Talk:British Raj/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Untitled

"it was the largest all-volunteer army in the history of the world."

Any references for the above claim?

Why does this article begin with "Cheese" !

The word MUTINY should be changes with War of Independence ... OR ... Both the names should be listed. The current version is not at all neutral.

No. But isn't it nice that we get to rewrite history.

I agree, current version POV is questionable. --Kvasir 02:47, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Myanmar"

Can we avoid the usage of the term "Myanmar" in the article. Burma was the name of the area under British Control, and the name Myanmar is not recognised by the United Kingdom, the United States or many other countries in the world. I think it should be changed to burma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Segafreak2 (talk • contribs)

--221.134.229.138 06:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)alok singh rajput== Constitution of Pakistan ==

Pakistan had a secular constitution in 1956. It was not an Islamic Republic. - Dr. Ayesha Ahmed Ali - 23 Sep 2005 - 16:08 (PST)

NPOV

There is a huge problem in the way this article talks of history. The Indian Independence Movement and the Indian rebellion of 1857 are treated with an attitude of disregard for the key events and major leaders. The tone and lack of details about Indians, albeit as subjects of the Empire are problematic.


Point of view is definitely a major problem. For example... it is said that the Muslim minority wanted a Muslim state... Muslim minority was very much divided over what Pakistan would be as a state but they wanted a Muslim Majority state... whether that state separated church and state or not was a separate issue and we know that early on there were many secular voices who called separation of church and state including that of the founder of Pakistan. 202.163.67.241 15:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this entry in Wiki?

From what I see, this entire entry is about the war of Indian independence. There is hardly any mention of the creation of the Raj, governance, or duties. When were they created? By whom? Where there main areas that had a Raj or did each village? Were any famous/infamous?

The only information relevant to the Raj is contained in the summary.

Just my thoughts.

--Backward 17:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it has very little on the day-to-day aspects of British rule - it needs massive expansion. John Smith's 16:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that only the Ganges region burst into open revolt. Additionally only one of the three mainly Indian armies in India revolted, the Bengali army, of which the majority of troops were from Awadh (Oudh). Outside of Bengal and the Ganges regions the rest of the Indian Subconinent did not revolt and were crucial in putting down the revolution based out of Lucknow and Delhi.

-- in response to Backawrd's comments: this article is not about the Indian War for Independence, it is about the "British Raj" which was an informal (but widely accepted) term for direct rule over india by Britan, it was NOT a person per se. During this time period the King or Queen of Great Britain was the Emperor or Empress of India who was represented by a Viceroy (Governor General).

-- I agree that this article is rather lacking. The Mutiny was certainly a pivotal point in the history of British India but doesn't justify taking up 1/2 the article. I admire whoever takes it on though as I'm sure it will start 1000 revert wars. Epeeist smudge 12:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Title of this entry

Since "British Raj" is "an informal term" for British rule in India, is it the most appropriate title for an encyclopedia entry? In addition, the term Raj is not well known outside the former British Empire even among English speakers (e.g, USA, South America, East Asia). What about "British India" or "British South Asia"? Certainly either of these would need to be qualified (e.g., in regards to Ceylon/Burma) but this is already a part of the introductory definition.

If the British Raj is the Informal term, what the Hell is the Formal terms for British rule in South East Asia. Your recommendation of British India or British South Asia certainly isnt the "FORMAL" term. If people dont know British Raj or Hindustan they better learn. After all wikipedia is about learning. If British India or British South Asia can be "qualified" why cant Hindustan or British Raj be explained??

LuiKhuntek 23:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I came to this article wondering, "What on earth is a Raj, exactly?" And the article as it now stands does not answer that question at all.~Sylvain 11/14/05

Why dont u pick up a dictionary, any English Dictionary for that matter. Even though Raj wasnt originally an "English" word it surely was after the British rule in Asia. There are many English words that were not originally part of the english but have become so. Wikipedias aim should be to be accuracte and precise. it shouldnt uneccessarily be dumbed down. Sorry guys i feel strongly about this.

Raja = King, Raj = verb= the act of ruling. When the British used the word Raj they meant the British Kindom (coz Kindom is a place where one engages in the act of ruling). Since Raj is a hindustani word, the Kingdom referred to this particular region and not any part of the empire. If you guys are so hung up on "Raj" even though it is the authentic manner to refer to that part of the empire than you could use British Hindustan. This term was common at the time.

It appears the article used to be called british india and was changes for some reason.~pure inuyasha

British India is a more appropriate title for this page, however a redirect should definately be kept for British Raj. That term is still used quite frequently, but not as much as British India. DaGizza Chat (c) 10:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

What the?? British Raj is the common name for the part of the British empire including pakistan, india, bangladesh and burma not British India. And British India gives the wrong idea that the British Empire consisted only of India. It also includes Pakistan and Bangladesh and Burma.

  • *
  • *

If people dont know British Raj or Hindustan they better learn. After all wikipedia is about learning.


whats so hard about knowing what raj means? i've known since the age of 12! for shame! Manjot D.

Absolutely correct. People should be able to look up something by a clear, concise title and then learn. I could look up "British India" and learn that it was "informally called the British Raj."

Why cant...British Raj be explained??

I can and should be (and should definitely have a redirect) but it doesn't need to be the title of the article.

Why dont u pick up a dictionary, any English Dictionary for that matter.

I did. I picked up New Webster's Dictionary (abr.) and "raj" was not listed. I picked up the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary and it said "raj" means "sovereignty." British sovereignty? Where? That didn't help much. For the 300+ million (30+ crore) native speakers and 1 billion+ non-native learners of North American (US) English, "raj" is a largely unknown term. Should these people be educated? Absolutely. Does it need to be the title? Not necessarily.

And British India gives the wrong idea that the British Empire consisted only of India.

It might. However, so does History of India before 1947. And Islamic empires in India . And Indian Independence Movement. And... -- this problem is dealt with in the first sentence of the current article. (If it's too unpalatable, what about "British South Asia"?)

Check out these two sentences -- the current 1st sentence of the article followed by an alternate.

The British Raj is an informal term for the British colonial administration of most of the Indian subcontinent, or present-day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh; also included from 1886 was Burma.

British India or, informally, the British Raj, is a term for the British colonial administration of most of the Indian subcontinent, or present-day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh; also included from 1886 was Burma.

Now was that really so painful?

LuiKhuntek 04:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

  • *
  • *

I wasn't aware that Raj was the "informal" term. I thought it was just the term, in general, with the other terms mentioned here equally suitable alternatives. I think the solution is probably to remove the word 'informal' from the intro and just have redirects for terms that seem obvious. that way you can find the article whether you know the term Raj or not. As for the title itself, I see no problem with the use of "Raj" . the idea that a specific and somewhat specialist term like 'Raj' shouldn't be used because people might not be familiar with it is silly. Then what should we call articles about "Dadaism" or "Napoleonic Code"? If you lack either a basic vocabulary or the ability to do simple research, maybe you should stick to the "simplified english" area of wikipedia. I'm officially taking 'informal' out of the intro.


Requested move 1

British Raj to British India – Article is largely about aspects of the history of British rule in the Indian subcontinent whereas British Raj is an informal term referring to the government. LuiKhuntek 07:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support. (Comments above in "Title of this entry" section) LuiKhuntek 07:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose' The British Raj is commonly used to express that period of time e.g. During the Raj ... Jooler 10:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose' Agree with Jooler. Also, see my comment above. geeksquad 16:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose I can understand the reason why this has been proposed, however "the Raj" is a very common term as well. besides, there is a clothing company called "British India" as well... confusing. Gryffindor 21:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose A section focusing on the origin, history, and sociopolitical ramifications of the phrase "British Raj" should be appended to this article. Pjrich 03:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think there needs to be an article on the British Raj. Kunal (talk) 07:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: "British India" is the proper encyclopedic term; check out any atlas or another encyclopedia. "British Raj" is a colloquialism, albeit a widely used one; it certainly deserves mention in the article, but the article ought to be named British India. Tom Radulovich 21:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: Agree with Tom, "British India" is the encyclopedic term. Charmingman 10:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: Agree with Tom as well. "British India" is more neutral - "the Raj" can be highly suggestive to people regardless of their POV. John Smith's 18:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: It would conform with the usage examples set by other colonial units (French India, Portuguese India and Danish India). //Big Adamsky 19:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's called the British Raj. "British India" is merely descriptive. RussNelson 05:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: British India is more neutral, and besides, the term Raj is not that widely known outside Britain.
  • Oppose British India could refer to the pre-Mutiny EIC administration, while the Raj refers more specifically to the system of direct and indirect rule tied to the Crown. Vneiomazza 16:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments
  • The term British Raj may have been informal, but it has wide acceptance. Also, considering that there is a separate article on Company rule in India, moving this article to British India will be a little confusing. Kunal (talk) 07:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps its use is similar to that of "The Throne" or "The Crown" (one of those so-called Synecdoches). //Big Adamsky 19:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "It's called the British Raj. "British India" is merely descriptive." - RussNelson = = But what is it ? British Raj is an informal or colloquial term for British authority in British India. But the article is an overview of many elements (of the history) of British India. While British Raj can sometimes be applied to mean British India in general, Wikipedia is an encyclopædia and not a list of ambiguous colloquialisms or synecdoches. (And, yes "British India" is a "mere" descriptive -- it describes British India.) LuiKhuntek 10:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "British India could refer to the pre-Mutiny EIC administration, while the Raj refers more specifically to the system of direct and indirect rule tied to the Crown." ??? What's wrong with talking about the pre-Mutiny administration? John Smith's 13:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The problem is, that there is already a Company rule in India page - the Raj page is supposed to deal with Indian history between the Mutiny and Independence. Vneiomazza 12:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Why would it be wrong to merge the two articles? That happens all the time on wiki. John Smith's 14:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree that merging this article and Company rule in India makes good sense. There is a great deal of continuity between the period of company rule and the period of crown rule. The British Parliament was making laws governing India as far back as 1773, and the administrative setup (presidencies, provinces, and districts) hardly changed when company rule ended. Tom Radulovich 02:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • That would solve the title "controversy" in a convenient manner, but might the resulting article be too long? If not, I must add, it would certainly merit looking into. The two periods do overlap: with regard to the Mutiny, which does not quite fit on either page, and since the subsequent changeover was largely nominal in any case. Vneiomazza 19:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Result

