Talk:History of India/Archive 4

"Islamic Golden Age"

"The massacres perpetuated by Muslims in India are unparalleled in history, bigger than the Holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis; or the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks; more extensive even than the slaughter of the South American native populations by the invading Spanish and Portuguese." - Francois Gautier Rewriting Indian History by Francois Gautier, Chapter 4 - Islam and the Muslim Invasions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinacrine (talk • contribs) 04:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

All India Kissan mahasabha

Where was first all india kissan mahasabha was held —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.72.75 (talk) 05:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps.--Shahab (talk) 10:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Gandhi's first name is incorrect?

The first name of Gandhi is Mahatma i would appreciate if you would correct this error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reffum (talk • contribs) 00:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a joke, right? Gandhi's first name is, as it has always been, "Mohandas". Please refer to the biography. --Ragib (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Chola kings?

The article doesn't show anything about the Cholas, although Rajaraja the Great is known as the most powerful Hindu king in history. There is no single mention of him. --RockingMallu (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

True!!...Cholas in prime had expanded there kingdom to himalayas in north(on account of this they commemorated a town near Thanjavur which was also capital of chola kingdom briefly) and Ceylon in south and till vietnam and indonesia in east. Chera Kings before medival ages had also ruled upto Himalaya's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naveenj18 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Typo in image reference

Hello,

the reference to the image of the `British India' (the Raj) has a typo. The link has an extra pair of closing braces (which I marked with *'s). [[Image:British_india.png|thumb|400px*]]*+, with India and Burma shown in violet+]]

I did not fix it (change ]] into |), because the caption (marked with +'s) does not make sense to me, and my history of India is nil.

Mirko

Image copyright problem with File:Lothal conception.jpg

The image File:Lothal conception.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

indohistory.com

I removed the link to site [[1]] because it was of dubious origin, is sensationalist - having featured articles on Pakistan being a failed state, Kamasutra and the Tibetan conflict. There are no citations anywhere in the entire site and there are no authorship claims either. Please cite reasons for keeping this link or info sourced from it. Nshuks7 (talk) 05:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I still think that the information provided on [[2]] is comprehensive, organized and the site is quite resourceful. The current two external links which you have, I do not find it of any value. The first link is nothing but a link to another bunch of links and in the second link it is very difficult to find any information. The OM symbols throughout the site irks me. We are talking about the history of a secular country. Please do consider my point.

Sneha Desai

Confused by reference to arrival of islam in india

Islam arrived on the subcontinent in Kerala. The exact date is uncertain, but it is clear that Kerala had 
maritime business links with the Roman Empire and the Middle East from before the birth of Jesus.

The exact date of what is unknown? Clearly not the arrival of islam since that couldn't be so early.82.216.250.233 (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be a valid point. History of Kerala says the earliest mention of Kerala itself is from 4-3 BC. Making the edit now and let's see if someone has a genuine source that says otherwise. Nshuks7 (talk) 05:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

As per my visits there and discussions with the locals, and study of buildings, Kerala is said to have one of the oldest Jewish synagougues. Its the first place where Christinaity arrived in India. Islam arrived from North and Kerala, both at around the same time. this, I learnt from the books I read on India through google books. Will try to get some authentic sources for the info here. కిరణ్మయి (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan

You cant go directly from India to Pakistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.171.107 (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

persian invasion

plz give me the details of persion invasions of india —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.128.118 (talk) 02:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Indo-Europeans?

I wonder why this article says nothing about the arrival of the Indo-Europeans (probably from the Central Asian steppes) in India. Since they brought the Indo-European language, which eventually developed into Sanskrit, and since Sanskrit is so important for the later Vedantic literature, it seems this is an important part of the history of India and should not be omitted. Molare (talk) 08:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point, coming to think of it - this is a curious omission and should be addressed. Pahari Sahib 08:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Under the section "Bronze Age" the article could add a comment that the Indus Valley Civilization did not have horses (citation needed.) Then under the Vedic Period, the article could expand the sentence "The Vedic period is characterized by Indo-Aryan culture associated with the texts of Vedas," with a comment that the Indo-Aryan culture was not an outgrowth of the Indus Valley Civilization, but the result of a migration from Central Asia, which brought the horse to India, as well as the Indo-European language family (again, citation needed.) --Molare (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Template in the lead

Part of a series on the
History of India
Chronology of Indian history
Ancient India
Prehistoric India and Vedic India  Religion, Society, Mahajanapadas
Mauryan Period Economy, Spread of Buddhism, Chanakya, Hellenic Contacts
The Golden Age Discoveries, Aryabhata, Ramayana, Mahabharata
Medieval India
The Classical Age Art, Philosophy, Literature
Islam in India Delhi Sultanate, Advent of Sufism, Hindustani Music, Guru Nanak
Mughal India Architecture, Cuisine, Mansabdari, Maratha Confederacy
Modern India
Company Rule Zamindari system, Warren Hastings, Post & Telegraph, 1857
British Raj Hindu reforms, Famines, Independence struggle, Gandhi

