Talk:Dominion of India

message: I request that the article "Dominion of India" and its associated talk page be moved to "Union of India" and "Talk:Union of India" respectively on the grounds that a Google search reveals "Union of India" -wikipedia more popular than "Dominion of India" -wikipedia, furthermore, the term "Union of India" was the official nomenclature for the entity.  --Shibo77 (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Support per nom but not on the Google hits rationale. —  AjaxSmack  02:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 2008 

message: The boundaries on the map used (the current day map of the Republic of India) don't represent the 1947 borders of the country. Koregaonpark (talk) 12:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also stress that the Hyderabad State should be marked light green in the core of India, since it was a disputed territory annexed by force.--140.77.75.232 (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map (1947 boundaries vs. current) 

message: Shouldn't it say Hindi and Enlgish and NOT Hindustani and English?
--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official language 

message: The main map on this article is the generic India locator image. India's territory has changed since 1950, with areas like Goa and others annexed by the Republic. If anyone can make a more accurate locator, please do so. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 19:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anachronistic map 

message: The following is an extract from the Indian Independence Act 1947:
There is no dispute but that India was indeed a Dominion between 1947 and 1949. However, its common name and official name was simply India. Although the term Dominion of India was used sometimes, it wasn't the official name. While moving the article has been rejected on a past occasion, the article itself ought to atleast be correct as to what the official name was. Frenchmalawi (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure who added those "sources" for "Dominion" in the lead sentence. I have removed them as they are not reliable. I will soon add more sources for "Union of India" being the official name.  Several are already in there after the appositive "officially the Union of India." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed 5 because they (1) don't support the article content, saying nothing about an "official" name and (2) it's cite overkill. DrKay (talk) 08:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: "India", not "Dominion of India" was official

message: The Sovereign never had the title "King of India". George VI had the same title everywhere in the Empire. While he was certainly King in India and Pakistan after 1947 until they respectively became republics, his title after he dropped the "Emperor of India" never included any reference to India, never mind Pakistan. It is wrong to say he was "King of India". It is fine to say he was "king in India". It would be a bit like saying the King's title was also "King of Canada" at that time. It wasn't.    
*Until 1947:George's official style and title in full was: His Majesty George the Sixth, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India (in Latin: George VI, Dei Gratia Magnae Britanniae, Hiberniae et terrarum transmarinarum quae in ditione sunt Britannica Rex, Fidei Defensor, Indiae Imperator.
*After 1947: George the Sixth, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith - Note, his new title does not even mention India (or Pakistan).
Frenchmalawi (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Monarch's title in India (and Pakistan)

message: This page used to be called the "Union of India." It was changed to the "Dominion of India" because it was said that the "Union of India" could also refer to the Republic of India. However, somebody changed the redirect-target of "Union of India" to the Republic of India. That is not appropriate.
* Legally, the Dominion of India only consisted of the territory that was previously under the British administration. The princely states were never part of the Dominion, but rather part of the "Union of India" or more often the "Indian Union." While accession matters were discussed, the country was often referred to as the Indian Union. The states joined the Union and sent representatives to the Union Constituent Assembly.
* After the passage of the Constitution, the princely states were dissolved and the country became a Republic. So, there was less need to refer to the "Indian Union." Only the legal use of the "Union of India" persists as per the Article 300 of the Constitution. In this usage, it refers to the Union Government only, not the country. 
So, the "Union of India" should redirect to here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: your second point seems more than enough to clearly outweigh the first. If the present usage of the "Union of India" or the "Indian Union" persists, then why is that argument not sufficient to redirect the page to the page of the Republic/the Government? MikeLynch (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because reliable sources overwhelmingly use "Union of India" to refer to what you call the "Dominion of India". The Republic of India is rarely referred to by that name. (Politically, as I explained, the term "Union" was used for describing the combination of the Dominion + the Princely States.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Union of India controversy 

