Talk:Presidencies and provinces of British India/Archive 3

Tweaks

 * For the discussion that led to this draft see Talk:British India/Archive 2

Prose
British India is the term used to describe the territory on the Indian subcontinent that was under British governance between 1612, when the first permanent factory was set up by the English East India Company on the west coast of India, and 1947, when British rule in India ended. Until its victory in the Battle of Plassey in 1765, the East India Company was able to achieve only small territorial gains for itself in and around its factory towns. After 1773, the Company formally commenced governing its expanding territory, held in trust by it for the British Crown, as it successfully displaced other European powers from the region. By the early 19th century, the British had become the most powerful political and military entity on the subcontinent. Company rule in India ended in 1858 following the events of the Indian rebellion of 1857. India was thereafter directly ruled by British Crown as a colony of the United Kingdom, and officially known after 1876 as the Empire of India. India consisted of regions referred to as British India that were directly administered by the British, and other regions, the Princely States (also Native States), that were ruled by Indian rulers, and that were allowed a measure of internal autonomy in exchange for British suzerainty; in addition, there were Portuguese and French exclaves in India. Independence from British rule was achieved in 1947 with the formation of the dominions of India and Pakistan, the latter also including present-day Bangladesh.

The term British India also applied to Burma (present-day Myanmar) for a shorter time period: from 1824, a small part of Burma, and from 1886, most of Burma came under British India, an arrangement that lasted until 1937, when Burma commenced to be administered as a separate British colony. British India did not apply to other countries in the region, such as Sri Lanka (then Ceylon), which was a British Crown Colony or the Maldive Islands, which were a British protectorate. At its peak, the territory under British influence extended from Burma in the east to Afghanistan in the north west, parts of Tibet in the north east, and the colony of Aden in the west.

Here are two tables (accompanying the map) of the Presidencies/Provinces of British India for the years 1805 and 1910, respectively:


 * See also
 * British rule in India
 * Company rule in India
 * British Raj
 * British rule in Burma
 * Provinces of British India
 * Princely States
 * Portuguese India
 * French India
 * Dutch India
 * Danish India

Discussion
I would suggest removing mention of Nepal and Bhutan. The British had influence over Nepal and Bhutan, and Nepal and Bhutan should be treated like any other princely state in the region. Nepal was formally recognized as independent only in 1924, and Bhutan was a suzerain state. Yes, add all: Portuguese, French, Dutch and Danish India. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  15:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've done that. There is one further problem: after 1858, British India was specifically used to mean only those regions in India that directly governed by the British (in other words British India = Provinces of British India) and not the Princely States, and we need to say that somewhere.  The is how the term is and was used for the period 1858 to 1947; see for example the dab page British rule in India.  And for that reason there is also a problem with the words "direct influence."  The British had influence over the princely states (see indirect rule) but the states were not a part of "British India."  I have further amended the text.  Let me know what you think.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll ask a question: If in 1910, I had to travel by train from Bombay to Calcutta, would I need some sort of identification (visa/passport) each time I crossed over a princely state? And did the kingdoms have an independent foreign, political and military policy? IMO they were puppet states. Visiting the Federalism issue once again? :) =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, it was called an Empire. And empires are a collection of kingdoms under an emperor. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No. No passport was needed, and neither was any needed for a resident of a princely state to travel into British India.  Gandhi, after all, was born in one.  More importantly, all residents of the Indian Empire, whether from British India, or Princely States, were issued the same passport, which said British Indian Passport on the top, and Indian Empire on the bottom.  (I have a picture somewhere, which I'll post later.)  The term "British India," however, was never used for the princely states.  Although it is used loosely today in the press to distinguish pre-1947 India from the post, all history books and scholarly papers are careful to use it in this limited meaning.  See, for example, Encarta's page for "British India"; it simply says, "collective designation of the 17 Indian provinces formerly under direct British administration, as distinguished from the more autonomous regions called the Native States of India."  This, unfortunately, is not exactly correct either, since it only refers to the usage of "British India" after 1858; however, it shows that we can't use it to refer to all of India.  Sorry to be a little pedantic, but such is the usage.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Almost good to go: 'In 1858...Empire of India'' is too long and needs a split. "supervised" is a little vague in this context, how about another more descriptive term? Add Princely states to the see alsos, and you can suggest a good map to go with the article. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  14:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Let me know what you think.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This text which were ruled by Indian rulers, but which depended on the British for their foreign relations, defence, and communications. suggests a very narrow relationship. How about  ...that gave the British Empire suzerainty over their kingdoms in exchange for political and administrative autonomy.  Or is the wording getting redundant?  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  17:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that sounds good. I've changed it to something similar.  I agree that in essence these states were what one scholar called, "puppet sovereignties."     Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * (Comment) Not a deal breaker because I think it more important to resolve this rather than nit pick, but I'm not sure that English East India Company was able to take advantage of the disorder in the regional Indian kingdoms to achieve territorial gains for itself rightly belongs here. The British India page should confine itself to stating obvious facts and I'm not sure that (a) this qualifies as a fact and (b) that the company meddling started that early). Also, my history is obviously murky, but, if the EEIC started to take over territory in 1615, then what was under British governance between 1608 and 1615? (My understanding always was that Madras was the first colony and that was not till the 1630s(?) or so. Is it generally acceptable to use the term British India to any parts of India prior to that?). --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 19:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * :) Yeah. I guess we weren't paying attention.  I will check the sources for all your points.  Thanks!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to be a grammar freak, but I think replacing instances of "which" with "that" will make the text more tight. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  08:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Some more suggestions
I would also suggest we add a table what lists out the Presidencies and the provinces in 1858 and 1947. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  08:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * One more thing: In addition to British India, and the Princely states, India also consisted of the Portuguese and French enclaves. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  12:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added text about Portuguese and French enclaves. As for the tables, I'm wondering if it will be too much for this page; i.e. the tables or maps showing the provinces are in: Provinces of British India (which I have added to See also), Company rule in India, and British Raj.  I guess I'm wondering if having tables here as well will be an overkill, and might dissuade people from going to the Provinces of British India page.  Let me know what you think. By the way, some of the province pages themselves are being expanded; see Ravichandar84's great work in Madras Presidency.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought of the redundancy, but it would be more useful to a casual reader to understand the subdivisions of the area marked as "British India" at one glance rather than making the user navigate away to British Raj or British rule in India for the same information. The tables do not have to be the same. It can be >> Presidency || Headquarters || Administrator <<. Good enough information for a reader at a single glance. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  12:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The simplified tables make sense. I've added two tables.  They are for 1805 and 1910 (and not 1857 and 1947) for a number of reasons: there wasn't that much difference between the provinces in terms of area between 1857 and 1947 (the former had Lower Burma, whereas the latter didn't); the accompanying map of British expansion refers to 1805 and 1910; early 19th century is when the Company became dominant; 1910 is special not only because Burma was included, but Bengal had been partitioned; and by 1947 the number of provinces had multiplied by name (i.e. Sind had separated from Bombay, East Bengal had reunited with West-, Bihar, Orissa had separated from Bengal) and the table might become daunting.  Let me know what you think.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems good enough, and time for a transfer to the mainspace. We can also tag this article as "A"-grade because of the extensive peer-review it has undergone.  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  06:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for everyone's efforts.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You've missed some critical requirements for A-class 1. References 2. Wiki links 3. Bibliography can't hurt too. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  16:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

New text
Great work! Thanks f&f and nichalp for an excellent job. Now, a couple of suggestions (surprise!):
 * 1) Is this strictly correct: the East India Company was able to achieve only small territorial gains for itself in and around its factory towns. The implication is that the EIC was actively seeking to gain territory from early days on and, while this was true later, I'm not sure if it correctly characterizes the goals of the company.
 * 2) Perhaps we could say By the early 19th century, the British had become the most powerful political and military entity on the subcontinent, except for small Portuguese and French enclaves rather than the enclaves featuring later in the para (they are a wee bit orphaned out there).
 * 3) The Burma part is still not totally correct. At the end of 1826, Arakan and the Mergui archipelago were part of British India. At the end of the second Burmese war (1853), the provinces of Pegu, Irrawaddy, Tenassarim, i.e., all of lower Burma became a part of British India (a huge area). 1886 brought upper Burma into the fold with the British maintaining the structure of the Ava empire, i.e., Mandalay went to India while the hill states (shans, kachins etc) became princely states. Technically, about half of Burma was already under the British between 1853 and 1886. May I suggest something along the following lines: The term British India also applied to British territory in Burma (present-day Myanmar) between 1826 and 1937 and included western Burma and the Mergui archipelago (1826-1937); Tenasserim, Pegu and the Irrawaddy Delta (1853-1937); and Upper Burma (1886-1937). 
 * Hi RegentsPark, Thanks for your great comments. I have amended the text in light of your comments.  1) has been taken care of in the new text; as for 2) there is really no reason to add "... except for ..." because by the early 19th century, both Goa and Pondicherry really existed at the pleasure of the British (in fact Dalhousie had taken Pond. and it wasn't returned to the French until 1816.)  As for Burma, I made a mistake, I didn't mean to imply that there was no change between 1824 and 1886; I have now corrected the statement.  I believe that in this article we shouldn't be mentioning names of smaller regions (and I have not done that at all in the main text, and only sparingly in the tables).  Let me know if this works.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * PS I've corrected "most of Burma" to "almost two-thirds of Burma" since the ratio of the Karen, Shan etc. princely states in area to all of Burma was approximately 67,000sqmiles/170,000sqmiles. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I still think that the French and Portuguese colony is orphaned but can't think of a better way to put it. Also, perhaps all of Burma is ok anyway since the hill states were ruled in the same sense as the princely states and we're assuming a broader definition of British India. One last quibble, the last sentence says "British influence" but really refers to the areas of British influence that were ruled by India (since it obviously doesn't include the middle eastern, se asian, and african territories ruled by the British). The current formulation does seem correct in the context of the article, but could understate the extent of British influence in the world. It may seem hard to imagine, but there are many people (in the UK, for example) who are clueless about the extent to which Britain ruled the world! Would it make sense to say "the territory under the influence of British India"?--Regents Park (RegentsPark) 19:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (BTW, I really like the write-up. Clear and to the point!) --Regents Park (RegentsPark) 19:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I haven't got to your points, but I did show the page to a "non-expert" and they were completely puzzled by what they called the complicated sentences! So, I've shortened the sentences into more manageable bits.  Let me know if this is better.  Also, please feel free to make the edits yourself.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ''holding its territory in trust for the British Crown.' is a little too wordy. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  12:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Have created two independent clauses and wikilinked "trust." Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  21:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Sidebar
I'm thinking we add a sidebar. This will eliminate future confusion between the usage of the terms: British India, British Raj etc. This is my idea:


 * Colonial India (template title)
 * British India
 * British rule in India
 * Company rule in India
 * British Raj
 * Provinces of India
 * Princely States
 * French India
 * Portuguese India
 * Dutch India
 * Danish India

-
 * The template is a great idea, but in some ways it complicates things a little. I am personally uncomfortable with British India being the "intro page," as it were, for the British Empire in India-related articles.  The reason is that Company rule in India, or British Raj (=Empire of India after 1876) refer to more than just the governing of British India.  For example, British Raj (regardless of the meaning of raj) = India 1858-1947, in most historical discussions (both in the books in the "further reading" section of this page, and in the Template:HistoryOfSouthAsia (or Template:History of India) that accompanies all South Asian or Indian history articles); similarly, Company rule in India is the closest article to India (1757–1858).  Certainly, there is no other history article that deals with all of India during the years 1800-1857; and in many discussions, as in Britannica or the Library of Congress (India profile), and most of the further reading books, Company Raj = India (1757–1858)).  In my view, the "intro" should be the dab page, British rule in India, and the order:


 * Colonial India (template title)
 * British rule in India
 * East India Company (1600–1756)
 * Company rule in India (1757–1857)
 * British Raj (also Crown rule in India) (1858–1947)
 * British India
 * Provinces of British India
 * Princely States
 * French India
 * Portuguese India
 * Dutch India
 * Danish India


 * That brings us to the overlap between the "dab" page British rule in India and British India, and the fact that the new "intro" page (British rule in India) is not that user friendly, but perhaps we can deal with that another time (in the manner suggested earlier by user:Peterkingiron: i.e. to have a paragraph each on the three time periods: 1612-1756; 1757-1858; and 1858-1947, perhaps to rename it British Empire in India, which currently redirects to British Raj or come up with another name.  Let me know what you think.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * PS I just checked the British Empire page; it has three sections (among others): a) the "First British Empire," b) the "Second British Empire," and c) "The Imperial century." a) and b) and part of c), in relation to India, coincide with East India Company (1612–1757) and Company rule in India (1757–1858).  Therefore, using the expression "British Empire in India" for the entire period 1612 to 1947 makes eminent sense and is in keeping with the British Empire page.  (Right now the "British Empire in India" page redirects to "British Raj" because of the formal similarity between British Empire in India and Empire of India.)  So, I am suggesting that we remove the redirect in British Empire in India and move the contents of British rule in India to it, with the eventual intention of expanding it as described above.  Sorry for these complications, but if we get it right now, there will be less headache later. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought India formally became a part of the empire in 1858. Are there good enough sources that mention India was a part of the British empire before 1858? =Nichalp   «Talk»=  12:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, India began functioning as an Empire in 1858. It was the only colony that was an "Empire."  But, the term "British Empire" is used to refer to all colonies (Australia, Jamaica, etc. as well).  Indian outposts/territory (in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries) were considered to be part of the British Empire.  See for example the recent five-volume Oxford History of the British Empire.  Here is volume 1, Origins of the Empire.  P. J. Marshall's article, "English in Asia" is mostly about EIC and India in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries.  So, I think we can refer to the period 1612–1947, and refer to all entities that were affected by the British encounter under the rubric "British empire in India." (See also below.)  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I was looking for parallelism in the sidebar British, French etc How about if we split them into divisions?


 * By colonial powers
 * Princely states
 * British India
 * French India
 * Portuguese India
 * Dutch India
 * Danish India


 * British rule in India
 * Company rule in India
 * British Raj
 * Dominion of India(? suggestion)


 * Indian empire
 * British India
 * Princely States

=Nichalp  «Talk»=  12:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Nichalp, If you want to do it that way, then I'd say the order should be slightly different. It should be done by historical order.  Portuguese India should be on top, since they were in India for a hundred years before the British arrived.  Also, since the Princely States were mostly a creation of the British and they weren't really "colonial powers," they shouldn't be in the first group.  I would order it as:


 * By colonial powers
 * Portuguese India
 * British India
 * French India
 * Dutch India
 * Danish India


 * British rule/empire in India
 * East India Company (I would add EIC here, since there is no other representation of the period 1608-1757)
 * Company rule in India
 * British Raj
 * Dominion of India(? suggestion) This is a tricky one, in part because the Indian nationalists (Nehru, Patel) were keen that India not be thought of as a dominion in the same sense as Canada or Australia. After all, 1947 is not called "dominion status," (the kind that nationalists had been agitating for until 1929) but rather (purna swaraj) "independence."  By mid-1948, all British presence was gone. Also, (for other reasons) it was formally called the Union of India (in contrast, say, to Dominion of Pakistan).  Perhaps, it should be added to the Template:History of India, in "Post-Independence" right before "Political Integration ..." (not in Template:HistoryOfSouthAsia though).

