Talk:History of India

Article milestones Date Process Result May 18, 2007 Peer review Reviewed

To-do list for History of India: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2013-08-06 Provide inline citations Summarise For example, bringing all subsections into one section. Optimize number of images. Copyedit Create a timeline (please see History of Tamil Nadu) Peer review

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History of India article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

India: History B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Top-importance). This article was a past Indian Collaboration of the Month.

Pakistan B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bangladesh B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bangladesh on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BangladeshWikipedia:WikiProject BangladeshTemplate:WikiProject BangladeshBangladesh articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. The article falls into the work area of the History workgroup of WikiProject Bangladesh WikiProject Bangladesh To-do list: edit history watch purge Add more images to Bangladesh Liberation War and related pages Clean up Climate change in Bangladesh, it needs a lot of work Clean up History of Bangladesh after independence, it needs NPOV Improve Bangladesh back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion) Improve Bengali language back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion) Improve Bengalis and related pages Take a look at the requested articles. Make a MRT line 3 article. Extend, add an infobox and a map of New Eskaton to New Eskaton.

Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3

"The massacres perpetuated by Muslims in India are unparalleled in history, bigger than the Holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis; or the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks; more extensive even than the slaughter of the South American native populations by the invading Spanish and Portuguese." - Francois Gautier Rewriting Indian History by Francois Gautier, Chapter 4 - Islam and the Muslim Invasions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinacrine (talk • contribs) 04:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where was first all india kissan mahasabha was held —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.72.75 (talk) 05:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for questions about editing Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps.--Shahab (talk) 10:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first name of Gandhi is Mahatma i would appreciate if you would correct this error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reffum (talk • contribs) 00:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a joke, right? Gandhi's first name is, as it has always been, "Mohandas". Please refer to the biography. --Ragib (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't show anything about the Cholas, although Rajaraja the Great is known as the most powerful Hindu king in history. There is no single mention of him. --RockingMallu (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

the reference to the image of the `British India' (the Raj) has a typo. The link has an extra pair of closing braces (which I marked with *'s). [[Image:British_india.png|thumb|400px*]]*+, with India and Burma shown in violet+]]

I did not fix it (change ]] into |), because the caption (marked with +'s) does not make sense to me, and my history of India is nil.

Mirko

The image File:Lothal conception.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the link to site [[1]] because it was of dubious origin, is sensationalist - having featured articles on Pakistan being a failed state, Kamasutra and the Tibetan conflict. There are no citations anywhere in the entire site and there are no authorship claims either. Please cite reasons for keeping this link or info sourced from it. Nshuks7 (talk) 05:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that the information provided on [[2]] is comprehensive, organized and the site is quite resourceful. The current two external links which you have, I do not find it of any value. The first link is nothing but a link to another bunch of links and in the second link it is very difficult to find any information. The OM symbols throughout the site irks me. We are talking about the history of a secular country. Please do consider my point.

Sneha Desai

Islam arrived on the subcontinent in Kerala. The exact date is uncertain, but it is clear that Kerala had 
maritime business links with the Roman Empire and the Middle East from before the birth of Jesus.

The exact date of what is unknown? Clearly not the arrival of islam since that couldn't be so early.82.216.250.233 (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a valid point. History of Kerala says the earliest mention of Kerala itself is from 4-3 BC. Making the edit now and let's see if someone has a genuine source that says otherwise. Nshuks7 (talk) 05:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per my visits there and discussions with the locals, and study of buildings, Kerala is said to have one of the oldest Jewish synagougues. Its the first place where Christinaity arrived in India. Islam arrived from North and Kerala, both at around the same time. this, I learnt from the books I read on India through google books. Will try to get some authentic sources for the info here. కిరణ్మయి (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You cant go directly from India to Pakistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.171.107 (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

