![]() | 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 |
This page should be moved to " British East India Company" because that is the proper name. East India Company implies that this is the only East India Company, however there is also a Dutch East India Company. Skycaptain95 ( talk) 22:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) OK, I've now tweaked the lead. There shouldn't be such confusion even for a rank novice. What do you think? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Note that a Scottish East India Company was authorised in 1695 by the Scottish parliament (the Honourable Company - John Keay p182 ISBN 0-00-638072-7). I am not sure whether ship ever sailed or not, but it makes the point that this was an English company, under English law even after the Treaty of Union. Thehalfone ( talk) 17:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I am changing the following: "Initially, however, the Company made little impression on the Dutch control of the spice trade and at first it could not establish a lasting outpost in the East Indies." - The company established a factory at Bantam during the first voyage in 1603, this was finally wound up in 1683. Thehalfone ( talk) 19:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Colonial India | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
I have added the "Colonial India" sidebar to the article. I know that this article is not just about colonial India, but since it is the only article that covers the British in India during the years, 1608 to 1757, the template is appropriate, in my view. However, if you don't like it, or feel it should be somewhere else in the article, or not be there at all, please let me know here. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Category:British East India Company is a category within Category:Defunct companies of the United Kingdom — Robert Greer ( talk) 17:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
For such a lengthy, thorough, and formerly Featured Article, I am astonished to discover no mention whatsoever of Japan. Granted, the Factory at Hirado lasted only about 10 years, but from the perspective of the history of Anglo-Japanese relations, or the history of Japan's diplomatic relations with the West, this is of vital importance.
Hirado, Richard Cocks and John Saris are all deserving of mention. LordAmeth ( talk) 15:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I find it seriously difficult to believe that the British East India company did nothing wrong worthy of mention in this article over its 250 year lifespan other than the Opium trade with China and the Indian rebellion of 1857, therefore I'd like to put a neutrality is disputed tag on the whole article. I don't personally know very much at all about the East India Company, but some people must know more than me.
Frankly this also applies to the Company Rule in India article. Eraserhead1 ( talk) 23:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Well rather then just complain about it, write it in! 65.196.214.163 ( talk) 13:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Attempt to add a new section on Early Aspirations of Sovereignty in India of East India Company, under the Foothold in India Section were summarily reversed by Fowler&Fowler - flimsy subjective grounds were given : Did the East India Company and some of its earliest Governor Generals have early aspirations of sovereignty in India ? Lets say in late 17th century ? Josia Child has been one of the earlier Governor Generals and he fought a war with Emperor Aurangzeb. He has explicitly noted his motivations for war with the Mughal emperor. Notes : Despatch Book June 9, 1686, vol 91 pp 142, 145 cited in K. N Chaudhuri, The Trading World of Asia and the English East India Company, 1600-1760 Cambridge University Press, p 454 ( India Office Records, British Library ) Oskanpur ( talk) 14:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Added text quoted below:
As early as 1686, Josia Child, the East India Company Governor, who found himself at war with the Emperor Aurangzeb in 1688, wrote, "[Without territorial revenue] it is impossible to make the English nation's station sure and firm in India upon a sound political basis, and without which we shall always continue in the state of mere merchants subject to be turned out at the pleasure of the Dutch and abused at the discretion of the natives."
From 1668, the Company in Bombay saw itself as sovereign insofar as it represented the English Crown. The Company minted coins in Bombay in the name of the British crown, even though their own coinage acquired limited currency outside the British settlement.
It also established courts of judicature over both European and Indian subjects, a practice that in other parts of India usually had to await the formal grant of nizamat rights.
The British construed every privilege they received from Indian powers, whether rights to territory, to revenue collection, or to use certain honorary title, as the transfer of full sovereign rights.The Scandal of Empire : India and the Creation of Imperial Britain - by Nicholas B Dirks - The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts -2006 - ISBN 0-674-02166-5
This is a former featured article. I'm afraid you can't start a new subsection without discussion here first. Please produce a textbook (signifying a consensus of scholarly opinion) that asserts any of the content that you want to add to the article. That is one reason why we restrict ourselves, for the most part, to textbooks, especially for major assertions. And, no, we don't need to give time to anyone to produce the references. The onus is on them. They need to tell us here first what they want to do and why. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
The reference to Josia Child is on Page 170, chapter 5 "Sovereignty" of "The Scandal of EMPIRE" The Scandal of Empire : India and the Creation of Imperial Britain - by Nicholas B Dirks - The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts - 2006 - ISBN 0-674-02166-5 ( Josia Child is also mentioned as 1659 Member of British Parliament 1659, in Wikipedia - Petersfield was an English Parliamentary constituency centred on the town of Petersfield in Hampshire. It existed for several hundred years until its abolition for the 1983 general election. Until 1832, it returned two Members of Parliament to the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Thereater, its representation was reduced to one member until its abolition in 1983. )
The rest of the para is from the above book of Nicholas B Dirks. The original source is cited in book of K. N. Chaudhari called The Trading World of Asia and the English East India Company, 1600-1760, Cambridge University Press, page 454.
The original source of Josia Child comments on the war with Mughal Empire under Emperor Aurangzeb, is from Despatch Book dated June 9, 1686, vol. 91 pp 142-145 in India Office Records, British Library.
In addition, C. A Bayly in his "The British Military-Fiscal State and Indigenous Resistance: India 1750-1820 in Patrick Tuck, The East India Company 1600-1858, vol 5 (London, Routledge, 1998 ) p 205.
' C. A. Bayly has noted, "The presumption in the Laws of England that " Turks and other infidels were not only excluded from being witnesses against Christians, but are deemed also to be perpetual enemies and capable of no property."
Indeed the British systematically ( and far more than other European groups ) refused to pay forced levies to Indian powers wherever they could get away with it, despite their formal rhetoric of subservience to Mughal sovereignty. Second, the British construed every privilege they received from Indian powers, whether rights to territory, to revenue collection, or to use certain honorary titles, as the transfer of full sovereign rights. Perhaps the first major example of this came in 1717, when the Emperor Farrukhsiyar granted the right to trade freely within Bengal and its dependencies, providing the Company with various tax exemptions as well. As K. N. Chaudhari has written, "In all future disputes with the local governors, the point was repeatedly made that the Company traded in India by right and not by any favor of the imperial officers. ... And yet when the British claimed sovereignty over the myriad chiefs and warlords of the southern countryside, many of whom, had never either ceded sovereign rights nor made tributary payments to the Mughals, they used a formal interpretation of Mughal sovereignty to give themselves the right of general conquest." page 171, 172 , Hope this helps, Oskanpur ( talk) 13:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I think there is also an issue here regarding the nature of British
intellectual
resistance to
notions of
sovereignty in
conquered
lands and of
peoples. This extends to large tracts of
colonial,
imperial and
English history IMHO.
Samuel B. Nicholas B Dirks writes on page 172, "Time after time, the British refused to accept that rights in India - like
sovereignty itself - were not conceived in terms of simple, uniform, or exclusive
proprietory
domain. This refusal, of course, was far less about
cultural
mis understanding that it was about the
strategic use of cultural
forms to
explain and
legitimate a relentless
pattern of
political and
territorial
conquest." - Samuel B. Nicholas B Dirks analysis of shared sovereignty and notions of proprietory rights in precolonial India - The Hollow Crown :
Ethnohistory of an Indian Kingdom ( Cambridge University Press, 1987 -
ISBN
0-472-08187-X ,
Pudukkottai Princely State ) -
Oskanpur (
talk)
13:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
this is a developed article, not some random stub. If you want to add material, get consensus, and then get it properly formatted first, and only add it once you're there. Don't add random garbled opinion pieces and then leave it for others to clean up just because you managed to cite some reference. -- dab (𒁳) 18:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
It is also instructive to take a look at the reviews of the Dirk's book The scandal of the Empire. William Dalrymple says in NYRB:
Dirks "relies principally on the evidence of Burke, who was notably ill-informed about India, and who like Dirks—and unlike Hastings—had none of the relevant North Indian languages." The result is a book that is doubly grounded in polemic, rather than new research, and whose Manichaean worldview is as a result simplistic and reductionist. In addition to this, Dirks's book is, as I wrote, peppered throughout with major factual errors, further undermining its credibility.
Another review in the journal Eighteenth century studies by Regina Janes is no less scathing (In the extract below, Marshall refers to P. J. Marshall, the author of The Making and Unmaking of Empires: Britain, India, and America):
Dirks turns Marshall upside down. Ignoring the balance of Britain’s empire (Scotland, Wales, Ireland, the Americas, invisible Australia), he brandishes empire as intrinsically scandalous and makes India’s oppression the crucible through which Britain re-formed its national image as imperial, obscured its economic motivations, and generated a dangerously influential image of imperial aggression as self-sacrifice. ... Dirks ranges widely, energetically, and passionately through great topics, economy, sovereignty, tradition, and imperial historiography, but there are problems. His grasp of eighteenth-century contexts is often shaky, and he will seriously mislead readers who know little of the limits on Britain’s Indian empire. ... Elementary errors are common. ...
The review continues in this vein for two pages, and ends by recommending that readers buy the book for the Gillray cartoon on its dust-cover! Instead of using this book as a source for this article, I suggest that someone start an article on The scandal of empire, where both Dirk's thesis and its critiques can be laid out. Abecedare ( talk) 20:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
So who is discussing content or not discussing content ? Oskanpur ( talk) 20:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Dharampal is another speedy AfD candidate. Sounds to me that he was some version of a Hindu nationalist historian masquerading as a Gandhian. Hindu nationalist historians are different from nationalist historians. Hindu nationalists, among other things, murdered Gandhi. All of Dharampal's books are published by obscure publishing houses in India. There is also all kinds of Facebook type nonsense in that article. His daughter is doing ..., his grand nephew is doing ... and so forth. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I was in the Museum in Docklands recently and somebody had "corrected" "Honorable" to "Honourable" with a pen on one of the displays. However a book published in 1810 suggests that the spelling was indeed Honorable Gordo ( talk) 21:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
It's really good to see dis.........
An Indian now owns Britain 's East India Company
The East India Company which ruled India for more than 200 years is now ruled by an Indian Sanjiv Mehta who took over the company for $150 million.
But media is not interested in such great news. They were busy in useless Sania and Shoaibآ’s marriage
Lets us be the mediaآ…&..Fwd this mail to all Indians...
Sanjiv Mehta, CEO of The East India Company —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
203.223.176.30 (
talk)
05:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Can anybody provide more information on the history of the East India Company between 1857 and 2005? Was the EIC dissolved after 1857 or not?
Gordianphock (
talk)
18:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Why was it removed? We should add criticism section here.
Hey guys what happened. You are trying protray a company that screwed up millions of people a great company. at least state that they did this guys. Be reasonable.
Shame less Brits ~rAGU
I think we need to write in a seperate thread the truth about the esast india company. about the crime on the indians and other nations.
It is quite evident that you people are brainwashed by the history textbooks you studied in your school. East India Company was one of the greatest things to happen to the geographical area currently called India and Pakistan. Imagine being ruled by the suppressing native rulers and the feudal landlords! One can see the remnants of those times in remote corners of this place. Every family and female in a feudal landlord's area are within the rights of the landlords and their henchmen. Feudal language to aid to their power. Might was Right. The law and order brought in by the East India Company was a saviour for the people here. Yet, it is not easy to change the mindset of the people as they have innately learned to live in a suppressed and snubbed social environment. For loyalty to one's suppressing landlord was ingrained in the brains.
At the very least, an immensity of young women escaped from the fearful death by Sati. What about the suppression of the Thugges? Well, the modern sales tax people in independent India is reminiscent of the Thugges. Unless another Sleeman comes to save the people here, these modern thuggees will loot the nation white for lending booty to the officialdom.
To say that the native officials of those times were good and helpful to the people is to say a white lie. See what happened to the officials of King Ashoka. It is mentioned in history that they were attacked by the villagers in Taxila, as they went around doing 'good' in the villages. In actuality, they had right over each and every house in the village. The villagers were duty bound to give them whatever they wanted. Maybe including women. (That happens even now, when officials with military powers are given the right over places in modern India). It is said that the 'Great King Ashoka' suppressed the revolt using his army!
As to whether East India Company was a saviour is just a perspective as far as modern Indians are concerned. If you are rich and lolling in the official loot of the nation, then they are a shameful group. If on the other hand, to the underdogs suppressed by you, well then, it is East India Company that gave them a chance to escape your tyranny.
-- Ved from Victoria Institutions ( talk) 05:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#East_India_Company. -- CliffC ( talk) 17:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear All,
Sanjiv Metha did not buy the company in August 2010, it did not trade in coffee, the company is currently trading a range fine foods, so clearly the editorial needs to be updated in the 2010 section, my suggestion is as follows:
2010 Corporate Organisation Since its dissolution in 1874, a small part of the East India Company survived into a brand name and traded within the tea sector, making a tea called “good strong tea” Sanjiv Mehta, an India-born business man living in Britain, bought up this company and has re-launched it a luxury brand, expanding its range to include fine foods and not restricting trading activity to tea. The goal of the company today is to establish itself as luxury brand operating in many sectors such as porcelain, fabrics and furnishing.
I do not belive the above is promoting the company, and my apologies if this has been taken the wrong way, but the above is accurate. Please update as you see fit, but I do request that you get some of the facts right. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hameedalkhersan ( talk • contribs) 17:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Regents Park, you are correct in terms of the purpose of the article being about the historical company, but it does not address the incorrect information posted in the 2010 paragraph, which unfortunately remains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hameedalkhersan ( talk • contribs) 17:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hameedalkhersan ( talk • contribs) 19:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Just as an FYI there is reason to believe that this article may soon experience some less than accurate edits by POV pushing persons. Note this possibility is merely my personal opinion based on the fact that this and similar articles could result in efforts by some historical revisionists wanting to discredit Mr. Hartman's viewpoint. It doesn't hurt to simply say;
"Head's up and eye's open chaps!"
:) 66.97.213.202 ( talk) 01:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Is there any information about the name and its use of "VEIC" ("Vnited East Indian Company") ? — HenryLi ( Talk) 15:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
In the article Slavery Abolition Act 1833 it is mentioned that after the 1833 Act slavery was allowed to continue in the territories and possessions of the East India Company. I'm looking at the article to find out when it was outlawed there, but there's not a single mention of slavery. Can anybody enlighten us? 86.42.18.235 ( talk) 10:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Try here; not sure what you'll find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.143.133 ( talk) 21:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I added a new section regarding the revival of this company. It's small with two paragraphs. Kindly expand it. -BW60 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betawarrior60 ( talk • contribs) 14:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I suggest this flag of the East India Company, used from 1707-1801, be added to this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_British_East_India_Company_(1707).svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.255.68.35 ( talk) 04:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I was surprised to find John Keay's book on the East India Company missing from the references. Is it just by chance or is Keay not considered a reliable source? AshLin ( talk) 16:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
The Infobox lists Sanjive Mehta as one of the key people, but there is no mention of him anywhere in the article.
If this article is limited to the defunct East India Company, the information about the modern company should be removed from the Infobox. utcursch | talk 15:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
It's been deleted. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
User:Haldraper has just (11 Jan 2012) heavily pruned the lead section on grounds of "cut undue and unreferenced bits and tidied up for readability". I'm loath to revert because I agree the previous version had become over-long and convoluted. However, I think s/he's thrown a lot of babies out with the bathwater, on subjects which may interest many readers: for example on the different names of the company, on the union of the two companies in 1708 etc. Many of these points should be reinstated, if not in the lead then somewhere in the body of the article. This is likely to be a time-consuming job to do properly, and I haven't got time myself at the moment, so I'm copying the whole of the previous lead here in the hope that someone else may be inspired:
The East India Company (also known as the English East India Company, [1] and, after the Treaty of Union, the British East India Company) [2] [3] was an early English joint-stock company [4] that was formed initially for pursuing trade with the East Indies, but that ended up trading mainly with the Indian subcontinent and China.
The Company was granted an English Royal Charter, under the name Governor and Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East Indies, by Elizabeth I on 31 December 1599, [5] making it the oldest among several similarly formed European East India Companies, the largest of which was the Dutch East India Company.
The Company was granted status as a limited liability business. [6]
After a rival English company challenged its monopoly in the late 17th century, the two companies were merged in 1708 to form the United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies, commonly styled the Honourable East India Company, [7] [8] [9] and abbreviated, HEIC; [10] the Company was colloquially referred to as John Company, [11] and in India as Company Bahadur ( Hindustani bahādur, "brave"/"authority"). [12]
The East India Company traded mainly in cotton, silk, indigo dye, salt , saltpetre, tea, and opium. The Company also came to rule large areas of India, exercising military power and assuming administrative functions, to the exclusion, gradually, of its commercial pursuits; it effectively functioned as a megacorporation. [13] Company rule in India, which effectively began in 1757 after the Battle of Plassey, lasted until 1858.
Following the events of the Indian Rebellion of 1857, and the Government of India Act 1858, the British Crown assumed direct administration of India in the new British Raj. The Company itself was finally dissolved on 1 January 1874, as a result of the East India Stock Dividend Redemption Act 1873. The East India Company often issued coinage bearing its stamp in the regions it had control over.
The Company long held a privileged position in relation to the British Government. As a result, it was frequently granted special rights and privileges, including trade monopolies and exemptions. These caused resentment among its competitors, who saw unfair advantage in the Company's position. Despite this resentment, the Company remained a powerful force for over 250 years.
{{
citation}}
: |last2=
has generic name (
help). Quote (p. 118): "I do not allude to European despotism, planted upon Asiatic despotism, by the British East India Company, forming a more monstrous combination than any of the divine monsters startling us in the temple of
Salsette."
GrindtXX ( talk) 18:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
There has been several East India companies (Dutch, English, French, Danish, etc). en.Wikipedia has an international readership and I really think the title should be changed to "English East India Company" to make it clear from the outset which one of the East India companies we're dealing with here (as I'm neither a Briton nor an Indian, it was not clear to me until I started reading the article).
As an example, John Keay's great book is titled: "The Honourable Company, A History of the English East India Company".-- Lubiesque ( talk) 13:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
It should be noted that this is standing custom with the English: Royal Air Force, The Tolkien Society, Royal Society for this or that. It might if you were generous be attributed to the assumption that non-English organizations would be using their own languages, not English; but it annoys the dickens out of Yanks (and to lesser extent Canadians, Enzeds, and Aussies). -- Orange Mike | Talk 02:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
The "Founding" section has the following statement in its second paragraph:
Two years later, on 24 September 1598, another group of merchants having raised 30,133 in capital, met in London to form a corporation. Although their first attempt was not completely successful, they nonetheless sought the Queen's unofficial approval, bought ships for their venture, increased their capital to 68,373, and convened again a year later.[5]
The numbers are presumably in pounds sterling. Is this correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lcaretto ( talk • contribs) 17:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Why is it that that article says "it is argued that the EIC flag was inspired by Majapahit Empire's flag"? Is there any doubt that it isn't inspired? I find it poignant that there is no such qualification when indicating the relationship between the East India Company flag and the US Stars and Stripes. Why is that one connection is not written in the same language with tendentious and biased qualifications like "it is argued that..."? Why the double standards? Or perhaps this is a question of Wikipedia has some unstated policy that doesn't recognize any local (Malaysian/Indonesian) scholarship as a reliable source on this issue and are waiting for a English speaking person to come out and write a completely redundant English language book or article on this topic (redundant since the matter is not scientifically contested, there is no doubt that the Majapahit Empire flag became the EIC flag, just as there is no doubt that the thirteen colonies Stars and Stripes were carry overs from the EIC flag. Loginnigol ( talk) 21:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Please understand that wikipedia is not an attack on Malaysian or Indonesian scholars.
The "double standard" which certain corporate and revisionist editors seek to promote is primarily "intellectual" clan-mentality, secondly most wikipedia editors are based in the usa, and they have a certain lack-of-comprehension of corporate history which pre-dates their "revolution". With regards to both the East-Indian companies incorporated in England as well as Amsterdam, they are regarded as corporate behemoths which were essential to the incorporation of the thirteen colonies. Also, it is noticable that there is a double-standard in that the early Islamic uprising against corporate exploitation in Indonesia is not included in the Jihad article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.147.235.216 ( talk) 00:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
QUOTE: Indian fleet END OF QUOTE
What is this 'Indian fleet'? At best it would be Moghal ships. Mughals cannot be identified with India or Indians, unless all south Indians are defined as animals, and not humans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.240.218 ( talk) 14:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Is there any way for accomplished wikipedia editors to revert the changes made to the "founding" section of this page on the 8th of December? Mainly, the edits that replace a concise overview of the formation of the East India Company with what appears to be a bizarre rant that is poorly formatted, overtly long and heavily biased against the East India Company. Furthermore, it contains advertisements for a podcast, which as far as I'm aware is forbidden.
Can someone please revert these changes?
Ernie Smith ( talk) 00:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
There may well have been a relative of the Grand Mughal on the Ganj-i-Sawai. But it is not known for certain, or known who it might be. What is the point of saying that "there is no evidence to suggest that it was his daughter and her retinue". No one suggested that it was! Royalcourtier ( talk) 06:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be more information, preferably a whole section for the Bengal famine of 1770? It was the most deadly natural disaster in recorded history, killing 10,000,000, and it was caused by the East India Company. I realize the article does mention it, but shouldn't there be more? -Garet ( talk) 02:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on East India Company. 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 reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
This British library blog post may be of interest:
-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@ HLGallon: We have had users complain of a racist, western bias earlier. Now, with this edit you have removed a well sourced sentence. Please explain!— Dona-Hue ( talk) 15:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
A block quote in the lead is almost always inappropriate and unnecessary, per WP:QUOTEFARM, WP:LONGQUOTE, and WP:LEAD. There is nothing in the quote used that is uniquely pertinent or indispensable in itself, and it should be summarized or paraphrased as described in the policies cited. (It is also ungrammatical as currently presented.) Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 15:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I do not understand why you are so enamored of this pointed quote. Where you have placed it now is a complete non sequitor, a hundred years of narrative before we are even introduced to Clive. The view stated is completely undeveloped or elaborated upon and solely from one writer. I don't think the quote has any place in the article without further support and development, and certainly not until a place in the narrative when Clive is at least alive. Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 16:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on East India Company. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I predict the majority of people will now be looking for High Efficiency Image File Format, the default camera photo format in new iPhones. HEIC is one of the file extensions used. -- David G ( talk) 20:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on East India Company. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
The article seems to be a rewriting of the NCERT (Indian government school text book) History. The contents might be copyrighted.
Now, who can remove the whole nonsense and write something fair and correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:D382:85D2:D9BC:7E1B:9240:64CF ( talk) 21:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
There is a mistake in the chart of the capital of the first voyages - in particular the "block" of the four voyages of 1613-16. The listed number £272,544 is not the "total invested" for 1613-1616, but rather the joint amount invested in "ships and provisions" for those four fleets (that is, £272,544 are the four rows in the fourth column taken together, not the four rows of the first column.). The first "total invested" column should be £106,000 for 1613, £107,000 for 1614, £107,000 for 1615 and £109,000 for 1616. So the "total invested" for the four fleets of 1613-16 should be £429,000 (= £111,499 bullion exported + £78,017 goods exported + £272,544 ship & provisions). This what the Mill citation refers to: Mill. There is some citation to some "Baldwin, Cradock & Joy" in the article, but no actual work is cited, so can't follow that up for consistency. Would someone care to make the changes in the table? Walrasiad ( talk) 07:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I updated the industry field to reflect the fact that the type of "trade" that the HEIC engaged in was done via illicit means (smuggling, bribing, and other forms of crime). That is no longer "trade", it's crime. I added a citation from a British source.
Retinoblastoma ( talk) 03:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Why does this article incorrectly say initially with Mughal India? Clearly later in the article it states Indonesia and Java as the inital point of trade. This is clearly incorrect and conflates mainland India with insular India (as Indonesia was once known). Could someone correct this who owns the page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:4B8F:C800:D431:8072:BD0A:6B60 ( talk) 13:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Please read the page in question, the origins section of the page clearly states Malacca and the Early voyages section states Bantam and Moluccas. from this page its clear Lancaster's destination was the Moluccas. Any historian of worth will inform you that cloves are only available there (as well as Nutmeg). /info/en/?search=James_Lancaster also reiterates the same statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:4B8F:C800:19BB:C1B3:3034:41DC ( talk) 11:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
No. If you won't read the page then there is no point in discussing it further. Why did you answer the question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:4B8F:C800:1588:59E6:A:34BF ( talk) 21:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
The article is shocking and clearly biased. Not one mention of the enslavement of blacks, the racism against blacks that most of the members of the company had, the discrimination against females (sexism), the inhumane treatment that most natives that encountered the company workers received, the genocide that the company participated etc. Truly a biased article in favor of the company and ignoring the historic truths.Would an article on Wikipedia dare mention Hitler's SS and not mention the genocide and blind violence? No. But when it comes to the core companies, principles that created and enriched Great Britain, America and Europe, articles tend to be biased and ignore racism, sexism, etc. We need to improve this article and teach the truth otherwise we help to perpetuate racism, sexism, blind national and only make greedy corporations more powerful. -- 2604:2000:DDD1:4900:A0FF:B99F:8D6:BBB0 ( talk) 06:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Yet why was so much effort put into this neutral tone regarding the East India Company when none of it reflects criticism at large? Clearly the company was responsible for so much that was wrong yet nothing has been discussed. You argue someone else should do this- why havent the authors who know so much about the rest of it not willing to discuss it? This itself is indicative of western bias and racism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.14.224 ( talk) 04:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I am a huge Wikipedia history reader and after reading this article I have to agree that the tone regarding the deaths of millions is rather diminutive. I would argue that by minimizing these deaths we are not taking a neutral tone. When 10 million people die we can't put that as a footnote in history. In order to maintain neutrality while still giving light to these deaths, there should be a small section covering the famine detailing East India Companies Role in the deaths. We may also look at other similar issues such as the Soviet famines, the Congolese genocide, Native American Genocide, or the Holocaust for further reference on how to cover these issues with due gravity. 47.154.80.252 ( talk) 18:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
May be it should be mentioned that it was the English East India Company that saved millions of enslaved populations who had been kept as sort of domestic cattle by the higher classes of South Asia. Check books of those period such as Malabar Manual, Native Life in Travancore, Travancore State Manual.
It is not wise to write history by reading crap Indian academic textbooks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4073:210:1EB4:C1C4:5A3E:64BE:FB18 ( talk) 07:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
In English rule period books, the term English East India Company is seen used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4073:210:1EB4:C1C4:5A3E:64BE:FB18 ( talk) 06:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
... died in 1627, so any mention of him after that year is probably erroneous (maybe mentioning Jahan instead?), and should be taken into mind, IMO. Impfireball ( talk) 19:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
In 1634, the Mughal emperor Jahangir extended his hospitality to the English traders...
Seriously doubt that, since he died (and, thus ceded reigning, in 1627)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.211.12.210 ( talk) 16:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I have come across a coin dated 1936 from Kinnar State which purports to be East India Company issue & seems to have been a non-currency religious token. It could be a mistaken date or not Christian dating or it could be a fake but it suggests that the company may have continued operation in independent states in which it had established good relations with the local political establishment. I've only found Kinnar as an alternate to Hijra or Transgender & suspect Kinnaur may be the modern equivalent. The Mahabharata mentions the Kinnara (Horse-Man or Centaur) tribe & their state. I confess I am perplexed. 101.164.87.162 ( talk) 03:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC) Ian Ison
Technically, the EIC was never completely disestablished, as from time to time various investors have attempted to use the corporate brand and trademarks to start businesses. There was a " Banana Republic" clone under that name in the 1980s and '90s in Southeast Asia, and after it went bankrupt, another group started a tea company which is apparently thriving...that is according to their website at least. Arglebargle79 ( talk) 12:52, 20 February 2018 (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 |
This page should be moved to " British East India Company" because that is the proper name. East India Company implies that this is the only East India Company, however there is also a Dutch East India Company. Skycaptain95 ( talk) 22:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) OK, I've now tweaked the lead. There shouldn't be such confusion even for a rank novice. What do you think? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Note that a Scottish East India Company was authorised in 1695 by the Scottish parliament (the Honourable Company - John Keay p182 ISBN 0-00-638072-7). I am not sure whether ship ever sailed or not, but it makes the point that this was an English company, under English law even after the Treaty of Union. Thehalfone ( talk) 17:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I am changing the following: "Initially, however, the Company made little impression on the Dutch control of the spice trade and at first it could not establish a lasting outpost in the East Indies." - The company established a factory at Bantam during the first voyage in 1603, this was finally wound up in 1683. Thehalfone ( talk) 19:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Colonial India | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
I have added the "Colonial India" sidebar to the article. I know that this article is not just about colonial India, but since it is the only article that covers the British in India during the years, 1608 to 1757, the template is appropriate, in my view. However, if you don't like it, or feel it should be somewhere else in the article, or not be there at all, please let me know here. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Category:British East India Company is a category within Category:Defunct companies of the United Kingdom — Robert Greer ( talk) 17:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
For such a lengthy, thorough, and formerly Featured Article, I am astonished to discover no mention whatsoever of Japan. Granted, the Factory at Hirado lasted only about 10 years, but from the perspective of the history of Anglo-Japanese relations, or the history of Japan's diplomatic relations with the West, this is of vital importance.
Hirado, Richard Cocks and John Saris are all deserving of mention. LordAmeth ( talk) 15:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I find it seriously difficult to believe that the British East India company did nothing wrong worthy of mention in this article over its 250 year lifespan other than the Opium trade with China and the Indian rebellion of 1857, therefore I'd like to put a neutrality is disputed tag on the whole article. I don't personally know very much at all about the East India Company, but some people must know more than me.
Frankly this also applies to the Company Rule in India article. Eraserhead1 ( talk) 23:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Well rather then just complain about it, write it in! 65.196.214.163 ( talk) 13:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Attempt to add a new section on Early Aspirations of Sovereignty in India of East India Company, under the Foothold in India Section were summarily reversed by Fowler&Fowler - flimsy subjective grounds were given : Did the East India Company and some of its earliest Governor Generals have early aspirations of sovereignty in India ? Lets say in late 17th century ? Josia Child has been one of the earlier Governor Generals and he fought a war with Emperor Aurangzeb. He has explicitly noted his motivations for war with the Mughal emperor. Notes : Despatch Book June 9, 1686, vol 91 pp 142, 145 cited in K. N Chaudhuri, The Trading World of Asia and the English East India Company, 1600-1760 Cambridge University Press, p 454 ( India Office Records, British Library ) Oskanpur ( talk) 14:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Added text quoted below:
As early as 1686, Josia Child, the East India Company Governor, who found himself at war with the Emperor Aurangzeb in 1688, wrote, "[Without territorial revenue] it is impossible to make the English nation's station sure and firm in India upon a sound political basis, and without which we shall always continue in the state of mere merchants subject to be turned out at the pleasure of the Dutch and abused at the discretion of the natives."
From 1668, the Company in Bombay saw itself as sovereign insofar as it represented the English Crown. The Company minted coins in Bombay in the name of the British crown, even though their own coinage acquired limited currency outside the British settlement.
It also established courts of judicature over both European and Indian subjects, a practice that in other parts of India usually had to await the formal grant of nizamat rights.
The British construed every privilege they received from Indian powers, whether rights to territory, to revenue collection, or to use certain honorary title, as the transfer of full sovereign rights.The Scandal of Empire : India and the Creation of Imperial Britain - by Nicholas B Dirks - The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts -2006 - ISBN 0-674-02166-5
This is a former featured article. I'm afraid you can't start a new subsection without discussion here first. Please produce a textbook (signifying a consensus of scholarly opinion) that asserts any of the content that you want to add to the article. That is one reason why we restrict ourselves, for the most part, to textbooks, especially for major assertions. And, no, we don't need to give time to anyone to produce the references. The onus is on them. They need to tell us here first what they want to do and why. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
The reference to Josia Child is on Page 170, chapter 5 "Sovereignty" of "The Scandal of EMPIRE" The Scandal of Empire : India and the Creation of Imperial Britain - by Nicholas B Dirks - The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts - 2006 - ISBN 0-674-02166-5 ( Josia Child is also mentioned as 1659 Member of British Parliament 1659, in Wikipedia - Petersfield was an English Parliamentary constituency centred on the town of Petersfield in Hampshire. It existed for several hundred years until its abolition for the 1983 general election. Until 1832, it returned two Members of Parliament to the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Thereater, its representation was reduced to one member until its abolition in 1983. )
The rest of the para is from the above book of Nicholas B Dirks. The original source is cited in book of K. N. Chaudhari called The Trading World of Asia and the English East India Company, 1600-1760, Cambridge University Press, page 454.
The original source of Josia Child comments on the war with Mughal Empire under Emperor Aurangzeb, is from Despatch Book dated June 9, 1686, vol. 91 pp 142-145 in India Office Records, British Library.
In addition, C. A Bayly in his "The British Military-Fiscal State and Indigenous Resistance: India 1750-1820 in Patrick Tuck, The East India Company 1600-1858, vol 5 (London, Routledge, 1998 ) p 205.
' C. A. Bayly has noted, "The presumption in the Laws of England that " Turks and other infidels were not only excluded from being witnesses against Christians, but are deemed also to be perpetual enemies and capable of no property."
Indeed the British systematically ( and far more than other European groups ) refused to pay forced levies to Indian powers wherever they could get away with it, despite their formal rhetoric of subservience to Mughal sovereignty. Second, the British construed every privilege they received from Indian powers, whether rights to territory, to revenue collection, or to use certain honorary titles, as the transfer of full sovereign rights. Perhaps the first major example of this came in 1717, when the Emperor Farrukhsiyar granted the right to trade freely within Bengal and its dependencies, providing the Company with various tax exemptions as well. As K. N. Chaudhari has written, "In all future disputes with the local governors, the point was repeatedly made that the Company traded in India by right and not by any favor of the imperial officers. ... And yet when the British claimed sovereignty over the myriad chiefs and warlords of the southern countryside, many of whom, had never either ceded sovereign rights nor made tributary payments to the Mughals, they used a formal interpretation of Mughal sovereignty to give themselves the right of general conquest." page 171, 172 , Hope this helps, Oskanpur ( talk) 13:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I think there is also an issue here regarding the nature of British
intellectual
resistance to
notions of
sovereignty in
conquered
lands and of
peoples. This extends to large tracts of
colonial,
imperial and
English history IMHO.
Samuel B. Nicholas B Dirks writes on page 172, "Time after time, the British refused to accept that rights in India - like
sovereignty itself - were not conceived in terms of simple, uniform, or exclusive
proprietory
domain. This refusal, of course, was far less about
cultural
mis understanding that it was about the
strategic use of cultural
forms to
explain and
legitimate a relentless
pattern of
political and
territorial
conquest." - Samuel B. Nicholas B Dirks analysis of shared sovereignty and notions of proprietory rights in precolonial India - The Hollow Crown :
Ethnohistory of an Indian Kingdom ( Cambridge University Press, 1987 -
ISBN
0-472-08187-X ,
Pudukkottai Princely State ) -
Oskanpur (
talk)
13:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
this is a developed article, not some random stub. If you want to add material, get consensus, and then get it properly formatted first, and only add it once you're there. Don't add random garbled opinion pieces and then leave it for others to clean up just because you managed to cite some reference. -- dab (𒁳) 18:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
It is also instructive to take a look at the reviews of the Dirk's book The scandal of the Empire. William Dalrymple says in NYRB:
Dirks "relies principally on the evidence of Burke, who was notably ill-informed about India, and who like Dirks—and unlike Hastings—had none of the relevant North Indian languages." The result is a book that is doubly grounded in polemic, rather than new research, and whose Manichaean worldview is as a result simplistic and reductionist. In addition to this, Dirks's book is, as I wrote, peppered throughout with major factual errors, further undermining its credibility.
Another review in the journal Eighteenth century studies by Regina Janes is no less scathing (In the extract below, Marshall refers to P. J. Marshall, the author of The Making and Unmaking of Empires: Britain, India, and America):
Dirks turns Marshall upside down. Ignoring the balance of Britain’s empire (Scotland, Wales, Ireland, the Americas, invisible Australia), he brandishes empire as intrinsically scandalous and makes India’s oppression the crucible through which Britain re-formed its national image as imperial, obscured its economic motivations, and generated a dangerously influential image of imperial aggression as self-sacrifice. ... Dirks ranges widely, energetically, and passionately through great topics, economy, sovereignty, tradition, and imperial historiography, but there are problems. His grasp of eighteenth-century contexts is often shaky, and he will seriously mislead readers who know little of the limits on Britain’s Indian empire. ... Elementary errors are common. ...
The review continues in this vein for two pages, and ends by recommending that readers buy the book for the Gillray cartoon on its dust-cover! Instead of using this book as a source for this article, I suggest that someone start an article on The scandal of empire, where both Dirk's thesis and its critiques can be laid out. Abecedare ( talk) 20:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
So who is discussing content or not discussing content ? Oskanpur ( talk) 20:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Dharampal is another speedy AfD candidate. Sounds to me that he was some version of a Hindu nationalist historian masquerading as a Gandhian. Hindu nationalist historians are different from nationalist historians. Hindu nationalists, among other things, murdered Gandhi. All of Dharampal's books are published by obscure publishing houses in India. There is also all kinds of Facebook type nonsense in that article. His daughter is doing ..., his grand nephew is doing ... and so forth. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I was in the Museum in Docklands recently and somebody had "corrected" "Honorable" to "Honourable" with a pen on one of the displays. However a book published in 1810 suggests that the spelling was indeed Honorable Gordo ( talk) 21:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
It's really good to see dis.........
An Indian now owns Britain 's East India Company
The East India Company which ruled India for more than 200 years is now ruled by an Indian Sanjiv Mehta who took over the company for $150 million.
But media is not interested in such great news. They were busy in useless Sania and Shoaibآ’s marriage
Lets us be the mediaآ…&..Fwd this mail to all Indians...
Sanjiv Mehta, CEO of The East India Company —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
203.223.176.30 (
talk)
05:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Can anybody provide more information on the history of the East India Company between 1857 and 2005? Was the EIC dissolved after 1857 or not?
Gordianphock (
talk)
18:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Why was it removed? We should add criticism section here.
Hey guys what happened. You are trying protray a company that screwed up millions of people a great company. at least state that they did this guys. Be reasonable.
Shame less Brits ~rAGU
I think we need to write in a seperate thread the truth about the esast india company. about the crime on the indians and other nations.
It is quite evident that you people are brainwashed by the history textbooks you studied in your school. East India Company was one of the greatest things to happen to the geographical area currently called India and Pakistan. Imagine being ruled by the suppressing native rulers and the feudal landlords! One can see the remnants of those times in remote corners of this place. Every family and female in a feudal landlord's area are within the rights of the landlords and their henchmen. Feudal language to aid to their power. Might was Right. The law and order brought in by the East India Company was a saviour for the people here. Yet, it is not easy to change the mindset of the people as they have innately learned to live in a suppressed and snubbed social environment. For loyalty to one's suppressing landlord was ingrained in the brains.
At the very least, an immensity of young women escaped from the fearful death by Sati. What about the suppression of the Thugges? Well, the modern sales tax people in independent India is reminiscent of the Thugges. Unless another Sleeman comes to save the people here, these modern thuggees will loot the nation white for lending booty to the officialdom.
To say that the native officials of those times were good and helpful to the people is to say a white lie. See what happened to the officials of King Ashoka. It is mentioned in history that they were attacked by the villagers in Taxila, as they went around doing 'good' in the villages. In actuality, they had right over each and every house in the village. The villagers were duty bound to give them whatever they wanted. Maybe including women. (That happens even now, when officials with military powers are given the right over places in modern India). It is said that the 'Great King Ashoka' suppressed the revolt using his army!
As to whether East India Company was a saviour is just a perspective as far as modern Indians are concerned. If you are rich and lolling in the official loot of the nation, then they are a shameful group. If on the other hand, to the underdogs suppressed by you, well then, it is East India Company that gave them a chance to escape your tyranny.
-- Ved from Victoria Institutions ( talk) 05:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#East_India_Company. -- CliffC ( talk) 17:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear All,
Sanjiv Metha did not buy the company in August 2010, it did not trade in coffee, the company is currently trading a range fine foods, so clearly the editorial needs to be updated in the 2010 section, my suggestion is as follows:
2010 Corporate Organisation Since its dissolution in 1874, a small part of the East India Company survived into a brand name and traded within the tea sector, making a tea called “good strong tea” Sanjiv Mehta, an India-born business man living in Britain, bought up this company and has re-launched it a luxury brand, expanding its range to include fine foods and not restricting trading activity to tea. The goal of the company today is to establish itself as luxury brand operating in many sectors such as porcelain, fabrics and furnishing.
I do not belive the above is promoting the company, and my apologies if this has been taken the wrong way, but the above is accurate. Please update as you see fit, but I do request that you get some of the facts right. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hameedalkhersan ( talk • contribs) 17:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Regents Park, you are correct in terms of the purpose of the article being about the historical company, but it does not address the incorrect information posted in the 2010 paragraph, which unfortunately remains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hameedalkhersan ( talk • contribs) 17:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hameedalkhersan ( talk • contribs) 19:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Just as an FYI there is reason to believe that this article may soon experience some less than accurate edits by POV pushing persons. Note this possibility is merely my personal opinion based on the fact that this and similar articles could result in efforts by some historical revisionists wanting to discredit Mr. Hartman's viewpoint. It doesn't hurt to simply say;
"Head's up and eye's open chaps!"
:) 66.97.213.202 ( talk) 01:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Is there any information about the name and its use of "VEIC" ("Vnited East Indian Company") ? — HenryLi ( Talk) 15:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
In the article Slavery Abolition Act 1833 it is mentioned that after the 1833 Act slavery was allowed to continue in the territories and possessions of the East India Company. I'm looking at the article to find out when it was outlawed there, but there's not a single mention of slavery. Can anybody enlighten us? 86.42.18.235 ( talk) 10:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Try here; not sure what you'll find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.143.133 ( talk) 21:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I added a new section regarding the revival of this company. It's small with two paragraphs. Kindly expand it. -BW60 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betawarrior60 ( talk • contribs) 14:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I suggest this flag of the East India Company, used from 1707-1801, be added to this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_British_East_India_Company_(1707).svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.255.68.35 ( talk) 04:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I was surprised to find John Keay's book on the East India Company missing from the references. Is it just by chance or is Keay not considered a reliable source? AshLin ( talk) 16:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
The Infobox lists Sanjive Mehta as one of the key people, but there is no mention of him anywhere in the article.
If this article is limited to the defunct East India Company, the information about the modern company should be removed from the Infobox. utcursch | talk 15:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
It's been deleted. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
User:Haldraper has just (11 Jan 2012) heavily pruned the lead section on grounds of "cut undue and unreferenced bits and tidied up for readability". I'm loath to revert because I agree the previous version had become over-long and convoluted. However, I think s/he's thrown a lot of babies out with the bathwater, on subjects which may interest many readers: for example on the different names of the company, on the union of the two companies in 1708 etc. Many of these points should be reinstated, if not in the lead then somewhere in the body of the article. This is likely to be a time-consuming job to do properly, and I haven't got time myself at the moment, so I'm copying the whole of the previous lead here in the hope that someone else may be inspired:
The East India Company (also known as the English East India Company, [1] and, after the Treaty of Union, the British East India Company) [2] [3] was an early English joint-stock company [4] that was formed initially for pursuing trade with the East Indies, but that ended up trading mainly with the Indian subcontinent and China.
The Company was granted an English Royal Charter, under the name Governor and Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East Indies, by Elizabeth I on 31 December 1599, [5] making it the oldest among several similarly formed European East India Companies, the largest of which was the Dutch East India Company.
The Company was granted status as a limited liability business. [6]
After a rival English company challenged its monopoly in the late 17th century, the two companies were merged in 1708 to form the United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies, commonly styled the Honourable East India Company, [7] [8] [9] and abbreviated, HEIC; [10] the Company was colloquially referred to as John Company, [11] and in India as Company Bahadur ( Hindustani bahādur, "brave"/"authority"). [12]
The East India Company traded mainly in cotton, silk, indigo dye, salt , saltpetre, tea, and opium. The Company also came to rule large areas of India, exercising military power and assuming administrative functions, to the exclusion, gradually, of its commercial pursuits; it effectively functioned as a megacorporation. [13] Company rule in India, which effectively began in 1757 after the Battle of Plassey, lasted until 1858.
Following the events of the Indian Rebellion of 1857, and the Government of India Act 1858, the British Crown assumed direct administration of India in the new British Raj. The Company itself was finally dissolved on 1 January 1874, as a result of the East India Stock Dividend Redemption Act 1873. The East India Company often issued coinage bearing its stamp in the regions it had control over.
The Company long held a privileged position in relation to the British Government. As a result, it was frequently granted special rights and privileges, including trade monopolies and exemptions. These caused resentment among its competitors, who saw unfair advantage in the Company's position. Despite this resentment, the Company remained a powerful force for over 250 years.
{{
citation}}
: |last2=
has generic name (
help). Quote (p. 118): "I do not allude to European despotism, planted upon Asiatic despotism, by the British East India Company, forming a more monstrous combination than any of the divine monsters startling us in the temple of
Salsette."
GrindtXX ( talk) 18:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
There has been several East India companies (Dutch, English, French, Danish, etc). en.Wikipedia has an international readership and I really think the title should be changed to "English East India Company" to make it clear from the outset which one of the East India companies we're dealing with here (as I'm neither a Briton nor an Indian, it was not clear to me until I started reading the article).
As an example, John Keay's great book is titled: "The Honourable Company, A History of the English East India Company".-- Lubiesque ( talk) 13:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
It should be noted that this is standing custom with the English: Royal Air Force, The Tolkien Society, Royal Society for this or that. It might if you were generous be attributed to the assumption that non-English organizations would be using their own languages, not English; but it annoys the dickens out of Yanks (and to lesser extent Canadians, Enzeds, and Aussies). -- Orange Mike | Talk 02:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
The "Founding" section has the following statement in its second paragraph:
Two years later, on 24 September 1598, another group of merchants having raised 30,133 in capital, met in London to form a corporation. Although their first attempt was not completely successful, they nonetheless sought the Queen's unofficial approval, bought ships for their venture, increased their capital to 68,373, and convened again a year later.[5]
The numbers are presumably in pounds sterling. Is this correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lcaretto ( talk • contribs) 17:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Why is it that that article says "it is argued that the EIC flag was inspired by Majapahit Empire's flag"? Is there any doubt that it isn't inspired? I find it poignant that there is no such qualification when indicating the relationship between the East India Company flag and the US Stars and Stripes. Why is that one connection is not written in the same language with tendentious and biased qualifications like "it is argued that..."? Why the double standards? Or perhaps this is a question of Wikipedia has some unstated policy that doesn't recognize any local (Malaysian/Indonesian) scholarship as a reliable source on this issue and are waiting for a English speaking person to come out and write a completely redundant English language book or article on this topic (redundant since the matter is not scientifically contested, there is no doubt that the Majapahit Empire flag became the EIC flag, just as there is no doubt that the thirteen colonies Stars and Stripes were carry overs from the EIC flag. Loginnigol ( talk) 21:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Please understand that wikipedia is not an attack on Malaysian or Indonesian scholars.
The "double standard" which certain corporate and revisionist editors seek to promote is primarily "intellectual" clan-mentality, secondly most wikipedia editors are based in the usa, and they have a certain lack-of-comprehension of corporate history which pre-dates their "revolution". With regards to both the East-Indian companies incorporated in England as well as Amsterdam, they are regarded as corporate behemoths which were essential to the incorporation of the thirteen colonies. Also, it is noticable that there is a double-standard in that the early Islamic uprising against corporate exploitation in Indonesia is not included in the Jihad article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.147.235.216 ( talk) 00:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
QUOTE: Indian fleet END OF QUOTE
What is this 'Indian fleet'? At best it would be Moghal ships. Mughals cannot be identified with India or Indians, unless all south Indians are defined as animals, and not humans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.240.218 ( talk) 14:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Is there any way for accomplished wikipedia editors to revert the changes made to the "founding" section of this page on the 8th of December? Mainly, the edits that replace a concise overview of the formation of the East India Company with what appears to be a bizarre rant that is poorly formatted, overtly long and heavily biased against the East India Company. Furthermore, it contains advertisements for a podcast, which as far as I'm aware is forbidden.
Can someone please revert these changes?
Ernie Smith ( talk) 00:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
There may well have been a relative of the Grand Mughal on the Ganj-i-Sawai. But it is not known for certain, or known who it might be. What is the point of saying that "there is no evidence to suggest that it was his daughter and her retinue". No one suggested that it was! Royalcourtier ( talk) 06:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be more information, preferably a whole section for the Bengal famine of 1770? It was the most deadly natural disaster in recorded history, killing 10,000,000, and it was caused by the East India Company. I realize the article does mention it, but shouldn't there be more? -Garet ( talk) 02:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on East India Company. 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 reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
This British library blog post may be of interest:
-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@ HLGallon: We have had users complain of a racist, western bias earlier. Now, with this edit you have removed a well sourced sentence. Please explain!— Dona-Hue ( talk) 15:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
A block quote in the lead is almost always inappropriate and unnecessary, per WP:QUOTEFARM, WP:LONGQUOTE, and WP:LEAD. There is nothing in the quote used that is uniquely pertinent or indispensable in itself, and it should be summarized or paraphrased as described in the policies cited. (It is also ungrammatical as currently presented.) Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 15:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I do not understand why you are so enamored of this pointed quote. Where you have placed it now is a complete non sequitor, a hundred years of narrative before we are even introduced to Clive. The view stated is completely undeveloped or elaborated upon and solely from one writer. I don't think the quote has any place in the article without further support and development, and certainly not until a place in the narrative when Clive is at least alive. Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 16:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on East India Company. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I predict the majority of people will now be looking for High Efficiency Image File Format, the default camera photo format in new iPhones. HEIC is one of the file extensions used. -- David G ( talk) 20:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on East India Company. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
The article seems to be a rewriting of the NCERT (Indian government school text book) History. The contents might be copyrighted.
Now, who can remove the whole nonsense and write something fair and correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:D382:85D2:D9BC:7E1B:9240:64CF ( talk) 21:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
There is a mistake in the chart of the capital of the first voyages - in particular the "block" of the four voyages of 1613-16. The listed number £272,544 is not the "total invested" for 1613-1616, but rather the joint amount invested in "ships and provisions" for those four fleets (that is, £272,544 are the four rows in the fourth column taken together, not the four rows of the first column.). The first "total invested" column should be £106,000 for 1613, £107,000 for 1614, £107,000 for 1615 and £109,000 for 1616. So the "total invested" for the four fleets of 1613-16 should be £429,000 (= £111,499 bullion exported + £78,017 goods exported + £272,544 ship & provisions). This what the Mill citation refers to: Mill. There is some citation to some "Baldwin, Cradock & Joy" in the article, but no actual work is cited, so can't follow that up for consistency. Would someone care to make the changes in the table? Walrasiad ( talk) 07:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I updated the industry field to reflect the fact that the type of "trade" that the HEIC engaged in was done via illicit means (smuggling, bribing, and other forms of crime). That is no longer "trade", it's crime. I added a citation from a British source.
Retinoblastoma ( talk) 03:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Why does this article incorrectly say initially with Mughal India? Clearly later in the article it states Indonesia and Java as the inital point of trade. This is clearly incorrect and conflates mainland India with insular India (as Indonesia was once known). Could someone correct this who owns the page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:4B8F:C800:D431:8072:BD0A:6B60 ( talk) 13:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Please read the page in question, the origins section of the page clearly states Malacca and the Early voyages section states Bantam and Moluccas. from this page its clear Lancaster's destination was the Moluccas. Any historian of worth will inform you that cloves are only available there (as well as Nutmeg). /info/en/?search=James_Lancaster also reiterates the same statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:4B8F:C800:19BB:C1B3:3034:41DC ( talk) 11:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
No. If you won't read the page then there is no point in discussing it further. Why did you answer the question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:4B8F:C800:1588:59E6:A:34BF ( talk) 21:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
The article is shocking and clearly biased. Not one mention of the enslavement of blacks, the racism against blacks that most of the members of the company had, the discrimination against females (sexism), the inhumane treatment that most natives that encountered the company workers received, the genocide that the company participated etc. Truly a biased article in favor of the company and ignoring the historic truths.Would an article on Wikipedia dare mention Hitler's SS and not mention the genocide and blind violence? No. But when it comes to the core companies, principles that created and enriched Great Britain, America and Europe, articles tend to be biased and ignore racism, sexism, etc. We need to improve this article and teach the truth otherwise we help to perpetuate racism, sexism, blind national and only make greedy corporations more powerful. -- 2604:2000:DDD1:4900:A0FF:B99F:8D6:BBB0 ( talk) 06:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Yet why was so much effort put into this neutral tone regarding the East India Company when none of it reflects criticism at large? Clearly the company was responsible for so much that was wrong yet nothing has been discussed. You argue someone else should do this- why havent the authors who know so much about the rest of it not willing to discuss it? This itself is indicative of western bias and racism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.14.224 ( talk) 04:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I am a huge Wikipedia history reader and after reading this article I have to agree that the tone regarding the deaths of millions is rather diminutive. I would argue that by minimizing these deaths we are not taking a neutral tone. When 10 million people die we can't put that as a footnote in history. In order to maintain neutrality while still giving light to these deaths, there should be a small section covering the famine detailing East India Companies Role in the deaths. We may also look at other similar issues such as the Soviet famines, the Congolese genocide, Native American Genocide, or the Holocaust for further reference on how to cover these issues with due gravity. 47.154.80.252 ( talk) 18:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
May be it should be mentioned that it was the English East India Company that saved millions of enslaved populations who had been kept as sort of domestic cattle by the higher classes of South Asia. Check books of those period such as Malabar Manual, Native Life in Travancore, Travancore State Manual.
It is not wise to write history by reading crap Indian academic textbooks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4073:210:1EB4:C1C4:5A3E:64BE:FB18 ( talk) 07:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
In English rule period books, the term English East India Company is seen used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4073:210:1EB4:C1C4:5A3E:64BE:FB18 ( talk) 06:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
... died in 1627, so any mention of him after that year is probably erroneous (maybe mentioning Jahan instead?), and should be taken into mind, IMO. Impfireball ( talk) 19:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
In 1634, the Mughal emperor Jahangir extended his hospitality to the English traders...
Seriously doubt that, since he died (and, thus ceded reigning, in 1627)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.211.12.210 ( talk) 16:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I have come across a coin dated 1936 from Kinnar State which purports to be East India Company issue & seems to have been a non-currency religious token. It could be a mistaken date or not Christian dating or it could be a fake but it suggests that the company may have continued operation in independent states in which it had established good relations with the local political establishment. I've only found Kinnar as an alternate to Hijra or Transgender & suspect Kinnaur may be the modern equivalent. The Mahabharata mentions the Kinnara (Horse-Man or Centaur) tribe & their state. I confess I am perplexed. 101.164.87.162 ( talk) 03:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC) Ian Ison
Technically, the EIC was never completely disestablished, as from time to time various investors have attempted to use the corporate brand and trademarks to start businesses. There was a " Banana Republic" clone under that name in the 1980s and '90s in Southeast Asia, and after it went bankrupt, another group started a tea company which is apparently thriving...that is according to their website at least. Arglebargle79 ( talk) 12:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)