This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
History of India (1947–present) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 8 May 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Eshepherd2.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 23:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
This article needs to be improved. It only consists of wars and electoral politics. -JatinShah
One thing that is not clear to me from reading any of the wikipedia articles on India is: what was it that made Indians, belonging to many different ethnic groups, speaking many different languages, and having belonged to all sorts of various political entities over the centuries, feel sufficiently "Indian" to form one nation instead of three or a dozen or what have you? Was Hinduism the unifying thread? Sylvain1972 20:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Hinduism was not the common unifying link. Current day India is a creation of a number of historical incidences, almost all them directly connected to process of amalgamation of the innumerable native kingdoms, and principalities by the British. If Hinduism was the unifying power then, there would have been something similar here, before the advent of the British. -- Ved from Victoria Institutions ( talk) 06:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Limitations of the definition of ‘independence’
It is generally claimed that modern India is a sort of continuation of the British rule in all aspects. However, in actuality, even though the British presence was the powerful factor that aided the formation of India, modern India is not a absolute continuation of British India, nor can it be fully be described as an independent version of British India. For the truth is that there were many places in India that were not under the direct rule of the British. For example, native states like Travancore and Cochin were not ruled by the British, while the adjacent Malabar district was under direct British rule, as a remote district of Madras Presidency. What these native states experienced during the departure of the British was a mood (among a section of the population) to join the newly independent India; and a coercive force of threat of military intervention if they did not. So the very claims of these areas as having gained ‘freedom’ and ‘independence’ from the British could be wrong. What they experienced was only the removal of their hereditary kings and the joining with India. Yet, the people in these areas celebrate the national independence day, in absolute un-understanding of what they are doing.
There is another thing also to be mentioned. There were many population groups living independently inside the area comprising modern India, which did not statutorily come under British administration. They were more or less left alone, or at least protected from outside intervention by the British. They are now commonly called ‘Tribals’.
After India was formed, the national government took it on itself to proclaim them as part of the Indian nation. The total effect was that all these people came to be placed under low social status, with even their chieftains and kings being addressed with lowly words and pejoratives by even the peons of the Indian government departments. In many areas of the forest, these people refuse access to the Indians inside their areas. The forest department officials make inroads into their areas by displaying power for intimidation.
The apt words for describing the creation of India would be Formation of India. -- Ved from Victoria Institutions ( talk) 07:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Many people do not know how to properly use commas. Here are a few rules.
1. Only put a comma between the subject and the predicate if there is there is an adjectival clause attached to the subject that already required a comma at its beginning. Examples of errors:
a. The sentence
should have been
b. The sentence
should have been
c. The sentence
should have been
2. When using commas to introduce an adjectival clause that requires a preceding comma, place the adjectival clause (and comma) IMMEDIATELY after the noun that it describes. Example of error:
a. The sentence
should have been
In its present form, it implies that 2010, not the scandal, raised questions about the credibility of the government.
3. Always put an "and" at the end of a list. Example of error:
a. The sentence
should have been
or
Normally, I would just make the edits myself, but I can't. Would someone please fix these mistakes wherever they appear? I guarantee that all three are abundant in this article (and beyond). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.128.170 ( talk) 04:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Please add your thoughts here.— indopug ( talk) 14:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
From the 1950s to the 1980s, India followed socialist-inspired policies. The economy was shackled by extensive regulation, protectionism and public ownership, leading to pervasive corruption and slow economic growth. Beginning in 1991, significant economic reforms have transformed India into the third largest and one of the fastest-growing economies in the world.
What's with the right-wing bias in the intro? "Shackled by regulation"? "Socialism leading to corruption and slow growth"? Don't tell me that's neutral history, it sounds like the IMF wrote that. VolatileChemical ( talk) 02:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
[Please elaborate this] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.186.183.43 ( talk) 16:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
How is this academic or academic source? "Former Union Minister and BJP leader Arun Shourie described the Centre as a “one-man government,” a presidential form of government, without checks and balances [1] and called Modi a narcissist, machiavellian and a let-down. [2]"
I suggest this be removed. ( 174.201.11.128 ( talk) 21:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC))
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of the Republic of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of the Republic of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:51, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Rajagopalachari’s party and alliance is noted by Ramachandra Guha, the premiere historian in Modern Indian history as key to building the current political alliance and opposition in India as seen here. A small section of Rajagopalachari is improving the article, as confirmed by Guha and other historians. ( 2600:1001:B004:7F10:61A2:C88F:5CB9:DCF9 ( talk) 17:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC))
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved Number 5 7 14:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
History of the Republic of India → History of India (1947–present) – The title is less confusing and gives clarity on which period it refers to. Interstellarity ( talk) 00:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi, What should be the cut-off date for inclusion of content in this article, or for that matter for any country? Six months, one year, five year before the present? Thanks. Jonathansammy ( talk) 18:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Should this article named "political history of India (1947-present)? I say that because most of the content in this article is about government and politics.If we want to keep the present name then, I think a lot of content on history of people, places, culture etc. needs to be added.Thanks. Jonathansammy ( talk) 18:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
in the top line mentioning that it is the history of the republic of india, the link for republic of india redirects to slurpee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.126.168.82 ( talk) 05:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)