Talk:South India/Archive 01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] more about pictures=

It would be sacrilage not to put a picture of sangitapitamaha Purandaradasa under traditional music section. Also a picture of man wearnig Mysore Petha or a woman in Mysore silk Saree (the oldest silk tradition in south India) in the cloathing section and Yakshagana (from Karnataka) and Kucchupudi(from Andrha Pradesh) pictures in the dance section would give more balance to the whole page.

Dinesh Kannambadi

[edit] Pictures

Can someone please put pictures of Karnataka temples from Belur/halebidu or Pattadakal etc. I only see pictures from Kereal and Tamil Nadu. Dinesh Kannambadi

[edit] Pastoral

I'm getting rid of the whole "pastoral" qualification. South Indians were never pastoral -- the people in the North were. AreJay, 16:14 Aug 17 2004

[edit] Dravidian Languages

Dravidian race and Dravidian languages

Hi AreJay,

The whole lot of information on dravidian race and languages, that you wrote on the article South India is to be included in the article Dravidian race and Dravidian languages.

The details of race and languages is to be discussed in the individual pages dealing with them. So I am deleting them from the South India page. Please add them at the respective pages of Dravidian race and Dravidian languages. Thanks for you contribution. keep writing.

here is what you wrote: (please add them at the proper pages)

[edit] The Race

The Dravidian race is the oldest existing race of humans to inhabit India. Where they came from and how they dispersed through out the subcontinent is a matter of debate, and most theories sadly, have been not convincing enough to elict a definitive theory on this race and its history in India.

Many accounts claim that the Dravidians were an indegenous race. Others, like Bernard Sergent's claim that this is a Afro-Uralic race and sees similarities in semantic and grammatical elements of Dravidian tongues to those in the Sahel belt, from the Sudan to Senegal. He believes that Dravidian tribes entered India from Africa about 10,000 years ago to herald in the Neolitic Revolution.

One of his hypotheses suggests that the inhabitants of the Indus Valley were non-Dravidian and that Dravidians had already penetrated South India by the time the Harappan civilization matured, which is also contradictory to the Aryan Invasion theory.

[edit] Dravidian Languages

Dravidian languages are a distinct branch of languages, whose origins have not been traced back to any of the major linguistic family branches. Modern Dravidian languages can be divided according to region.

National languages of India are in bold typeface.


South Dravidian Languages

Irula Tamil Malayalam Kodagu (Coorgie) Kota Toda Badaga Kannada Tulu


Central Dravidian Languages

Savara Telugu Gondi Konda Pengo Manda Kuri Kuvi Kolami Naiki Gadba Parji


North Dravidian Languages

Kurukh Malto Brahui


Sometime during the reign of Asoka (Third century BC), Tamil and Kannada developed into distinct idioms and the two cultures separated. A third major Dravidian entity called Telugu appeared in Andhra. The oldest inscriptions in Tamil date back to 250 BC -- the language's antiquity challenged only perhaps by Sanskrit. The earliest Kannada inscriptions may be dated to 450 AD. The earliest Telugu and Malayalam inscriptions date back to 650 AD and 900 AD respectively.

Please add them at the proper pages.

thanks Robin klein 18:44, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] South India?

Definitions of South India differ between the introductory paragraph and The Land. The Introduction defines south India as including the five primarily Dravidian-speaking states, as well as Goa; The Land uses the traditional geographic division between northern and southern India, the Satpuras, Vindhyas and Narmada River, but which also includes most of Maharashtra. The People echoes the definition from The Land. Any thoughts on how best to reconcile this? Tom Radulovich 21:23, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards defining south India as comprising the 5 states plus Lakshadweep and other UTs. I don't think Maharashtrians think of their state as being either North or South. The traditional definition of Narmada and the hills will rope in not only Maharashtra but also parts of Madhya Pradesh and Orissa.
Saying that South India comprises Dravidian speaking regions of India creates problems because a) Konkani spoken in Goa and Karnataka isnt really Dravidian, although there are a lot of loan words in the language and b) There are Dravidian languages spoken in the north-central-east regions as well and c)Per my discussions with Robin we agreed that South India has other races than Dravidians.
Any suggestions?? AreJay 21:38, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)


I agree with your argument about Goa and its Konkani language. Kannada (name of language, and not "karnataka" name of state), however, is undoubtedly a dravidian language. It has been influenced by Indo-European languages such as marathi and sanskrit, but it retains almost all of its Dravidian characteristics. It is agglutinative in grammar just like Tamil or Telugu. In addition, it has the characteristic 3 way separation of dental, alveolar, and retroflex articulation. In fact, many speakers of Telugu can understand to a large degree northern dialects of Kannada without ever formally studying the language and Tamil speakers can do the same with southern dialects. This is due to the fact that the languages have only separated from eachother recently (sometime within the past two millenia) and thus they are still sometimes mutually intelligible. I highly doubt that we can find any linguistic scholar who will not classify kannada as dravidian. I do, however, also agree with you about there being other races in south India other than dravidians and believe that the classification of a south india is at best only weakly based on fact. However, since the term is so widely used, we should include it in Wikipedia with the definition that the largest number of people use to derfine it with. AmbExThErMaL 23:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I dont think this should be a problem. The Land section deals with the geo-physical expanse of the southern-Indian Subcontinent and Hence South Indian. The People section largely echoes the introduction, but also takes into account the linguistic patterns. The two sections together gives the over all diversity of south Indian people. I think there is no need to mandatorily restrict to rigid structural definitions. There is considerable overlap because racial diversity overlaps linguistic ones and cultural diversity overlaps geographical ones.

South India refers to the LINGUISTICALLY related regions speaking the dravidian language family, (not race). Parts of oriya and madhya pradesh are racially dravidians though not linguistically. It is therefore mentioned at the very beginning of the introduction that South India is a linguistic-cultural entity and not racial. Though a large proportion of south Indians are dravidians by race. However race is not the defining characteristic. It is the linguistic categorization that is of prime importance.

Linguistically South India comprises of the Dravidian language family states. As far as Maharashtra goes. Maharashtra entirely cannot be clubbed into one slot. the Konkan region particularly the kolhapur region was an integral part of the Karnataka region in the maratha empire. besides the capital of the maratha empire was Bijapur which is in South India. If maharashtrans do not consider themselves as south indians then it is largely political than cultural reasons. Robin klein 21:54, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps the introduction can be written to reflect the two senses of the term, something like this
South India is a geographic and linguistic-cultural region of India. Geographically, South India traditionally includes the entire Indian Peninsula south of the Satpura and Vindhya ranges and Narmada River. The geographic term encompasses the Deccan plateau (from the Sanskrit word dakshina, meaning south), the Eastern and Western Ghats, and the coasts between the Ghats and the sea.
As a linguistic-cultural region, South India consists of the four south Indian states of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and the union territories of Lakshadweep and Pondicherry. Natives of these states are called South Indians.
South India is also called as Dakshina Nad (Dakshina = South + Nad = land) or Dravida Nad (Dravida = Dravidian + Nad = land) It is also referred to as Dravida and its people, Dravidians, although this is not an exclusive set since ethnic Dravidians also live in Sri Lanka and parts of eastern and central India.
This allows for multiple definitions which focus on geography, language, and culture, allowing greater clarity without priviledging any one; "race" is a somewhat dated and questionable term, too often misused. Goa remains an anomaly; if "South India refers to the LINGUISTICALLY related regions speaking the Dravidian language family" then Goa doesn't really fit the linguistic-cultural definition. For that reason I left it out. I wasn't clear on which "ethnic Dravidians" live in Southeast Asia, so I left that out, but added central and eastern India, home to significant groups of Dravidian speakers. Tom Radulovich 22:43, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Enthnic Dravidians live in Singapore and Malaysia. Singapore's name has Dravidian origins (singa/siMha/sinha = lion, pura (sanskritized) = city). But I feel now in retrospect that the Dravidian discussion is pointless. As Robin and I have discussed previously, Dravidians constitute a large part of south India (esp. south India as a linguistic-cultural region), but there are other races and minorities that identify strongly with the region and the land that are not Dravidians. I feel we should leave the Dravida nad qualification out.
As far as Goa is concerned, it is hard to group Goa into any particular region in India because of the Portuguese influence that has impacted it so much. But Konkans live in Karantaka and since they are, for all intents and purposes, cousins of the Goan konkans, I think it would only be fair to include Goa as part of South India. In other words, it IS hard to group Goa into any region of the country, but if it had to be grouped into any one region, that region would be South India.
So I'm proposing:
  • Getting rid of the Dravida-nad discussion, including the dicussion pertaining to ethnic Dravidians elsewhere in India and in SE Asia. Maybe that would be better suited on a page discussing Dravidians. and
  • b)Including Goa as part of south India AreJay 16:01, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I guess I would lean against getting rid of the Dravida Nad discussion altogether; Culturally and linguistically South India is primarily, although not exclusively, Dravidian, and perhaps Konkani can be distinguished from other Indo-Aryan languages by its stronger Dravidian influences. Perhaps something like this would suffice:
As a linguistic-cultural region, South India consists of the five south Indian states of Andhra Pradesh, Goa, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu, and the union territories of Lakshadweep and Pondicherry. Natives of these states are called South Indians.
South India is also called Dakshina Nad (Dakshina = South + Nad = land), Dravida Nad (Dravida = Dravidian + Nad = land), or simply Dravida. Culturally and linguistically South India is distinguished as the home of the Dravidians, but not exclusively so; ethnic Dravidians also live in parts of eastern and central India, Sri Lanka, and Southeast Asia, and some non-Dravidian peoples (for example Konkani) also make their home in South India.


Looks OK to me. This will be the modified version of our definition of South India. AreJay 18:35, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Carnatic vs. Karnataka

Ok this seems to be an issue with people misinterpreting two similar sounding words. The word Carnatic is a Sanskrit derivation which means "pleasing to the ear", and was attributed to the kind of music coming from South India. Sanskrit is a Indo-European language and is from a different family branch from Dravidian languages.

The word "Carnatic" has been in use for ages. The first Carnatic War, between the French and British took place in 1746 and what is now Madras! Back then the territories were Hyderabad, the Madras Presidency and Kingdom of Mysore. Modern states like Karnataka did not exist!

The word "Karnataka" (ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ) comes from Kannada, a dravidian language. Karnataka is derived from "karu" meaning elevated (as is the Decaan plateau) and "nadu" which means land (as in kingdom). It is also important to understand that the region that is now Karnataka was always called Mysore prior to independence and for a while even after independence, and that the modern state was christened "Karnataka" on November 27, 1950! Even to this day, Nov 27 is celebrated in the state as "Kannada Rajyotsava" (Rajyotsava means "state festival") signifying the birth of the state. There was never a use of the word Karnataka prior to this.

Therefore the portion that refers to Carnatic being a European derivation of Karnataka needs to be removed.

AreJay 20:58, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Check out the article on Carnatic (region), which is derived from the 1911 Encyclopedia. It was written long before the Mysore state was officially renamed Karnataka (1972, not 1950). It attests Karnata as a term for South India as far back as the 16th century, and refers to Robert Caldwell's 19th century etymology of Carnatic from a Dravidian root. It made sense that the name for the musical style would be derived from the Sanskrit term for "pleasing to the ear", which I tried to clarify in my re-write, but there also seems to be reasonable evidence that Carnatic was derived from a Dravidian-derived place-name in use well before the 20th century; certainly early 20th century Europeans thought so. Tom Radulovich 21:23, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think the passages about the carnatic region written by AreJay is to be reinstated.

The land south of the rivers Krishna and Tungabhadra is known as Carnatic region. This term is often confused with the term Karnataka. Although the rendering of both words is similar in Sanskrit (कर्नाटक), their etymology is different. Carnatic, in Sanskrit means "pleasing to the ear", whereas Karnataka, comes from the Kannada words "karu" and "nadu", which mean "elevated land". The term carnatic region, came to prominence to describe the southern region from Nellore to Cape Comorin of the Indian peninsula. It was fought over by the British and the French in the 1700s, in what is now called as the Carnatic wars. The carnatic region lends its name to the sophisticated musical system of South India, known as carnatic music. The term carnatic region is sometimes used to denote the entire southern region of mainland Indian Subcontinent.

This passage is well explanatory and removes the misconception which unfortunately has resurfaced despite the careful mention of the subtle differences in the two similar SOUNDING but CONCEPTUALLY different terms. Robin klein 21:42, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The derivation of Carnatic (as a region, as distict from a musical style) from Karnatak (i.e. Karnataka) may not in fact be a misconception. From the 1911 Encyclopedia article CARNATIC, or KARNATAK (Kannada, Karnata, Karnatakadesa): "Properly the name is, in fact, applicable only to the country of the Kanarese extending between the Eastern and Western Ghats, over an irregular area narrowing northwards, from Palghat in the south to Bidar in the north, and including Mysore." This corresponds to the modern boundaries of Karnataka, although the territory was then administratively divided between Bombay, Hyderabad, and Mysore. It goes on to say that "Administratively the name Carnatic (or rather Karnatak) is now applied only to the Bombay portion of the original Karnata, viz, the districts of Belgaum, Dharwar and Bijapur, part of North Kanara, and the native states of the Southern Mahratta agency and Kolhapur." This region corresponds to the northwestern section of modern-day Karnataka, and doesn't jibe with Are Jay's claim that "There was never a use of the word Karnataka prior to this [1950]." So by the early 20th century, the British had figured out that they had misapplied the term to the coast, when it actually applied to the land of the Kanarese (i.e. Kannada). The style of music and the geographic region may well have different etymologies, but that doesn't necessarily negate a Dravidian origin, and later European misapplication, for the geographic term. Tom Radulovich 00:00, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Fair enough, you learn something new everyday! AreJay 16:04, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Andhra

Ancient Sanskrit scripts say that the Andhras were Aryans that moved towards the Southern part of India. They are not Dravidians.

True enough. But how does that make the residents of modern Andhra Pradesh "mostly Aryan"? The Andhra, or Satavahanas, were the ruling clan of a state based in modern-day Maharashtra, at Paithan. The state extended into Telingana, but most of the chief Satavahana rock-cut caves, cities, and seaports are in Maharashtra, not Andhra Pradesh.
Second, evidence that the ruling clan was Aryan doesn't necessarily mean that the population was Aryan. The Franks, who ruled France and after whom it was named, were German, but does that make the modern French Germans rather than Latins? Does the fact that the Bulgars, who ruled Bulgaria and gave their name to the country, were Turks mean that modern Bulgarians are Turks rather than Slavs? Frequently in history a ruling dynasty leaves a name and linguistic traces without utterly replacing the native population; in both the case of France and Bulgaria, the Norman kingdoms in England and Sicily, as well as ruling clans of India like the Sakas, Kushanas, Mughals, Afghans, etc., the ruling clan were ultimately absorbed into the majority population.
The recent edits, stating Telugu is in fact a 70% Indo-Aryan language and not a Dravidian language, and that the Telugu people are mostly Aryan, are presented without any supporting references, and are at odds with the general consensus of linguists and historians. I am going to revert the recent edits; could you please present your evidence here on the talk page before again making such claims in the article? Tom Radulovich 01:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Dravidian racial stock?

What are the criteria upon which this statement has been included? Is it age old skin tone or genetic studies? The major Indian Y-Haplogroups(Y-chromosomes) are H*, J*, L* and R*. These have been observed in all castes in both South India and North India(Please don't bring tribals here. Tribals form only 4% of South Indian population and in the regions of Tamil Nadu and Kerala they make up only 1% of the population). In fact, South Indian Y-chromosome diversity is just a subset of North-Indian/Pakistani genetic diversity. Also, both South India n and North Indian population show total or almost lack of I*,E*,R1b*, predominant among Western Europeans, West Asians, Africans. Now it's universally acknowledged that both Indian caste and tribal maternal lineages(92%) derive from Pleistocene age population of India. The skin tone and phenotype are both under selection. Picking up every light skinned person in South India and making him Aryan and every dark skinned person in North India and making him Dravidian won't serve any purpose. When you observe there is no lineage that make South Indians unique race(whatever that means), I suppose the above statement is absurd. South Indians are Dravidians, but linguistically. As, Dravidians they are linguistic cousins to Brahuis in Pakistan also though they(Brahuis) are genetically similar to other Pakistani population in Y-chromosome distribution. I suppose, now nobody talks about discete migrations.

Manjunatha (5-Jan-2006)

[edit] Why more info on economy?

Why is it given under every state to click here for more info on the economy of the state? Is this page economically related? I think it should be changed to "Click here for more info on [STATE]" What are your opinions? thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK

The particular section you refer to provides a synopsis, if you will, of the economies of the various south Indian states. Because it would be counter-productive to discuss in detail the economies of all south Indian states in the South India article, a brief summary of that state's economy, along with a link to a more detailed write-up on its economy is provided. AreJay 03:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Please dont delete others edited information or before reverting please specify valid reason for removal before 2 days.

[edit] ambiguity between articles

There is a lot of ambiguity between the "gross state domestic product" values given in this article and the articles to their respective states. plz get the latest stats and update it accordingly. Eg: In this article it is stated that the economy of tamilnadu is the 3rd in country and top in South india. But in the economy section of the "Tamilnadu" article it is stated as 5th in the country.


Hi Please dont delete others edited information or before reverting please specify valid reason for removal before 2 days.

[edit] how are daughters viewed in indian society?

In my personal case: better than sons :( --hydkat 07:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major restructuring

Whew! It needs massive restructuring I guess.How about this? Lead-Geography (including regions)-Climate-History-Demographics-Politics-Economy-Culture(including heritage, diversity etc.)-Media-Education-Sports etc.? Just like city articles. Regards.--Dwaipayanc 10:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

However, sections have to have sub-sections. Otherwise, will be difficult to deal with such a big topic!--Dwaipayanc 10:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
sounds good... do we follow a keep it general rule? --hydkat 11:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, keep it general is better to follow, but it may not be possible always, as the topic is huge in content. All sections need not be broken state-wise, but some sections might. For example, "Economy" is already broken state-wise. "Health tourism" should be removed, if not incorporated in, say, economics? Somehow we have to merge heritage with culture. Bye.--Dwaipayanc 12:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The Economy section... let me repeat the Economy section!... does anybody have the courage to reduce it to four paragaphs? If so courageous one - all the best! :(
(one anonymous editor tried it but someone immediately rv it...) --hydkat 22:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Check if the present economy suits. However, it is incomplete. It encompasses agriculture weel, and also some IT. Major industries of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka have beeen touched. Please add Andhra, Kerala. Also add references to figures. A seperate sub articles on Economy of South India has been contained that contains the old text of this article in toto.

The Demographics is pathetic in condition.Please add referenced figures, percentage etc. Culture and Heritage have been brought under the same section. This section has too many images. Should not contain those which are not absolutely necessary. Better to get rid of the gallery format. Please expand Education, Media etc. Thanks. --Dwaipayanc 06:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I think it would be better to go with the guidelines outlined in Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian states, rather than following the city-format. In that case, hevr to include/incorporate new topics: "Divisions"(this may not be needed seperately), "Flora and Fauna", "Transport".--Dwaipayanc

You ----- Dwaipanyanc you area kolkata guy y you interfere in South India, its enough you Kolkata guys involved in cricket better dont involve in all. this unsigned commet was added by User:59.92.46.204 13:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear User:59.92.46.204. Please stop reverting the article to its old versions.
And although I do not have the authority to intefere, may I also request that you refrain from making rude remarks at fellow wikipedians. South India is the current Indian collaboration of the week, and Dwaipayanc has been doing a great job in elevating the standard of the article. thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK 18:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi my dear colleagues please dont delete the informattion included by some people, If you want you add articles on your places go ahead. dont delete what others included. And i have noticed Mr.Dwaipanyanc he is deleting others information please dont do that, I appreciate your suggetions.User:Ravi Reddy

Dear Mr.Reddy. Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia. In order to improve the standard of certain articles, it sometimes becomes necessary to delete previous information and add new data. Please read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. The South India article deals essentially with the region and its characteristics, not just about the economy of the region (which by the way, is discussed by Economy of South India). Therefore it is totally unnecessary to be giving the economy section predominant importance. That is why users have been trying to shrink the section. I hope you understand. --- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK 19:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Please dont delete others edited information or before reverting please specify valid reason for removal before 2 days. If you want that. then Take off all informations from that. only Chennai Banglore and Kerala specified and the largest south indian state was ignored y this rationalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ravi reddy (talk • contribs).

"Dwaipanyanc you area kolkata guy y you interfere in South India" by User:59.92.46.204 is an ignorant statement which should be clarified. Dwaipayanc can be from Kolkata, Khartoum or Key West or even from Planet Krypton, but that does not disqualify an editor from being involved in any article. In so many country, regional and city articles I see this pathetic pesudo-nationalism with people thinking they own an article just because they live in the place it is describing. Grow up anon and do something useful in life, like learning to spell words correctly :P Green Giant 20:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Dwaipanyanc, please continue your good work. Those choosing to criticize the work of others need to understand that it is more constructive for them to contribute and remediate errors they see in the article than to hurl accusations at other people based on their ethnicity and place of origin. AreJay 23:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andaman and Lakshwadeep islands

The present article only just mentions about the islands being part of south India. I think the islands deserve a better representation on the page. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK 19:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

somehow I don't understand how the islands got into this article. Its a seperate geographic entity with its own unique history. Its akin to placing Alaska in the Northwestern United States article. --hydkat 07:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I guess you are right - I couldnt find any refernece to the islands being part of southern India.I've removed the references in the lead. thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK 09:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notes, References and bibliography

Should Notes be separate from References & Bibligraphy? --hydkat 07:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think notes and references should be integrated. Infact many of the notes have their citations given in the references section here. Robin klein 07:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] South Indian festivals

How about some details about South Indian festivals like Pongala, Onam, Vishu, etcetera in the culture section? thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK 09:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Yes festivals should be included. However, regarding the section culture, it's not upto the mark. Ideally, it should not have contained any subsections. Some subsections at present describes much more than what is desirable. For example, the midrif-baring style of draping the sari desereves no mention in the article, while the info may well be very important in the sepeartae article of Sari. Similarly, other sections may be shortened. If the article is gradually being readied for a peer review followed by FAC, I fear these subsection structure have to be removed. Only the subheading culture will remain, with some paragraphs describing the aspects of culture in as concisa a summary form as possible. The task is really difficult! Bye.--Dwaipayanc 11:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi! I have tried to remove the subheadings from the "Culture". It was a difficult job. If you people think the job was heartless and not upto the mark, feel free to revert. However, I am afraid, peer review/FAC in future may tend to do the same thing! Now, I could not include every important thing (and perhaps removed some important thing) from the culture. Please insert those. And add lines on Festivals. The literature part describes mostly old stuff. Please try to include some glimpses of modern litereture of the region. I beg your pardon, but there were too much repetition of the "world view" and "navel" in the article. I think the place of discussing those stuffs are South Indian culture, not here in South India. Please excuse me if I sounded too harsh.
Let's also concentrate on other important topics, like condolidating "Demographics", "politics", "Media"etc. "Sports" does not read good. Instead of a lot of names, sports that are popular, usually played, names of playing grounds etc. should also be included. "Flora and Fauna" has remained untouched.
Do you really think "South Indian diversity" should be discussed seperately? How about mentioning ethnicities and religions in "Demographics" only? BTW, is there in notable Muslim influence in South Indian culture? In my small knowledge, I think there is. That aspect has not been discussed. Thanks.--Dwaipayanc 11:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree with Dwaipayana that the culture section is unduly obsessed with the navel and with metaphysical interpretations of dance bangimas....sublime and ridiculous, so to speak. And how many would agree that the south Indian Weltanschauung "is essentially....the celebration of the beauty of the body"? Dancers view all through, and a solo dancer at that, for there is not ONE reference to Kathakali! Not even the name, same with the folk forms. Why should not the dance section be more matter-of-fact, give some names, some rough-n-ready differences in style? I propose to rewrite on this pattern the whole culture section. Many of the sentences that may be removed are 'sourced', but maybe we can agree that not every sentence published elsewhere needs to find place on WP. Please let me know views on this before I begin -- do my proposed changes impact adversely on an exposition of south Indian Weltanschauung? Regards, ImpuMozhi 19:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Right, the sourced sections seem to be based on the opinons of other authors. I think we should just stick to representing facts and avoid vague generalizations of a region that is quite diverse in and of itself. Please make changes where necessary, ImpuMozhi. Thanks AreJay 20:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi AreJay, I have restored the section by Dwaipayanac on culture and heritage which I had removed. However I still have my reservations. It was asked, where is the equivalent of South Indian scandinavia, whether Sri-lanka or malaysian tamils, well the states in the Federal Republic India are no less federal (at least in paper) than the countries or nation states in European Union and around.

And yes referencing does involve making assertions based on the works or citations of authors who devoted a large career in studying a topic. Robin klein 23:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops! I reverted back to the "sub-sectioned" culture format again! This is becoming troublesom.Let's decide. See, Scandinavia is a nice model to follw, if we want to stress the "socio-cultural" and "political" aspects more. Whereas, Malwa stands as another good example because it's an FA. Please decide. Robin is correct in pointing out that info on transport etc can be found in individual stat's articles, while South India as a whole can better deal with the cultural aspects. We've to ask, if necessary, to more number of veterans. And even if, sub-sectioned culture is retained, it needs copyedits as there are repetitions within the section, as well as from other sections. Bye.--Dwaipayanc 06:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Losing the ethos

south India exists not as a political unit but rather as a cultural entity. The purpose of most authors and anthropologists for using terms like german speaking world or south india is to show the way the weltanschauung of a people is distinct within a nation state (eg South India) or similar across nation states (eg Germany, Austria, Liechtenstein etc). To model the page South India on the pages on other cities or countries or state would be to lose the very purpose of writing an article on a linguistic-cultural entity.

The sub sections on culture are important and so are the detalis which seem unorthodox like clothing and its ethos. The prime base of an article like south India should be to express the weltanschauung and culture of a nation within a country. Modeling the south India page on that of cities and countries and state (eg transport, politics etc) would be not serving the very bases for the reason for such a page. Such Modeling leads to repatitive sections on road transport, politics, etc which could be found in individual articles like Tamil nadu, Karnataka etc. It would then fail to justify the reason for the existence for a page like South India. True it is very important to ready an article for the FAC title or position however that should not be at the cost of losing the very reason why an article should exist. South India is not a political country like South Africa, or Norway, instead it is a linguistic cultural region like Scandinavia. The article should discuss South India as a cultural entity describing the people, their ethos and weltanschauung, or else it would lose its very ethos. Robin klein 12:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow! That's great! I mean the Scandinavia model. Really, creating the article in the way Robin klein has suggested will be great. Thanks a lot! Bye.--Dwaipayanc 13:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
.... what's South India's equivalent to norden? Sri Lanka? Tamilians in Malayasia? Sounds interesting --hydkat 19:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Allow me to chime in...Robin and I had actually collaborated on this article way back in '04..glad to see you back in action :)! However, I feel since we're dealing with South India, we should cover a broad umbrella of topics, all in Wikipedia:Summary style. Culture is obviously important, however details about South Indian culture should be relagated to a Culture of South India page; a summary of that should appear on this page. Coverage of other topics such as politics, language, economics, etc. should also follow a similar format. Politics in South India is quite different to that of other regions of the country. That needs to be adequately represented on this page as well. The Indian region of Malwa is currently a featured article and has great coverage on a wide variety of topics related to the region. I reckon that article is as good a place to start as any for purposes of reference. AreJay 19:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sports

The "sports" section is pointless. While we're updating and making content changes, I'd like to go ahead and delete that section. Any objections? AreJay 00:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

yes it should go, or be compressed in a different section at most. P.S. thanks AreJay Robin klein 00:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I too think it is a pointless addition. thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK 06:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sovereign India in Antarctica

The southernmost tip of mainland India is at Kanyakumari (Cape Comorin) on the Indian Ocean. This however is not the southernmost point over which India is sovereign; that distinction goes to Dakshina Gangotri or Indian Antartica, the southernmost frontier of south India.

This extract is from the regions section. I was wondering about the validity of this statement, because I think India does not have any territorial claims in Antarctica. According to the Antarctic territorial claims article, only seven countries claim territory on the continent. And as per the discussions on the talk page, India does not hold territory there. thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK 05:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

All claims are suspended as per the Antarctic Treaty. The 20 of the 28 countries (including India) that signed that treaty does not recognise any claim on the continent. --hydkat 11:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] South India or south India

Okay, this might be a silly question, but I was just wondering if it was necessary to capitalise the south in south India as in the article. thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK 05:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think so. "South India" refers to the region as a distinct socio-cultural entity whereas "south India" means the southern part of the socio-cultural entity that is India. Compare "south Africa" and "South Africa". Ambarish 05:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

These terms have subtle implications and therefore are carefully handled in media like the BBC. Southern India means Southern part of the country called as the Union of India. While South India means a distinct linguistic-cultural region of the Indian subcontinent.

This is what I was trying to state, to model this page after cities and countries would be to treat this page as Southern India however this page essentially deals with South India and should be treated as a cultural-linguistic entity. This is a very tough task but if we could achieve it with balance and co-operation, then this page could emerge as a model for lots of other cultural-linguistic regions around the world. I should say with the kind of co-operation already shown with people here on the page we can really achieve it. Robin klein 11:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It should be South India. Southern India encompasses the Lakshadweep islands and Goa, (and perhaps even Andaman and Nicobar) which I wouldn't really consider to be part of South India. AreJay 13:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes I agree with AreJay, it should be South India, thanks. Robin klein 14:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Infact one does not need a page like Southern India, because it would just be a summary of the articles of four states of kerala, Andhra pradesh, tamil nadu and karnataka and the andaman and nicobar islands and probably even the konkan region of maharashtra. However a Page like South India is essential to describe the distinct linguistic-cultural region and its ethos. We should also be careful that we may not inadvertently turn the page South India into a summary of the four states. Robin klein 14:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The lead as it now stands goes precisely against this understanding. The old wording should be restituted, based on the consensus in this discussion. Regards, ImpuMozhi 19:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I did read through the lead sometime yesterday, and was not too pleased with it. I will perhaps work on that sometime tomorrow and reconstruct it per WP:LEAD guidelines. AreJay 21:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I have restored the old meanwhile. Feel free to amend. Regards, ImpuMozhi 22:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the current notion of prevalence of the term South India back to 300 BC is irrelevant. Although we can include the history of the region, I strongly feel, it doesn't need to be represented in the lead, when we speak collectively as South India. I've come across the term traditional delineation in a number of articles, which i feel is very subjective. The vindhyas and satpuras are in maharashtra, and we cannot consider maharashtra and goa in south india. And the significant link among the communities/states of South India is that the languages are of dravidian origin. And such rich diversity specific to the four linguistic communities cannot be attributed to north india. The reach of hindi isnt high in South India, and so are the cultural attributes like the festivals like holi. While most of the north indian people celebrate it, south indians as a whole don't give much importance to it! Also the dominance of regional parties as well as south indian cinema can be included as well. Cinema is an attribute that is strong in all parts of South India. - Chez (Discuss / Email) • 04:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is to be done with media

What is to be done with the setion on media, transport and education should they be considered apart or should they be merged with demographics/people section or any other relevant section, or merged together into one section etc. the page south India now seems to be heavy in content though lacking in a unified essence, the attainment of which is hindered by these sections being redundant, or waiting to be merged with other sections or neglected. Robin klein 19:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Robin. Media and Education are pretty uniform across India — I don't think the region offers anything unique from that standpoint. I would also say transport is pretty standard and probably dosen't warrant a mention. AreJay 20:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too many images

There appears to be a large number of images in the article. The "Culture" section appears very busy. The number of images appearing on either side of the text is quite distracting and the focus from the textual content is lessened. Can we remove some images and ensure that they are all right aligned. I know this is not required per WP:MOS but I feel it will be aethetically pleasing and will draw focus once again to the textual content of the article and not its many images. Comments? AreJay 20:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


Yes we need to cut down on images on the culture section of the page South India. But it needs to be done slowly deciding which images are more important there needs to be picture from all four states and the picture should correspond to the section.

The images need not all be right aligned, the brain likes variations in the settings of images as it goes about reading, the saccadic movement of the eyes get a respite and reading cognition is enhanced. What is needed is a cut down on repetitive pictures, the alignment would work out itself with relatively less images. Robin klein 02:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The South Indian culture page is redundant. I am redirecting it to the page South India. Given the idea that this page could probably emerge as a model for other linguistic-cultural regions. what is really needed is for each sub section to be expanded in its own. Meaning the section south Indian music is already expanded, the section south Indian painting needs to be expanded, the section on Architecture South Indian Architecture etc need to be started. So the present section of culture and heritage is okay but the extra pictures need to be transfered to expanded sub sections. Robin klein 05:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Robin, given that South India needs to follow Wikipedia:Summary style, I'm going to reinsert the relevent information into the Culture of South India article. I think it's okay that it is currently far from the state that we want it to be — it can remain a work-in-progress. I have reorganized Culture by trying to get it as close as possible to summary-style as I could. I also removed the subheadings — the reasoning there is a) Because of summary style guidelines and b) because there really should not be any need for subheadings for two to three lines of content. I did remove some images as well, but they should all exist in their prior form in the Culture of South India article. Thanks AreJay 14:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi AreJay, I have redirected the page Culture of South India to a more appropriate term South Indian culture, its the same subtle difference between southern India and South India discussed before. Robin klein 15:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'm prefectly happy with the way it is now. AreJay 15:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added two images, one in the flora and fauna section and the other of the Jain monolith, It expresses the pre-hindu legacy of Jainism in South India which was/still is influential in the culture of the people. Robin klein 01:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pondicherry

I have added Pondicherry to the defn of what constitutes S. India. Pondicherry is right next to Tamil Nadu, is overwhelmingly influenced by Tamil culture and should therefore be considered to be part of South India (at least in my eyes). Is everyone okay with this? AreJay 04:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Pondicherry, and its four enclaves are within TN, Kerala and AP. Therefore they should rightly be included in the definition. thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK 13:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Politics of tamil nadu

The biggest ideological influence in tamil politics is Periyar Ramasami. Though the self-respect movement is mentioned ... nothing much is mentioned about this cherismatic individual. --hydkat 09:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hydkat, can you add some of that information to the segment? Unfortunately, I do not know much about politics and I had to refer to multiple sources, which probably didn't present an accurate picture of the situation. Also, any information you can add on politics in Kerala would be great. Thanks AreJay 13:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
will do so as soon as I can... --hydkat 06:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


Over All excellent quality information, Good Job - Ganesh

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/o/u/Talk%7ESouth_India_Archive_01_166d.html"