Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics/India disambiguation discussion

message: Hi Spasage - sorry to convert your talkpage to the village pump! Yes the talks do look good, but I agree with Gurubrahma that the discussion should be moved to a sub-page of Portal:Asia. This Fire Burns.....Always  05:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no issue, it should be moved. --Spasage 05:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next step 

message: * I oppose converting India into a disambiguation page because, the name India most popularly associated with the modern day Republic of India. However, I'm ok with an  template at the top of the article linking to a disambiguation page. There are hundreds of precedents for this.
* Though I prefer Indian to be used to describe pre-1947 Indians, I can accept undivided India as a compromise. However, I would certainly not agree with either south asian or "from Indian subcontinent]]" as it's entirely misleading.
::I too agree that it is ok to have India as the page for the modern country of Republic of India, this is because when people type India, they are most probably looking for the modern country. As suggested in earlier sections, India (disambiguation) can be set up. Also, describing pre-1947 people as "from Undivided India" sounds ok (however, questions arise on how do you handle someone from Goa? Surely, that is not covered in Partition of India, Goa being a portuguese colony until 1961. But it seems a nice option. ) --Ragib 06:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No one wants to convert India into disambiguation. We'll separate page India (disambiguation). Republic of India will have its page India. --Spasage 06:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not expand Indian subcontinent to include the political connotations? btw, there seems to be something wrong with WP, some bug or so. Samir had signed but his sig isn't showing. --Gurubrahma 06:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Sundar|Sundar]]'s take 

message: I have just created page India (disambiguation) to avoid confusion. It is totally separate page. India, moder Republic is intact. --Spasage 06:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[India (disambiguation)]] 

message: * India should obviously talk about the Republic of India. It cannot lead to a disambiguation page. However, a header with a link to a disambiguation page might be useful. Check out the article on Rome.
* When the person can easily be linked to a present-day country in the Indian sub-continent, he/she must be referred to as such. For example, X was born in Lahore, which is in present-day Pakistan...rather than, say, X was born in undivided India. If this is not obvious, then other terms such as ancient India, British India can be used.
- Cribananda 06:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One option which in my opinion should be pretty satisfying to all sides is to mention his nationality as Indian and lead the redirect to British Raj Indian. 
Omerlives 12:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Cribananda|Cribananda]]'s comments 

message: I think it's just making a mountain out of a molehill. India was the land that Columbus wanted to reach, and India still makes up a greater portion of South Asia. Pakistan and Bangladesh were cut off from India, but the name India remained (unlike USSR/Russia). You also can't compare India with China because China consists of one nation, two governments. Take a look at other locations from which territories were carved up eg. Ethiopia. Coming closer home, we have Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar all talking about their current geographical area. For the dab, I'd go with Sundar's/Cribananda's suggestions. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please check India (disambiguation). --Spasage 05:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately this issue is causing edit wars and some bad blood. I had been hoping for an opportunity to have such a discussion, and thanks to Spasage, it materialized. For example, I was absolutely outraged when I read a mention to a "unified South Asia" as the goal of the Congress in Pakistan (which I removed). The issue is real because there are technical differences between the political entities that compose(d) India, that an encyclopedia cannot leave to general perception. I mean, when real people have questions/problems regarding this, they would look to sources like ours to decide what's right from wrong. This is a pragmatic method to resolve problems, better to be done now than later. This Fire Burns.....Always  05:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: While Wikipedia must not promote new interpretations or revisionist history, its important that we have a common understanding of this issue. As Jimbo Wales said on the userbox debate, we are Wikipedians here, advocates elsewhere. So we must find a common framework. This Fire Burns.....Always  05:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nichalp's comment 

