Talk:India/Archive 46

@RegentsPark: @Vanamonde93:, @MilborneOne:, @Chipmunkdavis:, @Kautilya3:, @Neil P. Quinn:, @Abecedare:, @Sitush:, @Joshua Jonathan:, and anyone else I might have missed

As some of you know, India completes 15 years as an FA on September 16. I've talked to the WP:TFA people about having it appear on Wikipedia's front page on or around that date. They in turn have requested that I give them a revised and updated version by August 15. Starting with the lead, we have some room for expansion. Canada and Australia, both FAs, have leads that are 30% longer. I'd like to propose that the history section be changed in the manner shown below. The current version has a slightly jerky quality in the prose, a result of our self-enforced brevity. The new version has two changes. The prose is more relaxed, with more qualifiers and transition words. But mainly, two sentences have been added at the top, reflecting the consensus at History of India. These are now a part of the new tertiary histories of India (i.e. those that use only secondary sources, and therefore summarize their consensus, unlike monographs which employ primary sources), such as Tim Dyson's, Population history of India, Oxford, 2018. Such tertiary sources, are recommended on Wikipedia for maintaining due weight. Both Australia and Canada have history sections that go back to modern human arrivals.

(Please note that we don't have much time, so we can't get involved in extended discussions, especially about what is already there in the lead. Obviously, also, if the second version is accepted, I will make the necessary changes in the Ancient History section.)

Current version The Indian subcontinent was home to the Indus Valley Civilisation of the bronze age. In India's iron age, the oldest scriptures of Hinduism were composed, social stratification based on caste emerged, and Buddhism and Jainism arose. Political consolidations took place under the Maurya and Gupta Empires; the peninsular Middle Kingdoms influenced the cultures of Southeast Asia. In India's medieval era, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Islam arrived, and Sikhism emerged, adding to a diverse culture. North India fell to the Delhi Sultanate; south India was united under the Vijayanagara Empire. In the early modern era, the expansive Mughal Empire was followed by East India Company rule. India's modern age was marked by British Crown rule and a nationalist movement which, under Mahatma Gandhi, was noted for nonviolence and led to India's independence in 1947.

Proposed version 1 Modern humans arrived on the Indian subcontinent from Africa 65,000 years ago, and in many waves of migration thereafter. Settled life emerged on subcontinent in the western margins of the Indus river alluvium 9,000 years ago, and evolved gradually into the Indus Valley Civilisation. In India's Iron Age, the oldest scriptures of Hinduism were composed, social stratification based on caste emerged, and Buddhism and Jainism arose. Political consolidations gave rise to the Maurya and Gupta Empires. Later, the Middle Kingdoms of peninsular India influenced the cultures of Southeast Asia. In India's medieval era, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Islam arrived, and Sikhism emerged, contributing to the region's diverse culture. North India fell to the Delhi Sultanate and South India was united under the Vijayanagara Empire. In the early modern era, two centuries of Mughal rule were followed by gradually expanding East India Company rule. India's modern age was marked by British Crown rule and a by nationalist movement, which, under Mahatma Gandhi's prevailing influence, was noted for nonviolent resistance and led to India's independence in 1947.

The other two sections are fine. Perhaps a short fourth paragraph on demographics, biodiversity and culture might be considered, as the lead is a comprehensive summary after all. But let us discuss that later.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

In general, I like it; I do wonder if a few more specific dates would be useful, as there are no numbers to anchor the understanding of someone not already familiar with the timeline (this isn't a problem just with your version, but with the previous as well). Vanamonde (Talk) 13:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Good point. The specific dates were avoided because we were under the impression that the text was already overlong. Those can be put in. Will come back with something. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

On first read it is an improvement and flows better, one bit that jars is the sudden mention of Gandhi, I know it is important to Indians to keep mentioning Gandhi but in what was a flowing list of eras we suddenly mention an individuals name which sort of breaks the flow of the paragraph. MilborneOne (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• Misc notes:
  • History para of lede Overall I like the changes while seconding Vanamonde's suggestion to add a couple more date anchors, and (after going back and forth on this) MilborneOne's suggestion to remove MKG's name from an already lengthy last sentence. By the way, F&f, I particularly appreciate the subtle changes such as "Political consolidations took place under the Maurya and Gupta Empires" being changed to "Political consolidations gave rise to the..."; can something similar be done with "North India fell to the Delhi Sultanate" since 'fell to' leaves the impression that North India was already a well-defined political entity prior to this? Lastly: is there a way partition can be mentioned, perhaps in the last sentence?
  • Overall lede The first paragraph is a by the numbers geographic description that is hard to tinker with. The second para, especially after the proposed changes, is a well written summary of the history. However the third para is somewhat of a mess, jumping between topics and eras. Some of this is perhaps unavoidable, but it could use more attention (throwing out some ideas that are best discussed separately: start with type of governance, perhaps even mention initial INC dominance and later rise of other parties/movements; then give the GDP numbers etc and mention 1991 economic liberalization; mention the post-independence wars/regional rivalries as necessary context for nuclear state and leave out regional power cruft).
  • Overall article If we intend to meet with the August 15th spruce-up deadline, I'd suggest we don't start with a in order section review. The early sections (esp. the lede and history), because they are subject to so many disputes, seem to be in pretty decent shape. The Politics section, on the other hand, doesn't mention the 2019 elections or the general rise of the Hindu nationalism movement. And the Economy section needs significant updating; check out the citations 221 to 268 in the current version, many of which are ~10 years old and/or otherwise sub-par.

Abecedare (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Change seems reasonable but we don't mention anything about 65,000 years ago in the body of the article....would need sources (easy to find) and a info in the body of the article.--Moxy 🍁 17:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Abecedare: I wrote a version 2 before I just read your cogent critique. I entirely agree. Here is that version 2. I may have incorporated some of your points unwittingly. I will incorporate more later. @Vanamonde93: @MilborneOne:

Proposal version 2: Modern humans arrived on the Indian subcontinent from Africa 65,000 years ago, and in several waves of migration thereafter. Settled life emerged on subcontinent in the western margins of the Indus river alluvium 9,000 years ago, and evolved gradually into the Indus Valley Civilisation, whose urban period matured between 2500 BCE and 1900 BCE. By 1500 BCE, an archaic form of Sanskrit had spread into the subcontinent from the northwest, and the Vedas, the oldest texts of Hinduism, had begun to be composed. By 500 BCE, social-stratification based on caste had emerged, and Buddhism and Jainism arisen. Between 400 BCE and 500 CE, political consolidations gave rise to a loosely-knit Maurya Empire and and a tighter Gupta Empire, both based in the northern Gangetic Plain. In South India, the Middle Kingdoms cast a strong cultural influence on the kingdoms of southeast Asia. In India's medieval era, on its western coast, Judaism and Zoroastrianism found pockets of refuge, and Christianity and Islam arrived with trade, contributing to a diverse culture. Early in the second millennium, Muslim warriors from Central Asia periodically overran India's northern plains, eventually establishing the Delhi Sultanate. Later, South India was united in the Hindu Vijayanagara Empire. In the Punjab, Sikhism emerged. Two centuries of cohesive Mughal rule, began in 1525 CE, and were followed by a century of gradually expanding East India Company rule. India's modern age was marked by British Crown rule, beginning in 1858, and later by a nationalist movement, which was noted for nonviolent resistance and led to India's independence in 1947.

@Moxy: Good point. A good source is Tim Dyson's Population History of India, Oxford, 2018. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Abecedare: I started with the lead as it is the only surefire way of drawing people in. I too am concerned about the later sections, but I'm not very knowledgeable about them, especially politics, government, foreign relations, economy, industry, ... Will you be able to supervise that effort? Round up some volunteers to at least smooth out the prose and update the citations in these later sections? The History, Geography, and Biodiversity sections are more or less fine. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if I'll be able to commit the time required to organize the effort but I'll certainly try to help out. Anyway, lets table the discussion about the later paras and sections for now lest that discussion distract from the topic of this section, where we should be able to converge to a consensus pretty quickly.

Coming back to the history para: don't mean to be Goldilocks but, in several places, I prefer the level of detail you have in Proposal 1 to that in Proposal 2. For example, Beginning in the Punjab region in 1500 BCE and spreading successively eastward into the Gangetic plain until 600 BCE,... may be too detailed and invite quibbling over the exact geography and dating years not only now but years into the future. IMO your Proposal 1 is close to ideal already and requires only a few minor tweaks but will let others weigh in before getting into the specifics of the possible (minor) changes. Abecedare (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, @Abecedare: Proposal 1 is tweaked. I've done away with specific centuries; but linked the different eras:

Proposed version 1.5 Modern humans arrived on the Indian subcontinent from Africa 65,000 years ago, and in several waves of migration thereafter. Settled life emerged on the subcontinent in the western margins of the Indus river alluvium 9,000 years ago, and evolved gradually into the Indus Valley Civilisation. In India's Iron Age, the oldest scriptures of Hinduism were composed, social stratification based on caste emerged, and Buddhism and Jainism arose. Political consolidations gave rise to the Maurya and Gupta Empires. Later, the Middle Kingdoms of peninsular India influenced the cultures of Southeast Asia. In India's medieval era, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Islam arrived, and Sikhism emerged, contributing to a diverse culture. In the late medieval period, Delhi Sultanate was established in northern India, and after its decline, South India was united in the Vijayanagara Empire. In the early modern era, two centuries of Mughal rule gave way to East India Company rule. India's modern age was marked by British Crown rule and by a nationalist movement, which under Mahatma Gandhi's prevailing influence, was noted for nonviolent resistance, and which led to India's independence in 1947.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)PS I also think that as the span of the history is much wider, a mention of either Gandhi or the Partition in the lead would be probably undue. However, Gandhi's prevailing influence on Indian nationalism is acknowledged. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC) I just remembered that there is an earlier consensus, from the time of the FAR, that Gandhi be the only person mentioned by name in the lead. For comparison, see the "lead" of the Britannica India article, which is much longer, and mentions only three by name: Vasco da Gamma, Gandhi, and Nehru. I am therefore restoring Gandhi in version 1.5 until such time as we have a different consensus. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I still think the Gandhi mention jars in what is a 10,000 spread of history, nothing against mentioning him elsewhere in the lead as he is important to what became modern India, not just in this bit. MilborneOne (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: I tend to agree with you, and my own view is the one I scratched out, except that by "lead" there I did mean the history paragraph. Let's wait to hear from the others. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Sorry for the delay in getting here. My comments (limited to version 1.5):

• Not sure why the Indo-Aryan peoples are not mentioned.
• Glad to see the "fell to the Delhi Sultanate" phrase gone.
• South India was united under the Bahmani Sultanate and Vijayanagara Empire. I don't see the need for "after its decline". The Delhi Sultante was alive and well. Just that its attempted expansion into South India was short-lived.
• About Mahatma Gandhi, I am fine either way, but prefer it be omitted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
• Also, suggest removing blue links to all the religions. It is a sea of blue otherwise. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:

