This is an archive of past discussions about British Raj. 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.
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There is some serious issue with the precursor states section-he Maratha empire has been deleted as one of the precursor states.This looks like POV pushing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylark2008 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Maratha Empire/Confederacy flag deleted.
Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
The flag of the Maratha empire has been deleted from the list of precursor states section.Its laughable that the rump Mughal state has been shown as a precursor state but the numerous Maratha states and other Hindu states which were far higher is status and prestige during the East India Company rule have been completely deleted.It seems activists from a certain community are trying to push some serious POV bias here.Also some Hindu-Muslim comparative population maps have been inserted which have little relevance to an account of the British government rule.This trend of communalizing wikipedia and using it to propagate communal agenda is damaging.Someone has to please replace the flags of the Hindu states alongside that of the other two flags,in the pre-cursor states section.Another solution is to remove all flags except the flag of the East India company.However if flags other than East India Company flag have to be shown it should include those of the Maratha states,the Mysore state of the Wodeyars,the Kerala states,the Rajput states and all the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylark2008 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Skylark2008, this article is about British rule in India after the Indian rebellion of 1857. The rebellion effectively ended the Mughal Empire and colonial control was transferred from the East India Company to the crown. The Maratha Empire, Sikh Empire etc. are listed as precursors to Company rule in India in that article. --regentspark (comment) 16:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Economic impact needs to be documented rather than POV here. "England's Debt to India" and "Unhappy India" of Lala Lajpat Rai summarize the economic position and impact. India's global share in GDP was brought down from 20+% to 1% during British rule. This needs to be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.182.80 (talk) 03:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Education Section
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Education section does not cover the fact that a well developed native Indian education was routed by the British by force. The number of schools and students receiving higher education were higher in Indian education system than the British convents. This is documented in Dharampal's "The Beautiful Tree". Colonial Education continues to be a severe detriment to Indian education standards, and 60 years after independence, Indian academics struggle to prepare their curriculum independently under the influence of colonial academicians like Romila Thapar. Attempts towards non-colonizing the curriculum are fought as "Saffronization". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.182.80 (talk) 03:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
A BIT OF HONESTY PLEASE?
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This article is OK in parts, although you can tell that the bottom half is predominantly of an Indian nationalist viewpoint, as it intently focuses upon the struggle for independence and Congress - this can really be classed as opposition to the British Raj, rather than as information about the British Raj itself.
Actually, I am not challenging any facts given as such; it is simply the way the article is constructed. The choice of facts and the space given to them, negates the article's neutrality, and paints a massively false image which is intentionally anti-British and pro-Indian.
Inconvenient facts that are embarrassing to Indian nationalists have been completely ignored. For example, you would think that the basic demographics of the British presence in India would be of great interest to any reader. We read hundreds of lines about the political and armed struggles against the British - but who were the British in India? How many and where? The real answer is: virtually none. And Indian nationalists don't want people to know that. Because they wish to portray themselves as oppressed and heroic - this doesn’t really work if they disclose the fact that there were hardly any British in India, ever. Any struggle they faced for independence was against themselves.
One small hint of this is given in the article, buried in the LORD CURZON box (most people would miss it, and few people would grasp the incredible significance of the information):
"Census of 1901 gives the total population at 294 million, including 62 million in the princely states and 232 million in British India.[37] About 170,000 are Europeans."
So, the British had been outnumbered about 1-to-1500 in India! And I am not even talking about military personnel! A British officer in the 1830's wrote that if the Indians wanted to get rid of the British all they would have to do is each throw a handful of sand at them, in which case they would all be buried alive. A British reporter who arrived in Calcutta to cover the mutiny in 1857, was shocked that he travelled from one end of the city to the other without "seeing a single white face" - and he described his countryman's presence as a "numerical nothingness" - such sentiments were common, and realistic.
In the 1901 census there were less than ten thousand British in Calcutta (the capital) of all descriptions - this figure included women and children, tourists and transient businessmen. British military personnel in the subcontinent varied from decade to decade, but averaged out at around 50,000 troops - that's 50,000 for what is now the Republic of India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Burma!
So, obviously, the Indian Army and Indian Police were of vital importance to the maintenance of the British Raj. Key elements of the British Raj to which it owed its very existence.... and almost totally omitted in the article! Why ........... because they were 99% staffed by Indians, that's why. To admit that, doesn't really fit the image of "heroic Indian masses fighting against the British" does it? In truth, the masses were not fighting, and those sections of Indian society that were battling, were generally being tackled by their own countrymen.
But of course the article doesn't even tell us that there were virtually no foreigners in India, instead it concentrates on what was (in fact) an incredibly weak and ineffective "resistance" movement, which took 90 years to achieve something that should have taken less than 90 days.
Also ....
It is also incredible that the battles of Kohima and Imphal go unmentioned - these battles fought on Indian soil saved the British Raj, or at least until final independence. But again, because of the intense Indian participation in those battles, and because the British won, they are deemed too "unimportant" to mention, whilst the incredibly ineffective INA get many lines.
So a great piece of INDIAN NATIONALIST PROPAGANDA we have here, an elloquant hagiography of the Indian people, that exonerates them of all possible guilt and responsibility.
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The British Raj (rāj, lit. "reign" in Hindi)[1] was British rule in the Indian subcontinent between 1858 and 1947. The term can also refer to the period of dominion.
What a messy lead.
I'm not a native English-speaker, but to make that sentence legible it should be something like:
The British Raj (rāj, lit. "reign" in Hindi)[1] is the name given to British rule in the Indian subcontinent between 1858 and 1947.
The term can also refer to the period of dominion.
the period of dominion!?
What does "the period of dominion" means!?!
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The territories of Goa, Damão, Diu, Dadra and Nagar Haveli were under Portuguese rule since before there were even any British in India and stayed so until after they left. They were part of what was then called Portuguese India since the 1500's. Pondicherry was also not part of the British Raj, being instead regarded alongside Mahé, Yanam and Karaikal as French India since 1674. So why does every single map in this article show the entire Indian subcontinent under British rule? And no mentions to these territories being exceptions of sovereignty on this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonaspv (talk • contribs) 22:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
If you look carefully at and , you will see that the French, Portuguese etc. colonies are shown on the map and labelled as such. also indicates that Pondicherry is French. These colonies are very small in comparison to the extent of British controlled territory that they are hard to see unless you expand the images to their maximum.
As the title of the article is British Raj, it would seem logical to discuss the British Raj, not French or Portuguese colonies. Dabbler (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Political classification
Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
In the infobox, I have changed the classification of the British Raj from "Dominion" to "Province", as Burma was ruled separately as a Crown Colony from 1937, and neither India nor Pakistan received Dominion status until their independence in 1947.
