Talk:Presidencies and provinces of British India/Archive 3

Copied here from User talk:Xn4

I appreciate your edits to British India; however, the move (from the redirect to the British Raj) to an independent page will need to be discussed on the Talk:British Raj page first. There have been many discussions there on this very title, and, I'm guessing, the various discussants would like to be informed before such a move is attempted.

Meanwhile, I have corrected the lead sentence in British India; the term was used for British regions in India under Company rule as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

PS Please see dab page: British rule in India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems you have an obsession with keeping everything to do with British India within an article called British Raj. I don't agree with you. 'British India' is both an authentic term which deserves to be defined at its own page and a topic which merits some coverage. "British Raj", on the other hand, is still a colloquialism, nowhere satisfactorily defined, except post facto on the basis of the uses it's put to, which are decidedly muddled. I certainly agree with you that 'British Raj' is not an exact equivalent for 'British India', a term which has real significance. In any event, the subject of the British in India is so vast that any attempt to force it into only one page would be contrary to policy. Xn4 (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Please hold on to your day job (whatever that is) and refrain from analyzing my obsessions. You might not agree with me, but it still doesn't give you the right to undo a redirect that has stood for at least two years. I'm not a big fan of British Raj myself (preferring Crown Rule in India instead), but the consensus on the Talk page has been to keep the British Raj title. But if you want to play hard ball, that's your prerogative. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Please also see OED on-line edition has clarified its definition of "British Raj" in view of the language of this page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Before you wrote anything on this page, I'd seen some of your insulting edit summaries, such as "rv undiscussed and inaccurate copyedit by Xn4", and I notice others have complained about this abusive style on your talk page. If you're in the habit of handing out such 'plain speaking', then I'm afraid you need to learn to take it. You've linked above what you say is the OED online definition of 'British Raj': "Direct rule in India by the British (1858-1947); this period of dominion." That sounds authentic to me, and it's a meaning I'm happy to agree with, but it clearly doesn't include the meaning that 'British Raj' becomes the country itself, a geographical area. The idea (which you certainly seem to promote in your comments above, please tell me if I've misunderstood you) that 'British Raj' should replace 'British India', which ought to be a redirect to 'British Raj', is potty, and it would remain potty even if a thousand Wikipedia users agreed with it. Xn4 (talk) 23:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I was polite to you (see my first post above); it was you who chose to talk about my obsessions. That is a direct violation of Wikipedia policy. When I gave back to you in the style you were comfortable dishing out, you suddenly began to complain about my abuses. Okay. Whatever.

You might be happy to agree with OED's meaning, but that meaning itself has been changed in light of Wikipedia's lead; for example, as recently as May 2008, OED didn't have the "period of dominion," only the "rule." Now it does. That is a direct consequence of Wikipedia's language, which has remained the same for almost two years. The OED explication in smaller font is an even more direct use of Wikipedia's lead.

No one is saying that British Raj is the same as British India. Only that here are problems with the term British India. 1) It is ambiguous. It was applied to regions of India governed by the British from 1765 to 1947. Those regions kept changing especially during the first half of British rule, Company rule in India). In North-Central India, for example, British India in 1785 included only regions around Benaras; in 1812, it included the Ceded and Conquered Provinces, in 1835, the North-Western Provinces. By 1856, all of what was to become United Provinces of Agra and Oudh was a part of British India. Which British India are we talking about? And, if it is one of these four, what are we going to say there that is not already said in the page: Company rule in India. It is you who seems to be suggesting that British India is about regions governed by the British from 1858 to 1947. No. It encompasses a much bigger time period than that. 2) A British India page would not be about geography either; the geography is treated in the India page or Geography of India page. The page would be about how British India was governed (political, administrative, historical) or about how life was lived in British India (social, economic). All those topics belong to the British Raj page or Company rule in India page. British India, then, merely becomes a term to describe certain regions of the Raj, either the Company's or the United Kingdom's. I don't see why that term needs a separate page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

PS There is nothing abusive about "rv undiscussed and inaccurate copy-edits." They were both undiscussed and inaccurate (the latter by your own admission that the term goes back farther than just the 1920s, as you had stated in that edit). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised by your confrontational language. This should be a grown-up discussion of the relevant articles, and no more than that. Xn4 (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

See the history of this page. It was a redirect to British Raj until [User:Xn4]] converted it to an article page with this edit on 13 August 2008. After lengthy discussions at Talk:British Raj#What to do about British India and other sections on that talk page, the consensus was to make this page a disambiguation page as the term British India is also used by some to include East India Company rule. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have taken part in that discussion and I don't agree there was a consensus, so I am reinstating the page, as invited to do by Philip Baird Shearer. Strawless (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC: article or disambiguation page

Please could all interested parties read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. As can be seen by reading the sections listed above from the talk page of the of British Raj, we clearly have a dispute over the content of British India. I think we have agreed to discount the option that British India as a redirect to the British Raj article. That leaves two other possible options discussed above:

1. British India becomes a stand alone article (See this version).
2. British India becomes a disambiguation page (See this version).

I call on the two principle advocates of the two options to briefly summaries the advantages and disadvantages of both. User:Xn4 for the stand alone article (and please include references for the difference that you claim exist between British Raj and British India between 1858 and 1947 ("India wasn't ever the same thing as British Raj, and only some parts of India were British India."); and User:Fowler&fowler for the disambiguation page (User:Fowler&fowler has already supplied references see here and here and here). Once we have those statements then I will add the RfC template to the start of this section. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Advocacy for a stand alone article by Xn4

The term 'British India' has a well-established meaning and relates only to the parts of India under British administration and subject to British law. This is the area which was administered by the Government of India between 1858 and 1947.

