Talk:British Raj/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

Requested moves

requested moves:

Moving forward

This talk page was getting too large and unwieldy, and there was a cycle of claim and counter claim - so no offence to anyone I have archived it here, so anyway would anyone care to comment on how this article could be improved?, succinctly of course. Pahari Sahib 03:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have re-archived the page using the
talk
) 09:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Economics

The article can be discussed by giving the due weightage to Negative Impact of the British occupation of the Indian subcontinent (euphemistically referred to as 'the Raj' in Britain) which are massive;

  • Economic exploitation and distruction of India's Economy.
  • Anarchy, Bloodshed and corruption.
  • Racial discrimination and Slavery.
  • Crimes against humanity.
  • Mass murders and genocide.
  • Divide and Rule policy, Partition of India on religious lines.
  • suppression of basic human rights, self determination etc
  • Transfer of countries wealth to Great Britain.

The presence of foreign rule is itself the biggest negative impact on any country, would British Like to be ruled and expolited by the Germans & French and treated as sub-humans as they treated most of the people in the former colonies. It is beyond the scope of the article, What Mughals did to the Indian economy and the populace, that can be discussed in a separate article, what we are talking here is the impact of British Raj.

Some of the reforms and development activities brought about by the British is nothing in comparison to the damage and distruction they imposed on the ancient civilisation and made the mess out of it. Some of the development was brought about to maximise the expolitation of the resources like the construction of railway lines or Public libraries etc was also negligible in comparison to billions of dollars that was shipped to England in 250 plus years.

Following parameters can be used to determine the exact state of Indian economy at the time of Independence in 1947!

  • What was the GDP per capita? nominal/PPP
  • What was the per capita income? (USD)
  • What was the Human development Index?
  • What was the literacy rate?
  • What was the life expectancy?
  • What was the percentage of India's contribution to world trade?
  • What was the percentage of people below the official poverty line?

I hope this might help in improving the article! --Himhifi 09:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


"Some of the reforms and development activities brought about by the British is nothing in comparison to the damage and distruction they imposed on the ancient civilisation and made the mess out of it."
No, it was already a mess! Proof:
HISTORY OF MODERN INDIA by K. C. Chaudhuri "a book for the students preparing for the Honours Course of the different Indian Universities as also for those who intend to prepare for the I.A.S., I.P.S. and such other competitive examinations" - printed by the New Central Book Agency, 1983. Used in the 1990's - probably still used today.
Page 5. (regarding the early 1700's)
"Foreign Muslims who acquired nobility in the Moghal court had now given themselves upto luxury, debauchery, sloth and inaction, made the Mughal Court a centre of machination, jobbery and corruption".
Their armies were "clamouring for payment of their arrear salaries". - "the Muslim state in India lacked a sound economic basis".
The fatal blow to the Mogul Empire was dealt by the Persians in 1739 who [page 6] "carried on depridations on the lives and properties of the people of Delhi and carried away immense booty and gold, silver and jewels, elephants and horses as well as the peacock throne of Emperor Shah Jahan".
On page 7, the book quotes one Sir Jadnath - "The English conquest of the Mughal Empire is only a part of the inevitable domination of all Africa and Asia by the European nations - which is only another way of saying that the progressive races are supplanting the conservative ones, just as enterprising families are constantly replacing sleepy self-satisfied ones in the leadership of our society." - this quote is not challenged in the Indian text book, but presented as fact.
Page 14. (regarding the 1720's - 1740's - before British intervention)
"....the society was no longer growing in the economic sense. Deep-seated financial crisis, pessimism and loss of faith in the future often leading to the growth of irrationalist and obscurist ideas, the stagnation of science and technology, etc. which were found during the second half of the seventeenth and the first half of the eighteenth had been largely responsible for the decadance of the Moghal Empire. ... the roots of the disintergration of the Mughal Empire may be found in the Medieval Indian economy; stagnation of trade, industry and scientific development within the limits of the economy; the growing financial crisis..."
By the 1740's (before Britain took any military action or ruled any lands worth talking about) India was in a steep economic decline. The nation was in a deep state of anarchy - and all this had nothing to do with the British. Did the British make things worse? Would the economy had revitalized without them? - this is all mere conjecture. ...
Rgds: TB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.172.58 (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Development March 2008

To user:Pahari Sahib, user:Rueben lys, user:Desione, and user:Himhifi: In the next couple of weeks, I will be adding the material I have been working on. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Points raised

"The term 'the Raj' is a propaganda term and should be avoided as it is not neutral" - The drive by the British elite to rewrite and deny history by euphemistically referring to the occupation of India as 'the Raj' should be resisted. The term 'the Raj' is essentially a propaganda term and hence not neutral. Ideally the article itself should not be called 'the Raj' but unfortunately it has, particularly in Britain, become common usage. It is important therefore that a POV is maintained which represents the view taken by most of the world, which presents the British occupation of India as essentially a criminal activity. Similar to the POV taken when describing the Italian Mafia or the Chicago Mob. They did do a few good things but mostly it was murder and mayhem. --txbangert, 19 April 2008

"Anarchy, Bloodshed and corruption." - Company rule in fact brought peace to the lands it controlled. Yes it taxed the general populace, but the Company's army was so strong that internal order was well maintained, and the surrounding powers were fearful of provoking the Company with incursions. The peak of "anarchy" in India was in the first half of the 18th century, before Company control - mainly due to the Persian invasion and internal power struggles.

"Racial discrimination and Slavery." - slavery was certainly nothing new in India, it had always existed. The East India Company actually outlawed slavery in 1842 - for the first time in Indian history. In any empire there is always discrimination between the foreign ruling elite, and the subject peoples, whether this was simply and only a question of "race" is questionable. The British always enjoyed a high degree of social interaction with Indian nobility, although there were many social barriers that kept them aloof from the general populace. Many British took Indian wives.

--Proof of slavery always existing in India? Yeah, thought so. Further, the Empire itself was based on racial discrimination, and the subjugation of those considered inherently inferior. Hinduism was found 'immoral' and 'backward' and any economic freedoms were constrained for Indians (salt laws are one example).

"Mass murders and genocide" "Crimes against humanity." - the worst case is probably Amritsar in 1919, where less than 300 unarmed Indian protestors were shot dead by Indian troops (under British command). This was of course a criminal act. It was undertaken after a high state of tension in the city, 5 European males had been murdered, and one European female had been almost beaten to death. The population had been warned that any further demonstrations would be put down with force, however, the manner in which it was carried out was highly questionable as the crowd had no escape route - but still very mild compared to the Moguls.

--'Mild'. I expected nothing less from colonial apologists. Further, this was not the worst case. The famines in Bengal were the worst cases. Millions dead. Never happened before. Yes, there were famines before, but never on this scale, since most of the grain was taxed and exported to Britain.

"Divide and Rule policy, Partition of India on religious lines." Pakistan, right? As you mentioned before, you seem to view the sovereign nation of Pakistan as a British plot. There are hundreds of millions of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis who would disagree with you. I think this really gives you away as an extreme Indian nationalist, which also explains many of your unreasonable anti-British outbursts. The ML was a real grass roots Muslim political movement; the British certainly never controlled it, nor Jinnah. The British actually expanded the cultural scope and land mass of India. Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Sikkim, the Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Meghalaya had NEVER been ruled from India before the Britsh arrived - they had never even been controlled by an Indian ruler, also the British took land from Nepal, which is now part of the Republic of India. Parts of Nagaland had been fully independent from India until the 1920's! These British land grabs were greedily kept on by the Republic of India. (There were no local referendums, to give such "annexed" peoples any choice in the matter, and India has been fighting separatist rebels ever since.)

"suppression of basic human rights, self determination etc" - well tell me of an empire in the last 4000 years that didn't do that! If any conquering nation gives its provinces/colonies "basic human rights, self determination" it commits suicide as a functional empire. But in all fairness, many British laws which attacked long established Hindu culture, actually promoted basic human rights. For example, the 1856 act which authorised the re-marriage of Hindu widows, and gave them property rights after the death of their husbands. And what about Sati? What about in 1802 when British troops had to be sent to Bengal's Sagar Island to stop the time honoured tradition of throwing babies into the river as human sacrifices - was this also a "suppression of basic human rights"?, to outlaw female infanticide - was this also a "suppression of basic human rights"?

"Transfer of countries wealth to Great Britain." - yes, like I say, that's what any empire did. During some years in the 1930's however, the UK actually had a trade deficit with India.

--don't kid yourself. huge trade barriers destroyed indian industries and the British just exploited a huge consumer market in these industries by developing their own and selling it back to the Indians. And the point really isn't that 'all empires did this'. The point is it is excluded in this article, and what happened in other empires is thoroughly irrelevant to this article. Just because some others may have been worse does not excuse what actually happened in India.

"Some of the development was brought about to maximize the exploitation of the resources like the construction of railway lines" - The British could have sucked India dry without building one of the world's best railway networks, a dozen fantastic bridges, a great new capital at New Delhi, etc. If you doubt this, read up on the Belgian Congo. You make these HUGE accusations, and yet you never seem to back up your claims. Building such things wasn't "nothing" - “nothing" is in fact what the Spanish and Portuguese did in their colonies - that was "nothing".

"would British Like to be ruled and exploited by the Germans & French and treated as sub-humans as they treated most of the people in the former colonies." Germanic tribes did in fact invade England, and so did the French (Normans) - they did rule harshly, they did exploit, yet the English don't complain about them and call them "evil", it's just history. Also your use of the word "sub-humans" is also highly emotional and questionable - and in some cases actually insulting. So the many thousands of British that took Indian wives, they considered their wives "sub-human" did they? And their children semi-sub-human? I have read a hundred memoirs from British India (you should try reading at least one) and I consider what you're saying is unfair and outlandish. My wife is also from India. She is from the state of Meghalaya. If I may furnish you with a personal example, her grandnother lived to a great old age and remembered the British well. In her opinion, Shillong (state capital) was cleaner, safer and the Khasi people (her community)had more self determination under the British. This is all true in fact. Under the British the Khasis were semi-autonomous, nowadays much of what they do is controlled by central government, which as a relatively small community in India, they have no power to control. Old photos of British Shillong reveal a cleaner city, there's also more unrest these days. My main problem is you seem to make sweeping generalizations about this extremely deep and complex subject (British India). Any serious student of the topic is always struck by the serious contradictions of British rule, and the highly distinctive phases it went through - if you use strange, sweeping, highly simplistic and horribly emotive words like "evil" and "sub-humans" I don't think you're suited to make any neutral amendments to what is already a neutral and fair article.

So where is your wife from in Shillong? Bara Market area? Did she go to Lady Irving College or maybe the Sri Ramkrishna mission in Cherrapunji?, not Upper shillong or Likor Peak for sure? Right? What about the car/bus ride from Gauhati to Shillong. Sadly there is still no train service from Gawhati to Shillong or an Airport in Shillong (why don't you go ask your wife why and then tell me). Did she eat "kwai" in shillong or play "teer" there? As for rest of your stuff I will ignore it for now. Pure lies and propoganda. Who do you think is ruling india write now? Unlike in Britain where white anglo saxons dominate, ALL the top government posts in India (president, prime minister, army chief, etc....) are filled by members of so called "minority" groups and they are fully trusted by rest of the public (something that will probably take another 100 years more to happen in Britain where race relations are worsening day by day). Will be ignoring rest of your stuff and keep in mind that is this is not a place for you to vent. I will be deleting any such stuff in future. Desione (talk) 08:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The British Raj was very very complex; it was both good & bad. In some ways it was useful to India, in other ways it exploited her. However, you tend to think that without the British, the steep economic decline of the early to mid 18th century (nothing to do with the Brits by the way) would have corrected itself - would it? Who is to say that without the British, India today would not be a patchwork of countries and nationalities (like Europe), just as it was when the British began to take over? Who is to say that the manic civil wars and Persian incursions of the early to mid 18th century would not have continued for another 200 years? If it was only the British that kept India down, why have other former British Asian colonies like Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia done so well, whilst India has made such slow progress? And how did 0.25% of India's population (the British) tyrannize the remaining 99.75% of the population? They could not have done it even if they had wanted to - the truth is there was massive collaboration at all levels of Indian society.

--Don't kid yourself (part II) You need to educate yourself about the attempts to hack away at the cultural underpinnings of India in an attempt to project 'inherent superiority' (http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/history_essays_frameset.htm). Various things including Aryan Invasion Theory and dismissal of all Indian history as 'nonexistant'. It was a shameless attempt, but one that failed.

No there was nothing complex about British Raj, it was based on a very simple and age old phenomenon: "get rich by hook or by crook at the expense of others". Bye now. Desione (talk) 08:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

TB124.187.172.58 (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"--Proof of slavery always existing in India? Yeah, thought so."

What's that supposed to mean? Of course there was slavery in Mogul India! Of course there was slavery in Ancient India! This is VERY basic stuff.

"the Empire itself was based on racial discrimination, and the subjugation of those considered inherently inferior. Hinduism was found 'immoral' and 'backward'"

By some yes, but not by all. When the Europeans viewed things like Sati, some did come to this conclusion. But any discrimination against Hindus by the British, was nothing compared to what Auragzeb did.

"huge trade barriers destroyed indian industries"

Firstly, throughout the 18th century there were huge technological advancements in Europe (mostly Britain) that made things like cloth manufacture far more efficient, in the 18th century, this technology was never adopted by independent Indian manufacturers, even in areas outside British control (ie: Punjab) so 18th century Indian cloth exports, in many ways, died a natural death. Also, terrible internal strife and conflict wrecked the Indian economy decades before the first British conquests. Perhaps the British are guilty of not rebuilding or modernizing the Indian economy, but when they took it over, it was already wrecked ("destroyed") and inefficient, so the British can not be accused of making it so. Even college books from The Republic of India teach this.


"--Don't kid yourself (part II) You need to educate yourself about the attempts to hack away at the cultural underpinnings of India in an attempt to project 'inherent superiority' (http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/history_essays_frameset.htm). Various things including Aryan Invasion Theory and dismissal of all Indian history as 'nonexistant'. It was a shameless attempt, but one that failed."

