Talk:British Raj

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
	This article is maintained by the Indian history workgroup.
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

"it was the largest all-volunteer army in the history of the world."

Any references for the above claim?

Why does this article begin with "Cheese" !

The word MUTINY should be changes with War of Independence ... OR ... Both the names should be listed. The current version is not at all neutral.

No. But isn't it nice that we get to rewrite history.

I agree, current version POV is questionable. --Kvasir 02:47, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 "Myanmar" 2 NPOV 3 What is the purpose of this entry in Wiki? 4 Title of this entry 5 Requested move 5.1 Discussion 5.2 Result 6 Added Map of British empire (1921) 7 The Sepoy Rebellion 8 South yemen. 9 very unclear sentence on economics of British rule 10 Raj is just rule 11 bias deleted 12 Requested move 12.1 Survey 12.2 Discussion

[edit] "Myanmar"

Can we avoid the usage of the term "Myanmar" in the article. Burma was the name of the area under British Control, and the name Myanmar is not recognised by the United Kingdom, the United States or many other countries in the world. I think it should be changed to burma. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Segafreak2 (talk • contribs) .

--221.134.229.138 06:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)alok singh rajput== Constitution of Pakistan ==

Pakistan had a secular constitution in 1956. It was not an Islamic Republic. - Dr. Ayesha Ahmed Ali - 23 Sep 2005 - 16:08 (PST)

[edit] NPOV

There is a huge problem in the way this article talks of history. The Indian Independence Movement and the Indian rebellion of 1857 are treated with an attitude of disregard for the key events and major leaders. The tone and lack of details about Indians, albeit as subjects of the Empire are problematic.

[edit] What is the purpose of this entry in Wiki?

From what I see, this entire entry is about the war of Indian independence. There is hardly any mention of the creation of the Raj, governance, or duties. When were they created? By whom? Where there main areas that had a Raj or did each village? Were any famous/infamous?

The only information relevant to the Raj is contained in the summary.

Just my thoughts.

--Backward 17:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it has very little on the day-to-day aspects of British rule - it needs massive expansion. John Smith's 16:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that only the Ganges region burst into open revolt. Additionally only one of the three mainly Indian armies in India revolted, the Bengali army, of which the majority of troops were from Awadh (Oudh). Outside of Bengal and the Ganges regions the rest of the Indian Subconinent did not revolt and were crucial in putting down the revolution based out of Lucknow and Delhi.

-- in response to Backawrd's comments: this article is not about the Indian War for Independence, it is about the "British Raj" which was an informal (but widely accepted) term for direct rule over india by Britan, it was NOT a person per se. During this time period the King or Queen of Great Britain was the Emperor or Empress of India who was represented by a Viceroy (Governor General).

-- I agree that this article is rather lacking. The Mutiny was certainly a pivotal point in the history of British India but doesn't justify taking up 1/2 the article. I admire whoever takes it on though as I'm sure it will start 1000 revert wars. Epeeist smudge 12:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title of this entry

Since "British Raj" is "an informal term" for British rule in India, is it the most appropriate title for an encyclopedia entry? In addition, the term Raj is not well known outside the former British Empire even among English speakers (e.g, USA, South America, East Asia). What about "British India" or "British South Asia"? Certainly either of these would need to be qualified (e.g., in regards to Ceylon/Burma) but this is already a part of the introductory definition.

If the British Raj is the Informal term, what the Hell is the Formal terms for British rule in South East Asia. Your recommendation of British India or British South Asia certainly isnt the "FORMAL" term. If people dont know British Raj or Hindustan they better learn. After all wikipedia is about learning. If British India or British South Asia can be "qualified" why cant Hindustan or British Raj be explained??

LuiKhuntek 23:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I came to this article wondering, "What on earth is a Raj, exactly?" And the article as it now stands does not answer that question at all.~Sylvain 11/14/05

Why dont u pick up a dictionary, any English Dictionary for that matter. Even though Raj wasnt originally an "English" word it surely was after the British rule in Asia. There are many English words that were not originally part of the english but have become so. Wikipedias aim should be to be accuracte and precise. it shouldnt uneccessarily be dumbed down. Sorry guys i feel strongly about this.

Raja = King, Raj = verb= the act of ruling. When the British used the word Raj they meant the British Kindom (coz Kindom is a place where one engages in the act of ruling). Since Raj is a hindustani word, the Kingdom referred to this particular region and not any part of the empire. If you guys are so hung up on "Raj" even though it is the authentic manner to refer to that part of the empire than you could use British Hindustan. This term was common at the time.

It appears the article used to be called british india and was changes for some reason.~pure inuyasha

British India is a more appropriate title for this page, however a redirect should definately be kept for British Raj. That term is still used quite frequently, but not as much as British India. DaGizza ^{Chat (c)} 10:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

What the?? British Raj is the common name for the part of the British empire including pakistan, india, bangladesh and burma not British India. And British India gives the wrong idea that the British Empire consisted only of India. It also includes Pakistan and Bangladesh and Burma.

• *
• *

If people dont know British Raj or Hindustan they better learn. After all wikipedia is about learning.

whats so hard about knowing what raj means? i've known since the age of 12! for shame! Manjot D.

Absolutely correct. People should be able to look up something by a clear, concise title and then learn. I could look up "British India" and learn that it was "informally called the British Raj."

Why cant...British Raj be explained??

I can and should be (and should definitely have a redirect) but it doesn't need to be the title of the article.

Why dont u pick up a dictionary, any English Dictionary for that matter.

I did. I picked up New Webster's Dictionary (abr.) and "raj" was not listed. I picked up the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary and it said "raj" means "sovereignty." British sovereignty? Where? That didn't help much. For the 300+ million (30+ crore) native speakers and 1 billion+ non-native learners of North American (US) English, "raj" is a largely unknown term. Should these people be educated? Absolutely. Does it need to be the title? Not necessarily.

And British India gives the wrong idea that the British Empire consisted only of India.

It might. However, so does History of India before 1947. And Islamic empires in India . And Indian Independence Movement. And... -- this problem is dealt with in the first sentence of the current article. (If it's too unpalatable, what about "British South Asia"?)

Check out these two sentences -- the current 1st sentence of the article followed by an alternate.

The British Raj is an informal term for the British colonial administration of most of the Indian subcontinent, or present-day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh; also included from 1886 was Burma.

British India or, informally, the British Raj, is a term for the British colonial administration of most of the Indian subcontinent, or present-day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh; also included from 1886 was Burma.

Now was that really so painful?

LuiKhuntek 04:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• *
• *

I wasn't aware that Raj was the "informal" term. I thought it was just the term, in general, with the other terms mentioned here equally suitable alternatives. I think the solution is probably to remove the word 'informal' from the intro and just have redirects for terms that seem obvious. that way you can find the article whether you know the term Raj or not. As for the title itself, I see no problem with the use of "Raj" . the idea that a specific and somewhat specialist term like 'Raj' shouldn't be used because people might not be familiar with it is silly. Then what should we call articles about "Dadaism" or "Napoleonic Code"? If you lack either a basic vocabulary or the ability to do simple research, maybe you should stick to the "simplified english" area of wikipedia. I'm officially taking 'informal' out of the intro.

[edit] Requested move

British Raj to British India – Article is largely about aspects of the history of British rule in the Indian subcontinent whereas British Raj is an informal term referring to the government. LuiKhuntek 07:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support. (Comments above in "Title of this entry" section) LuiKhuntek 07:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose' The British Raj is commonly used to express that period of time e.g. During the Raj ... Jooler 10:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose' Agree with Jooler. Also, see my comment above. geeksquad 16:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose I can understand the reason why this has been proposed, however "the Raj" is a very common term as well. besides, there is a clothing company called "British India" as well... confusing. Gryffindor 21:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose A section focusing on the origin, history, and sociopolitical ramifications of the phrase "British Raj" should be appended to this article. Pjrich 03:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose I think there needs to be an article on the British Raj. Kunal ^(talk) 07:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support: "British India" is the proper encyclopedic term; check out any atlas or another encyclopedia. "British Raj" is a colloquialism, albeit a widely used one; it certainly deserves mention in the article, but the article ought to be named British India. Tom Radulovich 21:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support: Agree with Tom, "British India" is the encyclopedic term. Charmingman 10:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support: Agree with Tom as well. "British India" is more neutral - "the Raj" can be highly suggestive to people regardless of their POV. John Smith's 18:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support: It would conform with the usage examples set by other colonial units (French India, Portuguese India and Danish India). //Big Adamsky 19:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose It's called the British Raj. "British India" is merely descriptive. RussNelson 05:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support: British India is more neutral, and besides, the term Raj is not that widely known outside Britain.
• Oppose British India could refer to the pre-Mutiny EIC administration, while the Raj refers more specifically to the system of direct and indirect rule tied to the Crown. Vneiomazza 16:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

• The term British Raj may have been informal, but it has wide acceptance. Also, considering that there is a separate article on Company rule in India, moving this article to British India will be a little confusing. Kunal ^(talk) 07:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Perhaps its use is similar to that of "The Throne" or "The Crown" (one of those so-called Synecdoches). //Big Adamsky 19:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• "It's called the British Raj. "British India" is merely descriptive." - RussNelson = = But what is it ? British Raj is an informal or colloquial term for British authority in British India. But the article is an overview of many elements (of the history) of British India. While British Raj can sometimes be applied to mean British India in general, Wikipedia is an encyclopædia and not a list of ambiguous colloquialisms or synecdoches. (And, yes "British India" is a "mere" descriptive -- it describes British India.) LuiKhuntek 10:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• "British India could refer to the pre-Mutiny EIC administration, while the Raj refers more specifically to the system of direct and indirect rule tied to the Crown." ??? What's wrong with talking about the pre-Mutiny administration? John Smith's 13:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The problem is, that there is already a Company rule in India page - the Raj page is supposed to deal with Indian history between the Mutiny and Independence. Vneiomazza 12:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Why would it be wrong to merge the two articles? That happens all the time on wiki. John Smith's 14:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that merging this article and Company rule in India makes good sense. There is a great deal of continuity between the period of company rule and the period of crown rule. The British Parliament was making laws governing India as far back as 1773, and the administrative setup (presidencies, provinces, and districts) hardly changed when company rule ended. Tom Radulovich 02:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• That would solve the title "controversy" in a convenient manner, but might the resulting article be too long? If not, I must add, it would certainly merit looking into. The two periods do overlap: with regard to the Mutiny, which does not quite fit on either page, and since the subsequent changeover was largely nominal in any case. Vneiomazza 19:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Result

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 21:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Added Map of British empire (1921)

Comments suggestions welcome. Honestly, am not very sure about Burma being considered a part of British Raj (though I have seen an old map dipicting so). Its a different matter that Burma was indeed a part of British empire. --ΜιĿːtalk 17:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Great map! A few thoughts here:

1. New Caledonia is coloured British, in utter error.
2. The British shpere of interest in British Honduras shows only areas in the Bay of Honduras, but not the claims on the Mosquito Coast. Possibly, a similar scenario applies for the British claims to the Guyanas. But maybe these claims where abandoned by 1921...
3. As for Burma, I'm not sure, but apparently it was split off to form a separate administrative colonial unit early on.

//Big Adamsky 17:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the map! Burma was a province of British India from 1853 to 1937; Aden was part of British India from 1839 to 1937, so the map is accurate as far as Burma is concerned, although the Aden colony should be purple as well. Aden colony did not include all of present-day Yemen; the northern portion remained an independent state. Afghanistan was not part of the British Empire. Lebanon and New Caledonia were French colonies, not British. Tom Radulovich 18:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, gentleman. Have updated the map as below:

• Regions discounted: (with due respect to the French and the Portuguese) Lebanon, New Caledonia, Goa, Daman, Pondicherry (some others are too small to register on the given size)
• Regions discounted: North of Aden, Sri Lanka
• Region added: Nicaragua

The original pink map is of 1919 - the peak of the empire, as it is said. (also tried to notify User:Arthur Wellesley who did that shading. But seems to be esq.)

Have excluded Afghanistan from the shading of British Raj. However, The Times Survey Atlas of The World (1922) and this map suggest that it was indeed a part of the British Empire in 1919 (but lost perhaps soon after).

Its a bit tricky to fit the old world to the new boundaries, I'm afraid; but I think we can do better and I will try and render a better graphic for the topic. --ΜιĿːtalk 11:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I was mistaken regarding the Mosquito Coast Colony. It had already been ceded to the Republic of Nicaragua by the time this map indicates (1921). Also, the claims in the Guyanas had been consolidated to include only British Guyana. //Big Adamsky 18:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

a map showing the boundaries of Aden Colony, including the Aden Protectorate, can be found here: [1] and here: [2]. As far as Afghanistan goes, it really was independent; although the British occupied Kabul in the 19th century, their army was devastated by the Pashtuns, and only one soldier survived. Don't know what the Times Survey Atlas of the World is up to; wishful thinking, perhaps? [Image:British_Empire_Anachronous_4.PNG] shows it in the same red color as the eastern USA and southern Oregon Country, which may indicate territories held and lost, or, as in the case of southern Oregon Country, a lapsed claim. Tom Radulovich 16:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Afghanistan was generally considered to be a British protectorate from 1880 or so to 1919. john k 17:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the recently updated map may be a good compromise, hopefully, and finally. --ΜιĿːtalk 08:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Sepoy Rebellion

the sepoys didn't so much offer their services to the Mughal emperor as they appointed him the somewhat reluctant figurehead of their uprising.

also, in the material I've read (Bose and Jalal, "Modern South Asia") the cartriges for the Lee-Enfields *were* greased with animal fat, both pig and cow, which is offensive to Muslims and Hindus, respectively. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.49.16.226 (talk • contribs) . (Comment moved from Talk:British India as part of history merge, undoing a month-old cut and paste move. See [3] and [4] for more details than you probably want -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] South yemen.

Why is it shown as part of British India on the map? Pure inuyasha 21:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] very unclear sentence on economics of British rule

"At the same time, the British abolished the British East India Company and replaced it with direct rule under the British Crown, and so began the greatest exploitation of the greatest number of people, and what prior to the colonial era, was the largest internal economy, reducing the share of India's GDP output by the end of this 90 year old oppression, a share reduced from 30% in the 1700s, to 3% in 1947."

This sounds as if the informatin it is trying to convey is probably interesting and important, but as it stands the last 3/4 of the sentence (from "and so began") is totally confusing to me, and i suspect others as well. Could the author or someone else clarify or expand it for those with less knowledge of economics or British colonial economic policies?

--82.20.244.207 13:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Ian, 08.09.06

[edit] Raj is just rule

(British) Raj means (British) rule, not empire, not period (era). If an article is meant to be on the Indian part of the British colonial empire (where the British rule took place and the period during which it took place,) then it should be one titled, British India.

[edit] bias deleted

great bravery? the rebels outnumbered their enemy 60 to 1 in some cases and 20 to one in others and still lost. This could not have happened if a majority of the rebel force fought with great bravery. Naerhu 09:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move