Talk:British Raj/Archive 4

---

Requested moves

requested moves:

• Talk:British Raj/Archive 1#Requested move 1 – British Raj to British India – LuiKhuntek – December 2005
• Talk:British Raj/Archive 1#Requested move 2 – British Raj to British India – AjaxSmack – October 2006
• Talk:British Raj/Archive 1#Requested move – British Raj to British India – AjaxSmack – August 2007

British India (Band)

British India redirects to this page, instead of the page British India (band). Can someone fix that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.118.39 (talk) 05:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The vast majority of internal links to British India are lookng for this page, so that change would be inappropriate. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

'British Indo-Subcontinent Colony'

would be a better & more appropriate & more meaningful & comprehensive title for the article. The word 'Raj' in the title 'British Raj' is not an English word & does not have any meaning in English.The colony extended from Burma to Afghanistan, & Nepal to Maldive Islands, so it covered more than India. And so it will include Hindustan irrespectively whether it was ruled by the British Government indirectly by proxy via the officers of the British East India Company since the start of British colonization in 1637AD there or directly by British Government through a Viceroy as 'Indian Empire' since 1857AD to its end in 1947. ILAKNA (talk) 08:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

'Raj' is commonly encountered in the names of Indian restaurants, it is therefore not unknown within wider English speaking society. Moreover the term ‘the Raj’ is well known and understood as a reference to the British Indian empire. Both in contemporary and historical usage. It was also (in an historical context) referred to as the Indian empire, and as such is the most likely (and indeed most commonly encountered) name for both the era and area. The article is about the era of direct rule from London. It should make reference (and does) to the wider historical context, but there are other articles that deal with other periods of Indian history. [[Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)]]

'British Indo-Subcontinent Colony' - you have to name it as something in ready usage, so people can look it up with ease, and instantly know what the subject matter is. Although 'British Raj' is not perfect 'British Indo-Subcontinent Colony' should certainly not be considered. It might sum it up for about 200 years - but that's not really the point. The point is, nobody calls it that. But anyway.... it is debatable whether there was any British 'colonization' in 17th century India. During that period, the number of British residents in India, was numbered in the 100's, as compared to the tens of millions of Indians who surrounded them. Up until the mid 18th century, the Company actually limited the extent of British settlement, and would seek the deportation of any English resident not on their pay-roll. They were keen to keep Indian business a strictly East India Company affair, and happily closed-off India for most of the British people whilst maintaining a minimal staff in South Asia (to reduce overheads). This was hardly an act of "colonization", in fact, it was quite the opposite. Of course, times did change, but we're talking about the 17th century here. For example, modern Japanese firms might buy land in India, employ private security guards, maintain a staff of a few hundred Japanese in their factories and offices, then move a good portion of their profits back to their home island - this is not much more than the East India Company did c.1650. Hence, to use 'British Indo-Subcontinent Colony' for the entire period of British presence on Indian soil, is to imply that it was a colony from the outset, or that the Company (at that time) intended to colonize - which is fatuous, so within this title there is a debatable historical conclusion - whereas, at least "British Raj", is fairly neutral and widely understood. --Blenheim Shots (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Insinuation of bankrupt Britain

While there can be doubt that Britain was bankrupt at the end of WW-2; I find it hard to believe that this is what led to Britain's apparent "decision" to leave India. Logically, continuing to exploit the colonies would work to their benefit financially. Also, the British would have relinquished control of all their colonial assets including Africa which they apparently didn't. Perhaps someone can provide some information in this regard. 124.124.0.1 (talk) 10:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note the user 124.124.0.1 has been Identified as demolitionman who has been banned--Rockybiggs (talk) 08:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting reply. 121.243.204.78 (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The talk about leaving India had been underway since long before the war, it was agreed at the start of the war that once it was over India would be granted indpendance.

Africa was granted independance, it just wasn't anywhere near as ready for it as India was so it took time. FYI most of Africa made a loss for the UK economically.--Him and a dog 19:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be logical, except that the British did not 'exploit' the colonies economically. Most economic historians consider the Empire to have been a drain on the public finances, with the drain increasing in later years. Indeed, no modern economic historian, of any political persuasion, believes it to have been of direct benefit to the public finances. It was, for the most part, justified by the reduction of the risk experienced by private sector investments overseas, and hence their greater return on those investments.

