Talk:List of princely states of British India (by region)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kalabagh[edit]

The section on Punjab includes Kalabagh, which was a feudatory Jagir in the Mianwali District of Punjab. Kalabagh was never a Princely State, although the Nawab's family continue to be politically influential to this day. Thus I am deleting Kalabagh from the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.186.61 (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sindh[edit]

During the British Raj there was only one princely state in Sindh, Khairpur. Sindh did not have a separate Political Agency so the State of Khairpur was initially counted amongst Rajputana and later amongst the Punjab States. As the link provided for Amarkot states, it was a Jagir (noble estate) and not a princely state and Mirpur (which was one of the three States in the Talpur Confederacy of Sindh) was annexed by the British following the conquest of Sindh and was thus never a princely state during the Raj. I am thus deleting both of these entries from the Sindh category.

Removed this entry[edit]

This was factually wrong. The Delhi sultanate was extinguished by the Mughals before the British ever arrived. What I've replaced it with - Delhi (Mughal empire) is probably not ideal either . Imc 11:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tables[edit]

I added a table to Baluchistan Agency, and plan to do this to all the Princely States. That will make it up to scratch with our lists of Royal states or houses (see Abolished monarchy for an example). It'll be a work in progress. Feedback welcome though.--RobNS 19:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bhutan and Nepal[edit]

These two countries were never Indian Princely States, as they have always been independent countries also there is error in map about nepal. - (Numismaticman 07:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The above user is right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.78.23 (talk) 05:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were certainly considered princely states at the time, although Nepal, at least, always had more internal independence than the princely states that eventually became incorporated into India. john k (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nepal was never listed as princely state as the king of Nepal was adressed as "His Majesty " and rana prime minister as "his excellency " where as in the princely states the king were called "Excellency" and after anglo nepal war only a residency as an embassy was allowed to be made as Sugauli treaty stated that Britain would be responsible for all the foreign relations . --Ashim nep (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bharatpur on Rajputana[edit]

In Rajputana list, Bharatpur state is missing--83.56.237.128 (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umri[edit]

I think Umri was a small state in Rajputana to the north of Lunavada. --Großwesir (talk) 12:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split/Table of Contents[edit]

This page would benefit from a table of contents, though there is no easy way to achieve that.
The problem, it would seem, is the arrangement of the alphabetical list at the lower half of the page.
On the other hand, there is no particular reason why the alphabetical list shouldn't be moved to a separate page; the article is currently big enough to consider a split, and, as one would be arranged by region and the other alphabetically, they are both useful for cross-referencing.
So, I would suggest we do that, move the alphabetical list section to its own page. Any thoughts? Moonraker12 (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS And give this article a normal TOC. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, in the absence of any furious complaints, I've been bold and moved it. The material is now at List of Indian princely states (alphabetical). Moonraker12 (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS The TOC has appeared here, now, so that's an improvement already...Moonraker12 (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outline[edit]

I'm thinking the outline could do with being re-written. The information there at present is already at Princely state, and it isn't that relevant to a list. It would be better if we had a digest of the various arrangements (Pensioners of the BEIC prior to 1858, maybe; the various reorganizatiions of the various agencies) prior to 1947. And they aren't all here, by any means; are these just the Salute states? Should we limit this page to them only? Moonraker12 (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should endeavor to make this page as complete as possible, I think, while also having a useful organization. It would be nice to note the area and population of each state in 1947, if that's possible. Also, shouldn't Mysore be in the individual residency section, and Travancore with Madras? The current set-up seems backwards. john k (talk) 06:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You’re right about Mysore and Travancore; there are the wrong way round. I’ve taken the liberty of fixing it...Moonraker12 (talk) 07:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mandi, Mandi?[edit]

The "States of the Punjab" lists Mandi twice, with the same information. I assume this is an error, but since this isn't a topic I know anything about, I'm not feeling especially bold and thought I would point it out to editors who are monitoring this article. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presidencies[edit]

