Talk:East India Company

The Scope of this article
Please note again: the scope of this article is the period 1600 to 1757, until just before the Battle of Plassey and the beginning of Company rule in India (1757 to 1858). CRI can be touched on briefly but not in more than a line or two here and these for perspective. The same applies to the Indian rebellion of 1857 and the British Raj (1858 to 1947). We've had several discussions on the scope before, and there is a longstanding consensus about it. Sorry to have deleted material that seems to have crept in recently. Best, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi everyone, recently, I also made the mistake of thinking that this article includes the post Battle of Plassey period. I put forward 2 suggestions I have to prevent others from repeating my mistakes:


 * 1) Remove the Disestablishment section and reduce other mentions of company rule: eg. the summary prominently includes it.
 * 2) Make the article title East India Company prior to 1757 or similar to prevent confusion.
 * Vinay84 (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Various Crimes of Company
Why not add a para on various crimes of company, its criticism and in humane imperialism? 2409:4043:4C8C:7B5E:0:0:3949:3D0E (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The company is still trading
It's hard to think of company that has created so much misery and death over so many centuries, across its drug running, colonialism and slavery. And, yes, it's still proudly trading. Its current strapline is "400 Years Of Cultural Impact". Unbelievable. It's worth the article noting that the masters of destruction did not see fit to slink off under a rock of their own shame but still sell tea. Anna (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. The company you are referring to is a new company that has chosen to use the same name as the original company. Other than that, there is no connection between the two companies.Acad Ronin (talk) 22:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Henry Avery and Acts of Grace
The article states that "Parliament exempted [Henry] Every from all of the Acts of Grace (pardons) and amnesties it would subsequently issue to other pirates." However, no pirate was exempted from the 1717–1718 Acts of Grace: see that article's section on legal opinion. — (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

EIC trade with Siam
I can't find any reference to trade with Siam. 2405:9800:B650:AD0:7D96:6F88:E051:E345 (talk) 10:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

How did the English East India company who came to Indian for become the rollers of India
seminar 42.106.182.70 (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @42.106.182.70
 * Did you mean to say "rulers of India?" Stevenmitchell (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Title change to British East India Company
Only changing the title as there were other companies too. As British one was most significant, the page will redirect to the British one.Prinaki (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Rarely used in RS. There is a hatnote to East India Company (disambiguation), which is enough, especially if you think East India Company will still redirect here (which it might well not). This is much the most significant for an English-language audience, and the next most important, the Dutch East India Company (as here, not the correct name) is usually referred to as the "VOC" anyway. Johnbod (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per, per fading memory of a decade and half before, per the votes there, of  among others, per discussions in the sections above, e.g. Page name.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * PS Also fading are the discussions on Robert Blackborne,  ...till from the garden and the wild a fresh association blow.  So thank you for bringing them back.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per johnbod and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.RegentsPark (comment) 03:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Factual error in the establishment of EIC rule across India
EIC rule did not happen over night. It took nearly a century starting from the victory in Battle of Plassey, and then in historical important wars such as the Carnatic Wars, Anglo-Maratha Wars & Anglo-Sikh wars. To state that EIc established rule across the vast landscape at the end of Battle of Plassey is inaccurate Kumarbala82 (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)


 * A well presented historical sequence from University of Maryland
 * University of Maryland htConsolidating British Rule in India: 1780-1820 Kumarbala82 (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * East India Company is about the trading company. For the rule, please see Company rule in India.  The sentence, "Company rule in India effectively began in 1757 after the Battle of Plassey," doesn't mean that the Company had annexed, controlled, or subdued all of India with the victory at Plassey, or immediately after, but only that for all practical purpose, the Company first began to rule a substantial tract of land in India, especially rural India, after its victory at Plassey. In other words, it had moved beyond controlling three Presidency towns on the coast and some small regions nearby.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * To an uninformed reader, they will not be able to make that distinction. This statement is too simplistic and reduces what is a complex transfer of power that took nearly a century.
 * This statement needs to be replaced with what you have described - i.e. the sequence.
 * Battle of Plassey is a small but significant victory for the British. But the more seminal events are the Carnatic Wars, Anglo-Maratha Wars & Anglo-Sikh Wars. Kumarbala82 (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. Let me think about this some more.  I don't think we should mention the notable subsequent wars or treaties after Plassey in this page's lead, but we can say something more general in the sentence that mentions Plassey and Company rule in India.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Thank you.
 * I was thinking a brief mention in the page's lead.
 * Then potentially a larger dedicated section that talks about transfer of power in detail?
 * I believe it it critical to state all the facts as they happened. Kumarbala82 (talk) 04:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, I was wondering if you had a chance to think about this? It will be great to add more details so it doesnt provide a wrong or one-sided view of history. Thanks Kumarbala82 (talk) 09:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry I forgot all about his. Please give me a few days more.  Thanks.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Please don't be. If you would like to chat about it at some-point, let me know. There are couple of more academics who are interested in this topic as well. Kumarbala82 (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I do think there is a problem here. In my experience South Asian readers do tend to think EIC/British rule in particular places began much earlier than it did - the History of Pakistan article used to be like this, with paragraphs on 18th-century EIC expansion in Bengal. Perhaps instead of the current:

Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "Company rule in India effectively began in 1757 after the Battle of Plassey and lasted until 1858." we might go to something like:
 * "Company ruled areas in India gradually expanded after the Battle of Plassey in 1757 and by 1858 covered most of India and modern Pakistan"


 * Thanks @Johnbod That reads nicely. May be add a sentences of milestones or critical events like the Carnatic Wars, Polygar Wars, Anglo-Maratha Wars, Anglo-Sikh Wars & Ahom wars. Kumarbala82 (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with F&F that we don't need a list in the lead. Maybe a link, or add "after a series of wars" (linked somewhere) after 1858. Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Why don't you guys (meant gender neutrally) come up with something and add it to the article? This is not an article I edit much these days (though I did play a role in changing its name to the current one).  Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * PS i.e. something short and sweet, not more than two sentences, I'd say. Basically, it should be passing the buck, in succinct prose and not lists (as Jb suggests), of different aspects of the Company's gradually expanding rule in South Asia to other pages.
 * Presidency towns belong to Presidencies and provinces of British India; Plassey onward until Indian rebellion of 1857 to Company rule in India; and thereafter until the Partition of India to British Raj. No wars should be mentioned by name, as Jb suggests.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes - that sounds reasonable.
 * How do we word this? From an Indian perspective, Carnatic Wars and Anglo-Maratha Wars are far more significant - as it took Britain a lot of time and effort to win compared to the relatively insignificant Battle of Plassey - thought symbolic from a British perspective.
 * Can we find a middle ground so we all respect each others perspective? Kumarbala82 (talk) 12:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * it's important to acknowledge the complexity of this historical process. The assertion that the EIC established rule across India immediately after the Battle of Plassey is not entirely accurate. The Company's rule indeed began with Plassey, but it was a gradual expansion that took nearly a century to encompass a substantial part of India.
 * The University of Maryland's historical sequence provides a more comprehensive perspective on the consolidation of British rule in India between 1780 and 1820. It's essential to distinguish between the Company's initial control and the broader span of its rule over time.
 * While it's true that the Battle of Plassey holds significance, other events like the Carnatic Wars, Anglo-Maratha Wars, and Anglo-Sikh Wars played pivotal roles in shaping the Company's rule. Finding a balanced way to represent these perspectives in the article, perhaps with a brief mention in the lead followed by a dedicated section, could provide a more nuanced understanding of this historical process.
 * Ultimately, presenting the historical facts accurately and comprehensively is crucial to avoid a simplistic or one-sided view of history. Collaboration among contributors to the article can help achieve this goal. 207.96.13.213 (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Fowler&fowler
 * Any thoughts? Are you okay for us to reword it along the lines discussed above? 2A02:C7C:A065:4100:80B0:EE89:C742:C6FF (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I did this, which I hope reflects the discussion above. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks John. That reads well.
 * Additionally, can we add a separate section below that explains the timeline and major conflicts resulting in the establishing of crown rule in 1857? Kumarbala82 (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that belongs in Company rule in India, where the expansion section could do with expansion. This article rightly concentrates on the EIC as an economic entity. Maybe a short summary here. Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

What a Pretentious Title
It is quite telling of the British that the default named East India Company would be that of the English, despite the fact that there were several other contemporaries of the same name in history. Stevenmitchell (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There's a section on this above. The English and Dutch were by far the biggest, & the Dutch (The United East India Company (Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie) is almost always called the "VOC" in sources, both in English and Dutch. So not very "telling", nor "Pretentious". Needless to say, neither used their nationality in their actual names. Johnbod (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree as there is no VOC main page aside disambiguation and using that arguement to default EIC to British is by definition anglocentric. The Dutch EIC was literally the largest company in human history and should be default. 2603:6010:C100:827B:6CFC:D31E:ABE8:5041 (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Removal of content
Some time ago, there was information about the famines the EIC caused, how they seized control and looted the Indian subcontinent etc. Why was that removed?-Haani40 (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Content Area Literacy
— Assignment last updated by Bacchanaliaxd (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)