Talk:Greater India/Archive 1

Akhanda Bharatam
Who coined this term?

Manjunatha (9 Feb 2006)

can someone add a map showing all baaratah varsh

Greater India
I don't see the rationale of the merger. Greater India is a cultural term, while Undivided India is a political term. However, since Greater India was already there, I also added Indies. Logically, both should be separate articles. deeptrivia (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Greater vs Undivided
Political undivided India is far smaller than so-called Greater India. Greater India itself is also far smaller than what is claimed in the article. For example, how can "all of" Tibet and Myanmar be claimed as "historical homelands" of Hindus, and therefore Greater India? This is irredentism taken to ridiculous heights, if it is as claimed. I've never heard of Akhand Bharat involving Myanmar or Tibet. If it does, it might as well also draw in all other areas that were simply influenced by Hindus (Javanese, Champa and Khmer kingdoms) and Buddhists (Korea, Japan, Thailand). --SohanDsouza 21:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hinduism is not the basis of Greater India. It might be that of Akhand Bharat. Greater India is purely a cultural term, based purely on past cultural influence, and has no political connotations. Of course, now even those cultural influences are gone (e.g., in Central Asia.) This term is kind of similar to Indies, which is also called "East India". I've seen maps of "Akhand Bharat" that includes Myanmar. These were drawn in the 20s and 30s, when Myanmar was politically a part of India. deeptrivia (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Category
I removed a category recently added as this page is a historical reality and not comparable to other entries under that particular category, that is Category:Irredentism. --Bhadani 16:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, one should be familiar with the topic in its entirety and that would involve reading of history of the Indian subcontinent, and not forming opinions based on the information available in wikipedia only - people may have added here contents which may not be relevant to the historical and legal concept of Undivided India. This requires removing those contents and not categorizing the page as Irredentism. --Bhadani 16:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, but I think the irredentism category is quite apt for this article. Regardless of the "historical reality", irredentism is the refusal of certain folks to accept present legal and political reality. "Undivided China" used to include the state of Mongolia and the Russian province of Primorye in "historical reality", but if any Chinese tried to seriously lay claim to these today, I would not hesitate to call it irredentism. --SohanDsouza 11:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, fine - category readded. In case, you were so sure, you could have done this yourself. Nice meeting you. --Bhadani 06:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I thought it would be a good idea to discuss it first. :-/ --SohanDsouza 09:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sistan-Balochistan
I dont think this Iranian province had much to do with Indian civilization. The Balochistan region in general was an intermediate region between Ancient India and Ancient Persia and fluctuated between both(Achaemenian or Mauryan) or stayed separate. Eventually, it was Iranianized and remained an Iranian frontier between Persia and India until the Mughals and the British annexed it into their Indian empires. It may have had prominence in it's eastern area (part of Pakistan) but I dont think the modern-Iranian Sistan-Balochistan area was apart of Indian civiliation. The rest of Pakistan probably did and maybe eastern Afghanistan (around Kabul) but not Sistan Balochistan. -User: Afghan Historian

Akhand Bharat Campaign
Refrence: [[Campaign]http://www.hindujagruti.org/cia]

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is an intelligence agency of the United States Government, responsible for obtaining and analyzing information about foreign governments, corporations, and individuals, and reporting such information to the various branches of the Government. CNN is America's No. 1 cable news network and world-renowned news agency. And The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is the largest publicly-funded radio and television broadcasting corporation of the United Kingdom. They have deliberately cut off Kashmir from the rest of India and offered it to Pakistan and China.

CIA has published a 'The World Factbook' of the nations of the world. The distorted map of India as shown in this protest campaign is represented in this book. Most of the world's websites, universities etc refer to this book as a standard version of the world's known facts. They regard it as the official version of the map of India. Thus 90% of the maps of India available around the world reflect this biased version. Are we as Indians, born of this land going to take this silently?

The partition of India and Pakistan occurred in accordance with the 'Indian Independence Act' passed by the British Parliament on 1st July 1947. There has been no alteration to the international borders set up in 1947 till date.

This is NOT a mistake due to ignorance! CIA, a powerful intelligence agency of the US government and CNN has all the information about foreign governments in their hand. They have deliberately distorted the truth. To aid researchers, the Indian government has also placed an official map of India on the website. The United Nations (UN) has clearly mentioned in its asian map that the "Final Status of Jammu and Kashmir has not yet been agreed upon by parties." (i.e. India and Pakistan) Even then why have the "Fact-masters" ignored these official documents and supported Pakistan by upholding their version of map. This clearly indicates CIA, CNN and BBC's prejudiced leanings towards Pakistan and thus that of US. They are the new invaders of our motherland.

Maps
I readded a deleted map to delineate the information juxtaposed next to it. The regions highlighted in the map historically have Indic cultural influences. Thus, a visual is appropriate. Thanks. I hope this helps. AnupamTalk 07:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

mergers
alright, the discussion of the term "India" is spread over too many articles at the moment. we need to centralize this discussion. This article isn't about "Undivided India" so much as about listing all these terms. it would be best to move this article to India (and the present India to Republic of India) and make it a summary discussion of all these terms. It's just too damn confused as it is now. dab (𒁳) 08:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * India (disambiguation)
 * India (word)
 * Greater India
 * Indosphere
 * Indian subcontinent
 * South Asia
 * (see also wikt:India)


 * I support this suggestion. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 00:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Moving India to the Republic of India is like changing the Constitution of India - . It also looks really bizarre and strange that the contents of Undivided India have been changed to look really stupid from its original meaning as enshrined in a legal enactment! However, as this free encyclopedia prides itself on having free flow style contents based on consensus, I don't mind if consensus is to say that India emerged when Pakistan was divided into Pakistan and India. I am not bitter, I am visualizing the possible contents of this encyclopedia which the founders fondly planned to be around for next 100 years. --Bhadani (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I support the suggestion of the move of India to the Republic of India--Keer lls ton 23:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And why are we discussing these page moves here? Take this to INB or Talk:India to get more participation.  I am against any moves just yet. Sarvagnya 07:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What you are looking at here is an abandoned discussion that kept dormant since September 2007 till you posted. A renewed discussion is happening some place else. A click on the "discuss" link in merger proposed template (at the top of this article) would have taken you there. The new discussion has also been submitted for wider attention. If you want the new discussion to be advertised on Talk:India, you are most welcome to do so. I personally think it's a pretty neat idea. Aditya (talk • contribs) 08:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Certainly, other proposed mergers or page moves can't sensibly be discussed here on this talk page. Strawless (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC

Reliable sources for the term dharmic religions?
Where are the reliable sources that use the term dharmic religions in the context of this article? Dharmic religions is a now deleted obscure neologism and should not be used throughout Wikipedia. A more common readily available alternative is Indian religions. If it is not an obscure neologism then it would be easy to provide multiple reliable sources books, peer reviewed articles etc. I am waiting. Andries 17:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The number of google scholar results for "Indian religions"+"Indian religion" is (45.600 + 84.200) while it is only (492+475) for "dharmic religions" +"dharmic religion" (492+475). See Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_8. Andries 19:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hoax
Unfortunately, the Indian Empire or the Raj excluded hundreds of princely states including Tripura, Cooch Behar, Hyderabad, Kashmir, Junagarh and many more, as well as French and Portuguese holdings like Pondicherry and Goa. Afghanistan had never been a part of the Raj. This stangest of claim that roughly the SAARC countries constitute the Indian Empire is not only dubious. It looks like pure hoax. Claiming that Indian linguistic and cultural influences constitute an Undivided India as far as South-East Asia and Iran, is even more preposterous, particularly when considering that Iran has more influence on India than the other way round. The predominance of Dharmic religion bit is even more strange, as the consensus has already reduced that concept to nothingness. Someone needs to define that Dharmic religion and culture first, before starting to make tall claims on its behalf. Every single line is suspect, on at least two counts, in the section. If there is no improvement, it should be removed completely, and fast. This type of propaganda is simply unacceptable. Aditya (talk • contribs) 06:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merger to British India
I came here because there are tags on British India and on this Undivided India article proposing a merger of Undivided India into British India, but that makes no sense at all to me. British India was most of India, but it was also a division of India, that is, it was those parts of India under British administration and did not include about 40% of the subcontinent. I have so far failed to see the purpose of having an article on Undivided India, so I tend to agree that it should indeed be merged somewhere, but there are other more suitable articles to merge it into, such as Indian subcontinent. Strawless (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Strawless. Undivided India has many meanings, only one of which is "India during 1765-1947" (i.e. during British Rule).  British India was a subset of that undivided India; so even if one were to restrict the meaning of undivided India, I don't see how a bigger entity (undivided India) could be redirected to a smaller one (British India, i.e. those parts of undivided India between 1765 and 1947 that were directly governed by the British).  I think the merge banner should be removed, or a page other than British India should be chosen for the object of this merger.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The most prevalent usage of the term is in the context of the "India" which existed prior to the partition of the subcontinent. That is the reason why I proposed the merger. The Afghan conquest of Punjab in te 18th century AD,etc., aren't regarded as "partitionings"- Ravichandar My coffee shop 03:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have left a note on the talk page of Ravichandar84, who proposed the merger, asking him if he would like to make another suggestion. Strawless (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The term "Undivided India" itself is a POV. While it is, indeed, used by some people to describe pre-partition India, it isn't an universally accepted term. Also, the term displays a great degree of ambiguity. Of course, what do you mean by "Undivided India". There have been many "divisions" which had actually taken place. Ceylon was separated from India in 1803; Burma and Aden Colony were separated from India in 1937 and Pakistan (East and West) in 1947.
 * And by the way, the term "Undivided" itself is closely connected to the British Raj (Of course, the British were the ones who divided India). Hence, I strongly feel that if the article is to be merged it should be merged with British India. As far as the Indian subcontinent is concerned, it also includes historical regions related to India as Afghanistan which were not a part of "Undivided India".Thanks- Ravichandar My coffee shop 03:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

