Talk:India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

India is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 3, 2004.

	Article milestones

Date

Process

Result

September 16, 2004

Featured article candidate

Promoted

April 11, 2005

Featured article review

Kept

May 6, 2006

Featured article review

Kept

Current Status: Featured article

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the India article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects.
Click [show] for further details

WikiProject India (Rated FA-Class)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. (see comments)

[edit] Should change population unit

should change 1.12 billion[8] to something like 1.120.000.000 because the term "billion" is ambiguous. It can be either that or 1.120.000.000.000.000. -- Lacrymology

[edit] Largest democracy

It is vandalism to insist calling India a populous democrasy. To me that has a bit negetive connotation. The citation given for the claim clearly mentions (the bbc article) that India is the "largest democracy" and not populous democracy. I do not understand why people are hell bent against it being called what it is. Democracy is decded not by geography democracy is decided by the number of people. Thus largest means largest by the number people but is used in the media consistantly. No one refers to it as populous democracy. Why is a new term being cooked up here? ~rAGU (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason for using "most populous democracy" instead of "largest democracy" is to avoid any ambiguity. There's nothing negative about it. "Largest" is used for the first time in the sentence to mean "of greatest area." Next, "populous" is used to mean "most populated." So, when "largest" is used again (when applied to "democracy") to mean "most populated," it creates confusion among some readers. Not among Indian readers, to be sure, since they are familiar with the expression; but not all readers are, the BBC quote notwithstanding. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should use the widely adopted term "LARGEST DEMOCRACY". Assertions as to whether or not populous is pejorative are very subjective. (You may think it is not negative, I think it is). So we should, go with the broadly used term, cite BBC, and say "largest democracy". If you think populous is a superior/not-negative term over largest, hold a poll here to see if the majority agrees with you. Until such time, revert it back to "largest". 24.130.60.26 (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"Largest" in terms of what? Population? Land area? Number of political parties? The term "most populous" is clear and unambiguous. Largest democracy is ambiguous, and therefore, I would support using "most populous" democracy. --Ragib (talk) 06:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"Largest Democracy" needs no further qualification. The size of a democracy is decided by the number of people that participate in it, and *is a term that is widely used*. As rAGU also said, suddenly using a different term in this article is jarring. I'm ok with putting explanation parenthesis to say we mean population, but we should include "largest democracy" -- that is something that is oft mentioned about India in print and media, and to suddenly invent another term seems out of place. ("Largest country" could mean land area, populationm etc. etc., but "largest democracy" is self-explanatory). MintCond (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

To generalise the topic a little, any sort of "largest" political state does not necessarily imply population. Just as the largest democracy is a familiar expression, another is that the Mongol Empire was four times "larger" than the Roman, which refers to geographical area. Now it isn't clear why you think populous has pejorative connotations. At the end of the day, Indians who are proud of such a statement are proud because this democracy contains more than one billion people. Using "populous" makes this more obvious to those who are unaware of this fact. There is every possibility that a reader may think to him/herself "Hey, I though Canada, USA and Australia were larger democracies." There is no harm in using a specific term. In fact, it is very beneficial to remove any ambiguities in the article because the number of vague words is inversely proportional to the quality of the article. Gizza^Discuss ^© 13:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we use something like "largest democracy(in terms of population)". This will remove any ambiguity and at the same time use the term which is familiar to most. Rest day (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'll take a stab at it, in the most unambiguous way. MintCond (talk) 05:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've randomly bumped into this conversation and can not help but be amused. What could possibly be ambiguous about the largest democracy? If two people went to Mars and voted to stay, would you then declare that Mars was the largest democracy? Mars would probably become the furthest democracy (and anybody who said "furthest to what", could not possibly be serious.) Czar Brodie (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this is just another example of the systemic Western bias WP:CSB in Wikipedia, that needs to be corrected -- but I'm hopeful the "wisdom of the crowds" will get it right in the end. MintCond (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear MintCond (talk · contribs), Czar Brodie (talk · contribs), and Rest day (talk · contribs), the largest democracy bit is simply not important enough to merit an entire sentence in the lead paragraph, which is supposed to be about geography and population, not about systems of government. (See Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries). If tomorrow China becomes a democracy, will you be clamoring for the sentence: "India is the second-largest democracy in the world, and is commonly referred to as such [13], on account of the size of its electorate?" Very unlikely that you would, although India's democratic achievement would be no less remarkable. Or for that matter if the sizes of democracies are such a notable achievements: can you name the second, third and fourth largest democracies off the top of your heads? In addition, if anything needs to be said about democracy, it is not clear what is more remarkable: that India is the largest democracy or it is an enduring democracy. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 00:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

PS MintCond (talk · contribs) for someone with a sum total of 19 edits on Wikipedia, you shouldn't be edit-warring so soon. You are about to violate 3RR. (Just offering some friendly advice. :) ) Fowler&fowler «Talk» 00:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

India is the largest democracy but not the largest democratic country. Since democracy used as a noun does not defer to the country but rather a system of governence which depends on peoples participation, I do believe that India being called the largest democracy is a correct statement. Also, BBC would be considered to be an extremely important authority on this matter as Indian English is far closer to British English than it is to American English. Also, it ought to mentioned in the main paragraph as it is distinguishing. It should be mentioned in the main paragraph because it is noteworthy.75.110.214.35 (talk) 02:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Ketan Khare

And, BTW, how did my various interlocutors here come up with the fiction, "No one refers to it (India) as (the world's most) populous democracy"? True, the phrase "world's most populous democracy" is not as popular as "world's largest democracy," (especially among Indian links) but it is certainly common enough. Here are some reliable sources and well-known people who have used the phrase, among them Sonia Gandhi:

Please expand to see examples of the use of the expression "world's most populous democracy."

Encyclopedia Encarta (2008) "United Kingdom""Some parts of the world received substantial numbers of British emigrants and developed into what were called daughter nations. These colonies eventually became self-governing areas called dominions. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand fit this pattern. For a long time India was the most important colony in the British Empire, but after a long anticolonial struggle with Britain, independent India today is the world’s most populous democracy."
Encyclopaedia Britannica Student Edition (2008) . "Democracy". See caption of photograph: "India is the world's most populous democracy.".
Sonia Gandhi (2001). "Golden Jubilee of the Election Commission of India" "... if only the world's richest democracy had followed systems adopted in the world's most populous democracy, the Florida mix-up would not have happened. That is yet another tribute to our Election Commission."
The Guardian (UK) (2007). "Hollow freedom", article by author Pankaj Mishra. Quote: "Unfortunately, it sounds no less hollow when pronounced by the leader of the world's most populous democracy - especially to those Indians who live amid their country's manifest cruelties and injustices, and who watch bemusedly its smooth elevation, by a glib commentariat, to almost-superpower status."
BBC News (2003). "India hails Russian defence deal" Quoting the Russian defence minister: "India is the world's most populous democracy, and we have been linked by decades of close friendship." (That certainly can't be interpreted as pejorative or negative, or reflection of system bias, since it was said by the Russian minister to the Indians at the signing of the historic agreement.)
European Parliament (2007) "EU-India relations in spotlight as President addresses MEPs" President of the European Parliament: "India is the most populous democracy in the world with well over 1 billion people."
University of Chicago Chronicle (2005). "Conference to look at India's constitutional plight" Lead sentence: "It is the world’s most populous democracy, with a Constitution promising its 1.1 billion citizens mutual respect and protection of basic democratic ideals"
CNN-Money: Fortune (2005). "India on the march" Subtitle of article: "The world's most populous democracy has jumbo growth prospects. Here's how to invest now."
Forbes (2007) "In India, rough justice of the mob" Lead paragraph: "Indian media brimmed over with news of street violence last week. Rioters shut down Agra, the home of the Taj Mahal; parents stoned a New Delhi school where a teacher was accused of sexual abuse; and in Bihar, angry bystanders and police tortured a chain snatcher, raising concerns of a breakdown in law and order in the world’s most populous democracy."
Al-Ahram, Cairo. (2001) "Who is Buhari?" Quote: "Despite the many strands of opinion amongst the Muslim minority in the world's most populous democracy, many have complained in recent months that the Indian media sees them as monolithic and fundamentalist."
PBS On-line Newshour "India turns 50: Interview with Shashi Tharoor" Subtitle: "Five decades ago, British troops pulled out of India and Pakistan, and the world's most populous democracy was born."

