File talk:India-locator-map-blank.svg

message: Seeing this map gives me the impression that northern parts of Uttaranchal are also disputed and part of it administered by China. Is it true? -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure who controls the middle sector at the moment. I do remember reading about them in the newspapers a long time back, and I think China controls them. I haven't found any references online to support this as yet. There's also a disputed portion in Himachal. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uttaranchal 

message: The legend and boundaries confuse me; Where on the map is the dash-dot line for the international undisputed boundary and where is the smaller dash-dot line for disputed boundaries?  What is the solid black line around most of the country (including some of the disputed parts)?--ragesoss 20:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: confusing aspects

message: Is there a version of this map with districts? Sarayuparin 21:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes there is. See any state map. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Districts 

message: I'm sure I won't be popular with the people complaining about Arunchal Pradesh being shown as disputed, but...
Shouldn't the status of Sikkim also be disputed as it was annexed unilaterally by India and the government in exile has not recognized Indian sovereignty?
Regarding Goa in this line, I believe Portugal did finally recognize the annexation, but it should be confirmed that this was a formal and not just de facto recognition.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.154.212 (talk) 04:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sikkim and Goa 

message: Hi, I noticed the way this map depicts Arunachal Pradesh while reading another article on wikipedia and was surprised to see that the map chooses to highlight China's claim to the state, which prompted to come to the talk page and see why that decision had been made. Reading through the debate here, I noticed some things which are concerning.
The editor's argument here was that because China lays a claim to Arunachal Pradesh, it is "disputed", and because it is disputed it should automatically be depicted as such. While previous commentators unfortunately did not do the best job of framing their objections, I have to say that I agree with those commentators that the editor's is argument is flawed on both counts. That the editor nevertheless stuck to his own opinion has resulted in a map which is noticeably out of line with standard practices on the rest of wikipedia and among reputed sources at large, which is clearly concerning. So let me see if I can do a better job explaining why it does not make sense to depict Arunachal—or, for that matter, any of India's territorial disputes other than Kashmir—as disputed on this map. 
First is the idea that China's claim to Arunachal Pradesh automatically makes it "disputed". While in some narrow, dictionary sense of the term, that may be true, this does not reflect the normal usage of the concept of a "disputed territory". Disputed territory is generally assumed to refer to places like Kashmir, Western Sahara, Cyprus, Nagarno-Kabakh, etc., which either (a) face a lack of consensus at the international level regarding the rightful sovereign or (b) are in a situation where one claimant country has administrative control over the territory despite an international consensus that the territory rightfully belongs to the other claimant. Kashmir, Western Sahara, and Nagarno-Kabakh fit criteria (a) because, for one thing, the UN explicitly recognizes them as disputed and makes ongoing efforts to resolve the dispute, and also because various countries in the world have made conflicting formal declarations about recognizing one side or the other (the OIC openly supports Pakistan on Kashmir, Iraq under Sadam Hussein formally recognized the Indian claim, the AU expelled Morocco in support of the Sahrawi Arab Republic's claim, India and Afghanistan have formally recognized the Moroccan claim, etc.). Cyprus meets criteria (b) because despite universal recognition of the entire island of Cyprus as the territory of the Republic of Cyprus (cf UNSC Resolution 1974/360 and any EU statement on the issue), Turkish troops actively deny the Republic of Cyprus administrative control of the entire island. For the stated reasons, these three disputes along with a few others are virtually always depicted on maps of every type. See, for example, the CIA World Factbook's default world map https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook//graphics/ref_maps/political/jpg/world.jpg. 
