Talk:North India/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about North India. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Comment

This article has problems. There's a much better article here. This one is labeled "North india" but talks about North and South India (South India is a superb article.)

Also, "North India" is actually a redirect to Indo-Gangetic plain.

It seems to me this article is unnecessary and should be deleted or at the very least merged.

--KSnortum 30 June 2005 06:29 (UTC)

I wrote a fair bit of the material on Indo-Gangetic plain (thanks for the compliment!), and also created the North India redirect. But I think it may be time to clean up this article so that we can move it to the North India redirect when it's ready. Ideally, North India and the Indo-Gangetic plain should have different articles, because the Indo-Gangetic plain also encompasses much of Pakistan and Bangladesh (and perhaps the Terai region of Nepal), whereas North India is India. Perhaps Indo-Gangetic plain should a primarily geographic focus, while North India can have a mainly cultural one. Historical information could go either place, and especially pre-Partition history might make more sense on Indo-Gangetic plain. What do you say? QuartierLatin 1968 21:39, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

I fully endorse the view - as a matter of fact, North India and Indo-Gangetic plain both should be independent article. We should try to make the North India article on the pattern of South India. As regards the article North india, the country's name "india' looks strange and appears to have been used as North India was a re-direct. Someone should do something to fix the things, I mean move the contents of North india to North India, and remove the redirection link to Indo-Gangetic plain. I feel that this may be done fast, as matter is obvious and much discussion may not be required.--Bhadani 04:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Great improvements

I'm very pleased to see the improvements that have gone into this article of late. I'm left with two questions, as an outsider: the main scope of the North India article here is on the region north of Maharashtra and west of Bengal. But South India concerns the Dravidian states, i.e. to the exclusion of Maharashtra; and the article on North-East India concerns the Seven Sister states, to the exclusion of Bengal. Obviously we can say Maharashtra is in West India, and West Bengal in East India; but where should they fit into the traditional North/South/(North)east division? Quartier Latin1968 18:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Good questions! It seems odd to exclude West Bengal from a definition of North India, as it is historically, geographically, and ecologically twined together with the rest of the region. Tom Radulovich 19:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I also felt the same on seeing the North India map. Either Maharashtra and West Bengal could be added to North India or two new regions West India comprising Gujarat, Maharashtra and Goa and East India comprising West Bengal, Bihar and Orissa.--Raghu 16:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I share the same wonder. Maharashtra and West Bengal are completely different from north Indian states. Take the example of Biharis and Bengalis: different eating habits, different language, culture. Even the Gods they worship (Most Bengalis worship Durga, Marathis Ganesha and North Indians Vishnu) are different. For me Maharashtra lies in Western India and West Bengal lies in Eastern India. People from Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh are a lot similar to each other than people from Maharashtra and say Haryana. --Deepak|वार्ता 16:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

If we make new articles for East and West India (and why not?), then first we should move East India to East India (disambiguation), then make the leftover East India redirect into its own article. (I'd be happy to do the spadework, if there's general agreement to do this.)

What I'm wondering, though, is whether there are not two meanings of the expression "North India": one referring to all that is not South India, and the other excluding East India and West India? Quartier Latin1968

17:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually no; nobody in India would think of including West Bengal or Orissa in North India: they are completly different in culture. Nor indeed is Gujarat usually included; it is normally slotted with Maharashtra and two UT's (D&Diu, Dadra&NH) to form "Western India". North India is understood in India to consist of the states and UT's that speak Hindi, Punjabi, Kashmiri. Both the map and the text need to be changed to exclude Orissa and Gujarat. ImpuMozhi 19:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I take exception on your opinion. The crucial problem is that there are varying definitions of North India.

Linguistically: In South India, all speakers of any Indo-Aryan language are known as "north indians" and the non-South indian people themselves consider them to be "North Indians". If you ask any Marathi he'll tell you he's a North Indian; he won't tell you he's a "West Indian". So linguistically all non-South Indians: Biharis, Assamese,etc. are North Indians too.

Geographically: It makes no sense to include even Bihar. Even to include MP is not sensible.

The North Indian states are not formed on linguistic lines. Therefore I don't understand why political(state) borders should be kept in mind while defining regions like this. Maquahuitl 19:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Good; you've convinced me. May I draw your attention, ladies and gentlemen, to East India, a stub that is now at least as in need of editing and expansion as this one! Quartier Latin1968 21:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Older Definition

I think this also needs to mention the pre-partition definition of 'North India' which includes most of Pakistan. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Biased against its subject

This article is heavily biased against its subject. It needlessly glorifies South India in comparison, without talking about the subject at hand. --Natkeeran 14:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree, although if this article were expanded (perhaps into more areas of the history, culture, politics or economy of North India), then the sections that compare South India and North India would take up proportionally less space. Which brings me to the following suggestion...

This article is very poor, and especially the "people" sub-section is pure nonsense. Consider this: "North India shows a stronger Aryan influence. In the last thousand years or so, North India was subjected to various invasions from neighbouring kingdoms than any other region of India. Indeed, such invasions has left a major scar on the cultural and linguistic traditions of North India. Physically, after repeated invasions by Arab, Turk, Afghan and other kingdoms, North India is now a mixture of Arab, Turk, Afghan, Indo-Aryan and Huns in their composition. Genetically, North Indians are more closer to South/East/West Indians than other neighbouring nations or europeans. Inspite of repeated invasions North India was quite resilient and re-built itself rather quickly. Repeated invasions also made it difficult for North India to concentrate on art and cultural development and that is the reason there is no contemporary North Indian dance form when compared to South or East Indian culture."

It seems as if some South Indian has written this article. The language is poor- the writer talks about several issues(race, history, art/culture) all at the same time. And the last sentence is the most amusing blow: that North India has no dance form.

Finally, the whole article is bogus when compared to "south india". Just look at the extent to which history, culture, traditions etc. are all well described. And in both the articles, north and south, the writer pushes in economic comparisons. The 'comparison table' given in the people section is totally out of context and stupid. Probably shows the extent to which the South Indian who wrote the article is bent upon glorifying SI even to the levels of stupidity. Maquahuitl 19:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

What is this repeated use of "Aryan." Aryan is a linguistic, not a racial term. If one wants to assert that North Indians are a population that are different genetically due to Central Asian invaders, one should say so instead of harping on "Aryan" race. Aryan is linguistic classification about a person who speaks an Indo-European language and includes Marathis and Bengalis. Or they could simplify and just say that North Indians are lighter than South Indian skin color wise if that is what they want to say. The Article requires some cleanup. -Avi

Cleanup → Expansion?

Would there be any objection to taking down the cleanup notice and replacing it perhaps with an {{expansion}} one? Quartier Latin1968

18:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Problems

It's very convenient to do, but is it a good idea to do this division (N,S,E,W) based on state borders? For example, in what way is the southern part of Chhattisgarh a part of North India? Physically, it seems to be protruding out into South. Culturally, I guess it's more East India-like. This division can perhaps better be done on a geographical basis (e.g., anything south of Vindhyas is South (?), etc.) deeptrivia (talk) 06:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if it is right to include Maharashtra, Gujrat, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa into this region. Could we get a definition of North India justifying this :) Khalil Sawant 02:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

North India

"North India" keeps appearing in history articles. In that context, it invariably means all of the north Indian subcontinent except Northeast. This is not clearly explained in this article. deeptrivia (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is horrible -- it seems like a promotional article or something. It is extremely biased and makes an innumerable amount of unnecessary, chauvinistic, and sometimes non-factual claims. It desperately needs clean up. Whereas other regional articles are informative, this seems like a propoganda article in order to boost the North. Not encyclopedic material! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.87.114 (talk) 08:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Article is terrible POV...

The article looks as if it were written by a North Indian Fanboy... Some one who claims that North India = India... I'm in the process of cleaning up... Please help if you can...

Nearly all the citations that are marked are mis understood... Infact.. Bollywood revenues are half of Disney (mentioned in the article the author cited..., but in the article, it's written that Bollywood is the largest movie maker in the world.. Some North Indian promoters are involved..... Please clean this up.. or help me in cleaning up if u can... Mugunth 12:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Check these articles... North America, Western Europe etc., Article like North India should speak about it's geography etc., This is not a war between North and South... Mugunth 06:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is used to express south Indian Point Of View on North India 'Heavily biased and misrepresentation of facts'.

Wikipedia is used by lot of people on the Internet as a source of information on India, but unfortunately it is used by some anti social and devisive forces to propoagate their point of view, just take the example of article on North & South India.

In the first case the article on North India was written by some misguided South Indians in their quest to vilify the North India which represents the majority population in the country and also reperesentative of mainstream culture. The article on South India was written to glorify it in comparison to North and rest of India. On the other hand the article on North was written as a disparaging and negative misrepresentation of the facts like a) North Indian population was derived from invading rulers from Iran and Turkey b) North India has no dance form c) It represents the Cow belt d) North India represent rural India with no development and economy f) It shares its musical and cultural heritage with Muslim countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh. The article's history and talk page are the evidence of what I am writing here kindly have a look.

South Indians only represent 20% of India's population and their culture is followed mainly in the four dravidian states of Tamil Nadu, Karanataka, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh. The gross misrepresentation of facts is only possible because they represent large number of editors on wikipedia who are able to misrepresents the facts and demonstrate their point of view due to numerical strength!!

The editors/administrators should ensure that neutral point of view is maintained on the both the article on North and South India, Instead of misrepresenting the facts in order to depict South India as a progressive, cultured and industrialised part of India Vs depiction of rest of India as underdeveloped, illiterate and uncultured.

a) The richest states with highest per capita GDP are Punjab, Haryana, Himachal, Gujarat & Maharashtra and union territories of Chandigarh and Delhi. None of the four Dravidian states is among the top five in the country.

b) Even High Income states are more industrialised, developed and have higher literacy rates than South India. They spend more money per capita on health, education and development than South Indian states.

c) South India is not homogeneous and is divided on the basis of four dravadian languages namely Kannada, Tamil, Telugu and Malayalam. They have their own regional differences and disputes.

d) The situation in South India is not very different from rest of India in terms of poverty, malnutrition, unemployment, politics, corruption, riots, Naxal violence, law and order problem, infrastructure, health and education etc. If you compare South with the worst performing states than it may look better, but the problem remain unresolved. Why not compare South india with some developed country in Asia like Singapore which has per capita income of US$ 26,481 Vs South India of only US$ 625. This means the per capita income in Singapore is 43 times higher than South India. This clearly indicates that South india is not very different from rest of India and has to go long way before it can boast of having a distinction of developed nation status like Singapore or Japan.--Himhifi 04:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC) source: [1][2][3] --Himhifi 08:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Full of Discrepancies

The article "North India" has lot of discrepancies, including its definition. Having completing 60 years of independent country, one does not go back to pre-independence time and define North-India to include Pakistan and Bangladesh.

As far as the Republic of India is concerned, the Northern part of India includes entire Indian territory to the North of the Peninsular region, which includes, Gujarat, Rajastan, Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Uttaranchal, Uttar Pradesh, Chattisgharh, Bihar, Jarkhand, West Bengal, Sikkim and all the seven sister states to the North East.

I don't know why people don't include the "North East" in North. One should understand that both North-East and North-West are subsets of North. It seems awkward to me when people say that Bihar is not a Northern State, if Bihar is not a Northern State, how can one call Tripura a Northeastern state which is to the Southeast of Bihar? While defining North or South (East or West) part of any country, first give the geographical definition then give the socio-linguistic description of the resulted region. --yny 14:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you... Similarly, in the history and culture section, where I've marked {{inappropriate tone}}, there are references to "great people" from North India rather than talking about the history and culture... I'm planning to move all those references into a seperate section like "Notable People from North India".. How about that?

Mugunth 15:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The basic Idea Behind Grouping States in North Part Of India is fundamentally Flawed.

The article was written with the malicious intention of maligning, disparaging and vilification of people from North Part of India. North India doesn't exist as a single unified entity as South India which is unified by Dravidian languages, South Indian identity and unique culture. As a matter of fact everyone in North Indian states will tell you where they are from instead of calling themselves as North Indian etc. Infact the depiction of people from North India as North Indians is itself flawed and unnecessary. If you ask people from Delhi, Punjab or Gujrat they will tell you they are either Delhite, Punjabi or Gujarati etc they will never tell you that they are North Indians as great variation exist between the culture of these states to group them together forget about grouping people from Bengal (North East) and Gujarat (North West) as North Indian.

Even though there is a great variation in culture of say Punjabi and Bihari people they are still called North Indian and grouped together in this article. Therefore it’s difficult to group all the states in the North Part of India on the basis of culture, linguistics, economics and demographic trends. There is a great variation in all these aspects throughout the length and breath of the country and it’s not required.

Political parties in the South have used the regional card to seek votes from people who have anti-Hindi or anti-North Indian sentiments. In contrast North Indian states don’t have any major movement or aversion towards South Indian states etc. No wonder article is full of discrepencies and requires an immidiate attention as it is edited by people who have limited knowledge or skills for editing etc. At best the article should be rewritten with a neutral point of view, discovering common ground without any bias or anti-pathy toward country men from other states in India. --Himhifi 19:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I beg to defer with you, I am afraid! Your statement "South India is unified and North India is not" is outrightly false. Your comprehension of Southern India itself is wrong, as you are thinking that South India is just the states that speak only Dravidian Languages as opposed to States that are geography south of India, thereby creating fine line between Dravidian languages and Non-Dravidian languages. You should remember that India is a free country and considerable number of Urdu, which is a Non-Dravidian, speakers live in Dravidian language speaking states of India. So its better for you to view "South" as the geographical "South".

You should understand that the Southern India is much diversified if not more than Northern India. While the predominant languages spoken in Southwestern state of Maharashtra and Southeastern state of Orissa are Indo-Aryan languages, the rest of the Southern Indian states predominately speak Dravidan languages. Even among the four major Dravidan Languages, Telugu, Tamil, Kannada and Malayalam, the disparity is too high with one Dravidian Language completely unintelligible to the other, whereas it is not the same with the languages of Northern India where the languages are somewhat mutually intelligible.

The main reason behind the backwardness of Northern Indians is that Northern India is less literate than their Southern counter parts (mind you, this includes the Southwestern state of Maharashtra), and very much eccentric. E.g. the Rajasthani or Gujarati immigrants of Hyderabad/Chennai/Bangaluru do not mingle with the local community and do not learn the local languages even after living for ages and get colonized to keep a separate identity. A typical Northern India does not know that there are four different Dravidian Languages, whenever they see a traveler from any of the Dravidian language speaking state, they would refer him/her as Madarasi. Whereas a typical Southern Indian is completely aware of the geography/culture of a any person of India. So it is the utter ignorance of Northern Indians that make them think that all the Dravidian languages/culture is the same.

Southern India is diverse in all the aspects such as food, culture, language. The Southern Indian Languages Marathi and Oriya though belong to Indo-Aryan group, completely differ from one other. Similarly the languages, Telugu, Tamil, Kannada and Malayalam though belong to Dravidian group, differ from one anther and are mutually unintelligible, with Telugu, Kannada and Malayalam using up to 70% of Sanskrit loan words. Most of the literary works of these languages are Sanskritized form of the respective languages. That's the reason why Telugu, Kannada speakers have better Sanskrit diction than that of the Northern Indian people. e.g. A typical Telugu/Kannada guy can properly pronounce a Sanskrit First Name, such as "Krishna", "Lakshmana" "Dakshina Moorti" etc, where as a Typical Northern Indian guy would malign the same Sanskrit based First Names as "Kishan", "Lakhan" and "Dakkina Moorti" etc.

