Jump to content

Talk:History of India/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

prehistory

"Recent data, substantiated by satellite imagery and oceanographic studies, suggests that the civilisation flourished even as far back as the 9th Millenium BC.": I shifted it around, but I am not sure I got it right: Are these Neolithic remains? Would be nice to have a source for this. --Yak 08:45, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Era notation

This article needs to use one style of era notation consistently rather than using both BC/AD and BCE/CE (per the Wikipedia Manual of Style). Currently the BC/AD notation is used 10 times in the article, while the BCE/CE notation is used 44 times. Which one is more appropriate to standardize on in this article? Kaldari 29 June 2005 23:17 (UTC)

BCE/CE. I think WP has changed its policy last week. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 1, 2005 13:11 (UTC)

Headings

There should be nine heading only. The eight given alongside and the pre-IVC part. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 1, 2005 14:09 (UTC)

The page should not exceed 40kb on all counts. 32 kb would be ideal, but once we exceed 32kb, we'll have to start summarising. we can also improve the eight sections alongside. This might potentially give us 9 FA. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 2, 2005 09:23 (UTC)

Images

I have removed the images so that we can concentrate on the text. The images are here and will be included later. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 3, 2005 09:43 (UTC)

These links might come in handy:

=Nichalp «Talk»= July 3, 2005 10:18 (UTC)

References etc.

see also
ext links

Partition of India and Bengal and Some Myths

refs
  • Dilip K. Chakrabarti, India : An Archaeological History : Palaeolithic Beginnings to Early Historic Foundations (New Delhi, OUP, 2001) ISBN 019565880-9.
  • Modern India, by William E. Curtis, Chicago Record-Herald, 1903-04.
  • Ranajit Guha, Dominance Without Hegemony: History and Power in Colonial India, Harvard UP 1998
  • Sumit Sarkar, Modern India 1885-1947, MacMillan, first published 1983, many reprints
  • Hill, John E. 2003. "Annotated Translation of the Chapter on the Western Regions according to the Hou Hanshu." 2nd Draft Edition.[1]
  • Hill, John E. 2004. The Peoples of the West from the Weilue 魏略 by Yu Huan 魚豢: A Third Century Chinese Account Composed between 239 and 265 CE. Draft annotated English translation. [2]
  • Smith, V. A. 1908. The Early History of India. Vincent A. Smith. Oxford, The Clarendon Press.
  • Ray, Himanshu Prabha, ed. 1996. Tradition and Archaeology: Early Maritime Contacts in the Indian Ocean. Proceedings of the International Seminar Techno-Archaeological Perspectives of Seafaring in the Indian Ocean 4th cent. B.C. – 15th cent. A.D. New Delhi, February 28 – March 4, 1994. New Delhi, and Jean-François SALLES, Lyon. First published 1996. Reprinted 1998. Manohar Publishers & Distributors, New Delhi.
    • Sofri, Gianni. 1995. Gandhi and India: A Century in Focus. English edition translated from the Italian by Janet Sethre Paxia. The Windrush Press, Gloucestershire. 1999. ISBN 1-900624-12-5

seemain

The seemain tags in the middle of sections look a bit out of place. Any suggestions? deeptrivia July 3, 2005 23:04 (UTC)

Also, maybe we can condense Indus Valley Civilization a bit, shortening general discussion of the geographical factors, and expand certain other sections a bit, like Vedic Age, and Mughal Era. deeptrivia July 3, 2005 23:10 (UTC)

We'll have to decide on the appropriate headings and rename the main to see also. Its not suitable as of now. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 4, 2005 06:07 (UTC)

Comments by IncMan

For the benefit of all editors, I post here the comments by user IncMan for the improvement on the article:

Well, you can always count on me ;-]. I have a few changes to suggest:

  • The article needs to have an introduction.
  • Mauryan Dynasty was the most signicant dynasty in India. That section needs to be expanded.
  • The article does not mention much anything about the Marathas, first war of independence in 1857 and all the famous people who fought during the war including Tipu Sultan, Rana Pratap, Bhadue Shah Zafar and Rani Luxmi Bai.
  • We can mention something regarding the role played by Indian soldiers during the 2 World Wars.
  • How about something on the Aryan invasion and the changes they bought.
  • The article only mentions about Indian dynasties and rulers but theres nothing on India philosphers, artists and other intellectuals like aryabhatta and acharya shrishti to name a few.
  • Mention the trade which India had with other countries and also write on their architecture, literature, ancient laguages (like Prakrit) and culture.
  • More can be written on the kings that ruled before Maurayans including King Porus (famous for his battle w/ Alexander) and King Vikramaditya.
  • The Gupta Dynasty was an important one. Mention the achievements made during the so-called Golden Era and also include what Huang Tsang had to say about India.
  • Indians had a lot of interaction with the Greeks. The school of Gandhara is another important topic which needs to be mentioned.
  • Mention more on the national and freedom movements headed by Gandhi; reform movements, especially those to uplift women (sati) and backword classes (untouchables) and the Partition of India.

I think that the article can be made a lot better. I can refer to my 10th grade textbooks, we had an entire chapter on Indian History. Thats why I know so much about it. Thanks --IncMan June 28, 2005 05:35 (UTC)

Addition: Maybe we can make this article more comprehensive by not restricting the focus to political history (one kingdom after the other, list of wars), but as IncMan has hinted, paying some attention to social, economic and cultural history, trade with other parts of the world, etc. deeptrivia July 4, 2005 00:33 (UTC)

Very good points by Incman. However I would like to also see a greater coverage of North-East India, Kashmir and South India – places usually neglected or supressed in mention in normal Indian history school texts books. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 4, 2005 06:09 (UTC)

I completely agree. We should mention Tipu, the Marathas, the Nizams and Krishna Deva Raya. For the Tamil Nadu part, we can use Tamil Nadu#History after bringing some neutral tone there. Also, the Cholas are much neglected by historians usually, which ought to be remedied. -- Sundar \talk \contribs July 6, 2005 05:19 (UTC)

Middle kingdoms

Middle kingdoms of India looks like an excellent article, and we should probably introduce the sections from there (as subsections) to organize the Middle kindoms section. dab (ᛏ) 6 July 2005 15:17 (UTC)

We'll try and include as much as possible, but in a summary form. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 6, 2005 15:18 (UTC)
the important thing is consistency. We have to be sure to avoid claims that are debunked on other articles. Especially the dates based on the puranas (?) are much too precise. It is impossible to date anything without an uncertainty of at least a century before 300 BC, and much of the dates remain very inexact up to medieval times. The Indians may have been the inventors of mathematics and linguistics, but they certainly didn't invent history :) dab (ᛏ) 6 July 2005 15:31 (UTC)
I agree. I too have large time gaps in my knowledge of Indian history timeline. The problem is that India's history is so fragmented and at times controversial and getting this right is not goint to be very easy. This will be a huge project for wikipedia.

Independent India

The Independent India section is too long and not contistent. We might create new sub-section(s) and provide a concise summary on the main page SwiftRakesh

yes it needs a main article. This whole article should be in Wikipedia:Summary style anyway; I was going to suggest compression for "middle kingdoms" too. Do go ahead and move the material to a main article, let's say, History of Independent India, or History of India after 1946, or similar? dab (ᛏ) 7 July 2005 11:30 (UTC)

Okay, let's do it! I'll move that portion to the article History of Independent India. Can somebody write a summary and put it on this article? Thanks deeptrivia July 9, 2005 06:10 (UTC)

Anon comments

Annon comment: Hi guys, I find it admirable that you are putting the effort into this, but I have one large critisism - Indian history is often over-simplified into contempory-centric history, and all the rich dynasties and empires between the vedic age and the onset of Muslim invasion is lumped together into a vague and brief summary. About 80% of India's most interesting (and well enough known) history lies in this area, so it is an injustice to our great cuivilisation to lump it into the 'middle-kingdoms'. I suggest that the Mauryas, Guptas especially get secitons which are at least as long as the Mughal history, and other major and important dynasties from this 'middle era' such as the Cholas, Harshan empire, etc, be detailed also. Considering some liberal estimates put Indian civilisation at 8,500 years old, 99% of the history should not be sacrificed for the Mughals, Marathas, Mysore, Punjab, etc, just because they are more contempory. The Indian education system may itself be totally inadiquate in this regard, but as a wiki site, we have the oppertuntity to display Indian history with the coverage it deserves. Thanks for reading this, and I wish you luck.

Kudos to the writers of the history of India section for presenting a balanced view. I would only like to add that it should be emphasized that the "Aryan Invasion" theory was one advanced by British Scholars during the colonial period, looking at India from their European perspective. In addition, no one knows the true age of the Rig Veda, as it was originally an oral tradition.

Thanks for the comments. You could help out too you know. However we have page size restrictions to consider, an article of 35kb plus becomes too long to read. The entire text has to be presented in a summary to satify those interested in a gist of India's history. Work has just begun though and only the first section (Prehistory) is somewhat done. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:43, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Hi its me again who wrote the first comment - I understand you not wanting to crowd the page, but then, we should still try to include equal detail on various Indian eras, but make the entire thing smaller, rather than have a top-heavy amount on recent history. I will try my best to help if I feel there is anything I can add, thankyou ;-) (P.S., perhaps a more timeline-like format would then be better as this natutally reduces text?)

Although im not sure if you would appretiate me adding this myself, perhaps in order to be more representitive, the middle-kingdoms could be broken down into common catagories such as the 'Epic Age' in reference to the space between the so called vedic age and the Mauyan empire, a sub-section dedicated to the 'Mauyan empire', which was afterall India's version of the contempory Chinese Han Dynasty, as demonstrated by this map: http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/oldwrld/images/200BC.jpg

I would then add approximate to and from dates to each heading, just to give people a feel for the time periods being used, e.g. Prehistoric India ?-6700 BCE (although some may argue with that date ;-) ), Indus-Saraswati Civilisation 6700-1500 BCE, Vedic Age (allegedly lol) 1500-600 BCE, Epic Age, Maurya, Golden Age, etc... Very short but tantalising descritiptions leading to sub-articles on the various empires would fill the need for text. For instance later on, during the pre-colonial age, as Europeans arrived, one could briefly detail how the major political powers as the British arrived were the Marathas, Mughals, Mysore and Punjab, and say briefly what that period was marked by, i.e. East India Company agression, the Maratha and Mysore wars, etc.

One last thing I must say that was bound to come up is that at the moment Indus research is constantly changing scholars perspectives on the Indus civilisation (which I believe is one and the same with early vedism) - but the main thing I stress is that while the Indian education system may still teach the Ayran Invasion theory, this theory has been defunkt for almost as long as it has existed - therefore, as the current article says 'the Aryan Invasion theory is most widly accepted' is only a half truth - it is the most widly accepted in India out of ignorance - amongst the scholary community it carries no weight. If at all there was a 'migration' of Iranian/Central Asian peoples into the subcontient, it seems ever more likely that they were simply natural economic immigarnts spread over centuries, and that the 'original' inhabitants of the subcontinent originated both the Dravidian and Sanskritic branches of language, plus the Vedic-Harappan civiliation. While this is all tentative theory, it is probably therefore prudent to not put any mention of the theory in that would make it sound like fact, but rather a mention that the theory existed, and has been widely disproven or whatever, or perhaps not mention what dosent really deserve to be mentioned anyway.

One thing is for sure though, the current:

  1. 1 Early history
  2. 2 Neolithic
  3. 3 Vedic Civilization
  4. 4 Middle kingdoms
  5. 5 Islamic empires
  6. 6 Mughal era
  7. 7 Company rule
  8. 8 British Raj
  9. 9 Independence Movement
  10. 10 Independent India

Makes India look like a colonial colony with no history - 6 out of those ten headings are dedicated to the events of the last 600 or so years, and a full three to the last 200 years, out of a history of civilisation which some say is 10,000 years long, and has probably had a more marked effect on the globe than any other culture. The duty of an article like this isnt just to present history, but to make it look good as well - to increase awareness of India - a 1200AD+ heavy history is not gonna do that.

Thanks again for your inputs.
  1. you could consider making an account here. It would facilitate easier communication between all of us.
  2. The timeline format is not viable, as in an encyclopedia the text has to be all prose.
  3. We should try and avoid too many headings and subheadings (you mean headings instead of categories?). This ofcourse leads to a compatibility problem.
  4. I'm aware of the Aryan theories (AIT/AMT) and indigenous, but as an encyclopedia, we have to report all viewpoints not one.
  5. I too have problems with the current headings, but am working on it.
  6. In all our history texts, the North East and Kashmir are excluded. I want to include those too.
  7. Instead of the horizontal line ----, please use the colon ( : ) to indent your replies. Use multiple colons for additional replies. It makes replies easier to follow. Thanks.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 07:45, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the format of my text, im not too familiar with wiki unfortunatly, ill try to contribute what I can, because the headings seem to be the biggest problem, ill try to make a suggestion on those, although it would probably mean adding a couple unfortunatly; I would use Prehistory (early human settlemnt, Megarh, early Harappan), Harrappan Civilisation (middle and late Harrappan period, perhaps time of Mahabhrat war), Vedic Civilisation (alleged Aryan age, epic age kingdoms such as Kuru and Kalinga), The Epic Age (forming of the Mauryan empire, Buddha, Jains, etc), The Golden Age (Guptas, etc), The Middle Kingdoms (end of gupta period to advent of Islamic conquest), The Sultanates (specfically Slave dynasty, Khiji, etc), The Pre-Colonial Kingdoms (Mughal era, rise of Maratha, Mysore, Punjab, contact with Europan traders), The Colonial Era (British and freedom moevment) and Modern India (freedom, tension with Pakistan and China, modern economy) - thus provinding a more balanced amount on each era, although perhaps you may find a better way. In terms of history, India is quite similar in progression to a number of other modern civilisations such as Japan, China, Greece and Briain - for instance the Chinese version of the Mughal era would be Mongol Khanate, so maybe we could take a similar format from them... Vastu July 13

Ok lets work on it. I've completed writing upto the Vedic civilisation. I'll try and incorporate the suggested headings too. I'll be handling the so called "middle kingdoms" now, so feel free to copyedit the completed sections. 11:00, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Actually while you have been doing that, I was quickly doing an example of that suggestion about the headings, so if you click my user page, you can see what I meant ;-) Vastu July 13

That's a really good breakdown of the history. However in wikipedia, your user space should be used to say something about yourself etc. Create a sub page User:Vastu/PAGE NAME by adding [[/PAGENAME]] on your user page. :coming back to the headings, Colonial era should be split into two, as India became a colony only after 1857. I think the ''Epic Age'' should be named something more descriptive? Great work! ~~~~

Thanks, and ill try to create a better user page, but ill just use it for that for the time being ;-) What you said about the British era is very true, so perhaps rather than break it into two new catagories, a different name would be better? Really although I chose colonial, I was reffering more to the British and other being colonial powers than to the nature of India's occupaion, so maybe as long as the text just made it clear that it was at first a British molopoly that later transformed itno an occupying government, it would be alright? As for the Epic Age, yes it is a very un-descriptive name, but I actually cannot think of one that would describe it much better, due to the nature of the Mauryan empire, also although it is far from official, I notacted that histogrpaher John Keay used the term to respresent the post-vedic states in India, so I though that it could be broadened to encompass the foundation of Empire too, in order to cut down on topics... Anyway, I am glad you found those suggested headings helpfull ;-) P.S. Perhaps the nature of the East India Company could be included in the post-clonial era, thus solving the term colonial ;-)

Naming

How about renaming it to Arrival of the Europeans and Colonial India? Harappan Civilisation should be IVC. We'll think of a better title for the Epic age, but we'll edit under the heading for now. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:40, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm im not trying to be acward with the headings, but arrival of the Europeans kinda dosent fit with the Maratha, Mughal, Mysore and Punbaji history, which is why im still eager to use the pre-colonial title, but to group the material on the various east India companies into this catagory, and then expalin their transformation into government, in the next... Or perhaps there is a better description of this era between the collapse of the Mughals and arrival of British that isnt realted to the Europeans at all, although i cant think of anything that meets that criteria lol :-)
No you aren't being awkward. This is how wikipedia works with suggestions from all. You have a good point too. As I said, we'll add content and then we can tailor the headings. We'll stick to your headings for now. PS. Please sign your entries. Thanks, =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:23, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Okay, ill try to work on the prehistory section to start off ;-) BTW, it seems this would also unfortunatly effect the civilisational topics such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_kingdoms_of_India :-\ Vastu July 13 14:51, 2005 (GMT)
That's not a problem. We are trying to make this article a Featured Article, one of the best. For that we would need to reference our work too by Citing references, this work is independant of subarticles. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:18, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Vastu, do you have a source on the Ice age text you have just added? =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:45, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I didnt respond earlier, I was working on the Indus section, which I have already put a couple of saraswati references in, so ill have to review them.. Should we dismiss the satellite evidence for this so easily, as NASA, etc, also seem unequivicable in their analysis of the saraswati river bed? As for the ice age reference, ill try to find one, I cant remember where I read that, but for the 6700 date, these references may be usefull.... John E Mortimer - Traditions of the Seven Rishis, 134, Motilal Banarsidass, and Pliny - Natralis Historia, 6, 59-60 and Solinus - Compendium, 52.5 (im not sure how to correctly reference on wiki)... P.S. The article below dosent really seem to suggest that the Saraswati didnt exist, just that an archelogical survey of it has so far not revealed anything. Vastu July 13

Saraswati river

There's no trace of the Saraswati river so far so we'll have to edit the text Read this. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:58, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

or this (your link is broken). the Saraswati is a bit of a red herring sometimes. It may have been the Ghaggar, at some point. Maybe the Helmand before that, and various other rivers later, or it became an entirely mythical river at some point. For archaeological purposes "Ghaggar" is as good as "Sarasvati" (or better, for being unambiguous). dab (ᛏ) 06:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

sigh

every so often, we get well meaning Indian editors all over Wikipedia, saying things like "at the moment Indus research is constantly changing scholars perspectives on the Indus civilisation" and "the AIT was forwarded by British colonialists and is defunct", and writing glowing essays about the golden era of the IVC. Please understand that these are myths kept alive by Indian patriots and have only tenuous connections with reality. The IVC is being researched, but it is a neolithic culture like others, and all the golden age suggestions are pure fantasy. the "Aryan invasion" may be discredited as a term, and we have now much more detailed knowledge about Indo-Iranian migrations, as we would call them today. Please be careful not to allow romantic speculations or nationalistic bias into the articles. Ask for credible sources. I am particulary annoyed how the decline of the IVC out of climatic etc. reasons is always forwarded as if it were disproving Indo-Aryan migration. Obviously, once a civilization declines, foreign tribes will immigrate (see the Roman Empire: as soon as the empire declines, you have the barbarians ante portas). The discovery of the IVC and its decline precisely around 1900 is an independent confirmation, lending context to the Indo-Aryan immigration at around that time. In other words, no, the Indo-Aryans may not have caused the decline of the IVC. The decline of the IVC has rather allowed Indo-Aryan immigration, which in turn sealed the fate of the IVC (Indra is, after all, the destroyer of cities).

I am very tired of arguing this. There are just too many Indians, and too few of them familiar with the topic. Anybody familiar with the Rigveda knows that it contains the religion of a nomadic tribe, not of an urban civilization. And one more thing, this article should be in Wikipedia:Summary style. All the information goes to specialized articles, we only want brief overviews here. Make sure that all the information in the IVC section here is taken from the main article, otherwise it will be a nightmare to watch this for consistency. dab (ᛏ) 06:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe that all three Aryan theories are sufficiently covered in the current text.
I know about the summary style, 10/11 of my best articles are under 32kb. However despite having a good summary, India's history is so vast that the final outcome is going to exceed 39kb.
My method of working is to first strip all images and references and then edit the text. As with sculpting, the bulk comes first and then the details (summary, images and references), so don't worry, the summary and copyedits will be done after the first draft is complete.
I would ask you to clarify your position on the Rigveda as you mentioned above.
That link works.

Thanks =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:21, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

India's history is so vast that the final outcome is going to exceed 39kb.
that's hardly the point. what about Earth and Universe? How long will these articles be? Summarizing means exporting stuff to main articles.
My method of working is to first strip all images and references and then edit the text.
I have no idea what you mean.
clarify your position on the Rigveda
see Rigveda, Vedic civilization, Vedic Sanskrit, Talk:Indus Valley civilization (and Soma, Indo-Iranians, BMAC etc.).
My point is, it is a myth that Vedic Sanskrit is a monolithic block of immermorial antiquity, impossible to date. It shows clear strata, and shows the transition from a nomadic Bronze Age (Rigveda) to an Iron Age organized in kingdoms. This corresponds to linguistic and societal developments of about a millennium, ca. 1500-500 BC. The only exception is the Rigveda, which shows traces of much older elements difficult to date for lack of context, and parts may contain elements maybe going back to 2000 BC. I am also not denying that Hinduism contains cultural elements inherited from the IVC. The radical change of philosophy from te Rigveda to later times rather suggests so, but their influence must be considered that of a substrate.
That link works.
it does now. probably a temporary lag of indiatimes earlier.
all three Aryan theories are sufficiently covered in the current text
what 'three Aryan theories'? attacking 19th century views is attacking strawmen. Sometimes I really think time stood still, in India, as I keep reading discussions of Max Mueller and British colonialists. Max Mueller was a pioneer, but obviously we have a much more detailed picture now. dab (ᛏ) 07:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I haven't understood what's wrong with my draft on the Indus Valley civilisation and the Aryans. Would you be more specific? THanks =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:51, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

well, since you have replaced the earlier version, wouldn't it be your job to argue, point by point, what was wrong with that?
as to your version, while you get the basic facts right, many details are either unreferenced, suggestive or simply polemic. "Many historians hold the view that the Aryans came with a large invasive force, decimating most of the local populace"? Oh yeah? like whom? maybe a few Aryan enthusiasts back in the 19th century. All talk about "recent research that is beginning to change our view" needs clear references. As for IVC had the "largest area", well, since it was aligned along rivers, it's hard to estimate the entire area, isn't it? As for "first known use of highly sophisticated planning", well, that depends on how exacly you define "highly sophisticated", doesn't it? I'm sorry, I realize that you mean well, it's just that I have argued these exact points too often on other articles, so that I may sound harsher than I'd like to. Let's just say, if you want to make superlative or sweeping statements, do attribute them to somebody. I am fine with saying the IVC was extraordinary, comparable with Mesopotamia and Egypt and the early cities on the Iranian plateau (of which it was probably not completely independent). Bottom line, the IVC is an extraordinary neolithic, prehistoric, civilization. for which reason it appears under "Neolithic". Apart from scattered references to "Meluhha", north-western India only enters history proper with the Bronze Age, beginning in the mid 2nd millennium BC. dab (ᛏ) 08:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  1. I agree it needs references, its just that I add references in the end so that I can also add the inline references.
  2. I'm assuming that you're saying that the Invasion Theory is debunked completely? See this too: Talk:India/archive 3#AIT and DNA tests. For the section to be NPOV, all three theories should be mentioned along with the migration theory, which is now generally accepted.
  3. You've removed the text which gave reasons for the decline of the IVC. So how did it decline? Isn't that a lacuna in the new draft? I don't see what was wrong with user:vastu's draft on the demise of the civilisation. He's cited his source too.
  4. You've re-added Yellow ochre pottery, black and red ware and so on. What is the significance of that? I don't think that's essential.
  5. "flowering" of the vedic civilisation? surely something less flashy?
  6. When did the vedic civilisation end. The end is mentioned linguistically, but for other purposes? Culturally?

