Talk:Indian religions

formatting typo
Hey, the page is locked so I can't try to figure it out myself (sorry). There is a formatting typo in this section: "Late Vedic period – Brahmanas and Upanishads – Vedanta (850–500 BCE)"


 * what's the typo in that section RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 10:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Only Four religions?
Sanamahism in Manipur, India and Ayyavazhi in Southern Tamil Nadu & Kerala are counted as Hinduism and they are principlely based on Hinduism. It can be mentioned in text.


 * Ayyavazhi is a hindu denomination not a different religion while worth mentioning. while for Sanamahism it is not clear.RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2023
Please change to Hindu Religion instead of Indian religion - there nothing called indian religion. People from Nepal doesn't follow indian religion. It's Hindu Religion that followed by other country. This is a false information. Buddhism is also not Indian religion - once again please  change it to Hindu - not Indian. 2607:FEA8:7AA4:CF00:6053:3E12:1B8B:3C5F (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: moving an article involves a discussion and consensus. M.Bitton (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Government of India
Hello fellow editor @Dāsānudāsa, I recently noticed you reverted one of my edits and so I opened this discussion. I agree that a distinction is needed to prevent confusion but there was no "Government of British India". There was only one for entirety of India — the good old "Government of India", established in 1833. I suggest we change it to "the Government of India during the British Raj" to also keep the distinction? PadFoot2008 (talk) 13:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have to confess I don't see the issue with the current wording. Yes, it was rarely called "British India" contemporaneously (the "British" part being a given), but "government of British India" seems to me a perfectly good description of the government of the British-ruled parts of India – as opposed to French India, Portuguese India, etc. – and is used elsewhere on Wikipedia. Thoughts? Dāsānudāsa (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No, see look at this map of the Indian Empire in 1909 from the official Imperial Gazetteer of India: [[File: Political Divisions of the Indian Empire, 1909.jpg]] The territory colored pink was British India, and together with the yellow (native territory), it made up "India" as recognised contemporary by law, both domestically and internationally (See section 18 of Interpretation Act 1889). Portuguese India (officially, State of India) or French India (officially, French settlements in India) weren't a part of India and got added to India between 1954 and 1961 after a series of annexations by the Republic. The Government of India was responsible for administrating entire India not just British India. PadFoot2008 (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand that it was called the "Government of India" (or sometimes the "Indian Empire", as on this map), but isn't this rather a case of pars pro toto, in that the British definition of "India" is different to our modern one? I don't see the harm in keeping the disambiguation. We also now say things like "British Ceylon", "British Malaya", etc., when in fact they were just called Ceylon and Malaya at the time. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This confuses many people but the usage of British Malaya and British Ceylon vs usage of British India is not same. British Ceylon is the same as Ceylon but British India was not equal to India. As you saw in the map British India was the portion of the Indian Empire which directly ruled by the Crown while rest of the Indian Empire, i.e, the princely states (in yellow) were also a part of the British Empire and but were indirectly ruled by the Crown. This British India + the princely states was internationally recognised (excluding Portuguese and French territories) as "India". Thus Government of British India should have refered to an entity that governed British India but such an entity never existed. The Government of India was responsible for governing the entire Indian Empire (or India). Also it wasn't really a case of pars pro toto as at least by the time the League of Nations was formed, Portuguese and French territories were not recognised as being a part of India. It's the same as how Bangladesh isn't called a part of India now but still it is not a case of pars pro toto, even though Bangladesh was historically included within the region called "India". I suggest we could do "" to keep the distinction as you said. PadFoot2008 (talk) 02:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)