The template {{HistoryOfSouthAsia}} in the lead is extremely long, violates WP:LEAD, WP:OVERLINK and will hardly give any user an introduction to the History of India. History comprises not merely of a chronology of kingdoms, but is a holistic subject dealing with social, religious, political, economic (etc) affairs of some people over a long period of time. The template was rightly replaced by User:Dbachmann by {{South Asian history}}. An even better template containing an even broader timeline, important people, events, philosophies etc may be in order. The {{HistoryOfSouthAsia}} template may be used elsewhere, but not in the intro. Regards--Shahab (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion an appropriate template in the lead would be something like (I copied the idea from history of Tamil Nadu template): Of course, this is possibly incomplete and incorrect but it gives the reader the important highlights of various determinants which shaped Indian history and not just a list of political kingdoms. Due to the vast socio-political and cultural variety in Indian history it would make sense to concentrate on only the dominating factor of a particular age; or on that factor or which has an important signifincance. It should be kept in mind that merely regional history is not the only approach to studying history but there are other approaches as well. For a comprehensive understanding all ideas should be given adequate space. I look forward to comments before proceeding to complete the template. Regards--Shahab (talk) 08:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Since there seem to be no objections should I go ahead and put this in the article?--Shahab (talk) 07:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I am removing the {{HistoryOfSouthAsia}} template and putting my template in. I will however, not resist, (through reverting,) any move to revert this change provided a valid reasoning/discussion is provided/held. If someone wants (s)he can put the {{HistoryOfSouthAsia}} template back in while providing the reason here. My contention remains that to ignore economic history, social history, people's history etc of South Asia would be a gross injustice in presenting a comprehensive view of the state of South Asia through the ages.--Shahab (talk) 07:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I have collapsed {{HistoryOfSouthAsia}} components and replaced content. Anyways you have your template's code in talk page, you can improve template or we can replace if really fit alternate template is available. Mightymrt away (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually I sufficiently improved my template to the point that I don't feel that it is incomplete any more. My point is that the whole orientation of the Template:HistoryOfSouthAsia is faulty as it focuses on providing only a list of political kingdoms of India. Such an elitist approach to history can never summarize South Asia's existence. How is the Ahom Kingdom more relevant in comparison to Mahabharata? Why is the Durrani Empire more important to Sufism in India. The latter are very much part of the historical heritage of South Asia and any leading template should have all these things. Since the Template:HistoryOfSouthAsia has not been designed to incorporate these features, I suggest that we forgo its use entirely and use my template instead. The Template:HistoryOfSouthAsia can be useful in the Timeline of Indian history and at some other article. I do not believe that big templates are useful in the lead. They distract the reader as overlinking and too many blue links reduces the importance of the important high value links. Any template in the lead should also comply with WP:LEAD and should contain just the important points and nothing else. Hence my template concentrates on only 4 aspects at most from any age. Regards--Shahab (talk) 08:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Your are giving undue importance to non-deserving things, Mansabdari nobody cares, and Taj Mahal nobody eats - no offense. It will become pure WP:Original Research defining your own opinion in lead. Kindly point me to some source, otherwise it is considered OR. Mightymrt away (talk) 08:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all there is no need to view this table as mine and not yours. You are free to edit it as well. Secondly if we want any template/table etc in the lead which summarizes the important historical aspects then the best way would be to evolve a consensus on its contents. I waited a reasonable amount of time before putting up this table but no one put forth any suggestions. As for sources what kind of sources do you need? That the Mansabdari system is important in the administrative history of India, and an important grassroot affecting contribution of Mughals is attested by many sources (for example Medieval Indian History(Hardcover - 2002) by K.N. Chitnis). It was really a beginning of systematic land records in India for which the British also owe to the Mughals.[3] Whether it should be used in the lead of the History of India article on wikipedia is something for which there of course are no sources. That can only be decided by consensus here. I have absolutely no problems with changing the contents of the table while retaining its objective of not reflecting solely political history.

I used the Taj Mahal picture as I feel that this is image is identified more with India around the world then any other image. I feel any non-Indian will definitely connect this image with India. Regards--Shahab (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

When there are no sources, there is no basis for discussion or consensus. Britannica's india lead says (commented text for copyright, click edit to see), it does not mention Manasbari. You are welcome to bring sources that summarise indian history, and unsourced materials are removed first when challenged, like in this case by me. Mightymrt away (talk) 04:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I thought the fact that the sources I have mentioned (Medieval Indian History by K.N. Chitnis and the website) which discuss the importance of Mansabdari would be sufficient to include it. The important thing for me is to look at history from all angles. I have no qualms about removing Mansabdari if it isn't notable enouugh. I'll ty to hunt up a source that summarizes Indian history and includes mansabdari. However I do believe that any such source is liable to be subjective without scholarly consensus. In the meantime you are welcome to follow {{Sofixit}}.--Shahab (talk) 08:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Prehistoric era

Isn't the fact that Vedic Period and Mahajanapadas are classified under pre historic era wrong? Since written records of that period are available and well understood they qualify under history and not pre-history.--Shahab (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

A few points

The arrival of Moslems to Kerala is describes as the first arrival of Abrahamic religions in India. However, Jews have been stated to have arrived during the third century BC and Christians are stated to have followed in the Roman Era.

In the article about the arrival of Europeans to India, trade between India and Europe is described as Indo-European which I believe is an unfortunate term since it may be confuse the casual reader. A more clear description might be "trade between India and Europe".

The English colonizers are described as "British islanders" when "English" might be a term more commonly used in the English language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.200.45 (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Finally the timeline for European colonization might be expanded since events more than hundred years apart are joined into the same context which again might confuse the casual reader. I say this because I've encountered the idea that India was colonized by the British in the 16th century on another forum. I apologize for not reading through the entire article but India is unfortuneately not my area of expertise and I didn't expect to really be able to contribute. (I came here because I wanted to compare another source in a language I don't quite understand on the European colonization to what I hoped would be a more authorative source). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.200.45 (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm neither Muslim nor Hindu myself, but I'm worried about the choice of words on the introduction of Islam to India: 'But this had marked the arrival of an Abrahamic religion in the pre-existing Indian religions'. Not only is the English pretty bad (though there is worse - see some of the pages on particular castes, for example), but it does seem just a TOUCH anti-Islamic. I know that such pages are difficult to edit - the pages on Indian history in particular seem to be swarming with dreadful English, irrelevant rubbish and massive bias - but could the core of clued-up, benevolent experts on Indian history who know what Wikipedia is for please sort this and related pages out? I've tried correcting some articles before in a slightly more accurate light here but the Indian Nationalist Mafia or Anti-Indian League or someone keeps changing them back (depending on whichever way the bias happened to swing). The English Wikipedia is about accuracy and facts in good English (or possibly good Hinglish), not irrelevance and biased opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.145.122.175 (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Indian history is all about "irrelevant, rubbish and massive bias" -- doesn't this comment have this TOUCH of anti-Indian or maybe anti-South-Asian bias? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgpilot (talk • contribs) 13:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you propose the change here first? It can be discussed and then put in the article with consensus.--Shahab (talk) 06:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

World War II

Is it intended that there is nothing in this article on World War II? DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus for move –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

