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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
requested moves:
British India redirects to this page, instead of the page British India (band). Can someone fix that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.118.39 ( talk) 05:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
would be a better & more appropriate & more meaningful & comprehensive title for the article. The word 'Raj' in the title 'British Raj' is not an English word & does not have any meaning in English.The colony extended from Burma to Afghanistan, & Nepal to Maldive Islands, so it covered more than India. And so it will include Hindustan irrespectively whether it was ruled by the British Government indirectly by proxy via the officers of the British East India Company since the start of British colonization in 1637AD there or directly by British Government through a Viceroy as 'Indian Empire' since 1857AD to its end in 1947. ILAKNA ( talk) 08:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
'Raj' is commonly encountered in the names of Indian restaurants, it is therefore not unknown within wider English speaking society. Moreover the term ‘the Raj’ is well known and understood as a reference to the British Indian empire. Both in contemporary and historical usage. It was also (in an historical context) referred to as the Indian empire, and as such is the most likely (and indeed most commonly encountered) name for both the era and area. The article is about the era of direct rule from London. It should make reference (and does) to the wider historical context, but there are other articles that deal with other periods of Indian history. [[ Slatersteven ( talk) 15:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)]]
'British Indo-Subcontinent Colony' - you have to name it as something in ready usage, so people can look it up with ease, and instantly know what the subject matter is. Although 'British Raj' is not perfect 'British Indo-Subcontinent Colony' should certainly not be considered. It might sum it up for about 200 years - but that's not really the point. The point is, nobody calls it that. But anyway.... it is debatable whether there was any British 'colonization' in 17th century India. During that period, the number of British residents in India, was numbered in the 100's, as compared to the tens of millions of Indians who surrounded them. Up until the mid 18th century, the Company actually limited the extent of British settlement, and would seek the deportation of any English resident not on their pay-roll. They were keen to keep Indian business a strictly East India Company affair, and happily closed-off India for most of the British people whilst maintaining a minimal staff in South Asia (to reduce overheads). This was hardly an act of "colonization", in fact, it was quite the opposite. Of course, times did change, but we're talking about the 17th century here. For example, modern Japanese firms might buy land in India, employ private security guards, maintain a staff of a few hundred Japanese in their factories and offices, then move a good portion of their profits back to their home island - this is not much more than the East India Company did c.1650. Hence, to use 'British Indo-Subcontinent Colony' for the entire period of British presence on Indian soil, is to imply that it was a colony from the outset, or that the Company (at that time) intended to colonize - which is fatuous, so within this title there is a debatable historical conclusion - whereas, at least "British Raj", is fairly neutral and widely understood. -- Blenheim Shots ( talk) 02:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
While there can be doubt that Britain was bankrupt at the end of WW-2; I find it hard to believe that this is what led to Britain's apparent "decision" to leave India. Logically, continuing to exploit the colonies would work to their benefit financially. Also, the British would have relinquished control of all their colonial assets including Africa which they apparently didn't. Perhaps someone can provide some information in this regard. 124.124.0.1 ( talk) 10:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Please note the user 124.124.0.1 has been Identified as demolitionman who has been banned-- Rockybiggs ( talk) 08:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Interesting reply. 121.243.204.78 ( talk) 17:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The talk about leaving India had been underway since long before the war, it was agreed at the start of the war that once it was over India would be granted indpendance.
Africa was granted independance, it just wasn't anywhere near as ready for it as India was so it took time. FYI most of Africa made a loss for the UK economically.-- Him and a dog 19:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
"If someone could provide some citations that state unequivocally that the two were connected, and played the key part in the officials' rationale, it is a straightforward matter to include in the article." .... I don't think there is any, at least, not by any serious author. Many historians, especially of the Indian nationalist ilk, will claim that the British were "forced" to leave India, by one means or another. There was indeed a moral force put upon them, but after WWII, a Socialist government had gained power and the tide of public opinion had turned against old-school imperialism. It was no longer considered glorious to hang on to India, and, as has been pointed out, promises had been made to effect Indian independence during WWII anyway. Indeed, even during the 19th century there had been talk of eventual Indian independence. I think this kind of talk about the British being "forced" to leave in 1947, is quite anti-British in fact (as well as historically dubious), it robs the common British people of their share in the eventual (and rightful) independence of India. -- Blenheim Shots ( talk) 05:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Correction: There was some talk of granting India dominion status during WW-2 but that was merely to get Indians onboard the WW-2. Do you have any sources to back up this claim? Giving common British people their share in the eventual and rightful independence of India is a downright laughable notion. 121.243.204.78 ( talk) 11:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
"There was some talk of granting India dominion status during WW-2" ... oh please!!! You really are splitting hairs. Dominion Status, (like Canada & Australia) meant independence, ... independence with a few (easily breakable) strings attached - but independence nevertheless. Jinnah certainly understood that. Even after 1947 (up until 1950) India didn't become a Republic, and it's still in the British Commonwealth to this day, and Brits had special rights of residence in India right up until the 1980's - so obviously "dominion status" was just a minor detail. DOG is right - Churchill would not have let go of India - he clearly said so. If you think that it's a a "downright laughable notion" that Churchill being voted out of office (by the British people) didn't speed up independence for India, then the only thing "downright laughable" is your lack of knowledge on this subject matter. -- Blenheim Shots ( talk) 00:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello Demolitionman, Surely your not talking about the same Indian army which fought and followed orders during WW2 (even including their dis-loyal colleagues who fought for the Japanese). -- Rockybiggs ( talk) 12:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
When were 'Britishers' thrown out of India? My cousin is over there right now, I'm a bit worried about this development...-- Him and a dog 18:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Leaving rhetoric and PoVs aside, there are plenty of books which will point out that there is a middle ground between the two very biased views being peddled here. May I suggest (fom my own readings) Lawrence James book on the Raj and Collins & Harper's Fall of British South Asia. And just a word of note blatantly pointed views do little to improve credibillities of editors peddling their views. Please remember either side has a basis, and it is worthwhile to consider that it may be worthwhile to look into that. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 17:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
There is a Nehru quote in the Effects on economy section :
“ | A significant fact which stands out is that those parts of India which have been longest under British rule are the poorest today. Indeed some kind of chart might be drawn up to indicate the close connection between length of British rule and progressive growth of poverty. | ” |
Nehru is not academic, and Nehru's criticism is not academic criticism. The Nehru quote in the Effects on economy section serves no purpose. There is no need to highlight the opinion of an non-Academic and it is giving too much weight on Nehru's opinion. I am removing the personal opinion of Nehru. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 11:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Even Noam Chomsky in his book Year 501: The Conquest Continues, Published by South End Press, 1993 ISBN 0896084442, 9780896084445 link cites Nehru's quote. -- KnowledgeHegemony Part2 17:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I note ref note 86, which I realise now is what the section above the last deals with. Sumit Sarkar has been quoted among afew other authors, to support this point. Not noted is the fact that Sarkar also notes couple of pages before that the severe civil unrest around the Red Fort trials and Bombay mutiny, and also links these to the end of the Raj. This needs to be corrected, and it does give a one sided view. A number of other authors will also note that no plans for "transfer of power" were in place as late as 1946, with the then viceroy still trying to solve the Hindu-Muslim power sharing outlines. This needs to be put in context. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 18:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
So please go ahead and put it in context.
TheBlueKnight (
talk)
19:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Now sure what you did, but here is what notes says:
Note 86: General Auckinleck were advising that there was a real threat in 1946 of large scale anti-British Disorder amounting to even a well-organised rising aiming to expel the British by paralysing the administration...We have no longer the resources, nor the neccessary prestige or confidence in ourselves
Note 87: war-weary and impoverished Britain should send troops and money to hold it against its will in an empire of doubtful value
And here is what the text that refers to these two notes says:
Later that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious it had not the military means of controlling civil unrest in India
Obviously the text in the article is still not saying the same thing as the notes that it is referring to. 67.169.0.250 ( talk) 03:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
By the end of 1945, he and the Commander-in-chief, General Auckinleck were advising that there was a real threat in 1946 of large scale anti-British Disorder amounting to even a well-organised rising aiming to expel the British by paralysing the administration. Quote:...it was clear to Atlee that everything depended on the spirit and reliability of the Indian Army:"Provided that they do their duty, armed insurrection in India would not be an insolube problem. If, however, the Indian Army was to go the other way, the picture would be very different... Quote:...Thus, Wavell concluded,if the army and the police "failed" Britain would be forced to go. In theory, it might be possible to revive and reinvigorate the services, and rule for another fifteent to trwenty years, but:It is a fallacy to suppose that the solution lies in trying to maintain status quo. We have no longer the resources, nor the neccessary prestige or confidence in ourselves.
This, taken with the Brown and Sarkar references do I think reflect what the text says. If you wish, I will provide more references. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 09:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I see what you're saying. Why dont you incorporate the sentence into the article, the prose may require a little bit tinkered at, but seems appropriate to me. Thanks for pointing this out. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 11:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
You need to remember that the Congress leadership, most notably Nehru fell out bigtime with the labour group after Cripp's mission, and Nehru went as far as to term the labour politicians "Humbugs" when it came to. My references suggest that plans for India Congress/Muslim league/something Indian government were being planned for reinstation, but nothing suggest these were to be much different different from the plans put in place in 1936. "Transfer of power" and the logistics of it are not mentioned in much detail, ie, independence for India, in the 1947 avatar, were not in the horizon. Also the promise of self-government and port-folio sharing, as promised by the war-time missions, you will remember were wholly unsatisfactory to the Congress' demands for complete independence. As for the 1942 movement itself, that is exactly what is being emphasised. 1942 was crushed with the Indian forces, not British ones. And in 1946 it was clear it was not going to happen. This is emphasised very strongly in a large number of the more modern histories of the Raj. Wether the British Army had the manpower or will are not discussed at any length, because it had thus far in history of British India played a minimal part (correct me if I am wrong, I am sure I am not). I haven't read Low, but I will try and find the book if you give me the title (I agree with the conclusions). Also the issue of not having international support is actually more important than the article text rflects, and I think it needs to be mentioneda bit more strongly as well. As for Britain having the military means of holding on (with British forces I mean), is there any note on these? I haven't read any author so far who suggest that this was actually considered. But again, I'll be happy to accept if I am wrong. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 15:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: |first1=
has generic name (
help); Check date values in: |year=
(
help).(More coming.)