Were not the presidencies under direct colonial rule, and therefore not princely states? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.138.221 (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The presidencies themselves were. The list here is listing princely states which were under the (indirect) authority of a particular governor. Thus, the states of Madras Presidency reported to the Governor of Madras, rather than to the Viceroy or to an agency. john k (talk) 06:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mysore and Travancore[edit]

The article used to list Mysore as having its own residency, and Travancore under Madras. Now it does the reverse, even though, to my knowledge, the first version was correct. Why? john k (talk) 06:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't we fix this already? Moonraker12 (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tables, again[edit]

I notice a number of the various agency tables had been dissolved into a sortable list, called (imaginatively) "Sortable List". This was done without any explanation, or discussion here, by an editor who is no longer with us.
The change took no account of the list already being sorted by Agency, and in alphabetical order, nor did it include all the tables, so it ended up a bit of a mess.
I've put it back, pending a decision here. Is a sortable list of these states desirable? Is it even practicable? (there were over 500 states in all; having them in a single table could be massively complicated) Any comments? Moonraker12 (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

also notable title[edit]

Almost Mirza & Baig(Beg), British Royal Surname. BeyPeople (talk) 11:29, 04 Aug 2012 (UTC)

Princely states of Bihar[edit]

Why are none of the princely states of Bihar like Bettiah Raj, Sonbarsa Raj and others included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burbak (talk • contribs) 22:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These 2 seem to be zamindar estates-- not full princely states. tahc chat 04:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source I posted in relation to the Dumraon clearly showed mentioned them as being a princely state.http://indianexpress.com/article/lifestyle/books/dumraon-royal-family-sends-legal-notice-to-chetan-bhagat/ Burbak (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it.
Please either (1) quote for us the part of the article that "clearly showed mentioned [Dumraon] as being a princely state" or (2) tell us the number paragraph such a quote would be in-- assuming that would be clear by itself. If you are looking at the last paragraph... that would not be clear by itself, since it does not use the term "princely state", nor otherwise show Dumraon to be a princely state during the British Raj. tahc chat 23:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Chamba State[edit]

Should Chamba State be added to this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:545:4400:EDAD:DA75:DF8C:6A9D:CE2 (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of princely states of British India (by region). 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:

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) 16:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Princely States at the time of independence on 14 August 1947 - tables[edit]

The column Last or present ruler in all the tables in this section should only contain the name of the last or present ruler of the state.

Therefore the column should only have one name per row.

I have added a {{cleanup}} tag to the article section to indicate the same.