---

History of India → History of the Indian subcontinent — Since this page deals with the history of the entire Indian subcontinent prior to 1947, I suggest that it be moved to a title that more accurately reflects its content. The page includes the histories of present-day Bangladesh, India and Pakistan, prior to their creation, so my proposal is to move History of India to History of the Indian subcontinent and then move History of the Republic of India to History of India. This, in my submission, would reflect more accurately the geographical extent of the territories whose history is sought to be covered as the identities of Bangladesh, India and Pakistan as understood in the present day are post-1947 constructs which share a common history prior to that year. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose The topic is commonly understood as History of India and not as History of the Indian Subcontinent, in academic circles as well as in common usage. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose While I understand the urge to introduce less ambiguous terminology for the pre-1947 entity, wikipedia is not the right forum to do so. Both popular and academic sources use "History of India" when talking about the pre-1947 period, even though the geographical area covered is larger than the Republic of India. For example, Google books lists 11, 000 books with history and India in their title, and 9 with the words Indian, subcontinent, and history. While some of the "History of India" books undoubtedly are about the Republic of India, a vast majority cover the pre-independence period. Searching my institutional library and JSTOR gives similar lopsided results (1300:4 and 1100:4 respectively). The ambiguity should be resolved in the article body and not its title. Abecedare (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I'm under the impression that using less ambiguous terminology, particularly in the context of this article, would fit in well with the NPOV policy in at least attempting to provide a neutral perspective. As I see it, most of the history that has been written on the subcontinent seems to be from the perspective of some greater "Indian" entitity that existed pre-Partition - This is based on my reading of books by Indian and British historians: I'm not sure what Pakistani and Bangladeshi books say; could editors from these countries please clarify? - so I thought Wikipedia shouldn't find itself slotted in by these stereotypes and instead attempt to rise above them to try and maintain neutrality. If you could clarify this point for me, I would be reasonably convinced to accept your reasoning. (BTW, the ambiguity is at present attempted to be resolved in the hatnote, but for the aforementioned reason I think this should be reflected in the title itself.) Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality and its corollary WP:DUE require that we represent all reliably sourced views in proportion to their coverage by the best available sources. As a tertiary source, we are not required to, and shouldn't, try to balance what we consider to be "real world" issues or sensibilities. For the topic of this article, academic sources (which is what we should look at) overwhelmingly use the term India to refer to the larger pre-1947 geographical entity, so using Indian subcontinent instead would be replacing what sources say with our personal preference - and that would be against NPOV.

See how Britannica deals with the issue in the first paragraph of its India:History article:

"The Indian subcontinent, the great landmass of South Asia, is the home of one of the world’s oldest and most influential civilizations. In this article, the subcontinent, which for historical purposes is usually called simply “India,” is understood to comprise the areas of not only the present-day Republic of India but also the republics of Pakistan (partitioned from India in 1947) and Bangladesh (which formed the eastern part of Pakistan until its independence in 1971). For the histories of these latter two countries since their creation, see Pakistan and Bangladesh."

And Encarta's discussion starts as:

"India’s history begins not with independence in 1947, but more than 4,500 years earlier, when the name India referred to the entire subcontinent, including present-day Pakistan and Bangladesh."

We should take a similar approach. Abecedare (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. In that case, I think, a stronger clarification in the lede (to the effect of what Britannica mentions) is in order. Encarta is inaccurate because even reliable historical sources do not mention the region being referred to as India (or anything similar) 4500 years ago. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with you on both the points. The use of India in this context should be spelled out clearly in the lede (with references), instead of having such a lengthy hat note. And yes, the Encarta wording is very sloppy - instead of "when the name India referred to", they should have had, "and in the historical context the name India refers to". We can do better! Abecedare (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Right-o! I think the beginning has been made, but things can still be stated more clearly. I'll work on rewording the lede over the next few days. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - The name India is routinely applied to more than one geographic area, and it is (or should be) understood in context. Imc (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

See my last comment above - I think the context needs to be clearly spelt out in the lede. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Pre-independence, the term India was applied to the region in general; the term Indian subcontinent came in vogue only after the split of the countries and continues to be used only in post colonial contexts. So, in keeping with the time period of classification and also the general term usage, stick with History of India, the other title can be a redirect. -SpacemanSpiff 17:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The term India has been used for millennia to refer to the entire subcontinent that shared a common religion and cultural history even if politically divided. The names Pakistan and Bangladesh themselves did not exist prior to 1947. It is a well accepted fact and changing it just to appease revisionist historians in Pakistan and Bangladesh is simply OR. --Deepak D'Souza 18:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You're incorrect on both points. Firstly, the term India did not come into use until the British era - no reliable history book claims it to have been used for millenia. Secondly, stating that the entire subcontinent shared a common religion and cultural history even if politically divided is factually misleading - religious and cultural diversity across regions has been well documented (partly the reason why we have a History of South India as a separate article). In any case, as I pointed out earlier, I'm only conversant with books written by British and Indian historians, and I ahve no idea as to what are the revisionist historians in Pakistan and Bangladesh whose appeasement you're mentioning. Perhaps you could care to elaborate on that? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, Megasthenes and Arrian both called the region India in their respective works dating around 300BC and 60CE respectively, so the term has been used for the region for millenia, although it may not have been used locally. -SpacemanSpiff 19:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Spiff has already addressed one point. No denying that the subcontinent is diverse, but even in this diverity there are some common threads that led to European historians refering to India as a single entity rather than as individual kingdoms. What I meant was the trend of calling it the "history of the Indian Subcontinent" or even "History of South Asia" was largely started by Pakistani historians to counter Indian claims that Pakistan did not have a history of its own. Even a few western historians seem to be accepting this trend. According to some newspapers, Pakistani textbooks even teach that it was India that split from Pakistan and not the other way around! --Deepak D'Souza 04:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Having observed the hate wars involving the validity of the term British Isles which includes independent Ireland, I suspect Indian subcontinent is open to the same objection. The neutral term is something like South Asia though that might cover a wider area, Sri Lanka, Nepal and perhaps Myanmar. Can you not devise a term like "History of pre-1947 India" ? Or create "History of British India" and "History of pre-British India" ? Sussexonian (talk) 08:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

  We shouldn't be devising terms on wikipedia but using whatever the common and academically accepted terms are. In this case, it is overwhelmingly "History of India". --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 11:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

*Support per nom: the name India is not the commonly used name for the entire subcontinent in our present age, which I believe is the correct interpretation of WP:NC and in particular of WP:UCN. When considerig the area as a whole, we refer to it as the Indian Subcontinent (cf, that article); when we refer to its parts, we speak of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Furthermore, WP:NC states "Be precise when necessary": India is not specific enough as it could refer to one of many areas of land overlapping and/or enclosing each other. The proposed name avoids possible confusions such as a modern reader assuming that the article refers only to the history of the present day Republic of India. Don't forget we are writing for everyone including those that know little or no history. If in doubt, presume ignorance. Jubilee♫clipman 17:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Retracted - New proposal: History of India (pre-1947). This is in fact what the article discusses. India on its own is too vague for modern readers. Jubilee♫clipman 03:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Or rewrite final section to include summary of post-1947 histories (see below) Jubilee♫clipman 14:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support (though it feels strange since it is counter to my personal usage). The title "History of India" as applied to the current article violates the principle of least astonishment in two ways. First, it only covers the period to 1947 and second it is not limited to the area most commonly known as India. If this were 1955, that might not matter much but with over 60 years having lapsed since the current Indian was formed, the older meaning is increasingly anachronistic. The proposed move is made easier by the existence of commonly used terms that seem to be uncontroversial and are used in other realms of knowledge here at Wikipedia (Indian subcontinent and South Asia). However, I do not support a move of History of the Republic of India to History of India. Let History of India be a disambiguation page to address concerns noted above. — AjaxSmack 01:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

  As far as I know, academic departments almost everywhere are doing quite well with the dichotomy between the historical 'India' and the current 'India'. c.f., this page from Oxford University where a number of historical references to India are to India rather than to the subcontinent; or [www.history.ox.ac.uk/seminars/export/export_seminar/130.pdf this SOAS seminar]. I guess the problem is that there is a huge overlap between the histories (where, for example, would the Sikh kingdoms go - The History of India where the Sikhs are today, the History of Pakistan - the geographical region where their kingdom was, or only in the History of the Indian Subcontinent?). This is complicated by the desire of each entity to assert its own identity. However, until the English speaking world largely recognizes this historical distinction and until the English speaking academic world comes out with an acceptable term for the pre-1947 history of this geographical entity, we should not go around pushing our own preferred terminology. Our job is to take whatever mainstream reliable sources report and stick to that regardless of our own preferences and viewpoints. In this case, History of India is the clear and overwhelming choice. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 01:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

  The name History of India is not the clear and overwhelming choice of our readers, who are the people we are addressing. Academics use all sorts of terms: South Asia, India, Greater India, Indian Subcontinent... None of these is used consistantly across the board, so no argument could be made for their clear and overwhelming choice as being India either. But their choice is irrelevant, anyway, since it is the choice of the majority of our readers that counts, since they are the ones that search and read. If Indian Subcontinent is so controversial, why not use a dab tag instead as suggested above? Eg: History of India (pre-1947) and redirect this page to the DAB page India (disambiguation)? In fact that title would be more accurate, since that is exactly what this page discusses, given the historical context. Jubilee♫clipman 02:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC) BTW, I also oppose moving History of the Republic of India here even though India is now the commonly used name for the Republic. That move would inspire the self-same debate we are having now! Jubilee♫clipman 02:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

  I'm sorry but I think you are wrong on both the facts and the policy:

  1. "so no argument could be made for their clear and overwhelming choice as being India" No, academics do overwhelmingly use the term India in the context of the subject of this article. See my oppose above for evidence (I can expand on that if you wish)

  2. "since it is the choice of the majority of our readers that counts" No. It is the reliable sources, not the readers, that decide our coverage. This is core wikipedia policy that cannot be overuled, even by consensus on individual pages. See the Article Naming section of WP:NPOV, which says that we should use "the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources; the most common name used in English-language publications is generally used". Readers don't enter the picture. (I don't accept your evaluation of what our readers expect, but that's moot anyways).

  Abecedare (talk) 02:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

  Hm, I see your point. I did misread the policies. Forget Indian Subcontinent, then. How about a DAB tag? History of India (pre-1947) seems to be more accurate as I pointed out. I have retracted my support and propose this name. Jubilee♫clipman 03:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Instead, I would suggest tacking along a final section to the article providing a 5-10 sentence overview of the post-1947 developments in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and linking to the respective main articles. This is the approach taken by all the modern, well-respected "History of India" text-/popular books that I know of (aside: any single book on History of India is inevitably directed at freshmen/sophomore and popular audience, since the subject is just too vast to receive an "academic" treatment in 1-2 volumes). See for example:

• A history of India by Burton Stein
• India: a history by John Keay
• History of India by Romila Thapar and Percival Spear
• A history of India by Hermann Kulke, Dietmar Rothermund (I am not really familiar with this one)
• India by Stanley Wolpert. This book takes a topical, rather than chronological approach, but does cover the post-independence period.

