Talk:Culture of India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Culture of India was the Indian collaboration of the week for the week starting on May 8, 2006.

For details on improvements made to the article, see history of past collaborations.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (see comments)

[edit] Comments

So you think this section needs to be rewritten, eh? My response: DUH.

Look at this piece of a sentence I just cut from the original page:

yo son was gud drank a 40 India

Somehow, I get the feeling that someone is goofing around with the text...do ya think???? Hmmmm????

Editor in Oregon

can anyone tell me what hello and goodbye is in the indian language???

There are a number of languages in India. Common phrases in various languages gives the translations in many Indian languages including Hindi, Telugu, Tamil, Malayalam etc. -- Sundar 11:39, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

This is so far the most wonderful article I have found in wiki. The group of writers who created the main base of the article seems to have a profound grip on the word culture. though some statements may seem out of place. my points are following :

1) what is stability of a culture can you cite some reference ? is there any reference to support the map about cultural region ?

2) the cinema region starts with the so-much-of-bollywood etc but misses the history of cinema in india. totally neglecting the era of indian cinema before talkie arrived.

3) something to say about ramayana and mahabharata ? and hindu influence in south east asia ? Jeroje 08:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)jeroje

Jeroje, please read WP:Civil. Thanks. Abecedare 09:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

well I edit.

Jeroje 20:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)jeroje

[edit] More on Culture

This page needs a section on cultural history and since culture is so closely linked to religion in India, a note on Islamic and western influences. I think we also need more on the actual culture of India (or diversity of culture) and less about art (or it should be called 'Indian culture and art' and be a redirect from indian art and indian culture). Any thoughts? --Pranathi 05:31, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cuisine

This section elaborates how vegetarianism developed in India. While that's definately a part of the culture, I think it should concetrate on the different cuisines across the country, spices etc. I am not qualified to put it in myself but would love to see a contribution to that effect. --Pranathi 22:43, 7 May 2005 (UTC) Yes i think its true, because indian culture relates a lot to religion like islam and hinduisim.

[edit] cricket?!

how is cricket not mentioned in this entire article!! (bemused surprise here) although, i suppose the article could be intended only to discuss cultural aspects derived from only indian culture (as opposed to british imports). i dont think we can overlook the role the british played in shaping modern india, even if it was mostly for the worse. the influence of the english language, fabian socialism and its influence on Nehru, as well as sports like cricket and field hockey (india's national sport is not included??) should make an appearance in this article. --Gozar 8 July 2005 08:05 (UTC)

I definitely agree. Be bold and fix it. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} July 8, 2005 08:33 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I just realise that possibly being not exposed to Cricket (I presume because you're an American), you may not be able to contribute here. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} July 8, 2005 08:43 (UTC)

I see your point but I was not planning on going into great detail about cricket, I would basically just say that it is extremely popular both professionally and recreationally in India and that it was introduced by the British. I'm not sure a lot of exposure is a neccessity, but let me know if you think there needs to be more detail! --Gozar 8 July 2005 17:53 (UTC)

You're right. More detail doesn't belong here although it can help Indian Cricket. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:04, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Holy Hell...

Someone tag this with a clean-up!

[edit] INCOTW

This is tough, very tough....;)--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I second that. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK} 15:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)~

D'uh

--Andy123(talk) 10:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Organisation

The first thing that needs to be discussed is how the pag eshould be organised. There are a couple of strange headings like "Scientific culture," "Military culture" and "Overview" which should probably be merged with the introduction. Many topics have been stated but not yet finished. Yet haveing looked through the subcategories of Category:Culture, the topics which we haven't mentioned are clothing, festivals and general hisory of culture. Otherwise, everything else has been covered to an extent. Gizza^Chat ^© 11:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the political and military culture sections, they don't belong in an article on culture.--Sendrin 21:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tone

It is very unencyclopedic, there are places where it says "One would be surprised to notice that..." and there are claims all over the article with a huge POV. It pretty much says Indian art, traditions and everything else are the oldest in the world! Gizza^Chat ^© 11:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree with you, sir. I also find the article writing very choppy and unorganised. Many of the paragraphs are not sourced properly. It would be better if we can find an expert to work on the subject. --Nearly Headless Nick 13:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, despite being a contributor to the article, it must be admitted the tone is at places unencyclopedic. The lack of references is conspicuous. Actually, the article recently was Indian collaboration of the week when several editors contributed, but, unfortunately, without supplying good references. The subject is so huge and complex, readying the draft in itself was tough enough. Hope we shall be able to modify the tone, and add references, soon. Help is needed from all interested editors. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title of the article

I have already explained in the edit summary of this change which I made to the article. This change was reverted by another user. I find that the word culture, in this article should be perceived in a capitalised sense. I need to have the views of other editors before I go ahead and make the change. Thank you all. --Nearly Headless Nick 12:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The correct form is "The culture of India", owing to the fact that "culture" is not a proper noun. robchurch | talk 13:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

who cares??

Normally, you would be correct in saying that "culture" would not be capitalized, but you are wrong in this case because it is the first word in the title, (not including the article the) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.10.186.175 (talk • contribs).

True. Also, naming conventions discourage the use of "the" at the beginning of the title. +A.0u 18:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arundhati Roy

I'm curious, isn't a Booker Prize something considered very prestigious, and a winner of a booker prize worthy to mention as a novelist here, along with the others mentioned here? I'm not comparing a Booker to a Nobel, but according to Booker Prize, (the Booker Prize) is one of the world's most prestigious literary prizes,. So, unless it can be shown how a Booker can be just ignored as yet another prize, we can consider her only qualification to be good enough to include here. I request comments from others in this issue. Thanks. --Ragib 06:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I do think that the Booker Prize is a substantial acheivement. I would argue that the list is incomplete right now and a number of other authors such as Bibhutibhushan, Tarashankar Bandopadhyay, Mahasweta Devi, Amrita Pritam, etc also deserve to be on the list. A good additional reference is The Gyanpith award. In any case how can anyone argue that a country of 1 billion people's literature is complete without having a SINGLE female writer??? And how many of the authors now are in any of the languages other than a handful of major ones? So in my opinion Arundhati should stay AND others should be added. Cheers.--Anirban 06:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Who said abt the exclusion of any female writers ?Amrita pritam , Mahasweta devi and others should surely be included. Bharatveer 07:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Then what's wrong with Arundhati Roy? Surely, the Booker Prize, as I mentioned above, is one of the most prestigious awards in the literary world. --Ragib 07:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

She is just a one book wonder. She should never be included in this list.Bharatveer 12:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Let her be. But, do we ignore a widely-recognised prize and exclude her based on your personal opinion? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 12:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a list of prize winners. This is a list of the great indian litterateurs.She is not qualified enough to make it into the list.Bharatveer 12:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

My personal preference is generally not to mention specific names while discussing general subjects. Where we must include, there should be an objective criterion for inclusion and the sentence around the list should mention that. This requirement for an objective criterion can be relaxed where we intend to be "illustrative" instead of being "exhaustive". This is tenable only as long as there's no contention. I don't have a specific opinion on Arundhati Roy, but since there's a contention, I feel that a criterion needs to be defined. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 13:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Who decided on them being "Great"? What's your criteria for inclusion? I hope you have an objective criteria, as mentioned by Sundar above. Thanks. --Ragib 18:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

A. Roy has 8 published books and several articles to her credit. Probably you have not considered her non-fiction works. Moreover, she is a Sahitya Akademi Awardee(2005). Please dont remove her name without giving valid and objective reasons. Panchhee 10:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cinema of India

This section starts with Hindi and then focusses on mostly Tamil films including a section on Nayagan (which was recently added). I propose that this be deleted since it doesn't add to the article. As much as I like the film, I think it would be better suited in the cinema section since it doesn't DEMONSTRATE any new point. I've reverted those edits by an anon IP, but if someone would like to add something about Tamil films without being POV, that would be great. --Antorjal 13:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] classical dances of india

I think Yakshagana, Bhangra and graba are all classed as folk dances User:88.109.12.134|88.109.12.134]] 13:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC) vaidehi

[edit] Holidays and Religion.

Taj Mahal, a popular Religion Monument of India

The culture of India was moulded throughout various eras of history, all the while absorbing customs, traditions and ideas from both invaders and immigrants. Many cultural practices, languages, customs and monuments are examples of this co-mingling over centuries.

In India al most all the Holidays are based on Religion.

Mahatma Gandhi, Sardar Patel, Kanaiyalal Munshi and Rajendra Prasad were more interested in construction of Somnath Temple than Modern and Scientific India.

vkvora 05:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Sankara.jpg

Image:Sankara.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bias in "Cuisine" section

The "Cuisine" section appears to have a biased statement at the end:

South Indian food is very delicious. Most of hajji the world folk like to eat Masala Doshai with sambaar which is a famous cuisine in Tamilnadu.

The first sentence is entirely subjective and generalistic. The second sentence needs to at least be grammatically corrected, and possibly reviewed for objectivity and factual basis. It also mentions a specific cuisine purportedly famous in a single Indian state, which doesn't seem appropriate for the "Cuisine" topic in the "Culture of India" article (i.e., it's not a "Culture of Tamilnadu" article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by CueBallSTL (talk • contribs) 10:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] about modern indian writers

(I changed the names of modern Indian writers in section 2.1, an experienced wikipedian undid it, his view is that such wholesale changes should be first discussed, below is what I wrote on his user talk page. Here is the version with changes I made, compare it's sec.2.1 with that of present version.) --Sumitkumar kataria (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Namaste.

Sir, I am the fellow whose "massive changes in linked names" you reverted in the article culture of India.

I guess that you are a Kannada speaking Indian or an NRI. I disagree with your list of important modern writers. Seems that you have taken foreign recognition as the criterion for being a good Indian Writer, or you don't know of literatures of other languages apart from Kannada or English. I am not a great multilingual, all I know is Hindi, English, and Urdu. The base of my claim is that I've read a lot of translations of other Indian languages in Hindi, published by National Book Trust and Sahitya Academy (Bhartiya Gyanpeeth publishes only in Hinidi & English). It's probable that these two giant publishers do not offer such great variety of translations in Kannada but it's enough in English. Sahitya Akademy publishes "The Makers of Indian Literature" series of books describing life and works of great Indian Writers. I refer you to go through these books, you will realise that Indian Writing in English has given a very little contribution in Indian Literature. And that's the second point I want you to notice. But before that, I want to tell what writers I gave names of. Many of these writers' articles are marked as 'stubs' and others giving cursory information (but that's only ignorance of us Indians, who write long articles on Shahrukh Khan and other so-called celebrities). 1. Girish Karnad:- We both agree. Of the seven Gyanpeeth award winners, apart from him Ananthmurty, Shivram Karanth and Maasti a hindi reader have access, rest are missed heartily owing to scantiness of able verse translators. 2. Nirmal Verma: The man whose story Parinde started the nai kahani (literally, new story) movement, which changed the paranoma of hindi literature. His themes were alienation and memories. He is the most influential writer of Hindi after independence. (Also a gyanpeeth awardee if you consider it). 3. Kamaleshwar: he also belongs to the nai kahani, while Nirmal Verma explores the inner self, he goes into the society. He, Mohan Rakesh and Rajendra yadav consists of the nai kahani trio, with the last name being inferior and does not deserve this position. The trio does not consist of Nirmal Verma. Nirmal started a new wave freeing the hindi literature from the social aim which was burdened on it. But Kamaleshwar wrote for the society. His writing arise from his disagreement, disagreement about what he sees in the society. 4. Ajneya: A great poet and writer. Wrote poetical and pshycologically oriented stories. His Shekhar Ek Jeevani (lit, Shekhar, a biography) introduced alienataion in hindi literature. Kamaleshwar and Amarkant are akin to Premchand in the same manner as Nirmal Verma is akin to Ajneya and Jainendra Kumar.(Ajneya also got gyanpeeth).He rivals Premchand, but got such accalaim lately.(the previous sentence I added later Sumitkumar kataria (talk)) 5. Maasti Venkatesh Ayangar: the forefather of Kannada shortstory who even today can be called modern owing to his great life-span. (obviously you know him) 6.&7. MT and Basheer are two father figures of malyalam literature, though contemporary to each other their styles bear no resemblance . MT's works have been picturised into great films. Basheer also have got foreign acclaim. MT also a gyanpeeth winner. 8.,10.&11. mahashweta, arundhati, amrita: it's nice we agree here. 9. Sunil Gangopadhyay: also an important poet and writer of bangla, but I want to replace his name by Ashapurna Devi info about her you should get fromBanglapedia.12.Qurratulain Hyder: Premchand though not the first urdu-short-story writer (or afsana nigar) was the father of the genre in urdu. Next to him the four pillars of urdu short story were Manto, RajinderSingh Bedi, Ismat Chugtai, and Krishan Chander. Qurratulain Hyder was contemporary to the four and as important as them. She got gyanpeeth for his masterpiece aag ka darya (lit, river of fire). The 4 pillars cannot be called modern, but she also belongs to the younger generation and died recently.

Now the second point.What's Indian writing in English? a literature written by writers who are not native to English, for those who don't speak that language.

I am quoting two views, with which I agree, first from Sibnarayan Ray's rewiew of english translation of Selected Poems of Budhdev Bose:

"But in the world outside Bengal very few Bengali poets after Tagore are known either in the original or in translation. Anthologies do appear from time to time of modern post-Tagore Bengali poetry in English translation; but much of the translation is of a rather poor quality, and very few ever reach the world outside. This is true not only of Bengali but also of other major Indian languages which have produced modern poets of considerable stature. Not surprisingly such modern Indian writers as have lately found an access to the world market are those who write almost exclusively in English - mainly because they were born and brought up in a milieu where English became virtually their mother tongue. However, nearly all of them write prose fiction, mostly about India. Cleverly crafted, sometimes nostalgic, sometime severely critical, they possess little depth. Poetry seems to spring from a deeper subsoil from which they are cut off by their very special milieu and upbringing."

The next one is a comment to a post on a blog titled "Indian Writing in English":

Few years ago Amitav Ghosh withdrew his novel 'The Glass Palace' which was short- listed for best book under Eurasian Writer Category, commonwealth writer prize. Ghosh said 'commonwealth literature anchors an area of contemporary writing not with in the realities of present day, nor within the possibilities of future, but rather within the disputed aspect of past.'He further added, 'Commonwealth is a misnomer if applied to literary and cultural groups.'Commonwealth is a term used for the territory once conquered and ruled by the british, and commonwealth writer prize and Booker Prize are meant for the writers of countries falling under this category.Salman Rushdie is so obsessed with stereotypical Anglo-Indian characters that he seldom dares to go beyond it.Mid-night's Children's protagonist, Salim, who is an Anglo-Indian, shows Rushdie's colonial mindset. In his recent work 'Fury', he again bogged himself down in Raj nostalgia. The main character of the novel is born in India and flees to England.In the New Yorker (special issue on the 50th year of Indian independence) Rushdie wrote that during these fifty years, best literature in India has been written in English. It vividly shows his ignorance of Indian literature in Hindi and regional languages. The west with the help of award-hungry writers is trying to establish its superiority and to destroy the culture of so-called colonies.After losing geo-political control over these colonies, the Britain, is practicing cultural imperialism. All the works that ever won the commonwealth prize/Booker award, were laden with the sun-never-sets-on-the-empire syndrome. Non-fiction writes, like N.C.Chaudhry, died wallowing in the Raj-nostalgia. Other writers, who are staying in India and writing in English aren't immune to this syndrome; invariably their main characters are either Anglo-Indian or get educated in England. Less or more the plot of every novel are set around the time of partition and written with contempt for regional writer and languages. English undeniably is a part of colonial legacy and has acted as a powerful tool of colonial hegemony. But it also washed out the regional chauvinism up to some extent. English as a language can't be denied by creative writers in India or any other so-called colonies, but the writers should not yield under the pressure of British cultural imperialism.

Apart from these quotes another thing to tell you is that Arundhati Ray financially incurrs the cost of all writers of three Hindi Litrary Magazines viz., Hans, Samyantar, and Paihel. She is not culturally ignorant as Salman Rusdie. This much she earns.

In sum, my list better represent the modern indian literature.

I don't want to undo your change, I want you to undo it yourself. But if still you don't agree with me, I will just paste this message on the discussion tab and just ask views from other contributers. There is no point in the undoing game.

Sumitkumar, the reason I reverted your changes was not to prove I know more about modern Indian literature then you do. It is against wiki policy to make changes, especially large scale, without first having a discussion. Since you feel you know a lot about modern Indian literaute, I suggest you start a discussion about this, so people can attend and jointly decide which poets/writers are acceptable and which are not. You will be quite surprised that there could be many users who disagree with you. I have no intention of un-doing my undo, not because I did the undo but because that was the original content. Feel free to add a few names if you like, but if you want to make wholesale changes, I really think it would be nice to start a discussion. This is Wiki etiquette and manners. Good luck.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

--Sumitkumar kataria (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

OK Sir, let there be a consensus first. I am new to wikipedia and am not accustomed to it etiquettes. Sorry for that. --Sumitkumar kataria (talk) 17:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It happens to all beginners. Not your fault. I suggest you to contact WP:INDIA members and pool in a bigger bunch.Good luck.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added the name of Kamleshwar, deleted the phrase "both in Indian languages and in English", it's not right to put litr. of Indian languages on 1 side. Sumitkumar kataria (talk) 10:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems that no expert of Indian Literature is heeding on this. An editor has deleted the name of Moncy Pothen. I want to erase Khuswant Singh and Salman Rushdie also. I have called for help on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics and have dropped messages on user talk pages of members who edited the "literature" or "history" section. Sumitkumar kataria (talk) 09:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, someone has added Takazhi, it goes for correcting the picture.

I'm still insisting on deleting Khuswant Singh and Salman Rushdie, It's misrepresentaion of Indian lit. having their names here.Sumitkumar kataria (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I am deleting RK Narayan, Khushwant Singh, Salman Rushdie and Vikram Seth. If anyone disagree, revert it and refute me here. About the first two names: My objection about RK Narayan is that he is not so important. A large number of writers has such calibre. For instance, names of hindi such as Ravindra Kaliya, shailesh matiyani, Mithileshwar, Gyanranjan, Shrilal Shukla, govind mishr can be cited, and Hindi literature just have a fair share in the Indian Literature . About Khuswant Singh, I want to say that he is not known for literature, but for other activities, such as editing, and that he does not deserve his name to be written with such writers. My main objection is that in the current list there is a bias in favour of Indian English writers. Further I am adding names of two father figures: Ajney and Masti --Sumitkumar kataria (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indiian culture rocks!

I love indian culture, and I think everyone should. It's simply great! India the great! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.73.67 (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)