• a) Indo-Aryan peoples is about the one billion present-day speakers of modern IA languages, not speakers of a branch of "Proto Indo Iranian." Also "Indo-Aryan" is not so well recognized. This History of India page wiki-links it to List of Rigvedic tribes. Historians bend over backwards in noting that the numbers of the migrants were not significant, but the effects were. The effects: the oldest works of Hinduism, and Caste are mentioned. The "oldest works of Hinduism" could be piped to Vedas. Alternatively, the sentence could be changed to "... the works of early Hinduism were composed," with "early Hinduism" linked to Vedic Hinduism. One could restate the language shift with: Indo-European languages were introduced into the subcontinent,from the northwest." But all the pages Indo-Aryan peoples, Indo-Aryan migration theory are slightly fringe pages on Wikipedia in my opinion, in contrast to Indus Valley Civilisation. Other encyclopedias, for example Britannica, make no mention of Aryan migration. Webster Concise Encyclopedia whose entry is twice the size of this page's lead says only: "Agriculture in India dates to the 7th millennium BCE, and an urban civilization, that of the Indus valley, was established by 2600 BCE. Buddhism and Jainism arose in the 6th century BCE in reaction to the caste-based society created by the Vedic religion and its successor, Hinduism."
• I did change it because it was technically incorrect. North India did not fall to the Sultanate so much as falling for two centuries to the armies of Central Asian mounted archers the last of which established the Sultanate. But that distinction is not lead worthy. Again will wait for the others. I should warn that the more anonymous the description becomes the less of a hook it is for new readers.
• Bahmani is not in the history section. In the grand scale of Indian history, they are less notable than Vijayanagara, which in turn is less notable than the Sultanate, but let's see what others say. The reason that "after its decline" is there is that our history section says that the Sultanate paved they way for Vijayanagara. In most tertiary sources (encyclopedias and textbooks), the Sultanate looms larger than Vijayanagara. Perhaps, "later" can be used.
• Noted "no to Gandhi."
• As for religions, some readers will not know Jainism or Zoroastrianism or perhaps even Sikhism. The other religions I agree are well-known. Let's wait for others. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Kautilya3: A more interesting (to a unfamiliar reader) and less obscure sentence about the "Indo-Aryan" bit would be: In the Iron Age, an archaic form of Sanskrit spread into the subcontinent from the northwest; the Vedas, the oldest texts of Hinduism, were composed; social-stratification based on caste emerged; and Buddhism and Jainism arose.
• I would be perfectly comfortable with this. It has hooks that sustain interest. It is precise and NPOV. It doesn't confuse the language with its speakers. There should be explicit note in the editor about not linking "archaic form" to Vedic Sanskrit, for that would be too much information too soon; or changing "archaic form" to "ancestral language" or "linguistic progenitor" etc .... If some people object that Sanskrit is home grown, well tough luck. This is reliably sourced. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Not just Sanskrit, but Sanskrit-speaking people, who are called "Aryans" in the Indian history books. They brought horses and iron into India, cleared the forests and spread agriculture throughout the subcontinent. If not for them, there would have been no "India". I can't see how we can omit them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Aryan is a culture which left no material remains, only ritual texts, orally preserved by a priestly class. Textual evidence suggests that their elite (who called themselves Arya) led kin groups organized into horse herding tribes, that they gradually spread down the Gangetic plain, which they deforested using iron implements. That is the kind of knowledge we have about Aryans. Then there are the theories of the Indo-European homelands in Ukraine or Anatolia, of the first domestication of the horse, the gradual spread of their language in slowly evolving fashion, their culture in slowly evolving fashion, and of their chariots and horses to both Europe and Asia... But whether they or their cultural and linguistic heirs migrated anywhere in significant numbers, and eventually into India, is the million dollar question. We know from the Mughals and from the British that language, technology, culture, laws, can migrate without significant human migration. I personally do think there was some physical migration, but the historians of India are cautious about this. The ancient history section, which I wrote, does mention a kind of majority view among historians about a migration. But that cautious characterization won't fit into the compressed prose of the lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

PS Peter Robb, in his History of India expresses this typically cautious view, preferring "emergence" to "migration:"

The expansion of Aryan culture is supposed to have begun around 1500 BCE. It should not be thought that this Aryan emergence (though it implies some migration) necessarily meant either a sudden invasion of new peoples, or a complete break with earlier traditions. It comprises a set of cultural ideas and practices, upheld by a Sanskrit-speaking elite, or Aryans. The features of this society are recorded in the Vedas."

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Tim Dyson, the best-known of the current crop of historical demographers of India, has this to say about the Aryans in his recent Dyson, Tim (2018), A Population History of India: From the First Modern People to the Present Day, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-882905-8 which I have referred to above:

Although the collapse of the Indus Valley Civilization is no longer believed to have been due to an 'Aryan Invasion', it is widely thought that, at roughly the same time, or a few centuries later, new Indo-Aryan speaking people began to enter the subcontinent from the north-west. Detailed evidence is lacking. Nevertheless, a predecessor of the language that would eventually be called Sanskrit was probably introduced into the north-west sometime between 3,900 and 3,000 years ago. ... It seems likely that various small-scale migrations were involved in the gradual introduction of the predecessor language and associated cultural characteristics. However, there may not have been a tight relationship between movements of people on the one hand, and changes in language and culture on the other. Moreover, the process whereby a dynamic new force gradually arose—a people with a distinct ideology who eventually seem to have referred to themselves as 'Arya'—was certainly two-way. That is, it involved a blending of new features which came from outside with other features—probably including some surviving Harappan influences—that were already present. Anyhow, it would be quite a few centuries before Sanskrit was written down. And the hymns and stories of the Arya people—especially the Vedas and the later Mahabharata and Ramayana epics—are poor guides as to historical events. Of course, the emerging Arya were to have a huge impact on the history of the subcontinent. Nevertheless, little is known about their early presence. (page 15)

That is why I had mentioned not the migration but the effects. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:34, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: @Vanamonde93:, @MilborneOne:, @Chipmunkdavis:, @Kautilya3:, @Neil P. Quinn:, @Abecedare:, @Sitush:, @Joshua Jonathan:, @Moxy:

I have read the history sections in the leads of other country FAs, I have thought hard about what kind of narrative will reflect modern the historiography on India with due weight, be accurate and informative to a unfamiliar reader, and be lucid within the constraints of a lead. I have taken into account the different concerns. I strongly feel that we can't make the history anonymous because we are insisting on even-handedness or on a kind of brevity that strains syntax. The current version of the lead is such an anonymous history. It distorts by generalizing too much. I have now begun to work on the other sections. This is the final version I have come up with. I think it meets the criteria of the first sentence above. If you'd like I can source each sentence to a couple of modern scholarly textbooks on the history of India. Except for its first two sentence, whose expanded version I have yet to add to the history section, it summarizes this articles history. Let me know what you think. Yes, it is longer but no longer than some other country FAs' leads.

Proposal version 3: By 55,000 years ago, Modern humans had arrived on the Indian subcontinent from Africa, where they had earlier evolved. Settled life emerged on subcontinent in the western margins of the Indus river alluvium 9,000 years ago, and evolved gradually into the Indus Valley Civilisation, whose urban period matured between 2500 BCE and 1900 BCE. By 1500 BCE, an archaic form of Sanskrit had spread into the subcontinent from the northwest, and the Vedas, the oldest texts of Hinduism, had begun to be composed. By 500 BCE, social-stratification based on caste had emerged, and Buddhism and Jainism arisen. Between 400 BCE and 500 CE, political consolidations gave rise to a loosely-knit Maurya Empire and and a more tightly knit Gupta Empire, both based in the Gangetic Plain. In South India, the Middle Kingdoms cast a strong cultural influence on the kingdoms of southeast Asia. In India's medieval era, on its western coast, Judaism and Zoroastrianism found pockets of refuge, and Christianity and Islam arrived with trade, contributing to a diverse culture. Early in the second millennium, Muslim warriors from Central Asia periodically overran India's northern plains, eventually establishing the Delhi Sultanate. Later, South India was united in the Hindu Vijayanagara Empire. In the Punjab, Sikhism emerged. Two centuries of cohesive Mughal rule, began in 1525 CE, and were followed by a century of gradually expanding East India Company rule. India's modern age was marked by British Crown rule, beginning in 1858, and later by a nationalist movement, which was noted for nonviolent resistance and which led to India's independence in 1947.

The current version, incidentally, is:

Current version The Indian subcontinent was home to the Indus Valley Civilisation of the bronze age. In India's iron age, the oldest scriptures of Hinduism were composed, social stratification based on caste emerged, and Buddhism and Jainism arose. Political consolidations took place under the Maurya and Gupta Empires; the peninsular Middle Kingdoms influenced the cultures of Southeast Asia. In India's medieval era, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Islam arrived, and Sikhism emerged, adding to a diverse culture. North India fell to the Delhi Sultanate; south India was united under the Vijayanagara Empire. In the early modern era, the expansive Mughal Empire was followed by East India Company rule. India's modern age was marked by British Crown rule and a nationalist movement which, under Mahatma Gandhi, was noted for nonviolence and led to India's independence in 1947.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)