Template:Old India COTW

Template:Indian selected

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

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

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

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)

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.

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)

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)[reply]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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? User:Deepujoseph/sig

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)[reply]

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.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

sounds good... do we follow a keep it general rule? --hydkat 11:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. User:Deepujoseph/sig 18:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. --- User:Deepujoseph/sig 19:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)