However, most economic analysis is that even with this private benefit, there was a net cost to the United Kingdom. See Cain and Hopkins (1987), Daunton (1989), Davis and Huttenback (1986), Foreman-Peck (1989), Hopkins (1988), Kennedy (1989), O'Brien (1988), Offer (1993), Porter (1988), et al! This contradicts the New Economic History that seemingly justifies slavery. What the explanation of Empire was is unknown. I believe (as perhaps is indicated by the citations above) that, as a democratic country, the UK isn't necessarily held by 'logic' in its decision making (or, rather, democracy is Pareto non-optimal). Empire was guided by the people's belief in an act of 'gentlemanly capitalism' - or an act of charitable contrition and penance for the United Kingdom being the first to industrialise.

Nonetheless, I depart from the issue at hand. There is modern consensus that India, and the rest of empire, cost the United Kingdom money, and that the United Kingdom had little money to lose. There is a logical leap there. If someone could provide some citations that state unequivocally that the two were connected, and played the key part in the officials' rationale, it is a straightforward matter to include in the article. Bastin 23:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

"If someone could provide some citations that state unequivocally that the two were connected, and played the key part in the officials' rationale, it is a straightforward matter to include in the article." .... I don't think there is any, at least, not by any serious author. Many historians, especially of the Indian nationalist ilk, will claim that the British were "forced" to leave India, by one means or another. There was indeed a moral force put upon them, but after WWII, a Socialist government had gained power and the tide of public opinion had turned against old-school imperialism. It was no longer considered glorious to hang on to India, and, as has been pointed out, promises had been made to effect Indian independence during WWII anyway. Indeed, even during the 19th century there had been talk of eventual Indian independence. I think this kind of talk about the British being "forced" to leave in 1947, is quite anti-British in fact (as well as historically dubious), it robs the common British people of their share in the eventual (and rightful) independence of India. --Blenheim Shots (talk) 05:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Correction: There was some talk of granting India dominion status during WW-2 but that was merely to get Indians onboard the WW-2. Do you have any sources to back up this claim? Giving common British people their share in the eventual and rightful independence of India is a downright laughable notion. 121.243.204.78 (talk) 11:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

As is the notion that "British did not 'exploit' the colonies economically," for that matter. Naturally, we have neo/colonial economists who know which side their bread is buttered (of course, we also have to accept as a given that liberal-democracy is democratic, which it is not). El_C 20:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

In equal parts, very Leninist and very wrong. Whatever the difference between the two is. Bastin 21:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Apportioning aside, too little substance and too much sophistry for an intelligent debate. El_C 21:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

To imply that Britain offered India independance during the war just as a way to get them onside is utter nonsense. The major reason Winston Churchill was so unpopular during the 1930s and completely frozen out of politics was that he was so rabidly against Indian indepedance- whilst the political establishment of the time was activly working towards it.--Him and a dog 12:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"There was some talk of granting India dominion status during WW-2" ... oh please!!! You really are splitting hairs. Dominion Status, (like Canada & Australia) meant independence, ... independence with a few (easily breakable) strings attached - but independence nevertheless. Jinnah certainly understood that. Even after 1947 (up until 1950) India didn't become a Republic, and it's still in the British Commonwealth to this day, and Brits had special rights of residence in India right up until the 1980's - so obviously "dominion status" was just a minor detail. DOG is right - Churchill would not have let go of India - he clearly said so. If you think that it's a a "downright laughable notion" that Churchill being voted out of office (by the British people) didn't speed up independence for India, then the only thing "downright laughable" is your lack of knowledge on this subject matter. --Blenheim Shots (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Blenheim Shot - your lack of knowledge is not "downright laughable" - it is appalling to say the least. India didn't become a Republic as it was framing a constitution - incidentally, the longest constitution ever written. And it is no longer "The British Commonwealth" - it is merely "The Commonwealth" - that was a pre-condition India set to remaining in the Commonwealth. And "special rights of residence right until the 1980s" is a figment of a fertile imagination. Churchill or not, the Britishers were going to be thrown out of the country either way, especially since the Indian Army was in no mood to follow orders of the British officers. 124.124.0.1 (talk) 08:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Demolitionman, Surely your not talking about the same Indian army which fought and followed orders during WW2 (even including their dis-loyal colleagues who fought for the Japanese). --Rockybiggs (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

When were 'Britishers' thrown out of India? My cousin is over there right now, I'm a bit worried about this development...--Him and a dog 18:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Leaving rhetoric and PoVs aside, there are plenty of books which will point out that there is a middle ground between the two very biased views being peddled here. May I suggest (fom my own readings) Lawrence James book on the Raj and Collins & Harper's Fall of British South Asia. And just a word of note blatantly pointed views do little to improve credibillities of editors peddling their views. Please remember either side has a basis, and it is worthwhile to consider that it may be worthwhile to look into that.[[::User: rueben_lys| rueben_lys]] ([[::User talk: rueben_lys|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/ rueben_lys|contribs]]) 17:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I am going to add, I am quite bothered by the fact that every discussion seems to end up in the INA for some reason, and painfully brings out an offensive ignorance and PoV. Please remember there is more to 1857-1947 than WWII, there is more to the Indian movement than Gandhi and INA, and there is more to INA than Slim's discredited accounts and Lowe's criticised accounts. Take a step back and a deep breath, then think over what it is that is worth inclusion and stands up to scrutiny.[[::User: rueben_lys| rueben_lys]] ([[::User talk: rueben_lys|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/ rueben_lys|contribs]]) 18:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Nehru quote

There is a Nehru quote in the Effects on economy section :

“ A significant fact which stands out is that those parts of India which have been longest under British rule are the poorest today. Indeed some kind of chart might be drawn up to indicate the close connection between length of British rule and progressive growth of poverty. ”

Nehru is not academic, and Nehru's criticism is not academic criticism. The Nehru quote in the Effects on economy section serves no purpose. There is no need to highlight the opinion of an non-Academic and it is giving too much weight on Nehru's opinion. I am removing the personal opinion of Nehru. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest leaving it in the boxed form. Nehru's opinion, while not academic in nature, is hardly inconsequential. And, the boxed nature indicates that it is an opinion rather than a statement of obvious fact. The reality is that we (on wikipedia) are not likely to figure out the economic effects of the Raj (even if we could, that would be OR) so best practices indicate that important points of view are appropriately included in the article. --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 13:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Otolemur is suggesting that Nehru's quote doesn't belong in this particular section given that it should contain economic facts and not opinions - perhaps it can be moved to another section? TheBlueKnight (talk) 10:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah probally a good point. The fact is that the Indian economy grew under Britain- I've no figures for individual areas unfortunatly. {User:Josquius 11:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Just saw it - it is merely a box on the right hand side and is not directly in the section. The view of India's first PM is quite fine in a small box - actually i think it is pretty important. However, if you feel like moving it to a more appropriate section, be my guest. TheBlueKnight (talk) 11:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Can't see where else it would go? The section is titled "Effects on the Economy" and the quote is about those effects. Ideally, if there were a sub-article, that's where it would go, but there isn't one. Seems to me that the quote is useful and germane. While the reality is that it is impossible to gauge the true economic effects, positive or negative (a lot can happen in 200 years!), the wikipedia reader should know what an important leader of pre and post independence India thought. --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 14:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That does make sense. TheBlueKnight (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I have severe objection to Nehru's analysis. There should be a question what is the foundation of his comment. We cannot include a random quote in this way. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is already representing the british viewpoint quite well. Will removing or keeping nehru's comment really make much difference? 67.169.0.250 (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The question is not about British viewpoint or Indian viewpoint. The question is about factual accuracy. If you are a Nehru-fan, I will bring hundreds of sources, and all are Indian sources, which will shame you. My stance is clear, include academic view, include historian's view, include economist's view, not the view of a politician, especially one who has no contribution to pre-1947 politics. Nehru was neither academic nor philosopher. His only significance is that for any reason he was able to take the PM's chair as India's first prime minister, there is no other historic significance of Nehru. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is to leave it in. I am not comfortable with British viewpoints vs Indian viewpoints because the points of view of historians tends to be divided on lines other than ethnicity (except for historians with dubious agendas) and if the only purpose of the quote was to present something that qualifies as an "indian viewpoint", I'd say dump it. However, Nehru was an important and influential political figure, both pre- and post-independence, and including his view in a box (which is obviously separate from the text) is useful, interesting, and adds value to the article. What might be interesting is to add a quote from some other significant figure (Niall Ferguson, perhaps) that conveys the opposite message. That would help make it clear that the economic effects of the Raj are complex. (BTW, dismissing Nehru as an insignificant figure, while an acceptable viewpoint, is veering close to WP:OR.)--Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 15:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Does Nehru give any scientific explanation behind his claim? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not the point. If scientific explanations for everything were the litmus test for inclusion in wikipedia, 99% of the material in the encyclopedia would need to be tossed out. An encyclopedia presents information that is of value to the reader and contextualizes that information appropriately. This quote is of value and is properly contextualized. --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 16:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The article can be modified to to make it more compatible with the quote or the quote modified/nuanced to make it more compatible with rest of the article. History IS about viewpoints and definitely not subjected to scientific scrutiny. I think the main problem here is that the quote, as it is right now, sort of stands out against the rest of the article and doesn't contribute much or provide value to any viewpoint. Its nothing more than a symbolic/token statement in the context of this article. 67.169.0.250 (talk) 06:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Even Noam Chomsky in his book Year 501: The Conquest Continues, Published by South End Press, 1993 ISBN 0896084442, 9780896084445 link cites Nehru's quote. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 17:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not think the average reader would think that Nehru was either an academic or a philosopher. However, given that he was the first PM is pretty historically significant. I would also think that Nehru contributed significantly in the pre-1947 era. TheBlueKnight (talk) 08:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

