Jump to content

Talk:India: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Qwyrxian (talk | contribs)
57,186 edits
→‎Society section: respond to both
Line 395: Line 395:
::I don't know how this effects the rest of your arguments Bladesmulti, but that section you just pointed to shows a clear error in your claims--slavery is, in fact, illegal in all countries in the world. Of course there are millions of violations, but that does not mean that it's actually acceptable. Furthermore, you can't argue that there are "no independent verifiability"; the report itself is the independent verification. The BBC is practically the gold standard for news agencies, and they count as a reliable source for information, and can be presumed to have done basic fact checking on their publications. Now, it's still possible to argue this info doesn't belong in this article, but not based on your objections.
::I don't know how this effects the rest of your arguments Bladesmulti, but that section you just pointed to shows a clear error in your claims--slavery is, in fact, illegal in all countries in the world. Of course there are millions of violations, but that does not mean that it's actually acceptable. Furthermore, you can't argue that there are "no independent verifiability"; the report itself is the independent verification. The BBC is practically the gold standard for news agencies, and they count as a reliable source for information, and can be presumed to have done basic fact checking on their publications. Now, it's still possible to argue this info doesn't belong in this article, but not based on your objections.
::With reference to JustBeCool's question, I do think that we need a link to [[:Human rights in India]] somewhere in this article, though I'm not sure where the best place to put that is. [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 22:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
::With reference to JustBeCool's question, I do think that we need a link to [[:Human rights in India]] somewhere in this article, though I'm not sure where the best place to put that is. [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 22:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure that this slavery information fits in the India article. The news story is based on an index compiled by one organization (Walk Free) and the report itself probably has caveats and explanations. I would wait for reliable secondary sources (academic ones) to analyze and comment on the report before considering including any information here. We don't want our articles to be a mere compendium of news reports. --[[User:RegentsPark|regentspark]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 22:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:54, 28 October 2013

Featured articleIndia is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 3, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 16, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
April 11, 2005Featured article reviewKept
May 6, 2006Featured article reviewKept
July 28, 2011Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article

National Anthem

Every country has national anthem embedded on right sidebar. I request people to embed Inadian nation anthem too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.249.5.97 (talk) 11:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World Economic History : GDP India and World

According to economic historian Angus Maddison in his book The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective, India was the richest country in the world and had the world's largest economy during 0 BCE and 1000 BCE.[1][2] Also for most of the period when China was the dominant economy in the world, India held the second position of the largest economy.[1] India's share of the world income (economic output) was 27% in 1700 (compared to Europe's share of 23%) to 3% in 1950.[3]

RfC: Was Jainism a reform movement?

I think saying that Jainism is a religious reform movement is POV-pushing. While the evidence for Jainism to have been existed in Indus Valley Civilization and the existence of Rishabha in vedic literature is scanty, it has nevertheless been speculated by a good number of scholars. (Chapple 1993, pp. 6–9)(Sangave 2001, p. 107)(Rankin 2010, p. 44)(Sangave 2001, p. 106) It is known that the origins of Jainism are shrouded in considerable mystery. Scholars now accept that Mahavira, the twenty-fourth tirthankara, was certainly not the founder of Jainism and Parshva, the twenty-third tirthankara was a historical figure.(Glasenapp 1999, p. 24) harv error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFGlasenapp1999 (help) Considering these, I don't think it would be correct to say that Jainism was a reform movement. It had its independent origins and hardly any book on Jainism says that it was a reformist movement or anything like that. Rahul Jain (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler's comment: In addition to sources already cited in the article, here are some more sources for the statement that Jainism is a reform movement:

  • Kaviraj, Sudipta (2010), The Imaginary Institution of India: Politics and Ideas, Columbia University Press, p. 213, ISBN 978-0-231-15223-5, retrieved 10 August 2013 Quote: "The most significant upheavals in traditional Indian history were not dynastic or regime changes, but the challenges to the religious organization of society through the reform movements of Buddhism and Jainism against ritualistic Brahminism in ancient India, ..."
  • Michaels, Axel (2004), Hinduism: Past and Present, Princeton University Press, pp. 36–37, ISBN 978-0-691-08953-9, retrieved 10 August 2013 Quote: "Third Epoch: Ascetic Reformism (ca. 500–200 BC) The Brahmans did continue to hold a monopoly of sacrifice as the path to salvation, but economic changes allowed the growing criticism of brahmanic mode of sacrifice to assume a previously unknown form: Ascetic reform movements no longer remained limited to a local sphere of influence. Buddhism and Jainism, whose organization was initially hardly distinguished from other ascetic reform movements (e.g., the Ajivakas) are the best examples of that."
  • Smith, David (2008), Hinduism and Modernity, John Wiley & Sons, p. 200, ISBN 978-0-470-77685-8, retrieved 10 August 2013 Quote: "Jainism and Buddhism sprang from early Hinduism as reform movements."
  • Raju, Poola Tirupati (1985), Structural Depths of Indian Thought, SUNY Press, p. 1, ISBN 978-1-4384-1678-6, retrieved 10 August 2013 Quote: "The Buddhists and the Jainas considered their religious reform movements as the Aryan way and rejected the Vedic Way, as they did not accept the Veda as their sacred scripture."
  • Paul Dundas (2013). "Jainism". Encyclopaedia Britannica. Quote: "Scholars of religion generally hold that Jainism originated in the 7th–5th century BCE in the Ganges basin of eastern India, the scene of intense religious speculation and activity at that time. Buddhism also appeared in this region, as did other belief systems that renounced the world and opposed the ritualistic Brahmanic schools whose prestige derived from their claim of purity and their ability to perform the traditional rituals and sacrifices and to interpret their meaning."
  • Rich, Bruce (2010), To Uphold the World: A Call for a New Global Ethic from Ancient India, Boston, MA: Beacon Press, p. 267, ISBN 978-0-8070-9553-9, retrieved 10 August 2013 Quote: "Jainism arose in India in the sixth century BC at about the same time as Buddhism. Like Buddhism it was an egalitarian reform movement of traditional Hindu Brahmanic beliefs, with a focus on reverence for life and nonviolence (ahimsa) as the basis for Jain ethics. The founder of the Jains, Vardhamma (Mahavira) was thirty-five years older than Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha."
  • Boraks, Lucius (1988), Religions of the East, Rowman & Littlefield, p. 7, ISBN 978-1-55612-140-1, retrieved 10 August 2013 Quote: "The bulk of the book will revolve around the origins and ideas of the world's major living religions of the eastern half ... In India, we will find four major faiths of varying degrees of antiquity: the very ancient ... Hinduism, then the contemporary reform movements of the enormously popular Buddhism, together with the somewhat more ascetical Jainism, ...."

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Jain, you're going to need to provide some specific quotations from your works, given how very compelling F&F's are, stating exactly what the article says. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Historicity of Parsva These are the views of some of the scholars on the historicity of Parshva and consequently the origins of Jainism.