The status of the British Raj seems somewhat ambiguous during the period from 1858-1947. While British India might literally be considered a "colony" of the United Kingdom during this time, so far I have not seen any official British publication from that era which defines British India as a colony. Until 1948, "The Statesman's Year-Book" classified British India as a political entity distinctly separate from the Dominions and colonies of the British Empire:
"India, as defined by Parliament (52 and 53 Vict. c. 63, s. 18), comprises all that part of the great Indian Peninsula which is directly or indirectly under British rule or protection...The term British India includes only the districts subject to British law, and does not include Indian States."[1]
As another example, until January 1948 the London Gazette listed appointments of Indian Knight Bachelors separately from those made to British subjects in the British Dominions, colonies, protectorates and mandates; this separation is apparent in the Gazette's 1926 New Year Honours List.[2]
I am far from being a scholar of British Indian politics or history, but as far as I can make out, in regards to political classification, British India might best be considered a "Province" of the Crown (roughly analogous to the status of Portuguese India and other Portuguese territories, which were officially considered "provinces", not "colonies" of Portugal)
One comment, British ruled India contained a number of Provinces with their own governments. Can a Province of India have provinces? In other countries like Canada, there is a Federal government of Canada and separate provincial governments.
Perhaps "Colony" is a better term. Despite there being no formal designation while the Raj was on, the accepted term today is colony. Assuming modern sources can be found, that's what we should use.--regentspark (comment) 22:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Good point, Dabbler. So to put it rather roughly, the British Raj could be considered a directly administered "union" of provinces and territories (the Statesman's Year-Book also appears to bear this out). Think each province didn't really have its own functioning government until well into the Raj, though. "Colony" might ultimately be the most convenient term, but in light of what the above British documents state, I'd like to see if there's a more specific descriptor. Also, while there was a Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs and one for Dominion Affairs, India had its own Secretary of State.Aumnamahashiva (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
The British and many other nations of the era referred to the Raj as the "Indian Empire", in succession to the "Mughal Empire." Perhaps "Empire" might also be appropriateAumnamahashiva (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't Empire include Britain as well? Perhaps "Part of the British Empire" or something along those lines would be more accurate. --regentspark (comment) 00:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
There was the British Empire which included the Indian Empire. Technically the British monarch was only titled Emperor/ress of India and never Emperor of the British Empire. Neither the British or Indian Empire was ever formally named in British legislation, though they were used in names of organizations, Orders, treaties etc. Dabbler (talk) 10:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
After looking into it further, I understand the British Raj changed political classifications during its history, which can be divided into several stages:
Imperial territory under direct Crown rule (1858-1919)
Provincial dyarchy under the British Crown, with certain territories under direct Crown rule (1919-1935) (by the Government of India Act, 1919)[3][4]
Union of semi-autonomous provinces under Crown rule (1935-1947) (by the Government of India Act, 1935)[5]
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Why does Yemen appear alongside Bangladesh, Burma, India, and Pakistan in the "Today part of" section at the bottom of the infobox (top-right of the page)? Should Nepal and Bhutan be included?
82.229.188.151 (talk) 08:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I don't see much information particularly relating to the history of medicine in this article, and I was wondering if anyone knows whether there is currently a separate article on that topic? There's currently a section on Famines, Epidemics, and Public Health, as well as a rather orphaned article, but both seem to me to be quite limiting in scope, and I wonder whether there are any articles on the medical history of the British Raj itself. If not, any thoughts on whether creating a separate article would be preferable or not compared to adding information focusing on medicine to this article? I am inclined to say it deserves a separate article but not 100% sure, and don't want to start one unnecessarily.
I'm organising training sessions at the National Library of Scotland, and as they have a digital collection on the 'Medical history of British India', I was hoping I might encourage them to use the training session as an opportunity to contribute some of that information to Wikipedia. Would greatly appreciate responses and input! ACrockford (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. No, there is no separate article on the Medical history British India. It might not be the best title, though, because of the slight ambiguity: a reader doesn't know at first sight whether it is about the practice of medicine in British India or the history of disease in British India, or both. It might be better to create two separate articles: Medicine in British India and Disease in British India (or Public health in British India). I had created the article Famines,_epidemics,_and_public_health_in_the_British_Raj as a kind of overview article, a few years ago, around the time when I was writing the individual famine articles (see Timeline of major famines in India during British rule, all except the first and last famines), however, I never got around to writing that overview article, in part because there were all sorts of ideological wars going on, and my energies were sapped in endless talk page discussions. You are most welcome to both create the pages and have your students contribute to them.
There is another thing to watch out for. The sources in the digital collection you mention seem to be primary sources. Wikipedia does not allow primary sources to be used in attribution, only secondary ones, i.e. recently published scholarly articles or books. Wikipedia policy on sources says, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." (See, for examples, primary sources used in the quotation boxes in Mandell Creighton). Here are some good secondary sources that a Google search threw up:
Hi Fowler&fowler - that is a great point you make, actually, and one that I will have to be sure to emphasise. The trainees will have access to a number of online secondary resources as well, but the idea was to use some of the more unique content that the Library has made available and focus around that. Also, in the cases of many of the sources, i.e. Lock Hospital or asylum statistics given in some of the primary resources, the information should be usable as they have been reliably published but the context for that data or any interpretation of that data would need to come from secondary sources - does that sound about right?
I think you're right about the vagueness of the name - there does seem to be a distinction between the history of disease in British India, the history of medical practice, the history of public health, and, with many of the sources, the history of mental health as well - they all overlap but are distinct. It might depend on the level of time the trainees are able to dedicate to the creation of such pages. I may create userspace drafts for the two (or perhaps three) articles which they can contribute to while training, and if so I will definitely post the links here and elsewhere to open them up to contributions so that the pages each have enough information and references. ACrockford (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
The term versus the political entity
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
From time to time people change the lead to something like: "British Raj is the term used for ..." I would like to urge those of you intending to do so again to read Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is about India (1858–1947) and (as the article says) it was commonly called India. Just as the Wikipedia article on the Republic of India doesn't say, "India is the term used for a country in South Asia ...," we can't do the same here. Besides, the OED, 3rd edition, June 2008, specifically says: " British Raj. Direct rule in India by the British (1858–1947); this period of dominion." Please bear this in mind. Fowler&fowler«Talk»13:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
File:INA Parade.jpg
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sidhu Jyatha (talk·contribs) has switched a public domain picture of Subhas Bose with another one, which does not appear to be PD, and which I have nominated for speedy deletion. I would urge the editor to restore the previous image. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk»23:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Add Bangladesh's flag
Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
"after" the Raj covers 1971. the people of what is now called Bangladesh played a major role in the Raj and their flag is appropriate. Rjensen (talk) 08:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
the history of Bangladesh is deeply rooted in the Raj, of which it was a major part. That is far more important than specific dates of independence. Rjensen (talk) 09:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
But the whole reason for that header showcasing the flags are to show what came after 1947. If you want to add Bangladesh's flag do it on Dominion of Pakistan page and besides Bangladesh is listed as "Today part of" no more is needed.Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
There are two sections in the infobox where flags are displayed. The top one shows the flags before 1857 and the ones for the entities immediately after independence in 1947. This does not include Bangladsesh as that entity did not exist. However, the second section is called "Today part of" and today, part of the Raj is called Bangladesh, so it is appropriate for the Bengladeshi flag to be displayed there. Dabbler (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Just add the flag and put something like (after 1971). Every sovereign state after the Raj needs mentioning and Bangladesh is now one of them69.165.246.181 (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Industry
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A question: if the official state flag of the British Raj was the Union Jack and it was this flag that was flown across the subcontinent at the time, why is the Star of India (flag) in the infobox as the flag of the British Raj? Particularly since the sources I've seen say it was an "unofficial" or "semi-official" flag used to "represent India in international events?"Aumnamahashiva (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
GA Review
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Result: The article fails criteria 5 (quick fail criteria 4) as there are more than one disputes, including the name itself. Given that, it's not the right time to evaluate under the good article criteria. Therefore I'm failing it at this time and invite a renomination when the disputes settle down and the article meets WP:GACR. —SpacemanSpiff12:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
GA Review
Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for working to move this article toward GA. It's a very important article and will hopefully reach FA before long. That said, it's going to need significant work before it can pass GA. I'll list the key points to work on below, and can give you until October 1 to get them done before revisiting the changes (I'll be away for five weeks after that). Alternatively, we can simply withdraw the GA nomination at this point, and then once the changes are done you can renominate and ping me, and I'll happily review it again so you won't have to wait for months before it gets a second review. - Lemurbaby (talk) 09:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Manual of Style, formatting and references
Please add US public domain tags to all photos
The Notes section needs to be thoroughly edited. Right now it contains a mix of full citations, shortened citations, and explanatory notes. I would recommend using Notes for explanatory notes, References for shortened book citations and full journal/website/other citations, and Bibliography for full book citations. Alternatively, you could combine the content of the proposed notes and references sections under the Notes section and have the full book citations under the References section.
The Harvard SFN format is inconsistently used. Many references are not put in a template, which contributes to the inconsistencies in style and formatting of references.
There are also many instances where there is no linkage between the shortened footnote and the full reference.
Centering the photographs at the top of each section creates white space that breaks up the text and negatively affects readability. I'd recommend shifting the images to the left or right and splitting them so no more than three (preferably two) are set side by side at a time.
The list of viceroys should be moved to its own article
Per MOS, incomplete sentences should not end in periods. Please fix in image captions, the list of viceroys and other tables as needed.
Content and organization
The lead needs to be expanded. For an article of this size it should be four paragraphs and needs to summarize all the key points of the article.
This article omits several key components that would normally be included in an article on a former country, or has them mixed into other sections in an inconsistent way. Specifically it should at minimum include separate sections on Geography, History, and Political Subdivisions of that state. I would also expect to see a section describing its Economy (including foreign and domestic trade, state of industry/agriculture/service sectors and level of economic development), Governance (including overall structure and Foreign Relations, Security), Public Services (education, health, justice system etc) and Society (castes, religions, gender/age relations, predominant/influential philosophies, inequality etc). More details on Former Countries articles are available here. You could make good progress toward working these pieces into the article simply by shifting around existing content.
There are lots of details here that could potentially be moved to History of the British Raj and only paraphrased in this article, in order to leave room to adequately develop some of the areas in the point above.
I'll stop here. Please let me know how you'd like to proceed. If you complete the points above, I'll pick up with a second round of reviewing to go deeper into content and organization. - Lemurbaby (talk) 09:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
@Lemurbaby: Thank you for you comments! I'd like to proceed with addressing them as I have some free time tomorrow. I think some of it should be easy to address whereas some others would require more time, but I reckon I could get this done within a week. ☠Jaguar☠19:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
GA Review status
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I think the review can be closed as a fail now, I'm afraid I don't have the resources or books to find out the required information. I'll get there some day. ☠Jaguar☠17:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
For part of the time they were administered under British India Office not the Colonial Office. In other words they were territories under the British Raj, not under British Imperial rule from London. Therefore they should be included in the article. The fact they are not on the map may be because their status changed and was different when the map was created. They are both included in the article under the header Geographical extent located immediately below the Table of Contents. Dabbler (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Singapore is not mentioned as a part of British Raj that really, also Somalia was referred differently. I also doubt Yemen, it would be better if we had a map from 1919 and it included Afghanistan. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Singapore was part of the Straits Settlements, originally administered from India, then Britain before it became part of independent Malaya/Malaysia until after independence. Yemen is included due to Aden which was a vital coaling station for the links to India after the opening of the Suez canal. Afghanistan was never part of the British Raj, though parts were occupied by the British at times.Dabbler (talk) 12:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Afghanistan was never administratively part of the Raj, not even recognised as a "princely state". Britain fought at least three formal wars and there were innumerable frontier skirmishes and incursions but apart from a few years in the 1870s when they managed to exert influence over the rulers' policy while occupying Kabul, Afghanistan was an independent buffer state between the Russian Empire and British India. Dabbler (talk) 14:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Occupied but not administered by. It was never considered a territory of the Raj and never integrated into the Raj system. Burma and Ceylon and the other areas outside India/Pakistan were civilly administered not just a military occupation. Areas such as Baluchistan etc. were annexed by Britain from the larger Afghan state at the time and came under Raj administration and ended up as parts of Pakistan. Dabbler (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The name Indian Empire
Latest comment: 9 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion
The name "Indian Empire" was never authorized by the British Parliament. Parliament did make the Queen Empress of India in 1876. == Your unilateral changes to British Raj I looked into the passport matter. There was no legislation And no known official government approval for the use of the term "Indian Empire" on the passport. The stamp on the outside of the leather binding was made by the bindery. No reliable secondary source says the passports included "Indian Empire" -- that was original research by some Wikipedia editor who looked at a photograph of the outside leather of the passport. Rjensen (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Please do not make such edits again, the world "Indian Empire" was a common term those days, even on passports, whereas you replaced the words without consensus. How can the British put "Indian Empire" to the passports incorrectly? Faizan (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I look in the passport matter. There is no legislation. The stamp was made by the bindery. No reliable secondary source says the passports included "Indian Empire" -- that was original research by some Wikipedia editor who looked at a photograph of the outside leather of the passport, Rjensen (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
It was never called British Raj in any parliamentary legislation, so should we rename this article? There is the Order of the Indian Empire, the style Emperor/Empress of India, you can't be an Empress without an Empire! In a treaty with the Tsar of Eussia the words refer to "my Indian Empire". Indian Empire has more official notice than British Raj. Dabbler (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I looked in the on-line Hansard (http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/) which records all Parliamentary debates in Westminster. The results for "Indian Empire" were 1203 mentions in the 19th century and 627 in the 20th.
For "British Raj" there was 1 instance in 1876 and 219 in the 20th century. It may not be included in legislation {neither was the term British Empire) but the term was much more widely used on political circles. Dabbler (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
But we are told that we must not include the term Indian Empire because it is not in the official legislation. It was a term that was used and frequently in official and other circles and therefore should be included for Wikipedia readers to understand when they look up the term. I was not really arguing for the change in title of the article just pointing out the illogicality of the objection to a subsidiary term. Dabbler (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I believe there may be some talking-past each other. So to summarize my understanding of the issue:
British Raj is the correct WP:COMMONNAME for this article.
Indian Empire is/was also a common name for the British Empire in India, and hence needs to be mentioned in the lede (and perhaps the infobox). Easy to find (many) contemporary and (some) recent sources for this, and hence I don't agree with marking this name as incorrect.
Neither British Raj, nor Indian Empire appear to be "officially" sanctioned names and so I agree with removal of this OR, at least till better evidence for the claim (and its significance) are found. But other than that, recognition by parliament or any other government body does not dictate usage on wikipedia.
It's a reasonable compromise. The term "Indian Empire" was pushed by Disraeli & British Conservatives in the 1880s and opposed by Gladstone & Liberals. It fell out of fashion in Britain about 1900 or so. In India it was rarely used after 1910 or so. Rjensen (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
As long as it is not airbrushed out of the lead and infobox, I have no real objection. It was, at the very least, a semi-official term as shown by its use in passports, the Order of the Indian Empire, the Speech from the Throne etc. and I am pretty sure that my evidence shows that it was more prevalent than British Raj at lot later than 1900. Dabbler (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
On this day... in .. 1800 - " Lord Wellesley, Governor-General of the British Raj, founded Fort William College in Fort William, India, to promote Bengali, Hindi and other vernaculars of the subcontinent."
This is why the term British Raj is not very useful as it can be taken by people to refer to almost any aspect of the British rule in India. However, people prefer this unofficial term rather than the more formal usage because modern authors have tended to use it as a useful shorthand. Dabbler (talk) 12:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The correct term should be "Governor-General of India". But, I suppose, the writer wanted to distinguish between colonial India and the India of today. --regentspark (comment) 12:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
He was officially titled Governor of the Presidency of Fort William which was Bengal, see Governor-General of India. He was the most powerful British governor in India and the other presidencies were subject to his approval. Dabbler (talk) 03:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Today part of section in the infobox
Latest comment: 9 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion
Wanted to know what's wrong in adding the PRC in the today part of section for the infobox? For the princely state of Kashmir and Jammu it shows that it's now part of China too as China claims and controls Aksai Chin which was part of the princely state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaketo (talk • contribs) 19:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I think you'll need to provide reliable sources that place China as a part of Britain's Indian Empire before we can even discuss this. --regentspark (comment) 20:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say that China was a part of Britain's Indian Empire, I said that a region that was claimed and controlled by the Empire (Aksai Chin) is now claimed and controlled by China (obvious, no need for a reliable source for this info) since 1962 (so this should have been updated long before) which is why I fixed it in the 'today part of' section in the infobox.
I think you guys should really check if the edit was meaningful or not. What you usually do is just revert the edit because there was no "reliable source" and then I have ask questions later on why it was reverted instead of the person who reverted it explaining themselves. Zaketo (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The problem with adding China to the infobox, as you did in your edit, is that the information is undue, and more problematically the presentation is misleading since it leaves the impression for anyone not already knowledgeable about the topic that "China was under the British Raj at some point", and not the (intended) meaning that "British raj included some relatively small amount of territory that is now claimed and controlled by China". Infobox is not the place to convey such nuance, or frankly trivial detail. Abecedare (talk) 03:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Well I don't really want to be the one comparing articles but I just want to retain at least some form of standardization in similar topics. Take a look at these two articles: Yuan dynasty and Qing dynasty. They show India in the today part of section. The difference is even smaller here as the land that those empires/countries had and now India controls is probably much smaller but yet India is included in the 'today part of' section of the infobox. Are the articles making it look as if India was under those empires/countries? Obviously no. Zaketo (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I believe those inclusions are misleading and misinformative. I am not familiar with sources on Yuan or Qing dynasty, but I doubt that there is a single reliable source on The British Raj, which describes the rule as encompassing, Bangladesh, China, India etc. In fact, my preferred version of Today part of field in the infobox would include only India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, with a footnote along the lines of "In addition, at various times, British India included Aden (from 1858 to 1937), Lower Burma (from 1858 to 1937), Upper Burma (from 1886 to 1937), British Somaliland (briefly from 1884 to 1898), and Singapore (briefly from 1858 to 1867)." or simply pointed to the Geographical extent section. Abecedare (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
As "British Raj" is the title of this article, I suppose it should be listed in the infobox of this article as well. This is what is commonly done in Wikipedia articles. Since there are too many examples for this in Wikipedia, I just list two examples here: the articles for Mughal Empire and Byzantine Empire, where the names "Mughal Empire" and "Byzantine Empire" are mentioned in their infoboxes. Before I began to make change to this article, neither the word "British" and "Raj" appeared in the list of conventional long names, when in fact the name "British India" is far more common than both "Indian Empire" and "Empire of India" in Google Books. --Cartakes (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
British Raj was never an official name for the entity. It was used alittle in earlier days but has come into more frequent use relatively recently, probably because "Empire" is a bit non-PC. Dabbler (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Neither "Mughal Empire" nor "Byzantine Empire" were official names for the entities either. They are simply modern conventional names for historiography and we know them as such today. However, they are still mentioned in the infoboxes. --Cartakes (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Look at articles like Qing dynasty and Qajar dynasty, there is a standard that needs to be followed here. They don't have "Qing dynasty" and "Qajar dynasty" as long conventional names for the countries because after all, a dynasty is just the ruling house and the articles are about the Empires. The conventional long name for the Qing dynasty is the "Great Qing". For the Qajar dynasty it is the "Sublime State of Persia". This is because this is what they were officially, just as the "British Raj" was officially just India. You do realize the reason this article is titled British Raj right? The Mughal and Byzantine Empires are referred how they are because they didn't have official English names. I'm fine with British India being included in the infobox.76.71.72.194 (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
British Raj is the unofficial conventional name nowadays for what was officially called India (or sometimes Indian Empire) by the British Imperial government. British India was another earlier unofficial name. Dabbler (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Names listed in the infoboxes of most WP articles are not official names. Please look at my comment below. --Cartakes (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I do realized there is in fact a mix of standards in some articles in WP, such as the ones you mentioned. Look at articles like Zhou dynasty, Trần dynasty and Konbaung Dynasty. All of these articles are about historical states instead of ruling houses, and they do have "Zhou dynasty", "Trần dynasty" and "Konbaung Dynasty" listed in the infoboxes. Yet, none of them were official names. The official name for e.g. "Trần dynasty" was Đại Việt instead of either "Great Trần" or "Trần dynasty". However, I can live with the current version of the article too. --Cartakes (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Economic impact
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
While I think Tharoor did a fine job in that speech, I'm going to remove it and the recent additions from the article. The speech was made as a part of a debate and while the existence of the speech is reliably sourced, highlighting the arguments and conclusions - at least if those conclusions are based on one speech (and one excellent article by Dalrymple) is undue. And, of course, it has no place in the section titled 'Economic extent'. I suggest extracting the main points, finding supporting academic references, and rewriting it as an 'Economic impacts' section (something that has long been missing in this article). --regentspark (comment) 14:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
the 14th or 15th of August?
Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion
"As from the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, two independent Dominions shall be set up in India, to be known respectively as India and Pakistan."
Pretty sure we can't stray from the Indian Independence Act 1947.
It is now annually celebrated on the 14 of August due to a number of reason but that doesn't change the official date that it happened.Filpro (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I suspect you're right. But it may be better to find a source for this before we actually change it. If there is a source then we'll need to change it in many articles. --regentspark (comment) 23:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I think User:Filpro has some point in his comment. Actualy Pakistan did celebrated independence day on 15th August in its initial days of independence. One can read mention of this in sourced article Independence Day (Pakistan), one can read "date of independence" section in it. First postage stamp of Pakistan also gave date of independence as "15th August". I think when we mention line like "2 dominions were formed on....xyz date" that time we can mention date 15th August, "two dominions were formed on 15th August". Because we have sources "Independence act" itself and also Pakistan celebrated it on 15th August in initial years. So it can be any religious reason why Pakistan changed its birthday. We can mention independence day of Pakistan as 14th August but while mentioning "formation of 2 dominions" we can use "15th". No need to say that "Pakistan was formed on 14th and India was on 15th".read this entire news. Jinnah himself said in his first independence speech that Pakistan got freedom on 15th August.--Human3015TALK23:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
The independence of India and simultaneous setting up of the two Dominions occurred at midnight of August 14/15 1947. I believe there were astrological reasons for picking the cusp between two days rather than one particular day. So the first complete day of full independence for both countries was 15 August 1947 but it could be argued that midnight can either day. I suspect Pakistan does not wish to celebrate its independence on the same day as India which is why they celebrate a day earlier.Dabbler (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
It happened at midnight, giving each country the option to choose which day they wanted. Pakistan wanted 14th, India got 15th. 14th is the official date 'which is celebrated', and is present in all sources. But to cut this argument short we can use the phrase "On the midnight of 14th and 15th august". RegardsFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
All this sounds right to me. But, the question is how do we represent the material. For example, if Jinnah was sworn in as Governor General on the 14th (presumably before the midnight swearing in of Nehru), then wouldn't the dominion start on the 14th? Or was he also sworn in at midnight but Pakistan decided to celebrate its independence on the 14th? The article linked by Human is confusing because it seems to imply that the date was moved up to the 14th before actual independence but that Jinnah said 15th in his independence speech (unless the speech being referred to is a different one). We need more Pakistan page editors to help figure this out. Pinging @Mar4d:@Faizan:@Smsarmad: --regentspark (comment) 20:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
The Dominion should start on 14 August if the governor general is sworn in on the same day. The confusion has been caused by the Indian Independence Act, which states that 15 August is the "appointed day" for the formation, but makes a "provision" according to which Pakistan is formed on 14 August.
On 14 August, Pakistan became independent; Jinnah led the celebrations in Karachi. One observer wrote, "here indeed is Pakistan's King Emperor, Archbishop of Canterbury, Speaker and Prime Minister concentrated into one formidable Quaid-e-Azam." (Pages=341–342 of "Jinnah of Pakistan")
The first announcement that the moment of Pakistan’s birth was at hand came in English from the Lahore station of what was still All India Radio. The announcement went on the air exactly five seconds before midnight on August 13, or at 23 hours 59 minutes and 55 seconds, and it was made by Zahur Azar. “At the stroke of midnight,” he said in his polished voice, “the independent and sovereign State of Pakistan will come into existence.”
2nd. The English announcement was followed by twelve chimes of the studio clock. There was a dramatic pause and then Azar came on the air again: “This is Pakistan Broadcasting Service, Lahore. We now bring you a special programme on the dawn of Pakistan’s Independence.” The name, Pakistan Broadcasting Service, was the invention of the legendary broadcaster Syed Zulfiqar Ali Bokhari, younger brother of Prof AS Bokhari, Patras to lovers of Urdu. The change of name to Radio Pakistan came many years later and to Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation around 1968-69.
The third announcement came from Mustafa Ali Hamdani in Urdu. He said: “ Assalam-au-Alaikum. Ye Pakistan Broadcasting Service, Lahore, hai. Abb aap hamara khusoosi programme sunye. ” (This is the Pakistan Broadcasting Service, Lahore. Please stand by for our special programme.) The video link to this recording is posted above.—TripWiretalk19:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Conventional long name / Common name
Latest comment: 8 years ago40 comments7 people in discussion
I see there are disputes involving the common name and conventional long name in the infobox again. User:SheriffIsInTown have changed both common name and conventional long name to match the article title, i.e. British Raj, whereas User:Filpro listed some counterexamples including Taiwan, West Germany and Soviet Union. I have noticed that in all three cases the common name and conventional long name listed in these articles are not the same, but at least one of the two names match the article title. So how about this: change the "conventional long name" in the infobox of this article to "British Raj" which matches the article title, but leave the "common name" in the infobox as "India". I personally believe this makes more sense since "British Raj" is more a contemporary conventional name for the entity whereas "India" was more a historical common name of the entity. Any comments about this? --Cartakes (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the name of the article is supposed to be a common name for a country in this case. Isn't it rather the term to describe a government or regime rather than a country? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 09:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
The conventional long name was India - not British Raj. British Raj is the common name used today (that's why we use it as the article title) but the country was conventionally and commonly known as India during the period in question. Best to leave this alone. --regentspark (comment) 15:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
What does "conventional long name" mean you think, exactly? Also, should the "common name" in the infobox reflect the common name used today, or the common name during the period in question? --Cartakes (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Of all three examples given above Taiwan, West Germany and Soviet Union, i will support matching the name in the infobox with article title. As this article is not about a country rather it is regarding an era of British rule in a specific region, the era name which is article title should be mentioned in infobox as well. The fact that the whole region of Indian subcontinent was comprised of so many princely states makes it confusing if we put India in the infobox, it was more of known as "Indian subcontinent" rather than "India". It also confuses it with modern India. Sheriff (report) 17:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
The country was known as India. Passports were issued in the name of India. Official proclamations were made in the name of India (e.g.,The Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 ; Defense of India Act, 1939). Conventional long name merely refers to what the country is known as in official circles. Common name corresponds to what people commonly use when refering to the entity. In this case, we simply cannot use British Raj as the conventional long name. We could use that as the common name. That's why, for example, Taiwan is at its common name with Republic of China as its conventional long name. All you need to do is to check what's on the passport for the latter. --regentspark (comment) 18:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think we can really equate conventional long name with official circles however. For example, the infobox of the article Byzantine Empire lists "Byzantine Empire" as the conventional long name, but "Byzantine Empire" was never the name in its official circles. Rather, the official name was simply "Roman Empire", which is however not represented as the conventional long name in the infobox. --Cartakes (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
