Talk:India/Archive 55

Aravalli hills, Thar and the plains
I reverted some edits of a very knowledgeable editor. As I will be busy for the rest of the evening, I am leaving a short note here.

The Indo-Gangetic plain has been created by river-borne deposits in the trough created by the subduction of the oceanic portion of the Indo-Australian plate under the Eurasian place (actually the Tethysian crust). The plate sloped down in order to subduct and created the trough. The plain today has so gentle a slope so as to be almost level. This is because the IA plate is far far below. The plain being mostly dried up river-borne sediment which in primordial times maintained its level. (This is the reason that India between the Vindhyas and the Himalayas is generally of no interest to geologists. The exception is the Aravali range which had a high enough feature of the IA plate to rise above the plain; or in other words, high enough not to be covered by the silt which is now mostly sand.  The cited source says, "The Great Indian, or Thar, Desert forms an important southern extension of the Indo-Gangetic Plain. It is mostly in northwestern India but also extends into eastern Pakistan and is mainly an area of gently undulating terrain, and within it are several areas dominated by shifting sand dunes and numerous isolated hills. The latter provide visible evidence of the fact that the thin surface deposits of the region, partially alluvial and partially wind-borne, are underlain by the much older Indian-Australian Plate, of which the hills are structurally a part."  Our text says, "Cut off from the plain by the ancient Aravalli Range lies the Thar Desert." We could add, "the plain proper." But there is no reason to explain more. The desert simply doesn't have enough silt, i.e. in any substantial thickness to constitute a real part of the IG plain. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  02:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the Talk page section here, although I did think about a talk page post first, I concluded the edits were very small so just went ahead and did them. I am happy to explain them here, for this allows me to explain in more detail.
 * First about the Thar and the Plain:
 * As I said in the edit summary, the Desert is not cut-off from the Plain. Therefore, the current sentence is wrong from the very beginning. As the source rightly points out, the Thar is largely an extension of the Plain, and was formed mostly due to shifting of rivers and receding rainfall. It is for this reason that the exact boundary between the fertile part of the Plain and the Desert part is largely undefined, especially in the North, West and South.
 * The Aravalis form the eastern boundary of the Desert. But what lies to the East of the Aravalis? The Plain (or Plain proper)? No, what lies is peninsular India at one end, and the Delhi portion of the Plain at the other. So not only is the Desert not cut-off from the Plain, it is even less so by the Aravalis. Again, I mentioned this in the edit summary. Take a look at this exaggerated terrain map to understand what I mean.
 * And now looking at what the source says, turns out the source does not mention anything about the Desert being cut-off from the plain by the Aravalis, but does talk about it being an extension. Should the sentence used here be making claims not even made in the source?
 * For these reasons, the current sentence is entirely wrong. I don’t thing it can be saved by “Plain proper”. I changed it to “To the south of the plain's northwestern section lies the Thar Desert, with the ancient Aravalli Range marking its eastern boundary.” The sentence is not much longer than the current one, but actually accurate unlike the current sentence. Tried to keep it as brief as possible while also still flowing from the text it follows, talking about the Desert’s location wrt the Plain, and then the Range’s loc wrt the Desert. The link to Punjab Plain was new, and the only reason for including it was to specify what is meant by “the northwestern section.” A shorter alternative is “Partly on the plain is the Thar Desert, with the Aravalis marking its eastern boundary.”
 * Now the second edit, regarding the thorn forests:
 * Ecoregion IM1303.svg
 * The thorn forests it talks about are the Deccan thorn scrub forests and the Northwestern thorn scrub forests. The latter is described in the article as “western Gangetic plain.” Does the map look like the Gangetic plain? The forests are found mainly in the Indus basin. I wrote “the plains of northwestern India,” we can shorten it to “the plains of northwest India” or “the plains of the Northwest.” Even “eastern Indus basin” or “Indus plain” or the general “Indo-Gangetic” would be more accurate than Gangetic. But not completely, because the coastal plain of Gujarat (south of Kutch, ie in the Kathiawar Peninsula) isn’t still quite included. UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The Thar is generally not considered a part of the Indo-Gangetic plain. There was never the kind of fertile silt there even when the Ghaggar-Hakra (always a monsoon-driven river, not Himalayan, from snow melt) might have flowed there. See the work of Giosan et all at IVC. Part of the problem on this page is that original sources are periodically changed.  So, although the Britannica does say extension (which doesn't really mean integral part), there are plenty sources that consider the Thar to be distinct. So for example, Himalayan weather and climate and their impact on the environment, Springer, 2020, defines Northwest India to be: "The area compromises the western Himalayas to the north and Thar Desert to the south-west, Indo-Gangetic plain in the middle, and the Aravalli Range to the south-east."  The Britannica source has very likely not been updated since the last great rewrite in 1978.  More soon.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Coastal Zone Management: Global Perspectives, Regional Processes, Local Issues, Elsevier, 2019, says, "Physiographically, the mainland constitutes several distinct units, namely, the Great Mountains of the North, the Indo-Gangetic Plain, the Peninsular Plateau, the Coastal Plains, the Thar Desert, and the island groups."
 * The distinctness of the Thar is important as it is an important driver of the monsoons along with the Himalayas, which the IG plain is not. I'll come back to this later Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You can also see it on page 21 of W. Norman Brown edited India, Pakistan, and Ceylon, U Pennsylvania Press, 1980, as dated as Britannica (note "Ceylon") but still a very good source for geology, which says, "The massif, which is capped with limestone and sandstone as well as with basaltic lavas, ends in a ragged border along the margin of the Gangetic Plain and the Thar Desert of western Rajasthan. The northern-most part of the peninsular massif is formed by Lower Paleozoic and Precambrian sedimentary rocks (shales, limestones, and sandstones), folded and partly metamorphosed, worn by prolonged erosion, and appearing as ranges 2,000 to 3,000 feet in height known as the Aravallis, which trend from south-southwest to north-northeast in Rajasthan and terminate at Delhi in the Ridge." (The massif is the underlying plate, or peninsular India.) I think there is nothing controversial about this.  It is bread and butter geology of the subcontinent established from the time of Harry Hammond Hess's unification of plate tectonics, or soon after.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I understand your confusion. It is true of course that in a map the Indo-Gangetic plain, the whole inverted V, is not quite cutoff from the desert. I was trying to wrack my brains why I had put in these words way back in 2007.  I just realized that Gangetic Plain redirects to Indo-Gangetic Plain.  What was meant was "cut off from the Gangetic plain."  And somehow because it was redirected to all of IG, it remained in htat form.  Now why is it cut off from the G-plain? I remember reading at that time, that in the gaps in the Aravallis either the Ganges plain extended into Rajasthan or the desert extended into the Ganges plain. The source Dikshit-Schwartzberg, seems untrackable at the moment.  It takes me to the online Britannica, but that does not have a page 11. I'll soon figure this out. The cut off was meant, but the plain was the Gangetic. But your point is well taken.  It needs to be clarified.  I suspect that it has something to do with Aravallis being the wedge that created the dramatic inverted V of the IGplain (the continental divide and slight downward gradient toward Bengal notwithstanding) and that had consequences for future surface landforms and topography.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi yes, my point is not so much that the Thar desert is an integral part of the Indo-Gangetic Plain, nor do my edits or proposals suggest so, but that the Thar desert is not cut-off/separated from the Indo-Gangetic plain in any substantial way. As for the Thar desert being separated from the Gangetic portion of the plain partially by the Aravalis, that’s fairly irrelevant since most of the Desert lies engulfed by the Indus plain (both in general and within India). We cannot state in this article that the Indo-Gangetic Plain and the Thar Desert are separated from each other by an intervening landform (the Aravali range), because that would be false.
 * And the sources provided by you, all of them, attest to this:
 * Springer doesn’t say that the plain and the desert are separated from each other by the Aravalis, in fact following from the directions given (Thar-Southwest, Aravali-Southeast, Plain-Middle, Himalayas-North) it is clear that the Desert and Aravalis lie immediately below the plain in two different areas. If the Aravalis were to separate the plain from the desert, they would be parallel to the plain not perpendicular.
 * Read carefully what is written in India, Pakistan, and Ceylon, U Penn Press, “ The massif … ends in a ragged border along the margin of the Gangetic Plain and the Thar Desert of western Rajasthan” The “massif” refers to the general Plateau region, not the Aravali in particular. The Plateau(s) lie at the margins of the Gangetic plain, not the Aravalis.
 * India Geographic Map.jpg
 * Now, what actually lies beyond the Aravalis? What is it exactly that the Aravalis are separating the Thar Desert from? Well, for the most part, what lies to the east of the Aravali range is the Malwa plateau, not the Gangetic plain. This is the elevated area between the Aravali and the Vindhyas. See in map at the right. The Gangetic plain lies further east of this plateau. Only in the northernmost part of the range does the Gangetic plain actually lie to the immediate east of it. This is the Delhi-Agra region. In any case, the major portion of the Desert-Plain boundary lies in Punjab, Rajasthan and Haryana, where this boundary is unclear and undefined (and definitely not defined by the Aravalis).
 * Also, I guess you’ve understood the point of the second edit? The current wording is akin to saying, for instance, that “the montane forests of India lie in the Thar Desert” (without the error being so obvious, ofcourse, otherwise it would’ve been caught long ago). UnpetitproleX (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If there’s no confusion regarding what changes I’m proposing, then we can discuss the particular wording, and introduce the changes. Sources would be easy, since these are corrections, and most if not all sources should be in agreement. In fact, sources that support the current wording would be few (or none). UnpetitproleX (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you have misunderstood my point. Your wording is a description of the regions; the wording in place is that of the geomorphology.  One can't replace the other.  I shall be rewriting the section soon for the FAR.  Let us wait.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is what it was meant to encapsulate, The Aravalli Range on the east forms the north-western part of the stable block of the Deccan Peninsula. Its underlying geology is complex but most of Western Rajasthan is covered by quaternary formations, which have concealed the solid geology of this area. ...; The most striking topographic feature is the Aravalli Range which extends from the northern Gujerat Plain north-eastward to Delhi over a distance of 640 km. The Aravalli range boldly defines the eastern limit of the arid and the semi-arid zone. Probably the more humid conditions that prevail near the Aravallis prevented the extension of aridity towards the east and the Ganges Valley. It is noteworthy that, wherever there are gaps in this range, sand has advanced to the east of it. The Indus plain is not really in the manifest of India's geography. The Punjab plain is not significant geologically independent of the Indus. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this does provide some context to the wording, but the context it provides proves further that the current wording is very incorrect indeed. “The Aravalis prevent the extension of aridity towards the east and the Ganges Valley. It is noteworthy that, wherever there are gaps in this range, sand has advanced to the east of it.” To the east of Aravalis. The wording makes a distinction between the east of Aravalis and the Ganges Valley. I have wrote in detail above explaining what is to the east of the range.
 * Another thing that this quote hints at, correctly, is that the Aravalis are an important boundary between the arid (Northwestern thorn scrub forests) and moist (Upper Gangetic Plains moist deciduous forests) areas of the Indian subcontinent. Other such boundary is the Upper Yamuna river. This points to the correction made by me in the second edit.
 * I’m going to reinstate those corrections, you can modify them when you do the FAR rewrite. There’s zero reason to keep the current wording when it is categorically wrong. UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, saying that the Indus plain is not really in the manifest of India's geography is quite a bold claim. Almost all of the states of Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh, all of the disputed Indian-administered territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, and large swathes of Rajasthan (the northwestern areas) and Gujarat (the western areas) are firmly part of the Indus basin. UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


 * An interesting, if rather arcane, discussion. Am I correct in understanding that peninsular India is the original Indian plate, the Himalayas were (or rather, are) a part of Eurasian plate, and the Indo-gangetic plain is neither one nor the other? Where did that, and the ancient Aravali range come from? And, where does the Thar desert belong? It would be helpful if we could slot these land masses correctly! (BTW,, regardless of right or wrong, the wiki-etiquette is that you get consensus here if reverted, rather than restoring your reverted version.)--RegentsPark (comment) 15:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You’re right, it is arcane, which might be partly why the error has persisted so long. But you’ve misunderstood what the conversation is about. It is about the Thar Desert not being cut-off from the plain, especially not by the Aravali range. ’s current rewording is fine, even if a bit difficult to follow and perhaps needing grammatical improvements. Atleast it addresses the earlier inaccuracy. I’m glad I could bring to fore the errors. Best, UnpetitproleX (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is the sequence. (a) The Indian plate drifted north from Gondwana. (b) Its oceanic crust subducted under the Eurasian plate.  (c) Its continental crust party folded and partly subducted, underthrusting the Eurasian plate and uplifting the Himalayas, (it is the reason that you can find fossil fish in the Himalayas; I once helped myself to some smooth rounded pebbles from freshly excavated earth in the Garhwal Himalayas) and in the process creating a trough, or vast trench.  (d) the ancient rivers Indus, Brahmaputra (which delimit the Himalayas) and Ganges and its tributaries (which rise in the Himalayas or pierce through them) began to flow into the trough carrying sediment from the rising mountains (e) The settled and eventually dried up sediment has created the Indo-Gangetic plain. (f) the northern portions of indian plate are buried in sediment; the northernmost outcropping portion is the highly eroded Aravalli range,  (g) The area below to the west is an arid zone (which some consider to be an extension of a zone beginning in the Sahara and broken briefly by rivers such as the Indus (but that is probably too off topic for this page)) (h) the Aravallis act as a barrier to the aridity spready eastward. (i) the rest of the Indian plate is peninsular India, the geologically most stable part of India, ...  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Much clearer now, thanks. UnpetitproleX is right about the tweaking though. Perhaps something like "Thar desert, the eastern spread of which is cut-off ..." or something that makes it clear that we're talking about the Thar desert. The repeated use of "arid" and "aridity" is not good, as is the term "aridity" (not easily understood). --RegentsPark (comment) 16:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello again, and   I've rephrased the paragraph again keeping Un*X's and RP's very cogent concern uppermost in mind.  I've tried also to alter the emphasis to make it more coherent. Mainly, though, I have attempted to do this in a way that did not involve getting into too much detail about the constituent parts of the various entities. Tell me what you think  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:23, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel like the “its two arcs … city of Delhi” could go. Is it possible to combine the two sentences that follow? Like “The northernmost extension [can we call it that?] of the peninsular plateaus, [or Indian plate or something] the ancient Aravali range checks the eastward expansion of the Thar Desert.” Or further simplified. UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Basically, dropping the parts about Delhi and Delhi ridge, smaller explanation of what the Aravalis are, and possibly a single sentence for Aravali and Thar. UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I agree with your stance on not including the specifics of the Indo-Gangetic plain here, I had reluctantly linked Punjab Plain (which btw the ‘Haryana plain’ is mostly just a part of) only because I though “northwestern section” could be confusing. UnpetitproleX (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * To be clear, your current version isn’t bad, just too detailed I feel. UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. I've incorporated your suggestions as best I could.  Let them sit on the back burner while I attend to some other issues raised by Unp*X/.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Etymology section update proposed
Suggest change from "Bharat gained increased currency from the mid-19th century as a native name for India." to "The name Bharat has been vogue since ancient times has been prominently been in use since the 18th century.

Reference - Google ngram viewer indicates the usage of the word Bharat since 18th century while older references like Bhagwad Geeta have reference to Bharat being referred to as a geographical region. Amitized (talk) 07:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Google ngrams are not reliable secondary sources. CMD (talk) 08:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * From : "At the core of the Mahabharata is the story of the struggle for the kingdom of Bharata (roughly northern India), the world of the original audience for the poem. (Modern India is known by the same name.) The contending parties are cousins, ... Collectively, they are known as the Pandavas, ‘descendants of Pandu’. ... (and) the Kauravas, ‘descendants of Kuru’ ...(Footnote: Kuru is in fact a common ancestor of both sets of cousins, as is (the man) Bharata, ‘(Descendant of ) Bharata’ being another common epithet."   The last epithet is employed in one of its most famous verses: "Whenever there is a falling away from the true law and an upsurge of unlawfulness, then, O Bharata, I emit myself."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Please note also that the "Northern India" was partly that of the imagination. The descendants of the Indo-Aryan tribes who are the subjects of the Gita had no technology with which to claim, for example, Nanda Devi or Kanchenjunga for their land, or defend them (were defense needed). The land may very well have been a very circumscribed region of northern India.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

1947, India was the jewel in the crown of the British Empire, an important military resource in a location of great geostrategic significance. But the Cold War diminished India’s importance. Because it did not play a significant role in the balance of power between the Soviet Union and the Western alliance, the superpowers often took India for granted. At most, the two sides saw India as a potential counter to the People’s Republic of China on the international chessboard-but only one of several. Sagarsaprecode (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Economy
I believe we should change the fact that it says "India is a fast growing major energy" to "India is the fsstest growing major economy" which has been mistakenly been said in China's page even though China doesn't have the fastest growing major economy.

Thanks AtishT20 (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Vandalsing SVG of Emblem of India.
Someone is Vandalizing Emblem_of_India.svg. Need Immediate Administrator Interference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swapnil1101 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 April 2022
Change national language from Hindi, English TO by specifying all 22 Indian National Language which is given in the Indian Constitution. Also if you see any Indian currency note, value of it would have been printed in 17 languages out of 22 Languages given in constitution. 1.186.71.46 (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: See the FAQ at the top of this page. CMD (talk) 05:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Economy
I had made a recent edit however Fowler&Fowler seems to think he runs the website! I understand he is more senior than me but that doesn't give him the right to call my edits nonsense. The edit I had made was factual and not "nonsense" as he so rudely described. Please do a fact check if you don't believe me. May I suggest we keep the edit I made with the addition that India however does have an overall low GDP per Capita? Thank you :) AtishT20 (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Nontrivial edits should be discussed here per WP:OWN and a consensus be garnered for them. A consensus can take anywhere between several days and several weeks to form.  You were not just editing the article directly, but the lead, which is a distilled summary of the distilled article.  You were, moreover, editing the summary of a section which another editor had volunteered to improve a week or two ago in the talk page disucssions. You were not summarizing India's complex economy, only engaging in boosterism.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with F&f that the formulation being added amounted to POV boosterism. Some of the individual points (such as nominal or PPP GDP) are perhaps worth adding but they are best incorporated to blend in with the existing language (During the same time, its nominal per capita income increased from US$64 annually to US$1,498, and its literacy rate from 16.6% to 74%. From being a comparatively destitute country in 1951, India has become a fast-growing major economy and a hub for information technology services, with an expanding middle class.) so that they can be appreciated in the proper context. Feel free to propose the changes here.
 * Not currently convinced that the military size, budget or the nuclear-weapon power status is lede worthy. Btw, the discussion of the defence budget in the article body (The official Indian defence budget for 2011 was US$36.03 billion, or 1.83% of GDP. Defence expenditure was pegged at US$70.12 billion for fiscal year 2022–23 and, increased 9.8% than [sic] previous fiscal year.) has a jarring temporal jump and needs to be updated. The first sentence can perhaps be deleted altogether and the second sentence copy-edited though I haven't done so myself since there may be existing plans for section improvement as part of the FAR-process. Abecedare (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please help improve the article in whatever manner, place, and time you can.  Your presence and input is highly valued.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Can't promise anything due to real-life time-commitments but will try to at least help around the edges. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think there needs to be more on India's current strengths and weaknesses (as in F&F's first edit summary) in the lead. There is perhaps too much history there at present. I know it's really tricky to get everything in. Johnbod (talk) 02:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I see your point about history dominating the lede, and perhaps we can think about how the fourth para can be expanded a bit to better summarize the rest of the article (not necessarily in terms of India's strengths and weaknesses although that's one possibility). On the flip side, unlike history, the rest of the article is hard to summarize in narrative form and attempts to give it more weight in the lede might just lead to listing random facts in a sea of blue-links. So, yes, tricky but worth giving some thought. Abecedare (talk) 05:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Fine but I don't appreciate my edits being called "nonsense" AtishT20 (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I apologize for using "nonsense." Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 May 2022
Official language no official language 27.59.89.111 (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Update
The section "Modern India" says that the country "has remained a democracy with ... a largely independent press", but the figures say something else.  Peter Ormond &#128172;  18:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Concerning - we probably need to change our choice of words. Though the descent might be a temporary blip in the grander scheme of things. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

About wrong information on official languge
Hindi is not the the official languge of India.India has no official language currently,Hindi can be considered as a state language for some of the states of India(Note:Not all states have Hindi as their state language) Mr.Tovarisch (talk) 06:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hindi, as an official language, appears to be well cited in the article. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Paragraph 4
I propose that we talk about India's economy in terms of GDP and purchasing parity power etc. Other countries with large economies such as the USA, Japan, China, Germany, and the UK follow this pattern however India does not seem to. It would make sense for India's page to do the same. I propose that we include the edit I made. Yes India is a poor country however we should show a balance and it is important as India continues to grow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtishT20 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