--yny 22:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If South India is so literate and developed why its per capita income is equivalent to countries in Sub-Sahara Africa like Somalia and Congo. South India is not different from Gujarat, UP or Bihar. Punjab, Gujarat, Maharashtra(not South Indian state), Delhi and Haryana which have higher literacy rates & are more industrialised than the four Dravadian states, even culturally they are not worse off than South India. This article is a handiwork of regionalistic and separatist people to feel good about their poverty ridden states which are fighting to have bare necessities like water and food. South Indian people have anti-Hindi anti-North-Indian sentiments they are spiteful of North Indian dominance & sphere of influence viz culture, traditions, history, geography, linguistics, politics and virtually everything else. Don't try to mislead people by making false claims and alligations. This is the reason why the article was created to malign and vilfy people from North Indian states. There are people who think there culture and region is superior to other culture and regions. In multicultural countries and socities like Singapore you will find people thinking they are some what superior to other races or cultures. In North Part of India there are states which are doing much better than South India (Dravidian South) but they are not spiteful of South Indian progress or development, they are working hard to make India a better country, that's why you don't find them writing malicious articles on South India!! --Himhifi 08:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Your interpretation of south is totally confusing. Its better not to use the word south instead, please use the names of the states you are talking. When Northern part of India (rather the Republic of India) has been defined as the region to the north of River Narmada and entire state of Maharashtra is to the south of Narmada, whats makes one to think that Maharashtra is not a South state? Can you name one English language dictionary which states that South means Dravidian speaking region? Secondly if your comparison is between Dravidian and Non-Dravidian states, then there are four Dravidian speaking states and 24 Non-Dravidian states. Okay! Now lets compare the Dravidian states and Non-Dravidian states, Kerala being at the top, the least literate Dravidan State of Andhra Pradesh sits ahead of most populous states group of Northern India (more precisely the Non - Dravidian )"Uttar Pradesh, Bhiar, Jarkhand and Rajasthan" which send about 125 Members of Parliament out of 545.

Secondly, I only said that Southern states are forward in terms of social awareness. I did not make any statement about per capita income nor I talked about Dravidian speaking states. Yes! if you talk about Dravidian States, except Tamil Nadu, all the states are politically, economically, industrially backward than their counterparts which makes their intelligentsia fly to other developed countries. Andhra Pradesh tops in sending more number of its Engineering graduates to US to pursue higher education every year. The union government in India is completely under control of Non-Dravidian states which did not concentrate and develop the Dravidian states. I certainly agree with you on the per capita income is very less in Dravidian states though it is producing more number of Engineering graduates. In order to boost up the per capita income in these states must be given more political power and allocate funds to these states. E.g, even though Andhra Pradesh produces more number of Engineering graduates, it had to fight for about 25 years to get IIT established in the state, such is the domination of Non-Dravidian states over Dravidian states, moreover it is topping in number of IIT-JEE rankers for the past 2 years.

--yny (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Himhifi and and Ynyus75... Please... This is not a battleground.. Invest your time in thinking of how to make this article better.... I think it's now a "B-Class" article... We have to improve it rather than fighting among us...

@himhifi, Per capita income of south can be compared only to north... May be when India becomes globally recognized, we'll compare it with countries like Singapore as you said... In terms of economy, It does not make any sense in saying south is like africa in terms of economy.. It might be true, but then what can you compare bihar with? 5772 Rs or 145$ is its per capita... Should we say that, Average per capita of North is lesser to Somalia? We as editors should not make judgements.. We should not do any comparison or "research" as it would violate WP:OR. We should write what's there in other websites. Collective knowledge is what is shared...

Im just giving a opinion of what I felt.. May be correct... may be wrong... Try to improve the article by citing references than making judgements or relative comparisons... Mugunth ^{(ping me!!!, contribs)} 16:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Some views

1. In India only two geographical regions are defined strongly: South India and North-East India, and both because of different reasons. They are not geographical definitions. South India because it speaks a different set of languages, and North-East India because it is connected to the rest of the country by a small strip of land and hence its reference as such by the Government. North-East India is therefore officially defined too. Therefore wasting too much time on this article does not make much sense, because of varying and ambiguous definitions of the subject itself.

2. Hundreds of editors write hundreds of articles with n different viewpoints. It makes no sense to start complaining about it. It is large-hearted to have a pan-Indian outlook, and better still pan-world outlook, and not to be paranoid and thereby narrow down our world of thought. Having a fight here is even more childish. Maquahuitl^talk! 06:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Maquahuitl, what you are saying is partly true. However, for various purposes the distinction between the regions is used. For eg. census data. Also, for most Indians, North India does define a region distinct from South and North East India, and also on most occasions from Maharashtra and Gujarat. In my own, experience I have never heard a Gujarati or a Bengali person call themselves North Indian, although I frequently hear people telling being identified as North Indian, instead of Haryana, Rajasthan, UP etc. Also, it is easier to understand our country region by region first instead of diving into each state. So it is useful to have this article, if only to make the study of India easier for Indians and outsiders. Cheers.I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 04:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

In my own, experience I have never heard a Gujarati or a Bengali person call themselves North Indian,

What? Are you sure about this? :o In fact I find it rarer that these people would call themselves as "West" Indian or "East" Indian. Maquahuitl^talk! 12:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, people dont indentify themselves as being from "West" or "East" Indian, but they mostly use the terms Gujarati, Maharashtrian, Bengali etc, not "North Indian". Whereas, a person from Haryana very often calls himself a North Indian. Anyways, there is no point in debating that. I believe that an article on North India is important, the term is frequently mentioned in literature, media and conversation. So we should try to define and describe it as best as we can. Also, North India is fairly well defined geographically. Thanks. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Major disruptive edits without discussion on talk page amounts to vandalism!

The user Fundamental metric tensor has done major edits in the article on North India without any discussion on talk page, which amounts to vandalism. There is no explanation why he has drastically change the article and completely removed some sections. The article is reverted back to the previous version, which is rated as B-class article and also has some consensus from editors. --Himhifi 10:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there was consensus reached before. It's just that, the authors have just moved out, for editing other articles... Fundamental metric tensor's edits were appropriate. If it has to be reverted back, please build a consensus. Mugunth^{(ping me!!!,contribs)} 11:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The article in its present form looks badly edited, and incomplete as Fundamental Metric tensor has completely removed the language section and economy section. Irrelevant material is added like Mughal empire, the images and climate data added looks untidy, the demographic section doesn't have any data etc. Kindly make the article encylopedic and complete the relevant sections with neutral point of view, otherwise revert it back to the previous version, you should be honest in presenting facts. --Himhifi 11:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

History and Mughal Empire is very important to this article. May be you can bring back the language section but make it shorter. Bollywood can (should) be mentioned... But not in a seperate section. Economy sub-heading should be encyclopedic. not like the one written previously. Speak about, what contributes most to the economy of those regions. Adding a laundry list of cities and their importance does not make any sense in an encyclopedia.Mugunth^{(ping me!!!,contribs)} 12:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Himhifi, I accept your criticism that I edited without discussion and much talk. Also I havent added the census data yet, but I will soon. I dont think that constitutes vandalism, if it does please take it up with an admin. Aside from that, I find your other allegations quite hard to understand. I removed the languages section because that is usually covered as a subsection in demographics, you are welcome to add it back. How is the Mughal empire not important ?? Why do we need city by city details of the economy of a region that is predominantly agrarian ? This is an encyclopedia, we have to present information in a manner so that people reading the article get the best possible understanding of the topic, using verifiable facts. There is no point, in highlighting special cases and exceptions at the very first glance. I have seen your other conversations on this article, I understand that there is a great amount of variation within the economies of North Indian states, you are welcome to point this out but in a constructive, civil manner. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Economy-North Indian states faired well in terms of Per Capita GDP and HDI.

The North Indian states of Punjab and Haryana ranked highest in per capita GDP and Human development Index as well. Also Himachal Pradesh is a top ranking state, union terrritory of Delhi which comprise of National Capital Region(Gurgaon, NOIDA) and Chandigarh have also the highest per capita income in the country. The cities of Ghaziabad (U.P), Faridabad (Haryana), Agra(U.P), Delhi(NCR), Ludhiana(Punjab), Srinagar(J.K), Indore (M.P), Patna(Bihar), Bhopal (M.P), Lucknow (U.P), Meerut(U.P), Kanpur(U.P), Jaipur(Rajasthan), Jamshedpur(Jharkhand) and Dhanbad(Jharkhand) are among the fastest growing cities in the world. [4]

Human Development Ranking and Per Capita GDP by State(2001)

State            Rank      Per Capita GDP
                              
Punjab           1         2 
Maharashtra      2         1
Haryana          3         4
Gujarat          4         3
Tamil Nadu       5         5
Karnataka        6         6
Kerala           7         -  
Andhra Pradesh   8         7
West Bengal      9         8
Rajasthan        10        9
Madhya Pradesh   11        10
Assam            12        -
Uttar Pradesh    13        11
Orissa           14        12
Bihar            15        13

Source: [5] [6] --Himhifi 09:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Revised map

File:North.india.JPG

North India is home to 50 per cent of Indians

Almost 50 per cent of the census 2001 population of India live on one-third of the landscape. This is the real north.