It's doubtful that the Byzantine Empire had an official name - the idea of nation states is too recent for that. On the other hand, India under the British did have a clear official name (India). Empire of India is problematic because it gives legitimacy to a title that was never in use. British India points to a different page and that's because of long painful discussions (that I, for one, have no desire to resuscitate!). But I agree with SherriffsinTown that using India as the infobox title is confusing - actually I'm not even sure how that came in because I seem to remember an earlier consensus discussion that placed the title at British rule in India - so we should go with a descriptive title instead.--regentspark (comment) 21:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree, the British Raj is not the name of anywhere. It is the name given to the period that the British ruled or were dominant over most of the sub-continent of India. Really the "former country" infobox is the wrong one to use in this case. The former country would be "British India" or "Empire of India (British)" or some such name. Dabbler (talk) 19:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Neither is correct so we shouldn't use those. What we could use is 'British rule in India' or 'India under British Rule' since those are descriptive rather than conventional. --regentspark (comment) 19:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
(ec):I know this has been discussed before and will try to pull out links to that discussion (RL busyness) but the country was neither known as British India nor as Empire of India. Rather, it was just India. That's why the conventional name is at India. --regentspark (comment) 19:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Note: I changed the conventional long name to British Rule in India and the common name to British Raj. As a test, so if revert at will. It would be helpful if 'conventional_long_name' can be replaced by something else (the attribute name not the attribute) so that no one argues later that the title is not the conventional long name. --regentspark (comment) 19:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
As I pointed out this problem is being caused by the use of an incorrect infobox if we want to title the article British Raj or British Rule in India and have it in the infobox. The current one is for a former country which would be India or perhaps the Indian Empire which was used not infrequently. Rather than trying to force the square peg into the round hole which is what putting the words British Raj or British Rule in the infobox is doing, either we need a new infobox or we accept that the article name should not be in it. Dabbler (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
That wouldn't work because - technically - British India only covers the part of India directly under the crown. The princely states were nominally independent and this has been argued ad nauseam on these pages. A can of worms. My suggestion is just stick with the solution we've got for now. --regentspark (comment) 15:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Please check the British Indian passport displayed in that article, it clearly says the words "British Indian passport" and "Indian Empire" on it, i would suggest that we change "conventional long name" to "Indian Empire" as this proves that "former country" name was not "India". Please change "common name" field in infobox to "British Raj" as that is the common name and article name is set to common name. Sheriff | report | 15:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Then, why the passports were being issued under the name "Indian Empire" if you check current Pakistani or Indian passports, they have the conventional long names as "Islamic Republic of Pakistan" and "Republic of India" respectively so why would then the passports would have a different name than "India" if India was in fact "conventional long name"? Sheriff | report | 15:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I looked at the passport & it is not issued in the name of the British Empire. What happened is that the leather cover was sometimes stamped "British Empire" but that term never appears on any of the official paperwork. Instead it is issue the name of the Viceroy and Governor General of India, Rjensen (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you. But, if you look at the archives, you'll see that not everyone does. That's why we have a British Raj article that covers British suzerainty, a Presidencies and provinces of British India article that covers the part that was directly under British rule and a List of princely states of India that lists all the (nominally) independent states. The problem with the colonial period is that there are editors who want to stress that not all of India was under British control and there are other editors who want to dissociate their histories from the word 'India'. A lot of what you see here is the result of compromises hammered out over years (thanks largely to the efforts and prodigous research of @Fowler&fowler: (who, unfortunately, doesn't edit any longer). --regentspark (comment) 16:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Rjensen: I never said "British Empire", I said "Indian Empire" and that passport clearly states "Indian Empire" on it and I have yet to see another passport which is not issued under country's "conventional long name", then why should we believe that conventional long name was a name other than what was on passport.
To answer Dabbler, the act does not specify the name as conventional long name and moreover the lead paragraph of the article already mentions that the region was also widely known as "India" so that is good enough to satisfy the requirement in the act. Sheriff | report | 16:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
It's someone's passport cover. The passport itself never says "Empire" and the government always avoided the term in official documents. Rjensen (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Anybody can make their own passport cover. it's not part of the official document. Note that coins and banknotes always stated "Government of India" see banknotes and Indian rupee.
Look, coins and banknotes does not have to say the "conventional long name" and there is no proof what coins and banknotes said during that period anyway. "Conventional long names" are used sparingly, that's why they have short names and short names are easy to use in documentations as well. Even, when they say "Governor General and Viceroy of India", they are not necessarily using the long name. I mean come on "India" is not a long name, long name has to be at least "long" to be "conventional long name".
This image is from BBC News website, although i could not find the other page which says "Indian Empire" but if you compare this page to the same page of Muhammad Ali Jinnah's passport, you would see that it's definitely not made by Muhammad Ali Jinnah. He is hardly known to own his own printing press to make official passports. Sorry, for being sarcastic here but this conversation is getting a rather sarcastic. First of all, we are supposed to display WP:GOODFAITH to an image displayed at Wikipedia if we do not have a proof otherwise. Check out more images of "Indian Empire" passports hereSheriff | report | 17:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
If you think the term "Indian Empire" was made official by Parliament or by royal proclamation, you should cite the source. Rjensen (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Just a note on coins and banknotes, i did some research on that and found out that short name is most commonly used on coins and banknotes, if you see Pakistani banknotes, they say Pakistan on them instead of "conventional long name" "Islamic Republic of Pakistan" and same for India instead of "conventional long name" "Republic of India".
The British Indian passport was a passport, proof of national status and travel document issued to the British subjects of British India, British subjects from other parts of the British Empire, and the subjects of the British protected states in India (i. e. the British Protected Persons of the 'princely states'). The title of state used in the passport was the "Indian Empire", which covered all of modern India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Burma.
"Indian Empire" even wiki links to "British Raj".
If you are looking for the term "Indian Empire" or "Empire of India" written into an official law then you would not find that as you will not find Mughal Empire or British America written into law but that's their conventional long names respectively, if we take the example of this article then we should be using "America" or "Americas" as the conventional long name for "British America". If you are looking for a source and you consider images as a source then that passport image is your source, an official document of "Empire of India". Sheriff | report | 20:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
"India" was the conventional (and legal) name for the country which included the princely states which acknowledged British suzerainty, 'British India' was the conventional and legal name for the country under direct British rule which does not include the princely states. The 'Indian Empire' was an alternative name for British India, as they would not have issued passports for the princely states and labelled them British India. As far as I know there was no conventional or legal longer name for the area known as India. Dabbler (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I have struck out my comment about the Indian Empire and passports being issued for people from the princely states as the current British Indian passport article has the uncited statement that they were issued to people from the princely states. Incidentally, the term "British Empire is not used anywhere in British law, but I doubt that anyone would argue that it did not exist or the name was not used. Dabbler (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Here are the two sources which confirm the region's official name as Indian Empire and also confirm that people from princely states were issued passports under that official name, i hope there should not be a problem changing "conventional long name" to "Indian Empire" now?
The question here is common usage. We can look at official sources, and from online searches there are very few examples that the terms "Indian Empire" or "Empire of India" was used by the British government, the India office, the Viceroy, the King-Emperor, or Parliament. We do have a sliver of evidence that it was used in passports in 1931 on a document designed to be read by passport inspectors from other countries. Let's look at the reliable scholarly sources. Of special importance is Yasmin Khan, a young Oxford professor who is a leading authority on the 1940s. she has just published a major book The Raj at war: a People's history of India's second world war. That is the title of my copy of the version published by Random House India, 2015. It is marked "for sale in the Indian Subcontinent only." That suggests the subcontinent likes "Raj". [the editions for sale and Britain and the United States have a different title: India At War: The Subcontinent and the Second World War but Raj is used in the text.] Using the text search at Amazon.com shows that Khan uses Empire 84 times, 83 times = the British Empire. She never once uses "Empire of India". However "British Indian Empire" is used once on p 80 in one sentence about the Andaman islands. Scanning her 700 endnotes, I do not see any reference to any book or article using "Indian Empire/Empire of ". Her preferred terminology is "Raj" or "Government of India." The result: we do have occasional rare usage of the term "British Indian Empire." with N=4 examples found so far over the last 150 years. That makes it a very rare usage and clearly not the preferred usage. Rjensen (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
The term British Raj is the currently more common name but historically the use of Indian Empire was much more common, e.g. the Order of the Indian Empire, Ind. Imp. on British and Empire coins. Most common name was always India. A quick survey of Google Books gives many references to Indian Empire but most are from Victorian times. Titles using British Raj are mostly from the 1970s onward, though there were a very few earlier mentions. Dabbler (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Dabbler's comments are good ones. Let me add that "Indian Empire" was in use before 1906 but is rare now. The term "Ind. Imp." (Indiae Imperatrix) was Latin for "Empress of India" (ie Victoria) and did not mean "Indian Empire." [says Lane, "Encyclopedia Small Silver Coins" (2010) p 292]. "Order of the Indian Empire" was the name chosen by Victoria in 1878. She liked & indeed demanded her new title but it was highly controversial & officially opposed by Liberal Party. When that party came to power in 1906 the India Empire usage declined very sharply. Rjensen (talk) 05:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
No, the question is not the common usage, common usage is already defined as "British Raj" and that's why article title is set to WP:COMMONNAME of “British Raj”, that field in the infobox is not for common usage name, that is for “conventional long name” and “conventional long name” does not have to be a “common usage name”. That usage on passports would tell you what was “conventional long name”. regentspark used this argument previously when he mistakenly thought that passports were issued under the name “India”.
Again, reliable scholarly sources do not have to use the “conventional long name” when they can easily use the “short name” but if you are looking to find out “conventional long name” used during that period then an official document such as passport would tell you.
A quick survey of Google Books gives many references to Indian Empire
Well so what if most are from Victorian times, we need to use the “conventional long name” which was used during that time.
And so what if it was used before 1906 but is rare now, we need to see how the region was referred during that time period not now. Passports were issued under that name until 1948.
Below is the relevant quoted text from both the sources that I posted before with key points bolded out:
After 1876, the resulting political union was officially called the Indian Empire and issued passports under that name.
This common Imperial citizenship lasted until 1948, after which individual national citizenships began to appear.
These were all standardized dark blue passports with the front cover showing the British coat of arms or Dominion coat of arms with the title British Passport on the top and the name of each country they were issued in below the coat of arms. For example, the cover would have BRITISH PASSPORT - UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, BRITISH PASSPORT - AUSTRALIA, BRITISH PASSPORT - INDIAN EMPIRE, etc.
Google books shows very little usage of "Indian Empire" since 1940--it gives reprints of old books mostly before 1920. So the term is not in common use & not much used by scholars or publishers. NO RS is cited for the meaning of passports--it's OR and speculation. Rjensen (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
It's the same argument over and over again. Why the term has to be in use today to be a valid term to be included in Wikipedia article? It's good enough that it was in use then. Old books before 1920 used it and Google books show very little usage since 1940 but it shows the usage regardless. 1940 to 1948, independence movements were already on the rise. Pakistan Resolution was already adopted so it's natural that usage declined but that was an official name at that time and stayed until 1948. Sheriff | report | 17:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
It was not "good enough then" It was highly controversial and a matter of partisan dispute. That makes it POV. It was not an "official name" approved by government action--no one has shown the legislation that made it official. Rjensen (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
It seems like people want to keep sticking to their stereotypical ideas and not listen to an argument. We are in a declination mode that we were once occupied by Britain but living in a declination mode would not change the history or what this region was called officially. Can someone show me a piece of legislation which made the terms "Mughal Empire" or "British America" official? No one can show that legislation either. POV is the view to which people are sticking to and holding on to so dearly or is it that we are not going to listen to a Pakistani, whatever he would say we must oppose him. Sheriff | report | 18:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
References
^The Statesman's Year-Book, 1934. Macmillan. 1934. pp. 115–16.
I've been away long enough that I seem to have forgotten the command for beginning a new line (unidented). I can't say that I've really read the above discussion carefully, but, very briefly, here is my take on the naming issue. The Wikipedia article British Raj is meant to be about what in older history books was the chapter called, "Direct rule in India," or "Crown rule in India." It was the chapter that typically followed Company rule in India. The term British Raj, however, came increasingly to be used in the 1980s and 90s, both in popular culture (Paul Scott's Raj Quarter) and in the history books. By the time I started editing on Wikipedia, in 2006, British Raj was being used by serious historians of the British period in India (Christopher Bayly, Thomas Metcalf) even, I believe, in the titles of their books. So, the page name British Raj is here to stay, even though Crown rule in India probably has more continuity as naming conventions go. As for the conventional long name etc, I feel that the version that I lasted edited nearly two years ago, which had already been stable for some time before, (see: British Raj article ca Feb 2014 has a more accurate lead than the current one. The current version confuses the would be reader by suggesting that British India is now less commonly used for The Raj. (PPS Notice "is now" and "were also" in the same sentence.) That would be difficult to support with a reliable source. Some practitioners of Creative Non-Fiction or some journalists bouncing in their echo chambers might be loosely using that term with that meaning, but on WP it is important to preserve the distinction between British India and Princely India, between Direct Rule and Indirect Rule (i.e. through Subsidiary Alliances).
