Talk:India/Archive 22

message: wikipedia shows jamoon and kashmir as a part of india in the worldmap which is not true, because jamoon and kashmir is disputed area and not the part of india or pakistan.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abra1 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have requested the authors to update it on commons: =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: I dont know if this has been discussed before, but the History section says absolutely nothing about the history of North East India. Something definitely needs to be said about the Ahoms of Assam.I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been raised by me back in 2005 for the History of India article, but we've decided to leave off such details. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I looked at the discussion on that talk page, I dont think this issue was adequately discussed. We can say: North East India, which politically became part of India only after Independence consisted of many different kingdoms like the Ahoms of Assam and the Twipra kingdom of Tripura. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Politically became a part of India after independence -- that's misleading. The British empire extended from Afghanistan to Burma, and Burma was governed by Calcutta at one point in time. So, I do not see how the status changed after 1947 or if it is any different from other princely states such as Travancore. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, though perhaps a clause or to mentioning and wikilinking the medieval kingdoms might be acceptable. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I think this is a good idea - I do agree that NE India should be incorporated into the article. I'm all for the above-mentioned suggestion by "I am....transformations..." ;) BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean 02:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the addition of the content. I agree that NE India is not mentioned much in the article, but trying to compensate such a mention by adding specific details to a summarized form of the history is not the right way to proceed. Adding specifics leads to addition of more places, the next revisions could see smaller and smaller princely states being added. Next, could you let us know what the source reads? AFAIK the main threat to the British empire in the late nineteenth century was the expanding Russian Empire; that's why the British sent an expedition to Tibet, the Younghusband expedition in the early 20th century to create Tibet as a buffer state. It would be interesting to note why the British wanted eastern Indian kingdoms as buffers. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The other princely states (or 'empires') are mentioned, notably the South Indian ones. The North East isnt mentioned at all in this article (apart from the names of the states), when in fact it is a part of the Republic of India that is very distinct from the 'mainstream'. That in itself makes it notable, and how such an area was incorporated into India is of vital importance. The other princely states lie in the Indian cultural continuum, so their integration was more of a political than a cultural challenge, but the NE is culturally distinct from the rest of India and its integration has met stiff resistance. The source says that the British wanted to protect their Indian posessions from neighbouring powers (ostensibly from China in this case). I guess I have to put up a better set of sources, I will do that. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a point about the excess South Indian kingdoms. Since they are examples of kingdoms, we should be having at most only the three most prominent ones. More than three examples becomes a list. How about cutting down those kingdoms, to three and expanding the paragraph to include a line on the Ahoms and Twipura? Can you come up with a draft? =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Splitting the paragraph to include all notable kingdoms through time would break the summary. Today it is the Mughals, tomorrow Marathas, next week Kadambas. The list of kingdoms would be expanded by well meaning editors if not kept in check. Twipra seems more significant than the Ahoms, so can find a place. As for SI kingdoms, the one that ruled for the maximum time, and had the the maximum area in its direct control should be evaluated for addition. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, dont you think that the medieval empires (Mughals, Marathas et al.) constitute a slightly distinct eon of Indian history than the colonial empires ? I am not saying that we add any more content about those two eras of Indian history, only that we separate them and add one more line to one of them. In fact, if we remove 2 or 3 SI kingdom/empires we might end up not changing the size of the article that much. I think the Ahoms should be mentioned rather than the Twipras because their legacy is relevant to a larger state and population, which as I mentioned earlier are very distinct from the other parts and peoples of India. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 04:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They also fought and defeated the Mughals, Battle of Saraighat. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 04:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I have copyedited it. The kingdoms should be notable on their own right, not only because they defeated the Mughals. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

text:  Chalukyas, Cholas and Hoyasalas are the empires from the Medevial India. At the time of Indian Independence, there were many small kingdoms, and some major ones in existence. The Nizams of Hyderabad, Arcot Kings, and Kingdom of Cochin, along with Kingdm of Mysore are the major ones which were still intact. And Nizams gave a major trouble, they wanted to join Pakistan, but Sardar Vallabhai Patel made them accede to India. I am producing this for information.Kiran (talk) 04:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some notes about the History section 

message: In the economy of india wikipedia entry the nominal gdp is 5.21 trillion $ 2008 estimate. The same measure on this india entry is 2.9 trillion and needs to be corrected.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.171.52 (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  indian nominal  GDP  mismatch 

message: 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.-Bharatveer (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just give me one more day, then I'll be free to put up Lijphart's chart of federal nations. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 16:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, see F&F's talk page, More on Federalism in India. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Union of states 

message: Could someone please tell me why the first section of the article has this written within it " India has the world's twelfth largest economy at market exchange rates and the fourth largest in purchasing power. Economic reforms have transformed it into the second fastest growing large economy;[16] however, it still suffers from high levels of poverty,[17] illiteracy, and malnutrition "
1. India is the world's fastest growing FREE MARKET economy.
2. Countries that are poorer than India on a gdp per capita basis, such as sri lanka, bangladesh, pakistan, and several african countries. Please take a look on their wikipedia pages within their introduction paragraphs. NO WHERE do they write " still suffers from high levels of poverty illiteracy etc " like the India page has written. My point is not to hide this info, my point is that information should be written about elsewhere and not in the introductory paragraphs of the article. Because i've noticed every other countries Wikipedia page talks about the good segments of that particular country. Whilst the India page in the introductory paragraph hasn't done justice to the country at all. Where does it talk about India being home of the oldest school of medicine in the world (ayurveda) home to to the oldest martial art in the world (kalaripayattu). None of this is POV, every other countries wiki intro has talked of the feats that country has done. Why can't the India page?
--82.47.218.186 (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  1) It is incorrect to claim that India is the worlds fastest growing 'free market' economy because many would argue that China also follows a free market system (with 'Chinese' characteristics). India is certainly the second fastest growing large economy (atleast until recently), although this is from a relatively small base.
2) The thing is that poverty and illiteracy are present in India on such a large scale that they overwhelmingly (and rightly in my opinion) dominate discourse on the country. India accounts for a large percentage of the poor, uneducated and severely oppressed people (Dalits, women) in the world, so this has to be pointed out. Wikipedia is not an advertising machine, so there is no reason why the intro should contain 'the good points' of the country, only the most notable ones. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Hi, so you mean to say that to portray only a positive aspect constitutes to be neutrally written? Are not poverty etc, hard facts? =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi IP, The number of billionaires is not an economic indicator and not used in global economic classification.  As for your remark, "Countries that are poorer than India on a gdp per capita basis, such as sri lanka," for 2007 India's per capita income was $2,659, while Sri Lanka's was $4,079.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

text:  Well India might be a land of extremes, but one of the extremes (deprivation) overwhelms the other in sheer scale. There might be 30 billionaires in India, but there are 800 million living on less than 2 $ a day. The impression that the vast majority of the Indian population suffers from malnutrition, diseases and severe economic and social oppression is completely true, whats so false about it ?I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Sir, here's another indicator of the high levels of poverty in India,
*
* 
* Another indicator of the Malnutrition The Times of India: Malnutrition worse than sub-Saharan Africa
--KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 16:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Please take this part of the discussion to Talk:Poverty in India. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

text:  Once again, facts are reported in a wikipedia article on the basis of their notability, this is not a competition between countries to see which one can be trashed/glorified more. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 00:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about the introduction paragraphs 

message: Hi Gentle Folk of India Wiki page,
The demographics sections is showing political jurisdictions by giving a list of cities, for want of administrative effectiveness certain corporations choose to delink their urban nodes as separate municipalities. As a direct result their city limits would be reduced hence a city based estimate of population does not give the actual floating polulation in an urban area neither does it explain the demographics ( urban/rural) of that area. At this outset dont you guys feel that a list of 'urban areas' would give the better projection to this section.
I was able to find an internal article on urban areas List_of_urban_areas_by_population
Cheers, --Mel Vilander (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics Sections needs to Show Urban Areas 

message: Hi Gentle Folk of India Wiki page,
The demographics sections is showing political jurisdictions by giving a list of cities, for want of administrative effectiveness certain corporations choose to delink their urban nodes as separate municipalities. As a direct result their city limits would be reduced hence a city based estimate of population does not give the actual floating polulation in an urban area neither does it explain the demographics ( urban/rural) of that area. At this outset dont you guys feel that a list of 'urban areas' would give the better projection to this section.
I was able to find an internal article on urban areas List_of_urban_areas_by_population
Cheers, --Mel Vilander (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment, could you remove one of the duplicate sections? I have some questions: Why have fifteen cities been selected? An arbitary number? Second, why are the titles red? And third, ire fifteen cities really needed on this page? I think it's an overkill. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics Sections needs to Show Urban Areas 

message: The Reference section uses the Harvard reference template, which is depreciated. It should be replaced immediately with the cite book templates. Kensplanet (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harvard reference Template 

message: I was asked via email to weigh in on this debate, so, getting back to federalism: the general academic consensus is that India functioned as a quasi-federal centralist state until the early 1990s, but has since then been growing increasingly federalist.  It's quite important to note that the Constitutional division of powers between Centre and State hasn't changed, what has changed is the way those powers are actually exercised.  The literature (and it's huge, but Echeverri-Gent's work gives a good overview) identifies a number of factors behind this shift - most prominently, economic liberalisation and the loss of the Centre's economic power, the decline of the INC (and of the relativley higher authority / legitimacy that national parties and leaders used to have), the increased political power of lower castes, the activism of the Supreme Court, the rise of regional parties, and the coalitionalisation of the central government.  Anyway, given all this, it's simplistic - and misleading - to blandly say that India is "federal" or "unitary."  It isn't inherently either, as should be seen from the fact that the balance of power between the centre and the states has been significantly more dynamic than would be possible under either setup.  My suggestion would be to drop any mention of "federal" or "unitary" from the lede, and change the first paragraph of the section on "Government" to:
:"The Constitution of India, the longest and the most exhaustive constitution of any independent nation in the world, came into force on January 26, 1950. The preamble of the constitution defines India as a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic. at p. 421 India has a bicameral parliament operating under a Westminster-style parliamentary system. Its form of government was traditionally described as being 'quasi-federal' with a strong centre and weak states, but it has grown increasingly federal since the late 1990s as a result of political, economic and social changes. at pp. 19-20;  at pp 25-33"-- Arvind (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  This also need to go in the entry on India in the article on Federalism. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made the changes here.  The India entry in Federalism will need a bit more detail than just this one sentence, but you're quite right - it needs to be worked on.  -- Arvind (talk) 10:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All this sounds good to me.  Thanks for pitching in, Arvind!  Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A proposal

message: I have been asking this question for a while and I get labeled as a troll. But why is their no mention (if im wrong my bad yo) of India being home to the Aryan people? I mean Aryans were Hindu, the swastika comes from India, their mentioned in Indian religious scripture, they have links to India, and some people (like myself) think they came from India. And yet this article barley even mentions things about Aryans? I mean their mentioned in Irans article and Afghanistans article, and yet not in India's article? And India is right by Iran and Afghanistan. ARYAN818 (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we just make a disclaimer at the top of this talk page, that this article is here to present notable, cited facts about the Republic of India, and not an ego enhancing 'India is great' advertisement ? Cause, this just keeps coming up all the time. As far, as 'Aryan818' is concerned, can you furnish reliable citations that show that all (or most) Indians are 'Aryans' ? Maybe their 'Aryan' ancestry is important to the Iranians, but that is certainly not the case for India. The word Aryan is not mentioned in the Constitution. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 05:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: India is great advertisement? That's your response to me? You think that's a logical response from you?......And you want facts? Well Havnt I given some facts in the past? What do you have to say about the fact, that I have given facts? What do you have to say about that?..............But ok no big deal, you want facts? I'll give you facts.........Please tell me which of my facts are wrong ok?/........1 - The word Aryan is a Sanskrit name . 2 - Aryans are mentioned in Indian religious scripture. 3 - The swastika sighn, used by Aryans, is said to have been first used in India. 4 - Sanskrit, a language used by Aryans, is a language of India. 5 - Aryans did follow Hinduism, a religion in India. 6 - Aryan evidence is found in India. 7 - According to the CIA world factbook website, over 70% of India is of Indo-Aryan heritage. 8 - Indo-Aryan, means, Indian-Aryan......Are these facts good enough?......And another thing id like to ask you.....YOu mentioned that maybe Aryans are important to Iranians, but not Indians.....Where do you come up with this? ARe you Indian? Cus I am. Have you heard of the Arya Samaj? Im not saying EVERY Indian knows or cares about this, but some do. And I am one of them......And also....Even if im wrong, and no Indian cares about being an Aryan, so what? Facts are still facts, and their is a connection with India and Aryans. ARYAN818 (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is their no mention of Aryans? 

message: I'd like to know why in the case of the Wikipedia entry for China, the article is about China as a civilization, and offers links to modern political constituents of the same, whereas in the case of the India entry, we only have the article about the Republic of India. Can the entry for India likewise not consist of an article on Indian civilization?  --SohanDsouza (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ive asked questions about why people dont give credit to India for cetin things in this article. For example India has Aryan heritage in some areas and one user told me how most people in India dont care about that. Another example would be how in this article their is mention of how India is home to vast empires and historic trade routes, and yet, when I wanted to add the words palaces and temples, they wouldnt allow it? I asked why on China's article they seem to be able to represnet China in a proud way, but yet on this artcile I dont feel there doing that enough (Aryan hertiage, palaces, temples, etc, etc.) And one answer I got was how China is not a Wikipedia article (I forgot how they put it) but meaning like it's not an official article that would be represetend on the main page, where as India is......The point is.....This is wikipedia.....There are people here who are dictators and only want what they want. Ive tried so many times to argue, and they call me things like "troll". ARYAN818 (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear ARYAN818, calling other editors as "dictators" amounts to personal attacks. Please don't repeat this again and again. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Dear Ragib, please be honest that you just want to find any reason to block me from wikipedia because of the past disagreements that you had. You are upset because I wanted to put more info in the past and you didn't want it. And/or maybe you were upset because you couldn't keep me blocked becasue of my user name......I mean your going to make an issue out of someone using the word dictators? If some people are dicatoting this article then maybe that is a word that can maybe be allowed? ARYAN818 (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  India: Ancient Civilization vs Modern State 

message: Why is it ok to mention that India is home to vast empires but if I add the word palaces, that gets erased? I also want to put down temples or kingdoms, I assume those would get taken out also. Why? ARYAN818 (talk) 03:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to wait for someone to respond to your previous comment before you post something rude like this. BlackPearl14[talkies!•contribs!] 04:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ALright another strange comment. What did I say that was rude? ARYAN818 (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

text: It was taken down because the one word you added changed the intent of a sentence that had come to stand as a result of consensus.  As has been mentioned during one of your previous editing episodes, please make sure that there's consensus before you make such changes.  Thanks AreJay (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok fair enough. Now can you tell me what was wrong with adding that one word? Im very curious what was wrong about it? Did i say something non factual? Was it offensive? Tell me. ARYAN818 (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By rude, I meant "the people who rule this article." No one owns the article. People just get together and write the article! BlackPearl14[talkies!•contribs!] 23:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Well aren't their people or person who decide what stays and what goes? I mean I can make an edit and it might get taken out 71.106.84.146 (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All editors do that. It's the policies that determine what stays and what goes. ;) BlackPearl14[talkies!•contribs!] 20:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Ok so for example I think their should be more mention of Aryan heritage in India. Some might disagree. I typed in a few facts up in that other section, and I dont think ive gotten a response to that. ARYAN818 (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have a question about the people who rule this article 

message: (Question for Arvind) What do you suggest we do with this frequently occurring  problem of various editors adding the names of their favorite examples to the India page prose and thereby rendering it ugly?  We really don't want long lists.  No disagreement that there is no definitive gauge of notability, but is scholarly interest (with all its flaws) such a bad one? Also, what do you think of the tertiary source count?  After all other encyclopedias do have to make some of the same decisions with regards inclusion and exclusion as we do.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've not come across a specific guideline, but see this: Wikipedia:Embedded list#Lists within articles. The focus is on prose, not a list. In addition, as the page is written in summary-style, the suggested bulleted list alternative is not a feasible option. I usually précis the text (grid methodology to arrive at a fixed word count) when writing a summary. That helps immensely. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions

message: I have created a text version of user:Saravask's image rotation template .  This text template is .  Since there is a clear separation in all references between the first four Vijayanagara Empire, Cholas, Pallava, and Chalukyas  and the remaining Pandya, Rashtrakuta, ... I propose that we follow Nichalp's original suggestion of limiting the total number in the text to three, that we keep Vijayanagara Empire and Cholas in permanent place, and that we rotate between the Pallava and Chalukya.  So, in the daily rotation, for example, the statement in the history section (today) would read: "Empires in Southern India included those of the Cholas, the , and the Vijayanagara Empire"
and, in the hourly rotation, the statement (this hour) would read: "Empires in Southern India included those of the Cholas, the , and the Vijayanagara Empire"
Would this be agreeable to the editors?  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I think it defeats the stability criteria. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd just like to clarify something about the proposed text-rotation template.  Unfortunately, even if there is consensus on its use, it isn't going to do much good.  Even though the template's code is supposed to rotate the names of kingdoms every day/hour, in practice this will probably not happen because of Wikipedia's cache.  What this basically means is that the text may not automatically refresh based on the criteria in the code unless someone or some people take it upon themselves to manually purge the cache often (which would probably defeat the purpose of automating text anyway).  Thanks AreJay (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Nichalp and AreJay.  Why does the cache not need to be purged in the image rotation template? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good question, afaik, there is a specific configuration setting within MediaWiki that allows you to set cache refreshes for HTML pages displaying images (image thumbnails are also refreshed when HTML is refereshed).  Not sure if this parameter is configured for Wikipedia though, but I do know that my results varied when I was working on randomizing images and text a few months ago.  Sounds like this is a moot point though, per deletion discussion below.  Thanks AreJay (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I haven't read enough of this discussion to know which kingdoms are notable and which are not. However, per Nichalp and Arejay, I won't support using a rotation template to solve the problem. The future of Wikipedia's credibility is dependent on its stability (high quality articles will appear in printed forms). I wasn't a fan of the rotating images template, which was created for regionalistic purposes and neither am I of this. GizzaDiscuss © 08:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good.  As you know, I wasn't a fan of image rotation either.  I guess I was trying to be amenable here and get this monkey off our backs, but I agree its a bad idea.  I am therefore withdrawing this proposal.  Could some admin please get rid of the text rotation template?  Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Phew! All rotations compromise stability and *sanity*. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 15:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: Nichalp has suggested above that we rate the top five South Indian kingdoms.  Please only add your preferences here; discussion goes in the next section.
* 1. Vijayanagara Empire, 2. Chola, 3. Pallava, 4. Chalukya, and 5. Pandya. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw Poll

message: Reason for my vote: It is not going to be easy to determine which Kingdom was greater and determining that may just be OR as per Arvind. Scholarly interest sounds like a good crriteria. DockuHi 22:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: In India, mathematics has its roots in Vedic literature which is nearly 4000 years old. Between 1000 B.C. and 1000 A.D. various treatises on mathematics were authored by Indian mathematicians in which were set forth for the first time, the concept of zero, the techniques of algebra and algorithm, square root and cube root.
A method of graduated calculation was documented in the Pancha-Siddhantika (Five Principles) in the 5th Century. But the technique is said to be dating from Vedic times circa 2000 B.C.
The rudiments of Geometry called Rekha-Ganita in ancient India - were formulated and applied in the drafting of Mandalas for architectural purposes.
They were also displayed in the geometric patterns used in many temple motifs.
In India around the 5th century A.D. a sys tem of mathematics that made astronomical calculations easy was developed. In those times its application was limited to astronomy as its pioneers were Astronomers. As tronomical calculations are complex and involve many variables that go into the derivation of unknown quantities. Algebra is a short-hand method of calculation and by this feature it scores over conventional arithmetic.
One more bigger finding was "Raman effect"the theory of the diffraction of the light effect.
When light is scattered from an atom or molecule, most photons are elastically scattered (Rayleigh scattering). The scattered photons have the same energy (frequency) and wavelength as the incident photons. However, a small fraction of the scattered light (approximately 1 in 10 million photons) is scattered by an excitation, with the scattered photons having a frequency different from, and usually lower than, the frequency of the incident photons.[1] 
In a gas, Raman scattering can occur with a change in vibrational, rotational or electronic energy of a molecule (see energy level). Chemists are concerned primarily with the vibrational Raman effect.
In 1922, Indian physicist Chandrasekhara Venkata Raman published his work on the "Molecular Diffraction of Light," the first of a series of investigations with his collaborators which ultimately led to his discovery (on 28 February 1928) of the radiation effect which bears his name. The Raman effect was first reported by C. V. Raman and K. S. Krishnan, and independently by Grigory Landsberg and Leonid Mandelstam, in 1928. Raman received the Nobel Prize in 1930 for his work on the scattering of light. In 1998[2] the Raman Effect was designated an ACS National Historical Chemical Landmark in recognition of its significance as a tool for analyzing the composition of liquids, gases, and solids  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.94.228.204 (talk) 06:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And your point is? --Ragib (talk) 06:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article follows summary style and as such cannot dwell on one topic in great detail. Besides, much of the verifiable information that you have provided is already mentioned in Indian mathematics. GizzaDiscuss © 22:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  India's major contribution