  • Glasenapp, Helmuth Von (1999). Jainism. Motilal Banarsidass. p. 24. ISBN 978-81-208-1376-2. Thus, not only nothing from the historical and philosophical point of view comes in the way of the supposition that Jainism was established by Parsva around 800 B.C., but it is rather confirmed in everything that we know of the spiritual life of that period.
  • Huntington, Ronald M. (2002). "Jainism and Ethics". In Marvin W. Meyer, Kurt Bergel (ed.). Reverance for Life: The Ethics of Albert Schweitzer for the Twenty-First Century. Syracuse University Press. p. 186. ISBN 978-0-8156-2977-1. With such a fertile ground for growth of a new religion, it is not suprising that buddhism began at such a time nor that Mahavira was until recently regarded as the founder of Jainism by those outside the faith. Now it is recognized that preceding tirthankara, Parshva, was also a historical figure. While there is nothing to prove that Parshva was the real founder of Jainism, we may be forgiven some skepticism about the historicity of the earlier tirthankara in view of the fabulous life spans and physical dimensions attributed to them by the Jain tradition. — The Rahul Jain 19:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC) — continues after insertion below[reply]
I'm afraid this is a bogus source on Jainism. It is about the "Ethics of Albert Schweitzer for the Twnty-First Century." How is that a reliable source on ancient Indian history? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Daniélou, Alain (2011). A Brief History of India. Inner Traditions / Bear & Co. p. 32. ISBN 978-1-59477-794-3. Many historians of the nineteenth century were greatly attracted by buddhism. They consequetly asserted that the last jain prophet Mahavira was the founder of Jainism and that long list of predecessors was a fiction invented afterwords. This theory does not stand stand up to serious study. The historical reality of parshvadeva a jain prophet who preceded mahavira by two and a half centuries is now recognized. There is no real reason to doubt the jain tradition with its twenty-four prophets according to which the origins of Jainism goes back to several millenia, thus making it one of the great currents of Indo-meditteranian religious thought, reflected in most ancient currents of thought of both West and East. — The Rahul Jain 19:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC) — continues after insertion below[reply]
This is not a reliable source on ancient Indian history either. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Jain (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a book on the Jaina path of purification, not Indian history Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Jain (talk) 03:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. I thought the RfC was about the appropriateness of the term "religious reform movement." You seem to have sources that say, Parshva predated Mahavira. Nowhere in the text does the article say Mahavira was the founder of Jainism, only, "Jainism came into prominence around the same time during the life of its exemplar, Mahavira." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was stating what the various scholars have to say regarding the origins of Jainism. The article states that "In the late Vedic period, around the 5th century BCE, the small chiefdoms of the Ganges Plain and the north-western regions had consolidated into 16 major oligarchies and monarchies that were known as the mahajanapadas. The emerging urbanisation and the orthodoxies of this age also created the religious reform movements of Buddhism and Jainism, both of which became independent religions." it then states that "Jainism came into prominence around the same time during the life of its exemplar, Mahavira." This make it seem that the article is suggesting that Jainism was created by Mahavira, as a reform movement, around 5th century BCE. However, with the historicity of Parshva established, it would mean that Jainism existed atleast since 8th century BCE. Can we change the wordings of the article to reflect that Mahavira was not the founder of the Jain faith and he restored the tenets of Jaina community which existed atleast from the time of Parsva (8th Century BCE)? Rahul Jain (talk) 04:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler's reply: The notion that Jainism had a long succession of teachers of which Mahavira (ca. 6th or 5th century BCE) was the 24th, is not historically reliable. Most historians, even ones such as Romila Thapar, who allow that there may have been some Jaina presence before the 5th century BCE, make the point that it was Mahavira who really organized the sect. In effect, he is the putative founder. In the article we use the word "exemplar" (ideal teacher) for Mahavira; most historians, call him a founder outright. See sources below. I have done all I can. I don't believe more discussion will accomplish anything. I believe the current wording reflects consensus among contemporary scholars. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Stein, Burton (2010), A History of India, John Wiley & Sons, p. 59, ISBN 978-1-4443-2351-1, retrieved 12 August 2013 Quote: "The Gupta culture of the classical period owes much to formative processes dating from around 500 BCE, a period usually assigned to the religious careers of the founders of Buddhism and Jainism (although recent re-evaluation of the evidence now assigns their activities to a date closer to the end of the fifth century)."
  • Kulke, Hermann; Rothermund, Dietmar (2004), A History of India, Routledge, pp. 54–55, ISBN 978-0-415-32920-0, retrieved 12 August 2013 Quote: "This new Gangetic civilisation found its spiritual expression in a reform movement which was a reaction to the Brahmin-Kshatriya alliance of the Late Vedic Age. This reform movement is mainly identified with the teachings of Gautama Buddha who is regarded as the first historic figure of Indian history. The date of his death (parinirvana) has always been a controversial issue. ... modern historians and Indologists had generally accepted c.483 BC as the date of his death. But ... archeological evidence seems to indicate that the Buddha lived in the fifth rather than the sixth century .... The Buddha, however, was not the only great reformer of the age. There was also Mahavira, the founder of Jainism, who is supposed to have been a younger contemporary of the Buddha." — Fowler&fowler 01:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC) — continues after insertion below[reply]
  • "Definition of Jainism in English". Oxford Dictionaries, Oxford University Press. 2013. Quote: "a non-theistic religion founded in India in the 6th century BC by the Jina Vardhamana Mahavira as a reaction against the teachings of orthodox Brahmanism, and still practised there. The Jain religion teaches salvation by perfection through successive lives, and non-injury to living creatures, and is noted for its ascetics."
  • "Jainism". Merriam-Webster Unabridged: Encyclopedia. 2013. (subscription might be required) Quote: "Religion of India established between the 7th and 5th centuries BCE. It was founded by Vardhamana, who was called Mahavira, as a reaction against the Vedic religion, which required animal sacrifices. Jainism's core belief is ahimsa, or noninjury to all living things. Jainism has no belief in a creator god, though there are a number of lesser deities for various aspects of life."
  • Thapar, Romila (2004), Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300, University of California Press, pp. 166, 171, ISBN 978-0-520-24225-8, retrieved 12 August 2013 Quote: "But, of all these sects, the two that came to stay were Jainism and Buddhism, both of which were to become independent religions. Part of the reason for this may have been that theirs was a more holistic understanding of contemporary changes than that of other sects, and, in the break-away from the earlier systems of thought and ethics, they reflected a more sensitive response to the pressures of the changes. Jaina ideas, thought to have been in circulation earlier, posited previous teachers — the tirthankaras or makers of fords — with the claims to an ancestry of the ongoing teaching. Claims to an earlier succession of teachers were also made by some other sects. Mahavira gave shape to these ideas in the sixth century, and this led to the organization and spread of the Jaina sect which was initially called Nirgrantha. (p. 166)" Quote: "Unlike Vedic Brahmanism, or the later Puranic Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism had specific historical teachers that have now come to be viewed almost as founders, .... (p. 171)"

The word examplar is used, but the origins of Jainism is said to be around the 5th century BCE. This is problematic. Can the wordings be changed to reflect that there was Jaina presence before the 5th century BCE? Rahul Jain (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, the major sources don't point to a significantly older provenance for Jainism. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The view represented by this article is that Jainism was originated around 5th century BCE, i.e. around the time of Mahavira. I have pointed out that there are sources which differ. In case of there is a difference of opinion in the sources, Wikipedia policy asks to provide due weight to them. If there is a problem of number of sources I can point to more of them which state that Parsva's existence is now accepted. Rahul Jain (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep article as currently written:After looking over the information provided by F&F and TRJ, the article correctly seems to represent both points of view already. The article correctly states that Jainism basically arose in the 5th century; TRJ's sources don't really refute this, rather pointing out that the religion has earlier routes. Furthermore, F&F's sources appear to provide a much wider scholarly view, often representing an overall consensus among scholars, rather than TRJ's which often represent one scholar's view. On balance, the current wording seems to represent the general academic consensus, while not flatly contradict TRJ's position (for example, the article does not assert or imply that Mahavira is the founder of Jainism). Note that this position is strictly because this is the article on India. In this article, all we want is a simple, broad statement that summarizes the general scholarly consensus. Of course the Jainism article should involve significantly more detail and include both external and internal POV. There are quite a number of WP articles that follow this pattern--at the top level, we provide only the broad scholarly consensus, leaving the alternate theories to other, more specific articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the correct solution. There is no doubt about that that the India related articles suffer from Systemic bias as far as Jainism is concerned. This is proved by the very fact that the article claims Jainism to be a “reform movement.” When Christianity is not claimed to be a reform movement within Judaism and Islam not an offshoot of Christainty or Judaism, I do not know why Jainism and Buddhism are claimed to be an offshoot or reform movement of Hinduism? But, with majority of the editors pusing for the Hindu POV, this is bound to happen. For a long time the scholarship also suffered from the same bias. Hence you will find many old references/ dictionaries claiming Jainism to be a reform movement or an offshoot of Hinduism. Till 19th Century it was wrongly believed that Jainism was an offshoot of Buddhism. However, this is being corrected and now one will find scores of references that Jainism is not an offshoot nor a reform movement.Indian Chronicles (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Indian Chronicles: References that clearly show that Jainism is NOT a reform movement