Thanks,

Kvwiki1234 (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

According to WP:COMMONNAME, "the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)" should be used as the article title. In Google Ngram Viewer, this search shows that the term "princely states of India" is far, far more popular term than the term "princely states of British India". This is enough to bring about a move, again according to WP:COMMONNAME. PadFoot2008 (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's been almost two weeks, without a single comment from any editor from this mid-level importance article. I think I'm going to conduct the move myself, after 3 May 2023, citing this section as the reason, if no one objects. PadFoot2008 (talk) 06:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: This title refers to the era of British colonial rule in India. Changing it to just "India" would not only look confusing but also anachronistic (see WP:RECENTISM).
Also, there's an article called Princely states of Pakistan. It lists only the princely states of colonial India that acceded to modern-day Pakistan. Per WP: CONSISTENT, an article named "Princely states of India" should be created instead that details the princely states that acceded to modern day India. This article's title should remain as it is. Uzek (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Princely states of India" already has a well-established meaning in historical and political discourse, and changing article name to a different title ("Princely States of British India") simply for the sake of consistency would be misguided. Also, WP:CONSISTENT doesn't automatically supercede WP:COMMONNAME. WP:RECENTISM states that well established titles of articles shouldn't be change due to recent events. This isn't a recent event, Princely States of India have always been been dominant in reliable sources. In fact, this article itself was moved from List of Indian princely states some years back. This page should be either moved back to where it came from or moved to List of princely states of India. I hope you understand.
Also, please try to understand that just for the sake of consistency, you can't change the meaning of a well established historical term like "British India" too. I recommend you checking the British India article and section (18) of the Interpretation Act, 1889 of UK Parliament, which states that Princely States weren't a part of British India but were a part of the larger "India". However, if you still think that princely states were a part of British India, you need to provide citations from reliable sources to prove your point. Otherwise it would've considered a violation of WP:NOR, which is one of the Wikipedia:Five_Pillars that supercedes all other rules. You can't violation WP:NOR just for the sake of "consistency". PadFoot2008 (talk) 02:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the articles List of princely states of British India (by region) and Princely states of Pakistan should be unaffected by WP:CONSISTENT as clearly, both articles titles are already pretty different and cover different topics (one is a list and the other is about the princely states themselves). PadFoot2008 (talk) 06:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UCRN says that a common name is preferable when all five of the criteria for article titles is also present.
The new proposed title fails most all of them, especially WP: PRECISION since just "India" is obviously ambiguous.
Also, I don't think the current title means that these princely states were directly part of the British colonial rule. It is just a WP:CONCISE version of the time period in which these states existed. Uzek (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, on WP:PRECISE, I do somewhat agree with you although I'm not sure if "Princely States of India" can be considered ambiguous. For that I suggest that the title "List of Princely States of the Indian Empire", to refer to the princely states that were a part of the imperial structure of the Empire of India rather than the ones that acceded to the new Union of India after the end of British Era, and India was transferred from the British Empire to the British Commonwealth. The Imperial Gazetteer of India, an official document of the Government of India and the India Office during the Colonial Era, mentions both "Indian Empire" and "India" as the name for the entity within the British Empire. While on the status texts of articles on individual princely states, we can use "Princely States of India".
However, the current name doesn't fit ie WP:CONCI.EP please understand that unlike terms like "British Ceylon", "British Malaya" and "British Kenya"d "British India" (directly ruled Crown territories in India) and "India" (British India + Princely States) have different usages and I think you've already understood that.
"India during British rule" ≠ "British India". PadFoot2008 (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Indian Empire" or any such empires such as the most recognisable one i.e the "British Indian Empire" would suggest these states were a part of such empires, which they were not.
British India is a concise form of the time refering to the "British rule in India". Also commonly used as per your ngram result above. Uzek (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
British India, is not the concise form of "British rule in India". You must provide citations from reliable sources to prove that. It was the concise form of "directly ruled British territories in India". And princely states were in fact a part of both the British Empire[1] and the Indian Empire[2] (which was within the British Empire). I can provide citations from written sources to if you want. And my 'ngram' suggesting "British India" doesn't matter, because you first need to prove whether British India does refer to the entire territory or not. PadFoot2008 (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a term used in many scholarly books, then it isn't necessary to look so much into it. Because that would only lead to furthering original research.
