Knowledge talk:Notice board for India-related topics/India disambiguation discussion

2164:

the world at the height of the Roman Empire, compared to 6.5 billion now. If you were able to DNA-test all Europeans accurately enough, you would find that most of them were descended from ancient Romans. There would be substantial Roman ancestry in north Africa and the Middle East as well, and, I suspect, in Asia. So to say that Roman history somehow 'belongs' to Italy makes no sense. No one owns history. It is the same story with the IVC. Central/south Asia has experienced very extensive mobility of populations and many different societies: IVC, the Mauryas, the Mughals, the British, etc. Some Pakistanis are of Indus valley descent, of course; I would expect that most would be; but then so would be most people in the continents of Asia, Europe and Africa, bearing in mind that the IVC flourished at a time when the world's population was only about 7 million people. Obviously, geographically speaking, the IVC is part of the history of what is now Pakistan. But surely it is not necessary to exclude it from the history of India. The IVC had a cultural, political and social influence on the area that is now India, and it would be quite difficult to understand the early history of the five rivers region without it. This isn't about ownership or identity. It is about making sense. --

2138:

1947. Though I have sympathy with Unre4L's view, and I do understand that many Pakistanis feel that the description of everyone born in British India as 'Indians' is offensive, the problem is that it is also correct. Legally and historically speaking, they were Indian; but that India was a completely different India from the present India. Before 1947, people born in parts of what is now Pakistan would have been defined, and defined themselves, as Indian (though you might argue that they would be more likely to describe themselves as Bengali, Pathan, Punjabi, etc). Clearly this does have the potential to be confusing: I can see why you might want to use the term British Indian, but that itself would be more confusing, implying to many people Anglo-Indian (either in the sense of mixed race, or in the sense of British people who lived in India). It also tends to be used in the modern day of people of Indian descent who now live in Britain.

4216:

Nepalese people (Nepalese pride themselves for being the only nation of bharatwarsha that was not colonized by British, and as the British used to call their subjects Indians, the term Indian has not been palatable to Nepalese for a long time now). Thats the reason why I had put up Bharatwarsh in the first place. Anyway, whatever term might be used to denote this part of the world, I dont think that studying the history of this region separately makes much sense esp for India, Pakistan and Bangladesh till their independece from British Raj. Its like taking two blood samples from two arms of Siamese twins to know about their health separately. So, rather than creating a consensus amongst ourselves and create a "wikiality"(as the critics call it), lets get down to the most globally accepted facts and terms. We can use multiple redirects to a single page if a lot of creditable historians have used different terms. Thank you.--

1997:, regarding what criteria should be used to discuss this on wikipedia, and what criteria should not be used. We are not at all here to coin new terms like "Ancient South Asia", based on subjective judgements like "Does the subject have a moral right to use the name?", "Does the subject have a legal right to use the name?", "Does the name infringe on someone else's legal or moral rights?", "Is the use of the name politically unacceptable?", etc but our decisions are purely based on objective criteria such as common use, etc. None of us are notable historians and scholars, and such subjective debate can only be reliably done among them. Here, we just follow what mainstream scholarship considers acceptable, regardless of whether or not we personally find it justified or not. This current debate is entirely because the fact that the current territory of Pakistan was the heartland of India (India gets its name from the river 3221:

examples, then you shouldn't have offered any - and we are conducting a debate with straight talk, wherein no one person dictates the mode/method of debate. I'm not submitting a research paper (or taking instructions for one) - as I've said often, we are not out here to devise new interpretations. The only question relevant here is how do we contribute to building a great, reputable encyclopedia and that is the only perspective with which we should conduct the debate. It is a waste of time to argue about logical structures, especially if you are already aware of how mainstream sources discuss this issue. And frankly, my logical structure is lucid - I've elucidated how mainstream sources have used and continue to use the words "India" and "Indian." I've also discussed why terms like "British India," "South Asia" and "Indian subcontinent" are technically incorrect for use as indicators of nationality. The

2142:

4,000 years' time, that will not make me a Martian. I agree that history must be allowed to speak for itself without false claims based on a political agenda, but surely the best way to do this is to use the names that are contemporaneous with the period that one is discussing. To say that the Indus valley civilisation was in 'ancient Pakistan' would be retrospectively to impose a modern political identity for reasons of political agenda: in this case, Pakistan's desire not to lose its identity in India. Of course, it would be equally political and incorrect to say that the Indus valley civilisation was in 'ancient India'. I would have no objection whatever to pointing out that the civilisation was in what is now Pakistan. But to keep this neutral we must not turn it into an issue of modern Indian or Pakistani identities or sensitivities. --

1979:. It is a nation-state, not a geographical region. It is no more possible to talk about Ancient Pakistan than it is to talk about Ancient Luxembourg, Ancient Zimbabwe or Ancient Las Vegas. These entities did not exist in ancient times: we have to call them Ancient Northern Europe, Ancient Central Africa, Ancient North America or whatever. This would similarly imply no commonality of identity with other societies in that region, but would simply give a helpful geographical identification. To describe such places in ancient times by their modern political identities would be absurd. I do not suppose that you would think it logical to write an article about "18th century Israel", for instance, seeing as that state has only existed since 1948. -- 2099:

always claim or that we "came from the middle east."(another false claim of theirs).This denial of Pakistan's seperate culture and history is now causing all sorts of false historical claims to creep into wikipedia.The indus is clearly Pakistani history as ancient Rome is part of Italian history.Regardless of wheather Italy,India or Pakistan used their names at that time is besides the point. I don't remember ever seeing another region in the world beeing named after the largest country in it(ie "Brazil" for south America or "China" for east Asia.) The simple solution to this problem is to give history a chance to speak for itself rather than puncturing it with false claims all based on a political agenda.

4230:, a term coined by the Brits, and plaster the article with references to RoI, while refusing to mention Pakistan. Pakistanis feel their history has been stolen. I suggested a name change to something less misleading, but surprise surprise, the suggestion was knocked down without even presenting an argument. Instead they start commenting on unrelated stuff, like my PakHub website and accuse me of being a Jihadist. This is ridiculous. Not only have they hijacked the article, they refuse any amount of sources presented to correct facts. The article is Anti Pakistan, and they might aswell just add statements like "Pakistanis eat babies". 1907:

single countries. The Republic of India and Pakistan. The Republic of India was not supposed to claim the name 'India'. This was a political agreement broken in 1947 which has lead to a lot of confusion in modern times. India, just like Pakistan was born in 1947. Prior to this, the region which is now India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, was known as British India. When the region was partitioned, Republic of India claimed the title of 'parent state' of British India, as they received the larger land mass for their country. Along with this title they also claimed the History of the region which was British India in ancient times.

3785:"Modern South Asia:" you can see the reference to the "Indian states," as clearly "Indian." As for British-held territory, was there ever a question about using "British India?" Did I not make it expressly clear that "British India" did exist, yet it was never a nationality? How else would you distinguish it if you're discussing the princely states in the same sentence? "British Indian Empire," "British-ruled India." All the quotes refer to a discussion of the apparatus of the state, which was "British India." Funny, I don't see "South Asia," "Indian subcontinent," being used... No case for nationality there. 3303:(which I disagree with too) is being ignorant of quite a few facts, most important being that their is no other nation right now that claims the name India. So the solution has to be something that stays in the domain of historical context without forcing it on present-day context. Any such solution will be fought tooth and nail by me and many others. Final comment: Any universal solution reached here is going to remain unsatisfactory and raise future debates as this very much seems to be a good example where it is better to address each issues case-by-case than generalization. -- 3191:

majority of scholarly resources," or give the Britannica or Encarta examples. I am well aware of them. We'll get into "conventional usage" later. Please also don't jump ahead and anticipate any usage I might or might not employ. For example, I didn't say anything about nationality. I'm simply trying to pin down your argument. Please answer my questions to the point (1 (a), (b), 2 (a) (b) etc.) and please no didactic answers, it will only confuse the issue. As for question 4, you said in you example, "Every resident of the British domains, princely states

2134:

be absurd to expect an English speaker to refer to 'Deutschland' instead of Germany. But I believe it to be a good rule of thumb. Knowledge's own examples, e.g. that it is wrong to use 'France' as a synonym for the ancient state of Gaul, are sensible. This is the basis for my claim above that one cannot refer to 'ancient Pakistan' or, for that matter, 'ancient India', because neither of these states existed in ancient times. One could certainly refer to 'part of what is now known as Pakistan', but it is not 'ancient Pakistan'.

1688:. I'm not well versed in Iqbal's literature, but Tagore was a humanist, and a very much anti-nationalist ... he considered himself as a citizen of the world. To assign tags on him would have stirred his ashes ... so to speak. You can't really claim a person for a country he never saw! For people dying pre-1947, calling them Indian or Bangladeshi or Pakistani , when referring to the modern countries, is not an accurate statement in any way. (I had mistakenly argued in this way in Tagore's page, but I have changed my views). 825:

confining them to present day India (Republic of India). I think, for correctness, we should have disamg for India, like we have for Indian. I think it will do justice with everyone living in pre-partition India (today’s Pakistan, Republic of India, and Bangladesh). Yes, we can have discussion on it; we can also invite members from Pakistan and Bangladesh. But this discussion should take place with open mind not to push agenda. To avoid any confusion I state what I am saying again and I would like everyone to comment.

1919:

over the land which is now Pakistan. Indus Valley settlements are located all over Southern Asia. These include, Iran, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, northwest India, and of course Pakistan. However, the Main IVC cities, aswell as the majority are in Pakistan. The main ones being, Harappa and Mohenjodaro. The Indus Valley history should be called Ancient Pakistani. Any history which took place in what is now Pakistani should be known as Ancient Pakistani history. This includes the Kushun empire aswell.

2389:

the region. Surely the history belongs to the people of Pakistan. And referring to them as Indian, is definitely incorrect as the only time they probably would have referred to themselves as Indian was during the British Raj. And even then, Indian refers to the country next door. This is not a political context, it is simply a way of referring to the history of the Pakistani people. Call it Ancient Pakistani peoples history, the fact being, Ancient Indian is incorrect.

3252:

them and not get confused by a new set of examples. I am not trying to talk down to you. Please understand that. I am trying to have an honest discussion about terms like "British India," "Undivided India," or "Pre-partition India" or for that matter even expressions like "19th century India" or "early 20th century India." I am trying to explore their use and establish contexts for that use. I have said nothing about implications for citizenship or nationality.

2252:. Indica (or indicum) means "of India", or "Indian", in Latin and is applied to things connected with India. Here are some more maps from Iron age. Interestingly, the part which is now Pakistan was more "India" that the present Republic of India itself, since the India many Greco-Persian sources describe as the one they came in direct contact with, which was "the territories in the vicinity of the Indus river east of Arachosia and west of the deserts of 2285: 2794:

British Empire. There were no "Mughal Indians," "Gupta Afghans," "Hellenic Iraqis," "Mongol Chinese," etc., etc. The people of British India were known as "Indians," and that's the bottomline because historical sources and the sources of that time said so. Why should Wikpedia make a compromise, new definition when no other reputable source or encyclopedia feels the need to? Knowledge is not a place where you re-interpret history.

517:

percent of which became India in 1947. His work, political ideas and effect on literature and poetry has a big place in the history and heritage of the Republic of India - Iqbal's work is widely respected in India, and India has close to 140 million Muslims - the people he was addressing his work and opinions. When Iqbal talked, he always spoke of "Indian Muslims," albeit with the connotation that they were a separate nation.

2044:

anachronistically, e.g. using France as a synonym for Roman Gaul, or Edo to refer to modern Tokyo." It is on this basis that I am opposed to the name "ancient Pakistan". The term "ancient South Asia" is not being coined anew, and nor is it subjective. It's widely used by mainstream scholars, notably in the Cambridge History of India (a name which, itself, is controversial in this context!) and by Oxford University Press.

1911:

is no such thing as Ancient Pakistan' is flawed. The same logic can be applied to India. There was no such thing as a country, India prior to 1947, and prior to the 1800s; the South Asian subcontinent was never united in anyway. So the current definition of Ancient India is flawed. Ancient Indian history is the history of Republic of India in Ancient times. This doesn't include any region outside of their own borders.

3852:" India throughout history meant different things in territorial terms, as well as socio-cultural, economic and national terms. No one can deny that the Republic of India was not in existence prior to 1947 (and technically, prior to 1950). But that does not mean that the long-standing identification of the land as "India" and its people as "Indians" is flawed - after all, why is the subcontinent called "Indian?" " 1618:(which I removed). The issue is real because there are technical differences between the political entities that compose(d) India, that an encyclopedia cannot leave to general perception. I mean, when real people have questions/problems regarding this, they would look to sources like ours to decide what's right from wrong. This is a pragmatic method to resolve problems, better to be done now than later. 2354:"India extends over about ten thousand stades; but farther north its length is about twenty thousand stades. But Ctesias of Cnidus affirms that the land of India is equal in size to the rest of Asia, which is absurd; and Onesicritus is absurd, who says that India is a third of the entire world; Nearchus, for his part, states that the journey through the actual plain of India is a four months' journey. 4088:

on purpose by using the term India for the subcontinent. All I am trying to say is that, India refers to Republic of India. People here use the term to refer to south asia aswell. Other Encyclopaedias clearly show they are referring to the Indian Subcontinent. But India is too widely used a term to change current trend. If someone searches Wiki for India, they are obviously looking for the country.

2113:

are both valid when referring to something or someone who existed prior to both counties being born. While the Names are not that old, the identity belongs to the People of Pakistan and India. The people have always lived there, granted there were a few million people migrating from and to the countries, but considering the huge populations of both countries, they are way in the minority.

1669:. How would you classify that person? If you say, "Indian" as referring to the modern country, that is not correct. The correct phrase here would be "Indian" as referring to the historic region. If the logic is that "Republic of India" inherited everything associated with the name "India", that would be a fallacy, because Pakistan or Bangladesh didn't came out of nowhere in a second 2313: 2789:

and Iqbal are on record talking in terms of "Indians" and "Indian Muslims." I don't see any "British Indian Muslims," "Indian subcontinental Muslims," or any other term being used - just "Indian." Both Iqbal and Jinnah are credited as founding-fathers of Pakistan, so their "Pakistani-ness" is hardly affected even though they talked in terms of "Indian Muslims."