I note ref note 86, which I realise now is what the section above the last deals with. Sumit Sarkar has been quoted among afew other authors, to support this point. Not noted is the fact that Sarkar also notes couple of pages before that the severe civil unrest around the Red Fort trials and Bombay mutiny, and also links these to the end of the Raj. This needs to be corrected, and it does give a one sided view. A number of other authors will also note that no plans for "transfer of power" were in place as late as 1946, with the then viceroy still trying to solve the Hindu-Muslim power sharing outlines. This needs to be put in context.[[::User: rueben_lys| rueben_lys]] ([[::User talk: rueben_lys|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/ rueben_lys|contribs]]) 18:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

So please go ahead and put it in context. TheBlueKnight (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It was done a while ago.[[::User: rueben_lys| rueben_lys]] ([[::User talk: rueben_lys|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/ rueben_lys|contribs]]) 23:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

New edits by user:Xn4

Xn4 (talk · contribs) has revived the ghost of "colloquialism" with regards the title of this page. This has been the subject of countless discussions before. We need to remind ourselves that the page is about "Crown rule in India" between 1858 and 1947 and is a counterpoint to the page "Company rule in India." The consensus on this page has been to keep the title British Raj. The title may or may not be a considered a colloquialism any more (given that a number of textbooks and monographs by leading historians use the term), but, regardless, that fact is a minor etymological detail not worthy of mention in the lead, except as a footnote. The point of the lead is to provide information about the region and the rule and to do so in a manner that provides maximum necessary information without confusing a new reader with unnecessary details. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

user:Xn4 had changed the first sentence in the lead to: "... is an imprecise term which began in about the 1920s as a colloquialism for 'British India', and is primarily used to refer to the British rule in the Indian subcontinent between 1858 and 1947." There are many problems with this sentence. The Raj was not a colloquialism for British India; the Raj primarily referred to the rule, and secondarily to the region and the period of dominion, whereas British India primarily referred to the region, and secondarily (as a collective noun) to the British in India, but never to the rule. Also, user:Xn4 is wide off the mark with his dates. As OED itself records below, the term had been in use at least since 1857 (and actually before that); it was certainly not created "in about the 1920s," which, in any case is a vague characterization, not worthy of an encyclopedia's lead sentence. Also, the term didn't "begin," but rather "began to be used." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

With the benefit of the comments above, I'm inclined to agree with leaving 'colloquialism' out of the lead, and the much earlier uses of 'British raj' (with quite a wide variety of meanings) show that my source for 1920s was mistaken. however, I do think we should note frankly that the term is imprecise, and I've added a tag at one point. Xn4 (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

New page for British India by user:Xn4

Xn4 (talk · contribs) has also undone a redirect that has stood for over two years, viz British India-->British Raj. He has copied and pasted a few paragraphs from this page to create the new page. I have nothing against creating a separate page for British India, but again, this topic has been the subject of many discussions on this page, discussions that had begun long before I arrived on Wikipedia in October 2006. I feel a unilateral removal of the redirect is against the spirit of seeking consensus that has been the hallmark of this page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I rather regret anyone setting out (as above) to personalize this matter, but I'm happy to say a few words here in response.

1. The short page now at British India (which Fowler&fowler has contributed to in a constructive spirit, thank you for that) can't be described as "...copied and pasted a few paragraphs from this page", and its main aim at the moment is to define what 'British India' was and how it differed, as a geographical area, from '[British] Indian Empire'. It seems to me that it would be a category mistake to try to compare and contrast those terms (or areas) with British Raj.
2. No doubt we can all agree that Wikipedia needs a British Raj page. If anyone should suggest that everything which is in general terms to do with several hundred years of the British in India should be loaded onto a page called British Raj, with other similar topics redirecting to it, then I'm more than sceptical of that idea. I sincerely doubt that 'British Raj' is correctly understood as a geographical area, but, in any event, such a gigantic subject as the British in India is sure to spread over a large number of pages, of which British India can (in my view) be a very useful one. To be frank, when making a start on articles to do with British India, such as Malik Umar Hayat Khan and the 125th Napier's Rifles, I've been a little taken aback by just how thin our coverage of the subcontinent still is. Xn4 (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just noticed that the first post above was made not long after deleting the British India page by turning it into a redirect to here, which seems to me a bit aggressive, in all the circumstances. I don't know why this wasn't noted, when what was said includes "I have nothing against creating a separate page for British India". So with that support, I've reinstated the page, and no doubt any discussion on it below will be constructive. Xn4 (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Xn4, did you check the page archives linked at the top of his talk page? It seems like there was considerable discussion over the British India vs. British Raj naming convention. I haven't looked at it myself, but it may explain why Fowler&fowler feels that a consensus needs to be established first. I'll look into this matter when I have some free time tomorrow morning. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The OED (on-line edition) has clarified its definition in view of the language of this page!

The OED on-line edition (draft revision of June 2008, requires subscription) has clarified its definition of "British Raj" in view of the language of this page's lead (and uses some of the language of the lead)! Here is the new definition:

"raj 2. spec: In full British Raj. Direct rule in India by the British (1858-1947); this period of dominion. Often with the. Also in extended use: any system of government in which power is restricted to a particular group. The British Raj was instituted in 1858, when, as a consequence of the Indian Rebellion of the previous year, the rule of the British East India Company was transferred to the Crown in the person of Queen Victoria (proclaimed Empress of India in 1876). In 1947 the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two sovereign dominion states, the Union of India (later the Republic of India) and the Dominion of Pakistan (later the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the People's Republic of Bangladesh) (cf. PARTITION n. 7c).

Before the revision, it use to simply say: "b. spec. the British dominion or rule in the Indian sub-continent (before 1947). In full, British raj."

And here are OED's examples of usage with dates in boldface:

1857 Times 3 Aug. 5/6 We have just seen a translation of one of the most infamous articles against the British Raj, which we have seen published. 1879 Times 8 Dec. 9/3 The downfall of the British raj was only a matter of time. 1908 Daily Chron. 21 June 4/4 The Indian agitators who represent the British raj as the author of the plague. 1940 Times 10 July 3/6 The Congress demand for a National Government so-called really meant a Congress ‘Raj’. 1969 R. MILLAR Kut xv. 288 Sir Stanley Maude had taken command in Mesopotamia, displacing the raj of antique Indian Army commanders. 1971 Illustr. Weekly India 18 Apr. 4/2 Though it appears paradoxical, in the last days of the Raj, the British were the only people who wished to keep India united. 1987 N. SIBAL Yatra I. 6 Paramjit had written to her saying that the British were pulling out of India and that the Raj was coming to an end. 2006 Daily Mail (Nexis) 6 June 17 I've yet to hear him address the democratic deficit which subjugates the English to rule by a Scottish Raj.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)