Given that the phrase is widely used, and that it is unambiguous and succinct (doesn't require qualification), I see no reason to change "the most populous democracy." Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler -- you say above "the largest democracy bit is not important enough to merit an entire sentence in the lead". While I'm sure the majority disagree with that statement, and consider being the largest democracy to be something very significant about India, I'm ok with a compromise position of having it be a part of an existing sentence, as it has been now changed to. You don't have to give it a sentence by itself, but it certainly merits mention in any lead paragraph about India (just geography and population is not enough, in fact by your own admission, as the democracy mention was already a part of the lead)

Whether China in the future becomes a democracy or not is irrelevant to the current discussion and does not have any bearing on why we need to ignore the widely prevalent appellation for India -- "world's largest democracy"

I had assumed "admins" on Wikipedia were meant to be "reasonable" and I cannot understand the resistance to accept India as the world's largest democracy. It's like saying I won't call a basketball player tall, I'll call him "long". It seems to me you are trying to take "something away" from India and its commendably successful democratic tradition -- it holds the largest democratic exercises and elections anywhere in the world, and regularly so. Again you yourself have admitted above: "populous democracy" IS NOT AS popular as "world's largest democracy,". Then why insist upon this awkward sentence about India, in the lead paragraph, when "world's largest democracy" is something that is oft mentioned about India. You don't get to write history here Fowler&fowler. As I said, I am still unable to understand what your actual objection to "world's largest democracy" is -- the only reason I can come up with is perhaps a bias somewhere, or an inclination to "take away" or somehow diminish India's achievment in deciding to be democratic post-independence. I agree with you that being an enduring democracy is remarkable, but that does not mean being the largest one isn't.

Authoritative and reputable sources referring to India as the world's largest democracy:

United Nations (www.un.org): [1] World's Largest Democracy to Reach One Billion Persons on Independence Day. According to the official United Nations population estimates and projections
BBC: [2] The world's largest democracy and second most populous country has emerged as a major power after a period of foreign rule and several decades during which its economy was virtually closed.
Britannica Online: [3] ... it represents the appeal of India, the world's largest democracy, to global marketers.
New York Times: [4] Democracy Speaks in India. What most distinguishes a democracy is the people's right to reject those in power. In India, the world's largest democracy and the third world's most durable, voters have done just that...
NPR: [5] Proponents say that the world's largest democracy is an increasingly important economic and military power.
Fareed Zakaria, Editor, Newsweek in book The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad: [6] We prefer to speak romantically about the beauty of Indians voting and the joys of the world's largest democracy.
US House International Relations Committee, Nicholas Burns: [7] The U.S. and India: An Emerging Entente? It is in our national interest to develop a strong, forward looking relationship with the world's largest democracy
Strobe Talbott, Fmr Dpy US Sec. of State in Foreign Affairs: [8] But since becoming the world's largest democracy in 1947, the country has not had a single substantial famine, despite frequent crop failures and food
MIT / Economic Political Weekly [9] : It is clear that India, the world's largest democracy, is a nation that despite communal conflict has ...
Univ of Georgia International Center essay collection [10]: US Strategic Relations with the World's Largest Democracy
World Policy Journal: [11] India has asserted for more than a decade that its claim is "natural" and "legitimate" since it is the world's largest democracy and a rapidly growing economic

Being the "world's largest democracy" deserves mention in the lead paragraph on any article about India. Using sleight of hand in words to avoid calling India that, (for what reasons is unclear WP:CSB ?) does not behoove admins on Wikipedia.MintCond (talk) 08:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Good job. Thats the way to go about it. So what about the solution of adding a footnote (like done in this edit? Also please note that Fowler&fowler is not an admin. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 09:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 -- I am happy with your edit, the solution of adding a footnotes makes things very clear. Thanks. (Also a relief to know Fowler&fowler is not an admin).MintCond (talk) 09:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

relief to know Fowler&fowler is not an admin—please avoid such statements—its against WP:AGF and WP:PA. Also note that the solution needs consensus. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, here's how I remember the saga of "democracy" in the lead paragraph. When I first arrived on Wikipedia (October 2006), there wasn't any mention of it (but that was a chaotic time on the India page, and it may have been there earlier). At some point, it was introduced; soon thereafter, some readers (Chinese perhaps?) objected to the use of "democracy" without any qualification, and the text was changed to the "largest liberal democracy." But soon after that, other readers got confused by the different uses of "largest" in the same sentence and wrote, "But I thought America was larger ..." (or words to that effect). After discussion at that point, the text was changed to "most populous liberal democracy," and it remained that way for almost a year, when someone else again removed the liberal, and it became "most populous democracy." Every now and then, of course, some reader wanted to put "largest" back in, but they never did. The basic point is that when in one sentence "largest" is used in two different way, some readers (especially the ones not very proficient in English) get confused (and, yes, I'm aware that Wikipedia is not censored etc. etc.).

The point of giving examples of the usage "world's most populous democracy" was not that it is the more common expression, but that it is used often enough by varied sources and speakers, spanning many continents and sub-continents, not least India. Obviously, if it is good enough for Britannica (as a caption to a photograph in the "Democracy" page) and Encarta, for Sonia Gandhi, while giving a keynote address on the 50th anniversary of India's Election Commission, it is good enough for Wikipedia. If you want to add "world's largest democracy" to the third paragraph in the lead, where government is discussed, be my guest, but in a sentence about area and population in the first paragraph (where it doesn't really belong in any case), it can cause confusion (among some readers)

Please don't throw around convenient terms like "systemic bias." The self-congratulatory expression "largest democracy," has been loved by the Indian elite pretty much since India's independence. Many generations of Indian elite have grown up with that expression, reading it in their newspapers, while a vast majority of Indians, as Pankaj Mishra reminds us in the Guardian piece I quoted above, remain mired in poverty (even as the number of billionaires grows exponentially). Obviously, for the poor, among whom are the largest number of malnourished citizens in any country in the world, that democracy has provided little benefit, and for them India remains the world's most populous democracy. The elite, on the other hand, bristle when the see the expression "world's most populous democracy," because "populous" puts into stark perspective—that the euphemism "largest" doesn't—what India's democracy can mean for many of its citizens.

Finally, I don't see any consensus for the "largest democracy" yet. Certainly, user:Ragib and User:DaGizza are not for it; neither am I (at least not in the lead paragraph). Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me put on the record that I'm ok with the article as it stands only as a "compromise" and ideally I would like to see a sentence about India being the world's largest democracy, in spite of what Fowler&fowler thinks about "the largest democracy bit is not important enough to merit an entire sentence in the lead". You seem to want to have it both ways -- you claim that the reason you don't want largest is because you have said "largest by geographical area" earlier in the sentence, but then you don't want it in a different sentence either. And you don't want anyone to reword it to make it clearer either, and you jump and revert. And finally, now you say, you want to play with terms largest and populous etc. to impose what you feel is the so-called misplaced pride of the "elite" on India being a democracy! I had always suspected "an agenda" on your part, and it is becoming clearer now. My position is that we defer to the multiple authoritative sources that say India is the worlds largest democracy. And since no one here is in a mood for compromise, I'm now pushing for having a clear unambiguous sentence in the lead paragraph that mentions cleary India is the world's largest democracy. MintCond (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I did give you another option. I have now removed the part about the largest democracy from the lead paragraph, and have put it in the last paragraph, where it is much more appropriate:

“

The world's largest democracy,^[1] and a pluralistic, multilingual, and multiethnic society, India is also home to a diversity of wildlife in a variety of protected habitats.

”

I would like to know what people think of it. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

PS The bit about "Indian elite" was added to simply make the point that there are many ways of claiming "systemic bias." Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not happy at all with removing such an important fact about India from the lead, and burying it elsewhere. Let's work on the lead paragraph -- do you have any other suggestion of working in largest democracy in the intro para?(something that is mentioned first in most "country profiles" on India). In addition to the current, I have other suggestions on where it could fit in the lead, but I think it's better if they come from you. MintCond (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Also I don't see how combining democracy with diversity of wildlife is more appropriate than having it in the introduction about India. MintCond (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh? What's the matter with you MintCond (talk · contribs)? Why are you deliberately misinterpreting what is said? The sentence talks about "pluralistic, multi-lingual, and multi-ethnic" society before, (with qualification "also" to subordinate what is being said next), it talks about wildlife.

I made the edit on the main page, so that people can see it in its new surroundings (in the third paragraph). Your edit is only minimally different from the previous one. I do understand that you are new to Wikipedia and may not understand everything about it, (and that I'm supposed to be nice to you), but for heaven's sake, why are you edit-warring on the cusp of 3RR (having violated it once yesterday and let off with a warning)?

And where did you get the idea that the last paragraph in the lead is not important. It is the last thing people read before they make the decision to continue with the rest of the article or not. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The third paragraph is the right place for "largest/most populous democracy." In fact, it should have put there right from the start. Pretty much all the other FAs: Australia, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Canada, Chad, Germany, Libya, Pakistan, and Peru, have the following structure of topics in the lead: 1. Geography/Population 2. History 3. Current affairs: Politics/Economy. There is no reason why India should be any different. Here, for example, are three references to political systems of other FAs (all in their third paragraphs):

“

A federation now comprising ten provinces and three territories, Canada is a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy, with Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state. Canada)

”

“

Since federation, Australia has maintained a stable liberal democratic political system and remains a Commonwealth realm. (Australia)

”

“

While many political parties are active, power lies firmly in the hands of President Déby and his political party, the Patriotic Salvation Movement. (Chad)

”

Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Science and Technology

I think we need to have a science and technology section (or a paragraph in the economy section) to show India's achievements in the field because they are important to the country. apan]], a featured article, has such a section. Germany, a featured article, also has a science section. Beligium and Israel are also featured article with this section. South Korea has a Science and Technology section, as does China, UK, USA, Brazil, Argentina, Greece, Finland, Portugal, Bulgaria, Poland, Austria, and many other countries which I do not have time to look up. Other countries, like Chad, may not have this section because they are much smaller and do not have the money and resources to launch satellites (like ISRO does) or have nuclear technology like India does. Hence, science and technology is not a big part of their country. Still, Science and Technology in India is a vital part of the country's Electronics, Space, Defence, Nuclear, Biomolecular, Medical, Environmental, Agricultural, etc. needs and this page needs to address this just like the countries listed above.

I know there was a straw poll before, but if there is consensus to add a science and technology section now, we can add it now. Let's discuss this here. Cheers Nikkul (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, and would suggest that you develop the article Science and Technology in India first before starting yet another straw poll. --Ragib (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ditto, per Ragib. AreJay (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ditto, per Ragib and AreJay. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ditto We can add a summarised version of the sub-article once it has progressed to a certain extent. That would be a better option than drafting the section on an FA. Gizza^Discuss ^© 23:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Change Cricket sport section

here are the true facts ->

   * India won icc cricket t20 championship,South africa,2007
   * India runners up in cricket in worldcup 2003
   * india won world cup in 1983

The Indian Squad that won the 1983 World Cup comprised:

  * Mohinder Amarnath
  * Kirti Azad
  * Roger Binny
  * Kapil Dev (captain)
  * Sunil Gavaskar
  * Syed Kirmani (wicketkeeper)
  * Madan Lal
  * Sandeep Patil
  * Balwinder Sandhu
  * Yashpal Sharma
  * Ravi Shastri
  * Kris Srikkanth
  * Sunil Valson
  * Dilip Vengsarkar

Raunakroy --Raunakroy (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This page isn't fully protected so there's no need for administrator intervention. As soon as your account is autoconfirmed (4 days old with at least 10 edits) you can add this yourself. However, if there is not consensus for the addition it may be reverted (and at a quick glance, this information doesn't look appropriate for the main India article). Trebor (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics

There is sufficient evidence to prove that Hindi is just not "the" official language of India and its one of the official languages of India, nevertheless its the largest spoken one. By using it as the official language of India, we are slighting other facts and thereby presenting a biased picture of the demographics of this nation. Refer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_languages_of_India

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Showmethedoor (talk • contribs) 21:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Its better to use - 'one of the' instead of 'the official' or else - use 'Hindi is the official language of the Union government' and there are several other official languages at each state and link it to the wikipage on "official languages of India". I prefer to phrase a sentence that encompasses all the facts in one go rather than breaking it up into several sentences. I hope we are addressing what is the current status of official languages of India rather than how it evolved and changed over the decades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Showmethedoor (talk • contribs) 21:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Make sure you use ~~~~ to sign. In the US, Spanish is widely spoken but not officially recognized as an official language. I myself am Gukarati and consder Gujarati and other languages officila, but t's not recognized by the government Juthani1

I guess comparing India to US is not a reasonable. We are here to represent what India is on date as a fact, rather than by comparisons. Hindi is the official language of the Union govt. Quoting from the wikipage on the official languages of India - "As a large and linguistically diverse country, India does not have a single official language. Instead, the Constitution of India envisages a situation where each state has its own official language(s), in addition to the official languages to be used by the Union government. The section of the Constitution of India dealing with official languages therefore includes detailed provisions[1] which deal not just with the languages used for the official purposes of the union,[2] but also with the languages that are to be used for the official purposes of each state and union territory in the country,[3] and the languages that are to be used for communication between the union and the states inter se.[4]". In the current wikipage for India - it says - Hindi is the official language of India, which is very misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Showmethedoor (talk • contribs) 15:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hindi is the national language of India and I have updated the same in article. In hindi we call it Rashtra bhasha. --gppande «talk» 15:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Use of the term national language is controversial so we better not label Hindi as the national language. But it is the primary offical language of India with English as the subsidary. All the confusion will disappear if one sees the citation provided. - KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, this has already been discussed previously. There is no such thing as "national language of India". The term doesn't exist, either in the Constitution or in the Official Languages Act. AreJay (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, we are digressing from the point that I posted first - i feel its more than highly reasonable to rephrase the sentence - Hindi is the primary official language advocated by the Union government, with English as the subsidiary language. However, there are plenty of other languages that are afforded official language status at the state level. Hence, the demographics does not present a neutral picture. Is it okay to rephrase the sentences in the intro section of official languages of India? Showmethedoor (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say, add a subheading to the talk page that is more reflective of your question (eg. "Hindi", "Official languages", etc) and then just build consensus before you make the change to the article. I should caution you that consensus building on such a contentious issue will take time. My personal opinion based on the verbiage above (which I'm guessing is how you plan to style your suggested change) is - a) where does it say in the constitution that Hindi is the "primary" official language? b) was it really "advocated" by the Union government? c) Where does it say that English is a "subsidiary" language?

Also, upon further review of the Demographics section, I don't see where it suggests that Hindi is the only official language of India. It specifically says, "one of the official languages of India.." and then goes on to discuss other official languages. My personal opinion is that this representation is fair. Thanks AreJay (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Hindi is the Official language of India and English the subsidiary official language. It is not just the language of the Union Government. We went through an exhaustive discussion on this a year ago. You can always cherry-pick from a document here or a paper there, but the bottom line is that the reliable sources have interpreted the Government of India's various pronouncements about official languages in the manner reflected in the first sentence above. Here is the list from a year ago. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Expand to see 15 focused secondary sources, including 1) Encyclopaedia Britannica, "India—Linguistic Composition." 2) Encyclopedia Encarta, "India: Official Languages". 3) Encyclopedia Encarta, "Indian Languages: Official Languages" 4) Indo-Aryan Languages. 6) United Kingdom, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, "India—Country Profile." 7) United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 8) UNESCO, "Education for all—The Nine Largest Countries." 9) US Library of Congress, "Country Profile: India." 10) US Department of State, "Background Note: India." 11) UN High Commissioner for Refugees, "Country Profile: India." 12) Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Languages of India. 13) Mallikarjun, B. 2004. "Fifty Years of Language Planning for Modern Hindi-The Official Language of India.", Language in India. 14) Mallikarjun, B. 2004. "Indian Multilingualism, Language Policy, and the Digital Divide" Language in India. 15) Laitin, David. 1989. "Language policy and political strategy in India." Policy Sciences. 22:415-436.

1. Schwartzberg, Joseph E., 2007. Encyclopedia Britannica, India—Linguistic Composition. Quote 1: "Of the originally 14 (subsequently 18) languages recognized as official in the Indian constitution, 13 are Indo-European (Assamese, Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Kashmiri, Konkani, Marathi, Nepali, Oriya, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Sindhi, and Urdu), 4 are Dravidian (Kannada, Malayalam, Tamil, and Telugu), and 1 is Sino-Tibetan (Manipuri) ... Indo-European languages are collectively spoken as mother tongues by nearly three-fourths of all Indians. By far the most widely spoken is Hindi, the country's official language, with more than 300 million speakers. ... Apart from its nationally preeminent position, Hindi has been adopted as the official language by each of a large contiguous bloc of northern states—Bihar, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh—as well as by the national capital territory of Delhi."

2. Oldenburg, Phillip. (1997-2007) Encarta Encyclopedia "India: Official Languages." Quote 2: "According to the national census of India, 114 languages and 216 dialects are spoken in the country. Eighteen Indian languages, plus English, have been given official status by the federal or state governments. Hindi is the main language of more than 40 percent of the population. No single language other than Hindi can claim speakers among even 10 percent of the total population. Hindi was therefore made India’s official language in 1965. English, which was associated with British rule, was retained as an option for official use because some non-Hindi speakers, particularly in Tamil Nādu, opposed the official use of Hindi."

3. Fisher, Solveig G. (1997-2007) Encarta Encyclopedia "Indian Languages: Official Languages" Quote 3: "No one common language is spoken on the Indian subcontinent. Hindi and English are the co-official national languages of India, and both tongues are used as lingua francas in the various linguistic regions. In addition, the Indian constitution recognizes 18 state languages, which are used in schools and in official transactions. These are Assamese, Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada (Kanarese), Kashmīri, Konkani, Malayalam, Meithei (Manipuri), Marathi, Nepali, Oriya, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Sindhi, Tamil, Telugu, and Urdu."

4. Cardona, George and Dhanesh Jain (eds). 2003. Indo-Aryan Languages. London: Routledge. 704 pages. ISBN 0700711309. Quote 4: "Hindi, generally considered by language statisticians to be anywhere from the third to the fifth most widely spoken language in the world, is spoken natively by upwards of 300 million people. The language is, along with English, one of the two officially recognized national languages of India. (pp 250-251)"

5. Kurzon, Dennis. 2004. Where East Looks West: Success in English in Goa and on the Konkan Coast, Multilingual Matters Limited. 180 pages. ISBN 1853596736. Quote 5: The Constitutional Position (p. 4): "Let us take a look at the relevant part of the Constitution, which was originally promulgated in 1950. Part XVII (Articles 343-351) deals with the official language of the Union (Chapter 1), with regional languages (Chapter 2), with the language of the judiciary (Chapter 3) and with special directives (Chapter 4). The first of the articles in this part states categorically that the official language of India is Hindi, written in the Devanagari script (based on the ancient script in which Sanskrit was written). However, this declaration is then subject to a proviso concerning English.... In India, reality controlled decision-making and in the following clause of Article 343, it is stated that English 'shall continue to be used for all official purposes of the Union for which it was being used immediately before' the promulgation of the Constitution. The status of English as 'associate language' was guaranteed for 15 years from the promulgation of the Constitution (i.e. until 1965)."

Continuation of Quote 5 above:

However, the following article (344) relates to the other Indian languages by setting up a commission and a parliamentary committee to study the use of Hindi 'for the official purpose of the Union', the use of English and the use of the languages spoken in non-Hindi parts of the country (the south in particular).

The official languages of the states of the Indian Union are then dealt with in three articles. State legislatures are given the right to "adopt any one or more of the languages in use in the State or Hindi as the Language or Languages to be used for all or any of the official purposes of the state," but English may still be used in those fields in which it was used before the adoption of the Constitution unless the legislature decides otherwise. Each state then has at least (and usually only) one official language. Inter-state communication is dealt with in Article 346, and the rights of a linguistic minority in a state to have their language recognised as official as long as 'a substantial proportion of the population of a State desire (its) use' are the subject of article 347."

6. United Kingdom, Foreign and Commonwealth Office: India—Country Profile. Quote 6: "The official language of India is Hindi written in the Devanagari script and spoken by some 30% of the population as a first language. Since 1965 English has been recognised as an 'associated language'. In addition there are 18 main and regional languages recognised for adoption as official state languages."

7. United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Hindi. Quote 7: "Usage by Country, Official Language: India. Similarly, English Version says: "Usage by Country, Official Language: India." Contrast with: Kannada Version, which says, "Usage by Country, Official Language: Karnataka/India; Marathi Version, which says, "Usage by Country, Official Language: Maharashtra/India," and the Telegu Version, which says, "Usage by Country, Official Language: Andhra Pradesh/India."

8. UNESCO: Education for All—The Nine Largest Countries Quote 8: "Linguistic Diversity of EFA-9 Countries. India: More than 200 languages are spoken. Four major language groups are represented. The most important of these is the Indo-Aryan branch of the Indo-European Group. Hindi is the language of 30% of the population and the official language of India. Hindi and the other Indo-Aryan languages—including Assamese, Bengali, Gujarati, Kashmiri, Marathi, Oriya, Punjabi, and Urdu--are spoken mainly in the northern part of the country and derive their script from ancient Sanskrit. The leading Dravidian languages--Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, and Kannada--are spoken in four southern states. Sino-Tibetan and Austro-Asiatic languages generally survive only in small and isolated regions."

9. United States Library of Congress, Federal Research Division, Country Profile: India Quote 9: "Languages: The total number of languages and dialects varies by source and counting method, and many Indians speak more than one language. The Indian census lists 114 languages (22 of which are spoken by one million or more persons) that are further categorized into 216 dialects or “mother tongues” spoken by 10,000 or more speakers. An estimated 850 languages are in daily use, and the Indian Government claims there are more than 1,600 dialects. Hindi is the official language and the most commonly spoken, but not all dialects are mutually comprehensible. English also has official status and is widely used in business and politics, although knowledge of English varies widely from fluency to knowledge of just a few words. The teaching of Hindi and English is compulsory in most states and union territories. Twenty-two languages are legally recognized by the constitution for various political, educational, and other purposes: Assamese, Bengali, Bodo, Dogri, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Kashmiri, Konkani, Maithali, Malayalam, Manipuri, Marathi, Nepali, Oriya, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Santhali, Sindhi, Tamil, Telugu, and Urdu. Numerous other languages are recognized by individual states but not officially recognized by the central government, and linguistic issues related to education, employment, and politics are sometimes politically contentious. Indeed, some state borders are based on linguistic lines. The most commonly spoken languages are Hindi (40.2 percent of the population), Bengali (8.3 percent), Telugu (7.9 percent), Marathi (7.5 percent), and Tamil (6.3 percent)."

