Talk:British Raj/Archive 5

Infobox
There seem to be some minor problems in the infobox at British Raj, which at the moment is headed Indian Empire. The second line in the infobox, under 'Indian Empire', reads British colony, but neither the (British) Indian Empire nor the 'British Raj' was ever a colony. We read "Established August 2, 1858", and "Disestablished August 15, 1947. Neither of those dates applies to the Indian Empire (as we know, it was established much later, and George VI continued to be called Emperor of India until June 1948) although they arguably apply to the British Raj. But if the infobox is headed British Raj, that causes other problems. Can anyone suggest how to fix these difficulties? It isn't clear to me. Xn4  ( talk ) 23:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am puzzled that more than a week has gone by without any comment on this. Xn4 is right, of course, the Indian Empire was never a colony, and its dates were 1876 to 1947 or conceivably 1948. Whatever happens, "colony" surely needs to come out. Probably the main problem is with using "Indian Empire" as the Infobox title, but if it is replaced by "British raj" that reminds us that "British raj" wasn't a country. See what I have said in the next section. Strawless (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing it out. I've corrected it to "India under the British Raj".   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and I see that you have also taken out "colony". That title seems to me to work, and I no longer see any problems with it, much improved. Strawless (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

British Raj v. British India
I don't understand what the intended distinction is between these two articles. The overlap is partial, each having some sections more developed than the other. The one fact that I was looking for is dealt with in neither: how did the "agency" (e.g. the Gilgit Agency) fit into the British administrative mechanism? I think there may be an opportunity to either merge or distinguish these two articles, hopefully filling some gaps. Any comments?Vontrotta (talk) 08:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Gilgit Agency is a little different. It was a part of the princely state of Kashmir that the British had leased in order to keep an eye on the Russians during the height of the Great Game.  Other agencies, like the Rajputana Agency or the Central India Agency were groups of princely states that were supervised by agents of the Governor-General of India (i.e. by officers of the Central Government of India).  This was in contrast to other princely states that were dependencies of provincial governments, for example, Junagadh, which was under the charge of the Governor of the Bombay Presidency (a province of British India).   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Vontrotta, we are currently discussion what to do about the British India article, please see Talk:British India and add your opinion at the bottom. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There's an interesting discussion at Talk:British India about the difference between British Raj and British India. It's good to get the difference straight, and it seems clear that the two do not need to be opposed to each other. Here is a further thought, British India is clearly a geographical area, which it now seems we can define, while British Raj isn't, however useful it is as an expression. Members of my family who were born in British India say "I was born in British India". I suppose they could also say "I was born in British India in the time of the British Raj". I have just done some Google searches: "born in the British Raj" has three hits, one of them on the British Raj page here, "born in British Raj" has one hit, which in full reads "born in British Raj India", but "born in British India" has 735 hits, which seems to bear out the way I hear the expressions used. Strawless (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As Philip has stated above, we are engaged in an RfC discussion. Please post your comments there, especially as you seem to be referring to the RfC issues.    19:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mountbatten 4 august 1947.jpg
The image Image:Mountbatten 4 august 1947.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --23:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"Politically Correct" very selective WWII section, written to put Indians in best possible light
The Indian nation offered up the world's largest ever volunteer army in WWII - which not only helped defend the Raj's borders in 1944, and keep the Japanese at bay in Burma, but also served to help maintain internal order. Not only was it a huge volunteer army, but it proved loyal and combat efficient. This is a very important fact, which was absolutely crucial to the Raj in the 1940's - but it isn't mentioned. It's not mentioned because it does not portray a populist nationalistic Indian image of "widespread and popular resistance against the hated British".

Control of India has been simplistically credited to "a large number of British troops in India" ... Any study of the period shows that a millions of Indians in the civil service, the army and police force participated, and their role was 100% crucial. There is absolutely no way the British could have maintained order without them.

Bose is mentioned several times - but the actual Indian Army isn't -- AMAZING!

No mention is made of the fact that the INA had no military impact, which would lead a casual and uninformed reader to presume that the INA was a vital force to be reckoned with. It wasn't -they were mostly used as camp guards and coolies by the Japanese, who viewed them as useless. Out of every 60 Indians that participated in WWII, 59 sided with the British.

No mention of the epic battles of Imphal & Kohima, some of the most crucial Asian battles of WWII, and definitely of interest in this article as they were fought to defend the borders of British India.

Indian collaboration in the 1940's was both massive and crucial, and came at a time when the Raj was at its most vulnerable. MUST BE MENTIONED!

The WWII section isn't history, it is deeply biased, much sweetened and highly edited -- all so Indian nationalists don't get offended. NICE! WELL DONE!

Unfortunately, anybody that points out that this particular Mogul Emperor has no clothes, usually stands accused of being a "apologist for the British Raj" and even "racism"  - and other such nonsense, and behind this smokescreen massive historical bias and laughable inaccuracy goes unchecked.

Nationalism aside... these are inescapable facts, which must be mentioned...

1. Massive role of Indian Army & police during this period 2. The easy recruiting of massive amounts of Indian soldiers and policemen during this period 3. The INA having no military effect whatsoever - if indeed, they are even worth a line.

TB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.164.95 (talk) 12:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

India in World War II
(Copying EnigmaMCMXC's post and ensuing discussion from Talk:British India RfC)
 * Not to sure if this should fit into this discussion or not, what about the following article:India in World War II; should it be part of the British Raj article or a sub article of it?
 * Also when talking about India in WW2, considering there are several different articles dealing with India which one would be the most appropriate to link to when referring to “India”?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as user EnigmaMcmxc's suggestion of including India in WW2 within this page, I am against it as it would complicate matters with those few years being a subsection of a subsection. There might be calls to include the Civil Disobedience movement too - just to give an example. I suggest we don't lose track of the bigger picture by squabbling over the minor ones. There are my personal observations and please feel free to disagree with me. Thanks. TheBlueKnight (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (Clarification) I don't think we need to worry too much about Civil Disobedience etc. Issues related to the Indian nationalist movement properly belongs to the Indian Freedom Movement page which covers the more or less the same period: 1885–1947.  The British Raj page is broadly about governance, i.e. it includes related issues like public health, economy, civil service, etc.


 * As for EnigmaMcmxc's questions, the history section of British Raj will need to be pruned to make room for other material; however, its "main" article, History of the British Raj, could accommodate a summary of India in World War II in its own World War II section. We have to be careful about including only issues directly related to India.  The details of Indian army fighting in Europe might be more relevant in a page like British Empire, which has a World War II section, whose main article is Military history of the United Kingdom during World War II.  However, how the Army of India's campaigns affected policy, economy, and even life in India will properly belong either to British Raj (if it is important enough) or the the History of the British Raj.


 * Finally, the article India in World War II will have to be made tighter; for example, the Indian National Army content will have to be mostly deleted, as it has its own page, and (in spite of its popularity in India) it constituted the enemy as far as the Raj was concerned. Perhaps you could even change the name of that page to Army of India in World War II, so as to make clear what the page is about.  I was impressed, by the way, with the pictures in that article.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That picture is amazing. I don't see why the INA is incompatible with India in World War II. The article is about India and WWII and the INA is very much about that irrespective of what side they were on. Also, there is an important Raj connection because the raison d'etre for the existence of the INA was the Raj. They were not fighting FOR the axis cause but were fighting AGAINST British rule. --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 20:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The INA, to the extent it deserves mention, is already there in the British Raj page (see its World War II section); it belongs more properly to the Indian Freedom Movement and is treated there in greater depth. What I was suggesting to Enigma1990 is that the article India in World War II seems to be about the "Army of India in World War II" and if that is indeed the case, then INA doesn't belong there, other than as one among many enemy combatants.  If the article is more than about the "Army of India in World War II," then Enigma1990 needs to tell us what the article exactly is about, since questions of content forks related to other articles will arise.  This particular discussion, though, should really take place on the Talk:British Raj page.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If the article is titled "INDIA in WW-2" - then both the INA and the British Indian Army need to be mentioned as I would assume that the article would be about Indian soldiers in WW-2 with some of them fighting for the British and some fighting against. One can't mention just 1 of these 2 entities as that would fly in the face of everything wikipedia stands for. TheBlueKnight (talk) 04:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think i should note that i havent worked on these articles, i merley noted that there was a discussion regarding the reorganisation of articles dealing with "British India" - which missed out that article. With the restucture mentioned i only pondered what would happen to that article - and what article would be the most approbriate to link to when talking about India in ww2 articles i.e. in the combatant lists.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Yes, that's a tricky one. It is up to the primary authors of that article to tell us what its scope is. I was responding to the lead of the India in World War II article, which seemed to suggest that it was about India as a combatant (and not India during World War II). I mentioned the Army of India because that is where the major effort in manpower was. True the Indian National Army consisted of Indians, but it had only around 30,000 soldiers; in contrast the British Indian Army, the major part of the Army of India, had become&mdash;by the end of World War II at 2.5 million men&mdash;the largest all-volunteer force in history. I can think of many articles to link India in World War II to, but the article needs to be much tighter. Burma Campaign, for example, could be on such link article, but note, for example, how much mention the Indian National Army gains in the Burma Campaign page (essentially none) and how much it has in the India in World War II article (where the space devoted to it is more than the combined texts of the Europe, North Africa, and Burma Campaigns). For that matter examine the Battle of Imphal, the hallowed ground as it were of the Indian National Army, where it should find its maximum mention of any World War II battle, and you see how much space is devoted to it. Similarly examine the Bengal Famine section in India in World War II, which is as yet unwritten; will it be about the British Indian Army's (belated) effort in food distribution or about the famine itself, especially its political aspects. I think all these things need to be clarified by the primary authors. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  14:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree with you about the primary authors clarifying (and presumably constraining) the content of an article. Once an article is out there, it is pretty much fair game for redefinition and the constraint should come solely from the title of the article (which is why the title is so important). If the article were titled India in World War II then the INA should be reasonably prominent in the article because it is a significant feature of India in that war (the number of soldiers notwithstanding). I agree though that if the article is retitled Army of India during World War II, or even British Indian Army in World War II the content would be defined differently (though the INA should get a mention there as well since its soldiers were largely from that army). But, I think that the article is fine as it is and a specific article for the Army part (when we already have British Indian Army and India in World War II) would be overkill. --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 14:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem with going only with the title is that it can be interpreted variously. India in World War II, for example, can mean  "The role played by India = British Indian Empire in World War II" (i.e. as a combatant).  That seems to be how the lead of the article has stated it (invariantly) since the article's inception.  If it is interpreted also to include "India during World War II," then INA can gain some mention, but nowhere to the extent it currently has in that article (simply because the Congress, Muslim League, Cripps Mission, etc. will need more space).  For the people of India, INA became much bigger in its afterlife during the INA trials etc, but by then World War II was over.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * True, that the INA became bigger after the war. However, we must write looking back at the war not looking at the war as it was perceived while it was on. BTW, if you read Slim's dismissive description of the performance of the INA in his account of the Burma campaign, it is clear that either the INA was reasonably high on his radar during the war itself or it had become an important enough part of the narrative post war for him to be dismissive about. (He was, understandably, rather uncharitable toward the INA but surprisingly charitable toward Aung San and the Burma National Army.) I should not address your comment about the definition of India in that article, just the thing we should be trying to avoid given the plethora of articles on the country during that period! I usually assume that India refers to the land and the people of the Indian subcontinent whereas British India, Raj, Undivided India, whatever refers to the political entity that was India during that time. Technically, the activities of the congress etc that related directly to the war (including the Quit India movement) should probably figure in the article as well. One would like an article entitled India during World War II to inform one on all aspects of the relationship between the war and the nation rather than focus merely on the role of the formal army (which is properly the job of the British Indian Army article). However, that's just my opinion and I'm open to whatever the consensus mix throws up.--Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 16:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * So many complications :) - I just naturally thought of India in WW2 to mean "during" rather than just a "combatant". From what I gather - Bose was just as popular in India as Gandhi was and apparently for a brief time so was Bhagat Singh - the INA Trials captivated the imagination of the people of India mainly due to coverage and the British were taken by surprise by the kind of support they had. I saw a rather long movie on the INA (4 hours in the cinema) by Shyam Benegal - a respected film maker and it was quite an eye-opener. Either way, their contribution as a combatant force in WW-2 can be dismissed as negligible compared to the rest of the forces. I mean the Russians alone lost 25 million men while the INA strength was less than 0.1 million. But their importance can't be put down because of the numbers. TheBlueKnight (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I am personally not interested in the page India in World War II. I was only trying to answer Enigma1990's original question about what page to link it to.  I did some searching and found that India in World War II is already the "main" page for the section India of the page Participants in World War II.  That assumes that it has to have some material about the role of the Indian forces as combatants.  If it is decided that that this page will also be about the Indian nationalist movement during that time, then it should also be a "main" for the section The climax: War, Quit India, INA and Post-war revolts of the Indian independence movement page.  If it is further decided that the page will also be about British governance of India during World War II, then it can legitimately be a "main" for the World War II section in the History of the British Raj.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Burma
I notice that in the infobox, Burma is listed as a successor state to the Indian Empire. Is this accurate? Burma was separated from British India administration much before the Raj came to an end. Therefore, it is not correct to list it as a successor to the Raj. --Incidious (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC
 * It was separated in 1937, ten years before the Raj ended and eleven years before Burma became independent. You are technically correct, of course; however, in terms of hours logged in (as it were) since 1826 (for some parts), Burma was more of a successor state to the Raj than it was to the decade long entity governed by the India and Burma office.  Your point has been made by others before you (including myself I think?), however, it seems, the consensus opinion on this page has been to keep Burma in.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * PS You could ask user:RegentsPark who knows more about Burma than I do.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

British Rule in the Indian Subcontinent
Title of the article would be suitable if changed to British Rule in the Indian subcontinent or British Rule in India. British Raj is rather not suitable for English encyclopedia. "Raj" being literal translation of "rule", change of language should not matter. Or even British India as given in Britannica. I dont see British Raj in any other encyclopedia. Also it would imply the succession of Company rule in India. Inputs welcome! Doorvery far (talk) 07:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the alternative term that has been used in the literature is Crown rule in India, which once was my candidate for this page's name for some of the reasons you cite. However, British raj is a perfectly acceptable term, which has now found its way into the OED, using some of this page's input (see here) and is commonly used in the historiography of the period (see references).  Moreover, the page name has remained stable for over four years.  The page move to British India has been attempted (unsuccessfully) many times before, but as you will see in the British India page itself, the two are not the same entities.  As for other encyclopedias, Britannica doesn't have a page for British India, although it has used the term "British India" as shorthand for the Provinces of India.  Please see here. Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  09:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, but "British India" mainly used to refer to areas other than Princely states. But "British rule in India" should hit right compromise. British raj translates to British rule, and "British Crown rule" over "Crown rule" also would sound good, title is important since it appears as link in search engine results. "Raj" is not worldwide view, it is referred only in Indian subcontinent. OED is too liberal, it includes mob wrds 2! Doorvery far (talk) 10:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeing archive links, "British imperial rule in India" or "British colonial rule in India" etc. looks ok, but British rule in India remains common in all these titles, which I propose. Doorvery far (talk) 11:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Even Princely states did not have foreign affairs and military, meaning it is actually full India under British federal rule, so calling "British rule" should not have any problem when compared with "British India". Doorvery far (talk) 11:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We have had this so many times before and no doubt in the future, the title was agreed and British Raj is perfectly acceptable. The line should be firmly drawn under this and not debated repeatedly.--Rockybiggs (talk) 11:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * @Rockybiggs, Please see WP:CCC Doorvery far (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

To Doorvery far Well, the OED, when it includes slang words or colloquial words, classifies them as such before it defines them; it did no such thing for "British raj." The problem with "British rule" is that Company rule was British rule too. The Crown had ultimate sovereignty over the company's dominions in India (which the latter held in trust). Please see Regulation of Company rule. The period 1858 to 1947 is usually referred to as "direct rule," "direct administration," or "crown rule," however, I don't see it referred to as "British rule" that much. As you can see in these search results, "British rule" has commonly been used to describe the Company rule of the 18th century. For example, Karl Marx, writing in 1853 used it that way.

"British raj" is also not an obscure word. When there are 2,500 books, some by well-known historians of India, such as Thomas Metcalf and Christopher Bayly, and 7,000 scholarly articles which either use the expression, "British raj," themselves, or cite other publications (books or scholarly articles) that do, it can't be an obscure word. Lastly, there is ambiguity in many page names. Even "British raj" has some ambiguity; it has been used for Company raj as well, but, given all the other considerations in WP:Name, it is probably here to stay. Regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

To RockyBiggs You are right, of course, that this topic pops up quite often. We need to do something. Perhaps an FAQ subpage should be made here with a short write-up and links to previous discussions, since editors new to the page might not be aware of the previous history. I thought Philip had added a link up top to the previous debates, but I don't see it any more. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  15:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Only Indian authors refer it as "British raj", it is just not the worldwide view. "Raj" being Hindi word, even south Indians dont know that word in their textbooks, to be frank I never had heard "British raj" until i saw it in wiki. And "raj" not being proper noun, should not be capitalised. And no scholarly article like britannica, except OED in contrast, would refer common noun of different language, to avoid grammar mistake is English. And that there is no alternative to "British raj" in Hindi wikipedia. Doorvery far (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you are plain wrong about only Indian authors using "British raj." Please reexamine the first twenty citations in each of the Google Books and Google Scholar links above.  As for considerations of syntax, you are welcome to pursue them further here with others.  Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding the WP:CCC. This is not entirly true ! As with other page namings such as LondonDerry, this name has been agreed, and effectively is set in stone ! Fowler your surgestion on a FAQ subpage is a good idea and I for one would go for that. --Rockybiggs (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The previous debates are in the archives (see box on top right of this page). I was just looking at Talk:India/FAQ and I agree that we need one here.--Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 18:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * @rockybiggs, if you say a wiki policy is wrong - you should challenge it there in policy page, and don't preach other users here with examples etc, thanks. Link to faq and archive is fine, that does not mean issue is closed, issue is always open for review. I will go through the archives and rather refs, and will make comeback when i got enough time, after a month or so. My another suggestion is to merge "company rule" and "so called british raj" into single article. 03:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doorvery far (talk • contribs)


 * It is of course fine to give a definition of "British Raj" in Wikipedia, but I find it a bad name for an article which is about the whole of the Indian subcontinent during this specific period from 1858 until independence. I'm struggling to see any value in "British Raj" for the name of this page, it isn't, really, an educated person's term in the subcontinent. I don't have the OED, but I don't think we should be guided by the OED, even if it says that "undivided India" (another silly and inaccurate name) was ever correctly called "British Raj", which I should imagine it doesn't. The name at the head of the Infobox here, which is "Indian Empire", would be a little better, although there is then a problem with the first twenty years or so, but India was mostly just called "India". May I humbly suggest "India (1858-1947)"? Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Preach !? Don`t know why i have been accused of this, i am merely informing you of the reality of wikipedia, whether we all like it or not. I`d rather the article was called British India, but just have to settle with the agreed form of British Raj, which is sourced and referenced widely in Britain. As for merging "company rule" and "so called british raj", this should not be merged, not only for being 2 seperate subjects but space requirments will defeat any motion proposed. --Rockybiggs (talk) 13:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Throwing my hat into the bullring - British Raj is a fairly common term. In India, Hindi speakers often say "Angrez Raj" - which translates to "English Raj". One of the posters is right in it being a common noun - but it is a common noun in Hindi - in English it automatically becomes a proper noun - for example - war is a common noun but it becomes a proper noun when called "World War II". TheBlueKnight (talk) 07:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This is really a matter for the editors who are active here, but to say a few words about the suggestion of "British India" as a new page name, I completely agree with Fowler&fowler that "the two are not the same entities". It does mystify me that the British Raj page has become much the same as Indian Empire. By the way, I see that's back again as the title of the Infobox, even though I seem to remember we discussed it and agreed to change it to something else. Wasn't it "India under the British Raj"? For those committed to "British Raj" I can't help thinking that would be a better title. However common the use of "British Raj" may be in some quarters (such as the TV industry), I don't think I've ever heard it used as meaning the country itself. Xn4 ( talk ) 10:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "British raj", "jungle raj" etc. are used commonly in north India, not anywhere else, but wiki expects worldwide view. Again, British raj = British rule literally, and British rule is opposed. "British Crown rule in India" would be better option. Doorvery far (talk) 05:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Like you, Doorvery, I'm uncomfortable with the plain title "British Raj", but there are subtle problems here. There definitely was "Crown rule" in British India, and perhaps there was something like it in some of the Princely states, but in some places - Hyderabad, for instance - there just wasn't. It's a common misconception that the British crown "ruled" the whole of what was called India, or the Indian Empire, as in some places there was real autonomy. I don't feel I'm enough of a contributor to this page to have much say in this matter, but India (1858-1947), as suggested by Umar above, does have a straightforward feel to it. Xn4  ( talk ) 09:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Xn4, "British raj" can be mentioned in lead, but definitely should not be the title. Though there were Princely states - military and foreign affairs were with British, like current most federal systems like USA or India - and federal govt is considered ruler. You definitely need not be a contributor to article to suggest, but if you could find some good references that would be of great help. Doorvery far (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we need to avoid thinking of pre-Partition India as "federal". Of course, the India Office proposed a federal system in the 1930s (isn't it provided for in the 1935 Government of India Act?) and tried hard to persuade the princes to agree to it, but the great majority of them felt that their independence was threatened and wouldn't sign up. The real state of affairs therefore remained much more complicated. Strawless  (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Where are people getting the idea that "British raj" is a term used only in India? In the last 25 years alone there have been almost 2,000 books published in English that refer to the "British raj".  Among the authors who use it are Stanley Wolpert (UCLA), Thomas Metcalf (Berkeley), Ayesha Jalal (Tufts, she is Pakistani), Lloyd and Suzanne Rudolph (University of Chicago), Anthony Low (University of Cambridge), Ian Copland (Monash University, Australia), Judith Brown (University of Oxford), Christopher Bayly (University of Cambridge) and so forth.  Listed also are Encyclopaedia Britannica 2002 (many instances).  The Library of Congress Country Study of India (don't click on pdf, but scroll down to history and see chapter titles "Company rule" and "British raj." Briefly, given Wikipedia naming conventions, given the over four-year history of the page name on Wikipedia and many unsuccessful page moves, given wide usage in recent historiography, given the page names for other historical time periods in South Asia (which usually include the names of the rulers, such as Mughal Empire etc. and not India (1525–1857), see template: Template:HistoryOfSouthAsia), the page name "British raj" is likely here to stay.  You can try of course.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Fowler: Thats something to look forward to year after year !--Rockybiggs (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think my opinion will be very welcome to everyone here, but however much "British raj/Raj" is used in books, films, newspapers, etc., it doesn't seem to me to have any precise accepted meaning, except that it usually means the "rule" over something and not the area which is "ruled" over. We've discussed the Oxford English Dictionary before, and that offers several meanings, especially if you look at the examples of use it gives. I certainly agree with Fowler&fowler that "British raj/Raj" is here to stay at Wikipedia, because it's a widely-used term and we need a page on it. The open question is not what this page in its present form should be called, but whether it should be taking on the role of being the exact equivalent of India itself during the years between power being taken away from the Company and the Partition of India in 1947. Strawless  (talk) 12:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * All these terms "British Raj", "British Rule" etc. are used interchangeably in India. Even the rule of the East India Company is known as "British Rule" or "British Raj" - some people use "Company Raj" - however its use is definitely not extensive. To the average Indian - it didn't matter whether the colonial head honchos were from the East India Company or the Monarch of Britain - it was just "British Rule". If you wish to make a distinction - perhaps regular contributors like Fowler should make a disambiguation page explaining the differences in terms. This might be important from the academic perspective. Thanks. TheBlueKnight (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)