"He remained in India."
Translation:Er blieb in Indien.
Er ist in Indien geblieben (present perfect, not past perfect) would be another way of saying this.
How often the simple past is used in German depends a bit not only the verb but also on where in Germany you're from (the simple past is generally used with more verbs in the north than in the south).
Mizinamo please explain to me why your sentence is " Er ist in Indien geblieben" Should it not be " ..........hat in Indien....."? I thought one used ist in the presnt perfect to indicate a change in location and haben for a change in condition. Also, why blieb and not bliebt in 3rd person past tense? German is still going to drive me to alcohol, bad women or suicide !!
I don't know what the rules are, I just know that it's ist geblieben :)
I think, though, that the rules have to do with (a) being intransitive (having no direct object) and (b) often involving a change of location or state.
But ist gewesen, ist geblieben, though they involve rest and no motion or change also take ist.
(Some German speakers, mostly in the south, also say ist gestanden, though I say hat gestanden.)
Also, why blieb and not bliebt in 3rd person past tense?
More or less for the same reasons that we don't say "he tooked, he gaved, he stoled" -- German has strong verbs which form their past tense mostly just by changing the vowel (take/took, give/gave, steal/stole; bleiben/blieb, nehmen/nahm, geben/gab, stehlen/stahl) and weak verbs which form their past tense mostly with a dental ending (-ed in English, -t in German, e.g. fill/filled, füllen/füllte).
Some verbs don't fit neatly into those, e.g. bring/brought, bringen/brachte since they both change their vowel and add a dental ending.
Those two main types generally also correspond to differences in past participle: -en for strong verbs, -ed (English)/-t (German) for weak ones, e.g. "have taken, have given, have stolen", hat genommen, hat gegeben, hat gestohlen versus "has filled", hat gefüllt.