Talk:India/Archive 22

wikipedia shows jamoon and kashmir as a part of india in the worldmap which is not true, because jamoon and kashmir is disputed area and not the part of india or pakistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abra1 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have requested the authors to update it on commons: =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This is unnecessary politicalization of the document. Best left as it is, the article leads to an other article that has the relevant explaination on the disputed territories of the area. And its not 'jamoon' its Jammu :).--Mel Vilander (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont know if this has been discussed before, but the History section says absolutely nothing about the history of North East India. Something definitely needs to be said about the Ahoms of Assam.I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It has been raised by me back in 2005 for the History of India article, but we've decided to leave off such details. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the discussion on that talk page, I dont think this issue was adequately discussed. We can say: North East India, which politically became part of India only after Independence consisted of many different kingdoms like the Ahoms of Assam and the Twipra kingdom of Tripura. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Politically became a part of India after independence -- that's misleading. The British empire extended from Afghanistan to Burma, and Burma was governed by Calcutta at one point in time. So, I do not see how the status changed after 1947 or if it is any different from other princely states such as Travancore. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, though perhaps a clause or to mentioning and wikilinking the medieval kingdoms might be acceptable. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This is from the article North East India, "These areas (North East India) were incorporated into mainstream India (will need some work on that) during the British Raj when British colonial authorities annexed traditionally separate border countries into Indian territory to form a buffer between their colony and external powers (I can provide references for this particular claim actually)". We can add, "Before their accession (or annexation)this region consisted of many different kingdoms like the Ahoms of Assam and the Twipra kingdom of Tripura". I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea - I do agree that NE India should be incorporated into the article. I'm all for the above-mentioned suggestion by "I am....transformations..." ;) BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean} 02:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the addition of the content. I agree that NE India is not mentioned much in the article, but trying to compensate such a mention by adding specific details to a summarized form of the history is not the right way to proceed. Adding specifics leads to addition of more places, the next revisions could see smaller and smaller princely states being added. Next, could you let us know what the source reads? AFAIK the main threat to the British empire in the late nineteenth century was the expanding Russian Empire; that's why the British sent an expedition to Tibet, the Younghusband expedition in the early 20th century to create Tibet as a buffer state. It would be interesting to note why the British wanted eastern Indian kingdoms as buffers. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The other princely states (or 'empires') are mentioned, notably the South Indian ones. The North East isnt mentioned at all in this article (apart from the names of the states), when in fact it is a part of the Republic of India that is very distinct from the 'mainstream'. That in itself makes it notable, and how such an area was incorporated into India is of vital importance. The other princely states lie in the Indian cultural continuum, so their integration was more of a political than a cultural challenge, but the NE is culturally distinct from the rest of India and its integration has met stiff resistance. The source says that the British wanted to protect their Indian posessions from neighbouring powers (ostensibly from China in this case). I guess I have to put up a better set of sources, I will do that. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You have a point about the excess South Indian kingdoms. Since they are examples of kingdoms, we should be having at most only the three most prominent ones. More than three examples becomes a list. How about cutting down those kingdoms, to three and expanding the paragraph to include a line on the Ahoms and Twipura? Can you come up with a draft? =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it seems that Chalukyas, Rashtrakutas, Hoysalas are FAs, but I am not sure about their importance since I dont know that much about South Indian history. The Cholas should be mentioned because they were the only Indian Empire (that I can think of) who had possessions in SE Asia, which still has a large Indian influence.

The Ahoms (1228-1826) kingdoms were a medieval and late medieval kingdom. The Twipra kingdom has been around from the 1st century BC till today, they have a list of 186 kings! So I think we should split the medieval history para into 2, one abt the Mughals, Marathas and Ahoms. The part with the European colonization becomes a second para with a line abt how NE India was incorporated into the British Indian Empire. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 03:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Splitting the paragraph to include all notable kingdoms through time would break the summary. Today it is the Mughals, tomorrow Marathas, next week Kadambas. The list of kingdoms would be expanded by well meaning editors if not kept in check. Twipra seems more significant than the Ahoms, so can find a place. As for SI kingdoms, the one that ruled for the maximum time, and had the the maximum area in its direct control should be evaluated for addition. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, dont you think that the medieval empires (Mughals, Marathas et al.) constitute a slightly distinct eon of Indian history than the colonial empires ? I am not saying that we add any more content about those two eras of Indian history, only that we separate them and add one more line to one of them. In fact, if we remove 2 or 3 SI kingdom/empires we might end up not changing the size of the article that much. I think the Ahoms should be mentioned rather than the Twipras because their legacy is relevant to a larger state and population, which as I mentioned earlier are very distinct from the other parts and peoples of India. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 04:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

They also fought and defeated the Mughals, Battle of Saraighat. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 04:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have copyedited it. The kingdoms should be notable on their own right, not only because they defeated the Mughals. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Chalukyas, Cholas and Hoyasalas are the empires from the Medevial India. At the time of Indian Independence, there were many small kingdoms, and some major ones in existence. The Nizams of Hyderabad, Arcot Kings, and Kingdom of Cochin, along with Kingdm of Mysore are the major ones which were still intact. And Nizams gave a major trouble, they wanted to join Pakistan, but Sardar Vallabhai Patel made them accede to India. I am producing this for information.Kiran (talk) 04:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

In the economy of india wikipedia entry the nominal gdp is 5.21 trillion $ 2008 estimate. The same measure on this india entry is 2.9 trillion and needs to be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.171.52 (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised that it got reverted again to federal republic . The issue in question here is whether India is a union or a federation. The Indian Constitution defines India as a Union of states and as such an Encylopedia article like this should reflect that. I am more surprised by the foolishness of some editors here who think Wikipedia should not reflect realities but be based on some incorrect WP precendents. Maybe this is due to the fact the place where he comes from has no written constitution. But it is wrong to label India as a Federal Republic, when it is clearly not so. CIA website is not a WP:RS in this issue.-Bharatveer (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Just give me one more day, then I'll be free to put up Lijphart's chart of federal nations. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 16:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, see F&F's talk page, More on Federalism in India. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please tell me why the first section of the article has this written within it " India has the world's twelfth largest economy at market exchange rates and the fourth largest in purchasing power. Economic reforms have transformed it into the second fastest growing large economy;[16] however, it still suffers from high levels of poverty,[17] illiteracy, and malnutrition "

1. India is the world's fastest growing FREE MARKET economy.

2. Countries that are poorer than India on a gdp per capita basis, such as sri lanka, bangladesh, pakistan, and several african countries. Please take a look on their wikipedia pages within their introduction paragraphs. NO WHERE do they write " still suffers from high levels of poverty illiteracy etc " like the India page has written. My point is not to hide this info, my point is that information should be written about elsewhere and not in the introductory paragraphs of the article. Because i've noticed every other countries Wikipedia page talks about the good segments of that particular country. Whilst the India page in the introductory paragraph hasn't done justice to the country at all. Where does it talk about India being home of the oldest school of medicine in the world (ayurveda) home to to the oldest martial art in the world (kalaripayattu). None of this is POV, every other countries wiki intro has talked of the feats that country has done. Why can't the India page?--82.47.218.186 (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

1) It is incorrect to claim that India is the worlds fastest growing 'free market' economy because many would argue that China also follows a free market system (with 'Chinese' characteristics). India is certainly the second fastest growing large economy (atleast until recently), although this is from a relatively small base.

2) The thing is that poverty and illiteracy are present in India on such a large scale that they overwhelmingly (and rightly in my opinion) dominate discourse on the country. India accounts for a large percentage of the poor, uneducated and severely oppressed people (Dalits, women) in the world, so this has to be pointed out. Wikipedia is not an advertising machine, so there is no reason why the intro should contain 'the good points' of the country, only the most notable ones. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your response :) I think you seem to have misunderstood my question. I never said that the article should not contain negative facts about India, on the contrary i am of the opinion that to emancipate or liberate a nation from evils those evils must be publicised. By all means the article should contain facts on poverty, illiteracy etc. The point i was trying to elucidate was, why do you go out of your way to mention those " negative points " in the introductory paragraphs of the India page when if you take a look at any of the countries which are not as developed as India and economically poorer on many levels such as somalia, uganda etc none of them mention the negative points of their respective countries in the introductory paragraph. I never said wikipedia is for advertising good points either. I merely said if you're going to talk about negative in the introductory paragraphs you should mention some good points too like every other countries wiki page. Wikipedia is not a place to project certain indian user's inferiority complexes to the world.. It is a place to promulgate facts good and bad and not just talk of the ills.

As for China being a free market economy. True or false? China is a communist nation? Thus until it subscribes to a democratic model of government it can't ever be considered a free market economy by other governments.

India has a lot of oppressed people you say such as dalits, the majority of indigenous people in several countries are/were severely oppressed it isn't just an India issue. The native red indians of america were oppressed far more than any dalit, the aboriginals of Australia too. In India today dalits receive social privileges that no other community receives such as reservation in universities and economic help from the government. As for women in India being oppressed that varies between communities, some matrilineal communities in India such as the bunts/nairs/tulus gave all their property/wealth/inheritance to their women only andwomen were given the most power as the rulers of the household. The current president of India is a woman too, yet you don't want to bring any of that... Let's just talk of the negative points right, since that is so encyclopedic. Even though women in India are treated far better than the arab/muslim world, yet their wiki pages don't even mention the women issue.

You see all im saying is both sides of the story should be told. If you want to talk about the poor, why don't you also write in the article that India has more billionaires on the world's top 20 richlist than any other country 4 to be precise (forbes.com) --82.47.218.186 (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, so you mean to say that to portray only a positive aspect constitutes to be neutrally written? Are not poverty etc, hard facts? =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi IP, The number of billionaires is not an economic indicator and not used in global economic classification. As for your remark, "Countries that are poorer than India on a gdp per capita basis, such as sri lanka," for 2007 India's per capita income was $2,659, while Sri Lanka's was $4,079. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously now, do the people replying even read what i wrote? You seem to be educated people, so dont take offence when i say for intelligent people like yourselves your comprehension levels seem to be lacking. Since i never once said writing about positive points alone equals a neutrally written article. I did say if you're going to say in the introduction that India is home to many poor people, illiteracy, malnutrition etc YOU SHOULD INDEED WRITE THAT but you should also say there are some of the richest people in the world in India alongside some of the poorest in the world. That is called total knowledge, seeing both sides of the spectrum.

The guy above who corrected me on sri lanka's gdp per capita. Thank you, i stand corrected i think i was looked at older stats than the ones you looked at. But that doesn't change the point i was making, no other wiki page for a country mentions poverty, malnutrition and other negative aspects in the first introduction they do it later on in the article where it belongs. I don't see the point in correcting one dust particle of info i gave when you haven't bothered to grasp the full picture, since you didn't address anything else i mentioned. I'm not trying to propound that india is a rich nation because thats a downright lie, India is a developing nation. What i am trying to postulate here is that India is a land of extremes some of the poorest people in the world are Indians and also some of the richest in the world too. If you just write about the poor in the introduction not only is it pov it is also non factual and gives readers a false impression. Take a look at the Somalia page, the Somalian gdp per capita is 600 dollars whilst India's is 2700 and tell me where their introduction talks of poverty, malnutrition like the India page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia --82.47.218.186 (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well India might be a land of extremes, but one of the extremes (deprivation) overwhelms the other in sheer scale. There might be 30 billionaires in India, but there are 800 million living on less than 2 $ a day. The impression that the vast majority of the Indian population suffers from malnutrition, diseases and severe economic and social oppression is completely true, whats so false about it ?I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The cia world fact book and other sites proclaim that 25 percent of the population in India live under the poverty line as per 2007 est https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html, it's probably less now. India has a population of around 1.2 billion as per the 2008 est. Your first post saying China is a free market economy was silly enough (funnily enough you didn't talk about that again) but now you seem to have difficultly counting too. Is 25 percent of 1.2 billion 800 million? No, it is 300 million. In reference to all those people living on a dollar a day. If you had any knowledge of economies or quantitative behavioral finance you would realise due to currency divergences and differences in currencies it isn't accurate to judge a persons salary in India in comparison to a dollar or a pound or an external currency. Because for a labour class working class citizen in India a dollar a day would be sufficient for food water electricity and shelter and everything he needs bar a car. Judging one currency with another currency is like comparing coconuts with bananas. Everything is much cheaper to produce in India hence living expenses are exponentially cheaper. In global terms even the burgeoning middle class in India only earns 10-20 dollars (on average) a day but that's enough for them to have a car a good house or apartment and ample electronic items/ gadgets and overall a good standard of living. As for your post above saying china is a free market economy here is an article from the wall street journal saying China is nowhere near to being a free market economy http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=15750 so this proves that India is the world's fastest growing free market economy. In future be kind enough to back up your claims with credible sources or don't bother saying anything. Thanks 82.47.218.186 (talk) 10:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sir, here's another indicator of the high levels of poverty in India,

• According to World Bank's latest definition of poverty, persons spending less than USD 1.25 dollar a day are poor. Earlier, poverty line was fixed at USD 1 dollar a day.

ADB study also pointed out that the only Asian country which suffered from higher incidence of poverty than India was Nepal where more than 55 per cent people were living below the poverty line. Among the other neighbouring countries, 42.9 per cent were poor in Bangladesh, 24.9 per cent in Pakistan and 5.9 per cent in Sri Lanka.

ADB study added that 62.19 crore people were poor in India in 2005, while according to World Bank's estimates the number of poor was 45.6 crore, which were more than poor living in sub-Sahara Africa. Pointing out that sustained economic growth is imperative for poverty reduction, ADB said, "policies that can also make growth more inclusive (should) remain the gold standard that policy makers should pursue.

• In India’s case, the state’s inability to discharge this most basic

obligation to its citizens in education and health, even as it seeksto be a global power, is a troubling portent of the country’sfuture. While India is not a failing state, it is, to evoke economistLant Pritchett, a “flailing” state. While the implementationcapacity of the Indian state has always been its Achilles heel,these weaknesses become more glaring as the private-sectoreconomy powers ahead. Malnutrition in India is higher than inSub-Saharan Africa. More than half of children aged 7 to 14 inrural India cannot read a simple paragraph of second-grade difficulty. Infant andmaternal-mortality rates are awful even as the nation proudly exports more doctors abroad than

any other country and promotes a thriving medical-tourism industry.

• Another indicator of the Malnutrition The Times of India: Malnutrition worse than sub-Saharan Africa

--KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 16:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please take this part of the discussion to Talk:Poverty in India. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the website links knowledgehegemony. However i was never refuting India's poor infact i agree with everything people have posted in response to my question. However your sources and your links you provided are obsolete and outdated they are from (2005) 55percent of people in India are not under the poverty line. the cia world fact book (2007) under the economy section says 25 percent of the population is under the poverty line https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html and here is a recent updated site that shows how many people under the poverty line http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_pop_bel_pov_lin-economy-population-below-poverty-line All i was saying is, Certain states in the US have the highest stats of rape/murder/alcoholism in the world. The us as a nation has more external debt than any other nation 10 times more than India. None of this is written in the introduction of the US wiki page is it? So why do you write negative facets of India on the Indian wiki intro. Sources to back up what im sayinghttp://www.babylontoday.com/national_debt_clock.htm http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np http://zfacts.com/p/461.html 82.47.218.186 (talk) 10:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again, facts are reported in a wikipedia article on the basis of their notability, this is not a competition between countries to see which one can be trashed/glorified more. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 00:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gentle Folk of India Wiki page,

The demographics sections is showing political jurisdictions by giving a list of cities, for want of administrative effectiveness certain corporations choose to delink their urban nodes as separate municipalities. As a direct result their city limits would be reduced hence a city based estimate of population does not give the actual floating polulation in an urban area neither does it explain the demographics ( urban/rural) of that area. At this outset dont you guys feel that a list of 'urban areas' would give the better projection to this section.

I was able to find an internal article on urban areas List_of_urban_areas_by_population

Cheers, --Mel Vilander (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Per a request, a template for this purpose has been made and is located at {{Urban areas in India by population}} Adam McCormick (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Not sure if another template was needed since this already exists. In any case, I'm not sure how accurate the new template is – it seems to be missing Chennai. AreJay (talk) 23:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Yes this new template is missing 'chennai ' but it is a human error, it does exist in the original list4. I would try to request an updation for the template. As for the difference between the ' urban area template' and the list of metropolitan areas5 is the same as cities list. Metropolitan areas are also a list of political juristrictions just that they are bigger groupings formally administred by the government. The significance of urban areas is that it would project the actual demographics of the big cities of india which is more valuble for our article. Ofcourse this is open for discussion.

Greets --Mel Vilander (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Folks please check out the template {{Urban areas in India by population}} it is correct now, if we reach a consensus we can edit the demographics section.--Mel Vilander (talk) 07:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)--Mel Vilander (talk) 08:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gentle Folk of India Wiki page,

The demographics sections is showing political jurisdictions by giving a list of cities, for want of administrative effectiveness certain corporations choose to delink their urban nodes as separate municipalities. As a direct result their city limits would be reduced hence a city based estimate of population does not give the actual floating polulation in an urban area neither does it explain the demographics ( urban/rural) of that area. At this outset dont you guys feel that a list of 'urban areas' would give the better projection to this section.

I was able to find an internal article on urban areas List_of_urban_areas_by_population

Cheers, --Mel Vilander (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Per a request, a template for this purpose has been made and is located at {{Urban areas in India by population}} Adam McCormick (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Not sure if another template was needed since this already exists. In any case, I'm not sure how accurate the new template is – it seems to be missing Chennai. AreJay (talk) 23:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Yes this new template is missing 'chennai ' but it is a human error, it does exist in the original list4. I would try to request an updation for the template. As for the difference between the ' urban area template' and the list of metropolitan areas5 is the same as cities list. Metropolitan areas are also a list of political juristrictions just that they are bigger groupings formally administred by the government. The significance of urban areas is that it would project the actual demographics of the big cities of india which is more valuble for our article. Ofcourse this is open for discussion.

Greets --Mel Vilander (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Folks please check out the template {{Urban areas in India by population}} it is correct now, if we reach a consensus we can edit the demographics section.--Mel Vilander (talk) 08:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment, could you remove one of the duplicate sections? I have some questions: Why have fifteen cities been selected? An arbitary number? Second, why are the titles red? And third, ire fifteen cities really needed on this page? I think it's an overkill. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The Reference section uses the Harvard reference template, which is depreciated. It should be replaced immediately with the cite book templates. Kensplanet (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Indian constitution explicitly states India is a union of states. Though many scholars opine that Indian constitution has some federal features, it cannot be called a federal republic.-Bharatveer (talk) 07:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so what's the difference? =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a faint memory of a discussion about this in "Constitutional Law of India" by Pandey.^{https://www.vedamsbooks.com/no34862.htm} The author showed instances of concentration of power with the Central Government (Article 356, concurrent list, etc.,) and called India a "quasi-federal" country. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It is true that many scholars, especially early in India's republican history, opined that India was a quasi-federal republic, especially due to article 356 of the Constitution. However Katherine Adeney in Federalism in South Asia[1] and Arjend Lijphart in Democracy and Diversity [2], argue that it is a federal country, among their arguments is that a 1994 Supreme Court ruling effectively nullified Article 356 (esp. its misuse)[3]. Lijphart did not rate India far behind the US in terms of federalism. I will scan and add an image on the Federalism article soon.I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

To User:Fundamental metric tensor: Whether it is a Federal Republic or not, why is this fact being mentioned in the lead paragraph? Where is the substantial precedent in Wikipedia? Of the 15 other country FAs: Australia, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chad, Germany, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Pakistan, Peru, Turkey, only one, Cameroon, mentions the fact of it being a republic in the lead paragraph, and that too is used in place of "country,": "Cameroon is a unitary republic of central and western Africa. It is bordered by Nigeria to the west; ..." Except for Cameroon and Belgium, all other country FAs stick to geography in the lead paragraph. Also WP:COUNTRIES says, "The article should start with a good introduction, giving name of the country, location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the like. Also give other names by which the country may still be known (for example Holland, Persia)."

Why should this exception be made for India? Your sentence (if there is at all any consensus to add it in the lead) will make much more sense in the third paragraph than the first. The India page is not modeled syntactically on the Constitution of India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the first few lines of this article should answer the question ... What is India ? Well, it is a country located in South Asia that is a parliamentary federal republic of 28 states ... I dont see the problem with the para as it stands. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, note that India differs a lot from any of those countries, it constitution defines it as a Union of States, and that should definitely be pointed out in the lead. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, Wikipedia either doesn't think that the first few lines should answer that question, or it thinks the answer is different; otherwise, the WP:COUNTRIES project page wouldn't be dishing out that recommendation. Also 15 out of 16 country FAs wouldn't have that format. True the United States (and, now Mexico, which seems to have caught the disease from El Norte) has that format, but it has remained shabbily written for the last two years that I have observed it. Apparently United Kingdom, France (in spite of the First French Republic), Republic of Ireland (in spite of its name), Greece (in spite of Plato), Italy (in spite of Res publica), Spain, Poland, Germany, Egypt, Israel, Mongolia, South Korea, New Zealand, Brazil, ... none of them feel compelled to answer the question in that fashion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Again the Wikipedia India page is not modeled syntactically on the Constitution of India! Are you saying that other countries' constitutions don't talk about their countries as unions of states? Since the Constitution of India was substantially copied from the Government of India Act 1935, it is unlikely that this is an original creation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the first line of the Constitution of Brazil: "Article 1. The Federative Republic of Brazil, formed by the indissoluble union of the states and municipalities and of the Federal District, is a legal democratic state and is founded on: ..." Here, in contrast, are the first few lines of the Wikipedia page Brazil: "Brazil (Portuguese: Brasil), officially the Federative Republic of Brazil (Portuguese: República Federativa do Brasil) ^ⓘ, is a country in South America. It is the fifth largest country by geographical area, the fifth most populous country, and the fourth most populous democracy in the world." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

F&F, I am not saying that a wikipedia article mandatorily define a country the way its Constitution defines it, but that certainly seems to me to be a good way of doing things. Is it not true that India's Constitution defines it to be a Union of States ? What the Constitution of Brazil says is not relevant here, if the editors for that article feel that they should describe their country as per its legal definition, then they will, if they dont, then they will not. Whether the Indian Constitution was copied or not is completely irrelevant.

The federality of the government (however ambiguous) and the nature of its states define the Republic of India, which is what this article is about. As such, they should both be pointed out in the lead rather than pompous self-glorification like 'most populous democracy' (which is far more controversial). I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Also see my discussion with Nichalp above (First Line), I did not edit without discussion. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 23:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You can come up with all the most cogent personal reasons why you think that line should be in the lead paragraph, where all other content is about geography, and not in the third paragraph, which has content about the government, but the precedent in Wikipedia is not for your edit. You yourself in a post of June 26, 20008 felt that the form of government belonged to the infobox or later paragraphs:

"Sunray, just wanted to let you know that I mostly support F&F stand on the intro paragraph for India. From a technical standpoint, form of government is an administrative detail , mentioned in the infobox and described in subsequent paragraphs. Also, in my own personal opinion although my country is more democratic than many others at the same income level, (See [4]), it is not a democracy at the same level as say Germany or Australia."I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

And, what do you mean by "pompous self-glorification like 'most populous democracy' (which is far more controversial)?" We had a long mediation on those very words in June 2008, and the mediation has endorsed that edit. The mediation was widely advertised and after is conclusion there was further discussion on it on this very page, and you were given ample opportunity to disagree with that edit; you chose not only to not disagree with it, not only to make a supportive statement above that I have just quoted, but also to state explicitly that the "form of government belongs to the infobox or later paragraphs!" So, what gives?

The discussion you quote with Nichalp is not complete. Nichalp said (in his succinct unobtrusive style) pretty much everything I have said above, including, "Thirdly, Union of States should be in lower case. If the need be, the political structure can come lower in the lead. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)" and again, "That seems better, but where do you plan to add it? =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)" Your persistent unresponsiveness to his suggestion of placing the text lower down in the lead resulted, as I see it, in his giving up on the discussion. I don't want to speak for Nichalp, but that doesn't sound like agreement to me! As I see it, you have a lot of explaining to do, not least for your own statements of two months ago. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Since Nichalp did not disagree with my edits, I assumed that he agreed with them. I have not made a single edit on which I have not consulted Nichalp. As for, your question. There is a difference between a form of government and the structure of a nation. India is made up of its states, which as per its Constitution share power at the centre, i.e. it is federal, this is a fact without any doubt. Now how this power is shared and how well the country lives up to its Constitution, i.e. whether it is a democracy or not is a different matter is another matter which can be discussed later. I supported you on the point that saying that 'India is the worlds most populous democracy' is POV, but what I am arguing for here is different. That India is union of states is not an administrative detail, it is part of India's definition. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing called the "structure of a nation," only the structure of a nation's economy, or political institutions, .... All those belong to the third paragraph. ... and many scholars consider "federal" to be a form of government and apply it to Canada, Australia, Germany, Pakistan, Venezuela, Ethiopia, Iraq, Brazil, Sudan, (in addition to the United States and Mexico) (although not too many scholars apply it to India at least in that Google Scholar search), yet none of the first mentioned country pages say anything about it in their lead paragraph. As for Nichalp, we'll let him weigh in again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

India is made up of its constituent states, is this a fact or not ? Is this not the first line of its Constitution, which legitimizes its existence. I dont see the point of your google search, there seems to be enough academic literature on federalism in India[5]. Here's what Lijphart says, "Only federal Australia and Canada are closer to the US than India is, and federal Germany is approximately equidistant."[6], Pg 20. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 00:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are you only answering the tangential part of my remarks? I have now weeded out the fluff: There is nothing called the "structure of a nation," only the structure of a nation's economy, or political institutions, or administrative subdivisions, or .... All those belong to the third paragraph. As for the "structure of a nation" (federal) being different from "form of government," many scholars consider "federal" to be a form of government. Your distinction is false. As for Nichalp, we'll let him weigh in again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

PS What you call "structure of a nation" is really the "structure of a nation's administrative sub-divisions." The constituent states are only administered differently; without the provincial administrations, the states would have no meaning. Why should that discussion belong to a paragraph about geography? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

section break

I'm not sure what the nitty gritties of a federal republic is. Could someone please explain the details to me? =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nichalp, Well, federalism is a "system of the government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (like states or provinces). Federalism is the system in which the power to govern is shared between the national and state governments, creating what is often called a federation." (Wikipedia page).

That India is a federation, however, is disputed by many scholars, including the framer of the Indian constitution, B. R. Ambedkar, who said, "the Constitution of India—the present Constitution enacted in November 1949—is designed to be federal in normal times and unitary in emergencies." Here are two more scholars:

• • "the division of powers between the Union government and the States in the Indian Constitution (and that is the crux of a federation) is more apparent than real, for it is within the power of the Union government both in emergencies (articles 352-60) and in normal times (articles 200, 201, and 249) to bring the entire administration of the country under its unitary control. Thus the basic principle of the constitution is not federalism but decentralized unitarism or, in other words unitarism with a high degree of decentralization of powers in favor of the states." (Gangal, S. C. "An Approach to Indian Federalism," Political Science Quarterly, volume 77, number 2, 1962, pp. 248-253.)
  • "The roots of Indian federalism can be traced to the British colonial regime. The unsuccessful working of their unitary system led the British to introduce a federal system during the last eight decades of their rule, and ultimately, "the Act of 1935 served to perpetuate a belief in the inevitability of federalism."(Rajashekara, H. M. (1997) "The Nature of Indian Federalism: A Critque", Asian Survey, volume 37, number 2, pp.245-253.)
  • However, after the constitution was drafted in 1949, "Many members of the Constituent Assembly vociferously attacked the center-oriented federalism that was adopted. H. V. Kamath characterized it as a "centralized federation with a facade for parliamentary democracy," and Damodar Swarup called it "a unitary constitution in the name of a federation." K. Hanumanthaiah, who represented the Princely State of Mysore, remarked: "Here is a Constitution which we say is a federal constitution but which in essence is almost a unitary Constitution ... This was not the intention with which we started constitution-making." Leading scholars on federal government also have not regarded India's system as true federalism. According to Ashok Chandra, it is a "unitary constitution," and various foreign scholars have called it a quasi-federation, an administrative federation, organic federalism, and a territorial federation." (ibid)
  • "Under a prefectorial federal system, the federal (central) government has overriding and enormous powers, not only to command and control states or provinces but also to stultify their autonomy and dismiss their governments. In this sense, Indian federalism may be characterized as a prefectorial federal system." (ibid)
  • "The theory and practice of Indian federalism substantiate the thesis that the Union government functions under a prefectorial federalism that gives it a commanding position and overriding powers. The existence of states and the very survival of their elected governments is dependent upon the will of the Union government. The single Constitution for the whole country (except Jammu and Kashmir), the unilateral power of Parliament to amend it, the provision for supersession of state governments and centrally appointed state governors, the discretionary powers of governors to reserve state bills for consideration of the President and his veto power over such bills, the affluence of the Union government, the vertical planning system, and the centralized party system have been mainly responsible for the aberration, distortion, and perversion of Indian federalism." (ibid.)

I had originally not paid much attention to federalism itself, but rather to where such a statement belonged in the lead, but in light of the papers I have just looked at, I have to agree with user:Bharatveer that claiming that India is a federal republic does not belong in the lead. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

PS In fairness to user:FMT, Britannica does say in this fact sheet for India: "Form of government: multiparty federal republic with two legislative houses (Council of States [2451]; House of the People [5452])" So, it does call it "federal," but regards it as a "form of government," which according to user:FMT himself/herself should belong either to an infobox or later paragraph. (see his explanation above of his previous comments of June 2008) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

PPS Encarta, on the other hand, makes no mention of federalism or "republic" in its lead, but mentions it it in its Government section with these words, "The Republic of India is a federal republic, governed under a constitution and incorporating various features of the constitutional systems of the United Kingdom, the United States, and other democracies. The power of the government is separated into three branches: executive, parliament, and a judiciary headed by a Supreme Court. Like the United States, India is a union of states, but its federalism is slightly different. The central government has power over the states, including the power to redraw state boundaries, but the states, many of which have large populations sharing a common language, culture, and history, have an identity that is in some ways more significant than that of the country as a whole." I personally think that this fact belongs to the infobox or to the Government section, but if it has to be introduced in the lead, it belongs to the third paragraph (in my view). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation F&F. Whew that was a lot of reading to do and also cross-referencing the articles of the constitution. You do seem to have tons of sources! As far as federal/federalism I was never sure about the difference, so did not really actively comment. Not that I gave up on replying to FMT. Going through the articles of the constitution (350-360), and 200/1,250 I do believe there is merit for what you say, where the centre has overwhelming powers to 'take over' a state, rather than a pure devolution of powers. On hindsight, it would be better if the topic on "federal" be kept off the lead per WP:LEAD. Having it in the lead would mean giving an unnecessary lengthy explanation; something more suited for the government section. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I've created a subpage User:Fowler&fowler/Federalism_in_India with more sources just in case any one here is in a masochistic mood.  :) My sense is that constitutionally India has an "asymmetric federalism." Unlike the U.S., which is "an indestructible union of indestructible states," India has only an indestructible union. In other words, the kind of plebiscite that took place in Canada over Quebec a few years ago, would be unlikely in India. It seems though that in the last 20 years, as a result of regional parties becoming stronger, federalism in India has increased in practice. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What effect does this have on laws? For example Kashmir does not follow the Indian Penal Code, and Goa has its own civil code. Now, the Quebec plebiscite may not happen in India, but does the Union of Government of India have de facto control over India? Large parts of NE India (and Naxal-controlled areas) are under the control of parallel governments. Constitutionally, states of NE India can be taken over by the central government, but the ground situation differs. Food for thought, although outside the scope of the topic. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point, and, from a cursory look at the literature, this "enforced by reality" federalism is being increasingly studied. The denouement, if it works out peacefully, could be fascinating. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of a Quebec-like situation, it would be interesting to see if United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 would be ever implemented. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see F&F's talk page, More on Federalism in India, where I have presented a strong case for India being federal. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Nichalp: Yes, I don't know either. I reread the actual UN resolution 47 on wikisource and was reminded again how big a part of that resolution the plebiscite was and how much care had been taken by the Security Council to flesh it out. It is true that the Pakistanis didn't withdraw their irregulars, but there was clearly stalling on the Indian side too, since they were aware how Kashmir would go in a plebiscite. The issue is complicated now because three generations of Indians have grown up with a map of India crowned with Kashmir that they have internalized and great pride in Muslim-majority Kashmir being a part of democratic and secular India. The plebiscite—since it would inevitably bring religion to the fore—would be seen by many in India as a negation of the very foundation of their nation. We'll see ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

So, generations of Indians have 'internalized and take great pride in Muslim-majority Kashmir being part of democratic and secular India'. Oh really ! So how come we dont seem to take pride in the Muslims around the country, indeed we seem to resent them, see Gujarat riots and Mumbai riots. Not just the riots, but the fact after both incidents the majority voted for the instigators shows the hollowness of these claims. Done even get me started on the treatment of North Easterners, Dalits, women and even South Indians. Why havent generations of Indians internalized the fact that they and their government have to abide by their Constitution ? I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)  :) I didn't quite mean it that way (although I should have chosen my words better). I guess I meant at least some Indians take pride in Muslim-majority Kashmir being a part of democratic and secular India, since without Kashmir, India would appear more "Hindu" administratively: even though the Muslim population of Kashmir is small compared to the overall Muslim population of India, it is the only state with a Muslim majority. ... But this discussion (being a can of worms) belongs elsewhere. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

A proposal

I was asked via email to weigh in on this debate, so, getting back to federalism: the general academic consensus is that India functioned as a quasi-federal centralist state until the early 1990s, but has since then been growing increasingly federalist. It's quite important to note that the Constitutional division of powers between Centre and State hasn't changed, what has changed is the way those powers are actually exercised. The literature (and it's huge, but Echeverri-Gent's work gives a good overview) identifies a number of factors behind this shift - most prominently, economic liberalisation and the loss of the Centre's economic power, the decline of the INC (and of the relativley higher authority / legitimacy that national parties and leaders used to have), the increased political power of lower castes, the activism of the Supreme Court, the rise of regional parties, and the coalitionalisation of the central government. Anyway, given all this, it's simplistic - and misleading - to blandly say that India is "federal" or "unitary." It isn't inherently either, as should be seen from the fact that the balance of power between the centre and the states has been significantly more dynamic than would be possible under either setup. My suggestion would be to drop any mention of "federal" or "unitary" from the lede, and change the first paragraph of the section on "Government" to:

"The Constitution of India, the longest and the most exhaustive constitution of any independent nation in the world, came into force on January 26, 1950.^[1] The preamble of the constitution defines India as a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic.^[2] India has a bicameral parliament operating under a Westminster-style parliamentary system. Its form of government was traditionally described as being 'quasi-federal' with a strong centre and weak states^[3], but it has grown increasingly federal since the late 1990s as a result of political, economic and social changes.^[4]"-- Arvind (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This also need to go in the entry on India in the article on Federalism. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I've made the changes here. The India entry in Federalism will need a bit more detail than just this one sentence, but you're quite right - it needs to be worked on. -- Arvind (talk) 10:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be quite useful to add a section on "Centre-state relations" to Government of India, with the sort of detail User:Fundamental metric tensor, User:Fowler&fowler and others have been discussing above.-- Arvind (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

All this sounds good to me. Thanks for pitching in, Arvind! Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

References

I have been asking this question for a while and I get labeled as a troll. But why is their no mention (if im wrong my bad yo) of India being home to the Aryan people? I mean Aryans were Hindu, the swastika comes from India, their mentioned in Indian religious scripture, they have links to India, and some people (like myself) think they came from India. And yet this article barley even mentions things about Aryans? I mean their mentioned in Irans article and Afghanistans article, and yet not in India's article? And India is right by Iran and Afghanistan. ARYAN818 (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Should we just make a disclaimer at the top of this talk page, that this article is here to present notable, cited facts about the Republic of India, and not an ego enhancing 'India is great' advertisement ? Cause, this just keeps coming up all the time. As far, as 'Aryan818' is concerned, can you furnish reliable citations that show that all (or most) Indians are 'Aryans' ? Maybe their 'Aryan' ancestry is important to the Iranians, but that is certainly not the case for India. The word Aryan is not mentioned in the Constitution. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 05:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

India is great advertisement? That's your response to me? You think that's a logical response from you?......And you want facts? Well Havnt I given some facts in the past? What do you have to say about the fact, that I have given facts? What do you have to say about that?..............But ok no big deal, you want facts? I'll give you facts.........Please tell me which of my facts are wrong ok?/........1 - The word Aryan is a Sanskrit name . 2 - Aryans are mentioned in Indian religious scripture. 3 - The swastika sighn, used by Aryans, is said to have been first used in India. 4 - Sanskrit, a language used by Aryans, is a language of India. 5 - Aryans did follow Hinduism, a religion in India. 6 - Aryan evidence is found in India. 7 - According to the CIA world factbook website, over 70% of India is of Indo-Aryan heritage. 8 - Indo-Aryan, means, Indian-Aryan......Are these facts good enough?......And another thing id like to ask you.....YOu mentioned that maybe Aryans are important to Iranians, but not Indians.....Where do you come up with this? ARe you Indian? Cus I am. Have you heard of the Arya Samaj? Im not saying EVERY Indian knows or cares about this, but some do. And I am one of them......And also....Even if im wrong, and no Indian cares about being an Aryan, so what? Facts are still facts, and their is a connection with India and Aryans. ARYAN818 (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is another reason on why I get frustrated on Wikipedia......I mean I gave some things about why their should be a mention of Aryans.....I answered at least SOME of what that user Fundamental was saying.....And I have gotten no response.....WHere is everyone? ARYAN818 (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know why in the case of the Wikipedia entry for China, the article is about China as a civilization, and offers links to modern political constituents of the same, whereas in the case of the India entry, we only have the article about the Republic of India. Can the entry for India likewise not consist of an article on Indian civilization? --SohanDsouza (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ive asked questions about why people dont give credit to India for cetin things in this article. For example India has Aryan heritage in some areas and one user told me how most people in India dont care about that. Another example would be how in this article their is mention of how India is home to vast empires and historic trade routes, and yet, when I wanted to add the words palaces and temples, they wouldnt allow it? I asked why on China's article they seem to be able to represnet China in a proud way, but yet on this artcile I dont feel there doing that enough (Aryan hertiage, palaces, temples, etc, etc.) And one answer I got was how China is not a Wikipedia article (I forgot how they put it) but meaning like it's not an official article that would be represetend on the main page, where as India is......The point is.....This is wikipedia.....There are people here who are dictators and only want what they want. Ive tried so many times to argue, and they call me things like "troll". ARYAN818 (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear ARYAN818, calling other editors as "dictators" amounts to personal attacks. Please don't repeat this again and again. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ragib, please be honest that you just want to find any reason to block me from wikipedia because of the past disagreements that you had. You are upset because I wanted to put more info in the past and you didn't want it. And/or maybe you were upset because you couldn't keep me blocked becasue of my user name......I mean your going to make an issue out of someone using the word dictators? If some people are dicatoting this article then maybe that is a word that can maybe be allowed? ARYAN818 (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is it ok to mention that India is home to vast empires but if I add the word palaces, that gets erased? I also want to put down temples or kingdoms, I assume those would get taken out also. Why? ARYAN818 (talk) 03:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You need to wait for someone to respond to your previous comment before you post something rude like this. BlackPearl14^{[talkies!•contribs!]} 04:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

ALright another strange comment. What did I say that was rude? ARYAN818 (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It was taken down because the one word you added changed the intent of a sentence that had come to stand as a result of consensus. As has been mentioned during one of your previous editing episodes, please make sure that there's consensus before you make such changes. Thanks AreJay (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok fair enough. Now can you tell me what was wrong with adding that one word? Im very curious what was wrong about it? Did i say something non factual? Was it offensive? Tell me. ARYAN818 (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

By rude, I meant "the people who rule this article." No one owns the article. People just get together and write the article! BlackPearl14^{[talkies!•contribs!]} 23:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well aren't their people or person who decide what stays and what goes? I mean I can make an edit and it might get taken out 71.106.84.146 (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