plz give me the details of persion invasions of india —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.128.118 (talk) 02:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why this article says nothing about the arrival of the Indo-Europeans (probably from the Central Asian steppes) in India. Since they brought the Indo-European language, which eventually developed into Sanskrit, and since Sanskrit is so important for the later Vedantic literature, it seems this is an important part of the history of India and should not be omitted. Molare (talk) 08:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, coming to think of it - this is a curious omission and should be addressed. Pahari Sahib 08:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under the section "Bronze Age" the article could add a comment that the Indus Valley Civilization did not have horses (citation needed.) Then under the Vedic Period, the article could expand the sentence "The Vedic period is characterized by Indo-Aryan culture associated with the texts of Vedas," with a comment that the Indo-Aryan culture was not an outgrowth of the Indus Valley Civilization, but the result of a migration from Central Asia, which brought the horse to India, as well as the Indo-European language family (again, citation needed.) --Molare (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Part of a series on the
History of India
Chronology of Indian history
Ancient India
Prehistoric India and Vedic India  Religion, Society, Mahajanapadas
Mauryan Period Economy, Spread of Buddhism, Chanakya, Hellenic Contacts
The Golden Age Discoveries, Aryabhata, Ramayana, Mahabharata
Medieval India
The Classical Age Art, Philosophy, Literature
Islam in India Delhi Sultanate, Advent of Sufism, Hindustani Music, Guru Nanak
Mughal India Architecture, Cuisine, Mansabdari, Maratha Confederacy
Modern India
Company Rule Zamindari system, Warren Hastings, Post & Telegraph, 1857
British Raj Hindu reforms, Famines, Independence struggle, Gandhi

The template {{HistoryOfSouthAsia}} in the lead is extremely long, violates WP:LEAD, WP:OVERLINK and will hardly give any user an introduction to the History of India. History comprises not merely of a chronology of kingdoms, but is a holistic subject dealing with social, religious, political, economic (etc) affairs of some people over a long period of time. The template was rightly replaced by User:Dbachmann by {{South Asian history}}. An even better template containing an even broader timeline, important people, events, philosophies etc may be in order. The {{HistoryOfSouthAsia}} template may be used elsewhere, but not in the intro. Regards--Shahab (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion an appropriate template in the lead would be something like (I copied the idea from history of Tamil Nadu template): Of course, this is possibly incomplete and incorrect but it gives the reader the important highlights of various determinants which shaped Indian history and not just a list of political kingdoms. Due to the vast socio-political and cultural variety in Indian history it would make sense to concentrate on only the dominating factor of a particular age; or on that factor or which has an important signifincance. It should be kept in mind that merely regional history is not the only approach to studying history but there are other approaches as well. For a comprehensive understanding all ideas should be given adequate space. I look forward to comments before proceeding to complete the template. Regards--Shahab (talk) 08:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since there seem to be no objections should I go ahead and put this in the article?--Shahab (talk) 07:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the {{HistoryOfSouthAsia}} template and putting my template in. I will however, not resist, (through reverting,) any move to revert this change provided a valid reasoning/discussion is provided/held. If someone wants (s)he can put the {{HistoryOfSouthAsia}} template back in while providing the reason here. My contention remains that to ignore economic history, social history, people's history etc of South Asia would be a gross injustice in presenting a comprehensive view of the state of South Asia through the ages.--Shahab (talk) 07:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have collapsed {{HistoryOfSouthAsia}} components and replaced content. Anyways you have your template's code in talk page, you can improve template or we can replace if really fit alternate template is available. Mightymrt away (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I sufficiently improved my template to the point that I don't feel that it is incomplete any more. My point is that the whole orientation of the Template:HistoryOfSouthAsia is faulty as it focuses on providing only a list of political kingdoms of India. Such an elitist approach to history can never summarize South Asia's existence. How is the Ahom Kingdom more relevant in comparison to Mahabharata? Why is the Durrani Empire more important to Sufism in India. The latter are very much part of the historical heritage of South Asia and any leading template should have all these things. Since the Template:HistoryOfSouthAsia has not been designed to incorporate these features, I suggest that we forgo its use entirely and use my template instead. The Template:HistoryOfSouthAsia can be useful in the Timeline of Indian history and at some other article. I do not believe that big templates are useful in the lead. They distract the reader as overlinking and too many blue links reduces the importance of the important high value links. Any template in the lead should also comply with WP:LEAD and should contain just the important points and nothing else. Hence my template concentrates on only 4 aspects at most from any age. Regards--Shahab (talk) 08:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your are giving undue importance to non-deserving things, Mansabdari nobody cares, and Taj Mahal nobody eats - no offense. It will become pure WP:Original Research defining your own opinion in lead. Kindly point me to some source, otherwise it is considered OR. Mightymrt away (talk) 08:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all there is no need to view this table as mine and not yours. You are free to edit it as well. Secondly if we want any template/table etc in the lead which summarizes the important historical aspects then the best way would be to evolve a consensus on its contents. I waited a reasonable amount of time before putting up this table but no one put forth any suggestions. As for sources what kind of sources do you need? That the Mansabdari system is important in the administrative history of India, and an important grassroot affecting contribution of Mughals is attested by many sources (for example Medieval Indian History(Hardcover - 2002) by K.N. Chitnis). It was really a beginning of systematic land records in India for which the British also owe to the Mughals.[3] Whether it should be used in the lead of the History of India article on wikipedia is something for which there of course are no sources. That can only be decided by consensus here. I have absolutely no problems with changing the contents of the table while retaining its objective of not reflecting solely political history.