These all are standard overviews written by historians across three continents, and published by reputed publishers. I think our article should follow their organization and conventions. Abecedare (talk) 03:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If a post-1947 developments in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh section is created and the links included, as suggested, then this article would indeed qualify unequivocally for the the name History of India. In fact, the section Independence and Partition could be expanded to do this job. Links to Pakistan and Bangladesh need to be included in that section anyway. The histories would need to be short since they are covered in detail on their respective pages, but summeries do need to be here. Good idea, Abecedare, I support that. Jubilee♫clipman 14:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think the proposal is a good idea - along with a rewording of the lede, this should make the context and the meaning of India quite clear. I also think the links to the histories of Pakistan, Bangladesh and the Republic of India should be moved from the hatnote to the proposed new section - they look quite cluttered up there. Just one clarification - should an entirely new section be created or should the information be retained under the existing Independence and Partition section? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

A new section may not be necessary and it may be possible to merge the proposed addition in the Independence and Partition section, which can be renamed. The decision on that is best made once the new section is written (If no one else volunteers, I can take a stab at it this weekend) I think we will still need a hat-note to History of Republic of India for disambiguation purposes, since readers may arrive at this page expecting to read about that topic, but most of the other links can be moved to the body of the article. Abecedare (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Move to close: I have rewritten the final section to include a brief history of Bangladesh. I also added a statemnt in the lead to help clarify the context. I suggest that they address the problems raised by the original proposer and by me. Agreed? If so, I propose closing this move request with No move per consensus. Jubilee♫clipman 16:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we have a rough consensus here on how to proceed, but there is no real harm in letting the RM request be open for the full 7 days when an uninvolved admin can close it. We may hear other useful viewpoints or suggestions in the meantime. Abecedare (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That's fair. Jubilee♫clipman 01:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. I think this discussion has resulted in a reasonable consensus, as well as addressing the issues that were brought up. I agree with Abecedare that we should wait till the 16th for an uninvolved admin to formally close the discussion. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Comment: Although I fully understand and agree with the observations pointing out that India refers to the entire subcontinent in academic circles when they discuss pre-1947 histories, I doubt that any member of the general public would use the word India to refer to the entire subcontinant. Ask anyone in the street what the word India means and they will talk about the Republic. Hence, among our readers, the common usage of the word India is that denoting The Republic of India. Furthermore, this article is primarily about the history pre-1947, so even the proposed change could be misleading, though the DAB lead does point out the actual time period. Perhaps the opening statement of the Header should point out the period, too, since that is supposed to be the primary statement of such information. Given the opposition to the proposal, I suspect I am on the losing side. However, I do feel my arguments are compelling, logical and follow WP:NC to the letter:

1. Recognizable: in most discussions among the general public India is a Republic not a subcontinent.
2. Easy to find: History of India would, to most of the general public, mean the history of that Republic not the subcontinent.
3. Precise: as per above that India is not precise enough.
4. Concise: proposed name is longer than present name but still short enough to meet this criteria. (Wikipedia:Proposed naming conventions and guidelines seems to violate this rule, for example, but the name is necessary for clarity and precision.)
5. Consistent: India actually redirects from Republic of India and is about the modern state not the subcontinent.

Any thoughts welcome.

Jubilee♫clipman 18:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Just another thought regarding the ways other Wikis use the terms Indian subcontinent and India.

1. The Indian subcontinent Wiki seems to talk about the area covered in this article.
2. History of South Asia: The term South Asia refers to the political entities of the Indian subcontinent and associated islands, that is the states of Pakistan, Republic of India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and the island nations of Sri Lanka and the Maldives. In historical (pre-1947) usage, these territories are subsumed under "India".
3. Greater India: The term Greater India refers to the historical spread of the Culture of India beyond the Indian subcontinent proper.
4. British Raj: British Raj (rāj (राज, راج), lit. "reign" in Hindustani[1]) primarily refers to the British colonial rule in the Indian subcontinent between 1858 and 1947...

All of these seem to suggest that other Wikis are agreed on the usage of the term Indian subcontinent for the subcontinent rather than India (which page discusses the Republic as mentioned). The Raj page goes on to say: The region, commonly called India in contemporary usage... which points to the fact that no one uses the name India for that region (Indian subcontinent) any more.

I have yet to find a Wiki, other than this one that insists on calling the subcontinent India in a modern context. Names need to use a modern context to be clear to modern readers. Basically, I am at a loss as to why so many people seem to be opposed to the obvious name change. This article is not about the history of India as the term is understood today. (I deliberately made every non-quote instance of India and Indian subcontinent in my commentry a Wiki link to illustrate the point...) Jubilee♫clipman 00:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have retracted my support, but still stand by the above comments. I feel the first are still pertinent to my proposed History of India (pre-1947). Any comments from others on these? Jubilee♫clipman 03:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Better idea: Rewrite final section to include summary of post-1947 histories of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh and link to the respective pages. If that is done, this page would then unequivocally be The History of India without any further qualifier being needed. Indeed, most standard overview histories do precisely this as Abecedare points out. Jubilee♫clipman 14:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pictures

I don't know if other people have this problem, but some of the pictures obscure the text. (I use FireFox 3.) The picture for Harmandir Sahib or The Golden Temple in See also moves the text around and partially obscures the History of Pakistan link. Worse, the picture under the References section has multiple issues: it obscures the text of that section; its text is obcsured by the text in that section; and the links are all confused because of the link in the main picture. I am not yet experienced enough to solve this issue so if anyone else could have a go that would be great. Cheers, Jubilee♫clipman 15:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed the "left" tag from the wiki markup in the Tagore3 image. It does not clash now. However none of the images seem to be where they are supposed to be: this one is meant to be in the section The Indian Independence movement for example. Probably a Wiki wide issue with FireFox? I checked it out in IE and it is where it is should be. Jubilee♫clipman 17:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm using FF3 too, and I don't seem to have any of the problems with images that you pointed out. Perhaps it's something to do with your preferences? BTW, what is the width of your computer screen? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point. My screen is 16:10. I'll check my hardware/software settings and the FF prefs. It is probably just me, since there is no bug note that I can find. Thanks for heads up! Jubilee♫clipman 19:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have attempted the make more sense of the images by moving them around and forcing the odd break here and there. I am aware thet this may only work on my setup, so I urge others to review my changes and rework as necessary. I suspect the real problem is that there are an enormous number of images which are perhaps not necessary and disturb the flow. They also display in different ways on different monitor/adapter setups at different resolutions and with diferent widescreen formats, which can cause problems for some but not for others. Perhaps a purge is necessary? Note that two images were in the wrong place: Chola Empire under Rajendra Chola c. 1030 C.E. and Badami Chalukya Empire were in Early Middle Kingdoms — The Golden Age despite more obviously relating to Late Middle Kingdoms — The Classical Age. I moved these. Jubilee♫clipman 23:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

History of Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka

It seems to me that having stated that the article is about the history of the subcontinent, the lead should mention the other clearly included modern countries; Nepal, Bhutan and Sri Lanka. Imc (talk) 09:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

History of British India?

hist of india title is misleading he title of the article should be British India history or Pre partition India historyMughalnz (talk) 03:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

the title of the page should be Prepartitioned India history or British India history Because the tile is very Misleading misleading when it say India history even though in small font info on the side say pre indian history

So to save trouble and time it should be called pre partitioned India history or British India history or hisory of south Asian sates of Afganistan ,india Paksiatn bangladesh nepal ,sri lanka naepal nhutna etc Futhermore these country were never part of Republic of inidia

Because Indian history means [1947 create Indian history] so the meaning of the title is wrong becasue it gives wrong meaning

Renamed History of South asia or south asian states Mughalnz (talk) 03:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

)the hisory of India needs to be removed it is not only history of 'india ' this title depriveahistory of south asians Mughalnz (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC) ==

just because it state on the botoom of the title that it is the history of pre- partition india Is not enough you you depriving the right of history of South Asian which is not in the wiki spirit And giving reader incorrect perception that South Asians nation are apart of India (argument continues to second point )

-furthermore The title preparation India need to change to British India -because again you giving the wrong meaning becasue the sate india didint exist until 1947 it should be called by it correct name of British India

- if continue to use this title you historical in accuracy like Afganistan was nEVER part of India ALSO Bangladesh was part of India ,while India didn't exist until exist until 1947 .Bangladesh so were Maldives ,napalm ,Bhutan ,Burma was apart of British raj India

The name of the entity before 1947 is 'BRITISH INDIA'-STOP WRITING PROPAGANDA GIVING READERS THE WRONG INFORMATION AND PERCEPTION OF INDIAN HISTORY AND BRITISH INDIAN HISTORY -THIS NOT IN WIKI SPIRIT ,HISTORICALLY INACCURATE, -EVEN IF YOU WRITE IN THE BOTTOM OF THE TITLE IT ISN'T YOU STILL MISLEADING READING

IN THE UNITED NATIONS WHICH INDIA IS A MEMBER IN THE FORMERLY AREA CALLED THE INDIAN SUBCONTINENT IS NOT USED BUT OFFICIALLY SOUTH ASIA AND THE INDIAN GOVERNMENT HASN'T OBJECTED TO THE NAME WHEN IT JOIN TH u.n FOR THE PAST 60 YEARS THE ALSO BBC, GUARDIAN, USE IT ASWELL —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mughalnz (talk • contribs) 02:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This was discussed extensively a short while back. Please go through the discussion above. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The name "India"

India, of course, was applied by westerners to the area around the Indus River since BCE. But when did the name "India" become applied to the entire subcontinent? My guess is around 1000 CE. But I am just guessing. Would be nice to have that in here with a WP:RELY reference. Student7 (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

See Names of India for some information; unfortunately it is unsourced. If you do find some reliable sources, feel free to add them there. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Misspelling in Post-Mughal Regional Kingdoms section

{{editsemiprotected}}

Hello,

In the first line of the first paragraph of Post-Mughal Regional Kingdoms, the term suzerianity should be suzerainty as per the following reference: [[4]]

Kurisu Paifuaa (talk) 05:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Kurisu Paifuaa

Done. Thanks! --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 10:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

500,000 years ago??

"The history of India can be traced as far back as 500,000 years ago." Really?? "History" in what sense? The first (earliest) period under "Timeline of Indian History" is "Stone Age," and the first item is "1.1 Rock Shelters of Bhimbetka (9000-7000 BC)." What Indian history do we know of for the previous 489,000 years? (Note that "500,000 years" was changed from an earlier version that said "700,000 years," so it doesn't appear to be a typo.) This is very confusing to the layperson. Does "History" in this context refer to archeological evidence of habitation by extinct Homo species?68.82.244.102 (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Found the answer. But...

Sorry, I should have read further under "Pre-historic Era." I still think that sentence can be confusing to the casual reader. Would you consider a change to something along the lines of "Archeological evidence of habitation of central India by Homo erectus can be traced as far back as 500,000 years ago"?68.82.244.102 (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

modified. I also removed "The Indian civilization begins" because it implies a continuous civilization which is patently not the case. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, much clearer. Copy editing suggestions: "Homo sapiens" should be in itals, with a cap H; delete comma after "subcontinent"; and correct typo "Inda" at the end of the third sentence.68.82.244.102 (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

All done. Thanks for the suggestions! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Also unprotected - in case you want to wade in yourself. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Naming (again)

Please read all of the following left by Mughalnz on my talk page and then comment below: ( these were not full discussion with Jubilee♫for full discussion with click link User talk:Jubileeclipman) Mughalnz (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

<<start>>

i have read the talk page about history of prepartition india history

the state which is india beore 1947 did not exist how it possible for the state to have history and what ever was before the was under the british empire ,just because a few historians stated this that - does not refelct the global pereption of what is of what(5 continents ) e.g some history of something would different another for example bangladesh would view 1971 indo paksiatni war as a war of independence ,however Pakistan would view it as as it 3 indo pakistani war Mughalnz (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC) What I am disputing is did anything exist before 1947 to have history (only British i can think of ) I only recall British india in Pre 1947 to say it is India hisory is pov and back by a some historian just in writing doesn't reflect the actual physical state that existed at that time if there was.However people have used shotened word india to refer British india they actual existing Before 1947 (at that ime peroid) - furthermore —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mughalnz (talk • contribs) 23:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm... You may have a point. However, when the point was made that the article should be renamed to "history of Indian Subcontenent" (which would address your issues) there was an enormous amount of resistance. Futhermore, the Mughals and other peoples have a huge history which is examined in detail in the article: it is not just about the British Raj which has its own entry. Perhaps this question needs to be better examined... and sourced from non-European based texts. I'll have a think how to approach this and get back to you. --Jubilee♫clipman 23:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

just to let u know mughal conquered from modern afganistan ,paksiatn,bangladesh,india but not maldives ,Sri lanka, bhutan, and not noerthern indian states of arunchal pradesh ,sikim ,manipur,assam,etc e.g the states above bangladesh futhermore southerrn indian states of kerala etc ( theres some more )aslo indian terroites of laskshaweep and adman and nicobar island however British india existed in all places i stated except afganistan which is also disputed if it is considered part of indian subcontinent where some maps show it whle other dont Mughalnz (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

threatened to delete the page if no compremise can met , then they will comprimise

Sri lanka i think it not part of British india but part of sub continent it make no sense if there is ressistance to logic( i think i have stated ) ,where the resistnace is only driven emotional povMughalnz (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

<<end>>

Any thoughts? --Jubilee♫clipman 00:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a chat with Mughalnz, I've been interacting with him and helping out on a couple of other articles. But his point is invalid, it's not a couple of historians calling the region India, it started with Megasthenes and Arrian and has continued since then. It only stopped after the creation of the three countries, not any time before. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 00:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Cheers SpacemanSpiff! He's left several messages since then, too, but I am not knowledgable enough to help him. I'll point him in your direction. --Jubilee♫clipman 00:43, 9 December 2009 (UTc)

For the record, the Western ancients knew the region around the Indus River as "India," now Pakistan. There perception of India did not go further because their geography/maps didn't. The history in the west of the extension of the name to cover a good portion of the subcontinent would be useful. This might not necessarily be useful in structuring the article, however.

It would be useful for multiple reasons to know what the Moguls called their empire, indeed if they thought of it as a single entity at all.

There is more than one bias going on here. Not just western, but Indian. The Indian bias is to claim that the entire country now known as India has always been called under a single name ("India"?) (without Pakistan! That definitely is not true outside of the country and probably not within it either!  :). Student7 (talk)

01:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

thank you for your answering of query I am just going to randomly add my points with no coherent structure or grammer to respond to the name 'india'for indian history

- One source the Cia World fact book does not say that Pakistan was created not India but the Indian Subcontinent refer to what you call India to Indian subcontinent https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html

-The subcontinent region had also different name Hindustan, bharat , hind - so how can it called it India ,subcontinent, British India Names of India- t

-another source say India also includes -included Japan ,Siam (old name for Thailand) ,biramnn ( burman empire )etc many more resources http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=NXM9AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA781&dq=india+ancient+names(indh)&lr=&cd=13#v=onepage&q=&f=false written in 1800s

-Also states India is a corruption of hind

Inconclusion (India) has had so many different names and included different regions or nations at different peroid of time how can it be called 'India 'history ( of the subcontinent)

If what i have said is incorrect please correct man if it has been discussed please direct me to the discussion of what has oready been discussed ,thanks Mughalnz (talk) 05:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

history of indian subcontinent

is the ligimate npov name not indian history look up Britannica ,india is used a shoertened word for it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mughalnz (talk • contribs) 05:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

See the discussion above on this issue, which lists several sources to justify the current name. Abecedare (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

BCE-CE Vs BC-AD

Since BC ("Before Christ") and AD ("Anno Domini", "In the year of the Lord") represent a Christian Point of View, i have replaced it with their secularized versions ie. BCE ("Before Common Era") and CE ("Common Era") in the entire length of this article keeping in tone with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Before any reverts to this pls discuss in here . Thanks. Arjun (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• i agree it should be ce common era, (bc etc is christiancentric)while CE ("Common Era") inNPOV policy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mughalnz (talk • contribs) 02:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, on Wikipedia either style is correct. Please see WP:ERA for more info. Copana2002 (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

if either is correct; then i see no point in not using a style that is sans-doubt NPOV and secular. Arjun (talk) 13:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

if you truly wanted to be "secular," how can you use the numeric system derived from Jesus' birth? Both have been deemed "acceptable" under wikipedia's terms. However, BC/AD is more commonly used, and has been used far longer. There is no reason to change. If you do not want BC/AD to be related to Christ, then find other words for BC and AD, because that is basically what BCE and CE are doing. I make this point not as a religious argument--because I would be fine with 100 BC/BCE being referred to as "-100"--instead I argue the validity in the BCE/CE system as being widely accepted. Just because some book makers in Berkeley,CA start changing text books, doesn't make it so. If those same people started calling cats dogs, it would make them bark. The BC/AD is the most widely used and should remain. If you feel better, you can call it Before Common-era and After D...(choose a word.) There is not a movement to change the numeric system, so just create alternatives to the meanings if it bother you so much (Jgw71 (talk) 21:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC))

Um, the numeric system we use has nothing to do with Jesus, we got it from the Arabs, and they got zero - the key to our decimal system - from ... the Indians! As to BCE/CE, the terms were first introduced by Christians. As for wikipedia policy, if all the active contributors to this article agree on a style that is allowed by Wikipedia, well, that is that. It is called consensus based editing, and in this matter different articles can use different systems. Learn to live with it. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I think no one here has any problem with using the Gregorian calendar ... the main problem stems from using the word AD (Anno Domini, "is Medieval Latin, translated as In the year of (the/Our) Lord"). Non-Christians may not consider Christ as their "Lord", and hence using the neutral term CE is preferable at least in this page. --Ragib (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that Christians are in minority in India, it would seem inappropriate even to use the CE format. However, very few readers would understand what either 1932 SE or 1431 AH would refer to (they are both the present year, actually), so the only real solution is to avoid AD/BC and use CE/BCE. --Jubilee♫clipman 03:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the change here. Please recognize that there are Indian Christian articles that have quite correctly used AD however. There are events that are very Christian-oriented - the belief that an apostle visited, for example, in an article totally about Christianity and not about a secular topic. Student7 (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Since an ip user had rvrtd BCE/CE to BC/AD ; i have again reverted; as i see most people who replied in here agree to BCE/CE. Arjun (talk) 14:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

Permanently place discussion of naming of article in the currently used article discussion page for first time user lol could'nt find archives also possibly somone or group of editors make the tile page summary more clearer for readers , editors, and people.To stop people like me keep bringing topic up again,again, and wasting time .Inconclusion make title summary more simpler for people to undertand and maybe a indepth bit for more knowledglable people Mughalnz (talk) 03:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your ends, but not the means :-) Methinks an FAQ section, like the ones on the Muhammad or Barack Obama talkpages, would be a better idea. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 12:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

independence movement

you forget Nehru Jinnah and Gandhi helped lead to a independence subcontinent and all accepted divided India in the end

