Talk:Sare Jahan se Accha

message: I don't challenge the definition of Hindustani--and would like to help build the entry on it--but to say that Saare Jahan Say Achcha is written in Hindustani rather than Urdu. Isn't that inaccurate?--iFaqeer 20:50, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
----
I didn't want to do anything, because there are certainly those who know Hindi/Urdu better than I, but I think there were a few mistakes. Writing out all the unicode by hand, as I have done many a time myself, I can understand this happening. I don't want to correct anything, only to find out it is some archaic or literary style. Was हिन्दुस्तान ever really हिन्दोस्तां or ەندوستاں؟ or गुलिस्तान -> गुलसितां/گلستاں؟ though? Both being Persian words, I should feel safe changing these nasalisations, but I don't have a copy of the song in front of me. The simple English I don't personally like, but realize a proper transliteration doesn't help the normal person any more than Devanagari or Naskh! But than again I still like:
Sāre jahāṁ (or jahān) se accha, hindustān hamāra... 
The Devanagari izaafat is always weird, but does there really need to be a '\'? I have seen this rendering many times though and so its more of a stylistic quandary than an actual problem  ;-) 
Whether or not anyone wants to engage in the old Hindi/Urdu debate (leave me out!) this should probably be written in Urdu naskh as well. I'm no poetic scholar, and am not sure off the top of head if this meets the metrical requirements, but this sounds like it is some kind of good ol' Urdu she'er to my novice ears. But when writing:
سارے جەان اچەا هندوستان همارا should be
سارے جەاں اچها ەندوستان ەمارا
ەم بلبليں ەيں اس كى، يە گلستان ەمارا ... and so on.
(I'm noticing the choti he's, do chashmi he's and nun-e ghunna's.)
Khirad 10:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Can someone who knows meanings of Urdu/Hindustani words used here complete the english translation? 
Ashish G 19:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation Incomplete? 

message: 1. The poem is entitled 'Tarana Hindi,' not 'Saare Jahan Se Acha'
2. It is in Urdu, not Hindi.  Iqbal did not compose any Hindi poetry.
3. Its an absolute travesty that the text of the poem has been written out in Hindi script and not in the original Urdu.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabuli (talk • contribs) 
:Yes, I agree that there should be Urdu lyrics (before the Devanagari) since the song was written in Urdu, not even Hindoustani, but it could be interpreted as that.  Someone, please add the Urdu lyrics, unless anyone has problems with the Urdu.  And also, I'm gonna mention that it's also called Tarana Hindi.
Basawala 19:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I added the lyrics in Urdu, and I'm about to tinkle with the weird transliteration, since it spells hamaara in different ways. Basawala 19:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You do realize that Hindu and Urdu are basically the same language? They are specialized registers of Hindustani. --vi5in[talk] 00:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  issues 

message: I think if we'll talk about the controversy surrounding Vande Mataram and Jana Gana Mana I think we should also mention the controversy surrounding this song since it was penned by the ideological patron of Pakistan. I have no personal views on this, I'm just stating facts. --Antorjal 17:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: This user is a member of this (heated) discussion and for the benefit of everyone 
please see this.I hope the POV pushing and harrassing will now evade. Mahawiki 19:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well since the Kannada "users" (user) have stopped trolling and socking this page, its ripe for unprotection.Bakaman Bakatalk 23:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sockpuppet information

message: The article has been under protection since Oct 16, so I'm unprotecting it. Hopefully, this time we will avoid the edit wars that resulted in the protection. Thanks. --Ragib 05:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry but I didnt notice any consensus evolve in the above discussion.  I just kept quiet and didnt respond in the last many days simply because I didnt want to be repeating myself or feeding any useless beating around the bush.  All that the for-Hindi transliteration editors have been giving is just convoluted logic to try and sneak in a Hindi transliteration through the backdoor.  The fact that Hindi and Urdu are different languages has already been decided by linguists and for all means and purposes they are also treated as different languages on Wikipedia.  This is a purely Urdu poem by an Urdu poet and there really is no need for Hindi transliterations here.  I request you to please revert the page back and protect it.  Sarvagnya 05:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Per discussion above, nearly all users not from a certain ethnolinguistic POV supported Hindi. Even the two Urdu users (anupam and Basawala) supported it. Anyway, I caught Sarvagnya 3rr gaming with sock/meatpuppets (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sarvagnya) on this article. Bakaman Bakatalk 16:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: Now that I read the intro para, I can't help doubting the correctness of the following sentence:
:It is said he disowned this song as a "Hindi" song later in life.
The sulekha.com article it cites is very poorly written, and has very glaring misinformation about many other things (like claiming Rakesh Sharma was the first indian to land on moon, whereas he was actually the first Indian to go to space). The derogative language used in this source makes me think that it is more like a comment/Pakistan-bashing article rather than fact. So, I'd like to see more reliable sources for this statement about Iqbal.  Thanks. --Ragib 17:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  correctness 