In any case, "Undivided India" is not really any real political entity. For the geographic entity, we have Indian subcontinent. For the regions under British rule 1757-1947, we have British Raj. Then what really is "Undivided" India, and what then is "Divided India"? --Ragib (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Undivided India" is generally used to refer to India before the partitioning of the subcontinent. But we are not sure whether it also includes India in 1500BC, India in 500BC, India in 1000AD and India in 1500AD. As this term displays a great deal of ambiguity, I don't think we should have articles for the same. Besides, I don't think that the term "Undivided India" was in popular usage outside the Indian subcontinent.
 * However, it is pretty sure that British India was referred to as Undivided India though we aren't sure whether the term applied to Mughal India and the empires which preceded them as I haven't found a single usage of the term in such a context. Hence, I suggest that the article be merged with British India.- Ravichandar My coffee shop 03:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, Ravichandar, that India in the time of the British is sometimes referred to now as 'Undivided India', but that can only be a fairly modern development, following the great Partition. For a definition of 'Undivided India' which has some authority, see India's Citizenship Act 1955, which uses it to mean the whole of what was defined by the Government of India Act 1935 as "India", that is, British India plus the princely states.
 * I think the reasoning you give for your proposal supports a merger with British Raj, but most of the present Undivided India article is about tangential subjects, such as Greater India, and it seems to me that there is really almost nothing in the present article which can usefully be merged to British Raj. While I'm doubtful about the usefulness of the content, a redirect from here to British Raj makes some sense. I'd be willing to check whether there's anything in this article which does need to be salvaged, if it is merged/redirected. Strawless (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Strawless, the page should be merged with British Raj, not "British India." "Undivided India" is a term that was used synonymously with "Pre-partition India," and was used mostly in the 1950s and 60s in India to distinguish the newly independent Republic of India from its colonial antecedent.  The topic "Undivided India" has nothing in common with Greater India; the latter has four clearly delineated meanings, three of which are archaic, and none of which border, in meaning, on "Pre-partition India."


 * So, this page should redirected to British Raj, unless there is a preponderance of evidence, by way of scholarly sources, that this was indeed a term used in the 1950s and 60s in India, in which case, the page could be a sort of disambiguation page which could explain this sociological point in one sentence and then refer the reader to the British Raj page. However the danger in making this an independent page is that every so often Hindu nationalist editors will reinvent this page and make it about a larger than life historical India that has no precedent in reality.  Already, this India of fantasy, Akhand Bharat, sometimes translated as "undivided India," but more accurately "indivisible India," is redirected to this page; in this latter sense it is not only a reference to what India was before 1947, but also what it should be.  (See its Google Scholar links.)  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I support the approach suggested by Fowler&amp;fowler, as 'Undivided India' is almost synonymous with the subject of British Raj. But I say this subject to the proviso that a definition of 'Undivided India' would then need to be maintained at British Raj, as the two terms are not quite synonymous. My revisions to the article today were intended to take out the material which was irrelevant to its subject and to give some idea of a suitable text to be merged. Strawless (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I followed a link to this page and found a sensible definition of "Undivided India" here. However, one can say that Undivided India needs only to be defined. The status quo makes it easy to find this definition quickly, and probably that would not be the case if the merger into a much longer article should take place. Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk) 05:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Undivided India and Akhand Bharat
I've only just noticed that Akhand Bharat redirects here. It's not identical to the legal use in English of "Undivided India" which is defined here, meaning more "Indivisible India" or "Unbreakable India", so it has more feeling in it, especially for older people. I suggest that we need to do something about this, either on this page or on a new page called Akhand Bharat. Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk) 09:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's amazing how many of you hate India
Before Islam came into the region, the majority of people were Hindu. And et some of you don't understand why those lands (Afghanistan, Iran, etc.) are being classified as being part of greater India or ancient India. I mean it's the same land. The same people. The same history. It only became separate because people like you want there own identity. I mean how do you explain that many Indians, Iranians, Afghans, etc. look the same? This is like claiming Canada was never the same as America. Or Texas was never part of Mexico.

Nobody hates India, we are just against Hinducentric agenda's that try to paint the whole world as hindu or indian and try to claim other people as you are doing. Afghans and Indians don't look like each other because they are not the same people. And also, Afghanistan and Iran were never part of India, but rather the Iranian Plateau and were culturally and linguisticly different from Indians who are more closer to their Austroloid cousins then to Iranians. Akmal94 (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The article is about places that have historically had significant Indian influence. Afghanistan falls under that. 47.186.210.131 (talk) 00:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC) Afghanistan has no Indian influence whatsoever. 207.164.39.234 (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes it does. You clearly know nothing about premodern or modern Afghanistan. I suggest giving any Afghanistan related article on wikipedia a glance. 97.94.199.166 (talk) 06:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Roughly analogous to modern South Asia
This article suggests that the term "Greater India" applies to a region that is roughly analogous to modern ]South Asia. If it is defined as being the area influenced by Indian religious thought, language, art and literature, then this is a very limited criteria. One would assume that "Greater India" could also refer to most of Southeast Asia (where several kingdoms had close ties with India) It is debatable whether such a term as "Greater India" enjoyed any usage before the modern era.

Tibet and Yunnan are not part of Greater India. I think if a distinction is to be made between Indian and non-Indian, it should be made on the basis of whether the people are Aryan-descent or Dravidian-descent or not. Otherwise the definition of Indian is very loose and can easily include the Burmese, Thais, Vietnamese, Javans, Malays, Cambodians, Guyanese, Trinidadian, Maldivian, Mauritians and many other nationalities who while not ethnically part of India share certain cultural values. 69.193.87.5 01:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Um... many Guyanese, Trinidadians, Maldivians and Mauritians ARE of Indian descent as in indigenous to the modern day country of India. And definition of "India" was/is very loose. Before Southeast Asia and even parts of Afghanistan were considered "the Indies" before the Europeans, Mughals and other foreigners came and started taking pieces of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.17.115 (talk) 02:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Their was nothing called aryan or dravids. The term first came in to existences after some British historian write about it. It was simply for dividing Indians as they were doing on the bases of religion and other things. Most of the currenct knows histry is written by british who manipulated histry to divide rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4063:2093:6F0D:65D6:F5D1:8B7C:8CC8 (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Pan-nationalism?
greater india is listed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-nationalism but it does not appear to be a nationalism movement but cultural influence similar to the overlapping chinese article. i propose a removal from that list to avoid the idea that there is "expansionism" or at least move it out, see the article of what i mean. 218.186.8.233 (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

merge proposals
I agree, merge both, this is the least loaded term. Chris 04:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose both suggestions. The term has different valid definitions and usage (even if many are historical). The article has now an adequate explanation of these. Tibet (and part at least of Yunnan) fit into some such definitions. Imc 13:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I take back part of the above. Indosphere could be sensibly included in this article. Imc 16:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It should be merged with "Indosphere" and perhaps "Undivided India".Scimitar2 19:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yunan and Tibet never a part of India
That's all! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.218.20.127 (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Sorry to butt in but Tibet has nothing in common with China either. At least the Tibetan script is an indic script and the Tibetan religion and culture have been significantly influenced by India. China has had absolutely np influence culturally or any other on TIbet before the communist invasion and occupation of Tibet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.148.8 (talk) 07:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh for goodness sakes break it up and cease the nonsense. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 12:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Tibet
Tibet is part of Qing, Republic of China and then People's Republic of China. That's all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.188.90.194 (talk) 04:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sistan-Baluchistan never apart of India
Iranian Baluchistan has never been apart of India. Rather, it is Pakistani Baluchistan that is apart of Greater Iran. To India's west only the Pakistani provinces of Punjab and Sindh are linguistically, ethnically and cultrually related to India. As it stands this is a completely un-authentic and untrue article. "Greater India" extends all the way from Iran to Indonesia? Is that map intended to be a joke or what?

