Frankly, I don't feel strongly about this name change -- I wasn't particularly familiar with Uttaranchal, so the change to Uttarakhand doesn't bother me. Any other opinions? --Evan 13:13, 26 January 2007 (EST)
Uttaranchal is an aberration that was introduced in 1998 when the government was taking its first tentative steps to form the state. The BJP made several arguments at the time for the name change, including that Uttarakhand sounded too separatist, and that Uttaranchal was a fusion of the first half of Uttarakhand and the second half of Kurmanchal. They argued that Uttarakhand referred only to the Garhwal region, while Kumaon, also named Kurmanchal, was left out. However, Uttarakhand was the name under which the separate state movement from all corners of the state had convened, so most people did not buy those constructed arguments. The entire region has also been known as Uttarakhand since ancient times and appears in literature until the late 1990s. Stranger still, is that Uttarakhand has a deep religious lineage, appearing in the Puranas. For the BJP to make the arguments that it did at the time seemed to contradict their self-proscribed role as the defenders of Indian heritage. Anyways, the debate is finally over. 188.8.131.52 01:08, 18 February 2007 (EST)
Regions are needed now!
I think we need some regionalisation and ration-alisation here folks. From the article, so far we have:
By my count that makes two distinct major regions and 6 separate sub-regions that this state can be split into. Possibly more as there are views of Doon Valley and Central Himalayas also mentioned, though it is not clear that they are regions as such. -- Huttite 06:54, 21 November 2009 (EST)
The list of cities is far too long here, but I have no knowledge of the area, so feel uncomfortable plunging forward. Is there either someone who does have the knowledge to feel comfortable doing this, or can we reach some sort of consensus on which 9 to keep? Nrms 09:56, 27 February 2010 (EST)