Talk:British Raj/Archive 2

Requested moves
requested moves:
 * Talk:British Raj/Archive 1 – British Raj to British India – LuiKhuntek – December 2005
 * Talk:British Raj/Archive 1 – British Raj to British India – AjaxSmack – October 2006
 * Talk:British Raj/Archive 1 –  British Raj to British India – AjaxSmack – August 2007

Mergefrom British Indian Empire‎
As the first sentence of the article British Indian Empire is "The British Indian Empire, informally, the British Raj (rāj, lit. "rule" in Hindi) or simply British India, internationally and contemporaneously, India, was the term used synonymously for the region, the rule, and the period, from 1858 to 1947" and the British Indian Empire article was created in December 2004 as a redirect to this page and only became a page in its own right with Revision as of 03:26, 27 August 2007 with the edit comment "new article on 1858-1947 period created with content and infobox from British India" NB British India was then as now a redirect to this article). Therefor the British Indian Empire page should be turned back into a redirect. Particularly as the article was created by user:AjaxSmack just after there was no consensus to make a move AS suggested from this page name to "British India" (see Revision as of 17:43, 26 August 2007 and as such I think it is a WP:POVFORK. --Philip Baird Shearer 01:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There have been no significant additions to the page since it was created "with content and infobox from British India [sic]" --Philip Baird Shearer 11:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Completely Biased‎ Article
What about.....

The first class rail network that the British built?

The almost continual state of civil war under Mogul rule and the relative internal peace of British rule?

The supression of the Thugs?

The supression of Sati?

The supression of female infanticide?

The supression of human sacrifice?

The relative social empowerment of the Hindu upper classes after centuries of Muslim domination?

British promotion of Indian female education?

The Asiatic Society, and the Archeological Survey of India?

Medical advances in British India - educated Hindus were encouraged to perform autopsies, the medical colleges, the discovery of the causes of the bubonic plague and malaria.

The "quota system" in government ? - introduced by the British.

India's first newspaper.

Comprehensive modern censuses

The construction of the fine capital of New Delhi?

etc. etc. etc. -

It also fails to mention that the Raj was a fantastic political and military feat. At most only 1 person in 400, in British India, was European.

IN SHORT, ANYTHING REMOTELY POSITIVE IS IGNORED.

Serious historians maintain the the British Raj was a mixed bag, with "the good, the bad and the ugly" - the fact that you highlight only the negative aspects is very telling.

The bias of the article is painful. The writers (sometimes in bad English) go into detail about (for example) the INA, who were never any threat to the British, and caused very little damage -even the Japanese knew they were a very poor outfit, and used INA soldiers mostly as camp guards and porters, this kind of thing is talked about - and yet all of the above is unmentioned! I suppose 80% of the article is true - but the way other positive aspects of the Raj have been edited out / ignored, shows that the article has been cobbled together by nationalistic Indians, with an axe to grind. Some poor English usage also gives this fact away.

Example: "When British arrived to India for trading, prosperous India accounted for more than 17% of the world GDP, when British left India in 1947, India accounted for less than 1% of the world GDP." - Terrible English and (of course) no source given.

Also, as is often done by Indians, it sites the rather trivial uprisings after WWII (which resulted in VERY few British casualties, which were not supported by Congress, the ML or senior Indian army officers and nothing compared to 1857) as a major cause for the British withdrawal -but fails to mention that there was no way that the new Socialist UK government was ever going to hold on to India, and that promises were made during WWII for post-war Indian independence - a promise kept.

This article is a total sham. I thought Wikipedia was an encyclopedia - not a soap box for Indian nationalistic propaganda.

Personally I think that the British Raj was racist, and that India lost more than it gained through British rule - but the picture painted here is not objective at all. Can a section not be added, that at least mentions any positive aspects? I can even write it if needs be. Surely both sides of the argument should be presented? Or are you happy for this article to remain a thinly veiled anti-British rant?

TB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.251.208 (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I tend to agree with some of the things you say. I am in the process of rewriting the "Indian independence movement" article; the rewriting, unfortunately, was put on hold during the last two months, but I will be attending to it now. (See Fowler&fowler's Indian independence movement.)  Since there seems to be some overlap between that page and this (British raj), I will, upon the former's completion, determine what belongs where and then attend to rewriting this article.  As yet, the only thing that I have worked on here is the lead, where my main concern was ensuring that accurate terminology and dates were being used.  So, the lead was changed from this before version to this after version, and I added the 1909 map of the Indian empire as well.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

THANKS FOR YOUR FAIR & POLITE REPLY

To further highlight the problem, take for example this huge chunk, mostly about the INA:

''However, even during the war, in July 1942, the Indian National Congress had passed a resolution demanding complete independence from Britain. The draft proposed that if the British did not accede to the demands, massive civil disobedience would be launched. In August 1942 the Quit India Resolution was passed at the Bombay session of the All India Congress Committee (AICC) marking the start of what was the Quit India Movement. The movement was to see massive, and initially peaceful demonstrations and denial of authority, undermining the British War effort. Large-scale protests and demonstrations were held all over the country. Workers remained absent en masse and strikes were called. The movement also saw widespread acts of sabotage, Indian under-ground .organization carried out bomb attacks on allied supply convoys, government buildings were set on fire, electricity lines were disconnected and transport and communication lines .were severed.

The movement soon became a leaderless act of defiance, with a number of acts that deviated from Gandhi's principle of non-violence. In large parts of the country, the local underground organizations took over the movement. However, by 1943, Quit India had petered out.

However, at the time the war was at its bloodiest in Europe and Asia, the Indian revolutionary Subhash Chandra Bose had escaped from house arrest in Calcutta and ultimately made his way to Germany, and then to Japanese South Asia, to seek Axis help to raise an army to fight against the British control over India. Bose formed what came to be known as the Azad Hind Government as the Provisional Free Indian Government in exile, and organized the Indian National Army with Indian POWs and Indian expatriates in Southeast Asia with the help of the Japanese. Its aim was to reach India as a fighting force that would inspire public resentment and revolts within the Indian soldiers to defeat the Raj. The INA fought hard in the forests of Assam, Bengal and Burma, laying siege to Imphal and Kohima with the Japanese 15th Army. It would ultimately fail, owing to disrupted logistics, poor arms and supplies from the Japanese, and lack of support and training. However, Bose's audacious actions and radical initiative energized a new generation of Indians.''

Why so much space? So, ... NOTHING about the railways, museums, bridges, social reform, legal reform, universities, colleges, New Delhi, the arts, the sciences, mapping, exploration, .... but hundreds of words for good old Burma Bose with his inefectual rag-tag jungle army.

PLEASE!!!!

THE INA WAS NOT "THE BRITISH RAJ" - WHY ARE WE READING ABOUT THEM? WHY???

But whilst we are on the subject....

"The movement also saw widespread acts of sabotage, Indian under-ground .organization carried out bomb attacks [etc...]" For crying out loud - it's not even proper English! I would be interested to know the finer details of these INA ambushes and notable guerilla activity within British India - because as far as I am concerened it's a lie. There were a few bombs yes, but not many.

The INA didn't "fight hard", the regular Indian army knew it, the Japanese certainly knew it, and the British knew it. The Japanese thought they were garbage, Japanese privates would not even salute INA officers. Also, the regular Indian Army, especially the Assam Rifles, fought brilliantly at Imphal and Kohima, they were INDIANS too - and they were more numerous and of greater relevance to this article. They were Indians in uniform who saw the Japanese intruders as Fascist invaders, far worse than the British, who they trusted to leave soon after the resolution of the conflict. A point of view, which seemed to carry much weight in India at the time - AND TOTALLY IGNORED IN THIS ARTICLE.

The regular Indian Army saved British rule during WWII - which makes the regular Indian Army vastly more relevant to the "British Raj" article - does it not?

The heroism of the regular Indian Army - is totally ignored here. The Assam Rifles (unmentioned) were outnumbered, they had "disrupted logistics, poor arms and supplies" too, as they were only considered a paramilitary unit by the British. Also (surprise surprise) it doesn't mention that the INA's call on the local Indian (Naga) population to rise up against the British, was not only ignored, but the tribesmen were enthusiastic about supporting the British efforts to expel them - so much so that they were actually given arms to do so. Important details edited out because of the politics and nationalism of the contributers.

The heroic defence of Kohima and Imphal by fellow Indians, and the total apathy for the INA cause in Nagaland were indeed crucial. So what is the article trying to say here? ... with better training, guns and provisions, the tiny INA would have pushed on to New Delhi? Please!!! It's a joke.

My major point here is, that only 1 in 60 Indians that took part in WWII, fought for the INA. So, in a balanced article, about the BRITISH RAJ there should be (at least) 20 times more written about the regular Indian Army - that propped them up. The regular Indian Army (and before them, the East India Company sepoys) were a key crucial part of the running of the Raj, the INA was but a footnote in its closing years. Here, in this article, we have the regular Indian Army as a footnote and the INA as the major deal - which is pure fantasy. It's junk! It's beneath the dignity and ethics of Wikipedia (in my humble opinion).

Nevertheless - I don't even think this article should talk much at all about the 1940's freedom struggle. Of course there is a connection - but it's a different subject. For example, if you must give most of the space to the closing years, the partition of India would be more in keeping with the topic.

This aricle should be about the Raj as a political and social entity, with its positive and negative aspects. The final freedom struggle, interesting though it is, is covered elsewhere, and because of this, should merely be a closing paragraph with links to other pages - NOT HALF THE ARTICLE.

The Raj covered about 200 years, and it was not just a story of resistence. Indeed, considering how few British were ever in India, in truth, the Raj was mostly a story of collaboration. So where is that story?

A neutral historian urgently needs to rub out most of this ill-written article which has degenerated into a populist splurge of Indian nationalistic jingoism. India was the biggest province of the word's biggest Empire, Calcutta (for example) was the second biggest city in the Empire after London. It's a very serious thing to write about. A really weighty topic: a very complex subject with many angles and contradictions. This article, as it stands, is, in truth, .... an embarrassment. I MEAN The word "famine" appears 29 times!!!! I suppose there were many famines during the Mogul period as well, but they are not mentioned in the Mogul's Wikipedia article - of course. As we all know, the British controlled the rain and floods. There were a couple of earthquakes during the British tenure as well, why not blame those on the Raj whilst you're at it?

So - NOTHING about the railways, roads, museums, bridges, social reform, legal reform, universities, colleges, New Delhi, the arts, the sciences, mapping, exploration, Sati, Thugies, The Archeological Survey of India, the Asiatic Society, female education, the first police force, the first newspapers (etc.) - but "FAMINE" - 29 times!! I think that sums it up really. Can somebody please turn this back into an article about the British Raj?

By the way..........

In the late 17th century the Company had a couple of hundred troops in its employment - and very little land other than its small settlements and factories, which were only tolerated by the main power brokers in India because they drew revenues from them. Calcutta (the future capital and power base) wasn't even founded until 1690, and by 1699 it was still a very small town, more or less a village, and yet may I quote: "By the last decade of the 17th century, the Company was arguably its own "nation" on the Indian subcontinent, possessing considerable military might and ruling the three presidencies." - ABSOLUTE TOTAL RUBBISH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! By 1695, the Company ruled tiny tiny specks on the map of India, and these were garrisoned on the cheap - the presidencies were nothing back then. Even 30 years later they were still modest affairs.

To present a totally biased, one-sided article, that reads like Soviet propaganda, is one thing, but to tell LIES is quite another.

Kind Regards:

TB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.160.195 (talk) 00:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I checked back in here - to see no changes, and no reply to any of my questions. My biggest question is, if I were to rewrite anything, would it be edited symapthetically, or simply rubbed out? I know you can't say until you see it, but what is your general attitude?

Also, I notice there are two people pictured in the article - both are Indians. As if we have not seen a picture of Gandhi and Jinnah before!! Please! If this does not prove that this article is biased, and simply panders to Indian national pride, what does?

Gandhi, Jinnah, Nehru, etc. etc., all fine men who I admire, rightly opposed the British Raj, they all deserve a mention here, and (of course) have their own articles, however they were not "the British Raj", and this article is about 'the British Raj".

So, for the sake of creating an anti-British rant, two thirds of the article is merely a repetition of what can be found in other connected articles. And this repeated (and sometimes questionable) information, has replaced important details about THE BRITISH RAJ and what the British left behind in India. For example, 70% of modern Indian laws and governmental procedure, can be directly linked to the British Raj - which is a very very important fact -and COMPLETELY UNMENTIONED!

And the article failed to mention that Jinnah supported the British in WWII to help him with the later creation of Pakistan. This coopertaion was VERY important to the British at the time. Things might have fallen apart in India (for the British) without it. Unmentioned in the article!!!

To sum up,

A. 50% of the article seems to be largely about the freedom struggle - which is off topic, and superfluous, as it is dealt with elsewhere. New Wikepedia information about the Raj should not be sacrificed for this.

B. Rediculous obsession with famine. Two lines would do, with assosiated links - not 29 references. This is a contentious issue anyway. Although the debate may rage, this really isn't the right place for it.

C. The article is totally one-sided. Even if the editors feel that there was nothing good about the British Raj, the other point of view should be stated, and not with a passing comment, but with a comprehensive list of British achievements.

D. The article should really give figures. The number of British in India, the size of the British garrison, the number of British civil servants - shockingly small amounts by the way.

E. Partition, which the British were largely responsible for, should be given a paragraph. It's very important, but edited out of this article simply because it is a blot on the freedom struggle. The British actually drew the borders of Pakistan and Bangladesh. This can not be under stated - let alone ignored!

F. A paragraph on the railways and bridges. The British left all these crucial structures behind on the Indian landscape, and they should be given at least ten lines.