message: In addition to the small snippets of replies I posted above, let me discuss the main issue here. Sure, there was a single geographic region known as India. Many famous people, politicians, scientists, poets were born there. Now, suppose someone from the region of Bengal, who died prior to Partition of India. How would you classify that person? If you say, "Indian" as referring to the modern country, that is not correct. The correct phrase here would be "Indian" as referring to the historic region. If the logic is that "Republic of India" inherited everything associated with the name "India", that would be a fallacy, because Pakistan or Bangladesh didn't came out of nowhere in a second Big Bang. If The modern country India inherited everything related to the name India, Bangladesh, under the same logic, would have inherited everything related to the name "Bengal", right? NO! 
So, I like Rama's arrow and Spasage's compromise here to have the disambig page. Just to give a background of why this might be necessary, please see Rabindranath Tagore and Muhammad Iqbal. Two of the greatest poets of the Indian subcontinent. I'm not well versed in Iqbal's literature, but Tagore was a humanist, and a very much anti-nationalist ... he considered himself as a citizen of the world. To assign tags on him would have stirred his ashes  ... so to speak. You can't really claim a person for a country he never saw! For people dying pre-1947, calling them Indian or Bangladeshi or Pakistani , when referring to the modern countries, is not an accurate statement in any way. (I had mistakenly argued in this way in Tagore's page, but I have changed my views). 
Anyway, I hope we can reach a consensus, rather than trying to rewrite history, and bickering over identities of people. The discussion in this page shows a step in the right direction. Thanks. --Ragib 07:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Ragib|Ragib's]] comment 

message: Before partition (1947) every one living in undivided India called every part of India as his own, even if some one was living in Bangladesh or Pakistan part of undivided India. But now, we have confined almost everyone to either India or any other small part. This is great mistake and injustice we are doing. Hindus or Muslim or Christian used to call Undivided India there home country by simply calling it India (again undivided India). I think it should remain like this for them. They were free to go from Dhaka to Lahore and that was there status (read without visa),  a status of Citizen of India, not reduced one which we try to give them or I must say enforce on them. We should identify them with country they call it. Some called it India, some called it Hindustan.
Also good name for India before 1947 can be Undivided India. I am happy we have made some progress but I think a lot needs to be done, only after it we can give people of undivided India (pre 1947) their true Identity. Citizen of Great India, rich in culture. 
One last request I would like to make is, please contribute in good faith. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh will remain as it is. We are simply adding what was missing.  --Spasage 10:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: South Asia also consists of Sri Lanka, Nepal and sometimes Burma, Afghanistan and even Iran. Britain only controlled India, Pakistan and Bangladesh (and Sri Lank/Burma but they weren't officially part of British India). GizzaChat © 08:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Spasage|Spasage's]] comment 

message: Hi - I'm not in my bathtub right now, but I think I've got a good idea. There is no article called Indian people - THERE SHOULD BE! After all, the people of India are very heterogenous and there is a lot of inter-mixing going on so it is necessary to have an article at that level. Its important to address how India's people are a common identity beyond ethnic lines.
This will help us solve the problem. We can explain in the lead that an "Indian" meant this, this and this in different periods of history. Lemme know what you think. This Fire Burns.....Always  03:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea that fixes the right problem in the right way, IMO. But, from my limited experience with Tamil people (primarily edited by Arvind), I know it'll be hard. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It is good idea to explain what an Indian mean during different periods of history. --Spasage 06:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  EUREKA!  

message: I would like to say that you MUST keep in mind that the confusion is in historical context.  A solution for this should NOT meddle with present-day meaning of the word.  As in, I better not wake up one day and type India in search bar only to reach a disambig page.  Anyone who suggests China solution (which I disagree with too) is being ignorant of quite a few facts, most important being that their is no other nation right now that claims the name India.  So the solution has to be something that stays in the domain of historical context without forcing it on present-day context.  Any such solution will be fought tooth and nail by me and many others.  Final comment: Any universal solution reached here is going to remain unsatisfactory and raise future debates as this very much seems to be a good example where it is better to address each issues case-by-case than generalization.  --Blacksun 09:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Blacksun, I think what I have written in the first paragraph above is an explication of what you are saying, but I could be mistaken. (I don't know anything about the China solution though).  Regards  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Blacksun's Comments