  • A History of Yoga By Vivian Worthington 1982 Routledge ISBN 071009258X: Jainism is another religion that is looked on by the scholars as a Hindu reform movement. But again the most cursory knowledge of this unique faith should aquaint the enquirer with the fact that its origin go back well before Vedic Hinduism. page 3
  • Y. Masih (2000) In : A Comparative Study of Religions, Motilal Banarsidass Publ : Delhi, ISBN 8120808150: “There is no evidence to show that Jainism and Buddhism ever subscribed to Vedic sacrifices, Vedic deities or caste. They are parallel or native religions of India and have contributed to much to the growth of even classical Hinduism of the present times.” Page 18
  • J. L. Jaini, (1916) Jaina Law, Bhadrabahu Samhita, (Text with translation ) Arrah, Central jaina publishing House: As to Jainas being Hindu dissenters, and, therefore governable by Hindu law, we are not told this date of secession [...] Jainism certainly has a longer history than is consistent with its being a creed of dissenters from Hinduism. P.12-13
  • P.S. Jaini, (1979), The Jaina Path to Purification, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, p. 169: Jainas themselves have no memory of a time when they fell within the Vedic fold. Any theory that attempts to link the two traditions, moreover fails to appreciate rather unique and very non-vedic character of Jaina cosmology, soul theory, karmic doctrine and atheism.
  • Zydenbos, Robert J. (2006). Jainism Today and Its Future. München: Manya Verlag:
    • In the view of so many basic differences between the two traditions, [Jain and Vedic] it is amazing that there are still people who speak of Jainism as a “heterodox sect of Hinduism” An impartial study of the literary evidence, both Jaina and Brahamanical, leads to a conclusion that the latter offshoots of the Vedic tradition have borrowed a lot from Jainism : the theory of karma and re-birth, the vegetarianism of the higher Hindu castes, perhaps also temple worship. Page 59
    • Jainism is one of the oldest living religions of the world. Perhaps it is the oldest living religion that has served as a major civilizing force, giving birth to roughly 2,000 years of written literature, to wonders of art and architecture, and to a system of philosophy and ethics that gave inspiration to political giant like Mahatma Gandhi. Several Religious ideas that are today considered “typically Indian”, either originated in or were spread by Jaina teachers. This ought to be common knowledge, but as with many other things in the world, this is not the case. Page 11
  • Varni, Jinendra; Ed. Prof. Sagarmal Jain, Translated Justice T.K. Tukol and Dr. K.K. Dixit (1993). Samaṇ Suttaṁ. New Delhi: Bhagwan Mahavir memorial Samiti.: The tradition of Jainism from the point of view of its principles both on conduct and thought, goes very deep beyond comprehension. The Historians have so far fully recognized the truth that Tirthankara Mahavira was not the founder of the religion. He was preceded by many tirthankaras. He merely reiterated and rejuvenated that religion. It is correct that history has not been able to trace the origin of the Jaina religion; but historical evidence now available and the result of dispassionate researches in literature have established that Jainism is undoubtly an ancient religion. Pp. xii – xiii of introduction
  • Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward Craig 1998 Taylor & Francis ISBN:0415073103: Despite similarities between Mahavira and Buddha, both in their biographies and in their rules for ascetics, Jainism is clearly an independent stream which has made its own valuable contributions to the development of Indian Philosophy. One significant difference between Mahavira and Buddha is that Mahavira was not a founder of a new movement, but rather a reformer of the teachings of his predecessor, Parsva. Page 33
  • Larson, Gerald James (1995) “India’s Agony over religion” SUNY Press ISBN 079142412X: There is some evidence that Jain traditions may be even older than the Buddhist traditions, possibly going back to the time of the Indus valley civilization, and that Vardhamana rather than being a “founder” per se was, rather, simply a primary spokesman for much older tradition. Page 27
  • A history of the Jainas, Ashim Kumar Roy, New Delhi : Gitanjali Pub. House, 1984, ISBN : 11604851:
    • In the sixth century BC Buddhism had just been founded. The Vedic religion was almost getting extinct and Hinduism as we know it today was at a nebulous stage. Jainism at that time was not only a mature and living religion but also one claiming a hoary antiquity. All its tenets had fully developed by that time and these tenets have remained almost unchanged all these 2500 years. Jainism is thus the oldest living religion of India. Page 1
    • It would thus appear that Jainism, and many other religions existed from pre-Vedic times in northern India. Only Jainism remained practically unaffected by the impact of Vedism. The other religions which coalesced to form classical Hinduism, were affected by Vedism p 8-9
This is just a tip of the iceberg. There are hundreds of references now that debunk the hypothesis that Jainism is a reform religion. This was a meme that was handed down by generation to generation and wrongly pertetuated by earlier scholars without understanding properly the history of Jainism and ancient India.Indian Chronicles (talk) 06:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was randomly selected for RFC comment. The issue that you're batting back and forth is an issue of warring opinions, not only among scholars but among lay people who wish to advance their own prejudices and biases. From a cursory examination what it looks like you're seeing are some scholars who consider it a religion, others who do not, complete with differences of opinion who who founded what, what the origins are, and what constitutes a religion. All of these issues are insolvable so there's going to have to be compromise.
My opinion is that Jainism should be properly called a religion if the adherents of Jainism consider it a religion, otherwise if adherents do not call it a religion, Jainism should not be called a religion in the article. Find out what the real world followers/believers consider to be true and replicate it on Wikipedia. BiologistBabe (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BiologistBabe...you didn't read the RfC properly. No one is debating whether or not Jainism should be called a religion. What we are debating is whether or not it is a "reform movement". And for that, we would never go by just what adherents say. Many many religions that are actually reform movements claim "No, we're the original religion, and it's those other people who are twisting the 'truth'". Or, in the case of Jainism, it appears that the scholarly consensus is that it was a reform movement, while adherents of Jainism often argue that it's not because there are semi-mythical antecedents to the religion in the area. What adherents believe about their own faith is not the deciding factor. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@BiologistBabe The current wording (which the initiator of the RfC is disputing) is: "The emerging urbanisation and the orthodoxies of this age also created the religious reform movements of Buddhism and Jainism,[4] both of which became independent religions.[5] Buddhism, based on the teachings of Gautama Buddha attracted followers from all social classes excepting the middle class; chronicling the life of the Buddha was central to the beginnings of recorded history in India.[4][6][7] Jainism came into prominence around the same time during the life of its exemplar, Mahavira.[8] In an age of increasing urban wealth, both religions held up renunciation as an ideal,[9] and both established long-lasting monasteries.[10]"
It took a lot of work and discussion by a lot of people to craft these careful words. Please see the archives of this page (during the last FAR when the history chapter was rewritten). Some two dozen internationally recognized sources were used for that section. The disputed text does not say Jainism is not a religion; it does not say that it the same historical moment as Buddhism, only that it came into prominence then; and it doesn't say that Mahavira was the founder of the religion, only the exemplar. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The current wordings clearly contradicts about a dozen sources that have been pointed out. Rahul Jain (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article should reflect the dispute. It seems there are many sources which describe Jainism emerging from Hinduism in around what is now called the fifth or sixth century B.C. Jains clearly trace their origins further back, and are supported in this belief by, seemingly, more than a dozen reliable sources. The dispute is significant enough to be mentioned here. Strangely, the former view seems to predominate at Timeline of Jainism, and the latter view at History of Jainism. It might be a good idea to move this discussion to those articles, so that a sophisticated description of the dispute can be offered. When that's hammered out, it will be easier to provide a good summary. But for the India article, for now, it seems clear enough that the different perspectives should be mentioned. groupuscule (talk) 02:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no dispute. This is a sub-section here on ancient Indian history, in the section of history. The historical sources are near unanimous in characterizing Jainism both as a reform movement that later became religion and came into prominence in the time of Mahavira. We have used some of the best known books on the history of India used world wide such as: Burton Stein's History of India, Kulke and Rothermund's History of Indai, Romila Thapar's Ancient India, the Encyclopaedia Britannica article on Jainism, and so forth. If they want to use religion sources, they should add whatever they want to the Jainism page, not this one. This is strictly about history; we need internationally recognized sources on the history of India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler&fowler, when there are sources making arguments for each side, it would seem that you need better evidence to prove the claim that "there is no dispute". Not all of the sources for Jainism's earlier origins are simply "religious". IndianChronicles has presented an impressive list, which includes multiple recent history texts. These cannot simply be ignored. groupuscule (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler says: "There is no dispute". He is in a state of total denial. The bais of people like him is clearly reflected in these articles and sources cherry picked by him. He has not even bothered to reply to the dozen or so reliable sources that I have quoted. The historical sources that I have quoted are from most reputed scholars and publishers like Routeledge, Motilal Banarsidass, Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy and undisputed scholars like Padmanabh S. Jaini, Vivian Worthington, Robert Zydenbos and Ashim Kumar Roy. Ignoring the sources like this is simply not acceptable on Wikipedia.
It is crystal clear that to push his POV, Fowler is creating an artificial exclusion. The reason given by fowler for this cherry picking is absurd: "This is strictly about history; we need internationally recognized sources on the history of India". In fact the sources quoted by me are most reliable and most apt to discuss the status of Jainism. Here we are discussing whether Jainism is a reform religion or not. Very clearly, internationally renowned sources and unbiased authors are giving a very legitimate view on the historical status of Jainism, that Jainism is not a reform religion. This needs to be taken into account. If we go by the absurd logic that only generalised sources on History of India are to be quoted here, then in literature section only sources on literature of India are to be used. For example we need to remove the sources of Zvelebil, K. V. and Hart, G. L that are specialised into tamil literature and poems and not on Indian literature per se. Going by this logic, a lot of legitimate sources will have to be removed.Indian Chronicles (talk) 09:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-modernist urban legends like 'Jainism' and 'Buddhism' were heterodox systems which arose to reform the Vedic system are now debunked. To say that everything in India arose from the Vedas is to do a great disservice to other Indian traditions. There is plenty of evidence to indicate a culture that existed in the IVC that predates the Vedas. It is difficult to conclude that the IVC was a Jain or Shramana civilisation because we do not have any written evidence from the IVC.

