"
And, what do you mean by ""pompous self-glorification like 'most populous democracy' (which is far more controversial)?"" We had a long mediation on those very words in June 2008, and the mediation has endorsed that edit.  The mediation was widely advertised and after is conclusion there was further discussion on it on this very page, and you were given ample opportunity to disagree with that edit; you chose not only to not disagree with it, not only to make a supportive statement above that I have just quoted, but also to state explicitly that the ""form of government belongs to the infobox or later paragraphs!"" So, what gives?  

The discussion you quote with Nichalp is not complete.  Nichalp said (in his succinct unobtrusive style) pretty much everything I have said above, including, ""Thirdly, Union of States should be in lower case. If the need be, the political structure can come lower in the lead. =Nichalp «Talk»= "" and again, ""That seems better, but where do you plan to add it? =Nichalp «Talk»= "" Your persistent unresponsiveness to his suggestion of placing the text lower down in the lead resulted, as I see it, in his giving up on the discussion.  I don't want to speak for Nichalp, but that doesn't sound like agreement to me! As I see it, you have a lot of explaining to do, not least for your own statements of two months ago.  «Talk» 

Union of states
I am surprised that it got reverted again to federal republic . The issue in question here is whether India is a union or a federation. The Indian Constitution defines India as a Union of states and as such an Encylopedia article like this should reflect that. I am more surprised by the foolishness of some editors here who think Wikipedia should not reflect realities but be based on some incorrect WP precendents. Maybe this is due to the fact the place where he comes from has no written constitution. But it is wrong to label India as a Federal Republic, when it is clearly not so. CIA website is not a WP:RS in this issue.-  "