Talk:India

2010 data

Why do people use 2010 data for GDP instead of 2009? We are not even half way through 2010, and every country's using 2009 data, stop this childish and ridiculous behaviour. This information is not about "look better'

pOLTICS

There should be talk of the rising power of communist parties who were even part of the goverment before the last election, Maoist control 33% of the country and Many Mainstream Politicians fear the rise of communist parties —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.250.215 (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Potential superpower ???

The intro claims, that India, is considered to be a potential superpower. This is outrageous nonsense. India economy is only 11th in the world. It is the largest developing country on the globe. If this article wants to be taken seriously, it should correct the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.151.16 (talk) 09:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The lead merely reports what some claim. Did you see the word "considered"?--Sodabottle (talk) 04:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

See Potential superpowers, will understand what it means. KuwarOnline ^Talk 05:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The first sentenced of Potential superpowers concerning India says: "Several media publications and academics have discussed India's potential of becoming a great power eventually a superpower". Discussed not considered. This here is an encyclopedia not fantasy land. India has 1 billion people in massive poverty and malnutrition. You better have a look on its economy, its the same size like Spain. A country 20 times smaller (population wise). Is Spain a future superpower? No serious academic would claim that India has the capacity to become a superpower in the next 50 years. It has the capacity to become a regional great power, maybe in 20 years. But that does not belong in an introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.76.76 (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

But there is no time limit on what "potential" is restricted to. With such a large population, nuclear weapons, one day a seat on the UN security council, huge potential for growth, there is no Ifs about it. India will become a superpower one day, its a question of when not If. There may be a case for rewording that sentence though. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"India has 1 billion people in massive poverty and malnutrition." Wrong. India has 1.2 billion people, 0.2 billion of which are malnourished as of 2001-03 (it's likely to have improved in the past almost-decade) according the FAO. As for having roughly the same as Spain, that depends on whether you compare it by PPP, where India is the 4th largest economy and Spain the 13th or nominally where Spain is 9th and India 11th. In any case, Spain isn't a future superpower because its change is going in the other direction. Munci (talk) 11:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Disregarding the poverty/nominal GDP hyperbole (Spanish Superpower!!), the IP does has a point about the assertion's place in the lead. The "potential superpower" thing is not an universally accepted meme. What i mean is, it is not a non-controversial assertion. We can put this in the Economy or Foreign relations section. --Sodabottle (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, Wikipedia is not the place of lofty ifs and speculation. Its about proofen facts and realities. The potential superpower article itself is crossing the line and can be considered a fantasy playfield of patriotic ambitions. Every human being has "potential" every country as well but that does not belong in a reliable encyclopedia introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.10.52 (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, friends

I really don't think its worth mentioning the "Potential Superpower" status. Since India haven't reached that stage particularly on economically. It only ranks 11th in the world let it be the 3rd largest in the world by market exchange rates then we can boldly say that yes India is on verge of becoming the next superpower. So for now pls don't mention it, my dear friend I'm an Indian and who doesn't want that this country to prospers and become a global power. Thank You--Kkm010^as© 04:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with the anti-superpower camp. Using the Spain example, well, Spain was the World's first "Superpower." This is a well studied example so population is not really a sufficient cause of "superpower-hood." Take a look at the European Union, if one uses "metrics" to purport Superpower status than what we would call the European Union is the most powerful block on Earth and for the foreseeable future. But do we consider them a Superpower in the traditional sense? No. They are introverted (simply put). One of the people discussing this said that it is an issue of "not if but when." This shows a complete misunderstanding of what Superpower means. And quite frankly indicates an Indian nationalist to me. Superpower is a relative comparison. You can't have dozens of superpowers. It is essentially a term, simplistically put, which means that one power has the ability to dominate every other power without the ability of any one power doing the same to it. So this means, outside of nuclear deterrence, you can't really have more than one or two "Superpowers." Technically, I would say just one but when it is close like in the Cold War you need a Hot War to figure it out, which most sane people would not want to be put to the test! Even now if England became militaristic they could dominate India again. The only legitimate discussion for another Superpower would be China, but even that is not secure. The idea of a China superpower is more supported by Anti-Western-ism than anything else. Their population has peaked while the world's only Superpower the United States continues to grow. Again, right now, if the United States wanted to and became militaristic they could make China their B-word. This will continue for the foreseeable future as well since China demographically will peak in the next few years. The only reason why we are having this discussion is the fact that the West is open and has tried to embrace both China and India whereas these nations continue to view things not in market and progressive terms but in racial and ethnic lines. It is quite a shame. The West is undergoing a radical change, which contrary to the common belief, is for the good. They are restructuring their economies to export and innovation rather than import and innovation. This will put a fundamental break to any continued evolution to a "superpower" status as they won't be subsidized by Western consumers. Also, Western populations are undergoing strong natural selection right know where those who do not have children are being selected out. This means that the other other West, the Europeans will begin to see their populations rise again with the associated GDP and in turn power within the next 100 years while the "developing" world will see declines. So you see "projecting" into the future anything is really difficult and opposing equally valid perspectives can be made.99.35.225.222 (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