Your link seems to be some kind of fundamentalist Hindu blog - PLEASE!!!! Do you know how few British there were in India? I'll tell you, 1 in 400. How can so few people "hack away at the cultural underpinnings of India"? - it's pure propaganda, it's rubbish. The British knew that the one thing that was most likely to spark rebellion in India was if the Hindus or Muslims felt that their religions were being attacked, and they were very careful to leave religious practice alone as much as possible, because they understood that this was the easiest way to keep the peace. As Marx said, "religion is the opium of the masses". Millions of Indians went there whole lives without ever seeing a European. The vast Indian princely states had internal cultural and religious autonomy.

"The famines in Bengal were the worst cases. Millions dead. Never happened before. Yes, there were famines before, but never on this scale, since most of the grain was taxed and exported to Britain."

The main causes of the famine, were that Burma, British India's rice basket, was under Japanese control and the harvest failed. There were extra British mouths to feed in India - but they only accounted for a small percentage of actual food consumption. "Most of the grain was exported to Britain" - this is a lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.174.119 (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC) 

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.172.58 (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

STOP: What you are writing is your POV it has nothing to do with the reality, Wikipedia is the serious project it can't be used for glorifying colonialism, Racism, fascism, slavery, starvation, misery, economic distruction and crimes against humanity which has lead to distruction of sub-continent. British Empire is collapsed by the burden of misery of death and distruction it has brought in the life of millions of people around the Globe. Billion of dollars are stolen from India and you are telling, it was all right for them to steal money from India, what a joke? Millions of people are killed and you are telling it was all right for them to kill in order to rule and supress people. British was the main architect of the partition of the country and it has done irreversible damage leading to millions of death. You are telling it was right to live like a second class citizen in your own land, this is also your POV and goes against the policy of any modern nation in the world. The construction work in India was done keeping in mind their long term objectives in the sub-continent. They built those things for their own purpose and better exploitation of the resources, because they had thought that they would rule India forever. Same way as they are ruling the stolen land of Australia, Canada & Newzealand(Now Independent but mostly British). Where the percentage of Indigenous people was too low and genocide was too high to offer strong resistance to the criminal Empire. Did you want to bring Indians on the verge of extinction like Australian Aborignees who are suffering death, disease and poverty in their own country at the hands of descendants of British.

British Raj was overwhelmingly bad for India and can't be justified or glorified for whatever reasons. In today's India the largest and most successful democracy even a muslim can become a president (Abdul Kalam) and sikh can become Prime Minister(Manmohan Singh) that is not possible in UK any time soon, so stop spreading untruth about India. --Himhifi 09:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Himhifi YOU STOP. with your Indian Nationalism, which i find highly offensive. take your debate to your other propaganda websites and stop inflicting your personal hatred on this Encloypedia with your continual anti-British senterment. Rockybiggs (talk) 09:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
To Himhifi (talk · contribs): This talk page is not a place for random musings, only substantive comments; if you continue, I will get admin help. Let this be a warning. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Now that points are clear, I think its time for everyone to tone down a bit, not just Himhifi. And stop threating people with warnings, when your own language is questionable at best. Desione (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


Just for the record, I don't consider anything that I wrote above to be offensive. I stand by it. I deleted the page, in order to avoid trolls such as "124.187.172.58" feeding off the comments on the page and wasting rest of our time. Desione (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I tend to concur with Desione. I can see the Pro British bias in Rockybiggs language. Would recomment a more neutral stand. AJ-India (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

HISTORY, NOT PRESENT OR FUTURE

Folks, please keep in mind that we are talking about history, not present or future. I assume we all are well aware of the present. Thank you. And my apologies to those whose sentiments I may have hurt while making my points. Desione (talk) 09:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

To Desione (talk · contribs): please don't be offensive to other people and especially to nationalities. You have been offensive, and, sadly, you have made no points. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't intend to respond to baseless propoganda. Desione (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted, this is a talk page to improve the article not a forum please abstain from making personal attacks against other editors and respect the talk page guidelines.--Trinityfactor (talk) 08:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Prelude to the Raj, 8th March version is more balanced and neutral then present.

The editors like Fowler & Fowler are painting a rosy picture of the colonial empire and presenting a wrong and biased British point of view which is against the wikipedia policies. You have to include in appropriate manner the negative impact on the socio-economic condition of the country which led to revolt against the presence of British rule in India. If people were not killed and discriminated and country was prosperous why Indians wanted to get rid of catastrophic and distructive British rule.

The previous version on Prelude to the Raj (8th March) was more balanced and present a better Point of view about the British policies which has led to discontent among the Indian public and hence revolt against the Raj. Hence restored. --Trinityfactor (talk) 09:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Prelude

Main articles: Mughal Empire, Maratha Empire, Colonial India, and Company rule in India

Ever since the days of the

British East India Company
signified the reversal of this historic balance of trade (which remained in India's favour for the first 150 years of company operations) for the first time and heralded the beginning of an almost 250 year long British rule in India.


On

King James I sent Sir Thomas Roe as his ambassador to Emperor Jahangir's court, which lead to a treaty allowing East India Company "freedom answerable to their own desires; to sell, buy, and to transport into their country at their pleasure".[1] Starting with the first factory, setup in 1612, in the city of Surat, the company gradually establish other trading posts or "factories" which initiated a process that would lead to the emergence of the modern day cities of Mumbai, Chennai, and Kolkata
.

In 1659, Aurangzeb, the last of the great Mughals, took over the reigns of the Mughal Empire and started waging wars for gaining new territories and enacting laws that interfered with non-Muslim worship. While the wars drained the treasury and bled the farmers through taxes, Aurangzeb's religious policies lead to revolts within the Mughal Empire. These factors would ultimately lead to the demise of Mughal Empire. In 1670, King Charles II granted the company the right to acquire territory, raise an army, mint its own money, and exercise legal jurisdiction in areas under its control. Due to Aurangzeb's death in 1707 and warring Mughal provinces, the East India Company found itself in a unique position to start extending areas under its control.

In 1757,

Nawab of Bengal, secretly connived with the British asking for support to overthrow the Nawab in return for trade grants. At the Battle of Plassey, Mir Jafar's forces betrayed the Nawab allowing the relatively small British force commanded by Robert Clive to win the battle. Jafar was installed on the throne of Bengal which became a British protectorate. Clive gained access to Bengal's treasury and netted £2.5m for the company and £234,000 for himself.[2] At the time, an average British nobleman could live a life of luxury on an annual income of £800.[3]
. The battle transformed British perspective as they realised their strength and potential to conquer smaller Indian kingdoms, and marked the beginning of the imperial or colonial era.

India at the time of Clive, 1760

A double system of government was then established in Bengal with administration, revenue collection, and justice under the nominal Nawab and the power to write bills against the treasury distributed among various company officials. This lead to a great deal of corruption enriching many in the company.[4] An unrequited trade involving use of India's own resources to fund exports to Britain was also created leading to a huge siphoning of wealth to Britain while impoverishing Bengal. Within a few years, India's historic positive balance of trade with Europe was gone.[5]

After defeating

Allahabad and Kora. East India Company now administered a region with a population of 25 million and an annual revenue that was half of England's.[6]

Within the next five years, revenues from land tax tripled leading to many farmers paying 2/3rd of their produce as tax - an unprecedented amount both by historical and modern standards. This tax was transferred to Britain in form of dividends to shareholders of East India Company and through unrequited trade. Unlike under the Mughals, when farmers were unable to pay taxes as a result of crop failure, their lands were auctioned off.


In early 1769, disregarding all warnings of an approaching drought,[8] the East India Company continued strict land tax enforcement, increased land taxes in April 1770, and prevented hoarding of food grains by merchants anticipating higher prices during drought. Famines, as a result of fluctuating monsoon rains were not new to India; however, as a result of these policies and corrupt governance, what was expected to be a drought turned into a severe famine killing an unprecedented 10 million people (1/3rd of Bengal's population at the time) within a period of six months. Strict enforcement of land tax continued. In the year immediately following the famine, tax revenues collected by British East India Company increased as compared to the year immediately preceding the famine.[9]

In 1773, the British Parliament granted regulatory control over East India Company to the British government and established the post of Governor-General of India.[10] Warren Hastings was appointed as the first Governor General of India. Later, in 1774, the British Parliament passed the Pitt's India Act which created a Board of Control overseeing the administration of East India Company.[11] During the proceedings of Pitt's India Act, Edmund Burke was the lone parliamentarian who brought attention to what he perceived to be British East India Company misrule in India.[12]


Map of British India, 1855

Hastings, under pressure of East India Company directors to return profits, started to reorganise company operations. [14] He moved the administrative offices from

Oudh
.

Hastings remained in India until 1784 and was succeeded by

Cornwallis, who initiated the Permanent Settlement, whereby an agreement in perpetuity was reached with zamindars
or landlords for the collection of revenue. For the next fifty years, the British were engaged in attempts to eliminate Indian rivals.

Further acts, such as the

Charter Act of 1833
, further defined the relationship of the Company and the British government.

At the turn of the 19th century, Governor-General

Oudh
in 1856 proved to be the Company's final territorial acquisition. --Trinityfactor (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding above

The above isn't that bad - the latter half of the 18th century was the direst period of exploitation, nevertheless -

What about Siraj's attack on Calcutta in 1756? The British merely wanted to fortify Calcutta, to ward off an inevitable French attack (due to the 7 Years War) - Siraj, paranoid by nature, saw this as a threat to his authority, and was the first to initiate military action. Calcutta was the Company's principle settlement in India. I am very surprised this absolutely seminal event is not mentioned. Siraj's attack on Calcutta (regardless of his motives) was a declaration, and an act of war, against Great Britain, or at the very least, against the East India Company. You make it sound as if the Company had no grievances with Siraj, but initiated a campaign against him without provocation. You go into great detail about Hasting's dodgy dealings - but overlook the destruction of Calcutta, and the complete annihilation of its European inhabitants.

"...allowing the relatively small British force commanded by Robert Clive to win the battle."

In the battle of Plassey the odds were about 13 to 1 against Clive, with Mir Jafa's forces, the odds would have been around 20 to 1. At 13 to 1 odds, the British still took amazingly light casualties. Would they have been necessarily overwhelmed and defeated at 20-1 odds? Maybe, maybe not - it's pure conjecture. Mir jaffa certainly assisted a British victory, but I think stating that he "allowed" it is a bit too strong. Also, it is unmentioned that Mir jaffa actually rebelled against British rule some years later.

"Within the next five years, revenues from land tax tripled leading to many farmers paying 2/3rd of their produce as tax - an unprecedented amount both by historical and modern standards. This tax was transferred to Britain in form of dividends to shareholders of East India Company and through unrequited trade."

What, all of it? The governance of India was not free. Despite everything you say about Company rule - order was maintained. Banditry was crushed, the law courts were maintained, and a strong military force kept at bay the countless marauders who had laid Bengal to waste in the first half of the 18th century. Don't get me wrong, the East India Company was tyrannical in the 18th century (although it mellowed in the 19th). They did Bengal few favours, and certainly exploited the country for the benefit of Company coffers, but it's not correct to state that every Sicca Rupee and Gold Mohur left the country.

General notes:

..."more balanced and neutral then present"

My dictionary defines neutral as: "not aligned with or supporting any side or position in a controversy": Therefore a truly "neutral" article, would present both points of view without prejudice. Am I to understand, then, that in your stated desire to have a "neutral" article that both points of view will be put forward?

Balanced: dictionary: "equality between the totals of the two sides of an account. a state of equilibrium or equipoise; equal distribution of weight"

Will this new "balanced" article give "equality between the totals of the two sides of an account" - will it give the British point of view at all?

Also - I seem to have fallen foul of your colleague Desione who seems to want to delete what I write. I am in the ironic position of actually being attacked by Wikipedia associates because I am positively supporting a Wikipedia article. Our friend Desione is deeply hostile to the article, and as such, I think he is not best suited as a neutral editor for this open discussion page. I humbly ask that I may be forgiven for any past indiscretions, that I may have been deemed to have made, but nevertheless wish to point out that I am a published author on this subject, my book - http://worldcat.org/oclc/76787853&referer=brief_results , published by a respectable Indian publisher of educational materials, is held at many university libraries throughout the world. I do not pretend to pull rank in this discussion, nor insist that my view should prevail, but I humbly request that at least I should be granted the courtesy of having my answers and questions remain on this page, or that I should at least be edited or deleted by an impartial hand. Also, as I seem to be one of the only people taking an interest in the debate (at present), who is actually defending the article, I can't understand how the discussion is to be enriched with my total censure. Unfortunately, so far, many of the article's critics have contributed in the form of heroic patriotic generalizations - marked by rhetoric and overstatement rather than responsible scholarship. As such, I welcome a discussion on the actual article (point by point) and will be delighted to offer my sources whenever requested to do so.

TB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.178.168 (talk) 23:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

=

I am amazed that someone is finding fault with Siraj's attack on Calcutta to rid of Europeans. What right did British have to construct and strengthen forts in India? What did India and Indians have to do with Anglo-French wars? Siraj was a patriot and was one of the first rulers who understood that building forts by foreigners - what ever may be the pre-text - is just pre-cursor for coming slavery. If warring Mughals and Marathas wanted to build forts outside London would English have allowed it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.120.65 (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


The British were about to be attacked by the French - In the 17th century they had actually been invited to build a settlement, including fort, in Bengal. --Blenheim Shots (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Absence of any negative impact.

This article entirely ignores the many negative impacts during the Raj, such as the economy, many incidents of persecution and divisive effects on society and religion. How can this even be remotely encyclopedic especially concerning the issue of colonialism if it does not present negative as well as positive impacts of the Raj.

talk
) 04:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What "divisive effects on religion"? - There was complete freedom of religion in British India -please explain. The British were actually scared of tampering too much with religion, lest it should spark a general revolt.

"How can this even be remotely encyclopedic especially concerning the issue of colonialism if it does not present negative as well as positive impacts of the Raj." - OK, so I take from this that you think an article should list the "positive impacts of the Raj" as well. So, fine, include a few extra paragraphs on the Amritsar massacre (or whatever) then the article can be seen as "balanced" (from your point of view) - and the job's done.

I think the article is "encyclopedic" by the way.

TB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.177.106 (talk) 09:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There was some negative impact, not just religious. Although, to be fair, they were free to pursue their religious practices. In all honesty, the only negative impact the Brits had was to pit Jinnah against Gandhi, leading to the Partition of India, with millions lives lost in the process. If you want to say that this has had a negative impact on religious freedom, then I would have to agree (to a certain extent). It caused the Hindu and Muslim populations to turn against each other, an issue still very much active in Pakistan. While the situation has calmed in India, there are still a number of religious issues popping up here and there --Maurice45 (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, fair point Maurice, BUT you talk about the ML almost as if it were a British invention and tool, which I think is going a tad too far. Even if the British had not played off Congress against the ML, I think one way or another, the ML would have certainly existed as a powerful grass-roots Muslim force and it would have probably got what it wanted - perhaps with even more bloodshed in the long run. Don't forget that British India was about 45% Muslim - even The Republic of India is about 25% Muslim today, without Bangladesh & Pakistan - also, don't forget that large scale conflict between Hindus and Muslims had been going on for hundreds of years prior to British rule, and indeed after British rule as well, right into our century. If anything, British rule put the brakes on this traditional conflict for a good 150 years, before it all fell apart after WWII. So, Maurice, do you believe that there would have been no serious trouble between Muslims and Hindus, between roughly 1750-1950, had the East India Company not planted the Union Jack on Indian soil? Really????? The Hindus (or should I say Congress) and the Muslims (ML) accepted British mediation on the Pakistan issue, because they distrusted each other too much for any direct and productive negotiation between themselves. Proof: the East/West Pakistan border was entirely drawn by the British. Anyway, this is all entering into the murky never-never land of hypotheticals and conjecture.

TB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.133.235 (talk) 22:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Scholastic "Nuetrality" and 18th Century India

In reference to the above, it's not very "encyclopedic" - it should be more list-like, naming battles, governers, company settlements, presidencies etc. I admit that this isn't thrilling reading - but it's supposed to be an encyclopedia. What you have here tends to wander off on tangents, to try and emphasise how cruel the Brits were - talking about how much money Clive took home etc. and sacrificing really basic information about 18th century British India in order to do this. You can just say something like: "The British heavily taxed the peasantry, and Company officials returned to England with vast fortunes" - that's it, it's done! Space is at a premium here. How is information about how much an English nobleman needed to live a comfortable life in England, more important than mentioning Madras - for example?

"£234,000 for himself.[2] At the time, an average British nobleman could live a life of luxury on an annual income of £800." So, if that's the case, £800 was probably worth about £250,000 in today's money, which means that Clive was rewarded about 50 odd million in today's money - about the size of Heather McCartney's divorce settlement. And this obscure and pointless information replaces what? A few famous battles? information on Cochin, Jaipur, Travancore, Hyderabad, Mysore, Cis-Sutlej Hill States, Central India Agency, Kutch and Gujarat Gaikwad territories?

"what was expected to be a drought turned into a severe famine" - in 1770 what was expected to be a drought was expected to be a famine. I don't get your point. Preventing the hoarding of grain by traders was in fact a good thing, although you are right, the EIC should have given tax relief. Where did the 10 million figure come from? Bengal's economy would have completely collapsed, along with the Company's revenues - I can't see the 10 million figure being right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.177.106 (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Clive in fact, proved himself very brave in battle and pulled off one of the most stunning feats in military history - conquering half of India with less than 2000 men. Also, it's a fact that internal order was far better maintained under Company rule. Hindu writers of the period actually praise the Company's government for "protecting" their "lives and property". These are all solid historical facts by the way. This is very much from the British point of view, I admit, but.... so what? If the article is to be "balanced" and "nuetral" (as you state) the British point of view has to be represented. If this is not done, then all this talk of "nuetrality" and "balance" is, at best, mistaken.

These comments are not general observations about the Raj, by the way, but directly relate to the above suggested article.

May I also point out that the original artcle, before Fowler & Fowler's article, was embarrassing, it wasn't even written in correct English, it contained gross errors, repetion, it was excessively biased beyond anything I have ever read before, and went seriously off-topic. I think Fowler & Fowler's article is nuetral, but even if you disagree with this, it is both eloquently written and professionally laid out - in stark contrast to what was there before. He obviously went to a lot of work on Wikipedia's behalf. Rather than unsportingly errase your esteemed colleague's laudable efforts, could they not simply be edited?


Look at what he's done here, in his PRELUDE:

"At the turn of the 19th century, Governor-General Wellesley began what became two decades of accelerated expansion of Company territories.[8] This was achieved either by subsidiary alliances between the Company and local rulers or by direct military annexation. The subsidiary alliances created the Princely States (or Native States) of the Hindu Maharajas and the Muslim Nawabs, prominent among which were: Cochin (1791), Jaipur (1794), Travancore (1795), Hyderabad (1798), Mysore (1799), Cis-Sutlej Hill States (1815), Central India Agency (1819), Kutch and Gujarat Gaikwad territories (1819), Rajputana (1818), and Bahawalpur (1833).[8] The annexed regions included the Northwest Provinces (comprising Rohilkhand, Gorakhpur, and the Doab) (1801), Delhi (1803), and Sindh (1843). Punjab, Northwest Frontier Province, and Kashmir, were annexed after the Anglo-Sikh Wars in 1849; however, Kashmir was immediately sold under the Treaty of Amritsar (1850) to the Dogra Dynasty of Jammu, and thereby became a princely state. In 1854 Berar was annexed, and the state of Oudh two years later.[8]

The East India Company also signed treaties with both Afghan rulers and Ranjit Singh of Lahore to counterbalance Russian support of Persian plans in western Afghanistan. In 1839 the Company's effort to more actively support Shah Shuja as Amir in Afghanistan, brought about the First Afghan War (1839-42) and resulted in a military disaster for the East India Company. In addition, as the British expanded their territory in India, so did Russia in Central Asia, with the taking of Bukhara and Samarkand in 1863 and 1868 respectively, thereby setting the stage for the Great Game of Central Asia.[9]"

'

There is NO PRO-BRITISH bias here at all. Tell me, please, WHERE is the pro-British bias in this? He is merely giving as much information as possible in the space provided, with links to other parts of Wikipedia. No POV is given, at all, either way, indeed 99% of what they have written is like this. If you think they have missed out important bits - add them! Does it matter if the article becomes 10 or 20 percent bigger? The Raj is a big subject after all.

The article is truly "encyclopedic". Please don't scrub this, in favour of some anti-British essay which sets out a POV and tells us much less. That is wrong, in my humble opinion.

If you think Fowler & Fowler (and anybody else involved) have made mistakes or have shown a bias, you should say exactly where this has happened, and changes should be made to the offending sections, or extra lines should be inserted to give an extra (anti-British) POV, to give it the "balance" and "neutrality" you seem to think is missing. Or is it just an excuse to hijack the page?

Fowler & Fowler (and all else involved)have done an excellent job here, Wikipedia should be grateful to them, because it replaced total rubbish and I think the neutrality of their article is clear. If you are going to rub out the article for an entirely new one, then you have in effect decided, without debate, that they were guilty and it was a bad article. Says who? And moreover, you want to call a brand new anti-British article "neutral". Do the writers of the new article even have a neutral attitude towards the British Raj? I doubt it. If they don't, then they should not do the project.

"...almost 250 year long British rule in India" - I beg your pardon? Aurangzeb didn't even die until 1707.

You don't even know how long the British ruled India for! And you want to write an article? Before the 1750's, the Company ruled a few square miles of India: the settlements of Madras, Bombay, Calcutta, Surrat. Up to then, the Portuguese had more land in India! The British started to rule less than half of India from about 1757 (it started quite quickly) and they left in 1947 - that's 190 years. So where did you get the extra 60 years from? If you mean, from the time that the British started to control the day to day affairs of their "factories" and modest settlements (hardly "British rule in India" less than 1 in two thousand Indians lived in such places, and even then they were still considered subjects of the Mogul) - well, we would have to date that from around 1630, not 1700.

What was so wrong with showing portraits and views? What was "biased" about that? This seems to be a slightly re-worked version of the very first article - which was complete rubbish by the way. I'm sure that's where the "250 year" thing came from - so I rest my case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.177.106 (talk) 09:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

TB 

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.130.223 (talk) 22:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

"Divided into Two States" -- What about Burma and Sikkim?

The article introduction says:

"...and lasted until 1947, when 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".

And this certainly is the universal notion -- India partitioned into 2 states.

But Burma was "partitioned" from India as well in 1937, and Sikkim was recognized as an independent state (albeit protectorate of India) from 1947-1975.

So should not the story read, "Between 1937 and 1947 the Indian Empire was partitioned into four states: India, Pakistan, Burma, and Sikkim"?

Yes, I think Bhutan split off in 1950 didn't it? What you say above actually sounds correct, although I had never actually thought of it that way. Maybe Sikkim's position wasn't completely clarified in 1947 - like Bhutan's, so it loosely came under India. It's a crying shame what happened in Sikkim, swamped by Nepalis, who rioted because they were not given the same rights as the Sikkimese. India invaded to "restore order" - and gave the vote to the aforementioned Nepalis, who of course voted against the old independent order. The nation's future was decided by disgruntled immigrants and The Republic of India - at gunpoint! The Sikkimese (Lepchas - Bhutias) hardly got a word in. What happened in Sikkim casts a light on Bhutan's paranoid attitude to visitors and immigrants.

Continued.......

According to the 1950 partition map in this artcle http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/92/India_Pakistan1947a.jpg - Sikkim was considered a princely state, so it was under Indian patronage at that point - I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.176.150 (talk) 08:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Continued.......

The answer is actually written in the extreme bottom left-hand corner of the map http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/92/India_Pakistan1947a.jpg - Sikkim's position was not clarified until 1950. As for Burma, in a sense it was part of the partition of India in the last years of British rule, but the term "partition" is always used for the Pakistan/India division, and I think to lump Burma into this, would be too unorthodox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.133.235 (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


TB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.176.150 (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Article Title -- "Indian Empire" vs. "British Raj"

See above #Requested moves

As the "British Raj" is a colloquialism, and the "Indian Empire" was the official, legal, passport-issuing name of the political entity... why in the world is "Indian Empire" forwarding to "British Raj" rather than vice versa? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.154.104 (talk) 07:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right - "Indian Empire" or even "British India" would be the correct titles - "British Raj" is a colloquialism - correct! I think (my guess is) some Indian nationalists and politically correct types didn't like the sound of "Indian Empire" or "British India" - because it sounded too much like triumphalism, maybe, so it was changed to British Raj because that sounds less legitimate - and to hell with history. Although the article now looks more like a professional and neutral piece on the Indian Empire, the RAJ title, I think, is a hangover from the time when the article was a badly written extremist piece of web garbage. So if think the original title is a bit twisted, thank your lucky stars you never saw the original article.

TB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.176.150 (talk) 08:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, TB! Well, I think the title problem has dogged this article for at least the year and a half that I've watched it. My take on it now is that its best to leave the sleeping dogs lie (and I don't mean any people, just the issues). Every title had potential objections: some people objected to British India because, strictly speaking, it only referred to the parts of India directly governed by the British and didn't include the princely states; also the term was used during East India Company rule as well. Others, objected to the Indian Empire because it was too vague: was it the Incas? Or the Mauryas? Especially since it was really called "India" in those days. Still others, objected to British Raj for many of the same reasons you have mentioned. But, since many historians, both British and Indian, now use the term, including many referenced in the article, I guess it's OK for us to use it too. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes OK, the boat has probably been rocked enough (I get it) but, can I just say this, as regards your (their) comment: "it only referred to the parts of India directly governed by the British and didn't include the princely states" - this article (nor the previous) doesn't actually talk about the Princely States, does it? - unless it's just in passing. This isn't a complaint - that's fine, but my point is: the "British India" title would be correct here. As for the "Indian Empire" causing confusion, so what? That's what it was called! Nevertheless I understand that these so-called reasons for the RAJ title, are not of your making. TB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.133.235 (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Please see
talk
) 11:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You are right of course, I did not realize the information was at hand, nevertheless, having read the above, I think I was barking up the right tree. - TB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.2.233 (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

