Talk:History of science and technology on the Indian subcontinent

Image copyright problem with Image:Meghnad Saha in Berlin, 1921.jpg

The image Image:Meghnad Saha in Berlin, 1921.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Neolithic mehrgarh.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Page name and Mehrgarh

I wasn't aware of the existence of this article. (I have now put it on my watchlist.) I believe, there is a glaring disconnect between the article name and its leading content.

• Mehrgarh and, in general, regions that are clearly in modern-day Pakistan, shouldn't be included in an article whose name is "History of Indian science and technology." Presumably, the Pakistan workgroup might want to have a history page themselves, or may already have one; the inclusion of these topics here would then potentially create a content fork. Besides, when I read the Nature article a few years ago and included content from it in the Wikipedia page, Mehrgarh, I didn't, as far as I can remember, encounter any mention of "India" or even "ancient India" in the article, only one of Pakistan. It was the same with the BBC report from that time.

• You are welcome to change the name of the article to "Science and technology in South Asia." (This is the tack taken in Britannica ("South Asian arts," "South Asian mathematics"), but it will still require discussion with the other regional work-groups or WikiProjects.

• Even in the absence of the issues mentioned above, "History of Indian science and technology" is ambiguous, since "Indian" itself is ambiguous. At the very least, the name of the page should be changed to "History of science and technology in India" or some such formulation.

I will take a more thorough look later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Post by user:Hakkuna Mattata, refactored to avoid interruptions of above post

1. Mehrgarh was part of India for the longest of times. Why should it being in Pakistan since 1947 have a problem?
2. Indus valley civilization was in undivided India. So one can just say Mehargarh (located in modern Pakistan)
3. What do you mean by Indian is ambiguous? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hakkuna Mattata (talk • contribs) at 16:01, 26 February 2009

Reply by Fowler&fowler

1. Mehrgarh is in Baluchistan, which was not considered a part of India, until the British annexed some regions of it late in the 19th century. It was not mentioned in any ancient Indian epics from the Vedas onwards. The discovery of the neolithic site in Mehrgarh was made in 1972 by a team of Pakistani and French archeologists. No archeologist from India was then or since a part of the excavations. What does it have to do with a page that links India to Republic of India?
2. The Indus Valley Civilization extended into regions of India (e.g. Lothal), however, Mehrgarh has no corresponding equivalent in regions that are in present-day India, its connections were with other neolithic sites in Iran and Iraq.
3. Please click on Indian. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Mathematics content

The Indian contribution to mathematics is exaggerated in this article. The mathematical content should not be created anew here, but should be a summary of the material in Indian mathematics. Consequently, the stuff about the Kerala school writing the first calculus textbook etc. will have to go. Aryabhata didn't invent the sine, the cosine or any trigonometric function; the Indians made a minor change in the pre-existing Greek definitions of these functions, which made them more easily computable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean. Can you please point to the proof of existence of people like pythagoras? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hakkuna Mattata (talk • contribs) 16:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear newly created SPA, Whether Pythagoras was a person or a school, he was undeniably Greek (or Hellenic); I am not saying anything about the existence of Aryabhata, only that the "innovations" the mathematicians in early medieval India brought to trigonometry was one of changing the pre-existing Greek definitions of the sine and cosine (involving full chords of the circle) to half-chords. The names they gave to these alterations have survived through the Arabic translations, but the main conceptual innovation (that the Indians altered) was Greek. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hargobind Khorana

Hargobind Khorana's image has to go as well. His contribution in explicating the Genetic Code had very little to do with India. It involved experimental techniques that were developed at the University of Wisconsin in Madison and later at MIT. Khorana had become a US citizen much earlier. Unlike a writer (such as Salman Rushdie) who uses India in his works, a scientist is not similarly indebted in terms of the content of his work. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see einstein page. It mentions he was german born and it also lists his citizenships. So what is the reason Khorana, an Indian born, should not be mentioned on this page? Khorana spent a decent part of his life studying in India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hakkuna Mattata (talk • contribs) 16:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid Einstein is quite different. He was a German citizen from his birth (in 1879) to 1896 and then again from 1914 to 1933 (a total of 36 years). That means that he published the General Theory of Relativity (1915) and received the Nobel Prize (1921) as a German citizen. Khorana, on the other hand, was born in Multan in present-day Pakistan, was educated there and then in Lahore, also in present-day Pakistan, where he received his Masters degree in 1945 at age 23. That same year (two years before the Partition of India and the creation of independent India and Pakistan), he left British India to study in the UK and never to return to live or work in the subcontinent. Consequently, if anything, he belongs to the History of Science and Technology in Pakistan page. He had no education whatsoever within the borders of present-day Republic of India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply

I agree with none

of the points raised above by user: Fowler&fowler. In my opinion this is a parent article and should only concentrate on overviews while the fine details eg. for silk details such as when did silk arrive from China? what instruments were used by the Indians? how did the advent of Islam help mix traditions? etc. can be left to articles like silk in the Indian subcontinent. These articles require attention and the fine details belong there. Similar for mathematics and such. As for scientists a modification of List of Indian scientists can take place with tables and figures but this 'parent article' needs to be one which presents an overview, eg. science and technology in the Republic of India which presents an outline while leaving the details to nuclear power in India and such.

However, I cannot personally involve myself here till at least March first week due to prior commitments both on and off Wikipedia. I hope that these discussions can take place at a gradual pace. The tag is there and should be there until each and every one of the concerns raised by user: Fowler&fowler above are addressed fully. To clarify, I myself was planning a rewrite as early as January 20 but could not complete.

Also to user:Hakkuna Mattata I would suggest adopting a more leisurely and relaxed approach. Every single bit of information on Wikipedia can be debated and should be. This is but natural and is going to happen to in every article. Working together with all parties and incorporating every single point of view ultimately helps make an article better.

JSR 0562 05:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thanks for replying and look forward to your return. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to rewrite some portions of the article with an intention to address the concerns raised above. In my opinion, the basic layout of the article is good and the article itself has good sources in it so if it is to be substituted by an overview version from better sources such as these in the future we still have a good enough article till then. I hope that this effort is enough to have the tags removed. If not then kindly prompt me as to what more needs to be done. I am now eying the 'Jai Singh II of Amber' article and waiting to move on with the consent of all involved, especially user:Fowler&fowler. I can also request a move to 'history of science and technology in India' if its not a problem :) JSR 0562 18:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have found some time to further modify the article and still have a good lead and expansion of the 'colonial era' section left to do. When I finish these then I will ask for comments here on the talk page. Meanwhile allow me some time to try and make the article more consistent. JSR 0562 08:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I have re-worded lead to include the location of Mehrgarh (Pakistan), removed the Khurana image, and have re-worded the maths content. In addition I have expanded the article (one para final section), and have tried to address language and citation uniformity issues. I am removing the tag which was placed since February 2009 as efforts have been made since then to address concerns. If any more concerns are raised then I will try and do my bit to address them as they come up on the talk page. Sincerely, JSR 0562 16:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move

After discussion with User:JSR, I am proposing that we move this article to History of science and technology in India, to avoid using the potentially ambiguous adjective Indian in the article title. This is the norm in other wikiproject India articles. Please voice your support or objection to the move. Abecedare (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I would in fact suggest that we move the page to History of science and technology in South Asia and concurrently invite the Pakistan-, Bangladesh-, Sri Lanka-, Nepal- and any other regional history groups to add or subtract. There are three advantages to doing this: (a) since a large part of the early S&T was developed in present-day Pakistan, especially in regions, such as Baluchistan, which were not considered a part of India until the 1870s (and whose historical importance was discovered in 1972 by a team of Pakistani and French archeologists), calling it "in India" will (I guarantee it) create an enduring terminological problem, especially if the article comes under any kind of public scrutiny, (b) other tertiary sources such as Britannica now use "South Asia" (as in their articles on "South Asian arts," "mathematics, South Asian," and so forth, (c) some of the smaller South Asian countries might not have a large enough historical contribution for composing a full-length article; this way their contribution can be easily incorporated. Let me know what you think. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Few points:

• Britannica begins the history of Pakistan with its actual formation during the modern era and for older history it specifically states 'This section presents the history of Pakistan from the partition of British India (1947) to the present. For a discussion of the earlier history of the region, see India.'

• Zaheer Baber's entire The Science of Empire: Scientific Knowledge, Civilization, and Colonial Rule in India, a book without any reference to Pakistan, has stood public scrutiny pretty well. It was published by the State University of New York Press and it outlined the history of science and technology in historical India. In effect, the present article here has more references to Pakistan than that entire book.

• Each country should have its own science article since history of science exists in every country which presently has science. In fact, Pakistan already has a Science and technology in Pakistan article.

• Speaking strictly as an unpaid volunteer I'm wary of the arguments dealing with the historical dynamics of the state of Pakistan in a science article on India. These can go on forever without conclusion, as can arguments on what exactly is the undisputed definition of South Asia.

Needless to say I support a move to 'History of science and technology in India'.

JSR 0562 19:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

General historiographical usage is usually derived from the established conventions in historical subfields. "Colonial India," for example, is the term of choice (and not "British India") among historians who study India during the period 1757–1947. South Asian archeology and the study of neolithic sites in Pakistan has its own conventions. Pretty much all the scholarly articles (especially by the archeologists) on Mehrgarh use either "South Asia" or simply "Pakistan." I have already included the original Nature article on dentistry in the references of the Wikipedia Mehrgarh page; that article refers to "South Asia" and "Pakistan," but never "India," not once. Consider, for example, a scholarly search for "history 'south asia' mehrgarh." Almost all the articles there are by archeologists or anthropologists, including many by people who have studies and excavated at the Pakistani sites. Next replace "South Asia" with "India." What happens? Suddenly the authors are overwhelmingly historians (especially of the POV variety) and not historians of science, archeologists, or paleoanthropologists; however, even there the better known historians use "South Asia" when talking about Mehrgarh, as in this example. As for your remarks about Zaheer Abbas, all I can say is that even historians of science and technology in colonial India (such as Deepak Kumar) use "South Asia" in other contexts (as in his paper “Developing a History of Science and Technology in South Asia”, Economic Political Weekly (EPW), June 7, 2003, 2248-2251."). In other words, the term "History of S&T in South Asia" is not a neologism.

I specifically mentioned the two Britannica articles "South Asian arts" and "mathematics, South Asian" because they are closer in character to a "History of Science and Technology." In other words, conventions in the history of arts or mathematics are more relevant to the history of science, than those in a general history of "historical India." The Britannica "South Asian arts" article is a collaborative effort by a number of scholars including Calambur Sivaramamurti, J.A.B. van Buitenen (late Brobinskoy Professor of Sanskrit, University of Chicago), Edward C. Dimock, Jr., C.M. Naim, A.K. Ramanujan, Nazir Jairazbhoy, Balwant Gargi, Pramod Chandra (Professor of Art History at Harvard). If such a stellar group can agree to an article on South Asian arts, I don't see why we can't do it on Wikipedia for South Asian science. Similarly, the Britannica article, "mathematics, South Asian" by Kim Plofker doesn't have any issues defining South Asia.

These issues were discussed a few years ago on Talk:History of India, where user:Nichalp, made these suggestions that were adopted on that page (please see). Since Nichalp has left Wikipedia, I don't know whether they are still following similar guidelines in history articles. The way I see it, if you want to include Mehrgarh and even IVC to the extent you have, you will need to change the name of the page to "History of S&T in South Asia." If you don't want to do that, you have another option; that is to remove (almost in its entirety) the Prehistory section. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear F&f,

Mehrgarh and IVC are exclusive to neither India nor Pakistan and belong the 'prehistory' sections of both. The 'If you don't want to do that, you have another option; that is to remove (almost in its entirety) the Prehistory section' logic also doesn't apply to "Mathematics in India" written by G.G. Joseph or even "Architecture and Landscape in India" by Alexandra Mack (Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures, ed. Helaine Selin, Springer), both of which deal liberally with the IVC. Why even Deepak Kumar's chapter on India is quite simply titled "India" (The Cambridge History of Science (4)-Eighteenth-Century Science) without making any issues as such. Britannica also mentions the IVC and Balochistan in its India article, devoting greater text and detail than here. Moreover, from the U.S. Library of Congress you have India under which the Science and Technology has no qualms in writing about the IVC.

From a view of existing precedent in 'history of science' articles we have no ambiguity that country specific history of science in case of India has been published in respectable publications and has withstood public scrutiny well.

I see that the discussions for a separate science section in the main 'India' page consistently ended up in a 'no' because an entire article existed here. What is going to done after this article on India vanishes into another article on South Asia? And to 'concurrently invite the Pakistan-, Bangladesh-, Sri Lanka-, Nepal- and any other regional history groups to add or subtract' is to needlessly have editors jostling for space here when they should have an entire article on science for their country like Pakistan and India do.

I also see that we won't agree, and don't always need to. You have voiced your opinion twice and have allowed me to liberally express mine. Now lets let things take their course instead of needlessly getting sucked in here.

Wishing you the Best :) JSR 0562 02:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

---

This has the potential to be a long and tedious debate without any obvious or satisfactory resolution, because there is no single right answer, or even a wrong answer here. I myself can argue both sides of the debate. For example

Pro South Asia

• It is arguably a less ambiguous title for pre-republic "India", and informs the reader that we are talking about a geographic (or, even socio-cultural) region rather than a nation-state.
• EB does use South Asia in some of its articles (eg, Arts) about history of India-Pakistan-Sri Lanka-Nepal.

Pro India

• EB itself uses the term India to refer to the larger "South Asian" region in some other articles (eg, history of India), that includes coverage of IVC etc.
• Searching my library catalog, for books with titles containing "history" +"science" + "South Asia" found 2 books (neither of which were really relevant); while a search for "history" +"science" + "India" finds 50+ books, including the following that appear directly relevant to the article (although I haven't taken a look at them yet):
  • History of Indian science, technology and culture : AD 1000-1800; edited by A. Rahman ; (part of the Project of History of Indian Science, Philosophy and Culture directed by D.P. Chattopadhyaya)
  • History of science and technology in ancient India edited by Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya (3 volumes)
  • History of science and technology in India; edited by O. P. Jaggi (15 volumes)
  • History of science and technology in India; edited by G. Kuppuram (12 volumes)

Someday there may be a a general scholarly consensus on the terminology but the above sources, as well as the ones listed by F&f and JSR, show that there is no such consensus right now. So, here on wikipedia, we are likely to go in circles trying to weight sources and have a Talmudic discussions on which historians and scholars are more noteworthy, recent, unbiased and have greater expertise in the specific subject area - a question which IMO is intrinsically unresolvable (although I am sure each expert has an opinion).

If I may rail a bit ...

I think there is simply too much energy wasted on wikipedia to get the article title "just right". I guess the reason for that is that everyone can have a (strong!) opinion on the article title based on simple google searches, without having to actual read scholarly works or contribute to the content of the article. And all to what effect ? After all, with redirects and explication of the article topic in the lede, even a reader who reads the first paragraph of a wikipedia article learns about the alternate and equivalent subject titles. So the only reason to get the article title just right is (1) for the benefit of readers who do not even bother to read the first sentence/paragraph of an article; (2) for "bragging rights", especially in articles dealing with history, politics or religion. Now, I know that F&f and JSR definitely do not fall in the category of fly-by-opinionators; ever more the reason that you both should not waste your valuable time on such trivialities. ... phew, end of my spiel

Suggestion

• I suggest that we stick with the "in India" title, to be consistent with the sister "in India" articles, as suggested by Nichalp in the discussion linked above; and also because discussion of science in Mehrgarh and other "non-Indian" regions will, I think, be a small part of the history in this article, which will span 3-5000 years covering science in IVC, Vedic civilization, medieval India, colonial India etc.
• The "in South Asia" title can redirect here for now. Perhaps sometime in the future, that can develop into an article/disambiguation page.
• We explain to the reader that the "India" in this article does not refer to the region occupied by the Republic of India alone. This should be done in the lede, and again when discussing developments in Mehrgarh etc, by appending the parenthetical "in present day Pakistan" etc as applicable. It will also be useful to add a map (or maps) to help orient the reader.
• Of course, I won't object if if it is decided that the "in South Asia" title is preferable. Really, either is fine with me, as long as we don't spend (waste IMO) too much time in picking one. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 04:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Out of curiosity I called one university contact and asked him if he could help me write three-four paragraphs each on the architecture, medicine, astronomy, traditional craft, mathematical works, philosophy, metaphysics etc. for countries of the subcontinent, just to demonstrate my point that a full fledged 'history of science' article adhering to the highest standards of Wikipedia's verifiability can be compiled for each one of the countries of the subcontinent (or for any country which presently has science). He said such a project could be doable and further said that for Pakistan we must mention the role of Islam in India of which Pakistan is a very legitimate heir, including the Mughal empire (operated from within the boundaries of present day Republic of India).

In short each country can have its own 'history of science' article without all of them having to be crammed at one place. For present rename I can go with 'History of science and technology in India', as previously stated. But since that is likely to be disputed by the veteran academic F&f I can also live with the present title, which may not be perfect but I suppose Indian 'article name ' here and there cannot hurt (Indian cuisine, Indian religions etc.). It also answers, to some extent, F&f's concern of ".... in India".

If we compile the 'history of science in South Asia' page then there could be a bulleted list of 'history of science in 'country name' just like in the history of South Asia page. Since I am both intrigued and motivated somewhat I can help create country specific articles for Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan. My latest cinema of India project is nearly done and I'm not doing anything special on WP right now.

Regards and the best to both Abecedare & F&f, JSR 0562 05:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

To make sure I am understanding correctly: Are you proposing that this article cover chiefly the science and technological developments within the boundary of Republic of India, i.e., not cover most of IVC that falls within the boundaries of Pakistan ? I think that that is somewhat of an artificial scope, but I can certainly live with it, especially if a "in South Asia" article/disambiguation page links the daughter articles. The narrowed focus should eliminate F&f's objection too, right ? Abecedare (talk) 05:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I was suggesting that the history of science in India cover all periods of history of India and similar should be done, in separate articles, for other countries of the subcontinent. The overlap in 'history of India' and history of Pakistan results in both having Mehrgarh and IVC in their histories (here are the Wikipedia prehistories for India and Pakistan). In short, the science and technology in Pakistan article should also have Mehrgarh and IVC due to the shared nature. JSR 0562 05:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see. Lets wait for F&f's input before deciding how to proceed further. The article title issue after all, is not urgent. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Amazing what a few hours of sleep can do. In addition to knitting the raveled sleeve of care, it can also conjure up scholarly responses from Wikipedia editors.  :) I agree that getting into a long discussion is futile and a big old waste of time. As has been observed by others, it is possible (in this day and age) to get chapter and verse citations for even the craziest assertions, and none here are crazy. Now for the issues on hand. I feel that having the material on both Pakistan and India pages will create content forks (frowned upon bigtime on Wikipedia). I would be agreeable to a solution in which the Mehrgarh part (even the IVC part) in the Indian article is substantially reduced and the details added to the Pakistan page. Nichalp was very clear about this. He even says it in the link I provided: that Baluchistan (say) 100 years ago does not belong to History of India pages (let alone Baluchistan 7000 years ago). I am particularly concerned about Mehrgarh for the reasons that it has thrown Indian archeologists (lately increasingly, in their retirement years, yearning for Hindu nationalist certainties) out for a loop, since it establishes connections farther west, instead of India-wards, and since Indian scholars have had no hand in this research. Anyway, before I wax ineloquent some more, let me say that at the very least the IVC (Pakistan)/Mehrgarh content should be whittled down in the Indian article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

PS With regards Mehrgarh, the task is to reconcile this link with whatever outcome we agree to. And these two links on in vivo drilling of teeth as well: link1, link2. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

A few hours of sleep for you and few hours of work for me :) Here is the shortest way that I can propose:

• Minimize Mehrgarh and write clearly that the origins of India's science are actually in present-day Pakistan. That should take care of any BJP inspired instabilities that may arise.
• Point out clearly that even Harappa and Mohenjo-daro are in present-day Pakistan.
• Write more on the India side of the IVC and use that chiefly instead of the Pakistan side.

Three short steps. I'm going to check back later tonight or tomorrow to know what you think.

JSR 0562 15:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Few points:

I checked back and found that Mehrgarh is already minimized and neutral. The very first line already notes that: 'The history of science and technology in India begins with prehistoric human activity at Mehrgarh, in present-day Pakistan'. The very next para also begins with 'The inhabitants of Mehrgarh (7000–3300 BCE), an archaeological site in Pakistan.. '. Mehrgarh is mentioned in just the lead and that one paragraph.

Its admittedly a slip to not have noted that above when writing the first point but it probably slipped my mind from when I came back from work. For archaeology of Mehrgarh: Jonathan Mark Kenoyer, "Neolithic Period", Encyclopedia of India (vol. 3), ed. Stanley Wolpert is as good a source as any but lets just leave it at one para with repeated mentions of Pakistan so F&f's concerns on BJP are addressed to an extent.

The next four paras deal with IVC so some of it can be replaced from similar material from the India side of the IVC to further address F&f's concerns.

We can also clearly write "Harappa, in present-day Pakistan" and "Mohen-jodaro, in present-day Pakistan".

I hope these steps are found to be adequate. JSR 0562 18:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Section break

• There are two specific mentions to present-day Pakistani sites: a) Mehrgarh which now ends in less than one paragrah. b) Balakot which may have the earliest ovens and furnaces in the Indus culture. Both of these now have "present day Pakistan" written clearly (Mehrgarh already did).
• I have removed Biagi (2008). This was done to cut down on specific mentions to Pakistan sites.
• A couple of lines on Kalibangan added.

Sincerely, JSR 0562 08:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi there JSR. Many apologies for not getting back earlier, but little emergencies in our household kept me off-Wikipedia. Yes, I agree that the Mehrgarh part is small. I was mulling over something else you said above (or might have said). I was wondering if it might be worth making the point that Mehrgarh has significant links with other neolithic sites westwards of it, such as Iran, Mesopotamia and so forth, and that the general view now seems to be that Mehrgarh (after consistent drought or some permanent climate change) itself died out, but (perhaps as a result of migration) spawned chalcolithic cultures to its east, which in turn later spawned the IVC. I'm sure we can find reliable references for this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

PS Also, would you want to mention the domestication of chicken in the IVC? True, "domestication" is not really ivory-tower science, but "stockbreeding" does have some connections with science. I actually once collected references for this and the real facts are more complicated. The chicken it seems, was domesticated in a number of different regions (such as Burma, South East Asia, and even China, in addition to South Asia); however, the strain that made its way around the world (and is now eaten around the word, was the domesticated Indian Jungle Fowl) which was known in the IVC. Here is the link to User:Fowler&fowler/Chicken, where I have that information, should you want to look at it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

PPS I noticed a map on the progress in rail construction by the 1870s. I have an actual British House of Commons map from 1871 which shows all the constructed (or proposed and soon to be constructed) lines. I will scan it and upload soon (since I need it in the Company rule in India article. Also, I have a 1909 Imperial Gazetteer railways map somewhere. ... Yes, I just remembered, it is here. Do you think comparing the picture in 1871 with that in 1909 might provide some useful (encyclopedic) information? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

All of what has been proposed above sounds good. I may, however, need a couple of days (all of the weekend) to finish some real life work that I have been putting off before getting back to Wikipedia. I hope we can move at a gradual pace. JSR 0562 09:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Mehrgarh trading links and British Indian railways image comparison is done. JSR 0562 05:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Organization

Indian contribution to science and technology is vast, having had a huge influence on the world. However this article doesn't really show that. Its quite disorganized and needs to be improved. Maybe a similar structure to the 'History of science and technology in China' article would help improve this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.117.71 (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I am commenting to clarify that the organization of paragraphs specifically is incredibly disorganized. One in the Middle Kingdoms section covers textiles, sugar, math, etc., all in the same paragraph. If it is organized chronologically, that should be made more clear. At the very least, transitions should be added between different topics within the same paragraph. Ideally, these should be separated into their own separate, smaller paragraphs with time clearly marked. 201.202.13.198 (talk) 01:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that the second sentence of the prehistory section is missing it's lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.117.71 (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Medicine?

I don't see much information particularly relating to the history of medicine in this article, and I was wondering if anyone knows whether there is currently a separate article on that topic? If not, any thoughts on whether creating a separate article would be preferable or not compared to adding information focusing on medicine to this article? I can see how it would deserve a separate article but don't want to start one unnecessarily.

I'm organising training sessions at the National Library of Scotland, and as they have some pretty strong digital collections relating to the medical history of British Colonial India, I was hoping I might encourage them to use the training session as an opportunity to contribute some of that information to Wikipedia. Would appreciate thoughts and responses very much to that idea, and also to whether it would be better perhaps to create a subsection in the article on the British Raj. There's currently a section on Famines, Epidemics, and Public Health, as well as a rather orphaned article, but both seem to me to be quite limiting in scope. Again, greatly appreciate the input! ACrockford (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

See my reply at Talk:British Raj. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Global air circulation-monsoon winds

Mapping 41.114.71.139 (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Ship compartments.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)