Gandhi is generally recognized as the leader of the independence movement. Jinnah, while a part of the independence movement, is more associated with partition and the formation of Pakistan (which is why his photograph is more appropriate in the partition section). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• You forget Pakistan is apart of India in this page but not republic of India furthermore
• Jinnah did contribute to independent India even if he wanted a divided India also it would be pov not to put him their
• I removed his picture until a resolution is reachedMughalnz (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC
• Not only that Gandhi did not want a independent PakistanMughalnz (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
• So it will be pov just to put Gandhi who only accepted independent Pakistan when it was created ;so Jinnah did play a role in par with Gandhi in some respect Indian independence movement

02:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think you understand what goes under Indian History page ( India and Pakistan(1947)) Indian independence movement means independence movement of India and Pakistan so Gandhi and Jinnah are the main leader of the movementMughalnz (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• This article is about the history of the Indian Subcontinent prior to the Partition of India in 1947. For the history of the modern Republic of India, see History of the Republic of India. For the histories of Pakistan and Bangladesh see History of Pakistan and History of Bangladesh. Also for South India see History of South India.

• I will put Jinnah name ,jinnah and Gandhi picture back on the page ( until you can prove me wrong)Mughalnz (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

  Pre-1947 India had an independence movement of which Gandhi is considered the main leader (for better or for worse). Pre-1947 India was partitioned into Pakistan and India (post-1947 India) and, again for better or for worse, Jinnah is considered the prime leader of that partition. There were many people who contributed to the independence of India (Bose, Tilak, even Bhagat Singh has been mentioned on these pages) and Jinnah was one of these many but Jinnah is associated with the partition of pre-1947 India and that's where he should get special mention. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Clarification of misundrstanding about History of India ( Bhrarat or Bharar Khand ). India name was given by Britishers only.

This is to calrify that Lord Rama had a brother name Bhart. Lord Rama had wife name Sita and two sons name Love and Kush. The City name Ayodhya was nere Lakhnow in Uttar Pradesh. The City of ayadhay that is were Lord Rama was born. He was the son of King Dashrath and had younger brothers Bharat and Lkhxman. Rama was sent out for Vanvas for 14 years. This was the time his wife was kidneped by King called Ravan. The king Ravan was from Shri Lanka was a City of solid golden palaces and forts. The Godes Sita was kept in Ashok vadi as a prisoner. Hanuman was the chief of Lord Rama's army set fire in the City of Shri Lanka. The war between Lord Rama and King Ravan was lost by King Ravan and got kiled by Lord Rama. After the deth of King Ravan his brother Vibhishan was crown by Lord Rama for the thron of Shri Lanka. After finishing his 14 years of Vanvas Lord Rama returned to his City of Ayadhya. During Lord Rama's vanvas his brother proted the kingdom of Ayadhya. Lord Rama did Ahvamegh Yagna and horse was kept loose to was through the verious different kingdoms and his army followed the horse. What ever the kingdom were captured by the army at that time become one continet called Bharat Khand. The terytory of this Bharat Khand was the countries call today as Usbekistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan so do today you call India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Himalay ( Him i.e Ice and Alay i.e mountain ) and Bhram Desh i.e provinces around Randgoon and Bankok also Islands of Andaman, Nikibar and on east side Islands of Dive, Daman and Gova and City of Khambhuja now a days sinken in the Bay of Khambhat ( Kenbay the British name) and island of Dwharika. All this land was one Bharat Khand ( one continent ). The explanation of the name Kush ( The Lord Rama of Ramchandra's son is a vegitation grows in the mount Himalaya is Kush the, leavs can cure the wounds during war ). The encyclopidia of Britanica has mad a wrong mening of this ward Kush is not sloter. Hindu Kush mountain region is in Pakistan. This do not mean Hindu sloter. Lord Rama did not kip his son name a sloter son. The holy book of Ramayan was writen by the Rishy Valmik and his ashram was in Hindu Kush. Lord Rama was born 18000 + years a go and this was before the Birth of Loard Krishna. Gandhar is a province not in northern India. Gandar is the province located at the border of Afghnistan and Pakistan. The Americans call this province as Torabora? Bhada province in Pakistan was not criminal paredise in past history. The Lord Vishnu was born on earth in the form of Lord Rama and the 2nd time Lord Vshnu was born in the form of Lord Krisha. The Lord Krishna was born about 8000 years ago. Both time when Lord Vishnu was born on earth his wife Laxami ( the Goodess of welth ) was born on earth as his wife. With Lord Rama was Sati Sita and with Lord Krisha was Rada as his wife. Lord Vishnu's original name is Bhargav and his wife name is Bhargavi. The Lord Rama was Arya the skin color was dark. There was no blue eyes and blond hair. He has dark blake hair. The same way the Lord Krishna was also born as Arya ( not airan ) and his skin color was dark with black hair. The color blue is showing in the picture is a symlic color represnting dark sking. The world maping for Indian teritory don is wrong. The original Ramayan was writen on banana leaves and with indigo ink in sanskrit by the Rishy Valmik when the Lord Ramchandra was alive. This is an eye witness account of Rishy Valmik. This holy book of Ramayan was writern in Hindu kush mountains. The Lord Rama's chidhood was in the ashram of the Rishy Valmik. The same time 7 Veda books were writen by the Rishy Vedvyas also in the ashram located in the Hindu Kush mountains. During this historical time there was no Chritianity nore Moslim religian. Only Hindu religion was in existance and people were Aryas with sun flag symbol. If you look further Egytion Faros were also the belivers of sun good. About the holy symbol of hinduisum is the swastik, the 4 sections are the symbols of Lords in haven the Bhramha, Vishnu, Ganesh and Mahesh. The Adolf Hitlar did use this symbol by reversing it on his flag. Now you can see were Aryan came from. Also, look at the teritory of Bharat Khand and compare the teritorial claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.219.29.181 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8