![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 12 |
There is some serious issue with the precursor states section-he Maratha empire has been deleted as one of the precursor states.This looks like POV pushing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylark2008 ( talk • contribs) 14:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
The flag of the Maratha empire has been deleted from the list of precursor states section.Its laughable that the rump Mughal state has been shown as a precursor state but the numerous Maratha states and other Hindu states which were far higher is status and prestige during the East India Company rule have been completely deleted.It seems activists from a certain community are trying to push some serious POV bias here.Also some Hindu-Muslim comparative population maps have been inserted which have little relevance to an account of the British government rule.This trend of communalizing wikipedia and using it to propagate communal agenda is damaging.Someone has to please replace the flags of the Hindu states alongside that of the other two flags,in the pre-cursor states section.Another solution is to remove all flags except the flag of the East India company.However if flags other than East India Company flag have to be shown it should include those of the Maratha states,the Mysore state of the Wodeyars,the Kerala states,the Rajput states and all the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylark2008 ( talk • contribs) 14:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Why you delete my Righteous Indian Rebellion and Rich Snotty Muslim League? It was those! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.87.71 ( talk) 13:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Economic impact needs to be documented rather than POV here. "England's Debt to India" and "Unhappy India" of Lala Lajpat Rai summarize the economic position and impact. India's global share in GDP was brought down from 20+% to 1% during British rule. This needs to be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.182.80 ( talk) 03:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Education section does not cover the fact that a well developed native Indian education was routed by the British by force. The number of schools and students receiving higher education were higher in Indian education system than the British convents. This is documented in Dharampal's "The Beautiful Tree". Colonial Education continues to be a severe detriment to Indian education standards, and 60 years after independence, Indian academics struggle to prepare their curriculum independently under the influence of colonial academicians like Romila Thapar. Attempts towards non-colonizing the curriculum are fought as "Saffronization". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.182.80 ( talk) 03:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
This article is OK in parts, although you can tell that the bottom half is predominantly of an Indian nationalist viewpoint, as it intently focuses upon the struggle for independence and Congress - this can really be classed as opposition to the British Raj, rather than as information about the British Raj itself.
Actually, I am not challenging any facts given as such; it is simply the way the article is constructed. The choice of facts and the space given to them, negates the article's neutrality, and paints a massively false image which is intentionally anti-British and pro-Indian.
Inconvenient facts that are embarrassing to Indian nationalists have been completely ignored. For example, you would think that the basic demographics of the British presence in India would be of great interest to any reader. We read hundreds of lines about the political and armed struggles against the British - but who were the British in India? How many and where? The real answer is: virtually none. And Indian nationalists don't want people to know that. Because they wish to portray themselves as oppressed and heroic - this doesn’t really work if they disclose the fact that there were hardly any British in India, ever. Any struggle they faced for independence was against themselves.
One small hint of this is given in the article, buried in the LORD CURZON box (most people would miss it, and few people would grasp the incredible significance of the information):
"Census of 1901 gives the total population at 294 million, including 62 million in the princely states and 232 million in British India.[37] About 170,000 are Europeans."
So, the British had been outnumbered about 1-to-1500 in India! And I am not even talking about military personnel! A British officer in the 1830's wrote that if the Indians wanted to get rid of the British all they would have to do is each throw a handful of sand at them, in which case they would all be buried alive. A British reporter who arrived in Calcutta to cover the mutiny in 1857, was shocked that he travelled from one end of the city to the other without "seeing a single white face" - and he described his countryman's presence as a "numerical nothingness" - such sentiments were common, and realistic.
In the 1901 census there were less than ten thousand British in Calcutta (the capital) of all descriptions - this figure included women and children, tourists and transient businessmen. British military personnel in the subcontinent varied from decade to decade, but averaged out at around 50,000 troops - that's 50,000 for what is now the Republic of India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Burma!
So, obviously, the Indian Army and Indian Police were of vital importance to the maintenance of the British Raj. Key elements of the British Raj to which it owed its very existence.... and almost totally omitted in the article! Why ........... because they were 99% staffed by Indians, that's why. To admit that, doesn't really fit the image of "heroic Indian masses fighting against the British" does it? In truth, the masses were not fighting, and those sections of Indian society that were battling, were generally being tackled by their own countrymen.
But of course the article doesn't even tell us that there were virtually no foreigners in India, instead it concentrates on what was (in fact) an incredibly weak and ineffective "resistance" movement, which took 90 years to achieve something that should have taken less than 90 days.
Also ....
It is also incredible that the battles of Kohima and Imphal go unmentioned - these battles fought on Indian soil saved the British Raj, or at least until final independence. But again, because of the intense Indian participation in those battles, and because the British won, they are deemed too "unimportant" to mention, whilst the incredibly ineffective INA get many lines.
So a great piece of INDIAN NATIONALIST PROPAGANDA we have here, an elloquant hagiography of the Indian people, that exonerates them of all possible guilt and responsibility.
But hey, ....... that's Wikipedia! (-;
TB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.172.206 ( talk) 14:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
The British Raj (rāj, lit. "reign" in Hindi)[1] was British rule in the Indian subcontinent between 1858 and 1947. The term can also refer to the period of dominion.
What a messy lead.
I'm not a native English-speaker, but to make that sentence legible it should be something like: The British Raj (rāj, lit. "reign" in Hindi)[1] is the name given to British rule in the Indian subcontinent between 1858 and 1947.
The term can also refer to the period of dominion.
the period of dominion!? What does "the period of dominion" means!?!
<sigh>-- Lubiesque ( talk) 18:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The territories of Goa, Damão, Diu, Dadra and Nagar Haveli were under Portuguese rule since before there were even any British in India and stayed so until after they left. They were part of what was then called Portuguese India since the 1500's. Pondicherry was also not part of the British Raj, being instead regarded alongside Mahé, Yanam and Karaikal as French India since 1674. So why does every single map in this article show the entire Indian subcontinent under British rule? And no mentions to these territories being exceptions of sovereignty on this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonaspv ( talk • contribs) 22:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
In the infobox, I have changed the classification of the British Raj from "Dominion" to "Province", as Burma was ruled separately as a Crown Colony from 1937, and neither India nor Pakistan received Dominion status until their independence in 1947.