'British India' has a statutory meaning. It did not include the Indian Princely States.

Before the Government of India Act 1858, the term 'British India' meant those parts of India under the control of the Honourable East India Company. The Government of India Act 1858 transferred the task of administering the British possessions in India to the India Office.

British India was subject to the laws of British India, which flowed directly or indirectly from legislation of the British parliament. Other parts of India were not.

The extent of British India in the 20th century can be stated as approximately three-fifths of the whole Indian Empire.

The term 'British Raj' is more obscure and has a less well-established meaning. For instance, it does not appear at all in the twenty-six volumes of the Imperial Gazetteer of India (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1908-1931). However, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) says under raj:

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

The OED offers eight examples of use of the term, none of which gives 'British Raj' the meaning of 'British India'.

Wikipedia's British Raj article defines itself as "British Raj (rāj, lit. "reign" in Hindustani primarily refers to the British rule in the Indian subcontinent between 1858 and 1947." Under the heading Geographical extent of the Raj, it says "The British Raj extended over all regions of present-day India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh..." In identifying with the whole British sphere in the subcontinent, it is approximately the equivalent of British Indian Empire, Indian Empire and Empire of India, all of which redirect to British Raj.

I have drawn the analogy elsewhere with two other groups of articles, (1) England, England and Wales, Great Britain, and United Kingdom and (2) Russia, Russian Empire, Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and Soviet Union. All eight of those topics have Wikipedia articles, and justifiably so. As with those articles, there are matters which are best dealt with (on the principle of subsidiarity) at the appropriate level, in this case British India, and not inserted into articles relevant to a different level. The areas in question are to do with administration, law, and other matters which have a homogeneous history within British India but not within the whole of India during the relevant period. Where Wikipedia has a correct link to British India, as (for instance) at Bengal Presidency, Bombay Presidency, or Madras Presidency) it is valuable to be taken to an appropriate article on that topic.

Xn4 (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Advocacy for a disambaguation page by Fowler&fowler

The background and the two options

The history of British presence and rule in India has thus far been described in three Wikipedia pages:

• Honourable East India Company (1600–1765),
• Company rule in India (or Company Raj) (1765–1858), and
• British Raj (or Crown rule in India) (1858–1947).

"British Raj" refers to the rule of India by the British Crown from 1858 to 1947 (see OED definition and other meanings). "British India," on the other hand, refers to the regions of India that had been annexed by the British and over which they had sovereignty, in contrast to other regions of India, called Princely States, which were ruled by Indian rulers, and over which the British exercised only a form of indirect control (or suzerainty). Since the British Raj page covered all British rule in India between 1858 and 1947, both direct and indirect, the "British India" page had in the past been redirected to British Raj. Symbolically:

$\mathrm {British\ India} \rightarrow \mathrm {British\ Raj} \ \ (\mathrm {redirect\ during\ last\ year} )$

$\mathrm {British\ Raj} =\mathrm {British\ India\ (1858-1947)} +\mathrm {Princeley\ States}$

This brings us to the current dispute. In mid-August 2008, user:Xn4 removed the redirect of British India to British Raj, and stated that he was interested in editing British India as a separate standalone page in addition to the British Raj page. (I will describe is his reasons later.)

In the ensuing talk page discussion it was clarified that the term "British India" is used—for areas of British sovereignty—not just for the period 1858 to 1947, but also for the period 1765 to 1858. This meant that the redirect of British India to British Raj was no longer an accurate option (since the period 1765 to 1858 of "British India" is covered in a different page: Company rule in India). So, it was suggested by some editors, including myself, that British India should become a disambiguation page. Symbolically:

$\mathrm {British\ India} =\mathrm {British\ India(1765-1858)} +\mathrm {British\ India(1858-1947)} \$

$\mathrm {British\ India(1858-1947)} \ \subset \ \mathrm {British\ Raj}$

$\mathrm {British\ India(1765-1858)} \ \subset \ \mathrm {Company\ rule\ in\ India}$

where $\subset \$ stands for "is included in" or "is a subset of." (Note: Company rule in India = British India (1765-1858) + Subsidiary alliance; and British Raj = British India (1858-1947) + Princely States.)

In other words, there are two options before us:

1. British India becomes a stand alone article (See this version) in addition to the British Raj page. (supported by user:Xn4)
2. British India becomes a disambiguation page (See this version) instead of being redirected to "British Raj."(supported by user:Fowler&fowler)

An hypothetical analogy and Britannica 1911

In case you are confused by the "set theory" above, I am copying (more or less) a post I made at another editor's talk page in order to answer his question: "Let me put this another way: Why isn't "British India" the all-encompassing term? Without doing original research, could we not portray it that way?"

(My answer): India under British Rule was in a sense one unit. What did this mean? Well, if an Indian had to travel abroad, it didn't matter whether they were from Bombay (governed by the British) or from Kashmir (a native state), they used the same passport, which was issued by the British Government of India. If they had to travel between Native States or between a Native State and a British province, no passport was needed and there was no border crossing. (It was like traveling between two states in the US.) Trains, for example, passed through British provinces as well as Native states, as did communications lines, and they were all owned and controlled by the British. If someone traveled from Hyderabad (a Native State) to Bombay, they didn't say they were going to "British India," rather that they were going to Bombay or to the Bombay Province if they needed to mention the region. The usual distinction in India was between the Provinces of India (governed by the British) and the Native States. "British India" was just a collective term for the Provinces; in other words, "British India" was a term of convenience used when there was a need to distinguish between the British parts of India and the Native parts of India, but not otherwise one of common use. The term for the entire region under British rule (whether direct or indirect) was simply India. All history books refer to it as India.