Fowler&fowler
«Talk»
18:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC){{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)) "Precisely because the British were so inherently ambidextrous, it was in India that a far more complex situation arose. In India there was for a long while a running conflict between those who believed that because of Britain's utter determination to hold on to its empire only uncompromising resistance that bordered upon, where it did not actually cross over into, violence would ever succeed in moving them, and those who believed that given Britain's commitment to doctrines of parliamentary government, skillful negotiation with them was was far more likely to to bring about effective political advance than would ever be achieved by anomic violence or by activist extremism. There were, however, large elements of wishful thinking in both these ways of thinking. While each quite accurately reflected one of the poles in the British position neither encompassed its overall duality." (p. 38)
I am a bit confused in this quite extensive quotation here, many from Low. I must confess I have in fact read the first quotation you place, which I know was in fact made in particular opposition to
R.C. Majumdar's momentous work of the independence movement. What I will seek to clarify is are these quotations in reference to those two lines? because I am begining to feel these are moving away from the point to more of the history the Indian movement in 1930s. I see you provide notes on the Vietnam situation, and its comparisons to India. Allow me more specifically to direct you to the authors I can recall off the top of my head, I think Penderel Moon himself compares the situation in 1945-46 to "Edge of a Volcano" and specifically cites the INA trials etc. There is ofcourse Lawrence James' work that I cite quite often, which infact trolls through India Office archives, and shows that Congress's exploitation of the INA-related sentiments in India during the '46 election campaign drove home the fear of native forces (Indian Army) being unreliable home. Ronald Hyam I have already quoted, there's also Baylyl and Harper's "Forgotten Armies-fall of British Asia" which offer an opposite perspective, as well Sumit Sarkar's which I have already mentioned before. Till I can clarify what it is you're seeking to demonstrate, I will not go into quotations.
rueben_lys (
talk ·
contribs) 23:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
PS: I have read some criticisms of Low's analysis, some as late last year I believe, as I have said before on this very page, please do look beyond the 1950s-60s "Cambridgist" history, which have been criticised in the past for subscribing to the "Old boys" story of the Raj.
rueben_lys (
talk ·
contribs)
00:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
The current text, which is clearer that what was their earlier, says the following:
Later that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliabillity of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India,[86][87] decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948.
What does the phrase for continuing to control an increasingly restless India really mean? Does it mean hindu-muslim unrest, does it mean anti-British unrest? or both? What does the citations that this text refer to say? I would suggest the following:
Later that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, realized that it did not have either a mandate at home, international support, or the reliabillity of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India.[86][87] Faced with the real possibility of large-scale anti-British disorder, an increasing inability, and declining desire to continue an unpopular rule in India, Britain, in early 1947, announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948.
Please note the differences in italics as pointed out in the reference notes. 67.169.0.250 ( talk) 02:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
"The long-term significance of the Cripps Mission only really became apparent in the aftermath of the war, as troops were demobilised and sent back home. Even Churchill recognised that there could be no retraction of the offer of Independence which Cripps had made, although by the end of the war Churchill was out of power and could only watch as the new Labour government gave India independence. This confidence that the British would soon leave was reflected in the readiness with which Congress politicians stood in the elections of 1945-6 and formed provincial governments.[1] In retrospect, this unsuccessful and badly-planned attempt to placate the Congress in return for temporary wartime support was the point at which the British departure from India became inevitable at the war's end."
Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I did change the manpower to native forces, which is what Hyam talks about, and is mirrored in the works eg of James and Sarkar. And "a few quotes here and there" is not a very accurate portrayal of the quotation. I am sure the quotation, in a book by Hyam, to support his analysis, and in concurrence quite afew other quotes and opinions in other works of history is more than just that. And what Low seems to consider minor sidelines have in fact given much more prominence by a number of other authors as having played a very prominent role, not least because the Congress drummed up these events during the election campaign of '46, which I have outlined above. I dont think you will find that any consensus view exists of which were the pivotal events, but that they are considered significant is possibly shown by Low's admission that "some" consider it as having influenced the course of '46-'47, as the passage you quote show. And, as a number of authors I have mentioned argue(not least Penderel Moon himself outlines), the events were in fact much more significant than "India-the transfer of power" may imply. Also, as you outline above, there was a general movement in the direction of transfer per labour policy, but even then differences existed between Congress, labour, Viceroy, etc etc, so its far from a straightforward story. what these events did was "push an already swinging door", as Raymond Callahan says (Raymond Callahan, The American Historical Review, Vol. 100, No. 1 (Feb., 1995), pp. 216-217). I dont think trying to assign singular importance to any one event will help, since different views exists, even among authors that you have provided as references. Also, the direct action day (since it was mentioned) surely is not a minor sideline? Isn't it one of key events that influenced the partition plan? rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 13:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Reply to user:RegentsPark's rv and to user:rueben lys: The problem is that the consensus among historians who have studied Indian nationalism in the crucial years 1917 to 1947 is simply against the view that there were imminent insurrections (whether by the native soldiers in the Indian Army or by revolutionaries of various shades of opinion.) To be sure the Indian Army couldn't be relied upon to be completely loyal in case of a popular revolt by
the Congress, but that is different from making the unreliability the primary reason to quit. Even the Hyam quote supplied here to bolster the use of "native forces" is cherry picked from the book. Here is the quote supplied for the edit:
"p. 106 Quote:By the end of 1945, he and the Commander-in-chief, General Auckinleck were advising that there was a real threat in 1946 of large scale anti-British Disorder amounting to even a well-organised rising aiming to expel the British by paralysing the administration. Quote:...it was clear to Atlee that everything depended on the spirit and reliability of the Indian Army:"Provided that they do their duty, armed insurrection in India would not be an insolube problem. If, however, the Indian Army was to go the other way, the picture would be very different... Quote:...Thus, Wavell concluded,if the army and the police "failed" Britain would be forced to go. In theory, it might be possible to revive and reinvigorate the services, and rule for another fifteen to twenty years, but: 'it is a fallacy to suppose that the solution lies in trying to maintain status quo. We have no longer the resources, nor the necessary prestige or confidence in ourselves."
This certainly creates the impression that the unreliability was a big reason. What we are not told is that Hyam says a great deal more on that same page (sometimes between the ellipses). Here are some missing portions of the same page (p. 106) in Hyam:
"After reading this analysis, it was clear to Atlee that everything depended on the reliability and spirit of the Indian Army: 'provided that they do their duty, armed insurrection in India would not be an insoluble problem. If, however, the Indian Army were to go the other way, the picture would be very different. Wavell warned that, commanding practically the whole of Hindu articulate opinion, Congress could undoubtedly bring about a most serious revolt against British rule, which Britain could probably still suppress, but it would mean nothing short of a campaign for the reconquest of India."
Next paragraph:
"India could not, however, be ruled by the British alone, because the necessary number of officials simply did not exist, and collapsing British prestige left a nakedly expose situation. For example, Indian National Army trials had to be reduced after an explosion of opposition in Calcutta from November 1945. In the Central Provinces there were no troops, and only seventeen British ICS officials and only nineteen British police. Given the state of public opinion both at home and in the world at large, a policy of martial law and repression was not really an option. Moreover, British soldiers were war-weary, and would not want to remain in India in large numbers in order to hold the country down. Thus, Wavell concluded, if the army and police 'failed' Britain would be forced to go. In theory it might be possible to revive and reinforce the services, and rule India for another fifteen or twenty years, but: 'it is a fallacy to suppose that the solution lies in trying to maintain the status quo. We have no longer the resources, nor I think the necessary prestige and confidence in ourselves." (p. 106, Hyam, Britain's Declining Empire: the road to decolonisation, CUP, 2007).
This is a complex paragraph: it details a number of reasons: fear of a mass popular (even armed) revolt led by the Congress (which he notes Britain could probably suppress, but would create other problems);; uncertainty about the reliability of the Indian army in suppressing the revolt, not certainty about its unreliability especially in the form of an impending mutiny irrespective of the popular revolt; the war-weary British army which would not want to remain in India after the war. Similarly, the next page describes the actual cabinet deliberations: "
"After the failure of the Cabinet Mission, the Cabinet had some hard thinking to do. The main debates among ministers were in June and December 1946. Attlee thought the central problem was how to convince Indian politicians that the British really were going, and Indians must therefore hammer out a future for their country. The main worry of the Labour ministers was appearing to be weak, and to head of Churchillian jibes about 'scuttle'. They had a positive fixation about this. In the words of the Cabinet minutes: 'having regard to current difficulties in Palestine and Egypt, it was important, it was important to avoid any course which could be represented as a policy of "scuttle". This would provoke very strong reactions in this country and in the Dominions, and would have a most damaging effect on our international position.' It must not seem as if they were being forces out, but 'for economic, military, and political reasons like, we could not face a situation which involved committing British troops to a long series of operations in India'. Cripps took the view that neither repression nor scuttle were tenable propositions. Repression was beyond British resources, which scuttle would lead to chaos, causing general consternation in the Commonwealth. Bevin argued that any suggestion of 'abandoning our position in India without obtaining a solution' would be interpreted 'as evidence of a decline in British power and resolution', and would upset the Americans. If India broke down, Russia might step in and the seeds of a world conflict could be sown. But equally worrying was the conclusion of the Chiefs of Staff: to remain might permanently antagonize the Indians, which would militate against long-term British strategic requirements, the need for bases and airfields and access to industry and manpower of India in war. The reliability of Indian forces was now, they believed, seriously open to doubt, and to rely on them might mean being forced to withdraw ignominously." (Ibid. pp 107-108)
And here are Attlee's own final reasons. From Hyam p. 108.
In November 1946 Attlee set out with typical trechancy his reasons for rejecting this (Note (F&f): i.e. arguments for staying on in India frequently put forward by A. V. Alexander): "(a) In view of our commitments all over the world we have not the military force to hold India agst ( sic) a widespread guerilla movement or to reconquer India. (b) If we had, public opinion especially in our Party would not stand for it. (c) It is very doubtful if we could keep the Indian troops loyal. It is doubtful if our own troops would be prepared to act. (d) We should have world opinion agst ( sic) us and be placed in an impossible position at UNO. (e) We have not now the administrative machine to carry out such a policy either British or Indian" The Cabinet on 10 December 1946 accepted much of his reasoning. It was agreed that the Army could not be expected to prove a reliable instrument for maintaining public order in conditions which would be tantamount to civil war. One thing was quite certain, 'that we could not put the clock back and introduce a period of firm British rule'. Simply leaving Indians to resolve their own problems, probably in conditions of chaos, was equally unrealistic, if only because 'world opinion would regard it as a policy of scuttle unworthy of a great Power', and it would indeed be an inglorious end if Britain had not guaranteed fair treatment for Muslims and other minorities." (p. 108)
Attlee's reasons are complex: fear of popular revolt led by the Congress (as described in Wavell's memo), i.e. the guerilla movement he is talking about is not a by the rebellion in the army but by the Indian National Congress's increasingly restive youth wing, as in late 1942); uncertainty about the reliability of the Army both British and Indian; lack of administrative manpower in India; and world opinion. Moreover in a previous page, Hyam describes the economic reasons for not holding on to India. And Hyam, in any case, is one historian. Many others, like Low, Judith Brown, and Thomas and Barbara Metcalf give slightly different reasons.