But once we get rid of the notion that the Vedas predate everything else in India, we are able to clearly perceive the possibility of the existence of other faiths in ancient India.

Since we know so less of ancient India, one cannot be absolutely sure as to what transpired. But there is evidence in the Mandukya Upanishad that the theory of karma and the concept of liberation originated from non-Vedic sources. Scholars believe that they came from Jain sources. The MU states that pandits were taught these concepts, which are not in evidence in the Vedas, by kshatriya ascetics. We may or may not assume that these kshatriya ascetics were Jain ascetics. We do not have conclusive evidence in any direction. Those ascetics were certainly not brahmins and they were not informed by the Vedic tradition.

Beyond this, it is a matter of which source you accept. Jain sources are crystal clear that Jainism existed long before any other faith did. Non-Jain sources say different things. Some state that Jainism existed long before Mahavira. The best informed sources state that Jainism is far older than Mahavira and point out that the 'vratyas' and the 'vatarashana' monks referred to in the Vedas were nude kshatriya ascetics. It is likely that they were Jain ascetics. However, in the absence of incontrovertible evidence on either side, people will form opinions based on which side they would like to believe.

If we were to apply the same rigorous questioning attitude to the existence of Hindu deities, we will find that none of them existed as per history text books!

In fact, the oldest Indian calendar year is known as the Vira Samvat, named after Mahavira. It is 527 years earlier than the Gregorian calendar and 470 years earlier than the Vikrama Samvat. Manish Modi 06:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC) ::@Manish Modi >>>"Jain sources are crystal clear that Jainism existed long before any other faith"

Jain sources are also crystal clear that all Thirthankaras were human. They are crystal clear that the last, Mahavira, was 7 cubits = 10 and 1/2 feet tall and lived for 72 years, ie. was born before 650 BCE, before the Buddha, that his predecessor Parshva was 9 cubits (13 and 1/2 feet) tall, lived 100 years, and was born before 750 BCE; that his predecessor Neminatha was 10 "dhanusha" (60 feet) tall, lived for 1,000 years, and was born before 1,750 BCE, before the Vedas were composed; his predecessor Nami Natha was 90 feet tall, lived for 10,000 years, and was born before 11,750 BCE, during the last ice age; his predecessor Munisuvrata was 120 feet tall, lived for 30,000 years, was born before 41,750 BCE, predating the earliest homo sapiens fossil evidence in South Asia; his predecessor Mallinath, born in Mathura, was 150 feet tall, lived for 55,000 years, was born before 96,750 BCE, before modern homo sapiens arrived in India from Africa; his predecessor Aranath was 180 feet tall, lived for 84,000 years, was born before 180,750 BCE, before anatomically modern homo sapiens arose in Africa, ... in this way we very soon find tirthankaras, all very human, who were born in Ayodhya before hominids split off from chimpanzees in Africa; born in Varanasi before chimpanzees split off from gorillas; born in Ayodhya before mammals arose on planet earth; born in Varanasi before life was created on planet earth; born in Ayodhya before the earth split off from the sun; born in Varanasi before the solar system was created, ... born in Ayodhya before the Big bang. But the Jain sources know the name of both their parents and time, day, and month of birth. (See here.) When in this Jain chronology do we say, "Ahem, ... but this is not adding up?"
As for the rest of your post, where are we saying in the ancient history section that the Vedas precede IVC? IVC descends from (the eastward movement of cultures that began in) neolithic Mehrgarh in western Pakistan, and that in turn was related to contemporaneous neolithic cultures westward in Iran and Iraq. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Manish Modi @Groupuscule I apologize for the above sarcasm, which I have now scratched. I've been reading some recent scholarship on Jainism (John Cort, Paul Dundas, ...) which takes a more sophisticated view of Jain universal history, iconography, etc.. Please give me another day. I will post here again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:The Rahul Jain, @User:Qwyrxian, @user:Indian Chronicles, @user:BiologistBabe, user:Groupuscule, user:Manish Modi (and other respondents). Recall that we are discussing the factual accuracy and overall balance of the text:

"The emerging urbanisation and the orthodoxies of this age also created the religious reform movements of Buddhism and Jainism, both of which became independent religions. Buddhism, based on the teachings of Gautama Buddha attracted followers from all social classes excepting the middle class; chronicling the life of the Buddha was central to the beginnings of recorded history in India. Jainism came into prominence around the same time during the life of its exemplar, Mahavira. In an age of increasing urban wealth, both religions held up renunciation as an ideal, and both established long-lasting monasteries."

I have now gone through over two dozen sources from the last 25 years which I have compiled with expansive quotations on my user subpage: User:Fowler&fowler/Sources for Jainism (Please do not edit this page or leave posts on its talk page). I have not cherry picked for any one particular phrasing or point of view. The authors listed there include some of the best-known scholars of India and the Indian tradition, historians (Burton Stein, Romila Thapar, Hermann Kulke, Dietmar Rothermund, Stanley Wolpert, Upinder Singh), archeologists (Raymond Allchin, Bridget Allchin), philologists (Colin Masica, Michael Witzel, K.R. Norman, Thomas Oberlies, and Dhinesh Jain) and scholars of religion (R.C.C. Fynes, Gavin Flood, Patrick Olivelle, Paul Dundas, John E. Cort, M. Whitney Kelting, Axel Michaels). Here is my assessment. (Please do not interrupt my post by posting comments in between.)

  1. First of all, let me say, Jainism is a beautiful religion and it should be better known on Wikipedia. Scholarly attention is being increasingly drawn to the Jaina traditions, especially in the last two decades. It is a religion that in many ways reflects the dilemmas of the modern era. The Jaina tradition has its own Universal History, which has given rise to some of the greatest works of art, architecture, and literature on the Indian subcontinent. However, there is also now a nearly 200 year old tradition of modern scholarship. The latter is what Wikipedia is beholden to.
  2. All early Indian sources between 1500 BCE and 263 BCE were orally transmitted. Although the Vedic age had perfected the art of oral transmission to a fidelity unheard of in any other culture, whether contemporary or later, assigning dates and positing antiquity is tricky exercise. The Jaina cannon (in which Mahavira was first mentioned and pronounced to be the last tīrthankar) did not appear until the 5th century ACE, some 900 years after the posited age in which Mahavira lived. Still, in the opinion of most philologists, the languages, Pālï and Ardhamāgadhi, that the Buddha and Mahavira, respectively preached in, go back no further than the period 500–400 BCE. The archeologists and historians—on the evidence of a style of lustrous pottery, Northern Black Polished ware, which appeared after 500 BCE and the political formations that appeared around the same time in the region of eastern North India—consider the Buddha and Mahavira to be near contemporaries.
  3. There may have been earlier Jaina or Jaina-like renouncer traditions, but they did not attract widespread attention from the laity. Similarly, Pārśva's historicity is uncertain, even among scholars of religion. He may have been Mahavira's guru, but that does not imply that there was a widespread tradition in existence earlier. To compound the confusion, the 24 gods or idols is a theme found in Buddhist and Brahminical traditions as well; there is in fact some evidence, that the Jaina borrowed the idea of the 24 tirthankaras from the Buddhists (see John Cort's quotes). In such a situation, it is impossible with any degree of certainty to say that Jainism preceded Buddhism in any appreciable sense.
  4. Now to the question of "reform movement." The expression does not mean that the Jaina were Hindus who were splitting off from the parent religion (like Protestants from Catholicism); but it does make the point that Brahminical Hinduism was the prevailing religious ethos of the North Indian plain in the Vedic age (1500–500 BCE) and that both Jainism and Buddhism arose as responses or reaction to its orthodoxies, demonstrated by the fact that both religions share many concepts with Hinduism, which is clearly older. However, "orthodoxies" is not explained. Perhaps one could change this to "ritualistic orthodoxies." The view that Jainism was an independent stream of religious thought contemporaneous in origin with early Vedic Hinduism is a minority view, and a very small minority view at that.
  5. Finally, one thing that somehow got overlooked by everyone: the text says, "both established long-lasting monasteries." This is clearly wrong. There is no monastery from the life time of the Buddha or Mahavira that is still extant. What is meant there is, "both established long-lasting monastic traditions." I don't believe anything else needs to be changed. It is now almost a month since the RfC began and I believe it has helped to clarify some things, but that it is also time to close it. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that some of the earliest Jain sculptures have been found in Mathura, where several of the 24 Jinas are often specifically named in the inscription. Some of the Jinas are identified by specific attributes, such as long hair for Lord Rishabhadev, or snake hood for Parshvantha. Sonya Rhie Quintanilla in her "History of Early Stone Sculpture at Mathura: Ca. 150 BCE - 100 CE" comments that a panel showing Nilanjana contains the representations of the oldest identifiable Jina, Lord Rishabha. The Jain tradition of 24 Jinas was well known in early Mathura.

Buddhist tradition sometimes refers to 25 Buddhas, however more often it refers to only the 4 ("Manushi Buddhas"). There is some evidence that they may have actually existed, Asoka dedicated column to Konagamana; followers of Devadatta are said to have worshipped earlier Buddhas, but not Gautam (Shakyamuni).

I am not aware of a similar tradition in the Brahmanical tradition. Is the reference to the avataras of Vishnu? Malaiya (talk)

F&F, impressive reply. However, we cannot close this RFC. It seems to be still biased. I will need some time to go through your posts and provide a reply to that.Indian Chronicles (talk) 08:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Fowler&fowler Thank you for taking the time to research this topic. However, I see that you haven't referenced a single source (out of 9 valid ones) presented by @User:Indian Chronicles or used a single source (out of 4 valid ones) presented by @User:The Rahul Jain above. In addition to the valid question presented by @User:Malaiya above, you stated-
"...by the fact that both religions share many concepts with Hinduism, which is clearly older." Let's analyze this statement logically-
  • Fact A- Both religions (Jainism/Shramana and Hinduism/Vedic) share many concepts
  • Assumption- Hinduism is the older of the two religions (this assumption has been made because of the Vedas)
  • Fact B- The Vedas do not mention the concepts of Karma, the concept of liberation etc. (these are the shared concepts that Fact A talks about)
If Fact A and Fact B are correct, then our assumption must be wrong. If the Vedic steam of thought is older, then where did these shared concepts come from? Mahavira or Buddha clearly couldn't have thought of these overnight, and even if they did, they must have exchanged notes, for both have uncanny similarities. Hinduism borrowed these concepts from the Shramana (please see the link) movement, which was a parallel school to the Vedic school, and according to some scholars, the Shramana school was the prevailing school of thought, before the advent of Aryans and the Vedic philosophy. I propose we change the text to (please feel free to suggest changes)-

"The emerging urbanisation and the orthodoxies of this age also led to the resurgence of Shramana traditions of Buddhism and Jainism, both of which were independent religions"

--Aayush18 (talk) 01:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Parsva's historicity is not uncertain. Hermann Jacobi, used the ancient Jain scriptures and buddhist scriptures to successfully demonstrate that Svetambara Jain texts, despite being written at a considerably later date, were reliable in tracing down the early history of the Jains. (See http://www.sacred-texts.com/jai/sbe22/sbe2202.htm and http://www.sacred-texts.com/jai/sbe45/sbe4502.htm) Herman Jacobi's work has, since then, been accepted by almost all the scholars of Jainism. An important conclusion (for this RFC) that he found was, nirgrantha (Jains) were not a newly formed group during those time, nor was nataputta (Mahavira) their founder. Though Mahavira made various reforms within it, Jainism was undoubtedly older religion. Even in the list compiled by Fowler&fowler, many sources points out this earlier origins of Jainism and/or the historicity of Parsva. This article does not reflect it and also leaves no room for enquiry by placing the origins of Jainism in "late vedic period, around 5th century BCE". Secondly, I am unable to understand on what basis is Jainism being called a reform movement. The word reform usually refers to making a small change or ammendement to a larger thing without seriously altering the fundamentals. When the article says that Jainism began as a reform movement and became an independent religion afterwards, it would, according to me, mean exactly that Jains were hindus (Followers of Vedic Brahmanism) who split off. The concept of samsara, karma etc. were not well-developed in Hinduism during those times which was sarcastically shown by Aayush. Also, Fowler&fowler points that, in this context the word reform "does not mean that the Jaina were Hindus who were splitting off from the parent religion". I don't see any good reason to use the word reform movement except to add confusion. For these reasons, I cannot accept the solution proposed by Fowler&fowler. The article, in my opinion, should not imply that Jainism originated in 5th century BCE and should not imply that it was founded as a reform of Hinduism (Vedic religion). Rahul Jain (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&Fowler, I am impressed with your research. Unfortunately, it does not seem balanced. I will not accuse you of cherry picking, but there seems to be some confirmation bias here. You have already arrived at a conclusion and then selected research to support it. You have simply cursorily dismissed the references given by me with the trite and hackneyed response: “The view that Jainism was an independent stream of religious thought contemporaneous in origin with early Vedic Hinduism is a minority view, and a very small minority view at that.” Maybe you are right, if you were to take a poll of typical layman Indian who believes in Hinduism as Sanatana Dharma (eternal religion). The very idea that there may be traditions like, Sramana tradition that co-existed or even preceded Vedic tradition would seem to be galling or simply sacrilegious to such people. It is not difficult to see who will win the poll with Hindus at 80.5% of the population as against very small minority of Jains at 0.4% of the population. This skew has spawned a huge material on how Jainism and Buddhism are reform religions and they are offshoots of Hinduism (which incidentally did not even exist at that time). This Systemic bias is also clearly reflected on Wikipedia and on these pages.

I have collected my sources on this page: User:Indian_Chronicles/Jain_Sources These are internationally renowned and top notch scholars from India and abroad. The publishers are also renowned and reliable and quotable in Wikipedia. I am not naming them as they can be seen on my sub-user page.

After going through these sources, here is my assessment of the issue. Jainism cannot be called a reform movement because:

    1. It was never an offshoot of Historical Vedic religion (Hinduism did not even exist at that time). It never fell within vedic fold. Just because they have shared concepts, that does not mean that Jainism is a reform religion. This is very clear from sources provided by me. No one calls Christianity as a reform religion of Judaism or Islam as a reform religion of Christianity, even though these Abrahamic religions have many shared concepts.
    2. In never arose as a protest against Brahmanical religion. Show me one quotation from Mahavira protesting Brahminical orthodoxies. On the other hand you have many quotes from Buddha criticising and evaluating Mahavira’s philosophy proving that Mahavira was an elder contemporary of Buddha. Buddha rejected extreme penances of Jainism. Both Jainism and Budhhism share Sramana philosophy. Still we cannot say that Buddhism arose as a protest religion from Jainism. Then why do we say that Jainism is a protest religion?
    3. If Mahavira, Buddha, Makkhali Gosala and Purana Kassapa (both leaders of Ajivika, another Sramana religion) who were near contemporaries and who all preached Sramana philosophy, then how come 4 different people from different religion came up with similar Sramana philosophy simultaneously? This could have happened only if Sramanism was already a thriving and established tradition separate from Vedic tradition. Then where is the question of off-shoot and reform religion?
    4. It is difficult to believe that princes like Mahavira and Buddha would renounce their great wealth and kingdom and undergo severe penances to protest Brahmanical Orthodoxies. There are better ways to protest. It is clear that they renounced their kingdom in search of truth and Nirvana, liberation. When Mahavira discarded clothes and meditated, protest against Brahmanical Orthodoxies was last thing on his mind. He was following the path of his preceeding Sramana teacher. Yes certain Jain scriptures do contain criticism of vedic sacrifices and violent rituals. But that cannot be used to call Jainism as a protest or reform religion.
    5. Very clearly the philosophical concepts of Ahimsa, Karma, Samsara and Moksha were adopted by Hinduism from Sramana philosophy and not the other way round. Very clearly the Hindu philosophy and Indian philosophy was shaped by Sramana philosophy and not by Vedic philosophy. Axel Michales, the very source quoted by F&F says that Vedism was not the source of these concepts:
Hinduism: Past and Present By Axel Michaels, Barbara Harshav, Published 2004 Princeton University Press ISBN:0691089523
The legacy of vedic religion in Hinduism is generally overestimated. The influence of the mythology is indeed great, but the religious terminology changed considerably: all the key terms of Hinduism either do not exist in Vedas or have completely different meaning. The religion of Vedas do not know ethicized migration of soul with retribution of acts (karma), the cyclical destruction of the world, or the salvation during ones lifetime (Jeevanmukti, moksa, Nirvana); the idea of the world as illusion (maya) must have gone against the grain of ancient India, and an omnipotent creator God emerges only in the later hymns of Rgveda. Nor did the Vedic religion know a caste system, the burning of widows, the ban on remarriage, images of Gods and temples, the Puja Worship, Yoga, the pilgrimages, vegetarianism, the holiness of the cow, the doctrine of the stages of life (asrama) or knew them only at their inception. Page 38
As shown by the reliable sources quoted by me, Sramana philosophy was the source of Ahimsa, Karma, Samsara and Moksha.

To sum up, as per the arguments provided by me as well as the sources provided by me, Jainism (and Buddhism ) is clearly not a reform religion or an off-shoot of Hinduism, but it is an original and independent stream of tradition that co-existed with Vedic tradition and possibly was more ancient than Vedism and influenced the vedic philosophy (and not the other way round). If these reliable sources are not considered, then it would be in total contravention of Wikipedia rules.Indian Chronicles (talk) 09:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Chronicles, none of what you just posted has any bearing at all (not even a tiny, tiny bit) on our discussion here. You're making an academic argument about whether or not Jainism was a reform movement, based on your analysis of what was actually happening at the time. The only thing that Wikipedia policies allow us to do is to look at the sources and see if those sources have come to the conclusion that it is a reform movement. Anything else is original research and strictly forbidden. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your state of denial does not change anything. Please do not teach me what is OR. I have been Wikipedia editor for 7 years. What I have stated is 100% relevant and applicable. This only proves that you have not bothered to read what I have written. I did not find these comments of your when F&F put up his OR? I am sorry, but your dismissive and condescending attitude will not work here. Try cooperation and consensus instead. Indian Chronicles (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could have easily turned the tables and said that F&F posting does not change or mean anything, and that F&F is simply indulging in academic arguments and Original research. And here we have a veteran editor behaving like a novice. I mean are you guys really interested in consensus and following wikipedia rules or simply you feel that you own this article and you will be dismissively condescending and patronising towards people who do not agree with you?Indian Chronicles (talk) 07:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems I have to borrow from the toolboxes of other editors who've worked on contentious articles and FA's and the like with POV pushers: bullshit. Fowler&Fowler posted highly reliable sources that explicitly state when/who Jainism started. That is exactly what we need. You, instead, posted a bunch of claims about what was or was not happening thousands of years ago, and then tried to argue that these answered the question of whether or not Jainism was a reform movement. So F&F did exactly what a Wikipedia editor is required to do, and you did the exact opposite. Your comments hold no merit here. If you want to come back with reliable secondary (or, really, tertiary, given the nature of this article and the claim being sought, since our goal here is to determine the consensus of historians), then do so. Otherwise, your comments have as much value to a closer of this RfC as someone saying "I like Jainism and all these people are meanies!" Qwyrxian (talk) 08:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My comments hold merit here, very much. I have quoted from very reliable sources that say Jainism is not a reform religion. I have done exactly what Wikipedia requires us to do. Nothing else. You may borrow anything from anyone's toolbox and try to act real smart like sole owner of this page. Your denial or dismissive attitude does not mean anything. Absolutely. Forget about agreeing to me. You are not even ready to acknowledge even tiny bit that there may be some alternate view here or some scope of consensus here. That as much as you have said it yourself. And, then you try to teach me the rules of Wikipedia. Well, lets see if your bullying tactics work here.Indian Chronicles (talk) 13:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change

Proposed change:

In the late Vedic period, around the 5th century BCE, the small chiefdoms of the Ganges Plain and the north-western regions had consolidated into 16 major oligarchies and monarchies that were known as the mahajanapadas. Buddhism was founded during this period of intense religious speculation. Based on the teachings of Gautama Buddha, it attracted followers from all social classes excepting the middle class; chronicling the life of the Buddha was central to the beginnings of recorded history in India. Jainism, whose origins are obscure, came into prominence around the same time following its revival by Mahavira. These religions opposed the ritualistic brahmanic schools which were prevalent at that time. In an age of increasing urban wealth, they held up renunciation as an ideal, and both established long-lasting monastic traditions. Politically, by the 3rd century BCE, the kingdom of Magadha had annexed or reduced other states to emerge as the Mauryan Empire. The empire was once thought to have controlled most of the subcontinent excepting the far south, but its core regions are now thought to have been separated by large autonomous areas. The Mauryan kings are known as much for their empire-building and determined management of public life as for Ashoka's renunciation of militarism and far-flung advocacy of the Buddhist dhamma.

If we modify the third paragraph of the Ancient India section as proposed above we can avoid pushing POV in either direction. Rahul Jain (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Seems to be Ok.Indian Chronicles (talk) 07:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


After looking at some three dozen reliable sources in User:Fowler&fowler/Sources for Jainism and elsewhere, I believe the following is the most accurate description:

By the 5th century BCE, the small chiefdoms of the Ganges Plain and the north-western regions had consolidated into 16 major oligarchies and monarchies known as the mahajanapadas. The spreading urbanisation, the social changes it wrought, and the ritual and sacrificial orthodoxies of the previous age, led to heterodox religious movements. These were seen both within Vedic Hinduism, appearing in the Upanishads, and outside it in Jainism and Buddhism,[4] which became enduring independent religions. Jainism came into prominence in this time, during the life of its exemplar, Mahavira. Buddhism, based on the teachings of Gautama Buddha attracted followers from all social classes excepting the middle class. Chronicling the life of the Buddha was central to the beginnings of recorded history in India. In an age of increasing urban wealth, both new religions held up renunciation as an ideal, and both established long lasting monastic traditions.

I now mention Jainism first. I leave open the possibility that Jainism (or Jaina-like renouncer groups) may have been around earlier as a smaller, scattered, cultic presence. I now say, heterodox instead of reform, but that means I have to mention the Upaniṣads, for that was the major heterodox reaction, and I add "new religions," instead of "religions."
I want to be very clear: the sources you all have produced are not reliable. In particular, there is little chance that the usual POV found on the Jainism and Karma in Jainism pages—Jainism invented karma and rebirth, that it appreciably predates Buddhism, that Parśva was a historical figure, that it is one of the oldest religions in the world (cited to a book written by a retired physician), that it goes back at least to 900 BCE, that it was the religion of the Indus Valley Civilization, etc.—will appear on the India page. This is my final offer. I will not be responding further. If you agree to it, I will change the text with appropriate sources. If you don't, you are welcome to pursue it in any Wikipedia forum of your choice, all the way up to ArbCom. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak support The discussion was never was whether Jainism should be mention first or not, so it doesn't make any difference. By saying Jainism was a new religious movement, you are basically neglecting nearly every source compiled by User:Indian_Chronicles/Jain_Sources. Are you sure that Upanishads were heterodox? I highly doubt that. Still, I think I can weakly support your description for now. Rahul Jain (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was uncomfortable about applying "heterodox" to the Upaniṣads and you rightly called me on it. Here is what I should have said. I have taken out "new."

By the 5th century BCE, the small chiefdoms of the Ganges Plain and the north-western regions had consolidated into 16 major oligarchies and monarchies known as the mahajanapadas. The spreading urbanisation, the social changes it wrought, and the ritual and sacrificial orthodoxies of the previous age, spurred new religious thinking in India. This occurred within Vedic Hinduism, in the speculation of the early Upanishads, and outside it in heterodox movements, two of which became enduring independent religions. Jainism came into prominence in this time, during the life of Mahavira, its exemplar. Buddhism, based on the teachings of Gautama Buddha, attracted followers from all social classes excepting the middle class. Chronicling the life of the Buddha was central to the beginnings of recorded history in India. In an age of increasing urban wealth, both religions held up renunciation as an ideal, and both established long lasting monastic traditions.

I have also made a new section in User:Fowler&fowler/Sources for Jainism, where I will add the various sources supporting the statement. Everything else I've stated above, I still stand by. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC began on 10 August 2013. It is a full month since. I have not heard anything from the initiators of the RfC for 3 days. If I don't hear anything in the next couple of days, I shall be closing the RfC and adding the last bit of proposed text to the article. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to do this but none of the proposed texts are good. The current text is succinct and flows well. The text proposed by Rahul Jain and supported by others is too long. The text proposed by Fowler and introduces new elements, particularly the introduction of the idea that reform in Hinduism was also central to this age. It seems to me that the sticking point with the current text is mainly the implication that Jainism was created in the 5th Century BCE as a response to what was going on in Hinduism. Reading through the discussion above, and it is long so I may not be reading it correctly, it appears that the view that Jainism existed in India prior to this period is not an isolated or fringe view. It may be a minority view but, reviewing the sources, I'd say it was a minority view that is increasingly gaining acceptance. Wouldn't it make sense to directly acknowledge the possibility of the existence of Jainism prior to this period and leave the majority of the current text intact? For example, something along the lines of (not sure if 'early vedic times' is the correct way of putting this)

The emerging urbanisation and the orthodoxies of this age also created an atmosphere of religious reform in which other religious ideas flourished.[37] Buddhism, based on the teachings of Gautama Buddha attracted followers from all social classes excepting the middle class; chronicling the life of the Buddha was central to the beginnings of recorded history in India.[36][38][39] Jainism, thought to have roots in early vedic times [source], came into prominence around the same time during the life of its exemplar, Mahavira.[40] In an age of increasing urban wealth, both religions held up renunciation as an ideal,[41] and both established long-lasting monastic traditions.[34]

--regentspark (comment) 17:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That Jainism itself (not random unnamed cultic renouncer groups) predates 500 is very much a fringe view. It certainly is that among historians, philologists, and epigraphists. The latter group are brutally clear on that. (See User:Fowler&fowler/Sources_for_Jainism#Archeology.2C_Philology.2C_and_Epigraphy_Sources, especially Michael Witzel, K.R. Norman etc.) It might be less fringe among scholars of religion, but it is the history section we are adding to. That is why my version focuses on the political and sociological changes that produced these changes not on what is early and what later. That is the view Romila Thapar, Gavin Flood, Patrick Olivelle and others. The main thing is that our edits have to pass FAC, as it were. I don't believe claiming early vedic provenance for Jainism will. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A.L. Basham is even more unambiguous (see same set of sources): "The former Buddhas and former Tirthaṇkaras (of Jainism) have no reliable historical basis, for no earlier ascetic movements of this type are attested anywhere either in the Vedic literature or by archaeology. We do not believe in the existence of earlier śramaṇic movements in the Ganges valliey. This was a new development in the religious life of India, which had its roots not in the śramaṇic movements but in the sages of the Upaniṣads." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that the references that Indian Chronicles provides are largely from religion and philosophy. I was basing my reading on the text of some of the works listed there. The Mary Pat Fisher reference (I cannot find a university affiliation for her) explicitly says "well documented" about evidence for the pre-existence of Jainism. Regardless, my larger point is that the text, as is, is good and it would be better to tweak it than to change it. Perhaps Jainism came into prominence ...., bypassing its origin issue entirely?--regentspark (comment) 18:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that is what I first wanted to do, but the initiators of the RfC (like the "slippery eels" of yore (other renouncer groups) the Buddha railed against) kept changing the terms of the RfC, first in how the words were to be interpreted, then the words themselves. And that was a month ago. Will suggest a wee-bitest-of-tweaks ASAP. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about:

The emerging urbanisation and the orthodoxies of this age also created heterodox religious movements, two of which became independent religions. Buddhism, based on the teachings of Gautama Buddha attracted followers from all social classes excepting the middle class; chronicling the life of the Buddha was central to the beginnings of recorded history in India.[4][6][7] Jainism came into prominence during the life of its exemplar, Mahavira.[8] In an age of increasing urban wealth, both religions held up renunciation as an ideal,[9] and both established long-lasting monastic traditions.

I will add the references later; it will likely be a reshuffle of earlier ones. I have, however, learned a lot searching the literature and compiling the sources, some of which I have ordered. So the RfC has not been all in vain. Thanks for the suggestion above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems ok. Rahul Jain (talk) 12:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. --regentspark (comment) 14:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aayush18, and Rahul Jain, even if we agree that Vedas don't teach Karma concept, what about Puranas that date back to 9th Century BCE? Don't they? I mean much older than Jainism already.. So the argument is incorrect. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 15 September 2013

national language : HINDI "please change NONE to HINDI because india`s national language is hindi " Gaurav294 (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read FAQ at the top of the page, question 8. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Indian Prime Minister's Office recently declared that the country has NO NATIONAL LANGUAGE. Here's proof that was cited in "National Language" page of Wikipedia: [11] [12] Hindi is recognized as an OFFICIAL LANGUAGE, but not as the NATIONAL LANGUAGE of India. 59.184.170.154 (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Raghav Sharman[reply]

Who is the Emperor of this stupid page?

I've noticed every other country on Wikipedia can brag about themselves, but here on India, we can't state factual things if it sounds like were bragging. Why? Who is in charge of this page? Who is the emperor that decides what stays and what goes? Who gets to decide this and why? I want to make changes ALL FACTUAL CHANGES and yet I cant because some freaking emperor is going to take it out. They will probably take this out too. Sigh.

108.23.228.249 (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "Featured Article" applied to India article is some sort of conspiracy on India article. The Featured Article (FA) criteria is limiting the article to not expand and not grow. I think it it time to throw this feature out or get India out of FA. The United Kingdom, USA, Israel and China are not on featured articles list and thus their country article have expanded with substantial topics and headings. However, India has reduced to some kind of joke due to FA. Get India out of FA article list. I think it is an overwhelming joke that India does not even have a topic or a section named Science and Technology. Maybe people who are editing should see China (PRC) article first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.74.11.5 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
108 I am not sure what an Emperor of a stupid page is but if you mean who decides what stays and what goes then it is a consensus of all the editors here, no one person has any control. Also note this is an encyclopedia article not a blog or an arm of the Indian Tourist Board so it should not include "bragging" but give a balanced view of the country. If you want to suggest changes then you are welcome to do it on this talk page and get agreement from everybody else. MilborneOne (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
116 this is a featured article one the highest standards that an article can achieve, users have put in a lot of effort to get it to this level and rightly so want to maintain it at that level. Just a note on Science and Technology this is an overview of the country it cant include everything and important topics like Science and Technology have a seperate article (Science and technology in India). If you want to suggest new content then you are welcome like 108 to do it on this talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

I've reverted the most recent set of edits because of some large scale changes, at least some of which were not really beneficial:

  • The RBI statement at the head doesn't provide any context.
  • The museum link doesn't seem appropriate.
  • The politics template just adds clutter to the entire area.
  • Dividing the economy section to import, export etc doesn't flow well in this.

I'll take a deeper look at some of the other changes to list them out here. —SpacemanSpiff 19:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also

  • Olympics is fine, but badminton is the incorrect link in that context.
  • Iron ore exports, is it relevant in the context of the summary style structure.
  • Major industries are sourced to an independent reliable source, why should it now be primary sourced?

Given the above, I think the additions need to be discussed before they are made in the article. —SpacemanSpiff 19:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My Remarks: Users are contesting the following additions to the page:

  • Add of Politics in India to Government section
  • Change of word "Milk" to a link
  • Add of Reserve Bank of India to Economy section <- Accepted by SpacemanSpiff and twillisjr
  • Add/Separation of sections in "Economy" to "Import" and "Export" sub-sections
  • Add of link to "List of Museums" in Art and architecture section
  • Add of link to "India at the Olympics" in Sports section <- Accepted by SpacemanSpiff and twillisjr
  • Add/Change of "badminton" to link of "Indian Badminton League"

Please respond as to whether or not these changes seem appropriate or not. Twillisjr (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not misquote me. In my post above, I have clearly explained what's objectionable. —SpacemanSpiff 19:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am just trying to write something that shows support for the 2 issues you did not object to, so that additional users on this talk page can see positive and negative approaches. It helps users realize you are not trying to show bias. Sorry for the confusion. Twillisjr (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines are very simple. See WP:OWN#Featured_articles and several RfCs on this page in the archives: for any non-trivial edit, we first gain consensus on the talk page. You not only didn't do that, you then edit warred. In such an article progress is made very slowly. You can't present reams of hastily written prose and ask people to point out mistakes. You have to start with a few sentences. Most sentences in this page have found their way in after many revisions and much though. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Add

I would like to add the following:

Are there any objections? Twillisjr (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I've mentioned before, adding RBI contextually would be fine, not just a random addition that it is the central bank. What's the point of MNRE? Neither has the ministry done much nor does it actually have much justification in such a shortened summary for governance. —SpacemanSpiff 02:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Judaism

In the introduction paragarph

Four world religions—Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism—originated here, whereas Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Islam .....

