Talk:India/Archive 2003-2005

Aryan Invasion Theory
>> The Indus Valley civilization, one of the oldest in the world, goes back at least 5,000 years. Aryan tribes from the northwest invaded about 1500 B.C.; their merger with the earlier inhabitants created the classical Indian culture. <<

The Aryan invasion theory has had serious rethink in the past couple of decades.


 * Well, apparently nobody told the CIA about it. Do you have some alternate theory that should go in there? Some other text? You need to just plunge forward and edit the page yourself, amigo! -- (WT-en) Evan 13:02, 6 Nov 2003 (PST)

Bources
"The bources have crossed their 3 year highs". What are "bources"? Bourses? (Purses, or stock markets?) Sources? -(WT-en) phma 17:15, 9 Dec 2003 (PST)

Indian Women
"Women in India feign from contact with western men." Huh? How does someone pretend from contact? -(WT-en) phma 22:56, 12 Jan 2004 (EST)


 * You are so naive, man. Read between the lines. B-) Just kidding. I think this is supposed to say "refrain from contact" -- I'll change the article, although I wonder how true it is, and what it's supposed to mean. "Stay away from our women?" "Don't expect to get any action while travelling in India?" --(WT-en) Evan 23:46, 13 Jan 2004 (EST)


 * I realized after changing the article that it might have actually been intended to say that "Women in India faint from contact with western men," but I doubt that Indian women are particularly frail. --(WT-en) Evan 23:49, 13 Jan 2004 (EST)


 * I thought it could mean "refrain from contact" or "feign contact", hadn't thought of "faint from contact", and couldn't tell which it was supposed to mean. -(WT-en) phma 07:08, 14 Jan 2004 (EST)


 * Just as with the other little pieces of text I added it was meant as a starter. Unfortunately it seems to started much more on the discussion page than on the article page itself... (WT-en) Guaka 08:50, 14 Jan 2004 (EST)

Srijith, why did you remove the remark about giving food to beggars, and the remark about the fact that the crushing of bottles is adviced by some, but that the bottles are also used for other purposes, such as storing petrol? Could you leave a note on the Talk page when removing information next time? (WT-en) Guaka


 * Guaka, there really isn't a need to note every change on the talk page, that's what the version history is for. It sounds like you had some pretty detailed information on the page that other people didn't think was travel-oriented enough. But now that it's been brought up, we can discuss the changes here and come up with a compromise. (WT-en) Majnoona 12:02, 19 Jan 2004 (EST)


 * But the removal isn't commented in the version history either. I don't think it the article has reached a state yet to start removing too detailed information. The bottles: I also have read and heard that one should crush bottles. But I have also heard and seen that people use them for lots of purposes. The beggars: I never give money to beggars. But I do give them food. I think giving food should be mentioned in a travel article about India. (WT-en) Guaka 14:53, 23 Jan 2004 (EST)

Re: Rajkot -- The city in the gujarat state where Mahatma Gandhi pursued early education, also famous for sweets and *dandiya raas/*garba.

AFAICT, dandiya raas and garba raas are dances or dance songs and do not need to be wikified (see this site). (WT-en) DhDh 09:48, 22 Jan 2004 (EST)

--- Can I just say how much I like how this country is set up? The way the states/districts/cities are dealt with is exactly (IMHO) what we want-- pick out a few to highlight, give an overview of the whole country, and, if absolutly needed, link to a big ol' list of states/districts. For an article I was really afraid of, this is coming along just great. (WT-en) Majnoona 09:08, 22 Feb 2004 (EST) --- Air India is the carrier that services destinations abroad while Indian Airlines services destinations within India. However times have changed and Indian Airlines now flies to destinations in the middle east.

There are no 3rd Class services in the Indian Railways only 2nd Class. The 3rd class existed a long time ago, its now abolished. If you are wondering why some compartments have wooden benches while some have cushioned upholstery, the difference is between the RESERVED compartments and the UN-RESERVED ones.

By the way do you know that the Indian Railways is the world's largest employer!