File:Central.india.JPG

Central India is home to 17 per cent of Indians

About 17 per cent of the census 2001 population of India live on one-third of the landscape. This is central India comprising Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh and Orissa. Do not confuse this with North India.

File:South.india.JPG

South India is home to 33 per cent of Indians

About 33 per cent of the census 2001 population of India live on one-third of the landscape. This is south India comprising Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Tamil Nadu. That explains the recent riots against northeners even in Hindi-speaking Maharashtra.Anwar (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought -Maharashtra is not Hindi speaking- they use Marathi. Gujarat by no stretch of the imagination fits into "South". The riots were against UP and Biharis, and earlier there have been "riots" against "South" Indians ( see Bal Thackeray) in Maharashtra. Orissa,West Bengal, Assam and the North East are not quite "Hindi speaking and are quite different from the North.- "East" would suit this region more. And Maharashtra + Gujarat is more 'West" than either North/ south. Rajasthan it's a toss up between north, center and west- fits anywhere. Haphar (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Independance

From who? [[Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)]]

Some POV

The "Region" does not face overpopulation, illiteracy and poverty- Eastern UP, Bihar, Jharkand, MP and Chattisgarh does. Western UP, Himachal,Punjab, Haryana and J&K do much better on literacy, population and economy. Also Green revolution was mostly Punjab & Haryana and not the whole region. Haphar (talk) 09:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

redraw the map

Jharkand, MP & Chattisgarh are not a part of North India- MP, Chatisgarh and Jharkand should be included in Central India. and check out East India some states are being counted in both North and East India. Haphar (talk) 09:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Bihar fits better into East India, both historically, geographically and culturally.

Geographically Bihar lies in East India. It used to considered a part of the Hindi belt, which was artificially carved to unify India and give importance to Hindi during the independence movement. The Indian government has now given Maithili, which was once considered a dialect of Hindi, the offical status. Bhojpuri was to be given official status this year. Bihari languages are decedents of Magadhi Prakrit language. More then 70 % the people of Bihar speaks Bihari languages and not Hindi. So culturally it's more closer to East India. Both Maurya and Gupta Empire originated from Magadha, which was in east India. So it's better to include the history of these empires in the title - East India. North India, geographically as defined today, came into prominence after the arrival of Muslims. Before Muslim invasion, East India was the center of power in India. Bengal was more under the influence of Magadha then the current north Indian states in ancient period. Bengali, Assamese, and Bihari languages all have a common parent language- Magadhi Prakrit. Similarly Purwanchal, eastern part of UP should be grouped with East India. One can conclude in brief:

1) Bihar is culturally more closer to Bengal then Delhi, Punjab, Haryana or Rajasthan.

2) Bihar is geographically in the eastern part of India.

3) Just because Bihar was under the influence of Banaras (which itself is in East India) culture during the independence movement, it would be wrong to conclude that Bihar is culturally closer to north India. 90% of the population of Bihar live in villages and more then 70% of the people of Bihar can't speak Hindi. The use of Hindi as the official language of Bihar is misleading and changes are expected in future.

Therefore,

1) Maurya empire which comprises of almost the whole of the Indian sub-continent, with its origin in Magadha should be either called just Indian empire or East Indian Empire. And similarly the Gupta Empire. Maurya and Gupta empires were different from Mughal empire. If at all a prefix is to be attached, Maurya and Gupta empires should be called East Indian Empire and never north Indian. Mughal empire can be considered north Indian.

2) Buddhism and Jainism didn't originate in north India.

.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manoj nav (talk • contribs) 12:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like this to be true, but unfortunately I cannot support my own wishes. What is true on the ground is the real truth as we have to say it on wikipedia. All your points are genuine- the part of India East of Sangam(in Allahabad) is East India. Apart from the Bihari languages, this region is more united by a rice oriented diet/culture as compared to the wheat oriented diet/culture which begins immediately to the West of Sangam.

However, since the border between UP and Bihar has not been demarked on linguistic basis and also because UP and Bihar have accepted Hindi as the official language, and also partly because Bihar itself is the westernmost area in the Magadhi belt, it becomes a part of the Hindi belt.

At the most I could support Bihar and Eastern UP be shown as a confluence of Northern and Eastern India. Maquahuitl^talk! 04:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments.

Your logic behind not supporting Bihar as a part of East India is based on the language Hindi. Tomorrow if all Indian states accept Hindi as one of their official languages, then would you call the whole of India as north India?

I didn't understand your statement - "also partly because Bihar itself is the westernmost area in the Magadhi belt, it becomes a part of the Hindi belt."

Culturally Punjab is not part of the Hindi belt. Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh are considered upper-north Indian region and not north Indian.

(to be continued; comments welcomed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manoj nav (talk • contribs) 07:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry I don't know anything about "what if" questions. What isn't isn't, and I can't say anything about that.

About Bihar I meant that it is the Westernmost region in the region of Magadhi languages and since it is contiguous with the Hindi belt, it was considered along with it.

About HP, Punjab etc.- I've never heard of any such thing as "Upper" North Indian. Please DO NOT FORGET that do not give your wish-based opinions here which amounts to nothing but WP:OR. Maquahuitl^talk! 08:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think its important to say that these regions don't have exact borders. South India is quite well-defined, as is North East India. North India is a commonly used term, but exact geographic borders are not really there. East India and West India are even more complicated to define. To some extent these regions overlap (as is the case with the Purbanchal identity). That said, in India of today, 'North Indian' is used more or less synomyous for person from the Hindi belt. Ladakhi people are not labelled as 'North Indians' even though the are definately living in the northern-most parts of India. I think its important not to let this article expand to the point that it is based on OR. I think quite much material such be trimmed away, also. --Soman (talk) 10:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Soman - "North Indian is used more or less synomyous for person from the Hindi belt". Kindly give references to this else this would be an OR. Also Ladakhi people along with punjabis and kashmirs are not part of the hindi belt.

Maquahuitl - Bihar is not on the westernmost area in the Magadhi belt, but the heart of the Magadhi belt. ( This is not an OR)

I would request the editors to give some reference that would justify that North India and Hindi belt are same.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Manoj nav (talk • contribs) 07:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I support you 200%. The only regions that are defined in India are South India and North-East India, and even in NE-India there are some ambiguities like inclusion of Sikkim or not. And even in South India there is often an ambiguity about Maharashtra. But still, more or less these regions are well-defined. North India sometimes even includes NE, and sometimes not. About Ladakhi people, they would still be treated as North Indian when in South India.

I personally think that not too much time should be wasted on these articles, and only South India and North-East India should be worked on to be developed as featured articles. Maquahuitl^talk! 04:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

As stated previously, regions like 'North India' are not exactly defined in terms of geograhic boundaries. 'North Indian cuisine' does not cover all the culinary traditions of what is geographically the northern-most parts of India. In the communal politics of Mumbai, people from UP and Bihar are considered as the 'North Indian' community (in the sense that North India and Hindi belt would be the same), but in Tamil Nadu the Marathis might also be considered as North Indians (in the sense that they are not South Indians). I think, as stated before that this article should be kept to a minimum, preferably not including any maps. --Soman (talk) 07:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Support. Not too much time should be wasted on these articles. Maquahuitl^talk! 09:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. But the article should not give wrong information like Punjab included in the Hindi Belt. The topic Hindi belt has been directed to the page on north India, which is wrong. Manoj nav (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Maquahuitl, whats your point ?