Here, for example, is a hypothetical analogy. Suppose the Native American reservations in the US occupied two-fifths of the area of the US, and that they were not parts of the 50 states, but had a semi-autonomous status controlled overall by the Federal Government in Washington DC. Other than that, let's say, there was little difference. So, I could still drive from Santa Fe to an Indian pueblo and no one would stop me. Let's also say that from the time of the Mayflower, two short-hand terms had developed: Pilgrim America for all the States collectively, and Native America for all the reservations collectively. Well, the Wikipedia pages would still be about Wisconsin, Idaho, Navajo, Lakota, or United States, not about "Pilgrim America" because there would be no Government of "Pilgrim America" only the Government of the United States or the State Government of Wisconsin or the Government of Navajo reservation. "Pilgrim America" might be used—even officially or legally—to make distinctions, but it would not be an official entity. If I were then writing a Wikipedia page on the History of the United States between 1860 and 1960 (inauguration of Lincoln to the inauguration of Kennedy), I would call it History of the United States (1860-1960), I wouldn't call it the History of Pilgrim America (1860-1960). (I could, perhaps, create a page on the History of non-Native-American people in the US between 1860 and 1960 and call it "History of Pilgrim America 1860-1960," but that would be different.) I couldn't create a page History of Pilgrim America 1860-1960 and then proceed to talk about the Civil War and Reconstruction because those topics would already have been covered in History of the US (1860-1960) and Lincoln would have been the President of all of the US, not just of the States. Moreover, if the convention in American historiography was to write "A History of the United States from 1860 to 1960" or "A History of Winsconsin," but not "A History of Pilgrim America 1860-1960," then I would also be going against scholarly convention.

That is roughly the situation with "British Raj." The British Raj page is about "India under British rule during the period 1858 to 1947" just as Company rule in India is about "India under British rule during the period 1765 to 1858". (My own personal preference would be for the "British Raj" to be named Crown rule in India, but the page is an old page, dating back to 2002, and the term "British Raj" is used widely now by historians. For example, Library of Congress Country Study on India, has only two sections under "British Empire in India" these are: Company Rule 1757-1857 and British Raj 1858 to 1947.) So, if I someone wants to create a page on British India, but really write about "India under British rule 1858-1947" i.e. British Raj, then they are not only being redundant, but also going against historiographic tradition (as in the Library of Congress example): for "British India" is the equivalent of "Pilgrim America." On the other hand, if they claim they will only write about "British India" i.e. the Provinces of India, I will say, well that page already exists, as do the subpages Bombay Presidency, Madras Presidency, etc. In other words, they have to tell me, what new material they propose to add.

To give you another example, if you do a search for "British India" in the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, you get approximately 1500 returns, but none to a page "British India." They are all or the sort: "CALICUT, a city of British India, in the Malabar district of Madras; ..." or "BELLARY, or Ballari, a city and district of British India, in the Madras presidency." So, let's do a little experiment. We will search for "Hyderabad" and we will do this because there were two Hyderabads in 1911 (as there are now), one a city in British India (now in Pakistan) in the province of Sind, the other a princely state in southern India. We'll see how Britannica (1911) described the two cities. Here are the results. a) "HYDERABAD, or Haidarabad, a city and district of British India, in the Sind province of Bombay. ..." b) Hyderabad, India (State): "Hyderabad, HAIDARABAD, also known as the Nizam's Dominions, the principal native state of India in extent, population and political importance; area, 82,698 sq. m.; pop. (1901) 11,141,142, ..." c) Hyderabad, India (capital): "Hyderabad, HAIDARABAD, capital of the above state, is situated on the right bank of the river Musi, a tributary of the Kistna, with Golconda to the west, and the residency and its bazaars and the British cantonment of Secunderabad to the north-east." Notice that Hyderabad (a) says "British India," however, Hyderabad (b) and (c) don't, they only say "India." Notice too that Hyderabad (c) (which was the capital of Hyderabad (b)) mentions the British residency and cantonment. That refers to the office of the British official who oversaw the state; the cantonment refers to the area where the British Army (which too kept an eye on the state) was stationed. Britannica 1911 does not have a page for "British India," only a page for India, even though it uses the expression "British India" in 1500 other pages. It is this India (1858-1947) that the Wikipedia British Raj page is about. Just as in Britannica 1911, we don't have a page for "British India" (or we didn't until user:Xn4 opened it in mid-August) although we use the term all the time either as a short hand or to make distinctions. All that is needed to inform Wikipedia readers about how we use the expression "British India" is a disambiguation page, not a standalone page.

