Talk:India/Archive 5

Sati

 * Proof that RRR's role was adstratum to the British Law and NOT substratum:

History of Medieval India by Hukam Chand P461:

Raja Ram Mohan Roy counterpetitioned that Sati was inhuman and unjust. It was because of his cooperation that in 1829 Lord William Bentick could declare Sati against the Law [all over British India]

Hkelkar 06:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Also read Social Structure of India by Ajit Kumar Sinha P234.Hkelkar 06:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact, "Role of the Social Reformer in a Welfare State" by Bhalchandra Narayan Gokhale P6 states that some Maratha rulers prior to the British had also banned sati in their confederacy but we don't take that into account because it was localized like the Bengal Presidency ban (The Maratha Confederacy, at it's zenith, was bigger than the Bengal Presidency would be later on).

Furthermore, Sati was also declared illegal in Rajputana (Rajasthan) around 1820 but, again, the implementation failed. It was only RRR's success at lobbying for and enforcing the ban that created a chain reaction that spread throughout the colonies, eventually even the Princely States like Rajputana:

Rajputana Agency, 1832-1858: A Study of British Relations with the States of Rajputana During the British Raj by Vijay Kumar Vashishtha.Hkelkar 07:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, see Raja Rammohun Roy : An Apostle of Indian Awakening/edited by S.K. Sharma


 * Furthermore, RRR first criticized sati in writing in 1818, BEFORE the presidency banned it in 1829. Thus, his campaign started FIRST.

Sati: Historical and Phenomenological Essays by Arvind sharma P7 Hkelkar 07:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are a lot of books on the subject which confirm this point of view. One only needs to take a glance at books such as The Socio-Political Philosophy of Swami Vivekananda by Bhaiya Subhash Chandra Prasad and History of Medieval India by Hukam Chand to name a few. This matter is addressed in many books and reseach papers.

I found Human Rights and Societies in Transition: Causes, Consequences, Responses by Shale Horowitz, Albrecht Schnabel particularly interesting. A couple of quotes from page 364 of the book are mentioned below:-

In modern history, Raja Ram Mohan Roy can be considered as the father of the India's human rights movement. He was the first to oppose all discriminations and evil practices against women. He pursued his efforts against polygamy and sati (widow burning) at two levels: first, he approached the British rules directly to legally ban such practices; second, he mobilized the masses in favour of such a ban.

As a result of Raja Ram's efforts, Lord William Bentick, then Governer General, passed resolution XVII in December 1829, which declared Sati illegal and punishable.

In addition, Alokmonjari, a woman in RRR's relation was subjected to sati (presumably against her will) and RRR's work against this custom is traced to his very rise to prominence. His work in the Samaj is highlighted though.

On request a series of papers and more books substantiating the matter to greater extent will be provided. I'm saving this exertion on grounds of assumption that those opposing this POV will understand that like most cases of selective revisionist history, their case is extremely thin on actual evidence and citation.

Best Regards.

Freedom skies 09:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the references above seem very obscure. I have not heard of any of these "historians."  The publishers (where known) are equally obscure.  Here's what the amazon.com search turned up for them:


 * History of Medieval India by Hukum Chand: doesn't turn up on Amazon.com
 * Social Structure of India by Ajit Kuman Sinha. Published by Sinha Publishing House (Distributed by Firma K.L. Mukhopadhyay).  First edition 1974.  Out of print since 1974! Not a standard history text.
 * Role of the social reformer in a welfare state, (Bombay Gandhi Smarak Nidhi. Vaikunth L. Mehta memorial lecture) (Unknown Binding, total 24 pages). 1967.  Does show up on Amazon, but has been out of print since 1967!  This is certainly not a standard history text.
 * Rajputana Agency, 1832-1858: A Study of British Relations with the States of Rajputana During the British Raj by Vijay Kumar Vashishtha. Doesn't show up on Amazon.com
 * The Socio-Political Philosopy of Swami Vivekananda by Bhaiya Subhash Chandra Prasad is a Ph.D. thesis (unknown university) published on-line by dissertation.com!
 * Human Rights and Societies in Transition: Causes, Consequences, Responses (Paperback) by Shale Asher Horowitz (Editor), Albrecht Schnabel (Editor), it turns out is an edited book. The quote is from an article in the book by D.R. Kaarthikeyan, who it turns out is a former director of the Central Bureau of Investigation of India (and not a professional historian)!


 * HKelkar and Fredom Skies, please don't inflict any more of your "references" either on me or on other Wikipedia readers. I'm not going to revert what you have written.  Wikipedia readers can make up their own minds.  I'm providing 4 references below (from standard history books published by Oxford, Cambridge, and Penguin--references that you will find on amazon.com and can even search in).  Fowler&amp;fowler 18:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Listen dude. All of the refs cited are available in the Perry-Castañeda Library of the University of Texas at Austin, which is one of the premier libraries in North America.I can get them and cite them precisely if needed, so please don;t waste my time with spurious claims as their availability in notable scholarly repositories attest to their reliability.Hkelkar 01:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Apparently, two of the books cited by you and Freedom skies do not even show up (where you claim you can find them) in the catalog of the Perry-Castañeda Library of the University of Texas:


 * Search results for "History of Medieval India" by Hukum Chand
 * Search results for the "Socio-Political Philosophy of Swami Vivekananda" by Bhaiya Subhash Chandra Prasad
 * Fowler&amp;fowler 04:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Take a trip to the PCL stacks and look at it. Not all books are catalogued online:

Information on the book: ISBN : 8126123133

Year of Publication : 2005

552 pages

Anmol Publications PVT. LTD.

I did not cite the Prasad book.

Also, see:


 * 1) Social Structure of India by Ajit Kumar Sinha P234, where he states RRR's role in banning sati BEFORE the British role.
 * 2) British Imperialism and Indian Nationalism by By K. (Kasturiranga) Santhanam

Hkelkar 05:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sati: Bentinck vs. Rammohun Roy
No one is saying that Raja Ram Mohan Roy didn't play an influential role in the abolition of Sati, but, as far as I can tell, his role was not primary. Bentinck was influenced by British utilitarians (primarily Bentham and Mill) and the Christian evangelists who had been clamoring since the mid-eighteenth century for the abolition of sati. It certainly helped Bentinck that Roy was also active in opposing sati and he used Roy's support initially. However, in the end, Roy opposed the legal abolition of sati, but that didn't stop Bentinck from abolishing it. See fourth reference below. To imply that the impetus came only from RRR and the Indians and that the British would not have acted on it otherwise, is a distortion of history. Here are references (followed by the quotes):


 * Stein, Burton. 1998.  A History of India.  Basil Blackwell Oxford (Reprinted by Oxford University Press India 2001).  ISBN 0195654463
 * Metcalf, Thomas R. 1997.  Ideologies of the Raj (New Cambridge History of India), 256 pages, Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521589371
 * Spear, Percival. 1990.  A History of India, Volume 2  Penguin Books.  298 pages.  ISBN 0140138366
 * Hawley, John Stratton (ed). 1994.   Sati, the Blessing and the Curse: The Burning of Wives in India  Oxford University Press.  232 pages.  ISBN 0195077741

1) From: Stein, Burton. 1998.  A History of India.  Basil Blackwell Oxford (Reprinted by Oxford University Press India 2001).  ISBN 0195654463

"The most celebrated of Bentinck's interventions concerned the abolition of sati (or 'suttee', the immolation of Hindu widows in the cremation fires of their husbands), which along with that of other 'odious practices', was pressed on the Company as an objective of reform by the increasing number of Christian missionaries and British business travellers present in India. The issue of Sati abolition gave rise to a great controversy. Most notably it divided the generation of Indian intellectuals and commercial men who had grown up with the rise of British power and were now obliged to confront its fuller meaning for the future of their own society.  On one side stoood the likes of Ram Mohun Roy, who was strongly opposed to the practice.  Roy not only brought to bear a variety of learned arguments to support his case, but showed deep sympathy over the cruelties and indignities women were forced to endure in everyday life; (p222)"

Metcalf, Thomas R. 1997. Ideologies of the Raj (New Cambridge History of India), 256 pages, Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521589371 "With the coming of Lord William Bentinck as Governor-General in 1828, the British avowedly embarked upon a thorough-going programme of reform. Building upon what had previously been little more than a vague expectation that somehow British rule ought to bring 'improvement' to India, free traders, utilitarians, and evangelicals created a distinctive ideology of imperial governance shaped by the ideals of liberalism. From Bentinck's time to that of Lord Dalhousie (1848-56) this reformist sentiment gained a near universal ascendancy among the British in India."

