This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Economy of India under the British Raj article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I see that Fowler's unproposed and undiscussed move of this article from Economy of British India to Economy of India under the British Raj, and the unlinking of British India in the lead, follows my referring to the page at Talk:British India. But what is the article to be about? Clearly, British India had an economy, but did the whole of India, including the Princely states, have a single economy? Xn4 ( talk) 00:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
This discussion came to an end because User:Strawless was judged to be a sockpuppet of User:Xn4 and both accounts have been blocked. -- PBS ( talk) 20:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
What it says in the title. This appears to be a litany of woes rather than discussing how people made their living in British India. British India contains far more information about the economy of theRaj, so I propose basically improving this page by replacing its content with material taken from there. FOARP ( talk) 11:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
This article seems to have a very strong point of view and also lacks citations supporting the strong PoV. In particular the section on The absence of industrialisation during the colonial period reads like a polemic not an encyclopaedia.-- Shimbo ( talk) 10:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
The section "Economic impact of British imperialism" is pitted with "Weasel Words" and non-"NPOV". It requires editing to make it impartial and citations to back up its assertions.
For example: "The issue was actually raised by conservative British politician Edmund Burke". Even if relevant, this is a political judgement, and it's very imprecise. Does the writer mean Burke - who wished the British to withdraw from its Indian colonies - was a laisser-faire conservative or a patriarchal conservative or a nationalist conservative? Does he mean a conservative by 19th Century standards or by those of the 21st Century?
For example, "(Economic Drain Theory)" - a citation is needed for this theory and a link to a definition.
For example, "P. J. Marshall, a British historian known for his work on the British empire" - these are classic weasel words and ask the question "By whom?"
For example, "P.J. Marshall...has a British revisionist interpretation of the view that the prosperity of the formerly being Mughal rule gave way to poverty and anarchy." Again, this is a highly partial political POV. The writer must define and justify "revisionist". Does he mean "marxist revisionist", "nationalist revisonist", "post-orientalist revisionist" etc. It seems the writer intends the word "revisionist" to somehow denigrate Marshall's work.
For example, "Instead of the more widely accepted account of the British as alien aggressors...". Again, the question is asked "By whom?". This sentence should be revised to indicate that Marshall's view may not be mainstream - and proper citation provided for that assertion.
There are many more examples I can cite. My conclusion is that this section needs to be properly rewritten and re-edited. I have added "Weasel Word" and citation requested notes in the text in the hope Wiki contributors will repair this section. Hubertgrove ( talk) 10:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I think that the title of the post "Economy of India under the British Raj" should be changed to "Economy of India under the British Rule" because the word Raj seems to sound like it is of Hindi language but the post is in English language. Sarika00987654321 ( talk) 14:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Development by British in India 206.84.238.21 ( talk) 09:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
"But the truth is British rule demolished the richest country in the world on the factors of racism, colonising, suppression and violence." How can one claim to know 'the truth' so definitively, when the rest of the introduction makes it extremely clear that it is controversial whether Britain actively kept India poor? Raptorrapture42 ( talk) 05:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
It is strange to see a discussion of the decline of India's proportion of world trade that does not take into account the fact that a proportion is a fraction, and a fraction has an enumerator and a denominator. If the denominator increases and the enumerator does not increase proportionately, the fraction will become smaller. In the period in question the denominator, i.e. total world GDP, increased enormously, so the Indian fraction became smaller. This is not necessarily a sign of impoverishment in India, but could be merely a sign of growth elsewhere, e.g. notably the USA. It is fully compatible with India having become richer in the period, as seems to have happened. Liscaraig ( talk) 16:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Economy of India under the British Raj article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I see that Fowler's unproposed and undiscussed move of this article from Economy of British India to Economy of India under the British Raj, and the unlinking of British India in the lead, follows my referring to the page at Talk:British India. But what is the article to be about? Clearly, British India had an economy, but did the whole of India, including the Princely states, have a single economy? Xn4 ( talk) 00:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
This discussion came to an end because User:Strawless was judged to be a sockpuppet of User:Xn4 and both accounts have been blocked. -- PBS ( talk) 20:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
What it says in the title. This appears to be a litany of woes rather than discussing how people made their living in British India. British India contains far more information about the economy of theRaj, so I propose basically improving this page by replacing its content with material taken from there. FOARP ( talk) 11:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
This article seems to have a very strong point of view and also lacks citations supporting the strong PoV. In particular the section on The absence of industrialisation during the colonial period reads like a polemic not an encyclopaedia.-- Shimbo ( talk) 10:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
The section "Economic impact of British imperialism" is pitted with "Weasel Words" and non-"NPOV". It requires editing to make it impartial and citations to back up its assertions.
For example: "The issue was actually raised by conservative British politician Edmund Burke". Even if relevant, this is a political judgement, and it's very imprecise. Does the writer mean Burke - who wished the British to withdraw from its Indian colonies - was a laisser-faire conservative or a patriarchal conservative or a nationalist conservative? Does he mean a conservative by 19th Century standards or by those of the 21st Century?
For example, "(Economic Drain Theory)" - a citation is needed for this theory and a link to a definition.
For example, "P. J. Marshall, a British historian known for his work on the British empire" - these are classic weasel words and ask the question "By whom?"
For example, "P.J. Marshall...has a British revisionist interpretation of the view that the prosperity of the formerly being Mughal rule gave way to poverty and anarchy." Again, this is a highly partial political POV. The writer must define and justify "revisionist". Does he mean "marxist revisionist", "nationalist revisonist", "post-orientalist revisionist" etc. It seems the writer intends the word "revisionist" to somehow denigrate Marshall's work.
For example, "Instead of the more widely accepted account of the British as alien aggressors...". Again, the question is asked "By whom?". This sentence should be revised to indicate that Marshall's view may not be mainstream - and proper citation provided for that assertion.
There are many more examples I can cite. My conclusion is that this section needs to be properly rewritten and re-edited. I have added "Weasel Word" and citation requested notes in the text in the hope Wiki contributors will repair this section. Hubertgrove ( talk) 10:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I think that the title of the post "Economy of India under the British Raj" should be changed to "Economy of India under the British Rule" because the word Raj seems to sound like it is of Hindi language but the post is in English language. Sarika00987654321 ( talk) 14:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Development by British in India 206.84.238.21 ( talk) 09:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
"But the truth is British rule demolished the richest country in the world on the factors of racism, colonising, suppression and violence." How can one claim to know 'the truth' so definitively, when the rest of the introduction makes it extremely clear that it is controversial whether Britain actively kept India poor? Raptorrapture42 ( talk) 05:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
It is strange to see a discussion of the decline of India's proportion of world trade that does not take into account the fact that a proportion is a fraction, and a fraction has an enumerator and a denominator. If the denominator increases and the enumerator does not increase proportionately, the fraction will become smaller. In the period in question the denominator, i.e. total world GDP, increased enormously, so the Indian fraction became smaller. This is not necessarily a sign of impoverishment in India, but could be merely a sign of growth elsewhere, e.g. notably the USA. It is fully compatible with India having become richer in the period, as seems to have happened. Liscaraig ( talk) 16:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)