I used the Taj Mahal picture as I feel that this is image is identified more with India around the world then any other image. I feel any non-Indian will definitely connect this image with India. Regards--Shahab (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When there are no sources, there is no basis for discussion or consensus. Britannica's india lead says (commented text for copyright, click edit to see), it does not mention Manasbari. You are welcome to bring sources that summarise indian history, and unsourced materials are removed first when challenged, like in this case by me. Mightymrt away (talk) 04:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I thought the fact that the sources I have mentioned (Medieval Indian History by K.N. Chitnis and the website) which discuss the importance of Mansabdari would be sufficient to include it. The important thing for me is to look at history from all angles. I have no qualms about removing Mansabdari if it isn't notable enouugh. I'll ty to hunt up a source that summarizes Indian history and includes mansabdari. However I do believe that any such source is liable to be subjective without scholarly consensus. In the meantime you are welcome to follow {{Sofixit}}.--Shahab (talk) 08:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the fact that Vedic Period and Mahajanapadas are classified under pre historic era wrong? Since written records of that period are available and well understood they qualify under history and not pre-history.--Shahab (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The arrival of Moslems to Kerala is describes as the first arrival of Abrahamic religions in India. However, Jews have been stated to have arrived during the third century BC and Christians are stated to have followed in the Roman Era.

In the article about the arrival of Europeans to India, trade between India and Europe is described as Indo-European which I believe is an unfortunate term since it may be confuse the casual reader. A more clear description might be "trade between India and Europe".

The English colonizers are described as "British islanders" when "English" might be a term more commonly used in the English language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.200.45 (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finally the timeline for European colonization might be expanded since events more than hundred years apart are joined into the same context which again might confuse the casual reader. I say this because I've encountered the idea that India was colonized by the British in the 16th century on another forum. I apologize for not reading through the entire article but India is unfortuneately not my area of expertise and I didn't expect to really be able to contribute. (I came here because I wanted to compare another source in a language I don't quite understand on the European colonization to what I hoped would be a more authorative source). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.200.45 (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neither Muslim nor Hindu myself, but I'm worried about the choice of words on the introduction of Islam to India: 'But this had marked the arrival of an Abrahamic religion in the pre-existing Indian religions'. Not only is the English pretty bad (though there is worse - see some of the pages on particular castes, for example), but it does seem just a TOUCH anti-Islamic. I know that such pages are difficult to edit - the pages on Indian history in particular seem to be swarming with dreadful English, irrelevant rubbish and massive bias - but could the core of clued-up, benevolent experts on Indian history who know what Wikipedia is for please sort this and related pages out? I've tried correcting some articles before in a slightly more accurate light here but the Indian Nationalist Mafia or Anti-Indian League or someone keeps changing them back (depending on whichever way the bias happened to swing). The English Wikipedia is about accuracy and facts in good English (or possibly good Hinglish), not irrelevance and biased opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.145.122.175 (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you propose the change here first? It can be discussed and then put in the article with consensus.--Shahab (talk) 06:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it intended that there is nothing in this article on World War II? DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been proposed in this section that History of India be renamed and moved to History of the Indian subcontinent. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