This division&mdash;between the provinces and princely states&mdash;began in 1858 before the Indian Empire was formally signed into existence in 1876/77. I should say that we shouldn't make a big deal of the "Indian Empire," because it was just a ploy of Disraeli's (and the Tories) to suck up to the Queen; Gladstone (and the liberals) were dead set against it and made fun of it. All that changed was the Queen's grandiose title and a few other matters of pomp and circumstance. In fact, if you look at one of the picture captions of Bihar famine of 1873–74, Victoria was already being referred to as "Empress" by the press in 1873. The region was mostly just called "India." Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  16:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * British Raj/Indian Empire (they're really the same, see below)
 * British India Provinces of British India (also, I would change the name of this page from "Provinces of India" to "Provinces of British India."
 * Princely States
 * I'm fine by this. Except though "British rule/empire in India" might look cluttered. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  09:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've now moved British rule in India to British Empire in India (the new dab page). I hope I did it the right way. :)  So, we only need British Empire in India in the sidebar.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * For me, British rule in India was a much better title, as the British were in India long before there was any British Empire. Strawless  (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Feature status
How about taking a shot at FAC and resolving this once and for all? =Nichalp  «Talk»=  07:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I am working on Company rule in India and British Raj and getting those to FA is my current goal. I am assuming you don't mean this page.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, this page. It's going to test the WP:WIAFA standards. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  11:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean there is no minimum length requirement? (Or, I guess you are saying this will test it?)  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This will test it. :) There was considerable debate last month on the length of an FAC. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  06:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you like to do the nomination? The present form was your idea; also, you might have a better idea of how to sell it in terms of WP:WIAFA. Do we need the side bar before the nomination?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'd write the nomination. I would prefer if you and RegentsPark were co-noms. Its a joint collaboration. Would you be able to put up the sidebar? =Nichalp   «Talk»=  09:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'm happy to be a co-nom. I'm happy to attempt the side bar too.  I'll use one of the existing ones for a template.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is the sidebar. Feel free to make improvements.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to make all the flags appear in one row? And Colonial India aligned centre with a background so that it stands out? =Nichalp   «Talk»=  14:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Have done so. Will tweak colors more later.  (My better half is screaming at me to feed the cats.  :)) Have removed the flags of Nepal and Bhutan since they weren't really a part of Colonial India.  Also, that way the sidebar doesn't become too wide.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'm also waiting for RegentsPark to log in. I'll write the pitch tomorrow, it has to be carefully written to negate all oppose attempts. I saw something on some non-cooperation movement on your talk page as you uh, forgot to once feed the cats. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  16:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

←(The following comment can be ignored :P) Isn't the sidebar too colourful? Yes I know its based on ...I am not a fan of that one too. IMO, use of only 2-3 shades will be better suited or only similar shades to distinguish different timelines. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 18:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) How is this one? I've lessened the contrast. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  20:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * PS (added later in reply to KH2's post above and RP's below). I've made the contrast more subtle.  This is the best I can do without getting a serious eye strain.  :) Please feel free to improve.  As for RegentsPark's post below, what is a "regular bottom"? Not sure.  Do you mean do away with the thin line?  As for mustachioed men please see Image:Hunting party mandalay1885.jpg (Note pictures don't have to be complimentary to the Empire.  (In this case though some of the Indians standing around the two British men are profession "tribal" (Bhil?) hunters who were often taken along for their keen tracking abilities.  In other words, they are not all "servants.")  Also, please check out the picture in Great Famine of 1876–78.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * PPS I've also added pictures to the British rule section of History of Burma, starting with the section History_of_Burma, and India rebellion of 1857. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should make it a regular bottom of the page template. I'm happy to be a co-nom, though, to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure what a co-nom does! I think the article does satisfy almost all the criteria for FA status but the main issues will be 1b and 2b because the other India articles are important for comprehensiveness. Also, it would be nice to add some iconic photographs from the period. Perhaps one of those group photographs of mustachioed men that is so iconic of the Raj.--Regents Park (bail out your boat) 20:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See this photo that I filched from David Gilmour's book (the photo is no longer copyrighted). Image:Henry _cotton.jpg. The copy itself is not great but something like that perhaps.--Regents Park (bail out your boat) 20:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That image seems a little distorted on the margins (the guy on the left seems too tall). However, if there is consensus to add images, there are tons of images that I've added to Company rule in India, British Raj, Third Anglo-Burmese War, British rule in Burma.  (There is also one in Provinces of India).  Why don't you go through them and select a few?  Might I propose that we have a gallery of four images (similar to the ones in Company rule in India) and no more, chosen (if possible) from the above pages.  This way, there will be a connection, via shared images, with the other "British Empire in India"-related articles.  On the other hand, there is also a case to be made for choosing new images ...   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I discovered that there is an article called Colonial India. It will probably need to be in better shape.  Could someone look at it?  I've linked it to the template title.  (It looks relevant.)   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  06:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How is this image: =Nichalp   «Talk»=  16:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC) [[Image:Havildar of Bombay Presidency Army Artillery.gif|thumb|upright]]
 * That's a nice image - but not British enough. I'll look through the other articles (on Monday - my two brats make concentrating on nanny-less weekends difficult!) but I think I know the perfect image. A scene from Byculla station on the Bombay-Thane line soon after it was opened. It is in the book "Railways of the Raj" and has to be copyright free by now! I'll see if I can dig it up later this afternoon.--Regents Park (bail out your boat) 17:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * PS Will be away for a few days. Not keeping too well. A wikibreak should do me good =Nichalp   «Talk»=  20:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Governance
The following is inconsistent: "British India is the term used to describe the territory on the Indian subcontinent that was under British governance between 1612 and 1947.[1]" The citation clearly says that the term us used to span three periods and that during the first period the Company was a trading corporation - it didn't govern any territory for much of this period. Thehalfone (talk) 23:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right, of course, and in fact in one of the early versions of this page, we made the distinction between late-eighteenth century (and later) usage (when "British India" began to mean territory) and earlier usage (when it meant "the British in India" or sometimes the "British nation in India"). That version has references as well.   Will find it and fix appropriately.  Thanks for the reminder.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that one of the issues is that we're hedging our way around the term. It appears, from reading the article, that pre-mutiny British India is an informal term and consists of the areas directly under Company Rule - presumably the presidencies, punjab, oudh (though that was, I think, incorporated into Bengal), Lower Burma (also, I think, a part of Bengal), Jhansi, Gwalior (where did they fit in?) and various other lapsed states. After the mutiny, the formal term applied to the parts directly ruled by the British and the definition is clearer. But then, near the end, it lapses back into British influence (Burma to Afghanistan). So, the question is, is the article restricting itself to the formal definition or to the areas controlled by the British, directly or indirectly? Also, a question, do the numbers 54% of the area and 77% of the population include Burma? The text implies not, though not clearly, since Burma is addressed separately in the next paragraph. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 01:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I only have a minute, so I'll be brief. Yeah, it needs more clarity, I'll go over it again tomorrow.  No, not the Mutiny, but but Plassey or rather Warren Hastings i.e. the the late 18th century (1770 onwards) is when British India begins to be used formally for Company-ruled territories.  There's really not that much difference between pre- and post- 1857 in terms of relations to the princely states.  The subsidiary alliances (indirect rule) had been formed during EIC rule.  British India was never used for areas of indirect rule, pre- or post- 1857.  Will look into the stats tomorrow.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've paused the FA nomination for now till this is resolved. Also went over the text, and I think the Subdivisions needs a better lead. (needs to explain the difference between a presidency and province, and the types of administrative officers) =Nichalp   «Talk»=  09:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm not too comfortable with the term "For usage," It reads odd. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  09:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Will attend to these details later today. By the way, should Indian rebellion of 1857 be a part of the template (between Company rule in India   and British Raj)?  It would seem appropriate (in my view).   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. It's more of an event than an era, and the will overlap with the history of India timeline template. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  16:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. That makes sense.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Did I miss something?
Hi, I am responding to a message on my talk page and started reading a nice long lead...and then the article stopped. I was expecting a longish article on the subject but, erm, it is elsewhere. I can see Provinces of India, which is a list here, and what about the cultural, social and political impact and legacy of the British on India? I see British Raj but that lacks discussion on it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi there, Please see the first few posts in Talk:British_India. The cultural, social, and political impact (and legacy) will go into Company rule in India and the British Raj, which are still in development.  This has been a "problem page" (or should I say "problem page name") for quite some time.  It had previously been redirected to British Raj.  Historically, the expression "British India" has been used in two different ways: primarily&mdash;as a collective name for the Provinces of British India&mdash;to refer to the regions of India that were directly administered by the British (either during the rule of the East India Company or that of the Crown) and secondarily as a contraction for "the British in India" or "the British nation in India." The latter, for example, might be found in a sentence like, "... sipping gin and tonic in the never-never land of British India" (when referring to exclusive British preserves in India).  Other encyclopedias don't really have pages for "British India." Since it was really a collective name, it was seldom used, or rather used only when disambiguation was needed from the non-British India (the Princely States).  Encyclopaedia Britannica, for example, has never had a page for British India; Encarta, on the other hand, simply says, in one sentence, "collective name for the 17 provinces ..."
 * It sounds like you think the article needs to continue (sort of like the beautiful staircase in the historic hotel in St. Petersburg, Russia, which suddenly ends in a wall). One possibility would be to merge British India and the Provinces of India (per a previous suggestion by user:Strawless), to develop it more, and then shoot for a featured list ... but I haven't thought about it carefully yet. Any suggestions?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess I do. Part of constructing complex subjects such as this is figuring out which bits go best where. Given this is the major overview article whose scope is describing the british influence on India up until independence, this would be the ideal place for a section on the legacy of cultural impact of britain on india, including but not restricted to the use of English as an official second language, cultural institutions such as cricket, trains and the bureaucracy, (cuisine?) and probably many others, including influences going the other way. I would think a greater focus here, then leaving the British Raj and company articles to cover the specific subjects. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Casliber has a good point. Of course, there is so much to the legacy of the British that it probably deserves an article of its own (surprised here isn't one already). Sigh. I'm beginning to think that the original idea of redirecting British India to British Rule in India, and making that a dab page was the easiest answer. (BTW, English is not an official second language of India, it is one of the two languages - Hindi is the other - in which the federal government must do business. Just a nit!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RegentsPark (talk • contribs)


 * I think Casliber's suggestion is good. We missed out on the impact of British India. The article on British Raj is more political, historical, and military. This touches on the cultural aspects of British rule. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  14:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I think we have unfortunately run into some problems of historiographical convention. The term "British India" is different from the terms "French India" or "Portuguese India" (at least in the way the latter have been used on their respective pages).  For better or worse, "British India" has a primary meaning; it relates to territory.  All history books, journal articles, tertiary sources (Britannica, Encarta) use the term in this meaning.  We can't expand the meaning of that term on Wikipedia.  Here is my proposal (within the limits of what I think we can reasonably do).
 * Move the lead of the current British India to Provinces of India.
 * Change the pagename Provinces of India to Provinces of British India. Currently the latter is redirected to the former.
 * Redirect British India to Provinces of British India and develop the latter for a featured list.
 * Develop the page British Empire in India both as an summary page for other articles (such as Company rule in India, British Raj, etc.) and as a overview/legacy page of cultural aspects of the British encounter with India. Shoot for an FA there.
 * Let me know what you think.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. I also think that a GIF image to show the expansion of British territory through time would be a great addition. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  17:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Great. The gif sounds like a great idea. I have maps from 1757, 1765, 1805, 1837, 1857, 1910, 1915, 1947. Of course, the 1910 is the last map we need. I don't think I could do the giffing though. I'm assuming you have the expertise! Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  00:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Dont think I have the time anymore :( =Nichalp   «Talk»=  17:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Final proposal
Hi again Nichalp and RegentsPark, I rethought the proposal above and I would like to make one slight change. Instead of redirecting British India to Provinces of British India, I am proposing doing the reverse. I fear that if we redirect British India, people will again try to remove the redirect (as user:Xn4 did) and develop it as an independent article. So, the only change will be Provinces of British India-->British India and then we can shoot for the featured list with that. I will also post on the other page and if I don't hear any objections, will do the move myself. Regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems a sensible idea. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  17:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you decide to go ahead with this move then let me know. It would be better if this new article was moved to another title and the Provinces of British India was moved here with its history as that history goes back several years. You can then merge into that article the text from this article that you want to use. --PBS (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do. I was worrying about the same issue.  Thanks.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My only concern is that the title British India will be a magnet for all sorts of editors and it will be hard to control content without full protection (which is never desirable). Unfortunately, I'm tied up till early January and can't contribute much so I'll just let my concern float out there. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 21:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well the other option is that I protect indefinitely the British India entry as a redirect to Provinces of British India (or wherever else it redirects for example to British Raj, and then the protection will only be taken off if there is consensus to do so. --PBS (talk) 14:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Actually, that sounds even better. Why don't you go ahead and create the redirect. I have already copied the main British India page to a subpage of mine (for later use). You can decide how best to deal with the talk page. Thanks Philip. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  17:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * PS So, just to clarify, we are doing two things: (a) Moving current page Provinces of India to Provinces of British India (which currently redirect to former) and (b) Perm. redirecting British India to Provinces of British India.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Most contributors here will be aware of the archived talk page, where there is a long discussion on whether this British India page should be an article or a redirect to somewhere else. The present form of the article seems to me to be a reasonably happy outcome to that long debate, although no doubt the article will slowly improve as time goes by. It does seems a pity to me that some useful material and references are now gone. In any event, the discussions on the British India talk page have been very interesting ones. I prefer the idea of transferring the content of Provinces of India / Provinces of British India to this title (which I and someone else, I think it was Fowler&fowler, have suggested before). If done by copying and pasting, then the history of both pages can be preserved, which would surely be for the best. Strawless  (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If redirected, I too would prefer "British India" be kept. It's a proper noun. Secondly, I'm curious why the provinces of British Indian needs to be really merged with this article? Are there any major gains? @Strawless, the history can be merged, easy to do this. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  19:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the main reason is that tertiary sources don't have pages for "British India." True, it is a proper noun, but it is used as collective name for the "Provinces of British India."  Britannica 1911, for example, uses the proper noun "British India" in almost three thousand other pages, but does not have a page for British India.  The 26 volumes of my Imperial Gazetteer of India use the term "British India" in numerous places, even provide the British Parliament's definition, but have no entry for British India.  Britannica 2008 has no page for British India.  Encarta 2008 had a page British India, which is really Encarta's version of a redirect.  All it says is, "British India, collective designation of the 17 Indian provinces formerly under direct British administration, as distinguished from the more autonomous regions called the Native States of India."