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. WhiteNight T | @ | C 21:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Added Map of British empire (1921)

Comments suggestions welcome. Honestly, am not very sure about Burma being considered a part of British Raj (though I have seen an old map dipicting so). Its a different matter that Burma was indeed a part of British empire. --ΜιĿːtalk 17:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Great map! A few thoughts here:
  1. New Caledonia is coloured British, in utter error.
  2. The British shpere of interest in British Honduras shows only areas in the Bay of Honduras, but not the claims on the Mosquito Coast. Possibly, a similar scenario applies for the British claims to the Guyanas. But maybe these claims where abandoned by 1921...
  3. As for Burma, I'm not sure, but apparently it was split off to form a separate administrative colonial unit early on.
//Big Adamsky 17:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the map! Burma was a province of British India from 1853 to 1937; Aden was part of British India from 1839 to 1937, so the map is accurate as far as Burma is concerned, although the Aden colony should be purple as well. Aden colony did not include all of present-day Yemen; the northern portion remained an independent state. Afghanistan was not part of the British Empire. Lebanon and New Caledonia were French colonies, not British. Tom Radulovich 18:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, gentleman. Have updated the map as below:
  • Regions discounted: (with due respect to the French and the Portuguese) Lebanon, New Caledonia, Goa, Daman, Pondicherry (some others are too small to register on the given size)
  • Regions discounted: North of Aden, Sri Lanka
  • Region added: Nicaragua
The original pink map is of 1919 - the peak of the empire, as it is said. (also tried to notify User:Arthur Wellesley who did that shading. But seems to be esq.)
Have excluded Afghanistan from the shading of British Raj. However, The Times Survey Atlas of The World (1922) and this map suggest that it was indeed a part of the British Empire in 1919 (but lost perhaps soon after).
Its a bit tricky to fit the old world to the new boundaries, I'm afraid; but I think we can do better and I will try and render a better graphic for the topic. --ΜιĿːtalk 11:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I was mistaken regarding the Mosquito Coast Colony. It had already been ceded to the Republic of Nicaragua by the time this map indicates (1921). Also, the claims in the Guyanas had been consolidated to include only British Guyana. //Big Adamsky 18:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
a map showing the boundaries of Aden Colony, including the Aden Protectorate, can be found here: [1] and here: [2]. As far as Afghanistan goes, it really was independent; although the British occupied Kabul in the 19th century, their army was devastated by the Pashtuns, and only one soldier survived. Don't know what the Times Survey Atlas of the World is up to; wishful thinking, perhaps? [Image:British_Empire_Anachronous_4.PNG] shows it in the same red color as the eastern USA and southern Oregon Country, which may indicate territories held and lost, or, as in the case of southern Oregon Country, a lapsed claim. Tom Radulovich 16:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Afghanistan was generally considered to be a British protectorate from 1880 or so to 1919. john k 17:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the recently updated map may be a good compromise, hopefully, and finally. --ΜιĿːtalk 08:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The Sepoy Rebellion

the sepoys didn't so much offer their services to the Mughal emperor as they appointed him the somewhat reluctant figurehead of their uprising.

also, in the material I've read (Bose and Jalal, "Modern South Asia") the cartriges for the Lee-Enfields *were* greased with animal fat, both pig and cow, which is offensive to Muslims and Hindus, respectively. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.49.16.226 (talk • contribs) . (Comment moved from Talk:British India as part of history merge, undoing a month-old cut and paste move. See [3] and [4] for more details than you probably want -GTBacchus(talk) 20:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC))

South yemen.

Why is it shown as part of British India on the map? Pure inuyasha 21:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

very unclear sentence on economics of British rule

"At the same time, the British abolished the British East India Company and replaced it with direct rule under the British Crown, and so began the greatest exploitation of the greatest number of people, and what prior to the colonial era, was the largest internal economy, reducing the share of India's GDP output by the end of this 90 year old oppression, a share reduced from 30% in the 1700s, to 3% in 1947."

This sounds as if the informatin it is trying to convey is probably interesting and important, but as it stands the last 3/4 of the sentence (from "and so began") is totally confusing to me, and i suspect others as well. Could the author or someone else clarify or expand it for those with less knowledge of economics or British colonial economic policies?

--82.20.244.207 13:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Ian, 08.09.06


Raj is just rule

(British) Raj means (British) rule, not empire, not period (era). If an article is meant to be on the Indian part of the British colonial empire (where the British rule took place and the period during which it took place,) then it should be one titled, British India.

bias deleted

great bravery? the rebels outnumbered their enemy 60 to 1 in some cases and 20 to one in others and still lost. This could not have happened if a majority of the rebel force fought with great bravery. Naerhu 09:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No consensus. A similar poll was held a year ago, and I don't see new reasons introduced. Duja► 15:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

British Raj → British India – For several reasons:

  1. The term raj is vague. As noted above, raj just means "rule" and doesn't specify time or place. (Also, cf. "Scottish Raj" where raj is used to mean a clique or faction. British India is more specific.
  2. The term raj for a title is an informal colloquialism and unencyclopedic. (Note, the Mughal Raj article is titled Mughal Empire. Also, cf. "Scottish Raj" where raj is clearly informal.) British India is more encyclopedic.
  3. The term raj is not universally used in English (i.e., not in US English). While many terms in Wikipedia are not universal, there is no reason to use one when British India is clear in all forms of English.
  4. British raj is less common that British India in other secondary source material (like encyclopedias such as Britannica [5] vs. [6] or Encarta [7] vs [8])

Possible objections are that "British India...prior to Independence...referred only to those portions of the subcontinent under direct rule." However, 60 years after independence, this is increasingly irrelevant and that quote which appears in the opening paragraph easily clarifies things. A possible first sentence could be "British India or, informally, the British Raj, is a term for lands under the colonial control of Britain as part of the British Empire including most of the Indian subcontinent, or present-day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh; also included from 1886 was Burma (now Mynamar)."

—  AjaxSmack  06:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

  • Support as nominator. —  AjaxSmack  06:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose on the whole. Both names share the common weakness that this article does not begin with the Mutiny, and so with actual possession of India by Great Britain. The more formal the name, the greater this problem becomes. Reserving British India for its proper sense, in opposition to the principalities, seems sensible. Septentrionalis 16:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The proper (and increasingly archaic) sense of British India vis-à-vis Princely States already has an article under Provinces of India. If a raj is India (which I'm not sure it is), why not use India for the main article? As you noted above, "both names share the common weakness that this article does not begin with the Mutiny" so a first paragraph explanation is in order either way. —  AjaxSmack  18:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

  • Raj is not vague in English. A raj is India, or a reference to India (as Scottish Raj clearly is: dominance by a less populous bunch of foreigners)
  • As the above may indicate, I speak AE, and have no trouble with this.
      • (abridged from above) Some AE discionaries (e.g., New Webster's Dictionary (abr.)) don't even list raj. I use the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary and it says raj means "sovereignty." British sovereignty? In what place? For the 300+ million (30+ crore) native speakers and 1 billion+ non-native learners of AE, raj is a largely unknown term. —  AjaxSmack  18:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Why go through this again? There was a discussion less than a year ago, and most of the participants are still around.

Septentrionalis 16:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Image

The following image is inappropriate. I think we can find a more NPOV one, where Bangladesh, Bhutan, Pakistan, Myanmar/Burma and Sri Lanka/Ceylon are represented fairly alonside India.

File:India-partition.gif
India before and after 1947.

This article is very incomplete.

It lacks the important aspects of the British rule of India, such as the economics, political, and social aspects. Half the article appears to be about the Indian independence from British rule. Issues like opium farming in India aren't even mentioned at all. This article is very present-day India-centric and POV. It needs to be vastly expanded and restructured.

Needed sections:

  • Administrative
  • Demographics
  • Economics
  • Foreign affairs
  • Culture
  • Evaluation of British rule

--128.135.36.148 19:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Subhas Chandra Bose

There seems to me to be too much on Subhas Chandra Bose and the INA in this article versus the rest of the freedom movement. The current version makes it look rather as if Bose defeated the Raj. I've tried to introduce a bit of NPOV (debolding his name, for a start), but the whole thing seems pretty unbalanced. -- TinaSparkle 01:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Template/Merge

  • Secondly, what is the difference between this article and Colonial India? Shouldn't the two articles be merged??

Some thoughts by --WoodElf 08:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think colonial India should become the correct article and this must be renamed to indian struggle for independence or something.

Empress of India

Stating that Queen Victoria declared herself Empress would appear to give too much agency to her. It was Benjamin Disraeli who, in an attempt to flatter her, raised the possibility of her becoming an Empress. Just a thought.129.11.77.197 16:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC) Dan

I didn't think it was "just" to flatter her -- one of her daughters was marrying the Kaiser of Germany, and thus would have the title equivalent to Empress. Since Victoria couldn't be outdone by her own daughter, Disraeli proposed she be declared Empress of India. 24.127.44.123 13:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC) Ryan

Impact on India

There is no mention of the impact on Inda. The starvations that killed tens of millions, the deindustrialization of India... The article contains the following; "Economic historians estimate that India commanded roughly 25% of world GDP by 1800, but perhaps a tenth of that by the 20th century, due in large part to the severe and rapid decline in the Subcontinent's native industries.", but no explanation to why. Someone with deeper knowledge of the subject might want to share.


I think that line is extremely vague and misleading. During the 19th and 20th century, the European economies had grown very rapidly owing to the Industrial revolution and the world GDP had increased exponentially, thus dwindling India's GDP significantly (even if it had maintained the same growth rate as before 1800s). Granted that the British rule implemented very bad economic policies but to blame it solely seems almost laughable to an economist. Byuiyer 20:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


I have added some stuff from "The Economic History of India" by Tirthankar Roy as well as some work by Niall Ferguson, Michelle MacAlpin, David Gilmour and PJ Marshall and David Arnold and now feel it represents a more balanced view.

Led125 23:16 9 June 20007 (UTC)


I absolutely agree, the British Raj as the Honourable East India Company articles should mention the starvations in India, they are the most disastrous events of human history, and the British Empire's responsibility cannot be omitted running the risk of being partial. MrBlonde 13:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Indian Mutiny

I see this section has been renamed "First War of Independence". This sounds very PC but most history books still refer to the Indian Mutiny. This could cause confusion. May we change it back or at least have a dual designation? Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 12:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The page move

In this edit, User:Razzsic moved this article from "British Raj" to "British India", even though there seemed to be no consensus on this matter on the talk page. Unfortunately, this move created a whole bunch of double redirects (broken links from other pages) that I have had to fix. I wish to ask him (and any future movers) to be more considerate of other editors in the future. Esn 08:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Demographics of the Raj

If anybody has a source of figures, it would be nice to see some demographic information about the Raj. For example, it would be good to have at least a rough idea of the actual number of British people in India at each phase, perhaps subdivided by role (eg. ICS, military, missions, private business) and how this compared to the size of the native population at the time. Best wishes, Cambyses 10:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Successors and precedessors

Previously, the predecessors of British India were given as including the Sikh Confederacy and the Maratha Confederacy. However, since they ended in 1799 and 1818 respectively, so clearly were not direct predecessors of British India. Even the Sikh Empire was brought to an end in 1849, so (again) was not the direct predecessor of the Raj. Only the British East India Company and the Mughal Empire were direct predecessors, as now reflected.

Similarly, the somewhat inaccurate descriptions of the Republic of India and the Republic of Pakistan were given as the successors. That, though, skips over the 3 years of the Dominion of India and the 9 years of the Dominion of Pakistan, which were the two true successor states. Bastin 21:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello! What about the Maratha kingdoms of Indore, Gwalior, Nagpur, and Jhansi? Look at Rani Laxmibai of Jhansi for example which took part in the 1857 rebellion. Also, Mughal Empire didn't technically exist. It was Oudh. So, saying Mughal Empire was precedessor to the British Empire is incorrect. The Mughal Empire came to an end during the expansion of the Marathas! And that Burmese empire didn't take part in the rebellion!! Then how is that a precedessor? --Grubb 12:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Indore, Gwalior, and Nagpur continued to exist as independent states after the Mutiny, and Jhansi was absorbed by Gwalior, not by the Raj. None can be considered as predecessors to the Raj, I don't think. Oudh and the Mughal Empire were not the same. Oudh had been annexed to the British East India Company during Lord Dalhousie's governor-generalship. The Mughal Empire remained a dependent state centered on Delhi until after the Mutiny, when Bahadur Shah II was deposed and its lands annexed. So I'm not sure what you mean by either of your points. john k 21:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The Mughal Empire barely existed beyond the boundaries of present-day Delhi; so to say that the Mughal Empire (which practically came to an end long before thanks to Marathas, Sikhs and Afghans) is a predecessor to the Raj and at the same time ignore other important kingdoms like Awadh, Jhansi, Kanpur and Jhelum which took part in 1857 rebellion seems a bit wrong. Also, even though Jhansi was absorbed into Gwalior, it still came indirectly under British rule. So you mean to say, Gwalior was not a part of the British Indian Empire? Also, what do you mean by Indore, Gwalior, and Nagpur continued to exist as independent states?? Independent states? Yeah, and Greenland is an independent nation and not a federacy. --122.163.115.155 07:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Name Again

Raj is a local term. It's use is mainly in India itself and in British English. Most of the world knows this as British India. Google returns 360,000 for the Raj title[9] and 942,000 for the India version [10]. -MichiganCharms 20:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

One or two Empires of the Indies?

Talk:Emperor_of_India#Emperor_of_the_all_the_Indies.3F

Since there is the article French colonial empires that treats two separate colonial periods, would it not make sense to have a map, or consider this one (British Raj) to be the second British effort, the first being the American colonies? 68.110.8.21 14:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim

Maps such as this suggest that Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim were princely states with pretty much the same status as Hyderabad State or Kingdom of Mysore, all of which managed to retain their formal independence by supporting the British (e.g., pro-British stance in Indian Rebellion of 1857). It would be good to have more references on the claim that Nepal and Bhutan were not considered a part of the British Raj, while other princely states were (they too had 'treaties' with the British). Some details on these treaties, and the origin of the special status (if any) of Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim would be useful. I'm pretty sure they did have some special status, since they were never, in my knowledge, proposed to be merged with the Republic of India (except Sikkim). deeptrivia (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What is "British Raj"?

Why isn't this article titled British India. This is an English language site.--Danaidh 03:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right; British Raj is a colloquialism, and British India is the more commonly used term. Tom Radulovich 04:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
To Danaidh, here is the OED on "raj," "b. spec. the British dominion or rule in the Indian sub-continent (before 1947). In full, British raj." "raj" is in Webster Unabridged as well. In other words, "British raj" is about as English as "Film Noir," and both terms belong to the English Wikipedia.
To Tom, Although it is a colloquialism, it sees frequent use in South Asian historiography. However, I think the bigger problem with the term is that it refers to the "rule" and not the "realm." British India might be better, although it too has some problems. Have to run now. More anon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, as mentioned in the lead, "British India" was the contemporaneous term for those regions of the British Indian Empire that were directly administered by the British. That is how the term was used until 1947. In other words: (British) Indian Empire = British India + Princely States. This page is about the (British) Indian Empire. It is true that "British India" is increasingly being used to mean the Indian Empire, but I'm not sure if that use has stabilized. I think the correct term would probably still be the "British Indian Empire." Let me mull it over some more. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
If the majority of people who end up on this page are redirected because they've entered "British India" as a search phrase, then it's STUPID to call it "British Raj [sic]" --Danaidh 22:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Though I'm sure to be pummelled for doing this again, there have been several attempts/requests[11][12][13] for this:

Arguments against Raj:

  1. Raj is incorrect for the scope of this article; Raj is 1858-1947 but 1/3 of the article deals with pre-Raj British India
  2. Raj is incorrect for the subject of this article; raj means rule, not realm
  3. Raj is a colloquialism; Other rajs redirect to less colloquial forms (e.g., Mughal Raj redirects to Mughal Empire).
  4. Raj is a regionalism not widely used by the more than half of English speakers who learn froms of American English
  5. Raj is vague (cf. "Scottish Raj" where raj is used to mean a clique or faction.)

Arguments for British India:

  1. British India is more encyclopedic
  2. XX India is used for other colonial enterprises (e.g. French India, Portuguese India, Danish India)
  3. British India is most common form in other secondary source material (like encyclopedias such as Britannica)

— AjaxSmack 07:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in the appropriate section with #'''Support''' or #'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Support

  1. Support as nominator. — AjaxSmack 07:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support per above. I haven't seen any evidence that suggests anyone aside from Brits and (obviously) Indians refer to it as the raj. --MichiganCharms 14:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support. I think British India is more encyclopedic especially as this article covers the pre-raj history too.--nids(♂) 19:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support, for all the reasons listed above. This is not just an Anglo-American dispute; maps published in the UK use "British India as well. Tom Radulovich 19:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support - I have to agree. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 02:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC
  6. Support - "British India" is more encyclopedic and more well known outside of the UK and India, and some of this article deals with pre-Raj India. Speedboy Salesman 20:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support - "British India" is the modern, and politically correct term, used to describe British Colonial Era in India. This is backed by mainstream scholars and academics who widely and exclusively use the term "British India" for the corresponding period. Cosmos416 02:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Strongly Oppose MichiganCharms demonstrates that this is another Anglo-American dispute; which it is policy to leave alone. There is also the question of precision: This article indicates its scope as 1858-1947. British India began, at the latest, in 1683, with the acquisition of Bombay; the British Empire in India would begin in 1877. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Stongly Oppose Although I agree that "British raj" should be changed, I don't think "British India" is the proper replacement. To equate British India with only the period of direct administration (i.e. 1858-1947), doesn't make sense to me. Bengal, which was annexed by the British in 1757—long before Victoria was a gleam in anyone's eye—was a part of British India much longer than just 90 years. I think it is OK to use "British India" to distinguish the pre-1947 entity from the modern Republic of India (also India), and it is this particular usage that finding some currency these days. (See my own advocacy of this usage in the post beginning "Two other section in WP:FLAG that are relevant ..." here, where I have also provided some examples of biographies from Britannica and Encarta, as well as a picture of the passport of the "Indian Empire.") The period 1857-1947 used to be simply called "Direct Rule," until Norther Ireland spoilt everything! Septentrionalis might have a point that the "Indian Empire" didn't really begin until 1877, when Victoria's was crowned "Empress of India," but I will double-check (the sources for) this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. Strongly oppose, with counter proposal (see below). Per all that has been said. This article is about a specific period in India's history, widely known as the 'British Raj' by Britons, Indians, and academics. It is not the same as (say) Danish India, which is about both the company era and the government era. Bastin 11:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm confused by AjaxSmack's comment. Since August 24, 2003, this article has been about the period 1858 to 1947 and the title has remained "British Raj." It's one thing to ask for a change of name; it's entirely another to say that the purpose (and content) of the article should now be about the entire period of British involvement in India. That doesn't make sense to me. One can create a separate article, titled "British India," which could be about the period 1618 to 1947 etc. But this article is not about that period. The period 1858 to 1947 has been mentioned and stabilized in the lead for four years now. We can't summarily change that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • You are correct that the article has nominally been about 1858-1947 since the cited date (although it was originally written as an overview of all British involvement). However, despite the title, introduction and infobox , the article's "purpose" has been and continues to be de facto about the history of the entire period of British involvement in South Asia with 1/3 to 1/2 of the body text devoted to pre-1858 events. Therefore it makes sense that the edit history remain with this article, even if another article dealing only with the 1858-1947 Empire is created (as suggested by User:Bastin8 below. — AjaxSmack 18:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Additional comments:

Well, after mulling it over, I think the name of this page should be British Empire in India. This name, I believe, would provide maximum information. The "Indian Empire," which was the official name of the entity, would create confusion with other meanings of "Indian" and "British Indian". As for "British India," it is true that the term is increasingly being used to mean the "Indian Empire," but that usage has not stabilized yet. (See my remarks above.). How about the following lead sentence? "The British Empire in India, officially, the Indian empire, informally, the British raj ('rāj', lit. 'rule' in Hindi), internationally and contemporaneously, India, and now increasingly, British India, are the terms used variously for the region, the rule, and the period, from 1858 to 1947, of the British empire on the Indian subcontinent." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Purpose

Is the intention of this 'move' to also redefine what the purpose of this article is? As it quite clear from the introduction and infobox, this article is about the part of India's history during which it was ruled by the British government (1858 until 1947). Whilst it includes a bias in favour of irrelevant content (i.e. that related to the activities of the HEIC), that is the fault of the content, and not an inherent flaw with this article. As a result, there is no reason that this article shouldn't be about the period 1858 - 1947 specifically (and thus be called 'British Raj'). I am in favour of three separate articles:

Bastin 11:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Your proposal for three articles (or 2+1) deserves to be acted on and I will per WP:BOLD. I agree that the article has always included a "bias in favour of irrelevant content and that is the fault of the content, and not an inherent flaw with this article." However, since the edit history of the article deals with the 1/3 to 1/2 of the body text that is "irrelevant," the edit history should remain with this overview/history article rather than an article specifically on 1858-1947. (As I noted above, the article was created as an overview of all British involvement in India and has continued to have significant pre-1858 content). The current article is very thin on the Empire with the exception of the narrative history (e.g., few admin details) and frankly the Empire deserves better treatment. The intro text specific to 1858-1947, the infobox, the provinces section could be moved to a new location leaving the present article largely intact and true to your proposal for an article "titled 'British India' (per 'French India', etc) dedicated to" an overview/history of both the British East India Company and the British Indian Empire. — AjaxSmack 18:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Other disucussion copied from WP:RM

  • The name "British Raj" is or was used very often in Britain, officially, not only colloquially. Anthony Appleyard 05:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I can confirm that British Raj is the usual form in the UK. It's unlikely anyone would now ever speak of British India, since the Raj included Pakistan, and important cricket is still played with both mature nations. PalestineRemembered 21:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 17:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no changes can be made yet

I was busy the last few days, so I didn't follow this discussion, but I don't see that a case has been made for any changes yet. Let me make a few basic points:

  • First, the article 'British East India Company' is about the company, not about the region it governed; that latter subject is covered in Company rule in India. (The rule of the company is sometimes colloquially referred to as "Company Raj.")
  • "British Raj" is definitely the informal term for the years 1858 to 1947. As of now, the "British Raj" page is mostly about those years. The sections on the Company can easily be deleted. I think the most accurate name for this page would be Crown rule in India, that, for example, is used in Burton Stein's History of India and some other books. Search books in collapsible box below.)
  • I think the first priority is to organize these two pages with clarity and focus and flesh them out with relevant details.
  • When these two pages have been improved to the requisite level of excellence, then a third article (with a name yet to be determined) needs to be written. I don't think "British India" will be the proper name for that page, but perhaps "British rule in India" (which I have just created as a dab page), might fit the bill. That page would be composed in summary style with inputs of three (not two) pages: British rule in India = Company rule in India + Indian Mutiny of 1857 + British Raj.
  • British India should not be the primary name of any page; the simple reason is that it was used variously at various times and has no stable meaning yet. In British times, as I have remarked above, it was used to denote those areas of India there were directly administered by the British (e.g. Calcutta and the Bengal Presidency, in contrast to Jodhpur and Rajputana). As I have also mentioned above, "British India" is lately being used in biographies to loosely distinguish the pre-1947 entity from the post-1947 Republic of India, but this usage has not stabilized, even in that narrow domain of usage, let alone as a synonym for "British Rule in India."
  • Finally, I think to merely change the name of this article to "British India" and pretend it is about "British Rule in India" = "Company Rule in India" + "Indian Mutiny of 1858" + "Crown Rule in India" is a futile because all it does is to create a "place holder." The article on "British Rule in India" cannot be written unless the sub-articles have been adequately written. And, they, I'm afraid, still need a lot of work. I think we'd be being a lot more productive if we worried about the sub-articles, rather than fighting over the name.
  • Ultimately, the only article with name "British India" that I foresee is farther down the road: an article about the life, mores (like going to hill stations every summer), the social and other hierarchies, the governance, etc. of British India (in the strict meaning of the word). The private schools that by the hundreds were opened in British India would belong to that article, the architecture (like Victoria Memorial in Calcutta or the Victoria Terminus in Bombay, or St. James Church in Delhi) would belong to that article ... Until then, "British India" could be redirected to the dab page British rule in India.
  • The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that "British India" cannot be used as a substitute for "Company Rule in India," "Crown Rule in India," or "British Rule in India." "British India," similarly cannot be used in the same way as French India, for the reason (a) it was much bigger and momentous than French India, but mainly (b) "British India" already means something else, and we are not at liberty to create our own nomenclature. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Some proposals:
How does this sound? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
India in 1765 and 1805 showing East India Company Territories
India in 1837 and 1857 showing East India Company and other territories
Organisation of articles
As far as organisation of the content, I favor a variation of User:Bastin8's proposal above for three articles:
These three articles already exist and already largely cover the periods noted above. True, much them are "place holders" but creating the space is a strong impetus for productive work to be done. I would argue that many great articles have started as stubs so saying we shouldn't create an article because it is initially a stub is not entirely sound.
Name Change
I would not be opposed to Crown rule in India or something else for the 1858-1947 article currently at British Indian Empire and I opened a disucssion area at Talk:British Indian Empire to consider the question.
I also would not be opposed to this article being entitled British rule in India although having British India as a dab page might be a little excessive -- use the introduction of British rule in India to serve the purpose and have British India redirect there.
My current problem is with User:Stemonitis's decision to override the results of the discussion on the name change above. With due respect to your opposition, there was consensus to move British Raj to British India irrespective of my opinions on what the scope of the article is or should be. If there is a subsequent proposal to move the article to British rule in India, that's grand.
However, as of the above survey, there are seven unqualified supporters of the proposed change from British Raj to British India. Stemonitis has not repsonded to comments I made at his talk page and I await them. — AjaxSmack 16:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it has to be discussed here first. I have already reverted the changes. If you push this I will take it for an RfC in Wikiprojects History, Politics, and India (where I know your change won't fly). It is better to discuss it here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I thought your post was just the last paragraph. I didn't read the previous paragraphs and replied somewhat uncivilly. Let me reread your post and I will reply very soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, first let me provide some references that can be searched for "British India," "British Raj" etc. They are ten specialized monographs on Colonial India. All books are cutting edge academic histories published by the best-known university presses (not popular histories). Please take a look at them and try to understand how "British India" is used in books. Not knowing if everyone can access the search utility on amazon.com or not, I have now added quotes for each example. The last example has many quotes demonstrating the usage of "British India"

As you can see, "British India" has delimited usage. It refers to:

  1. The regions of the India that were governed by the British Crown (1858 to 1947).
  2. The enclaves (literal and metaphorical) in India where the British lived. (So, I could make up a sentence like, "I was back in British India, that never-never land of gin and tonic ..." Clearly, the Indians, even the ones living in Calcutta, weren't drinking gin and tonic in quite the same way.)
  3. The British in India. (Example, I could make up another sentence: "Going to the hill stations like Simla and Darjeeling became an annual tradition of British India."
  4. The ethos of the British in India.
  5. The regions of pre-1858 India that were governed by the the British East India Company.
  6. Lately, "British India" is being used in a very delimited context: that of distinguishing the pre-1947 India from the post-1947 India. Thus in order to avoid creating confusion, you might say, Manmohan Singh, the Prime Minister of India was born in 193- in the town of XXXX, Punjab Province, British India (now in Pakistan).

However, outside of biographical context described above, "British India" is never (I repeat never) used to mean:

  1. "India under British Rule" (i.e. all of India from 1757 to 1947)
  2. "India under Crown Rule" (British Raj)
  3. "India under Company Rule"
  4. "British Indian Empire"

I will add some maps soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added the map (that I added to the British Raj page last month). Notice that the map explicitly says (in the "Reference Note" box on the bottom left) that British India is displayed in red, princely states in yellow etc. Will add some more maps soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposals

What about this then?:

This would entail a lot of work sorting out all of the incoming British India (and many British Raj) links but it would mean more accurate linking.

— — AjaxSmack 06:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Will you mind waiting another day? I'd like to go through some references and make sure that the terminology we choose is not problematic or controversial in any way. Will post a reply tomorrow. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with all except the "British Indian Empire," which I think should be called "Crown rule in India." I guess the only thing, that needs to be mulled over are the titles: should they be "Company rule in India," or "India during Company rule;" similarly, "Crown rule in India" or "India under Crown rule," etc. I personally would prefer the latter formulations, because the emphasis is on the region. Wonder what others think? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
PS I should have explained that my problem with British Indian Empire is not only that it began only in 1876, but also, that the region was simply called "India." (The empire idea was suggested by Disraeli to Victoria and invited derisive comments from more liberal British politicians like Gladstone). One has to be careful about using appellations that were never widely used, as primary names of articles. It may sound like I am contradicting what I said earlier (above), but I'm just trying to be careful, so that we don't get in more trouble later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Chagos archipelago

What of Diego Garcia and the Chagos archipelago (which are now the British Indian Ocean Territory)? They were ceded by France to the United Kingdom, I'm guessing the islands were administered by the UK from Mauritius? Or were they were administered from India? --Taktser 22:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

were allowed a degree of local autonomy in exchange for...

"were allowed a degree of local autonomy in exchange for protection and representation in international affairs by Great Britain."

That sentence doesn't make sense. I'm not a specialist in this subject but I think what the author meant is something like "...had to give up most of their autonomy in exchange for protection and representation...". Repetition 15:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course it makes sense; although we could make it "accepting protection...". The alternative to the autonomy received by Hyderabad was not independence, but conquest, like Oudh. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Guardian's report

India's secret history: 'A holocaust, one where millions disappeared...' -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 08:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Raj/Archive_1&oldid=1091620949"