History of India → History of the Indian subcontinent — Since this page deals with the history of the entire Indian subcontinent prior to 1947, I suggest that it be moved to a title that more accurately reflects its content. The page includes the histories of present-day Bangladesh, India and Pakistan, prior to their creation, so my proposal is to move History of India to History of the Indian subcontinent and then move History of the Republic of India to History of India. This, in my submission, would reflect more accurately the geographical extent of the territories whose history is sought to be covered as the identities of Bangladesh, India and Pakistan as understood in the present day are post-1947 constructs which share a common history prior to that year. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose The topic is commonly understood as History of India and not as History of the Indian Subcontinent, in academic circles as well as in common usage. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose While I understand the urge to introduce less ambiguous terminology for the pre-1947 entity, wikipedia is not the right forum to do so. Both popular and academic sources use "History of India" when talking about the pre-1947 period, even though the geographical area covered is larger than the Republic of India. For example, Google books lists 11, 000 books with history and India in their title, and 9 with the words Indian, subcontinent, and history. While some of the "History of India" books undoubtedly are about the Republic of India, a vast majority cover the pre-independence period. Searching my institutional library and JSTOR gives similar lopsided results (1300:4 and 1100:4 respectively). The ambiguity should be resolved in the article body and not its title. Abecedare (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I'm under the impression that using less ambiguous terminology, particularly in the context of this article, would fit in well with the NPOV policy in at least attempting to provide a neutral perspective. As I see it, most of the history that has been written on the subcontinent seems to be from the perspective of some greater "Indian" entitity that existed pre-Partition - This is based on my reading of books by Indian and British historians: I'm not sure what Pakistani and Bangladeshi books say; could editors from these countries please clarify? - so I thought Wikipedia shouldn't find itself slotted in by these stereotypes and instead attempt to rise above them to try and maintain neutrality. If you could clarify this point for me, I would be reasonably convinced to accept your reasoning. (BTW, the ambiguity is at present attempted to be resolved in the hatnote, but for the aforementioned reason I think this should be reflected in the title itself.) Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality and its corollary WP:DUE require that we represent all reliably sourced views in proportion to their coverage by the best available sources. As a tertiary source, we are not required to, and shouldn't, try to balance what we consider to be "real world" issues or sensibilities. For the topic of this article, academic sources (which is what we should look at) overwhelmingly use the term India to refer to the larger pre-1947 geographical entity, so using Indian subcontinent instead would be replacing what sources say with our personal preference - and that would be against NPOV.

See how Britannica deals with the issue in the first paragraph of its India:History article:

"The Indian subcontinent, the great landmass of South Asia, is the home of one of the world’s oldest and most influential civilizations. In this article, the subcontinent, which for historical purposes is usually called simply “India,” is understood to comprise the areas of not only the present-day Republic of India but also the republics of Pakistan (partitioned from India in 1947) and Bangladesh (which formed the eastern part of Pakistan until its independence in 1971). For the histories of these latter two countries since their creation, see Pakistan and Bangladesh."

And Encarta's discussion starts as:

"India’s history begins not with independence in 1947, but more than 4,500 years earlier, when the name India referred to the entire subcontinent, including present-day Pakistan and Bangladesh."

We should take a similar approach. Abecedare (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. In that case, I think, a stronger clarification in the lede (to the effect of what Britannica mentions) is in order. Encarta is inaccurate because even reliable historical sources do not mention the region being referred to as India (or anything similar) 4500 years ago. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you on both the points. The use of India in this context should be spelled out clearly in the lede (with references), instead of having such a lengthy hat note. And yes, the Encarta wording is very sloppy - instead of "when the name India referred to", they should have had, "and in the historical context the name India refers to". We can do better! Abecedare (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - The name India is routinely applied to more than one geographic area, and it is (or should be) understood in context. Imc (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my last comment above - I think the context needs to be clearly spelt out in the lede. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Pre-independence, the term India was applied to the region in general; the term Indian subcontinent came in vogue only after the split of the countries and continues to be used only in post colonial contexts. So, in keeping with the time period of classification and also the general term usage, stick with History of India, the other title can be a redirect. -SpacemanSpiff 17:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The term India has been used for millennia to refer to the entire subcontinent that shared a common religion and cultural history even if politically divided. The names Pakistan and Bangladesh themselves did not exist prior to 1947. It is a well accepted fact and changing it just to appease revisionist historians in Pakistan and Bangladesh is simply OR. --Deepak D'Souza 18:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're incorrect on both points. Firstly, the term India did not come into use until the British era - no reliable history book claims it to have been used for millenia. Secondly, stating that the entire subcontinent shared a common religion and cultural history even if politically divided is factually misleading - religious and cultural diversity across regions has been well documented (partly the reason why we have a History of South India as a separate article). In any case, as I pointed out earlier, I'm only conversant with books written by British and Indian historians, and I ahve no idea as to what are the revisionist historians in Pakistan and Bangladesh whose appeasement you're mentioning. Perhaps you could care to elaborate on that? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Megasthenes and Arrian both called the region India in their respective works dating around 300BC and 60CE respectively, so the term has been used for the region for millenia, although it may not have been used locally. -SpacemanSpiff 19:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any additional comments: