Jump to content

Talk:India: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Let's keep it simple: Replying to Blacksun
m Reverted edit by 2402:8100:385C:B678:94F4:2FF:FECE:840D (talk) to last version by Hey man im josh
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{skiptotoctalk}}
{{Talk header}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=yes}}
{{ArticleHistory
{{Indian English}}
|maindate=December 3, 2004
{{Article history
|action1=FAC
|action1=FAC
|action1date=22:24, 16 Sep 2004
|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/India
|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/India
|action1date=22:24, 16 Sep 2004
|action1result=promoted
|action1result=promoted
|action1oldid=5945311
|action1oldid=5945311

|action2=FAR
|action2=FAR
|action2date=11 Apr 2005
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/India
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/India/archive1
|action2date=15:45, 6 May 2006
|action2result=kept
|action2result=kept
|action2oldid=51836931
|action2oldid=12191859

|action3=FAR
|action3date=15:45, 6 May 2006
|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/India/archive2
|action3result=kept
|action3oldid=51836931

|action4=FAR
|action4date=14:15, 28 July 2011
|action4link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/India/archive2
|action4result=kept
|action4oldid=441811169

|currentstatus=FA
|currentstatus=FA
|maindate=December 3, 2004
|small=no
|maindate2=October 2, 2019
|otd1date=2004-08-15|otd1oldid=5256057
|otd2date=2005-08-15|otd2oldid=21044027
|otd3date=2011-08-15|otd3oldid=444882019
|otd4date=2012-11-26|otd4oldid=524820236
}}
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=FA |vital=yes |collapsed=yes |listas=India|1=
{{Talkheader}}
{{WikiProject Asia|importance=Top |india=Yes}}
{{WikiProjectBanners
|1={{WP India|class=FA|importance=Top|nested=yes|portal=yes|group-portal1=Kerala}}
{{WikiProject India|importance=Top |portal=yes}}
|2={{WP:Countries|class=FA|importance=Top|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject South Asia|importance=Top }}
{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=High }}
|3={{FAOL|German|de:Indien|lang2=Slovak|link2=sk:India|lang3=Swedish|link3=sv:Indien|lang4=Tamil|link4=ta:இந்தியா|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Countries}}
|4={{Talk Spoken Wikipedia|India.ogg|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors |user=Twofingered Typist |date=21 September 2019}}
{{WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia}}
}}
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|topic=ipa|protection=ecp}}
{{Press|collapsed=yes|date=17 August 2009 |url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6043534/The-50-most-viewed-Wikipedia-articles-in-2009-and-2008.html |title=The 50 most-viewed Wikipedia articles in 2009 and 2008 |org=[[The Daily Telegraph]] |date2=27 August 2009 |url2=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6099890/Wikipedia-Top-20-people-places-film-and-technology-articles.html|title2=Wikipedia: Top 20 people, places, film and technology articles |org2=[[The Daily Telegraph]] |author2=James Steyn |date3=4 July 2015 |url3=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/The-vandals-of-Wiki/articleshow/47941452.cms |title3=The Vandals of Wiki |org3=[[The Times of India]] |author3=Sandhya Soman}}
{{tmbox
| type = speedy
| text = <big><big><big>'''PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING AN EDIT REQUEST ABOUT CHANGING THE COUNTRY NAME'''</big></big><br>If you have come here to post that the country name should be changed from India to Bharat, please note that we use the [[WP:COMMONNAME|commonly-used name]] (common name) to determine article names, even when a country changes its name. For an example, see [[Turkey]], where the official name of the country (Türkiye) is noted in the lead sentence and the infobox, but the article remains at its common English name.</big>
}}
{{banner holder |collapsed=yes |1=
{{All time pageviews|151}}
{{Annual report|[[Wikipedia:2008 Top 50 Report|2008]], [[Wikipedia:2009 Top 50 Report|2009]], [[Wikipedia:2010 Top 50 Report|2010]], [[Wikipedia:2011 Top 50 Report|2011]], [[Wikipedia:2012 Top 50 Report|2012]], [[Wikipedia:2013 Top 50 Report|2013]], [[Wikipedia:2014 Top 50 Report|2014]], [[Wikipedia:2015 Top 50 Report|2015]], [[Wikipedia:Top 25 Report/2016|2016]], [[Wikipedia:2017 Top 50 Report|2017]], [[Wikipedia:2018 Top 50 Report|2018]], [[Wikipedia:2019 Top 50 Report|2019]], [[Wikipedia:2020 Top 50 Report|2020]], [[Wikipedia:2021 Top 50 Report|2021]], [[Wikipedia:2022 Top 50 Report|2022]], and [[Wikipedia:2023 Top 50 Report|2023]]}}
{{Top 25 report
| August 11, 2013
| October 20, 2013 | until | November 24, 2013
| December 8, 2013
| December 29, 2013 | until | January 19, 2014
}}
{{Spoken article requested|{{U|Sdkb}}|Featured article, and one that may have a higher-than-average proportion of readers who are English language learners}}
{{Annual readership |width=570 |days=182}}
{{Section sizes}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 75K
|counter = 60
|minthreadsleft = 3
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:India/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index
|mask=/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes
}}
}}
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|importance=Top|class=FA|category=Geography|VA=yes|coresup=yes}}
{{archive box|auto=yes}}
<div width="90%" style="background-color:#f9f9f9;border: 2px solid black; padding:.9em">
<center>'''Guidelines for editing the India page'''</center>
*The article is written in '''[[WP:SS|summary style]] in [[Indian English]].
* All sections are a summary of more detailed articles. If you find any points missing, please add it in the section's main article rather than on this page to keep this page size within reasonable limits.
*Only external links pertaining to ''India as a whole'' are solicited here. Please add other links in the most appropriate article.
* India-related matters should be discussed at '''[[Wikipedia:Notice board for India-related topics]]'''.
* See the '''[[/FAQ|FAQ]]''' section before posting a topic on the page.
</div>

__ToC__

==Bharata Ganarajya - Sanskrit or Hindi==
The phrase "Bharata Ganarajya" has indisputable origins in Sanskrit which I will not explicate here because it is clarified by other users in the article |[[Bhāratavarsha|Bhārata Gaṇarājya]]. This is the proper transliteration according to the constitution. In such a case, the source language should be duly noted. Hindi may rightly contain the phrase but is neither the source nor the sole recipient.{{unsigned|Yanamad}}
:The words "Gana" and "Rajya" are clearly Sanskrit loanwords (in Hindi); however, Ganarajya is a Hindi neologism created in the 20th century as a word in the Hindi language. It may, at that time, have been incorporated into modern Sanskrit. If you are claiming that the word "Ganarajya" is actually a Sanskrit word with classical antecedents, I'd like to see a citation for it from a classical source. It us unlikely that the concept of Ganarajya (lit. the "Rule of the people") existed in ancient India. If so, where was it practised? [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 05:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
::And I'd like to see a citation that the 'neologism' was 'created' in the ''Hindi'' language. [[:User_talk:Sarvagnya|Sarvagnya]] 05:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

:The word ''Ganarajya'' was in use even before Hindi was even born. See [http://webapps.uni-koeln.de/cgi-bin/tamil/recherche this] Sanskrit-English dictionary. It says ''[ gaNarAjya ]3[ gaN'a-rAjya ] n. N. of an empire in the Deccan , xiv , 14''. You may have to give proof that ''Ganarajya'' was coined after independence if you were to claim otherwise. [[User:Gnanapiti|Gnanapiti]] 06:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
:[[UNESCO]] [http://www.unescap.org/huset/living/comments.html website] says ''However, during ancient India, particularly at the time of Kutilya, Buddha and Ashoka, the emergence of local representatives (Gana) and their elected leaders (Ganapati) is noticed. They used to manage the '''Ganarajya''' (republics) mostly in the form of city republics. Subsequently, the "king" became more powerful and eroded the powers of Gana and started ruling through his nominees.'' [[User:Gnanapiti|Gnanapiti]] 06:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

::We are talking here about the modern ''meaning'' of the word. That meaning, as I mentioned above, is 20th century Hindi neologism. The word itself existed in classical India, but its meaning, which was the same as Ganapati, applied to a person, not a nation. See Britannica on Ancient India, "The political system in these states was either monarchical or a type of representative government that variously has been called republican or oligarchic. The fact that representation in these latter states' assemblies was limited to members of the ruling clan makes the term oligarchy, or even chiefdom, preferable... The oligarchies comprised either a single clan or a confederacy of clans. The elected chief or the president (ganapati, ganarajya) functioned with the assistance of a council of elders probably selected from the Ksatriya families." The UNESCO website you mention is an urban development site in which the Indian contributor, Dr. Kulwant Singh, Executive Director, Human Settlements Management Institute (HSMI), New Delhi, who is ''not'' a historian, has subtly changed the meaning of the word in order to claim classical Indian provenance for Greek concepts of "democracy" and "republic." As for the Sanskrit English dictionary, I couldn't access it; however, regardless, the meaning you quote is hardly the modern one. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 06:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
:::PS It could be a late 19th century Bengali neologism as well, since many "modern" words were incorporated into Hindi via Bengali, but my point is that it was not a classical Sanskrit word (in this modern meaning). [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 06:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

::::No idea if the word গণরাজ্য (Ganarajya) was ever used in Bengali to mean republic (though it is a valid Bangla word / word-combination), but the actual and widely used word for Republic in Bengali is প্রজাতন্ত্র (Projatontro, Prajatantra). For example, Bangladesh's official name is গণপ্রজাতন্ত্রী বাংলাদেশ (Gonoprojatontri Bangladesh). --[[User:Ragib|Ragib]] 07:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not the original meaning of the word Ganarajya has the same connotations as the modern day manifestation, the word origin rests securely within the Sanskrit language. Word meanings change over time contextually, but that cannot change their origin or history. [[User:Yanamad]]
:Had it been a word that saw continuous use and evolved over time, it would be different. This particular word and its usage went extinct (along with the Sanskrit language). It was reborn (with the development of Hindi) with a revamped meaning, as a lexical [[calque]] of English words of Greek origin ("democracy" or "republic"). It is a neologism in Hindi formed with Sanskrit loanwords. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 04:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
::Oh i see. And where is the evidence that this is ''Hindi''? We've been through enough of similar nonsense on [[Jana Gana Mana]]. [[:User_talk:Sarvagnya|Sarvagnya]] 06:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
::: User Sarvagyna seems to have contempt for Hindi. Clearly not the kind that familiarity breeds. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 04:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
::::User Fowler seems to have [[Politically_correct |contempt for Sanskrit]] and possibly anything [[Indian_culture |Indian]] . Clearly the kind that [[Pseudo-secular |ignorance]] breeds. [[:User_talk:Sarvagnya|Sarvagnya]] 22:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It is both a classically attested Sanskrit word (with a somewhat different meaning), and a ''Sanskrit'' neologism (a calque of ''republica''). Comparison with English ''democracy'' or ''republic'' is flawed, since these are anglicized and thus clearly marked as loanwords within English. Use of ''ganarajya'' should much rather be compared to a hypothetical ''demokratia'' (in this spelling) used in English. Yes, Sanskrit is actively developed, much like [[neo-Latin]]. There can be no doubt that ''[http://users.adelphia.net/~florusc/anglice/AnglicePage19.html datarum ordinatrum]'' is Latin, even though the term refers to [[database|a concept unfamiliar to Cicero]]. Sanskrit was never "extinct", fowler, it was posh jargon of the learned caste from the beginning, and has always had an (admittedly dwindling) community of fluent speakers. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 07:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:F&f, please stop edit-warring about this. The name is about as "Hindi" as ''videlicet'', ''eo ipso'' or ''cui bono'' are "English". [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 10:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

भारत गणराज्य is the official Hindi name of the Republic of India (and possibly also in other Indian languages?) As with many Hindi names, all its components are derived Sanskrit, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the Hindi name. Still, because it isn't ''only'' a Hindi name, I think saying "Sanskrit" is a better option as it otherwise gives a misleading impression. As regards the "Bharat" vs. "Bharata" issue, if we are using the National Library of Kolkata romanisation (as we should be doing because it is the standard used by the Indian government), the romanisation of even the Hindi phrase will have an "a" at the end. I don't think there is ''any'' system of Devanagari transliteration which removes final "a"s? -- [[User:Lexmercatoria|Lexmercatoria]] 11:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:It's the official name of the Republic of India. Who says it's the official ''Hindi'' name? It's the official "Hindi" name of the RoI as ''Confoederatio Helvetica'' is the official "German" name of [[Switzerland]]. It may be used in German (just as French or Italian) texts, but that doesn't make it German (or French or Italian). [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 13:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
::India, unlike Switzerland, does not have a single official name in all its official languages. In Marathi and Gujarati, for example, the official name of India is "Bhāratiya Prajāsattāka", and even official documents written in those languages will use "Bhāratiya Prajāsattāka", not "Bhārata Gaṇarājya". Tamil official documents use something totally unrecognisable. So "Bhārata Gaṇarājya" is not a pan-language official name, and the only reason our passports say "Bhārata Gaṇarājya" is because it is the official name of India <u>in Hindi</u>.
::Also, because of the sanskritisation of modern Hindi "Gaṇarājya" ''is'' the normal Hindi word for "republic." The Hindi name for the Czech Republic is "cek gaṇarājya", Slovakia is "slovāk gaṇarājya", the Republic of Congo is "cāṃgo gaṇarājya", and so on. This is where your analogy with "Confoederatio Helvetica" falls down. "Bhārata Gaṇarājya" is a grammatically and lexically valid Hindi name, unlike "Confoederatio Helvetica" in German.
::I still say, as I said above, that the article should continue to say "Sanskrit: Bhārata Gaṇarājya" as it says now, because a few other Indian languages like Kannada do use the same name, so it isn't exclusive to Hindi (marking it Hindi would make it seem so). But in the process, let's not confuse the issue as to why the name has official status. -- [[User:Lexmercatoria|Lexmercatoria]] 18:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:::(Unrelated) Out of curiosity, could anyone tell me what is the Hindi phrase for "People's Republic"? Several countries use this (including [[People's_Republic_of_China]], [[Bangladesh]] etc.). In Bengali, this translates as Ganaprajatantro (e.g. Ganapratantri Bangladesh). --[[User:Ragib|Ragib]] 18:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
::::In Hindi, it is "janavādi gaṇarājya", so China is "janavādi gaṇarājya cīn". In Marathi, it is "janatece prajāsattāka", so China is "cīnce janatece prajāsattāka". -- [[User:Lexmercatoria|Lexmercatoria]] 19:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lexmercatoria's comment about "ganarajya" not being a pan-Indian name. Here is R. S. McGregor in the Oxford Hindi-English dictionary, "The potential of Hindi as a favoured form of Hindi-Urdu, and the great geographical range of Hindi-Urdu across the subcontinent and indeed beyond (which makes this language probably the world's third in terms of numbers of users) brought it about that 'Hindi in the Devanagari script' was recognised in 1947 as the official language of India." So, the reason why "Bharata Ganarajya" is there on the India page is simply that it is the name in the official language of India. As for Dab's comments, I am, of course, aware that Sanskrit didn't become completely extinct, but it stopped evolving in the way that a "living" language does (i.e. one spoken and written by a large number of users). There were of course the proverbial coterie of pundits who kept Sanskrit half-alive during the last millennium by reciting the Rig Veda in eleven different ways, but they didn't create the neologism "ganarajya." That was created by users of Hindi, as Hindi increasingly became a language of instruction and nationalism in the late 19th century. As I said above, the word "ganarajya" is a calque (loan translation (of meaning)) of the English "democracy" in the form of a neologism formed with two Hindi words of Sanskrit origin ("gana" and "rajya"). ganarajya" might now be a neologism of modern (neo-) Sanskrit as well, and, for example, be caught on the nightly Sanskrit news broadcast by the Indian national radio, by all half dozen people who listen to it. However, comparisons with ''videlicet'' are inappropriate. Unlike ''videlicet'' in English, all three words "gana," "rajya," and "ganarajya" are common words in Hindi, used in such constructions as "ganavadi" (republican), "gana-tantra" (the more common name for republic), "rajya sabha" (council of state) etc.

A good comparative example is the late 19th century neologism "protophyll," which the OED splits as: [f. PROTO- + Gr. {phi}{guacu}{lambda}{lambda}-{omicron}{nu} leaf.], without saying that "protophyll" is Greek, although it now might be used in scientific Greek as well. So, how about: Hindi: "Bharat Ganarajya" (f. Skt. Bharat (India) Gana (people) + Rajya (state))? I won't revert anything, but I think to say that "ganarajya" in its current meaning is Sanskrit is essentially incorrect. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 20:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:PS I just talked to [[Colin Masica]], who agreed with my analysis. He added that he was not aware of a readily available utility for looking up history of usage of Hindi words (similar,for example, to the OED, which provides a history of usage of all its words). He also added that a Sanskrit word could be translated differently into different Indian languages; for example, the word "samadhan" means "solution" in Sanskrit and Hindi, but (apparently) means "answer" or "reply" in Kannada, and "peace" in Malayalam. So, not only do different Indian languages have different (Sanskrit derived) names for "republic," (as mentioned by Lexmercatoria above) but the word "ganarajya" itself (to the extent that it exists in these languages) could mean different things. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 20:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:Three points:
:*Although both "gaṇatantra" and "gaṇarājya" mean "republic", there is a slight distinction in usage. "Gaṇatantra" is used in an adjectival sense - e.g. "gaṇatantra divasa" for "Republic day" - and sometimes to refer to the abstract concept, but "gaṇarājya" is always used for "Republic" in the name of a country. You could say "gaṇarājya" is closer in meaning to something like "Republican state."
:*I am not sure if the word "gaṇarājya" was coined in Hindi. It is used in Kannada (and I think also in Telugu), but not in Marathi and Gujarati. If it were of Hindi origin, I would expect it to be the other way around, because Kannada and Telugu have usually coined different words from Hindi for modern concepts, although all use Sanskrit roots as their source. I have no idea what sources are available in relation to the etymology of the term.
:*I favour saying "Sanskrit" because some languages other than Hindi (but not all) use this name. If someone can arrive at a better formulation that captures this, that would be welcome. -- [[User:Lexmercatoria|Lexmercatoria]] 21:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:::(the last reply overlapped with Fowler&Fowler's post, adding a further point) F&F, a good example of words having slightly different meanings is "gaṇatantra" itself, which means "republic" in Hindi, but "democracy" in some other languages. I've never seen "gaṇatantra" used to mean "democracy" in Hindi<s>, contrary to what you say</s>. "Democracy" is usually rendered "prajātantra" or "lokatantra". Which emphasises my point that the fact that "gaṇarājya" has the same meaning in Hindi and two South Indian languages strongly indicates that it was not invented in the Hindi heartland in the 19th century. At least, we can't assume it is, nor can we base what we say in the article on that assumption. -- [[User:Lexmercatoria|Lexmercatoria]] 21:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:No, I didn't say, ''ganatantra'' meant democracy. (gana + tantra (system) is clearly the word for republic.) What I said was that "ganarajya," is a calque of the English word "democracy" (''i.e.'' "rule of the people"), although it has come to mean "republic" in Hindi As for whether "ganarajya" was imported into Hindi via either Kannada or Telegu, of course anything is possible, but according to McGregor the immediate source of a number of new Hindi words of the early 20th century was not Sanskrit itself, but Sanskritized Bengali of the late 19th- and early 20th century. At any rate, I think Abecedare below seems to have a workable resolution. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 15:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
::Sorry about that. I edited my comment as I was typing it, and "contrary to what you say" was a hangover from something I deleted as irrelevant (or tried to, anyway). -- [[User:Lexmercatoria|Lexmercatoria]] 19:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
To summarize the above discussion, I think we have established that ''Republic of India'' is translated differently in various Indian languages and in particular as ''Bhārata Gaṇarājya'' in Hindi/Sanskrit/Kannada etc. We also believe that the use of the word "Ganarajya" ''in its modern meaning'' is a recent development (this, say, contrasts with the etymology of India and Bharat themselves, which trace relatively further back.) The only remaining dispute seems to be regarding the sequence in which the word ''Ganarajya'' entered the different languages, and whether it should be labelled Hindi/Sanskrit etc. <br>
Assuming my understanding, as outlined above, is correct the question I have is why we should provide translation of "Republic of India" into ''any'' Indian language on the '''English''' wikipedia. Instead, why not simply reword the first sentence along the lines:
<blockquote>
The '''Republic of India''', commonly known as '''India''' or '''Bharat''' (see also [[List_of_country_names_in_various_languages_%28D-I%29#I |other names]]), is a sovereign country in South Asia.
</blockquote>
We can even place the parenthetical remarks as a footnote or in the Etymology section. Note that the name ''Bharat'' is established by the Indian constitution [http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/fullact1.asp?tfnm=00%201] and is not the name of the country in any particular language; therefore we don't need to provide its transliteration in Devanagari etc in the article lead, although we can continue to do so in the Etymology section. Comments/objections ? [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] 23:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:Sounds good to me. In fact the version of the India page I first encountered in November 2006 was similar (i.e. without the ''ganarajya''). [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 04:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

So, at this point we have to ask ourselves why we mention the term at all, in the intro. Since Sanskrit does not have the status of an "union language", while Hindi does, that reason could only be "because it is 'Hindi'", not "because it is Sanskrit". Because of this, I guess I have just changed my mind, and now think that we should either declare the term as "Hindi" (the only "official language of the Union" besides English), or drop it altogether and delegate it to [[India (name)]] (I guess we will all agree that we do ''not'' want to cite the names of ther RoI in all 23 official languages in the intro). [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 16:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

:Yes, I think I was trying to say something similar somewhere above, although I didn't explain it as clearly as Dab above. I agree with him more or less ''in toto''. Either of these two resolutions are also acceptable to me. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 16:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

(editconflicted)The fact is that ''Bharata Ganarajya'' is as Sanskrit as ''Satyameva Jayate'' and both are used as ''tatsamas'' in several Indian languages; and Hindi is just ''one'' of these languages(this is a fact which only people like Fowler, who're clearly ignorant of other Indian languages fail to recognise). I wonder why nobody has yet claimed ''Satyameva Jayate'' also for Hindi?!

Not just in Kannada and Telugu(as Lex said) but ''even'' in several other languages including Gujarati and Marathi(which I think he left out) both these terms are valid words. Whether they have other synonyms(in many cases, even those would be from Sanskrit) in those languages and whether they find a place in official jargon is besides the point. The point is that these terms are 24 carat Sanskrit words. And several languages have loaned them ''as is''. That makes these words also 'native'(so to speak) to all these recipient languages.

But if it ever comes to putting it down to ''one'' language, we will have to go with Sanskrit. If we are to call it Hindi in this article, we will also have to mention all of the several other 'recipient' languages(with the transliterations). This, of course, would be ludicrous. So, we'll just have to call it Sanskrit(which it is) even if some ''want'' to believe that it is dead and gone. [[:User_talk:Sarvagnya|Sarvagnya]] 17:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

::For starters, neither "ganarajya" nor "satyameva jayate" are tatsamas. A tatsama is an unmodified noun borrowing from Sanskrit which has retained its form and meaning. "ganarajya" is a [[tatpurusha]] compound in both Sanskrit and Hindi, whose modern meaning in Hindi is different from its classical one in Sanskrit. "satyameva jayate" is a Sanskrit phrase. It can't be Hindi phrase because there is no conjugation "jayate" (triumphs) of "jaya" (triumph) in the Hindi language. The Hindi would be "jit-ta hai," or something similar. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 22:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

===Hindi transliterations===
The above discussions bring us to an even more basic question - the question of transliterations. I want to ask why we need Hindi transliterations at all in this article. The reason, I presume is because Hindi is one of the 'official languages of the union'. Fine. Except that it still doesnt explain why we need transliterations in Hindi ''on wikipedia''. 'Official language status' given to Hindi by the Indian government is only that it be used in official gazzettes and communication of the central govt.,(along with English). Those privileges and the Indian govt's writ certainly dont extend to wikipedia. For that matter, the Indian government has designated that the peacock is the national bird. That certainly doesnt mean that we on wikipedia have to treat it any more special than we treat, say, the crow. Yes, we will certainly mention in the [[Peacock]] article that it is India's national bird and by the same token we can and ''do'' mention in the [[Hindi]] article that it is one of the official languages of the union. There is no need to plaster Hindi all over dozens of articles under the Indian ''Wiki''project. [[:User_talk:Sarvagnya|Sarvagnya]] 17:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
:: Sarvagnya, I think Dab, F&F and I, all agree (see above discussion) that the Hindi/Sanskrit transliteration of "Republic of India" is superfluous in the lead. Isn't that what you are saying too ? [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] 17:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
:We can not just leave the beginning (or the infobox, at least) with just "Republic of India," because this opposes [[Wikipedia:Wikiproject_countries#Facts_table]]. That page states the following: "''The official long-form name of the country in the local language is to go on top as the caption [of the infobox]. If there are several official names (languages), list all. The conventional long-form name (in English), if it differs from the local long-form name, should follow the local name(s).''"
:I also think that the same applies for the lead section. So, it is a must to put Bharata Gan.arajya in the beginning of the article; whether it is Hindi or Sanskrit I do not know. I am putting the Hindi/Sanskrit names back. Thank you. <font style="font-size:120%;color:#228B22">[[User:Universe=atom|'''''Universe=atom''''']]</font><small><sup>[[User Talk:Universe=atom|Talk]]•[[Special:Contributions/Universe=atom|Contributions]]</sup></small> 17:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
::U=a: It's a subcontinent, there is no "local" name, there are some 200 "local names". We can reasonably list all national languages on the [[Switzerland]] article (four), but we cannot reasonably do it here. ''But'' feel free to ''help'' us to even collect that list, at [[Names of India#Republic of India]]: this list is linked from the intro ''and'' the infobox, but it's in a shabby state. Less debating, more working on improving things, please. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 17:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
:: U=a, the options seem to be, (1) Including all the (official) "native" language translations in the infobox and the lead just like [[Switzerland]] does, except that we will have roughly 22 such translations (roughly, because the translations in some languages will overlap), (2) use only the English name in the [[India]] article and list the various translations elsewhere.
:: I definitely prefer the second option - remember that MOS is a guideline and can be overruled '''''if''''' and when it conflicts with consensus, reason and common sense (as seems to be the case in this instance) I however would recommend that any objections be thrashed out here, rather than edit warring on the main page.[[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] 17:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
::: A third option (which I prefer) would be to put "Bharat" in both the infobox and the introduction, as Abecedare suggested. The Constitution makes "Bharat" official, with no reference to language.
::: A practical problem with the first option is that we don't know the official name in each of the 22/23 languages. The two lists (should they be combined, by the way?) at [[Names of India#Republic of India]] and [[Official names of India]] are incomplete, and I am not sure how reliable they are. For example, is the official Urdu name really "Jumhuriyat-e-Hindustan"? The article on India in the Urdu Wikipedia is under "Bharat".[http://ur.wikipedia.org/wiki/بھارت] Whatever the theoretical arguments, I don't think we can implement the first option. -- [[User:Lexmercatoria|Lexmercatoria]] 19:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

alright, so we have the following options:
*(a) just put the English term, since this is en-wiki, ''and'' English is a "language of the union"
*(b) give both English and Hindi as "local" names, since these are the two "languages of the union" (fine with me, but we'll get no end of trouble from the non-Hindi Indian editors)
*(c) follow MoS to the letter and give the 1,652 "[[languages of India|local]] names" (huh)
*(d) be semi-reasonable and give only the 22 [[official languages of India|languages of the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution]]
*(e) give "Bharat" as the "local" name in "Standard Average Indian" without specifying which language this is.
*(f) keeping it simple, ignoring this discussion, and revert to the old version without switching on our brains (yes, that's you, U=a)
Note that (c) and (d) become an option only ''after'' someone took the trouble to complile these lists. I suggest you sit down and do that, U=a, before any further reverting. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 19:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I draw your attention to [[South Africa]] which has 10 official languages besides English. They list them all, "hidden" by default. If someone manages to compile a referenced list of the official name in all 22 "languages of the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution", I suppose we can do the same here. The ball is thus in the court of anyone unhappy with the present solution: get to work on [[Official names of India]].

:[[User:Einstein90|Einstein90]] has brought back the "Ganarayja". I have left a message for him at [[User_talk:Einstein90#Your edits to India|his talk page]] to ask him to join this discussion and explain why he disagrees with just having "Bharat". -- [[User:Lexmercatoria|Lexmercatoria]] 11:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Officially, the Government of India is called 'Bharat Sarkar' in all official languages, regardless of whether there would be any difference in the concerned language (like 'hukumat-e-hindustan' in Urdu). The word 'Bharat' is simply translitterated to whatever script the language in question uses. My suggestion would be "'''India''', officially the Republic of India, or '''Bharat''' (in [[Devanagari]]: भारत), is a sovereign country in South Asia." --[[User:Soman|Soman]] 13:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
:Do you have a source for this? It is definitely not called "Bharat Sarkar" in English, which is an official language. Every official English document refers to it as the "Government of India". -- [[User:Lexmercatoria|Lexmercatoria]] 14:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
::First of all, I think that the MoS, even though the rules there can be flexed, should not be completely ignored. It states that the name of a country should be given in all its languages. (Possible interpretation: I think that it means all the ''official'' languages. It definitely can not mean ''every single'' one spoken in the country, because then India would not be the only country in trouble; e.g.: in the US, English is [most probably] the official language; however, there are Spanish, French, German, and innumerable other national communities living there. Does that mean that the name of the US should be written in each and every language?) That is where the flexing comes in. Obviously, English and Hindi are the most important languages (since they are the two languages of the Union). So, it would be best to list the name of a country, instead of all 23 official languages, in the two most important ones. Of course, that does not discard the 21 other languages. So, the link to other languages can be used to cover up the 21 apparently non-important languages (no offense to anyone by the phrase "non-important"). So, I think that the original sentence was the best because it did the following: it listed the English name in the beginning (which is required by the MoS; English is also an official language of India). Then, in parentheses, the local name (in Sanskrit/Hindi) was also given along with the translation of the Sanskrit/Hindi text, which was another covering of the second one of the two most important languages. Then, a link was provided to the names of India in the 21 other (non-important) languages, covering all the other official languages of India. I believe that that was good because it does not go against the MoS but instead flexes the rules a bit, which is allowed. It is neither too much (excellently wraps up 23 languages) and neither too less (by, for example, only listing one of the two most important languages). Thank you. <font style="font-size:120%;color:#228B22">[[User:Universe=atom|'''''Universe=atom''''']]</font><small><sup>[[User Talk:Universe=atom|Talk]]•[[Special:Contributions/Universe=atom|Contributions]]</sup></small> 16:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

that Sanskrit/Hindi is "more important" than "non-important" Tamil or Telugu or Bengali seems to be your personal opinion. You seem to suggest option (b) above. As I say, that's fine with me, but you'll face objection from speakers of "non-important" languages like Tamil or Bengali. I find the present solution superior, since ''India'' and ''Bharat'' (in transliteration, without committing to a specific script) seem to cover the short name in pretty much all of the 23 official languages. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 16:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
:Dab, no it is not at all my personal opinion. Rather, I draw that information from the fact that '''Hindi and English are the two official languages of the Union and therefore the most important'''. Whether the name is Hindi or Sanskrit I do not know. About the potential "objections" that you are talking about, those users will have to set aside their linguistic pride and focus for the better of the article; if not, their opinions will, regretfully, have to be ignored, because those users only care about their own languages and not for the facts that build up Wikipedia. So, the reasonable solution in your (plural) hands, but you all are just not willing to accept it, for a reason that is unknown to me. Thank you. <font style="font-size:120%;color:#228B22">[[User:Universe=atom|'''''Universe=atom''''']]</font><small><sup>[[User Talk:Universe=atom|Talk]]•[[Special:Contributions/Universe=atom|Contributions]]</sup></small> 18:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
::If Hindi is one of the official languages of the union, then so be it. We shall certainly mention that fact in the article. We dont have to use the Hindi script to do that. This article or any article on english wikipedia is not any 'official' gazette of the Govt. of India for us to give Hindi the special treatment that it gets in the same. For that matter, I dont think ''even'' an official gazette of the Govt of India would use Hindi transliterations every step of the way if it was in English. That being the case, there's no need for us to afford Hindi any backdoors on wikipedia. The Indian government's writ, biases and prejudices(legal or otherwise) doesnt and should not extend to wikipedia. If it did, we will first have to fix the map to show all of Kashmir as India.

::The question of 'non-Hindis' setting aside their 'linguistic pride' doesnt arise at all. If anything, there's a need for 'Hindis' to get used to the fact that outside of the corridors of power of the central govt of India, Hindi is no more important than any other language. If there is any language in India that can arguably claim to be 'more important' than other languages, it is English which is the official, link and national language for all practical purposes. [[:User_talk:Sarvagnya|Sarvagnya]] 18:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Sarvagnya illustrates my point. I'm afraid it will have to be the full list of 23. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 18:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
::::OK, but perhaps it would be better to put the entire local name of India, instead of just plain "Bharat" to "Bharata Gan.arajya." That said, imaging yourself visiting this article for the first time. You see that the native name for this country called India is Bharata Gan.arajya (or Bharat, if the first point is not approved). Huh??? What language is it in? So, perhaps the language of the "Bhrata Gan.arajya" (or "Bharata") should be put in order to tell the reader what language that is in. Thank you. <font style="font-size:120%;color:#228B22">[[User:Universe=atom|'''''Universe=atom''''']]</font><small><sup>[[User Talk:Universe=atom|Talk]]•[[Special:Contributions/Universe=atom|Contributions]]</sup></small> 19:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::Have we reached any conclusion that the wording is Hindi? --[[User:Ragib|Ragib]] 19:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::''Bharata Ganarajya'' is as unmistakeably Sanskrit as ''Satyameva Jayate'' is. If the Hindi equivalent ''also'' happens to be 'Bharata Ganarajya', then so be it. We can mention it in the [[Official names of India]] article along with the other native names in assamese, oriya, tamil, kannada etc.,. And come to think of it, that article itself should probably be moved to [[Native names of India in different languages]] or something. [[:User_talk:Sarvagnya|Sarvagnya]] 20:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's the documents, make whatever decision you will -
{{cquote|Hindi in Devanagari script is the ''official language'' of the Union}}
This is from the [http://www.rajbhasha.gov.in/welcome.asp The Department of Official Language - Government of India].<b>[[User:Bakasuprman|<font color="black">Baka</font>]][[User talk:Bakasuprman|<font color="green">man</font>]]</b> 21:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
:Baka, that is precisely my point too. Hindi is 'official' language of the 'Union of India' - not of wikipedia. See my comments just a couple of comments above. [[:User_talk:Sarvagnya|Sarvagnya]] 23:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

----
No "Bharat Ganarajya" it is not as unmistakably Sanskrit as "Satyam Eva Jayate" is. As I have said above "Bharat Ganarajya" is a [[tatpurusha]] compound in Hindi, the national language of India (a compound of two Hindi tatsamas (unmodified Sanskrit loanwords), "gana" and "rajya"). The compound "ganarajya" is formed the same way in Hindi as it is in Sanskrit. Other such compounds would be "jana-rajya" or "praja-rajya" etc. All make grammatical sense in Hindi and Sanskrit. "Satyam Eva Jayate" is a phrase from the Upanishad and is irredeemably Sanskrit; it has nothing to do with Hindi, and doesn't make grammatical sense in Hindi. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 22:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
:For starters, [[Official_languages_of_India#Hindi_and_English |Hindi is NOT India's 'national' language]] and as for the word itself, it is as much a tatpurusha in Sanskrit and Kannada and Telugu and several other languages as it is in Hindi. And as Gnanapiti showed above, this 'tatpurusha' is first attested in Sanskrit(your nitpicking OR about the nuances of its supposed meanings notwithstanding). And in any case, if it comes down to us having to choose one and only one label for it, it has to be Sanskrit. Not Hindi. For your info, Bharata is Skt., ''gaNa'' is Skt., and so is ''rAjya''. All three are tatsamas in several indian languages and all of these 'several indian languages' have even borrowed the very concept of 'tatpurusha' lock, stock and barrel from Sanskrit. [[:User_talk:Sarvagnya|Sarvagnya]] 23:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
::I just said above that "gana" and "rajya" are both unmodified Sanskrit loanwords in Hindi. That makes them Sanskrit words first. Please don't repeat my own words to me and presume to inform me. All I am saying is (a) keep only the English, or (b) English and Hindi (as official languages), or (c) 23 languages, or (d) bag the "ganarajya" and simply keep the Bharat. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 04:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I repeat that I accept that "English and Hindi are India's 'languages of the union'" and as such have a position that marks them above the list of 23 'Eighth Schedule' languages. We could, on these grounds, state "[[Hindi]]: Bharat Ganarajya" (''Bharat'' making it Hindi, not Sanskrit). Per [[official languages of India]], parliamentary proceedings are in either Hindi or English, which means that the RoI has these two official languages. The 'Eighth Schedule' languages enjoy special recognition, but they are not 'official languages' in any meaningful sense as long as parliamentary proceedings are not permissible in these languages. But, in the same way,
<blockquote>
In contrast, the constitution requires the authoritative text of all laws, including Parliamentary enactments and statutory instruments, to be in English ... also translated into Hindi, though the English text remains authoritative
</blockquote>
In this sense, English is the single authoritative official language of the union, and it is perfectly permissible to leave the English name as the single official "local name". [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 09:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
:English may be an official language of India, but it is certainly not alone in that status. Hindi is ''the'' other one. The other 21 were made official because of the hundreds of million people in India who speak them. The two, Hindi and English, were preserved in status as the official languages of the entire Union, therefore the most important ones for the entire country. Sarvagnya, I realize that Wikipedia is not an official gazette of the government of India; however, Wikipedia must present the facts and not the consequences of linguistical pride or prejudices, and the fact is that Hindi and English are the most important languages of in India because they have the status as the two official languages in the Union. Also, I can see that some people think that Bharat, and not Bharat Gan.arajya, is the official local name of India. Is there any ''reliable and authorative'' source to justify that? The CIA World Factbook (one of the most reliable sources on the web, if not ''the'' most reliable) states that the conventional local name with the Gan.arajya, and all the other websites that I visit state the long form of the local name with the Gan.arajya. Also, whether it inaccurately remains Bharat or whether it is correctly changed to Bharat Gan.arajya, there is one thing that is lacked. That is the language of it. The reader should ''at least'' know what language the phrase is in. Otherwise, it might as well be presumed that the language is one spoken by a tribe of Africa. Thank you. <font style="font-size:120%;color:#228B22">[[User:Universe=atom|'''''Universe=atom''''']]</font><small><sup>[[User Talk:Universe=atom|Talk]]•[[Special:Contributions/Universe=atom|Contributions]]</sup></small> 13:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
::I agree entirely with you Dab. My note above was for Sarvagyna, who seems to have a visceral dislike for me, and continues to wax illogical in his inimitable mix of half-digested jargon, misplaced metaphors, and slang. I am hardly pro-Hindi or anti-Sanskrit, the convenient categories that he likes to assign me to. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 14:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

English and Hindi are not the only official languages of the Union. Its used for easier communication. This will change when it becomes easier to translate to various Indian languages and one will see communication in Bengali between the central government and the state govt of West Bengal. This will be similar with all the states. It's only a matter of time before it happens. The official languages include all the languages recognized in the constitution of India. The official column must include all the languages including English and Hindi without any differentiation. One single language cannot be the official language of the Indian Union. It's all together.
[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] 14:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

== India or Republic of India ? ==
I have an even more basic questions. The current article begins with, ''"The '''Republic of India''' (Sanskrit: भारत गणराज्य Bhārata Gaṇarājya; see also other names), commonly known as '''India'''"''. Do we have any source which says that the "Republic of India" is the ''proper'' name, while "India" is the ''common'' name ? <br>
Here is what [http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/fullact1.asp?tfnm=00%201 Article 1] of the Indian Constitution has to say on the subject:
<blockquote>
1. '''Name and territory of the Union.'''—(1) India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.
</blockquote>
and the phrase "Republic of India" does not appear in any of its 395 article; more surprisingly yet, the word "republic" never reappears after being used in the preamble. Was the name changed to ''Republic of India'' by some later amendment ? [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] 16:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

: I did find that the [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html CIA factbook], [http://www.britannica.com/nations/India Britannica] call "Republic of India" the ''long form'' and ''Official name'' respectively, but I am still curious to know if/how/where/when this name was adopted . [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] 05:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

::The name "Republic of India" has been used in the recitals of all laws ("Be it enacted by Parliament in the xxxth year of the Republic of India", see [http://video.disc.iisc.ernet.in/vigyan/insect.htm this] very randomly chosen example) right from the start. This is also used in all treaties signed by India as in [http://www.commerce.nic.in/ilfta.htm this example] of a treaty with Sri Lanka. I don't know when it was formally adopted, but it is clearly the official name. -- [[User:Lexmercatoria|Lexmercatoria]] 18:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

we have discussed this at length before. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 13:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:Dab, my focus was different from that of the [[Talk:India/Archive_19#.22India.22_vs._.22RoI.22 |previous discussion]]. The basic question I had was: "When and how was 'Republic of India' adopted as the formal name for the (political entity) India, especially since Article 1 of the constitution names the ''political entity'' India, or Bharat ?" The answer to that specific question is still not available, but the links Lexmercatoria provided, along with the CIA factbook statement, do establish that 'Republic of India' '''''is''''' the formal name. So the issue, as far as the wikipedia article [[India]] is concerned, is resolved - although my curiosity about the original question remains piqued. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] 23:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
::you are right, I apologize. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 16:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

== Population ==
The population of India is around the 1.1 billion, not 1.2 billion, the latter was written in the factscolumn on the right. --[[User:Robster1983|Robster1983]] 18:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
:Thanks for pointing that out. I also changed the figures in the "Demographics" section. Also, since 1.1 billions is a bit too vague. I put 1.12 billion in both places (infobox and "Demographics" section). Any objections to this? <font style="font-size:120%;color:#228B22">[[User:Universe=atom|'''''Universe=atom''''']]</font><small><sup>[[User Talk:Universe=atom|Talk]]•[[Special:Contributions/Universe=atom|Contributions]]</sup></small> 08:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

== Mass Media of India ==

Perhaps a paragraph about the Mass Media of India can be added at the end of the "Culture" section. Information about it can be taken from the [[Indian mass media]] article and [http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/profiles/India.pdf the end of pg. 18 and the beginning of pg. 19 of this link]. Please give your feedback on whether one should be added or not. Thank you. <font style="font-size:120%;color:#228B22">[[User:Universe=atom|'''''Universe=atom''''']]</font><small><sup>[[User Talk:Universe=atom|Talk]]•[[Special:Contributions/Universe=atom|Contributions]]</sup></small> 14:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
::I agree a line can be added--[[User:KnowledgeHegemony|<font color="midnightblue">'''K'''nowledge</font>]] [[User talk:KnowledgeHegemony|<font color="purple">'''H'''egemony</font>]] 16:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

== Official languages ==

At the moment, the "Official languages" section in the table lists most of the languages of the Eighth Schedule, except Bodo (which I guess was accidentally left out). I agree that only including Hindi and English does not reflect the real diversity of India, so in principle I agree with the idea of including more languages. But I don't think the Eighth Schedule is the correct basis for selecting the languages to be listed. The languages listed in the Eighth Schedule are not called "official languages" in the Constitution, the Official Languages Act, the Offical Languages Rules, or any other legal document, so calling them that is factually inaccurate. In addition some of them like Sanskrit don't have official status in any part of India, while other languages like Kokborok which have official status in individual states are not listed in the Eighth Schedule.

I think we can take three possible approaches:
* We can list all languages that are used by any state as official languages. But this will create a practical problem because the list at [[Official languages of India]] is still not completely reliable. I have been trying to check it and correct the mistakes, but it is difficult to get access to State Acts for all states so it is likely to take a very long time.
* We can change the entry to say: "[[Hindi]] and [[English language|English]] at the Central level, [[Official languages of India|various others]] at the State level."
::I support this if at all a change is needed. [[User:KnowledgeHegemony|<font color="midnightblue">'''K'''nowledge</font>]][[User talk:KnowledgeHegemony|<font color="purple">'''H'''egemony</font>]] 16:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
* We can list the languages in the Eighth Schedule (as we have now, but adding Bodo), and add a clearer note. The list would then read:

::"[[Hindi]], [[English language|English]], [[Assamese language|Assamese]], [[Bengali language|Bengali]], [[Bodo language|Bodo]], [[Dogri]], [[Gujarati language|Gujarati]], [[Kannada]], [[Kashmiri]], [[Konkani language|Konkani]], [[Maithili]], [[Malayalam]], [[Meitei language|Manipuri]], [[Marathi]], [[Nepali language|Nepali]], [[Oriya language|Oriya]], [[Punjabi]], [[Sanskrit]], [[Santhali]], [[Sindhi language|Sindhi]], [[Tamil language|Tamil]], [[Telugu language|Telugu]], [[Urdu]] (see note†)"

:And the note would read:
::"†Hindi and English are the official languages of the Union, the other 22 are represented on teh Official Language Commission and have [[Official languages of India#The languages of the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution|other privileges]]. In addition, each State has its own official languages."

Or if any better ideas that anyone may come up with. Until we agree on something, we can keep it as it is, with all the languages of the Eighth Schedule listed, but I think we should try and make the wording more accurate. -- [[User:Lexmercatoria|Lexmercatoria]] 16:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The best option I feel would be a somewhat complete list as explicated in Lexmercatoria's third point, with a clarifying note, perhaps in the footnotes, explaining the relative status of the languages and giving a reference. Only this can give the true representative status of the languages. [[User:Yanamad|Yanamad]]

All official languages of the Union must be listed starting with Assamese.[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] 16:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Consider that the Official languages of India consists of all languages recognized as such and not the official languages of the states. Not all official languages of the states are Official languages of the Union. The Official languages of the Union and Official languages of the state are two different things. and the perception that Hindi and English is the only Official languages of the Union is totally incorrect. For communication purposes any of these languages can be used. Hindi and English is part of it. English because of State of Nagaland.
[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] 16:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

==Official names==
{{see|Official names of India}}
(continued from above)
alright, the question begins to transpire, ''are'' there even '''official''' names of the RoI in the 23 8th Schedule languages? Obviously, there will be ''names for India'' in these langauges, but they are only 'official' if there is an official version of the [[Indian Constitution]] in these languages. Into which languages has the constitution been translated, and ''where'' is the text? Why has nobody linked the government website hosting the constitution text? So far, we are only aware of the English version of the constitution, [[:s:Constitution of India]]. We don't even have evidence of a ''Hindi'' version of the constitution, let alone one in the 21 remaining '8th Schedule' languages.
Compare [[Switzerland]]: we give the name in the four national languages, and it goes without saying that there are respective versions of the [[Swiss Constitution]], linked from that article, hosted at the authoritative admin.ch domain. It appears that the first thing we need to clean up is the [[Indian Constitution]] article before we get any further here. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 10:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
:so, it appears that the constitution is in English, with a Hindi translation [http://www.constitution.org/cons/india/p22394a.html]. No constitution in any of the remaining 21 languages. From this it follows that there ''are'' no official names other than in English and Hindi. Since the English constitution is the original, and the Hindi version its translation, the "local names" should be given in this order: "India, Bharat". [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 10:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
:per article 1, the official name of the country is "India; Bharat" in English, and "''Bhārat; Inḍiyā''" in Hindi. End of story, anything else (such as the formal ''RoI'' used internationally) is either not "local", or not "official". Case closed I guess. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 11:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
::Sounds good to me. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 17:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Federalism in India does funny things to the official language. Hindi as the "official language of the union" is only official in dealings with the central government. At the state level, Hindi has absolutely no status at all unless the state in question adopts Hindi as its official language. So in Kerala, as an example, no laws or official documents are published in Hindi and Hindi is not used in government work (except in central government offices). If you need to deal with the Government of Kerala, you have to do so in Malayalam or English. I don't know how this compares to the situation in the cantons of Switzerland, but this is the actual reason many people don't think Hindi should have a special status on this article. Currency notes in India have the denomination listed in all 23 languages of the Eighth Schedule.
:::"Republic of India" is not just used internationally, it is also used domestically, among other things on every law passed by Parliament and every regulation made under those laws, as I pointed out in my reply to Abecedare.
:::I only got involved in the discussion because people had incorrect assumptions about the legal status of various languages and names, which I wanted to correct. I am not going to agitating for one solution or another, but I would like the text to correctly reflect Indian law. I think the [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=India&oldid=141243735 present version] does this quite well. -- [[User:Lexmercatoria|Lexmercatoria]] 11:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
::::Lex, thanks for your comment. Given your background in law(right?), your comments are timely. I also just want to add that even in the Supreme court, it is English that reigns. Not Hindi. And in the High Courts, it is English once again along with the official language of the state in question. Your example of Kerala reminds me of a news item from some time ago when somebody(dont remember who) wrote a letter in Hindi to Karunakaran, the then Kerala CM and Karunakaran wrote back in Malayalam. Needless to say, the English translation of the original letter in Hindi was delivered post-haste to the Kerala CM's office. A similar thing happened between the former Karnataka CM S M Krishna and Uma Bharati. Krishna in this case, if I remember correctly, just sent the mail back to Uma Bharati. Then we have the provision where members of parliament are allowed to use their own languages(from a set of nine or ten languages, I believe). [[:User_talk:Sarvagnya|Sarvagnya]] 11:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::Yes, I am a lawyer (hence my user name). I rewrote the [[Official languages of India]] article some time ago, I've tried to get it to a state where it accurately explains the very complicated situation in relation to the official use of language in India. As I hope it shows, the status of Hindi and other languages is not what people often assume it to be. The official languages of the Union don't have a national status in the way languages do elsewhere, which I think is a rather important point to be borne in mind. -- [[User:Lexmercatoria|Lexmercatoria]] 17:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

:Regarding the languages in which the Constitution of India exists: the Constitution was translated into all languages of the original Eighth Schedule. The resolution passed by the Constituent Assembly authorising the preparation of the Hindi translation also authorised "a translation into such other Indian languages as the President may think fit." Here is the exact text:
::''"Resolved that the President be authorised and requested,to take necessary steps to have a translation of the Constitution prepared in Hindi and to have it published under his authority before January 26. 1950 and also to arrange for the preparation and publication of the translation of the Constitution in such other major languages of India as he deems fit."''[http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/vol9p37b.htm]
:The languages initially selected were those in the Eighth Schedule. I have no idea if translations have been prepared in the languages subsequently added to the Eighth Schedule, but I would expect that they eventually will be if they don't already exist. The Indian government is very bad at putting things online, so it's dangerous to draw conclusions from the fact that they're not on the Government's website. -- [[User:Lexmercatoria|Lexmercatoria]] 17:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

well, of course, as soon as we have evidence that the constitution has been authoritatively translated into other languages, we can add the names figuring in those. Since this is the article on the union, I suggest we only need to bother with union-wide standards; obviously, the official names of individual states should be given in the official languages of the respective states. Thus, [[Tamil Nadu]] rightly gives the name in Tamil, obviously. I don't know about "Republic of India". If it's not in the constitution, that's at best a convention, not an officially sanctioned name of the state. And, sheesh, we're not expecting live video feeds of all parliamentary sessions, but these days it should not be asking too much of the government of a major country and alleged "great power" to put online 23 pathetic pdf files. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 21:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

:ok. [http://www.hinduonnet.com/2002/03/28/stories/2002032803410400.htm here's] evidence that there is atleast a [[Kannada]] version of the constitution. This article doesnt say anything about editions in other languages. But apparently, it is the 'The Directorate of Translations under the Ministry of Law and Parliamentary Affairs' that is responsible for these translations. Googling for them might help us find something. Also [http://dpal.kar.nic.in/26%20of%201963%20(E).pdf here's] the Official language act of [[Karnataka]]. I'd imagine that atleast half the country(all the southern states and bengal+some NE states for sure) would be following Acts similar to this. Lex, can you take a look at it and break up the nuances if any for us. [[:User_talk:Sarvagnya|Sarvagnya]] 22:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

== National anthem / national song ==

I've readded "Vande mataram" in the infobox. The statement of the Chair to the Constituent Assembly which led to the adoption of Jana Gana Mana also said:

:''"[T]he song Vande Mataram, which has played a historic part in the struggle for Indian freedom, shall be honoured equally with Jana Gana Mana and shall have equal status with it."''[http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/vol12p1.htm]

It has '''equal''' status, which means to mention only Jana Gana Mana without mentioning Vande Mataram misstates the law. -- [[User:Lexmercatoria|Lexmercatoria]] 17:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

:Perhaps a footnote can be added to explain this unique situation of having a national anthem and also a national song. The quote you gave above can be used there ... --[[User:Ragib|Ragib]] 17:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
::Yes, that can be done. Also, perhaps a line can be added before the song (like there is between every other item in the infobox). Also, if, for the national anthem, it is written only "Anthem," for the national song, it should also only be written "Song"; perhaps the opposite can also be done (write "National anthem" and "National song.") All this can (and should) be done in order to main consistency. <font style="font-size:120%;color:#228B22">[[User:Universe=atom|'''''Universe=atom''''']]</font><small><sup>[[User Talk:Universe=atom|Talk]]•[[Special:Contributions/Universe=atom|Contributions]]</sup></small> 18:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
:::That sounds perfectly fine. I actually wanted to add a footnote, but I couldn't figure out how to put a footnote into the infobox. -- [[User:Lexmercatoria|Lexmercatoria]] 18:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
::::Reference added.--[[User:Dwaipayanc|Dwaipayan]] ([[User_talk:Dwaipayanc|talk]]) 19:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::Thanks, but what about the consistency point? <font style="font-size:120%;color:#228B22">[[User:Universe=atom|'''''Universe=atom''''']]</font><small><sup>[[User Talk:Universe=atom|Talk]]•[[Special:Contributions/Universe=atom|Contributions]]</sup></small> 16:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

==Original Research?==

To Lexmercatoria and others, I am a little concerned that what is unfolding here is affecting the [[India]] page and the [[Official languages of India]] page in ways that might constitute original research. Both pages now declare all 23 languages to be official languages, with footnotes accompanying Hindi and English explaining their official status at the ''federal'' level. For example the first two sentences in the [[Official languages of India]] page reads: {{cquote|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 [[Government of India|Union government]].}} This subtle ''equalizing'' of the official languages of the various ''states'' with the official languages of the ''union'' is contrary to how other tertiary sources like Britannica and Encarta treat the subject. Here is Britannica describing the official languages of some multi-lingual nations in their respective "infoboxes," including India (at the end). (* denotes a footnote, with the note itself in parentheses.)

:*Kazakhstan. Official Language: Kazhak*. (*Russian has equal status with Kazakh at state-owned organizations and bodies of local government.)
:*South Africa. Official Languages: *. (* Afrikaans; English; Ndebele; Pedi (North Sotho); Sotho (South Sotho); Swazi; Tsonga; Tswana (West Sotho); Venda; Xhosa; Zulu.)
:*Algeria. Offical Language: Arabic*. (* The Berber language, Tamazight, became a national language in April 2002).
:*Canada. Official Languages: English, French.
:*Papua New Guinea. Official Languages: English*. (* The national languages are English, Tok Pisin (English Creole), and Motu.)
:*New Zealand. Official Languages: English; Maori.
:*United States. Official Language: None.
:*United Kingdom. Official Language: English; both English and Welsh in Wales.
:*Switzerland. Official Languages: French; German; Italian; Romansh (locally).
:*Sri Lanka. Official Languages: Sinhala, Tamil.* (*English has official status as “the link language” between Sinhala and Tamil.)
:*Georgia. Official Languages: Georgian*. (*Locally Abkhazian, in Abkhazia.)
:*Peru. Official Languages: Spanish; Quechua (locally); Aymara (locally)
:*Belgium. Official Languages: Dutch; French; German
:*'''India. Official Languages: Hindi; English.'''

Notice that in the sample above various permutations and combinations of languages and footnotes are described. Clearly, the editors at Britannica are aware of the complexities involved in such descriptions; nonetheless, for India, they choose: Hindi; English. There must be a good reason for this. The Britannica India page is written by some of the world's best-known India experts, including, [[Joseph E. Schwartzberg]], [[Romila Thapar]], Muzaffar Alam, and [[Stanley Wolpert]], who can hardly be described as Hindi protagonists. It is hard to believe that this choice of Hindi and English (as official languages in the infobox) is accidental.

Here is how Encarta describes the official languages in its version of the India infobox:
{{cquote|There are 24 languages spoken in India by at least 1 million people each. Numerous other languages and dialects are also spoken. Hindi is the official national language and is the primary language for 40 percent of the population. Other official languages include Assamese, Bangla, Bodo, Dogri, Gujarati, Kannada, Kashmiri, Konkani, Maithali, Malayalam, Manipuri, Marathi, Nepali, Oriya, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Santhali, Sindhi, Tamil, Telugu, and Urdu. Hindustani is a popular variant of Hindi/Urdu and is spoken widely throughout northern India. English has associate status as the official working language and is important for national, political, and commercial matters. (The percentage of speakers are) Hindi 40%, Bengali 8%, Telegu 8%, Marathi 7%)}}

Similarly, with the names:

*Britannica: Official Name: Bharat (Hindi); Republic of India (English)
*Encarta: India, officially Republic of India (Hindi: Bharat)

Both encyclopedias, give a special status to Hindi and English as official federal languages, ''above'' that of the official state languages. In contrast, Wikipedia has moved the description of this special status either to footnotes (as in the India page) or to a subordinate sentence structures (as in the [[Official languages of India]] page (second sentence, lead)). In so doing, Wikipedia is now subtly implying a [[devolution]] of (the relations between) the official languages of India that, however welcome, may not exist in practice. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 06:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:Regardless of what Britannica or Encarta says in this matter, I think an exact, accurate quote from the [[Constitution of India]] will triumph all other possible sources. So, just quote the appropriate section from there, and we'll be done. If Britannica or Encarta differ from the CoI, then they are just being inaccurate.

:Since I don't know which section of the CoI handles this, perhaps someone who does should check this out. --[[User:Ragib|Ragib]] 08:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
::Without a doubt, they are a figment of ''original research''. There has been a constant effort by editors to undermine the fact that Hindi and English are the official languages of the Union, that is, India.
::According to the information by Department of Official Language (DOL) , official language invariably pertains to Hindi. According to its official website- www.rajbhasha.gov.in. Hindi withholds special importance along with English. Do read this [http://www.rajbhasha.gov.in/dolpolicyeng.htm ''OFFICIAL LANGUAGE POLICY OF THE UNION''] and [http://www.rajbhasha.gov.in/consteng.htm ''CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS''] to know more. The annual programme by Department of Official Language [http://www.rajbhasha.gov.in/annualeng.pdf ''FOR TRANSACTING THE OFFICIAL WORK OF THE UNION IN HINDI 2007-2008''] states the provisions regarding official importance and usage of Hindi.<br />
::'''Here is text from the Constitution of India stating clearly the Official language of the Union.'''
{|class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left;"
|-
! Expand to see Constitutional provisions
|-
| <blockquote>
Article 343. Official language of the Union- <br /><br />

(1) The official language of the Union shall be Hindi in Devnagari script. The form of numerals to be used for the official purposes of the Union shall be the international form of Indian numerals. <br /><br />
(2) Notwithstanding anything in clause (1), for a period of fifteen years from the commencement of this Constitution, the English language shall continue to be used for all the official purposes of the Union for which it was being used immediately before such commencement: <br /><br />

Provided that the President may, during the said period, by order authorise the use of the Hindi language in addition to the English language and of the Devnagari form of numerals in addition to the internationl form of Indian numerals for any of the official purposes of the Union. <br /><br />

(3) Notwithstanding anything in this article, Parliament may be law provide for the use, after the said period of fifteen years, of- <br /><br />

(a) the English language, or<br />
(b) the Devnagari form of numerals, <br /><br />

for such purposes as may be specified in the law. <br />

Article 344. Commission and Committee of Parliament on official language-<br /><br />

(1) The President shall, at the expiration of five years from the commencement of this Constitution and thereafter at the expiration of ten years from such commencement, by order constitute a Commission which shall consist of a Chairman and such other members representing the different languages specified in the Eighth Schedule as the President may appoint, and the order shall define the procedure to be followed by the Commission. <br /><br />

(2) It shall be the duty of the Commission to make recommendations to the President as to- <br />

(a) the progressive use of the Hindi language for the official purposes of the Union;<br />
(b) restrictions on the use of the English language for all or any of the official
purposes of the Union;<br />
(c) the language to be used for all or any of the purposes mentioned in article 348;<br />
(d) the form of numerals to be used for any one or more specified purposes of the Union;<br />
(e) any other matter referred to the Commission by the President as regards the official language of the Union and the language for communication between the Union and a State or between one State and another and their use.<br />

(3) In making their recommendations under clause (2), the Commission shall have due regard to the industrial, cultural and scientific advancement of India, and the just claims and the interests of persons belonging to the non-Hindi speaking areas in regard to the public services. <br /><br />

(4) There shall be constituted a Committee consisting of thirty members, of whom twenty shall be members of the House of the People and ten shall be members of the Council of States to be elected respectively by the members of the House of the People and the members of the Council of States in accordance with the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote. <br /><br />

(5) It shall be the duty of the Committee to examine the recommendations of the Commission constituted under clause (1) and to report to the President their opinion thereon.<br /> <br />

(6) Notwithstanding anything in article 343, the President may, after consideration of the report referred to in clause (5), issue directions in accordance with the whole or any part of that report. <br /><br />

CHAPTER II - REGIONAL LANGUAGES<br /><br /><br />

Article 345. Official language or languages of a State- subject to the provisions of articles 346 and 347, the legislature of a State may by law 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 that State: <br /><br />

Provided that, until the Legislature of the State otherwise provides by law, the English language shall continue to be used for those official purposes within the State for which it was being used immediately before the commencement of this Constitution.<br /><br />

Article 346. Official languages for Communication between one State and another or between a State and the Union- The language for the time being authorised for use in the Union for official purposes shall be the official language for communication between one State and another State and between a State and the Union : <br />

Provided that if two or more States agree that the Hindi language should be the official language for communication between such States, that language may be used for such communication. <br /><br />

Article 347. Special provision relating to language spoken by a section of the population of a State- On a demand being made in that behalf the President may, if he is satisfied that a substantial proportion of the population of a State desire the use of any language spoken by them to be recognised by that state, direct that such language shall also be officially recognised throughout that State or any part thereof for such purpose as he may specify.
<br />
CHAPTER III - LANGUAGE OF THE SUPREME COURT, <br /><br />

HIGH COURTS, ETC.
<br />
Article 348. Language to be used in the Supreme Court and in the High Courts and for Acts, Bills, etc.- (1) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Part, until Parliament by law otherwise provides- <br />
<br />
(a) All proceedings in the Supreme Court and in every High Court,
(b) the authoritative texts- <br />
<br />
(i) of all Bills to be introduced or amendments thereto to be moved in either House of Parliament or in the House or either House of the Legislature of a State.<br />
(ii) Of all Acts passed by Parliament or the Legislature of a State and of all Ordinances promulgated by the President or the Governor of a State, and<br />
(iii) Of all orders, rules, regulations and bye-laws issued under this Constitution or under any law made by Parliament or the Legislature of a State, shall be in the English language. <br />

(2) Notwithstanding anything in sub-clause(a) of clause(1), the Governor of a State may, with the previous consent of the President, authorise the use of the Hindi language, or any other language used for any official purposes of the State, in proceedings in the High Court having its principal seat in that State: <br />

Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to any judgment, decree or order passed or made by such High Court.<br />
<br />
(3) Notwithstanding anything in sub-clause(b) of clause(1), where the Legislature of a State has prescribed any language other than the English language for use in Bills introduced in, or Acts passed by, the Legislature of the State or in Ordinances promulgated by the Governor of the State or in any order, rule, regulation or bye-law referred to in paragraph (iii) of that sub-clause, a translation of the same in the English language published under the authority of the Governor of the State in the Official Gazette of that State shall be deemed to be the authoritative text thereof in the English language under this article.<br />

Article 349. Special procedure for enactment of certain laws relating to language- <br />

During the period of fifteen years from the commencement of this Constitution, no Bill or amendment making provision for the language to be used for any of the purposes mentioned in clause (1) of article 348 shall be introduced or moved in either House of Parliament without the previous sanction of the President, and the President shall not give his sanction to the introduction of any such Bill or the moving of any such amendment except after he has taken into consideration the recommendations of the Commission constituted under clause(1) of article 344 and the report of the Committee constituted under clause(4) of that article. <br />

CHAPTER IV - SPECIAL DIRECTIVES <br />

Article 350. Language to be used in representations for redress of grievances- Every person shall be entitled to submit a representation for the redress of any grievance to any officer or authority of the Union or a State in any of the languages used in the Union or in the State, as the case may be. <br />

Article 350A. Facilities for instruction in mother-tongue at the primary stage - It shall be the endeavor of every State and of every local authority within the State to provide adequate facilities for instruction in the mother-tongue at the primary stage of education to children belonging to linguistic minority groups; and the President may issue such directions to any State as he considers necessary or proper for securing the provision of such facilities. <br />

Article 350B. Special Officer for linguistic minorities- (1) There shall be a Special Officer for linguistic minorities to be appointed by the President. <br /><br />

(2) It shall be the duty of the Special officer to investigate all matters relating to the safeguards provided for linguistic minorities under this Constitution and report to the President upon those matters at such intervals as the President may direct, and the president shall cause all such reports to be laid before each House of Parliament and sent to the Government of the States concerned.<br /><br />
'''Article 351. Directive for development of the ''Hindi'' language'''- It shall be the duty of the Union to promote the spread of the Hindi language, to develop it so that it may serve as a medium of expression for all the elements of the composite culture of India and to secure its enrichment by assimilating without interfering with its genius, the forms, style and expressions used in Hindustani and in the other languages of India specified in the Eighth Schedule, and by drawing, wherever necessary or desirable, for its vocabulary, primarily on Sanskrit and secondarily on other languages.<br />

</blockquote>
|}

::-- [[User:KnowledgeHegemony|<font color="midnightblue">'''K'''nowledge</font>]][[User talk:KnowledgeHegemony|<font color="purple">'''H'''egemony</font>]] 10:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:::I'm just curious as to why you are citing the original 1950 version ... this has obviously gone through amendments added as Schedules. Per Schedule 8 [http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/fullact1.asp?tfnm=00%20512], Article 344 (1) and Article 351 have been amended to include at least 18 other languages, and that supersedes the version you quoted above. --[[User:Ragib|Ragib]] 10:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
::::Does that mean that Hindi is the official language and that English is another official language to be used for subsidereal translational purposes? <font style="font-size:120%;color:#228B22">[[User:Universe=atom|'''''Universe=atom''''']]</font><small><sup>[[User Talk:Universe=atom|Talk]]•[[Special:Contributions/Universe=atom|Contributions]]</sup></small> 10:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

''Ragib'', Please note that Eighth Schedule was in reference to regional and classical languages it does not apply to the Union as a whole. Article 343- ''Official language of the Union'' is what we are talking about the one related to the Union of India.
<blockquote>
'''Article 343''' <br />
Official language of the Union- <br />
(1) The official language of the Union shall be Hindi in Devnagari script. The form of numerals to be used for the official purposes of the Union shall be the international form of Indian numerals. <br /><br />
(2) Notwithstanding anything in clause (1), for a period of fifteen years from the commencement of this Constitution, the English language shall continue to be used for all the official purposes of the Union for which it was being used immediately before such commencement: <br /><br />

Provided that the President may, during the said period, by order authorise the use of the Hindi language in addition to the English language and of the Devnagari form of numerals in addition to the internationl form of Indian numerals for any of the official purposes of the Union. <br /><br />

(3) Notwithstanding anything in this article, Parliament may be law provide for the use, after the said period of fifteen years, of- <br /><br />

(a) the English language, or<br />
(b) the Devnagari form of numerals, <br /><br />

for such purposes as may be specified in the law. <br />
</blockquote>-- [[User:KnowledgeHegemony|<font color="midnightblue">'''K'''nowledge</font>]][[User talk:KnowledgeHegemony|<font color="purple">'''H'''egemony</font>]] 13:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:To Ragib, It seems to me that there is no need to go to the Constitution and look for references to "official languages." Those are already discussed (as mentioned by K-H above) on the "Official Language Policy" page of the Government of India. The page is pretty complete and its sidebars include:

:*[http://www.rajbhasha.gov.in/dolpolicyeng.htm Official Language Policy]
:*[http://www.rajbhasha.gov.in/consteng.htm Constitutional Provisions]
:*[http://www.rajbhasha.gov.in/preseng.htm President's Orders]
:*[http://www.rajbhasha.gov.in/dolacteng.htm Official Languages Act]
:*[http://www.rajbhasha.gov.in/dolresolutioneng.htm Official Languages Resolution]
:*[http://www.rajbhasha.gov.in/dolruleseng.htm Official Language Rules]
:*[http://www.rajbhasha.gov.in/eventseng.htm Chronology of Events with Reference to the Official :Language of the Union]
::India has the 2nd largets army accordring to http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-countries-with-largest-armies-map.html
:Going to the constitution (and its amendments) to look for exact and accurate quotations invariably leads to questions of meaning, intent, and original intent&mdash;all trapdoors to a bottomless quest. In addition, both Britannica and Encarta (especially the former) are widely respected tertiary sources and they agree on the question of "official languages" for India. That needs to be taken seriously. I am happy to look at secondary sources all well, but to go to the primary sources and parse intent is problematic. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 13:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
''Universe=atom'', your deduction is quite true.
I would want all involved to read this [http://india.gov.in/knowindia/official_language.php Official language ''National Portal of India'']. Reading this and the provisions we can deduce the fact that the phrase- "''Official language''" when used in context to the Union of '''India''' as a whole refers ''only'' to Hindi and English and not all the languages recognised by the Constitution. Everywhere the word language in Official Language is ''not plural'' with a suffix ''''s'''' and mostly referring to Hindi. Eg.Official Language Resolution, Department of Official Language.

{|class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left;"
|-
! Special provisions made by Government regarding use of Official language of Hindi
|-
| <blockquote>
'''Policy'''
<br />
In compliance with the '''Official Language Resolution'''''(''see'': its official language without the plural's'),'' 1968, an Annual Programme is prepared by the Department of Official Language in which targets are set for the offices of the Central Government with regard to originating correspondence, telegrams, telex, etc., in Hindi. A Quarterly Progress Report is called for from the offices of the Central Government regarding achievements vis-à-vis the said targets. An Annual Assessment Report is prepared on the basis of the Quarterly Progress Reports, which is laid on the Tables of both Houses of the Parliament and copies endorsed to State Governments and the Ministries/Departments of the Central Government.
<br />
Eight Regional Implementation Offices have been established at Bangalore, Cochin, Mumbai, Kolkata, Guwahati, Bhopal, Delhi and Ghaziabad to monitor the implementation of Official Language Policy of the Union.
<br />
'''Committees/Samities'''<br />
A Committee of Parliament on Official Language was constituted in 1976 under section 4 of the Official Languages Act, 1963 to periodically review the progress in the use of Hindi as the Official Language of the Union and to submit a report to the President. The Committee consists of 20 Members of the Lok Sabha and 10 of the Rajya Sabha. The Committee have decided to submit
its report in parts. It has so far submitted to the President eight parts of its report. The Presidential Orders on seven parts of its report have been issued and work is in progress on the eighth part.
<br />
The Kendriya Hindi Samiti was constituted in the year 1967. It is chaired by the Prime Minister. It is the apex policy making body which lays down the guidelines for the propagation and progressive use of Hindi as Official Language of the Union.
<br />
Under the directions of the Kendriya Hindi Samiti, Hindi Salahakar Samitis have been constituted in all Ministries/Departments under the chairmanship of the Ministers concerned. These Samitis periodically review the progress in the use of Hindi in their respective Ministries/Departments and the offices/ undertakings and suggest measures to promote the use of Hindi.
<br />
Besides, the Central Official Language Implementation Committee [headed by Secretary, Department of Official Language and consisting of Joint Secretaries (In-charge Official Language) of all the Ministries/Departments as ex-officio members] reviews the status of use of Hindi for official purposes of the Union, training of its employees in Hindi and implementation of instructions issued
from time to time by the Department of Official Language and suggests measure for removing the shortcomings and difficulties noticed in implementing these instructions.
<br />
Town Official Language Implementation Committees are constituted in different towns having ten or more Central Government offices, etc., to review the progress made in the use of Hindi in their member offices and exchange experiences. So far 255 Town Official Language Implementation Committees have been constituted all over the country.
<br />
'''Award Schemes'''<br />
The Indira Gandhi Rajbhasha Awards Scheme has been in operation since 1986-87. Shields are given every year to Ministries/ Departments, Banks and Financial Institutions, Public Sector Undertakings and Town Official Language Implementation Committees for outstanding achievements in the implementation of the Official Language Implementation Cmmittees for outstanding achievements in the implementation of the Official Language Policy of the Union. Cash awards are given to the working/retired employees of the Central Government, Banks, Financial Institutions, Universities, Training Institutions and Autonomous Bodies of the Central Government for writing original books in Hindi.
<br />
The National Awards Scheme for Original Book writing on Gyan-Vigyan has been renamed as Rajiv Gandhi National Awards Scheme for Original Book Writing in Hindi for promoting writing of books in Hindi on all branches of modern Science/Technology and contemporary subjects. This Scheme is open to all citizens of India.
<br />
At Regional level, Regional Official Language Awards are given each year to the Regional/Subordinate Offices, Public Sector Undertakings, Town Official Language Implementation Committees, Banks and Financial Institutions of the Central Government for outstanding achievements in implementing the Official Language Policy of the Union and accelerating the progressive use of
Hindi.<br />

'''Training'''
<br />
Under the Hindi Teaching Scheme, administered by the Department of Official Language, training in Hindi language is being imparted through 119 full-time and 49 part-time centres throughout the country. Likewise, training in Hindi Stenography and Hindi Typing is being provided through 23 full-time and 38 part-time centres. Thus, training in Hindi is being provided in 229 centres located in different parts of the country. Five Regional Offices of Hindi Teaching Scheme at Kolkata, Mumbai, Delhi, Chennai and Guwahati are
providing academic and administrative support to the Hindi Teaching Scheme in the East, West, North-Central, South and North-East Regions. To fulfill the increasing demand of Hindi training of North Eastern region a new Regional Headquarter has been extablished at Guwahati and new Hindi training centres have been established at Imphal, Aizwal and Agartala.
<br />
The Kendriya Hindi Prashikshan Sansthan was established on 31 August 1985, as a subordinate office of the Department of Official Language, with the objective of providing Hindi Training through condensed courses in Hindi language/typing and stenography as also training through correspondence in Hindi language and Hindi Typwriting. Its sub-institutes were opened in Mumbai, Kolkata and Bangalore in 1988 and in Chennai and Hyderabad in 1990. Training of Hindi typing on computers is being imparted at almost all the typing/stenography centres in the country.
<br />
The Central Translation Bureau was set up in March 1971 for translation of different types of non-statutory literature, manuals/codes, forms, etc., of various Ministries/Departments, Offices of the Central Government and Public Sector Undertakings, Banks, etc. The Bureau has also been entrusted with the responsibility of conducting translation training courses for the officers/employees associated with the translation work. Initially, translation training courses of 3 months were being conducted at the Headquarters in New Delhi.
In order to strengthen training facilities and meet regional requirements, Translation Training Centres have been established in Mumbai, Bangalore and Kolkata. Besides, Central Translation Bureau also conducts short-term translation courses for Central Government employees.
<br />
'''Technical'''
<br />
In order to facilitate the use of Official Language with the help of Mechanical and Electronic equipment, especially computers, a Technical Cell was set up in the Department of Official Language in October 1983. The main activities of the Cell are as under:
<br />
Development of "Language application tools" - Under this programme LILA Rajbhasha, a self-learning package through the medium of Bangla, English, Kannada, Malayalam, Tamil and Telugu has been developed, MANTRA Rajbhasha, an aid tool for English to Hindi translation has also been developed.
<br />

Organising computer training programmes in Hindi - Every year around 100 training programmes are conducted to impart training for the use of Hindi on computers.

<br />
Organising exhibitions and seminars on billingual computing - Technical seminars are held to help the users and manufacturers come face to face to discuss the use of Hindi software, etc.
The Department of Official Language has now set up its portal www.rajbhasha.gov.in
<br />
'''Publications'''<br />
The Department of Official Language brings out ‘Rajbhasha Bharati’, a quarterly magazine, dedicated for encouraging writings in the field of Official Language, literature, technology, information technology, etc., in Hindi and also to give wide publicity to the efforts being made in different Central Government Offices for the use and propagation of Official Language Hindi. So far 112 issues of Rajbhasha Bharati have been published. Likewise, Annual Programme for implementation of the Official Language policy is brought out every year. Annual Assessment Report regarding the use of Official Language in different Ministries/Departments and offices of the Central Government/Public Sector Undertakings, etc., is also brought out every year and laid on the tables of both the houses of Parliament. Official Language Manual, Calendars, Films, Posters, etc., are also brought out to give information regarding the activities relating to propagation and progressive use of Hindi as the Official Language.
</blockquote>
|}
[[User:KnowledgeHegemony|<font color="midnightblue">'''K'''nowledge</font>]][[User talk:KnowledgeHegemony|<font color="purple">'''H'''egemony</font>]] 14:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

::* There is no OR here. Britannica and Encarta may be respected sources but they are not the final word on anything. Both have been known and shown to have mistakes. If we have the luxury of having access to primary and secondary sources, then we ''should'' be making use of that to write a more accurate account of the situation. The problem we are having here is not of OR. It is one of horribly incorrect assumptions that people have of Hindi's status. Even until a few weeks back, KH for example, ''thought'' and ''believed'' that Hindi was the national language and I am sure he is/was not an exception. If we look, I am sure we will find 'respectable' tertiary sources which make a mention India's 'national' language/s; while in fact, India doesnt even ''have'' anything called a 'national' language. Even NCERT was sued by a Kerala professor and they had to change their textbooks which until then mentioned that Hindi was the "national" language.
::* As for 'official language of the Union', once again people seek to erroneously equate it to "national" language. '''That''' is original research. Official language of the union is NOT sacrosanct. It is not like the "national" flag or the "national" anthem which are non-negotiable wherever you go in the country. "Official language of the union" on the other hand is '''strictly''' for dealings with the central government and that too '''only''' if you choose to. I am a citizen of India and nobody can force me to use Hindi at ''any'' level. Even with the union govt., I can make do with English. I may be 'forced' to use Hindi only at the state-level, say, if I was in a state like Bihar or something where Hindi, by virtue of being the official language of the "state" becomes non-negotiable.
::* Most use of Hindi that we see, is because of the Indian government's stated goal(read the constitution) of "increasing/encouraging use of hindi in central government undertakings". This is a fact and I dont mind mentioning the stepmotherly attitude of the Indian govt., in giving Hindi special treatment though the constitution itself doesnt afford Hindi much. I remember that even the ads that the govt., would air on Doordarshan years ago, would only make a case for Hindi and state that "Hindi is best suited to be "national" language" but would clearly stop short of claiming that Hindi ''was'' the "national" language. If there is one language from which there is no escape for an Indian citizen, atleast when one reaches the supreme court, it is English. It probably is one of the biggest hoaxes of modern times that Hindi is the "national" language of India and there is no reason we should be affording such hoaxes any room on wikipedia in any shape or form. [[:User_talk:Sarvagnya|Sarvagnya]] 14:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No one (now) is talking about national languages, just "official languages." Nothing is implied in this "official status" about Indian culture. The official status is just what has been decided by the governments of the day to be their languages of communication etc. I am sure the Wikipedia article can state that in a footnote.

As for sources, here is what Wikipedia says about [[Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources|Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources]]:
#'''Primary Sources:''' "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone&mdash;without specialist knowledge&mdash;who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. ''Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source''."
#'''Secondary Sources:''' "'''Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources.'''"
#'''Tertiary Sources:''' "Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. For example, articles signed by experts in [[Encyclopaedia Britannica]] and encyclopedias of similar quality can be regarded as reliable secondary sources instead of tertiary ones." (''Note that the entire India page in Britannica, including all its sections, is signed by experts.'')

So far I have not seen any reading of primary sources buttressed by reliable secondary sources. As I mentioned above, I will be adding secondary sources later today. The ones I have found seem to support the special status of Hindi and English as official languages of the Union. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 15:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

====Secondary sources:====
I have collected quotes from 21 secondary sources in the collapsible box below.
{|class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left;"
|-
! Expand to see 21 secondary sources, including 4) ''Encyclopaedia Britannica'', "India&mdash;Linguistic Composition." 5) ''Encyclopedia Encarta'', "India: Official Languages". 6) ''Encyclopedia Encarta'', "Indian Languages: Official Languages" 7) ''Indo-Aryan Languages''. 9) Bose, Sugata and Ayesha Jalal. ''Modern South Asia: Culture, Politics, Economy'', 10) UCLA Language Materials Project: Hindi. 12) United Kingdom, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, "India&mdash;Country Profile." 13) United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 14) UNESCO, "Education for all&mdash;The Nine Largest Countries." 15) US Library of Congress, "Country Profile: India." 16) US Department of State, "Background Note: India." 17) UN High Commissioner for Refugees, "Country Profile: India." 18) Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Languages of India. 19) Mallikarjun, B. 2004. "Fifty Years of Language Planning for Modern Hindi-The Official Language of India.", ''Language in India''. 20) Mallikarjun, B. 2004. "Indian Multilingualism, Language Policy, and the Digital Divide" ''Language in India''. 21) Laitin, David. 1989. "Language policy and political strategy in India." ''Policy Sciences''. 22:415-436.
|-
|
::'''1'''. [http://www.lsa.umich.edu/history/facstaff/facultydetail.asp?ID=74 Ramaswamy, Sumathi] (May 1999), [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0026-749X%28199905%2933%3A2%3C339%3ASFTN%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9 ""Sanskrit for the Nation,"] ''Modern Asian Studies'', (Cambridge University Press) Vol. 33, No. 2. (May, 1999), pp. 339-381.
::Quote1: "'''First, and most crucially, the Constitution, even while identifying Hindi as the official language of India''', clearly names Sanskrit as the primary source from which it should draw upon to enrich itself and develop its vocabulary." (p. 357)
::Quote2: "Given that so many distinguished nationalists had expressed their faith in Sanskrit, it was disappointing to the Sanskrit Commission that in 1949, the Constituent Assembly had considered, and rejected, proposals which would have instituted Sanskrit, '''rather than Hindi, as the official language of India'''. In 1956, the Official Language Commission rejected a renewed plea on behalf of Sanskrit." (p. 349)
::{|class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left;"
|-
! Extended version of Quote 1 above:
|-
|<blockquote>(Note that the author is not a protagonist or supporter of Hindi. Much of the second half of the paragraph is ironical.)"First, and most crucially, the Constitution, even while identifying Hindi as the official language of India, clearly names Sanskrit as the primary source from which it should draw upon to enrich itself and develop its vocabulary. Such a linking of Sanskrit to the official language is perhaps not surprising, for at least since the late eighteenth century, it had been identified by numerous colonial administrators and missionaries as the 'fountainhead' and 'reservoir' of not just Hindi, but all the languages of 'Hindu' India. Further, from the 1880s on, the supporters of Hindi had launched a sustained program of Sanskritizing Hindi, in their attempts to distance the language from its Persian-Urdu (read: 'Muslim') past. By October 1948, the Hindi lobby in the Assembly had abandoned any pretence of working with a composite Hindustani, and singled out Sanskrit as the only language to which Hindi should turn for its improvement. In its view, 'the linguistic unity of India' as well as the 'highest dictates of nationalism' demanded that Sanskrit be made the sole source of new vocabulary for the new official language. Indeed, Hindi enthusiasts shrewdly made a case for their language by insisting that Hindi had all the advantages of associating with Sanskrit, without the disadvantages of being Sanskrit."</blockquote>
|}
::'''2'''. Smith, Donald E. (Oct., 1964). [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762%28196410%2970%3A1%3C174%3ATCWOMG%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8 Review: ''The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi''], ''The American Historical Review'', Vol. 70, No. 1., pp. 174-175. Quote 3: "The collection contains virtually all the writings, speeches, and letters of Gandhi, arranged in strictly chronological order. He wrote and spoke in three languages, Gujarati, Hindi, and English; thus the editors' task was not only one of collection but of accurate translation from the first two languages into English. ('''The entire series is also being published in Hindi, the official language of India'''.)"
::'''3'''. Hardgrave, Robert L. (Aug., 1965), [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0004-4687%28196508%295%3A8%3C399%3ATRITPA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I "The Riots in Tamilnad: Problems and Prospects of India's Language Crisis,"] ''Asian Survey'', Vol. 5, No. 8. (Aug., 1965), pp. 399-407. Quote 4: "'''On January 26, 1965, Republic Day, in pursuance of Article 343 of the Constitution, Hindi became the official language of India'''. The South, and Tamilnad (i.e., Madras State) particularly, long opposed to the "imposition" of Hindi, reacted predictably in the preceding weeks."
::'''4'''. [[Joseph E. Schwartzberg|Schwartzberg, Joseph E.]], 2007. ''Encyclopedia Britannica'', [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-46398 India&mdash;Linguistic Composition]. Quote 5: "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."
::'''5'''. [http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/data/indiv/area/idsas/OLDENBURG,Philip.htm Oldenburg, Phillip]. (1997-2007) ''Encarta Encyclopedia'' "India: Official Languages." Quote 6: "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."
::'''6'''. Fisher, Solveig G. (1997-2007) ''Encarta Encyclopedia'' "Indian Languages: Official Languages" Quote 7: "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."
::'''7'''. Cardona, George and Dhanesh Jain (eds). 2003. ''Indo-Aryan Languages''. London: Routledge. 704 pages. ISBN 0700711309. Quote 8: "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)"
::'''8'''. 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 9: '''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)."
::{|class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left;"
|-
! Continuation of Quote 9 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."
|}
::'''9'''. [[Sugata Bose|Bose, Sugata]] and [[Ayesha Jalal]]. 2003. ''Modern South Asia: Culture, Political, Economy''. Routledge. 320 pages. ISBN 0415169518. Quote 10: "It was in response to the southern challenge that Nehru proposed his three-language formula. '''According to this formula, Hindi would be the official language of India, English the link-language, and the regional languages of each state would be compulsory in the school curricula.''' The completion of the linguistic reorganization of state boundaries in the fifties and sixties proved insufficient in alleviating centre-state tensions, which resurfaced during the eighties with unprecedented intensity as well as simultaneity." (pp 209-210).
::'''10'''. [http://www.lmp.ucla.edu/Profile.aspx?LangID=87&menu=004 UCLA Language Materials Project: Hindi]. 2007. Quote 11: "'''Hindi is the official language of India and is the second most widely spoken language in the world.''' Although it is spoken primarily in India, Hindi is spoken by large numbers in Nepal, South Africa, and Uganda."
::'''11'''. Chandra, Kanchan. 2001. [http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/politics/faculty/chandra/ps2001.pdf "Ethnic Bargains, Group Instability, and Social Choice Theory,"] ''Politics and Society''. Vol. 29 No. 3, September 2001 337-362. Quote 12: "The terms of the bargain, adopted by the Constituent Assembly on 14 September 1949, were as follows: (1) No single language was named the “national” language of India. (2) '''Hindi was named the “official” language of the Indian Union.''' (3) Even as the “official” language, the status of Hindi was in suspension. The Constitution stipulated that English would continue to be used for fifteen years from the commencement of the Constitution. Even after fifteen years, the use of Hindi as the official language was not certain, since Parliament could provide for the continued use of English (which in fact it did). The language compromise, as I point out below, represented a rejection of each of the central claims of the Hindi bloc." (p. 357)
::'''12'''. [http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029394365&a=KCountryProfile&aid=1018965323192 United Kingdom, Foreign and Commonwealth Office: India&mdash;Country Profile]. Quote 13: "'''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."
::'''13'''. [http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/hnd.htm United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Hindi]. Quote 14: "'''Usage by Country, Official Language: India'''. Similarly, [http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm English Version] says: "'''Usage by Country, Official Language: India.'''" Contrast with: [http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/kjv.htm Kannada Version], which says, "'''Usage by Country, Official Language: Karnataka/India'''; [http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/mrt.htm Marathi Version], which says, "Usage by Country, Official Language: Maharashtra/India," and the [http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/tcw.htm Telegu Version], which says, "Usage by Country, Official Language: Andhra Pradesh/India."
::'''14'''. [http://www2.unesco.org/wef/en-docs/findings/efa9.doc UNESCO: Education for All&mdash;The Nine Largest Countries] Quote 15: "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."
::'''15'''. [http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/profiles/India.pdf United States Library of Congress, Federal Research Division, Country Profile: India] Quote 16: "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)."
::'''16''' [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3454.htm US Department of State, Background Note: India], December 2006. Quote 17: 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.'''"
::'''17''' [http://www.unhcr.org/publ/RSDCOI/3ae6a6400.html United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Country Profile: India] Quote 18: "'''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."
::'''18''' [http://www.ethnologue.com/web.asp Ethnologue: Languages of the World], [http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN Languages of India] Quote 19: "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."
::'''19''' Mallikarjun, B. (Nov., 2004), [http://www.languageinindia.com/nov2004/mallikarjunmalaysiapaper1.html Fifty Years of Language Planning for Modern Hindi&ndash;The Official Language of India], [http://www.languageinindia.com/index.html ''Language in India''], Volume 4, Number 11. ISSN 1930-2940. Quote 20: "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.'''"
::'''20''' Mallikarjun, B. (April 2004). [http://www.languageinindia.com/april2004/kathmandupaper1.html "Indian Multilingualism, Language Policy, and the Digital Divide"], ''Language in India'', Volume 4, Number 4, ISSN 1930-2940. Quote 21: "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.
::'''21''' [http://www.stanford.edu/~dlaitin/ Laitin, David] 1989. "Language policy and political strategy in India." ''Policy Sciences''. 22:415-436. Quote 22: "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."
|}
[[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 17:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC) Last updated: [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 13:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
:Though several of these are applicable (particularly #8), others are off-topic (e.g., #9, which discusses a proposal, not law). [[User:Saravask|Saravask]] 00:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have reduced the secondary sources to 15 focused ones in the collapsible box below.
:Thanks. [[User:Saravask|Saravask]] 00:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
{|class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left;"
|-
! Expand to see 15 focused secondary sources, including 1) ''Encyclopaedia Britannica'', "India&mdash;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&mdash;Country Profile." 7) United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 8) UNESCO, "Education for all&mdash;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'''. [[Joseph E. Schwartzberg|Schwartzberg, Joseph E.]], 2007. ''Encyclopedia Britannica'', [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-46398 India&mdash;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'''. [http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/data/indiv/area/idsas/OLDENBURG,Philip.htm 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)."
::{|class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left;"
|-
! 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'''. [http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029394365&a=KCountryProfile&aid=1018965323192 United Kingdom, Foreign and Commonwealth Office: India&mdash;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'''. [http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/hnd.htm United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Hindi]. Quote 7: "'''Usage by Country, Official Language: India'''. Similarly, [http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm English Version] says: "'''Usage by Country, Official Language: India.'''" Contrast with: [http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/kjv.htm Kannada Version], which says, "'''Usage by Country, Official Language: Karnataka/India'''; [http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/mrt.htm Marathi Version], which says, "Usage by Country, Official Language: Maharashtra/India," and the [http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/tcw.htm Telegu Version], which says, "Usage by Country, Official Language: Andhra Pradesh/India."
::'''8'''. [http://www2.unesco.org/wef/en-docs/findings/efa9.doc UNESCO: Education for All&mdash;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'''. [http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/profiles/India.pdf 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''' [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3454.htm 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''' [http://www.unhcr.org/publ/RSDCOI/3ae6a6400.html 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''' [http://www.ethnologue.com/web.asp Ethnologue: Languages of the World], [http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN 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), [http://www.languageinindia.com/nov2004/mallikarjunmalaysiapaper1.html Fifty Years of Language Planning for Modern Hindi&ndash;The Official Language of India], [http://www.languageinindia.com/index.html ''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). [http://www.languageinindia.com/april2004/kathmandupaper1.html "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''' [http://www.stanford.edu/~dlaitin/ 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.'''"
|}
[[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 03:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

===Discussion (continued)===
:* Except the "...even while identifying Hindi as the official language of India..." part, the rest of the above passage is irrelevant to the discussion here. So, stop filling pages and wasting people's time. As for the 'matter-of-fact' claim that the author makes, it is a patently loose description of reality(understandable, considering that the subject of her discussion there is totally different). For that matter, I am sure that if you dig, you'll find plenty of secondary and tertiary sources even claim that Hindi is the "national" language, while in fact, the constitution clearly and conspicuously steers clear of even mentioning that word. The reality is far more nuanced as we have seen and it is in cases like this that we have to use primary sources(if available) to corroborate info from secondary and tertiary sources.
:* The fact of the matter is that, not only is "official language of the Union" not the same as "national" language, but, there is also no evidence to believe that it is even close. The "official language of the union" only means that hindi(along with english) is to be used in the transactions of the central govt. And even in these 'transactions' it is "Hindi only", "Hindi and English" or "English only" as the case may be. For example, states like Karnataka, TN, Andhra, Kerala etc., carry out all their transactions with the central govt., in English. A citizen of these states in turn uses Kannada(in case of Ktaka) with the state govt., and is free to use English with the babus in Delhi. The supreme court which is above(so to speak) the central govt., uses English. The "Constitution" which is 'above' the Supreme Court is in English with translations in several languages(including one in Hindi).
::<small>As an aside, the second half is indeed ironical. While one reading of it may suggest that Hindi piggybacked(unfairly) on Sanskrit's fair name, [[Pseudo secularism |some others]] might lament that 'kommunal Porces' did afterall, manage to find Sanskrit a backdoor.</small> [[:User_talk:Sarvagnya|Sarvagnya]] 19:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:::You haven't produced a single reliable secondary source. You are now asserting that your claim needs "primary sources (if available)," while at the same time disparaging the secondary sources that disagree with you. [http://www.lsa.umich.edu/history/facstaff/facultydetail.asp?ID=74 Sumati Ramaswami], BTW, is a very careful historian of South Asia, one not given to "patently loose descriptions of reality" as you claim. The subject of the paper is not "totally different," as you again claim; the paper is a discussion of the history of the failed decade-long (1947-1957) attempt to make Sanskrit the official language of India and is very much linked to the language that eventually ''won out'', namely Hindi. Almost every page of the paper discusses this issue. I have now increased the number of quotes from the paper to two and also moved the extended quote to a collapsible box. (The only reason I added the extended quote was to assure people that the author is not a Hindi protagonist.) I have no idea what you are alluding to in your aside, but since it ''is'' an aside and irrelevant to the discussion on hand, I will not dwell on it. Meanwhile, I will keep adding reliable secondary citations. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 23:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
::::Sumathi Ramaswamy is not news to me. I am fully aware of her scholarship and I have myself cited from her other works in a couple of articles that I have edited in the past. I have also read her books and will be citing her in future also. That I am 'disparaging' her scholarship, is, but a figment of your imagination.
::::She may have deliberated in her paper about Sanskrit's failed nom, but she doesnt delve into the nuances of what the constitution says and what it really means. And if you want secondary sources, just google. [http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020914/windows/note.htm '''This'''] piece from the Tribune first first weasels about the 1950 legislation and then declares - ''...even more than half a century after being declared a national language, Hindi has not only not been given its due status but is also looked down upon by the elite...'' as if nothing changed since then. I am sure you'll find more on similar lines. As for sources like Britannica, Encarta etc., I dont think they have articles on the lines of [[Official languages of India]] etc.,. But we do. And all the content in this article is supposed to be a summary of articles that are downstream. We cant write something in the 'downstream' article and change its meaning when we summarise it here. The Indian govt gives preferential treatment(like in PSUs, railway booking counters, nationalised banks etc.,) to Hindi because it is one of its 'stated goals'. You cant point to that, confuse issues and conclude that Hindi is some sort of quasi-national language. It is not. There was a time in wikipedia when every second India related article had Hindi transliterations simply because Hindi was India's 'national language'(sic)! And '''I''' cleaned up much of the mess braving hordes and hordes of Hindi nationalists. You werent even around then. So dont give me this nonsense that I do what I do because I have a 'visceral' dislike for you or that I am anti hindi or that I disparage sources that disagree with me. Once again, SR isnt even discussing what we are discussing. Our discussion here starts off where her's ends. [[:User_talk:Sarvagnya|Sarvagnya]] 23:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
::::And the crux of the matter here is SR's reading of "...official language of the union.." as "official language of India/country". This is rather simplistic and flawed when you take a look at what the constitution actually says. If you read the constitution, it is clear that what is meant by the word "Union" is the "[[Government of India |Union government]]" and not the [[India |country]]. And the Government of India is NOT the country. It is only a ''part'' of the country. [[:User_talk:Sarvagnya|Sarvagnya]] 00:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::Can you specify where Union is the Union Government and not the Union of India. --[[User:KnowledgeHegemony|<font color="midnightblue">'''K'''nowledge</font>]][[User talk:KnowledgeHegemony|<font color="purple">'''H'''egemony</font>]] 09:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Please read this and don't call it a hoax and term it ''one of the greatest hoaxes - ''http://www.constitution.org/cons/india/p01001.html
:::#'''Line 1:Name and territory of the "UNION":- '''<br />

:::Clearly Union means the Country and not the Union Government.

:::'''Note: Just because you don't like a fact its not a hoax. The Constitution, CIA, Brittanica etc are not Hoaxes, neither are they Hindi fundmentalists.'''--[[User:KnowledgeHegemony|<font color="midnightblue">'''K'''nowledge</font>]][[User talk:KnowledgeHegemony|<font color="purple">'''H'''egemony</font>]] 09:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
:::{|class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left;"
|-
! OFFICIAL LANGUAGE POLICY OF THE UNION
|-
|<blockquote>
OFFICIAL LANGUAGE POLICY OF THE UNION<br />
Hindi in Devanagari script is the official language of the Union. The form of numerals to be used for official purposes of the Union is the international form of Indian numerals {Article 343 (1) of the Constitution}.In addition to Hindi language English language may also be used for official purposes. (Section 3 of the Official Languages Act)<br />
Business in Parliament may be transacted in English or in Hindi. However, the Hon’ble Chairman of the Rajya Sabha or the Hon’ble Speaker of the Lok Sabha may permit any Member to address the House in his / her mother tongue under special circumstances (Article 120 of the Constitution).<br />
The purposes for which Hindi alone is to be used, the purposes for which both Hindi and English are to be used and the purposes for which English language is to be used, have been specified in the Official Languages Act, 1963, the Official Language Rules, 1976 and the directions issued under them from time to time by the Department of Official Language, Ministry of Home Affairs.<br />
It has been the policy of the Government of India that progressive use of Hindi in the official work may be ensured through persuasion, incentive and goodwill.
INITIATIVES TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGE<br />
(1) RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL AWARDS SCHEME FOR ORIGINAL BOOK WRITING ON GYAN -VIGYAN
A new awards scheme from the Year 2005-06 ( for books published during 2004-05) known as ‘ Rajiv Gandhi National Awards scheme for original book writing on Gyan -Vigyan’ has been announced on 8th August 2005, to encourage book writing originally in Hindi on technical/scientific subjects. Under the scheme awards are<br />
First Prize(One) - Two Lakh Rupees, a Certificate and a memento.<br />
Second Prize (One) - One Lakh Twenty Five Thousand Rupees, a Certificate and a memento.
Third Prize (One) - Seventy Five Thousand Rupees, a Certificate and a memento.
Consolatio - Ten Thousand Rupees, a Certificate and a memento Prizes(10) to each winner.
(2) THE INDIRA GANDHI RAJBHASHA AWARDS SCHEME<br />
Decision has been taken for award of the Indira Gandhi Rajbhasha Shield for the Government of India Boards, Autonomous Bodies, Trusts, Societies collectively from the year 2005-06.
(3) LILA HINDI SOFTWARE SERIES<br />
LILA stands for Learn Indian Languages through Artificial Intelligence. The Department of Official Language with the help of C-DAC, Pune has developed Self Learning software packages for Hindi Prabodh, Hindi Praveen and Hindi Pragya. To make the learning process more lively and interactive, LILA has been incorporated with the Audio, Video and other Graphics material wherever applicable. The medium of instruction is only English in CD version, but it is available in English, Kannada, Malayalam, Tamil Telugu and Bangla medium on Internet.
LILA-Hindi-Prabodh<br />
Lila-Hindi Prabodh is a software intended for those who do not have any basic knowledge of the Hindi Language. It is the initial and first level course for learning Hindi. Facilities like tracing the alphabets stroke-by-stroke and their pronunciation are taught in the initial phase followed by general and official vocabulary with images wherever applicable. Hindi Word Family, Narration with the help of audio and lively video sound, Hindi Word Family, Narration with the help of audio and lively video sound, Hindi-English Dictionary at a mouse click, Grammar, Practice Exercises and finally an Examination for every lesson with unit wise markings.<br />
LILA-Hindi-Praveen<br />
LILA Hindi Praveen software package is to teach a comparatively advanced level of Hindi. The built-in audio-video interface enables the learner to learn and listen to standard pronunciation and intonation of words and sentences and see them being spoken in running text. Other facilities like Record and Compare, On-line Dictionary etc., are also provided.
</blockquote>http://policies.gov.in/pol_show_doc.asp?pid=delh290&dno=1<br />
|}
:::Explain this. [[User:KnowledgeHegemony|<font color="midnightblue">'''K'''nowledge</font>]][[User talk:KnowledgeHegemony|<font color="purple">'''H'''egemony</font>]] 09:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

:*As it stands, Hindi and English are the official languages of the <u>federation</u>. They are the official languages of India, to the extent the central government ''is'' the Government of India. However, they are ''not'' the sole official languages of India, to the extent the Government of India is not the ''only'' government body that is involved in the administration of India. I really don't know how to make this clearer. At any rate, because of this, the term "official language" has a lot of nuances in relation to India, and it seems to me that an encyclopaedic article which is devoted to the sole topic of the official languages of India (as opposed to a throwaway sentence in a larger article) needs to describe this. If you disagree, you can feel free to revert that article to [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Official_languages_of_India&oldid=135539426 this version].
:*As far as the Eighth Schedule is concerned, if you look further up this page, you'll see that I started out by ''questioning'' whether it was appropriate to list the languages in the Eighth Schedule as the official languages in the box. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:India&diff=prev&oldid=140325647 here]. Almost nobody responded to that question. If people feel that "official languages" for the purpose of this article ought to only be Hindi and English, I'm not going to stand in your way - it was one of the options I suggested, for heaven's sake. But please understand the fact that you're taking a decision on what meaning you want to attach to the term "official language", that that is not the only meaning the term has as a matter of Indian law, and please be sure that you are convinced you have good reasons for taking that decision.
:For the record, Hindi is my mother tongue (to the extent someone who grew up in South Bombay has a mother tongue).-- [[User:Lexmercatoria|Lexmercatoria]] 21:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
::No one has said that you are anti-Hindi; at least I haven't. What I said above was simply that citing primary sources (more than a few times) without supportive secondary sources constitutes original research (according to how WP defines original research). The [[Official languages of India]] page has 46 citations of primary sources and only one of a secondary source. If the secondary sources don't exist, then you should really be writing a paper for a constitutional law (or law and linguistics) journal, and if they do, you should cite them. Wikipedia is very clear on this, as I have mentioned above. I will reply to your other points later. I don't necessarily disagree with them. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 23:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
:::That is, bluntly put, asking the impossible. No journal is going to accept a paper which does nothing more than restate what the law self-evidently says. Anyway, if that is what Wikipedia's policies require, there isn't very much I can do about it. I guess I finally understand why articles which touch on issues of Indian law are so utterly abysmal, and so frequently get things wrong. -- [[User:Lexmercatoria|Lexmercatoria]] 23:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Well, it can't be that self-evident if it is not out there anywhere. At least you could write a survey article summarizing the state of affairs. For the record, the little that I have read of your posts above, I have found you to be a considerate and objective editor (in contrast to others with inscrutable compulsions); however, I am a little troubled by your words "... you're taking a decision on what meaning you want to attach to the term "official language", that that is not the only meaning the term has as a matter of Indian law, and please be sure that you are convinced you have good reasons for taking that decision." My understanding of WP policy is that we don't make those decisions; we simply follow precedence to the extent we can find it in the secondary sources. (Encyclopedia writing is dumb to that extent.) That is why I produced the 16 secondary source citations above. I think if Britannica, Encarta, the UN, UNESCO, the Library of Congress, US State Department, the British Foreign Office, etc. think that (in the context of a profile or information box) Hindi and English, as official languages of the union, deserve precedence over the other 21 official languages recognized by the constitution, then we need to take that precedence seriously. That is all I am saying. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 00:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::In India, law is still regarded as something of a trade, so there is a whole lot of stuff that all lawyers "know", which you won't find in the literature. In general, the moment you start dealing with [[delegated legislation]], you stop finding secondary sources unless the subject is tax law.
:::::The point I was trying to make is that, "official language" has these manifold meanings in law, which we need to take note of. I am still very new to Wikipedia, and I had no idea the rules were this strict about primary sources - my impression was that any sort of source was fine, so I was basically expecting to just have to point to sections, paragraphs, and so on to fix the many problems we have in articles where Indian law is relevant. Secondary sources frequently get things wrong, and I've seen so many incorrect treatments of India's language policy written by non-lawyers it makes mne want to tear my hair out. I suppose I'll just need some time to figure out how to work with the rules about primary and secondary sources. -- [[User:Lexmercatoria|Lexmercatoria]] 00:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I see. Yes, it does present a dilemma; however, it is well worth the wait for thinking it through, as you propose. If you need to run something by me, I am happy to help. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 00:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

'''My 2 cents:''' I don't detect that big a gulf between what Lex and F&F are claiming, and this may just be an instance of talking past each other. As far as I understand:
* Lex is right as to the ''interpretation'' of English and Hindi as "official languages of the union" as laid out in the Indian constitution and the Official Language Act. (I know these are primary sources, that cannot be the sole basis for writing a wikipedia article, but that does not mean that '''''I''''' cannot use them to come to my own conclusion as long as that conclusion is voiced on talk pages)
* F&F is right that English and Hindi are referred to as "Official languages of India" by well-established secondary sources. This does give the two languages a "distinctive" status. Notre I am using the word "distinctive" with care and not implying any linguistic superiority
The above statements are simply ''facts'' (correct me if I am wrong here!) and the only point of contention (as far as the India article is concerned), is whether the "distinctive" status accorded to English and Hindi by the GOI should mean that the wikipedia article list the name of the country in the two languages or not ? This brings is back to the options enumerated by Dab, which I relist here:
* (a) just put the English term, since this is en-wiki, and English is a "language of the union"
* (b) give both English and Hindi as "local" names, since these are the two "languages of the union" (fine with me, but we'll get no end of trouble from the non-Hindi Indian editors)
* (c) follow MoS to the letter and give the 1,652 "local names" (huh)
* (d) be semi-reasonable and give only the 22 languages of the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution
* (e) give "Bharat" as the "local" name in "Standard Average Indian" without specifying which language this is.
* (f) keeping it simple, ignoring this discussion, and revert to the old version without switching on our brains
Personally I can live with options (a), (b) and (e) - but this is a matter of editorial judgement and not simply stating facts. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] 01:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
====Proposals====

'''Proposal 1: Official Languages:''' I have now finished compiling the secondary sources (for official languages) for the purposes of this article. See [[Talk:India#Secondary_sources:|here]] for the extended quotes. In light of the references, especially 19 by B. Mallikarjun, Academic Secretary, Central Institute of Indian Languages, (Manasagangothri, Mysore 570006, India), author of ''Language Use in Administration and National Integration'', Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages, 1986, and an expert of the subject and reference 21 by [http://www.stanford.edu/~dlaitin/ David Laitin], Watkins Professor of Political Science at Stanford, and another expert on the subject, I feel that Hindi (and to lesser extent English) has had a special position in language policy in India from well before independence, and is reflected so in the constitution. This needs to be acknowledged explicitly (as all 21 references do) both in the information box and in the demographics section of the India page. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 20:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

:I think something along the lines of the British Foreign Office would be reasonable: "The official language of India is [[Hindi]] written in the [[Devanagari]] script. English has official status an 'associate language'. In addition, there are 21 official languages recognized by the constitution: [[Assamese language|Assamese]], [[Bengali language|Bengali]], [[Bodo language|Bodo]], [[Dogri language|Dogri]], [[Gujarati language|Gujarati]], [[Kannada language|Kannada]], [[Kashmiri language|Kashmiri]], [[Konkani language|Konkani]], [[Maithili language|Maithili]], [[Malayalam language|Malayalam]], [[Meitei language|Manipuri]], [[Marathi language|Marathi]], [[Nepali language|Nepali]], [[Oriya language|Oriya]], [[Punjabi language|Punjabi]], [[Sanskrit]], [[Santali language|Santali]], [[Sindhi language|Sindhi]], [[Tamil language|Tamil]], [[Telugu language|Telugu]], [[Urdu]]?" Of course, it will have to be made more compact for the information box. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 02:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
::PS None of the 16 secondary sources I cite above make a distinction between ''India'' and the ''Union of India'' (with the latter identified with the (Federal) Government of India) and I don't see why Wikipedia should either. In other words, there is no need (at least in the [[India]] article) to say that Hindi is the official language only of the "union," but not of India. That distinction (buttressed by secondary sources) could belong to the [[Official languages of India]] page, but does not belong to the [[India]] page. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 02:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

'''Proposal 2: First sentence of the India page (Names):''' There is a pretty good correspondence between the list of multilingual nations and their official languages (from Britannica) that I produced [[Talk:India#Original_Research.3F|here]] and their names in Wikipedia (as displayed in the first sentence of their country pages). See: [[Kazakhstan]], [[Algeria]], [[Papua New Guinea]], [[Peru]], [[Sri Lanka]], [[South Africa]], [[Switzerland]], and [[Georgia]]. In light of this, the first sentence of the India page should read: "'''India''' ([[Hindi]] '''''{{lang|inc-Latn|Bhārat}}'''''; see also [[Official names of India|other names]]), officially the '''Republic of India''', is a sovereign country in [[South Asia]]." [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 11:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

====Discussion (continued)====
::Questions to [[User:Lexmercatoria|Lexmercatoria]] :
# Isn't the 8th Schedule mainly concerned with 'regional' and 'classical' languages and not the Union as a whole and that explains why English is not included in it while Hindi is(since Hindi is also the state language of Himachal Pradesh, UP, MP, Bihar, Rajasthan, Uttarkhand...etc.)
# Hence is it correct to refer to the 8th schedule like it is being used presently since English a 'associate language' of the Union is not included?
# Is it wrong to mention - "Hindi is the principal official language along with English which is used a an 'associate' language of the Union. The Government also recognises 21 other languages" as per the Eighth schedule of its Constitution .(the quoted version is of ''World Book Encyclopedia''(India, ''languages of'') ISBN: 0-7166-6696-0.--[[User:KnowledgeHegemony|<font color="midnightblue">'''K'''nowledge</font>]][[User talk:KnowledgeHegemony|<font color="purple">'''H'''egemony</font>]] 13:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
::1. From the point of view of the Constitution, the Eighth Schedule is principally a list of languages whose speakers will input into the manner in which Hindi is developed - which makes it obvious as to why English isn't included. Since then, it's acquired an additional, extra-constitutional significance, described in the official languages article.
::2. For the reasons I explained several days back, I'm not entirely convinced the Eighth Schedule is the appropriate source for listing India's "official" languages.
::3. The term "associate" official language is not used in Indian law. The phrase used is "subsidiary official language." Most encyclopaedias and non-legal sources totally misunderstand the significance of the Eighth Schedule, and to say that the Government "recognises 21 other languages" is plain wrong - but I don't know any way to demonstrate this which doesn't involve what Wikipedia calls original research, so I guess for now we'll just have to live with the law being misstated both here and in the "official languages" article. -- [[User:Lexmercatoria|Lexmercatoria]] 22:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

:::To Lexmercatoria: OK, How about "The official language of India is [[Hindi]] written in the [[Devanagari]] script. English has status as a 'subsidiary official language'. In addition, there are 21 languages recognized by the constitution: [[Assamese language|Assamese]], [[Bengali language|Bengali]], [[Bodo language|Bodo]], [[Dogri language|Dogri]], [[Gujarati language|Gujarati]], [[Kannada language|Kannada]], [[Kashmiri language|Kashmiri]], [[Konkani language|Konkani]], [[Maithili language|Maithili]], [[Malayalam language|Malayalam]], [[Meitei language|Manipuri]], [[Marathi language|Marathi]], [[Nepali language|Nepali]], [[Oriya language|Oriya]], [[Punjabi language|Punjabi]], [[Sanskrit]], [[Santali language|Santali]], [[Sindhi language|Sindhi]], [[Tamil language|Tamil]], [[Telugu language|Telugu]], [[Urdu]]?" [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 23:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
::::PS Here, BTW, (not for you Lex, but for others), is a good site [http://www.languageinindia.com/april2002/constitutionofindia.html Constitution of India: Provisions Relating to Languages] [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 23:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::F&F good site just what the doc prescribed. BTW I would like to see views on F&F's proposal to the first line of the article. [[User:KnowledgeHegemony|<font color="midnightblue">'''K'''nowledge</font>]][[User talk:KnowledgeHegemony|<font color="purple">'''H'''egemony</font>]] 12:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::It seems to be a fairly accurate statement of the law. Are you thinking of it for this article or the official languages article? -- [[User:Lexmercatoria|Lexmercatoria]] 22:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::::PS. Lex, I think, KH is referring to proposal 2 above. (Both proposals apply to the India page, not [[Official languages of India]] page.) I have now changed the language of proposal 1 (in light of your comments above). [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 01:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

<deindent><br>
F&F, I assume you are proposing the text for the demographics section, right ? If so, perhaps we can blend in both the official status and demographic information into the same set of sentences. Something along the following lines:
<blockquote>
'''Proposal 1 (v3.0)'''<br>
[[Hindi]] is spoken by around 40% of the Indian population, and is the official language of India. English, which is widely used in business and administration, has the status of a 'subsidiary official language'. The constitution also recognizes in particular [[Official languages of India|21 other languages]] that are widely spoken or have a classical status.
</blockquote>
* The rough 40% statistic is from memory. I can look up the exact census information.
* I don't think listing 21 languages serves the reader of ''this article'' who will most likely brush over the list. So I would ''prefer'' linking to the relevant article instead.
* The above text will need copyediting and will need to be blended in with the remainder of the 2nd paragraph of the [[India#Demographics|Demographics section]].
My main motivation for proposing a change from F&F's v2.0, is that IMO the details of the official language status is just not important enough for this article to devote a whole paragraph to (think of all the differences between states and union territories that we gloss over). So we should try to make the information as unobtrusive as possible, while maintaining accuracy. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] 01:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
:Hi Abecedare, your version (Proposal 1 (v3.0) is great! <s>One minor point: do we need the "in particular?"</s> [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 04:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

''' What about the infobox?''' Should that too read: "Hindi (official language), English (subsidiary official language) and [[Official languages of India|21 other languages]]"? or should we list the 21 languages there? [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 04:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
:this discussion is a bit over the top at this point. Keep in mind: the largest five languages account for >70% of native speakers, the largest ten for >90% (this is not all that different from Switzerland, where the largest ten account for ca. 97%). Keep it brief. "Hindi, English, [[Official languages of India|other]]" should do. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 10:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
::That sounds good to me. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 13:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Both seem fine to me, but can we simply say "Hindi is the most widely-spoken language in India, and is the official language of India..." The figure of 40% of the population includes the 22% of us who speak Hindi proper as our mother tongue and another 20% or so who speak one of the "Hindi languages", which include things like Rajasthani whose status as Hindi is questionable (I believe Rajasthan treats it as a separate language) and Maithili which is now constitutionally recognised as a separate language. See this [http://www.censusindia.net/cendat/language/lang-tabl2.PDF detailed PDF] from the census departament. "Most widely spoken" has the added advantage of taking second language speakers into account. It's not a major issue for me, so if others feel the 40% figure is better, I'm fine with it. -- [[User:Lexmercatoria|Lexmercatoria]] 14:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Hi Lex, Your revision sounds great. (And Abecedare, in any case, wasn't sure about the 40%). [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 14:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::''are'' we sure about the 40%? [[List of Indian languages by number of native speakers]] gives 40% Hindi ''first language'' Hindi speakers. But strangely the numbers given add up to some 170%, so that there seem to be a significant number of people with two or more "first languages". [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 14:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::: Here is where I apparently remembered the 40% from [http://www.censusindia.net/cendat/datatable25.html]. The numbers add up to 100%, so I guess they data refers to native language; the only downside is that the data is 16 year old. One advantage of mentioning the exact stat. is that ''most'' non-Indian (non-Swiss :-) ) readers will not expect a country's "official language" to be native to less than half the population, and therefore the data point is of interest. However, again, this is not the focus of the article and saying "most widely spoken" is also fine with me. Would someone like to take a stab at adding these sentences to the main article so that they read well with the rest of the paragraph ? [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] 18:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Off-topic clarification: [[Swiss German]] is still spoken by more than half of the population of Switzerland. I had always thought that German, French, Italian and [[Romansh]] accounted for more than 99% of the Swiss people. Anyway, I think Fowler has added your proposal to the page. <b><font color="teal">[[User:DaGizza|Gizza]]</font></b>''<sup><font color="teal">[[User_talk:DaGizza|Discuss]]</font></sup>'' <sup><b><font color="teal">[[Special:Contributions/DaGizza|&#169;]]</font></b></sup> 02:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::: Oh, the Swiss bit was more a light-hearted reference to Dab than to the landlocked European nation !
:::::::: I am happy with the edit that F&F made to the page [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=India&diff=prev&oldid=142585692]. A couple of quick notes though, (1) is there a way to avoid using the word ''widely'' in three consecutive sentences ? (2) it would be a good idea to add a reference for Hindi and English's status, before someone disputes the change or add a <nowiki>{{cn}}</nowiki> tag. Cheers. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] 03:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

:Yes, I saw the "widleys" too, but was too tired to do anything about it. I have now fixed it. Let me know if there are any problems. I removed "widely" altogether, since it implies that the language has wide ''geographic'' distribution (which, whether accurate or not, might bring up more objections or requests for citations). [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 12:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

===Continued (more)===
Okay, now that the demographics section is fixed what about the ''infobox''(concerns regarding wrong use of 8th schedule) and the ''first line of the article''[[User:KnowledgeHegemony|<font color="midnightblue">'''K'''nowledge</font>]][[User talk:KnowledgeHegemony|<font color="purple">'''H'''egemony</font>]] 06:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)?

:For the infobox, there seems to be some agreement (Dab, Lex, F&f, K-H, ?) that it is best to keep it short, along the lines of:

:'''Proposal 3:''' Infobox: Official Languages: [[Hindi]]<ref>Official language of the union.</ref>, [[English]], <ref>Subsidiary official language of the union.</ref> [[Official languages of India|others]].

<references/>

:As for the first line of the article, I think the wording of [[Talk:India#Proposals|proposal 2]] above is adequate for me, "'''India''' ([[Hindi]] '''''{{lang|inc-Latn|Bhārat}}'''''; see also [[Official names of India|other names]]), officially the '''Republic of India''', is a sovereign country in [[South Asia]]." I have explained my reasons there. I think that there is adequate evidence (see [[Talk:India#Secondary_sources:|here]]) that Hindi, among all Indian languages, has special status in the Constitution of India, and India's Hindi appellation belongs to the first sentence of its Wikipedia page. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 19:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
::I agree with Fowler&fowler's proposal although I believe that the Devanagari script should be juxtaposed with ''Bharat'' in accordance with [http://constitution.org/cons/india/p17343.html Article 343 of the Constitution of India]:{{cquote|The official language of the Union shall be Hindi in Devanagari script.}}
::In light of this fact, the modified form of Proposal Two would read as follows: "'''India''' ([[Hindi]]: भारत '''''{{lang|inc-Latn|Bhārat}}'''''; see also [[Official names of India|other names]]), officially the '''Republic of India''', is a sovereign country in [[South Asia]]." I hope this helps. Thanks to everyone who researched this topic. With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]]<sup>[[User talk:Anupam|Talk]]</sup> 19:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
:::No, I don't think there is any need for the Devanagari script. The scripts are there in the "[[Official names of India|other names]]". [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 20:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
:Dear Fowler&fowler, I respect your opinion but do not agree with it. In India, Hindi is not official in the Roman script but in the Devanagari script. Since everything here is being aligned with the official positions of countries, it would only be correct if we gave the name Bharat in Devanagari. Please refer to articles of other countries which are all aligned with my position (i.e. [[Afghanistan]], [[Japan]], [[Lebanon]], etc.) If you decide not to accept this modification to your proposal, I would need to offer my version as an entirely different proposal. Please let me know your feelings on the issue. With warm regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]]<sup>[[User talk:Anupam|Talk]]</sup> 01:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::OK, upon further reflection, I've changed my mind. I support your version (on account of the statement "Hindi in the Devanagari script" in the constitution). [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 02:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Thanks for your kind acceptance. Thus far, how many are aligned with proposal? Thanks in advance, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]]<sup>[[User talk:Anupam|Talk]]</sup> 03:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:::: Anupam's proposed version would be my first choice too. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] 03:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:::: Anupam's version gives me nothing to object. I support it too. [[User:KnowledgeHegemony|<font color="midnightblue">'''K'''nowledge</font>]][[User talk:KnowledgeHegemony|<font color="purple">'''H'''egemony</font>]] 16:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

==Infobox==
Give me one good reason why should we insist on keeping the official languages section brief when we have given the option to "hide" the list. The list says "Hindi and English are the official languages of the union" which summarizes so called special treatment by our constitution. The "hide" option there actually hides the list making the infobox short, in case you didn't notice. [[User:Gnanapiti|Gnanapiti]] 21:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
:The problem is that Hindi has special status in the constitution. I consulted with an expert who in turn provided me with citations of two experts. According to one of them, B. Mallikarjuna, Academic Secretary of the Central Institute of Indian Languages, Mysore, "'''Hindi in Devanagari script and the international form of Indian numerals form the Official language of the Union. Among the Indian languages, Hindi is the most highly empowered language which constitutionally/legally has multiple status - an official language of the Union; official language of 13 states and union territories; the major regional language in 9 states where it is a majority language, and an important minority language in 18 states and union territories.''' Also it is a language of deliberations of the Parliament of India and state legislatures in the states in which it is recognized as an official language. Apart from this, the Constitution also provides that, with mutual consent, any two states or the states and the Union can use it as a language for their inter- communication. '''It is the majority language of the country''' and also a Scheduled Language since it is in the VIIIth Schedule of the Constitution. '''It is the only language about whose development the Constitution has given direction, and hence it has the constitutional right for development.'''" English is the "subsidiary official language." The order is Hindi, English and ''not'' English, Hindi (as you seem to revert to; it is not alphabetical). The other language are ''not'' official languages of India, but Schedule VII languages, which, as Lex has remarked many times above, provide input into how Hindi is to develop further. You are welcome to hide the other twenty one schedule 8 languages, but Hindi and English are separate; the link [[Official languages of India|others]] does precisely that. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 23:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
::* The fact that the Indian govt., has some special provisions for Hindi doesnt mean that we should accord special treatment to it on wikipedia(that explains the alphabetical ordering). And even with the special treatment accorded, there's many an if an but. Quite unlike an intuitive understanding of the phrase "Official language of the Union", Hindi's status is not one of unqualified, all pervasive nature. There is far too much fine print involved there for us to go into in this article and therefore listing the remaining "Official languages of the states" helps to put things in perspective. And in any case, they are all wrapped in a collapsible box and not taking up space(if somebody can make the box "collapsed" by default, it would be great). Just mentioning English and Hindi is not adhering to NPOV. [[:User_talk:Sarvagnya|Sarvagnya]] 23:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
::* And in any case, it is English and not Hindi that has a pre-eminent position across spheres of administration, judiciary, constitution etc., not to mention business, industry and daily life. Majority of the states use English to communicate with the union government and circumvent the need for Hindi. The highest court of the land uses English. The constitution itself is written in English - not Hindi. An overwhelming majority of the states(except the Ups and Bihars) use English to communicate among themselves. Even in public sector undertakings, Hindi is 'encouraged' but English is non-negotiable. [[:User_talk:Sarvagnya|Sarvagnya]] 23:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

:::We are not talking about "language and society," but rather about "official languages," which, for better or worse, are determined by legislations of governments (or at least by constitutional changes made by governments). For this reason, the [[United States]] infobox's "official language" slot, if it had one, would have to be left blank (or say "none"), even though English is the predominant language of the country. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 01:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::''"..We are not talking about "language and society,..."'' - And who said we are?! Take your straw man arguments and tangential babble elsewhere. [[:User_talk:Sarvagnya|Sarvagnya]] 20:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::English in "administration, judiciary, constitution, ... business, industry and ''daily life''!" What is that if not language and society? And who gave those examples Sarvagyna? It wasn't me. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 16:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
:::: Sarvagnya, I understand your point but the GOI ''does'' get to determine India's '''''official''''' language, and as has been now established through a multitude of secondary and tertiary sources, Hindi is referred to as such. But you are correct in stating that there is more to the issue than a simple label and that is the reason I think the Infobox should list "[[Hindi]]<sup>1</sup>, [[English language|English]]<sup>2</sup> and [[Official languages of India|others]]" rather than simply "[[Hindi]]" (which would be ''technically'' correct, but misleading). In fact IMO linking to the [[Official languages of India]] is ''preferable'' to just dumping a list of languages, since it better serves the reader in understanding the complicated situation. And as for English's use in administration and government, I'll be the first to acknowledge that fact (see my "Proposal 1 V3.0") above, but it is completely irrelevant to the "Official Language" status. If, say, a new government in all its wisdom declared [[Esperanto]] to be India's official language, wikipedia ''will have to'' parrot that information, even if only 10 Indians spoke in the tongue. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] 03:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:::If we do not follow the the 'Constitution' and the GOI for 'official' matters then what are we supposed to... can you give a solution???? I can't understand what's the confusion all about? [[User:KnowledgeHegemony|<font color="midnightblue">'''K'''nowledge</font>]][[User talk:KnowledgeHegemony|<font color="purple">'''H'''egemony</font>]] 15:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

==Moving forward constructively==

I outlined three possible approaches to the Official Languages issue in the infobox in the [[Talk:India#Official languages|Official languages]] section above. Just listing the languages of the Eighth Schedule without a footnote explaining what role they have is, in my opinion, misleading. But subject to that, any one of those three options is fine by me. Can we please discuss the merits and demerits of each of the three, without getting sidetracked, and try and arrive at agreement on which of them we will use.

To make the discussion easier, these are the options which I feel represent the legal position correctly:

# We can list all languages that are used by any state as official languages. But this will create a practical problem because the list at [[Official languages of India]] is still not completely reliable. I have been trying to check it and correct the mistakes, but it is difficult to get access to State Acts for all states so it is likely to take a very long time.
# We can change the entry to say: "[[Hindi]] and [[English language|English]] at the Central level, [[Official languages of India|various others]]."
# We can list the languages in the Eighth Schedule (as we have now, but adding Bodo), and add a clearer note. The list would then read:
::"[[Hindi]], [[English language|English]], [[Assamese language|Assamese]], [[Bengali language|Bengali]], [[Bodo language|Bodo]], [[Dogri]], [[Gujarati language|Gujarati]], [[Kannada]], [[Kashmiri]], [[Konkani language|Konkani]], [[Maithili]], [[Malayalam]], [[Meitei language|Manipuri]], [[Marathi]], [[Nepali language|Nepali]], [[Oriya language|Oriya]], [[Punjabi]], [[Sanskrit]], [[Santhali]], [[Sindhi language|Sindhi]], [[Tamil language|Tamil]], [[Telugu language|Telugu]], [[Urdu]] (see note†)"
:And the note would read:
::"†Hindi and English are the official languages of the Union, the other 22 are represented on teh Official Language Commission and have [[Official languages of India#The languages of the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution|other privileges]]. In addition, each State has its own official languages."

To start off, perhaps everybody could state which of these versions they prefer, which they can live with, and specific objectiosn they have to any of them? -- [[User:Lexmercatoria|Lexmercatoria]] 00:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:I have made my stance clear already. I want go for option 3. I don't understand what is the problem when we are providing a footnote clearly stating the status of Hindi and English. As I have said earlier, India is federal union of states and Delhi alone doesn't represent whole of India. [[User:Gnanapiti|Gnanapiti]] 00:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)!

::Well, I'm not sure I like any of the three options. The version we were discussing above is: <blockquote>[[Hindi]]<ref>Official language of the union.</ref>, [[English]],<ref>Subsidiary official language of the union.</ref> [[Official_languages_of_India#The_languages_of_the_Eighth_Schedule_to_the_Constitution|others]]
</blockquote>
<references/>

::The link "others," which now links to the "Schedule 8" section of the "Official languages of India" page, both describes and lists the schedule 8 languages. I think this is both accurate and jibes with other secondary sources. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 01:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

:: This is a nice, compact solution. [[User:deeptrivia|deeptrivia]] ([[User talk:deeptrivia|talk]]) 03:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:::I second [[User:deeptrivia|deeptrivia]]. [[User:KnowledgeHegemony|<font color="midnightblue">'''K'''nowledge</font>]][[User talk:KnowledgeHegemony|<font color="purple">'''H'''egemony</font>]] 15:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

:::: (edit conflict) I concur. Isn't it true that the "set of languages used as official by the union government, any state or UT" is not the same as the "set of languages listed in the 8th schedule" ? For example, I don't think Sanskrit is the official language of ''any'' state or UT (please correct me if I am wrong) and [[French language|French]] is an official language of Poducherry [http://www.ceopondicherry.nic.in/Bkground/GeneralInfo.htm]. So listing the 22, 8th schedule languages shouldn't even be an option for the "Official Language" field of the infobox. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] 04:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::::: Well, in theory you can answer any UPSC exam in Sanskrit, although I don't expect very many people have taken that option. But apart from that, the Eighth Schedule has absolutely nothing to do with official languages at the State level. Some of them happen to be official, others aren't, and there are languages which are official in particular states which aren't in the Eighth Schedule. I personally also don't think "Hindi, English, others" describes the situation accurately, but there's really no point flogging a horse that's dead, beaten to a pulp, and virtually indistinguishable from the ground. I'm going to try to persuade one of my academic friends to write an article that properly describes India's language policy, but until then I'm happy to abide by whatever the rest of you can agree upon <small>(and spend my time actually finishing the rewrite of the article on [[Kesavananda Bharati vs. The State of Kerala|Kesavananda Bharati]] which I've been working on)</small>. -- [[User:Lexmercatoria|Lexmercatoria]] 16:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::Hi Lex, Well, how about <blockquote>[[Hindi]]<ref>Official language of the union.</ref>, [[English]],<ref>Subsidiary official language of the union.</ref> [[Official languages of India|others]]<ref> These ''other'' 21 languages are represented on the Official Language Commission and have [[Official languages of India#The languages of the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution|other privileges]]. In addition, each State has its own official languages.</ref>
<references/>
This is a more compact version of your option 3. Sorry, the previous footnotes are getting repeated, but I don't know how to fix this.[[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 18:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:::And what exactly is the reason that you want to go for a "compact" solution when things can be made much more clear with addition of just a few more words? Are we discussing about making this article more informative and a better one anymore? [[User:Gnanapiti|Gnanapiti]] 03:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:::: Here is my take: Linking to the [[Official languages of India]] is ''preferable'' to just dumping a list of languages, since it better serves the reader in understanding the complicated situation. Explaining the nuanced position (which I don't think can be done in a few words) in a detailed article is superior to listing of raw data. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] 04:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::OK, how about not dumping Hindi and English in the list, instead give link to [[Official languages of India]] letting the reader not get confused with complicated situation? I'm OK with this proposal of mine too. [[User:Gnanapiti|Gnanapiti]] 18:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::: Adding everything everywhere will result in the article that's 10000kb.....we should have a more logical approach of classifying what is needed and what is not..so linking [[Official languages of India]] is a better solution. Its not that we are ignoring other scheduled languages. [[User:KnowledgeHegemony|<font color="midnightblue">'''K'''nowledge</font>]][[User talk:KnowledgeHegemony|<font color="purple">'''H'''egemony</font>]] 15:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Don't give doublespeak arguments like this. They are not going to help this discussion. No one is asking to add everything everywhere. As I said, I'm OK with my proposal of linking the whole section to [[Official languages of India]] rather than dumping Hindi and English, thus making the things less complicated. [[User:Gnanapiti|Gnanapiti]] 18:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

* Ok. Since the nuance between the languages of the eighth schedule and the 'official' languages has been reiterated.. I feel, its fair not to list the languages of the eighth schedule. <u>'''But'''... but.. all languages that are "official" languages of states should be mentioned in the infobox along with English and Hindi. There will, of course be appropriate accompanying footnotes. And all of this will be in a collapsible box, which I prefer, stays 'collapsed' by default.</u> If this is not possible, then we can as well refrain from mentioning ''any'' language and just point readers to [[Official languages of India]] coz "No info is better than misleading info".
* The constitution provides for any state to totally sidestep Hindi if it so wishes. For example, a state like Tamil Nadu or Karnataka will use English with ''every'' entity(state, center, supreme court, parliament...) outside of its own state. And within their own states they use their own chosen languages.
* Otoh, it is with English that there is no escape. A state like UP or Bihar is constitutionally bound to communicate in English with a state like Ktaka or TN, Andhra, Bengal etc.,. No amount of whining 'Hindi is the official language of the union' will cut any ice.
* In the light of the above, just matter of factly stating that Hindi is the official language of the union is grossly misleading and totally at odds with an intuitive understanding of the phrase. There is a reason why the constitution conspicuously avoided declaring any language 'national'. India's case is probably unique in this regard and drawing parallels with the United States(where English is the "national" language) or any others is specious.
* And in any case, I cant understand what the hell some of the ones nitpicking here are trying to prove. Is it some dyed in the wool bias against anything non-Hindi? Or is it because they grew up 'believing' that Hindi was the "national" language? If people are game to put "others" in the box, what is the problem in 'expanding' the "others" and then wrapping them all up in a compact collapsible box?! Or is it that the few extra bytes that will get added to the article size(and lead it to self destruct) that so worries our self styled watchdog? [[:User_talk:Sarvagnya|Sarvagnya]] 20:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
: I am glad to see that you agree that 8th schedule is irrelevant as far as "Official language" is concerned. I would also encourage you to avoid bringing up "National language" since that is a red herring, as ''no one'' is proposing that we label Hindi as the "National language". By the way, English is not the "national or official language" of US either; recent attempts at declaring it the "national" or "common" language failed too. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062702837_pf.html]. Finally as Lex, Dab and others has pointed out earlier there is currently no verifiable list of official languages of the state. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] 21:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::A verifiable list of official languages used by the states and UTs shouldnt be difficult to gather at all. Most of them are well known and where there are doubts we can certainly check on their official websites. If still, we fail to make a complete list(I cant see why that'd happen) we can list whatever we have gathered and the rest can be added as and when we are able to gather them. <small>And I wasnt using "national" language as a red herring at all. I was just replying to Fowler(I think) who brought in the comparison with US. And when I said English was the natl lang of US, I was going by wikipedia article. And even from the link you gave above.. I think it is clear that English is indeed the national language of US though the debate really seems to be about what "national" is. And in any case, I dont think different states in the US use different languages in administration. Some of them may use Spanish ''in addition'' to English, but they all use English.</small> [[:User_talk:Sarvagnya|Sarvagnya]] 21:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

:::Actually, it's proving quite difficult for me. Karnataka is famously IT savvy, but most other states don't seem to be. If you have the time, it would be great if you could pitch in and verify the information at [[Official languages of India#States]] with citations to reliable sources (a good bit of what's there at the moment seems wrong). I've been working my way through the list, but it's very slow going. -- [[User:Lexmercatoria|Lexmercatoria]] 18:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

:::Nope. Doesn't cut it, Sarvagyna. You can ramble on all you want, but the article is not about the states; it is about India. The official language(s) of India are Hindi (and English). The best you can get is Hindi, English, and "other," with the "other" linked to a soon-to-be-created "Official languages of Indian states," which you and your cohorts can have a ball with. If you don't agree, I will take this to an RfC and also to the village pump. I guarantee you I have the experts and the secondary sources on my side, and you don't. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 22:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

::::What is this, some kind of a threaten or something? Why do you always involve in editing in bad faith? What do you mean by this article is not about states? If states doesn't make up India, then what does? This article is not about Government of India either. If [[Karnataka]] doesn't adopt Hindi as official language and uses [[Kannada language|Kannada]] for all it's administrative and official purposes, does that mean Karnataka is not part of India? And I remind you that Karnataka is not the only state that doesn't use Hindi as official. The very sentence ''The best you can get is Hindi, English, and "other," with the "other" linked to a soon-to-be-created "Official languages of Indian states," which you and your cohorts can have a ball with.'' shows whole purpose of your editing in Wikipedia. It's clear that you are not interested in making this project a better one, instead involved in pushing your own vendetta. Again don't even try to threaten. It's not going to help us in anyway. [[User:Gnanapiti|Gnanapiti]] 00:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
::::[http://dpal.kar.nic.in/26%20of%201963%20(E).pdf Here] is the link to Karnataka official language act, 1963 and [http://dpal.kar.nic.in/30%20of%201981%20(E).pdf here] is the bill passed in 1981 that extended the use of Kannada Language as official in the day to day administration of all the local authorities. [[User:Gnanapiti|Gnanapiti]] 00:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::If he had to push his own vendetta he would'nt have come up with all those sources and this discussion. [[User:KnowledgeHegemony|<font color="midnightblue">'''K'''nowledge</font>]][[User talk:KnowledgeHegemony|<font color="purple">'''H'''egemony</font>]] 17:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

::::: I'm pretty sure that India has like 24 national languages. But I dont think the Infobox should be long enough to list them all. I do feel that Hindi and English should be listed, and a link to the other ones can be present. Otherwise, the infobox will be too long. Anyway, please keep in mind that there are only 3 edits per day per page. Anyway, so the toda hut image... (The culture section has two pics, both relating to architecture) [[User:Nikkul|Nikkul]] 12:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I find the "Hindi English Other option the most apt. The "best of both worlds" kind. Also the most accurate, in my opinion. You get all the languages mentioned.[[User:AJ-India|AJ-India]] 03:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

:I think this compromise (proposed and) effected by user Knowledge-Harmony is reasonable: it mentions all the languages explicitly and it singles out and separates Hindi and English as official languages of the union. I think this is the most accurate as well, since (as users Lexmercatoria, Sarvagyna and others have pointed out) India is a little different from other multilingual countries where the official language of the union is shared as an official state language with the predominant language of the region.) I have made some changes in K-H's edits (in keeping with earlier discussions here).

:As for user: Gnanapiti's allegation that I am promoting my own biases here, all I can say is that as late as June 28 (see my post towards the end of the discussion [[Talk:India#Hindi_transliterations|above]]), I was saying, "... (a) keep only the English, or (b) English and Hindi (as official languages), or (c) 23 languages, or (d) bag the 'ganarajya' and simply keep the Bharat." It was only when I began to read the secondary sources, which seemed unanimous in their characterizations, that I was reluctantly driven to my current position. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 11:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
::PS I should add that reading the secondary sources was a learning experience for me. Although I was aware that from the early days of the Independence struggle, the Indian National Congress had worked hard to promote an indigenous official language for the (eventually) independent country, I wasn't aware how the process actually unfolded early on; in particular, I wasn't aware of the role played by the Indian civil services immediately after independence in subverting the process (before the "official language" issue became a political one in the early 1960s). See the excerpts below from the paper of David Laitin, which is well worth reading in its entirety.

::{|class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left;"
|-
! Expand to read a few excerpts from David Laitin's paper
|-
|
From: [http://www.stanford.edu/~dlaitin/ Laitin, David D.] (1989) [http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00136326 "Language policy and political strategy in India."] ''Policy Sciences'' 22: 415-436.

Contrary to the
state-building efforts in other empires, India remains a linguistic mosaic. No
single language stands as the authorized medium for official exchange. Citizens
develop complex language repertoires in order to interact with servants,
family, merchants, colleagues and officials. Language needs are so onerous
that many parents with sufficient resources seek to equip their children with
different repertoires in order to hedge their linguistic bets....

The central question that guides this paper is therefore: to the extent that
Congress leaders attempted to provide for India a single indigenous language
for official communication, why have they suffered more opposition than
have rulers of states that consolidated in earlier centuries?
The deeper purpose of this paper is to place the complex problem of
Indian language politics into a broad comparative perspective. Political linguistics
in India is not so unique that it cannot be placed into general understandings
of state building and language shift. But India is sufficiently different
so that its experience with language conflict can broaden and deepen
any generalizations about the relationship between politics and language....

... in the development of many (European) states, rulers were able to impose a single
language for purposes of administration without facing uproars from regional
elites where the language of the ruler was considered a foreign one. Despite
twentieth-century cries of 'internal colonialism' on the parts of people in
European peripheries (Basque country, Catalonia, Provence, Alsace), when
rulers declared that their language was the sole medium for official communication,
they faced remarkably little opposition. Regional elites, since they
had to learn the ruler's language in order to communicate with the court, paid
all the transactions (i.e. learning) costs.

The linguistic unity apparent in the so-called nation-states of France,
Britain, Spain and Germany was the result of complex political, social and
economic forces. Students of ... (developing countries) ... often downplay those struggles
and assume that the degree of cultural unity within these states pre-existed
state consolidation....

From the early 19th century, the role of the English language in British India
grew in prestige and use. In reaction to this anglicization, the Congress Party
had long been involved with the question of the status of Indian languages in
the postcolonial period. In 1920, at Mahatma Gandhi's urging, the Congress
had organized itself on the basis of linguistic and cultural regions, and the
Nehru Committee Report of 1928 pressed for state boundaries based on linguistic
factors, so that state business could proceed in the regional vernaculars.

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....

... Therefore, in the name of national unity and efficient administration, a commission
of the Constituent Assembly chaired by Justice S. K. Dar (1948) and another
appointed by the Congress and jointly chaired by Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhbhai
Patel and Pattabhi Sitaramayya (later in 1948) both affirmed the
goal of an India with a single indigenous link language that stood over states
that were themselves linguistically heterogeneous.

In the early 1950s, the civil service complied formally with the constitutional
dicta. In the Ministries, terminologies were developed, and standard
translations of all materials stood side-by-side with English. The constitutionally
mandated 'Report of the Official Language Commission' (the Kher Commission)
was optimistic. 'Hindi is the medium of instruction for Army educational
training" it reported. 'The Posts and Telegraphs Department has
evolved and is using a Hindi morse code; Hindi is also used to meet statutory
obligations, such as notices of acts, time-tables...' (Kher, 1956, ch. 7). Das
Gupta also records that 'Measured by the number of Hindi words, books,
dictionaries, encyclopaedias, lectures, and exhortations, the progressive
development of Hindi under the official auspices has been impressive'.

Formal compliance, however, hid practical subversion. The Indian Administrative
Service, which though small in number, staffed the leading posts in
the Union and the States, had a long history of English-language enculturation
(Taub, 1969; Potter, 1986). English language competence (and perhaps
'gentlemanly' behavior) legitimated their role as highly paid servants of the
state. Giving up English as the medium of communication for the all-India
service would have threatened their 'cultural capital.' And so, rather than
press for change-over to Hindi (as was stipulated in the Constitution), the IAS
and other civil services marginalized Hindi, giving it budgets and symbolic
importance, without diminishing the central role of English in bureaucratic
communication. As Das Gupta wryly notes, 'Paradoxically, none of these
impressive gains in Hindi production and development could be said to be
directly related to the question of bringing Hindi closer to the unrivaled role
of the official language of the Union' (Das Gupta, 1976, p. 202)....
|}
::[[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 13:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
:::That article sounds fascinating, but they want me to pay an obnoxious 32 USD to get access. Extortionists. It's at times like this that I regret not staying on in academia after my Ph.D. - I really miss the free access to academic databases. -- [[User:Lexmercatoria|Lexmercatoria]] 18:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
:::: You can ask F&F, who I assume has it downloaded, to email you the article. If he is busy with other stuff, I'd be happy to look it up for you. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] 19:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
:Sure, send me (WP) email and I'll send you the pdf. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 23:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

== Etymology ==

I found that this section contains an incorrect, literally imperfect quotation from an external reference 11. And this is a subject of conflict in terms of interpretation by the readers of Wikipedia.

Am quoting the exact text from the currently existing page under the heading Etymology:

<blockquote>
The Constitution of India and common usage in various Indian languages also recognise Bharat (pronunciation (info), IPA: [/bʰɑːrət̪/]) as an official name of equal status. Hindustan (/hin̪d̪ust̪ɑːn/ (info)), which is the Persian word for “Land of the Hindus” and historically referred to northern India is also occasionally used as a synonym for all of India.[11]
</blockquote>

The reference to &quot;Land of the Hindus&quot; to &quot;historically referred to '''<u>northern India</u>''' is not entirely correct considering different interpretations readers can take, and is a deviation of the policy in use within Wikipedia, in my opinion. This is because the actual quote in reference 11 (which says refers to Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. (2007). Retrieved on 2007-06-18.) gives this :


<blockquote>
The name Hindustan is sometimes defined as '''north of the Vindhya mountains'''. It is also occasionally used as a synonym for all of India.
</blockquote>


Therefore I request concerned approvers to approve a change in the wording / phrasing of the text detailed above.

Thank you.

: &mdash;[[User:Ssenthilprabhu|Ssenthilprabhu]] 04:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

:: Hmmm, maybe we are looking at a different page. See the linked page [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9040520/Hindustan], which states, "... also spelled Hindusthan (Persian: “Land of the Hindus”), historically, northern India, in contrast to the Deccan, or southern India. This area can be defined more particularly as the basin of the five Punjab rivers and the upper Gangetic Plain.". [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] 04:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

== Taj Mahal ==

The Taj Mahal is one of the seven wonders of the world now. Please change that on the page.

Also, the [[Taj Mahal]] page is having a vote on whether or not to include this new recognition [of the taj being one of the seven new wonders] (even though 100 million people voted (the most populous global decision in the history of man)). Please input your opinion. [[User:Nikkul|Nikkul]] 15:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

:"Seven wonders of the world ''now''." Hmm. Unfortunately, the [[Seven wonders of the world]] which really refer to the seven wonders of the Ancient World were named long before Shahjahan met Mumtaz Mahal and impregnated her enough times (17) to eventually cause her death for which he was famously remorseful. I don't know what Seven Wonders you are talking about, but every so often, some tourist company, or some TV channel, in a bid to drum up more business or boost their ratings, draws up a "Seven Wonders" list. But these lists are ephemeral, which the Taj is not and best not associated with. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 16:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that a vote by 100 million people around the world is more likely to represent the seven wonders of the '''world''' than some Greek guy sailing around the Mediteranian and calling anything out of the ordinary a Wonder of the World. Six of them dont even exist!
The vote was the largest global decision in the history of man. It has been acknowledged by the whole world. Go to any news site in the world, the story is there! This is a global campaign. You can not just assume that this is some tourist company looking to drum up business. All the news sites say that its a nonprofit organization. The Taj has been named a new wonder of the world by a very well known and accepted campaign. It's real. It's global. We're going to have to accept it. [[User:Nikkul|Nikkul]] 22:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

:This current commericial exercise does not in any way affect the original seven wonders of the world, and is definitely less notable. It is clearly not notable enough to deserve any mention on this article. [[User:deeptrivia|deeptrivia]] ([[User talk:deeptrivia|talk]]) 00:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

::We don't want this article to suffer from [[WP:RECENT]]. A sentence is already mentioned on the Taj article. The Taj itself shouldn't get too much coverage on this page since there is so much other important information to be told. <b><font color="teal">[[User:DaGizza|Gizza]]</font></b>''<sup><font color="teal">[[User_talk:DaGizza|Discuss]]</font></sup>'' <sup><b><font color="teal">[[Special:Contributions/DaGizza|&#169;]]</font></b></sup> 06:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to note that [[WP: RECENT]] is "only an essay. It is not a policy or a guideline" It merely reflects the opinions of the author. [[User:Nikkul|Nikkul]] 17:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

:::Okay then, I'll use a policy to support my point. We will be giving [[WP:UNDUE]] weight to a recent fad that will die away in a couple of years. <b><font color="teal">[[User:DaGizza|Gizza]]</font></b>''<sup><font color="teal">[[User_talk:DaGizza|Discuss]]</font></sup>'' <sup><b><font color="teal">[[Special:Contributions/DaGizza|&#169;]]</font></b></sup> 22:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

100 million people voted or there were 100 million votes? Big difference... Everything I've read says 'a poll of 100 million votes' and anyone could vote an unlimited number of times. Finally, the poll was not supported by international groups such as [[UNESCO]] because it reflects "''only the opinions of those with access to the internet''"[http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=38482&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html]. [[User:BURNyA|BURNyA]] 23:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

:Not just people with internet, but people who knew about it. Unlike a national election where it may not be compulsory but at least everyone is notified about it, people must have known about this poll only through advertising. It is not universal. <b><font color="teal">[[User:DaGizza|Gizza]]</font></b>''<sup><font color="teal">[[User_talk:DaGizza|Discuss]]</font></sup>'' <sup><b><font color="teal">[[Special:Contributions/DaGizza|&#169;]]</font></b></sup> 23:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


== We should change the orthographic image in the infobox ==
I honestly didn't know about it until after it was over. I watch national news and CNN.com, listen to XM talk radio when I'm in my car, and I'm on the internet all day at work. Either I was in the wrong places at the wrong times, or just didn't pay enough attention, or it just wasn't big enough. [[User:BURNyA|BURNyA]] 01:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


[[File:India (orthographic projection).svg|150px|thumb|Current version]]
== Indic Tag ==
Above here is the current orthographic map of India used in the infobox. It uses very oversimplified borders and has extreme levels of errors and inaccuracies. For example, it merges Syria, Lebanon, and Israel, into a single country, it merges Jordan and Palestine into a single country, it gives the landlocked country of Moldova access to the Black Sea, basically erased East Timor, among many, many more. I believe it is not upto Wikipedia's standards of quality.


I propose that we change this map to an '''edited version''' of the following:
The Indic tag is very disruptive. I think it should be moved somewhere else so that its not at the top. I have not seen one site with a tag and an info box under it. I definately think the info box should be at the top since it relates more to india than the tag which relates to the article (the wiki page) not its subject. [[User:Nikkul|Nikkul]] 17:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[[File:Indian Subcontinent (orthographic projection).png|150px|thumb|''Edited version'']] [[User:EarthDude|EarthDude]] ([[User talk:EarthDude|talk]]) 04:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:[[User:EarthDude|EarthDude]], Your edited version doesn't show (modern) India at all. It shows Indian subcontinent.<span id="The_Herald:1729587710046:TalkFTTCLNIndia" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;[[User:The Herald|The Herald (Benison)]] ([[User talk:The Herald|talk]]) 09:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)</span>
::Thats because I'm just tryna gauge consensus here. I wanna see if people actually wanna change it and then I'll probably make the edited version with India's actual current borders, with dark green in all Indian territories and light green in territories India claims [[User:EarthDude|EarthDude]] ([[User talk:EarthDude|talk]]) 17:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::[[User:EarthDude|EarthDude]], good initiative, but consensus doesn't work like that. You have to provide proper edited version you believe is the most appropriate one and then acquire a consensus for that one. This is one of the oldest featured article and the scrutiny is extra hard. I don't think any editor will agree to such a proposed change which is a crystal ball. Thanks.<span id="The_Herald:1729651858462:TalkFTTCLNIndia" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;[[User:The Herald|The Herald (Benison)]] ([[User talk:The Herald|talk]]) 02:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)</span>
::::I don't think consensus would be needed to update the map to fix things like missing borders, but the svg globes seem hard to make, or most would have been fixed by this point. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 04:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:Your map is showing whole Indian subcontinent add map of India. [[User:Edasf|Edasf]] ([[User talk:Edasf|talk]]) 15:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, i know. I wanna see if there's any consensus for change, and then I'll make the edited version of the map, using the second image, because it is quite high quality [[User:EarthDude|EarthDude]] ([[User talk:EarthDude|talk]]) 17:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::The second image is a png, we tend to use svgs for such maps. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 01:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Dont think someone will look for Palestine or Timorleste here '''''[[User:Edasf|Edasf]] ([[User talk:Edasf|talk]])''''' 16:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)


== Humans made it to Australia before here ==
::I have seen it attached to the bottom of the infobox in language infoboxes. Can you try that somehow then I don't have a problem. --[[User:KnowledgeHegemony|<font color="midnightblue">'''K'''nowledge</font>]][[User talk:KnowledgeHegemony|<font color="purple">'''H'''egemony</font>]] 09:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


Humans made it to Australia before here bypassing India? [[Special:Contributions/50.100.82.136|50.100.82.136]] ([[User talk:50.100.82.136|talk]]) 01:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
== Languages in the infobox ==


:This is the problem with random statistics in the lead....There is a debate if we where here before the [[Youngest Toba eruption]] as outlined at {{cite journal | last=Clarkson | first=Chris | last2=Harris | first2=Clair | last3=Li | first3=Bo | last4=Neudorf | first4=Christina M. | last5=Roberts | first5=Richard G. | last6=Lane | first6=Christine | last7=Norman | first7=Kasih | last8=Pal | first8=Jagannath | last9=Jones | first9=Sacha | last10=Shipton | first10=Ceri | last11=Koshy | first11=Jinu | last12=Gupta | first12=M. C. | last13=Mishra | first13=D. P. | last14=Dubey | first14=A. K. | last15=Boivin | first15=Nicole | last16=Petraglia | first16=Michael | title=Human occupation of northern India spans the Toba super-eruption ~74,000 years ago | journal=Nature Communications | publisher=Springer Science and Business Media LLC | volume=11 | issue=1 | date=2020-02-25 | issn=2041-1723 | doi=10.1038/s41467-020-14668-4 | doi-access=free | page=}}..... The debate should be removed from the lead and explained in the article in detail...... As the number 55 seems to be a synthesis of sources with an average guess compiled by Wikipedia editors.<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 01:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Just a small point, it looks a bit untidy... The bold text "Union" should be lined up with "Official Languages". Not a bit point but oh well. [[User:Speedboy Salesman|Speedboy Salesman]] 11:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
:Dear IP, The earliest identified anatomically modern human remains found thus far outside Africa are in Australia. That has been known for a very long time. But the human migration out of Africa is based on modern DNA marker evidence, both the mitochondrial which came to be analyzed with a fair level of certainty by the late 1980s and the Y-chromosome which did by early 2010s.
:What appears in this article is only material that has appeared in introductory-textbooks, i.e. has been vetted for [[WP:DUE|due weight]]. See [[WP:TERTIARY]] for the role of these text books in due weight.
:The first book we have cited (in the sentence about human migration in the lead) is a first-year-graduate level textbook written by [https://humanorigins.si.edu/about/human-origins-program-team/michael-petraglia Michael Petraglia] and [[Bridget Allchin]], leading physical anthropologists. Naturally we give it primacy as their subject of specialization is most closely associated with human migration into South Asia. These authors say, "Y-Chromosome and Mt-DNA data support the colonization of South Asia by modern humans originating in Africa. ... Coalescence dates for most non-European populations average to between 73 and 55 ka." (where KA or KYA stands for "thousand years ago.")
:The other two citations are also to textbooks, one the major historical demographer of South Asia, [[Tim Dyson]],'s ''Population History of India'', published by Oxford University Press in 2018, and the other the environmental historian, Michael Fisher's ''Environmental History of India'', published by Cambridge University Press, in 2018. All three are cited in the lead, and all three citations have generous quotes.
:We have not averaged out the various estimates, as {{re|Moxy}} has conjectured; rather, we have relied on the scholarly tertiary sources to do so for us. In particular, Tim Dyson says, "It is virtually certain that there were Homo sapiens in the subcontinent 55,000 years ago, even though the earliest fossils that have been found of them date to only about 30,000 years before the present." (as opposed to Australia, I might add, where the earliest fossils have been dated to 47 KYA).
:So the fact that two leading physical anthropologists, Petraglia and Allchin, one of the human migration out of Africa and the other of India, and the leading historical demographer, had all three picked 55 KYA, is what clinched that particular date for us. Note we say, "By 55KYA ..." That means they might have come earlier, but no later.
:Also for us, ''Nature Communications'' (cited by Moxy) whose average turn-around-time for first notice of acceptance is 8 days is not the best choice for supporting or discrediting the settled broadscale view of this article. Best regards, [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 20:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
::Sould drop 55 from the lead as its simply a Wikipedia guesstimation. And say in the body that there are two different answers:"Tthe 'early version' states that they came from Africa through the Arabian peninsula 74,000 to 120,000 years ago, bringing Middle Stone Age tools for hunting, gathering food, and making clothes. The 'late version' claims they arrived later, about 50,000 to 60,000 years ago. By 50,000 B. C. , tools were made in large numbers with organized workers and established communication routes for distribution.<small>"{{cite book | last=Joseph | first=T. | title=Early Indians: The Story of Our Ancestors and where We Came from | publisher=Juggernaut | year=2018 | isbn=978-93-91165-95-6}}</small> Should also link the articles we have on the topic so other can read about the debate [[Peopling of India]].<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 20:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
:::If you have a scholarly tertiary source, such as the three major ones I have mentioned, please add them here; otherwise, you are wasting community time. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 12:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Yes waste of time here <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 13:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)


== Disease and pollution ==
Concerning Gnanapiti's edit comments on the "States and others" versus "States" issue: It is incorrect to say that "All languages listed are official languages of respective states." Sanskrit, Kashmiri and Sindhi are not official in any Indian state. In addition, Khasi and Garo are official languages in Meghalaya, but aren't in the list. So "States" is probably a misleading label. <small>(This, by the way, is why I have reservations about using the Eighth Schedule as the criterion for bunging languages into the infobox).</small> -- [[User:Lexmercatoria|Lexmercatoria]] 18:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
:I agree my edit summary was a mistake. But apart from those three languages that you've pointed out the rest are all official languages of states. If we have a strong reference that Khasi and Garo are official languages of Meghalaya, I believe we need to add them to the list. [[User:Gnanapiti|Gnanapiti]] 19:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


I would '''support''' the inclusion of the new material F&F reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=India&curid=14533&diff=1255408236&oldid=1255382119 in this edit]. Other views? [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 03:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::(edit conflict) <br>
:: Following [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:India&diff=142983086&oldid=142975082 Sarvagnya's suggestion], I have listed all the Official state languages in the infobox rather than the 8th schedule languages, which as has been discussed before are irrelevant/inaccurate in this context. I have based my inclusions on the [[Official_languages_of_India#Official_languages_at_the_state_level|Official_languages_of_India]] page. Since the information in that article is yet unverified, I would highly encourage everyone to help in finding appropriate sources for the official state languages, so that we can be certain that we are providing accurate information on the main [[India]] page!
:: PS: On my screen the collapsible box listing the languages is uncollapsed by default. is that true for others too, and if so, does anyone know how to change the default ? [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] 19:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


:@[[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]]. I'd suggest that you should move your opinion into the "[[Talk:India#Mention or India's military power and membership of G20 Brics etc in lead|Mention or India's military power and membership of G20 Brics etc in lead]]" section somewhere in this talk page. [[User:Ivebeenhacked|Hacked]] ([[User talk:Ivebeenhacked|Talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Ivebeenhacked|Contribs]]) 03:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I'm in the process of finding citations for all states, but it's taking time.
:Actually, don't do that. Sorry, I thought you were talking about something else. My bad. [[User:Ivebeenhacked|Hacked]] ([[User talk:Ivebeenhacked|Talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Ivebeenhacked|Contribs]]) 03:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Re the collapsible box, according to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2006_December_25#Hiding_Text_in_Articles this], it should be possible by using 'class="navbox collapsible collapsed"'. That would mean making a version of the "collapsible list" template which uses this class. The template is terrifyingly complex, so maybe someone with more experience could try? -- [[User:Lexmercatoria|Lexmercatoria]] 20:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
:I personally is doubtful that it will be added back. Even if I provide hundreds of reliable sources, it may still be removed by those particular editors with their weird India-loving fetish. [[User:Cyanmax|Cyanmax]] ([[User talk:Cyanmax|talk]]) 05:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:::: The puzzling part is that [[Vancouver]] uses the same template (i.e. {{t1|Collapsible list}} ) as the India page in it's infobox, but they appear collapsed by default. So, as you say, the issue is best handled by someone who ''really'' understands the mechanics. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] 21:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
::Ah, right, thanks - the addition was to [[India#Socio-economic_challenges]]. I may as well quote it all:
:::: I found a page which says that lists collapse by default if there are two or more collapsible lists in the same infobox. Vancouver seems to have two, as does South Africa. -- [[User:Lexmercatoria|Lexmercatoria]] 21:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Epidemic and pandemic diseases have long been a major factor, including [[COVID-19 pandemic in India|COVID-19]] and [[cholera]].<ref>David Arnold, ''Pandemic India: From Cholera to Covid-19'' (Oxford University Press, 2022) [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=58263 online review]</ref>
Well, it turns out that for this page, '''three''' lists make the default=collapse. So, I've added a third category, "Classical" and listed Sanskrit and Tamil there. The boxes are now in the collapsed state. I took out "Union" from the title because all the secondary sources list Hindi and English as the Official languages of the country. The "union" part is explained in the collapsed asterisked footnote. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 03:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
:PS I'm guessing that Sanskrit and Tamil are not official languages, but perhaps Lexmercatoria can find some way to list them. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 03:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
India has consistently been ranked as one of the most polluted countries in the world. Of the 100 most polluted cities in the world, 83 are in India.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/world/india/air-pollution-indias-new-delhi-turns-severe-some-schools-shut-2023-11-03/|title=India's New Delhi blanketed by toxic haze, world's most polluted city again|website=reuters.com|access-date=2023-11-03}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.greenpeace.org/india/en/press/16528/new-delhi-ranked-most-polluted-capital-city-in-6th-annual-world-air-quality-report/|title=New Delhi ranked most polluted capital city in 6th Annual World Air Quality report|website=greenpeace.org|access-date=2024-03-19}}</ref>
::Yes "classical language" is a 'tag' and has little.. nothing infact, to do with "official"ness or a language's status as an administrative language or some such. Also, it is a tag that the Indian government conjured on the fly(bowing to political pressure) and it is at odds with both the "scholarly" and "intuitive" definitions and understanding of the term. If the govt., wishes, any of the 1600 or so languages can be 'declared' "classical" by day break tommorrow. Doesnt mean a thing. And in any case, discuss edits like these before you make them... or at the very least, like Gnanapiti says, dont shoot your mouth off in edit summaries at the first hint of opposition. [[:User_talk:Sarvagnya|Sarvagnya]] 03:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
:::That's fine. I can introduce an extra collapsible box in the economy section and make all the boxes collapse in default. What upsets me is that both you, Sarvagyna and your new cohort Ganapita, revert first and discuss later. As far as I am concerned you are two of the rudest, the most discourteous, churlish, and graceless people I have had the depressing privilege of meeting on Wikipedia. If Ganapiti had not automatically reverted (with edit summary "illogical"), but discussed here first and explained that Sanskrit is not official (something I realized myself), the page would not have been locked up. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 03:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
{{Reflist}}
::Only if you had asserted your royal presence here in talk page first discussing the edits that you were going to make when you very well know that we've been working on that particular section of the article for long time now. Thanks to great efforts by [[User:Lexmercatoria]], [[User:Abecedare]] and some part me in [[Official languages of India]], we've been collecting sources for all official languages and reflecting them in the article. So this edit by you without any discussion sure seemed illogical to me. By the way I see that you have new [[User:Savie Kumara|cohert]] now who has never ever touched this article before and now jumps right in and reverts without any explanation! [[User:Gnanapiti|Gnanapiti]] 04:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
[[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 03:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::Fowler - for starters, your chronic misspelling of my username is getting as old as it is juvenile. So cut the crap first. And do I have to remind you that it is ''you'' who has appropriated the moral high ground on this and every talk page you frequent. You have stonewalled the simplest of edits for weeks on end with your non-stop drivel and driven many an editor to despair. It is then, a bit rich of you to call us names... more so after I just warned you to "cease and desist". Several editors like Nikkul(for all his faults) and U=a, KH and many others in the past have been at the receiving end of your snobbery. You have given me nothing to smile about either. I can say to you all the things that you've just said about me and I can say that with conviction. Not out of spite. It is you who has been driving well meaning editors away with your "this is a FA... ''all'' edits have to be discussed... do not edit before discussion" nonsense for over 6 months now. So you better clam up and practise what you preach. 'nuff said. [[:User_talk:Sarvagnya|Sarvagnya]] 05:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Like I said, "discourteous, churlish, and graceless." What else is "cut the crap," "nonstop drivel," "nonsense," and "you better clam up?" This talk page is littered with other examples of your truculent language. It is true that I have raised the bar on this page, but my allegiance is always to the reliable secondary sources, and I have produced them time and time again (of which the "official language secondary sources" was but one example). As for misspelling your name, please accept my apologies. I am a bad speller, especially of unusual names. You could have left a little note on my talk page like others have done [[User_talk:Fowler%26fowler/Archive1#Stop_typing_Schzaider.3F|here]] and [[User_talk:Fowler%26fowler#Hello.2C_so_are_you_satisfied_with_the_new_infobox.3F|here]], but regardless, the fault is mine. My apologies again. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 12:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


:@[[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]]. I, too, <u>''support the inclusion of the material''</u> recently reverted in the article. It might help to involve F&F in this discussion. [[User:Ivebeenhacked|Hacked]] ([[User talk:Ivebeenhacked|Talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Ivebeenhacked|Contribs]]) 04:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Gentlemen, we all have worked diligently on this topic and found sources, presented robust arguments and discussed every aspect in detail. Now that we have ''finally'' come to what seems to be a consensus position (i.e. listing Hindi, English + all the official state languages in a collapsible box), lets not a few minor differences and momentary hot-bloodedness spoil what should be a time of mutual congratulations. If (as I think) we all are agreed on a common position, perhaps we can ask Blnguyen to unlock the page. <br>
::Yes, I expect he'll see it, but if not, what do you think [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler]]? [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 04:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
PS: I too think that Classical languages are irrelevant to the topic of ''official'' languages, but my guess is that F&F was trying it out just to see if the infoboxes could be ''collapsed'' by default by adding a third collapsible list. Even if my reading of his past reasoning is wrong, from the comment above it appears that F&f now agrees that we need not include those languages in the infobox, right ? [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] 05:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
:::It is the middle of the night here. Not sure why I woke up. Perhaps I'm worried about our election tomorrow. Not sure why I clicked on the bell up top, which I do three times a year. It is perennially full.
::Your reading is correct. I was trying to be helpful, seeing that people were not able to make the darn boxes collapse, and explained so immediately on the talk page, but ... [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 05:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Off the top of my head: So someone finds [[David Arnold (historian)|David Arnold]]'s latest book and they've created a blurb from it and think it is good to include here. What other books have they read on health and disease in
:::India have they read? Have they read David Arnold's other books? Say ''Science and Medicine in Colonial India''? Or, ''Burning the Dead''? They have likely not if they have managed to reduce a sensitive and sympathetic historian's work to such a blurb? Do they know anything about [[Vibrio cholerae]]? Do they know it is endemic to a species of shrimp in the estuary of the [[Meghna]] river in Bangladesh? Only during major religious festivals such as [[Kumbh]] in [[Allahabad]] had the bacterium traveled upstream and create, for example, the world's first cholera pandemic. The other cholera pandemics were world-wide.
:::Speaking of Kumbh, do they know that it was a small religious gathering historically, which during the [[British Raj]] years was transformed into a major India-wide religious gathering. They might want to read [[Kama Maclean]]'s book ''Pilgrimage and Power''. Have they read [[Tim Dyson]]'s ''A Population History of India'', which has a much material devoted not just to cholera, but also to India's more lethal historical killer, [[malaria]]. There is material on the plague in the late 19th century, and on the many famines. See [[Timeline of major famines in India during British rule]]. This is a complicated subject not reducible to simple formulations. I'm not averse, obviously, to something being added, but it will require much more discussion and will take time. I have to go back to bed. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 08:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::::People are better off reading a broad scale history book, such as [[Burton Stein]] and David Arnold's ''History of India'', Wiley-Blackwell, 2012 (originally OUP), which is the sort of book we cite from in this article. Perhaps look in it for disease in India. Covid-19 is a separate story. India had the largest excess mortality of any country, some 47 million, which the Indian government has not accepted. Some say that the decennial (10-yearly) census has bee postponed because it might show a minor population crash.
::::Generally, secondary sources (such as Arnold's Pandemic India, or monographs) are not appropriate for this article. Introductory textbooks are. See [[WP:TERTIARY]] for the role of introductory texts in determining [[WP:DUE|due weight]]. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 08:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Read this: https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/delhi-air-pollution-capital-breathes-toxic-air-as-aqi-severe-in-many-areas-details-101730777540525.html
::::India being literally the most polluted country in the world '''IS''' common knowledge, and yes, u are sabotaging this info due to your weird fetish. [[User:Cyanmax|Cyanmax]] ([[User talk:Cyanmax|talk]]) 08:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Please explain what my "weird fetish" is. I've spent a lifetime thinking about these issues. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 08:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Please note that I had added, "Among the socio-economic challenges India faces are gender inequality, child malnutrition, and rising levels of air pollution." in the revised lead prepared for Gandhi 150th [[WP:TFA]] in October 2019. It can be used to create three or four sentences with more details. Covid-19 was more global. Now I really do have to go back to bed. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 08:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::That sentence was added to the lead of this article. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 08:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::(In the morning) So, as you might have noticed, the sentence: {{tq|Among socio-economic challenges India faces are [[gender inequality]], [[child malnutrition]], and rising levels of [[air pollution]]}} is already in the lead of the article. I think the [[India#Socio_economic_challenges]] would be the appropriate section to add expanded versions of that sentence. And obviously it would require better sources than ''Hindustan Times'', a daily newspaper of infirm reliability. "Disease," is more problematic for a mention, especially in a section in which the picture shows health workers on Polio inoculation rounds (before polio was eradicated in India); in other words the picture itself mentions disease. If by "disease" we are attempting to make the case that the [[antigenic insult]] in India is greater than other tropical countries, that would be more controversial. But we could list the major types of afflictions: [[Dengue fever]], [[typhoid]], [[tuberculosis]] and some others. Cholera is no longer an issue, thanks in great part to the oral hydration supplement now availabe world-wide. Two American doctors, Nalin and Cash (who died just last week) were instrumental in its impementation. Anyway, why don't I write something up and propose it here in a couple of days? [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 13:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Antigenic insult == An antigenic insult is a threat to health and survival that occurs when the body encounters antigens and pathogens. Antigens are foreign materials, such as pathogens that trigger an immune response in the body. The body has evolved to defend itself against antigenic insults with the immune system, which includes the innate immune system and the adaptive immune system [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 13:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Speaking of "dawdling" (see the last thread below), I'm noting that I'm owed something here. Please hold on a couple of days more. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 17:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)


== Discussion about add India's house speaker and chief justice in Wiki page ==
:::OK, How is the infobox in the collapsible box below? I have collapsed the non-numbered footnotes. This might be useful, especially later on, if the number of footnotes increase. Note also that I have changed the infobox footnotes to symbols, to avoid confusion with numbered footnotes which link to references. All the lists now collapse by default. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 11:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
::{|class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left;"
|-
! Expand to see the suggested India Infobox:
|-
|
{{Infobox Country or territory
|conventional_long_name = Republic of India
|native_name = India<br />भारत<sup>†</sup>''{{lang|inc-Latn| Bhārat}}''
|common_name = India
|image_flag = Flag of India.svg
|image_coat = Emblem of India.svg
|symbol_type = Emblem
|national_motto = ''"[[Satyameva Jayate]]"'' <small>([[Sanskrit language|Sanskrit]])</small><br /> {{lang|sa|सत्यमेव जयते}} &nbsp;<small>([[Devanagari]])<br />"Truth Alone Triumphs"<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.india.gov.in/knowindia/state_emblem.php |title=State Emblem -''inscription''|accessdate=2007-06-17 |format=HTML |publisher= ''[[National Informatics Centre]] (NIC)''}}</ref>
</small></span>
|image_map = IndiaLocation.png
|national_anthem = ''[[Jana Gana Mana]]''
|other_symbol_type = [[National Song]]<ref>{{cite web |url= http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/vol12p1.htm|title= CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA - VOLUME XII |accessdate=2007-06-29 |date=[[24 January]] 1950 |work=Constituent Assembly of India: Debates |publisher=parliamentofindia.nic.in, National Informatics Centre |quote=The composition consisting of the words and music known as Jana Gana Mana is the National Anthem of India, subject to such alterations in the words as the Government may authorise as occasion arises; and the song Vande Mataram, which has played a historic part in the struggle for Indian freedom, shall be honoured equally with Jana Gana Mana and shall have equal status with it.}}</ref>
|other_symbol = [[Vande Mataram]]
|official_languages = {{Collapsible list|title=[[Official languages of India#Hindi and English|Hindi, English]]|Hindi in the Devanagari script is the official language of the union<ref>{{cite web
|title =The Union: Official Language
|url = http://india.gov.in/knowindia/official_language.php
|accessdate = 2007-06-24
|publisher = ''[[National Informatics Centre]] (NIC)'' |date = 2007}}</ref> and English the 'subsidiary official language'.<ref name=english-subsidiary>{{cite web |title=Notification No. 2/8/60-O.L. (Ministry of Home Affairs), dated 27th April, 1960||url=http://www.rajbhasha.gov.in/preseng.htm|accessmonthday=July 4 |accessyear=2007}}</ref>}}{{Collapsible list |title=[[Official languages of India#States|States:]] |[[Assamese language|Assamese]] |[[Bengali language|Bengali]] |[[Bodo language|Bodo]] |[[English language|English]] |[[French language|French]] |[[Garo language|Garo]] |[[Gujarati language|Gujarati]] |[[Hindi]] |[[Kannada language|Kannada]] |[[Khasi language|Khasi]] |[[Kokborok language|Kokborok]] |[[Konkani language|Konkani]] |[[Malayalam language|Malayalam]] |[[Meitei language|Manipuri]] |[[Marathi language|Marathi]] |[[Mizo language|Mizo]] |[[Nepali language|Nepali]] |[[Oriya language|Oriya]] |[[Punjabi language|Punjabi]] |[[Tamil language|Tamil]] |[[Telugu language|Telugu]] |[[Urdu]]}}
|capital = [[New Delhi]]
|latd=28 |latm=36 |latNS=N |longd=77 |longm=12 |longEW=E
|largest_city = [[Mumbai]]
|demonym = [[Demographics of India|Indian]]
|government_type = [[Federal republic]]<ref name="CIA"/>
|leader_title1 = [[President of India|President]]
|leader_name1 = [[Abdul Kalam|A.P.J Abdul Kalam]]
|leader_title2 = [[Prime Minister of India|Prime Minister]]
|leader_name2 = [[Manmohan Singh]]
|area = 3,166,414<sup>‡</sup>
|areami² = 1,222,559 <!--Do not remove per [[WP:MOSNUM]]-->
|area_rank = 7th
|area_magnitude = 1 E12
|percent_water = 9.56
|population_estimate = 1.12 [[1000000000 (number)|billion]]<ref name="CIA">{{cite web |title=CIA Factbook: India |work=CIA Factbook |url=https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html |accessdate=2007-03-10}}</ref>
|population_estimate_year = 2007
|population_estimate_rank = 2nd
|population_census = 1,027,015,248
|population_census_year = 2001
|population_density = 329
|population_densitymi² = 852 <!--Do not remove per [[WP:MOSNUM]]-->
|population_density_rank = 31st
|GDP_PPP_year = 2006
|GDP_PPP = 4,156 [[1000000000000 (number)|trillion]]<ref name="CIA"/>
|GDP_PPP_rank = 4th
|GDP_PPP_per_capita = 3,737
|GDP_PPP_per_capita_rank = 118th
|GDP_nominal = 1,0 [[1000000000000 (number)|trillion]]
|GDP_nominal_rank = 12th
|GDP_nominal_year = 2007
|GDP_nominal_per_capita = 820
|GDP_nominal_per_capita_rank = 132th
|HDI_year = 2006
|HDI = {{increase}} 0.611
|HDI_rank = 126th
|HDI_category = <font color="#ffcc00">medium</font>
|Gini = 32.5
|Gini_year = 1999
|Gini_category = <font color="#ffcc00">medium</font>
|sovereignty_type = [[Indian independence movement|Independence]]
|sovereignty_note = from the [[United Kingdom]]
|established_event1 = Declared
|established_date1 = [[15 August]] [[1947]]
|established_event2 = [[Republic]]
|established_date2 = [[26 January]] [[1950]]
|currency = [[Indian Rupee]] (₨)
|currency_code = INR
|time_zone = [[Indian Standard Time|IST]]
|utc_offset = +5:30
|time_zone_DST = not observed
|utc_offset_DST = +5:30
|cctld = [[.in]]<ref name="CIA"/>
|calling_code = 91
|footnotes = {{Collapsible list|title='''Non-numbered Footnotes'''|1= '''†'''. This is the name ''Bharat'', the [[Hindi]] name of India, written in the ''[[Devanagari]]'' script; see also [[Official names of India|other official names]]| 2= '''‡''' This includes only Indian-administered territory. }}}}
<div class="references-small" style="-moz-column-count:3; column-count:3;">
<references/>
</div>
|}
-----------------------------------


Good Afternoon to all my respected editors, I have a suggestion that I want to add India's house speaker and chief justice name in the page because many countries has their house speaker and chief justice name in their wiki page like USA so as an Indian I want to add their names in the wiki page so what's your thoughts about this? [[User:Roni0102|Roni0102]] ([[User talk:Roni0102|talk]]) 08:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
== "Influence of India on the world" ==
:Best follow other [[WP:COUNTRYSIZE|FA/GA country articles]] that dont list them because of lack of mention in the articles or simply because of position non notibility on an international scale. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 08:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
::I agree to add the names of Speaker and Chief Justice, don't know what so exception for only India that's it's removed. [[User:Loveforwiki|Loveforwiki]] ([[User talk:Loveforwiki|talk]]) 09:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:::So give me the permission so that I can add Speaker and Chief justice name [[User:Roni0102|Roni0102]] ([[User talk:Roni0102|talk]]) 09:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:::[[User:Loveforwiki|Loveforwiki]], the rationale is given by Moxy. This is a Featured article and, those positions aren't internationally notable for a general crowd.<span id="Benison:1731512630206:TalkFTTCLNIndia" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;Benison <small>([[User:Benison|Beni]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:Benison|talk]])</small> 15:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)</span>
::::Well, it's mentioned in most of the democratic countries. That's why it should be mentioned. [[User:Loveforwiki|Loveforwiki]] ([[User talk:Loveforwiki|talk]]) 16:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::So I want that permission for that because internationally India is now more popular so why not everybody needs to know who is India's chief justice and House Speaker [[User:Roni0102|Roni0102]] ([[User talk:Roni0102|talk]]) 16:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Roni0102|Roni0102]] Wait if you gets permission. by the way Wikipedia runs from west point of view, how the west sees the world. [[User:Loveforwiki|Loveforwiki]] ([[User talk:Loveforwiki|talk]]) 16:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::[[India]] is a [[WP:FA|featured article]], or FA. That means its layout, lexicon, syntax, and style conform to [[WP:FACRITERIA|featured article criteria]] and the article has had at least one major community review (WP's most rigorous) and likely more for older articles. Moreover, there are only [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Countries,_regions_and_political_entities <s>eight</s> {{tq|nine}} country FAs on Wikipedia], of which India is the oldest, now 20 years old. If you examine those <s>eight</s> FAs, the ''other'' major ones&mdash;[[Australia]], [[Canada]], [[Germany]], and [[Japan]]&mdash;have but two offices listed under government and they are not the speaker. [[Cameroon]] and [[Bulgaria]] do have longer lists, but I have not looked at their page-histories to see if they were changed after the community review. [[Nauru]] (around whose perimeter my late parents had once walked many moons ago) does have the speaker listed, but among only two in the list. Best regards, [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 16:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::PS And [[Madagascar]], which is also major, certainly for [[lemurs]], has only two listed under the government [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 16:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::[[User:Loveforwiki|Loveforwiki]], Once again, it has nothing to do with democracy. It all depends on the article quality. India is a [[WP:FA|featured article]], one of the oldest of it's kind. Hence, it follows that guideline.<br/>@[[User:Roni0102|Roni0102]], Wikipedia works on [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]]. You need to start a discussion in this talk page, demonstrating the need of inclusion of the speaker and CJ in the infobox, followed by proper rationale and guidlines. Then the editors of the page will decide via consensus if that inclusion is needed. Once again, I urge you both to go through [[WP:FA]] page to understand what a featured article is and how it is different from other pages on various (democratic) countries. Happy editing :)<span id="Benison:1731515658060:TalkFTTCLNIndia" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;Benison <small>([[User:Benison|Beni]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:Benison|talk]])</small> 16:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)</span>
::::::There must have been an edit conflict, but I didn't see your post Benison and ended up repeating parts of your reply. Apologies. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 16:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Thank you for all of this I understand now and sorry to disturb you sir and please forgive me if I done something wrong [[User:Roni0102|Roni0102]] ([[User talk:Roni0102|talk]]) 16:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Not your fault {{re|Roni0102}}. We should really have an FAQ up top. I've been meaning to for ages, but dawdling (also for ages). [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 16:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Hey guys i think we should add the speaker name and chief justice in the lead. It's important part. [[User:Loveforwiki|Loveforwiki]] ([[User talk:Loveforwiki|talk]]) 04:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::[[User:Loveforwiki|Loveforwiki]], Kindly re read the messages and replies above. Clearly th3 consensus is against it. Thanks.<span id="Benison:1731835180733:TalkFTTCLNIndia" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;Benison <small>([[User:Benison|Beni]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:Benison|talk]])</small> 09:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)</span>
:::::::::::hello sir someone removed the vice president name of India so sir can you fix that sir [[User:Roni0102|Roni0102]] ([[User talk:Roni0102|talk]]) 08:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Only the head of state and the head of government. The other major [[WP:FA|featured artices]], such as [[Australia]], [[Germany]], [[Canada]] and [[Japan]], show only those. Please don't post again with the same question. We can't change what is there. Best regards, [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 10:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::@[[User:Fowler&fowler|Fowler&fowler]] I previously replied his comment below. [[User:Edasf|<span style="color:blue">Edasf</span>]][[User talk:Edasf|<span style="color:red">«Talk»</span>]] 13:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Yes, I had seen your reply. It is the reason I (more or less} copied it in my reply, and later thanked you publicly. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 14:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)


== "Jana Gana Mana" is in Bengali and not in Hindi ==
The section is unsourced, POV and a list of quotes. Wikipedia is [[WP:NOT]] [[Wikiquote]]. I'll remove it. <b><font color="teal">[[User:DaGizza|Gizza]]</font></b>''<sup><font color="teal">[[User_talk:DaGizza|Discuss]]</font></sup>'' <sup><b><font color="teal">[[Special:Contributions/DaGizza|&#169;]]</font></b></sup> 10:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


{{edit extended-protected|India|answered=yes}}
== Hair trigger protection ==
Wikipedia's claim that "Jana Gana Mana" is in Hindi is totally fake. Jana Gana Mana has been written by Bengali Nobel Literate Kabiguru Rabindranath Tagore in Sandhubhasa or Sanskritised Bengali. The Jana Gana Mana as it's sung is the original one not a translation of Hindi. Please kindly change it soon. [[Special:Contributions/106.221.114.3|106.221.114.3]] ([[User talk:106.221.114.3|talk]]) 17:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)


:My understanding is that the original song is, of course, in Bengali, but the Indian national anthem is the Hindi "version" of it ("version" being the choice of word of the Constituent Assembly of India in the later 1940s when the discussion took place. By "version," apparently what they mean is this: As the song was written in Sanskritized Bengali, the choice of "Hindi version" by the [[Constituent Assembly of India]] was mainly to set the pronunciation of the Sanskrit words when singing, i.e. the anthem has "vidhata" and not "bidhata," which it would be in Bengali, or the Hindu pronunciation "jan" instead of "jono" in the Bengali. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 22:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm really surprised at such quick action taken by the admin [[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]] in protecting this article. Was there vandalism or extended edit warring? I didn't see any. There were precisely three reverts, of those two were by the Kannada [[User:Sarvagnya|tag]] [[User:Gnanapiti|team]]. Can the esteemed admin please explain here in the talk page the reasons behind his action?
::PS Compare, for example, the transliteration in Tagore's original [[Bharoto Bhagyo Bidhata]] and in [[Jana Gana Mana]]. Tagore's original, besides, has an apt name for the song, for according to his translation it means "Dispenser of India's destiny." But the official title (or popular title) now is the first three words of the song, "Jana Gana Mana," which in (Tagore's song's AI overview) means: "People (Jana) group (Gana) mind (Mana)" which doesn't tell us what it is about.
[[User:Venu62|Parthi]] <sup><em>[[User_talk:Venu62|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Venu62|contribs]]</em></sup> 05:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
:: Unfortunately, this does happen in popular and official culture in a lot of places.
:I left a post on his page explaining the situation. I can't imagine the protection will last for too long. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 11:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
::Regional turns of phrase, for example, are disappearing in many Western countries. It probably happened a little more in a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic post-colonial state such as India, where the Hindi speakers (perhaps from being speakers of the largest spoken language) attempted to turn their language into at first a national language, but failing that to the official language of the union. (see [[Hindi Day]]). Something similar probably happened to other Modern Indian Languages, many of which were regional languages, and [[Urdu]], also, which was not regional. Thus Iqbal's children's song, [[Tarana-e-Hindi]] became Sare JahaN se Achcha. Even then, only five rudimentary couplets from it are sung in India's popular culture.
:: Unfortunately, we at Wikipedia can't do too much about these historical devolutions, which might not have been ideal. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 23:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)


== Vice president name removed ==
== Good News (perhaps) ==
I just saw now that India's vice president name was removed from there?? Why this position also internationally known so why it's removed so please add that name [[User:Roni0102|Roni0102]] ([[User talk:Roni0102|talk]]) 15:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)


:{{n}} '''Not done:''' Good to simply add Head of State and Head of Government.Position of VP isnt that notable in parliamentry democracies like India [[User:Edasf|<span style="color:blue">Edasf</span>]][[User talk:Edasf|<span style="color:red">«Talk»</span>]] 17:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Some good news related to the ''India'' page: I have gotten the ''India'' article in the [http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Simple English Wikipedia] to "Very Good Article" status (which is their equivalent of FA status). The article itself can be seen [[simple:India|here]] and the VGA candidacy review [http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Propositions_for_very_good_articles/Archive#India here]. I just thought that the editors of this article would be interested in some good news after the weeks of edit warring and talk page conflicts. <font style="font-size:120%;color:#228B22">[[User:Universe=atom|'''''Universe=atom''''']]</font><small><sup>[[User Talk:Universe=atom|Talk]]•[[Special:Contributions/Universe=atom|Contributions]]</sup></small> 11:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


== Change in CPI score and India's rank as per the latest report by CPI ==
:Very nice work. Congratulations! [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 11:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
:I have to say that in many ways this article is more representative of India than the one here. Good job.--[[User:Blacksun|Blacksun]] 09:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


Corruption in India is perceived to have increased during the last decade. According to the Corruption Perceptions Index, India was ranked 78th out of 180 countries in 2018 with a score of 41 out of 100, an improvement from 85th in 2014, but has increased during the last decade as India now Ranks at 95th out of 180 countries listed with a score of 39 well below the global average of 42 as can be seen at this
==Original Research==
https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2023/index/ind
I have been away for bit and I have no time to follow the pages of discussion on the languages you guys have been having but from what I have read so far, I am afraid that you guys are walking a very fine line. Please keep in mind that you do not indulge in original research. For instance, <br />
'''1)''' In most cases you cannot tell us what the constitution means but have to cite usage and interpretation. <br />
'''2)''' I also read some comment about how "classical language" tag is meaningless; something trumped up by the government for political reason. I don't give a hoot what you think might be the reasons behind it. Your analysis of the significance of the status of a language as deemed by GoI has very little bearing here. Regarding, no one in academia agreeing with the choice of Tamil as a classical language - [http://tamil.berkeley.edu/Tamil%20Chair/TamilClassicalLanguage/TamilClassicalLgeLtr.html here] is one scholar who disagrees with your assessment.<br />
'''3)''' For the life of me, I fail to see why the article is attempting to list all the official state languages instead of the ones in the 8th schedule. Now you have French which is not a major language elevated to the same status as major languages like Tamil, Gujarati, Marathi, Assamese etc. Presenting the list in the format you guys seem to be going for can be argued as original research. <br />
--[[User:Blacksun|Blacksun]] 14:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
::Blacksun, that sage piece by that 'scholar' is brandished in my face almost every second day on wikipedia. Everybody has an opinion and Mr. Hart has his. And I am not even going to debate his opinion here. And in any case, where have I said that Tamil is undeserving of the tag? That the 'eligibility requirement'(sic) was changed from an antiquity of 1000 years to 1500 years ''soon after'' Tamil got the tag, has its own tale to tell though.


The previously mentioned data has not been updated for a decade now and needs updation in some shape or form. [[User:InspiredTheodore|InspiredTheodore]] ([[User talk:InspiredTheodore|talk]]) 01:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::That said, it is no secret that the very ''category'' of 'classical' languages was created by the govt., under political pressure. The category didnt even exist until 3 years ago. And it is no coincidence that the category was created soon after the present secular govt., came to power with the support of our [[DMK |friends from Kumari Kandam]]. It was part of the CMP to 'accord' Tamil the 'status' and to do that, they had to 'conjure this on the fly'. All this is plain as day to anyone except those from [[Kumari Kandam |the lost continent]]. You can gloat over a certain language's status all you want, but that wont change reality. [http://www.telegraphindia.com/1040928/asp/frontpage/story_3813391.asp And you dont have to take ''my'' word for all this].
::As for my comment that it is at odds with scholarly definitions of the term, well.. it is. And that is the reason, [[Classical language]] doesnt redirect to [[Languages_of_India#Classical_languages_of_India |Classical languages of India]]. [[:User_talk:Sarvagnya|Sarvagnya]] 17:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Unfortunately for you, his opinion is more credible + relevant than yours. --[[User:Blacksun|Blacksun]] 09:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
===Let's keep it simple===
Let's stick to the Official languages of the Union and the 8th Schedule. And since both Tamil and Sanskrit are included in the 8th Sch., their entries in the infobox can be like <code>[[Tamil]](also [[Classical_languages_of_India#Classical_languages_of_India|classical]]), [[Sanskrit]]([[Classical_languages_of_India#Classical_languages_of_India|classical]]).</code> I wonder (just like [[user:Blacksun|Blacksun]]) why do we need to have official languages of individual states. [[User:KnowledgeHegemony|<font color="midnightblue">'''K'''nowledge</font>]][[User talk:KnowledgeHegemony|<font color="purple">'''H'''egemony</font>]] 16:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


== change population statistics ==
: Sorry, I don't see how the classical status of Sanskrit and Tamil is relevant information for the ''Official languages'' field in the infobox. To me that is akin to appending [[Bharat Ratna]] after [[A.P.J Abdul Kalam]] in the President field of the infobox; which again is true and a high honour but irrelevant ''in the context.'' [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] 16:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Agreed, but similarly it is also irrelevant to include all the official languages used in the individual states. [[User:KnowledgeHegemony|<font color="midnightblue">'''K'''nowledge</font>]][[User talk:KnowledgeHegemony|<font color="purple">'''H'''egemony</font>]] 16:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
:::: KH, we don't really disagree. If I recall correctly, the first preference for both of us is to simply include "Hindi, English, others" with appropriate footnotes and links; although we can live with listing all the official state languages too. Anyway, I am sensing a feeling of deja vu all over again :-) [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] 17:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
::::(ec)No it is not. An "official" language is reasonably and intuitively associated, among other things with a language that is used in administration and as the preceding discussions have shown, it is only fair that we list them. From what I understand, the languages of the eighth schedule is like a pool of 'potential' official languages. Seen from that perspective, if there is consensus, I am not really averse to listing them too.(That will even help us take care of the "collapsible" issue). [[:User_talk:Sarvagnya|Sarvagnya]] 17:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::No your understanding is wrong. Language of 8th schedule are the languages that have federal support in their growth and are overly important than say French which is a residue language from colonial times and mostly has its status because no one has bothered revoking the treaty in the state. Sorry, but having a list where all the major languages are at same status as French is stupid and you are going to have a serious fight over it. You seem to like to think that federally deemed status of languages has no relevance but I have to respectfully disagree. This is an article on India - not on individual states. 8th schedule languages by their very nature are far more relevant than the list you guys have built which makes me feel like pulling my hair. --[[User:Blacksun|Blacksun]] 09:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


there have been new census; delete this after confirmation and editings. [[Special:Contributions/203.81.240.254|203.81.240.254]] ([[User talk:203.81.240.254|talk]]) 16:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Sorry, but including the Eighth Schedule under the heading "official languages" is plain wrong. That box is to list official languages, not languages which are "supported", and the languages of the Eighth Schedule aren't "official languages" in any sense of the term. And this isn't "Original Research", it is well borne out in the scholarly literature. Dr. Mallikarjun of CIIL describes the significance of the Eighth Schedule quite well in [http://www.languageinindia.com/april2004/kathmandupaper1.html this paper]:
::::::'''The languages of the Schedule have preferential treatment, and the languages listed in this schedule are considered first for any and almost every language development activity, and are bestowed with all facilities including facilities to absorb language technology initiatives of the government. It is needless to mention that the Technology Development in Indian Languages (TDIL) did not, and under present circumstances would not percolate beyond these languages.'''
:::::"Preferentially treated" does not equal "official".
:::::I think many of us here think that some version of "Hindi, English, others" is fine, but there are also a number who think that that formulation doesn't accurately reflect the linguistic diversity of India. Including the official languages of the States (which are "official" within India in at least some sense) was the best compromise we could find. If you have any better ideas, please put them forward. If you insist on the Eighth Schedule, then we'll need to make a separate section for it. It can't go into the "Official languages" section because languages like Sanskrit, Kashmiri and Sindhi are <u>not</u> official in any sense of the term. -- [[User:Lexmercatoria|Lexmercatoria]] 10:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


:Well, do you have a source saying so? [[User:Ivebeenhacked|Hacked]] ([[User talk:Ivebeenhacked|Talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Ivebeenhacked|Contribs]]) 16:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Here's is what it would look like if all three&mdash;union, states, and 8th schedule&mdash;were included. I have added explanatory notes for each group (instead of footnotes), since they immediately provide the context for listing the group; otherwise, the eyes begin to glaze over at the prospect of deciphering the rationale for such a surfeit of languages. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 20:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


== Repeated edits in the lead without a discussion here ==
::{|class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left;"
|-
! Expand to see the suggested India Infobox:
|-
|
{{Infobox Country or territory
|conventional_long_name = Republic of India
|native_name = India<br />भारत<sup>†</sup>''{{lang|inc-Latn| Bhārat}}''
|common_name = India
|image_flag = Flag of India.svg
|image_coat = Emblem of India.svg
|symbol_type = Emblem
|national_motto = ''"[[Satyameva Jayate]]"'' <small>([[Sanskrit language|Sanskrit]])</small><br /> {{lang|sa|सत्यमेव जयते}} &nbsp;<small>([[Devanagari]])<br />"Truth Alone Triumphs"<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.india.gov.in/knowindia/state_emblem.php |title=State Emblem -''inscription''|accessdate=2007-06-17 |format=HTML |publisher= ''[[National Informatics Centre]] (NIC)''}}</ref>
</small></span>
|image_map = IndiaLocation.png
|national_anthem = ''[[Jana Gana Mana]]''
|other_symbol_type = [[National Song]]<ref>{{cite web |url= http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/vol12p1.htm|title= CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA - VOLUME XII |accessdate=2007-06-29 |date=[[24 January]] 1950 |work=Constituent Assembly of India: Debates |publisher=parliamentofindia.nic.in, National Informatics Centre |quote=The composition consisting of the words and music known as Jana Gana Mana is the National Anthem of India, subject to such alterations in the words as the Government may authorise as occasion arises; and the song Vande Mataram, which has played a historic part in the struggle for Indian freedom, shall be honoured equally with Jana Gana Mana and shall have equal status with it.}}</ref>
|other_symbol = [[Vande Mataram]]
|official_languages = {{Collapsible list|title=[[Official languages of India#Hindi and English|Hindi, English]]|Hindi in the Devanagari script is the official language of the union<ref>{{cite web
|title =The Union: Official Language
|url = http://india.gov.in/knowindia/official_language.php
|accessdate = 2007-06-24
|publisher = ''[[National Informatics Centre]] (NIC)'' |date = 2007}}</ref> and English the 'subsidiary official language'.<ref name=english-subsidiary>{{cite web |title=Notification No. 2/8/60-O.L. (Ministry of Home Affairs), dated 27th April, 1960||url=http://www.rajbhasha.gov.in/preseng.htm|accessmonthday=July 4 |accessyear=2007}}</ref>}}{{Collapsible list |title=[[Official languages of India#States|States:]] |The Indian constitution does not specify the languages to be used by individual states for the conducting official business, and leaves each state free to adopt any language used in its territory as an official language.<ref>Constitution of India, Article [http://www.constitution.org/cons/india/p17345.html 345]</ref> |[[Assamese language|Assamese]] |[[Bengali language|Bengali]] |[[Bodo language|Bodo]] |[[English language|English]] |[[French language|French]] |[[Garo language|Garo]] |[[Gujarati language|Gujarati]] |[[Hindi]] |[[Kannada language|Kannada]] |[[Khasi language|Khasi]] |[[Kokborok language|Kokborok]] |[[Konkani language|Konkani]] |[[Malayalam language|Malayalam]] |[[Meitei language|Manipuri]] |[[Marathi language|Marathi]] |[[Mizo language|Mizo]] |[[Nepali language|Nepali]] |[[Oriya language|Oriya]] |[[Punjabi language|Punjabi]] |[[Tamil language|Tamil]] |[[Telugu language|Telugu]] |[[Urdu]]}}
{{Collapsible list |title=[[Official languages of India#The languages of the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution|Eighth schedule:]]|The Government of India is under obligation to develop these languages so that "they grow rapidly in richness and become effective means of communicating modern knowledge."<ref>Official Languages Resolution, 1968, [http://www.rajbhasha.gov.in/dolresolutioneng.htm para. 2].</ref>| [[Assamese language|Assamese]] | [[Bengali language|Bengali]] | [[Bodo language|Bodo]] | [[Dogri language|Dogri]] | [[Gujarati language|Gujarati]] | [[Hindi]] | [[Kannada language|Kannada]] | [[Kashmiri language|Kashmiri]] | [[Konkani language|Konkani]] | [[Maithili language|Maithili]] | [[Malayalam language|Malayalam]] | [[Meitei language|Manipuri]] | [[Marathi language|Marathi]] | [[Nepali language|Nepali]] | [[Oriya language|Oriya]] | [[Punjabi language|Punjabi]] | [[Sanskrit]] | [[Santali language|Santali]] | [[Sindhi language|Sindhi]] | [[Tamil language|Tamil]] | [[Telugu language|Telugu]] | [[Urdu]]}}
|capital = [[New Delhi]]
|latd=28 |latm=36 |latNS=N |longd=77 |longm=12 |longEW=E
|largest_city = [[Mumbai]]
|demonym = [[Demographics of India|Indian]]
|government_type = [[Federal republic]]<ref name="CIA"/>
|leader_title1 = [[President of India|President]]
|leader_name1 = [[Abdul Kalam|A.P.J Abdul Kalam]]
|leader_title2 = [[Prime Minister of India|Prime Minister]]
|leader_name2 = [[Manmohan Singh]]
|area = 3,166,414<sup>‡</sup>
|areami² = 1,222,559 <!--Do not remove per [[WP:MOSNUM]]-->
|area_rank = 7th
|area_magnitude = 1 E12
|percent_water = 9.56
|population_estimate = 1.12 [[1000000000 (number)|billion]]<ref name="CIA">{{cite web |title=CIA Factbook: India |work=CIA Factbook |url=https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html |accessdate=2007-03-10}}</ref>
|population_estimate_year = 2007
|population_estimate_rank = 2nd
|population_census = 1,027,015,248
|population_census_year = 2001
|population_density = 329
|population_densitymi² = 852 <!--Do not remove per [[WP:MOSNUM]]-->
|population_density_rank = 31st
|GDP_PPP_year = 2006
|GDP_PPP = 4,156 [[1000000000000 (number)|trillion]]<ref name="CIA"/>
|GDP_PPP_rank = 4th
|GDP_PPP_per_capita = 3,737
|GDP_PPP_per_capita_rank = 118th
|GDP_nominal = 1,0 [[1000000000000 (number)|trillion]]
|GDP_nominal_rank = 12th
|GDP_nominal_year = 2007
|GDP_nominal_per_capita = 820
|GDP_nominal_per_capita_rank = 132th
|HDI_year = 2006
|HDI = {{increase}} 0.611
|HDI_rank = 126th
|HDI_category = <font color="#ffcc00">medium</font>
|Gini = 32.5
|Gini_year = 1999
|Gini_category = <font color="#ffcc00">medium</font>
|sovereignty_type = [[Indian independence movement|Independence]]
|sovereignty_note = from the [[United Kingdom]]
|established_event1 = Declared
|established_date1 = [[15 August]] [[1947]]
|established_event2 = [[Republic]]
|established_date2 = [[26 January]] [[1950]]
|currency = [[Indian Rupee]] (₨)
|currency_code = INR
|time_zone = [[Indian Standard Time|IST]]
|utc_offset = +5:30
|time_zone_DST = not observed
|utc_offset_DST = +5:30
|cctld = [[.in]]<ref name="CIA"/>
|calling_code = 91
|footnotes = {{Collapsible list|title='''Non-numbered Footnotes'''|1= '''†'''. This is the name ''Bharat'', the [[Hindi]] name of India, written in the ''[[Devanagari]]'' script; see also [[Official names of India|other official names]]| 2= '''‡''' This includes only Indian-administered territory.
}}}}
<div class="references-small" style="-moz-column-count:3; column-count:3;">
<references/>
</div>
|}
-----------------------------------


{{re|Khassanu}} Please read [[WP:OWN#Featured_articles]]. It is very helpful when editors look at this article with fresh eyes and correct errors. But we all have to play by the same rules: Minor, factual edits are fine, but anything substantial requires a discussion and renewed consensus on this talk page.


View for example that major changes you had made in [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=India&diff=next&oldid=1261898414 this diff of my revert]. Please engage editors here on the talk page, explain what you would like to do, and achieve a consensus for it. Soft pinging [[user:RegentsPark]] and [[user:Vanamonde93]] [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 17:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)


== POLITICAL SCIENCE ==
Given down is my proposal for the infobox. I haven't provided detailed explanation or footnotes for now. They can be added accordingly at a later time. This format gives the exact idea of status of languages IMO. [[User:Gnanapiti|Gnanapiti]] 21:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


ವಿಶ್ವಸಂಸ್ಥೆ ಮತ್ತು ಭಾರತ [[Special:Contributions/2409:408C:AD9C:8F3:681B:ED0:2ED:E3CD|2409:408C:AD9C:8F3:681B:ED0:2ED:E3CD]] ([[User talk:2409:408C:AD9C:8F3:681B:ED0:2ED:E3CD|talk]]) 06:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::{|class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left;"
|-
! [[User:Gnanapiti|Gnanapiti]]’s proposal for the infobox
|-
|
{{Infobox Country or territory
|conventional_long_name = Republic of India
|native_name = India<br />भारत<sup>†</sup>''{{lang|inc-Latn| Bhārat}}''
|common_name = India
|image_flag = Flag of India.svg
|image_coat = Emblem of India.svg
|symbol_type = Emblem
|national_motto = ''"[[Satyameva Jayate]]"'' <small>([[Sanskrit language|Sanskrit]])</small><br /> {{lang|sa|सत्यमेव जयते}} &nbsp;<small>([[Devanagari]])<br />"Truth Alone Triumphs"<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.india.gov.in/knowindia/state_emblem.php |title=State Emblem -''inscription''|accessdate=2007-06-17 |format=HTML |publisher= ''[[National Informatics Centre]] (NIC)''}}</ref>
</small></span>
|image_map = IndiaLocation.png
|national_anthem = ''[[Jana Gana Mana]]''
|other_symbol_type = [[National Song]]<ref>{{cite web |url= http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/vol12p1.htm|title= CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA - VOLUME XII |accessdate=2007-06-29 |date=[[24 January]] 1950 |work=Constituent Assembly of India: Debates |publisher=parliamentofindia.nic.in, National Informatics Centre |quote=The composition consisting of the words and music known as Jana Gana Mana is the National Anthem of India, subject to such alterations in the words as the Government may authorise as occasion arises; and the song Vande Mataram, which has played a historic part in the struggle for Indian freedom, shall be honoured equally with Jana Gana Mana and shall have equal status with it.}}</ref>
|other_symbol = [[Vande Mataram]]
|official_languages = {{Collapsible list|title=[[Official languages of India#Hindi and English|Union:]]|[[Hindi]], [[English language|English]]}}{{Collapsible list |title=[[Official languages of India#States|States:]] |[[Assamese language|Assamese]] |[[Bengali language|Bengali]] |[[Bodo language|Bodo]] |[[English language|English]] |[[French language|French]] |[[Garo language|Garo]] |[[Gujarati language|Gujarati]] |[[Hindi]] |[[Kannada language|Kannada]] |[[Khasi language|Khasi]] |[[Kokborok language|Kokborok]] |[[Konkani language|Konkani]] |[[Malayalam language|Malayalam]] |[[Meitei language|Manipuri]] |[[Marathi language|Marathi]] |[[Mizo language|Mizo]] |[[Nepali language|Nepali]] |[[Oriya language|Oriya]] |[[Punjabi language|Punjabi]] |[[Tamil language|Tamil]] |[[Telugu language|Telugu]] |[[Urdu]]}}
{{Collapsible list |title=[[Official languages of India#The languages of the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution|Eighth schedule:]]|[[Assamese language|Assamese]] | [[Bengali language|Bengali]] | [[Bodo language|Bodo]] | [[Dogri language|Dogri]] | [[Gujarati language|Gujarati]] | [[Hindi]] | [[Kannada language|Kannada]] | [[Kashmiri language|Kashmiri]] | [[Konkani language|Konkani]] | [[Maithili language|Maithili]] | [[Malayalam language|Malayalam]] | [[Meitei language|Manipuri]] | [[Marathi language|Marathi]] | [[Nepali language|Nepali]] | [[Oriya language|Oriya]] | [[Punjabi language|Punjabi]] | [[Sanskrit]] | [[Santali language|Santali]] | [[Sindhi language|Sindhi]] | [[Tamil language|Tamil]] | [[Telugu language|Telugu]] | [[Urdu]]}}
|capital = [[New Delhi]]
|latd=28 |latm=36 |latNS=N |longd=77 |longm=12 |longEW=E
|largest_city = [[Mumbai]]
|demonym = [[Demographics of India|Indian]]
|government_type = [[Federal republic]]<ref name="CIA"/>
|leader_title1 = [[President of India|President]]
|leader_name1 = [[Abdul Kalam|A.P.J Abdul Kalam]]
|leader_title2 = [[Prime Minister of India|Prime Minister]]
|leader_name2 = [[Manmohan Singh]]
|area = 3,166,414<sup>‡</sup>
|areami² = 1,222,559 <!--Do not remove per [[WP:MOSNUM]]-->
|area_rank = 7th
|area_magnitude = 1 E12
|percent_water = 9.56
|population_estimate = 1.12 [[1000000000 (number)|billion]]<ref name="CIA">{{cite web |title=CIA Factbook: India |work=CIA Factbook |url=https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html |accessdate=2007-03-10}}</ref>
|population_estimate_year = 2007
|population_estimate_rank = 2nd
|population_census = 1,027,015,248
|population_census_year = 2001
|population_density = 329
|population_densitymi² = 852 <!--Do not remove per [[WP:MOSNUM]]-->
|population_density_rank = 31st
|GDP_PPP_year = 2006
|GDP_PPP = 4,156 [[1000000000000 (number)|trillion]]<ref name="CIA"/>
|GDP_PPP_rank = 4th
|GDP_PPP_per_capita = 3,737
|GDP_PPP_per_capita_rank = 118th
|GDP_nominal = 1,0 [[1000000000000 (number)|trillion]]
|GDP_nominal_rank = 12th
|GDP_nominal_year = 2007
|GDP_nominal_per_capita = 820
|GDP_nominal_per_capita_rank = 132th
|HDI_year = 2006
|HDI = {{increase}} 0.611
|HDI_rank = 126th
|HDI_category = <font color="#ffcc00">medium</font>
|Gini = 32.5
|Gini_year = 1999
|Gini_category = <font color="#ffcc00">medium</font>
|sovereignty_type = [[Indian independence movement|Independence]]
|sovereignty_note = from the [[United Kingdom]]
|established_event1 = Declared
|established_date1 = [[15 August]] [[1947]]
|established_event2 = [[Republic]]
|established_date2 = [[26 January]] [[1950]]
|currency = [[Indian Rupee]] (₨)
|currency_code = INR
|time_zone = [[Indian Standard Time|IST]]
|utc_offset = +5:30
|time_zone_DST = not observed
|utc_offset_DST = +5:30
|cctld = [[.in]]<ref name="CIA"/>
|calling_code = 91
|footnotes = {{Collapsible list|title='''Non-numbered Footnotes'''|1= '''†'''. This is the name ''Bharat'', the [[Hindi]] name of India, written in the ''[[Devanagari]]'' script; see also [[Official names of India|other official names]]| 2= '''‡''' This includes only Indian-administered territory.
}}}}
<div class="references-small" style="-moz-column-count:3; column-count:3;">
<references/>
</div>
|}


:ನಮಸ್ಕಾರ! ಇದಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ದಯವಿಟ್ಟು ಕನ್ನಡ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯಕ್ಕೆ ಭೇಟಿ ನೀಡಿ ಅಥವಾ ಇಂಗ್ಲಿಷ್‌ನಲ್ಲಿ ಹೇಳಿ. ಧನ್ಯವಾದಗಳು. [[User:Ivebeenhacked|Hacked]] ([[User talk:Ivebeenhacked|Talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Ivebeenhacked|Contribs]]) 06:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::No. As I have stated many times above, all the secondary sources say that Hindi and English are the "official languages" of the ''country''. When Britannica, Encarta, the UN, UNESCO, US Government, UK Foreign Office, etc (see my 15 secondary sources), talk about the official languages of the country, they mean the union (whether or not the states have their separate official languages). In the first box, Hindi and English have to be out in the open (not collapsed under "union") as I have indicated in my proposed infobox (whether or not you want the explanatory notes or not). [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 22:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
== "[[:ভাৰত]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
:::No, their is no need to make a list of official state languages. It is rather an overkill in the context of India article. Not to mention it will be hard to maintain in future as it is definitely more fluid than the other two. Just dont bother with it. Please for once try to keep things simple instead of over analyzing everything. --[[User:Blacksun|Blacksun]] 09:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]
::::No. The article is titled '''India''', not '''Indian States'''. Official languages of the country '''India''' only IMMHO. [[User:Moriori|Moriori]] 09:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The redirect <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=%E0%A6%AD%E0%A6%BE%E0%A7%B0%E0%A6%A4&redirect=no ভাৰত]</span> has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|redirects for discussion]] to determine whether its use and function meets the [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect guidelines]]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 13#ভাৰত}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 17:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 02:32, 14 December 2024

Featured articleIndia 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 so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 3, 2004, and on October 2, 2019.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 16, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
April 11, 2005Featured article reviewKept
May 6, 2006Featured article reviewKept
July 28, 2011Featured article reviewKept
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 15, 2004, August 15, 2005, August 15, 2011, and November 26, 2012.
Current status: Featured article


We should change the orthographic image in the infobox

[edit]
Current version

Above here is the current orthographic map of India used in the infobox. It uses very oversimplified borders and has extreme levels of errors and inaccuracies. For example, it merges Syria, Lebanon, and Israel, into a single country, it merges Jordan and Palestine into a single country, it gives the landlocked country of Moldova access to the Black Sea, basically erased East Timor, among many, many more. I believe it is not upto Wikipedia's standards of quality.

I propose that we change this map to an edited version of the following:

Edited version

EarthDude (talk) 04:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EarthDude, Your edited version doesn't show (modern) India at all. It shows Indian subcontinent. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats because I'm just tryna gauge consensus here. I wanna see if people actually wanna change it and then I'll probably make the edited version with India's actual current borders, with dark green in all Indian territories and light green in territories India claims EarthDude (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EarthDude, good initiative, but consensus doesn't work like that. You have to provide proper edited version you believe is the most appropriate one and then acquire a consensus for that one. This is one of the oldest featured article and the scrutiny is extra hard. I don't think any editor will agree to such a proposed change which is a crystal ball. Thanks. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think consensus would be needed to update the map to fix things like missing borders, but the svg globes seem hard to make, or most would have been fixed by this point. CMD (talk) 04:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your map is showing whole Indian subcontinent add map of India. Edasf (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i know. I wanna see if there's any consensus for change, and then I'll make the edited version of the map, using the second image, because it is quite high quality EarthDude (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second image is a png, we tend to use svgs for such maps. CMD (talk) 01:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dont think someone will look for Palestine or Timorleste here Edasf (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Humans made it to Australia before here

[edit]

Humans made it to Australia before here bypassing India? 50.100.82.136 (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the problem with random statistics in the lead....There is a debate if we where here before the Youngest Toba eruption as outlined at Clarkson, Chris; Harris, Clair; Li, Bo; Neudorf, Christina M.; Roberts, Richard G.; Lane, Christine; Norman, Kasih; Pal, Jagannath; Jones, Sacha; Shipton, Ceri; Koshy, Jinu; Gupta, M. C.; Mishra, D. P.; Dubey, A. K.; Boivin, Nicole; Petraglia, Michael (2020-02-25). "Human occupation of northern India spans the Toba super-eruption ~74,000 years ago". Nature Communications. 11 (1). Springer Science and Business Media LLC. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-14668-4. ISSN 2041-1723...... The debate should be removed from the lead and explained in the article in detail...... As the number 55 seems to be a synthesis of sources with an average guess compiled by Wikipedia editors.Moxy🍁 01:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear IP, The earliest identified anatomically modern human remains found thus far outside Africa are in Australia. That has been known for a very long time. But the human migration out of Africa is based on modern DNA marker evidence, both the mitochondrial which came to be analyzed with a fair level of certainty by the late 1980s and the Y-chromosome which did by early 2010s.
What appears in this article is only material that has appeared in introductory-textbooks, i.e. has been vetted for due weight. See WP:TERTIARY for the role of these text books in due weight.
The first book we have cited (in the sentence about human migration in the lead) is a first-year-graduate level textbook written by Michael Petraglia and Bridget Allchin, leading physical anthropologists. Naturally we give it primacy as their subject of specialization is most closely associated with human migration into South Asia. These authors say, "Y-Chromosome and Mt-DNA data support the colonization of South Asia by modern humans originating in Africa. ... Coalescence dates for most non-European populations average to between 73 and 55 ka." (where KA or KYA stands for "thousand years ago.")
The other two citations are also to textbooks, one the major historical demographer of South Asia, Tim Dyson,'s Population History of India, published by Oxford University Press in 2018, and the other the environmental historian, Michael Fisher's Environmental History of India, published by Cambridge University Press, in 2018. All three are cited in the lead, and all three citations have generous quotes.
We have not averaged out the various estimates, as @Moxy: has conjectured; rather, we have relied on the scholarly tertiary sources to do so for us. In particular, Tim Dyson says, "It is virtually certain that there were Homo sapiens in the subcontinent 55,000 years ago, even though the earliest fossils that have been found of them date to only about 30,000 years before the present." (as opposed to Australia, I might add, where the earliest fossils have been dated to 47 KYA).
So the fact that two leading physical anthropologists, Petraglia and Allchin, one of the human migration out of Africa and the other of India, and the leading historical demographer, had all three picked 55 KYA, is what clinched that particular date for us. Note we say, "By 55KYA ..." That means they might have come earlier, but no later.
Also for us, Nature Communications (cited by Moxy) whose average turn-around-time for first notice of acceptance is 8 days is not the best choice for supporting or discrediting the settled broadscale view of this article. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sould drop 55 from the lead as its simply a Wikipedia guesstimation. And say in the body that there are two different answers:"Tthe 'early version' states that they came from Africa through the Arabian peninsula 74,000 to 120,000 years ago, bringing Middle Stone Age tools for hunting, gathering food, and making clothes. The 'late version' claims they arrived later, about 50,000 to 60,000 years ago. By 50,000 B. C. , tools were made in large numbers with organized workers and established communication routes for distribution."Joseph, T. (2018). Early Indians: The Story of Our Ancestors and where We Came from. Juggernaut. ISBN 978-93-91165-95-6. Should also link the articles we have on the topic so other can read about the debate Peopling of India.Moxy🍁 20:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a scholarly tertiary source, such as the three major ones I have mentioned, please add them here; otherwise, you are wasting community time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes waste of time here Moxy🍁 13:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disease and pollution

[edit]

I would support the inclusion of the new material F&F reverted in this edit. Other views? Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod. I'd suggest that you should move your opinion into the "Mention or India's military power and membership of G20 Brics etc in lead" section somewhere in this talk page. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, don't do that. Sorry, I thought you were talking about something else. My bad. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally is doubtful that it will be added back. Even if I provide hundreds of reliable sources, it may still be removed by those particular editors with their weird India-loving fetish. Cyanmax (talk) 05:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, right, thanks - the addition was to India#Socio-economic_challenges. I may as well quote it all:

Epidemic and pandemic diseases have long been a major factor, including COVID-19 and cholera.[1]

India has consistently been ranked as one of the most polluted countries in the world. Of the 100 most polluted cities in the world, 83 are in India.[2][3]

  1. ^ David Arnold, Pandemic India: From Cholera to Covid-19 (Oxford University Press, 2022) online review
  2. ^ "India's New Delhi blanketed by toxic haze, world's most polluted city again". reuters.com. Retrieved 2023-11-03.
  3. ^ "New Delhi ranked most polluted capital city in 6th Annual World Air Quality report". greenpeace.org. Retrieved 2024-03-19.

Johnbod (talk) 03:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod. I, too, support the inclusion of the material recently reverted in the article. It might help to involve F&F in this discussion. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I expect he'll see it, but if not, what do you think User:Fowler&fowler? Johnbod (talk) 04:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is the middle of the night here. Not sure why I woke up. Perhaps I'm worried about our election tomorrow. Not sure why I clicked on the bell up top, which I do three times a year. It is perennially full.
Off the top of my head: So someone finds David Arnold's latest book and they've created a blurb from it and think it is good to include here. What other books have they read on health and disease in
India have they read? Have they read David Arnold's other books? Say Science and Medicine in Colonial India? Or, Burning the Dead? They have likely not if they have managed to reduce a sensitive and sympathetic historian's work to such a blurb? Do they know anything about Vibrio cholerae? Do they know it is endemic to a species of shrimp in the estuary of the Meghna river in Bangladesh? Only during major religious festivals such as Kumbh in Allahabad had the bacterium traveled upstream and create, for example, the world's first cholera pandemic. The other cholera pandemics were world-wide.
Speaking of Kumbh, do they know that it was a small religious gathering historically, which during the British Raj years was transformed into a major India-wide religious gathering. They might want to read Kama Maclean's book Pilgrimage and Power. Have they read Tim Dyson's A Population History of India, which has a much material devoted not just to cholera, but also to India's more lethal historical killer, malaria. There is material on the plague in the late 19th century, and on the many famines. See Timeline of major famines in India during British rule. This is a complicated subject not reducible to simple formulations. I'm not averse, obviously, to something being added, but it will require much more discussion and will take time. I have to go back to bed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People are better off reading a broad scale history book, such as Burton Stein and David Arnold's History of India, Wiley-Blackwell, 2012 (originally OUP), which is the sort of book we cite from in this article. Perhaps look in it for disease in India. Covid-19 is a separate story. India had the largest excess mortality of any country, some 47 million, which the Indian government has not accepted. Some say that the decennial (10-yearly) census has bee postponed because it might show a minor population crash.
Generally, secondary sources (such as Arnold's Pandemic India, or monographs) are not appropriate for this article. Introductory textbooks are. See WP:TERTIARY for the role of introductory texts in determining due weight. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read this: https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/delhi-air-pollution-capital-breathes-toxic-air-as-aqi-severe-in-many-areas-details-101730777540525.html
India being literally the most polluted country in the world IS common knowledge, and yes, u are sabotaging this info due to your weird fetish. Cyanmax (talk) 08:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain what my "weird fetish" is. I've spent a lifetime thinking about these issues. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I had added, "Among the socio-economic challenges India faces are gender inequality, child malnutrition, and rising levels of air pollution." in the revised lead prepared for Gandhi 150th WP:TFA in October 2019. It can be used to create three or four sentences with more details. Covid-19 was more global. Now I really do have to go back to bed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sentence was added to the lead of this article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(In the morning) So, as you might have noticed, the sentence: Among socio-economic challenges India faces are gender inequality, child malnutrition, and rising levels of air pollution is already in the lead of the article. I think the India#Socio_economic_challenges would be the appropriate section to add expanded versions of that sentence. And obviously it would require better sources than Hindustan Times, a daily newspaper of infirm reliability. "Disease," is more problematic for a mention, especially in a section in which the picture shows health workers on Polio inoculation rounds (before polio was eradicated in India); in other words the picture itself mentions disease. If by "disease" we are attempting to make the case that the antigenic insult in India is greater than other tropical countries, that would be more controversial. But we could list the major types of afflictions: Dengue fever, typhoid, tuberculosis and some others. Cholera is no longer an issue, thanks in great part to the oral hydration supplement now availabe world-wide. Two American doctors, Nalin and Cash (who died just last week) were instrumental in its impementation. Anyway, why don't I write something up and propose it here in a couple of days? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Antigenic insult == An antigenic insult is a threat to health and survival that occurs when the body encounters antigens and pathogens. Antigens are foreign materials, such as pathogens that trigger an immune response in the body. The body has evolved to defend itself against antigenic insults with the immune system, which includes the innate immune system and the adaptive immune system Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of "dawdling" (see the last thread below), I'm noting that I'm owed something here. Please hold on a couple of days more. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about add India's house speaker and chief justice in Wiki page

[edit]

Good Afternoon to all my respected editors, I have a suggestion that I want to add India's house speaker and chief justice name in the page because many countries has their house speaker and chief justice name in their wiki page like USA so as an Indian I want to add their names in the wiki page so what's your thoughts about this? Roni0102 (talk) 08:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best follow other FA/GA country articles that dont list them because of lack of mention in the articles or simply because of position non notibility on an international scale. Moxy🍁 08:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to add the names of Speaker and Chief Justice, don't know what so exception for only India that's it's removed. Loveforwiki (talk) 09:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So give me the permission so that I can add Speaker and Chief justice name Roni0102 (talk) 09:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Loveforwiki, the rationale is given by Moxy. This is a Featured article and, those positions aren't internationally notable for a general crowd. — — Benison (Beni · talk) 15:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's mentioned in most of the democratic countries. That's why it should be mentioned. Loveforwiki (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I want that permission for that because internationally India is now more popular so why not everybody needs to know who is India's chief justice and House Speaker Roni0102 (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Roni0102 Wait if you gets permission. by the way Wikipedia runs from west point of view, how the west sees the world. Loveforwiki (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
India is a featured article, or FA. That means its layout, lexicon, syntax, and style conform to featured article criteria and the article has had at least one major community review (WP's most rigorous) and likely more for older articles. Moreover, there are only eight nine country FAs on Wikipedia, of which India is the oldest, now 20 years old. If you examine those eight FAs, the other major ones—Australia, Canada, Germany, and Japan—have but two offices listed under government and they are not the speaker. Cameroon and Bulgaria do have longer lists, but I have not looked at their page-histories to see if they were changed after the community review. Nauru (around whose perimeter my late parents had once walked many moons ago) does have the speaker listed, but among only two in the list. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS And Madagascar, which is also major, certainly for lemurs, has only two listed under the government Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Loveforwiki, Once again, it has nothing to do with democracy. It all depends on the article quality. India is a featured article, one of the oldest of it's kind. Hence, it follows that guideline.
@Roni0102, Wikipedia works on consensus. You need to start a discussion in this talk page, demonstrating the need of inclusion of the speaker and CJ in the infobox, followed by proper rationale and guidlines. Then the editors of the page will decide via consensus if that inclusion is needed. Once again, I urge you both to go through WP:FA page to understand what a featured article is and how it is different from other pages on various (democratic) countries. Happy editing :) — — Benison (Beni · talk) 16:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There must have been an edit conflict, but I didn't see your post Benison and ended up repeating parts of your reply. Apologies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all of this I understand now and sorry to disturb you sir and please forgive me if I done something wrong Roni0102 (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not your fault @Roni0102:. We should really have an FAQ up top. I've been meaning to for ages, but dawdling (also for ages). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey guys i think we should add the speaker name and chief justice in the lead. It's important part. Loveforwiki (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Loveforwiki, Kindly re read the messages and replies above. Clearly th3 consensus is against it. Thanks. — — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hello sir someone removed the vice president name of India so sir can you fix that sir Roni0102 (talk) 08:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only the head of state and the head of government. The other major featured artices, such as Australia, Germany, Canada and Japan, show only those. Please don't post again with the same question. We can't change what is there. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler I previously replied his comment below. Edasf«Talk» 13:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I had seen your reply. It is the reason I (more or less} copied it in my reply, and later thanked you publicly. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Jana Gana Mana" is in Bengali and not in Hindi

[edit]

Wikipedia's claim that "Jana Gana Mana" is in Hindi is totally fake. Jana Gana Mana has been written by Bengali Nobel Literate Kabiguru Rabindranath Tagore in Sandhubhasa or Sanskritised Bengali. The Jana Gana Mana as it's sung is the original one not a translation of Hindi. Please kindly change it soon. 106.221.114.3 (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the original song is, of course, in Bengali, but the Indian national anthem is the Hindi "version" of it ("version" being the choice of word of the Constituent Assembly of India in the later 1940s when the discussion took place. By "version," apparently what they mean is this: As the song was written in Sanskritized Bengali, the choice of "Hindi version" by the Constituent Assembly of India was mainly to set the pronunciation of the Sanskrit words when singing, i.e. the anthem has "vidhata" and not "bidhata," which it would be in Bengali, or the Hindu pronunciation "jan" instead of "jono" in the Bengali. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS Compare, for example, the transliteration in Tagore's original Bharoto Bhagyo Bidhata and in Jana Gana Mana. Tagore's original, besides, has an apt name for the song, for according to his translation it means "Dispenser of India's destiny." But the official title (or popular title) now is the first three words of the song, "Jana Gana Mana," which in (Tagore's song's AI overview) means: "People (Jana) group (Gana) mind (Mana)" which doesn't tell us what it is about.
Unfortunately, this does happen in popular and official culture in a lot of places.
Regional turns of phrase, for example, are disappearing in many Western countries. It probably happened a little more in a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic post-colonial state such as India, where the Hindi speakers (perhaps from being speakers of the largest spoken language) attempted to turn their language into at first a national language, but failing that to the official language of the union. (see Hindi Day). Something similar probably happened to other Modern Indian Languages, many of which were regional languages, and Urdu, also, which was not regional. Thus Iqbal's children's song, Tarana-e-Hindi became Sare JahaN se Achcha. Even then, only five rudimentary couplets from it are sung in India's popular culture.
Unfortunately, we at Wikipedia can't do too much about these historical devolutions, which might not have been ideal. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vice president name removed

[edit]

I just saw now that India's vice president name was removed from there?? Why this position also internationally known so why it's removed so please add that name Roni0102 (talk) 15:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red XN Not done: Good to simply add Head of State and Head of Government.Position of VP isnt that notable in parliamentry democracies like India Edasf«Talk» 17:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change in CPI score and India's rank as per the latest report by CPI

[edit]

Corruption in India is perceived to have increased during the last decade. According to the Corruption Perceptions Index, India was ranked 78th out of 180 countries in 2018 with a score of 41 out of 100, an improvement from 85th in 2014, but has increased during the last decade as India now Ranks at 95th out of 180 countries listed with a score of 39 well below the global average of 42 as can be seen at this https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2023/index/ind

The previously mentioned data has not been updated for a decade now and needs updation in some shape or form. InspiredTheodore (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

change population statistics

[edit]

there have been new census; delete this after confirmation and editings. 203.81.240.254 (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, do you have a source saying so? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 16:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated edits in the lead without a discussion here

[edit]

@Khassanu: Please read WP:OWN#Featured_articles. It is very helpful when editors look at this article with fresh eyes and correct errors. But we all have to play by the same rules: Minor, factual edits are fine, but anything substantial requires a discussion and renewed consensus on this talk page.

View for example that major changes you had made in this diff of my revert. Please engage editors here on the talk page, explain what you would like to do, and achieve a consensus for it. Soft pinging user:RegentsPark and user:Vanamonde93 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

POLITICAL SCIENCE

[edit]

ವಿಶ್ವಸಂಸ್ಥೆ ಮತ್ತು ಭಾರತ 2409:408C:AD9C:8F3:681B:ED0:2ED:E3CD (talk) 06:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ನಮಸ್ಕಾರ! ಇದಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ದಯವಿಟ್ಟು ಕನ್ನಡ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯಕ್ಕೆ ಭೇಟಿ ನೀಡಿ ಅಥವಾ ಇಂಗ್ಲಿಷ್‌ನಲ್ಲಿ ಹೇಳಿ. ಧನ್ಯವಾದಗಳು. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 06:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect ভাৰত has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 13 § ভাৰত until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]