2271: 3908:

princely Indian states. British India is a valid official term, and I don't see any revisionism here. It's only that mostly it doesn't add much value to use such a specific term, while sometimes it does. "British India" can and should be used when it is necessary to distinguish it from the princely states, so that the generic term will not do. For example,

3407:—those provinces (like the Punjab) that had been conquered and annexed—was directly admininstered by British officials, while the several hundred princely states (of which Hyderabad was the largest) concluded agreements whereby they surrendered to the Crown control over external affairs in return for a good deal of internal autonomy." 481:. We are doing the same mistake in every other article, by referring to anything, anyplace simply by "India" and linking it to present day India. Don’t you think it is unjust, keeping in mind present day boundaries? As you correctly mentioned definitions of word changes, and I think definition of India should accommodate this fact. 1735:

should remain like this for them. They were free to go from Dhaka to Lahore and that was there status (read without visa), a status of Citizen of India, not reduced one which we try to give them or I must say enforce on them. We should identify them with country they call it. Some called it India, some called it Hindustan.

938:

any person who lived before 1947, such as Tagore, Iqbal, etc. were "Indian", and from "india", but here the word points to the historic region, or may be the British colony, which is a superset of the current day country. We need a clear way to point that out. The discussion above is a step in the right direction. Thanks. --

3101:

imperialists. Sure, British India did exist, but to say that it may be used to define the nationality of the inhabitants is nonsense, because they have a nationality, culture, social structure completely different. Similarly, "Mughal India" is a term used to describe the state but not a nationality, which remains "Indian."

2997:"There is no "British Indian," because there was never any "British Nigerian," "British Sri Lankan," or any other such term used to describe the nationals of these countries, even though they were part of the British Empire. There were no "Mughal Indians," "Gupta Afghans," "Hellenic Iraqis," "Mongol Chinese," etc., etc." 665:

Alternatively, I don't think we can redirect to British India - my only issue with that is the article does not describe the country of British India, but the "British Raj" political system. And since conventional view is that of British India being a colony, I don't believe that it can be used to describe a nationality.

2299: 3015:"Jinnah and Iqbal both called themselves Indians and Indian Muslims, therefore we can't call them anything else." and "Even the British loyalist Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and others like him like Tej Bahadur Sapru did not ever refer to themselves as "British Indian," but rather as "subjects" of the British Empire." 3854:"The inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent have always been known as "Indians" - or else why should the entire subcontinent be called "Indian??" Every resident of the British domains, princely states were called "Indians." And Indian subcontinent includes nations such as Sri Lanka, Nepal, Burma, Maldives". 4087:

Previous definitions became obsolete in 1947. And even though the British coined the term "India", nobody in south asia used it to refer to themselves until 1850s. Some people have obviously formed an imaginary link between the Subcontinent India and Republic of India. There is no point in misleading

3973:

If there is a problem with the use of "India" to denote the whole of South Asia, we can use the term "Bharatwarsha". Well, in Nepal, people have problem with defining themselves as Indians but the term Bharatwarsha is acceptable. It pertains to the native name of the land (as opposed to India or Hind

3302:

I would like to say that you MUST keep in mind that the confusion is in historical context. A solution for this should NOT meddle with present-day meaning of the word. As in, I better not wake up one day and type India in search bar only to reach a disambig page. Anyone who suggests China solution

3079:

The answer to all your questions - the conventional usage in a vast majority of scholarly resources. That must be applied - encyclopedias are not platforms for developing new interpretations or arguing different/new angles of facts. To that effect, it is not upto us to decide what is "irrevocable" or

2944:

A citizen of "British India," or a subject of the "British Empire?" Additionally, where are the references to a "citizen of British Sri Lanka," a citizen of "British Nigeria?" Being a citizen of something is a nationality, and thus "British India" cannot be acceptable. And if the people were known as

2788:

This is not an acceptable interpretation. The bottomline is that we are not here to "re-interpret" history and facts - we cannot invent or modify terms to suit the sympathies of editors and the audience. It is funny to me that while Fowler argues about "political leader of British India," both Jinnah

2385:

As stated above, the people of British India were more likely to call themselves, Sindhi, Punjabi, Bengali or Gujarati etc. However I stated above that British India is an awkward case and I understand the argument of British Indian being a confusing term. It would be more appropriate to create a new

2380:

And if you notice the maps posted above. India is shown as a subcontinent. No countries are shown on the map, apart from the bigger empires that existed. Africa is shown as Libya, and South Asia is shown as India. India however is a British term, and I doubt the original map would have contained that

2163:

This is getting off the point, but Italians are not necessarily of Roman descent, nor were Romans necessarily the forefathers of modern Italians. European societies have experienced extensive social and geographical mobility throughout their histories; there were also only about 250 million people in

1957:

Ancient South Asia strikes me as an inoffensive term to help locate the Indus valley civilisation, because it is geographical. The Indus Valley is, and has always been, in South Asia. The term does not imply a commonality of culture with other parts of Ancient South Asia. It does imply a geographical

1914:

Therefore, grouping the history of the entire South Asian subcontinent, which has never been united prior to the 1800s and passing it on to a country which came into existence in 1947, doesn't make sense. Indian Historians have ignored these arguments and pretended that India has existed for 1000s of

1021:

and so on. And pre-1947, there was no pakistan, Bangladesh, Republic of India ... rather a greater region to which all three countries belonged. So, adding ownership of people dying before 1947 to any particular country is something we should not do. Hence, Iqbal, Tagore etc. are all Indians when we

832:

India after 1947 consists of three countries, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. When we use word India, in articles, refereeing to whole India, links are such that they bring us to present day India (Republic of India), reducing size of pre-1947 India considerably. Is it possible that when we refer to

824:

I again stress on the same point that everyone living in Pakistan, India (present day), Bangledesh own (whole) India as much as today’s India owns it. Ghandi, Jinnah, Iqbal, Nehru all were Indian, but that India was undivided. We are taking away from them, huge part of land, culture, heritage by just

3835:

When one talks of the state, it is not incorrect to use "British India." But it is incorrect to describe the people, the nationality as of "British India." The influence of the British-ruled state in India did not redefine the nationality, culture and consciousness of its people, to make it anything

3019:

a)Are you implying that what people call themselves (or how they identify themselves) at one time in history irrevocably constrains all later characterizations of them? (I'm assuming you don't mean this since the early Quakers didn't call themselves Quakers, but we do. Similarly, we apply the term

2358:

would have the breadth of India that from east to west which others call its length; and he says that it is of sixteen thousand stades, at its shortest stretch. From north to south, then, becomes for him its length, and it extends twenty-two thousand three hundred stades, to its narrowest point. The

2141:

Incidentally, I don't accept that the history of ancient Rome is part of Italian history. The fact that ancient Rome was situated in what is now Italy does not make Julius Caesar an Italian, and he himself would have found such a label bizarre. If the world is ruled by aliens from the planet Mars in

2112:

be called India, apart from Indian subcontinent. How confusing do you want to make things? "India lies inside India." It makes more sense when you put it like this. "India lies inside South Asia" While the term Pakistan is 60 years old, India is a British term not much older. So Indian and Pakistani

1704:

and heard the word "Sindhu" from the natives.If they hadn't been there,would there ever be a place known as "India",or better yet,would we even be having this discussion on this page,now in the year 2006-2007? So to disprove your arguement that there was an "India" prior to 1947,you can ask yourself

1100:

I am very pleased to read all above comments, because they are in right direction. One fact on which, we all agree is that India before partition (1947) and after (1947) partition cannot be same. So, we cannot link article to present day India (Republic of India) when discussing pre-partition India,

755:

Reason for talking with you in such detail is, people living in Pakistan and Bandledesh are as Indian as any one living in Republic of India. This is due to simple fact, that they are Indian. If some westerner sees Indian, he cant distinguish between Pakistani, Indian or Bangladeshi. He can say he

608:

Knowledge cannot start referring to "partition of British India" or "British rule in Indian subcontinent" or "South Asia independence movement" because it is against conventional use, original research and neologism. We are here to write facts, not evolve different interpretations. Having said that,

411:

Correct on count of "Indian." Not so for "India" - one must use what is accurate as per chronology. There is a big difference between the "Indian subcontinent" of the Gupta dynasty, and the "Indian subcontinent" of the Mughals. Prolly the only thing one can use "Indian subcontinent" for is the Indus

87:

Hi - I appreciate your taking the time to talk about this issue, but please try to understand that there is no nationality or citizenship known as "South Asian" or "British Indian." Iqbal himself talks of "Indian Muslims," and "India." And neither can "Indian subcontinent" be used because its just a

4195:

If you notice, the Indian subcontinents history is CLEARLY being linked to Republic of India. And there is nobody to blame since its obvious what India refers to. The history belongs to the Pakistani people, hence its Pakistani history. Tell me, how many Pakistanis are there in India, since you can

4053:

I would agree to you. But my current stay in Europe has shown me that India is not just understood as a country but also as a race. Or should I say, ethnicity. That is the root of all confusions. So, when mentioning 'Indian', people not only refer to citizens of India, but to an ethnic group. Now I

3233:

are disambiguation pages. I've also clarified that one of the inner roots of this debate is the influence of the "Two-nation theory" on the individual South Asian editors and audience - we must remain firmly on the rails of the main argument (which is, how do we write encyclopedia articles on these

3190:

Dear Rama's Arrow, You are not answering my questions. I specifically told you not to focus on my examples, but to answer my questions about the logical structure of your argument. I also said, "we'll worry about the facts later." Accordingly, there's no need to add "conventional usage in a vast

2793:

What standard you may seek to evolve will automatically have ramifications everywhere else. There is no "British Indian," because there was never any "British Nigerian," "British Sri Lankan," or any other such term used to describe the nationals of these countries, even though they were part of the

2444:

It was a suggestion in general. I didnt suggest doing in on Knowledge. Like I said before, British Raj was an awkward case, however, Pakistani history prior to British Raj is not awkward, but very simple. The term is valid, and South Asia was not united prior to British Raj. I have provided sources

2388:

As for history within Pakistan's borders prior to British Raj, it is only correct to refer to the history as Ancient Pakistani. Ancient India refers to RoI, which has never been a part of Pakistan. I am aware of the fact, Pakistan was created in 1947, but the people of Pakistan have always lived in

2152:

I think the "mars" example is weak.Italians are of Roman descent as Pakistanis are of Indus descent as Iraqis are a comination of Babylonain and Arab descent.Sticking the refference to the indus into India history pages is like sticking all of Babylonian history into Iranian pages instead of Iraqi

2133:

The basic principle here, which is certainly the one applied by professional historians and scholars and fits with Knowledge policy, is that one should, wherever possible, refer to societies, nations or people as they define themselves. Obviously this isn't a completely hard and fast rule: it would

1910:

This region was only ever united when Britain invaded. Prior to that, the region was scattered with dynasties. Logically, it doesn't make sense that India can claim the history of people and land which never belonged to them. The old argument of 'Pakistan not existing prior to 1947, therefore there

1906:

Before India became an English colony sometime in 1800's or perhaps earlier, there was no such thing as India that we see today. The subcontinent was very much divided into many parts ruled by various dynasties. After independence in 1947, many of the states in the subcontinent were united into two

1902:

For decades, Indian historians have written the history books according to their own liking. And because of Pakistanis being ashamed of their non-Islamic past, their jobs had been made so much easier. To understand what has happened in the region, you have to be open minded. Everything written here

1039:

China is a special case because of the fact that both Taiwan (Republic of China) and China (People's Republic of China) are called China NOW. There is no other place that is currently called India apart from the Republic of India. In my opinion, China should be a page about the PRC because that's

953:

in the same vein as French West Africa, Dutch East Indies,.. This is because though Pakistan and Afghanistan were included in the Anglo administration during this period, their cultural milieu was more closer to Safavid Persia than Hindustan. Also, remember Russia still had significant interests in

937:

This is a good idea ... I haven't gone through all the discussion above, but having china-esque disambig pages are necessary. I find it increasingly confusing when India as the modern country is often linked to articles or wikilinks actually indended to mean India the geographic region. Definitely,

726:

Thanks for your time and openness in discussing this issue. I think best solution is to have a page describing India, which clearly marks difference between India before 1947 (historic) and partition which led to creation of 3 countries in India. I think we should have page like we have for Indian,

675:

controversial becoz it sounds like India is a nation, but we cannot ignore the historical connections between the hundreds of kingdoms, regions, empires that have inhabited this land, and that in fields of economy, geography, culture there has always been a continuity that politics has not provided.

598:

I originally used to get very angry if an editor put in "partition of British India," or "Unified South Asia." This was because most historical works I've read talk of "India" when it comes to the Mughal era, the Indus Valley Civilization or European colonies. Iqbal, Jinnah, Gandhi, Nehru, Patel et

516:

Ok, you say Iqbal lived most of his life between Lahore and Sialkot, both now in Pakistan. He should be correctly described as an Indian who lived in British India. But in objection to your latter description - Iqbal lived/worked/spoke and thought about the issues/situation in British India - 75/80

3945:

However, since the Subcontinent has been named India, it would make sense to refer to the people of the Subcontinent Indians. Well, only if there wasnt a country in the subcontinent also called India. There would be no way to differentiate between Indians of RoI and Indians of Indian subcontinent.

3282:

You sir, will not accuse me of incivility without sounding hypocritical - don't give any assignment where "I specifically told you" to do... "no didactic answers" - this is a purely condescending attitude. You asked some questions in your statement, and I gave you a reponse statement. If you don't

3251:

There is no reason to be uncivil and impute instincts (and then confuse pedantry with a "professorial instinct" whatever that is). I gave you the examples to make sure that you understood my questions (not to be patronizing) and I wanted you to stick to you previous answers in order to understand

3005:

b) Are you also implying that since the latter terms are not used, we cannot use "Mughal India", or "British India," or "undivided India" (for example, we couldn't say in the lead sentence of an article: "X, a Turk by birth, was the leading calligrapher of Mughal India ...", or that " Muhammad Ali

2371:

of Egypt and the Scythian Ister, even were these put together; my own idea is that even the Acesines is greater than the Ister and the Nile, where the Acesines having taken in the Hydaspes, Hydraotes, and Hyphasis, runs into the Indus, so that its breadth there becomes thirty stades. Possibly also

2137:

However, there is a different problem that Unre4L and Nadirali express above, which is that there was a state (more accurately, a colony) called India within the British Empire from 1858-1947, which was geographically and politically different from the nation-state of India which has existed since

2043:

I agree with you, though perhaps I didn't express myself clearly enough. I'm arguing entirely pro-wiki norms, and against subjectivism. As the Knowledge naming conflict page you link to says, "Always ensure that names are used in an historically accurate context and check that the term is not used

1918:

Let's talk about Indus Valley for example. The region in question is now located in Pakistan. The people of the region have always been living there. However the history of the region is claimed by India, who is in absolutely no way related to the Pakistani people, neither have they ever had claim

1738:

Also good name for India before 1947 can be Undivided India. I am happy we have made some progress but I think a lot needs to be done, only after it we can give people of undivided India (pre 1947) their true Identity. Citizen of Great India, rich in culture. One last request I would like to make

1734:

part of undivided India. But now, we have confined almost everyone to either India or any other small part. This is great mistake and injustice we are doing. Hindus or Muslim or Christian used to call Undivided India there home country by simply calling it India (again undivided India). I think it

321:

I'm going offline now, so I'd like to just say that I appreciate that your civility and that you took time to discuss this rather sensitive issue with me. There is a need for a general understanding amongst "South Asian" editors about such a question/issue, based on technical facts and convention,

3907:

Well, Rama's Arrow is right that Indians were called "Indians" regardless of where they lived on the subcontinent, and it's a perfectly valid generic term to address Indians. Sometimes, however, depending on the context, it adds value to specify whether a person was from British India or from the

3088:

was not coined or adopted at an encyclopedia. The term "African American" corresponds not with a "nationality," which is always and only American. It is used to identify members of a specific, sub-national ethnic community. Under this logic, Jinnah and Iqbal can be called "Indian Muslims" as they

2799:

It may appear that the Pakistani POV is being rejected summarily - this is absolutely not the case, because one does not dabble with POVs, just facts. We are writing an encyclopedia, not a new interpretation of history and politics. It doesn't matter how the audience "wants" to interpret, we must

2377:

That was my point. The term India has changed and cannot be used in this context. India was originally the name for the region where the river Indus ran through. However, because of all the name changing in the recent century, we will have to use the names according to which country is using them

2098:

I think it's all based on Indians denial to accept Pakistan.Ever since independance,they have convinced themselves that Pakistan was somehow "carved" out of "their territory" or that India is the "mother state" of the whole subcontinent.Indians have yet to decide wheather we are "Indians" as they

245:

page, both your "Indian subcontinent" and "British India" as different from Republic of India are included in the top 3 definitions. I think this is a pragmatic, clean solution as Knowledge must follow conventions and not promote new interpretations. Indian subcontinent includes Sri Lanka, Nepal,

3158:

India’s long history stretches back to the Indus Valley civilization of about 2500-1700 bc. For hundreds of years, India was home to massive empires and regional kingdoms. British rule in India began in the ad 1700s. Foreign domination engendered Indian nationalism, which eventually led to India

2174:

Tina, I more or less agree with you regarding IVC. There was hardly a thing as India during the Bronze Age. Bronze Age civilizations would ideally be referred to by their geographical locations (..and ideally we would not have a thing like " pyramids of Ancient Egypt"). These are valid concerns,

2122:

British India is an awkward case. Neither India nor Pakistan can claim to be the successor state of British India alone. Only together, united they made up British India, so the Indian claim that anyone born during the British Raj was Indian is false. There are 2 options here. Either they can be

980:

That, my friend, is a bit too much! There was obviously a region considered to be "India" in English and other European languages. Columbus DID sail westward trying to find that. British South Asia isn't correct either ... they had the whole Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, Bengal, Nepal, Burma Sri

431:

I must also repeat two things: (1) neither South Asia nor Indian subcontinent correlate with with the people known as "Indians," except unless you're going BCE. (2) Iqbal, Jinnah and most others referred to British India as "India," and themselves and others as "Indians." Most encyclopedias and

3948:

However it would still be wrong to refer to the subcontinent as Hindh or Sindh, since both terms have been claimed by India, and Sindh of Pakistan. The only way of making clear who the history belongs to without using misleading terms is to refer to the history by what the region is called now.

3220:

Don't take this the wrong way but I detect your professorial instincts when you say things like "I specifically told you not to focus on my examples, but to answer my questions about the logical structure of your argument," and "please no didactic answers." If you didn't want me to discuss your

1864:

already suffices that criteria. The word India has diferent connotations to it and different meaning attached at different historical periods. Indian peoples is also not an equivalent for Indian subcontinent as that term itself is very vague like Arabian peninsula, Eurasia, Indian Ocean etc.

4215:

First of all, Bharatwarsha is not original research. The term is in use to denote South Asia and is not a spooky invention of my own. Since Republic of India calls itself Bharat, I had put up Bharatwarsha which according to its use in Nepal, denotes South Asia. "Indian people" can not contain

2335:"Towards the south the ocean bounds the land of India, and eastward the sea itself is the boundary. The southern part near Pattala and the mouths of the Indus were surveyed by Alexander and Macedonians, and many Greeks; as for the eastern part, Alexander did not traverse this beyond the river 2525:

Sorry I only just discovered this page, and I have very little time right now, but let me make a few points. I agree with Tina Sparkle, that "British Indian" is not a standard term (and problematic to boot), but I don't see a problem with using "British India." It certainly was used during

1925:

It is incorrect to even label IVC as Ancient South Asian history. South Asia is home to 1.6 billion people, which is way too broad to describe the people of Indus valley, which is now Pakistan. Sure this is no harm in mentioning the settlements outside of Pakistan (India, Iran, Turkmenistan,

674:

I think the only solution is to create a page where "India" is thoroughly and precisely explained as not "Republic of India" but a geographic, economic, cultural entity that has existed in the Indian subcontinent under different political entities at different times. I realize this is highly

421:

There is no need to mention that Iqbal was an "Indian Muslim" when the very next sentence talks of him as a philosopher of Islam. Iqbal also shares the most common Muslim name, so its redundant. I only wrote in "Indian Muslim" in Jinnah becoz he was explicitly a Muslim political leader, who

1868:

There is already a page dealing with Indo-Aryans which because of linguisitic definitions can pan various different peoples by virtue of linguistic (not political, religious, racial, historical, geographical,cultural) affiliations. Hence there is no need for any page for Indian peoples.

3100:

Also, "British India" is correctly used to describe the state in India at the time, not its people - it was NEVER a nationality - all Indians were "subjects" of the British Empire. Plus, this usage of "British India" will open a POV dispute between the Indian freedom fighters with British

2493:

Pakistan was created as a political entity and not as a new civilization with an entirely new culture. It is an entity which literally sprung overnight. In my opinion, it is only right to refer to pre 1947 history as "Ancient Indian" or "British Indian" history. The India page should be a

1613:

Unfortunately this issue is causing edit wars and some bad blood. I had been hoping for an opportunity to have such a discussion, and thanks to Spasage, it materialized. For example, I was absolutely outraged when I read a mention to a "unified South Asia" as the goal of the Congress in

664:

I think that a reference to "India" in the time of Iqbal should redirect to India (disambiguation), where just like "Indian" it is explained that the term "India" has been used to describe different political entities, and that India of European colonists is different from the Republic.

3195:

called "Indians," (which I changed in my question 4 to: "Every resident of princely state or British domain in the British Indian empire was called Indian,"), but since your formulation was in the past and not, for example, "Every resident of the British domains or princely states

1943:

I'm sorry, but "Ancient Pakistan" is a nonsensical term. I agree with you that there is a problem using the term "India" as if it were a nation before the British conquest, but the correct terms for various iterations of political control in South Asia would be, for instance, the

784:

Disambiguation pages are not a good idea as they increase the work for both the editors as well as the readers. I have gone through the above discussion and I only see a "solution in search of a problem." It is highly uncalled for. Also, the right place to discuss this would be

150:. Can we use some other word? What do you think about it? I feel that using word Indian or India, kind of exclude Pakistani and Bangladeshi from undivided India. They were Indian, but they were part of Undivided India, not present day india. I would like to you comment on it. -- 3506:

Page 296: "... to the radical swadeshi leaders and also a lobby for the greater participation of Muslims in the public life of British India. British official support was obvious: a meeting between the Aligarh Muslim leaders and the viceroy, Lord Minto, was arranged late

3029:"The inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent have always been called Indians, why else would the subcontinent be called Indian? Every resident of the British domains, princely states were called "Indians." And Indian subcontinent includes nations such as Sri Lanka, Nepal, 3476:

Page 253: "... lessons drawn from the mutiny of Company sepoys in 1857 enforced the concentration of Europeans in the high ranks of British-Indian regiments. Fears of mutiny lingered and justified a one-third ratio of European troops strategically garrisoned throughout

990:

The crux of my argument or my point is that, when talking about persons of the period pre-1947, the word "Indian" is fine when considering the greater region generally known as India, but not the modern post 1947 country called Republic of India. Perhaps something like

1565:. Pakistan and Bangladesh were cut off from India, but the name India remained (unlike USSR/Russia). You also can't compare India with China because China consists of one nation, two governments. Take a look at other locations from which territories were carved up eg. 3001:

a) Are you implying that (a) if we use "British India" it will necessarily imply that we use "British Indian," (b) which, in turn, will necessarily imply the legitimacy of "British Ceylonese," "Mughal Indians," and "Hellenic Mesopotamians?" If so, why? If not, please

1660:

In addition to the small snippets of replies I posted above, let me discuss the main issue here. Sure, there was a single geographic region known as India. Many famous people, politicians, scientists, poets were born there. Now, suppose someone from the region of

393:

Indian subcontinent also consists of Nepal, Bhutan and the then Sikkim which were not under British Raj or British rule. So, use of India for Indian subcontinent before 1947 is not exactly correct. A better term might be British India or Colonized India. Thank

3006:

Jinnah was a major political leader of undivided India and of the Pakistan movement")? If you are not saying this, please clarify. (Please don't focus on the examples, just the logical structure. b) is equivalent to a), of course, but I just want to clarify.)

3104:

Terms such as "Indian subcontinent" and "South Asia" are mainly used to describe technical subjects (such as geography, wildlife, etc.), not "nationality." If you start using these terms to describe individuals, nationalities, you will bring the peoples of

2703:

I think there are way to accommodate both Indian and Pakistani views without getting bogged down in India (disambiguation) debates. I think Pakistanis would bristle less at the first version above, and I can't imagine that Indians would object too much.

1808:- THERE SHOULD BE! After all, the people of India are very heterogenous and there is a lot of inter-mixing going on so it is necessary to have an article at that level. Its important to address how India's people are a common identity beyond ethnic lines. 2231:

I didn't realise that the name 'India' went back to the Iron Age! I was aware that it went back to at least the 15th century in European usage. Of course it is acceptable and indeed helpful to use a name if the name dates from the period in question. --

639:. These countries were not associated with the "India" Iqbal lived in - nor are people who live in these countries ever referred to as Indians. The terms themselves are entirely geographical in meaning, thus one cannot say that the someone who lives in 3946:

Referring to South Asian history as Indian is wrong, since the subcontinent has never been a country and was grouped together by others because of the religion. And they didnt call the subcontinent India, they would call it the land of Hindus, or Hind.

2858:

comes from factual accuracy. I don't care if some readers self-identify with a perception of their country being larger or smaller than it presently is - if we do so, we enter into a debate to prove or disprove the Two-nation theory, which is not our

2897:

did not ever refer to themselves as "British Indian," but rather as "subjects" of the British Empire. Again, being a "subject" is a political status - not a nationality. The Irish never became "British Irish" despite the 400 years of British rule in

2872:

was not in existence prior to 1947 (and technically, prior to 1950). But that does not mean that the long-standing identification of the land as "India" and its people as "Indians" is flawed - after all, why is the subcontinent called "Indian?"

3357:

Page 153:"Jinnah, leader of the recently revived Muslim Leagure, who had kept open lines of communications with Congress, found the federal provisions of the 1935 act `most reactionary, retrograde, injurious and fatal to the vital interest of

1637:

promote new interpretations or revisionist history, its important that we have a common understanding of this issue. As Jimbo Wales said on the userbox debate, we are Wikipedians here, advocates elsewhere. So we must find a common framework.

3283:

want to read it, then please don't waste our precious time. Our personal thoughts and analysis bear no weight on Knowledge - if you want to help build an encyclopedia, then you're welcome. If you want to argue, you won't find me receptive.

1859:

That wouldn't work because there is more than enough confusion, ambiguity and controversy as to who or what comprises Indian. There is no such thing as Indian people unless one is talking about people of the modern Republic of India and

3261:

If you don't want to answer the questions, that is fine. In the meantime, I am starting a new section below for usage of these various terms. All I ask is of everyone is that they don't add references that are not about those terms.

705:

and disconnect Pakistan's Indian connections. Conversely, some Pakistani editors are irked that by redirecting to the Republic of India, the conventional interpretation imposes the Two-nation theory as invalid for historical purposes.

3844: 4068:

Regarding templates, are you referring to templates on Talk Pages? They do not signify anything, except that people interested in India want to contribute in that article. You can add any number of Templates and that should not be a

3291: 3242: 3181: 2953: 2910: 326: 310: 275: 127: 112: 3168: 2881: 305:

page itself differentiates between "British India" and "India after 1947" - it implies that the word "Indian" has been used to describe different things. As it is in the top 3 definitions, it would serve as a good clarifier.

1646: 1626: 776: 548: 525: 436: 191: 96: 2537:"3. We have accordingly decided that immediate arrangements should be made whereby Indians may decide the future constitution of India, and an interim Government may be set up at once to carry on the administration of 3379:

Page 204: "The partnership between Congress and non-elected institutions, civil bureaucracy and the police in particular, facilitated the establishment of a formal democracy within the barely modified structures of

1751:.On the contrary "India" only came into being on Augest 15th 1947,thanks to the British.The same can be said for Pakistan. All refferences to South Asia pre-1947 should simply be "South Asian" and not "indian". 995:

may be considered? Calling "British India" is not ok, because officially, the British didn't controll all of India, the princely states were separate though dependent, and but yet, they were part of India, the

2991:" is problematic" (see above) and I certainly didn't mention "British Ceylonese," "British Burmese," etc., I'd like to clarify the logical structure of your argument first, and we can worry about facts later. 557:

Thanks for your reply, I am comfortable with term Indian, because it explains what is difference between present day Indian living in Republic of India and person of historically India, which is described in

4135:

which is simple wrong. Why don't we create an article about that? Then we can use it to clearly show who we are referring to in Indian Subcontinent. That will bring it in coherence with other encyclopedias.

2085:

All countries on the planet are political entities. Their jurisdiction is defined within a geographical territory, in some cases quite badly. Nations define territory; territory does not define nations. --

3788:

Shall I post the thousands of books that deal with the "partition of India?" Perhaps that will send a clearer message about the definition of "consensus." At least it might help to visit the latter pages:

2497:

Also, while we are at this topic, we also need to think about those regions which were not a part of British India but are now a part of one of the three countries in question. How do we refer to pre 1947

4232:

I hope something can be done about this. I cant even get comments from people who havent been involved in edit warring that article in the first place. Its obvious they will knock down every suggestion I

3313:

Hi Blacksun, I think what I have written in the first paragraph above is an explication of what you are saying, but I could be mistaken. (I don't know anything about the China solution though). Regards

2888:

It is also interesting to examine that the very legitimacy of a "British India" was questioned not only by Indian freedom fighters, but by Jinnah and many Muslim League leaders. Even the British loyalist

3484:

Page 255: "... Thus Richard Wellesley, Governor-General from 1798 to 1805, saw India as a vital centre for opposition to Napoleon's plans to ... By the middle of the nineteenth century, the frontiers of

3376:. Ignoring Jinnah's vocal protests against Congress seizing the appellation `India', Mountbatten admitted that he was doing no more than setting up a tent for the government of the newly created state." 1992:

Let's stick to the acceptable wiki norms, while discussing this issue. Although, there's no academically recognized controversy regarding "Ancient India" vs. "Ancient Pakistan", I'll still point you to

1898:

We have all seen the term Ancient India before. On first thought you would think it applies to the Ancient History of India. Well, you are wrong. This term applies to the Ancient History of South Asia.

727:

where India is define. Present day India is moved to Republic of India, and if user like to read about history he can move to different page, like undivided India, Indian subcontinent etc. What you say?

609:

I completely agree that we cannot speak of Iqbal as someone who lived in the Republic of India - when we describe him as "Indian," it must be clearly understood that this refers to the British colony.

2927:. So it is an acceptable term in wikipedia. It is not a POV; not an invention. And in the case of Iqbal, it seems to be more precise. No need to call him "British Indian". But he was a citizen of 2559:

and the States, which should deal with the following subjects: foreign affairs, defence, and communications; and should have the powers necessary to raise the finances required for the above subjects."

1310: 3974:

which have been tagged by other people). Eventhough Nepal had never been under British or Mughal empires, the use of "Bharatwarsha, Nepal khanda (Bharat world, Nepal region)" is accepted. Thank you.--

756:

is India. Also culture, history etc are similar. Variation are there due to people and their choice of living, but fundamentally they all are similar. So, again thanks for you time. Please comment. --

714: 694: 2187:, which is unneccesary) has certainly existed since Iron age civilizations, and the region has been marked as "India" or its linguistic variants in all maps since that age, unlike the case of Italy ( 1819: 1880:

is a Frank and not a Roman or French or German (He was Germanic) etc.. Redirecting a hyperlinked word identity to a page which would describe or further dilineate an identity can also be used as in

1872:

I think the best way to describe a persons individual identity is to describe him according to the historical name of the area of the time and how it was seen or described at the time. For example,

165:

I've been wanting to discuss this issue collectively with Pakistani and Bangladeshi editors, so as to avoid edit wars and hostilities (and no Pakistan or Indian occupied Knowledge!). Here's my idea:

1691:

Anyway, I hope we can reach a consensus, rather than trying to rewrite history, and bickering over identities of people. The discussion in this page shows a step in the right direction. Thanks. --

1005:

So, perhaps, as Spasage and others commented above, people in pre-1947 days, let the person be Hindu or Muslim or Buddhist or Sikh, were all Indians (meaning a native of India as a region). Sure,

2960:

Dear Rama's Arrow (Blacksun, El elan, and Deeptrivia), Sorry for the delay in replying—I finally found some time! I'd like to clarify a few things first. I have never said that the term "India"

2868:

page was created to let people know that India throughout history meant different things in territorial terms, as well as socio-cultural, economic and national terms. No one can deny that the

3921: 3273: 3211: 2935: 1852: 1837: 1320: 582: 290: 230: 154: 4123:

Yes, they used the term Bharat, or Bharatvarsh, and ethinic Indians as Bharatiya. Oh wait... Bharat is already claimed by Indian constitution. So let us not talk about what term was used in

2153:

or sticking ancient Roman history as part of France or Germany hsitory when it clearly is part of italian history.As I said,this is all based on denial.Denial to accept history or the truth.

566:. That’s what I am saying. We need different word for Pakistan-India-Bangladesh before 1947, it can be undivided India, Hindustan, British India or Indian Subcontinent. I think we can use 1302:

Hi Spasage - sorry to convert your talkpage to the village pump! Yes the talks do look good, but I agree with Gurubrahma that the discussion should be moved to a sub-page of Portal:Asia.

701:

To be mega frank, the sensitivity of the situation arises when Indian editors feel that some Pakistani editors are arguing that there was no "India" ever in history, so as to justify the

123:

As for due credit, both Jinnah and Iqbal are described as Indians, but immediately given credit for founding and conceiving Pakistan. Its not like their significance is being discounted.

1673:. If The modern country India inherited everything related to the name India, Bangladesh, under the same logic, would have inherited everything related to the name "Bengal", right? NO! 1375:

as the page for the modern country of Republic of India, this is because when people type India, they are most probably looking for the modern country. As suggested in earlier sections,

499:

Yes I understand your point of DIFFERENCE - I share that outlook and believe that it must be a clearly understood idea. To again answer your point - no the person must not be linked to

2809:

have always been known as "Indians" - or else why should the entire subcontinent be called "Indian??" Every resident of the British domains, princely states were called "Indians." And

345:

we move to Indian page, there is difination. Is it correct? If it is we can add other user so that same defination is used everwhere. What I understand it is ignored in many articles.

3150:

India has been inhabited for thousands of years. Agriculture in India dates to the 7th millennium BC, and an urban civilization, that of the Indus valley, was established by 2600 BC.

1117:

have. It describes India, historically and present day Republic of India. Also, it should mention Bangladesh and Pakistan and their link with India. I hope no one will disagree with

2552:, whether inside or outside the British Commonwealth, the relationship which has hitherto existed between the Rulers of the States and the British Crown will no longer be possible." 2175:

which have to be addressed by scholars at a more abstract levels (following which we can stop using "Ancient Egypt" and "Ancient India" for bronze age civilizations). However,

532:

What I'm trying to say in the latter bit is that Iqbal's connection with the Republic of India is not insignificant in comparison with what he has in Pakistan. Similar case is

17: 2201:

is an imprecise term in this context. It always includes Afghanistan, mostly includes Tibet. United Nations also includes the whole of Iran in it. The US government includes

2383:

During the British Raj, I doubt anyone called themselves Indian. The term was only used by politicians since they were representing all the provinces within British India.

4032:

Besides, no encyclopaedia refers to the history outside India, as Republic of Indian. Knowledge does. You will see templates of RoI lots of places where they dont belong.

2854:

Our job is not to placate the emotions of either party. It is to write accurate details of history - so I don't really care if the Pakistani or Indian POV is "left out."

1700:

Ragib,while you're free to have your opinion,I think you have your historical claims little mixed up."India" was simply a word the Greeks invented after they landed upon

432:

reputable sources describe it as so, so Knowledge must honor that convention, and while pointing out the technical differences, not attempt to push a new interpretation.

3307: 1547: 1518: 4065:

At the end, this is a big mess. And all we can do is to just follow previous definitions. That way is the only way to stop edit warring and actually adding any content.

1755: 1743: 1709: 1695: 1592: 2108:

Indian refers to a citizen of Republic of India. There is no such thing as a subcontinental Indian. Anything outside Indias borders; it stops being Indian. South Asia

1811:

This will help us solve the problem. We can explain in the lead that an "Indian" meant this, this and this in different periods of history. Lemme know what you think.

3912:

was applicable in regions corresponding to British India, not in the princely states. "British Indian" on the other hand is a highly confusing term never to be used.

1395: 1022:

are talking about the region, but not (Republic of India)ns, (the modern country). Let's settle this thing and end the divisive edit wars in Iqbal/Tagore pages. --

2592:

who lived most of his life in British India as a "major political leader of British India." I have re-written the lead sentence for the Jinnah page to read:

4274: 4252: 4220: 4209: 4189: 4167: 4117: 4081: 4047: 3978: 3967: 3888: 3774: 3325: 3073: 2980:

doesn't have any necessary implications for the use of corresponding adjectival forms ("British Indian" or "undivided Indian"). I want to make that clear.

2773: 2751: 2722: 2458: 2438: 2402: 2265: 2236: 2222: 2168: 2157: 2146: 2127: 2117: 2103: 2090: 2076: 2066: 2052: 2030: 1983: 1937: 1888: 1787: 1606: 1472: 1443: 1422: 1292: 1232: 1180: 1133: 1095: 1073: 1026: 971: 942: 931: 874: 841: 806: 793: 760: 493: 398: 383: 3898:

is not a nationality - Burma has never shared a common nationality with India. Sri Lanka has never been considered (even by the British) as a part of India.

3173:

Make no mistake - a vast majority of books, encyclopedias, articles, journals, magazines by a diverse array of authors back up the assertion of convention.

3517:

Page 322:"... of militant farmers against Hindu money-lenders and oppressive landlords. Such losses to the Congress were not easily repaired. Elsewhere in

3462:

Page 243: "... and religious orientations. Bengal presented an extreme example of class formation. It contained Calcutta, `City of Palaces' and capital of

949:

There was no India before 1947. That was why Gandhi was assassinated in the first place! For all articles about events during 1857-1947, I prefer the word

768:

I agree with your idea completely. However, I've asked some other editors to weigh in on this, as we can't make such a big move without general consensus.

4062:). The term was old, and that is how people in West used to refer to this specific region. That is why there was a company named East 'India' company etc. 4020:

Bharat is already claimed for RoI. My suggestion was to be specific when referring to India, or the Indian subcontinent. But people here refuse to do so.

3794: 3790: 3369:. Yet popular sentiments for an undefined demand for a `Pakistan' did not translate into a matching political organization working for its attainment." 3531:

Page 348: "... liberties and reduce their own privileges, but only voluntarily. Still, lower- class pressure continued to grow, soon matching that of

3524:

Page 347: "... as diversionary democratic movements . Within several princely states movements were stirring to gain the same civil rights enjoyed in

1676:

So, I like Rama's arrow and Spasage's compromise here to have the disambig page. Just to give a background of why this might be necessary, please see

3521:

this anti-Congress opportunism was less evident. Madras and Bombay, where the 'ryotwari' revenue settlement was between the state and individual ..."

1530:

One option which in my opinion should be pretty satisfying to all sides is to mention his nationality as Indian and lead the redirect to British Raj

1439:

to include the political connotations? btw, there seems to be something wrong with WP, some bug or so. Samir had signed but his sig isn't showing. --

2045: 3048:

b) I do know that Burma was directly administered as a part of the Indian Empire until 1937, but I don't understand the argument. Please clarify.

255:

If you would like to undertake a deeper analysis and come up with something different, I recommend that we organize a discussion on a subpage of

3234:

subjects) and not venture into the irrelevant realms where the (in)validity of that doctrine enters the waters and poisons them beyond repair.

3097:. Also, the term also developed as a result of a debate of the usage of the terms "Negro," "Blacks," which were laced with racial insinuations. 2711:

of Hyderabad in the British Indian Empire." None of this is original research as I have indicated above and in my India talk page posting.

507:(a disambiguation page) and specifically to the explanation that the people who lived prior to August 15, 1947, were known as Indians but in 3798: 3338:

Note: This section is only for references (of examples of different form of usage of British India etc. Please no comments in this section.

3089:

were leaders of the specific community, as was Douglass - alternately, I don't see (or expect to see) "Caucasian American" used to describe

1502:

When the person can easily be linked to a present-day country in the Indian sub-continent, he/she must be referred to as such. For example,

1493:. It cannot lead to a disambiguation page. However, a header with a link to a disambiguation page might be useful. Check out the article on 1339:

into a disambiguation page because, the name India most popularly associated with the modern day Republic of India. However, I'm ok with an

4258:

If Pakistanis feel there history is being stolen, they should try to influence the world of historians. I cannot explain you further. Read

3549:. Provincial elections in West Pakistan in 1951 gave the Muslim League an overwhelming majority of seats, about three-quarters of the ..." 26:

All Wikipedians are welcome to weigh-in on an issue which is sensitive and has been causing edit wars and problems between Wikipedians.

3459:

has always been the most attached ... of Your Majesty's native subjects ... conciliated by the toleration and protection hitherto ..."

3200:

referred to in the literature as Indian," I was merely trying to clarify what you meant. I wasn't looking for references. Regards,

2179:

The real problem we face here comes when someone argues that prior to 1858 there was no such thing as India. The notion of the Indian

1057:(there probably should be one already) and link to it from the India page. References of Muhammad Iqbal being an Indian should go to 2123:

called British Indian, or called Indian/Pakistani depending on which part of British India they were born in. Hope this makes sense.

3545:

Page 382: "... main supporters of the Muslim League in East, as in West, Pakistan were Muslim refugees from the United Provinces of

2555:"15. We recommend that the constitution should take the following basic form: (1 ) There should be a Union of India, embracing both 2009:. Such concerns are of no value on wikipedia. Another issue is the editor's stubborn refusal to recognise the difference between a 3937:

User:El elan, Sorry but you are wrong there. Prior to British Empire, People of South Asia never referred to themselves as Indian.

3365:

Page 178: "Mushirul Hasan has documented the role of Aligarh students in popularizing the League's creed in the remote villages of

1091:. I do agree that something must be done in order to disambiguate the term more appropriately, as the situation now is misleading. 3836:

other than "Indian." Were Jinnah and Iqbal "Indians?" Well yes, as Britannica, Encarta and thousands of other books will testify.

3535:, and Gandhi grudgingly approved a satyagraha, but restricted it to a single small state in Gujarat where he enjoyed unusual ..." 3489:

were fixed favourably against a weakened imperial China as well as against clientized smaller states on the northern fringes ..."

1739:

is, please contribute in good faith. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh will remain as it is. We are simply adding what was missing. --

574:

is clear. There is not ambiguity; ambiguity is in word India when referring to land before 1947, because it links to present day

3813: 3469:

Page 245: "... too do the educated. In 1859, there were a mere thirteen government colleges with around 2000 students in all of

259:, and invite amongst others, Indian, Pakistan and Bangladeshi editors to weigh into the issue. Or we can simply ask people like 3542:, where they were minorities, little could be or was said. While the formative stage of the Indian Republic arguably ended ..." 1196:

into the search box is looking for is for the Republic of India. I totally endorse the creation of an India (dab) page with an

3514:

and also in the larger, more advanced princely states such as Mysore, a similar brahman hold over official employment was ..."

3121:

into the same national group, which is grossly inaccurate. Neither does it help anybody to imagine that Iqbal had any link to

2471:

One thing to be noticed here that the song which eventually went on to become the national anthem of RoI includes the terms "

1922:

The Pakistani identity is being stolen because Historians hide the fact that South Asia has never been united prior to 1800s.

138:

You are right, but my point is word Indian or India changed after 1947. Now if we say India, we are talking about present day

4271: 4186: 4164: 4078: 4012: 3757: 3741: 3728: 3715: 3699: 3684: 3671: 3657: 3644: 3619: 3603: 3587: 3571: 3422: 3397: 3352: 3428:"Page 88: After the British Isles, the most important source of overseas emigrants within the nineteenth-century Empire was 2707:

Similarly, I don't see a problem with describing Osman Ali (who lived out his life in Hyderabad), as the "last Nizam of the

3817: 3528:. Gandhi mandated that Congress should not interfere with the political rights (or wrongs) of Indians living under 347 ..." 3492:

Page 269: "... 17 schools and 386 female pupils. At the close of the century there were 82,000 pupils in girls' schools in

2530:

The term "British India" was officially used only for those lands on the Indian subcontinent governed by the British. See

3499:

Page 272: "... made by the senior imperial official W. W. Hunter in t88� that forty million, a fifth of the population of

3159:

winning its independence in 1947. With independence, part of India became the new predominantly Muslim nation of Pakistan.

2696: 2637: 4028:

In my opinion thats a Neutral suggestion. I am not claiming anything which doesnt belong to the Pakistani people already.

2657: 2597: 3829: 3825: 3821: 3594: 2691: 2632: 837:

I hope members from Pakistan, India and Bangladesh will take this in good spirit and find come to a good conclusion. --

2976:, that "British India" or the "Indian Empire" or "undivided India" can be used if the context is right, and that this 898: 175:

is a disambiguation - we must simply add the fact that the word "Indian" was used to describe the people who lived in

4101:

And then there can be a "South Asian" history article or "Indian subcontinent" History article for the entire region.

4026:

And then there can be a "South Asian" history article or "Indian subcontinent" History article for the entire region.

3769: 3706: 3320: 3268: 3206: 3068: 2717: 44:, but a search for "India" automatically redirects to the Republic of India. Should there not be a clarification? 3562: 3690: 3610: 3413: 1994: 1773:. Britain only controlled India, Pakistan and Bangladesh (and Sri Lank/Burma but they weren't officially part of 1216: 1176: 3985:

Unre4L, while I agree to all that you say, and this is also for Eukesh, that we all should follow the norm, and

2486:. But the fact is that at the time the song was written, both Greater Punjab and Sind were considered a part of 465:. This is my point. I am not saying anything else. Take example of Iqbal. How much time he spent in present day 1581:

all talking about their current geographical area. For the dab, I'd go with Sundar's/Cribananda's suggestions.

1349:

template at the top of the article linking to a disambiguation page. There are hundreds of precedents for this.

682:

Perhaps this itself is against convention, a new interpretation. I don't know - I think to solve this problem,

246:

Bhutan and perhaps Afghanistan, whose people to the best of my knowledge have never been described as "Indian."

4127:

because that will open a new can of worms, and because that is irrelevant now. I suggest having an article on

4058:

the term was coined only after British occupation (as in occupy space, thanks to over-discussion over this on

2544:"14. Before putting forward our recommendations we turn to deal with the relationship of the Indian States to 1884:(clickon Indian plaease). Prolly the India disambiguation page is one of the fine satisfying options as well. 226:

and India before 1947 is ignored in many articles. Please recommend names for India and Indian before 1947. --

3578: 2644:

Compare this to the previous version below, which links "Indian" to a disambiguation page with leading link

2420:

on Knowledge. It doesn't matter what names are correct on Knowledge. What matters is whether they came from

1172: 4226:

Eukesh. I totally agree with Everything you just said there. But why call the history of the subcontinent

3881: 3873: 3865: 3857: 3222: 2920: 2865: 2676: 2410:

It would be more appropriate to create a new term for people born during the British Raj in British India.

1599: 1461: 1454: 1411: 1376: 1164: 1140: 1126: 1118: 1114: 1110: 1054: 891: 63: 54: 3990: 2734:

of Pakistan" is not quite a neutral term in this context, because it is looks like an endorsement of the

461:. Yes you are right, they call them self Indians, but in wikipedia, we are directing them to present day 4132: 3372:

Page 203"It was Congress which inherited the unitary central apparatus and international personality of

3053:

4) "Every resident of princely state or British domain in the British Indian empire was called Indian."

1972: 1861: 1006: 92:. I appreciate you being civil, and I assure you that I'm not trying to push an Indian nationalist POV. 3764: 3332:

Fowler&Fowler's Bibliography of Usage for British India, Undivided India, Pre-partition India, etc.

3315: 3263: 3201: 3063: 2712: 2564:

The term that was officially used between 1858 and 1947 to describe the "subcontinent" was the British

3992: 3802: 3020:"African-American" to Frederick Douglas, even though he never did.) Again, please clarify the argument 833:

pre-1947 India we use a term which encompasses whole India not just present day India? Please comment.

4000: 3917: 3041:

a) Are you implying that the term "Indian subcontinent" is used today because earlier inhabitants of

2769: 2747: 2261: 2218: 2026: 1964: 1224: 927: 786: 540:, and even though he cannot be described as a Bangladeshi poet, his connection is no less important. 1825:

Great idea that fixes the right problem in the right way, IMO. But, from my limited experience with

489:

I hope you understand my point, THERE IS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INDIA OF TODAY AND INDIA BEFORE 1947. --

3651:

In the Shadow of the Mahatma: Bishop V.S. Azariah and the Travails of Christianity in British India

3331: 3132: 2890: 2810: 2806: 1968: 1804:

Hi - I'm not in my bathtub right now, but I think I've got a good idea. There is no article called

1705:

why is the modern state of India mixed with so many different cultures? The answer is quite simple.

1685: 1677: 1436: 1018: 856: 567: 533: 355: 338: 199: 4267: 4182: 4174: 4160: 4074: 4008: 3837: 3284: 3235: 3174: 3161: 2946: 2903: 2874: 2364: 2192: 2073: 1903:

is backed up with facts, logic and common sense. The logic applied to this argument makes sense.

1812: 1666: 1639: 1619: 1388: 1380: 1357: 1343: 1303: 1277: 1200: 1083:

I like the way the China situation is set up, though I think I find myself in the minority. IMO,

817: 802:" do good? I know its contrived, but can't we use that for the sake of political correctness? -- 799: 769: 707: 687: 578:. Comment specifically on India and word we can use in articles to identify this land. Thanks. -- 564:

Historically, the Indian subcontinent (also known as Hindustan) or a person or attribute thereof

541: 518: 433: 323: 307: 272: 188: 124: 109: 108:, I describe him as an East Pakistani politician before citing him as the founder of Bangladesh. 93: 2931:. What is wrong with that? Why use a (vague) disambiguation link if you have a precise entry? 2062:

Pakistan is no more of a political entity than any other country on the planet including India.

1087:

should discuss the historical land known as India and the current India page should be moved to

3951:

I.e Ancient Pakistan, a term which is used by scholars, but is not being accepted on Knowledge.

3943:

And there is no visible link between Sindh And India. India is British, Sindh is Persian/Greek.

3140: 1240:

Just to say there's another example of organising multiple geographical / cultural entities at

3877: 3869: 3754: 3738: 3725: 3712: 3696: 3681: 3668: 3654: 3641: 3616: 3600: 3584: 3568: 3438: 3419: 3394: 3349: 2894: 2869: 2735: 2645: 2620: 2531: 2445:

for both, and using this, everyone should be able to see why Ancient Pakistan should be used.

2435: 2006: 1784: 1587: 1265: 1148: 1088: 968: 902: 737: 702: 500: 180: 33: 1256:, etc). It'd guess most people typing "Britain" in a search box are actually looking for the 4244: 4227: 4203: 4111: 4041: 3961: 3455:

Page 224: "... but ended with a veiled threat: For above a century the Hindoo population of

3154: 2452: 2396: 2233: 2165: 2143: 2087: 2049: 1980: 1510:. If this is not obvious, then other terms such as ancient India, British India can be used. 1289: 1106: 1092: 268: 3695:, (Cambridge Studies in the History of Medicine). Cambridge University Press. 348 pages. 142:. So dont you think, using India or Indian means present day india, which does not include 3913: 3448:

Page :"There was a strong case for dividing the province of Bengal. It was the largest in

2765: 2743: 2569: 2257: 2249: 2214: 2022: 1723: 1561:

was the land that Columbus wanted to reach, and India still makes up a greater portion of

1515: 1478: 1440: 1221: 1213: 923: 861: 821: 790: 3225:

solution is not vague for readers - after all, two very high-profile and oft-used words

1926:

Afghanistan and Kashmir), however one has to remember that Pakistan is the home of it.

4090:

Do the changes I propose sound incorrect of unfair in any way, then please tell me how.

3090: 2855: 2708: 2284: 1885: 1681: 1570: 1544: 1260:, but having an explanatory dab-like page alerts people to the different entities they 1257: 1249: 1070: 1014: 1010: 992: 915: 105: 2526:

1858-1947 (and so it is not "original research"), but it did have a specific meaning:

449:

My point remains unanswered, is it just to link any person before 1947 to present day

422:

disassociated himself with other people. Iqbal is just a poet and Islamic philosopher.

4263: 4259: 4178: 4156: 4070: 4004: 3986: 3895: 3624: 3304: 2928: 2924: 2830: 2683: 2616: 2327: 2213:

in South Asia. When we have a more precise term, why avoid it for frivolous reasons?

2188: 2154: 2100: 2063: 1949: 1945: 1881: 1830: 1805: 1794: 1774: 1752: 1706: 1574: 1245: 1058: 967:. This conforms to the language used unanimously by Middle Eastern scholarship then. 880:

Perhaps it would be some help to take a look at the arrangement on the China article:

851: 652: 508: 203: 202:

is term used by wikipedia to refer to fact you are talking about. I think instead of

176: 89: 1793:

But the point remains they were all part of a region and not a country or a state.--

3885: 3748: 3094: 2972:

countries and regions are often contextual, that there isn't always a consensus on

2932: 2731: 2669: 2624: 2609: 2429: 2421: 2413: 2359:

Indian rivers are greater than any others in Asia; greatest are the Ganges and the

2302: 1849: 1826: 1778: 1740: 1715: 1603: 1582: 1469: 1419: 1317: 1130: 871: 838: 757: 579: 490: 380: 287: 260: 227: 151: 81: 3481:, and their domination over artillery units as well as the superior commands. ..." 1963:

Pakistan, however, as should be perfectly obvious from a reading of the works of

4237: 4217: 4198: 4106: 4036: 3975: 3956: 3941:

The people would refer to themselves as Punjabi, Pathan, Kashmiri or Sindhi etc.

3909: 3146: 3136: 3114: 2842: 2662: 2602: 2447: 2425: 2391: 2355: 2344: 2124: 2114: 1934: 1877: 1873: 1834: 1766: 1531: 1327: 1285: 803: 636: 395: 256: 4097:

Pakistans history article should only contain history within Pakistans borders

4059: 4024:

Pakistans history article should only contain history within Pakistans borders

2965: 2838: 2580:

which described little towns all over India, British and princely alike, uses

2573: 2490:

as such (and this was before Chaudari Rehmat Ali made his pitch for Pakistan)

2336: 2312: 2206: 2202: 2198: 1727: 1692: 1653: 1562: 1392: 1361: 1102: 1023: 939: 749: 648: 537: 458: 264: 147: 41: 3722:

Woman and empire: Representations in the writings of British India, 1858-1900

3033:, Maldives that were not associated with British India - which also included 3415:

The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume III: The Nineteenth Century

2814: 2507: 2483: 2288: 2274: 2253: 2210: 1391:, Goa being a portuguese colony until 1961. But it seems a nice option. ) -- 1062: 620: 3864:. If there is one, why not not use that specific entry, especially since 3780:

You know, this is getting a little ridiculous (perhaps a lot). Here's why:

3711:(Cambridge South Asian Studies) Cambridge University Press. 392 pages. 3692:

Public Health in British India: Anglo-Indian Preventive Medicine 1859-1914

3412:

Northrup, David. "Migration from Africa, Asia and the South Pacific." In

2270: 1952:", etc, and Knowledge already has articles on those which you can link to. 1210:

page. The article India should contain info on the modern-day Republic. --

4093:

Indian history article should only contain history within Indias borders.

4022:

Indian history article should only contain history within Indias borders.

3230: 2826: 2687: 2628: 2511: 2479: 1731: 1670: 1615: 1566: 888:-- describes the cultural region which includes present PRC, Taiwan, etc. 743: 644: 628: 466: 454: 143: 37: 1995:

Knowledge:Naming_conflict#How_to_make_a_choice_among_controversial_names

1383:" sounds ok (however, questions arise on how do you handle someone from 214:, but it was before 1947. I think this fact should be mentioned in both 3226: 2899: 2764:

So, perhaps I should be making this change if there are no objections.

2339:. A few historians have described the parts which are this side of the 2316: 2001:, which flows almost entirely in what is now Pakistan) for millenia is 1273: 1241: 1125:, it is some what similar to what we are discussing. Please comment on 1122: 3750:

Civility and Empire: Literature and Culture in British India 1822-1922

3665:

India Britannica: A Vivid Introduction to the History of British India

2841:

doesn't work for the same latter reason, especially as it may include

1726:

called every part of India as his own, even if some one was living in

286:

What is your suggestion, to describe Indian and Indian before 1947? --

4250: 3110: 2679: 2589: 2503: 2499: 2472: 2340: 2245: 2180: 2010: 1662: 1353: 909: 640: 632: 571: 559: 504: 474: 373: 359: 342: 302: 242: 215: 211: 172: 3473:. Another 30,000 students were in secondary government schools. ..." 1929: 3811:

The division of India caused tremendous dislocation of populations,

2983:

I am trying to understand here (your argument) why "British India"

2964:

be used for the British Indian empire (see my post from January 9:

2945:"Indians" at that time itself, why this urge to revise convention? 3861: 3561:

Hay, Jeff, George J. Mitchell, and James I. Matray (eds). 2006.

3122: 3118: 3106: 2846: 2834: 2822: 2818: 2739: 2487: 2360: 2311: 2297: 2283: 2269: 2184: 2018: 2014: 1998: 1762: 1701: 1578: 1558: 1486: 1465: 1415: 1407: 1372: 1360:

as a compromise. However, I would certainly not agree with either

1336: 1269: 1253: 1207: 1160: 1152: 1144: 1084: 885: 624: 575: 478: 470: 462: 450: 369: 223: 219: 207: 184: 139: 69: 2541:

until such time as a new constitution can be brought into being."

271:

to drop by and give us their views on your talkpage here itself.

3452:, with 78.5 million people of whom nearly a third were Muslims." 2672: 2665: 2612: 2605: 2548:. It is quite clear that with the attainment of independence by 2475: 2368: 1770: 1494: 1143:, as per the above. When the general population is looking for 4177:. The problem with this is that pertaining to Aryan Invasion?-- 2298: 1121:, it will be a good starting point. For reference please visit 3596:

Aligarh's First Generation: Muslim Solidarity in British India

3045:

were called Indians? If so, by whom? If not, please clarify.

2654: 2594: 1384: 453:, even if he spent his whole or large part of life in present 4030:

I would really like to hear whats wrong with this suggestion.

3724:(New Perspectives in South Asian History). Orient Longman. 3418:, Andrew Porter (ed). Oxford University Press. 800 pages. 2386:

term for people born during the British Raj in British India.

959:

For articles about events during 957-1857, I prefer the word

1876:

is deccribed as a Florentine not as an Italian or Roman and

1364:

or "from Indian subcontinent]]" as it's entirely misleading.

477:, but where he was living, where he died, is it present day 412:

Valley Civilization and the Indo-Aryans, Vedic civilization.

1761:

South Asia also consists of Sri Lanka, Nepal and sometimes

922:

The term British India can be used only from 1858 to 1947.

619:

are definitely (IMO) not good - because they refer also to

599:

all refer to the political entity they lived in as "India."

4145:

that is not how other encyclopedias treat it, now do they?

1379:

can be set up. Also, describing pre-1947 people as "from

3735:

Writing India 1757-1990: The Literature of British India

3391:

The Cambridge Illustrated History of the British Empire.

3496:, and an additional 42,000 attended mixed schools. ..." 2343:

and where are the mouths of the Ganges and the city of

1557:

I think it's just making a mountain out of a molehill.

4173:

Here is what I think we should use instead of Indian:

1504:

X was born in Lahore, which is in present-day Pakistan

1356:

to be used to describe pre-1947 Indians, I can accept

1155:

should stay as such, but with a disambiguation header:

32:: "India" the historical region is different from the 3989:. And unfortunately, Ancient Pakistan is not the norm 3638:: Ahmed Riza Khan Barelvi and His Movement, 1870-1920 2256:", which corresponds to what became Pakistan in 1947. 1109:

and others pointed out correctly. So, we should have

337:

Ok, so when we mention India before 1947, we can use

222:

pages. Fact that there is difference between present

3612:

Islamic Revival in British India: Deoband, 1860-1900

2372:

other greater rivers run through the land of India."

18:

Knowledge talk:Notice board for India-related topics

2588:Accordingly, I don't see a problem with describing 2532:

British Government Statement: Policy in India, 1946

2046:

Click here for an example of an OUP school textbook

2849:. These terms are not citizenships, nationalities. 570:for pre 1947 India. I want your comments on this. 2919:You do have a point there. But one entry in the 2021:before 1857, it didn't exist at all before that. 1464:to avoid confusion. It is totally separate page. 3503:, lacked sufficient food was never refuted. ..." 2968:). My argument is simply that appellations for 2521:British India, the States, and the Indian Empire 2017:, thereby concluding that since India was not a 1264:want and helps avoid offence. I'd prefer moving 1040:what most people would want when looking for it. 3860:justifies the use of India in an article about 2987:be used. Since I said at the outset, "British 2730:Agree with Fowler in light of the references. " 1009:was born in India (meaning the region), so was 322:and not politics, bias or revisionist history. 3443:(3 volumes). London: Baldwin, Cradock and Joy. 3583:University of California Press. 264 pages. 8: 3567:. Chelsea House Publications. 136 pages. 1848:mean during different periods of history. -- 1722:Before partition (1947) every one living in 686:have a group discussion with other editors. 62:For historical and other uses of India, see 3856:But my point is just this. Which entry in 2805:The facts are - (1) The inhabitants of the 2568:, this included both British India and the 733:For example, in India disambiguation page: 3737:Manchester University Press. 271 pages. 2648:, whose citizen Jinnah was most certainly 2347:, the greatest Indian city on the Ganges." 469:and how much time he spend in present day 3599:. Oxford University Press. 416 pages. 3393:Cambridge University Press. 400 pages. 2572:. See my posting on the India talk page 1410:into disambiguation. We'll separate page 918:refer to people from both PRC and Taiwan. 3680:. V & A Publications. 384 pages. 3640:, Oxford University Press. 380 pages. 1061:in my opinion. Hope my input helped :) 1053:We can have a separate disambig page at 210:and people living here were refer to as 3678:Furniture from British India and Ceylon 3538:Page 379: "... Of Muslims elsewhere in 3344:Bose, Sugata and Ayesha Jalal. 2003. 2966:British Empire, the Colonies, and India 2574:British Empire, the Colonies, and India 1414:. Republic of India will have its page 1316:I have no issue, it should be moved. -- 179:, before changing in 1947 to mean only 4196:claim the history of their ancestors? 3615:Oxford University Press. 420 pages. 2005:problematic for the proponents of the 88:broad geographical area that exceedes 2742:" would be a much more neutral term. 2326:Some excerpts from the first page of 7: 2367:; each of these is greater than the 1276:. Basically I completely agree with 1147:, the vast majority are looking for 3649:Harper, Susan Billington. 1999. 3580:Peasants and Monks of British India 3348:. Routledge; 2 edition 304 pages. 2478:" both of which eventually went to 1844:It is good idea to explain what an 1684:. Two of the greatest poets of the 187:from the bios of Jinnah and Iqbal. 3894:Your latter example clarifies why 3850:I agree with Rama's Arrow in that, 3653:. William Eerdans. 462 pages. 2784:Revisionist history will not stand 2615:) was a major political leader of 1967:who invented the word, along with 1371:I too agree that it is ok to have 24: 3708:Canal Irrigation in British India 3634:Devotional Islam and Politics in 1930:http://www.pakhub.info/art002.php 1387:? Surely, that is not covered in 1192:thing that a person who types in 1159:For historical and other uses of 617:Indian subcontinent or South Asia 104:If you see the bio I wrote about 1489:should obviously talk about the 206:, this land was known simply as 183:. And I will remove the link to 3753:. Rutledge (UK). 216 pages. 3667:. Academy Chicago. 238 pages. 4147:And lastly, there are no India 3663:Moorehouse, Geoffrey. 2000. 3564:The Partition of British India 3362:vis-a-vis the Indian states'." 3129:Examples of Conventional usage 2829:that were not associated with 1569:. Coming closer home, we have 1468:, moder Republic is intact. -- 36:. It consisted also of modern 1: 3389:Marshall, P.J. (ed). 2001. 3062:Look forward to your reply, 2800:just present them with facts. 2682:politician and leader of the 2584:as well for the subcontinent. 1984:14:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC) 1938:19:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC) 1894:Paksitans Heritage not Indian 1508:X was born in undivided India 4275:01:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC) 4262:if you have time to think.-- 4253:18:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC) 4221:17:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC) 4210:16:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC) 4190:16:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC) 4168:15:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC) 4118:15:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC) 4082:14:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC) 4048:21:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 3979:08:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 3968:16:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC) 3922:21:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC) 3889:06:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC) 3845:21:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC) 3830:Indian Independence Act 1947 3826:Government of India Act 1935 3822:Government of India Act 1919 3799:"Partition of British India" 3775:20:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC) 3733:Moore-Gilbert, Bart. 1996. 3510:Page 303: "... Elsewhere in 3440:The History of British India 3326:00:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC) 3308:09:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC) 3292:21:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC) 3274:20:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC) 3243:04:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC) 3212:03:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC) 3182:01:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC) 3169:01:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC) 3074:00:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC) 2954:18:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC) 2936:06:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC) 2911:03:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC) 2882:02:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC) 2774:02:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC) 2752:00:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC) 2723:00:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC) 1833:), I know it'll be hard. -- 1212:May the Force be with you! 536:- he is widely respected in 399:07:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 4139:Regarding your solution in 2738:, which is controversial. " 2578:Imperial Gazetteer of India 2459:17:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC) 2439:08:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC) 2403:14:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC) 2266:02:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC) 2237:18:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC) 2223:02:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC) 2169:18:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC) 2158:06:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC) 2147:00:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC) 2128:02:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC) 2118:02:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC) 2104:03:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC) 2091:15:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC) 2077:14:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC) 2067:23:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC) 2053:15:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC) 2031:23:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC) 1815:This Fire Burns.....Always 1788:08:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC) 1756:23:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC) 1710:16:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC) 1642:This Fire Burns.....Always 1622:This Fire Burns.....Always 1306:This Fire Burns.....Always 1280:This Fire Burns.....Always 772:This Fire Burns.....Always 710:This Fire Burns.....Always 690:This Fire Burns.....Always 647:, or that a native born in 4291: 3987:not our own interpretation 3807:territorial unity of India 3609:Metcalf, Barbara. 2004. 3056:a) Please specify by whom. 899:People's Republic of China 606:This is the core situation 3593:Lelyveld, David. 2003. 3577:Pinch, William R. 1996. 2893:and others like him like 2813:includes nations such as 2330:(Note: 1 stade = 231 m): 1889:13:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC) 1853:06:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC) 1838:07:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC) 1820:03:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC) 1460:I have just created page 1293:12:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC) 1227:($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 1066: 544:This Fire Burns Always 521:This Fire Burns Always 3939:India is a British Term. 3384:s unitary state system." 3297: 3125:in terms of nationality. 2690:and served as its first 2631:and served as its first 2466: 2422:sources that are reliabe 1744:10:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC) 1696:07:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC) 1647:05:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC) 1627:05:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC) 1607:05:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC) 1593:17:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC) 1548:12:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC) 1519:06:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC) 1477: 1473:06:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC) 1444:06:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC) 1423:06:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC) 1406:No one wants to convert 1396:06:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC) 1321:05:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC) 1311:05:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC) 1268:to that name and having 1233:20:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC) 1181:06:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC) 1134:05:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC) 1096:00:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC) 1074:20:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC) 1027:20:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC) 972:19:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC) 943:14:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC) 932:13:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC) 875:11:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC) 866:or disamg page of India. 842:09:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC) 807:09:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC) 798:Would "a _________ from 794:09:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC) 777:08:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC) 761:07:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC) 746:, after partion in 1947. 715:20:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC) 695:20:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC) 583:09:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC) 549:06:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC) 526:06:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC) 494:05:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC) 437:11:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC) 384:07:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC) 327:07:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC) 311:07:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC) 291:07:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC) 276:07:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC) 231:07:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC) 192:07:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC) 155:07:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC) 128:06:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC) 113:06:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC) 97:06:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC) 4131:(right now it leads to 3884:by the same reasoning? 3720:Sen, Indrani. 2002. 2684:All India Muslim League 1714: 1652: 1552: 1206:template on top of the 912:as a historical region. 847:Following are options: 3882:Don Stephen Senanayake 3874:India (disambiguation) 3866:India (disambiguation) 3858:India (disambiguation) 3747:Roy, Anindyo. 2005. 3689:Harrison, Mark. 2003. 3632:Sanyal, Usha. 1996. 3223:India (disambiguation) 2921:India (disambiguation) 2866:India (disambiguation) 2833:- which also included 2365:the land gets its name 2323: 2309: 2295: 2281: 1600:India (disambiguation) 1462:India (disambiguation) 1455:India (disambiguation) 1412:India (disambiguation) 1377:India (disambiguation) 1165:India (disambiguation) 1141:India (disambiguation) 1127:India (disambiguation) 1119:India (disambiguation) 1115:China (disambiguation) 1111:India (disambiguation) 1055:India_(disambiguation) 981:Lanka etc. under that. 897:Separate articles on: 892:China (disambiguation) 740:after partion in 1947. 473:. We can refer him as 64:India (disambiguation) 55:India (disambiguation) 4133:Demographics of India 3868:can be confused with 3623:Parameter error in {{ 2661:Muhammad Ali Jinnah ( 2601:Muhammad Ali Jinnah ( 2315: 2301: 2287: 2273: 1973:Allama Muhammad Iqbal 1862:Demographics of India 1829:(primarily edited by 1506:...rather than, say, 1007:Sheikh Mujibur Rahman 3437:Mill, James. 1817 , 2244:Clearly, that's why 1965:Choudhary Rahmat Ali 1665:, who died prior to 1335:I oppose converting 1326: 3840:Rama's arrow (3:16) 3298:Blacksun's Comments 3287:Rama's arrow (3:16) 3238:Rama's arrow (3:16) 3177:Rama's arrow (3:16) 3164:Rama's arrow (3:16) 2949:Rama's arrow (3:16) 2891:Sir Syed Ahmed Khan 2811:Indian subcontinent 2807:Indian subcontinent 2418:strictly prohibited 1975:, and others, is a 1969:Muhammad Ali Jinnah 1686:Indian subcontinent 1678:Rabindranath Tagore 1437:Indian subcontinent 1019:Rabindranath Tagore 857:Indian Subcontinent 818:Unpartitioned India 800:unpartitioned India 568:Indian Subcontinent 534:Rabindranath Tagore 376:, use definations. 362:, use definations. 356:Indian Subcontinent 339:Indian Subcontinent 200:Indian Subcontinent 4175:Indo-Aryan peoples 3705:Stone, Ian. 2002 2623:, who founded the 2517:- Devilbemyguide 2324: 2310: 2296: 2282: 2193:Ancient world maps 1667:Partition of India 1389:Partition of India 1151:, so I think that 951:British South Asia 4017: 4003:comment added by 3878:Theippan Maung Wa 3872:. Can we use the 3870:Republic of India 3766:Fowler&fowler 3346:Modern South Asia 3317:Fowler&fowler 3265:Fowler&fowler 3203:Fowler&fowler 3141:Jinnah at Encarta 3065:Fowler&fowler 2895:Tej Bahadur Sapru 2870:Republic of India 2736:Two-Nation Theory 2714:Fowler&fowler 2701: 2700: 2646:Republic of India 2642: 2641: 2621:Pakistan movement 2414:Original Research 2007:Two-Nation Theory 1553:Nichalp's comment 1491:Republic of India 1266:Republic of India 1229: 1179: 1149:Republic of India 1089:Republic of India 903:Republic of China 738:Republic of India 703:Two-Nation Theory 501:Republic of India 241:As of now on the 181:Republic of India 80:From talkpage of 34:Republic of India 4282: 4247: 4240: 4228:History of India 4206: 4201: 4114: 4109: 4044: 4039: 4016: 3997: 3964: 3959: 3900: 3899: 3842: 3772: 3767: 3628: 3323: 3318: 3289: 3271: 3266: 3240: 3209: 3204: 3179: 3166: 3155:India at Encarta 3086:African American 3071: 3066: 3043:every part of it 2951: 2908: 2879: 2720: 2715: 2692:Governor-General 2655: 2633:Governor-General 2595: 2494:disambiguation. 2467:Devil's Comments 2455: 2450: 2399: 2394: 2248:titled his book 1977:political entity 1817: 1795:Nadirali نادرالی 1644: 1633:While Knowledge 1624: 1590: 1585: 1352:Though I prefer 1348: 1342: 1308: 1282: 1272:as the dab, per 1231: 1228: 1225: 1219: 1205: 1199: 1175: 1107:User:Pepsidrinka 1068: 894:-- disambig page 774: 712: 692: 546: 523: 269:user:Pepsidrinka 4290: 4289: 4285: 4284: 4283: 4281: 4280: 4279: 4245: 4238: 4204: 4199: 4112: 4107: 4054:do not believe 4042: 4037: 3998: 3962: 3957: 3935: 3838: 3770: 3765: 3676:Jaffer, Amin. 3622: 3558: 3340: 3334: 3321: 3316: 3300: 3285: 3269: 3264: 3236: 3207: 3202: 3175: 3162: 3069: 3064: 2947: 2904: 2875: 2786: 2718: 2713: 2570:Princely States 2523: 2518: 2469: 2453: 2448: 2397: 2392: 1896: 1813: 1802: 1724:undivided India 1720: 1658: 1640: 1620: 1588: 1583: 1555: 1483: 1458: 1435:Why not expand 1381:Undivided India 1358:undivided India 1346: 1340: 1332: 1304: 1300: 1278: 1226: 1217: 1211: 1203: 1197: 1139:We need a page 862:Undivided India 770: 708: 688: 593: 542: 519: 377: 363: 301:As I said, the 85: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4288: 4286: 4278: 4277: 4234: 4231: 4224: 4223: 4193: 4192: 4137: 4136: 4103: 4099: 4095: 4091: 4089: 4085: 4084: 4066: 4063: 4033: 4031: 4029: 4027: 4025: 4023: 4021: 3995: 3994: 3982: 3981: 3953: 3947: 3944: 3942: 3934: 3931: 3929: 3927: 3926: 3925: 3924: 3902: 3901: 3855: 3853: 3851: 3848: 3847: 3833: 3818:Google Scholar 3786: 3782: 3781: 3763: 3761: 3760: 3745: 3731: 3718: 3703: 3687: 3674: 3661: 3647: 3630: 3607: 3591: 3575: 3557: 3554: 3553: 3552: 3551: 3550: 3543: 3536: 3529: 3522: 3515: 3508: 3504: 3497: 3490: 3482: 3474: 3467: 3460: 3453: 3444: 3435: 3434: 3433: 3410: 3409: 3408: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3382:British India' 3377: 3370: 3363: 3336: 3333: 3330: 3329: 3328: 3299: 3296: 3295: 3294: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3276: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3246: 3245: 3217: 3216: 3215: 3214: 3185: 3184: 3171: 3152: 3144: 3126: 3102: 3098: 3091:George W. Bush 3077: 3060: 3059: 3058: 3057: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3046: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3010: 3009: 3008: 3007: 3003: 2978:contextual use 2958: 2957: 2956: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2914: 2913: 2885: 2884: 2861: 2860: 2851: 2850: 2802: 2801: 2796: 2795: 2785: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2757: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2709:princely state 2699: 2698: 2695: 2659: 2640: 2639: 2636: 2599: 2586: 2585: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2553: 2542: 2522: 2519: 2516: 2468: 2465: 2463: 2442: 2441: 2387: 2384: 2382: 2379: 2375: 2374: 2350: 2349: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2226: 2225: 2196: 2172: 2171: 2150: 2149: 2139: 2135: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2080: 2079: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2033: 1987: 1986: 1960: 1959: 1954: 1953: 1895: 1892: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1841: 1840: 1801: 1798: 1791: 1790: 1719: 1713: 1682:Muhammad Iqbal 1657: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1630: 1629: 1610: 1609: 1571:Madhya Pradesh 1554: 1551: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1512: 1511: 1499: 1498: 1482: 1476: 1457: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1366: 1365: 1350: 1331: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1299: 1296: 1258:United Kingdom 1250:United Kingdom 1238: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1169: 1168: 1156: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1015:Mahatma Gandhi 1011:Muhammad Iqbal 1000: 999: 998: 997: 993:India (region) 985: 984: 983: 982: 975: 974: 956: 955: 946: 945: 920: 919: 916:Chinese people 913: 906: 895: 889: 882: 881: 868: 867: 864: 859: 854: 846: 829: 828: 827: 826: 811: 782: 781: 780: 779: 753: 752: 747: 741: 731: 730: 729: 728: 720: 718: 717: 698: 697: 679: 678: 677: 676: 669: 668: 667: 666: 659: 658: 657: 656: 603: 602: 601: 600: 592: 589: 588: 587: 586: 585: 552: 551: 529: 528: 513: 512: 487: 486: 485: 484: 483: 482: 442: 441: 440: 439: 426: 425: 424: 423: 416: 415: 414: 413: 406: 405: 404: 403: 402: 401: 367: 353: 349: 348: 347: 346: 332: 331: 330: 329: 316: 315: 314: 313: 296: 295: 294: 293: 281: 280: 279: 278: 250: 249: 248: 247: 236: 235: 234: 233: 169: 168: 167: 166: 160: 159: 158: 157: 133: 132: 131: 130: 118: 117: 116: 115: 106:Mujibur Rahman 84: 78: 76: 74: 73: 58: 57: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4287: 4276: 4273: 4269: 4265: 4261: 4257: 4256: 4255: 4254: 4251: 4249: 4248: 4242: 4241: 4229: 4222: 4219: 4214: 4213: 4212: 4211: 4208: 4207: 4202: 4191: 4188: 4184: 4180: 4176: 4172: 4171: 4170: 4169: 4166: 4162: 4158: 4154: 4150: 4146: 4142: 4134: 4130: 4129:Indian people 4126: 4122: 4121: 4120: 4119: 4116: 4115: 4110: 4102: 4098: 4094: 4083: 4080: 4076: 4072: 4067: 4064: 4061: 4057: 4052: 4051: 4050: 4049: 4046: 4045: 4040: 4018: 4014: 4010: 4006: 4002: 3993: 3991: 3988: 3984: 3983: 3980: 3977: 3972: 3971: 3970: 3969: 3966: 3965: 3960: 3952: 3940: 3932: 3930: 3923: 3919: 3915: 3911: 3906: 3905: 3904: 3903: 3897: 3896:British India 3893: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3887: 3883: 3879: 3875: 3871: 3867: 3863: 3859: 3846: 3843: 3841: 3834: 3831: 3827: 3823: 3819: 3815: 3812: 3808: 3804: 3800: 3796: 3792: 3787: 3784: 3783: 3779: 3778: 3777: 3776: 3773: 3768: 3759: 3756: 3752: 3751: 3746: 3743: 3740: 3736: 3732: 3730: 3727: 3723: 3719: 3717: 3714: 3710: 3709: 3704: 3701: 3698: 3694: 3693: 3688: 3686: 3683: 3679: 3675: 3673: 3670: 3666: 3662: 3659: 3656: 3652: 3648: 3646: 3643: 3639: 3637: 3636:British India 3631: 3626: 3621: 3618: 3614: 3613: 3608: 3605: 3602: 3598: 3597: 3592: 3589: 3586: 3582: 3581: 3576: 3573: 3570: 3566: 3565: 3560: 3559: 3555: 3548: 3547:British India 3544: 3541: 3540:British India 3537: 3534: 3533:British India 3530: 3527: 3526:British India 3523: 3520: 3519:British India 3516: 3513: 3512:British India 3509: 3505: 3502: 3501:British India 3498: 3495: 3494:British India 3491: 3488: 3487:British India 3483: 3480: 3479:British India 3475: 3472: 3471:British India 3468: 3465: 3464:British India 3461: 3458: 3457:British India 3454: 3451: 3450:British India 3447: 3446: 3445: 3442: 3441: 3436: 3431: 3430:British India 3427: 3426: 3424: 3421: 3417: 3416: 3411: 3406: 3405:British India 3402: 3401: 3399: 3396: 3392: 3388: 3383: 3378: 3375: 3374:British India 3371: 3368: 3367:British India 3364: 3361: 3360:British India 3356: 3355: 3354: 3351: 3347: 3343: 3342: 3341: 3339: 3327: 3324: 3319: 3312: 3311: 3310: 3309: 3306: 3293: 3290: 3288: 3281: 3280: 3275: 3272: 3267: 3260: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3250: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3244: 3241: 3239: 3232: 3228: 3224: 3219: 3218: 3213: 3210: 3205: 3199: 3194: 3189: 3188: 3187: 3186: 3183: 3180: 3178: 3172: 3170: 3167: 3165: 3160: 3156: 3153: 3151: 3148: 3147:"India" at EB 3145: 3142: 3138: 3134: 3130: 3127: 3124: 3120: 3116: 3112: 3108: 3103: 3099: 3096: 3092: 3087: 3083: 3082: 3081: 3076: 3075: 3072: 3067: 3055: 3054: 3052: 3047: 3044: 3040: 3039: 3038: 3036: 3032: 3026: 3025: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3012: 3011: 3004: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2990: 2986: 2981: 2979: 2975: 2974:universal use 2971: 2967: 2963: 2955: 2952: 2950: 2943: 2942: 2937: 2934: 2930: 2929:British India 2926: 2925:British India 2922: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2912: 2909: 2907: 2901: 2896: 2892: 2887: 2886: 2883: 2880: 2878: 2871: 2867: 2863: 2862: 2857: 2853: 2852: 2848: 2844: 2840: 2836: 2832: 2831:British India 2828: 2824: 2820: 2816: 2812: 2808: 2804: 2803: 2798: 2797: 2792: 2791: 2790: 2783: 2775: 2771: 2767: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2758: 2753: 2749: 2745: 2741: 2737: 2733: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2721: 2716: 2710: 2705: 2693: 2689: 2685: 2681: 2678: 2674: 2671: 2667: 2664: 2660: 2656: 2653: 2651: 2647: 2634: 2630: 2626: 2622: 2618: 2617:British India 2614: 2611: 2607: 2604: 2600: 2596: 2593: 2591: 2583: 2582:Indian Empire 2579: 2575: 2571: 2567: 2566:Indian Empire 2563: 2558: 2557:British India 2554: 2551: 2550:British India 2547: 2546:British India 2543: 2540: 2539:British India 2536: 2535: 2533: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2520: 2515: 2513: 2509: 2505: 2501: 2495: 2491: 2489: 2485: 2481: 2477: 2474: 2464: 2461: 2460: 2457: 2456: 2451: 2440: 2437: 2436: 2433: 2432: 2427: 2423: 2419: 2415: 2411: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2401: 2400: 2395: 2373: 2370: 2366: 2362: 2357: 2352: 2351: 2348: 2346: 2342: 2338: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2329: 2322: 2318: 2314: 2308: 2304: 2300: 2294: 2290: 2286: 2280: 2276: 2272: 2268: 2267: 2263: 2259: 2255: 2251: 2247: 2238: 2235: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2224: 2220: 2216: 2212: 2208: 2204: 2200: 2197: 2194: 2190: 2186: 2182: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2170: 2167: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2156: 2148: 2145: 2140: 2136: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2126: 2120: 2119: 2116: 2111: 2106: 2105: 2102: 2092: 2089: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2078: 2075: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2065: 2054: 2051: 2047: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2032: 2028: 2024: 2020: 2016: 2012: 2008: 2004: 2000: 1996: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1985: 1982: 1978: 1974: 1970: 1966: 1962: 1961: 1956: 1955: 1951: 1950:Maurya Empire 1947: 1946:Mughal Empire 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1936: 1932: 1931: 1927: 1923: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1908: 1904: 1900: 1893: 1891: 1890: 1887: 1883: 1879: 1875: 1870: 1866: 1863: 1854: 1851: 1847: 1843: 1842: 1839: 1836: 1832: 1828: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1818: 1816: 1809: 1807: 1806:Indian people 1799: 1797: 1796: 1789: 1786: 1785: 1782: 1781: 1776: 1775:British India 1772: 1768: 1764: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1754: 1750: 1746: 1745: 1742: 1736: 1733: 1729: 1725: 1717: 1712: 1711: 1708: 1703: 1698: 1697: 1694: 1689: 1687: 1683: 1679: 1674: 1672: 1668: 1664: 1655: 1648: 1645: 1643: 1636: 1632: 1631: 1628: 1625: 1623: 1617: 1612: 1611: 1608: 1605: 1601: 1598:Please check 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1591: 1586: 1580: 1576: 1575:Uttar Pradesh 1572: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1550: 1549: 1546: 1533: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1517: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1500: 1496: 1492: 1488: 1485: 1484: 1480: 1475: 1474: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1456: 1453: 1445: 1442: 1438: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1424: 1421: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1397: 1394: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1351: 1345: 1338: 1334: 1333: 1329: 1322: 1319: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1309: 1307: 1297: 1295: 1294: 1291: 1287: 1283: 1281: 1275: 1271: 1267: 1263: 1259: 1255: 1251: 1247: 1246:Great Britain 1243: 1234: 1230: 1223: 1220: 1215: 1209: 1202: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1178: 1174: 1167: 1166: 1163:, please see 1162: 1157: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1120: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1098: 1097: 1094: 1090: 1086: 1075: 1072: 1064: 1060: 1059:British India 1056: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1028: 1025: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 994: 989: 988: 987: 986: 979: 978: 977: 976: 973: 970: 966: 962: 958: 957: 954:this theatre. 952: 948: 947: 944: 941: 936: 935: 934: 933: 929: 925: 917: 914: 911: 907: 904: 900: 896: 893: 890: 887: 884: 883: 879: 878: 877: 876: 873: 865: 863: 860: 858: 855: 853: 852:British India 850: 849: 848: 844: 843: 840: 835: 834: 823: 819: 816: 815: 814: 813: 812: 809: 808: 805: 801: 796: 795: 792: 788: 778: 775: 773: 767: 766: 765: 764: 763: 762: 759: 751: 748: 745: 742: 739: 736: 735: 734: 725: 724: 723: 722: 721: 716: 713: 711: 704: 700: 699: 696: 693: 691: 685: 681: 680: 673: 672: 671: 670: 663: 662: 661: 660: 654: 653:Sahara Desert 650: 646: 642: 638: 634: 630: 626: 622: 618: 614: 613: 612: 611: 610: 607: 597: 596: 595: 594: 590: 584: 581: 577: 573: 569: 565: 561: 556: 555: 554: 553: 550: 547: 545: 539: 535: 531: 530: 527: 524: 522: 515: 514: 510: 509:British India 506: 502: 498: 497: 496: 495: 492: 480: 476: 472: 468: 464: 460: 456: 452: 448: 447: 446: 445: 444: 443: 438: 435: 430: 429: 428: 427: 420: 419: 418: 417: 410: 409: 408: 407: 400: 397: 392: 391: 390: 389: 388: 387: 386: 385: 382: 375: 372:Indian -: --> 371: 366: 361: 358:Indian -: --> 357: 352: 344: 340: 336: 335: 334: 333: 328: 325: 320: 319: 318: 317: 312: 309: 304: 300: 299: 298: 297: 292: 289: 285: 284: 283: 282: 277: 274: 270: 266: 262: 258: 254: 253: 252: 251: 244: 240: 239: 238: 237: 232: 229: 225: 221: 217: 213: 209: 205: 204:British India 201: 198: 197: 196: 195: 194: 193: 190: 186: 182: 178: 177:British India 174: 164: 163: 162: 161: 156: 153: 149: 145: 141: 137: 136: 135: 134: 129: 126: 122: 121: 120: 119: 114: 111: 107: 103: 102: 101: 100: 99: 98: 95: 91: 90:British India 83: 79: 77: 71: 67: 65: 60: 59: 56: 53: 52: 51: 49: 45: 43: 39: 35: 31: 27: 19: 4243: 4236: 4225: 4197: 4194: 4152: 4151:and Pakistan 4148: 4144: 4140: 4138: 4128: 4124: 4105: 4100: 4096: 4092: 4086: 4055: 4035: 4019: 3999:— Preceding 3996: 3955: 3950: 3938: 3936: 3933:Unre4L views 3928: 3849: 3839: 3814:Google Books 3810: 3806: 3762: 3749: 3734: 3721: 3707: 3691: 3677: 3664: 3650: 3635: 3633: 3627:}}: checksum 3611: 3595: 3579: 3563: 3546: 3539: 3532: 3525: 3518: 3511: 3500: 3493: 3486: 3478: 3470: 3463: 3456: 3449: 3439: 3429: 3414: 3404: 3390: 3381: 3373: 3366: 3359: 3345: 3337: 3335: 3301: 3286: 3237: 3197: 3192: 3176: 3163: 3157: 3149: 3133:Jinnah at EB 3128: 3095:Jimmy Carter 3085: 3078: 3061: 3042: 3034: 3030: 3028: 3014: 3013:2) You say: 2996: 2988: 2984: 2982: 2977: 2973: 2969: 2961: 2959: 2948: 2906:Rama's arrow 2905: 2877:Rama's arrow 2876: 2787: 2732:Nation-state 2706: 2702: 2686:who founded 2670:September 11 2649: 2643: 2625:nation-state 2610:September 11 2587: 2581: 2577: 2565: 2556: 2549: 2545: 2538: 2524: 2496: 2492: 2470: 2462: 2446: 2443: 2434: 2430: 2417: 2409: 2390: 2376: 2353: 2334: 2325: 2320: 2306: 2303:Eratosthenes 2292: 2278: 2243: 2173: 2151: 2121: 2109: 2107: 2097: 2061: 2002: 1976: 1933: 1928: 1924: 1921: 1917: 1913: 1909: 1905: 1901: 1897: 1871: 1867: 1858: 1845: 1827:Tamil people 1814: 1810: 1803: 1792: 1783: 1779: 1748: 1747: 1737: 1721: 1699: 1690: 1675: 1659: 1641: 1634: 1621: 1556: 1543: 1513: 1507: 1503: 1490: 1459: 1305: 1301: 1279: 1261: 1239: 1193: 1189: 1170: 1158: 1099: 1082: 964: 960: 950: 921: 869: 845: 836: 831: 830: 820:is not bad. 810: 797: 783: 771: 754: 732: 719: 709: 689: 683: 651:is from the 643:as from the 616: 605: 604: 563: 543: 520: 488: 434:Rama's Arrow 378: 368:India -: --> 364: 354:India -: --> 351:Before 1947 350: 324:Rama's Arrow 308:Rama's Arrow 273:Rama's Arrow 261:user:Nichalp 189:Rama's Arrow 170: 125:Rama's Arrow 110:Rama's Arrow 94:Rama's Arrow 86: 82:user:Spasage 75: 61: 47: 46: 29: 28: 25: 3910:Rowlatt Act 3791:Amazon list 3137:Iqbal at EB 3115:Afghanistan 2995:1)You say: 2843:Afghanistan 2663:December 25 2619:and of the 2603:December 25 2424:and can be 2356:Megasthenes 2345:Palimbothra 2234:TinaSparkle 2191:, see also 2166:TinaSparkle 2144:TinaSparkle 2088:TinaSparkle 2050:TinaSparkle 2003:politically 1981:TinaSparkle 1878:Charlemagne 1874:Machiavelli 1767:Afghanistan 1481:'s comments 1362:south asian 1093:Pepsidrinka 908:Article on 637:Afghanistan 365:After 1947 257:Portal:Asia 4125:south asia 4069:problem.-- 4060:Talk:India 3914:deeptrivia 3803:At Encarta 3758:0415304350 3742:0719042658 3729:8125021116 3716:0521526639 3700:0521466881 3685:1851773185 3672:0897334825 3658:080283874X 3645:0195636996 3620:0195660494 3604:0195666674 3588:0520200616 3572:079108647X 3423:0199246785 3403:Page 155." 3398:0521002540 3353:0415307872 2839:South Asia 2766:deeptrivia 2744:deeptrivia 2482:after the 2416:and it is 2258:deeptrivia 2215:deeptrivia 2207:Uzbekistan 2203:Tajikistan 2199:South Asia 2023:deeptrivia 1728:Bangladesh 1563:South Asia 1516:Cribananda 1479:Cribananda 1441:Gurubrahma 924:deeptrivia 822:Gurubrahma 791:Gurubrahma 750:Bangladesh 649:Casablanca 538:Bangladesh 459:Bangladesh 265:user:Ragib 148:Bangladesh 42:Bangladesh 3084:The term 2815:Sri Lanka 2675:) was an 2508:Baltistan 2484:partition 2408:You said 2363:, whence 2289:Hecataeus 2275:Herodotus 2254:Rajasthan 2211:Kyrgystan 1958:position. 1886:Omerlives 1769:and even 1716:Spasage's 1545:Omerlives 1344:otheruses 1298:Next step 1284:, above. 1201:otheruses 1113:page, as 961:Hindustan 621:Sri Lanka 503:, but to 341:and when 171:The page 4264:æn↓þæµß¶ 4179:æn↓þæµß¶ 4157:æn↓þæµß¶ 4071:æn↓þæµß¶ 4013:contribs 4005:Anupamsr 4001:unsigned 3305:Blacksun 3231:American 3002:clarify. 2827:Maldives 2688:Pakistan 2629:Pakistan 2512:Ishkuman 2480:Pakistan 2426:verified 2337:Hyphasis 2155:Nadirali 2101:Nadirali 2064:Nadirali 1753:Nadirali 1732:Pakistan 1707:Nadirali 1671:Big Bang 1635:must not 1616:Pakistan 1584:=Nichalp 1567:Ethiopia 787:WT:INWNB 744:Pakistan 645:Anatolia 629:Maldives 591:On India 562:page as 467:Pakistan 455:Pakistan 144:Pakistan 38:Pakistan 4246:ﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 3886:El elan 3227:America 3037:, btw." 2933:El elan 2900:Ireland 2856:WP:NPOV 2837:, btw. 2317:Ptolemy 2279:Indiana 2189:example 1915:years. 1850:Spasage 1800:EUREKA! 1741:Spasage 1718:comment 1656:comment 1654:Ragib's 1604:Spasage 1589:«Talk»= 1470:Spasage 1420:Spasage 1330:'s take 1318:Spasage 1274:America 1242:Britain 1131:Spasage 1123:America 996:region. 965:Al-Hind 872:Spasage 839:Spasage 758:Spasage 684:we must 580:Spasage 491:Spasage 381:Spasage 288:Spasage 228:Spasage 152:Spasage 4239:Unre4L 4218:Eukesh 4200:Unre4L 4108:Unre4L 4038:Unre4L 3976:Eukesh 3958:Unre4L 3828:, the 3824:, the 3820:, the 3795:Google 3771:«Talk» 3466:. ..." 3322:«Talk» 3270:«Talk» 3208:«Talk» 3111:Bhutan 3080:not. 3070:«Talk» 2989:Indian 2985:cannot 2970:former 2962:cannot 2719:«Talk» 2680:Muslim 2677:Indian 2590:Jinnah 2576:. The 2514:area? 2504:Gilgit 2500:Sikkim 2473:Punjab 2449:Unre4L 2412:Thats 2393:Unre4L 2341:Ganges 2328:Indica 2250:Indica 2246:Arrian 2181:nation 2125:Unre4L 2115:Unre4L 2110:cannot 2013:and a 2011:nation 1935:Unre4L 1882:Indian 1846:Indian 1835:Sundar 1831:Arvind 1663:Bengal 1532:Indian 1354:Indian 1328:Sundar 1286:JackyR 1222:shth91 1017:, and 910:Taiwan 804:Sundar 641:Ankara 633:Bhutan 627:, the 572:Indian 560:Indian 505:Indian 475:Indian 396:Eukesh 394:you.-- 374:Indian 360:Indian 343:Indian 303:Indian 243:Indian 216:Indian 212:Indian 173:Indian 48:Review 4233:make. 4056:India 3862:Iqbal 3556:Books 3123:Burma 3119:Burma 3107:India 3035:Burma 3031:Burma 2847:Burma 2835:Burma 2823:Burma 2819:Nepal 2740:State 2488:India 2431:Gizza 2381:word. 2361:Indus 2321:India 2307:India 2293:India 2185:state 2183:(not 2074:D-Boy 2048:. -- 2019:state 2015:state 1999:Indus 1780:Gizza 1763:Burma 1749:Wrong 1702:Sindh 1693:Ragib 1579:Bihar 1559:India 1487:India 1466:India 1416:India 1408:India 1393:Ragib 1373:India 1337:India 1270:India 1262:might 1254:Wales 1208:India 1194:India 1173:Samir 1161:India 1153:India 1145:India 1103:Ragib 1085:India 1024:Ragib 969:Anwar 940:Ragib 886:China 625:Nepal 576:India 479:India 471:India 463:India 451:India 370:India 224:India 220:India 208:India 185:India 140:India 70:India 30:ISSUE 16:< 4260:this 4155::)-- 4141:bold 4009:talk 3918:talk 3755:ISBN 3739:ISBN 3726:ISBN 3713:ISBN 3697:ISBN 3682:ISBN 3669:ISBN 3655:ISBN 3642:ISBN 3625:ISBN 3617:ISBN 3601:ISBN 3585:ISBN 3569:ISBN 3507:..." 3420:ISBN 3395:ISBN 3350:ISBN 3229:and 3193:were 2923:is 2864:The 2859:job. 2845:and 2770:talk 2748:talk 2673:1948 2666:1876 2652:): 2613:1948 2606:1876 2476:Sind 2378:now. 2369:Nile 2262:talk 2219:talk 2209:and 2027:talk 1948:", " 1771:Iran 1680:and 1602:. -- 1577:and 1495:Rome 1418:. -- 1290:Talk 1244:(re 1190:only 1188:The 1177:धर्म 1129:. -- 1071:Talk 1063:Sukh 928:talk 789:. -- 615:Now 267:and 218:and 4205:ITY 4113:ITY 4043:ITY 3963:ITY 3880:or 3876:in 3027:3) 2650:not 2627:of 2502:or 2454:ITY 2398:ITY 2072:k-- 1777:). 1730:or 1385:Goa 1214:Shr 1171:-- 1101:as 1067:ਸੁਖ 963:or 457:or 146:or 50:: 4235:-- 4143:, 4104:-- 4034:-- 4015:) 4011:• 3954:-- 3920:) 3816:, 3809:, 3805:- 3801:, 3797:, 3793:, 3432:." 3425:. 3400:. 3198:is 3139:, 3135:, 3131:- 3117:, 3113:, 3109:, 3093:, 2902:. 2825:, 2821:, 2817:, 2772:) 2750:) 2697:” 2694:. 2668:– 2658:“ 2638:” 2635:. 2608:– 2598:“ 2534:. 2428:. 2319:- 2305:- 2291:- 2264:) 2221:) 2205:, 2195:). 2029:) 1971:, 1765:, 1573:, 1514:- 1347:}} 1341:{{ 1288:| 1252:, 1248:, 1204:}} 1198:{{ 1105:, 1069:| 1065:| 1013:, 930:) 901:, 870:-- 635:, 631:, 623:, 379:-- 263:, 68:, 66:. 40:, 4272:¢ 4270:- 4268:ŧ 4266:- 4187:¢ 4185:- 4183:ŧ 4181:- 4165:¢ 4163:- 4161:ŧ 4159:- 4153:s 4149:s 4079:¢ 4077:- 4075:ŧ 4073:- 4007:( 3916:( 3832:. 3744:. 3702:. 3660:. 3629:. 3606:. 3590:. 3574:. 3143:. 2768:( 2746:( 2510:/ 2506:/ 2277:- 2260:( 2217:( 2025:( 1944:" 1534:. 1497:. 1218:e 926:( 905:. 655:. 511:. 72:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:Notice board for India-related topics/India disambiguation discussion - Knowledge

Index