Talk:India Voyage Tips and guide

There is a project to improve articles about India – see the India Expedition page.

Indian cities are commonly classified as tier-1, tier-2 and tier-3, which correspond to the X, Y and Z cities mentioned at w:classification of Indian cities. Should we mention this classification in this article, just to make the travellers aware of what Indians mean when they say "tier-2 cities" or "tier-3 cities"? If so, where to include in the "Understand" section? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 03:18, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'd say no, that's a Wikipedia topic, not relevant to travellers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it may not make sense for travellers, especially as the distinction between cities is more like metro vs non-metro, with metro cities being tier-1 and non-metro cities being tier-2 and tier-3. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek: Well, if we omit the definitions of "tier-1", "tier-2", "tier-3" from this article, how to address the sentence "Most older airports and many Tier-2 and Tier-3 city airports..." under the "Get around#By plane" section? Maybe the bolded part can be replaced with "non-metro city", and I have replaced it accordingly. But even then, I have to mention it somewhere that metro cities generally refer to the eight "tier-1" cities (Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Bangalore, Chennai, Hyderabad, Pune, Ahmedabad). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:55, 22 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Bihar is very similar and shares MANY similarities to Jharkhand and the other Eastern Indian states? there should be a discussion on this? Globetrotter30 (talk) 11:04, 29 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Globetrotter30: I would say not yet. Yes, Bihar shares a lot of similarities to Jharkhand and also West Bengal, the state where I live. However, the state shares a lot of similarities to Uttar Pradesh (UP) as well, to the point that the terms "UP" and "Bihar" are used together for North India, and "UP/Bihari" for North Indians. Plus the Indian Plains generally covers the Gangetic Plain and Bihar is clearly a part of it. Probably that's why Bihar is included in the Plains instead of Eastern India. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 15:06, 22 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Personally, I feel most people in India would instinctively consider it as part of the Plains, along with UP. SingyeDzong (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Interesting. On Bihar's government website, it considers itself a part of eastern India. Wikipedia considers it a part of Eastern India.

Wikipedia: ''Bihar (pronounced [bɪˈɦaːr] ^ⓘ) is a state in Eastern India. It is the second largest state by population,''

Thanks, Globetrotter30 (talk) 09:18, 4 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

@SingyeDzong, Globetrotter30: See Talk:Bihar#Bihar should be in Eastern India, not Plains. While Bihar could be lumped with Uttar Pradesh as "North India" in West Bengal, West Bengal itself also gets lumped with UP and Bihar in Southern India. So, I guess there's not a single definition of "Northern India" that all Indians would agree. While Bihar is part of the Indian Plains, so is West Bengal. However, we put only Bihar in the Plains and not WB. Plus, Bihar is generally considered "East Indian" in pan-Indian context. Considering all that, Bihar can be better grouped with Eastern India. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:57, 13 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

The Plains - Bihar, UP etc - are Hindi speaking. WB is not. The culture of UP, Harayana, and Bihar are almost undistinguishable. WB has a different history and culture. But, as Mamata Didi is out and Modi in, maybe your case for placing WB as part of the Hindi-speaking states is stronger now. Lol. SingyeDzong (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

The Plains doesn't mean North India. It means the Plains. A geographically eastern state can still be in the Plains. And it includes Central Indian states like Madhya Pradesh too. From the perspective of the traveller, more people travel to Bihar in conjunction with UP than with WB. Many trips to Varanasi are accompanies by a trip to Gaya. The Buddhist circuit also covers both UP and Bihar. Our divisions should be traveller focused and not people living there focused or political. A lot of travel agents group UP and Bihar in travel packages. A quick Google search will show this. If anything Madhya Pradesh has a stronger case to be removed because the Vidhya Range in the state makes it somewhat hilly which makes the region it's in a slight misnomer. Gizza ^(roam) 03:06, 22 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Following my proposal at Talk:Andaman and Nicobar Islands#Regional and grouping and Rangan Datta's proposal at Talk:Bihar#Bihar should be in Eastern India, not Plains, I think a new regional overhaul is needed for India. Also, given India's sheer diversity, I think the country should be divided into the following eight regions instead of six (22 May update: original proposal withdrawn in favour of Globetrotter's proposal):

Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:21, 13 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Comment – The "region descriptions" are for the sake of this proposal, and they won't be the final descriptions on the mainspace. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

What will be? We should know about that, too. I'm fine with your proposal. I just looked at Andaman and Nicobar Islands, and it's a long enough article to be reasonable as a region of India. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Geographically, at least, it's sorta like the Hawaii of India – makes more sense geographically to be separate than lumped into the South India article. shb (t | c | m) 09:56, 13 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Definitely. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:15, 13 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Here are my draft descriptions for each region, based on existing descriptions:

• Himalayan North – Mountainous and beautiful, a tourist destination for the adventurous and the spiritual. This region contains some of India's most-visited hill stations, river valleys, trekking sites and religious places.
• North-Western India – Vibrant and colourful, this region is home to the Sikh state of Punjab, India's breadbasket, as well as the vast Thar Desert of Rajasthan with numerous palaces, forts and cities.
• Central India – The Hindi heartland, watered by the holy rivers Ganges and Yamuna, and their tributaries. This region contains India's capital New Delhi, the Taj Mahal, and the holy cities of Ayodhya, Mathura, Prayagraj and Varanasi. Many of the events that shaped India's history took place in this region.
• Eastern India – Economically less developed, but culturally rich and perhaps the most welcoming to outsiders. Features the British-era capital Kolkata, and the temple towns of Puri, Konark, Bhubaneswar and Bodh Gaya. The region stretches from the mountains to the coast, resulting in fascinating variations in climate. It is also the mineral storehouse of India, having the country's largest and richest mines.
• North-Eastern India – Insular and relatively virgin, this is the country's tribal corner, with lush, beautiful landscapes, endemic Indo-Malayan wildlife and famed tea gardens. Consists of the "Seven Sister" states along with the lone brother Sikkim. Also features one of the largest river islands, the third-highest peak, the oldest polo ground, the only floating national park, the only women-run market and the tallest topiary plant.
• Western India – Home to the port city of Mumbai, the mesmerising rock-cut caves of Ajanta and Ellora, the wonderful beaches of Goa, the Asiatic lions in Gir jungles, and the rapidly-developing cities of Ahmedabad, Nagpur, Pune and Surat.
• Southern India – Features famous and historical temples, tropical forests, backwaters, beaches, hill stations, and the big three cities of Bangalore (Bengaluru), Chennai and Hyderabad. This Dravidian-speaking region was home to the Chola, Chera and Pandya dynasties, with pockets of French influence in Pondicherry enclaves.
• Andaman and Nicobar Islands – Off the eastern coast of India, this remote group of nearly 600 gorgeous tropical islands in the Bay of Bengal is home to the infamous British-era Cellular Jail in Port Blair (Sri Vijaya Puram), as well as the scenic beaches of Havelock Island (Swaraj Dweep) and Neil Island (Shaheed Dweep).

Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:06, 13 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I would suggest to drop the word Himalayan. Just keep it Northern India. Anadaman & Nicobar can be part of Eastern India. Lakshadeep can be part of Southern India. Rangan Datta Wiki (talk) 01:58, 14 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I could rename the region "Northern India", but the problem is that the term generally also includes the areas I would cover under North-Western India or Central India. Maybe the three regions could be consolidated into Northern India but with subsections for "Himalayas" (JK, LA, HP, UK), "Northwest" (PB, HR, RJ, CH) and "Central" (DL, UP, MP, CG). That could in theory be more maintainable than the three separate regions. Plus we could better cover the North Indian culture as opposed to the South, East, West or Northeast Indian ones. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:38, 14 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think that would be far better. Globetrotter30 (talk) 06:56, 15 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Personally, I would place Bihar in Central India, as it feels both culturally and geographically connected to the plains. I would also place Sikkim in East India, since West Bengal separates it from the Seven Sister States, and because — apart from Arunachal Pradesh — it is culturally quite distinct from them. But this is just a suggestion; I am fine with the designations you have presented. SingyeDzong (talk) 09:46, 13 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I should clarify that I am not arguing for the proposal and would be fine with any reasonable proposal that got a consensus behind it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:52, 13 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Support and comment. I support this change, and I believe the regional overhaul is a good idea in this case.

However, I feel on Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep should also be added and they should be grouped into a category called 'Islands' Globetrotter30 (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm actually reluctant to separate Lakshadweep from Southern India because Lakshadweep is too close to Kerala, both geographically and culturally (same Malayali culture except Minicoy). Whereas the Andaman and Nicobar Islands are geographically far away from both Southern and Eastern India, and more culturally diverse than Lakshadweep, with so many languages spoken there (Andamanese, Nicobarese, Bengali, Tamil, Telugu and Hindi are some of the major ones). That's why I suggest A&N to be separated but Lakshadweep to be kept under Southern India, although separating Lakshadweep is also fine. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:37, 13 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

The reason why I am against Andaman and Nicobar Islands being separate is that is it necessary for one union territory to be kept as a separate region, that is why to strengthen the region and make it better for a traveler to understand, I suggest adding Lakshadweep to it. Globetrotter30 (talk) 14:48, 13 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I mean...the Andamans are very far away from the rest of India. I don't think its political status of being a union territory hugely matters from a travel point of view. //shb (t | c | m) 04:07, 14 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

This, and India has eight union territories, including the capital territory Delhi and the disputed territories Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. I suggest A&N to be separate from other regions because the islands are very far away from the mainland compared to Lakshadweep, with a mix of mainland and tribal cultures. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:06, 14 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

My opinion:

1. Himalayan India

• Jammu & Kashmir
• Ladakh
• Himachal Pradesh
• Uttarakhand

2. North‑Western India

• Punjab
• Haryana
• Rajasthan
• Chandigarh

3. Plains

• Delhi
• Uttar Pradesh
• Bihar

4. Central India

• Madhya Pradesh
• Chhattisgarh
• Jharkhand

5. Eastern India

• West Bengal
• Odisha
• Sikkim
• Andaman & Nicobar Islands

6. North‑Eastern India

• Assam
• Arunachal Pradesh
• Nagaland
• Manipur
• Mizoram
• Tripura
• Meghalaya

(Sikkim excluded because it fits better in Eastern India- a note could be added for Sikkim on its content page)

7. Western India

• Gujarat
• Maharashtra
• Goa
• Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu

8. Southern India

• Tamil Nadu
• Kerala
• Karnataka
• Andhra Pradesh
• Telangana
• Lakshadweep
• Puducherry

Globetrotter30 (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I support these designations. I feel Sikkim fits better within East India than North-East India, as it is far more closely connected culturally and geographically to Darjeeling, Kalimpong, and Siliguri, which are in West Bengal, than to states like Mizoram or Meghalaya. However, Jharkhand could reasonably be placed in either East India or Central India, and I have no strong preference regarding which classification is chosen. SingyeDzong (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, the only change though I have made, from @Sbb1413, was adding Andaman and Nicobar Islands to Eastern India. Bengali is most widely spoken across it and it shares tribal similarities to much of Eastern India.

@SingyeDzong, @Rangan Datta Wiki

Thanks, Globetrotter30 (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I nominally support this, although I guess Jharkhand should be grouped with Eastern India, as it has never been grouped with Central India. I also reluctantly support grouping Andaman and Nicobar with Eastern India despite my earlier oppositions, where I preferred keeping it separate from any region of India. That will be discussed later on. Not only that, but I think the "Plains" region would be renamed to the "Gangetic Plain" as it no longer covers the Indus Plain (Punjab-Haryana), but that's for another discussion. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:56, 21 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

2nd decision

1. Himalayan India

• Jammu & Kashmir
• Ladakh
• Himachal Pradesh
• Uttarakhand

2. North‑Western India

• Punjab
• Haryana
• Rajasthan
• Chandigarh

3. North Indian Plains

• Delhi
• Uttar Pradesh
• Bihar

4. Central India

• Madhya Pradesh
• Chhattisgarh

5. Eastern India

• West Bengal
• Odisha
• Sikkim
• Jharkhand
• Andaman & Nicobar Islands

6. North‑Eastern India

• Assam
• Arunachal Pradesh
• Nagaland
• Manipur
• Mizoram
• Tripura
• Meghalaya

7. Western India

• Gujarat
• Maharashtra
• Goa
• Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu

8. Southern India

• Tamil Nadu
• Kerala
• Karnataka
• Andhra Pradesh
• Telangana
• Lakshadweep
• Puducherry

Notes: Sikkim excluded from North-Eastern India because it fits better in Eastern India- a note could be added for Sikkim on its content page. Andaman and Nicobar Islands fit better into Eastern India; uneccessary to have a single UT as a single territory- A&N comes under Kolkata High Court juridstiction and Bengali most widely spoken language; furthermore tribal cultures similar to Odisha+Jharkhand. Moved Jharkhand from Central to Eastern India. Globetrotter30 (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for grouping Jharkhand with Eastern India, as I have noticed similar tribal cultures across Jharkhand, Odisha and Bengal. Whether A&N coming under Calcutta HC or not does not matter, but yes Bengali is the most spoken among the languages spoken there, so knowing Bengali (and also Hindi) is probably enough to get around the Andamans. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 15:25, 21 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Here's my implementation of this proposal, which I now endorse: User:Sbb1413/India. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:38, 21 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Agreed with all points raised. As there are no objections, I suggest that someone do the necessary. Thank you. SingyeDzong (talk) 07:14, 22 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Though wait, I was focusing on East India, and just noticed the new designations for the North West and the Plains. It makes sense, except Delhi and Haryana. As you know, Delhi is mostly surrounded by Haryana, yet the two are placed in different regions. Mmmmm. SingyeDzong (talk) 07:20, 22 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, that's the drawback of Globetrotter30's proposal. See my new proposal below at #Minimalist proposal, where I grouped Punjab and Haryana with the Plains, with no "Northwest" region. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:58, 22 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

That's probably best now Globetrotter30 (talk) 12:41, 22 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

While going through this discussion, as well as the discussions on Bihar, I realize that both Southern India and North-Eastern India have clear, universally accepted definitions, but there's not a single way to divide the rest of the country. The simple reason is that both the South and the Northeast have very different cultures compared to the rest of India, where Indo-Aryan cultures predominate. This means that India can be broadly divided into four regions: North India, South India, Northeast India, and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. However, the problem is that the massive North India would have 15 states and 5 UTs compared to South India (5 states, 2 UTs) and Northeast India (8 states). Since Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Odisha and West Bengal have unique coastal cultures, and the Himalayan North has unique montane cultures, I guess the country could be divided into regions like this (22 May update: withdrawn):

• Himalayan North – Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand
• Plains – Punjab, Chandigarh, Haryana, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar
• Rajasthan
• Central India – Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh
• Eastern India – West Bengal, Odisha, Jharkhand
• North-Eastern India – Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, Tripura, Sikkim
• Western India – Gujarat, Daman, Maharashtra, Goa
• Southern India – Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Lakshadweep, Pondicherry, Tamil Nadu, Telangana
• Andaman and Nicobar Islands