=Nichalp «Talk»= 08:54, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

you are not the sole author of this, so you cannot just follow your master plan of sculpting, summarizing, and adding references later. You are contributing to an existing article. The "AIT" explains the origin of the language of the Vedas. No it is not "debunked", unless you insist on discussing details of the 19th century views. Nobody claims that the entire population was displaced. Culturally, Indo-Aryan became dominant, with just a few Dravidian loanwords. Genetically, even upper caste Indians will have a substantial portion of indigenous ancestry.

Basically, we are summarizing the main articles here. If there is a factual dispute, let's go over there and change it there first. Your sources for this article is the information already in the main articles, it is pointless to try to insert breakthrough genetic research here. Discuss them on the AIT article, or wherever they are relevant. Once they are accepted there, import them here, mentioning researchers and publications in the text. Sure, re-insert the drying-up of the Ghaggar as a possible factor of IVC decline, that is unproblematic, and by all means find a better word for "flowering". As for the archaeological cultures, I know the links are still red. Care to change that? For the prehistoric record, obviously archaeological cultures are central, and more to the point than fancy statements about the best, earliest and coolest culture ever. The end of the "Vedic age" was not sudden. Panini and the epics are considered post-vedic, though, and surely the Invasion of Darius ends the vedic age at least in western India. The "Vedic age" continues up to the present for some scattered Brahmins in southern India, if you like, i.e. those unaffected by the philosophical re-interpretations of the Vedanta (see Frits Staal). 500 BC is a widely accepted date for the end of the "Vedic period". Maybe it was 600 BC, maybe 400 BC, that's irrelevant. The point is that vedic religion blended into early Hinduism of the Middle Kingdoms. dab(ᛏ) 09:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd like the comment on the last reply of yours. Since you earlier mentioned your losing battle against non-historians, I'll readily forgive you on the rather acidic tone of the above post. Unfortunately history is not my best department, so for me adding things on coloured pottery would be out of place. If you read the text, it is out of place; it gives a reader no clue what that paragraph means.
This is the Indian collaboration of the fortnight. A week has passed and nothing has been done about the improvement of the article. If you are willing to push it to a Featured Status, I would very well step aside and give you the right of passage. In this context I have taken the lead now (you read it as: "sole author"), and I don't see why you have any problems with that. I will continue to edit it in my normal style so that it gets featured soon. I am also amenable to correct any biases/ inaccuracies which might have crept it. In case you are wondering, I complete a full article text, then summarise and copyedit with the addition of references. In this situation, I would request you to please wait till I finish the full article before helping tie up loose matter. Is that asking too much? I'm sure you too would be happy to see this article featured.
As for the sub articles, yes I do read them, but since they are not featured articles, and I cannot verify the references, is it really comprehensive and accurate that I can add it here?

Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:20, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I apolologize for my "acidic tone". I am aware that you edit in good faith. But please understand that your approach does not work in cases of disputes. Many of the sub-articles have a long history of evolution, and you cannot ignore the solutions that were reached there. If you do, you will just be reverted here. Aiming for FA status is not a good guide, and anyway, you'll never get through FAC if you do not reference your statements step by step. If something is missing from the sub-articles, fix it there first. This article doesn't have to be FA by next week, and it almost certainly won't be. This is not a problem. Try to improve the sub articles first; however, most of them are by now stable enough to allow a fair summary here. See also my comment below on article scope. dab (ᛏ) 10:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

My 2 cents: I know that both of you are well-meaning editors here. From where I stand, I can see the problem a bit more clearly.

@Dab:As you noted above, Nichalp edits in good faith, but has been almost a "sole editor" of articles, out of lack of alternatives, in the past. He's brought virtually non-existent India-related articles into FA status, with only copy-editing support from some of us. So, he (and to some extent the other Indian editors) has/have gotten used to a temporary "volatile state" in the articles. Since those articles were not watched by too many editors, there was no problem. But, this article has more visibility and hence this problem. However, I'm sure, he wouldn't be dogmatic against suggestions for changes. He agrees that he's not a historian and also to the suggestion to extend this particular INCOTW to two weeks acknowledging the difficculty in bringing it to FA worthy state. Please make your concerns clear, but do not discourage his spirit with statements like, this article can't become a FA by next week etc, which are besides the point.

@Nichalp:You might've observed that Dab is a knowledgable and valuable editor in the India-related space and linguistics. And he's very concerned about the "goodness" of the articles, even while in the works unlike the belief in the "end state" that you or I hold. Add to this, his tendency to write "crisp" statements in talk pages, we often mistake him to be offensive. Howmuchever we want to think otherwise, the tone makes us not see reason to some of his points that we otherwise would have. So, have a rethink on the points raised by him. Perhaps, unlike the other COTW, we can put much of the "works in progress" in talk pages before moveing to the article space. We can even even extend the INCOTW by one more week, if it won't affect Economy of India.

@Both:Since both of you have the intention to improve the article, I wish you tone down your arguments and work together. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 11:35, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Images

Though, unfortunately, I couldn't contribute prose to South Indian history yet, I've uploaded a number of images of Travancore princely state here. Please use them wherever it is relevant. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 08:40, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

your edits will be most welcome, Sundar. It is painfully obvious that this is mainly a "History of Northern India", so far. dab (ᛏ) 09:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

article scope

I just realize that History of South Asia was designed to cover the focus of the Indian subcontinent. Consequently, this article would only need to cover the material now at History of Independent India. However, I don't think this is a good idea. I suggest History of South Asia is merged and made a redirect to this article. To avoid confusion, we could rename this article to History of the Indian subcontinent. "India" in the sense of "Republic of India" has only existed for 60 years, while the term "India" is much older and usually taken in a geographical sense. In the history template, "History of India", "History of Pakistan" and "History of Bangladesh" should be identified as history of the contemporary states, i.e. covering the last 60 years. As it is, we're covering the IVC on both History of Pakistan and here. This is silly. Just as silly as treating the IVC and all on an article on the History of the British Raj. dab (ᛏ) 10:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Its a little confusing here. [History of the subcontinent] would also include Sri Lanka's, Bhutan's and the Maldives' history, which would have no relation to India's mainstream history. The IVC also extended into India so it is valid to include in in India's history. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:10, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. Sri Lanka is not on the subcontinent. IVC didn't "also extend into India", since "India" as you use the term only existed since 1947. The IVC was in the northwest of the Indian subcontinent. My point is that the history prior to 1947 should not be treated in separate articles for India and Pakistan, since that division is entirely artificial for those times. I am also unsure what you mean by "India's mainstream history"? Preceding the British Raj, there was no "mainstream" history, just lots of independent shifting empires. dab (ᛏ) 11:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
The subcontinent article does mention Sri Lanka as a part of it. Geologically the subcontinent is the Indian plate. Lothal is considered a part of the IVC, and it is in current day India. "India's mainstream history:" A person wanting to read India's history would have to sift through that of Bhutan, Nepal and Sri Lanka history too. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:55, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
There is a slight technical problem here. On 18 July 1947 the United Kingdom Parliament passed the Indian Independence Act whereby India was created as a self-governing dominion and as a successor State of British India. Popularly, we speak about the British Parliament partitioning the country in two, constitutionally that is not correct. Pakistan was the only "new" state created. Therefore, for example, India did not have to be admitted anew to the UN, but as the same India that signed the Covenant of the League of Nations, that signed the Treaty of Versailles, and which also went to San Francisco to help in establishing that organization. (Ref: [3]) So while History of Pakistan should focus only post 1940 (when a separate state was first demanded), same cannot be said about History of India. I'm okay with a post 1947 article on History of Republic of India, but that would be like creating too many articles. 130.203.202.156 22:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Scratchpad for the history of South India

Feel free to add to this. Some relevant points from here can be incorporated into appropriate sections in the article.