I had summarized all this in one sentence a month or two ago, "Later that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious it had not the military means of controlling civil unrest in India, decided to ..." (or words to that effect) True, it didn't have all the reasons, but it highlighted the two most important reasons, and some of the other reasons were being discussed in other sections anyway. If you are going to add all the reasons, it will easily fill up a paragraph, but you can't make a special case for "reliability of Indian forces" unless you also explicate the other reasons and make sure that the unreliability of Indian forces was considered in terms of suppressing popular revolt, not unreliability in the form of mutinies on their own, irrespective of popular opinion. I have been repeatedly telling people that there is a daughter page, History of the British Raj, and to add the more complex arguments there; but that page remains mostly unedited. Everyone wants to add all their pet edits right here. It's funny: for British India, where the section in this page is small, people want to create a daughter page; however, for History, where this page is bursting at the seams, and where a daughter page exists, no one wants to write there. Go figure. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I missed a bit here. What you say above about the fear of the popular revolt is actually the trouble arose through red-fort trials, Bombay mutiny, masterfully exploited, whipped up, rekindled into a frenzy by the Congress during the election campaign which threatened this spectre to Auck. You remove the "fear of popular revolt" , the context falls away and the Indian army loyalty issue seems out of place, and gives a rather incomplete picture (re: Fowler-"we dont mention one...") That is why I expanded the text (by one line) to include "restless" and then added the reliablity issue. As you show above, the reliabillity was a very prominent thought, which itself shows that it was there. The previous version did not mention this at all, which gives a very incomplete picture. I know Fowler is justifiably weary of people chipping in with whatever they may think belongs there. But this is important enough that a line or two deserves to be included. I dont think it will be deemed fair or balanced if and when this article goes for FAC, and trust me, it will get there ;). rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 13:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
"In a few months at least 60,000 Indians filled British prison cells, and the raj unleashed massive force against Indian underground efforts to disrupt rail transport and to generally subvert the war effort that followed the crackdown on the Quit India campaign. Parts of the United Provinces, Bihar, the North-West Frontier, and Bengal were bombed and strafed by British pilots as the raj resolved to crush all Indian resistance and violent opposition as swiftly as possible. Many Indians were killed and wounded, but wartime resistance continued as more young Indians, women as well as men, were recruited into the Congress's underground."
And here is Britannica, a little later, about the Attlee government's decision:
"Two weeks after the Simla talks collapsed in midsummer, Churchill's government was voted out of power by the Labour Party's sweep of London's polls, and Prime Minister Clement Attlee appointed one of Gandhi's old admirers, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, to head the India Office. With the dawn of the atomic age in August and Japan's surrender, London's primary concern in India was how to find the political solution to the Hindu-Muslim conflict that would most expeditiously permit the British raj to withdraw its forces and to extricate as many of its assets as possible from what seemed to the Labour Party to have become more of an imperial burden and liability than any real advantage for Great Britain."
As you can see, Britannica considers the Labour party decision to be mainly economic: the Raj had become a burden. This is what I had hinted on in my original edit. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I think this debate may turn in the general direction of one we have had before:). I am sure you will find a number of authors, contemporary and modern (not least Stanley Wolpert and Sumit Sarkar, who you have quoted in the past, and Lawrence James and Bayly & Harper and others who I have) who will ascribe the "unrest" to the Red Fort trials and mutiny, which were whipped up by the Congress afterwards to threaten a revolt. And ina- related riots took place not just in Calcutta, but over a large parts of India. Britannica excerpt you provide is focussing, if I'm not much mistaken, on the period after April. The dissatisfactions that Congress explited were derived from simmering unrests that emerged over the preceding seven months. As a number of secondary works discussed above show, differing views on these exists. Without getting bogged down, these needs to be incorported into the text to give an accurate picture. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 15:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Xn4 ( talk · contribs) has revived the ghost of "colloquialism" with regards the title of this page. This has been the subject of countless discussions before. We need to remind ourselves that the page is about "Crown rule in India" between 1858 and 1947 and is a counterpoint to the page " Company rule in India." The consensus on this page has been to keep the title British Raj. The title may or may not be a considered a colloquialism any more (given that a number of textbooks and monographs by leading historians use the term), but, regardless, that fact is a minor etymological detail not worthy of mention in the lead, except as a footnote. The point of the lead is to provide information about the region and the rule and to do so in a manner that provides maximum necessary information without confusing a new reader with unnecessary details. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Xn4 ( talk · contribs) has also undone a redirect that has stood for over two years, viz British India--> British Raj. He has copied and pasted a few paragraphs from this page to create the new page. I have nothing against creating a separate page for British India, but again, this topic has been the subject of many discussions on this page, discussions that had begun long before I arrived on Wikipedia in October 2006. I feel a unilateral removal of the redirect is against the spirit of seeking consensus that has been the hallmark of this page. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I rather regret anyone setting out (as above) to personalize this matter, but I'm happy to say a few words here in response.
Thank you, Nishkid. This question is really more subtle than the adversarial British India vs. British Raj debate. Vague though the meaning of British Raj has always been, the old arguments for renaming the present main article away from British Raj don't seem to me to be very much to the point here. Indeed, to move the article as it stands to some other title could be disruptive and insensitive. Supposing British Raj remains, with appropriate content, then that's fine by me. By the same token, British India (a geographical area subject to what is often called the British Raj) must surely justify some distinct coverage, and we can welcome what Fowler&fowler has said above, "I have nothing against creating a separate page for British India". The issue, then, seems to be what may be objected to or proposed for improvement in the content of British India, and deletion is a blunt instrument which takes us nowhere with that question. Xn4 ( talk) 02:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I see Fowler&fowler has again redirected the British India page here, without saying so, despite his comment at the outset, "I have nothing against creating a separate page for British India". I just don't agree with the paragraph above, which in some ways is like saying we don't need a page for England because we have one for the British Royal Family. Perhaps F&f could explain what content he does wish to see in the British India page which he has nothing against creating ("I have nothing against creating a separate page for British India", see first para under this header)? Xn4 ( talk) 02:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, creating a page needs no consensus, as suggested. If any user wishes to propose a page for deletion or for merging, there are protocols for one or the other of those to be considered, bur no such process has been begun. Xn4 ( talk) 02:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Xn4. He makes a fair point, "such a gigantic subject as the British in India is sure to spread over a large number of pages, of which British India can (in my view) be a very useful one." Also, I don't like Fowler's attitude that it's for him to decide on all such things. Let's have a discussion, not a lecture from Fowler. Strawless ( talk) 16:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: If all you want to do is replace a currently existing, unprotected redirect with an actual article, you do not need to list it here. Turning redirects into fleshed-out encyclopedic articles is wholly encouraged at Wikipedia. Be bold. (my italics)
The OED on-line edition (draft revision of June 2008, requires subscription) has clarified its definition of "British Raj" in view of the language of this page's lead (and uses some of the language of the lead)! Here is the new definition:
"raj 2. spec: In full British Raj. Direct rule in India by the British (1858-1947); this period of dominion. Often with the. Also in extended use: any system of government in which power is restricted to a particular group. The British Raj was instituted in 1858, when, as a consequence of the Indian Rebellion of the previous year, the rule of the British East India Company was transferred to the Crown in the person of Queen Victoria (proclaimed Empress of India in 1876). In 1947 the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two sovereign dominion states, the Union of India (later the Republic of India) and the Dominion of Pakistan (later the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the People's Republic of Bangladesh) (cf. PARTITION n. 7c).
Before the revision, it use to simply say: "b. spec. the British dominion or rule in the Indian sub-continent (before 1947). In full, British raj."
And here are OED's examples of usage with dates in boldface:
1857 Times 3 Aug. 5/6 We have just seen a translation of one of the most infamous articles against the British Raj, which we have seen published. 1879 Times 8 Dec. 9/3 The downfall of the British raj was only a matter of time. 1908 Daily Chron. 21 June 4/4 The Indian agitators who represent the British raj as the author of the plague. 1940 Times 10 July 3/6 The Congress demand for a National Government so-called really meant a Congress ‘Raj’. 1969 R. MILLAR Kut xv. 288 Sir Stanley Maude had taken command in Mesopotamia, displacing the raj of antique Indian Army commanders. 1971 Illustr. Weekly India 18 Apr. 4/2 Though it appears paradoxical, in the last days of the Raj, the British were the only people who wished to keep India united. 1987 N. SIBAL Yatra I. 6 Paramjit had written to her saying that the British were pulling out of India and that the Raj was coming to an end. 2006 Daily Mail (Nexis) 6 June 17 I've yet to hear him address the democratic deficit which subjugates the English to rule by a Scottish Raj.
Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
user:Xn4 has also erred in stating the the expression "British Raj" is never used to refer to the region of the rule. Here is the link for the Google scholar search for the expression "in the British Raj": Google Scholar Search. Clearly there are many examples in which "in the British Raj" is meant in the sense of "in India under British rule," (and not in the sense of Raj as dominion or period) such as:
directly out of the anti-colonial struggle in the British Raj"
Gazetteers published for provinces in the British Raj), Atkinson's treatment ..."
at Sandhurst, afterwards seeing active service in the First World War ..."
raj, the emphasis had always been on nationalism. The ..."
In other instances "Raj" is used in the second sense of British India, especially in its second meaning of "the British in India": Thus:
Indians (called "wogs" for "worthy oriental gentleman") were excluded. ..."
of a different race who, as a servant in the British Raj, occupies a ..."
Raj is not just used in the sense of "dominion/rule," or the "period of dominion," but also refers to the region under the rule (i.e. British India) or the British in this region (i.e. secondary meaning of British India). The collection of the examples above are sufficient to establish that third use of Raj (for British India); although this usage is not as widespread, it is nevertheless to be found in the literature, as seen in the examples from the Google scholar link above. Meanwhile, will user:Xn4 care to provide five or six citations that describe the term "British Raj" as imprecise? You would think that the OED would state (this fact of imprecision) in its definition (see above). Fowler&fowler «Talk» 04:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Just a joinder per BlueKnights point about British raj including crown and company rule. I think former is more often refferred to as Company Raj. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 10:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Posted on Talk:British India by user:Xn4 (copied and pasted from user:Xn4's talk page. Copied here by Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC) per user:Nishkid64's suggestion here.
I appreciate your edits to British India; however, the move (from the redirect to the British Raj) to an independent page will need to be discussed on the Talk:British Raj page first. There have been many discussions there on this very title, and, I'm guessing, the various discussants would like to be informed before such a move is attempted.
