![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
"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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Da Gizza 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.
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)
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)
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. -- ΜιĿː talk 17:18, 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)
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. -- ΜιĿː talk 08:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
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))
Why is it shown as part of British India on the map? Pure inuyasha 21:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
"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
(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.
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)
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:
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)
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
Add any additional comments
Septentrionalis 16:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
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.
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:
-- 128.135.36.148 19:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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.
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Why isn't this article titled British India. This is an English language site.-- Danaidh 03:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
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:
Arguments for British India:
— AjaxSmack 07:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
#'''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.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)
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)
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)
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:
Expand to see five recent standard academic histories of India: |
---|
|
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)
Expand to view ten research monographs (all searchable at their links) on Colonial India: |
---|
|
As you can see, "British India" has delimited usage. It refers to:
However, outside of biographical context described above, "British India" is never (I repeat never) used to mean:
I will add some maps soon. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
India's secret history: 'A holocaust, one where millions disappeared...' -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 08:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
"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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Da Gizza 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.
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)
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)
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. -- ΜιĿː talk 17:18, 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)
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. -- ΜιĿː talk 08:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
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))
Why is it shown as part of British India on the map? Pure inuyasha 21:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
"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
(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.
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)
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:
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)
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
Add any additional comments
Septentrionalis 16:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
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.
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:
-- 128.135.36.148 19:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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.
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Why isn't this article titled British India. This is an English language site.-- Danaidh 03:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
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:
Arguments for British India:
— AjaxSmack 07:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
#'''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.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)
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)
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)
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:
Expand to see five recent standard academic histories of India: |
---|
|
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)
Expand to view ten research monographs (all searchable at their links) on Colonial India: |
---|
|
As you can see, "British India" has delimited usage. It refers to:
However, outside of biographical context described above, "British India" is never (I repeat never) used to mean:
I will add some maps soon. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
India's secret history: 'A holocaust, one where millions disappeared...' -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 08:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |