Talk:History of India/Archive 2

message: Can't we classify the periods under the usual heads of Ancient, Medieval and Modern?
Yes, that would be wonderful--Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut, which held its ground 07:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Classification of Periods

message: Can someone please put nice pictures of Chalukya and Rashtrakuta architecture.
I see only Chola empire relatred pictures proliferated.
Dinesh Kannambadi
Please, somebody read the first sentence and rewrite it so that it makes sense.  I would but I have absolutely no idea what that's supposed to mean. Foxmulder 02:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Photographs

message: This edit (which was never reverted) looks like some kind of POV-pushing, but I don't know enough of the context to tell what the point is, or if there is any point. up◦land 21:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeh, ill change it now. Vastu 08:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spurious edit

message: While cleaning up links to disambiguation pages, I created a stub article for "Epic Age," described on the disambiguation page as an era in Indian history.  It is referenced from the Punjab region page as such, but I don't find it mentioned on this page, so it must be there under another name.  Could someone with more knowledge in this era take a look at Epic Age and make it "right?"   Thanks.  John 22:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Epic Age"

message: -Shouldnt there be separate sections, devoted to both the Achaemenid empire and the invasion of Alexander the Great? These were key events in ancient northern India's history, the former, as one of its first foreign military invasions and the second as the beginning of contact between both India and the West. After all, India was described by Herodotus as the Persian Empire's wealthiest province. The Jewel of the Persian crown, one could cleverly put it. At least, I think they should.
-[[Afghan Historian 18:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it was mentioned in other sections, but yeah, it probably looks better as an era of its own, afterall, the Kushans, etc, got their own section. Vastu 08:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where are the Achaemenids and Alexander the Great?

message: need discussion on this, if necessary...
Pizzadeliveryboy 13:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as a point of discussion, the Vijaynagara empire was formed later than those mentioned in the late middle kingdoms, around the time of the Delhi sultanates, which is why it was located there, even if the title wasnt perticularily fitting - but I guess it dosent really make too much of a difference.  Vastu 08:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Vijayanagara Empire]] now under [[History of India#Late Middle Kingdoms - the Classical Age|Late Middle Kingdoms of India]] section 

message: Pizza, I changed Bali to Indonesia for the following reason - it is irrelevent that Bali was the first kingdom in the Malay area, since there has been a number of Indianised empires there, not least of which, the Srivijaya and Majapahit - in addition to this, we are talking about cultural influence on modern areas of the planet, dispite the deliberate use of the name 'Persia' instead of Iran, which is like the difference between 'Hindustan' and India - this gives the unmistakable impression that the only place Indian culture had any major effect on Indonesia is the modern island of Bali.  Ill leave the rest to you, I cannot see why you would want to refer to the Bali kingdom instead of the modern nation of Indonesia. Also I cannot understand why you then didnt, under this logic, painstakingly describe the ancient kingdoms of South East Asia, instead of the modern political entities of Burma, Cambodia, etc, which include areas not limited to the extend of the Khmer Empire, etc... Vastu 11:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indonesia 

message: Hi:
It is necessary to mention the existence of the Indo-Aryan migration as an accepted theory of how Vedic civilization began. I know this is a very volatile and sentimental (and hence controversial) topic, but there exists enough linguistic proof of the fact that there has been a migration from C Asia and the Cacausus, lying just to the west, into Iran and eventually into India. Which culture eventually dominated whom may be a topic of debate, but the fact that this phenomenon occured is indisputable.
Pizzadeliveryboy 17:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it accepted?  Many scholars seem to challenge it. Like the guy who edited it said, mention it is a theory.  Vastu 08:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The theory is being used as a propaganda tool in India, so, sure, you'll find all sorts of polemics about it. If you look at it with a cool head, it's not a big deal. Nobody claims "mass migration", and much of Indian culture may well be rooted in the IVC, so nobody claims Indian culture was imported from Central Asia or anything. Just the languages had to get there somehow, didn't they? This may have been a tiny superstratum, like 5% of the indigenous inhabitants of Gandhara installing itself in say 1800 BC. The debate should be about how this linguistic influence manifested itself without dragging it onto political turf all the time. The Indus valley was invaded all the time, by Greeks, Persians, Sakas, etc. etc, why is this particular instance such a big deal? dab (ᛏ) 19:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are preaching to the saints here, but the reason so much fuss is probably made out of this is because there are still political parties, etc, that promote some kind of Dravidian/Aryan divide, even today, making it all the more important that people are correctly educated. Vastu 20:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even the Vedas states the first Avatara originated in the banks of the river flowing in southern Karnataka. This is a clear evidence of Dravidians as the true successors of the Indus Valley Civilization. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.124.63.196 (talk) 03:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IAM 