To "TB", no disrespect, but I am afraid it is the wrong tree - it is odd that you seem to think the article is called British Raj because "some Indian nationalists and politically correct types didn't like the sound of "Indian Empire" or "British India" - because it sounded too much like triumphalism" - the requested moves show otherwise. I think it is worth noting that "British Raj" means "British rule" and was used by the British themselves, hence books like
Raj Quartet. And articles like From Empire to Independence: The British Raj in India 1858-1947 The British Raj. And The Raj Display in Knebworth House as well as Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, of 1844 - the title is archaic, but has nothing to do with Indian nationalism or political correctness. Pahari Sahib
02:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, point taken, but I still think the original point raised was a good one, it was (is) a popular colloquialism, but nevertheless, it's still a colloquialism. Just because it was used in a book title (etc.) doesn't stop it from being one. Rgds: TB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.237.131 (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I did at one point ask why the article was not called British India or British Indian Empire, as you can see here but the consensus appears to be for the current title. Pahari Sahib 01:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I am removing the NPOV tag. It had been slapped on the article by user:Desion in February 2008 after making this post just before he was blocked for 31 hours for edit warring. Although there had been some discussion, there had never been any consensus on this. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. The article is fairly benign as Desione has alleged in his note but I'm not sure if I'd call it NPOV. As currently written, the article seems to focus on a list of political, military, and legislative events which gives it the benign tilt but doesn't seem out of place in a historical article. It is already quite long and adding the sort of discussion pieces that Desione has suggested would only add further to that length, which is not desirable. My suggestion is that any discussion oriented material be added/moved to separate main articles. For example, 'Economic consequences of the British Raj' or 'Social consequences of the British Raj'. If there is enough material, those articles should stand up on their own. If there isn't, then so be it. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with RegentsPark. The
Republic of India has only lasted 61. There is only so much stuff you can put in an article. In addition, criticism of the Raj and opposition to it are a significant part of the Indian independence movement page. For a long time, this page was really masquerading as a clone of the other page. Sure, the page is not where it should be. Does that mean we slap on a NPOV tag? If the answer is yes, should I then slap an NPOV tag on the India page too? Why? Because there is very little mention of the communal violence that has plagued India intermittently during the last 50 years. There is very little mention of the failed economic policies of the first 35 years (only one line), or of the rampant Hindu nationalism of the last 20. Very little mention of the large-scale rural poverty and child malnutrition (the highest in the world). Very little mention of abysmal levels of illiteracy, especially among women and girls; very little mention, indeed, of the continuing devaluation of women by modern Indian society, Indira Gandhi notwithstanding: something that become instantly obvious, by stark contrast, if one visits villages in Nepal, Bhutan, Tibet, Burma, Thailand, or Sri Lanka. There is a lot more critical discussion of the economy of the Raj here than there is of the economy in the India page. Frankly, I'd like to see a page, where such a large list of first-rate references are being meticulously used in an article that is still only about half-finished. The same people who in the extra-British-Raj Wikipedia life are happy to use blog sites as references, nonetheless feel no compunction in slapping on NPOV tags on this one. Fowler&fowler«Talk»
17:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
A short article can also cover critical human rights and abuse issues that were features of British Raj. British Raj was based on systematic institutionalized exploitation and this needs to be covered in the article. If you want to bring up any extraneous issues, such as current day India, then I suggest you take it to those pages. And for those who are not clear as to what this discussion is about, please review achieves. I have restored the NPOV tag. Also, I don't need to remind you that the way we do things here is that we discuss first and then make changes (like removal of NPOV tag) rather than the other way around. So I suggest that you allow for this discussion. Feel free to do an RFC over removal of tag if you need to. Desione (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Or seek a vote to establish neutrality of this article; otherwise, a tag pointing out that neutrality of this article is disputed should not be removed. Many editors (not just me) have repeatedly pointed out neutrality issues related to this article and this is sufficient criteria to have a "neutrality of this article is disputed" tag or "neutrality check" tag. Desione (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
It is usually more useful to drill down onto one specific issue at a time. I suggest that you start with a specific section -- "the lead" the "Geographical extent of the Raj" (etc) where you perceived NPOV the problem to be at its most acute, as other editors will at least be able to start working with you towards a compromise, if it is that as you suggest new sections on the "critical human rights and abuse issues that were features of British Raj" then that can be addressed, but just slapping a NPOV template on the top of the article and edit warring over it does not in itself progress the development of the article. --
talk
) 16:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
As I pointed out many times earlier, the bias in this article is systemic as opposed to confined to lead. Human rights issues, racist policies, etc. were features of British raj and are being excluded out of this article. British raj was based on large scale exploitation of people and suppression of rights. That and other such things need to be specifically mentioned in clear language in the article and then the changes to the lead will automatically be evident. Lead is usually a summary of the rest of the article. Desione (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you produce evidence that there is consensus among scholars that "human rights issues" and "racist policies" were "systemic" features of the Raj, or, even that this is a major bone of contention in the existing historiography of the Raj? If the Raj were based entirely on "suppression of rights," why would the current Constitution of India, especially its Directive Principles of State Policy, be only a barely disguised version of the Government of India Act of 1935, which was fashioned almost entirely in the India Office in London by the same very racists? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Whether it was racist or not is neither here nor there. There probally were a lot of racist elements (from both ends- Indian and British). Racism however was not a defining part of India; you could probally make a article about racism in India during the raj but its not a significant factor for the main article.--Him and a dog 18:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
You are jumping ahead to far. This debate is regarding removal of npov tag. So please show that there is no dispute regarding neutrality of this article and unless you can go through the the archives and prove that there is no dispute regarding neutrality of this article, the npov tag stays. We will work out the rest of the issues later. Desione (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, any article of this nature mst by it's very nature be open to an accusation of POV. The TAg should not only stay, I question if it could ever be removed [[Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)]]

Occupation

"Occupation" (recently added to the lead) has a very clear meaning in law, political science and history. It is the military rule of a country over which sovereignty is not claimed. Here is user John Kenney from an earlier post:

"An occupation is a military administration by a power that is not considered to be the legitimate authority in a country. This was not the situation of India under the Raj. India was colonized, and was perhaps a victim of imperialism, and whatever other such words you want to employ. But to describe it as an occupation is to twist the meaning of that word out of all recognizable shape. Britain's position in India was not the result of military conquest alone, but of treaties signed with the native rulers. I believe this is more or less true in nearly all cases. Certainly the British relationship with the various princely states, who together made up maybe a third of India, cannot be reasonably described as an occupation. That the Indian people did not like British rule has nothing to do with whether or not it was an occupation. "Occupation" is a clear term with a clear meaning in international law, and that meaning has to do with control and administration by the military. This was not how India was governed under the Raj, and the term is completely inappropriate.

john k 07:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)"

Of the more than three dozen references at the end of the article, not a single one uses "occupation" to describe the British rule of India. Sure, some Indian nationalists used "occupation" in their writings, but no academic historian, Indian or British, does that. Fowler&fowler«Talk»

17:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

And, the Raj is a "euphemism used in Britain?" That's a new one! Of the 70 references on the Raj by both Indian and British historians, I haven't found a single one that supports the view that the term British Raj is a euphemism used in Britain. It is really used more in India, and in journalistic and academic sources. The average Briton is not only unaware of it now, but was so a hundred years ago. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
As you can see from the discussion thread above, there are some editors who think that the "British Raj" is a euphemism employed by Indian nationalists (to offset the appearance of "triumphalism" in the formally accurate "British Indian Empire," or "Indian Empire.") FYI, there have been long debates on the name change before; please see the links to the archives at the top of this page. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This is actually on old edit. It has stood unchanged for about 2 weeks. I just checked yesterday and today and someone re-edited it & I reverted it back. I put an explanation onto this page at the time, and it has not so far attracted adverse comment.

"The term 'the Raj' is a propaganda term and should be avoided as it is not neutral" - The drive by the British elite to rewrite and deny history by euphemistically referring to the occupation of India as 'the Raj' should be resisted. The term 'the Raj' is essentially a propaganda term and hence not neutral. Ideally the article itself should not be called 'the Raj' but unfortunately it has, particularly in Britain, become common usage. It is important therefore that a POV is maintained which represents the view taken by most of the world, which presents the British occupation of India as essentially a criminal activity. Similar to the POV taken when describing the Italian Mafia or the Chicago Mob. They did do a few good things but mostly it was murder and mayhem.

The German wikipedia entry does not have an entry for 'Raj', simply an entry for British India. Its POV is consistent with my changes. Please read that entry (use google translation if you do not understand German). The British occupation of India was a colonial enterprise, you can't simply airbrush this out. I would be happy if the article were changed to the more neutral term 'British India' as it is on the German wikipedia entry (with a redirect from Raj), but you cannot escape the fact that 'the Raj' is a euphemism used in Britain to cover its colonial occupation of India, a term many Indians would find very offensive as it is used to make brutal colonial rule appear inoffensive. If 'Raj' is the title of the article then it needs to be explained that it is in fact a British euphemism. txbangert, 2 May 2008 —Preceding

talk • contribs
) 08 15:38, 2 May 2008

The Germans may not use the word 'Raj' in which case if the German language
naming conventions are similar to the English language ones then of course the article will be under a different name. Fore example the English article Football is not about the same thing as the German Fußball which is under the name Association football
in English.
See
talk
) 16:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Warning about 3RR violations

talk · contribs
) to reply to the talk page discussion.

Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Being a relatively new user I am not accustomed to these various wiki-tools. My edit was done some time ago & has been up for about 2 week, is in fact quoted elsewhere. It seemed to me that someone was trying to rewrite the page, and then reverting it when I changed it back. It was unacceptable because it was essentially vandalism, in the sense of seeking to airbrush out anything non-positive about British rule of India. I will in future keep the 3 revert rule in mind, but so far I haven't been persuaded on the issue (raised today on these pages). I did note that someone took particular care to remove the word 'occupation', and I then put in 'colonial rule' rather than 'occupation and rule'. This is from the German wikipedia entry. But that someone changed the entire entry again to his preference (from 2 weeks ago) and naturally I reverted this back. txbangert, 2 May —Preceding
talk • contribs
) 15:52, 2 May 2008
Wikipedia principles are very simple. If you feel that "British Raj" is a euphemism used by the "British elite," then you need to present reliable scholarly sources that attest to this. Without those sources, you are wasting everyone's time, not least your own. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Euphemism, Colonialism, Occupation

note This section was created to address edits I had introduced and which stood unchanged for some time, and which had been repeated on a number of web sites. Since it appears now that certain dedicated wikipedians are willing to engage in an edit war to try to revert back to (presumably their) wording we (in effect) agreed to hash through the issues here. It should be noted that the edits were relatively minor, but sought to introduce more balance as I felt the article as it stood in effect apologizes for or seeks to cover up what most people see as the brutal and criminal activities of British colonialism and imperialism (which is not my own personal 'feeling' but well established well sourced historical strand of thought, albeit one which not everyone agrees). There are 3 central issues, as rightly set out by the header. (1) Is the 'British Raj' the legitimate or 'official' term for the British activities in India. The use of the term needs to be balanced by how the term was used by the British at the time, is used by the British today (historically), was used by the (at the time) competing colonial powers, is and was used by the anti-colonial powers (soviet union & america). It also needs to reflect how it was used by Indians at the time and how it is used in India today. Hopefully we can all agree that if the term 'British Raj' is only used by a small clique and not used or used quite differently then it is important that this is put in the lead. Particularly if it is used as a euphemism to cover up or gloss over crimes against humanity. If not, the debate here needs to determine how the use of the term itself should be described and whether that description belongs at least in part in the lead. (2) Were British activities in the territories of the 'Raj' colonial in nature. (3) Is it right to describe the territories of the 'Raj' either as a whole or in part as 'occupied', in the sense of military occupation.

What I intend to do is address in detail each of these issues in the hope that some consensus can be reached. [note: please feel free to modify these terms of reference if you feel you can set it out better]

talk
) 09:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Euphemism and use of the term 'Raj': Actually none of the online dictionaries have an entry for 'British Raj'. The Merriam-Webster dictionary has an entry for 'Raj', but the Wikipedia dictionary does not. Dictionary.com says only that it is an Hindi word meaning 'rule' and only gives as an example of its use that it can (but not necessarily) refer to the period of British rule. Entries, where they exist, are very minimal. This indicates that the term may well be obscure and not as well understood as claimed.

A google search on the term comes back with 444,000 hits, which does indeed show that the term is in active use. However, "British India" produces 849,000 hits. And just for comparison "vietnam america war" produces over 8 million hits. This indicates that the matter can be summarily dismissed as some have suggested. I agree the term is in active use, but the issue is whether it is used only (or overwhelmingly) in Britain. In respect of Britain, it must be understood that in Britain there is a 'Raj' industry. The BBC for example, particularly with its publishing arm via periodicals such as

BBC History churns out vast quantities of 'Raj' material. Then it is taught in schools (mostly from a British POV of course), there are popular books continuously on sale on the subject and so forth. Which is understandable as India was the 'jewel in the crown' of British empire and people in Britain are descendants of people who had positions in British India. There is therefore genuine interest in Britain in the subject, and also a considerable motive to whitewash this part of British history. This effort is dealt with by an Indian academic in Cambridge.[1]

What we need is the etymology of the term. Remarkably this seems to be hard to come by, at least via a simple naive search. This is indicative of its use as a propaganda term, but of course we should have academic sources on the etymology. It seems to me that those proponents of 'British Raj' should do this work to justify their use of the term. No doubt they will turn to the output of the British Raj industry, but this does not resolve the issue one way or the other. There are sources that speak out against the efforts to rehabilitate 'empire' [2] but I have not found anything that deals with the etymology itself, which would resolve the matter one way or the other.

As to the name itself one does not have to look far. The German wikipedia does not have an entry for 'British Raj' or even a redirect for it. The entry is called 'British-India'[3] and it gives 'British Raj' and 'Indian Empire' as alternative terms. French wikipedia has an entry for 'Raj Britannique'[4], and this gives the etymology: 'British Raj is the unofficial term for the period of British domination(arguably translated as occupation) of the Indian sub-continent, that is to say the geographic zone including India, Pakistan, Sri Lank, Bangladesh and Burma ( Le Raj britannique est la dénomination non officielle de la période de domination britannique du sous-continent indien, c'est-à-dire la zone géographique s'étendant sur les pays suivants : l'Inde, le Pakistan, le Sri Lanka, le Bangladesh et la Birmanie.) This was almost exactly my wording, with the word 'euphemism' in place of 'unofficial term'.

If 'British Raj' is the unofficial term (or colloquialism) then it seems to me it needs to be explained in the lead why an unofficial term is used rather than the official term. Moreover, if the British use of the term implies a positive gloss on British India whereas the use of the term in India implies the crimes of the British in India then that needs to be made clear in the lead. To say Angrezi Raj (literally "British Rule" in Hindii) misleads.

The template for this issue should I think be the article

talk
) 11:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Raj is a known term but I really think British India or (preferably for me) the Indian Empire would be better. Raj may be known but it is very much colloquial and unofficial, the more official contemporary terms should be used.--Him and a dog 18:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
According to
WP:NC the Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. The name of an article need not be the contemporary or official name. British Raj is easily recognizable and is in some ways better than Indian Empire or British India because the Raj included a lot more than what is now India (Burma is a very good example). --RegentsPark (talk
) 02:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and Indian Empire would be very bad because what you really mean is 'British Indian Empire'. Calling it the Indian Empire would be the ultimate British POV! British India would be more acceptable but note that technically the company days would also be British India. BR has a very specific connotation that is easily recognizable and generally understood.--RegentsPark (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Colonialism: I do not believe that there can be any dispute that the 'British Raj' was a colonial enterprise. Therefore the correct way to describe it is as 'British colonial rule', which is how it is described on the German wikipedia entry. The English article should be brought in line with this. Colonialism and Imperialism seem to be almost entirely missing from the British article, despite the whole edifice of British rule in India was colonial and imperial. This can only be described as historical revisionism and needs to be rectified.