So what do we think? AtishT20 (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not a matter about which we can vote among ourselves. It has to do with the reliable sources, what they say, what the major international economic and social organizations say, and what indicators they employ to rate a country's socio-economic well being.   We can certainly compare India to others and follow the World Bank:"'India today is a low middle-income country among 57 such countries (L-MIs). In India's last census, 22% of its citizens were found to live below the poverty line of $1.90 per day at 2011 prices in contrast to the L-MI average of 10.9% in 2018, and 0% for Germany, a high-income country. India's life expectancy at birth is 70 years in contrast to the L-MI average of 69, and the German average of 81. Its population is 1.38 billion in contrast to the total L-MI population of 3.33 billion, and Germany's population of 83 million. India's 2020  per capita income was $1,927.7 in contrast to the L-MI average of $2,217.2, and the German of $46,252.7.  India's GDP is  $2.66 trillion in contrast to the total L-MI of $7.38 trillion and the German of $3.85 trillion.]|undefined" .  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And if you wanted to add environmental and institutional indicators, you could say: India annually uses 45% of its (renewable) freshwater resources, in contrast to the L-MI average of 18 and Germany's of 23%. Some 46% of Indians use safe sanitation services, in contrast to the L-MI average of 46% and the German of 97%. In 2020, 43% of Indians used the internet, in contrast to the L-MI average of 45% and the German of 87%. Women in India hold 14% of the seats in the national parliaments, in contrast to 21% for the L-MI and 35% for Germany.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And regionally, India has more relative poverty than any South Asian country and except for Pakistan and Nepal, India has lower income than other South Asian countries. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

That's not my point. I said we can mention poverty as well. Even countries like Bangladesh talk about their position in the world based on economy even though they are poor? Is there a problem for you stating India has the 5th largest economy? AtishT20 (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Adding challenges in the lead section
In the article lead, under socio-economic challenges faced by India, it only lists 3. I propose adding other significant ones like corruption, lack of access to healthcare and education, widespread poverty and inter-community clashes. Johnnytest5 (talk) 04:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

This is the problem. People only want to talk about the bad sides of India and not the positive ones. There should be mention of both not just one AtishT20 (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Stop making emotive responses to queries here.
 * The mention of corruption index already exist in that section. The "lack of access to healthcare and education" is a non-existing issue that's why it is not covered, and you have forgot the lead say "India has substantially reduced its rate of poverty, though at the cost of increasing economic inequality.[60]" This is why the socio-economic section talks about income inequality. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 18:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @AtishT20 The article already mentions many positive things about India, and as with every other country wikipedia page, both the good and bad issues should be mentioned to maintain a neutral, informative page.
 * @Aman.kumar.goel It is not a 'non existing issue' as you say. The issue is very much there, just because you may not know about it does not make it non existent. Access has increased substantially, yes, but it is far from universal. India's facing acute doctor shortages in rural areas, even though progress is being made. I'm citing just one out of many sources for you to read. https://theprint.in/health/1-doctor-for-1511-people-1-nurse-for-670-covid-exposes-indias-healthcare-fault-lines/602784/. The issue is prevalent.
 * And I am talking about the lead of the article which mentions the challenges, not the section itself. In the lead there is no mention of the corruption perception index or of corruption at all. I know that it is mentioned below, I am saying it should be mentioned in the lead, as it is for most other countries. Johnnytest5 (talk) 04:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Your both claims are misleading. "shortage of medical professionals" is not same as "lack of access to healthcare and education" and your claim that corruption is mentioned on lead for "for most other countries" contradicts the reality as Equatorial Guinea is claimed to be the most corrupt country in the world but the article's lead make no such claim. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 05:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not making any emotive responses..... AtishT20 (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Sentence about British rule in the lead
"The rights promised to Indians were granted slowly,[51][52] but technological changes were introduced, and ideas of education, modernity and the public life took root."

This sentence misleadingly implies that ideas of education and public life were not already widely circulating in pre-colonial India. The use of the "but" and missing subject in "right promised to Indians were granted slowly" also seem like a questionable way of almost softening the exploitative reality of colonial rule on the country. I suggest changing the sentence to: "British Crown rule began in 1858, introducing ideas of modernity to the nation. The British administration granted the rights it promised to Indians slowly, leading to a pioneering and influential nationalist movement and the eventual dissolution of British rule" OR "British Crown rule began in 1858, introducing ideas of modernity to the nation. A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged in response to the British administration's failure to grant equal rights to Indians, becoming a major factor in the eventual dissolution of British rule." I understand we're aiming to be "balanced" but I think it would be remiss to suggest the introduction of modernity and Industrial Revolution-sourced technology somehow negates the brutal loss of life owing to colonial negligence during this period (I am not saying that was ever the intention of whoever wrote that, but that is how it reads to me at least, especially due to the "but"). --103.211.18.141 (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The source for the the second half of the sentence:
 * has been shut down on Google Books. Can somebody provide a quotation that supports this content? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've just seen this. That book is available on my Google books, but there are probably more up-to-date citations.  Give me a few minutes, and I'll try to find them in tertiary sources, by which I don't mean encyclopedias, but widely-used textbooks, reviews, introductions to edited collections, companions, or handbooks.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is one:
 * Here is one:

The role of education in shaping childhood is a story of historic importance in modern India. Although historical scholarship on pre-British education for children remains sparse and some of the debates surrounding this research are far from being settled, there is consensus on the view that the nineteenth century forms a watershed in the history of Indian education (Kumar 2014; Shahidullah 1984). The varied schools and systems that existed across India prior to British colonial rule did not survive the new institutional order that took shape in the middle decades of the nineteenth century. What replaced it is usually referred to as the ‘modern’ system of education. How modern it was, in a normative sense, cannot be easily judged, but it did encourage both economic and geographical mobility, and triggered the articulation of demand for social justice by the lower-placed groups in the complex caste system. This impact of education needs to be studied with careful consideration of socialisation processes operative at the level of the family and kinship. And socialisation is inevitably an inter-generational story. The economic and cultural functions of education are normally associated with the advent of modernity in India’s mainly agrarian society, and they have continued to shape the experience of childhood and schooling ever since they set in. The social and cultural turmoil that characterises India’s everyday political life can be seen as an outcome of the expansion of access to education over a period spanning the last seven generations. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  21:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A generation is about 25 years, so we are talking 175 years, the 1840s. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's another:

Thus, at the time of independence, the leaders of these formerly colonized South Asian nations were all committed to secularism (although several of them later reneged on this commitment—see Madan [2006] for the problems of secularism in contemporary India), and they accepted the colonial legacy of an independent, secular judiciary as a hallmark of the modern state. According to the Indian anthropologist M. N. Srinivas, the different forms of self-representation selected by newly independent states and their leaders reflected the deeply ambivalent attitude of indigenous elites about “becoming modern.” He argued that colonial modernity was partly implanted by institutionalizing law courts and codifications of colonial law—which also provided the foundation of the modern postcolonial state. It was above all through the law, Srinivas wrote, that fundamental Western values epitomized by humanitarianism, egalitarianism, and secularism were made normative in India beginning in the first half of the nineteenth century. Although British colonial law was only nominally egalitarian (see Kolsky 2010), it still overruled both precolonial Hindu and Islamic legal practices. One of the consequences of this imposition of Western norms was “the rise of an elite class whose attitude to the West is ambivalent ... who want to be modern, but not western” (Srinivas 1966: 53). The desire to be modern, however, "'also enables the non-Western intellectual to reject, in the name of science and humanity, not only the aggressive West but also his own society and its tradition. It enables him to identify himself with the future, with progress, science and humanitarianism. (ibid.)'"

Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  21:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In other words, the second citation and quote is about modernity in the elite, a counterpoint to the more traditional rural popular of the first quote. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And here is the original citation:

the British conquest, the concept of membership in a stable political order embracing and involving them all seems to have been unknown to the inhabitants of India. Dynasties rather than nations were the centers of political power and the foci of personal loyalties. Powerful rulers like Ashoka, Samudragupta, and Harsha had indeed succeeded in bringing large parts of the subcontinent under their sway, but their empires dissolved with the death of the last strong ruler in each reigning line. Thanks largely to the genius of Akbar (1542-1605), the Mughal empire created a somewhat more durable administrative order, but internal dissensions and Persian-Afghan invasions led to the empire's dismemberment after the passing of the militane Aurangzeb (1619—1707). For a time the Marathas gave promise of re-establishing Hindu dominion, but again their rule could not unite all of India around their standard, let alone bridge the gap between India’s two major religious traditions. A new chapter opened when British arms and diplomacy placed the whole of the subcontinent under one paramount power for the first time in history. They imposed not only unity on India, but a relatively efficient administrative machinery as well. Gradually the sinews of a new polity were strengthened by the introduction of printing and journalism, railroads, a postal and telegraph system, and by the growth of an all-India economy centering in large modern cities accessible to ocean-going ships. The new political and economic order attracted able Indians anxious to improve their status and increase their wealth by entering its service. A new class emerged to mediate between the foreign rulers or traders and the mass of people. Using their knowledge of English as the key to advancement, Indian clerks and functionaries found employment in government posts; Indian lawyers pleaded in British-style courts; Indian businessmen dealt with foreign firms; and Indian teachers imparted to their countrymen the language and culture of the conquerors. This rising middle class demonstrated a loyalty to the British chat outweighed the angry discontent of the old elite—both Muslim and Hindu. The suppression of the latter in the Mutiny and Rebellion of 1857-1858 only confirmed the entrenched position of their successors. But the English education that provided so many willing collaborators for the British in India eventually proved the undoing of their empire. For one thing, the members of the new middle class—whether from the South or the North, from Bengal or from Maharashtra—could all communicate with each other through the medium of a common language. Equally important, their reading of the English classics instilled in them Western ideals of justice, freedom, and love of country. As their numbers grew they found the good government jobs too few, with the best ones reserved for Europeans. To economic frustration was added the bitter sting of racial discrimination, for “the Mutiny” of 1857 had sharpened British suspicions of Indian loyalty, and the late nineteenth-century doctrines of Social Darwinism and aggressive imperialism combined to increase the white man’s feeling of inherent superiority over his darker-skinned subjects. Ignoring the sympathetic statements made in Parliament and the conciliatory proclamation of Queen Victoria in 1858, Britishers in India saw little reason to grant Indians a greater measure of control over their own affairs. Under these circumstances, it was not long before the seed-idea of nationalism implanted by their reading of Western books began to take root in the minds of intelligent and energetic Indians. Allan Octavian Hume, a Scotsman sympathetic to their aspirations, made possibile the first meeting (in 1885) of the Indian National Congress, which was intended to serve as a forum for the discussion of political reforms and patriotic projects. From this beginning as a safety-valve through which the upper classes could air their grievances, the Congress quickly transformed itself into an all-India nationalist organization.

Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  22:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The above quotations/sources cannot be used for supporting the sentence that is clearly WP:OR.
 * This sentence should be removed because the current scholarly consensus holds that British rule in India was a net negative. Even 70 years ago, this view was disputed and couldn't make it to the intro, per WP:NPOV.
 * This problem had been highlighted multiple times earlier. See Talk:India/Archive_51 and Talk:India/Archive_51. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all these sources @Fowler&fowler. I don't think the current sentence in the lead captures the essence of all this information accurately at all, which is what I understand @1990&#39;sguy is also picking up. "there is consensus on the view that the nineteenth century forms a watershed in the history of Indian education" does not equate to "ideas of education … took root": only that pre-colonial formulations of education underwent a significant transformation and came to resemble European models. I think the presence of madrasas, ashrams, the guru-shishya tradition, Nalanda, etc. alone corroborate the fact that "ideas of education" had already put down roots in the subcontinent well before the British entered the picture: whether they survived is a different matter altogether. I think it is absolutely accurate to say that modernity "took root" in India during British Raj (and hence bringing modern education, modern public life), but to say "ideas of education" took root during this period is just false, and I don't think any of the sources you provide say anything different. Indeed, what these sources seem to carefully emphasise is a transformation from pre-modern to modern: "The varied schools and systems that existed across India prior to British colonial rule did not survive the new institutional order that took shape in the middle decades of the nineteenth century. What replaced it is usually referred to as the ‘modern’ system of education"/"He argued that colonial modernity was partly implanted by institutionalizing law courts and codifications of colonial law—which also provided the foundation of the modern postcolonial state"/the third source talks about dynasties as the imminent pre-colonial mode of political organisation that the British replaced with an "imposed" understanding of "unity." The use of "took root" in the lead is therefore inaccurate. As for "public life," if by that phrase we mean electoral politics and the entire modern concept of belonging to one nation then sure; in that case, the sentence in the lead should state something more specific. I think the broader issue is that the coverage of British rule in India is very very vague in the lead: what do "ideas of education and public life" really even mean? I think it makes more sense to leave it to just modernity, as I suggested in my initial post. Perhaps another potential, easier revision is to change "took roots" to "significantly transformed." At present, the lead really does effectively read like a very euphemistic summary of British presence in India. Above all, what it states is just historically incorrect. Here is my final suggested revision:
 * "Gradually expanding rule of the British East India Company followed, turning India into a colonial economy. Following the Indian Rebellion of 1857, British Crown rule began in 1858, which consolidated India's transformation into a modern state. A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged in response to the British administration's prolonged failure to grant equal rights to Indians, becoming a major factor in the eventual dissolution of British rule. In 1947 the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two independent dominions, a Hindu-majority Dominion of India and a Muslim-majority Dominion of Pakistan, amid large-scale loss of life and an unprecedented migration."
 * I think this is a much more accurate, leaner, and unbiased summary of British presence ("prolonged failure" included). 103.211.18.105 (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi. Could we please reach consensus on this? First, I want to clarify I am the same user who made this post in the first place (I have retired from Wikipedia and didn't care initially to log back in). I went ahead and changed the sentence highlighted here to: "Gradually expanding rule of the British East India Company followed, turning India into a colonial economy. Following the Indian Rebellion of 1857, British Crown rule began in 1858, which consolidated India's transformation into a modern state and significantly transformed ideas of education and public life. A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged in response to the British administration's prolonged failure to grant equal rights to Indians, becoming a major factor in the eventual dissolution of British rule." I know that was a bold thing to do but I am just not interested in rehashing debates of whether British colonialism was really "that bad," which is what I find these discussions usually devolve into. The previous formulation, especially "The rights promised to Indians were granted slowly, but technological changes were introduced, and ideas of education, modernity and the public life took root," was honestly one of the most ridiculous summaries of colonial rule I have ever read on any wikipedia page (it essentially reads: "Indians had very few rights in their own land, but hey the British made railroads and started teaching English to a very select few"). Also none of the sources @Fowler&fowler provided here even substantiate that claim. There is also the added issue of what information is being selected to highlight here. The negative here is that "rights were granted slowly," when it could very well have been "Famines were significantly frequent during British rule" and "Indians were frequently subjected to poor working conditions and brutality." I understand completely that it is indeed very difficult to accurately capture British rule in one or two sentences, and that the experiences of Indians during the Raj differed between different classes and social groups, but I think undeniably there is a conscious effort to make British rule sound as benign as possible in the current lead. "Took root" could be changed to "significantly transformed" and that alone would be a constructive first step. –This issue, like @1990&#39;sguy, has been brought up before with very reasonable, non-emotive perspectives so the previous formulation clearly was problematic to others as well. My ultimate concern is that Wikipedia is powerful—often young impressionable minds' first and last introduction to certain topics—and that any user unaware of India's history would read this part of the lead and think British rule was just a chill, casually and only vaguely undesirable period, if even that. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 10:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that the first restoration made by Fowler came with a misleading edit summary,, false accusation that I am engaging in vandalism, then misrepresentation of WP:OWN (which nowhere say poorly written sentences that lack consensus cannot be removed). The recent one is yet another false claim that he has consensus. Azuredivay (talk) 10:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You guys can Wikilawyer all you want, but I have read the books. I can argue with you about content until kingdom come.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please tell me what major widely used textbooks, per WP:TERTIARY state that famines were the hallmark of British rule in India or that there were no famines in India before the British. Have you read Tirthankar Roy's Economic History of India, 1857-2010? Have you read Amartya Sen?  His arguments are much more complex than famines were much more frequent ....  Famines are complex things.  I've written most of the Indian famine articles.  The only one that I have not written, only contributed to in a supportive way is Linzhi's excellent Bengal famine of 1943.
 * That famine had complex causes. Sen, for example, has taken popularizers and scapegoaters such as Madhusree Mukherjee to task, for example, in the New York Review of Books for reducing the famine to a caricature.
 * There were many causes for the 43 famine. There was a weather-related cause of s crop failure of the previous year.  The Japanese had attacked and run over Burma in 1942, and the usual redress of importing Burmese rice was not available.  The provincial government of Suhrawardy, in place as a result of the provincial elections of 1937 (following the Government of India Act, 1935), had not acted in time.  The grain merchants of Calcutta had hoarded vast quantities of rice to sell when the prices rose which they eventually did.  Men, a large number of them Hindu, had abandoned their families in the villages in order to find food in the cities.  A large proportion of the dead were women and children.  (Paul Greenough has written poignantly about Hinduism's resort to furthering the patriline in times of crises.  Please read his magnum opus on the Bengal famine, or at least read Arjun Appadurai's review of his book available at his website.)  A larger proportion of the dead was in East Bengal, most landless peasants whose Hindu landowners were safely ensconced in West Bengal where the famine was not as severe.  (Please read Christopher Bayly and Tim Harper's accounts in their World War II books.  Please view the pictures I have added to the 43 famine page from my own collection.  Even Greenough had not seen them before.) Then there were the more British related factors.  Linlithgow, the Viceroy, did not take it seriously at first.  And then there was Churchill who felt that Britis resources were better spent on its troops who were fighting a global war.  All factors and all actors played a role in creating the famine.  The British may not have taken the famine seriously at first, but eventually when Wavell arrived as the new Viceroy, he moved heaven and earth to end the famine, and end it soon did.
 * So before waste my time here with caricatures and simplifications, please read something, and object with precision. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion with WonderBoy1998