Yes, Bihar is culturally more similar to Uttar Pradesh than West Bengal, despite being in Eastern India geographically. Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh also have similar cultures, but they alre quite unique due to their geographies (Rajasthan has the Thar Desert, and MP & Chhattisgarh are on the Central Highlands). Also, Rangan Datta's original proposal of six regions (North, East, NE, West, Central, South) looks great on paper but is problematic as people fight over the definitions of North, East, West and Central regions in real life. So, I prevent such debates from happening by avoiding a "Northern India" region and keeping the definitions of other regions at the minimum. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:18, 18 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

The distinctions you have made sound about right to me. My only comment concerns Sikkim, which I would place in East India rather than the North-East. West Bengal separates it geographically from the Seven Sister States of the North-East (incidentally, Meghalaya is omitted from the list above), and — apart from Arunachal Pradesh — Sikkim is culturally quite distinct from them. In many ways, it has more in common with Darjeeling and Kalimpong, and maintains especially close ties with Siliguri — all of which, as you know, are in West Bengal — than with the predominantly Christian states of the North-East. That said, I would not press the point too strongly, as I am sure you have good reasons for including it among the North-Eastern states. I'm just raising it as something to think about. SingyeDzong (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

As per my comment in the above section, I believe Bihar should stick with Uttar Pradesh. Regions shouldn't only be defined on culture and language but how travel agents and companies organises itineraries and tours. UP and Bihar are always group together. Rajasthan is often standalone except for Jaipur and the surrounding areas which is group with the Golden Triangle of Delhi and Agra. I don't see the current divisions as perfect, but I don't see any alternative division as significantly better. It will just lead to a lot of work reorganising everything and after a few years, someone else will complain about the structure and change it again. The only proposal I may accept is carving about MP and Chattisgarh into Central India since that would be fairly uncontroversial. Gizza ^(roam) 03:12, 22 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

That's a fair idea, and considering Rajasthan is considered a separate desert region from a traveller's perspective, I think it should be considered separately from any region. Of course, MP and Chhattisgarh should be grouped together as Central India, since both are part of the Central Highlands with Satpura and Vindhya Ranges, a clear contrast from the Gangetic Plain of UP and Bihar. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:49, 22 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I agree on principle with separating Rajasthan too – it too is large enough to not be grouped with any other state and is also unique enough to be separate. Though Gizza does make some good points regarding Jaipur and can be convinced otherwise. //shb (t | c | m) 12:23, 22 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

The Jaipur part is handled via The Golden Triangle (India), and that's why I don't see any problems if Rajasthan is separated, which is apparently the largest state of India. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:33, 22 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Rajasthan, meanwhile, fits more logically within Western India because its physical geography, economy, and cultural patterns match Gujarat and Maharashtra far more than the northern plains. The Thar Desert, the Aravalli system, and its semi‑arid climate form a natural western zone. Trade corridors, ports, and industrial linkages tie Rajasthan’s economy to western coastal states, and its historical Rajput–Gujarat interactions reinforce that western orientation. Grouping Rajasthan with Western India therefore creates a more coherent regional identity than keeping it separate.

Thanks, Globetrotter30 (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Actually that's one of the reasons I don't group Rajasthan with either Western India or the Indian Plains, since the state can fit into both regions nicely. While the Thar Desert and the Aravalli system indeed form a natural western zone, the culture is much closer to the Plains, and the Rajputs are historically associated with North India. Also, Rajasthan itineraries generally start from Delhi, Agra or Jaipur instead of Mumbai or Ahmedabad. Yes, there are "[t]rade corridors, ports, and industrial linkages" to West Indian states, and so are Bihar, North-Eastern India and eastern Uttar Pradesh to East Indian states. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:18, 22 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

While I have withdrawn my original proposals for a regional overhaul, I now see the two possible ways to reorganize the regions:

• Globetrotter30's proposal – Himalayan India, North-Western India, North Indian Plains, Central India, Eastern India, North-Eastern India, Western India, Southern India.
• DaGizza's suggestion – status quo, but maybe group Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh as Central India.

Although I agree with both of them, none of them have remarked on Punjab and Haryana. Should the two remain grouped with the Plains, or be grouped with Rajasthan to form a separate North-Western India region? While Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan are geographically northwest, and they do have some similarities in culture, when it comes to tourism, the three states are often divided into two circuits: the "Punjab-Haryana" belt and the Rajasthan circuit. Since I'm a bit undecided on this, I guess Punjab and Haryana should remain grouped with the Plains, while considering Rajasthan as a separate region. Also, on the same token, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands should be separate as no matter which language is most widely spoken, the islands are too far to be grouped in any conventional tourist circuit. So, my current minimalist proposal is as follows (as of 22 May 2026):

• The Himalayan North (Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand) – unchanged
• The Plains (Punjab, Haryana, Chandigarh, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar) – minus Madhya Pradesh
• Rajasthan – separate region
• Central India (Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh) – new region
• Eastern India (West Bengal, Odisha, Jharkhand, Sikkim) – minus Chhattisgarh
• North-Eastern India (Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, Tripura, Meghalaya) – unchanged
• Western India (Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu) – minus Rajasthan
• Southern India (Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Pondicherry) – minus the Andaman and Nicobar Islands
• The Andaman and Nicobar Islands – separate region

Here I maintain status quo for most regions (so less of an "overhaul"), but I have treated Rajasthan and A&N as separate regions, and grouped MP & Chhattisgarh as Central India. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:40, 22 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Here's my implementation of this minimalist proposal: User:Sbb1413/India. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:02, 22 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Comment – I think it's my own East Indian bias or something, but I have perceived the Plains as North India, and since Bihar is often grouped with East Indian states, I once supported grouping Bihar with Eastern India. Well, turns out the Plains does not automatically mean "North India", and it rather refers to the vast, continuous Indo-Gangetic region from Punjab to Bihar, with very similar cultures across the region (Punjab is quite unique though). However, West Bengal cannot be grouped with the Plains, not only for its unique geography and culture, but also the fact that it's often a part of a separate "East Indian" circuit. Once things are sorted out, I will update the Northern India extraregion to replace the region list with a list of states that have been considered "North Indian" in various definitions to avoid confusion. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:13, 22 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Mostly support but comment:

The Andaman and Nicobar Islands can be placed within Eastern India because their geography, history, and connectivity all lean toward the Bay of Bengal region. They sit closer to the eastern coastline than to the south, were historically administered through Bengal, and still rely heavily on Kolkata for maritime links, supplies, and evacuation routes. Much of their population traces roots to Bengal, Odisha, and Bihar, which naturally aligns their cultural and demographic profile with the eastern states, even though there is heavily tribal charachteristics

Rajasthan, meanwhile, fits more logically within Western India because its physical geography, economy, and cultural patterns match Gujarat and Maharashtra far more than the northern plains. The Thar Desert, the Aravalli system, and its semi‑arid climate form a natural western zone. Trade corridors, ports, and industrial linkages tie Rajasthan’s economy to western coastal states, and its historical Rajput–Gujarat interactions reinforce that western orientation. Grouping Rajasthan with Western India therefore creates a more coherent regional identity than keeping it separate.

Thanks, Globetrotter30 (talk) 12:49, 22 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Globetrotter30: sorry if you've already mentioned it here in this wall of discussion...but is there any reason you're opposed to categorising the Andamans separately? //shb (t | c | m) 13:16, 22 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

They have answered it in the first paragraph, and my rebuttal to it is that it's too far away to justify categorizing those islands into Eastern or Southern India, and its demographics is too diverse to do so. As of the 2011 census, the languages spoken there include Bengali (28.5%), Tamil (15.2%), Telugu (13.2%), Hindi (12.9%) and Malayalam (7.2%). Also, Bengali is not the lingua franca of the islands as I thought initially, which is either Hindi or English or both. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:20, 22 May 2026 (UTC)Reply