-(WT-en) Sridhar Pandurangiah 17:45, 23 Feb 2004 (IST)

---

General question about updates:

Suppose I want to add some information about (say) the Qutab Minar in Delhi, and I find some info links that come off a travel agent's page. is it appropriate to add a link to this page, or is that unwarranted advertising ? (WT-en) Schizoid 14:35, 27 Feb 2004 (EST)


 * See Project:External links. In general, we like to link to first sources for information, such as official Web sites for businesses or attractions, government tourist agencies for locations, etc. Considering that there's a ton of information on the Qutab Minar available, it's probably best to include that information on Wikivoyage itself, rather than linking out to other secondary sites. --(WT-en) Evan 16:05, 27 Feb 2004 (EST)

Photo
Do we have a better, travel-related photo for India? I'd remove this one, it's not really travel-centric. Last time people complained loudly, if unjustified, about my removal practices and I am too old and tired to argue about Wikivoyage. -- (WT-en) Nils 10:19, 19 Apr 2004 (EDT)

The formatting looks awkward. I am too noobie to change this. -- (WT-en) pamri

Holiday List
People, the list of holidays is very misleading, even with the disclaimer at the bottom. Hindu holidays never occur on the same day from year to year. Is it there for some reason already discussed or is just because of inertia? If it is the former, tell me or I will be editing it to conform to reality tomorrow. (WT-en) Ravikiran 05:16, 13 Jan 2005 (EST)
 * Please make it conform to reality. It has probably not even been reviewed for accuracy - just accepted without discussion as it looked about right and nobody else knew enough to say different. -- (WT-en) Huttite 16:06, 13 Jan 2005 (EST)

The following was archived on 22 February, 2007 by User:Ravikiran r:

Baksheesh
Interestingly, on my first reading, I thought it was a good idea that somebody had pointed out baksheesh; to illustrate an example, it could mean the difference between getting excellent service at a hotel, restaurant, hostel, taxicab etc, or not. Indians themselves rarely engage in the practice, however. Most of them are quite used to the experiences that exasperate a lot of travelers. After reading that people had found that remark biased, I have been considering the opinion who those who oppose the mention of the word in the India guide. Baksheesh is quite common, but largely only among travelers, and I wonder if this practice could itself have originated from travel guides that discuss it as if it were a rampant way of life for most Indians. Baksheesh has undoubtedly existed in India for a longer time than people have read travel guides, this is much is certain. But it appears that an anachronistic Indian custom has reappeared as a permanent fixture in that cultures experience with travelers. Baksheesh is not bribes either. In Hindi, the word for bribes (usually 'ghoos') is distinct from 'baksheesh', which originates in Arabic and implies a gift, prize, reward, or a subtle blend of all three. Yes, bribes are not unheard of among Indians, but in that case they are clearly labeled 'ghoos' and considered with the same sense of public taboo that they are elsewhere in the world. Just because they happen more frequently than in Japan, does not mean the average Indian accepts them as a way of life. To assume that you can freely bribe everybody from shopkeepers to immigration officers in India and call it baksheesh will almost certainly get you in trouble in India.

Baksheesh, however, is something quite different. At some point during their occupation of India, the ruling British seem to have corrupted the custom into an implicit system of bribes for getting things done their way in India. While most of the colonisers have long since left, Indians continued contact with foreigners -in the form of travelers and tourists- seems to have kept the practice going. Is the practice illegal? Not unless the person involved is a government agent (although, who are we kidding, some of those who can afford it have been known to bribe policemen to avoid paying traffic fines). Is it immoral? Probably not. Does it breed resentment? Sometimes (but that is part of traveling in a country whose inhabitants are divided by a ferociously wide gulf between rich and poor. Yet, I don't think it should be removed from the guide. Baksheesh in, and of itself only implies a gift. Travelers need to be aware that, like anywhere else in the world, they will probably offend Indians if they believe they can throw money to swing every social transaction their way. You are essentially thanking somebody for an act appreciated. If you give it in that spirit --try giving people real gifts instead of money-- you are returning the hospitality. If you give only to get, your karma will catch up with you.

Common guys, do we really need the heading "Baksheesh"? It has almost nothing to do with travel :(


 * Really? I'd think that knowing how to give and get bribes is pretty important for travellers. I'm pretty sure that baksheesh (that's Arabic, right?) may not be the right term. But if a little greasing the wheels helps get things done in India, well... it's definitely worth noting. --(WT-en) Evan 21:15, 12 Jan 2004 (EST)


 * Oh Well. Whatever you well traveled worldly people say. Hmm (WT-en) Srijith 23:14, 12 Jan 2004 (EST)


 * I guess I don't get your point. Are you saying that bribes won't get you a ahead in India? Or that the practice is not as widespread as mentioned here? Or that even if bribes happen, they're not useful to the traveler? Or is it the header itself, rather than the (admittedly pretty vague) information? Or that we don't have other information on bribery in Wikivoyage, so it isn't appropriate here? Or that this seems to be singling out India, or to be some kind of stereotype about India that's untrue?


 * I have absolutely no personal experience in India either way, so I really can't really say whether baksheesh info is worthwhile or not. --(WT-en) Evan 23:42, 13 Jan 2004 (EST)


 * Yes, bribes do get you ahead in India at many places but then we are not editing a socio-political essay. Maybe because I am an Indian I have not faced any situation in my travel in India where bribe was asked for or did solve the problem. However I have had talks with some of my forgeign friends who have travelled in India and they too have not mentioned anything about bribes. Yes, I also take issue to the fact that it is a second level header, if at all you want to keep it somewhere! That too under "Buy"! Yes, I also take issue with the stereotyping involved. The word bribe occurs at only two places in the whole wikivoyage. Ofcourse yes I feel that India is being singled out. As I said earlier, corruption and bribes do have a pretty damaging presence in Indian society, but the question is, how much of this effects travelers to India. Do you get your visa processed faster if you offer bribe etc.?


 * It'd be wrong to extrapolate from anything showing up on only one or two pages on Wikivoyage at this stage of the game that the lack of that information on other pages is due to anything except the larval state of our guide. By the way, the other instance of the word "bribe" on Wikivoyage is in a page for my hometown (it's just a historical note, though).


 * What I am trying to voice out here is not any fanatical patriotism, but rather the fact that just because a socio-political problem exists in a country, it should not be highlighted in a traveler guide unless it really can be shown that the information helps a traveler. (WT-en) Srijith 03:31, 14 Jan 2004 (EST)


 * The traveller comes first on Wikivoyage. We're under no obligation to show any destination, attraction, country or town in a positive or negative light. We are obliged to give information that will be of use to the traveler. You seem to be saying that the "Baksheesh" section isn't; I'm fine with you taking it off the page if that's the case. --(WT-en) Evan 03:47, 14 Jan 2004 (EST)


 * Maybe it doesn't need to be a section, but it definitely deserves mention. Also the fact that baksheesh isn't solely a bribe (but also money asked by beggars and sometimes by annoying people who do have money) is important to mention. When travelling in India for a longer time you will surely encounter the word "baksheeh" (and its meaning). It is good to know something about it beforehand. (WT-en) Guaka 08:44, 14 Jan 2004 (EST)


 * About Hmm... I think the number of article talking about this should and will increase. It's a common phenomenon in many countries. Though maybe it should be brought in a way that discourages its use. (WT-en) Guaka 09:02, 14 Jan 2004 (EST)


 * Explaining about baksheesh in Indian is kinda like explaining about tipping in New York-- people should be told what the term means, and a little bit about when they will encounter it. I'm not even sure if "bribe" is the right translation. When I was in Indian and Nepal I ran into the "baksheesh issue" on a daily basis and sometimes I gave it and sometimes I didn't, just like I sometimes give cabbies a 15% tip and sometimes a 20% tip. Now actual "bribes", like government officals, etc, may be a different matter, but I'm thinking about when some kid shows you the way back to your hotel and holds out his hand and says "baksheesh," a traveller should know what is up. But I don't think it needs to be a central part of the article, so maybe just reduce it to a little paragraph. (WT-en) Majnoona


 * Running the risk of being branded a pain-in-the-a$*#, I have to say this, because it has to do with the standards of Wikivoyage. Note that this is not specific to this issue of Baksheesh, but rather a question of professional writing. There is always a good way to convey bad things. Take a look at Lonely Planet's take on baksheesh (scroll to the last para). It kind of says the same thing, except for leaving out the begging=baksheesh angle (which I think should be mentioned), but does it using a more prudent choice of words.


 * I know I can easily edit the India page and make it look better but the question is the style that Wikivoyage wants to promote among contributors and the message that Wikivoyage wants to convey. If Wikivoyage wants to be a comprehensive and influential travel guide, these things have to be considered.(WT-en) Srijith 22:23, 14 Jan 2004 (EST)


 * Then go ahead and edit! I don't think we need to talk about messages. We just want to write a travel guide :) And in a travel guide about India something should be said about baksheesh. (WT-en) Guaka 11:51, 15 Jan 2004 (EST)

Indian Map
BTW the map of the northern most part is wrong. Jammu and Kashmir acceded into the Indian Union and the Pakistanis are just occupying it today. At least show the map with a dotted line saying that some portion is under dispute (as has been shown with the Chinese area).


 * We're still trying to work out how to do maps on Wikivoyage. The map you see was imported from the CIA World Factbook 2002, a public domain resource we used to begin the country pages for Wikivoyage. Thanks for the note on J&K; I guess we're probably going to have a lot of trouble with maps like that. -- (WT-en) Evan 13:02, 6 Nov 2003 (PST)

http://www.mapsofindia.com/maps/india/india-political-map.htm is a better map.


 * It doesn't seem to be free, so I don't think we can include it directly. But it'll make a good model. Thanks. -- (WT-en) Evan 13:02, 6 Nov 2003 (PST)


 * I took out the India map. It came from the mapsofindia website mentioned above and is copyrighted (it said so on the map itself). Please use a non-copyright map or make one yourself. (See ) (WT-en) D.D. 15:35, 7 Nov 2003 (PST)


 * it seems to me that a travel guide should reflect the reality of the situation and not the political history, or how the diferent sides would like it to be. The part of J&K presently governed by pakistan is for all practical purposes part of pakistan, irrespective of the history, that should be the fact that the map reflects.(WT-en) Keithonearth 18:41, 3 Dec 2005 (EST)

Wikipedia's Map
is based on the map from CIA's fact book with some modifications to present both the Indian border as preferred by the Indian Govt and the one in the CIA factbook. If noone objects it, I am prepared to add it. (WT-en) Pamri 07:14, 11 Nov 2004 (EST)


 * The Wikipedia map is GFDL-licensed and cannot be used as is. But if you can get the creation to relicense it as CC-SA it would be great. (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:21, 11 Nov 2004 (EST)

Map of india
It just occurred to me that if someone prints out this page and takes it in his baggage into India, there is a very slight chance that he will get into trouble at the customs because of the map. It might be illegal to show the part of Kashmir occupied by Pakistan as part of Pakistan. I am not sure about this, but I do know that customs puts a stamp on every single copy of every international magazine that carries an "incorrect" map of India, saying that the map is incorrect. The odds of anyone getting into trouble over this are quite long, but the policy here seems to be that we are better safe than sorry. Do we remove the map and replace it with one that shows Pak-occupied Kashmir as disputed? (WT-en) Ravikiran 14:06, 11 Sep 2005 (EDT)

From the Factbook

 * Which can be found at Talk:India/CIA World Factbook 2002 import.

So, I just clipped this from the factbook detritus:


 * Administrative divisions : 28 states and 7 union territories*; Andaman and Nicobar Islands*, Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chandigarh*, Chhattisgarh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli*, Daman and Diu*, New Delhi*, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Lakshadweep*, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Orissa, Pondicherry*, Punjab, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura, Uttaranchal, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal

That makes 35 official regions -- far too many for us. Can we break this down into 7+/-2 reasonable regions? --(WT-en) Evan 21:15, 18 Dec 2003 (PST)


 * We can indeed. Maps of India breaks the country down into 6 zones:


 * North India: Chandigarh, Delhi, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Uttaranchal and Uttar Pradesh.
 * West India: Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, Goa, Gujarat, Maharashtra and Rajasthan.
 * South India: Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Lakshadweep, Pondicherry and Tamil Nadu.
 * East India: Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa, Sikkim and West Bengal.
 * North-East India: Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura.
 * Central India: Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh.
 * In turn (apart from Central India) they all consist of 5 to 8 subregions which correspond to states and territories. Another possibility would be to include the two Central Indian states in two adjoining regions: Chhattisgarh to East India and Madhya Pradesh to West India. This way we avoid having a region having only two subregions. (WT-en) DhDh 01:01, 19 Dec 2003 (PST)


 * That's a nice breakdown! --(WT-en) Evan 07:39, 19 Dec 2003 (PST)

Renew discussion
Is the linking of regions "West (India)" really clever? Are those the official names of the regions? -- (WT-en) Nils 20:57, 25 Mar 2004 (EST)


 * Regions don't have to be official. In the USA, none of the regions (except states) corresponds to anything official; even the South doesn't match the set of states that seceded. -(WT-en) phma 01:40, 26 Mar 2004 (EST)


 * No, these regions are not "official". But this is the way India gets split up usually. (See above -- and not only Maps of India does it this way). (WT-en) Dhum Dhum Akubra 04:20, 26 Mar 2004 (EST)

Very well; wouldn't the use of sub-pages be more consistent with the way we handle cities then? Especially for "generic" regions like "North"... we're bound to get a ton of those. -- (WT-en) Nils 06:03, 26 Mar 2004 (EST)


 * Yes, that would probably be more consistent. I had thought of using article titles like Northern India or Southern Brazil, but then we are going to get regions like Southwestern Western Australia, which are just a tiny bit confusing, aren't they? ;-) No, I really think your proposal is better. (WT-en) Dhum Dhum Akubra 06:29, 26 Mar 2004 (EST)