Contrast this with the usual treatment of disputes like Arunachal Pradesh, which (as was previously said), is completely unilateral, has no basis in facts-on-the-ground, and is not taken seriously by any other country. The best parallel for the situation would be the Durrand Line between Afghanistan and Pakistan. As noted in the article, the international has implicitly and sometimes even explicitly confirmed its recognition of the Durrand Line as Pakistan's legal international border, and the only challenge to that consensus is a unilateral one from the Afghan side. Considering that, in any case, Afghanistan has not exercised administrative over the "claimed" territories in close to a century, its "claim" thus amounts to nothing more than empty rhetoric, which should not be a basis for drawing up any map (as a side note, if rhetoric were a basis for cartography, you would have to show the entire southwestern US as disputed with mexico). An equally strong parallel would be the Kuril Islands, which are claimed by Japan despite being recognized under international law as part of Russia and having been under Russian sovereignty for over six decades. Other parallels could be Gibraltar or the Falkland Islands. These are claimed by Spain and Argentina respectively despite being recognized as UK territory and not having been under the claimant's administrative control for 300 years (Gibraltar) and 30 years (Argentina). As general evidence that such unilateral claims are not usually acknowledged in general-purpose maps, you can refer again to the CIA's map or other reputable world maps, and more importantly I challenge you to find any map that highlights such disputes and was not created explicitly for the purpose of discussing territorial disputes. A map of Pakistan that shows Khyber-Pakhtunwa as disputed; a map of Japan that shows the Kuril Islands as disputed; and so on. You only need to find one to prove me wrong on this point. Also, for more direct evidence that Arunachal Pradesh specifically is not usually treated in this way, you can refer to any of the aforementioned world maps, or to the following more specific maps of just South Asia: 
-From the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12557384 
-From the CIA: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/graphics/ref_maps/political/jpg/asia.jpg 
-From the UN (on page 16): http://www.un.org/depts/los/nippon/unnff_programme_home/fellows_pages/fellows_papers/mathew_0809_india.pdf
Now, however, let's concede the first point and pretend that Arunachal Pradesh is treated as a disputed territory in general-purpose publications by reputable sources. That is still not grounds to show it as such on this map. The India locator map is the basis for maps in all sorts of articles on various aspects of India, most of which have nothing to do with Sino-Indian relations. Those maps and those articles need to accessible to and informative for a general readership, and because the Arunachal Pradesh dispute is little known outside of India and possible China (I personally doubt most Chinese have heard of it, but lets pretend they have) and because the dispute has no salience for most aspects of Indian society, this map will only confuse the majority of readers for a majority of articles on wikipedia. For example, take a look at 2013 elections in India. Is it really, truly necessary to draw attention to this issue when discussing state elections in other parts of India? It's comparable to a map of the US in an article about the US elections that bothers to show the US-Canadian border disputes (yes, those exist, and if you haven't heard of them its because they're about as relevant to american domestic politics as the arunachal dispute is to indian domestic politics). This map will only misguide readers as to what are salient issues in India's politics and foreign relations, and thus the map should be changed. Again, this would be in accordance with wikipedia and third-party policies towards comparable disputes such as the Durrand line dispute. 
In short, it is unusual and thus inappropriate to depict Arunachal as disputed, and would be misleading except in a map meant to be used in an article directly concerned with the Sino-Indian border dispute, or a map of China from the Chinese perspective, in accordance with the wikipedia policy of showing the claimant's on maps of the claimant itself but not of the recognized sovereign (this policy can be seen in the fact that the kuril islands are highlighted on the map of japan featured in the article Japan but not on the map of russia featured in the article Russia). 
Also, in quick response to the user who suggested that Sikkim should be highlighted, it is worth noting that there was never a "government in exile" of Sikkim because it was the King's own government that deposed him, led by the last prime minister of independent Sikkim who subsequently became the first chief minister of Indian Sikkim. This was on the basis of a referendum in the country to join India, which itself was an extension of the fact that Sikkim had already been a protectorate of India, Sikkim's defense and foreign affairs both being under Delhi's control. The king never disputed his prime minster's actions in an international forum or laid claim to the territory again, and in any case is long dead with no heir so any claim he could have made is no longer active. The only country which ever took issue with the legality of the annexation was China, and even that objection was dropped in 2003, when India recognized China's annexation of Tibet. So, that suggestion would make even less sense than highlighting Arunachal.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.151.24 (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Arunachal Pradesh