As to the POV I think it is common ground that Wikipedia articles should be written on a neutral and consistent POV. An article should therefore not seek to for example glorify British colonial rule while at the same time denigrating Belgian colonial rule. The english article on the 'British Raj' should therefore be consistent with the french[5], dutch[6] and german[7] articles.

talk
) 11:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Occupation: Previous proponents of 'occupation' have rather made a hash of it, but for the reasons I gave above (so far uncontested) it is right and appropriate that the lead says "occupation and rule". Not all of the 'Raj' territories were occupied continuously from beginning to end just as not all of the territories were ruled by Britain (there were exceptions). But most of it was, and Britain had an active policy to occupy and 'pacify' those territories not under their control or which refused British control. A good example of this is Burma, which is not India but is considered by the British to be part of the 'Raj'. The

talk
) 09:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read footnotes 1 and 2. Again, no personal musings; if you have scholarly sources that say that the term "British Raj," is a euphemism and that British rule was "occupation," then produce them; if not, go away to some other page, like the United States, and try to convince them that the states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada and California should be described as "occupation" by the US. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I will deal with 'euphemism' above. With respect to 'occupation' as you well know, the claim is not that Brish rule was occupation, but that the British presence consisted of 'occupation and rule' (see below). Please avoid rhetorical tricks such as rephrasing the claim and then rhetorically asking for references for something which (presumably) you have phrased in a way not supported by the academic record on the subject. I don't think you dispute that areas of the 'Raj' like Burma (see below and reference to it above) were occupied, something that is well established. As to your example of Texas et al, it is factual that Texas was occupied. BUT it was also for a time a nominally independent country and, decided democratically to become a US state. You can argue it was colonized and ethnically cleansed (a long long time ago), but there is currently no significant and determined movement in Texas to return to Mexico and there are no demands by Mexico to return the territory. The issue was agreed and settled by both sides a long time ago. Better examples would be Israel/Palestine or Northern Ireland/North of Ireland. The British occupied/ruled India only for a relatively short period of time and were ultimately evicted. The entire colonial administration and military apparatus was dismantled and sent home. The British presence in India was temporary and arguably was never accepted by Indians, with many Indians not even being aware that they were under British occupation or rule. Moreover, the historical British presence in India has been portayed in India itself following the British departure as predominantly illegitimate.
talk
) 10:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Your (TxB) Burma example is very illustrative as to why 'occupation' cannot be generically used in describing the nature of British rule. The characteristics of the Raj were very different depending on the place being talked about. For example, princely states were nominally independent and were definitely not occupied but had little autonomy. The Indian Army in India was largely Indian in ethnic composition (how is that occupation?). Burma, I agree was largely occupied because the army and civil service was drawn mostly from India (though there were plenty of Kachins and Karens serving in the army as well and the Shan States, a hefty chunk of Burma, were nominally independent like the princely states in India complicating the idea of occupation even in Burma). You can (and should) label the British Raj a colonial enterprise but to call it an occupation is a stretch. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The modification was "occupation and rule" replacing just "Rule". It is therefore not proposed to use 'occupation' generically but rather to qualify 'rule'. If the claim is that the term 'occupation' should not be used because not all of India was occupied, then the inverse would also hold. Not all of India was ruled by the British and therefore the term British 'rule' is inappropriate. However, it is the case that much of India was either directly or indirectly ruled by the British so it is fair to describe the British presence in India in this way. However, signifiant amounts of the territories ascribed to 'Raj' were also occupied. Some were first occupied and then ruled. Some were ruled and then occupied (when a revolt was put down). Some were ruled & occupied by Indians themselves, at the behest of the British. In detail it is a complex picture but it seems pretty clear from those who argue against 'occupation' that 'occupation and rule' is the right way to put this in the lead. British India was established bit by bit over an extended period of time; first with occupation and then rule, sometimes with several cycles of the two. 'Occupation and rule' describes this as fairly and accurately as is possible in a brief introduction.
talk
) 10:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Misc Euphemism makes no sense as a descriptor for the term 'British Raj'. The term is well understood and by

Naming conventions followed here, the term is absolutely acceptable everywhere in the world. Occupation is not correct either because it would imply the existence of an occupying army that was administering India. That was patently not the case during the British Raj because the army was largely drawn from Indians. The Raj was a colonial enterprise, not an occupation. It does make sense to include the colonial aspect of the Raj in the lede, it is missing (asaik). But it is the Raj and it was not an occupation.--RegentsPark (talk
) 16:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually military force was used by the British in India, both with the British East India Company and under later imperial rule. Areas of India were conquered by military force and occupied. Defeated rulers and/or client rulers installed by the British were then typically forced to sign colonial agreements. It is certainly fair and neutral to say that British India was occupied and ruled by the British. Not all of India was occupied militarily in this way, but large areas of it certainly were. It was a kind of patchwork occupation, that changed over time. It is also true that the British supplemented their forces with local Indian mercenaries, but this does not add to the legitimacy. British India was created over an extended period of time (primarily using military force or the threat of military force). The general pattern would be the British would take a 'bite' of India and occupy it. Then they would foist upon that territory a local client ruler who would sign the 'agreements' or 'treaties' the British sought. Technically, military occupation ended at this point, but it depends on your POV. There were also there were various revolts against British rule or where a local client ruler would turn 'rogue'. This led to suppression of the revolt or 'regime change' by the British military and renewed military occupation for a time. This meant that parts of India were under military occupation more or less throughout British rule. I do not believe that there is shortage of references to the occupation of territory by the British in India (be it by the British East India company, private British sponsored armies, or by the British empire itself). It is therefore perfectly fair to say that British India was "occupied and ruled" by the British.
As to the term, as has been pointed out a number of times on this page, the correct neutral term is 'British India'. The term 'Raj' is plainly a euphemism, which I don't believe is actually understood outside of Britain. There is no entry for it on the German wikipedia site and I've never encountered the term in America or Canada, but its in very commonly used in Britain when referring to British colonial rule of India. It is also used in Britain with a connotation of something positive, something that one should take pride in rather then be ashamed of or need to apologize for (because it was criminal activity essentially) -- which is how British colonialism is generally seen elsewhere in the world. The two views are diametrically opposed, and the term 'Raj' covers this -- as many people in Britain also view the activities of the British empire, imperialism and colonialism in a very negative light. Those who refer to the 'crimes of empire' would use the term 'occupied India' or 'colonial India' whereas apologists for empire would insist upon 'Raj' and take offence at the implication that colonial rule was a kind of criminal enterprise. For a neutral POV it is essential that both of these views are reflected, and the explanatory term 'euphemism' does this effectively. —Preceding
talk • contribs
) 16:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, a debate on the name of the article is a different thing but the idea that the term Raj is not understood outside Britain is patently false as even a quick google search will show. About the content of the article: As I've said above, an article such as this one should be descriptive not discussive. Discussions about the goodness or the badness of the British rule over India should go elsewhere because that will add to the article length and will detract from the focus. The way the article is written now makes sense to me as a cohesive description of the history of the Raj. However, if you want to add a section that discusses the nature of the Raj, I wouldn't object as long as the comments were well sourced and discussed the nature of the Raj in neutral terms, i.e., without terms such as evil or criminal. Note that I'm not saying the Raj was not evil or criminal but rather that, even if it were those things, this particular wikipedia article is not the place for saying that. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
(Reply to Txbangert) If you feel that "British India" is the correct term, then bring it up on this talk page, but please don't add your own personal musings (which is what they are in the absence of any sources) on what the term "British Raj" is in the lead. As for "British India," let me warn you that this has been the subject of previous attempts at name change. One of the reasons why it has not been successful is that "British India" was used only for those regions (the provinces: Bengal, Bombay, Central Provinces and Berar, Punjab, United Provinces etc.) of the British Indian Empire that were directly administered by the British, and not for the
British Indian Empire that began to be employed in second half of the 19th century, and, thereafter, was resuscitated in the second half of the 20th century in the scholarly literature, in journalism, and in fiction." The page is not a dictionary entry about the term "British Raj," but an encyclopedia page about the rule that is sometimes called "British Raj." Fowler&fowler«Talk»
18:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Racist British Raj

See:

http://books.google.com/books?id=f7EPoTyUvfkC&pg=PA11&dq=%2BBritish+%2Bindia+%2Bracism&sig=GsorXl_gExtXgTM5YcadTJkFj08 Then in 1857, with the Indian Mutiny while various Benthamite type legal codes were introduced in a renewed paternalism, a new racist spirit entered the British Raj...

http://books.google.com/books?id=5DLrgG_MflgC&pg=PA50&dq=%2BBritish+%2Bindia+%2Bracism&sig=_Rph-F2NnwiPmvc_qsYSZC0HpcE According to Curtin "the golden age of racism was the golden age of imperial idea." and the development of racism and the development of empire ran side by side. From Ireland to India, the British empire was built on an ideology of racism...

http://books.google.com/books?id=lzpSpi1t07wC&pg=PA501&dq=%2B%22British+Raj%22+%2B%22racist%22&sig=FsINzwv4J6hdnJoTuxV72cFfY-s Once Indian nationalism became even half-serious proposition, the raj could not long endure. Racist by any standard it undoubtedly was; economically exploitive too, as nearly all modern historians wish to point out...

The last reference event points to a consensus among historians. I have modified lead to indicate that British raj was racist based on these reliable references. Thanks. Desione (talk) 03:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This can be seen as one of the problems with 'references'. While no doubt it is right that a good wikipedia entry should be supported by sound scholarly references, but the fact is that the almost any argument can be nominally supported by a selectively choosing your sources. More important than propping up your own private proposition with sources of dubious provenance is whether or not what you are presenting is true and also if it fairly represents the facts (in this case historical events and people). Therefore, it is important to seperate out how the British saw themselves at the time of colonial empire and how their contemporiaries and victims saw them and how we see them retrospectively today. While the attitudes of the British at the time would clearly be seen as racist today, that was not true at the time (so far as I know). To say that the British were racist you would need to establish that the British at the time had a race based ideology in British India, reflected in laws and publications. I don't think that is true. It would be more a kind of casual racism on the ground reflecting exploitation, colonization and local prejudices. So it would probably be fair to say the British activities during the 'Raj' would by today's standards be seen as racist but not that 'the Raj' itself was a racist enterprise. One complication is that the Indians were themselves had a caste system, which is a kind of institutionalized racism. The British quite cleverly inserted themselves onto the top of this caste system, but did not themselves invent it or even expand it or formalize it.
talk
) 14:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Since you are a new user, I suggest that you read
WP:RS as to what constitutes a reliable reference. My claim (British Raj was racist) is well referenced using reliable sources which also point out that there is a consensus among historians that British Raj was racist. This is more that sufficient. Do you own research (instead of asking me to do it), keep your personal opinions and reasoning out, and back up any claims with reliable references. If you need to refute any claims, do it on basis of reliable references (that hopefully point to a consensus) as opposed to personal philosophy or standards. Good luck. Desione (talk
) 06:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
It may have been racist...but that does not mean you make the lead like: British Raj refers to the racist rule... Kindly read policies of
WP:UNDUE... KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk
) 06:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware of these polices and all of them are valid. Can you bring up evidence/references to show otherwise. Desione (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Fine, if you feel your sources are reliable then make a new section like ==Indian society during British Raj== or ==Criticism of British Raj==. Include your info in addition with your sources. If your sources are reliable and your language is neutral then nobody can stop you. But using an adjective like "racist" in the first line to describe the rule is simply unacceptable. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 07:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
talk
) 08:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
According to my editorial judgement, this article needs to be completely rewritten. Is there any reason why your editorial judgement should get more weight than mine? If not, I suggest you start bringing up reliable and neutral sources that point out that British Raj was not racist and then we can decide what the consensus opinion is. Desione (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the article as it is presents a British 'empire' rehabilition POV, and therefore in my view needs to be rewritten. BUT I think that to portray it as a racist enterprise is going a step too far. I do not want to imply that this view should be given more weight than yours, but it is overall consensus that counts. Clearly from the comments you will find on this page there are a number of users dedicated to polishing the image of the British empire. As you may have noticed, I am not one of those who wish to rehabilitate 'empire'. So I am not trying to block anything on 'racist raj' from appearing in the article, but rather I'm just chipping in as someone who is essentially neutral on the whole issue. My suggestion very simply is that the right approach is to say that British activities in India would be seen as racist by today's standards. That is what I think is the best you can achieve, and which I can support (should you need my support). The claim that the British aristocratic class (which ruled India) had a racist ideology is simply not true (in my judgement). One reason for this is that the idea of 'racism' simply hadn't fully developed yet. By today's standards most educated Europeans at the time would be considered quite racist, and so would most Indians (they did have a caste system, which is essentially based on race). But no one at the time would have thought there was anything wrong with this, just like few people a century before thought there was anything wrong with selling africans into slavery. So to retrospectively single out the British as 'racist' is unfair and ahistorical.
talk
) 21:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean a consensus among wikipedia editors here. I meant a consensus among reliable and neutral sources (which is usually difficult to find except probably in this case). As for the rest of the points that you made, you would need to back it up by (multiple) reliable references. How far do you think I would get, if I didn't back up my statements with reliable sources? As far as I can see "racist" is a word with well defined meaning and the character and ideology of British Raj is best defined using that word. Tomorrow if someone invents a new word that defines the character of British Raj better than the world "racist" then we would use that word (provided that reliable sources do the same as well). Desione (talk) 08:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: Reading your comments (I assume) you feel the 'critcism' of the rule is not highlighted. If you want to do so why not create a new article: Criticism of British Raj? Then you can include a WP:Summary style section of it in this article.KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 07:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Desione, I reiterate my suggestion that the article is best confined to historical events without attaching value judgments. It is undeniable that there were aspects of the Raj that were racist, especially in the 19th and early 20th centuries, but these are best discussed elsewhere. If we get into those sorts of issues, the article will be of book length! You will find it impossible to insert your comments on racism in the article (and the reliability of your source is questionable). If your intent is to inform the reader of the colonial enterprise nature of the Raj, you will be much better served if you 'speak softly' (especially when you don't carry a large stick!).--RegentsPark (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Reliability of my sources is a personal opinion that is being expressed by people who want this article written according to British POV and is factually inaccurate. You would need to rebut my sources with sources of your own. So please do bring up reliable sources that rebut the claim that British Raj was racist. Unless you or someone is willing to do so, I have no reason to back down (otherwise you are just stating personal opinions). At least the earlier attempts to portray British Raj in a positive benign light have failed and now the opposition has moved towards excluding the true negative and exploitive character of British Raj. Apparently the British Raj still has quite a few fans of its exploitive and suppressive nature (nothing personal against anyone here though) Desione (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand what I'm trying to tell you but it's your funeral. Let's take a look at the two references you've cited in the sentence you've added to the lead. I'm not familiar with the Jensen book but will look it up. I am familiar with the Wilson book and, though it is a while since I've seen it, I do not recall it as an unambiguous source for the British empire being racist and I would definitely not characterize the contents by "generally considered to be a racist enterprise." It would be a great help if you would explain how the book supports your statement. Thanks!--RegentsPark (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Regents, In general I have never had a problem with your arguments, so I would suggest that we try to keep emotive/uncivil language (such as my funeral) out of this discussion. My explanation is simple: my references point out (start quote)British empire was built on an ideology of racism (end quote). I think I can bring up many many more references that point to the same (there is actually a historical consensus on this) and will do so as I find time. Desione (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Desione, I mean 'your funeral' colloquially in the sense that you're going to have a hard time getting the things you want to say into this article. I apologize if that colloquial intent was unclear and can assure you I meant no incivility. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
What I was trying to say earlier was that you will find it a lot easier to argue that a section on the colonial nature of the Raj (where you can include comments on racism and economic exploitation) be included in the article rather than a sentence in the lead. Right or wrong, a sentence of the form you are including in the lead has the appearance of furthering a point of view and cannot (and should not) survive there because not only must a wikipedia article be neutral it must also appear to be neutral if the encyclopedia is to be credible.--RegentsPark (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Racist ideology characterized British Raj and hence should be in the lead. Desione (talk) 08:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Can a section on the positive aspects of the Raj be added too then? Despite what some say, the article is at present completely neutral. Can't both sides of the story be told if this present neutrality is to be thus compromised? TXB: "I'm just chipping in as someone who is essentially neutral on the whole issue" Oh please! How can you possibly say you are neutral after all you've said? Unfortunately we have had a lot of this: people who are hostile to the article, who wish to turn the article into a hatchet job on the Raj, and try to do this in the name of "neutrality" - which is quite ridiculous. Personally, I don't object to a historically factual critique of the Raj, unfortunately, in the past, some massive and totally unforgivable errors creeped in to the text. I think to avoid an "edit war" TWO new paragraphs should be included "Positive effects of the Raj" and "Negative effects of the Raj"., so both parties can voice their opinions. It's messy but at least we'll have done with all this. As long as fantasy does not creep into it, such as stating that the British wrecked a successful Indian economy, when it had already been wrecked for 50 years before they took power OR claiming that "thousands" died at Amritsar, OR claiming that the Bengal famine was a deliberate "genocide", or claiming such rubbish as the British ruled for 250 years and controlled "vast territories" before 1750 (all of which has been done in the past here)- as long as they can stick to widely accepted historical data, maybe they can do this.--Blenheim Shots (talk) 04:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because you are happy with the current article does not mean that it is "completely neutral". As I've said, even the title exposes bias. It is essentially revisionist and presents a POV that is shared with only a small (yet very vocal) British minority. That is something I most certainly object to, and which needs a 'hatchet'. Neutrality means something which all sides can agree to, which in this case includes the victims of British colonialism -- the Indians themselves. As a pretty clear example, the issue of race is clearly relevant(which is the section of the discussion), but yet the article as it currently stands makes not a single mention of race (or caste). Despite the fact that race (and racism) was inherent to British rule of India (The British were able to rule because they were able to insert themselves into the Indian caste system). This bias needs to be rooted out first. Given that, I quite agree with your suggestion of two new sections outlining positive and negative effects of the British presence in India. As you have pointed out there were a number of positive effects. But on the whole today's Indians do not see the British presence in India as positive and neither do most people in Britain.
I would also suggest a third section on the issue of race. This is an issue on which I am indeed neutral. I do not hold the view that the British empire was explicitly based on a racist ideology as some would have it. But the British did at the time certainly have explicit views on race. I was just reading about
talk
) 14:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The point, IMHO, is not that there should be sections on positive aspects of the Raj or negative aspects of the Raj. An article can legitimately discuss 'Social consequences' and 'Economic consequence' in a neutral way without resorting to praise or invective. The fact of the matter is that there was a British Raj and that cannot be denied. What the world would have looked like without the Raj is pure speculation. Has the Raj left some positive legacies for India? Even if one argues that those may have happened without the Raj, there are positive social and aspects of the Raj's legacy that are undeniable. Has the Raj any negative legacies? Again, who the heck knows what would have happened without the Raj but there are undeniable negative impacts as well (the division of the Punjab is one). It would be much better if these were discussed in a neutral way as consequences rather than with blanket pejorative phrases. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Please pardon the appearance