message: That title redirects here but the term 'union' doesn't appear even once in this article. Srnec (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Union of India]] 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Union of India. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  DrKay (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Union of India" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Please read Britannica, which says,  "Dominion, the status, prior to 1939, of each of the British Commonwealth countries of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Eire, and Newfoundland. Although there was no formal definition of dominion status, a pronouncement by the Imperial Conference of 1926 described Great Britain and the dominions as “autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.”  ...  After 1947 the use of the expression was abandoned because it was thought in some quarters to imply a form of subordination, and the phrase “members of the Commonwealth” came into use. The definition of 1926 was modified in 1949, when it was agreed that countries could enjoy full Commonwealth membership but were not obligated to recognize the British monarch as their sovereign. The monarch was accepted as the symbol of the free association of the independent member nations and as such was the head of the Commonwealth. India was the first country to enter into such an arrangement, and by the 1990s it had been joined by most of the other Commonwealth nations."
You could nitpick about whether George VI had any breathing room as sovereign between 1947 and 1949, but I've never seen any reference in the literature referring to him as one for India.  I'm sure the Indians did not consider him to be their sovereign after midnight of August 15.  It may have taken until April 1947 for the rules to be formally changed, but we can't very well call him King of India for the interim. He became head of the Commonwealth with no recognition as sovereign in April 1949,  well before India's becoming a republic.  I don't have the time now, but will eventually request a page move back to "Union of India."  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The myth of the monarch 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: *Here is a link for Article 343 of the Constitution of India.  It has the Constituent Assembly discussions of 14 September.  Again the Constituent Assembly voted on a resolution on 14 September which, however, took effect on 26 January 1950 when India became a republic.  I hope the distinction is clear.  The Constitution of India whose different sections were approved at different times in the period 1947 to 28 November 1949, did not go into effect until 26 January 1950.  Please do not continue to do original research by grabbing whatever you can skim off the internet in harum-scarum fashion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *And now you have reverted to the earlier nonsense you were promoting on the Hindi Day as well.  (here).  I've had enough of you.  I will now post on WT:INDIA where others, administratively wiser, can take a look at your relentless OR. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *Your revision didn't cite a source in the lead. Wikipedia isn't the place for personal opinions. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, content must be supported by Wikipedia:Reliable sources. You may add whatever you feel is correct, if supported by RS.  Peter Ormond 💬 15:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: As per the objections I had raised on ANI, I found misrepresentation on the section Dominion of India#Partition: 1947 in the following sentences:
::In a matter of days, Sikhs and Hindus of the East Punjab were suddenly and unexpectedly attacking the Muslims there, and in the West Punjab, Muslims were returning the violence and the ferocity on the Sikhs. Trains taking the refugees to their new lands were stopped, their occupants slaughtered regardless of age and gender. Long lines of humans and ox-carts travelling East and West to their new dominions were intercepted and overwhelmed.
::The Hindu refugees from the west Punjab arriving in Delhi ended up tearing away the Muslim community there from their established cultural patterns and values, and temporarily destabilized the new government.
What the source actually say:
::Within days of the award Sikhs and Hindus were falling on the Muslims of the East Punjab and Muslims on the Sikhs in the west. There was general fighting accompanied by every kind of atrocity; convoys were waylaid, refugee trains held up and their passengers slaughtered, men, women, and children. Within days long convoys were marching east and west seeking shelter in the other dominion. The tide of refugees caused an explosion of communal strife in Delhi in early September. The Muslim community was uprooted and for a time the stability of the government was threatened. 
Since the source is significantly different from what has been added to the article, we need to fix that. Here is what I propose:
::Proposal 1: Within days of the announcement of Radcliffe Line, there was violence in East and West Punjab, with Sikhs and Hindus carrying out atrocities on Muslims in East Punjab, while Muslims were carrying out atrocities on the Sikhs in West Punjab. A large number of people in these areas were seeking refugee in the other dominion. The arrival of refugees resulted in communal strife in Delhi. Following these events, the Muslims were uprooted and the stability of the government was endangered.
::Proposal 2: Moments after the declaration of the partition lines, all throughout the Punjab violence broke out. During this period where the newly independent government was experiencing instability, Muslims were uprooted as Hindu and Sikh refugees from what is now Pakistan arrived in Delhi.
While the first proposal is more detailed and covering the details from the source, the second proposal is more concise and easy to understand for readers. If you have your own proposal or changes to the two proposals, then do let me know about it. --Yoonadue (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just the first cut. There are half a dozen other sources, which I will be using to create a more nuanced text. It is quite possible none of this will survive. Please see the list of references in the article, most of which have not been used yet. Thanks though.  All the best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Partition: 1947

message: The section entitled Dominion Constitution and Government has the following statement:
« The Constituent Assembly had 299 representatives, consisting of 200 men and nine women. » 
Something’s wrong there, with 90 positions not included,  but I don’t know what the actual division should be. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, , Good catch.  The number is 15 women and 284 men.  I will shortly correct it and give the names of the women.  Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That was quick!  glad to be of help. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender make-up of Constituent Assembly? 

message: *OK.  I'm busy for the rest of the day, but I'll take a good look at your sources  tomorrow and make a comment here.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: *Don't see any mistake in name. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 17:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: *:Again  The book is only edited by Raju G.C. Thomas.  It has 20 chapters written by various authors, most originally from the subcontinent, but teaching at the time of the book's publication (1992) in North American colleges.  (See here).  Your quote is from page 77.  Raju has written only one chapter, the introduction, which is unlikely to be at least 77 pages long.  So, who has written that chapter and what are the chapter's page numbers? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

text: *::PS Unless I know that proper citation, including the author's name, I cannot determine the Google scholar citations for the chapter, and gauge its general notability in the scholarly community. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

text: *::As you will have seen in Ian Copland's review (whose first two paragraphs are shown in good part in the link), the book has eight India-born authors, five Pakistan-born, one Bangladesh-born, and the remaining six Kashmir-born. The large number were chosen to demonstrate the diversity of views on Kashmir. Beyond the scholarly notability of the author of the chapter, we need to know which author has written the chapter.  Nationality, in the sense of the country, or land, in which the author has been born and raised, is not a paramount factor, but it is important in Kashmir-related views, even when espoused from geographically remote North American colleges. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Given that Bangladesh has also been listed as a part of the countries it now belongs to because of the territorial exchanges of enclaves, will it also be fair to consider it is also a part of China because of Aksai Chin? Pur 0 0 (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Today part of which countries?