Also, moving to "Princely states of the Indian Empire" would still require significant usage as a title in books. Which I don't see currently on ngram results Uzek (talk) 03:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Search "princely states in India" vs "princely states in British India". Also do check the sources that mention "princely states in British India", and provide a citation. Again, "princely states in India" has far, far more usage than "princely states in British India", and it has a clearly defined meaning. "Princely states of India" will confuse no one, as reliable sources have used it only to mean states that were in India/Indian Empire (within the British Empire) between 1858 and 1947. Please, do try to understand that it's gonna cause no ambiguity at all and is a much used phrase to refer to the above-mentioned meaning. "Princely states of India" is pretty WP:PRECISE enough already, and has an already well established meaning. It is not used to refer to the states that joined the new Union of India after the Empire was dissolved, it is only used to refer the states that were a part of the Empire and the recognised the Indian Emperor's sovereignty over their territories. Princely States weren't any subdivision type in the new Union. The Union only had three types of subdivisions — Governor's provinces, Chief Commissioner's provinces and Rajpramukh states. There weren't any princely states in the new Union. Princely states were present as a subdivision of the old Empire only. PadFoot2008 (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"as reliable sources have used it only to mean states that were in India/Indian Empire (within the British Empire) between 1858 and 1947" Read this line of yours again and again. Uzek (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise but I do not understand what you're trying to say. If I'm not wrong, you're probably referring to the fact that I said that the entirety of India was within the British Empire, which is true. See, both British India (made up of provinces of India) and Princely India (made up of Indian states) were a part of the erstwhile British Empire. But only the provinces were included in British India, not princely states (which were a part of the British Empire but not British India) because the provinces were under the direct rule of the Crown but the states were under native rule. British India and Princely India together made up India/Indian Empire and both were within the British Empire, but one directly ruled by the Emperor and one indirectly ruled by [native] Princes suzerain to the Emperor (sovereign). PadFoot2008 (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look, the only possible outcome of this discussion would be to rename the title to "List of princely states of the British Raj/British Indian Empire", which would be an entirely new debate. Uzek (talk) 05:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But given how obscure and long they would look for the TITLE of a list article, probably the reason why the term "British India" is used. You may be right about the terminology officially refering to the provinces, but my point is that it is not strict in usage Uzek (talk) 06:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see that as an outcome. British Raj meeds to be proved first as a synonym for India, which you obviously can't. And British Indian Empire has much less usage than Indian Empire, and secondly it referred to the territory during both the Company and Crown rule (Company Raj + British Raj). "Princely States of Indian Empire" or "Princely States of India" both are good titles which you haven't been able to give a proper argument against till now. I do not se anything wrong in, especially, in "Princely States of India".
  • It is more concise.
  • It is precise enough. (Reliable sources state only one meaning for it unless you can prove otherwise.)
  • It is accurate (unlike "Princely States of British India").
  • It is recognisable and natural. (See Google Trends)
Princely States of British India is incorrect and unsourced. (You need citations from WP:RELIABLE SOURCES.) PadFoot2008 (talk) 06:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I used the Ngram to show the usage of the various terms as it's allowed in WP:COMMONNAME. It cannot be used for other reasons, as it provides both primary and secondary sources, which Wikipedia does not allow. PadFoot2008 (talk) 06:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a week since @Uzek has replied. Can you provide a better argument against List of princely states of India? The only reason you've stated is that it isn't precise enough. However, I've already said that reliable sources have cited only one meaning of the term "Princely States of India", unless you can provide one stating something else. I've already said that the present name violates WP:NOR as you've been unable to provide a reliable source stating that princely states were a part of British India. In the Imperial Gazetteer of India, volume four, chapter three, page 59, it's clearly stated that the native states were a part of "India" but not "British India" and it's not a WP:CONCISE form of anything unless you're able to provide a reliable source.PadFoot2008 (talk) 06:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"the only reason you've stated is that it isn't precise enough." That was not my only reason. And I said a lot of things about the precision issues (along with consistency). I think that you're repeating many arguments you've stated earlier which would require you going through this discussion all over again.
Though for further clarity regarding the sources, just go through this search Uzek (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Uzek You need to provide a reliable source. All Google books aren't reliable sources. I think you should go through WP:reliable source, once. Also, I'm wasn't exactly talking about "the only reason you've stated". I also provided counter arguments to your arguments, after which picked up new issue everytime. Princely states weren't a part of British India, this has been established long ago. You can't provide some unreliable, unreputable source to counter such a reputable and reliable source like the Imperial Gazetteer of India, which has an entire paragraph explaining that princely states were a part of "India", but not "British India", in volume 4. UK Parliament even passed an act stating the difference between the two. You need to provide a reputable, reliable source where the cited content has been, in turn been sourced from another source and has been published by a reputable university press as per WP: reliable source. PadFoot2008 (talk) 02:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one from Stanley wolpert Uzek (talk) 05:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Penguin isn't a reputable university press, as far as I am aware, you need to provide another source. Also will you please clarify what you understanding of British India is? And, you didn't say anything about the Imperial Gazetteer of India clearly mentioning that the princely states weren't a part of British India, and thus can't be called "princely states of British India". PadFoot2008 (talk) 01:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not reputable how? If there's a consensus against it, please link to it.
Regarding my understanding of the term "British India", we've already been through this before. I never said anything against the Imperial Gazetteer definition, I just argued that due to precision issues, this term is preferable because it is not strict in its usage in terms of the official definition as shown in ngram trends above. Uzek (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Precisions issues? I've already told you that the Union didn't have any princely states. "Princely State" is a term only applied to the states within the British-Indian Empire during the British Raj, which were suzerain to the Crown. No other definition for "princely state of India" exists. Please, please, do try to understand. It is already quite precise enough. Even the definition of Princely State in the Princely State article mentions that.
Also, by unreputable, I mean it hasn't been published by a University Press, as mentioned in WP:Reliable Source. Also it doesn't mention where it derives the phrase "princely states of British India" from (which makes that part a primary source/original research).
And if you do understand that princely states weren't a part of British India, then why are you still in support of the phrase? I know you mentioned that you believe that "British India" is a concise form of India during British rule, but you then need to prove that. PadFoot2008 (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, regarding the OR whataboutery, let me just paste the relevant wiki policy regarding deciding article titles as mentioned in WP: CRITERIA
1). "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject."
2). "Editors choose the best title by consensus based on the considerations that this page explains." (I.e the five criteria mentioned for article titles)
And lastly,
3). "The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists."
In conclusion, our personal interpretations about what the article title should be doesn't matter, they are chosen on the basis of appearance in search results and consensus based discussions further establish whether the proposed name qualifies for the criteria mentioned for article titles (in case there are multiple). Uzek (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Uzek Check Google Trends. See whether readers look up "princely states of India" or "princely states of British India". You'd see that most readers are looking up "princely states of India" not "princely states of British India", which means they widely recognise and are more interested in "Princely States of India". The majority, if not all, of the search volume is from India, Pakistan, US and UK, and in all of these countries people are looking up "princely states of India". This is a definitive proof of viewers' interest. If this won't suffice, I don't know what will. PadFoot2008 (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the arguments above are simply tendentious. For example PadFoot2008 dismisses historian Stanley Wolpert standard introductory text India with Penguin isn't a reputable university press, as far as I am aware, you need to provide another source. Even setting aside the fact that Penguin Books is an entirely respectable publisher, the book in this case was in fact originally published by University of California Press, with the Indian edition being published by Penguin Books. Abecedare (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Abecedare Why? Didn't I provide a source saying that princely states were not a part of British India? Are you now saying that they were a part of British India? PadFoot2008 (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PadFoot2008: You skipped past the point I raised about your tendentious dismissal of Stanley Wolpert's book...