message: Unfortunately, since I unprotected it on Nov 8, there have been 13 edits, and every one of them is a revert. This implies that the edit disputes are yet to be resolved. I urge the debating users to use the talk page rather than doing this endless cycle of reverts/counter-reverts. Thanks. --Ragib 04:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest the users to start an RFC on this to reach a consensus. Getting more uninvolved users' opinion is also a good idea. Thanks. --Ragib 04:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, after other things are sorted out. I think its funny how Hindi (actually I'm willing to bet Sarvagnya speaks better Hindi than me) speakers and Urdu Speakers supported Hindi in the article.Bakaman Bakatalk 05:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected again 

message: Urdu Text, and English and Hindi transliterations, and English Translation of the poem ‎should be removed from the article. It is an unprecedented act which has never happened ‎in any other article about a famous poem. Giving complete transliterations and translation ‎and using misleading word as titles is complete abuse of Wikipedia and I consider it a ‎part shameless propaganda (by Indian-imperialists) which is going on without any ‎resistance of any kind. This is a blatant attempt to claim the poem's writer for India ‎without considering that he was the one who proposed the whole idea of Pakistan.‎ Szhaider 14:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there are articles which give the text of patriotic songs. For example, see the Star Spangled Banner, the National Anthem of India. In addition, the other two significant patriotic songs of India, Vande Mataram and Jana Gana Mana provide the proper texts. In regards to your concern listed above, see the introduction, specifically the sentence starting with Ironically. In my opinion, keeping the text, transliterations, and translations is helpful to readers and gives due credit to the song. Thanks, AnupamTalk 00:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually anupam, some of what szhaider said is correct. I made a point some time ago that Iqbal dumped this "Hindi song" later in life. It seems sz validated my point.Bakaman 02:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That being said, Anupam's point of the Stars and Stripes, God Bless America and etc having transliterations carries more weight as it provides a precedent.Bakaman 23:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  I agree with Anupam as well.  What does including the devanagari script have to do with claiming Iqbal for the Republic of India?  Iqbal wrote that song early in his career, long before he conceived of Pakistan.  There are other poems from that period, like "Naya Shivala" that are even more eclectic in their religious outlook than T-e-H.  However, what is the contradiction?  Iqbal was a complex and prolific man and any picture of such a person will necessarily be complex.  Although he advocated a Muslim homeland for much of his last 30 years, he was more complex than his final version; an encyclopedia has to be sensitive to that, even if he himself didn't want to.  I am therefore replacing the devanagari script.  I will correct some of the misspellings I had noticed earlier.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comments and corrections Fowler&Fowler. In addition to what you said, I have provided my reasoning here. With warm regards, AnupamTalk 20:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text, Transliterations and Translation 