10 US Department of State, Background Note: India, December 2006. Quote 10: In Profile: "Languages: Hindi, English, and 16 other official languages." Later, in "People: The government has recognized 18 official languages; Hindi, the national language, is the most widely spoken, although English is a national lingua franca."

11 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Country Profile: India Quote 11: "Hindi is constitutionally designated as the official language of India, with English as an associate official language. However, English, which is spoken by some 15 million people in India, is 'for practical purposes . . . the official language of India, the principal medium of communication among the educated classes' (Ibid.). Out of 1,652 languages and dialects spoken throughout the country, only the 15 that are spoken by 91 per cent of the population are recognized as regional languages: Sindhi, Urdu, Punjabi, Assamese, Bengali, Gujarati, Kashmiri, Marathi, Oriya, Sanskrit and Rajasthani from the Indo-European family, and Kannada (or Kanarese), Tamil, Malayalam and Telugu from the Dravidian family. 18 regional languages are recognised by the 8th Schedule of the Constitution read with Articles 344(1) and 351 namely: Assamese, Bengali, Gujarati, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Sindhi, Tamil, Telgu and Urdu."

12 Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Languages of India Quote 12: "Republic of India, Bharat. 1,065,070,607. Indo-Aryan 777,361,000, 76%; Dravidian 216,635,000, 21.6%; Austro-Asiatic 12,250,000, 1.2%; Tibeto-Burman 10,350,000, 1%; Other 2,468,600, 0.2%. National or official languages: Hindi and English. There are 22 official 'scheduled' languages: Assamese, Bengali, Bodo, Dogri, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Kashmiri, Konkani, Maithili, Malayalam, Marathi, Meitei, Nepali, Oriya, Eastern Panjabi, Sanskrit, Santali, Sindhi, Tamil, Telugu, Urdu."

13 Mallikarjun, B. (Nov., 2004), Fifty Years of Language Planning for Modern Hindi–The Official Language of India, Language in India, Volume 4, Number 11. ISSN 1930-2940. Quote 13: "Once the Constitution of India came into force on January 26, 1950, the status of Hindi was greatly enhanced. Hindi in Devanagari script and the international form of Indian numerals form the Official language of the Union. Among the Indian languages, Hindi is the most highly empowered language which constitutionally/legally has multiple status - an official language of the Union; official language of 13 states and union territories; the major regional language in 9 states where it is a majority language, and an important minority language in 18 states and union territories. Also it is a language of deliberations of the Parliament of India and state legislatures in the states in which it is recognized as an official language. Apart from this, the Constitution also provides that, with mutual consent, any two states or the states and the Union can use it as a language for their inter- communication. It is the majority language of the country and also a Scheduled Language since it is in the VIIIth Schedule of the Constitution. It is the only language about whose development the Constitution has given direction, and hence it has the constitutional right for development."

14 Mallikarjun, B. (April 2004). "Indian Multilingualism, Language Policy, and the Digital Divide", Language in India, Volume 4, Number 4, ISSN 1930-2940. Quote 14: "Normally for any policy extension initiated by the government, the government wants a list of languages. It will start with Hindi the official language of the Union at the first instance, and then move towards, at the second instance, to the Scheduled Languages.

15 Laitin, David 1989. "Language policy and political strategy in India." Policy Sciences. 22:415-436. Quote 15: "Gandhi also emphasized the need for an indigenous all-India language as something of grave need, and promoted Hindustani, a north Indian koine that blurred the distinction between Hindi and Urdu. In 1925, the Congress amended article 33 of its Constitution to read, 'The proceedings of the Congress shall be conducted as far as possible in Hindustani? Gandhi did not advocate that the regional languages should be ignored; rather, he felt that a common Indian language for an independent country was of utmost concern. As Congress party nationalists debated as members of the constituent assembly to draft a Constitution, despite heated arguments about a plethora of language issues, there was hardly any question about the desirability of a common official language, and that some form of Hindi would play that role) ~ India's constitution therefore specified that Hindi would eventually become the official language for all-Union business, supplanting English. Then came the question of state languages. The Constitution did not prescribe Hindi for official use within states (see Article 345). Furthermore, in Articles 344 (1) and 351, states were permitted with some restrictions to adopt any language they wanted for official purposes. And the 'Eighth Schedule' specified a list of fourteen 'languages of India' whose speakers would be given protected seats on the Presidential Commission to implement the All-India language policy."

Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Change Requested For Image:India Geographic Map.jpg

Contents

[edit] Should change population unit

[edit] Largest democracy

[edit] Science and Technology

[edit] Change Cricket sport section

[edit] Demographics

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search