Talk:India

Romanization

India should probably have its own category. How do I add it? [BPJ]

Shouldn't we change all the article names and links themselves to conform to the Xrirampur romanization scheme? For instance, the article called by *here's* Anglified orthography "Bengal" ought to be called "Ban̊gál" instead. Right? Didn't we established the policy for this wiki of using the locally adopted and recognized romanization schemes? Boreanesia 09:28, 1 Jun 2005 (PDT)

I think that's the policy. I don't have any particular problem with the use of the Xrirampur scheme, but the FK uses its own romanisation (conveniently enough, coresponding to *here*'s), so the "Anglified orthography" will suit just fine for contexts that relate to the FK's presence in India. I guess where two contexts meet (like in a news article fròm an enclave that uses the Xrirampur scheme abóut an enclave that uses the English scheme), I would suspect that one or the other would end up in parentheses.

While it may be too late, I would also réally like to suggest a kinder Xrirampur scheme that doesn't involve so many empty boxes. Is that still possible? :)

Also, I am placing a link to some old information devised by Nikhil Sinha in 2003 for India. Don't know how much of this fits with what is going on in India now, but anyway, the information can be found here. Elemtilas

Just switch to Mozilla Firefox and install a font like Code2000 and most of the empty boxes will be gone! Also I for one am in favor of a stripped-down (as in stripped-off diacritics) version of the scheme for non-scholarly use! See Talk:Xrirampur Romanization! After all that's what they doe with *here's* scheme most of the time... BPJ 12:50, 11 Jul 2005 (PDT)

Talk:Asia South

(Moved here from Talk:Asia South)

Perhaps we should move all the Southeast Asian countries in the Asia South page to the Southeast Asia page. This will leave us with an Asia South page that is virtually identical with the India page, so perhaps we should then merge the two. Boreanesia 02:49, 14 Feb 2005 (PST)

That might be a very good suggestion. If we end up with India having a virtually identical page to this one with the SEAsia countries moved tot he proper page, then I don't see why we should keep this one. Doobieous 00:47 PST 8 May 2005

Arakan etc.

I vaguely remember that the Batavian Kingdom also has some smallish possessions in India. Kristian, do you remember which exactly? IJzeren Jan 01:51, 14 Feb 2005 (PST)

Ah yes, that's right: Ceylon, Nagapatnam, and Chinsura. Boreanesia 02:00, 14 Feb 2005 (PST)

Ceylon I remembered, but I had forgotten about the other ones (and as you probably know, searching something in our group archives is not an easy thing to do). Thanks! IJzeren Jan 02:20, 14 Feb 2005 (PST)

Comparing India with Asia South

... I noticed a few interesting differences, apart from the Romanisation. The India page is obviously more up-to-date, and the other page has been nominated for deletion.
First of all, we have the addition of Portuguese and French colonies, and of the British colony of Malabar. I presume Sikh Rázj Sam̃ðh is what we previously knew as Sind. But where do Cattagrám and Þiruviþámgóre come from? I take it these are new additions?
For the ease of reference, would the architects of the new romanisation mind if I included the old names (Oudh, Samraj, Hyderabad etc.) between brackets, after the romanised version?
Once Benct and Nikhil get settled, perhaps we could work on an updated map of Asia that reflects all recent additions and that makes use of the Xrirampur Romanisation? BTW, I remember there was a map of India, but I can't find it anywhere!
Cheers, IJzeren Jan 07:14, 19 Jul 2005 (PDT)

Go ahead and add the old names in parenthesis. Cattagrám and Þiruviþámgóre are Chittagong and Travancore respectively *here*. They are not additions, we just forgot to add them to the list. I think Sikh Rázj Sam̃ðh is actually the same as Pam̃záb (Sikh Confederacy) -- Benct Philip should know. But if that is the case, then Sind would be missing from the list. As for the map, there is an inaccurate map of Asia here. I think it is about time we update it. Boreanesia 16:44, 19 Jul 2005 (PDT)

I believe that Sikh Rázj Sam̃ðh, Pam̃záb and Khalistan are one and the same. --06:00, 24 February 2006 (PST)

Good, thanks. I'll do that. And when I'm done, I think I'll finally delete Asia South. --IJzeren Jan 23:49, 19 Jul 2005 (PDT)

Travancore

Travancore should be Ðiruviðámgóre BPJ 05:11, 20 Jul 2005 (PDT)

Actually it's Tiruvitāńkūr / Tiruvitāṅkoṭ in *here's* transliteration, so Ðiruviðan̊gúr / Ðiruviðan̊god! BPJ 13:47, 21 Jul 2005 (PDT)

Dang it is Malayalam, not Tamil, so Þiruviþán̊gúr / Þiruviþán̊god, then... BPJ 13:59, 21 Jul 2005 (PDT)

European Colonies

I had never read this page so forgive me if I'm late in asking: How come there are still european colonies in India ? wasn't there any successful anti-colonialism (what happened with Chandra Bosse and Gandhi ?)

Even if they are ethnicaly, linguisticly and religiously different enough not to wish for unification, I'm surprise they didn't try to "break their chains" yet.--Marc Pasquin 06:16, 24 February 2006 (PST)

The colonies themselves aren't very large (Ceylon being the only exception), and are only enclaves. After all, it could have been much worse *there*. --Sikulu 06:20, 24 February 2006 (PST)

What do you mean "much worse" ? --Marc Pasquin 06:29, 24 February 2006 (PST)

It could have been like *here* (i.e., the total subjugation of India). --Sikulu 06:34, 24 February 2006 (PST)

Greek Colonies

Can Greece get a colony in [1]? Misterxeight 01:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't see why not. India has generally gone in for reciprocal colonial arrangements. Give some Indian rajadom a nice chunk of a Greek port city and Bob's your uncle! Elemtilas 05:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Curious. I've seen much about European colonies in India using the reciprocality approach and maybe people using the examples British colonies in India & China, Chinese/Indian colonies in British for the colonies without colonization approach, so where are they? Plus what about Algeria? It was disputed between Greece and Italy for the longest time. Misterxeight 06:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Algeria is french.--Marc Pasquin 14:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I've seen, a lot of the Indian and Chinese colonies in Europe are still undefined, just a general understanding that they're "somewhere". Benkarnell 16:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC) (edit) I think that Kerala may be part of the Indo-British Union, but that, too, is sort of ill-defined. Benkarnell 16:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The only Federated territory in India that is not reciprocal is the Indo-British Union. All the other colonies are reciprocal, though, as Ben says, the locations of Indian territories in the FK are presently undefined. I would suspect that there is one near Esca or possibly on the south bank of the Severn (Kemr). All the SR colonies in India, as far as I know, are reciprocal as well.

China (Canton) has a reciprocal colony at Dartford, England (a little east of London on the Thames). Well, I'm not entirely certain what it's reciprocal of, though. Hong Kong is not a reciprocal territory (officially signed over to England in 1957, according to the article, though it was never a reciprocal colony), so England must have another territory in Canton. Elemtilas 19:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Once we find out where they are, I'll add them to the map. Benkarnell 14:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Travancore and the Malabar Coast seem nice. Do I have to contact the caretaker of Travancore? And the Malabar Coast page hasn't been made yet, what should I do about that? Misterxeight 16:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Madras and Bombay

Bombay should be listed as Scotish, and Madras should be listed as Kemrese. --Sikulu 06:50, 30 May 2006 (PDT)

Disputed Territory

Considering it's fairly large size, I'm fairly certain the Indian Disputed Territory has to have been the cause of several war that border it. Perhaps some extrapolation is needed in this part of the world? Seth 07:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Indian indenture system

Did it happen *there*? While my understanding is that France was able to draw from its colonies in India for labour *here* (and therefore probably would have done the same in IB), I dunno if the FK could have done it. I mean, they don't exactly have very many colonies in India to draw from! Of course, perhaps they did draw indentured labour from what few cities they had, like with France. As for the Indian population in Surinam, perhaps the Dutch drew from their own colonies (which are easily the largest in India), or alternatively like *here* they had an arrangement with the FK drawing from their small colonies. Juan Martin Velez Linares 10:07, 5 September 2015 (CDT)