message: Note: This section is only for references (of examples of different form of usage of British India etc.  Please no comments in this section.
*Bose, Sugata and Ayesha Jalal.  2003.  Modern South Asia. Routledge; 2 edition 304 pages.  
**Page 153:"Jinnah, leader of the recently revived Muslim Leagure, who had kept open lines of communications with Congress, found the federal provisions of the 1935 act `most reactionary, retrograde, injurious and fatal to the vital interest of British India vis-a-vis the Indian states'."
**Page 178: "Mushirul Hasan has documented the role of Aligarh students in popularizing the League's creed in the remote villages of British India. Yet popular sentiments for an undefined demand for a `Pakistan' did not translate into a matching political organization working for its attainment."
**Page 203"It was Congress which inherited the unitary central apparatus and international personality of British India. Ignoring Jinnah's vocal protests against Congress seizing the appellation `India', Mountbatten admitted that he was doing no more than setting up a tent for the government of the newly created state."
**Page 204: "The partnership between Congress and non-elected institutions, civil bureaucracy and the police in particular, facilitated the establishment of a formal democracy within the barely modified structures of British India's unitary state system."
*Marshall, P.J. (ed).  2001.  The Cambridge Illustrated History of the British Empire. Cambridge University Press.  400 pages.  .
** Page 155."British India—those provinces (like the Punjab) that had been conquered and annexed—was directly admininstered by British officials, while the several hundred princely states (of which Hyderabad was the largest) concluded agreements whereby they surrendered to the Crown control over external affairs in return for a good deal of internal autonomy."
*Northrup, David.  "Migration from Africa, Asia and the South Pacific." In The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume III: The Nineteenth Century, Andrew Porter (ed).  Oxford University Press.  800 pages.  .
**"Page 88: After the British Isles, the most important source of overseas emigrants within the nineteenth-century Empire was British India."
* Mill, James. 1817 , The History of British India (3 volumes). London: Baldwin, Cradock and Joy.
*
** Page :"There was a strong case for dividing the province of Bengal. It was the largest in British India, with 78.5 million people of whom nearly a third were Muslims."
** Page 224: "... but ended with a veiled threat: For above a century the Hindoo population of British India has always been the most attached ... of Your Majesty's native subjects ... conciliated by the toleration and protection hitherto ..."
** Page 243: "... and religious orientations. Bengal presented an extreme example of class formation. It contained Calcutta, `City of Palaces' and capital of British India. ..."
** Page 245: "... too do the educated. In 1859, there were a mere thirteen government colleges with around 2000 students in all of British India. Another 30,000 students were in secondary government schools. ..."
** Page 253: "... lessons drawn from the mutiny of Company sepoys in 1857 enforced the concentration of Europeans in the high ranks of British-Indian regiments. Fears of mutiny lingered and justified a one-third ratio of European troops strategically garrisoned throughout British India, and their domination over artillery units as well as the superior commands. ..."
** Page 255: "... Thus Richard Wellesley, Governor-General from 1798 to 1805, saw India as a vital centre for opposition to Napoleon's plans to ... By the middle of the nineteenth century, the frontiers of British India were fixed favourably against a weakened imperial China as well as against clientized smaller states on the northern fringes ..."
**Page 269: "... 17 schools and 386 female pupils. At the close of the century there were 82,000 pupils in girls' schools in British India, and an additional 42,000 attended mixed schools. ..."
**Page 272: "... made by the senior imperial official W. W. Hunter in t88� that forty million, a fifth of the population of British India, lacked sufficient food was never refuted. ..."
**Page 296: "... to the radical swadeshi leaders and also a lobby for the greater participation of Muslims in the public life of British India. British official support was obvious: a meeting between the Aligarh Muslim leaders and the viceroy, Lord Minto, was arranged late ..."
**Page 303: "... Elsewhere in British India and also in the larger, more advanced princely states such as Mysore, a similar brahman hold over official employment was ..."
**Page 322:"... of militant farmers against Hindu money-lenders and oppressive landlords. Such losses to the Congress were not easily repaired. Elsewhere in British India this anti-Congress opportunism was less evident. Madras and Bombay, where the 'ryotwari' revenue settlement was between the state and individual ..."
**Page 347: "... as diversionary democratic movements . Within several princely states movements were stirring to gain the same civil rights enjoyed in British India. Gandhi mandated that Congress should not interfere with the political rights (or wrongs) of Indians living under 347 ..."
**Page 348: "... liberties and reduce their own privileges, but only voluntarily. Still, lower- class pressure continued to grow, soon matching that of British India, and Gandhi grudgingly approved a satyagraha, but restricted it to a single small state in Gujarat where he enjoyed unusual ..."
**Page 379: "... Of Muslims elsewhere in British India, where they were minorities, little could be or was said. While the formative stage of the Indian Republic arguably ended ..."
**Page 382: "... main supporters of the Muslim League in East, as in West, Pakistan were Muslim refugees from the United Provinces of British India. Provincial elections in West Pakistan in 1951 gave the Muslim League an overwhelming majority of seats, about three-quarters of the ..."
===Books===