Oh and finally, Baluchistan and Pakistan's NWFP are not apart of the Indian subcontinent. Both lie on the Iranian plateau. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.12.107.88 (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Sorry NWFP is very much part of the subcontinent. Before the 10th century Gandhara was very much in the Indian cultural sphere with Hinduism adn Buddhism the dominant religions and an Indic language being spoken around the Kabul/ NWFP area —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.148.8 (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The Hindu Shahi kings as well ruled the area of Ghandara, near Khabul, Balochistan was a part of the Mauryan Empire, and the Kushans both of whom were Bhuddist patrons and spread Indian culture (The Kushans supported Indian developments and studies of Sanskrit and Ayuveda)

Precedence in Historiography?
What evidence is there that the term "Greater India" is (or was) commonly used in historiography? Of the three references in the article, two are web sites (that are hardly reliable) and the third, Susan Bayley's article, "‘Greater India’: French and Indian Visions of Colonialism in the Indic Mode" uses the term figuratively, and "explores both Western and Asian imaginings of national histories beyond the boundaries of the nation. It seeks to contribute to the history of Asian modernities, and to the anthropological study of nationalism. Its focus is on thinkers and political actors whose visions of both the colonising and decolonising processes were translocal, rather than narrowly territorial in scope." I see "Greater India" as a bogus term, without any real historiographical precedent. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  16:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever 'historiography' is, Greater India is a real and useful term, for an area with varying degrees of cultural or political unity at different times. There are enough references in the article, and more to be found elsewhere, in print and on the web. I've been coming across the term most of my life. Many people (see earlier comments) chose to confuse it with modern India; they may feel better if they confused it with modern Sind or the river Indus instead. The region could and does overlap with other cultural regions; e.g. the Chinese and Persian cultural regions. It does not detract from the validity of the term. Imc 15:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Historiography is the writing of history. It is not enough to claim to have come across the term "Greater India" during much of your lifetime.  As I mention above, the references in the article are not enough.  Two are web sites and not reliable; the third, uses the term figuratively, pointing out that it was a part of the early nationalistic imagining of history.  No one is confusing "Greater India" with the current-day Republic of India, but rather as a projection into the past of current-day Indian nationalism.  It is OK to have an article on "Greater India" and treat it as a term that was used in nationalistic writings, but it needs more reliably referenced for that.  Until such time as that happens, I am reinserting the disputed tag.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  09:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, but this is an encyclopaedia, not a journal of historical research. Why don't you alter the article to take account of your concerns? Imc 19:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely right Fowler. "Greater India" is a wholly bogus term. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.12.107.88 (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

It is definitely not a very widely used term, but its use can often be found in academic works. Some examples.


 * Wales, H. G. Quaritch (1951) The Making of Greater India: A Study in Southeast Asian Culture Change. London: Bernard Quaritch.
 * Definition from the Journal of the Greater India Society, Calcutta,1934
 * The Art Of Greater India : [the Denver Art Museum Collection] "a selection of topflight objects which represent the major art expressions of India proper, Afghanistan, Nepal, Thailand, Cambodia and Java"
 * Scholberg, Henry, ed. The Biographical Dictionary of Greater India. New Delhi: Promilla & Co., 1998.
 * "The Religious Art of Greater India", three credit undergrad course at U. Conn on the monumental religious art of the Hindus, Buddhists and Jains on the Indian mainland (including Nepal) and the countries of S.E. Asia influenced by them.
 * "The sculpture of Greater India", Afghanistan to Vietnam, Nepal to Indonesia. Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin
 * "Bronzes of India and Greater India", Artibus Asiae, Vol 19, No.3/4.

etc. Note, however, that the term is more commonly used in geology, where it is used by geoscientists in plate tectonic models of the India–Asia collision system. We should have a section on the geological meaning. To my knowledge, this term has thankfully never been picked up by any kind of nationalists. Also, thankfully, I'm not the kind of editor who would "rv unilateral tagging" of others, so please remove it if you're convinced, or comment here if you're not. deeptrivia (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reminder. I will attend to this in the next few days.  For the older meaning of the term in history itself, esp. nationalist narratives, I quote from Susan Bayley's article (MAS 2004, referenced in main article) below.  The Greater India Society did have some influence on Art History, where the term survived a little longer.  My particular focus is a network of influential twentieth-century Indian scholars who wrote on nationalist cultural topics both before and after Independence. This was quite a disparate group of thinkers. Most were Hindu Bengalis with training in the humanist and social science disciplines, especially history and philology. Many also took a keen interest in new developments in other related fields, particularly in theories of human culture and the nature of the civilising process emanating from the work of anthropologists in both Europe and the United States. What they all had in common was their involvement in a Calcutta-based organisation known as the Greater India Society. From the 1920s until well into the post-Independence period, this body acted as a platform for the presentation of polemical and often provocative accounts of Indian culture as a supra-local civilising force.

The Greater India initiative has left an enduring legacy which can still be discerned in a wide range of contemporary thinking about Asian identities and cultural allegiances. Many—though not all—of its original supporters were ardent Hindu nationalists. Present-day Hindu supremacists still recapitulate some of their key formulations.
 * Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  05:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * PS Actually, on second thoughts, I don't have enough time right now to do justice to the article. I have therefore removed the disputed tag.  Please feel free to add the geophysical definition.  Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  06:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC) Will add something to the article.  Have removed the disputed tag.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The new additions are mostly original research, which should be reverted right away. There are plenty of references showing a wider use of the term in history in general and art history in particular continuing till today. The "Greater India initiative" is obviously about the initiatives of the Greater India Society, which ceases to exist today, but this doesn't have anything to do with this term. Please refrain from extrapolations and original research. deeptrivia (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing there was original research. All from Bayley's article and Guha-Thakurta's book etc.  But anyway, I don't have the time to bicker.  Please edit and alter in whatever way you want.  I am saving my version (in case of future need) in the collapsible box below.  Regards,   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for sounding that way. Of course, the current version is way better than anything we could have achieved without you. Cheers, deeptrivia (talk) 03:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And, in turn, thanks for your input. I learnt something as a result of your questioning: accounts of old nautical voyages often described countries in terms of coastlines, rather than hinterlands.  This, of course, only makes sense, but can sound funny in light of modern knowledge.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I am somewhat confused by the disambiguation-page style of the current lede. Apart from the geological meaning, which I suppose should be dealt with by true disambiguation (otheruses), I have the impression this is "pseudo-disambiguation", discussing various aspects and historical deveolpment of one and the same notion. Bayley's article, I am sorry to say, reads like so much meaningless postmodernist drivel, and while we can certainly refer to it, I would recommend against using it as a significant support of how to arrange this article. --dab (𒁳) 09:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Part of the lack of usage of such a term is due the unessecary nature of such in the past. Before the partition of India, India, as described by European merchants stretched from modern Pakistan to the bay of Bengal. In addition, non-Indian ethnic groups were described in various sketches and drawings by European merchants, travelers, and missionaries, describing 'Sikhs, Afghans, Maratha' as casts of India. In addition, the term Hindu being derived from Shindu river, Hindu originally being an ethnic term for peoples living beyond the river valley (modern Sindh and west Pakistan are part of this valley). Additionally, the Kingdom of Ghandara was well withing the Indian cultural sphere, Taxilla near modern Islamabad and the Afghan area of Peshawar was governed by the Indian Emperor Ashoka while he was still a prince. In addtion the area was host to a university and learned scholars who predominantly featured Indian ideas, and was a major center of Bhuddism. Modern Peshawar was home to shah-ji 'deri?' (not sure on the spelling of that term) meaning the mound/temple of the great king (shah - king and ji - Indian honorific, again a temple in Peshawar using an indian honorific) was a bhuddist temple.

While this map is obviously very bad, it is remarkable when you consider it is much older than 2000 years, and was the earliest to draw the world in such a scale. India as concieved by the Greeks can be seen at the eastern edge covering the region beyond the Hindu Kush mountains - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Mappa_di_Eratostene.jpg

Lastly, the Hindu kush mountains historically were the boundry of major 'Hindu' cultural presences as a natural barrier. Today these mountains are in western Pakistan and Around Kabul in Afghanistan. I could go into more information if requested, but suffice it to say, Indic influence certainly was present in the region of Khabul, and the Bactrian kingdom of northern Afghanistan and Tajikistan was also host to Indic culture and practices, although this was much more peripheral compared to direct rule and cultural influence in Ghandara, and thus is best left off a map or mentioned only as a peripheral region recieving more minor influence. The pali language as well was used by the Indo-greeks, present in modern Pakistan and eastern Afghanistan, pali being a language of the Bhudda and a language from Eastern India.