As an aside, I might add, that the second lead paragraph was more or less copied word for word by the OED (in the fine print below the main definition, that is) during their revision of the British Raj entry done around the same time. PS Can't say that I will be available for further discussion on this, at least any time soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk»17:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Today part of?
Latest comment: 8 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion
China should not be part of that section, it supposedly lists modern countries which at one time or another were administered and ruled, in whole or in part by the British Indian government rather than by the government in London. Yemen is there because the British ruled in Aden, for example, even though they did not have anything to do with the rest of the modern country.Dabbler (talk) 12:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand why Somalia is there however. Or the UAE. China could also be there because it has received some territory from Burma after that country became independent. Aden was ruled by the Government of British India up until some point in time. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
And please don't add Nepal and Bhutan again. They weren't part of British India, as the article clearly states. Even if some maps may suggest they were. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 07:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
1909 map of the Indian Empire (British Raj), British India - Red, Territories administered by the Government of India - Pink, Native States and Territories (princely states) - Yellow
I have given my sources that you have removed. Kashmir and Jammu, Kahlur, etc weren't part of British India as they were princely states. I don't think you quiet understand the context of this article Where are your such reliable sources that state the Kingdom of Nepal and Bhutan were not de facto princely states and their external affairs were or were not controlled by the British Raj? Filpro (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Nepal and Bhutan were not part of the British Raj, as they were not Princely States, as the article and the given sources indicate. The map is obviously wrong, but there are others. Also the "Imperial gazzeteer" is not a government publication as you seem to have indicated earlier. "De facto" doesn't come into it and is not helpful. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
As stated on my talk page, those sources from "Britannic" have been since removed as they didn't say as such. Please bring your sources that say the Kingdom of Nepal (yes specifically the Kingdom) and Bhutan were not de facto princely states as all of my sources have otherwise indicted. Filpro (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Sources are not required to prove a negative and neither are we. They clearly indicate that Nepal and Bhutan were states outside of the British Raj structure and independent countries over the period involved. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
The lead
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
I had been away for almost two years, and after returning I have noticed that in my absence, many errors have crept into the lead of the article (that is as far as I got). I will be correcting them, and simultaneously posting here. Please don't revert my changes without discussion here. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk»16:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The current lead says that the British Raj "was the rule of the British Empire in the Indian subcontinent between 1858 and 1947." But the British empire, as its own page says, "comprises the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom." In other word, one can say, "India was a part of the British empire, but not, "India was ruled by the British empire." Fowler&fowler«Talk»16:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Clarified British India and princely states. (Note the term "British India" should never be confused with the British Raj; it was used for British possessions even during Company rule.)
The term "Indian empire" had been used well before 1876, even during Company rule, but it became official after 1876 and issued passports under that name.
Removed "period of dominion" as ancillary meaning of the "Raj," as that is not discussed in the article.
Removed gratuitous reference to Disraeli. Not important enough for the lead.
Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
New Delhi was founded as the capital of India in 1911, therefore the capital of the British Raj was New Delhi, not Delhi as the article was erroneously changed to. Secondly, the British Raj was most commonly called India (as in the India Office, or Secretary of State for India, or Viceroy of India). Indian Empire was an alternative name but "British" Indian Empire was not used officially and only occasionally used to differentiate between other historical Indian Empires. Therefore I corrected the article back to the way it has been for a while before it was suddenly and erroneously changed. Inless you can provide reliable sources for your changes, then I will revert it back to the long established version. Dabbler (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry. I don't know why the infobox had previously said "India". This article has always been about the Indian Empire, and "British Indian Empire" redirects here. "British India" redirects to the British Indian territories.
It was called India or sometimes the Indian Empire in some cases but India was by far the most common name used. There was no Viceroy of the Indian Empire, there was a Viceroy of India. The London government department was called the India Office, not the Indian Empire Office. The Army was called the Indian Army, not the Indian Empire Army. The infobox asks for the most common name entry, hence India, however I am happy to accept Indian Empire for the conventional long name entry. I will change back to New Delhi, because that was specifically set up as the capital of the British government in India. Dabbler (talk) 02:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
the official name was never "Indian Empire". In the RS the usual name is India or British Raj. Note that "Indian Empire" was often used in early 20th century for plants and animals. [eg: A list of the dragonflies recorded from the Indian Empire with special reference to the collection of the Indian Museum]. But as a political term it's based on a misunderstanding of the Queen's personal title of "Empress of India." In the scholarly literature from google.scholar, "Indian Empire" appears in the title 270 times and "Raj" appears 8100 times = ratio is 1:30 see [1] and [2]Rjensen (talk) 03:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure why we are trying to debate the issues that are clearly explained in the article itself, starting with the lead. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on British Raj. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
NAn editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
A map (British_Indian_Empire_1909_Imperial_Gazetteer_of_India.jpg) appears twice in the article. Wouldn't it better if only one instance were left?--Adûnâi (talk) 05:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Old timers will remember that there use to be a list of viceroys on this page. During the years of its existence, editors sometimes asked why we had a list when there was already a List of governors-general of India, and I said that the list was really a list (or timeline) of events, legislation, public works, etc, which the other list lacked. See the discussion, Talk:British_Raj/Archive_7#Governor-Generals_and_Viceroys, where @RegentsPark: asked the question and @Moonraker:, @Rjensen: (I think) and others weighed in. I had been meaning to change the title and the columns of that list to reflect the emphasis, but never got around to doing it. I noticed today that that list seemed to have disappeared from Wikipedia. It was certainly not on this page and it was not in that other page either. But then, nothing is truly lost on Wikipedia. Delving into the history of page revisions I discovered that in August or September 2014 an editor @Jaguar: nominated this page for GA. The review suggested that the list be moved to its own page. The nominating editor was probably unaware of this earlier discussion, so he/she removed the list in this edit. To their credit, they did create a list of viceroys page, but before the sun could rise the following day, some other editor had redirected the page to the Governors-General list and all my work had disappeared into the Wiki-ether. I have now recast the list as a "Timeline of major events, public works, legislation etc." (or words to that effect) and changed the order of the columns to make the presiding viceroys incidental to the timeline. I will be reintroducing it. Please don't remove it, even if a future GA reviewer suggests it, until you've raised the matter here. Thanks. PS I'm not happy with the title, but just this minute can't think of a better one. Please suggest some briefer but more comprehensive title. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk»12:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
The only point I would make is that a "list of Viceroys of the British Raj" would be a kind of fraud, they were Viceroys of India. What "India" was changed a good deal over the generations, but let's not create a new title that didn't exist and couldn't have existed. Moonraker (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
^Interpretation Act 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 63), s. 18.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the