In the coming week, as I add, subtract, or move material (to other daughter articles), the article will have an unsettled appearance. Please bear with me. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Why the British Raj is still here

For the people who want to change the name of the page, here is a dab page that I forgot I had created:

British rule in India. It explains why the British Raj (or Crown Rule in India) is still the best name for what this page is about. Fowler&fowler«Talk»
04:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


General Comments regarding the above

1/ "Occupation" If we are to talk about India being under "occupation", then in order to keep Wikipedia standardized, we must change all references to British colonialism as "occupation" - so we must have the "occupation of Barbados", the "occupation of Canada", the "occupation of The British Antarctic Territory", The "occupation of Fiji" - etc. etc. - surely this is too unorthodox?

I think it is agreed some of the territories under 'the Raj' were for significant amounts of time occupied. Further, it is common ground that much of 'the Raj' was established by initial periods of occupation. See above for more detail. Therefore the proposed wording for the lead should in my view be 'occupation and rule'. As to Canada and the Antartic ... read the wikipedia page on
talk
) 08:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "initial periods of occupation" - after which, they were no longer occupied, so it was no longer an "occupation" was it? --Blenheim Shots (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

2/ Descriptive classification of British rule. By the standards of the 18th & 19th century, how was British rule in India not legitimate? In centuries past, rule was decided by "right of conquest". Was British rule illegitimate because the British were foreigners? - Well, so were the Moguls. Was British rule illegitimate because of bad governance? Well, the British managed to maintain internal order significantly better than their predecessors. Was British rule illegitimate because order was maintained by foreign troops? Well, 80% of the military and police personnel in India were native Indians. Was British rule illegitimate because it was undemocratic? Well, British rule never replaced democratic regimes in South Asia, and in the 18th and 19th centuries, democracy was not the criteria of legitimate government (alas, this is not even the case in the 21st century). So, by the lax standards of the period, British rule was legitimate and not military occupation. Unfortunately, we seem to be imposing our modern value systems on past centuries. Anything like East India Company rule in today's world would be rightly considered criminal, racist etc., but 200 years ago it was considered perfectly legitimate.

You have forgotten one important constituency: the Indians themselves. Who from this talk page are clamoring to make it clear that British occupation and rule was not legitimate. They say so now, and they said so then. There were a number of armed revolts against British rule (resulting in occupation). There was also an alternative government (or government in hiding or exile) which made the Indian position of British illigitimacy quite clear. When the British military could no longer support British rule the British were forced to leave. You also ignore the fact that many in Britain itself see 'the Raj' as illegitimate, even at the time amongst the British aristrocratic ruling class. That is why the British East India company was wound up and direct British crown rule established.
talk
) 08:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the Indians you refer to talk a load of nonsense - I'm sorry to be so blunt, but your compatriots have written, on this page and in the previous article, that the EIC ruled vast territories in India before 1750 (false), that the EIC established themselves initially in large Indian cities (false), that the British ruled in India for 250 years (false) that there was no slavery in Mogul India (false) etc. etc., your compatriots here have also made some very suspicious comments about the creation of Pakistan, that mark them out as nationalistically chauvinistic, and best not suited to write anything about India, past or present. So, I think to say your argument is right, simply because Indians here say it is, is, at best, highly questionable. Also, you have to prove a case based on legitimacy of 18th and 19th century government, not the legitimacy of 21st century populist Indian imagination. "When the British military could no longer support British rule the British were forced to leave." - the British withdrawal from India was due to many things, but never military pressure. If they kept India British during two World Wars, with only a fraction of their army, they could have easily dragged the Raj on for a few more decades, the uprisings of 1946 were puny affairs, the British had faced 100 times worse in the past. The truth is - the world had changed, Britain had an anti-imperialist Socialist government for the first time and due to the efforts of Congress and Gandhi, the international image of British rule in India had been tarnished, and their position there was no longer morally justifiable. The world had changed. The view that in 1947 the British were pushed out militarily is just an Indian patriot's daydream. Nehru and Jinnah had already brokered an independence deal before the uprisings, and both supported the suppression of these rebellions - which was done with ease. The fact that you subscribe to the populist Indian view that the British left India simply because it was militarily untenable, is a sure sign that you have a simplistic and populist view of this period. "There was also an alternative government (or government in hiding or exile)" - the INA? Well if Bose was so "legitimate" why did he get kicked out of the Congress party? Why did he never attaract any real support in the Indian Army? What "alternative government" - a few thousand rag-tag deserters, who the Japanese treated as coolies, and who Congress disowned?? - "alternative government", please! If there was an "alternative government" so-to-speak, it was the Congress Party, who had infinately more sense than to involve themselves with the Axis powers. Before WWII There was not a general consensus in Great Britain that Britain's rule was illegitimate, some individuals may have called it so, but theirs was neither the official nor the popular view. As for uprisings.... if this is the criteria for illegitimate government, then today there are about 30 armed groups in India, Communists, Separatists & Islamists, fighting to overthrow the Indian government in their areas, so is the Republic of India also illegitimate due to these uprisings? Tens of thousands of people have been killed in Kashmir, the Naxilites have killed thousands, and Nagaland is the world's longest running conflict. . --Blenheim Shots (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Blenheim, just visiting but I had to comment on this particular INA note of yours. As I've had to point out numerous times in these pages and others and to quite a few Cambridgist old boys, Bose's kicking out of the Congress has nothing to do with the legitimacy but to do with Congress' internal politics. As for the INA being deserters and coolies and not having any support in the Indian army, I think you might be reading the kind of masked and propagandist history written in the 1940s, or reading what you want to read. I dont think that view would stand up to the facts out in academia these days, nor to academic scrutiny. I do not mean to criticise, merely point this out. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, ignore my past message, I have just realised most of what you have written is utter rubbish which makes your point of view and more importantly your knowledge bank pretty clear. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

3/ Linear editorial consistency of Indian history articles within Wikipedia The Raj is sandwiched between the Mogul period and The Republic of India period. To ensure editorial consistency and fairness, the three articles must have similar criteria and standards. I note that The Republic of India articles and the Mogul articles, are not critical, but simply offer a general overview of events and data, as does this Raj article. The British Raj is not apart from these two articles, but part of them in the context of Wikipedia's overview of Indian history. If overt critiques of the Raj are to be inserted into this, this is fine, because British India was not above criticism by any means; however, in the interests of editorial continuity and balance, similar POV critiques have to be added to the Mogul and Republic of India articles. The Mogul empire, with its gross inability to maintain internal order, its innumerable civil wars and atrocities, and its strict adherence to foreign (light skinned) bloodlines and Islamic domination, could also fall prey to similar, identical and perhaps worse criticism than the British Raj. And the Republic of India..... well, let's not talk about that. So if it's "game on" for negative opinions in this article, then it has to be "game on" for the Republic of India and Mogul Empire articles too? In my humble opinion, this current article is strictly neutral, and should be left alone.

Criticizing other empires and rulers does not justify British rule. Are you prepared to defend the Holocaust because the British treated the Boers worse? This is not a reasonable line of argument. British rule in India must be examined independently. What you might possibly argue is that the British sought to 'liberate' India from the evils of Mogul rule, but that would be patently ahistorical.
talk
) 08:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"Criticizing other empires and rulers does not justify British rule." - I never said it did. I never even said that British rule was "justifiable", by today's standards it probably wasn't justifiable, but neither was it (in general terms) "criminal" or "evil". "British rule in India must be examined independently." - no! no! and again no! This is Wikipedia Indian history, it's all completely linked and forms a linear story. The Mogul page and the British page chronologically go side by side, within the same site. It is both fair and logical that they both be written with the same set of standards to form a flowing narrative of Indian history within Wikipedia. Below you are saying that this page should be altered to fit the critical style of other European Empires' pages, but when it comes to the Mogul Empire & The Republic of India, all of a sudden "British rule in India must be examined independently". Where I come from this is called "moving the goal posts".--Blenheim Shots (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

4/ Neutrality of Would-be Editors: I do feel that The British Raj article is being singled out by individuals with a desperate axe to grind - many emotionally charged comments they have written above speak for themselves. Are these the people who are going to deliver us a neutral article? I think not.

The 'axe to grind' is that the article has been written from a British apologist for empire POV, a POV which even in Britain today does not predominate. Seeking to revise history to gloss over the crimes of British empire is quite offensive to many people.
talk
) 08:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"the article has been written from a British apologist for empire POV" - I never wrote a single line of the article, but I want to know what you are talking about. Be constructive and quote the lines that you don't like! From what I see, the article is completely neutral. Unfortunately your idea of "neutrality" is an anti-British rant, by the look of things. --Blenheim Shots (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

TB has finally made an account, new name: BLENHEIM SHOTS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blenheim Shots (talk • contribs) 23:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Emotive & Unhelpful Language

Would-be editors to this article usually give away their nationalist “jai-Hind” anti-British sentiments very quickly, with emotive phrases and statements. Tx, calls the erstwhile Indian army “mercenaries”, a mercenary is a hired soldier, usually of a temporary nature, who fights without any ideological motivation. Sepoys were career soldiers, volunteers, who served in India’s only national army and this Indian Army proved its effectiveness and loyalty on many occasions, not least in two world wars wherein they fought magnificently. In WWII, many Indian soldiers saw the logic of defending India’s borders from the Fascist and brutal Japanese. This was proven by a magnificent response (the best in history) to a call for army volunteers and the stunning military achievements of the likes of the 4th Indian Division and The Assam Rifles, so the term “mercenary” is quite ridiculous. Also he compares the Raj to the Mafia, suggesting that the Mafia did good things too. So, I take it that the Mafia’s “good deeds” included the unification of Italy under a strong government, the introduction Italy’s first modern police force and its first newspaper, the territorial expansion of Italy into new areas, building the nation’s railways, the founding of many of its major cities including that nation’s capital, the introduction of progressive laws to ban slavery and ritualistic human sacrifice, the encouragement of female education, the building of huge dams and bridges, etcetera, etcetera, and so-forth. But of course, the Mafia are just a bunch of thugs that never did anything for anybody – so why even mention them?

