India is a grand country. It is the seventh largest country in the world and the second most populated country in the world. Many see India as a sub-continent rather than a country. There exist in different parts of India, different cultures, languages, manners as well as different historical backgrounds and influences of the same historical events. The official name for the country is Republic of India. The Indians call their country.


India earned its independence from the British on the 15/8/47. But the British army left India ultimately in 1950. The Indians celebrate 26/1/1950 as the Republic Day of India. On this day the Indian constitution was adopted. Until its independence in 1947, other countries which neighbor India today; Pakistan, Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan), Myanmar (formerly Burma) and distant places like Aden in present day Yemen; were all parts of British India and were all considered as India. Until then (including the British era) India was never one single country but a collection of kingdoms and authorities with no sense of unity. In this sense India as one single country is mainly a result of British rule. Before that the word India was not used to indicate the present day India, but any kingdom, culture or community that existed between present day Afganistan, in the west, up to China and Myanmar in the east.


One of the promises the Venetie decision holds for Alaska tribes is greater control over environmental matters in Indian country. Instead of the state enforcing water- and air-quality regulations under federal supervision, the tribes -- if they wished -- could have that authority, also under federal supervision. Instead of promise, state officials see calamity in the prospect of tribes wielding environmental enforcement powers. Some villages may ignore important state restrictions like logging setbacks along salmon streams, regulators say, or adopt standards that conflict with state regulations or the regulations of other tribes. Alaska's Forest Practices Act, for example, requires that logging companies on privately owned land -- including land owned by village corporations -- leave 66-foot buffers of trees to inhibit erosion and protect salmon streams. If the state can't enforce its logging standards in Indian country, the likely result would be that no setbacks would be required, said Elizabeth Barry, a state assistant attorney general. Many tribal leaders say the state isn't doing enough to protect the environment in rural Alaska, and want more enforcement, not less. But the potential loss of logging restrictions in Indian country troubles Barry. ''The feds don't have any sort of habitat protection like the forest practices act,'' Barry said. State attorneys would try to argue in court that the act should continue to apply in Indian country, but that might not work, she said. Martha Welbourn, a deputy director with the state Division of Forestry, said logging operations in other states damaged salmon habitats before controls were put in place.