user:Xn4's reasons and my response

• user:Xn4 first stated that since the dictionary meaning of the term "British Raj" did not cover the region that was governed by the British (but referred only to the "rule" or the "period of the rule,") and since the term "British India" did refer to the region, he was free to edit "British India" as a separate page devoted to the region, and British Raj could then focus on the rule.
  • My response: Regardless of the dictionary meaning of the term "British Raj," the British Raj page is identical (in scope) to "Crown rule in India," and is the counterpart (for the period 1858 to 1947) of the page Company rule in India (also Company Raj). Both pages already cover all three topics: region, rule, and period.
• He next stated that he considered "British India" to be a subset (in scope) of the "British Raj," but since this topic was "huge" and could not be accommodated in the "British Raj" page alone, modularity of exposition would recommend that British Raj be subdivided into smaller modules, one of which would be "British India."
  • My response: (Briefly) I show below that such modularity of organization already exists; in other words, British Raj already has modules and that there is nothing in the scope of "British India" that is not already in the scope of these modules. Creating "British India" as a separate page will result in redundant modularity, and thereby negate the very principle of modularity.
• For his part user:Xn4 has thus far consistently refused to describe how his new British India page will differ from the pre-existing British Raj page (see, for example, the question posed by user:RegentsPark, and user:Xn4's second reply here). He has stated that "differences will develop," but has not described what they might be. He has further stated that those differences will be given shape as the British Raj page itself develops more and he has a clearer idea of what exact content it covers.
  • My response: The British Raj and its daughter pages are in the process of development and consolidation (see, for example, section 6 of British Raj, Famines, Epidemics, and Public Health in the British Raj, for which a dozen sub-pages have already been developed). If user:Xn4 is waiting for the content in British Raj to become stable, then he should revert "British India" either to the disambiguation page (my choice) or revert it to the previous redirect to British Raj and let the British Raj and its daughter pages develop and consolidate, but with the proviso that a deadline be agreed upon (in this RfC), say 3 months, for such development. user:Xn4 can then make his case for what content differences he sees.
• In the standalone page British India that user:Xn4 has thus far edited, he has emphasized the period 1858 to 1947 and has relegated the earlier (1765-1858) period of "British India" to the pre-existing Company rule in India page (see second paragraph of the lead here).
  • My response: I show below that user:Xn4 is introducing a POV that is not supported by the the sources, which do not emphasize any one period.
• By quoting various parliamentary statutes in his new British India page, user:Xn4 seems to be suggesting that "British India (1858-1947)" has some kind of legal existence as a State or a State within an Empire. He also seems to be suggesting that "British India (1858-1947)" was somehow more "legal" or more "legally British" than "British India (1765-1858)"
  • My response: "British India" has always been a short-hand used (formally or informally) to distinguish regions of British sovereignty from other regions of the subcontinent. No government was formally called the Government of British India; it was either Government of the Presidency of Fort William from 1773 until 1833, or the Government of India thereafter. Neither can "British India (1765-1858)" be considered significantly "less British" , since after the Regulating Act of 1773, the Crown held ultimate sovereignty over all East India Company territory in India, and British Law applied in all regions of British India.

In order to present my argument, I will answer two questions first:

1. What does the term "British India" mean?
2. What pages already cover or should cover the content that falls under the purview (i.e. the full scope) of the different meanings of "British India?"

---

(i) British India, primary meaning

"British India" has been employed as a collective term for regions of present-day India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh that were governed by the British in India between 1600 and 1947 (and over which the latter had sovereignty). By extension, the term has been applied to other regions that were governed by the Government of the British in India (such as Burma (present-day Myanmar) from the second half of the 19th century to 1937). These regions comprised:

1. the presidency towns of Madras, Bombay, and Calcutta until 1765. (see references)
2. the Madras, Bombay and Bengal presidencies, and later North-Western Provinces under Company rule in India from 1765 until 1858. (References: scholarly, journalistic, published books)
3. the Provinces of India under the British Raj from 1858 to 1947. (See: References)

(i) British India, secondary meaning

4. "British India" has also been used to mean "the British in India." (See: References)

---

(ii) What pages already cover or should cover the content under "British India?"

1. The regions of "British India" before 1765 (i.e the presidency towns) are currently covered in the:
   1. history section of the Honourable East India Company page; if more detailed descriptions are desired, then they should be attempted in the:
   2. Presidencies of India page, which is a stub/dab page.
2. The regions of "British India" between 1765 and 1858 are covered in the:
   1. the Madras, Bombay and Bengal presidencies, and the North-Western Provinces pages; they can certainly be expanded if more details are desired. In addition, any specifics that apply to the "presidency system," but not individual presidencies, can be added to:
   2. Presidencies of British India or Company rule in India pages.
3. The regions of "British India" between 1858 and 1947 are currently covered in
   1. the British Raj page,
   2. the Provinces of British India page, and
   3. in the individual provinces pages such as Assam, Baluchistan, Bengal Province, Bihar, Bombay Province, Central Provinces and Berar, Madras Province,North-West Frontier Province, Orissa, Punjab, Sindh, and United Provinces of Agra and Oudh)

   ultimately, the British Raj version will be a summary style precis of the Provinces of British India page, so more details should be added in that page or in the individual province pages.

Material on governance, organization, economy, history, public health, army, police, civil service, trade, law, social reform, infrastructure development, education in "British India" is covered in (or should be added to)

1. (1600 to 1765) Honourable East India Company or Presidencies of British India
2. (1765 to 1858) Company rule in India; land revenue: Permanent Settlement, Zamindari, and Ryotwari
3. (1858 to 1947) British Raj, History of the British Raj, Economy of British India, Famines, Epidemics, and Public Health in the British Raj

That brings us to the secondary meaning of the term, i.e. the "British in India."

4. There is no page (to my knowledge) on the Social History of the British in India (to get an idea of content, please see Victorian Social History; everything else about "the British in India" is covered in the links above. From my perspective though this page is not a high priority right now since many of the other pages above need work. I would be delighted if someone wants to work on such a page, however, that page cannot be called "British India," since it refers to a secondary meaning of "British India" and covers only one aspect (social history).

---

Conclusion

I have described the two meanings of the term "British India," a primary meaning comprising three different time periods (of which the latter two are the more significant) as well as a secondary meaning. I have also shown that all the topics covered under the primary meaning are either already being covered in existing Wikipedia pages or need to be covered in those pages whose links I have provided. (See also other encyclopedias and studies.)

A standalone British India page (option 1 supported by user:Xn4) will duplicate material not only from the British Raj page, but also from pages such as Provinces of British India and History of the British Raj, and will be confusing to most Wikipedia readers who will likely not know the subtle difference between British India and British Raj.

Also, as I have shown in (i)primary meaning 2. above, contemporary sources use "British India" to include the period 1765 to 1857 and do not give greater weight to the period 1858 to 1947. I feel that user:Xn4—by emphasizing the period 1858 to 1947 under "British India" in a standalone page, and relegating the earlier (1765-1858) period of "British India" to the pre-existing Company rule in India page (see second paragraph of the lead of user:Xn4's "British India" page)—is introducing a POV that is not supported by the the sources.

I feel, therefore, that "British India" is best kept as a disambiguation page (option 2), which describes the various meaning and points to where the associated content can be found in Wikipedia.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Extended content

I'll be happy to do that (see Philip Baird Shearer, above). If no one minds, I'd like to take a few days about it. It's far from easy to define "British Raj", and so far I've merely relied on the definition offered by British Raj. It may also help if I do some more work on British India, to illustrate the points we've discussed elsewhere. Xn4 (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC) I think it would be better if you would put a paragraph describing the arguments for this to be an article, above the Discussion subsection header and not invest a lot of time in the article until the RfC has been run. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC) If you wish, I'll aim to post something soon, but you've drawn our attention to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, which says "Most situations are not urgent. Please give both you and the other party some time. Often it helps to just take a deep breath and sleep over it." I've found some new sources for what 'British India' was, but there's a real problem with finding reliable sources for 'British Raj'. Perhaps it can be agreed that we'll rely on the meaning the term's given by British Raj? If some other meaning is to be relied on, then we should all need time to take that into account. Xn4 (talk) 01:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC) User:Xn4 the problem with using the British Raj article as a source is that it is subject to change, and many of the changes over the last month are a reflection of this debate, so to use the British Raj as a source, is likely to set up a negative feed back loop. It would be better if this debate was kept as separate as possible from that page. I appreciate your argument from Wikipedia dispute resolution "Most situations are not urgent. Please give both you and the other party some time. Often it helps to just take a deep breath and sleep over it.", but as we are discussion two different alternatives, I think the party who's article is currently on display has a moral obligation not to keep the other party waiting. If you need more time you could of course revert the article to the last disambiguation version and place the moral obligation on User:Fowler&fowler. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC) I have waded through the material referenced above and have some sense of what the issues are. However, there does not seem to be a simple statement of what is in contention here. Would someone (Phillip or the discussants), please describe what is at issue in a short paragraph or two? Sunray (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC) It is described in the top of this section 1. article, 2.disambiguation page, but we are awaiting User:Xn4 to present his/her case. Once that is done I'll refactor this section to make it clear what the we are discussing and what options are. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC) Perhaps I am missing something (hopefully not something too obvious). But I do not understand what the contending issues are. I see the two alternatives you've listed, above, but there is no short, sharp, summary of the alternative points of view. I await your refactoring and further elucidation. 21:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC) Hi, I have now added a "background" section. Does that explain the contending issues? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC) OK I have now refactored the page hiding discussion about setting up the RFC and re-ordering the two Advocacies into the same order as they were presented --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I have come to this page as a result of the request for comment. I am English and come to it with that perspective. It is frequently the case that WP has general articles, which then lead to more specific articles on particular aspects of a subject. That is what this article attempts to do, and that is appropriate. In general, this article ought to give a brief summary of each subject, leaving the detail to appear in the sub-articles (linked to it with a "main" template. I would suggest that the article should have sections covering 1600-1765, perhaps "The Trading Company"; 1765-1858 "The Company as a Ruler"; and 1858-1948 "Direct British Rule". The independence struggle might be a fourth section, or perhaps (better) a subsection. This might be followed by the discussion of the meaning of "The term British India", but WP is not a disctionary and I am not sure of the value of arguing over semantic issues. This may be oversimplistic, since the Company had other activities, including a trading post at Bencoolen (Sumartra - ?) and trade with China, but those issues probably belong only in the article on the company. I appreciate that the Princely States were not strictly under British rule, but in many cases, the Resident (who was strictly the Comapny or Viceroy's envoy to the Prince) often played a major part in ruling the state, allegedly for the Prince, but in practice to British orders. The distinction between British-ruled and Princely-ruled areas was thus perhaps somewhat less real in practice. I do not cleaim to be an expert on this. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this. Please clarify what you mean by "this article." British Raj or British India? Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, well let me attempt a reply. I agree with some your analysis, but I'm not entirely clear if you are talking about the British Raj page (i.e. Crown rule in India) or this new "British India" page that user:Xn4 is attempting to edit. The divisions you speak of already exist (as I have stated in my statement): Honourable East India Company (1600-1765); Company rule in India (also Company Raj) (1765-1858), and British Raj (also Crown rule in India) (1858-1947). If you do indeed mean "British India" then please explain what content you envisage as a part of "British India" that is not already in British Raj (or Company rule in India). Alternatively, if you are suggesting that British Raj is really the same as "British India" on account of the compromised sovereignty of the Native States, you are in effect suggesting that British Raj should be redirected to "British India." This, of course, has been debated on the British Raj page before, but it is not one of the options we are considering now. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Posted by user:Peterkingiron on my talk page with request to copy here (Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)):

Having looked at the British Raj article (which I had not before), I think that article should focus on 1858-1948, with the "company prelude" section eliminated from that (or largely so). I would aslo suggest that the lists of states (rather than being collapsed should be forked into one or more separate articles: even the collapsed lists are cluttering up the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I entirely agree with you about the Raj page. That is in fact the plan for that page. The History section will be reduced with details moved to daughter page History of the British Raj page. The "provinces" section too, with details moved to Provinces of British India page; same with the Native States section, with details moved to the Princely States page. It is in transition right now. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

PS Have implemented your suggestion about collapsed lists, which have been moved to Princely state. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• The list of Princely States now clutters up that article. I would suggest that the best solution to this is to merge it with List of Indian Princely States. I am not convinced of the usefulness of collapsing the main lists, but things like "28 minor states" might usefully be collapsed. However the article Princely state itself is good as providing a general coverage of them and their relations with the British.
• The section on "usage" in British India might be better added to the parallel British rule in India, which is partly a disambiguation page.
• I would suggest that the Company section be removed from British Raj, and replaced by (at most) a couple of sentences. Any content not in other articles should be merged.
• British India should survive as an article providing an overview of the whole subject, a parent article, with sections as previously suggested.

I refrain from interfering with the text, as there are various "in use" tags, and it is not my field. However, you might find it useful to have a look around Ironworks (which is essentially a disambiguation page) and the articles listed there, which form a tree. When I came to that subject a couple of years ago, there were missing articles and duplicate ones. Furthermore, people kept adding unnecessary detail on one process to articles on another. Most have now reached a position of some stability of content, so that I presume most editors are now reasonably satisfied with the structure. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your many helpful comments! I agree with most of your comments about the British Raj article and I will look at Ironworks.

Once the British Raj and Company rule in India have stabilized, there might be a case to be made for an overview article of the kind you suggest (although I'm not convinced yet that it will be needed), but why should that hypothetical article be called "British India?" "British India" has specific historiographic usage that other encyclopedias respect. See the Encarta "one-sentence page" on British India, "collective designation of the 17 Indian provinces formerly under direct British administration, as distinguished from the more autonomous regions called the Native States of India." Britannica, on the other hand, says not a peep about "British India;" its section headings for the India page written by Stanley Wolpert are: "India and European Expansion, 1600-1858" (with a large subsection "Extension of British Power, 1760-1856" for Company rule) and "British Imperial Power, 1858-1947."

You might call that overview article "British Empire in India" in the style of the Library of Congress Country Study on India (which has only two sections under "British Empire in India" : Company Rule 1757-1857 and British Raj 1858 to 1947), but calling it "British India" would be emphasizing the secondary meaning of "British India" (i.e. the British in India) and would constitute a POV. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by User:RegentsPark

1. It is clear that the a distinction exists between British India and the Princely States. The term British India is enshrined in various laws and acts of parliament and even early historians made this distinction clear (cf. ). The Princely States had a certain amount of independence (e.g., they could enact their own laws) though they were finally dependent on the crown for survival as political and geographical entities within India.
2. However, it is not clear that there is a sufficient content difference between British Raj and British India to warrant a separate article. Let's take a look at the historical, political, geographical and temporal characteristics that underlie the two terms:

• British India, as defined by User:Xn4 and by the act of parliament, refers to the region directly governed by the British between 1858 and 1947. The British Raj article covers the same time period. There is no temporal difference between the two entities.
• British Raj covers the political entity India that was recognized by various international bodies (e.g., the League of Nations) and includes British India, the directly governed parts of India along with the various Princely States that were nominally independent entities. Thus, it would appear that a case can be made for a sub-article of the British Raj that covers British India. However, the reality is that the political structure of the British Raj and that of British India were entwined and the various Residents for each Princely State reported to the India (the governor-general or lt. governors) rather than directly to the crown. In a sense, all of India that was not British India was subservient to the non-British India. In a political sense, therefore, British Raj and British India are really the same entity. (Of course, the administrative structure of a princely state probably differed from the structure of British India but see below.)
• It is true that the laws of British India were not applicable in the princely states and that each state had its own laws and police forces, and administrative structures. In this sense, there is a big difference between British India and the rest of India. However, the best way to address this is to have articles for each princely state because, presumably, the states differed from each other in their laws and in the ways they administered their possessions. An overarching British Raj article cannot even begin to meaningfully cover these aspects of the princely states. (It is a shame that the princely states are forgotten and have no articles of their own, but that's a different story!)
• Each Princely State has its own history and their collective history is limited to (is the same as) the history of British India.

In summary, the things that are different about the Princely States (non-British India India) are different between Princely States and cannot be easily generalized into a single article (British Raj while the things that they have in common are also the things that they have in common with British India. In effect, two articles, one focusing on British Raj as the rule of the British over the geographical entity that was then India; and British India focusing on the rule of the crown over directly administered regions, would end up containing the same material. One could argue that the single article be called British India but that would be at odds with WP:NC and is a separate discussion anyway. For these reasons, I believe that British India and British Raj should not be separate articles. British India should, in my opinion, be a redirect to British Raj but I suppose a disambiguation page is ok. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 16:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that in theory British Raj and British India are the same thing. It is possible that the latter should have a new title, but I still think it useful for their to be a general article providing an overview. On strict issues of sovereignty, the Princely States were subject to British suzerainty and had at most interal sovereignty. Any attempt to engage in international relations contrary to British intersts would have been quickly and firmly suppressed.

Certainly there is no room in WP for having competing articles dealing with the same subject at the same level; if such exist they should be merged. However, a general overview article with sub-articles on particular aspects is normal practice. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. But I would argue that the overview article already exists in British rule in India which spans the entire period from 1757 to 1947 and contains links to all the sub-articles. A separate overview article for the 1858-1947 period adds an unnecessary level of detail. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 22:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Apart from a discussion of semantic issues, British Rule in India is essentially a disambiguation page, and probably an unnecessary one. If the British India article is amended in the way that I am suggesting British Rule in India will probably become a redundant page that can be merged/redirected. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you about an overview page (a sort of dab page on steroids ! is how I see it) for the entire history of the British involvement in India - that is an excellent idea and it is shocking that one does not already exist. However, there are a couple of things we need to be aware of.

• First, we need to address the proposal put forth by User:Xn4 for a separate article on British India that focuses on the 1858-1947 period and on the areas that were directly ruled by the crown. Since, as I argue above, the material in that article will be the same as the material in British Raj, this move would convert British Raj into a shell article with the material going mostly to British India. Not that there is anything wrong with that but the consensus so far seems to be that British Raj is the more common name and there is the danger that the outcome will be against consensus. I assume you disagree with Xn4's proposal because you are suggesting a more limited article, right?
• I'm not sure I like the idea of calling the overview article British India because the term is specifically associated with the areas under direct British rule from 1858 to 1947 and using that name for an overview article is inviting content creep. Perhaps a better name would be British involvement in India because it is neutral (the company did not initially rule) and encompasses the entire period from 1600 (the charter) to 1947. I see that f&f proposes British Empire in India and there may be other ideas as well. Perhaps we should gather consensus on a title for the overview article separately. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 16:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to reiterate though that the overview page, if there is ever any consensus for it, can't be called "British India." Call it "British rule in India" or "British Empire in India," but it can't be "British India." As I have stated above, it is contrary to all scholarly and encyclopedic usage. See my new section and in particular, the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica paragraph: A hypothetical analogy and 1911 Britannica. Also, it is a little premature in my view to create an overview page. The Company rule in India and British Raj page need to stabilize first, and then, perhaps, the overview page could be a short summary style precis of the three articles (i.e. + British East India Company, which is about the involvement, 1600-1757). Otherwise, we'll have the same problem of duplication or worse yet an independent page that has its own perspective. For those reasons, I am against a long overview page. At best it can be only a little longer than a dab page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

PS So, I'm really agreeing (more or less) with user:RegentsPark. I should have said that at the outset. :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe there is a merit in overview articles, with (say) one paragraph on each subject and a "main" template leading to a more detailed article on that aspect of the subject. I have no particular view on names. It will probably be necessary to defend the overview page against editors who want to expand it. The present British Raj provides a reasonable coverage of its period; other articles also exist on other periods. It is thus essentially a matter of redistributing the material to remove unecessary overlaps. It will of course be necessary to edit it to fit it together tidily. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Strawless

At Talk: British Raj, I have agreed that there should be a British India page, and I still do, but, to be frank, I have very little to add to what I have already said there. However, I am copying the following comment here as requested at Talk: British Raj, though I am quite doubtful that it will be of much interest. British India is clearly a geographical area, which it now seems we can define, while British Raj isn't, however useful it is as an expression. Members of my family who were born in British India say "I was born in British India". I suppose they could also say "I was born in British India in the time of the British Raj". I have just done some Google searches: "born in the British Raj" has three hits, one of them on the British Raj page here, "born in British Raj" has one hit, which in full reads "born in British Raj India", but "born in British India" has 735 hits, which seems to bear out the way I hear the expressions used. I think the main point of this comment is that it might be useful to look more closely at how these two expressions, British India and British Raj, are properly used. It seems likely that a close analysis would show up a greater difference between the two than has come out so far.

When I reverted one of the edits which took out the British India page as an article, prompted by a discussion between Philip B. S. and Xn4 at Talk: British Raj, I said "I'm inclined to put British India back as it was, for the reasons which have come out in the discussion, and also because there's the potential for a useful and interesting article which seems to be on its way. I agree, though, that it will be better if it can develop on its own terms, with well-sourced new material which is specifically about the subject identified." I should still find it helpful for the article to be improved some more. Strawless (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

British India is a collective term for the Provinces of British India. It was the provinces, such as Bombay Presidency, that were the "clear geographical areas." All those pages already exist.

As for the expression, "born in ...." very few people said either "I was born in British India" or "I was born during the British Raj;" instead they simply said, "I was born in India" The British Raj page is about that India. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we can indeed say that "British India" is a collective term for the Provinces of British India, to the same extent that "England" is a collective term for the Counties of England. In both cases, it may be that the whole is more than the sum of its parts?