message: -Some mention of the Duranni empire and its incursions into India and Pakistan must be made in the Post-Mughal section. They were one of the key invaders vying for control after the death of Aurangzeb. They quarelled with the Marathas, Sikhs etc. They even occupied Indian controlled Jammu-Kashmir for a while
-User: Afghan Historian
::Yes, although many other invaders do not have their own sections, including the Huns. Vastu 08:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the information about Ahmad Shah Durrani is confused with Nadir Shah. For example, Koh-i-Noor was taken by Nadir shah (after his invasion of india). After the assassination of Nadir Shah in 1747 it came into the hands of Ahmad Shah. Bidabadi 16:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Durrani Empire

message: This period is perhaps one of the most important in asian or world history in terms of the literature, philosophy, religion and art that it produced - perhaps an attempt should be made to make sub-titles for some of the more powerfull kingdoms and republics, such as kuru, etc, to emphise this. Vastu 22:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mahajanapadas

message: A new stub - Template:India-history-stub may be used for suitable articlesPizzadeliveryboy 18:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  stub 

message: I was pretty disappointed with the intro to this major and highly important article. User 59.92.48.53 added a large poorly-written chunk to the intro section that I deleted. I also tried to make the intro flow a little better from the Indus Valley Civilization to the Vedic Civilization and tried to make it more NPOV. I've done what I can in a short period of time, but I believe some more work may be needed. I encourage others to help clean up the intro more.--Osprey39 02:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro cleanup 

message: This article uses the notation BCE. Originally it used BC, then someone put a few instances of BCE in, then someone thought let's standardise on BCE. This is against the Wikipedia guidelines which state that the preferences demonstrated in the first substantial edit should be adhered to. This is not the case here. The notation has been changed for whatever reason, political correctness or otherwise. I intend to revert this to BC, to comply with Wikipedia guidelines. Please note, this article is about a country, not about a religion. Arcturus 18:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't changing it back just pointless, as both terms are acceptable? For example, if an article had British English spellings and some Americocentrist changed it all to American English or the other way around, it would still be a waste of time to change it back just to prove a point.--Grammatical error 13:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a fair point - there are plenty of better things to bother about on Wikipedia. However, not changing it would give carte blanche to editors to carry out wholesale changes across Wikipedia - BC --> BCE or vice versa, or AmE to BrE and the like, without fear of the changes ever being challenged. I'll leave it for the moment to see what other views surface. Arcturus 09:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: AFAIK, the Wikipedia policy on date notation is not that it should never change, but that it should be consistent within the article. I think it makes more sense to use the BCE/CE notation for Indian history; it is already standard for articles on Buddhist history, and increasingly so for other non-western histories. Tom Radulovich 23:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of BCE 

message: ::Article on History of India and Replublic of India gives information for India and 2050 and there is no information of Poverty and Hunger in present.
:::vkvora 04:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of India and Republic of India 

message: ::Is there any relation between History of Poverty and Mumbai Bomb Blast 711.
:::vkvora 17:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Poverty and Mumbai Bomb Blast 711 

message: Click here
The article above suggests that the majority of the scholary community no longer favour Indo-Aryan hypothesis, whether invasion or migration.
Should it therefore deserve to be treated as fact in the article anymore?
Vastu 06:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indo-Aryan 

message: This article is leaden with unreferenced statements. It just carries a list of "Further Reading" in the end and does not indicate which sources convey which fact. I am putting a unreferenced tag and will try to tag the unreferenced statements too. This is an important article and though it has a lot of content, it isn't encyclopedic. Shushruth 03:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Many unreferenced statements 

message: Do they?  Several scholars have basically said that 'all IVC research prior to five years ago was flawed', and yet a source from 1989 (?!) is being quoted in favour of the AMT?  Again, refer to a link above in which most scholars attending a Texas meet on the matter apparently no longer favour the Aryan migration. Vastu 10:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aryan Migration - Most scholars believe?

message: On all the pages that I have read so far, the Mughals are referred to as being outsiders, like the British. For example, on one page the terms "Mughal Era" and "British Era" are used. 
The British never called India, home—--for them home was always England. Also, many Britishers came here because they were failures or penurious in England, many more came for the adventure. After coming here, they more often than not, looted the country, and generally looked down on the "natives".
The Mughals, on the other hand, lived in and called their home, the India of those days. It is true that the first Mughal came as a conqueror, but on discovering the charm and beauty of this land, stayed on. They did not serve for a year or two just to loot the country and then leave. In fact, many of our treasures today trace their origin to the Mughals. Art, architecture, and the performing arts—--all benefited by their contribution. Many Greek and Chinese historians have recorded these facts. To deny their dynasty and their empire is to deny a part of Indian history.
Dr. Uma 07:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfect, I agree word-by-word with your point. Unfortunately, not just in Wikipedia, but in most writings we see them as outsiders. If that be the case, all humans are "outsiders" to India, since we all came from Africa at some point or the other! -- Sundar \talk \contribs 08:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, mugals symbolize imperialism, persecution, and cultural eradication.--D-Boy 04:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The result of propaganda, no doubt. I don't think there is an objective reason to call the Mughals more imperialistic than the Maurya or Gupta Empires. It is a possible position to reject all imperialism, but to feel patriotic pride for certain historical empires, and hold anti-imperialistic misgivings towards others seems inconsequent. dab (ᛏ) 11:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: may be--D-Boy 01:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, Dab, the Mughals had no great love for India. Bear in mind that Mughal Emperors calle d themselves "Badshah", (with wet-dreams of being "Padishah") rather than "Shah", which was reserved for Persian emperors, to whom they always considered themselves subservient. They clearly had a strong Persian fetish. They emulated their language, their customs, even their sexual practices, in courts. Only Akbar was an integrationist, and the exception among the Mughals rather than the rule.Babur, himself, was worse than Macauley in his pejoration and hatred for India. Witness this extract from the Baburnama:
Hindustan is a place of little charm. There is no beauty in its people, no graceful social intercourse, no poetic talent or understanding, no etiquette, nobility or manliness. The arts and crafts have no harmony or symmetry. There are no good horses, meat, grapes, melons or other fruit. There is no ice, cold water, good food or bread in the markets. There are no baths and no madrasas. There are no candles, torches or candlesticks
This illustrates the medeival Persian ethnocentrism of the Mughals quite adequately.Hkelkar 09:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree wholely on this assessment.  Mugals were basically rapists and plunders of india.   India was much better off without them.--D-Boy 00:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are odd exceptions to what you said D-Boy like Akbar. But yes the region's current political dilemmas can be traced back to the troubles that both the British and Mughals caused. Besides, India's downfall took off much earlier since the start of Kali Yug. Anyway despite all of what has been said above the article still has to adhere to WP:NPOV, so we can't depict the Mughals as savage beasts who came to steal our wealth. GizzaChat © 14:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They were religious zealots, plunderers, and (apart from Jahangir and Akbar) genocidal maniacs descended from an army and a group of people that invaded India from central asia.Bakaman 23:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mughal Empire