All editors do that. It's the policies that determine what stays and what goes. ;) BlackPearl14^{[talkies!•contribs!]} 20:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok so for example I think their should be more mention of Aryan heritage in India. Some might disagree. I typed in a few facts up in that other section, and I dont think ive gotten a response to that. ARYAN818 (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Among the South Indian kingdoms, the three that are most notable, as measured by the number of scholarly references (in Google Scholar), are, in historical order: Chola, Pallava, and Vijayanagara Empire. Here is a list of the kingdoms and the number of scholarly references in Google Scholar (I searched in "social science, arts, humanities" and the search string was "<Name> OR <Alternate Name>, South India, history."):

• Vijayanagara Empire: 1,470 scholarly references
• Chola: 1,440 scholarly references
• Pallava: 703 scholarly references
• Chalukya (or Calukya): 468 scholarly references,
• Pandya: 423 scholarly references. Since "Pandya" is common last name, here I had to restrict the search string further by adding "Tamil" OR "Malalayam" since their empire primarily included Tamil and Malayalam speaking regions.
• Satavahana: 326 scholarly references
• Chera: 306 scholarly references
• Hoysala: 282 scholarly references
• Rashtrakuta: 202 scholarly references
• Bahamani: 44 scholarly references

Searching for the string, "<Name> OR <Alternate Name>, South India, art OR architecture"), produces:

• Cholas 2,670 scholarly articles
• Vijayanagara 1,790 scholarly articles
• Pallava 1080 scholarly articles
• Chalukyas or Calukyas 673 scholarly articles
• Satavahanas 439 scholarly articles
• Rashtrakuta 218 scholarly articles

Searching among tertiary sources, i.e. Encyclopedias produces the same top three:

• Cholas 577 references in encyclopedias,
• Vijayanagara 504 references in encyclopedias,
• Pallava 443 references in encyclopedias,
• Chalukya or Calukya 407 references in encyclopedias.
• Pandya 372 references in encyclopedias
• Rashtrakuta 55 references in encyclopedias

In the COPAC online catalogues of major University and National Libraries in the UK and Ireland, the results are:

• Vijayanagara 147 titles
• Chola 100 titles and Cola (alternate spelling) 46 titles (I had to add "history" here to exclude other meanings of "cola," so, in fact, there may be a few more.)
• Pallava 100 titles
• Chalukya 56 titles and Calukya 36 titles totaling 92 titles.
• Satavahanas 52 titles
• Rashtrakuta 21 titles

Since the top three also had long periods of dominion and, in addition, find most mention in both Encyclopaedia Britiannica and Encyclopedia Encarta, I submit that Chola, Pallava, and the Vijayanagara Empire should be the three South Indian kingdoms mentioned in the history section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

PS. Thanks, KH2, for your very helpful edit. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the above strategy does not work. Remember Fowler, how you refused to accept Halmidi inscription is from the 5th century, though most Google scholarly searches returns that date and not the 6th century?. Whats good for the goose.....Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see how the two can be compared. First, I am not saying that Halmidi is of the 6th century, but rather that the language should be changed to "... has been dated to the 5th or 6th century." Second, Halmidi's date has been revised by scholars in the last 20 years. If you do a Google Book Search for the period 1988 to 2008, and examine the most cited ten references (first ten) published between 1988 and 2008, you will notice that references 1. (Sheldon Pollock), 3. (Pollock), 5. (G. S. Gai), 7 (D. C. Sircar) and 10. (Ancient Indian Literature (Sahitya Akademi) date it to the sixth century. A later date is also the most cited among epigraphists. If you do a Google Books search on "Indian epigraphy Halmidi," among the most cited references 1 (late 6th/early 7th), 2 (early 6th), 4 (late 6th), 6 (late 5th/early 6th), all mention a later 6th date. If you do a Google Scholar search on the Halmidi inscription, only 19 references turn up and only one key author (i.e. one that is cited most my others), D. C. Sircar, who dates Halmidi to the late 6th century. In addition, Encyclopaedia Britannica (2008) (not old articles written in the 1970s) says in the second sentence, "The earliest records in Kannada are inscriptions dating from the 6th century AD onward." In light of such evidence, I believe Wikipedia cannot cite the first 1936 epigraphic reference which has been predictably repeated by many "scholars" who are neither experts in epigraphy nor in Old Kannada. This situation here is different, no matter how you cut the pie, Chola, Pallava, and Vijayanagara Empire come out on top. There has been no movement in the last 20 years towards greater study of the Chalukyas compared, say, to the Pallavas. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I dont agree. There are similarities between the two issues. I can pull up dozens of citations proving Halmidi is from 5th century. You are no one to decide whose citation has more value and whose does not and you certianly dont have that knowledge. Secondly, I dont accept your logic on the kingdoms either. Art, architecture, conquests are all part of a kingdoms achievements. The number of "google hits" provided simply does not make justice on these issues. Chalukyas and Rashtrakutas are some of the most famous empires of India. The Hoysala era takes south Indian sculpture and architecture to a peak, never to be emulated.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

(I won't discuss Halmidi here further since it is off-topic. I mentioned it since you brought is up first.) Wikipedia does pay attention to Google Scholar references (not Google hits) and other tertiary references like Britannica and Encarta. Notability is decided by the number of scholarly citations. Which one of the references listed in those lists is not reliable? Those references unequivocally favor Chola, Pallava and Vijayanagara over Chalukya, your own personal preferences notwithstanding. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's have a straw poll: Rate your top five south Indian kingdoms below. We'll determine the three through a preferential voting system. Would it be accepted if I close it? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a straw poll could be plagued by users with little knowledge of South Indian history and the voting may take a prejudicial turn very easily. We already know what some users will vote for. I suggest we return to what it was a few weeks back, or create a special page (Notable South Indian Kingdoms) with a list or link it to History of South India which lists all notable kingdoms/empires without prejudice.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I think it should list the three it lists now (Chola, Chalukya and Vijayanagara) and also link to the History of South India, so a reader could further his knowledge on the issue with a click on the dab link.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Chalukya, Chola and Vijayanagara are from different and successive timeframes (with some inevitable overlap, of course (lest someone nitpick)) and Vijayanagara, for one, was unrivalled during its time. imo, Rashtrakuta should also be included as it was arguably the greatest (at least in terms of expanse) South Indian empire of all time. Chalukyas and Rashtrakutas controlled the greatest expanses of any South Indian kingdom. Cholas (as with Pallavas earlier) were mostly confined to only TN (and parts of Kerala) (even that kept changing hands between them, the Pandyas and the Cheras). But if it is a compromise that is needed and we need only three names, the present Chalukya, Chola and V'nagara should be sufficient. Sarvagnya 18:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

(My vote) As indicated by my Google Scholar results, my preferences are: 1. Vijayanagara Empire, 2. Chola, 3. Pallava, 4. Pandya, and 5. Satavahana. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Satavahanas atleast merit a mention because they were the first great empire of the south. Pandyas are small fry - were never a great empire.. were almost always feudatories to bigger fish. Pallavas always lived in the shadow of the Chalukyas and Rashtrakutas and commanded far less territory than either. Of course, feel free to filibuster with your uninformed and arbitrary metrics. Sarvagnya 20:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Uninformed Metrics that change from one article to the next, from one convenience to the next.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If you think my "metric" is "uninformed," why don't you suggest an "informed metric" for Google Scholar search? And if you think the Pandyas and Pallavas are "small fry," why in your estimation more scholars writing about them than the Chalukyas? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have answered you below your scholarly statement about "scholarly literary studies of modern languages".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

section break

Some amusementI was trying to amuse myself with some of these google scholar searches that Fowler has opened me up to (sorry, I am used to reading real books and found this "search" facility to be a nice diversion). Here are the number of hits for the various literatures of India. I just used the "<NAME> literature" string. Let us keep one issue in mind. Recently, the committee that was appointed by the Govt of India to study/approve classicalness of language, approved it for Kannada and Telugu, though official notification is awaited)

• Sanskrit Literature-4630-->classical language
• Tamil-1870--->classical language
• Kannada-190 (second oldest literary tradition among spoken vernaculars of India, after Tamil)--->approved for classical language tag
• Telugu-231 (third oldest literary tradition after Tamil and Kannada)--->approved for classical language tag.
• Kashmiri-59
• Marathi-281 (How come it has more hits than Kannada and Telugu. Is its literature of greater antiquity? or depth? or richness than Telugu or Kannada?)
• Oriya-151
• Malayalam-170
• Bengali-1280 (I wonder why the Governemnt of India has not considered a classical language tag for Bengali, despite 1280 hits)
• Hindi-795 (I wonder why the Governemnt of India has not considered a classical language tag for Hindi, despite 795 hits).

I hope we all get the point here. Let us not make a mockery of our history.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

All your results say is that there have been more scholarly studies in Bengali and Hindi literature than in Kannada and Telegu. However, what does that have to do with how old a literature is? There are many modern languages that are more popular as objects of scholarly study than classical languages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, there may be some kingdoms which are of more interest to scholarly studies, because of current socio-political reasons, which does mean they are greater than kingdoms with fewer hits on google search. The logic is simple. duh!Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing called "greater," only more notable. Wikipedia decides notability, for better or worse, by certain criteria, among which are citations in secondary and tertiary scholarly sources. The order of the notability of these kingdoms does not change no matter how you do your search. If you think it is current socio-economic reasons, you can restrict the search to the period before 1960, the order of notability is still the same. You can restrict the search to "art" (less influenced by current socio-economic conditions) or to "history," the order is still the same. You can restrict to all the major university presses in the world that publish on South Asia: Berkeley, Chicago, Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, ..., the order is still the same. The point is that you might think one kingdom is "greater," someone else might think another is. However, we can only go by notability as defined by Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia decides notability..." -- Right! Wikipedia decides notability.. not relative notability -- an exercise in futility you seem to have perfected in the course of your stay here. It was ghits at one point and now you seem to have graduated to Google scholar. Good going. Sarvagnya 23:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Pallavas were not an insignificant empire. Their contribution in exporting Indian culture to the rest of the world specifically Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Vietnam and Indonesia is by far the most important contribution they made. No wonder scholars are interested in them. Taprobanus (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. But so are the Chalukyas. There contribution is far too important to ignore. What Fowler needs to do is to stop politicising his preferences and trying to establish changing norms. If this Google hit count goes through, the same method should be used to determine notability of other crutial info in this artile and others, such as Kannada literature, where Fowler has locked horns with me. Sounds like a fun Fall season to look out for.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Almost all Indian empires worth their name traded economically and culturally with the rest of the world. Nothing special about that. At the end of the day, Pallavas' territorial influence pales in front of their contemporaries, the Chalukyas or for that matter, the Rashtrakutas. No number of Ghits can change that fact. Sarvagnya 01:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You can use expressions like "politicising" my preferences and "uninformed metrics," but we can only go by the evidence. The evidence suggests that scholars, by a clear margin, in both history and art, write more scholarly articles on the Pallavas than the Chalukyas. In addition among the tertiary sources a slightly greater number mention the Pallava than the Chalukyas. One has to then wonder why it is the former that are being excluded from the list of three. Please don't try to read more into this than what is present in this article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

If you go back a month or two into the history of this article, you will perhaps see that the Pallavas were also mentioned.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Almost all Indian empires worth their name traded economically and culturally with the rest of the world That may be true but we are talking about South Indian empires and most South Indian empires pale infront of Pallavas in the influence that they had in the South East Asian states. From religion, to state craft to writing the Pallavas contributed to the Indianizing of South East Asia. Not even Cholas came close to matching them. There is not a single South Indian empire that has had such lasting influence and it is why the scholars are interested in them. Taprobanus (talk) 03:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, The Pandyas rival the Pallavas in their trade with the east. Their very name is suggestive of their sea-faringness. However, the Chalukyas, Rashtrakutas and Hoysalas were known for their relations with the West. So we cant just focus on one region.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Again.. I am sure every Indian empire worth its name had its own unique contribtions. We are not discussing that here. The point here is to come up with three and only(?) three names. And Pallavas' sphere of influence pales in front of their contemporary Chalukyas. Sarvagnya 18:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

In terms of territory ruled, the Chalukyas beat the Pallavas hollow. In terms of cultural influence outside India, the Pallavas beat most South Indian empires hollow - most Southeast Asian scripts (the Khmer script, Thai script, Burmese script...) come from the Pallava script. Is there any reason to prefer one of these criteria over the other? None at all, and I can think of half-a-dozen others which could just as well be used. Which is why this discussion is unlikely to lead anywhere. Not to forget that our trying to decide which South Indian empires are most "notable" is pure OR anyway. -- Arvind (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"..any reason to prefer one of these criteria over the other?" - well fwiw.. expanse of territory is calculable.. fact - not my 'opinion'. Saying Pallavas beat others hollow simply because they exported a script (which incidentally was not their own invention anyway) to some place is just your opinion. For that matter, the Chalukyas' pioneering efforts in temple building and architecture (variants of which would in fact, also find their way to S E Asia) itself was no mean achievement. And I'm not sure why you're telling me that all this is pointless.. I myself called it an "exercise in futility" somewhere above. You might want to impress that on those who've foisted this upon us in the first place. Sarvagnya 04:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of other factual criteria - longevity, population, number of archaeological sites, area under cultivation, number of wars won, number of kingdoms conquered, trading relations outside India, mentions in contemporary non-Indian sources, mentions in contemporary Indian sources, number of World Heritage sites, volume of inscriptions, number of literary / cultural works produced. What makes territory a superior measure to those? I don't see a scholarly consensus that territory controlled is the best measure of an empire's greatness or notability. In the absence of that, how can we say that the biggest empires were the most notable without violating WP:OR? And what is the measure of territory anyway? Peak territory? Mean territory? Longest-held territory? By some measures, the Satavahanas would outrank all other southern kingdoms.

And, for the record, my last comment was not addressed to you specifically. Nor is this. -- Arvind (talk) 09:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(←) Clarification:I was trying to amuse myself with some of these google scholar searches that KH2 has opened me up to... Dinesh let me clarify that the google scholar search thread is posted by F&F...not me. The reason F&f thanked me was for removal of content against WP talk policies. In fact this is my 1st post to this discussion! --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 14:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

KH2, sorry about the confusion.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

As usual Arvind is correct, we just have to find a compromise and move on but the solution has no leg to stand on. Some one else may come and change it all again. So in my view this unless people are reasonable and willing to compromise, this problem will not be solved.Taprobanus (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Questions

(Question for Arvind) What do you suggest we do with this frequently occurring problem of various editors adding the names of their favorite examples to the India page prose and thereby rendering it ugly? We really don't want long lists. No disagreement that there is no definitive gauge of notability, but is scholarly interest (with all its flaws) such a bad one? Also, what do you think of the tertiary source count? After all other encyclopedias do have to make some of the same decisions with regards inclusion and exclusion as we do. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(Question for Nichalp) Since this disease of lists and "listy" prose must plague other Wikipedia articles as well, are there any official guidelines on how to eradicate it? In other words, are there any guidelines on how to pick a small (<=3) set of representative examples in any topic? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I've not come across a specific guideline, but see this: Wikipedia:Embedded list#Lists within articles. The focus is on prose, not a list. In addition, as the page is written in summary-style, the suggested bulleted list alternative is not a feasible option. I usually précis the text (grid methodology to arrive at a fixed word count) when writing a summary. That helps immensely. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I have created a text version of user:Saravask's image rotation template {{Indian image rotation}}. This text template is {{India text rotation}}. Since there is a clear separation in all references between the first four Vijayanagara Empire, Cholas, Pallava, and Chalukyas and the remaining Pandya, Rashtrakuta, ... I propose that we follow Nichalp's original suggestion of limiting the total number in the text to three, that we keep Vijayanagara Empire and Cholas in permanent place, and that we rotate between the Pallava and Chalukya. So, in the daily rotation, for example, the statement in the history section (today) would read:

"Empires in Southern India included those of the Cholas, the {{India text rotation|history1}}, and the Vijayanagara Empire"

and, in the hourly rotation, the statement (this hour) would read:

"Empires in Southern India included those of the Cholas, the {{India text rotation|history2}}, and the Vijayanagara Empire"

Would this be agreeable to the editors? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No. I think it defeats the stability criteria. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify something about the proposed text-rotation template. Unfortunately, even if there is consensus on its use, it isn't going to do much good. Even though the template's code is supposed to rotate the names of kingdoms every day/hour, in practice this will probably not happen because of Wikipedia's cache. What this basically means is that the text may not automatically refresh based on the criteria in the code unless someone or some people take it upon themselves to manually purge the cache often (which would probably defeat the purpose of automating text anyway). Thanks AreJay (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nichalp and AreJay. Why does the cache not need to be purged in the image rotation template? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Good question, afaik, there is a specific configuration setting within MediaWiki that allows you to set cache refreshes for HTML pages displaying images (image thumbnails are also refreshed when HTML is refereshed). Not sure if this parameter is configured for Wikipedia though, but I do know that my results varied when I was working on randomizing images and text a few months ago. Sounds like this is a moot point though, per deletion discussion below. Thanks AreJay (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read enough of this discussion to know which kingdoms are notable and which are not. However, per Nichalp and Arejay, I won't support using a rotation template to solve the problem. The future of Wikipedia's credibility is dependent on its stability (high quality articles will appear in printed forms). I wasn't a fan of the rotating images template, which was created for regionalistic purposes and neither am I of this. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 08:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. As you know, I wasn't a fan of image rotation either. I guess I was trying to be amenable here and get this monkey off our backs, but I agree its a bad idea. I am therefore withdrawing this proposal. Could some admin please get rid of the text rotation template? Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Phew! All rotations compromise stability and *sanity*. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 15:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Nichalp has suggested above that we rate the top five South Indian kingdoms. Please only add your preferences here; discussion goes in the next section.

• 1. Vijayanagara Empire, 2. Chola, 3. Pallava, 4. Chalukya, and 5. Pandya. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Alternatively, I am also agreeable to the rotation between Pallava and Chalukya detailed in the proposal. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• vote per Fowler&fowler. Docku^Hi 22:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Reason for my vote: It is not going to be easy to determine which Kingdom was greater and determining that may just be OR as per Arvind. Scholarly interest sounds like a good crriteria. Docku^Hi 22:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There are problems with the second part of the paragraph above.

1) First, Kalidasa, Mahakavya and Sangam lit., are neither of the same stature as the Vedas and the two epics in a pan-India sense nor are they chronologically in comparable timeframes.

2) Second, the line about Sangam literature seems to only reflect Zvelebil's views. However, the question of Sangam literature's absolute and relative dates, orality and in some areas, even historicity is far from settled. Scholars (especially modern scholars) have alarmingly differing opinions on the issue and are deeply divided over it.

Bundling them all together in same breath and the same line is POV and UNDUE. I will be removing these portions from the paragraph and leave the Vedas and the epics behind. As we all know, this is meant to be a highly compressed summary of the ocean that is Indian literature. The Vedas and the epics surely stand head and shoulders above the rest purely in terms of their pan-India influence (literary and social). Sarvagnya 21:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It is well referenced. I dont buy your reasoning. Docku^Hi 22:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It depends on what the reference says. As Sarvagnya says, the sentence appears to put the Vedas in a similar historical period to the Sangam literature, when the former is more than 1000 years old than the latter at least. But I doubt the reference says that. It probably just gives the dates for Sangam litrature at circa 100 AD. or something and thus the claim that it is on par in terms of age with older Sanskrit literature is WP:SYN/WP:OR. Also if two bodies of literature did roughly have the same date, it is better to add the one that has had influence over the entire country and not just one state. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 22:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Reading it again, I dont see any such claim as that Sangam literature on par with Vedic literature in historicity unless someone tries hard to read it that way. It merely lists earliest literatures in India. In fact, if there is such an inadvertant implication, a fair solution would be to correct the sentence and get rid of such an implication and not delete it. However, it can be deleted if everyone agrees with your argument that Sangam literature is not worth included here because it had influence only in Tamil Nadu? (I thought TN was part of India) Well? if that is the premise of your argument, I lost it. Docku^Hi 23:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I read it number of times, it does not convey that Vedas and Sangams are on the same wavelength except that both were first orally transmitted but written down later. But how come only Veads and Sangams literature how about equally important Buddhist and Jaina literature. I think we should exapand the section and add couple of more examples Taprobanus (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DaGizza, Docku, and Taprobanus, the reference doesn't say that. Furthermore, it is the Vedas that are separated in time from the rest: Vedas (1500–1200BCE), Ramayana (300 BCE), Mahabharata ((400 BCE to 200 AD)), Kavya ((early centuries AD), Sangam Literature ((1st to 4th centuries AD), Kalidasa ((5th century AD). Both the Ramayana and the Mahabharata belong to the classical or Sanskrit period, not the Vedic period, as does Kalidasa.

Classical Tamil literature cannot be left out; it is mentioned prominently in all concise descriptions of Indian literature, as, for example, in:

• the Encyclopaedia Britannica page on "Indian Literature", "Because Sanskrit was identified with the Brahminical religion of the Vedas, reform movements such as Buddhism and Jainism adopted other literary languages, e.g., Pali and Ardhamagadhi, respectively. Out of these and other derivative languages there evolved the modern languages of northern India. The literature of those languages depended largely on the ancient Indian background, which includes the Sanskrit epics, the Mahabharata and Ramayana, ... The South Indian language of Tamil is an exception to this pattern of Sanskrit influence because it had a classical tradition of its own."

• the Columbia Encyclopedia page on "Indian literature", which begins with, "Oral literature in the vernacular languages of India is of great antiquity, but it was not until about the 16th cent. that an extensive written literature appeared. Chief factors in this development were the intellectual and literary predominance of Sanskrit until then (except in S India, where a vast literature in Tamil was produced from ancient times)." and,

• and the Encyclopedia Encarta page on "Indian Literature", which says, right after mentioning the Vedas (and not mentioning Ramayana and Mahabharata), "The emergence of the popular religions Buddhism and Jainism in the 6th century bc gave rise to literature in Pali and in the several dialects of Sanskrit known as Prakrit (meaning “natural language”). Meanwhile, Tamil, a Dravidian language, emerged as the most important language in the south. A recorded literature in Tamil dates from the 1st century A.D."

I have now replaced the Kamil Zvelebil reference with that of A. K. Ramanujan, which will also be more interesting to general readers. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not leave both the citations on ?Taprobanus (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

In India, mathematics has its roots in Vedic literature which is nearly 4000 years old. Between 1000 B.C. and 1000 A.D. various treatises on mathematics were authored by Indian mathematicians in which were set forth for the first time, the concept of zero, the techniques of algebra and algorithm, square root and cube root.A method of graduated calculation was documented in the Pancha-Siddhantika (Five Principles) in the 5th Century. But the technique is said to be dating from Vedic times circa 2000 B.C.

The rudiments of Geometry called Rekha-Ganita in ancient India - were formulated and applied in the drafting of Mandalas for architectural purposes.

They were also displayed in the geometric patterns used in many temple motifs.In India around the 5th century A.D. a sys tem of mathematics that made astronomical calculations easy was developed. In those times its application was limited to astronomy as its pioneers were Astronomers. As tronomical calculations are complex and involve many variables that go into the derivation of unknown quantities. Algebra is a short-hand method of calculation and by this feature it scores over conventional arithmetic.

One more bigger finding was "Raman effect"the theory of the diffraction of the light effect.When light is scattered from an atom or molecule, most photons are elastically scattered (Rayleigh scattering). The scattered photons have the same energy (frequency) and wavelength as the incident photons. However, a small fraction of the scattered light (approximately 1 in 10 million photons) is scattered by an excitation, with the scattered photons having a frequency different from, and usually lower than, the frequency of the incident photons.[1] In a gas, Raman scattering can occur with a change in vibrational, rotational or electronic energy of a molecule (see energy level). Chemists are concerned primarily with the vibrational Raman effect.In 1922, Indian physicist Chandrasekhara Venkata Raman published his work on the "Molecular Diffraction of Light," the first of a series of investigations with his collaborators which ultimately led to his discovery (on 28 February 1928) of the radiation effect which bears his name. The Raman effect was first reported by C. V. Raman and K. S. Krishnan, and independently by Grigory Landsberg and Leonid Mandelstam, in 1928. Raman received the Nobel Prize in 1930 for his work on the scattering of light. In 1998[2] the Raman Effect was designated an ACS National Historical Chemical Landmark in recognition of its significance as a tool for analyzing the composition of liquids, gases, and solids —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.94.228.204 (talk) 06:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

And your point is? --Ragib (talk) 06:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This article follows summary style and as such cannot dwell on one topic in great detail. Besides, much of the verifiable information that you have provided is already mentioned in Indian mathematics. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 22:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)