From: Spear, Percival. 1990. A History of India, Volume 2  Penguin Books. 298 pages. ISBN 0140138366: "Lord William Bentinck, Governor-General from 1828-35, was the pilot mainly responsible for trimming the sails of the British Indian state to the winds of change.... In 1813 the Company's trading monopoly was abolished. The country was opened to missionary actitvity but without government support and £10,000 was set aside annually for the promotion of learning among the people of India.  It needed a further puff of wind to implement this clause by the creation of a Committee of Public Instruction, which at once began to argue about the relative merits of western and eastern learning.  By 1828 the wind was blowing more strongly for we find a Tory President of the Board of Control writing to Bentinck, 'We have a great moral duty to perform in India'.  It was this change of sentiment on India which enabled Bentinck to survive the hostility of Wellington's Tory government during his first two years in India and to achieve so much thereafter. It happens that a radical was in charge of India at a time of radical change in England. (p 124)"

Finally, from: Hawley, John Stratton (ed). 1994.  Sati, the Blessing and the Curse: The Burning of Wives in India  Oxford University Press. 232 pages. ISBN 0195077741 "As for the colonial period, it is not widely known that Rammohun Roy (1772-1833), the social reformer whose name is most closely associated with the struggle against sati in historical times, was himself ambivalent toward a legal ban on sati; according to some, he opposed such a ban. (p140: Ashis Nandy, Sati as Profit Versus Sati as a Spectacle: The Public Debate on Roop Kanwar's Death 131-148.)"

"In his remarkable Minute giving his reasons for banning sati, despite the opposition of many of the leading officials of his government, Bentinck noted that Rammohun Roy, 'that enlightened native,' who hated the custom, as well as 'all other superstition and corruption,' opposed taking legal action, since the Hindus would interpret this as an attempt by the British to force their religion on the conquered people.... Roy's main reason for not supporting Bentinck's decision, however, was probably his conviction that it was society's attitude toward widows that needed to be changed. Making sati illegal would not change the attitude and belief systems that produced the custom; that could only be done through education. (p154: Embree, Ainslie T. Comment: Widows as Cultural Symbols, pp. 149-158)"

Please, Hkelkar and Freedom skies, please don't dump more of your "references". You've had your chance, let Wikipedia readers make up their own minds. I am not going to revert what you've written. That is for others to do (or not do) on the basis of the evidence provided. Fowler&amp;fowler 18:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is meant to be an overview on the entire country of India. It seems to me that mention of any specific person in discussion of the abolition of sati is inappropriate, but that if we were to mention an individual, Lord William Bentinck would be the obvious person to mention. But really, all that ought to be said is that the British abolished sati. Whatever role was played by Indian reformers is stuff that should go in articles that are able to go into more detail. This kind of thing, where one minor issue gets blown up into a whole heap of weird explanations and counterexplanations, is a continuing problem. I would add that I find Fowler&fowler's references much more convincing than those provided by Hkelkar and Freedom Skies. john k 19:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * On what basis did you arrive at such an outlandish conclusion?Besides, I will fact check each of the Fowler&fowler refs, of course, and RRR is too important a figure in Indian history to ignore in an article about India.Hkelkar 20:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What's really a distortion of history is Macaulayist nonsense. The government of India is clear on this .Bakaman Bakatalk 22:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately this reference has nothing to do with Government of India policy (if that were relevant)! That article you quote: Raja Ram Mohan Roy - Reformer Par Excellence is written by Usha Bande, a journalist.  The  web site is the Press Information Bureau Features site.  It does not reflect the policies of the Government of India.  Here are a few other features from that same site:


 * Party Time On Indian Bourses by Mahendra Jhamb, a stock market analyst.
 * Come Again Ye Siberians! (about Siberian Cranes) by S.M. Kumar.
 * Vipassana Meditation for Self-Development by Dr. Vallabh Bhai Kathiria.
 * Cricket in Crises by M.K. Dharma Raja.


 * So, unless the Government of India also has the official truth on the stock market, Siberian Cranes, Vipassana meditation and the future of cricket, please stop wasting our time with bogus references. Sanjay Tiwari 00:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Er, excuse me, but are you suggesting that the article is "bogus"? Is every reference (all legitimate per WP:RS) cited against the racialist British POV "bogus", regardless of the attribution? Judge by content and, not by the attribution given by the poster.Hkelkar 01:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * RRR has not only played an influential role in abolishing Sati but his role was "the role" and his mention in esteem can not be left out. A person in chair (Bentinck) had the opportunity to legalise public sentiments and for his administrative duty he can not be projected superior to a reformist with burning heart.  Why someone is so keen of excluding or pushing back RRR?  If a history book last printed in 1967 or 1974 lose it's value as history?  Why an attempt to exclude Indian book refs. on an article "India" or an attempt to ridicule Indian editors?  With due apology, all actions of Britishers was in preserving and promoting British interests in India so much so that thumbs of weavers were cut to promote cloth sales made out of Indian cotton.  In any wrong situation, burn exists in if not all, many, be it Britishers with human minds or Indians.  RRR should be mentioned with due esteem for his "the role" in abolishing "Sati Pratha".  F&F has approached some admin with western background for support on article "India"! Swadhyayee 02:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Right, let me present my take on this matter in a non-emotive way. There are two aspects to the issue of banning Sati, political and cultural. Culturally, there is no doubt that RRR was strongly influenced by Western thought and Western ideals into regarding the immolation of widows as inherently amoral.Thus, from a cultural standpoint, western ideals got the upper hand. The Brahmo Samaj was a unilateralist Hindu movement that had the same role in Indian history that similar reform movements in Christianity did in the west (who advanced that the immolation of "heretics" was inherently amoral, for instance).However, the implementation of this ban was largely Indian, with westerners playing a nominal role in the process. The latter is a political matter, not a cultural one.Politically, the unilateralists of the Brahmo Samaj have the upper hand here.I believe that the sentence, as it stands, reflect both aspects of the situation. I am not some rabid hesperophobiac and won't deny the cultural contribution of the Europeans in this matter. I have advanced sufficient evidence to support the contention that the political aspect was different from the cultural one.Hkelkar 03:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, so the pro raj lobby from eminent British publications have printed that the Raj was the reason why the natives could free themselves from the shackles of illitracy and lack of reason ?? How convincing.

Unfortunately your use of Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press and Penguin Books weakens your case. All you have done is convince the readers that the British authors have been hard at work glorifying the imperialist British Raj, trying to convince the people that they would never have broken free of any evil native rituals if it were not the British taking away all their wealth and heroically contributing in a few native movements in the process.

The funny thing is the average reader is already convinced of the British nationalist attempts of revisionist history. Anyone who reads William Dalrymple in real life is more than familiar with the attempts and even the patterns of revisionist history. Very good try, not in compliance with the WP:NPOV rules at all, but good try nonetheless. Freedom skies 03:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait Helkar, what makes you say that RRR was strongly influenced by western thought and western ideals? Likes and dislikes are part of human nature. In a given situation, rise and fall take place. On an average, how many would have supported Sati Pratha from bottom of one's heart? It's very difficult to voice your dislikes against any ugly social system, the result of which is to invite intimidating, vengeful and violent reactions from established selfish supporters of evils. Usually, it is waiting for a right time to voice, a loud. Would RRR have got support to his movements in uplifting women of India without existing number of burning kind hearts of Indians? An alien governor with all security can easily voice against a social evil than a common man living in midst without security and it would be idiotic to claim that Britishers were more sympathetic to Indians or Indian women and bothered for their well being. Their invading in India was backed by utterly sinister selfish desires and their selection of bureaucracy would certainly be aimed at meeting the purpose. Baring few, the bureaucrates were monsters. Think of Jalianwala Baug killings and other atrocities. If you say that RRR was influenced by western thoughts and ideals, someone would say that Gandhi, Tilak, Netaji and thousands behind were influenced by western thoughts and ideals to free India as politically India was freed by Britishers. What western ideals are you talking of? Just think about Vietnam war and Iraq war of today's westerns. If all of them have real ideals in their hearts, wars would have not been on this planate. Even the present controversy here to exclude RRR would not have been. What would any kind and noble Britisher be it a governor would have been able to do against British Rule unless Indians wanted and acted in the direction to compel British Rule? Had influential westerns been idealistic, either we would not have come under British rule or would have at least freed long back and ugly bloody partition could have been avoided, scars of which are in roots of today's hostility between India and Pakistan. Chameleons change colour in every different situation. Swadhyayee 05:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I'm just trying to arrive at a compromise here.Hkelkar 05:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, the British committed worse atrocities than JBagh (though JBagh is more resonant in our collective memory due to the fact that Dyer was a unique breed of sociopathic kooks). Just for the record, lemme mention the Bengal Famine (holodomor) perpetrated by the British where the death toll was in the millions.Hkelkar 05:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What's the need and propriety of compromise? Are you here to please the people or uphold truth? No compromise at the cost of merit should be the motto. This sort of attitude weaken you than strengthening which would be a personal loss, lose to cause and also loss to Wikipedia. If insignificant, keeping mum would be better than such compromise which create an impression that you are usually wrong. In case of slip, one can tender apology. It would be upkeeping self reverence and social prestige. Swadhyayee 06:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You are a shame Mr.TerryJ-Ho.
''The practice of Sati continues till this day..mostly due to religious sanction TerryJ-Ho 11:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC) ''