After 16th century, a number of intermediaries were the de facto rulers in this region, though, often only at the pleasure of the European rulers.

-- Sundar \talk \contribs 10:58, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Dab, just to address a few of your points, I am of south Indian decent and will be including things on the Cholas, Vijayanagar, etc, however, as you have just pointed out above that you think IVC is being unduely glorified, I must also point out that our south Indian dynasties likewise should not be disproportionatly glorified for the sake of our south Indian pride, as most of them did not have the historical reach of ones which are seen as 'northern', with the exception of the Cholas, and so this artilce will be slightly north-centric simply because of that. Also, I would much appretitate whatever additions on the early vedic/IVC history you have, thanks for your input - so far I have made it clear that there are conflicting approaches to this area, if you feel that peacefull migration is at the moment considered more likely than indiginous development, then please feel free to edit. Vastu
I on the other hand have also got information on Assam, Manipur and Tripura. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:12, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
my impression is that the current thinking is that these categories are too simplistic. There were migrations. There was indigenous continuity. cultures amalgamated. Anyway, can we talk about article focusses first, since that will crucially affect what is discussed in which articles. I am saying the current article should reside at History of the Indian subcontinent. dab (ᛏ) 11:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I think ill leave it to you guys from here as im not very active, and wont be able to re-write things too often, however, feel free to use the format that I suggested, as I do feel it would make the most sence - its still on my user page for anyone who wishes to view it. (BTW dab, about the date of 2000 BCE, im not so sure on this, as even the conservative estimates such as those mentioned in John Keay's India: A History seem to suggest at least 3000 BCE for urban civilisation in the Indus region) Vastu
the 2000 BC date referred to elements of the Rigveda; of course there were urban settlements preceding 3000 BC, that's a completely unrelated statement. "Vedic civilizaton" didn't become urban until the Iron Age / Samhita prose phase, maybe 1100 BC. dab (ᛏ) 11:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Yeh actually, in the original article, I was gonna make it clear that vedic culture may be unrelated, but it has since been edited. (I personally dont believe this myself, as there is significant evidence including astronomical phenomenon and descriptions of geographic locations in the Vedas which seem to be of an antiquity which would put them in parallel with Harappan culture, however, because scholars tend to seperate the two, I was going to make both theories clear). P.S. About history of the subcontinent comment, really there are a hundred other states on this planet which promote a history of themselves which included previous states which occasionally didnt occupy the same geogrpahical boundries, etc - so just as a history of China might include 'Chinese' kingdoms away from the Han heartland, I see no reason why a history of Indic civilisation, including Harappan, etc, shouldnt be considered the history of the modern Indian entity. If nothing else, Harappan culture merged with or absorbed vedic culture, thus is of no small importance to Indian civilisation. Writers of any history of Pakistan or another south asian state shoudl also feel free to consider these things part of their history and not just that of the subcontinent as a whole. Vastu
that's true. Maybe the article should stay here. But what about History of Pakistan? Will people there be happy to link to History of India for dates preceding 1947? This is more about contemporary politics than anything else. dab (ᛏ) 11:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Frankly as an amateur enthusiast of Indology, I couldnt care less about the modern political game that is being played - Pakistanis should feel free to do that, but of course, there is a current mentality of distancing themselves from their ancestral roots in favour of arab-centrism. Also, a Pakistani history for instance would not include south Indian kingdoms, as it is essentially a north-Indian/Indo-Iranian influenced culture, so they would need a seperate writeup going back to Indus times anyway. I feel that we should therefore keep all this in the Indian history article, rather than south asian history. The only thing I must again stress now that I will not be taking poart in this any longer is the absolute need for this article to not be 'contemporary-centric' - whoever writes this must by no means fall into the current trap which so many Indians fall into of only considering contemporary history imporant - when I found this article, 6 of the headings were dedicated to the last 600 years only, and 4 of them to British and Muslim dominated history, without paying the slightest attention to anything before that - this would be the equivalent of the Chinese ignoring anything before Mongol rule, or the Egyptians ignoring history before Muslim and colonial rule. Right now it is ludacris that so many fo the important Indian empires are grouped into 'middle-kingdoms' - the Mauryan empire for example is probably the most worthy entity of its own section! And yet it is groupsed with the Guptas and tens of other dynasties. This is why I suggest the headings should be:
Prehistory
ICV
Vedic
'Epic'
Golden Age
Middle Kingoms
Sultanates
Pre-colonial
Colonial
Modern


Same number of headings - more balanced coverage - see my user page - the Epic age would rpimarily focus of the Mauryan and 16 kingdoms, the golden age on guptas, et al, and the middle kingdom on Rajputs, et al..... (BTW, I just saw the Pakistan article, and there you go - they have considered the Mauyas, etc 'Pakistani history' thus proving why India should consider the entire history of thwe subcontinent back to the neolithic to be 'Indian history') Vastu
I basically agree with you, except that the "prehistory" header is inaccurate. IVC falls under prehistory, and 'Vedic' and 'Epic' times can also be considered prehistorical, since the oldest actual historical records in India are the Ashoka edicts. For this reason I prefer the Paleolithic/Neolithic headings. "Vedic" could be named "Bronze Age", but the introduction of Iron is very complicated, geographically, and it makes no sense to separate Bronze and Iron Ages; for this reason "Vedic culture" is a useful cover term. Similarly, "modern" is not a good heading, since obviously Colonial India was also modern. "Golden Age" is obviously too subjective. The Mughal era was period important enough to deserve its own section; but I agree there could be further subsections to "Middle kingdoms". dab (ᛏ) 12:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Yeh the headings perhaps need tweaking, but as long as due detail to the past is there its all good. Im not sure that IVC should be named under a heading other than IVC though, as whilst this article is meant to be factually correct, it woudl also be good to place due emphesis on the fact that this civilisation was one of the 'cradles', and occupied the largest area, otherwise mentioning it like a footnote in neolithic makes causal viewers now graspt the importance of this civilisation. Whilst we shouldnt be subjective, this isnt a scholary writeup for an journal, this entry is meant to be viewed by the general public - if Indians consider the Gupta period the 'Golden Age' then I dont see why we shouldnt apply that name to that section of history. Im sure other cultures refer to their own golden ages subjectively too. In the end all headings are subjective, so modern India, or perhaps 'Independent India' dont really make too much of a difference, as long as the importance is conveyed. Do you also agree with the content of these tentative periods that I suggested on my user page? If you agree with the general grouping, and a few headings need tweaking, then perhaps we have arrived at a good format? Vastu
P.S. The problem with two of the current headings 'Magadha' and 'Mughal' are that by creating subsections on specific powers, powers contemporary to them (i.e. the Marathas, Mysore, Punjab for Mughals) cant be in the same section, which is why I suggested perhaps creating broader catagories, such as 'golden Age' for the mid-middle kingdoms, and middle-kindgoms for the later ones just before Islamic conquest...

