Talk:North India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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] Comment

This article has problems. There's a much better article here. This one is labeled "North india" but talks about North and South India (South India is a superb article.)

Also, "North India" is actually a redirect to Indo-Gangetic plain.

It seems to me this article is unnecessary and should be deleted or at the very least merged.

--KSnortum 30 June 2005 06:29 (UTC)

I wrote a fair bit of the material on Indo-Gangetic plain (thanks for the compliment!), and also created the North India redirect. But I think it may be time to clean up this article so that we can move it to the North India redirect when it's ready. Ideally, North India and the Indo-Gangetic plain should have different articles, because the Indo-Gangetic plain also encompasses much of Pakistan and Bangladesh (and perhaps the Terai region of Nepal), whereas North India is India. Perhaps Indo-Gangetic plain should a primarily geographic focus, while North India can have a mainly cultural one. Historical information could go either place, and especially pre-Partition history might make more sense on Indo-Gangetic plain. What do you say? QuartierLatin 1968 21:39, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

I fully endorse the view - as a matter of fact, North India and Indo-Gangetic plain both should be independent article. We should try to make the North India article on the pattern of South India. As regards the article North india, the country's name "india' looks strange and appears to have been used as North India was a re-direct. Someone should do something to fix the things, I mean move the contents of North india to North India, and remove the redirection link to Indo-Gangetic plain. I feel that this may be done fast, as matter is obvious and much discussion may not be required.--Bhadani 04:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Great improvements

I'm very pleased to see the improvements that have gone into this article of late. I'm left with two questions, as an outsider: the main scope of the North India article here is on the region north of Maharashtra and west of Bengal. But South India concerns the Dravidian states, i.e. to the exclusion of Maharashtra; and the article on North-East India concerns the Seven Sister states, to the exclusion of Bengal. Obviously we can say Maharashtra is in West India, and West Bengal in East India; but where should they fit into the traditional North/South/(North)east division? Quartier Latin1968 18:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Good questions! It seems odd to exclude West Bengal from a definition of North India, as it is historically, geographically, and ecologically twined together with the rest of the region. Tom Radulovich 19:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I also felt the same on seeing the North India map. Either Maharashtra and West Bengal could be added to North India or two new regions West India comprising Gujarat, Maharashtra and Goa and East India comprising West Bengal, Bihar and Orissa.--Raghu 16:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I share the same wonder. Maharashtra and West Bengal are completely different from north Indian states. Take the example of Biharis and Bengalis: different eating habits, different language, culture. Even the Gods they worship (Most Bengalis worship Durga, Marathis Ganesha and North Indians Vishnu) are different. For me Maharashtra lies in Western India and West Bengal lies in Eastern India. People from Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh are a lot similar to each other than people from Maharashtra and say Haryana. --Deepak|वार्ता 16:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

If we make new articles for East and West India (and why not?), then first we should move East India to East India (disambiguation), then make the leftover East India redirect into its own article. (I'd be happy to do the spadework, if there's general agreement to do this.)

What I'm wondering, though, is whether there are not two meanings of the expression "North India": one referring to all that is not South India, and the other excluding East India and West India? Quartier Latin1968

17:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually no; nobody in India would think of including West Bengal or Orissa in North India: they are completly different in culture. Nor indeed is Gujarat usually included; it is normally slotted with Maharashtra and two UT's (D&Diu, Dadra&NH) to form "Western India". North India is understood in India to consist of the states and UT's that speak Hindi, Punjabi, Kashmiri. Both the map and the text need to be changed to exclude Orissa and Gujarat. ImpuMozhi 19:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I take exception on your opinion. The crucial problem is that there are varying definitions of North India.

Linguistically: In South India, all speakers of any Indo-Aryan language are known as "north indians" and the non-South indian people themselves consider them to be "North Indians". If you ask any Marathi he'll tell you he's a North Indian; he won't tell you he's a "West Indian". So linguistically all non-South Indians: Biharis, Assamese,etc. are North Indians too.

Geographically: It makes no sense to include even Bihar. Even to include MP is not sensible.

The North Indian states are not formed on linguistic lines. Therefore I don't understand why political(state) borders should be kept in mind while defining regions like this. Maquahuitl 19:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Good; you've convinced me. May I draw your attention, ladies and gentlemen, to East India, a stub that is now at least as in need of editing and expansion as this one! Quartier Latin1968 21:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Older Definition

I think this also needs to mention the pre-partition definition of 'North India' which includes most of Pakistan. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biased against its subject

This article is heavily biased against its subject. It needlessly glorifies South India in comparison, without talking about the subject at hand. --Natkeeran 14:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree, although if this article were expanded (perhaps into more areas of the history, culture, politics or economy of North India), then the sections that compare South India and North India would take up proportionally less space. Which brings me to the following suggestion...