I do not know whether anyone can find us a source for "very few people said... "I was born in British India"...", but as I still hear it said today, I thought it worth mentioning. I think perhaps some younger people may overlook the real difference between being born a British subject in British India and being born in other parts of India. The point of my comment, as I said above, was simply that we need to analyse the use of these expressions rather carefully. Strawless (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well if you do a Google Search for the exact expression "born in British India," you get 843 links; however, if you search instead for the exact expression "born in India" and qualify the search with "British" and "19th century," you get over 18,000 links. Some of these links might not be the right ones, but most are, i.e. they use "born in India" to mean "born in India during British times." (For example, Kipling was born in India etc.) Similarly, if you search for the exact expression "born in India" and qualify it with "British Raj," you still get over 15,000 links. Lastly, if you search for "born in India" and qualify it with 19th century OR British OR Victorian, you get over 426,000 links! That's what I meant by most people would have said "born in India."

People might say today they were born in British India, but they usually mean "India during British times" or pre-1947 India; in other words, they use "British India" to distinguish it from the post-1947 (independent) India, not to distinguish it from the pre-1947 Princely States. Thus, they are not necessarily saying that they were born in one of the British provinces, although, if they are British themselves, they likely were. The main point for us is that we have to go by how the secondary or tertiary sources use the expression "British India." There the usage is very specific and is a collective term for the provinces. Here, for example, is the Encyclopedia Encarta page on British India. All it says is, "British India, collective designation of the 17 Indian provinces formerly under direct British administration, as distinguished from the more autonomous regions called the Native States of India." In other words, it is pretty much a dab page. I have already described above how the Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1911 (the year of the Delhi Durbar and the high-point of the Raj) made the same distinction. It used the term "British India" in 1500 other pages, but had no page for "British India" itself. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

22 September

Another week has passed. Are we any way near a compromise on this issue? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I am really impressed by the quality (and calmness) of the discussion and I do feel that there has been some progress in establishing that British India is an encyclopedic subject which is worthy of a Wikipedia article, under the wider-reaching umbrella of British Raj, which deals with the whole of India in the British period. (I can't help wondering, by the way, whether "India under the British Raj" might be a better title for the article now called "British Raj", but of course that is a quite different issue). Xn4 seems to be absent "on wikileave" at the moment, but I would suggest that it would be helpful if he when he returns or someone else could add some more information on this page to establish the notability of "British India", although I don't myself have any doubts on that.

Compromise: the question which Philip B. S. posed was whether British India should be an article or a disambiguation page, and it isn't easy to see room for compromise on that matter. However, with a view to the most interested editors working as happily as possible together, I should like to suggest that what is really needed is to agree some guidelines on the subject of links to the British India and British Raj articles from other pages, which may be what excited passions a few weeks ago. I am busy this evening, but if it would be helpful I could make some suggestions. Strawless (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

How does the "Agency" fit within the British structure?

I have been shuffling around among the various and overlapping articles concerning this period in India, many of which mention the various agencies, but none of which clearly describes how it fit within the overall administrative structure. Whether a good description ends up in this article or in the British Raj - it needs to be somewhere. Any SME's that can help?Vontrotta (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(Copying user:Vontrotta's post on the Talk:British Raj page: I don't understand what the intended distinction is between these two articles. The overlap is partial, each having some sections more developed than the other. The one fact that I was looking for is dealt with in neither: how did the "agency" (e.g. the Gilgit Agency) fit into the British administrative mechanism? I think there may be an opportunity to either merge or distinguish these two articles, hopefully filling some gaps. Any comments?Vontrotta (talk) 08:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(My reply) Well, Gilgit Agency is a little different. It was a part of the princely state of Kashmir that the British had leased in order to keep an eye on the Russians during the height of the Great Game. Other agencies, like the Rajputana Agency or the Central India Agency were groups of princely states that were supervised by agents of the Governor-General of India (i.e. by officers of the Central Government of India). This was in contrast to other princely states that were dependencies of provincial governments, for example, Junagadh, which was under the charge of the Governor of the Bombay Presidency (a province of British India).[[[User:Fowler&fowler|Fowler&fowler]]«Talk» 13:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me restate this (with questions in parentheses) to see if I understand. The "Agent" was the representative of the Governor-General (direct report or to some administrative functionafy?). The area for which the Agent was "responsible" was either a princely state, a group of princely states, or a portion of a princely state (i.e. Gilgit Agency, although some of the article suggest that the Agency may have included more than the regions leased from the princely state of Kashmir). So my main question is what was the nature of this "responsibility"? Was it essentially an "ambassadorship" or were there some administrative powers? And did the responsibility differ with respect to the leased property in the Gilgit Agency, eg. British law applying in the leased area as opposed law of the princely state?Vontrotta (talk) 05:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Time for a decision

There has been lots of discussion, but the fact remains that the current article really doesn't add anything as currently structured. Worse, it is easy to miss the British Raj article which has many of the details this article lacks. I vote to dump this article and redirect to British Raj, which already has some decent links to all the related articles.Vontrotta (talk) 08:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support For all the reasons outlined above (name confusion, duplication of material, inconsistent information, concurrency of time period, de-facto nature of British control over the entire pre-partition India, etc. etc.). Also, while the two main proponents of a separate British India page think that the page will be interesting, neither of them have provided any specific content for that page, leading me to believe that my first thought that there really was nothing new to say on this page is probably correct. I also agree with Vontrotta that we should redirect sooner rather than later so that wikipedia readers are not left with a half-baked article on India between 1858 and 1947. --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 14:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Well, the discussion has died. The article has not been edited in a long while. I'm going to move it back to its original redirect status. --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 14:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no concensus for this unilateral action. And one should point out (see above) that Philip B. S. suggested to Xn4 that the article not be improved, pending this discussion. Strawless (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)