message: The reason why the Hindi (Devanagari) script is relevant is that Hindi is the only language that shares a common grammar and base vocabulary with Urdu.  Kannada doesn't, Telegu doesn't, Tamil doesn't, even Punjabi doesn't.  It may be that the four easy Urdu stanzas of "Saare Jahan Se Achcha" that are a part of the popular song in India have been transliterated into Kannada, Telegu and other Indian languages, but even so, all 9 stanzas will not make sense to a Telegu or Kannada speaker, if they don't already understand basic Hindi or Urdu. Except for obvious Persian-orgin words like "pasban," "hamsaya," "gulistan," "ghurbat," etc. all words are shared with Hindi; in addition, Iqbal uses two words "parbat" and "bayr" which are Hindi words.  The Hindi transliteration is especially relevant for Iqbal, since in his early years, he used many Hindi words in his poetry.  Here is an example from Naya Shivala:
For readers who read both Hindi and English, but not Urdu, Devanagari transliterations provide more accurate pronunciation of the Urdu words than the English transliterations, on account of Devanagari's much larger alphabet.  In addition, there is a long tradition of publishing tri-lingual editions (Urdu, Hindi, English) of Urdu poetry.  For example, Oxford University Press, has published a tri-lingual edition of Iqbal's Shikwa & Jawab-i-Shikwa (complaint and answer).  So, Wikipedia will be following a well-established precedent.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said. Nobleeagle  [TALK] [C] 02:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fowler&fowler, thanks for the well researched comment. They are always appreciated. -AnupamTalk 23:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Please include the Devanagiri Script too. Whether the original was written in another script is meaningless. Most students in India learn this song in the Devanagari script.  How different are Hindi and Urdu really? Just a script and few words?
--Deepak D'Souza 09:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Editing *out* a script is ideological rather than based on enhancing the usefulness of the entry. A language can be written in multiple scripts, Urdu/Hindi is commonly written in Devnagari. Since this song is most popular in India, and Devanagari script is the most widely read there, it is the most useful script for this. Others are nice to have. Puck42 (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  As you can see, once upon a time, if you scroll above, I myself had made the case for inclusion of the devanagari script.  No one is editing it out, only keeping it in the Popularity in India section.  The devanagari rendering is a special aspect of the poems popularity in India, and in consequence, relevant in that section.  It is not an intrinsic, or literary, feature of the poem itself, only a sociological feature.  The versions popular in India are almost always edited.  Very few Indians, except those who attend Urdu medium schools (such as the kids here; watch after the 6 minute mark), knows the last stanzas. The last one, in any case,  would be inconvenient to its present-day upbeat rending in India.  In Pakistan, where the standards of Urdu are much higher, it is not that they are against the song, more that they think it is a children's song. 
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevance of Hindi (Devanagari) Script

message: Iqbal was a farsi (persian) and an Urdu poet. Obvioulsy his work was in Urdu, rather than hindi or hindustani as hindustani is a dilect, almost like a slang, however any poet wouldnt use it to write poetry..its like wordworth writting a Jay-Z song..the song is in Urdu, which obviously different from hindi..thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uch (talk • contribs) 00:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everyone knows what it is!!!1 

message: This is a really nice article. It is nice to see the text in both Urdu and Devanagari. There are some minor errors, I will try to fix them sometime.
Iqbal was not Persian, but an Indian, specifically of Kashmiri (Brahmin) descent. He did later work for what is now Pakistan, but dies before Pakistan was created. 
--Vikramsingh 01:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nice article

message: I know the article is protected and the reason to it. However I have some other changes related to article.
* Please change the link (not the name) of the poet to Muhammad Iqbal as current link is a redirect
* Please add the category  :Category:Poetry by Muhammad Iqbal
* Please add following links to See Also section
 - Muhammad Iqbal
 - National Anthem
Can some admin please make these changes to article?
--Webkami 15:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some changes

message: I am not going to debate about if Devanagari should be in article or not but I believe the script currently shown is wrong.
The words || सारे... at end of every other line probably translate as Saare ... It is I think the style how it is sung, not the actual poetry. Can somebody who knows the script explain and remove this? --Webkami 16:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Script Problems

message: Please make these changes as you think appropriate.
* Please change the link of the poet to Sir Allama Muhammad Iqbal as current link is a redirect.
* Please add the category Category:Poetry by Muhammad Iqbal
* Please add following links to See Also section
Muhammad Iqbal & National Anthem
:Done for this part, this much I can be pretty confident you're correct about. :) The rest, unfortunately, I have to admit I don't know the subject. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Changes

message: I believe the Hindi transliteration script currently shown is wrong.
The words || सारे... at end of every other line translate as Saare ... It is the style how it is sung, not the actual poetry. Below is the script without repetition of these words.
सारे जहाँ से अच्छा, िहन्दोस्तां हमारा|
हम बुलबुले हैं इसकी, यह गुलिसतां हमारा|
गुरबत में हों अगर हम, रहता है िदल वतन में|
समझो वहीं हमें भी, िदल हो जहाँ हमारा|
परबत वो सबसे ऊँचा, हमसाया आसमाँ का|
वो संतरी हमारा, वो पासवां हमारा|
गोदी में खेलती हैं, िजसकी हज़ारों निदयां|
गुलशन है िजसके दम से, रश्क-ए-िजनां हमारा|
ऐ आब-ए-रौंद-ए-गंगा! वो िदन है याद तुझको|
उतरा तेरे िकनारे, जब कारवां हमारा|
मजहब नहीं िसखाता, आपस में बैर रखना|
िहन्दी हैं हम वतन हैं, िहन्दोस्तां हमारा|
यूनान, िमस्र, रोमां, सब िमट गए जहाँ से|
अब तक मगर है बाकी, नाम-ओ-िनशां हमारा|
कुछ बात है िक हस्ती, िमटती नहीं हमारी|
सिदयों रहा है दुश्मन, दौर-ए-जहाँ हमारा|
'इक़बाल' कोई मरहूम, अपना नहीं जहाँ में|
मालूम क्या िकसी को, दर्द-ए-िनहां हमारा|
Thank you for your time
--Webkami 10:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Corrected Script

