![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
The article should state that during British colonial rule, the provinces of Bangal and Panjab where partitioned. Later the countries of india and Pakistan gained independence from Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.44.152 ( talk) 06:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
The map has been clearly placed to satisfy communal agenda.The political entity in question was a north indian polity.although it advanced beyond the Krishna river it NEVER imposed effective rule and in the process got destroyed by its rival the Maratha power.What is funny though the administrator Spaceman Spiff is consistently blocking any attempt to remove it.It seems that wiki has become the personal property of a few individuals with specific disruptive agendas.The administrator in question is blatantly using threat and accusing this editor of vandalism.I appeal to fellow editors and Wiki foundation to nail this administrator and set the records straight.After all come here for npov and that must be upheld under all circumstances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylark2007 ( talk • contribs) 08:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Joppen's map like that of all other colonial era historians was based on hearsay,shoddy inquiries,a drive to establish the inferiority of the natives and above all incomplete knowledge of indian politics.Joppen and others like Shephard ,Mc Allister,Forbes,Munro etc. have given very incomplete and erroneous pictures of india.It took far better men both British and Indian to bring the facts to light -a process that continues to the day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.217.206 ( talk) 09:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
no mention is made of the indigeneous powers during the rule of the delhi sultanate in northern and eastern india. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylark2007 ( talk • contribs) 20:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone fix the spelling of Humayun in the Mughal section. Also Hem Chandra Vikramaditya is in red link it should be "Hindu Samrat (Emperor) Hem Chandra Vikramaditya.
The wording of the caption under the swastika image sounds incorrect. I believe "The swastika is a major Hindu iconography" should be changed to "The swastika is a major icon in Hindu iconography" OR "The swastika is a major Hindu icon."
the population is 1,181,854,000. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
109.78.40.192 (
talk)
18:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
This article does not mention the second world war . Considerable action did take place on the India-China theator , but it is not mentioned here. Is it not mentionable here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.165.16 ( talk) 08:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Akbar was related to Tamanna Bagchi at the time of his rule just because of court matters and not because of her being a representator to his kingdom.
Mdmday has been transforming the article into a "history of regions that are currently in Republic of India". I am not sure thats a good idea. We cannot pick and choose what happened in present day pakistan. For example we have the indus valley civilisation included. If we are excluding everything that happened in present day pakistani territory, how do we deal with that? Any thoughts?-- Sodabottle ( talk) 15:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Pakistan has a double history Page, as per u this page shoould include India, Pakistan and Bdesh pre 1947 but Pakistan already has a well written article including all its History(excluding India). This page should either include only India(or even Bangladesh) or that History of Pakistan page should be chopped to "History of Islamic Republic of Pakistan". Mdmday ( talk) 15:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Its not hard, it can be done, only the eastern part of modern day Pakistan has an overlapping history with India. My second option is that History of Pakistan should be chopped to "History of Islamic Republic of Pakistan", then we wont have a double page for a same topic. Mdmday ( talk) 15:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I have just written a brief section on the Kushan Empire, as this important period of Indian history seems to have been left out. I would like to refer to the section in the Chinese Hou Hanshu giving an outline of the Kushan territories of northern India in the 2nd century, referring to the translation and notes in my own book, Through the Jade Gate to Rome: A Study of the Silk Routes during the Later Han Dynasty, First to Second Centuries CE. BookSurge. ISBN 978-1-4392-2134-1, but thought I should ask here first if other editors think this is justified - or whether it might be seen as too much like self-promotion? If so, would someone please finish the job of referencing this section for me? Many thanks. Sincerely, John Hill ( talk) 07:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Most of indiologist ( Non Indian writers of Indian history/Europeans) have suggested Vedic period 1500 BC to 500 BC. Which is false statement. Main reason for their suggestion and assertion for same has been that it was decide by arch bishop of England in late middel 17th -18th century that mankind & Universe was created in 4004 BC as Per bible, so to bi-little Vedas period was percutaneously fixed by likes of Dr.Weber and Maxuller at 1500 BC to 500 BC and for same reason all the principal ancient sages of India like of Rishi Bhardwaj and Valmiki, etc were rendered as myth then real people as they existed close to 5000 BC to 3000 BC. From this key point arises is Vedas were written in close to 7000 BC to 5000 BC and that to before Bronze & Iron age. Please note :- If in Rig Vedas their is detailed description "Atom" and its energy and at same time detailing of Flying Crafts which have just come to exit in 100 years as per development of modern sciences. so saying/suggesting Vedic culture after Harappan culture is completely untrue. Vedic Period or should be call vedic thinking and has been their for last 7000 BC plus/Minus. Note :- Harappan culture language has be decoded and as per understanding "Santhal tribes" of india are from same civilization. They too use Arya is their addressing fellow men and women. SO arya never did invade India they were always part of this land. ( This part i will take up in my next communication with proof.)
Would request --> ( Reference --> Satyaarth prakash by Swami Dayanand Sarasvati and if more reference required, suggest way to attach and send documentary proof.) "The Vedic period is characterized by Indo-Aryan culture associated with the texts of Vedas, sacred to Hindus, which were orally composed in Vedic Sanskrit. The Vedas are some of the oldest extant texts, next to those of Egypt and Mesopotamia. The Vedic period lasted from about 7000 BC to 500 BCE, laying the foundations of Hinduism and other cultural aspects of early Indian society."
To replace --> "The Vedic period is characterized by Indo-Aryan culture associated with the texts of Vedas, sacred to Hindus, which were orally composed in Vedic Sanskrit. The Vedas are some of the oldest extant texts, next to those of Egypt and Mesopotamia. The Vedic period lasted from about 1500 to 500 BCE, laying the foundations of Hinduism and other cultural aspects of early Indian society." Shantanuoberoi (talk) 08:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC) Shantanuoberoi ( talk) 08:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/article1568651.ece
This is a recent article on the recent discovery of Acheulian stone tools discovered near Chennai. I thought it might be useful for this page, especially in reference to early human activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.139.102 ( talk) 10:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Pl remove this line
"This period succeeded the prehistoric Late Harappan, during which immigrations of Indo-Aryan-speaking tribes overlaid the existing civilizations of local people whom they called Dasyus".
Because there is no evidence that suggests Aryans succeeded Harappan and overlaid the existing civilizations and called them Dasyus. There is no evidence that suggests that Aryans were immigrants to India. On the other hand, new archeological evidence contradicts this theory. JimShaffer (1984) who sums up the archaeological evidence summarizes:Current archaeological data do not support the existence of an IndoAryan or European invasion into South Asia at any time in the pre- or proto-historic periods. Instead, it is possible to document archaeologically a series of cultural changes reflecting indigenous cultural development from pre-historic to historic periods. The early Vedic literature describes not a human invasion into the area, but a fundamental restructuring of indigenous society that saw the rise of hereditary social elites . . .
Reference: James Schaffer of Case Western University as part of his new article, 'Migration, Philology and South Asian Archaeology', soon to appear in Aryan and Non-Aryan in South Asia: Evidence, Interpretation and History, edited by Bronkhorst and Deshpande, University of Michigan Press.
Sunnyrays ( talk) 20:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
chanjinder singh sidhu th village of rorgarh Patiala the Chani isa jattA DA munda ,this is Best player of Hocky .Chani FAther is a writer of Punjabi song And potry. this very beautiful song "TERE AKH DA KARA" Singer-RAVIDER GREWAL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.164.46.254 ( talk) 06:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm new to contributing to Wikipedia, so I hope I'm doing this correctly. I noticed that the date for the end of the Second Carnatic War is incorrect.
The Second Carnatic War finally came to an end in 1854 with the Treaty of Pondicherry. The 1854 should be changed to 1754.
Thanks. -- Brentmayberry ( talk) 17:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Gandhi Jinnah 1944.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 18 November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 19:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC) |
You are not supposed to treat the land or native people's overall history as the history of the legal body of a country. Only the history of that government body is to be treated as that governing body's history. I read two paragraphs and got a slap in the face that this is clearly not being written by actual historians, or even actual amateurs... That sentence saying a time of the land being multiple countries with a collectively great economy... Gloating this is a great thing of Indian history. It doesn't count. Delete it! That was not India! That was not one nation! You are not allowed to slap India onto other, now extinct country's achievements! You are especially not allowed to combine multiple of such together to make it sound even more impressive. That is propaganda. Someone, please, correct this page, and make it apply by official rules in how to handle history. Other countries are not allowed to do that, why would India be exempt from such historian rules? For example, if you look at Polish history, they very clearly seperate between the nation of Poland, and history of the land now called Poland from before Poland was founded. That is how it is supposed to be done. And, Indian natives will already know the earlier stuff is also part of their heritage, so they can still pride in it without getting confused and thinking the way India is today is how it always was. That is a very incorrect way to teach history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.240.208 ( talk) 01:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi there is no much details about the Tamil Dynasties Chera, Chola, Pandya and Pallava. 13th rock (BC 250) Edict of Asoka says Chera, Chola and Pandya were there neighboring countries. The rules were till the end of CE 1300. But information is very low. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Servophbabu ( talk • contribs) 12:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Marathas 1758.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Marathas 1758.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 01:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC) |
I see this page has the silly BCE/CE dating, someone needs to clean it up and knock the E off the end of BCE and change the CE to AD. there is no Common Era or Before Common Era, since they still date it from the birth of Christ. Even the hindu and Muslim and Bhuddist and Athiest communist countries use BC and AD. Quit with the aopologist Liberal ivory tower academia silliness and use what everyone else uses. BC and AD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwi303 ( talk • contribs) 14:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
did not came from the caspian basin. they originated in vindija cave in pannonian basin. they formed the vincha culture and were later called wends, vindi, venethi or slavs nowadays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.227.141 ( talk) 21:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This request is for correction of a spelling or typographical error. This error is found in the Wikipedia article entitled "History of India" under the subtopic "Historiography". This error appears on line 4 under the subtopic "Historiography" and is the word "highlishted" . This word should be "highlighted". There is no such word in the English language as "highlishted"; "highlighted" is the word that belongs here,, and the word that makes sense in the sentence. To find the subtopic "Historiography" one must scroll to the very end of the "History of India" article, as this subtopic appears just before the "See also" subtopic, which is just before the "references" citings.
Sulkat77577 ( talk) 18:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Hindustan should be in the main box, anyone want to help edit that?
Twillisjr ( talk) 14:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"The events described in the Ramayana are from a later period of history than the events of the Mahabharata." This line is not true. It is actually the other way round. Mahabharata describes events from a much later period of history than the events of Ramayana. The Ramayana tells us about the Treta Yuga (Treta period) which is earlier than Dawapar Yuga, which is discussed in Mahabharata. 115.241.209.217 ( talk) 19:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
i am pleased to announce the publication of my fifth research paper in a peer-reviewed journal
this deals with the origin of Brahmi . this is a logical and self-explanatory paper and is written using a multi-disciplinary approach. it is written in such a way that anybody can cross-verify the conclusions.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/127306265/Sujay-Post-Harappan-Literacy-Final-Final-Final
sujay rao mandavilli
182.72.239.115 ( talk) 11:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I am publishing my sixth research paper directly online as it is an extension of my previous papers. Kindly read pages 4 to 18 as it contains a detailed discussion of the term ‘Aryan’. This paper explains why the Dravidian, Vedic and Paramunda Indus theories are not tenable.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/136268397/The-demise-of-the-Dravidian-Vedic-and-Paramunda-Indus-myths
Methods to reconstruct the languages of the Harappans were presented in the present and previous papers.
The older papers were written taking the 19th century school of Indology as a base and working backwards. These may appear to be outdated now (at the end of our very long journey). However, the fundamentals are still correct
Part one
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27103044/Sujay-NPAP-Part-One
Part Two very,very important!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27105677/Sujay-Npap-Part-Two
the first 5 papers were published in peer-reviewed journals
Sujay Rao Mandavilli sujayrao2012@gmail.com 182.72.239.115 ( talk) 17:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC) 182.72.239.115 ( talk) 17:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the head company rule in India
In the para starting with In 1749,... the word throne is misspelled as thone 183.82.147.28 ( talk) 08:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Please remove the first line which mentions about bangladsh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.30.8.129 ( talk) 18:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
SpacemanSpiff, let me know how to add the the text that i had added here [1] then, because if you look at the pages like History of China, france, and others, they usually sites about these findings as well. Bladesmulti ( talk) 06:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I have corrected a sentence which I feel is grotesquely inaccurate! There is ABSOLUTELY no proof that any of the supposed "princely states" accepted suzerainty of the British empire. It is a myth, that has somehow ended up on an "encyclopedia". Realfacts123 ( talk) 15:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
The problem starts with the account of the very beginning of India's history. The `Indus valley civilization', dating from the third millennium BCE, flourished well before the timing of the earliest Hindu literature, the Vedas, which are typically dated in the middle of the second millennium BCE. The Indus civilization, or the Harappa civilization as it is sometimes called (in honour of its most famous site), covered much of the north-west of the undivided subcontinent (including what are today Punjab, Haryana, Sindh, Baluchistan, western Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Gujarat) - a much larger area than Mesopotamia and Egypt, which flourished at about the same time. It had many special achievements, including remarkable town planning, organized storage (of grain in particular), and extraordinary drainage systems (unequalled, if I am any judge, in the subcontinent in the following four thousand years). (p65)
There is obvious material here for national or civilizational pride of Indians. But this poses an immediate problem for the Hindutva view of India's history, since an ancient civilization-that is clearly pre-Sanskritic and pre-Hindu deeply weakens the possibility of seeing Indian history in pre-eminently and constitutively Hindu terms. (p66)
Furthermore, there is a second challenge associated with India's ancient past, which relates to the arrival of the Indo-Europeans (sometimes called Aryans) from the West, most likely in the second millennium BCE, riding horses (unknown in the Indus valley civilization), and speaking a variant of early Sanskrit (the Vedic Sanskrit, as it is now called). The Hindutva view of history, which traces the origin of Indian civilization to the Vedas has, therefore, the double `difficulty' of (1) having to accept that the foundational basis of Hindu culture came originally from outside India, and (2) being unable to place Hinduism at the beginning of Indian cultural history and its urban heritage. (p66)
Thus, in the Hindutva theory, much hangs on the genesis of the Vedas. In particular: who composed them (it would be best for Hindutva theory if they were native Indians, settled in India for thousands of years, rather than Indo-Europeans coming from abroad)? Were they composed later than the Indus valley civilization (it would be best if they were not later, in sharp contrast with the accepted knowledge)?...There were, therefore, attempts by the Hindutva champions to rewrite Indian history in such a way that these disparate difficulties are simultaneously removed through the simple device of `making' the Sanskrit-speaking composers of the Vedas also the very same people who created the Indus valley civilization! (p67)
The Indus valley civilization was accordingly renamed `the Indus-Saraswati civilization', in honour of a non-observable river called the Sarasvati which is referred to in the Vedas. The intellectual origins of Hindu philosophy as well as of the concocted Vedic science and Vedic mathematics are thus put solidly into the third millennium BCE, if not earlier. Indian school children were then made to read about this highly theoretical `Indus-Saraswati civilization' in their new history textbooks, making Hindu culture - and Hindu science - more ancient, more urban, more indigenous, and comfortably omnipresent throughout India's civilizational history. (p67)
The problem with this account is, of course, its obvious falsity, going against all the available evidence based on archaeology and literature. To meet that difficulty, `new' archaeological evidence had to be marshalled. This was done - or claimed to be done - in a much publicized book by Natwar Jha and N. S. Rajaram called The Deciphered Indus Script, published in 2000. The authors claim that they have deciphered the as-yet-undeciphered script used in the Indus valley, which they attribute to the mid-fourth millennium BCE - stretching the `history' unilaterally back by a further thousand years or so. They also claim that the tablets found there refer to Rigveda's Sarasvati river (in the indirect form of `Ila surrounds the blessed land'). Further, they produced a picture of a terracotta seal with a horse on it, which was meant to be further proof of the Vedic - and Aryan - identity of the Indus civilization. The Vedas are full of references to horses, whereas the Indus remains have plenty of bulls but - so it was hitherto thought - no horses. (p67-68)
The alleged discovery and decipherment led to a vigorous debate about the claims, and the upshot was the demonstration that there was, in fact, no decipherment whatever, and that the horse seal is the result of a simple fraud based on a computerized distortion of a broken seal of a unicorn bull, which was known earlier. The alleged horse seal was a distinct product of the late twentieth century, the credit for the creation of which has to go to the Hindutva activists. The definitive demonstration of the fraud came from Michael Witzel, Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University, in a joint essay with Steve Farmer. The demonstration did not, however, end references in official school textbooks (produced by the NCERT during the BJP-led rule, ending only in May 2004) to `terracotta figurines' of horses in the `Indus-Saraswati civilization'. (p68)
It is difficult to understand fully why a movement that began with pride in Hindu values, in which the pursuit of truth plays such a big part, should produce activists who would try to have their way not only through falsity but through carefully crafted fraud. (p68)
In trying to invent Indian history to suit the prejudices of Hindutva, the movement took on a profoundly contrary task. The task is particularly hard to achieve given what is known about India's long history. The unadorned truth does not favour the Hindutva view, and the adorned falsity does not survive critical scrutiny. (p69) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.108.50 ( talk) 11:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa ( talk) 20:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Over 21000 years old evidence of Lord Shri Krishn's Dwarka/Dwarika Nagri have been found which proves that Sanatan Vedic Dharm is the oldest civilization in the world. It all started and developed in the holy land of Aryavrat/Bharat (misnomer: India) since eons together. The researchers and scientists busted the Myth of Aryan Invasion. Dwaraka's majesty and beauty have been described by many poets and writers, saints and sages of ancient India. It is referred to as Golden City in Srimad Bhagavad Gita, Skanda Purana, Vishnu Purana, Harivansha and Mahabharata. It was the capital of Lord Krishna's Kingdom. Dwaraka was a well-planned city with a modern and technologically advanced harbour suitably designed to deal with the marine traffic of large ships entering the port. One of the verses in the Bhagavada says: 'The yellow glitter of the golden fort of the Dwaraka City in the sea throwing yellow light all round looked as if the flames of Vadavagni came out tearing asunder the sea'. Then came the deluge and Dwaraka 'A City of Gold' vanished under water. Around 1500 BC, the whole Western course of India disappeared along with Lord Krishna's Capital City of Dwaraka. This is how it was described by Vedavyasa in the Mahabharata: 'The sea, which had been beating against the shore, suddenly broke the boundary that was imposed on it by nature. The sea rushed into the City of Dwaraka. It coursed through the streets of the beautiful city. The sea covered up everything in the city. I saw the beautiful buildings becoming submerged one by one. In a matter of a few moments it was all over. The sea had now become as placid as a lake. There was no trace of the city. Dwaraka became just a name; just a memory'. The ruins of ancient Dwaraka city have been found under the sea following recent oceanographic studies conducted near the modern temple-city of Dwaraka.
The first Archaeological excavations at Dwaraka were done by the Deccan College, Pune and the Department of Archaeology, Government of Gujarat in 1963 under the direction of an Archaeologist of Ancient India H.D. Sankalia. It revealed the existence of many artifacts, hundreds of centuries old. The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), conducted a second round of excavations under the direction of Dr S R Rao, a world renowned Underwater Archaeologist. Dr S R Rao is to the discovery of the ancient town of Dwaraka, what Isaac Newton is to the Law of Gravitation or Albert Einstein to the Theory of Relativity. Between 1983 and 1990, the well-fortified township of Dwaraka was discovered, extending more than half mile from the shore. The township was built in six sectors along the banks of a river. The foundation of boulders on which the City's walls were erected proves that the land was reclaimed from the sea. What is amazing is that the general layout of the City of Dwaraka described in the ancient texts agrees with that of the submerged city discovered by the Marine Archaeological Unit. (MAU) of The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), which carried out its work under the guidance and supervision of Dr S R Rao. The discovery of Dwaraka by Dr S R Rao confirms that the descriptions found in the text of the Mahabharata and other important Sanskrit texts regarding Dwaraka are true. It also means that the Mahabharata is not a myth but an important source of information for studying the ancient history of India. T R Gopalakrishnan has succinctly summarised the importance of the excavations and discovery of Dr S R Rao: 'The strongest Archaeological support comes from the structures discovered under the sea- bed off the coast of Dwaraka in Gujarat by the pioneering team led by Dr S R Rao, one of India's most respected Archaeologists. An Emeritus Scientist at the Marine Archaeology Unit of the National Institute of Oceanography, Dr Rao has excavated a large number of Harappa sites including the Port City of Lothal in Gujarat.The submergence into the sea of the city of Dwaraka, vividly picturised in the great epic of Mahabaratha, is indeed true! A chance discovery made by a team of scientists, in the Gulf of Cambay region, establishes that the Mahabaratha story is not a myth. The rich city with fertile landscape and great rivers had indeed submerged into the seas several thousand years ago. Prof.Gartia [1] after conducting extensive investigations concluded that Gujarat region had experienced at least three large killer earthquakes about 1500, 3000 and 5000 years BP respectively. Geomorphological evidences also show beyond doubt that the North-Western part of the Indian landmass was seismically active during the last 10,000 years. These killer quakes are likely to have caused the shifting of the rivers and sea level fluctuation including the sinking of the legendary city of Dwaraka, capital of the Lord-King Krishna. The discovery about the availability of fresh water from the now submerged major rivers along with other marine-archaeological evidences, corroborates the Mahabaratha reference that Dwaraka, the ancient city of Sri Krishna, lies under the great ocean! The city was built by Vishwakarma on the order of Lord Krishna. Land was reclaimed from the sea near the western shores of Saurashtra. A city was planned and built here. Dwarka was a planned city, on the banks of Gomati River. This city was also known as Dvaramati, Dvaravati and Kushsthali. It had six well-organized sectors, residential and commercial zones, wide roads, plazas, palaces and many public utilities.A hall called "Sudharma Sabha" was built to hold public meetings. The city also boasted having the possession of a good sea harbour. The city had 700,000 palaces made of gold, silver and other precious stones. Each one of Lord Krishna's wive had her own palace. Besides this, the city had beautiful gardens filled with flowers of all seasons and beautiful lakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.136.199.196 ( talk) 08:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
The fact is that all the princely states were brought under the new nation of India using military intimidation. The writer of this nonsense should know the meaning of English words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.221.250.52 ( talk) 06:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Here's the page link [2], Singh seems to be recognizing the archaeological results, on page 21, he's saying that the historicity of these events have been debated, and some scholars have described them with different layers. Shall we rephrase the current text? Bladesmulti ( talk) 10:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Gathus has got a problem with periodisations of Indian history. His personal objection sare not enough reason, I think, to remove info about such periodisations form the article; they are being used in most, if not all, books on Indian history. An overview shows the similarities and differences. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The other table is detailed. Hence it was entered. Name it what you want-Time table of south Asia or Indian Sub-Continent. It does not matter. But, do not replace it with a bogus one. Ghatus ( talk) 07:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I did not intend to hurt you. I said nothing personal against you. I just criticized the table, not you. I am a university student and History is my subject. I do not know your age. I just use the language I use with my fellow friends. My only target was the Table, which was really void of any sense of History.The other table is workable, though not perfect. Ghatus ( talk) 12:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Mahabharata can not be written before 1000 BCE. It was actually written between 500 BCE and 500 AD. All eminent historians more or less agreed on this. No need to give currency to Myths produced by enthusiasts or interested groups. It beats the common logic of Historiography. Let him come with a reliable source. Ghatus ( talk) 13:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
@ Kautilya3:
1. A GoI secretary, not any Historian wrote that Oxford University Press book. Eminent historians like Romila Thapar, RC Majumder , JN Sarkar etc never gave such a date of 1500 BCE when the war might take place (if true) around 900 BCE.