I'm not sure about the 'cradle' claims. Unlike in Mesopotamia, there is no continuity, and the entire IVC should probably be considered in a Mesopotamian-Elamite framework. But of course it is the important thing in the Neolithic section, and indeed makes up most of the section, so I don't think any reader interested in neolithic India will miss it. But we can also make an IVC subsection, I don't have a problem with that. I think we should refer to the Gupta period as the 'Gupta period'. After all, we don't choose titles based on how people subjectively refer to things, we try to be unambiguous. dab (ᛏ) 13:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC) I agree with your point about 'Magadha' and 'Mughal'; "Middle kingdoms" covers ca. 500 BC to 1000 AD, i.e. 1500 years. How about making geographical subsections to that? Or temporal subsections, such as "early medieval India" or something? It is difficult; but with Middle kingdoms of India we have quite a good main article, so we should be guided by that, no need to do the same job twice. dab (ᛏ) 14:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not quite "political" that Pakistan has a different history. It's a border region conquered by the British. Continuity is not very neat. The history of Turkey is, for example, both European and Middle Eastern and Pakistan is no exception. Western Pakistan's history is intimately tied to that of Afghanistan, while eastern Pakistan shares a lot of history with India, but not really everything. How is it the history of India when the Arabs only conquer what is today Pakistan and not most of India. And as Rajmohan Gandhi makes clear in "Religion and Peacebuilding" under his article Hinduism and Peacebuilding, it is by no means clear that before the 19th cent. the diverse groups living in different parts of India thought of themselves as a single Indian polity. If asked most would have mentioned clans and local sects or subkingdoms. Where is the continuity when Pakistan's history just overlaps? Borderlands can be part of more than one region and the world isn't going to end. Pakistan has an overlapping history. The Mauryan period extended its influence all the way to parts of Afghanistan and Iranian Hindu Shahis once ruled Kabul. Does that mean Afghanistan is India too? The history of Pakistan article has been written with all of this in mind and makes it clear that there is no Pakistan until the 20th century, but that the area had a distinct history that is obviously the reason why it became predominantly Muslim and the most heavily influenced by Perso-Afghan civilization as an inbetween region. Now the Durrani Emprire didn't annex India, but covers only Pakistan. the Kushan empire stretched from Uzbekistan to parts of northwest India. The Persians and Greeks conquer mostly what is today Pakistan. The Arabs stopped at Sindh and western Panjab. Your Mauryan example is a span of 80 years. The periods I mention take up millenia. You guys sure you're not being political as well here? Politics are one thing, but reality is something else entirely. Most of what I read when I read the History of India and the "subcontinent" tends to refer to Pakistan's past in cursory terms and reduces millenia to invasions by Arabs and others, while the Mauryans get pages of mention as does the Vedic period and any resistance movements that fought the Mughal and other Islamic empires. What is this desire to subsume all of its neighbors in India and via Indian perspective? The countries are separate and there is no evidence that that would not have been the case without the British as we'd probably just have a score of nations instead with history entries about as numerous as those of sub-Saharan Africa. Tombseye 13:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

urbanization

from the article: Some theorists have arrived at dates as early as 6700 BCE based upon the Saptarishi calendar as well as alleged Greek and Roman accounts, such as those of Solinus and Pliny, although this date is controversial. I'm all for including all theories, but this just sounds like a bad parody; unfortunately, there is no Saptarishi article, and even if there were, I would be at a loss how to draw such dates from Solinus or Pliny; If somebody really claimed this, I doubt this is so much "controversial" as laughed off by everybody else. But if we can get some names to "some theorists" obviously I will quote them with glee :) dab (ᛏ) 14:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Well honestly, if the scholary community hasnt learnt by now not to act like insider/outsider academic chavenists, there is no point quoting the guy at all. Ive just added a Maurya dynasty chart by the way, to offset how only the Mughals currently have a dynistic list - we should rpobably do so for other important dynasties such as the Guptas, Cholas, Vijayanagar, etc too. ABout the breakdown of the middle kingdoms - I suggest time periods rather than geographical periods - perhaps only two would be neccecary. The first half could deal with the Guptas, and describe how many clal it a 'golden age', as well as the Satavahanas, Pandyas, Kushan invasion, Huna invasion, etc - the second could deal with later developments such as Pratihar, Cholas, Rajputs, etc - a perfect lead on to the next section on the sultanates, as India's old neighbour, the persian empire, has just been taken over by Arab/Turkic invasion. BTW, although these arnt the most accurate of maps, this is a helpfull period-eye view of the subcontinent: http://www.geocities.com/narenp/history/maps.htm Vastu
no, no, sorry again. I'm not trying to be chauvinist, but the scholarly community in the 18th century has learned to be critical. learned mumblings about calculations from ancient manuscripts belong the the 16th-17th centuries, we have precisely learned that not every method is equivalent. See Descartes, Encyclopédie, Age of Enlightenment. But of course we can still quote "the guy", saying "X said Y" is always objective. dab (ᛏ) 15:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I wasnt reffering to you friend, but to the scholars you spoke of, who are unopen to new theory (as you said, it would provoke laughter). BTW, perhaps we should include the Vedic cultre as a second subcatagory of the Neolithic era, as it is essentially 'prehistoric' and the level of metal use, etc.

Bronze

I'm sorry; bronze was known to the IVC it seems; Maybe the Neolithic/Bronze Age division is unhappy, as the Bronze Age began somewhere in the middle of the IVC. And, the non-IVC part of India (East, Sout) remained neolithic for much longer. dab (ᛏ) 08:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

independence

I cannot help but feel that the independence events are a bit misrepresented. Of course Gandhi was non-violent to the point of fanatism. But the thing is, after the war the British wanted to get rid of India. But they knew that if they just left, the whole subcontinent would turn into one large slaughterhouse. They tried to pull out as carefully as they could, but the Hindus and the Muslims were still at each other's throats as soon as they left. So rather than a conflict between "the Indians" and the Brits, the issue was a conflict between Islamic and Hindu Indians, with the Brits rolling their eyes hoping they could be gone soon. (I am overrepresenting this aspect, of course, to illustrate just how biased the present version is) dab (ᛏ) 08:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I dont agree with you entirely. After the war, Winston Churchill lost elections and the new party which came to power (think it was the Labour party) was in favour of an independent India. Main reason: 1) Brits realised the importance of independence 2) It was becoming increasingly expensive for the Brits to control such a large territory, especially after the huge financial losses during the WW2. Attempts to create a new independent Indian constitution began in 1945 itself but they delayed India's independence because they wanted to give Indian leaders more time to prepare themselves for self-governance. Actually, Gandhi's national movements were not at all responsible for India's independence. Quit India movement never achieved its main goals. However, it was successful in eradicating various social-evils (especially untoucability and discrimination against women). Even if India turned into a big slaughterhouse, the Brits didn't really care. It were the British govt.'s policies which were responsible for the widening gap between muslims and Hindus. They used it as a mean to weaken the national movements initially. Thanks--IncMan 15:09, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Several questions

  1. Was Prakrit the only language of the masses around 600 BCE as claimed in the article?
  2. Does this image of Tirumalai Nayak Mahal come under PD? If so, can this be cited as an instance of cultural (architectural in this case) influence of Mughals on the Southern kingdoms? If required, I can borrow my friend's digital camera and get pictures of this and other historical structures of Madurai next month.
  3. User:Santhoshguru has photographs of Gangaikonda Cholapuram, I can ask him to upload them.

-- Sundar \talk \contribs 08:24, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Prakrit was not a single language. Rather, the term is a 'snobbish' expression of the Brahmin caste for any Indo-Aryan dialect that is not Sanskrit. I.e., if you want to use their terminology, there was Sanskrit, spoken by the upper class, various Prakrits, spoken by everybody else in the North, and then of course all non-Indo-Aryan languages spoken to the East and to the South, which the Brahmins probably didn't even bother to recognize as languages. dab (ᛏ) 08:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to confirm this as I was sure that Tamil and perhaps Kannada too existed by that time. I'll reword that sentence. -- Sundar \talk \contribs; 09:34, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't say "Tamil existed" as there are no sources. A Dravidian predecessor of Tamil must have existed, maybe "Proto-Tamil"? dab (ᛏ) 09:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Tamil people#The pre-classical period cites credible sources that date the language to at least 500 BCE. And the section that we're talking about is the history around 600 BCE. Any way, I haven't mentioned Tamil, but have just clarified that Prakrit was spoken in northern India. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 09:49, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
On reading your comment again, I understand that the "Proto-Tamil" you may be referring to is the same as what I call as "Tamil". There was a long debate at Talk:Tamil language on this. I understand that the "versions" of these two languages may be different, but at least they were called by the same name, perhaps for want of anything to discretise the continuum with. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 09:53, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
yes, I agree Tamil existed since at least 500 BC. only if you are asked "what Tamil", you'd have to say "Proto-Tamil", since "Ancient Tamil" is defined as the language from the earliest inscriptions, ca. 300 BC. I have no idea when Proto-Dravidian was spoken, but at some point in the past of course, the predecessor of Tamil was not simply Tamil, but the predecessor of a larger group of languages. Still, that's rather academic. For 500 BC it is quite safe to say that Tamil existed. dab (ᛏ) 10:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I completely agree. By the way, do you have any information on Kannada language? I heard that this too is very old. (It's kind of strange that I'm asking someone from a different continent about a language that's spoken next door!) -- Sundar \talk \contribs 10:32, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
From what ive heard, Kannada and Malayalam seem to be very early offshoots of ancient Tamil, or perhaps even proto-Dravidian itself. Linguistics is a very interesting area, and because India is a hotbed of linguistics, it is integral to Indian history... There are still some drvidian-related speakers in Pakistan. Vastu

I am afraid I am completely innocent of any knowledge of Dravidian. From circumstantial evidence, I do believe it is likely that Proto-Dravidian dates to 2000 BC, or the end of the IVC. But this will probably never be proven. Elamo-Dravidian would support that, but it seems the theory is on shaky ground. So as a very rough guess, I assume Proto-Tamil is likely for some time after 1000 BC. This is pure speculation, but the rough outline seems quite certain. But it seems obvious (both from present distribution and from loan phenomena) that Dravidian was spoken in northwestern India before Indo-Aryan became dominant. The amazing thing is that the IVC provides a likely Urheimat for Dravidian, while the term is very hazy for most other language families. I am intrigued by a possible Elamo-Dravidian relationship, because of the possibility that more about Meluhha could be learned from Elamite records. dab (ᛏ) 14:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

On a related topic, to do with the IVC, despite what scholars may say, I still feel that the IVC was infact the same as the Vedic civilisation; for example, often the main reason scholars say the vedic peoples were different (or at least a different culture) is that the vedas appear to portray a nomadic or pastorial culture, as opposed to permenent urban settlement. When people say that the vedas described the ancient river saraswati and Indus at a time when they would have inhabited the same area as the IVC (and thus are the same), often people say that these names were infact transplanted from a foriegn land... Where then in Perisia or central asia was there another river system of such magnitude? The saraswati has been described as being a monsterously big river, and the only river bed that would fit the description of an 'asian nile' is the supposed one that was uncovered by satellite imagary... Are they instead suggesting that perhaps Aryans came from the Tigris and Euphrates? I find it hard to believe that they immigrated that far and transplanted their mythology onto the new rivers - it would make infinite more sence if they were simply indiginous to the subcontinent, or at the very least, that vedism was. Furthermore, we are expected to believe that an urban culture numbering in the tens of thousands, controlling a collection of settlements greater than the size of modern Pakistan simply vanished, rather than preserving its scientific skills such as brick-firing, etc - wouldnt it be more feasable to conclude from the lack of this skill after then, that it was infact the inhabitants of the IVC that migrated east into the Gangelic plains, where due to an abundance of wood material and stone, it was no longer required? This would mean the vedic culture was simply the remains of IVC, and not some alleged migrants. Migration no doubt happened, as happens everywhere on earth, but I find it hard to believe that the IVC is discontinuous from the later vedic culture, let alone that migrants from a barren central asian homeland brought the vedic culture to India. Vastu
we probably shouldn't go into this, but did you read Vedic Sarasvati River? The Helmand River is called *sarasvati, in Iranian. Also, for the Indo-Aryan descriptions of Sarasvati, we are confined to the RV. From the composition of the YV, it is universally agreed that the Aryans were in India, and the river probably indeed corresponds to the Ghaggar. This would be the Kurus, from ca. 1200 BC. Now, sarasvati means "rich in pools", i.e. we are not dealing with a foaming torrent, but with a broad, swampy, stagnant river, originally. Both the Ghaggar and the Helmand qualify, supporting transplantation of the name from the latter to the former. Later, the Sarasvati became of tremendous importance as "the river who disappeared". See the Indra-Vrtra myth that deals with the topic of the hero who liberates the rivers so that they flow again. The mystical quality of the Sarasvati was probably precisely its seasonal disappearance and re-appearence, so much that it gave rise to purely mythical, invisible or 'subterranean' Sarasvatis. But I'll say again, I don't quite understand the Indian fixation with Sarasvati. Sure, it is called "best of rivers" once in the RV. But it doesn't quite play the part it is often touted to do. There is no hymn dedicated to Sarasvati. It is mentioned some 50 times, that's it. It's ovwerwhelming importance arose post-Rigvedic. dab (ᛏ) 15:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Imperalism in India

I think that the headings Colonial Rule and British Raj should be combined under one single heading: Imperialism in India. Mention something regarding how the Europeans, especially the British, established their colonies in India. Give a brief account of rivalry between the British and French, various methods undertaken by the British to capture Indian princely states (for ex. Dalhousie's Doctrine of Lapse), events which led up to the first was of independence (for ex. discrimination against Indian soldiers and a British law which made sati illegal; also the Mangal Pandey episode-forgot sepoy mutiny?) and finally write something about the great famine in West Bengal in the 1930s which killed millions. I would have contributed to the article by myself but unfortunately my college is re-opening and I have a project to complete :-(. Thanks --IncMan 14:41, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Small correction, the great famine was in the whole of Bengal, not just the Western part. Also, it was during 1942-1943, when hundreds of thousands of people died of hunger, even though there was food in other regions ... the British simply held off the supplies for strategic reasons (WW2). --Ragib 14:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the corrections. Think the main cause for the famine was shere negligence by the British govt. Not aware of any such strategy by the British. Why would they do that purposely? --IncMan 15:25, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
can we do a Bengal famine article? the Raj ignored the drought in Bengal, claiming preoccupation with the war effort against the Japanese. seems to imply that there was a drought, and the Brits "claimed preoccupation". I suppose this is another thing that can be made spin in two ways. Did they actively ship food away from Bengal, or is the accusation just that they didn't do enough to prevent it, because they were fighting the Japanese? Sometimes it seems to me that anything bad that happened in India 1857-1947 is blamed on the Brits, while anything good that happened is pretended to have happened in spite of the Brits. I don't want to whitewash anything here, they were a Colonial power and all, this is just the impression of Britain-bashing I sometimes detect. dab (ᛏ) 15:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
aha, the Bengal famine of 1943 article seems rather balanced on this. It appears the British did f*ck up logistically, while holding on with their fingernails to the war effort, but no evil negligence is implied. dab (ᛏ) 15:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Lets not take this argument any further. We are not here to discuss whether the British acts during its occupation of India were justified or not. Thanks --IncMan 15:33, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct, Prof. Amartya Sen's Nobel prize winning research (in particular, Poverty and Famine (1979))was based on the study of famines, or more specifically, this famine, where he showed that there was not really a shortage of food .. rather food was not distributed from surplus areas to famine-stricken area. The death of hundreds of thousands can't really be justified by busy-with-war argument, and nor it is simple Britain-Bashing. In any case, the famine is worth mentioning, given that it was a big human tragedy often forgotten by many people. --Ragib 16:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
well, I wouldn't have liked to see how the Maharajas would have dealt with the drought, without any railway to even transport the food and all. But of course it should be mentioned. Hm, Guptadeepak, we are here to discuss the History of India, no? I'm just pointing out where I perceive bias, I don't intend to insert inverse bias. dab (ᛏ) 17:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Your claim: anything bad that happened in India 1857-1947 is blamed on the Brits, while anything good that happened is pretended to have happened in spite of the Brits. compelled me to write that remark. Think we should blame China for not supplying food to starving Bengalis. What do you say? IncMan 19:34, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
no,no, on the Colonialists, of course, and ~why not also the drought, and the war, while we're at it. Seriously, I don't know enough about it. If they just didn't care, shame on them. If it was either the Bengali or the war, and their troops, the case lies different. The famine was 'avoidable', in retrospect. In the event, unfortunately, things usually look more complicated. dab (ᛏ) 20:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Imperialism in India didn't begin (or end) with the British, or even the Europeans; a better title for the section might be "European empires in India", Portuguese, Dutch, French, and British. Tom Radulovich 16:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that other powers never grew significantly large enough to become comparable to British Empire. --Ragib 16:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't think so. The Europeans were the only imperialists in India. Never heard of an Indian colony which belonged to a non-European power. --IncMan 17:31, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
It depends somewhat on one's definition of Imperalism, but India had quite a number of home-grown empires, as well as the Central Asian and West Asian empires, including the Achaemenids, Alexander the Great, Seleucids, Kushanas, Hephthalites, Ghaznevids, Ghorids, Mongols, Timurids, and Afghans. Tom Radulovich 20:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
One can't say that the Mughal Empire was a colony of the Mongols. They had nothing to do with the other Mongolian states. Same goes for the Afghan, the Timurid or the Hephthalite territories in India. The Kanishka empire in India was not a colony of the Kushanas. The other empires which you have mentioned controlled only a small north-western part of the Indian sub-continent, most of which now comes under modern day Afghanistan and Pakistan. --IncMan 04:26, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
"Colonial India" is fine; the British Raj can be a subsection of that. The entire article is riddled with empires, so "Imperialism" is hardly a good sectino title. dab (ᛏ) 17:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Better Headings