The status of the British Raj seems somewhat ambiguous during the period from 1858-1947. While British India might literally be considered a "colony" of the United Kingdom during this time, so far I have not seen any official British publication from that era which defines British India as a colony. Until 1948, "The Statesman's Year-Book" classified British India as a political entity distinctly separate from the Dominions and colonies of the British Empire:
"India, as defined by Parliament (52 and 53 Vict. c. 63, s. 18), comprises all that part of the great Indian Peninsula which is directly or indirectly under British rule or protection...The term British India includes only the districts subject to British law, and does not include Indian States." [1]
As another example, until January 1948 the London Gazette listed appointments of Indian Knight Bachelors separately from those made to British subjects in the British Dominions, colonies, protectorates and mandates; this separation is apparent in the Gazette's 1926 New Year Honours List. [2]
I am far from being a scholar of British Indian politics or history, but as far as I can make out, in regards to political classification, British India might best be considered a "Province" of the Crown (roughly analogous to the status of Portuguese India and other Portuguese territories, which were officially considered "provinces", not "colonies" of Portugal)
Any further constructive input on this matter would be very welcome. Aumnamahashiva ( talk) 20:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
The British and many other nations of the era referred to the Raj as the "Indian Empire", in succession to the "Mughal Empire." Perhaps "Empire" might also be appropriate Aumnamahashiva ( talk) 23:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
After looking into it further, I understand the British Raj changed political classifications during its history, which can be divided into several stages:
Aumnamahashiva ( talk) 12:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Why does Yemen appear alongside Bangladesh, Burma, India, and Pakistan in the "Today part of" section at the bottom of the infobox (top-right of the page)? Should Nepal and Bhutan be included? 82.229.188.151 ( talk) 08:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't see much information particularly relating to the history of medicine in this article, and I was wondering if anyone knows whether there is currently a separate article on that topic? There's currently a section on Famines, Epidemics, and Public Health, as well as a rather orphaned article, but both seem to me to be quite limiting in scope, and I wonder whether there are any articles on the medical history of the British Raj itself. If not, any thoughts on whether creating a separate article would be preferable or not compared to adding information focusing on medicine to this article? I am inclined to say it deserves a separate article but not 100% sure, and don't want to start one unnecessarily.
I'm organising training sessions at the National Library of Scotland, and as they have a digital collection on the 'Medical history of British India', I was hoping I might encourage them to use the training session as an opportunity to contribute some of that information to Wikipedia. Would greatly appreciate responses and input! ACrockford ( talk) 13:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: |first1=
has generic name (
help)From time to time people change the lead to something like: "British Raj is the term used for ..." I would like to urge those of you intending to do so again to read Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is about India (1858–1947) and (as the article says) it was commonly called India. Just as the Wikipedia article on the Republic of India doesn't say, "India is the term used for a country in South Asia ...," we can't do the same here. Besides, the OED, 3rd edition, June 2008, specifically says: " British Raj. Direct rule in India by the British (1858–1947); this period of dominion." Please bear this in mind. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Sidhu Jyatha ( talk · contribs) has switched a public domain picture of Subhas Bose with another one, which does not appear to be PD, and which I have nominated for speedy deletion. I would urge the editor to restore the previous image. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Add Bangladesh's flag. Bangladesh was also a part of the British Raj before being the former East Pakistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.246.181 ( talk) 04:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Just add the flag and put something like (after 1971). Every sovereign state after the Raj needs mentioning and Bangladesh is now one of them 69.165.246.181 ( talk) 17:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Is this an advert? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.165.2 ( talk) 13:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Is this an advert? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.165.2 ( talk) 13:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
A question: if the official state flag of the British Raj was the Union Jack and it was this flag that was flown across the subcontinent at the time, why is the Star of India (flag) in the infobox as the flag of the British Raj? Particularly since the sources I've seen say it was an "unofficial" or "semi-official" flag used to "represent India in international events?" Aumnamahashiva ( talk) 22:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: SpacemanSpiff ( talk · contribs) 12:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Result: The article fails criteria 5 (quick fail criteria 4) as there are more than one disputes, including the name itself. Given that, it's not the right time to evaluate under the good article criteria. Therefore I'm failing it at this time and invite a renomination when the disputes settle down and the article meets WP:GACR. — Spaceman Spiff 12:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Lemurbaby ( talk · contribs) 23:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Manual of Style, formatting and references
Content and organization
Abandoned? timed out? What's the situation? GraemeLeggett ( talk) 20:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
They shouldn't be included because you cannot see them on map or even the whole article. Bladesmulti ( talk) 14:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Occupied but not administered by. It was never considered a territory of the Raj and never integrated into the Raj system. Burma and Ceylon and the other areas outside India/Pakistan were civilly administered not just a military occupation. Areas such as Baluchistan etc. were annexed by Britain from the larger Afghan state at the time and came under Raj administration and ended up as parts of Pakistan. Dabbler ( talk) 17:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The name "Indian Empire" was never authorized by the British Parliament. Parliament did make the Queen Empress of India in 1876. == Your unilateral changes to British Raj I looked into the passport matter. There was no legislation And no known official government approval for the use of the term "Indian Empire" on the passport. The stamp on the outside of the leather binding was made by the bindery. No reliable secondary source says the passports included "Indian Empire" -- that was original research by some Wikipedia editor who looked at a photograph of the outside leather of the passport. Rjensen ( talk) 20:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
From
User talk:Rjensen
|
---|
Please do not make such edits again, the world "Indian Empire" was a common term those days, even on passports, whereas you replaced the words without consensus. How can the British put "Indian Empire" to the passports incorrectly? Faizan ( talk) 19:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
|
It was never called British Raj in any parliamentary legislation, so should we rename this article? There is the Order of the Indian Empire, the style Emperor/Empress of India, you can't be an Empress without an Empire! In a treaty with the Tsar of Eussia the words refer to "my Indian Empire". Indian Empire has more official notice than British Raj. Dabbler ( talk) 21:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
As long as it is not airbrushed out of the lead and infobox, I have no real objection. It was, at the very least, a semi-official term as shown by its use in passports, the Order of the Indian Empire, the Speech from the Throne etc. and I am pretty sure that my evidence shows that it was more prevalent than British Raj at lot later than 1900. Dabbler ( talk) 22:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
FYI for discussants: See my message at Zaketo's talk page on the related issue of what term is used when piping links to the British Raj article. Abecedare ( talk) 05:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Someone ha shacked the code of this page by inserting the following code at line 140:
<div style="background-color:red;top:0px;left:0px;position:fixed;height:100%;width:100%;text-align:center;font-size:100px;z-index:999999999">nice meme</div>
Someone with the experience is going to have to remove this errant code which just obscures the content of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluteboy ( talk • contribs) 14:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
removed
On this day... in .. 1800 - " Lord Wellesley, Governor-General of the British Raj, founded Fort William College in Fort William, India, to promote Bengali, Hindi and other vernaculars of the subcontinent."
This assertion seems to be doubtful, if the "British Raj" didn't start until 1858. Lathamibird ( talk) 02:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Wanted to know what's wrong in adding the PRC in the today part of section for the infobox? For the princely state of Kashmir and Jammu it shows that it's now part of China too as China claims and controls Aksai Chin which was part of the princely state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaketo ( talk • contribs) 19:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
removed
Somalia and Yemen listed as formerly part of British India? Is this some kind of joke? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.88.31 ( talk) 20:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
As "British Raj" is the title of this article, I suppose it should be listed in the infobox of this article as well. This is what is commonly done in Wikipedia articles. Since there are too many examples for this in Wikipedia, I just list two examples here: the articles for Mughal Empire and Byzantine Empire, where the names "Mughal Empire" and "Byzantine Empire" are mentioned in their infoboxes. Before I began to make change to this article, neither the word "British" and "Raj" appeared in the list of conventional long names, when in fact the name "British India" is far more common than both "Indian Empire" and "Empire of India" in Google Books. -- Cartakes ( talk) 20:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
While I think Tharoor did a fine job in that speech, I'm going to remove it and the recent additions from the article. The speech was made as a part of a debate and while the existence of the speech is reliably sourced, highlighting the arguments and conclusions - at least if those conclusions are based on one speech (and one excellent article by Dalrymple) is undue. And, of course, it has no place in the section titled 'Economic extent'. I suggest extracting the main points, finding supporting academic references, and rewriting it as an 'Economic impacts' section (something that has long been missing in this article). -- regentspark ( comment) 14:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
FreeatlastChitchat, RegentsPark:
According to the article Independence Day (Pakistan):
"As from the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, two independent Dominions shall be set up in India, to be known respectively as India and Pakistan."
Pretty sure we can't stray from the Indian Independence Act 1947.
It is now annually celebrated on the 14 of August due to a number of reason but that doesn't change the official date that it happened. Filpro ( talk) 21:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
All this sounds right to me. But, the question is how do we represent the material. For example, if Jinnah was sworn in as Governor General on the 14th (presumably before the midnight swearing in of Nehru), then wouldn't the dominion start on the 14th? Or was he also sworn in at midnight but Pakistan decided to celebrate its independence on the 14th? The article linked by Human is confusing because it seems to imply that the date was moved up to the 14th before actual independence but that Jinnah said 15th in his independence speech (unless the speech being referred to is a different one). We need more Pakistan page editors to help figure this out. Pinging @ Mar4d: @ Faizan: @ Smsarmad: -- regentspark ( comment) 20:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
From
Jinnah
|
---|
On 14 August, Pakistan became independent; Jinnah led the celebrations in Karachi. One observer wrote, "here indeed is Pakistan's King Emperor, Archbishop of Canterbury, Speaker and Prime Minister concentrated into one formidable Quaid-e-Azam." (Pages=341–342 of "Jinnah of Pakistan") |
Several books like Pakistan: A Country Study, Empires at War: A Short History of Modern Asia Since World War II, Frontline Pakistan: The Path to Catastrophe Amd the Killing of Benazir Bhutto and the biography of Mohammad Ali Jinnah give the date of Independence and transfer of power to Governor General as 14 August. Faizan ( talk) 14:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I see there are disputes involving the common name and conventional long name in the infobox again. User:SheriffIsInTown have changed both common name and conventional long name to match the article title, i.e. British Raj, whereas User:Filpro listed some counterexamples including Taiwan, West Germany and Soviet Union. I have noticed that in all three cases the common name and conventional long name listed in these articles are not the same, but at least one of the two names match the article title. So how about this: change the "conventional long name" in the infobox of this article to "British Raj" which matches the article title, but leave the "common name" in the infobox as "India". I personally believe this makes more sense since "British Raj" is more a contemporary conventional name for the entity whereas "India" was more a historical common name of the entity. Any comments about this? -- Cartakes ( talk) 03:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree, the British Raj is not the name of anywhere. It is the name given to the period that the British ruled or were dominant over most of the sub-continent of India. Really the "former country" infobox is the wrong one to use in this case. The former country would be "British India" or "Empire of India (British)" or some such name. Dabbler ( talk) 19:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
By the Interpretation Act of 1889, the name British India was applied to the parts under direct British rule and India to the whole area including the princely states. See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1889/63/pdfs/ukpga_18890063_en.pdf Section 18, sub-sections 4 and 5. Dabbler ( talk) 15:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
The British Indian passport was a passport, proof of national status and travel document issued to the British subjects of British India, British subjects from other parts of the British Empire, and the subjects of the British protected states in India (i. e. the British Protected Persons of the 'princely states'). The title of state used in the passport was the " Indian Empire", which covered all of modern India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Burma.
"India" was the conventional (and legal) name for the country which included the princely states which acknowledged British suzerainty, 'British India' was the conventional and legal name for the country under direct British rule which does not include the princely states. The 'Indian Empire' was an alternative name for British India, as they would not have issued passports for the princely states and labelled them British India. As far as I know there was no conventional or legal longer name for the area known as India.
Dabbler (
talk)
21:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
The term British Raj is the currently more common name but historically the use of Indian Empire was much more common, e.g. the Order of the Indian Empire, Ind. Imp. on British and Empire coins. Most common name was always India. A quick survey of Google Books gives many references to Indian Empire but most are from Victorian times. Titles using British Raj are mostly from the 1970s onward, though there were a very few earlier mentions. Dabbler ( talk) 03:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
A quick survey of Google Books gives many references to Indian Empire
After 1876, the resulting political union was officially called the Indian Empire and issued passports under that name.
This common Imperial citizenship lasted until 1948, after which individual national citizenships began to appear.
These were all standardized dark blue passports with the front cover showing the British coat of arms or Dominion coat of arms with the title British Passport on the top and the name of each country they were issued in below the coat of arms. For example, the cover would have BRITISH PASSPORT - UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, BRITISH PASSPORT - AUSTRALIA, BRITISH PASSPORT - INDIAN EMPIRE, etc.
It seems like people want to keep sticking to their stereotypical ideas and not listen to an argument. We are in a declination mode that we were once occupied by Britain but living in a declination mode would not change the history or what this region was called officially. Can someone show me a piece of legislation which made the terms "Mughal Empire" or "British America" official? No one can show that legislation either. POV is the view to which people are sticking to and holding on to so dearly or is it that we are not going to listen to a Pakistani, whatever he would say we must oppose him. Sheriff | report | 18:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
References
I've been away long enough that I seem to have forgotten the command for beginning a new line (unidented). I can't say that I've really read the above discussion carefully, but, very briefly, here is my take on the naming issue. The Wikipedia article British Raj is meant to be about what in older history books was the chapter called, "Direct rule in India," or "Crown rule in India." It was the chapter that typically followed Company rule in India. The term British Raj, however, came increasingly to be used in the 1980s and 90s, both in popular culture (Paul Scott's Raj Quarter) and in the history books. By the time I started editing on Wikipedia, in 2006, British Raj was being used by serious historians of the British period in India ( Christopher Bayly, Thomas Metcalf) even, I believe, in the titles of their books. So, the page name British Raj is here to stay, even though Crown rule in India probably has more continuity as naming conventions go. As for the conventional long name etc, I feel that the version that I lasted edited nearly two years ago, which had already been stable for some time before, (see: British Raj article ca Feb 2014 has a more accurate lead than the current one. The current version confuses the would be reader by suggesting that British India is now less commonly used for The Raj. (PPS Notice "is now" and "were also" in the same sentence.) That would be difficult to support with a reliable source. Some practitioners of Creative Non-Fiction or some journalists bouncing in their echo chambers might be loosely using that term with that meaning, but on WP it is important to preserve the distinction between British India and Princely India, between Direct Rule and Indirect Rule (i.e. through Subsidiary Alliances).
As an aside, I might add, that the second lead paragraph was more or less copied word for word by the OED (in the fine print below the main definition, that is) during their revision of the British Raj entry done around the same time. PS Can't say that I will be available for further discussion on this, at least any time soon. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I am not understanding the section named "Today part of" in infobox. I see Yemen and Somalia there and China was added recently. What is it about? Sheriff | report | 12:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Sources are not required to prove a negative and neither are we. They clearly indicate that Nepal and Bhutan were states outside of the British Raj structure and independent countries over the period involved. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 20:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I had been away for almost two years, and after returning I have noticed that in my absence, many errors have crept into the lead of the article (that is as far as I got). I will be correcting them, and simultaneously posting here. Please don't revert my changes without discussion here. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
New Delhi was founded as the capital of India in 1911, therefore the capital of the British Raj was New Delhi, not Delhi as the article was erroneously changed to. Secondly, the British Raj was most commonly called India (as in the India Office, or Secretary of State for India, or Viceroy of India). Indian Empire was an alternative name but "British" Indian Empire was not used officially and only occasionally used to differentiate between other historical Indian Empires. Therefore I corrected the article back to the way it has been for a while before it was suddenly and erroneously changed. Inless you can provide reliable sources for your changes, then I will revert it back to the long established version. Dabbler ( talk) 00:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on British Raj. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
A map (British_Indian_Empire_1909_Imperial_Gazetteer_of_India.jpg) appears twice in the article. Wouldn't it better if only one instance were left?-- Adûnâi ( talk) 05:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Old timers will remember that there use to be a list of viceroys on this page. During the years of its existence, editors sometimes asked why we had a list when there was already a List of governors-general of India, and I said that the list was really a list (or timeline) of events, legislation, public works, etc, which the other list lacked. See the discussion, Talk:British_Raj/Archive_7#Governor-Generals_and_Viceroys, where @ RegentsPark: asked the question and @ Moonraker:, @ Rjensen: (I think) and others weighed in. I had been meaning to change the title and the columns of that list to reflect the emphasis, but never got around to doing it. I noticed today that that list seemed to have disappeared from Wikipedia. It was certainly not on this page and it was not in that other page either. But then, nothing is truly lost on Wikipedia. Delving into the history of page revisions I discovered that in August or September 2014 an editor @ Jaguar: nominated this page for GA. The review suggested that the list be moved to its own page. The nominating editor was probably unaware of this earlier discussion, so he/she removed the list in this edit. To their credit, they did create a list of viceroys page, but before the sun could rise the following day, some other editor had redirected the page to the Governors-General list and all my work had disappeared into the Wiki-ether. I have now recast the list as a "Timeline of major events, public works, legislation etc." (or words to that effect) and changed the order of the columns to make the presiding viceroys incidental to the timeline. I will be reintroducing it. Please don't remove it, even if a future GA reviewer suggests it, until you've raised the matter here. Thanks. PS I'm not happy with the title, but just this minute can't think of a better one. Please suggest some briefer but more comprehensive title. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:20, 14 March 2017 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 12 |
There is some serious issue with the precursor states section-he Maratha empire has been deleted as one of the precursor states.This looks like POV pushing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylark2008 ( talk • contribs) 14:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
The flag of the Maratha empire has been deleted from the list of precursor states section.Its laughable that the rump Mughal state has been shown as a precursor state but the numerous Maratha states and other Hindu states which were far higher is status and prestige during the East India Company rule have been completely deleted.It seems activists from a certain community are trying to push some serious POV bias here.Also some Hindu-Muslim comparative population maps have been inserted which have little relevance to an account of the British government rule.This trend of communalizing wikipedia and using it to propagate communal agenda is damaging.Someone has to please replace the flags of the Hindu states alongside that of the other two flags,in the pre-cursor states section.Another solution is to remove all flags except the flag of the East India company.However if flags other than East India Company flag have to be shown it should include those of the Maratha states,the Mysore state of the Wodeyars,the Kerala states,the Rajput states and all the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylark2008 ( talk • contribs) 14:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Why you delete my Righteous Indian Rebellion and Rich Snotty Muslim League? It was those! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.87.71 ( talk) 13:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Economic impact needs to be documented rather than POV here. "England's Debt to India" and "Unhappy India" of Lala Lajpat Rai summarize the economic position and impact. India's global share in GDP was brought down from 20+% to 1% during British rule. This needs to be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.182.80 ( talk) 03:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Education section does not cover the fact that a well developed native Indian education was routed by the British by force. The number of schools and students receiving higher education were higher in Indian education system than the British convents. This is documented in Dharampal's "The Beautiful Tree". Colonial Education continues to be a severe detriment to Indian education standards, and 60 years after independence, Indian academics struggle to prepare their curriculum independently under the influence of colonial academicians like Romila Thapar. Attempts towards non-colonizing the curriculum are fought as "Saffronization". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.182.80 ( talk) 03:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
This article is OK in parts, although you can tell that the bottom half is predominantly of an Indian nationalist viewpoint, as it intently focuses upon the struggle for independence and Congress - this can really be classed as opposition to the British Raj, rather than as information about the British Raj itself.
Actually, I am not challenging any facts given as such; it is simply the way the article is constructed. The choice of facts and the space given to them, negates the article's neutrality, and paints a massively false image which is intentionally anti-British and pro-Indian.
Inconvenient facts that are embarrassing to Indian nationalists have been completely ignored. For example, you would think that the basic demographics of the British presence in India would be of great interest to any reader. We read hundreds of lines about the political and armed struggles against the British - but who were the British in India? How many and where? The real answer is: virtually none. And Indian nationalists don't want people to know that. Because they wish to portray themselves as oppressed and heroic - this doesn’t really work if they disclose the fact that there were hardly any British in India, ever. Any struggle they faced for independence was against themselves.
One small hint of this is given in the article, buried in the LORD CURZON box (most people would miss it, and few people would grasp the incredible significance of the information):
"Census of 1901 gives the total population at 294 million, including 62 million in the princely states and 232 million in British India.[37] About 170,000 are Europeans."
So, the British had been outnumbered about 1-to-1500 in India! And I am not even talking about military personnel! A British officer in the 1830's wrote that if the Indians wanted to get rid of the British all they would have to do is each throw a handful of sand at them, in which case they would all be buried alive. A British reporter who arrived in Calcutta to cover the mutiny in 1857, was shocked that he travelled from one end of the city to the other without "seeing a single white face" - and he described his countryman's presence as a "numerical nothingness" - such sentiments were common, and realistic.
In the 1901 census there were less than ten thousand British in Calcutta (the capital) of all descriptions - this figure included women and children, tourists and transient businessmen. British military personnel in the subcontinent varied from decade to decade, but averaged out at around 50,000 troops - that's 50,000 for what is now the Republic of India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Burma!
So, obviously, the Indian Army and Indian Police were of vital importance to the maintenance of the British Raj. Key elements of the British Raj to which it owed its very existence.... and almost totally omitted in the article! Why ........... because they were 99% staffed by Indians, that's why. To admit that, doesn't really fit the image of "heroic Indian masses fighting against the British" does it? In truth, the masses were not fighting, and those sections of Indian society that were battling, were generally being tackled by their own countrymen.
But of course the article doesn't even tell us that there were virtually no foreigners in India, instead it concentrates on what was (in fact) an incredibly weak and ineffective "resistance" movement, which took 90 years to achieve something that should have taken less than 90 days.
Also ....
It is also incredible that the battles of Kohima and Imphal go unmentioned - these battles fought on Indian soil saved the British Raj, or at least until final independence. But again, because of the intense Indian participation in those battles, and because the British won, they are deemed too "unimportant" to mention, whilst the incredibly ineffective INA get many lines.
So a great piece of INDIAN NATIONALIST PROPAGANDA we have here, an elloquant hagiography of the Indian people, that exonerates them of all possible guilt and responsibility.
But hey, ....... that's Wikipedia! (-;
TB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.172.206 ( talk) 14:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
The British Raj (rāj, lit. "reign" in Hindi)[1] was British rule in the Indian subcontinent between 1858 and 1947. The term can also refer to the period of dominion.
What a messy lead.
I'm not a native English-speaker, but to make that sentence legible it should be something like: The British Raj (rāj, lit. "reign" in Hindi)[1] is the name given to British rule in the Indian subcontinent between 1858 and 1947.
The term can also refer to the period of dominion.
the period of dominion!? What does "the period of dominion" means!?!
<sigh>-- Lubiesque ( talk) 18:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The territories of Goa, Damão, Diu, Dadra and Nagar Haveli were under Portuguese rule since before there were even any British in India and stayed so until after they left. They were part of what was then called Portuguese India since the 1500's. Pondicherry was also not part of the British Raj, being instead regarded alongside Mahé, Yanam and Karaikal as French India since 1674. So why does every single map in this article show the entire Indian subcontinent under British rule? And no mentions to these territories being exceptions of sovereignty on this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonaspv ( talk • contribs) 22:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
In the infobox, I have changed the classification of the British Raj from "Dominion" to "Province", as Burma was ruled separately as a Crown Colony from 1937, and neither India nor Pakistan received Dominion status until their independence in 1947.
The status of the British Raj seems somewhat ambiguous during the period from 1858-1947. While British India might literally be considered a "colony" of the United Kingdom during this time, so far I have not seen any official British publication from that era which defines British India as a colony. Until 1948, "The Statesman's Year-Book" classified British India as a political entity distinctly separate from the Dominions and colonies of the British Empire:
"India, as defined by Parliament (52 and 53 Vict. c. 63, s. 18), comprises all that part of the great Indian Peninsula which is directly or indirectly under British rule or protection...The term British India includes only the districts subject to British law, and does not include Indian States." [1]
As another example, until January 1948 the London Gazette listed appointments of Indian Knight Bachelors separately from those made to British subjects in the British Dominions, colonies, protectorates and mandates; this separation is apparent in the Gazette's 1926 New Year Honours List. [2]
I am far from being a scholar of British Indian politics or history, but as far as I can make out, in regards to political classification, British India might best be considered a "Province" of the Crown (roughly analogous to the status of Portuguese India and other Portuguese territories, which were officially considered "provinces", not "colonies" of Portugal)
Any further constructive input on this matter would be very welcome. Aumnamahashiva ( talk) 20:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
The British and many other nations of the era referred to the Raj as the "Indian Empire", in succession to the "Mughal Empire." Perhaps "Empire" might also be appropriate Aumnamahashiva ( talk) 23:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
After looking into it further, I understand the British Raj changed political classifications during its history, which can be divided into several stages:
Aumnamahashiva ( talk) 12:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Why does Yemen appear alongside Bangladesh, Burma, India, and Pakistan in the "Today part of" section at the bottom of the infobox (top-right of the page)? Should Nepal and Bhutan be included? 82.229.188.151 ( talk) 08:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't see much information particularly relating to the history of medicine in this article, and I was wondering if anyone knows whether there is currently a separate article on that topic? There's currently a section on Famines, Epidemics, and Public Health, as well as a rather orphaned article, but both seem to me to be quite limiting in scope, and I wonder whether there are any articles on the medical history of the British Raj itself. If not, any thoughts on whether creating a separate article would be preferable or not compared to adding information focusing on medicine to this article? I am inclined to say it deserves a separate article but not 100% sure, and don't want to start one unnecessarily.
I'm organising training sessions at the National Library of Scotland, and as they have a digital collection on the 'Medical history of British India', I was hoping I might encourage them to use the training session as an opportunity to contribute some of that information to Wikipedia. Would greatly appreciate responses and input! ACrockford ( talk) 13:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: |first1=
has generic name (
help)From time to time people change the lead to something like: "British Raj is the term used for ..." I would like to urge those of you intending to do so again to read Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is about India (1858–1947) and (as the article says) it was commonly called India. Just as the Wikipedia article on the Republic of India doesn't say, "India is the term used for a country in South Asia ...," we can't do the same here. Besides, the OED, 3rd edition, June 2008, specifically says: " British Raj. Direct rule in India by the British (1858–1947); this period of dominion." Please bear this in mind. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Sidhu Jyatha ( talk · contribs) has switched a public domain picture of Subhas Bose with another one, which does not appear to be PD, and which I have nominated for speedy deletion. I would urge the editor to restore the previous image. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Add Bangladesh's flag. Bangladesh was also a part of the British Raj before being the former East Pakistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.246.181 ( talk) 04:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Just add the flag and put something like (after 1971). Every sovereign state after the Raj needs mentioning and Bangladesh is now one of them 69.165.246.181 ( talk) 17:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Is this an advert? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.165.2 ( talk) 13:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Is this an advert? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.165.2 ( talk) 13:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
A question: if the official state flag of the British Raj was the Union Jack and it was this flag that was flown across the subcontinent at the time, why is the Star of India (flag) in the infobox as the flag of the British Raj? Particularly since the sources I've seen say it was an "unofficial" or "semi-official" flag used to "represent India in international events?" Aumnamahashiva ( talk) 22:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: SpacemanSpiff ( talk · contribs) 12:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Result: The article fails criteria 5 (quick fail criteria 4) as there are more than one disputes, including the name itself. Given that, it's not the right time to evaluate under the good article criteria. Therefore I'm failing it at this time and invite a renomination when the disputes settle down and the article meets WP:GACR. — Spaceman Spiff 12:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Lemurbaby ( talk · contribs) 23:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Manual of Style, formatting and references
Content and organization
Abandoned? timed out? What's the situation? GraemeLeggett ( talk) 20:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
They shouldn't be included because you cannot see them on map or even the whole article. Bladesmulti ( talk) 14:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Occupied but not administered by. It was never considered a territory of the Raj and never integrated into the Raj system. Burma and Ceylon and the other areas outside India/Pakistan were civilly administered not just a military occupation. Areas such as Baluchistan etc. were annexed by Britain from the larger Afghan state at the time and came under Raj administration and ended up as parts of Pakistan. Dabbler ( talk) 17:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The name "Indian Empire" was never authorized by the British Parliament. Parliament did make the Queen Empress of India in 1876. == Your unilateral changes to British Raj I looked into the passport matter. There was no legislation And no known official government approval for the use of the term "Indian Empire" on the passport. The stamp on the outside of the leather binding was made by the bindery. No reliable secondary source says the passports included "Indian Empire" -- that was original research by some Wikipedia editor who looked at a photograph of the outside leather of the passport. Rjensen ( talk) 20:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
From
User talk:Rjensen
|
---|
Please do not make such edits again, the world "Indian Empire" was a common term those days, even on passports, whereas you replaced the words without consensus. How can the British put "Indian Empire" to the passports incorrectly? Faizan ( talk) 19:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
|
It was never called British Raj in any parliamentary legislation, so should we rename this article? There is the Order of the Indian Empire, the style Emperor/Empress of India, you can't be an Empress without an Empire! In a treaty with the Tsar of Eussia the words refer to "my Indian Empire". Indian Empire has more official notice than British Raj. Dabbler ( talk) 21:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
As long as it is not airbrushed out of the lead and infobox, I have no real objection. It was, at the very least, a semi-official term as shown by its use in passports, the Order of the Indian Empire, the Speech from the Throne etc. and I am pretty sure that my evidence shows that it was more prevalent than British Raj at lot later than 1900. Dabbler ( talk) 22:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
FYI for discussants: See my message at Zaketo's talk page on the related issue of what term is used when piping links to the British Raj article. Abecedare ( talk) 05:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Someone ha shacked the code of this page by inserting the following code at line 140:
<div style="background-color:red;top:0px;left:0px;position:fixed;height:100%;width:100%;text-align:center;font-size:100px;z-index:999999999">nice meme</div>
Someone with the experience is going to have to remove this errant code which just obscures the content of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluteboy ( talk • contribs) 14:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
removed
On this day... in .. 1800 - " Lord Wellesley, Governor-General of the British Raj, founded Fort William College in Fort William, India, to promote Bengali, Hindi and other vernaculars of the subcontinent."
This assertion seems to be doubtful, if the "British Raj" didn't start until 1858. Lathamibird ( talk) 02:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Wanted to know what's wrong in adding the PRC in the today part of section for the infobox? For the princely state of Kashmir and Jammu it shows that it's now part of China too as China claims and controls Aksai Chin which was part of the princely state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaketo ( talk • contribs) 19:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
removed
Somalia and Yemen listed as formerly part of British India? Is this some kind of joke? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.88.31 ( talk) 20:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
As "British Raj" is the title of this article, I suppose it should be listed in the infobox of this article as well. This is what is commonly done in Wikipedia articles. Since there are too many examples for this in Wikipedia, I just list two examples here: the articles for Mughal Empire and Byzantine Empire, where the names "Mughal Empire" and "Byzantine Empire" are mentioned in their infoboxes. Before I began to make change to this article, neither the word "British" and "Raj" appeared in the list of conventional long names, when in fact the name "British India" is far more common than both "Indian Empire" and "Empire of India" in Google Books. -- Cartakes ( talk) 20:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
While I think Tharoor did a fine job in that speech, I'm going to remove it and the recent additions from the article. The speech was made as a part of a debate and while the existence of the speech is reliably sourced, highlighting the arguments and conclusions - at least if those conclusions are based on one speech (and one excellent article by Dalrymple) is undue. And, of course, it has no place in the section titled 'Economic extent'. I suggest extracting the main points, finding supporting academic references, and rewriting it as an 'Economic impacts' section (something that has long been missing in this article). -- regentspark ( comment) 14:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
FreeatlastChitchat, RegentsPark:
According to the article Independence Day (Pakistan):
"As from the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, two independent Dominions shall be set up in India, to be known respectively as India and Pakistan."
Pretty sure we can't stray from the Indian Independence Act 1947.
It is now annually celebrated on the 14 of August due to a number of reason but that doesn't change the official date that it happened. Filpro ( talk) 21:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
All this sounds right to me. But, the question is how do we represent the material. For example, if Jinnah was sworn in as Governor General on the 14th (presumably before the midnight swearing in of Nehru), then wouldn't the dominion start on the 14th? Or was he also sworn in at midnight but Pakistan decided to celebrate its independence on the 14th? The article linked by Human is confusing because it seems to imply that the date was moved up to the 14th before actual independence but that Jinnah said 15th in his independence speech (unless the speech being referred to is a different one). We need more Pakistan page editors to help figure this out. Pinging @ Mar4d: @ Faizan: @ Smsarmad: -- regentspark ( comment) 20:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
From
Jinnah
|
---|
On 14 August, Pakistan became independent; Jinnah led the celebrations in Karachi. One observer wrote, "here indeed is Pakistan's King Emperor, Archbishop of Canterbury, Speaker and Prime Minister concentrated into one formidable Quaid-e-Azam." (Pages=341–342 of "Jinnah of Pakistan") |
Several books like Pakistan: A Country Study, Empires at War: A Short History of Modern Asia Since World War II, Frontline Pakistan: The Path to Catastrophe Amd the Killing of Benazir Bhutto and the biography of Mohammad Ali Jinnah give the date of Independence and transfer of power to Governor General as 14 August. Faizan ( talk) 14:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I see there are disputes involving the common name and conventional long name in the infobox again. User:SheriffIsInTown have changed both common name and conventional long name to match the article title, i.e. British Raj, whereas User:Filpro listed some counterexamples including Taiwan, West Germany and Soviet Union. I have noticed that in all three cases the common name and conventional long name listed in these articles are not the same, but at least one of the two names match the article title. So how about this: change the "conventional long name" in the infobox of this article to "British Raj" which matches the article title, but leave the "common name" in the infobox as "India". I personally believe this makes more sense since "British Raj" is more a contemporary conventional name for the entity whereas "India" was more a historical common name of the entity. Any comments about this? -- Cartakes ( talk) 03:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree, the British Raj is not the name of anywhere. It is the name given to the period that the British ruled or were dominant over most of the sub-continent of India. Really the "former country" infobox is the wrong one to use in this case. The former country would be "British India" or "Empire of India (British)" or some such name. Dabbler ( talk) 19:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
By the Interpretation Act of 1889, the name British India was applied to the parts under direct British rule and India to the whole area including the princely states. See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1889/63/pdfs/ukpga_18890063_en.pdf Section 18, sub-sections 4 and 5. Dabbler ( talk) 15:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
The British Indian passport was a passport, proof of national status and travel document issued to the British subjects of British India, British subjects from other parts of the British Empire, and the subjects of the British protected states in India (i. e. the British Protected Persons of the 'princely states'). The title of state used in the passport was the " Indian Empire", which covered all of modern India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Burma.
"India" was the conventional (and legal) name for the country which included the princely states which acknowledged British suzerainty, 'British India' was the conventional and legal name for the country under direct British rule which does not include the princely states. The 'Indian Empire' was an alternative name for British India, as they would not have issued passports for the princely states and labelled them British India. As far as I know there was no conventional or legal longer name for the area known as India.
Dabbler (
talk)
21:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
The term British Raj is the currently more common name but historically the use of Indian Empire was much more common, e.g. the Order of the Indian Empire, Ind. Imp. on British and Empire coins. Most common name was always India. A quick survey of Google Books gives many references to Indian Empire but most are from Victorian times. Titles using British Raj are mostly from the 1970s onward, though there were a very few earlier mentions. Dabbler ( talk) 03:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
A quick survey of Google Books gives many references to Indian Empire
After 1876, the resulting political union was officially called the Indian Empire and issued passports under that name.
This common Imperial citizenship lasted until 1948, after which individual national citizenships began to appear.
These were all standardized dark blue passports with the front cover showing the British coat of arms or Dominion coat of arms with the title British Passport on the top and the name of each country they were issued in below the coat of arms. For example, the cover would have BRITISH PASSPORT - UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, BRITISH PASSPORT - AUSTRALIA, BRITISH PASSPORT - INDIAN EMPIRE, etc.
It seems like people want to keep sticking to their stereotypical ideas and not listen to an argument. We are in a declination mode that we were once occupied by Britain but living in a declination mode would not change the history or what this region was called officially. Can someone show me a piece of legislation which made the terms "Mughal Empire" or "British America" official? No one can show that legislation either. POV is the view to which people are sticking to and holding on to so dearly or is it that we are not going to listen to a Pakistani, whatever he would say we must oppose him. Sheriff | report | 18:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
References
I've been away long enough that I seem to have forgotten the command for beginning a new line (unidented). I can't say that I've really read the above discussion carefully, but, very briefly, here is my take on the naming issue. The Wikipedia article British Raj is meant to be about what in older history books was the chapter called, "Direct rule in India," or "Crown rule in India." It was the chapter that typically followed Company rule in India. The term British Raj, however, came increasingly to be used in the 1980s and 90s, both in popular culture (Paul Scott's Raj Quarter) and in the history books. By the time I started editing on Wikipedia, in 2006, British Raj was being used by serious historians of the British period in India ( Christopher Bayly, Thomas Metcalf) even, I believe, in the titles of their books. So, the page name British Raj is here to stay, even though Crown rule in India probably has more continuity as naming conventions go. As for the conventional long name etc, I feel that the version that I lasted edited nearly two years ago, which had already been stable for some time before, (see: British Raj article ca Feb 2014 has a more accurate lead than the current one. The current version confuses the would be reader by suggesting that British India is now less commonly used for The Raj. (PPS Notice "is now" and "were also" in the same sentence.) That would be difficult to support with a reliable source. Some practitioners of Creative Non-Fiction or some journalists bouncing in their echo chambers might be loosely using that term with that meaning, but on WP it is important to preserve the distinction between British India and Princely India, between Direct Rule and Indirect Rule (i.e. through Subsidiary Alliances).
As an aside, I might add, that the second lead paragraph was more or less copied word for word by the OED (in the fine print below the main definition, that is) during their revision of the British Raj entry done around the same time. PS Can't say that I will be available for further discussion on this, at least any time soon. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I am not understanding the section named "Today part of" in infobox. I see Yemen and Somalia there and China was added recently. What is it about? Sheriff | report | 12:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Sources are not required to prove a negative and neither are we. They clearly indicate that Nepal and Bhutan were states outside of the British Raj structure and independent countries over the period involved. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 20:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I had been away for almost two years, and after returning I have noticed that in my absence, many errors have crept into the lead of the article (that is as far as I got). I will be correcting them, and simultaneously posting here. Please don't revert my changes without discussion here. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
New Delhi was founded as the capital of India in 1911, therefore the capital of the British Raj was New Delhi, not Delhi as the article was erroneously changed to. Secondly, the British Raj was most commonly called India (as in the India Office, or Secretary of State for India, or Viceroy of India). Indian Empire was an alternative name but "British" Indian Empire was not used officially and only occasionally used to differentiate between other historical Indian Empires. Therefore I corrected the article back to the way it has been for a while before it was suddenly and erroneously changed. Inless you can provide reliable sources for your changes, then I will revert it back to the long established version. Dabbler ( talk) 00:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on British Raj. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
A map (British_Indian_Empire_1909_Imperial_Gazetteer_of_India.jpg) appears twice in the article. Wouldn't it better if only one instance were left?-- Adûnâi ( talk) 05:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Old timers will remember that there use to be a list of viceroys on this page. During the years of its existence, editors sometimes asked why we had a list when there was already a List of governors-general of India, and I said that the list was really a list (or timeline) of events, legislation, public works, etc, which the other list lacked. See the discussion, Talk:British_Raj/Archive_7#Governor-Generals_and_Viceroys, where @ RegentsPark: asked the question and @ Moonraker:, @ Rjensen: (I think) and others weighed in. I had been meaning to change the title and the columns of that list to reflect the emphasis, but never got around to doing it. I noticed today that that list seemed to have disappeared from Wikipedia. It was certainly not on this page and it was not in that other page either. But then, nothing is truly lost on Wikipedia. Delving into the history of page revisions I discovered that in August or September 2014 an editor @ Jaguar: nominated this page for GA. The review suggested that the list be moved to its own page. The nominating editor was probably unaware of this earlier discussion, so he/she removed the list in this edit. To their credit, they did create a list of viceroys page, but before the sun could rise the following day, some other editor had redirected the page to the Governors-General list and all my work had disappeared into the Wiki-ether. I have now recast the list as a "Timeline of major events, public works, legislation etc." (or words to that effect) and changed the order of the columns to make the presiding viceroys incidental to the timeline. I will be reintroducing it. Please don't remove it, even if a future GA reviewer suggests it, until you've raised the matter here. Thanks. PS I'm not happy with the title, but just this minute can't think of a better one. Please suggest some briefer but more comprehensive title. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)