Mr.TerryJ-Ho, If, your above statement is intentional, you are doing the worst thing of tarnishing the image of our country. I do not know your back-ground. Hope you will appreciate that sentiments of any person get hurt when his/her nation/religion/societies come under false attack. How would you feel, if so done to you? India has a population of 120,00,00000. I have completed 56 years in this country and sufficiently informed about things going in this country. I have moved in villages regularly and live in Mumbai from birth. I have hardly heard of one or two instance of Sati during my life of 56 yrs. You can't help the people who wants to self immolate. We have rich & poor, educated and un-educated, modern and orthodox, good and bad all kind of people like any other country would have. Sati Pratha came in social practice because of Muslims invaded small kingdoms, killed or captured males, raped and made women folk their wives. Indians mostly were strict vegetarians. Muslims are non-veg. The women preferred death over being raped or marrying for the second time against Hindu culture and customs. The pride of woman-hood and un-civilised behaviour of Muslims are the route cause of this deprecative social system. Though people like me who borned later are also full of wounds of the root cause of Muslims behaviour. Pl. don't make fun of our pitiable social system which do not exist anymore from more than 5 decades. You shall make yourself and your society a shame for such remarks. Can you show me a single evidence that the system of Sati exist and the roots are our religion? Where did you get this information from? You are a shame Mr.TerryJ-Ho. God will not forgive you for such in-human behaviour. Swadhyayee 14:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dmcdevit"

ALL INDIANS AND HUMANS PL. APPEAL TO MR.TERRYJ-HO IN STRONGEST WORD FOR HIS SUCH COMMENTS ON TALK PAGE OF Dmcdevit. Swadhyayee 14:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is. ..
The problem here is that each side in the debate is trying to show that the westernerers or the Indians had more influence on the abolition of Sati. The easiest way to resolve the dispute is to just say that they both had influence, and don't say one way or the other whose influence was greatest. That is what I tried to do with my most recent edit. I'll even give you a citation to a scholarly source.HeBhagawan 14:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the sentence to which I am citing in "Modern South Asia" says:

"[Rammohun Roy] had campaigned against sati since 1818 and his defence of Bentinck's 1829 abolition of sati, which he called a 'barbarous and inhuman practice', helped ensure that the measure was not overturned by the privy council, the ultimate court of appeal in London."

The book also goes on to explain how Roy based his arguments against sati primarily on his interpretations of Vedic teachings. So it is clear that both Roy and the British were important to the abolition of sati. There is no need to elevate either one over the other in the article. HeBhagawan 14:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, for your convenience, here is my edit:

"The British also began implementing social changes, such as the legal abolition of Sati, as advocated by reform leaders and movements such as Raja Ram Mohan Roy and the Brahmo Samaj,[16] and instituting Western education on a limited scale." HeBhagawan 15:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't see your message when I wrote mine. How about the following: The British also began implementing social changes, such as the abolition of sati as a result of the joint efforts of Lord William Bentinck, the Christian evangelists, and Raja Rammohun Roy."  (I don't know that Brahmo Samaj did much outside of what Raja Rammohun Roy did.)Fowler&amp;fowler 16:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Indian Anti-Colonialist Historians on Sati & Compromise Language
To the people above who wrote to say that the first set of references I supplied were somehow British colonialist because they were written by British or American authors and published by Oxford, Cambridge, and Penguin presses, here are three references by Indian (anti-colonialist) authors, including one, Dr. Arvind Sharma, who was referenced by Hkelkar himself. Before I give the references, let me summarize.

The broad facts are the following. The Christian evangelists were the first people to mobilize around the issue of Sati. The first official submission to the East India Company was made by them in 1799. 1n 1813, William Wilberforce (a prominent evangelist) brought it up in the House of Commons in England. Raja Rammohun Roy's first pamphlet came out only in 1818 (a full seven years after the immolation of his sister-in-law). Once involved, however, Roy was extremely active in the Indian press writing critiques of the practice. However, he initially didn't support laws banning the practice. When in 1828, Lord William Bentinck consulted him about banning sati, Roy opposed the idea. Eventually, he got on board and became an active supporter and wrote many articles in the press in support of the new law.

This history does not support the contention that Raja Rammohun Roy and the Brahmo Samaj were the primary advocates for the movement against sati and that the British were somehow pushed into enacting the ban by Roy and the Brahmo Samaj. In the orginal wording in the history section of the India page, Hkelkar had written: "The British also began implementing social changes, including the abolition of Sati, at the behest of Raja Ram Mohan Roy and the Brahmo Samaj." That is a complete distortion of history. The wording was later changed to, "..., such as the legal abolition of Sati due to the efforts of reform movements by Raja Ram Mohan Roy and the Brahmo Samaj." But this too is historically inaccurate because it doesn't mention the Christian evangelists nor Lord William Bentinck himself.

I propose the following compromise language: "The British also began implementing social changes, such as the abolition of sati by Lord William Bentinck with notable synergistic efforts by Christian evangelists and Raja Rammohun Roy" I think the language is fair in that it assigns credit to all parties. (Raja Rammohun Roy's name, incidentally, is misspelt in the Wikipedia page on him.)

Now here are the references and the quotes from them:
 * Sen, Mala. 2002. Death by Fire: Sati, Dowry Death, and Female Infanticide in Modern India. Rutgers University Press.  288 pages.
 * Sharma, Arvin. 2001.  Sati: Historical and Phenomenological Essays.  Motilal Banarasi Das. Delhi.  130 pages.
 * Mani, Lata. 1998.  Contentious Traditions: The Debate on Sati in Colonial India.  University of California Press.  259 pages.

Dr. Sharma: Amidst the kudos which is showered on Raja Rammohun Roy for his role in the advocacy of the abolition of sati, one crucial fact is often overlooked: that when Lord William Bentinck sought his advice on the matter of the British prohibiting the practice of sati, he advised Lord William Bentink against such a step. (Search Dr. Sharma's quote in Dr. Sen's book)

Dr. Sen: "This need to be independent of British influence dominated men like Rammohun Roy who did not approve of governmental interference in the sphere of Hindu social life. However, when Lord William Bentinck took it upon himself to abolish sati in 1829, Rammohun Roy came out in open support of the Act and became an active and vocal campaigner, using Hindu scriptures to challenge the notiion that sati played a part in the enhancement of Indian society.( Search Dr. Sen's book)"

Dr Sharma goes on to trace the development of Christian missionary involvement with sati: "In November 1793 Rev. William Carey of the Baptist Mission arrived in Calcutta. After nearly six years, in the spring of 1799, he saw widow-burning one evening. It was in a place thirty miles away from Calcutta.  He tried to stop the ceremony and to reason with the widow and the Brahmin priests.  'I talked till reasoning was of no use, and then began to exclaim with all my might against what they were doing, telling them it was shocking murder.  They told me it was a great act of holiness.'  Carey was greatly agitated ... He sent investigators to every village within a radius of thirty miles of Calcutta, to learn how many widows had been immolated there in the previous twelve months, and their ages, and the children they had left behind them.  'Four hundred and thirty eight was the damning total in this specific area alone, the toll of a single year's superstition, cruelty and waste.'  The Serampore Missionaries under the leadership of Carey implored the Government to forbid the rite by law. Carey made use of his position as a lecturer in the College of Fort William to collect from the pundits there various texts from the Hindu sastras on which the practice of sati was allegedly based. The missionaries places all these documents, together with the statistics of sati they had compiled, in the hands of George Udney -- a member of the Supreme Council and an ardent abolitionist. Udney's submission on sati was the first official notice regarding female immolation which had appeared in the records of the government."

Dr. Sen: "As a result of these activities, the missionaries began to mould public opinion both in India and Britain and on 22 June 1813, William Wilberforce raised the matter in the House of Commons, quoting the statistics on sati which the Baptistics had compiled."

Raja Rammohun Roy's first pamphlet came out only in 1818 almost 20 years after Carey and Udney had made their first submission. Dr. Sharma: "Between 1815 and 1818 the number of satis doubled, from 378 in 1815 to 839 in 1818 in the Presidency of Bengal. The 1815-1818 records -- 'truly awful records for any Christian Government'-- had a disquieting effect on officials. In 1818, 'when the pyres blazed most fiercely', Raja Rammohun Roy launched his journalistic attack on the rite, 'which aroused such anger that for a while his life was in danger'."

Dr. Mani: "In Rammohun Roy's first pamphlet of 1818, ..., the opponent of sati concludes, it is not control but wisdom and fear of God that effectively causes both men and women to abstain from improper conduct. While it may be unrealistic to expect from Rammohun Roy a full-scale critique of the desire to control women's sexuality, it is indeed disappointing that, confronted with this issue which is at the very heart of widow immolation, the opponent in this staged dialogue can only see fit to assure the advocate of sati that he has, in fact, nothing to fear; that effective mechanisms already exist for controlling women, thus precluding the need to burn them. (Search Dr. Mani's book)"

Dr. Mani: "In addition to the press reports, public meetings on sati were held in Britain in 1823, 1827, and 1829, and petitions were presented to Parliament in 1827 and 1828. For the most part, the British press, both lay and missionary, merely replayed arguments advanced in India, whether by East India Company officials, evangelists, or the indigenous male elite (i.e. people like Roy). British discussions of widow burning differed only in the sense that they began with the desirability of abolition and then proceeded to its feasibility, as against in India, where questions of practicality always came first."

Again the compromise language I am proposing is: "The British also began implementing social changes, such as the abolition of sati by Lord William Bentinck with notable synergistic efforts by Christian evangelists and Raja Rammohun Roy"

Fowler&amp;fowler 15:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As a result of HeBhagawan's helpful message above, I am proposing the following compromise: "The British also began implementing social changes such as the abolition of sati due to the joint efforts of Lord William Bentinck, the Christian evangelists, and Raja Rammohun Roy, ..." Fowler&amp;fowler 16:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have changed the wording to: "The British also began implementing social changes such as the abolition of slavery sati due to the joint cumulative efforts of Lord William Bentinck, the Christian evangelists, the British utilitarians, Raja Rammohun Roy, and the Brahmo Samaj, ..." I know this is a little verbose, but it mentions everyone who deserves credit.


 * I have left in the footnote referring to Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal's book: Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy (added by user HeBhagawan) because Bose and Jalal mentions both the evangelists and the utilitarians:

"The most creative strand (among the Indian groups opposing sati), however, was led by Rammohun Roy, who attempted to adapt elements from all he considered best in Indian and Western learning. Well-versed in Sanskrit, Bengali, Arabic, Persian and English, Rammohun Roy aimed at a regeneration of India society and culture through a process of thoroughgoing reform which would weed out the evils and anachronisms. He set up a society called the Brahmo Samaj which rejected caste and idolatory and sought a return to the original monotheistic purity of the Upanishads.  He derided the evangelists, but generally supported the utilitarians.  He had campaigned against sati since 1818 and his defence of Bentinck's 1829 abolition of sati, which he called a 'barbarous and inhuman practice', helped ensure that the measure was not overturned by the privy council, the ultimate court of appeal in London."

Fowler&amp;fowler 17:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Corrected: slavery-->sati; joint-->cumulative Fowler&amp;fowler 20:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Fowler, I don't have any problem with the current wording of the sentence. However, if you have a reference that speaks about the contribution of the christian evangelists, you need to add it to my reference. The way it is now, it seems to say that my "modern south asia" book supports that assertion that christion missionaries were partly responsbile for banning sati. However, this book does not mention the missionaries. You are probably right that they played a role, but I don't want to give a misleading impression about what facts my reference contains. Thanks. HeBhagawan 23:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This has been done. I have also updated your citation.  The final version now reads: "The British also began implementing social changes, such as the legal abolition of Sati, due to the cumulative efforts of Lord William Bentinck, the Christian evangelists, the British utilitarians, Raja Rammohun Roy, and the Brahmo Samaj,  and instituting Western education on a limited scale."

for dashes, not  per WP:DASH. Let me know. Thanks. Saravask 18:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Saravask, I bolded some parts of my post above only to indicate where I was different from Arvind. It was meant only for the talk page and I never meant it to be used on the article page.  Sarvagnya 20:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've also been gently informed that some Keralite Muslims have begun lobbying against their community's celebration of Onam on the grounds that it's Hindu, so I'd strike that out and just leave the new year days in. As far as the style goes, I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that my natural style doesn't fit :en's guidelines, two FAs notwithstanding, so do what you will with the text. -- Arvind 21:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

- Dear Sarvagnya, I agree with pretty much everything Saravask says above. Please also get Nichalp's views. Here is my take:


 * The sentence "Festivals and celebrations are an important part of Indian culture" is fluff. Find me a culture where that's not true.  I think a version of Nichalp's (?) present one is better.  (See below).
 * Mentioning only Diwali, Eid, and Christmas, while admirable in its religious egalitarianism, distorts the reality that India is still a predominantly Hindu country. I think Holi and Dugra Puja/Dussehra need to be mentioned.  All the evidence I have&mdash;Britannica, Encarta, and Google&mdash;points to this.  In other words a Martian spending the year in India and equipped with the above information might get a tad confused by the reality that unfolds.
 * "Each region of India has a celebration unique to it" again borders on the tautological.
 * If you want to change Pongal/Sankranthi to Indian Harvest Festivals, it would be fine by me.
 * You might consider having a simliar disambig. page for Indian Regional Festivals.

Here's a version, I'd be more comfortable with. It is shorter (72 words to your 84) and packs in more information. If you don't like "ubiquitous" (although I think it is more evocative of reality), you could change it to "numerous."

"Indian festivals come in a large variety, with many celebrated by all castes and creeds. The major ones include the Hindu festivals of Diwali, Holi, and Durga Puja/Dussehra; the Muslim and Christian festivals of Eid ul-Fitr and Christmas; and the more secular Indian Harvest Festivals. Among the ubiquitous regional festivals are Kerala's Onam and various New Year's days.  In addition, India has three national holidays: Independence Day, Republic Day, and Gandhi Jayanti."

If you create a "regional festivals" dab page, you could link to it. Thanks for making the effort to get consensus.

Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  21:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I wouldn't expect an article on Israel to name the most common Jewish festivals or one on France to list the most common Catholic feasts. I'd expect them to focus on things connected to the country rather than the dominant religion.  This applies equally to India - I'd expect the page to mention that the standard Hindu festivals are celebrated in India, but to focus on celebrations *unique* to India rather than those that're simply part of Hinduism.  So I see the fact that there are a number of religious *and* secular regional festivals as more significant than the names of the standard Hindu festivals (for which we have the page on Hinduism), but you clearly don't.  Since I'm quite out of step with the mainstream view on this one, and since we've spent a horrendous amount of time on one *extremely* trivial sentence for no particular reason (especially given that the culture section's failure to mention anything about painting and sculpture is probably a much more important issue than naming Moastu), I'll shut up and wander off to work on other, more productive things.   -- Arvind 01:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the draft that says Diwali, Holi and Dussera are celebrated by Hindus, and Christmas by Christians. For a non-Indian national reading it, it gives the impression that only Hindus celebrate these festivals, and Christmas is only restricted to Christians. The actual ground situation as we all know is very different. Diwali may be a Hindu festival, but it is celebrated irrespective of religion. Similarly, Christmas is celebrated across the country, even in places where the Christian population is almost negligible. Even secular occasions such as Valentine's Day is celebrated across the country. I like Arvind's version which mentions the harvest festivals and various New Years. I feel that is more representative of the nature of Indian festivals. And when listing examples of any, listing more than three is an overkill. This applies to all sections. And painting and sculpture can certainly be added. Thanks Arvind! =Nichalp  «Talk»=  05:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Nichalp, I am confused by what you are saying now. Arvind's version is the one that says: "Major Hindu, Christian and Muslim festivals, such as Diwali, Christmas, and Eid-ul-Fitr, are celebrated nationwide by the respective religions ..." I simply used "Hindu" to give some context to Diwali or Holi for a new reader.  How about the following consensus draft?

"Indian festivals come in a large variety, with the major ones celebrated nationwide. These include the Hindu festival of Diwali, the more secular Indian Harvest Festivals, the Muslim festival Eid ul-Fitr, and Christmas. Among the ubiquitous regional festivals are Kerala's Onam and various New Year's days.  In addition, India has three national holidays: Independence Day, Republic Day, and Gandhi Jayanti."

How does this sound to everyone? Down to 61 words now. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  08:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

"Festivals in India are celebrated with pomp and ___. Festivals in India celebrate the new years of various religions, the harvest, and the end of the monsoon. Some of the largest festivals in India are Hindu festivals of Diwali, Dussera and Holi, which are celebrated irrespective of religion."
 * A rough draft on what I meant =Nichalp   «Talk»=  09:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I understand what you and Saravask meant by the text becoming too "listy." Cool.  I like your version, but would bag the dussehra and add Id and Xmas, maybe with vignettes.  I can complete "pomp" with "circumstance" or "pageantry," but they don't sound right.  How about "ritual and fanfare?"  Or, something like that.  So, here's a possible rework.  "Festivals in India are celebrated with both ritual and fanfare. They celebrate the new year's of various religions, the harvest, and the end of the monsoon. Some of the largest festivals cut across religious lines and include the Hindu festival of lights Diwali and water festival Holi, both increasingly boisterous outdoors celebrations; the Id, when Muslims distribute sweet vermicelli seviyan to their neighbours; and Christmas, when tinsel trees appear in shop windows."

BTW, in South Asia "Eid" is spelled "Id." Everyone, please feel free to amend. Too wordy? Feel free to chop down. Too commercial? Feel free to fix. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  14:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * PS. If you still only want 3 festivals listed, then throw out Holi. Thanks also to Arvind and Savagnya for railing against lists.  I understand now.  Let's get this show on the road.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Does Afghanistan border India?
Unless they want enervating editing wars, readers should come to some consensus on Afghanistan as a neighbour of India. I would lean towards not including Afghanistan, but having a footnote explaining India's claim over Pakistan's disputed Northern Areas which border Afghanistan. (Note: Jammu and Kashmir page itself doesn't mention Afghanistan as a neighbour!) That seems to be the convention: mention the administering country in the text and describe the dispute in the footnote. See the pages on K2, Eight-thousander, Nanga Parbat, Karakoram Highway, Khunjerab Pass.

Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  14:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. Without some sort of explanatory note providing background info, it's an unbalanced POV. I don't know why people are making these sorts of unhelpful edits when this article is lacking in several important areas. For example, where is India? Why not contribute to creating it? Saravask 19:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * (I'm happy to work on Flora and Fauna. Since this talk is about another topic, will ask more questions on your talk page.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC) )

The footnote serves its purpose ever since September 2004, and has not been revised ever since. Indian administered territory does not border Afghanistan, but the claimed territory does. So, as per the ground situation, a footnote is more logical than in the lead. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  00:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, since the Kashmir issue is not solved, and India considers the whole of J&K as an integral part of India and hence Afghanistan is a neighbour of India. Since POK is under the administration of Pakistan at the moment a footnote can be added to provide details of that. Chanakyathegreat 03:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is not really about what the Indian Govt considers, but rather the ground reality in the world. It would be unrealistic to claim that India borders Afghanistan, even if the Indian Govt claim is as such. In reality, the part bordering Afghanistan is actually under Pakistani control, and until that changes, the article should not claim this. Other nations have different viewpoints, for example, Pakistan may consider Kashmir not to be part of India, and China may have claims about Arunachal pradesh. Like I said, the articles need to reflect ground reality, and NOT what each Govt thinks/claims. The status quo mentioned by Nichalp above serves just that, i.e. reflects the real status, while mentioning Indian Govt's claims in the footnote. Thanks. --Ragib 04:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking only at the ground reality, The Waziristan region which is under the control of the Taliban as a seperate nation and hence add all those areas bordering it as neighbours of Waziristan, or the areas under the control of Baluchistan Liberation Army as a seperate nation of Baluchistan.

The neighbour relationship is not just related to the boundary. The distance between India and Afghanistan under present condition is only 90km. At such close proximity, Afghanistan can be called as a neighbour.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/464689.cms

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4897406.stm Chanakyathegreat 14:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But, you just added "India borders Afghanistan", which is NOT what you argued for above (where you talk about "neighbours", which is not really a bordering country). There is no border between India and Afghanistan as of now. So, adding that is misinformation, and a POV. Please show the existence of the border before adding Afghanistan as a country that borders India. I'm restoring the status quo about this. Thank you. --Ragib 15:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

India is surely a neighbour of Afghanistan. I did not notice the border present there which i will be changing with neighbour to accomodate Afghansitan, which is very important from a geograhical point of view. So close to Afghanistan geographically and the historical relation with that nation makes the presense of Afghanistan in this article a necessity. Thank you. Chanakyathegreat 03:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * How is India surely a neighbour of Afghanistan? Use the following metric to determine if India borders Afghanistan: 1. Can a person within Indian-administered territory walk into Afghanistan by crossing a single boundary. The answer is no, as Indian-administered territory does not border AFG. The footnote explains the actual situation. (real vs virtual bordering). Historic and cultural ties are not the same as geographical boundaries. Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  08:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Neigbhour is different from bordering nation. The bordering nation is a neighbour along with those who is close by like Afghanistan. Tell me why the BBC reported added India as a neighbour of Afghansitan? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4897406.stm

Chanakyathegreat 12:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The lead is talking about the bordering (land) nations. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  08:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Chanakyathegreat
 * First of all, you can't arbitrarily change "shares borders with" to "neighbour." Find me a country other than an island country that mentions neighbours in the lead.  Look at the pages for: France, Germany, Austria, Czech Republic and Switzerland in Europe, Ecuador, Peru, Colombia, Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina in South America, and Iran, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Uzbekistan and Afghanistan in Asia, they all only mention bordering countries, not neighbouring countries.
 * Speaking of Afghanistan, they (i.e. the Afghanistan page) do not mention India as a bordering country, but have a footnote, mentioning the Kashmir dispute.
 * Your BBC reference is not a valid reference. No matter how warmly Afghans feel towards India, it still does not affect the physical reality of the current borders&mdash;that you have to travel though Pakistan administered Northern Areas in order to land-travel from India to Afghanistan.  The Northern Areas are 99.9% Muslim.  No matter how the Kashmir dispute is eventually resolved (if it ever is), it is highly unlikely that the Northern Areas would go to India in a negotiated settlement


 * Regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Chanakyathegreat 03:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because other articles use borders and not neighbours does not mean that in the Indian article also the same must be done. There is no Wikipedia rules that states so.
 * After the change in the Indian article the same will be modified in the Afghanistan article.
 * Forget good relations, historical relations, now the only point is their addition as a neighbour since they are so close by.
 * BBC reference is not valid? Has wikipedia rule states that BBC is not a valid reference. Regarding the 100% muslim point, let me tell you that it dosen't matter for India. India is a secular nation and not a fundamentalist nation.
 * The article lead is talking about the countries that share a definable physical boundary with India, not countries in the vicinity which share cultural ties. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  08:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * User Fowler, Pls keep your political predictions off this discussion.-Bharatveer 04:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Bharatveer please remember wikipedia is founded on the principle of the neutral point of view =Nichalp   «Talk»=  08:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * User:NichalP ,It looks like you accept that "No matter how the Kashmir dispute is eventually resolved (if it ever is), it is highly unlikely that the Northern Areas would go to India in a negotiated settlement" -from User fowler - is highly neutral -Bharatveer 08:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that you were referring to that particular phrase. Well, I admit, it is not appropriate but you do not have to claim that I accept statements! Please do not assume implicity to be explicit. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  08:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Chanakyathegreat, The Wikipedia WikiProject on Countries (a project available at Wikipedia, with the purpose of providing a unified coordination of all country articles), has this to say: If you keep insisting on putting in "neighbouring" countries, we will have to go to arbitration. What you are proposing is against largely agreed Wikipedia convention on country pages.
 * WikiProject:Countries (Lead Section) says: "The article should start with a good introduction, giving name of the country, location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the like." It does not say neighbouring countries.
 * WikiProject:Countries:Template gives the template for the introductory sentences of a country page: "Xxxxx, officially the Yyyyyy of Xxxx (Republic of Xxxxx, or Kingdom of Xxxxxx, etc.), is a country located on the Xxxxx of Xxxx. It shares borders with Xxxx ..." (It does not talk about neighbouring countries.)

Regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Further editing on this subject, will not be made by me until there is clarification from the Wiki team on whether Neighbouring countires can be used or not. Chanakyathegreat 08:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It looks quite inappropriate to me to add "neighboring countries" just to justify the controversial addition of Afghanistan. Almost ALL other country pages list bordering countries, as per the guideline set by the Wikiproject Countries. How do you actually define a neighbor? That's quite a vague term. By that measure, all countries of South Asia are neighbors, and the information actually becomes useless. The Wikiproject countries guideline clearly mentions the bordering countries; quite rightfully as border is not a vague and imprecisely defined term. I suggest that you raise the question there to change the guideline and then make further modifications here. Thanks. --Ragib 09:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Bharat
What's the meaning and significance of the name "Bharat"? Hindu/Indus was explained well, but what about Bharat? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.135.60.33 (talk • contribs).

The land of Emperor Bharata. This land was ruled by Bharata Also see Bharata (Ramayana)

Chanakyathegreat 15:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is Indus Valley even in this article?
Ok Lets get a few things straight. This is the history of MODERN INDIA, which is not the home of IVC, and the people of India have very little to do with IVC. IVC is a predominantly Pakistani civilisation, as it belongs to the people who HAVE ALWAYS LIVED IN PAKISTAN, regardless of what they now call themsleves.

Ancient India (including Pakistan) was a the name given to the entire sub continent. Ancient India (just modern India) only includes the history within its own borders. So please dont refer to IVC as Ancient India. Feel free to mention the settlements within India, but IVC is not Indian.

The Term "ancient Indian" should be changed to Ancient South Asian, or Ancient Pakistani, unless you are referring to history within Indias own borders.

I am willing to discuss this if you are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unre4L (talk • contribs).


 * It was not only in ancient times that the area that is now Pakistan was part of India. That area was part of India during the lifetime of people now living.  --BostonMA talk  22:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

India was a name given to the subcontinent. Ancient India was not a country.

India was created in 1947. Prior to that the region was called British India, and prior to that India was a name of the entire subcontiment, which contained counties of every ethnic group now living in south asia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unre4L (talk • contribs).


 * I think the consensus of editors is that this article is not merely about the state that came into existence in 1947. Have a nice day.  Sincerely, --BostonMA talk  00:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If my history and geography serves me correct:
 * 1) The River Indus partially flows through India
 * 2) The inhabitants of the IVC had ethnic ties to people in southern India
 * 3) The influence of the IVC extended into mordern day Gujarat and Rajasthan

Next, any history article deals with the the way the country has evolved ever since man has inhabited the greater portion of the territory, not from a sudden date when current boundaries are drawn. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  00:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

____

Thats not what I am trying to say.

I am saying that Pakistan and India have never been part of the SAME country. They have been part of the same british Empire, and before that they were a part of the same subcontinent called India. And South Indians dont have ethnic ties to people in southern India. That theory was discarded. Indians make this claim aswell as saying that IVC is related to Hinduism, without any evidence.

New evidence suggestes that people of Punjab and Sindh are descendants of IVC, mixed with persians, arans, turks, muguls... Check out harappa.com

Please get this right. Pakistanis arent doing anything about this as they love to shun any pre Islamic history of theirs. I am half Indian and half Pakistani and I feel we should get this right. I know Indians dont want to side with Pakistan, but I think the evidence is overwhelming. Better change this with dignity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unre4L (talk • contribs).