The use of 'Greater India' is therefore very useful to explain the extent of Indic influence geographically in Asia. Just as Sino-civilization is a useful term to explain the cultural links between Korea, Japan, and Vietnam to China, especially from the Tang dynasty which had a major cultural effect on Japan. In fact, to see Tang architecture, you would be better off visiting Japan, where Tang influenced architecture is present to this day.

Now since the concepts of 'cultural regions' has been established as a very real phenomenon, the only question is what to call it. And while some may disagree with 'greater India', I would say the term fits well enough, since British India was the forerunner to modern India, and included Pakistan (a term far, far older, by a couple thousand years than 'Pakistan' which is roughly 100 years old). India is afterall called so for the Indus or Shindu river. You could call it the 'greater Indus cultural sphere' but the problem with that is the break between the ancient Indus civilization and later Indo-Aryan civilizations would perhaps be done injustice by the term Indus sphere since it may suggest that. In addition, any term must have academic usage, and the only other term I've heard used in academic literature, especially British, is British India or Greater India.

As an aside, I find the south-east Asian connections valid as well, we know of Burmese usage of terms like Raja and Mandala, both from India. Hindu religion in Champa and Cambodia (Angor wat was an ancient Hindu temple before being converted into a Bhuddist one, and examine the architecture to see the resemblance to Hindu temples in India today.

In addition, with the exception of Vietnam ( A sino-influenced nation which is like Sino nations, Mahayana bhuddist) most South east asian nations are Theravada Buddhist, a branch of Buddism originating in South Asia/India. Showing religous influence of Hinduism and Buddism both had an Indian dimension, espicially the usage of terms like Raja by Burmese, the god Indra which influenced the naming of a city Indrapura in modern South vietnam (pura being a suffix for cities in India, Indra being a god in Hinduism) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/VietnamChampa1.gif not to mention the name of the capital of medieval Thailand, Ayutthai was influenced by Ayodha where 'Rama' the epitome of man, or ideal king shows it's influence in Thailand. In Iran the city of Nishapur again shows the pur suffix associated with dozens of South Asian cities.

It's very, very clear there is a cultural linkage throughout the region described by the term 'Greater India' I think people have a problem with the name. Well India is called Bharat by the Indians themselves, so perhaps just start calling India Bharat in English and all your hesitations will go away. Frankly it'd be easier for people to not just get offended over a word. Are we going to have to rename the 'India plate' as well in geology/geography? The term Europe doesn't ever draw a lot of hate, despite the fact it similarly terms a culturally linked region.

Regarding China
The two provinces of China are slightly influenced by India and neither was ever a part of India. Culturally it is much like the rest of China. So you either include all of China or none of it.

All of China should be put under Greater India. Buddhism and its teachings is widespread throughout China. Suitofhearts 03:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:CITE says we "put under Greater India" whatever we can establish our sources put under Greater India, there is no "should". --dab (𒁳) 09:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to make a nationalistic point? If you really believe that doing such pointless things on Wikipedia such as adding cultural claims, then my good comrade you are mistaken. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 12:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Indosphere
This should be merged with the article "Greater India".

What does Tibet, especially Yunnan region in China has anything to do with Indosphere? Is this another pathetic attempt to promote the India as a super power propaganda?


 * Tibet is so clearly heavily influence by Indian culture. Tibet's writing system, its architecture, religion, although its clothing and certain aspects like the roof of building came from China.  Yunnan is even easier to explain.  The Yunnanese compose of many tribes, many of which are practitioners of theravada buddhism.  Their architecture and dress are nearly identical to those of Thailand and Laos. CanCanDuo 18:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong support. The Indosphere is a very weak concept, almost devoid of scholarship, and barely used in popular culture. Highly suspect.  Should we have an "Americanisphere" as well?  That would be huge.  But why not also an "ElSalvadorisphere?"  El Salvador influences its neighbors and even the USA.  How do you define what's in and what's out?  You can't.  It has no scientific basis.  I vote to merge it.  There's a nasty tendency (though well intentioned I'm sure) to promote big countries like India, CHina, and the USA and speak of their influence on others, but not the other way around.  It's an inadvertent form of cultural imperialism. --Smilo Don 03:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If the term "Indosphere" exists as it's self a concept, then it belongs on Wikipedia. You are an Ignoramous. 67.190.27.113 19:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Josh Van Maren

Merge, obviously. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, and it is perfectly common to merge discussion of closely related terms into a single article. --dab (𒁳) 09:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The Indo-centric jingoism has been curbed out to make way for a scientific concept. It has nothing to with cultural imperialism anymore. Aditya (talk • contribs) 04:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong support for merge. There is no use for political debating here. The two are synonymous, as I don't think anyone in this argument has actually disputed. 78.149.175.48 (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, dear. It's been solved. The Indosphere now stands as an article on a sprachbund, and has nothing to do with a greater India. Aditya (talk • contribs) 16:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

How is it propaganda to link the religous, linguistic, cultural, and ideological spread of ideas accross a geographical region?

I'll just go ahead and copy paste an earlier reply so you can see the various reasons why labeling it as propaganda doesn't make sense when most of the justification for an Indian cultural sphere traces back to the time of the Greeks and pre-dates any modern events. recognizing Greek influence in Afghanistan doesn't lead to strange accusations of Hellenistic propaganda. It's just a recognition of facts of such cultural influence (namely in the founding of Alexandria Aria and Alexandria near modern Khabul)

Part of the lack of usage of such a term is due the unessecary nature of such in the past. Before the partition of India, India, as described by European merchants stretched from modern Pakistan to the bay of Bengal. In addition, non-Indian ethnic groups were described in various sketches and drawings by European merchants, travelers, and missionaries, describing 'Sikhs, Afghans, Maratha' as casts of India. In addition, the term Hindu being derived from Shindu river, Hindu originally being an ethnic term for peoples living beyond the river valley (modern Sindh and west Pakistan are part of this valley). Additionally, the Kingdom of Ghandara was well withing the Indian cultural sphere, Taxilla near modern Islamabad and the Afghan area of Peshawar was governed by the Indian Emperor Ashoka while he was still a prince. In addtion the area was host to a university and learned scholars who predominantly featured Indian ideas, and was a major center of Bhuddism. Modern Peshawar was home to shah-ji 'deri?' (not sure on the spelling of that term) meaning the mound/temple of the great king (shah - king and ji - Indian honorific, again a temple in Peshawar using an indian honorific) was a bhuddist temple.

While this map is obviously very bad, it is remarkable when you consider it is much older than 2000 years, and was the earliest to draw the world in such a scale. India as concieved by the Greeks can be seen at the eastern edge covering the region beyond the Hindu Kush mountains - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Mappa_di_Eratostene.jpg

Lastly, the Hindu kush mountains historically were the boundry of major 'Hindu' cultural presences as a natural barrier. Today these mountains are in western Pakistan and Around Kabul in Afghanistan. I could go into more information if requested, but suffice it to say, Indic influence certainly was present in the region of Khabul, and the Bactrian kingdom of northern Afghanistan and Tajikistan was also host to Indic culture and practices, although this was much more peripheral compared to direct rule and cultural influence in Ghandara, and thus is best left off a map or mentioned only as a peripheral region recieving more minor influence. The pali language as well was used by the Indo-greeks, present in modern Pakistan and eastern Afghanistan, pali being a language of the Bhudda and a language from Eastern India.

The use of 'Greater India' is therefore very useful to explain the extent of Indic influence geographically in Asia. Just as Sino-civilization is a useful term to explain the cultural links between Korea, Japan, and Vietnam to China, especially from the Tang dynasty which had a major cultural effect on Japan. In fact, to see Tang architecture, you would be better off visiting Japan, where Tang influenced architecture is present to this day.

Now since the concepts of 'cultural regions' has been established as a very real phenomenon, the only question is what to call it. And while some may disagree with 'greater India', I would say the term fits well enough, since British India was the forerunner to modern India, and included Pakistan (a term far, far older, by a couple thousand years than 'Pakistan' which is roughly 100 years old). India is afterall called so for the Indus or Shindu river. You could call it the 'greater Indus cultural sphere' but the problem with that is the break between the ancient Indus civilization and later Indo-Aryan civilizations would perhaps be done injustice by the term Indus sphere since it may suggest that. In addition, any term must have academic usage, and the only other term I've heard used in academic literature, especially British, is British India or Greater India.