This article is very poor, and especially the "people" sub-section is pure nonsense. Consider this: "North India shows a stronger Aryan influence. In the last thousand years or so, North India was subjected to various invasions from neighbouring kingdoms than any other region of India. Indeed, such invasions has left a major scar on the cultural and linguistic traditions of North India. Physically, after repeated invasions by Arab, Turk, Afghan and other kingdoms, North India is now a mixture of Arab, Turk, Afghan, Indo-Aryan and Huns in their composition. Genetically, North Indians are more closer to South/East/West Indians than other neighbouring nations or europeans. Inspite of repeated invasions North India was quite resilient and re-built itself rather quickly. Repeated invasions also made it difficult for North India to concentrate on art and cultural development and that is the reason there is no contemporary North Indian dance form when compared to South or East Indian culture."

It seems as if some South Indian has written this article. The language is poor- the writer talks about several issues(race, history, art/culture) all at the same time. And the last sentence is the most amusing blow: that North India has no dance form.

Finally, the whole article is bogus when compared to "south india". Just look at the extent to which history, culture, traditions etc. are all well described. And in both the articles, north and south, the writer pushes in economic comparisons. The 'comparison table' given in the people section is totally out of context and stupid. Probably shows the extent to which the South Indian who wrote the article is bent upon glorifying SI even to the levels of stupidity. Maquahuitl 19:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

What is this repeated use of "Aryan." Aryan is a linguistic, not a racial term. If one wants to assert that North Indians are a population that are different genetically due to Central Asian invaders, one should say so instead of harping on "Aryan" race. Aryan is linguistic classification about a person who speaks an Indo-European language and includes Marathis and Bengalis. Or they could simplify and just say that North Indians are lighter than South Indian skin color wise if that is what they want to say. The Article requires some cleanup. -Avi

[edit] Cleanup → Expansion?

Would there be any objection to taking down the cleanup notice and replacing it perhaps with an {{expansion}} one? Quartier Latin1968

18:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems

It's very convenient to do, but is it a good idea to do this division (N,S,E,W) based on state borders? For example, in what way is the southern part of Chhattisgarh a part of North India? Physically, it seems to be protruding out into South. Culturally, I guess it's more East India-like. This division can perhaps better be done on a geographical basis (e.g., anything south of Vindhyas is South (?), etc.) deeptrivia (talk) 06:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if it is right to include Maharashtra, Gujrat, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa into this region. Could we get a definition of North India justifying this :) Khalil Sawant 02:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] North India

"North India" keeps appearing in history articles. In that context, it invariably means all of the north Indian subcontinent except Northeast. This is not clearly explained in this article. deeptrivia (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is horrible -- it seems like a promotional article or something. It is extremely biased and makes an innumerable amount of unnecessary, chauvinistic, and sometimes non-factual claims. It desperately needs clean up. Whereas other regional articles are informative, this seems like a propoganda article in order to boost the North. Not encyclopedic material! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.87.114 (talk) 08:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article is terrible POV...

The article looks as if it were written by a North Indian Fanboy... Some one who claims that North India = India... I'm in the process of cleaning up... Please help if you can...

Nearly all the citations that are marked are mis understood... Infact.. Bollywood revenues are half of Disney (mentioned in the article the author cited..., but in the article, it's written that Bollywood is the largest movie maker in the world.. Some North Indian promoters are involved..... Please clean this up.. or help me in cleaning up if u can... Mugunth 12:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Check these articles... North America, Western Europe etc., Article like North India should speak about it's geography etc., This is not a war between North and South... Mugunth 06:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is used to express south Indian Point Of View on North India 'Heavily biased and misrepresentation of facts'.

Wikipedia is used by lot of people on the Internet as a source of information on India, but unfortunately it is used by some anti social and devisive forces to propoagate their point of view, just take the example of article on North & South India.

In the first case the article on North India was written by some misguided South Indians in their quest to vilify the North India which represents the majority population in the country and also reperesentative of mainstream culture. The article on South India was written to glorify it in comparison to North and rest of India. On the other hand the article on North was written as a disparaging and negative misrepresentation of the facts like a) North Indian population was derived from invading rulers from Iran and Turkey b) North India has no dance form c) It represents the Cow belt d) North India represent rural India with no development and economy f) It shares its musical and cultural heritage with Muslim countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh. The article's history and talk page are the evidence of what I am writing here kindly have a look.

South Indians only represent 20% of India's population and their culture is followed mainly in the four dravidian states of Tamil Nadu, Karanataka, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh. The gross misrepresentation of facts is only possible because they represent large number of editors on wikipedia who are able to misrepresents the facts and demonstrate their point of view due to numerical strength!!

The editors/administrators should ensure that neutral point of view is maintained on the both the article on North and South India, Instead of misrepresenting the facts in order to depict South India as a progressive, cultured and industrialised part of India Vs depiction of rest of India as underdeveloped, illiterate and uncultured.

a) The richest states with highest per capita GDP are Punjab, Haryana, Himachal, Gujarat & Maharashtra and union territories of Chandigarh and Delhi. None of the four Dravidian states is among the top five in the country.

b) Even High Income states are more industrialised, developed and have higher literacy rates than South India. They spend more money per capita on health, education and development than South Indian states.

c) South India is not homogeneous and is divided on the basis of four dravadian languages namely Kannada, Tamil, Telugu and Malayalam. They have their own regional differences and disputes.

d) The situation in South India is not very different from rest of India in terms of poverty, malnutrition, unemployment, politics, corruption, riots, Naxal violence, law and order problem, infrastructure, health and education etc. If you compare South with the worst performing states than it may look better, but the problem remain unresolved. Why not compare South india with some developed country in Asia like Singapore which has per capita income of US$ 26,481 Vs South India of only US$ 625. This means the per capita income in Singapore is 43 times higher than South India. This clearly indicates that South india is not very different from rest of India and has to go long way before it can boast of having a distinction of developed nation status like Singapore or Japan.--Himhifi 04:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC) source: [1][2][3] --Himhifi 08:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Full of Discrepancies

The article "North India" has lot of discrepancies, including its definition. Having completing 60 years of independent country, one does not go back to pre-independence time and define North-India to include Pakistan and Bangladesh.

As far as the Republic of India is concerned, the Northern part of India includes entire Indian territory to the North of the Peninsular region, which includes, Gujarat, Rajastan, Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Uttaranchal, Uttar Pradesh, Chattisgharh, Bihar, Jarkhand, West Bengal, Sikkim and all the seven sister states to the North East.

I don't know why people don't include the "North East" in North. One should understand that both North-East and North-West are subsets of North. It seems awkward to me when people say that Bihar is not a Northern State, if Bihar is not a Northern State, how can one call Tripura a Northeastern state which is to the Southeast of Bihar? While defining North or South (East or West) part of any country, first give the geographical definition then give the socio-linguistic description of the resulted region. --yny 14:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you... Similarly, in the history and culture section, where I've marked {{inappropriate tone}}, there are references to "great people" from North India rather than talking about the history and culture... I'm planning to move all those references into a seperate section like "Notable People from North India".. How about that?

Mugunth 15:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The basic Idea Behind Grouping States in North Part Of India is fundamentally Flawed.

The article was written with the malicious intention of maligning, disparaging and vilification of people from North Part of India. North India doesn't exist as a single unified entity as South India which is unified by Dravidian languages, South Indian identity and unique culture. As a matter of fact everyone in North Indian states will tell you where they are from instead of calling themselves as North Indian etc. Infact the depiction of people from North India as North Indians is itself flawed and unnecessary. If you ask people from Delhi, Punjab or Gujrat they will tell you they are either Delhite, Punjabi or Gujarati etc they will never tell you that they are North Indians as great variation exist between the culture of these states to group them together forget about grouping people from Bengal (North East) and Gujarat (North West) as North Indian.

Even though there is a great variation in culture of say Punjabi and Bihari people they are still called North Indian and grouped together in this article. Therefore it’s difficult to group all the states in the North Part of India on the basis of culture, linguistics, economics and demographic trends. There is a great variation in all these aspects throughout the length and breath of the country and it’s not required.

Political parties in the South have used the regional card to seek votes from people who have anti-Hindi or anti-North Indian sentiments. In contrast North Indian states don’t have any major movement or aversion towards South Indian states etc. No wonder article is full of discrepencies and requires an immidiate attention as it is edited by people who have limited knowledge or skills for editing etc. At best the article should be rewritten with a neutral point of view, discovering common ground without any bias or anti-pathy toward country men from other states in India. --Himhifi 19:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I beg to defer with you, I am afraid! Your statement "South India is unified and North India is not" is outrightly false. Your comprehension of Southern India itself is wrong, as you are thinking that South India is just the states that speak only Dravidian Languages as opposed to States that are geography south of India, thereby creating fine line between Dravidian languages and Non-Dravidian languages. You should remember that India is a free country and considerable number of Urdu, which is a Non-Dravidian, speakers live in Dravidian language speaking states of India. So its better for you to view "South" as the geographical "South".

You should understand that the Southern India is much diversified if not more than Northern India. While the predominant languages spoken in Southwestern state of Maharashtra and Southeastern state of Orissa are Indo-Aryan languages, the rest of the Southern Indian states predominately speak Dravidan languages. Even among the four major Dravidan Languages, Telugu, Tamil, Kannada and Malayalam, the disparity is too high with one Dravidian Language completely unintelligible to the other, whereas it is not the same with the languages of Northern India where the languages are somewhat mutually intelligible.

The main reason behind the backwardness of Northern Indians is that Northern India is less literate than their Southern counter parts (mind you, this includes the Southwestern state of Maharashtra), and very much eccentric. E.g. the Rajasthani or Gujarati immigrants of Hyderabad/Chennai/Bangaluru do not mingle with the local community and do not learn the local languages even after living for ages and get colonized to keep a separate identity. A typical Northern India does not know that there are four different Dravidian Languages, whenever they see a traveler from any of the Dravidian language speaking state, they would refer him/her as Madarasi. Whereas a typical Southern Indian is completely aware of the geography/culture of a any person of India. So it is the utter ignorance of Northern Indians that make them think that all the Dravidian languages/culture is the same.

Southern India is diverse in all the aspects such as food, culture, language. The Southern Indian Languages Marathi and Oriya though belong to Indo-Aryan group, completely differ from one other. Similarly the languages, Telugu, Tamil, Kannada and Malayalam though belong to Dravidian group, differ from one anther and are mutually unintelligible, with Telugu, Kannada and Malayalam using up to 70% of Sanskrit loan words. Most of the literary works of these languages are Sanskritized form of the respective languages. That's the reason why Telugu, Kannada speakers have better Sanskrit diction than that of the Northern Indian people. e.g. A typical Telugu/Kannada guy can properly pronounce a Sanskrit First Name, such as "Krishna", "Lakshmana" "Dakshina Moorti" etc, where as a Typical Northern Indian guy would malign the same Sanskrit based First Names as "Kishan", "Lakhan" and "Dakkina Moorti" etc.

--yny 22:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If South India is so literate and developed why its per capita income is equivalent to countries in Sub-Sahara Africa like Somalia and Congo. South India is not different from Gujarat, UP or Bihar. Punjab, Gujarat, Maharashtra(not South Indian state), Delhi and Haryana which have higher literacy rates & are more industrialised than the four Dravadian states, even culturally they are not worse off than South India. This article is a handiwork of regionalistic and separatist people to feel good about their poverty ridden states which are fighting to have bare necessities like water and food. South Indian people have anti-Hindi anti-North-Indian sentiments they are spiteful of North Indian dominance & sphere of influence viz culture, traditions, history, geography, linguistics, politics and virtually everything else. Don't try to mislead people by making false claims and alligations. This is the reason why the article was created to malign and vilfy people from North Indian states. There are people who think there culture and region is superior to other culture and regions. In multicultural countries and socities like Singapore you will find people thinking they are some what superior to other races or cultures. In North Part of India there are states which are doing much better than South India (Dravidian South) but they are not spiteful of South Indian progress or development, they are working hard to make India a better country, that's why you don't find them writing malicious articles on South India!! --Himhifi 08:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Your interpretation of south is totally confusing. Its better not to use the word south instead, please use the names of the states you are talking. When Northern part of India (rather the Republic of India) has been defined as the region to the north of River Narmada and entire state of Maharashtra is to the south of Narmada, whats makes one to think that Maharashtra is not a South state? Can you name one English language dictionary which states that South means Dravidian speaking region? Secondly if your comparison is between Dravidian and Non-Dravidian states, then there are four Dravidian speaking states and 24 Non-Dravidian states. Okay! Now lets compare the Dravidian states and Non-Dravidian states, Kerala being at the top, the least literate Dravidan State of Andhra Pradesh sits ahead of most populous states group of Northern India (more precisely the Non - Dravidian )"Uttar Pradesh, Bhiar, Jarkhand and Rajasthan" which send about 125 Members of Parliament out of 545.

Secondly, I only said that Southern states are forward in terms of social awareness. I did not make any statement about per capita income nor I talked about Dravidian speaking states. Yes! if you talk about Dravidian States, except Tamil Nadu, all the states are politically, economically, industrially backward than their counterparts which makes their intelligentsia fly to other developed countries. Andhra Pradesh tops in sending more number of its Engineering graduates to US to pursue higher education every year. The union government in India is completely under control of Non-Dravidian states which did not concentrate and develop the Dravidian states. I certainly agree with you on the per capita income is very less in Dravidian states though it is producing more number of Engineering graduates. In order to boost up the per capita income in these states must be given more political power and allocate funds to these states. E.g, even though Andhra Pradesh produces more number of Engineering graduates, it had to fight for about 25 years to get IIT established in the state, such is the domination of Non-Dravidian states over Dravidian states, moreover it is topping in number of IIT-JEE rankers for the past 2 years.

--yny (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Himhifi and and Ynyus75... Please... This is not a battleground.. Invest your time in thinking of how to make this article better.... I think it's now a "B-Class" article... We have to improve it rather than fighting among us...

@himhifi, Per capita income of south can be compared only to north... May be when India becomes globally recognized, we'll compare it with countries like Singapore as you said... In terms of economy, It does not make any sense in saying south is like africa in terms of economy.. It might be true, but then what can you compare bihar with? 5772 Rs or 145$ is its per capita... Should we say that, Average per capita of North is lesser to Somalia? We as editors should not make judgements.. We should not do any comparison or "research" as it would violate WP:OR. We should write what's there in other websites. Collective knowledge is what is shared...

Im just giving a opinion of what I felt.. May be correct... may be wrong... Try to improve the article by citing references than making judgements or relative comparisons... Mugunth ^{(ping me!!!, contribs)} 16:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some views

1. In India only two geographical regions are defined strongly: South India and North-East India, and both because of different reasons. They are not geographical definitions. South India because it speaks a different set of languages, and North-East India because it is connected to the rest of the country by a small strip of land and hence its reference as such by the Government. North-East India is therefore officially defined too. Therefore wasting too much time on this article does not make much sense, because of varying and ambiguous definitions of the subject itself.

2. Hundreds of editors write hundreds of articles with n different viewpoints. It makes no sense to start complaining about it. It is large-hearted to have a pan-Indian outlook, and better still pan-world outlook, and not to be paranoid and thereby narrow down our world of thought. Having a fight here is even more childish. Maquahuitl^talk! 06:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Maquahuitl, what you are saying is partly true. However, for various purposes the distinction between the regions is used. For eg. census data. Also, for most Indians, North India does define a region distinct from South and North East India, and also on most occasions from Maharashtra and Gujarat. In my own, experience I have never heard a Gujarati or a Bengali person call themselves North Indian, although I frequently hear people telling being identified as North Indian, instead of Haryana, Rajasthan, UP etc. Also, it is easier to understand our country region by region first instead of diving into each state. So it is useful to have this article, if only to make the study of India easier for Indians and outsiders. Cheers.I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 04:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

In my own, experience I have never heard a Gujarati or a Bengali person call themselves North Indian,

What? Are you sure about this? :o In fact I find it rarer that these people would call themselves as "West" Indian or "East" Indian. Maquahuitl^talk! 12:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, people dont indentify themselves as being from "West" or "East" Indian, but they mostly use the terms Gujarati, Maharashtrian, Bengali etc, not "North Indian". Whereas, a person from Haryana very often calls himself a North Indian. Anyways, there is no point in debating that. I believe that an article on North India is important, the term is frequently mentioned in literature, media and conversation. So we should try to define and describe it as best as we can. Also, North India is fairly well defined geographically. Thanks. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Major disruptive edits without discussion on talk page amounts to vandalism!

The user Fundamental metric tensor has done major edits in the article on North India without any discussion on talk page, which amounts to vandalism. There is no explanation why he has drastically change the article and completely removed some sections. The article is reverted back to the previous version, which is rated as B-class article and also has some consensus from editors. --Himhifi 10:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there was consensus reached before. It's just that, the authors have just moved out, for editing other articles... Fundamental metric tensor's edits were appropriate. If it has to be reverted back, please build a consensus. Mugunth^{(ping me!!!,contribs)} 11:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The article in its present form looks badly edited, and incomplete as Fundamental Metric tensor has completely removed the language section and economy section. Irrelevant material is added like Mughal empire, the images and climate data added looks untidy, the demographic section doesn't have any data etc. Kindly make the article encylopedic and complete the relevant sections with neutral point of view, otherwise revert it back to the previous version, you should be honest in presenting facts. --Himhifi 11:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

History and Mughal Empire is very important to this article. May be you can bring back the language section but make it shorter. Bollywood can (should) be mentioned... But not in a seperate section. Economy sub-heading should be encyclopedic. not like the one written previously. Speak about, what contributes most to the economy of those regions. Adding a laundry list of cities and their importance does not make any sense in an encyclopedia.Mugunth^{(ping me!!!,contribs)} 12:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Himhifi, I accept your criticism that I edited without discussion and much talk. Also I havent added the census data yet, but I will soon. I dont think that constitutes vandalism, if it does please take it up with an admin. Aside from that, I find your other allegations quite hard to understand. I removed the languages section because that is usually covered as a subsection in demographics, you are welcome to add it back. How is the Mughal empire not important ?? Why do we need city by city details of the economy of a region that is predominantly agrarian ? This is an encyclopedia, we have to present information in a manner so that people reading the article get the best possible understanding of the topic, using verifiable facts. There is no point, in highlighting special cases and exceptions at the very first glance. I have seen your other conversations on this article, I understand that there is a great amount of variation within the economies of North Indian states, you are welcome to point this out but in a constructive, civil manner. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Economy-North Indian states faired well in terms of Per Capita GDP and HDI.

The North Indian states of Punjab and Haryana ranked highest in per capita GDP and Human development Index as well. Also Himachal Pradesh is a top ranking state, union terrritory of Delhi which comprise of National Capital Region(Gurgaon, NOIDA) and Chandigarh have also the highest per capita income in the country. The cities of Ghaziabad (U.P), Faridabad (Haryana), Agra(U.P), Delhi(NCR), Ludhiana(Punjab), Srinagar(J.K), Indore (M.P), Patna(Bihar), Bhopal (M.P), Lucknow (U.P), Meerut(U.P), Kanpur(U.P), Jaipur(Rajasthan), Jamshedpur(Jharkhand) and Dhanbad(Jharkhand) are among the fastest growing cities in the world. [4]

Human Development Ranking and Per Capita GDP by State(2001)

State            Rank      Per Capita GDP
                              
Punjab           1         2 
Maharashtra      2         1
Haryana          3         4
Gujarat          4         3
Tamil Nadu       5         5
Karnataka        6         6
Kerala           7         -  
Andhra Pradesh   8         7
West Bengal      9         8
Rajasthan        10        9
Madhya Pradesh   11        10
Assam            12        -
Uttar Pradesh    13        11
Orissa           14        12
Bihar            15        13

Source: [5] [6] --Himhifi 09:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revised map

North India is home to 50 per cent of Indians

Almost 50 per cent of the census 2001 population of India live on one-third of the landscape. This is the real north.

Central India is home to 17 per cent of Indians

About 17 per cent of the census 2001 population of India live on one-third of the landscape. This is central India comprising Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh and Orissa. Do not confuse this with North India.

South India is home to 33 per cent of Indians

About 33 per cent of the census 2001 population of India live on one-third of the landscape. This is south India comprising Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Tamil Nadu. That explains the recent riots against northeners even in Hindi-speaking Maharashtra.Anwar (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought -Maharashtra is not Hindi speaking- they use Marathi. Gujarat by no stretch of the imagination fits into "South". The riots were against UP and Biharis, and earlier there have been "riots" against "South" Indians ( see Bal Thackeray) in Maharashtra. Orissa,West Bengal, Assam and the North East are not quite "Hindi speaking and are quite different from the North.- "East" would suit this region more. And Maharashtra + Gujarat is more 'West" than either North/ south. Rajasthan it's a toss up between north, center and west- fits anywhere. Haphar (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Independance

From who? [[Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)]]

[edit] Some POV

The "Region" does not face overpopulation, illiteracy and poverty- Eastern UP, Bihar, Jharkand, MP and Chattisgarh does. Western UP, Himachal,Punjab, Haryana and J&K do much better on literacy, population and economy. Also Green revolution was mostly Punjab & Haryana and not the whole region. Haphar (talk) 09:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] redraw the map

Jharkand, MP & Chattisgarh are not a part of North India- MP, Chatisgarh and Jharkand should be included in Central India. and check out East India some states are being counted in both North and East India. Haphar (talk) 09:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)