Talk:BIMARU states

This page is not a forum for general discussion about BIMARU states. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about BIMARU states at the Reference desk.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India: Geography Low‑importance 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.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian geography workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in India may be able to help!

Though BIMARU consists of 4 states, this article seems to be written only to allege that BIMARU isn't suited for Bihar since it has received less funding and is considered pejorative by some. An encyclopedic entry should have only deal with definitions, facts and figures and individual opinions and biases should be kept at bay.

Even though it is alleged that Bihar has received lower funds, fact is that Bihar hasn't even utilized the funds that were allocated to it. Please read [1]. This article needs to be completely rewritten in an unbiased way. Tsachin (talk • contribs) 20:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is hardly encyclopaedic in nature. Rather than discuss the term BIMARU in an academic fashion, it seems to be more of an emotive essay on "Why BIMARU is pejorative" or "Why BIMARU became Bimar" or "Who Made Bimaru Bimar".

A lot of the stuff here is highly speculative and unverifyiable check the following:

• in none of his writings, one finds reference to the fact that these states have always received less funds for their development since Indian independence : not necessarily true

TV 19:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC) refrences are of Indian Planning Commission data, commentaries of economists and newspaper lippings, not of a known Bihar baiter Ashish Bose[reply]

• Bihar, which has received the lowest per capita grant in each of the five year plans since independence: ignores the fact that Bihar was the richest state in terms of natural resources.

TV 19:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC) umpteen references given. Bihar's advantage due to natural resources were neutralised by a. low royalty (INR 6 per tonne of coal for instance) not revised since 1947 b. Freight Equalization[reply]

• Kerala was the state with the highest population density in spite of having an inhospitable terrain Except for a few hilly areas Kerala's terrian is anything but inhospitable.

Needs a total rewrite if this is to stay on WIkipedia. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 07:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TV 19:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC) We should not shy away from the discriminatory policies of the Govt of India which has broken the economic backbone of the Hindi speaking states of India. These are HARSH realities[reply]

Could someone please explain why this article is written from the point of "A PROUD BIHARI" who wouldn't listen to logic and data and would keep his opinion that Bihar is a GREAT STATE irrespective. This has to be a factual article without any bias either way. We could add a separate section which states WHY these states are in the condition they are - but to make that the central theme of the write-up exposes a deep seated bias --tsachin (talk • contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.83.97.82 (talk) 09:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the article is nothing but a jumbled up piece of work. Needs total rewrite. --Onef9day (talk) 05:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be written from a neutral standpoint and should be instructive. And one should properly explain the reason for current socio-economic situation. The fact is the current per capita incomes in the above states are much lower in these "Bimaru" states. And that is a fact-there obviously have to be reasons for this. And they should be illuminated in a balanced way.

I call for removal of this article. I tried fixing refs, finding refs, but highly debatable content (which is more like a coffee table discussion) is poorly supported. Nshuks7 (talk) 09:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A pejorative like Bimaru cannot but give the background of the term just like terms like Apartheid are given with the circumstance in which they were created. Bimaru means sickly and that has to be explained in the article.

Calling the article speculative is highly irregular and even demeaning.

Bimaru states in general and Bihar in particular have recd the lowest per capita grant is a statistical fact. Data is published by the Planning Commission of India. Reference are quoted by way of economist Mohan Guruswamy papers. Looks like those have been ignored.

How is abundance of natural resources related to the fact of lowest per capita allocation? In any case, natural resources of Bihar went to enrich the other states of India thru discriminatory policies like freight equalisation.

Kerala was the state with the highest population density till the 70s is a census fact as given by the census of India. There is some truth in the fact that Kerala is not completely inhospitable though it gets excess of rains and has a mountainous terrain. This line may be modified to end at "population density" and delete "in spite of ............"

The citation of the highly acclaimed Pratham is given in the article in support of the recent strides by the so called Bimaru states. Why is that ignored?

Example of disproportionate grants to the richer states is given by the skewed allocation to Punjab for food subsidy. It is quoted with references.

Data regarding the comparatively better economic status of UP and Bihar is available from the economic survey done around Independence of India - one of the reasons why economist why lower allocation for these states was recommended so as to allow the poorer states to come up. The same is not available on the net, but books will be quoted for the same.

The article IS speculative, flows more like banter and is hardly an acknowledged topic as such. Besides blogs and coffee table discussions, I have never heard of the term. Show credible sources which repeatedly use the term and the article just might stay. Nshuks7 (talk) 09:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, the article itself is demeaning, the term itself is demeaning. A strong deletion candidate. Nshuks7 (talk) 09:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a pejorative like BIMARU can be included in wikipedia (the term can only be compared with terms like Niggers or Negroes), it is important that the context of the term is also explained.

After adding the data to substantiate the context, the clean up remark has been removed.

The NPOV may be removed after sometime giving chance to others to comment on the article.

TV 19:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remark by 122.167.92.150 that Karnataka is not half of Bihar is appropriate if taken as size, but in population, it Karnataka is indeed half of Bihar. TErm "size" replaced with "population" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.107.210 (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word BIMARU has turned into a derogatory term and is often used in insulting sense. It's better to study these states through their individual pages.

After reading the article I realized that the editors have done justice to the page and I take back my previous statement that the article should be deleted.

202.144.93.138 (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section heading "People who wish to denigrate the Hindi speaking states of India talk of them by using the epithet BIMARU states and highlight the following characteristics:" is perfect, isn't it? BIMARU is a derogatory term as well, which was earlier not reflected in the article at all. Please don't take it personally.. 122.169.83.195 (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree with you. The world BIMARU is very prominent to be ignored and at the same time all the informations related to it should be presented in the article. The term, Bimaru, has been very well explained in the article in right context. I am removing NPOV. Manoj nav (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word BIMARU has turned into a derogatory n defaming term.Article shoukd be removed.sections in bimaru are already prenst in individual sections so i am requesting it to be deleted.Alokprasad (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BIMARU to BIMAROU have been made due to inclusion of Orissa.

• Bermuda vs Bangladesh strategy
• Management Development Program
• Reaching the excluded
• The Demographic Deficit

--Swaminworld (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the coinage may have been adapted, the more commonly used term is still BIMARU. Per WP:COMMONNAME, I have therefore reverted the move. If you think it should be moved, please start a move discussion. —SpacemanSpiff 21:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found some good articles which can throw some more light on Bihar

• New miracle economies:S A Aiyar
• Why Should Bihar Remain Backward?

--Swaminworld (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to rewrite this article. Please help --Onef9day (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated summary section of this article.BIMARU is outdated term and no longer used for these states. moreover, it is defaming term, so, remaining sections of this article can be removed. just keep the summary section. few references :

• Don't call them BIMARU

-- MartianGuru (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is written in unprofessional way. I am making some changes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.100.32.105 (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on BIMARU states. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080725224025/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1223697.cms to http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1223697.cms

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on BIMARU states. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080725224025/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1223697.cms to http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1223697.cms

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on BIMARU states. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110408010834/http://www.hindustantimes.com:80/Don-t-call-them-Bimaru-states-now/Article1-574379.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/Don-t-call-them-Bimaru-states-now/Article1-574379.aspx
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.hindustantimes.com/Maharashtra-faring-worse-than-BIMARU-states-says-study/Article1-633178.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070704074228/http://www.education.nic.in:80/cd50years/g/Z/EI/0ZEI0302.htm to http://education.nic.in/cd50years/g/Z/EI/0ZEI0302.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120617033827/http://www.cmsindia.org:80/highlights.pdf to http://www.cmsindia.org/highlights.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930165554/http://cpasindia.org/reports/05-Children-Ganga-Politics-Allocation.pdf to http://cpasindia.org/reports/05-Children-Ganga-Politics-Allocation.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on BIMARU states. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hindustantimes.com/Don-t-call-them-Bimaru-states-now/Article1-574379.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120724114441/http://unidow.com/india%20home%20eng/statewise_gdp.html to http://unidow.com/india%20home%20eng/statewise_gdp.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120515171220/http://planningcommission.nic.in/data/datatable/0904/tab_137.pdf to http://planningcommission.nic.in/data/datatable/0904/tab_137.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://education.nic.in/cd50years/g/Z/EI/0ZEI0302.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cmsindia.org/highlights.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070824112707/http://www.iari.res.in/centenary/slide3.html to http://www.iari.res.in/centenary/slide3.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cpasind.com/reports/05-Children-Ganga-Politics-Allocation.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cpasind.com/reports/03-De-urbanisation-Bihar.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516210512/http://www.cpasind.com/reports/07-Centrally-Planned-Inequality-Punjab-Bihar.pdf to http://www.cpasind.com/reports/07-Centrally-Planned-Inequality-Punjab-Bihar.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Cow belt has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 14 § Cow belt until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 06:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]