As an aside, I find the south-east Asian connections valid as well, we know of Burmese usage of terms like Raja and Mandala, both from India. Hindu religion in Champa and Cambodia (Angor wat was an ancient Hindu temple before being converted into a Bhuddist one, and examine the architecture to see the resemblance to Hindu temples in India today.

In addition, with the exception of Vietnam ( A sino-influenced nation which is like Sino nations, Mahayana bhuddist) most South east asian nations are Theravada Buddhist, a branch of Buddism originating in South Asia/India. Showing religous influence of Hinduism and Buddism both had an Indian dimension, espicially the usage of terms like Raja by Burmese, the god Indra which influenced the naming of a city Indrapura in modern South vietnam (pura being a suffix for cities in India, Indra being a god in Hinduism) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/VietnamChampa1.gif not to mention the name of the capital of medieval Thailand, Ayutthai was influenced by Ayodha where 'Rama' the epitome of man, or ideal king shows it's influence in Thailand. In Iran the city of Nishapur again shows the pur suffix associated with dozens of South Asian cities.

It's very, very clear there is a cultural linkage throughout the region described by the term 'Greater India' I think people have a problem with the name. Well India is called Bharat by the Indians themselves, so perhaps just start calling India Bharat in English and all your hesitations will go away. Frankly it'd be easier for people to not just get offended over a word. Are we going to have to rename the 'India plate' as well in geology/geography? The term Europe doesn't ever draw a lot of hate, despite the fact it similarly terms a culturally linked region.

Nepal was never a part of India!!
What the hell is that in the map with blue colour on Nepals territory. This is just not right!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.33.166.40 (talk) 07:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You have to be clear on what you mean by "India." Mitsube (talk) 07:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Nepal never was a protectorate or puppet-state of British India. The dictorial Rana dynasty had close ties with the British rulers, but this was only for trade. The trade-relationship did not benefit the economy of the state, but only those of the rulers.

Nepal has been a part of various kingdoms that have transcended modern political boundaries and ruled areas on both sides of the modern border. In addition, the two major religions of Nepal, Hinduism, and Buddhism, the presence of Castes, and linguistic links show a clear cultural heritage with India, whether or not people like it.

In addition you're not being honest about Nepal's relationship with Britain, it was a protectorate of Britain, lost a war and was forced to cede territory after it's defeat. The reason it wasn't just made a part of India is because it was a protectorate different form the rest of the 'princely states', and wasn't governed by the British Raj, however, it was very much subject to British imperial control.

Punjab?
Okay. It lists that Punjab, Hindustan, Burma...... were all part of greater India. But if I'm not mistaken, Punjab was part of Hindustan. Right? Deavenger (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Depends on what you call Hindustan and which period in history you're discussing. Aditya (talk • contribs) 03:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Please
Before you make drastic judgments about people and drastic changes to article coming out of the blue, please, discuss why you think you had to make the change. Aditya (talk • contribs) 15:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, Aditya, please be very careful about reverting other edits while using rollback feature. Don't misuse this feature further, like the one you made here. Rollback supposed be used only for reverting vandalism. The edit made by User:King Zebu was not vandalism. Also your judgmental tone in this edit summary, indicates incivility--NAHID 17:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Chinese Influence Clearly visible
These kingdoms prospered from the Spice Route, trade among themselves and the Indian kingdoms. The influence of Indian culture is visible in the script, grammar, religious observances, festivities, architecture and artistic idioms even today. The blend of Indian, Chinese influences and native cultures, created a new synthesis. The Southeast Asian region was previously called by the name Indochina. The influence of Indian and Chinese cultures are both strongly visible in this region even today. The reception of Hinduism and Buddhism aided the civilizational maturity of these kingdoms but also subjected them (in rare cases) to aggression by Indian and Chinese rulers. And though Southeast Asia is an economic powerhouse in its own right, the need to balance Chinese economic and political influence with that of India remains an important factor for the region.

Block quote

This says the blend of Indian and Chinese culture, no country in Southeast Asia absorbed both Chinese and Indian culture equally and blending them. The only Indo-Chinese country with visible Chinese influence is Vietnam, and it did not have substantial Indian influence. I am changing it. CanCanDuo 02:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

In Vietnam, Champa had both Indian and Chinese culture. Also in Vietnam, Funan clearly had a strong Chinese trading connection and regular diplomatic relations; a cultural connection with China is probable there as well. (RookZERO 00:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC))


 * I disagree. Modern Vietnam is dominated by the kinhs, who are heavily sinocized.  Any Indian influence from them is either from china, the chams or cambodia.  Champa is wholly Indian in culture, from its arts to its script.  Any chinese influence on them are mostly from the Kinhs in later periods.  Funan are also culturally Indian, diplomatic ties with china isn't a synthesis of two cultures, it is merely political.  Chinese documents on funan states that when they arrived, the funanese were already trading with indians and absorbing indian culture and influences.  Search Youtube for funan and you might get an understanding.


 * See Yasothon and Thai Chinese. Lee 18:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 18:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Indian reunification section
I re-instated a section on Indian reunification added by an anonymous user, since when people discuss Greater India, they usually discuss it in the context of Indian reunification. (e.g. Korean reunification, Romanian reunification etc..)

If anyone wishes to debate it (User:Abecedare asked me to provide a rationale for it) then feel free to do so. I don't see any POV in the article, it is just an ideology, however if people wish to remove the section, I don't have any objections. Cheers. --RaviC (talk) 10:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The rationale, notwithstanding the good faith, still doesn't match up to WP:BOP. Removing the section again. No hard feelings. We can always discuss. Aditya  (talk • contribs) 18:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Indian reunification
This new article needs work. mrigthrishna (talk) 07:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Moved in from the merged article Indian reunification

BEWARE!!! of personal POV and Biased ATTACKS!!!
This article is rife for personal pov and bias attacks. Do not remove referenced texts just because you personally dont like the idea.

mrigthrishna (talk) 07:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

DO NOT CENSOR!!!

Editors are requested not to "CENSOR" referenced text because of personal biases. Thanks mrigthrishna (talk) 07:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

delete this
Currently this article consists wholly of original research with no citations in Reliable sources. While the "Akand Bharath" concept has been covered in Greater India. This article cannot be improved. I will propose it for deletion if Reliable sources cannot be found for sourcing this.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that this needs to be removed. Please delete this offensive article, this an insult to the unique identities and the sacrifices of those that gave up their lives for their independent countries. Furthermore, there was never a unified india, rather a South Asia that was amalgamated into one colonial unit complements of the British to the annexed the region. This article needs to be deleted immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.116.64 (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You'd think people's sensibilities wouldn't be so sensitive to admit that parts of their cultures were influenced from elsewhere. I will once again copy paste a list of reasons why this subject is valid;

Part of the lack of usage of such a term is due the unessecary nature of such in the past. Before the partition of India, India, as described by European merchants stretched from modern Pakistan to the bay of Bengal. In addition, non-Indian ethnic groups were described in various sketches and drawings by European merchants, travelers, and missionaries, describing 'Sikhs, Afghans, Maratha' as casts of India. In addition, the term Hindu being derived from Shindu river, Hindu originally being an ethnic term for peoples living beyond the river valley (modern Sindh and west Pakistan are part of this valley). Additionally, the Kingdom of Ghandara was well withing the Indian cultural sphere, Taxilla near modern Islamabad and the Afghan area of Peshawar was governed by the Indian Emperor Ashoka while he was still a prince. In addtion the area was host to a university and learned scholars who predominantly featured Indian ideas, and was a major center of Bhuddism. Modern Peshawar was home to shah-ji 'deri?' (not sure on the spelling of that term) meaning the mound/temple of the great king (shah - king and ji - Indian honorific, again a temple in Peshawar using an indian honorific) was a bhuddist temple.

While this map is obviously very bad, it is remarkable when you consider it is much older than 2000 years, and was the earliest to draw the world in such a scale. India as concieved by the Greeks can be seen at the eastern edge covering the region beyond the Hindu Kush mountains - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Mappa_di_Eratostene.jpg

Lastly, the Hindu kush mountains historically were the boundry of major 'Hindu' cultural presences as a natural barrier. Today these mountains are in western Pakistan and Around Kabul in Afghanistan. I could go into more information if requested, but suffice it to say, Indic influence certainly was present in the region of Khabul, and the Bactrian kingdom of northern Afghanistan and Tajikistan was also host to Indic culture and practices, although this was much more peripheral compared to direct rule and cultural influence in Ghandara, and thus is best left off a map or mentioned only as a peripheral region recieving more minor influence. The pali language as well was used by the Indo-greeks, present in modern Pakistan and eastern Afghanistan, pali being a language of the Bhudda and a language from Eastern India.

The use of 'Greater India' is therefore very useful to explain the extent of Indic influence geographically in Asia. Just as Sino-civilization is a useful term to explain the cultural links between Korea, Japan, and Vietnam to China, especially from the Tang dynasty which had a major cultural effect on Japan. In fact, to see Tang architecture, you would be better off visiting Japan, where Tang influenced architecture is present to this day.

Now since the concepts of 'cultural regions' has been established as a very real phenomenon, the only question is what to call it. And while some may disagree with 'greater India', I would say the term fits well enough, since British India was the forerunner to modern India, and included Pakistan (a term far, far older, by a couple thousand years than 'Pakistan' which is roughly 100 years old). India is afterall called so for the Indus or Shindu river. You could call it the 'greater Indus cultural sphere' but the problem with that is the break between the ancient Indus civilization and later Indo-Aryan civilizations would perhaps be done injustice by the term Indus sphere since it may suggest that. In addition, any term must have academic usage, and the only other term I've heard used in academic literature, especially British, is British India or Greater India.

As an aside, I find the south-east Asian connections valid as well, we know of Burmese usage of terms like Raja and Mandala, both from India. Hindu religion in Champa and Cambodia (Angor wat was an ancient Hindu temple before being converted into a Bhuddist one, and examine the architecture to see the resemblance to Hindu temples in India today.

In addition, with the exception of Vietnam ( A sino-influenced nation which is like Sino nations, Mahayana bhuddist) most South east asian nations are Theravada Buddhist, a branch of Buddism originating in South Asia/India. Showing religous influence of Hinduism and Buddism both had an Indian dimension, espicially the usage of terms like Raja by Burmese, the god Indra which influenced the naming of a city Indrapura in modern South vietnam (pura being a suffix for cities in India, Indra being a god in Hinduism) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/VietnamChampa1.gif not to mention the name of the capital of medieval Thailand, Ayutthai was influenced by Ayodha where 'Rama' the epitome of man, or ideal king shows it's influence in Thailand. In Iran the city of Nishapur again shows the pur suffix associated with dozens of South Asian cities.

It's very, very clear there is a cultural linkage throughout the region described by the term 'Greater India' I think people have a problem with the name. Well India is called Bharat by the Indians themselves, so perhaps just start calling India Bharat in English and all your hesitations will go away. Frankly it'd be easier for people to not just get offended over a word. Are we going to have to rename the 'India plate' as well in geology/geography? The term Europe doesn't ever draw a lot of hate, despite the fact it similarly terms a culturally linked region.

Replace Sentance
In the first section the sentance "....even led to the cause of terrorist attacks on India from Pakistan" gives an impression that the attack was officially lauched by Pakistan. Please avoid manipulation. I propose deleting the words "from Pakistan". Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.97.184 (talk) 09:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Indian Reunification be merged into Greater India. there is already a section in both places. both do not contain any reliable sources, but the section in Greater India is part of a bigger article on the subject. Alternatively, the content in Indian Reunification can be deleted outright (or nominated for speedy deletion). Thanks. JguyTalkDone 18:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could speedily keep it as it is. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.68.115 (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No reliable sources has been cited in this section. In fact, there has been no ongoing talks for any merger proposal. A mere google-search can be done to prove this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.32.200.114 (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

delete this
Currently this article consists wholly of original research with no citations in Reliable sources. While the "Akand Bharath" concept has been covered in Greater India. This article cannot be improved. I will propose it for deletion if Reliable sources cannot be found for sourcing this.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that this needs to be removed. Please delete this offensive article, this an insult to the unique identities and the sacrifices of those that gave up their lives for their independent countries. Furthermore, there was never a unified india, rather a South Asia that was amalgamated into one colonial unit complements of the British to the annexed the region. This article needs to be deleted immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.116.64 (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This article is an editorial. After the first couple sentences, no attempt is made to report objectively about the topic or describe it from a neutral point of view. I don't think this belongs on Wikipedia, given the inability of most contributors to this article to abide by the WP:NOTSOAPBOX policy. AtticusX (talk) 05:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have added a lot more content, mostly on the unification of Pakistan - India - Bangladesh, it might be from other articles but it's still there. I just discovered the article yesterday and well I have added a lot and have adopted the article.

"Undivided India" is a currently used official legal term
"Undivided India" is a currently used official legal term, references to the term Undivided India are found in legal enactments of the Republic of India, including its Citizenship Act 1955, which states that in the context of the Act "undivided India means India as defined in the Government of India Act 1935".

Please find references for this article and improve it.

Thanks

mrigthrishna (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That effectively means British Raj. So, I'm redirecting the article there. Wikipedia is also not a dictionary. --Ragib (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * An IP has reverted the merge, i have changed back. Heard tried won (talk) 09:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion proposal
This article tries to undermine the historical perspective of all other nation state in the Indian sub continent and try to impose hindu nationalist history. This article is biased and can cause unrest in the international relation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhil.bharathan (talk • contribs) 19:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Again? You want us to pretend the historical cultural links, from Indian style temples in south east Asia, the usage of the term mandala and Raja by the Burmans etc. don't exist because you think it's offensive? I'm just going to copy paste again, because so many of the objections to this article require the same response.

Part of the lack of usage of such a term is due the unessecary nature of such in the past. Before the partition of India, India, as described by European merchants stretched from modern Pakistan to the bay of Bengal. In addition, non-Indian ethnic groups were described in various sketches and drawings by European merchants, travelers, and missionaries, describing 'Sikhs, Afghans, Maratha' as casts of India. In addition, the term Hindu being derived from Shindu river, Hindu originally being an ethnic term for peoples living beyond the river valley (modern Sindh and west Pakistan are part of this valley). Additionally, the Kingdom of Ghandara was well withing the Indian cultural sphere, Taxilla near modern Islamabad and the Afghan area of Peshawar was governed by the Indian Emperor Ashoka while he was still a prince. In addtion the area was host to a university and learned scholars who predominantly featured Indian ideas, and was a major center of Bhuddism. Modern Peshawar was home to shah-ji 'deri?' (not sure on the spelling of that term) meaning the mound/temple of the great king (shah - king and ji - Indian honorific, again a temple in Peshawar using an indian honorific) was a bhuddist temple.

While this map is obviously very bad, it is remarkable when you consider it is much older than 2000 years, and was the earliest to draw the world in such a scale. India as concieved by the Greeks can be seen at the eastern edge covering the region beyond the Hindu Kush mountains - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Mappa_di_Eratostene.jpg

Lastly, the Hindu kush mountains historically were the boundry of major 'Hindu' cultural presences as a natural barrier. Today these mountains are in western Pakistan and Around Kabul in Afghanistan. I could go into more information if requested, but suffice it to say, Indic influence certainly was present in the region of Khabul, and the Bactrian kingdom of northern Afghanistan and Tajikistan was also host to Indic culture and practices, although this was much more peripheral compared to direct rule and cultural influence in Ghandara, and thus is best left off a map or mentioned only as a peripheral region recieving more minor influence. The pali language as well was used by the Indo-greeks, present in modern Pakistan and eastern Afghanistan, pali being a language of the Bhudda and a language from Eastern India.

The use of 'Greater India' is therefore very useful to explain the extent of Indic influence geographically in Asia. Just as Sino-civilization is a useful term to explain the cultural links between Korea, Japan, and Vietnam to China, especially from the Tang dynasty which had a major cultural effect on Japan. In fact, to see Tang architecture, you would be better off visiting Japan, where Tang influenced architecture is present to this day.

Now since the concepts of 'cultural regions' has been established as a very real phenomenon, the only question is what to call it. And while some may disagree with 'greater India', I would say the term fits well enough, since British India was the forerunner to modern India, and included Pakistan (a term far, far older, by a couple thousand years than 'Pakistan' which is roughly 100 years old). India is afterall called so for the Indus or Shindu river. You could call it the 'greater Indus cultural sphere' but the problem with that is the break between the ancient Indus civilization and later Indo-Aryan civilizations would perhaps be done injustice by the term Indus sphere since it may suggest that. In addition, any term must have academic usage, and the only other term I've heard used in academic literature, especially British, is British India or Greater India.

As an aside, I find the south-east Asian connections valid as well, we know of Burmese usage of terms like Raja and Mandala, both from India. Hindu religion in Champa and Cambodia (Angor wat was an ancient Hindu temple before being converted into a Bhuddist one, and examine the architecture to see the resemblance to Hindu temples in India today.

In addition, with the exception of Vietnam ( A sino-influenced nation which is like Sino nations, Mahayana bhuddist) most South east asian nations are Theravada Buddhist, a branch of Buddism originating in South Asia/India. Showing religous influence of Hinduism and Buddism both had an Indian dimension, espicially the usage of terms like Raja by Burmese, the god Indra which influenced the naming of a city Indrapura in modern South vietnam (pura being a suffix for cities in India, Indra being a god in Hinduism) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/VietnamChampa1.gif not to mention the name of the capital of medieval Thailand, Ayutthai was influenced by Ayodha where 'Rama' the epitome of man, or ideal king shows it's influence in Thailand. In Iran the city of Nishapur again shows the pur suffix associated with dozens of South Asian cities.

It's very, very clear there is a cultural linkage throughout the region described by the term 'Greater India' I think people have a problem with the name. Well India is called Bharat by the Indians themselves, so perhaps just start calling India Bharat in English and all your hesitations will go away. Frankly it'd be easier for people to not just get offended over a word. Are we going to have to rename the 'India plate' as well in geology/geography? The term Europe doesn't ever draw a lot of hate, despite the fact it similarly terms a culturally linked region.

Overstepping the bounds of copy editing
Hello! I really hacked and slashed parts of this article, especially the section “Undivided India”. Most of the stuff in there had nothing to do with the term Greater India or Undivided India, which is what I thought the article was about up to that point. It was un-sourced and used weasel words and editorializing that didn't exactly contribute to NPOV. Anyway, revert it if you like. But I think the section is much more concise now, and you can still read about Anushilan Samiti and the partition of India at their respective articles. Regards. Braincricket (talk) 06:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Indianised Kingdoms
The role of Pallavas and Cholas in cultural indianisation of Southeast Asia and their contributions in the formation of the indianised kingdom in SEA must be elaborated more detailly and in more specific forms indicating the role of cholas and pallavs separately.Some evidence also indicates they might be Pandyans occurence during the ancient and medieval era in SEA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tan Meifen (talk • contribs) 13:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Undivided India
Removed this large piece of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR that was just lying there untended for a long time. Sorry about this, but someone had to remove this from the article. I'm posting the stuff here. Please, try not to put it back to the article without addressing the issues. Only, I really can't see anything encyclopedic in this mishmash of random information connected by the existence of the phrase "undivided India".

Undivided India (Hindustani: अखण्ड भारत (Devanagari) اکھنڈ بھارت (Nastaleeq) ) or Akhand Hindustan (Hindustani: अखण्ड हिन्दुस्तान (Devanagari) اکھنڈ ہندوستان (Nastaleeq) ), also known natively as Akhand Bharat, is a legal term. References to Undivided India are found in legal enactments of the Republic of India, including its Citizenship Act 1955, which states that "undivided India means India as defined in the Government of India Act 1935"

Undivided India refers to the major part of South Asia which comprised India under the British Raj and included what have since become the sovereign states of India, Bangladesh and Pakistan. Most other references of Undivided India signify “India” as it existed just before the partition of India into the republic of India and the Islamic republic of Pakistan.

Anushilan Samiti was an armed anti-British organisation in British India  and the principal secret revolutionary organisation operating in the region of Bengal during the opening years of the 20th century. Its symbol included the motto “United India”.

In current times the passports of Indian citizens born before 1947 in areas which are part of Pakistan or Bangladesh commonly show "Undivided India" as the country of birth. The Government of India and its embassies and consulates abroad issue birth certificates to these Indian citizens as having been born in the country "Undivided India".

Please, discuss. Thanks. Aditya (talk • contribs) 09:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If this is properly referenced and put back, the irredentism template which is relevant to this content should also be put back. -- lTopGunl (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Synthesized or off-topic material, no matter how well sourced, are not acceptable. The irredentismtemplate is completely unnecessary, because no such thing has been discussed in the article. Aditya  (talk • contribs) 10:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is relevant to the above text. If that text is sourced (and added), there will be enough weight for this to be included. There are sources which actually say that irredentism exists in India. Note that Undivided india redirected here and my indication was towards this text and not the article or this topic. I've corrected that redirect. Adding a hat note to distinguish. -- lTopGunl (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Undivided India ("I" capitalized for proper spelling) was already leading to Akhand Bharat. Besides the text above has no reference to any irredentism (i'd say it has no reference to anything sensible). Aditya  (talk • contribs) 11:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As obvious.. I searched with small 'i' which should also have redirected to that article. I corrected that. I guess this content will belong to that article with what ever improvements. -- lTopGunl (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Even there these random pieces of information fits nowhere with any relevance. You can try placing them. Aditya  (talk • contribs) 05:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Will try.. but the content lacks references as of now. -- lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 08:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content by Snowcountryomas
, such links simply proves that the recent revisions made by the user "Snowcountryomas" are just not correct, hope he will carry some discussion about this, instead of labeling the version as "baseless information". OccultZone (talk) 07:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The ASEANs
Aren't the South East Asian countries historically called Indo-China, which means the area was influenced by both Indian and Chinese cultures? In fact, it is known that Vietnam, Siam used to have the unified Indo-China vision.

In addition, it seems Buddhism has died off in India, whereas the East Asians (Notably Chinese Japanese Koreans) and South East Asians are still believing in it. As I recall, Buddhism is one key characteristics of the East Asian Culture. So it seems strange to me to put South East Asian countries into this so-called "Greater India" but not East Asian countries. I imagine in history, the states must be very different from now. So I even suspect if there still exist cultural correlation between India and the southeast Asia communities, as you know Buddhism has disappeared in modern India. aichi Lee 18:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aichilee (talk • contribs)

I agree. This article is full of original research and reeks of Indian nationalism bias. Although Buddhism/Hinduism flourished at SEA at that time, the kingdoms of the Indian subcontinent did not have overlordship on the SEA kingdoms e.g Srivijaya and Majapahit. Modern Malaysia and Singapore are now predominantly Muslim, are they part of the Arab world? Adding an NPOV tag on page heading. Arif920629 (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

They were called Indo-China as a geographical term more so than cultural, although both were true, the first to call it that were doing so because it lied between the Indian and Chinese realms. Once again I will lay out the reasons why these arguments of 'Indian propaganda' are pretty strange considering we have physical evidence that was actually found by British archaeologists who were the ones interested in discovering this stuff. It's fascinating from a historical/anthropological perspective, and I think it says a lot about some insecure people who can't handle that, yes, in fact, there are cultural influences in your nation that aren't yours. In fact the Indians themselves are the result of the Aryan migration from central Asia. Pretty much all places have had foreign cultures leave their mark. Read my other responses in this thread to get a more in depth response to why this article isn't just 'Indian propaganda' and rather a dimension to the regional diffusion of ties.

In addition user Arif, direct rule was not required for 'cultural influence' to be present, just as The pope didn't have to conquer Poland to spread catholic influence or for Poland to be a part of the 'greater catholic world'. Plus the use of Malaysian muslims being a part of the Arab world example is flawed, you're intentionally mixing up religion and ethnicity without realizing that the argument isn't that this is a greater India ETHNICALLY, but greater India CULTURALLY. A more honest question would be:

Is Malaysia part of the Islamic world? To which the answer is, yes, definately, the influence from clothing, to language, to architecture all show influence from the Muslim world. Just as the Temples in South east Asia, terms for a king (raja), names of cities, indrapura and Ayuthayya, and religions show a cultural link to India, not to mention that just because Buddhism is a small minority in India now, doesn't change the fact that that Chinese Buddhism (Mahayana) is only the branch in Vietnam, in the rest of South East Asia, it's Theravada Buddism, or a more Indic Buddhism that's present. The ideas in Buddhism, from reincarnation, to karma/dharma are Indian ideas. This doesn't change just because Indians no longer worship the religion themselves. Lastly, these regions also worshipped Hindu gods at one point, with a city named Indrapura in south Vietnam (all the way on the edge of south-east Asia) pura as a suffix for city, and Indra a Hindu god of rain. Sanskrit and Pali, Indo-aryan languages were present and have many loan words in South East asian languages, and some regions, like Indonesia, were even directly ruled by Indic dynasties like the Cholas. The term Raja (the indian ideal king) was spread throughout south east asia.

Lastly, a link to a very Indian-cultural sphere kingdom in modern Cambodia, thailand, and laos - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Empire

The ruler declared himself a chakravartin, king of kings, a very important concept in Hindu mythology/India.