There are several news articles and journal papers that frequently refer to North India. So if you cant clearly define a particular region, does that no one else can ? There maybe various definitions of North India, but as an encyclopedia we must explain them all instead of just chickening out. And ppl, please stop changing the intro and other sections according to your whims and fancies.I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 01:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to me journals that give a map of "North India". And anyway, I did not change the article anywhere. Maquahuitl^talk! 03:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Here, [7], [8], are papers that refer to North India. Obviously there are no maps of North India, but I mentioned that North India can have multiple definitions, but the dominant one is the Hindi belt + Punjab area. Ladakhis, Gujaratis, Bengalis will not be called North Indians in a paper. They are identified directly. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 04:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Does the references you have sited say that Hindi belt + Punjab area makes North India? Punjab is as much part of North India as Kashmir or Leh. Manoj nav (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

FMT first of all instead of starting a new section and attacking Maquahuitl personally and using languages like -"So if you cant clearly define a particular region, does that no one else can ?" , you should have replyed the questions raised in the previous section with suitable references. 122.169.83.195 (talk) 04:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

FMT, I have till now, done nothing except repeat that fact that North India is not defined properly. I don't know what you're fighting with me about. And your identification of North India will be according to your personal inclinations- because Gujarat ,Bengal etc. also will be identified as "North Indian". I have never heard a Bengali say that I am an "East Indian" or a Gujarati say that I am a "West Indian".Maquahuitl^talk! 16:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Now that Hindi belt is a separate page, I would request editors to add some contents to the page. Hindi belt has a distinct inter-state sub-national identity, just like Tamil, Bengali or Marathi sub-national identity. Hindi is native only to western UP and Delhi where it developed along with Urdu during Mughal era. Other states, alone with Bihar, have adopted Hindi as official language (I have references). Still Hindi belt has a distinct identity, the most recent being the BIMARU nomenclature, and can be grouped together.

I agree with Maquahuitl that Bengalis or Gujaratis never say that they are "East Indian" or "West Indian". They just say that they are Bengali or Gujarati. These ethnic groups, alone with Punjabis, have distinct cultural identity. Even punjabis claim to be just Punjabis and never north Indians. North India as a common cultural entity is fake. The common cultural entity is just Hindi belt. So it's more appropriate to define north India just as a geographical region including Gujarat and West Bengal as per the definition 'North India refers to a set of states in the non-peninsular region of the Republic of India', if it is valid and agreed upon.

Manoj nav (talk) 09:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hindi belt identity is also fake. Nobody says that "I am from the Hindi belt" or "I am a Hindi". They just say that "I am from MP" and so on.Maquahuitl^talk! 06:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Maquahuitl, I did not mean this as a personal attack/ But try to understand my point, in the media, journal articles and daily conversations the word North India comes up frequently. So it essential that we have some sort of article for this term. I propose that we clearly state that North India is an ambiguous term that can be used to refer to the Hindi heartland (clearly defined by UP, MP and Bihar), the historical Punjab region (Punjab, Haryana), Rajasthan and the Himalayan states of HP and Uttarakhand. Then we can expand the individual articles. This way the reader realizes that this is an ambiguous term, and can zero in on his/her area of interest. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Maquahuitl that even Hindi belt identity is some what artificial.

Gov. of Bihar official website (http://gov.bih.nic.in/Profile/default.htm) clearly says that Bihar is located in the eastern part of the country. Manoj nav (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

FMT, I never denied the fact that the term comes up often. I never said that we should not have an article. I only said that there is no point wasting too much time on this article because North India is not defined properly. The words in italics is all that I am trying to stress on. When the definition of the title itself is ambiguous, it can never be expanded freely and precisely. I think that we should instead try working on the NE India and South India articles. Maquahuitl^talk! 06:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

South India looks quite okay (as do all the articles for the 4 Southern states), but NE article is in bad shape. I tried to work on it, a little bit, but I really dont know too much abt that region. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 16:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes South India is working well. A lot of work is needed on North-East India. And yes, usually people who contribute to articles know very little about the subject, although they have an interest in it. We can try to contribute there even though we personally might know little about that region. Maquahuitl^talk! 05:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added NOPV, till the dispute is resolved. The Maurya and Gupta Empires originated from Magadha, which was, unarguably, in eastern India and not northern India. So it's wrong to say that they were north Indian empires. Manoj nav (talk) 19:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

About the Maurya and Gupta Empires

Well we can just say that this region was a part of those empires, right ? I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 00:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Maruti img factory.jpg

The image Image:Maruti img factory.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I have following proposals for Northern, Eastern and Central India's map. There are many references which say that Bihar is in eastern India.

File:North-India-locator-1.png Northen India	Eastern India	File:Central-India-locator.png Central India

References-

Manoj nav (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There are many sources which say Bihar is in North India too.

North Indian states (geographical sphere) shown in red, cultural sphere shown in pink

As a Hindi-speaking state it comes in the cultural sphere as pointed out in this map by User:Fundamental metric tensor. So geographically it is in Eastern India but culturally it is often regarded as a part of North India. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 17:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hard to decide. North, South, East, West and Northeast India are geographical definitions. Even by geographical definition, Bihar is not a clear case of either North or East and therefore, cultural definition may be more apt. I would also look at the definition by the Central Government (Constitutional definition if you will). Docku:“what up?” 17:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

First off, I am by no means an expert on North India, I worked on this article and the Bihar one, bcoz they are important topics for many reasons. North India, though hard to define, is used so often in academic literature, news media and common conversation that it has to have a wikipedia article. But this does not mean that this article needs to be similar to other articles like South and North East India (which are strongly defined on both a geo and cultural basis) and West India (solely geo basis). In other words, it does not need the same kind of map that those articles have. A little bit more creativity will be needed if the solution to the map problem (and the problem of this article in general) has to come. Maybe I havent said anything new but thats all I can say for now. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 03:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

We just need a passable article for North India. In India, only South India and North-East India are (almost) unambiguously defined and only these two can have good featured articles because if the subject matter or the definition of something itself is in doubt, then you cannot write about it precisely and efficiently.
We will find several references which will say that Bihar is in East India and several others which would say that it is in the North. In fact India Today "state of the states" edition itself, which is published in September, had the following grouping last year:

Rajasthan, MP in West India.

Bihar,UP in North India.

Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh in East India.

while there was no "Central India", while this year they had the following grouping:

Rajasthan, UP in North India.

MP still in West India.

Bihar, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh in East India

I would say that if an anthropologist or a linguist were to define India's regions, he would definitely put not only Bihar but also Uttar Pradesh East of Sangam at Allahabad in Eastern India along with Assam, Bengal and Orissa since this is the place where rice-based diet, and Eastern languages etc. begin. I support the same. However, in the current scenario, since there is no state boundary at Allahabad and also since Bihar has accepted Hindi as its official language, we cannot make such definitions or else we enter WP:OR. What we can give is maps with dark and light colours as already given and make not just Bihar, but also Rajasthan, which is a big state and can be conveniently put into both Northern and Western India, in light colour. Maquahuitl^talk! 05:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I looked for constitutional definition and I am not sure I am going to be successfull finding an answer. I have always looked at Bihar as a North Indian state because I have defined (in my mind) India into only three regions (North, South and Northeast India). Therefore any source which claims Bihar as part of North India should be looked at in its totality, whether they define India into 3 or 5 or 6 regions. In other words, if we are going to have to define India into six regions, we should follow a source which does the same.

It is also important that we make a clear definition and destinction early on as this will influence the content of the article severely. Docku:“what up?” 12:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we should just mention following things as discussed above -

Location of Bihar is ambiguous.
Linguistically and culturally Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, East of Sangam at Allahabad, belong to Eastern India along with Bengal and Orissa. (This is very popular definition well know to people of eastern UP and Bihar. We should be able to find related references.)

And we should also note that North India, though hard to define, is used so often in academic literature, news media and common conversation that it has to have a wikipedia article. But this does not mean that this article needs to be similar to other articles like South and North East India.

If we do any thing further, I believe it would be an OR.

