Talk:British Raj: Difference between revisions

British Raj was a period, the country was Indian Empire

British Raj is the term used to refer to

The period of colonial rule of the Indian subcontinent by the British Empire between 1858 and 1947.

— Wikitionary

while the country, itself, was called India (officially; Interpretation Act 1889) or the Indian Empire or British Indian Empire.

So shouldn't this article be about the country rather than the period? PadFoot2008 (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

The "British Raj" is used in three senses, and perhaps more: the geographical extent ("from one end of the Raj to the other"), the period of rule ("the high noon of the Raj"), and the rule itself (as in Thomas R. Metcalf's book Ideologies of the Raj. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I've thought for some time the title of this article, the title of Presidencies and provinces of British India and where British India redirects to is confusing and question to what the extent the current names really reflect the WP:COMMONNAME/WP:DUEWEIGHT of the WP:RS. This article says "The British Raj extended over almost all present-day India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, except for small holdings by other European nations such as Goa and Pondicherry." Indeed most of the article treats its coverage as direct rule area + princely states. But then the article opens with "it is also called Crown rule in India, or Direct rule in India". isn't that contradictory? Surely British India more typically refers to what this article covers and Presidencies and provinces of British India is generally referred to with some variant that includes the words Direct Rule or Crown Rule. I would also say that the most common use of British Raj is the form of rule in British India - the last of Fowler&Fowlr's three options (the rule itself). There is widespread confusion inconsistency in numerous other articles across WP (not necessarily Indian topics) on use of this terminology and which article should be linked. Thoughts? DeCausa (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @DeCausa: for your post.

All these terms have their quirks of usage and exceptions. The most common historical term was "Direct rule in India" (when in fact the direct rule was only in a sub-region thereof). This is the term high school and college students in India learned in their history books in the old days. The counterpart to that is "Indirect rule in India," which came into currency later in the works of historians. It refers in part to the suzerainty or paramountcy which the British legally exercised (controlling all defence, communications, and foreign relations) and in part to the close watch the British kept on the rulers of Indian Princely states by way of a political agent or resident installed in the State's capital. (It was not unusual for the Agent to be an avuncular figure in the instances of young rulers or would-be rulers.) Given Queen Victoria's 1858 Address to the Indian people and rulers, the British (from the person of the monarch down) would have been reluctant to openly and widely use British India to mean the informal empire of direct and indirect rule. The term for that was simply, "India." They were too diplomatic in these matters.

Now more properly to "British India." The term was described with precision in the Imperial Gazetteer of India, which we quote in this article, to be Presidencies and provinces of India. After the Partition of India and with the new situation of one of the successor states being continued to be called "India," but the other "Pakistan" (as opposed to, say, Hindustan and Pakistan") the term "India" was no longer well-defined (used, for example, in a common exercise of Irredentism by Indians to lay claim to previous history and leading Pakistanis to denounce these claims.) On WP the name "Presidencies and provinces of British India" was chosen because both successor states had initially used "provinces" (instead of, say, "states") for these sub-entities, and Pakistan still might.

Sometime in the 1980s or 90s, especially in the US in newspapers such as the NY Times, "British India" began to be used to refer to the old pre-1947 India. Eventually, this usage came to be seen on WP. It led to the redirect [[British India]] ---> [[Presidencies and provinces of British India]] which seems like either a tautology or a contraction. But you will appreciate how it came to pass. The subliminal message in the redirect is, "Don't use 'British India' incorrectly; it means only 'Presidencies and provinces of those regions of pre-1947 India directly administered by the British.'"

So where are we? The Presidencies and provinces of British India could be redirected to Presidencies and provinces of India under British rule, but that would throw up the same objections: Is "India under British Rule" not British India + Princely States? We could make it more precise and redirect it to: Presidencies and provinces of regions of pre-1947 South Asia directly administered by the United Kingdom, but people will be incredulous when they don't laugh.

Finally, a word about the various Wikipedia injunctions about common names and so forth. I understand the compulsions, but quite often these general rules fall flat in particular circumstances. I once thought myself Crown rule in India (for the Raj) would be the ideal counterpoint to Company rule in India, an article on which I had spent considerable effort. But that was then. Today I wouldn't dream of changing "British Raj." It is here to stay. It is now common NPOV usage in academic sources, a down-to-earth and South Asian term for old colonial or imperialist usage. If someone attempted a page move, I would not only vote against it, but argue forcefully against it, but with sympathy; so much change has taken place in the 16 years I've been on Wikipedia. I've been meaning to make an FAQ for the top of this page for years, but maybe your post will finally get me to get off my behind. Perhaps a Wiki essay might be better, but those can be misused.

PS In writings by the British for the British, on the other hand, "British India," not only meant the Presidencies and provinces of British India but more commonly the preserves of privilege (the Civil Lines of a city) in which the British lived; the term "British India" in quite a few publications means "the British in India." (both the high status ones who spent only their careers there, such as Kipling's parents and the lower-status, domiciled, such as Jim Corbett (hunter)'s parents.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Google ngrams for example shows an overwhelming use of British Raj, compared to Crown rule or Direct rule, but that probably reflects informal usage in novels and travel writings. The scholarly usage is more recent. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler Google ngrams also shows that "Indian Empire" was used much more frequently than "British Raj" during the Raj (1858 - 1947) [1]. PadFoot2008 (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: thanks very much for providing such a full reply. On your last point, yes "British Raj" is undoubtedly the most well known term applicable to British rule in India, although that doesn't tell us how it is used. I think, on reflection, the issue actually crystallizes around the British India redirect rather than anything else. Before turning to that, I would make one point on this article. I still think having the alternatives "Crown rule in India, or Direct rule in India" in the opening of this article is confusing. I get that those phrases are used in contra-distinction to "Company rule" but I think a global readership would see that as meaning that it excludes the Princely states, which is obviously not consistent with this article. At minimum, there should be extra wording or possibly a footnote to explain that - or remove the alternative name altogether.

Turning to the redirect, you say "Don't use 'British India' incorrectly; it means only 'Presidencies and provinces of those regions of pre-1947 India directly administered by the British.'". But is it incorrect? When I search Google books I only see British India being used as a synonym for how we are using "British Raj" in this article. Time and time again I see editors in numerous articles linking to British India when they mean "British Raj". What's the WP:COMMONNAME evidence that says the redirect is pointing to the right article? DeCausa (talk) 11:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

What can I say? It's the ambiguities of usage. The OED, which took the paragraph below in small print from us (see a mention up top, in the top matter), says:

raj, n, 2. spec. In full British Raj. Direct rule in India by the British (1858–1947); this period of dominion. Often with the. Also in extended use: any system of government in which power is restricted to a particular group.

The British Raj was instituted in 1858, when, as a consequence of the Indian Rebellion of the previous year, the rule of the British East India Company was transferred to the Crown in the person of Queen Victoria (proclaimed Empress of India in 1876). In 1947 the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two sovereign dominion states, the Union of India (later the Republic of India) and the Dominion of Pakistan (later the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the People's Republic of Bangladesh) (cf. partition n. 7c).

WP editors do make that mistake all the time.

I had to correct, The Great Gama page on the day it appeared as a Google Doodle a few weeks ago. Gama, a wrestler, born before 1947, was in the throes of the usual India-Pakistan bickering when I woke up that day. But this sort of thing is not has bad as it could have been. There are many more WP-notable South Asians born in British India than in the Princely States. In Gama's instance, all I needed was to change it to British India. But Gandhi who was born in a tiny princely state, whose chief minister his father happened to be, is never stated to have been born in British India. I mean the NY Times or WPians might make that mistake, but historians, at least the reliable ones, do not.

We had talked about a proposal of the sort: Make the page Presidencies and provinces of British India simply British India (instead of a redirect which springs a surprise), i.e. simply move the contents of P&pBI to BI

The term "British India" was used from the late 17th-century onward, starting with all the scattered British outposts on the subcontinent. It was used all the time during Company rule, especially after Wellesley's defeat of the Marathas in 1805 (for once the Ceded and Conquered Provinces were British, a claim to the subcontinent sounded fair) James Mill's History of British India, was published in 1817, long before the Raj.

But that proposal bit the dust as well, for "British India," even for the Presidencies and Provinces was never quite officially defined in that manner. (A good imperialist needs to be both precise and slippery.) Furthermore, it won't stop WPians from conflating the two terms, i.e. will only extend the period of misapplication of the term, and lead to the kinds of booboos no one wants, such as: X was born in Kashmir, British India, in 1849 (i.e. after the state became a princely state, but before the Raj), or Y was born in Upper Burma, British India, in 1838. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa: You may have a valid point about "Crown rule in India" and "Direct rule in India" being too front and center in our definition, and thereby causing confusion. Let me think about it some more. They could be moved farther down. Whether I can find a source that explicitly mentions this ambiguity, I can't say, but I'll look. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: thanks. However, i'm still unsure about the categoric assertion that "British India" correctly refers only to the direct rule areas. Generally, we don't take dictionaries as a source for this sort of thing. Looking at Google books, most RS seem to me to unambiguously use British India to mean the whole empire/Raj and not just the direct rule parts. DeCausa (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that is true. If they are truly talking about the Raj, they should mention the Princely states somewhere. But even among popular books, a search for "British India" yields 6.65 million books

Among them, those that mention "princely state" number 27.5 thousand

There is, on the other hand, a case to be made that "British Raj" in the literature most commonly means only "British India." Stanley Wolpert for example, in his "British Raj" article for Britannica roughly adopts that view point. The princely states are not mentioned.

But the princely states were always the Dark Subcontinent, most regions of low agricultural productivity, the unprofitable, many landlocked, that the British saw fit to be ignored or palmed off for others to misrule. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

This is the problem. Had India not meant the Republic of India of today. We would have called this page India. India the world over would have been understood to be a historical empire, like the Ottomans, or Hapsburgs. But we can't call that empire British India because in the days when it was called India, "British India" had a different meaning. And scholarship even today respects that usage. See for example Peter Hardy's or Ian Stone's magnum opera here.

The British build canals only in British India. Stone's beautiful book talks only about British India Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

And I just managed to locate Hardy's book. It says at the outset:

Yet Muslims constituted but a fifth of British India's population, a minority most unevenly distributed and territorially consolidated only in Sind and in the western Panjab. The highest proportion of Muslim population was in Sind, where three out of four people were Muslim; the lowest was in the area of the Central Provinces and Madras, where Muslims were about one-fortieth and one-twentieth of the total, respectively. In the Panjab Muslims were rather less than half of the population, in Bengal proper (excluding Bihar and Orissa) about a half. In the North-Western Provinces and Awadh (the latter not annexed to British India until 1856) Muslims formed rather more than a tenth of the population. In the Bombay Presidency, minus Sind, rather less than that. Within several British-formed provinces, the overall Muslim population figure covered significant local variations in density

You see it is the Presidencies and provinces he is talking about. I'm sure there are popular historians such as Lawrence James or David Gilmour who use these terms loosely, but WP has all sorts of imperatives, not just WP:COMMONNAME with its nod to popularity applied in choosing page names, but also WP:SOURCETYPES and WP:SCHOLARSHIP with their concerns about reliability, which in a transferred sense, applies even to page names.

And then there are the Viceroys of the Raj. Dufferin on Wikipedia is called Frederick Temple Hamilton-Temple-Blackwood, 1st Marquess of Dufferin and Ava which is neither popular nor scholarly. Was it ever really a name? I have certainly never seen it anywhere but WP. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your response @Fowler&fowler, but I would like to emphasize that most scholars and historians, have described the Raj as only the period or the rule. The geographical extent of the country itself, however, hasn't been called the British Raj by most scholars and historians. I hope you'd agree with this. PadFoot2008 (talk) 10:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Beyond agreeing with user:Mathglot, what I have to say @PadFoot2008: is this.

a) We don't actually say that in the lead; I was saying that here to point to the ambiguities.

b) Rule and the lands ruled are not uncommonly used interchangeably. We can say the British raj extended from K2 to Cape Comorin. The British weren't administering the summit of K2. Let me offer another example. The OED changed their definition in the third edition of 2007 (in part borrowing from our lead, which I have explained above.) Before that, in the 1989 second edition, they used to say, "raj, spec. the British dominion or rule in the Indian sub-continent (before 1947). In full, British raj. Also transf." (It requires a subscription, but here's the link) But "Dominion" has a double meaning; it can mean the according to the same OED 2nd edition, "1. The power or right of governing and controlling; sovereign authority; lordship, sovereignty; rule, sway; control, influence. 2. a. The lands or domains of a feudal lord. b. The territory owned by or subject to a king or ruler, or under a particular government or control. Esp. a country outside England or Great Britain under the sovereignty of or owing allegiance to the English or British crown;" (I'm guessing they might have left "dominion" out in the third edition to avoid possible confusion with the European settler Dominions (such as Canada, Australia, ...). India never did receive Dominion status, except in token fashion after its independence as Dominion of India, or in Indian preference, Union of India

(c) If you are making these arguments to get a foot in the door for a page name change to Indian Empire or Indian empire, the first question people will ask is, "Which Indian empire?" Mauryan empire, Gupta empire, Delhi Sultanate, Mughal empire, Vijayanagara Empire, Maratha Empire, Sikh Empire or the British Raj? For Disraeli was not the first to request a grade inflation—as mentioned above, and more succinctly by Rjensen earlier—only the last in the long line of optimists or cynics, depending on your POV. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

PS I take that back. He wasn't the last. The movement for an Indian Empire continues apace. There is now a World Empire. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler Thanks for your response, but I'm not getting what you're trying to say by referring to the OED example. The second edition says "the British dominion or rule in the Indian sub-continent (before 1947)" and by whatever you've said about the meaning of dominion, it clearly shows that, here, it means "The power or right of governing and controlling". So that only upholds my take on the meaning of British Raj.

And as for the question, "Which Indian Empire?", it's a simple solution—as people commonly refer to it nowadays – the "British Indian Empire". PadFoot2008 (talk) 09:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

But Victoria was crowned in 1876, not 1858 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

And books had been published before 1799 that used the expression "British Indian Empire." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

i.e. the British Indian Empire that existed before 1799 but was formalized in 1876, was born in 1858 and died in 1947? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The earliest reference is 1741. So we can sing to the tune of Solomon Grundy:

BIE

Born in 1741 (first published)

Christened in 1858 (the Raj begins)

Married in 1876 (Victoria is crowned)

Took ill in 1885 (The Indian National Congress is founded)

Grew worse in 1921 (Gandhi begins non-cooperation movement)

Died in 1947 (India becomes independent)

Buried in 1950 (India becomes a republic)

That is the end of BIE Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler Now-a-days, the expression British Indian Empire is only used for India during the Raj. It doesn't matter when this expression was formalized or was first used by someone. PadFoot2008 (talk) 09:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

PadFoot, It's hardly unusual for an expression like this to refer to a territory, a time period, and a government or ruling authority (as previously mentioned by User:Fowler&fowler) and I don't think anything needs to change, here. See for example, Weimar Republic, Roman Gaul, Germania Superior, Kingdom of Italy, and so on. The article title is fine as is. Mathglot (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot It might not be unusual in some cases. But here it is (unusual). British Raj has always been assumed by people (historians too) to be a period and the rule too, but never as the actual country itself. The country has always been called India or to distinguish it from the Republic of India (1950 - ) or the Union of India (1947 - 1950), the expression "Brit. Indian Empire" has been used. Raj, itself, means "rule", if you're familiar with Hindi or other Indo-Aryan langauges. PadFoot2008 (talk) 12:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The term "British Indian Empire" is even today used by historians, including major historians, to refer also to Company rule in India, or parts thereof. I will post a few sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• P. J. Marshall in his presidential address to the Royal Historical Society in 1998 said, "Men with names like Yusuf Khan , Ganga Govind Singh or Manohar Das have a right to be put alongside Robert Clive or Warren Hastings as the creators of a British Indian empire." (here) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
• Ira M. Lapidus in his monumental A History of Islamic Societies, Cambridge, 2002, says, "In 1772, Warren Hastings, the British governor of Bengal , took charge of the British factories of Madras and Bombay and created a unified regime for the factories in India. Hastings' success marks the beginning of a British Indian empire." (See here) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
• Eddy Kent, Department of English, University of Alberta, says in his Corporate Character: Representing Imperial Power in British India, 1786-1901, University of Toronto Press, 2014, "it is worth noting that in the 1830s the British Indian Empire was even newer, less than seventy years old." (see here) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  So you see @PadFoot2008:, BIE is not unambiguous usage, (i.e. then there are also historians, quite a few as you've pointed out, who do use it for the Raj.) Apologies for my uncalled for remarks earlier, which I have removed. I have to go now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• Since the entity had no formal name, we use the common name British Raj. British Indian Empire is not a substitute since it is not the common name of the entity. Delving into meanings etc is, um, meaningless. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  I agree. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  I also agree and wish that some of the energy expended on this could have been used on improving the article, especially the extremely unbalanced "History" section. Furius (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  That, the early history especially, I do owe you. I was looking at some sources yesterday. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  I've started with some superficial changes Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Let's be real, the name "Indian Empire" was used in the passport of British India, official mappings, Queen's speeches, etc. I agree with you that the entity was devoid of any officially declared "official name", but wherever "India" wasn't used, the name "Indian Empire" was used by the government.

Also, I'm not "delving" into meanings as @RegentsPark says. I'm talking about the usage by historians and scholars.

As for another query raised by @Fowler&fowler —"Which Indian empire?", it's a weird question, really. Look at German Empire, for instance. Do you ever ask "which German empire?" whenever it's mentioned. By "German Empire", we always mean German Empire rather than the other empires in Germany like Holy Roman Empire, Prussia or East Frankia, as these countries didn't call themselves "German Empire" in the way German Empire did. Same can go for India under the Raj too, as it did call itself "Indian Empire", while Mughal Empire, Maratha Confederacy, and Gupta Empire didn't. PadFoot2008 (talk) 12:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Always good to be "real". Please provide reliable sources that state that the name "Indian Empire" was used on all passports issued by the Raj between 1857 and 1947. Please also provide reliable sources that clearly state that "it did call itself" Indian Empire - consistently. Also, and this is the most important of them all, please provide reliable sources that clearly state that the modern preferred term for the entity in question is "Indian empire". Once you've provided adequate sources, we can discuss this.--RegentsPark (comment) 16:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  The passport issue has been raised numerous times on this page before. Please read the talk page archives. I have just given you three examples two of which belong to books written by major historians P. J. Marshall and Ira M. Lapidus and one a professor of English. They use the "British Indian Empire" to mean what began after Clive's victory at Plassey in 1757 and was formalized by Warren Hastings becoming the Governor-General of India, based in its capital, Calcutta in the Bengal Presidency. I can give you three more, also written by major historians, and three more. The British Indian Empire cannot be used only for the political entity that began in 1858.

  Please tell me what you understand by "Empire." Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Fowler&fowler Sorry, for such a short answer, but I'm in hurry now. I've mentioned "Indian Empire" or "Empire of India", not British Indian Empire, in my latest post.

  Forget Prussia and East Frankia if you want. PadFoot2008 (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  Empire"@PadFoot2008: We cannot do that as "Indian Empire" was used during Company rule in India and as "British Raj" has been the majority usage since 1980. See here

  If this were 1880 and you had asked me to change the name of the page, I would have done in a New York minute. It is too late in 2022.

  Very best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Interwiki links

It's not only about the name of the colony in this wikipedia branch: There are currently two article trees in wikidata, d:Q129286 and d:Q112660052, which seem to focus on the same subject, the british rule in Idia 1858-1947. It seems that by chance new articles in different languages were hooked to one or another wikidata item, and that only the french wikipedia has two articles. That is weird. I would very much welcome, if the two wikdata items could be merged. ThomasPusch (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

More precisely: In the french wikipedia, appartenly d:Q129286, Raj britannique/British Raj, is about the rule of 1858-1947, d:Q2001966, Compagnie britannique des Indes orientales en Inde/Company rule in India or Company Raj about the rule of 1757-1858 (done by d:Q83164 Compagnie britannique des Indes orientales 1600-1858/East India Company 1600-1757), and d:Q112660052 Inde britannique/no english text is both 1757-1858 plus 1858-1947.

The english wikipedia order of three steps 1600-1757, then 1757-1858, then 1858-1947 to me makes more sense then the french wikipedia order of four steps 1600-1858, then 1757-1858, then 1757-1947, then 1858-1947. But the real problem is that there are much more wikipedia languages, which all count different, e.g. in german wikipedia there's Q83164 1600-1858, Q112660052 1858-1947, but no Q2001966 1757-1947 and no Q129286. And editors of other languages, also really big ones, tend to orientate to any other language they know especially well, and that multiplies the confusion.

Just in english/spanish/russian and more 10 non-european languages there's still d:Q14637172 Colonial India 1600-1947 about seven european nations wanting parts of India (which seems to be less needed for french, portuguese or german readers). But that's yet another counting, and new texts in french or any other language can easily be added.

I would say it would be best if the french editors could merge two of those four eras, which in fact were only three, and in the end have three steps 1600-1757, then 1757-1858, then 1858-1947. That is more an appeal to the french wikipedia than to the english, but I think it's good that also english speaking editors know about interwiki mismatches. ThomasPusch (talk) 05:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikidata is a different project, suggest you see if someone listed here Wikipedia:Wikidata/Wikidatans can help. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes. And it might also help you to know that on en.wp British India and British Raj are two different articles and topics, as discussed in the thread above. The former is the part of India subject to direct British rule (and is pre and post 1858), while the latter are those direct rule areas plus the Princely states over which the British were suzerain, but only post 1858. (That probably explains the 2 "article trees" as you call them.) DeCausa (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Most benevolent

The second paragraph of the Legacy section is a bit... weird. Is Max Fisher a WP:HISTRS source? Is it accurate to render "many historians" as merely "historians", suggesting a kind of consensus that may not exist? 117.251.199.177 (talk) 13:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)