I would like to add Judaism also, since it was perhaps the first religion to come to India.Pdheeru (talk) 07:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism was not only the first religion from outside to come to India but the Cochin Jews and Paradesi Jews of Kerala are known communities in India and the world. Cochin Jews (Mizrahi origin) trace back to the time of King Solomon and Paradesi Jews (Sephardic origin) trace back to the time from 1492. A well known Indian Jew whose ancestry belongs to Iraqi Jews is Indian Army Lieutenant General J F R Jacob who was the former Chief of Staff of the Indian Army's Eastern Command and was solely responsible for the architecture of the division of Pakistan and the creation of country named Bangladesh. Jews were always respected in India and the religion is still favored and respected by the majority. If Islam can be stated, then why not Judaism?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.74.10.63 (talk) 10:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment 116 but did you read the article? User:Pdheeru added Judaism to the lead a few hours after the original comment here and it has not been challenged so no need for further comment. MilborneOne (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had to mention it because I gave the rational understanding and explanation for the need for it to be stated. I have been reading the article for quite some years and I have noted that Judaism is mentioned and then after it is taken down again and again from the article. I hope it will not happen from now as every editor who edits know the factual truths now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.74.10.77 (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 7 October 2013

languages = Hindi Karan.sapkale (talk) 09:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Please see the FAQ. —SpacemanSpiff 09:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image Change to Suitable Timeframe

The image of the 'Paintings in Aurangabad, Maharashtra" in the history section does not go well with the "Ancient India" heading as the image there in that section is from the 6th century; I fancy that there be a much older picture put there instead, perhaps this proto shiva/ early yogi image from 2600–1900 BCE? The image does a good job displaying what the hieroglyphic writing that could have been used long ago in that time looked like and also shows a four headed multidirectional Bhrama type of figure which is interesting and also tells a fair bit about the minds of an ancient Indian. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 07:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A possible representation of a "yogi" or "proto-Shiva", 2600–1900 BCE
There are a number of reasons why the picture you propose is not suitable.
1) Most pictures on the India page are high quality, preferably even brilliant (i.e. WP:Featured pictures). The Ajanta image is a Featured Picture, which, moreover has been stably in the article for some seven years, if not more; the Indus seal, is not, its source, copyright licensing or lack thereof, uncertain.
2) Although the history section is a conventional history of India, we are mindful of the fact that the page is really the Republic of India page, and we try not to draw too much attention to artifacts or monuments that are both no longer in present-day Republic of India and date from a period in which the term "India" was not used. There is no epigraphic, sculptural evidence in India for the Vedic period (1500–600 BCE), so we are essentially left with post-600 BCE artifacts, and even those, are few and far between until about 100 BCE or 100 ACE (there is the Sanchi stupa, and some Asokan edicts from two centuries earlier). In that time frame, Ajanta, whose first phase began in 100 BCE (though that particular painting is from the second phase, in the Gupta and post-Gupta period) is not a bad choice. For the same reason, we don't include pictures of the Great Bath in Mohenjo-daro, the stone reliefs of Taxila, the Buddhist ruins of Takht-i-Bahi, or the neolithic site of Mehrgarh on the India page. The IVC (or more correctly, Ghaggar-Hakra valley) artifacts found in sites in India are not of the same quality as those in Pakistan. By the luck of the draw, the best known early historical sites went to Pakistan after the partition.
3) That seal itself is controversial. Although John Marshall, and perhaps Mortimer Wheeler, saw connections with "Pashupati," modern scholars of ancient Indus do not see the religious ideologies of that urban civilization as necessarily connected to Hinduism, in any recognizable form that we know it today. (I don't mean Hindu nationalist fringe scholars.) The script has not been deciphered yet (there are scholars, Michael Witzel, for one, who don't think it is a script); consequently, the Brahmi script the progenitor of all Indic scripts, remains the earliest script of India and Asokan edits, which use it, the earliest epigraphic evidence in India. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS Don't get me wrong. I'm not wedded to the idea of the Ajanta painting being the only illustration for the Ancient India section; and the same applies to the other historical periods. What I mean is that if other good contemporaneous pictures are available we could even have rotating templates of images in the history sub-sections, as we do in the economy and culture sections. But all that will require discussion here and then nominations and some kind of consensus or voting. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comparatively it is much better than the 6th century image and till a better image is found It should be put in the place of the Ajanta image. Are you up for that? Jujhar.pannu (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not a better image. The Ajanta image is a featured picture (click on it and read the text below). Also, for the many reasons I gave, the so called proto-Shiva is not appropriate for the India page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, it is not up to me. It requires consensus here. It takes more than two to reach that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Surely its better than a 6th century image under the 'ancient history' section and since we both agree that the 6th century image doesn't fit the section it should be appropriate to remove it first cause when you glance the section that image represents the portrayal of the whole section and makes a false picture I don't know how you are still able to argue its clearly not the best image.
Just because if the image is featured it does not mean it can go anywhere in an article, we only use images that best represent the related topic based. The indus valley image here is clearly from 2600–1900 BCE which is the fact. It literally says "A possible representation of a "yogi" or "proto-Shiva"" therefore it is not explicitly stating a non - factual topic as true. The image is clearly much better than the one up. Here are the only logical solutions:
  • Replace Image (Its a better image)
  • Keep both (Shift the old one down to its appropriate section, Medieval India.)
  • Remove Image (Since it does not fit section)

Jujhar.pannu (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When did I say that I agree a 6th century image doesn't fit the section. I said a number of times, the Indian early medieval age begins in the 7th century (conventionally, either with the beginning of Harsha's rule 603 or the end of Harsha's rule 647 or thereabouts). So, the sixth century is very much ancient India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

not up to the mark

The article described is incomplete without the historical personalities from West Bengal.You gave describtions about gandhiji and nehru ji with images, but didn't described anything about Netaji subhash chandra bose, Rabindranath tagore ,swamy vivekananda, and many great personalities in and around India from Bengal.Anurag Chakraborty (talk)12:04 PM, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Tagore is already mentioned. And maybe Swamiji could be mentioned. But i don't think Bose or others are necessary. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Society section

So I added a statement from a new report that India has the largest number of slaves. It was politely reverted claiming that it was not appropriate for the society section. Since many other country articles have a human rights section, can that section be started along with my info and a 'main article|Human rights in India' link? I added that information in the society section because it was next to a sentence on Dalit persecution, so it seemed the article's most appropriate place to add it. The society section only has the disparate information of caste, marriage and festivals. Doesn't it seem better to break that section and send the information to other sections. JustBeCool (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JustBeCool, I think you should not add such news anywhere in whole Wikipedia. Because there's no independent verfibility in these reports. The slavery in many countries remains legal. Thus it's impossible to assume from such report, that it will present anything to be legible. If you look at the Slavery#Present_day it's already given. Therefore if you presented any new stats, anywhere you can remove them, since they have to be removed. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how this effects the rest of your arguments Bladesmulti, but that section you just pointed to shows a clear error in your claims--slavery is, in fact, illegal in all countries in the world. Of course there are millions of violations, but that does not mean that it's actually acceptable. Furthermore, you can't argue that there are "no independent verifiability"; the report itself is the independent verification. The BBC is practically the gold standard for news agencies, and they count as a reliable source for information, and can be presumed to have done basic fact checking on their publications. Now, it's still possible to argue this info doesn't belong in this article, but not based on your objections.
With reference to JustBeCool's question, I do think that we need a link to Human rights in India somewhere in this article, though I'm not sure where the best place to put that is. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that this slavery information fits in the India article. The news story is based on an index compiled by one organization (Walk Free) and the report itself probably has caveats and explanations. I would wait for reliable secondary sources (academic ones) to analyze and comment on the report before considering including any information here. We don't want our articles to be a mere compendium of news reports. --regentspark (comment) 22:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ a b "The World Economy (GDP) : Historical Statistics by Professor Angus Maddison" (PDF). World Economy. Retrieved 21 May, 2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  2. ^ Maddison, Angus (2006). The World Economy - Volume 1: A Millennial Perspective and Volume 2: Historical Statistics. OECD Publishing by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. p. 656. ISBN 9789264022621.
  3. ^ Madison, Angus (2006). The world economy, Volumes 1–2. OECD Publishing. p. 638. doi:10.1787/456125276116. ISBN 92-64-02261-9. Retrieved 23 May 2013.
  4. ^ a b c d Kulke & Rothermund 2004, pp. 54–56.
  5. ^ Thapar 2003, p. 166.
  6. ^ a b Stein 1998, p. 21.
  7. ^ a b Stein 1998, pp. 67–68.
  8. ^ a b Singh 2009, pp. 312–313.
  9. ^ a b Singh 2009, p. 300.
  10. ^ Singh 2009, p. 319.
  11. ^ http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/stories-they-tell-about-languages/article4747023.ece
  12. ^ http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-01-25/india/28148512_1_national-language-official-language-hindi
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India&oldid=579183978"