Merge Articles
Hi - it has been suggested to incorporate the article History of Indian influence on Southeast Asia into this one. Any objections? Wikirictor (talk) 06:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Merge Articles2
Hi! i have merged the articles - effectively deleted large sections of the other article. A chronology was missing anyway and this country list stuffed with ad hoc data is not very useful for a greater understanding of the historic process. Still, the entire article requires a better structure. Section "Indian cultural sphere" and particularly "Cultural expansion" is a repetition of the chronology of the Indianized Kingdoms. Wikirictor (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Consensus
Hi! I made considerable changes in the article. No responses? No objection? Please, let's work together. Wikirictor (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Lead sentence
There are major issues in the lead. I have added tags to the lead sentence. The justification for each tag is in the edit summary accompanying its addition. This is not some kind of April Fool's joke. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  20:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've undone all my edits. Don't have the time.  But someone who seriously wants to improve the page will be able to retrieve the tags from the page's edit history.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The content now factually incorrect. September 2017. All the best Wikirictor  08:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Revisiting and questioning the degree of Indianisation in the Philippines
While most of other parts of Southeast Asia, such as Cambodia, Indonesia (esp. Sumatra, Java and Bali), Malay peninsula, Burma, Thailand, South and Central Vietnam (historic Champa) clearly shows Indic or Dharmic civilization influence (through the historic propagation of Hindu-Buddhist faith). This is owed to clear archaeological evidences such as the discovery of Hindu temple ruins, especially Angkor in Cambodia and Indonesian candi mostly in Java, the degree of Indianized influence in the Philippines archipelago is quite problematic. This is because the scarcity of evidences, plus this field is a relatively new study in the field of archaeology in the Philippienes, thus the lack of scholarly books or journals. We need to address this question objectively, fairly and carefully. Do ancient Philippines really that Indianised? or actually more influenced by their native tribal model of social polity, therefore Indic influences was only minimal. Or probably Indic Hindu Buddhist influence was second degree exposure, acquired from other part of Southeast Asia. Since several moths ago there was this Philippines editor (that now has become a sockmaster/sockpuppet) that wishes to present or propose ("pushing" is a more acurate term) the thesis that there was "A strong Indic civilization presence in pre-Hispanic Philippines. As the result in his edits, there was an overepresentation, overexposure of things Philippines and some POV pushing, plus ref falsifying that bordering pseudohistory in most of Pre-Hispanic Philippines and Hindu-Buddhist-related articles. Sure, there was the discovery of Laguna Copperplate inscription, golden Tara and Kinnara artifacts. Did ancient Philippines polities such as Tondo and Maynila was a Hindu Kingdom? To date there is no stone inscriptions or Hindu/Buddhist temple ruins, or large stone murti (statues of Hindu gods) ever discovered in the Philippines, which cast the doubt wether ancient Philippines was a Hindu/Buddhist kingdom, since temples or the erection of lingam is an essential evidence/ritual of Hindu statecraft. Unlike actual temple sites or stone inscription, the small (gold) artifact discovered in the Philippines is moveable, and there is a possibility that they might be taken/acquired from somewhere else. Given the notorious piracy practice in Sulu and Southern Philippines archipelago, who knows, maybe the treasue might be looted from somewhere else. Recently, I cleaned up this links to Philippines matters that questionably linked to Hindu-Buddhist matters. I think we need to fairly put this issue in perspective, and avoid undue representation of the Philippines as "possessing strong Hindu-Buddhist culture" as proposed by this Filipino editor. Thank you. —  Gunkarta  talk 15:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe this article will answer your question; Indian cultural influences in early Philippine polities -114.124.228.102 (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * A summary of what I know on this matter, much of which has already been pointed out in Indian cultural influences in early Philippine polities:
 * 1. The exact scope, sequence, and mechanism of Indian cultural influences in early Philippine polities are the subject of much debate among scholars of Philippine and Southeast Asian history and historiography.
 * 2. The current scholarly consensus, reflecting the current discussions on anthropologists and historiographers specializing in both Philippine History and SoutheastAsian History, is that the Philippines was not directly Indianized, but instead received indirect cultural influence in a manner similar to afghanistan and northern vietnam. The distinction is considered important. It agrees that Indian cultural ideas arrived and influenced the Philippines, but were filtered through an Austronesian mindset. (My references for this include the works of F. Landa Jocano, William Henry Scott (historian), Gilda Cordero Fernando, and Milton Osborne, and numerous other minor works.)
 * 3. "Indirect" here means that the cultural influence did not come directly from Indian cultures, but from the Indianized Austronesian culture of the Madjapahit empire.
 * 4. Event those scholars that assert that the Philippine archipelago was "within the mainstream of the Indian trade area" (scholars who disagree with the consensus I described in item 2) still agree that it was part of that trade through the Madjapahit. This seems to me to be the position of Malcolm Churchill, but I can't claim to have finished reading his paper, so I don't want to misrepresent him.
 * 5. I know of no scholarship that asserts that a "pure" Indian influence ever made significant inroads in precolonial Philippines. Even the archeological evidence, such as the Golden Tara, reflect major cultural changes from "Hindu-Buddhist artifacts" found elsewhere in the Indian Ocean trade zone.  There are, however, many popular/non-specialist sites that do not draw a distinction between "Indianized" and "indirectly influenced by Indian culture."
 * 6. In terms of local Philippine historiography: the belief in the idea that the early Philippine polities were "indianized" reflects the early (pro-colonialist) nationalist-modernist beliefs of the Philippines' immediate pre-WW2 and immediate Post-WW2 eras (aka the 30s and the 50s/60s)... perhaps best represented by the writings of Gregorio Zaide. The rise of the critical historiography tradition (around the time that the Maragtas story was "debunked") has led current scholarship to shift away from this belief.  But the nationalist-modernist paradigms are still the mindset of many non-specialist publications (A.) because it was strongly promoted by government during the Martial Law (1972-1981) and Bagong Lipunan (1981-1986) periods, for political reasons (it provided a philosophical argument for authoritarianism), (B.) because "indianized" is catchier than "indirectly influenced" and many non-specialists can't tell the difference anyway, and (C.) because many Philippine school textbooks simply weren't updated until very recently.
 * I hope this helps. Thanks. - Alternativity (talk) 04:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That was very comprehensive! Thank you very much Alternativity... Cheers! -  Gunkarta  talk 07:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greater India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071120043520/http://www.questhimalaya.com/journal/turin-tibeto-burman-02.htm to http://www.questhimalaya.com/journal/turin-tibeto-burman-02.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Central Asia
I've notice that this article also includes areas which were culturally influenced by India. However, Central Asia is not included. While no Indian kingdom seems to had ever extended control over Central Asia, Buddhism did exist here as a result of the non-Indian people like Kushanas or Hepthalites who adopted Indian culture or Indic religions and also ruled over parts of India. As fat as I know, Philippines too wasn't ever under Indian control, however non-Indian kingdoms with Indian culture too ruled it. What is the requirement for an area to be included here? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it's wise to leave anything north of Kabul and the Hindu Kush mountains off the list. They were on the periphery, and while it's clear Indic influence from coins, to merchants, to language, and religion was present, it was really in addition to the cultures already there. In the ancient world they were definitely more a part of the Iranian world than Indic, Kabul being the westernmost extent to which strong and direct Indic culture was present, and past which you're sort of seeing far more Iranian influence. There was a a form of Zoroastrian/Manichean/mazadan religion in Bactria that blended Iranian-Greek-Hindu-Buddhist religions, but again, this was the periphery, and Hindu-Buddhist blending was ALONG Iranian and Greek bactrian merging, again I would suggest there is stronger links to Iran in this region.

Corresponding to the artifacts found in Philippines and the degree of Indianization
The Indianiztion of the Philippines might be a result of an "indirect" influence, but i found some comments of members of which is "ridiculous". if where the golden artifacts where "just looted" (just because they where "sophisticated"), but if so, how come that the ancient gold smith workshop sites in Batangas, Batanes (Zafra, Jessica (2008-04-26). "Art Exhibit: Philippines' 'Gold of Ancestors'". Newsweek. Retrieved 2017-12-27.) and Butuan and some complete with construction tools and fragments where existing there in the first place?. It means, they have a capability to make jewelries and figurines specially Indian-influenced arts. actually records from the voyages of Ferdinand Magellan discovering the Philippines in 1521. when Magellan got lost in the Philippines and landed in Cebu,  He saw an overwhelming presence of gold. (that was being recorded by his men), and the ancient got the gold by panning the soil in the ground or in the river side or bed's and mold the gold by hammering it to expand. That find provides evidence of indigenous Philippine manufacture of jewelries, and since India or in other Srivijaya and Majapahit where influenced the Philippine islands, it is possible that artifact can be manufactured or replicate by the locals, (as if they where trying to say that the Filipino's where "incapable" of doing  gold art). So, i certainly don't think it was been looted "there" by  the locals in common senses if you can any make of these. Nationalist ideals? i don't think so, the Archeologists who did the research of these artifacts like H.O. Beyer is not a Filipino. So in my opinion, their statemet's where only a opinion or excuse, using a "cherry picking methods" of information (or one-sided fact telling basis) just to impose the exclusion.(Enola gay0 (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)).