*Hay, Jeff, George J. Mitchell, and James I. Matray (eds).  2006.  The Partition of British India.  Chelsea House Publications.  136 pages.  .
*Pinch, William R.  1996. Peasants and Monks of British India University of California Press.  264 pages.  .
*Lelyveld, David.  2003.  Aligarh's First Generation: Muslim Solidarity in British India.  Oxford University Press.  416 pages.  .
* Metcalf, Barbara.  2004.  Islamic Revival in British India: Deoband, 1860-1900 Oxford University Press.  420 pages.  .
* Sanyal, Usha.  1996.  Devotional Islam and Politics in British India: Ahmed Riza Khan Barelvi and His Movement, 1870-1920, Oxford University Press.  380 pages.  
* Harper, Susan Billington.   1999.  In the Shadow of the Mahatma: Bishop V.S. Azariah and the Travails of Christianity in British India.  William  Eerdans.  462 pages.  .
* Moorehouse, Geoffrey.  2000.  India Britannica: A Vivid Introduction to the History of British India. Academy Chicago.  238 pages. 
* Jaffer, Amin.  Furniture from British India and Ceylon.  V & A Publications.  384 pages.  
* Harrison, Mark.  2003. Public Health in British India: Anglo-Indian Preventive Medicine 1859-1914, (Cambridge Studies in the History of Medicine). Cambridge University Press.  348 pages.  .
* Stone, Ian.  2002 Canal Irrigation in British India (Cambridge South Asian Studies)  Cambridge University Press.  392 pages.  
* Sen, Indrani.   2002.  Woman and empire: Representations in the writings of British India, 1858-1900 (New Perspectives in South Asian History).  Orient Longman.  
* Moore-Gilbert, Bart. 1996.  Writing India 1757-1990: The Literature of British India Manchester University Press.  271 pages.  .
* Roy, Anindyo.  2005.  Civility and Empire: Literature and Culture in British India 1822-1922.  Rutledge (UK).  216 pages.  
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, this is getting a little ridiculous (perhaps a lot). Here's why:
#"Modern South Asia:" you can see the reference to the "Indian states," as clearly "Indian." As for British-held territory, was there ever a question about using "British India?" Did I not make it expressly clear that "British India" did exist, yet it was never a nationality? How else would you distinguish it if you're discussing the princely states in the same sentence? "British Indian Empire," "British-ruled India." All the quotes refer to a discussion of the apparatus of the state, which was "British India." Funny, I don't see "South Asia," "Indian subcontinent," being used... No case for nationality there.
#Shall I post the thousands of books that deal with the "partition of India?" Perhaps that will send a clearer message about the definition of "consensus." At least it might help to visit the latter pages: Amazon list, Google, "Partition of British India", At Encarta - territorial unity of India, The division of India caused tremendous dislocation of populations, Google Books, Google Scholar, the Government of India Act 1919, the Government of India Act 1935, the Indian Independence Act 1947.  
#When one talks of the state, it is not incorrect to use "British India." But it is incorrect to describe the people, the nationality as of "British India." The influence of the British-ruled state in India did not redefine the nationality, culture and consciousness of its people, to make it anything other than "Indian." Were Jinnah and Iqbal "Indians?" Well yes, as Britannica, Encarta and thousands of other books will testify. Rama's arrow (3:16) 21:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Your latter example clarifies why British India is not a nationality - Burma has never shared a common nationality with India. Sri Lanka has never been considered (even by the British) as a part of India. [[India (disambiguation) should have each term with time frame and a brief explanation, and let the reader decide which shall be more suitable for the context. It can't be specific because (1) Its a disambiguation page and (2) it applies to a whole range of articles, not just Iqbal. Rama's arrow (3:16) 15:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Rama's Arrow is right that Indians were called "Indians" regardless of where they lived on the subcontinent, and it's a perfectly valid generic term to address Indians. Sometimes, however, depending on the context, it adds value to specify whether a person was from British India or from the princely Indian states. British India is a valid official term, and I don't see any revisionism here. It's only that mostly it doesn't add much value to use such a specific term, while sometimes it does. "British India" can and should be used when it is necessary to distinguish it from the princely states, so that the generic term will not do. For example, Rowlatt Act was applicable in regions corresponding to British India, not in the princely states. "British Indian" on the other hand is a highly confusing term never to be used. deeptrivia (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fowler&Fowler's Bibliography of Usage for British India, Undivided India, Pre-partition India, etc.

message: *Hay, Jeff, George J. Mitchell, and James I. Matray (eds).  2006.  The Partition of British India.  Chelsea House Publications.  136 pages.  .
*Pinch, William R.  1996. Peasants and Monks of British India University of California Press.  264 pages.  .
*Lelyveld, David.  2003.  Aligarh's First Generation: Muslim Solidarity in British India.  Oxford University Press.  416 pages.  .
* Metcalf, Barbara.  2004.  Islamic Revival in British India: Deoband, 1860-1900 Oxford University Press.  420 pages.  .
* Sanyal, Usha.  1996.  Devotional Islam and Politics in British India: Ahmed Riza Khan Barelvi and His Movement, 1870-1920, Oxford University Press.  380 pages.  
* Harper, Susan Billington.   1999.  In the Shadow of the Mahatma: Bishop V.S. Azariah and the Travails of Christianity in British India.  William  Eerdans.  462 pages.  .
* Moorehouse, Geoffrey.  2000.  India Britannica: A Vivid Introduction to the History of British India. Academy Chicago.  238 pages. 
* Jaffer, Amin.  Furniture from British India and Ceylon.  V & A Publications.  384 pages.  
* Harrison, Mark.  2003. Public Health in British India: Anglo-Indian Preventive Medicine 1859-1914, (Cambridge Studies in the History of Medicine). Cambridge University Press.  348 pages.  .
* Stone, Ian.  2002 Canal Irrigation in British India (Cambridge South Asian Studies)  Cambridge University Press.  392 pages.  
* Sen, Indrani.   2002.  Woman and empire: Representations in the writings of British India, 1858-1900 (New Perspectives in South Asian History).  Orient Longman.  
* Moore-Gilbert, Bart. 1996.  Writing India 1757-1990: The Literature of British India Manchester University Press.  271 pages.  .
* Roy, Anindyo.  2005.  Civility and Empire: Literature and Culture in British India 1822-1922.  Rutledge (UK).  216 pages.  
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, this is getting a little ridiculous (perhaps a lot). Here's why:
#"Modern South Asia:" you can see the reference to the "Indian states," as clearly "Indian." As for British-held territory, was there ever a question about using "British India?" Did I not make it expressly clear that "British India" did exist, yet it was never a nationality? How else would you distinguish it if you're discussing the princely states in the same sentence? "British Indian Empire," "British-ruled India." All the quotes refer to a discussion of the apparatus of the state, which was "British India." Funny, I don't see "South Asia," "Indian subcontinent," being used... No case for nationality there.
#Shall I post the thousands of books that deal with the "partition of India?" Perhaps that will send a clearer message about the definition of "consensus." At least it might help to visit the latter pages: Amazon list, Google, "Partition of British India", At Encarta - territorial unity of India, The division of India caused tremendous dislocation of populations, Google Books, Google Scholar, the Government of India Act 1919, the Government of India Act 1935, the Indian Independence Act 1947.  
#When one talks of the state, it is not incorrect to use "British India." But it is incorrect to describe the people, the nationality as of "British India." The influence of the British-ruled state in India did not redefine the nationality, culture and consciousness of its people, to make it anything other than "Indian." Were Jinnah and Iqbal "Indians?" Well yes, as Britannica, Encarta and thousands of other books will testify. Rama's arrow (3:16) 21:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Your latter example clarifies why British India is not a nationality - Burma has never shared a common nationality with India. Sri Lanka has never been considered (even by the British) as a part of India. [[India (disambiguation) should have each term with time frame and a brief explanation, and let the reader decide which shall be more suitable for the context. It can't be specific because (1) Its a disambiguation page and (2) it applies to a whole range of articles, not just Iqbal. Rama's arrow (3:16) 15:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Rama's Arrow is right that Indians were called "Indians" regardless of where they lived on the subcontinent, and it's a perfectly valid generic term to address Indians. Sometimes, however, depending on the context, it adds value to specify whether a person was from British India or from the princely Indian states. British India is a valid official term, and I don't see any revisionism here. It's only that mostly it doesn't add much value to use such a specific term, while sometimes it does. "British India" can and should be used when it is necessary to distinguish it from the princely states, so that the generic term will not do. For example, Rowlatt Act was applicable in regions corresponding to British India, not in the princely states. "British Indian" on the other hand is a highly confusing term never to be used. deeptrivia (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Books