G. The Raj's influence on modern India - government, society, legal system, the Anglo-Indians, the press.

TB 23:14, 26 November 2007

"However, a proposal by Viceroy Ripon and Courtenay Ilbert in 1883 that Indian members of the Civil Service have full rights to preside over trials involving white defendants in criminal cases sparked an ugly racist backlash (see below re "White Mutiny"). Thus an attempt to further include Indians in the system and give them a greater stake in the Raj, ironically, instead exposed the racial gap that already existed, sparking even greater Indian nationalism and reaction against British rule."

then later......

"In 1883 the government of India attempted to remove race barriers in criminal jurisdictions by introducing a bill empowering Indian judges to adjudicate offences committed by Europeans. Public protests and editorials in the British press, however, forced the viceroy George Robinson, First Marquess of Ripon, (who served from 1880 to 1884), to capitulate and modify the bill drastically."

Why was this mentioned twice? Why is the information repeated? The massacres of white women and children in 1857 was also an "ugly racist backlash" .... but that, of course, (surprise surprise) is not mentioned at all - but the above is mentioned TWICE?

Massive bias, bad English, repetition, important omissions, historical errors, off-topic entries ....... it's awful! Please do something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.80.178 (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Quote:

"The Rebels had achieved (at that time) the impossible in uniting and overthrowing (if only temporarily) an apparently unbeatable army and a now semi-despotic ruling power."

Again, total junk. Why had the rebels "acieved the impossible"? The Sepoys had always critically outnumbered the British, and had been trained and armed by them. The authors are painting the entire thing as a brilliant feat.... and it really wasn't. Read about the seige of Delhi (please).

Why were the British "apparently unbeatable" - New Zealand's Maoris fought the British off in the 1840's, and the Americans (without the benefit of British arms and training) had defeated British rule some 70 years before. So, "apparently unbeatable" is just another lie isn't it?

Despite the fact that "acieved the impossible" doesn't even make sense, emotive phrases like that don't belong in encyclopedias anyway. This article is simply an anti-British Indian nationalist rant.

To make the article less of a hatchet job on the British-Indian relations, and to make a contribution rather than just an attack, I have added the following:

"The 21st century Indian legal system, India's governmental structure, the national capital, and the railway network (the world's biggest employer) all remain substantially influenced by the British period. The predominance of the English language in India, has also proved to be a critical advantage for Indian tourism, call centres and computer software developers. As a direct result of former ties between the UK and India, substantial numbers of Indian nationals have been allowed to emigrate to the UK. For several decades this large community has imported Indian products to sell in the wider British market, has sent remittances home and has invested British earned capital in Indian business ventures."

It brings the article up-to-date. The economic effects of the British Raj are still here with us, and I think it was a bit of a farse that all the section talked about was famine, tax, famine and famine. What do you think?

I also put : "At the time, the strength of the Company's Army in India was 238,000, of whom 38,000 were Europeans." (Frank Clune, Song of India p.106). A balanced article on the Raj has to talk about the numbers of Europeans in India. Many Indian writers side-step the issue as it makes the Indian people appear less than heroic (a mistake in my opinion). If you talk about any conflict you MUST talk about the numbers on each side - it's very basic stuff.

Also - as mentioned - the amount of repeated information about the freedom struggle, has to be cut by 90% at least, and replaced by information strictly about the BRITISH RAJ unique to this Wikipedia article. The British Raj was not the Congress Party and the ML! and the Congress Party and the ML was not British Raj! So what's going on with this article? If the last two decades do merit half the article - why is there next to no info on partition, which was brokered by the British? The importance of this event can't be over-stated. I know why though - it's because the article is an attack on all things British, and a hagiography of all things Indian. You can't have a hagiography of all things Indian and write about partition can you?

Nor can you make much mention of the pro-British Indian army and police - something massively important to the Raj, but, strangely enough - not to this article.

Please can we ditch all the flag-waving, and just have an article of the Raj? - its rise, its armed forces, its iternal structure, the use of the Indian Army at home and abroad, its fall, its legacy and its division - and not a lecture on Gandhi etc. (great though he was).

TB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.75.31 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 1 December 2007

Agree with nearly all of what you've said. Looking back through the archives it looks as if this has been a problem for some time. Unfortunately it appears that although this is an important subject there is not enough traffic through the page to fuel a change. This page should be entitled "Indian resistance to British rule" it fits that title fairly well, though would still not be without bias. It would be nice if some of the contributors who created such a lop-sided article would come on to the talk page to discuss trying to make it better.

The lack of any information on the cultural, political, linguistic or physical legacy of British rule is a glaring ommision in my opinion. There's no reason to claim it was all positive either, if that's what worries people. Shane1 08 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.241.52.124 (talk) 12:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see my note in the section below. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Revision
I hope to be simultaneously revising this page and the Indian independence movement page. As I have already indicated above, I am writing a combined Raj+Independence movement subpage: user:Fowler&fowler/Short_History_Indian_Independence_Movement. I had initially thought I'd wait until the entire subpage article was complete and then transfer text to the two Wikipedia articles, but in light of the above discussion, I am moving some text to give people an idea of the forthcoming changes. The text in question is in the section "World War I and its aftermath." Regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that the revision will take four to six weeks. So, please bear with me, if temporarily the article has an unkempt look.  All suggestions are welcome.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Images
this article has far to many images that are arranged poorly, and they are causing gaps in the text. Perhaps a gallery would be more appropriate. --Mrlopez2681 (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. They've been arranged in two galleries.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not sure the Mughal flag is correctly depicted. The crescent moon was derived from the Turkish flag; the Mughals on the other hand used the lion and the sun as their devices. I had once seen a Mughal flag depicting a golden sun on a white background. Can someone enlighten on this? Gopalan evr (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Images 2
Nice images of British contributions but where are the images of the beatings, deaths, riots, auctioning off of Marajah's and Prince's entire palaces in London? Dont forget all the Jewels, gold and silver that were shipped off to London and into the British Crown Jewels. Kohinoor anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.55.13.207 (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

On Above topics
I will suggest a neutral editor have a look, because it is very easy to have an Indian nationalists as much as an apologist for the Raj to introduce PoV here, specially in light of above comments that repeated the BBC's eve of independence broadcast and MI2's war time intelligence manouvres literally verbatim. Rueben lys (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Works on the British Raj
Here's are two early published work. The review of the two works (Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 58, No. 1. (Mar., 1943), pp. 127-130.) should help construct atleast an NPOV view that looks at it from both an involved (Simnett is British) and uninvolved (Mitchell is American). We should be able to find an Indian account as well (I found Sumit Sarkar's 1983 Modern India very helpful).Rueben lys (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The British Colonial Empire.by W. E. Simnett, and
 * India Without Fable: A 1942 Survey. by Kate L. Mitchell

Lawrence James' Raj:Making and unmaking of British India (1997) should also be a good source, and this book is on Edinburgh uni's recommended list.Rueben lys (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Content and quotes
For the sake of clarity, I am copying this message I left for Fowler&fowler on his talk page

Hello Fowler, I saw the changes you made to the British Raj from the short history section. First of all well done on the good review. However, I will say could you please make a suggestion in the talk page before actually changing it (like in the India page). The reason I say this is because I had earlier linked the first world war bit to the "conspiracies" etc and the relevant events but these were undone by the edit you made.

Also, the talk page of British Raj shows there might be some biased (and inaccurate) views on part of some editors (of the talk page, I dont know if they have edited the main page) which if introduced into the main page would make it PoV. This would include, eg, civil war under Moghuls, suggestions that Quit India movement (I gathered) was linked to the INA, was relatively minor and not of consequence, the stuff on the INA that verbatim repeated war time propaganda. I do think though your additions to the bits on railway economy etc was wanting in the British Raj article, but they will be deemed unneccessary in the Indian independence movement article. Lastly (and not wanting to introduce PoV), there should be a mention of balancing criticisms, including the views on economic exploitation, and poor managements See for example papers on these in JSTOR (Lovett 1920, Sarkar 1921, Sarkar 1983, Tinker 1968, Childs 2001, 2005)

One other thing was, the bit in the World War I, you quote the viceroy as having expressed concerns on denuding India of the troops, whereas Strachan's 2001 history of World War I quotes the viceroy as having expressed the opinion that the less that remains in India he better since they were the likely source of trouble.(Strachan, 2001, p793). These are two diametrically opposite records from the same person in the same situation, you might want to double check this.Rueben lys (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that the quotes attributed to the viceroy are diametrically opposite. Could somebody please clarify this or remove this please.Rueben lys (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I missed the message on my talk page. Someone else posted right after you and I got confused.  Not sure which "good review" you are talking about, but thanks.  As for your second paragraph, I have already mentioned above that the subpage that I am writing is not be any means complete.  What was initially an outline is now being expanded to a combined British raj+Indian independence movement article (even though it is titled F&f's Short History of the Indian independence movement).  Once completed, I will then divvy up the text into its two sub-articles.  Yes, I am well aware that the railways section etc. needs to be expanded, but I have added it here for now, because I feel something is better than nothing.  As for economic exploitation etc., that too will be added.  Finally, about Harding's quote.  Well, there really is no contradiction.  Harding did worry publicly about denuding India of its troops (since there were just 15,000 British troops left in India during the war – and most of them were in NWFP) and the exact quote from Judith Brown is correctly cited in the text.  That was the primary British worry about India during the war, and Hew Strachan, himself quotes Judith Brown for most of that paragraph.  The second Harding quote (for which Strachan, uncharacteristically, provides poor attribution) is to be taken ironically, as an afterthought.  The British government didn't export Indian soldiers to Mesopotamia because they feared revolt in India; the soldiers went there as units of the army that had both British and Indian personnel.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

World War II
To Rueben lys, "Ousted" is more accurate for Bose than simply "resigning" from the Congress. His hand was forced. Also, Low doesn't say that the Japanese supported nationalist unrest from the onset of the war. If the Japanese had supported nationalist unrest, it needs to stated (which countries) and cited. In any case the statement is not about their supporting unrest, but about supporting puppet governments. Finally, your description of Bose's reverses is full of redundancies; the section on WWII merely describes Bose's reversal, not British progress in World War II. As I have explained above, I will add that section as and when the section is ready in its expanded version, but the British Indian war effort is a separate story of which the Bose saga is a small part. You are welcome to add whatever you think is relevant, but no undue weight to Bose. This is a page about the British raj. Bose was a small (more or less inconsequential character in it). Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  17:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am just about to add the references to the Japanese intelligence and puppet governments. However, you will notice that I had actually changed the words to the "British Indian Army" (Different from the British Army), "Japanese offensive", 1944 campaign of the "Japanese army" and "1945 U Go offensive" of the "Japanese Army" (Not Bose's INA as the version you edited said). Also, my edits accuratey described the Commonwealth forces Campaign (the Burma Campaign) (they never drove the INA down to Malaya, which was only two divisions, they drove the Japanese forces down from Burma and Singapore surrendered when Japan surrendered) and actually deemphasised Bose and INA etc(ie, emphasis was on the British Indian Army's efforts against U Go offensive, not Bose's INA and patriotic half-truths, if you see what I'm trying to say). I think my edits actually said what you say above, and you actually undid it. Lastly, I undid the ousted to resigned because your edits implied he "was kicked out", I revised that to what was true, ie, he resigned from Presidency, and later from the Party (there was a long gap between the two, and what your summary say may be interpreted inaccurately.) If you give me a bit of time, I'll find you a few good references. The issue of consequence is relevant to and should be addressed in the Indian Independence Movement page(according to WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, WP:DUE and WP:NOR), not in this page as you say.Rueben lys (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, Bose was pretty much kicked out. He was of course forced to resign from the Congress presidency, but after that he was forced out.  Here is Sumit Sarkar, "On 11 August the AICC removed Bose from the post of President of the Bengal PCC and debarred him from holding any Congress office for three years.  An ad hoc committee was later set up to run the Bengal Congress, including Azad and Gandhians like P. C. Ghosh but also two members (B. C. Roy and Kiransankar Roy) of the 'big five' of Calcutta magnates who had once been Bose's main financial backers.  While Bose was firmly ousted, a total break with the Left would hardly have been wise from the High Command point of view." (Sarkar, Sumit, Modern India, pp. 374-375.)  I'm not sure which book of Judith Brown you quoted as saying that Bose (merely) resigned, but her Modern India book barely devotes two lines to Bose and doesn't directly mention the incident.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And, here is David Low in Britain and Indian Nationalism: The Imprint of Ambiguity 1929-1942, "So riven did the two sides become upon this and various related issues that Gandhi and his cohorts not only forced Bose to resign from the Presidency soon after his second election in 1939. When he then defied them by establishing his 'Forward Bloc' and organised a day of protest against what he saw as the anodyne position they had adopted in some resolutions they passed at the end of June, they went on to eject him from the Presidency of the Bengal PCC as well." (p. 297).  That is pretty much ousted.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Rueben lys, please stop pushing your idiosyncratic agenda on this page as well. (You have already made a mess of the Indian independence movement page.)  I am trying to be patient with you, but please stop adding irrelevant links that you create (for whatever purpose) that don't supply any information.  A prime example is "Rowlatt committee," which you were erroneously calling "Rowlatt commission" not too long ago.  There is ample description here and there is no need to link it to your POV-infested page.  Also, papers by obscure authors dating back to 1920 are not reliable for a summary article like this.  Please restrict yourself to standard text-books.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me fowler, but there is no need for that tone or language. I dont much care for your patience, but that above comment is making my patience run out. And please stop telling me what sources need to be used. What I have given you as sources are peer reviewed jounral articles amongst the best academic journals (care to read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS). That it doesn't agree with your PoV is none of my problem. I invited you to write in my PoV infested article to make it NPOV, and the link has been provided because your edits half hides and half doesn't say what the main article says (ie that the committee was set up to investigate the German and Bolshevik links, and because the revolutionary problem at the time was a serious problem.) You have not addressed the veracity of the quote either. I am sorry but you just cant ride roughshod like this.Rueben lys (talk) 03:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * PS:: Verney Lovett sat in the Rowlatt committee so should be able to disabuse your notions of obscurity and the purpose of the committee, the reference is available in JSTOR.Rueben lys (talk) 03:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC). I have merely stated the facts in that line on the conspiracy and the committee, nowhere have I mentioned any synthesis of opinion. I am extremely concerned what your PoV is if this is the response and approach that you adopt to unwanted (why???) facts being stated and referenced.
 * On WWII, the Raj had winning the war at the forefront of its mind, Bengal famine came a long way away (in 1943). Read L James, or any other book. And see Jiffs.Yes it is not the only emphasis, and should be balanaced. But this does not mean that the war should be delinked. The British Indian Army was the largest volunteer force in the war. The war was the end of the Raj. Surely WP:DUE means it deserves quite a lot. Not merely on the INA, but I knew about this and had good references, which is why I inserted it. And nothing gives you the right to talk in the above manner. If you cannot show respect and courtesy, for whatever reasons, I will make sure you are forced to. Rueben lys (talk) 03:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Section break

 * I have provided the correct citation for the Hardinge quote. It is page 197 of Judith Brown's book, Modern India: Origins of an Asian Democracy.  The extended quote is: "Fortunately for the British, local disorder was never generalized; nor was there an all-India campaign against increased taxation.  Had there been more than sporadic local outbreaks, they would have had their backs to the wall, because of the withdrawal of troops India to the Middle East and Western Front, and the departure of many expatriate civilians, including ICS men, for Europe for combat.  Hardinge as Viceroy wrote in 1914 of 'the risks involved in denuding India of troops', and admitted 'there is no disguising the fact that our position in India is a bit of a gamble at the present time.' By March 1915 there was not a single British battalion, except Territorials, in the subcontinent, apart from eight on the northern frontier that could not be moved."  (And, for the Hardinge quote, Brown herself gives this primary source: (Hardinge to V. Chirol, 19 November 1914, Cambridge University Library, Hardinge Manuscripts (93)).
 * What do you provide by way of the "contradiction?" It is a reference to a page from Hew Strachan's book, and you say, "(Strachan) quotes the viceroy as having expressed the opinion that the less that remains in India the better since they were the likely source of trouble."  Well, what does Strachan really say?  Here is the extended passage from my copy of his book (History of World War I (volume 1, 2003)), "The major operations from 1815&mdash;the Crimean War, the Boer War, and (in effect) the Western front in the First World War&mdash;were left to British units; most colonial wars fought beyond India's own immediate frontiers between these dates did not involve Indian troops.  The primary job of Indian soldiers was the defence of India, both on its north-west frontier and, within its borders, against internal sedition.   ... Nonetheless, the effect of the outbreak of war was to leave India itself remarkably exposed in military terms.  By late 19014 the British garrison had tumbled to 15,000 men.  In March 1915 all eight regular battalions still in India were stationed on the north-west frontier.  In the course of the year territorial battalions came out to replace the regulars.  But the British numbers remained, in relative terms, exiguous.  In June 1918, the British troops in India mustered 93,670 compared to 388,599 Indian soldiers.  In 1922, when the Indian population totalled 315 million, the British official presence (troops apart) embraced 1,200 in the Indian civil service, 700 policemen, and 600 medical officers. (For the above text Strachan himself cites Judith Brown.) For a group for whom the memory of the mutiny of 1857 was indeed worrying, Hardinge, who remained remarkably phlegmatic throughout, still (italics mine) observed in August 1914: 'after all it is the Native troops that present the greatest danger so, I say, the more go to the war the less danger there is at home." (For the last quote, Strachan, uncharacteristically, provides poor attribution: "Quotation provided by Dr. G. Martin.")  What is the contradiction?  Strachan himself says that the primary worry was leaving India "remarkably exposed in military terms" (similar to Hardinge's "denuding India of troops").  Sure, the British was also worried about insurrection by the Native troops&mdash;they had been worrying about that since 1857, especially insurrection by Muslim troops.   The British worried about a lot of things: they worried about the Russians, about the Turks (and Pan-Islamism in India).  They worried about the Afghan frontier; the Afghans themselves were champing at the bit to attack India (see Strachan pages 771-775).  However, as the later pages of Strachan's book show, there was no significant mutiny in the army (either in India or outside).  The little there was, was swiftly dealt with.


 * The problem I see with your edits, is that they lack perspective. They lack a sense of (historical) proportion.  Thus, you first disputed my use of "ousted," when the unanimous opinion of historians (even the ones you yourself quote like Sumit Sarkar and Kulke and Rothermund) is that he was ousted.  I had to produce extended quotes to make my point.  You next doubt my quote of Hardinge, propping up a throwaway remark by Hardinge (spoken ironically) to pride of place in some interpretation you plan to make.  Don't you think that if the British really had shunted off most of the Indian army to the Middle East in order for them not to revolt, it would have made the history text-books by now?  How come none of the standard history texts of modern India by Judith Brown, David Low, Sumit Sarkar, Metcalf and Metcalf, Sekhar Bandopadhyay, Stanley Wolpert, David Ludden, Peter Robb, Bose and Jalal, ... are silent on this?  All you can find is one quote at the end of a paragraph, which Strachan himself spends mostly paraphrasing Judith Brown.


 * The bottom line for me is that we have already had an RfC on the Talk:India page, at the conclusion of which, it was suggested that I write an outline of the Indian independence movement, which I did. It was further suggested that the outline should be expanded.  I am in the process of expanding that, but since it is hard to separate Indian action from British response, what I am writing instead is a joint history of the Raj and the Independence movement.  I have already explained twice above that as and when different sections get written I'll be adding them to the respective articles.  Wikipedia being a freely editable encyclopedia, I can't, of course, stop anyone from editing it, but I am requesting that you kindly hold off your edits until the text is more complete.  By adding poorly summarized text that lacks the perspective needed for an article of this size, and, in addition, is sometimes based on incorrect interpretations (as the two examples above indicate), you make my task harder.  I am again requesting you to let me finish the article.  You can then provide your input.  I am happy to add an "underconstruction" template to warn readers of the article's inadequacies.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Allright, afew things I have to say.First of all, thanks for a polite(r) reply. Secondly, I have explained above that I thought "kick out" was a PoV term, you have referenced it and I except that. What I will say though, you interpret Strachan's attribute as Ironical, which I cant see as justified. You will see I hope why I think this is contradictory. Strachan does actually talk about attempts within India, especially on the army's loyalty with relation to the German global strategy during the war and the Indo-German Conspiracy, which, without naming it as such, Strachan devotes nearly twenty five pages, I am sure you will have seen it, the Ghadar stuff, Berlin committee, Bagha Jatin, Oren, Arthur Zimmermann, Papen, Mahendra Pratap, Barkatullah, the Kabul mission, it is all there. The Afghan themselves were, yes, champing at the chance to attack British India, but not at least under Habibullah in the middle of the world war I, as Strachan points out. It was the Turco-German mission with Indians in it that drove the problem of the Afghan threat to India home, as Strachan says again later in the chapter. Next, you will see why Brown and others dont talk about probably in Richard Popplewell's 1995 book on intelligence and imperial defence: Defence of British India. p4-5.

I added (and referenced) the Japanese intelligence mission to actually provide the context that you say lacks, British India did not stand in isolation to the rest of the world, and was indeed the target of numerous subversive and other policies from other world powers at this time. I will not re-add this at this moment, since you ask for the time to complete the article. I will ask nonetheless that you add the underconstruction template, and also that the sources be expanded beyond Judith Brown's history (say Sarkar, or Lawrence) as primary source (correct me if I got the wrong impression), since I have just completed reading a review of the book by Thomas Metcalfe which suggests that it is somewhat biased to the Cambridgist view to the Raj.Lastly, with regards, to the India archive, the suggestion was made by yourself that you write a short history of the Indian independence movement and the Raj. My interpretations are based on what I read, including the sense of proportions and perspectives, not what I want to read or want others to read. Where pointed out adequately, I am happy to accept the inadequacies. But, I am also aware of the differing old boys club perspectives on this period and how the more newer research, new uncovered archival and other historical sources and facts, and the opinions of academics based on these change and differ (hence my extensive journal article references, which do usually explain what the proportion and importance are). Rueben lys (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. Actually, I will do one better, I found out today that I have to leave for my Christmas vacation a little earlier than I had anticipated.  I will likely have little or no access to the internet during this time.  So, I will work on the text off-line and add it upon my return in January.  We can then talk about the references and interpretations.  Thanks again.  Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Great Job
I have not had a careful read of the new article yet (I'll have time tomorrow) but it looks 50 times better than what was there before. It looks like.... an article on the British Raj! Well laid out too! Thanks for all your hard work - I hope you all have a good new year.

TB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.173.174 (talk) 04:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

.........

"By the mid-1600s, the Company had established trading posts or "factories" in major Indian cities, such as Bombay, Calcutta,..." INCORRECT!! Calcutta was founded in 1690 - or at least that's when the Honourable Company got there! Plus, this strongly suggests the British actually moved into "major cities" in the 1600's - not so! When the British arrived at Madras & Calcutta there were only a few humble villages there (none of which were not known as Chennai or Kolkata by the way). They became towns, then cities, then major cities, because of the East India Company -the Company never found them "ready made". I think this is a hangover from the previous article which was profoundly anti-British. - the British had a fair claim to have actually founded Calcutta & Madras (although this has recently been challenged by trendy revisionist Indian historians - although even they would never suggest that these were actual cities before the British visited). Bombay wasn't even a city in the 17th century. May I suggest: By the mid-1600s, the East India Company had established trading posts or "factories" in areas that later became major Indian cities, such as* Bombay and Madras. Towards the end of the 17th century, the Company established a factory amongst three small fishing villages in Bengal, one of which was named Kalikata - from which the British probably derived the name "Calcutta".

- Source Cotton H.E.A.: Calcutta Old and New (1909)

The original section contained an historical error and created a completely false image - the above is more in keeping with actual history. I hope you will be sympathetic to its inclusion.

Like I say, great job - but hey, what about the founding and creation of New Delhi? ! How can that not be included? Indeed, it MUST be included.

TB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.173.174 (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I changed it to "namely" instead of "such as" - as this gives the false impression that there were other cities too. At that time, there were no others. Also I pushed the "nation within a nation" bit to the first decade of the 18th, rather than the last decade of the 17th. The East India Company was not that safe, powerful and secure in 17th century India. Although in some respects I understand what the writer was trying to say; in Calcutta, for example, the East India Company could not trade freely until 1716.

Burma
Burma is not a successor to British India as it was separated from the British Indian Empire in 1937, 10 years before the Raj came to an end. Even Singapore was briefly under British India administration, but that doesn't make it a successor. India and Pakistan are the only "successors" of the Indian Empire. --Mellisa Anthony Jones (talk) 07:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Article title
I know this has been discussed before, but the title "British Raj" is obviously problematic. Shouldn't it be British Raj in India, or for those who constantly have problems with India, British Raj in South Asia? deeptrivia (talk) 06:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What was wrong with having British India as the title?, or British Indian Empire - as well as being used historically aren't these more descriptive/user friendly titles to the average English speaker and wiki user?


 * Pahari Sahib, 15:04, 1 January 2008 (GMT)


 * I totally agree --Mellisa Anthony Jones (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the re-opening of this issue. There have been three requested moves over this issue (see above ) and the arguments for and against have been discussed a number of times. Why "British Raj in India"? where there lots of other British Rajs that needs such a disambiguation? There is a redirect from British India and British Indian Empire to this page and the reasons why these names were rejected as the page name has been discussed during the requested moves. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I too oppose reopening.  I say this as someone who has spent considerable time and effort (see my numerous posts and arguments in Archive 1) on this issue.  Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Indian Empire
I'm wondering about this, why does the lead say British Indian Empire? IIRC the name of the nation was just the Indian Empire, I think the article itself pretty much explains that it was actually a British dominated nation, having British up there makes it look like its part of its name. If I'm wrong though and its official name was British Indian Empire shouldn't the whole thing be in bold?--Him and a dog 15:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So...is that Indian Empire or British Indian Empire then? I'd guess the former due to the way the passport system used to work with Britain but that's just my guess.--Him and a dog 12:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The official name was "Indian Empire." See my map in the main page infobox.  Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * To be very honest, as long as the article explains (as it does in the lead) that it is to do with British India, explains the official and other common names, and that this was a part of the larger British Empire, I think it is fine to keep the article where it is. I am just about to add a disambig, I think this should sort out any problems of ambiguity. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 13:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Martha empire as predecessor and others
Can the Maratha empire really be considered a predecessor seeing as it more or less ceased to be a force around the 1820s. In that note, souldn't the Sikh Confederacy be considered as a predecessor seeing as it was more or prominent till around 1850s? rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 19:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Stolen Artifacts and their whereabouts???
If it is possible, can some one add a section about the artifacts and the precious gems(like 'Talisman of the Throne') that were stolen by the british be added to this article203.81.211.108 (talk) dan —Preceding comment was added at 21:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Check: Article Reflects British POV
This article clearly reflects British POV on British Raj when it should be reflecting Indian POV. Seems like the British have taken over this article. No mention of large scale suppression of rights, racist policies, mass murders and atrocities committed by British, general looting of national treasures, plundering of Indian temples, encouragement of aggressive proselyzation activities, decline of Indian economy from 25% of the world economy to 2% of the world economy during British Raj. This is a SHAME. Desione (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If India really had 25% percent of the world and was so truly advanced, how come it didn't produce anything like a Newton, a Hooke, a Harvey, or a Boyle, all of whom made their discoveries well before the East India Company came to play a significant role in India (1757), and long before the British Raj began in 1858. Where was the Indian HMS Discovery in 1780 trying to measure the average depth of the Indian Ocean? Sadly, there was already a vast "technology gap" between England and India (by the late 1600s), well before India was to play any role in the British economy. In fact, that technological advantage was one of the causes of British ascendancy.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the recent time magazine article that appeared in a special issue on India's 60th independence anniversary Why India's Rise is Business As Usual
 * Quote from Lord Curzon: Powerful Empires existed and flourished here [in India] while Englishmen were still wandering painted in the woods, and while the British Colonies were a wilderness and a jungle. India has left a deeper mark upon the history, the philosophy, and the religion of mankind, than any other terrestrial unit in the universe. (See ). 69.181.145.156 (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussion of scientific advancement is offtopic, however, I WILL COMMENT ON IT AT A LATER TIME since you have brought it up, but that should not prevent anyone from addressing large scale suppression of rights, mass murders, racist policies, slavery, and other such evils that were features of british raj. 69.181.145.156 (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is about the British Raj which existed from 1858 to 1947. No point presenting general arguments about Indian culture and both its fabled once-upon-a-time strengths or its newly-found self-confidence in the form of Curzon's grandiloquence and Time magazine fluff respectively.  My claim is that Britain already had an enormous technological advantage in the late 1600s and early 1700s on account of its major role in the Scientific Revolution, which India did not participate in  (regardless of whether it had had Aryabhatta and others in the first millennium CE, in case you are next planning to head in that direction).  Without that technological advantage, there is no way that a hundred thousand British citizens could have governed a large region like India with hundreds of millions of people (much less build roads, railways, survey the Himalayas, etc.).   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not important at this point. What is important is discussion of british atrocities as I have pointed out again and again and which you seem to be ignoring again and again. DISCUSS THAT FIRST and we will talk about rest of your biased opinions later. Desione (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure it is important. Before the British got to India, Ferdinand Magellan had already circumnavigated the world before his death, at age 41, in 1521.  Why were there no Indian ships turning up at European ports and trying to establish "trade links" like the Portuguese, the Dutch, the French, and ultimately the British were? Why was the Marine chronometer not invented in India?  The British might not have been the just rulers they sometimes claimed to be, but the technological backwardness of the Indian subcontinent in the early 1600s, which ultimately led to India being colonized, can't be laid at the doorstep of the British (nor indeed of any European maritime power).  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Humans have been using ships and traveling across oceans for almost 60,000 years now (if not more). Many pacific islands were settled this way. So I wouldn't put too much weight to a single, although recorded, case of Magellan crossing the oceans. As far as shipping in the Indian context is concerned, it is a well proven fact that ships were sailing out of Lothal (a city within the Indus Valley Civilization - 3000BC and earlier) trading with other ancient civilizations. Hence, shipping in Indian context was well developed by 3000BC well before there was such a thing as UK. In later times, India's trade with Roman empire is well documented (and the fact that much of the Roman gold was flowing into India because that is pretty much the only thing worthwhile that the Indians found in Rome). Off course, no one really bothered about the remote and undeveloped corner of Roman Empire otherwise now known as UK. So in summary the only reason Indian ships were not hitting UK shores was because you guys didn't have anything worthwhile to trade. Is that clear enough? Desione (talk) 05:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning that any perceived or actual technological advancement automatically leads to colonialization (and atrocities, etc as clearly demonstrated by British) is false and biased. Desione (talk) 05:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Quote from Hu Shih, former Ambassador of China to USA: "India conquered and dominated China culturally for 20 centuries without ever having to send a single soldier across her border." Desione (talk) 05:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Amazing! You are doing exactly what I predicted you would (above).  Taking my comments to be  comments about the "intrinsic inadequacy" of Indian culture or science.  My comments are simply about the 17th century and that India was technologically backward (by an order of magnitude) in comparison to Europe.  It has nothing to do with whether Indians in an earlier age were scientifically advanced.   As for the Indus Valley Civilization, I would urge you to read the references I added to that article over a year ago when I substantially rewrote it, including references on sea trade (in particular H. P. Ray's book, Archaeology of Seafaring in Ancient South Asia).  I am aware of what sorts of sea-journeys were involved.  And, BTW, the human migration out of Africa, approximately 50 to 60 thousand years ago, did involve some journeys across small bodies of water (Gulf of Aden, Indonesian archipelago during the ice age when the water levels were lower), but those journeys, accomplished by small human groups in dugout boats over a period of thousands of years, are quite another matter from circumnavigating the globe in three years and one month.  The latter journey required technology not only in the form of superior construction, but also navigational methods that ultimately led to more sophisticated ones involving telescopes (invented 1609), sextants (invented 1602), and marine chronometers (invented 1760).  Lastly, I didn't say that any technological advance leads to colonization, simply that although the British can be blamed for many things (including, for example,  making famines more acute in India by disrupting traditional modes/relations of agriculture), India's technological backwardness in the early 17th century, can't be laid at their doorstep.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The only intrinsic thing here is your "intrinsic bias" that has been perpetuated throughout the British Raj article. So once again, I AM NOT interested in discussing "here today gone tomorrow" type of British scientific toys. That part is specially irrelevant since Britain itself did not exist in any viable form before a few hundreds year ago and because its current existence as say the 51st state of USA is itself questionable given EU integration. My claim is a little stronger. What I was trying to show (perhaps you predicted this as well) is that British Empire was a singular and temporary *EVIL* phenomenon that quickly arose and died damaging India and other historic civilizations as well. This is the expected unbiased tone of the British Raj article. EVIL (racism, slavery, mass murder, policies that promote famine, negative economic growth, poverty, large scale robbery of national wealth, etc) has nothing to do with technological advancement. EVIL will be EVIL no matter how technologically advanced or backward it may be. Now please start correcting your rampant bias in the British Raj article. Thank you. Desione (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

THE CURRENT ARTICLE IS EXTEMELY OFFENSIVE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desione (talk • contribs) 23:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Marking the article for neutrality check since the pro british biases are systemic in this article and there are multiple comments from people indicating this. Desione (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This article should be used to potray the British Raj as the evil, racist, and murderous empire that it was and the systemic ills of colonialization that are well recognized today. To start with here is an article from New York time pointing out the british mentality during those times even though I think this reference article is too soft. I am extremely disappointed that some people in this disucssion seem to be patting themselves on their back with the systemic bias that exists in this article to paint the british raj in a better light (which is abhorrent and morally wrong to say the least) Desione (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to mention: Slavery was another important feature of British Raj which has not been discussed here. Only people with racist inclination could have written the article as it stands in its existing form. Extremely irritating and offensive. Desione (talk) 12:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is in the process of being re-written. Please bear with us. The New York Times editorial(?) from 1891 you quote, while sincere, is full of inaccuracies.  The same sentiments were expressed by many liberal British newspapers at the time.  The British India policy was not one policy, but dependent on the particular government in power in London.  In the late 1800s, there were many back-and-forths between conservative (Disraeli) and liberal (Gladstone) agendas.  Gladstone, for example, was firmly against granting Victoria the flamboyant title, "Empress of India," which, however, Disraeli managed to pull off during one of his stints in power.  Slavery, BTW, was abolished in the British Empire in 1833, again long before the British Raj took shape.  Hope this is informative.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The references should cite Indian sources. British were oppressors, racist, slave traders, and mass murders, hence the views of british publications which were part of british empire are considered biased to begin with. Stick to neutral publications of Indian (the sufferers) publications. Besides that no one gives a damn about Gladstone or racist bitch known as the British empress. Desione (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Call for wider participation
For discussion as to what is the best way to solicit Indian views and opinions regarding future course of this article. Obviously there are better sources our there. Desione (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Or is it "Call for narrow focus?"
I think what you have there for a title, is a call for a narrow focus by ill-informed people. What part of Wikipedia WP:RS says that British sources about the British Raj are unreliable? Specifically, which sources in References section, by British authors do you find unreliable, and which chapters and which page numbers carry examples of such bias? Please be specific.
 * Are you denying the fact that British carried out atrocities, slave trade, mass murders, etc? Rest later. Desione (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

As for your memorable sentence, "no one gives a damn about Gladstone or the racist bitch known as the British empress," I am sure you are violating some Wikipedia (talk page discussion policy). Far be it for me to give you a warning. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  16:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Point taken, now please start discussing british atrocities. Desione (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is a more complete list of the references for the forthcoming version of the article: References from F&f. The article will have both the good and the bad.  Please either wait until it is finished, or point out specific examples of British bias in the numerous references.  Putting in a sentence or two or poorly thought through material now on British atrocities serves little purpose from my perspective.  However, you are welcome to add critical historiography yourself, if it is properly sourced.  The reference list has enough material, both laudatory and critical of British policy in India, for you to be able to find something.  As you will see, many of the histories are written by Indians.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please include Amartya Sen in your list of references. If you are not familiar with his work let me know and I will clarify. Desione (talk) 05:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You will clarify? I know if must be a daily insult for you to converse in the English language, given your disquisition on the British and EVIL above, but "clarify" is different from "inform." Or are you suggesting there is still more to Sen than the economist who graduated from Presidency College, Calcutta (founded by the British), received his Ph. D. at Trinity College, Cambridge (alas, another British institution), won the Adams Smith Prize (British) for Choice of Techniques (written under the supervision of Joan Robinson and Maurice Dobb (both British)), taught at the University of Delhi (founded by the British), while he wrote Collective Choice and Social Welfare, (inspired by Locke, Hobbes, Hume, Bentham and a host of British Philosophers) moved to LSE (British) and continued to work on Welfare Economics (a field created by British economist A. C. Pigou), moved to Oxford University (British) and turned his attention to inequality and famines and wrote Poverty and famines: An Essay in Entitlement and Deprivation, moved to Harvard University founded by John Harvard (also British), and then back to Trinity College, Cambridge (British), when he wrote The Argumentative Indian, which got him into trouble with the Hindutva crowd?  With such impeccable Britain-related credentials, I am surprised he belongs on your list.  Sen's book, BTW, properly belongs to the Famine in India page.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * PS. All this, BTW, is off the top of my head (since you won't find it in any Wikipedia article), should you deign to "clarify" things for me again. Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * aNd yr pOinT Iz? cuz da wy I fiGUr it iz that onz the foundations of universities az institutions of higher learning wer laid in India (and one or two other places), the rezt is (as they say) history. Not counting the financing theze univs got as a direct result of British Raj loot (like as in thieevery) Comprende? Desione (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, oh dear, seems like quite a heated exchange - but quite amusing nonetheless :-), could someone supply details of an atrocity (+source)? Of course the British in India took advantage of the situation they were in and exploited it. But many of the atrocities they were 'responsible for' will of course be tempered by the fact that the people implementing the action usually were not British (1857/1858 was perhaps a bit of an exception). Pahari Sahib  15:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh... yes, that argument... "It was the Indian troops..." "did not refuse orders, which they could...". Let's just give a short answer that will help both views. "The Lion and the Tiger: The Rise and Fall of the British Raj, 1600-1947.Denis Judd.Oxford University Press.2004. ISBN 0192803581". It should shed light on the more subtle social and economic policies, the dependence of British economic growth on India, the resultant impact on India and Indian economy, as well as the more obvious ones that people talk about.


 * You might find this interesting too, especially in light of Fowler's vividly ptytic championship of Universitites of India and Britain and of the Indian students. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 18:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "ptytic." Hmm.  What language is that?  Apparently not one that the British forced on their subjects.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not actually, well spotted. It is infact a language more ancient and arguably (especially to its proud users) much superior to that. I'll let you work it out. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 21:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This might be interesting as well: The Blood Never Dried: A People's History of the British Empire.John Newsinger.2006.Bookmarks.ISBN 1905192126 rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 19:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms of the Raj
The criticisms of the Raj certainly pertinent to the article, and the decline in socio-economic conditions in India is more than adequately described, so shouldn't be hard to locate. The decline in the textile industry and agriculture, the rise in famines, disastrous social and economic policies, racist social constructs etc, these are more than just recorded. I dont see why or how this has anything to do with the industrial revolution or reneissance in Europe. I can write out a summary section if given enough time. But I certainly do agree that these need to be included. Incidentaly, I also have an issue with the section heading of ==Beginings of self-government==, because it seems to imply this wasn't there before. There was local self-government, but not representative or democratic, and the title should reflect that, as opposed to the notion propagated that India was a land of unruly savages before Britain came to rescue them, which is what seems to be the opinion of some of the above editors. Also, out things into contextm, company arrived as traders, not India-saving missions. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 17:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

British Raj was nothing but Cultural Imperalism, Slavery & Murder of Humanity.
British Raj has lead to distruction and economic devastation of Indian Subcontinent. The colour discrimination was rampant and only whites were allowed to hold the important positions. The Indian public was used to serve the cause of British interests in various parts of the world mostly as indentured labourers or soldiers etc. British applied their genocidal policies similar to the policies used in Australia to reduce the indegenous people into Aboriginal minority and disadvantaged section of the society. They created Pakistan on communal designs so that there would be no peace in the subcontinent for the decades to come, they even funded terrorism and drug trade to destabilise India since Independence. They stole billions of dollars in the form of jems, jewellery and gold to leave India bankrupt and lame. The demise of the British Raj was the single most important event in the life of million of Indians who were leading a life of slavery and exploitation under barbaric and cruel people from England.--Himhifi 00:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Balance, NPOV, WP:CIVIL, etc
I know a lot of people hold strong opinions about this article. However, there is a real danger of letting these override the more important wikipedia policies of WP:NPOV, civillity, and other core policies that make a good article. The goal of this, and any other article is to cover every major aspects of the subject, both good and bad, and allow the reader to make his or her own informed opnion. I must ask both sides to calm down, take a deep breath, and approach this with a cool head. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 11:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why so holier-than-thou now, when you conveniently forgot your own precepts above: "... as opposed to the notion propagated that India was a land of unruly savages before Britain came to rescue them, which is what seems to be the opinion of some of the above editors. Which editor above has said that?    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it didn't cross your mind that I may have made that comment to user:Desione's edits because of the language and capitalisation? Or perhaps you're not comfortable with the conclusions anyone would draw on you converting discussion of the negative impacts of the Raj to a justification on grounds of technological advancements, which incidentally is reminiscent of then justification of the Raj? Take your pick. And as for the spittle flying off your mouth in the edits you made in the preceding section, perhaps you should put those (and other outcomes) on a section headed Impact of the Raj, and then discuss both the positive ones, some of which you indicate above, and also the negative ones, which a number of scholars including those from Cambridge, Trinity, Harvard, Delhi, Moscow,Timbuktu, Burkina Faso etc have repeatedly made. And then, perhaps, you should publish an academic criticsm of Amartya Sen for being a turncoat and untrue to his salt who dares criticise that institution that was responsible for his scholarly education, and then come and tell me how British he is??? See how easy it is turn it uncivil? Let's have a sensible discussion, most of us (including you and me) are reasonable people who want this article improved. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 17:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A point of usage: spittle doesn't fly "off the mouth," but rather "off the lips," (or perhaps "from the mouth," since the mouth is an enclosed space, not a surface). That is, if you're going to use that quaint expression.  Warm regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, I will use the corrected version in situations which present themselves in the future. As for the mouth being an enclosed place and not an enclosed space, I will forego my cherished anatomy knowledge on the background since it is not really the point here. But on the main issue, I am aware you have worked hard on a number of India related articles, and I am sure you'd like to help this one as well. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 21:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In all sincerity, while your comments to engage him in constructive NPOV discussion are nice, in my opinion, his only intention is to propagate bias and this user will continue to do that up to the extent possible. No sane person (British or otherwise) would have written the British Raj article as it stands today. Personally, I think all his India related contributions need to be checked as time permits. Desione (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Before you start inserting your dubious Angus Maddison inspired statistics, please read these criticisms of Maddison's works by economists. Secondly, in any case, the Raj began in 1858, when even by Maddison's estimates, India's share was only 12%.  Thirdly, this is not the East India Company page; if you think it is, you're barking up the wrong tree.  Fourthly, even by Maddison's estimates, China, Mughal India and Europe were roughly equal in 1700, with one important caveat: China's and India's economies was static and had been so for a few centuries, while Europe's was rapidly expanding.  Lastly, the lead of this article has only the definitions of what the raj was (i.e. its geographical and temporal boundaries), not an analysis of its "performance," either flattering or damning.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Everything that does not fit your biased opinions is going to dubious. Like your predictions (as you have so clearly boasted about earlier), anyone could have predicted this. FEATURES of British Raj (general decline of conditions in South Asia along with atrocities) are inherently tied with and were the motivation of British Raj and its predecessor East India Company. Hence these need to be discussed as opposed to a whitewashed description that would make even Hitler look as innocent as my neighbors grand mom. Desione (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you think the Effects on the economy section is? A panegyric to the Raj?  As I have explained above, I am in the process of expanding the article (including the section).  Per Wikipedia, philosophy, I can't stop you from adding material to the article provided it is properly sourced.  However, your contribution thus far is not.  Here, for example, is Judith Brown (Beit Professor of Commonwealth History, University of Oxford) on Maddison: "'But over one basic trend there is major academic controversy and little likelihood of resolution until much more research has been done.  One scholar (Maddison) hazarded successively estimates of a 3 per cent increase, a 16.6 per cent increase, and a 28.9 per cent increase in crop output between 1893 and 1946; and this was a period when population increased by 46 per cent.  If this was true Indian's food resources would have been cut dramatically.  In the absence of evidence of such a drastic cut perhaps a more realistic estimate is that in the early twentieth century at least, when the population explosion really began, agriculture output rose roughly in line with population.'"
 * What I am trying to get across to you is that the truth is complicated and needs careful stating. Words like "atrocities," "racism," "slavery," "genocide," and all the others that you seem to favor in your descriptions, aren't helpful.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You must realize that the worst kind of crime was committed by the British using colonialism against a large section of humanity. You may feel the pain when your nations history consists of a brutal past. You must accept it and repent for the Sins committed by your forefathers rather than try to whitewash the sins. Colonialism helped Britain and British nation to be a developed nation depriving all those nations under its control of basic human rights, right to resources. History cannot be distorted. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 07:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No it didn't. Newton had already written his Principia long before India was to play any role in the British economy.  If you think Britain was not already developed, try reading Newton's Principia for the Common Reader (by S. Chandrasekhar), Cambridge University Press, 1995. London already had a sewage system (with no more epidemics of cholera or plague) after the Great Fire of London (1666). Again, Britain surely benefited by having India as a colony, but it was a global power&mdash;the world's first super-power&mdash;and would have become one, India or not.  The dominance of Britain (and Europe in general) during the period 1700 to 1914 had more to do with the earlier development of mercantile capitalism there and the concomitant scientific and industrial revolutions, which provided the impetus for economic expansion.   The East India Company, for example, made most of its profits through its "trade" with China; although India was its base, its India operations were a net loss, and brought on great criticism at the annual meetings of its board of directors in London.
 * The bottom line is that this is a history page, not a place for people to experience catharsis for whatever feelings residual victimhood they might carry in their national psyche. It goes strictly by WP:RS.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Tag
A POV tag is pointless here, as I see no reasoned objections on the talkpage. Can someone who objects to the article's current state please list out their objections? Otherwise the tag will be removed again. Relata refero (talk) 09:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please go ahead and remove it. The tag is the handiwork of, who in his short Wikipedia life of two months and 225 edits, has done little more than troll talk pages.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Try to discuss instead of forcing your way thorugh. I am not the only one who has pointed out that abuse and atrocities were features of the British Raj. Desione (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is immaterial. Find reliable sources that state that. Relata refero (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Other users have stated the same opinion. Also your constant revert of NPOV tag despite the fact that several users have pointed out bias constitutes WP:Vandalism Desione (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A POV tag certainly seems justified, atleast until a proper "Criticism" section is put up and a summary of that section finds a place in the lead. Sarvagnya 18:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Criticism sections are deprecated. Critical views should be worked into the discussion. And the lead should summarise things neutrally. To look at an extreme, consider the lead of Nazi Germany.
 * Nevertheless, I don't see a POV problem. Can you isolate examples of notable "criticism" that is being excluded? Relata refero (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A general case of systemic biases throughout the article does not require isolation of specific cases. Particular cases can be discussed as time permits. It is understandable that this is not the full time job of most users here. Desione (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, unless you give me an example of a problem, you have absolutely no leg to stand on here. Merely complaining on the talkpage does not demonstrate that the article has a problem. Relata refero (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you fail to perceive the biases that me and several other editors are pointing out there is nothing I can do. Desione (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Which other editors? And can you please make a reasoned argument based on reliable sources instead of saying a tag has to stay on on your say-so? Please read WP:NPOV on balance and undue weight! and WP:RS! Relata refero (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your ignorance of other users comments is not my concern. Read the talk page again. Desione (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I see a several users, not one of them claiming the entire article is biased except you. Sarvagnya asks for a criticism section, but I point out criticism is supposed to be incprportated in the article, as here. Relata refero (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Spamming other peoples talk pages to solicit their support, as you seem to have done here, is frowned upon in Wikipedia. Look, if you really want to add the sophomoric material you seem intent on adding, I can't stop you.  Good luck.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Calm down
Guys, honestly stop it!!! No one's doing anything to improve the article which should be the real obective. I have suggested above (cant even find it in the above deluge) that I will write out a short summary on the impact of the Raj if you guys will for once stop bickering and help me find the resources. Fowler, like it or not, has written a provisional article that in my opinion covers a lot of grounds that needs to be covered. Yes, it is not perfect, but the way forward, as someone suggested above (cant even find that) is to add referenced concrete stuff to that.Wikipedia, like every other good work, is based on collaboration, no one knows the best, but can work together. To say there was no negative impact is myopic, biased and false and has been addressed by a number of historians. To say there was no positive impact is myopic, biased and false and has been addressed by a lot of historians too! Now take a deep breath, step back, and think how you can improve this article such that it can stand up to criticisms. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 19:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I will try to dig up multiple references and provide any help needed. Please let me know. Thanks Desione (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As I have explained to you many times before, I am expanding the article off-line, since I had been traveling for the last two months. It should have been done by now, but needs another few weeks, because of unforeseen events in my personal life.  The new article is an expanded version of the "provisional" article.  Nowhere does it say that there is no negative impact.  Even the "provisional" version has a tentative criticism section Effects on the economy section.  I personally don't need your summary, although I can't stop you from providing it.  With that said, I will now not access this page for the next three weeks, when I hope to have the article ready.  I am taking it off my watchlist.  Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * While your efforts are welcome, other users works need to be incorporated into the article. Desione (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV flag
The current British Raj article is a whitewashed version that shows British Raj in a benign manner. A partial list of reasons why the NPOV flag is needed:
 * No mention of Jalliawallah Bagh massacre.
 * Racist policies which were central to British Raj are not discussed.
 * No negative images (as opposed to mostly benign or some positive - first Indian to be awarded Victoria cross) give a very clean image of British Raj as opposed to its real perception as abuse and exploitation.
 * No mention of widespread general deterioration of conditions during British Raj.
 * No discussion of British policies (and indifference) that lead to various famines - 20 to 40 million people killed by conservative and liberal estimates.
 * British Raj and its predecessor was not just abuse and exploitation of entire South Asia (not just India).
 * For good or for bad, some of the most difficult problems today (Israel/Phelestine and Kashmir issues) are legacies of British Raj.

The article needs to be written to show British Raj in a negative light instead of whitewashing over all ills of British Raj to show as if nothing happened and everything was nice and smooth. The ills of colonialism and imperialism are well recognized today and any article that does not consistently show this is biased to begin with. Not just me, but multiple editors on this discussion page have supported this. A consensus regarding WP:NPOV nature of this article does not exist. Please do not revert the NPOV tag until these issues are settled. Desione (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone is willing to call for vote in order to establish that a consensus exists on maintaining the current British Raj article and that the British Raj article is not biased, please stop removing the NPOV tag. Otherwise, your changes constitute Vandalism. Thank you. Desione (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you had paid any attention to the talk page discussion, you would know that even the provisional version of the article (for both British Raj and the Indian Independence Movement) that I had written on my user page, had section headings on Jallianwallah Bagh and Economic Critiques. See here.  The combined article has since been greatly expanded off-line, currently at approximately 170KB of text alone and with meticulous references.  Nothing like your nonspecific ruminations of the last few days.  Nothing, for example, like the reference you provide of Manmohan Singh's acceptance speech at the occasion of receiving his honorary Cantab doctorate.  Singh, quotes  "Cambridge economist" Angus Maddison (to pay a compliment to his benefactors), but doesn't tell you that Maddison's  only association with Cambridge was his undergraduate years there.  That, in common parlance, doesn't make a "Cambridge economist;" a faculty position does. Please read the provisional version again, especially sections 2 and 3.  I would request you to hold your horses, until you've seen the final version in a few weeks.  All your objections have already been incorporated.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please take your time. I am not in any hurry (as long as the NPOV flag stays). Also, I know that you are well aware of the fact that this is a collaborative effort. Desione (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that you've been blocked for 31 hours for edit warring. I hope you will be more cooperative in the future.   A collaborative effort doesn't mean that everyone and their brother's idiosyncratic notions of history need to be accommodated in this article.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Need to be careful with economic comparisons
People blithely quote Angus Maddison's figures about historical GDPs and one oft-quoted figure is that India had 22% of the World's GDP in 1700, but only 5 (or thereabouts) per cent in 1952. This is the same kind of inane exercise that some editors like to engage in on the India page itself about whether India is the world's third largest economy (in PPP estimates) or the fifth largest (according to the World Bank in its new assessment of prices in India). The point is that India is the world's 126 or is it 132nd ranked country when it comes to per capita income and therefore remains a poor country (with the highest number of undernourished citizens of any country in the world). India might be the world's third largest economy in purchasing power, but that is solely because its population is high. The same unfortunately is true in the historical estimates. Here are the per capita estimates based on Angus Maddison's own controversial figures. India here = (modern day) India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Great Britain = England, Scotland and Wales. (Ireland is not included.)


 * India 1500


 * GDP = 60, 500 million (international dollars) (source Maddison List of regions by past GDP (PPP))
 * Population in 1500 = 110 million (source: McEvedy and Richard Jones, Atlas of World Population History (London: Penguin Books, 1985; Tapan Raychaudhuri and Irfan Habib eds. The Cambridge Economic History of India (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982) I))
 * Per capita GDP = 526 (international dollars)


 * Great Britain 1500


 * GDP = 2, 815 million (international dollars) (source Maddison List of regions by past GDP (PPP))
 * Population = 4 million (source Population of the British Isles)
 * Per capita GDP = 704 (international dollars)


 * India 1600


 * GDP = 74, 250 million (international dollars) (source Maddison List of regions by past GDP (PPP))
 * Population = 145 million (source: Tapan Raychaudhuri and Irfan Habib eds. The Cambridge Economic History of India (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982) I)
 * Per capita GDP = 512 (international dollars)


 * Great Britain 1600


 * GDP = 6, 007  million (international dollars)  (source Maddison List of regions by past GDP (PPP))
 * Population = 4.8 million (source Population of the British Isles)
 * Per capita GDP = 1252 (international dollars)


 * India 1700


 * GDP =  96, 750 million (international dollars)  (source Maddison List of regions by past GDP (PPP))
 * Population = 175 million (source: Tapan Raychaudhuri and Irfan Habib eds. The Cambridge Economic History of India (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982) I)
 * Per capita GDP = 553 (international dollars)


 * Great Britain


 * GDP = 10, 709 million (international dollars) (source Maddison List of regions by past GDP (PPP))
 * Population = 6 million (source Population of the British Isles)
 * Per capita GDP = 1,785 (international dollars)


 * India 1820


 * GDP = 111, 417 million (international dollars) (source Maddison List of regions by past GDP (PPP))
 * Population = 210 million (source: Tapan Raychaudhuri and Irfan Habib eds. The Cambridge Economic History of India (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982) I)
 * Per capita GDP = 531 (international dollars)


 * Great Britain 1820


 * GDP = 36, 232 million (international dollars) (source Maddison List of regions by past GDP (PPP))
 * Population = 14 million (source Population of the British Isles)
 * Per capita GDP = 2,588 (international dollars)

So, as you can see, India's per capita income remained essentially static during the period 1500 to 1820, whereas Great Britain's (which was higher than India's to begin with) increased four fold. Even if you explain away the 1820 estimate by "colonial exploitation," what accounts for the static economy in India during the years 1500 to 1700. The blame for that cannot be laid at the doorstep of Britain, as I have repeatedly stated above and as I can now show user:Desione's own figures. I urge editors to not add hurriedly culled figures from the internet in the aid of one particular point of view or another. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  15:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The golden age of India was over by the end of the Gupta Empire. The Mughals (and other Islamic invaders who came before the Mughals) were themselves external invaders like the British largely disconnected from the large majority of the population they were ruling. Probably the only difference being that the Mughals lived in cities and palaces while the British lived on the other side of the world. Not too complex is it? This should explain the so called static period between 1500 to 1820 and beyond. The cast system probably played its role too, but it was never really in control like the British and the Mughals? Desione (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is painfully obvious. There was a genuine historical debate on the colonial drain theory at one point, but neither side of that would have permitted for an instance any implication of the sort that certain editors here were making. `Relata refero (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

While WP:OR would suggest not to make deductions (notably because,as we know, statistics are like bikinis), here's a paper from the LSE, which should address somesides of the now calm debate. I will most notbly point to pp 32-38 on the "drain of wealth" and "effect on economy" debates. This paper's actually relatively newer. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 17:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not really original research, although it may appear that way. Maddison has come to exactly the same conclusions.  I did that only because I don't have Maddison's book handy.  As for the paper of Om Prakash (who is a professor at the Delhi School of Economics, and someone I respect), I don't have too many quibbles with it.  In fact notice the language on page 32 and that of the last paragraph of  Economic Critiques Section: they are very similar, both skeptical.  Prakash, too considers the nationalistic critique to be simplistic.  The point I am making above is that in the period 1500 to 1750 (what Prakash calls the pre-colonial phase) the growth in Britain was not driven by riding piggyback on India's economy; its causes were manifold and complex.
 * I have created a "popular" timeline to demonstrate this for future critics of the British raj page here: F&f's Did Britain piggyback on India?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * PS Here is the Wikipedia page on Maddison's book The World Economy: Historical Statistics. Notice the reference to Adam Smith and static economies.  Om Prakash, of course, is of the view that certain sectors of India's economy did register growth.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What the blazes does Britain's technological advancement in Britain and Europe in the couple of centuries that preceded their colonisation of India have to do with what they did to India's economy when they ruled it? Technological advancement is hardly a license for a country to occupy and rule technologically less advanced countries, to accomplish which, they needed not compasses and marine chronometers, but guns and cannons.

If RS sources say that Britain's factories produced and sold enough to lead to or sustain tremendous growth in her economy, we will say that. If RS sources, however, also point out that these factories produced and sold as much as they did because they were able to procure their raw material practically free of cost by holding a gun to a poor farmers' head in faraway India, we will say that too. We however, will not qualify it to read like --

"Though Britain's factories procured raw material by holding a gun to a poor farmer's head in faraway India, we should give credit to the British/Europeans for their technical expertise in mass producing such guns/cannons in the first place, not to mention their spirit of adventure in navigating the high seas, which again goes back to their technological advancement in the field of maritime navigation!.. ergo.. it was "scientific advancement" and not thuggery that helped them produce and sell as much as they did!!" Sarvagnya 23:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Rueben lys: Thanks for posting Om Prakash's paper. As I mentioned above, he is someone whose work I admire.  I am of course aware of his work on the Dutch East India Company (his expertise) and also of the (now concluded) Global Economic History Networks program at LSE, but wasn't aware of this paper.  For those who might not want to read the entire paper, here are some notable quotes.  First, here is Prakash pointing out that India was not the typical colonial economy: At the outset it might be useful to note that in many ways India in the nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth century was not a typical colonial economy. While obviously aligned to and serving the interests of metropolitan Britain in an important way, India nevertheless was somewhat atypical in so far as its dependence on the foreign sector was at no point in time overwhelming. It was not a one or two products exporting economy – either agricultural or mineral - the way many Asian economies were. Partly because of its size and partly because of its variegated economic structure, both the exports from and the imports into India were quite diversified, although over a period of time there indeed was a distinct trend towards the emergence of a structure of the so-called colonial pattern of trade. Also, from the second half of the nineteenth century onward, there was the rise of a modern industrial sector in India in a manner which had few parallels in other colonial economies in Asia.
 * All this, of course, has already been worked to death by the Cambridge School (and not just economic historians, Judith Brown for example).


 * Secondly, here is Prakash talking about the "piggyback" theme, but for a later period: 1750-1830, i.e. putting to rest the idea that the industrial revolution was substantially financed by the fortunes of East India Company officers: All that one can say is that Bengal revenues provided an indirect subsidy to the British exchequer and the enormous opportunities for private gain now available to the Company servants in their personal capacity created a whole new class of the new-rich ‘nabobs’ returning to England with fortunes unheard of before. It is, however, highly unlikely that these private fortunes constituted an element of any importance in the financing of the Industrial Revolution in Britain which was then getting under way.


 * Lastly, here is a good description of India's historical unpreparedness to take advantage of the industrial revolution and to participate in it: At the time of independence, India was still largely non-industrial and one of the world’s poorest areas. Most interpretations have attributed the limited scale of modern industrial development either to British policy, which inhibited local initiative, or to the Indian value system and social structure, which diminished entrepreneurial drives. While these elements may have set parameters within which business behaviour occurred, they do not explain the specific and diverse characteristics of actual entrepreneurial choices. The Indian economy in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries was essentially a private-enterprise economy, and the vast bulk of decisions about the allocation of resources was made by private business. In no decade between 1872 and 1947 did the state’s annual share of gross national product (GNP) average more than 10 percent; usually it was less than that.

To the extent that the expansion of modern industry depended on decisions made by private entrepreneurs, no single social or economic characteristic can explain the slowness of India’s industrialization process; no single act of policy or change of behaviour could have made for much more rapid progress than did occur. It is not that India was caught in a low-level equilibrium trap from which, once liberated, development would be cumulative. When the great array of evidence is considered, the image that emerges is one with a web of relationships that served to dampen the performance level and the rate of change. Expansion in a single sector, however successful, proceeded only in a limited way; it could not generate, on its own, an ever-widening chain of reactions throughout the system. Rapid and sustained industrial expansion on a broad front required not only an extensive array of basic social, political, and economic preconditions but also the development of an institutionalized mindset – one that solved the new problems that continually emerged. Despite its other virtues, the Indian system had not possessed these features at the beginning of the nineteenth century.


 * So, I stress again, (as Prakash does as well): the colonial (economic) interaction between Britain and India was complex and that complexity needs to be preserved in our description of it. Thanks, Reuben lys, again for posting the paper!  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Instead of focusing on colonial (economic) interactions between Britain and India, I suggest that we focus on describing the colonial (economic) model between Britain and India which would no doubt be less complex and still give an accurate picture. Desione (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Evils of Colonisation Should be a Part of Discussion For NPOV!
It is rediculous to glorify British rule on the grounds that it has lead to some development or industrialisation in India. Grossly it was a misrule which was a drain on the Indian economy, expolitation of the masses, slavery and crimes against humanity. Western media has potrayed India in the negative light undermining the development and high rate of growth in the modern times mainly due to the systemic racism and racial bias in their countries. How can you justify or glorify the foreign rule on the grounds that the parent country Britain was powerful world economy at that time or even today.

In the country like Australia which has become a developed country mainly due to the export of natural resources as 70% of its GDP comes from export of raw materials, indegenous Aboriginal people are still treated as racial pariah and are the poorest and disadvantaged section of the society in the majority white country. Therefore foreign rule can't guarantee racial equality or equal opportunity for the original inhabitants of the colonised land and therefore can't be glorified on the grounds of some economic development which had occured shear out of necessity like procuring the raw materials for the rapid industrialisation in the parent country England. There are several examples of British misrule and evils of colonisation all over the world.--Himhifi 11:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight?
How is this undue weight? - it is not a violation of NPOV, just a historic fact, see this image -  Pahari Sahib  22:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree that this is a historical fact. Desione (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But don't feel that it is important enough to go into the lead. The space taken up by this text in the lead can be used to give one or two sentence summary of impact of British rule in the lead. Desione (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As for the passport being a historical fact, an image of passport with a caption with the same text can be added. I don't have a problem with the current text as it is. Just that it is taking up space in the lead which can be better used. Desione (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * An image of British Indian Passport
 * Thank you. Desione (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, but in my opinion - it seems to me to be a pretty important part of history, that colonial India was considered important enough to be made a founding member of the league in its own right. Seems (to me) to be more important than mentioning the Maldive Islands or Sikkim. There is nothing to stop you adding a line or two about the impact of British rule in the lead.


 * Regards :-)


 * Pahari Sahib  23:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree on that part (more important than mentioning Sikkim). Although image of passport will give weight as well. I will try to adjust this and let me know what you think. Although Maldives is its own country now, so we probably should be giving them due weight with all the other countries mentioned in the lead. Thanks. Desione (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I see what you mean. Maldives was never part of British Raj, so don't mind taking it out all together. Desione (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Removing big description of countries that were not included in British Raj and adding a sentence for excluded countries in the list of countries that were included in the British Raj (for disambiguation). Left League of Nations and passport description as is based on discussion above. Desione (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, it is not a big description of countries, but essential discussion about which British colony in South Asia was a part of the British Indian Empire and which was not. For a country like Sri Lanka, which is a part of the Indian subcontinent and was a British colony, it comes as a surprise to an average reader to  discover that it was not a part of the British raj, a  matter that needs some explaining.  The same with Nepal and Bhutan, each of which had fought wars with the British, but, in the end, were not annexed.  The region of Kumaon in the Western Himalayas, however, was annexed by the British from Nepal after the Anglo Nepalese wars.  Same with Sikkim: since its accession to India in the 1970s was a matter of international controversy, it needs to be discussed at the outset.  Darjeeling, for example, which was a part of Sikkim, was annexed by the British, but the rest of Sikkim was not.  All this can't be brushed away in one extreme attempt at précis writing of the sort: "'Other countries in the region such as British Crown Colony of Ceylon (now known as Sri Lanka), independent kingdoms of Nepal and Bhutan, and British protectorate of Maldive Islands were not part of the British India.'" Saying, for example, that Nepal and Bhutan were not a part of "British India," begs the question, "But were they a part of the British Indian empire?" since "British India" contemporaneously  referred to only those parts of the British Indian empire (like the Bengal presidency) that were administered by the British.


 * Consider now the language of the original version: "Among other countries in the region, Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), which was ceded to the United Kingdom in 1802 under the Treaty of Amiens, was a British Crown Colony, but not part of British India. The kingdoms of Nepal and Bhutan although having been in conflict with Britain, had both subsequently signed treaties with Britain, and were recognized as independent states and not part of the British Raj. The Kingdom of Sikkim was established as a princely state after the Anglo-Sikkimese Treaty of 1861, however, the issue of sovereignty was left undefined. The Maldive Islands were a British protectorate from 1867 to 1965, but not part of British India.'" This is precise information.  Notice, for example, that "British India" is used with the Maldives and Ceylon, not with Nepal and Bhutan.


 * There are two Wikipedia pages devoted to the period 1858-1947: British raj and Indian independence movement. It is essential to not have too much overlap between them.  The "Indian independence movement" has plenty criticism of British policy.  This page concentrates more on the administrative and policy aspects of British rule on the Indian subcontinent, and leaves most of the political for the Indian independence movement page.  There is only so much room in one article.


 * I will not revert user:Desione's edit, but he is clearly out of his depth on this page.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have now reduced the paragraphs some, rearranged and combined them for more cohesion.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. This is really not a major area of concern from my side. Just that the lead seems to be too big. If there are other ways you (or others) can find to shrink the lead that will definitely be useful keeping the attention span of a casual reader in mind. Desione (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Prelude: The East India Company
Good historical account of East India Company, corruption and mismanagement by company official (that bankrupted the company) while growing personal fortunes, and how the company increased its tax revenue from farmers even during famines (while worsening the famine). Incompetent and Evil at the same time. . Desione (talk) 09:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent article on East India company from Asia Times:. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desione (talk • contribs) 09:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please spare us the references. You will be better off reading (and at least making an attempt at understanding) the article by Om Prakash (added above by user:Rueben lys), than dumping your latest newspaper nugget here.  As for the British East India company, please go and have a ball on that page, not here.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Lets try to get beyond usage of words such as "dumping your latest newspaper nugget" and "please go and have a ball on that page." The current section on east india company (like much of the article) is extremely benign - a whitewashed version of its actual deeds. And this needs to be covered. Desione (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The English people presence in India for 250 plus years was solely driven by spirit of expoliting India economically to make their parent country England richer and prosperous and in turn generate income for hundred & thousand of British people who were part of the British rule and corrupt administration in India. They hated and racially discriminated Indian people because they found them primitive and darker in skin colour due to which they taxed them even at the point of starvation and allowed them to die in millions without any relief during floods and famines. Some development or reforms they brought about during their corrupt and murderous rule can't be cited to justify or glorify their endeavour to make India bankrupt, illiterate, partitioned on communal designs, poverty ridden and without little infrastructure at the point of their exit in 1947. Anyone who had raised voice against their corrupt & murderous rule was either jailed or killed with the help of corrupt judiciary.

Their presence was not driven by India building mission, if that was the case than why so much difference in the socio-economic conditions of India and Britain at the time of Independence. And for that matter even if they would had stayed in India after 1947 they would had created a underclass based on race & skin colour like the Aparthied regime of South Africa which had denied black Africans the basic human rights or the "Stolen Generation" in Australia where descendant's of British people even now treats it's indigenous black people as racial untouchables, after two centuries of discrimination, murder and exploitation. Britishers could not guarantee racial equality, equal opportunity and economic prosperity for million of Indians and used them as commodities for thier own benefit. In short their objective was met as they grew richer India became poorer!--Himhifi 02:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What about their atrocities in East Bengal (Bangladesh)
This article absolutely DOESNOT mention anything about the atrocities British caused in bengal. What about the destruction of cloth industries in present-day Bangladesh. Bengal contained the finest cloth industry at that time. 'muslin', shawal' cloths were one of the finest in the world at that time. It's because of the cloth industry of Bengal that British, Dutch, French, Portugese came all the way from Europe to India to do trading. After taking over Bengal, they looted Bengal, destroyed the cloth industries, imposed sactions on it. Dhaka was back to jungle in 50 years. They created a new capital in Calcutta. All of these are well documented. Why doesn't this article mention any of that ??. --68.179.122.177 (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I cite the following from a Book:-

"Bengal during that era was one of the wealthiest nations of the world. So wealthy it was that Vasco Da Gama sailed there, rounding the Cape of Good Hope and entering the Indian Ocean in 1498. Reporting to Portugal’s King, he described Bengal as a country that could export “grain and very valuable cotton goods, a country that abounds in silver”. By 1536 the Portuguese were trading at Chittagong (a place in Bangladesh) and living along the Bhagirathi River in Radha above what is now Calcutta. The Dutch came in 1615, the British in 1651, and the French in 1674. Europe’s merchant flocked to Bengal for its cottons, silks, food and manufacturers. So great was Bengal’s trade that the four European nation fought for supremacy. Taking Bengal in 1757, Britain set the stage for conquering all of India. Meanwhile, thanks to Bengal’s wealth and army, the British were able to conquer entire India and send home vast riches that helped underwrite Britian’s supremacy in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries. Indeed, without Bengal the British Empire is unlikely to have survived Napoleon."

"It was stated in evidence [in 1813] that the cotton and silk of Bengal (Dhaka) up to the period could have been sold for a profit in British market at a price from 50 to 60 percent lower than those fabricated in England. It consequently became necessary to protect the latter by duties 70 to 80 percent on their value or by positive prohibition. Had this not been the case, had not such prohibitory rules and decrees existed, the mills of Paisley and Manchester would have been stopped in their outset, and could scarcely have set in motion, even by the power of stream. They were created by the sacrifice of Indian [Bangladeshi mills in Dhaka] manufacture. Had India been independent, she would have saved her own productive industry from annihilation."

Source: 'Bangladesh: Reflections on the water' by James J. Novak (Pg 75-80)

You can get this book in Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Bangladesh-Reflections-Water-Essential-Asia/dp/0253341213

Adam Smith in his 'Wealth of Nations' harshly criticized the practices of British East India Company, which he thought had a monopoly in both Bengal and England. In the one, it was the largest buyer and in the other it was the largest seller.

I dont have the book with me now, so I can't quote exactly, but, I will try to get it and paste the statements. You can also find Wealth of Nation by Adam Smith in Amazon.
 * Thanks, I don't have these readily available so the text is useful. If anyone can shed light on 1) how and where east india company distributed goods that it "imported" from south asia, and 2) trade protectionist policies, it would be quite useful.

British rule was not glorious for us. Please be at least fair & balanced in writing history in wikipedia. This is not a forum or blog --68.179.122.177 (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The "famous weavers of Bengal" are specifically mentioned in the text as suffering. Relata refero (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting Titbit
Interesting article: about why "South India" is developing faster than "North India." The author says "India is not a developing country, but a re-developing country." :-) and points to the havoc wreaked on the north by British rule and earlier Islamic invasions. His final conclusion: "south is developing faster than north because south was able to retain more of its classical Indian character as it was not exposed to invasions like the north was." I thought "British / Islamic invasions were there to civilize India!" What happened to that idea? Desione (talk) 07:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you still burn your women, when the husband dies ?, one practice the empire managed to stop. The Empire brought many bad things and many good things. NPOV is alway required. To suggest the north of India is poor because of the British is a crazy statement. A lot of countries have a north south economic divide, as with planet earth the north is richer than the south. At the end of the day the Empire was wrong in the notion that everybody has the right to be independent. But i feel with your persistant comments on here, you have a real chip on your shoulder. There was a Empire, India was ruled by a foreign power, Get over it and move on. Rockybiggs (talk) 10:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

'''Today India is one of the fastest growing economy in the world, majority of Indians since has moved on and don't see Britain more than a small country with little significance apart from economic ties etc. For most of the progressive Indians countries like China and USA has more importance for setting growth parameters than any country of the size of UK. But whitewashing the reality and presenting your evil deeds as development and nation building, is not the right thing, atleast people should know the truth and take the lesson from the history to prevent it from repeating.--Himhifi 12:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)''' --Himhifi 12:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We don`t care about you either. As for the evil deads lol, there were goods things and bad things. These comments were originally for the Troll, but now obvoisly yourself too. We have always been a small nation, and thats why you have chips on your shoulders, that a little island race conquered your huge country and massive population. Rockybiggs (talk) 12:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Saying that there were "good" things and "bad" things is like saying "We raped you, but you got to have sex right?" (this comment is not mine, i am just borrowing it). There is a thing called perspective and scale. By the way, I was not trolling, just assessing the mood on the board and whether anyone was still interested when I put up the link to the article about North/South. Obviously, there is enough interest and I probably won't do that again. Desione (talk) 18:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The British won the world war and got a chance to write history. As a result many of the evils of British Raj (which was largely evil) got whitewashed over. Such attempts (many times unknowingly) continue even up to this day in the British Media and literature. In many ways Britain still has to come to terms with its history as the Germans and Japanese have. As for "Sati" (or "Witch burning" in west), I am sure these were not as common as some people like to think they were. Desione (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The article you have cited is flawed, it is just an opinion piece by a columnist, did you see the responses left at the blog contesting this? The idea that the south is developing faster because it retained more of its classical Indian character - sounds like an Indian take on Eugenics or Racial theory. The subcontinent has always been varied, in ancient times the diversity and disparity was probably much greater than today. In fact the word India is derived from Hindustan which was used during Islamic rule, originally for North India and later, during the British era, for the whole of the subcontinent. Of course Hindustan was derived from the Sanskrit word Sindhu for the Indus river, but Sindhu just meant the river and nothing else. If having a classical/pure heritage makes you stronger - how did colonisation take place at all?

—This is part of a comment by Pahari Sahib which was interrupted by the following:  I agree that the article is flawed although the "hypothesis" that the author is trying to put forward is interesting. Many good arguments can be made that South is basically developing at the same pace as North. I don't necessarily see it has Eugenics or Racial theory since there is really not much of a Racial divide between North and South (perhaps a bit of a "values" or a "weak cultural devide"). I am not from south India by the way. Desione (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Aside from the fact the British used native troops, the British (Welsh, Scots, Anglos and at the time Irish) were a mixed bunch - additionally the first conquests in India were by a tea company and with limited (or no) intervention by the government of Britain. The main reason why colonialism succeeded was due the fractious nature of the subcontinent, different languages and castes etc. The British recruiting community A to conquer community B.

—This is part of a comment by Pahari Sahib which was interrupted by the following:  Agree. If Aurengzeb wasn't a major jerk himself, the British would probably have been restricted as traders.


 * If belonging to an ancient civilisation makes you successful, then how on earth did the Brits succeed? - Following the fall of Rome, Celtic Britain was colonised by a bunch of Germanic tribesmen/Barbarians - the Old English peoples (i.e. Angles, Saxons, Jutes et al) - after centuries of warfare a new country called England was eventually forged. However England was then colonised by the Norman French and subjugated - for three centuries English was the third language of England (after French and Latin with no official status), the Anglo-Saxons were second class citizen in their own country (history has many ironies). So why didn't the most ancient of civilisations become colonialists then?

—This is part of a comment by Pahari Sahib which was interrupted by the following:  Brits didn't succeed. In fact they miserably failed. History will always judge them in a negative light. Their success if any was mainly transitory. Desione (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Both the Islamic period and the British period saw development, of course the British period was colonial so while there was development on the one hand, there was also exploitation (trade tariffs etc) - but this affected all of the colony (including the princely states) - not just the north. During the British era there was a burgeoning sense of being Indian as opposed to Tamil, Marathi etc - so Ironically it could be argued the very identity of south Indians as errm South Indians owes its origins to the British (and of course the impact of British rule is no less significant in neighbouring Pakistan and Bangladesh)

—This is part of a comment by Pahari Sahib which was interrupted by the following:  Both were largely negative development as they did not come in peace. Both left a path of clear destruction. Their legacies are that of Destruction rather than good. Buddhism was wiped out of India (its birthplace) because of Islamic invasions. Any objective assessment of both these events will back this up. The only reason why Islamic rule is remembered in somewhat positive light now is becuase Mughals upto some extent integrated into Indian society and becuase of struggle with British Raj and immediately followed. In any case the Mughals are better remembered for their taste in luxary, art, music, and architecture rather than any real development. Building tombs such as Taj mahal is not development its a waste of resources (that came out of heavily taxing farmers). What you know as Taj Mahal and hundreds of Hugh tombs were literally and figuratively built on the sweat and blood of farmers and craftsmen. Desione (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Pahari Sahib  17:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow Desione! What a profound article?  Where did you get hold of it?  Were your searching in the lightless nooks and crannies of the Bodleian Library, or did you stumble upon it while dusting up some old manuscript in the British Museum, one unloved since Karl Marx last glared at it?  Or was it tucked under Jahangir's dagger in the Salar Jung Museum in Hyderabad?  Or, perhaps, it was hidden in the beak of that trussed-up Great Indian Hornbill in the Prince of Wales Museum in Bombay?  Or, maybe, you found it in the 1778 edition of A grammar of the Bengal Language by Nathaniel Brassey in the Calcutta Public Library? Oh, but I forget, wasn't it squirreled away in the 1608 edition of Tyndale's Bible in the Connemara Public Library in Madras?


 * Isn't it a pity that those South Indian Hindus, so secure in their classical tradition, didn't get around to building a halfway decent library or museum (like the Brits and the Muslims did).   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, they did come up with the "Kerela school of Mathematics" which you probably are well aware of. Incidentally, in recent times, a lot of credit for "inventing" calculus and infinite series is going to Kerela School of Mathematics as opposed to Newton. Libraries were forte of Buddhists in the north which were destroyed when the Islamic invasions started. Desione (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Whew! For a while I thought everyone was gone :-) I see that there is still some interest here ;-) Desione (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Fact not Fiction The richest states with highest per capita GDP in India are Punjab, Haryana, Himachal, Gujarat & Maharashtra and union territories of Chandigarh and Delhi. None of the four Dravidian states is among the top five in the country. Even High Income states are more industrialised, developed and have higher literacy rates than South India. They spend more money per capita on health, education and development than South Indian states. The marginal difference in the per capita income of four South Indian states and combined North Indian states including UP, Bihar, MP and Rajasthan (characterised by less per capita economic growth than rest of India) is only due to poor economic management and huge population size of these states. South is developing faster due to lot of factors including geographic location and ports, investment friendly governments, higher literacy, low population growth, better economic management etc not because North was destroyed by Muslim and British in a higher capacity. The urban middle class in North India are much more enterprising and advanced than their counterparts in South India, it the rural populace in North which are lagging behind due to lack of initiative by the local government for development and growth.--Himhifi 10:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What is your opinion about Bengal/Bangladesh. Apparently, the place was richest in the region before the British came and right after the British left it was the poorest in the region and perhaps the world. Desione (talk) 18:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Bengal was specifically targeted by the racist and corrupt British rule for distruction and devastation to break the backbone of the countries economy to procure raw materials and cash crops and sell their finished goods from England. Bengal has produced great reformers and freedom fighters and was on the forefront of the India's struggle for Independance. I.C Vidyasagar, Bankim Chandra, Rabindra Nath Tagore, S.C Bose etc to name a few. Also Bengal has produced great scientist & Physicist like Jagdish Bose and S.N Bose during that time. When it was known to them that they can't extend their rule any further they partitioned Bengal along with Punjab(economically strong and Prosperous) into a new country of Pakistan so that peace will never be restored in the subcontinent and there will be civil war like situation which ultimately took lives of millions of people. Since Independence India and Pakistan has engaged in military conflict which has resulted in loss of life and property on both sides, and both countries had spent billion of dollars on defence which otherwise could be used on development activities in the sub-continent.

Britishers had actively engaged in destruction of India's wildlife by organising 'shikar' or hunt in their leisure time which resulted in depletion of India's wildlife population. They even killed the farmers for fun, raped their woman and burnt their houses. They even forbidden entries of Indians in Clubs and Pubs based on race and skin colour. They divided the communties on communal and religious lines and were the main architect of communal tension in India. --Himhifi 04:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Slavery

"Slavery was another important feature of British Raj which has not been discussed here. Only people with racist inclination could have written the article as it stands in its existing form."

Slavery was actually abolished by the British in India in 1842. For the first time in Indian history! How odd that the people who actually got rid of slavery in India, are being accused of being its greatest promoters.

How can the British raj be described as "evil", if it got rid of Sati? Lord William Bentinck arrived and had not been eighteen months in the country, when he put an end to Sati by an Act made up of a dignified preamble and few short sections. As those who really understood India had predicted, there was neither riot nor disaffection. There was some verbiage on the part of some Bengalis, and there was an attempt to get at the ear of the Privy Council. The good example thus set was followed by the tributary princes of India, moved to action by common decency and the influence of official British Political Agents. Many Bengali inhabitants greeted Bentinck’s radical new law with both scorn and elation. The law had, after all, halted a practice ingrained within Indian society for over two thousand years, accordingly some kind of backlash was certainly expected. There were voices of native dissension, some of which came from eloquent and powerful individuals. The bombast of traditionalists was nevertheless eclipsed by the enthusiastic approval of the more progressive elements of Bengali society, who praised the prohibition of Sati. In November 1832, many prominent Bengalis gathered together with a view to drafting a letter of thanks to the king. The meeting was also attended by Captain Everest (who had a certain mountain named after him) and David Hare (a prominent educationalist – schools still bare his name in Kolkata).

"Baboo Roy Kaleenauth Chowdry rose and said with much elegance, that for some time the practice of burning women with their deceased husbands has prevailed in our country. We consider it, however, an abominable thing.

It has been continued in our country only by violence and covetousness; and we have not only considered it abominable, but through this burning of feeble women, we have been disgraced and put to shame in the eyes of many. For this reason, foreigners have not only despised, but even abhorred us, because we had not a spark of compassion for our wives. Moreover, through this means, some of our countrymen have even been guilty of their mother’s death. But by our British rulers, the load of disgrace has been removed from us: and why therefore should we not declare that his British Majesty is unequalled in the preservation of the lives, property, and honour of his subjects? Can we refuse to render our thanks to the British people, for this beneficial measure?

Baboo Prusunna Koomar Thakoor next rose and expressed his sentiments by saying: ‘The King of England is our paramount Sovereign indeed; but our country has come into the hands of the Honourable Court of Directors, and to them we are indebted for the care and preservation of our property, lives and honour. They are therefore the protectors of our country. In the present matter the Honourable Court of Directors have greatly benefited us; and I cannot conceive it just or proper, that we should be silent on the subject. The Indian Government abolished the burning of women by the XIIth Regulation of 1829; but had the Honourable Court chosen, they could themselves have repealed the Regulation.’ Shreejoot Radha Prusad Roy rose and said: ‘We suffered many kinds of oppression through the indifference of our former rulers, by which not only was our property endangered, but continual attacks were made upon our lives, caste, and religion. Since the accession of the British Government, we have been delivered from all the oppressions as all acknowledge. But all Hindoos are not unanimous in acknowledging our obligations to the British Government for abolishing the violent murder of women, under the name of Suttee. The error of those who are opposed to this measure must be evident, on the smallest consideration. For its unmercifulness is manifest. The son with eagerness burns in the fire his mother who bore him for ten months in her womb, with all suffering and patience brought him up to the year of understanding, whilst she is in perfect health - then which death can be more agonizing? As a means of keeping this fond mother from escaping from the flaming fire, large bamboos and strong ropes are brought. Is the cruelty and mercilessness of such conduct not manifest to them?’ Should any Hindoos say, that the English are invading the Hindoo religion, their opinion i inconsiderate and irrational: for the very name of the prevention of injury and malice is religion. How can this burning of women, for which no sufficiently contemptuous language can be found be called an esteemed religion? And how therefore can we say that the English are hostile to religion?

It must certainly be allowed that when the Moosoolmans were our rulers, they committed many acts of violence and injustice for the suppression of our religion. Thus Atoorung Badshaw leveled to the ground the temple of Seeb at Benares and erected a Musjeed in its place, and by force made many Hindoos Moosoolmans, and in many similar ways attempted to overthrow the Hindoo religion. Now through the favour of the English, our religion is practiced without fetor or hindrance. They have never made any attempt against religion. Wherefore I most freely declare that the English are worthy of all praise. The Governor General Bahadoor has abolished Suttees: by the 5th Regulation of 1831 he has entrusted Hindoos with the office of Principle Sudder Ameen: and by his other actions we perceive that he is desirous in future of conferring still further honour upon us. It is therefore impossible to say what farther claims he may yet have on our gratitude."

In November 1829, after the first draft had been prepared by the Governor General to abolish Satis, 800 Bengali noblemen and VIP’s signed a petition, and supplemented it with affirmations from learned priests that: ‘concremation was a true piece of holiness’. This wad of papers was then presented to His Excellency - who afterwards sent for about ten people from the list of 800 and bluntly informed them that he would not abolish the new regulation. The matter did not end there. Correspondence was sent to England and a formal appeal was lodged against the anti-Sati regulation.

....

I contend, the British Raj was not "evil" - and indeed pushed through badly needed social reforms within India. Not only abolishing slavery and Sati, but also introducing bans on human sacrifice, female infanticide, and allowing widows to inherit land. I think the writer who makes such a crass statement as calling the British Raj "evil" says more about himself than the subject matter.

The word "racism" is much used by Indians here - I actually believe that the racism is theirs. For example, Mogul rule was just one huge civil war, the massacres carried out by the Moguls made the British look like social workers. And what about the Islamic tax put on the Hindus and the destruction of Hindu sacred sites? The writers have no interest in putting these issues firmly into Wikipedia, simply because the Moguls were, urrr, how shall I put it.... not "Europeans". Of course the British exploited India, that is what all empires do. But really you have to look at the vast amount they left behind - for example, there hasn't been an exceptional building built in Calcutta in the last 60 years, and India's entire government/legal system is based on what the British left behind.

As for the decline of Bangladesh's cloth industry - well Bengal still made most of the word's jute in the 1940's, - partition killed that.

TB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.104.144 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Following Points Must Be Discussed For NPOV' Please!

You are repeating the same stuff which you had mentioned on the talk page before, there is no need to mention that again, we know that they brought few reforms etc. I would like that, article should cover these facts to present a more balanced and neutral point of view to the public.

The Britishers rule was corrupt and racist, and they were present in India to drain it's wealth for British Crown based in England.


 * They were not here to introduce public welfare policies or nation buliding on the contrary they impoverished India and starved millions to death, sent thousand of Indians as indentured labourers to Africa, Fizi and Malaysia and othere former British crown colonies to be used as slave labourers.
 * Thousand of Indians were sent to fight wars for the Empire and got killed. Why should Indians fight the wars for their tormentors?
 * Again they killed thousand of freedom fighters like Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, Chandrshekhar Azad, Mangal Pandey because they raised their voice against the corrupt and racist empire. Is it not correct to fight for freedom of your motherland.
 * They Killed over 2000 people on 13th of April 1919 in the Jallianwala Bagh massacare in Punjab because of the fear that they might loose the jewel in the crown that was India. This show how ruthless and brutal they were, and there are several examples.
 * They divided the people on communal and religious lines which resulted in partion of India and slaughter of millions of people.If they had not supported the idea of separate state for muslims, millions of lives had been saved.
 * Britishers lived in cantonments far away from the local Indian settlements and practised colour discrimination in socialising with Indians who were denied entry in the Clubs and Pubs.
 * The local industry was destroyed in order to create market for the cloth and goods made in England. The local craftsman and artisans were turned into landless labourers and beggars.
 * Billion of Dollars worth of gold, silver, diamonds, jems and jewellery was stolen and shipped to England. Yes, they left those buildings because they could not carry with them.
 * You are talking about the junk legal system that India inherited from the British, we don't want that as it has failed to serve it's purpose. We need a fair legal system.
 * As far as bulidings are concerend thousands of skyscrapers, highways and Shopping Malls have been built throughout the length and breath of the country in today's India. India is fastest growing economy in the world growing presently at 9% GDP per annum and will surpass the economy of US in the years to come with the current growth.

It appears you are nostalgic about Raj days in India and don't have much idea about the modern trends in the economic growth. British rule was charactrised by more than 250 years of anarchy and bloodshed, it ended for good, but with a big price tag! --Himhifi 05:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussion is going round in circles between proponents and opponents of the British Raj - along with propoganda for each viewpoint (POV). Basically you need to focus on the article itself. There are already sections like Indian Uprising of 1857 and Effects on economy which deal with the economic policies, good and bad, of the British. Any suggestions on how these could be improved - or if anything is amiss?, hopefully without any largescale copy 'n' pasting :-) Pahari Sahib   04:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I plan to proceed slowly through the article line-by-line. Please allow time. Thanks Desione (talk) 05:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The Raj

Gentlemen, the people who want this good article changed know very little about Indian history. They say, for example, that the British were responsible for the economic demise of India after the glory days of the Moguls. Lest I be accused of quoting a biased source, I will quote from a high school text book from the Republic of India:

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.

But here we have people blaming the British for the decline of the Indian economy - which is so wrong that this is not even taught in Indian high schools. And yet, these people, who have a minimal grasp of Indian history, and who use words like "evil", are going to dictate changes to a perfectly good article?

They don't want neutrality - they want an anti-British rant. If this is their idea of a neutral article I would hate to see what they would consider an article with an anti-British bias!

FACTS:

The British introduced badly needed laws, limiting some very severe religious practices.

The British encountered an India that was divided into 100 waring nations (the mid 18th century), and created a unified political entity. This was never going to happen without British troops fighting.

The British left behind one of the largest railway networks in the world, and some fantastic bridges and canals - they didn't have to do this, the Belgians, Portuguese and Spanish never bothered with such investment in their empires.

The British constructed the fine new capital NEW DELHI.

The British were the first to create modern detailed maps of the country.

.......and a hundred other smaller things, such as starting the nation's first ever newspaper. There simply were never enough British in the country to create a tyrany - only one person in 400 was European - and two thirds of those were not military! India was governed to a large part with the cooperation of its people. At their greatest hour of need, WWII, the Indian nation offered up to Britain the largest volunteer army in world history - which was both loyal and brave.

As far as India being "exploited" - it was part of an Empire, of course it was to some degree. That is the nature of empire. The real question is "what did the British change for the better and what did they leave behind?" The answer - a lot!

So please, the powers that be in WIKIPEDIA do not vandalize this excellent article for the sake of a bunch of people, who use very emotive words, that don't even know what is taught in their own schools.

Rgds: TB

The book I wrote:

http://worldcat.org/oclc/76787853&referer=brief_results —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.104.144 (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

The article can be discussed by giving the due weightage to Negative Impact of the British Raj 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)


 * 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&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:15, 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.

But here we have people blaming the British for the decline of the Indian economy - which is so wrong that this is not even taught in Indian high schools!!

..... Cut and pasted from the previous because it answers the question perfectly - and needs to be answered! ..........

"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."

PLEASE! They did! Germanic tribes & The Normans. Gosh - do you know any history at all? And we don't describe them as "evil" by the way!

"The presence of foreign rule is itself the biggest negative impact on any country" - RUBBISH! So many empires have ushered in improvements into their provinces and colonies - the British included! Look at the Greeks and Romans!

Rgds: TB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.172.58 (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Please follow the talk page guidelines and refrain from personal attacks ,Pro-British rants and keep your discussion civilised!!

The Root cause of Bias, Prejudice & Racism: Children in developed countries are taught in school itself that they come from a ‘superior’ stock. They are taught to take on the ‘White Man’s Burden’. A burden which makes it mandatory for the ‘superior’ race to ‘civilize’ the ‘inferior’ races. This was the attitude of the British when they came to India. They came, they saw and they plundered. They believed it was their right as ‘rulers’. They robbed and enslaved not just a few people, but a whole country. What Britishers did not realise was that India had a far longer history of ‘civilization’ than war-like Britain. The problem was that India’s civilization was cloaked in dhotis, saris and turbans and some ancient practices (not too far removed from equally medieval practices that took place in Britain). These differences convinced the shirts, skirts and trousers who came to India that India was uncivilized. Every culture and every country has it’s dark side…but the developed world can only see the evils of other countries…not their own.

What’s amazing is that the developed world today prides itself on freedom and democracy…so why not own up to the bad things of the past? True, Britishers were probably not as bad as the Nazis, but they did far greater harm than the Nazis by the very virtue of their being around for more than a hundred years. The British East India Company arrived in India as far back as 1757 (proxy rule by the British) and then direct British rule started in 1858, lasting until 1947. The Nazis under Adolph Hitler ruled only from 1933 to 1945 – which is just a dozen years! One does not need much of an imagination to realise the damage the British must have done to India. The sad part is is that millions of young Britishers are growing up thinking that Britain did India a big favour by ruling her. Why, the Queen herself wears a diamond stolen from India in her crown. --Himhifi 08:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)