Talk:North India/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Problems in this articles

• "North of the Vindhyas": I have some doubt abt what the section claims. This particular demarcation was given by people of old era who didn't know much about total area of the land. India was not even defined at that time hence making this statement nothing but vague definition. We can definitely find more such geographical definitions in old texts for other regions as well. So including such definitions in main article only promotes vague opinions. Encyclopedia should tell people what is fact and not what once someone thought what north and south was. --Swaminworld (talk) 11:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It predates my involvement in the article, but I do remember it being deleted and then added back in. It does seem relevant because it is directly related to what constitutes North India. Maybe a word should be added to call the definition archaic or obsolete? It's kind of like the Mason–Dixon Line. You'll see in Southern United States that it's only one definition and it is archaic. Maybe it should have it's own article called "South of the Vindhyas" and linked to from this article? --Hunnjazal (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

But then you are doing nothing better than those Yankees. These definitions do not qualify separate attention on separate articles. It is ok to mention them but it should be mentioned that they are merely thoughts,opinions,obsolete definitions,Vedic definitioms etc. so as to help reader understand what is presented. More definition means more confusion which leads to totally useless piece of work. --Onef9day (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Those Yankees? What does that mean? This is wikipedia. Anyone can edit any article. If you have issues with Mason–Dixon Line, you should go fix them, instead of letting it slide. Back on topic here, the Vindhya definition is archaic, so I have made a note of that. It isn't a thought or opinion, though - anymore than Himalayas as a dividing range between India and Tibet was a thought or an opinion. The Vindhyas really were treated as a dividing line once upon a time. For that matter, it is still used in popular culture -

http://beta.thehindu.com/arts/cinema/article391580.ece - It's a matter of regret that NSK virtually remains unknown on the other side of the Vindhyas

http://beta.thehindu.com/life-and-style/metroplus/article390455.ece - The pitch-perfect Shreya never had to wait for songs as she was flooded with offers from both sides of the Vindhyas

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articlelist/articleshow/5760531.cms - There's no problem south of the Vindhyas

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?col=&section=opinion&xfile=data/opinion/2010/March/opinion_March106.xml - In fact, not one person from the south of the Vindhyas ...

These are all from within the past week. No one seriously regards the Vindhyas as a north-south divider anymore, but it's become a stylized reference to the divide. Sort of like -

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/dining/reviews/blog/2010/04/free_market_friday_pennsyltuck.html - In this week's Free Market Friday post, Robert of Cross Keys finds out there's more than Utz potato chips and Snyder pretzels north of the Mason-Dixon line

Archaic is the right word.--Hunnjazal (talk) 08:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, just discovered that the South India article also references the Vindhyas. It makes perfect sense. --Hunnjazal (talk) 08:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

well-done mr. Hunnjazal. I must give all credit to you for digging up and bringing such controversies and furthering such ideologies that are enough to create racial divide. Now we must have enough material to tell reader who is aryan and who is not. Forget what is south and north. Lets discuss if you are aryan or i am aryan. or Yankees are anywhere yankees or they are aryans too. It was a problem of two extremes of indian subcontinent. Aryan existed nowhere before invasion of firangis(British). people stretch and strain where ever they like. now what better we are doing than those who wrote garbage and threw to us just to make sure they rule and curb freedom of indians in any form. As an indian and peace lover, I oppose whatever you included. My total opposition. --Onef9day (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This is NOT my intent. I am removing the "Land of Aryan" translation, even though that is what the term Aryavarta means, because it can cause such misunderstandings. Don't be so sensitive. If you call someone a Yankee, they don't react in some sensitive manner, even though the Yankee-Southern difference was once a cause for major war. Aryavarta *was* the name of the area, though. Manu uses it as a geographic term to roughly mean the Indo-Gangetic plain, i.e. approx Eastern NWFP to Sindh and then a swath eastwards to modern day Bangladesh. India is called India because of the Indus. So are people from Chennai (who are far away from the Indus) Indians? Of course, they are. This is *archaic*, i.e. a traditional usage that has now fallen into disuse when speaking accurately. Relax. As far as I know, no one's interested in drawing any international border or racial line across the Vindhyas. Indians use this mostly in a lighthearted way now, knowing it means little to modern-day Indians. You should too. --Hunnjazal (talk) 09:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for all the trouble i caused to you. I can't work anymore on this particular article after the entry of controversies like Aryavarta and so on. Previous version was better than this one. good luck to you mr. Hunnjazal. --Onef9day (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh! so one editor has gone now and rest of others are fiddling with this article. So you too think Hunnjazal's additions are not necessary. we will consider your thoughts too. thanks for improving this article but it is really sad to see you abandoning this article this way.--Bigsuperindia (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't do that! Tell me, what is the issue with Aryavarta? I am okay to revert it to what it was, but still don't understand what the issue was. --Hunnjazal (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

North of the Vindhyas

I still do not understand why this is such a charged issue. I have reverted deleted material on this. Note that the article South India says Apart from the English language terms South India and Peninsular India, southern India has been known by several other historic names. Adi Shankara coined the name Dravida in the 8th century as he called himself Dravida Shishu, meaning a child from South India (see etymology of Dravida). The article opens with Southern India, also known as the Dravida in the Indian anthem. This is NOT a racial statement of any kind. Nothing is being implied about any Aryan-Dravidian theory or anything. It is just factually accurate as the obsolete name of the region. Similarly, Aryavarta and the Vindhyas are factually accurate as obsolete names and dividing lines. What is the issue with mentioning them as relevant terms that still show up in popular culture? This is like someone going into Chenab River and removing all reference to the fact that the river was once called Chandrabhaga. No one is saying call it that now. It is a verifiable fact that this is an archaic name for it. Where is all this insecurity coming from? --Hunnjazal (talk) 03:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

as per your previous comments this and "Vindhyas are factually accurate" you surely are from south india. No one in north india says this. Even if some media house uses it to muse people like you, it is not necessary to include it in here. you can use it on south india articles and also do not forget to mention aryans and how they invaded in older times which you can't even prove. This article is about north india and not south of Vindhyas. so please do not fiddle with it. insanity still exists in india. You coined it so you use it. right --Bigsuperindia (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

what you are claiming is something saying what applies to south should apply to north too. Not necessary what south indians call north indians should me mentioned in North India article. On one in North india call north india the way south indians describe it. let what south indians think about north india be on their sphere only and no need to put your words in others' mouth. Adi Shankara was religious saint. Not necessary what a saint says about a piece of land is a fact. --Swaminworld (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

thanks for pointing this to us. Adi Shankara was a Dravida Shishu as Hunnjazal has described him but the fact is that in india esp. northern india people follow ADI SHANKARA and do not identify him as south indian. don't know how people from south describe him for his preference of north over south to spend his life. now we must keep in here what is relevant to north india. People can include stuff related to south of Vindhyas to it related topics. this article is about north india i guess.:) i'm just guessing because stuff from south india article keeps comming in here when it is really not needed. --Bigsuperindia (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

i have gone through upper part of article and i do not really understand why linguistic demarcation is there to describe north india. what is not south is indo-aryan regions as many south indians describe it and this way we can say non-dravidan language regions are north india. even whole of Maharashtra falls into it. Now what keep in amusing that south india has special preference for Maharashtra not to include it in North india. even government of Maharashtra identifies it to north india. Hunnjazal added to some fact tags for it but since north india is a diff region so i removed it. --Swaminworld (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Your points aren't clear. First, there is an Ad hominem fallacy. I could be from Timbuktu. It makes no difference. This isn't WP:OR. It is referenced, fact-based material. The Vindhyas are an archaic dividing line between North and South India. This precedes the existence of Maharashtra, so I don't understand how that state is relevant in any way. I don't know what races have to do with it either. What is being said is very simple: (a) the Vindhyas were once regarded as a dividing line of sorts between North and South India, and (b) a large tract of North India was once referred to as Aryavarta. Which of (a) or (b) are you contesting? Each has references galore. This has nothing to do with Aryan-Dravidian theory, Maharashtra, Kuiper bodies, Baseball or any other such thing. Please stick to facts. The Vindhyas as an archaic component of defining the North is totally valid. What's wrong with it? Your selective edit patterns reveal a desire to censor material so it conforms to a specific ideology (a specific stance on the Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis. That violates WP:NPOV. Please focus on the point instead of bringing in unconnected things. You say, "Adi Shankara was a Dravida Shishu as Hunnjazal has described him but the fact is that in india esp. northern india people follow ADI SHANKARA and do not identify him as south indian." Yes, this is true (though I never mentioned Adi Shankara at all or use the term Dravida Shishu). But what does this have to do with anything? In narratives about Adi Shankaracharya himself, there is frequently commentary that goes like this - "Hinduism was on the decline in Aryavarta and atheism (their word, incorrectly, for Buddhism) was ascendant; also northern mleccha tribes had invaded and settled in Aryavarta en-masse; Adi Shankara preached and restored Hinduism in Aryavarta." Whether you agree with this narrative or not, basically, Aryavarta is treated as an uber-province or region of India, much as Dravida is. Today we would say "Hindi Zone, North East, etc." Back then they said things like Aryavarta, Gandhara, Dravida, Kalinga, Pragjyotish, etc. It is really tough to understand why this is so disturbing to you. --Hunnjazal (talk) 04:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

it is better you first check your additions. for i.e. "which has sometimes formed a border during periods of imperial expansion in India." now my question is: is it that north india was actually India at that time? is it that India was actually Aryavarta? what do you mean by "imperial expansion in India". your additions are increasing confusion. now how it is serving better to reader if it is anywhere an encyclopedic material. and on what page of you fact tag "John Stewart Bowman, "Columbia Chronologies of Asian History and Culture", Columbia University Press, 2000, ISBN 0-231-11004-9." we find what you claim. non of your fact tags has mention of pages and i can verity remove them as per wikipedia. please take time to add page nos. --Swaminworld (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Your statements are confused. What are you disputing exactly? Are you claiming that the Vindhyas were NOT the border during that period of imperial expansion in India? If so, you are wrong, and it's easy to prove. From that very reference (page 261): Samudragupta is notable for the king's tireless military campaigning and expansion of empire. He conquers the entire Aryavarta ... His expeditions into south India are unsuccessful; the Vindhya hills form the southern boundary of empire. I've added a quote. You claim "non of your fact tags has mention of pages and i can verity remove them as per wikipedia." This is easy enough to do, but I am not ready to let these random assertions slide anymore. Where does it say in Wikipedia policy that page numbers have to be quoted or the ref must be deleted? Point me at that statement now. Incidentally, almost all my references come with links, where the book or material can be searched directly online for the relevant fact. You could have done that here, like I did. Why didn't you? I am certainly not ready to allow censorship in this article to advance an ideological viewpoint. It has to be truthful, well-referenced and maintain a neutral perspective. I will do whatever it takes to ensure this. --Hunnjazal (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Good you yourself have cleared why it should not be included. why not?? here we are talking of north india and not Aryavarta and not even Samudragupta. your satatement "the Vindhya hills form the southern boundary of empire" itself clarifies that you are talking about an empire. empires expand and collaps all the time. At one point of time Rashtrakuta Dynasty expanded up-to what is now called north india engulfing most of the UP. then by your logic one can say what was not in Rashtrakuta should be considered north india. should it be?? Aryavarta has its own article. Aryavarta do not claim anywhere that it was north india. are you kidding us by saying north india existed at that time when indian was not even on the map of the earth. secondly by your logic we must also include tibet into north india as at one time in history it was a part of north india(north india ???). should we??? not at all. we are talking about what is north india in present context. you are talking about history. is this article about "the history of north india". i guess you must create one. if it is to remain in here ,you create a separate section "History of North India" and put your additions of "Aryavarta" in there. In present context it has no relevance to the article as such. --Swaminworld (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

moreover why you are considering only period of Samudragupta, what about Ashoka. if we considering period of ashoka then we can say what was not in his empire was south india and rest of the land was north india. are we really doing justice to the article --Swaminworld (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

what do you mean by "I am certainly not ready to allow censorship in this article to advance an ideological viewpoint", where i at any point of time said or did something that you have to say so. What ideological viewpoint you see in here. --Swaminworld (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't understand this - "Good you yourself have cleared why it should not be included" - please clarify. It's also unclear what Ashoka's empire has to do with this. Look at an analogy: the Khyber pass. We all know that this is regarded as a separator between the Indian subcontinent and Central Asia. There have been empires where the Khyber fell inside the empire (e.g. Akbar, Kanishka), but for many the border has fallen on this natural dividing feature. Today, Pashtoons live on both sides of the Khyber. Do they care when someone says, "the Khyber links South and Central Asia"? No, they couldn't care less. Similarly, the Vindhyas are a natural dividing feature that once acted as a regional demarcation. They still do (as a natural divider) because they (and the roughly parallel and nearby Satpuras) divide the Indo-Gangetic plain from the Deccan plateau. In ancient times, this change in terrain and the wilderness of this region really was a barrier to kingdoms. On top of that, the ranges and valleys were home to tribes like the Pulindas who exerted independence from both northern and southern empires. Your random claim that "Aryavarta has its own article. Aryavarta do not claim anywhere that it was north india" but the opening line of the article is "Āryāvarta (Sanskrit: आर्यावर्त, "abode of the Aryas") is a name for Northern India in classical Sanskrit literature"! You're just denying hard, provable facts here. How can you possibly win with an argument like this? I am a bit baffled you are even trying, which is why I keep asking you to explain why you're doing this!

There are many, many references that will say this from thousands of years ago to the present day. This does NOT divide India or Indians today, but the definition has stuck in popular imagination. India is a vast country. How could it not have divisions and subregions? Your ideology is to deny the existence of regions in India and portray it as one homogeneous goop. It is not. It would be a tragedy if it were. Only tiny countries are like that. Some of your objections are, pardon me, just ridiculous. This is like claiming that "Pragjyotish was once the name for a large part of Assam" is wrong because, hey, people didn't use the term Assam when the area was called Pragjyotish. This makes no sense. That is what an archaic/obsolete name is, is it not? How is this mention of the Vindhyas or Aryavarta, in any way, creating a divide between North and South Indians? It is not. India contains Aryavarta, Dravida, Kalinga (Orissa), Pragjyotish (Assam) and more. Why is this a bad thing? By the way, the Vindhyas are interesting again in some of ancient Indian literature. They seem to be neither Aryavarta nor Dravida. They often seem to be regarded as this border region which has its own tribes and norms. --Hunnjazal (talk) 04:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

i have no personal issues with it but let me tell you one thing. the theory of Āryāvarta, Hinduism, migratory theories have created a lot trouble and today hinduism has nullified the efforts ann contributions of muslims, parses, others who migrated to india with good intentions. the outsiders theories are arising and they are as dangerous as anything like naxalism. --Swaminworld (talk) 08:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Swaminworld, you are misunderstanding. Aryavarta has nothing to do with the Aryan Migration theory. There is zero-relationship between these things. The use of the term has no implication that anyone migrated into that region. It is just an old geographical term, that is all. And it isn't a theory either, because Indian literature is full of references to it (just like the literature of our times is full of references to, say, Haryana - that doesn't say anything about Haryana people being immigrants from Mongolia or anything). All that is being said is that, in olden days, this region was called Aryavarta. This is fact, and this is all there is to the fact. No more. You talked about Adi Shankaracharya. I encourage you to see the movie (in the original Sanskrit). There is a sequence there where he himself tells another person "I am happy to be in holy Aryavarta." It's like someone saying "I am happy to have come to the good state of Gujarat."

Recognizing that there is a region called Gujarat doesn't mean anything is being said about Gujaratis and Maharashtrians not being countrymen. The national anthem of India used the word Dravida. That doesn't create a North and South divide. It just says, hey, there's a region in India called Dravida. The end. You shouldn't get worked-up about some natural geological feature (river, mountain, desert, whatever) acting as a dividing feature between regions. Usually historical regions are demarcated by natural features - how else would they be? This is true at every level. Maharashtra has the Konkan and the interior. They are divided by the Western Ghats. To start denying the name Konkan and refusing to let the Ghats be mentioned because this would somehow divide Maharashtrians is a bit extreme, wouldn't you say? Any sizable area on the planet has these divisions. There are Appalachians, Midwesterners, New Englanders, etc in the United States - with these regions demarcated by natural features. That's true of all humans on planet earth. Please go back and re-read the section. How does this, in any way trigger this concern of yours? --Hunnjazal (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

My no objection in here, thanks for describing things in the right way. i'm mostly concern about the discrimination being done to outsiders and some theories related to outsiders have done a much harm. Paresis, huns, muslims, persians and others have contributed a lot to the indian society but things like migratory theories and outsiders concepts have almost nullified their contribution and now and then ugly allegation are put forth. this is really a dangerous situation. I initially identified Aryavarta with aryans, Hinduism and other things but as you have explained it, i see it with other perspective now but i don't know why some people use them to make reasons of communal riots. I was reluctant to include it in here just because of this reason. you can see how this article is written. with the perspective of a hindu as if no one else has done anything in northern parts of the country. migration happens all the time. today indians are migrating to west. should they be racially abused?? no. thanks for explanation. --Swaminworld (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Swaminworld. Glad we came to agreement. We'll make sure there is reasoning and consensus here so the article doesn't head off in random directions. I do understand and appreciate your concerns. No human should be experience racial abuse, regardless of who they are and where in the world they happen to originate, reside or be present. --Hunnjazal (talk) 07:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh

It has been discovered that this book:

• Gupta, Om. Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Gyan Publishing House, 2006. ISBN 8182053897, 9788182053892.

Contains significant amounts of material plagiarized from Wikipedia articles. (Some other books from the same publisher also have this problem). There is no practical way of determining which material came from Wikipedia, and which came from other sources. Further, widespread plagiarism is an indication of poor scholarship. For those reasons, and according to Wikipedia policy, WP:CIRCULAR, I will deleting all citations to the book. However I will not delete the material that cites it, as there's no indication that the material is inaccurate. For more background, see WP:RSN#Circular references: Gyan Publishing and ISHA Books, or the archive after it goes there.   Will Beback  talk  22:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

That sucks, but this is good to know so the book can be avoided in future. Thanks! --Hunnjazal (talk) 07:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan as an ethnicity

Northern India is predominantly Indo-Aryan. Any number of references will tell you this. It is not exclusively Indo-Aryan, since there are groups such as Tibeto-Burmans present in large numbers as well. There is a difference between language and ethnicity, though the two may be heavily intertwined. For instance, there are the Latinos who are an ethnic group versus speakers of Spanish. They are heavily interrelated, but the concepts are different. North India has humans who belong to some ethnicities. What are those ethnicities? Jats, Gujars, Mohyals, Ladakhis, Rajputs, Kashmir is, Dogras, etc. These are classified at a higher level into Indo-Aryan, Tibeto-Burman, etc. Prior to the partition of India, you also had Baloch and Pathan, who were classified as Iranics (I should say "sometimes classified as Iranics" - some refs would say that they are Indo-Aryans who were influenced by Iranians). The precise meaning and explanation of Indo-Aryan ethnicity belongs in the Indo-Aryan peoples article, which is distinct from the Indo-Aryan languages article. As I had said before, argue about the Hindi belt in the article on Hindi belt, argue about Indo-Aryan peoples in the article about Indo-Aryan peoples - not here. This is an article on North India - do not import the complexities and contents of those articles here. The reason I flagged NPOV is because there seems to be an attempt to remove the idea of ethnicity itself from the demographics section, reducing it to discussion of language. This is an unnatural act. All regions of the human world have ethnicity. How can a gigantic country like India have only linguistic diversity and not have ethnic diversity? It is impossible and bizarre, and can only be explained ideologically (i.e. the attempt to censor material and portray India as a ethnically homogeneous land). Maybe that was not your intent but that is how it came across.

On the other sentence on sustained immigration and incursions, there are distinct refs for each group mentioned - Indo-Scythians, Indo-Sassanids, Indo-Hephthalites, Kushans. It seems to be actually more well-referenced than some generic refs covering all things. Also, I suspect you're somehow conflating this with the Indo-Aryan thing. I mean even after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Afghans came into India as refugees many of whom have never left. The Mughals came into India from Ferghana and have never left either. The lands surrounding India's north are quite harsh and have seen a lot of upheaval. North India is not disconnected from them - there is a lot of to-and-fro. There is and has been a constant flow of people into the subcontinent from the northwest (this is a very different thing from the Aryan migration hypothesis - we're talking about documented, recorded flows). It continues to this day. There are millions of Afghans inside Pakistan now - all the way down to Karachi. Given another 500 years don't you think they or their descendants will osmotically spread over the northern subcontinent? You see Indian influence and immigrants into these areas as well. In the modern day, people in Afghanistan have become Hindi-familiar due to Bollywood. The Sikhs invaded Afghanistan and are the reason NWFP is now in Pakistan. Dogras invaded Tibet and are the reason Ladakh (which is across the Himalayas and on the Tibetan plateau) is now part of India. Jayapala invaded Ghazni to protect his kingdom, lost and ended-up with the neighboring Turkics annexing his country (all now in Afghanistan/Pakistan) and flooding into India proper. Humans are humans - given enough time, they wander all over the place, both violently and non-violently. Why is this surprising? Is there *any* part of the world that has not experienced invasions and immigration from neighboring regions over several millennia? Seriously, name one. Except maybe islands separated by thousands of miles of open sea maybe. --Hunnjazal (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

what you are saying is an act of generalizing things. Indo-Aryan is not race. secondly you have said "censor material and portray India as a ethnically homogeneous land" in several of your rants before but the facts remains the same. when you say indo-aryan it is an attempt to segregate them from the land called india. I'm not saying it is your ideology but pardon me it looks like this way. I have nothing to do with Hindi Belt though I improved it. Secondly you tagged many words for ref even when ref is there at the end of para. It is not necessary to provide ref for each word. Ethnicity depends on region and not just language. for example if i learn english it does not mean i'm English gentleman. People living in Rajasthan are way different than people from Uttar Pradesh. Rajasthani culture is way different than that of UP, Bihari and even Bengali culture. But people try to generalize them and club them with UP, Bihari and bengali. In culture they belong to old gujrati culture and are in similar lines of marathi culture cause of long Indo-Scythians heritage. I have no idea how you want to club Rajasthanis as bihari indo-aryans. really, please explain. Ethnicity (the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition) if you closely study you will find that Rajasthani people have common culture defined by their religious believes. you can not segregate rajasthani muslim from rajasthani hindu unless you go to their worship places. they both belong to same ethnic group. they have same culture only different religious belief and at some point they even celebrate most common event as only rajasthani people and not like UP, Bihari people. We must mention this as it is mentioned by bengali and marathi people. what you say. Jats, Gujars, Mohyals, Ladakhis, Rajputs, Kashmir is, Dogras, etc. are not ethnic groups. Jats and Gujars of Rajasthan are way different from Bihari jats etc. and in ethnicity they are more akin to gujrati Jats & Gujars. In fact rajasthai people form ethnic group. Indo-Aryan peoples does not describe any ethnicity as such. It is mainly an idea based on Indo-aryan migration theory of classical Tamil civilization lobby. Here i do not want to give any essays of RSS like orgs. I do not subscribe to them at all. Infact was a brahmin converted to Buddhism. Why i'm telling you this is because you have mistaken me as a Right-Wind goon. --Onef9day ^Talk! 20:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

This is bizarre - when you say indo-aryan it is an attempt to segregate them from the land called india. Are you serious? Indo-Aryan for God's sake. I don't know what this means - you tagged many words for ref even when ref is there at the end of para - please explain. Any ethnic group has subgroupings, sometimes overlapping with other ethnicities as well. It happens. Latinos include Mexicans, Puerto-Ricans, Venezuelan Americans and so on. However, Latino is still an ethnic group. Jats, Rajputs, Dogras, Kashmiris are absolutely ethnic groups. What makes you say they are not? Indo-Aryan peoples are similarly an umbrella ethnic group, similar to Latinos. I don't know what this has to do with Indo-Aryan migration or classical Tamil civilization lobby. I agree that speaking English will not make you an ethnically English person. At least not right away. If English speaking Afro-Caribbeans and British people were to merge over a couple of millennia, then yes, they would become one ethnic group. This happens all the time as well. I am opposed to your change because you are proposing merger of demographics and language. It doesn't make sense. Language definitely influences ethnicity, but is distinct from it. Your English speaking example proves this point. I have added specific refs on Indo-Aryan ethnicity. Please do not make changes to the original without consensus. I didn't call you a right wing nut and your background is of no interest actually. All that matters is accuracy, NPOV and NOR. North Indians are predominantly Indo-Aryan. This is richly referenced in literature. BTW ethnicity and race are both ambiguous concepts. Race doesn't really seem to have a strong founding in genetics anymore. From the article on Race - Race, however, has no official biological taxonomic significance — all humans belong to the same hominid subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens. Nor is there scientific basis for any racial or ethnic hierarchy. --Hunnjazal (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW Jats, Gujars, etc are interesting. Some Jats speak Rajasthani, some Haryanvi, some Khari Boli, some Punjabi, some even Balochi. Similarly, Gujars span a bunch of languages, as do Rajputs. Yet they each perceive themselves as one confederated ethnic group. For example, a Kashmiri Muslim Gujjar (Qamar Rabbani Chechi) got involved in an election in Rajasthan confident of Hindu Rajathani Gujjar support and certain of Hindu Meena Rajasthani opposition - http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jaipur/LS-polls-Dausa-welcomes-Kashmiri-Gujjar/articleshow/4294790.cms - It is actually an interesting aspect that knits different regions and language groups together. Language, caste/ethnicity, religion are crisscrossed. This may be specific to the northern part of the subcontinent, I am not sure if it applies equally to the South or other regions. Similarly, the Kamboj people have a strong sense of belonging to that ethnicity regardless of religion or language. Tyagis are the same way. These groups do not simply act like castes within a single stratified society. They act more as tribes that are geographically dispersed recognizing kinship, maintaining common origin myths, keeping common or similar surnames, extending support across religious or national boundaries sometimes. So, you could say Kshatriya is a caste. Rajputs are an ethnicity that has self-identified as Kshatriya in the varna system, but the Rajput ethnic identity exists independently of their identity as Kshatriya or Rajasthani/Nepali/Punjabi or Hindi/Muslim/Sikh or Indian/Pakistani. Khatris are also present as Kshatriyas in the same regions, but Rajputs and Khatris act like completely distinct tribal groups, regardless of their religion, their state or even nationality. Similarly, Geet Sethi and Najam Sethi, one Indian Hindu and the other Pakistani Muslim, would instantaneously recognize each other as fellow Khukhrain Khatris of common ethnicity. Believe it or not, a similar ethnic connection would exist between Javed Miandad and Shashindra Pal Tyagi (former chief of the IAF) - they are both ethnic Tyagis. Same with Khokhars. All Khokhars are aware of being Khokhars and are proud of their history (eg having killed Muhammad Ghori). You have both Riaz Khokhar (Pakistan's ex-ambassador to India) and Sunil Khokhar, who fought and died for India to capture Siachen Glacier. Naturally, the bigger tribes have sizeable subdivisions who have their own distinct sense of self - e.g. the Janjua Rajputs, who are very conscious of being Janjuas regardless of language (Punjabi, Hindko, Mirpuri) or religion (Hindu, Muslim and Sikh) and proud of their past in having dominated Afghanistan and the Gandhara region (as Hindushahis). Probably ethnic/subethnic divisions in other parts of the Indian subcontinent are more clearly aligned with language and religion because those areas haven't seen the historical upheavals and constant people movements of North India. Bottomline is that these tribes and tribal confederations can quite legitimately be regarded as ethnic groups, and that is how they are often seen in literature.

It's not that dissimilar to, say, the Ndebele ethnic group who are a subset of the Nguni ethnic group who are themselves a subset of the Bantu ethnicity. You will see that Bantu peoples and Bantu languages are distinct articles. If you look at South_Africa#Demographics, you will see the Ndebele people listed there. Again, please do not confuse this or talking about Indo Aryan people with any support for any invasion theory or racial distinctions. Ethnicity is a much more complex thing than that. You have black Hispanics and blonde Hispanics. They are both part of the Hispanic/Latino ethnic group. This distinction between race and ethnicity is made well in the Hispanic and Latino Americans: Hispanic and Latino Americans are the largest ethnic minority in the United States; Black Americans, in turn, are the largest racial minority. All this aside, distinctions of ethnicity/race/tribe/language/whatever should not be done in this article. Deal with those in the appropriate article. So, the hand-wringing about what is and is not in the Hindi Belt belongs in Hindi Belt, not here. Any hand-wringing about what Indo-Aryan people means or does not mean belongs in the Indo-Aryan people article, not here. --Hunnjazal (talk) 01:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

hi, Interesting!. Thanks for elaborating this human psychology related phenomenon. This is really interesting phenomenon. One thing is amazing, you come up with many facts that others just ignore. You must be psychologist. I think north has much diverse ethnic base as compared to other areas of india. So much diversity in North India that it is hard to write about everything here. Thanks for educating me about some facts. --Onef9day ^Talk! 10:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words! --Hunnjazal (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Indo Aryan migration and Tamils? This must be a colossal joke! Agreed, Tamil politicians _wish_ that Aryan migration to be true: we all know politicians want great many things including khap panchayat, triple salary increment and what not. But major, influential, academic proponents of the theory, like Romila Thapar, are not Tamils. Even when genetic evidence says that there are mixing and matching over past 10,000 years: we don't even have a educated guesses as to what languages we spoke then or what linguistic groups existed few thousand years ago! Indo-Aryan is defensible only as a linguistic grouping: Like clothing the fossil bones of long gone dinosaurs, we just cloth (and paint) the available evidence to suit our pet fancies. *sighs* Anyway, please try reading up before painting the wall red. 117.254.154.29 (talk) 11:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Tamil politicians? Fossil bones? What on earth are you talking about? Indo-Aryan ethnicity has nothing to do with Aryan migration. This is just being oversensitive. If there were a theory called the "Divine Undoubted Materialization of Bhils" which said that Bhils (and only Bhils) magically descended to the planet via moonbeams on Aug 19, 2043 BC, what would that theory DUMB have to do with the Bhil ethnicity? Nothing. Does DUMB being right or wrong have any implications for the existence of Bhil ethnicity? None at all. Your genetic argument is just plain irrelevant. For the sake of argument, if Bhils had a massive genetic overlap with non-Bhils, does that mean Bhils are not a distinct ethnicity? No, it doesn't. Genes as a basis of ethnicity (or even race) is "like clothing the fossil bones of long gone dinosaurs." From Homo_sapiens#Race_and_ethnicity: However, compared to the other great apes, human gene sequences are remarkably homogeneous.[100][101][102][103] The predominance of genetic variation occurs within racial groups, with only 5 to 15% of total variation occurring between groups.[104] Thus the scientific concept of variation in the human genome is largely incongruent with the cultural concept of ethnicity or race. Ethnic groups are defined by linguistic, cultural, ancestral, national or regional ties. Humans have milled around all over the place. Any ethnic group is a collage of genes from all sorts of places. Unless it has been isolated by natural barriers for a really long time (i.e. demonstrates the founder effect). Stop driving yourself into the zone of invalid extrapolation. What is being said is all that is being said. Nothing more.--Hunnjazal (talk) 15:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all this isn't actually a question of who migrated and who not. I belong to Indo-Aryan ethnic group not because I speak Marathi or Hindi but because my ancestors developed a cultural identity based on their beliefs, their life-style etc. etc....... Culture is definitely one parameter of ethnicity but not sole criteria so does language. As Hunnjazal says, it has several dimensions. Actually it is interesting subject to see how societies grow. Certainly India is diverse and what is wrong in saying that someone migrated to it. I agree it may be a bit emotive. Migrations do happen all the time. People migrated in history and are migrating and will migrate. Secondly Don't forget how Parsis are being treated in Marathi speaking areas. I can understand in Delhi people do not identify others based on language. But it isn't entirely true. Anything which is unpolished or crude is Bihari stuff. In DU people call Bihari as harry. And everyone from south india is identified as Tamil. Even a person who comes from Karnatka is Tamil. But this scenario is changing. In USA everyone from south asia is paki shop. Japanese is Chinese. Korean is chinese. :) But it's certainly an Interesting phenomenon. Hey Read Periyar E. V. Ramasamy. It is an amazing article. You can see how one's resentment against Brahmins resulted into a Self-Respect Movement and slowly it grew into Tamil Nationalism. Moreover there is one more important dimension to it... Politics... another twisting dimension... As far as genetics is concerned, it is yet another twisted dimension to it. Humans are interesting beings. Don't you think so. --Onef9day ^Talk! 18:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Goa has Hindu saraswats and Christian saraswats, Mumbai has Hindu and Muslim Kolis. What is the point Hun.. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

of course Indian Christians are not British. They are one of us. And so is the case with Muslims. Indian Muslims are not arabs. Hindu-Muslim agitations are largely exercised by extremists. 80% of the population want peace. your point is unclear here Goa has Hindu saraswats and Christian saraswats...... do you know there exist Buddhist saraswats as well. IMHO religion is a personal preference. Politics should be kept away from it. --Onef9day ^Talk! 21:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh! Pakistan and Bangladesh are a bad nightmare, and we are going to wake up. Yes there are Hindu Bunts and Jain Bunts. But what is the point? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hindustan and Dakshin

I remember reading historical references in Maratha records, where parts of what are now Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, areas around Delhi, Punjab, Rajasthan, Haryana are referred to as Hindustan, this article should mention this nomenclature, what is now Maharashtra belonged to Dakkhan - a corruption of Dakshin or south. Shejwalkar in his Panipat, writes about the large number of camp followers with Sadashivrao Bhau's army, who were there for the benefit of visiting the prigrimage sites in Aryavrata.

Also during the time of the War of Independence, parts of what is now Uttar Pradesh belonged to East India Company's North - West Province (as mentioned in Doyle's Sign of Four). Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The article agrees with pretty much of of this. Maharashtra isn't included in North India. North-Western Provinces has its own article. Hindustan has its own article as well, which needs improving. The history of that term is complex (as is the history of the word India itself), and might be tough to represent in this article. Can you think of one or two punchy lines to put in here? Which section would you put them in? --Hunnjazal (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hunnjazal where does the article mention that North India was once called Hindustan. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

welcome Khandke, please take time to improve article. If you think it should be mentioned then we all can discuss it here. Nice you took time to check in here and keyed your suggestions. Hunnjazal has already improved this article a lot. Maharashtra was part of south, however if you check history you will find that it was not known if people ever lived there before aryans. But we know it from the pancha dravida brahman classification. However, all brahamns migrated from banks of sarasvati to different parts of INDIA. So all of them are descendants of North Indian upper class lobby. so its a very complex subject which one can't write about without getting into controversial talk. Now for Hindustan, Hindustan also included Bangladesh, Pakistan and parts of Afghanistan as well. So, how are you going to describe it in today's context? and what about Nepal was it a part of Hindustan? --Onef9day ^Talk! 23:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I know of reliable sources - especially Maratha sources that can be quoted that use the name Hindustan for what now belongs to the Northern part of India and perhaps Paksitan (for what separates them but a line on a map), this article does not mention the above nomenclature, unless we find a map which uses this nomenclature, we wont know what was a part of Hindustan of the Marathas, if we don't find a map it will be like a jigsaw puzzle, we will have to construct Hindustan (in its form as Northern India) with the help of written sources. It is known that Netaji Palkar worked in Kabul and Raghobadada crossed the Indus at Attak, did they call the area Hindustan? Another word is Aryavrata what are its boundries? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

sure we can discuss it here and we will find ways to include your material in here. well Aryavrata is basically word from Sanskrit. Many people have tried to guess its area, but it is still hard to guess what exact area Aryavrata encompassed. it could be engulfing areas as far as Iran. Hindustan is a word which might have emerged around mughal era. Basically from Hindustani language(Hindi-Urdu). But in present context it refers to whole of india and not just North India. Secondly, It is not frequently used as such. Bharat is more frequent in use. Hindusthan might have emerged to refer as a land of Hindus by Pakistani segregationists who wanted land for Muslims. Several possibilities and still not all correct... this is called history... mostly guessing work. Last week read somewhere that Konkanastha Brahmins are decedents of greeks and germans and how they aligned themselves to indian Brahmins is still a mystery. --Onef9day ^Talk! 19:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, at least, eversince independance, people from UP have used the word 'Hindustani' to refer to their 'ethnicity,' or whatever and distinguish it, e.g., from the Punjabis or the Biharis (How else can you say in Hindi that you're a UPiite; "Uttar Pradeshi" sounds odd), and in this sense, the word 'Hindustani' refers to just a state, or parts of it. I wonder what people from other states that end with a 'pradesh' (e.g., Andhra pradesh call themselves).(Awadhi (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC))

I was pointing to the historical use of the word Hindustan, for the northern parts India and Pakistan. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

hey what are you waiting for.... word Hindustan should be included if we can find reliable sources. I have no idea what area Hindustan covered. I guess it also covered Tibet, Bangladesh, (of course ) Pakistan, and Nepal. Do you have a MAP of it. I could not find any map. --Onef9day ^Talk! 21:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The map provided in the article is inappropriate

The map of north India provided in this article shows the administrative zones, that are irrelevant to the topic of "North India" as such, and tend to confuse/ complicate matters unnecessarily. There are adminstrative zones, cultural zones, Railway zones, sports zones, political zones, and they all vary from each other. "North India" is a much broader concept than all of that, and is more of a geographical and cultural phenomena -- a fact, that is belittled by focussing on the administrative zones, created by the government. I'd say, bring in another map, that shows just the states involved.(Awadhi (talk) 13:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC))

I totally oppose this also. This was in fact a proposal (I was supportive) that lost out in our consensus process for very good reasons. Please review the discussion first. There was strong opposition, for example, to including Bihar (I believe from a Bihari contributor as a matter of fact). --Hunnjazal (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you're totally missing my point here. What has Bihar got to do with it. I'm talking about the fact that the government of India doesn't define 'North India' in the way its claimed in this article, and that the administrative zone called 'North India' does not tantamount to a government definition as such. Government of India uses different interpretations of North India in different contexts. This information is misleading.(Awadhi (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC))

That's not entirely correct. GoI *does* define cultural zones inside India. There is an objective statement that the GoI defines the Northern cultural zone as XYZ. This isn't SYNTH or OR. It's objective fact. There are multiple definitions of North India of course, and they're all in here. Did you have any additional in mind? If so, please propose your verbage here and we will discuss. --Hunnjazal (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The section on Government definition of north India is wrong

This is totally misleading. This article is about the geographical and cultural concept called 'North India.' Government of India certainly doesn't define it in the way its mentioned here. This is only the cultural zone zet up by government of India a decade or so ago. Different government departments have defined zones in different ways. The adminstrative zone is different from the cultural zone, which is different from the Railways zone, which is different from the sportszone ... no one can claim that any one of these represent the definitionn used by the government. North India, as such, is not an administrative or political zone, its a geographic and cultural concept (but different from the cultural zones set up by the government, which are merely for the sake of convenience). I propose that this section be deleted, and another map should be brought in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awadhi (talk • contribs) 14:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I oppose this. Please review prior discussion. This was very contentious and a consensus was hard won. Make no changes without consensus here, and under no circumstances delete referenced material. The bottom line is that there needs to be objective definitions which are backed by refs. The Government of India's position is obviously highly relevant. Otherwise you might as well start disputing states as well, e.g. "I dont agree with boundaries of Maharashtra as defined by GoI. Those are just for the sake of convenience. I think Maharashtra includes all of South Gujarat." What is your specific proposal (along with refs to back it up)? Please do not add unreferenced material. I'd like to alert you also that the wording of your comment makes it feel like you're verging on disrespecting WP:NOR and WP:NPOV - be careful there! More specifically, maybe you can tell us what your issue with the GoI definition is? --Hunnjazal (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, you're misinterpreting what I'm pointing out here. You're claiming that the government of India's position is that North India = Administrative North Zone, and that is highly debatable. I'm not debating the general classification of North India here, just the claim made about the government definition, which only includes the states of J&K, Punjab and Himanchal Pradesh. Thus, e.g., the Government zone does not include Rajasthan in the North Adminstrative Zone, but in the West zone, however, North zone is inconceivable without Rajasthan, if we're talking about the geographical and cultural concept called, "North India."(Awadhi (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC))

Ah, I see, you're a newbie. Please click on Archives in this page above. All this discussion has already happened. I suspect you're partial to the linguistic definition. Which is fine - it's there and there is a map for it further down in the article. --Hunnjazal (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not partial to the linguistic definition. I'm against confusing North India with 'Administrative North Zone' set up by the government of India, that too, bang in the beginning. And, I don't like the idea of including a map of the government zones to depict North India. Perhaps, it would be a good idea to show a map of North India without the present day state boundaries, because, North India is neither defined by nor dependant on demarcation of political states of modern India. It's a distinct concept on its own.(Awadhi (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC))

I think we can add The adminstrative zone as well, if it is required. Railways zone is not of much use as it was more or less defined by british. Yep cultural zones are not defined properly. I find it really hard to understand why Rajasthan is grouped with UP-Bihar, if culture is to be the judging criterion. It should be grouped with Gujarat. --Onef9day ^Talk! 04:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, if various zones set up by the government of India need to be included, (a) they should not be included first thing in the article, and (b) Not just the administrative zones, you should also talk about other prominent zones set up by the government, including the cultural zones and the Railways zone, and (c) the main map should NOT be about the 'adminstrative zones.'

Also, somehow, I think, the Railways map is a better indication of North India, than the cultural zones, although, some other areas do seem confusing, especially the ones set up lately (eg. the South Central zone, which includes Nagpur ... and the North Eastern Railways, that include Uttarakhand, Bareilly and Lucknow!!)(Awadhi (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC))

Well, you just got your wish because the cultural zones are defined exactly in that fashion. The whole idea is that they are overlapping. Rajasthan is in the North zone, the North Central zone and the West zone. This makes sense because places like Ganganagar are actually heavily Punjab-like and people often talk about their similarities to Bahawalpur (Pakistani Punjab). Places like Jaipur and Alwar resemble the culture of West UP heavily (in fact those populations intermarry and share ethnic groups - see Western Uttar Pradesh). Southern Rajasthan (e.g. Jalor/Sirohi) absolutely resembles Gujarat/Kutch. I think there should be an article on cultural zones of India. The GoI defined zones are actually designed pretty intelligently. I like how they haven't forced states into one camp or another because for many states multiple zones do make sense. Bihar is similar - it is both in North Central and in East zone. The article notes all this already. Awadhi hasn't clarified his objections but they may have to do with the debate that goes with definitions of Hindi. Manoj had strongly contended that Bihari languages are misclassified as Hindi, and technically, if you look at say Bhojpuri language, it is in the Eastern group along with Bengali and not in the Central group with Hindi (see Indo-Aryan languages#Classification. This is how linguists are classifying it these days and there are refs aplenty on it. It was surprising to me to see Bhojpuri not be considered in Hindi's dialect spectrum, but these things are tricky at the best of times and when you actually start looking at features, sometimes you realize that a language's structure belongs somewhere other than expected. Classic case is Brahui language - vocabulary is heavily Persianized and thick with Indo-Aryan, but it is in its foundation Dravidian, even though it is spoken only in Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is exactly why we have to be mindful of WP:NOR and especially of WP:Synthesis. It is real easy to look at some material that says "Brahui's vocabulary is 90% Persian/Indo-Aryan" and "Brahui people are native to Balochistan" and go to "Brahui is an Iranian language." This is why we cannot cobble together a zonal map based on a patchwork. I haven't seen anything systematic that is better than GoI definitions. For loose references in literature, we always have the Anecdotal usage section. There is debate on the definition of North India, but the article captures that and presents several definitions, including linguistic and latitude based. We cannot have an opinion based thing here also because there is no consensus on those things. You will meet Rajasthanis who say "we are like UP" and some who say "we are like Gujarat." We are not in the business of evaluating who is more right. However, we are legit to say, "this is what GoI says." I think it is a very tough argument to make that GoI's defined cultural zones are somehow superceded by something else. What else would that be? --Hunnjazal (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I've moved this discussion here, as I found it to be more appropriate. I hope Hunnjazal you don't mind:

"Cultural zones" and other administrative zones defined by various government bodies are not what "North India," should mean here. These government zones are somewhat arbitrary and based not solely on regional factors, besides govt may keep the same place in different zones as has been clearly pointed out here -- and they may also change these zones from time to time. My point is that we should not be including government zones here at all -- well certainly not so prominently at the outset, as if govt zone is what "North India" is about. It is not.

North India is first and foremost a broad ethnicity, followed by a broad cultural/historical and then geographical entity - and it has been more or less specifically defined at various times in history, reinforced by the Britishers. Present day administrative zones should, if at all, only come in last in these definitions.

In fact, we may even want to stress less on states and more on more historical areas (like Doab, Punjab, etc.)If we look at it from the pov of current day administrative zones, then UP would look less "North Indian" than Punjab. However, that is not true. If we look at "North India" as an ethnic zone, then UP becomes the epicentre of North India, the core from where the Indo-Aryan civilization originated.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC))

Your assertions are WP:OR and cannot be included in the article, e.g. UP becomes the epicentre of North India, the core from where the Indo-Aryan civilization originated. The cultural zones are defined by the government. That is an objective, published fact. People can disagree that India should include Punjab, in fact some people do. However, it is an objective, referenced fact. The government of India definition of North India should definitely be high in the article. If that definition changes, then so will the article. In fact, it *has* changed historically. If Wikipedia had been around in 1935, it would have included Sindh, Khyber-Pakhtoonkhwa, Balochistan in North India.--Hunnjazal (talk) 05:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Plz don't try to put words into my mouth. I never asked the aforesaid statement to be included in the article. This was given as an example to show how absurd this article looks. Is this article about the North Zone Cultural Centre of the Govt of India -- which was created only in about 1985? What an absurd idea that an administrative zone not older than a few decades can become the defining criteria of what is North India and what is not? I definitely would ask for a bigger debate on the issue. North India is a much older concept, and quite independant of any administrative zonez that the govt may set up from time to time. This by no means constitue the final or the major definition. You are forgetting that the administrative zones are fixed according to administrative convenience, and how unreliable they can be may be judged from the fact that different govt departments classify the same state in different zones -- as per their administrative convenience. How can they define the historical concept of North India? E.g., the Govt of UP led by Mayawati had put Allahabad under the Purvanchal economic zone, even though Allahabad has never been part of Purvanchal. And this government act by itself, does not make Allahabad part of Purvanchal -- (maybe officially, but it would still be wrong and against the history and ethnicity of Allahabad) -- that action is just one of administrative convenience, as deemed fit by the whims and fancies of a particular person/ group of persons in control. Just like the North India cultural zone was created by Rajiv Gandhi, on the basis of the understanding of those that adviced him.

You may want to include the government zones as a separate section, but not in a way that makes it sound as if this is primarily what "North India" is all about. Govt Cultural Zone is just that, govt cultural zone. Govt Railway zone is just that, govt Railway zone.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC))

When a region becomes too big for administrative convenience the respective department then divides the region into further sub-groups, with expediency and administrative convenience on its mind. They are not meant to define regional identities outside the purview of that department -- certainly, not a historical or ethnic identity/ region such as North India. Thus, North India was bifurcated into North and North Central by the then newly formed cultural department. The names it gave the two zones are just co-incidental. It could have been North West and North Central. Nobody in this case was trying to define the term "North India," and its wrong to use this arbitrary cultural zoning as the prominent definition of North India.

Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan, that you have kept into the 'core' of North India, have also been kept into North Western regions, variously by various government and non-government agencies. Eg., the Railways have put Rajasthan into North West (as are some areas of UP, including a station in Allahabad), while various agricultural and other govt/ non-govt agencies have put Punjab and Haryana into North West. In fact, parts of Uttar Pradesh have also been included into "North-Western" India by some government accounts, obviously based on the fact that they were also part of the Green revolution (In the British times, the entire Doab/UP was called the "North Western Province"). Therefore, you may want to remap your zones, and put Haryana, Rajasthan and Punjab too into multiple zones, and then it would be a more justified map. Thus, within North India, Punjab is in North West, while UP is in North Central ... if you're talking about comparative geography, which, btw, is not what the concept of North India is really about. In fact, even states may not bind the concept of "North India" since, parts of North-Western Bihar are actually part of North India, rather than East India (as has been corroborated by a British linguistic scholar).

By the way, if any government department closely represents the actual regional identities of India, its the Railways, not the cultural zones. Cultural zone is not the only govt zone in India, and I'm amazed why you don't know that.

Ref: http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/articles/ncsxna/index.php?repts=agro.htm http://www.markfedpunjab.com/pages/General/AboutPunjab.php http://www.facebook.com/pages/Punjab-Tourism-Govt-of-Punjab/195018543890520 http://www.ctrludhiana.com/aboutus.shtml http://www.crrid.res.in/research.htm http://www.dise.in/Downloads/Use%20of%20Dise%20Data/Dr%20Birendra%20Kaur..pdf (Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC))

Also, if you say, e.g. that Holi is a typical North Indian festival, it would make sense. But if you say Lohri is a typical North Indian festival, it would be totally off the point, because, its only celebrated in a small part of North India, i.e., the Punjab. How irrelevant the government cultural zones are can be gauged from the fact that Haryana and Rajasthan have little in common with Punjab, culturally, whereas they're nearly identical with Uttar Pradesh, even though, they share the same zone with the former. Festivals, ethnic groups, system of religious dating (even amongst Hindus) in Punjab is different from that in Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, the latter three sharing a common cultural and ethnic base.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC))

I do not agree with this at all. The bottomline is that different people have different definitions of North India. This article attempts to capture all of these. Your proposal is confused. You want definitions excluded from the article. Based on which objective source. Govt of India definitions are irrelevant in an article about regions of India? That makes no sense at all. You say, the cultural zone definition is a few decades old. My friend, the modern Indian state itself is a few decades old. Historically, Peshawar was in North India. Are you suggesting the article say that? You need to get crisper. What is the verbage you are proposing? Anyway, some thoughts -

• If anything, there is a strong dividing line between East and West UP (the article notes this btw). Ethnicities are in common across Haryana, West UP, Punjab - Gujars, Jats, Tyagis, etc. These are largely not found in East UP. I don't agree that Haryana and East UP have a "common cultural and ethnic base" - they do not.
• If you want another definition inserted on railway zone, I'd be fine with that. Suggest specific (and brief) verbage.
• Bihar is treated differently in different places. It is both East and North depending on authority. I didn't craft these definitions so I can't help you. Have you seen Bihari languages? They are eastern.
• One feature grouped regions have is that they share "pinch zones", for example Saharanpur, Ambala, Patiala are in three different regions (WUP, HR, PN) close to each other. Similarly, Pathankot, Chamba, Jammu (Pun, Him, J&K). Or, Ganganagar, Sirsa, Abohar (Raj, Har, Pun). Or, Rewari, Alwar, Kosi (Har, Raj, WUP). In all these, you see people marrying each other in tristate zones. Where is such a confluence with East UP or Bihar with the remainder of North India? There isn't. I say this to contest some points you are making but this isn't hugely relevant to the article's content. Such confluent zones *do* exist between East UP, Bihar, Jharkhand, Chattisgarh and MP.
• Lohri and Holi are both big festivals. Lohri is big in Himachal, Punjab, Jammu and Haryana (Ambala and some other areas). But what does this have to do with anything? It's not even in the article. If you annex Iran and Afghanistan to North India and say Holi is small because Eid is geographically more spread in North India, obviously that would be true. It depends on the definition of North India. You could say with current definitions that Lohri is *nothing* but North Indian, whereas Holi is generically Indian. In that sense, Lohri is a purer North Indian festival. I have no preference between Lohri and Holi and Eid - only pointing out the randomness in your discussion.

Your view is classic Central/Eastern UP and I respect it. Many people see India as North vs South. In that divide even Gujarat and Bengal are in the North. However, the North is very loose and ambiguous. In some sense, the Govt seems to say that the people in J&K and Punjab are nothing but North Indian, whereas people in UP are kind of both North and Central Indians. That makes sense. Net: propose specific verbage and then we can discuss. Otherwise it's just one big goopy go-nowhere argument. --Hunnjazal (talk) 05:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Government Definitions

Also, if you say, e.g. that Holi is a typical North Indian festival, it would make sense. But if you say Lohri is a typical North Indian festival, it would be totally off the point, because, its only celebrated in a small part of North India, i.e., the Punjab. How irrelevant the government cultural zones are can be gauged from the fact that Haryana and Rajasthan have little in common with Punjab, culturally, whereas they're nearly identical with Uttar Pradesh, even though, they share the same zone with the former. Festivals, ethnic groups, system of religious dating (even amongst Hindus) in Punjab is different from that in Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, the latter three sharing a common cultural and ethnic base.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC))

I do not agree with this at all. The bottomline is that different people have different definitions of North India. This article attempts to capture all of these. Your proposal is confused. You want definitions excluded from the article. Based on which objective source. Govt of India definitions are irrelevant in an article about regions of India? That makes no sense at all. You say, the cultural zone definition is a few decades old. My friend, the modern Indian state itself is a few decades old. Historically, Peshawar was in North India. Are you suggesting the article say that? You need to get crisper. What is the verbage you are proposing? Anyway, some thoughts -

• If anything, there is a strong dividing line between East and West UP (the article notes this btw). Ethnicities are in common across Haryana, West UP, Punjab - Gujars, Jats, Tyagis, etc. These are largely not found in East UP. I don't agree that Haryana and East UP have a "common cultural and ethnic base" - they do not.
• If you want another definition inserted on railway zone, I'd be fine with that. Suggest specific (and brief) verbage.
• Bihar is treated differently in different places. It is both East and North depending on authority. I didn't craft these definitions so I can't help you. Have you seen Bihari languages? They are eastern.
• One feature grouped regions have is that they share "pinch zones", for example Saharanpur, Ambala, Patiala are in three different regions (WUP, HR, PN) close to each other. Similarly, Pathankot, Chamba, Jammu (Pun, Him, J&K). Or, Ganganagar, Sirsa, Abohar (Raj, Har, Pun). Or, Rewari, Alwar, Kosi (Har, Raj, WUP). In all these, you see people marrying each other in tristate zones. Where is such a confluence with East UP or Bihar with the remainder of North India? There isn't. I say this to contest some points you are making but this isn't hugely relevant to the article's content. Such confluent zones *do* exist between East UP, Bihar, Jharkhand, Chattisgarh and MP.
• Lohri and Holi are both big festivals. Lohri is big in Himachal, Punjab, Jammu and Haryana (Ambala and some other areas). But what does this have to do with anything? It's not even in the article. If you annex Iran and Afghanistan to North India and say Holi is small because Eid is geographically more spread in North India, obviously that would be true. It depends on the definition of North India. You could say with current definitions that Lohri is *nothing* but North Indian, whereas Holi is generically Indian. In that sense, Lohri is a purer North Indian festival. I have no preference between Lohri and Holi and Eid - only pointing out the randomness in your discussion.

Your view is classic Central/Eastern UP and I respect it. Many people see India as North vs South. In that divide even Gujarat and Bengal are in the North. However, the North is very loose and ambiguous. In some sense, the Govt seems to say that the people in J&K and Punjab are nothing but North Indian, whereas people in UP are kind of both North and Central Indians. That makes sense. Net: propose specific verbage and then we can discuss. Otherwise it's just one big goopy go-nowhere argument. --Hunnjazal (talk) 05:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hunnjazal, you're ignoring the point that I'm making. That the govt cultural zones are no more meant to define the term "North India" beyond the scope of administration of the newly formed cultural department, than are the scores of other government departments that make zones in various other ways, depending on their own needs or other factors -- none of them serve to define the term "North India" as far as a standard definition is concerned. The only place you'd want to include the government's cultural zones in India, on wikipedia, would be the page of that particular cultural department. Otherwise, these zones have no other validity. If you claim otherwise, then you must be able to cite that these zones are meant to define the term "North India" in general.

If anything, there is a strong dividing line between East and West UP I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but, there is no such thing as "East" and "West" UP. There is no historical or other basis for these divisions, there only reason for existence being that the so-called "West UP" has become financially powerful due to the green revolution and its proximity to Delhi, while the "East" has become economically backward. Large scale Punjabi migration in the "West" and Bihari migration in the "East" are also trying to create these new divisions. However, these terms are still largely undefined.

The real historical/cultural/ geographical regions that make up UP are not "Western," "Central" and "Eastern UP" but: (1) The Doab (running on the western border of UP from North to South), which is also the core of North India, and represents the Ganga-Jamuni culture followed in essence, by the entire North India (2)Rohilkhand, (3)Awadh, (Rohilkhand and Awadh have a shared history) (4) (Northern) Bundelkhand/Baghelkhand and (5)Benares Rajwada.

In that divide even Gujarat and Bengal are in the North:There maybe two valid definitions of North India -- one stricter than the other. When we talk of the North-South divide Bengal does fall in North India, and we should definitely mention that fact. The ancient Kashmiri writer Kalhan (in Rajtaringini) had mentioned that Brahmins are of two types: "Gauda Brahmins" (North Indian Brahmins) and "Dravida Brahmins." :(The-) Karnātakas, Tailangas, Dravidas, Mahārāshtrakās and Gurjaras; these five(-types who-) live south of Vindhya (- mountains) are (called-) "five Dravidas" (- brahmins); (whereas-) Sārasvatas (Kashmiri and north-west), Kanyakubja Brahmins (UP), Gauḍa brahmins, Utkala Brahmins, and Maithil Brahmins, who live north of Vindhya (- mountains) are known as "five Gaudas" (-brahmins).

In the stricter interpretation of North India -- it is a kind of "ethnicity" that may only loosely include Bengalis and perhaps Gujaratis too, but, at least, Bengalis do not talk of themselves as "North Indians." They talk of themselves as East Indians. Even, most of Bihar (and entire Jharkhand) is in East India. Only the North-Western/ Central parts of Bihar, bordering UP that speak Bhojpuri, are North Indians -- so is the base of their culture and language, although, the strong influece of East is visible. They may be seen as North Indians with East Indian culture -- an overlapping zone.

North India, as a region/ ethnicity/ cultural entity has been fairly well defined since the ancient times, It's bounded by the Himalayas in the North, and in the South by the Vindhyas. In the east, its frontiers are the North-Western Bihar, and in the West (of present day India) the deserts of Rajasthan.

Ethnicities are in common across Haryana, West UP, Punjab - Gujars, Jats, Tyagis, etc. So much for selective sampling of ethnicities. Let's examine each of them first. Gujjars are found all over UP and even adjoining Bihar. In UP, they are divided into the Doabi, Awadhi and Van Gujjars [see Muslim Gujjar (Uttar Pradesh)] (and not West/East UP). Jats are originally from the lower Sindh area who migrated North-Eastwards, first into Punjab and then into Northern Rajasthan, Haryana ... their entry into parts of Doab and Rohilkhand was as late as the 17th or early eighteenth century, and continued into the next century. Their migration further east has been thin, but, then, there are close affinities between the Ahirs, Gujjars (that abound in the entire Doab, Awadh and Benares in Uttar Pradesh, and also in North Western Bihar) and Jats -- who all intermarry within themselves. A closely linked community are the Yadavs, who are also prominent in the entire North (including Punjab -- a separate cultural zone than the rest of North India). Jats, Ahirs, Gujjars and Yadavs are offshoots of the same family of pastoral castes, who also have a common background in the Hun invaders, who came from Central Asia. Indeed, all of these communities retain that aggressiveness.

Let's now come to Tyagis. Tyagis are basically from the area between Haryana, Delhi and Doab, who migrated to other parts of the North, including Punjab and Bihar, but they remain concentrated in the Doab. They are originally said to be from Bengal (Gaur Brahmins). Muslim Tyagis who migrated to Pakistan from Punjab & Haryana went to the Pakistani Punjab, while those from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar went to Sindh. However, there is more to Tyagi history than that. They are supposed to be a class of Brahmins who took to agriculture, and whose Kuldevta is Dhanvantri. Their counterparts in Punjab are known as Mohyals, in Eastern Awadh and Western Bihar, they are known as Bhumihars, while in Bengal they have been associated with one section of the Kayasthas.

But the larger question is, how can a limited group of migratory people who settled in different regions of North India, decide for everyone what is North India. North India is a large region and there are various divisions and sub-divisions, and they all overlap. The migratory habits of certain groups cannot change the original character of ethnicities, unless they totally banish the original residents. My Jat acquaintances from the Doab do not feel any less UPiite or closer to Punjabis or Haryanvis, than the rest of us.

Where is such a confluence with East UP or Bihar with the remainder of North India?: The truth is that for the upper-castes and most of the lower castes, marriage unions and other affinities are shared not only all across UP, but across other North Indian states, unlike in the South and East India.

I'm from the Doab and my extended family has had traditional arranged marital relations (I'm not including love/out-of-caste marriages) in the entire Doab, including in Meerut, Ghaziabad, Muzzaffarnagar, Kanpur, and mostly in Agra and Allahabad. We've also had marital relations in the rest of UP, including in Rohilkhand (Bareilly, Moradabad, Shahjahanpur Sitapur), Awadh (Lucknow, Sitapur, Gonda), What you call East UP (Gorakhpur, Benares, Ghazipur, Mirzapur, Jaunpur) and Bundelkhand (Jhansi, Orai) -- apart from this, we've had marital relations in Haryana (Rohtak, Chandigarh), Rajasthan (Jaipur, Bikaner, Jaisalmer, Alwar, Hanumangarh), Bihar (Champaran) and several towns in Madhya Pradesh (Bhopal, Jabalpur, etc.).

It's the same story for other upper castes in anywhere in UP or other parts of North India (except Punjab). One of my closest friend who is from a very conservative Gupta family of Hissar has one of his sisters married in Kanpur (Doab) and he himself has married a girl from UP. These are not just modern trends. Maharana Pratap of Delhi had riden all the way from Benares to snatch Sanyogikta when Jaichand snubbed him by not inviting him for the Swyamwar. If we go even further, then amongst the mothers of Ram of Ayodhya, one was from Kaikeya Pradesh(Sindh/ Western Punjab). The sons of Rama became the rulers of Peshawar. In any case, as per the accepted history, the Aryans came from Central Asia, via Iran, before they finally settled in UP and further into Bihar.

These are largely not found in East UP: After the Aryans left Punjab for good, they made first the Doab, and then the entire UP and later uptill Bihar as well as parts of Rajasthan and MadhyaPradesh their homeland. They called the place Aryavarta. Their descendants, who make up the majority of North Indians today share common ancestory, cultural and historical heritage. A Brahmin or Rajput in Rajasthan will not have a lot of difference from the Brahmins and Rajputs in so-called Eastern UP, although, the difference from most Punjabis. It's Punjab that is the odd man out, not what you call "East UP" Just because, some later migrations are limited to certain pockets, doesn't make one pocket more North Indian than the other.

Punjab together with other North-Western regions (as well as the East -- Bengal) had become "Mleccha" (impure) zones for the Aryans after they settled in Aryavarta. Brahmins and Rajputs that you find in the North West today, have at some point of time migrated from Kannauj in Aryavarta (what you call Central UP). In fact, most Brahmins and RAjputs anywhere in North India have their origins in Kannauj, including the Kashmiri Brahmins, Rajasthani Brahmins, Kumaoni Brahmins, Bihari Brahmins and Bengali Brahmins/ Kayasthas -- and they're quite proud of their lineage. The Rathods of Rajasthan likewise actively trace their origins to Kannauj in UP.

On the other hand, the castes that you find in Punjab is not found anywhere else in the North. A Punjabi will be seen as a distinct cultural entity anywhere in North India. All Khatris even in Haryana are essentially Punjabis. They will have different religious and marriage ceremonies than the upper caste Haryanvis. At the sametime, the Punjabi and UP Khatris do have marriage relations with each other -- and the UP khatris are not divided between East and West, they're all essentially UP Khatris.

My friend, I am happy to engage in this, but seriously *please* consider two requests from me - (a) make your responses less vast (b) propose verbage. Okay now my responses to your responses:

• You're under the impression that somehow there is a crisp line that divides Hindi from Punjabi. There isn't. By Saharanpur people are already sprinkling their language with words that would be considered Punjabi in other parts of UP, e.g. 'mi' (rain). Similarly, people from West Punjab will listen to some folks from Hoshiarpur and feel they're speaking a lot of Hindi. Haryanvi has a *lot* of common features with Punjabi. And, Haryanvis intermarry Punjabis all the time. So do Rajasthanis. There are places in Haryana and Rajasthan which are mixed - people are kind of both Haryanvi and Punjabi (in Ambala) or both Rajasthani and Punjabi (Ganganagar). Not surprising because these are neighboring provinces. East UP is really far away from Rajasthan. You are centered in one location and have self-defined as North Indian and are drawing concentric circles around yourself. That's fine for you personally. But these are your opinions, not objective fact. Your marital relations are unusual and non-representative. Rajasthanis do not marry East UP people at scale. Nothing to do with anything else except sheer impracticality - it's really far away.
• I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding the core issue here. It isn't anyone saying Biharis or UP people are not North Indian. They *are* North Indian even according to the government cultural zone. But they are a different type of North Indian than Punjab-Himachal-JammuKashmir, which are *only* North Indian. They can also legitimately be called NorthCentral. Bihar can also be called Eastern. This is what the zones say and I agree. Now, if the Government of India has looked at the culture of India and grouped states in a certain way, while recognizing this overlapping aspect, it absolutely has to take precedence in the article. Otherwise, we may as well reject the government's definition of India. Why not include Tibet in it too?
• Your Aryan expansion beliefs are just that, beliefs. Indo-Aryans almost certainly did not come from Iran. There simply aren't genetic similarities to show that. OTOH there is a lot of shared paternal lineage with Central Asians. A lot of your other stuff is simply your folk mythology.

Okay, please get focused. --Hunnjazal (talk) 05:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Government Definitions #2

The kind of sweeping unfounded statements that you have made need to be confronted with some real, well-researched facts, not one-liners.

No idea what this means.

I've lived in many places and have friends/ relatives from across North India. Having a keen interest in anthropology, I've well research these topics. Almost all of what I have said can be verified (I've also provided links at places). Unfortunately, you've dismissed my points summarily & conveniently as 'personal opinion.' Plus, you continue to forward your personal, highly biased opinions and unsupported statements as 'facts.'

Personal experience is WP:OR. It's irrelevant whether you're Indian or North Indian or Oklahoman. Totally, utterly, completely irrelevant. In fact, if anything, this "trust me, I know, because I am one" indicates potential bias.

Consider this, "Rajasthanis don't marry people from East UP, simply because its too far." You've not answered my point about "East UP" not being a distinct region, and ignored even the historical evidences of marriages/ migrations taking place between Rajasthanis and the Bhojpurias (Eastern UP/Western Bihar).

Prove it with verifiable references. East UP *is* a distinct region from West UP. It has a distinct set of names - Awadh, Poorvachal. The castes and ethnicity patterns are distinct. There is a separate statehood article called Harit Pradesh (richly referenced). In fact it would be shocking if there were not these divisions in such a large land and population mass.

Or that the Rajput rulers ruled Rajasthan with their capital in Varanasi. (Indeed, in the British Raj, before Ajmer and Jaipur were merged with Rajputana, they were part of the North-Western Province of Agra.) Afterall, the Rajput community is the same, whether in Rajasthan or ("East") UP.

Agra is not in East UP. You're proving my point that West UP and Rajputana are close. Obviously true because they are right next to each other. Of course, there is Jat contiguity - Jat's are spread from Balochistan to West UP. Similarly there is Rajput contiguity.

In fact, there are very few Rajputs in Punjab. Instead, you have Khatris. Now, you don't expect Rajasthani Rajputs to marry the Punjabi Khatris, do you.

Totally, utterly, entirely, dead wrong and very revealing about your experience-base. There are millions of Punjabi Rajputs and there absolutely *is* some intermarriage between Rajputs and Khatris. In fact, one of the leaders of the Khalistan movement was Jagjit Singh Chauhan who is a Chauhan Rajput. Leading comedian Jaspal Bhatti is a Bhatti Rajput. There are millions of Muslim Punjabi Rajputs in Pakistan. All Janjuas are Rajput and there are hundreds of them in senior positions in the Pakistani Army. BTW (this will interest you) all Bhuttos (Sindhi version of Bhatti/Bhatt Rajput) are also Rajputs. Zulfikar and Benazir Bhutto were Suryavanshi Rajputs as well. General Tikka Khan (hardcore Punjabi from Rawalpindi) was a Narma Rajput.

The only "Rajasthanis" that marry Punjabis are either Jats living in the vicinity or the Punjabis settled in Rajasthan. My first cousin is married in Hanumangarh, quite near Punjab, and I've lived in Bikaner and visited Jallandhar, Amritsar, etc. as well as Western Bihar and Benares. Perhaps, you've not been to Purvanchal or North-Western Bihar. I agree, Eastern Punjab is not totally different from either Rajasthan or (East) UP, or North-Western Bihar (apart from the dialects), however, some differences do exist, esp. in ethnicities in Punjab. I consider Punjabi to be one of the dialects of Hindi. Also, you're ignoring that UP is not just the Bhojpuri speaking areas. Rajasthan too has a border with UP -- a much larger one than with Punjab.

Rajasthan has a border with West UP, not East UP. Your personal claims and experiences are totally irrelevant (and tough to believe too, but that's irrelevant as well). Look at two of your claims so far:

• "Punjabi is a dialect of Hindi" - super-biased and comes from a limited experience base. There is a dialect conituum in both languages, indeed as there is between Punjabi and Sindhi with Seraiki in the middle. Punjab:Sindh:Kutch:Gujarat as Punjab:Haryana:WestUP(Harit):CentralUP(Awadh). Punjab and Sindh are close, Punjab and Kutch are somewhat related, Punjab and Gujarat are not. Punjab and Haryana are close, Punjab and West UP are somewhat related, Punjab and East UP are not.
• "Eastern Punjab is not that different from East UP" - laughable. Show me one reference for this.

If people belong to the same ethnicity, distances don't matter. On the other hand, people belonging to two separate ethnicities maybe living in neigbouring regions, yet, they may never marry into each other's communities, and I can give several examples.

This would be true if they were the same ethnicity. But ethnicities form in a way related to proximity. So, your thesis is moot.

You accuse me and my views of being 'East-UP' centric, when I've clearly mentioned that I am not from that region. However, your views do seem to be the myopic views of a certain community from one small corner of North India --viz. the Punjabi Jats. Indeed, although, most Punjabis living in Haryana, UP, Delhi etc. quite merge in the Hindi belt culture, in the Punjabi dominated areas you'll still find people talking like, "Everyone below Delhi (or Haryana) is a South Indian." In fact, a Punjabi family I visited in Denmark remarked that Delhi is in South India. There is an attempt by a certain section of the Punjabis to redefine "North India," and I see your outlandish statements -- as well as this article, as being part of that attempt.

I have zero idea what you're talking about. This is just you shadow-boxing with yourself. Enjoy but leave it out of Wikipedia!

I would eventually offer my own changes for debate, but, I am talking in terms of a major rehash of the article, since I see the current one as being highly biased towards a particular small community's view of North India -- not, of what the accepted definition is.

Uh, that's just fantasy and basically not going to happen. You haven't achieved consensus on one blessed thing yet. And I am probably the most reasonable person you'll find on this topic. Govt of India cultural zone definitions are most certainly relevant to the article.

This Punjabi and Bihari hegemony really pisses me off. Saharanpur is an integral part of the Doab. Just because its near Punjab or a lot of Punjabis (esp. after partition) have settled there, it doesn't become more a part of Punjab and less of the Doab.

You're getting emotional about it ("pisses me off") and should probably recuse yourself at this stage. Someday you will come back and read this thread and realize it yourself. If you think you have references for this topic please create an article called "Punjabi and Bihari hegemony in Northern India." Until then this is yet another boring conspiracy theory.

Ethnic and cultural affinities are determined predominantly by geography and history, not so much by distances. If you cross into the Nepal border from UP, you'd find such a sudden change in people and their culture, eventhough, they're neigbhours.

Again, not true at all. Where do you get all this from? Madhesi people of South Nepal are extremely similar to the people across the border.

Yet, a vast area comprising of Rajasthan, Haryana, UP, parts of MP and Bihar, Himanchal Pradesh, Uttaranchal and with some differences Punjab and J&K share ethnic and cultural history, although, there are definitely sub-regional variations, again not determined by distances, but by geography and history (e.g. the Doab or the Himalayas or the deserts).

Bihar and Bengal share ethnic, cultural and linguistic history too. India and Central Asia share this also.

But they are a different type of North Indian than Punjab-Himachal-JammuKashmir: If you leave out the Punjabis settled in J&K and Himanchal, there is more affinity between UP and J&K/ Himanchal, than with the Punjabis -- that is my evaluation, as I have researched and intermingled with people from all these states.

Fantastic, you should write a book and then recuse yourself from this topic (can't quote from your own book). Until then this is WP:OR. Your evaluation and research is irrelevant and invalid for Wikipedia.

If you can bring citations that the cultural zones are meant to define the term "North India" for purposes outside the purview of the Cultural department, I will not question the segment.

There is no single definition of North India. Have you even read the article, seriously? It says that there are several definitions and lists them. In all 6 definitions, Bihar is included in North India, with some provisos that it is also considered somewhat eastern. What is your concern?

I have no issues with "North Central" -- afterall, Aryavarta was called "Madhyadesha" by the Aryans. However, then they called Bengal and most of Bihar as "East" and the Punjab as "West." "Central" has significance only, if there is a "West" and "East" to it. So, if you include Punjab/J&K/Himanchal etc. as "North West," It would then make sense to include UP, MP, Rajasthan, Bihar, Uttaranchal as North Central.

Friend, North India is vast. It is broken by subregion by government culture zone definitions. Those are super-relevant. Are you saying that Bihar and Bengal are unrelated areas? That makes no sense at all. Which entity will define this North West zone? You? That's meaningless. The government has defined something and we're going to list it as "the Government has defined this." There is no assertion in the article that this definition *is* North India (that would be OR). There is only an assertion that "this is the government's culture zone definition called North Zone." That's it. No more, no less. We are not allowed to synthesize and manufacture our definitions on Wikipedia. I think some of this confusion is coming because you are new here.

Also, I respect if you discard the theory of an Aryan invasion from the West (however, both the views need to be incorporated). Nevertheless, Aryavarta, etc. are facts recorded within the Vedas and other historical/ mythological accounts of ancient India. Whether or not Aryans came from Central Asia, North India, with UP as their base was their homeland, as per the accounts. (Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC))

There is no mention of any Aryan invasion or migration in this article. What are you talking about? The Aryavarta mention is simply a pointer to that article - it doesn't attempt to define it here (and shouldn't, that's what distinct articles are for).

To sum it up:

• Your personal experiences, knowledge and research is irrelevant and of zero interest here. I don't think you've internalized WP:OR yet, but you really should. This is very important or you will keep sliding into circular discussions here. Also, you should really look at WP:SYNTH because lots of people go from being reformed OR to that state. Not saying that will happen, but *please* think about it.
• Your concerns seem misplaced because somehow you feel this article excludes East UP and Bihar from North India, which it doesn't.
• Your desire to define UP as the centre of North India will, alas, remain a desire because there is no real validity for this in objective, verifiable literature. Neither can any attempt to define Punjab as the centre of North India succeed for similar reasons.
• I am happy to engage in marriage pattern and ethnic distribution discussions but they really are off-topic.
• If you don't like the Government of India culture zone divisions, please feel free to take it up with the Indian Government. Alas, Wikipedia can merely reflect its decisions but not actually make them for it.
• Last, if you are a Hindi-speaker, please get involved in the Hindi Wikipedia effort. It really needs people with energy. If you love UP, please create some basic articles on districts and villages for it.

Please let's cut down on message size. You can do it without losing out on passion or content. Save some electrons and have mercy on my failing eyesight. I wish you the best (really).--Hunnjazal (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)