If one looks at Eastern_Hindi#Dialects topic, it says Ardhamagadhi is the parent language of Eastern Hindi. This means Bihari languages, Eastern Hindi, Bengali, Oriya and Assamese all have a common origin and so they are similar. (Correct me if I am wrong). Awadhi, though called Eastern Hindi, is a completely different language.Manoj nav (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Maquahuitl's 1st concern is regarding state boundary at Allahabad, which should not be an issue. Region wise classification and States wise classification are two different things. I see no reason that a big state like UP can't be part of two Indian regions. Further a truth that, Hindi is the official language of Bihar and Bihari languages, which are different from Hindi, are the native languages of Bihar is no reason an OR, if Bihar and Eastern UP is grouped with eastern India. Manoj nav (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless we have references(which we won't), it is all Original research. Region-wise demarcation based on cultural patterns and not on state boundaries are only likely to be found in anthropological references(the chances of which are rare) and certainly not in political references.

What I suggest is that we first search for all possible references of "North India", "East India" etc.(except South India) and try to make a rough statistical estimate. Based on that, we can have the legend in the map. Maquahuitl^talk! 09:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

not sure if we are ever going to make a decision based on some references we will find sometime in the future (if at we find some). We are not talking about some sex controversy about the prime minister of India which was published in some shady journal. Like KHP2 has earlier presented, there are going to be contradictory definitions and references and we are going to have to use our best judgement to choose one of them and move on.

I go with the sources which call Bihar an east Indian state. I also believe that Central indian states should be grouped with North indian states. Docku:“what up?” 23:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay heres a proposal for the intro, North India refers to a ethno-geographical region, variously identified as the Hindi heartland, the states of Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal, Haryana and Punjab or the states of Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Rajasthan. The term can refer to different areas depending on context. This article uses definition .... , which includes .... I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Multiple definitions are OK

There are multiple definitions of north india and surveying literature makes that clear. Some would include Bihar and some not. The government of India doesn't include either Bihar or UP in defining the north indian cultural zone. My recommendation is to just say it like it is, i.e. there are many points of view on this and they don't all agree. So depending on who you talk to North India means something different. The article should reflect things as they are. I've put in as many of these definitions as I could find and give good references for, and believe it represents a more honest picture. Fact is also that India is a complex place and there are overlapping definitions of many things. I agree with Manoj on this, overlaps are fine because overlaps exist in reality.

Also, there should be some refactoring. Don't settle whether Rajasthani or Bihari is Hindi here. Settle it in Hindi Heartland and just put a pointer to that here. Otherwise, there is duplicated and conflicting information between articles. On the map, why not just go with the govt of india definition. Show north india and north central india zones in different colors and in the caption say, this is what the govt says. Then it's a statement of fact and doesn't need unending discussion. Sorry to jump in late on this. ---Hunnjazal (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Modified the map to base on offical GoI zones rather than opinions, and made a note of what its based on - as well as clearly tagged that fundamental tensor is the root original author from whose work the map is derived. References for all (except the south central zonal link which leads to a spam site) included. It works nicely because it actually shows all the shades of opinion on Bihar, Chhatisgarh, etc clearly. It makes it obvious that the regional definition is ambiguous, and one on which it is totally reasonable for good people to disagree. --Hunnjazal (talk) 10:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't make any head or tail out of the new map. Maquahuitl^talk! 10:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I see your point I think. The states of India themselves sometimes don't make sense, but the objective fact that they exist can be stated without disagreement. Same concept with govt-defined cultural zones. It's not a matter of opinion or extensive research. They exist objectively, with govt-funded administrative bureaucracies (aka cultural centres) to boot. Maybe there's a better map that can be built to show it, that's of course possible. --Hunnjazal (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyway I wanted to ask one thing out of context. Suppose there is some information in literary format and we use it to construct a map. Then will the map be an WP:OR? I think we define WP:OR only when new information without reference is being created, but when we convert information from one form to another, does that qualify as OR? Maquahuitl^talk! 05:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it depends on the accuracy with which the information is depicted in the new form, and if that underlying info itself is OR or not. So, as long as a map of Red states and blue states in the US depicts known information (e.g. in this case, Senate composition or vote outcomes), it isn't OR. Synthesis of information from multiple sources can constitute OR since there can always be a selection bias (conscious or not). I am sure each pollster in the US has an opinion on whether a state is red, blue or purple. We cannot aggregate across them and depict that information. That would be OR. If an independent agency (say, the Political Analysis Expert Group) did it and published it, then we can convert to a map, make a clear note that it depicts PAEG data (with refs, ie comply with WP:V), and it wouldn't be OR - so long as the map faithfully hews to their data. Obviously, there are some fuzzy zones here - just see Talk:Red states and blue states. --Hunnjazal (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The article is becoming funnier. While on one hand the map gives Punjab-Haryana region in the darkest red, reading Maharashtra oriented parts in the article makes one feel that it's actually UP and Bihar that is "North India". Then again, the article talks about racism against NE Indians and South Indians, but includes "Bombay", which is "on the Southern fringes of North India". Sounds silly, overall. Maquahuitl^talk! 04:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Usage varies. That might be funny, but it is reality. We can't invent things to wish that away. Some people do talk about Bombay as north indian (refs added). In Punjab almost no one talks of UP being North Indian. Hindi is regarded as a Central Indian language (and it is a Central Zone IA language, as is Punjabi but not Lahnda, which most Punjabis think is Punjabi). But almost everyone from Punjab or Jammu or Kashmir (everyone who considers themselves Indian anyway) considers himself North Indian. It's fine to state these things (supported by references) as anecdotal info, which has been done.

The map is based on GoI classifications. If you have an issue with that, you might as well start inventing your own states and national boundaries as well. If you're seeking a singlular tight definition for North India or East India or West India like the one for South India (which has crystalized as the 4 southern states plus Pondy plus Laskh), it isn't going to work. Rajasthan is sort of western and northern. Bihar is sort of eastern and northern. MP is sort of central and northern. I didn't invent that so I don't know how to help you. That's just the way it is. People have been addressing letters with things like - 17 Sarengapani, Sannidhi St, Kumbakonam, S. India (from the Ramanujan book) for a long time. Look at this guy's resume - http://www.acethetik.com/uploaded/literature/sample/SASIKRISHANAN_20080709115425.pdf. Ever see anyone address a letter with "N. India" or "W. India" or "E. India"?

There are good analogies. In the US, New England has a clearer definition by weight of historic use than the fuzzier (but still meaningful & deserving of an article) term the American West. --Hunnjazal (talk) 08:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we accomodate both popular and official usages with multi-colour coded maps? Maquahuitl^talk! 08:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, provided we can get consensus on popular usage, which seems to have happened with American West. Please propose what you would include as core and non-core states in popular usage. Core should be those that are recognized by everyone as being in North India (probably J&K, Punjab, Himachal, Chandigarh, maybe Haryana). Non-core could be those which are sometimes considered to be in North India and sometimes not (probably Rajasthan, Delhi, UP, MP, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, maybe Haryana). We could possibly split UP down the middle as there is reams of stuff on the West UP - East UP divide. West UP = Haryana-like. East UP = Bihar-like. Let's back everything up with refs though. --Hunnjazal (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple of questions before that. Firstly, do we have one map where we put everything or do we have several maps, giving different point of views, e.g. GoI view, Punjab's view, Maharashtra's view and so on? I think that can also be a good option (though can't say about being better). Secondly, if we have the former map, then I believe that there should be three-four layered definitions. First, including J&K, Punjab, Haryana, HP, Delhi and Uttaranchal(?). Second, including Rajasthan and UP as well. Third, including Bihar, Jharkhand, MP, Chhattisgarh(complete Hindi belt included). And finally fourth, which would include the whole of non-South India. Maquahuitl^talk! 06:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am fine with a layering of this sort, but I don't think we can actually say xyz is Punjab's view, unless the state government itself makes a ruling of that nature. I am sure we'll find people who agree and disagree on this issue within every state. I think what we're talking about is a consensus map here, which is richly caveated with warnings, like the American West non-Government map - "Regional definitions vary from source to source. The states shown in dark red are usually included, while all or portions of the striped states may or may not be considered part of present-day western United States." We might say something like - "The perception on what constitues North India varies from source to source. The states shown in darkest red are usually included, while others are included to varying degrees and may or may not be considered part of present-day North India." I pulled one together (used "Hindi Heartland" since that's what the article is called). Should we ask people here what they think? Manoj, Tensor, KnowledgeHegemony, other folks - love it? hate it? hate it but can live with it? --Hunnjazal (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I agree about the "statewise view" issue. Yet we can make anecdotal references either in the map or otherwise- that is not an issue. I agree with the map as well. Yet I would suggest for slightly more gap in the colour shades as well as slight refinement in the legend explanations. Maquahuitl^talk! 06:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I have never heard of anyone refer to Gujarat, Maharashtra or Orissa as North India. I dont think they are part of North India by any definition. I dont think this new map Maquahuitl is suggesting is accurate. I think the definitions and maps on this article are fine as they are right now. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Definition section nicely defines north India.

I don't have an opinion if we really need a map for this article. But I have following comments -

In my opinion showing Maharashtra, Gujarat, Orissa and West Bengal in the category All other south-Indian states makes sense, if we look India as two regions - North and South India.
I would suggest to change Other states in the Hindi heartland to Other states whose location is ambiguous in Maquahuitl's map. The article Hindi in Bihar, summarizes the history and current status of Hindi in Bihar. Origin of Hindi in Bihar dates back to the late 19th century. There has been major mobilizations in favor of local languages in Bihar, notably in Mithila region. These topics are generally neglected by the national media and instead the fake concept of Hindi heartland is asserted. After an active movement for more then 50 years, Maithili was recognized by the government of India in 2003 as an official language like Tamil or Oriya. As far as my personal opinion is concerned, which has nothing to do with wikipedia, it goes like ..

"The establishments in Delhi spreads statements like, “UP and Bihar are the Hindi heartland of India.” to meet their many vested interests. There is nothing called Hindi heartland. It’s fake. Hindi, along with Urdu, which is derived from Hindustani, is hardly 100 year old. Hindustani took birth in the court of Mughals. This Sanskritaized Hindi, the innovative work of the Hindutav movement, is more a tool to make India a Vedic nation, the old comfortable habitat of our Brahmins, then to bring about national homogeneity and unity. We read what is taught to us in our text books and start believing Hindi to be our mother tongue, a language, which our mothers can’t even speak."

Manoj nav (talk) 06:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Manoj, some thoughts. I have definitely see this perspective in literature. You're actually saying two things - (a) Hindi as it is officially defined today is an artificial construct and (b) Many languages that are classified as Hindi should not be. I think the article on Hindi language does well by calling it a dialect continuum (a range of dialects spoken across a large geographical area, differing only slightly between areas that are geographically close, and gradually decreasing in mutual intelligibility as the distances become greater) and standard Hindi as a register, which automatically has connotations of artificiality to it. Punjabi has these issues too, with Seraiki and Hindko in a similar position as Bihari languages from your perspective. Sometimes it takes official recognition to move things along - Maithili just got it recently, and simply highlighting efforts for the other ones (perhaps under a new Linguistic movements section in the Hindi article), as well as referring to literature and movies that exist, might comply with the "show not tell" guideline and make it concrete that these separate identities exist.

I also just realized another commonality. Just as where the Mughal government was headquartered (Agra, Delhi) seemed to dictate the definition of the standard Hindi dialect, the same thing happened with Punjabi. The Lahore/Amritsar centricity made Majha Punjabi the standard dialect. --Hunnjazal (talk) 02:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

@Mr. Fundamental Metric Tensor- Terms like "West Indian" and "East Indian" are not common in India. Even "North-East Indian" is not that common. The only two popular identities that are used are "North Indian" and "South Indian" when talking in regional but non-statewise terms. A Kannadiga would always be identified as a South Indian in North India, and would never be identified as a North Indian in southern Tamil Nadu. But a Marathi would be identified by and large as a North Indian in South India and perhaps he would himself identify himself as such. You seem to forget that such regional definitions are contextual. What may mean something in Chennai might not be the same in Mumbai. The only unambiguous definition is that of South India, and therefore anything North of it can be considered "North Indian". Maquahuitl^talk! 11:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

What you are saying is partly true, that South India and North East India are the only well defined regions. But, that doesnt mean that a Maharashtrian would identify him/herself as North Indian, I am not saying that they would call themselves West Indian, but they will definitely not identify as North Indian. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the word Indian itself is an analogy. Native Americans prefer to be called Native American, but everyone else seems to call them Indian, so that word is explained in both senses. Maybe we should do the same thing and say that in South India Marathis are sometimes perceived as North Indian, but they usually do not perceive themselves as North Indians. If there are exceptions to this, we can note those too. Another analogy: Maharashtra seems to be like Afghanistan - both South Asian and Central Asian. I think it is okay to let these things be expressed in full nuance rather than force binary either/or distinctions. Thoughts? --Hunnjazal (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it is seldom that Marathis identify themselves as 'North Indian', perhaps just in South India, but they almost never identify themselves as 'South Indian' no matter where. There have been agitations against 'South Indians' in the 60s and 70s and the racist slur of 'Madrasi' is well-used in Maharashtra as well. It is only because of the recent agitation against 'North Indians' that we are giving a thought to the identity of a Marathi as a 'North Indian'. Maquahuitl^talk! 09:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Maq, how can you claim that the Marathi Manoos always thought of themselves as North Indian uptil now ?. Did you grow up in Mumbai ? Maharashtrians have never thought of themselves as North Indian as far as I know.I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

To all (Manoj, Maquahuitl, fmTensor and KnowledgeHegemony) - should we remove the neutrality tag? I think we have a more balanced article now, though discussions, of course, continue on fine tuning it. Let's all (current participants) agree to not make major perspective/definitional changes in the article without discussion and consensus here first. And let's always put references if we're adding to the anecdotal section. --Hunnjazal (talk) 02:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'll remove the {{POV}} tag right away. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 19:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I never said it as strongly as you are making it seem-"That they always thought of themselves as North Indian". The simple point is that India is usually divided into just North and South, when talking in geographical terms, the South being well-defined and the North being contextually defined. That's why Maharashtra has been put into the last definition, i.e. "all non-South states". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maquahuitl (talk • contribs) 05:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:North India/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article is in dire need of improvement if editors wish for this article to be nominated for a higher grade, and this will take quite some time and effort. The lead section needs to be organised more effectively, as do the order of the headings of this article. Further, some more information can be provided in some sections, while others need more work to increase its quality. Still, a commendable effort to get it to this stage! Ncmvocalist 10:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 10:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Importance of Akshardham Temple and Jama Masjid

Largest Hindu temple Akshardham Temple and largest Muslims mosque Jama Masjid are important to north india. both lie in this part of the country and mentioning them in lede is important. --Onef9day (talk) 05:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Not everything can be equally important, so my question is what do you propose we remove to make room for this? Here's what the opener looks like right now: North India (Devanagari: उत्तर भारत, Uttar Bhārat; Urdu: شمالی ھندوستان, Shumālī Hindustān) is a loosely defined region in the northern part of India. The exact meaning of the term varies by usage. The dominant geographical features of North India are the Indo-Gangetic Plain and the Himalayas, which demarcate the region from Tibet and Central Asia. North India has been the historical center of the Maurya, Gupta, Maratha, Mughal and British Indian Empires. It has a diverse culture, and includes the Hindu pilgrimage centers of Char Dham, Haridwar and Varanasi, the Buddhist Mahabodhi Temple and the Muslim pilgrimage destination of Ajmer, as well as world heritage sites such as the Valley of flowers, Khajuraho, Bhimbetka Caves, Qutb Minar and the Taj Mahal. Under some definitions of the region, the eastern areas are part of the impoverished Red corridor region that faces significant development challenges. Also, please be careful with grammar and spelling. Thanks. --Hunnjazal (talk) 06:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, why aren't Taj Mahal or Jim Corbett National Park or Parliament House or Qutb Minar or India Gate or Ajmer Sharif or Amarnath Cave just as important? Bhimbetka is prehistoric and on the world heritage list. The Taj is the Taj (also a world heritage site). The Qutb is the world's tallest free-standing stone tower. Jim Corbett is the oldest national park in India. The parliament house is the heart of Indian democracy. India Gate commemorates the Indian war dead and its flame (Amar Jawan Jyoti) has been burning continuously for almost 40 years (since 1971). You catch my drift. --Hunnjazal (talk) 06:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with you on it. Largest Hindu temple Akshardham Temple (even registered in Guinness World Records) and India's largest Muslims mosque Jama Masjid should be mentioned for they are largest in india. Why you are objecting to include particularly these two. They are important to North India. I'm including them in lede. You are unnecessarily removing them. What is your reason not to include it??? --Onef9day (talk) 08:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