 * The point is that the meaning of "British India," as I've said before, is different from other terms such as "French India." "British India" has a delimited usage in the secondary and tertiary sources and we are not free to expand it.  Redirecting British India to Provinces of British India is risky because some future editor could remove the redirect; similarly redirecting "Provinces of British India" to "British India" is problematic because other editors (perhaps not even that far in the future) will want to add cultural and other details.  However, a locked-down redirect from British India to Provinces of British India is the best option since this meaning of "British India" will be preserved.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * PS and we will add the perspective and cultural legacy etc. in the page British Empire in India, which will be expanded. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I should say it's just a question of how best to arrange an encyclopedia. I don't think I originally made the suggestion to merge British India and Provinces of India, but I supported it at a time when articles were proliferating... for instance, the creation of Undivided India underscored this problem. It still strikes me as quite sensible to combine British India and Provinces of British India, as they come to very much the same thing. To my mind, the argument for having two separate articles would arise if there were so much material in the single article that it was just too big, and that doesn't seem to me to be the case at the moment. As to the title, I prefer British India for the reasons explained before.
 * Fowler&fowler's analysis regarding other encyclopedias throws light on all this, but I'll add to that that Wikipedia is really very different from other encyclopedias. At the moment, the English Wikipedia has more than 2,600,000 articles, and in a year or two that number may be a million higher. If tertiary sources don't have pages for "British India", they also don't have pages for most other article titles within this encyclopedia (including "Provinces of British India" and "British Empire in India"). I agree with Nichalp on keeping the title British India. And as it was administratively coherent, we can foresee articles on aspects of it which will be reasonable developments, so a further value in British India (I mean beyond what has been discussed before) may be in making good linkages.
 * By the way, I don't think I should want to lock down the outcome of this discussion. Wikipedia is a living and growing thing, and the contributors here come and go. Strawless  (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Well, let me recap how we got here:
 * 1) In Summer 2008, user:Xn4 removed a 2-year redirect of British India to British Raj and began to edit the former as a standalone page.
 * 2) An RfC was started, however, user:Xn4, soon disappeared.
 * 3) In the discussions in the aftermath of the RfC, user:Nichalp appeared and suggested the best option was to develop the article exactly as the British India article currently is and to shoot for an RfC FA (later correction, see Nichalp's reference to it below).
 * 4) However, after we heard from another user (whose name is escaping me ... Car*?), it was decided that the article would need more heft. Car* suggested cultural legacy etc.
 * 5) However, that we are not free to add, per historiographical convention (as I've indicated above).
 * 6) It was then decided to combine "British India" and "Provinces of British India" by redirecting the former to the latter, and shoot for featured list.
 * 7) I have to admit, at this stage, I flip-flopped a little because I began to fear a return to step 1 by a future Xn4 and so forth.
 * 8) But I think PBS's offer of a locked-down redirect from British India to Provinces of British India is the best option, because there is no danger of a return to Step 1 or to Step 4. (Obviously, there will be only one article, Provinces of British India.)  I don't have any problems with using the term "British India,"  but a page is problematical for reasons given above.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, of course, quite a number of us agree with the stand-alone page, as discussed over the months. I just do not see anything to fear in an article of some kind on British India. By the way, it is not terribly surprising if the personal view of PBS is against it — although I have not seen an explanation of his view, it is explained early in this discussion that he is the user who established the redirect from British India to British Raj some years ago. Strawless  (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I would urge you, dear user:Strawless, to keep your random musings about user:Philip Baird Shearer to yourself. Alternatively, consider penning them on the appropriate length of toilet paper and leaving them in your toilet bowl.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * @Fowler, that should be Caslisber, and I wanted the article to be nominated for RFA, not RFC. :) Google hits point to 2 million for the term "British India", and just a tenth for the provinces. Of the four encyclopedias I researched, only Encarta has an entry for British India. Comparing the two terms, the provinces title is more descriptive. As an encyclopedia we should focus our efforts on the common name, and in this case, "British India". The title "Provinces of British India" suggests a list, or a narration of all the provinces of India on the lines of List of Indian Princely States. I think our focus should be to retain the most popular usage regardless of what Britannica does =Nichalp   «Talk»=  12:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * user:Strawless the history of this article contradicts your assertion "[Philip] is the user who established the redirect from British India to British Raj some years ago." The edit I added was a, comment to the redirect page. User:Fowler&amp;fowler that comment of yours directed at user:Strawless was uncivil. Do not do it again. --PBS (talk) 14:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