Tx states that: the view of the world is that "the British occupation of India was essentially a criminal activity" - is it? Really? I don't think that is the general view. If it is, then, every 19th century European Empire we must say, was a "criminal activity" (probably true for Belgium), but why stop there? Surely if that's the case, the Roman and Greek empires were "criminal activities" as well. This may sound rather frivolous of me, but can somebody explain when an Empire (which by definition is always based on some form of economic and cultural domination) is not a criminal activity then? If the British Empire is to be spoken of in such terms, then in the interests of fairness and consistency, all the World's former empires must get similar treatment in Wikipedia. Does anybody fancy altering a thousand Wikipedia pages?

Unfortunately those that wish to edit this article in an unfavourable way, are always extremely light on scholastic historical argument, and very heavy on emotional outbursts largely based on rumour, prejudice and populist propaganda, replete with words such as “mafia”, “criminal”, “evil”, “mercenaries”, “occupation” etc., - if they want a bitter and twisted rant on how “evil” the Brits are/were, then they have a million extremist websites to chose from, and I would hope that Wikipedia doesn’t become one of them.--Blenheim Shots (talk) 03:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, when I see that people are seeking to portray a particularly dark chapter of British history in a positive light I take offence. If you object to 'emotional language' then in the first instance do not use it yourself. Mercenaries who "fought magnificently", the "fascist and brutal japanese" and "stunning military achievements". This not only has no meaning but seeks to glorify the activities of the British in India.
Let us look at the historical arguments:
'Criminal Activity': You are happy to have the activities of other European empires described as criminal activity (Belgium as one example), but not British. This is not reasonable. Britain was one of a number of European colonial powers, all of which acted similarly. As to other wikipedia pages having to be rewritten, you ignore my central point. The 'British Raj' article needs to be brought into line with the French, German, Italian and Dutch entries. Other articles already have this 'similar treatment' ... again my main point (see above). As to the treatment of other colonial enterprises, see Korea under Japanese rule, for which the facts are essentially the same as for British India, the only difference being that the Japanese are establishing colonial rule in Korea in place of the British establishing colonial rule in India. Will you agree to bring the 'British Raj' article into line with that article? To quote from that page: "In both South and North Korea, Japanese historical revisionism is viewed along the same lines as Holocaust denial in modern Europe." Indians I understand feel similarly about British rule.
'Mercenaries': Read the wikipedia page on
mercenary. While the French and British have sought to exclude their mercenaries from being defined as such, they are generally considered mercenaries, often portrayed in a quite negative light even in the British media. [8][9] Gurkhas
are quite plainly a mercenary force, and were described as such by the British East India company itself. You cannot therefore deny that the British used mercenaries in India.
'Mafia': From the wikipedia page on the Mafia: "Many Sicilians did not regard these men as criminals but as role models and protectors, given that the state appeared to offer no protection for the poor and weak. As late as the 1950s, the funeral epitaph of the legendary boss of Villalba, Calogero Vizzini, stated that "his 'mafia' was not criminal, but stood for respect of the law, defense of all rights, greatness of character. It was love." Here, "mafia" means something like pride, honour, or even social responsibility: an attitude, not an organization. Likewise, in 1925, the former Italian Prime Minister Vittorio Emanuele Orlando stated in the Italian senate that he was proud of being mafioso, because that word meant honourable, noble, generous."
'Occupation': see the section above on euphemism colonialism and occupation.
It seems to me that most apologists for British Empire and 'Raj' in particular do not actually deny the horrors of empire, but seek to sweep them under the carpet. Relegate them to 'extremist websites' and other 'appropriate' places. This section in particular is a good example of this.
talk
) 09:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The last I heard of your Indian academic, she/he was a post-doc in comparative literature, (maybe she/he is a lecturer in some literature department now). And I'm supposed to be impressed with that? What about the historians, none of whom use the blanket terms of your endless musings? Here are just some in my bookshelf that I'm using to write this article:
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You can say what you want about me TXB, but at least I am honest. You have a malignantly hostile attitude to British influence in India, yet you call yourself "neutral" so you can attempt to qualify yourself to edit this page - which is obviously just a clumsy ruse. "....a particularly dark chapter of British history" doesn't sound too "neutral" does it???

With your eloquent diatribe, you skip most of my points. Some mistaken individuals may have admired Mafia machismo in Italy - but the Mafia still didn't build anything or leave behind progressive laws, did they?

"clearly seeks to glorify British rule in India, while at the same time seeking to exclude any other point of view" ... well, if you bothered to read what I had written, you would see that I am actually in favour of a paragraph entitled "negative effects of British Rule" written by non-neutral parties such as yourself – so, sir, before you attack me, would you please have the courtesy to at least READ what I write. Yes, the Gurkhas were mercenaries - the Gurkhas however were not Indian troops / sepoys, and I never talked about them, so I can't follow your logic on that one. So, Japan’s occupation of Korea was essentially the same as Britain’s “occupation” of India was it?? 1. Did Japan reunify Korea under one central authority after it had split up into a number of independent warring states? 2. Did Japan Suppress human sacrifice, female infanticide, and the likes of Sati and Thugies in Korea? 3. Did the Japanese create that nation’s first newspaper? 4. Did the Japanese found or develop (from virtually nothing) most of the top 5 Korean cities? 5. Did the Japanese create greater internal security by preventing civil war and destructive incursions by marauders? 6. Did the Japanese remove the political domination of one religious minority? 7. Did the Japanese build an extensive first class network of railways in Korea? 8. Did the Japanese create Korea’s first modern police force? 9. Did the Japanese create Asia's first electric telegraph, in Korea? 10. Did the Japanese create a neutral and scientifically reputable cultural body to examine Korea’s history, such as The Archeological Survey of India? 11. Did the Japanese create the first comprehensive maps of Korea? 12. Did the Japanese promote female education in Korea? 13. Did the Japanese create Asia's first museum, in Korea? 14. Did the Japanese expand the geographical scope of the Korean nation into previously unclaimed areas? 15. Did the Japanese create Korea’s first census? 16. Did the Japanese abolish slavery in Korea? 17. Did the Japanese construct Korea’s national capital? 18. Did the Japanese introduce a quota system, to encourage lower castes (or the Korean equivalent) into the civil service? 19. Did the Japanese Introduce superior medical techniques into Korea, and make medical discoveries there? Such as the discovery of the causes of bubonic plague and malaria (discoveries of British India). 20. In WWII, did the Japanese get a massive and enthusiastic response to a call for army volunteers in Korea? 21. Are the Japanese language, legal codes and governmental organization, still widely used in post-colonial Korea? No – come to think of it, the British Raj was NOTHING like the Japanese occupation of Korea. They were completely different, with few points of comparison.

You quote me: “Mercenaries who "fought magnificently", the "fascist and brutal Japanese" and "stunning military achievements"" - well, the Assam Rifles did mount an incredible defense at Imphal and Kohima, when they stood their ground, heavily outnumbered, against crack Japanese troops and their INA cohorts. And the 4th Indian division, also effectively confronted Rommel's panzer divisions who were the best troops in the world, with the best equipment in the world, with the best general in the world. There's no military historian that would take issue with me on these claims - but of course, for some strange reason, you seem to know better, and quote me as if I were being radical and sensational. I do not apologize for calling these Indian divisions "magnificent", in military terms, they were - no doubt about it. I also do not apologize for saying the "fascist and brutal Japanese", if you think that British rule was the same as imperial Japanese rule, then I suggest you are completely unsuited to edit this article and should research their activities in China. In the Indian Andaman & Nicobar Islands, the Japanese rounded up "useless" non productive Indian civilians (the old and the sick) and machine gunned them on the beach. Prisoners from the jail, were put on boats and thrown into the sea near Havelock Island, to drown. Indian military prisoners were used as target and bayonet practice for Japanese troops. Entire Chinese cities were flattened and mass rapes took place, millions of Asians were executed (some buried alive) or worked to death. The Japanese also used Asian prisoners for poison gas and biological warfare experiments. The Japanese occupied their territories with millions of troops. Just like the British Raj was it?? Please! It is a fundamentally ridiculous statement.

The Indian Army was the national Army of India. It is perfectly true to say that it was under foreign command - but it was, by definition, still the one and only national Army of India. Volunteers from any nation, who freely enlist themselves in their nation's armed forces (whatever the leadership of those armed forces) are not mercenaries, they might be termed “collaborators” or “ignorant” by some – but they can’t be defined as mercenaries. Their services were never on sale to the highest bidder. The Sikhs who rallied to the British colours in 1857, and who also fought surprisingly well, were also not mercenaries, as they possessed an ideological religious antipathy towards the Muslim nobility against whom the British were fighting.

Unfortunately, the debate with people hostile to this neutral article here, is usually extremely shallow. They merely resort to accusations and name calling, and answer serious questions with nationalistic jingoism, OR they ignore them altogether, OR they make stunningly inappropriate (and often silly) comparisons, without offering up reputable historical data or sources. For example, I asked whether the Mogul & Republic of India articles should get similar treatment to that which you would like to give this article, which is to say, the inclusion of a hostile critique of the period's governance. This is completely relevant as it's all Wikipedia Indian history, and both articles border upon this one. If your answer is "yes" - well go and do it, you can set the precedent for this article, and I will be pleased to give many many suggestions. If the answer is "no", then you are obviously singling out the British period for purely nationalistic and emotional reasons - which isn't acceptable.--

Quote: "Someone who seeks to impose the view that the mafia is "a bunch of thugs that never did anything for anybody" while at the same time seeking to impose the view that the 'Raj' was a model of benevolence with the "introduction of progressive laws to ban slavery and ritualistic human sacrifice, the encouragement of female education, the building of huge dams and bridges, etcetera, etcetera, and so-forth" should not be writing a wikipedia article either on the Mafia or British empire."

Sir - you are extremely rude.

1/ I never said "the 'Raj' was a model of benevolence" - it obviously wasn't, but to a large degree there was an attempt at responsible government, so calling it "criminal" is rather questionable - that is all. Please try to be a bit more civil in your discourse, read what I write, and don't jump to conclusions or grossly exaggerate or put words in my mouth - thank you.

2/ Who on earth said that I was writing any Wikipedia article? I never have - and have no intention of doing so. There you go again!

3/ "introduction of progressive laws to ban slavery and ritualistic human sacrifice, the encouragement of female education, the building of huge dams and bridges" - these are all indisputable historical facts. Please tell me why you want indisputable historical facts to be excluded from this article? Most historians agree that the Raj was a mixed bag of good and bad behaviour on the part of the British. If you don't wish anything remotely positive to be mentioned about the Raj - please explain the nature of your claimed "neutrality".

4/ So, you object to me calling the Italian mafia "thugs"? You think this viewpoint is objectionable?????? This debate is getting too strange for me..... sorry.Blenheim Shots (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

To Blenheim Shots: Well spoken. This is, sadly, par for the course. People who have no awareness of historical methodology, whose endless harangues here suggest that they have likely never taken a college-level course in modern history, let alone one in the history of the British-period in India, and who, to boot, can't write prose to save the lives, nonetheless feel that they can jump into one of the most worked over areas of Indian history—the British Raj—which has had at least half a dozen "schools" of historians devoted to its study (the Marxists, the Cambridge School, the Calcutta School, the Canberra School, the JNU School, the Subaltern school, the Post-colonial school), and merrily proclaim that they intend to rewrite the page and rid it of its biases. If you point out the incongruity of this "package" to them, they protest that they are being attacked personally and throw the Wikipedia rule book at you, or proclaim that you are elitist and that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit and that is one of its strengths, and I'm not for a moment suggesting that it be anything different; I am suggesting though that editors can't make up in arrogance, grandiosity or bluster what they so transparently lack in knowledge. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler: I entered into this discussion to work through the issues to avoid a so called edit war. You asked me to support my edits, and I have now done so. But it seems (in traditional British manner) the more soundly I work through the issues the more unpleasant you become and the more you focus on personal attacks rather than address the issues. Apparently you have now enlisted someone to attack me on your behalf (an undergraduate student perhaps?). You claim to be neutral, but scratch the surface and we find you are motivated by 'stunning British military achievements' with colonial troops 'fighting magnificently' against the 'fascist and brutal Japanese'. With the horrors of collective punishment, military occupation, racist ideology etc swept under the carpet. Ultimately, you asked me to discuss the issue presumably in an attempt to persuade me that your position is right. Employing stooges to carry out personal attacks and then praising those attacks is not really helpful in this. I would be grateful if you could ask your associate to remove his comments as they do not add to the debate, but instead detract from it. He himself says "Who on earth said that I was writing any Wikipedia article? I never have - and have no intention of doing so." This page is for discussion on improvements to the article, and so people who have no intention to take part in that process really have no place here.

Not only do you seek to defend your position by attacking me but also those academics I cite. Priyamvada Gopal is not a "post-doc in comparative literature" but a lecturer of post-colonial studies at Cambridge. She is one of the authors of a book on post colonialism. [11][12]

I would be grateful if you could simply address the issues to hand. I don't mind if you do so 'grandiosely' or 'arrogantly', or even make the odd snide personal comment but the discussion serves no purpose if you do not address the issues. The issues you yourself set out were 'euphemism', 'occupation', 'colonialism', and to which someone else added 'racism'. I have now dealt with each in some detail, but you have so far ignored them.

Additional important issues are the use of mercenaries by the British and the Martial Race ideology, again are entirely ignored by you. I suspect you know a good deal about this, but so far have said nothing. If as you say you have been involved in writing the current article then I would expect some explanation why these rather important topics were excluded.