____ You have sources for what you say? =Nichalp  «Talk»=  01:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear BostonMA Unre4L, (Please sign your posts in the future.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC))I am not sure what part of harrapa.com you are talking about, but the section,
 * Indus Civilization Geography there, clearly says, "Indus civilization remnants have been discovered from as far south as Mumbai [Bombay], in Maharashtra State, India, and as far north as the Himalayas and northern Afghanistan."


 * Please provide the exact link on harrappa.com which supports your thesis, in the same way as I have above. Also, when you say, "people of Punjab and Sindh are descendants of IVC, mixed with persians, arans, turks, muguls," please clarify whether you mean "cultural" mix or a "genetic mix."  And if you mean genetic mix (for example, the result of a 16S ribosomal RNA study) please cite paper and publication, not just harrappa.com.   I should warn you genetic studies involving markers from present day inhabitants of the Harrappa region are not enough to establish your claim.


 * As for including Indus Valley Civilization in India, as user Nichkalp has stated above, country pages have a brief historical section. For example the France page mentions ancient Gaul which included present-day northern Italy, France, Belgium, western Switzerland and the parts of the Netherlands and Germany on the west bank of the Rhine river.


 * As the standard histories below (all searchable) show, Indus civilization is a part of the history of India.
 * Keay, John.  2001.  India: A History].  Harper Collins.  480 pages.  ISBN 0006387845
 * Kulke, Hermann and Dietmar Rothermund. 2004.  A History of India.  Routledge.  448 pages.  ISBN 0415329205
 * Wolpert, Stanley. 2003.  A New History of India.  Oxford University Press.  544 pages.  ISBN 0195166787


 * Again, please provide exact references in the same way as I have. Warm regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

______________________________________

France existed at the time of the empire they have included themself in. Modern India did not exist in the era of IVC, and the capital cities of IVC are not in India. If you want to try and understand me, then please read this.

--- Lets for the sake of argument say that Germany changes its name to Europe. Does this give (the new) Europe right claim its history as “ancient European”, and include the Roman, British and Portuguese empire as its own? This is exactly what has happened in South Asia. Please read and discover the events.

“India” prior to 1947 was never a country. It was a name given to the entire subcontinent. When the British invaded the subcontinent, they grouped the entire region as a Country, and called it British India. This has lead to the misunderstanding that India before 1947 was one country. In 1947, two countries were born in South Asia. One of the countries took up the former name of the subcontinent, giving the impression that it was the “parent country”. Therefore it is important to note that Ancient Indian history is the history of Modern India. Not South Asia. IVC should be categorised under Ancient South Asian history if not Ancient Pakistani History

Indus valley is an interesting topic. Indians from all over the world seem to claim Indus valley civilisation as Indian history, because they are under the impression that modern India is the parent country, which was once the entire subcontinent of South Asia. Apart from the name, IVC has almost nothing to do with Modern India.

Indus Valley settlements are located all over Southern Asia. These include, Iran, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, northwest India, and of course Pakistan. However, the Main IVC cities, aswell as the majority are in Pakistan. The main ones being, Harappa and Mohenjodaro.

Many people argue that Pakistan was born in 1947. It doesn’t have an ancient history. Well the history belongs to the Pakistani people. They do have an ancient history. India has nothing to do with the Pakistani people, and it is absurd to let them claim the History of the Pakistani people. The people of Pakistan have always lived there. Indus Valley Civilisation history belongs to the people of Pakistan regardless what they call themselves. Boundaries changed, however the people didn’t.

There is no denying Pakistan was a part of British India, or the “Indian subcontinent” (aka South Asia), but referring to Pakistan’s ancient history as Ancient Indian history, is Very misleading, as the continent is no longer called India. India today is a modern country born in 1947, which has its own Ancient history limited to within the boundaries of Modern India. IVC can be referred to as Ancient South Asian history, if the approximate region of the civilisation needs to be given.

For the sake of correctness and knowledge of Ancient civilisations, I hope this misunderstanding can be corrected. Even the Ancient Indian history should be broken down into more detailed sub categories. India is the home to a lot of different people. Grouping the history of all these people to give the impression that India has always contained one group of people and Ancient Indian history belongs to this one group, is misleading.

This is the reason why it is incorrect to even label IVC as Ancient South Asian history. South Asia is home to 1.6 billion people, which is way too broad to describe the people of Indus valley, which is now Pakistan. Sure this is no harm in mentioning the settlements outside of Pakistan (India, Iran, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Kashmir), however one has to remember that Pakistan is the home of it.

Comment was added by Unre4L

____________________________

Here are some other articles to cover up what I have said. I cant help it if you decide to knock the articles because they are not written by Indian scholars. But instead read and understand the articles and it makes perfect sense. To satisfy you, the Geocities links include sources from hindu texts.

Harappans and Rig Vedic Aryans were NOT Hindu http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/nonhindu.html

Indian hijacking of Pakistan's history http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/hijack.html

Hindu Dharma and Pakistan http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/Hindu.html

Pakistani history is very different from indian history http://www.islamicaweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52631

Comment was added by Unre4L

______________________


 * Please don't keep changing the terms of your argument. I gave you the benefit of a dialog.  You said the reference was on harrappa.com.  I asked you to either provide me the exact reference on harrappa.com or if you are talking about studies involving genetic markers, provide the citation from a respected journal like Human Genetics or Genome Research.   Outside of those references I am not interested in bogus sites on the web.  My advice: if you are really earnest about your program, please first cut your teeth by writing to Oxford University Press, Harper Collins, and Routledge and get them to to take out the chapter on "Indus Valley Civilization" from the three books I cited above.  When you are able to do that, I will be happy to talk to you.  Until then, you will not hear a peep from me, no matter how eloquently you write on these pages.  Good luck.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Unre4L, please provide credible sources to support your claim. webpages hosted by Geocities and forum threads are not notable or credible by any means. By our non-negotiable policy on citing credible sources (No original research), we cannot entertain such claims. We hope you understand. Thanks! =Nichalp   «Talk»=  02:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________

Like usual this is met with anger by Indians. I said try and understand it, but I can most people dont even read this. There is a misunderstanding, and to correct it, you want me to provide sources which are misunderstood. Harappa.com and Oxford sources do NOT say IVC is an Indian civilisation. It refers to Pakistan and India aswell as South Asia. The Article on Wiki says "India is the home of IVC" The article I write above makes perfect sense. There are no facts which need to be confirmed. If you are in doubt that look at a world map. I can provide sources for anything I wrote if you are in doubt.

But I didnt expect to get anywhere with people here. Normally Indians go on a flaming spree as soon as this topic is mentioned. Comment was added by Unre4L


 * Well, now you are saying something different and I don't disagree with the second half of your note with your sentiment that IVC belongs to South Asia. If you read the lead, you will notice, we are careful to say, "Home to the IVC, ..., the Indian subcontinent has a heritage ..." and not "... India has a heritage ..." and note that the subcontinent includes Pakistan and India.  The history section did seem to imply that IVC was in Western India (as a result of an IP edit), I have changed that as well to Indian subcontinent.  Part of the problem with the India page is that all sorts of people, who think that the family lore of their hazy childhood is the true version of history and feel obliged to educate us, keep tampering with the information.  The editors are vigilant but the IPs still get away with it every now and then.  Thanks for pointing it out.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a very rude and condescending remark to make about any person or community. Our comments are not infammatory, or angry, its just that we've challenged you to cite credible sources, and you fail to do so. 00:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This Wikipedian ( UNRE4L) seems to making wild statments with absolutley no foundation. He claims to be " Half Pakistani" which would no doubt bend his arguments. I am not an Indian even I know that this person is playing the fool.He says that Pakistan was an independent state before 1947 ( not true), claims to have proof ( if he really had it, he would be sourcing it and shoing it like a crazed maniac trying to prove his arguments), and is merely arguing for the sake of arguing. UNRE4L, PLEASE, GIVE IT UP !!!!!!! DONT EMBARRAS YOURSELF ANY LONGER!!!! 124.184.238.71 21:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Excuse me,but that's not what he's(UNRE4L)is trying to say.Can you read maps?The ancient city of muhinjidaro is clearly located in Sindh,Pakistan MILES AWAY from the indian border.If the Greeks twisted the term "sindhu" into "india" so what?It's like saying the Iranian city of Mashad somehow becomes part of Iraqi heritage.And whoever said Sindhis are "related" to south indians,get your history right.I AM SINDHI.We are in no way related to South Indians.This is a site for knowledge.If changes are not made soon,Im afraid,they will have to be edited.Nadirali 22:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Nadirali ________________________________________________________________

I didnt insult anyone, so please dont start a flaming war. I didnt come here to make you guys believe, I was wanting people to understand, which seems to be a really hard thing to do. I DID NOT SAY Pak was an independent state before 1947. I was pointing out that prior to the British invasion of the subcontinent, there was no such thing as India and Pakistan. All the provinces you see were the countries. India was a name given to the subcontinent, which modern India named their nation to in 1947, thus claiming the history of the entire subcontinent and the provinces within it.

You have to understand, India only came into existence as a country because of the British. For the rest of time, India was the whole subcontinent, where the countries were the provinces we see today. -Punjab, SIndh, Balochistan, Gujrat, Nadu etc.

Please try to understand my point. I feel like you guys are asking for sources to prove that 2 + 2 = 4 Comment was added by Unre4L
 * If 2+2=4 sources should be easy to come by. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  04:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

He's given you his sources,exactly how many times do you want him to repeat himself?And you guys are starting to insult him.Nadirali 22:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Nadirali_____________________ _____________________________________________

Successor state
Please read the Successor state page and understand that concept. Pakistan seceeded from India on 14/Aug; its departure cannot transform India's own identity any more than the addition of Sikkim can generate for us a new identity. The secession of Bangladesh does not mean that the rump state did not remain Pakistan. Present-day India is recognized internationally as the successor state of the erstwhile empire: note that it retains the seat alloted to "India" in 1945 at the United Nations. This nuance of law was raised in discussions between the British, the Congress and the League in the run-up to partition and cannot be re-opened every other day. ImpuMozhi 02:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC) You speak as if Pakistan was a "part" of india.Had it not been for the British,there would be no India.This is wikipedia,we're discussing history here,not popular indian bollywood movies.Nadirali 22:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

Britannica, Encarta, and Google on Major Hindu Festivals: New Compromise Language
I thought it would be a good idea to see what both Britannica and Encarta say about major Hindu festivals. Here is what I found:


 * 1) Encyclopaedia Britannica: Hindu Festivals: India page says the following about major Hindu festivals: "Virtually all regions of India have their distinctive places of pilgrimage, local saints and folk heroes, religious festivals, and associated fairs. There are also innumerable festivals associated with individual villages or temples or with specific castes and cults. The most popular of the religious festivals celebrated over the greater part of India are Vasantpanchami (generally in February, the exact date determined by the Hindu lunar calendar), in honour of Sarasvati, the goddess of learning; Holi (in February–March), a time when traditional hierarchical relationships are forgotten and celebrants throw coloured water and powder at one another; Dussehra (in September–October), when the story of the Ramayana is reenacted; and Diwali (Divali; in October–November), a time for lighting lamps and exchanging gifts. The major secular holidays are Independence Day (August 15) and Republic Day (January 26)."


 * 2) Encarta: Table of  Major Hindu Festivals (arranged by time of year)
 * Mahashivaratri 'Great Night of Shiva' when Shiva, his wife Parvati, and their child Ganesha are honored; offerings are made to Shiva between midnight and sunrise and the 24-hour fast is broken at dawn. 13th or 14th day of dark half of Magh (February/March)
 * Sarasvati Puja 	Sarasvati, the patron of the arts and learning, is celebrated with music and by wearing yellow clothes, symbolizing the warmth of spring. First day of spring season (Phalgun)(February/March)
 * Holi  The pranks that Krishna played as a child are celebrated, and the story of Prahalad, a prince who was willing to sacrifice himself for Vishnu, is remembered; offerings are made around bonfires and colored water or powder is sprayed in high-spirited games. Full moon day of Phalgun (March)
 * Rama Naumi Celebrates the birthday of the god Rama, hero of the epic Ramayana that is recited during the festival; offerings are also made in temples to a statue of the baby Rama. Ninth day of the bright half of Caitra (April)
 * Ratha Yatra A statue of Vishnu, also called Jagganath, Lord of the Universe, is placed on a large wooden chariot and pulled through the streets where lamps, flowers, and other offerings are laid in his path.  16th day of Asadha (June/July)
 * Raksha Bandhan 	Sisters tie rakhis, silk threads decorated with flowers, onto their brothers' wrists as a symbol of protection. Full moon day of Sravana (August)
 * Janmashtami The birth of Krishna is celebrated as an image of the child Krishna is washed with yogurt, ghee, honey, and milk, and then placed on a swing. Eighth day of Bhadrapada (August)
 * Navaratri Dusshera The festival of Dusshera follows immediately after Navaratri; over nine nights different manifestations of the goddess Durga are honored; in the form of Durga she is the destroyer of evil, as Kali she is the destroyer of time, and as Parvati she is the faithful wife of Shiva; at Dusshera, an effigy of the demon Ravana is burned to celebrate Durga's power over demons. First ten days of the bright half of Aswin (October)
 * Divali (also spelled Diwali) 	Accounts are settled at this time and worship is given to Lakshmi, goddess of wealth and good fortune; colored patterns are made on the ground; windows are illuminated with lamps and candles; this festival also celebrates the return of Rama and Sita from exile, a story told in the Ramayana. 15th day of Kartika (October/November)


 * 3) Google Boolean Search for various festivals:


 * As I explained above, I did a Google Boolean search for each of the potential major festival. I should explain what this means.  First of all, I am not on any side in this debate.  I am not religious myself and have no stake in seeing any one festival listed over another.  Initially, I must admit, I was trying to preserve the status quo, but today I thought it would be worth seeing what the numbers actually turn out to be--and I was surprised a little by the results.  (Also, I am not trying to be sarcastic: believe me, if I were looking to be sarcastic, I would find a quicker way of doing it!)


 * Let me then explain the syntax for the boolean search. When you type: "pongal -food -recipe" in the Google box, Google's (page rank) algorithm searches for all instances of the words "pongal" but discards the results that also have the words "food" or "recipe" in them.  The "-" sign means "exclude."  It is therefore a way of searching for only "pongal" (the festival) and not have it confused with "pongal (the food preparation).  Similarly, when you are searching for diwali, which is also spelled divali, you have to search for "diwali -divali", "divali -diwali" and "divali diwali"  (in other words, search for "divali but not diwali," then "diwali, but not divali," and then both "diwali and divali" together--that way you don't double count).  The reason why I have elaborate strings like: "diwali -divali -puja -food -recipe" is that I have to standardize the search for all festivals.   Here were the results of the Google search:

(Since "diwali divali -puja -food -recipe" gives a small number (22,500) compared to the others, I am not bothering with the "both together" search; similarly for other festivals, where the numbers are even lower).
 * diwali/divali:
 * "diwali -divali -puja -food -recipe" 1,470,000
 * "divali -diwali -puja -food -recipe" 229,000
 * Total: 1,699,000


 * Holi
 * "holi -puja -food -recipe" 1,490,000


 * dussehra/dusshera/durga puja/navaratri/vijay dashmi:
 * "durga puja -recipe -food -dussehra -dusshera -vijay -dashmi -navaratri" 256,000
 * "dussehra -food -recipe -durga -puja -dusshera -vijay -dashmi -navaratri"  71,600
 * "navaratri -food -recipe -dussehra -dusshera -durga -puja -vijay -dashami" 44,000
 * "dusshera -food -recipe -durga -puja -vijay -dashmi -navaratri -dussehra" 14,300
 * "vijay dashmi -food -recipe -durga -puja -dusshera -dussehra -navaratri" 389
 * Total: 386,289


 * pongal/sankranthi/makar sankranti:
 * "pongal -food -recipe -puja -sankranthi -makar -sankranti" 142,000
 * "sankranthi -food -recipe -puja -pongal -makar -sankranti" 36,500
 * "makar sankranti -food -recipe -puja -pongal -sankranthi" 17,700
 * Total: 196,200


 * Shivaratri/Shivratri
 * "shivaratri -puja -recipe -food -shivratri" 67,300
 * "shivratri -puja -recipe -food -shivaratri" 44,500
 * Total: 111,800


 * Ganesh Chaturthi
 * "ganesh chaturthi -puja -food -recipe" 98,400


 * Janmashtami
 * "janmashtami -puja -food -recipe" 68,500


 * Ugadi
 * "ugadi -puja -food -recipe" 65,000

I think it is fair to include only four festivals. In light of the results from 1) Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encarta, and the Google Search, I propose the following compromise:

The most widely celebrated include the Hindu festivals of Diwali, Holi, Durga Puja/Dussehra, and Pongal/Sankranthi. (in that order and with those spellings).

Unfortunately, Ganesh Chaturthi and Ugadi don't cut it. In order to include Ganesh Chaturthi, one would need to include Shivaratri (which is included in Encarta, while Ganesh Chaturthi is not; and which has more Google hits.) Similarly, in order to include Ugadi, one would need to include Janmasthmi (which is included in Encarta, while Ugadi is not; and which has more Google hits).

I feel that this is fair. I also feel that if further changes are made, or if people resort to more novel hermeneutics, then admins need to step in and restore the peace. But the India article cannot include everyone's each person's favorite Hindu festival.

Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  04:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you please provide the hyperlinks to your google searches? ....and..
 * What is your logic for using strings like "ugadi -puja -food -recipe", "janmashtami -puja -food -recipe" etc.,. I hope you arent under the impression that there is a dish called "ugadi" and a dish called "janmashtami" on the lines of Pongal-the festival and Pongal-the dish.  Sarvagnya 05:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't need hyper links. Simply type: ugadi -puja -food -recipe in the Google box and see how many hits you get.  The number of Google hits will appear on the top right hand side of the page.
 * The reason why I have to have elaborate strings like "ugadi -puja -food -recipe" is that all results need to be standardized. In other words, even though ugadi doesn't have a double life as a food preparation, in order to not give it an unfair advantage in the search, it has to be "weighed down" with the same handicaps as pongal.  Since for pongal, I need to type: "pongal -food -recipe" (in order to tease out the festival from the food), I have to do the same for ugadi, even though I know that ugadi is not a food preparation.  Similarly, the reason why "-puja" is there is that in the dussehra/durga puja/navaratri searches, I have to type: dussehra -durga -puja.  So, the "-puja" ends up in all the searches in order to standardize the search.  That way no one festival will have an unfair advantage.

If you have any other questions about the search strategy or about Google's page rank algorithm, I'll be happy to explain. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  05:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * PS Alternately, you can also go to Google's Advanced Search Website and type: "ugadi" in the top box (titled: with all of the words) and type: "puja food recipe" in the fourth box (titled: without the words)  (don't use the "-" signs here, and don't use the quotation marks "").  Next click on "Google Search" and you will get approximately 65,000 hits.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  06:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

@Fowler So you are using google as the yard stick to measure the popularity? Ok, letz search Angelina Jolie, we get 361,000 hits where as for Angelina Jolie pussy 1,330,000; what an irony! Angelina Jolie's pussy is almost 4 times popular than Angelina Jolie herself. Stop the crap and talk sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.217.43.138 (talk • contribs).
 * Your language might constitute vandalism/obscenity, but in case it doesn't, you have your facts wrong. The Google search for "Angeline Jolie" yields 5,160,000 hits and not 361,000 as you indicated.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, there's no need for such vulgar examples. You might help your argument more by getting a book or encyclopedia ref. Thanks. Saravask 19:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Quick note on Encarta's list: ''Rath Yatra is no more a 'festival' than the Brahmotsava at Tirupati or even the "Kumbh Mela" - both of which I am fairly certain attract larger numbers than the Rath Yatra at Puri.  Brahmotsava even has a govt., of India dedicated site.  Not sure if any other 'festival' can boast of this distintion.  But then again, Brahmotsavam wouldnt stand a chance in your book.  This very listing by Encarta shows that there exists a fine distinction in the way Encarta defines its "List of Hindu festivals" and the way its defined on this article.  I request you to stop making specious cases to push for ill informed inclusions and exclusions.  Sarvagnya 01:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Encarta and Britannica on India's neighbours and Major Indian Dance Forms

 * 1) India's Neighbours:


 * Here is part of the first paragraph of Encarta's page on India: "It is bounded on the north by China, Nepal, and Bhutan; on the east by Bangladesh, Myanmar (formerly known as Burma), and the Bay of Bengal; on the south by the Palk Strait and the Gulf of Mannār (which separates it from Sri Lanka) and the Indian Ocean; and on the west by the Arabian Sea and Pakistan."


 * Here too is part of Encyclopaedia Britannica's India page: "Neighbouring countries of particular concern to India are Pakistan to the northwest and China to the north, both of which have intractable border disputes with India, and Bangladesh, which is surrounded on three sides by Indian territory. The other nations on India's frontier are Nepal and Bhutan to the north, situated between India and China, and Myanmar (Burma) to the northeast."

"Wikipedia represents both (ie all) points of views: The administrated and claimed territories."
 * Neither of these entries mention Afghanistan as a neighbour. I feel this evidence should be enough for the Wikipedia page as well.  As user Nichalp put it succinctly on a previous talk page:


 * I am therefore removing Afghanistan from the list of India's neighbours, but leaving the footnote in.

"Dance is a highly developed art form in India and is important as a pastime, in worship, and as part of Sanskrit dramas. The major classical dance forms are bharata natyam, kathak, manipuri, and kathakali. Bharata natyam, which is based on the Natya Shastra, is probably the most significant of these forms. It incorporates many of the precise movements, hand gestures, and facial expressions for which Indian dance is famous. Each movement and gesture the dancer performs has its own meaning. The kathak dance style originated in north India and emphasizes rhythmic footwork (under the weight of more than 100 ankle bells) and spectacular spins. The manipuri dance form, which is named for Manipur, where it originated, is known for its graceful turning and swaying. The kathakali form is a dance drama, characterized by mime and facial makeup resembling masks."
 * 2) Major Indian Dance Forms
 * Here is the entry on major Indian dance forms from Encarta's India page:

"The performing arts also have a long and distinguished tradition. Bharata-natya, the classical dance form originating in southern India, expresses Hindu religious themes that date at least to the 4th century AD. Other regional styles include orissi (from Orissa), manpuri (Manipur), kathakali (Kerala), kuchipudi (Andhra Pradesh), and kathak (Islamicized northern India). In addition, there are numerous regional folk dance traditions."
 * Here too is the Britannica entry:

Neither of these entries mention Yakshagana. I feel that to include it in the Wikipedia India page, which does not include either Orissi or Kuchipudi (both mentioned in Britannica), would not be fair.

I am therefore removing Yakshagana from the list of major Indian dance forms listed in the culture section.

Again: I am removing Afghanistan from the list of neighbours in the lead, but leaving the footnote in, and I am also removing Yakshagana from the list of major Indian dance forms in the Culture section.     Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Your use of encarta and britannica to establish 'non-notability' is a specious argument. While every inclusion in Encarta or Britannica may be indicative of 'notability', a non-inclusion does not imply 'non-notability' or even lesser 'notability' by any stretch of imagination.  Ganesh Chaturthi is the closest that comes to a truly nationally popular festival.  It may not be the Number 1 festival in any state except Maharashtra but it is easily the #2 or #3 festival in an overwhelming number of states of India.  Your use of Google and your logic for using the strings you've used even more ludicrous.


 * As for why Google fights are stupid, here are some results,
 * Britney Spears vs M S Subbulakshmi - Singers both. But BS wins hands down.  MSS is not as 'notable' as BS.  Okay.  We are comparing apples and oranges.  So lets compare apples and apples/oranges and oranges.
 * MSS vs BJ - MSS wins. Okay, not apples and apples enough? Lets dig further..
 * MSS vs GNB - both Carnatic music legends. But MSS wins hands down.  GNB wouldnt find a place on a list of 'notable' Carnatic musicians.  Okay,  apples and apples enough but not contemporary enough? Let's look further...
 * BJ vs GH - Apples and apples. Both legends of Hindustani music and even from the same gharana if I am right.  Both contemporaries.  But BJ wins hands down.
 * SG vs RD - some cricket now.   Never mind the fact that both are as contemporary as contemporaries can be.  Both are in exactly the same 'high profile' profession playing for exactly the same 'high profile' teams. Yet, RD wins by a landslide, not even a simple majority.
 * SK vs SD - Time for some movies now. Both contemporaries.  Both embroiled in high profile criminal case outside their profession.  Both equally 'notable'.  And yet, SK wins by a landslide.
 * DB vs ZZ - Time for some soccer. DB wins by a landslide.


 * Hope you see the futility and specious nature of your arguments. This filibustering of even common knowledge, common sense edits really borders on wiki harassment. As for your knowledge of Google page rank technology, I request you to share it with Saravask and explain to him that there is a reason why www.telupu.com appears on the first page when you search for 'sankranti'(in te.unicode)and that there really wouldnt have been any necessity for me to do any 'digging' to 'dig out' that site.  Sarvagnya 23:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't know anything about Google fights.  Never used them.  As far as I know, they have nothing to do with Google.  I don't know what te.unicode is and no www.telepu.com appears in my Google window.  My latest understanding is that we don't want descriptions to get too "listy" and feel personally that to add Yakshagana to the list of four dance forms already mentioned doesn't make sense (especially, when Odissi and Kuchipudi are not mentioned); however, this whole exchange has gone well beyond the point of diminishing returns for me.  If you want to add Yakshagana or any other dance form, please add with abandon.  Moreover, if you think I am harassing you, please feel free to complain to the powers that be.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hindi page
Could someone help me out to fix the problem to fix infobox on the Hindi page. I have experimented it on sandbox. But it is very clumsy. Please do help. Regards, Shyam  ( T / C ) 10:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Flora and fauna
... needs to have its first paragraph pruned. Requesting editors to use  while editing that section. Goal should be to have sample flora/fauna lists read as smoothly as the second paragraph of Australia and not be overly "listy". All input welcome. Thanks. Saravask 05:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, please read the following:
 * Talk:Kerala/Archive01
 * I'd prefer that we not capitalize species' common names here, since in popular books and literature it is not common. Capitalization is only common in the scientific literature, and this is Wikipedia, not Science or Nature. Other views welcome. Saravask 05:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The pruning of the first paragraph has been accomplished. All inputs are still welcome though.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  09:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Error in the number of states and map
The number of states is given as 29, which could be wrong depending on whether one considers Delhi as a state. Excluding Delhi the number of states is 28.

In any case, the map with states is wrong - the numbering of states and the labels dont match for most states.

Somebody please correct this.


 * Seems ok to me. Maybe you need to clear your cache (Purge India page). As for the labelling, are you using Linux? There was a known bug with Konqueror. Lastly, Delhi cannot be considered a state unless there is a Constitutional ammendment. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  17:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)