message: The song should first be presented in Urdu script as a recognition of the language used and the background of Iqbal. However, "Saare Jahan Se Achcha" is also a national patriotic song in India, and played a large role in the Independence movement, and as such it should also be written in the Hindi script, since Hindi is the national language of India (in contrast to official languages like Kannada and Bengali). The Roman script has been used, why isn't anyone complaining about that? What harm could it possibly do, to add in the Hindi script?
Hindostani 22:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hindi

message: Hello Fowler&fowler. Thanks for trying to improve the article. However, I feel that the previous version to which many of us agreed on here (albeit with Devanagari) was much better. While the old version mentioned short history, contemporary usage, etc. about the song (the title of the article), the new version seems to focus more on Iqbal's life. Many significant things are now deleted. Once again, I apologize for causing contention, but I honestly feel that the old version was much better. I look forward to hearing your comments on the issue. With warm regards, AnupamTalk 03:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition the post above mine and a recent comment that was soon after deleted show the approval of Devanagari in the article -- another issue that still needs sorting out. Thanks, AnupamTalk 03:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope the old version is poorly written, and seems to parrot Indian jingoism, which the song is hardly about.  How do we know that Lala Hardayal was Iqbals favorite student?  How do we know that Gandhi sang is over a hundred times?  etc. etc.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I see you do have a point after looking at the revision a second time. However, the song's contemporary usage should not be deleted. I am restoring the last deleted paragraph and adding references for the text you questioned. Thanks, AnupamTalk 03:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the research. I suppose you could include that in the article. Coincidentally, I was readding about Tarana-e-Milli here as well. I hope the current version of the article is acceptable. Thanks, AnupamTalk 04:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And thanks for your research and ideas as well.  I think the current version provides much more information, both about the song and the author, the trajectories they both took.  Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks once again for improving the article and adding more information/references. I apologize for reverting in haste. What caused my original revert was the removal of the last paragraph. Your revisions to the article are much better than the previous version. It is my hope that you will accept my apology. Thank you also for adding the beautiful image to the article as well. Later on, when I get the opportunity, I will take the time to readdress the inclusion of Devanagari in the article. With warm regards, AnupamTalk 19:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Version 

message: Can somebody please address this?  Sarvagnya 01:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are right.  I will try to get copyright info about the image before I figure out what to do next.  Thanks for your post.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll remove it from the article in the meanwhile.  We can put it back once, the copyright issue is sorted out.  Thanks.  Sarvagnya 02:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pic

message: User Bharatveer recently changed the translation of the urdu word "Chin" in Iqbal's Taraana-i-Milli (Song of the Religious Community) from "Central Asia" to "China."  I explained to him in my revert that "Chin" (albeit "China" in modern-Urdu) meant "Central Asia" (i.e. Chinese Turkestan (modern day Xinjiang), Russian Turkestan (modern day Kazakhstan, Kirgizstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, etc., all predominantly Muslim countries) in Iqbal's day, and that is what he was alluding to.  At this, user Bharatveer, reverted again, with edit summary "rv to previous version : "cheen " is china; learn some urdu first or else cite sources."  The problem is that the reference had already been provided in footnote 2.  It is the web site of the poem at Columbia University and is translated by Frances Pritchett, Professor of Urdu Studies at Columbia.  It specifically addresses the China/Central Asia issue.  It is likely that user:Bharatveer didn't bother to check the footnote and its link.  As for his injunction for me to learn some Urdu, I'd like to refer him to my two posts (of December 4 and December 7, 2006) at the  Pakistan Talk page here.  They are clearly not the work of someone unacquainted with Urdu.  (See also my posts above on this talk page here and
here.)  It is one of the great humbling joys of Wikipedia work that one is enjoined to "learn" a language that one has familiarity with and affection for, even after one has re-written most of the article about a song in that language. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[user:Bharatveer]]