illiteracy, corruption, disease, and malnutrition

I need to see your faculty identification card...

About population & military

Hello, I would kindly draw your attention about the population in India, in the top most section its stating India's population is 1.18 however many sources do say that by now it has crossed 1.2 billion people so please correct it.

And secondly please mention whether India have the 3rd largest stating army of 2nd in the world and try to put the latest figures as of 2009 because in Indian Armed Forces article data is complied as of 2006.--Kkm010 | Talk with me 05:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

India do have the third largest armed forces in the world in world. The latest figures is not available. With the Induction of Sagar prahari bal, the new mountain divisions etc, the number must have crossed that of the U.S. But still the number is not available in the open. But when taking the Army into consideration, the Indian Army is second to the PLA in terms of numbers.Bcs09 (talk) 02:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

And what about the population fact.--Kkm010 | Talk with me 05:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait another six months or so. we will have the prelim numbers from the 2011 census. --Sodabottle (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Replacement of Su-30 MKI image

The Su-30 MKI image need to be replaced. One suggestion is the NAMICA and Nag missile image.Bcs09 (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hindustan هندوستان

The Persian transliteration is absent in the paragraph —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.212.62 (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

military

third largest standing army or third largest standing military....pls correct this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.72.157.56 (talk) 13:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Names in Bengali and Tamil

I think besides Hindi the names of the country should also be written in Bengali and Tamil. This is because although Hindi is the official language of India the national anthem Jana Gana Mana is written in Bengali (the second major language of India by number of speakers) by Rabindranath tagore (and probably India is the only country whose national anthem is not written in its so called "Official Language") and Tamil is the first language to be given the status of classical language of India. -Pravata (talk) 09:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add the Tamil and Bengali scripts now that i have opposed your addition. Once someone opposes your addition, discuss and add ONLY AFTER consensus is reached here. That said my reasons for opposing the addition of the scripts

a)The script is already given in two union level official languages. And link is provided for other official 8th schedule languages. This arrangement is enough

b)Choice of Bengali and Tamil alone is completely arbitrary. There are three more classical languages beside Tamil. And regarding Bengali why stop with second highest number speakers, why not add Telugu which is the third highest. And so what if the national anthem is written in Bengali that has nothing to do with the official name according to the constitution.--Sodabottle (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

As Sodabottle has pointed out, the two official languages of the Union have been listed in the lede, along with a link to the names in other languages. Adding any more languages will make the opening sentence too bulky and cumbersome, and further, there is no rational basis to particularly include any of the 8th Schedule languages there. As has also been pointed out above, several equivalent considerations could be advanced for other languages as well, and we'll be sliding down a slippery slope with no end in sight. Hence, let's not add any more languages to the lede than are already present. See also this archived discussion for additional information. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Indus Valley Civilization

This article claims that India was the home to the Indus valley civilization, while the article on Indus valley civilization shows that it existed on the banks of the Indus river, in present day Pakistan. 96.46.193.222 (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is in present day Pakistan but that does not severe its importance in India's history. Pakistan was created by the partition of India ; it cannot be considered the sole inheritor of the Indus valley civilization's legacy.--Deepak D'Souza (talk) 08:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)