At present, the article mentions nothing about the events which took place between 1857 (1st war of independence) and 1920 {Gandhi's mass movement). Many major developments including various reform movements (played a very important role in eliminating certain superstitions in the Indian society and also helped the upliftment of women and backward classes) and changes brought by the British (like the Railway system) need to be mentioned.

I suggest the developments which took place between the 1750 and 1947 be divided into the following main categories:

  • Colonialism in India (a brief overview)
  • the East India Company (includes how the British established their empire)
  • the First War of Independence (causes and events)
  • Reform Movements (also includes the reforms initiated by the British)
  • Rise of Nationalism/Gandhian Era (national movements, Indian National Congress, Gandhi, Bhagat Singh etc.)
  • Developments after WW2 (includes the Two nation theory by Jinnah, Round table talks, comitte to create an Indian constitution in 1945, Bose's INA, independence and partiton)
  • Changes brought by the British/Consequences of the British Rule

Thanks --IncMan 18:45, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

granularity! these sections should be on Colonial India, the present section should only give a short summary of that. dab (ᛏ) 20:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

At least include the major points. I'm just trying to help the editors of the article by categorizing the events which took place between 1750 and 1947. Presently, the article mentions hardly anything regarding the developments which took place after the establishment of East India Company. --IncMan 04:03, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

The entire article from company rule onward needs extensive cleaning. - especially independent India - needs detials on the major conflicts, etc, perhaps longest subsection.

Web resources for reference

Independent India section

The section is currently quite small. In any case, this section should have the most important issues in India's history since 1947. To start with, I think that means 1. Mention of the 3 wars with Pakistan and the war with China, 2. Mention of Nuclear status 3. Politics to the extent of brief mention of Congress's domination from 1947 to mid nineties (except for brief period in late seventies), 4. Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi (briefly, preferably in a single sentence), 5. India's technological advances in IT and space tech. Most of the above points should get one or at most 2 sentence each. What do you guys think? --Ragib 21:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Theres a lot more we can add: the Babri Masjid demolition which led to riots in Bombay and the rise of Hindu-nationalists, the Bombay Blasts, Gujarat riots, Gujarat earthquake, Kashmiri insurgency etc. Can also write something on the Green Revolution, Indian govt's foreign policies (ex. relationship w/ soviets and NAM) and Indian Army mission in Sri Lanka. --IncMan 09:40, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

keep it short, there is a sub-article (see Wikipedia:Main article fixation :) dab (ᛏ) 07:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

also, is an image of an aircraft carrier really appropriate for symboliing post-1947 India? It's a sad contrast with the image of Gandhi above, but maybe not too far from reality? Maybe even Image:Agni-II missile (Republic Day Parade 2004).jpeg? Or maybe better some bollywood style cheerful colourful thing after all? dab (ᛏ) 07:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


I have a question, this section talks almost totally about wars with Pakistan and China. Aren't there other incidents that are important too? For example, the development in Science and technology, launching of satellites making India one of the few Space-exploration nations, the IT revolution, outsourcing etc? Also, the incidents in the operation in Sri Lanka against Tamil rebels etc. The section fails to talk about the leaders, that can be done in a single sentence at least. For example, "Since independence, India has been ruled by X party with the exception of these and that years etc etc." The independent india section, at its current status, makes India look like a Militarized, war-hungry nation ... and the image of the aircraft carrier adds to that image. I think a better image of India is possible, without gloating on the wars with Pakistan/China (too much details on them, which are already there in Indo-Pakistani Wars, Kashmir etc). --Ragib 21:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

That would be better yes, and although ive been adding things when I can, I had assumed that at least someone out of the people posting here would have expanded the modern history section to include things like the space, nuclear, programs, etc. - Vastu

nice

this is just to say that I think the article is making good progress. keep up the good work! dab (ᛏ) 07:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


The aircraft carrier looks better as a symbol of modern India's technological power, and indeed a military vessel is not too far from reality.

Date of the Buddha, an anchor point

The date of the Buddha is an anchor point for several dates in the history of India during the first millenium B.C. For instance, see Adi Shankara. It appears there is a section of scholarly opinion on a very ancient date for the Buddha. Should not this be mentioned somewhere in the article on the history of ancient india? The relevant references are:

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/reestablishing_the_date_of_buddha.htm

http://www.geocities.com/narenp/history/info/epilogue.htm --Profvk 20:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

These dates put Buddha at the time of the Indus Valley Civilization. I don't think any serious historians would support such an early date - especially since this dating seems to be entirely based on genealogies. john k 20:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Especially such dubious chronologizings - I've never seen any actual historian behave as though royal genealogies provide an accurate chronology of history, and the particular dates given here are absurd - the first dynasty given would have had to reign for an average of 45 years apiece - I don't think any actual rulers, even in the modern age with much better medicine, have ever averaged such a long reign time. This seems like crackpot stuff - probably related to the whole "The Indus Valley Civilization was the civilization of the Vedas" nonsense. john k 20:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and the second link is even stupider - Chandragupta Gupta was the contemporary of Seleucus now? This kind of thing is just absurd. We oughtn't give any credence to nationalistic nonsense. john k 20:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


I'm quite suspicious of anything coming out of Stephen Knapp's website. He seems to enjoy a fertile imagination and conjures up conspiracy theories. This is the guy who claims Taj Mahal was an ancient temple called "Tejo Mahalaya", and was not built by Shah Jahan in memory of his wife, Mumtaj. I think almost all (I should say, every one but Knapp) are in consensus about Buddha's birth, that being in the first millenniaum BC. Goutam Buddha is a real person, and when he lived and died are all in recorded history. So, I won't put a penny's worth of credence in Knapp's "fertile" imagination, that occasionally spews such crazy crap. Thanks. --Ragib 20:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:History of India/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
Just wanted to add that the Buddha was born in Lumbini, which is in modern day Nepal. I believe the mistake was made in the article stating Mahavira and the Buddha were BORN in Magadha. Actually, the Buddha was ENLIGHTENED in Magadha but not born there.

Correct but if you see overall map you find that Lumbini was a part of the same though not ruled by Magadha might be that why the writer make a mistake should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.160.116.71 (talk) 10:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Buddha was born in Koshala Desha, which is said to be part of current Nepal. And His enlightenment was under a Bodhi Vruksha at Gaya, Magadha Desha, said to be current day Bihar. Koshala is also pronounced as Toshala in some languages of India, due to difference in script.We better change this. కిరణ్మయి (talk) 04:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)and if u need more info bout india ( medeival india ) e mail me sexymel3@yahoo.com

Last edited at 01:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 20:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_India/Archive_1&oldid=1088824070"