message: I intend no ill will with what I'm about to say, but I thought this should be kept in mind by people debating over the song's "secular nature" vs Iqbal's later views:
The Two-Nation theory (regardless of whether it was right or wrong) did not posit any disavowal of an "Indian identity" for a "Muslim" or "Pakistani" identity. "India" was the common region and the League still saw themselves as Indians. They simply felt that India consisted of two nations or groups of people that, they felt, should be goverened separately. But this did not, for them, suggest any kind of secession of a Muslim homeland from India. The region would still be India and they would still be Indian, there would only be two nations within this region of India: "Pakistan" and "Hindustan" (though the latter originally implied all of northern south Asia, Pakistan included). They would all still be Indian by regional identification, Pakistani and Hindustani.
So Iqbal never stopped viewing himself as an "Indian" (as per the song), he merely adopted a different intellectual/political framework with which to view how this "India" should be governed. And his framework saw India as consisting of two peoples that should politically rule their respective "portions" of India for themselves. This may have been a flawed idea but it was the idea he had. Afghan Historian (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your model of Iqbal’s view is probably right, as it is fits nicely with all that I have read of him. 115.242.117.144 (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Something to Keep in Mind

message: This page is another one on Wikipedia where POV pushers periodically come through and attempt to either expand what they like or remove what they don't.  An instance of this is an edit from mid-2010 in which an IP removed an entire section after some other POV pusher had expanded it.  Here is the diff.  I will be restoring the original version soon.  Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, no one is, and the Indian mischief makers are at it again.  So, Iqbal is being described as the pre-partition Indian poet, etc. etc.  I have reinstated the version that took a lot of effort and care to write.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Please keep an eye on this page

message: Please present your objections, if any, here. 101.63.93.234 (talk) 05:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, well, I made it Tarānā. 101.63.68.13 (talk) 06:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

text: You may confirm the correct pronunciation of روما here: https://archive.org/stream/studentspersian00unkngoog#page/n224/mode/1up [p.212 of the Sorabshaw Byramji’s Dictionary]. 115.241.133.208 (talk) 12:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  corrected some Hindi and Urdu typos 

message: (i) If سارے / सारे is Saare, then جہاں / जहाँ should be Jahaan. (ii) The word اچھا is not अछ्छा (Achcha/Achchaa), but अच्छा (Acchaa). 101.63.68.13 (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  which transliteration standard? 

message: Two sentences translate the word as ‘anthem’. Though that captures the meaning correctly, I don’t think it is the literal meaning of the word. The literal meaning according to Duncan Forbes is: modulation, harmony, voice, song, melody, symphony, trill, shake, quaver; a king of song. [link: https://archive.org/stream/dictionaryhindus030502mbp#page/n255/mode/1up]
Link to the meaning by another dictionary is given below. (meanings both in Urdu and English) The 3rd point in the Urdu text explains what Duncan means by a “a kind of song”:
1. common nag͟hamā/नग़मा or song, ….
3. A special song in which instead of meaningful words a few special meaningless words are used, [words] like: tā, tūm, tā, nā, tinā, nā, dar, nā, etc. 
http://182.180.102.251:8081/oud/ViewWord.aspx?refid=9814
In short, no “anthem”. 115.240.27.48 (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No original research on WP.  Enough with your changing things here and there by consulting dictionaries, and old ones at that.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of ترانہ /  तराना  

message: I used to be a regular WP editor upto a few years back, but I stopped editing because of people like you. There are a thousand more interesting things waiting for me; I don’t have the time to argue with idiots. 
You are welcome to reign your personal fiefdom! Goodbye, everyone! 115.241.162.75 (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry you feel that way, but everyone has to play by WP rules.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So very true... Everyone has to play by WP rules instead of reigning in a fiefdom. I would suggest  to revert the self-done transliteration of the poem back to ALA-LC.—ШαмıQ✍ @ 15:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fowler&fowler 

message: Recent edits by an IP:  are conflating the poem and future music composed for the poem long after the poem's death.  The music is incidental to the poem.  It is not a fact of its notability in scholarly sources.  It belongs to the popularity in India section, not to the lead.  Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popularity in India