second in the ICC Test Championship on 120 rating points. India has played the finals of the ICC World Test Championship in the first two editions (2021 and 2023).

Test rivalries include the Border-Gavaskar Trophy (with Australia), Freedom Trophy (with South Africa), Anthony de Mello Trophy and Pataudi Trophy (with England).

The team has played 1,055 ODI matches, winning 559, losing 443, tying 9 and with 44 ending in a no-result. As of July 2024, India is ranked first in the ICC ODI Championship on 122 rating points. India have appeared in the World Cup final four times 1983, 2003, 2011, 2023 and won twice in 1983 and 2011. It was the second team (after the West Indies) to win the World Cup, and the first to win the competition on home soil after winning it in 2011. India have also won two ICC Champions trophies in 2002 and 2013. In addition, they have also won the ODI Asia Cup 7 times in 1984, 1988, 1990–91, 1995, 2010, 2018, 2023.

The team has played 232 Twenty20 International matches, winning 152, losing 69, tying 5 and with 6 ending in a no-result. As of July 2024, India is ranked first in the ICC T20I Championship on 267 rating points. India have won the ICC Men's T20 World Cup twice in 2007 and 2024. They have also won the Twenty20 Asia Cup in 2016 and Asian Games in 2022.

India are the reigning T20 World Cup Champions winning the championship in 2024 against South africa.

Early history (1700s–1918)
The British brought cricket to India in the early 1700s, with the first cricket match played in 1721. It was played and adopted by Kolis of Gujarat because they were sea pirates and outlaws who always loot the British ships so East India Company tried to manage the Kolis in cricket and been successful. In 1848, the Parsi community in Mumbai formed the Oriental Cricket Club, the first cricket club to be established by Indians. After slow beginnings, the Europeans eventually invited the Parsis to play a match in 1877. By 1912, the Parsis, Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims of Bombay played a quadrangular tournament with the Europeans every year. In the early 1900s, some Indians went on to play for the England cricket team. Some of these, such as Ranjitsinhji and Duleepsinhji were greatly appreciated by the British and their names went on to be used for the Ranji Trophy and Duleep Trophy – two major first-class tournaments in India. In 1911, an Indian men's cricket team, captained by Bhupinder Singh of Patiala, went on their first official tour of the British Isles, but only played English county teams and not the England cricket team.

Test match status (1918–1970)

India was invited to the International Cricket Council in 1926, and made their debut as a Test playing nation in England in 1932, led by CK Nayudu, who was considered the best Indian batsman at the time. The one-off Test match between the two sides was played at Lord's in London. The team was not strong in their batting at this point and went on to lose by 158 runs. India hosted its first men's Test cricket series in 1933. England was the visiting team that played two Tests in Bombay (now Mumbai) and Calcutta (now Kolkata). The visitors won the series 2–0. The Indian team continued to improve throughout the 1930s and 1940s but did not achieve an international victory during this period. In the early 1940s, India did not play any men's Test cricket due to World War II. The team's first series as an independent country was in late 1947 against Don Bradman's Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (a name given to the Australia national cricket team of that time). It was also the first Test series India played which was not against England. Australia men's cricket team won the five-match series 4–0, with Bradman tormenting the Indian bowling in his final Australian summer. India subsequently played their first Test series at home not against England, but against the West Indies in 1948. West Indies won the five Test series 1–0. India recorded their first Test victory, in their 24th match, against England at Madras in 1952. Later in the same year, they won their first Test series, which was against Pakistan. They continued their improvement throughout the early 1950s with a series win against New Zealand in 1956. However, they did not win again in the remainder of the decade and lost badly to strong Australian and English sides. On 24 August 1959, India lost by an innings in the Test to complete the only 5–0 whitewash ever inflicted by England. The next decade saw India's reputation develop as a team with a strong record at home. They won their first Test series against England at home in 1961–62 and also won a home series against New Zealand. They managed to draw home series against Pakistan and Australia and another series against England. In this same period, India also won its first series outside the subcontinent, against New Zealand in 1967–68.

The key to India's bowling in the 1970s were the Indian spin quartet – Bishan Singh Bedi, E. A. S. Prasanna, B. S. Chandrasekhar and Srinivasaraghavan Venkataraghavan. This period also saw the emergence of two of India's best ever batsmen, Sunil Gavaskar and Gundappa Viswanath. Indian pitches have had the tendency to support spin and the spin quartet exploited this to create collapses in opposing batting line-ups. These players were responsible for the back-to-back series wins in 1971 in the West Indies and in England, under the captaincy of Ajit Wadekar. Gavaskar scored 774 runs in the West Indian series while Dilip Sardesai's 112 played a big part in their one Test win.

One-day cricket and ICC Cricket World Cup success (1970–1985)
The advent of men's One Day International (ODI) cricket in 1971 created a new dimension in the cricket world. However, India was not considered strong in ODIs at this point and batsmen such as the captain Gavaskar were known for their defensive approach to batting. India began as a weak team in ODIs and did not qualify for the second round in the first two editions of the Cricket World Cup. Gavaskar infamously blocked his way to 36 not out off 174 balls against England in the first World Cup in 1975; India scored just 132 for 3 and lost by 202 runs.

In contrast, India fielded a strong team in Test matches and was particularly strong at home, where their combination of stylish batsmen and beguiling spinners were at their best. India set a then Test record in the third Test against the West Indies at Port-of-Spain in 1976, when they chased 403 to win, thanks to 112 from Viswanath. In November 1976, the team established another record by scoring 524 for 9 declared against New Zealand at Kanpur without any individual batsman scoring a century. There were six fifties, the highest being 70 by Mohinder Amarnath. This innings was only the eighth instance in Test cricket where all eleven batsmen reached double figures. During the 1980s, India developed a more attack-minded batting line-up with stroke makers such as the wristy Mohammad Azharuddin, Dilip Vengsarkar and all-rounders Kapil Dev and Ravi Shastri. India won the Cricket World Cup in 1983, defeating the favourites and the two-time defending champions West Indies in the final at Lord's, owing to a strong bowling performance. In spite of this, the team performed poorly in the Test arena, including 28 consecutive Test matches without a victory. In 1984, India won the Asia Cup and in 1985, won the World Championship of Cricket in Australia. Apart from this, India remained a weak team outside the Indian subcontinent. India's Test series victory in 1986 against England remained the last Test series win by India outside the subcontinent for the next 19 years. The 1980s saw Gavaskar and Kapil Dev (India's best all-rounder to date) at the pinnacle of their careers. Gavaskar made a Test record 34 centuries as he became the first man to reach the 10,000 run mark. Kapil Dev later became the highest wicket-taker in Test cricket with 434 wickets. The period was also marked by an unstable leadership, with Gavaskar and Kapil exchanging the captaincy several times.

Late 20th century (1985–2000)
The addition of Sachin Tendulkar and Anil Kumble to the national side in 1989 and 1990 further improved the team. The following year, Javagal Srinath, India's fastest bowler since Amar Singh made his debut. Despite this, during the 1990s, India did not win any of its 33 Tests outside the subcontinent while it won 17 out of its 30 Tests at home. After being eliminated by neighbours Sri Lanka on home soil at the 1996 Cricket World Cup semi-final, the team underwent a year of change as Sourav Ganguly and Rahul Dravid, later to become captains of the team, made their debut in the same Test at Lord's. Tendulkar replaced Azharuddin as captain in late 1996, but after a personal and team form slump, Tendulkar relinquished the captaincy and Azharuddin was reinstated at the beginning of 1998. After failing to reach the semi-finals at the 1999 Cricket World Cup, Tendulkar was again made captain, and had another poor run, losing 3–0 on a tour of Australia and then 2–0 at home to South Africa. Tendulkar resigned, vowing never to captain the team again.

21st century
The team was further damaged in 2000 when former captain Azharuddin and fellow batsman Ajay Jadeja were implicated in a match-fixing scandal and given life and five-year bans respectively. This period was described by the BBC as "the Indian cricket's worst hour". However, the new core – Tendulkar, Dravid, Kumble and Ganguly – swore not to let this happen to them again, and led Indian cricket out of the dark times. The first three put aside personal ambitions to let Ganguly lead them into a new era.

The Indian team underwent major improvements under the captaincy of Ganguly and the guidance of John Wright, India's first foreign coach. In the Kolkata Test match, India became only the third team in the history of Test cricket to win a Test match after following on. Australian captain Steve Waugh labelled India as the "Final Frontier" because of his side's inability to win a Test series in India. In 2002, India were joint-winners of the ICC Champions Trophy with Sri Lanka and then went to the 2003 Cricket World Cup in South Africa, where they reached the final, only to be beaten by Australia. A convincing ODI series win in Pakistan in early 2006, following a loss in the Test series, gave India the world record of 17 successive ODI victories while batting second.

In September 2007, India won the first-ever ICC Men's T20 World Cup held in South Africa, beating Pakistan by five runs in the final. On 2 April 2011, India won the 2011 Cricket World Cup by defeating Sri Lanka in the final, thus becoming the third team after West Indies and Australia to win the World Cup twice. India also became the first team to win the World Cup on home soil. India defeated England in the 2013 ICC Champions Trophy final and captain M. S. Dhoni became the first men's cricket team captain in history to win the three major ICC trophies, namely the Cricket World Cup, ICC Men's T20 World Cup and ICC Champions Trophy. In the 2014 ICC Men's World Twenty20 hosted in Bangladesh, India narrowly missed out on another ICC trophy by losing to Sri Lanka in the final. India was knocked out of the 2015 Cricket World Cup in the semi-final to eventual winners Australia. India then began 2016 by winning the 2016 Asia Cup, remaining unbeaten throughout the tournament. The team were favourites to win the 2016 ICC World Twenty20, which was being held at home, but lost in the semi-final to eventual champions West Indies. India defeated Pakistan in their first game of the 2017 ICC Champions Trophy but lost to the same opponents in the final, the first time they had met at this stage of a tournament since 2007.

The Indian team's next major global tournament was the 2019 Cricket World Cup where the team finished first in the group stage with seven wins and only one loss which came against host nation England. They made the semis but lost to New Zealand by 18 runs. Rohit Sharma was the highest run-scorer for the team with 648 runs. India played the 2021 ICC World Test Championship Final against New Zealand in Southampton in which they lost by eight wickets. India qualified for the semi-finals in the 2022 T20 World Cup, but lost to England by ten wickets.

After a 3–1 series win against Australia on home soil. India played the 2023 ICC World Test Championship final against Australia at The Oval in which they lost by 209 runs. India went on to win the 2023 Asia Cup final against Sri Lanka in R. Premadasa Stadium by ten wickets. Kuldeep Yadav was the player of the tournament with nine wickets. Meanwhile, the Indian men's cricket team secured a gold medal in 2022 Asian games due to higher seeding after the final against Afghanisthan was washed out.

India had an unbeaten campaign in the 2023 Cricket World Cup, starting with a win over Australia with six wickets. They stormed into the final after a strong win against Sri Lanka by 302 runs, and then won their semi-final against New Zealand by 70 runs. The game was marked by Virat Kohli becoming the first to ever achieve 50 ODI Centuries, surpassing the previous record set by Sachin Tendulkar. As well, Mohammed Shami took the best bowling figues for an Indian in the ODI World Cup, 7/57. However, they were ultimately defeated in the final by Australia by the same margin of wickets they beat them with by wickets, six wickets. Virat Kohli was the highest run scorer of the ODI World Cup with 765 runs, the most ever in a single edition of the World Cup.

India won the 2024 T20 World Cup by defeating South Africa in the final. They became the third team after England and West Indies to win the cup twice and also the first team to win the tournament undefeated. Arshdeep Singh was the joint-highest wicket taker at 17 wickets.

Governing body
The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is the governing body for the Indian cricket team and first-class cricket in India. The Board has been operating since 1929 and represents India at the International Cricket Council (ICC). Its headquarters is situated in the 'Cricket centre' at Churchgate in Mumbai, Maharashtra. Amongst the richest sporting organisations in the world, it sold media rights for India's matches from 2006 to 2010 for $612,000,000. Roger Binny is present BCCI president and Jay Shah is secretary.

The International Cricket Council determines India's upcoming matches through its future tours program. However, the BCCI, with its influential financial position in the cricketing world, has often challenged the ICC's program and called for more series between India, Australia and England which are more likely to earn more revenue as opposed to tours with Bangladesh or Zimbabwe. In the past, the BCCI has also come into conflict with the ICC regarding sponsorships.

Selection committee
Selection for the Indian cricket team occurs through the BCCI's zonal selection policy, where each of the five zones is represented by one selector and one of the members nominated by BCCI as the chairman of the selection committee. This has sometimes led to controversy as to whether these selectors are biased towards their zones.

Until 18 November 2022, Chetan Sharma was the chief selector and Debashish Mohanty, Harvinder Singh and Sunil Joshi were members. The entire panel was sacked after the unsuccessful performance of the team in 2022 ICC Men's T20 World Cup.

On 7 January 2023, Sharma was again appointed as the chief selector along with Shiv Sunder Das, Subroto Banerjee, Salil Ankola, and Sridharan Sharath.

On 17 February 2023, Sharma resigned from his post after a sting operation by a private news channel saw him make several loose comments on the Indian team with Shiv Sunder Das replacing him and acting as an interim chief selector.

On 4 July 2023, Ajit Agarkar was appointed as the new chief selector and replaced Sharma. He joined Das, Banerjee, Ankola and Sharath on the selection committee.

Team colours
India plays its Test cricket matches with the traditional cricket whites with navy blue caps and helmets. The uniforms worn in limited-overs matches have different shades of blue for ODIs and T20Is, with sometimes a splash of the colours that are present in the Indian flag.

During the 1992 and 1999 Cricket World Cups, the Indian team's kit was sponsored by ISC and ASICS respectively, but had been without an official kit sponsor until 2001. With no official kit sponsor for the Indian team, Omtex manufactured the shirts and pants for the team, while some players chose to wear pants provided to them by their individual sponsors like Adidas and Reebok until December 2005.

In December 2005, Nike outbid its competitors Adidas and Reebok, and acquired the contract for five years which started in January 2006 ahead of Indian team's tour to Pakistan. Nike was a long time kit supplier to team India with two extensions for a period of five years each time; in 2011 and 2016 respectively.

After Nike ended its contract in September 2020, MPL Sports Apparel & Accessories, a subsidiary of online gaming platform Mobile Premier League replaced Nike as the kit manufacturer in November 2020 ahead of Indian team's tour to Australia, which was supposed to run until December 2023.

In November 2022, MPL Sports decided to exit the deal before the end of their contract and hand over their rights to Kewal Kiran Clothing Limited (KKCL).

In January 2023, MPL appointed Kewal Kiran Clothing Limited (KKCL) and Killer Jeans (a brand owned by KKCL) as interim sponsors until May 2023.

In February 2023, it was announced that Adidas will begin a five-year sponsorship deal in June 2023 ahead of ICC World Test Championship final, replacing KKCL.

In May 2023, BCCI officially announced Adidas as their kit sponsor for the next five years running until March 2028.

Team sponsorship
Dream11 (Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd.) was announced as the sponsor for the team on 1 July 2023. Their sponsorship is supposed to run until 31 March 2026 for a period of three years.

Previously, BYJU's was the sponsor for the Indian team from 5 September 2019 until 31 March 2023, after OPPO handed over the rights to them.

OPPO's sponsorship was supposed to run from 2017 until 2022, but they handed over to BYJU's. On 7 March 2022, BYJU's extended its sponsorship for one year.

Previously, the Indian team has been sponsored by BYJU's from September 2019 until March 2023, OPPO from May 2017 until August 2019, Star India from January 2014 until March 2017, Sahara India Pariwar from June 2001 until December 2013 and ITC Limited (with Wills and ITC Hotels brands) from June 1993 until May 2001.

Official partners
On 9 January 2024, BCCI announced Campa and Atomberg Technologies as official partners for its domestic & international season during 2024–26.

On 20 September 2023, BCCI announced SBI Life as the official partner for its domestic & international season during 2023–26.

In August 2023, IDFC First Bank replaced Mastercard as the current title sponsor for all international and domestic matches played in India for the 2023–26 season.

The title sponsorship was initially given to Paytm for all matches played between 2015 and 2023 but they handed over to Mastercard in 2022.

On 30 August 2019, following the conclusion of the expression of interest process for official partners' rights, the BCCI announced that Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Dream11), LafargeHolcim (ACC Cements, and Ambuja Cements) and Hyundai Motors India Ltd. have acquired the official partners' rights for the BCCI International and Domestic matches during 2019–2023.

Disney Star and Airtel have been title sponsors previously.

Official broadcasters
Viacom18 is the official broadcaster until March 2028 for all the men's international and domestic matches played in India. Sports18 telecasts the international and domestic matches on TV, while it is live streamed on JioCinema as OTT (over the top) platform.

International grounds
There are numerous world-renowned cricket stadiums located in India. Most grounds are under the administration of various state cricket boards as opposed to being under the control of the BCCI. The Bombay Gymkhana was the first ground in India to host a full-scale cricket match featuring an Indian cricket team. This was between the Parsis and the Europeans in 1877. The first stadium to host a Test match in India was also the Gymkhana Ground in Bombay in 1933, the only Test it ever hosted. The second and third Tests in the 1933 series were hosted at Eden Gardens and Chepauk. The Feroz Shah Kotla Ground in Delhi was the first stadium to host a Test match after independence, a draw against the West Indies in 1948, the first of a five-Test series. There are 21 stadiums in India that have hosted at least one official Test match. In recent years, there has been an increase in the number of world-class cricket stadiums in India.

