Jump to content

Talk:History of India (1947–present): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 169: Line 169:
* '''Support''' It wasn't a republic between 1947 and 1950. [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk:DrKay|talk]]) 16:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
* '''Support''' It wasn't a republic between 1947 and 1950. [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk:DrKay|talk]]) 16:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per DrKay and for issues of clarity. [[User:Sam-2727|Sam-2727]] ([[User talk:Sam-2727|talk]]) 04:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per DrKay and for issues of clarity. [[User:Sam-2727|Sam-2727]] ([[User talk:Sam-2727|talk]]) 04:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' India became a republic in 1950 while this article includes starts from 1947. Also the new title has much more clarity about the period being referred. [[User:Sachin75871|sachinag]] ([[User talk:Sachin75871|talk]]) 19:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:37, 30 July 2020

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 8 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eshepherd2 (article contribs).

Improvement needed

This article needs to be improved. It only consists of wars and electoral politics. -JatinShah

Way too short as well. Compare this article to the one for the History of the People's Republic of China, which has 4 full (and still being developed) pages! 11:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion

One thing that is not clear to me from reading any of the wikipedia articles on India is: what was it that made Indians, belonging to many different ethnic groups, speaking many different languages, and having belonged to all sorts of various political entities over the centuries, feel sufficiently "Indian" to form one nation instead of three or a dozen or what have you? Was Hinduism the unifying thread? Sylvain1972 20:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism was not the common unifying link. Current day India is a creation of a number of historical incidences, almost all them directly connected to process of amalgamation of the innumerable native kingdoms, and principalities by the British. If Hinduism was the unifying power then, there would have been something similar here, before the advent of the British. --Ved from Victoria Institutions (talk) 06:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Limitations of the definition of ‘independence’

It is generally claimed that modern India is a sort of continuation of the British rule in all aspects. However, in actuality, even though the British presence was the powerful factor that aided the formation of India, modern India is not a absolute continuation of British India, nor can it be fully be described as an independent version of British India. For the truth is that there were many places in India that were not under the direct rule of the British. For example, native states like Travancore and Cochin were not ruled by the British, while the adjacent Malabar district was under direct British rule, as a remote district of Madras Presidency. What these native states experienced during the departure of the British was a mood (among a section of the population) to join the newly independent India; and a coercive force of threat of military intervention if they did not. So the very claims of these areas as having gained ‘freedom’ and ‘independence’ from the British could be wrong. What they experienced was only the removal of their hereditary kings and the joining with India. Yet, the people in these areas celebrate the national independence day, in absolute un-understanding of what they are doing.

There is another thing also to be mentioned. There were many population groups living independently inside the area comprising modern India, which did not statutorily come under British administration. They were more or less left alone, or at least protected from outside intervention by the British. They are now commonly called ‘Tribals’.

After India was formed, the national government took it on itself to proclaim them as part of the Indian nation. The total effect was that all these people came to be placed under low social status, with even their chieftains and kings being addressed with lowly words and pejoratives by even the peons of the Indian government departments. In many areas of the forest, these people refuse access to the Indians inside their areas. The forest department officials make inroads into their areas by displaying power for intimidation.

The apt words for describing the creation of India would be Formation of India. --Ved from Victoria Institutions (talk) 07:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commas

Many people do not know how to properly use commas. Here are a few rules.

1. Only put a comma between the subject and the predicate if there is there is an adjectival clause attached to the subject that already required a comma at its beginning. Examples of errors:

a. The sentence

The 21st century saw India, improve relations, with many countries and foreign unions including the United States, the European Union, Israel and the People's Republic of China.

should have been

The 21st century saw India improve relations with many countries and foreign unions including the United States, the European Union, Israel and the People's Republic of China.

b. The sentence

The economy of India, has accelerated by growing at a very rapid pace.

should have been

The economy of India has accelerated by growing at a very rapid pace.

c. The sentence

India, is now being looked at as a potential superpower.

should have been

India is now being looked at as a potential superpower.

2. When using commas to introduce an adjectival clause that requires a preceding comma, place the adjectival clause (and comma) IMMEDIATELY after the noun that it describes. Example of error:

a. The sentence

The commonwealth games scandal rocked the country in 2010, which raised questions about the credibility of the government.

should have been

The commonwealth games scandal rocked the country in 2010, raising questions about the credibility of the government.

In its present form, it implies that 2010, not the scandal, raised questions about the credibility of the government.

3. Always put an "and" at the end of a list. Example of error:

a. The sentence

The Vajpayee administration continued with privatization, reduction of taxes, a sound fiscal policy aimed at reducing deficits and debts and increased initiatives for public works.

should have been

The Vajpayee administration continued with privatization, reduction of taxes, and a sound fiscal policy aimed at reducing deficits and debts and increased initiatives for public works.

or

The Vajpayee administration continued with privatization and reduction of taxes, a sound fiscal policy aimed at reducing deficits and debts and increased initiatives for public works.

Normally, I would just make the edits myself, but I can't. Would someone please fix these mistakes wherever they appear? I guarantee that all three are abundant in this article (and beyond). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.128.170 (talk) 04:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should the "History of the Republic of India" article be rewritten as the "History of independent India"?

Please add your thoughts here.—indopug (talk) 14:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV in the lead

From the 1950s to the 1980s, India followed socialist-inspired policies. The economy was shackled by extensive regulation, protectionism and public ownership, leading to pervasive corruption and slow economic growth. Beginning in 1991, significant economic reforms have transformed India into the third largest and one of the fastest-growing economies in the world.

What's with the right-wing bias in the intro? "Shackled by regulation"? "Socialism leading to corruption and slow growth"? Don't tell me that's neutral history, it sounds like the IMF wrote that. VolatileChemical (talk) 02:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of India being Republic

[Please elaborate this] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.186.183.43 (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Return of BJP - Arun Shourie

How is this academic or academic source? "Former Union Minister and BJP leader Arun Shourie described the Centre as a “one-man government,” a presidential form of government, without checks and balances [1] and called Modi a narcissist, machiavellian and a let-down.[2]"

I suggest this be removed. (174.201.11.128 (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]

It's a well-sourced opinion, which isn't unacceptable per se.—indopug (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How is it academic? (2600:1001:B10F:192D:6CE9:B0:51E8:C113 (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]
While academic sources are definitely preferred, they are not easily obtainable for recent events. In which case, newspapers are a reasonable substitute.—indopug (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it important to keep it? Example: what value does it provider to the reader of a history page? Since this is not academic. (2600:1001:B10F:192D:6CE9:B0:51E8:C113 (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Kautilya3, can you kindly help solve this dispute? It seems like it is going nowhere. (2600:1001:B11C:4B5B:CD76:6C3:6DD0:D6F3 (talk) 05:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]
I can't get into it right now. Busy with RL. However, the policy is clear. The opinions of notable people can be mentioned with WP:In-text attribution. However, we would need to summarise his views fairly, in particular the substance of the criticism. We can't take just the most extreme labels and leave out the rest. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, just noticed that this is the "history" article. The Modi government is not part of history yet. So the entire government can only be summarised in a very cursory way. This content should really go into Premiership of Narendra Modi, and perhaps some of it into Narendra Modi. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3 - so, can I remove it? As we both agree, this unacademic opinion and labeling does not belong in a "history" article. (2600:1001:B11C:4B5B:CD76:6C3:6DD0:D6F3 (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Kautilya3, let me know if you have any objections. If not, I will go ahead and remove it tomorrow. (2600:1017:B420:CF7D:64C2:5AC1:E1E9:536A (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, I have already agreed that the comment doesn't belong here. Instead of removing it, you can replace it with some more substantive comment, like the divisiveness mentioned in the reference 1 below. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Modi deliberately dividing India, says Shourie". The Hindu. 2016-05-07. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2016-05-07.
  2. ^ "Arun Shourie demolishes Modi's 2 year rule: 10 key points". CatchNews.com. Retrieved 2016-05-07.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of the Republic of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the Republic of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C. Rajagopalachari

Rajagopalachari’s party and alliance is noted by Ramachandra Guha, the premiere historian in Modern Indian history as key to building the current political alliance and opposition in India as seen here. A small section of Rajagopalachari is improving the article, as confirmed by Guha and other historians. (2600:1001:B004:7F10:61A2:C88F:5CB9:DCF9 (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 July 2020

History of the Republic of India → History of India (1947–present) – The title is less confusing and gives clarity on which period it refers to. Interstellarity (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_India_(1947–present)&oldid=970347826"