But anyways, the fundamental point is that words, titles etc need to be read in the proper context. In this article's title, "British India" is clearly a reference to the relevant period of history and not to the geographic provinces of British India vis-a-vis the princely states; this is not a neologism coined on wikipedia either. Can their there be other, equally satisfactory, titles for this article? Probably. But at some point, the repeated arguments over nomenclature rather than substantive content especially when those arguments seem to be motivated by a inexplicable desire to remove the term "British" as an adjective to qualify entities during the British rule over India, gets to be disruptive and a drain on other editors' time and goodwill. IMO your conduct has gone well past that point, so please stop beating this dead-horse and as suggested elsewhere, direct your interest to help develop and expand actual content in this topic-area. Abecedare (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC) Spelling fixed. Abecedare (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All right, then prove yourself. Provide a source defining British India as entirety of India (incl. princely states) during the British Raj. I suggest you to consult @Fowler&fowler, British India isn't similar to British Malay or British Kenya, India was composed of two territories as per the Interpretation Act 1889, British India and the princely states. By calling entire India British India would be incorrect and if you need a more detailed explanation, consult the Imperial Gazetteer of India; it has an entire page detailing on that. You need to provide sources directly supporting what you've said, not simply mentioning "princely states of British India". Provide a source supporting your claim that British India also referred to entire India during the British Raj. PadFoot2008 (talk) 02:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are asking me to prove something I did not claim. Please read my previous comment again carefully since I don't intend to engage in a lengthy back and forth, and my silence shouldn't be taken as an assent to your proposal. Abecedare (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Abecedare I apologise, I probably misread. Then, would you like to prove your claim that British India is a synonym for period of British rule in India? Anyways, I've already proved that British India primarily refers to the provinces of India till 1947 and earlier, the presidencies of British India, using the Imperial Gazetteer of India and the Interpretation Act of 1889 of the British Parliament, which was the supreme law making authority in the entire British Empire incl. India. Due to the nature of English language, the phrase "princely states of British India" seems to suggest that princely states of British India were a part of British India, which they obviously weren't (similar states of Germany or provinces of Canada). (Do keep in mind that the word "princely state" is an anachronistic recent invention used to refer to the entities which were contemporaneously called "Indian states". The word princely was inserted before state, to distinguish them from the modern Indian states). I still don't understand why can anyone in this world have a problem with the phrase "princely states of India". The term has only one meaning – the autonomous units within the 'British' Indian Empire between 1858 and 1947 over whom the Crown had suzerainty. That's the most widely accepted meaning of the phrase. PadFoot2008 (talk) 13:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose It should really be "List of princely states in the British Raj". British India was the region directly administered by the British. The Raj was a loose-knit union of directly ruled (British India) and indirectly ruled (Princely States) entities. Why this page exists at all is a mystery. It should really be a part of Princely state]. It is most likely a spin-off. Such spin-offs, which manage to fly under the radar, give an opportunity to editors that promote fringe or idiosyncratic views to have their day. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fowler&fowler I think this article should be merged with the Princely State article as well. I dunno why you'd strongly oppose "princely states of India" though, didn't expect that from you but I do agree that the two articles should merged. Are you going to make the request template or should I? Also there's a discussion about British Raj usage is going on, so I think you should reply on that too. You haven't replied to my counter-arguments yet. PadFoot2008 (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not going to make any template; I simply do not have the time. I am also not goin to engage you any more on semantical issues around British Raj. You are wasting the time of productive editors and I think you should be topic banned for at least three months if not six. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fowler&fowler: No objections to moving this and its sister articles to List of princely states in the British Raj (by region), List of princely states in the British Raj (alphabetical) and Lists of princely states in British Raj respectively. I guess these list articles exists to provide a (more or less) comprehensive list of the 500+ princely states. The Princely State article, per summary style, just lists the Principal princely states and merging these lists there would raise undue concerns. Abecedare (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, 500+ is a long list. I didn't realize it had all the states. Agree with you, though I don't have the time to do this myself. I think the idea of listing only those there that acceded to the Dominion of India (or Pakistan) is not a neutral stance. For where does one put Hyderabad State, Junagadh State and Kashmir? The first two were taken forcibly by India after Mountbatten left its shores, and the last fell into India's lap by an accession of dubious legality. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fowler&fowler There's a discussion about the usage of British Raj is going on. You can't do this now. Please wait.
    Also, who's talking of the princely states that acceded to the Dominion of India or Pakistan. List of princely states of India would list princely states that were a part of India (1858–1947). After the princely states acceded to the new Union, they didn't remain princely states – they became rajpramukh states or merged into other provinces.
    Also, the Princely State article already lists about 150 or so states. Adding more wouldn't affect it that much. PadFoot2008 (talk) 03:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_princely_states_of_British_India_(by_region)&oldid=1207838529"