India currently has the world's largest cricket stadium. The Narendra Modi Stadium, is a cricket stadium in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India. Eden Gardens in Kolkata has hosted the most Tests, and also has the third-largest seating capacity of any cricket stadium in the world. Founded in 1864, it is one of the most historical stadiums in India, having hosted numerous historical and controversial matches. Other major stadiums in India include the Arun Jaitley Cricket Stadium, which was established in 1883 and hosted memorable matches including Anil Kumble's ten wickets in an innings haul against Pakistan.

The Bombay Gymkhana hosted the first Test match in India which is the only Test it has hosted to date. Wankhede Stadium, established in 1974, has a capacity to hold 33,000 spectators and is currently the most popular venue in the city. It has hosted 24 Test matches. It was the unofficial successor of the Brabourne Stadium, which is also located in Mumbai. Mumbai is often considered the cricketing capital of India because of its fans and the talent it produces (see Mumbai cricket team). Thus the stadium regularly hosts major Test matches. The M. A. Chidambaram Stadium in Chepauk is also considered to be an important historical Indian cricket ground, established in the early 1900s, and it was the site of India's first Test victory.

Captains
A total of 35 men have captained the Indian men's cricket team in at least one Test match, although only six have led the team in more than 25 matches, and six have captained the team in men's ODIs but not Tests. India's first captain of the men's cricket team was C. K. Nayudu, who led the team in four matches against England: one in England in 1932 and a series of three matches at home in 1933–34. Lala Amarnath, India's fourth captain of the men's cricket team and the first Indian to score a century in Test cricket while playing for India, led the team in its first Test match after Indian independence. He also captained the side to its first Test victory and first series win, both in a three-match series at home against Pakistan in 1952–53. From 1952 until 1961–62, India men's cricket team had a number of captains such as Vijay Hazare, Polly Umrigar and Nari Contractor.

The Nawab of Pataudi, Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi, was the men's team's captain for 36 Test matches from 1961–62 to 1969–70, returning for another four matches against West Indies in 1974–75. In the early years of his captaincy tenure, the team was whitewashed in the West Indies, England and Australia. However, in 1967–68, Pataudi led India men's cricket team on its maiden New Zealand tour, which ended in India winning the Test series 3–1. In 1970–71, Ajit Wadekar took over the captaincy from Pataudi. Under Wadekar's captaincy, India registered its first Test series win in the West Indies and England. India played its first men's ODI in 1974, also under his captaincy. India won its first men's ODI under the captaincy of Srinivasaraghavan Venkataraghavan in the 1975 Cricket World Cup, against East Africa. Between 1975–76 and 1978–79, Bishan Singh Bedi captained the team in 22 men's Tests and four ODIs, winning six Tests and one ODI.

Sunil Gavaskar took over as men's Test and ODI captain in 1978–79, leading India in 47 Test matches and 37 ODIs, winning nine Tests and 14 ODIs. He was succeeded by Kapil Dev in the 1980s, who captained for 34 Test matches, including four victories. Kapil Dev led India to victory in 39 of his 74 ODIs in charge, including the 1983 Cricket World Cup. Kapil Dev also captained India's 2–0 Test series victory in England in 1986. Between 1987–88 and 1989–90, India had three captains in Dilip Vengsarkar, Ravi Shastri and Krishnamachari Srikkanth. Vengsarkar took over the captaincy from Kapil Dev after the 1987 Cricket World Cup. Although he started with two centuries in his first series as captain, his captaincy period was turbulent and he lost the job following a disastrous tour of the West Indies in early 1989 and a stand-off with the Indian Cricket Board (BCCI).

India has had six regular Test captains of the men's cricket team since Mohammad Azharuddin took charge in 1989. Azharuddin led the team in 47 Test matches from 1989–90 to 1998–99, winning 14, and in 174 ODIs, winning 90. He was followed by Sachin Tendulkar, who captained the men's cricket team in 25 Test matches and 73 ODIs in the late 1990s; Tendulkar was relatively unsuccessful as a captain, winning only four Test matches and 23 ODIs.

Sourav Ganguly became the regular captain of the men's team in both Tests and ODIs in 2000. He remained captain until 2005–06 and became the then most successful Indian captain, winning 21 of his 49 Test matches in charge and 76 of his 146 ODIs. Under his captaincy, India became the joint-winners of the 2002 ICC Champions Trophy with Sri Lanka, and the runners-up of the 2003 Cricket World Cup. India lost only three Tests at home under Ganguly and managed to draw Test series in England and Australia.

Rahul Dravid took over as men's Test captain in 2005. In 2006, he led India to its first Test series victory in the West Indies in more than 30 years.

In September 2007, MS Dhoni was named as the new captain of the men's ODI and T20I teams, after Dravid stepped down from the post. Soon after taking up the captaincy, Dhoni led the team to the inaugural World men's Twenty20 title. Anil Kumble was appointed Test captain in November 2007, but retired from international cricket in November 2008 after captaining in 14 Tests. Dhoni succeeded him as the men's Test captain, making him the captain in all formats. Under the captaincy of Dhoni, the Indian men's cricket team held the number one position in the ICC Men's Test Team Rankings for 21 months (from November 2009 to August 2011), and set a national record for most back-to-back ODI wins (nine straight wins). Dhoni also led the team to victory in 2011 Cricket World Cup and 2013 ICC Champions Trophy. Thus, Dhoni became the first captain in history to win all three major ICC trophies, namely- the ICC Cricket World Cup in 2011, ICC Men's T20 World Cup in 2007 and the ICC Champions Trophy in 2013. However, the team performed poorly in away Tests from 2011 to 2014 and Dhoni retired from Test cricket in December 2014, with Virat Kohli being named as the new Test captain. Dhoni resigned as captain of the ODI and T20I teams in January 2017 and Kohli succeeded him at the position.

Under Kohli's captaincy, India was unbeaten in 19 Test matches, starting from a 3–0 series win over New Zealand and ending with a 2–1 series win over Australia. India also had an unbeaten streak of winning nine consecutive Test series, starting with a 3–0 series win over Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka and ending with a 1–0 series win over Sri Lanka at home. India also became only the third team after Australia and South Africa to have won their most recent Test series simultaneously against all the other Test-playing nations. As per winning percentage in Test matches, Kohli was India's second most successful Test captain, behind Ajinkya Rahane, having won more than 58% of Test matches (at least two games).

In November 2021, Rohit Sharma was appointed as the new T20I captain of the Indian men's cricket team after Kohli resigned from the role. Kohli led India one last time in T20Is at the T20 World Cup 2021. Under Rohit Sharma's first series as permanent captaincy, India whitewashed New Zealand at home in the T20I series 3–0. In December 2021, Sharma was also appointed as the new ODI captain of the Indian men's cricket team, replacing Kohli ahead of their away series against South Africa. Kohli later quit as Test captain as well, after their Test series loss to South Africa. Sharma replaced Kohli as Test captain before the Test series against Sri Lanka and is now the Full-Time Captain of the Indian men's cricket team. In 2024, after the team won the 2024 T20 World Cup, Rohit Sharma retired from the format, with Suryakumar Yadav being named as the new T20I captain.

Current squad

The BCCI released the list of their 2023–24 annual player contracts on 28 February 2024. Players can still be upgraded to a Grade C annual player contract on a pro-rata basis by meeting the criteria of playing a minimum of three Tests or eight ODIs or ten T20Is in the specified period (1 October 2023 to 30 September 2024).

This is a list of every active player who is contracted to BCCI, has played for India since June 2023 or was named in the recent Test, ODI or T20I squads. Uncapped players are listed in italics.

 * Rohit Sharma, Virat Kohli, and Ravindra Jadeja played in T20Is during this period however retired from the format following the 2024 T20 World Cup.

Last updated: 30 June 2024

 * Key

Pay grade
BCCI awards central contracts to its players, their pay is graded according to the importance of the player. Players' salaries are as follows: Players also receive a match fee of inr 1500000 per Test match, inr 600000 per ODI, and inr 300000 per T20I.
 * Grade A+ – inr 70000000
 * Grade A – inr 50000000
 * Grade B – inr 30000000
 * Grade C – inr 10000000
 * Grade F – Fast Bowling Contracts
 * Match fees

Coaching history

 * 1971: 🇮🇳 Keki Tarapore
 * 1971-1974: 🇮🇳 Hemu Adhikari
 * 1975: 🇮🇳 Gulabrai Ramchand
 * 1978: 🇮🇳 Datta Gaekwad
 * 1980-1981: 🇮🇳 Salim Durrani
 * 1982: 🇮🇳 Ashok Mankad
 * 1983-1987: 🇮🇳 PR Man Singh
 * 1988: 🇮🇳 Chandu Borde
 * 1990-1991: 🇮🇳 Bishan Singh Bedi
 * 1991-1992: 🇮🇳 Abbas Ali Baig
 * 1992-1996: 🇮🇳 Ajit Wadekar
 * 1996: 🇮🇳 Sandeep Patil
 * 1996-1997: 🇮🇳 Madan Lal
 * 1997-1999: 🇮🇳 Anshuman Gaekwad
 * 1999-2000: 🇮🇳 Kapil Dev
 * 2000-2005: John Wright
 * 2005-2007: 🇦🇺 Greg Chappell
 * 2007: 🇮🇳 Ravi Shastri (Interim)
 * 2007-2008: 🇮🇳 Lalchand Rajput
 * 2008-2011: Gary Kirsten
 * 2011-2015: Duncan Fletcher
 * 2014-2016: 🇮🇳 Ravi Shastri (Team director)
 * 2016: 🇮🇳 Sanjay Bangar (Interim)
 * 2016-2017: 🇮🇳 Anil Kumble
 * 2017: 🇮🇳 Sanjay Bangar (Interim)
 * 2017-2021: 🇮🇳 Ravi Shastri
 * 2021-2024: 🇮🇳 Rahul Dravid
 * 2024: 🇮🇳 VVS Laxman (Interim)
 * 2024–present: 🇮🇳 Gautam Gambhir

Tournament history
A red box around the year indicates tournaments played within India

ICC

 * World Test Championship:
 * Runners-up: 2019–21, 2021–23
 * Cricket World Cup:
 * Champions: 1983, 2011
 * Runners-up: 2003, 2023
 * T20 World Cup:
 * Champions: 2007, 2024
 * Runners-up: 2014
 * Champions Trophy:
 * Champions: 2002, 2013
 * Runners-up: 2000, 2017

ACC

 * Asia Cup:
 * Champions: 1984, 1988, 1990–91, 1995, 2010, 2016, 2018, 2023
 * Runners-up: 1997, 2004, 2008

Others

 * Asian Games
 * Gold medal: 2022

Tests
Head-to-head record

Most Test runs for India

Most Test wickets for India

One-Day Internationals
Head-to-head record

Most ODI runs for India

Most ODI wickets for India

Twenty20 Internationals
Head-to-head record

Most T20I runs for India

Most T20I wickets for India

Players in bold text are still active with India in T20I format.

Individual records

Sachin Tendulkar, who began playing for India as a 16-year-old in 1989 and has since become the most prolific run-scorer in the history of both Test and ODI cricket, holds a large number of national batting records. He holds the record of most appearances in both Tests and ODIs, most runs in both Tests and ODIs and most centuries in Tests. The highest score by an Indian is the 319 scored by Virender Sehwag in Chennai. It is the second triple century in Test cricket by an Indian, the first being a 309 also made by Sehwag although against Pakistan. The team's highest ever score was a 759/7 against England at MA Chidambaram Stadium, Chennai in 2016, while its lowest score was 36 against Australia in 2020. In ODIs, the team's highest score is 418/5 against West Indies at Indore in 2011–12. India scored 413–5 in a match against Bermuda in 2007 World Cup which was the highest score ever in Cricket World Cup history at the time. In the same match, India set a world record of the highest winning margin in an ODI match of 257 runs.

India has also had some very strong bowling figures, with spin bowler Anil Kumble being a member of the elite group of four bowlers who have taken 600 Test wickets. In 1999, Kumble emulated Jim Laker to become the second bowler to take all ten wickets in a Test match innings when he took 10 wickets for 74 runs against Pakistan at the Feroz Shah Kotla in Delhi.

Many of the Indian cricket team's records are also world records, for example Tendulkar's century tally (in Tests and ODIs) and run tally (also in both Tests and ODIs). Dhoni's 183 not out against Sri Lanka in 2005 is the world record score by a wicketkeeper in ODIs. The Indian cricket team also holds the record sequence of 17 successful run-chases in ODIs, which ended in a dramatic match against the West Indies in May 2006, which India lost by just one run.

Tendulkar was the first batsman to score 200 runs (he was unbeaten on 200 from 147 deliveries including 25 fours and 3 sixes) in a single ODI innings, on 24 February 2010 against South Africa in Gwalior. On 8 December 2011, this achievement was eclipsed by compatriot Virender Sehwag, who scored 219 runs from 149 deliveries (25 fours and 7 sixes) versus the West Indies in Indore. On 13 November 2014 the record was broken by another Indian opening batsmen, Rohit Sharma, who scored 264 runs from 173 deliveries (33 fours and 9 sixes) against Sri Lanka in Kolkata, West Bengal. In 2013, Dhoni became the first captain in history to win all three major ICC trophies- ICC Cricket World Cup in 2011, ICC World Twenty20 in 2007 and ICC Champions Trophy in 2013.

In 2014, Kohli became the first cricketer to win back-to-back Man of the Series awards in the 2014 ICC World Twenty20 and 2016 ICC World Twenty20. Rohit is the most runs scorer in T20Is and also hold joint most T20I centuries. In 2017, Ravichandran Ashwin became the fastest cricketer in history to reach 250 wickets.

Fan following
Owing to the massive Indian diaspora in nations like Australia, England and South Africa, a large Indian fan turnout is expected whenever India plays in each of these nations. There have been a number of official fan groups that have been formed over the years, including the Swami Army or Indian Army, the Indian equivalent of the Barmy Army, that were very active in their support when India toured Australia in 2003/2004. They are known to attribute a number of popular Indian songs to the cricket team.

Fan rivalry and cross-border tension has created a strong rivalry between the Indian and the Pakistani cricket teams. In tours between these two nations, cricket visas are often employed to accommodate for the tens of thousands of fans wishing to cross the border to watch cricket. This intense fan dedication is one of the major causes of the BCCI's financial success.

However, there are downsides to having such a cricket-loving population. Many Indians hold cricket very close to their hearts and losses are not received well by the Indian population. In some cases, particularly after losses to Pakistan or after a long string of weak performances, there have been reports of player effigies being burnt in the streets and vandalism of player homes. In many cases, players have come under intense attention from the media for negative reasons, this has been considered one of the reasons for Ganguly being left out of the Indian team. At times, when a match is surrounded by controversy, it has resulted in a debacle. For example, when India slid to defeat against Australia at Brabourne Stadium in 1969, fans began throwing stones and bottles onto the field as well as setting fire to the stands, before laying siege to the Australian dressing rooms. During the same tour, a stampede occurred at Eden Gardens when tickets were oversold and India fell to another loss; the Australian team bus was later stoned with bricks. A similar event occurred during the 1996 Cricket World Cup, where India were losing the semi-final to Sri Lanka at Eden Gardens. In this case, the fan behaviour was directed at the Indian team in disappointment at their lacklustre performance. An armed guard had to be placed at the home of captain Mohammad Azharuddin to ensure his safety. In 1999, a riot occurred in a Test against Pakistan at Eden Gardens after a collision with Pakistani paceman Shoaib Akhtar saw Sachin run out, forcing police to eject spectators and the game to be played in an empty stadium.In 2006, a string of low scores resulted in Tendulkar being booed by the Mumbai crowd when he got out against England.

Often, fans engage in protests regarding players if they believe that regionalism has affected selection, or because of regional partisan support for local players. In 2005, when Ganguly was dropped from the team, Ganguly's home town Kolkata erupted in protests. India later played a match against South Africa in Kolkata. The Indian team was booed by the crowd who supported South Africa instead of India in response to Ganguly's dropping. Similar regional divisions in India regarding selection have also caused protests against the team, with political activists from the regional Kalinga Kamgar Sena party in Odisha disrupting the arrival of the team in Cuttack for an ODI over the lack of a local player in the team, with one activist manhandling coach Greg Chappell. Similar treatment was handed to Sunil Gavaskar in the 1987 World Cup Semi Finals by crowds at Wankhede Stadium when he got bowled by Phillip DeFreitas.

A successful string of results, especially victories against the arch-rival Pakistan or victories in major tournaments such as the World Cup are greeted with particular ecstasy from the Indian fans.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: India national cricket team


text:
States' rights

In American political discourse, states' rights are political powers held for the state governments rather than the federal government according to the United States Constitution, reflecting especially the enumerated powers of Congress and the Tenth Amendment. The enumerated powers that are listed in the Constitution include exclusive federal powers, as well as concurrent powers that are shared with the states, and all of those powers are contrasted with the reserved powers—also called states' rights—that only the states possess. Since the 1940s, the term "states' rights" has often been considered a loaded term or dog whistle because of its use in opposition to federally-mandated racial desegregation and, more recently, same-sex marriage and reproductive rights.

Background
The balance of federal powers and those powers held by the states as defined in the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution was first addressed in the case of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). The Court's decision by Chief Justice John Marshall asserted that the laws adopted by the federal government, when exercising its constitutional powers, are generally paramount over any conflicting laws adopted by state governments. After McCulloch, the primary legal issues in this area concerned the scope of Congress' constitutional powers, and whether the states possess certain powers to the exclusion of the federal government, even if the Constitution does not explicitly limit them to the states.

The Supremacy Clause
The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution states: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. (Emphasis added.)"

In The Federalist Papers, ratification proponent Alexander Hamilton explained the limitations this clause placed on the proposed federal government, describing that acts of the federal government were binding on the states and the people therein only if the act was in pursuance of constitutionally granted powers, and juxtaposing acts which exceeded those bounds as "void and of no force": "But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such."

Controversy to 1865
In the period between the American Revolution and the ratification of the United States Constitution, the states had united under a much weaker federal government and a much stronger state and local government, pursuant to the Articles of Confederation. The Articles gave the central government very little, if any, authority to overrule individual state actions. The Constitution subsequently strengthened the central government, authorizing it to exercise powers deemed necessary to exercise its authority, with an ambiguous boundary between the two co-existing levels of government. In the event of any conflict between state and federal law, the Constitution resolved the conflict via the Supremacy Clause of Article VI in favor of the federal government, which declares federal law the "supreme Law of the Land" and provides that "the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." However, the Supremacy Clause only applies if the federal government is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers, as noted by the phrase "in pursuance thereof" in the actual text of the Supremacy Clause itself (see above).

Alien and Sedition Acts
When the Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison secretly wrote the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which provide a classic statement in support of states' rights and called on state legislatures to nullify unconstitutional federal laws. (The other states, however, did not follow suit and several rejected the notion that states could nullify federal law.) According to this theory, the federal union is a voluntary association of states, and if the central government goes too far each state has the right to nullify that law. As Jefferson said in the Kentucky Resolutions:

"Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party....each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."

The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which became part of the Principles of '98, along with the supporting Report of 1800 by Madison, became final documents of Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party. Gutzman argued that Governor Edmund Randolph designed the protest in the name of moderation. Gutzman argues that in 1798, Madison espoused states' rights to defeat national legislation that he maintained was a threat to republicanism. During 1831–33, the South Carolina Nullifiers quoted Madison in their defense of states' rights. But Madison feared that the growing support for this doctrine would undermine the union and argued that by ratifying the Constitution states had transferred their sovereignty to the federal government.

The most vociferous supporters of states' rights, such as John Randolph of Roanoke, were called "Old Republicans" into the 1820s and 1830s.

Tate (2011) undertook a literary criticism of a major book by John Taylor of Caroline, New Views of the Constitution of the United States. Tate argues it is structured as a forensic historiography modeled on the techniques of 18th-century Whig lawyers. Taylor believed that evidence from American history gave proof of state sovereignty within the union, against the arguments of nationalists such as U.S. Chief Justice John Marshall.

Another states' rights dispute occurred over the War of 1812. At the Hartford Convention of 1814–15, New England Federalists voiced opposition to President Madison's war, and discussed secession from the Union. In the end they stopped short of calls for secession, but when their report appeared at the same time as news of the great American victory at the Battle of New Orleans, the Federalists were politically ruined.

Nullification Crisis of 1832
One major and continuous strain on the union, from roughly 1820 through the Civil War, was the issue of trade and tariffs. Heavily dependent upon international trade, the almost entirely agricultural and export-oriented South imported most of its manufactured goods from Europe or obtained them from the North. The North, by contrast, had a growing domestic industrial economy that viewed foreign trade as competition. Trade barriers, especially protective tariffs, were viewed as harmful to the Southern economy, which depended on exports.

In 1828, the Congress passed protective tariffs to benefit trade in the northern states, but that were detrimental to the South. Southerners vocally expressed their tariff opposition in documents such as the South Carolina Exposition and Protest in 1828, written in response to the "Tariff of Abominations". Exposition and Protest was the work of South Carolina senator and former vice president John C. Calhoun, formerly an advocate of protective tariffs and internal improvements at federal expense.

South Carolina's Nullification Ordinance declared that both the tariff of 1828 and the tariff of 1832 were null and void within the state borders of South Carolina. This action initiated the Nullification Crisis. Passed by a state convention on November 24, 1832, it led, on December 10, to President Andrew Jackson's proclamation against South Carolina, which sent a naval flotilla and a threat of sending federal troops to enforce the tariffs; Jackson authorized this under color of national authority, claiming in his 1832 Proclamation Regarding Nullification that "our social compact in express terms declares, that the laws of the United States, its Constitution, and treaties made under it, are the supreme law of the land" and for greater caution adds, "that the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Civil War
Over following decades, another central dispute over states' rights moved to the forefront. The issue of slavery polarized the union, with the Jeffersonian principles often being used by both sides—anti-slavery Northerners, and Southern slaveholders and secessionists—in debates that ultimately led to the American Civil War. Supporters of slavery often argued that one of the rights of the states was the protection of slave property wherever it went, a position endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1857 Dred Scott decision. In contrast, opponents of slavery argued that the non-slave-states' rights were violated both by that decision and by the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. While historians in the 21st century agree on the centrality of the conflict over slavery, they disagree sharply on which aspects of this conflict (ideological, economic, political, or social) were most important.

Southern arguments
Southern states had a long tradition of using states' rights doctrine since the late eighteenth century to support slavery. A major Southern argument in the 1850s was that federal law to ban the expansion of slavery into the territories discriminated against states that allowed slavery, making them second-class states. In 1857 the Supreme Court sided with these states' rights supporters, declaring in Dred Scott v. Sandford that Congress had no authority to regulate slavery in the territories.

Jefferson Davis used the following argument in favor of the equal rights of states: "Resolved, That the union of these States rests on the equality of rights and privileges among its members, and that it is especially the duty of the Senate, which represents the States in their sovereign capacity, to resist all attempts to discriminate either in relation to person or property, so as, in the Territories—which are the common possession of the United States—to give advantages to the citizens of one State which are not equally secured to those of every other State."

Southern states argued against "states' rights" when it benefited them in the context of fugitive slave laws. For example, Texas challenged some northern states having the right to protect fugitive slaves, with the argument that this would make the institution null once a particular slave had crossed into a free state. The question was pivotal in the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford.

Northern arguments
The historian James McPherson noted that Southerners were inconsistent on the states' rights issue, and that Northern states tried to protect the rights of their states against the South during the Gag Rule and fugitive slave law controversies. Contemporany political thinkers like Karl Marx also noted this inconsistent regarding the Confederacy's actions during the war:"The attempts of the Confederacy to annex Missouri and Kentucky, for example, against the will of these states, prove the hollowness of the pretext that it is fighting for the rights of the individual states against the encroachments of the Union. On the individual states that it considers to belong to the 'South' it confers, to be sure, the right to secede from the Union, but by no means the right to remain in the Union."The historian William H. Freehling noted that the South's argument for a state's right to secede was different from Thomas Jefferson's, in that Jefferson based such a right on the unalienable equal rights of man. The South's version of such a right was modified to be consistent with slavery, and with the South's blend of democracy and authoritarianism. Historian Henry Brooks Adams explains that the anti-slavery North took a consistent and principled stand on states' rights against federal encroachment throughout its history, while the Southern states, whenever they saw an opportunity to expand slavery and the reach of their political influence, termed Slave Power, often conveniently forgot the principle of states' rights—and fought in favor of federal centralization:

"Between the Slave Power and states' rights there was no necessary connection. The Slave Power, when in control, was a centralizing influence, and all the most considerable encroachments on states' rights were its acts. The acquisition and admission of Louisiana; the Embargo; the War of 1812; the annexation of Texas 'by joint resolution' [rather than treaty]; the war with Mexico, declared by the mere announcement of President Polk; the Fugitive Slave Law; the Dred Scott decision—all triumphs of the Slave Power—did far more than either tariffs or internal improvements, which in their origin were also southern measures, to destroy the very memory of states' rights as they existed in 1789. Whenever a question arose of extending or protecting slavery, the slaveholders became friends of centralized power, and used that dangerous weapon with a kind of frenzy. Slavery in fact required centralization in order to maintain and protect itself, but it required to control the centralized machine; it needed despotic principles of government, but it needed them exclusively for its own use. Thus, in truth, states' rights were the protection of the free states, and as a matter of fact, during the domination of the Slave Power, Massachusetts appealed to this protecting principle as often and almost as loudly as South Carolina."

Sinha and Richards both argue that the Southerners only advocated states' rights when they disagreed with a policy. Examples given are a states' right to engage in slavery or to suppress freedom of speech. They argue that it was instead the result of the increasing cognitive dissonance in the minds of Northerners and (some) Southern non-slaveowners between the ideals that the United States was founded upon and identified itself as standing for, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights, and the reality that the slave-power represented, as what they describe as an anti-democratic, counter-republican, oligarchic, despotic, authoritarian, if not totalitarian, movement for ownership of human beings as the personal chattels of the slaver. As this cognitive dissonance increased, the people of the Northern states, and the Northern states themselves, became increasingly inclined to resist the encroachments of the Slave Power upon their states' rights and encroachments of the Slave Power by and upon the federal government of the United States. The Slave Power, having failed to maintain its dominance of the federal government through democratic means, sought other means of maintaining its dominance of the federal government, by means of military aggression, by right of force and coercion, and thus, the Civil War occurred.

Texas v. White
In Texas v. White, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas had remained a state ever since it first joined the Union, despite claims to have joined the Confederate States of America; the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null" under the constitution.

Since the Civil War
A series of Supreme Court decisions developed the state action constraint on the Equal Protection Clause. The state action theory weakened the effect of the Equal Protection Clause against state governments, in that the clause was held not to apply to unequal protection of the laws caused in part by complete lack of state action in specific cases, even if state actions in other instances form an overall pattern of segregation and other discrimination. The separate but equal theory further weakened the effect of the Equal Protection Clause against state governments.

In case law
With United States v. Cruikshank (1876), a case which arose out of the Colfax Massacre of Black residents contesting the results of a Reconstruction-era election, the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not apply to the First Amendment or Second Amendment to state governments in respect to their own citizens, only to acts of the federal government. In McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore fully applicable to states and local governments.

Furthermore, United States v. Harris (1883) held that the Equal Protection Clause did not apply to an 1883 prison lynching on the basis that the Fourteenth Amendment applied only to state acts, not to individual criminal actions.

In the Civil Rights Cases (1883), the Supreme Court allowed segregation by striking down the Civil Rights Act of 1875, a statute that prohibited racial discrimination in public accommodation. It again held that the Equal Protection Clause applied only to acts done by states, not to those done by private individuals, and as the Civil Rights Act of 1875 applied to private establishments, the Court said, it exceeded congressional enforcement power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Later progressive era and World War II
By the beginning of the 20th century, greater cooperation began to develop between the state and federal governments and the federal government began to accumulate more power. Early in this period, a federal income tax was imposed, first during the Civil War as a war measure and then permanently with the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913. Before this, the states played a larger role in government.

States' rights were affected by the fundamental alteration of the federal government resulting from the Seventeenth Amendment, depriving state governments of an avenue of control over the federal government via the representation of each state's legislature in the U.S. Senate. This change has been described by legal critics as the loss of a check and balance on the federal government by the states.

Following the Great Depression, the New Deal, and then World War II saw further growth in the authority and responsibilities of the federal government. The case of Wickard v. Filburn allowed the federal government to enforce the Agricultural Adjustment Act, providing subsidies to farmers for limiting their crop yields, arguing agriculture affected interstate commerce and came under the jurisdiction of the Commerce Clause even when a farmer grew his crops not to be sold, but for his own private use.

After World War II, President Harry Truman supported a civil rights bill and desegregated the military. The reaction was a split in the Democratic Party that led to the formation of the "States' Rights Democratic Party"—better known as the Dixiecrats—led by Strom Thurmond. Thurmond ran as the States' Rights candidate for president in the 1948 election, losing to Truman.

Civil rights movement
During the 1950s and 1960s, the civil rights movement was confronted by the proponents in the Southern states of racial segregation and Jim Crow laws who denounced federal interference in these state-level laws as an assault on states' rights.

Though Brown v. Board of Education (1954) overruled the Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) decision, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments were largely inactive in the South until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Several states passed Interposition Resolutions to declare that the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown usurped states' rights.

There was also opposition by states' rights advocates to voting rights at Edmund Pettus Bridge, which was part of the Selma to Montgomery marches, that resulted in the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Contemporary debates
In 1964, the issue of fair housing in California involved the boundary between state laws and federalism. California Proposition 14 overturned the Rumsford Fair Housing Act in California and allowed discrimination in any type of housing sale or rental. Martin Luther King Jr. and others saw this as a backlash against civil rights, while actor and future (1967) governor of California Ronald Reagan gained popularity by supporting Proposition 14. The U.S. Supreme Court's Reitman v. Mulkey decision overturned Proposition 14 in 1967 in favor of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Conservative historians Thomas E. Woods Jr. and Kevin R. C. Gutzman argue that when politicians come to power they exercise all the power they can get, in the process trampling states' rights. Gutzman argues that the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of 1798 by Jefferson and Madison were not only responses to immediate threats but were legitimate responses based on the long-standing principles of states' rights and strict adherence to the Constitution.

Another concern is the fact that on more than one occasion, the federal government has threatened to withhold highway funds from states which did not pass certain articles of legislation. Any state which lost highway funding for any extended period would face financial impoverishment, infrastructure collapse or both. Although the first such action (the enactment of a national speed limit) was directly related to highways and done in the face of a fuel shortage, most subsequent actions have had little or nothing to do with highways and have not been done in the face of any compelling national crisis. An example of this would be the federally mandated drinking age of 21, upheld in South Dakota v. Dole. Critics of such actions feel that the federal government is upsetting the traditional balance between itself and state governments.

More recently, the issue of states' rights has come to a head when the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission recommended that Congress and the Department of Defense implement sweeping changes to the National Guard by consolidating some Guard installations and closing others. These recommendations in 2005 drew strong criticism from many states, and several states sued the federal government on the basis that Congress and the Pentagon would be violating states' rights should they force the realignment and closure of Guard bases without the prior approval of the governors from the affected states. After Pennsylvania won a federal lawsuit to block the deactivation of the 111th Fighter Wing of the Pennsylvania Air National Guard, defense and Congressional leaders chose to try to settle the remaining BRAC lawsuits out of court, reaching compromises with the plaintiff states.

Current states' rights issues include the death penalty, assisted suicide, same-sex marriage, gun control, and cannabis, the last of which is in direct violation of federal law. In Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the federal government, permitting the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to arrest medical marijuana patients and caregivers. In Gonzales v. Oregon, the Supreme Court ruled the practice of physician-assisted suicide in Oregon is legal. In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court ruled that states could not withhold recognition to same-sex marriages. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the United States Supreme Court ruled that gun ownership is an individual right under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the District of Columbia could not completely ban gun ownership by law-abiding private citizens. Two years later, the court ruled that the Heller decision applied to states and territories via the Second and 14th Amendments in McDonald v. Chicago, stating that states, territories and political divisions thereof, could not impose total bans on gun ownership by law-abiding citizens.

These concerns have led to a movement sometimes called the State Sovereignty movement or "10th Amendment Sovereignty Movement".

10th Amendment
The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution has been used as a prominent tool of invoking nullification, a common tactic of those that believe in the primacy of States' rights. The Tenth Amendment reads as follows: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Notably, the Tenth Amendment has been successfully utilized to nullify restrictive federal laws pertaining to gun rights, immigration, cannabis, and more. Additionally, organizations such as the Tenth Amendment Center seek to utilize the Tenth Amendment to achieve, "Liberty through decentralization". The Tenth Amendment center chiefly focuses on encouraging state representatives to submit bills that nullify federal laws by providing model legislation on their website that provides a rubric for state legislators to follow.

In 2009–2010 thirty-eight states introduced resolutions to reaffirm the principles of sovereignty under the Constitution and the 10th Amendment; 14 states have passed the resolutions. These non-binding resolutions, often called "state sovereignty resolutions" do not carry the force of law. Instead, they are intended to be a statement to demand that the federal government halt its practices of assuming powers and imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution.

States' rights and the Rehnquist Court
The Supreme Court's University of Alabama v. Garrett (2001) and Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents (2000) decisions allowed states to use a rational basis review for discrimination against the aged and disabled, arguing that these types of discrimination were rationally related to a legitimate state interest, and that no "razorlike precision" was needed." The Supreme Court's United States v. Morrison (2000) decision limited the ability of rape victims to sue their attackers in federal court. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist explained that "States historically have been sovereign" in the area of law enforcement, which in the Court's opinion required narrow interpretations of the Commerce Clause and Fourteenth Amendment.

Kimel, Garrett and Morrison indicated that the Court's previous decisions in favor of enumerated powers and limits on Congressional power over the states, such as United States v. Lopez (1995), Seminole Tribe v. Florida (1996) and City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) were more than one time flukes. In the past, Congress relied on the Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause for passing civil rights bills, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Lopez limited the Commerce Clause to things that directly affect interstate commerce, which excludes issues like gun control laws, hate crimes, and other crimes that affect commerce but are not directly related to commerce. Seminole reinforced the "sovereign immunity of states" doctrine, which makes it difficult to sue states for many things, especially civil rights violations. The Flores "congruence and proportionality" requirement prevents Congress from going too far in requiring states to comply with the Equal Protection Clause, which replaced the ratchet theory advanced in Katzenbach v. Morgan (1966). The ratchet theory held that Congress could ratchet up civil rights beyond what the Court had recognized, but that Congress could not ratchet down judicially recognized rights. An important precedent for Morrison was United States v. Harris (1883), which ruled that the Equal Protection Clause did not apply to a prison lynching because the state action doctrine applies Equal Protection only to state action, not private criminal acts. Since the ratchet principle was replaced with the "congruence and proportionality" principle by Flores, it was easier to revive older precedents for preventing Congress from going beyond what Court interpretations would allow. Critics such as Associate Justice John Paul Stevens accused the Court of judicial activism (i.e., interpreting law to reach a desired conclusion).

The tide against federal power in the Rehnquist court was stopped in the case of Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), in which the court upheld the federal power to prohibit medicinal use of cannabis even if states have permitted it. Rehnquist himself was a dissenter in the Raich case.

States' rights as code word
Since the 1940s, the term "states' rights" has often been considered a loaded term or dog whistle because of its use in opposition to federally-mandated racial desegregation and, more recently, same-sex marriage and reproductive rights.

During the heyday of the civil rights movement, defenders of racial segregation used the term "states' rights" as a code word in what is now referred to as dog-whistle politics: political messaging that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has an additional, different, or more specific resonance for a targeted subgroup. In 1948 it was the official name of the "Dixiecrat" party led by white supremacist presidential candidate Strom Thurmond. Democratic Governor George Wallace of Alabama, who famously declared in his inaugural address in 1963, "Segregation now! Segregation tomorrow! Segregation forever!" later remarked that he should have said, "States' rights now! States' rights tomorrow! States' rights forever!" Wallace, however, claimed that segregation was but one issue symbolic of a larger struggle for states' rights. In that view, which some historians dispute, his replacement of segregation with states' rights would be more of a clarification than a euphemism.

In 2010, some claimed that Texas Governor Rick Perry's use of the expression "states' rights" was "reminiscent of an earlier era when it was a rallying cry against civil rights." During an interview with The Dallas Morning News, Perry made it clear that he supports the end of segregation, including passage of the Civil Rights Act. The Texas president of the NAACP, Gary Bledsoe, stated that he understood that Perry was not speaking of "states' rights" in a racial context, but others still claimed to feel offended by the term because of its past misuse.

title: States' rights


text:
State Anthem of the Republic of Adygea

The State Anthem of the Republic of Adygea is one of the national symbols of the Adygea, a federal subject of Russia, along with its flag and coat of arms. The lyrics were written by Iskhak Mashbash, and the music was composed by Umar Tkhabisimov. The anthem was approved by decision of the Supreme Council of Adygea on 25 March 1992. This was one of the first decisions made by the republic's parliament after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

title: State Anthem of the Republic of Adygea


text:
Talk:Calicut Medical Journal

Untitled
"The journal recently caught the Headlines in both regional and national newspapers ...".

Can the contributor provide some links of the articles in the newspapers ? Jay 06:56, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

title: Talk:Calicut Medical Journal


text:
Unit cube

A unit cube, more formally a cube of side 1, is a cube whose sides are 1 unit long. The volume of a 3-dimensional unit cube is 1 cubic unit, and its total surface area is 6 square units.

Unit hypercube
The term unit cube or unit hypercube is also used for hypercubes, or "cubes" in n-dimensional spaces, for values of n other than 3 and edge length 1.

Sometimes the term "unit cube" refers in specific to the set [0, 1]n of all n-tuples of numbers in the interval [0, 1].

The length of the longest diagonal of a unit hypercube of n dimensions is $$\sqrt n$$, the square root of n and the (Euclidean) length of the vector (1,1,1,....1,1) in n-dimensional space.

title: Unit cube


text:
Witch of Agnesi

In mathematics, the witch of Agnesi is a cubic plane curve defined from two diametrically opposite points of a circle.

The curve was studied as early as 1653 by Pierre de Fermat, in 1703 by Guido Grandi, and by Isaac Newton. It gets its name from Italian mathematician Maria Gaetana Agnesi who published it in 1748. The Italian name la versiera di Agnesi is based on Latin versoria (sheet of sailing ships) and the sinus versus. This was read by John Colson as l’avversiera di Agnesi, where avversiera is translated as "woman who is against God"  and interpreted as "witch".

The graph of the derivative of the arctangent function forms an example of the witch of Agnesi. As the probability density function of the Cauchy distribution, the witch of Agnesi has applications in probability theory. It also gives rise to Runge's phenomenon in the approximation of functions by polynomials, has been used to approximate the energy distribution of spectral lines, and models the shape of hills.

The witch is tangent to its defining circle at one of the two defining points, and asymptotic to the tangent line to the circle at the other point. It has a unique vertex (a point of extreme curvature) at the point of tangency with its defining circle, which is also its osculating circle at that point. It also has two finite inflection points and one infinite inflection point. The area between the witch and its asymptotic line is four times the area of the defining circle, and the volume of revolution of the curve around its defining line is twice the volume of the torus of revolution of its defining circle.

Construction
To construct this curve, start with any two points O and M, and draw a circle with OM as diameter. For any other point A on the circle, let N be the point of intersection of the secant line OA and the tangent line at M. Let P be the point of intersection of a line perpendicular to OM through A, and a line parallel to OM through N. Then P lies on the witch of Agnesi. The witch consists of all the points P that can be constructed in this way from the same choice of O and M. It includes, as a limiting case, the point M itself.

Equations
Suppose that point O is at the origin and point M lies on the positive $$y$$-axis, and that the circle with diameter OM has radius $a$. Then the witch constructed from O and M has the Cartesian equation $$y = \frac{8a^3}{x^2+4a^2}.$$ This equation can be simplified, by choosing $a=\tfrac12$, to the form $$y = \frac{1}{x^2+1}.$$ or equivalently, by clearing denominators, as the cubic algebraic equation $$(x^2+1)y=1.$$ In its simplified form, this curve is the graph of the derivative of the arctangent function.

The witch of Agnesi can also be described by parametric equations whose parameter $θ$ is the angle between OM and OA, measured clockwise: $$\begin{align} x &= 2a \tan \theta, \\ y &= 2a \cos ^2 \theta. \end{align}$$

Properties
The main properties of this curve can be derived from integral calculus. The area between the witch and its asymptotic line is four times the area of the fixed circle, $4\pi a^2$. The volume of revolution of the witch of Agnesi about its asymptote is $4\pi^2a^3$. This is two times the volume of the torus formed by revolving the defining circle of the witch around the same line.

The curve has a unique vertex at the point of tangency with its defining circle. That is, this point is the only point where the curvature reaches a local minimum or local maximum. The defining circle of the witch is also its osculating circle at the vertex, the unique circle that "kisses" the curve at that point by sharing the same orientation and curvature. Because this is an osculating circle at the vertex of the curve, it has third-order contact with the curve.

The curve has two inflection points, at the points $$\left( \pm\frac{2a}{\sqrt{3}}, \frac{3a}{2}\right)$$ corresponding to the angles $\theta=\pm\pi/6$. When considered as a curve in the projective plane there is also a third infinite inflection point, at the point where the line at infinity is crossed by the asymptotic line. Because one of its inflection points is infinite, the witch has the minimum possible number of finite real inflection points of any non-singular cubic curve.

The largest area of a rectangle that can be inscribed between the witch and its asymptote is $4a^2$, for a rectangle whose height is the radius of the defining circle and whose width is twice the diameter of the circle.

Early studies
The curve was studied by Pierre de Fermat in his 1659 treatise on quadrature. In it, Fermat computes the area under the curve and (without details) claims that the same method extends as well to the cissoid of Diocles. Fermat writes that the curve was suggested to him "ab erudito geometra" [by a learned geometer]. speculate that the geometer who suggested this curve to Fermat might have been Antoine de Laloubère.

The construction given above for this curve was found by ; the same construction was also found earlier by Isaac Newton, but only published posthumously later, in 1779. also suggested the name versiera (in Italian) or versoria (in Latin) for the curve. The Latin term is also used for a sheet, the rope which turns the sail, but Grandi may have instead intended merely to refer to the versine function that appeared in his construction.

In 1748, Maria Gaetana Agnesi published Instituzioni analitiche ad uso della gioventù italiana, an early textbook on calculus. In it, after first considering two other curves, she includes a study of this curve. She defines the curve geometrically as the locus of points satisfying a certain proportion, determines its algebraic equation, and finds its vertex, asymptotic line, and inflection points.

Etymology
Maria Gaetana Agnesi named the curve according to Grandi, versiera. Coincidentally, at that time in Italy it was common to speak of the Devil through other words like aversiero or versiero, derived from Latin adversarius, the "adversary" of God. Versiera, in particular, was used to indicate the wife of the devil, or "witch". Because of this, Cambridge professor John Colson mistranslated the name of the curve as "witch". Different modern works about Agnesi and about the curve suggest slightly different guesses how exactly this mistranslation happened. Struik mentions that: "The word [versiera] is derived from Latin vertere, to turn, but is also an abbreviation of Italian avversiera, female devil. Some wit in England once translated it 'witch', and the silly pun is still lovingly preserved in most of our textbooks in English language. ... The curve had already appeared in the writings of Fermat (Oeuvres, I, 279–280; III, 233–234) and of others; the name versiera is from Guido Grandi (Quadratura circuli et hyperbolae, Pisa, 1703). The curve is type 63 in Newton's classification. ... The first to use the term 'witch' in this sense may have been B. Williamson, Integral calculus, 7 (1875), 173; see Oxford English Dictionary." On the other hand, Stephen Stigler suggests that Grandi himself "may have been indulging in a play on words", a double pun connecting the devil to the versine and the sine function to the shape of the female breast (both of which can be written as "seno" in Italian).

Applications
A scaled version of the curve is the probability density function of the Cauchy distribution. This is the probability distribution on the random variable $$x$$ determined by the following random experiment: for a fixed point $$p$$ above the $x$-axis, choose uniformly at random a line through $p$, and let $$x$$ be the coordinate of the point where this random line crosses the axis. The Cauchy distribution has a peaked distribution visually resembling the normal distribution, but its heavy tails prevent it from having an expected value by the usual definitions, despite its symmetry. In terms of the witch itself, this means that the $x$-coordinate of the centroid of the region between the curve and its asymptotic line is not well-defined, despite this region's symmetry and finite area.

In numerical analysis, when approximating functions using polynomial interpolation with equally spaced interpolation points, it may be the case for some functions that using more points creates worse approximations, so that the interpolation diverges from the function it is trying to approximate rather than converging to it. This paradoxical behavior is called Runge's phenomenon. It was first discovered by Carl David Tolmé Runge for Runge's function $y=1/(1+25x^2)$, another scaled version of the witch of Agnesi, when interpolating this function over the interval $[-1,1]$. The same phenomenon occurs for the witch $$y=1/(1+x^2)$$ itself over the wider interval $[-5,5]$.

The witch of Agnesi approximates the spectral energy distribution of spectral lines, particularly X-ray lines.

The cross-section of a smooth hill has a similar shape to the witch. Curves with this shape have been used as the generic topographic obstacle in a flow in mathematical modeling. Solitary waves in deep water can also take this shape.

A version of this curve was used by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz to derive the Leibniz formula for $\pi$. This formula, the infinite series $$\frac{\pi}{4} = 1 \,-\, \frac{1}{3} \,+\, \frac{1}{5} \,-\, \frac{1}{7} \,+\, \frac{1}{9} \,-\, \cdots,$$ can be derived by equating the area under the curve with the integral of the function $1/(1+x^2)$, using the Taylor series expansion of this function as the infinite geometric series $1-x^2+x^4-x^6+\cdots$, and integrating term-by-term.

In popular culture
The Witch of Agnesi is the title of a novel by Robert Spiller. It includes a scene in which a teacher gives a version of the history of the term. Witch of Agnesi is also the title of a music album by jazz quartet Radius. The cover of the album features an image of the construction of the witch.

title: Witch of Agnesi


text:
Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776

The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 (ratified September 28, 1776) was the state's first constitution following its declaration of independence and has been described as the most democratic in America. It was drafted by Robert Whitehill, Timothy Matlack, Dr. Thomas Young, George Bryan, James Cannon, and Benjamin Franklin. Pennsylvania's innovative and highly democratic government structure, featuring a unicameral legislature and collective executive, may have influenced the later French Republic's formation under the French Constitution of 1793. The constitution also included a declaration of rights that coincided with the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776.

Background
Pennsylvania's new constitution was tied to ongoing political changes within the province in 1776. As the Revolution evolved, the views of some political leaders differed from those of the Provincial Assembly (and its supporters) and of the Deputy Governor, John Penn. Extralegal committees were established that would eventually displace and take over the government.

For example, in June 1774, after Governor Penn refused to convene the Assembly to consider the question of discussing some action to the British government’s response to the Boston Tea Party, a public meeting held under the leadership of John Dickinson and Thomas Willing inspired 8,000 people in Philadelphia to call for the First Continental Congress and the establishment of a committee of correspondence to communicate with the other colonies. Although these measures were subsequently adopted by the Assembly, other public-action committees that had been supported by large public demonstrations (with attendees numbering in the thousands) outpaced Assembly action, for example establishing a military association for defense (though this action was later validated by the Assembly’s establishment of the Committee of Safety). In May 1776, the Second Continental Congress called for dispensing with Royal Governors and Assemblies that did not act with the groups (parties) opposing the Crown. The Pennsylvania Provincial Conference in June 1776 resolved “that the present Assembly of the Colony is ‘not competent to the exigencies of affairs’ and that a Provincial Convention ought to be called for inaugurating a form of Colonial government, in compliance with the recommendation of Congress”.

Until this point, many influential leaders in Pennsylvania had not supported independence from the Crown, but had favored reconciliation. The Continental Congress, however, inspired the more radical elements in Pennsylvania to overmaster these more conservative leaders. Shortly afterwards, in June 1776, these committees called a state convention, which met on July 15, 1776. The decisions made at that convention would, when ratified, cause the previous government to be completely superseded; it established a Council of Safety to rule in the interim, and it drew up the commonwealth (state) constitution, which was adopted on September 28, 1776. The change of government, was, however, opposed by many of the commonwealth’s citizens - John Dickinson, James Wilson, Robert Morris, and Frederick Muhlenberg, among others.

The constitutional convention met in Philadelphia and elected Benjamin Franklin, president, Colonel George Ross, vice-president, John Morris, secretary, and Jacob Garrigues, assistant-secretary. From its inception, the convention arrogated to itself the interim political power of the state. The constitution was completed on September 28, at which time it was read in convention for the last time, signed by the president and members, and transmitted to the Committee of Safety, with directions to deliver it to the general assembly of the state at their first meeting, immediately after they should have chosen their speaker. The first meeting of the Pennsylvania General Assembly took place on November 28, 1776. Thomas Wharton Jr., who had been the President of the Committee of Safety, was chosen as President of the Supreme Executive Council in June 1777 and became, in effect, the first Governor of the Commonwealth.

Innovations
It contained several innovations that were quite radical for that era, including:

 * Voting franchise for all men who had paid taxes, an innovation because it was somewhat less restrictive than a requirement that voters own property.
 * A unicameral legislature, with members elected for one term.
 * A twelve-member Supreme Executive Council to administer the government.
 * A judiciary appointed by the legislature for seven-year terms, removable at any time.
 * The provision that all approved legislation would take effect only at the next session of the Assembly, so the people of the state could assess the utility of the proposed law.
 * A President elected by the Assembly and Council together. Thomas Wharton Jr. was chosen in 1777 to be the first President of the Supreme Executive Council.
 * A Council of Censors (elected every seven years) to conduct an evaluation of the activities of the state government. It could censure actions by the government, order impeachments and recommend to the legislature the repeal of laws that appeared to violate the constitution. The Council of Censors was the only body with the authority to call a convention to amend the constitution.

The constitution also established Pennsylvania's official title, the "Commonwealth of Pennsylvania." Three other states (Kentucky, Massachusetts, and Virginia) are presently self-designated as "commonwealths." Additionally, the constitution served as a template for Vermont's 1777 constitution, which gave birth to the state (or what historians refer to as the Vermont Republic, because claim over the land was disputed by both New York and New Hampshire, until it was formally admitted into the Union in 1791).

title: Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776


text:
Talk:History of Medical Education in Calicut

Perhaps this page should be moved to "Education in Calicut" and put under a section "Medicine" and sub-section "History". Jay 07:02, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)


text:
Guttigadus globosus

Guttigadus globosus, the tadpole cod, is a deepwater fish found in the oceanic islands off New Zealand and in the mid South Atlantic at depths ranging from 1200 to 1600 m.

The tadpole cod is a member of the family Moridae, the morid cods, related to the true cods (of genus Gadus, family Gadidae). Like the familiar Atlantic cod, it has small whiskers (barbels) on its mouth.

Size
This species reaches a length of 18.1 cm.

It has no commercial value, and is not currently believed to be endangered. Not much is known about this species, being discovered in 1986.

The tadpole cod is distinct from the tadpole fish, Raniceps raninus. This fish was formerly classified in the family Ranicipitidae, called the tadpole cods, as its sole member. The family was placed in a different order of fish, the Ophidiiformes (cusk-eels and brotulas). However, it is now regarded as a member of the same family as cods, Gadidae.

title: Guttigadus globosus