text:
Talk:India/Archive 7

Changes to introduction
If you notice, the last paragraph of the introduction is poorly structured and not well organized.

"With the world's fourth largest economy in purchasing power and the second fastest growing large economy, India has made rapid progress in the last decade, especially in information technology. Although India's standard of living is projected to rise sharply in the next half-century, it currently battles high levels of poverty, persistent malnutrition, and environmental degradation. A multi-lingual, multi-ethnic society, India is also home to a diversity of wildlife in a variety of protected habitats."

What does India's multi-lingual, multi-ethnic society have to do with India's emergence as a developed nation? I think the last sentence should be moved to the second paragraph as it talks about India's diversity. I would really suggest that people dont just slap sentences here and there because they feel like it. This page has earned FA status, lets not lose it please.

142.151.169.245 22:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

We, as responsible citizens of India are deeply hurt with the introduction of India in this article. Even though Wikipedia is open for editing, please do ensure that such irresponsible changes are tracked and the person responsible be delisted from editing Wikipedia.

We would be grateful if the derogatory remarks against India are altered as soon as possible.

Reagrds A patriot from India

Images
I have reverted recent image additions to the article. Please discuss here before adding them back. I personally find them cluttering. Regards, Ganeshk  ( talk ) 17:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I hope you will agree that contents of image is OK. If your grievance is regarding image quality and size, then please let me know what is the problem with images.Let me see how it can be corrected .Chanakya has offered few suggestions and images have been modified as per his suggestions.Image was also appreciated by few editors. Good quality images will create more interest among readers.Images added also does not require much bandwidth, since image size is less than 50Kb.(Though it is colourful,colours have been chosen in such a way that file size does not go beyond 50Kb).Wikitable format takes little more time to load,so wide image format has been chosen. --Indianstar 02:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The images in question (with their respective sections) are: I will wait for others to comment on these pictures. Regards, Ganeshk  ( talk ) 02:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

These images can be viewed in best without any character distortion if you put in correct resolutions like IndianPoliticalHistory at 863 pixels,Unity in Diversity at 965 pixes. So analyse original image for quality rather than what is appearing in talk pages. I will modify images based on suggestions.--Indianstar 03:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I have not seen the images in the article but they seem to be extremely useful if handled properly. --Blacksun 13:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It was inserted yesterday.You can find it here.It was removed to develop consensus before reinsertion.--Indianstar 14:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I actually dont like them the way they fit in with the article. They need to be more subtle.  --Blacksun 10:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi,I think you are pointing out about Demography picture.(Looks large!!)Chanakya also suggested improvements in that pictures and told other 2 pictures are OK.We can withhold insertion of that picture.Let me develop smaller version of that picture then we can decide.I hope we can insert other 2 pictures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Indianstar --Indianstar 15:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * These images really added to value of the article. I do not see a reason why we should not have them. I strongly adovocate them. I have really noticed on wikipedia that in picyure on india realted articles is generally not upto the mark. Also on topics which are general for whole world we hardly have any pictures from India. Guys, pictures always help to communicate in more effective way when used approriately. apurv1980 16:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Remember they are Jpegs. SVG images are highly recommended. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  13:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Svg images require plug in for viewing in Internet Explorer which is the most commonly used browser. You can check here.Most of the images in this article and other featured articles are JPG images.Other frequently used format in wikipedia is .png.But .png increases file size by 2 to 3 times and may be recommended for small images (Like Indian flag in this article).--Indianstar 05:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Mediawiki automatically rasterizes the svg to png which is then displayed on the page. Most of the maps and diagrams on the India page are svg-based. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  11:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have uploaded new images of Economic forecast/Indian Political parties in SVG file format for review as per Nichalp's suggestions. I have modified background and text colour to avoid smudginess of text.I have removed Unity in diversity image and will submit later after improvement. I hope these images can be uploaded into articles as there is a consensus. --Indianstar 08:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Adult content
Why is adult content there on the main page. It is historic but is not appropriate for those below 18 yrs of age. Is this website only for Adults? Chanakyathegreat 17:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I have moved this question into a seperate heading.
 * Wikipedia is not censored for minors. I don't find the picture objectionable. It is appropriate use for the History section. It is a featured picture and has historic value. Regards, Ganeshk  ( talk ) 18:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I know that the picture has got histocic values, but I know that Wikipedia is also accessed by Children. So if you can find a replacement with a historic image, please do it. Chanakyathegreat 03:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * unless you are referring to the Agni missile, I cannot make out any content unsuitable for children. Not that it would matter, per the link given by ganeshk above. dab (𒁳) 13:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think they are referring to the Ajanta cave images (which is ridiculous if true). --Blacksun 14:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Or it could be that the Nilgiri Leaf Monkey in the Flora and fauna section is topless.  Fowler&fowler  «Talk»  14:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I am least bothered about your picture. I am referring to the Ajanta cave picture. I don't have any problem with that image, since I am an adult. Small Kids do look for information on the net. When they search for information on India and they stumble upon this picture, will trouble them. It is better to replace that image with another one. A historic one for sure. Thank you. Chanakyathegreat 15:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I think that if children are surfing the net then a not so focused image of Ajanta caves is the least of your worries towards exposure. Sorry but we disagree with your opinion.--Blacksun 01:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * indeed. if you let your toddlers surf the web unsupervised, it is you who are to blame, not the web. dab (𒁳) 11:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I am disturbed by the remarks of Chanakya over here. As an Indian, educated in hardcore modern day Indian Education system,in a major Indian metro, I am sure that images like these were part of government published history text books that we used in school. In fact most of the schools and educational institutions organize trips to the caves and encourage minors and students to visit the caves as they give an insight in historical Indian Art. There is no way that these images are offensive in any sense. Shashank.aggarwal 07:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Is Chanakyathegreat serious? Adult content? Amazing. Chanakya himself would blush at such embarrassment! To lambast the artistic representation of the human form and its physical acts as pornography is shameful. Such images are important for reminding us that something that was historically celebrated and accepted as normal is now considered deviant and obscene. It's an perfect study in social psychology. Some times such censorship goes too far, as when John Ashcroft draped a veil across the chest of Justice! Next time, he'll bind her hands! Instead of hiding the human body from your children, teach them about it. Sarayuparin 21:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

ajanta cave pictures are most valuable artistic heritage of India, It perfectly makes sense to put it in the front page. I do not find the pictures offensive or pornographic and I dont think it can be seen as porn by anyone. about the adult content issue in wiki you can search for breast and a high res picture of female breast ( not that I call it a pornographic use ) appears which is more to the "adult content" side. in view of some portals which are accessible to children although they are more mature in content e.g cannibalism I find that the ajanta cave pictures are not atall out of place. Given the weight of ajanta caves in history of indian arts I find that it is just natural to put it in the india page without any compromise. 24.60.249.125 22:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)jeroje

Great power
Right, what's everyone's problem.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 05:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have an opinion on this. It's just that "great power" is not a well defined concept, and it is more informative to say India ranks such and such in terms of this or that. According to great power, "The CIA has labeled India the key "swing state" in international politics. It predicts that India will emerge by 2015 as the fourth most important power in the international system. Goldman Sachs predicts that, by 2040, the largest economies on earth will be China, the United States, India, and Japan." — that is at least an attributed statement, but it concerns speculation about the future, and while it may have a place in the "economy" or "politics" section, it certainly doesn't belong in the intro. dab (𒁳) 13:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The term "Great Power" is not clearly defined. It would be more appropriate to use something like "emerging blabla."  I disagree with its use in the lead section.  It sounds a lot like chest thumping than encyclopedic.  Only in the case of USA and Sovient Union in the context of modern times can the term superpower be used properly.  --Blacksun 14:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dab. My thoughts exactly.   Fowler&fowler  «Talk»  14:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And thanks Blacksun. My thoughts exactly again!   Fowler&fowler  «Talk»  14:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I rolled back Himalayanashoka again. This simply isn't the way we do things: edit warring leads to confused and torn articles. If Himalayanashoka has a constructive proposal, let him argue it on talk, there are enough serious editors sympathetic towards India here that will ensure that if his proposal has any value, it will be implemented. This is the reason we have talkpages: seek consensus. dab (𒁳) 15:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Great power is academically used in the same extent, if not a greater extent, to the term "superpower", which has only ever been used to describe two nations. It is, in modern media, not used to the same extent. However, it is academically a lot more of a documented and perhaps a more stable term than emerging superpower, which isn't really even one of Organski's power statuses. So in political science it is a well defined concept, out of all the people who've written books on it, I believe at least some have managed to define it. As for the section that dab is quoting out of the great power page, that's speculation on the future and is a conclusion to the India section which sort of points you to the future, but India doesn't have to be in the top 4 economies to be a great power. So calling it a great power doesn't make it any more an example of "chest thumping" as calling the US and SU superpowers.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 22:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The term superpower has been widely coined in popular literature and also, academia.    The same cannot be said about Great Power.  Either way, it really does not matter.  Random adjectives are not going to change the growing status of India.  Maybe you feel like India needs them? *shrugs* --Blacksun 01:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, great power is used more in academia because the world prior to 1945 was multipolar with one or two hegemons that did not possess global hegemony but regional or at most continental superiority. Anyway, I agree with you in saying that nothing we say here changes India's status, what see here changes whether Wikipedia, a source of facts, presents this fact in this article.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 03:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Blacksun, Dbachmann please check the link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/country_profiles/1154019.stm for the words "EMERGED" not "emerging". This discussion is just futile. NobleEagle's contribution in the India main page lead paragraph is fully justified and not at all at any speculation level. Also as Dbachmann says it is hardly chest-thumping but actual perceptions about India in other countries, particularly among well-travelled well-educated globe-trotting people from many countries and not to mention that the contributions to the India page coming from authors all over the world. Shyamasundara Vetrivel 12:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Whats the point of that link? It says emerged as a major power which sounds lot more encyclopedic than "great power" which is what the argument is about. Blacksun 09:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

(sigh) I suggest you read a bit on political science before you talk to me about what is encyclopaedic or not. Major power is a neologism and synonymous with great power, the major power article was deleted and redirects to great power. Major power = Great power but major power is not as much of an academic term like great power. Major power is used more colloquially, so no it not a more encyclopaedic term than great power.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 23:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Great power in what? Economic? Global political influence? military? A developed nation? Sports? IT-related? Those are what superpowers were. "Emerging" is a little too speculative. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  14:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

 * It is more generalized and the hard power and soft power both play a part, so while India may not engage in Machtpolitik it can still be a great power. Please take a look at the article great power for explanations.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 23:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The lead paragraph of the article Great Power describes many characteristics that do not agree with applying that term to India. Would you like me to point them out or are you able to do it yourself since you are an expert political scientist? Quite frankly, I highly doubt that you are going to be able to find enough support for this in literature.  Provide citations - yes I have read the India paragraph in that article and am not thoroughly convinced.  The most convincing citation provided in that article argues India's re-entry to be late last year - something that new cannot be stated as confidently as you would like to in this article. --Blacksun 10:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Blacksun. Here is the lead paragraph from Great Power: A Great power is a nation or state that, through its great economic, political and military strength, is able to exert power over world diplomacy. Its opinions are strongly taken into account by other nations before taking diplomatic or military action. Characteristically, they have the ability to intervene militarily almost anywhere, and they also have soft cultural power.

As Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh have recently reminded Indians, there is a flip side to the grandiose fantasies of world power: India's per capita income is lower than Sri Lanka's; India ranks 126 in the List of countries by Human Development Index, while Sri Lanka is 93 and China 81. It has the 12th largest economy in nominal GDP, while China's is 4th (purchasing power parity ranking doesn't give the extent of disparity). Last year India didn't have the political clout either to get itself elected to the UN Security Council or its candidate, Shashi Tharoor, to UN Secretary Generalship. The former may happen yet, but only with the support of the US and China. As for military strength, I'm not an expert on the Indian military, but I doubt India has the ability to intervene "anywhere in the world," as the U.S. does, or Great Britain did in the Falkland War. As for soft power, Olympic sports is an example where China has gained enormous respect worldwide; India, however, is barely an also-ran. Of course, India has made great strides. It may yet become a great power, but that hasn't happened yet. Fowler&fowler «Talk»  22:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

 * No need to take that tone Blacksun, I was just informing you of facts...In reply to Fowler, politically India has not got as much influence as a number of the other Great powers, I believe its not assertive enough. But in terms of military, India has considerable deterrence and is the single largest contributor to UN peacekeeping missions in the world. Shashi Tharoor was vetoed as a result of the political clout of the UNSC, a position which India may gain in the near future, but you are right, in the UN India has limited influence to the level of Germany or Japan (also great powers and accepted as such). In terms of soft power, sports has limited effect on cultural strength, more important are the internal position of a culture in your mind, it's difficult to explain... If you look at the projection of Indian culture through Bollywood and tourism, it's more than many other non-English nations.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 22:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding idiotic I am just trying to add a little point to this discussion. See there can be other meanings to Great Power rather than one mentioned in the article (even though I cannot debate on them). As far as the Political Influence goes I feel that India has always been a soft state. About the military, I guess the only reason we have a force as large as we have because of the hostility with the neighbors, otherwise the things would have been different. And we have never been known as great sports persons or athletes. However these factors should not overshadow the fact the India's mildness and tolerance are a great virtue, it has been a country of saints and we should not be surprised that nature is found in the overall behavior and attitude of the country. See somehow we need to acknowledge that keeping in mind the negative points, the positives are way too heavy. Like the list goes on and on. One of the few countries in the world that can make their own cars, launch their satellites, have nuclear power, are the largest (or in the top league) producers, manufacturers and exporters of innumerable items, are among the fastest growing economies, among the largest already, biggest democracy, multi lingual, multi religious etc..the only country that can be termed equal or even greater than India is US, not even China due to the politics and intolerance over their.

This is not an argument, however I wanted to put my point of view as a food for thought for the discussion. Hope it helps. Shashank.aggarwal 08:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

 * So does anyone have problems with mentioning the great power line.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 23:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, I certainly don't think India is a Great Power yet by a long shot (in any sense of the word); furthermore, I don't think anything you've said above has changed my mind. It certainly doesn't belong to the lead (and "emerging superpower" is already mentioned in the history section.)  I can't speak for Blacksun, Dbachman, and Nichalp, but I can't imagine (in light of their remarks above) they even remotely agree with you.

 * It should also be noted that none of the countries among: Russia, Germany, Italy, Canada, and Australia (although all in the G-8) are referred to as "great powers" in their respective pages. Japan is referred to as only an "economic great power" and People's Republic of China, only an "emerging superpower."  Only Great Britain has "great power" and the  United States, "super-power" on their respective pages.  I also know (from previous talk postings) that many people (including Nichalp and me) are against the use of "emerging superpower" in the India-lead, even though China has it in theirs.  Maybe we should revisit the issue in a year's time, and discuss it again.   Fowler&fowler  «Talk»  00:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

 * OK, I'll leave the great power discussion, I don't think I will persuade you, we may revisit the topic later. By the way, Canada is not commonly referred to as a great power, neither is Italy but...anyway...Australia is neither a great power nor is it in the G8. As you said, Great Britain, Japan and U.S. mention their great/super powerness in their lead and the PRC mentions itself as an emerging superpower. Russia, France and Germany have it in their See Also lists and their history sections but thats it. So Italy and India are the only great powers not to have mentioned the term on their entire articles. But no need to worry. I have a different proposal, where in the lead it says India's standard of living is projected to rise. I want "projected to rise" to be linking to India as an emerging superpower (which contains information on India's power and problems and is a very badly written article but please don't press me on that now) so it becomes projected to rise.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 03:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why don't we put the Emerging superpower link in the "Sea also?" The "projected to rise" already has a footnote reference.   Fowler&fowler  «Talk»  03:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It's already in the See Also.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 04:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

 * So, by your own count: Russia, France, Germany, and Canada, who are all in the G-8, do not mention "Great Power" anywhere in their main texts; only in their "See also." And, India already has Emerging superpower in the history section and in the "See also."

 * I don't see the need for any other change, especially a link (to an article that is poorly written by your own admission) in a sentence that already has a relevant footnote. Why don't we say that when the article India as an emerging superpower has improved, we can revisit this issue?  Fowler&fowler  «Talk»  08:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"Emerging" is speculative, and I would prefer not adding unnecessary gloat terms to the page. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  11:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I support the addition of India as an emerging superpower link. It's not speculation. It is based on reports by organisations with great experience in these fields. Here is some good news Indian economy 'to overtake UK'. India already is a great power. Chanakyathegreat 14:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

BBC, never writes in a straight forward manner, always there will be if and butts. For the psyops about infrastructure in the BBC article, here is another article from a journalist who visited India to write the article.India is an aspiring superpower on the rise, rivaling China. Chanakyathegreat 14:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

So the conclusion is that with only the basic infrastructure India can grow 9% and with the government investing in infrastrure to make it world class, will help to boost the economy and will help it to grow above 10%. Chanakyathegreat 14:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Occupation
The meaning of Occupation being altered.

Certain questions.

Who authorised the British to Govern India. Was this with the approval of the Indians?

Did all the Indians supported the British in governing them?

When the Indian's and later under the Leadership of Mahatma Gandhi asked the British to quit, why didn't they quit until 1947.

Why no representation was made in the British parliment by Indians and what authority was given to Indians to mangage the affairs of the nation.

First answer these questions. Then we can think of changing the meaning of occupation. It must not be military occupation. For your kind information it was a military occupation which started with the arrival of the British and other foreign military.

Chanakyathegreat 17:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Who authorized Homo Sapiens (human beings) when they left Africa 55,000 years ago and arrived on the later-to-be-named-Indian-subcontinent to stay? Was it the cheetahs? Go back far enough in history and no people (other than perhaps those of East Africa) have transcendental ownership rights on their land.   Fowler&fowler  «Talk»  19:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Look, it would be nice if you replied to it properly instead of rambling on about facts completely unrelated to the discussion. I believe if a land is inhabited only by cheetahs and animals it is dubbed terra nullius, now if you want to say that Indians are equivalent to animals then that is a different thing.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 22:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Don't call it rambling if you don't understand the point. Terra nullius, BTW, was coined by the Romans (and not by the cheetahs), in the same way that laws were made by the British, and before them by the Moghuls, the Sultanates, the Guptas, the Mauryas, and every dynasty that called the fair land of India their realm. To make an artificial distinction and say that the British were somehow occupiers, but not all the previous hordes of humanity that alighted upon the subcontinent, smacks of double standards.   Fowler&fowler  «Talk»  01:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * PS If you are going to invoke terra nullius then the adivasis, according to latest DNA evidence, are really the only group that can lay real claim to citizenship of India, since their ancestors arrived on the subcontinent long before every one else's—long before the Dravidians, the Aryans, the Scythians, the Mongols, ... and all the other civilizing hordes that have found their way into the history books. Why don't we work on a history page for India written from the perspective of the adivasis?  Why do I have the feeling that the same people who wax grandiosely about the Mauryas, the Guptas, the Mughals, etc.  will not be interested in that enterprise ...  Fowler&fowler  «Talk»  02:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, rereading my comment it may seem like I was patronizing yours, but I was just telling you to answer more reasonably to Chanakya as opposed to saying that no-one should have left Africa because of the cheetahs. It sounded like you were making an analogy between British rule of India and the way humans rule over animals, which is (needless to say) racist to the point of disgust. If you had talked about the Mughals, Sakas, Guptas etc. instead of talking about human migrations out of Africa I wouldn't have bothered replying and left it to Chanakya.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 03:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's really funny to note that you have to resort to the period of human evolution to change the meaning of occupation. Even if you consider that time. The Africans spread over to all the world. They was not occupying anyone else land since it was them that existed at that time and all the land belonged to them. One British person just like you brought tried and succeeded in bringing the fraudent Aryan invasion theory. Who are the adivasis? As you said, the adivasis are the main inhabitants and claimants of the Indian land. The Indians are the sons and daughters of the adivais who accepted change with time. The Adivais still stick to the age old practice. Even the modern Adivasis including me do continue certain tradition and belief system of the adivais including considerng the sun and snake as god. Now what the British were doing in India. Do they belong to the Adivasi clan. Yes, to their ansesters in east Africa. Now does that give the Indians the right to govern U.K by your logic. I am ready to govern Britain but remember I will rule in a similar fashion the British did in India. You will not have any rights in governance. it will be solely by me. Chanakyathegreat 03:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

 * BTW, I am not British, as you seem to be obliquely implying ... Well, when I used the word adivasis, I didn't mean "scheduled tribes." I meant tribal groups that are still so completely insulated from the rest of Indian society, that they can be tapped for studies of DNA markers. It is only these tribal groups, which now constitute no more than half of 1% of the population, that provide DNA markers indicating the earliest migrations out of Africa.  Pretty much all other Indians are results of later migrations and movement.   If you are going to do some kind of genetic differentiation to rule out the British from their place in Indian history, you will have to also rule out 95% of the population of India.  The point is simply why (and how) you can draw the line with the British.  Why not the Moghuls?  Why not the Scythians?  Why not the Dravidians, since they too ultimately are outsiders?  The Y-chromosome studies conducted during the last 5 years point to a number of early coastal migrations out of Africa to India, with some of the later migrants wiping out earlier ones (during the period 55KY to 30KY).  The process of early human settlement in India (and elsewhere) was every bit as violent as later ones found in history books.  You say, "Who gave the British the right to govern India?"  Why not ask the same question of the Mughals, or indeed Chandragupta Maurya? or the Cholas? The point is that the British were in India; therefore, for better or worse, they are a part of Indian history.  Their stay in India, just like Chandragupta Maurya's, has already happened.  You can't unwrite it.   Fowler&fowler  «Talk»  05:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I never meant that caste or that tribe. The meaning of Adivasi is Adi means early vasis means living or those living from historic time. The Indians are the modern adivasis. When you look at Britain and your cousins in East Africa you find a lot of difference. This is because they changed with time adopting to the situation and the massive changes made a lot of difference over a period of many centuries. You are trying to replace Indian with British and saying that the Britishers are Indians. Chandragupta maurya, Cholas, Cheras, Dravidians are not people from outside India. Theya are all Indians. Regarding the Mughals, yes they were outsiders. Being in India they changed to being Indians and became a part of this land. The attempt by you to revert history to suit what you think is right is not acceptable. It must remain solely as a blind belief of yours. You have no right to compare a rule by Indian Chandragupta Maurya to a rule of exploitation and oppression by the foreign British in India. Even though the British occupation is for a very small fraction of Indian history, we Indians are not going to remove the history of one of the most brutal oppressive regimes. It will stay for ever. Chanakyathegreat 05:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

 * adi, BTW, doesn't mean "early," it means "beginning" or "origin" and vasis doesn't mean "living," but rather "inhabitants."  Thanks for the lesson anyway.  As for the rest of your posting, I can't decipher its intent very clearly.  My basic point is that whether the British were brutal or not, whether you regard them as Indian or not, they were in India and for that reason alone, they have to be mentioned in any history of India.  QED.   Fowler&fowler  «Talk»  07:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

An occupation is a military administration by a power that is not considered to be the legitimate authority in a country. This was not the situation of India under the Raj. India was colonized, and was perhaps a victim of imperialism, and whatever other such words you want to employ. But to describe it as an occupation is to twist the meaning of that word out of all recognizable shape. Britain's position in India was not the result of military conquest alone, but of treaties signed with the native rulers. I believe this is more or less true in nearly all cases. Certainly the British relationship with the various princely states, who together made up maybe a third of India, cannot be reasonably described as an occupation. That the Indian people did not like British rule has nothing to do with whether or not it was an occupation. "Occupation" is a clear term with a clear meaning in international law, and that meaning has to do with control and administration by the military. This was not how India was governed under the Raj, and the term is completely inappropriate. There's no need to get into Adavasis or Chandragupta Maurya to determine that "occupation" is the wrong word. john k 07:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I disagree completely with JohnKenney and Fowler&fowler and support use of Chanakyathegreat's input/use of the word 'Foreign Occupation' as there were multiple foreign countries trying to prey on the subcontinent. When we refer to Karachi's history we still mention as "...foreign occupation of the Keti-Bender..." where the foreign meant Portuguese and the British were the same when they came here. It was just their disguise to fool the local people to take over them and put the name 'Raj' which was not at all liked by the local people. E.g., when contributing to the Pakistan article I would definitely try to put the 'British' as 'foreigners' since what matters now is how to present the country of Pakistan in a good way...the foreigners who they were do not matter here. The foreigners may however maintain these specifics in their own pages & own national history in great detail. I finally support the word 'foreign occupation' and will take it as an example to put it in other pages for the subcontinent. MazharUbaid 12:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, the Pakistan page doesn't use the word "occupation" either in their lead and, furthermore, they do use the word Raj: "Its territory was a part of pre-partitioned British India, and has a long history of settlement and civilisation including the Indus Valley Civilisation. Most of it was conquered in the 1st millennium BC by Persians and Greeks. Later arrivals include the Arabs, Afghans, Turks, and Mongols. The territory was incorporated into the British Raj in the nineteenth century."

Fowler&fowler «Talk»  16:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Occupation means military administration, usually by a country that does not have sovereignty over the area. Colonization or Imperialism is not the same thing as occupation. Occupation has a specific meaning, and British rule in India does not qualify. Were the British occupying the princely states, too, or just the directly ruled provinces? john k 22:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

 * No, the British did not occupy the princely states. They had a political officer in those states, and private British citizens were, of course, free to pursue various occupations in those states, but there was no officialdom.  That's why you don't find much Indo-British architecture in former princely state cities like Jaipur (in contrast, say, to "British" cities like Bombay or Calcutta).   Fowler&fowler  «Talk»  23:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * PS Actually, here is a good map. The pink areas are British; the yellow areas are the princely states.  ''Imperial Gazeteer of India: British Indian Empire, 1911.   Fowler&fowler  «Talk»  23:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * PPS. Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) was not really a part of the Indian Empire in 1911, having become a crown colony sometime in the late 19th century; however, Burma was briefly a part of the Indian empire 1906? to 1930 or thereabouts from 1885 to 1937, when it began to be administered separately.  Fowler&fowler  «Talk»  23:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * PPPS As a historian, you probably already have access to the relevant texts, but Encarta has a decent History of India section, written by Philip Oldenburg of Columbia. It has a leisurely treatment of the British period.  Fowler&fowler  «Talk»  00:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I wasn't asking whether the British control over the princely states was actually an occupation, but whether or not our interlocutors believe it to be such. john k 03:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

 * (To Fowler&fowler) Actually, your comparisons of British occupation of India (oh my god, I just said occupation instead of colonization..) with Mughals, Dravidians (Huh??) etc. is flawed. Mughals did not rule from an island on other side of the world.  They became part of the Indian society.  The head of the British empire and its power base was in London not Delhi.  Dravidians were not answering to some queen in Africa.  I dont even see the comparison.  What are you talking about?  Try again.  Generally, the phrases "British occupation of India" and "British colonization" are used as equivalent in many books and literature.  If you do not believe me then you can go read this articles at NY times or go here to the Royal Society website or here where they use the phrase "British occupation of India" to refer to erm.. British occupation of India?  So unlike what you and Mr. John K (who thinks perhaps India might have been victim of Imperialism.. I emphasize "perhaps") might be implying it is not out of place to use the term occupation.  Their is definitely legitimate precedent for it (one of the NYT writers even tried to draw comparisons with American occupation of Iraq :P).  I apologize if I misunderstood what you are trying to say or what this entire argument is about.  I should really just stay out of it as it seems like a waste of precious time.  --Blacksun 09:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Am I the only one who is thinking "Who the hell cares?" about this entire argument. I personally do not see much, if any, of a difference between occupation and colonization (unlike some other posters) but colonization is the term that is generally used and I cannot believe that the page got locked down because of this.  --Blacksun 09:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The British Army eliminated those who opposed them. The rulers of the princely states including Veera Pandya Kattabomman, Jhansi Rani, Marthanada verma, Pazhazzi Raja, Tipu sultan, Tantia Tope, and many such rulers were killed to take control of India. Also those who opposed the British like Mahatma Gandhi, Netaji, Veer Savarkar, Bhagat Singh, Azad and many more leaders were either jailed or eliminated. Chanakyathegreat 09:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

 * To Blacksun,  Although the page may have been locked as a result of this latest argument, there is clearly a bigger problem at hand, much like the elephant in the room that no one wants to acknowledge.  It is that a few people with high-school knowledge of history and junior-high-school skills in English composition keep changing the text to suit their particular view of the world.  Consequently, the page degenerates into something that looks and sounds like a bad parody of an old propaganda pamphlet.  Here is an example from the lead (early October 2006): Despite countless invasions over the past 5000 years, Indian culture and society has been so resilient, that it has either thrown away or completely absorbed any foreign influences, with the social fabric largely remaining unchanged and intact. India emerged as modern democratic nation-state in 1947, when the subcontinental populace expelled all non-native traders in an intense movement for social reforms and forged it into a single nation, thus restoring the glory of the past Indian empires.

 * Wikipedia hopes to give both Encyclopaedia Britannica and Encarta Encyclopedia a run for the money. How is that going to happen if the lead sounds like the above?  In contrast, the article on Indian History in Encarta is written by a professional historian of India at Columbia University.  You ask who cares whether "occupation" and "colonization" are used.  The point is that historiography is a field with a long tradition, where certain words have certain meanings; one can't arbitrarily decide to give them different meanings and then enforce the new language on one and all alike by starting edit wars, as some people have done.      Fowler&fowler  «Talk»  14:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes that is bad. But that person should be banned temporarily if they keep reverting into something that retarded.  Locking the page down seems extreme.--Blacksun 14:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it is temporary, until some issues of terminology, like "occupation," have been sorted out, or at least aired. Fowler&fowler  «Talk»  14:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Occupation is a perfectly acceptable term. It is used often as an equivalent to colonization.  I have provided some examples in my post above.  I personally do not have any qualms with using colonization either as I do not think one is more scrupulous than the other.  In fact, one of the definitions of colonization in American Heritage dictionary is "to subjugate."  Maybe we can use "subjugation" then to please both parties? :) --Blacksun 16:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the current version of the text. Here are the sentence which is seen by some as the main point of controversy Politically controlled by the British East India Company from the early 18th century and directly administered by Great Britain starting the mid-19th century, India became a modern nation-state in 1947 after a struggle for independence marked by widespread use of nonviolent resistance as a means of social protest. The sentence was created by me, but based on the original version by Nichalp, someone with a lot of experience with Wikipedia featured articles; it was followed by a month's back and forth between me and Nichalp over the right language. In addition, I consulted two retired professors, both India experts at the University of Chicago, for the right neutral language. It is very import for the language to be neutral, especially in the lead. Here is an example from the Encylopaedia Britannica's lead describing the British period: Only after the arrival of the Portuguese navigator Vasco da Gama in 1498 and the subsequent establishment of European maritime supremacy did India become exposed to major external influences arriving by sea, a process that culminated in the absorption of the subcontinent within the British Empire.

Direct administration by the British, which began in 1858, effected a political and economic unification of the subcontinent, the legacy of which is found in many aspects of the current Indian state, including its parliamentary system of government. Presumably my interlocutors will complain about the Britanicca text as well, since it doesn't use "occupation." It is they who need to read Indian history—not some Hindu right-wing partisan version, in which the heroes are Veer Sarkarkar, Netaji, Bhagat Singh, and Chandrashekhar Azad (with Gandhi thrown in grudgingly, I'm sure)—but some real history books, the kind that they read in college and graduate school. Part of the problem is that these people have been engaged in the past. Here is a classic example from December 2006. It concerned a similar insistence on their part on using the words "non-native expulsion" in describing the final fate of the British in India. We asked them very reasonably to find credible sources which use these words and provided, for our own part, searchable Indian history books on Amazon that didn't use that kind of language. After vaguely referring to NCERT books (contorversial high-school history books put out during the BJP tenure, and later retracted) the said person finally went on the internet and, hurriedly misreading Gandhi's book "Hind Swaraj," produced the fragment of a sentence from it, in support. It turned out, when I read the complete sentence, it meant exactly the opposite; in other words, Gandhi didn't think that the "physical expulsion" of the British was a sine qua non for independence. It was at that point that Nichalp said that our "interlocutors" need to be treated as trolls and blocked or the page be protected from time to time. So, as far as I am concerned, the current text is fine; it is they who need to do some rethinking, and more importantly, some learning. Fowler&fowler «Talk»  18:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Just dropping in to say Bhagat Singh was left-wing and Fowler's opinion of with Gandhi thrown in grudgingly, I'm sure is absolutely incorrect.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 03:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

For God's sake people, occupation is not a synonym for colonization. France was occupied by the Germans during World War II, but it wasn't colonized by them. Similarly, Germany was occupied by the allies after World War II, but is generally not considered to have been colonized by them. On the other hand, colonial rule is generally not considered an occupation. Occupation generally means military rule over territory one doesn't claim sovereignty over. This is not what happened in India, and using the term is wrong. john k 07:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Without occupying one nation cannot rule another nation. Military control is the first step in taking control of a nation. When the military control is lost they lose control of that nation. That's what happened in 1947. When British has no more military control over the situation they had to leave and they left. Simple. France was occupied by Germans. How can that be when India was not occupied by the British. Was that not the Nazis were governing the French. Why this partiality? This is like saying if you kill military personnel it is freedom movement and if you kill civilians it is terrorism or when the Pentagon was attacked it was freedom struggle and when WTC was hit, it is terrorism. Chanakyathegreat 14:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Fowler, text books or no textbooks, the meaning of Non-natives means non-Indians. You seem to believe that the Britishers are Indians. Whether the Britishers stay in India as tourists or visit India, it is not an issue for Gandhiji. He was not a person who showed hatred towards others. But he wanted the governance of India to be made by Indians and not by a foreign occupying force. Chanakyathegreat 14:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

For God's sake no. You have no idea what you're talking about. France was occupied by the Germans because German control was exercised by the military. There was no civilian German administration. Occupation is a less intensive form of control than that exercised by the British in India. You clearly have no command of English usage, and I don't see why you should think you have the right to dictate usage to those of us who do. john k 06:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

 * John is right, and for that reason, "occupation" is usually used to describe brief periods of time—a few years, perhaps tens of years, rather than hundreds of years. I searched through many of the standard Indian history texts and some more advanced texts on the British period.  Nowhere was the word "occupation" used to describe the entire British period in India.  I am providing the sources in a separate section below.  All books can be searched (on line) for the words.  I now feel confident enough that if our interlocutors still insist on using the word "occupation," I will request formal Wikipedia arbitration and put this matter to rest; for I see this exchange proceeding ad infinitum and ad nauseum.  See section below.   Fowler&fowler  «Talk»  12:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Occupied is not the correct term. John's defination is correct. I have no idea why colonised is not used instead. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  14:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Hi Nichalp, I may have misunderstood your last sentence, but I thought I should clarify why I took out "colonised" from the lead in early December 2006. The original version of the sentence said, "Colonised by the British East India Company from the early 18th century and directly administered by Great Britain starting the mid-19th century, ..."  In late November last, I talked with two India experts (who I mentioned above) and they said that the period of Company rule would more accurately be characterized as "political control" than "colonised." The latter term they felt would apply to the period 1857-1947 (i.e. direct rule).  So I changed the sentence to "Politically controlled by the British East India Company from the early 18th century and directly administered by Great Britain starting the mid-19th century, ..."  I noticed later that Encarta uses that language as well.  I have nothing against "colonised," in fact, as you know,  I spent great energy in November trying to keep it in the sentence.  I'm sure it can  be used in the History section where brevity is not of such essence.   Fowler&fowler  «Talk»  15:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * PS Our interlocutors were first complaining about "colonised" being used. Now that they don't have that bone to pick, they have started a fight over "occupation" not being used!  Fowler&fowler  «Talk»  15:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My final thoughts: I agree with Mr. Fowler in saying that "their is nothing wrong with the original" sentence. The new edits seem to insert unwarranted hostility in the text.  It definitely does not sound encyclopedic.  However, I do maintain my opinion that their is not a substantial difference between "occupation" and "colonization" in the Indian context - A fact that is clearly indicated by usage phrase "British occupation of India" in various newspaper articles and books. I am of the opinion that we should continue to use the original sentence.  --Blacksun 09:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

How about ... initially annexed by the British Raj, and later becoming a part of the British Empire...? =Nichalp  «Talk»=  14:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Oh, I see, you mean "annexed" will hint at military force and will perhaps satisfy our interlocutors as a substitute for "occupy." Sure.  Since the annexation was gradual, a more accurate rewording would be: Gradually annexed by the British East India Company starting the early 18th century and directly administered by Great Britain from the mid-19th century, India became a modern nation-state in 1947 after a struggle for independence marked by widespread use of nonviolent resistance as a means of social protest.

 * That's fine by me. I would prefer to say "directly administered" or "directly ruled" to the more vague term "British Empire."  (Recall that we discussed and agreed on this in: Talk:India/archive_17.)  It is now for Chanakyathegreat and others to say if the current version of the draft is agreeable to them.   Fowler&fowler  «Talk»  17:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC) (PS.  There is another reason, why I am hesitant to use "British Empire" for India; this is explained in a separate section, "British Empire, Colonies, and India" below.   Fowler&fowler  «Talk»  23:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC))

Just a food for thought in the debate, "directly administered" seems to be a very mild term, atleast to me who believes that the period of second half of 18th century to the first half of the 20th were the dark ages in Indian history. In which we have very little to show as gained and lot to show as lost. Shashank.aggarwal 09:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree with Shashank's view that directly administered is very mild term.(It conveys legitimacy to british rule indirectly??). You are saying colonisation reflects british rule of 1857-1947.Word colonisation instead of occupation has been agreed by Nichalp and Blacksun.So why cannot we change second part of the sentence like as mentioned below.

Gradually annexed by the British East India Company starting the early 18th century and colonised by Great Britain from the mid-19th century after soliders revolt in the First Independence war, India became a modern nation-state in 1947 after a struggle for independence marked by widespread use of nonviolent resistance under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi as a means of social protest.--Indianstar 14:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

--

I am not sure what is meant by a "mild" term. "Direct admininstration" is a neutral term and it describes the way India was governed. (See British Empire, the Colonies, and India below for an extended discussion of the history behind the term.) At the risk of repeating myself, here is what the Encyclopaedia Britannica lead says: Direct administration by the British, which began in 1858, effected a political and economic unification of the subcontinent, the legacy of which is found in many aspects of the current Indian state, including its parliamentary system of government.

A number of things need to be clarified about the lead:

 * The lead is already at its upper limit for the number of words. Every  addition has to accounted for by equivalent deletion somewhere else.  To keep the lead compact, it was decided some time ago not to mention specifics (historical examples or names) in the lead.  "Mahatma Gandhi," for example,  cannot be added.  (You can be sure that if you do add "Gandhi," edit wars will start with people wanting to add "Subhash Chandra Bose,"  "Veer Savarkar" and the like.  Besides "nonviolent resistance" is already mentioned.)

 * We cannot use the words "First War of Independence," but rather the term Wikpedia editors have agreed upon: Indian Rebellion of 1857. (See Debate over name.)  But this means that lead then becomes vulnerable to edit wars again by editors on both sides of the "name" debate.

 * As for colonialism or colonised, those are the words we were using in the first place, and their use had been eliciting vehement opposition from the various "nationalistic" editors! Here, for example, is the sentence from 23 November 2006: "Colonised by the British East India Company in the 18th century and directly administered  by Great Britain starting the mid-19th century, India became a modern nation-state in 1947 after a struggle for independence marked by widespread use of nonviolent resistance as a means of social protest."  If you look at the history of the India page, you will see that there were nonstop edit wars in opposition to "colonised," and long and acrimonious debate: Colonised:Example.  I can't believe that, after so much debate, if we revert back to "colonised," all the opposition will mysteriously vanish!   More importantly, as I have alluded to below, "colonialism," "colony," and "colonise" are vague terms; it is better to be as precise as possible within the limitations of a lead.

I think that either the current version (which is the most precise): Politically controlled by the British East India Company from the early 18th century and directly administered by Great Britain starting the mid-19th century, India became a modern nation-state in 1947 after a struggle for independence marked by widespread use of nonviolent resistance as a means of social protest.

or, the less precise version I last suggested, viz. Gradually annexed by the British East India Company starting the early 18th century and directly administered by Great Britain from the mid-19th century, India became a modern nation-state in 1947 after a struggle for independence marked by widespread use of nonviolent resistance as a means of social protest.

or, the even less precise, but more compact version: Gradually annexed by the British East India Company starting the early 18th century and later governed as the British Raj, India became a modern nation-state in 1947 after a struggle for independence marked by widespread use of nonviolent resistance as a means of social protest.

is the most accurate we can be while still being neutral; furthermore, the latter two versions hint at the use of force in the choice of the word "annexed." Fowler&fowler «Talk»  22:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

-

 * Nice to see that you have done extensive research on India related topics and taking questions from editors and replying in positive and polite way. My understanding is that some editors objected "colonisation" and instead wanted to use "occupation". If "occupation" cannot be used then they may prefer to use the word "colonisation" instead of "direct administration" in the second part of the sentence. For example, we say Lakshdweep is directly administered by Indian government.(There is no federal government like other union territories). In this sentence "Direct Administration" is appropriate because it conveys legitimacy of Indian government to administer union territory as per Indian constitution. We would not say that Saddam hussein led Iraq government directly administered Kuwait after annexing it.(I am not comparing with British rule of India,I phrased above sentence only to say why i feel phrase "direct administration" may not be more appropriate.) Since most of us concur for usage of word colonisation, it is better to use that word. I seek others opinions. I am ok with usage of sentence as given by you if it is acceptable to others. I don't want to prolong this discussions beyond this...--Indianstar 12:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

caption
At the picture where it says "Indian developed Agni-II ballistic missile on a mobile launcher platform during the Republic day parade 2004."

It should say "Indian-developed Agni-II ballistic missile on a mobile launcher platform during the Republic day parade 2004.", with "-" between "Indian" and "developed"

70.144.216.211 01:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Actually neither version is correct. If you insist on a hyphenated construction, it should read, "India-developed Agni-II ballistic missile on a ...."   Fowler&fowler  «Talk»  20:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Religious Holidays

 * Almost all Holidays in India are based on Religion and Karma Theory which support attrocities on Poors, Women and Children. Is it India Republic and Democratic?
 * vkvora 04:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia is not a blog, or a place to pen incoherent personal musings.  Fowler&fowler  «Talk»  20:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Parents sacrificing sons to be prosperous

vkvora 04:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Article talk pages are meant to discuss about contents of the article or to discuss about how to improve article contents. This should not be used like blog or social networking site.--Indianstar 07:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Bharat?
Bharat was never a country. It was another name used by South Asians, for the subcontinent before 1947. Modern Indians call RoI Bharat. But this name doesnt have any place in an Encyclopaedia since this will lead to another huge misunderstanding, for example, someone saying India used to be South Asia. Please consider this and remove Bharat from the page. Unre4L 00:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

 * You might be right about Bharat's history, but the reason it is mentioned in the Wikipedia India lead has nothing to do with history, but simply that it is the official Hindi name designated by the Government of India. If tomorrow, the Government of India decides to change the official Hindi name to Gondwana, Bharat will be out (and we'll have a bigger problem on our hands).   Fowler&fowler  «Talk»  01:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

 * The Constitution of India labels India as Bharat. India is an anglicized name given by the British. India is more Bharat than India because the Indian people (mostly) call it Bharat and foreign people call it India.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 03:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

 * We have a name section, keep Bharat in that to avoid redundancy and bad planning of prose. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  13:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

 * PS I have clarified what I meant above. Didn't realize there was a Wikipedia Bharat page.   Fowler&fowler  «Talk»

Fowler, again you are using your own version that shows your contempt towards others and you are trying to hide the truth below a bunch of lies. Bharath existed. That's what Maha Bharath (The Great Bharath) tells us. Modern Indians call Republic of India or Bharat meaning the same nation. Just because the boundaries of the nation changed slightly, one cannot change the name itself. Chanakyathegreat 05:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

 * All Unre4L is saying is that Bharat was not one country but a mini-continent. In the Mahabharat, there were many tribes and at least sixteen Kingdoms—recall, from the first chapter of the Gita: Drupad was the King of Panchala, Dhristaketu of the Chedis, and Somadatta of the Bahikas, not to mention the valiant King of Kashi.  I'm not agreeing with Unre4L's conclusion; just saying that the reason why "Bharat" is mentioned along with "India" (right off the bat in the lead) is that it is the official Hindi name of the Republic of India.  As for Gondwana, I was trying to be light-hearted, not contemptuous.  Fowler&fowler  «Talk»  10:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

 * PS. This recently added map doesn't prove anything. It is a map based on Indian epics.  The epics also say that human beings were created on the banks of the River Saraswati when Aryan gods, mounted on white horses, arrived from Mount Meru on the North Pole.  And in fact (using that kind of "epic" evidence) there were even people who had been trying to prove the Indian origin of humanity ... that is, until the DNA evidence for humanity's African origin became overwhelming.  We need real historical evidence  to show that Emperor Bharata ruled over the lands shown in the map.   Fowler&fowler  «Talk»  16:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide source of white horse and Mount meru. Chanakyathegreat 14:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Fowler, see Talk:History of India, what Unre4L is trying to prove is that India has no ownership over parts of the subcontinent now in control of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, including prominently the Indus Valley Civilization, which is apparently part of Ancient Pakistan.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 00:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Most of Unre4L's arguments across all these talk pages are based on assuming that nation = state. deeptrivia (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * India as in "Ancient India" is neither a nation nor a state but a region. Obviously the Republic of India has no ownership of the Pakistani territory, or the bulk of IVC sites there. Which doesn't change their being in India, since the RoI doesn't control all of India, most notably it doesn't control most of the Indus itself. Which makes the whole naming business a bit of a paradoxon. Unre4L is mistaken about the term "India", not about nations or states. Which means he is still in error, of course. dab (𒁳) 13:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If you sell a small part of your property to a person who builds his own house will that make you to change the name of your house. Also Pakistan is just a temporary nation that may exist or may not exist in the future. It is based on Islam and the nation is not just Pakistan but an Islamic republic of Pakistan. If China can claim part of Tibet and especially Taiwan formed 50 or so years ago, surely India has a better right to claim Pakistan. Just because it is not done at present did not mean it cannot be made in the future, nor there is a guarantee that the so called Pakistani's themselves will not be joining India (Bharat). Chanakyathegreat 14:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

India's national anthem has the sentence "Bharata Bhagya Vidatha" ... any indian who doesn't speak english says: MERA BHARAT MAHAN / "Bharat Mata" .. the idea to remove the word BHARAT would be of complete ignorance and to ignore the true word. It is used and has been used since centuries and if it wasn't for the word "India" - India would be called "Bharat". User:sarejahan 13:44, 30 January 2007

East Indians (ethnic group)
This article is a bit confusing to me. My understanding is that this is not a very common usage compared to North American and possibly other usage which define East Indians as people who are from India as opposed to West Indians from the Carribean or Indians, which can mean either the indigenous peoples of central North America (or I suppose anyplace in the Americas except for the Arctic) OR people from India. Plus it does not have much in the way of references. Comments? Suggestions?--Filll 04:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur. I believe "East Indian" is also used in Britain, where there are large numbers of both "East Indian" and "West Indian" immigrants, but I'm not certain of this. john k 06:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

 * East Indian is not used at all in Britain, in my experience: people from the Caribbean are described as West Indians, those from the subcontinent simply as Indians. East Indian would merely have vague and archaic connotations of Indonesia to a (well-educated) British reader.--Stonemad GB 22:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is correct. East Indians are a Catholics of Maharashtrian origin in coastal Maharashtra around Mumbai. Agreed online references aren't too many, I've pulled some out:,. Anyways, this should be posted on the WT:INWNB =Nichalp   «Talk»=  09:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm not saying the article is incorrect, just that the topic of the article is a secondary meaning of the term "East Indian," which is widely used in the west to refer to people from the Subcontinent generally. Certainly in North America. john k 17:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I dispute the statement that it is a secondary meaning; it may be so only in NA. Anyways East Indian points to a disambig page which is more than sufficient. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  15:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Credible Sources and British "Occupation" of India
(This section is a continuation of the "Occupation" section above.)

Since Wikipedia proceeds by providing credible sources, it is important to examine history texts for use of "occupation" to describe the British period in India. I am providing below six standard Indian history text-books and four more advanced texts on British colonial India. I am also providing the link for the Encarta article on Indian history. All books can be searched for various words on line. I searched for "occupied," "occupation," and "British occupation." Nowhere were the words used to describe the entire British period in India. "British occupation" may have been used by the publishers in a back cover blurb, or in the copyright information, or in a quote, but never once was the expression used by the authors themselves in describing the period. Please examine the texts carefully. (In addition, I read through the long Britannica article on Indian history and the word is not used there either; however, I can't provide that link since it requires a subscription.)  I now feel confident enough about the word's usage that if Chanakyathegreat and others insist on using the word in the India page lead, I will request a formal Wikipedia arbitration and put the matter to rest.  Here are the sources (all searchable). I have also provided examples below them of how the words "occupied" or "occupation" were used in these texts. Finally, I also searched for "non-native" and "nonnative." The words were never used in any of the texts.

(Note: Please don't rush to the internet and post the first instance you find of "British occupation." We are talking about credible sources.)

 * Bose, Sugata & Ayesha Jalal. 2003.  [ http://www.amazon.com/Modern-South-Asia-Sugata-Bose/dp/0415307872/sr=1-1/qid=1162855249/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-8266759-0757557?ie=UTF8&s=books Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy] Routledge, 2nd edition.  304 pages.  ISBN 0415307872.
 * Kulke, Hermann and Dietmar Rothermund. 2004.  [ http://www.amazon.com/History-India-Hermann-Kulke/dp/0415329205/ A History of India].  Routledge.  448 pages.  ISBN 0415329205.
 * Wolpert, Stanley. 2003.  [ http://www.amazon.com/New-History-India-Stanley-Wolpert/dp/0195166787/ A New History of India].  Oxford University Press.  544 pages.  ISBN 0195166787.
 * Stein, Burton. 1998.  [ http://www.amazon.com/History-India-World/dp/0631205462/ref=pd_ybh_a_7/104-7029728-9591925 A History of India].  Basil Blackwell Oxford (Reprinted by Oxford University Press India 2001).  ISBN 0195654463
 * Metcalf, Thomas R. 1997.  [ http://www.amazon.com/Ideologies-Raj-Cambridge-History-India/dp/0521589371/ref=pd_ybh_a_8/104-7029728-9591925 Ideologies of the Raj (New Cambridge History of India)], 256 pages, Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521589371
 * Spear, Percival. 1990.  [ http://www.amazon.com/History-India-Vol-2/dp/0140138366/ref=pd_ybh_a_6/104-7029728-9591925 A History of India, Volume 2]  Penguin Books.  298 pages.  ISBN 0140138366
 * Goswami, Manu. 2004. [ http://www.amazon.com/Producing-India-Colonial-National-Practices/dp/0226305090/ Producing India: From Colonial Economy to National Space]. University of Chicago Press.  400 pages. ISBN 0226305090.
 * Guha-Thkurta, Tapati. 2004. [ http://www.amazon.com/Monuments-Objects-Histories-Institutions-Postcolonial/dp/023112998X/ Monuments, Objects, Histories: Institutions of Art in Colonial and Postcolonial India]. Columbia University Press.  404 pages.  ISBN 023112998X.
 * Chatterjee, Indrani. 2002.  [ http://www.amazon.com/Gender-Slavery-Law-Colonial-India/dp/0195659066/ Gender, Slavery and Law in Colonial India].  Oxford University Press.  300 pages.  ISBN 0195659066
 * Philip, Kavita. 2003.  [ http://www.amazon.com/Civilizing-Natures-Resources-Modernity-Colonial/dp/0813533619/ Civilizing Natures: Race, Resources, and Modernity in Colonial South India].  Rutgers University Press.  248 pages.  ISBN 0813533619
 * Encarta Encyclopedia: India, History

Examples:

 * 1) "It was only after overcoming fierce Maratha resistance that the British occupied Delhi in 1803."
 * 2) "... Sultanate and can be traced to the occupation of the Punjab by the Ghaznavids between 1001 and 1186."
 * 3) "Humayun re-occupied Delhi and Agra, but within six months in January 1556..."
 * 4) "The Nawab opted for Pakistan but after a few weeks Indian troops occupied the state and a plebiscite declared for Indian union."
 * 5) "... Disraeli in 1878 dispatched 7,000 Indian troops to Malta and occupied Cyprus."
 * 6) "In 1950, China occupied Tibet, claiming that it was a part of China proper, long ruled by imperial Chinese authority and its republican successors. ..."
 * 7) "... By that point, Bombay island, occupied by the English, had begun slowly to jostle for place with Surat as the premier trading centre on the west ..."
 * 8) "... had slipped from being a prime center of Asian Buddhist pilgrimage to becoming a largely abandoned site under Saivite occupation, ..."
 * 9) "... After the Pallava occupation of Badami in 642, another Chalukya dynasty emerged in the eastern Deccan, with its capital north of the river Godavari ..."

Fowler&fowler «Talk»  12:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * *scratches head* erm, I disagree with the analysis of your own findings and they certainly do not give any sort of conclusive proof that you seem to be assuming. In fact, if one of the books describes British rule of Bombay as occupation then..  *shrugs*  --Blacksun 10:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Hi Blacksun, The quote "... Bombay Island, occupied by the British ..." was not about "rule." It described a time when the British had only lately obtained control of the island.  In general, "occupation" describes short-term instances of take-over (often under military rule, as John Kenney mentioned above) or the early years of a long-term take-over when the machinery of civilian administration is not yet established; "colonization" describes longer periods.  For example, the quote above about the Nawab opting for Pakistan is likely about the princely state of Junagadh, and the word "occupied" is used only for the time between the Indian troops taking control of the state and the plebiscite declaring it a part of India.  As I mentioned above, nowhere once in these sources (please search them yourself) was the word "occupation" used to describe the entire British period in India, but the words "colonization" or "colonial" were used numerous times.  Sometimes, of course, the word "occupation" is used to drive home a political point.  Thus Jawaharlal Nehru in his [ http://www.amazon.com/Discovery-India-Oxford-Paperbacks/dp/0195623592/ Discovery of India] uses "occupation" to describe the entire British period; but, he is a partisan in the context, which an encyclopedia cannot be, however much we may admire Nehru and his writing.

 * The distinction between "occupation" and "colonization," and use of the latter for describing British rule in India, is simply one of English usage.  It has nothing to do with acceptance or glorification of British rule.  Thus, one can maintain the distinction between the two words and at the same time be an exacting critic of British colonialism.  Some of the sources I mention above do precisely this.   Fowler&fowler  «Talk»  13:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

the British may have "occupied" individual places, like Bombay, Delhi, etc., but they couldn't have "occupied India" because no 'India' as a political entity existed. At best, the British occupied the [remnants of the] Mughal Empire. You can only "occupy" a political entity, you cannot "occupy" a geographical entity, you "settle" or "colonialize" it. dab (𒁳) 08:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Dab, The map that you've kindly added displays some interesting features: that in the Indian Rebellion of 1857 the majority of the princely states (including many of the big ones): Kashmir, Kapurthala, Patiala, Sirmur, Jaipur, Alwar, Bharatpur, Rampur, Nepal, Sirohi, Mewar, Bundi, Bijawar, Ajaigar, Rewa, Keonjhar, Udaipur, and Hyderabad (most of present-day Andhra Pradesh), sided with and aided the British; that other large states like Mysore (most of present-day Karnataka), Travancore (most of present-day Kerala), Baroda (most of present-day Gujarat and parts of present-day Maharashra) stayed neutral.  Fowler&fowler  «Talk»  11:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * that's interesting, certainly, but what has it got to do with the present topic? My entire point is that the Indian subcontinent was fragmented into dozens of states at the time of the "British occupation", and that the Brits consequently may have "occupied" some of these states and not others. Actual unification of India only took place under British rule. dab (𒁳) 11:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, there was a second paragraph to my post above that doesn't seem to have been saved. Here it is again as I remember it.  First of all, I am only supporting what you say.  Most of the independent kingdoms or "Princely States were "sovereign entities of British India that were not under the direct control of the British government but instead entered into treaties directly with the British monarch," and the extent of the British presence in these states was the British "political officer."  Some states (to be sure) had been annexed or occupied under Lord Dalhousie's Doctrine of lapse—Jhansi, Oudh, Satara, Nagpur and Sambalpur—turning "the heirs of these kingdoms into 'pensioners' overnight." It was principally these recently annexed states that rebelled.  Had the British truly occupied or annexed all the princely states, the Indian rebellion would have been more widespread.  Fowler&fowler  «Talk»  15:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Dab, it is rather futile to keep bringing up silly points like "but their was no official political entity named India pre-1947." Duh? Of course, we all know that.  However, it is an ENTIRELY different ball game in the context that most people like to use it often or at least imply:  Without British rule their would be no such political entity.  You do not know that and quite frankly, their is enough precedence historically to argue otherwise.  Yes, their were many smaller kingdoms, princely states, etc. in the larger India but which country does not have that if you look at a spectrum of few hundred years?  However, the fact remains that all of this "smaller states" were lot closer politically and culturally than say "State of Mysore" and "Kingdom of Kuwait." In fact, quite often they were part of larger empires that often resembled the current political entity of India closely and even more often, part of medium sized empires that would form a large enough chunk of present India.  Point being?  It is not a historical accident that India came to being due to some intervention of Great Britain.  Yes you can argue about exact boundaries but in general terms, their are very good reasons why India exists as India.  Their were scores of other empires, both foreign and native, that also formed political entities  which resemble post-1947 India - albeit with different names.  India is a current result of centuries of political and cultural minglings, including British Raj, and not the sole product of mere two centuries following Battle of Plassey. --Blacksun 15:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Fully agree with Blacksun. It is only the British who would like the world to believe they created India as a political ::entity. Just to add to what you mentioned above, as proof that India as an entity existed before British occupation, consider the fact that a single currency existed throughout the subcontinent. Something which has taken years for EU to acheive. Thus, it is not for nothing that India was refered to by a single name. It wasnt the name of a continent.

Boundries keep changing. The USA was not what it is today, say even a 100 years back. --AJ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.145.104.148 (talk) 09:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
 * I don't believe that a single currency existed before the British arrived. A lot of kingdoms minted their own currency IIRC. India as a soverign entity ie nation-state began in 1947. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  09:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Please be better informed before assuming anything. A single currency existed much before the British occupation.
 * India as a country existed much before they came. The arrangement was the same. The smaller kingdoms were aligned with the bigger empire, ie Mughal Empire. They issued coins in the Mughal emperor's name.
 * therefore it is being naive to believe India came into existance in 1947. The only siginificance of that year is that it won Indipendance from the British. And that is what we are tought in history too. We never say India came into being then. It was country before them, united by various factors (mentioned above) among them being the currency.--AJ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.145.104.148 (talk) 09:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
 * There is no need to be so rude and condescending. The word "rupee" might have been used for centuries, but that does not make in a unified currency. Hyderabad State for example, issued it's own currency. The value of the rupee might not differed much between states but that makes is as diverse as the Indian or Pakistani rupee today. The point is that there was no single currency issued for the entire country from a single economic entity. Secondly, the Mughal empire ruled much of present day India, but it was never called "India" as such. The fact of the matter is that the nation-state came into existance in 1947. Before that India was a collection of independent kingdoms for thousands of years. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  09:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Nichalp is right. The sovereign nation-state certainly came to existence in 1947. For the British raj years, the situation is described well in:
 * Marshall, P.J. (ed). 2001.  The Cambridge Illustrated History of the British Empire. Cambridge University Press.  400 pages.  ISBN 0521002540.
 * Page 155."British India—those provinces (like the Punjab) that had been conquered and annexed—was directly administered by British officials, while the several hundred princely states (of which Hyderabad was the largest) concluded agreements whereby they surrendered to the Crown control over external affairs in return for a good deal of internal autonomy."

Consequently, India (representing both British India and the princely states) did make appearances internationally, e.g. as a founding member, in 1919, at the League of Nations, or, later, at the 1932 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles, when it licked the U.S. 24-1 in hockey (and the newspapers said that Indians should have played with one hand tied behind their backs or with ski boots on). Fowler&fowler «Talk»  12:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I think there is a need to be more informed here. There WAS a single currency, that is how the entire country existed. Each Kingdom might have issued currency, but they all had the same value and standard. Thats the basis of the existance of the entire trade within India (again, before the occupation).

Under the Mughlals (and much befoe that too) the country was called Hindustan, which is nothing but India (English for that). The Mughal emperor always held the title Emperor of Hindustan. Lik I said before, the boundries of India might have changed over the centuries, but the term India (which came from Indus).--AJ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.145.104.148 (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

 * As for the lack of conceusus on the word Occupation, lets have a look at the Japanese Colonies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_colonies. Now if you go to any of these country's page, it is mentioned as a Japanese Occupation". Point is, the British rule in India was NOT a result of (as fowler tried to explain) treaties, but simply a result fo military conquest. those who were supposedly independant and had "ceded" certain rights to the British, had obviously not done so out of compassion. They had lost to the British, militarily, hence these treaties, much like any other occupation. Japan lost the WW2, and whatever documentaion they signed thereafter, doesnt change the fact that they were signed becuase they lost. I am sure there is no confusion about how the British rule came into existance in India? The East India company had an armed force, which waged wars against the local rulers, and when they won, they either annexed it (later) or made that ruler cede his powers, leting him remain the puppet ruler.
 * Now, refer to what MK Gandhi had told to the British, when they sought Indian support for WW2. "Gandhi declared that India could not be party to a war ostensibly being fought for democratic freedom, while that freedom was denied in India herself", clearly indicating that he himself viewed with no difference, the occupation of France and other European countries and India.
 * The perceived difference is nothing but a colonial mindset.
 * Hence, there is no difference between colonial rule and occupation.--AJ

AJ, Replying to your points As is obvious from the above examples, colony is the appropriate word. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  18:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) If there was a unified currency, please do cite credible sources
 * 2) Secondly, occupation refers to "The control of a country or region by foreign armed forces" which India was not. India was never under the British military.
 * 3) Colony refers to a "Region or governmental unit created by another country and generally ruled by another country.

 * Well, refereces i shall bring. But could you give references to the contrary??
 * Now since when was India NOT under British Military? Refer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Indian_Army. It is clearly mentioned, how it worked. the entire compand structure was British, who were not Indian (they were posted here, from Britain, not native British who might have liked to settle in India).---AJ

 * Sure: See Hyderabad rupee, and currency issued in Kashmir. Certainly different from the Indian rupee. A unified rupee was issued once the British arrived.
 * India was under the direct administration of the British Crown, ie to say the Queen of England had the ultimate authority over India, not the General incharge of the army. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Refer: http://www.advfn.com/currencies/inr/about/IndianRupee.html. See History. A unified Rupee was NOT issued by the British (they might have united it for the territories they occupied), but the Mughals. And the Mughal Emipre stretched to much more that what is now India (and was called thus, Hindustan).
 * By the same logic, the current occupation of Iraq, is not under the direct control of the US Generals, but the US administration??? Or better still, all the other examples of occupartion, be it Korea or China, were obviously under the "direct administrtion" of the Japanese emperor, not the Japanese Generals, right? So where's the difference?--AJ

 * The point, Nichalp, is simple. Countries come into being, break up, get fragmented, reunit, it is a process which goes on, and when seen from a macroscopic level, it is the same everywhere. Thus, India might have existed under a united command for many centuries, and might have been fragmented for justr as many centuries. True, when the British gained control, the later was true (fragmentation), but that does not change the past. And there are ample of examples elsewhere of countries being split, for political reasons. Yes, mordern India came into being post the freedom struggle which resulted in the expulsion of the British. But just like Japan, China, India too was a country.--AJ
 * I don't see your point here. Your source clearly mentions that princely states issued their own currency. Now the Mughals only controlled most of India during the reign of Aurangzeb, for all other periods the extent was not as large. It would be obvious that a kingdom would use a single currency throughout the territory it controlled, but this does not mean that it was 'unified' in the sense of the Euro vs individual European currencies. There lies the difference. A unified currency would be more like how the Euro unites Europe as opposed to the the French Franc, Deutche Mark and Italian Lira which were acceptable throughout Europe but issued by several nations. I'm not denying your second point, India as a country existed, see my statement above... it says "India as a nation-state only existed post 1947," (1950 would be a better date). Before the advent of the British, the term India referred to the Indian subcontinent, which was a collection of independent kingdoms. To reply to the point on occupation: The defination of colony, (which you've still not replied on) states that a colony was "a governmental unit created by another country and generally ruled by another country". Was India ruled by a another country? yes! Was a government with civilian administration setup to govern the country? yes. So India fits the defination of a colony. In the case of occupation: Was the government under the British army? No, it was under the local civilian government headquartered in Calcutta. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  03:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Reply: Again, request you to refer the Japanese link. Korea was a Japanese colony, right? It had civilian admin? Yet It is called occupation, right? Same applies here, simple. Dont know why it is so hard to understand. Regarding currency, try to understand that India un der the Mughals was an entity much larger than (though may not be including all regions of present India) the British occupied India. And they unifed the currency (hence it was not obvious to have a single currency in a single empire, as it stated in the link). Also note that the British occupation lasted 150 years roughly, and they occupied most of present India only for about 100 years. The Mughals, on teh other hand, ruled a larger teritory for a period begining in the 1600s till early 1700s (until Autranzeb), which didnt include directly ruled teritories, but other smaller kingdoms who were part of the Mughal empire. Post Aurengzeb, when Mughal command weakened, their Governors became independent rulers (Nawabs). But the currency remained the same. Thus, 1. India DID exist before teh British came. 2. The size of India during the British is comparable to the size during the Mughals. Hence, logically, the Mughals integrated teh currency in their empire (a first in India as mentioned in the link). . The British, likewise, integrated the currency in THEIR occupied territories. Just to add (though I expect you probably know this), much of the present day administration, while sharing a lot with the colonial British administrative rules and systems, shares just as much from what the British themselves inherited from teh Mughals, who were for all practical perposes, the predecessors of the British. To sum up. The present Rupee, is also not entirely the British one. As, Goa for example was never a part of British India, so they also had a different currency.--AJ

 * Forgive me if I am repeating anything, not having read the discussion above, but it is impossible to talk of an Indian culture prior to British colonialism, as there was no India then.

It can be said that the current indian culture is the product of the contact between different civilisations, but it is inaccurate to state that there was an Indian culture that transcended through the ages. Sfacets 04:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to say, but your knowledge of India is very poor. No offence meant. I have said this ample of times, and frankly, am not even required to do so, it is a fact. Indian culture is far older than the colonial past. But for your convinience, if you know any Indian, see what he eats, he wears, he talks, and what he studies. And then think how much of it is a POST colonial phenomenon. Nothing. India is an ancient civilisation, existed much before British rule. True, it's present form, and boundaries resemble much of the British India (not all)--AJ

 * I beg to differ, you don't seem to be catching my drift - I am not contesting that it has an ancient civilization, I am contesting that there was only one unified civilization in pre-English colonial times. Also my knowledge in Indian history is excellent. Sfacets 04:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, honestly, I read what you said above, quote "but it is inaccurate to state that there was an Indian culture that transcended through the ages". What does it mean? Anyway, my appologies, but am not really interested in discussing this beyond this. Much of what I wish to say, is said above. Thanks for your comments. People have the right to differ. Thanks once more--AJ

 * Look we seem to be straying from the discussion of occupation vs colonism by bringing in the rupee and debating the scope of India. We have common points we agree, so there is no point going on the discussion trying to point out the exactness of "India". Since you want me to elucidate on the Korea example, Korea was not a colony of Japan as the Japanese did not set up an semi-autonomous civilian government there. From History of Korea and Korea under Japanese rule, it is clear that the Japanese did not set up any sort of local government in Korea, rather it was controlled through a Resident General. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  10:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

 * One of the features of a colony is that it often produces culture and heritage. To misquote Saul Bellow again, "Where are the Tagores of Japanese-Korea, the Yeats's of Japanese-Taiwan, the Naipauls of Japanese-Manchuria, I will gladly read them,"  or "Where are the Japanese language Wikipedias of Korea, Taiwan, or Manchuria, I will gladly edit-war in them."  Do you want me to keep going?   Fowler&fowler  «Talk»  14:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Reply: Nichalp: Thanks for your agreement on certain common points. I had mentioned the Rupee, and the extend mainly to emphasis the existance of an Integrated India prior to the British occupation. Which seemed to have been the point of discussion when I began.
 * Before I talk about Korea, let me clarify, while I feel occupation is the correct word, colonialism is acceptable, as it means the same. But Occupation IS used (ref: Occupation on This page, comment by:Blacksun he quotes the links http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?query=%22British+Occupation+of+India%22&srchst=nyt, which is an NYT page). Now my referene to Korea. Korea is called a colony of Japan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_under_Japanese_rule. It also had an administration. Now, it need not be identical to British administration, (why should it?), but the basics are same, it was rule by foreign country. The country was called a colony of Japan (you can make a search on google, it will through up this).
 * My assesment is, colonialism and occupation are interchangable. Japanese may have governed in a different way to the British. The "civilian" nature of the British occupation can be judged by General Dier's action. And he is only one example.
 * I do not wish to waste my time do on with this. There are a lot of people who share the views I express. And there is a colonial element here, who insists on "reverting wars". I have read a lot of colonial versions of India history, going something like "The British 'granted' Independence to India, after 'preparing' it to rule itself...". Nichalp, I appreciate your views, and request you to give fair audience to the views here, and see teh obvious colonial bias of the person who states "I will gladly edit-war in them". I understand that personal opinion is different from an encyclopedic language. And I apply that in my edits (it is evident from the language I use here, on talk, and my edits, which you can see). People who dont, should not be allowed to infulence the article.
 * To conclude, I have stated most of what I have to say. If you leave the lead as it is, it is fine with me. But would prefer it to be as it was before. I share the opinion, that mentioning the British is not required. Afterall, we dont mention the Mughals, who ruled India for a greater period, that the British. The lead is an intro, and India is a lot more than the British period. Lets work toward making it a good article, instead of trying to rephrase obvious things into pro British POV (to satisfy colonialists). There is unanimity on the fact that:
 * 1. British (and other European) rule was foreign, the only such rule (all others were native).
 * 2. It is an international fact, that no civilised country accepts foreign rule, it was not in the case of France, same applies to India. Thus, the British rule should be mentioned as such, not as a technically correct statement like "administered", which only tries to accord ligitimacy to the occupation.
 * Thanks again for the discussion. I like talking to you. Whether you change the phrase, is up to you. It will not change the facts. Just to add, I have discussed the British era with friends here (I live in Canada), who are of British origin (born there). I find that they concur with the use of occupation. Just a mention, to show it is an acceptable usage.---AJ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.72.104.149 (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

 * BTW, the Tom Friedman NYT article that is quoted by AJ and earlier by Blacksun, unfortunately, is not a credible reference for "occupation." Friedman is a columnist and not even remotely a historian of India.  He writes under the pressure of deadlines as he flies around the world; consequently, his writing is not noted for stylistic precision.   Fowler&fowler  «Talk»  01:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Credibility is not a virtue that colonial editors can determine. Thus, those 'historians' who stated that 'India was being prepared to govern itself and was granted independence' were credible? They werent were they? For they whoud have know that India governed itself before the occupation, and the "granting" of independence was not a voluntary act. The basis of my argument, in favour of occupation is not the quote. It only showed its useage. The basis were examples given above, of Japanese colonies being refered to in the same way. --AJ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.72.104.149 (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Lead
I have written substantially about the reasons justififying the use of 'occupation', while maintaining that colonialism is equal (in meaning) and thus acceptable (if it Satisfies a certain colonial editor). However, I would like to move away from the narrow point of discussion on a word, to the lead in general. While there is no doubt (and disagreement thus) about the existance of British rule in India, and therefore has to be mentioned, the lead may not be the appropriate place. We already have the history section for it. The reasons for this (in my opinion) are

1. The article is about India, with a 3000 year history, and the British era (rule, not as traders) was at most 190 years (as rulers, begining from bengal, to their Zenith post 1857).

2. If we mention people who ruled a part of India (as we know it today) for 190 years, we would have to mention others, (like the Mughals) who ruled a larger part of India (territorially) and for a longer period (spanning 300 years approx. begining from Emperor Babur to its Zenith with Aurangzeb, to the decline). And they are not the only examples of Pan Indian rulers.

The argument (probably) in favour of mentioning the colonial occupation might be its current relevance and the visible infulence. But even there, the immediate predecessors, the Mughals, too have a far greater infulence on present India, be it in administration, language, or culture (the colonial editor here mentioned British occupation having produced 'culture' and 'heritage', if it really did, such 'culture' and 'heritage' is far greater in magnitude, viz a viz the Mughals, or any other longer ruling enitity in India)

To conclude (what I wish to convey)

1. I do not wish to "wish away" the British infulence, or its existance. I disagree, however, with the sneaky attempt by an obviously biased editor to accord any sense of acceptability, or legitimacy to the British rule.

2. Would therefore like to have the lead worked on, to be more inclusive and less specific to a particular era. Mention the British, just like any other ruler, in the history section, in accordance with their duration (with respect to the 3000 year history of India). AJ-India 18:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

british administration in india started in mid 19th century???
Great Britain directly administered from mid 19th century???? british rule ended in india by mid 19th century and britain took control of india after the 1856 sepoy mutiny(first freedom struggle), it's very strange that people didn't notice it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Muralichoudry (talk • contribs) 00:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC).
 * 1857 was in 19th century; 1947 in the 20th; we are now in the 21st.  Fowler&fowler  «Talk»  01:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

British Empire, the Colonies, and India
The history section of this page says: "As a consequence, India came under the direct control of the British Crown as a colony of the British Empire." In a general sense this is true, (although it should really say either "colony of Great Britain" or "a part of the British Empire,") however, India always had special status from 1858 onwards. For example, India was never a British crown colony as Ceylon was; nor was it a self-governing colony (or later a Dominion) like Australia or Canada were; nor yet a protectorate like Kenya and other countries in Africa. There was a Cabinet minister, the Secretary of State for India, as well as the India Office which directly ruled India. (The Viceroy of India was the head of the British administration in India; however, he reported to the Secretary of State for India, and through him to the Cabinet.) For all the other colonies, there was another  Cabinet minister, called the Secretary of State for the Colonies. See for example, Conservative Government 1895-1905, or Liberal Government 1905-1915. So, in a technical sense India was never a colony; it was the Indian Empire. This was evident in the grandiloquent title of the British monarch in those days, e.g. George V: George, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions Beyond the Seas, King; Defender of the Faith; Emperor of India.

Perhaps a more accurate rewording of the sentence in the history section would be: "As a consequence, India came under the direct control of the British Crown as the Indian Empire." Fowler&fowler «Talk»  00:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

British viewpoint. Chanakyathegreat 05:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

 * It's not a "British viewpoint." It's the way the place was administered by the British.  India was a British colony, but it was not a British Colony, if that makes any sense.  It was part of a separate system, and we should try to be clear about things like that. Note also that India was a member of the League of Nations, and so forth, unlike direct colonies like Ceylon. john k 22:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for improving article contents
We can improve this article contents for better readability.(Like United States article) and I offer following suggestions.

Geography section should have two sub sections called 1) Terrain 2) Climate

History section should have subsections called 1)Pre Historic 2) Old civilizations 3) Indian

Empires(or some other appropriate sub title)4)Foreign empires

Demographics section should have subsections called 1) Languages 2) Religion 3)Education 4) Health.(I don't know whether 3 & 4 needs to fall under demographics but United states article has it under demographics)

Culture section should also have many appropriate sub titles.

Having sub section and directing users to relevant main articles.(Like Education in India) will increase viewership for other India related articles also.

Each main section should have some interesting image to create more interest to read article contents.--Indianstar 04:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

 * No, please don't change it. India is a featured article, and the basis for many more. The US never has managed to gain this status. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  11:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

3rd or 4th?
The infobox says that the GDP of India is the 3rd largest in the world but in every three lists avaible on Wikipedia show India as the 4th (after US, China and Japan). I can't fix it because the article is protected from editing. With respect, 13:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deliogul (talk • contribs).

 * I agree with you, the 2006 GDP figures do indeed say that India is 4th ranked in purchasing power GDP. However, various nationalistic editors replaced it with the "projected ranking for 2007" which is 3rd.  The projected figures are not actual figures.  I changed it back to 4th, but they managed to revert it just before the page was locked down.  The GDP sentence should really say: "12th largest economy (nominal GDP) and the 4th largest economy in purchasing power," until such time as IMF and the World Bank come out with the actual figures for 2007.   Fowler&fowler  «Talk»  15:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Originally India was estimated as 4th largest economy behind Japan for the year 2006. Gap between India and Japan was meagre for the year 2006.(India 3.942 Trillion,Japan 4.066 Trillion).Since India's growth rate was more than original projection,It is likely to cross Japan in the year 2006 itself.See here for US economist's prediction for year 2006. Actual 2006 growth figures are likely to be released by April 2007, we will come to know by then. But I agree with you that till actual growth rates are released we will have to say that India is the 4th largest economy in terms of Purchasing power parity.(I liked your adjective "Nationalistic editors")--Indianstar 18:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It is 4th and the article should show that.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 06:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Tibet
Despite the fact that China occupies and administrates Tibet, there is suggestive evidence of resistance by native Tibetians for the cause of their country and to show that their government is in exhile operating in India. When viewing maps, a map has China as the border but there is also Tibet in parenthesis or in smaller print to show that Tibet is still there. Though China controls and maintains Tibet, there is still an issue here where one group says it is China and there is another group that says that it is Tibet but controlled by China. Thus, leading to a result, that since two opposing fractions have not yet resolved the issue of Tibet completley, Tibet, in some part, does share a border with in India. In the respect that the original country of Tibet has a border dispute with China and their government is still operative by some means, proving that the country is simply non-existant would show false cause. In some shape or form whether or not powerful enough to administrate that power, Tibet is still there. Tibet is culturally differenct from China and this culture is not the same as Chinese culture. At least, in some manner, maintain on the India page that Tibet, occupied by China, is there whether it would make a significant difference or not. For the people who do believe in a Free Tibet and need to study India, Tibet has a major role in the Indian page because of the mass significance in connections to India culturally, the history, the area is close in respect to India and the India page which displays its history and society has a major connection with Tibet whether or not we actually see it or feel it. Jayjrn 21:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)jayjrn

 * Hi Jayjrn, My first thought was to simply redirect you to the Government of India position on Tibet etc. etc. (And we may have done that to you once before.)  However, on mulling it over a little more, I agree with the spirit of your posting, if not the letter.  If this talk page can spend thousands of words on bogus issues like "Ayyavazzi" (which, undaunted, slime their way into the main India page), we can certainly address Tibet.  Wikipedia is certainly not beholden to the positions of governments be it Indian or Chinese.  My own inclination would be the consider some proposals for inclusion of Tibet or Tibet Autonomous Region in some fashion (perhaps a sentence or two) in the India page.  Let me think about it.  Meanwhile others may have suggestions of their own.   Fowler&fowler  «Talk»  22:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

--- Let me first address the lead. Since the lead has to be very compact, we can't add much, but perhaps the following changes could be considered in the "bordering countries" sentence. The current version of the sentence is:

 * Current Version: India borders Pakistan to the west; China, Nepal and Bhutan to the north-east; and Bangladesh and Myanmar to the east.

Here are two versions of a proposed change:

 * 1) India borders Pakistan to the west; People's Republic of China, Nepal and Bhutan to the north-east; and Bangladesh and Myanmar to the east.
 * 2) India borders Pakistan to the west; People's Republic of China (Tibet Autonomous Region), Nepal and Bhutan to the north-east; and Bangladesh and Myanmar to the east.

Much as I'd like to, I don't think it will make sense to replace Tibet Autonomous Region with Tibet; however, the former link points to the latter and all the controversy and history. I wonder what other editors think. Fowler&fowler «Talk»  23:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

---

 * Version 2 suggested by you with proposed references seems to be OK.--Indianstar 00:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

---

The second version seems that is the best that can be done along with references. Respectfully, Tibet is administrated by the PRC and we cannot say that Tibet exists today as a country according to world relations and the current status of world boundaries. But, there are always clauses and execptions whether it be it for the good or the bad. In this case, it is too little too late to actually change the status of historic Tibet dating back to the Nehru days when no protests were made. We can only watch and see what happens. This issue has been here since before my generation.

The region of Tibet controlled by the PRC is in a state flux where many human right violations are occuring. Natives of this region are stressing freedom from occupation or a self governing position with negotations still up for debate. Yet, the Tibetan culture and religion which is distinct still survives today. Since the people of Tibet cannot officialy respond to the loss of their land unlike the case with Kashmir where disputes are existant and widely known, it shouldn't be opted out because people are still protesting. Many view the intrusion as an illegal occupation and encroachment.

Yet, I believe that the India page should share a reference to Tibet whether it be through a historic, logistic, or cultural position or all of the above. Having it on the page doesn't necessarily mean that Tibet is soverign. But there is a status of native Tibet that is simply being wiped out. As long as the issue remains current not just here in wikipedia but on the global scale, the issue of the border status remains open and the conflict is yet to be determined. But all in all, the second version is the best appropriate fitting for the times.

Also, it should be noted that Askai Chin not only touches the Xinjian province but also the Tibetan Province.

Jayjrn 18:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)jayjrn

Mentioning Tibet and the fact is not recognised by individuals in Tibet opens a can of worms. The head of the Tibetan goverment in exile, the Dalai Lama has stated that he doesn't want independence from China. Now, In India groups are fighting for a separate Bodoland and Nagaland (to mention a few), and similar to the Tibetan movement, they too don't consider themselves being Indian citizens. Let's simplify this to just nation-states and not speak about the nittty-gritties in the lead? =Nichalp  «Talk»=  13:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I have to agree with Nichalp (even though my heart is with Tibet). Nichalp, do you think there's any place on the India page where Tibet could be mentioned in some context? I know that the History section is tight, but ...

 * Speaking of the history section, I noticed that someone has changed one paragraph (and added ethnic cleansing, abject surrender, and other terms of endearment for Pakistan.)  Fowler&fowler  «Talk»  14:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Grammar
The line:

"The President is the his role in governance is largely ceremonial."

Appears early in the government section. I suggest replacement with:

"The President's role in governance is largely ceremonial."
 * I think that the sentence is not really true either. The president of India has powers that are well beyond the scope of what "largely ceremonial" implies, especially in certain circumstances.  Significantly, this powers have been used often enough, including in 2006. --129.125.105.51 21:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Madrash
Any body may tell me about Madrash? Is it a city or village in India?--134.159.150.75 05:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are looking for Madras, it is a metropolis in southern India. Some years ago, it was renamed Chennai. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 06:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I think that what exactly I want to know--134.159.150.75 23:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

how many official languages?
"The Indian constitution recognises 23 official languages." - however the source given for this statement says 22. --Zerotalk 07:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Unprotect?
So, erm, are you guys done duelling over occupation vs. colonialism vs. gradual annexation vs. direct administrative control :P Would be nice to unprotect it.--Blacksun 09:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree 100%. Effer 03:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Interwikis
Can someone please delete the following interwikis: aa:, ab:, ak:, av:, ay:, bi:, bm:, bo:, bh:, bug:, ce:, ch:, cho:, chy:, cr:, cv:, dz:, ee:, fj:, gn:, ha:, ho:, ig:, ki:, kj:, lo:, mg:, mh:, mus:, my:, ng:, nv:, ny:, sn:, tum:, za:, dz:, ee:, iu:, xh:, zu:, ie:, xal:, rn:, kv:, pih:, or:, pi:, pap:, sg:.

And a WARNING TO ALL INDIAN NATIONALIST VANDALS: '''DO NOT CREATE PAGES IN WIKIPEDIAS WHERE YOU DON'T KNOW THE LANGUAGE. THEY WILL BE DELETED, THEIR INTERWIKIS REMOVED, AND YOU WILL BE BLOCKED'''. Whoever has been doing this, creating all these pages "India" on wikis and then just writing in English everywhere... DO you have any idea how much work you have created for us? It took me half an hour to remove your spam on wikis from aa to nv, and that's still not the end. I will clean the rest of your junk later. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.251.68.181 (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
 * For one, writing pages in English can hardly be called vandalism. Secondly there are a set of articles listed on meta that should be present on all wikipedias, and this is one of them. So a well meaning editor may have created these articles with the intention that it gets translated to a stub. Calling it "vandalism" and "nationalistic" is way too harsh, and only reflects the attitude of editors on smaller wikis that are unwilling to improve major topics on their wikis. So please, lay off the name calling. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  06:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

 * No -- it is, quite simply, vandalism. It is litter. The purpose of having multiple wikipedias is, quite simply, to have content in MULTIPLE LANGUAGES. It is not okay to post content in the wrong language to random Wikis and hope it gets translated. It is spam. It does not matter that they're part of the "list of articles all wikis should have" -- that means that that Wiki should have that article in its own language. What you have done is vandalism. It is deleted every time now, and if you continue, there is a chance of banning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.251.68.181 (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Then call it spam, not vandalism. The English wikipedia too gets articles written in vernacular languages. But, these articles are not deleted on sight but rather listed on Pages needing translation into English for two weeks before deleting. The purpose of any wikipedia is to grow, and List of articles every Wikipedia should have defines the basic articles that any wikipedia should have. The very act of threating a user with a ban, and an unwillingness to improve or create an article with the importance of this one only goes to show how myopic and power hungry some of the administrators and editors of smaller language wikis are. Please do not justify such an attitude. I suggest you take this back to some of the editors of smaller wikis and as them to assume good faith instead of threating bans et. al. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  14:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it's spam and vandalism. Now, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to grow. It is to give free information, in the user's native language. Most of the Wikis you spammed and vandalized do not have administrators who can speak those languages, nor do they have any users. This is an ongoing issue; obviously when people who are competent in these languages arrive, at some point they will create an article on India. However, until that time, your articles serve nobody. They only clutter a Wikipedias which we try to keep empty except of content in proper language, and hope that they grow (example tajik wikipedia was like this before, we kept it clean of english spam vandalism pages like yours, and soon it grew). Now, you are badly representing your country, should we believe that all Indian people are like you, overassuming the importance of their country, being provincial and assuming everyone should speak English, and trying to impose their selfs on others? You help nobody with your arrogant attitude. These wikis are not your playground for you to just write articles in any language. Do not worry, when Wikipedias are growing, people will write about India of course, it is large country with large population. But have patience, do not try and force it, wait until they write themselves it. --67.42.34.237 02:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And why are you singling me for writing all those articles in English? =Nichalp   «Talk»=  03:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to have forgotten the meaning of Vandalism. The copy/pasting of India in any of these wikis was: 1) not added to existing article in other language, 2) was not incorrect data, 3) no existing data was removed. I don't understand why is this a matter unless the wikipedia is running out of disk space. overassuming the importance of their country What is wrong with creating an article, which is about 1) some thing real 2) some thing important 3) some thing important enough? ...arrogant attitude Seems like you understand english. Read this thread again and decide again who is being arrogant. give free information, in the user's native language And the users are the editors. We and everyone is an editor. Are you suggesting those who don't know english should not use Wikipedia at all? I beg to differ and I think everyone does.--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢ 14:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You're twisting things a bit. Shall I go now and post lots of new articles in English at the Hindi Wikipedia? Even if they are all "important enough"? You must not understand what is going on here, to think that I suggest people who do not know English whould not use Wikipedia. On the contrary, I believe it is their right to use Wikipedia, in their native language! And that is why you guys are doing wrong, you are interfering with that right by spamming their Wikipedias with content they are not able to understand. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.251.68.181 (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Thanks for the CAPITAL LETTERS with BOLD FONT. Your arrogant and hostile nature has been noted and you have been dismissed to my list of people to ignore (which should not be so hard considering you do not login).  Good bye.--Blacksun 11:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you think that is really relevant to the discussion -- if you ignore me, then ignore me. Why do you feel the need to tell me about it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.251.68.181 (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Protected again
The page is protected again as the debate is not yet over and to prevent further edit warring. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  11:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

what is this Interwikis?
what is this Interwikis?Neechalp 18:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Modification of contents
Following Major information about India is missing in this article

Military and Foreign relations: It should state about recent Indo-US nuclear deal,sanctions against India after nuclear test,gradual reversal of sanctions after Sep 11,2001,Improvement of foreign ties with US and recent Peace efforts with pakistan.It should also state that "India along with Germany,Japan,Brazil is requesting for UN security council permanent membership which was supported by many countries.

Economy:.It should have major export/import commodities,export/import trade values.Current Foreign reserves(which is considered as one of the important positive points of Indian economy),FII growth in recent years.

Politics: Statement which says that Indian states are dominated by Regional parties is wrong. Except Tamilnadu and some north eastern states,other states are mostly dominated by national parties. Even now, around 20 states are either ruled directly by Congress/BJP/Communists or one of these parties is a major alliance partner in the state.If you include other recognised national parties like Samajwadi party,this figure may be more.--Indianstar 09:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Restoring Indic-View lead
Dearest AJ, Chanakyathegreat, NobleEagle, IndianStar, ShyamBihari, Sarvagnya, Saravask, Ragib, Ganeshk

This is an appeal to you all to restore the India page lead to its last version by 10:07, 21 January 2007 CambridgeBayWeather.

British vandal Fowler&fowler has been time and again incorporating highly derogatory British POV in the lead and completely destroying the balance of an Indic page. It is of utmost importance to punish this "racially inferior 3rd class British bastard writer" (henceforth RI3CBBW) Fowler&fowler (he is supposedly a local UK British professor, must be 3rd rate in UK). He is manipulating NichalP who is a very honest Indian administrator.

RI3CBBW Fowler&fowler communicates externally (chat/email) with NichalP to achieve his ways, to avoid discussion on this TalkPage, and makes NichalP revert and Lock/Protect the page with his British views. Unfortunately NichalP is very honest as shown by his behavior in the past few months. He is basically good, but needs to come out of RI3CBBW Fowler&fowler's influence through external chat/email discussions.

RI3CBBW Fowler&fowler manipulates NichalP with the technique of Lock/Protect so that his derogatory colonial writing stays for a longer duration. He manipulates NichalP to Lock/Protect after removing Indic views by saying that discussion is going on in the India TalkPage. NichalP agrees to Lock/Protect and then RI3CBBW Fowler&fowler cleverly avoids discussion on India TalkPage.

I thus appeal to you all to request "Unprotection" and restore the India page lead with Indic views. The Lock/Protection should now be Unlocked/Unprotected so that racially inferior 3rd class British bastard writer Fowler&fowler's writing may be removed.

HimalayanAshoka (Writing with the help of Licensed WikiAide Userics380005 13:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC))

 * Dear HimalayanAshoka, Just for the record, I am not British.  Nor do I teach at a British university, although I have visited the the "3rd class" British university, Cambridge, a few times.  I am too busy to have to the time to manipulate anyone, least of all Nichalp, who seems very upright.  I haven't communicated with Nichalp though any medium other than Wikipedia Talk, where the record is there for all to see.  As for "racially inferior," all I can say is that I know enough biology to know that "race" is a social construct and that all human beings—all of us African under the skin—belong to one species.   Fowler&fowler  «Talk»  14:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Fowler&fowler... You are definitely British ( being British nowadays is considered rather 3rd class and filthy)  You have been very sneaky before also.
 * You may have visited Cambridge but I have studied in IIT India. And in no case will I ever allow you to put in that sentence of yours...regardless of how long it takes.
 * HimalayanAshoka (Writing with the help of Licensed WikiAide Userics380005 16:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC))
 * you may want to have a good look at Wikiquette, Policy and Dispute resolution before you continue. Simple stubbornness gets you nowhere on Wikipedia, you need to convince people your version is better. dab (𒁳) 16:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Dear Dab, Thanks for the post. Good to see that you kept my above post and did not completely remove it. This vandal Fowler&fowler is just unbearable. The page was in constant improvements with good language pouring in from Indian/Non-Indian writers, till this Fowler&fowler comes back from 18th century to put in British heritage with nonsensical Oxford/Cambridge references. India has much longer richer 5000 yrs of well documented history than a recent tiny 100 year chapter. Whatever you say, the page lead will be reverted back to as in the last version by 10:07, 21 January 2007 CambridgeBayWeather.
 * Fowler&fowler's any further references howsoever exhaustive will not be taken into any consideration. And any further insertions will be treated as invalid.
 * However, since he is interested in the India page, he may check for proper English grammar/spell-checks. In this matter I would not call him a but a.
 * Coming back. Fowler&fowler is definitely a British. All his articles are dedicatedly British. Only a British can act so lowly as to deny even his own nationality!!
 * Just to let you know I live outside India and am from a premier institute in India. Do check out Asok in Dilbert!
 * HimalayanAshoka (Writing with the help of Licensed WikiAide Userics380005 18:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC))
 * you are entitled to your opinions, but do note that Wikipedia editing is based on Consensus, you cannot impose your preferred version by ultimatum. I must also ask you again to drop the personal attacks and ad-hominem remarks (but leave blocking considerations to other admins for now). Anybody will make a rude remark when annoyed, but such hateful tirades are not acceptable, you really need a drastic change in tone and attitude before you can begin making useful contributions. dab (𒁳) 18:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Dear Dab, I must say once again, any other page than 10:07, 21 January 2007 CambridgeBayWeather will be reverted or changed to Indic views. In this post, the authors mentioned in the first line are in complete agreement regarding removal of the term British (and related terms). The word 'British' will not be allowed to appear anywhere in the lead. In History they will have just have a fleeting mention, as it cannot be avoided. But denigrating the British ('inferiorizing' them, while keeping facts correct), I will, regardless of any consequences or time duration and by any Wikipedia means. I am declaring and writing this openly for records.
 * HimalayanAshoka (Writing with the help of Licensed WikiAide Userics380005 18:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC))

 * Dear HimalayanAshoka
 * With reference to this topic of discussion, I have the following to say:

 * 1. I share in totallity your view on the use of the word occupation (on which have elaborated at length elsewhere on this page)

 * 2. I also agree that mentioning British rule in the lead is an imbalance, as it is an article on India, which has a history of 3000 years. Again, I expressed myself on this in the section "Lead" today.
 * However, HimalayaAshoka, in order to acheive this, we need to work toward a concensus. I know there is an obvious bias, (which exibits and exposes his intent), in the edits of Fowler&fowler. I have stated thus. However, please refrain from "under the belt" attacks. This argument, this discussion can, and should be won with valid merit. Provided ofcourse, those who have the power (to lock) are unbiased (which I think is the case).
 * So, lets contribute collectively to this page, based on our research and knowledge. I am sure this page is a long way from being accurate and sufficiently imformative.AJ-India 18:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * see also WP:3RR, WP:NPOV. It is simply not acceptable to presume ownership of articles as Userics380005 does: if you want to write your own article, go and create your own homepage. dab (𒁳) 20:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * regarding the "history of 3000 years", AJ-India, this isn't the history of India article, where obviously both the British Raj and the Republic of India are very minor topics. This is the article on the post-1947 Republic (aged 60 years), and the British Raj (duration ca. 100 years) is notable as its predecessor state. dab (𒁳) 20:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Dear Dab, This article is NOT about post-1947 India. If it is then please remove the photograph of TajMahal, Ajanta Caves and other references pertaining to Indus Valley, etc. I am writing to you politely because you are facilitating a discussion and not blocking it. However, you do not have any idea that there is nothing like pre1947 or post-1947 India. This article is about India starting from 5000 years. And it will be treated as such.
 * HimalayanAshoka (Writing with the help of Licensed WikiAide Userics380005 02:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC))

 * Dear Dab, Indeed there is an inherent contradiction here. It is an article of Post Independant India. Yet it needs to accord importance to the past 100 years?? And yet mention Taj Mahal??? Lets get real please. The Mughals were just as recent, to qualify for the space provided for the British (going by your logic). Lets work realistically please. India didnt come into being in 1947. It just progressed to its present state of being, evolving over the years from various Monarchies, to colonialism to democracy AJ-India 03:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Formal Wikipedia Arbitration for "Occupation?"
To AJ (and others who are arguing for use of "occupation"), If you are that sure of your sources, why don't you and I go for a formal Wikipedia arbitration, with the loser agreeing both to donate $200 to the Wikimedia foundation and, with their cohorts, to forever hold their peace? As I mentioned in section Credible Sources and British "Occupation" of India, I feel enough confidence in my sources that I am willing to challenge anyone on the usage of the word. Again, I am saying that: A majority of credible sources (history textbooks or research monographs published by internationally recognized publishers and journal articles published in internationally recognized journals)—in describing the British presence in India during the years 1858-1947—use the terms "colony" or "Indian empire" for India and the terms "direct administration" or "direct rule," but not "occupation" for the British rule. So why don't you put your money where you mouth is and accept the arbitration. Regards,  Fowler&fowler  «Talk»  20:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * the bet is a nice idea, unfortunately, the Arbcom does only judge user behaviour, not content issues. It's a terminological dispute, you cannot talk about an "occupation of India" at a time when India was not a single political entity, that's the long and short of it. You can only list individual occupations of individual states within India. As F&f states correctly, the decision hinges on the parties' ability to cite reliable sources. If you can cite a source with at least the notability of Encarta ( "colonized") talking of a "British occupation of India", we can mention that as an alternative wording. Until you find such a reference, don't bother continuing the debate. dab (𒁳) 20:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * to be fair, "British occupation of India" sees some use as referring to the entire period in retrospect (predictably, mostly in patriotic sources). The ratio of google hits of "British colonial India"  to "British-occupied India"  is 12,000 to 637. Note that counting google hits is only good to get a first overview, it doesn't trump the citation of reliable sources. dab (𒁳) 20:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I mentioned that as well in section Credible Sources and British "Occupation" of India, viz. Sometimes, of course, the word "occupation" is used to drive home a political point. Thus Jawaharlal Nehru in his [ http://www.amazon.com/Discovery-India-Oxford-Paperbacks/dp/0195623592/ Discovery of India] uses "occupation" to describe the entire British period; but, he is a partisan in the context, which an encyclopedia cannot be, however much we may admire Nehru and his writing.

 * The distinction between "occupation" and "colonization," and use of the latter for describing British rule in India, is simply one of usage in reliable sources.  It has nothing to do with acceptance or glorification of British rule.  Thus, one can maintain the distinction between the two words and at the same time be an exacting critic of British colonialism.

Fowler&fowler «Talk»  20:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I hate to keep repeating (only wastes server space). India was an entity before the British occupation (the dispute is not on the usage of the word Occupation, Dab, but on whether to use that or colonial, hence either of the two is disputed, thus you can not expect one not to be used, while the other continuing to be used by a colonial ediitor).
 * The logic (analogy with Japanese colonies) and references have all been stated above. Just because history books written by British Authors (obviously when one searches data which is in English, the authors are bound to be British, mostly), would refer to their colonial possessions, (occupations) by some respectable and socially/politically correct term (in modern times). Hence, the references f&f claims he can site (and has confidence on) are all partisan (as he thinks J L Nehru is). Trust me, it is a British POV vs an Indian POV. But the fact that no civilised country accepts foreign governance, and thus such governance is ultimately overthrown (in our context led to the expulsion of the British), is a universal truth. it applied to France, it applied to Austria, and similarly applies to India.
 * Regarding the rediculous idea of arbirtation, I wish to state, am open to any challenge, on the subject. And a trivial amount of 200 is too token an amount, would like to hike it to atleast 1000 USD. But essentially feel, I have elaborated enough on this, and am really not trying to haggle on a nonconsequential word. For even if it satisfies some Brits to use Colonial instead of occupation, it is equally expressive of its illegitimacy, and unacceptability in modern times. But what Wikipedia needs is constructive editors, not biased colonial ones, who lack the will to appreciate another opinion.  It is for that reason, that I have tried to broaden this discussion about lead.AJ-India 21:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * well "entity" is about as loose a term as there is. Of course India has been an "entity" for geological periods of time, but it wasn't a political entity at the time in question, hence the point is irrelevant. If you want to argue that the British occupied the failing Mughal Empire, you should say the British occupied the Mughal Empire, not "India". I have neither a British nor an Indian pov, and I am most open to debating all sorts of (referenced) British atrocities on British Raj, yet that doesn't change the simple fact that "occupation of India" isn't the correct term. India was no country at the time, alright? It was about three dozen contries, with varying histories and fates. Now lets stop going in circles, it is up to you to cite an encyclopedic source using the term. And yes, "colonialisation" today does have the ring of illegitimacy. Thus, I don't follow how you can argue the term somehow white-washes the British Empire, which was a colonial enterprise for better or worse. As it happened, "India" didn't merely "overthrow" British rule, it fell to pieces at the same moment, and the pieces jumped at each other's throat without delay. Not exactly the image of a downtrodden but proud people finally rid of their cruel oppressor living happily ever after, as it's frequently depicted on these talkpages. dab (𒁳) 21:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

 * repetition, alas. India was an Entity, fine, a country, what is a country? Mughal empire was no different from the (eventually defunct) British Empire (which failed even in places where its own people occupied and out numbered the locals in N America and elsewhere). Hence, India was not a three dozen country all the times. Yes, it might have been, when they gradually annexed the "failing" Mughal Empire.
 * Before going further, am not, and never did, suggest you have a POV. But f&f does, and I make no bones of it.
 * I have cited many analogies, and links where occupation is used. But here is another one. From India's First PM, J L Nehru. His policies may not be subscribed to, by some (In India), but his knowledge on the subject have never been on dispute (except by the British, who were were the occupying people, right??!!). http://www.moreorless.au.com/heroes/nehru.html. And those who DO question his knowledge, please cite non British commentators (to be NPOV)
 * Additionally, if British were "administering India, then so was Saddam, in Kuwait, technically that’s right.
 * Dab, my focus (again repetition) is really on the Lead, which I feel should be worked on, to reflect with equal importance, the events. And like I stated in Lead section, the Brits were there only from mid 18th century to the mid 20th. Yet we give them a paragraph, and non to the "failed" Mughals? I am not advocating adding a line for Mughals. But simply that such things be restricted to the History section. For reference, the United Kingdom doesnt have a line on Roman rule in the lead does it? India too is a lot more than colonial occupation (and its subsequent expulsion). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AJ-India 21:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a list of Indian authors, all professional historians. The first, Harvard historian Sugata Bose, is also a grand-nephew of Netaji. All books are searchable for both "British occupation" and "colonised" or "colony." Why don't you produce a similar list of books (and not dotcom websites) that use "occupation"?

 * Bose, Sugata & Ayesha Jalal. 2003.  [ http://www.amazon.com/Modern-South-Asia-Sugata-Bose/dp/0415307872/sr=1-1/qid=1162855249/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-8266759-0757557?ie=UTF8&s=books Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy] Routledge, 2nd edition.  304 pages.  ISBN 0415307872.
 * Goswami, Manu. 2004. [ http://www.amazon.com/Producing-India-Colonial-National-Practices/dp/0226305090/ Producing India: From Colonial Economy to National Space]. University of Chicago Press.  400 pages. ISBN 0226305090.
 * Guha-Thkurta, Tapati. 2004. [ http://www.amazon.com/Monuments-Objects-Histories-Institutions-Postcolonial/dp/023112998X/ Monuments, Objects, Histories: Institutions of Art in Colonial and Postcolonial India]. Columbia University Press.  404 pages.  ISBN 023112998X.
 * Chatterjee, Indrani. 2002.  [ http://www.amazon.com/Gender-Slavery-Law-Colonial-India/dp/0195659066/ Gender, Slavery and Law in Colonial India].  Oxford University Press.  300 pages.  ISBN 0195659066
 * Philip, Kavita. 2003.  [ http://www.amazon.com/Civilizing-Natures-Resources-Modernity-Colonial/dp/0813533619/ Civilizing Natures: Race, Resources, and Modernity in Colonial South India].  Rutgers University Press.  248 pages.  ISBN 0813533619
 * Encarta Encyclopedia: India, History

Fowler&fowler «Talk»  22:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

 * For the benefit of those who do understand what I said, I asked for non British people who questioned J L Nehru, not those who used the word colonial.
 * I have referred to the Japanese colonies too…

AJ-India 22:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Here are some more references from Indian authors, including Amartya Sen Indian Nobel laureate. All books are searchable on-line. Have a blast looking for "British occupation," and then "colonial."

 * Sen, Amartya. 2005. [ http://www.amazon.com/Argumentative-Indian-Writings-History-Identity/dp/0374105839/ The Argumentative Indian: Writings on Indian History, Culture and Identity].  Farrar, Straus and Giroux.  432 pages.  ISBN 0374105839
 * Bose, Sugata. 1993.  [ http://www.amazon.com/Peasant-Labour-Colonial-Capital-Cambridge/dp/0521266947/ Peasant Labour and Colonial Capital: Rural Bengal since 1770] (The New Cambridge History of India) Cambridge University Press.  248 pages.  ISBN 0521266947
 * Chandavarkar, Rajnarayan. 1998.  [ http://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Power-Popular-Politics-Resistance/dp/0521596920/ Imperial Power and Popular Politics: Class, Resistance and the State in India, 1850-1950] (Cambridge Studies in Indian History & Society)  Cambridge University Press.  400 pages.  ISBN 0521596920
 * Roy, Tirthankar. 1999.   [ http://www.amazon.com/Traditional-Industry-Economy-Colonial-Cambridge/dp/0521650127/ Traditional Industry in the Economy of Colonial India] (Cambridge Studies in Indian History and Society) Cambridge University Press. 264 pages.  ISBN 0521650127
 * Parthasarathy, Prasannan. 2001. [ http://www.amazon.com/Transition-Colonial-Economy-Merchants-1720-1800/dp/0521570425/ The Transition to a Colonial Economy: Weavers, Merchants and Kings in South India, 1720-1800] (Cambridge Studies in Indian History and Society), Cambridge University Press. 178 pages.  ISBN 0521570425

'''Can you produce even two books written in the last 15 years by anyone that uses "occupation" for the British rule? If so, let's have them! ''' We are waiting. As for Nehru, I was the one who provided the Discovery of India reference, not you, so please don't claim credit for it. Anyway let's have your references!! I am anxious to go through them. No websites, just history books like mine. No arguments, just the references. No Japanese colonies, Iraqi colonies, but simply "British occupation" used for British rule in India. It's time to deliver! Fowler&fowler «Talk»  23:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I have made enough references, besides J L Nehru, which should suffice. And I think J L Nehru himself is a credible reference in himself (more than colonial authors).
 * f&f, I am not claiming credit for anything (many of my references are borrowed from websites, which I did not make, hence the credit goes to them, not me), so make no mistake (Borrowing George Bush's fav phrase), that the references cited thus far, collectively prove the usage of the term, and thus its acceptability. Hate to Keep repeating myself, but if a Japanese colony is called "occupied" by Japan, so is a British one. If France was occupied by Germany, so was India.

AJ-India 23:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by credible references. If you want to use "British occupation" you have to provide credible references that use "British occupation," not "Japanese colony." Again, provide two references (text-books, or research monographs) from the last 15 years (like I have provided for "colony" or "colonised"), textbooks that use "British occupation" for British rule. I have provided ten references (the oldest is 1993), all by Indian authors, (including a Indian Nobel laureate) that not only use "colonised," but also don't use "occupation" for British rule. If you don't proved two, you are just making excuses. Fowler&fowler «Talk»  23:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * J L Nehru (sheesh, how many times does one need to hear this???)
 * History, nor Wikipedia, works at the whims and fancies of biased individuals, hence, I fail to see any logic in a 15 year cut off. And instead of skirting the issue, understand this clearly, the dispute is not about which oneis the only one correct (have stated amply) but about the acceptability of accupation, for which, my references, and arguments are valid and thus suffice.AJ-India 00:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:India/Archive 7