What Priyamvada Gopal[13] does in a number of articles for the Guardian is set out quite clearly how the British empire should be viewed, that is the value judgements one places upon historical events. Neo-conservative writers such as Niall Ferguson seek to rehabilitate 'empire', naturally without saying so directly and under the guise of 'neutrality'. To your credit, writers such as Ferguson are not on your list. Ultimately, our discussion is about these value judgements. I believe you started off by claiming that value judgements have no place in a wikipedia article. This is now completely discredited by your endorsement of the 'magnificent british empire' as opposed to the 'fascist and brutal japanese empire'. These kinds of value judgements are of course at the heart of any historical work. That is why, for example, there are as you say different 'schools' of historians. What is not acceptable is to explicitly promote such values, but to discuss them is certainly relevant here.

If you wish to persuade me that the British empire was essentially a good thing it does not help your case by providing me with a list of 21 good things the British empire did and 21 bad things the Japanese did. All you do in fact is expose the fundamental contradiction of your position. You cannot on the one hand claim that the British empire was 'magnificent' and on the other hand claim that the Japanese empire was 'fascist and brutal' and that the Belgian empire was 'criminal'. The British empire was just one of many European empires, all of which were closely related. The Japanese were in effect modeling their efforts on the European empires (even employing British, German and french advisors). If you agree that the Belgian empire was 'criminal' and the Japanese empire was 'cruel' then it follows that the British empire was also 'criminal and cruel'. The Mongol empire on the other hand has little to do with Europe and also belongs to a different era, and therefore has little if any relation to the British empire. The very best you can say is that the British, Belgians and Japanese were 'criminal and cruel' but that the former built a few more railways than the latter (taking one item from your long list).

I have no difficulty in saying that not only was empire a dark chapter of British history, but that the period of empires was a dark chapter in European history (including the later Italian fascist empire (so called) and the greater German empire of German National Socialism), and indeed I made my position on this quite clear at the outset. What you asked for are sources to back up this position. I have provided them for you. But even without these sources, it is the position you are taking on 'the Raj' that we are looking at (as I had simply proposed a few minor changes to provide balance to your biased position, rather than rewriting the entire article). The problem is that you are operating on an inherent logical contradiction. You wish to portray 'the Raj' as magnificent (ie. you are writing the article from that perspective) while at the same time claiming that the Japanese empire was 'fascist and brutal' and the Belgian empire was 'criminal' (and I wonder how you would describe the German and French empires). Again, you are writing the article from that perspective, and deleting content that detracts from that perspective. This is a fundamental contradiction. In mathematics and logic, one way to disprove something is to find a contradiction. History is I understand slightly more flexible, but even so if it can be shown that your position holds a fundamental contradiction then it surely must fail. I do not imagine you need me to provide you with a list of references to show how similar and related the European empires were (essentially an equivalence relation). If you accept that the various empires of the time were essentially equivalent, then it is a fundamental contradiction to present one as 'good' and the other as 'bad'. They are all (and this is quite plainly so) as good or as bad as the other.

I have brought to your attention the example of Korea under Japanese rule which makes the contradiction very clear. This article is plainly written from the view that Japanese rule in Korea was a bad thing (apparently monstrously bad). Because of the equivalence relation, either 'the Raj' article should be rewritten along the same lines or the Korea article should be rewritten along lines of the 'Raj' article. This would be rather extreme of course. I would be happy with a rewrite that brings the English article into line with the German, French, Dutch and Italian articles ... which are precisely on exactly the same subject.

Lastly, despite presenting me with a rather long list of books you say are on your shelf, you have had nothing to say about the etymology of the term 'British Raj'. We all agree it is not the official term, so plainly the etymology belongs in the lead, exactly like the Korea article (the only part of that article worth noting). I haven't found anything satisfactory myself, so if necessary I am willing to contact Ms Gopal in Cambridge to see if she would be willing to prepare a brief etymology. It might also be an idea for her to prepare (if she is willing) a small treatise (just a few paragraphs in a new section) on how the 'British Raj' is seen by various parties (that is how it is viewed by Indian academics, European academics and American academics). This would be just a more neutral distillation of the articles she wrote in the Guardian (and/or elsewhere). This would not be a value judgement itself , but a review on the value judgements placed on the British presence in India by the various 'schools' of thought on the issue (of course with all the relevant citations you were initially so insistent upon)

talk
) 18:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Gopal is a post-colonialist in the literature department. That hardly makes her an expert on the history of the empire, which is what this article is about. The shrill and poorly written Guardian article—in both its prose and history—is a testament to this. (The poor writing, BTW, is another feature of the post-colonialists in literature departments.) No need to ask her, the etymology is already here: Hindi, rāj, from Skr. rāj: to reign, rule; cognate with L. rēx, rēg-is, OIr. rī, rīg king (see RICH). (b. spec. the British dominion or rule in the Indian sub-continent (before 1947). In full, British raj.) If, by etymology you mean history of usage, here's the long list, which use to be included in footnote 2, but has now been reduced:
1859 M. THOMSON Story of Cawnpore xvi. 229 But Delhi had fallen when these gentlemen threw their strength into the tide of revolt, and they were too late for a decisive superiority over the British râj. 1876 Hansard Commons 16 Mar. 141 Without upsetting the British Raj. 1890 Athenæum 13 Sept. 348/1 That standing miracle, the maintenance of the British raj [in India]. 1908 Daily Chron. 21 June 4/4 The Indian agitators who represent the British raj as the author of the plague. 1955 Times 25 Aug. 9/7 It was effective against the British raj in India, and the conclusion drawn here is that the British knew that they were wrong. 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. 1975 H. R. ISAACS in H. M. Patel et al. Say not the Struggle Nought Availeth 251 The post-independence régime in all its incarnations since the passing of the British Raj.
Pretty much all the sources listed above (Indian as well as British), use the "Raj" as a descriptive term (and without irony). As for the other people posting here, I know them as well as I know you (which is not at all). I would urge you to not let your unrestrained musings now turn into hallucinations: that the article has anything to do with neocons, that either I or this article has used the words "stunning military achievements," or, worse yet, that my undergraduate students are writing in support of my position; sadly, I teach only graduate students. This, BTW, is my final response. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Little though I love the postcolonial departments at universities, I would point out that an analysis of how the colonial experience is talked about and remembered is pretty much precisely their remit, and so Gopal is writing within what contemporary academia would consider her field of expertise. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler: I do not see any reason to disparage Ms Gopal. The article is plainly not poorly written (it was published in The Guardian, a British newspaper known for its high standards) and the comment of it being 'shrill' is frankly just offensive. You disagree with what she says, which is fine, but there is no reason to be unpleasant. In fact, what you should do is contact her to provide you with the sources on which her views in the Guardian articles are based.
As to etymology, what you present is woefully inadequate. It is fine as a reference, but no general reader will understand this. Please have a look at the Korea under Japanese rule lead for a good example: In Korea, this period is called the Japanese Forcible Occupation Period or Japanese Imperial Period. Sometimes it is also referred to as the Wae jeong, or "Japanese administration". In Japan, this period is called Korea under Japanese rule. I do not see any reason why you would oppose approaching Ms Gopal to ask her to write something similar. As Relata refero points out, this is her exact field of expertise.
In closing, I perfectly understand if you do not wish a protracted (and perhaps pointless) discussion. What I would expect however, is for you to go over the issues as set out in the section above and come back with a detailed response. Not a cynical response to a reinterpretation of what I've set out, but an honest and well researched and thought through response. After all you asked me to discuss the issues of concern to me and I've taken the time to set out my position, so the least I would expect is for you to engage with the issues you yourself set out: euphemism, colonialism and occupation. You've already produced partial responses, but ad-hoc and incomplete (Your references for example should go to the end of that section rather than in the middle of this section -- and don't get me wrong, these are useful references). I'm sure you understand the Hegelian process of thesis, counter-thesis and synthesis. It is useful for both of us, and it is useful for anyone in the future reading this discussion. I've set out my position adequately I think. Post a formal response, and we will leave it at that.
talk
) 13:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) To Relata refero: Yes, but that's not what this page is about. This is a history page, part of the History of South Asia sequence. I began to attend to it, because I wrote a summary outline of the Indian independence movement (also a part of that sequence) for the

ISBN 0199246807 {{citation}}: |first= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) is such an example. As for Gopal, the Guardian article itself steps well beyond her expertise (which is fine: an academic-as-journalist has a lot more leeway). Here is a doozy:

"The evidence - researched by scholars such as Amartya Sen, Nicholas Dirks, Mike Davis and Mahmood Mamdani, Caroline Elkins and Walter Rodney - shows that European colonialism brought with it not good governance and freedom, but impoverishment, bloodshed, repression and misery. Joseph Conrad, no radical, described it as "a flabby, pretending, weak-eyed devil of a rapacious and pitiless folly". Good governance? More famines were recorded in the first century of the British Raj than in the previous 2,000 years, including 17-20 million deaths from 1896 to 1900 alone."

First century of the British Raj? (It only lasted 90 years.) And, really, the last 2,000 years? The scholars? Not a single one, with the exception of Dirks (and even he only in his early work, see bibliography above) is a historian of the Raj. And Conrad? How many times will that one sentence (of Cliff Notes fame) be cherry-picked from Marlowe's extended meditation? Should I start quoting what else Conrad said in Lord Jim, Nostromo, and The Nigger of the 'Narcissus'? Sorry, but Gopal is not even remotely an expert on what this page is about. Fowler&fowler«Talk»

14:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Another thing people don't understand is that the British Raj page and the Indian independence movement page roughly cover the same time-span. (I should point out that the current Indian independence movement page is completely different from the version I am writing.) Criticism of the Raj is already in the IIM page. (See, for example, sections 2 and 3 of my version.) This page is first and foremost trying to put out the basic information about the administrative, political and economic structure of the Raj. For example, even the information on the provinces and the native states was not available in one place on Wikipedia, until I added it last week. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Well, I can't speak for the Conrad quote, but the Gopal quote otherwise is perhaps being misunderstood. She isn't speaking about the Rak in paricular, but about colonialism in general: hence the Mamdani and Elkins. Mamdani wrote a very good book on imperial use - and exacerbation - of tribal divisions in West Africa; and Elkins, of course, wrote that Mau-Mau book that set the cat amongst the Daily Telegraph pigeons a little while ago. I don't quite see what Rodney, who's a little outdated, and Davis, who's a gadfly, are doing in that company; but in any list of those who have attempted to write an assessment of the effects of empire, the former at least would be mentioned. About famine: well, Sen is an acknowledged expert on this, and he indeed has demonstrated the multiplicative effect that the structures of imperial capital had on deaths from famine. I understand several new books on the subject are expected, including one from a pupil of Dirks, who has been banging on about something similar for some time.
I do, of course, agree that any extensive discussion of such aspects is not necessary here. However, wherever we are to discuss various analyses of the imperial legacy, I don't think we can ignore such voices, which are close to the academic mainstream of thought on the issue. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
History of South Asia
South Asia (orthographic projection)
Outline
Palaeolithic (2,500,000–250,000 BC)
Madrasian culture
Soanian culture
Edakkal culture
 (5000–3000 BC)
Chalcolithic (3500–1500 BC)
Anarta tradition (c. 3950–1900 BC)
Ahar-Banas culture (3000–1500 BC)
Pandu culture (1600–1500 BC)
Malwa culture (1600–1300 BC)
Jorwe culture (1400–700 BC)
Bronze Age (3300–1300 BC)
Indus Valley Civilisation(3300–1300 BC)
 – Early Harappan culture(3300–2600 BC)
 – Mature Harappan culture(2600–1900 BC)
 – Late Harappan culture(1900–1300 BC)
Vedic Civilisation(2000–500 BC)
 – Ochre Coloured Pottery culture(2000–1600 BC)
 – Swat culture(1600–500 BC)
Macedonian Empire
 (330–323 BC)
Maurya Empire (321–184 BC)
Seleucid India (312–303 BC)
Sangam literatureSangam period (c. 300 BC – c. 300 AD)
Pandya Empire (c. 300 BC – AD 1345)
Chera Kingdom (c. 300 BC – AD 1102)
Chola Empire (c. 300 BC – AD 1279)
Pallava Empire (c. 250 AD – AD 800)
Maha-Megha-Vahana Empire (c. 250 BC – c. AD 500)
Parthian Empire (247 BC – AD 224)
Hoysala Empire (1040–1347) Sena Empire (1070–1230) Eastern Ganga Empire (1078–1434) Kakatiya Kingdom (1083–1323) Zamorin Kingdom (1102–1766) Kalachuris of Tripuri (675-1210) Kalachuris of Kalyani (1156–1184) Chutiya Kingdom (1187–1673) Deva Kingdom
(c. 1200 – c. 1300)
Late medieval period (1206–1526)
Ghaznavid Dynasty (977–1186)
Ghurid Dynasty (1170–1206)
Delhi Sultanate (1206–1526)
 – Mamluk Sultanate (1206–1290)
 – Khalji Sultanate (1290–1320)
 – Tughlaq Sultanate (1320–1414)
 – Sayyid Sultanate (1414–1451)
 – Lodi Sultanate (1451–1526)
Ahom Kingdom (1228–1826)
Chitradurga Kingdom (1300–1779)
Reddy Kingdom (1325–1448)
Vijayanagara Empire (1336–1646)
Bengal Sultanate (1352–1576)
Garhwal Kingdom (1358–1803)
Mysore Kingdom (1399–1947)
Gajapati Empire (1434–1541)
Ladakh Kingdom (1470–1842)
Deccan Sultanates (1490–1596)
 – Ahmadnagar Sultanate (1490–1636)
 – Berar Sultanate (1490–1574)
 – Bidar Sultanate (1492–1619)
 – Bijapur Sultanate (1492–1686)
 – Golkonda Sultanate (1518–1687)
Keladi Kingdom (1499–1763)
Koch Kingdom (1515–1947)
Sikh Confederacy (1707–1799) Travancore Kingdom (1729–1947) Sikh Empire
(1799–1849)
Colonial states (1510–1961)
Portuguese India (1510–1961)
Dutch India (1605–1825)
Danish India (1620–1869)
French India (1759–1954)
Company Raj (1757–1858)
British Raj (1858–1947)