Talk:India/Archive 12

message: I have an even more basic questions. The current article begins with, "The Republic of India (Sanskrit: भारत गणराज्य Bhārata Gaṇarājya; see also other names), commonly known as India". Do we have any source which says that the "Republic of India" is the proper name, while "India" is the common name ? 
Here is what Article 1 of the Indian Constitution has to say on the subject:
1. Name and territory of the Union.—(1) India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.
and the phrase "Republic of India" does not appear in any of its 395 article; more surprisingly yet, the word "republic" never reappears after being used in the preamble. Was the name changed to Republic of India by some later amendment ? Abecedare 16:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did find that the CIA factbook, Britannica call "Republic of India" the long form and Official name respectively, but I am still curious to know if/how/where/when this name was adopted . Abecedare 05:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The name "Republic of India" has been used in the recitals of all laws ("Be it enacted by Parliament in the xxxth year of the Republic of India", see this very randomly chosen example) right from the start.  This is also used in all treaties signed by India as in this example of a treaty with Sri Lanka.  I don't know when it was formally adopted, but it is clearly the official name.  -- Lexmercatoria 18:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Dab, my focus was different from that of the previous discussion. The basic question I had was: "When and how was 'Republic of India' adopted as the formal name for the (political entity) India, especially since Article 1 of the constitution names the political entity India, or Bharat ?" The answer to that specific question is still not available, but the links Lexmercatoria provided, along with the CIA factbook statement, do establish that 'Republic of India' is the formal name. So the issue, as far as the wikipedia article India is concerned, is resolved - although my curiosity about the original question remains piqued. Abecedare 23:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you are right, I apologize. dab (𒁳) 16:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  India or Republic of India ? 

message: The population of India is around the 1.1 billion, not 1.2 billion, the latter was written in the factscolumn on the right. --Robster1983 18:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out. I also changed the figures in the "Demographics" section. Also, since 1.1 billions is a bit too vague. I put 1.12 billion in both places (infobox and "Demographics" section). Any objections to this? Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 08:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population 

message: Perhaps a paragraph about the Mass Media of India can be added at the end of the "Culture" section. Information about it can be taken from the Indian mass media article and the end of pg. 18 and the beginning of pg. 19 of this link. Please give your feedback on whether one should be added or not. Thank you. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 14:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree a line can be added--Knowledge Hegemony 16:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass Media of India 

message: I've readded "Vande mataram" in the infobox.  The statement of the Chair to the Constituent Assembly which led to the adoption of Jana Gana Mana also said:
:"[T]he song Vande Mataram, which has played a historic part in the struggle for Indian freedom, shall be honoured equally with Jana Gana Mana and shall have equal status with it."
It has equal status, which means to mention only Jana Gana Mana without mentioning Vande Mataram misstates the law.  -- Lexmercatoria 17:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a footnote can be added to explain this unique situation of having a national anthem and also a national song. The quote you gave above can be used there ... --Ragib 17:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that can be done. Also, perhaps a line can be added before the song (like there is between every other item in the infobox). Also, if, for the national anthem, it is written only "Anthem," for the national song, it should also only be written "Song"; perhaps the opposite can also be done (write "National anthem" and "National song.") All this can (and should) be done in order to main consistency. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 18:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds perfectly fine.  I actually wanted to add a footnote, but I couldn't figure out how to put a footnote into the infobox.  -- Lexmercatoria 18:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reference added.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but what about the consistency point? Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 16:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  National anthem / national song 

message: Proposal 1: Official Languages: I have now finished compiling the secondary sources (for official languages) for the purposes of this article.  See here for the extended quotes.  In light of the references, especially 19 by B. Mallikarjun, Academic Secretary, Central Institute of Indian Languages, (Manasagangothri, Mysore 570006, India), author of Language Use in Administration and National Integration, Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages, 1986, and an expert of the subject and reference 21 by David Laitin, Watkins Professor of Political Science at Stanford, and another expert on the subject, I feel that Hindi (and to lesser extent English) has had a special position in language policy in India from well before independence, and is reflected so in the constitution.  This needs to be acknowledged explicitly (as all 21 references do) both in the information box and in the demographics section of the India page.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think something along the lines of the British Foreign Office would be reasonable: "The official language of India is Hindi written in the Devanagari script.  English has official status an 'associate language'.  In addition, there are 21 official languages recognized by the constitution: Assamese, Bengali, Bodo, Dogri, Gujarati, Kannada, Kashmiri, Konkani, Maithili, Malayalam, Manipuri, Marathi, Nepali, Oriya, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Santali, Sindhi, Tamil, Telugu, Urdu?"  Of course, it will have to be made more compact for the information box.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS None of the 16 secondary sources I cite above make a distinction between India and the Union of India (with the latter identified with the (Federal) Government of India) and I don't see why Wikipedia should either.  In other words, there is no need (at least in the India article) to say that Hindi is the official language only of the "union," but not of India.  That distinction (buttressed by secondary sources) could belong to the Official languages of India page, but does not belong to the India page.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposals

message: Give me one good reason why should we insist on keeping the official languages section brief when we have given the option to "hide" the list. The list says "Hindi and English are the official languages of the union" which summarizes so called special treatment by our constitution. The "hide" option there actually hides the list making the infobox short, in case you didn't notice. Gnanapiti 21:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that Hindi has special status in the constitution.  I consulted with an expert who in turn provided me with citations of two experts.  According to one of them, B. Mallikarjuna, Academic Secretary of the Central Institute of Indian Languages, Mysore, "Hindi in Devanagari script and the international form of Indian numerals form the Official language of the Union. Among the Indian languages, Hindi is the most highly empowered language which constitutionally/legally has multiple status - an official language of the Union; official language of 13 states and union territories; the major regional language in 9 states where it is a majority language, and an important minority language in 18 states and union territories. Also it is a language of deliberations of the Parliament of India and state legislatures in the states in which it is recognized as an official language. Apart from this, the Constitution also provides that, with mutual consent, any two states or the states and the Union can use it as a language for their inter- communication. It is the majority language of the country and also a Scheduled Language since it is in the VIIIth Schedule of the Constitution. It is the only language about whose development the Constitution has given direction, and hence it has the constitutional right for development."   English is the "subsidiary official language."  The order is Hindi, English and not English, Hindi (as you seem to revert to; it is not alphabetical).  The other language are not official languages of India, but Schedule VII languages, which, as Lex has remarked many times above, provide input into how Hindi is to develop further.  You are welcome to hide the other twenty one schedule 8 languages, but Hindi and English are separate; the link others does precisely that.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * The fact that the Indian govt., has some special provisions for Hindi doesnt mean that we should accord special treatment to it on wikipedia(that explains the alphabetical ordering).  And even with the special treatment accorded, there's many an if an but.  Quite unlike an intuitive understanding of the phrase "Official language of the Union", Hindi's status is not one of unqualified, all pervasive nature.  There is far too much fine print involved there for us to go into in this article and therefore listing the remaining "Official languages of the states" helps to put things in perspective.  And in any case, they are all wrapped in a collapsible box and not taking up space(if somebody can make the box "collapsed" by default, it would be great).  Just mentioning English and Hindi is not adhering to NPOV.  Sarvagnya 23:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: * And in any case, it is English and not Hindi that has a pre-eminent position across spheres of administration, judiciary, constitution etc., not to mention business, industry and daily life.  Majority of the states use English to communicate with the union government and circumvent the need for Hindi.  The highest court of the land uses English.  The constitution itself is written in English - not Hindi.  An overwhelming majority of the states(except the Ups and Bihars) use English to communicate among themselves.  Even in public sector undertakings, Hindi is 'encouraged' but English is non-negotiable.  Sarvagnya 23:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not talking about "language and society," but rather about "official languages," which, for better or worse, are determined by legislations of governments (or at least by constitutional changes made by governments).  For this reason, the United States infobox's "official language" slot, if it had one, would have to be left blank (or say "none"), even though English is the predominant language of the country.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "..We are not talking about "language and society,..." - And who said we are?!  Take your straw man arguments and tangential babble elsewhere. Sarvagnya 20:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: English in "administration, judiciary, constitution, ... business, industry and daily life!"  What is that if not language and society?  And who gave those examples Sarvagyna?  It wasn't me.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  Sarvagnya, I understand your point but the GOI does get to determine India's official language, and as has been now established through a multitude of secondary and tertiary sources, Hindi is referred to as such. But you are correct in stating that there is more to the issue than a simple label and that is the reason I think the Infobox should list "Hindi1, English2 and others" rather than simply "Hindi" (which would be technically correct, but misleading). In fact IMO linking to the  Official languages of India is preferable to just dumping a list of languages, since it better serves the reader in understanding the complicated situation. And as for English's use in administration and government, I'll be the first to acknowledge that fact (see my "Proposal 1 V3.0") above, but it is completely irrelevant to the "Official Language" status. If, say, a new government in all its wisdom declared Esperanto to be  India's official language, wikipedia will have to parrot that information, even if only 10 Indians spoke in the tongue. Abecedare 03:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If we do not follow the the 'Constitution' and the GOI for 'official' matters then what are we supposed to... can you give a solution???? I can't understand what's the confusion all about? KnowledgeHegemony 15:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox