Talk:North India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

Contents 1 Great improvements 2 Older Definition 3 Biased against its subject 4 Cleanup → Expansion? 5 Problems 6 North India

[edit] 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? QuartierLatin1968 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? QuartierLatin1968 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! QuartierLatin1968 21:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Cleanup → Expansion?

Would there be any objection to taking down the cleanup notice and replacing it perhaps with an {{expansion}} one? QuartierLatin1968 18:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)