2.It is an individual's( who is neither a historian nor an expert on old texts) opinion trying to be placed as general opinion. Regards, Ghatus ( talk) 14:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As per this discussion I am starting this RFC to ask for the rename of this article to History of Indian Subcontinent or redefine the scope of this article as discussed ahead. The article itself states that it covers the history of the subcontinent and the lede even starts that way. Background for the unaware: Indian subcontinent has historically been known as just India but now the primary topic for the word "India" is the Republic of India which already has its history article at History of the Republic of India. See also that the word " India" redirects to Republic of India which means there's consensus for that being the primary topic and that standard should be followed so as not to create confusion (an editor got blocked due to this confusion by trying to make a split at another article discussed later although they were also using their IP and account together as sock to get their work to stick). Renaming this article will not only disambiguate and clarify things further for new editors and more importantly for readers, it will also be more neutral towards the current day Indian Subcontinent (a name by which it is still known as) and towards other countries in this region like Pakistan, Bangladesh etc. Once renamed, the current title can either redirect to this article or be split into a new article if needed to specifically talk about the historical region that encompasses the modern India as compared to the formation and independence of India which can be discussed at History of the Republic of India. A similar split is being made at History of Pakistan to focus on the region historically and for creating History of Islamic Republic of Pakistan to cover the history of country's formation and the 60 years till present.. and this is totally per WP:MOS as the article has grown twice the allowed size and still covering WP:DUE content just in summaries and is agreed upon by editors from all points of view here. This will also make navigation a lot easier (a template can be created if needed to further enhance navigation) and will also be following the same type of categorization and naming for clarity as covered in scholarly works and textbooks. If this article is mainly covering the history of modern India then moving the details related to the Indian subcontinent and its history to Indian subcontinent and redefining the scope of this article.
The history of a subcontinent and the history of a country are separate topic. History of South Asia, and history of India should not be lumped into one page. This creates confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weighty ( talk • contribs) 01:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
The article clearly states-"This article is about the history of the Indian subcontinent with India in focus prior to the partition of India in 1947. For the modern Republic of India (post 1947), see History of the Republic of India. For Pakistan and Bangladesh in focus, see History of Pakistan and History of Bangladesh.". There is no confusion. Ghatus ( talk) 09:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
@ Bongan:, this contribution [3] is well-written and interesting but it is too detailed for a History of India article. It needs to be condensed. Kautilya3 ( talk) 21:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I've changed the periodisation from Flood's to Michaels' periodisation. refined the periodisation which was already in the article. Neither is It may not be perfect, as Tapar makes clear (which I've added as an explanantion), but Michaels' periodisation is more detailed accurate, though. As a compromise to Tapar's nuances, I've allowed for some overlap, with the Islamic period starting c.1100, while the first Islamic conquests took place already in the 8th century; and the beginning of western colonialism in a seperate section, which overlaps in time with the Mughal empire.
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
05:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
@ Joshua Jonathan: , @ Kautilya3:
1) Sindh is not a part of North India. It is on the western side of Indian Sub-continent/ South Asia. By the way, why 8th century? Start from 7th. Some parts of modern Pakistan was conquered by Muslims in mid 7th century also before 711/712.Wining one or two small parts on the western border of south asia and you are calling it the starting of a religious rule in north India. Ludicrous. A rule starts when an old system is replaced by another. Hence, British rule started in Bengal in the mid 18th century, not in 1600s. One power can win a town or small area, but calling it a rule on "some" parts of "north India"? Again, see the map-where is west and where is north.
2) The "historians" who provide such pharses like “Ascetic reformism”, “Late-Classical Hinduism”, “Islamic rule and "Sects of Hinduism", “Modern Hinduism” as periods of Indian History are anything but Historians. LoL!!! You are again trying to pass some phrases of Hinduism as The History of India.
3)"The Islamic period (c. 1200-1850 CE)" Another funny thing. What were the Vijaynagar, Rajputs, Marathas and Sikhs doing in this period. BTW, the British took India from Marathas and Sikhs in the 19th Century, not from the "Muslim" Mughals. Where are you getting dates from? 1850??? Period??? Tell me when in early 16th century when Vijaynagar was larger in size than the Delhi sultanate and Rajputs were constantly victorious, how can it be called that India is under Muslim period? Does Maratha and Sikh rule also include under the Muslim Period? Stop communal propaganda.
4) Have you started calling British rule as Christian rule like Hindu rule , Muslim rule etc? Why not?
Regards, Ghatus ( talk) 04:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
@ Joshua Jonathan: , @ Kautilya3:, 1) First islamic conquest in south asia was the conquest of Makran in 640s. Read History books, not blogs. I am not only a student of History and Historiography but a history addict also.
2)Islamic Period of India stretched from 1200 to 1850 is both factually wrong and communally colored. You can not wash away the roles and contributions of Rajputs, Vijaynagar, Marathas, Sikhs etc to make History as you like.
3) India claims IVC because it was stretched upto UP and Maharashtra also.
4) The table is based more on Hinduism and less on Indian History, except Smart's.
Thank You. Ghatus ( talk) 12:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Ghatus, could you please provide a clear reason to remove this table, other than your personal preferences? The table shows that various periodisations are being used, and illustrates Thapar's point. Please provide the relevant sources (author, titles) which reject these periodisations. And even if you're correct, that most historians are not using such periodisations any more (which is doubtfull, given the sources I provided), then it's still sourced info, which is relevant to this topic. If the table is incomplete, it can be improved. But simply removing it is not how Wikipedia works. Also note the comments of VictoriaGrayson and Ms Sarah Welch, who don't reject these periodisations. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Getting to know the past better
by Romila Thapar
"...Indian historians in the late 19th and early 20th century, conforming much more closely to the nationalist view of history, challenged some of these theories. They did not, however, question the periodization. This was to come later. They accepted the periodization of Hindu, Muslim and British, a periodization that we have now rejected. They did question the notion of Oriental Despotism but did not replace it with an alternative theory of governance, administration and rulership. Social history merely repeated the claims made in the normative and prescriptive texts.
...They accepted the periodization of Hindu, Muslim and British, a periodization that we have now rejected. They did question the notion of Oriental Despotism but did not replace it with an alternative theory of governance, administration and rulership."
Source:Keynote address at the inauguration of the Karachi International Book Fair on December 7, 2005 [5]
See the Books of noted modern historians like R. Eaton, Irfan Habib, D.N.Jha, Bipan Chandra etc. They presented Indian History in chronology , not in periodization. But why? Now see.
Ghatus ( talk) 10:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Chronology is the narrative of history as it happened. No personal intervention is made from the author. But, periodization is the compartmentalization of history according to personal/ideological opinion(Oriental or occidental or rightist or Marxist etc.).
Ghatus ( talk) 10:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
1) It is nothing but an extension of Mill's periodization based on religion. Even, a little Google( for armatures only) search will establish the fact that Mill's periodization is rejected by almost all modern Historians.
2) Islamic Period of India stretched from 1200 to 1850 is both factually wrong and communally colored. You can not wash away the roles and contributions of Rajputs(13th to 17th-west india), Vijaynagar(14th to 16th-South India), Marathas(17th to 19th-large parts of India), Sikhs(18th and 19th-North west India) etc to make History as you like.In early 16th century when Vijaynagar was larger in size than the Delhi sultanate and Rajputs were constantly victorious, how can it be called that India is under Muslim period? Does Maratha and Sikh rule also include under the Muslim Period? BTW, the British took India from Marathas and Sikhs in the 19th Century, not from the "Muslim" Mughals.(Copy & Paste).
Ghatus ( talk) 10:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I think i have to agree here with Ghatus; the Vijayanagara Empire seems to have been more substantial than 'a regional power'. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
1)Vijayanagara can not be bracketed with "petty" regional powers like Hoysala and others. Hence, its moved upward. Otherwise, it will be distortion of History.
2)The capital of Vijayanagar was sacked in 1565, long after the Establishment of the Mughals and when Vijayanagara was week. But, it does not take away the domination of Vijaynagara in the South India at the height of their power for more than 150 years. Many powerful capitals have been totally vanquished in history when they were at the nadir. But, that does not take away their past glory.
3) Do you know that Old Delhi area is actually an amalgamation of 6/7 past capitals. What's your point? Where is the great Greco-Roman civilization now? Did they not exist.
4) I will have no problem if Hoysala and the other Kingdom there are edited out from that section because both of them were petty Kingdoms like the kingdoms of Malwa, Kashmir, Bengal, Assam and feudal lords of Modern day Kerala etc. No need to mention every small power. Ghatus ( talk) 12:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Add Indian National Army Section Thank you. Bongan ( talk) 07:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
@ Amitrochates: You removed a paragraph + header diff:
References
This is what the source says:
The author is Arthur Llewellyn Basham. He died in 1986, so the text can't be very recent, but its latest update was at 10-28-2014. Michael Witzel, in Early Sanskritization. Origins and Development of the Kuru State, also mentions 'early Sanskritiztion' in the Kuru-state:
As you know, the Kuru kingdom arose quite early, in Vedic times. So, Sanskritization seems to have set in quite early indeed. By the way, Geofrrey Samuel, in The origins of Yoga and Tantra, gives a nice overview of the influence of the Kuru-kingdom on Indian/Hindu culture. Nevertheless, if you think the dating is to early, it might be good tho find another source which improves the info. Removing the whole paragraph, plus the header and the link, seems unnecessary to me. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Burton Stein (2010), A History of India (John Wiley and Sons), and Peter Robb (2011), A History of India (second edition)(Palgrave Macmillan), both use Early/Ancient, Medieaval, Modern. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
@ Joshua Jonathan: You have it right. VictoriaGrayson Talk 16:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
1) Please provide me the link of the two books where such periodizations are made. I have not seen them before.
2) Raids>Invasions>Conquests. Three different stages. But, you have confused them again. Between, 8th and 12th century, there took place some raids and invasions but no conquests. The first real conquest was in 1206.
3)Finally, is there any need for periodization of Indian History? Modern historians have rejected it long ago as in India different centuries, different ages and different civilizations co exist together at the same time. You just can not "fix Indian History".
4) BTW, It was I who inserted Thapar's book in the article months ago, not the other way round. Ghatus ( talk) 17:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
In light of discovery of underwater Dwarka and underwater temples in Southern India, how relevant is this periodization? 196.46.106.89 ( talk) 13:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Ghatus objects to the term "Islamic period", instead opting for "Islamic powers." He's got a point there, since, the south of India was never completely conquered by the Islamic rulers. Maybe we should use Smart's term: "Hindu-Islamic civilisation". It does more justice to the Hindu-part, and "civilisation" sounds much more friendly than "rule" or "powers."
Another alternative is "Islamic rulers". Which terms do other writers use?
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
07:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Looking for some links to the modern flag. I hear it has a spinning wheel on it. Without searching on "Flag" I have not found it in several Articles on India or their main holidays. Need some links. Kristinwt ( talk) 06:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
you need this Flag of india? -- Haccom ✉ Talk to me 06:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
In whole article, the history of North-East part of India is not mentioned. Shouldn't we include it? -- Haccom ✉ Talk to me 06:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
This article is a must-read: Moorjani, P.et al. (2013), Genetic evidence for recent population mixture in India. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 93(3), 422-438 pdf. It mentions 100 CE as the time when endogamy set in. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
References
The AfD: WP:Articles for deletion/Battle of Rajasthan should be of interest to the editors of this article. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Do we really need this table and the accompanying text? The article appears to exclusively use ACMM, Mills is outdated, and I don't see any benefit, other than confusing the reader, from the accompanying text. Differences in chronology etc are better suited for appendices or footnotes and we should just get rid of it. -- regentspark ( comment) 22:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@ BudChrSch:, thanks for your interest in this article. Unfortunately, your expansion of the Maurya section [6] is problematic. Note that it has a "main article" tag. That it means that it is a WP:SUMMARY of a more detailed article. No new content should be added here unless it is covered in more detail in the main article. You should also preserve the "summary" nature of the treatment here without going into details and explanations. Cheers, Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
This is called counter narrative. Without counter narrative, any piece on History is considered propaganda. I wanted to add many other things, but did not add because it is on History of India , not on Maurya Empire. This counter narrative challenges the conventional/saintly view on Ashoka on some historical basis: If Ashoka was a changed person after Kalinga war,
Ashoka was not a saint, but an astute Emperor. And, this message must go through this counter narrative quote. Ghatus ( talk) 04:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the quote serves no purpose. If historians believe that there was an important 'counter narrative' that Ashoka was not the good guy we all think he was, then that can be stated clearly without resorting to quotes. If this counter narrative depends only on a few sources then it is best confined to the Ashoka article. If it depends on a single quote from Thapar, then it shouldn't be anywhere on Wikipedia. I'm removing it for now. -- regentspark ( comment) 22:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
References
This seems to be copied from History of the Republic of India. When doing so, it should be clearly mentioned - and be usefull. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Copied from User talk:SpacemanSpiff#why events like "Emergency ", India -pakistan war, not part of "history of India"
Dear sir, I am not good at editing wikipedia and need your help in this. I have very simple questions for you since you reverted few of the changes i did.
1. Why history of India ends at "independence"? there are whole lot of history after that. 2. why don't we create a head for "History of republic India" on the page "History of India" so that we have a brief for people to surf.
thanks in advance — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Buddyonline77 (
talk •
contribs)
04:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
thanks for your comment
Spiff, however there is a discrepancy in the way we are putting it.
History of Pakistan and
History of Bangladesh covers the all events including before, during and after independence; where as Indian history is split into two with two different names. We need to combine the two.
I believe there is already a page for British India that covers the "History of Indian region" as you mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddyonline77 ( talk • contribs) 05:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
End of copied text
I've copied the text from Spiff's talkpage. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
History of India. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Although I like this intro in general, it lacks references and has a few questionable claims: "Like other societies in history, South Asia has been attacked by nomadic tribes throughout its long history. In evaluating the impact of Islam on the sub-continent, one must also note that the northwestern sub-continent was a frequent target of tribes from Central Asia who arrived from the North West. In that sense, the Muslim intrusions and later Muslim invasions were not dissimilar to those of the earlier invasions during the 1st millennium. What does however, make the Muslim intrusions and later Muslim invasions different is that unlike the preceding invaders who assimilated into the prevalent social system, the successful Muslim conquerors retained their Islamic identity and created new legal and administrative systems that challenged and usually in many cases superseded the existing systems of social conduct and ethics, even influencing the non-Muslim rivals and common masses to a large extent. They also introduced new cultural that in some ways were very different from the existing cultural codes. This led to the rise of a new Indian culture which was mixed in nature, though different from both the ancient Indian culture and later westernized modern Indian culture. At the same time it must be noted that overwhelming majority of Muslims in India are Indian natives converted to Islam. This factor also played an important role in the synthesis of cultures."
Major points:
Minor points:
"Unlike previous nomadic conquerors, the new Central Asian warriors created new legal and administrative systems that differed markedly from extant system [cite]. However, they left the vast non-Muslim populations to their own laws and customs [cite]."
I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations ( talk) 13:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I propose a new intro to this section, please provide comments: "Like other settled, agrarian societies in history, those in the Indian subcontinent have been attacked by nomadic tribes throughout its long history. In evaluating the impact of Islam on the sub-continent, one must note that the northwestern sub-continent was a frequent target of tribes raiding from Central Asia. In that sense, the Muslim intrusions and later Muslim invasions were not dissimilar to those of the earlier invasions during the 1st millennium. However, unlike previous nomadic conquerors, the new Central Asian warriors created new legal and administrative systems that differed markedly from extant system [cite?]. However, they left the vast non-Muslim populations to their own laws and customs [1,2]. The establishment of Muslim-led kingdoms in India and political upheavals in Central Asia created the conditions for a large scale migration of fleeing soldiers, learned men, mystics, traders, artists, and artisans from that region into the subcontinent, thereby creating a syncretic Indo-Islamic culture in the north[3][4], which influences the culture of India even today." 1 - Asher, C. B.; Talbot, C (1 January 2008), India Before Europe (1st ed.), Pg 47 2 - Metcalf, B.; Metcalf, T. R. (9 October 2006), A Concise History of Modern India (2nd ed.), Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-68225-1, Pg 6 3 - Ludden, D. (13 June 2002), India and South Asia: A Short History, One World, ISBN 978-1-85168-237-9, Pg 67 4 - Asher & Talbot 2008, p. 53.
I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations ( talk) 12:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The lead begins with- "The history of India includes prehistoric archaeological evidence from Anatomically modern humans on Indian subcontinent, advances of civilisation to the Vedic period of the Indo-Aryan cultures, the founding of Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, a number of ruling dynasties throughout various geographic areas of the subcontinent known as the middle kingdoms, Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent which were followed by European colonization of India and the East India Company and an independence movement that resulted in the Partition of India and the independent Republic of India in 1947."
Before I go into details, we need to know two theories regarding Historiography - 1) New Historicist Approach 2) Cultural Materialist Approach. We can have the basic knowledge on from this - [1]. Both the theories started as part of literary criticism, but now is widely accepted as also part of social science subjects. They are the most modernist ways to inter-prate history as they deal not with "de-mystification" (modernist approach till 1980s) only, but with "de familiarization" (post-modernist approach from 1980s).
To put it briefly, "New Historicist Approach" explains how every social or political or religious or literary movement is a product of the then or contemporary society and social evolution. "Cultural Materialist Approach" proves how various processes being employed by contemporary power structures, such as the church, the state or the academy, to disseminate their ideology by interpreting History from their PoV.
Now, coming to the points,
I am afraid that I have gone too deep into theories, but I hope that I have made them easy for all. The first part of the lead not only looks awkward (creating a summary of the summary of the article), but provides wrong and misleading informations.
If anyone wants to present the correct history, write then - Paleolithic > Mesolithic > Neolithic > IVC > ... etc. Why should we put opinionated and coloured History in the first place? We should maintain chronology and there is no need to create a summary of the summary (lead).
SORRY FOR THE DELAYED RESPONSE. I HAD SOME OTHERS THINGS TO DO. @ Kautilya3: , @ Joshua Jonathan: and others. Ghatus ( talk) 07:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
RISE OF NEW RELIGIOUS IDEAS
|
---|
The new religious ideas during this period emerged out of the prevailing social, economic and religious conditions. Let us examine some of the basic reasons which contributed to their emergence: i) The Vedic religious practices had become cumbersome, and in the context of the new society of the period had become in many cases meaningless ceremonies. Sacrifices and rituals increased and became more elaborate and expensive. With the breakup of communities, the participation in these practices also became restricted and as such irrelevant to many sections in the society. ii) Contemporary economic and political developments, on the other hand, helped the emergence of new social groups which acquired considerable economic power. You have seen that merchants living in cities or even rich agricultural householders possessed considerable wealth. Similarly, the Kshatriyas, whether in the monarchies or in the gana-samghas, came to wield much more political power than before. These social groups were opposed to the social positions defined for them by the Brahrnanas on the basis of their heredity. As Buddhism and Jainism did not give much importance to the notion of birth for social status, they attracted the Vaisyas to their folds. Similarly, the Kshatriyas i.e. the ruling class were also unhappy with Brahmanical domination. Briefly put, it was basically the discontent generated the dominant position of the Brahmanas in the society, which contributed to the social support behind the new religious ideas. It is worth remembering that both Buddha and Mahavira came from Kshatriya class but in their search for answers to the pressing problems of society they went beyond boundaries set by their birth. Further, when we try to find out how their ideas were received by their contemporaries, we notice that they had a range of people responding to them: Kings, big merchants, rich householders, Brahmans and even courtesans. They all represented the new society which was emerging in the sixth century B.C. and Buddha and Mahavira, and other thinkers of those times, in their own ways, responded to the problems of a new social order. The Vedic ritualistic practices had ceased to be of much relevance to this new social order. Buddha and Mahavira, were by no means, the first to criticise the existing religious beliefs. Many religious preachers before them, like Kapila, Makkali Gosala, Ajita Kesakambalin and Pakuda Kachchayana had already highlighted the evils of the Vedic religions. They also developed new ideas on life and God. New philosophies were also being preached. However, it was Buddha and Mahavira, who provided an alternative religious order. This was the background which helped the emergence and establishment of new religious orders in the sixth century B.C. Among these Buddhism and Jainism were most popular and well organized. We will now discuss the origin and development of Buddhism and Jainism separately… |
This article has hardly any mention of the Ahom Kingdom, which ruled significant portions of today's North East India. Most importantly Ahoms are considered significant in India's history because they were able to rule themselves and maintain their independence for almost 600 years. Despite repeated attempts by the Mughals, Ahoms did not become a Mughal vassal and successfully resisted the Mughal might. Ahom Kingdom's insufficient mention on this page somehow indicates double standards and a one-sided approach. Hence I am adding it. Credible evidences about Ahom Kingdom mentioned hereby:
Amit20081980 ( talk) 12:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
References
[Copied from User talk:Ghatus
Suppose Delhi had developed an Islamic community, which eventually grew powerful enough to take over the surrounding kingdoms. Then you would call it the "rise of Muslim powers." But that is not what happened. The Muslim rulers from the surrounding regions of India came to conquer. Should it be called a "Muslim conquest," i.e., was religion a factor? The answer is again yes, because the Turko-Persian literature of the time is full of Islamist ideology. - Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it was indeed a "conquest" in 1206. But, it was not the only conquest to single out. More than a dozen of such conquests took place in the preceding 2000 years having profound impacts. Either mention them all or mention them not at all. Again, only 2 out of 7 Muslim dynasties that dominated North India came into being through conquest. Other five, which include dynasties like Khiljis, Tughlaqs, Suris etc, grabbed power by dint of Coups, not conquest. So, "Muslim rule or Muslim Powers" and "conquests" are not synonymous. Ghatus ( talk) 05:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The archives are a mess. Pinging @
SpacemanSpiff: @
Joshua Jonathan: - one of you must might have broken the archiving when you changed MiszaBot parameters.--
regentspark (
comment)
17:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus that the proposed title is more commonly used in reliable sources. Jenks24 ( talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
History of India →
History of the Indian subcontinent – The present title is is not exactly NPOV. The article covers a broader historical region encompassing India, Pakistan and Bangladesh; a region more appropriately defined as the
Indian subcontinent. The current title is easily confused with the
History of the Republic of India. I'm afraid "History of India" may exclude readership interest on Bangladesh and Pakistan, which are integral regions to this article's subject.
Akbar the Great (
talk)
01:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
The article should state that during British colonial rule, the provinces of Bangal and Panjab where partitioned. Later the countries of india and Pakistan gained independence from Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.44.152 ( talk) 06:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
The map has been clearly placed to satisfy communal agenda.The political entity in question was a north indian polity.although it advanced beyond the Krishna river it NEVER imposed effective rule and in the process got destroyed by its rival the Maratha power.What is funny though the administrator Spaceman Spiff is consistently blocking any attempt to remove it.It seems that wiki has become the personal property of a few individuals with specific disruptive agendas.The administrator in question is blatantly using threat and accusing this editor of vandalism.I appeal to fellow editors and Wiki foundation to nail this administrator and set the records straight.After all come here for npov and that must be upheld under all circumstances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylark2007 ( talk • contribs) 08:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Joppen's map like that of all other colonial era historians was based on hearsay,shoddy inquiries,a drive to establish the inferiority of the natives and above all incomplete knowledge of indian politics.Joppen and others like Shephard ,Mc Allister,Forbes,Munro etc. have given very incomplete and erroneous pictures of india.It took far better men both British and Indian to bring the facts to light -a process that continues to the day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.217.206 ( talk) 09:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
no mention is made of the indigeneous powers during the rule of the delhi sultanate in northern and eastern india. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylark2007 ( talk • contribs) 20:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone fix the spelling of Humayun in the Mughal section. Also Hem Chandra Vikramaditya is in red link it should be "Hindu Samrat (Emperor) Hem Chandra Vikramaditya.
The wording of the caption under the swastika image sounds incorrect. I believe "The swastika is a major Hindu iconography" should be changed to "The swastika is a major icon in Hindu iconography" OR "The swastika is a major Hindu icon."
the population is 1,181,854,000. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
109.78.40.192 (
talk)
18:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
This article does not mention the second world war . Considerable action did take place on the India-China theator , but it is not mentioned here. Is it not mentionable here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.165.16 ( talk) 08:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Akbar was related to Tamanna Bagchi at the time of his rule just because of court matters and not because of her being a representator to his kingdom.
Mdmday has been transforming the article into a "history of regions that are currently in Republic of India". I am not sure thats a good idea. We cannot pick and choose what happened in present day pakistan. For example we have the indus valley civilisation included. If we are excluding everything that happened in present day pakistani territory, how do we deal with that? Any thoughts?-- Sodabottle ( talk) 15:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Pakistan has a double history Page, as per u this page shoould include India, Pakistan and Bdesh pre 1947 but Pakistan already has a well written article including all its History(excluding India). This page should either include only India(or even Bangladesh) or that History of Pakistan page should be chopped to "History of Islamic Republic of Pakistan". Mdmday ( talk) 15:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Its not hard, it can be done, only the eastern part of modern day Pakistan has an overlapping history with India. My second option is that History of Pakistan should be chopped to "History of Islamic Republic of Pakistan", then we wont have a double page for a same topic. Mdmday ( talk) 15:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I have just written a brief section on the Kushan Empire, as this important period of Indian history seems to have been left out. I would like to refer to the section in the Chinese Hou Hanshu giving an outline of the Kushan territories of northern India in the 2nd century, referring to the translation and notes in my own book, Through the Jade Gate to Rome: A Study of the Silk Routes during the Later Han Dynasty, First to Second Centuries CE. BookSurge. ISBN 978-1-4392-2134-1, but thought I should ask here first if other editors think this is justified - or whether it might be seen as too much like self-promotion? If so, would someone please finish the job of referencing this section for me? Many thanks. Sincerely, John Hill ( talk) 07:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Most of indiologist ( Non Indian writers of Indian history/Europeans) have suggested Vedic period 1500 BC to 500 BC. Which is false statement. Main reason for their suggestion and assertion for same has been that it was decide by arch bishop of England in late middel 17th -18th century that mankind & Universe was created in 4004 BC as Per bible, so to bi-little Vedas period was percutaneously fixed by likes of Dr.Weber and Maxuller at 1500 BC to 500 BC and for same reason all the principal ancient sages of India like of Rishi Bhardwaj and Valmiki, etc were rendered as myth then real people as they existed close to 5000 BC to 3000 BC. From this key point arises is Vedas were written in close to 7000 BC to 5000 BC and that to before Bronze & Iron age. Please note :- If in Rig Vedas their is detailed description "Atom" and its energy and at same time detailing of Flying Crafts which have just come to exit in 100 years as per development of modern sciences. so saying/suggesting Vedic culture after Harappan culture is completely untrue. Vedic Period or should be call vedic thinking and has been their for last 7000 BC plus/Minus. Note :- Harappan culture language has be decoded and as per understanding "Santhal tribes" of india are from same civilization. They too use Arya is their addressing fellow men and women. SO arya never did invade India they were always part of this land. ( This part i will take up in my next communication with proof.)
Would request --> ( Reference --> Satyaarth prakash by Swami Dayanand Sarasvati and if more reference required, suggest way to attach and send documentary proof.) "The Vedic period is characterized by Indo-Aryan culture associated with the texts of Vedas, sacred to Hindus, which were orally composed in Vedic Sanskrit. The Vedas are some of the oldest extant texts, next to those of Egypt and Mesopotamia. The Vedic period lasted from about 7000 BC to 500 BCE, laying the foundations of Hinduism and other cultural aspects of early Indian society."
To replace --> "The Vedic period is characterized by Indo-Aryan culture associated with the texts of Vedas, sacred to Hindus, which were orally composed in Vedic Sanskrit. The Vedas are some of the oldest extant texts, next to those of Egypt and Mesopotamia. The Vedic period lasted from about 1500 to 500 BCE, laying the foundations of Hinduism and other cultural aspects of early Indian society." Shantanuoberoi (talk) 08:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC) Shantanuoberoi ( talk) 08:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/article1568651.ece
This is a recent article on the recent discovery of Acheulian stone tools discovered near Chennai. I thought it might be useful for this page, especially in reference to early human activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.139.102 ( talk) 10:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Pl remove this line
"This period succeeded the prehistoric Late Harappan, during which immigrations of Indo-Aryan-speaking tribes overlaid the existing civilizations of local people whom they called Dasyus".
Because there is no evidence that suggests Aryans succeeded Harappan and overlaid the existing civilizations and called them Dasyus. There is no evidence that suggests that Aryans were immigrants to India. On the other hand, new archeological evidence contradicts this theory. JimShaffer (1984) who sums up the archaeological evidence summarizes:Current archaeological data do not support the existence of an IndoAryan or European invasion into South Asia at any time in the pre- or proto-historic periods. Instead, it is possible to document archaeologically a series of cultural changes reflecting indigenous cultural development from pre-historic to historic periods. The early Vedic literature describes not a human invasion into the area, but a fundamental restructuring of indigenous society that saw the rise of hereditary social elites . . .
Reference: James Schaffer of Case Western University as part of his new article, 'Migration, Philology and South Asian Archaeology', soon to appear in Aryan and Non-Aryan in South Asia: Evidence, Interpretation and History, edited by Bronkhorst and Deshpande, University of Michigan Press.
Sunnyrays ( talk) 20:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
chanjinder singh sidhu th village of rorgarh Patiala the Chani isa jattA DA munda ,this is Best player of Hocky .Chani FAther is a writer of Punjabi song And potry. this very beautiful song "TERE AKH DA KARA" Singer-RAVIDER GREWAL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.164.46.254 ( talk) 06:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm new to contributing to Wikipedia, so I hope I'm doing this correctly. I noticed that the date for the end of the Second Carnatic War is incorrect.
The Second Carnatic War finally came to an end in 1854 with the Treaty of Pondicherry. The 1854 should be changed to 1754.
Thanks. -- Brentmayberry ( talk) 17:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Gandhi Jinnah 1944.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 18 November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 19:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC) |
You are not supposed to treat the land or native people's overall history as the history of the legal body of a country. Only the history of that government body is to be treated as that governing body's history. I read two paragraphs and got a slap in the face that this is clearly not being written by actual historians, or even actual amateurs... That sentence saying a time of the land being multiple countries with a collectively great economy... Gloating this is a great thing of Indian history. It doesn't count. Delete it! That was not India! That was not one nation! You are not allowed to slap India onto other, now extinct country's achievements! You are especially not allowed to combine multiple of such together to make it sound even more impressive. That is propaganda. Someone, please, correct this page, and make it apply by official rules in how to handle history. Other countries are not allowed to do that, why would India be exempt from such historian rules? For example, if you look at Polish history, they very clearly seperate between the nation of Poland, and history of the land now called Poland from before Poland was founded. That is how it is supposed to be done. And, Indian natives will already know the earlier stuff is also part of their heritage, so they can still pride in it without getting confused and thinking the way India is today is how it always was. That is a very incorrect way to teach history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.240.208 ( talk) 01:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi there is no much details about the Tamil Dynasties Chera, Chola, Pandya and Pallava. 13th rock (BC 250) Edict of Asoka says Chera, Chola and Pandya were there neighboring countries. The rules were till the end of CE 1300. But information is very low. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Servophbabu ( talk • contribs) 12:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Marathas 1758.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Marathas 1758.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 01:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC) |
I see this page has the silly BCE/CE dating, someone needs to clean it up and knock the E off the end of BCE and change the CE to AD. there is no Common Era or Before Common Era, since they still date it from the birth of Christ. Even the hindu and Muslim and Bhuddist and Athiest communist countries use BC and AD. Quit with the aopologist Liberal ivory tower academia silliness and use what everyone else uses. BC and AD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwi303 ( talk • contribs) 14:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
did not came from the caspian basin. they originated in vindija cave in pannonian basin. they formed the vincha culture and were later called wends, vindi, venethi or slavs nowadays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.227.141 ( talk) 21:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This request is for correction of a spelling or typographical error. This error is found in the Wikipedia article entitled "History of India" under the subtopic "Historiography". This error appears on line 4 under the subtopic "Historiography" and is the word "highlishted" . This word should be "highlighted". There is no such word in the English language as "highlishted"; "highlighted" is the word that belongs here,, and the word that makes sense in the sentence. To find the subtopic "Historiography" one must scroll to the very end of the "History of India" article, as this subtopic appears just before the "See also" subtopic, which is just before the "references" citings.
Sulkat77577 ( talk) 18:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Hindustan should be in the main box, anyone want to help edit that?
Twillisjr ( talk) 14:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"The events described in the Ramayana are from a later period of history than the events of the Mahabharata." This line is not true. It is actually the other way round. Mahabharata describes events from a much later period of history than the events of Ramayana. The Ramayana tells us about the Treta Yuga (Treta period) which is earlier than Dawapar Yuga, which is discussed in Mahabharata. 115.241.209.217 ( talk) 19:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
i am pleased to announce the publication of my fifth research paper in a peer-reviewed journal
this deals with the origin of Brahmi . this is a logical and self-explanatory paper and is written using a multi-disciplinary approach. it is written in such a way that anybody can cross-verify the conclusions.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/127306265/Sujay-Post-Harappan-Literacy-Final-Final-Final
sujay rao mandavilli
182.72.239.115 ( talk) 11:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I am publishing my sixth research paper directly online as it is an extension of my previous papers. Kindly read pages 4 to 18 as it contains a detailed discussion of the term ‘Aryan’. This paper explains why the Dravidian, Vedic and Paramunda Indus theories are not tenable.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/136268397/The-demise-of-the-Dravidian-Vedic-and-Paramunda-Indus-myths
Methods to reconstruct the languages of the Harappans were presented in the present and previous papers.
The older papers were written taking the 19th century school of Indology as a base and working backwards. These may appear to be outdated now (at the end of our very long journey). However, the fundamentals are still correct
Part one
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27103044/Sujay-NPAP-Part-One
Part Two very,very important!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27105677/Sujay-Npap-Part-Two
the first 5 papers were published in peer-reviewed journals
Sujay Rao Mandavilli sujayrao2012@gmail.com 182.72.239.115 ( talk) 17:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC) 182.72.239.115 ( talk) 17:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the head company rule in India
In the para starting with In 1749,... the word throne is misspelled as thone 183.82.147.28 ( talk) 08:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Please remove the first line which mentions about bangladsh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.30.8.129 ( talk) 18:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
SpacemanSpiff, let me know how to add the the text that i had added here [1] then, because if you look at the pages like History of China, france, and others, they usually sites about these findings as well. Bladesmulti ( talk) 06:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I have corrected a sentence which I feel is grotesquely inaccurate! There is ABSOLUTELY no proof that any of the supposed "princely states" accepted suzerainty of the British empire. It is a myth, that has somehow ended up on an "encyclopedia". Realfacts123 ( talk) 15:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
The problem starts with the account of the very beginning of India's history. The `Indus valley civilization', dating from the third millennium BCE, flourished well before the timing of the earliest Hindu literature, the Vedas, which are typically dated in the middle of the second millennium BCE. The Indus civilization, or the Harappa civilization as it is sometimes called (in honour of its most famous site), covered much of the north-west of the undivided subcontinent (including what are today Punjab, Haryana, Sindh, Baluchistan, western Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Gujarat) - a much larger area than Mesopotamia and Egypt, which flourished at about the same time. It had many special achievements, including remarkable town planning, organized storage (of grain in particular), and extraordinary drainage systems (unequalled, if I am any judge, in the subcontinent in the following four thousand years). (p65)
There is obvious material here for national or civilizational pride of Indians. But this poses an immediate problem for the Hindutva view of India's history, since an ancient civilization-that is clearly pre-Sanskritic and pre-Hindu deeply weakens the possibility of seeing Indian history in pre-eminently and constitutively Hindu terms. (p66)
Furthermore, there is a second challenge associated with India's ancient past, which relates to the arrival of the Indo-Europeans (sometimes called Aryans) from the West, most likely in the second millennium BCE, riding horses (unknown in the Indus valley civilization), and speaking a variant of early Sanskrit (the Vedic Sanskrit, as it is now called). The Hindutva view of history, which traces the origin of Indian civilization to the Vedas has, therefore, the double `difficulty' of (1) having to accept that the foundational basis of Hindu culture came originally from outside India, and (2) being unable to place Hinduism at the beginning of Indian cultural history and its urban heritage. (p66)
Thus, in the Hindutva theory, much hangs on the genesis of the Vedas. In particular: who composed them (it would be best for Hindutva theory if they were native Indians, settled in India for thousands of years, rather than Indo-Europeans coming from abroad)? Were they composed later than the Indus valley civilization (it would be best if they were not later, in sharp contrast with the accepted knowledge)?...There were, therefore, attempts by the Hindutva champions to rewrite Indian history in such a way that these disparate difficulties are simultaneously removed through the simple device of `making' the Sanskrit-speaking composers of the Vedas also the very same people who created the Indus valley civilization! (p67)
The Indus valley civilization was accordingly renamed `the Indus-Saraswati civilization', in honour of a non-observable river called the Sarasvati which is referred to in the Vedas. The intellectual origins of Hindu philosophy as well as of the concocted Vedic science and Vedic mathematics are thus put solidly into the third millennium BCE, if not earlier. Indian school children were then made to read about this highly theoretical `Indus-Saraswati civilization' in their new history textbooks, making Hindu culture - and Hindu science - more ancient, more urban, more indigenous, and comfortably omnipresent throughout India's civilizational history. (p67)
The problem with this account is, of course, its obvious falsity, going against all the available evidence based on archaeology and literature. To meet that difficulty, `new' archaeological evidence had to be marshalled. This was done - or claimed to be done - in a much publicized book by Natwar Jha and N. S. Rajaram called The Deciphered Indus Script, published in 2000. The authors claim that they have deciphered the as-yet-undeciphered script used in the Indus valley, which they attribute to the mid-fourth millennium BCE - stretching the `history' unilaterally back by a further thousand years or so. They also claim that the tablets found there refer to Rigveda's Sarasvati river (in the indirect form of `Ila surrounds the blessed land'). Further, they produced a picture of a terracotta seal with a horse on it, which was meant to be further proof of the Vedic - and Aryan - identity of the Indus civilization. The Vedas are full of references to horses, whereas the Indus remains have plenty of bulls but - so it was hitherto thought - no horses. (p67-68)
The alleged discovery and decipherment led to a vigorous debate about the claims, and the upshot was the demonstration that there was, in fact, no decipherment whatever, and that the horse seal is the result of a simple fraud based on a computerized distortion of a broken seal of a unicorn bull, which was known earlier. The alleged horse seal was a distinct product of the late twentieth century, the credit for the creation of which has to go to the Hindutva activists. The definitive demonstration of the fraud came from Michael Witzel, Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University, in a joint essay with Steve Farmer. The demonstration did not, however, end references in official school textbooks (produced by the NCERT during the BJP-led rule, ending only in May 2004) to `terracotta figurines' of horses in the `Indus-Saraswati civilization'. (p68)
It is difficult to understand fully why a movement that began with pride in Hindu values, in which the pursuit of truth plays such a big part, should produce activists who would try to have their way not only through falsity but through carefully crafted fraud. (p68)
In trying to invent Indian history to suit the prejudices of Hindutva, the movement took on a profoundly contrary task. The task is particularly hard to achieve given what is known about India's long history. The unadorned truth does not favour the Hindutva view, and the adorned falsity does not survive critical scrutiny. (p69) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.108.50 ( talk) 11:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa ( talk) 20:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Over 21000 years old evidence of Lord Shri Krishn's Dwarka/Dwarika Nagri have been found which proves that Sanatan Vedic Dharm is the oldest civilization in the world. It all started and developed in the holy land of Aryavrat/Bharat (misnomer: India) since eons together. The researchers and scientists busted the Myth of Aryan Invasion. Dwaraka's majesty and beauty have been described by many poets and writers, saints and sages of ancient India. It is referred to as Golden City in Srimad Bhagavad Gita, Skanda Purana, Vishnu Purana, Harivansha and Mahabharata. It was the capital of Lord Krishna's Kingdom. Dwaraka was a well-planned city with a modern and technologically advanced harbour suitably designed to deal with the marine traffic of large ships entering the port. One of the verses in the Bhagavada says: 'The yellow glitter of the golden fort of the Dwaraka City in the sea throwing yellow light all round looked as if the flames of Vadavagni came out tearing asunder the sea'. Then came the deluge and Dwaraka 'A City of Gold' vanished under water. Around 1500 BC, the whole Western course of India disappeared along with Lord Krishna's Capital City of Dwaraka. This is how it was described by Vedavyasa in the Mahabharata: 'The sea, which had been beating against the shore, suddenly broke the boundary that was imposed on it by nature. The sea rushed into the City of Dwaraka. It coursed through the streets of the beautiful city. The sea covered up everything in the city. I saw the beautiful buildings becoming submerged one by one. In a matter of a few moments it was all over. The sea had now become as placid as a lake. There was no trace of the city. Dwaraka became just a name; just a memory'. The ruins of ancient Dwaraka city have been found under the sea following recent oceanographic studies conducted near the modern temple-city of Dwaraka.
The first Archaeological excavations at Dwaraka were done by the Deccan College, Pune and the Department of Archaeology, Government of Gujarat in 1963 under the direction of an Archaeologist of Ancient India H.D. Sankalia. It revealed the existence of many artifacts, hundreds of centuries old. The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), conducted a second round of excavations under the direction of Dr S R Rao, a world renowned Underwater Archaeologist. Dr S R Rao is to the discovery of the ancient town of Dwaraka, what Isaac Newton is to the Law of Gravitation or Albert Einstein to the Theory of Relativity. Between 1983 and 1990, the well-fortified township of Dwaraka was discovered, extending more than half mile from the shore. The township was built in six sectors along the banks of a river. The foundation of boulders on which the City's walls were erected proves that the land was reclaimed from the sea. What is amazing is that the general layout of the City of Dwaraka described in the ancient texts agrees with that of the submerged city discovered by the Marine Archaeological Unit. (MAU) of The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), which carried out its work under the guidance and supervision of Dr S R Rao. The discovery of Dwaraka by Dr S R Rao confirms that the descriptions found in the text of the Mahabharata and other important Sanskrit texts regarding Dwaraka are true. It also means that the Mahabharata is not a myth but an important source of information for studying the ancient history of India. T R Gopalakrishnan has succinctly summarised the importance of the excavations and discovery of Dr S R Rao: 'The strongest Archaeological support comes from the structures discovered under the sea- bed off the coast of Dwaraka in Gujarat by the pioneering team led by Dr S R Rao, one of India's most respected Archaeologists. An Emeritus Scientist at the Marine Archaeology Unit of the National Institute of Oceanography, Dr Rao has excavated a large number of Harappa sites including the Port City of Lothal in Gujarat.The submergence into the sea of the city of Dwaraka, vividly picturised in the great epic of Mahabaratha, is indeed true! A chance discovery made by a team of scientists, in the Gulf of Cambay region, establishes that the Mahabaratha story is not a myth. The rich city with fertile landscape and great rivers had indeed submerged into the seas several thousand years ago. Prof.Gartia [1] after conducting extensive investigations concluded that Gujarat region had experienced at least three large killer earthquakes about 1500, 3000 and 5000 years BP respectively. Geomorphological evidences also show beyond doubt that the North-Western part of the Indian landmass was seismically active during the last 10,000 years. These killer quakes are likely to have caused the shifting of the rivers and sea level fluctuation including the sinking of the legendary city of Dwaraka, capital of the Lord-King Krishna. The discovery about the availability of fresh water from the now submerged major rivers along with other marine-archaeological evidences, corroborates the Mahabaratha reference that Dwaraka, the ancient city of Sri Krishna, lies under the great ocean! The city was built by Vishwakarma on the order of Lord Krishna. Land was reclaimed from the sea near the western shores of Saurashtra. A city was planned and built here. Dwarka was a planned city, on the banks of Gomati River. This city was also known as Dvaramati, Dvaravati and Kushsthali. It had six well-organized sectors, residential and commercial zones, wide roads, plazas, palaces and many public utilities.A hall called "Sudharma Sabha" was built to hold public meetings. The city also boasted having the possession of a good sea harbour. The city had 700,000 palaces made of gold, silver and other precious stones. Each one of Lord Krishna's wive had her own palace. Besides this, the city had beautiful gardens filled with flowers of all seasons and beautiful lakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.136.199.196 ( talk) 08:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
The fact is that all the princely states were brought under the new nation of India using military intimidation. The writer of this nonsense should know the meaning of English words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.221.250.52 ( talk) 06:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Here's the page link [2], Singh seems to be recognizing the archaeological results, on page 21, he's saying that the historicity of these events have been debated, and some scholars have described them with different layers. Shall we rephrase the current text? Bladesmulti ( talk) 10:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Gathus has got a problem with periodisations of Indian history. His personal objection sare not enough reason, I think, to remove info about such periodisations form the article; they are being used in most, if not all, books on Indian history. An overview shows the similarities and differences. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The other table is detailed. Hence it was entered. Name it what you want-Time table of south Asia or Indian Sub-Continent. It does not matter. But, do not replace it with a bogus one. Ghatus ( talk) 07:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I did not intend to hurt you. I said nothing personal against you. I just criticized the table, not you. I am a university student and History is my subject. I do not know your age. I just use the language I use with my fellow friends. My only target was the Table, which was really void of any sense of History.The other table is workable, though not perfect. Ghatus ( talk) 12:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Mahabharata can not be written before 1000 BCE. It was actually written between 500 BCE and 500 AD. All eminent historians more or less agreed on this. No need to give currency to Myths produced by enthusiasts or interested groups. It beats the common logic of Historiography. Let him come with a reliable source. Ghatus ( talk) 13:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
@ Kautilya3:
1. A GoI secretary, not any Historian wrote that Oxford University Press book. Eminent historians like Romila Thapar, RC Majumder , JN Sarkar etc never gave such a date of 1500 BCE when the war might take place (if true) around 900 BCE.
2.It is an individual's( who is neither a historian nor an expert on old texts) opinion trying to be placed as general opinion. Regards, Ghatus ( talk) 14:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As per this discussion I am starting this RFC to ask for the rename of this article to History of Indian Subcontinent or redefine the scope of this article as discussed ahead. The article itself states that it covers the history of the subcontinent and the lede even starts that way. Background for the unaware: Indian subcontinent has historically been known as just India but now the primary topic for the word "India" is the Republic of India which already has its history article at History of the Republic of India. See also that the word " India" redirects to Republic of India which means there's consensus for that being the primary topic and that standard should be followed so as not to create confusion (an editor got blocked due to this confusion by trying to make a split at another article discussed later although they were also using their IP and account together as sock to get their work to stick). Renaming this article will not only disambiguate and clarify things further for new editors and more importantly for readers, it will also be more neutral towards the current day Indian Subcontinent (a name by which it is still known as) and towards other countries in this region like Pakistan, Bangladesh etc. Once renamed, the current title can either redirect to this article or be split into a new article if needed to specifically talk about the historical region that encompasses the modern India as compared to the formation and independence of India which can be discussed at History of the Republic of India. A similar split is being made at History of Pakistan to focus on the region historically and for creating History of Islamic Republic of Pakistan to cover the history of country's formation and the 60 years till present.. and this is totally per WP:MOS as the article has grown twice the allowed size and still covering WP:DUE content just in summaries and is agreed upon by editors from all points of view here. This will also make navigation a lot easier (a template can be created if needed to further enhance navigation) and will also be following the same type of categorization and naming for clarity as covered in scholarly works and textbooks. If this article is mainly covering the history of modern India then moving the details related to the Indian subcontinent and its history to Indian subcontinent and redefining the scope of this article.
The history of a subcontinent and the history of a country are separate topic. History of South Asia, and history of India should not be lumped into one page. This creates confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weighty ( talk • contribs) 01:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
The article clearly states-"This article is about the history of the Indian subcontinent with India in focus prior to the partition of India in 1947. For the modern Republic of India (post 1947), see History of the Republic of India. For Pakistan and Bangladesh in focus, see History of Pakistan and History of Bangladesh.". There is no confusion. Ghatus ( talk) 09:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
@ Bongan:, this contribution [3] is well-written and interesting but it is too detailed for a History of India article. It needs to be condensed. Kautilya3 ( talk) 21:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I've changed the periodisation from Flood's to Michaels' periodisation. refined the periodisation which was already in the article. Neither is It may not be perfect, as Tapar makes clear (which I've added as an explanantion), but Michaels' periodisation is more detailed accurate, though. As a compromise to Tapar's nuances, I've allowed for some overlap, with the Islamic period starting c.1100, while the first Islamic conquests took place already in the 8th century; and the beginning of western colonialism in a seperate section, which overlaps in time with the Mughal empire.
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
05:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
@ Joshua Jonathan: , @ Kautilya3:
1) Sindh is not a part of North India. It is on the western side of Indian Sub-continent/ South Asia. By the way, why 8th century? Start from 7th. Some parts of modern Pakistan was conquered by Muslims in mid 7th century also before 711/712.Wining one or two small parts on the western border of south asia and you are calling it the starting of a religious rule in north India. Ludicrous. A rule starts when an old system is replaced by another. Hence, British rule started in Bengal in the mid 18th century, not in 1600s. One power can win a town or small area, but calling it a rule on "some" parts of "north India"? Again, see the map-where is west and where is north.
2) The "historians" who provide such pharses like “Ascetic reformism”, “Late-Classical Hinduism”, “Islamic rule and "Sects of Hinduism", “Modern Hinduism” as periods of Indian History are anything but Historians. LoL!!! You are again trying to pass some phrases of Hinduism as The History of India.
3)"The Islamic period (c. 1200-1850 CE)" Another funny thing. What were the Vijaynagar, Rajputs, Marathas and Sikhs doing in this period. BTW, the British took India from Marathas and Sikhs in the 19th Century, not from the "Muslim" Mughals. Where are you getting dates from? 1850??? Period??? Tell me when in early 16th century when Vijaynagar was larger in size than the Delhi sultanate and Rajputs were constantly victorious, how can it be called that India is under Muslim period? Does Maratha and Sikh rule also include under the Muslim Period? Stop communal propaganda.
4) Have you started calling British rule as Christian rule like Hindu rule , Muslim rule etc? Why not?
Regards, Ghatus ( talk) 04:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
@ Joshua Jonathan: , @ Kautilya3:, 1) First islamic conquest in south asia was the conquest of Makran in 640s. Read History books, not blogs. I am not only a student of History and Historiography but a history addict also.
2)Islamic Period of India stretched from 1200 to 1850 is both factually wrong and communally colored. You can not wash away the roles and contributions of Rajputs, Vijaynagar, Marathas, Sikhs etc to make History as you like.
3) India claims IVC because it was stretched upto UP and Maharashtra also.
4) The table is based more on Hinduism and less on Indian History, except Smart's.
Thank You. Ghatus ( talk) 12:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Ghatus, could you please provide a clear reason to remove this table, other than your personal preferences? The table shows that various periodisations are being used, and illustrates Thapar's point. Please provide the relevant sources (author, titles) which reject these periodisations. And even if you're correct, that most historians are not using such periodisations any more (which is doubtfull, given the sources I provided), then it's still sourced info, which is relevant to this topic. If the table is incomplete, it can be improved. But simply removing it is not how Wikipedia works. Also note the comments of VictoriaGrayson and Ms Sarah Welch, who don't reject these periodisations. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Getting to know the past better
by Romila Thapar
"...Indian historians in the late 19th and early 20th century, conforming much more closely to the nationalist view of history, challenged some of these theories. They did not, however, question the periodization. This was to come later. They accepted the periodization of Hindu, Muslim and British, a periodization that we have now rejected. They did question the notion of Oriental Despotism but did not replace it with an alternative theory of governance, administration and rulership. Social history merely repeated the claims made in the normative and prescriptive texts.
...They accepted the periodization of Hindu, Muslim and British, a periodization that we have now rejected. They did question the notion of Oriental Despotism but did not replace it with an alternative theory of governance, administration and rulership."
Source:Keynote address at the inauguration of the Karachi International Book Fair on December 7, 2005 [5]
See the Books of noted modern historians like R. Eaton, Irfan Habib, D.N.Jha, Bipan Chandra etc. They presented Indian History in chronology , not in periodization. But why? Now see.
Ghatus ( talk) 10:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Chronology is the narrative of history as it happened. No personal intervention is made from the author. But, periodization is the compartmentalization of history according to personal/ideological opinion(Oriental or occidental or rightist or Marxist etc.).
Ghatus ( talk) 10:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
1) It is nothing but an extension of Mill's periodization based on religion. Even, a little Google( for armatures only) search will establish the fact that Mill's periodization is rejected by almost all modern Historians.
2) Islamic Period of India stretched from 1200 to 1850 is both factually wrong and communally colored. You can not wash away the roles and contributions of Rajputs(13th to 17th-west india), Vijaynagar(14th to 16th-South India), Marathas(17th to 19th-large parts of India), Sikhs(18th and 19th-North west India) etc to make History as you like.In early 16th century when Vijaynagar was larger in size than the Delhi sultanate and Rajputs were constantly victorious, how can it be called that India is under Muslim period? Does Maratha and Sikh rule also include under the Muslim Period? BTW, the British took India from Marathas and Sikhs in the 19th Century, not from the "Muslim" Mughals.(Copy & Paste).
Ghatus ( talk) 10:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I think i have to agree here with Ghatus; the Vijayanagara Empire seems to have been more substantial than 'a regional power'. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
1)Vijayanagara can not be bracketed with "petty" regional powers like Hoysala and others. Hence, its moved upward. Otherwise, it will be distortion of History.
2)The capital of Vijayanagar was sacked in 1565, long after the Establishment of the Mughals and when Vijayanagara was week. But, it does not take away the domination of Vijaynagara in the South India at the height of their power for more than 150 years. Many powerful capitals have been totally vanquished in history when they were at the nadir. But, that does not take away their past glory.
3) Do you know that Old Delhi area is actually an amalgamation of 6/7 past capitals. What's your point? Where is the great Greco-Roman civilization now? Did they not exist.
4) I will have no problem if Hoysala and the other Kingdom there are edited out from that section because both of them were petty Kingdoms like the kingdoms of Malwa, Kashmir, Bengal, Assam and feudal lords of Modern day Kerala etc. No need to mention every small power. Ghatus ( talk) 12:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Add Indian National Army Section Thank you. Bongan ( talk) 07:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
@ Amitrochates: You removed a paragraph + header diff:
References
This is what the source says:
The author is Arthur Llewellyn Basham. He died in 1986, so the text can't be very recent, but its latest update was at 10-28-2014. Michael Witzel, in Early Sanskritization. Origins and Development of the Kuru State, also mentions 'early Sanskritiztion' in the Kuru-state:
As you know, the Kuru kingdom arose quite early, in Vedic times. So, Sanskritization seems to have set in quite early indeed. By the way, Geofrrey Samuel, in The origins of Yoga and Tantra, gives a nice overview of the influence of the Kuru-kingdom on Indian/Hindu culture. Nevertheless, if you think the dating is to early, it might be good tho find another source which improves the info. Removing the whole paragraph, plus the header and the link, seems unnecessary to me. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Burton Stein (2010), A History of India (John Wiley and Sons), and Peter Robb (2011), A History of India (second edition)(Palgrave Macmillan), both use Early/Ancient, Medieaval, Modern. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
@ Joshua Jonathan: You have it right. VictoriaGrayson Talk 16:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
1) Please provide me the link of the two books where such periodizations are made. I have not seen them before.
2) Raids>Invasions>Conquests. Three different stages. But, you have confused them again. Between, 8th and 12th century, there took place some raids and invasions but no conquests. The first real conquest was in 1206.
3)Finally, is there any need for periodization of Indian History? Modern historians have rejected it long ago as in India different centuries, different ages and different civilizations co exist together at the same time. You just can not "fix Indian History".
4) BTW, It was I who inserted Thapar's book in the article months ago, not the other way round. Ghatus ( talk) 17:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
In light of discovery of underwater Dwarka and underwater temples in Southern India, how relevant is this periodization? 196.46.106.89 ( talk) 13:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Ghatus objects to the term "Islamic period", instead opting for "Islamic powers." He's got a point there, since, the south of India was never completely conquered by the Islamic rulers. Maybe we should use Smart's term: "Hindu-Islamic civilisation". It does more justice to the Hindu-part, and "civilisation" sounds much more friendly than "rule" or "powers."
Another alternative is "Islamic rulers". Which terms do other writers use?
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
07:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Looking for some links to the modern flag. I hear it has a spinning wheel on it. Without searching on "Flag" I have not found it in several Articles on India or their main holidays. Need some links. Kristinwt ( talk) 06:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
you need this Flag of india? -- Haccom ✉ Talk to me 06:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
In whole article, the history of North-East part of India is not mentioned. Shouldn't we include it? -- Haccom ✉ Talk to me 06:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
This article is a must-read: Moorjani, P.et al. (2013), Genetic evidence for recent population mixture in India. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 93(3), 422-438 pdf. It mentions 100 CE as the time when endogamy set in. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
References
The AfD: WP:Articles for deletion/Battle of Rajasthan should be of interest to the editors of this article. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Do we really need this table and the accompanying text? The article appears to exclusively use ACMM, Mills is outdated, and I don't see any benefit, other than confusing the reader, from the accompanying text. Differences in chronology etc are better suited for appendices or footnotes and we should just get rid of it. -- regentspark ( comment) 22:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@ BudChrSch:, thanks for your interest in this article. Unfortunately, your expansion of the Maurya section [6] is problematic. Note that it has a "main article" tag. That it means that it is a WP:SUMMARY of a more detailed article. No new content should be added here unless it is covered in more detail in the main article. You should also preserve the "summary" nature of the treatment here without going into details and explanations. Cheers, Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
This is called counter narrative. Without counter narrative, any piece on History is considered propaganda. I wanted to add many other things, but did not add because it is on History of India , not on Maurya Empire. This counter narrative challenges the conventional/saintly view on Ashoka on some historical basis: If Ashoka was a changed person after Kalinga war,
Ashoka was not a saint, but an astute Emperor. And, this message must go through this counter narrative quote. Ghatus ( talk) 04:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the quote serves no purpose. If historians believe that there was an important 'counter narrative' that Ashoka was not the good guy we all think he was, then that can be stated clearly without resorting to quotes. If this counter narrative depends only on a few sources then it is best confined to the Ashoka article. If it depends on a single quote from Thapar, then it shouldn't be anywhere on Wikipedia. I'm removing it for now. -- regentspark ( comment) 22:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
References
This seems to be copied from History of the Republic of India. When doing so, it should be clearly mentioned - and be usefull. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Copied from User talk:SpacemanSpiff#why events like "Emergency ", India -pakistan war, not part of "history of India"
Dear sir, I am not good at editing wikipedia and need your help in this. I have very simple questions for you since you reverted few of the changes i did.
1. Why history of India ends at "independence"? there are whole lot of history after that. 2. why don't we create a head for "History of republic India" on the page "History of India" so that we have a brief for people to surf.
thanks in advance — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Buddyonline77 (
talk •
contribs)
04:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
thanks for your comment
Spiff, however there is a discrepancy in the way we are putting it.
History of Pakistan and
History of Bangladesh covers the all events including before, during and after independence; where as Indian history is split into two with two different names. We need to combine the two.
I believe there is already a page for British India that covers the "History of Indian region" as you mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddyonline77 ( talk • contribs) 05:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
End of copied text
I've copied the text from Spiff's talkpage. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
History of India. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Although I like this intro in general, it lacks references and has a few questionable claims: "Like other societies in history, South Asia has been attacked by nomadic tribes throughout its long history. In evaluating the impact of Islam on the sub-continent, one must also note that the northwestern sub-continent was a frequent target of tribes from Central Asia who arrived from the North West. In that sense, the Muslim intrusions and later Muslim invasions were not dissimilar to those of the earlier invasions during the 1st millennium. What does however, make the Muslim intrusions and later Muslim invasions different is that unlike the preceding invaders who assimilated into the prevalent social system, the successful Muslim conquerors retained their Islamic identity and created new legal and administrative systems that challenged and usually in many cases superseded the existing systems of social conduct and ethics, even influencing the non-Muslim rivals and common masses to a large extent. They also introduced new cultural that in some ways were very different from the existing cultural codes. This led to the rise of a new Indian culture which was mixed in nature, though different from both the ancient Indian culture and later westernized modern Indian culture. At the same time it must be noted that overwhelming majority of Muslims in India are Indian natives converted to Islam. This factor also played an important role in the synthesis of cultures."
Major points:
Minor points:
"Unlike previous nomadic conquerors, the new Central Asian warriors created new legal and administrative systems that differed markedly from extant system [cite]. However, they left the vast non-Muslim populations to their own laws and customs [cite]."
I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations ( talk) 13:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I propose a new intro to this section, please provide comments: "Like other settled, agrarian societies in history, those in the Indian subcontinent have been attacked by nomadic tribes throughout its long history. In evaluating the impact of Islam on the sub-continent, one must note that the northwestern sub-continent was a frequent target of tribes raiding from Central Asia. In that sense, the Muslim intrusions and later Muslim invasions were not dissimilar to those of the earlier invasions during the 1st millennium. However, unlike previous nomadic conquerors, the new Central Asian warriors created new legal and administrative systems that differed markedly from extant system [cite?]. However, they left the vast non-Muslim populations to their own laws and customs [1,2]. The establishment of Muslim-led kingdoms in India and political upheavals in Central Asia created the conditions for a large scale migration of fleeing soldiers, learned men, mystics, traders, artists, and artisans from that region into the subcontinent, thereby creating a syncretic Indo-Islamic culture in the north[3][4], which influences the culture of India even today." 1 - Asher, C. B.; Talbot, C (1 January 2008), India Before Europe (1st ed.), Pg 47 2 - Metcalf, B.; Metcalf, T. R. (9 October 2006), A Concise History of Modern India (2nd ed.), Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-68225-1, Pg 6 3 - Ludden, D. (13 June 2002), India and South Asia: A Short History, One World, ISBN 978-1-85168-237-9, Pg 67 4 - Asher & Talbot 2008, p. 53.
I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations ( talk) 12:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The lead begins with- "The history of India includes prehistoric archaeological evidence from Anatomically modern humans on Indian subcontinent, advances of civilisation to the Vedic period of the Indo-Aryan cultures, the founding of Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, a number of ruling dynasties throughout various geographic areas of the subcontinent known as the middle kingdoms, Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent which were followed by European colonization of India and the East India Company and an independence movement that resulted in the Partition of India and the independent Republic of India in 1947."
Before I go into details, we need to know two theories regarding Historiography - 1) New Historicist Approach 2) Cultural Materialist Approach. We can have the basic knowledge on from this - [1]. Both the theories started as part of literary criticism, but now is widely accepted as also part of social science subjects. They are the most modernist ways to inter-prate history as they deal not with "de-mystification" (modernist approach till 1980s) only, but with "de familiarization" (post-modernist approach from 1980s).
To put it briefly, "New Historicist Approach" explains how every social or political or religious or literary movement is a product of the then or contemporary society and social evolution. "Cultural Materialist Approach" proves how various processes being employed by contemporary power structures, such as the church, the state or the academy, to disseminate their ideology by interpreting History from their PoV.
Now, coming to the points,
I am afraid that I have gone too deep into theories, but I hope that I have made them easy for all. The first part of the lead not only looks awkward (creating a summary of the summary of the article), but provides wrong and misleading informations.
If anyone wants to present the correct history, write then - Paleolithic > Mesolithic > Neolithic > IVC > ... etc. Why should we put opinionated and coloured History in the first place? We should maintain chronology and there is no need to create a summary of the summary (lead).
SORRY FOR THE DELAYED RESPONSE. I HAD SOME OTHERS THINGS TO DO. @ Kautilya3: , @ Joshua Jonathan: and others. Ghatus ( talk) 07:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
RISE OF NEW RELIGIOUS IDEAS
|
---|
The new religious ideas during this period emerged out of the prevailing social, economic and religious conditions. Let us examine some of the basic reasons which contributed to their emergence: i) The Vedic religious practices had become cumbersome, and in the context of the new society of the period had become in many cases meaningless ceremonies. Sacrifices and rituals increased and became more elaborate and expensive. With the breakup of communities, the participation in these practices also became restricted and as such irrelevant to many sections in the society. ii) Contemporary economic and political developments, on the other hand, helped the emergence of new social groups which acquired considerable economic power. You have seen that merchants living in cities or even rich agricultural householders possessed considerable wealth. Similarly, the Kshatriyas, whether in the monarchies or in the gana-samghas, came to wield much more political power than before. These social groups were opposed to the social positions defined for them by the Brahrnanas on the basis of their heredity. As Buddhism and Jainism did not give much importance to the notion of birth for social status, they attracted the Vaisyas to their folds. Similarly, the Kshatriyas i.e. the ruling class were also unhappy with Brahmanical domination. Briefly put, it was basically the discontent generated the dominant position of the Brahmanas in the society, which contributed to the social support behind the new religious ideas. It is worth remembering that both Buddha and Mahavira came from Kshatriya class but in their search for answers to the pressing problems of society they went beyond boundaries set by their birth. Further, when we try to find out how their ideas were received by their contemporaries, we notice that they had a range of people responding to them: Kings, big merchants, rich householders, Brahmans and even courtesans. They all represented the new society which was emerging in the sixth century B.C. and Buddha and Mahavira, and other thinkers of those times, in their own ways, responded to the problems of a new social order. The Vedic ritualistic practices had ceased to be of much relevance to this new social order. Buddha and Mahavira, were by no means, the first to criticise the existing religious beliefs. Many religious preachers before them, like Kapila, Makkali Gosala, Ajita Kesakambalin and Pakuda Kachchayana had already highlighted the evils of the Vedic religions. They also developed new ideas on life and God. New philosophies were also being preached. However, it was Buddha and Mahavira, who provided an alternative religious order. This was the background which helped the emergence and establishment of new religious orders in the sixth century B.C. Among these Buddhism and Jainism were most popular and well organized. We will now discuss the origin and development of Buddhism and Jainism separately… |
This article has hardly any mention of the Ahom Kingdom, which ruled significant portions of today's North East India. Most importantly Ahoms are considered significant in India's history because they were able to rule themselves and maintain their independence for almost 600 years. Despite repeated attempts by the Mughals, Ahoms did not become a Mughal vassal and successfully resisted the Mughal might. Ahom Kingdom's insufficient mention on this page somehow indicates double standards and a one-sided approach. Hence I am adding it. Credible evidences about Ahom Kingdom mentioned hereby:
Amit20081980 ( talk) 12:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
References
[Copied from User talk:Ghatus
Suppose Delhi had developed an Islamic community, which eventually grew powerful enough to take over the surrounding kingdoms. Then you would call it the "rise of Muslim powers." But that is not what happened. The Muslim rulers from the surrounding regions of India came to conquer. Should it be called a "Muslim conquest," i.e., was religion a factor? The answer is again yes, because the Turko-Persian literature of the time is full of Islamist ideology. - Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it was indeed a "conquest" in 1206. But, it was not the only conquest to single out. More than a dozen of such conquests took place in the preceding 2000 years having profound impacts. Either mention them all or mention them not at all. Again, only 2 out of 7 Muslim dynasties that dominated North India came into being through conquest. Other five, which include dynasties like Khiljis, Tughlaqs, Suris etc, grabbed power by dint of Coups, not conquest. So, "Muslim rule or Muslim Powers" and "conquests" are not synonymous. Ghatus ( talk) 05:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The archives are a mess. Pinging @
SpacemanSpiff: @
Joshua Jonathan: - one of you must might have broken the archiving when you changed MiszaBot parameters.--
regentspark (
comment)
17:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus that the proposed title is more commonly used in reliable sources. Jenks24 ( talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
History of India →
History of the Indian subcontinent – The present title is is not exactly NPOV. The article covers a broader historical region encompassing India, Pakistan and Bangladesh; a region more appropriately defined as the
Indian subcontinent. The current title is easily confused with the
History of the Republic of India. I'm afraid "History of India" may exclude readership interest on Bangladesh and Pakistan, which are integral regions to this article's subject.
Akbar the Great (
talk)
01:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)