Spliting India up by putting the Gangetic Plane and the Himalaya in the same region is not how it's usually done, nor does it make much sence really. The regions are diferent cultrally, and linguisticly; as well as in ways that directly effect travelers, for example transport, and activities for tourists. How about divideing The North into the Gengetic Plain (or perhaps Ganges Plain to be less gramaticly pedantic and more clear) and the Himalaya?(WT-en) Keithonearth 18:54, 3 Dec 2005 (EST)
 * Not a bad idea. Can you propose a division here? The north is the largest region and is a good candidate for splitting. The Gangetic region includes Bihar, which has now been put in the East. Bihar and Jharkhand used to be part of the same state, so I am not sure if it is a good idea to have them in different regions - But then, Jharkhand is a tribal state and has more in common with Chhatisgarh, which is now in the East - so I think it's not a bad idea either... --(WT-en) Ravikiran 05:19, 4 Dec 2005 (EST)


 * It's more complicated than I thought. I'm a Himalaya freak so my priority was giveing them there own section.  The simplest thing to do would just to be just to split off the obvious Himalayan states J&K, HP, Uttarranchal, Sikkim, (I'd say leave Arunachal in the North East catigory, although that may because I know nothing about Arunachal exept that next to no tourists go there) and to put the rest of the north (Chandigarh,Delhi,Haryana, Punjab,Uttar Pradesh in another catigory). They seem to go together well to me, and that the only problem is in finding a suitable name.  The Northern Plains is the best I can come up with.  What do you think?(WT-en) Keithonearth 09:45, 8 Dec 2005 (EST)


 * Yes, definitely the Himalayan states of HP, J&K, Uttarranchal, Sikkim should be categorized as a group distict from the states of the plains. For the others (Chandigah to UP), I suggest they be listed as 'Plains (West)'. Other states in the plains, such as Bihar, Jharkhand and West Bengal can be classified as 'Plains (East). I'm for placing Assam in a 'north-east' section along with states such as Arunachal, Shillong etc. I think we need (WT-en) Ravikiran's help here. 9 December 05.

New Proposal

 * Himalayan North (India) - Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Uttaranchal
 * Northern Plains (India) - Haryana, Punjab, Delhi, Chandigarh Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar.
 * West (India): Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, Goa, Gujarat, Maharashtra and Rajasthan.
 * South (India): Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Lakshadweep, Pondicherry and Tamil Nadu.
 * East (India): Jharkhand, Orissa, Chhattisgarh, Sikkim and West Bengal.
 * North-East (India): Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura.

This gets rid of the oddity that put Bihar, UP and MP in different regions - they are as homogenous as one can get in India. It puts the Himalayan states together. Sikkim is an oddball. It does not really fit with the other Himalayan states - there is an entire country between them. So we have to lump it with the East. Other than Sikkim, the east really consists of two cultural groups - Orissa-WB (similarity of language and all) and Jharkhand-Chhatisgarh (tribal belt). The South should be uncontroversial. The grouping of those seven states into the North-east is well-accepted (they are called "seven sisters")  and as for the West, this is the best you can get.

Comments welcome. I am going to think over this for a couple of days more before making the change. --(WT-en) Ravikiran 09:02, 19 Dec 2005 (EST)


 * Looks good, but just a few thoughts come to mind. Do we need to include northern to indentify the plains area. It implies that there is a southern plains, which of course there isn't. Furthermore, as the areas identified as being west or east are primarily in the north or central area, I wonder whether this could some how be made clear. Otherwise, Kerala should also be part of the area categorized as west India and Pondecherry part of that called east. Just throwing out thoughts here - not necessarily suggesting this is how it should be done. 19 Dec 05


 * Oh West, East and South are not a problem. The terminology is commonly understood. Nobody will place a southern state in the west or east. It's like the US South. Everyone understands that not all southern states are included, only the ones on the Eastern Seabord.


 * Using "Plains" will probably work though --(WT-en) Ravikiran 11:23, 19 Dec 2005 (EST)


 * I am taking the plunge when I have time next. Speak now or forever hold your peace. --(WT-en) Ravikiran 08:00, 22 Dec 2005 (EST)


 * I've done it. Have I left out any loose ends? --(WT-en) Ravikiran 03:16, 25 Dec 2005 (EST)

International Rail Links to India
I got the information from here and here. Filed for future reference. What it says about the Samjhauta Express is however outdated. (WT-en) Ravikiran 14:04, 11 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Cleanup
This article needs a cleanup. I've been putting it off for too long, but I am starting now. If anyone has suggestions/complaints, please put them here. --(WT-en) Ravikiran 00:35, 6 Dec 2005 (EST)