 * So, here's my proposal. Let's discuss one issue at a time and proceed from one to the other.  Don't make hurried, off the top of your head changes in the article.  Just think what you wrote was nonsense in terms of narrative coherence let alone historical accuracy.  You wrote: "A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged in response to the British administration's prolonged failure to grant equal rights to Indians.  The Raj began in 1858.  The pioneering movement (i.e. the Congress) began in 1885.  We are talking 29 years.  Are those are grounds for using "prolonged failure?"  Please be aware that very likely every clause has been discussed by many people, many who have read Indian history for a long time.  So arriving here with nothing precise to say will not be helpful.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Fowler&fowler I brought up famines only to make the point that other "negatives" could be highlighted. My point here is there is a strategic selectiveness in terms of what information gets included here. As for reading something before I waste your time, even the three sources you quoted here earlier regarding education and public life do not translate to a sentence like "ideas of education and public life took root." I read one of the previous discussions regarding that sentence and I diverge from one user's interpretation that "the 'ideas' took root during that time, rather than were caused intentionally by the British Raj." "Took root" implies something started growing, whereas from the sources you bring up yourself it seems more accurate to characterise it as a transformation from pre-modern to modern, which would be very succinctly reflected by changing that phrase to "significantly transformed." I also do not see why "but" is constantly being used in the current sentences to connect two events that are not exactly related; even grammatically that seems questionable ("His car broke down, but he was able to borrow his friend's bike" vs "His car broke down, but he bakes good cookies"). I just don't see why "Gradually expanding rule of the British East India Company followed, turning India into a colonial economy. Following the Indian Rebellion of 1857, British Crown rule began in 1858, which consolidated India's transformation into a modern state and significantly transformed ideas of education and public life. A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged in response to the British administration's failure to grant equal rights to Indians, becoming a major factor in the eventual dissolution of British rule" is an unacceptable edit to you when it pretty much retains all of the old content, just without the odd usage of "but." Removed "prolonged" by the way. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 11:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not how we proceed on this page. We object to something with precision, propose something in its place and offer the reasons for it. We proceed it bits and pieces, all digestible. Otherwise, anyone can wave their hands and offer around-the-coffee-table-wisdom.  But that won't help this article.
 * As Indian colonial history is one of the most worked over areas of modern history, we use widely used textbooks published by scholarly publishers (who in turn summarize the secondary sources on the topic and are generally vetted for due weight. Please tell me something specific you consider to be problematic and we can discuss how the tertiary sources discuss it and whether this articles needs to be changed in the light of our renewed understanding of their views.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I propose, primarily, that we workshop the sentence "The rights promised to Indians were granted slowly, but technological changes were introduced, and ideas of education, modernity and the public life took root." The "but" here appears misused; it connects two "realities" that are not exactly related or comparable. Second, I suggest we change the phrase "took root," which like I said before implies something previously either just very dormant or entirely absent started growing, to "significantly transformed." The latter seems like a more accurate summary of the information contained in the three sources you previously cited in this thread. Please see my earlier reply where I highlighted in bold the parts from Routledge Handbook of Education in India, The Law of Possessions, and Sources of the Indian Tradition that I feel emphasise transformation as opposed to taking root.
 * I recommend we break this sentence apart to: "Following the Indian Rebellion of 1857, British Crown rule began in 1858, which consolidated India's transformation into a modern state and significantly transformed ideas of education and public life. The rights promised to Indians were granted slowly, leading to a pioneering and influential nationalist movement that became a major factor in ending British rule." I think it fair to say that slow pace "led" to the nationalist movement, and of course there were other reasons but not all of those can be phrased here and I am not sure how many caveats can be loaded into a sentence in the lead. It can obviously be worked around to flow better. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Lets just stick to the first sentence. Before we can discuss the "but,"  please tell me what rights were promised to Indians and by whom?  What content are we summarizing there?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That is your sentence I am quoting. From your comments in the article it is sourced from Miles Taylors's chapter in Crowns and Colonies: European Monarchies and Overseas Empires. When I read this sentence I assumed it was referring to the Government of India act of 1858 and the accompanying proclamation from Queen Victoria. One of the reasons I had changed this to "A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged in response to the British administration's failure to grant equal rights to Indians, becoming a major factor in the eventual dissolution of British rule" was to eliminate the passive voice/missing subject. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * True, but it was a complex set of rights. Many such as non-interference in religion (no more attempts at social legislation etc) were honored right away, for the most part.  Here is a slight elaboration.
 * "'The rights promised to Indians were granted slowly, but technological changes were introduced, and ideas of education, modernity and the public life took root.'"
 * A) "the rights promised to Indians." What this summarizes is the following:
 * On November 1, 1858, Queen Victoria issued a proclamation to Indians, which while lacking the authority of a constitutional provision, promised rights similar to those of other British subjects.
 * Here is the source material:
 * a) "Queen Victoria's Proclamation of 1858 laid the foundation for Indian secularism and established the semi-legal framework that would govern the politics of religion in colonial India for the next century. ... It promised civil equality for Indians regardless of their religious affiliation, and state non-interference in Indians' religious affairs. Although the Proclamation lacked the legal authority of a constitution, generations of Indians cited the Queen's proclamation in order to claim, and to defend, their right to religious freedom."
 * b) The proclamation to the "Princes, Chiefs, and People of India," issued by Queen Victoria on 1 November 1858. "We hold ourselves bound to the natives of our Indian territories by the same obligation of duty which bind us to all our other subjects." [p. 2], "When the governance of India was transferred from the East India Company to the Crown in 1858, she (Queen Victoria) and Prince Albert intervened in an unprecedented fashion to turn the proclamation of the transfer of power into a document of tolerance and clemency. ... They ... insisted on the clause that stated that the people of India would enjoy the same protection as all subjects of Britain. Over time, this royal intervention led to the Proclamation of 1858 becoming known in the Indian subcontinent as 'the Magna Carta of Indian liberties', a phrase which Indian nationalists such as Gandhi later took up as they sought to test equality under imperial law" )
 * B) In the following decades, when admission to these rights was not always forthcoming, Indians were to pointedly refer to the Queen's proclamation in growing declarations of a new nationalism.
 * Here is the source material:
 * a) "In purely legal terms, (the proclamation) kept faith with the principles of liberal imperialism and appeared to hold out the promise that British rule would benefit Indians and Britons alike. But as is too often the case with noble statements of faith, reality fell far short of theory, and the failure on the part of the British to live up to the wording of the proclamation would later be used by Indian nationalists as proof of the hollowness of imperial principles." (cited to Peers, India under Colonial rule, 1765 to 1885)
 * b) "Ignoring ...the conciliatory proclamation of Queen Victoria in 1858, Britishers in India saw little reason to grant Indians a greater control over their own affairs. Under these circumstances, it was not long before the seed-idea of nationalism implanted by their reading of Western books began to take root in the minds of intelligent and energetic Indians." Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to given you a sense of the complexity we are dealing with. Victoria promised many rights.  Some such as non-interference in religious affairs were granted easily.  Others such as eventual Dominion Status, took a long time. Representation came slowly in several steps: Minto-Morley reforms, Montague Chelmsford reforms, and eventually the Government of India Act, 1935, on which the Constitution of India is based and from which 85% of its content copied verbatim. In other words, eventually they did offer a version of representative federalism that Indians accepted for the most part.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not the part of the sentence I have an issue with (although the passive voice should probably be dealt with as well). I also want to reiterate that I am aware it is extremely difficult to capture in two or three sentences the extraordinary breadth and variety of experiences during British Raj, but to use user TrangaBellam's phrase the "balance-sheet approach" used in the current formulation just does not seem like the way to do it at all. WonderBoy1998 (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well what other way is there? Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "Gradually expanding rule of the British East India Company followed, turning India into a colonial economy. Following the Indian Rebellion of 1857, British Crown rule began in 1858, which consolidated India's transformation into a modern state and significantly altered ideas of education and public life. The rights promised to Indians were granted slowly, leading to a pioneering and influential nationalist movement that became a major factor in the eventual dissolution of British rule" OR "Gradually expanding rule of the British East India Company followed, turning India into a colonial economy. Following the Indian Rebellion of 1857, British Crown rule began in 1858, which consolidated India's transformation into a modern state and introduced significant technological and educational changes. The rights promised to Indians were granted slowly, leading to an influential nationalist movement that became a major factor in the eventual dissolution of British rule" . I think this keeps all the current content just removes the arbitrarily placed "but." We can step away for a while and deal with the passive voice later. WonderBoy1998 (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Noted for upcoming FAR rewrite.
 * I don't think any purpose will be served by hashing anything new now. I've made a note here of your objections.  When I rewrite the article for the FAR later this month and the next, I'll keep this in mind, and upon completion of the rewrite we can discuss it; otherwise, too much time will be spent on little details that may not even appear in the rewrite.
 * How's that for a resolution for now? Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC) Updated.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure. Good luck. I will add that at the end of the day this was feedback on how the article reads. I may have overstepped by directly editing the article, but I don't think any of this deserved such an oddly worked up discussion ("nonsense," "caricatures," "please read something"). You have commendably poured yourself into this article and are clearly well-versed on this subject, but even then there is space for improvement (you yourself had to ask the question "what rights and promised by whom," which clearly points to ambiguities that will ultimately have to be addressed). I understand it is frustrating to maintain an article that (a) deals with a subject whose history is beyond complicated and rife with uncertainties and disagreements and linearity (b) many users have a slanted interest in editing to portray as the land of the divine and the perfect, but that was not the case here. We become attached to the articles we work on but ultimately Wikipedia is for everyone, whether you have a PhD or just a bachelors or no degree at all, and that is just the reality of it. There is no space for condescension. I hope the FAR goes well (the article is in pretty good shape overall). --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry your feelings are hurt. But you have to understand too, that I get baited on a daily basis by people, now legion, some still with redlinked user pages begun yesterday (which you clearly are not, and I did not need to look at your user page to determine that), people who have mysteriously boned-up on the rules and regulations of Wikipedia and the attendant cold politeness, who will make a bold edit with no basis in the sources, only in bias or rumor, and begin to edit war. What is the choice there? Either go to dispute resolution with people who, say, have read two or three pages of Mike Davis's Victorian Famines, or the back blurbs of Shashi Tharoor's voluble manifestation of his latest career change to a popular historian. I'm not being cynical, but just giving you an idea that articles, and there are dozens, in the field of famines alone, from simple ones such as Chalisa famine or Doji bara famine to more complex ones in the Timeline of major famines in India during British rule, which academics themselves have even blatantly copied from, let alone used as a springboard for their classifications, which people come by wanting to cite. It is that level of noise. I am often unable to get around to doing the things I have to (such as this week to attend to the FAR in Darjeeling) because fires beckon to be put out in half a dozen places.
 * It has nothing to do with having a PhD. It has more to do with how people approach the articles. Most people hardly every read the section of the articles on which the lead is based, preferring instead to go for the visible jugular. In this article, there are three full paragraphs those sentences in effect condense, and those three are themselves summaries of content from the Company rule in India and British Raj pages. The reality is complex and many faceted.  We are an encyclopedia.  We essentially proceed by using well-worn academic textbooks, per WP:TERTIARY and WP:SOURCETYPES, to avoid both unreliability and undue weight.  If the well worn texts don't say something broadly speaking, it can't go into this article, or any broad-scale Indian history article. But people don't want to read history books. That is the nub of it.  I do understand that impatience is not the best approach, and I apologize, but there are various competing Wikipedia imperatives here, that of following the letter of the law in behavior or following the spirit of the law in maintaining Wikipedia as a half reliable encyclopedia. I apologize, but I wasn't trying to drive you away.  Had you posted on the talk page, I would never have reacted that way.  Someone else, an IP, did post their own criticism.  I went and found some sources, not to mollify them, but to add some sources that people can read and get an idea of the complexity of the problems.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello there. I just noticed the edit: "put down roots" --> "established roots," and undid it. To "put down roots," is a well-worn, expression with meaning: "to become established in a place" (OED); but "roots" by itself has the meaning of "Established ties with a place" (OED). Establishing established ties becomes a bit redundant. I agree though that "put down roots" may be informal, not immediately accessible to WP's global readership, i.e. not encyclopedic language, especially in the lead. And your implication there is a very good one. I'm happy to change it to "... became established on India's southwestern coast." Passive expressions are sometimes needed when you want to say something very generally. Best, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Other discussion
Well, I also doubt why there was a need for a 'freedom movement' when the British empire, known for its racism, anti-LGBT persecution, famines/genocides, looting/exploitation, was in fact all good towards India as Fowler claims? Fowler, you should read WP:RGW and forget about praising British Empire on lead. Azuredivay (talk) 12:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The drain theory had a (extraordinarily) long life but has been rightfully consigned to the bins across almost all semi-decent works on the economic history of the subcontinent published within the last couple of decades. I suggest you read Roy's The Economic History of Colonialism (2021; Palgrave) or Monsoon Economies: India's History in a Changing Climate (2022; MIT Press). The anti-LGBT bit is too ridiculous to even invite a discussion. I am not particularly supportive of the current line in the lead (or the balance-sheet approach) but waving at famine-genocide theories, based on pop-histories, or drain-theory is a waste of time. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Bhatt seems to be an adherent of Ruth Vanita's school — precolonial India was a haven for queer people because, ahem, Khajuraho depicts "homosexual orgies". TrangaBellam (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please let us not be distracted by Azuredivay's throwaway comment. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * But when we are talking about granting "rights" then it is necessary to show the damage done to the human rights. One can absolutely find a lot better sources but the point is that it is easy to solidify my comment. I do think that the current sentence needs to be removed or at least be replaced with the version here which reflects the scholarly view on the subject. Azuredivay (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Moving forward
You seem to have forgotten that the sentence you just removed was in fact discussed among a large number of editors at Talk:India/Archive 48. You shouldn't be removing this sentence and restoring a 2019's version. Azuredivay (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I formulated that sentence, so I didn't mean to remove it; it was accidental. Restored it is.  I will add some more sources to it in a moment.  Thank you so much    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Oil and Gas
Since Oil and gas are normally found far below the surface, special means of reaching them and bringing them to the surface must be used. Drilling through perhaps thousands Of feet Of earth, removing the dirt and rock form the hole as it is drilling, keeping the hole from caving in while it is being drilling, finding a particular layer Of earthy where Oil gas may be trapped, and providing a means of bringing it to the surface require considerable expertise, labor and equipment. The primary equipment in this process is the rotary drilling rig and its components. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajoku gift best (talk • contribs) 20:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Map
As i live india i can still see the disputed shaded green. Please make it dark green for Indian viewers/ users Sachin Kashyap122 (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this a rendering issue or a political one? Coloring the disputed areas dark green would not show them as disputed (which, unfortunately, they are). --RegentsPark (comment) 14:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In accordance with WP:NOTCENSORED the page should be maintained as is WittyWidi (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Establishment
It has been noticed that there is no formation section for India, while there exists one for Egypt, China and Srilanka. One might argue about the continuous political entity ruling, but neither of above mentioned had such entities, but still get their ancient kingdoms and civilizations mentioned. In Wikipedia, there's a pattern where the political entities that ruled the said land historically are considered in establishment section, India should be infact one of the first ones to have such section in the description, otherwise it is very unfortunate to discard this surviving ancient society if not political entity. Footy2000 (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The "India" of this article was established with partition. The ancient India you're talking about is shared by India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and possibly Nepal and we can't therefore build a trajectory from ancient India. For e.g., the IVc, which is mostly in Pakistan, or the Gandhara Kingdom, which was entirely in Pakistan, or the Lodhi empire, which spanned Pakistan, North West India, and parts of Afghanistan, and many other North Indian kingdoms, dynasties and empires which spanned Pakistan and India. Then there are the Bengal empires which were centered in what is now Bangladesh and the various South Indian empires which cannot be called pan-Indian kingdoms or civilizations. Think of South Asia as more Europe-like and you'll see that it was never quite "established". --RegentsPark (comment) 16:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 July 2022
Draupadi murmu has been elected as the new President of India, succeeding Ram Nath Kovind. Please update the president name XCalibur5678 (talk) 13:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Wikipedia and mods, you help make the world a better place XCalibur5678 (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, there was a mixup. She has been elected as an NOMINEE. The polls are yet to be held XCalibur5678 (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Human rights
where is the section of "Human rights"!!!!! the whole world see what's happens right now in India except Wikipedia! It's necessary to add information and description of Human rights and the aggression and violence against other religions and minorities. Carnegie6 (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a dedicated article on the topic. CMD (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 July 2022
Change India as second most populated country to most populated, as it’s population is now higher than China’s 24.245.231.237 (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 08:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Bharat Ganarajya is Sanskrit, not Hindi
Every resource I can find online points to the official name of the country being derived from Sanskrit rather than Hindi. Both gana and rajya have their etymology in Sanskrit, and Bharata or Bharat must as well since the name of the country originated long before the conception of Hindi as a language. I submit this to be discussed and reviewed. Chronikhiles (talk) 09:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * It could be derived from Proto-Indo-European, the mother language of Sanskrit, hearkening to 3500 BCE republics of pastoral peoples in the Dneiper River grasslands for all we care, but it is mentioned in this article because Hindi and not Sanskrit is the official language of the Indian Union, i.e. Federal government. It is certainly an expression of Hindi, and that is all that concerns us.
 * In other words, say, in the hypothetical scenario of India not being partitioned in 1947, had Indian Constituent Assembly chosen Hindustani language as the official language, as many people had wanted, or English as also some people had wanted, the derivation would have been to Urdu or English, not Persian/Prakrit or Latin. For there is little chance that in that India, the post-Partition Sanskritized Hindi promoted by the conservatives in the Constituent Assembly would have stood a chance.  Promulgating it would have ensured a post-Independence partition (or dismemberment) of India.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I remain unconvinced. Since your point seems to imply that the language of political expression at the federal level determines etymology, I turn your attention to the motto of the country, which is correctly indicated as Sanskrit. It is not labelled as Hindi despite the fact that it is the official language of the federal government, and is indeed used as a common expression by Hindi speakers. I remember that Bharat Ganarajya was labelled as Sanskrit up until a few years ago as well. Chronikhiles (talk) 05:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The motto is from the Mundaka Upanishad. It was adopted by the Constituent Assembly explicitly noting that source. The official name both in the lead sentence and the infobox is the native name, not etymology of the native name.  In Italy, it is (Italian: Repubblica Italiana), not Latin, though the words can be found in Cato's Origines;  in Greece it is Ελληνική Δημοκρατία (Greek), not Attic Greek.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In the European Union infobox, it is all the living languages of Europe (click on "Show"), not the dead ones. But the motto is in a dead language. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  08:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Driving Side
Driving side in india is “Right Hand Drive” Rohiteffects (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * That's correct. The steering wheel is on the right, which is why vehicles drive on the left, as stated in the article. Bazza (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Capital and most populous city in lead section
I added India's capital and most populous city in lead section, but was reverted for the reason that this information already stands in the infobox.