Meanwhile, I have corrected the lead sentence in British India; the term was used for British regions in India under Company rule as well. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 06:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Before you wrote anything on this page, I'd seen some of your insulting edit summaries, such as "rv undiscussed and inaccurate copyedit by Xn4", and I notice others have complained about this abusive style on your talk page. If you're in the habit of handing out such 'plain speaking', then I'm afraid you need to learn to take it. You've linked above what you say is the OED online definition of 'British Raj': "Direct rule in India by the British (1858-1947); this period of dominion." That sounds authentic to me, and it's a meaning I'm happy to agree with, but it clearly doesn't include the meaning that 'British Raj' becomes the country itself, a geographical area. The idea (which you certainly seem to promote in your comments above, please tell me if I've misunderstood you) that ' British Raj' should replace ' British India', which ought to be a redirect to ' British Raj', is potty, and it would remain potty even if a thousand Wikipedia users agreed with it. Xn4 ( talk) 23:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Without judgement on the merits of the need for different articles on British India and the British Raj, I'd like to point out that while there is a subtle difference between British Raj (India ruled by the British crown) and British India (the country that was ruled by the British), the difference seems slight (to me anyway). Somewhat akin to the difference between Mughal Empire and Mughal India (both of which point to the same article). At this point, subtle definitional issues aside, I find it hard to see any significant content difference between the two articles, assuming, of course, that these two separate articles existed. Perhaps xn4 could point to specific content differences, bearing in mind that wikipedia encourages the use of the commonly known name for an article (as opposed to formal or non-colloquial names) and discourages unnecessary forks. -- Regents Park ( count the magpies) 02:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Is this allowed? I mean copying posts from user talk pages and then pasting them on article talk pages. Will someone look into this? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I dont see what at all is wrong with this. If I am anot much mistaken Fowler, both you and I have done so in the past, even in this page. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 22:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
So long as the source for the copy and past is made clear (so one can validated the history) then people often copy user talk page conversations to article pages for further discussion and to encourage other users to participate. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 17:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me we have three options:
I do not support the first option as it is confusing -- as demonstrated by [ this edit] to the redirect British Indian Empire (why did you do it user:Xn4?). I am open to persuasion on the other two options. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 14:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The choice between options 2 and 3 depends if the term "British India" is used to describe British involvement in India before the Raj. This is something that should be demonstrated by the use of reliable sources. It would depend if the period of company rule is usually described as being part of "British India", or a forerunner of British India. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 14:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Stephen Kirrage Wikipedia is not a dictionary articles should describe persons, things and events, not the derivation of words. So there is no justification in having an article to describe as you put it a "New page for British India by user:Xn4" section above i.e. showing the development of the meaning of "British India" from 1765 to 1947. What matter is what the word is used to describe today. It seems to me TheBlueKnight that option three would be your best compromise, as surly you agree that two pages containing the same information will lead to problems. My two earlier questions do not seem to have been answered:
-- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 10:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
The grown-up option as outlined by Philip B. S. above is Option 1, because the case clearly has been made, not least by the improving British India article itself, that a discrete article on that subject is worth having. British India is clearly an important topic within the history of India, and it is not the same as British Raj as defined here, so sooner or later it will need a lot more space than it can have as a subdivision of an article on British Raj. It will also need new sections which can be addressed homogeneously under the title of British India but which would get enormously complicated if they had to be dealt with at a higher level including all the princely states, which were not under British control and had their own systems of government, law, tax, etc. It may be that some editors here are wanting to fight old battles which I gather are to do with whether the much better-established British Raj article should be renamed "British India", but that isn't the question now, and it can even be pointed out that the existence of a British India article seems to be showing how wrong some users have been in the past in wanting to move everything at British Raj to the title "British India" - we can now see clearly that that would have been the wrong title for an article which aims to cover the whole of India. Strawless ( talk) 18:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
"raj 2. spec: In full British Raj. Direct rule in India by the British (1858-1947); this period of dominion. Often with the. Also in extended use: any system of government in which power is restricted to a particular group."
"British India, collective designation of the 17 Indian provinces formerly under direct British administration, as distinguished from the more autonomous regions called the Native States of India."
I've created a dab page for "British India" on my subpage: User:Fowler&fowler/British India and included references there. Here is the text (but without the references):
British India, may refer to:
"British India" has also been used in the sense of "the British in India."
Fowler&fowler
«Talk»
17:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I have been patient with user:Xn4, putting up with his unencyclopedic edits to British India, while at the same time trying to come to some kind of decision on this talk page. However, he has been systematically changing links (from British Raj to his new British India) on different Wikipedia pages. Most of these changes are plain incorrect even by his definition. He has also been spamming different people's talk pages, many of whom have then added their comments here. Here are some of the edits diffs:
-- Regents Park ( count the magpies) 17:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Moreover, the edits have been made in bad faith. user:Xn4 made it a point to stress geographical content in the British India page (see his posts in the talk page above; see his posts on user talk:Philip Baird Shearer#British India/British Raj. After all this, what is he doing blatantly changing British Raj to British India, even when the result is incorrect or meaningless or nothing to do with geography??
In addition he has been spamming various talk pages. See for example: the posts of August 28. Some of the recipients have made comments here (usually in support of user:Xn4's goals).
I have had it with user:Xn4's edits. I will not allow this abuse of NPOV be carried on any more. I am therefore moving British India to the dab page above. If it is not acceptable, I will be happy to redirect it back to British Raj. However, I will not allow an independent British India page, especially in the light of user:Xn4's vandalism on other pages. If need be, I'm happy to go for a full-blown Wikipedia mediation on this topic with user:Xn4, or any of his cohorts and supporters, should they choose to join him. I am confident I have the sources on my side. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Thanks, TheBlueKnight, for your reply. My questions above were mostly rhetorical. I apologize for the misunderstanding. True, Hyderabad did have soldiers, but those that didn't have a purely ceremonial function or purely "police" function (i.e. preservation of internal order), were part of the Hyderabad Contingent of the Imperial Service Troops. The Contingent was raised by the Nizam, but entirely for the purpose of providing support to the British Army if such support were needed, and were regularly inspected by British Army soldiers. At the turn of the 20th century, the Imperial Service Troops for all the princely states counted no more than 18,000 soldiers among its ranks. According to the IGI 1909(see below), "The other military forces maintained by the Native States aggregate no more that 93,000 men, but these troops are kept only for the purpose of internal order or ceremony and have little military value." The "defence" of Hyderabad in 1948, such as it was, was undertaken not by the Hyderabad State army, but by a paramilitary group, the Razakars, many of whom were from far away places like Rohilkhand. The main point above, however, is articulated in the Imperial Gazetteer of India. (The term "chief" means a ruler, a Maharaja, Raja, or Nawab.)
"Since a chief can neither attack his neighbour nor fall out with a foreign nation, it follows that he needs no military establishment which is not required either for police purposes or personal display, or for cooperation with the Imperial Government. The treaty made with Gwalior in 1844, and the instrument of transfer given to Mysore in 1881, alike base the restriction of the forces of the State upon the broad ground of protection. The former explained in detail that unnecessary armies were embarrassing to the State itself and the cause of disquietude to others: a few months later a striking proof of this was afforded by the army of the Sikh kingdom of Lahore. The British Government has undertaken to protect the dominions of the Native princes from invasion and even from rebellion within: its army is organized for the defence not merely of British India, but of all the possessions under the suzerainty of the King-Emperor." (Imperial Gazetteer of India, volume IV, 1909).
It goes on to say (parenthetical additions mine):
"The treaties with most of the larger States are clear on this point. Posts in the interior must not be fortified, factories for the production of guns and ammunition must not be constructed, nor may the subject of other States be enlisted in the local forces. ... They (the Native States) must allow the (British) forces that defend them to obtain local supplies, to occupy cantonments or positions, and to arrest deserters; and in addition to these services they must recognize the Imperial (i.e. British) control of the railways, telegraphs, and postal communications as essential not only to the common welfare but to the common defence."(IGI 1909, volume 4)
Thus, in practice, the Native States had only (what has been termed) a "puppet sovereignty."
Meanwhile, user:Xn4, please respond to PBS's latest post above. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I think besides Travancore it was perhaps Bhopal and few of the bigger states in Rajputana. But thanks for the info. TheBlueKnight ( talk) 05:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
As user:Xn4 has not responded to my last post I have reinstated the disambiguation page at British India. Unless someone other than user:Xn4 reverts that edit back to the last edit by user:Xn4, or posts a message here objecting to my edits reinstating the disambiguation text, I think that we can conclude that this is the consensus for British India to be a disambiguation page. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 14:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) You can say all this and more at MedCab. See below. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 00:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
There seem to be some minor problems in the infobox at British Raj, which at the moment is headed Indian Empire. The second line in the infobox, under 'Indian Empire', reads British colony, but neither the (British) Indian Empire nor the 'British Raj' was ever a colony. We read " Established August 2, 1858", and " Disestablished August 15, 1947. Neither of those dates applies to the Indian Empire (as we know, it was established much later, and George VI continued to be called Emperor of India until June 1948) although they arguably apply to the British Raj. But if the infobox is headed British Raj, that causes other problems. Can anyone suggest how to fix these difficulties? It isn't clear to me. Xn4 ( talk) 23:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
This section was intended to be about the infobox. See above. There must be some things which we can discuss sensibly without 'mediation' or 'respondents' - the second of which is a term from civil litigation. If we could all be a bit less adversarial, it would be better. Xn4 ( talk) 00:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
What misinformation Fowler??? unless if you're saying that what he copied (as you allege) from these pages are factually wrong!!! I have great respect for your toil and efforts, doesn't mean you get to ride rough shod over others! Enough is enough!!! you've not only threatened medcab day in day out to well nigh every one you've sustained opposition with, it seems to me you've begun using it as a method to scare other people off, which is entirely dishonest!!! Another very worthy approach would've been to stand back, hear what he has to say, and taken his points and then discussed it instead of goin in with your 88s blazing. I can three quarters see what XN4 is saying, and you yourself have added that India was in some olympics in 1920s as British India, not British Raj!!! And for you knowing oh so much, you know as well as I do that you are reading three or four text books of Modern Indian history (WP:RS) which have their own view points, and using them to support mostly (largely) the the way you want it portrayed,as do others, its not neccessarily biased, it is not neccessarily wrong! But it is frankly unacceptable, that you threaten medcab to another editor who has just a decent history in WP as you do, for which the only reason I can see is to scare them off, as you tried with myself sometime last year. Notice here that I still discuss things with you cordially, civilly, and with trust and respect. I expect the same from you (and every other editor) to myself, and to every other editor who works here in WP without any reward! rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 01:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The problem as I see it is not Fowler's knowledgability, of which there are strengths as well as ample weeknesses. It is th e extremely unfortunate arrogance in that, and his disgusting attitude to others who work just as hard but dont make enough fuss to get the same pacifying adulation. A look at the Archives of this page and India Talk page at the very least (if they were archived in an orderly manner) will indicate this to you. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 09:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
user:rueben lys I think you misunderstand what "medcab" (formal Wikipedia mediation) is for. That User:Fowler&fowler suggests using it may have been premature as we have not yet exhausted other options like an RfC (See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution), and informal mediation, but in principle as there is a disagreement over the issue and not apparent chance of building a compromise consensus (as is apparent from the sections on this talk page immediately preceding this one), I do not think that User:Fowler&fowler is threatening anyone, as we need to resolve this issue.
I am placing an RFC on the page Talk:British India and we can continue the discussion about this on that page as we seem to have agreement that British India will no longer be a redirect to this page (see Talk:British_India#RFC: Article or disambiguation page). -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 10:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
This page is becoming large and I think it is probably best if we draw a line under the current sections on this talk page, as little constructive for the development of this page is currently being discussed. So unless anyone objects I will archive anything before this section in 24 hours time. Any new constructive discussions about this page that are started after this postings should be placed in a new section below this one. For example if the Infobox is in need of development then I suggest a new section below this one that only discusses the suggested changes and does not descend into criticisms about editors as no consensus is likely in the current section called Infobox. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 13:53, 4 September 2008 (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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
requested moves:
British India redirects to this page, instead of the page British India (band). Can someone fix that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.118.39 ( talk) 05:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
would be a better & more appropriate & more meaningful & comprehensive title for the article. The word 'Raj' in the title 'British Raj' is not an English word & does not have any meaning in English.The colony extended from Burma to Afghanistan, & Nepal to Maldive Islands, so it covered more than India. And so it will include Hindustan irrespectively whether it was ruled by the British Government indirectly by proxy via the officers of the British East India Company since the start of British colonization in 1637AD there or directly by British Government through a Viceroy as 'Indian Empire' since 1857AD to its end in 1947. ILAKNA ( talk) 08:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
'Raj' is commonly encountered in the names of Indian restaurants, it is therefore not unknown within wider English speaking society. Moreover the term ‘the Raj’ is well known and understood as a reference to the British Indian empire. Both in contemporary and historical usage. It was also (in an historical context) referred to as the Indian empire, and as such is the most likely (and indeed most commonly encountered) name for both the era and area. The article is about the era of direct rule from London. It should make reference (and does) to the wider historical context, but there are other articles that deal with other periods of Indian history. [[ Slatersteven ( talk) 15:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)]]
'British Indo-Subcontinent Colony' - you have to name it as something in ready usage, so people can look it up with ease, and instantly know what the subject matter is. Although 'British Raj' is not perfect 'British Indo-Subcontinent Colony' should certainly not be considered. It might sum it up for about 200 years - but that's not really the point. The point is, nobody calls it that. But anyway.... it is debatable whether there was any British 'colonization' in 17th century India. During that period, the number of British residents in India, was numbered in the 100's, as compared to the tens of millions of Indians who surrounded them. Up until the mid 18th century, the Company actually limited the extent of British settlement, and would seek the deportation of any English resident not on their pay-roll. They were keen to keep Indian business a strictly East India Company affair, and happily closed-off India for most of the British people whilst maintaining a minimal staff in South Asia (to reduce overheads). This was hardly an act of "colonization", in fact, it was quite the opposite. Of course, times did change, but we're talking about the 17th century here. For example, modern Japanese firms might buy land in India, employ private security guards, maintain a staff of a few hundred Japanese in their factories and offices, then move a good portion of their profits back to their home island - this is not much more than the East India Company did c.1650. Hence, to use 'British Indo-Subcontinent Colony' for the entire period of British presence on Indian soil, is to imply that it was a colony from the outset, or that the Company (at that time) intended to colonize - which is fatuous, so within this title there is a debatable historical conclusion - whereas, at least "British Raj", is fairly neutral and widely understood. -- Blenheim Shots ( talk) 02:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
While there can be doubt that Britain was bankrupt at the end of WW-2; I find it hard to believe that this is what led to Britain's apparent "decision" to leave India. Logically, continuing to exploit the colonies would work to their benefit financially. Also, the British would have relinquished control of all their colonial assets including Africa which they apparently didn't. Perhaps someone can provide some information in this regard. 124.124.0.1 ( talk) 10:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Please note the user 124.124.0.1 has been Identified as demolitionman who has been banned-- Rockybiggs ( talk) 08:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Interesting reply. 121.243.204.78 ( talk) 17:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The talk about leaving India had been underway since long before the war, it was agreed at the start of the war that once it was over India would be granted indpendance.
Africa was granted independance, it just wasn't anywhere near as ready for it as India was so it took time. FYI most of Africa made a loss for the UK economically.-- Him and a dog 19:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
"If someone could provide some citations that state unequivocally that the two were connected, and played the key part in the officials' rationale, it is a straightforward matter to include in the article." .... I don't think there is any, at least, not by any serious author. Many historians, especially of the Indian nationalist ilk, will claim that the British were "forced" to leave India, by one means or another. There was indeed a moral force put upon them, but after WWII, a Socialist government had gained power and the tide of public opinion had turned against old-school imperialism. It was no longer considered glorious to hang on to India, and, as has been pointed out, promises had been made to effect Indian independence during WWII anyway. Indeed, even during the 19th century there had been talk of eventual Indian independence. I think this kind of talk about the British being "forced" to leave in 1947, is quite anti-British in fact (as well as historically dubious), it robs the common British people of their share in the eventual (and rightful) independence of India. -- Blenheim Shots ( talk) 05:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Correction: There was some talk of granting India dominion status during WW-2 but that was merely to get Indians onboard the WW-2. Do you have any sources to back up this claim? Giving common British people their share in the eventual and rightful independence of India is a downright laughable notion. 121.243.204.78 ( talk) 11:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
"There was some talk of granting India dominion status during WW-2" ... oh please!!! You really are splitting hairs. Dominion Status, (like Canada & Australia) meant independence, ... independence with a few (easily breakable) strings attached - but independence nevertheless. Jinnah certainly understood that. Even after 1947 (up until 1950) India didn't become a Republic, and it's still in the British Commonwealth to this day, and Brits had special rights of residence in India right up until the 1980's - so obviously "dominion status" was just a minor detail. DOG is right - Churchill would not have let go of India - he clearly said so. If you think that it's a a "downright laughable notion" that Churchill being voted out of office (by the British people) didn't speed up independence for India, then the only thing "downright laughable" is your lack of knowledge on this subject matter. -- Blenheim Shots ( talk) 00:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello Demolitionman, Surely your not talking about the same Indian army which fought and followed orders during WW2 (even including their dis-loyal colleagues who fought for the Japanese). -- Rockybiggs ( talk) 12:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
When were 'Britishers' thrown out of India? My cousin is over there right now, I'm a bit worried about this development...-- Him and a dog 18:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Leaving rhetoric and PoVs aside, there are plenty of books which will point out that there is a middle ground between the two very biased views being peddled here. May I suggest (fom my own readings) Lawrence James book on the Raj and Collins & Harper's Fall of British South Asia. And just a word of note blatantly pointed views do little to improve credibillities of editors peddling their views. Please remember either side has a basis, and it is worthwhile to consider that it may be worthwhile to look into that. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 17:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
There is a Nehru quote in the Effects on economy section :
“ | A significant fact which stands out is that those parts of India which have been longest under British rule are the poorest today. Indeed some kind of chart might be drawn up to indicate the close connection between length of British rule and progressive growth of poverty. | ” |
Nehru is not academic, and Nehru's criticism is not academic criticism. The Nehru quote in the Effects on economy section serves no purpose. There is no need to highlight the opinion of an non-Academic and it is giving too much weight on Nehru's opinion. I am removing the personal opinion of Nehru. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 11:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Even Noam Chomsky in his book Year 501: The Conquest Continues, Published by South End Press, 1993 ISBN 0896084442, 9780896084445 link cites Nehru's quote. -- KnowledgeHegemony Part2 17:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I note ref note 86, which I realise now is what the section above the last deals with. Sumit Sarkar has been quoted among afew other authors, to support this point. Not noted is the fact that Sarkar also notes couple of pages before that the severe civil unrest around the Red Fort trials and Bombay mutiny, and also links these to the end of the Raj. This needs to be corrected, and it does give a one sided view. A number of other authors will also note that no plans for "transfer of power" were in place as late as 1946, with the then viceroy still trying to solve the Hindu-Muslim power sharing outlines. This needs to be put in context. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 18:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
So please go ahead and put it in context.
TheBlueKnight (
talk)
19:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Now sure what you did, but here is what notes says:
Note 86: General Auckinleck were advising that there was a real threat in 1946 of large scale anti-British Disorder amounting to even a well-organised rising aiming to expel the British by paralysing the administration...We have no longer the resources, nor the neccessary prestige or confidence in ourselves
Note 87: war-weary and impoverished Britain should send troops and money to hold it against its will in an empire of doubtful value
And here is what the text that refers to these two notes says:
Later that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious it had not the military means of controlling civil unrest in India
Obviously the text in the article is still not saying the same thing as the notes that it is referring to. 67.169.0.250 ( talk) 03:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
By the end of 1945, he and the Commander-in-chief, General Auckinleck were advising that there was a real threat in 1946 of large scale anti-British Disorder amounting to even a well-organised rising aiming to expel the British by paralysing the administration. Quote:...it was clear to Atlee that everything depended on the spirit and reliability of the Indian Army:"Provided that they do their duty, armed insurrection in India would not be an insolube problem. If, however, the Indian Army was to go the other way, the picture would be very different... Quote:...Thus, Wavell concluded,if the army and the police "failed" Britain would be forced to go. In theory, it might be possible to revive and reinvigorate the services, and rule for another fifteent to trwenty years, but:It is a fallacy to suppose that the solution lies in trying to maintain status quo. We have no longer the resources, nor the neccessary prestige or confidence in ourselves.
This, taken with the Brown and Sarkar references do I think reflect what the text says. If you wish, I will provide more references. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 09:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I see what you're saying. Why dont you incorporate the sentence into the article, the prose may require a little bit tinkered at, but seems appropriate to me. Thanks for pointing this out. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 11:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
You need to remember that the Congress leadership, most notably Nehru fell out bigtime with the labour group after Cripp's mission, and Nehru went as far as to term the labour politicians "Humbugs" when it came to. My references suggest that plans for India Congress/Muslim league/something Indian government were being planned for reinstation, but nothing suggest these were to be much different different from the plans put in place in 1936. "Transfer of power" and the logistics of it are not mentioned in much detail, ie, independence for India, in the 1947 avatar, were not in the horizon. Also the promise of self-government and port-folio sharing, as promised by the war-time missions, you will remember were wholly unsatisfactory to the Congress' demands for complete independence. As for the 1942 movement itself, that is exactly what is being emphasised. 1942 was crushed with the Indian forces, not British ones. And in 1946 it was clear it was not going to happen. This is emphasised very strongly in a large number of the more modern histories of the Raj. Wether the British Army had the manpower or will are not discussed at any length, because it had thus far in history of British India played a minimal part (correct me if I am wrong, I am sure I am not). I haven't read Low, but I will try and find the book if you give me the title (I agree with the conclusions). Also the issue of not having international support is actually more important than the article text rflects, and I think it needs to be mentioneda bit more strongly as well. As for Britain having the military means of holding on (with British forces I mean), is there any note on these? I haven't read any author so far who suggest that this was actually considered. But again, I'll be happy to accept if I am wrong. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 15:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: |first1=
has generic name (
help); Check date values in: |year=
(
help).(More coming.)