So are we agreed that the current article will be moved to Talk:British India/Article during the second half of 2008 and the Provinces of India will be moved here. --PBS (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, since this was my own (famously "final") proposal at the top of this section, I am not entirely against it. So, lets do it.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Was Ethopia ever a part of British Indian rule?
Was Ethopia ever a part of British Indian rule? See Tewodros II of Ethiopia? =Nichalp  «Talk»=  12:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Will check my Imperial Gazetteer of India.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Surely, one of the notable things about Ethiopia is that it was never conquered by any European power? Strawless  (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (To Nichalp) Not sure about Ethiopia, but parts of the Somali Coast were. Not so much the British Indian Empire as the Company.  Here's what IGI says, "On the east coast of Africa the authorities at Bombay concluded a treaty in 1827, at Berbera, with the Somali Habar Awal tribe, and with Zeila and Tajura in 1840.  The charge of the Somali coast was in 1898 transferred to the Foreign Office."
 * Since we are now including the Company years as well in British India, the scope becomes a little larger. For example Penang (Prince of Wales Island), Singapore, and Malacca were governed by a Governor who was under the Governor-General in Calcutta.  There were other regions too that were ruled by the Company's paramount government in Calcutta before they acquired different colonial status.  Don't know if this helps, but this is what I found.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * PS This might also jibe with Strawless's remarks.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The article says Then the Foreign Office sent the letter to India, because Abyssinia came under the Raj's remit. Also, Tweodros committed suicide in 1868 after the British raided the country. What does this mean? I also read this story somewhere else.  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  19:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting article on Tewodros II, Nichalp, and it's a pity it fails to cite its statements to specific sources. It links an online article from telegraph.co.uk, Ethiopia demands Queen returns prince, which I found interesting, too.
 * Abyssinia/Ethiopia wasn't ever a British possession or protectorate, and I'm really only speculating here, but I can see only one sense in which Ethiopia could "come under the Raj", and that is that because British Somaliland (when it later became British) was administered from British India it seems likely that the Foreign Office would consult the India Office about policy matters – especially when playing for time. I don't quite see that the Secretary of State for India would need to consult the Governor-General, but perhaps he might? In any event, this thought can only apply to a letter written in the 1860s (before there was a British Somaliland) if the earlier involvement with "the authorities at Bombay" which Fowler&fowler has found (that presumably means the East India Company) had turned into a similar consultation arrangement earlier. It may be that someone has got things a little confused. Strawless  (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Extent of British India at various times
I should like to suggest that it would be a good idea to have a specific section of the article called something like Extent and population, with the aim of summarizing the growth of British India in size and population over the centuries. In the mean time, the information in the article seems to have changed. What was here before had online citations to detailed figures, which I believe I transferred myself from the Talk page. The lead now says "British India constituted a significant portion of India both in area and population; in 1910, for example, it covered approximately 54% of the area and included over 77% of the population." I am doubtful about the 54% figure, and the citation for it is to pp. 59-61 of volume 4 of the Imperial Gazetteer, but after checking that source what I can find there is "Information with respect to the area, population... regarding the Native States will be found in the Appendix... The area outside British dominion is enormous (more than 824,000 square miles), but the population (68,000,000) is vastly inferior to that of British India." I do not think that supports "...in 1910, for example, it covered approximately 54% of the area and included over 77% of the population". (By the way, it is not quite clear to me what comparison is intended in "of the area" and "of the population", which perhaps mean the area and population of the whole of India, either including or excluding Burma?) I should prefer it if the previous information and citations could be reinstated, or else other citations to figures provided. Part of what we had before was "In 1925, the Literary Digest's 1925 Atlas of the World and Gazetteer reported under 'India': "The term British India includes the districts subject to British law, the area of which is 1,093,074 square miles. The Indian States or Agencies having political relations with the Indian Government have an area of 709,555 square miles, thus making the total area of India and Dependencies 1,802,629 square miles." Strawless  (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What is $$\dfrac{1800000-824000}{1800000}\times 100$$?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions about the lead
The lead begins at the moment "British India is the term used to describe the territory on the Indian subcontinent that was under the tenancy or the sovereignty of either the English East India Company or the British Crown...". I do not think it is intended that tenancy should link through to Leasehold estate? I would suggest that this passage needs rewriting to something like "...in the possession of the English East India Company or, after 1858, under the sovereignty of the British Crown..." Would that be better?

With regard to a later statement, "It also included the Colony of Aden in the Persian Gulf...", Aden is not in the Persian Gulf, so I would suggest deleting "in the Persian Gulf".

To say near the beginning "...on the Indian subcontinent..." doesn't seem quite right, and, as just noted, the article goes on to mention Aden. Would it be better to say "...on the Indian subcontinent and the Arabian Peninsula..."

To say "...India was thereafter directly ruled by the British Crown as a colony of the United Kingdom, and officially known after 1876 as the Empire of India" seems to me to be not quite right, at least on the first point. Some time ago, at Talk:British Raj, we agreed that India had not been a "colony" and as a result took the word 'colony' out of the British Raj infobox ; on what is said about "Empire of India", clearly, there was an Empire of India after 1876, but I am wondering in what sense that term was the "official" name of India? I have looked through the pages of the Imperial Gazetteer cited (vol. II 1908, pp. 514-530) and I can't find either of those statements there, but perhaps my eye has missed something, it is a very long passage which is cited.

Strawless (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * NOTE, with regard to the citation "vol. II 1908, pp. 514-530", I have just checked the title page of Volume II of the Imperial Gazetteer, and its date is 1909. Strawless  (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you like me to post a scan of the title page of the 1908 edition? Please see this.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)