humm you are somewhat right. lede looks jumbled now. But what to do now. Even if we reorder it. It won't go anywhere. Looks like previous editors tried to boost lede. Will try to work on it. Something has to be done on it as it doesn't help reader anywhere. --Onef9day (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have an objection to Jama Masjid and Akshardham. They are fine places to include in an opener. But something else has got to go to make room for them. That's all I am saying. The problem is that everyone has a set of favorite things to list for North India. We can't have them all. Look, just propose an leader here and we'll agree on something. Please don't change it without consensus (I don't think it will be difficult to get to consensus). We'll also ask any future editors that want to tweak the intro to arrive at consensus here first instead of including the Iron pillar of Delhi and so on willy-nilly. Otherwise the opener will just keep flip-flopping with every month. --Hunnjazal (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hindi Belt and North India

Pulling a Hindi Belt section in this article doesn't make sense. It quickly becomes repetitive of the material in Hindi Belt. Also, there are all sorts of issues: is Bihar really part of the Hindi Belt and are Bihari languages Hindi or not (see Hindi in Bihar)? What about Chhattisgarh? The last time this had triggered a pretty futile and endless round of edits. All this is better settled in Hindi Belt, so please leave it there with a simple sentence or two that points to it. --Hunnjazal (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concern and i'm very well aware about the facts you tried to cite here. I know that Hindi was really a product of UP and with the efforts of some nationalists ( you know who), India became Hindia. Now since Hindi belt is a term used in NOT ONLY INDIAN media but also in INTERNATIONAL media, it makes sense to mention it properly. Today most people consider Hindi Belt as whole of North India. If you visit to southern india you can find many people who think Bengalis are Hindi speaking people. So it is a good point to include description about Hindi Belt so as to remove all ambiguity (at least to someone who reads this article). --Swaminworld (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

All that is irrelevant. Hindi Belt is its own independent article which is pointed to here, with a pretty clear sentence - "The subregion where Hindi languages are widely spoken (as either primary or secondary languages) is sometimes called the Hindi Heartland or the Hindi Belt, and is loosely defined.". Precisely what else is needed? Hindi Belt content or controversies shouldn't be duplicated inside a totally different article. Hindi Belt issues should be discussed in its own substantial article, not North India. Plenty of North India is not in the Hindi Belt and the Hindi Belt is not all in North India. Would you insist on putting a subsection inside South India called Madras because some ignorant people call all of South India = Madras? Some might say YES because once upon a time much of the region was encompassed in Madras Presidency, which is why people initially started calling all of it Madras, and some of that usage has stuck. But that is just wrong in the modern day organization of states. BTW many Kashmiris call people from UP Punjabis. That doesn't mean there should be a section inside Uttar Pradesh on Punjab. Also, your words reveal a strong sense of having being wronged. Are you sure you are able to maintain WP:NPOV on Hindi-related issues? The fact that you're importing things outside the article where they belong feels a little odd. Please be careful. --Hunnjazal (talk) 02:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we have misunderstood the meaning of encyclopedia in general. Encyclopedia is a knowledge bank which is supposed to give you general idea about a subject. It should not be a war field which some editors have made it. It is really disheartening to see how some people here and there trying to mislead articles. This is surely out of arrogance. Don't get me wrong when i say this. This is how one feels when he/she reads wiki. Do you find a Definition of Hindi Belt in any documents of GOI/Union govt. No. why?? because people working in government understand the actual difference. so in actuality the term was coined by some media people back in my home state and other non-hindi states(I feel sorry for them). Anyway, now the question here is to include it here or not. I back the inclusion of it here. Why?? It makes sense as the said term is used Internationally in Media. What makes you think not to include it?? be rational when you say something. i'll support you even if you say "not to include" for i support wiki (open source project). Cheers! --Swaminworld (talk) 10:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

well encyclopedia is not a book on a subject. It mention only important things. Your idea to include Hindi Belt may be relevant but what is Hindi Belt in general. Yes it is a media which uses it. Government of India do not discriminate like this. So may be it is a mob thingy. I see this term more often than North India itself in media. In actuality North India is what south india is not. India - South India = North India. This is the most prevalent and most know idea today. When one travels to south starting from K&J the Idea of NI and SI change. But change is not very different. only states like MH and BNG identify them different from NI. Even in US you find Yankees identifying Indians based on this idea. Hindi Belt is well known tern and it is definitely related to North India. And something related to North India should find space in this article. --Onef9day (talk) 11:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Your point is correct - the definition of what is and is not North India varies, as does the definition of what is an is not Hindi Belt and what is and is not the American West. This is exactly the multiple definitions issue, which was settled here. The Hindi Belt's definitional complexity should be addressed in the Hindi Belt article, just as North India's are addressed here. --Hunnjazal (talk) 03:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Good Opinion. Now i'm talking about inclusion of Hindi Belt and not what is South and North. I usually don't get into such talks. Only arrogant people talk to death this way. Now my only concern why Hindi Belt can't find significant space here. What is your idea not to include it. You support to include Hindi Belt but then why indulge into a vague talk like south and north.--Swaminworld (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

These comments are revealing - "Your idea to include Hindi Belt may be relevant but what is Hindi Belt in general" - this is precisely my point. There is an full-fledged article on the Hindi Belt called, guess what, Hindi Belt. There is a description of the Hindi belt and a pointer to that article in North India. This is as it should be. Arguments about what is and is not Hindi Belt should be in Hindi Belt. Not only does it have "significant space", as you ask, it has as much space as you could ever want or need - as long it is referenced and relevant information. People that want to read about the Hindi Belt will link on to it and read it. Please put Hindi Belt stuff in Hindi Belt, Indo-Aryan languages stuff in Indo-Aryan languages, Himalaya stuff in Himalaya, Punjabi stuff in Punjabi language and Punjabi people, Kashmiri stuff where it belongs and so on. It's fine to put in a sentence or so to maintain narrative, but this is an article about North India and not the Hindi Belt. Many people think Sikhs are *the* visible figure for North India. We can mention Sikhs here, but we shouldn't go about creating a subsection on it. Pakistanis may view the Hindi–Urdu controversy as relevant to North Indian affairs - which is fine, but that should be in the article called Hindi–Urdu controversy. This is why Wikipedia has multiple articles instead of being one big blob. Why is this hard to understand? --Hunnjazal (talk) 03:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

ok fine. i'm done here. May i ask the relevance of "Communalism and ethnic tensions" in here. Looks like only North has such disputes while rest of india is just a heaven. is it so??? What is the relevance of having said dection. I don't find any relevance of this particular section. I will remove it. --Swaminworld (talk) 11:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you on the "Communalism and ethnic tensions" section. It used to be called racism, which was actually more accurate since it is about ethnic discrimination rather than tensions per se. The history here is that some Wikipedians from the South and Northeast felt that such discrimination existed in the North, was a social issue and wasn't captured anyplace else on Wikipedia. The info was scattered in the article and used to inspire edit wars, and I remember pulling them into their own section and digging up some references. It has since been left almost untouched for 1.5 years. I have no strong feelings either way on this. It isn't hugely relevant so should maybe be moved to Communalism (South Asia). I have no objection to you deleting it. I would say give it a few days for others to voice an opinion here and then feel free to delete. --Hunnjazal (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok,It's fine. cheers!--Swaminworld (talk) 13:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Remove it I also think it was merely an opinion and has no basis and no legitimate sources that can back such claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onef9day (talk • contribs) 06:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

removed as the text belongs to its right article now and we don't have to keep it here anymore. Other editors have decided to keep everything related in one single article Ethnic relations in India. --Bigsuperindia (talk) 11:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)