Then, I asked how this fact can be an argument for not including it also in the lead section if it's an important and interesting fact for most readers, whereupon my edit was reverted again and I was pointed out to start a discussion on the talk page.

This seems very strange to me, since you don't have to discuss an edit on the discussion page as long as no arguments have been given as to why this specific change should not stay, which is the case here.

The fact that something stands in the infobox is a pure statement, please explain how this can function as an argument against including it.

If you don't want something to be included, bring on some arguments against it, instead of referring to use the discussion page by default, because, as I said, this is only needed to discuss arguments for and against something.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 10:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I've reverted your edits for all sorts of reasons. India is WP's oldest country featured article, to be 18 years old this fall. It is viewed by 40K people on average per day and is on the watchlist of some 4k editors. Its stability and trustworthiness is important.  Unless an edit is routine, all other edits are discussed on the talk page first per WP:OWN.  That New Delhi is the capital of India has about the same level of tautology as the Pope is Catholic. Even if I were to agree with the logic of your edit, that is hardly the place I would put it. In other words, both narrative and descriptive prose require cohesion and coherence. It does not appear you have read the entire lead to ponder the question. You are going around making the same edits in a round of editing, quick editing.  This is not that sort of page. Not even close.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

"all other edits are discussed on the talk page first per WP:OWN#Featured_articles"

No, according to your linked article, only significant changes should be discussed. For example, correcting a typo does not fall into this category, as does an edit for which no arguments have been made to revert it, which was the case for my edit when you told me to use the discussion page.

I don't care much about having this edit in the lead section, but since you didn't give an argument as to why it should stay out, I started this discussion to point out that it is not obligatory to discuss every edit.

If you think it should stay out of the introduction and justify it by saying that it is trivial and unimportant (at least that's how it seems to me), then it can stay out for all I care (However, I know many people who probably don't know what the capital of India is, and it may be useful for them if that stands in the lead section. And yes, the fact that the pope is Catholic is something most people may know, but again, not close to all people, and even if this information is obvious, it nevertheless stands in the lead section of the Pope because it's one of the most important key information of the article subject.). But please point out at least briefly in your next edit revert why something is (supposedly) inappropriate instead of referring to discussing the edit on the discussion page by default, because this is neither required nor sensible or purposeful.

And of course, I read the whole lead section, I don't know what you mean by that.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 11:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * How is being a capital or a financial center a feature of geography? Let's wait until others weigh in and we have a new consensus. Give it at least a week.  I will reply in a few days. Please indent correctly.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Fowler&fowler. The fact that the capital of India is New Delhi is not integral to the article and so does not need to be in the lead section AND it is already in the Infobox anyways. (Please correct me if I am wrong about something, my account is only 1 year old.) Jazzy Jazz Jr (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I too agree with F&f on not listing the capital etc in the lede text because (1) IMO the infobox is the best way to present such essential "bio-data" of a country in a uniform and structured format, and (2) given the vast scope of this article, it is best to avoid redundant presentation of the same information, as far as possible. Abecedare (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact that New Delhi is the capital of India and an important financial isn't exactly redundant seeing that the Wikipedia articles of most countries have their capitals talked about or at least mentioned in their lead section. Hellothere454 (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Other countries are different. The argument here needs to be based on due relevance to India and due reflection of this article. Currently, the article mentions New Delhi just twice, so an extended lead mention is undue. CMD (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Update population data
The United Nations has released the World Population Prospects 2022 which says India's population is 1.412 billion. Please update the population section of this article. RayAdvait (talk) 06:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It gets a bit complicated. This article, along with many others, pulls in the population data from the template, which would need to be manually updated to reflect the most recent data from the 2022 World Population Prospects. This is perhaps best requested at the template talkpage but, for now, I'll ping  who have experience editing the template to see if they'd volunteer for the task. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Abecedare. RayAdvait (talk) 01:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pinging, Abecedare. As we can see in the template's talk page, I tried to implement an upgrade I put in its sandbox to pull data from the List of countries by population (United Nations), as it continually fails to, but I was outvoted. Further to this template not working, it is in direct contravention to WP:TG:— Guarapiranga ☎ 01:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Guarapiranga, I think you should ask @Aman.kumar.goel to help. RayAdvait (talk) 07:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I need the 100% exact figure of population. The current one is 1,352,642,280, which is accurate. I see a number of news sources saying that the new population is 1.412 billion, but they are not providing the exact figure. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 13:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess we would have to wait until sources like World Population Review and Worldometers update there data or we would have to use 1,412,000,000 as an alternative. RayAdvait (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The exact figure is 1,407,564,000 RayAdvait (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Aman.kumar.goel, the exact figure is 1,407,564,000 RayAdvait (talk) 08:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I had seen that figure but I was not fine with including it because it is directly contradicting the "1.412 billion" estimate by the UN. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 15:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * But that's what a UN Excel sheet says. RayAdvait (talk) 01:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you check again? 1,407,101,494 is the figure provided by World Population Review which cites UN's website for their figures. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 09:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That is the population as 14 July 2022, not 1 July 2022. And that is based on the 2019 revision RayAdvait (talk) 11:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I found one place where it says 1,412,320,000. Shall we use that? RayAdvait (talk) 11:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Little chance if you are using 2022 estimates. I will fight you to the grave on WP if need be.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And I found one place, Britannica article on India, which says, " (2022 est.) 1,357,181,000. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I found an estimate by the UIDAI which says 1,372,989,959. The estimate is from April 2022 RayAdvait (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * How do they estimate the numbers, given that no actual sampling has been done since 2011? Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * IDK RayAdvait (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There is an estimate by the National Commision on Population which says 1,353,285,000. This data is from 2020 RayAdvait (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused. Since when did this article start adding "estimates," i.e. of things that are not complete, such as a calendar years, whether of population or income? Where is the discussion for its consensus. I suspect people have been sneaking them in and are now pretending it has consensus. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  10:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I mean this is kind of bizarre. The Indian government has either not been able to carry out its decennial (decadal) census of 2021 because of COVID or had not yet processed it.  (It is a rare occurrence, for India has had censuses from 1871, even in 1941 during the last war.) If the UN has estimates about 2020, fine.  If it has estimates of 2021, fine.  But 2022? How are they divining this?   Have they gone to India's villages where a majority of Indians live and looked around?  Are they sure no other disaster will befall India? Or are they spinning numbers in New York based on the best likelihood? I'm sorry, this is a featured article.  Its absolute reliability is important.  No fancy footwork involving the future.  We are not in the profession of divination.
 * Pretty shameful. You take your eyes off the article for a short while and people start stuffing garbage in.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The 1,412,320,000 number is from 2022, 1,407,564,000 is from 2021. RayAdvait (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess what I am asking is: what does the mentioned year mean? Does it mean a projection of the population at the end of the year, or an assessment of the population at some previous point of time during the year when the research was completed? For economic indicators, the year signifies the end of the year for which a projection is made (and for that reason&mdash;for the implicit uncertainty therein&mdash;is traditionally frowned upon on this page).
 * Whoever would like to update the numbers should present some hard evidence of the methodology employed Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps point to some WP:MOS rule or guideline Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I know that the UIDAI gets the data from each state govt. to calculate the total. RayAdvait (talk) 10:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And the state government? Have their been state or district or city or town censuses after 2011?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean there. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * these are estimate from births and deaths RayAdvait (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I found some more data from SRS 2019 which says the figure is 1,338,995,000 RayAdvait (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, so I looked at SRS. It seems to be a record of births and deaths, especially for the purpose of registering infant mortality etc.  Even though not all Indian babies are born in hospitals, and many are very likely not registered, the statisticians in India (and India has some very smart ones, e.g. at the ISI in Calcutta) must have a handle on the proportions and are therefore able to project.  So that is probably a good site.  I wonder if the ISI in Calcutta has their own estimates (as the SRS data is available (it seems) for all to use).  I found a small summary in a pdf of the annual rates of growth of India's population.
 * They were 2.2 in each of the censuses from 1971 to 1991, 2.0 in 2001, and 1.6 in 2011. We know the population in 2011 was 1,210,193,422, so some ballpark figure could be guessed. So, even if, the annual rate is down to 1%, which is unlikely, i.e. 12 million per year, and the rate is added simply instead of being compounded yearly, we are talking 11% in 11 years (although it is likely higher). That alone would be an addition of 132 million, or a population of 1,342 million, which is not far from your figure.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  09:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, use your better judgement and choose a reasonable estimate.
 * I take back what I said about the UN. If I can come up with ballpark numbers in a conversational thread, I'm sure the experts at the UN Statistical Division in NYC can do much better, so their estimates should be reliable.  Go ahead and use their 2022 estimate. Perhaps  might want to chime in.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  09:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Btw, the UN's figure at the top of the thread is approximately what you get if you compound the increase yearly at the rate of 1.4% (i.e. assume that the annual rate increase has dropped down to 1.4% from 1.6% in 2011). At 1.4% per year the population in 11 years (end of 2022) will be 1,410,137,710.  Not suggesting we use that for an exact number, but just pointing to the kinds of assessments of annual rates that are involved.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  09:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm wondering why an exact number is needed. It is very likely error-ridden anyway.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  09:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't find the estimates that ends their last 3 digits with 3 zeros to be realistic. You are correct that we need to select a reasonable estimate. I am fine with dropping this conversation or using "1,407,101,494" estimate which was already discussed above. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * An estimate such as 1,407,564,000 is just another way of saying that the population is 1,407,564,000 +/- error, where error<499,  In other words, the actual population P satisfied: 1,407,564,000-499<P<1,407,564,000 + 499. But you cannot say what the exact number is short of actually counting as in a census.  All estimates have errors.  The 000 at the end just means that when you round the error-ridden estimate to the closest 1000 1,407,564 is what you get.
 * The 1,407,101,494 is silly. No estimate can give you an exact number.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The exact number is 1,407,563,842 RayAdvait (talk) 10:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to use an overly precise number, which is almost certainly wrong, as opposed to a rounded estimate, which may be in correct within its rounding. CMD (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with CMD. I don't know`what limitations the various templates being employed in the infox impose on us, but is it possible to say something like:"Approximately 1 billion 407 million and 564 thousand?"  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

More than one undoing
You undo some of my edits, thanks for correcting me. But I think edit a (I updated value of GDP for 2021 $3.04 trillion to $3.18 trillion; In May, IMF updated nominal GDP estimates for India), edit b (Trade statistics, I provided source) and edit c (Electricity production; official source, another source) should not have been reverted. Dinesh | Talk 14:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 July 2022
Thextremesidd (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC) I would like to change the name of president of India to Ram Nath Kovind to Droupadi Murmu
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Have they taken office yet? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

July 2022
Don't change president name from Ram Nath Kovind to Draupadi Murmu. Currently Murmu is the designated president not president. Term of Kovind will expire on 25 July.  Nitesh TALK  16:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry I didn't noticed. Thanks! Dinesh | Talk 18:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

July 2022
Pls update Ram Nath Kovind into Mumru She is new president of India 94.128.208.198 (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Please view another discussion above this one. Murmu will take oath tomorrow RayAdvait (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Update in Politics and government Section
K93dheeraj Requesting to update the last sentence in Politics section of Politics and government to: On 22 July 2022, Droupadi Murmu was elected India's 15th president and took the oath of office on 25 July 2022. K93dheeraj (talk) 19:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)K93dheeraj
 * ✅--RegentsPark (comment) 19:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 July 2022
Jothsp123 (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC) I just wanted to cite out some sources...
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Mizo and Kokborok are not in the list of eighth schedule
Assamese Bengali Bodo Dogri Gujarati Hindi Kannada Kashmiri Konkani Maithili Malayalam Meitei (Manipuri) Marathi Nepali Odia Punjabi Sanskrit Santhali Sindhi Tamil Telugu Urdu These are total 22 official language of India but here Mizo, Kokborok are also included so please remove it Yakku3 (talk) 11:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Minor Change in Cuisine
Noticed southern India included in predominant vegetarian population regions under cuisine section. Last I checked in a recent survey, 95%+ of the population in all southern states are meat eating so it should be probably be omitted. Minor change but I thought it'd make it more factual. JohnDeere12345 (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 August 2022
The intro section mentions "From being a comparatively destitute country in 1951, India has become a fast-growing major economy and a hub for information technology services, with an expanding middle class" The issue in this sentence lies in the part "From being a comparatively destitute country in 1951". This is because 1. It does not say to which object/ countries is the comparison being made 2. The part of the sentence "From being a comparatively destitute country in 1951" is unccessary/does not add any useful information as India was one of the richest countries in 15th-16th century. So world economics are susceptible to change every few centuries. 3. The sentence is better and more readable as "India has become a fast-growing major economy and a hub for information technology services, with an expanding middle class in the 21st Century." 46.129.29.18 (talk) 23:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

update president name
new President is draupadi murmu XCalibur5678 (talk) 06:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * She will take the office tomorrow and the page will be updated accordingly. Until tomorrow, Ram Nath Kovind is the President of India. --Bears (talk) 09:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay Imraghav.m (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 August 2022
Name of Vice-president of India and corresponding details Jkes96 (talk) 05:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Jagdeep Dhankar is the new Vice-president Jkes96 (talk) 05:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ WelpThatWorked (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Spelling error
In the introduction it says: India is the sixth largest economy in the world as per Word Bank data in 2021. im pretty sure it world bank and not word bank. Ag145923078 (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Ag145923078, I've corrected the spelling. Thanks for your help! --Ratekreel (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 August 2022
Can you add this map of ancient india in section 'ancient india' ?

Ningalonnichpovuka (talk) Ningalonnichpovuka (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Not sure what that informs a reader about Ancient India, or what image it would replace. CMD (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thi was the map of ancient india, when british were ruling. Need to to replace any image, nut to add this ancient map in ancient section, so that readers will be having the idea of ancient indian geography Ningalonnichpovuka (talk) 02:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Also in ancient section it is mentioning about Indus valley civilization, which is included in this map. Ningalonnichpovuka (talk) 02:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What sources say that "Ancient India" had those borders? What is Ancient India? CMD (talk) 08:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Map of "Undivided India"? or "Ancient India"? When was India ever this large throughout its entire history? Even British India wasn't that large. Why is Afghanistan and Tibet even in there? This is a ridiculous fringe map propped up by an ultranationalist with lebensraum viewpoints about their neighboring countries. You might as well stretch that map of "India" from the Middle East to Southeast Asia while you're at it. 126.51.171.106 (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * These are the references, you can have a look:
 * Ningalonnichpovuka (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 September 2022
Current Chief justice of India is U.U.Lalit Cajitendraagarwal (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cannolis (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

why useless Hindi name?
கட்டுரை ஆங்கிலத்தில் இருக்கிறது என்றால், ஆங்கிலம் மட்டும் போதுமே. பயனற்ற இந்தி மேற்கோள்கள் எதற்கு? 103.82.209.226 (talk) 03:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Hindi is one of the two official languages of the Republic, and Bharat Ganarajya is the name of the Republic in several other Scheduled Languages also. W. Tell DCCXLVI ( talk to me!/c ) 12:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The northeast
Coverage on the northeast is severely lacking, particularly in the History section. The history of tribes in general is not represented, but for now I wonder if there's a way to represent anything northeastern at all - maybe something about the Ahom kingdom, a relatively stable state that ruled the Brahmaputra basin for about six centuries? W. Tell DCCXLVI ( talk to me!/c ) 14:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I have added a line about Kamarupa, the ancient state in the Brahmaputra valley that lasted eight centuries. I'm not sure where exactly I can fit the Ahoms in - they were dominant in the valley during Mughal rule while being politically quite independent from them, but the paragraphs on the Mughals and their vassals are rather hermetically sealed and open directly into the European trade era. W. Tell DCCXLVI ( talk to me!/c ) 12:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * see above. Also, could you tell me why exactly the sources are improper? I might agree about the PhD thesis source, but the other one seemed sound. In any case there's no dearth of sources buttressing the relatively simple facts I added, and I'm sure we can build something useful here to add into the article. I reiterate that it is rather unfair to leave out a region that large in the telling of a nation's history. W. Tell DCCXLVI ( talk to me!/c ) 15:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI, well those are good points, but in this article the standard for inclusion is not so much reliability (which is important, of course) as due weight. We need to look for more general sources (textbooks by internationally known publishers that cover the history of India, not just northeast India). Having worked on Darjeeling for the better part of six months this year, I'm well aware of the expanded coverage of the northeast. Why don't we make a pact? The WP:FAR of this page will be coming up soon? Why don't we look for more general sources and try add some well-crafted sentences based on them at that time. Soon means mid-Octoberish, I think.  Please remind me then if I haven't reached out to you.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't mind taking as much time as needed, but I worry that there won't be many sources discussing wider Indian history that give the tribes and the wider Northeast their due. Public imagination and standard historiographies are too focused on the Guptas to care about Kamarupa, and too enamoured with the glory of the Mughal Empire and the riches of the Bengal Subah to care about the Ahoms. W. Tell DCCXLVI ( talk to me!/c ) 17:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Not to worry, leave that to me. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Error in the bordering countries
India has a land border with Afghanistan as well. Please make correction to the statement. 89.160.162.162 (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The land border is disputed. ZetaFive (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * So is the border with Tibet(China) 2600:8804:670B:5800:59CA:BEC6:7CC8:C5A0 (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you might have India mistaken with Pakistan, a common confusion. Please clear it in the talk page archives.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Wrong link
In lead, the word "unfolding" (as in, the language) is linked to "Oral transmission" which redirects to Pathogen transmission. It should be changed. 159.205.28.145 (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

(b) (c), "In Punjab, a dry region with grasslands watered by five rivers (hence ‘panch’ and ‘ab’) draining the western Himalayas, one prehistoric culture left no material remains, but some of its ritual texts were preserved orally over the millennia. The culture is called Aryan, and evidence in its texts indicates that it spread slowly south-east, following the course of the Yamuna and Ganga Rivers. Its elite called itself Arya (pure) and distinguished themselves sharply from others. Aryans led kin groups organized as nomadic horse-herding tribes. Their ritual texts are called Vedas, composed in Sanskrit. Vedic Sanskrit is recorded only in hymns that were part of Vedic rituals to Aryan gods. To be Aryan apparently meant to belong to the elite among pastoral tribes. Texts that record Aryan culture are not precisely datable, but they seem to begin around 1200 BCE with four collections of Vedic hymns (Rg, Sama, Yajur, and Artharva)."
 * Thank you very much for noticing this. Since 2006 "Oral transmission" had been redirected to Oral tradition In June this year, someone redirected it to Pathogen transmission.  I have for now undone that redirect as it has likely affected other pages.  But I need to think about this question more before I make "unfolding" wikilinked to "Oral tradition." Thank you very much indeed.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is the record of my UNDO. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a case for a disam page. But perhaps Language change is a better link? Looking at the sentence "By 1200 BCE, an archaic form of Sanskrit, an Indo-European language, had diffused into India from the northwest,[32][33] unfolding as the language of the Rigveda, which records the dawnings of Hinduism in India", I'm unclear what "unfolding" is supposed to mean. 1200 is a rather late date in the usual range for the arrival of early Sanskrit, I think. Is "unfolding" supposed to convey development, or being recorded and passed on, if only by oral tradition? But of course that came subsequently. If the latter, the link might be better on "recording". I think the sentence could do with rewriting. Johnbod (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that helpful note. By "unfolding," neither "recording" nor "development" is meant, but "being exposed. In other words "... had diffused into India from the northwest, its diffusion exposed as a result of a vigilant oral transmission in the language of the Rig Veda, which recorded the dawnings of Hinduism in India."  How much of a language change there was is not clear i.e. in syntax, or even lexicon (a la glottochronology), although there was an expansion of the lexicon (for example, related to existing languages of the new environment and accompanying changes in phonology forced by these languages' retroflex sounds) referred to in the next sentence  1200 is an accepted lower bound. The Rig Veda was never written.  It wouldn't have been as accurately transmitted if it had, the exposition not as faithful to its journey. No wonder Witzel mentions "tape recording" in the sources below. Here is the full Wikitext.  The "dawning" has already been discussed. The citations with their quotes are in green: By, an archaic form of Sanskrit, an Indo-European language, had diffused into India from the northwest, < ref name="Lowe2015"> (a)

(d), "Although the collapse of the Indus valley civilization is no longer believed to have been due to an ‘Aryan invasion’ it is widely thought that, at roughly the same time, or perhaps a few centuries later, new Indo-Aryan-speaking people and influences began to enter the subcontinent from the north-west. Detailed evidence is lacking. Nevertheless, a predecessor of the language that would eventually be called Sanskrit was probably introduced into the north-west sometime between 3,900 and 3,000 years ago. This language was related to one then spoken in eastern Iran; and both of these languages belonged to the Indo-European language family. ... It seems likely that various small-scale migrations were involved in the gradual introduction of the predecessor language and associated cultural characteristics. However, there may not have been a tight relationship between movements of people on the one hand, and changes in language and culture on the other. Moreover, the process whereby a dynamic new force gradually arose—a people with a distinct ideology who eventually seem to have referred to themselves as ‘Arya’—was certainly two-way. That is, it involved a blending of new features which came from outside with other features—probably including some surviving Harappan influences—that were already present. Anyhow, it would be quite a few centuries before Sanskrit was written down. And the hymns and stories of the Arya people—especially the Vedas and the later Mahabharata and Ramayana epics—are poor guides as to historical events. Of course, the emerging Arya were to have a huge impact on the history of the subcontinent. Nevertheless, little is known about their early presence."; (e), "The expansion of Aryan culture is supposed to have begun around 1500 BCE. It should not be thought that this Aryan emergence (though it implies some migration) necessarily meant either a sudden invasion of new peoples, or a complete break with earlier traditions. It comprises a set of cultural ideas and practices, upheld by a Sanskrit-speaking elite, or Aryans. The features of this society are recorded in the Vedas." unfolding as the language of the Rigveda, and recording the dawning of Hinduism in India. (a) ; (b) ; (c) (d) Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok - I don't think there is any disagreement here as to what happened (as best we & the experts can tell). But that meaning for "unfolding" wasn't at all evident to me, & I'm sure won't be to others. Meanwhile, I'll set up "Oral transmission" as a disam page. Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Done that. Fwiw, the pretty short but eclectic "what links here" was all cultural rather than medical! Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks that was great. Not sure I understand "what links here." Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * First one of the "tools" on the menu at left of a (desktop, normal view) screen. Shows you the incoming links - useful in some contexts - that example. Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I learned something. Thank you. Yes, nothing medical, not even the pathogens page is using that expression.
 * And Indian_mathematics does not even link to it, perhaps because I did not link it in 2007. Not sure how I should do it now as the page is a dab page. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Best just to link to the ultimate destination, Oral tradition here. You get a finger-wagging thing if you link to a disam page, but you can ignore it (though somebody may come along later & link to whichever choice they think right). Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * After having mulled it over, I agree that "unfolding" is not the best choice. How about the following Jb "By, an archaic form of Sanskrit, an Indo-European language, had diffused into India from the northwest, revealing itself in the language of the Rig Veda and recording by means of a vigilant oral tradition the dawnings of Hinduism in India?"  Even though the wikilink for VOT is a section of the Indian math page, it might be much more relevant there than OT.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC Updated  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  09:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That maths stuff is fascinating, & should be added to Oral tradition. But both Rigveda and Vedas have decent-looking & more specific "transmission" sections. The proposed language of the sentence is better but still seems over-complicated to me - there are lots of links to long articles, & if all were followed it would take a fast & fluent reader a good while to reach the end of the sentence (which is probably too long). I don't think we are writing just for fast & fluent readers of English here. How about something like: "By, an archaic form of Sanskrit, an Indo-European language, had diffused into India from the northwest, and was used in the Rig Veda. This, passed by on sophisticated techniques of oral transmission [link of choice], records the dawnings of Hinduism?" Johnbod (talk) 01:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This version seems reasonable. While I like idiomatic writing, "unfolding" was kinda... way too flowery for me. W. Tell DCCXLVI ( talk to me!/c ) 11:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Both "was used in the Rig Veda" and "sophisticated techniques" are problematic. I don't mind splitting the sentence or relinking. Will suggest something very soon.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was pulled way from WP, Johnbod. The main issue is that there is no evidence of a language diffusing southeastward from Afghanistan but the Rig Veda.
 * And the evidence cannot be found by a study of Rig-Vedic Sanskrit alone or by scholars of only Sanskrit as had existed in India until the late 1880s; otherwise they would have found it; a William Jones, let alone a Michael Witzel would not have been needed. It was only when comparative linguists compared its words with those of other dead languages in Northwest South Asia, eastern West Asia and Central Asia, and eventually Southern Russia and Ukraine, did the movement of Sanskrit-speakers, or at least Sanskrit users, come to light. How about the following keeping your links.  I agree it doesn't have to be the math one.
 * By 1200 BCE, an archaic form of Sanskrit, an Indo-European language, had diffused into India from the northwest. Its evidence today is found in the hymns of the Rig Veda. Preserved by a resolutely vigilant oral tradition, the Rig Veda records the dawning of Hinduism in India. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's do that. Johnbod (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)