Fowler&fowler
«Talk»
18:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC){{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)) "Precisely because the British were so inherently ambidextrous, it was in India that a far more complex situation arose. In India there was for a long while a running conflict between those who believed that because of Britain's utter determination to hold on to its empire only uncompromising resistance that bordered upon, where it did not actually cross over into, violence would ever succeed in moving them, and those who believed that given Britain's commitment to doctrines of parliamentary government, skillful negotiation with them was was far more likely to to bring about effective political advance than would ever be achieved by anomic violence or by activist extremism. There were, however, large elements of wishful thinking in both these ways of thinking. While each quite accurately reflected one of the poles in the British position neither encompassed its overall duality." (p. 38)
I am a bit confused in this quite extensive quotation here, many from Low. I must confess I have in fact read the first quotation you place, which I know was in fact made in particular opposition to
R.C. Majumdar's momentous work of the independence movement. What I will seek to clarify is are these quotations in reference to those two lines? because I am begining to feel these are moving away from the point to more of the history the Indian movement in 1930s. I see you provide notes on the Vietnam situation, and its comparisons to India. Allow me more specifically to direct you to the authors I can recall off the top of my head, I think Penderel Moon himself compares the situation in 1945-46 to "Edge of a Volcano" and specifically cites the INA trials etc. There is ofcourse Lawrence James' work that I cite quite often, which infact trolls through India Office archives, and shows that Congress's exploitation of the INA-related sentiments in India during the '46 election campaign drove home the fear of native forces (Indian Army) being unreliable home. Ronald Hyam I have already quoted, there's also Baylyl and Harper's "Forgotten Armies-fall of British Asia" which offer an opposite perspective, as well Sumit Sarkar's which I have already mentioned before. Till I can clarify what it is you're seeking to demonstrate, I will not go into quotations.
rueben_lys (
talk ·
contribs) 23:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
PS: I have read some criticisms of Low's analysis, some as late last year I believe, as I have said before on this very page, please do look beyond the 1950s-60s "Cambridgist" history, which have been criticised in the past for subscribing to the "Old boys" story of the Raj.
rueben_lys (
talk ·
contribs)
00:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
The current text, which is clearer that what was their earlier, says the following:
Later that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliabillity of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India,[86][87] decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948.
What does the phrase for continuing to control an increasingly restless India really mean? Does it mean hindu-muslim unrest, does it mean anti-British unrest? or both? What does the citations that this text refer to say? I would suggest the following:
Later that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, realized that it did not have either a mandate at home, international support, or the reliabillity of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India.[86][87] Faced with the real possibility of large-scale anti-British disorder, an increasing inability, and declining desire to continue an unpopular rule in India, Britain, in early 1947, announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948.
Please note the differences in italics as pointed out in the reference notes. 67.169.0.250 ( talk) 02:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
"The long-term significance of the Cripps Mission only really became apparent in the aftermath of the war, as troops were demobilised and sent back home. Even Churchill recognised that there could be no retraction of the offer of Independence which Cripps had made, although by the end of the war Churchill was out of power and could only watch as the new Labour government gave India independence. This confidence that the British would soon leave was reflected in the readiness with which Congress politicians stood in the elections of 1945-6 and formed provincial governments.[1] In retrospect, this unsuccessful and badly-planned attempt to placate the Congress in return for temporary wartime support was the point at which the British departure from India became inevitable at the war's end."
Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I did change the manpower to native forces, which is what Hyam talks about, and is mirrored in the works eg of James and Sarkar. And "a few quotes here and there" is not a very accurate portrayal of the quotation. I am sure the quotation, in a book by Hyam, to support his analysis, and in concurrence quite afew other quotes and opinions in other works of history is more than just that. And what Low seems to consider minor sidelines have in fact given much more prominence by a number of other authors as having played a very prominent role, not least because the Congress drummed up these events during the election campaign of '46, which I have outlined above. I dont think you will find that any consensus view exists of which were the pivotal events, but that they are considered significant is possibly shown by Low's admission that "some" consider it as having influenced the course of '46-'47, as the passage you quote show. And, as a number of authors I have mentioned argue(not least Penderel Moon himself outlines), the events were in fact much more significant than "India-the transfer of power" may imply. Also, as you outline above, there was a general movement in the direction of transfer per labour policy, but even then differences existed between Congress, labour, Viceroy, etc etc, so its far from a straightforward story. what these events did was "push an already swinging door", as Raymond Callahan says (Raymond Callahan, The American Historical Review, Vol. 100, No. 1 (Feb., 1995), pp. 216-217). I dont think trying to assign singular importance to any one event will help, since different views exists, even among authors that you have provided as references. Also, the direct action day (since it was mentioned) surely is not a minor sideline? Isn't it one of key events that influenced the partition plan? rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 13:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Reply to user:RegentsPark's rv and to user:rueben lys: The problem is that the consensus among historians who have studied Indian nationalism in the crucial years 1917 to 1947 is simply against the view that there were imminent insurrections (whether by the native soldiers in the Indian Army or by revolutionaries of various shades of opinion.) To be sure the Indian Army couldn't be relied upon to be completely loyal in case of a popular revolt by
the Congress, but that is different from making the unreliability the primary reason to quit. Even the Hyam quote supplied here to bolster the use of "native forces" is cherry picked from the book. Here is the quote supplied for the edit:
"p. 106 Quote:By the end of 1945, he and the Commander-in-chief, General Auckinleck were advising that there was a real threat in 1946 of large scale anti-British Disorder amounting to even a well-organised rising aiming to expel the British by paralysing the administration. Quote:...it was clear to Atlee that everything depended on the spirit and reliability of the Indian Army:"Provided that they do their duty, armed insurrection in India would not be an insolube problem. If, however, the Indian Army was to go the other way, the picture would be very different... Quote:...Thus, Wavell concluded,if the army and the police "failed" Britain would be forced to go. In theory, it might be possible to revive and reinvigorate the services, and rule for another fifteen to twenty years, but: 'it is a fallacy to suppose that the solution lies in trying to maintain status quo. We have no longer the resources, nor the necessary prestige or confidence in ourselves."
This certainly creates the impression that the unreliability was a big reason. What we are not told is that Hyam says a great deal more on that same page (sometimes between the ellipses). Here are some missing portions of the same page (p. 106) in Hyam:
"After reading this analysis, it was clear to Atlee that everything depended on the reliability and spirit of the Indian Army: 'provided that they do their duty, armed insurrection in India would not be an insoluble problem. If, however, the Indian Army were to go the other way, the picture would be very different. Wavell warned that, commanding practically the whole of Hindu articulate opinion, Congress could undoubtedly bring about a most serious revolt against British rule, which Britain could probably still suppress, but it would mean nothing short of a campaign for the reconquest of India."
Next paragraph:
"India could not, however, be ruled by the British alone, because the necessary number of officials simply did not exist, and collapsing British prestige left a nakedly expose situation. For example, Indian National Army trials had to be reduced after an explosion of opposition in Calcutta from November 1945. In the Central Provinces there were no troops, and only seventeen British ICS officials and only nineteen British police. Given the state of public opinion both at home and in the world at large, a policy of martial law and repression was not really an option. Moreover, British soldiers were war-weary, and would not want to remain in India in large numbers in order to hold the country down. Thus, Wavell concluded, if the army and police 'failed' Britain would be forced to go. In theory it might be possible to revive and reinforce the services, and rule India for another fifteen or twenty years, but: 'it is a fallacy to suppose that the solution lies in trying to maintain the status quo. We have no longer the resources, nor I think the necessary prestige and confidence in ourselves." (p. 106, Hyam, Britain's Declining Empire: the road to decolonisation, CUP, 2007).
This is a complex paragraph: it details a number of reasons: fear of a mass popular (even armed) revolt led by the Congress (which he notes Britain could probably suppress, but would create other problems);; uncertainty about the reliability of the Indian army in suppressing the revolt, not certainty about its unreliability especially in the form of an impending mutiny irrespective of the popular revolt; the war-weary British army which would not want to remain in India after the war. Similarly, the next page describes the actual cabinet deliberations: "
"After the failure of the Cabinet Mission, the Cabinet had some hard thinking to do. The main debates among ministers were in June and December 1946. Attlee thought the central problem was how to convince Indian politicians that the British really were going, and Indians must therefore hammer out a future for their country. The main worry of the Labour ministers was appearing to be weak, and to head of Churchillian jibes about 'scuttle'. They had a positive fixation about this. In the words of the Cabinet minutes: 'having regard to current difficulties in Palestine and Egypt, it was important, it was important to avoid any course which could be represented as a policy of "scuttle". This would provoke very strong reactions in this country and in the Dominions, and would have a most damaging effect on our international position.' It must not seem as if they were being forces out, but 'for economic, military, and political reasons like, we could not face a situation which involved committing British troops to a long series of operations in India'. Cripps took the view that neither repression nor scuttle were tenable propositions. Repression was beyond British resources, which scuttle would lead to chaos, causing general consternation in the Commonwealth. Bevin argued that any suggestion of 'abandoning our position in India without obtaining a solution' would be interpreted 'as evidence of a decline in British power and resolution', and would upset the Americans. If India broke down, Russia might step in and the seeds of a world conflict could be sown. But equally worrying was the conclusion of the Chiefs of Staff: to remain might permanently antagonize the Indians, which would militate against long-term British strategic requirements, the need for bases and airfields and access to industry and manpower of India in war. The reliability of Indian forces was now, they believed, seriously open to doubt, and to rely on them might mean being forced to withdraw ignominously." (Ibid. pp 107-108)
And here are Attlee's own final reasons. From Hyam p. 108.
In November 1946 Attlee set out with typical trechancy his reasons for rejecting this (Note (F&f): i.e. arguments for staying on in India frequently put forward by A. V. Alexander): "(a) In view of our commitments all over the world we have not the military force to hold India agst ( sic) a widespread guerilla movement or to reconquer India. (b) If we had, public opinion especially in our Party would not stand for it. (c) It is very doubtful if we could keep the Indian troops loyal. It is doubtful if our own troops would be prepared to act. (d) We should have world opinion agst ( sic) us and be placed in an impossible position at UNO. (e) We have not now the administrative machine to carry out such a policy either British or Indian" The Cabinet on 10 December 1946 accepted much of his reasoning. It was agreed that the Army could not be expected to prove a reliable instrument for maintaining public order in conditions which would be tantamount to civil war. One thing was quite certain, 'that we could not put the clock back and introduce a period of firm British rule'. Simply leaving Indians to resolve their own problems, probably in conditions of chaos, was equally unrealistic, if only because 'world opinion would regard it as a policy of scuttle unworthy of a great Power', and it would indeed be an inglorious end if Britain had not guaranteed fair treatment for Muslims and other minorities." (p. 108)
Attlee's reasons are complex: fear of popular revolt led by the Congress (as described in Wavell's memo), i.e. the guerilla movement he is talking about is not a by the rebellion in the army but by the Indian National Congress's increasingly restive youth wing, as in late 1942); uncertainty about the reliability of the Army both British and Indian; lack of administrative manpower in India; and world opinion. Moreover in a previous page, Hyam describes the economic reasons for not holding on to India. And Hyam, in any case, is one historian. Many others, like Low, Judith Brown, and Thomas and Barbara Metcalf give slightly different reasons.
I had summarized all this in one sentence a month or two ago, "Later that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious it had not the military means of controlling civil unrest in India, decided to ..." (or words to that effect) True, it didn't have all the reasons, but it highlighted the two most important reasons, and some of the other reasons were being discussed in other sections anyway. If you are going to add all the reasons, it will easily fill up a paragraph, but you can't make a special case for "reliability of Indian forces" unless you also explicate the other reasons and make sure that the unreliability of Indian forces was considered in terms of suppressing popular revolt, not unreliability in the form of mutinies on their own, irrespective of popular opinion. I have been repeatedly telling people that there is a daughter page, History of the British Raj, and to add the more complex arguments there; but that page remains mostly unedited. Everyone wants to add all their pet edits right here. It's funny: for British India, where the section in this page is small, people want to create a daughter page; however, for History, where this page is bursting at the seams, and where a daughter page exists, no one wants to write there. Go figure. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I missed a bit here. What you say above about the fear of the popular revolt is actually the trouble arose through red-fort trials, Bombay mutiny, masterfully exploited, whipped up, rekindled into a frenzy by the Congress during the election campaign which threatened this spectre to Auck. You remove the "fear of popular revolt" , the context falls away and the Indian army loyalty issue seems out of place, and gives a rather incomplete picture (re: Fowler-"we dont mention one...") That is why I expanded the text (by one line) to include "restless" and then added the reliablity issue. As you show above, the reliabillity was a very prominent thought, which itself shows that it was there. The previous version did not mention this at all, which gives a very incomplete picture. I know Fowler is justifiably weary of people chipping in with whatever they may think belongs there. But this is important enough that a line or two deserves to be included. I dont think it will be deemed fair or balanced if and when this article goes for FAC, and trust me, it will get there ;). rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 13:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
"In a few months at least 60,000 Indians filled British prison cells, and the raj unleashed massive force against Indian underground efforts to disrupt rail transport and to generally subvert the war effort that followed the crackdown on the Quit India campaign. Parts of the United Provinces, Bihar, the North-West Frontier, and Bengal were bombed and strafed by British pilots as the raj resolved to crush all Indian resistance and violent opposition as swiftly as possible. Many Indians were killed and wounded, but wartime resistance continued as more young Indians, women as well as men, were recruited into the Congress's underground."
And here is Britannica, a little later, about the Attlee government's decision:
"Two weeks after the Simla talks collapsed in midsummer, Churchill's government was voted out of power by the Labour Party's sweep of London's polls, and Prime Minister Clement Attlee appointed one of Gandhi's old admirers, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, to head the India Office. With the dawn of the atomic age in August and Japan's surrender, London's primary concern in India was how to find the political solution to the Hindu-Muslim conflict that would most expeditiously permit the British raj to withdraw its forces and to extricate as many of its assets as possible from what seemed to the Labour Party to have become more of an imperial burden and liability than any real advantage for Great Britain."
As you can see, Britannica considers the Labour party decision to be mainly economic: the Raj had become a burden. This is what I had hinted on in my original edit. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I think this debate may turn in the general direction of one we have had before:). I am sure you will find a number of authors, contemporary and modern (not least Stanley Wolpert and Sumit Sarkar, who you have quoted in the past, and Lawrence James and Bayly & Harper and others who I have) who will ascribe the "unrest" to the Red Fort trials and mutiny, which were whipped up by the Congress afterwards to threaten a revolt. And ina- related riots took place not just in Calcutta, but over a large parts of India. Britannica excerpt you provide is focussing, if I'm not much mistaken, on the period after April. The dissatisfactions that Congress explited were derived from simmering unrests that emerged over the preceding seven months. As a number of secondary works discussed above show, differing views on these exists. Without getting bogged down, these needs to be incorported into the text to give an accurate picture. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 15:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Xn4 ( talk · contribs) has revived the ghost of "colloquialism" with regards the title of this page. This has been the subject of countless discussions before. We need to remind ourselves that the page is about "Crown rule in India" between 1858 and 1947 and is a counterpoint to the page " Company rule in India." The consensus on this page has been to keep the title British Raj. The title may or may not be a considered a colloquialism any more (given that a number of textbooks and monographs by leading historians use the term), but, regardless, that fact is a minor etymological detail not worthy of mention in the lead, except as a footnote. The point of the lead is to provide information about the region and the rule and to do so in a manner that provides maximum necessary information without confusing a new reader with unnecessary details. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Xn4 ( talk · contribs) has also undone a redirect that has stood for over two years, viz British India--> British Raj. He has copied and pasted a few paragraphs from this page to create the new page. I have nothing against creating a separate page for British India, but again, this topic has been the subject of many discussions on this page, discussions that had begun long before I arrived on Wikipedia in October 2006. I feel a unilateral removal of the redirect is against the spirit of seeking consensus that has been the hallmark of this page. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I rather regret anyone setting out (as above) to personalize this matter, but I'm happy to say a few words here in response.
Thank you, Nishkid. This question is really more subtle than the adversarial British India vs. British Raj debate. Vague though the meaning of British Raj has always been, the old arguments for renaming the present main article away from British Raj don't seem to me to be very much to the point here. Indeed, to move the article as it stands to some other title could be disruptive and insensitive. Supposing British Raj remains, with appropriate content, then that's fine by me. By the same token, British India (a geographical area subject to what is often called the British Raj) must surely justify some distinct coverage, and we can welcome what Fowler&fowler has said above, "I have nothing against creating a separate page for British India". The issue, then, seems to be what may be objected to or proposed for improvement in the content of British India, and deletion is a blunt instrument which takes us nowhere with that question. Xn4 ( talk) 02:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I see Fowler&fowler has again redirected the British India page here, without saying so, despite his comment at the outset, "I have nothing against creating a separate page for British India". I just don't agree with the paragraph above, which in some ways is like saying we don't need a page for England because we have one for the British Royal Family. Perhaps F&f could explain what content he does wish to see in the British India page which he has nothing against creating ("I have nothing against creating a separate page for British India", see first para under this header)? Xn4 ( talk) 02:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, creating a page needs no consensus, as suggested. If any user wishes to propose a page for deletion or for merging, there are protocols for one or the other of those to be considered, bur no such process has been begun. Xn4 ( talk) 02:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Xn4. He makes a fair point, "such a gigantic subject as the British in India is sure to spread over a large number of pages, of which British India can (in my view) be a very useful one." Also, I don't like Fowler's attitude that it's for him to decide on all such things. Let's have a discussion, not a lecture from Fowler. Strawless ( talk) 16:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: If all you want to do is replace a currently existing, unprotected redirect with an actual article, you do not need to list it here. Turning redirects into fleshed-out encyclopedic articles is wholly encouraged at Wikipedia. Be bold. (my italics)
The OED on-line edition (draft revision of June 2008, requires subscription) has clarified its definition of "British Raj" in view of the language of this page's lead (and uses some of the language of the lead)! Here is the new definition:
"raj 2. spec: In full British Raj. Direct rule in India by the British (1858-1947); this period of dominion. Often with the. Also in extended use: any system of government in which power is restricted to a particular group. The British Raj was instituted in 1858, when, as a consequence of the Indian Rebellion of the previous year, the rule of the British East India Company was transferred to the Crown in the person of Queen Victoria (proclaimed Empress of India in 1876). In 1947 the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two sovereign dominion states, the Union of India (later the Republic of India) and the Dominion of Pakistan (later the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the People's Republic of Bangladesh) (cf. PARTITION n. 7c).
Before the revision, it use to simply say: "b. spec. the British dominion or rule in the Indian sub-continent (before 1947). In full, British raj."
And here are OED's examples of usage with dates in boldface:
1857 Times 3 Aug. 5/6 We have just seen a translation of one of the most infamous articles against the British Raj, which we have seen published. 1879 Times 8 Dec. 9/3 The downfall of the British raj was only a matter of time. 1908 Daily Chron. 21 June 4/4 The Indian agitators who represent the British raj as the author of the plague. 1940 Times 10 July 3/6 The Congress demand for a National Government so-called really meant a Congress ‘Raj’. 1969 R. MILLAR Kut xv. 288 Sir Stanley Maude had taken command in Mesopotamia, displacing the raj of antique Indian Army commanders. 1971 Illustr. Weekly India 18 Apr. 4/2 Though it appears paradoxical, in the last days of the Raj, the British were the only people who wished to keep India united. 1987 N. SIBAL Yatra I. 6 Paramjit had written to her saying that the British were pulling out of India and that the Raj was coming to an end. 2006 Daily Mail (Nexis) 6 June 17 I've yet to hear him address the democratic deficit which subjugates the English to rule by a Scottish Raj.
Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
user:Xn4 has also erred in stating the the expression "British Raj" is never used to refer to the region of the rule. Here is the link for the Google scholar search for the expression "in the British Raj": Google Scholar Search. Clearly there are many examples in which "in the British Raj" is meant in the sense of "in India under British rule," (and not in the sense of Raj as dominion or period) such as:
directly out of the anti-colonial struggle in the British Raj"
Gazetteers published for provinces in the British Raj), Atkinson's treatment ..."
at Sandhurst, afterwards seeing active service in the First World War ..."
raj, the emphasis had always been on nationalism. The ..."
In other instances "Raj" is used in the second sense of British India, especially in its second meaning of "the British in India": Thus:
Indians (called "wogs" for "worthy oriental gentleman") were excluded. ..."
of a different race who, as a servant in the British Raj, occupies a ..."
Raj is not just used in the sense of "dominion/rule," or the "period of dominion," but also refers to the region under the rule (i.e. British India) or the British in this region (i.e. secondary meaning of British India). The collection of the examples above are sufficient to establish that third use of Raj (for British India); although this usage is not as widespread, it is nevertheless to be found in the literature, as seen in the examples from the Google scholar link above. Meanwhile, will user:Xn4 care to provide five or six citations that describe the term "British Raj" as imprecise? You would think that the OED would state (this fact of imprecision) in its definition (see above). Fowler&fowler «Talk» 04:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Just a joinder per BlueKnights point about British raj including crown and company rule. I think former is more often refferred to as Company Raj. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 10:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Posted on Talk:British India by user:Xn4 (copied and pasted from user:Xn4's talk page. Copied here by Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC) per user:Nishkid64's suggestion here.
I appreciate your edits to British India; however, the move (from the redirect to the British Raj) to an independent page will need to be discussed on the Talk:British Raj page first. There have been many discussions there on this very title, and, I'm guessing, the various discussants would like to be informed before such a move is attempted.
Meanwhile, I have corrected the lead sentence in British India; the term was used for British regions in India under Company rule as well. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 06:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Before you wrote anything on this page, I'd seen some of your insulting edit summaries, such as "rv undiscussed and inaccurate copyedit by Xn4", and I notice others have complained about this abusive style on your talk page. If you're in the habit of handing out such 'plain speaking', then I'm afraid you need to learn to take it. You've linked above what you say is the OED online definition of 'British Raj': "Direct rule in India by the British (1858-1947); this period of dominion." That sounds authentic to me, and it's a meaning I'm happy to agree with, but it clearly doesn't include the meaning that 'British Raj' becomes the country itself, a geographical area. The idea (which you certainly seem to promote in your comments above, please tell me if I've misunderstood you) that ' British Raj' should replace ' British India', which ought to be a redirect to ' British Raj', is potty, and it would remain potty even if a thousand Wikipedia users agreed with it. Xn4 ( talk) 23:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Without judgement on the merits of the need for different articles on British India and the British Raj, I'd like to point out that while there is a subtle difference between British Raj (India ruled by the British crown) and British India (the country that was ruled by the British), the difference seems slight (to me anyway). Somewhat akin to the difference between Mughal Empire and Mughal India (both of which point to the same article). At this point, subtle definitional issues aside, I find it hard to see any significant content difference between the two articles, assuming, of course, that these two separate articles existed. Perhaps xn4 could point to specific content differences, bearing in mind that wikipedia encourages the use of the commonly known name for an article (as opposed to formal or non-colloquial names) and discourages unnecessary forks. -- Regents Park ( count the magpies) 02:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Is this allowed? I mean copying posts from user talk pages and then pasting them on article talk pages. Will someone look into this? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I dont see what at all is wrong with this. If I am anot much mistaken Fowler, both you and I have done so in the past, even in this page. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 22:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
So long as the source for the copy and past is made clear (so one can validated the history) then people often copy user talk page conversations to article pages for further discussion and to encourage other users to participate. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 17:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me we have three options:
I do not support the first option as it is confusing -- as demonstrated by [ this edit] to the redirect British Indian Empire (why did you do it user:Xn4?). I am open to persuasion on the other two options. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 14:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The choice between options 2 and 3 depends if the term "British India" is used to describe British involvement in India before the Raj. This is something that should be demonstrated by the use of reliable sources. It would depend if the period of company rule is usually described as being part of "British India", or a forerunner of British India. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 14:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Stephen Kirrage Wikipedia is not a dictionary articles should describe persons, things and events, not the derivation of words. So there is no justification in having an article to describe as you put it a "New page for British India by user:Xn4" section above i.e. showing the development of the meaning of "British India" from 1765 to 1947. What matter is what the word is used to describe today. It seems to me TheBlueKnight that option three would be your best compromise, as surly you agree that two pages containing the same information will lead to problems. My two earlier questions do not seem to have been answered:
-- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 10:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
The grown-up option as outlined by Philip B. S. above is Option 1, because the case clearly has been made, not least by the improving British India article itself, that a discrete article on that subject is worth having. British India is clearly an important topic within the history of India, and it is not the same as British Raj as defined here, so sooner or later it will need a lot more space than it can have as a subdivision of an article on British Raj. It will also need new sections which can be addressed homogeneously under the title of British India but which would get enormously complicated if they had to be dealt with at a higher level including all the princely states, which were not under British control and had their own systems of government, law, tax, etc. It may be that some editors here are wanting to fight old battles which I gather are to do with whether the much better-established British Raj article should be renamed "British India", but that isn't the question now, and it can even be pointed out that the existence of a British India article seems to be showing how wrong some users have been in the past in wanting to move everything at British Raj to the title "British India" - we can now see clearly that that would have been the wrong title for an article which aims to cover the whole of India. Strawless ( talk) 18:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
"raj 2. spec: In full British Raj. Direct rule in India by the British (1858-1947); this period of dominion. Often with the. Also in extended use: any system of government in which power is restricted to a particular group."
"British India, collective designation of the 17 Indian provinces formerly under direct British administration, as distinguished from the more autonomous regions called the Native States of India."
I've created a dab page for "British India" on my subpage: User:Fowler&fowler/British India and included references there. Here is the text (but without the references):
British India, may refer to:
"British India" has also been used in the sense of "the British in India."
Fowler&fowler
«Talk»
17:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I have been patient with user:Xn4, putting up with his unencyclopedic edits to British India, while at the same time trying to come to some kind of decision on this talk page. However, he has been systematically changing links (from British Raj to his new British India) on different Wikipedia pages. Most of these changes are plain incorrect even by his definition. He has also been spamming different people's talk pages, many of whom have then added their comments here. Here are some of the edits diffs:
-- Regents Park ( count the magpies) 17:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Moreover, the edits have been made in bad faith. user:Xn4 made it a point to stress geographical content in the British India page (see his posts in the talk page above; see his posts on user talk:Philip Baird Shearer#British India/British Raj. After all this, what is he doing blatantly changing British Raj to British India, even when the result is incorrect or meaningless or nothing to do with geography??
In addition he has been spamming various talk pages. See for example: the posts of August 28. Some of the recipients have made comments here (usually in support of user:Xn4's goals).
I have had it with user:Xn4's edits. I will not allow this abuse of NPOV be carried on any more. I am therefore moving British India to the dab page above. If it is not acceptable, I will be happy to redirect it back to British Raj. However, I will not allow an independent British India page, especially in the light of user:Xn4's vandalism on other pages. If need be, I'm happy to go for a full-blown Wikipedia mediation on this topic with user:Xn4, or any of his cohorts and supporters, should they choose to join him. I am confident I have the sources on my side. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Thanks, TheBlueKnight, for your reply. My questions above were mostly rhetorical. I apologize for the misunderstanding. True, Hyderabad did have soldiers, but those that didn't have a purely ceremonial function or purely "police" function (i.e. preservation of internal order), were part of the Hyderabad Contingent of the Imperial Service Troops. The Contingent was raised by the Nizam, but entirely for the purpose of providing support to the British Army if such support were needed, and were regularly inspected by British Army soldiers. At the turn of the 20th century, the Imperial Service Troops for all the princely states counted no more than 18,000 soldiers among its ranks. According to the IGI 1909(see below), "The other military forces maintained by the Native States aggregate no more that 93,000 men, but these troops are kept only for the purpose of internal order or ceremony and have little military value." The "defence" of Hyderabad in 1948, such as it was, was undertaken not by the Hyderabad State army, but by a paramilitary group, the Razakars, many of whom were from far away places like Rohilkhand. The main point above, however, is articulated in the Imperial Gazetteer of India. (The term "chief" means a ruler, a Maharaja, Raja, or Nawab.)
"Since a chief can neither attack his neighbour nor fall out with a foreign nation, it follows that he needs no military establishment which is not required either for police purposes or personal display, or for cooperation with the Imperial Government. The treaty made with Gwalior in 1844, and the instrument of transfer given to Mysore in 1881, alike base the restriction of the forces of the State upon the broad ground of protection. The former explained in detail that unnecessary armies were embarrassing to the State itself and the cause of disquietude to others: a few months later a striking proof of this was afforded by the army of the Sikh kingdom of Lahore. The British Government has undertaken to protect the dominions of the Native princes from invasion and even from rebellion within: its army is organized for the defence not merely of British India, but of all the possessions under the suzerainty of the King-Emperor." (Imperial Gazetteer of India, volume IV, 1909).
It goes on to say (parenthetical additions mine):
"The treaties with most of the larger States are clear on this point. Posts in the interior must not be fortified, factories for the production of guns and ammunition must not be constructed, nor may the subject of other States be enlisted in the local forces. ... They (the Native States) must allow the (British) forces that defend them to obtain local supplies, to occupy cantonments or positions, and to arrest deserters; and in addition to these services they must recognize the Imperial (i.e. British) control of the railways, telegraphs, and postal communications as essential not only to the common welfare but to the common defence."(IGI 1909, volume 4)
Thus, in practice, the Native States had only (what has been termed) a "puppet sovereignty."
Meanwhile, user:Xn4, please respond to PBS's latest post above. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I think besides Travancore it was perhaps Bhopal and few of the bigger states in Rajputana. But thanks for the info. TheBlueKnight ( talk) 05:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
As user:Xn4 has not responded to my last post I have reinstated the disambiguation page at British India. Unless someone other than user:Xn4 reverts that edit back to the last edit by user:Xn4, or posts a message here objecting to my edits reinstating the disambiguation text, I think that we can conclude that this is the consensus for British India to be a disambiguation page. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 14:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) You can say all this and more at MedCab. See below. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 00:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
There seem to be some minor problems in the infobox at British Raj, which at the moment is headed Indian Empire. The second line in the infobox, under 'Indian Empire', reads British colony, but neither the (British) Indian Empire nor the 'British Raj' was ever a colony. We read " Established August 2, 1858", and " Disestablished August 15, 1947. Neither of those dates applies to the Indian Empire (as we know, it was established much later, and George VI continued to be called Emperor of India until June 1948) although they arguably apply to the British Raj. But if the infobox is headed British Raj, that causes other problems. Can anyone suggest how to fix these difficulties? It isn't clear to me. Xn4 ( talk) 23:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
This section was intended to be about the infobox. See above. There must be some things which we can discuss sensibly without 'mediation' or 'respondents' - the second of which is a term from civil litigation. If we could all be a bit less adversarial, it would be better. Xn4 ( talk) 00:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
What misinformation Fowler??? unless if you're saying that what he copied (as you allege) from these pages are factually wrong!!! I have great respect for your toil and efforts, doesn't mean you get to ride rough shod over others! Enough is enough!!! you've not only threatened medcab day in day out to well nigh every one you've sustained opposition with, it seems to me you've begun using it as a method to scare other people off, which is entirely dishonest!!! Another very worthy approach would've been to stand back, hear what he has to say, and taken his points and then discussed it instead of goin in with your 88s blazing. I can three quarters see what XN4 is saying, and you yourself have added that India was in some olympics in 1920s as British India, not British Raj!!! And for you knowing oh so much, you know as well as I do that you are reading three or four text books of Modern Indian history (WP:RS) which have their own view points, and using them to support mostly (largely) the the way you want it portrayed,as do others, its not neccessarily biased, it is not neccessarily wrong! But it is frankly unacceptable, that you threaten medcab to another editor who has just a decent history in WP as you do, for which the only reason I can see is to scare them off, as you tried with myself sometime last year. Notice here that I still discuss things with you cordially, civilly, and with trust and respect. I expect the same from you (and every other editor) to myself, and to every other editor who works here in WP without any reward! rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 01:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The problem as I see it is not Fowler's knowledgability, of which there are strengths as well as ample weeknesses. It is th e extremely unfortunate arrogance in that, and his disgusting attitude to others who work just as hard but dont make enough fuss to get the same pacifying adulation. A look at the Archives of this page and India Talk page at the very least (if they were archived in an orderly manner) will indicate this to you. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 09:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
user:rueben lys I think you misunderstand what "medcab" (formal Wikipedia mediation) is for. That User:Fowler&fowler suggests using it may have been premature as we have not yet exhausted other options like an RfC (See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution), and informal mediation, but in principle as there is a disagreement over the issue and not apparent chance of building a compromise consensus (as is apparent from the sections on this talk page immediately preceding this one), I do not think that User:Fowler&fowler is threatening anyone, as we need to resolve this issue.
I am placing an RFC on the page Talk:British India and we can continue the discussion about this on that page as we seem to have agreement that British India will no longer be a redirect to this page (see Talk:British_India#RFC: Article or disambiguation page). -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 10:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
This page is becoming large and I think it is probably best if we draw a line under the current sections on this talk page, as little constructive for the development of this page is currently being discussed. So unless anyone objects I will archive anything before this section in 24 hours time. Any new constructive discussions about this page that are started after this postings should be placed in a new section below this one. For example if the Infobox is in need of development then I suggest a new section below this one that only discusses the suggested changes and does not descend into criticisms about editors as no consensus is likely in the current section called Infobox. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 13:53, 4 September 2008 (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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |